Grant Palmer is attacked by Brian Hales and Gregory L. Smith

[_grindael]

You have to love this one. Brian Hales claims that his wife slammed Alex Beam over Eliza R. Snow. Hales writes at "Mormon History Guy",

Beam wrote that Eliza admitted she had been “the Prophet’s wife and lover” (89). He provides no documentation but obviously missed Eliza’s 1877 letter to RLDS missionary Daniel Munns where she flatly denied having ever been Joseph Smith’s “carnal” wife but freely acknowledged that there were “several ladies now living in Utah who accepted the pure and sacred doctrine of plural marriage, and were the bona fide wives of Pres. Joseph Smith.”[13] During the June 9 podcast interview, my wife Laura addressed this lack of evidence, which apparently was an unacceptable question because both Dehlin and Beam felt it was confrontational, but I wondered about their willingness to provide documentary transparency.

Hales then co-authored another article about Alex Beam claiming that he "defamed" Joseph Smith. (“Big Trouble in River City: American Crucifixion and the Defaming of Joseph Smith”, by Craig L. Foster and Brian Hales.) All this is of course malarkey, but it obviously keeps Hales busy. The accusation of defamation seems to be a current trend with Mormon apologists. To defame someone is to use falsehood to try and damage their reputation. This of course, is often in the eye of the beholder but can be checked with the facts. Foster and Hales write,

Beam writes that Eliza admitted she had been “the Prophet’s wife and lover” (89). He provides no documentation and obviously missed Eliza’s 1877 letter to RLDS missionary Daniel Munns where she flatly denied having ever been Joseph Smith’s “carnal” wife but freely acknowledged that there were “several ladies now living in Utah who accepted the pure and sacred doctrine of plural marriage, and were the bona fide wives of Pres. Joseph Smith.”33 During a June 9 interview with MormonStories podcaster John Dehlin, Laura Hales, wife of Brian Hales, addressed this lack of evidence for this statement during the question and answer period. Beam appeared nonplussed by the fuss regarding his use of the term “lover,” which he admitted was an ill-chosen word to describe Eliza’s relationship with Joseph. This speaks of his willingness to infuse dramatic prose into his text without regard to documentary evidence.

The letter in question reads,

You ask (referring to Pres. Smith), “Did he authorize or practice spiritual wifery? Were you a spiritual wife?’I certainly shall not acknowledge myself of having been a carnal one” . . . . I am personally and intimately acquainted with several ladies now living in Utah who accepted the pure and sacred doctrine of plural marriage, and were the bona fide wives of Pres. Joseph Smith.” (Eliza R. Snow, Letter to Daniel Munns, May 30, 1877, Community of Christ Archives)

This is from Hales website. Now, lets go to his book and we read,

Less commonly referenced is an 1877 letter from Eliza to Daniel Munns, an RLDS member:

You ask (referring to Pres. Smith), “Did he authorize or practice spiritual wifery? Were you a spiritual wife?” I certainly shall not acknowledge myself of having been a carnal one. . . . I am personally and intimately acquainted with several ladies now living in Utah who accepted the pure and sacred doctrine of plural marriage, and were the bona fide wives of Pres. Joseph Smith.” (Emphasis in original.)39

The footnote reads,

39.Eliza R. Snow, Letter to Daniel Munns, May 30, 1877.

Where is the letter without Hales' ellipsis? Not to be found. So how is his work any kind of reference volume? He is obviously not providing the full context of many of his sources, and there is nothing wrong with that, but to go on and on about how his books are full of the "latest research" and then provide only parts of the research that seem to agree with his own conclusions is disingenuous. I find the ellipsis in this particular quote highly suspect.

Since I don’t have access to the entire letter, this quote should be read with caution. Still, what did Snow mean when she said “a carnal one”? That she didn’t have sex with Joseph Smith? This contradicts another statement made by Snow,

He [Joseph Smith III] said, “I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death.” I in turn said, “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, ‘I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.’” (Angus Cannon, Statement, in 1905 interview with Joseph Smith III, LDS Church History Library.)

So what’s the deal here? Simply that Snow did not like the term “spiritual wifery”. Why? Because it implied the system attributed to John C. Bennett that was unspiritual or carnal. Hales knows this, but still ignores it. And Munn actually asked her if she was a "spiritual wife"!!! Of course that got her dander up and she replied, "I certainly shall not acknowledge myself of having been a carnal one..." And where is the rest of this sentence, Brian? Why the ellipses? It would be nice to be able to see the entire context of Snow's reply instead of these snipped ones. This is "documentary transparency"? Hardly.

If one simply reads the 1828 definition of the word carnal, this becomes clear:

1. Pertaining to flesh; fleshly; sensual; opposed to spiritual; as carnal pleasure. (1828 Webster’s Dictionary)

Snow was not denying that she ever had sex with Smith, but that the relationship itself was carnal, or unspiritual. All of Smith's wives were overly concerned as to this very thing and over sensitive about it in their replies to people. That is why she adds that she is “personally and intimately acquainted with several ladies now living in Utah who accepted the pure and sacred doctrine of plural marriage, and were the bona fide wives of Pres. Joseph Smith.”

“Pure and Sacred” doctrine (or spiritual), verses “spiritual wifery” (carnal). Bona fide wives, not simply sex partners as in Bennett’s system. Of course, Smith's system was no different, but these women thought that it was.

These are the kinds of examples that the article by Foster and Hales are full of as is Hales' Books. It is easy to bandy about the term defamation, but a lot harder to prove it in relation to Joseph Smith’s polygamy. And using his wife to attack Alex Beam with faulty reasoning? Not cool.

[_aussieguy55]

From
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N03_69.pdf
Richard S. Van Wagoner


Prescindia's twenty-year-old sister Zina was living in the Joseph Smith
home when Henry B. Jacobs married her in March 1841. According to family
records, when the Jacobs asked the Prophet why he had not honored them
by performing their marriage, he replied that "the Lord had made it known to
him that [Zina] was to be his Celestial wife" (Emma R. Jacobs in O. Cannon,
5). Believing that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the
wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man," the devout
Jacobs consented for six-months-pregnant Zina to be sealed to Joseph Smith
27 October 1841 (O. Cannon, 5). Some have suggested that the Jacobs's
marriage was "unhappy" and that the couple had separated before her sealing
to Joseph Smith.13 But, though sealed to the Prophet for eternity,

This polyandrous triangle became even more complex. Zina and Henry
lived together as husband and wife until the westward-bound Saints reached
Mt. Pisgah, Iowa. At this temporary stop on the pioneer trail, Brigham Young
announced that "it was time for men who were walking in other men's shoes
to step out of them. Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for a wife does not
belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him.
I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property.
You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your
own kindred spirit"'(Hall 1853, 43-44)

[_Kevin Graham]

Apologies to your wife. She is no more qualified to write a historical text for peer-reviewing than the oculist who works at KMart. It is indeed possible, of course. Brent Metcalf was a security guard and turned out some respectable analyses. (I don't agree with them, but they had an impact in academia.) But really doubtful. Doctors (Smith and Hale), audiologist (Van Wagoner), newspaper hound (Bagley), Metcalfe (security guard), Ashment (insurance salesman), Tanners (not sure) are not the same as Compton, Quinn, Mauss, Arrington, Coe, DCPeterson, Nibley, Hamblin.

Following this logic, Albert Einstein, who was a patent clerk, was not qualified to speak on matters of physics. He dropped out of High School and failed to pass entrance exams for college.

Regarding Brent Metcalfe, he is by far the world's authority on Book of Abraham matters. He was studying the original translation manuscripts decades before the apologists were even allowed to see them, and before most even knew they existed. He effectively mopped the floors with every "expert" the Church has thrown at him over the years. The only person who could compete with his expertise would be Ed Ashment, who is his long time friend. To suggest that someone isn't qualified or capable of producing good scholarship on any given topic, just because they haven't published in peer reviewed journals, is to expose one's own elitist mentality and ignorance of reality.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Following this logic, Albert Einstein, who was a patent clerk, was not qualified to speak on matters of physics. He dropped out of High School and failed to pass entrance exams for college.

Regarding Brent Metcalfe, he is by far the world's authority on Book of Abraham matters. He was studying the original translation manuscripts decades before the apologists were even allowed to see them, and before most even knew they existed. He effectively mopped the floors with every "expert" the Church has thrown at him over the years. The only person who could compete with his expertise would be Ed Ashment, who is his long time friend. To suggest that someone isn't qualified or capable of producing good scholarship on any given topic, just because they haven't published in peer reviewed journals, is to expose one's own elitist mentality and ignorance of reality.

Or, on the other hand, we can follow the logic that formalized book learnin' isn't real important, and that the hard knocks school is more important.

Ed Ashment and I attended the same ward at the University of Chicago at the same time. It says a lot about a scholar who can't complete his degree, these days, at least. I trust Compton and Quinn to a degree; not so much Ashment and Metcalfe. Certainly not an audiologist qualified only to work at KMart.

[_Morley]

Following this logic, Albert Einstein, who was a patent clerk, was not qualified to speak on matters of physics. He dropped out of High School and failed to pass entrance exams for college.

(Emphasis mine.)

While I don't disagree with your rebuttal of YBot, don't you think this misrepresents Einstein's education just a tiny bit?

[_ludwigm]

Following this logic, Albert Einstein, who was a patent clerk, was not qualified to speak on matters of physics. He dropped out of High School and failed to pass entrance exams for college.

(Emphasis mine.)

While I don't disagree with your rebuttal of YBot, don't you think this misrepresents Einstein's education just a tiny bit?

This is an old urban legend...

Really:

In 1895, at the age of 16, Einstein sat the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich (later the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH). He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination, but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.

[_Morley]

Van Wagoner does not have a doctorate. He's qualified to work at K-Mart, yes, but nothing much more.

Shooting the messenger in an attempt to kill the message.

[_Fence Sitter]

Bonus points to who can identify the poster of this recent remark at MAD.

Look to the quality of the argument, not the quest for credibility. Who has the better argument?

[Guest]

Who is Yahoo Bot?

I'll take the pen is mightier for $500 Trebeck.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Van Wagoner does not have a doctorate. He's qualified to work at K-Mart, yes, but nothing much more.

Shooting the messenger in an attempt to kill the message.

Or, has a book that has not gone through editorial control and peer reviewing something to boast about? I checked some of Van Wagoner's sources; drill down, he uses anti-Mormon newspapers in Quincy which were reporting rumors.

Look to the quality of the argument, not the quest for credibility. Who has the better argument?

A poster argues on the board that I'm not credible because I disagree with Dr. Sorenson. I respond essentially by saying that I really don't strive for credibility but make the message the message. I abhore the quest for credibility. If that is inconsistent with giving raspberries to an audiologist with silly cited material, well OK.