PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-aug2025_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605_YT_2d24ba15 licensed under gpl3-or-later
ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #ced0c9 (color 2)
Video Format : 136 (720p) mp4 | h264 | 44100Hz | 1066477 bps
Audio Format: 140 (AUDIO_QUALITY_MEDIUM) m4a | aac | 44100hz | STEREO(2channels)
PokeEncryptID: 33ff201cc0a7f1ee9776b288b23ca2ccbe75bee47299d368413f91d42f66be52e6b5010fca37ff0e1ef2fdd205af1dfb
Proxy/Companion URL : woke-proxy.
Date : 1759867055436 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text?? : dHFldFdLandqU2cgaSAgbG92ICB1IHdva2UtcHJveHkucG9rZXR1YmUuZnVu
143 : true
3,062 Views • 7 months ago • Click to toggle off description
Doctrine and Covenants 101 (later retitled section 109) was removed and replaced with the controversial section 132 in 1876. Section 101 stated that the LDS Church did NOT practice plural marriage. Section 132 explains how to lawfully practice plural marriage.
This seems like dishonesty and deception. Check out our longer video!
#lds #ldschurch #mormon #exmo #exmormon #mormonstories #josephsmith #polygamydrama #pluralmarriage #mormonism
Views : 3,062
Genre: Nonprofits & Activism
License: Standard YouTube License
Uploaded At 7 months ago ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 4.872 (7/211 LTDR)
96.79% of the users lieked the video!!
3.21% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 95.19- Overwhelmingly Positive
RYD date created : 2025-03-17T22:14:40.110634Z
See in json
276 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
God never once pointed me to Mormonism anytime throughout my life.
9 | 0
Statement on marriage, which was replaced by the revelation on marriage,was replaced for that very reason. There was never any claim that the original statement was inspired. However, Section 132, and I don’t deem that section to be controversial, was an inspired revelation. I should also add that an 1835, when the statement on marriage was included in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, AT THAT TIME the position of the Church was monogamy. It should also be clarified that Section 132 is primarily about eternal marriage although a few of the verses do address plural marriage, when that is commanded. This is all no secret to any student of the Doctrine & Covenants.
3 | 0
False religions are always searching (changing) but never able to come to the knowledge of truth.
39 | 16
Yes, members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have always been aware of the apostasy of polygamy in the Utah LDS Church. I completely regret the current ultra-liberal apostasy of the current Community of Christ.
2 | 0
Yeah, Brigham Young removed it and replaced it with 132. He's also the only one who practiced polygamy that we've been able to prove through DNA testing and eye witnesses. There's no proof that Joseph Smith ever did. It's all hearsay. Even his wife Emma Smith and his children testified that he didn't practice polygamy. Brigham Young did alot of messed up stuff.... like taking the priesthood away from black men when the 3rd person to ever received the priesthood after the church was restored was a Blackman that Johseph Smith ordained himself! Brigham Young was the racist, sexiest and Pedophile not Joseph Smith.
1 | 0
Very interesting. However, These tidbits of information will never affect my testimony since I know without a doubt the LDS Church is the one true restored church. Many churches have some truth, only one has all the truth. I challenge you to investigate and not be moved by the spirit testifying of its truth. God bless.
4 | 1
I learned this a few years ago and it’s partly why I left the Mormon church. They have whitewashed so much of the history and created their own doctrine. So grateful to be awake and to be a Christian now!🥰🙏🏼 however… I do think you should find actual sources that are not put out from the LDS church. I strongly believe Joseph never practiced polygamy and that it originated with Brigham Young. The truth matters. Either way, the Mormon church is a false religion. I’m grateful to no longer be affiliated with
1 | 0
Did you now that Prophets of God can determine what should or should not be in the Bible. Did you know that God can command his people to do one thing at one time and then another at another time.. Yes it's true.
4 | 1
Wicked worldliness.
5 | 0
God keeps changing his mind. Follow the Profit!
1 | 0
If you look at the verse before you can tell this was a section of duties of the different groups of members. It wasn't revelation and the Doctrine and Convenants was to be a book of revelation. Thus the reason it was removed, but members still have access to this section just a as the Lectures on Faith.
The Lectures on Faith were removed for the same reason. Yes I watched the whole video and that's why I'm commenting on different things. But it also adds context as to why certain things were removed from the D&C. It also shows how disingenuous GLM is because he's intentionally omitting context to disparage the church. If he doesn't know the context of things, then he needs to stop talking about the LDS church all together.
D&C 132 is revelation, hence the reason it was added for the reason explained above.
3 | 1
Oh no! My faith is shaken! Oh wait, except Abraham was a polygamist, then Isaac wasn’t, but then Jacob was again. So I guess the Bible proves that it can change back and forth sometimes. Phew! That was a close one. “FAITH RESTORED!”
11 | 1
💔 Still Gaslighting ~ i miss The Goodness i Experienced ~ Albeit , i Can Not Unsee Or Un Know ~ 🗝️Pure Truth Matte
1 | 0
As usual, the antis misrepresent the issues and make comments out of context with actual events. You have to marvel at people who are so consumed with destroying the faith of others.
13 | 3
So what is this video all about?
2 | 0
This church is so deceptive. It would be better to tell the members that we have “further light and knowledge “ so we’re making some changes. No, they just sweep it under the rug.
7 | 0
As with Abraham, Jacob, and Moses in the Bible, there are times when God allows or commands it by revelation to his prophet, otherwise it is a transgression. The saints followed monogamy until there was revelation given to the prophet otherwise. So that revision would make no difference for that reason - it's just revelation from God to a prophet to revise a statement as God directs, because he had given a new commandment to the saints.
This is also explained in the Book of Mormon...
Jacob 2: 27-30
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
5 | 18
First, it was section 109, not 101, which is clearly seen in images shown in the video.
Second, this section was not a revelation, but a statement of faith. Section 132 is a revelation, and thus supercedes any simple statement.
Third, when this statement was published it was perfectly true. At that time the church did not practice plural marriage. Even if Joseph Smith did personally, the church didn't. This would change in the 1850s, and so the statement no longer applied.
12 | 25
1 Timothy 6:1-17" where widows and unmarried women were a reproach if they weren't married. Prostitution was common when women had no other way to survive. No government welfare then. The elders who teach the gospel were commanded to relieve these women of their (unmarried) reproach by taking them on as a double honor. Obviously marriage was that honor. An honor to the priest to have a double marriage. Removing their unmarried reproach. Later on bishops were commanded to have only one wife. Only bishops it clearly says. Obviously admitting that bishops were being excluded from a polygamy practice admittedly going on by other church clergy or why specify bishops being different with just one wife?
1 | 0
@SeekTruth-f6d
5 months ago
Actually section 101 on monogamist marriage first appeared in the 1835 D&C. It was renumbered 109 (CIX) in the 1844 edition of the D&C. This section on monogamist marriage was the only rule of law pertaining to marriage in the church. Section 132 was not included in the D&C until 1876, 32 years after Joseph Smiths death.
11 | 0