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

[_grindael]

Actually Markk, you are right, initially I did miss your point and I had to edit one of my comments in lieu of that. Sorry. And I directed the question about the Partridges to you because you had brought up Hales (POV) and I wanted you to clarify, which you did (nicely). Thank you.

There was more to the opening quote as I recall, unfortunately, I never documented the link because it was an introductory quote and Brian deleted the blog part of his website where it came from. I have to go look for it at wayback, but I'm too busy now. But I will say, that his other quotes show where he was coming from in relation to it, and his stance on 132 not really being focused on polygamy is documented in later chapters of our essay.

[_grindael]

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.

[_grindael]

But Markk,

We are not writing as church members. And no, I do not believe that at all. Read Brigham Young's 1873 discourse on Adam God and how he speaks about what "mysteries" are and how easy it is to understand them. Wait... I got it right here.... here ya go...

No Mystery in Adam God

I frequently think, in my meditations, how glad we should be to instruct the world with regard to the things of God, if they would hear, and receive our teachings in good and honest hearts and profit by them. I have been found fault with a great many times for casting reflections upon men of science, and especially upon theologians, because of the little knowledge they possess about man being on the earth, about the earth itself, about our Father in heaven, his Son Jesus Christ, the order of heavenly things, the laws by which angels exist, by which the worlds were created and are held in existence, &c. How pleased we should be to place these things before the people if they would receive them!

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God--I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his [73] wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

Is it a great mystery that the earth exists? Is it a great mystery, that the world can not solve, that man is on the earth? Yes, it is; but to whom? To the ignorant--those who know nothing about it. It is no mystery to those who understand. Is it a mystery to the Christian world that Jesus is the Son of God, and still the son of man? Yes it is, it is hidden from them, and this fulfills the Scripture--"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost," who have no faith, and who pay no attention to the Spirit of God. These things are called mysteries by the people because they know nothing about them, just like laying hands on the sick. Is it a mystery that fever should be rebuked and the sick healed by the laying on of the hands of a man who is endowed with authority from God and has been ordained to that gift? "Oh yes," say the ignorant, "we know nothing about it." That is true, but where is the mystery? Will the ignorant receive the truth when they hear it? No, they will not, and this is their condemnation, that light has come into the world, and they choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. That is the fact in the case.

What is the mystery about it? They do not understand invisible things. Ask the wicked, "Do you know anything about the laying on of hands?" "Oh yes, such a man"--a man who is wicked in his whole life--"has the art of laying on of hands for curing the tooth-ache, fevers, wounds," &c.; and now, in fulfillment of the words of the ancient prophet, thousands of people seek unto "wizards who peep and mutter," &c., but they will not seek unto the living God. I can say to all the inhabitants of the earth that before what is called spiritualism was ever known in America I told the people that if they would not believe the revelations that God had given he would suffer the devil to give revelations that they--priests and people--would follow after. Where did I declare this? In the cities of New York, Albany, Boston, throughout the United States and in England. Have I seen this fulfilled? I have. I told the people that as true as God lived, if they would not have truth they would have error sent unto them, and they would believe it. What is the mystery of it?

The Christian world read of, and think much about, St. Paul, also St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles. These men were faithful to and magnified the priesthood while on the earth. Now, where will be the mystery, after they have passed through all the ordeals, and have been crowned and exalted, and received their inheritances in the eternal worlds of glory, for them to be sent forth, as the Gods have been for ever and ever, with the command--"Make yourselves an earth, and people it with your own children."

Do you think the starry heavens are going to fall? Do the Christian world or the heathen world think that all things are going to be wrapped up, consumed, and annihilated in eternal flames? Oh fools, and slow of heart to believe the great things that God has purposed in his own mind!

My brother said that God is as we are. He did not mean those words to be literally understood. He meant simply, that in our organization we have all [74] the properties in embryo in our bodies that our Father has in his, and that literally, morally, socially, by the spirit and by the flesh we are his children. Do you think that God, who holds the eternities in his hands and can do all things at his pleasure, is not capable of sending forth his own children, and forming this flesh for his own offspring?

Where is the mystery in this? We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "Go ye and make an earth." What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth. Geologists tell us that it was here millions of years ago. How do they know? They know nothing about it. But suppose it was here, what of it? Adam found it in a state of chaos, unorganized and incomplete. Philosophers, again, in talking of the development of the products of the earth, for instance, in the vegetable kingdom, say the little fibres grew first, then the larger vegetation.

When this preparatory stage was completed then came the various orders of the animal creation; and finally man appeared. No matter whether these notions are true or not, they are more or less speculative. Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business. What is the great mystery about it? None, that I have seen.

The mystery in this, as with miracles, or anything else, is only to those who are ignorant. Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. "Well," says one, "Why was Adam called Adam"? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence, Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here, I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?

Now for mother Eve. The evil principle always has and always will exist. Well, a certain character came along, and said to Mother Eve. "The Lord has told you that you must not do so and so, for if you do you shall surely die. But I tell you that if you do not do this you will never know good from evil, your eyes will never be opened, and you may live on the earth forever and ever, and you will never know what the Gods know." The devil told the truth, what is the mystery about it? He is doing it to day. He is telling one or two truths and mixing them with a thousand errors to get the people to swallow them. I do not blame Mother Eve. I would not have had her miss eating the forbidden fruit for anything in the world. I would not give a groat if I could not understand light from darkness. I can understand the bitter from the sweet, so can you.

Here is intelligence, but bind it up and make machines of its possessors, and where is the glory or exaltation? There is none. They must pass through the same ordeals as the Gods, that they may know good from evil, how to succor the tempted, tried and weak, and how to reach down the hand of mercy to save the failing sinner. The Lord has revealed his gospel and instituted its ordinances that the inhabitants of the earth may be put in possession of eternal life. But few of them, however, will accept it. I have preached it to many thousands of them who are naturally just as honest as I am, but through tradition there is an overwhelming prejudice in their minds [75] which debars them of that liberty I have in my heart.

They would be glad to know the ways of God, and to know who Jesus is, and to reap the reward of the faithful, if they had the stamina, I will call it, the independence of mind necessary to embrace the truth, to say, "I know this is true, and if there is no other person on the face of this earth who will defend it, I will to the last." but this is not in their hearts, it is not in their organization, consequently they do not manifest it. What mystery is there about it? None whatever.

What is the mystery in Jesus being the Son of God and at the same time the son of the Virgin Mary? You know what the infidels say about this, but their words are no worse than the practice of many in the Christian world. I do not want to be found fault with, but if I am it is all the same to me. There is no mystery to me in what God has revealed to me, or in what I have learned, whether it has been through Joseph, an angel, the voice of the Spirit, the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of the Lord; no matter how I have learned a thing, if I understand it perfectly it is no mystery to me. It is like making one of these pulpits, or a house like this. This is no mystery to me, I dictated it, and a great many say it is a great piece of architecture to have a single span, so large as this roof and composed of wood that will sustain itself.

But it is no mystery to me. I know the strength of the materials and how to place them together. It is no mystery to me to build a temple or a common house. But you take a gentleman or lady who was never beyond the confines of a densely populated city, who never saw wheat grow, and who never saw cattle in the fields, and it is a great mystery to them to see them. Why? Because they never saw such things before, and they know nothing about them, but it is no mystery to those who know all about such things.

Do you think it any mystery to angels to know how the various organizations are brought on earth? Not the least in the world. There is no mystery in all this to the Gods, no mystery in them to the prophets and apostles whom they send, and to whom they reveal them; it is all plain, every day, common sense, just as much so as with anything else in the world--we understand it.

Some may say to me, "Why, Brother Brigham, you seem to know it all." I say, Oh no, I know but very little, but I have an eternity of knowledge before me, and I never expect to see the time when I shall cease to learn, never, no never, but I expect to keep on learning for ever and ever, going on from exaltation to exaltation, glory to glory, power to power, ever pressing forward to greater and higher attainments, as the Gods do. That is an idea that drowns the whole Christian world in a moment. Let them try to entertain it and they are out of sight of land without a ship, and if they had a ship it would have neither sail, rudder nor compass. "What," say they, "God progress?" Now, do not lariet [lariat] the God that I serve and say that he can not learn any more; I do not believe in such a character.

"Why," say they, "does not the Lord know it all?" Well, if he does, he must know an immense amount. No matter about that, the mind of man does not reach that any more than it comprehends the heaven beyond the bounds of time and space in which the Christians expect to sit and sing themselves away to everlasting bliss, and where they say they shall live for ever and for ever. If we look forward we can actually comprehend a little of the idea that we shall live for ever and ever; but you take a rear-sight, and try and contemplate and meditate upon the fact that there never was a beginning and you [76] are lost at once. The present and the future we can comprehend some little about, but the past is all a blank, and it is right and reasonable that it should be so. But if we are faithful in the things of God they will open up, open up, open up, our minds will expand, reach forth and receive more and more, and by and by we can begin to see that the Gods have been for ever and for ever.

Some of our philosophers have tried to reveal the first cause. I would change the position of the whole affair. I would plant my position in the ignorance of man that undertakes to prove or show the existence of a first cause. He had better go to work and prove himself a fool to begin with and then stop, for all his reasonings, arguments and researches with regard to the first cause only prove that he is a fool. Excuse me for this rough expression, perhaps it would be better to say that he comes far short of knowing or understanding himself in the least degree, and his researches are contracted to that degree that he is lost in ignorance of himself. Is this the fact? It is. We can know nothing until we learn it, and when we come to a knowledge of facts they are no mystery to us.

Take one of these native Navajo women down south here into a factory and show her the machinery for weaving blankets, and if she has never seen anything of the kind she would laugh at such nonsense. Says she, "That is not the way to weave blankets, why do you not tie your web up to the limb of a tree, fasten the other end down, and then take a stick and do just so? That will never weave a blanket." By and by she sees the blanket finished, but it is a mystery to her, and she can not understand, anything about it, because she has not learned it. It is so with the whole human family.

You will excuse me for detaining you a little longer than usual. I wanted to ask the brethren and sisters if they did not think my brother, Joseph Young, pretty good. He is nearly seventy-seven years of age and had a severe sickness last winter. Do you not think he is pretty hale, and doing pretty well? I think he is. I like to see him here. I know that he has been trying to tell the people with regard to the things of God for fifty years past. If I were to live and learn as I have for forty years past--since I have been in this church--for a thousand years, I should only have just commenced to learn the great lesson of eternity. I do hope and pray--and I want you to listen how I shape this prayer, instead of praying my Father in heaven in the name of Jesus to make you and me faithful--I pray that we Latter-day Saints may be faithful to the covenants we have entered into with our Heavenly Father and with one another, and to live our holy religion, for we do know how. I need not ask the Father to make us faithful any more than I need ask him to come and sow our wheat for us, not a particle, for we know all about it. Be faithful, do right and live so as to be worthy of life everlasting. Amen. (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

Young was of the opinion that he could put a "veil" over the minds of those he did not want to know about the Endowment, etc. That is what he speaks of here, in terms of people not understanding it. But of course, that never worked. Why do you think that he didn't want the Endowment published? So "gentiles" would not see it and understand it. Why want people to forget something they would never understand? It's silly. But he did say that learning about what would be called "mysteries", like Adam-God & polygamy, is simply learning the facts and that this applied to the whole human family, not just members of the church.

[_boris]

You have it wrong. Brian states that 132 is about "eternal marriage" or MONOGAMY, and that plural marriage is a minor point of it and unnecesary. I have the quotes.

The bulk of 132 is eternal marriage, plural marriage the remainder, and 132 ends with essentially "more will be revealed".

[_Stem]

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 haven't really paid much attention to what Hales has said. Some couple of years ago I tried and lost interest. But this comment caught my eye and makes me wonder. What constitutes doing fine? It seems to me the only way he really concludes that is he actually believes Joseph was given commandment to marry other women, and he believes he did it all by the book. I just don't think he can conclude that much without first assuming or over-arching all he reads about it, with the notion that Joseph received revelation from God.

Fine. whatever. Do you what you want. But that hardly means those who have concluded Joseph did not receive revelation are wrong nor that there's any special knowledge one must gain to see Joseph as being fine. It's simple really. He has no special understanding. he believes. With that, any questionable activity is explained in light of God commanding Joseph. Thanks New Testament for introducing us to milk before meat nonsense. Alls its done is given believers comfort for wanting to believe even when they can't make sense.

So what Hales ends up doing here is saying no amount of bad behavior causes him to see Joseph as not having revelation on the matter. To him that means Joseph is fine. Again. fine. Whatever. Do what you want. But there's no need to pretend he's got special knowledge, or others are evil for concluding differently.

[_grindael]

It is always the "us against them", "light vs. dark" mentality with the Mormons (not all, mind you), but the wanna stays (Shelfers) and apologists and leaders.

Why was there a problem when they published the Essay on Polygamy a few years ago? Because they can't make a sensible argument in favor of it. That's why they hid it in the beginning, that's why they only broadcast it when they had their own Great Basin Kingdom, and why when they knew it would fail and they had to join the Union, they abandoned and buried it. Hales goes on and on about why they don't want to teach it, it's because it is a testimony breaker for many. Hales claims that the evil internet is flooded with false information about polygamy, and that is really not true. Of course like with anything else, there are some wacky things said and concluded about it, but people can sift through those.

We find out that the Church lied about it time after time. It is destructive to women. Everything about it is bad. Hales goes on and on about how no one ever discusses Joseph's theology, but we do. And it flies in the face (based on Hales own conclusions that as an earthly practice it is deplorable), of what Joseph taught in the Book of Mormon about men (and women) are that they might "have joy", that "happiness is the object of our existence", blah, blah, blah.

You can't fix this with apologist mumbo jumbo. You can't fix this with trying to claim that you need some kind of "special" knowledge to understand it. You can't fix this by claiming that everyone who does understand it but doesn't come to the conclusion that Joseph does just fine, is a Sockpuppet of Satan.

I wasn't kidding about the Hales thinking they are the Internet Police when it comes to polygamy. They have inserted themselves into just about everywhere someone publishes about it. He went after Dan Vogel. He also went after Alex Beam, Jeremy Runnells, Grant Palmer, Denver Snuffer, and John Dehlin. His most recent insertion was in response to Kirk Van Allen, who never once mentioned Brian Hales in a February 2, 2016, blog post about Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. https://www.mormonstories.org/dc-132-a- ... n-not-god/

They write this unbelievable paragraph,

Specific commandments have been given at specific and places to specific people and disobedience has led to condemnation. But in all cases, individuals were allowed to use their agency. While social consequences sometimes result when individuals break ranks, followers
are not forced to obey commandments. https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/u ... rs_1.1.pdf

Yeah, and what about what Hales calls the "angel of encouragement" who supposedly appeared to Joseph and threatened him with death if he did not comply?

I mean, Hales wrote a whole paper about that crap. And they act like they are the most knowledgeable people in the world about the subject. I dare say, I know more about it than they do, because I've found and studied evidence they never encountered nor wrote about. The only person I think that would have more knowledge about this than me is Don Bradley.

This doesn't mean that I get everything right. I don't think anyone can. But I guarantee you that I have enough evidence to question the existing accepted narrative about what happened in Nauvoo, and I didn't pick that up on my own. It was from reading Dan Vogel, Gary Bergera, Todd Compton and others, and coupling what they said with evidence I've discovered or rediscovered if you will. I don't make these claims lightly, either and realize that I have to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. This thing that Jeremy and I did, this is just the BEGINNING of my journey through polygamy.

But back to 132, here is what they wrote about that,

The Law and the New and Everlasting Covenant

Unfortunately for readers, Van Allen temporarily turns Mormon Fundamentalist in his evaluation of D&C 132. He assumes, as most modern polygamists do, that the meaning of the new and everlasting covenant mentioned in the section is polygamy. It is true that verse 1 clarifies that the revelation was given to the Prophet as he inquired “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” (D&C 132:1). Without any doubt, the opening question is about polygamy.

If we follow the text of the revelation, we see that in response to Joseph Smith’s question, the Lord reveals a “new and everlasting covenant” and “law” associated with it:

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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. For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my
glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. (D&C 132:4–6)

At this point, it is unclear how the “new and everlasting covenant” and “law” (that God is going to immediately reveal in the remaining portion of the revelation) are related to the original question about polygamy. If the law or covenant is polygamy, then believers are going to need to
obey or be damned. Okay, God has our attention. No one wants to be damned.

Fortunately, the very next verse addresses this confusion by telling us the “conditions of this law”:

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 through 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 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. (D&C 132:7)

It is plain that polygamy is not a “condition of the law,” since it is not mentioned. Instead, this verse introduces a new priesthood authority: a sealing power that must be utilized to bind things on earth, so they will remain together after death

...Eternal marriage, [Monogamy] not plural marriage, is the zenith doctrine revealed in D&C 132.

Not only is the opening about polygamy, the whole thing is, because the sealing power is essential to it. This goes over the Hales' head for some reason. The first few verses are the questions about why polygamy was justified and the rest explains how it works and why it is essential to exaltation. The Hales claim it is just an "option":

Without a “plurality of wives” in eternity, some worthy women would not gain exaltation due to no fault of their own. D&C 132 does not predict more women than men at the final judgment, but it is does provide an option should such occur, and that option involves plural marriage.

This is simply ridiculous. If it were only an "option" then why did Joseph and the rest of them risk so much to practice it? Why do so at all, if it is only some kind of heavenly contingency plan? The sheer amount of evidence the Hales have to ignore to come to their conclusions is staggering. The Hales do not understand the PROGRESSION of Joseph's theology and quote things from Joseph's past "revelations" that make no sense in Nauvoo. They continue to do this, even with warnings from Quinn, Vogel and others who understand those "revelations" better than almost anyone.

[_boris]

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

[_Rosebud]

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.

I don't imagine he would publicly state it wasn't distasteful.

[_cwald]

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?

[_Rosebud]

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.

I see this as drivel that serves a sensible purpose: it convinces people that in order to be one of the important people, they need to accept polygamy. I'm not saying I think it's sensible reasoning, just that it is reasoning that has a sensibility to it. It does the job of perpetuating a cult. It'a effective. Hales has completely fallen for it.... so much so that he speaks condescendingly to people who haven't fallen for it (ironically).

I feel sad for all the groomed victims who want to be worthy and good and who set aside their real needs and are influenced by this kind of drivel.

People who create and perpetuate cults know what works. This drivel is sensible and rational in that it's meant to be as effective as it is.