Ep56: The Nauvoo Expositor vs. D&C 132; RFM Refutes Polygamy Deniers' Claim

Did Joseph Smith record D&C 132, the revelation on plural marriage? A growing number of members of the church and splinter groups believe that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, but rather, this practice was instituted by Brigham Young. They also believe that any written record of Joseph's polygamy, including D&C 132 was created years later by Brigham Young to make it appear that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Radio Free Mormon joins Mormonish on this explosive episode to provide incontrovertible evidence that D&C 132 was recorded in Joseph Smith's life time, and was seen and reviewed by several different people who printed affidavits in the Nauvoo Expositor. This comparison between their description of D&C 132, as stated in the affidavits, and D&C 132 itself makes it perfectly clear that this document must have existed during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Join us for this fascinating episode as Radio Free Mormon puts the evidence on trial!
We appreciate our Mormonish viewers and listeners so much! If you would like to support our podcast, you can DONATE to support Mormonish Podcast here:
PayPal:
paypal.me/BiblioTechMedia?cou...
Venmo:
@BiblioTechMedia

[@TheSaintelias]

I’m sure the apologist response will be a “loose polygamy vs tight polygamy” theory. 😂

[@randyjordan5521]

Or maybe a hemispheric vs. limited geography polygamy theory.

[@paulhallett1452]

Catalyst polygamy - Joseph thought he was only being married to Emma, but somehow she inspired him to pressure young girls into marriage.

[@franktorelli5456]

If I were a polygamist I'd prefer being a TIGHT polygamy, by a long shot.

[@user-og2wt3le4j]

Polygamy deniers at 9:08. JS also practiced polyandry. The problem is many members of the church were taught in Priesthood and Relief Society that JS never practiced plural marriage.

[@amazinmaven]

While many members didn't (and some still don't) know about Joseph practicing polygamy, it was still understood to have been revealed to Joseph

[@Sayheybrother8]

Yes, now the problem that exist is the millennials don’t believe Gen x and boomers who say we weren’t taught this. Add on the lazy learners comment and gaslighting from leaders who say “we haven’t hidden anything” the kids think really think we’re lying just to have a reason for broken shelves.

[@randyjordan5521]

What I, and most other Mormons were taught until about a decade ago, is that Joseph reluctantly took plural wives after an angel with drawn sword threatened to kill him if he didn't. So Joseph plural married a few old spinster women just to make a show of obedience. None of those sealings involved sexual relations. 19th century Mormons didn't begin practicing polygamy in earnest until they began moving west, and they only did it to provide husbands for widows of men who had been killed in "persecutions" or had died on the trek west. That's pretty much all I heard about polygamy in my 42 years of activity in the church. It is only the plethora of information which has been published on the internet for the last quarter century or so that has forced the church to be more honest about the details of Smith's polygamy practice. And the church's prior reticence to reveal those details is a big reason for these people who are denying that Joseph practiced it.

[@randyjordan5521]

@@sheliabryant3997 It's so sad that Joseph's god sent that angel with the drawn sword to threaten to kill him if he didn't practice polygamy---and then Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy got him killed anyway. Poor li'l Joe.

[@DancingQueenie]

Anyone who takes the time to read section 132 slowly and thoughtfully has to be appalled or has to remain in deep denial of the misogyny and human suffering that resulted in this “law”. Even in RS lessons, there was a lot of glossing over of the facts.

[@Sayheybrother8]

Notice the lesson manual never explains the provenance of the letter to Emma trying to encourage her to accept polygamy.

[@randyjordan5521]

Yep, in church classes, they don't say much about the parts of Section 132 that state that if Emma doesn't accept Joseph's plural wives, she shall be destroyed.

[@DancingQueenie]

@@randyjordan5521 Just ridiculous to think GOD would threaten her. Sounds like JS was so frustrated and angry that she wasn’t going along and allow him to live his wet dream, he had to drag god into it.

[@randyjordan5521]

@@DancingQueenie Joseph Smith was not hesitant to have people who opposed him be killed. The ironic thing is that Joseph was killed 11 months after he wrote that "revelation," while Emma lived until 1879.

[@DancingQueenie]

@@randyjordan5521 Ha! He didn’t see that coming! I ❤️ irony.

[@ETBlair]

Case closed! Well done.

[@barryrichins]

Guys, I just asked my friend John Hamer why the RLDS church finally admitted that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. His answer was that up until the mid 20th century the church had no professional historian. Emma's denial of JS,s ever practicing polygamy couldn't stand up to professional scrutiny. Perhaps Emma was trying to save face, or at least protect her children from finding out just what kind of a man their father was. I can't blame Emma too harshly for her lie.

[@user-og2wt3le4j]

I always like John Hamer's weekly lectures on the history of Christianity.

[@tinariches6690]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqbccqBqntd4p6c

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

It seems RLDS, LDS, ex-LDS all agree Joseph practiced both polygamy and polyandry…that speaks volumes when all three of those groups agree on something.

[@user-og2wt3le4j]

@@mormonishpodcast1036 The LDS church only recently became transparent on this issue. They rarely talked about it in GA talks. The polyandry is very recent.

[@antonolder5560]

@@user-og2wt3le4j Yes, I also, it's very good

[@randyjordan5521]

I have suggested to several of the people who run these channels that a very good episode could be produced in which every mention of the "revelation on celestial marriage" which was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime would dispel a lot of the misinformation that these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are spreading. I'm talking about documents such as Martha Brotherton's affidavit which was published on July 16, 1842, in which she detailed Brigham Young's attempt to talk her into plural marrying him: “brother Joseph has had a revelation from God [not yet written down] that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days, and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me, I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it.” Obviously, if Brigham Young fabricated the "revelation" after Joseph's death as these polygamy deniers theorize, Martha could not possibly have quoted that specific verbiage in July 1842. There are numerous other similar examples. It would be a good research project to compile all of those examples and present them in chronological order.

[@isthechurchtrue]

Also remember the Temple Lot case that happened to determine who owned the lot of land that the temple was supposed to be built on in Missouri. After Joseph Smith's death, several of his plural wives testified in that court case under oath that they did have sexual relations with him as plural wives.

[@barryrichins]

Probably, Law felt he had to prepare Jane for the fall out that was to come. They stood to lose reputation, home, their mill and their livelyhood, not to mention being shunned and cast out.

[@randyjordan5521]

The Laws and Cowles actually had to escape from Nauvoo with only their lives. Joseph's polygamous loyalists "whistled and whittled" them out of town. Here are Law's journal entries after Joseph Smith ordered their printing press destroyed: June 11th. This day we learn that a combination is entered into to take away our lives (Law’s & Foster) and that the Mayor and City Council are passing an ordinance to fine in the sume of $500.00 and imprison six months any person who speaks disrespectfully of the City Charter, or any ordinance of said City, or any citizen of said City. We found that this plan was resorted to that they might by a form of law rob us of our property, and get us into their prisons to take away our lives. We therefore thought it wisdom to retire from the midst of a den of robbers, and murderers,--. It was is truly mortifying to be under the necessity of leaving good comfortable homes, with but a few hours to prepare, yet it was is the only course left, and so we commenced packing our goods &c. June 12th. This day myself, my wife and children (three), Wilson Law, R. D. Foster, wife and child and two other families leave Nauvoo, on a steamboat for Burlington, Iowa. My brother and I had nine horses, three waggons & two carriages & most of our furniture, much of which could not be got up under cover, and we had rain nearly all the time going up; lay over one night on the way because of darkness. June 13th. This day we proceeded on our journey and reached Burlington about three o’clock P. M. and put up at Mr. Westley’s Hotel, store our goods in a warehouse near the river, and spend some time looking for a house to rent; find rent very high and good houses scarce. We feel very thankful to God for his kind deliverance, and goodness in preserving our lives. June 16. Today Mr. Austin Cowles arrived with his family from Nauvoo, glad to make an escape from that worse than Sodom.

[@samtaylor5931]

How do current members of the church, who say JS didn't practice polygamy, address the Gospel Topic Essay on polygamy which states JS did practice polygamy and was approved by all current prophets, seers, and revelators? If JS didn't practice polygamy wouldn't these men be able to get revelation from God to affirm that and set the record straight. It would seem they did get approval from God to say JS did practice polygamy and authorized it to be shared with all the world in an offical church document.

[@randyjordan5521]

The current Joseph Smith polygamy deniers believe that all of the historians who have published material which documents Smith's polygamy (including Brian Hales, who reportedly authored the polygamy essays) are misinformed or misguided or have an agenda to support the "Brighamite" church. The deniers are typical conspiracy theorists who challenge the provenance or credibility of everyone who disagrees with them. The deniers pore through historical documents to find what they believe are "smoking guns" which show that Brigham Young or other apostles were practicing polygamy behind Joseph's back and against his teachings. The deniers' position is that Section 132 is a bogus revelation that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with, and therefore it should be removed from the D&C, and that church leaders should admit that polygamy was wrong from the outset. In short, the deniers are trying to change history by sheer power of will.

[@barryrichins]

To believe Mormonism as explained by believers, one has to deal with too many extraneous assumptions in order for one to try to even understand how the believers came to their conclusions. Kills the hell out of Occams Razor, doesn't it?

[@Sayheybrother8]

Most TBM’s don’t have the slightest clue of the pre assumptions they’re inheriting when they say what they believe or retell faithful stories they’ve heard from the pulpit.

[@robertgrey8648]

Outstanding, enlightening, and at the same time, very enjoyable episode. Loved it!!

[@TheSaintelias]

William and Jane Law sound like a couple with healthy communication and respect for each other. No notes to girls behind Jane’s back.

[@randyjordan5521]

For 180 years, LDS leaders and apologists have cast William Law as one of the bad guys in the events. But if you read his journal entries, the Nauvoo Expositor, and his 1887 interview, he was clearly a good, Christian man who simply tried to persuade Joseph Smith to abolish polygamy and other false doctrines.

[@rebeccasirrine947]

My ex-husband's great-great-aunt was Desdemona Fullmer. She was married to Smith and has a chapter in Todd Compton's book, In Sacred Loneliness.

[@cathysmelser5401]

Great episode!!

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

Loved episode. Thanks guys.

[@aaronrasmussen981]

Great presentation! I think it would be neat to give each individual their own highlighted color to show the revelation where there is overlap and differences of which part of the revelation they observed. And then see how much of the revelation has been mentioned in the affadavits Edit: I see you added it at the end of the episode, that is great!

[@TheAmeled]

Great episode

[@user-dm3gq3zd8i]

I loved this episode you all do a great job. Bingo you hit the nail on the head!

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

Okay. Does that same argument mean that Brigham Young was NOT a prophet because he DID practice polygamy?

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

Hats 👒 off to RFM one more time.

[@Jjj53214]

It appears it was it was a mistake on Smith’s part to destroy the Expositor, which ultimately led to Smith’s murder.

[@iamjustonemom1950]

Bravo! Thank you for the detailed, document based polygamy/Sec 132 delineation.

[@barryrichins]

R, my man, I must say the you also are a mensch! Great presentation, You all!!!

[@iamjustsaying1]

Excellent presentation! Slam dunk!

[@leonoratirazona9916]

Can anyone explain to me why Emma Bidamon is still mentioned in Church history as Emma Smith. Didn't she ever used her 2nd husband's last name?

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

The Bidamon name is the name the apostate Emma used. The Smith name conjures up images of a happy, blissful love story between Joseph and Emma. That is the image the church wants you to think of so that is the name they use. She actually married Bidamon on Joseph Smith’s birthday which is interesting. Great thought thanks for listening!

[@randyjordan5521]

@@mormonishpodcast1036 Interestingly, Louis Bidamon founded what became the Diamond Match Company.

[@KSASTAMPS]

Outstanding episode My only critique would be that RFM might consider softening the claim that the document read to the Nauvoo council is the same "in all material respects." to Sec 132. I think this is overstating your case and unnecessary really: the fact that you have pointed out substantial similarity between the two documents (by showing highlights throughout the Sec 132 we have) I believe is plenty sufficient to throw the ball back into the polygamy deniers court, and ask THEM to provide a better explanation for this than you have provided. What you have done here certainly fully justifies the idea that the denier's now have the burden of proof of trying to provide a better explanation. If they can't then it really is GAME, SET, MATCH to RFM. Sorry Michelle, this must be the dagger to your heart. I slogged thru 132 Problems latest discussion (over 3 hours long) where Jeremy Hoop starts to lay out the case to impeach William Clayton. This thread of evidence outlined by RFM is brilliant because it doesn't have any dependence on what William Clayton was writing down in his diary. So, even if you completely destroy the credibility of William Clayton, so what? What William Law, Jane Law & Austin Cowles report is still printed there for all the world to see.

[@lrsvalentine]

She didn't destroy the credibility of William Clayton. Dude was practicing polygamy. So what? Doesn't prove he didn't get the idea from JS. If you read the diary entries that Michelle and Jeremy used, you will see in UN-HIGHLIGHTED sections the tender feelings Clayton expressed for JS. There's no way he was going around JS' back in some grand conspiracy.

[@freshofftheboat8207]

Polygamy deniers are already dismissing this information because RFM said it was “identical” to section 132. I’m afraid all this hard work has fallen on deaf ears for the intended audience.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

If the two documents are not “identical” twins they are certainly fraternal twins! Either way two documents from the same mother I.e. Joseph’s dictates revelation.

[@radiofreemormon5140]

To be clear, I never meant to say that they are identical. In fact, I’m pretty sure I never said that. What I believe I said was that it seems the document seen by the three affiants in the Nauvoo expositor was in all material respects identical to section 132.

[@ssamelion1sard914]

Great podcast! 👏🙂 BRAVO!

[@thelastgoonie6555]

Where can I see the slide at the end with all the wives listed for Joseph Smith?

[@thelastgoonie6555]

Pretty Pretty Please?!?

[@clcole5655]

RFM you are AMAZING!!!! as much as I’ve hated the whole polygamy era of our history I always thought section 132 was backdated to fit LDS needs NOW I UNDERSTAND it wasn’t (I never doubted JS was a polygamist but thought Brigham backdated it to fit the new normal)

[@Jjj53214]

The polygamy deniers are forced to argue that Young drew upon polygamy material in the Expositor to later on write 132. The revelation for 132 did not precede the Expositor, but rather the subsequent writers of 132 embedded content from the Expositor into the D&C section.

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

One big question that I have is "Why would Joseph go against what is said in Jacob 2 about polygamy"? That just doesn't make sense to me at all.

[@debbieshrubb1222]

I think he had almost forgotten what was in the BOM at this point.

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

@@debbieshrubb1222 Thanks.

[@radiofreemormon5140]

Time after time, Joseph received new revelation that contradicted and supplanted his earlier revelations. This is part of a pattern.

[@patricianoel7782]

Cuz he wants more wifey attention!!

[@randyjordan5521]

It's because Joseph Smith was a complete fraudster. He was not a good man or an honest man. Here's what William Law related about how Smith tried to justify his polygamy doctrine: “What do you know about the revelation on polygamy?” “The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ‘Yes, that is a genuine revelation.’ I said to the prophet: ‘But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.’ ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘that was given when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat’ We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal."

[@BonnieWells-qg8tk]

Playing devils advocate... Couldn't Brigham have just looked at the affidavits in the expositor and then created 132 to match what was said? That said, I wonder if a list could be created of how many pieces of evidence had to be deliberately planted and how many people needed to be co-conspirators to make it so that Joseph is clean of polygamy?

[@rebeccabibliotheca]

This a good question! I like to put it through the Michael Shermer conspiracy theory test and also Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, both great ways to analyze whether something is improbable and most likely a conspiracy theory. If you haven't read up on these analysis techniques, it's great info. Here's what Michael Shermer says about the sheer number of people it would take to pull off most conspiracies. Not realistic at all.. "People. The more people involved in the conspiracy theory, the less likely it is to be true. Conspiracies involving large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets typically fail. People are incompetent and emotional. They screw up, chicken out, change their minds, have moral scruples. Conspiracy theories treat people as automata or Manchurian candidates operating like programmed robots carrying out their commands. That is unrealistic."

[@BonnieWells-qg8tk]

@rebeccabibliotheca. Thank you that's helpful better articulates what I was getting at with the 2nd question. The number of people and the degree to which they (Brighamites) would have had to go to plant evidence is becoming quite insanely large.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

This theory also requires us to ignore all the other contemporary evidence. The affidavits (William and Jane) say they were shown the revelation by Hyrum and by Cowles that it was read in the high council. This agrees with the church’s narrative that Hyrum asked Joseph to request a revelation to appease Emma and that this revelation was received in 1843 and then shared by Hyrum to Emma and others. There is a copy of the revelation written by Joseph’s scribe on display in the Church History Museum showing that Joseph had the revelation reproduced. Both the LDS and RLDS agree that Joseph was a polygamist because of the contemporary evidence. Also only a few copies of the Nauvoo Expositor exist because Joseph destroyed the papers and the press so BY May not even of had access to a copy of the paper. Clearly this affiants had seen a document that covered what they described. To say that they all made up the stories they told without looking at any document and then someone made up a document to match their testimonies is not credible and would need to be proved (you can’t just make up stuff with no historical proof). The bottom line is the historical evidence backs up the affiants testimonies.

[@randyjordan5521]

" Couldn't Brigham have just looked at the affidavits in the expositor and then created 132 to match what was said?" That is a theory that some of these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers have actually pitched. The reason it's nonsense is that the men who published the Nauvoo Expositor were introduced to plural marriage by Joseph and Hyrum Smith personally. The whole reason those men opposed polygamy and published the Expositor is because Joseph had Hyrum present the "revelation on celestial marriage" before the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, to seek their vote to sustain the document as church doctrine. Three of the high councilors opposed the measure, and they were among the men who worked to persuade Smith to renounce and abolish polygamy. A total of six men in that meeting swore affidavits testifying that Hyrum had read the revelation to them; some of those affidavits swore that what Hyrum read is the same text as D&C 132 today. Also, there were numerous other items published during Joseph's lifetime which quoted verbiage and principles from the revelation, so it's disingenuous for these deniers to theorize that Brigham Young fabricated the document after Joseph's death. And of course, the fact that part of D&C 132 is addressed to Emma Smith makes it even more ridiculous to believe that Brigham wrote it after Joseph's death. I recommend that you read two documents which were published during Joseph's life: "Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives" "A Narrative of the Adventures and Experience of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo" Both documents are on the internet. These documents are examples of why it's disingenuous to assert that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy.

[@randyjordan5521]

@@BonnieWells-qg8tk "The number of people and the degree to which they (Brighamites) would have had to go to plant evidence is becoming quite insanely large." Correct, and it was not only the Brighamites who testified that Joseph Smith originated polygamy; his dissidents such as John C. Bennett, William Law, Austin Cowles, and Joseph H. Jackson also said that Smith was behind it. Also, some women who rejected Smith's plural marriage propositions, such as Martha Brotherton and Nancy Rigdon said that Smith started it. And then there were men like William Marks, who continued to believe in the church, but he opposed polygamy and joined the RLDS movement: he said that Joseph Smith had originated polygamy, but shortly before his death, admitted his error, and had tried to backpedal on it. On top of all that, Joseph's long-time close insider aide Sidney Rigdon said that Joseph's "spiritual wife system" was the immediate cause of his and Hyrum's deaths. So in short, these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers have to believe that all of those people with all of their varied backgrounds and agendas would somehow manage to tell the same massive set of lies about Joseph Smith, and keep telling them for decades.

[@isthechurchtrue]

D&C 132 excuses the polygamy of David and Solomon but the Book of Mormon condemns it in Jacob 2: 23-24.

[@sheliabryant3997]

@isthechurchtrue. The Sovereign "position" on polygamy was made clear - ONCE FOR ALL - in the event of Abraham and Hagar & Ishmael/ Abraham and SARAH & ISAAC. Reiterated in Psalm 22:22-28, 39, 31. Reiterated by Jesus, Matt. 12:6, 8, 12, & v. 42. ( Among others)

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

You said that Elvira was married to Joseph in 1843. When was this revealed. Is there a marriage certificate or was this another document that came forth while in Utah? Sorry if you said but I have a hard time focusing at times and at this time of night especially. Thanks.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

This episode wasn’t about who Joseph married but whether D&C 132 was revealed while Joseph Smith was alive and not made up later by Brigham Young. Joseph was careful to not provide any documentation of his multiple marriages including his revelation that became D&C 132. That is why he became so angry and burned the Expositor when his revelation was exposed in the paper. There is information about Elvira and the evidences on the Joseph Smith polygamy website if you want to investigate deeper. Thanks for listening!

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

@@mormonishpodcast1036 Thanks.

[@randyjordan5521]

Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness" uses 15 pages to document Joseph Smith's and Elvira Annie Cowles' relationship. Why don't you just check it out at a library and read it? "According to an affidavit she signed in Utah in 1869, Elvira was sealed to Joseph Smith on June 1, 1843, in Heber C. Kimball's house, with Heber officiating and Vilate and Eliza Partridge standing as witnesses.: ---Compton, p. 548

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

Emma was not happy either.

[@Randal0011]

I'm wondering if what Joseph meant "in the case of Uriah" was that the object of this sentence was about Uriah falling and not David.

[@franktorelli5456]

The Brigham Young theory flies in the face of the JS Journals.

[@franktorelli5456]

Did Charley Weaver play Chester Lightfoot in the Old Gunsmoke!?

[@dennisbowden3985]

The issue with Uriah was that David had him murdered to get Bathsheba. Joseph said David didn't sin in having all the wives, until he murdered a husband to get another one. BTW, how sick was David, who had hundreds of wives and concubines, but that wasn't enough... Gotta kill a man to get another one?

[@JeffDayPoppy]

Not only do the affidavits cover the principles, and get the language correct, but it also seems they don't extend beyond the principles included into any ideas that are outside the bounds of 132.

[@rebeccabibliotheca]

To me that is an important point too!

[@isthechurchtrue]

2 Samuel chapters 11-12 explains why Uriah was a sin. King David had her husband killed in a war so that he could marry Bathsheba. It was a major sin that David committed. He saw Bathsheba bathing and wanted her to be his wife so he conspired to have her husband Uriah killed. 1:04:13

[@tinariches6690]

Is there someone saying polygamy isn’t or wasn’t a thing? Isn’t that what the meaning of denial is, That it didn’t really happen? I haven’t heard anyone from these groups claim polygamy didn’t happen…

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

There are groups who believe that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy. They believe that Brigham Young instituted the practice and created documents and evidence to throw Joseph under the bus. They do not believe Joseph ever practiced it and in fact he preached strongly against it. They believe that Brigham Young created section 132 years after Joseph's death to justify polygamy. This podcast proves that section 132 existed during Joseph's lifetime and that Joseph was the creator of section 132.

[@amazinmaven]

Right. It's shorthand for the belief that it didn't start with Joseph

[@randyjordan5521]

There are several naive, well-meaning Mormon KZbinrs who assert that Smith opposed polygamy. I don't know if the guys who run this channel want to advertise who those deniers are, but the guys on this channel have already addressed the issue in several previous recent videos.

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

Isn't there a story where Hyrum presented 132 to Emma and she threw it in the fire?

[@sleepycalico]

Demonstrating through printed affidavits that Section 132 WAS written in Joseph Smith's lifetime logically seems like it would create a fatal problem for the JS polygamy deniers, but I think we will learn nothing is a fatal flaw for them. Impressive evidence for everyone else, though. Well done.

[@sheliabryant3997]

@sleepy. GREAT POINT & info. Thx

[@tontoschwartz3666]

Very interesting and informative discussion. Loved it. I am astounded that anyone could read Section 132 with his or her brain turned on and think the revelation came from God and not from a horny, not to mention sleazy, man seeking to legitimize his sexual dalliances and to shut down Emma and other wives.

[@jpenir]

I thought this was a settled issued

[@ryanhollist3950]

I wonder what the polygamy deniers have to say about the Gospel Doctrine Essay that admits to Joseph's polygamy. (I get that many of them may be from sects outside of the LDS church.)

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

Many of the polygamy deniers are actually mainstream Mormons. They say the church has it wrong!

[@Hpencer]

Joseph didnt write section 132. Joseph wasn't polygamous.

[@saraleedog]

Let Bill talk😮

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

Who's Bill? This episode was RFM, Landon and Rebecca. If you mean Bill Reel, he was not on this episode.

[@GarySaint-xm6tr]

God said through the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 12: 7-8 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Can God sin? No, so polygamy is not a sin if God commands it, right? Just answer the question. Oh God sinned in the Old Testament, but didnt in the New Testament? Is that your answer? Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. The two prophets in Revelation 11 went to heaven in their bodies of flesh and bones, Romans 6:9 Teaches us that Christ will never die again. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Means no mortal can inherit the kingdom of God, mortals are kept alive by blood, whereas immortals are kept alive by spirit, which is why an immortal body is called a spiritual body, but an immortal body is not a spirit as in Christ's statement to His disciples after His reserection, " A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have". Adam and Eve were male and female, flesh and bones and married in the presence of God in the Garden. They were not one day in the future going to become nonflesh and bones, or just as spirit. Christ's atonement was to return us to that pattern, and it did, when He returns is when it will be accomplished. Isaiah 11:6-9 King James Version 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea There will be immortal married Adam's and Eves on the earth during the millinial reign of Christ, but there will not be any adultery or fornication, why? Because couples, or singles that are on the earth during the millennium will have lived the law of chastity during mortality. Everyone will be immortal, but only those who live the law of chastity in mortality will have an active sex drive, like Adam and Eve had. Now we go to freedom of choice and the law of chastity. Will more women or more men live the law of chastity? A law required to have an immortal body like Adam and Eve's bodies, which is a body with an active sex drive. More women. So would God be just if He told His excess daughters that the earned an immortal body with an active sex drive, and they will have that body forever, but they will never be able to use their active sex drive, because not enough men earned an immortal body with an active sex drive? No He would not be. For that reason there will be polygamy in heave, and during the millennium. We are mortal to find our Adam or our Eve

[@sheliabryant3997]

@GarySaint. "... such and such ..." cannot be TRANSLATED "another wife" or "another man's wife." Nor INTERPRETED so. What belongs to God BELONGS TO HIM and may be divinely nebulous until HE determines to make any thing SPECIFICALLY known. And IF He does so, He makes it known to ALL as to just one. Read I Kings ch. 11 (NON- just)

[@GarySaint-xm6tr]

@@sheliabryant3997 I gave you your master's wives. Okay. If you want to ignore that then that's you.

[@allenchildvideos7608]

Michelle Stone on her podcast "132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy" has a contrary view

[@moesyah]

one of the 132 problems: the idea that totalistic JS is running Nauvoo while everyone around him in leadership is doing polygamy behind his back. there’s no way.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

I think we are all aware of Michelle’s views we simply present the evidence and let our audience decide what to believe.

[@amazinmaven]

Which episode? She hasn't yet addressed RFM's evidence presented here as far as I'm aware.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

I think Landon was talking about her views in general. I agree we have never seen this issue specifically addressed. We would love to see this discussed!

[@randyjordan5521]

LOL! You don't say! I have been refuting her assertions for the last six months. I think that her first video I commented on was #47. I suggest you scroll through some of her video comments sections and study the historical material which I've posted there.

[@kerryholyoak5720]

Wally Cox and Underdog !

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

But the Law of Sarah was her idea not from God.Sarah's idea. Not Emma's.

[@44hawk28]

I don't know where you learned your logic, but I think you've got it bass-ackwards. The point isn't that the Expositor was making it up. I've been following this and looking at it at least as long as you folks. The entire point of the murder of Joseph Smith, was this concept that he was practicing polygamy. And those who were conspiring against him, the biggest one who had was already before that June 7th 1843 article was attempting to have Joseph Smith murdered was Mister Law himself. Along with John Taylor and eventually, Willard Richards. There were a number of them. It would not have been hard to get people to write Affidavit of this behavior before the expository printing. This is what solidified it for me. The very same people, that were excoriating Joseph Smith for practicing polygamy. And had even conspired to murder him because he was murdered by people inside the room with him. I've been studying gunfights for a long time, it's one of my specialties. There's no way that Hyrum Smith and John Taylor were shot by anybody that wasn't inside that room with them. Before anybody else got into the room and nobody was shot from outside the room. There is zero evidence for that all these people murdered Joseph Smith for practicing polygamy, are the same people who instituted it and started manufacturing an entire polygamy industry. Where they even added it to include Bishops which are specifically excluded from being able to practice polygamy in Scripture. A bishop must be a man of a single wife.. Maybe, got divorced, not a widower, must be a man of one wife. It is already known that there were conspirators within the High Council before his death. Joseph Smith's himself even stated it at his last sermon. He already had a decent idea of who some of these conspirators were. He had no clue about Richards and Taylor. Taylor was shot bye-bye Hyrum Smith. Taylor shot Smith underneath the chin and it exited the left side of his nose. He was later shot in the back. But that was after somebody came in and shot him because he was probably still going through death throws. Joseph Smith was knocked in the head and thrown out the window. He did not stop to say oh Lord my God and was shot outside because the suffered were post-mortem. He died of a broken neck. Either suffered inside the room or when he hit the ground. There's actually witness testimony that say he was pushed out the window. Those who are vacillating about what actually happened or the ones who repeated what John Taylor or Willard Richards told them to say, clearly questionable because they did make their statement still some days or weeks later. Other than this newspaper and these affidavits every single accusation against Joseph Smith for decades to come, comes well after his death. Just as disturbing as this polygamy thing, Joseph Smith himself had conferred the priesthood on about 450 black men. And yet this, son-of-a-gun, Brigham Young decided to leave several thousand black members of the church behind when they went to Utah. Because he was initiating something that Joseph Smith had never stated. That somehow these people were not worthy. At least one of very few.

[@rebeccabibliotheca]

I was at the premiere of “Who Killed Joseph Smith pt II” and had the opportunity to interview Justin! Really fascinating stuff!

[@radiofreemormon5140]

It must be a full moon…

[@RichardHolmes-ll8ii]

Oh goody brother and sis. Another anti-Mormon cult of duplicates vid.

[@jamesvaughn7389]

"Virgin"....drink.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

One thing we know from history that Joseph doesn’t like virgin is his drinks!! Lol

[@jamesvaughn7389]

@@mormonishpodcast1036 I was thinking, for the number of times "virgin" was mentioned, we could make a drinking game.

[@PeterBrownscouts]

Calling people polygamy "deniers" really paints you into a corner. Helpful hint. Just say why your view is more reasonable. If you try to make people look stupid or compromised and they best you in a debate . . . then who looks stupid?

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

Agreed! We had a hard time figuring out what to call someone who denies polygamy. Is there an official term for those who deny Joseph’s polygamy so we can use the proper terminology?

[@Sayheybrother8]

@@mormonishpodcast1036I think the best thing to do is ask Michelle and those who are currently pushing this idea what they would like to be called. I can’t remember if they have a self prescribed title or not but I’m sure she would be okay with polygamy denier. That’s essentially what they’re doing and the only doctrine they are pushing back on.

[@rebeccabibliotheca]

@@Sayheybrother8 Great idea! I guess the easy route is to say that people who deny Joseph practiced polygamy are polygamy deniers. But I would prefer to use whatever term those who deny Joseph practiced polygamy would like to be called. Maybe "those who deny Joseph practiced polygamy" is the best thing to say going forward!

[@Sayheybrother8]

@@rebeccabibliotheca I’m actually good with polygamy deniers although the way you just said it is more precise:) Although, I am curious what “those who deny Joseph practiced polygamy” call themselves.

[@randyjordan5521]

The most concise term I've come up with to describe them is "Joseph Smith polygamy deniers." I only use that because I don't know how to describe them with anything that's shorter. We could also call them conspiracy theorists, and RFM has already produced a video using that description.

[@apologiamixer]

Well at least all of his wives were women. lol

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

Under the Law of Adoption Joseph Smith sealed himself to several men so whose to really knows? Lol. Thanks for the comment!

[@henochparks]

D&C 132 s about plural marriage. It is not about Polygamy. Polygamy and Plural marriage are the opposites. Did you not know this? Best study up.

[@rebeccabibliotheca]

That's an interesting point! I hear the words used interchangeably so often I never thought about it. I did some digging into it and from what I read, "One of the main distinctions between polygamy and plural marriage is that polygamous relationships tend to be hierarchical with one person being seen as the head of household while others are subservient. In contrast, plural marriages tend to place all partners on equal footing without any hierarchy involved.(Understanding the Difference: Plural Marriage vs Polygamy, 2022). I think about my own great-great grandmother who was forced by her parents to marry her 34 year old bishop when she was 15 to keep her from a friendship with a boy who wasn't LDS. I think this was a case of polygamy, not plural marriage because I think she definitely would have been subservient to the head of the household in this hierarchy and not on equal footing, especially as a fifth wife. Interesting line of questioning.

[@henochparks]

@@rebeccabibliotheca The purpose of polygamy it to give to a man. It is an abomination in the eyes of God. Plural marriage is to fulfill the promise made by a Heavenly Father in the Pre existence to his sacred daughters that every righteous sisters will become queens and priestesses to a righteous husband. Since there are more righteous sisters than righteous brothers there must be plural marriage. Such marriage/seaings are under the direction of sisters, (see D&C 132) for and behalf of righteous sisters. It is about the sisters not men. Sisters picking their fellow sisters. Sisters sharing for their sisters progression and joy. . A true Abrahamic test. Thus polygamy is about men and Plural marriage is about the women.

[@orisonorchards4251]

Sounds like splitting hairs, aka "Lying for the Lord". It's the epitome of Mormonism.

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

The church changes the definition of plural marriage to blame sisters for a belief that was clearly created by and for men. Plural marriage is the same as polygamy in every dictionary. The church does not get to redefine common terms to mean something they don’t mean in order to make it sound holy. I don’t know any sister who is grateful for plural marriage and feels this is a great blessing to her. Plural marriage is of man not god and gaslighting about it by saying it is for the sisters is victim blaming. But we allow everyone their belief so thank you for sharing.

[@henochparks]

@@orisonorchards4251 if you love a child is that a good thing or a bad thing? ? If you are a pedophile and you love a child is that a good thing or a bad thing? ? Are you just splitting hairs? Or is there complete difference? Is Polygamy a good thing or a bad thing? The book of Mormon and Joseph Smith say it is a bad thing. Is Plural marriage a good thing or a bad thing? The Bible and the D&C say it is a good thing. It is for the progression of women . A system run by women. It gives women who would not have opportunities great blessings. Do you hate women? Do you hate Mormons? Jews practiced plural marriage do you hate Jews? Sounds like you are a hater. Seek a good therapist.

[@t.o.g.sakafay2868]

if polyandry. was practised & they had sexual relations with these married women & they got pregnant then the women would be able to give birth to the child claiming it was the original husband??????

[@mormonishpodcast1036]

I know there are many very knowledgeable podcasters who have addressed the issue of children and will continue to address the topic. We would like comments on the specific topic addressing this episode i.e., the affidavits printed in a newspaper that describe accurately D&C 132 while Joseph was still alive.

[@swaneespeedramsey6080]

I saw Up With People around 74-76ish time frame.m