LIVE DEBATE: Did Joseph Smith REALLY Practice Polygamy?! Jacob Isbell vs. Jacob Hansen 

Haha. Both Jacobs? God will settle the truth of the matter in time. So for now, study up and we can agree to disagree

Don't you mean Israel won?

​@@SidJane10 I can not agree to disagree, that would be tantamount to the Eternal Truth of the Word of God being equal to the false traditions and precepts of men.

But on the other hand, Jacob lost.

@@davidwatts1791 Well yes I agree but it's a nice way of saying I'm not gonna hate someone because they can't see clearly or the truth. I was there. I asked a question and they wouldn't let me explain properly. I get it

Did I hear incorrectly when Jacob Isbell said, he is excommunicated but still attending his ward. Why was he excommunicated? He sounds like and presents himself as an antagonist. If a man marries in the temple and his wife later dies, then marries again in the temple his second wife, is he a polygamist? Whether THE LORD REQUIRED IT in the flesh where all parties were alive, or whether a man accumulates wives through death and temple marriages, to me it is the same. Jacob Hansen is right. If Joseph Smith had of openly declared their exercise of plural marriage the Saints would certainly have been exterminated. Plural marriage was not given to all men. The Lord was selective in who could practice this law, because not all men are worthy of such as sacred and tremendous responsibility. Seriously though, I could see time better spent on wholesome gospel learning then on these shouting matches. I also agree with a comment made on here about the gospels being written decade's after the death of the Saviour. If Jacob Isbell cannot accept Scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 132, then he cannot accept the Old and New Testaments either. Moses wrote the first five books of the O.T declaring the history of Adam and Eve through to his time, and the Apostles and half-siblings of Jesus Christ who wrote their books decades after Jesus's death. Just because D&C 132 wasn't added to our Canon until after Joseph's death really proves nothing, Jacob Isbell. Instead of being involved in needless debates you might want to address your current standing in the church and seek repentance.

Yeah, the baptism by fire thing, IMO, is a clear indication he is in a state of denial. He no longer has the rights to the priesthood or covenant blessings such as the gift of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't work that way. Since he supposedly believes in the Book of Mormon, he should know this. He doesn't talk like a Mormon anymore. The bad vibes we get are real spiritual prompting related to discernment.

Zeezrom vibes! I was thinking about the same thing. Or a three card Monte huckster on The Strip in Vegas

Why is it that claiming to have received promises spoken of in scripture makes one evil? Do you reject the doctrine of being baptized by fire? It's in the scriptures, you can go read it for yourself.

@@rowleskids no, I don't reject it at all. I don't believe this man at all when he shares his "experience." The spirit that emanates from him is not light and truth.

😂😂😂

Or a Heartlander...

Technically it’s about both, right? When we’re doing baptisms for our ancestors it’s very much about salvation.

Elder oaks talk from this most recent conference covered this exactly.

It’s sad to see how far he’s fallen conflating salvation and exaltation. You’d think he’d know the difference but alas, he argues like a typical evangelical anti. It’s sad to see.

@@cottoncountrytrucker2087 baptism is the first opportunity. Exaltation is not possible without salvation. But, salvation being a lower step doesn't need exaltation to exist. It sure isn't ideal to begin to climb a ladder and stop at the first rung.

We can't be saved w/o our doing the work for our ancestors. DS&C 128 : 15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers-that they without us cannot be made perfect-neither can we without our dead be made perfect.

Not an argument

​@@JakobPGraubut true

I wonder if a bunch of brain cells fell out when he got his last haircut.

Agreed, he clearly reveals in this debate.

@@a.r.hollowayauthor7210 Yes, true, but not an argument.

@ruckin3, did we watch the same debate? I didn’t see anyone crying…

@@GaryLArnell shes been interviewed many times and cries . She did that with Ward radio and Brian C Hales.

Once Michelle finds herself in a corner, confronted by evidence that she can't just ignore or explain away, she turns on the tears. Which makes sense since her entire approach to this issue is emotional and really has zero to do with evidence.

I’m crying reading all the pro-polygamy comments. It’s heartbreaking.

@@lisatreelove9278 pro polygamy or pro the abundance of data hat it existed? Loaded language ......nice try

Great question.

I doubt you'll get a single answer. Like Isbell failed to give a single answer.

The idea that Brigham Young and other apostles conspired to kill the Smiths is just a wild conspiracy theory with zero evidence to support it. These Joseph Smith polygamy deniers concocted that theory as an effort to explain why most of the apostles were practicing polygamy, when according to their theory, Joseph prohibited it. Their wacky theory holds that the apostles wanted to keep practicing polygamy secretly, so they had to murder Joseph and Hyrum and take control of the church in order to do so. The whole theory is so nonsensical that no book publishing house or movie producer would accept such a plot. Jacob Isbell and his fellow travelers must think that the movie "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer" was a documentary. One reason that a lot of Mormons are suckered into believing wild conspiracy theories like this is that they don't bother to study the historical facts for themselves, and the church doesn't want to say very much about the incident either. The killers of the Smiths were identified, indicted, and tried for the crime within months. None of them were Mormons. To learn the facts, I suggest reading an article titled "Meet the defendants in the Carthage conspiracy trial" on the internet.

Savage and true all around

You want the answer? Dig for it. Joseph essentially told Porter he didn't need him to come and they ensured it to be so. After JS murder, they still praised the man and people couldn't see. Kinda like how Amilickiah killed the Lamanite king and then married his wife and pronounced revenge on the murderer. Do you not know the oaths of revenge BY inserted in the temple and he had killed every man, woman & child in the mountain meadow massacre. Some of them belonged to the mob and had inside info that BY had to ensure couldn't come out. Brigham named his son born 3 months later John Williard Young. I thought he worshipped Joseph? He also claimed to be close to the prophet so the people would follow him when JS said Brigham would lead the church to hell and vowed 3 weeks before his death to uproot Brigham from the church when he discovered some of his own men were in the secret chamber. I can send you videos showing much evidence of how it all went down. But will you be open to listen is the question? If Porter knew, I assure you these men would be DEAD.

Empty bags make the most noise.

He's not very bright either.

I thought it was incredibly ironic when he said he received the vision of being a prominent church leader if he didn’t go down the rabbit hole of polygamy. I literally laughed out loud when he said that wasn’t important to him, seeing him now with his own following and standing up like a prophet of truth, showing people the light

Regardless of what you think about someone, you’re not being very Christlike in your comments.

@@kristal383 Do you think that Jacob Isball was Christlike during this debate?

AFTER his wife Sarah died.

@@whyisgamora3721 just because she died doesn’t mean it’s not polygamy!

​@@dylangdavis98Except that the defintion of polygamy is having more than one wife at the same time.

@@annathompson5389 exactly right! So the wife that’s in the spirit world at that time doesn’t count?

​​@@dylangdavis98 THANK YOU!!!!! Abe has 3 wives.

Thank you. Best summary of the whole ordeal.

Also, from my understanding Prophet Joesph was still trying to understand how temple sealings worked. Hence, why men were sealed to men, women to women etc, like brother to brother, sister to sister, husbands and wives, families etc. As I said to a divorced friend who was upset about her first temple sealing, "Don't worry it will get sorted out in the wash" or in other words Heavenly Father knows what we need and has allowed those things in the plan, we just don't understand it all yet

"In the early days, many people were seeking to seal themselves to Jospeh Smith - women and men. They felt like it was better to be sealed to the prophet." People only believed that because it's what Joseph himself taught them. Many of his plural wives later stated that they were shocked when he first introduced the doctrine to them, and that they had to acquire a "testimony" of it over time. And of course, some of the women felt that the whole thing was just a vehicle that Joseph concocted to get into their pantaloons, so they rejected his proposals. To get a sense of the contrasting views, I suggest that you read Martha Brotherton's July 13, 1842 letter, as well as Mary Rollins Lightner's 1905 address at Brigham Young Academy. Historian Todd Compton's research delved into this issue: "In the group of Smith’s well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to 20 years old when they married him. Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to thirty years old. Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith’s own peer group, ages thirty-one to forty. In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the group fifty-one to sixty. "The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy as an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it." Here are some statements from women who said that they had sex with Joseph Smith: Emily Partridge: When under oath in a deposition in the Temple Lot case, Emily Partridge was asked, “Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?” to which she answered, “Yes sir.” Lucy Walker: Lucy Walker’s niece, Theodocia Frances Walker Davis, reported to Joseph Smith III in 1876, “Lucy Walker told her that she lived with Joseph Smith as a wife.” Malissa Lott: In an 1893 interview, RLDS Church President Joseph Smith III asked Malissa Lott if she was the Prophet’s “wife in very deed,” to which she answered, “Yes.” Eliza Partridge: Concerning Emily’s sister Eliza, Benjamin F. Johnson wrote in 1903: “The first plural wife brought to my house with whom the Prophet stayed, was Eliza Partridge.” Louisa Beaman: When Joseph Bates Noble, Louisa’s brother-in-law, was asked: “Where did they [Joseph Smith and plural wife Louisa Beaman] sleep together?” He responded: “Right straight across the river at my house they slept together.” Almera Johnson: Benjamin Johnson affirmed his sister Almera Johnson experienced sexual relations with the Prophet: “He [Joseph Smith] was at my house … where he occupied my sister Almera’s room and bed.” Maria Lawrence: On May 23, 1844, William Law, who had apostatized months earlier over plural marriage, charged Joseph Smith in a Carthage court with living “in an open state of adultery” with Maria Lawrence. Sarah Lawrence: Several statements document that Sarah Lawrence lived with the Prophet as a plural wife. For example, Lucy Walker attested in 1902: “I know that [Emma] gave her consent to the marriage of at least four women [Emily and Eliza Partridge and Maria and Sarah Lawrence] to her husband as plural wives, and she was well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives.” Fanny Alger: Several accounts record that Emma Smith witnessed Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger together (but not what they were doing together). One source asserts that Fanny became pregnant. Mary Heron: A single document implies sexuality between Joseph Smith and Mary Heron Snyder. End quotes. People like Jacob Isbell apparently haven't grasped the fact that if Smith's doctrine didn't include having extramarital sex, it wouldn't have caused a controversy, and it wouldn't have led to his and Hyrum's deaths. William Law filed legal charges against Smith of "living in an open state of adultery" with Maria Lawrence on May 23, 1844.

Knife to the heart of Modern LDS apologetics in one paragraph.

Empty bags make the most noise.

​@@randyjordan5521Well said. Or "the empty can rattles the most" works too. As in garbage can.

We are going to get this exact interruption when Michelle Stone speaks to Hansen next. Yes "to" not "with".

I hear no humility, and I don't see any fruit of christ with being full of charity, the pure love of Christ. Instead, he claims our Temples are evil and the prophet is involved in evil acts.

Bahahaha. You called him a Chad. Lol

💀chill

😂😂

That is hilarious 😂

The full-on Calvin Beard.

I love how when Isabel teases Don Bradley it’s not cool, but when it’s Jacob isbell it’s fair game? The comment is, however, very funny. 🤣

Boom. Adam and Eve's monogamy resulted in the fall and the first murderer. Monogamy must be evil according to anti-polygynist logic.

And it doesn't get better outside of marriage, it only gets worse.

According to that argument, we should never have siblings.

That’s like combatting “Child sex trafficking is filled with problems”- with- “well lots of kids are abused in families”

@@Kait272 It's actually nothing like that.

As long as it's translated correctly, which is also the spirit in which Isbell is skeptical of the integrity of 132 for his various reasons.

Yup it’s up for grabs too that’s why we have the Book of Mormon

Which by the by condemns polygamy

@@TurdFerguson-cz5dx The Book of Mormon is great confirmation of mission of Jesus Christ. But the Bible is quite reliable on it's own. That's why basically all credentialed atheist historians agree Jesus' life, teaching, crucifixion, and claims of resurrection were not conspiracies. Good thing people understand that, or there would be a lot less Christianity to spread the Book of Mormon to.

lol bro. The authors (or at least the originators of the message) gave their lives in horrific death defending the truth of Christ’s life. They were PRO-Christ. The authors of polygamy were ANTI-Joseph. They only invoke his name when it’s convenient. They hated everything he stood for. They deviated from everything they taught. And they sought worldly power. You can’t be intellectually honest and still put those in the same category. Motive is a thing. And it matters.

And the people who defame JS by claiming he practiced polygamy haven't come close to proving theirs. For the record though, I dislike Isbell.

@@JakobPGrau It's not defamation to accept what the documented history, witnesses, and plural wives said happened. It is sad that you would dismiss actual evidence for an apostate fantasy. Even the RLDS church, an arch opponent of Joseph's polygamy, has changed course and accepted fact over wishful thinking.

Not necessarily. I believe that people of genuine conviction and belief in God are lead to churches that aren't LDS. It's not a matter of God only leading people to the ultimate truth, sometimes people can only accept or understand a limited form of truth and we shouldn't consider them lesser because they were lead to a different life. God knows the truth and God loves all His children and some are better served in different spaces than others.

Israel was in apostasy and Jesus came from it. So no - saying the church is apostate does not negate the spiritual things that happen among some of its members.

That's actually so easy to prove false

LDS = Cult

​@@blainehowes5242 those who find themselves "in different spaces" than the Lord's covenant people in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints, or are categorized as "[a person who] can only accept or understand a limited form of truth" are known as chaff and one day it will be blown away in the whirlwind. Tares to be sifted from the wheat.

@kimhaughton3771 Great comment. Jacob Isbel never explained why we should doubt many witnesses.

Well said, amen.

As if the idea of Joseph marrying 14 year old girls and already-married women has not pushed numerous people away from the restoration. Surveys of those who have left the church rank this issue high on the list as why they left. The truth is what's important, not your rationalizations in defense of false traditions you received to be of God.

Misunderstanding God's laws is a common cover for breaking them. But if we care about people we will share milk before meat.

@@whyisgamora3721well, when it’s presented in such a false or void of all context manner like you just did, yes it could lead people away. It is pushing people away, especially in the 7-second TikTok attention span era of 2024. That’s on those who leave. Not anyone else.

Michelle and Isbell and their fellow travelers are simply conspiracy theorists like flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.

You have no idea. His idea is to make a living from this.

Great comment 😊. And, I wonder about people like David Alexander's parents. His father was married to his mom, and they were deeply in love, but then she got polio and died when David was only a year old. He was motherless until age 4 when his father married another woman willing to take him and his young children on. They went on to have other children. David regards her as his mother. He didn't know his biological mother. He still misses the mother who raised him tremendously. Both wives will likely be sealed to David's dad. Maybe they will accept the arrangement or maybe they won't. But it feels sad to me if the second wife (whom the children absolutely love) has to go off and find another man and another family. It seems natural that the family would want to stay intact if it were possible. You know? There's just a lot we don't know about how it will be in heaven.

​@@gwengold8154 It goes the other way as well. Husband dies young, then wife remarries and has a family. Kids may have a new dad whom they love. Is it fair to this woman or children to say they can never be sealed to the second husband?

@@ramsrnja you've got a good point. That doesn't seem fair at all. This does give me pause. I gotta be honest. Because they say that God is a God of order and not chaos. But some of these situations seem like they will be utter chaos. I hope that these things can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction somehow.

@gwengold8154 Sealings are like a big tangled thread ball (humans) connected to a needle (Elohim); or a web that holds “it”/creation (according to some extra-biblical literature about the “covenant of peace/everlasting covenant”/hesed/חסד) all together. We tend to be limited in our thinking about sealings, to just our nuclear families, but we’re sealed to generations of parents and children, all bound up together. I don’t think we’re just going to be little family “pods” in the hereafter, but we’re not meant to be loose and unconnected either. We also don’t believe God force anyone to be in unhappy unions in the hereafter (and I have to believe that that includes monogamous, divorced/widowed and remarried, and polygamous unions; there are plenty of happy polygamous marriages in existence, regardless of what the deniers say about polygamy being “pure evil;” I’ve also seen modern polygamists defend it as the “ultimate feminist practice,” believe it or not. Anything can be corrupted and twisted for evil, that doesn’t mean it is evil in essence.) There is a lot we don’t understand about sealings and the eternities, but God understand it all and know how to sort it!

@@gingersnaps215 great points! Thank you 😊. It's nice to think of a chain instead of just a nuclear family. And, I sure am hopeful that everything will be worked out for everyone's maximum happiness.

Dittos. These Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are rehashing RLDS false assertions that were refuted 150 years ago.

Word!!!

THIS!!! FOR THE LOVE. This little pretend "friendship" is something I'm not buying. If Hansen and Ward Radio think they're going to somehow save Jacob by acting like an Evangelical who says, "I do this because I care about the Mormons and their salvation," they really are in for a lot of heartache. Isbel is not a genuinely good guy. This is all so off-putting.

It seems like that Deuteronomy 7:17 may have an implied support of polygamy. Nobody would say that there is a law to only have one horse, or only have one piece of gold or silver, just don’t be a hoarder, don’t promote re-entry of wickedness/worldliness (Egypt) or war so that you can profit from those you tempt, or lead t war and don’t have too many wives either. Don’t be gluttonous, but no law to have only one, just like the others listed.

Yep, he totally quoted it out of context. It’s specifically a law only for the king, not the people.

🔥🔥🔥🔥

@@KnuttyEntertainment as saints we are anointed to become kings. The prophet as well.

@@budgillett Kings like how God is King, not a political dictatorship as described in Deut. 17. You really think God has a problem with gods acquiring gold and horses? Last I checked they were using gold to pave their streets.

Good refutation of his arguments! *sarc*

Ironic that Isbell looks more like Brigham Young when he hates on him so much.

Pride

Yeah, I don't particularly like him either. But nothing you've said has anything to do with the veracity of his arguments. Thanks for playing.

@@whyisgamora3721he legit admitted in the debate that when he was a member of the church he had an image of himself in his head as a leader and that it was a false idol of some sorts. Which is fine, but ironic given that he left the church to be a leader of some other spiritual movement.

As you say, Joseph restored things. Why did the leaders after him alter the restored truth? No need to fix the fix.

I've gone over all this with him before. He just stopped responding.

It's like he has ADD. He constantly talks over his opponent yet has no valid argument.

Say what you want about the person, do you have anything specific to say about the argument?

Don't flag a guy off for his viewpoint.

I'm sure they also removed Adam's and Noah's extra wives. Jacob's condemnations of it in the Book of Mormon should also be ignored. Nothing to learn here! *sarc*

It's demeaning to women, pure and simple, to have plurality only go one way. The answer is to give back to the giver, not feel entitled to her giving and giving. The test is to see if the husband wants to share and give to his wife another husband, and see if he's willing to share with his brothers.

​@ramsrnja if he pays half the bills then sure!

From Hyrum Smith: "I wish the Elders of Israel to understand it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more, and God has not commanded any of you to have more; and if any of you dare to presume to do any such things, it will spoil your fun, for you will never have the spirit to preach the Gospel. I despise a man who teaches a pack of stuff that will disgrace himself so; for a man to go into the world, and talk of this spiritual wife system he is as empty as an open sepulchre. If the coat suits any one, let him put it on. I would call the Devil my brother before such a man." Do you accept this source? Church History Catalog, (Nauvoo, Illinois, 1844 April 6-9)

@@rowleskids Why wouldn't I? You can try to take one quote out of context and that is fine but Hyrum is also the one that tried to convince Emma of the validity of the practice. So, was he contradicting himself? or is there a different explanation for that? Hyrum told JS he could persuade her with the aid of a written revelation. “If you will write the revelation,” Hyrum told JS, “I will take, and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.” JS expressed his doubts, to which Hyrum replied, “The doctrine is so plain I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity and heavenly origin.” William Clayton, Affidavit, Salt Lake Co., Utah Territory, 16 Feb. 1874, [3], copy, Joseph F. Smith, Affidavits about Celestial Marriage, CHL.

I noticed this also. 2 Jacobs fighting out the 2 interpretations in Jacob 2.

Authorized plural marriage includes consent from all women and men involved.

@@_Squiggle_ Actually, no. Authorization for Celestial Plural Marriage can only come through the prophet. It's like a "calling" and that is why Joseph only allowed certain men to do it. It wasn't for the whole body of the church. Polygamy is a different animal. It is when men decide for themselves that they can marry another wife. They have no authority to do that and that is why Joseph preached against it and excommunicated them. Spiritual Wifery is another animal beyond even polygamy. It is essentially adultery or partner swapping. That is what William C Bennett was deceitfully trying to instill among the Saints. He forcefully convinced women to comply by telling them that Joseph OK'd it. It caused a whole big mess that is too lengthy to go into detail here.

Love this (original) comment so much. Christ said we’re going to be judged by our works, and He showed us the Way through every one of his words and works. There are works that are part of the Way, and there are perversions of the Way. You won’t find any prophet in scripture telling people their works are abominations because they don’t have the authority to do them, otherwise those same works would be holy-that just isn’t how the gospel works!

2 Jacobs: Jacob the polygamist from the Bible and Jacob the purported monogamist from the Book of Mormon.

Amen!

Michelle Stone is no Snufferite. I suppose you just assume everyone who doesn’t see church history the way you do is a Denver Snuffer follower?

@@OmahaAreaLoya look I don’t control who goes on Michell Stones channel. I suppose it is just a happy little coincidence that she has him on her show. Snuffer is a self proclaimed prophet who declared that the church lost any claim or right to the priesthood when they excommunicated him. Do you support organizations or individuals who are opposed to the church? This question rules out those who would profess Denver Snuffer as a prophet while also claiming they support the brethren.

Funny, I’ve known Michelle for years and the only time I can remember that she talked about Denver was when he came on her podcast. Guess what? Interviewing someone doesn’t mean you are one of their disciples. That would mean Michelle is also a follower of Brian Hales. Come on now.

PS The reason he was on her podcast was so he could talk about his views of the historicity of polygamy in the church. Just like most of the people she interviews. She invites people on who know a lot about polygamy in the church because that’s what her channel is about.

​@@OmahaAreaLoyaSnuffer and Isbell are simply the end result of the road Stone and Boyack are on.

People in a certain camp are unlikely to switch. But there are many who may be between camps or don't know much about the topic

Welcome to formal debate. It’s not for the participants, but the undecided audience listening

Unfortunately debates don’t get us closer to the truth, they never will.

When Korihor's fate was published, many of his gullible followers repented.

@@sethstewart1566 If your comparing Isbell to Korihor, it might be worth reading that story again. Korihor preached that there was no Christ. Ive never heard IsBell do that. To the contrary.

Seriously though. It feels like isbel is arguing the same things and never answering Hansen’s questions. Hansen killed it. The spirit immediately leaves when isbel talks because he has a huge condescending and contentious undertone that is so hard to listen to. He is so smug and prideful. Hope he finds Christ.

Words are important. Authorization for Celestial Plural Marriage can only come through the prophet. It's like a "calling" and that is why Joseph only allowed certain men to do it. It wasn't for the whole body of the church. Polygamy is a different animal. It is when men decide for themselves that they can marry another wife. They have no authority to do that and that is why Joseph preached against it and excommunicated them. Spiritual Wifery is another animal beyond even polygamy. It is essentially adultery or partner swapping. That is what William C Bennett was deceitfully trying to instill among the Saints. He forcefully convinced women to comply by telling them that Joseph OK'd it. It caused a whole big mess that is too lengthy to go into detail here.

@@philapos That's interesting! I never heard that. I have to take that and think about it for a while. LOL! Cuz for me I'm torn in-between! Growing up I LOVED & studied Joseph Smith all the time and on the mission I loved all of his teachings & quotes and "lectures on faith". (this is before I ever heard about all the bad stuff or accusations.) His philosophy was so smart and good! For example, for the safe of argument lets say the Book of Mormon isn't scientifically or geographically correct! But it has AMAZING stories and intelligent philosophy and it does testify of JESUS CHRIST! Whoever wrote it was no DUMB DUMB! Someone once told me that the book of Mormon was so intelligent and worth all the GOLD in the world but everyone is so preoccupied with Joseph SMith and Poligamy and thie history/errors of the church to even read it or care!

D&C 101 was written in 1835 and D&C 132 was in 1843

I had never heard of the 1835 D&C 101 until recently. I guess they forgot that in my church history class!

They’re talking about the 1835 edition of D&C. Read section 101 (not in our scriptures now) that Joseph approved to be in there and 132 is absent until the 1877 edition when 101 disappears and 132 is put in by BY.

Why do you say that? Are historians pro Christian morals?

@@amybaker1880Of course, not. Anybody that is objectively honest and fair-minded will agree that most liberal MSM orgs and their reporters are biased against Christians and their basic beliefs and values. BUT nearly every single news org, both liberal and conservative, are openly bigoted and dismissive towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members, who they still refer to as Mormons, even though that word’s roots as a slur word used in a bigoted way to dehumanize and demean early and modern-day saints. That is why most reporters and, any Protestant/evangelical/catholic/JW for that matter, would jump at the chance to attack or discredit the Church by “exposing” that JS did not teach/practice plural marriage and that it was all a grand conspiracy cooked up by BY, who may also be behind a plot to kill JS! /s

Joseph didn’t practice the polygamy as outlined in 132. That is the only valid argument I could see for Isbell

Historians cannot prove or disprove anything but DNA sure can. No kids is a pretty strong point in favor of JS not practicing polygamy that involved sexual unions.

@@amybaker1880 historians are pro discovery. Their job is to uncover things others missed.

I assume he was trying to pull a "study it out in your mind" thing

Are you equating prophetic books of scripture to the testimonies of many people who are provable liars? Such as those who signed affidavits that Joseph was NOT practicing polygamy only to change their story later?

@rowleskids the Gospels were written by people too; who were just as fallible as anyone else. The scriptures are historical records. The crucifixion of Jesus happened at a point in the past, and the scriptures record that event. Christians believe that Christ was crucified because there are 4 Gospel accounts that say so. We have more than 4 accounts that Joseph practiced polygamy. Just read the diary of William Clayton, who was the personal scribe of Joseph. He records that Joseph and Hyrum tried to convince Emma to accept polygamy, but she fiercely rejected them. William had no reason to make up this event in his personal journal.

Deuteronomy 17 is purely about restricting the Kings of Israel. Anyone who brings that scripture up is either scripturally illiterate or dishonest.

@@wfTitus True. And its not even restricting them from more than one wife. Its restricting them from having scads and scads of wives.

King Benjamin addressed your "question" long ago in Mosiah 4:29: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." Sins do not have to be enumerated to be sins.

@@whyisgamora3721 That's a lazy answer if I ever saw one. Just bring that up anytime someone does something you don't like, call it a sin, and bring this scripture up. God facilitated plural marriage in the Old Testament. That seems to point to that he doesn't disapprove of it.

@@wfTitus By your logic, God doesn't disapprove of any sin as no mortal is sinless and yet billions live on.

This is why I'm so hard on people like Isbell, Michelle Stone, etc. The implications of their revisionist claims are entirely incompatible with a member continuing to believe in a living Church with prophets and apostles today. Isbell was excommunicated for good reason and, frankly, Stone should have been by now.

@@jaredshipp9207 Jared, why do you feel it’s your place to pronounce that Michelle should be excommunicated? Are you one of her priesthood leaders? Have you considered the sources she sites on her podcast which refute some of the church’s narratives? Do you think any latter day prophet has ever made mistakes? Do you think the church has ever tried to cover up true historical facts to maintain a more positive narrative and reputation?

@@leslieboyce2455 This isn't even a debate. Not only the Church, but every historian both in and out of the Church all agree that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage. Even the RLDS Church, where these claims originated, now agrees. Anyone who believes RU-vidr Michelle Stone (who doesn't even seem to understand some of our most basic doctrines) has come along with new information simply WANTS to believe what she's saying. And it's because they simply can't handle the issue. Like her, their evaluation on this is all EMOTION based and really has nothing to do with sources, evidence, etc.

Interestingly enough, I know many faithful members of the lds faith that have children fall away and have lives that seemingly fall apart. Likewise, I also know many exmembers or members of other faiths who live very Godly lives and have children who follow biblical teachings. Correlation does not equal causation.

@Washingtontree A person can live a very good life but if they're not in the Covenant, their eternal potential is vastly limited.

Arguing for loopholes is arguing from weakness. Even Don Bradley has confirmed that there is no loophole in Jacob 2.

You can also see the usage of the word hearken in the passage. It's only used with the commands the Lord has given. They torture the text with their reading.

@@whyisgamora3721 there is no loophole in Jacob 2:27-30. It is simply God making clear His instructions unless He commands “otherwise”, otherwise why would the word “otherwise” even be used?😂🤓

@@Kaydubbbb Your interpretation is flawed in that it overlooks that God already made it clear in 1 Nephi 7:1 that the Lord would use monogamy to raise up seed unto Him. Use the Webster 1828 dictionary so that you can understand the words clearly in the language of Joseph Smith's day. The word hearken means "to listen; to lend the ear; to attend to what is uttered, with eagerness or curiosity." That's exactly what the errant Nephites were doing with the things written concerning David and Solomon--the errant Nephites were curious about their practice of many wives and concubines and used those accounts to justify themselves in polygamy. The Lord says in Jacob 2:30 that He has to command His people to practice monogamy to raise up seed unto Him (just as in 1 Nephi 7:1), otherwise, they get curious about David and Solomon and end up doing those things they read about. The Lord's message is chastity and certainly not how He overrides chastity. You even make a silly argument based on punctuation! The original translation has no punctuation.

@@whyisgamora3721 you are correct about the comma, it’s not necessary. The Lord makes His point without it in Hebrew when He commands his people that they “SHALL hearken into these things”. The Lord did not say “ I will command my people otherwise they will fall into transgression and Hearken unto “these things”. He commanded His people to Hearken unto the “ things” referenced in verse 27. You can’t just skip around and pick for yourself what “ these things” references. It does not make literary or gramatical sense.

1: I hardly think disagreeing makes one an antagonist, and more than you preaching what you believe to be the truth to other people makes you one. And yes, that would make that person a polygamist. 2: Okay, so it's fine to lie repeatedly for years on end, even unprovoked, if it serves God's goals, because he's incapable of protecting you from worldly harm if you follow his commandments? I can't think of ANY other doctrine that was okay to lie about because the people were too scared of the opposition. 3: Jacob makes his points poorly here I think. Imagine Jesus said that polygamy was wrong, multiple times, and then the gospel writers made conflicting statements on that about how many wives he had and who they were, in reponse to some guy going around trying to collect affidavits for a court case that rested on the point. There is a huge amount of historical problems with 132 (check out Rob Fotheringham's video on it) 4: Well, considering that 101 (calling polygamy a crime) was canonized throughout Brigham's entire lifetime, that would call into question why he wasn't following the SCRIPTURES when multiple prophets have told us that anyone who teaches contrary to the scriptures is to be put down as an impostor.

I find that the main purposes of Joseph Smith's plural sealings ("polygamy") were to: link families for the afterlife AND to expand the number of children born within the covenant, perhaps that is why Joseph Smith deliberately got sealed to some women who were pregnant or already in a marriage. If we look at the full picture this makes sense that it was important to be sealed to unite families for the afterlife and to expand the number of children born into the covenant since thousands of them would die on their journey to Utah.

My thought exactly to everything you said. That’s why the word polygamy needs to be defined yet Hansen was arrogant and annoyed at the question.

Prophet?? Who claims he is a prophet?

He's not a prophet, and I think he was quite respectful when it came to avoiding Ad Hominem attacks. Hansen seemed much more prone to trying to paint his opponent as being so ridiculous that nobody should bother to listen to him. Seems like it worked?

Isbell couldn't account for the matter of Abraham and Hagar, or the matter of Jacob and his four wives.

That's an interesting viewpoint. A similar viewpoint was used against investigators who I was teaching as a missionary when their families tried to talk the out of being baptized. The pattern set forth by Moroni is that the truth of the Book of Mormon (and therefore any claim the Church has on truth) is that before a person is given the Gift of the Holy Ghost, they are to read, ponder and pray about the truth. They are expected to follow the spirit based entirely on the testimony of the experience of others as well as the testimony of the spirit. If the teaching of the church is that its members are not "allowed" to have a similar experience about specific doctrines, then there's something not right about that. Either you can trust the spirit more than the traditions that you inherited from your fathers (so the Book of Mormon can be true even though the pope says its not), OR Isbell is allowed to receive revelation. I thought it was interesting that when Isbell testified he said he prayed and followed the spirit, and when Hansen testified, he said he had been taught this thing and accepted it. If the church only had people who were taught and accepted it, without personal witness from the spirit, there would be no converts. Its complicated. Edit: its worth noting that his testimony of non-polygamy was an experience he had while he still had the Gift of the Holy Ghost. So, its hard to say that that was the problem. He was a faithful member in good standing when that happened, and he was interested in preserving his existing viewpoint. Why would he be deceived? Are you saying that we shouldn't pray about things that bother us?

@@brentlarsen4414 I see your point, and it is well taken. But I can rebut some parts. He might have not been ex-communicated when he prayed, but if he got answers directly contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, it wasn’t the Spirit of God answering. Members can and should ask questions, but it still must be with a sincere heart, with real intent, just as Moroni told everyone. Members get false revelations when receiving them in pride or hatred. Also, there is a huge difference between someone who is investigating, who has never had the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and receiving the Light of Christ to find the truth on the one hand, and on the other hand, someone who had the full Gospel and Gift of the Holy Ghost, but who is now seeking to subvert the teachings of the prophets by “revelation.” Such a person must be consumed with evil spirits and must repent or will fall and cause the downfall of many others. I still assert that you should not listen to an ex-communicated person telling you to follow the “spirit”, because unless they are speaking from a place of sincere repentance and a desire to come back into the fold, they are speaking from any other source than from God. It is a different standard for those who have had the Truth and rejected it than for those who have not yet found it.

Good to know that what claims to the Christ's true church on the earth can cancel someone's salvation and doom them to Hell because they believe that a personal testimony of Jesus Christ is more important than the corporate structure.

@@rowleskids I said nothing about Hell. Sorry bud.

Are you kidding? The history of war between the descendants of Hagar and the descendants of Sarah is endless! It rages on to this day in the middle east and elsewhere. Abram's and Sarai's decision to try surrogacy via Hagar rather than trust the Lord ended terribly with generational consequences. Utah polygamy brought the saints to the precipice of destruction. They were about to lose everything if they did not abandon the practice. Go read the manifesto carefully to understand the dire situation they faced. After they ended it things turned around.

@@whyisgamora3721 Do you realize how narrow your vision is right now? Polygamy had nothing to do with wars between descendants of Hagar and Sarah. Land did. That would be saying 'Oh, Lehi shouldn't have had so many sons, so there wouldn't have been wars from the Lamanites and Nephites in the future.' Your premise is so off the target, yet you want to look at that and blame polygamy. Seriously? Polygamy had nothing to do with Ishmaels seed believing they had the portion of the land promised to them by God and not the Jews. Utah polygamy had nothing to do with the destruction of their people. Unrighteous government authority did. You assume that just because bad things happened to Mormons, it was because of polygamy. This is why I am so frustrated at the lies that polygamy deniers. They are tying strings around a slippery slope and it all is connected to polygamy, when the morals, oaths, covenants, and rights we get from God come from families who practiced polygamy.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 You were the one who framed the fruits of polygamy as a test of its purity, not me. Now you want to blame me for using the standard that you framed! Ha!

@@whyisgamora3721 It's not just you. If you arguing against my claim with the idea polygamy had bad fruit. Don't compare apples to oranges. None of what you said relates in anyways to the fruit of polygamy.

It really comes down to your definition of fruit. You did use the word vile paired with bad fruit. Was it vile that my one grandmother was left to make her own way in the world while supporting her children, while her husband just joined with his other wife? The majority of her children are still faithful LDS. And what does being faithful LDS have to do with having charity? I know plenty of card carrying people that only do good works if there is something in it for them or they can be seen, while at the same time I know non LDS people that would literally give the shirt off their backs for a stranger, and Vice Versa. In the end, I'm glad I'm not Lord of the Vineyard. Christ is Lord, and the ultimate judge.

Thanks for your contribution to the truth. After this, I don’t see any big changes coming in the foreseeable future.

@@Chet-hv4po Definitely not if the options continue to be as presented. I think a very significant percentage of members do not believe Joseph Smith was a polygamist, or do believe polygamy is a tradition of men that the church rightfully abandoned, or both. I took a survey a few months ago that had questions along those lines (came from a good friend in a church public relations position), so the church actually probably has some really good numbers on that, but those are the sort of facts that are not necessarily useful. The more people that speak up in good faith, the better. Thanks for your efforts too. It’s a really interesting time for sure.

I think we should know by now that the ends of spectrum of polygamy were religion and politics. Especially court cases when Brigham was governor to a territory whose interests was to receive statehood but maintain its religious rights. It is much too simple to say that our fundamental part of 'our' polygamy contained lower status since we are dealing with mostly a political issue in cases of divorce. Plus I'm also wondering how many women actually sued for alimony back then on top of petitioning for divorce. Divorce was not granted so easily as it is today and that mostly had to do with financial issues the woman would face. To petition for alimony would assume that the woman would still financially depend on Brigham with no plans of remarrying which I believe would be rare back then since women mostly depended on marriage or father for their financial status. For these reasons we shouldn't look at a court case in deciding how 'our' polygamy looked like. I'm still not 100% sure what concubines meant. I assume they were wives that came from subordinate family lineages marrying into one with higher family status. But I could be wrong. In any case, I would be interested to know how every one of Brighams wives were cared for. Was there equality in terms of financial support based on need? Or was there preferential treatment based on Brighams liking. Would be interesting?

​@@gwendolynwyneWhat were some of the results from the survey?

@@ramsrnja Oh I have no insider info on that kind of stuff. The survey was sent to me (and many others) by a friend, who in her capacity as [low level public relations calling] was helping get the survey to active members. I took it and was fascinated by the questions. Polygamy was only a small part; also asked about was to what degree the respondent expected the church to seal same sex couples in the temple (answers options ranged from not expected at all to absolutely confident); lots of garment wearing questions; perceptions of another person’s righteousness if they have abused a small animal/etc. Really interesting but the kind of snapshot data gathering you could tell would never be released.

Moses got his Priesthood Authority through his Father-in-Law, who got his priesthood authority through Ishmael if I remember right.

There are a lot of things to consider here. First of all, I don’t think Abraham lusted after Hagar, and he did not marry her. It was a legal custom back then for a man to use his wife’s handmaid as a surrogate mother to give his wife a child. Abraham’s sin, I think, was in not trusting the Lord to give him a son through his wife, as the Lord had promised. Hagar and Ishmael ended up being sent away, and Isaac was considered Abraham’s only son at that point. But God had already promised Abraham an enormous posterity, and I think Ishmael ended up being a part of the fulfillment of that promise. Ishmael and Hagar had done nothing wrong, so they were blessed in their exile. On the other hand, David full on committed adultery with Bathsheba.

@@lisatreelove9278 Let me ask you this: If we had such a legal custom today, would it count as adultery in God's eyes?

I think two main developments have contributed to this: 1) DNA testing has found no descendants other than from Emma 2) the completed Joseph Smith Papers have shown that every single pro-polygamy quote by Joseph was not contemporary, but was added to the history as a revision or recollection after his death. And on the topic of the JSP, I think many people (myself included) were surprised at how vigorously Joseph Smith condemned polygamy during his life. It was total. So those two things make people want to reexamine the situation.

"God said that only Joseph Smith Jr. could receive commandments from God as his Anointed Prophet." Sidney Rigdon's son John W. made that point in an affidavit late in his life: "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." The idea that some 30 high-ranking church leaders and about 50 women in Nauvoo could introduce and practice polygamy without Joseph knowing about it and approving it is nonsensical.

Boom! 100%. Case closed.

Some people don't look at that as plural marriage. You don't take her as your wife in the normal sense. You just make it possible for her to be a mother. The father of the child is counted as the dead man. The expectation is that the wife will be with the dead husband in eternity. Many people see that as being quite different from polygamy.

@@gwengold8154 I understand what you are saying, but my point is that it shows monogamy was not the only marriage arrangement permitted. Also, no where does God prohibit plural marriage in the OT when he goes to great lengths to prohibit all kinds of behaviors. Even Martin Luther, the Reformer, stated he could find no scriptural prohibition for polygamy in the Bible.

@lemjwp1756 Good point.

It's the lesser of two evils, that being that she is destitute. Women are cursed as it is with being dependent on someone for survival, at keast historically. It would be like saying God approves of abusive parents because obviously he has no problem sending his children down to abusive parents. We are here to learn what the ideal is, not just what is allowed because of our fallen circumstances.

Looking back on the debate, it seems like Jacob Isbell was relying heavily on an assumption that he never really proved AND this resulted him basically a lot of straw man attacks on Jacob's position. Steel Man of Jacob Isbell's argument, as clearly as I - IF Joseph Smith practice polygamy, he would have done so openly with official records of the sealings - There are no official records of the sealings - All unofficial records (statements attributed to Joseph Smith after the fact, or journal entries of people who heard Joseph Smith talk about it) are all untrustworthy. The problem is that the first item is just held on faith, there's no evidence for it, and Jacob Hansen does not grant that premise. Hansen was arguing that Joseph was practicing it in secret, and Isbell spent most of his time arguing not against Joseph Smith practicing it in secret, but against him practicing polygamy in public. And not only is that first premise REALLY shaky, but then there is a problem with the end of the argument as well... if all quotes from Joseph Smith after the fact or in other people's journals are de facto unreliable, then that is as true of Joseph Smith condemnations of polygamy as it would be for quotes about him teaching it or practicing it. So essentially this last point abolishes any argument that Joseph Smith was against polygamy, either. So yeah, either side may be unreliable... but it is telling that the preponderance of the evidence is on the side that he taught and practiced polygamy.