Jeremy Runnells—the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?
By Brian C. Hales
Recently Jeremy T. Runnells has rebooted his 2013 “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony,” by posting a response, “Debunking FAIR’s Debunking,” on his website. The section on polygamy comprises over 15,000 words (approximately 70 pages double-spaced) and attempts to shore up his previous allegations against the Prophet while rebutting the responses made by critics of his original accusations.
Of course Runnells is entitled to his own views, but when individuals attempt to expound and defend a specific historical interpretation before the public, it seems it would be wise to familiarize themselves with the latest research on the topic. Otherwise, they may perpetuate incomplete or deceptive arguments. Such persons should probably expect that their historical reconstruction will be critiqued by scholars who have also studied the same subject. It appears that Runnells’ accounts and criticisms of Joseph Smith’s polygamy reflect important weaknesses. But even more unfortunate is the apparent fact that Runnells is himself unaware of those weaknesses.
Runnells declares early that he has concerns about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, alleging that “three key facts remain unchallenged: (1) Joseph Smith married at least 34 women; (2) he married at least 11 women who were married to other living men; and (3) he married underage girls as young as 14-years-old.”
Runnells seems concerned that Joseph Smith was sealed to “at least 34 women.” It is actually 35 by my count.1 While it is a large number, it is important to note that at least 13, and possibly as many as 20, were non-sexual “eternity only” sealings. As Joseph Smith taught, every woman needs to be sealed to an eternal husband to be eligible for exaltation. Lucy Walker remembered the Prophet’s emphasis: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.”2 None of the women left any complaints regarding their sealings to Joseph. Yet, Runnells seems bothered by this observation.3
Runnells writes that Joseph “married at least 11 women who were married to other living men.” In fact, I count 14 (Sylvia Sessions, Sarah Ann Whitney, Ruth Vose, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Sarah Kingsley, Presendia Lathrop Huntington, Esther Dutcher, Zina Diantha Huntington, Patty Bartlett, Marinda Nancy Johnson, Elivira Annie Cowles, Elizabeth Davis, Lucinda Pendleton, and Mary Heron). Like many authors before him, Runnells implies sexual polyandry occurred; that is, that the wives were experiencing sexual relations with both their legal husbands and Joseph Smith. Yet, Runnells presents no credible documentation to support his interpretation, and he does not address evidences that contradict it. Joseph taught sexual polyandry was adultery and that a woman could never have two genuine husbands (D&C 22:1, 132:4). Runnells may benefit from visiting http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/sexual-polyandry/ and studying the information available regarding these marriages. He may not be convinced that sexual polyandry did not occur, but at least he would have access to the latest research and accurate documentation.
Joseph Smith gave four reasons for plural marriage in D&C 132. The most important is that it allows all worthy women to be sealed to a husband and to become a candidate for exaltation (D&C 132:16-17, 63). Sexuality is not needed. It appears Runnells is unaware of Joseph Smith’s teachings dealing with plural marriage.
Regarding the 14 women, research indicates that 11 were non-sexual “eternity only” sealings. Two of the remaining three were to women who were physically separated from their husbands and had the equivalence of a Church divorce. The last case (Mary Heron) is too poorly documented to discuss any further. For biographies of these women, see http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/ .
Runnells seems to worry that two of Joseph’s plural wives were 14 years old when they were sealed to Joseph. One wife (Nancy Maria Winchester) we know nothing about, so to discuss her situation in any way, positive or negative, requires speculation. The second woman, Helen Mar Kimball, was offered to Joseph as a plural wife by her father Heber C. Kimball. I agree this seems strange and possibly unfair to Helen. Regardless, there is no evidence the Prophet initiated the process and Helen remained a strong believer in Joseph Smith throughout her life. Importantly, there is strong evidence the sealing was never consummated and no supportive evidence that it was. Joseph was also sealed to a 16 year old (Flora Ann Woodworth) in a plural marriage that probably was not consummated. The pattern in Utah was to allow sealings to younger women, but not to live with the woman until she was 18. I believe this policy began with the Prophet, but there is no way to prove it.
Runnells’ treatment of Joseph Smith and plural marriage reveals many weaknesses. It appears he spent a great deal of time reading secondary sources written by anti-Mormons and unbelievers and then compiled those claims, often citing their primary documents as his own without actually taking the time to verify the quotations. This practice can introduce several problems like repeating inaccuracies, misrepresenting primary documents, and drawing extreme conclusions from limited information. His lack of footnotes further undermines any notion that his work can be considered scholarly, except by individuals who already agree with his position.
One example of the weaknesses that are repeated over and over in his essay is illustrated when Runnells allegedly quotes Lorenzo Snow’s 1892 Temple Lot deposition. According to Runnells, Snow gave this testimony:
A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too. – Temple Lot Case, p.320–322 [Bold and italics by Runnells.]
Then Runnells concludes:
According to Lorenzo Snow, Joseph had zero business marrying his plural wives before 1843 and he should have been cut off from the Church as it was adultery under the laws of the Church and under the laws of the State. Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger in 1833 was illegal under both the laws of the land and under any theory of divine authority; it was adultery.”
It is obvious Runnells never viewed the actual 1892 Temple Lot deposition transcripts. Curiously, the last sentence in the paragraph above, the one that he emphasized with bold and italics, is incorrectly cited. Importantly, the words “and under the laws of the state too” are fabrication.4 They are not in the original transcript; that is, Lorenzo Snow did not say them so far as any record is concerned. Notwithstanding, Runnells confidently asserts: “According to Lorenzo Snow, Joseph had zero business marrying his plural wives before 1843.” If Runnells had actually consulted the depositions, which are available at the Church History Library, he would have learned that later in that same deposition, RLDS attorney Kelley questioned Snow who directly disagreed with Runnells’ conclusion:
Q. Could he [Joseph Smith] receive a revelation and act upon it, that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church to govern the church, without a violation of those laws?
A. Yes sir, I see that distinctly and understand it and I want you to understand it too.5
This sort of problematic research and writing is common throughout the remainder of Runnells’ treatment of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages raising important questions regarding the accuracy and credibility of his conclusions.
Rather than provide a point-by-point rebuttal to Runnells’ claims, it might be most beneficial to refer him and other readers to JosephSmithsPolygamy.ORG where he can find the latest research dealing with all controversial topics regarding Joseph Smith’s Polygamy including supposed polyandry, young wives, Fanny Alger, sexuality, polygamy denials, Joseph’s interactions with Emma Smith, and other historical and theological considerations.
Prior to being asked to write this response, I emailed Jeremy Runnells:
It is apparent that you excuse my research and writings as just apologetic “interpretations.” I don’t blame you. You have probably read a lot of writers who tell the story differently than I do (like Fawn Brodie, Richard Van Wagoner, George D. Smith etc.) and you believe them, not me. I’m the guy who is “interpreting” and they are the authors telling the “truth.”
Let me offer a couple of observations. First, in my books I include every known reference from anti-Mormon to apologetic sources. No reviewer has suggested that I have left anything out. That means that if there is evidence supporting the things you have written on your website regarding Joseph and polygamy, then I have included those evidences in my three volumes [Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology, Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013]. Funny that I would do that if they depicted Joseph as a womanizer.
The reason this might be important to you is that when I hired Don Bradley to do research for me, he was out of the Church. He had asked to have his name removed a couple of years earlier. He worked for me for two years locating every known document on polygamy from all sources. Then six months after we were done, he was rebaptized. Here’s a guy who has seen all known documents about polygamy and he was getting back into the Church.
Perhaps the primary difference between Jeremy Runnells and Don Bradley is the sources they consulted as they researched. I know Don looked at primary manuscripts and documents that were untainted by the opinions of apologists and antagonists. I do not know what Jeremy read.
_________________________________________
1 Brian C. Hales, “Biographies of Joseph’s Wives,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed July 3, 2014, http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/.
2 Lucy Walker Kimball, “A Brief Biographical Sketch of the Life and Labors of Lucy Walker Kimball Smith,” CHL; quoted in Lyman Omer Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints: Giving an Account of Much Individual Suffering Endured for Religious Conscience (Logan, Utah: Utah Journal Co, 1888), 46.
3 See Brian C. Hales, “Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives after the Martyrdom,” Mormon Historical Studies 13, no. 2 (Fall 2012), 255–69.
4 Questions and answers to lines 189–193, Lorenzo Snow, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), page 121, read:
189 Q. And the man that violated this law in this book [Doctrine and Covenants 1835 edition] until the acceptance of that revelation by the church violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage?
A. Yes Sir. He was cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.
190 Q. What would be the condition of the man that would marry more than one person prior to the giving of that revelation in 1843? A. What would be the condition of a man that would do that?
191 Q. Yes sir? A. Why he would be cut off from the Church.
192 Q. Would not it have been adultery under those revelations I have just read? A. Yes sir. I expect it would be.
193 Q. You are one of the apostles in the church at the present time are you not . . .
5 Lorenzo Snow, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), page 128, question 323.
This article sounds more like: Brian C. Hales, the New Expert On Jeremy Runnells.
Honestly, even if every one of your assertions is true, it still doesn’t relieve the problems with Joseph Smith’s polygamy. At least, it doesn’t for me. It seems you have addressed some pretty minor and inconsequential stuff. If it makes a difference for you, then great. I don’t think it will make a difference for most people who are bothered by the way Joseph Smith and early church leaders practiced polygamy.
THIS.
Brian, you make it sound so much worse that Jeremy who gave Joseph the benefit of the doubt in all cases 34 vs 35 wives, 11 vs 14 polyandrous ones, etc.
Hi Bad Wolf,
I’ll try to respond to as many of these as I can.
You are right that in this response I’ve not be able to really talk evidence. That is why I refer people to JosephSmithsPolygamy.ORG. There I have not avoided any topic. They are all there. Maybe give it a look?
Take Care,
Brian
Oh ABSOLUTELY!
Seriously, Brian, telling us he married 35 but “as many as 20” were possibly non-sexual…. are you affirming that 15 of them were definitely sexual? Are we meant to be okay with this?
I really think this apologetics is seriously missing the point. It’ll argue the minutia but the fundamental problems are still there.
Paul,
To me, this sounded much more like: Brian C. Hales: The expert on Joseph Smith’s polygamy. What you just read is called peer review. Because Jeremy is not an academic, he does not have to subject himself to rigorous peer review before publishing. What you just read is a public example of what would’ve happened privately to him had he submitted his research of secondary sources to experts in the field. The inaccuracies that he perpetuated in his letter would have they been improved upon through this process and his research would have become accurate and up-to-date. Don’t pretend that critical analysis of source documents is anything close to an ad hominem attack. This was a timely and he needed response.
Runnells says: “at least 34”
Hales says “35”
Sounds like we all agree!! If this is all you have to critique the CES Letter with you need to try harder.
Doesn’t accuracy matter? Does Runnells’ misuse of Lorenzo Snow’s deposition make no difference? This essay demonstrates several examples of the CESletter’s faults-partial truths, abuse (or ignorance of) original sources, and common mistakes of amateur researchers. He is coming at his topics downstream from the work of others, aggregating negative pieces, and publishing it in one work. Worst of all, Jeremy then presents himself as just an honest broker of convenient truths.
Runnells recently told John Dehlin that he believes his letter has been downloaded “about 100,000 times” (he says he has no way to prove this, though). With such widespread reach, Runnells should take greater responsibility to verify his claims instead of regurgitating then repackaging a Reader’s Digest of Brodie, Tucker, Palmer, Vogel, and Quinn- and virtually never citing them.
Of course accuracy matters and Jeremy was as accurate as his research took him. The problem is that even if Joseph had one, just one extramarital affair and made efforts to keep it secret, it would be enough to challenge his self-proclaimed calling as a prophet.
In this article Brian is admitting that Joseph consummated several of his marriages. Also, evidence for consummation is hard to come by because sex was a very taboo thing to talk about. Is it really speculative to assume Joseph consummated most of his marriages when we know he consummated some of his marriages? What would be the reason for consummating some and not the others?
Lastly, the fact that a lot of these women never complained doesn’t mean a thing. You don’t hear many complaints from oppressed women when they are convinced they are not oppressed.
RE: Deposition
https://archive.org/stream/TempleLotCase/Temple_Lot_Case#page/n323/mode/1up
This quote is in the RLDS notes of the temple lot. It is a court document. The original may very well not contain this quote, but as a formal historian, Brian needs to do more than shift the blame on to Jeremy for being deceptive, he needs to provide the counter evidence.
Runnells is not nearly as concerned about Joseph violating State law as he is about Joseph violating divine law. Runnells wants us to think that Snow considered Joseph’s polygamy adultery. To make his point, Jeremy cherry picked what appears to be a damning statement by Snow when treated in isolation. Providing the full story, Snow explicitly rejects what Jeremy is trying to argue. So, the question: why did he omit the question and answer to line 323? His omission is either amateurism (not reading the primary source and simply taking someone else’s deception for face value) or the deception belongs to Runnells himself.
Why do you feel like you need to defend his error?
Correct, it really makes no difference.
Whether or not Snow uttered the portion about ‘the laws of the state’ really has nothing to do with the three points presented by Runnels regarding Smith’s multiple marriages, or the fact that Smith engaged in this behavior at all.
But I’m willing to listen to why you believe that it does. Tell us why.
Alec: “Doesn’t accuracy matter? Does Runnells’ misuse of Lorenzo Snow’s deposition make no difference? This essay demonstrates several examples of the CESletter’s faults-partial truths, abuse (or ignorance of) original sources, and common mistakes of amateur researchers. He is coming at his topics downstream from the work of others, aggregating negative pieces, and publishing it in one work. Worst of all, Jeremy then presents himself as just an honest broker of convenient truths.”
Jeremy says: Accuracy does matter, which is why I made the corrections to 5% of the errors in the original CES Letter. Unlike these apologists, I’m willing to own my mistakes by not only correcting them but posting them permanently for all to see.
You obviously haven’t read the CES Letter because the Lorenzo Snow thing is not in the letter. It’s in Debunking FAIR’s Debunking.
Alec says: Runnells recently told John Dehlin that he believes his letter has been downloaded “about 100,000 times” (he says he has no way to prove this, though). With such widespread reach, Runnells should take greater responsibility to verify his claims instead of regurgitating then repackaging a Reader’s Digest of Brodie, Tucker, Palmer, Vogel, and Quinn- and virtually never citing them.
Jeremy: That’s it? That’s what you’re calling me out on and attacking my integrity with? Seriously?
Unlike you, I have a better pulse on what’s going on with my letter. I’m on the front lines with the emails. I know how much traffic I’m getting. Not everyone is getting the letter from my website. Dad and Grandpa and Uncle Bob here and there attach the PDF to emails to send to their family and friends. You’re forgetting that the letter is in a portable PDF and that a website is not the only way it can be downloaded from. Hence, why I’m estimating it’s over 100,000 and that’s on the conservative side.
Sorry I’m not the liar that you’re hoping and painting me to be.
Yeah, in the world of academia, this is called plagiarism – and it’s a form of lying.
You are forgetting that Jeremy’s letter is a series of questions to be answered by the CES director, and as such, isn’t intended to be 100% accurate. Brian is a professional, and to attack an amateur is embarrassing, not to mention that the specific details don’t change the fact that Joseph and his peers knew that what he was doing was disgusting, to the point that they lied and even destroyed a printing press to hide it. To focus on the minutiae instead of the big picture is a weak attempt to hide the true nature of the abuse of power.
Brian Hales, I appreciate you addressing this issue. I don’t believe that Mr. Runnells wrote his “Letter to a CES Director” as a scholarly document with the intent to have the level of footnotes which you seem to be requesting.
The beginning of your response struck me as saying, “No, Jeremy Runnells got it wrong; it was worse than he alleged. Joseph had more wives than that, and more of them were actually already married to other men.” Ouch. It seems that Mr. Runnells was erring on the conservative side which I don’t think is something to be attacked. Furthermore, having spoken to an individual working on the Joseph Smith Papers Project, not all scholars agree with his numbers or your numbers.
The conclusion that there is a lack of evidence that Joseph Smith consummated some of these marriages does not, in my mind, make his polygamy/polyandry more palatable. Whether or not Helen Mar Kimball was presented to Joseph Smith or whether he sought her out is ignoring the issue which is offensive to most people: he married a 14-year-old child.
While many people are familiar with Joseph Smith’s teachings about plural marriage in D&C 132 and his simultaneous public denials of the practice (and to argue that Mr. Runnells seems unaware of those teaching is petty, Mr. Hales), further research on the subject by historians such as Richard Bushman and D. Michael Quinn regrettably shows that the Prophet Joseph himself very frequently disregarded those Section 132 principles.
Mr. Hales, it is certainly within your right to disagree with Mr. Runnells’ conclusions, but to think that he and all researchers who view the historical documents would come to the same conclusions which you do ignores the well-documented response to your writings by D. Michael Quinn. (If readers wish to understand more of that, I’ll let them do their own Google search.)
Nevertheless Mr. Hales, I appreciate your article and thoughts. It has motivated me to reflect on my own position more deeply.
HI UtahHiker801,
For me it is all about the evidence. Of course I don’t believe that everyone who reviews the evidence will agree with me. However, what do we do with people who portray themselves as experts who haven’t done the research? In this case, Runnells quotes a source with fabricated text and contradictions to his own claims and Runnells is apparently unaware.
I appreciate the references to Mike Quinn’s work. Most historians at some time have benefited from his research and footnotes. However, I would feel much better about your criticism if you instead were not quoting Quinn, but quoting some Nauvoo polygamist or other historical figure who was there. Quoting secondary sources may create the illusion that some scholarly opinion is documented history. (This applies to me as well as Mike.)
I believe when all the evidence on polygamy is available, Joseph Smith does just fine.
In 3 Nephi 1:22 we read: “And it came to pass that from this time forth there began to be lyings sent forth among the people” and so it seems to be today. That is how I would classify Runnells treatment of Joseph Smith’s polygamy. How can we identify a lie? Perhaps reading the original documents would help.
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 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).
Best!
Brian Hales
Brian, why do you believe that polygamy is a necessary component of eternal marriage?
Brian,
While I may continue to disagree with your conclusions, I respect that you took the time to respond to my comment. Thank you.
“For me it is all about the evidence.”
Then later under Micah’s comment you write, “On earth [polygamy] is undeniably sexist and unfair. However, I believe in eternal marriage.”
How many of your beliefs are evidence based? Do you have evidence of eternal marriage, or an afterlife where God is a Mormon? Show me the evidence bud, since you’re all about it!
It’s pretty disgusting to discount the suffering and harm Joe caused with the hopes of a non-evidence based eternal exaltation that makes it all better.
Wishful thinking and belief preservation. You’re good at it.
Can we be real for a second? While I’m aware that Brian Hales doesn’t bring this up in his critique, let’s not forget that one of Hales’ primary defenses of polygamy is that there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. It’s so hard for me to take anything that Hales says seriously when his foundational justification for this practice is based on such ludicrous assumptions.
I find it very frustrating to see this kind of misguided intellectual hubris from scholars like Hales, Peterson, Ostler, etc. It is glaringly obvious from Hales’ post that he thinks the burden of proof is on Runnells and those spooky “anti-Mormons” and unbelievers that he references in the article. But let’s be clear: Runnells isn’t the one that claims to speak for God; he isn’t the one who claims to lead the only true church in the world; he isn’t the one that (eventually) claimed to see Elohim and Jehovah in the Sacred Grove; he isn’t the one that married other men’s wives and barely pubescent girls; he didn’t ask the Church to shelter him or anyone else from authentic history.
It shouldn’t fall upon Jeremy Runnells to rigorously defend with impeccable scholarly acumen what is common sense to everyone in the developed world: it’s not okay to secretly marry several dozen women, hide it from your first wife, and lie about it to outsiders. The burden of proof is on Hales, the Church, and anyone else who sustains this despicable practice to justify why all of that was okay.
Also, I don’t understand what end Hales has in mind by conducting this critique (other than an obvious attempt at promoting his books and website). He hyper-focuses on minutiae like whether Joseph had 14 polyandrous marriages or 11, or whether he slept with all of these women or just a few, and leans on rhetoric like “Joseph Smith gave four reasons for plural marriage in D&C 132. The most important is that it allows all worthy women to be sealed to a husband and to become a candidate for exaltation (D&C 132:16-17, 63). Sexuality is not needed. It appears Runnells is unaware of Joseph Smith’s teachings dealing with plural marriage,” while completely ignoring the fact that Joseph Smith disregarded most of the guidelines outlined in 132 during his practice of polygamy.
While Hales does raise some valid (albeit nit-picky) corrections to some of Runnells’ data and sources, at the same his refutations raise even more suspicion about “the Prophet.”
Hi Micah,
I think you bring up some valid points. However, it is not my view that polygamy is needed because there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. This reason for plurality is given in D&C 132, specifically vv. 16-17, 63. Please don’t give me credit for something I didn’t create
It might interest you to know that I don’t defend polygamy. I do not study Utah polygamy because it seems all of the stories are so sad. On earth, polygamy expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously diminishes a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife. On earth it is undeniably sexist and unfair.
However, I believe in eternal marriage. As Orson Pratt said, once we admit to eternal marriage, “plurality of wives necessarily comes along.” I sense you do not believe in eternal marriage and I respect that. I wish everyone could have faith in the exalting teachings of Joseph Smith.
If we want to understand the plural marriage teachings and practices Joseph Smith established, it might help to see them through the eyes of the participants. They were just as skeptical as you and me. Their accounts share how it was a very religious experience requiring unimaginable sacrifices. But they made them with faith and hope. You accuse me of presenting “misguided intellectual hubris” when all I am doing is providing historical evidence to show how the participants viewed and experience plural marriage. Do we want the truth? Or a comic book version of Joseph Smith’s polygamy?
BTW, you wrote: “Joseph Smith disregarded most of the guidelines outlined in 132 during his practice of polygamy.” Do you mind providing even ONE example with evidence?
Best!
Brian Hales
Brian, the verses from D&C 132 that you list above as stating that “there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom” say nothing of the sort.
Here these are:
“16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.”
“17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”
Read v.15 for the true context.
In v.63, the quantity of 10 is being used as an example, not as a guaranteed reward or gift –
“63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.”
You are working too hard on manufacturing these justifications.
” once we admit to eternal marriage, “plurality of wives necessarily comes along.” ”
How so? I don’t believe any such correlation. I plan on being my husband’s only wife for eternity.
The burden of proof is on Hales
Didn’t he just published a three volume set of books on the subject? Just because you disagree with his some of his conclusions doesn’t mean he hasn’t answered that call.
misguided intellectual hubris
I guess I can see where your coming from here with respects to Petersen, and occasionally Ostler, but I’m not sure why this particular response would have elicited that remark. Personally, I think Hales response here showed much less hubris then your own comments.
This critique isn’t about whether Runnels is an honest person its whether his information, methodology, and conclusions are sound, clearly some of them are not.
Hi Micah, where have you been? I’ve always enjoyed your words, and felt like I could relate to your experiences during my faith transition. Are you blogging anywhere regularly at the moment?
” what is common sense to everyone in the developed world: it’s not okay to secretly marry several dozen women, hide it from your first wife, and lie about it to outsiders. ”
THIS.
I really can’t tell if this article is really pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon. I wonder if defending Hitler, the author would ever conclude “There is no evidence that Hitler ordered the extermination of 6 million Jews. We can only find definitive evidence for 5 million, therefore he doesn’t deserve the monstrous reputation historians assigned him.”
Steve,
I worry you have replaced evidence with assumption.
You compare Joseph to a 5-million-killer Hitler? I think you assume there was SOME immorality so the level of it is unimportant. I’m asking you for that evidence of immorality.
It may be you fall into the category of individuals who hear “polygamy” and assume “immorality” without needing any evidence. I can’t help you if that is the case. But then that brings us back to credible evidence upon which we may want to base our beliefs. What is the evidence supporting JS’s immorality?
Thanks,
Brian
You want evidence of immorality? I will if you provide evidence that it was moral.
In every state that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, it was prohibited by law. Surely I don’t need to quote the Articles of Faith to point out the problem here.
In addition, Joseph lied repeatedly about his being married to more than one woman. I am sure you are familiar with his broadsides declaring that they only practiced monogamy as well as his declaration near the end of his life that people were falsely accusing him of polygamy.
Now, you demonstrate why polygamy is in fact moral.
By what standard are you judging morality? If it’s based on the general beliefs/sentiments of 1840s America, would not polygamy be considered immoral? Was it not outlawed in most places? Considered de facto adultery? Based on Snow’s deposition, apparently it was at least against the church’s laws at the time (readily corroborated from contemporary scriptures), and the inference that Joseph received a secret, specific contrary revelation without needing to tell anyone about it is suspiciously self-serving.
Hopefully your rubric for morality is not Joseph Smith’s at best unhelpful, and at worst–dangerous, “whatever God commands is right” idea.
Even in today’s much more liberal and freedom-loving society, we draw the line at marrying minors (absent very exceptional circumstances). Let consenting adults do whatever they want, but leave the kids out of it.
By what standard am I judging morality? By its harm to others is perhaps the most basic standard. Polygamy has been the source for so much suffering since it was instituted, especially for women. Look at all the polygamous sects, the disempowerment of women, all the deception and convoluted lies the leaders had to justify, and even to Joseph Smith’s own assassination.
It takes a great deal of rationalization to declare such a horrendous institution is from God.
Steve, my response was to Brian.
How is her entire premise wrong? She’s citing clear examples of blatant immorality on the part of Mormonism’s founder. Her conclusion is that therefore Mormonism has no business telling people how to behave (see also “hypocrisy”). What don’t you understand, exactly?
I am pretty sure that marrying (and having sex with) teenage girls against your wife’s consent meets almost everyone’s threshold of immoral behavior.
And let’s not even get started on the moral implications of threatening your wife with eternal damnation if she doesn’t get on board.
Does an article need to be *defending* or *attacking* something? In academia (and, I would add, just good writing), being accurate for accuracy’s sake is something worth pursuing. When Michael Bellesiles suggested that early Americans didn’t own many guns (and therefore, the 2nd amendment means something different than gun rights advocates maintain), even liberal academics demolished the book, saying that guns were far more prevalent than Bellesiles maintained.
If we approach every post with a “Is he defending or attacking…” we’ve slipped into a polemical posture that doesn’t really do much good for us in the end.
Russell, when the words “apologetics” and “anti-Mormon” are both used in an article, the first sympathetically and the second pejoratively, the writer has picked sides. And yes, picking sides means you’re defending or attacking.
Polemics is a perfectly acceptable use of scholarship. Some of the best philosophy, political theory and social theory in history came out of committed advocacy of a position and attack on another position.
“The second woman, Helen Mar Kimball, was offered to Joseph as a plural wife by her father Heber C. Kimball. I agree this seems strange and possibly unfair to Helen. Regardless, there is no evidence the Prophet initiated the process”
The fact that you are not outraged by such an abuse of power and authority not only by Helen’s father but Joseph himself is telling. Three words ‘WAS OFFERED TO.’ Do you still not see it? Who cares if Joesph initiated the process or not.
I agree it sounds very inappropriate to us today. Why would Heber C. Kimball make such an “offer”? I don’t know but is it incontrovertible evidence that Joseph was a fraud and/or womanizer?
In law there is a principle “res ipso loquitur,” which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” You seem to appeal to this as all the evidence that is needed.
However, all of the participants in this plural sealing, including Helen,her father Heber, and her mother Vilate, remained strong believers in Joseph Smith and his teachings and practices.
Maybe this is not an episode that inherently demonstrates that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Or perhaps they were just so gullible that they couldn’t figure it out? (And of course critics today are able to peer back through 170 years of history to discern things the participants couldn’t discern?) Read their journals and I think you will see they were just as skeptical as you and me.
Thanks,
Brian
What is this supposed to prove? What do you think Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Warren Jeffs’ followers thought of them? Does the fact that they had followers to the bitter end provide evidence of their prophetic call? (Especially in the case of Jeffs, where he is a convicted child molester who admitted he isn’t a prophet but still has thousands of followers.) Nonsense. There are better explanations for this rather than, “Welp, he must have been the real deal.” I recommend a basic study of human psychology to better understand what’s going on here. Using this argument to bolster your position is nothing short of silly.
Again, what do you think the skeptics of the FLDS church that remain faithful are thinking? Their subconscious is protecting the identity they have because their entire worldview is based upon the idea that their church is true. Uprooting that means losing everything. And what is a woman to do who firmly believes that the man is a prophet and that she and her family will receive exaltation if she marries him? Please tell me you see how this is a huge problem for a very young woman in her formative years.
Precisely. ‘Was offered to’ does not create a requirement to accept the offer. What does that say about Smith’s judgement and leadership?
I find it fascinating how people can argue about how JS didn’t have sex with his wives. That they were just “sealed” and it was a spiritual thing. That they can show this since the wives didn’t complain (which is BS), write down their sexual experiences (personally I don’t write down my experiences either) or didn’t get pregnant.
Fascinating since I would venture to guess there are many married couples that have not had children who don’t write down their sexual experiences. We just assume they are still having sex.
Also…why is this effort not put into showing how BY and all the other men weren’t having sex with their wives? Why is the focus always on JS and trying to show how HE of all people of course didn’t actually have sex with his wives.
The paragraph about the ages made my head hurt. And this part!!! “there is no evidence the Prophet initiated the process”….you’re kidding right? Are you trying to suggest that if it was her dad that initiated it that made it somehow better?? ACK!
Sometimes I just wonder about the effort put into trying to maintain this image of the Prophet. I mean really?
Check out http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/sexuality-2/
Well apparently the people at MormonThink and the Dehlinites care Alison. Because they constantly make a big deal about how it was JOSEPH swinging his power around and forcing these relationships.
Since they brought it up, I think it’s perfectly relevant to point out that Joseph Smith did not initiate the business with Helen Mar Kimball.
If you want to sell a narrative – don’t complain when someone refutes it.
Same thing with why we don’t do this with Brigham Young. People attack Joseph Smith – which makes Joseph Smith the subject in controversy. And it’s perfectly fine to address the issue solely as pertaining to him and not the other men in leadership.
So basically with Helen Mar Kimball, Joseph’s out is “Well HE[BER] started it!”
Right. See how far that kind of defense gets you in front of a jury. What a shame the prophet of the restoration didn’t have sufficient self-restraint or presence of mind to politely decline Heber Kimball’s …zealous… offer. Using this ridiculous logic, you might as well absolve every Mormon who has ever been offered a beer, without asking first, and then partaking.
Hopefully you guys can start to realize just how absurd this defense sounds to those who harbor no presumptions in Joseph’s favor.
Aaron, if there’s any absurdity – it’s from the ex-Mormon side that raised this objection in the first place.
^^ That’s an absurd claim given what Aaron just barely said.
What the hell are you even saying.
“Joseph Smith did not initiate the business with Helen Mar Kimball”
My goodness this is awful. What normal rational person would think marrying a 14 year old was a good idea? Does not matter who started the proceedings, Joseph went along with it all the way.
What I really like about Hales and his ilk is when they try to defend Joseph and the church….
They make it look even worse.
You sure put Jeremy in his place by saying Joseph had more wives and only had sex with more then 1/2 of them…lol
Hales is a decent researcher, but he abandons the historical method in favor of motivated reasoning based on partisan religious views. If he cannot find direct evidence of sexual behavior in a marriage, he makes the unfounded leap that the marriage was platonic. The fact that any evidence of sexuality exists within these marriages (marriages that Joseph was desperate to keep secret) is astonishing. The marriages themselves are prima facie evidence that sex occurred. Absent direct evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that ALL Smith’s marriages were sexual. That’s what a professional historian would do. But Brian Hales is not a professional historian – he’s an anesthesiologist.
Here is the temple Lot case transcript:
https://archive.org/stream/TempleLotCase/Temple_Lot_Case#page/n323/mode/1up
It looks like Jeremy got it right – unless there is a better transcript out there.
anyone?
“During the Millennium, mortals will still live on earth, and they will continue to have children as we do now (see D&C 45:58). Joseph Smith said that immortal beings will frequently visit the earth. These resurrected beings will help with the government and other work. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 268.)
People will still have their agency, and for a time many will be free to continue with their religions and ideas. Eventually everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is the Savior.
Many people have died without receiving these ordinances. People on the earth must perform these ordinances for them. This work is now being done in the temples of the Lord. There is too much work to finish before the Millennium begins, so it will be completed during that time. Resurrected beings will help us correct the mistakes we have made in doing research concerning our dead ancestors. They will also help us find the information we need to complete our records. (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:167, 251–52.)”
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng
Your argument that JS was doing this so the women could have the everlasting covenant of temple marriage and thus exaltation is a stretch when JS had already taught that everyone (sans the wicked) would have the chance to complete the covenants in the Millennium.
Thus a woman that lost her husband before being sealed or who did not have the chance to find a husband due to “lack of suitable men at the time” would still have the opportunity to make that choice. Assuming that God is just and that JS and all Prophets in this dispensation are correct.
Nice try.
Whenever I hear the following:
“it is important to note that at least 13, and possibly as many as 20, were non-sexual “eternity only” sealings.”
I just want to laugh, laugh. Does this mean that because 13 were non-sexual somehow the other are OK? And as pointed out before, The fact that they did not write about the sexual encounters does not prove anything. People usually do not keep a record of when they have sex; unless they’re trying to get pregnant 🙂
Okay now this piece is a bit defensive isn’t it? A lot of people get here on the blog-o-sphere to talk about this stuff. I guess take charge at anyone who is not a “scholar” or currently in debt to an institution and who does not take favor in JS. Really though, most of us know the crummy things about JS. Polygamy is not really flattering is it? I’m not getting the hero factor within JS that Mormons love to defend. Jeremy Runells is very similar to a lot of the writers on this site, scholarly or not. Seems like you all try to ride the edge of Mormondum while some of you think its possible to just explain away the BS.
I don’t know if you are saying this, but just because someone writes a blog or uploads a website, it doesn’t mean what they say is based upon historical evidence. (Including me.)
I’m surprised so many people are defending an undocumented version of Joseph Smith and plural marriage. I would think there might be some who are grateful to learn that Runnell’s scholarship is poor. But instead, they defend his message and seem unworried about the lack of documentation and even fabricated testimony.
I appreciate Russell Stevenson’s comments above and wish we all would seek historical documentation and settle for nothing less. We might not agree, but we wouldn’t be fooled.
Best!
Brian
Brian, it’s not so much about defending Jeremy’s letter as it is pointing out that you haven’t defended anything. You’ve confirmed the problem and in some cases made it sound worse. Clearly you don’t see it that way but many of us do.
This looks like a useful correction of the historical record on a few points where Runnells wasn’t aware of the historical research about polygamy. Hopefully Runnells will correct the inaccuracies in his publication.
I think it’s kind of pathetically funny how every time an anti-Mormon writer’s conclusions get slaughtered, all that writer’s fanboys come out to whine about ad hominem.
Sissies.
Yeah, totally slaughtered Seth. We stand corrected, Joseph was only having sex with 15 of his wives, not the full 35. I guess that makes it all okay.
Adam, the only people we really care if Joseph Smith was having sex with are the underage marriages and the marriages where they still had present husbands.
I honestly don’t really care much if he was having sex or not with the others.
I will put money down saying that if definitive evidence came to light that JS had sex with a 14 year old or a married woman, you’d find a way to rationalize that as well. I’m also willing to bet that you were born into “Mormon privilege,” just like 99% of all apologists.
For the rest of us, it’s a big deal if he had sex with anyone but Emma. It’s also a big deal if he married anyone but Emma, because sex isn’t the only way you can practice infidelity.
Actually no – I probably wouldn’t rationalize it. I actually began my life in the bloggernacle thinking that Joseph was largely a marital screw-up.
It was only after repeated exposure to ex-Mormon stupidity that my views hardened the other way more and more.
So let me get this straight, you start out deploring the “ad hominem” you think is rampant here, and then you end by admitting that “Ex-mormon stupidity” helped you reaffirm your beliefs.
See what you did there?
(And in case you need it spelled out for you: “Ex-mormon stupidity” has absolutely no impact on whether Joseph was a marital screw-up.)
Well yes – learning just how inadequate the arguments for the assumptions you hold are does tend to encourage you to change those assumptions. No surprise in that.
Seth,
Ok, put your money down. I guarantee that if I showed you clear evidence that Mormonism is not what it claims to be, whether through polygamy or otherwise, you will not change your mind. This is what psychology predicts you will do, and it’s why you’re still a Mormon. I’m fairly certain of it after reading your comments here.
“I honestly don’t really care much if he was having sex or not with the others.”
Wow. THis is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. Apparently this unchanging God and his rules/laws/commandments can change at the whim of a prophet who breaks them over and over again. Why does it matter if he was having sex with other women?…because if he was then he wasnt even qualified to be a member in good standing let along a prophet who was supposedly receiving revelation. However, he did do a good job of receiving the revelation on polygamy so that the rules were very clear cut about what was and wasnt acceptable. If you choose to praise a man who was less than worthy of any praise then by all means. However, dont be surprised when many people who actually have standards look at his actions as anything but prophetic and dont buy into the lies and deception.
Pretty sure Emma cared, and that’s pretty important.
This. But she apparently doesn’t matter, and never has in any of this mess. Polygamy among consenting adults I am all good with. Polygamy in the name of God and hiding it from your wife, then threatening the damnation of her soul if she doesn’t get on board with it? NOPE! That, marrying other mens wives, and marrying young teens is where the problems come in.
Incidentally, my great grandmother told a story about how she contracted pneumonia around age 8 in late 1800s turn-of-the-century Utah. Serious stuff back then. She nearly died.
She recounts that she told her mother “if I die, don’t let them marry me to the bishop.” She didn’t care much for his looks at the time.
It was common practice back then apparently to seal any girls who died before marriageable age to whoever was the acting bishop at the time.
So sealings obviously were not always sexual in nature.
It’s just that modern American culture is so pathologically screwed up that it equates marriage with sex and thinks that sex is pretty-much the only thing marriage is.
It says more about your own mental sicknesses than Joseph Smith’s.
Seth, if the culture “is so pathologically screwed up that it equates marriage with sex” it is because of documents like ‘The Family: A Proclamation…’ and the associated arguments pushed by the Church for the reason to marry: to procreate. Pretty hard to do that without sex.
Nice story about your great grandmother, could you explain the life threatening event that was happening to Helen Mar Kimball when Joseph got married to her?
Sorry marriage usually acknowledges sex is happening since the institution has existed. During the first year of my marriage there was no evidence that my wife and myself were having sex. Did people assume that we were not?
There are several newly wed couples in my ward that again, have no evidence they are having sex. As a member of the bishopric should I be getting the Bishop to set up interviews, telling them the importance of intimacy during marriage?
That would sound more than a bit silly to me.
I’m afraid your comment doesn’t make me feel much better. Poor eight-year-old on her death bed is worried that her parents are going to seal her forever to a man she doesn’t love, or even care for. How does this not strike you as WRONG?
Nona, there is a reason the practice was changed.
However, it does demonstrate that early Mormons did not view the sealing ordinance as being primarily about sex.
You’re conflating non-sexual sealings to deceased persons with marriages between living people.
Yeah – because I believe the existence of one practice tells us how early Mormons viewed the entire practice of the sealing ordinance.
Sealings were never the same thing as marriage. They always were meant to be something more than that theologically to early Mormons.
Why is it that we trip all over ourselves to point out how human Joseph was and how that made him such a great prophet, but when it comes to explaining his motives within polygamy we make him into a super-human, that he couldn’t possibly have been motivated by sex? You can’t tell me that a man who had the type of control (religious, economic, political) he had over his community was incapable of letting that power go to his head and take whoever he desired. Even Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling included a reference to Joseph talking about much pleasure he got from one of his wives (not Emma).
According to Hales, “Joseph taught sexual polyandry was adultery and that a woman could never have two genuine husbands (D&C 22:1, 132:4)”. How is it not adultery for a man to have two wives?
Is all the current discourse we hear about equality in marriage just a facade to get us to the temple where we learn that we are pristesses to our husbands, not God?
“How is it not adultery for a man to have two wives?” This is what perplexes me to no end in these discussions. I honestly don’t understand why the polyandry thing is such an issue at all. We’ve already granted that Joseph was sleeping with multiple women, how is it suddenly unconscionable that women might have sex with multiple men? Like if we can put that nasty rumor to bed, all will be well. Women cheating on husbands?! We can’t have that! But men cheating on wives…oh, well…that’s fine.
Being a JS fan boy shows mental sickness. Don’t forget Jeremy Runnells used to be a precious believer too. Don’t disown your own that would be cruel and unusual!
Some of the most uneducated people I ever met about LDS history were faithful Mormons – so that’s hardly a rousing recommendation.
Runnels parroted all his opinions from others and didn’t do his own thinking IN the Church, and now that he’s out, he’s STILL borrowing all his own thinking from others.
Demonstrates something I’ve been saying about ex-Mormonism for years. Same defective thinking – different street address. And that’s about the sum of it.
Did Joseph Smith have any polygamous wives? Yes.
Did Joseph Smith have sex with any of them? Yes.
Did Joseph Smith lie 5 times on record about it? Yes.
Did Joseph Smith (via God of course) tell Emma she could have an additional husband? Yes, then, of course, it was a ‘trial of Abraham’ so God said, “Psyche! You don’t get another man, but Joseph get’s his.” How convenient.
Are any of the above statements true and accurate? Yes.
Is the religion therefore null and void with zero moral highground to tell anyone how to live? Yes.
That’s quite a logical jump you made.
Joseph Smith lying to Emma = Modern Mormonism has no moral ground to stand on….
I suppose you also think America has “no moral ground to stand on because Thomas Jefferson slept with his black slave too.”
Must be nice to have such an uncomplicated view of the world.
Her jump is not nearly so impressive as your dodge.
Well, there’s no point answering her questions if her entire premise is wrong in the first place, is there?
Seth
“I suppose you also think America has “no moral ground to stand on because Thomas Jefferson slept with his black slave too.””
America has a moral ground? Based on what exactly, slavery, genocide and misogyny? The start of the USA does not sound too moral to me.
Frankly I expect more of the man that has done more for the salvation of mankind, save Christ.
I look at myself and realize my many faults but going behind my wives back and committing adultery is something that I cant imagine.
Wow, so Joseph didn’t have sexual relations with 35 women. Only 15-22 women.
That makes everything better.
“Of course Runnells is entitled to his own views, but when individuals attempt to expound and defend a specific historical interpretation before the public, it seems it would be wise to familiarize themselves with the latest research on the topic.”
Any chance that the ‘latest research’ comes from anyone else besides Hales? And any chance that the ‘latest research’ is anything else than nitpicking at details? Because if all we’re arguing about is the amount of women involved or the lack of evidence for sexual consummation, I think the preponderance of evidence speaks for itself.
Godwin’s Law violation much?
This comment, BTW, was in reference to Steve Lowther’s rather asinine comparison of Brian Hales’ blog post to defending Hitler.
On another note, I find the reaction of Runnells’ apologists here rather amusing. “Well, sure, Runnells made mistakes. But he’s not writing an academic paper, so go easy on him.” And my favorite, “It shouldn’t fall upon Jeremy Runnells to rigorously defend with impeccable scholarly acumen” his accusations against Joseph Smith. For some reason Runnells gets to lob any attacks or arguments against Joseph Smith that he wants, but shouldn’t be expected to defend them when they’re criticized by those who actually know what they’re talking about.
So then my question is, why on earth should we take Runnells seriously at all? If we’re going to coddle him and insist that he shouldn’t be held accountable for his errors, then what’s the point?
“…but shouldn’t be [Runnells] expected to defend them when they’re criticized by those who actually know what they’re talking about. ”
There’s plenty of back and forth rebuttals on his website. Every few months each side takes a jab. Have you ever visited his blog or followed that scene?
Apologists are obviously taking him seriously. Maybe you should ask yourselves why?
He’s popular Gary – and his misinformation is hurting real people. Isn’t that reason enough.
It’s easy to take a clown seriously when he’s out in the parking lot with a tire iron breaking windshields.
Misinformation is hurting real people….you are exactly correct Seth. It’s interesting that you can say that his misinformation is hurting real people and completely ignore the misinformation from the church that is hurting real people. You have shown a high propensity for double standards in everything that you say. The difference once again is that Jeremy is not trying to intentionally misinform anyone….however, the same cannot be said for the leaders of the church. They have intentionally misinformed their members to keep everything faith promoting at the expense of telling the truth. If you are going to try and hold an individual like Jeremy to a standard then you better be applying that same standard to the leaders of your church that claim to be prophets, seers, and revelators
Who said Runnells should not be held accountable? From what I gather he has been quite honest in pointing out his mistakes. Hopefully he will correct any of the details in the letter if Hales information is confirmed to be correct.
The problems with church apologists is that the arguments eventually boil down to “Ha! Joseph only slept with 15 women and you said he slept with 16. In your face exmo’s!”
Do you not understand the overall point of the argument?
Well that is quite an interesting tactic in apologetics, making the case for something to be actually worse than what was stated as a means to prove otherwise. Bravo, good Sir, bravo.
“My client is innocent! My client in no way punched the defendent (34 wives and 11 married / polyandrous)! He shot, mangled, tortured, bludgeoned, and strangled the defendant! Get the facts straight! (35 wives /14 polyandrous and only had sex with most of them…but not all.”
I’m thoroughly convinced and I will go back to church on Sunday. (Do I really need a sarc tag?)
Here is the temple Lot case transcript (add the http header before the url):
archive.org/stream/TempleLotCase/Temple_Lot_Case#page/n323/mode/1up
Jeremy quoted it correctly from the official court record.
It is very disingenuous for Hales to assert that Jeremy fabricated this. I sincerely hope that the above post is updated to reflect this.
Oh he quoted PART of it correctly.
Unfortunately – Jeremy didn’t quote the whole thing. In particular, he didn’t quote the part that undermined what he wanted to say.
Why don’t you quote it if you think there is part of it that undermines his claims?
Because the original article already covered this.
Did none of you actually read it?
That’s not responsive
If Joseph Smith didn’t have sex with his polygamous wives, then he wasn’t doing it correctly, as the Book of Mormon clearly states that the Lord only sanctions polygamy for the “raising up of seed.”
So, Brian is free to have his own opinions, but those opinions clearly contradict the Book of Mormon.
James can you tell me the part where God says “I will never institute polygamy except to raise children”?
I’ve read Jacob, and I don’t remember him saying that.
Besides your wrong if you think that having sex is the only way to raise up a righteous church.
Polygamy made Mormonism tough. Made it the sort of religion that could spit in the bigoted population’s face and carry on. Made it the sort of religion that could tough out a lot of different weather for 200 years, and the kind of religion that will tough out dumb-as-bag-of-hammers CES letters as well.
Do you even know how to Mormon?
“Polygamy made Mormonism tough. Made it the sort of religion that could spit in the bigoted population’s face and carry on.”
Oh, the same religion that practiced the ultimate ‘alternative lifestyle’ just to in turn become the ‘bigoted population’ by denying and proactively campaigning against the rights of other’s who choose their own alternative lifestyle? It’s the hypocrisy that turns me from the religion.
Kessee, thank you for pointing out the REAL reason half the people here are criticizing Joseph Smith.
Because they’re mad about the gay marriage thing. It doesn’t have anything to do with the history whatsoever.
It’s about payback to those Mormons who opposed gay marriage.
Got it.
For a lot of us it is about fear of how the Mormon God really feels about women and what our place in eternity is. But thanks for assuming you know our hearts.
No. Hypocrisy of doctrine that changes at a 20 – 30 year pace with society. The God of Mormonism is the slowest most reactionary God out there. It’s a buffet of contradictions that now you no longer will accept much of what your past prophets have even said for they are now categorically all ‘speaking as men’. The polygamist founded religion calling out other’s for moral indiscretions? Hilarious.
The Mormon God changes his mind on a whim. How convenient.
Seth, you need to write a book. Your comments are terrific. Thank you. As to the JS haters:. Got a very about Joseph? Get in line. Yawn.
James, this is a straw man. Hales does not deny sexuality in some of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages. He has whole chunks of text in his three volumes devoted to addressing the evidence for sexuality in some of his marriages.
What Hales denies (or challenges) is: (1) sexuality in Joseph Smith’s marriage to Helen Kimball and (2) sexuality in Joseph Smith’s “polyandrous” marriages. These are specific arguments denying specific cases of sexuality, not a sweeping denial of any sexuality in Joseph Smith’s plural marriage.
So now that he’s been shredded by Cheryl Bruno, Brian Hales is here to come for Jeremy Runnells? Oh.
Thank you Brian Hales for your work. A general authority comment led me to FAIRlds and your work explaining Joseph’s polyandry was first I chose to read. Your scholarly article helped me realize non-LDS-approved sources were perfectly legitimate to consider.
Thank you for making your best arguments in favor of justification and explanation. Knowing someone of your high academic caliber was only able to come up with the rebuttals makes me all the more confident in my decision.
Keep pointing to Runnel’s immaterial misquotation Temple Lot transcript, to the fact Joseph had more Polyandrous wives, and arguing he didn’t really sleep with them. It’s great.
I’m happy for your faith. I’m just concerned that your faith leads you to justify activities that should not be justified.
Thank you again for your work. I’m sure it required considerable time. For me, your work was of great consequence. Brandon
“But even more unfortunate is the apparent fact that Runnells is himself unaware of those weaknesses.”
That statement made me do a double take. I had this exact same observation when trying to analyze the information Runnells put out on a different topic. It’s not that I disagreed with the arguments. It’s that I noticed a consistent pattern of Runnells not realizing what the argument even was. Many things implied fell apart on a more detailed analysis. Sometimes the implied arguments directly contradicted one another. It seems he is oblivious to this problem. And in his rebuttal to the rebuttal, my judgment was that he was chasing down details to be technically correct, but can’t see the forest for the trees.
Jeremy has stated that he isn’t necessarily making arguments, he’s just putting out there to let the reader decide. Unfortunately, the information he puts out there is blatantly skewed and biased towards the negative. That’s not exactly a good way to help the reader decide. He’s essentially just the latest anti-Mormon to provide a compilation of anti-Mormon arguments.
So yes, the statement “But even more unfortunate is the apparent fact that Runnells is himself unaware of those weaknesses.” is apt. It’s better to focus on his methodology rather than discussing point by point each topic in the dozens and dozens of pages.
I think it is super hilarious that you state Brad that he is putting information out there that is blatantly skewed and biased….oh wait….that’s exactly the same thing the LDS church does with all their information. It is all blatantly skewed and biased to be faith promoting, even at the expense of deception, dishonesty, and whitewashing.
Hi Brian,
I am still waiting on your response to my response to this comment: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/the-june-9-2014-anti-mormon-message-of-john-dehlin/#comment-193. If you’ve conceded that you don’t have a good answer for First Vision problems, I understand. I just hope you’ll follow where the evidence is pointing.
Maybe instead of attacking Jeremy Runnells, you should work on learning the rest of the history of your church.
So basically your complaint is that Brian Hales’ book on polygamy wasn’t about the First Vision?
OK…
That’s a rather interesting stance to take.
No, my stance is that defending polygamy doesn’t even matter if the First Vision didn’t happen. Brian Hales likes to act like he’s this great defender of Mormonism but he can’t even defend the most basic truth claims. A little humility goes a long way.
In Brian’s defence his chosen field of study is Joseph Smith’s polygamy, so it’s no surprise that he’d stick with what he knows.
I totally agree though that polygamy doesn’t even scratch the surface of the content of the CES Letter, and FAIR’s response to it was woefully underwhelming.
Yeah Adam, it was soooo underwhelming that Runnels just got done publishing an over 700 page response to it.
Sooo not worth bothering with, right?
Yes, he did publish a large response to it, and found that FAIR disputed only 21% of the points he was making, while actually agreeing with 28% and not responding at all to the rest.
So yeah, underwhelming.
Of course discussing polygamy matters if the First Vision didn’t happen. This is a basic logic failure on your part.
The discussion would matter even if the LDS Church was completely false – as a matter of historic interest if nothing else.
Also, I said defending, not discussing. Nice sleight of hand though.
Oh, it’s down to “21%” of it now is it? Last I checked Runnells was claiming FAIR didn’t dispute ANY of his facts.
So apparently progress can be made – even in ideological ghettos like MormonThink.
There may be hope for humanity yet.
Oh i’m so glad that Joseph Smith didn’t have sexual relations with 20 of his wives. That just verifies to me that he really was a prophet of God. If that number would have been any less, then he wouldn’t be a prophet….
Brian, please stop rearranging the chairs on the titanic and focus on the Gaping hole that is sinking the ship. AKA Joseph having multiple wives that he denied having to the membership at the time. Also the way in which he would court them i.e. angel with a drawn sword threatened me…. I just don’t get how people don’t see it for what it is.
Summarization of D&C 132—- Emma : “Joseph i don’t like that you have multiple wives”
Joseph: ” Well guess what Emma? God just talked to me and he said that if you don’t obey me you will be utterly destroyed… so there. *drops mic
This article feels so unnecessary to me. First of all, Jeremy is just a normal guy. Clearly, his CES Letter has become something more, but he’s still just an average guy.
Second, I don’t see how any of the points in this article would address the concerns of someone who “lost their testimony.”
But, Brian, you have to admit it would be just as easy to substitute “Joseph Smith” with “Warren Jeffs” and substitute the Kimballs with just about any faithful FLDS followers in your argument. Your argument doesn’t make what Joseph did *right.* It only shows that the zealous will remain so, even light of egregious abuse.
Fascinating discussion. Polygamy is certainly a sensitive subject in the Church – one that I haven’t really made my mind up on yet. On the one hand, I believe in the prophetic call of Joseph Smith and his successors. On the other, I do not like how polygamy started (and in 1890-1904 ended) with lies, in secret, and that Emma was apparently not aware of Joseph’s polygamous marriages until later – in direct contradiction to D&C 132:61. Yet I also know that many women who were approached by Joseph Smith prayed about the principle and received direct revelation that it was right.
I DO think that the argument of Brian Hales is an important one. If Joseph did not have sex with any of the younger-aged girls, or with any who were still married to their live husbands, that is an important point. At least there’s some kind of morality working here, even if it is different from society’s standards today.
I also think that dismissing the idea of “eternity only” sealings and thinking it was all just about sex ignores the importance of the sealing power to Joseph Smith. I am not saying that sex wasn’t a factor, nor am I saying that one cannot interpret the historical record differently. But to avoid giving time to the doctrinal understanding that Joseph and others had about the sealing power is to misrepresent by omitting important information.
Runnells doesn’t do very well at presenting a nuanced discussion of either polygamy or any of the other topics covered in his CES letter. I find it unfortunate that people would consider his piece as reliably demonstrating damning evidence against the Church. When in fact there are perspectives to consider (involving paradigm shifts for sure) in weighing and addressing the issues he brings up.
I also find it unfortunate when sometimes both critics and apologists demonstrate their groupish mindset (see Jonathan Haidt) in sharply attacking or ridiculing the other side instead of seeking dialogue, understanding differences of opinions, respecting the possibility of different interpretations of history, etc.
A question for Brian Hales: is Greg Kofford considering republishing your 3-volume set? Right now they are sold out on their website and, except for Vol. 3, are pretty expensive used on Amazon.
ADAM,
Agree, this is even worse than I thought. And he confirms it
Knock knock get ready for a visit from the correlation department Brian
Brian C. Hales,
Brian if it is all about the evidence, may I ask what (evidential) basis you quote Nephi as an authoritative document?
Thank you
Brian C. Hales,
Brian you ask for evidence of immorality….how ironic, you will be the most quoted lds apologist on this now.
Are you so close to the trees you miss the forest we can all see?
I don’t get you. You seem to confuse eternal marriage and polygamy. Jacob was pretty clear that polygamy only exists temporarily to have seed.
From where I read it, the ONLY reason there is plural marriage is to raise seed. Therefore there must be sex.
132 says celestial marriage sure, but where does it say it requires multiple female partners?
Also, these woman had husbands. Why did they need Joseph specifically?
And plenty were before sec 132 in 1842, and plenty before Elijah came back in 1837.
Your arguments seem so compartmentalised. They make no sense.
I applaud your honesty that he did marry these women though, just don’t be too honest, or you’ll either walk out, or be asked to leave.
Brian C. Hales,
Your comments horrify me.
These were children. They need to be protected from people who exploit these situations and people who excuse, and justify such behavior
If I understand correctly, you recently served as President of Utah medical association, and as President of Medical staff at a hospital and medical centre.
My Lord this disturbs me
Well, good thing there’s zero evidence they were sexual relationships in the first place, and actually evidence to the contrary. Right Boyd?
Seth, there is no evidence ‘to the contrary’.
Actually there is evidence to the contrary – that was in Hales’ argument, if you’d bothered to read it.
Sorry, Seth. Read it again. There is no evidence that ‘no sexual relations took place’ for any of these unions. Otherwise you’d be able to point to this, but it does not exist, so you cannot.
The fact that they were married is prima facie evidence of a sexual relationship
No it isn’t actually.
And sealings in the temple are not the same thing as marriage, incidentally.
Actually, it is. Sex is the default state of any marriage, barring evidence to the contrary. Joseph was married to these girls, not sealed to them after their deaths.
Brian C. Hales,
Ironic.
I’m surprised you are defending the _documented_version of Joseph Smith and plural marriage.
Wrong, wrong, wrong
“Of course accuracy matters and Jeremy was as accurate as his research took him.”
My point exactly-his accuracy was limited just as his research was limited. Funny how the two work together like that.
Seth R.,
I don’t care about gay marriage, but I care about Mormon history and how it shows the religion to be a fraud. I guess you’re wrong again.
Brad P.,
>>hat I noticed a consistent pattern of Runnells not realizing what the argument even was. Many things implied fell apart on a more detailed analysis
Hi Brad.
.why don’t you list then?
I’d love to read that
Seth R.,
Doesn’t it also matter if they were virgins?
If you want the current address of defective thinking, check out rationalfaiths.com.
No no…ignoring the history is why it grows and confirmation bias is why it will withstand the CES letter.
If the CES letter is as smart as a bag of hammers, and FAIR agreed with nearly 80% of it while Jeremy wiped the floor with them on most of the remaining 20%; what does that say about the apologists and their “feed me feed me” followers?
You win Seth. Clearly, Jeremy made no valid points. There’s nothing odd in Church history that could sincerely shake a testimony. And everything can be simply explained – no bizarre twists of logic, wild assumptions or re-defined words needed. Ex-Mormons just want to sin or are all very dumb. Not a single one is well educated.
Mance, Jeremy used to claim FAIR didn’t dispute any of his facts. So I guess he’s backing away from that then?
That’s encouraging to hear.
By the way – getting 20% of your facts wrong in your historical thesis is enough to earn you a big fat “F” at school.
Better luck on the third draft, eh?
Im sorry, did Jeremy submit this as a peer reviewed paper? Did he submit this as a college paper?
If we are going on percentage of facts wrong, lets also apply those standards to FARMS and FAIR then.
I expect you to get on your tapir and ride off before trying to defend those bunch of jokers.
Jeremy is an amateur who has tried to get as much right as he could, he details the errors he made on the website. Its a shame the apologists don’t do the same. Also a shame that the CES director has to resort to hiding behind fairmormon too.
Bob, are you willing to give Brian Hales the same benefit of the doubt?
After all, Jeremy called him an “amateur” recently as well (my irony meter about exploded when he did it too… but anyway…).
Sure, I have read Hales site front and back.
I learned from Hales that Joseph did have sex with some of his wives, that he got sealed to 14 year olds and he lied repeatedly about doing so.
In my eyes these are serious issues, this is not the type of man I want to be singing “Praise to the Man”.
Runnells has just packaged the damning overall evidence against the church, apologists quibble in essence about missing commas while ignoring the overall point of the evidence (which they agree is true).
Actually FAIR doesn’t agree with any of Runnells’ conclusions.
It’s true enough that Runnells gets individual historical facts right in many cases – like getting Joseph Smith’s birthdate correct, or correctly naming a woman he was sealed to.
But the conclusions he draws from the data are pretty much all disagreed with by FAIR – Runnells’ juvenile bragging to the contrary.
They do agree, they just argue with things like polygamy that Joseph didnt sleep with every single one of his wives.
The problem all along is that he had sex with at least one of them.
The book of Abraham explanations from FAIR and the church fly in the way of any form of common sense.
Sorry FAIR have proven themselves to be entirely useless at providing a satisfactory answer for many of the questions in the CES letter.
They resort to things like, ohhhhh did you know Jeremy posts on the exmormon board of reddit!
I dont particularly like the format of Randalls letter, it makes it hard to read. The FAIR rebuttal though is laughable.
Lots and lots of “perhaps”, “dont know”, “maybe”.
If we had good explanations of these problems we would not have people leaving the church in droves. I would not see less and less people at stake leadership meetings, I would not see the average attendance go down in my ward so that we have to fudge our numbers each week. The church is not in a good place at the moment and FAIR has been ineffective to stop the bleed out.
I will be providing a response at http://cesletter.com/jeremy-runnells-new-expert-joseph-smiths-polygamy-response.html
You know Jeremy, at the rate you’re going, you’re never going to be able to “retire” like you claimed you wanted to three months ago.
I’m going to say this as an apologist whose own life got eaten up by apologetic work for a couple years and who also experienced burnout and so forth –
Jeremy – it never ends. Ever.
There will always be a new response. There will always be someone with new criticisms of what you wrote. There will always be remarks you consider unfair. There will always be an urge to defend. It will – not – end.
It was that way for me. And I’m pretty certain it will be that way for you too.
Take that for whatever it’s worth, from a guy that really didn’t like your CES Letter, but who takes at face-value your claim that this is taking its toll on you and your family. I know, because it took it’s toll on mine.
And I’m warning you now – there is no end to this fight. You’re going to have to decide how you feel about that.
The difference is Jeremy’s CES letter is helping expose the Mormon church as a fraud and it aids people to look at the issues and decide if they want to still be a believer in this fraud or leave it behind.
Many people have left the Mormon church after reading the CES letter. This is a great work Jeremy has done and many people are grateful to him for it.
Uh huh, sure.
And I’ve gotten my own stash of grateful emails too Paylayale. So has FAIR.
We’ve all got our fans. My point that the fight isn’t going to end and he’ll have to decide how he feels about that remains however.
Seth R., for a second there, it sounded like you were responding with compassion. I think I prefer this version of Seth.
Warm Regards.
Jeremy,
How do you, with a straight face, call Brian Hales an “amateur” on this subject when you yourself have exactly zero academic publications to your name on the subject of Joseph Smith’s plural marriage?
http://plonialmonimormon.blogspot.com/2014/07/whos-real-amateur.html
Can we all agree that neither of them are professional or credible historians?
No, we can’t.
Hales has published his work in peer reviewed journals (see the link I posted). And he employs a research assistant (Don Bradley) who is an actual historian. AND the two of them together have been doing primary research (hunting down, collecting, and synthesizing primary sources) for a decade (if I recall what Hales told me correctly). The two of them have, in many ways, done groundbreaking work, especially on such topics as Joseph Smith’s marriage to Fanny Alger. To add the cherry on top, I’ve heard Hales’ work complimented by some excellent historians in the field of Mormon history.
What has Jeremy done? Oh, that’s right. He spent a year using Google, regurgitated the older (and in some cases out of date) work of others, and then self-published it online. How many peer reviewed publications does he have to his name? None. How much original research has he done that in any way is comparable to Hales’ and Bradley’s? None.
So, no. We cannot agree. Someone sure is an amateur around here, but it ain’t Hales. Is Hales a “professional” historian? Well, no. But does he therefore have no credibility? Hardly! The venues where his work has appeared (two of the top journals in current Mormon historiography) speaks to his credibility. But with Jeremy? Not so much.
Hales is indeed an excellent historian of sorts. The reams of data that he has uncovered regarding Smith’s marriages is significant and well-detailed.
The problem is that his conclusions are rigged by only allowing to defend Smith at all costs to ensure that ‘the prophet’ is not exposed as anything but.
Hales defense of Smith in light of the facts that he has uncovered is akin to impeccably documenting every detail of the timeline leading up to World War II, then summing up and editorializing it by telling your audience that Poland forced Germany to invade it because the Poles insisted on standing in the way of German gunfire.
I’ll grant you hales is a good researcher, but he’s a terrible “historian”. Historians use the historical method. Hales draws a target around where his arrow has landed. His research skills are good, but he’s no historian. I didn’t see what publications he’s been in, but apologetics don’t really count. Organizations like FairMormon and interpreter are decidedly on the fringe, and are roughly analogous to the Center for UFO Studies or The Discovery Institute.
Has Hales been published in by a credible journal?
I find it humorous that a teenager armed only with Google wrote something that FairMormon has not been able to convincingly refute.
Hales is not a scholar. He’s an anesthesiologist who hired Don Bradley to do his research for him. He then wrote 3 books using his employee’s homework.
Author? Sure. Apologist? Yes. Amateur? Yes. Scholar? No. He’s an apologist disguising himself as a scholar. The real scholars in the field of polygamy have issues with many of Hales’ conclusions and interpretations.
Anyone with big bucks and writing skills can do what Brian did. All you have to do is hire guys like Don Bradley to do all the work for you and then you throw the stuff in a nice hardcover book with your name on it.
I never claimed to be a scholar or expert or that my letter is an academic paper. This is the false assumption that Brian makes in his hit piece.
This article is ludicrous. Its the equivalent of standing in front of a massive rock slide and then wiping your head in relief when a small boulder is knocked out of your path.
Joseph did have sex with some of his wives, that we know for certain. He did keep these wives a secret from Emma. He did get sealed to 14 year olds.
You see, people with some form of common sense and moral decency would no doubt be outraged and disgusted by someone asking them to marry their barely teen daughter. Brother Joseph is a look before you leap guy obviously, I cant fault him on those grounds.
I cannot think of one christ like principle in the practice of polygamy.
Jacob 2:30
If the Lord wants to “raise up seed” he will command polygamy. If not, the people aren’t to practice it.
Let me take a very common Mormon approach when Active members talk to people who have left the church….”don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” The CES letter does a very good job across the board of discussing many lies, covered history, altered history, deception, untruths, whitewashed Mormon history, etc. Ok, yes….he may have gotten some details wrong occasionally…but you are trying to discredit him based on one small thing. If this the is the case and we can discredit based on tiny errors then the Mormon church should be scrutinized even that much more for all the mistruths they have taught throughout the years….mistruths that have a far reaching affect on millions. Where is the prophet on all this? Why can’t the prophet stand and declare the truth as god has given it to him? Why can’t the prophet come out and clarify all of this? Instead, apologists and PR people spend most of the time declaring the supposed clarification of The Lord. Here’s one thing I do know….Joseph smith wouldn’t even qualify for membership in the church today. He wouldn’t be able to obtain a temple recommend. He would be an excommunicated member.mit doesn’t matter if he had sex with only some of his marriages or all of them….he still wouldn’t be a member today. So why does this matter? The man who was charged with a supposed restoration and given so much direct communication from god wasn’t even worthy to be a member of the church that he was claiming to be founding on charge from god and Jesus. He is no man that I would respect today. If my father, or friends, or associates did the things he did we would not be friends and I certainly would not hold him in high regard. So let’s quit nitpicking the tiny little details and look at the big picture. If this is a man you want to hold In High esteem then by all means do it. If you can justify his lies and deception and sexual deviancy and marrying other women and burning the printing press and everything else then go for it….
Actually, getting polygamy wrong isn’t a “small thing” considering how central it is to so many people’s objections about Joseph Smith. If Runnells got polygamy wrong, his essay is hardly even worth reading further, to be honest.
However, polygamy isn’t the only issue Runnells gets wrong by a longshot.
Great argument Seth….so your stating that if runnels got polygamy wrong then the rest of the essay isn’t even worth reading. Well, here’s a news flash….the LDS church has never taught about polygamy and polyandry correctly, so based on your logic the rest of the church isn’t worth paying attention to.
Seth, Jeremy may have got some of the facts wrong (for all we know he hasn’t, we are taking Hales for his word here), but the rest of the argument he has used (and he certainly isn’t the first to use it) is that Joseph was sleeping with women other than his wife, he was doing so in secret.
We have direct evidence he was doing this, the rest of the accusations cannot be directly proven because we don’t have a handwritten account. I fall into the natural conclusion that if he is having sex with other women, would it not make sense he was having sex with the ones we don’t have direct proof of as well? Is that crazy talk?
I will even give Joseph a break and say he wasnt sleeping with every single one of them, so I will scrub the 14 year olds off the list (even though it shows a serious lack of moral judgement).
Joseph’s interactions with Emma on this are hardly cut and dried.
Emma would support polygamy and approve a marriage one moment, then change her mind and not support it the next.
I don’t think the assertion that Emma didn’t know what was going on stands up to scrutiny.
Incidentally, I still don’t personally like the way Joseph Smith handled it. But he was in kind of a no-win situation with Emma. Don’t just assume that I support Joseph Smith 100% here – I just don’t find Runnells’ attempt to explain him credible.
Either way however, glad we have polygamy as a theological feature of LDS doctrine. It offers a lot of advantages to our theology in the long run.
He was in a no-win situation with Emma….lmao! It was a self imposed situation. He chose to lie to her. He chose to take up other wives. He chose it. He created the no win situation.
And please….tell me….what advantages does polygamy offer to your theology? It offers misogyny, patriarchal control, etc. There are no advantages at all
JOSEPH was in a no-win situation?! What about Emma–accept polygamy or be destroyed. No wonder she waffled on the issue.
Honestly, all this squabbling over which wives he did or didn’t sleep with is so silly. If my entire education on the subject came purely from D&C 132, I would STILL come to the conclusion that polygamy is an abhorrent, hateful, sexist, evil practice.
“Emma would support polygamy and approve a marriage one moment, then change her mind and not support it the next.”
“Emma if you dont support polygamy you will be destroyed.”
So Emma gets a direct threat from God yet she still opposes polygamy at the end. Sounds like she was not happy about it at all.
Pretty simple really.
It means the human heart is not limited to one person in the eternities. Which is an entirely appropriate development to make.
I don’t love any one of my kids more than the other.
So I see no reason why in heaven – where human inequality, selfishness, jealousy and all the rest will not be a factor – why the human heart must be restricted to one person only.
On a more practical level, it avoids forcing a man or woman who marries, loses a spouse and then remarries from having to choose which spouse he or she “loves more.”
Which is a big theological plus actually. If you believe in eternal families as a part of your theology – you really do have to believe that polygamy is at least an option in heaven to avoid inconsistency.
Your comment only relates to men. It is all fine and dandy to have a heart for more than one person but that is only for men. How do you not see that and not understand what the problem is with what you have written?
The LDS church taught for over a hundred years that it was doctrine that blacks could not have the priesthood because it was Gods will. Now they admit it was because Brigham was a racist and there is no evidence it was ever Gods will to withhold the priesthood from the blacks or keep them out of the temple.
The church was lead astray by the prophets in this matter for over 100 years.
So by your criteria the rest of LDS teachings are not worth reading.
A religion isn’t an essay.
Besides, the Mormon church has a much better track record for being on the right side of things than this essay does.
What track record are you talking about Seth? The track record of racism? The track record of misogyny? The track record of whitewashing their own history? The track record of turning declared doctrine into folk doctrine? The track record of following the doctrine of blood atonement? The track record of massacring 130+ settlers passing through? The track record of letting thousands and thousand of malnourished LDS children continue to be malnourished at the same time you are building a multi billion dollar mall and shopping center? The track record of telling gays that they are evil….shock aversion therapy….ostracizing them? The track record of declaring that science that has been proven can’t disprove these beliefs? Damn….the list goes on and on. I’m not for sure what track record you are referring to but it’s gotta be good
Yes Garrett, I’m well aware you can cherry pick all the nasty tidbits you don’t like, and ignore all the positive examples that run contrary to your narrative as well as the next Joe or Jane on the Internet.
“Besides, the Mormon church has a much better track record for being on the right side of things than this essay does.”
You are joking right?
– Slavery
– Polygamy
– Temple ordinances
– Priesthood ban
– Birth control
– Prying into members sex lives
I struggle to think of a time when the church was forward thinking.
Seth, I’m still waiting for this excellent explanation on how the LDS church has consistently been on the right side of history. And once I have this explanation we need to run it through your filter of what is a good percentage and not. Apparently if more than 20% is on the incorrect side then we must disregard all of it just like you have disregarded Jeremy for his being 20% incorrect (even though you don’t tell where the 20% incorrect actually is). I’m really excited to see all the positive things that the LDS church has done to be on the right side of things in history.,…should be a fun time
Keep waiting Garrett. Because I never said they were consistently on the “right side of history” (whatever that useless little catch phrase means – probably whatever you want it to mean).
You are the one that said that the LDS church has a better track record of being I the right side of things so you tell me what you meant by that. Right side of things….right side of history….both meaning the same thing. Since you are the one making absurd claims please explain yourself, seth
Actually, better to let this topic drop – since it’s off-topic anyway. The LDS Church’s social track record has little to do with a discussion of the facts of historical polygamy. There’s an argument to make, and I’ve made it before now. But I’d just be hijacking discussion anyway.
You can have the last word on this one.
Hi Everyone!
I wish I had more time to respond, but I do recommend that people check my three volumes and the website http://JosephSmithsPolygamy.org.
For Jeremy, I wrote you before I anyone had approached me to respond to your latest website post. In fact, I held back the essay awaiting your response. In the one email you sent, you mentioned that we had gotten off to a back start. I hoped we could have corrected that, but I never received a second email from you. After waiting over a week, I finished up the essay and sent it on to be posted. This really doesn’t matter though. I’m happy to continue our dialogue regarding Joseph Smith’s polygamy privately or publicly in whatever venue suits you. I’m saddened that you are willing to misrepresent Joseph and his teachings and practices and will gladly engage in discussion on that topic.
There has been some confusion regarding the Lorenzo Snow testimony at the deposition; The Temple Lot legal case transcript covers more than 1,650 pages. The originals are housed at the Eighth District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, with a carbon copy at the Community of Christ Archives. The LDS Church History Library offers both microfilm and digital photographs of the microfilm (unrestricted). A 507-page version has been published and distributed by several booksellers including Herald House and Price Publishing Company; however, heavy editing makes this version of little or no use to polygamy researchers. Apparently parts of the original transcript have been digitally transcribed by Richard D. Ouellette.
The statement quoted by Runnells is from one of the edited versions and I’m not surprised that the RLDS editor added some commentary that has been mistaken as have been stated in the original testimony.
Here’s the transcript:
189 Q. And the man that violated this law in this book [Doctrine and Covenants 1835 edition] until the acceptance of that revelation by the church violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage? A. Yes Sir. He was cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.
190 Q. What would be the condition of the man that would marry more than one person prior to the giving of that revelation in 1843? A. What would be the condition of a man that would do that?
191 Q. Yes sir? A. Why he would be cut off from the Church.
192 Q. Would not it have been adultery under those revelations I have just read? A. Yes sir. I expect it would be.
193 Q. You are one of the apostles in the church at the present time are you not . . .
I have posted a scanned copy of the actual document here:
http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/lorenzo-snows-temple-lot-testimony/
The scan may be skewed in your views, but you and download it or right click on “open image in new tab” to see it and enlarge it as you please.
Thanks,
Brian Hales
Seth R.,
Well….start naming some positive ones. You are more than willing to condemn Jeremy on his ces letter because you state that he has gotten 20% of his information incorrect, and therefore would have failed if it was a thesis paper. The Lds church has gotten much more wrong and been on the wrong side of history on much more than 20% so based on your logic the Lds church once again fails. The difference between the Lds church and Jeremy is that Jeremy is not claiming to be a prophet, seer, and revelator and he’s not claiming to hold absolute unchanging truth. The church on the other hand is screwing up with a supposed prophet, seer, and revelator who claims revelation from god.
Not if you are defending Joseph Smith as a prophet. Hales does that all the time in his work.
How is her entire premise wrong? She’s citing clear examples of blatant immorality on the part of Mormonism’s founder. Her conclusion is that therefore Mormonism has no business telling people how to behave (see also “hypocrisy”). What don’t you understand, exactly?
Joseph wasn’t merely sealed to those girls. He was married to them. Both parties were living. The category of “sealing” you are trying to suggest (platonic non-familial sealing between two living persons) does not exist in LDS practice or theology, past or present.
Hi Everyone,
On a blog at Rational Faiths Jeremy Runnells wrote:
“Hales is not a scholar. He’s an anesthesiologist who hired Don Bradley to do his research for him. He then wrote 3 books using his employee’s homework.
“Author? Sure. Apologist? Yes. Amateur? Yes. Scholar? No. He’s an apologist disguising himself as a scholar. The real scholars in the field of polygamy have issues with many of Hales’ conclusions and interpretations.
“Anyone with big bucks and writing skills can do what Brian did. All you have to do is hire guys like Don Bradley to do all the work for you and then you throw the stuff in a nice hardcover book with your name on it.
“I never claimed to be a scholar or expert or that my letter is an academic paper. This is the false assumption that Brian makes in his hit piece.”
The irony I detect is that Jeremy accused me (on FB) of mounting a “personal ad hominem attack” and then he labels me an “apologist disguising himself as a scholar.” Runnells is correct that I am an amateur historian. I do not have a PhD in history and so will never be a professional historian. In fact, I tell people my books are part of my “full anesthesia services.”
It is also true that Don Bradley did most of the field research. In addition, he contributed to the overall interpretations in the book, but I alone am responsible for what is written. Don was living with my family at the time and we had so many conversations regarding the evidences, that I ultimately listed him as an assistant, a title he clearly deserved. For clarification, I did all the writing, except for a few excerpts from emails Don sent to me that are all plainly identified and footnoted. Don did a great job and I’m grateful for his help. The three volumes could not have been written without his contribution.
Frankly, I’ve never been a fan of labels like “apologist” and “anti-Mormon.” I think people resort to labels when they run out of evidence to support their positions. I have invited Jeremy to defend his interpretation of Joseph Smith’s involvement with plural marriage. I don’t expect to change his current convictions (but I wish he would for his sake). I do believe that he and many other writers have used assumptions, misrepresentations, and half-truths to support their claims. The way for everyone to win (even though we will undoubtedly not agree) is for Jeremy and me to use documentation and less rhetoric in explaining and defending out interpretations. That is the challenge.
Over the past few years I’ve tried to view every known document dealing with polygamy. As a consequence of that effort, my belief in Joseph as a true prophet, a reluctant polygamist, and a man who tried sincerely to live his teachings, has been strengthened. It is quite a different story than the fraud, hypocrite, and adulterer portrayed by Jeremy. I believe that when all of the evidence is available, Joseph does just fine.
Jeremy has promised me a response so I wait. I agree with Austin Farrer who said: “Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” The process continues.
Thanks,
Brian Hales
When I read about how polygamy was implemented and practiced, when I pray about it, or study D&C 132, I don’t feel like the Holy Ghost confirms that it was a good thing. What am I supposed to do with that?
Keep praying Greg….the god that implemented polygamy is a misogynistic, patriarchal god….eventually he will bless you to know it is ok for you as a male to have a harem of women
Garrett,
Play nice.
Love,
Mike
My sarcasm level might be a little high after dealing with Seth and his BS for the last few days, my apology
You guys started it.
Don’t be surprised when you act like angry jerks online if you get pushback.
We started it….oh dear lord you have real issues Seth of you think we started this whole thing
Brian, please read, very carefully, the title of this blog post written by you over at your website: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/the-june-9-2014-anti-mormon-message-of-john-dehlin/. You seemed perfectly fine slapping that label on John Dehlin, despite not being a fan of it. Are you admitting that you “[ran] out of evidence to support your position”?
Mr. Hales continuously plugging your website/books will not change the fact that many rational readers who have read both source and secondary materials disagree with your conclusions. The ridiculous misdirection with minute details doesn’t change the facts that you acknowledge that Joseph was a serial philanderer. I appreciate your civil discourse and even respect your faith and belief. However, many people still rationally and thoughtfully disagree and will never find a way to excuse the inappropriate behavior.
Honestly, I see very little wrong with polygamy as a concept for the afterlife. I see it as having a lot of problems in being mortally implemented.
But the biggest problem with the mortal implementation of polygamy is the lack of social support and regulation of it in modern society, and the culture of secrecy that has grown up around certain polygamous communities.
If those problems of infrastructure and secrecy were solved, polygamy would probably have no more problems than monogamy does. Janet Bennion in her interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories basically said as much. In all her studies of the “Allred faction” of polygamists in North America, she found no higher incidence of poverty, spousal neglect, child or spousal abuse, or welfare fraud than could be found in the surrounding monogamous population.
The problem is – everyone looks at the FLDS compounds and thinks – “that’s what polygamy is like.”
Actually, it isn’t. No more than the Branch Davidians were what fundamentalist Christianity “looks like.” The FLDS are a social experiment gone horribly wrong and allowed to ferment in isolation from the rest of society. Polygamy in the late 1800s of Utah didn’t look even remotely like the FLDS fiasco, and neither do the majority of modern polygamous families. People don’t realize that the FLDS are actually not the majority of Mormon spinoff polygamous groups. They only account for a minority percentage (a big percentage – but still a minority). Again, this is from Bennion’s interview with John Dehlin.
So when people start revealing their personal sexual outlooks by throwing around words like “harem” it really doesn’t describe the reality of polygamy, anymore than the words “sex slave” describe monogamous marriages generally. It can be taken merely as a projection of the person’s own sexual fantasies onto the lives of other people.
Polygamy offers a few theological benefits as a concept.
1. It doesn’t need to be mandatory – and no – Brigham Young did not say it was mandatory. In fact, there were never more than a minority of faithful LDS men practicing polygamy under Brigham Young’s tenure – and he explicitly stated that was fine since most men, quite frankly, couldn’t afford to be polygamists financially. And I don’t believe it ever will be universally demanded.
2. In heaven, you don’t have insecurities, jealousies, hatreds, and so forth – so a lot of the emotional worries about polygamy just aren’t a factor anymore.
3. In heaven, you’re simply going to have people who have loved more than one man or woman in their lives. You’re going to have to face the problem that it’s rather cruel and unjust to force such people to choose in the eternities.
4. The sealing power is more than just marriages, it involves temple work for the dead, sealing of families, and the ultimate Mormon quest to unify the saints in “one heart and one mind.” Mormon theology posits that God himself is one in heart and mind with the other members of the godhead, and has invited us to be “one” as well – both with him and with each other.
Joseph Smith’s overarching theological quest during his life (however he may have stumbled in implementing it) – was nothing short of the unification of the ENTIRE human family in sacred covenant bonds. Polygamy was a natural facet of that larger theological concern he had. I believe that Joseph wanted EVERYONE sealed to each other. Where all were of one heart and mind. And it was his assessment that if all were not sealed together in such a way – we could not be like God, we would be disunified. And, “if ye are not one, ye are not mine.”
Polygamy is another useful theological tool for allowing Mormonism to keep its theological consistency, and allow this future dream of unification in love to become a reality.
5. I have yet to encounter one problem with polygamy that wasn’t also equally (if not moreso) a problem with monogamy.
6. “Polygamy” is not just one male with more than one female spouse. Here are the official definitions:
-Polygyny: One man – multiple wives.
-Polyandry: One woman – multiple husbands.
-Polygamy: BOTH polygyny and polyandry.
-Polyamory: The practice of having multiple lovers of any gender.
I view either polyandry or polygyny as theologically acceptable – and the reality is – the modern LDS Church practices both in it’s work for the dead. It is not practiced by the living. But both men and women have been sealed to multiple spouses in the course of LDS temple work. So it’s basically already happening.
Note: this is purely my own opinion of the state of things. Reasonable people may disagree – and have.
7. I view our current monogamous culture as being somewhat dysfunctional in its expectations and it’s outcomes. The truth is, our nation is full of polygamists already. We just call them divorcees now.
People divorce, remarry, divorce, and remarry again. Serial monogamy, if you will. And no one seems much fussed about that. So what exactly is the problem if someone wants to do something similar, but just decides to commit to all the spouses and not ditch them when things don’t go perfectly?
I find it deeply ironic that our modern dysfunctional marital culture is even leveling criticisms at polygamy. On the level of expectations, I find the modern reduction of the concept of marriage to “adult romance” to be highly distasteful and damaging to the culture in the long run.
Oh, and just to get it out of the way – since the ad hominems usually start at this point:
– No, I don’t want to practice polygamy in life. I’d make a lousy polygamist. If my daughters wanted to do it – I’d probably object for practical reasons.
– Yes, I would be fine with my wife having two husbands in heaven.
– Yes, my wife does know about these opinions – we’ve discussed them as a fun what-if scenario before, and she’s fine with it either way as well. And I know several other women as casual acquaintances who aren’t hostile to the notion either (some of them weren’t even Mormon).
I don’t really view Joseph’s implementation of polygamy as perfect by a long shot. Some of it I don’t even view as particularly admirable or praiseworthy (the lying-to-Emma point is completely valid). But I do believe he was commanded to do it. I believe in the long run, it worked out as a net benefit to the LDS Church and its work. And I believe it has a place in our theology and should not be simply dismissed as another historically bad idea.
“Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.16, p.166 – p.167)
Perhaps it wasn’t mandatory, but this makes me very sad.
Brigham Young immediately clarified that remark as meaning that all men in the Church needed to accept the PRINCIPLE of polygamy or lose blessings. He said explicitly that not all needed to practice it.
So before deciding to get all sad about this – be sure to read everything he said on the subject and not just the cliff notes version over at MormonThink.
[Citation not found]
This statement was not followed up by an immediate clarification. I went back to the Harold B Lee online library and re-read the entire discourse. I included the reference for the entire sermon if you’re interested. I don’t read MormonThink. I don’t like the tone over there.
I’m still trying to understand your argument in relation to Brigham’s quote. Are you saying that if the man who didn’t multiply his one talent had “accepted” the principle that he needed to multiple it, then he would’ve been okay?
Perhaps you are correct Greg on the “immediate” bit. However there is material from Young indicating that actual practice of polygamy was not required for salvation. First being the FULL quote here (critics never seem to want to quote the whole thing):
“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 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.”
Brigham Young, “Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City,” (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269.
Brigham was making several points here which critics ignore:
1. The command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
2. To obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be “polygamists at least in your faith”: i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
3. It was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
4. Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive “all that the Father has” if they willfully disobey God. When the people have “had blessings offered unto them,” and if they refuse to obey, God will withhold blessings later because of that disobedience now.
Finally, keep in mind that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There no need to speculate about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as present-day members do not.
There are other remarks by Brigham Young that express the same concept:
“I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.
Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:527 (journal entry dated 12 February 1870).
And
“Then President Young spoke 58 Minuts [sic]. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord.”
Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 7:31 (journal entry dated 24 September 1871).
Other leaders also made remarks about Young to the same effect:
When a debate in the School of the Prophets arose when one claimed that “no man who has only one wife in this probation can ever enter [the] Celestial kingdom,” both Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor disagreed.
Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Volume 3: Theology (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 208. citing Salt Lake City School of the Prophets, Minutes (10 February 1873).
George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, noted in 1884 that “he believed there would be men in the Celestial Kingdom that had but one wife,” and in 1900 a counselor to Wilford Woodruff remembered Brigham Young “proposed that we marry but one wife.”
Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 3, 208., citing Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 8:235 (journal entry dated 9 March 1884). ISBN 0941214133. and John Henry Smith as cited in John P. Hatch, editor, Danish Apostle: The Diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890–1921 (10 January 1900), 72.
Other leaders and members expressed similar views.
In 1892, Wilford Woodruff and others were asked, in essence, “if Joseph Smith had ever taught you at Nauvoo or anywhere else during his lifetime, that in order for a man to be exalted in the hereafter, he must have more than one wife?”
Woodruff
“I don’t know that I ever heard him make use of that expression or use that form of expression.”
Bathsheba W. Smith
“I never heard of that.”
Joseph C. Kingbury
“No sir. He did not teach me that. He did not say anything about that….I heard it preached from the stand that a man could be exalted in eternity with one wife.”
Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 3, 194., citing Temple Lot Transcript, Respondent’s Testimony, Part 3, p. 66, question 698; p. 205, question 600; p. 225, questions 1028–1029; p. 319, questions 590–91.
Daniel H. Wells, second councilor to Brigham Young, made it clear that plural marriage was then a commandment, but it was necessary to obey only when they had “a thorough understanding” of the doctrine and “other circumstances [were] favorable” for practicing it:
“It [plural marriage] was a doctrine of the church that when male members came to a thorough understanding of the revelation on the principle of plural or celestial marriage, and other circumstances being favorable, if they failed to obey it they would be under condemnation, and would be clipped in their glory in the world to come. The circumstances that would excuse a person would be physical incapacity and the like….The doctrine was enjoined upon all male members of the Church whose circumstances were favorable to their taking a plurality of wives.”
Daniel H. Wells, “Local and Other Matters… The Reynolds Trial,” Deseret News Weekly (15 December 1875): 732, cited in Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 3, 206–207.
Seth it’s baffling that you are able to acknowledge all the problems with polygamy as implemented “in mortality,” yet still accept it as some heavenly principle. Wasn’t Joseph Smith called to set up the kingdom of God on earth? If HE couldn’t even figure out how to correctly implement this heavenly principle, even on a limited scale, then why do you trust that it’s even a true principle at all? Do you not see the glaring disconnect? You’re accepting the word of a guy who screwed the practice up (to say the last) in believing that it’s even a thing in heaven. The motivated reasoning is off the charts. Meanwhile, the suggestion that “celestial marriage” was simply a poorly conceived cover story for a guy who wanted to have sex with lots of women just so happens to almost entirely explain the facts on the ground. It has FAR more explanatory power than D&C 132, that’s for sure.
Just seems like so much wasted mental effort, all this apology. Enough lipstick already. People aren’t gonna kiss this pig. The church’s relative lack of penetration and growth compared to the world’s population as a whole make it painfully obvious that people just aren’t buying Mormonism. Polygamy, along with numerous other issues, simply do not pass the smell test.
Aaron, I’m not really particularly upset about discovering that a human being – even a prophet messed up.
No, I don’t have the sort of high expectations of Joseph Smith that you do. Nor do I expect a Church to be free of the problems common to the rest of the world. I consider such expectations to be unrealistic.
Nor do I consider the sole purpose of God and Church and prophets to be to reassure my own insecurities, pat me on the head and help me feel confident that as long as I’m a Mormon I’m doing just fine.
What you are asking for is the common set of fundamentalist demands of religion.
“I want religion to assure me that I’m better than other people.”
“I want prophets to assure me that their words are superior to the words I can find from any other source”
“I want assurance that I belong to the best religious club on the planet.”
“I need, I want, I deserve, I, I, I…”
You see a pattern here?
Thing is – it’s all bunk. You and I don’t deserve to feel superior to others out there. We don’t deserve to be special. We don’t deserve to be validated, and honestly we don’t even deserve the truth. Church and God do not exist solely for the purpose of soothing your own personal inadequacies and insecurities.
Stand on your own feet. Find your own faith, and quit blaming Joseph Smith for whether you do or do not have it. This is your own responsibility.
Seth, the church stands loud and proud saying they are the only true church on the Earth. The only one to have gods mouthpiece giving revelation. It proclaims divine origins, led by a man that has been set up to be worshiped.
I dont blame Joseph for anything to do with myself, but dont expect me to say he was a prophet chosen by God or not point out the obviously flawed character he was to others.
Yeah – I didn’t hear anything about infallibility in there. The LDS Church has no doctrine of infallibility. Nor should they be expected to be free of the failings other human organizations have had.
Makes life painfully nuanced for the fundamentalists of the world, but tough.
Delusion according Jeremy T. Runnells, “is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something”
Delusion according to the dictionary is a “idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder”
Runnels thinks there is undeniable proof against the Church, and that his evidence is the final word. Runnels thinks that Parallels, late anti-Mormon sources, “Witnesses as empirical”, Comoros vs Holley Map, the internet, and many other arguments are undeniable proof.
Runnells wrote, “Joseph had absolutely no business whatsoever marrying a child such as Helen for any other reason than to have sex with her as there is no other legitimate or justifiable reason, based on the revealed rulebook on polygamy in D&C 132 and Jacob 2:30 given to Joseph by his god, for the polygamous marriage to 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball.”
That is not abundant evidence Runnels, that is a fallacy. Even if D&C 132 and Jacob 2:30 don’t allow other reasons, that still doesn’t prove that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen.
I personally don’t know anyone with a strong testimony that “went into a panic” because of a stupid internet research.
“Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the past because the past is done with.Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof… But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over” – Bart D. Ehrman
Was this supposed to be some kind of rebuttal? Your dictionary definition of “delusion” is consistent with Runnell’s abbreviated restatement.
And then Runnells states the obvious, i.e. marriages are typically consummated, pointing out also that the Mormon rule book on polygamy explicitly contemplates procreation, and you call that a fallacy? What fallacy is that?
If you’d like a better example of a fallacy, looks at this thing I saw someone on the internet write one time: “I personally don’t know anyone with a strong testimony that “went into a panic” because of a stupid internet research.” This statement is a combination of circular logic and the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Google may not be evidence, but it can teach you a thing or two if you know how to use it.
According to Runnels, anyone that disagrees with him is delusional, delusion is “typically a symptom of mental disorder” according to the dictionary. I have not seen the abundant evidence that Runnells thinks he has.It is a fallacy, because his argument proves nothing, his argument is not abundant evidence.I did not commit the no true scotsman fallacy because I said the truth, I said that I personally don’t know anyone, I did not say there is no one out there.Google has tons of garbage, Google is a terrible method to do serious research because you can find a lot of misleading nonsense, especially in controversial topics.
First, I am disconcerted by the way Hales has used the word “allegedly” in connection with Runnells quotation of Snow’s deposition. If one reads the entire Snow transcript that Hales quotes from (which he graciously provides from the four volume typed transcripts of the Temple Lot Case), and the one that Runnells quotes from (produced by the RLDS Church) there is little difference.
Being familiar with the “latest research” myself (I have Brian Hales three volume set of books on polygamy and a few other sources), Here are some thoughts about Snow’s testimony that Hales claims Runnells misinterprets.
Hales has to skip to a later part of Snow’s testimony to make his point which is a valid one. (Nothing wrong with that)
The problem is, Snow’s testimony sets up Joseph as being above the law of the church. This is not what the Church teaches today, nor was this something that Joseph did openly, because there would have been consequences. Let me explain why.
Here is Snow’s testimony from the transcript (slightly different from the one produced by the RLDS that Jeremy quotes from found here: https://archive.org/stream/TempleLotCase/Temple_Lot_Case#page/n319/mode/2up)
189 Q. And the man that violated this law in this book [Doctrine and Covenants 1835 edition] until the acceptance of that revelation by the church violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage? A. Yes Sir. He was cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.
190 Q. What would be the condition of the man that would marry more than one person prior to the giving of that revelation in 1843? A. What would be the condition of a man that would do that?
191 Q. Yes sir? A. Why he would be cut off from the Church.
192 Q. Would not it have been adultery under those revelations I have just read? A. Yes sir. I expect it would be.
Granted, Jeremy Runnells did quote Snow’s testimony from a transcript produced by the ReOrganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Church of Christ). But this is a mistake even FAIR MORMON makes here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Adultery_before_12_July_1843
So it is not only Jeremy that is unaware of “the latest research” (and FAIRMORMON quotes Hales extensively in defense of Joseph Smith).
It is also curious that the RLDS Church perpetuated such a deception as making additions to the transcripts. But the addition of the last sentence about breaking the laws of the land does not change the meaning of what Lorenzo Snow said.
This point is ignored by Brian Hales, instead he focuses on Snow’s justification for why he won’t apply adultery to what Joseph Smith did (which was the same thing).
Snow definitely states that according to him, that any man who violated the law as written in the D&C in 1835 BEFORE the revelation was given in 1843 (July) would be guilty of adultery. He states this twice in the transcript and doesn’t make any exceptions. Here, Snow is asked again:
217 Q. That is you state that if a person should be married OR SEALED by this revelation, according to your understanding, –that is, if they should be married according to the provisions of this polygamous revelation proir to the year 1843, that they would be violating the laws of the church and would be guilty of adultery? A. Yes sir.
This is exactly what Joseph Smith did. After this, Snow begins to get into semantics, and has to work hard to try and justify Smith’s actions in trying to explain why Smith is exempt from keeping the same church laws as everybody else. Reading his actual testimony is tedious and aggravating, because it is obvious that he is hostile and untruthful. Wilford Woodruff recorded these words by Joseph Smith pertaining to the doctrines he taught:
President Joseph Smith again arose & said In relation to the power over the minds of mankind which I hold, I would say it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrins which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto them & not because of any compulsion on my part. I will ask if I ever got any of it unfair. If I have not reproved you in the gate. I ask did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieveing any doctrin I have preached if he saw fit? Why do not my enemies strike a blow at the doctrin? They cannot do it, it is truth. And I am as the voice of one crying in the wilderness repent of your sins & prepare the way for the coming of the son of Man, for the kingdom of God has come unto you and henceforth the ax is laid unto the root of the tree and evry tree that bring-eth not forth good fruit, God Almighty (and not Jo Smith) shall hew down & cast it into the fire. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 2, 1841–1845, p.371, March 24, 1844, See also, History of the Church, 6:273)
What is interesting, is that when those that opposed the doctrine of polygamy (not agreeing that it was “truth”) did try and strike a blow at the doctrine a few months later, Smith had their press destroyed and continued to lie that he practiced it.
What is important here is that this not about what Lorenzo Snow thought about Joseph Smith. Snow never thought that Smith was wrong in anything he did, so Jeremy’s wording should be modified to reflect this.
But Snow did admit that what Joseph did was a violation of the Church policy that Smith set up – if it were anyone but Joseph Smith. This is the kind of logic that Snow has to use to try and justify Smith’s actions, the same as the followers of Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, et. all, did.
Even though later in his testimony Snow tries to justify that Smith was allowed to do this as “prophet”, this doesn’t jibe with the actual historical evidence, since Smith told the Relief Society that NO ONE could practice polygamy in the Church, even a “prophet, seer & revelator”. (In April 1842, long before the “revelation” of July 1843).
He also gave instructions in the fall of 1843 that were copied into his diary that no man in the church shall have more than one wife:
Thursday, October 5[th, 1843] Morning rode out with Esqu[ire] Butterfield to farm &c. P.M. rode on prairie to shew some brethren some land. Eve[ning] at home. Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, p.417)
Yet on November 2, 1843 Joseph had Brigham Young’s sister Fanny sealed to him “for time and eternity”. It seems that Joseph could not even keep his own word for one month.
Snow’s continuing testimony
229. Q. Now you have stated that Joseph Smith took your sister for a wife when he had a wife already? A. Yes sir.
230. Q. Prior to the giving of this revelation? A. Yes sir.
231. Q. Well what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in? A. It put them in a first rate, splendid position for time and eternity.
232. Q. Was not that act simply sealing instead of marriage? A. Well, IT WAS ALL THE SAME.
233. Q. Sealing for eternity, and marriage, are they all one and the same thing? A. Well it is getting the female with the male THE SAME as it is in the marriage ceremony.
This is very interesting because Snow states that sealings and marriages ARE THE SAME. It is getting the female with the male, the same as in a marriage. And though this puts them in a splendid position in Snow’s mind, it doesn’t really answer the question or deal with the contradiction of why it would be adultery to everyone but Joseph. (That is coming)
Lorenzo Snow admits that the sealings were the same as a marriage, and a ceremony was performed. This constitutes a marriage and therefore Joseph was guilty of adultery and bigamy, whether it could be proven or not makes little difference. He was guilty of violating the anti-bigamy law and committing adultery. (The “open state” argument is a straw man).
Snow’s testimony continues,
285. Q. Would it [the polygamy revelation] be a part of the church laws until it had been accepted by the church. A. That would depend on the circumstances.
286. Q. That would depend on the circumstances, you say? A. Yes sir.
287. Q. Well I would like you to explain what you mean by that answer? A. I mean just what I said.
288. Q. Well mention the circumstances, or the circumstance where a revelation would become a part of the church law, without acceptance on the part of the church? A. Well, take myself for example, Joseph might give a revelation on certain important matters, and I not knowing that revelation, or that he had given it, it would not be binding on me even if it had been accepted as you put it by the church; but if he gave a revelation and I knew that he gave it, it would be binding on me even before it was accepted by the church, that is the way I feel about it.
289. Q. Well now if he should have a revelation and it should not be presented to the church, would it be binding on the church, that is the question, not what you consider or feel yourself, but would it be binding upon the church? A. Well it would not be binding upon the church, for the church as a church would not know it if it was not presented formally to the church as a church, but it would be binding upon such as knew of it. Now if you will allow me to explain I would like to do so. If that revelation as presented to me, and there is a half a dozen men and women and it is presented to them, it would be a law to them, and be binding upon them, and any other part of the church that had knowledge, distinct and definite knowledge of it, but I do not think it would be binding upon any other part of the church other than that which had knowledge of its existence. Do you understand that?
But FAIR MORMON contradicts Snow,
The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31). Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.” http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf
They reference, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2, p. 68–69.
This means that no one was obligated to follow any revelation given by Joseph until it had been sustained as such by a vote in conference, something that Joseph never did with the polygamy revelation, and which Lorenzo Snow affirmed in his testimony. The testimony continues,
290. Q. Well I think I do [understand] clearly too? A. Well I am glad to hear it.
291. Q. Well suppose these half dozen men and women should receive a revelation under the circumstances you have indicated, and it should be contrary to the laws of the church as accepted by the church, what would be the duty of this half dozen men and women in that case? A. Well it would be rather unpleasant to them I think.
292. Q. It would place them in an unpleasant position you say? A. In my opinion it would.
293. Q. Then a revelation must be received by the church before it is the law of the church? A. Not always.
294. Q. do you say that is not always the case? A. Yes sir.
295. Q. Mention an instance where it would not be? A. Well this instance we are talking about now, for there were several in Nauvoo that received that revelation and practiced it before it was ever received at all by the Church.
296. Q. Did not that make them violators of the law of the church? A. No sir.
297. Q. Why? A. Because Joseph had a perfect authority to give revelations and the people were under obligation to receive them.
298. Q. You state that as a fact? A. I state that as my understanding of Joseph’s privilege and the people’s duty.
Yet, Wilford Woodruff declared in 1892, while giving a legal deposition before the Western District of the Missouri U.S. Circuit Court:
The church has a right to reject or approve of revelations and any man independent of the action of the church has a right to accept it or reject it as he sees fit and the church has a right to say whether they will accept it or reject it as a revelation, and before a revelation can be accepted by the church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the church and accepted by the church, and that has been true since the time I first became connected with the church. (Richard S. Van Wagoner et al, The Lectures on Faith: A Case Study in De-canonization, Dialogue, 1987, vol. 20, no. 3, 74.)
Wilford Woodruff was President of the Church and under oath when he gave this statement. He also gave a deposition for the Temple Lot Case, and said,
“The general rule of the church was that the revelations were given the church through Joseph Smith while he lived, but the rule required that they should be submitted to the quorums of the church before being presented to the church. To what extent they were laid before the quorums, I cannot say from memory… I will say, however, that the doctrines of the church have been presented at the conferences at various times, but in regard to those revelations being presented, they were always accepted as law whenever they were presented to the church, or to the people, I should say. (page 291, RLDS Transcript, so subject to verification)
Woodruff also answered some questions, among them,
“I cannot give you a revelation permitting or authorizing that practice [washings and anointings]. I just want you to understand one thing, that Joseph Smith was the prophet, seer, and revelator, and whatever he said or counseled in these things was accepted. He was not greater than the law that God had revealed through him, but he was the medium through which the law was revealed.
Q. Well, after the law had been revealed, was he not subject then to the law the same as any other person?
A. I do not understand what you mean.
Q. I mean that after the law had been revealed, was he not subject then to the law the same as any other person?
A. He was the law himself, but I suppose he was subject to the law. After a law had been received from God and communicated to the church in that manner through the medium of Joseph Smith as the prophet, seer, and revelator, I do not know that the prophet was higher than that law, but I do say that he was given the control of those things. After the law had been revealed from the Lord, I do not think that it was possible for the Lord to change that law by revealing something that was contrary to the law previously revealed through the prophet. I do not think that he would do that. (RLDS pp. 298-299)
President Joseph F. Smith stated similarly in his 1904 testimony before the Senate committee investigating the seating of Reed Smoot: “I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.” Questioned whether “the church in conference may say to you, Joseph F. Smith, the first president [sic] of the church, ‘We deny that God has told you to tell us this?,'” President Smith replied: “They can say that if they choose…. And it is not binding upon them as members of the church until they accept it” (1907, 1:96). It thus appears that at least two Church presidents have verified the principle of common consent in canonizing revelation into the standard works of LDS scripture. There is no mention, however, of a procedure for decanonizing scriptural items such as the Lectures on Faith. (Van Wagoner, ibid)
Two Presidents of the Church verses one President of the Quorum of the Twelve. Therefore, Joseph had no right to practice polygamy before submitting the revelation to a vote of the church. That is why he did so in secret, and lied about it when confronted by those who opposed it for just such reasons.
So, who does not understand Mormon doctrine? Mormon Authorities can’t even agree amongst themselves! It is therefore unfair of Mr. Hales (in my estimation) to claim that Jeremy is neither accurate or credible. It seems that Lorenzo Snow is the one that is inaccurate and not credible.
There is much more to this issue. I do recommend everyone to take a look at what Brian Hales has assembled. I would also recommend reading other sources.
According to Runnels, anyone that disagrees with him is delusional, delusion is “typically a symptom of mental disorder” according to the dictionary. I have not seen the abundant evidence that Runnells thinks he has.
It is a fallacy, because his argument proves nothing, his argument is not abundant evidence.
I did not commit the no true scotsman fallacy because I said the truth, I said that I personally don’t know anyone, I did not say there is no one out there.
Google has tons of garbage, Google is a terrible method to do serious research because you can find a lot of misleading nonsense, especially in controversial topics.
Please show me where Runnells states that anyone who disagrees with him is delusional.
If you have not seen abundant evidence that the LDS church is not what it purports to be, and that Joseph Smith did not have the abilities/powers he claimed to have, then the problem must be your eyes are closed.
Your fallacy is that anyone who “goes into a panic” over “stupid internet research” will then be judged to have never had a strong testimony. There’s your circular logic. It is also the No True Scotsman fallacy because you are effectively saying “No one with a true testimony will go into a panic over internet research.”
And if Google is such a terrible resource, why does everyone use it? Why is it one of the most successful companies in the world? Of course you “can” find nonsense on controversial topics by using google. You can also find valuable and accurate information. So what’s your point? Address issues and contentions substantively, or don’t even bother with these types of discussions.
Oh, and by the way, while Google is not evidence, neither is that bosom burning sensation you sometimes get when you pray or read your holy books.
He wrote, “Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something. To me, it’s
absolute insanity to bet my life, my precious time, my money, my heart, and my mind into an organization that has so many serious problematic challenges”
“then the problem must be your eyes are closed.”
Another fallacy
“Your fallacy is that anyone who “goes into a panic””
No, I was talking about the people I personally know, I did not say “No one with a true testimony will go into a panic over internet research.” Just forget about this, it is irrelevant.
“And if Google is such a terrible resource, why does everyone use it?”
Argumentum ad populum. Most people don’t do research at all.
Google is useful, you can learn valuable information, but it is not for serious research, especially on controversial topics. To do serious research you go to reliable encyclopedias, university libraries, historical papers, scientific journals.
I will explain what I mean by Google.
When people do a Google research, they search for any website that looks good, and trust the information on any website they like. Runnnels online CES letter is the perfect example of poor research. For example, Runnels quotes late unreliable anti-mormon forgeries to prove some points.
That is what I mean when I say Google, of course you can use Google to do serious research, but most people don’t know how, they simply read the first website they like. When it comes to controversial topics, nonsense always prevails.
Please provide a rebuttal to the CES letter. FAIR has done an awful job and it sounds like you have the answers.
Apologists concentrate on little details instead of understanding the core of the argument. We hear “well we dont have 100% proof that Joseph consummated his marriage to a 14 year old!”, the problem all along is, who in their right mind would marry a 14 year old? Warran Jeffs thinks its a good idea, I dont.
I have been looking at the “good” church approved websites for many years. There came a point that I could not justify the mental gymnastics I had to go through to convince myself of the truthfulness of the churches past and current policies and history.
This is coming from a primary/youth/seminary/institute/RM/Temple Married/High Priest/current Bishopric member.
If google is such a bad resource please show me a place that has some legitimate answers to the questions many members are starting to look into?
You did make me laugh about forgeries though considering the churches history.
Obviously you have not read FairMormon or this article.
“Helen remained a strong believer in Joseph Smith throughout her life. Importantly, there is strong evidence the sealing was never consummated and no supportive evidence that it was”
The marriage was just some kind of religious ceremony, we just don’t know because we don’t have enough information, but we do know that Helen continued to live with her parents after the sealing.
Again who in their right mind marries a 14 year old girl, consummated or not?
Do you not see the huge problem in this? Do you not see why its a huge problem. Also where is this stack of evidence he didn’t have sex with her? I know that marriage indicates sexual relations are happening almost 100% of the time. Joseph certainly was having sex with other women too.
Actually plenty of people in their right minds have married women as young as fourteen throughout history.
Most of the marriages of European royalty throughout history were made involving teenage girls. Often the marriage would happen, and then sex wouldn’t happen till the girl was old enough to bear a healthy child.
Some of these marriages weren’t even particularly brutal or unjust either. There were simply other concerns BESIDES SEX involved in them. Like the fate of diplomatic relations between two monarchies.
I would hardly call the RLDS Transcript an “anti-Mormon” source. They too, believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet. They just differed about his polygamy, among other things, and made a slight addition to Snow’s testimony. Brian says not to trust the entire transcript because of this, but until a scholarly comparison is done between the two sources, this is jumping the gun.
And it’s not that the Salt Lake Branch hasn’t manipulated MANY sources to support their own claims. The History of the Church is full of omissions and additions. Joseph Fielding Smith, Church Historian for years, is notorious for doing this very thing.
As far as I know, there are few that are even aware of the problem with the RLDS transcript, (even FAIRMORMON quotes it).
As for Google, every scientific Journal that is reputable publishes online. (For many, you need a subscription, but for some like JSTOR, you do not, and can read up to three articles every two weeks free).
To lump everyone into your scenario is disingenuous. Who are the “people” you speak of? It is common sense that you should check your sources. Are some guilty of not doing this? Yes. Both Mormons and critics. This argument is a straw man.
If Runnells is guilty of using a bad source, that is unfortunate, but not the end of the world. It happens to many really good accredited scholars. Mark Hoffmann’s forgeries are a good example of how even some very good Mormon Scholars were fooled.
The thing is, Runnells has claimed to be an amateur, and so trusted the source that was used by FAIRMORMON. He had a different interpretation of the source, and in my estimation, one that didn’t really focus on the real problem, which I outlined above.
Advocating blanket generalizations is just bad scholarship. This article is not good scholarship, is it just an excuse to label someone and point them to a preferred website.
Brian is a capable scholar, he is sincere in his beliefs, and though I don’t agree with his conclusions, he does make some good valid points that deserve to be explored and if one is critical, rebutted.
If he is concerned about Runnells, he should have done what he did with Mike Quinn and publish an article that rebuts his points one by one with evidence instead of just directing them to a website. But then, Runnells is just an amateur, (like me) so perhaps it is not worth Brian’s time to do so? I hope that is not the case.
Another thing about sources, though the Salt Lake Branch of the Mormon Church has released many documents, they still restrict many that would shed light on scholarly research. For years, there were limited Mormon sources that you could check, because of lack of access.
So Brian’s website is far from having a complete picture. For example we are just getting the Council of 50 minutes released. And they still have not released months of Clayton’s diaries from 1842, which would probably shed a lot of light on Joseph Smith’s polygamy. The question is, why?
If it were not for scholars like Mike Quinn (and some others), we would not have much of what we do have today on polygamy. I applaud the Mormon Church for its efforts in releasing documents. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
The most troubling thing about the Helen Kimball marriage is that both she and her parents had the understanding that this marriage would secure their place in the celestial kingdom. We also see the same “bartering” behavior with Brigham Young. When John D Lee was set to marry Emmeline Free, Brigham promised him that if he gave up Emmeline to Brigham, he would “uphold him in time and eternity and sit at his right hand in the kingdom.”
This seems misguided to me. And it’s concerning. We can’t blow it off by saying we don’t have enough information, only because the information we do have paints a bad picture.
The fact that she remained a “strong believer” means little, since if she hadn’t remained a believer she would have been villainized like all the women who were disgusted with polygamy, Martha Brotherton, Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, Ann Eliza, and even Emma. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion because the church would have thrown her credibility out the window long ago.
Lastly, not that it matters, but Helen continuing to live with her parents after the marriage proves nothing. Most of Joseph’s wives continued to live with their families/husbands, even the ones he was sexually active with. And Helen writes that she would sit at her window and cry as she watched the other youth her age going out to dances. She was Joseph’s and was told she couldn’t participate. This appears to be more than just a religious ceremony.
You know Greg, you’re not the first person to try and slander the character of the women in polygamy as downtrodden and subservient dupes who had no leverage against the system.
Eastern tabloids in the 1800s tried a similar approach.
Funny thing though – visitors to Utah were usually puzzled by how educated, accomplished, articulate, independent, and powerful women in Utah actually were at that time.
They expected to find a bunch of beaten brainless sex slaves – and apparently you do as well (again, projecting your own sexual fantasies onto the history). But if you bother to actually investigate these women’s lives, you won’t generally find that.
There were plenty of passerbys from the east who did see concerning things about the women in Utah. “Journey to Great Salt Lake” is a respected documentary held at the BYU library – doesn’t paint the prettiest picture. And we have plenty of first hand accounts from the women themselves (faithful women). Many are troubling.
About the sex slave comment, not sure if this qualifies…John Lee boasting that he had “frigged Louisa Free 20 times in one night.” And Brigham making a mockery of it “Thats he matter with John, he loves his women too much & friggs them too much,” while laughing.
When Brigham chose another wife to accompany him at a party, Augusta writes “while ruminating this morning upon all my grievances and the indignities I had endured I inadvertantly said sh*t upon him.”
When Brigham married 24 year old Amelia Folsom, who became his new preferred consort, Emmeline Free lived the last few years of her life “a dope fiend, addicted to morphine,” according to her daughter.
There are plenty of examples. There are plenty of well respected scholars within the church who will readily admit that the conditions of these women were not optimal.
My sexual fantasies? This is getting stupid.
I love how exmormons are supposedly the angry, bitter, people….and yet you continue to use degrading comments like saying that Greg is projecting his sexual fantasies through his comments.
The fact that they were married is strong evidence that the relationship is sexual.
Troubling in your opinion, everything is troubling to the critics.
Joseph Smith did not threaten Helen, read the article
“Helen Mar Kimball, was offered to Joseph as a plural wife by her father Heber C. Kimball.” Helen was happy, and she felt protected and blessed by being a plural wife.
Actually it’s pretty much troubling to anyone that isn’t trying to put a faithful spin on a harmful and ugly practice of polygamy.
Don’t be silly, I’m not a critic.
I encourage you to read Helen’s memoirs. She herself describes her whole thought process, including how she cred afterwards because she couldnt go out with her friends anymroe. I didn’t just make that up.
I recommend we stick to the church narrative that these women sacrificed everything for something they believed in. That is admirable. But to say they were happy? For heavens sake…
She had hard times, she even resented the sealing to Joseph Smith for a time, but just like most missionaries who also have hard times, they are happy. She felt blessed, she was happy.
What is the evidence that she was always unhappy? Late anti-mormon sources or forgeries?
Helen Mar Whitney, Scenes and Incidents, 90. (italics added)
“I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow William to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with other of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl danced better than I did, and I really felt it was too much to bear. It made the dull school more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought to myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did not murmur.I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them. A moral may be drawn from this truthful story. “Children obey thy parents,” etc. And also, “Have regard to thy name, for that shall continue with you above a thousand great treasures of gold.” “A good life hath but few days; but a good name endureth forever”
Helen describes herself as an “abused child?” And you say she felt protected? Ugh. I’m gonna have to stop.
But seriously, heber kimball will have his exaltation made sure because his daughter marries the prophet? Now think about what we know about the plan of salvation, agency, etc. Give it another 5 seconds or so to sink in…still okay with this?
Give me a break, she said she felt protected, not me.
She felt “abused” for a time because she couldn’t go with her single friends to the parties, that is how many modern teenagers feel sometimes too, Helen later realized that she was actually protected from problems that arose from the parties she missed. Read her accounts, Helen was happy.
Helen had her agency, that is why she remained a faithful member all her life.
Anyways, you have not presented “abundant evidence” and you are an anti-mormon critic.
I guess you are right, Helen was happy. No concerns here.
In all seriousness, there are many many good people in this church who are going to have a problem with the facts surrounding the Helen Mar marriage. Its best we don’t characterize these people as anti-mormon critics.
If we can’t classify this as one of those things that simply doesn’t make much sense and we won’t understand in this life, then what would fall under that category? You seem to be arguing that there are no red flags here whatsoever. That attitude will lose us a lot of credibility both within and without the church. We need to grow out of it and not get offended when somebody expresses a doubt or concern.
I’ve maintained as problematic the belief that this group of people held that Heber’s salvation was dependent on who his daughter married. Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens and plenty of others also agree that this is a bit problematic. These people are not anti-mormon critics.
As I watch the mental gymnastics required to uphold the idea of polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the book of Abraham, and so much more it makes me happy….happy that I no longer have to twist the truth…happy that I no longer have to be deceived by an organization that demands honesty and yet fails on so many levels to subscribe to some of the very basic tenets that it teaches. I would much rather live my life in a way that allows me to spend time with my family, enjoy all aspects of life, be truly free to choose without fear of the boogeyman, and not be held down by religious dogma that must be justified and rationalized over and over in order to work.
Why waste time criticizing something that you think is fake?
I think that Santa is fake, but I don’t waste hours of my life talking about Santa.
When you use Google for controversial topics, most of the websites you find will be full of misleading information, the CES letter is the perfect example.
The book of Abraham is only a controversial topic to a minute population of the world….a population that refuses to actually look at the evidence. You call it misleading information….the rest of the world refers to it as telling the truth
That is a different topic and most people don’t care about your anti-mormon arguments. Most of the world doesn’t care.
Why do you waste time criticizing the church? You don’t believe in it, so move on.
After considering the arguments made here on this thread, I’d like to announce that I’ve completely changed my mind about polygamy. It all makes perfect sense now. There were no problems with it’s implementation whatsoever. Joseph only slept with about half of his wives. No doubts or questions from me. In closing, I’d like to share the lyrics from a song in the 1856 women’s hymnal. It speaks peace to my soul:
“Now, sisters, list to what I say:
With trials this world is rife,
You can’t expect to miss them all,
Help husband get a wife!
Now, this advice I freely give,
If exalted you would be,
Remember that your husband must
Be blessed with more than thee.
Then, O, let us say,
God bless the wife that strives
And aids her husband all she can
T’ obtain a dozen wives.”
Reference: 1856 Reformation Song. Used as a Hymn in an edition of Songs of Zion. Utah Historical Quarterly, 1928, p. 58.
Seth, please tell me which royal house Joseph and Helen belonged too? Why do you think arranged marriages are a good idea? Why do you not find it strange that a 37 year old man was marrying a 14 year old? Why do you not find the following statement manipulative to a barely teen girl “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”?
I work in IT for a large multinational corporation, hence I work with a lot of Indians. Some of these people are still forced into arranged marriages. One poor guy who sits a few desks away was told to fly back home, he went on one date with a girl and that was that. His marriage was arranged for a few months after that.
You can talk about imperial dynasties all you like, I disagree that arranged marriages can at times be just. I find the notion repellent, having others decide your future spouse is a terrible tradition. I am not going to say that some people can be happy in those marriages but having spoken to people in arranged marriages, they would have wanted the freedom to choose for themselves.
Non of the above relates to Joseph and Helen though. Although Joseph later set himself up to be King of the Earth, there was no royal blood involved, no centuries old imperial dynasties that needed to be preserved.
As I watch the mental gymnastics required to uphold the idea of polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the book of Abraham, and so much more it makes me happy….happy that I no longer have to twist the truth…happy that I no longer have to be deceived by an organization that demands honesty and yet fails on so many levels to subscribe to some of the very basic tenets that it teaches. I would much rather live my life in a way that allows me to spend time with my family, enjoy all aspects of life, be truly free to choose without fear of the boogeyman, and not be held down by religious dogma that must be justified and rationalized over and over in order to work.
When I decided to no longer believe in the church anymore it felt like a huge weight had been lifted from me. I finally realised how unhappy I was having to justify my beliefs.
I have been challenged by my stake president but he has been unable to answer my questions but I will give another run through of reading the scriptures and praying again. If this doesn’t work it will be a request for a release and then I am gone.
Fallibility seems limited to dead prophets. Mentioning specifics are not allowed.
Hey Jeremy Runnells, can you hear me? Why not man up and freaking debate Brian Hales in person, face to face, on camera, in a live stream for all of us to see? Don’t give me some other lame ‘debunking Brian hales debunking donut chart crap’ where you get to hide behind your laptop screen and give nothing but your one sided perspectives and think you can play constant offense without ever having to play defense. In a live debate, it’s fair because the other side gets to play offense too. And I’m more than confident that you can’t give plausible explanations to the offense that a faithful Latter Day Saint can bring. What do you say? Can we set this up? Think of the implications if you’re not willing.
Haha, yeah I would love to see this. Nothing like a nice lively debate with one side pitching such defenses as “It’s no big deal that Joseph Smith married a 14-year-old girl! After all, her DAD was the one who offered her to him!” Or “Joseph didn’t actually have 33 wives. He had 35!” Or “Joseph didn’t marry 11 women who were already married to other men, he married 14! Sheesh, get your facts straight you anti-mormon critic!”
Do you hear that? That’s the sound of testimonies crumbling worldwide. Talk about a PR disaster and a black eye for the church. I have no doubt they would exert whatever pressure available to them to discourage Mr. Hales from engaging in such a debate. Why do you think general authorities don’t engage secularists in live, public debates? Because they’d get their asses handed to them. The Alma v. Korihor success stories only happen in the story books.
Aaron Fairchild,
Great, if that’s how you feel, let’s do this. Don’t sing it, bring it. You can talk smack all day, but the truth will still be that Runnells won’t do this. Prove me wrong. Get him to do it.
Uh…okay. First, I’m not Jeremy Runnells. I don’t even know the guy. Second, why him? I don’t think he puts himself out there as a scholar or expert in this field. Rather, he’s just someone who has compiled a bunch of research done by others. If Hales thinks himself an expert in this field, then maybe he should debate someone like Will Bagley or Michael Quinn. Or heck, let’s get an official church historian out there. Old Monson himself perhaps? I couldn’t care less who is standing in for the “pro-mormon” position.
Frankly, the person standing in for the “critical” viewpoint wouldn’t have to say much to be considered the ‘winner’ in such a debate. I think what you and so many others fail to comprehend is that the average person’s typical response to Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy will be one of horror, revulsion, and disgust. Unless one is already steeped in the faith and highly invested in it, it is hard to ignore or suppress such natural reactions.
So yes Lance, I encourage you to do all that is in your power to set this debate up. Find a venue, videographer, website host where it can be live streamed (or television station if you’ve got that kind of money), moderator, etc. And if Runnells won’t do it, I have little doubt there would be plenty of others willing to step in. If it’s such a good idea take it to some producer over at Bonneville Communications–I’m sure they have the resources to make this happen. Knock yourself out, man.
Aaron Fairchild,
I obviously don’t concur with anything you said, but man, maybe we can agree on the fact that it would be nice to see both sides of the issue played out in the same room so we don’t have to get into these eternal online arguments and rebuttals after endless rebuttals that really waste a lot of time.
Actually, I don’t agree that a live debate is the best forum for such a discussion, as it doesn’t allow listeners to concurrently check sources and facts, and it’s easy to get off on tangents. I see that as a problem with most live debates. But I do think that such a debate would reflect poorly on both Joseph Smith and the Mormon church, so for that reason I am all for it. Heck, if we can’t get anyone to represent the “critical” view, then maybe we can just stick a Mr. Potato Head on the podium and let Mr. Hales explain how Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy was totally legit and reasonable.
But since you are clamoring for this live debate, go out and see if you can find a host. Maybe Sunstone? White Fields? Mormon Stories? These organizations might have the budgets and resources to make this debate happen, assuming some church apologist is up to the challenge (I find it amusing that you seem to presume that Mr. Hales would even want to do this). You can also check in with KSL or KBYU, but we both know they wouldn’t touch something like this with a ten foot pole.
There is no reason for a debate. The Mormon church has admitted that Joe smith was involved in polygamy and polyandry. If the lords chosen mouth piece was a man who chose to lie and cheat on his wife then in no way was he a true prophet of god. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing to debate but only small, tiny, insignificant details.
Hey, Aaron, or guy with the really large goggles, I need to say that I was out of line speaking for Brian Hales. I get frustrated when people mock my faith, and I was out of line in my weak moment when I suggested a debate should occur with anyone but myself. So I’d like to retract that statement I made earlier concerning a debate between Jeremy Runnells and Brian Hales. But since you two seem to think that there is nothing to debate and that such a discussion would be a slam dunk for you, will you agree to such a debate/discussion with me via live stream so you can defend your statements to my face? I’ll even do it on your turf in Mormon Stories. In other words, I’m asking one of you to discuss the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with me, on camera, where I can answer your questions, and you can answer mine. What I would like for you to do is bring with you a copy of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon for us to discuss. You know, the part that we don’t have yet because it hasn’t been translated? Since you think it was so easy for the Prophet Joseph Smith to “fabricate” the portion that we have, surely you will be able to fabricate the other 2/3 that we don’t have since you have the internet and so much more education than he had. I would particularly like to hear of the account of Joseph in Egypt or the Brother of Jared. Make it as long as the Book of Mormon, and produce it within 8 months. Like I said, I’m even giving you the advantage of the internet, and all of your historians and all your education combined. Joseph Smith was a destitute 23 year old farm boy with almost zero education.
I would like your fabricated work to provide a powerful witness of the Savior Jesus Christ, and have endless passages and doctrines that grant people hope and faith. It would be most excellent if you could include a visit of the Savior to these people, and quote him extensively, and make those statements seem legit to millions of people. Most important, your book will need to be legit enough when I read it to convince me that it will change people’s lives for the better. That is exactly what the Book of Mormon has done for me. It has brought me out of a dark place. It continues to provide peace for me as I read it. I hear and recognize the words of the Savior in its pages, and I know it’s teachings are true as “plainly and manifestly as I comprehend and know that I exist.” I would like to have the sealed portion of the book that you bring forward to do the same.
There are, of course, some things that I can’t ask you to do, like suffer constant harrassement and unspeakable torture for yourself and your loved ones for all the days of your life. I also can’t ask you to die for your testimony, leave your children behind, and convince others to leave their families on missions for years at a time and suffer endless torment and trials because of the work you’ve produced. That’s not realistic in today’s world.
If you can produce this work that matches the complexity and inspiration of the Book of Mormon by July 31st, 2015, then I believe you will have a more valid argument. But until you do, do not assume that I don’t have a valid argument for my beliefs.
I look forward to seeing this work and discussing it with you.
Lance, thanks for your gracious invitation to do some kind of webcam/skype debate, but I’ll have to decline. You see, before the debate has even got off the ground, you have proven how inefficient of a forum it would be for a truly meaningful discussion of the issues relevant to the validity of the Mormon church’s truth claims. The debate you initially proposed was presumably going to be about Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, which is a relatively narrow topic. One of my criticisms of the debate format, however, was just vindicated by your above comment. Instead of talking about polygamy at all, you immediately launch into a tangent pertaining to Smith’s alleged “translation” of some gold plates, and you challenge your potential opponent to produce some similar work when showing up to the debate.
Yes, I get it. You think Smith was a prophet. You are impressed by the Book of Mormon. Because you think Smith is a prophet, you are willing to give him a lot of passes on other things, like marrying young teenagers and the wives of other men. Frankly, you NEED something to give you a strong presumption in his favor, or else his practice of polygamy is totally repugnant and despicable.
But maybe what you don’t realize is that we critics do not share your epistemological framework. We do not agree that you can deduce actual knowledge of historical or scientific propositions based on subjective emotional responses to activities such as reading a book and praying about it. We do not accept the church’s proposed timeline for the production of the Book of Mormon. We see contemporaneous literature such as View of the Hebrews, The Late War, and (obviously) the King James Bible and understand exactly “where” the book came from. We see the numerous literary, archaeological, anthropological, botanical, and zoological anachronisms in the book, and perceive that the book came from a mind wholly unfamiliar with the actual lands and people where its stories purportedly took place. The book does not impress us, just as it fails to impress the vast majority of people with whom it is shared. Without question, almost every book of mormon handed out by missionaries ends up either lost or in the garbage. That’s great that you have had a positive experience with the book and that it has helped you; but that says nothing as to its validity or historicity.
Countless books and articles have been written on the origin of the book of mormon and its many, MANY problems. A skype debate about it wouldn’t even begin to scratch the surface and would accomplish next to nothing. Just go read up on it like the rest of us have. Of course it’s a lot more time and effort than just bearing your testimony on a webcam, but it will also result in actual learning.
But if you really want to debate someone “live” (or something close to that), get in touch with John Larsen, who runs the Mormon Expression podcast. Maybe you can be the new guest on his podcast that represents the “faithful” perspective in the various topics they discuss. Or maybe he can arrange for you to debate whatever it is you want to debate in some special podcast recording/episode.
I’m not for sure if I should laugh or cry at the shear humor of your last comment….
Way to take the conversation way off course. There is no debate with polygamy….Joseph smith practiced polygamy and polyandry.
As to the rest of your Book of Mormon rabbit hole discussion….hopefully one day you will open your eyes to the ludicrousness of the whole situation. And by the way….he actually had 4+ years to write the boom of Mormon. It took him several years going back to the hill cumorah each year and “receiving instruction” before he could actually receive the plates and translate them….but oh well, 4 years certainly isn’t enough time to write the Book of Mormon, I mean it took Rowling 5-7 years to write a whole series of books way more compels, with more characters, and more substance than what Joseph smith could have ever imagined up….and they are actually well written pieces of literature. You can follow the narrative of the church with regards to polygamy, polyandry, the Book of Mormon translation, etc….and all you are going to be doing is spinning round and round in a circular conversation that gets you no where but arriving at your own happy feeling that confirm truth to you….even though feelings are unreliable at best to discern truth.
It would be fun to write a book like the Book of Mormon….
I’m going to throw in a few really fun parts to it as well. I’m going to have one of the main characters hear voices in his head and decide to chop off the head of a man. Then I’m going to have that guy break a second commandment and steal some golden plates. I’ll add some names of characters and accidentally throw in there some anachronisms so as to trick people into thinking it could be some what false.
I’m also going to throw in there lots of war….and more war….and more war. I’ll make a lot of it sound very similar to a few books of my day, so I will reference some Harry potter and twilight.
I will also add in this part about these people that left from the Tower of Babel that is 100% mythological and write about these airtight barges that they were in…..they won’t have access to fresh water, sanitation, removal of waste….and they will just get tossed back and forth in the water…but it’ll be cool because they will have white rocks to see with.
I’m going to throw in there the destruction of more people because that’s pretty cool….and a few more anachronisms just for fun.
When it’s all said and done I’ll have one of the main characters drop the plates off several thousand miles from where the last big battle of destruction was. Then, I’ll have this guy return as an angel to a guy who will later get the book after years of waiting.
The catch will be that I will have preserved these plates all along but I will actually allow the words to be received without ever looking at them.
Then, I’ll make sure that the righteous dude that translates the plates does lots of Unrighteous things such as marry other guys wives, have sex with other women, lie about it, burn down a printing press because of it, etc. This is really fun.
I’m on it….let’s write this thing!
Hey guys, sorry it took me a couple of days to respond. I am simply too busy and have much better things going on in my life than to keep coming back to this endless argument, but I do have a few last things to say.
1. We can dismiss everything Aaron says from now on. When you have the protection of your laptop screen and can do nothing but attack without ever having to answer for the evidences and explanations that I can bring, you gleefully proclaim that I would get my a– handed to me if I were to debate you on camera. And once I bring just one challenge to you, you change the tone of your argument, and back down from such rhetoric and cite some pretty weak excuses for not wanting to participate. So go on another rant and regurgitate everything in Jeremy’s donut hole charts Debunking Fair Letter stuff. But I think the honest in heart reading this will realize that unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, that any further rant you go on will just make you look worse. Do you honestly think I would challenge you to such a debate if I wasn’t able to bring it with regards to all the stuff you attacked me on in your comments? I will not respond to you again unless you change your stance on a face to face debate because it will do nothing but waste time.
2. You both get defensive by saying that I’m getting “off topic.” Come on, that’s pretty weak. We’re talking about the Prophet Joseph Smith. Of course you want to just talk about his polygamy. That way you get to avoid talking about all of the amazing evidences that speak to his divine calling as a prophet. These things are a must when talking about his polygamy, because it allows us to draw different conclusions than you. So I’m not “off topic.” Any discussion of polygamy is going to include whether or not he was a criminal/adulterer/pedophile vs. whether or not he was called of God to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I’m going to talk about all of the evidences in favor of the Prophet when I talk about his polygamy.
3. Goggles guy, it looks like you’ve accepted my challenge. Congralutions, and thank you. I will contact Mormon Stories to set this up. Unless you were being sarcastic. I just want to double check. Were you serious when you said it would be fun to write the Book of Mormon and that you would love to get started? I’m giving you until July 31st, 2015, and then I’m coming to check on your work. I totally disagree with your attempt to discredit the Prophet’s completing the task within a few months, but I’ll oblige and just let you complete whatever you can. We’ll just see where you are in a year, and we’ll compare it side by side with the Book of Mormon. Let me know if you were serious and I’ll give you my contact information so we can set this up. I hope you are serious. I’ve been looking forward to reading and soaking in the spiritual treasures of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon for many many years.
If you were not serious and all you will do is go back to mocking my faith, I will not be responding any further.
Lol….the sealed portions,,..this is still making me laugh. The sealed portions that no one ever saw? Those sealed portions? The ones that we can’t even prove existed? Oh yeah, kind of like the actual Book of Mormon…..the one that we have no proof that it actually existed? That’s right….the one that an angel took back up into heaven….the one that every witness saw with their spiritual eyes…the one that Joseph smith carried while running through the forest from would be bad guys? That’s right…that one.
I love the call for a showdown to debate this…lmao. Seriously….it’s worthy of a really good laugh this fine Saturday morning. A debate with someone like yourself on this very topic would be the equivalent of watching bill Nyle debate ken Hamm. Your feelings and emotions and reliance on the bible (and Book of Mormon in this case) would overshadow your ability to make any rational decisions. No amount of evidence would ever change your mind because you have had good feelings. Your feelings indicate truth to you in your circular logic world,,,,the church tells you that you will feel good…..you do….so it must be true what the church tells you.
Good luck in your journey of circular logic and good feelings that teach truth. Maybe one day you’ll actually follow the evidence and then make a decision instead of already knowing the end result and making the evidence bend to match your predetermined conclusions.
Lance, you’ve proven yourself so disconnected from reason and common sense that I simply can’t take you seriously anymore. Go on believing in your fairy tales; I honestly could not care less. I look forward to listening/watching you during your much-anticipated “debate.” Unless, of course, you keep pussyfooting around with this “Write me a book first!” nonsense. If you were truly confident in the strength of your position, there would be no need to require your opponent to jump through your subjective and arbitrary hoops prior to engaging you in some debate.
And lance….I appreciate your comment about focusing on the positive about the prophet Joseph smith. If a catholic were to do the same thing as you it would go something like this….
I know the priest molested a few children….but look at all the good he has done. He brought others unto Christ though his sermons and weekly service, I know it was bad that he ruined those children for life by forcing sexual acts upon them….I know that a couple of those children have now grown up to be abusers as well because of their past abuse by the priest….and I know that a couple of the abused children have since committed suicide because they couldn’t get the sexual abuse out of their minds….but don’t look at the negatives from this priests life. You need to focus on the positive that he did and find good in what he did.
This is exactly the same line of bull that is pulled with Joseph smith. You can argue it all you want but your level of justification hits on the same lines.
Thank you, Brian. This is a well-written and focused piece that highlights several of the issues involved with Runnels work.
I don't know why so many people aren't able to see this (perhaps unfamiliarity with scholarly methods?), but it seems apparent that you are not intending this piece to be a cover-all explanation of why Joseph Smith can still be a prophet of God in spite of his background with polygamy.
You did well in linking and referring people to your main website where you have published all of your scholarly information complete with sources. I think you've conducted yourself phenomenally in the writing of this article and the responses to antagonistic comments, and I admire your bravery and pain tolerance for taking the brunt of so many attacks on this issue.
If you have an opportunity, I would greatly appreciate a peer review on my own blog. I try to find a balance between the due diligence of scholarly work with the readability of an opinion blog. Here is a link: http://saltlakecityadvertising.net/ask-mormon-anything-series-baptism-age-accountability-purpose-life/
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both committed adultery. No amount of half truths can change this fact.
Brigham Young had a child with Zina Huntington while she was still married to Henry Jacobs. They never got divorced. You can't get around this.
The church is clear, you must be legally and lawfully wedded. JS and BY were not.
JS even married Fanny before he had the authority to do so. It makes no sense.
Comment
Brian C. Hales,
Brian: You have no idea why Heber would offer his daughter? Would it have anything to do with the fact that Joseph first told Heber that the Lord required Heber to give his wife to Joseph and, relieved to later find out the request was some sort of Abrahamic “test” he readily consented to give his daughter instead? Could it also have anything to do with the promise of eternal salvation for the entire family Joseph extended to Helen if she consented, coupled with the threat of eternal damnation if she did not?
I’m surprised you and so many other apologists are defending Joseph Smith’s documented polygamy and polyandry.
Mark Hansen,
Hi Mark Hansen,
Your comment that the Church requires a divorce is true for us today. But you should study how divorce was treated by all people in the nineteenth century. Legal divorces until the 1840s-1850s were difficult and in some states required the legislature to grant them. NonLDS researchers acknowledge that many marriages were dissovoled simply by ignoring them.
The point is that no woman could have two genuine husbands at the same time. In the Church this was always true. It would have been adultery. The Church would dictate who was married to whom, ignoring the laws of the land if needed (see D&C 22:1).
Critics now come along and demand that Joseph and Brigham comply with their standards and confidently declare they were adulterers, but it is poor history and more like unreality.
Best,
Brian Hales
Regarding Fanny, Joseph had priesthood authority to perform marriages that ended at death. He used it to marry Lydia Braithwaite and Newell Knight in late 1835. Saying this could authority would not be recognized by God is unpersuasive, especially in light of the report that the angel first came in 1834 telling Joseph to establish plural marriage.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I’m hopeful that we can get our historical fact straight as we discuss an already complex topic.
Best,
Brian Hales
Seth R.,
Thomas Jefferson never claimed adultery with a slave was commanded of God. He did not promulgate sleeping with slaves as a law necessary for citizenship when he became President. He did not reward his political allies with slaves to sleep with to strengthen his position of power. He didn’t demand the divine right to sleep with his allies’ 14 year old slaves in order to ensure their continued political success. In short, he was no Joseph Smith.
GoogleIsNotEvidence,
You make a good point here. I would really like to be able to move on. Unfortunately, I was raised Mormon. My parents are Mormon. My wife and kids are Mormon. I am surrounded by Mormons and they are constantly trying to convince me of the errors of my ways and causing me to feel like I have to justify my position. So I continue to study, looking to reinforce my positions and arguments, when, really, none is needed. The fact that I don’t believe ought to be enough for me and for them. I hope we get there someday….
Steve Austin,
To clarify, as best I can tell I was wrong, Helen was not threatened with eternal damnation for not accepting polygamy. That was Emma. Helen was promised eternal salvation for marrying the prophet. From her autobiography:
“Years passed away and we were living in the City of Nauvoo. Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States [i.e., early summer of 1843], he taught me the principle of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marrage — after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”
This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart — when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.”
Thank you Brian for the time you spent to put this together. I grow dissapointed with people like Runnells you get in the chat rooms and decide to compile supposed inacurrancies of the early church. What is sad is that half of it is untrue or twisted and they do it for financial gain as a result that something didn't ring true to them. The fact remains that I can't throw out the many tender mercy's and miracles I see. The fact remains there is so much good my children learn as a member of the Lord's church. What an early member did or didn't do with a 14yr old eternal sealing doesn't change truth for me. Runnells is a chatroom anti-mormon information compiler who disregards the miracles of the church. I appreciate you and many others who volunteer to defend it.
lol.
Comment
Justin,
A weak argument…. I would respond with: Show the evidence that Christ existed or that God exists.