DiscussMormonism.com

grindael wrote:I dunno. Brian has made it pretty clear that he finds polygamy distasteful. I believe him. I'm stumped by his ardent defense of it though. But it doesn't answer how he and his wife would deal with it in heaven when they find out they are wrong about it. That would be interesting to see.

He has said it is distasteful, hard on the women...but he would also say it is difficult on the man, at least in context with Joseph.

I think he would also say that there is not much of a defense in regards to the appearance of him lying to Emma, marrying Helen Mar and other young women, or marrying already married women. But he would also say while that looks bad it was not a sin. And I believe he would say that even if Joseph did not want to enter into these marriages, it would not have prevented god from using him.

This is what I gather from his book and his you tube video's.

The survival of the church is paramount, and by default the survival of the testimony. And it leaves members having to pick and choose which doctrines must be believed, and what doctrines can go.

I believe in Brian's mindset, plural marriage can be wrong and detested, but Joseph is untouchable.

I wrote in one of my posts...

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 need to expound on this after reading more, he would say that while plural marriage was a principle of the revelation but the culmination and overall purpose was eternal marriage or sealing.

For me...reading 132, it is pretty hard to get away from it being nothing plural in context.

Journal of Discourses 20:24 - P.25, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, 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.There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will 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 therefor, 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.

When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon him; foreseeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of the popular opinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frowns, ridicule, slander, opposition and persecutions of the word. Yes, this man of God, who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with bold and fearless front, who dared to dispute the religious authority and accumulated learning and wisdom of the age - who dared everything for the truth, and shrank not even from the sacrifice of his own life in testimony of his divine mission, shrank, in his feelings, from the weight of the responsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation upon the established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

The Journal of Discourses - Complete Set . . Kindle Edition.

cwald wrote:

boris wrote:This is just a sad thread, when clearly the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is so obviously distinguished in 132 from plural marriage.

It is? Could you sum up what it is you have in mind in a couple o sentences?

Verse 4 is a completly different subject than verse 58 to the end of the section.

Grindael, would you have taken exception if Brian Hales had said the following:

You have to understand the human libido to understand LDS polygamy...

boris wrote:This is just a sad thread, when clearly the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is so obviously distinguished in 132 from plural marriage.

That's ridiculous and it is dealt with in Part II, but here is a preview:

The presentism that Hales employs is to interpret Section 132 as simply a revelation on eternal marriage with polygamy as a side issue is nothing new. This was a necessity in the aftermath of the Manifesto. Still, one must totally misread the entire “revelation” to do so. It is so disingenuous that no one takes the view that Hales does except Mormon apologists (and selected “authorities” after the Manifesto) whose only concern is changing how polygamy is defined (by them) in the pre-Manifesto period to defend its discontinuance as a necessary ordinance.

There are many examples of what Mormons of that Era taught about the polygamy “revelation”. Erastus Snow claimed that,

When the Lord determined to bless and multiply Abraham and His seed, He commanded that they should take of time daughters of Eve for wives and multiply and increase in the land. I do not say that plural marriage was not practiced prior to this time, but I say from and after Abraham it was enjoined upon Israel, the seed of Abraham, for a wise and glorious purpose in Him, namely, that of increasing them and giving them the ascendency among the nations of the earth, as I once heard the Prophet Joseph remark. In speaking of these things, and inquiring wherefore God had enjoined plural marriage upon Abraham and his seed, his answer was, because He had purposed to multiply and increase them in the land and make of them a great people and give them the ascendency over other peoples of the earth, and that because, as he said of Abraham, He knew that He would serve Him and command his seed after Him. (Erastus Snow, Journal of Discourses Vol. 26, 217-218, May 31, 1885. added emphasis, Online here, Accessed December 14, 2014).

Still, Hales claims,

Joseph Smith asked God about polygamy (D&C 132:1). In response, the revelation speaks of eternal marriage, which is Joseph’s zenith doctrine. Plural marriage is [sic] small but necessary component. Non-sexual “eternity only” sealings fulfill the primary purpose of plural marriage in Joseph’s cosmology. These are “meaty” teachings easily misunderstood (see D&C 19:22). I wish they were easier to grasp, but those who embrace them and live worthily are promised an eternal reward (D&C 132:19-20). (Hales, “Rational Faiths”, Comment made on July 15, 2014, added emphasis.)

Where does Hales get the idea that polygamy is a small component of this revelation? This is only his opinion and is disputed by every single “authority” from pre-Manifesto times; and by Joseph Smith himself in his polygamy “revelation”. There is no evidence at all that there were “non sexual eternity only sealings” in Joseph Smith’s time, or that polygamy was only a “small” component of the “revelation”.

We have the testimony of many of Smith’s wives, like Helen Mar Kimball, who claimed that the only reason to practice polygamy was to raise up “righteous seed”. And once again we see Hales making the claim that this is a “meaty” teaching that is easily misunderstood. Not really. Smith himself said,

God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them... (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 150-151).

Samuel O. Bennion taught that the teachings of Joseph Smith are easy to understand,

It is the duty and labor of Latter-day Saints to deliver unto the children of men the message which the Lord has revealed in these the last days. He spoke unto Joseph Smith. He said the things Joseph Smith declared he said. He delivered unto him the gospel, and the Prophet wrote and preached it. There isn't any doubt about it. I know as I stand here, and I say it to all the world: If there is an honest man, a man or a woman with a heart that desires to know the truth, that knowledge can come unto them. It is easy to receive, easy to understand. The gospel is not full of mysticisms or of things that cannot be understood, but it is a plain and simple plan which the children of men may follow and thereby go back into the presence of our Father in heaven. And unless they do this they cannot return where he is, worlds without end; so says the scripture given by the Prophet Joseph Smith. (Samuel O. Bennion, Conference Report, October 1921, 56, added emphasis).

Why would Joseph’s “Zenith Doctrine”, be hard to understand? It is only so to those who are trying to explain it in a way that it was never meant to be explained. The polygamy “revelation” is just that, a “revelation” justifying the practice of polygamy. Though “sealing” for time and eternity is integral to the practice, the thrust of Section 132 is procreation on earth and in heaven, and the “continuation of the seeds”, which is essential to godhood. To do this, a man needs many partners here and in the afterlife. The “righteous seed” born “under the covenant” here, raise those who become kings and priests and gods in the next life to even higher glory. This aspect of polygamy seems lost on Brian Hales, or downplayed to utter unimportance.

At the very beginning of the “revelation” it is explained why it was given, because Joseph “inquired” about the Patriarchs being justified in taking many wives. They could do this, explains the “revelation” because what they bound on earth was binding in heaven and therefore Joseph was justified to practice polygamy on earth to raise up righteous seed.

In 1842 Smith gave a “revelation” on baptism for the dead and taught that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. (See D&C 128:8-9, and this article from Teachings: Joseph Smith, “Chapter 26: Elijah and the Restoration of the Sealing Keys”, online here, Accessed December 1, 2014).

Celestial Marriage”, or the true order of Marriage as it was known (polygamy), was simply another ordinance and if done through the “sealing power” was bound on earth (for time) and in heaven (for eternity). This is why it was called “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage”, (not baptism).

In 1844, Hyrum Smith explained it this way,

I married me a wife, and I am the only one who had any right to her. We had five children, the covenant was made four our lives. She fell into the grave before God showed us his order. God has shown me that the covenant is dead, and had no force, neither could I have her in the resurrection, but we should be as the angels--it troubled me. President Joseph said you can have her sealed to you upon the same principles as you can be baptized for the dead. I enquired what can I do for any second wife? You can also make a covenant with her for eternity and have her sealed to you by the authority of the priesthood.

I named the subject to my present wife, and she said, “I will act as proxy for your wife that is dead, and I will be sealed to you for eternity myself for I never had any other husband. I love you and I do not want to be separate from you nor be forever alone in the world to come.” If there is any man that has no more sense, and will make a base story of such a fact, his name shall be published. What honest man or woman can find fault with such a doctrine as this? None. It is a doctrine not to be preached to the world; but to the Saints who have obeyed the gospel and gathered to Zion. It is glad tiding of great joy.

The Lord has given Joseph the power to seal on earth and in heaven [for] those who are found worthy; having the Spirit of Elijah and Elias, he has power to seal with a seal that shall never be broken, and it shall be in force in the morn of the resurrection. Talk about spiritual wives! One that is dead and gone is spiritual. We will come up in the morn of the resurrection; and every soul that is saved will receive an eternal increase of glory. Will you believe this, (loud shouts of aye).

Every great and good principle should be taught to the Saints, but some must not be taught to the world; until they are prepared to receive them; it would be like casting pearls before swine. No man must attempt to preach them. (Hyrum Smith, April 8, 1844).

Hyrum lied about this not being an earthly practice also, but as you see, Spiritual Wifeism, (as they called it then), was what Section 132 was all about. And as we see, baptism for the dead came first, then later the same principle was applied to the marriage covenant. There were no sealing "keys" restored in 1836.

As Wilford Woodruff taught in 1867,

Then, again, the blessing that God has revealed to us in the patriarchial order of marriage—being sealed for time and eternity—is not prized by us as it should be. When that principle was revealed, the prophet told the brethren that this kingdom could not advance any farther without it; "and," said he, "if you do not receive it you will be damned saith the Lord." You may may think this very strange, but the Lord never reveals anything that He does not require to be honored. (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, 14, May 19, 1867, added emphasis, Online here, Accessed December 1, 2014).

Two years later Woodruff clarified what he meant by Patriarchal Marriage,

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, 167, December 12, 1869, emphasis added, Online here, Accessed December 10, 2014.)

They were not worried about the Government taking away marriage “for time and all eternity”, but the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, which was polygamy. It is clear from Woodruff’s quotes above that “being sealed for time and eternity” was a blessing of the patriarchal order of marriage, (not the other way around) which was polygamy.

Patriarchal Marriage was so important in the eternal scheme of things that Joseph F. Smith taught that,

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 [p.30] one, being equally faithful.

Patriachal 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 benefitted, 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. (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, 30, July 7, 1878, Online here, Accessed December 10, 2014).

You cannot quibble in the face of this evidence. Hales is interpreting Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 through a modern presentist lens, and has it exactly backwards. On August 26, 1883, Heber J. Grant would write in his diary:

This morning I copied a letter of Prest Taylor’s written about the plurality of wives. He was very plain in giving the Sister to whom the letter was written to understand that simply being sealed did not fulfill the law. [The Diaries of Heber J. Grant, 1880-1945, Abridged, Privately Published, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2010, 9, Courtesy of H. Michael Marquardt, added emphasis].

Here we have a Mormon prophet claiming that simply being sealed, does not fulfill the law. For an interesting look at where the presentist argument that Hales employs for D&C 132 began, See, “Changed Faces: the Official LDS Position On Polygamy, 1890-1990”, by Martha S. Bradley, Sunstone 14:1/26 (Feb 90), Online here, accessed December 10, 2014) where she discusses the dismantling of the original interpretation of D&C 132 and the modern definition of “Celestial Marriage”.

Chew on that. And I didn't even get to the breaking down of 132, which is forthcoming.

Hales would have us believe that all of these Mormon "prophets" and "apostles" got it wrong, but that HE gets it right! That's BS. The argument elevating sealing one to one over polygamy was a later invention to justify Woodruff going against his own "revelation" wherein he said that God told him not to give it up.

Ok, I'd rather post this than make you wait, to further the discussion here. This is why Hales & Boris are totally wrong about Section 132 (From Part II):

That the sealing power was all about what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven is self evident. That this also applies to marriage was the “revelation” of Joseph Smith to the Mormons in Nauvoo (not Kirtland). Hales claims that polygamy is also part of the “restoration of all things”, but then cannot adequately explain why it was discontinued as a practice, given all the statements by Joseph’s disciples who carried on with it.

Hales writes:

Polygamy isn’t fair on earth. But according to Joseph Smith’s theology, every man and every woman must have a spouse in order to be exalted. The promise is that they “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths. . . and a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (D&C 132:19-20.)

If we can believe this promise, then the need for eternal plural sealings becomes more easy to embrace.

My experience is that instead people just roll their eyes and rant about earthly polygamy. But in doing so, I think they may denigrate the polygamous women of the nineteenth century who practiced it for that reason, because it was commanded.

God commanded it according to the early prophets. Can we call it “damnable”? I guess it is a faith thing. [96]

Easy for who to embrace? Those who are compelled to defend polygamy for sure. Yet, the argument isn’t about polygamy in heaven, but on earth and why it was necessary and commanded to be practiced on earth. Hales offers no answers here; only that it is a “faith thing”. One can say that everything is a trial for some. But the object and design of the plan of salvation according to Mormon Theology is that we are here to experience joy. Why also, would polygamy really be necessary on earth if God can assign righteous women to men in the afterlife? The promise of the celestial kingdom is for all who live righteously, even children who never get married. So what makes polygamy necessary on earth except for raising up “righteous seed”? This is never really answered by Hales, given the above. Claiming that it had to be because it was part of the "Restoration of all things" is silly, because Joseph claimed that for other things, like animal sacrifice, which was never restored and still has not been. So that argument doesn't work.

Hales also writes,

Perhaps another point is that those close to Joseph were just as skeptical as you and me. I’ve often said Fawn Brodie did a hatchet job on Joseph Smith. But she did a bigger hatchet job on those around Joseph because she portrayed them as being too dumb or gullible to figure out the alleged immoralities that Brodie depicted in her book a hundred years later. Brodie wasn’t that smart and Brigham, Eliza, Zina and John (Taylor) were not that gullible.

Recently Alex Beam said Joseph’s hypocrisy was “breathtaking.” How ridiculous. Beam can detect breathtaking hypocrisy 170 years later that none of the Nauvoo polygamists apparently detected because if they had seen ANY hypocrisy, they would have left Joseph. [97]

The only hatchet job beind done here is by Hales’ against the critics of polygamy. Then he claims in a subsequent comment,

There is no doubt that plural marriage was taught as necessary for exaltation between 1840s and 1890. And it was required for exaltation for those Latter-day Saints during that span.

However, I have not found any statement that unequivocally declares that all men in the upper degree of the Celestial Kingdom are polygamists, irrespective of the time and place they lived.

God issues specialized commandments. Abraham had to live the law of circumcision, the Children of Israel lived the law of Moses, LDS between 1840s and 1890, polygamy. God knows why but He never told us why.

Joseph F. Smith explained it the best: “However, toward the beginning of the talk Joseph F. Smith clarified,

It [plural marriage] 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.”

JFS outlines that it can be commanded or not commanded. It is not a law because it didn’t exist in the Book of Mormon–this is certain based upon the text.

Fundamentalists like to quote a few excerpts and then believe their sealings are valid, but God saw this day (see D&C 132:18) and authority is paramount. [98]

In yet another comment Hales claims,

Polygamy is not always commanded and it hasn’t been according to the Bible and Book of Mormon. I think that conclusion is historical. But neither do I find a quote saying every man in the Celestial Kingdom will be a polygamist. Do you have one? [99]

Yes, we do have one. Brigham Young said,

It is not polygamy that men fight against when they persecute this people; but, still, if we continue to be faithful to our God, he will defend us in doing what is right. If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church. I did not ask Him for the revelation upon this subject. When that revelation was first read to me by Joseph Smith, I plainly saw the great trials and the abuse of it that would be made by many of the Elders, and the trouble and the persecution that it would bring upon this whole people. But the Lord revealed it, and it was my business to accept it.

Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc.” The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

The Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith, His servant; and we have believed and practiced it. Now, then, it is said that this must be done away before we are permitted to receive our place as a State in the Union. It may be, or it may not be. One of the twin relics—slavery—they say, is abolished. I do not, however, wish to speak about this; but if slavery and oppression and ironhanded cruelty are not more felt by the blacks today than before, I am glad of it. My heart is pained for that unfortunate race of men. One twin relic having been strangled, the other, they say, must next be destroyed. It is they and God for it, and you will all find that out. It is not Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Daniel H. Wells and the Elders of Israel they are fighting against; but it is the Lord Almighty. What is the Lord going to do? He is going to do just as he pleases, and the world cannot help themselves.

I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God—I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is. “Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?” If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted. These things will be just as the Lord will. Let us live to take just what he sends to us, and when our enemies rise up against us, we will meet them as we can, and exercise faith and pray for wisdom and power more than they have, and contend continually for the right. Go along, my children, saith the Lord, do all you can, and remember that your blessings come through your faith. Be faithful and cut the corners of your enemies where you can—get the advantage of them by faith and good works, take care of yourselves, and they will destroy themselves. Be what you should be, live as you should, and all will be well. [100]

[100]Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, 268-69, August 19, 1866, Online here, Accessed December 20, 2014. As I wrote in a Mormon Discussions thread in 2014 (link in Note #1),

In [Hales] 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. This reminds us of Hales’ claim about those who are qualified to teach the things of the Gospel. Should those that knowingly lie be doing so? Not according to the Doctrine and Covenants or Brian Hales himself because they would not have the “spirit”. 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.” The “instructions which I am about to give”, are about what was mentioned in verse 1, “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 seem to 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 [polygamy] and practice make and preserve life; theirs [monogamy] 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, 43, added emphasis, Online here, Accessed January 5, 2015).

It is obvious that Young contrasts “celestial marriage” or the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, 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 “Celestial Marriage” according to Brigham Young above. He CLEARLY says so. 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, xx)

Are you getting this, those that would believe the apologetics 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. If the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage was only the sealing of two people together, why does Taylor claim that the United States can’t prohibit you from obeying it? Was the U.S. trying to prohibit monogamy? No.

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. (Fred C. Collier, Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1, 129-131).

Taylor here specifically states that the “Eternity of the marriage covenant” INCLUDES plurality of wives. The sealing power is a necessary component of plural marriage. 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, xix)

This “sacred institution” was plural marriage, which was having “barriers” placed around it by the Federal Government. This statement makes no sense if Taylor was only speaking of monogamy. Taylor then admonished Church members to obey the law of God, even if they 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 Vol. 21, 70-71, Online here, (for full context), Accessed December 31, 2014).

If the order that God revealed is simply man to woman sealing, then why does Taylor claim that they passed a law that a man shall not marry wives according to the ORDER that God has revealed? 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. Joseph had prophesied that Christ would return in 1890. That was what Woodruff was waiting for. But he didn't come. God did not fight their battles and the "wicked" did not slay the wicked until the U.S. destroyed itself and solved the problem. That is why the Manifesto was written, Woodruff had given up believing that God was going to step in. He knew they would lose everything he cared about, the Church property.

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. (D. Michael Quinn, New Mormon History, Ch.14, 256)

The references he gives 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. (See entry here at the Signature Books Library).

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” (John Dehlin 20:26; caps added by Hales).

Unfortunately, Hales didn’t quote ALL of what Smith said that would be pertinent. Smith also said,

In the first place, it [plural marriage] 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. (ibid., added emphasis, Online here (for context), Accessed December 31, 2014)

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.

When Joseph F. Smith speaks of polygamy not being commanded, he is obviously speaking of other dispensations, not the one in which they are in now. That it not to be revoked and was necessary for the completion of the work of the last dispensation is obvious when he claims that polygamy was to be practiced until the work is comsummated (completed).

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 the 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. (Hales, op. cited)

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. (Smith, op. cited, 28, added emphasis).

Hales answer for this is to refer to the quote that he puts in all caps, but that he must take out of context to apply to the later part of F. Smith’s speech. 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. (ibid.)

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. (The highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, what Hales was asking for) 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, because unlike Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff was not willing to move the “Saints” out from under the influence of the United States. Brigham Young and John Taylor always taught that the Lord would protect them and destroy the United States Government. That is why they did not revoke the principle. He claimed in 1865:

We are now located in the midst of these mountains, and are here because we were obliged to go somewhere. We were under the necessity of leaving our homes, and had to go somewhere. Before we left Nauvoo, three Members of Congress told us that if we would leave the United States, we should never be troubled by them again. We did leave the United States, and now Congressmen say, if you will renounce polygamy you shall be admitted unto the Union as an independent State and live with us. We shall live any way, and increase, and spread, and prosper, and we shall know the most and be the best-looking people there is on the earth. As for polygamy, or any other doctrine the Lord has revealed, it, is not for me to change, alter, or renounce it; my business is to obey when the Lord commands, and this is the duty of all mankind. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, 111, added emphasis, Online here, Accessed December 31, 2014).

A year later he claimed,

It is not Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Daniel H. Wells and the Elders of Israel they are fighting against; but it is the Lord Almighty. What is the Lord going to do? He is going to do just as he pleases, and the world cannot help themselves.

I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God—I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is. "Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?" If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted. These things will be just as the Lord will. Let us live to take just what he sends to us, and when our enemies rise up against us, we will meet them as we can, and exercise faith and pray for wisdom and power more than they have, and contend continually for the right. Go along, my children, saith the Lord, do all you can, and remember that your blessings come through your faith. Be faithful and cut the corners of your enemies where you can—get the advantage of them by faith add good works, take care of yourselves, and they will destroy themselves. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, 269, added emphasis, Online here, Accessed December 31, 2014).

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 Joseph F. 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. (Smith, op. cited, 29-30, added emphasis).

There is no argument that can counter these words. Smith claims that even if one is only married for “eternity” to one wife, the blessings of practicing polygamy far exceed those of monogamy. 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, 167, added emphasis, Online here, Accessed January 5, 2015).

Woodruff is claiming 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” and the United States Government’s passing of laws? He is speaking of polygamy. The “partriarchal order of marriage” (Section 132) is plural marriage, not monogamy.

That is why in 1886, eight years after this discourse, John Taylor wrote this “revelation”:

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, Collier, op. cited, 88).

Taylor calls polygamy the “new and everlasting covenant”, and answers how far it is BINDING on the people. Why would he need to answer this if it were only about sealing and monogamy? He certainly is not asking if the sealing power is binding on the people. Polygamy was given to the Last Dispensation as an EVERLASTING Covenant, never to be revoked, exactly like baptism was. 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. (Hales, op. cited)

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" trumps all previous "revelation" about everything. This argument is lucicrous and irrational, but that doesn’t stop Hales from propogating it.

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 these men taught. It makes one wonder how he can condemn someone like Jeremy Runnells for lying, when Hales himself is the consummate misconstruer of facts.

moksha wrote:Grindael, would you have taken exception if Brian Hales had said the following:

You have to understand the human libido to understand LDS polygamy...

Only if I was living in Koloburbia.

grindael wrote:Hales would have us believe that all of these Mormon "prophets" and "apostles" got it wrong, but that HE gets it right!

So Hales is in apostasy!

Rosebud wrote:

grindael wrote:Hales would have us believe that all of these Mormon "prophets" and "apostles" got it wrong, but that HE gets it right!

So Hales is in apostasy!

No, because that is what the current leadership all believe, so he can't be in apostasy. The difference is, the leadership won't admit it, they get people like Hales to do so. They are working hand in hand.

grindael wrote:Hales would have us believe that all of these Mormon "prophets" and "apostles" got it wrong, but that HE gets it right!

Rosebud wrote:So Hales is in apostasy!

grindael wrote:No, because that is what the current leadership all believe, so he can't be in apostasy. The difference is, the leadership won't admit it, they get people like Hales to do so. They are working hand in hand.

So the current leadership is in apostasy!

Just kidding grin. I don't believe in apostasy. None of the logic really works. All it is is a bunch of people trying to prove something cool and important about themselves while they fight over who is and isn't in apostasy from something that is really nothing.

Sometimes I make comments facetiously because the way people act can be entertaining to me personally.

Hales is very entertaining to me and I don't generally feel bad about laughing at or about him because he's almost always asking for it with all of his condescending language and promotion of predators. He's so self-righteous all while he's lacking an incredible amount of self-awareness... and that combination is funny to me. The bad logic, creepy language about polygamy, and lack of awareness of others' perceptions are like icing on an entertainment cupcake.

He must think it's really cool to have the leadership on board with him when in actuality they're just using him. When I say it like that, it seems sad for him.

I guess it's pretty apparent that I don't hold Hales in very high esteem. Humor (apostasy humor or otherwise) at another person's expense coupled with pity for that person are usually signs of an incredible lack of respect.

.....He's incredibly, incredibly funny to me. Dan Peterson, too.....

EDIT: fixing quotes