Another point of context: My wife does a lot of ‘indexing’, where she reads batches of birth, marriage, or death records and enters the data into a form so it can be added to a searchable database. Many of these records are from the 1800’s. She’s constantly amazed by how many of the brides were young teenagers when they got married. Most of the husbands were much older than their wives. These records are from Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, and the like. The individuals whose names were recorded on these records were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They may have never heard of the Church. So, why would we find it odd that people in Utah got married at similar ages? Why did women get married so young while men got married so much later in life? At the time, and for much of human history, marriage was primarily an economic partnership. When a woman was ready to have and raise children of her own, she was ready to marry. Her economic value to the marriage - the number and health of the children she could produce - was at its peak. It would only decrease as she got older. The same wasn’t true for men. In general, it took a young man a decade or more to establish himself financially so he could support a wife and family. This meant that the most attractive available men - the ones with an established farm or business - were likely in their 30’s or 40’s. Those were the men young women wanted to marry, the ones who could support the children she would contribute to the marriage.
It is patently apparent that all someone needs to do, for profit and some attention, is to accuse Latter-day Saints of some additional horrific thing, with absolutely no substance or evidence, and the immediate hullabaloo is guaranteed!! THIS sort of action is Satanically sponsored!! Accurate, reasonable and documented evidence like yours is vital!!
It’s not shocking that young girls got married to older men. It’s shocking that Brigham married a 13 year old when he already had many wives. What was the point of it?
I have noticed a similar pattern in the genealogy as well. So many men had two wives in series, the first one being close to his own age, her passing in her late thirtys or early fortys after having five or six children. Then he married a younger woman again who was 20 to 2, with him being 40 to 45. He would then have another family of five or 6 with the younger wife. This was quite common in America and England and these families were mostly protestant.
@@shireecox122well, the question to ask is, do we have any journal entries or documents that add more information? Without more information than the age of the girl, we can’t answer that question based on fact, only based on speculation or “mind reading.” That’s not really great history.
• LDS women became the first women to have the right to vote in the US. • LDS women became one of the first doctors in the US. • Brigham Young founded 10 hospitals (Deseret hospitals). Later, the Church donated these hospitals. NOT everything in church history is bad. Anti Mormons have a fascination for the past mistakes but guess who else has a fascination on bringing back our past mistakes? … the adversary.
LDS women can't hold the priesthood. LDS women can't be prophets or apostles. LDS women were and sometimes still are actively discouraged from pursuing careers or education. Gordon B. Hinckley bought a shopping mall Etc.
I'm not sure anybody is claiming that everything about church history is bad. It's just that the bad stuff is pretty bad and oftentimes members of the church are completely unaware of it. People who are shining light on the negative history of the church or doing so because the church doesn't. So I'm glad that you're sharing some of these good parts of church history. But how long did those 10 hospitals separate blood by race? I mean it's great that they exist but I don't know how many members know about the one drop rule when it came to discriminating against black people in the state of Utah. Anyway I mean no harm I just.. I'm reading through these comments and there's just so much "why do we have to focus on the negative?" And it's because the church completely ignores it and acts like it didn't happen.
THIS!! I was gonna write out my own couple paragraphs, but you put it perfectly. Awareness goes both ways, to learn only about the great things is telling only half the story. Johnny, in his own bias, is telling his side of the story. As someone who has African American ancestry, it’s still pretty tough to see the larger relationship the LDS church has with black folks. (Given the mark of Cain is literally in lGod’s text” smh) This is something I would’ve never known if somebody (who wasn’t in the church) actually told me the truth about the belief system. Shoutout Johnny fr
Are we looking for harm where there was none? Do we acknowledge the harm when there was harm? Somehow I sense an attitude of "It's okay for me to avoid my own salvation because someone acted dodgy once. I am off the hook to go to church because I can find a way to paint that church black." No attack on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds water. Once you hear the entire story, all the details, the truth shows the Church belongs to Jesus Christ in both name and spirit. Meanwhile, I should shut my judgy mouth and repent. I just know that Jesus Christ knows how to do His own work, and can run His Church just fine.
When I was in linguistics we were challenged to use the Desert Alphabet in two ways: 1) write a letter to someone and send them the character key, and 2) read out loud something written in the Deseret Alphabet from the 1800s that. Both tasks were doable. One interesting fact about the Deseret Alphabet is, since it is based on sound, it helped preserve the accent from the New England area in the 1800s to be used in movies.
Thanks for what you do! Your balanced responses to slights against the church are exactly what is needed in these discussions. I hope your channel continues to reach bigger and bigger audiences. You’ve earned a loyal subscriber. Keep it up.
There are no Mormon Saints. You need the true Christ to be a Saint, and he’s fully absent from this religion of Satan. They have a Bible, but they certainly don’t believe it based on the nonsense Joseph Smith and the other prophets of the false LDS Church have deceived these poor people with 😢
There is an anti-lds tractate from the 1800s, "The Mormon Puzzle", where this guy goes to Utah to discredit Mormons and he basically says, "yea polygamy is weird but not that many people even really do it, so lets go aftee their theology instead."
Just a smaller sub-set that came to mind. After the American civil war it was very common as an economic practice for aged veterans to marry extremely young girls who would act as maids, cooks, and caretakers to these men because when they died the women would receive a widow’s pension for the rest of their lives. I believe the last civil war bride died in the 1950’s or there about.
@@Glass-Lookerhad he been "very fair in his presentation" of church history, David would not have responded with his own video or been able to point out important omissions.
That's what I was trying to address in the beginning of the video. Overall, I felt that Johnny's retelling of this portion of Latter-day Saint history was pretty fair - especially compared to what most critics like to say. Aside from the points I address here, and in spite of his general attitude and tone (which is obviously biased against the Church), he stuck to the facts, which I'm grateful for. And in light of that, I can't think of a reason to make a response to the entire video. I only wanted to address a few concerns I had and to add some context and clarity to those concerns. But thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts!
6:23 I don’t know if anyone has noticed this before, but the borders of Deseret essentially are a combination of the Colorado River basin and the Great Basin, plus a little bit of California. I always talk about this whenever I’m complaining about the newest drought because it would mean less of a hassle for state water rights lol
Why do exmos leave the church.... But cant leave the church? Its like the LDS faith lives rent free in all the exmos head!😳. I just dnt get it. They say they're happy they left the faith, but they sound so unhappy since they left the faith!
@@ahh-2-ahh though not all former members attack the church, I can see how exmos see the church as this cultish organization that needs to be taken down for the benefit of society, like death cults or Scientology. Problem is their bitterness is usually a personal issue with themselves, someone they know, or just their personal theology, and they blame the chruch for every wrong thing in their life.
I’ve seen this alot too. Being anti almost becomes part of their identity, I’m grateful for friends that dont come to church anymore but I can still be social and friendly with. It’s classic breakup behavior, I’m so over you…wonder what you are doing right now? 😂
Hi ex-mo here. Number one, I am happy. I know I can’t convince you my happiness is true happiness, but I promise you it is I am having a good life. Number two if people applied the same logic to other social issues it would be problematic. You left your abuser but you can’t leave abuse alone. You fleed slavery you can’t seem slavery alone. You left an organization that you feel harmed you but you can’t leave it alone and let it harm others. I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m just sharing my perspective and trying to answer your questions.
@eljefeelpadron1843 polyamory by definition includes both women loving multiple men and men loving multiple women. Both are becoming more accepted regardless of the morality of it.
Thanks for making these videos team! For years I’ve wondered how I can learn about complex church history in a way that won’t damage my faith. I love that you bring context, a lens of faith, and you deliver it in a format that is so gee dee entertaining. This is exactly what the church needs. Thank you!
Very lacking on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. First the members who did this were all first generation converts and still carried a lot of anger about not only the murder of Joseph Smith, but also the Missourians who beat and raped their women in Missouri. These people traveling through the area did boast of being part of that attack on the LDS community in Missouri and claimed that the army marching on Utah would allow a repeat of that atrocity that happened less than 20 years ago. It was reported that they were also poisoning wells by throwing dead animals in them. There was also a good deal of fear about the US Army marching on Utah and what would happen. Brigham Young was occupied with trying to bring peace to the conflict while this group of settlers was in southern Utah some distance away. The Church members reacted to these problems like much of the pioneer people did against the Indians and decided to kill all but the infants. They used the local Indians to scare the pioneers and then promised them safe passage by escort. Then, at a signal, they shot all the Adults and children adopting only the infants into their families. We have a saying: we make bad men good and good men better. I believe that the combination of past persecution and the pending arrival of the US Army (10,000+) bent on punishing the Church along with some bad characters in the pioneer group triggered the local decision to kill the pioneers. If you realize the atrocities of Missouri, and that they claimed to have been a part of it, you too might have been tempted to take revenge. Brigham Young, in a tense negotiation, was able to calm the leaders of the Army and avoid conflict in the Salt Lake area.
One other piece I never see mentioned is that there were multiple men that said no within the community, even after all that happened. There were men like Jacob Hamblin who actively tried to stop it by riding as fast as he possibly could to Brigham Young in Salt Lake at a time when most Latter Day Saint settlements were on basically lockdown in fortified communities. My husband and I both have family who were in the Cedar City area. Both of the patriarchs of those families attended the meeting where this was proposed, forbade their households from having anything involved, and my own some number of greats grandfather testified against John D Lee in the trial. This was far from some gung-ho unified community effort.
“It would be inappropriate to apply our current understanding on people 150 years ago.” Yes, times were different, but everyone around them seemed to be critical of their practices at the time. No one thought Mormons were normal 150 years ago.
It wasn't because of polygamy because it wasn't introduced and practiced on a noticeable scale until well after heavy persecution was already present. They were driven from state to state before polygamy. People hated the mormons because they were anlarge political block and converted a lot of people.
@@NateDecker1982this was a fear but no when Joseph rallied the Mormon mob to destroy the printing press the expositor, that was the nail in the coffin that got him killed. Polygamy was also a concern for people as well. But you are right, people were afraid of what Mormons were capable of because of their number, what they believed and they would do ANYTHING for Joseph.
8:20 Yeah I find this idea of “I can’t belong to something that was damaging in the past” to be a little weird. It’s generally one sided. They didn’t renounce their American citizenship when they found out about slavery. They haven’t stopped driving cars or buying tech when they found out a lot of it comes from Israel and they are supporting that occupation. So to hyper-fixate on a single damaging thing and state “this is what I’ll give up” seems strange. As you said, I’m grateful to see progress and improvement.
It’s not so much that it was damaging in the past as that the truth claims are undermined by evidence of many kinds, and an earnest belief in truth is what motivated my membership in the first place.
@@Itsjoemaddock To which I disagree. I probably spent 400+ hours last year listening to Mormon Stories and other exmo content, then doing my own research. My conclusion at the moment is both sides have produced logically correct arguments (sometimes they don’t even reach that metric), but neither have established logical truth. Translation for those that don’t care about formal logic: the arguments follow correct rules of logic, they haven’t proved their assumptions, so it cannot be regarded as truth.
@@AmazingTheScott I'm not sure your question made sense but I'll make an attempt. Despite how many times an atheist will tell you otherwise, there is no to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. It is a fundamental Philosophy 101 principle that the absence of something does not prove its actual non-existence. So I very much believe Mormon theology is logically correct (sometimes called logical soundness) but there are several assumptions that can never be proven/disproven. Chief among them "There is a God and he is your heavenly father." It is only through faith and other methods such as the LDS concept of "feeling the spirit" by which those may become "true" to an LDS member. But based on pure human senses and logic, we cannot. I'm fine with that, other non-believers obviously are not. Another assumption is that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. I do believe that happened, but there is absolutely no evidence suitable for human senses and reasoning. The trees are not forever scorched. No one else observed it directly, etc. So we are limited to whether the historical records indicate he had sudden new knowledge or information after that day, and then we assume his story is correct and that the information came from God. Finally, for an example of an exmo argument. In the Mormon Stories breakdown of how the BoM came to be, they cast doubt on the idea the book was written only a few months. They used the quote from Lucy Mack Smith that Joseph would recite stories of the old world saying 'He's like a comedian, refining and working out what his best material is.' This is all well and good, but then there is no logical loop back to determine if that was actually true. Was he writing any of this down? Why don't we have those notes? Why don't we have quotes from any family members saying he seemed to be writing a lot during that time? Even comedians don't do that. If he didn't write it down, how does this story with 162 named characters make any sense at all? There are certainly obvious historical examples of complex recited stories such as the Oddessy, but even that has only 120 characters. So their small assumption turns into a very large one. Essentially suggesting Joseph Smith was a better writer and had a more brilliant mind than something regarded as a classic 2000 years later. So they have satisfied "It is possible" within my head, but are very far away from "this is reality and no one can question it."
@@AmazingTheScott YT swallowed up another long response so that’s fun. The TL;DR is that I absolutely believe things like Joseph’s Smiths mechanism of translating from the plates. But it cannot be proven or disproven based on pure logic and human reasoning.
Saw this video pop up in my feed and felt I shouldn't watch it. Scrolled past. And now your video popped up the same day! Thanks for your thoughtful and fair response!
I don't like Johnny Harris's videos. The dude's understanding of history is just horrendous (the best example is videos on his former religion and the Mexican American war) I honestly find his stuff insulting
His point, is to convince himself, and others, of how evil, idiotic, foolish, dumb, and wrong Mormonism is. Not *really* to express full transparent truth. It’s to tell and shape a narrative
Yeah Johnny is basically disinformation false information youtuber. Sad people actual think they learn something from his videos. they are historical trash
Yeah the church teaches it so much better. I remember in depth church history lessons, historically accurate accounts of the ancestry of the Native Americans that could be proven by DNA evidence, and being taught by revelation straight from God by his chosen prophet/apostles about the divine privilege of the white skin color (unless of course he is speaking as a man). Oh wait...
Which historians? There is no evidence of this. There’s plenty of people who say this out of tradition, but there is no evidence for the age of Mary. I don’t understand why people try to defend children being wives and mothers.
@@danielclingen34 @danielclingen34 "The Protovangelion of James (also called The Infancy Gospel of James). The earliest manuscript dates to the 3rd century, but textual analysis has placed the origin to mid- to late-2nd century AD (for comparison, the canonized infancy gospels date to 80-130 AD (Luke) and 80-100 AD (Matthew)). This text states that Mary was 12 when she was betrothed. As with Pseudo-Matthew, it places her in the temple, dedicated to the Lord, living there in the style of Samuel. She has to get married off because the priests are concerned “lest the holy place of the Lord our God be defiled” (8:3) with the onset of puberty (recall that the Law of Holiness required purification after giving birth (Leviticus 12:6 and Luke 2:22) and for menstruation (Lev. 15:19-30))."
The problem with early church polygamy is that we don’t know how much was for sealing purposes and how much was for raising posterity. One could argue that many of the wives early church members had were non sexual relationships and for the blessing of being sealed in the temple only. Many women requested to be sealed to Joseph After he died.
We have to remember these people just faced severe persecution and many of the men were killed. God used polygamy to care for these women and discontinued it at the appropriate time.
That is a myth that needs to be corrected. That is not why polygamy was practiced. Please read D&C 132. And as far as it ending when it was appropriate is also incorrect. The church ended it because of pressure from the government. It is still doctrine today. Just not practiced for the living. Currently Russell M Nelson and Elder Oaks are both sealed to two woman.
I completely agree with you but to add also D&C 29:34 … all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam…. Just to emphasize that polygamy wasn’t instituted because of mortal circumstances.
Hey could you do a video about the garden of Eden being in Missouri I’m very confused and it’s hard when I look it up cuz all I see is anti Mormon literature
What is anti Mormon literature vs Mormon literature? There are facts and fiction you should look at information to see if it's true or false, and not throwing out true information because it wasn't said by someone with the exact same beliefs as you. The church conditions us to think that anyone who doesn't believe in the church can't be trusted. I think what you are asking, is for someone to sugar coat a tough pill to swallow. I used to be in the same boat where I was looking for answers to all of these hard questions. But just like real sugar doesn't give you lasting nutritional satisfaction these sugar coated responses also don't satisfy your sincere questions and concerns.
@@darrencollinwood142 that’s very important to think about and I appreciate your comment I try to be honest and not shy away from the truth because of a belief but I know with certainty the church is true and I the question I had has been kinda answered but thanks for commenting and have a great day
My Grandpa had 9 kids, 6 girls, my mom being one of them, who were all very close to my grandpa. About 20 years ago he passed away and devastated all the women, many who didn't marry men of God. Listening to your video yesterday and a pull to stay at my parents house brought me a revelation (per se) this morning: God the father is read to be masculine because electricity comes before magnetism (light of the world/ breath of the cosmos). When that light in men is devoid of God it becomes Luciferic and toxic. This brought me to realize that only men of peace can or should be patriarchs and Kings because if you cannot contain your own peace how could you ever contain another and why would you want to. In a world devoid of God it's easy to superimpose that void upon another and intent thereof. People who don't have reverence for God impose the worst aspects of man in their own image upon another. Because my grandpa grounded and contained the family together ungodly men and implications thereof could be ignored until he wasn't there marking the point to which we couldn't ignore and had to correct. What your video in concert with my last 24h showed me is that Godly men took Jurisdiction and venue of women who maybe couldn't on their own whereby there was no other mechanism maybe to do so, and perhaps kept society from falling apart particularizing dependency. This, then an enemy of the state and all things with a vested interest in enmeshment and therefore satanic...
This video has made me think about the Church for the first time in a while. Just in case this is helpful to anyone reading, here’s an analogy for how I think their persuasion works from the clarity of being on the outside: Imagine I wanted to convince you that 2+2=5. That would seem to be a tall order, but our relationship to our subconscious sense of the transcendent is so mysterious, and our need for community so deep, that I could exploit it to convince you. I could write a tear-jerkingly beautiful symphony and tell you that the official stance of that symphony is that 2+2=5. I would play it for you and tell you to search your heart for a feeling of abiding truth, and if you find it that is undeniable proof that 2+2=5. I could further bolster my case by convincing your friends and family that the only reason someone *wouldn’t* believe 2+2=5 is that they are shameful, untrustworthy, etc…
Israel is infamous we written about about for its sin and disobedience to God. Israel also had very little to do with the Bible. Furthermore, kings were not spiritual leaders.
I love how you mentioned what it means to be "the chosen people of the Lord." That phrase has been misunderstood by so many people! What you said is exactly right about the church, just like it was about the Israelites. They were chosen to be a holy priesthood to serve the rest of the world. Much the same way that the Levites served all Israel. Yes, there are Jews that take it to mean they're better than anyone else, and there are members of the church that think that they are better than anyone else. Those people are wrong!
4:06 it’s not inappropriate to put current moral standards onto past generations. If you aren’t able to do that, then you must admit your morality is subjective, not objective.
I totally agree with you David. He lets some presuppositions & assumptions linger out there for the listener to backfill undoubtedly erroneously. Otherwise, I thought Johnny was relatively fair in his video (with some notable exceptions). For anyone who hasn't read it, the first section of the Light and Truth Letter talks about manipulation tactics used by critics
I find it interesting that the attack on teenage brides comes up over and over again without any historical context. Age of Consent laws weren’t firmly established in the United States until generally the 1880s. Even then, those ages were generally around the time of menarche except for Delaware which was 7. Later in the 20th Century the ages were raised. Thus, it can be assumed that not only were the marriages to teenage brides legal but also accepted by the general public.
Additional correction: In the video Johnny Harris says Joseph Smith is "... father to 14 children, husband to 40 wives". Every source I look at says Joseph Smith had 11 children, two of whom were adopted, all with Emma. I'm not sure where he got 14 from. There were allegations he had children with some of his plural wives but none have been proven. The way it's phrased sort of implies that he had these children with all these women when in reality they were all with Emma. It also skips over adoption which would give a different impression.
Ugggh too many “they leave the church but they can’t leave it alone” comments here. Active member here. It drives me crazy when my fellow members say/write that phrase. Guys, Mormonism is more than just a church you attend from time to time. Mormonism is a culture. Mormonism shapes lives. Mormonism creates the framework by which people live. On top of all of that, many “exmos” are still on the records of the church, still have family who are members, still live in communities with active members, etc. And members of this faith don’t leave exmos alone. We don’t. We reach out. We text. We knock on their door. We call. We try to bring them back into the fold. And then we wonder why they express themselves on social media. You know, social media, the platforms that are DESIGNED to get people to post stuff. And we get offended when they post stuff we don’t agree with. C’mon ya’ll. Get over yourselves. Who cares if people post their experience, their beliefs, and their criticisms of the church. Let them worship how, where or what they may. And leave it at that.
Past events? What they did then may not be allowed now. True. But why did God know that? Why did he allow something that now he does not like? Silly defence.
Do you understand when a Muslim leaves their religion and needs to unpack how it hurt them? What about a Scientologist? Are they allowed to speak about their experiences? Is the rule of keeping quiet only meant for ex Mormons? Because I see a lot of ads from the church and the members seem very vocal about how they feel. So people are only allowed to speak openly when you agree with them?
Yeah you're talking about something different. Unpacking past trauma is not the same as continuously producing content about your former faith while purposefully omitting key facts.
So the whole idea that "it wasnt like that back then" does't really work because, yes the age of consent was lower, yes there were indivduals getting married at a younger age. However, and a big HOWEVER, is that those were mostly marriages between two younger individuals not between a 43 year old and a 13 year old. Even "back then" that was weird.
@@Zez88 in our modern day, everything is sexualized. While today seeing a teenager and 40 year old get together as sick and illegal, back then, it might've been more for economic reasons. Women had 0 finicial independence. If you can 1.) Get married young to a man who's financially well-off and 2.) Be financially supported, then you're basically set for life. Also people died younger too. In times like those wouldn't you get married as early as possible?
I am not sure big age gaps were that weird. As a sample, Jane Austen has two large age gap relationships. One couple meeting when she is 16 and he is 35 (marrying at 19 and 37) and another with a 17 age gap where he literally talks about holding her as a baby. Nobody bats an eye at these matches in the text, in fact they are celebrated.
@@HRHtheDiva The only time it was common in the west to have 50+ wives with multiple being teenagers was with the Mormons... It was not common to have a 30 age year gap and that to be your 20+ wife
Young wives is a problem for me, and for most people I know. I realize it was a different time but still…… I haven’t left the Church over it, but I would like some more explanation of why. Why? What was the need of that?
We'll be getting more in-depth into that data in an upcoming episode. I included lots of resources in the RU-vid description of this video that might be helpful in the meantime, though!
We are all entitled to our opinions, however it sad to see that those who leave the Church are so hostile to us. I hope that hearts will be softened.👍🇦🇺🙏
Questioning members and those who leave the church are upset because they are maligned and demonized by their TBM family for daring to do so. President Nelson has been stoking the fire of dissention among those with his rhetoric to "never take counsel from those who do not believe", and those that leave are "lazy learners and lax disciples". How is that kind and loving?
I'm not sure why Johnny Harris' video came up on my feed today, but it did. I'm not familiar with him but i did fairly quickly sense that undertone of cynicism and bitterness in the way he talked. It's sad for me to see that same energy so commonly in my family and friends that have left the church. So few seem to actually go on to do better things with their lives or actually be happier. They can't seem to be objective or rational about their thoughts and feelings towards the church, Mormon culture, or the gospel (often times they don't recognize the difference between those things.) So when this video was suggested in my feed i gave it a look, and the energy is so much better. Your view seems so much broader, more gracious, and truth seeking, instead of fault seeking.
Thanks for the video suggestion. In the meantime, this is a great resource: mormonr.org/qnas/5y13H/second_anointing?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwz7C2BhDkARIsAA_SZKYlt1SDxHzl8DWpjXzhWQIg8ounuf1oZjrjCTo-2NtSI4sL7gQ6ShIaAkNjEALw_wcB
During Brigham Young’s time the average lifespan of a male was 40.4 years old. People at that time married much earlier than now because their lifespan was almost half of what we have now! 12, 13, 14 years old was the normal age one would get married!
Why did no one address that Brigham did nothing to punish those who murdered? Also he encouraged cattle raiding and so is responsible for these actions also.
There is mixed evidence on what role Brigham Young and the church had in the massacre. He was a man believed to be talking directly to God by his followers. God's messenger telling them outsiders were coming to slaughter them, handing them guns, and telling them they would soon need to fight the outsiders. He even encouraged distrust of the wagon trains and forbid Mormons from selling them supplies. The argument that he didn't pull the trigger on these specific innocent outsiders so therefore is blameless for the massacre is disingenuous. He told them "not to" after already implying that they would need to.
I think it’s important whether you are a believer in the church or not to look at the data without lenses on. Your first point is literally refuted by the graph that Johnny shows. I paused the video to analyze it and I’ve cross referenced it to typical data of the time. The graph shows that while the rest of the US’s marriage ages were increasing, Utah bride’s age was declining in polygamous marriages specifically. The old argument of being able to provide more children does not hold true either. Think of those 56 wives of Brigham Young had they married monogamously if each had just 2-3 children (a small batch of kids for the time) then there would have been more children/population. And statistically speaking it is so easy to fact check marriage ages in the mid to late 1800s. No it is not early to mid teens. And a 13 year old bride? Whether the marriage was consummated or not she was now unable to court. Her life was essentially ruined. Again this has nothing to do with whether you are a believing member or not. You can believe in the good parts of the church that bless your life and your family. But be sure to take off any lenses of belief to fact check and be willing to accept data over the stories.
From the day they were born, I've taught my 10 living children that we have two choices when we're reproved; we can repent, or we can blame someone else. God bless Johnny that he will make the right choice.
@@Itsjoemaddock Perhaps from the perspective of the "great and spacious building." But as the Savior taught, repentance is the healing process that brings about salvation. Blaming someone else never leads to personal salvation in God's kingdom.
@@oxfordbuckingham5841 I mean I get the sentiment… but taking that mindset would make it really easy for someone to take advantage of you. We don’t want to fixate too much on blaming others… but if we can revert to Christian rhetoric to make it where other people are basically “never” wrong… I mean, there’s a certain danger there…
@@Itsjoemaddock You're not making much sense, sorry. I don't see how anyone can take advantage of me. Actually, if you look at most human nature you will see that the choice to take responsibility for one's actions and repent if on the wrong side and, if not, to blame others is how most people respond to personal error. They have an issue with pride that is their obstacle to taking the route the Savior promoted, which is the route of contriteness, humility and repentance; Sunday School 101.
@@oxfordbuckingham5841 OK… let’s make it concrete. Let’s say that the Book of Abraham is demonstrably a false translation, that all evidence points to it being made up by Joseph Smith. If I point out that fact, am I revealing that I have a secret sin? Is there any lie that the leaders of the church could tell that I could point out without revealing myself as a sinner by this logic?
07:34 It doesn’t matter if Young didn’t approve the massacre. This is a militia FORMED by the Mormon Church. I understand he wants to “not justify it”, but still wants to shift the blame.
@@fightingfortruth9806 Those migrants hadn’t done anything to Mormons nor declared war. This was a violent attack orchestrated by the some in the Mormon leadership. Whatever other people had done previously to them has no bearing in this.
2:48 regarding presentism, early Mormon polygamy was absolutely not socially ok or accepted in that time. Old men marrying young girls was a huge complaint during that time against Mormonism.
Definitely bias in such topics. Johnny did a great job, factually, and was good to interject the ending where he's obviously speaking from a con, rather than a pro, position. Question for you! You said you find truth in Mormonism. What is it, that is unique to Mormonism, that you find true? Secondly, how do you know you wouldn't be closer to faith in Christ in another Christian church? Have you tried it?
Not op, but, The Book of Mormon The restored priesthood authority The Pearl of great price The doctrine and covenants Living prophets and apostles Temple ordinances and covenants. None of which seem to really be found in faiths outside Mormonism.
To me, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church that doesn't cherry pick from the Bible or other Christian faiths. Everything Jesus Christ has done (and has prophesied to do) is all acknowledged in His church. Prophets, apostles, priesthood authority, temples, symbolic rituals, church structure, progression after death, kingdoms of glory, final judgement, revelation, biblical practices, a literal plan of salvation for all, and everything Christ has said is all in the church, and there will be more to come.
I’d argue that while positions in the church share the same name as positions in the Bible, the connotations are very different than those found in the Old and New Testaments.
I’ll give you my answer: The Church of Jesus Christ believes the Biblical principle that all mortals are the offspring of God (Acts 17) literal children of The Almighty (Romans 8:16-17). That we existed with God before this mortal life, and that we will return home to Him after our earthly school is complete. We do not believe in a trinitarian God. We believe in a Godhead. 1. God our Father 2. Jesus Christ 3. The Holy Spirit 3 separate Beings with bodies, forms, parts and passions, working in perfect oneness, 😮unity, harmony, virtue, purpose, holiness.
A note on presentism-it often gets thrown out there as a sort of “get out of jail free card.” When we’re talking about prophets, seers and revelators in the context that is seen as a positive development for humanity, it is entirely reasonable to expect that men so connected to God would either be on the leading edge of change or be “men of their time” in our time as well. But this is another area of contradiction where the Church wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Arguments like this make no sense to me, honestly. I am reminded of Jonah in the Bible, who was a prophet and yet he was drenched in his own biases and ignorances. If all of Christendom, even those who do not believe in ongoing revelation and modern prophets, can agree that, despite his mortal failings, Jonah was indeed a prophet chosen by God to teach His people, then why is it so hard to assume that God would choose similar men today-men with their own biases and ignorances, within the context of their own societies?
It sounds like you dont really believe in the concept of presentism. Do you believe Joshua was a prophet? He was commanded by God to kill all the Canaanites man, woman, and child. Do you believe Moses was a prophet? He enforced the commandment to stone followers of God to death if they broke the Sabbath. Do you believe Paul was an apostle even though he wasn't married and wasn't really a fan of women? Even though prophets are called of God, God works with them according to the historical time and setting. Even the Word of Wisdom says it was crafted for the weakest of saints to obey. This means that we are most likely not even living the celestial food laws yet. We are way more liberal in some of our beliefs as a church today than the church back in Isaiah's day and (food laws, sabbath laws, etc.) we are more conservative in our beliefs in other things than their day (Polygamy, animal sacrifices, etc.). Unfortunately, we are not any more advanced morally today than we were back then, just different according to historical circumstances.
@@FaithMurri I think part of the problem is that the scriptures are often interpreted to mean prophets are either 100% prophetic or they are ill-intentioned deceivers. We don’t give much air time to the passages that hit on navigating gray areas and evaluating ideas by their intrinsic goodness.
Not sure where I land on this one, but it's a good question. I do wonder though if in some cases, not this one so much, but in some it presupposes our worldview is superior to theirs. Sometimes it isn't just presentism, but present centrism.
@@ijn2252 I think that’s definitely the case in some situations, most notably the magical worldview. With today’s science, progress on social morals and theology, it’s pretty easy to look at the way the Smith family lived and experienced spiritualism and uncertainty, and then discount everything that came through Joseph as a result. That’s why I think it’s important to unpack the issues and try to evaluate the intrinsic goodness as objectively as possible. For example, even while racism was commonplace there were many who fought against it as a matter of conscience. I am saddened and troubled that not only was the Church reluctant to jettison racist beliefs, but there was active, vigorous retrenchment on the part of many in the Q15. Does that mean we should look at someone like Mark E Peterson and say he was an evil villain? Of course not. But we should try to get to the bottom of why he believed what he believed, and see if that same structural pattern is fueling harmful, dogmatic beliefs in our day.
I think beyond Salt Lake City there were some pretty inspiring stories of expansion into the American West. San Francisco and Seattle come to mind. I think it can be said that the people willing to go to America in the first place had a certain common spirit that is very much a proactive view of life. And then the people who were willing to go west even further elevated that to another degree and I think is pretty obvious in the overall history of the American West. I mean its the pioneering spirit, to venture into the unknown, not to accept and conform to what everyone else was doing and to make something better for themselves. However I think it really was inevitable for people to transition away from the Mormon church because of this very spirit. They are venturing into the unknown, they aren't satisfied with what has been done before them, they aren't going to conform with what is considered normal and are going to go looking for something better. Its the continuation of the exact spirit that motivated their ancestors. It might not be what those ancestors intentioned but I think in a way its paying homage to them. I would just hope that more of them are able to honor the past and understand it in its complexity than be ashamed of it or regret it. Like I said its all part of that pioneering spirit that drives them to make and become something better than what they started with.
Men marrying kids will never not be weird to me. I understand that there’s some serious bias and cultural conditioning for me to say that, but I just don’t think you can look at that and not be put off. It’s a stumbling stone, to be sure. And it’s certainly tripped up plenty of the people around me.
They've already done a few videos on The Book of Abraham. They're just all on the Saints Unscripted channel ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I11WGlmkyKE.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_bXrGaE4MpE.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RY_zDpv2IF0.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-njsJ2XoLXLI.html Not from Saints Unscripted, but this article helped me out a ton when it came to Book of Abraham issues theapotheosisnarrative.wordpress.com/2020/08/16/the-catalyst-theory-has-always-been-at-the-core-of-mormonism/
Your context unfortunately does not make anything any better. This didn’t clear anything up, this is just you trying to make an excuse. Please find God.
INSANE! The Fold Rush 49ers weren't insane, orr were the Homesteaders, Mountain Men, gunslingers, or Oregon Trail Settlers. ONLY the Mormons were "InsNe".
Yeah you summed it up. Only the Mormons were a polygamist group that started a religious group built on a book a dude who used to look for treasure by looking in his hat. I personally can see how that would be interpreted as insane.
@@crackshot_cashew9385except he didn’t. Joseph didn’t look for treasure by looking in his hat; his treasure hunting days, while a teenager didn’t involve him looking in his hat. His use of his hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon was for an entirely different purpose, which you know but chose to obfuscate. When you have to lie to make your point, you don’t have a point.
