Interview with Michelle Stone: Was Joseph A Polygamist? 

Aaron here. She must be an amazing mother. I don't share some of her conclusions, but I appreciate her personality and passion.

Integrity, Thy name is Michelle. Thank you for making it real. But still, I think Joseph has deceived you, and I hope your heart doesn't get broken when it all comes out.

Yes, she is impressive! They have 11 living children, not all of them living with their parents still.

Amen!

Agreed! Also, Michelle, take a page from Thomas So we'll and slow down your speech and fully complete the sentence you start. You will then be unstoppable.

Who cares if Joseph was a polygamist. Still a prophet regardless.

The doctrine of blood atonement is such an evil doctrine. If we acknowledge how wrong that is and a lot of other things Brigham taught. Is this not evidence that we have a devil in the position of the prophet second to Joseph Smith? Forgive me being so blunt but why would God allow such corruption in his one and only true church if we can question so much of what was taught early on. It’s also troubling how much things are evolving with the culture now…

" Only note is that the women who years later made these claims had no choice. They were living in fear for their lives." You are wrong as usual. Many people who had learned of polygamy in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith's lifetime, but did not go west with Brigham Young, also testified that Smith had originated polygamy. Several of those people opposed polygamy from the beginning, and they published their opposition to it beginning in July 1842. And others, such as former Nauvoo high councilor Leonard Soby, who left the church after Joseph's death and settled in New Jersey, was not "in fear for his life" when he testified in 1886 that Hyrum Smith had presented the revelation on celestial marriage before the Nauvoo high council on August 12, 1843. And many Utah Mormons still testified that Smith had started polygamy until their deaths, some of which were in the 1890s or early 1900s. For example, the elderly Mary Rollins Lightner was not "living in fear for her life" when she related being taught plural marriage by Joseph Smith in a speech to students at Brigham Young Academy in 1905. So after nearly two years of my trying to set you straight on these issues, you still cling to false, nonsensical assertions.

@@jasonbonnell786 "The doctrine of blood atonement is such an evil doctrine. If we acknowledge how wrong that is and a lot of other things Brigham taught." The doctrine of blood atonement was introduced into Mormonism by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in Missouri in 1838. "Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and Hyrum Smith moved their families to this place, Far West, in the spring of 1838. As soon as they came here, they began to enforce their new organized plan, which caused dissensions and difficulties, threatenings and even murders. Smith called a council of the leaders together, in which council he stated that any person who said a word against the heads of the Church, should be driven over these prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds, having an illusion to the Gidionites, as they were termed, to justify themselves in their wicked designs. Thus on the 19th of June, 1838, they preached a sermon called the salt sermon, in which these Gideonites understood that they should drive the dissenters, as they termed those who believed not in their secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight machinations."---John Whitmer "The plan of said Smith, the prophet, is to take this state, and he professes to his people to intend taking the United States and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief of the church, and my own opinion of the Prophet's plans and intentions.....I have head the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead bodies; that if he was let alone, he would be a second Mahomet to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; that like Mahomet, whose motto, in treating for peace, was 'The Alcoran or the Sword,' so should it eventually be with us, 'Joseph Smith or the sword.' These last statements were made during the last summer. The number of armed men at Adam-ondi-Ahman was between three and four hundred." (Affidavit of Thomas B. Marsh, "Correspondence, Orders, Etc.," Missouri, 1841.)

Bruce R McConkie taught that God will allow false doctrines within and without the church as a form of sifting. We will be held accountable for what we believe

Jesus is God, not a prophet. The speaker is all over the place and isn't making her point.

I responded to your post earlier, but I don't see it here. I assume that it hasn't shown up because I included a link to a typescript of Clayton's journals. That transcript which includes the full portion from 1840 through 1846 has been on the internet for at least 20 years, because that's how long I have been quoting from it. So I don't think that any yet unpublished portions of Clayton's jpournals would reveal anything more about Joseph Smith and polygamy that we haven't already known for decades. The journal was published on paper in 1991 by Signature Books as "An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton." If you want to read the original typescript which includes abbrevations and spelling errors etc., search for "Full text of William Clayton journal." For info on the origin and provenance of Clayton's journals, I suggest reading Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Salt Lake City Messenger of June 1983, the article titled "SUING THE TANNERS: Legal Action to Suppress Diaries About Joseph Smith." These Joseph Smith polygamy deniers like Michelle Stone want to believe that all of the passages in Clayton's journal in which he discusses Joseph Smith introducing him to plural marriage were written years later and backdated to make them appear to be contemporaneous. That is a bogus assertion, because there are simply too many details in Clayton's journal, involving so many people, for it to have been fabricated decades after the facts. Also, much of what Clayton wrote is corroborated by numerous other contemporary sources which touch on many of the same issues and mention some of the same people involved in the events.

@randyjordan5521 It's true there are plenty of published writings but even more in the church vault no one but the top have seen and won't. Same with Brigham Young. Out of 1500 sermons, we have many of them but many are also locked away.

If there is nothing to hide in his early journals, why not release them? Makes zero sense.

@@randyjordan5521 thank you!!! I’ll look into this. I agree though I don’t think it will reveal anything more than what we already know. But I think that it’s a transparency issue and will put a nail in the coffin for some of the theories out there.

@@StompMom5 I find it ironic. I can’t tell you how many times when I was growing up that I heard criticism of the Catholic Church and their vault. It turns out the church we followed was doing the exact same thing…

Is her performance the issue, or is whether or not JS practiced polygamy the issue?

💯

Hi, Leanne. I trust that my desire to do some evangelism was clear from the start. God bless.

@@AaronShafovaloff1Thanks for this interview!

I simply asked someone if he or she had listened to her scriptural videos. (Did not say that I enjoy Michelle’s videos, which I do.) The RU-vidr called me foolish. Later I decided to delete my comment (a reply). Makes me sad that people speak to people in a way that Jesus Christ said not to; see Matthew 5.

They'll just ignore that, thanks.

Aaron here. Would you include modern unrepentant polygamists in your religion?

I just read it, I think. I don't understand your comment, what am I supposed to look for?

Mormonism has been nothing but a humongous money-making enterprise from the beginning. Joseph Smith published The Book of Mormon in order to make money, but it didn't sell. So he founded a church based on the book to draw in followers and make money. When he teamed up with Sidney Rigdon in Ohio just months after founding his church, he and Rigdon implemented their "United Order" communistic society plan. Their disciples rightly believed that the plan was nothing more than an attempt to get their farmlands into Smith's and Rigdon's names, so they dragged them outside at night and tarred and feathered them. The founding of the Kirtland bank which you mention was the final straw that got Smith and Rigdon run out of Ohio in 1837. Smith and Rigdon then fled to western Missouri, where they tried to run the existing non-Mormon settlers out of the area and take it over for themselves and their followers. Smith and Rigdon's plan was to create an agriculture-based financial empire, with them at the head and reaping the profits. After they got run out of Missouri, they tried the same things in Illinois, and that got them run out of there, too. The 1857 Utah War and the Mountain Meadows Massacre were the product of the Mormons acting as land pirates, preying on passing emigrant wagon trains. After the federal government quashed the Mormons, the organization became a full-fledged money-making machine, starting up numerous businesses. They have been doing that for 150 years now, and that is why they have an estimated wealth of $200 billion. As the Ex-Mormon geneticist Simon Southerton once joked, the church not only does not need its members' tithing money, the church could pay their members to attend church.

The book “The Exoneration of Emma Joseph and Hyrum” has a very sound and logical rebuttal to explain the Expositor I found interesting and very plausible. 1. Their affidavits were not detailed enough like you’d think they would be especially with the info we have now he is accused of. You would think they would have included a lot more to make it a slam dunk case if the stories were true. 2. They really believed this about Joseph but it was a lie planted by “The Secret Chamber” (Brigham et al) who were planting seeds of discord between the Smiths and his enemies and “shaking the jar of ants” in a system of triangulation while they got away with being the real culprits. No eyes were on them as they scapegoated JS. We read about Amalikiah doing this same kind of thing to obtain power in the BoM. It’s a classic case of narcissism. It is their craft. Which is how they get away with it so sneakily. Satan has been doing this a looooong time. Those who follow him can get really good at it. If you don’t know what you’re looking for it’s hard to believe it’s happening when it’s happening all around you. Those of us who have been victims can attest.

Michelle and others like her are at least on the right track. However, the real truth among all the confusing books on the subject, is that the Early church had members sealed to Priesthood leaders. Joseph was NOT marrying these women. Many of these women who wrote in journals didn't understand what Joseph was asking them to do. So rumors spread about him marrying women in the temple. Today many books are written by those who oppose the church and they use these rumors as their so called evidence. Never is rumor evidence. Yes, members of the church including Brigham Young, were not perfect. Joseph was trying to teach them. So members strayed and practiced polygamy without Joseph saying it was approved by the Lord for them to do so. These sealings to Priesthood leaders came to be known as Law of Adoption sealings. They were NOT marriages. So Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. All the books written today claiming evidence of him being polygamist are nothing more than modern day rumors based on past rumor. Which is ridiculous! Joseph was only married to Emma. Period!

And then it was kept in the 1844 edition as section 109, under Joseph’s direction.

The whole doctrine of the D&C called Lectures on Faith were accepted as scripture, canonized. So later after Joseph was out of the way voila out goes what they don't like and in comes the new way. Bye bye Doctrine of the church, bye bye monogamy. These non revelations were added and accepted by Joseph and church.

When Joseph F Smith was questioned on living polygamy after the manifesto he was pressed on it and they asked him why he broke the law of his church he responded to it by saying I prefer to call it rule of my church rather than the law.

Joseph Smith Jr. endorsed and cited that section in his denials of practicing polygamy. He denied practicing polygamy because it was against the laws of the land and of his church. In 1887, his former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, who had opposed polygamy, recounted Joseph's hypocrisy in an interview with a newspaper editor: “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 thought I was quite clear that nobody claimed to be his wife until 1869. Sure, Bennett and the Laws made their accusations (Brotherton is not a separate source since Bennett is the only source for her story) but there were no claims of any specific women being his wives, other than Bennett's cryptic fake initials -- just as I explain when I say this.

@@MichelleBStone Thanks for clarifying, it wasn't clear to me. It seemed to me in the region of 48 minutes you were very emphatic that all of the evidence came after 1869. Also in the comments of the debate with Bill Reel, the question was asked, "Was the first documented mention of JS's alleged polygamy really not until 1862? That seems strange to me. Does anyone know how Dan Vogel thinks of this? When I read "In Sacred Silence," some of the women had such detailed accounts of marrying Joseph. I remember one of the Partridge sisters (Eliza?) literally running away from Joseph and expressing what felt to me like panic and trauma. Was that account not pre-1862?" Your answer was "The first affidavits (no specific accounts) were not created until 1869. That was the first evidence. All of the stories and reminiscences came well after that." Also, if I understand correctly, Martha Brotherton's affidavit was published in two news papers before John Bennett included it in his book. I'm on the fence about Joseph's polygamy and just want both sides to be honest. 4 Reply 7 replies @MichelleBStone 7 days ago (edited) The first affidavits (no specific accounts) were not created until 1869. That was the first evidence. All of the stories and reminiscences came well after that.

I suggest reading the sources used to create the narrative in In Sacred Loneliness, as well as the sources ignored. Critically analyzing the sources reveal a very different story.

Let’s see you provide sources for your claims. Michelle Brady Stone is the foremost expert on the original sources for Joseph Smith’s alleged wives.

​@@JacobIsBellNot even close. Real historians have refuted her claims soundly

I was so surprised to find out that not nearly as many people testified of it as the historians claim. They've really done us a disservice, and I don't know why they don't just tell accurate history and let the chips fall where they may. Of the 35 or so women counted as wives of Joseph Smith, 18 of them never said a peep about it themselves. Not one word. That was shocking to me. Of the women who did make that claim, 6 of them merely signed an affidavit when asked to do so 25 years after Joseph's death - and only three of those give a marriage date. That left 11. I'm looking into each of those right now. During court testimony, the questioner had Emily Partridge read an entry from Joseph's journal, which showed that on the date she and her sister claimed to have been married to Joseph in Emma's presence, Emma wasn't even in town. Sylvia Lyon was supposed for years to have had a daughter, Josephine, by Joseph Smith, but the DNA evidence finally showed unequivocally that the child was Mr. Lyon's. Instead of concluding that either Josephine or her mother made the story up, many historians conclude that Sylvia must have been sleeping with Joseph and her husband concurrently, or else she wouldn't have "mistakenly" believed her daughter to be Joseph's. Wow. Brian Hales hypothesizes that Sylvia may have simply meant that Josephine was Joseph's "spiritual" daughter. Stuff like that just seems like the opposite of sound, evidence-based history. I know dozens more similar stories - and so does Michelle. She's definitely not ignoring the claims; she's just examined them and found them to be completely unsubstantiated. I really hope we have a 1978 moment, where we can eventually acknowledge that the historians have gotten it wrong and disavow polygamy forever.

When you understand abuse and mass formation psychosis and what it does to a fearful and isolated people (FLDS for one) it is very plausible that their testimonies were not completely honest. Especially when we already know they believed in “lying for the Lord.” That is their core belief so they DO lie.

@@lrsvalentinebut do you have evidence, specifically, to support you claims. Go.

You had me until the second half. Without even getting into the BoA, you're making huge assumptions about the Kinderhook plates. You're going off of a secondhand account, bc no firsthand accounts from Joseph on it exist. He wasn't going to translate them until they had been authenticated. Yes, the BoM is history.

Or perhaps that is the “story” that has been passed down!

In one of her videos she used a selective quote. I pointed this out and then she attacked me. In the longer quote Hyrum left room for polygamy if it was commanded by the leaders.

@@Telavian I attacked you? You have a remarkably thin skin, especially considering the way you practically stalk me and comment anywhere I engage. The difference isn't the full quote vs. the "selective quote." The difference is the quote that was altered by Brigham's historians to fit "the new order of things."

Because he denied it!

Birthrates among polygamous women were lower than monogamous in think. Also, 1 nephi 7:1

First off, polygamy was specifically prohibited by the LDS church's Doctrine & Covenants when Joseph Smith implemented and practiced it. Secondly, as Michelle stated in this interview, polygamy does not serve to "raise up seed", meaning increase birth rates. A woman can only get pregnant by one man at a time. Therefore, a marriage of one man and one woman would produce as many children as polygamy would. Third, numerous women said that they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith. His disiples to whom he introduced plural marriage also had sex with their plural wives, and some of them produced children. If his practice had not included adultery and fornication, it would not have been controversial at all. Joseph would not have had to deny practicing it, and his denials wouldn't have led to his death.

God established marriage by giving Adam ONE woman to marry.

When/where?

The level of effort for this conspiracy would be enormous. She can’t let go of her dear prophet Joseph and that’s why she denies the obvious.

I agree with you guys, except I believe Joseph was a prophet, and he was NOT an adulterer.