I really do wonder how Brian Hales can believe the line of BS that he is selling to the world. In his comments on the Interpreter Article he claims,
Similarly, Joseph asked about a plurality of wives and received an answer that dealt, not only with polygamy, but with the entire New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which includes plural marriage but is not limited to it. Plural marriage itself is not mentioned until verse 34.
Actually he is completely wrong and he knows it if he knows how to read and comprehend what he is reading. For him to propagate untruths like this is really dishonest. Verse 1 says,
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
That is about “plural marriage”. Unless “having many wives and concubines” is not polygamy? So here we catch Hales in a direct lie. Is that a man who is qualified to teach the things of the Gospel as he claims? Not according to the Doctrine and Covenants or Brian Hales himself. Verse 1 indicates that the entire Section is about
“Knowing and understanding why... the Lord…justified… the principle and doctrine of…having many wives and concubines.”
This is the stated purpose of Section 132. For Hales to claim that polygamy is only secondary to this “revelation” is being dishonest. It then says in verse 3,
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
This is the key. All who had it revealed to them, unlike the Nephites, who did not. What is “this law”? It HAS to be something that was already revealed in the “revelation”, and the only thing that “the Lord” mentions, is “
the principle and doctrine of…having many wives and concubines.”
It says explicitly that “all who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same”. There is no qualification here. This whole “revelation” is about polygamy. What Brian Hales doesn’t get is the whole picture. He claims that the “revelation” doesn’t mention polygamy until verse 34, which is absolutely false. The whole “revelation” was leading up to that so that they would “know and understand why... the Lord…justified… the principle and doctrine of…having many wives and concubines.”
To claim that this was all about Monogamy and then it just switched up to polygamy in the middle of the “revelation” is ridiculous. Then we have the commentary about this “revelation”. Brigham Young himself calls the ‘NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT’ as it pertains to Marriage, POLYGAMY:
I will say a few words on a subject which has been mentioned here—that is, celestial marriage. God has given a revelation to seal for time and for eternity, just as he did in days of old. In our own days he has commanded his people to receive the New and Everlasting Covenant, and he has said, "If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned." We have received it. What is the result of it? I look at the world, or that small portion of it which believes in monogamy. It is only a small portion of the human family who do believe in it, for from nine to ten of the twelve hundred millions that live on the earth believe in and practice polygamy. Well, what is the result? Right in our land the doctrine and practice of plurality of wives tend to the preservation of life. Do you know it? Do you see it? What is our duty? To preserve life or destroy it? Can any of you answer? Why yes, it is to perpetuate and preserve life. But what principle do we see prevailing in our own land? What is that of which, in the East, West, North and South, ministers in their pulpits complain, and against which both gentlemen and ladies lecture? It is against taking life. They say, "Cease the destruction of pre-natal life!" Our doctrine and practice make and preserve life; theirs destroy it. Which is the best, saying nothing about revelation, which is the best in a moral point of view, to preserve or to destroy the life which God designs to bring upon the earth. Just look at it and decide for yourselves. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, p.43).
It is obvious that Young contrasts “celestial marriage” or that part of the New and Everlasting Covenant, with MONOGAMY. Therefore, Brian Hales doesn’t know what he is talking about when he says,
Polygamists today want the New and Everlasting Covenant to be strictly plural marriage or always to require plural marriage. It is just isn’t true.
Unfortunately it is true. On May 16, 1843 Joseph Smith had a “revelation” which reads in part,
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter in to this Order of the Priesthood; (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage;) And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom: he cannot have an increase.
The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage was also called “Celestial Marriage”. Concerning this on 26 June 1882, John Taylor declared in a “REVELATION”:
No person, or people, or nation, can enter into the principle of celestial marriage unless they come in by me, saith the Lord, and obey the law of my Gospel through the medium of him who is appointed unto this power * * *. You ask, what shall we do? Thus saith the Lord God: obey my law, and seek not to become a law unto yourselves, nor trust to outside influences; * * * Concerning the course taken by the United States, they have a right to reject this law themselves, as they have a right to reject the Gospel; but it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for them to prohibit you from obeying it.
Therefore, abide in my law which I have revealed unto you, saith the Lord God. ( Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol.2, p. xx)
Are you getting this, those that would believe the falsehoods of Hales and Greg Smith? In a “REVELATION”, John Taylor calls “Celestial Marriage”, polygamy. If it was not, then how could the United States “reject” it? They could not, because it would be like Brian Hales describes it now, Monogamy. “This law”, that Smith talks of in Section 132, was polygamy. Taylor also says that it is “contrary to the provisions of the Constitution… for them to prohibit you from obeying it.” What were they “prohibiting”? POLYGAMY or "this law".
This is plain, simple, and cut and dry. Hales is completely changing the definition of what the early Mormons knew Celestial Marriage to be. With that in mind, we find that John Taylor specifically addressed this in 1882,
Question: Is the law of Celestial Marriage [POLYGAMY] a law given to this nation or to the world?
Answer: No, in no other sense than as the Gospel is given, and in accordance with the laws thereof. So far as it is made known unto them as the Gospel is made known unto them and is a part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant. (page 2) Have I not said through my servant, Joseph, that "all Kingdoms are governed by law," and if they receive not the law of My Gospel they cannot participate in the blessings of celestial marriage, which pertains to my elect.
No person, or people, or nation can enter into the principle of celestial marriage unless they come in by me, saith the Lord, and obey the law of my Gospel through the medium of him who is appointed unto this power, as made known unto my people through my servant, Joseph, in a revelation (page 3) on "The eternity of the marriage covenant, including plurality of wives." I have therein stated that "All those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same; for, behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting Covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory*" Furthermore, "And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that resanctified by the same. That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment.*"
It is further written, speaking of Celestial Marriage, "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations that are not made, and entered into, and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment thro' the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power, (and I have appointed unto my servant, Joseph, to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time, or on whom this power and the Keys of this Priesthood are conferred,) are of no efficacy, virtue or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead" This law is a Celestial law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom. It is a new and everlasting Covenant, and appertains to thrones, principalities, powers, Doc. and Cov. Sec. 132, ver. 7. dominions, and eternal increase in the Celestial Kingdom of God.
You are not now sent to proclaim this principle to the United States, nor the world; nor to urge it upon them. It is not for them as a nation, or nations, only as many as accept the law of my Gospel and are governed thereby. Behold, if you were to preach this principle unto them and they said, "We accept it," Could you then administer it unto them? Verily, I say unto you, Nay. Have I not said, "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith (page 10) the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name, or will I receive at you hands that which I have not appointed, and will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained before the world was!
"I am the Lord thy God, and I give unto you this commandment, that no man shall come unto the Father but by me, or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord; and everything that is in (page 11) the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God; for whatsoever things remain, are by me: and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.
"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by my word; and he Covenant with her so long as he is in the world (page 12) and she be with him, their Covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
Taylor here specifically states that the “Eternity of the marriage covenant” INCLUDES plurality of wives.
Again during 1882, John Taylor issued an epistle on marriage which states:
What shall be done with those who do not fulfill the obligations of the Gospel, and are not prepared to assume the responsibilities and obligations connected therewith? Is the order of God to be violated? Are the barriers placed around this sacred institution to be trampled down and broken underfoot? And are unworthy characters who do not fulfill the requirements of the Gospel to have conferred upon them the blessings of eternal lives, of thrones, and powers, and principalities in the Celestial Kingdom of God? We emphatically answer, No! (Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol.2, p. xix)
Taylor then admonished Church members to obey the law of God, even if the had to break the laws of the land:
Now, then, the United States pass a law that a man shall not marry wives according to the order that God has revealed. Now it is a fact that we should like to obey the laws of the United States, if we could do it. * * * Has God given us a law? Yes. All right we will get along and do the best we can, but we won't forsake our God. All who are willing to abide by the laws of God signify it by raising the right hand (unanimous vote). Now try and keep them. But will we fight against the United States? No, we will not. Well, how will these things be brought about? Don't you expect that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our God and his Christ? Yes, I do, as much as I believe I am speaking to you and you are hearing me, and I not only believe it but know it. Well, now, how will that be brought about if you do not pitch in? We need not do this. There is plenty that will pitch in; there will be plenty of trouble by and by without our interference, when men begin to tear away one plank after another out of the platform of constitutional liberty; there will not be much to tie to. And how will you get along with them? We will leave them to get along with themselves. And how will that be? We are told the wicked shall slay the wicked, but says the Lord: “It is my business to take care of the Saints.” God will stand by Israel, and Zion shall triumph and this work will go on until the kingdom is established and all nations bow to its standard.(Journal of Discourses 21:70-71).
This is an important point and why Taylor would never renounce polygamy. He stated that God would have “the wicked slay the wicked” until “the kingdoms of this world” become the kingdoms of the Mormons. They would not need to renounce it. God would take care of it.
As Thomas G. Alexander wrote,
Plural marriage had been so thoroughly ingrained in the Latter-day Saint community that neither a public pronouncement nor a hierarchical decision could easily eliminate it. Members reading section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants understood "plural marriage" for "new and everlasting covenant" or, in common parlance "celestial marriage." Apostle Marriner W. Merrill, for instance, insisted in one discussion that no year would go by without some children being born to plural marriages and that the Manifesto of 1890 was not a revelation from God.
The references to these facts are impressive,
Matthias F. Cowley, Cowley's Talks on Doctrine (Chattanooga, Tenn.: Ben E. Rich 1902), pp. 180-82; Joseph Eckersley, Journal, 26 Dec. 1904, LDS Church Archives; Lund, Journal, 9 Jan. 1900, 18 Nov. 1903, JH, 19 Nov. 1903; John Henry Smith, Journal, 9, 10 Jan. 1900, 19 Nov. 1903; Joseph F. Smith to Samuel L. Adams 24 Dec. 1903, Joseph F. Smith Letterbooks, LDS Church Archives; Talmage, Journal, 14 Oct. 1904; Merrill, Utah Pioneer and Apostle, p. 147; Smoot Proceedings, 1:408-10.
Here for example is the John Henry Smith entry,
[Tuesday, Jan. 9, 1900 - Salt Lake City] All of the Apostles but Rudger Clawson met in the Temple at 10 a.m. Brigham Young [JR] presiding. Brigham Young gave words of Wisdom. Abraham O. Woodruff talked on Colinization. Matthias F. Cowley bore testimony to the whole truth. Anthon H. Lund felt we should be guarded in what we did. Rudger Clawson came in and gave us a good general talk. Marriner W. Merrill gave us some of his early experience and stood strong for polygamy. John W. Taylor was for Zion first and last.
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=16099
These are men who are looking for options to continue to practice polygamy, not discontinue it because they felt that Woodruff never had a "revelation". Then, Hales would have us believe this:
I really like Apostle Joseph F. Smith’s 1878 teaching:
“There is a great deal said about our plural marriage… It is a principle that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives, or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, APPLICABLE TO ALL GOSPEL DISPENSATIONS, WHEN COMMANDED AND NOT OTHERWISE, AND NEITHER ACCEPTABLE TO GOD OR BINDING ON MAN UNLESS GIVEN BY COMMANDMENT” (JD 20:26; caps added).
Unfortunately, Hales didn’t quote ALL of what Smith said that would be pertinent. Smith also said,
In the first place, it is a principle that savors of life unto life, or of death unto death; therefore it is well for those who have embraced the Gospel to obtain a knowledge in relation to this matter. It is a principle that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives, or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, not only so given in this dispensation, but particularly adapted to the conditions and necessities thereof, and to the circumstances, responsibilities, and personal, as well as vicarious duties of the people of God in this age of the world. God has revealed it as a principle particularly suited to the nature of the work we are called to perform, that it might be hastened to its consummation.
Smith here is saying that yes, polygamy is not acceptable unless given by commandment, but it in fact was given by commandment, and then Smith states that polygamy was “a principle particularly suited to the nature of the work we are called to perform,
THAT IT MIGHT BE HASTENED TO ITS CONSUMMATION.
So what reason was there to revoke it? None, according to Smith, or John Taylor, or Wilford Woodruff until Woodruff had to concede that God was not going to bail them out and they would lose all of their property. That was more important to Woodruff than principle.
Hales writes,
So here Joseph F. Smith says polygamy is a “law” but only “when commanded.” So, when it is NOT commanded, it is not a law. Since plurality can be commanded, it can be revoked, (see D&C 56:4, 58:32; Jacob 2:30), which happened in 1890. Elder Smith states polygamy is not “binding” unless “given by commandment.” Also, it is not required of “all gospel dispensations.” This is exactly what I believe.
Actually, Smith said that polygamy was “applicable to all gospel dispensations”. Hales claims that Smith said exactly the opposite of this. It may be what Hales believes, but he is taking F. Smith totally out of context to arrive at his erroneous conclusions. Was it REQUIRED of the “last dispensation”. Smith says, yes. In fact, he shows that Brian Hales is lying about polygamy in THIS dispensation,
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. (page 28)
As for Section 132, listen to what Smith has to say here,
The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part—and is good so far as it goes—and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.
Smith does not qualify this statement. It is what it is. Polygamy is ESSENTIAL to obtain the FULNESS of the blessings pertaining to celestial marriage. There is no other way to interpret this. Unless the Church has finished its mission here in the last dispensation and the “consummation” of the Age has taken place, polygamy must be in effect. But it is not.
Hales makes a gross mistake when he writes about polygamy. He looks at it through presentist eyes. He applies modern definitions to the practice. Celestial Marriage in the 19th Century ALWAYS included polygamy. They were inseparable. That is why Smith said,
If, then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it upon the earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful.
Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles, which must so far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my view and testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that should be taught and understood.
The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine law, but upon physiological and scientific principles. In the latter view, the wives are even more benefited, if possible, than the husband physically. But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes, and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage covenant. (pages 29-30)
As Wilford Woodruff explained in 1869,
There is not a man who has lived since the Church went into the wilderness and the kingdom of God was taken from the earth; until Moroni rent the vail and gave to Joseph Smith the records of the Book of Mormon, and until Peter, James and John sealed upon him the keys of the holy Priesthood, who can claim a wife in the resurrection. Not one of them has been married for eternity, but only until death. But unto the Latter-day Saints the sealing ordinances have been revealed, and they will have effect after death, and, as I have said, will re-unite men and women eternally in the family organization. Herein is why these principles are a part of our religion, and by them husbands and wives, parents and children will be re-united until the links in the chain are re-united back to Father Adam. We could not obtain a fullness of celestial glory without this sealing ordinance or the institution called the patriarchal order of marriage, which is one of the most glorious principles of our religion. I would just as lief the United States Government would pass a law against my being baptized for the remission of my sins, or against my receiving the Holy Ghost, as against my practicing the patriarchal order of marriage. I would just as lief they would take away any other principle of the Gospel as this. The opinion of men generally, in relation to this subject, is that the Latter-day Saints practise it for the gratification of their carnal desires; but such ideas are wholly untrue. The world seek after this; but the Saints of God practise this principle that they may partake of eternal lives, that they may have wives and posterity in the world to come and throughout the endless ages of eternity. ~ Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.167
Woodruff here claims that without “patriarchal marriage” or POLYGAMY, along with the sealing ordinances, one could not obtain a “fullness of celestial glory”. This is because the law had been revealed to this dispensation and could not be revoked. If Woodruff is speaking of just monogamy or sealing then why mention “carnal desires”? He is speaking of polygamy.
That is why in 1886, eight years after this discourse, John Taylor said,
My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant. For I the Lord am everlasting and my covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment, and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times. And furthermore it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen. ~”Revelation” to John Taylor to answer his son's questions about polygamy, September 27, 1886.
Polygamy was given to the Last Dispensation as an EVERLASTING Covenant, never to be revoked. This is made perfectly clear by Taylor. To answer this Brian Hales simply states that,
Nor should it [Taylor’s “revelation”] be considered to be the “final word” regarding the topics it discusses.
Can a Mormon prophet revoke baptism? According to Hales' logic, SURE CAN! He can do ANYTHING he wants, even disavow Jesus Christ, and it would be ok, because continuing "revelation" Trump's all previous "revelation" about everything. This kind of explanation is so disingenuous that it defies credulity. Continuous “revelation” does not mean that God mocks himself, which is what Hales would have us believe. It makes me wonder how he can condemn someone like Jeremy Runnells for lying, when Hales himself is the consummate misconstruer of facts.