Brian Hales Credentials

Over a year ago I issued a challenge for readers to document a “vicious lie” contained by the Nauvoo Expositor. Submissions have spanned topics from land speculation to indecent proposals . The most recent submission comes from Brian Hales, an independent LDS researcher who makes a strong case that the idea that Joseph would “d*mn” any woman who rejected him is a vicious lie contained in the Expositor. Let’s look closer and see if this claim has merit.

Normally addressing the background of who is making a claim is unimportant. It almost always fosters bias and diverts the dialog toward Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well. My response should (and hopefully will) stand on its own merit, regardless of who made the claim. In this case, however, I think it is possible and helpful to learn more about Brian’s credentials on this topic and avoid rhetorical pitfalls.

Brian Hales is one of the most informed researchers on the the details of Joseph’s polygamy. He and his colleague Don Bradley have accumulated the most expansive and comprehensive collection of primary documentation of Joseph’s plural marriage activities. His work is heavily cited in the recent LDS.org essay on “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.” He and Bradley have published a 3 volume series on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy and most recently Brian has co-authored, with his wife Laura Hales, a book examining the theological explanations of Joseph’s polygamy. Brian has been vigorous in clearing up misconceptions about polygamy from all directions with his activities including a 4 part interview with John Dehlin at Mormon Stories Podcast where he addresses claims made by Grant Palmer, a response to Jeremy Runnels, author of the “Letter to a CES Director” and a prompt response to the Kirk Van Allen essay on D&C 132. In each instance, Brian is able to back up his position with excellent references drawing upon his considerable store of knowledge and documentation.

Additionally, Brian is committed to getting accurate information out into the public forum and letting it stand on its own merit. He has previously assisted me in locating supporting documentation which demonstrated that several Apostles lied about the practice of plural marriage in a certificate published by the church – you can read about that topic in the blog post “False Witnesses and Lost Credibility.”

The Claim

Brian submitted his claim as a comment on the Indecent Proposals post. You can read his comment in full by clicking on this link. He begins by summarizing his position before providing some examples:

Hello, There are many problems with claims made in the Nauvoo Expositor, but since you only ask for one, consider this statement: “She is thunder- struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet d*mns her if she rejects.” Joseph Smith’s offers of plural marriage were apparently turned down by several women. The historical record indicates that his preferred response to these rebuffs was to quietly let the matter rest. No evidence of retaliatory excommunications or other vengeful reactions have been found, although twice he sought to counteract allegations he considered untrue.

Hales is referring to the section of the preamble of the Expositor titled “Women Entrapped” which you can review here. This is the same section for which I demonstrated the authors of the Expositor created an amalgamation of the story of at least 3 women who had gone public about proposals of plural marriage. You can see the details of that analysis in Indecent Proposals Part 1 and Indecent Proposals Part 2. Here Hales is focusing on the part of the account which asserts that Joseph would “d*mn” a woman if she rejects his proposal.

This is not a new thing for Brian to address. John C Bennett made a similar allegation in his expose and Brian has included it as myth #11 in his discussion of the “Top 12 Myths about Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.” You can see Brian’s discussion of the topic in his interview with John Dehlin at Mormon Stories Podcast:

Brian’s response in that video is more general and not targeted at the specific claim cited here from the Expositor.

My Response – Part 1

Hales includes some supporting material to make his argument, however that argument doesn’t address the particular claim made in the Expositor. He is defending an extrapolation from what is claimed in the expositor. Specifically, Hales spends the rest of his submission addressing cases of persons who refused Joseph’s proposals without untoward consequences. While that is a subject worth examining (and one which I will address in part 2 of my response) it is not specifically what is claimed in the Expositor.

The specific statement in question is “The Prophet d*mns her if she rejects.”

I will begin by demonstrating that this specific claim made in the Expositor is not a vicious lie.

They knew Section 132

The authors of the the Expositor were aware of the revelation on polygamy which is now recorded in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Nauvoo Expositor included affidavits from the former first presidency member William Law and his wife Jane as well as former Nauvoo Stake Presidency counselor Austin Cowles. In these affidavits, they report having been shown the revelation on plural marriage and they describe some of the contents of that revelation.

The Expositor Affidavits

William Law stated the following:

“I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.—And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.”

(Affidavit of William Law, Nauvoo Expositor, transcript at MormonBookshelf.com)

His wife Jane stated:

“I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives that one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God.”

(Affidavit of Jane Law, Nauvoo Expositor, transcript at MormonBookshelf.com)

Austin Cowles’ testimony included:

“In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst. the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that “David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.”

(Affidavit of Austin Cowles, Nauvoo Expositor, transcript at MormonBookshelf.com)

These statements alone may have seemed like vicious lies to the citizens of Nauvoo and lay members of the church at the time – remember that the revelation on polygamy was not publicly disclosed until September of 1852 (see a full time line in the blogpost Honesty and Polygamy). We now know that these were not lies because we can read the revelation ourselves in the Doctrine and Covenants and we know the history of polygamy in the Church.

Can we be sure that these contributors to the Expositor were telling the truth about having been shown the actual revelation from Section 132?

Connecting the Dots

You can take each of the details of the revelation that are described in the Expositors affidavits and match them up with specific verses in the revelation. Doing so makes it abundantly clear that the Laws and Austin Cowles were shown the actual revelation and knew of its contents.

Affidavit Detail Verse in Section 132 …more wives than one

"…marrying virgins" "… as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else." (D&C 132:61) …in this world and in the world to come "… if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant… it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world;" (D&C 132:19) …this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law "Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." (D&C 132:3)



"I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord." (D&C 132:12)



"I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was." (D&C 132:28) …that he should administer to others "And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven." (D&C 132:48) …it authorized some to have to the number of ten "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified." (D&C 132:62) …women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God. "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law." (D&C 132:64) …sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation;…" (D&C 132:26) David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon … and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriahand his wife;" (D&C 132:38-39)

This leaves no doubt that these men and woman were familiar with the revelation we now read in Section 132

Reading in Council Confirmed

Additionally there is friendly confirmation of Austin Cowles’ claim that the revelation was read to the Nauvoo High Council in 1843. During the Temple Lot Case, several affidavits were sworn by members of the council attesting to that fact. One such document was sworn to by 4 individuals who were present:

“We hereby Jointly and Severally certify that on the twelfth day of August A.D. 1843 Hyrum Smith presented to the High Council in his brick Office at Nauvoo Assembled, the Revelation on Celestial marriage, given to Joseph Smith, and written on the twelfth day of July 1843. and that the teaching of Hyrum Smith refered to in the minutes of the Council on Said twelfth day of August 1843 was on the Subject of Said Revelation, endorsing the Same and enjoining it on the Council.”

(Affidavit of David Fullmer, Thos Grover, Aaron Johnson and James Allred; archive.org)

Another affidavit by David Fullmer who was present at that meeting confirms that the revelation as it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants is exactly what was read to the council:

“…that the copy of Said Revelation on Celestial Marriage published in the Deseret News Extra of September fourteenth A.D. 1852 is a true copy of the Same.”

(Affidavit of David Fulmer; archive.org)

The original Sept 14, 1852 publication of the revelation in the Deseret News Extra can be viewed at archive.org.

Teaching to the women confirmed

It is also possible to confirm that what is in the revelation in Section 132 is what was actually taught to the women that Joseph approached. In the Temple Lot Case, Lucy Walker Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph, was interviewed under oath and gave her own account of Joseph’s teaching regarding plural marriage. She was asked if the revelation was the same thing taught to her personally by Joseph:

“Q: What difference, if any, is there in the principle of plural marriage as taught you by Joseph Smith, and the principle of plural marriage as published by the church in their revelation published by them, here in Utah…. A: There is not any.”

(“Deposition of Mrs. Lucy w. Kimball” Temple Lot Case, Pg. 451 Question 81, archive.org)

“Then are ye damned”

Having established that the authors of the Expositor were well acquainted with the instructions, teachings, warnings and privileges described in the revelation of Section 132 we can see that the statement in question takes on an informed dimension that only people also familiar with the revelation could see.

Because a person must be taught the law contained in the revelation in order to enter into it, it is a justified assumption that in every instance of Joseph’s plural marriage proposals he taught them the relevant principles. What is contained in the revelation recorded in Section 132, then is a preamble to the proposal.

Take a look at D&C Section 132:4

“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”

(D&C 132:4, lds.org)

As Hales observed, the Expositor states:

“The Prophet d*mns her if she rejects.”

Thus, it is explicitly clear that the revelation in Section 132 itself demonstrates that Joseph’s instruction to any of the women he could have proposed to included a statement that they would be damned if they rejected the covenant.

The Expositor is vindicated.

Anticipated Objection 1

It is possible that Hales or others who examine this question from a position of wanting to defend Joseph and vilify the Expositor will raise an objection to my explanation that goes something like this:

“Joseph didn’t say he would damn the women – the Lord did”

That is entirely a question of perspective. The authors of the Expositor did not believe that the revelation which allowed polygamy was of divine origin. They believed it to have come from Joseph and not from God. They were not alone in viewing polygamy as non-doctrinal. In a televised interview with Larry King on the subject of polygamy the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “it’s not doctrinal”

While some may argue that Hinckley was referring to what the FLDS practice rather than the polygamy of Joseph and Brigham, others see little difference between the two. In any event, the authors of the Expositor saw the statement that anyone who rejects the new covenant would be damned as coming from Joseph rather than from God. Faithful members will likely hold to the notion that it was God who originated that condemnation. This point is a matter of opinion and so does not make the statement a lie.

Anticipated Objection 2

One potential objection critical readers of my blog may raise is that if you look at the context of the phrase “The prophet damns her if she rejects” it is stating that he damns her if she rejects his proposal of marriage – not if she rejects the doctrine and that all of my above arguments are merely circumstantial. Lets take a look at the preceding context of the statement:

“…that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph’s) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently, and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings from the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it – but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder- struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet d*mns her if she rejects.”

(Nauvoo Expositor, preamble, MormonBookshelf.org)

The key question being what exactly is the woman rejecting? Hales argument is based on the premise that she is simply rejecting the proposal of marriage. That is a reasonable assumption, but it is not the only valid one. One could also reasonably hold that she is rejecting the idea that God would make such allowances or give such revelations in the first place. That she would “reject this covenant” as phrased in D&C 132:4. This may lead her to not only reject Joseph’s teaching, but to also reject his status as a Prophet and man of God and the rejection of the marriage proposal is a foregone conclusion. This supports the position I have described in this post.

Conclusion – Part 1

In this post I have clearly demonstrated that the potential “vicious lie” of the Nauvoo Expositor proposed by Brian Hales was no lie at all and simply a declaration of the warning that was given as part of the revelation on celestial marriage now contained in D&C Section 132. A revelation that was well known to the authors of the Expositor and which they had every reason to believe was a preamble to any proposal Joseph would make of a woman.

It is clear, however, that Hales was not thinking about the statement from this perspective. The substance of his argument was centered around making the case that there were women who rejected Joseph’s proposals of plural marriage who did so without reprisal, condemnation or disparagement. In Part 2 of my response I address this question. Read on for more!