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.
Hi Joe,
I'm a little saddened that you stopped reading after page four. While I'm labeled an "apologist," there is a lot of new historical material and it is all nicely footnoted. If you want copies of the original documents, let me know and I'll send them your way.
Quinn has done everyone a great service by focusing his incredible knowledge base and research on this topic. I, in turn, was able to take his "evidences" and arguments and contextualize them within a broader view created by new historical data- documents that were not available to Mike.
I know people will ignore my writings by labeling them apologetic. I can live with labels. But, I find people sometimes choose to use labels because they don't have evidence to support their own positions.
I guess I'm challenging you, but don't take me too seriously. I don't get on these boards often, but wanted to make sure that my paper was available. Go ahead and read all 93 pages if you want the very latest research on polyandry. It is true I'm a believer, but everything is documented by better sources than Van Wagoner ever quoted.
On the other hand, you can label it "apologetic literature" and ignore it if you like, but I'm hoping you won't.
If I don't get back to read your reply here, you can email me direct.
Take Care,
Brian Hales
, 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.