Brian Hale's FAIR Presentation on Sexual Polyandry

[_Stormy Waters]

An interesting response. It will take me some time to sort through all the details.

Forgive me, but I would like to make a personal note concerning this topic. From page 12.

For example, Joseph Smith taught that if he were sealed to a woman for "time and eternity," that marriage covenant would cause all "old covenants," including legal marriages, to be "done away" (D&C 22:1, 132:4).

If the hypothesis is correct then what Joseph basically did was dissolve marriages so he could take on another wife. I guess to me that isn't any better. It isn't any less offensive to my sensibilities than sexual polyandry. Whether Joseph was sharing these women with their husbands, or he took them outright. To me there is no apologetic benefit.

I mean, what if Thomas Monson were to do this to you? What if he dissolved your marriage and took your spouse?

[_Joe Geisner]

If the hypothesis is correct then what Joseph basically did was dissolve marriages so he could take on another wife. I guess to me that isn't any better. It isn't any less offensive to my sensibilities than sexual polyandry. Whether Joseph was sharing these women with their husbands, or he took them outright. To me there is no apologetic benefit.

I mean, what if Thomas Monson were to do this to you? What if he dissolved your marriage and took your spouse?

Southwest, excellent observation.

I was able to make it to the third of forth page and decided I did not need to read further. I realized from an apologetic position, Brian had not brought anything new to the table. I have been reading Brian and his apologetics for a number of years and his argument has been much the same throughout. Brian has brought to my attention some important documents, such as the trial of Joseph Johnson, and I thank him for introducing me to these historical events. I will probably scan the rest of the ninety pages and see if I find additional documents I did not know about.

But the truth of the matter is, Brian's stuff is really not written for most of us on this board. It is not written for the greater historical community and it sure is not written for the non-Mormon and non-Mormon scholarly community. Brian is writing for those who believe Smith is a prophet of God and did not make mistakes. Their testimony is tied up in the idea that Smith could do no wrong.

I was sick after reading Van Wagoner's (Mormon Polygamy) chapter that discusses Zina and Henry Jacobs. My heart was broke and I was in shock. I did mental gymnastics and made it through with my belief that Smith was still God's prophet, I figured if the Book of Mormon was true, then obviously God had commanded Smith to take Zina as his wife. I was able to do the same for Helen Mar and Sarah Ann, the Lawrence sisters and Partridge sisters. I could keep depending on the Book of Mormon and it being divine. Once I lost belief in the Book of Mormon, then Smith as a prophet of God crumbled.

I still went to Church and still was able to rationalize the Church was good for me and my family, until prop. 22 that is ....

So I think Brian is writing for those who are made sick by Smith and his sleeping with other men's wives, and sleeping with his closest friend's daughters; and girl's he was supposed to protect like the Lawrence girls, and instead sleeping with them.

My only problem with this entire line of reasoning by Brian, it is the same line of reasoning used by the FLDS and AUB and TLC and etc. It is the same line of reasoning used by the men who flew into the World Trade Center. This idea of higher ethics or God's laws allows people to rationalize these morally offensive behaviors. We as people know what is moral and right. But when we start down this path of thinking God is above these morals and ethics that are inherent in each of us, then we do evil things like Smith did when he claimed he was a prophet.

[_Blixa]

I'd like to thank Brian Hales for giving the link to his paper. I've read it through quickly and only if I get time to go over it more thoroughly, and to also return to Quinn's paper for a more thorough reading, will I have anything useful to say about its arguments.

One thing is clear though, even on such a cursory reading. Hales and Quinn are presenting scholarly arguments in a scholarly fashion. Whether Joe and others are correct in their reading of Hales's paper as having an "apologetic bent" or not, one can certainly see in it a higher standard of apologetic effort than that which is usually referenced on this board by that name.

[_Joe Geisner]

One thing is clear though, even on such a cursory reading. Hales and Quinn are presenting scholarly arguments in a scholarly fashion. Whether Joe and others are correct in their reading of Hales's paper as having an "apologetic bent" or not, one can certainly see in it a higher standard of apologetic effort than that which is usually referenced on this board by that name.

Excellent point Blixa, and I hope I never gave the impression that Brian's apologetic work in this response to Quinn is similar to Dan Peterson, Lou Midgley or Bill Hamblin forms of apologetic responses.

At the same time, Brian's work fits quite well with in FAIR conferences and is greeted by an enthusiastic crowd. This is the audience he is writing for, in my opinion.

[_Blixa]

One thing is clear though, even on such a cursory reading. Hales and Quinn are presenting scholarly arguments in a scholarly fashion. Whether Joe and others are correct in their reading of Hales's paper as having an "apologetic bent" or not, one can certainly see in it a higher standard of apologetic effort than that which is usually referenced on this board by that name.

Excellent point Blixa, and I hope I never gave the impression that Brian's apologetic work in this response to Quinn is similar to Dan Peterson, Lou Midgley or Bill Hamblin forms of apologetic responses.

At the same time, Brian's work fits quite well with in FAIR conferences and is greeted by an enthusiastic crowd. This is the audience he is writing for, in my opinion.

You didn't give that impression at all. I simply wanted to point out there are apologetics and then there are "mopologetics." As you pointed out one can learn things from Hales' work whether or not one agrees with its conclusions. After seeing what has long masqueraded as apologetics in these parts, I am happy when I can read an essay and neither cringe nor feel soiled.

[_Joe Geisner]

You didn't give that impression at all. I simply wanted to point out there are apologetics and then there are "mopologetics." As you pointed out one can learn things from Hales' work whether or not one agrees with its conclusions. After seeing what has long masqueraded as apologetics in these parts, I am happy when I can read an essay and neither cringe nor feel soiled.

Good. because I respect you so highly, I was concerned. I also want to make sure that people understand that I am not suggesting people should not read what Brian has written in response to Quinn. I am only giving my observation of Brian's work and responding to Southwest's excellent observation. I have read hundreds of pages of Brian's apologetic work and heard him speak a number of times. These are my observations and should only be taken as a grain of salt.

You bring up a very important point Blixa.

Apologia can take many forms. One of my heroes is B.H. Roberts. He was and still is Mormonisms best apologist. His New Witnesses for God is still the best apologetic work for the Book of Mormon. Mike Quinn is the best New Mormon Historian and apologist (which was Leonard Arrington's goal with the New Mormon History) of the age. You cannot read EMATMWV, New Plural Marriage, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years, all his BYU Studies articles and many of his other works and not realize they are all historical and apologetic works. I found and continue to find Mike's work satisfying apologetic. He response to Brian's MHA presentation was much more satisfying apologia than any other apologetic I have read in years.

Most historians I know understand that Mike was writing a defense of Smith's polyandrous marriages. Unfortunately, I think most people cannot see this since they have been nursed on FARMS and Maxwell Institute baby formula and not taught in Sunday School, Sacrament Meeting, Relief Society and Priesthood, and GC real apologia.

[_Madison54]

My only problem with this entire line of reasoning by Brian, it is the same line of reasoning used by the FLDS and AUB and TLC and etc. It is the same line of reasoning used by the men who flew into the World Trade Center. This idea of higher ethics or God's laws allows people to rationalize these morally offensive behaviors. We as people know what is moral and right. But when we start down this path of thinking God is above these morals and ethics that are inherent in each of us, then we do evil things like Smith did when he claimed he was a prophet.

Joe, I loved your entire post above but this quote really struck me.

I still go back to why is Joseph Smith held to a higher standard than even other early prophets who practiced polygamy? Why do some apologists go to such great lengths to prove that Joseph Smith did not have sex with his plural wives and then even those apologists who finally admit some of his relationships were sexual, still do all they can to prove he had no sex within his polyandrous relationships?

Yet, they readily accept that BY did.

I know that Joseph lied about it to his wife and publicly, but apologists admit he lied. Why won't they just take the next step and see the obvious about him having sexual relations with them?

Is Joseph Smith just simply held to a higher standard than even other Mormon prophets who practiced polygamy? If so, then why?

[_Cicero]

Brian: Thank you for putting together your response and posting it here. I am not sure why you felt it necessary to include all of the information about Quinn's response (page count, how many times Quinn mentioned you rather than Foster, etc.), but overall this is a good example of what apologetics should be, especially with regards to such a difficult subject.

With regards to the topic itself, I think Stormy Waters, Joe and Madison have all raised excellent points. I think that the emphasis on whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his wives that were at the time legally married to someone else is ultimately misguided. There are still several very troubling issues stemming from this practice regardless of whether sexual relations were involved. I know this is hard for many of you here , but just for purposes of this post, let's just assume for a moment that what the Church teaches about eternal families and the afterlife is actually true. That would mean Joseph was actually depriving these men of their eternal companions. Just think about that for a moment and let it sink in . . . and then think about Stormy's question above: How would you feel if Thomas S. Monson came to you today and said that he was dissolving your eternal marriage even though he would "let you keep her for now." The whole practice of polyandry is profoundly disturbing to me regardless of whether sex was involved. I personally think that the circumstancial evidence that sex WAS involved is overwhelming, but I also think it misses the profoundly disturbing theological implications of the practice. To see what I mean, just read the letters we have from Henry Jacobs to his wife Zina.

[_just me]

Brian: Thank you for putting together your response and posting it here. I am not sure why you felt it necessary to include all of the information about Quinn's response (page count, how many times Quinn mentioned you rather than Foster, etc.), but overall this is a good example of what apologetics should be, especially with regards to such a difficult subject.

With regards to the topic itself, I think Stormy Waters, Joe and Madison have all raised excellent points. I think that the emphasis on whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his wives that were at the time legally married to someone else is ultimately misguided. There are still several very troubling issues stemming from this practice regardless of whether sexual relations were involved. I know this is hard for many of you here , but just for purposes of this post, let's just assume for a moment that what the Church teaches about eternal families and the afterlife is actually true. That would mean Joseph was actually depriving these men of their eternal companions. Just think about that for a moment and let it sink in . . . and then think about Stormy's question above: How would you feel if Thomas S. Monson came to you today and said that he was dissolving your eternal marriage even though he would "let you keep her for now." The whole practice of polyandry is profoundly disturbing to me regardless of whether sex was involved. I personally think that the circumstancial evidence that sex WAS involved is overwhelming, but I also think it misses the profoundly disturbing theological implications of the practice. To see what I mean, just read the letters we have from Henry Jacobs to his wife Zina.

This just serves to remind me how sexist the whole practice is. Women are not belongings to be won, traded or stolen. That is ultimately what polygamy was all about.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You didn't give that impression at all. I simply wanted to point out there are apologetics and then there are "mopologetics." As you pointed out one can learn things from Hales' work whether or not one agrees with its conclusions. After seeing what has long masqueraded as apologetics in these parts, I am happy when I can read an essay and neither cringe nor feel soiled.

I have been impressed by Brian's scholarship and integrity. I may not agree with him but I appreciate that what he is doing is vastly better in content and scholarship than most apologetics.