Denying Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Historical Analysis of the Evidence Part 1 [Mormon Discussion 392] 

I suggest that you scroll through this comments section and read the historical documentation I've provided which clearly shows that a) Joseph Smith instituted polygamy and b) Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Willard Richards had nothing to do with Joseph and Hyrum Smith's deaths.

The blank pages are important when we talk about the changes made in August- Oct 1843 to the history

@@ClarkAboudaz The blank pages mean absolutely nothing compared to the more than 100 church members in Nauvoo who said that they learned about polygamy directly from Joseph or Hyrum Smith. You theorize that Brigham Young and other apostles brought polygamy into Mormonism against Joseph's teachings. Have you perchance ever read The Manuscript History of Brigham Young? Particularly these entries? May 26, 1843 (two months before Joseph dictated the revelation on celestial marriage to William Clayton): "Met with the Prophet Joseph [Smith], the Patriarch Hyrum [Smith], Brothers Kimball and Richards, Judge James Adams, and Bishop N. [Newel] K. Whitney, receiving our endowments and instructions in the priesthood. The Prophet Joseph administered to us the first ordinances of endowment, and gave us instructions on the priesthood and the new and everlasting covenant." July 9, 1843 (three days before Joseph dictated the revelation to William Clayton): "Left St. Louis at half-past 9 a.m., for Cincinnati, on the steamer Lancet, and had conversation with various gentlemen who were inquiring after “Mormonism,” one of whom, a professor in a Southern university, said, “I have heard and read much of your people, and of Joseph Smith, but I have no confidence in newspaper stories, and, if it would be agreeable, I would like to ask a few questions.” I told him I would answer any questions he might propose, so far as I was able. He then asked me if Joseph Smith had more wives than one. I told him I would admit he had. In order to explain the principle, I asked the gentleman if he believed the Bible, and was a believer in the resurrection. He said he was a believer in the Old and New Testament and in the resurrection. I then asked him if he believed parents and children, husbands and wives would recognize each other in the resurrection. He said he did. Also, if parents and children would have the same filial feeling towards each other which they have here; and he said he believed they would, and that their affections would be more acute than they were in this life. I then said, “We see in this life, that amongst Christians, ministers and all classes of men, a man will marry a wife, and have children by her; she dies, and he marries another, and then another, until men have had as many as six wives, and each of them bear children. This is considered all right by the Christian world, inasmuch as a man has but one at a time. Now, in the resurrection this man and all his wives and children are raised from the dead; what will be done with those women and children, and who will they belong to? and if the man is to have but one, which one in the lot shall he have?” The professor replied, he never thought of the question in this light before, and said he did not believe those women and children would belong to any but those they belonged to in this life. “Very well,” said I, “you consider that to be a pure, holy place in the presence of God, angels, and celestial beings; would the Lord permit a thing to exist in his presence in heaven which is evil? And if it is right for a man to have several wives and children in heaven at the same time, is it not an inconsistent doctrine that a man should have several wives, and children by those wives at the same time, here in this life, as was the case with Abraham and many of the old Prophets? Or is it any more sinful to have several wives at a time than at different times?” October 23, 1843: With Elders H. [Heber] C. Kimball and Geo. [George] A. Smith I visited the Prophet Joseph, who was glad to see us. We paid him every cent of the means we had collected for the temple and Nauvoo House. He taught us many principles illustrating the doctrine of celestial marriage concerning which God had given him a revelation, July 12th [1843]." April 17, 1844: "Spent the day in council; William and Wilson Law and Robert D. Foster were cut off from the Church." Do these journal entries sounds like those of a man who was secretly practicing polygamy against Joseph Smith's teachings? Or a man who was secretly plotting Joseph and Hyrum's Smith's murders ten weeks after Young presided over the church trial of polygamy opponents William and Wilson Law and Robert D. Foster?

Yeah sure, and I am Jesus Christ.

You must be another person who is unaware that Joseph Bates Noble swore an affidavit re: the Louisa Beaman plural marriage many years before he testified in the Temple Lot case. "Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss. "Be it remembered that on the 26th day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, Joseph Bates Noble, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on the fifth day of April, A.D. 1841, at the city of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, he married or sealed Louisa Beaman to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to the order of celestial marriage revealed to the said Joseph Smith. "Joseph B. Noble. "Subscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph Bates Noble, the day and year first above written." Here are some other statements documenting the Joseph Smith/Louisa Beaman marriage: “He [Joseph Smith] then went off to see Miss Louisa Beaman, at the house of Mrs. Sherman, and remained with her about two hours.”---"History of the Saints," John C. Bennett, 1842, p. 229. "[About April 1843] I had a very enjoyable visit for about a month with the Prophet and my kindred and brethren. It was during this visit that the Prophet told me what the Lord had revealed to him touching upon baptism for the dead and marriage for eternity, and requiring his chosen and proved servants to take unto themselves wives, and introduced several of those who had been sealed to himself and others of the first elders of the Church. Foremost among the former was my wife’s sister Louisa, whose integrity, devotion, and purity of soul were known to all her acquaintances."---Autobiography of Erastus Snow, 1923. "One of the best proofs that John C. Bennett had accurate information about Joseph's earliest wives is his statement that Miss L----- B----- was married to the prophet by Elder Joseph Bates Noble. This is clearly Louisa Beaman, popularly believed to be Joseph's first plural wife, who was married to him on April 4, 1841."---"No Man Knows My History," Fawn Brodie, p. 464. "Q. Were you personally acquainted with any of Smith’s wives? "A. Yes, but especially with Louisa Beaman from a girl. About the year 43 Joseph Smith took rooms for her in my father’s house, and Smith came to see her about once a week. "Q. Did they sleep together? A. Yes they did."---Benjamin Winchester, Testimony to Joseph Smith III, Council Bluffs, Iowa, November 27, 1900. "Noble, brother-in-law to Louisa Beaman, indicated in 1880 that Smith first approached him about Lousia in the fall of 1840. 'To convince me of the truth of this, he said, 'was no small matter. Joseph bore testimony that he had received a revelation on this principle in Kirtland, but the Lord had told him not yet. The Angel of the Lord came to him in Nauvoo and told him the time had come." ---"Mormon Polygamy: A History, Richard van Wagoner, pp. 23-24. "Joseph Bates Noble, who later married Smith to Louisa Beaman in the first plural marriage in Nauvoo, said that the 'doctrine of celestial marriage'was revealed to him [Smith] while he was engaged on the work of translation of the scriptures."---"In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, p. 27. "In approaching Joseph Bates Noble in the spring of 1841 about marrying his wife's sister, Louisa Beaman, Joseph asked Bates, a man he had known since Kirtland, to keep quiet."---"Rough Stone Rolling," Richard Bushman, p. 438. "On the evening of April 5, 1841, Joseph Bates Noble crossed the river from Montrose, Iowa, and met Joseph Smith under an elm tree. Twenty-six-year old Louisa Beaman, dressed in a man's hat and coat, stodd at Joseph's side. With Joseph telling him the words of the ceremony, Noble married his wife's sister to the Mormon prophet."---"Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith," King & Avery, p. 95. On September 19, 1844, less than three months after Joseph's death, Young wrote this in his journal: "I Saw Sister Louisa B. Smith H. C. Kimball & Silva [Sylvia Sessons] Smith &c." LDS historian Todd Compton noted that " 'Saw' was a code word for "sealed and wedded"---Young married Louisa, who became his eighth plural wife, and Kimball married Sylvia Sessions Lyons Smith."---"In Sacred Loneliness," p. 61. The fact that Young called both women by their dead plural husband's surname of Smith just three months after Joseph's death is solid evidence that Young and Heber Kimball were performing plural sealings as they had been taught by Joseph over the previous 2-3 years.

@@randyjordan5521 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I am aware of other statements by Noble and each of the quotes you provide further reinforce that while he might have been fuzzy on his recollection of the precise dating, he does appear to have been consistent in testifying that a plural marriage to Smith was performed. The argument that we cannot believe Noble because of a minor inconsistency on recalling the date does not stand up to scrutiny.

@@TheGrandScoobah Sorry, I was tired when I read your comment, and I misunderstood. RU-vid is so full of these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers that I can't always keep things straight.

No matter which side of this "controversy" a person comes down on, the fact that it's even something to argue about pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the notion that Joseph Smith was a real prophet and that Jesus "restored" his true church through Joseph Smith. On the no-polygamy-for-Joe side, they really can't deal with the fact that ALL of the evil, conspiring polygamist leaders who lied, cheated, murdered and committed adultery on a massive scale...were placed in their positions of power, influence and privilege in the church...by Joseph Smith...and supported by Joseph Smith to the full extent needed for their nefarious plots and schemes to reach fruition. They almost never talk about this aspect of their hypothesis.

Problem is, nothing about Mormonism is true. The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are demonstrable frauds. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an 1820 "first vision" as he claimed. In fact, during the 1820s, Joseph was not the humble prayerful, Bible-reading lad that he later claimed he was, but was in fact working as an occult folk-magician/treasure hunter in those days. Joseph was tried and convicted of fraud on March 20, 1826. His "gold Bible" scheme was just an attempt to evolve himself from a folk magician into a Biblical-style "prophet". That chain of events was published in newspapers in 1831. So to answer your question, no, there is nothing about Mormonism to salvage from it. It began as a hoax and evolved into a religion.

Joseph smith never refferenced the book of mormon in any of his sermons i heard.

Even if it could be proven Joseph was innocent of the horrors of polygamy, and even if the Book of Mormon could be proven "true", there is no need for the church in any form its taken over the years...especially todays weird lds profit worship nonsense

You can reject the Trinity and Mormonism.

Nobody has letters of love and affection except Emma. Nobody has children from Joseph except Emma. Joseph said he had only one wife, and others backed up this claim, including Emma and John C. Bennett.

We don't need any journals to know that Smith originated polygamy. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it that was published during Smith's lifetime. The very reason Smith ordered the "Nauvoo Expositor" printing press destroyed was because it published details of his polygamy practice, and included legal affidavits from people in the know.

Eliza said she was never carnal. She was convinced she was a wife because of a sealing. The Brighamites twisted sealing to equal marriage & sex and it didn't. Joseph sealed himself to both men & women to tie them to God does that make him a homosexual? Heck no.

@randyjordan5521 - mountain? Is that what Bill Reel told you?

@@SidJane10 Joseph Smith was never sealed to any of his children/parents in his lifetime, any idea why?

I didn't find that compelling either.

That one is a tough sell in my opinion as well. I believe the Brotherton situation just didn’t happen, or at least didn’t happen as described. Seems obvious that Bennetts hands are all over it.

I once tried to help out the No-Polygamy-for Joe side by suggesting that they go with an "evil twin" hypothesis. I like that one better. But I guess the "doppelganger" is an easier one to pull off. You don't need to provide any origin-story for a doppelganger. They just can pop in when needed. With the "evil twin" you have to explain how the Smith family never talked about the evil twin.

Michelle Stone voiced that nutty theory a few months ago. Clark is just parroting her. The RU-vidr "RFM" addressed it in his video titled "The Boy Who Kicked Conspiracy Theories" awhile back. As RFM noted, if the man whom Young brought in to persuade Martha into accepting polygamy wasn't Joseph, then Martha would have learned that as soon as she met the real Joseph. And when Martha published her letter on July 13, 1842, then when the "real Joseph" read it, his response should have been to call in Brigham and Kimball and ask them why in the hell they brought a 17-year-old girl into his private office and tried to intimidate her into committing adultery with a married man. Instead, the church's response was to call Martha a "mean harlot" in the church newspaper. On top of that. Martha's account of that incident included this frm Brigham: "brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come" Numerous other people said that Joseph Smith had used similar verbiage when he introduced plural marriage to them. So I suppose that for Clark's and Michelle's "doppleganger" theory to hold any water, Brigham would have had to keep his Joseph Smith impostor buddy busy for the whole 4-5 years that other Nauvoo church members heard similar verbiage from Fake Joe.

@@jessicalong2293 "not compelling" as in "utter nonsense"?

Having spent some time in these sorts of circles, not everybody agrees on that - some believe that Joseph introduced the endowment ceremonies but that they were never supposed to be changed, and the changes only started happening after BY took over. In their opinion, that indicates even further that BY was not the true successor to Joseph.

"The devil made me do it."---Flip Wilson

Yes, isn't it just awful that God's own chosen Prophet Joseph Smith managed to surround himself with a bunch of the worst liars and sinners in the USA to be his top church leaders? Not to mention the 80 or so women who were having sex with all of those evil sinning apostles. According to these Joseph Smith Polygamy Deniers, apparently everyone in Nauvoo was having sex except for poor old Joseph.

Yes, isn't it tragic how the pure and holy prophet Joseph managed to surround himself will all of those liars, adulterers, and criminals, and that those men were going around boinking dozens of women willy-nilly and plotting Joseph's murder the whole time? According to these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Willard Richards, Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, John C. Bennett, William Law, Wilson Law, Robert D. Foster, Austin Cowles, Joseph H. Jackson and other men who were among Joseph's closest and most trusted followers were in fact more like Al Capone's gang members.

So God chose the people who killed Joseph. Sounds legit.

It's a letter that Joseph Smith wrote to Sidney Rigdon's daughter Nancy in 1842 in which he attempted to persuade her to accept his plural marriage proposal. Just google it and you'll learn all about it.

A letter written to Nancy Rigdon from Joseph Smith wherein he attempts to convince her to marry him. He requested the letter be destroyed, but Nancy kept it and refused Joseph's advances. Although, the authenticity of this letter is disputed.

@@alienwarex51i3 Two men who had personal knowledge of the incident wrote accounts of it, which were published within weeks of its occurrence. Both of those accounts stated that Smith had dictated that letter to his secretary, Willard Richards. In addition, Sidney Rigdon's son John stated this in a legal affidavit: John W. Rigdon, being duly sworn, says: I am the son of Sidney Rigdon, deceased. Was born at Mentor, in the State of Ohio, in the year 1830, and am now over seventy-five years of age. My father, Sidney Rigdon, joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that year, and was in 1833 ordained to be Joseph Smith's first counselor which position he held up to the time Joseph the Prophet was killed, at Carthage jail, in 1844... As to the truth of the doctrine of polygamy being introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, deponent further says: Joseph Smith was absolute so far as spiritual figures were concerned, and no man would have dared to introduce the doctrine of polygamy or any other new doctrine into the "Mormon" Church at the city of Nauvoo during the years 1843 and 1844, or at any other place or time, without first obtaining Joseph Smith's consent. If anyone had dared to have done such a thing he would have been brought before the High Council and tried, and if proven against him, he would have been excommunicated from the Church, and that would have ended polygamy forever, and would also have ended the man who had dared to introduce such a doctrine without the consent of the Prophet Joseph. And deponent further says: Joseph the Prophet, at the City of Nauvoo, Illinois, some time in the latter part of the year 1843, or the first part of the year 1844, made a proposition to my sister, Nancy Rigdon, to become his wife. It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to Church, meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the "Mormons" were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived alone invited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they got to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being taught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise to her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe it to be true. While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came into the house, and joined them, and the old lady immediately left the room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady's house. Nancy told father and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of the town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become his wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence Joseph Smith came to my father's house and talked the matter over with the family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, who is now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two later Joseph Smith returned to my father's house, when matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them, and there the matter ended." NOTE: John Rigdon was elderly when he filed his affidavit, and his recollection was off by a year. The incident actually happened in early 1842.

Maybe someday you will actually study the numerous documents from multiple eyewitnesses which WERE PUBLISHED DURING JOSEPH SMITH'S LIFETIME which make it perfectly clear that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism. You might begin by asking yourself if Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, why did Martha Brotherton's July 13, 1842 affidavit say that he did? You might also ask yourself why three different men other than John C. Bennett corroborated Joseph Smith's 1842 proposition to Nancy Rigdon. You might also ask yourself why six men who were present in the August 12, 1843 Nauvoo High Council meeting swore legal affidavits stating that Hyrum Smith had presented the revelation on celestial marriage in that meeting for their sustaining vote. You might also ask yourself why the affidavits of William Law and Austin Cowles of May 4, 1844 only named Joseph and Hyrum Smith as polygamy's originators, and not Brigham Young or anyone else. You might also ask yourself why, according to your wild conspiracy theory, if Brigham Young headed a cabal who wanted to kill the Smiths so they could continute to secretly practice polygamy, did Joseph Smith have Young preside over the anti-polygamy William Law's church court on April 18, 1844 in which Law was excommunicated in absentia without being given the opportunity to defend himself. You might also ask yourself why William Law's journal entries from January to June 1844 document his months-long attempts to first persuade, then force Joseph Smith to renounce and abolish his secret spiritual wife practice. You might also ask yourself why every single person in Nauvoo who knew anything about polygamy said that they learned it from Joseph or Hyrum Smith---not from Brigham Young or anyone else. That is more than 100 people, about 80 of whom accepted and practiced polygamy, and another 20 or so who rejected it and/or opposed it. The latter group includes Sidney Rigdon, John W. Rigdon, George W. Robinson, Olivery Olney, Leonard Soby, Ebenezer Robinson, Isaac Scott, Sarah Scott, and Charlotte Haven. You might also ask youself why Wilson Law's satirical poem "Buckeye's Lamentation," published on February 4, 1844, contained so many details about Smith's polygamy practice which are corroborated by numerous independent sources. You might also ask yourself why Joseph H. Jackson's June, 1844 narrative of his 20-month long close association with Joseph Smith was able to provide so much detail about Smith's polygamy practice which is corroborated by numerous independent sources. You might also ask yourself why Sidney Rigdon stated this after the Smiths' deaths: "On Thursday evening we gave the history of Nauvoo, and the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been introduced, they might have been living men to-day."---March 15, 1845. "They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition [to] the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death."---June, 1846. Happy hunting.

Surely you realize that Benjamin Johnson's testimony is not the only evidence for Almera Johnson's plural marriage to Joseph Smith. Here is Almera's own legal affidavit: Territory of Utah, County of Iron. ss. Be it remembered on this first day of August A.D. 1883, personally appeared before me John W. Brown a notary public in and for said county, Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath says: I am a citizen in the Territory of Utah, over the age of twenty-one years, and I am the daughter of Ezekiel Johnson and Julia Hills Johnson his wife; that I was born at Westford, in the State of Vermont on the 22nd day of October A.D. 1813; that I had nine brothers who were named respectfully Joel H., Seth, David, Benjamin F., Joseph E., Elmer, George W., William D., and Amos; and six sisters named respectfully Nancy, Dulcena, Julia, Susan, Mary and Esther, all of whom, with myself, were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the exception of Elmer, who died in infancy. Deponent further says, that in the years 1842 and 1843, I resided most of the time at Macedonia, in the County of Hancock, State of Illinois, sometimes with my sister who was the wife of Almon W. Babbitt, and sometimes with my brother Benjamin F. Johnson. During that time the Prophet Joseph Smith taught me the principle of celestial marriage including plurality of wives and asked me to become his wife. He first spoke to me on this subject at the house of my brother Benjamin F. I also lived a portion of the time at Brother Joseph Smith's in Nauvoo, when many conversations passed between him and myself on this subject. On a certain occasion in the spring of the year 1843, the exact date of which I do not now recollect, I went from Macedonia to Nauvoo to visit another of my sisters, the one who was the widow of Lyman R. Sherman, deceased, at which time I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. At the time this took place Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother, came to me and said I need not be afraid. I had been fearing and doubting about the principle and so had he, but he now knew it was true. After this time I lived with the Prophet Joseph as his wife, and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F. at Macedonia. Deponent further says that I had many conversations with Eliza Beaman who was also a wife of Joseph Smith, and who was present when I was sealed to him, on the subject of plurality of wives, both before and after the performance of that ceremony. And also that since the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith I was married for time to Reuben Barton of Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Ill., by whom I have had five daughters, one only of whom is now living. Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton.

What discussion did you even have with Dan? This format was awful.

What does the issue of multiple scribes for the revelation on celestial marriage have to do with whether the document is authentic or not? Hyrum Smith presented the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843 (one month after Joseph dictated it) to seek their vote to sustain it as church doctrine. Six men present in that meeting swore legal affidavits that the document Hyrum presented is the same as D&C 132 today. Three men in that meeting opposed the measure. One of them, Austin Cowles, filed this legal affidavit on May 4, 1844: " In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws." If that document which Cowles described was not the same that Hyrum Smith had presented in that High Council meeting, Cowles could not possibly have related the specific principles and verbiage from it which are of course in D&C 132 today. And that means that the document which William Clayton said that he wrote as Joseph dictated it to him is also the same as D&C 132 today. Austin Cowles joined forces with William Law and other polygamy opponents to publish the Nauvoo Expositor, which detailed Smith's secret practice. If the document which Cowles described in his affidavit was not the revelation on celestial marriage, then why would Cowles oppose Hyrum's proposal in that meeting, and why would Cowles resign from the High Council and join with Law and others to publish the Expositor?

True, but the issue is that a lot of Utah Mormons are currently rejecting the doctrine, and claiming that Brigham Young, rather than Joseph Smith, started it.

Everyone in Nauvoo who had heard anything about polygamy said that they heard it from Joseph or Hyrum Smith. By the time of their deaths, polygamy was an "open secret." It was RLDS church leaders and apologists in the 1860s who cooked up the false idea that the Smiths had nothing to do with polygamy. Those people did that in order to draw a distinction between their sect and the polygamous Utah church. So these modern-day Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are just regurgitating RLDS propaganda that was refuted 150 years ago.

@@randyjordan5521 I wonder if the RLDS destroyed records as well that would confirm without a doubt that Joseph and Hyrum taught it.

@@grneal26 There were no records for any RLDS leaders or apologists to destroy. The reports of the more than 100 people in Nauvoo who said that they learned of polygamy from Joseph or Hyrum speak for themselves. Many of them swore to their experiences in legal affidavits. People need to undestand that the RLDS church didn't start out pushing the notion that Smith had nothing to do with polygamy. The early leaders of the RLDS moverment knew very well that he had. The RLDS church merely adopted that stance later, as an effort to distance their church from the Utah church. The RLDS took the view that if Joseph started polygamy, that he couldn't have been honest or truthful on any other claim he made from the very origin of the church. So the RLDS leaders simply went into "denial mode" on the issue. These modern-day Joseph Smith polygamy deniers such as Michelle Stone and her ilk are merely parroting the RLDS apologetics which were refuted way back in 1869, when dozens of Mormons who had been introduced to plural marriage by Joseph in Nauvoo swore legal affidavits to that effect.

Don’t you know, these are just Joseph’s carefully worded denials 😂

All of your points are refuted by simply accepting the fact that Joseph Smith lied. People like Clark are apparently unaware that Joseph Smith started polygamy as a closely held inner group of high-ranking loyalists. They were all sworn to secrecy because the practice violated laws of both church and state. There are many, many statements from Nauvoo polygamy practicioners as well as opponents who spoke of that vow of secrecy and the need to deny the practice. Historian Richard van Wagoner noted that culture of deceit: "Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 'Messenger and Advocate' reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that 'we must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.' Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage..... "The 27 August 1842 'Wasp,' for example, branded Martha H. Brotherton a 'mean harlot,' and Nancy Rigdon suffered the same treatment after she opposed Smith's polygamous proposals. Stephen Markham, a close friend of Smith, certified.....that he saw Nancy Rigdon in a compromising situation with Bennett....George W. Robinson, on Nancy's behalf, countered with a sworn statement on 3 September 1842 that Markham was lying.....Sidney Rigdon also swore out a refutation and employed an attorney to sue Markham..... "After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, Orson Hyde attempted to further blacken Nancy Rigdon's character in order to tarnish her father's claim to church leadership. Her conduct was 'notorious in this city,' Hyde charged; she was 'regarded generally, little, if any better, than a public prostitute.' " (Mormon Polygamy: A History", pp. 38-39.) After Joseph's and Hyrum's murders, Sidney Rigdon made these statements: "On Thursday evening we gave the history of Nauvoo, and the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been introduced, they might have been living men to-day."---March 15, 1845. "They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition [to] the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death."---June, 1846. In William Law's 1887 interview, he related how Joseph had justified advocating a practice which violated state laws and church doctrine: “What do you know about the revelation on polygamy?” “The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ‘Yes, that is a genuine revelation.’ I said to the prophet: ‘But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.’ ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘that was given when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat’ We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal." I hope this helps you to understand the situation a little better.

@@randyjordan5521 What are the sources for those 1845 and 1846 quotes from Rigdon? I’ve heard those before but haven’t seen original sources. Isn’t this the same William Law interview where he denied the story that Joseph propositioned Jane Law and that D&C 132 was two pages long? I know he claimed the substance was the same but that’s an odd discrepancy. What would you say are the top three contemporary evidences of Joseph’s involvement? Help me understand, what is your dog in this fight? Have you considered starting or appearing on any podcasts?

@@Commenter2121 "What are the sources for those 1845 and 1846 quotes from Rigdon?" Do you know how to do a google search? If so, I suggest you do it. I became friends with RLDS researcher Dale Broadhurst nearly 30 years ago on the alt religion mormon newsgroup. Dale and an associate named Jeff Hamel pored through 19th century Mormon-related documents in eastern cities and archived them on his websites. That's where I read the Rigdon quotes for the first time. I read this one, too: "What measures of Joseph is it desirable to carry out? We reply, those only which are according to godliness. If we have shewn that Joseph Smith departed from the living God, that like David and Solomon he contracted a whoring spirit, and that the Lord smote him for this thing -- cut him off from the earth. -- Who that is wise would approve of the carrying out of such measures? "Those man worshippers who contend for the measures of Joseph Smith, irrespective of the law of God, are in love with the "spiritual wife system." ---Sidney Rigdon, Latter Day Saints Messenget & Advocate, Pittsburgh, January 1, 1845. Because of their rift over "spiritual wifery" in Nauvoo, Smith had sent Rigdon to Pittsburgh along with printer Ebenezer Robinson to start a branch of the church there and publish a newspaper. Smith was killed shortly afterwards, but Rigdon pressed on. Rigdon's statements are just a sample of hundreds which demonstrate beyond doubt that Smith started polygamy. Everyone in Nauvoo who knew about polygamy said that they learned it from Joseph or Hyrum. So these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers who ignorantly assert that people like John C. Bennett, William Law, Austin Cowles, etc. lied about Smith starting polygamy must intellectually ignore the fact that people like Sidney Rigdon said it as well, because he knew the facts just like those other men did. The movement to deny Smith's involvement in polygamy began with RLDS leaders in the 1860s. Those people did that in order to establish their church as different from the polygamous Utah church. The RLDS took the view that if Smith started polygamy and lied about it to his death, that none of his other productions or claims were reliable either. So the RLDS leaders went into intellectual denial of the facts. They began trying to discredit all of the Utah Mormons who said that Joseph had started polygamy. So these modern day people like Michelle Stone, Rob Fotheringham, the "IBelieveJoseph" RU-vidr guy, and this Clark Aboud guy are merely repeating the RLDS propaganda that began in the 1860s, but which has been refuted by simply examining the actual historical narrative which comes from dozens of eyewitness participants. In order for these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers to further their delusion, they have concocted ridiculous conspiracy theories such as "Brigham Young brought in a Joseph Smith impostor to persuade Martha Brotherton to accept polygamy" and "Brigham Young and the other apostles were secretly practicing polygamy and Brigham wanted to take control of the church so they got together and killed Joseph and Hyrum." Such wild theories reflect the exact same mental processes as for instance, people who believe that the earth is flat. Those people's brains do not accept physical facts as they exist, so they invent an alternate reality for their brains to function in. I hope this helps you understand the situation.

@@Commenter2121 "Isn’t this the same William Law interview where he denied the story that Joseph propositioned Jane Law and that D&C 132 was two pages long? I know he claimed the substance was the same but that’s an odd discrepancy." You need to understand that Law did that interview in 1887, 47 years after the events. Naturally, he could get a dew details wrong in his old age. But the fact that he might have misremembered some points does not magically mean that his entire statement is completely made up. That is one of the main mistakes this Clark Aboud guy makes with his entire mindset: he naively thinks that if he finds tiny discrepancies in dates or names or something, then in his mind, that means that someone was trying to cover up something about polygamy. On May 13, 1844, Law wrote this in his diary: "This day Sidney Rigdon came to my house and said that he came fully authorized to negotiate terms of peace. I told him to make his proposition. He said it was that if we would let all difficulties drop that we (Wilson Law, my wife Jane Law, R. D. Foster and myself[) should be restored to our standing in the Church and to all our offices, and they would publish it in the papers. We told him that we had not been cut off from the Church legally, and therefore did not ask to be restored. He said that, he knew the proceedings were illegal and very wrong, and said they would publish that fact to the world if we won’t be satisfied. He said they wanted peace. I told him that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that the persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to those things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world." Considering that Joseph Smith had already plural married the wives of at least 11 other men, including apostles and other high-ranking leaders, it shouldn't be a surprise that Smith made an attempt on the reportedly very attractive Jane Law as well. In fact, some historians speculate that Smith's moves on Jane caused the conflict in Joseph's and Emma's marriage that resulted in the verbiage in D&C 132:51-52. That whole incident was also detailed by Joseph H. Jackson in his narrative of June 1844. So Smith's attempt on Jane is supported by contemporary documentation. As for the length and the substance of the "revelation," we need only go by the descriptions of the document as stated by numerous people who had read it or heard it between July 12, 1843, and Joseph's death. For instance, Austin Cowles' May 4, 1844 statement is pretty definitive: "In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah." Also William Law's affidavit of May 4, 1844: "I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines." Keep in mind that during this time, Joseph and all of his polygamy initiates were publicly denying the practice. Nobody could have predicted that Joseph would foolishly order the destruction of the Expositor press, which led directly to his and Hyrum's deaths days later, or the turmoil which followed. So nobody was making an effort to document every jot and tittle of everything that was said or done re: polygamy at that time. So William Law, Austin Cowles, and all others who had learned of polygamy made their statements according to what they had experienced. Minor discrepancies in various statements do not magically wash away the entire historical narrative, regardless of how much these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers try to make it so.

You totally don't know the scriptures. LOL!!!!!

You may be reading JS scripture instead of the real deal.

​@franciscos5055 it is Matthew 22:29-30 not verse 23 but yes Jesus said there will be no marriage in heaven. "Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. c

Thank you!

My point was that Clark is using bad methodology, and he lacks experience with the documents. He makes a lot of simple mistakes.

​@danvogel6802 yeah I can see that. I saw things both of you said as being conjecture, but some things were definitely a reach. If you just pointed out how the documents are being misrepresented exactly it would make your point more impactful. I understand that can be tedious

Look---it's like this: Dan Vogel is one of the most widely-published and most-respected historian of Mormonism on the planet. Clark Aboud is a conspiracy theorist who is wrong about practically everything he says. If you had studied the actual history, you would already know that.

@@danvogel6802 From what I heard, Clark's views are primarily based on a) watching the conspiracy theory guy's video about Joseph and Hyrum Smith's murders and b) watching Michelle Stone's videos and believing her conspiracy theories.

​@@randyjordan5521Exactly!

Joseph Smith was not a prophet who fell into transgression. He was a fraudster from the beginning. Like many other cult founders/leaders, as he gained power over his followers, and got them to trust in his claims, he began trying to get into other women's pantaloons. Being the leader of an allegedly Christian sect, he couldn't just start boinking women willy-nilly; he had to couch his lust in the form of a "revelation from God," and include a lot of flowery Biblical verbiage in it. Brigham Young was one of about 30 men and 50 women who accepted Joseph's plural marriage doctrine. Young did not come up with any part of the idea. It was all the work of Joseph. Young and the other apostles merely kept plural marriage going exactly as they had learned it from Joseph.

Copied by Eliza Snow into the record book, as I recall.

I had the same feeling.

It’s not only used by Mormons. I have a number of family members who are/were members of the Christian Science church and they use heavenly father too.

I don’t think you understand, the church and the ex/anti Mormon crowd both desperately need him to be a polygamist.

@@Commenter2121Can you elaborate on why?

If the church changed course and said Joseph never practiced or taught that Polygamy is of God and is actually an abomination, then what about all the succeeding "prophets" that taught and practiced the opposite? It would demonstrate how wrong they were and had led people astray into committing sin. Once you acknowledge this then the dominos start to fall. So I see it as a case of the church protecting itself from collapse.

@@JoeCana Yes, exactly. The church is way too deep into our existing polygamy narrative and polygamy as a doctrine. It would be a huge admission to reverse course and claim that what the church has officially taught about Joseph’s polygamy is wrong. It also puts other leaders like Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow etc in a more negative light. It also questions the line of succession. Joseph’s polygamy is likely the number one issue for the anti/exmo crowd that proves to them that Joseph cannot be trusted. I know there are other issues outside of polygamy but this issue is huge. The funny irony is that the anti/ex crowd and the church use all the same sources to prove Joseph’s polygamy. One just tries to paint it as faith promoting and the other does the opposite.

@@JoeCana Very interesting, I will have to further my research on this. Thanks for the insight.

The number of pages is not significant. We discuss this in the next episode. The idea that a forger worked in what the Laws had said is ad hoc, and it's certainly not more logical but something you make up to get out of counter-evidence. Six members of the high council heard it read, including William Max. We also discuss this in the next episode.

@@danvogel6802 The number of pages is significant when all 3 different parties agree on the same thing. This is one of the rare instances it ever happens. What makes it even more significant is that it played a big factor in Judge Philip’s ruling. The RLDS and LDS recollection on the length aligned. This further aligns with William Law’s recollection when he was interviewed.

I was going through the high council records and notes the other day to find any hints that support one camp or another. There’s really nothing there.

@@Maryel_R_R_Palmer Nope. The council docs don’t align. If it did then it would serve as the only evidence without questionable defamatory intent. In other words, not simply just an accusation that a crime was committed. Accusations simply aren’t proof. Accusations are accusations until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Kingsbury as well as a few others - heck, even William Law - said the original was much shorter." Regardless of the exact length or wording, it is certain that Joseph Smith produced the document. You need to understand that most of the people in Nauvoo only heard the revelation read to them. It's not like copies were Xeroxed and passed around. But the fact that numerous people from 1842 to Joseph Smith's death cited specific verbiage from the revelation leaves no doubt that the document which Joseph Smith dictated on July 12, 1843 is the same text as D&C 132 today. Examples: "brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come"---Martha Brotherton, July 13, 1842. "I once thought I had knowledge great, But now I find ”tis small; I once thought I”d Religion, too, But I find I”ve none at all. For I have got but one lone wife, And can obtain no more; And the doctrine is, I can”t be saved, Unless I”ve half a score! "The narrow gate that Peter kept, In ages long ago, Is locked and barred since he gave up The keys to beardless JOE. And Joe proclaims it is too small, And causes great delay, And that he has permission got To open the broad way. "The narrow gate did well enough When Peter, James,and John, Did lead the saints on Zion-ward, In single file along: When bachelors, like good old Paul, Could win the glorious prize, And maids, without a marriage rite, Reach “mansions in the skies.” "But we have other teaching now, Of greater glories far; How a single glory”s nothing more Than some lone twinkling star. A two-fold glory”s like the moon, That shines so sweet at night, Reflecting from her gracious lord Whatever he thinks right. "A tenfold glory-that”s the prize! Without it you”re undone! But with it you will shine as bright As the bright shining sun. There you may reign””like mighty Gods, Creating worlds so fair;- At least a world for every wife That you take with you there. "The man that has got ten fair wives, Ten worlds he may create; And he that has got less than this, Will find a bitter fate. The one or two that he may have, He”d be deprived of then; And they”ll be given as talents were To him who has got ten. "And ”tis so here, in this sad life- Such ills you must endure- Some priest or king, may claim your wife Because that you are poor. A revelation he may get- Refuse it if you dare! And you”ll be damned perpetually By our good Lord the Mayor! "But if that you yield willingly, Your daughters and your wives, In spiritual marriage to our POPE, He”ll bless you all your Lives; He”ll seal you up, be darned you can”t, No matter what you do- If that you only stick to him, He swears HE”LL take you through.---"Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives," February 7, 1844. "But because of things that are and have been taught in the Church of Latter Day Saints for two years past which now assume a portentous aspect, I say because of these things we are in trouble. And were it not that we wish to give you a fair unbiased statement of facts as they really exist, we perhaps would not have written you so soon. But we feel it to be our duty to let you know how things are going on in this land of boasted liberty, this Sanctum-Sanctorum of all the Earth, the City of Nauvoo. The elders will likely tell you a different tale from what I shall as they are positively instructed to deny these things abroad. But it matters not to us what they say; our object is to state to you the truth, for we do not want to be guilty of deceiving any one. We will now give you a correct statement of the doctrines that are taught and practiced in the Church according to our own knowledge. We will mention three in particular. "A plurality of Gods. A plurality of living wives. And unconditional sealing up to eternal life against all sins save the shedding of innocent blood or consenting thereunto. These with many other things are taught by Joseph, which we consider are odious and doctrines of devils. "Joseph says there are Gods above the God of this universe as far as he is above us, and if He should transgress the laws given to Him by those above Him, He would be hurled from his throne to hell, as was Lucifer and all his creations with him. But God says there is no other God but himself. Moses says he is the Almighty God, and there is none other. David says he knows of no other God. The Apostles and Prophets almost all testify the same thing. "Joseph had a revelation, last summer purporting to be from the Lord, allowing the saints the privilege of having ten living wives at one time, I mean certain conspicuous characters among them. They do not content themselves with young women, but have seduced married women. I believe hundreds have been deceived."---Letter from Sarah Scott, June 16, 1844. "I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines."---William Law affidavit, May 4, 1844. "In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws."---Austin Cowles affidavit, May 4, 1844. "As I have mentioned the subject of spiritual wives, I will in this place, give the reader some idea of the system. The doctrine is called the "spirit of Elijah," and is kept a profound secret from the people at large, and is only permitted to be known to those, to whom it is given to know the "fullness of the kingdom," in other words, the choice spirits who surround Joe, and aid in carrying his secret measures. The doctrine is found on the 3d Chapter of Hosea, -- several passages from the writings of Solomon and David, and the passage "whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven." From these scripture passages, (with which I am not sufficiently familiar to quote) aided by revelation from Joe, as respects their meaning and construction, the doctrine is derived that there is no harm in a man having more wives than one, provided his extra wives are married to him spiritually. A spiritual wife is a woman, who by revelation is bound up to a man, in body, parts and passions, both for this life and for all eternity; whereas the union of a carnal wife and her husband ceases at death. Whenever the scripture forbids a man from taking to himself more wives than one, Joe made it refer to carnal and not spiritual wives; and would frequently quote the writings of David and Solomon to prove his position."----Joseph H. Jackson narrative, June 1844. I hope that reading this material published during Joseph Smith's lifetime helps you understand that it was he, not Brigham Young or anyone else, produced the "revelation on celestial marriage." NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN NAUVOO who related anything about polygamy said that they learned it from anyone other than Joseph or Hyrum Smith.

Big punches come in part 2

@@ClarkAboudaz You got something bigger than Brigham's Joseph Smith impersonator? (snort)

Part 2 will give the strong support for the Arrington comment that I made

@@ClarkAboudaz LOL. No it won't. Arrington was referring to a LOT of historical facts that have been covered up by previous church leaders and historians beginning in the early 1830s. Two big ones off the top of my head being the suppression of Joseph Smith's original 1832 version of his alleged "first vision," and the attempts to discredit all information about Joseph's 1820s folk-magic/treasure digging practices. There are DOZENS of similar cover-ups by church leaders and apologists. In fact, the entire thrust of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's 60-year-long career has been to expose such cover-ups on numerous issues. In fact, church leaders demoted Arringto from his position as chief historian because of his attempts to tell the "warts and all" aspects. Two of Arrington's top historians, Michael Quinn and Lavina Fielding Anderson, were excommunicated for publishing too much truthful church history in the 1990s. Clark, you don't have to see "polygamy cover up!" behind every rock of Mormon history.

@@randyjordan5521 Clark’s point was specific to what Arrington knew about Brigham Young and what he decided to keep a lid on. Interested in seeing what else he presents. I always think about where the church would be today if they had just been transparent in the past, even if they had been transparent from the early 1900’s.

@@randyjordan5521sounds like something got under your skin.

@@Commenter2121 Oh, there was a lot of bad things about Brigham Young that Arrington knew about, but couldn't publish because church leaders like Boyd K. Packer would have hit the ceiling. Like the fact that Young approved of the Indian attack on the Baker-Fancher emigrant train during a war council with 12 southern Indians chiefs six days before the attack, for instance. Clark Aboud is a conspiracy theorist, therefore in his mind, everything everybody ever said or did has to tie into his conspiracy theory.

3:14:00 why not mention the fact that the Lectures on Faith were to be continued canon in 1844? Too much info being left out here. 🤔

03:17:00 oh come on. You think the judge and anyone else reading the FULL Temple Lot transcripts would find the combination of their testimonies credible? They were all over the place. Especially Noble’s! The judge obviously had good reason to rule in favor of the reorganized church.

On Hyrum accepting eternal marriage for both his wives, implying polygamy in the resurrection, see the next episode, where I show that both the original and emended version say the same thing.

@@Dont-Be-Abi-Yussif JS's private teachings about God's body wouldn't be published until 1876, but the Lectures would not be removed until 1921. So, for a time both were in the same book. Explain that.

@@Dont-Be-Abi-Yussif Why are you arguing about this? Clark was wrong when he assumed Noble said he married Beaman and JS in the house that he built.

Kingsbury recollected later in his life that his work of copying the revelation was interrupted by Hyrum Smith, who “came in and wanted the revelation.” Newel K. Whitney “came in to see how I got along with it . . . and then he went out and told Hyrum Smith that he would hand him the revelation in a few minutes, for I was not quite through the copying of it.” (Joseph Kingsbury, Testimony, Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, 17 Mar. 1892, p. 178, question 19, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Church of Christ of Independence, Missouri, et al. [C.C.W.D. Mo. 1894], typescript, United States Testimony, CHL.)

Okay, I believe Kingsbury said that but why does Brian Hales claim that the copy was not made until one or two days later? If Hales is right, that’s a pretty big hole in the story. Also, what’s your understanding of when Emma was claimed to have destroyed the revelation? Some say good thing Kingsbury made a copy that day since Emma threw it in the fire when Hyrum presented it, others now say the Kingsbury copy was made later and we don’t know when Emma destroyed it. Some claim Joseph and Emma destroyed it together to appease Emma. So which is it?

@@Commenter2121 In the 1892 Temple Lot Case, Kingsbury didn't know if he copied the revelation on the day it was received or one or two days later, but it was before he left on his mission, 25 July 1843, and before Hyrum and JS took the original to Emma. Clark and others say D&C 132 was forged later, perhaps in Utah, and Emma never burned it. That story was made up. Polygamy deniers are making things up to escape what they don't want to believe.

@@danvogel6802 he couldn’t swear that he copied it in the first place. If you were judge or jury, how would you take that?

@@danvogel6802 This is why people don’t trust this narrative. Do you realize how you are contradicting yourself, and how Kingsburys words are contradicting as well? You just told Bill that the reason there are differences in the end of the copy is because Hyrum was rushing Kingsbury, that only makes sense if that copy was made the same day. Then you share that Kingsbury says it might have been a day or two later, okay, then why discrepancies in his copy? And who took it to Emma? Some say Joseph, some say Hyrum, some say both. Did she burn it that day, or weeks later? Which version did she see? Did she not see anything at all, like she herself says? Why is Joseph so casual about having this super secret revelation copied and then passing it around? NK Whitney kept the Kingsbury copy safe so what did Hyrum get from his house to read to the high council a month later? There are holes and contradictions everywhere. Please tell me you can at least see why people are asking questions.

It's a question for some because the LDS Church is notoriously unreliable with how it presents its own history, the LDS Church has a motive to lie about Joseph practicing polygamy, and those that typically go down this path are people who have left the LDS church but still maintain a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

@@alienwarex51i3 What in the Flip is their motivation? It makes Joseph AND the church look bad?

@@sdfotodude Their motivation is that in order to claim to be the legitimate continuation of God's One True Church™, Brigham Young must have been the correct successor to Joseph Smith. Brigham Young claimed that Joseph Smith started polygamy, so the LDS Church needs to cling to that. Otherwise, it would mean that the church falsified D&C 132 to make it appear that Joseph started polygamy. So, there's a dichotomy of sorts - we know for a fact that either Joseph lied, or Brigham lied. Did Joseph lie about his polygamy? Or, was Joseph telling the truth, and Brigham lied about Joseph's practicing of polygamy? One of them _has to be_ lying. If Joseph lied then D&C 132 is all well and good etc. If Brigham lied, then there was a massive coverup of corruption never before seen in the Church. So, the Church takes the side of "Joseph lied" because they have to in order to maintain Brigham as the legitimate successor. People who leave the LDS Church but maintain a BoM testimony take the position of "Brigham lied." That's why the josephlied website is about all of his polygamy.

@@sdfotodude My initial reply to you was deleted by RU-vid's auto algorithm thing so I'll try to summarize again real quick. Basically, we know that either Joseph lied about his practicing of polygamy, or Brigham lied about Joseph's practicing of polygamy. If Brigham lied, then D&C 132 must have been falsified by the Church and there must have been corruption that was covered up on a scale nobody could have even imagined. On the other hand, if Joseph lied, then it's easy to simply say "Well, he was an imperfect man, no harm, no foul" and canonized scripture (D&C 132) survives without a scratch. It boils down to the fact that the LDS Church can NEVER give up Brigham Young. If Brigham lied about Joseph in order to falsify scripture so he can start having many wives, then he obviously is not the correct successor and led the Church astray by introducing polygamy (hence the hard correction in 1890). If he wasn't the legitimate successor to Joseph, then the Church isn't the true continuation of God's church. Consequently the Church MUST claim that Joseph lied, otherwise they aren't God's One True Church. That's their motivation. Yes, it puts them in a difficult spot. Hope that makes sense!

@@sdfotodude My initial reply to you was deleted by RU-vid's auto algorithm thing so I'll try to summarize again real quick. Basically, we know that either Joseph lied about his practicing of polygamy, or Brigham lied about Joseph's practicing of polygamy. If Brigham lied, then D&C 132 must have been falsified by the Church and there must have been corruption that was covered up on a scale nobody could have even imagined. On the other hand, if Joseph lied, then it's easy to simply say "Well, he was an imperfect man, no harm, no foul" and canonized scripture (D&C 132) survives without a scratch. It boils down to the fact that the LDS Church can NEVER give up Brigham Young. If Brigham lied about Joseph in order to falsify scripture so he can start having many wives, then he obviously is not the correct successor and led the Church astray by introducing polygamy. If he wasn't the legitimate successor to Joseph, then the Church isn't the true continuation of God's church. Consequently the Church MUST claim that Joseph lied, otherwise they aren't God's One True Church. That's their motivation.

Quite right! And then pretend nobody notices…offensive really. Mr. Reel got caught out recently about the misleading “longer ending” of Mark statement. And has run away in the responses thinking he could catch me out.

I have made hundreds of comments on Michelle Stone's videos and included dozens of contemporary evidences which prove that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism. The problem with Michelle and her acolytes is that they are deluded fanatics who refuse to accept any evidence which contradicts their pre-determined conclusions and desired view of who and what Joseph Smith was. Those people are conspiracy theorits, like flat-earthers and moon landing deniers. No facts will budge them.

@@randyjordan5521 When I was commenting to Michelle about conspiracy theories, she said they used to laugh at conspiracy theories dealing with JFK's assassination.

@@danvogel6802 Yep, Michelle has at least twice expressed support for the "The CIA killed JFK!" conspiracy theory. So she uses that unfounded conspiracy theory to argue that her conspiracy theory about JS and polygamy is credible. I have told Michelle multiple times that her entire theory is like these people who believe that Paul McCartney was killed in a car wreck in 1966, and that he has been replaced by an impostor all these years. Flat-earthers and moon landing deniers have similar mindsets. By the way Dan, I have a question for you: I have cited William Law's diary entries from 1844 wherein he pled with Joseph Smith to renounce polygamy many times. I know that Lyndon Cook cited them extensively in his 1982 book, and most other historians re: polygamy since then have as well. Some of these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers assert that because Law's diary apparently wasn't produced until 1982, that it could be another Mark Hofmann forgery. I have not heard that theory from any legit historians. From what I've read, Law's diary was in the possession of his descendants for many years. I don't know the circumstances of how and when those 1844 entries were released. You know anything more about it?

@@randyjordan5521 Try to catch up. Benjamin Park wrote about this in 2017. Spend more time reading up on your history and leave your dusty library from the ‘80’s. You’re years behind.

Thank you, but you are the originator here. Marxist Feminist Materialism is the ultimate expression of what polygamy has done to the Mormon culture as large. To lure women via a living oracle is the ultimate in trafficking.

This isn’t a debate

@@MormonDiscussion Why couldn’t this be done in a debate style? The Hemlock Knots discussion format on this topic felt much more transparent.

@@MormonDiscussionno, it’s an ambush.

Clark had 94 slides with lots of information. It's not the kind of thing one can answer off the top of their head. I think this has a higher quality than a debate.

@@danvogel6802 Sure, but the format clearly favors you and Bill. You get the last word on every point. Would you feel comfortable if the format was reversed? I just feel that the Hemlock Knots debates leveled the playing field much more. Just something to think about for a future episode, it would give your side more credibility.

Here is my material feminist. Thank you fine lady.

More women who know facts. Sadly they are all becoming communist brainwashed fools today. Seems like the trajectory of women largely is downhill in the present era.

Lindsey Hanson vs Michelle Stone would be epic

Or any other book on the subject by any other legitimate historian.

No, sorry, those were late testimonies of participants and eyewitnesses, not rumors. We discussed Martha Brotherton's 1842 account and the affidavits of the Laws in the 1844 Nauvoo Expositor, and Clark couldn't come up with good reasons to discount them.

@@danvogel6802 it’s only rumors and can’t be eyewitness accounts UNTIL there’s an admission of Joseph, Hyrum, or Emma, or some kind of physical evidence. You don’t have that because it didn’t happen. Quite the opposite. There’s ONLY physical, literary, etc. evidence of Joseph’s innocence. So much so that he was proven innocent in the 1890s in the court of law 🤷🏻‍♀️

@@aubreegittins9271 You are making up your own rules of evidence to win an argument. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The evidence you are rejecting is firsthand eyewitness testimony. Against this mountain of evidence, you want to privilege the carefully worded denials of Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma, all of whom had motivations to lie. Historians are not limited by what can be proven in a court of law.

All you're telling us here is that you haven't studied this issue for yourself, so you assume that Clark is credible.

@@danvogel6802 "Clark couldn't come up with good reasons to discount them." THAT'S A LIE!!! Clark resolved the Martha Brotherton issue with his brilliant evil twin theory.

Bad biased research

Sidney Rigdon's son in law, George W. Robinson, wrote this to newspaper editor James Arlington Bennett on July 22, 1842, mere weeks after Joseph Smith's proposition to Nancy Rigdon: "Smith sent for Miss Ridgon to come to the house of Mrs. Hyde, who lived in the under rooms of the printing-office. Miss Rigdon, inquired of the messenger who came for her what was wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see her. General Bennett came to Miss Rigdon, and cautioned her, and advised her not to place too much reliance on REVELATION; but did not enlighten her on the object of Smith, but advised her to go down to Mrs. Hyde's, and see Smith. She accordingly went, and Smith took her into another room, and LOCKED THE DOOR, and then stated to her that he had had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this matter, for he had got a REVELATION on the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, &c. &c., and that there was no sin in it whatever; but, if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her PRIVATELY, and enjoined her to secrecy, &c. &c. She repulsed him, and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out; and she left him with disgust, and came home and told her father of the transaction; upon which Smith was sent for. He came. She told the tale in the presence of all the family, and to Smith's face. I was present. Smith attempted to deny it at first, and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and THE FACT OF A LETTER BEING PRESENT, WHICH HE HAD CAUSED TO BE WRITTEN TO HER, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, the day after the attempt made on her virtue, breathing the same spirit, and which he had fondly hoped was DESTROYED, -- all came with such force that he would not withstand the testimony; and he then and there acknowledge that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true. Now for his excuse, which he made for such a base attempt, and for using the name of the Lord in vain, on that occasion. HE WISHED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SHE WAS VIRTUOUS OR NOT, AND TOOK THAT COURSE TO LEARN THE FACTS!!! I would say, sir, that I have reason to believe General Bennett's story in his disclosures of Smith's rascality; although I am not a witness to ALL of the facts, yet I am to SOME. I liked to have forgotten to state that the affair with Miss Rigdon was the CAUSE of Smith's coming out so on Bennett, he having suspicions that BENNETT HAD CAUTIONED HER ON THE MATTER -- and he was further afraid that Bennett would make disclosures of OTHER MATTERS." Another church member, Oliver Olney, sent his account of the incident to the Sangamo Journal on September 10, 1842: "Dear Sir, -- "I wish to make, through the medium of your paper, a public withdrawal from the Church of Latter Day Saints, as I cannot longer consent to remain a member of said Church while polygamy, lasciviousness, and adultery, are practised [sic] by some of its leaders. That crimes of the deepest dye are tolerated and practised [sic] by them, cannot be doubted. "I have heard the circimstances of Smith's attack upon Miss Rigdon, from the family as well as herself; and knowing her to be a young lady who sustains a good moral character, and also of undoubted veracity, I must place implicit confidence in her statement, the foul insinuations of that miserable little insect, 'The Wasp,' to the contrary notwithstanding. "And having a personal knowledge of Smith's lying at different times in the name of the Lord, I cannot for a moment doubt but he did so in the case above alluded to..... "I know that Miss Rigdon has been greatly mortified by being obtruded before the public; nevertheless, it was unavoidable on her part, and if Smith succeeds in extricating himself from the awful dilemma in which he has placed himself, by obtaining her certificate to the contrary, then I am much mistaken in the character of Miss Rigdon. It is true that Mr. Ridgon has endeavored to allay the excitement upon this subject, and has evaded a direct answer to the public, as far as he could consistently with truth; but the part which is true he has left untouched. The fact of Smith's wishing to marry Miss Rigdon as a spiritual wife, of his attack upon her virtue, his teachings about his having the blessings of Jacob, &c. &c., as stated in General Bennett's letters, ARE TRUE; and if I am called upon to prove it, I SHALL DO IT, to the satisfaction of the public, and to the chagrin and mortification of Smith and others. The letter published purporting to be from Smith to Miss Rigdon, was not in Smith's hand-writing, but in the hand-writing of Dr. Willard Richards, who officiated not only as scribe, but post boy, for the Prophet, and WHO DID say that he wrote the letter as dictated by Joseph Smith, and said Joseph Smith did say, on a certain occasion, that he did direct said Richards to write a letter to Miss Nancy Rigdon; and I now say I stand ready to prove these allegations by as respectable WITNESSES as can be produced in Hancock county....." Decades later, because of RLDS church leaders' continued false assertions that Smith's advance on Nancy was false, her brother John W. Rigdon filed this legal affidavit: "John W. Rigdon, being duly sworn, says: I am the son of Sidney Rigdon, deceased. Was born at Mentor, in the State of Ohio, in the year 1830, and am now over seventy-five years of age. My father, Sidney Rigdon, joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that year, and was in 1833 ordained to be Joseph Smith's first counselor which position he held up to the time Joseph the Prophet was killed, at Carthage jail, in 1844... " Joseph the Prophet, at the City of Nauvoo, Illinois, some time in the latter part of the year 1843, or the first part of the year 1844, made a proposition to my sister, Nancy Rigdon, to become his wife. It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to Church, meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the "Mormons" were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived alone invited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they got to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being taught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise to her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe it to be true. While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came into the house, and joined them, and the old lady immediately left the room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady's house. Nancy told father and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of the town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become his wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence Joseph Smith came to my father's house and talked the matter over with the family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, who is now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two later Joseph Smith returned to my father's house, when matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them, and there the matter ended." So maybe you can use these accounts from three people who were involved in the incident to determine if it happened or not.

I’m curious what is your source that Nancy denied that Joseph propositioned her ?

@nae0067 letter from Sidney Rigon, on behalf of his daughter to the Editor of the Wasp dated Aug 27, 1842. A copy of this can be found in the Book: Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy Volume 2 Chapter 2

@@randyjordan5521 Believe them over Nancy herself, not once but twice?

This was a unique project that was explained to Clarke as this format. Not intended to be a debate. And I think Clarke did great.

@@MormonDiscussion That’s fine that he agreed to it and I do agree that he held his own. Even if you don’t call it a debate, you are essentially debating or attempting to debunk his information and doing that in this format is far from a level playing field. This format gives you and Dan the opportunity to tag team rebuttals and always get the last word, giving the perception that each point is debunked. This conversation is important to people and I think they would prefer a much more well rounded approach. I’m sure Clark could have pushed back on many of Dan’s comments but he didn’t get that opportunity.

@@Commenter2121 I don't think we could have covered all 94 slides Clark wanted to present in any other way unless he did it alone. Preparing my responses allowed me to be clearer and briefer than trying to do it on the spot. It wouldn't be fair for Clark to present this and not allow me the same preparation. I don't think anything gets accomplished in debates.

@@danvogel6802 I can see that, I agree that you should be given the time to prepare and present responses and a gotcha type of debate often isn’t very productive. It was more that you and Bill tagged team every point and got the last word on every issue. It’s much easier to give the appearance of debunking in that format. Have you watched the Hemlock Knots debates with Jeremy, Leo, Jacob, and Mark? In my opinion, that setup just provided undecided viewers with the information without the bias. I’m curious, would you go on to 132 problems as a guest if the format was similar and you were in Clark’s position?

It’s my understanding from a previous podcast episode that Clark was willing to participate in a traditional-style debate. I deduce that the opposing side was not willing.

Why would you find that surprising? By the time of the Martha incident, Joseph Smith had already plural married at least 10 women. Mormon polygamy was really just a huge wife-swapping ring. Joseph Smith plural married the wives of 11 other men. Those women were passed around from man to man. Have you perchance ever read Martha Brotherton's actual account of the incident?

have you watched the Streeter Chris Smith conversation?

I know Streeter has done a couple of videos on this letter. I’ve watched about everything from him but can you link the specific one you are referring to? I’d be happy to watch it again.

So you're yet another Joseph Smith polygamy denier who has heard the conspiracy theory version of that incident, but not the actual facts. Two men who were privy to Joseph Smith's proposition to Nancy Rigdon wrote letters to newspapers detailing the event, and they were published shortly after it happened. Here they are. The first is from Nancy's sister's husband, George W. Robinson: "Smith sent for Miss Ridgon to come to the house of Mrs. Hyde, who lived in the under rooms of the printing-office. Miss Rigdon, inquired of the messenger who came for her what was wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see her. General Bennett came to Miss Rigdon, and cautioned her, and advised her not to place too much reliance on REVELATION; but did not enlighten her on the object of Smith, but advised her to go down to Mrs. Hyde's, and see Smith. She accordingly went, and Smith took her into another room, and LOCKED THE DOOR, and then stated to her that he had had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this matter, for he had got a REVELATION on the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, &c. &c., and that there was no sin in it whatever; but, if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her PRIVATELY, and enjoined her to secrecy, &c. &c. She repulsed him, and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out; and she left him with disgust, and came home and told her father of the transaction; upon which Smith was sent for. He came. She told the tale in the presence of all the family, and to Smith's face. I was present. Smith attempted to deny it at first, and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and THE FACT OF A LETTER BEING PRESENT, WHICH HE HAD CAUSED TO BE WRITTEN TO HER, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, the day after the attempt made on her virtue, breathing the same spirit, and which he had fondly hoped was DESTROYED, -- all came with such force that he would not withstand the testimony; and he then and there acknowledge that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true. Now for his excuse, which he made for such a base attempt, and for using the name of the Lord in vain, on that occasion. HE WISHED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SHE WAS VIRTUOUS OR NOT, AND TOOK THAT COURSE TO LEARN THE FACTS!!! I would say, sir, that I have reason to believe General Bennett's story in his disclosures of Smith's rascality; although I am not a witness to ALL of the facts, yet I am to SOME. I liked to have forgotten to state that the affair with Miss Rigdon was the CAUSE of Smith's coming out so on Bennett, he having suspicions that BENNETT HAD CAUTIONED HER ON THE MATTER -- and he was further afraid that Bennett would make disclosures of OTHER MATTERS." The "Mrs. Hyde" whom Robinson mentioned was Marinda Hyde, the wife of apostle Orson Hyde. She had just recently plural married Joseph Smith, and she acted as a "groomer" to prepare younger women for Joseph's proposals to them. Robinson's account was backed up by Oliver Olney, another Mormon who was disgusted by Smith's polygamy practice and its inherent deceit: "LA HARPE, HANCOCK CO., September 10, 1842. "Editor of the Sangamo Journal: "Dear Sir, -- "I wish to make, through the medium of your paper, a public withdrawal from the Church of Latter Day Saints, as I cannot longer consent to remain a member of said Church while polygamy, lasciviousness, and adultery, are practised [sic] by some of its leaders. That crimes of the deepest dye are tolerated and practised [sic] by them, cannot be doubted. "I have heard the circimstances of Smith's attack upon Miss Rigdon, from the family as well as herself; and knowing her to be a young lady who sustains a good moral character, and also of undoubted veracity, I must place implicit confidence in her statement, the foul insinuations of that miserable little insect, 'The Wasp,' to the contrary notwithstanding. "And having a personal knowledge of Smith's lying at different times in the name of the Lord, I cannot for a moment doubt but he did so in the case above alluded to..... "I know that Miss Rigdon has been greatly mortified by being obtruded before the public; nevertheless, it was unavoidable on her part, and if Smith succeeds in extricating himself from the awful dilemma in which he has placed himself, by obtaining her certificate to the contrary, then I am much mistaken in the character of Miss Rigdon. It is true that Mr. Ridgon has endeavored to allay the excitement upon this subject, and has evaded a direct answer to the public, as far as he could consistently with truth; but the part which is true he has left untouched. The fact of Smith's wishing to marry Miss Rigdon as a spiritual wife, of his attack upon her virtue, his teachings about his having the blessings of Jacob, &c. &c., as stated in General Bennett's letters, ARE TRUE; and if I am called upon to prove it, I SHALL DO IT, to the satisfaction of the public, and to the chagrin and mortification of Smith and others. The letter published purporting to be from Smith to Miss Rigdon, was not in Smith's hand-writing, but in the hand-writing of Dr. Willard Richards, who officiated not only as scribe, but post boy, for the Prophet, and WHO DID say that he wrote the letter as dictated by Joseph Smith, and said Joseph Smith did say, on a certain occasion, that he did direct said Richards to write a letter to Miss Nancy Rigdon; and I now say I stand ready to prove these allegations by as respectable WITNESSES as can be produced in Hancock county....." Both of these contemporary sources independently name Joseph Smith as the author of the "happiness letter." Also, those two men could not have known about a "revelation" which sanctioned "spiritual wifery" or "the blessings of Jacob" etc. if that verbiage had not come from Joseph Smith. Martha Brotherton's July 1842 letter included this verbiage: "brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom;" The fact that three different people writing in 1842 quoted principles and verbiage from the "revelation on celestial marriage" which Smith would dictate to William Clayton the following year means that the theory that John C. Bennett, Brigham Young, or anyone other than Joseph Smith authored the revelation is false.

In addition to the multiple contemporary accounts of Joseph Smith's 1842 proposition to Nancy Rigdon, here is John W. Rigdon's later affidavit: John W. Rigdon, being duly sworn, says: I am the son of Sidney Rigdon, deceased. Was born at Mentor, in the State of Ohio, in the year 1830, and am now over seventy-five years of age. My father, Sidney Rigdon, joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that year, and was in 1833 ordained to be Joseph Smith's first counselor which position he held up to the time Joseph the Prophet was killed, at Carthage jail, in 1844... As to the truth of the doctrine of polygamy being introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, deponent further says: Joseph Smith was absolute so far as spiritual figures were concerned, and no man would have dared to introduce the doctrine of polygamy or any other new doctrine into the "Mormon" Church at the city of Nauvoo during the years 1843 and 1844, or at any other place or time, without first obtaining Joseph Smith's consent. If anyone had dared to have done such a thing he would have been brought before the High Council and tried, and if proven against him, he would have been excommunicated from the Church, and that would have ended polygamy forever, and would also have ended the man who had dared to introduce such a doctrine without the consent of the Prophet Joseph. And deponent further says: Joseph the Prophet, at the City of Nauvoo, Illinois, some time in the latter part of the year 1843, or the first part of the year 1844, made a proposition to my sister, Nancy Rigdon, to become his wife. It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to Church, meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the "Mormons" were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived alone invited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they got to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being taught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise to her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe it to be true. While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came into the house, and joined them, and the old lady immediately left the room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady's house. Nancy told father and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of the town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become his wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence Joseph Smith came to my father's house and talked the matter over with the family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, who is now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two later Joseph Smith returned to my father's house, when matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them, and there the matter ended. (Note: Rigdon was elderly at the time, and he got the date of the incident off by one year. It actually happened early in 1842.)

@@randyjordan5521 not to mention the whoredoms exposed in the Nauvoo Expositor.

Bill said it's not a debate

I think many of Clark's arguments were flat-out rebutted because he didn't know the sources, especially dealing with the MS History of the Church.

"Vogel’s counter-evidence fell flat" All you're telling us here is that you don't know jack-squat about this subject. Dan Vogel has been researching and publishing on Mormon history for decades. This Clark guy began his remarks by saying that he became interested in Mormon issues by watching a conspiracy theory RU-vid video re: who killed Joseph Smith two years ago. Clark gets most of his info from Joseph Smith polygamy denier Michelle Stone.

I don't know what language you speak, because I felt 180 degrees opposite. Dan's evidence and arguments were exponentially more persuasive than Clarks.

@@randyjordan5521you would know. You sit and watch her videos every Sunday. 😂😂😂😂

The alterations presented in Part 2 is a big reason to question all the documents in part 1.

Like Dan the so called scholar? Okay

Clark you really need to learn how to understand and interpret credible evidence and. Be willing to change your mind when the evidence takes you in a different direction. You act like a poly sci major or a lawyer they have their thesis and will prove it no matter what the evidence says and ignore anything that contradicts their case evidence.

@@timrathbone7093 my cases rests strongly on what Part 2 has in it. I don’t see how Dan will counter the murders

@@ClarkAboudaz "The alterations presented in Part 2 is a big reason to question all the documents in part 1." Nothing you could ever say, and no documents you could ever produce, could refute the more than 100 church members in Nauvoo who said that they learned about polygamy personally from Joseph or Hyrum Smith. That includes all those who accepted it and practiced it as well as all those who opposed it.

You don't amount to a pimple on Dan's ass.

And it doesn’t help that he sounds identical to Sloth from the Goonies. I keep expecting to hear the infamous “Hey you guuuuyyyys!!” at any moment.

​@@Dont-Be-Abi-Yussif and the ridiculous ad-hominem starts, exposing the weaknesses of your stance.

@@franklinanderson9687 Did you watch the video? You better start there if you want to point fingers and cry “ad hominem”. 😂 I wasn’t engaged in the discussion about any of the topics presented whatsoever here so your accusation that I was resorting to “attacks” cannot apply in this instance. You might want to look into the proper usage of the phrase. It was an observation I made in jest. You can either have a sense of humor, stay bhutt hurt, or move on to another comment if you’re only interested in discussing the topics being presented. I have plenty of comments you are free to attempt to refute or address if you actually want discuss something relevant to the video. It’s not in this comment thread obviously. Instead you respond here about the “weakness of your stance” …that he sounds like Sloth? Because that’s the only stance I made here.🤣

@@Dont-Be-Abi-Yussif your response to the OP of this thread tacitly agrees with it's assertions. Even with that said, there are many ways to use "ad-hominem". Typically 2 main uses. 1 fallacious ad-hominem & 2 just plane ad-hominem. The first is the informal logical fallacy, attacking the person instead of the topic at hand. The second use of ad-hominem is pointing out that the individual who is personally attacking someone else, like an a$$h0le, is doing just that. In this case I'm using both with your tacit agreement with the origin of this thread and the myriad of comment on this video, and my feeling about what your ad-hominem says about your stance.

After treating myself to a migraine headache (the inevitable result of trying to parse through your disjointed, incoherent rant), I realized that despite misspelling Dan's name in two different ways (and not getting it right even one time), not a single word you wrote indicates that you had any understanding of any of the substantive issues or concerns presented by either side. Why would you even watch (or did you watch?) when you clearly don't have the most basic understanding of the subject matter or the intentions of the participants in this format that would be required for you to either learn anything from it or contribute any intelligible insights in the comments?

@@TEAM__POSEID0N ok. Thanks for your input. Also thank you for being so helpful with the spelling…. lol . I’m sorry that me standing up for someone that was mistreated, and misrepresented, by 2 professional veterans that did nothing but flex for 4 hours, gave you a headache. lol. Take another advil for me too please. After reading your reply, I need one now too. lol.

@@TheMormonAtheist We all have those days. But he wasn't "mistreated". He agreed to the format. He was given a platform to present his entire presentation of 94 slides, with the understanding that Dan Vogel would be commenting and critiquing. I guess they could have explained the format better at the beginning. But within 10 minutes of watching, I realized that this was an arrangement they had apparently all agreed to in advance. I don't think Clark was "ambushed" at all. IIRC, he even indicated in the comments that this was an agreed-upon format.

Did you watch the show? He said several times in the chat, he was being misrepresented. Even RFM asked him in the chats if he felt like he was being misrepresented. He said yes….. several times. Did you see how many comments he had to make to explain himself? Look at these comments, he is still back peddling, trying to explain himself. After a 4 hour episode, and another one on the way, why is he in that kind of position? After 4 hrs? I honestly ask the question, why was he in the show in the first place, if this is what they were going to do? RFM calling everyone conspiracy theorists? Thanks for accepting new ideas guys. After watching this episode, I would seriously caution anyone with a new idea, this is probably not the show to go on.

@@TheMormonAtheist I get that, but apparently he agreed to the format. Plus he was able to fully represent his ideas in his presentation. He can then claim in chat that he was "misrepresented" in Dan's critiques. But doesn't that still mean that viewers can still look at what Clark said, look at what Dan said...and decide for themselves if Dan's critique is valid or based on a misrepresentation? It would be even worse in a standard "debate" format. Within the first 15 minutes, if someone claimed to be misrepresented...everything would go off the rails for the next half hour. "But I said...." "No, you clearly said...." "Nuh-uh!" I actually hate most debates because they go nowhere. Even with this format, you can't resolve much of anything in a way that will persuade one side to convert to the other. But at least each side is able to give full presentations of what they think their best arguments are. Because Clark wanted to make a full presentation that could easily take 2 hours by itself, the amount of time it would take to present arguments, counterarguments, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals would be ridiculous. As a practical matter, we have to be content with (for at least this round), Clark's arguments and Dan's counter-arguments. It's up to the people involved if they want to go to a round 2. Sounds like Clark actually has his own platform and following, so he can also vent and explain how he was misrepresented there too.