The Irrational World of Brian Hales' Polygamy (I & II & III)

[_Rosebud]

Stem,

The roots of polygamy run deep and are into everything. We cover a lot of topics, and chose to footnote things extensively, and like I explained, many of them are essays in their own right, some thirty or forty pages long. If you read my William Law vs. Joseph Smith thread, I lifted that from one of the notes to this. We literally spent years researching this and updating it with information we learned over time. Hales also made his research available and we went though every bit of it. (I kid you not). What was baffling was how Hales presented the evidence in his books, leaving out things, (partial quotes of documents), this we do not do. Part I was the shortest of the parts, and Part Two is over four hundred pages, (with documents, pictures, many of which take up a whole page), and so there will be a lot for people to study and digest. Unfortunately, the length of it made progress slow and it's a real task to get it online. We linked to EVERYTHING we could find, conference reports, Journal of Discourses, the CHL, all provided so people can read the originals in context.

Wow. Thank you for taking the time to do all this. Important.

[Guest]

Hales isn't correct about anything.

[_grindael]

Markk, can you explain to me why Joseph Smith (if he wasn't nest hiding) "married" two young girls barely out of their teens, and when his wife found out about it shook their hands and told them their "covenants" were broken and had nothing more to do with them (cast them aside, as one of the girls later said)? And then when Clayton was having problems and asked to have one of his "marriages" undone Joseph told him "no" it wasn't allowed?

Yeah, he really cared for them.

[_grindael]

Sanctorian,

Part II is almost footnote coded. Then I have to copy it to the blog and add the media. About two days, I estimate. I'm going to release it as soon as it's done. It's over 400 pages. (with media) and the last two parts are just as long.

[_grindael]

Yeah,

The "gospel meat" quote by Hales was deleted by him, and I have to search for it. But I found this from four years ago and funny he doesn't mention Sec. 132:

Interesting question. I think polygamy in general is avoided for a couple of reasons. First, an 1830 revelation cautioned Joseph Smith saying: "For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish" (D&C 19:22). Polygamy is gospel meat and we'll never read about it in the Ensign or Church News. Second, it is sex and religion which is a controversial combination that will not bring anyone into the Church. It is difficult to discuss with the Holy Spirit unless the audience is well prepared (see D&C 42:14).

It is true that polygamy was a commandment between 1852 and 1890. During that period, to be an "active" Latter-day Saint, you were involved with polygamy. It was a singular period unlike any other recorded in religious history. During that span, participants wanted the practice to be universally required and a few statement were made, not by General Authorities, suggesting that is was always a commandment to all peoples in all times and places. Mormon fundamentalists want to believe it today, but they are in error. Once the commandment and permission were withdrawn in 1904, it became difficult to explain to the outside world and was no longer "badge of obedience." So the Church has backed away.

In addition, so many half-truths have been perpetuated about polygamy and sex blaming Joseph and Brigham for behaviors that are entirely undocumentable, that it seems wise to avoid it except for the devout.

The problem is that the internet allows everyone access to this gospel meat and so the Church is now responding to tell the truth. I understand that a website will be launched in the next year or two dealing with these things. Again, transparency is the best policy. https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaint ... ion_about/

This is absolutely senseless drivel.

[_grindael]

Hales says nothing about the "average" person, he says it can ONLY be understood with "special" knowledge.

Mormon Polygamy is like anything else, you probably won't understand it, if you don't take the time to study it.

Hales is simply claiming exclusivity here, that he (as a Mormon "priesthood" holder) can understand it and we poor non priesthood holding bastards can't. Therefore, his books and articles only make sense to those who have the "special" knowledge and can understand the "gospel meat".

This is like claiming a criminal profiler has to be a serial killer to understand them, or a psychiatrist has to be a schizophrenic to be able to treat it.

It's ridiculous.

[_grindael]

Brian Haleson December 20, 2014 at 11:10 am

Hi Garrett,

Actually you bring up some very good points.

For over the past fifty years, little has been published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dealing with the topic of plural marriage. For example, the 1979 MY KINGDOM SHALL ROLL FORTH: READINGS IN CHURCH HISTORY, mentions polygamy but primarily within the context of the persecution it incited in the 1880s. Published two years later, the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual provides commentary on Section 132 that includes instructions regarding eternal marriage, but with only a few references to plural marriage. The 1989 one-volume, Church History in the Fullness of Times, published for the Church Educational System, centered its discussion on the anti-polygamy crusade and suspension of the practice with only a four paragraph description of Joseph Smith’s introduction of plural marriage. The 1992 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF Mormonism confronted the topic directly, but briefly. In the 1996 Church publication, OUR HERITAGE: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, plural marriage is discussed in five paragraphs comprising less than two of the book’s 152 pages. In addition, during the past century, it appears that no Improvement Era or Ensign articles or General Conference sermons have directly addressed it. A search of LDS.ORG in 2008 revealed 146 hits for “plural marriage” and 98 for “polygamy,” but they are all brief references. None address the topic historically or theologically in any detail.

Why did Church leaders do it? The answer is simple. Before the Church was organized, Joseph was warned: “For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish” (D&C 19:22). Polygamy, which involves sex and religion is “gospel meat” and leaders have worked very hard to avoid talking about it.

Then comes the Internet with its half-truths and misrepresentations and Church leaders quickly recognize that too many people are getting rancid meat or rubber dog toys shaped like meat and mistaking it for genuine “gospel truth.” Believe me, on the topic of polygamy, the spinmeisters have been very busy.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ve made all my documents available at MormonPolygamyDocuments.org. It is all there. I’ve uploaded this because I believe when all the evidence is available, Joseph Smith does fine. Polygamy is still undesirable, but Joseph’s behaviors are not the problem.

I don’t blame anyone for being disappointed that we didn’t talk of polygamy, but look at what is happening now. The essay on Nauvoo polygamy (and similar Gospel Topic essays) have caused many to “perish” spiritually. I guess we could look at D&C 19:22 and conclude that it was as much a prophecy of our day as a general warning issued in 1830.

[_Sanctorian]

Hales and those that subscribe to his position are missing the point. If polygamy is of God and "we" milk drinkers are so easily pursuaded by the internet to the perversion of polygamy, God provided no real option for the vast majority of "us" to successfully navigate it in faith.

Simply believing in Hales position is not faith in God, but faith in Hales. Rather, the opposite is true faith in God. I would argue faith is taking a position contrary to what you were conditioned to believe, throw away that belief system with potential eternal consequences and use faith that God won't punish you for not understanding the "meat". That requires a hell of a lot more faith than simply coming up with some mental gymnastics to stay in the church.

[Guest]

Markk, can you explain to me why Joseph Smith (if he wasn't nest hiding) "married" two young girls barely out of their teens, and when his wife found out about it shook their hands and told them their "covenants" were broken and had nothing more to do with them (cast them aside, as one of the girls later said)? And then when Clayton was having problems and asked to have one of his "marriages" undone Joseph told him "no" it wasn't allowed?

Yeah, he really cared for them.

He was nest hiding (committing adultery), he was a lecher, bigamist, conman, adulterer, daughter spoiler, and a charlatan, there is no doubt in my mind.

Re read what I wrote. I think you missed my point.

In the eyes of the church...

"It appears that plural marriage is gospel meat that can only be understood by those who have sufficiently prepared themselves in faith and knowledge. ~Brian Hales"

I believe and I believe I can defend that is a fair statement. I have 7 great great great and 2 great great grand parents that were polygamists, some very prominent. When I read through their journals I see how "the new and everlasting covenant" is a common theme.

However, my parents, siblings and LDS friends would never understand in any detail what that means and how those roots started in Navuoo with these promises. I wouldn't have if I did not study, it is not like there is a exhaustive commentary on section 132.

I have a grand father, who understood, who I am pretty sure received the second anointing, and he had another wife sealed to him after my GM died...but he the exception. So when Brian speaks one has to be prepared with knowledge and faith...I think from a LDS construct that is more than fair. From our prospective it is a excuse, don't think I am defending Joseph in any way.

For me, it appears that Johnny Stephenson & Jeremy Runnells took a snippet and made it into something it was not. I have seen Mopologist do the same in hit piece type arguments...and what they wrote is the same type of thing.

I am sure Brian has said and wrote enough to be critical of, but this is not one of them...unless there is more to the opening quote, do you have a link?

And I believe Brian would say the early teaching in Navuoo by Hyrum and Joseph were strictly plural in nature, but evolved into monogamy and plural marriage with BY and section 132. I could be wrong, but I believe he would have to concede that.

I have not read, but maybe you have, where Joseph taught the Everlasting Covenant (eternal life and godhood) to someone with the context of Monogamy, that did not have the plural marriage revealed to them? If there wasn't I don't see Brian saying otherwise.

Good stuff

[_I have a question]

Hales says nothing about the "average" person, he says it can ONLY be understood with "special" knowledge.

Mormon Polygamy is like anything else, you probably won't understand it, if you don't take the time to study it.

Hales is simply claiming exclusivity here, that he (as a Mormon "priesthood" holder) can understand it and we poor non priesthood holding bastards can't. Therefore, his books and articles only make sense to those who have the "special" knowledge and can understand the "gospel meat".

This is like claiming a criminal profiler has to be a serial killer to understand them, or a psychiatrist has to be a schizophrenic to be able to treat it.

It's ridiculous.

Hales is stood there, naked, claiming that anyone who cannot see his clothes doesn’t have the special knowledge required to discern his finery. Ehm no Brian, your butt’s on show.

Would Laura be happy with Brian taking on more wives, I wonder? Brian clearly wants to.