Please consider supporting this podcast:

Many still believe this story and use it as a justification for Joseph’s polygamy. Where did this story come from? And does it hold up to scrutiny and what we know of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Notes

Gospel topic essay: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo
Brian Hales’s list of accounts (bottom of the essay): Encouraging Joseph Smith to Practice Plural Marriage: The Accounts of the Angel with a Drawn Sword

Agency references

D&C 76:27, D&C 29:36, Moses 4:3, 2 Nephi 2:26-27, Alma 12:23&26, Acts 26:14, Mosiah 27:13, Alma 14:10-11, Moses 6:31-35, Exodus 4:1-17, Luke 22:41-44,
Elder Hales talk: Agency: Essential to the Plan of Life

Marriage references

Matthew 19:5-6, 1 Corinthians 11:11, Ephesians 5:25, D&C 42:22, D&C 38:37, Matthew 1:20-21
* (I believe I said D&C 28:37 in the video. 38:27 is the correct reference)

Correction: This story was actually about my 8th baby. My first 6 were at the hospital, 7th was a homebirth, and babies 8-11 were unassisted homebirths.

Summary

In this episode, Michelle Stone critically examines the claim that an angel with a drawn sword appeared to Joseph Smith and commanded him to practice plural marriage, threatening him with destruction if he did not comply. This story has been frequently cited to justify polygamy within the LDS Church, but Stone evaluates its historical credibility, theological implications, and scriptural contradictions.

Key Themes:

  1. Origins of the “Angel with a Drawn Sword” Story
    • Stone investigates where this claim originated and finds that Joseph Smith never recorded such an event in his personal writings or revelations.
    • The earliest recorded account comes from Lorenzo Snow in 1869, decades after Joseph Smith’s death.
    • Later testimonies from Eliza R. Snow, Orson F. Whitney, and Helen Mar Kimball increasingly embellished the story, adding details such as the angel’s flaming sword and threats of immediate death.
  2. Historical and Scriptural Inconsistencies
    • Stone highlights that there are no contemporary records or firsthand accounts from Joseph Smith about the angel’s command.
    • The Doctrine & Covenants contains no mention of this event, and the Book of Mormon explicitly condemns polygamy (Jacob 2:23-24).
    • She discusses how historical narratives evolve, becoming more dramatic over time to justify difficult doctrines.
  3. Violation of Agency: Does This Story Align with LDS Teachings?
    • Stone argues that if God values agency so highly, why would He coerce Joseph Smith under threat of destruction?
    • She compares this forced command to Satan’s plan in the premortal existence, which sought to remove free will.
    • The LDS Church consistently teaches that agency is central to God’s plan, making the angel’s threat contradictory to core gospel principles.
  4. Comparisons to Other Scriptural Accounts
    • Enoch, Moses, Jonah, Alma the Younger, and Paul were all hesitant when called by God, yet none were threatened with death.
    • When Jesus faced immense suffering in Gethsemane, God sent an angel to comfort Him, rather than threaten Him.
    • These examples contradict the angel-with-a-sword story, as God typically empowers rather than coerces His servants.
  5. Emma Smith: The Forgotten Victim of This Story
    • Emma Smith married Joseph with the expectation of monogamy and was never given a choice about polygamy.
    • Many polygamy advocates judge Emma harshly, despite the betrayal and heartbreak she endured.
    • If God supposedly forced Joseph into polygamy, He would have also been forcing Emma into a marriage she never consented to—raising ethical and theological concerns.
  6. The Dangers of Believing This Story
    • Stone warns that teaching this story fuels opposition to both Joseph Smith and God, as it presents a deity who is coercive and inconsistent.
    • She calls for removing the angel-with-a-sword narrative from LDS Church materials, particularly from the Gospel Topics essay on polygamy.
    • She urges members to seek truth over tradition and reject harmful, unverified narratives that misrepresent God’s character.

Transcript

[00:00:01] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. Thank you for joining us. If you haven’t already done so, I hope that you will listen to all of these episodes in order so that you can know what we have already discussed. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 14, where we’ll investigate the claim of the angel with a drawn sword. Thank you for joining us as we take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. I don’t remember where I first heard the story of the angel with the sword, but it seems to me that I was, that I knew it from childhood, that it was part of the milieu of Utah Mormonism that I grew up in. I don’t remember hearing it later, but I understand that many people don’t know the history of Joseph Smith with an and polygamy, and that it has been new to them and something that they’ve learned about. So, We’re going to take this story cause even when I was talking to my mom about this episode, she said, I don’t remember hearing that story and in her defense she’s 87 years old, but I was like, Mom, really? I, you know, so, so who knows? Maybe she never heard it or maybe she just doesn’t remember, or maybe it’s just, you happen to hear it if a seminary teacher happens to talk about it and you happen not to. So we are talking about this story, and just to catch people up on it who maybe haven’t heard of it, heard about it. This is from the, um, Gospel Topics essay on polygamy and Navu and Kirtland, I believe, on the church website, and I’ll link it at the bottom. This is one of the paragraphs. When When God commands a difficult task, he sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage his people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him 3 times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward, forward, and obeyed the commandment fully. So it’s so interesting. And then the link there is to Brian Hale’s essay that he did on this topic. I believe it was Brian Hills that wrote, um, the gospel topic essays on plural marriage, and I’m sure that they had some editing done by the church or had to be approved, but I believe he was the main author on them, so you can correct me if I’m wrong. But, um, I hope to talk to Brian Hills at some point. I think it would be really interesting. But I think that this is an interesting claim, how it states it kind of matter of factly, like. And, um, and it’s just part of what we’re supposed to believe. So I want to investigate this story because it is pretty important to me and a lot of discussions that I’ve had about polygamy people bring up, well, Joseph Smith had to, that’s how important it was. So let’s, let’s discuss. OK, so first question is, where does this story come from? And again, like everything to do with Joseph Smith’s polygamy. The history is sketchy at best. We have only 2nd and 3rd hand accounts from decades later. There is nothing recorded in Joseph’s diary about it,

[00:03:12] no record or hint of any kind of angelic visitation on this topic or of this type anywhere in the doctrine and covenants. So there’s no firsthand evidence of any kind from Joseph or his closest associates at the time that these events should have happened. And that’s tough. That’s hard to deal with. So every claim for this came decades later when they were already firmly established in Utah in the culture of polygamy, trying to prove the valid validity of their claims that that’s what, um, that that that’s what Joseph Smith wanted. So we have to take it a little bit with a grain of salt. So we’re gonna look at this sword though, and this story, I was reading the word sword, this story. The earliest claim I could find of the earliest recorded claim of this story of an angel with a sword was from Lorenzo Snow in 1869. And I believe there are about 20 accounts total that I saw on Brian Hale’s page. I saw one or two elsewhere, but I think that that’s the majority of them. And so there’s the 1869. Um, claim from from Lorenzo Snow, and then the rest all were between the 1880s and the early 1900s. And so that’s where all of this comes from. So it’s also interesting to see how these stories grow in intensity and specificity, like we discussed how things get better with the telling. So Eliza Snow is a, is a good case in point. We have 3 accounts or, um, Brian Hayes records 3 accounts of her telling this story. And it is fascinating to see how it grows in intensity and specificity as time goes by and as it’s repeated. So in 1880, the relief Society minutes of the meeting that that Eliza was in record her, the relief Society notes say say that she spoke of an angel standing with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not comply with the requirement of heaven that his priesthood should be taken from him. So in 1880, it’s that there was this angel with a drawn sword and that Joseph’s priesthood should be taken from him. In 1884, she is quoted as saying, Joseph told Lorenzo Snow, her brother, the, the reporter of the 1869 um account. He told Lorenzo Snow that he had hesitated and deferred from time to time until an angel of God stood stood by him with a drawn sword and told him that unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his priesthood would be taken from him and he should be destroyed with an exclamation point. So, and that was a written account. And then there’s another account in 1887, I believe this was from the biography of. Renzo Snow that she contributed to, I could be wrong. I need to double check on that. But in any case, this is the 1887 account. He received the revelation in 1837, but he was himself afraid to promulgate it. And so again, now in this latest telling, she knows the year that Joseph received the revelation. That’s new information, right? How do we find out more information as we get further away from the events? That’s always a questionable. You know, historians know to question those kinds of things. Um, anyway, um, but what he was himself afraid to promulgate it until the angel came and stood beside him with flaming sword and bade him to do the command of God. Not until then did Joseph enter into polygamy or get any of his disciples to take plural wives. So you can see how it progresses from first it’s just an angel with a sword, then it’s a threat of destruction.

[00:06:42] and being killed, then we know the year and it’s a flaming sword. So it’s definitely getting better. Um, let’s see, not, um, oh, with Helen Mar Kimball, she was more explicit about the angel’s threat to literally kill Joseph. She used the words in her accounts. She used the words slay him and inflict the penalty of death. So she was very explicit in the way she told about the angel was going to kill him. Um, one account has Joseph on his knees pleading for his life. It it sounds to me like the image I get as if he’s about to be beheaded by the angel. Um, in two accounts, Eliza Snows that I just read, and Orson F. Whitney’s 1888 biography of his grandfather, Heber C. Kimball, the Drawn sword became a flaming. Sword. This is um this is from the the biography of Hebrewy Kimball. An angel with a flaming sword descended from the courts of glory and confronted the prophet, commanding him in the name of the Lord to establish the principle so long concealed from the knowledge of the saints and of the world, that of plural marriage. So. Wow, it’s getting more and more grandiose, right? So, um, you know, so it’s your, it’s your choice whether you want to claim the drawn sword or the flaming sword, cause we have, we have claims of both. So I just see this as such a good example of human nature of how claims and stories just seem to grow and spread and take on a life of their own until they become considered factual history. So, um, Let’s see. So I think in this, again, as always, there is room to believe either either way. I can see that people want, you know, feel inclined to believe. I think it’s valid that Joseph Smith had this experience and told people. So if they want to, or at least I think it’s valid, let’s let me clarify that. I think it’s valid that Joseph Smith told people he had this experience. I, I can see people choosing to believe that. And then I think that there’s room for people to believe. No, I think these claims were made about Joseph Smith after the fact. I definitely think there’s room to believe that. The challenge I see is that I don’t know how to know other than just going by for each of us what feels true to us, right? And so, so I don’t think we can make a case based on the evidence to be able to prove which one. What, what people should believe. So, as usual, I don’t want to investigate what Joseph Smith did or didn’t do, or what he is said to have done. I want to look at whether the story works scripturally and theologically, regardless of what people believe about Joseph Smith. Is this something God would do? That’s the question I want to ask. So, that’s what we’re going to explore. Um, the first Principle that I think it’s important to consider in this story. Maybe some of you already are way ahead of me, but I think it’s agency, the principle of agency. We used, I grew up being taught, I grew up hearing about free agency. Apparently now it’s moral agency. It’s the same concept,

[00:09:40] right? The most foundational gospel principle upon which all others rest. This was the essential principle that justified a war to be fought primorally. Before the world was created and for which this principle was what God was willing to sacrifice. Doctrine Covenant 7627 tells us a son of the morning, and section 2936 says, and a third part of the hosts of heaven, and then Moses 4:3, because they sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God had given him. So the Lord was willing to, the Lord prioritized agency even over the sun of the morning and a third part of the hosts of heaven. It’s pretty important. It cost God a lot to keep agency. He lost a lot for this principle, right? And nothing in the gospel can work without agency. That’s our understanding. Our own hymn. I know, know this that every soul is free to choose his life and what he’ll be, for this eternal truth is given that God will force no man to heaven. All you have to do is search the church website and you will see so many talks on agency and the scriptures to support it. And, um, I think, was it Elder Hales that gave one not too long ago. I’ll see if I can find it a link to it cause I remember that we had a really powerful talk on agency not that long ago. And so, um, so anyway. So let’s just read a couple of verses supporting agency. We probably don’t need to go into this big dissertation, but I really want to establish how important the idea of agency is in our faith. So 2 Dei 2:26, and because that they are redeemed from the fall, they have become free forever, knowing good from evil, to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, right? Men are free to act. Wherefore, oh, I, where For men are free according to the flesh. They are free to choose liberty and eternal life through the great mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death according to the captivity and power of the devil. All of you who know your scripture masteries still from seminary could have said that with me. So, um, OK, so let’s weigh the story of the angel with a drawn or a flaming sword, which, first of all, is not historically founded very well and is certainly not scriptural. Let’s weigh that against the scripturally supported central doctrine of agency. OK. Does being threatened with death and eternal destruction, if you don’t do something, qualify as an impingement on agency? That’s the question people need to consider. I very much think that it does, but everyone will have to decide that for themselves. I was thinking about this and I called my son who’s in law school, but I was proud of myself because I thought of it before he even got back to me. But we do have a word for this legally. It’s called duress. So from the online the online legal dictionary, I kind of compiled this, um, definition from different definitions on the online legal dictionary. It says, duress is using Compulsion, coercion, pressure, or force to get someone to act in a way he does not wish or which is not in his best interest. When someone agrees to do something only because he is being threatened or under duress, the law is likely to void the agreement or determine that he is not liable for his forced actions. Compelling someone to act in such a manner is against the law, and whatever he agrees to under duress is invalid in the eyes of the law. So I think it is fair to say that being threatened with immediate death

[00:13:18] and eternal destruction by an angel with a sword flaming or otherwise, definitely qualifies as duress and thus the full encroachment of agency, right? If you are being threatened. With immediate death and eternal destruction, if you don’t do something, then how would you get the blessings of obedience for doing it and how would you be free to incur the the the consequences of not obeying? That is exactly What we are talking about with agency, Satan’s plan was to force everybody to return to God, right? And Jesus said, no, I am willing to suffer the pain required for agency, the entire reason for the atonement of the the the the entire reason that the atonement of Christ was necessary in our understanding is because of the central importance of agency. So I spoke before about. How much the the Lord was willing to sacrifice, but he was willing to sacrifice even suffering the atonement, um, Jesus suffering the atonement. So it’s pretty important and um and I think it should weigh into this decision. So, I mean, in weigh into our decision of how to How to understand this story. So I tried to think if there were other times in the scriptures when God violated his own law of agency, because if it happened a lot, then maybe, you know, maybe I need to rethink. My understanding of agency. So I thought of a few possible examples that people might claim. Well, what about this? Well, what about this? Right? So, and it didn’t take, like, like with a little bit of thought and study, you can see that none of them are comparable really. So first was speaking of flaming swords, the cherubim with with and the flaming sword to block the way into Eden when Um, Adam and Eve were kicked out. And that really doesn’t, doesn’t apply for a couple of reasons. First of all, AA 12 talks about why it was so necessary. This is 1223. If it had been possible for Adam to partake of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word of God would have been void, making God a liar. Going on the 26 for um it further explains, they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state, and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void taking none effect. So and and blocking the garden was kind of like, hey, this horrible, horrible thing can’t happen for the sake of all of creation. There were very high stakes, but more importantly, it wasn’t forcing Adam and Eve to do anything. It was preventing something bad from happening. It was a guardrail, not a drawn sword, right? And so I think it’s pretty. Pretty important to recognize that was not a violation in the same way. It was just making something impossible that would have destroyed the entire creation and God would have ceased to be God if that had happened, apparently. So it was like, nope, this can’t happen. And it was just preventing something, not commanding Adam or Eve to take specific action. So if, if that’s not clear,

[00:16:22] I don’t know if I’m explaining it very well. I, it’s very clear in my mind, right? And so then the next example I thought of was Jonah, because, you know, maybe you could argue, well, he He was forced to go to Nineveh, even though he fled. But again, in reading through it, it’s pretty different. Jonah was allowed to flee. He went the other way. God gave him a command. He tried to hide, and then a storm came, which I think you can see just as a consequence. It wasn’t like God wasn’t saying, If you don’t go, I’m going to make a storm, right? It was a storm came, but according to the story of Jonah, and again, the Old Testament, like, everyone’s free to choose how to interpret those stories as allegories, as literal, you know, that, that’s not our discussion. And today I’m just looking at the comparisons. But even there, the storm, if you believe it that way, was just was a consequence, and Jonah was thrown over the side of the ship, and actually the whale was sent to save Jonah’s life, right? Jonah would have died in the ocean if the whale hadn’t come. So in a way it was God being merciful to Jonah, and there was never a threat of do this or else. Jonah was free to choose his actions and to incur the consequences. And so, and then after he repented in the It’s, it calls the belly of the whale hell, which I think it probably was, and he repented and then he went and did what God had asked him to do. But God never threatened or coerced him in any way. God did not violate his agency. So there are a couple more stories that could apply. Sorry, I’m trying to think through. I hope that this isn’t boring, but And the really strange story in the Old Testament of Balaam, I think is how you say his name, and the talking donkey and Balaam beats his donkey and her voice is opened and she says, why are you hitting me? And then Balaam’s eyes are opened and sees that there’s an angel with a sword standing in the path. And so that’s just a strange story that I don’t know quite how to interpret or what to do with, you know, other than lessons we might want to take from it, but um. But again, it’s not an bridgement of agency in any way. The Angel was not ever threatening Balaam with his sword. He wasn’t commanding him to do anything, and he didn’t threaten to kill him if he didn’t. It was just a story in the in the Bible with an angel with a sword. So anyway, which I happen to think these those stories might have been kind of the genesis of coming up with this story, cause we do have a precedent of angels with a sword, so that could fit in really well right here, right? So the only other stories I could imagine being used as a comparison were Saul, who became Paul in the New Testament and Alma the Younger in the Book of Mormon when they were called to repentance by a heavenly visitation. But again, these stories really are not in any way comparable to a sword wielding, the sword wielding angel we talk about with Joseph Smith. The angel that appeared to them was calm, peaceful,

[00:19:02] loving, and filled with light and power. No command was made, but instead a heart-wrenching question was asked. Um, in the New Testament, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And to Alma, why persecutest thou the Church of God? Nothing more than that was necessary when both men, like both men, sincerely repented just, just because of being in the presence of an angel. So again, there was no infringement of agency and no coercion or duress of any kind. So I think hopefully if you think of any other stories, let me know if I’ve missed something that you do think does impinge on agency. But I think we’ve pretty pretty firmly established that there is not scriptural precedent for this story, for God violating his own. Central doctrine of agency. So, um, so that, so I, I, I hope that that’s established, and now we can look at some other substantial problems. So, a question that I find myself wanting to ask is like, in the face of all of the problems and evils of the world. Why was taking multiple wives and establishing polygamy something that God never ordained or commanded anywhere in Scripture, but actually repeatedly forbade and condemned, and which would only last a few decades before it was abandoned? Why was that the like crucial Issue that demanded this kind of direct involvement from God. Why would this be the one issue that would cause God to send a sword wielding angel and violate his own law of agency? I, like, really, in, in the scale, that’s the most important thing that would warrant this. I, that’s a hard thing for me to think about because, OK, I’ll just, I’ll share one example, and there are infinite examples, but here’s just one. Um, in Alma 14, when the mothers and children are being burned alive, screaming in pain and terror, while Alma and Amulek watched, Alma told Amulek that God would not allow them to intervene because God refused to violate agency. So I really struggled with that story in the scriptures for a long time until recently I came to understand, oh, God is showing us just like with the crucifixion of Of his son, this is how important agency is. Agency is so important that even this most horrible thing you can possibly imagine is allowed to happen. And so, um, So I can at least accept all of the cases throughout human history and today going on all the time where the innocent are brutalized by the wicked, right? And God doesn’t intervene. It’s hard sometimes to go, why would God intervene? How could God allow this to happen? But when we understand that it is because of the central importance of agency, then we at least have a way to go, OK, OK, and The savior is making it OK, and we know that this life is short and that eternity is long, you know, we have our ways to deal with the really hard things we say see when God didn’t intervene.

[00:22:17] But all of that would be undermined by this one story, because if God was willing to intervene and violate agency for this one thing, for Joseph to take more wives, that would, that would undermine everything else. It would reveal God to be an uncaring and fickle not um God. Because he was willing to violate agency, but only for the sake of polygamy, not for the sake of the suffering innocent, so. Boy, that if that were true, that would not be a god that I would want to worship. I do not believe that’s true. I hope that I hope that all of us would not choose to believe that that is true because I can see why if people are taught this is who God is, they would say, yeah, I don’t believe in that God. I think it’s better for us to say, yeah, that’s not who God is. Let’s stop saying that’s who God is, that’s not who God is. So, OK. Ha. So moving on. Sorry, I don’t, that, that’s a hard scripture story for me, and that’s a hard concept, and we need to understand why bad things are allowed to happen, right? There are several other cases where prophets were hesitant, and as we’re moving on to the next point where prophets were hesitant and felt overwhelmed by God, what God commanded them to do. And where you would think, you know, if God were like the type of guy to send. Sword wielding angels, why didn’t he do it in these points, in these claims? I’m sorry to be, I, I don’t like how I just said that about God. I’m usually not disrespectful like that. Please forgive me. Didn’t like that. But anyway, um. So let’s look at some of these examples. First, Enoch was overwhelmed by what, by what he was commanded to do and responded by saying that he was but a lad, and all the people hate me, for I am slow of speech. Wherefore am I that thy servant? God, are you sure you chose the right guy? That’s in Moses. I’ll have to find the reference. And then Moses’s response was, Oh my lord, I am not eloquent, but I’m slow of speech and I’m slow of tongue. And he, um, You know, he continued to object to the Lord, said the wrath of the Lord was kindled, but still, the Lord just helped him. Both, both of these servants were extremely hesitant and argued their case of why it was too much, but in both cases, God encouraged and empowered them and gave them assurance that they would have what they needed. So unto Enoch, God said, Go forth and do as I have commanded thee, and no man shall pierce thee. Open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance. Behold, my spirit is upon you. Wherefore all thy words will I justify, and the mountains shall flee before you, and the river shall turn from their course.

[00:24:52] And shall abide in me and I and you, therefore walk with me. I, uh, I love those scriptures. I didn’t write the reference. I believe if I remember right, it’s Moses 4, maybe, um, verses 33 and 34. So if I’m wrong, forgive me. I think that’s what it was. And then to Moses, this is in Genesis, and again, I didn’t write down the The scriptures it says, I will be thy mouth and teach thee what you, what thou shalt say. I will be with I, and I will be with thy mouth and with his mouth speaking of Erin, and I will teach you what you shall do. So God gave them a promise. It’s gonna work OK. It’s gonna work out OK. I am going to help you. I will be there. I will take care of you, right? God did that and encouraged and empowered. He didn’t threaten destruction. I think that’s really important because these are similar, similar stories, right? And then the most obvious example is when Jesus was struggling in the garden of Gethsemane, begging God to let the cup pass because it seemed too fearful and awful what he was being asked to do to accomplish the atonement. So again, the Lord sent angels to minister to him, to comfort him, to strengthen and empower him, not to threaten him. It just doesn’t make any sense. So why would Uh, well, and you know, I think that we can all agree that like Jesus. Accomplishing the atonement was a higher stakes issue than Joseph reinstituting polygamy that would only last for a few decades anyway, and is not in any way central to God’s plan like the atonement is, right? So there just shouldn’t be, I, I, I don’t know why we can believe this, um, especially like, why would God treat Moses and Enoch and Jesus with such love and compassion and help. And then threaten Joseph Smith. And if we want to say like like threaten Joseph Smith with such harshness and cruelty and just how does that possibly make sense? And if we want to say, well, it was because Joseph was disobedient, he’d already been told and he disobeyed. OK, we’re saying that about The prophet of the restoration, the founding prophet, that he was so disobedient that God had to threaten him with death and destruction. Well then, how can he be a prophet of God that we like that’d be worse than Jonah, right? And that doesn’t make sense that we would say that at the very, at the very best he would be a slothful servant who had to be commanded in all things, but not only commanded but threatened. So I can’t, I can’t go there and um Yeah, yeah, I, I, I, I can’t,

[00:27:29] I can’t go there and, and, and while polygamy was such a. Horrible thing to consider for Joseph, according to the stories that we are told of how, you know, I, I guess for me the jury is out whether Joseph was how much Joseph was involved in polygamy. So I, I don’t want to focus on that and just assuming that we are believing the story that Joseph was commanded by the angel to basically betray Emma, right? And while that was would have been a horrible thing for him to consider, I don’t think it would have been worse than Moses being told to go. Single-handedly against the superpower of the world where he also had difficult family history and Take their entire slave force, like really, Moses’ was kind of harder than Joseph’s in a lot of ways, right? And yet he wasn’t threatened and didn’t need to be threatened. So there are just lots and lots of problems that when we look at the scriptural precedents for how God handled similar similar things from other prophets. And so, OK, those are all of, all of those things. Now for me comes the most crucial, central, important question of all. What about Emma, right? What about Emma? Emma married Joseph with the full expectation of loyalty and fidelity. She never chose, wanted, or agreed to become a polygamist wife. Emma had nothing to prepare her for the possibility of polygamy, which for an unwilling wife equates to an unfaithful husband. So with supporters of polygamy today, I know, tend to be very quick to judge Emma and condemn her, which I find upsetting, and they don’t seem to realize that even, even being raised in polygamy could not prepare girls for the pain that they would experience as women, right? And and the and the hardship. But for a woman who, who only knew and understood and believed God’s teachings of marriage and monogamy and fidelity for that woman who sacrificed all connection with her family because of her loyalty to her husband. Who then sacrificed so much for the church. She buried 6 children. She gave up, I don’t know how many homes she. She, her sacrifice was big for the establishment of the gospel, and then for her to be told after all of that, that now she couldn’t even have the expectation of a faithful husband. Who was just hers. I, I just don’t know how we can even. How we can even comprehend that and then to say that God. commanded that with an angel with a drawn sword that God was going to command to murder Joseph if he didn’t do that to Emma. What? Right? I, I don’t know. It’s unthinkable. It is truly unthinkable that we believe this. So again, there are scripture precedents. So I wanna tell like like. First, I’ll focus on a couple of other things, then we’ll go to the scriptures. But my entire life of the church, in the church, I have been taught by leaders on every level that when God calls a man, he also calls the woman.

[00:30:43] When God prepares a man, he also provides prepares the woman at his side. And so, generally, a man will not be given a calling if his wife is not also worthy, qualified, and willing. And I want to add vice versa, right? Cause women are given callings too. But um, So would this not have absolutely been the case with Joseph and Emma? Would God, God called Emma an elect lady. He knew her heart. He knew what she was capable of. He knew her from the, the end to the beginning, right? So did God make a mistake by calling her like to be the prophet’s wife. Um, for those who claimed that she was called, but then fell, fell again, is it fair that she, oh, I just, these, these claims upset me because God knew who she was and she, she went into this with the expectation of monogamy and having a faithful husband. Is it fair to say that she became an enemy to God and the most wicked woman, because when she had already sacrificed so much, she still held to her godly expectation of fidelity and marriage. I, I just think that those are terrible things to claim and to believe. I think that we should think about them. So, um, OK, OK. And another point, and then, and then we’ll get to the scriptural examples. But several church leaders and church historians today, everyone that I hear speaking about polygamy. Make it a point to say that polygamy will never be forced on anyone, so nobody needs to worry about it. I’ve heard that from many church leaders and from pretty much all of the church historians. Definitely that’s something that Brian Hills spends a lot of time talking about. But again, how could we believe this story then? It was forced not only on Joseph, but on Emma with a threat of destruction. So from its very beginning, it’s its inception at the restoration, it was done by force. So how could we possibly tell women now, oh, don’t worry, it won’t be forced on you. Well, we don’t have a very good precedent for that claim if this story were true. So I think we need to really think about this. And then, um, let’s see. OK, now again, now we’ll get to the scriptural examples that show how God works with marriage, how God views marriage and how God works with couples, right? So, God has repeatedly made very clear his expectation for marriage relationships. So these are Jesus’ words where he is quoting and expanding on the scriptures in. Genesis, right, we are always taught when you hear a prophet quoting a previous prophet, really pay attention. Well, here is Jesus quoting the scriptures, right? Matthew 1956. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh.

[00:33:31] What, what, what, what therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder. So would it make sense that God would do something that would create so much division in a marriage relationship? How, how is that possible to even think that? 1 Corinthians 11:11, neither is the man without the woman, neither the man with the woman without the man and the Lord. Ephesians 5:25. Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it. And then Joseph’s own revelations, Doctor Covenants 42:22, thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shalt cleave unto her and none else. And Doctrine and Covenants 28:37, I say unto you, be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine. When Jesus, I mean, when God commanded Joseph, cleave unto your wife and none else. Even if you want to believe polygamy. OK, but sending an angel to command Joseph unilaterally to do this would not be cleaving to his wife. It would not be having unity at all. And so it would be not only contradicting God’s law of agency, but all of these other commands as well. So I just, I can’t, I can’t believe that after revealing all of these things, God would then contradict all of these principles that he had. Held in such high esteem and taught throughout the scriptures. So, OK. And again, there are, there are scriptural precedents to show that this is not the way God works with couples. The the example that most aptly applies to me is how God handled the situation with Mary and Joseph, right? Mary found herself in the terrible situation of because she was obedient to God, she was now pregnant, and Joseph was deciding what he should do. He was going to put her away privily. And it says in Matthew 120, but while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee marry thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost, and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save His people from their sins. Joseph and Mary both had manifestations that united them in the will of God, not just one of them. And Mary didn’t have to tell Joseph to get a revelation. She didn’t manipulate him into thinking he needed to get a certain answer, which, you know, does introduce huge problems like confirmation bias and, I mean, there, I know we have a lot of stories of women and girls getting their own confirmations, but the stress that they were put under was pretty intense, right? Mary didn’t do that to Joseph. She wouldn’t have had the ability to. And so I think that that’s an important thing to consider what God does with couples to help them be united. So, I’m guessing that many of us have similar examples. I guess one of the reasons this story is important to me is because of an example I had several years ago when I felt very strongly told by the Lord to do something that seemed crazy and that my husband was definitely not on board with and. And, you know,

[00:36:40] my experience going through that. Well, OK, I hate to share the details cause I don’t want to introduce a controversial subject, but I will just tell you, feel free to judge me because I judged people before I have this answer for myself as well. When I was expecting my 9th, every time that I would try to pick up the phone to call the doctor or the midwife, like, I just would get this sinking feeling and I could not. Could not figure out what I had, what I should do. All of my babies, my 1st 7 babies were born in the hospital. My 8th was my first home birth with a midwife, and with my 9th, I went, Should I go to the hospital? Should I call the midwife? I could not get an answer. I prayed and prayed about it. Finally went to the temple when I was already over 5 months feeling so irresponsible because I wasn’t getting the prenatal care that I was supposed to get, and I felt like I was a terrible mother. So, but I just couldn’t feel good about anything. And so after I’d gone to the temple, I had And experience the next day that was profound and it told me what I should do. And it was an answer that I hadn’t expected. I’d only heard of one woman doing this before and I was like, What’s wrong with her? What’s she trying to prove? So I was just told to have my baby at home unassisted. And the way that the answer was given to me, I know, Judge, judge away. It’s OK. I hate being this vulnerable, but the way the answer was given to me was so Beautiful and profound and filled with understanding and connection that it just. Like, like for me, that was what I was supposed to do. No question. And so, um, I came home and told my husband about it, you know, carefully. And he sat and listened to me, and these were his exact words. This is how psychos die. And he walked out of the house to mow the lawn. I actually burst out laughing because that’s one I, I love that story cause I think my husband is awesome. So anyway, so we were in that place where I had the to do this. My husband was not on board. And then through a crazy set of circumstances that I can only believe was totally ins, you know, put together by the Lord, our bishop ended up finding out. And my bishop, who was such a humble, good loving man. I really loved him, but I think that we both had some things to learn in this. My bishop called us into his office and, you know, he, he let me know like he definitely was not even for a home birth, was not OK with that, let alone this, you know, he, he said a lot of the things that uh. Anyway, he ended up calling my husband and me into his office 3 times to talk me out of this, to tell me how irresponsible I was being too. Threaten my temple recommend if something to, you know, threatened that DCFS might have to be gotten involved if something went wrong. Like it was intense and it was hard, and my poor husband was being dragged into the bishop’s office because of his crazy wife,

[00:39:27] right? And it was really, really a hard situation. I was praying and praying and praying, obviously, I was pregnant, my It was, it was really, really stressful. And my husband and I were not united. And now, you know, I was disobeying the bishop and it was really hard. So one day when I was praying so fervently about this, I had this clear voice, this clear understanding that just said, the bishop doesn’t matter, but you need to be united with your husband. That was OK. OK. And that was really an epiphany to me because I never before considered that. Maybe my bishop could be out of line or that I didn’t need to worry about his very strong counsel, right? So I was able to set that aside. But then I was still in the situation of, but my husband and I are not on the same page, and we weren’t fighting about it at all, but we were having, you know, occasional, very heartfelt, difficult conversations. My husband really did not feel good about what I knew I had to do, and I did not feel good about doing it. Anything else when the Lord had told me so clearly. Ah. So anyway, I one day just had the inspiration and prayed and just said, Lord, I want to obey you. I want to obey you, but I’ve been given two things to obey that are not within my power. So please provide a miracle. Please take this in your hands so that I can obey because I, I at that point could not even stand the thought of going to the hospital. I just was like, that is not what I’m supposed to do. It will be something will go wrong. It’s not what I’m supposed to do, you know. And so, but I, but I kind of was like, if, if this shane doesn’t come on board, then I’m gonna give birth in the hospital. So I need you to work a miracle, you know, and it was really interesting cause not very long after that the bishop actually it was right my I was due on Christmas, it was a very sacred experience, you know, but um. The not very long after that, the bishop called my husband in alone, and kind of one of those brother it’s time for you to exercise your priesthood authority. You are accountable for your family, and you will be held accountable for this, and you need to take matters into your own hands, was the The message that my husband was given, which, uh, kind of hard, you know, and I, I think, I mean, this really was a good loving bishop. I think he just had some things to learn as well, just like I did, you know. And so anyway, but that backfired in a way and answered my prayer, cause my husband came home and started reading and studying and praying and, and I don’t, and I had some inspirations of things to share with him and say that kind of is,

[00:41:58] we did never really talk it out, but we ended up within just a little while. Having our baby, having a beautiful experience. And, um, and I got to see the hand of the Lord work that out in a way that I felt I was able to obey both commandments and where it built unity in my marriage instead of destroying it. So it’s really hard for me to read this story with Joseph and Emma when I have experienced. It’s exactly the opposite. And again, please, you know, if you want to judge me, feel free. I am not at all advocating that this is the way that everyone should give birth. I, I did go on after that and give birth to 4 more babies in the same way. And, and for me, those were profound and beautiful experiences, but that’s unique to me. That was my answer. So, and And always healthy and always wonderful. That was just perfect for us. So anyway, that’s one situation, one example in my life of how the Lord works with couples. So I can’t help but apply that to Joseph and Emma and think the same thing could or should have happened. My, um, my little Christmas baby will turn 12 next Christmas and, um, she’s healthy, strong, and, and that was what I was supposed to do. So anyway, Nephi tells us that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men that if he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. The Lord did prepare the way for me, right, to accomplish what I had been commanded. The Lord prepared the way for Moses, for Enoch, for Jesus, and he absolutely would also prepare the way for Joseph to accomplish whatever he was commanded to do. I’m so thankful, that’s what I was going to say, I’m so thankful that my husband didn’t. Follow the counsel of the bishop to get his errant wife in line with his priest authority because that would have been unrighteous dominion, right? That is like DNC 121 tells us that is not how God works. And if this were true with the angel, then what Joseph would have done would have been an unrighteous dominion, and the angel most certainly that would be unrighteous dominion for an angel of God to threaten death. I’m going to kill you right now. I’m going to cut off your head with my sword if you don’t. Betray your wife. I, I just, I reject that story. I hope that we all do based on the scriptures, based on everything we know of God. And so it is just simply not the way God works, not now or ever. And when you consider that God’s whisper, this is 35 11:3. God’s whisper is capable of, it says it did pierce them to that did here to the center insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake. Yeah, it did pierce them to the very soul and it caused their hearts to burn. When God has this much power with his whisper, which we know that he does, why would he need to use a weapon of man and threaten violence like It just makes no sense at all. So my plea is, can we please once and for all, throw this story out and reject it as the falsehood that it is?

[00:45:02] Can we stop fueling the arguments against us? Here, I’m gonna show you this right now, like this. You know, it’s hard for us to argue against this t-shirt. When we want to claim this story. So, and more importantly, can we stop fueling the arguments against Joseph Smith and even more against God? The more we say that this is who Joseph Smith was, the more opposition there always will be to Joseph Smith. And the more that we say that this is who God is, the more opposition there will be to God and the more people who reject even believing in God. So, can we please stop blaming the errors of man on God and I do. I sincerely pray that at some point this story will be removed from the Gospel topic essay on polygamy, and that we as a people will all be willing to see and uphold truth over error. Please, never any of us say or believe an angel with a sword made me do it. Let’s not do that anymore. All right, thank you so much for coming, for listening today. I will see you next time. Again, this is 132 Problems and my name is Michelle Stone.