Did Joseph Smith Fight Polygamy? The Resurrection of an Old RLDS Narrative

Рет қаралды 7,426

Күн бұрын

The purpose of this video is to offer a complete refutation to the claims that Joseph Smith fought polygamy and Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, is the author of Mormon Plural Marriage using real facts, real history, and real data. A correct understanding of History in context strengthens faith and testimony in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For any questions on the historical data or facts presented in this video or to contact the author of this video, please send an email to defendingtherestoration@gmail.com

Пікірлер: 226

@remainingtruetotherestorat6506 Жыл бұрын

Brian Hales also made a video addressing specific claims made by Rob Fotheringham. Here is the link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYKUYmidbq2ffJo

@KenKrogue Жыл бұрын

Kimberly, thank you for your tireless efforts to defend both the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young!

@1god2674 Жыл бұрын

CON text a con deseption If I were going to give such a revelation I would give it to a woman And it wouldn't be forced on anybody at threat of destruction or anything force = not 🚫 love and think better of heaven Celestial Telestial Terrestrial That my friend is what you say "sad heaven" Upper class middle class and lower class members of a famley Just like you like it in the economic political religious systems that you've creATED from the tree of death you have no good vision of what heaven is supposed to be Yeah and it's my fourth "watch" yes i prove it to you maybe not in the way that you expect but I could certainly do that But you'll be too busy saying the same things as the Jews in the temple "We don't stone you for any good work we stone you because you being a man claim that you're god" Because I don't look like what the people who D.C.eived you told you I should look like I didn't come in the cloud because that would be cloudy judgment I did as I told Nicodemus Temple Deadication The pronunciation the deaf speak sacrifice symptom of Roman Egyptian brainWashinton D.C. Death Cult society D.C.eivers Die Crucifixion Deceive Citizens Deceive CONgregation Democratic CONGress Divide & CONquer Dollars Cents Declaration CONstitution D.C. de-see no see can't see Notsee hmmmmmm 👂 notsee Lucifer Devil Serpent Lacking Discernment Spiritually Did the profit of the "church" discern the correlation No They were too busy collecting the profits of Mammon owning the largest cattle operation offering much fruit of the tree of death dead animals hanging to the world as possible The skin of a dead animal is called the animals "hide" Adam & Eve had 2 hide themselves Clothed in unrighteousness The got sick Adam & Eve ill Evil eating ov the tree of death Has three branches Jewdicial legislative executive Adam & Eve A damNation of Evil KZbin My channel put your thinking cap on and watch a video longer than a minute The Freedumb Deception 2023 & voting fraud same channel and Medusa 🐍 Med USA 💊 🏛️Pillars 💊 & shots 💉 🔫 The very elect! D.C.eived D.C. Eve'd Holy grail I'm here just as I told Nicodemus

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

Joseph Smith does not practice or teach polygamy and did not write the book of Abraham. all written in Times and Seasons from 1842 onwards and in other newspapers of the time. Repent and keep the commandments of God and you will be blessed. Stop manipulating truth, history, and the doctrines of Joseph Smith and the Bible.

@lizkingbradley 18 күн бұрын

I guess no one needs to pray about the Book of Mormon because prophets have made a decision too. That’s disgusting and I don’t care who said it. That’s contrary to the teachings of God in scripture.

@WendyBallard64 Жыл бұрын

I was going to pray about this issue but then after watching Elder Renlund’s talk in the last conference I learned that I cannot get personal revelation on this topic because the brethren have already declared the truth about it. Still having questions and as a last resort (staying in my lane) I Googled "what should I believe about Joseph Smith's polygamy if I'm double jabbed, triple masked and quadruple boosted?" and was miraculously led here to your video. Your wise and thoughtful insights have been a literal godsend for me; a true miracle!!! When the fifth booster comes out let's go get it together as faithful sisters in Zion!!!!!!

@ImogeneBettr Жыл бұрын

Best comment:)

@nonamefirst8535 Жыл бұрын

"I condem it (polygamy). Yes, as a practice. Because I do not believe it is doctrinal." -Gordon B Hinkley

@CMZIEBARTH 2 ай бұрын

Yes, people can get their own personal revelation.

@BrianTerrill 26 күн бұрын

@nonamefirst8535 At the time, President Hinckley said that those practicing polygamy were doing it in violation of post manifesto practice and therefore not doctirnal.

@BrianTerrill 26 күн бұрын

@@CMZIEBARTHpeople can get their own personal revelation but there are those who abuse that principle to force their agenda. When I was single several women told me they had a revelation to marry me, that was neat but God never told me so I didn't act on it.

@Greg-McIver Жыл бұрын

I shared this with a good friend who had questions about the subject. It helped him clear things up perfectly. Thank you again.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@peterblair4448 5 ай бұрын

Fantastic research, well supported ideas! Thanks for your time and effort putting this together.

@allandrone330 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for this information Kimberly. I love the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, I’m looking forward to your next video; this strengthens my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ even more.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@SeekWidsom Жыл бұрын

They definitely fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy: “they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know” Isaiah 44:9.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@gardenEZ Жыл бұрын

Thank you for this much needed presentation! Satan is so clever, he knows that those who have a love for and testimony of Joseph Smith as the one who was chosen to restore Christ’s kingdom on earth can be deceived by other means. 1) He didn’t enter into plural marriage - this is something that appeals to all members who recoil at the thought, 2) Brigham Young wanted to institute it because he was a lustful and unholy man - why else would he happily have so many wives and children by them?, 3) the only way to get his way was to murder Joseph, take command of the church and form it in his own image. Sounds bulletproof to me! 🤦🏼‍♀️ This theory is spawned from the depths of hell, and Satan always has someone who is willing to do his bidding, sadly. Please continue to speak the truth, and those who have ears and eyes please share this message. God bless you dear Kimberly. 🙏🏻 I stand with Joseph AND Brigham.

@stevenhenderson9005 Жыл бұрын

Satan is so clever he lures people in with something that tastes sweet to the taste and very desirable, carefully binds them up so well with deceptive teachings and practices that when they discover that they have been deceived it becomes bitter to the belly. Rev. 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@robertandersen6387 Жыл бұрын

This was amazing! I have always loved Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The world is quite clueless about these men. I find it quite disappointing that even members of the church sometimes look at Brigham Young with cynicism or want to skip over him! How foolish and naive. Thank you, sister!

@icecreamladydriver1606 Жыл бұрын

This video is very incorrect. Go listen to michelle stone's latest video put out today. She has an awesome guest who has done a great deal of research. If that doesn't fit what you feel is right then go read Jacob chapters 2 and 3. Pray about it before and after reading it.

@deborahbarlow4309 10 ай бұрын

I agree you must pray before reading Jacob; I do not agree with the view that polygamy is wrong.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@dylanwilliams2202 5 ай бұрын

@@icecreamladydriver1606Michelle Stone is a liar and should be excommunicated from the Church for teaching false doctrine.

@freedomandcoffee 11 ай бұрын

i'm glad you addressed the joseph smith papers because those are the main arguments being used recently by polygamy denier LDS members.

@dumorefilms6263 Жыл бұрын

Kimberly, thanks for your valiancy, and your beautiful testimony. Your courageous efforts are helping many. Please don't stop.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@dumorefilms6263 9 ай бұрын

@@bookmormon-b3o you speak as if you were there in the 1840s. Please tell us, what did you witness?

@Zion_Or_Bust Жыл бұрын

Well done! Thank you for sharing your testimony sister! May I suggest two things for future work? 1. Provide references in all your slides (this makes it easier for people to use in the future) and 2. Provide a downloadable version of your slides/paper for the same reason Both would be greatly appreciated... Thank you!

@cameronsmith5786 Жыл бұрын

Thank-you! Will do.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@melindamorrison1 Жыл бұрын

It's so refreshing to see this video with so many false narratives being exploited on social media platforms. You're absolutely right! Truth is under attack.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@mcurtis7696 11 ай бұрын

My main questions for author of this video: - If polygamy is a correct doctrine from God, why aren't you living polygamy? - Why doesn't God require us to live it anymore if it's the only way to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom (according to BY)? - How did the federal government successfully end LDS Brighamite polygamy when according to God "the works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught." (D&C 3:1) - Does the fact that Brighamite polygamy ended mean that 1) polygamy was the works of men or that 2) men can indeed "frustrate the works of God"? - What was the basis for an unchangeable God (who is the "same yesterday, today and forever") changing his mind so often regarding polygamy? Nephites = not okay. 1830s LDS church = not okay. 1843 = okay, but only for a select handful of special people. 1844 = Not okay, and anyone practicing will be disciplined/excommunicated. 1844-1852 = Still not okay, don't tell anyone, but the new leadership is practicing in secret. Aug 1852 = Tell the whole world and "let the cat out of the bag" and let the saints for the first time hear the word of God on the matter after BY hid it for 9 years in his private safe. 1890 = not okay. 2023 = it will one day come back and be okay.

@remainingtruetotherestorat6506 11 ай бұрын

Brigham Young also taught that a man can make it to the Celestial Kingdom with one wife, with no wife, or with many wives. You are creating formal fallacies. Plural marriage is a law that can only be lived by revelation and with command of God to the one who holds the keys of priesthood and the sealing power. But since you reject priesthood, keys, and the sealing power this is really not a subject you should attempt to debate. I suppose we don't live plural marriage for the same reasons God condemned the the nephites in the Book of Mormon from living it. It seems reasonable to me that a man with a porn addiction should NEVER be married to one woman let alone more than one. I think men today don't need to worry about God ever commanding them to have more than one wife. They should probably focus on overcoming their porn additions . And you should use your own logic and ask why God would command Nephi to murder Laban but we are commanded not to murder. You place God in a box and don't think he can give and he can take away at while according to the obedience or disobedience of his children.

@deborahbarlow4309 10 ай бұрын

. I agree with your response, it was well said. The biggest use of Jacob 2 is always ignoring where He says He will command His people. Polygamy could be bad for every other person, but if the Lors tells you to do it, it's your duty to do it. Murder is wrong for every person, but Nephi was told to kill Laban, so it was his duty to obey his God, and kill Laban.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@zacdavis8234 5 ай бұрын

@@remainingtruetotherestorat6506 God is the same yesterday today and forever. He does not vary from that which he has said.

@Hamann9631 2 ай бұрын

@@zacdavis8234 God is not changing when He tells us a different thing to do. God has reasons for giving His commandments, which He has varied over the years.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for preaching the truth! I share your testimony, and can say to it, Amen!

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@TheOGProtestantMormon Awww... looks like you "fixed" the original version of your comment because it made you sound like too much of a dunderhead. Don't worry, I've copied it and will re-paste it here for posterity to see what you originally said: "what's the matter? Not sure you can handle the truth after your essay you deleted. In the end, you trust in the arm of flesh more than the Word of God. Good luck with that. “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” Titus 1:6. "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." 1 Timothy 3:12, KJV "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24, KJV "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matthew 19:5-6, KJV "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." Mark 10:8, KJV "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." 1 Corinthians 6:16, KJV "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." Ephesians 5:31, KJV ." Let's go through the beginning of your little gem here... "what's the matter? Not sure you can handle the truth after your essay you deleted." LOL, honey, I didn't delete my response to your other comment at all. You just must not have been able to read it anymore because you were too busy seeing red, and spitting and cussing at me 😜 "In the end, you trust in the arm of flesh more than the Word of God. Good luck with that." I cited plenty of scriptures for you to look at, as well as two Bible commentators to correct you on your erroneous interpretations of scripture. Since you love blindly citing all these scriptures which simply talk about one man and one woman, I'll go ahead and thank you for giving me the opportunity to repost my whole "essay" again, and we'll see what the LAW of Israel really looked like: --- The only portions of the Sacred Writings which seem to disapprove of polygamy are found in the epistles of Paul concerning the qualifications of bishops and deacons. These passages have been variously interpreted by various commentators. Some suppose that it forbids these officers of the church from contracting a second marriage after the death of the first wife; others that it forbids any but married persons being inducted into these sacred offices--that they must be the husbands of one wife, at least,--but that it does not forbid them taking more. But the commonly received opinion, and the one to which I am myself inclined, is, that in choosing men for these offices, such men should be chosen who are not much inclined to amorous pleasures, and each of whom has one wife only. They should be men of peculiar temperance and sobriety. *This implies that polygamy was still practised in the primitive Christian churches;* for otherwise it would have been superfluous and irrelevant to mention this as a special qualification in a candidate for one of those offices. And even this recommendation applies only to candidates, and not to those who have been already ordained. In confirmation of these views I here cite the authority of James McKnight, D.D., one of the most learned commentators on the New Testament. *"As the Asiatic nations universally practised polygamy,* from an inordinate love of the pleasures of the flesh, the apostle [Paul] ordered, by inspiration, that none should be made bishops but those, who, by avoiding polygamy, had showed themselves temperate in the use of sensual pleasures.... It may be objected, perhaps, that the gospel ought to have prohibited the people, as well as the ministers of religion, from polygamy and divorce, if these things were morally evil. As to divorce, the answer is, all, both clergy and people, were restrained from unjust divorces by the precept of Christ. With respect to polygamy being an offence against political prudence, rather than against morality, *it had been permitted to the Jews by Moses,* and was generally practised by the Eastern nations as a matter of indifferency; it was, therefore, to be corrected mildly and gradually, by example rather than by express precept, without occasioning those domestic troubles and causeless divorces which must necessarily have ensued, if, by an express injunction of the apostles, husbands, immediately on their becoming Christians, had been obliged to put away all their wives except one."--Commentary on 1 Tim. iii. 2. This testimony is specially valuable as being extorted, by the force of truth, from an avowed advocate of monogamy. Although it is highly colored by that system, yet these *four points* are distinctly admitted. 1. That polygamy was commonly practised by the primitive Christians. 2. That it had been expressly permitted in the Old Testament. 3. That it was not prohibited in the New Testament. 4. That it was from political and prudential considerations, and not from any immorality in it, that candidates for the ministry were recommended to abstain from it. Hence, we conclude that this recommendation of the apostle [Paul] was made out of respect to the *prejudices of the Greeks and Romans, under whose laws they were then living,* and *who practised a corrupt and licentious monogamy,* which I shall describe in the next chapter. It was doubtless for similar reasons that the same apostle recommended to the Corinthian Christians not to marry; but no one except a Shaking Quaker or a Roman Catholic can believe that such a recommendation was intended to apply to all persons, at all times and places, or that it was proper then, on any other ground than the notorious corruption of Corinthian morals. See Appendix, page 253. Now polygamy is either right, or it is wrong. If it is wrong, it is contrary to the will of God. If it is contrary to the will of God now, it always has been, ever since the fall of man; for God has not changed, human nature has not changed, and the mutual relation of the sexes has not changed. If it is contrary to the divine will, God would certainly gave expressed decided disapprobation of it in his word, and denounced those who practised it. *But on the contrary,* it was, by the Mosaic law, expressly sanctioned, and, under certain circumstances, expressly commanded, as fully appears from Deut. xxii. 28, and xxv. 5. In the former passage it was commanded that if any man (whether married or unmarried) had had illicit intercourse with an unbetrothed virgin, then he must marry her, and must not put her away all his life. In the other passage it was commanded that when a married man died without issue, his brother must marry his widow. And this command is positive, whether the surviving brother have a wife already, or not; and even if several such married brothers should die, and leave no offspring, the surviving brother would be obliged, by this law, to marry all the widows; and in each case, the first-born children would succeed to the inheritances of their mothers' first husbands, but the younger children would belong to their own father. This was a law in Israel long before the ceremonial law of Moses, as we learn from the 38th chapter of Genesis, where it is stated that Onan the son of Judah was required to marry the widow of his brother Er, and because he took a wicked course to prevent having offspring by her, he was put to death by the immediate act of God. The entire Book of Ruth, also, constitutes a beautiful illustration and commentary of this ancient law; and it is mentioned in the New Testament in such terms as to imply that it was still in force in the time of Christ (Matt. xxii. 24-28). *POLYGAMY APPROVED OF GOD.* I sum up the divine testimony thus: If polygamy is now a vice and a sin, like adultery or lying or stealing, it always has been and always will be a sin; and God would never have approved or commanded it: but we have seen above, that he has *commanded it in two cases at least, viz., in case of the married man's illicit intercourse with an unbetrothed virgin, and in case of the married man's brother's widow; and in these cases, therefore, it cannot be a sin.* In further proof of its innocence, let it be remembered that it was practised *without rebuke* by *Abraham,* when he was styled *"The Friend of God;"* by *Jacob,* when his name was changed to *Israel* on account of *his piety and his faith;* by *David,* when God himself "gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse *a man after my own heart;"* and by many others whose names will be held in everlasting remembrance, being preserved in Holy Writ, long after those of modern pseudo-religionists, who now denounce polygamy as barbarous and sinful, shall have perished in oblivion. (The History and Philosophy of Marriage by Rev. James Campbell, 1885, pp. 71-77; emphasis added)

@TheOGProtestantMormon Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 What every do you mean> they make ointment for an infected vagina. You okay?

@TheOGProtestantMormon Жыл бұрын

Yes. Thank you for preaching your truth and not the gospel for we would all be lost and fallen and tripping over infected pussies.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@terminuselectron6900 9 ай бұрын

@@bookmormon-b3o Lol, Joseph Smith didn't publish the Book of Abraham? Maybe pick up a history book, pal-any history book. He was working on it long before the Times and Seasons even published it.

@andreaashfordd Жыл бұрын

Amen! ❤️ Well done! I look forward to your next video!

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@andrewdurfee3896 Жыл бұрын

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is both loved and hated. In it we find the laws governing celestial marriage and the laws of authoritative plural marriage. If one denounces it (D&C 132) then where will they turn for eternal marriage between one man and one woman? D&C 132 lists both monogamous and plural marriage in the same revelation. It is very inconvenient for fitting into the world. Some would like to have half of D&C 132 be true while ignoring the other half. There are many testimonies from early Latter Day Saints women who testified of the truthfulness of plural marriage whose testimonies are overlooked or omitted by the world. There was also unauthoritative polygamy practice which did result in excommunication of members that where not in line Doctrine and Covenants 132.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@TheSchnebs Жыл бұрын

Thanks for this! Great to hear this perspective and reaffirm the truth.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@jimwinebrenner620 22 күн бұрын

Great video, and very comprehensive! Thank you!!

@davidtorbenson4686 Жыл бұрын

Thanks for all of your research and work on this important topic. I have heard references to an early 1831 revelation related to this topic - but cannot find any details of anything being summarized or recorded- do you have any details on this topic?

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

The only surviving source for the text of that revelation is in a letter by W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young dated August 12, 1861. There's a transcript available on Brian Hales' website, "Mormon Polygamy Documents" under the blue index number JS1028. Another transcript is also available on the website "Mormonr". Brian Hales also has an essay about it titled "The 1830s", under the History section on his other website, "Joseph Smith's Polygamy". Furthermore, he addressed it in his three-volume work of the same title. Other renowned authors on this subject, such as Danel Bachman, Todd Compton, H. Michael Marquardt, etc., have also written about it extensively in their own respective works. It was even occasionally mentioned by early leaders such as Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in the Journal of Discourses. The original manuscript is available in "Unpublished Revelations," vol. 1 by Fred C. Collier and is also in the Church History Library in the Revelations collection under MS 4583.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@jordanclegg8538 4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@remainingtruetotherestorat6506 3 ай бұрын

You're welcome!

@Hamann9631 2 ай бұрын

57:00 Great point about it not being lying if a person has no right to information. Another example is a scammer or identity thief has no right to information. It should not be called a lie if inaccurate information is given to such people.

@Greg-McIver Жыл бұрын

Great presentation. Really amazing research. Thank you.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@xenophone2317 Жыл бұрын

Fantastic presentation and research. Thank you.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@xenophone2317 9 ай бұрын

@@bookmormon-b3o According to my fifth great grandmother Joseph Smith did indeed practice polygamy, and I believe her. I love the Book of Abraham, the spirit testifies of its truth.

@nlsclint Жыл бұрын

Just curious, why didn't you address Emma's death bed testimony in comparison to section 132?

@nlsclint 9 ай бұрын

@@bookmormon-b3o exactly! Thus, my question to the producer.

@zissler1 5 ай бұрын

Emma also claimed that Joseph did practice polygamy before her sons decided to lead a church countering that narrative.

@nlsclint 5 ай бұрын

@@zissler1 do you have a source for that? I’m seriously interested.

@zissler1 5 ай бұрын

@@nlsclint Well, there is a theory that her "last testimony" wasn't reliable, and some speculate that she may have been in old age or had some kind of dementia. The proof of this is that her son never cited it. In her last testimony she claimed (and she was one of the very few that did, I think only one other did) say that joseph smith used a hat and seer stone, but Joseph III never claimed Joseph Smith used a seer stone. So why didn't he use her "last testimony" if it had so much weight? As far as Emma smith stating she was in a plural marraige with Joseph you have William Mclellin, as well as one of the servant girls stating that she said so: William E. McLellin, M.D., Letter to President Joseph Smith [III] Independence, Mo., July 1872. (back) Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' - Emma Hale Smith," in Heroines of the Restoration, edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17-34.; quoting Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 161.

@Hamann9631 2 ай бұрын

@@zissler1 The source of Emma's death bed proclamation was Joseph Smith III. Don Bradley has pointed out that Joseph Smith III interviewed one of Joseph Smith Junior's wives. She saw what he claimed she said and refuted it as lies. I think it was Melissa Lott. The fact that we have a proven case of Joseph Smith III lying, shows we should be skeptical of his other claims.

@janaosborn8268 7 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for this well done video I have been struggling with this for 2 years now and this is the best explanation on polygamy I have come across.

@remainingtruetotherestorat6506 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for your kind comment! I hope this helped!

@margynelson7945 Жыл бұрын

The Strangite church is still around. A man who has a channel visited all of the break off church’s of our church after visiting our church. His channel is called 52 churches in 52 weeks. I can’t imagine how that church is still around but they have that letter in their lobby.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@barbarashorttobrien1337 Жыл бұрын

This was a good video on polygamy, so many are trying to refute that Joseph ever practised it. Thanks

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@davidjohnzenocollins Ай бұрын

Fascinating. So, basically, the Tanners were right, though, of course, they didn't believe God restored the Church through Joseph Smith.

@CMZIEBARTH 2 ай бұрын

When you say "carefully extrapolated" you may mean "carefully extricated."

@jacbox3889 5 ай бұрын

What was the source of the Joseph Smith quote at the 47 min marker?

@shanandkyleSau Ай бұрын

Would someone who says Abraham only had one wife Sarah please explain Keturah in Genesis 25 who Midian comes through. In verse 6, the scriptures also say Abraham had concubines that he gave gifts to and sent away.

@melissarasmussen1383 Жыл бұрын

Why would Joseph Smith, age 38 at the time, marry Helen Mare Kimball, aged 14? It was normal for women to marry at 22 (average age) in their time period--not 14! I have heard people excuse this drastic age gap by claiming the two did not have sex. If not, what was the point of the marriage? If polygamy/plural marriage was to “raise up a righteous seed”, their not having sex was not serving the stated purpose of such a marriage arrangement. Further, why take Helen off the courting market and steal away her ability to marry another to have a family with someone else when she reached an appropriate age? Why marry her at all if the stated purpose for plural marriage was not even being performed? This situation makes no sense to me nor do I believe God would require such a marriage arrangement of such a young girl.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

Helen Mar Kimball's later writings clarified that her marriage to Joseph purified her spiritually and made her worthy of Celestial Glory. Her suffering, trials, and experiences which she had as a result brought her understanding, charity, and humility through applying the Law of Consecration in her own life, which made her worthy for life in the Celestial Kingdom. She acknowledged that her father's aim in facilitating the marriage was "pure and exalted" and she was grateful for the opportunity and understanding that it brought her. It also sealed her father's family to Joseph Smith's. This question is more thoroughly answered in the book, "Joseph Smith's Plural Wives: Volume 1-Helen Mar Kimball" by James F. Stoddard III and L. Hannah Stoddard.

@melissarasmussen1383 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 If this kind of arrangement happened in today’s church, people would have a freak out (At least, I hope they would). I have read differently. I read she wrote in her journal she felt like a “fettered bird”. It makes no sense to me. The God I believe in would not require a 14 year old to marry a 38 year old in order to learn “charity, humility, the Law of Consecration, and be spiritually purified”. There are far less odd ways to learn those virtues and be purified. None of us is required to have such a lopsided age difference in a marriage to get to the Celestial Kingdom now--because it is not required for heaven’s entrance!

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@melissarasmussen1383 In that same journal (actually an autobiography) where she wrote that, she wrote other comments that are just as important, which I referred to. People too often take only snippets of her words. The book I referred to does a good job of telling her story from her own scattered diaries and reminiscences. As to your second statement, actually God does still require similar sacrifices for all those that would enter the Celestial Kingdom. This is discussed in the 6th Lecture on Faith. It is an eternal principle, but not everyone wants to do it, and that's okay.

@melissarasmussen1383 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 then why is the LDS church not teaching this required “sacrifice” to the body of the church? To preserve the church? It makes no sense to me that God would have His servants stop teaching a “required for the highest heaven practice”. The church stopped teaching “polygamy is required for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and there will be more women in heaven than men (due to female spiritual sensitivity), therefore men will need more than one wife in that heaven” because it is NOT required. Just like Brigham Young’s disavowed “Blood Atonement” or the wrongful withholding of the Priesthood from all worthy males (regardless of skin color), teaching polygamy is a necessary marriage arrangement for heaven has been dropped because it is not a correct doctrine.

@W.A.J.J. Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 😂 ok so the next time a cult leader takes a child bride, we’ll ask the child’s opinion on the moral ethics of it. Deal? You’re crazy if you are taking the 14 year old brides statements as justification. How does that actually work in your mind? As long as the victim is ok with the abuse? What voice did she have in the matter?

@tyghrrr Жыл бұрын

Since when is seeking the truth a “dark agenda?

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

When it becomes disinformation that falsely accuses others without substantiation.

@cab9191 Жыл бұрын

Right? She is so quick to dismiss those seeking the truth on this matter as having a dark purpose… so many are simply reeling because we’ve encountered evidence that has been carefully concealed by the church which points towards alternative narratives outside of the church’s narrative…

@jaredvaughan1665 5 ай бұрын

Great video

@zacdavis8234 Жыл бұрын

Go watch rob Fatheringham framing Joseph. You will get the true story

@dylanwilliams2202 5 ай бұрын

That guy is a clown, he ignores and misrepresents evidence to prove his false narrative. In this video, even he admits that his evidence isn't good. Maybe watch the video

@samuelsspen Жыл бұрын

I can tell you put a lot of hard work into this. I can always commend that. My one thought--we are to rely on revelation, and I get that we can be lead astray, but there truly is no way to FULLY prove one way or the other. 2nd and 3rd hand accounts confirming polygamy are of no value, IMO. I can understand both sides of the story, but I don't feel we have to assert our individual stance on this. If we have one, great, if not, it's ok.

@alliejenson3799 Жыл бұрын

Looking forward to part 2.

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@ciaoinman Жыл бұрын

To the presenter. I usually love all of your content, and I hope that you continue to raise your voice in defense of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I have a testimony that he was a true prophet as well as his successors through President Russell M. Nelson. Around 3:30 of your presentation you reference Rchard Lyman's book "Rough Stone Rolling" as undermining the Prophet Joseph Smith or accusing him of hidden sin. It's been a minute since I read it, and the only thing that seemed a little iffy to me in the Book was someone (an apostate I believe) who was rather svandalized by something he had heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say. I believe the apostate had said that Joseph Smith had said that one of his wives had brought him pleasure, which is fairly tame in our day, but I don't necessarily know if I believe that man's recollection of what Joseph Smith had said. It's nearly twenty years since I read it, but I liked the book and thought that it was a worthy scholarly endeavor. Mr. Bushman may have gotten the seer stone part wrong as far as saying that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that instead of the Urim and Thummim in translating the Book of Mormon. Anyway, just curious what you found highly objectionable in Mr. Lyman's book? Keep up the great work.

@bagnasbayabas Жыл бұрын

Can anyone share about the diary or the journal of William Clayton?

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

It has been published in "In Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton" edited by George D. Smith (Signature Books, 1991). There are other transcripts floating around as well, such as one titled "The Nauvoo Diaries of William Clayton, 1842-1846, Abridged" (Privately Published, 2013). The church published excerpts from the Clayton diaries a few years ago on the Joseph Smith Papers, and has promised a bigger Joseph Smith Papers-style project to fully release transcripts and photographs of all of Clayton's journals. It seems this project is still in the works.

@SidJane10 Жыл бұрын

Joseph C Kingsbury is my hubby's 3rd great grandfather. He helped forge the D&C 132 document. It was altered. The very 1st verse says I will tell you how I justified my servants in living this principle. Well, firstly, that author did not know their scriptures as Moses had 1 wife and Isaac had only 1. As for Abraham, the code of Hammurabi permitted a man to take a woman as a surrogate to have a child through her for his barren wife. If you know your scriptures well enough, it says Sarah asked Abraham as she was desperate for a child. It was no commandment whatsoever. Sorry. Doesn't work what sect 132 says. Abraham took Hagar and had a child to please Sarah. He had no other and he sadly sent her away later. Jacob took 2 wives and two handmaidens and the 12 tribes of Israel are the result of these. Do you remember what jealousies, contentions and discord occurred in that family of supposed favorites. It led Joseph to be sold in to Egypt. God was trying to teach is this doesn't work. But oh, Brigham's 50 plus does work. Nope. It caused so many problems. Mormons (and I am one) believe that Jacob 2 where it speaks of David & Solomon's abominations didn't apply to Brighamites. It sure did & does. Same sins. Same adultery. Vs 25 says I will command my people to leave Jerusalem to raise up a righteous seed because the Lord God will not permit that this people do like unto those of old. But D&C 132 says, in nothing did David & Solomon sin save in Bathsheba. What crap. Jacob says they did. Vs 27 says, "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife and concubines none and goes on further to say whoredoms are an abomination before me.Vs 30, this is where it is all misinterpreted, "For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." God did just that, he removed them form Jerusalem to raise up a righteous seed without polygamy and says in vs 32 that he will not suffer the cries of the fair daughters to come up against him and in the previous verse says in the land of Jerusalem because they had brought back the sins of old. But, Brigham can resurrect it and it is ok. HECK NO! Back to Kingsbury. He was paid 8k in SLC for his services equivalent to 180k today. He married Sarah Whitney. Heber was having a spiritual sexual affair with her. They had to hide it from Joseph. Sham wedding. Lasted a year, then she jumped ship to Heber. He would not swear at the temple lot case either as he knew he would get in trouble. He would only affirm. The judge threw everything out and said that Brigham was not living a religion even close to Joseph. I could go on & on but the burden doesn't lie on what I know. It lies on whether people get the right sources of truth. Kingsbury was a charlatan. So were Brigham & boys and they had a secret chamber, secret combinations. Go back to the 1st polygamist in the bible. It was Lamech who lusted. His son Jabal brought masonry to Egypt. Both come from Cain's line. Brigham combined masonry & polygamy into the endowment and only those who agreed to polygamy after Joseph's death could do an endowment. Secret pacts with satan and penal oaths of which Joseph spoke against. Moses 5 speaks of it too and these secret swear by the throat penalties that used to be in the endowment of Brigham. Please dig deeper. Read especially vs 52. Lazy people don't do their own research or believe others who take a few scriptures, tie it to other stuff and try to create a case because they want so desperately to not have their faith shaken. Their roots are weak and know not of what they speak. Read Matthew 13, it explains clearly how the restoration was infiltrated and the tares. Awaken to our awful situation. We have kept many beautiful gospel truth but the polygamy, blood atonement, blacks & priesthood and Adam/God theory came from Brigham and started there. All have been proved false except this last polygamy that people hold onto through false traditions of their fathers done in error. I implore people to use their brains & and also ask God rather than hang onto falsehoods that are preventing Zion from being established. God will be revealing much and if you can't figure this one out yet, you won't be able to stand. Joseph Smith is fully aware of the lies done in his name and he placed a curse in Nauvoo on those speaking iniquitously of his name for 3-4 generations. Those generations are up. Truth is being revealed on a much greater scale and nothing can stop it.

@ImogeneBettr 6 ай бұрын

Thank you for this comment. I agree with all of it. Where you mention Joseph placed a curse in Nauvoo of those speaking iniquitously of his name for 3-4 generations... where is the reference for this? I think it's interesting that so many 5th 6th 7th generation Utah Mormons are coming out of the darkness. Those of us who have climbed up our own family trees with polygamy in them KNOW that it did not work. Those that were snared in it experienced so much sorrow.

@SidJane10 6 ай бұрын

@@ImogeneBettr WJS (Words of Joseph Smith) p.114 "I preached in the grove, and pronounced a curse upon all those adulterers and fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs." Now turn to D&C 124:50 "And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God."

@ImogeneBettr 6 ай бұрын

@@SidJane10 Awesome. Thank you so much.

@SidJane10 6 ай бұрын

@@ImogeneBettr 4th attempt. The author of this keeps removing. Such fear she has. I had a link directly to Joseph Smith Papers as a 2nd witness for this statement. She hides the truth.

@gingersnaps215 4 ай бұрын

@SidJane10 KZbin automatically scrubs posts with links. The browser also drops posts sometimes if the connection is poor or whatever. Happens to me all the time on other channels where I KNOW they don’t delete comments. It’s a KZbin glitch and happens allllll over the place. People have even made videos about it, it’s so common.

@richardjolley6244 Жыл бұрын

Good information.

@joelm7947 6 ай бұрын

You really need to provide a clear reference for all your quotes. For example, this quote is very questionable: If I have to die for any revelation God has given through me I would as readily die for this one as any other. And I sometimes think that I shall have to die for it. It may be that I shall have to forfeit my life to it and if this has to be so, Amen. Truman Madsen Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City, Bookcraft 1989) This reference is from an unpublish discourse in1866 recollection of BY. You give the impression it is a direct quote from Joseph Smith. This is why there is a movement pushing back against those who love these grosser crimes(Jacob 2:23) , to try and restore the good name of Joesph, Hyrum, and Emma.

@intignia Жыл бұрын

By their fruits ye shall know them. What kind of fruit is the quote by Ronald Karren?

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@clanski1634 Жыл бұрын

I mean with our historians having access directly to church archives when something new comes out and it doesn’t look the best…. Even Joseph was human. I don’t see why that means they are bad people the 12 still allow these men access to the archives. More so are you willing to learn, accept and continue believing when things aren’t exactly as you thought? Maybe the past doesn’t exactly fit your ideals but it’s better to accept the facts and own our history than to say if that did happen I won’t be a member….

@seekeroftruth8851 Жыл бұрын

How about instead “ Remaining true to Christ and what HE taught”

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

Christ gave a clear sanction of the principle of plural marriage by applying it to Himself in the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The context of this parable is clearly a polygamous wedding, for "ten virgins" were not being summoned to a wedding as mere spectators or guests, but rather as the actual "brides." To use the explicit term "virgins" could imply nothing else, especially in that culture at that time. Indeed, the horrified reaction of the five foolish virgins in being denied entrance to the wedding of their Master was not because they were being denied access to evening entertainment as the guests of a friend, but rather because they were being denied entrance to the wedding of their would-be Husband and Lord. This parable harmonizes perfectly with what is written in Psalms 45:9 (which is clearly about Jesus Christ), when it refers to "king's daughters" as the Savior's "honorable wives." That this verse actually uses the word "wives" can be verified by referring to Strong's Concordance, as well as the Geneva Bible and other translations. Undoubtedly, this parable is seldom interpreted in this way by modern Christendom (which has been informed by centuries of dogmas under Roman Catholicism), but to refer to a "virgin" in ancient culture gave the clear meaning of a woman that was eligible for marriage. This definition is still retained in the Abrahamic cultures of today, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To pretend that these "virgins" were mere "guests" to the party quite blindly ignores the heavy implication behind these verses, especially as they would have been understood in Jesus' time period. Indeed, the question of the Sadducees in Matthew 22:24-28 also implies that the Laws of Israel in relation to plural marriage (as explained in Deuteronomy) were still in force at the time of Christ. The subsequent reply of Jesus, that "they are neither married nor given in marriage" during the resurrection, is more easily understood in context of D&C 132, as Jesus was essentially telling these Sadducees that very few such people would qualify for eternal marriage hereafter, even if they lived in plural marriage, because Jesus was also tacitly stating that the Priesthood of the Sadducees and Pharisees was null and void. Jesus moreover made it clear that we are expected to live the Celestial Law in THIS life if we expect to qualify for those blessings, hence why Jesus declares that, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Both of these bold declarations are what caused the astonished reaction of the multitude. Now, I think it's common sense to acknowledge that Jesus Christ would never apply a parable to Himself if it involved a principle that is inherently wicked. We all can understand that. To use a parable involving an inherently evil principle would be entirely out-of-character for the God of Israel. And yet, this parable in Matthew is not the only occurrence in which the God of Israel made use of polygamy as a parable in reference to Himself. Such parables also occur in the Old Testament, both in Jeremiah 3:1-14 and Ezekiel 23. Would the God of Israel have desired to set a bad example before His people by portraying Himself as a polygamist in a prophetic parable-if this practice were inherently evil-knowing that its only tendency would have been to cause the people to imitate the practices of their God? Of course not. Throughout the Old Testament, He thunders terrible denunciations against the iniquitous practices of the Canaanites and surrounding nations, so it would be entirely out-of-character for Him to mislead His people in this way, by portraying Himself as a polygamist, if polygamy were supposedly an absolute evil in the eyes of God. Yet we see Him making use of exactly such parables in Jeremiah 3:1-14 and Ezekiel 23. Moreover, for that matter, it was extremely strange for Him to sanction the behavior of Abraham in Genesis 17. Right in this chapter, God commences by telling Abraham to "walk before Me and be thou perfect." If Abraham's marriage to Hagar was adultery, this surely would have been the perfect time and place for the Almighty to inform Abraham of his sin and settle the issue once and for all. Yet in all the discourse between the Father and Abraham, the subject of adultery did not come up. Nor did He require Abraham to divorce Hagar or put her away. Again, if God the Father had looked upon the marriage of Abraham with Hagar as adulterous or "abominable," this would have been the perfect time to inform him, because Hagar and her son did come up in the discussion (Genesis 17:18-20). Yet, instead of upbraiding Abraham's marriage to Hagar, not only did He approve of it, but He also blessed it. Additionally, in Genesis 16, when Hagar was cast out from Abraham's family by the insistence of Sarah, the "angel of the LORD" appeared to Hagar in the wilderness, and comforted her and instructed her to return to her polygamous relationship with Abraham. This "angel" has been shown by modern scholarship to likely be Jesus Christ Himself. If that were not enough, we also see Jesus referring very favorably and positively to Abraham in John 8, as well as many other places throughout the Four Gospels. Additionally, Galatians 3 identifies Abraham as the Patriarch of the faithful. James 2:21-23 declares that Abraham's works were justified, and calls him the "Friend of God." Hence we see Christ's direct approval and sanction of plural marriage as well, not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New Testament-and for no less than the Grand Patriarch of the House of Israel. Talk about a strange example to set before His people, if polygamy is supposed to be inherently evil! If plural marriage were an absolute evil before God, why did He choose a polygamist to become the Patriarch of His People and why did He portray Himself in the aforementioned parables as a polygamist as well? Could such actions do anything in His people's eyes other than to make them think that He approved of the practice? There are many other scriptures I can use to illustrate my point further, but I think the above suffices for your specific statement. I believe Christ's teachings include a most definite approval of the principle of plural marriage, despite the heavily tainted lens of modern culture as influenced by centuries of the dogmas of Roman Catholicism.

@seekeroftruth8851 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 that is a very sad interpretation of what Christ was trying to teach us. So sad when people take the philosophies of men and mingle them with scripture.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@seekeroftruth8851 I'm grateful that it's not my interpretation, but what was given to me through the Holy Spirit and the words of Christ.

@avoice423 3 ай бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 Orson Hyde suggested that Jesus had multiple wives. I am convinced that Mary and Martha were two of them, the ones that had his children. So he left them in the care of his brother-in-law, as he could not take them on his ministry travels. I think his treatment of them indicates the close relationship. I belive that Mary Magdalene was also his wife and being childless at the time, she traveled with him. That close relationship is brought out by Jesus's appearance to her after his resurection.

@PilatesAnne Жыл бұрын

I am watching this video trying to decide who to believe? One side says it is right to lie for polygamy. The other says Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he taught polygamy was an abomination. If you believe it is right to lie for polygamy so did all those who accuse Joseph Smith. They were lying to protect polygamy.

@andrewdurfee3896 9 ай бұрын

Doctrine and Covenants 132 condemns unlawful polygamy, but also teaches the laws and bounds which it is justified before God. A man who has two or more wife’s is not guilty of adultery if they are given to him by God by his law.

@jaredvaughan1665 5 ай бұрын

What do you think about the argument that "these things" in Jacob 2 refers to the abomination of polygamy elsewhere in the chapter?

@moniquepowers1726 5 ай бұрын

It doesnt

@brianstutzman5037 Жыл бұрын

Great Testimony at the end!

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@tucuxi70 6 ай бұрын

This is false! Joseph Smith fought against polygamy and warned he did not authorize it and only he had the keys to authorize it. He sought to hold accountable, those who preached, taught or practiced polygamy. He was not a polygamist If you study the Law of Adoption practiced by early saints, you will realize members often were sealed to Priesthood leaders. They were NOT marriages in these cases. Women especially! That is the type of sealings Joseph had with these women, not marriages at all. Evil rumors spread they were marriages and yet they were not. In 1894 Wilford Woodruff changed the focus of sealings to be marriages and family. So sealings as we know them today are a result of that change by Wilford Woodruff. Therefore, Joseph was NEVER a polygamist!

@melissarasmussen1383 Жыл бұрын

Can you explain the disparity between D&C 132:1 and Jacob 2:24? Also, I am old enough to remember when the church studied D&C 132 frequently--it spoke of the New and Everlasting Covenant. In the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom polygamy was a sure thing. Now? Well, since about mid 1990 the church only states moto: Families Can Be Together Forever! Why the shift in focus? Why no talk of polygamy anymore?

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

D&C 132:1 and D&C 132:38 simply echo what is already taught in 1 Kings 15:5. 1 Kings 15:5 explains why David and Solomon were considered sinful in their polygamy in Jacob 2:24, meanwhile Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, etc., were not. 1 Kings 11 also clarifies why Solomon's polygamy became sinful. The church's stance on polygamy began to shift long before the 90s. To be sure, the doctrine of eternal families is connected to it in a big way, but these sorts of changes in emphasis began to visibly occur at least by the WWII era. They added a temple recommend interview question circa 1940 which essentially asked, "do you affiliate with apostate groups?"-which was directly aimed at those sympathetic towards fundamentalist groups, or who privately held similar beliefs.

@justinanderson6189 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 The questions were added as the law of the land had changed etc. After Heber J Grant they had to draw firmer lines...Is not surprising. The Edmunds Tucker Act of 1887 was a clear signal from the US Govt and Babylon wrapping its arms back around Deseret and the Saints, The parable of the redemption of Zion is still in front of us. I loved the Kings references and points

@duncansh81 Ай бұрын

I should start out by saying that I appreciate your desire to defend the church and the words of early Utah women. However, I do not believe that JSJr taught or practiced polygamy. I've read too much of his and Hyrum's own words, as well as journal entries from Brigham, HC Kimball, Richards, Clayton, et all. It is pretty clear that the latter were very interested in polygamy as a principle of exaltation and it is clear that Hyrum and JSJr did not think this way. JSJr taught monogamous eternal marriage - the law of Matrimony. Most of the quotes you give in your video of JSJr supporting polygamy are not direct quotes. There are almost no actual direct quotes from JSJr regarding polygamy unless he's condemning it. Why would he condemn is publicly and institute it privately? That is inconsistent, two-faced and not like a prophet of the Lord. The history behind this is so muddled b/c there is something very fishy going on. Lumping those of us who have read and learned for ourselves that there is much more to this story than we have been taught with people who believe that the temple is evil, Brigham Young killed JSJr (even though witnesses said when BY heard it he said he was glad of it and that he knew he could lead the church just as well as JSJr) is disingenuous. You can believe that polygamy was not taught or practiced by JSJr and still be a faithful member of the church. You don't have to believe the other things that you present as part of this line of thinking (e.g. temples are evil). If anyone is open-minded, soft-hearted (not hard hearted), look up Gwendolyn Wyne's YT channel and Jeremy Hoops YT channel. Jeremy also does deep dives into key figure's journals on Michelle Stone's YT channel which are very enlightening. Learning these things does not have to destroy faith. Faith, in order to lead to salvation, needs to be rooted in Jesus Christ and truth.

@streetsoftartaria Жыл бұрын

She is jabbed and delusional. Read the following books. •The exoneration of Emma Joseph and Hyrum (Amazon $10) •The secret Chamber •Joseph Smith fought polygamy volumes 1,2,3,4

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

Lol, your first sentence is an utter fabrication and literal slander. Goes to show what the rest of your comment is constituted of.

@streetsoftartaria Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 it’s LDS doctrine to get the jab number one (safe and effective and prophet approved). She got it - we both know it. number two she is delusional if she thinks Joseph did not fight polygamy because that’s all he did was fight it. Brighams D&C 132 replaced Joseph’s 101 (monogamous revelation). Wake up

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@streetsoftartaria I happen to know better. You can believe whatever fairy tales you tell yourself.

@streetsoftartaria Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 Would she admit if she did? Hell no she wouldn’t because your all ashamed to have taken that terrible prophet proscribed “God sent miracle jab”. 🤡🤡🤡

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@streetsoftartaria Lol, she has literally spoken against the clotshot for years. Believe whatever lies you invent for yourself, just don't spread it around as fact 😉🤡

@Liberty-LLama Жыл бұрын

Have you talked to Michelle Stone? If so I would love to see a conversation between you two.

@Ischyromys Жыл бұрын

Michelle has invited direct conversation, but Kimberly prefers to misrepresent and portray her opponents as evil.

@jewellyjewelly 2 ай бұрын

Ugh, I couldn’t get through this, just horrible

@CMZIEBARTH 2 ай бұрын

In what way?

@FleeingBabylon-Now Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your video. At the end you have in "Consider the Implications" a bit of a black and white scenario that does not leave middle ground at all. Think of Alma the priest of Noah. He and all the priests were willing to condemn Abinadi. They had the priesthood but were wicked. Then Alma went against them and started his own group. He had the priesthood from before Abinadi showed up. So even if there were some truth that some brethren were involved in Josephs death does not mean that the priesthood did not continue, even if there were murder. I know the priesthood has continued but am also ok to think that there were some traitors to Joseph from within who thought they could do better than him, The same goes for temple ordinances, maybe they were altered a bit after Josephs death but this does not mean they have no value. If you make it all or nothing then if one accusation about church history is proven to be true you will be on a very sandy foundation. This is what many who have lost testimonies have done. Throw away it all because they learn something controversial. It is like the jab issue. If President Nelson was mistaken does that mean he is not inspired in anything? This all or nothing idea is dangerous to testimonies. I did not get jabbed. Does that mean I am a traitor to the church? No Joseph said to be open to let each man or woman think as they may choose. We do not believe in infallibility of leaders. If we did why did blacks get the priesthood and then not get it and then get it again. As Pres Nelson said the church has not been fully restored. We cannot live consecration yet that does not mean the church is condemned fully. If that were the case why did Jesus even bother coming to Judah. Zedikiah the father of John the Baptist was using his priesthood in the temple. Yet from Malachi onward Judah had no prophetic utterance that we know of for 500 years. Yet they still had priesthood since John the Baptist got it from his father. Jesus came to restore and add to what they had. The same will come soon to us. We only have a small fraction of the restoration. Eat your vitamins. Be careful of absolutes since some of the accusations by those who leave may prove to be true. That is why a true testimony is so crucial since to weather the storm of possible error in the past and even the present is crucial so as to be built upon the rock of revelation

@gingersnaps215 4 ай бұрын

John the Baptist was a Levite. The levitical priesthood (Aaronic) is the inheritance of those born into the tribe of Levi. If his father Zachariah was in the temple performing his priestly duties, it’s because he was of the tribe of Levi and therefore born into his priestly role. The Melchizedek priesthood, however, was not in force at that time. (That’s why John says, “one greater than I will come, who’s shoe’s latched Ike not fit to loose,” or whatever the exact phrasing is; Jesus was the Melchizedek priest.)

@FleeingBabylon-Now 4 ай бұрын

@@gingersnaps215 Exactly

@jaredvaughan1665 5 ай бұрын

What do you make of the English female converts that were married to the missionary in England and not told until arriving in Utah that they were a plural wife?

@vakama76 Жыл бұрын

The amount of gaslighting in this video is astounding. First is when they showed the written out section 132 and you can see there is no editing or changes in this document" and then they show you the document. When if you go look it it up it is clear that the last page has two differant types of handwriting and in a different ink color. And what is that part of 132 about. It is justification to go around a wife who will not go long with poligamy and she is to be destroyed and the man does not need her permision to have more wives. Wow what a editing wonder lets make sure that is in there The second is when she shown hyrum browns excumnication she shows the actual paper and reads it and adds her own words "without authority" and then carries on like that is what they meant to say. And hops we just believe her? There are many quotes she uses from people that are made second hand decades and even 120 years after he was dead that i cannot find the source of. Remember people 2 things everything accused of joseph smith. Brigham actually did. Brigham did marry teenagers. He did approve of stealing wives. And this is no joke. And second in regards to polygamy in a letter to the relief society joseph said that this authority never had never will or anything like it be authorized. And conveniently she never talks about that denial. Because it say also in the letter that anyone defending this practice be cursed by god. I have sourses.

@deborahbarlow4309 10 ай бұрын

Did you know the four gospels were written decades later and in some cases by second hand account. Ie. John didn't actually see Jesus dies, he states he left with Mother Mary, then tells about the death, clearly heard it second hand.

@vakama76 10 ай бұрын

@deborahbarlow4309 so the witnesses to christ that have stood the test of time. Should be under the same scrutiny as those purporting polygamy. Got it.

@deborahbarlow4309 10 ай бұрын

@@vakama76 No. I am saying your argument of time being the reason they are invalid is not a strong one, nor the use of second hand narrative given this fact. Other parts of your argument are valid and good thoughts.

@geography_guy335 11 ай бұрын

Isn't their still a Strangite sect?

@cab9191 Жыл бұрын

I have read the documents and I believe you are on the wrong side of history and doctrine.

@CMZIEBARTH 2 ай бұрын

How so?

@TureRealD 3 ай бұрын

You cant claim to be defending women and then destroy and codemn Emma Smith and Lucy Mack Smith. You're going to trash Joseph's wife, founder of the Relief Society and his own mother???

@RiftFishing Жыл бұрын

Not far into the video now, but I'm already seeing an interesting amount of claims that don't hold up quite as well as you would think. You reference false dilemma being a problem when the church uses the very same thing everyday. "Because the Book of Mormon is true, that means Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true and Russell M Nelson is Gods prophet on the earth today". I used that on my mission all the time (substitute RMN for the Thomas S Monson) and I was taught to teach that way to people. Because at the time that was what was taught to me. But that is a false dilemma, it seeks to force you into only one narrative and ignores the idea that there have been numerous splits and pitfalls off of the original church founded by Joseph for a very long time. Secondly, you reference Helen Mar Clark Callister as being a good source of the polygamy's righteous origins and her knowledge of it being a true principle. But going by the words of her own descendent, she wrote that in 1878, and said she lived it for 33 years and was among the first to enter the sacred principle. Do the math there and you find out that she entered into polygamy in 1845, which is AFTER Joseph Smith had died. Was she one of the first, or wasn't she? If you think she is telling the truth, you have to admit that she has a rather interesting timeline of events. The church admits that by Josephs death over 50 women had already entered into plural marriage. Hardly one of the first. You can try to work your way out of it, but if Joseph lied about Polygamy, he was a liar. God is a god of truth and does not lie, neither does he ask men to lie on his behalf. I believe Joseph was a truthful prophet, and though you might seek to stay in your comfort zone as you say to yourself that "all is well in zion" and diminish those who seek for truth against the wicked traditions of their fathers, you will not succeed in hiding the truth, despite your best intentions. There will come a time soon when all will have to confront the truth for what it is, and it will put many at a crossroad of whether they will trust God, or trust the tares who have sought to keep them from truly trusting in the Lord.

@deborahbarlow4309 10 ай бұрын

I wish to say using the term liar is excessive. In Matthew and 3 Nephi Jesus says, "Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison." (3Nephi12:23) When His saints are in danger of man, He isn't against them lying for their safety. He told both Abraham and Isaac to lie to the Egyptians, let the Egyptians kill them and take their wives. It's when a person lies for their own gain, to better only themselves for selfish reasons, He disapproves. Thus, if Joseph Smith did lie, it could have very well been because there was a LOT of persecution going on at that time. It would have been safer for him and his. Also, it could have also been that the Saints weren't ready for the doctrine and would have apostatized because he gave them too much too quickly, which happens all the time throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon. He is a God of Truth, but also of Love. He gave us free will and sometimes that means He will not stop the wicked.

@andrewdurfee3896 9 ай бұрын

So when God told Abraham to tell other men that his wife was his sister is this lying?

@andrewdurfee3896 9 ай бұрын

Also let’s not forget that Peter denied association with Jesus Christ even thought that was a lie. So does that mean Peter wasn’t really a prophet?

@bookmormon-b3o 9 ай бұрын

@gingersnaps215 4 ай бұрын

@andrewdurfee3896 Genesis 20:12 Sarah was his half-sister. And also his wife. But saying she was his wife would have resulted in Abraham’s death, so he neglected to mention that (a lie by omission, yes?), and said instead that she was only his sister.

@jaredvaughan1665 5 ай бұрын

Do you believe Brigham that Emma tried to poison Emma?

@debbiefrancom Жыл бұрын

Your wrong. Joseph fought polygamy and God condemns the practice. So much false teachings and lies in the LDS church. God is a God of truth and does not lie. So where there is lying and deceiving and murder going on, you know it's not of God.

@debbiefrancom Жыл бұрын

Also his oldest son was 11 years old when his father was killed. When I was 11 I knew what was going on. He would have known if his father was practicing polygamy and he denied it to the day he died. And I trust Emma above any lustful man who's seeking for a bunch of wives.

@icecreamladydriver1606 Жыл бұрын

I don't think that using David is a great example as we know how that was.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1 Kings 15:5)

@icecreamladydriver1606 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 I don't think God was pleased about David getting the hots for a married woman while being a peeping tom.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@icecreamladydriver1606 Isn't that exactly what the above scripture says? But that doesn't condemn the rest of his plural marriages.

@cameronsmith5786 Жыл бұрын

@@icecreamladydriver1606 You should read Matthew Chapter 1. Because Jesus Christs delights in tracing his earthly lineage through David. And also in Luke Chapter 1:30-33 God made a covenant with David and his descendants that they would rule over the House of Israel forever and that thru him God would secure the promises of the Land, descendants and blessings (Samuel 7). The Promise of eternal kingdom would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ, who is of David's lineage. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Luke 1:30-33) Also in the Book of Mormon, God condemns David for taking wives not authorized but said had hesought approval through Nathan he would have given him more still. The House of Israel is established through righteous patriarchs who have more than one wife!

@icecreamladydriver1606 Жыл бұрын

@@cameronsmith5786 Please give me the reference in the Book of Mormon because in Jacob it is pretty clear that God in against polygamy.

@thestandupdad Жыл бұрын

Yes he did fight polygamy and there are some who trace specifically how the story changed after his death. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kISwgqN7Zc2WjK8

@concerttour1230 16 күн бұрын

Amen, how sad people accept the Brethren above the Holy Ghost and claim JS falsely was a lier. Which side is the one true defender of the pure restoration?

@edwarddiviney5226 Жыл бұрын

Talk about taking things "out of context" and mischaracterizing. Funny how anyone who disagrees with you is either "Silly" or "it's a conspiracy" or "a group trying to destroy" . Where in The Book of Mormon is there found any writing about the Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthood, their offices and responsibilities? Joseph and Oliver were commanded to use only "what is written", Book of Mormon and New Testament? Priesthood is never mentioned after Christ was crucified. Ask yourself, how many times was Joseph chastised for being too easily influenced by others, also was he warned he would fall if he didn't stop it. You need to go back to the very beginning and learn what actually took place and follow the obvious trail to the truth.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

"Where in The Book of Mormon is there found any writing about the Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthood, their offices and responsibilities?" Right in Alma chapter 13. There is a clear distinction made between the different orders of the Priesthood within this chapter. Also in 3 Nephi, Jesus ordains and sets apart the Twelve Nephite Apostles to the Priesthood. "Priesthood is never mentioned after Christ was crucified." Not true at all. Read Hebrews chapter 7. This chapter speaks explicitly of the Melchizedek Priesthood and it became the subject of Joseph Smith's important August 27, 1843 sermon on the Priesthood. Additionally, the Priesthood is also mentioned in 1 Peter 2:5-9 by Chief Apostle Simon Peter himself. The Priesthood was also mentioned numerous times by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and it became one of the chief tenets of early Christianity and of course later in Catholicism. Even today, a claim to the Priesthood is what constitutes the chief argument of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which they assert was passed down from Simon Peter even until now. They trace this from the earliest teachings and times of Christianity. "Ask yourself, how many times was Joseph chastised for being too easily influenced by others, also was he warned he would fall if he didn't stop it." And yet, it was according to the testimony of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith that the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood was restored to them in 1829 and 1830. Oliver Cowdery maintained this testimony until he died (as recorded by Reuben Miller), and we would know nothing about these ordinations if Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had not given their unequivocal testimonies on the matter. The Aaronic Priesthood was actually restored as part of the Book of Mormon translation process, and as Joseph said, "we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood." (Joseph Smith-History 1:74) It seems that you have imbibed such a spirit of persecution, and hence God hides His precious things from people like you because of your inability to comprehend or accept His Priesthood. On top of all this, the Priesthood was mentioned in Joseph Smith's earliest visitations from the angel Moroni at his home in 1823 (D&C 2). If we cannot believe the testimonies of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery concerning the Restoration of the Priesthood, then why should we accept their testimony concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon? If they were liars or deceived about the Priesthood, then surely they were lying or deceived about the Book of Mormon, because the Priesthood Restoration occurred as part of the Book of Mormon translation process, according to the testimonies of both Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith themselves.

@edwarddiviney5226 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 1st Alma was still under Mosaic Law, wasn't he? The Mosaic Law ended with Christs Death. 3rd Nephi is the Book of Mormon New Testament, even more accurate. So if the BoM contains the fullness of his gospel, why even try to use the Bible to justify this claim? In 3 Nephi 5, when calling his 12 Deciples he, "TOUCHED", giving them "POWER to BAPTIZE", no mention of "ORDAIN or SET APART" The word Priesthood is not found in the BoM from Christ's appearance, in 3 Nephi on. Alma was talking about the Old Law which was satisfied in Christ. Christ speaks clearly about that Law being done away. He even changed the 10 Commandments. It was in one of the pre 1830 revelations that Joseph was told he had been given the gift to "TRANSLATE ", it was the only gift he was given. He was told to pretend to no other gift because he would not be given any other gift. Look at the original book of Commandments, they were commanded not to make it public, they did anyway. Ask yourself why did he change the wording of that commandment, adding "he would be given no more gifts, until he was finished translating the BoM. He either made or approved multiple changes to the D&C and The BoM, not just punctuation but changes that actually changed the meaning of the revelations and Doctrine. Gods word does not change! The arguement used is that there are errors in the Bible, recall the phrase " as far as it is translated correctly"? Read the articles of Faith. The New Testament portion of The BoM, the template for establishing his church", contains the "Fullness" of his Gospel, anything added or taken away from it is not of Him. Before regurgitating some memorized phrase, " Don't be a Lazy Learner, go find a copy of the 1830 Book Of Mormon reprint, look up the original book of Commandments and I reccomend David Whitmer's "An Address To All Believers In Christ", amazing insights into what really happened before Joseph's Murder. I assume you believe there will be a separating of the Wheat and Tares, I wonder, could the growing number of lifelong members who are "Waking up to the truth of our awful situation" be the ones receiving the outpouring of his Spirit, in these Last days? Our opposition sure seems to have the spirit of Contention, rather than discussing and viewing the evidence, calmly, SEEKING THE TRUTH, there definitely seems to be a lot of snark and insults. Read Mormon 8 for start, it can only be referring to the LDS, if it is the LDS Church which is mentioned as "POLLUTING THE HOLY CHURCH OF GOD", shouldn't we clean it up? Have you ever heard the phrase, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"? In order to fix something you've got to know what's wrong.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@edwarddiviney5226 (SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS DUE TO LENGTH-PART 1:) You said: "1st Alma was still under Mosaic Law, wasn't he? The Mosaic Law ended with Christs Death." The things which Alma taught in Alma 13 were not confined to the Law of Moses nor to a strictly Mosaic Dispensation. What Alma speaks of in this chapter are things "called and prepared from the foundation of the world," hence he clearly speaks of ETERNAL principles that are of an ETERNAL nature. We are not told in any part of the Book of Mormon that 3rd Nephi is meant to be taken as more binding or serious for us than any other part of it. The truths of the Gospel are just as evident in Alma 13 as in any other chapter, and moreover, Alma concludes his discourse on the Priesthood by saying: "Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. BEHOLD, THE SCRIPTURES ARE BEFORE YOU; IF YE WILL WREST THEM IT SHALL BE TO YOUR OWN DESTRUCTION." (Alma 13:20) This quite clearly demonstrates that Alma's teachings on this occasion were prophetic and eternal in nature. We are also repeatedly told that the Book of Mormon is "for our day," and we are not told that the teachings on the Priesthood in Alma 13 are exempt from this rule. Joseph Smith also made it clear in his October 5, 1840 discourse that not all parts of the Law of Moses will be repealed, especially those parts involving eternal principles which existed prior to Moses. He specifically cites the Law of Sacrifice and the Priesthood in relation to this (TPJS 172-173). Moreover, Jesus taught us in Matthew 5:17-20 that the Law of Moses was not abrogated, but fulfilled in Him. He taught us that those who would break that law and refuse to teach those commandments will be "called the least in the kingdom of heaven." So to dismiss something simply because it was revealed in a Mosaic Dispensation already puts you entirely out of line with the teachings of the Savior Himself. You said: "So if the BoM contains the fullness of his gospel, why even try to use the Bible to justify this claim?" Because Nephi specifically DAMNED those who would reject "the words of the Jews," i.e., the Old and New Testaments as contained in the Holy Bible: "And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and RESPECT THE WORDS OF THE JEWS [i.e., the Bible], and also my words [i.e., the Book of Mormon], and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God [i.e., the Revelations in the Latter-days], behold, I bid you an EVERLASTING FAREWELL, for THESE WORDS shall CONDEMN YOU at the last day." (2 Nephi 33:14) You said: "In 3 Nephi 5, when calling his 12 Deciples he, "TOUCHED", giving them "POWER to BAPTIZE", no mention of "ORDAIN or SET APART"" LOL, except that Moroni LITERALLY tells us himself the exact manner in which the Church of Christ "ORDAINED" priests and teachers, as given directly by Christ: "The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ORDAINED PRIESTS and TEACHERS--After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they LAID THEIR HANDS UPON THEM, and said: In the name of Jesus Christ I ORDAIN you to be a PRIEST, (or, if he be a TEACHER) I ORDAIN you to be a TEACHER, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen. And after this manner did they ORDAIN priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ORDAINED them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them." (Moroni 3) You said: "The word Priesthood is not found in the BoM from Christ's appearance, in 3 Nephi on." While the specific word "Priesthood" may not occur in the text that we have, Moroni nevertheless gives us to understand in Moroni chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 that there was an organized hierarchy of the Priesthood along with the attendant ordinances of the sacrament, baptism, laying on of hands, and so forth. You cannot argue that Moroni was in a Mosaic Dispensation, nor can you seriously argue that these ordinances and this Priesthood were apostate innovations, for Moroni thoroughly explains to us that these ordinances were traced directly from the time of Christ until his time, and that he himself saw and talked with the Savior face to face. Furthermore, we have no idea about the majority of what Christ taught the Nephites because Mormon literally tells us that we have LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of what Jesus said to them on that occasion. He furthermore tells us that we WILL BE DAMNED for rejecting the GREATER THINGS, and that the Lord only gave us this "lesser portion" which we currently have, IN ORDER TO TRY OUR FAITH, for the later reception of the GREATER THINGS. (3 Nephi 26:6-11) The only CLUE that we are given, is that just before Jesus' unrecorded discourse, He referenced the visitation of Elijah as spoken of by Malachi (3 Nephi 25:5)-so apparently Jesus Christ taught them things about the Celestial Law on this occasion, such as were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple. You said: "Alma was talking about the Old Law which was satisfied in Christ." Actually, no, he was not. As I explained, the things in Alma 13 are ETERNAL principles, just like the Law of Sacrifice which Joseph taught us will be restored and reinstituted prior to and even AFTER Christ's Coming, because it is an ETERNAL principle connected with the rights of the Priesthood (TPJS 172-173). You said: "Christ speaks clearly about that Law being done away." LOL, this is literally the OPPOSITE of what Jesus said: "Think NOT that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am NOT come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17) You said: "He even changed the 10 Commandments." No, He absolutely did not. Not a single one of the 10 Commandments was altered by Jesus Christ during His ministry, unless you are referring to Christ's teaching on "lusting after a woman," but even this principle was already expressed in the original 10 Commandments as well: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17) You said: "It was in one of the pre 1830 revelations that Joseph was told he had been given the gift to "TRANSLATE ", it was the only gift he was given." I've always found this argument very ironic. It basically amounts to a circular logical fallacy. You're upset because Joseph very mildly modified the text of his revelation to instead say: "And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished." (D&C 5:4) Whereas the original simply said: "he hath A gift to translate the Book [of Mormon] & I have commanded him that he should shall pretend to no other gift for I will grant unto him no other gift" (Joseph Smith Papers) So just because Joseph called it his "first" gift and added the words "until it is finished," he's now a false prophet? David Whitmer used this exact reasoning in his little pamphlet that you referred to. Do you realize that you are quoting from one of Joseph's own "revelations" right from the outset? If Joseph had the gift of revelation when he originally dictated this section, wasn't he already "pretending" to some other gift aside from translation? How could he have the gift of revelation if he supposedly could only translate??? If you already accept Joseph Smith as a Revelator enough to quote from one of his own revelations, then why do you not trust his ability to revise his revelations according to the Spirit of God, when he did nothing to take away what was written, but merely expanded upon and only added to what was already there? If you are simply against a Priesthood organization, then you are against the Book of Mormon, because it is spoken of by both Alma and Moroni.

@terminuselectron6900 Жыл бұрын

@@edwarddiviney5226 PART 2: You said: "Look at the original book of Commandments" I actually prefer to look at the Joseph Smith Papers original manuscripts, thanks. You said: "they were commanded not to make it public, they did anyway." Actually, the original revelation states: "he should not show them EXCEPT I COMMAND HIM." (Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis added) Clearly, there came a point in time when Joseph was "COMMANDED" to show them, just as this revelation's text originally stated. You said: "Ask yourself why did he change the wording of that commandment, adding "he would be given no more gifts, until he was finished translating the BoM. He either made or approved multiple changes to the D&C and The BoM, not just punctuation but changes that actually changed the meaning of the revelations and Doctrine. Gods word does not change! The arguement used is that there are errors in the Bible, recall the phrase " as far as it is translated correctly"? Read the articles of Faith." Why did Joseph change these things? Because the Lord told us about Joseph Smith: "For HIS WORD ye shall receive, AS IF FROM MINE OWN MOUTH, in all patience and faith." (D&C 21:5) By the way, this revelation's text was NOT changed, you can go and look it up online at the Joseph Smith Papers. This was what it originally said, and this was the revelation given at the organization of the Church of Christ on April 6, 1830. Even David Whitmer acknowledged that the Church was set up by the Spirit of God at this early date, and yet he neglected to follow this commandment to LISTEN TO JOSEPH'S WORDS, as if from God's own mouth. Furthermore, a promise of PROTECTION and SALVATION was attached to this commandment: "For BY DOING THESE THINGS [i.e., hearkening to the words of Joseph Smith] the GATES OF HELL shall NOT prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will DISPERSE the POWERS OF DARKNESS from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory. For thus saith the Lord God: HIM [JOSEPH SMITH] have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and HIS diligence I know, and HIS prayers I have heard. Yea, HIS weeping for Zion I have seen, and I will cause that HE shall mourn for her no longer; for HIS days of rejoicing are come unto the remission of HIS sins, and the manifestations of MY BLESSINGS upon HIS WORKS." (D&C 21:6-8) You said: "The New Testament portion of The BoM, the template for establishing his church", contains the "Fullness" of his Gospel, anything added or taken away from it is not of Him." And yet Moroni tells us that the Priesthood was a part of his dispensation as well, just as I explained above. You said: "Before regurgitating some memorized phrase, " Don't be a Lazy Learner, go find a copy of the 1830 Book Of Mormon reprint, look up the original book of Commandments and I reccomend David Whitmer's "An Address To All Believers In Christ", amazing insights into what really happened before Joseph's Murder." You seem to be the one regurgitating memorized phrases from David Whitmer and his apostate ilk. I have read the entirety of David Whitmer's pamphlet, a number of years ago in fact. It's certainly an interesting document, but it is clear that David Whitmer's own failure to keep the commandment HEARKEN to Joseph's words, as given in the revelation at the founding of the Church of Christ on April 6, 1830 (which is contained in D&C 21), is what led to David Whitmer's falling away and the consequent darkness of his mind on certain matters. I also regularly study the Book of Mormon earliest text, in fact, not even the 1830 edition which itself contains some emendations, but actually The Earliest Text as preserved in the original manuscripts and as compiled by Royal Skousen. I also regularly study the Doctrine and Covenants original manuscripts as made available by the Joseph Smith Papers. I have no problem with the changes Joseph Smith made, because I have a testimony of his calling as the mouthpiece of God to this generation, just as was Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, or Ether. You said: "I assume you believe there will be a separating of the Wheat and Tares, I wonder, could the growing number of lifelong members who are "Waking up to the truth of our awful situation" be the ones receiving the outpouring of his Spirit, in these Last days?" The sad thing is that many of those who are "waking up to a sense of our awful situation," are not always receiving the Spirit of the Lord after their awakening, but another spirit, even a spirit of deception and one designed to break down the Priesthood and bring about chaos. After all, chaos is Satan's playground. Jesus warned us that the Very Elect would be deceived, and we are indeed seeing this, even in those who think they are "awake," when in reality they have just simply ended one dream and slipped into another instead. You said: "Our opposition sure seems to have the spirit of Contention, rather than discussing and viewing the evidence, calmly, SEEKING THE TRUTH, there definitely seems to be a lot of snark and insults." Yes, indeed, I have witnessed a great deal of SNARK and INSULTS coming from YOUR OWN CROWD. In this conversation alone, you have accused me of "regurgitating memorized phrases" and in the original version of your comment you told me that, "you should read a bit more carefully before attempting to correct people." Now, WHAT could such words POSSIBLY be coming from your own mouth other than SNARKINESS and INSULTS? I have gotten to the point where I have lost much patience and desire to try to have civil conversation with you people, because you ALWAYS bring it down to the level of personal insults, snarkiness, and sarcasm. So really what do you deserve in return, but simply a taste of your own medicine? You said: "Read Mormon 8 for start, it can only be referring to the LDS, if it is the LDS Church which is mentioned as "POLLUTING THE HOLY CHURCH OF GOD", shouldn't we clean it up? Have you ever heard the phrase, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"? In order to fix something you've got to know what's wrong." Oh, I'm VERY well-aware of the problems existing in the current LDS Church-more aware than probably you are or most others in your movement. I have dedicated entire years of my life to studying this problem, and I can confidently say that I now understand it VERY WELL. But I will also say that by ATTACKING the PRIESTHOOD and even the very CONCEPT THEREOF, you are clipping the thread of your own salvation and cutting yourself off from any claim to Celestial Glory in the hereafter. The PRIESTHOOD is not necessarily "the LDS Church" nor the "LDS Church hierarchy" as we have been indoctrinated to believe. But I will not get into this here, and it's not worth explaining to someone who would have such an insipid argument with me over such simple matters as this.

@Mikha335 Жыл бұрын

@@terminuselectron6900 You said that the reason we know about the priesthood restorations is because of Joseph and Oliver’s testimony. Yes, that’s true, but it’s the very fact that these events were not known from the beginning to those who were intimately connected until about 5 years later that is the problem. David Whitmer and William McLellan being a primary example. Further, the Aricles of the Church of Christ (now the first part of D&C 20) is the most relevant document providing the basis of authority for the organization of the church. I’m sure you are aware that the only argument for authority mentioned therein is the visitation of an “Angel” who revealed the location of the plates. Essentially, virtually every evidence given today in proselytizing was absent from the original message of the Mormon restoration save the BoM translation only. No unique claims of priesthood restoration, no First Vision, no eternal marriage, eternal family, temple endowments, etc. And if you are really honest about all the “restoration”, united order, plural marriage and Adam-God, can’t be ignored. But instead of these unique revelations, what did the church in use? A book that taught what virtually every Protestant in America already believed - a quasi Trinitarian theology.