Denying Joseph Smith's Polygamy Part 2 [Mormon Discussion 393] 

That is the standard operating procedure of conspiracy theorists. On that note: Clark and Michelle Stone believe that William Clayton concocted his 1843 journal entries about Joseph Smith introducing plural marriage to him years later, when he was in Utah. But I noticed that in part one of this video, clark cited Clayton's journal as a credible source on several points.

Claims

I’ve talked to you numerous times. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself between FB, YT etc

@@ClarkAboudaz No, you have not. I do not discuss these matters on Facebook. And you have not responded to any of the historical documentation I've posted in response to any of your posts on Michelle Stone's RU-vid channel or this one over the last couple of months. So you are not only a conspiracy theorist with zero credibility, you are dishonest. When you put forth an entire line of argument or a theory, and someone refutes your argument or theory point-by-point, and you decline to even acknowledge that the evidence refutes your assertions, that demonstrates extremely poor personal character on your part. I wrote another post above in this comments section which refutes your entire line of thinking which you presented to Bill Reel. I invite you to read it and have the integrity to respond to it.

@@ClarkAboudaz In your presentation to Bill Reel, you mentioned William Law's 1887 interview. So I assume you believe that that interview actually occurred. If you believe that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, and that Brigham Young in fact originated it, please tell us why Law stated this in that interview: "“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." If Joseph Smith was an honest, moral man, why did William Law state this in that interview? “In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?” “Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.” If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, why did William Law state this in that interview? “Did Emma, the elect lady, come to your house and complain about Joseph?” “No. She never came to my house for that purpose. But I met her sometimes on the street and then she used to complain, especially because of the girls whom Joseph kept in the house, devoting his attention to them." If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, why did William Law state this in that interview? “What do you remember about Emma’s relations to the revelation on celestial marriage?” “Well, I told you that she used to complain to me about Joseph’s escapades whenever she met me on the street. She spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation. She said once: “The revelation says I must submit or be destroyed. Well, I guess I have to submit.” If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, why did William Law state this in that interview? "Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.” If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, why was this statement published in the Nauvoo Expositor? "We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;" If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, why did William Law write this in his diary on January 8, 1844? "I thank God that he opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to plurality & community of wives, and that I had the fortitude to tell Joseph that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side" And why did Law write this in his diary on March 29, 1844? "Hyrum smith was here a few days ago. He beg’d for peace; we told him of the corrupt operation which had been practiced upon us; he could not deny it, but said he was sorry as we had always been good friends to him and Joseph and had done much good for the church &c &c. I told him I was ready for an investigation before the Conference, and that I would bring their abominations to light; he said there would not be an investigation before [the] Conference, that they wanted peace. I told him then to cease their abominations, for they were from hell & that I knew it. He said they were not doing anything in the plurality of wife business now, and that he had published a piece against it; when I came to examine the piece refered to I found that it amounted to this, that no one should preach or practice such things unless by revelation (of course through Hyrum or Joseph). I told Hyrum that we stood on the defensive, we would defend the truth, we would defend ourselves both in character and in person." And why did Law write this in his diary on May 13, 1844? "May 13. 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." Clark, is it your belief that William Law just made all of this stuff up, and that he repeated that huge chain of lies about Joseph Smith from his 1844 diary entries and in the June 7, 1844 "Nauvoo Expositor" clean down to that 1887 interview? If so, why would Law still be lying about Smith's part in polygamy 43 years after Smith's death? What possible motive would he have? And why did Law, Austin Cowles, and the other "Expositor" publishers pool their money to get their newspaper published solely for the purpose of spreading a massive lie about Joseph Smith? Does that sound logical to you? And if Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, how could Martha Brotherton, George W. Robinson, and John C. Bennett have reported that Joseph Smith said the same things about polygamy to them in 1842 that he had said to William Law, Austin Cowles, Joseph H. Jackson, and others in 1843-44? When legitimate historical researchers delve into an issue, they consider ALL of the evidence from ALL sources in order to derive correct conclusions about what is true or false about historical incidents. This is why EVERY legitimate historian of Mormonism has concluded that Joseph Smith originated polygamy. Fawn Brodie was the first historian to do a deep dive into LDS archives and research the details of Smith's polygamy practice 80 years ago. That is how she was able to come up with her list of 48 possible plural wives of Joseph Smith. Your entire line of reasoning, as well as Michelle Stone's, completely ignores the many years of research done by legitimate, degreed, professional historians. The only people who believe that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy are conspiracy theorists like you and Michelle Stone and your fellow travelers, along with the people who believe in your assertions without researching the facts for themselves.

Wow!

Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your input.

@@danvogel6802 You're welcome. It fascinates me that these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers cannot draw logical conclusions from a massive amount of evidence which refutes their misguided beliefs. It's like they've never asked themselves why, if Brigham Young was responsible for polygamy, did all of those people from July 1842 to Joseph's death uniformly state that Joseph started it? Also, if Brigham started and practiced polygamy against Joseph's teachings, then considering all of the public reports about polygamy beginning in July 1842, why didn't Joseph just call in all of those evil sinning adulterous polygamists (Brigham and at least eight other apostles plus Joseph's own secretary) and excommunicate them en masse? Why did Joseph keep all of those men at the top of his trusted inner circle until the day he died? Joseph named most of those men to his Council Of Fifty mere weeks before his death. Why did Joseph continue to surround himself with all of those evil sinning adulterous lying plotters of his own murder? Did Joseph "the prophet" not have any revelation or inspiration from God to tell him that all of those men were sinners, traitors, and were conspiring to murder him and Hyrum? Clark Aboud parrots Michelle Stone's theory that Brigham brought in an impostor to impersonate Joseph to double-team Martha Brotherton into trying to intimidate Martha into plural marrying Young. Martha's report of that incident was published in a newspaper on July 13, 1842. So if Michelle's and Clark's theory is correct, then why didn't Joseph, as soon as he heard about the incident as published in the newspaper, call Brigham in and thoroughly interrogate him about it? If Martha was an innocent 17 year old who had been preyed upon by the adulterer Brigham Young, then why, one month after Martha's report was published, did the Mormon newspaper "The Wasp" call Martha a "mean harlot", and call John C. Bennett her "pimp"? If, according to Michelle and Clark, Brigham was the bad guy, why didn't the Mormon newspaper call Brigham the "pimp"? Why did Joseph keep Brigham as one of his top leaders until his death? And why did Joseph have the alleged evil sinner adulterer murder plotter Brigham Young preside over the excommunication trial of William Law on April 18, 1844? The answers are obvious: Joseph started polygamy, and Brigham was one of his loyal followers who accepted and practiced it as well.

@@danvogel6802 Dan, while I've got your attention, I have a question for you: William Law's diary entries of 1844 flesh out the details of this whole subject. Some of these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers assert that Law's diary entries may have been a Mark Hofmann forgery. I know that Law's diary entries have been quoted extensively by legitimate historians such as Lyndon Cook beginning in 1982. "Mormon Enigma", "Mormon Polygamy: A History," and "In Sacred Loneliness" all cite the diary. So my question is, do you have any more info as to the provenance of Law's dairy? One internet article says this: "Could this significant document be forged? It’s possible. It wouldn’t be the first time it has happened in Mormon history. But there are at least some hints of its veracity. Internal cues seem consistent with the period of its alleged creation. And more importantly, documents from Leonard Arrington’s papers collection at USU provides evidence that such a journal might exist. In December 1978, while he was Director of the History Division, Arrington wrote a letter to Leilani Law, a descendant of William, alerting her that Cook, “a teacher of Church history at Brigham young University,” was working on her ancestor. While doing research in Wisconsin he learned that the family historian contained “William Law memorabilia, including a diary.” However, it was made known that they wanted to keep the papers “confidential.” Arrington and Cook also heard, however, that Leilani had also seen the diary and, given that she was a convert to the LDS faith, she might be more willing to work with the Church. “Our interest is based upon a sincere desire to understand William Law, his feelings about Mormonism, and any statements he made about Joseph Smith,” Arrington assured her. (Leonard Arrington to Leilani Law, December 4, 1978, LJA Collection, USU Archives.)" Considering that Arrington was corresponding with Law's descendants about the diary in 1978, wouldn't that rule out the diary being a Hofmann forgery?

@@randyjordan5521 I use Cook's publication, but I don't know much more about the diary than he provides. It would be nice to have at least a scan of the original. I don't think Hofmann was operating until the 80s. Besides, it appears to be in the possession of family members.

@@randyjordan5521 These are all good arguments that won't change the minds of people like Michelle Stone, who in her smug ignorance commits the wishful-thinking fallacy on a regular basis.

I agree. JS first contact with the angel had said that JS name would be had for good and bad in the future. Looks like that might have been in the literal sense.

" I'm learning both sides don't have affirmative Proof!" Well, that's just false. Every church member in Nauvoo who had heard anything about polygamy said that they learned it from Joseph or Hyrum Smith. That was more than 100 people, and it includes those who accepted polygamy and practiced it as well as those who rejected it and opposed it. There is a mountain of evidence published during Joseph Smith's lifetime to prove that he originated and practiced polygamy. In fact, his denials of the practice led directly to his death, so people who don't believe that he practiced polygamy are in denial of the very reason for his death. I suppose that people like Clark Aboud could fool some people who haven't studied this issue, but I have studied it for nearly 30 years. Not a single legitimate, published historian believes that Smith did not originate polygamy. The only people who refuse to believe it are RLDS apologists and these recent conspiracy theorists like Clark, Michelle Stone, Rob Fotheringham, the "IBelieveJoseph" guy, and a few others. Unfortunately, a lot of people out there haven't studied the issue for themselves, so it's easy to sucker those people in with false assertions.

@@randyjordan5521 I'm OK with Poligamy as it was in in the Bible! If God commands it! don't be jealous! Watch the 2012 movie "SAVAGES"! its abut EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!

@@iamanempoweredone6064 I'm with YOU! I have come across too many EX Mormons who HATE joe SMith so much!!! and I'm like chill out! your hate is not GOOD!! but your hateful attitude is building on to the Prophecy!!!

@@99blackbirds If there was nothing wrong with polygamy when Joseph Smith practiced it, he wouldn't have lied about it, and he wouldn't have ordered the printing press of a newspaper destroyed that published details of his polygamy practice. And his former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, wouldn't have filed legal charges against Smith of committing adultery and polygamy on May 23, 1844. Here is the LDS Church's official position on marriage during Joseph Smith's lifetime, as published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."(History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247) One month before Joseph Smith died, he stated this in a public speech: "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." So the proglem with Joseph Smith practicing polygamy is the lying, the hypocrisy, and the illegality of it. By the way, in case you weren't aware, polygamy was never legal the entire time the Mormons practiced it until they finally gave it up in 1904.

There is no middle ground--either JS started polygamy or he didn't. In this format, it's hard to say who is or is not listening. Clark presented his evidence and I responded.

I believe that the evidence pointing to Joseph Smith as the originator is overwhelming and the side that claims that Joseph Smith opposed the doctrine to his dying day has very weak, illogical arguments and their evidence consists mainly of alternative narratives that they have obviously created based on highly speculative interpretations of a few ambiguities, mainly relying on Joseph Smith's public denials, taken at face value, while ignoring the obvious motivations for such public denials that would be totally consistent with him privately implementing the doctrine. That said, I have no dog in the fight and would be happy to change my mind if they ever furnished solid evidence. But all I see is highly motivated reasoning (or attempts at reasoning) that can't even accomplish what they hope to accomplish...namely, the restoration of Joseph Smith's reputation and honor as a good and faithful prophet who was never the kind of man who would permit or teach polygamy. In attempting to do so, they simply have to argue that Joseph Smith was such a bad prophet that he actually selected, appointed and placed ALL of those evil conspirators in the positions of power and influence that they needed in order to accomplish their evil plans...and sustained the worst of the worst in those positions right up to the moment of his death.

@@TEAM__POSEID0N My experience with history (I have a BA in American History) is the truth is in the middle between 2 opposing extremes. One extreme: Joseph never practiced or promoted polygamy. So what if the affidavits in the Expositor clearly describe all the troubling parts we don't like about D&C 132 that Hyrum presented to the Nauvoo council. Who cares if hundreds of people saw or heard the document that came to be 132 prior to 1847 when it was recopied and handed over to Brigham. Who cares that the wording of 132 was Joseph's and not Brigham's and that Brigham was not capable of writing it. It magically appeared from Brigham's desk in 1852!!! Who cares if hundreds of people testified of Joseph initiating polygamy. They are ALL liars. And Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were too infallible to lie. Other extreme: Who cares about Jacob 2 and King Noah and his priests being described as wicked for having multiple wives. In Joseph's day, God was a changin. And sure "these things" in Jacob 2:30 were described as "the abominations of polygamy" elsewhere in Jacob 2, but if we tweaked things to make "these things" mean Jacob's entire discourse (that was preserved for OUR day) we have a loophole to steal wives (and call it seal wives) and kick the excess men out of Utah. And it's not adultery so long as we "multiple and replenish the earth." I think the reason the LDS and Reorganized Church remained at odds over this issue for so long is because neither side can drop their deep felt idea that Joseph was too infallible to write a Revelation that contained his own lustful desires. So the LDS church claims we should accept 132 as scripture even though Joseph nor the body of the Church ever voted it to be. And the Reorganized Church went into denial mode and pretended someone less capable of writing it (like Brigham Young) wrote it. The challenge with 132 is that the nonpolygamy parts are powerful and true. So how do you throw the bathwater out without throwing out to baby? I am convinced that the Lord was displeased with Joseph for introducing these false concepts the same way he was displeased with Moses for overstepping. Resulting in handing over the task to Joshua and Brigham Young taking the Israelites into Salt Lake Valley/Israel (both desert areas with Lake Utah/Sea of Galilee emptying into Jordan River towards Salt Lake/Dead Sea.) I think the Salt Lake Temple not being completed until after the Saints formally abandoned polygamy, and it taking 40 years to build was similar to the Saints roaming 40 years in the wilderness because of their sexual sins. Sexual sin is massively common even amongst God's people. To think Joseph could not have been tempted into sexual sin by using his revelatory powers to call adultery "plural Celestial Marriage" would mean God denied him his agency. I believe God removed him for this reason. And God prevented him from having offspring so that he could give a glimmer of hope to the Joseph practiced polygamy deniers. Who I sympathize with as Jacob 2 (and the JST) make it clear Solomon and David's polygamy was an abomination. D&C 132 falsely negates this. The scriptures make it clear the sins of the parents are transferred to the the children unto the 3rd or 4th generations. Joseph's descendants are all outside the covenant. And only a few have accepted the gospel in the 3rd and 4th generations. This is why I accept William Mark's testimony as the middle and correct positon: True, Joseph promoted it. True, he admitted that it was a mistake and curse. I didn't say he started it. Because new evidence shows many of his followers were involved in it parallel to him. It's possible polygamists like William Clayton pressured Joseph to create 132 to satisfy their lists.

@@danvogel6802 My experience with history (I have a BA in American History) is the truth is in the middle between 2 opposing extremes. One extreme: Joseph never practiced or promoted polygamy. So what if the affidavits in the Expositor clearly describe all the troubling parts we don't like about D&C 132 that Hyrum presented to the Nauvoo council. Who cares if hundreds of people saw or heard the document that came to be 132 prior to 1847 when it was recopied and handed over to Brigham. Who cares that the wording of 132 was Joseph's and not Brigham's and that Brigham was not capable of writing it. It magically appeared from Brigham's desk in 1852!!! Who cares if hundreds of people testified of Joseph initiating polygamy. They are ALL liars. And Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were too infallible to lie. Other extreme: Who cares about Jacob 2 and King Noah and his priests being described as wicked for having multiple wives. In Joseph's day, God was a changin. And sure "these things" in Jacob 2:30 were described as "the abominations of polygamy" elsewhere in Jacob 2, but if we tweaked things to make "these things" mean Jacob's entire discourse (that was preserved for OUR day) we have a loophole to steal wives (and call it seal wives) and kick the excess men out of Utah. And it's not adultery so long as we "multiple and replenish the earth." I think the reason the LDS and Reorganized Church remained at odds over this issue for so long is because neither side can drop their deep felt idea that Joseph was too infallible to write a Revelation that contained his own lustful desires. So the LDS church claims we should accept 132 as scripture even though Joseph nor the body of the Church ever voted it to be. And the Reorganized Church went into denial mode and pretended someone less capable of writing it (like Brigham Young) wrote it. The challenge with 132 is that the nonpolygamy parts are powerful and true. So how do you throw the bathwater out without throwing out to baby? I am convinced that the Lord was displeased with Joseph for introducing these false concepts the same way he was displeased with Moses for overstepping. Resulting in handing over the task to Joshua and Brigham Young taking the Israelites into Salt Lake Valley/Israel (both desert areas with Lake Utah/Sea of Galilee emptying into Jordan River towards Salt Lake/Dead Sea.) I think the Salt Lake Temple not being completed until after the Saints formally abandoned polygamy, and it taking 40 years to build was similar to the Saints roaming 40 years in the wilderness because of their sexual sins. Sexual sin is massively common even amongst God's people. To think Joseph could not have been tempted into sexual sin by using his revelatory powers to call adultery "plural Celestial Marriage" would mean God denied him his agency. I believe God removed him for this reason. And God prevented him from having offspring so that he could give a glimmer of hope to the Joseph practiced polygamy deniers. Who I sympathize with as Jacob 2 (and the JST) make it clear Solomon and David's polygamy was an abomination. D&C 132 falsely negates this. The scriptures make it clear the sins of the parents are transferred to the the children unto the 3rd or 4th generations. Joseph's descendants are all outside the covenant. And only a few have accepted the gospel in the 3rd and 4th generations. This is why I accept William Mark's testimony as the middle and correct positon: True, Joseph promoted it. True, he admitted that it was a mistake and curse. I didn't say he started it. Because new evidence shows many of his followers were involved in it parallel to him. It's possible polygamists like William Clayton pressured Joseph to create 132 to satisfy their lists.

Pedophilia is an unnatural sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is no evidence that Smith was involved with any such children. The youngest girls whom Smith was reportedly involved with were 14 years old, therefore they would have been post-pubescent.

I don’t think he’d sound any less bat shit crazy if interviewed by anyone else.

@@dinosaurparkandsuch6936 I'm getting the impression that people who favor the "Joe didn't do polygamy" side of the argument simply do not want to accept or talk about any of the substantive things presented in the interview and the review and critique from Dan...so they choose to attack the format as being "unfair'. Their complaint really isn't based on "fairness". They're simply accustomed to hearing presentations that support their pre-determined conclusions on platforms that rely on strawman arguments (mischaracterizations) supposedly representing the opposing view. They hate it when someone like Dan Vogel can give well-considered counterpoints in a format that doesn't allow them to howl, talk-over and bluster while the opposing side is trying to say something.

Congratulations! You're the winner of the "Amazing Non-Sequitur of the Month Award"! But seriously, how could any of this "prove" that "Brother Joseph was a prophet of the Lord"? It really doesn't even matter which side of this dispute that you choose to align with. What is not in dispute is that ALL of the leaders whom you blame for the "apostasy" were elevated, appointed and anointed to positions of power, influence and authority in the Church by....drum roll....Joseph Smith. If JS was the originator of the doctrine of polygamy, then the evil apostate leaders were simply carrying out his instructions and teachings when the church went into "apostasy". If JS was not the originator, then the "apostasy" can still be blamed on him because he was the one who put all of the apostates into the highest positions of power (while simultaneously attacking and getting rid of anti-polygamists such as William Law). Even according to the narrative of the "Joe was against polygamy" crowd, at a minimum, by appointing SO MANY liars, cheats, murderers, womanizers, adulterers, criminal conspirators, frauds and counterfeiters to the top positions of leadership, JS demonstrated that he never had the power of discernment of a real prophet and...worse...demonstrated that he had less discernment than any average person. Even worse, JS's pattern of appointing the worst men to the highest positions is what made your "apostasy" possible. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways and you really can't have it either way.

Cool testimony... same one repeated by every Mormon ever.

Which if that is the case it only proves that Brigham was the author.

@@freethinker1026 uh, that seems like an irrational leap of logic.

Can you cite British common law which allowed a married man in his 30s to also "plural marry" 30+ other women?

@@randyjordan5521 oops I think I misunderstood. I don’t recall what you are talking about concerning plural marriage age of consent???

My link to the source of age of consent in British common law for marriage was taken down for some reason it’s not hard to find.

@@peterhook2258, here’s a quote from the source. In the Victorian era there were rules to follow about marriage. There was a “marriage season” where many relationships had been put in place with a plan to the future in which was beginning a serious journey with marriage being the ultimate goal. Until 1823 the legal age in England for marriage was 21 years for men and women although after 1823 a male could marry as young as 14 without parental consent and a girl at 12 although most girls didn’t marry until around the ages of 18 to 23. it was also illegal to marry a deceased wife’s sister, but you could marry a first cousin. marriage was also only between one class so you couldn’t Mary down at class or upper class and if it did happen it was rare and most likely against the fami

@@randyjordan5521, the scriptures are replete with prophets having more than one wife. For instance David had many wives. In fact it is written that the lord GAVE David his wives. It is a moral choice and one that from time to time is permitted by God whereas God, through prophets, has always condemned homosexuality. No where in the scriptures is it allowed. That “behavior” is not allowed. It is a moral choice allowed by the moral agency that God gave man. This does not mean that God hates the person acting in that way for God loves all of us unconditionally. We attract ourselves to the communities in heaven that are much like ourselves.

You need to focus on the arguments and evidence and less on how fair I was. I do not hide the fact that I totally disagree with the polygamy deniers. They are wrong.

Dan Vogel has probably researched Joseph Smith's life and the contemporaneous church more than any other living person, and maybe any person ever! As a respected, published,, scholar of history, it would be folly for anyone to dismiss his points out of hand.

Dan's scholarship and intellectual integrity is obvious. Why would he give credit for non-factual or disingenuous theories?

Dude, are you on crack?

What was wrong with part 1?

Wow! Somebody’s having a bad day. Are you ok?

I just saw your comment in part 1 with all the responses and questions people asked you. You didn't mention anything wrong with the arguments. You made it clear you didn't like the format and kept saying Dan isn't a scholar though.

Bwwhahwwaa 😂 😅

Cry me a river!!!😢😂

That's your opinion. I love listening to him! He always presents sources in such a logical, unbiased way. He is one of my all-time favorite researchers.