Brian Hale's FAIR Presentation on Sexual Polyandry

[_Mary]

Hi Ray,

What I find so interesting and affirming about Mike Quinn is his willingness to deal with the historical issues honestly and without an agenda.

He still believes, and yet he is willing to go where the evidence takes him. I admire him greatly.

I listened to his sunstone podcast a while ago. Here: http://mormonstories.org/bonus-the-stor ... own-words/

and the pdf file here: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/100-50-57.pdf

You've probably already heard them, but for others who havn't and have only heard the attacks and attempts to discredit him personally, they might prove insightful. (A British tbm was doing this recently on a Facebook thread - ie Mike Quinn is a bad man therefore everything he says is of no value).

Mary

[_3sheets2thewind]

Now there are two questions: “Why did he do it”

To answer the question why, is simply that the fourteen women, when they learned about eternal marriage, they chose Joseph Smith to be their eternal husband. It’s that simple. They chose him over the men that they were married to.

So these women just walked up to Joseph Smith and asked to polygamistly married/sealed to him?

If you believe that a plural sealing did occur, causing the legal marriage to be done away – the civil husband thereafter serving as some kind of a front husband for Joseph Smith...

And the 2012 Gold Medal for Mental Gymnastics goes too...

[_3sheets2thewind]

[Joseph] also taught: “…that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant” (D&C 22:1). The covenant that was then being discussed was baptism and we have no record of Joseph Smith applying this principal to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. But we also have no record of him contradicting it or saying that it didn’t apply. The revelation simply states “all old covenants are done away in the new and everlasting covenant.”

Section 22, is clearly and obviously speaking of Baptism, yet because Joseph Smith never said Section 22 did not apply to marriage, then Joseph Smith silence on the matter means it is perfectly acceptable to deny the plain meaning of something for ones own pet project......good damned hell, no wonder so many critics think so little of "apologists".

[_the narrator]

I haven't had time nor the desire to read through all of the comments. Just thought I'd give a few comments on Brian Hales's forthcoming volumes.

The history portion of Brian's set comes to a whopping 1500 manuscript pages and will be broken down into two volumes at around 500-600 pages each. This book essentially contains every known account about Joseph's polygamous relationships from anybody that knew anything about it. Hales believes and makes it clear that Joseph had sexual relationships with his multiple wives. Where he differs from most other scholars is that he argues that Joseph did not practice sexual polyandry. in my opinion, he makes a pretty compelling argument for this, involving both the lack of evidence and that it goes contrary to the tightly-knit moral and theological framework that polygamy was practiced under. (Ie., he argues that for Joseph there were clear moral and theological justifications for things some/most might find immoral, such as sexual polygyny and lying about polygamy, but that sexual polyandry would have been strictly ruled out by his own moral and theological framework). Adding to this, he argues that the general consensus that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry ultimately began with Brodie and then Stan Ivans, and snowballed in without any strong evidence or critical assessment.

I am, of course, quite biased, but I believe Hales makes a strong case.

[_Fence Sitter]

I haven't had time nor the desire to read through all of the comments. Just thought I'd give a few comments on Brian Hales's forthcoming volumes.

The history portion of Brian's set comes to a whopping 1500 manuscript pages and will be broken down into two volumes at around 500-600 pages each. This book essentially contains every known account about Joseph's polygamous relationships from anybody that knew anything about it. Hales believes and makes it clear that Joseph had sexual relationships with his multiple wives. Where he differs from most other scholars is that he argues that Joseph did not practice sexual polyandry. in my opinion, he makes a pretty compelling argument for this, involving both the lack of evidence and that it goes contrary to the tightly-knit moral and theological framework that polygamy was practiced under. (Ie., he argues that for Joseph there were clear moral and theological justifications for things some/most might find immoral, such as sexual polygyny and lying about polygamy, but that sexual polyandry would have been strictly ruled out by his own moral and theological framework). Adding to this, he argues that the general consensus that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry ultimately began with Brodie and then Stan Ivans, and snowballed in without any strong evidence or critical assessment.

I am, of course, quite biased, but I believe Hales makes a strong case.

Have you read Quinn's response?

[_dblagent007]

I haven't had time nor the desire to read through all of the comments. Just thought I'd give a few comments on Brian Hales's forthcoming volumes.

The history portion of Brian's set comes to a whopping 1500 manuscript pages and will be broken down into two volumes at around 500-600 pages each. This book essentially contains every known account about Joseph's polygamous relationships from anybody that knew anything about it. Hales believes and makes it clear that Joseph had sexual relationships with his multiple wives. Where he differs from most other scholars is that he argues that Joseph did not practice sexual polyandry. in my opinion, he makes a pretty compelling argument for this, involving both the lack of evidence and that it goes contrary to the tightly-knit moral and theological framework that polygamy was practiced under. (Ie., he argues that for Joseph there were clear moral and theological justifications for things some/most might find immoral, such as sexual polygyny and lying about polygamy, but that sexual polyandry would have been strictly ruled out by his own moral and theological framework). Adding to this, he argues that the general consensus that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry ultimately began with Brodie and then Stan Ivans, and snowballed in without any strong evidence or critical assessment.

I am, of course, quite biased, but I believe Hales makes a strong case.

At first blush, I thought Brian's case was decent, but not too convincing. After reading Quinn's response (date June 2012), I don't think Brian's position holds any water.

Have you read Quinn's response? If so, how do you reconcile the points Quinn makes with Brian's conclusions?

[_dblagent007]

Although I don't agree with Brian's thesis, I really respect him. He discovered new sources and facts that cut against him, but he was forthright and honest and published them anyway. He should be commended for that.

[_the narrator]

At first blush, I thought Brian's case was decent, but not too convincing. After reading Quinn's response (date June 2012), I don't think Brian's position holds any water.

Have you read Quinn's response? If so, how do you reconcile the points Quinn makes with Brian's conclusions?

I have not yet. I have only read the responses to Quinn that Brian has recently added in his manuscript.

I don't always agree with Brian, but I could never accuse him of ignoring evidence or making absolute assertions that he can't back up.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I have not yet. I have only read the responses to Quinn that Brian has recently added in his manuscript.

I don't always agree with Brian, but I could never accuse him of ignoring evidence or making absolute assertions that he can't back up.

Quinn's response pretty much destroys Hales's thesis that there was no sexual polyandry. What could he possibly add to salvage the thesis?

[Guest]

I haven't had time nor the desire to read through all of the comments. Just thought I'd give a few comments on Brian Hales's forthcoming volumes.

The history portion of Brian's set comes to a whopping 1500 manuscript pages and will be broken down into two volumes at around 500-600 pages each. This book essentially contains every known account about Joseph's polygamous relationships from anybody that knew anything about it. Hales believes and makes it clear that Joseph had sexual relationships with his multiple wives. Where he differs from most other scholars is that he argues that Joseph did not practice sexual polyandry. in my opinion, he makes a pretty compelling argument for this, involving both the lack of evidence and that it goes contrary to the tightly-knit moral and theological framework that polygamy was practiced under. (Ie., he argues that for Joseph there were clear moral and theological justifications for things some/most might find immoral, such as sexual polygyny and lying about polygamy, but that sexual polyandry would have been strictly ruled out by his own moral and theological framework). Adding to this, he argues that the general consensus that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry ultimately began with Brodie and then Stan Ivans, and snowballed in without any strong evidence or critical assessment.

I am, of course, quite biased, but I believe Hales makes a strong case.

Hi narrater! Do you know if Hales had access to the top secret pioneer journals that the church keeps under lock & key? Because if he did not have that to include, his evidence is incomplete.

ETA: Copies of Quinn's report have been emailed to all that requested it.