polygamy discussion with B. Hales – cont’d

[Ann]

by brianhales » 01 Aug 2013, 10:32

Quote:

Hi – I’ve been invited to this website and have enjoyed reading the comments. I’m also pretty thick-skinned so if someone wants to disagree with me, that is okay.

Regarding why JS practiced plural marriage, I see two issues. First, why was it permitted? JS gave three reasons. First to restore OT polygamy (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45). I argue this is the ONLY reason he ever needed to give because Old Testament patriarchs never gave a reason for their practice of plural marriage. There is no marriage theology in the Old Testament. Joseph only needed to say, “They did it and I’m restoring it.” Fawn Brodie et al who say JS gave us D&C 132 to satisfy his conscience and justify polygamy are wrong. He never needed to create an eternal marriage idealogy if all he wanted was to expand his sexual opportunities by implementing polygamy.

Second, to multiply and replenish the earth and create devout families for noble premortal spirits (D&C 132:63). Several authors say this is the most important – depicting that plural marriage was all about sex. Respectfully I believe they are in error and would invite them to document the claim. While it wasn’t all about sex (see the third reason below), sex was one of the reasons. I’ve documented sexual relations in 12 of the plural marriages with ambiguous evidence for 3 more. However, none of those 15 women were 14, having sex with their legal husbands, or not sealed to Joseph.

Third and by far the most important reason plural marriage is needed in Joseph Smith theology is described in D&C 132:16-17. All men and women need a spouse to be exalted, otherwise they “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity,” which is damnation. Polygamy allows all worthy women to be sealed to an eternal husband. D&C 132:61-63 explains how a woman cannot have two husbands but a man can have more than one wife and that the process is for “their [the plural wives’] exaltation in the eternal worlds” (v. 63). Section 132 provides only for there to be more worthy women at the final judgement. It isn’t something I have “figured out” or reckoned, it is just the only option D&C 132 describes.

The second issue is why was plural marriage commanded between the early 1840s and 1890? No other group of God’s followers have ever be so commanded according to the Standard Works. JS reported an angel commanded him. I’ve collected 22 accounts from 9 men and women who knew Joseph personally referring to those visits. (Volume one of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology, chapter . However, no prophet or Church leader (then or since) has explained why it was then commanded and JS’s theology only describes why it needs to be permitted. Church leaders and members have suggested some reasons: (1) Women outnumbered men in the Church in Nauvoo and in Utah [not true]; (2) To bring needed trials and challenges [true but not mentioned by Joseph Smith]; (3) Publicity value [B.H. Roberts’ idea]; (4)To solve the world’s moral problems. [difficult argument to successfully promote]; and (5) Polygamy produces healthier parents and children [even more difficult to defend].

I’ve tried to be concise but hope it doesn’t sound overconfident. I’m happy to discuss any point. I don’t expect everyone to see things my way, but I hope that those that see things differently will bring some historical documentation to discuss. Evidence is important because many authors have taken ambiguous evidence and spun it in extreme ways and their audiences are unaware. So much of what has been written about JS and plural marriage is misleading and inaccurate.

Take Care,

Brian Hales

Hi, all – This is a slightly off-original-post continuation of HSAB’s 21 Jul 2013 “Polygamy question” thread. I am hoping we can discuss the thoughts Brian Hales brings to the discussion. There were some questions “left” for him at the other thread (hi, mackay), but I didn’t move those over because this is already taxing my tech abilities. 🙂 I’m really glad Brian accepted the invitation.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Regarding why JS practiced plural marriage, I see two issues. First, why was it permitted? JS gave three reasons. First to restore OT polygamy (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45). I argue this is the ONLY reason he ever needed to give because Old Testament patriarchs never gave a reason for their practice of plural marriage. There is no marriage theology in the Old Testament. Joseph only needed to say, “They did it and I’m restoring it.” Fawn Brodie et al who say JS gave us D&C 132 to satisfy his conscience and justify polygamy are wrong. He never needed to create an eternal marriage ideology if all he wanted was to expand his sexual opportunities by implementing polygamy.

Hi, Brian – I’m sure you’ve had the same discussion over and over again, but I’ll take your word that you’re willing to start at the beginning.

In your opinion, can ANY Old Testament practice be restored? All that matters is that it’s been done before?

[Anonymous]

Good idea Ann. I’ll bring my questions to this thread:

Question 2:

Jacob 2:30 states, plural marriage is only permissible under two conditions:

Quote:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

a) Did Joseph raise up seed? Only with Emma according to the DNA evidence. There are a couple of other ‘maybes’ but little to say he followed this instruction.

b) Where is the evidence that God commanded it before his marriage to Alger some time between 1833 and 1835? The best and earliest we have is a letter from Phelps in 1861 recalling Joseph discussing marriage to native Americans in 1831, followed by a conversation three years later where Joseph says this was to be done in the same way as the old patriarchs.

Is the memory of a man 30 years after the conversation really reliable? The references are pretty oblique. This recall was in the midst of Utah saints having to actively defend polygamy.

The 132 revelation was recorded in 1843.

Joseph reviewed/revised the D&C in 1843 (re-printed after his death in 1844) and left in the old section 101 (prohibiting plural marriage), passing up the opportunity to canonise 132. And this during a time when he was denying in public that he did practice it.

Section 101 remained in the canon until it was removed and replaced by 132 some 40 years after polygamy had already started.

So for the first 40-45 years of the church being in existence the only canonised doctrine was Jacob 2:30 (not until I command it) and the old 101 (we prohibit it). So why did our early leaders ignore scripture.

What evidence is there before 1861 that Joseph was commanded in 1831 to live it?

[Anonymous]

My other question from the thread:

What a privilege

Brian, a few questions please.

1) “More women needing a husband in the next life.”

This makes no sense. We believe, for example, that children who die before 8 will get a ‘pass’ to the celestial kingdom. The birth rate is slightly skewed towards boys. There are around 10million under 8 deaths per year.

Mormon death rate was last reported as an annual 4/1000. That’s 0.5million. We’re taught that non-believing Mormons (those who didn’t keep their covenants) won’t go to the celestial kingdom. So if 200,000 of those deaths ‘qualify’ they are being outnumbered 50 to 1 by third-world infants. That’s before we even factor in the huge nations of the world or the people who lived before 1830 who haven’t heard the gospel. Mormon theology teaches that they will get the chance too.

There is no doctrine of more women making it than men.

There is no evidence of more women ‘qualifying’ than men. And male:female birth/death rates suggest it’s unlikely.

I’m not aware of any church leader teaching this as a necessity and if they have I don’t think they’ve really thought it through.

Is this something Joseph/Brigham taught?

[Anonymous]

I agree with Mckay11…..with all of the billions of people that have not heard the gospel and are dead, it makes NO sense that there would not be enough men and women for the celestial kingdom. As far as people who had spouses die and remarried, I’m sure they could practice poly whatever and god would be fine. As far as arguing that lds women should get use to polygamy because to bad that’s what the celestial kingdom will have then either God miscounted or we are incorrect in our thinking that God couldn’t have seen that issue and changed the numbers so that monogamy could be practiced.

Also, I believe that the Old Testament is full of things that were displeasing to God. My goodness he wiped out the whole earth people were so wicked. So to say, “well the prophets of old practiced polygamy” is not saying very much. They were probably the most righteous men God could find at the time. Men were having to learn basics like, “hey now why don’t we not have slaves and kill everyone and while your at it could you maybe treat women a little better?” Living a higher law wasnt even possible because they didnt even have the basics down in living I don’t know lets say the golden rule. So with the fullness of the gospel restored that would mean men/people would have progressed enough to live a higher law which in my book does not mean regressing to Old Teatament practices. What’s next bringing back blood sacrifices?

[Anonymous]

Oh and to clarify I do ask those questions in a respectful tone which can be hard to tell through text.

[Anonymous]

I do find the notion of restoring the polygamous practice of the patriarchs a little strange. There are so many things they did that we don’t do and wouldn’t even consider (calling in a she-bear?). Why is it that polygamy is worth restoring?

Didn’t Jesus fulfill the Old Testament/Covenant?

[Anonymous]

Brother Hales, none of the three bases for polygamy you’ve mentioned take into account JS’s well-documented polyandry. Old Testament patriarchs didn’t practice polyandry: in fact, David lost his exaltation because he had Uriah killed in order to take his wife as David’s own. Raising up seed doesn’t account for it, either: these women already had husbands as a seed source. Sealing for exaltation doesn’t fly, either – these women were already married to faithful men who could have provided these women with their Golden Ticket to the celestial kingdom.

So, my question is simple – how does JS’s polyandry square with your defence of polygamy? You’re not really going to argue that JS never engaged in polyandry, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anyone know if Brian will be coming back?

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Anyone know if Brian will be coming back?

I hope so but I hope he can answer the questions.

[Anonymous]

Hi Brother Hales! I promised some days ago that I would ask you some questions and I’m here to keep my promise. At one time I made a list of JS justifications for polygyny. I would really love for you to compare my list to your list and explain your thoughts. Thank you in advance.

Quote:

Polygyny Justifications of JS

1. God commands it: “God said thou shalt not kill, at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy…that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another…Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is…although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” RSR p. 441 “I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise. “TPJS p. 256, 324

2. To fashion a righteous generation on the eve of the Second Coming: “The Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take righteous women, even a plurality of wives, that a righteous race may be sent forth upon the earth preparatory to the ushering in of the millennial reign of our Redeemer.” RSR p. 326, Jacob 2:24-30

3. For “greater glory”: “The first commandment was to ‘Multiply’ and the Prophet taught us that Dominion & power in the great future would be commensurate with the number of ‘wives, children & friends’ that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a nucleus of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end.”…”When the family organization was revealed from heaven- the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right hand and the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel.” In Sacred loneliness p. 10-11 “Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him.” The purpose was “to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities…Like Abraham of old, Joseph yearned for familial plentitude.” RSR p 439-440, D & C 132:55

4. Pre-mortal commitments: “Joseph said I was his, before I came here. He said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him.” JS had been told to marry Mary, “or suffer condemnation- for I (Mary) was created for him before the foundation of the Earth was laid.” In Sacred Loneliness, also “thou made a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while here in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring. You also choose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world … to be your be head, stay, husband, and protector on the earth, and to exalt you in the eternal worlds. All these were arranged.” The Origin and Destiny of Women, John Taylor. Said Asael Smith, Grandfather of the Prophet, “I believe God hath created the persons for each other, and that Nature will find its own.” The Family of Joseph Smith p 16

Your list was as follows:

Quote:

JS gave three reasons. First to restore OT polygamy (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45). I argue this is the ONLY reason he ever needed to give because Old Testament patriarchs never gave a reason for their practice of plural marriage. There is no marriage theology in the Old Testament. Joseph only needed to say, “They did it and I’m restoring it.” Fawn Brodie et al who say JS gave us D&C 132 to satisfy his conscience and justify polygamy are wrong. He never needed to create an eternal marriage idealogy if all he wanted was to expand his sexual opportunities by implementing polygamy.

Second, to multiply and replenish the earth and create devout families for noble premortal spirits (D&C 132:63). Several authors say this is the most important – depicting that plural marriage was all about sex. Respectfully I believe they are in error and would invite them to document the claim. While it wasn’t all about sex (see the third reason below), sex was one of the reasons. I’ve documented sexual relations in 12 of the plural marriages with ambiguous evidence for 3 more. However, none of those 15 women were 14, having sex with their legal husbands, or not sealed to Joseph.

Third and by far the most important reason plural marriage is needed in Joseph Smith theology is described in D&C 132:16-17. All men and women need a spouse to be exalted, otherwise they “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity,” which is damnation. Polygamy allows all worthy women to be sealed to an eternal husband. D&C 132:61-63 explains how a woman cannot have two husbands but a man can have more than one wife and that the process is for “their [the plural wives’] exaltation in the eternal worlds” (v. 63). Section 132 provides only for there to be more worthy women at the final judgement. It isn’t something I have “figured out” or reckoned, it is just the only option D&C 132 describes.

I grant you that I missed the OT restoration angle. I don’t think that because it was practiced in the OT meant that it must be restored, but there is evidence that suggests that JS pondered on how these men of God could have multiple wives and still be acceptable before Him. As is the process for most revelation – pondering is often a precursor. I believe I will add that one to my list – making for an even 5 justifications.

How do you feel about the other points?

[Anonymous]

Brian posted the following in the other thread. I am posting it here, hoping he also sees this thread and responds more fully here:

Quote:

Hi Again,

I apologize for not responding sooner. I’ve been at Sunstone and the preparations have taken some time.

Let me respond to some comments. I don’t know if it will help anyone, but I do believe that a lot of opinions have been expressed that are not consistent with the available evidence. People are entitled to believe what they want, but I sense that people on this site would like to have the evidence too.

First, there was a quote: “At Sunstone a few years ago, Brian made the claim that there were no polyandrous marriages.” This is accurate. I have never said there was no polyandry or at least it should never have been concluded that I said it.

I have insisted and continue insist that there is no polyandrous sexuality (one woman having sexual relations with two husbands). D&C 132:41-42 and 61-63 describe three polyandrous relationships and label them all adultery, in two cases saying the woman would be destroyed. I believe it is a blanket condemnation of sexual polyandry. There is evidence that this has always been the case in the Church. References to polyandry are few, but when asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” Brigham Young answered, “This is not known to the law.” Five years later Heber C. Kimball taught, “There has been a doctrine taught that a man can act as Proxy for another when absent – it has been practiced and it is known — & its damnable.” The following year Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law.” Pratt further explained: “Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture. The object of marriage is to multiply the species, according to the command of God. A woman with one husband can fulfill this command, with greater facilities, than if she had a plurality; indeed, this would, in all probability, frustrate the great design of marriage, and prevent her from raising up a family. As a plurality of husbands, would not facilitate the increase of posterity, such a principle never was tolerated in scripture.” Belinda Marden Pratt wrote in 1854: “’Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?’ To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands…” On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that “a plurality of husbands is wrong.” His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would “be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time…” She replied: “I think it would.” First Presidency Counselor Joseph F. Smith wrote in 1889: “Polyandry is wrong, physiologically, morally, and from a scriptural point of order. It is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible, nor by the law of God or nature and has not affinity with ‘Mormon’ plural marriage.” Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in 1905: “Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or elsewhere.”

In addition, D&C 22:1 tells us that the new and everlasting covenant causes all old covenants to be “done away.” Hence from a religious standpoint, the legal covenant of a civilly married woman is “done away” as soon as she enters into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. She would not have two husbands with whom she could experience sexual relations, at least so far as Joseph Smith taught. Going back to her legal husband would be adultery because in the eyes of the Church, that marriage ended with the sealing.

Joseph was sealed to 14 women with legal husbands. It is complicated because the 14 sealings were not all the same. Contrary to Compton and Quinn’s assertions, “eternity only” sealings were performed in Nauvoo. That is, a woman whose husband was a non-member, like Ruth Vose Sayers, was allowed to be sealed to another man for eternity only, with no marriage on earth. Sayers was sealed to Joseph Smith “for eternity” only. Of the 14, I believe 11 were of this type. It is strange that several of the women were legally married to active Latter-day Saint men. In each case, the woman made the choice. Lucy Walker remembered the Prophet’s counsel: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” Regardless, none of the men complained against Joseph Smith for allowing the sealings.

The three remaining women (of the 14) were sealed to Joseph for “time and eternity,” which included sexual relations. Two were already physically separated from their legal husbands, so there was no change in marital dynamics. The last woman, Mary Heron, is so poorly documented that anyone giving details is simply speculating, unless they’ve found something new (which would be great!).

Another comment on the site is: “So Hales is making the case that Joseph only had sex with 3 wives (Emma would be 4), and that sex was a much more minor aspect of polygamy than others would have you believe. I haven’t read the books, but I’m sure that Compton disagrees with Hales about there being only 3 that had sex with Joseph.” No, those numbers were only prior to February of 1842, the last visit of the angel (when he appears with a sword to command plural marriage). In fact, I have documented sexual relations in 12 of the 35 sealings, with ambiguous evidence in three more. Not included are the two 14-year-old wives, any polyandrous sexuality, and any woman to whom Joseph was not sealed. See appendix E in Volume 2 or go to

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSP … ality.html

Another comment refers to Fanny Alger – “I like the scenario where JS develops strong feelings (love?) for a young woman (Fanny Alger) that lives in the Smith household and enters into a relationship with her. He feels so guilty about it that the idea of polygamy is developed out of his subconscious to assuage his guilt.” The problem is that Joseph Smith never needed to produce any theology to support polygamy. Fawn Brodie misses it by a mile. All Joseph had to say is that the Old Testament Patriarchs (think Abraham and Jacob) did it and I’m restoring it (Acts 3:21). End of discussion. There is no theology of marriage in the Old Testament. Teachings about eternal marriage and those found in the rest of D&C 132 did as much to hurt Joseph’s ability to practice plural marriage as they did to help them. People pushed back on the theology as well as the practice (think Nauvoo Expositor). The theology of plural and eternal marriage is entirely superfluous if he just wanted sex. All he had to say is they did it and I’m restoring it. Antagonists have a hard time explaining why he went to so much bother when he didn’t need to.

I hope this helps and I will try to stop by again.

Thanks!

Brian Hales

[Anonymous]

Hi, Brian –

You said over at the first thread: “I think polygamy on earth is sexist and unfair.” Are you saying, then, that sexist, unfair treatment is the unfortunate price that women have to pay if their prophet feels so inspired? I’m not trying to twist your meaning. At least I don’t think I am. For instance, if a teenage niece comes to you with disbelief that God commanded restoration-era polygamy, are you comfortable looking her in the eye and saying that, yes, God commanded these men to treat women poorly, and yes, the proper response on the part of a woman is to accept the bad treatment and make the best of it.

Second: Can ANY Old Testament practice be restored by modern prophets? All that matters is that it’s been done before – end of discussion?

Third: Why do we justify ourselves and polygamy because it’s what Abraham did? In essence, so what? Is he our prime exemplar? Or is Christ? I like John the Baptist in Luke 3:8-9, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentence, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father, For I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

I’m sure you’ve dealt with questions like these before, but except for the Bishop Reel podcast, I haven’t heard you speak. Thanks for your time.

[Anonymous]

Hi, thank you for posting your beliefs. One question that was not addressed was the issue of all of the billions of people that have not heard the gospel and will have the chance in the next life. By those numerous people accepting the gospel will there not be enough men to practice monogamy in the CK? Mkcay11 did a very nice numbers break down that I can’t repost at this time (phone). It seems to me that polygamy is a lower level law. It takes very little effort or sacrafice for men to practice it while monogamy is a much higher law that requires more from both people. Thanks for speaking with us.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The theology of plural and eternal marriage is entirely superfluous if he just wanted sex. All he had to say is they did it and I’m restoring it. Antagonists have a hard time explaining why he went to so much bother when he didn’t need to.

I think this is an interesting opinion but for me it’s only that. My understanding was that one reason for the 132nd section was to convince Emma to go along plus he could use that as extra evidence along with the flaming sword business to convince other women and their husbands, if needed, to agree. I don’t think he could have got away with just saying “they did it and I’m restoring it”. It had to be tied into his adding another level of specialness to those that were willing to follow him. You keep the faithful by making them suffer and making them feel special, set apart, and Nauvoo with the sacrifice in building the city and then the temple and then adding the endowment and along with that plural marriage is a perfect example.

[Author]

Posts