VOGEL RESPONDS TO APOLOGIST BRIAN HALES

[_Yong Xi]

p.s. Is it correct to refer to Joseph Smith as practicing sexual polyandry, or polyandry of any sort (he could only practice polygyny)? I presume you mean to specifically refer to his polyandrous wives and whether or not they were practicing sexual polyandry? My intention is not to split hairs, but rather to clarify whether or not you're talking about Joseph Smith practicing sexual polygyny at all or if you're only talking about his polyandrous wives practicing sexual polyandry.

It is crucial that apologists defend Joseph Smith against the practice of sexual relations with polyandrous wives at all costs. Many will freely admit to Joseph's sexual relationships with his other wives. Evidence pointing to sexual relations with polyandrous wives, however, seems to dramatically weaken apologetic claims of dynastic purposes and strengthen the claim of critics that is was primarily about sex.

[_Dan Vogel]

Brian,

I appreciate having this chance to discuss your criticisms of my use of some early sources relating to Joseph Smith’s possible early indiscretions. My main concern is your accusation that I go “beyond available evidence” and misrepresent or manufacture evidence. I’m happy that you are willing to discuss your views on polyandry in detail, but I’ll set that aside and focus on what concerns me most. I’m disappointed that you essentially gave no response or justification for your accusations and refused to respond to my critique. So, I’ll give it another try.

I argue no such documentation actually exists, believing that Dan's reporting of the three episodes go beyond the evidence. Readers are left to evaluate Dan's verbiage and draw their own conclusions. …

Regarding Dan's defense of the three criticisms I voiced on my website, I must simply state that after reading all the defense and reasoning, I'm remain convinced that a vast majority of unbiased readers would review what Dan has written and conclude …

No, Brian, it’s up to you to defend and justify your accusations. You didn’t do it on your website, so here is the place.

(1) that evidence exists that Levi Lewis personally accused Joseph Smith of trying to seduce Eliza Winters,

This error transforms a dubious account into a firsthand allegation.

Lewis did accuse Joseph Smith of trying to seduce Winters, and that Harris didn’t deny it. The problem is you are assuming that this means Lewis had firsthand knowledge, which I never said. If I wanted to make it appear like I had firsthand testimony, I could have simply said Harris accused Joseph Smith without mentioning Lewis. That’s the expected method of misrepresenting a source such as this.

If Lewis was relying only on Harris for this information, he would not have said Harris didn’t blame Joseph Smith for this indiscretion. Lewis’s account presents the attempted seduction as a given, as common knowledge in the neighborhood, and that Harris didn’t blame Joseph Smith for trying.

What gives this statement credibility is not whether it’s firsthand or secondhand but that it was published so that both Joseph Smith and Harris had ample opportunity to challenge it.

You are attempting to quibble about my presentation without dealing with the evidence. Furthermore, the implication is that you believe you don’t have to deal with it since it’s not firsthand, and what’s not firsthand is dubious.

So, please, show me how my statement about Lewis goes “beyond the evidence” and how it changes Lewis’s statement into a firsthand account.

(2) that a record of testimony exists accusing Joseph Smith of improper conduct with two of Josiah Stowell’s daughters, Miriam and Rhoda,

This error carries the potential of turning non-evidence into evidence.

I made no such claim. I never said there was a record for this 1830 trial. I merely said the trial--not the trial record--“included testimony accusing him of improper conduct with two of Josiah Stowell’s daughters. Following this, I cited Joseph Smith 1838-39 History.

In support that such accusations did occur in 1830, I quoted Joseph Smith’s 1844 statement that he was accused of polygamy in New York. Despite your weak apologetic in an email to me, my use of it is entirely reasonable and your suppression of it violates the rule of charity, as also your suppression that my source for the 1830 trial was Joseph Smith’s History. You tried to make it appear that I was inventing a source.

So, please, show me how my statement about Lewis goes “beyond the evidence” and how it turns non-evidence into evidence.

and (3) that documentation exists showing that the topic of Joseph trying to seduce Eliza came up in the 1880 interview and she responded without affirming or denying.

Here Vogel goes beyond the evidence in his assertion.

The last part of the above statement is what I said, but the first part is your invention. I simply stated that she did not take the opportunity when she had it.

So, please, show me where I said the topic was brought up and how my statement goes “beyond the evidence”.

In his opening paragraph I was a bit surprised to read (concerning me): "…he thinks historians go beyond the evidence when they use secondhand or hearsay testimony or make reasonable inferences from the evidence. He believes that he is not obligated to deal with evidence unless it’s both firsthand and explicit."

In fact, I don't "think" or "believe" these misrepresentative straw-man assessments and really didn't think Dan, a veteran at polemics, would employ such ineffective techniques. Hopefully I would never attempt to tell people what Dan "thinks" or "believes," since being a nontelepathic, I couldn't be sure.

Brian, I didn’t read your mind to find out what you “think” or “believe”—you told me.

Similarly, for decades the conventional interpretation of the Prophet's plural marriages has included sexual polyandry. But what happens when we take a close look at the evidence supporting it?

That’s what I mean. To believe Joseph Smith participated in sexual polyandry is to go beyond the evidence, right?

I don’t want to get bogged down in the polyandry subject, because I want to focus on your accusations.

[_Joe Geisner]

I would like to thank Dan Vogel for making me aware of Brian Hales comments and criticisms.

As I have read Hales work and listened to his presentations, my conclusion is that Hales is quite adept at presenting historical fiction. At the Sunstone Symposium in August Hales presented his ideas about Smith and Nauvoo polygamy. One of these claims is that John C Bennett was not an insider and did not know about Smith's polygamy ideology. It seems to me that Hales has either ignored or refuses to read the historical record of the Nauvoo period, and selects only material that confirms his thesis. I have decided to call this the: "Throw everyone else under the bus to protect Joseph Smith history."

Hales treatment of Fanny Alger is equally selective and an excellent example of reaching beyond the sources. Hales has decided that the Far West Record and Oliver Cowdery's letters (both written with in a couple of years of the "affair") are not as useful as Mosiah Hancock's infant remembrances and Eliza Snow's forty year recollections. Hales would never consider that either of these people would have motives to change the historical record since one was a relative of the Algers and the other a plural wife of Smith's. Hales also wants to claim that this "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" is nothing more that a marriage or non-sexual relationship. Who really is reaching beyond the sources?

It should also be pointed out that when Hales writes that HE added Esther Ducther as one of Smith's polyandrous wives, it was in fact the Nauvoo historian Joseph Johnstun who discovered this marriage. This woman and her legal husband's lives were equally tragic after this "marriage" like most of the other Smith polyandrous marriages. Smith left nothing but destruction and sorrow in his wake as he took these young women as his wives, but Hales wants to turn this time period into a Disney movie.

[_Ron Priddis]

I love the logic that since Joseph and Fanny had sex, they must have been married, but in Nauvoo the thinking gets turned on its head to be that if Joseph and a woman were married, they must not have had sex.

[_Dr. Shades]

I love the logic that since Joseph and Fanny had sex, they must have been married, but in Nauvoo the thinking gets turned on its head to be that if Joseph and a woman were married, they must not have had sex.

+1,000

Ron, you are a genius!

[_sock puppet]

I love the logic that since Joseph and Fanny had sex, they must have been married, but in Nauvoo the thinking gets turned on its head to be that if Joseph and a woman were married, they must not have had sex.

+1,000

Ron, you are a genius!

+ another 1,000. Truly genius in how succinctly, Ron, you point out how biased the conclusion is if necessary to save JSJr.

[_Mike Reed]

Dan Vogel, Ron Priddis, Brian Hales, and Joe Geisner... all in one thread. Wow. What a blessed day for Mormon Discussions.

[_moksha]

Do you think there would be a market (and a possible movie deal) for a book series entitled, The Work and the Chastity?

[_MarcelloJun]

I think Dan Vogel is wrong. Dead wrong!

Wrong to expect intellectual honesty and scholarly rigor from Brian Hales. Particularly when it was so obvious from his initial treatment of Vogel´s arguments that he´s no interest in either.

[_Analytics]

There are many problems with the idea that the Prophet practiced sexual polyandry. I'll list one in this post and perhaps I will expand if there is interest. The proposed timeline associated with Joseph Smith’s alleged sexual polyandry seems unrealistic. According to the accusations, Joseph was sealed to his first polyandrous wife, Zina Huntington Jacobs on October 27, 1842 and would have been sleeping with her from that date forward. During the next twenty months, it appears he was sealed to all of his polyandrous wives, so by July of 1843, he had been married to possibly thirteen women who had legal husbands.

On July 12, 1843, the Prophet received the revelation on celestial and plural marriage that was designed to justify and explain the practice of plural marriage. If he had at that point been practicing sexual polyandry for over a year and a half, it seems likely that somewhere within that revelation he would have dictated a verse or two authorizing conjugal polyandrous relations.

By the same token, it would be equally likely that somewhere within that revelation he would have dictated a verse or two about non-conjugal polyandrous marriage if that is what he was up to.

Looking at what we do know, there were other occassions when Joseph Smith violated the rules set out in D&C 132 by marrying young virgin's without the permission of his first wife. This makes it clear that this particular revelation wasn't something that guided his actions when it came to who he married and what he did when he was alone with a wife.

If Joseph was engaging in polyandrous sex, condemning it in the revelation doesn't make sense. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Zina Huntington, Eliza Snow and other polygamy insiders were not that stupid as to not figure out what the revelation was saying. Importantly, no one complained at any level.

That's factually incorrect. People did complain, such as Jane Law.

Regarding the ones who didn't complain, a certain type were okay with rationalizing--after all, if the Prophet tells you it's okay to have sex with him, who cares what he teaches on Sunday? It's your little secret, and you're merely following the prophet. If they were okay with rationalizing away the church's public teachings about polygamy, why would they have a problem rationalizing a secret revelation about polygamy, as well?

That no backlash or complaints were registered by those aware -- and dozens were apprised of the Prophet's polyandrous sealings -- seems implausible. It is likely that his hypocrisy would have been detected by observers provoking questions, disbelief, and possibly retaliation from the wives or their male relatives.

Do the names William Law, Jane Law, Wilson Law, Austin Cowles and Robert Foster mean anything to you?