By Jeremy Runnells & Johnny Stephenson

Pt. I may be found here.

Part II: Method… Or Madness?

“Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens.” ― Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays

“Madness breeds madness.” ― Dan Brown, Inferno

Brian Hales mentions that scholars may critique your work. Some of Hales own work was critiqued by Historian D. Michael Quinn in 2012 and 2013, and what Quinn had to say about Hales’ conclusions isn’t encouraging. Aside from important weaknesses and incorrect arguments, Hales’ work is full of red herrings, flawed methodology and manipulation of the evidence. And it is important to note that Quinn only reviewed Hales’ conclusions about sexual polyandry in Smith’s marriages.

But Quinn doesn’t treat Brian Hales like Hales treated Jeremy Runnells. He takes what Hales has written and step by step makes his assessment. He doesn’t claim right off the bat that Hales is being deceptive to try and poison the well in advance. Still, Quinn found a plethora of problems with Hale’s approach as an historian. Here are some of them:

Quinn accuses Hales of “citing easily refutable claims” (pg. 6); quotes secondary sources over primary sources (page 6); Quinn also writes that “The best evidence is the original record of sealing, not someone’s century later commentary about it” which Hales quoted instead of the original record.

He states that Hales “brushes off the significance of some of the evidence he has cited,” (page 11); makes contradictory assertions (page 11); conveniently shifts his standards of evidentiary analysis in his own direction (page 18); that Hales “apologetical observations contradict evidence (page 23); uses a red herring, (page 25); makes claims that have no basis whatever (page 27); strains credulity (page 27); uses “presentist bias” (page 33); accuses him of “misrepresentation” (page 64); of not consulting original sources (page 66); that Hales had an “academic obligation” to reveal certain information which he did not (page 66); of using a “vacuous red-herring when Hales does not quote a single exception from the “original records” about which he writes” (page 69); that Hales would not acknowledge crucial evidence that undermined his narrative (page 70 n. 46) which was that Joseph Smith forbid the practice of polygamy in Oct. 1843 (ibid); citing a source critical to his argument without a page number (page 72); uses flawed methodology and closed system of logic (page 73); worse (Quinn’s word) he has failed to acknowledge several of the contrary evidences in publications he has cited, (ibid); he makes “perplexing gaffes” in his use of evidence (page 73-74); he repeatedly questions the memory/accuracy of faithful Mormon witnesses that Hales disagrees with (page 74); does not use equal standards for evidence (page 74); of making “apologetical claims” knowing they were “improbable” (page 75); that he did not acknowledge critical evidence until forced to by Quinn (page 78); gave “anachronistic assessment”, and “a fallacy of irrelevant proof”, and “chronologically false” assessments (page 80).

He overstates problem in proving a negative, (Hales – “You can’t prove a negative”) to which Quinn writes, “for example it is possible to prove that someone didn’t die on a particular date” (page 82); falsely accusing Quinn of stealing documents (84); another red herring (87); absurdity (87); claimed that Quinn said something he did not say (90); of another fallacy of irrelevant proof (page 90); that Hales wrongly corrected an accurate page citation by Quinn (page 91); of knowing of evidence but ignoring it to support his conclusions (page 94); claimed no documentation existed when it did (page 95); of not acknowledging evidence (page 98); making claims that were wrong (page 98); raising an apologetical smoke-screen by questioning well known facts (page 101); making ridiculous assertions about conspiracies (page 101); of fallacy of irrelevant proof (page 102); that Hales is an unreasonable researcher (page 102); of using “multiple fallacies” (page 104); the purposeful absence of references (page 105); purposeful non-inclusion of first-person sources that contradict his argument (page 108); using “imprecise and less detailed” evidence to support his argument (page 108); exclusion of evidence (page 108); claims there is no “specific documentation” when Quinn provided it (page 110); wrongly stated something Quinn did not say (page 113) which was a “Stunning gaffe”, again a red herring (page 113); another red herring (page 115); irrelevant statements (page 115); “frequent use of polemical red-herrings to undermine historical evidence he dislikes” (page 115).

On page 118 Quinn writes, “NOTHING (Caps in original) can satisfy Brian Hales’ calculatedly stringent requirements that are impossible to achieve, unless he finds a Victorian American woman who said, wrote, or testified that she (as a devout Mormon) alternated sexual intercourse with two husbands during a period of time” [This speaks for itself]; Also includes Hales in using the “double standard of LDS apologists who narrowly define acceptable evidence for unpleasant realities” (page 118); of denying and ignoring evidence (pg. 123); using a closed system of logic (God knew Smith would be obedient so he was).

On page 124, Quinn compares Hales to Joseph Smith III, who refused to believe evidence he did not like, (page 124); accuses Hales of playing “a skillful shell game in which premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same” (page 125); ignores contradictions and other problems in evidence (page 126); omits significant facts (page 127); another wrong claim (page 127); does not cite sources he knows of (page 128); makes unqualified conclusions (page 128).[25]

Even with all this criticism, Quinn did agree with some of Hales’ conclusions and even complimented him a few times in his critique. This is something that Hales doesn’t do with Jeremy Runnells. (That is – be fair and acknowledge Jeremy’s sincere concerns or compliment him when he agrees that he got something right). Instead, Hales goes from irrational to ridiculous. He writes,

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.”[26]

All of Jeremy’s observations are absolutely accurate, and Hales knows that they are. But here is how Hales ridiculously responds to this:

Runnells seems concerned that Joseph Smith was sealed to “at least 34 women.” It is actually 35 by my count.[27]

Is it a bad thing to be concerned that Smith was sealed/married to at least 34 women? This concerns many people both in and out of the church. How though, does this show that what Runnells wrote is inaccurate or that he is lying? It simply doesn’t.

It’s obvious that Jeremy qualified his statement with two words, “at least”. With all of the other material that Jeremy includes in the Polygamy Section of “Debunking Fair,” one has to wonder why Hales would even respond to this, which is accurate (based on a consensus of polygamy historians, including Brian Hales).

And there is still debate over how many actual wives Joseph Smith had, (lsd.org claims it is “unknown”, Polygamy Essay, text at Note 24) but you don’t hear that from Brian Hales in this hit piece. Jeremy Runnells cites the many historians that disagree with Hales’ count, but Hales doesn’t mention this either.[28] Hales then writes,

While it [the number of women Smith “married”] 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.” None of the women left any complaints regarding their sealings to Joseph. Yet, Runnells seems bothered by this observation.[29]

Hales claim about “non-sexual ‘eternity only’ sealings” simply cannot be substantiated by any evidence that he presents, (which he admits elsewhere) so his comment here to Runnells is curiously disingenuous as is his comment about none of the women complaining. (Many did, as we shall see). And late remembrances by women who were trying to justify Smith’s spiritual wifeism should always be taken for what they are.

First, Hales doesn’t know if is 13 or “possibly as many as 20”, and his claim that “at least 13” were “non-sexual eternity only sealings” isn’t based on any credible evidence. He is simply making these numbers up. It’s an irrational claim. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that there was ever such as thing as a “non-sexual eternity only sealing” during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. (We will show this below).

There are only a few very late statements that are ambiguous at best and second hand stories with no supporting evidence to back up Hales claims. All sealings were for eternity, or for time and eternity (depending on the circumstances of the individuals), or time, but there are no known instances in the Nauvoo Era where sexuality in the marriage was specifically barred by ceremony or even alluded to. This is quite simply wishful thinking on the part of Brian Hales and he has absolutely no credible evidence to show that this was so.

There is credible evidence though, that there were one or two instances of pre-arranged “eternity only sealings” many years later between two living people with the caveat that they would be unconsummated, but that they were extremely rare. (We discuss this below).

Hales may be the only author who has published multiple volumes about Smith’s polygamy devoted to the point of view that he was only “sealed” to a large majority of his “wives” that were specifically set up to be “non-sexual marriages”.[30] This seems to be an obsession with Brian Hales and the reason is obvious, to try and mitigate the damage of Smith’s secretive “marriages” to other men’s wives which was considered adultery by Joseph’s own 1842 First Presidency Address. (Also discussed below).

Michael Quinn put Hales’ obsession with his idealistic version of Joseph Smith this way in relation to his denials of Smith’s obvious polyandry:

“ NOTHING [Caps and underline in original] can satisfy Brian Hales’ calculatedly stringent requirements that are impossible to achieve, unless he finds a Victorian American woman who said, wrote, or testified that she (as a devout Mormon) alternated sexual intercourse with two husbands during a period of time”.[31]

Hales then writes at Rational Faiths,

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).[32]

Again, Hales seems to have missed Jeremy’s use of the qualifier “at least”. And Jeremy would be more correct in doing so than Hales is giving an actual number. Hales includes in this list Mary Heron Snider of whom there is no evidence that she was ever a “wife” of Joseph Smith or even “sealed” to him. There is evidence though, that Smith had sexual intercourse with her in her son-in-law’s house which Joseph E. Johnson (her son-in-law) likened to his own adultery which happened years later. Concerning Mary Heron Snider, Hales writes elsewhere:

Without any additional evidence, it is impossible to conclusively identify the nature of Joseph Smith’s relationship with Mary Heron, if any special relationship ever existed.[33]

But this does not stop Hales from including her in Smith’s list of wives with absolutely no evidence to score rhetorical points against Jeremy. This is another irrational conclusion by Hales, because he claims that she was “married” to Joseph Smith, but that it is “impossible” to identify the relationship she had with Smith. But because she had sex with Smith, she has to be one of his wives, using Hales’ logic. Johnson likening Smith and Snider’s intercourse to his own adultery still doesn’t stop Hales from making these irrational pronouncements. Therefore including her in his list of wives “married” to Joseph Smith in response to Jeremy is baffling, as is his obvious bragging about numbers of wives he concludes Smith “married”.

There is very good evidence however, that Smith’s relationship with Mary Snider was an adulterous affair just like the one with Fanny Alger. (See Note #33).

If this is what Hales means by “the latest research”, then his website should be visited with caution and his conclusions discarded for their flawed methodology and closed system of logic, (to use the words of D. Michael Quinn).

Hales also claims that Jeremy provides no credible documentation to support the practice of sexual polyandry by Joseph Smith. This is astoundingly untrue. Jeremy provides this statement by Ann Eliza Webb, one of Brigham Young’s wives:

One woman [Zina Huntington] said to me not very long since, while giving me some of her experiences in polygamy: ‘The greatest trial I ever endured in my life was living with my husband and deceiving him, by receiving Joseph’s attentions whenever he chose to come to me.‘ Some of these women have since said they did not know who was the father of their children; this is not to be wondered at, for after Joseph’s declaration annulling all Gentile marriages, the greatest promiscuity was practiced; and, indeed, all sense of morality seemed to have been lost by a portion at least of the church.[34]

Of course, this is not credible evidence to Brian Hales because as D. Michael Quinn observed, Hales “does not use equal standards for evidence”. According to Hales:

Ann Eliza does not specifically name which of Joseph’s wives she was allegedly quoting [about the polyandry]. However, her mother, Eliza Jane Churchill Webb, repeated the accusation in two private letters a year later specifying Zina Huntington as the woman:

“There are women living in Utah now who were sealed to Joseph while living with their husbands, and they say it was the greatest trial of their lives to live with two men at the same time.”

Four months afterwards she also penned, “There is Zina,—whose maiden name was Huntington. She says the greatest trial of her life was, to live with her husband and Joseph too at the same time.”

Although it is commonly quoted by writers as primary evidence of sexual polyandry in Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, several problems emerge with Ann Eliza’s statement.

One is the issue of proximity. Ann Eliza did not live in the Lion House with Zina and Brigham Young’s other wives, but lived in her own house a few blocks away. She apostatized in 1872 and subsequently sued Brigham Young for alimony (and lost).

Yet, she claimed that sometime prior to her leaving the Church, Zina Huntington confided to her regarding her “greatest trial,” her frustrations with polyandrous sexuality between her, Joseph Smith, and Henry Jacobs decades before in Nauvoo.

In the nineteenth century, for a woman to mention her personal sexual involvement was rare. To admit to a polyandrous relationship would be rarer, but to openly refer to a polyandrous sexual involvement would be very extraordinary. The listeners to such admissions would have had no context to evaluate the declarations except to consider the behaviors plainly immoral. Even in the secret teachings of plurality in Nauvoo, no doctrinal foundation for sexual polyandry was ever discussed. At any time during the restoration, such statements would be interpreted as admissions of unchaste behavior.

Zina’s alleged openness concerning such a delicate topic also contrasts her 1898 interview statements. She then remarked that, “It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years.” She declared to the interviewer, “We hardly dared speak of it. The very walls had ears. We spoke of it only in whispers . . . you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life.”

In light of her declared reticence to talk about her marriage to Joseph Smith, it seems less likely that she would have suspended her discretion as reported by Ann Eliza.

Importantly, in an 1887 interview, Zina questioned Ann Eliza’s general truthfulness:

The trouble with Ann Eliza . . . was that she was not truthful. She was not grateful, and she was a very bad woman. She has convicted herself out of her own mouth. . . . She never lifted a her [sic] finger to do a bit of work that she didn’t want to do. She had servants and there was no necessity for her doing anything. She has asserted that President Young opened all his wives’ letters, and that they couldn’t visit anywhere or write to anybody, which is ridiculously untrue. President Young was occupied with too many important matters to give attention to such trivial things as his wives’ letters or his wives’ visits. We wrote to whom we pleased. . . . Ann Eliza knew she was misrepresenting the facts.

Zina did not directly dispute Ann Eliza’s claims regarding sexual polyandry probably because the original published statement did not identify her as the “one woman” and few individuals, including perhaps Zina herself, would have assumed her identity. Regardless, it appears Eliza’s assertion is best dismissed as anti-Mormon propaganda unless more credible supportive evidence for sexual polyandry is found.[35]

The first thing that we should mention here in critiquing Hales’ assessment of Ann Eliza is that Hales accuses her of spewing out “Anti-Mormon propaganda” and so she really can’t be trusted as a witness, because after Ann Eliza left the Church a believing Mormon (Zina Young) claimed she was not trustworthy.

To Hales, this is enough to give credence to Zina Young’s claims and cast doubt on Ann Eliza Webb. (Who is just another “Anti-Mormon) . Hales believes what Zina says about Ann Eliza (and polygamy), but not what Ann Eliza says about Zina because it does not fit his idealistic narrative. (The believing Mormon who says what Hales wants to hear is to be believed, while the person labeled by Hales as an “Anti-Mormon” is not unless they agree with his own personal conclusions). And there is Hales using that “anti” label again.

It also did not stop Hales from relying on Ann Eliza and her mother’s testimony to support his claims that Fanny Alger was “sealed” or “married” to Joseph Smith. Also, he does not mention any of these problems (Zina’s claims that Ann Eliza is untrustworthy) in an article he wrote about Fanny Alger because he uses Webb to support his position there. This is a hypocritical double standard that Hales employs over and over again.[36]

Hales then tries to tell us that because Ann Eliza apostatized years after she came to know Zina Huntington Young, (Ann Eliza was also Brigham Young’s wife for almost five years) that it makes it less probable that Huntington would have confided in her. According to Hales, since they only lived a few blocks away from each other, this makes it all the more unlikely! In fact, one of the points that Zina Young makes is that she wasn’t restricted by Young from making visits to whomever she wanted to. But as we shall see, she didn’t need to make any special visits to frequently see Zina.

Hales also claims that he knows it is rare for two women who were married to the same man and were sister wives, to speak to each other about personal matters involving sex. Hales tells us that, “To admit to a polyandrous relationship would be rarer, but to openly refer to a polyandrous sexual involvement would be very extraordinary.” According to whom? What is Hales basing this speculation on? There is no way to know because it is not based on any evidence in existence outside of Brian Hales’ imagination. There is evidence that Hales is aware that one of Smith’s “wives” had no qualms about explaining her polyandrous arrangement if she had the chance to do so in private:

I hope you will not think me [Mary Lightner] intrusive, I am sure I do not wish to be- If I could have an oportunity of conversing with you, [John Henry Smith] and Brother Joseph [F. Smith] I could explain some things in regard to my living with Mr L,[ightner] after becoming the Wife of another, which would throw light, on what now seems mysterious – and you would be perfectly satisfied with me. I write this; because I have heard that it had been commented on to my injury. I have done the best I could, and Joseph will sanction my action – I cannot explain things in this Letter – some day you will know all. That is, if I ever have an oportunity of conversing with either of you.[37]

What could Mary tell them that they already didn’t know about? Mary Lightner herself claimed that in February of 1842 “Brigham Young sealed us for time and all eternity.”[38]

What Mary wanted to speak to John Henry Smith and Joseph F. Smith about was something that people had commented on to her injury. This would not be having two husbands, for many of Smith’s wives were already married when they became his wife and they knew this. What would Joseph sanction? Staying with her husband? According to Mary Lightner this is exactly what Joseph told her to do, so this was no secret as she told Emmeline B. Wells years before this time:

“I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the leaders of the Church does not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do, as he knew what troubles I would have to contend with.”[39]

She had no problem writing this. But it would be very controversial if she wrote that Joseph told her to share herself with both of them. To say this was a “non-sexual, eternity only sealing,” ignores the evidence, but Hales doesn’t mind doing that because Mary Lightner was having sex with Adam Lightner during this period and gave birth to a son in 1842 and a daughter in 1843 while she was Joseph’s spiritual wife.[40]

What did Mary Lightner mean by “becoming the wife of another?” A simple “eternity only sealing” makes little sense here. People were sealed to one another frequently during this period of time. Men were sealed to men, and women to men, and children to their parents. It is hard to believe that an “eternity only sealing” to Joseph would have been spoken of to her injury, especially when it was established doctrine and taught for many years that Gentile marriages were not considered authoritative.

Hales claims over and over again that polyandry was “a practice that would have been explosive from a morality perspective and otherwise unknown in their society.“[41] But then, so was polygamy, which the Nauvoo Relief Society denounced in 1842 as being “contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs & conduct of society.”[42] Yet we have many women abandoning their 19th century morals to participate in polygamous marriages; and though some were reluctant to embrace the principle they all trusted that Joseph Smith was teaching them correct doctrine because they believed that he was their “lawgiver”.

So how would Hales know what women spoke of in confidence or in private or how rare that was? How is Zina Huntington “openly” referring to a polyandrous relationship when she is obviously confiding to a sister wife? Zina’s comments about Ann Eliza after she left Young must be taken with caution for obvious reasons. Where is Hales’ evidence that Zina Young considered Ann Eliza untrustworthy while they were both married to Young? That would help bolster his conjectures, but he doesn’t produce any.

This then, would have been a private admission. Ann Eliza did not reveal the circumstances surrounding the admission by Zina Young to her, only that Young gave Ann Eliza “some of her experiences in polygamy” in which she recounted certain things to her. Describing this as an “open admission” is misleading and a red herring.

These kinds of fallacious conclusions make up the bulk of Hales arguments in his articles and in his books as we have seen by the analysis of Hales’ work done by D. Michael Quinn.

It may be instructive to provide a little more of Ann Eliza’s comments about this matter from her book so one may understand their true context:

Joseph not only paid his addresses to the young and unmarried women, but he sought “spiritual alliance” with many married ladies who happened to strike his fancy. He taught them that all former marriages were null and void, and that they were at perfect liberty to make another choice of a husband. The marriage covenants were not binding, because they were ratified only by Gentile laws. These laws the Lord did not recognize; consequently all the women were free.

Again, he would appeal to their religious sentiments, and their strong desire to enter into the celestial kingdom. He used often to argue in this manner while endeavoring to convince some wavering or unwilling victim: “Now, my dear sister, it is true that your husband is a good man, a very good man, but you and he are by no means kindred spirits, and he will never be able to save you in the celestial kingdom ; it has been revealed by the Spirit that you ought to belong to me.”

This sophistry, strange as it may seem, had its weight, and scarcely ever failed of its desired results. Many a woman, with a kind, good husband, who loved her and trusted her, and a family of children, would suffer herself to be sealed to Joseph, at the same time living with the husband whom she was wronging so deeply, he believing fondly that her love was all his own.

One woman said to me not very long since, while giving me some of her experiences in polygamy : “The greatest trial I ever endured in my life was living with my husband and deceiving him, by receiving Joseph’s attentions whenever he chose to come to me.”

This woman, and others, whose experience has been very similar, are among the very best women in the church; they are as pure-minded and virtuous women as any in the world. They were seduced under the guise of religion, and they submitted as to a cross laid upon them by the divine will. Believing implicitly in the Prophet, they never dreamed of questioning the truth of his revelations, and would have considered themselves on the verge of apostasy, which to a Mormon is a most dangerous and horrible state, from which there is no possible salvation, had they refused to submit to him and to receive his “divine” doctrines.

Some of these women have since said they did not know who was the father of their children; this is not to be wondered at, for after Joseph’s declaration annulling all Gentile marriages, the greatest promiscuity was practised; and, indeed, all sense of morality seemed to have been lost by a portion at least of the church. Shocking as all this may appear, women that were sealed to Joseph at that time are more highly respected than any others. It is said, as the highest mead of praise which can be given, that they never repudiated any of the Prophet’s teachings, but submitted to all his requirements without a murmur, and eventually they will be exalted to a high position in the celestial kingdom.[43]

What Ann Eliza states here is true. Smith did not consider Gentile marriages (in private teachings) of any significance and certainly not binding upon any individuals at that time. (Before June, 1842).[44]

Smith also taught that in the pre-existence there were some promised to others, “kindred spirits” if you will, to make it more convincing to the woman that they were “meant” to be together.[45]

Hales claims time after time that all of this must have been innocent because the husband in many cases approved of the arrangement. Hales writes:

To answer the question why, [Smith married other men’s wives] is simply that the fourteen women, [Hales’ magic number] when they learned about eternal marriage, they chose Joseph Smith to be their eternal husband. It’s that simple. They chose him over the men that they were married to. Four of the women couldn’t be sealed to their legal husbands because those husbands were not active Latter-day Saints. But the remaining ten, whose husbands were active LDS, chose Joseph. So some observations. It’s kind of weird that a woman would be married to an active LDS but be sealed to Joseph Smith for an eternal marriage. And Joseph could be criticized that he was insensitive to those ten husbands, but none of them ever complained. We have no complaints from any of them. And there could be suspicions that Joseph coerced the women, but these are not supported by any kind of documentation. None of the women complained and we have good documentation that Joseph taught that the woman’s desires should be respected in every case. And there are at least five cases where women turned him down, and the only reason we know about it is that those women later talked about it. Joseph didn’t talk about it. He didn’t try to destroy their reputation. He didn’t castigate them. He just let it go, because that was their choice.[46]

If this is a correct principle, as Hales asserts, then how would this kind of behavior be treated in the Church today? Women could just “choose” another husband and start living with him? Why would this not be a precedent today among monogamous relationships? What the woman wants is what she gets, right? How many Bishops would counsel a woman who was dissatisfied with her “Gentile” marriage and wanted another (married) man that was Mormon, to simply pursue him and try to break up his marriage so that they could be together (because she claimed they were promised to each other in the pre-existence) and not worry about a divorce since the marriage was not really legal or binding? This is simply ludicrous and doesn’t make sense even for Joseph’s time, which is why those like William Law opposed Joseph when they learned of his shenanigans.

This also applies to Smith’s behavior. It is obvious that Smith chose these women and then convinced them to “marry” him, claiming he could “save” them and their families; that they were created for him by God, or whatever other explanation he could think of that would convince them. (Like angels with swords). He had neither the right, nor the authority to do so under the very rules he claimed God gave to him for the Church to abide by, but since he was designated as the “lawgiver” and “prophet” of the Church, everything he said (no matter how contradictory) was to be obeyed by these women and their husbands.

As Smith’s teaching spread that only Mormon men could “save” women in the afterlife, some women were obviously persuaded to go after Mormon men, especially those in high ranking positions who they felt had the most prestige and a better chance of “saving” them. This was also the case with men and the law of adoption, which we will discuss below.

Others like Catherine Lewis, Nancy Rigdon, Martha Brotherton, Sarah Pratt, and Jane Law were repulsed by the doctrine and rejected it. There was a good reason why Smith tried to marry women who were related to each other or were the sisters of wives of his close friends. He could persuade their relatives and friends (who in most cases were members) that helping him (Smith) was helping the family in the next life. They (the members being approached about polygamy) also for the most part had a “testimony” of Smith’s prophetic calling, and would put aside their initial doubts and fears after Smith assured them that they were pursing the right course.

Hales acts like this is something unique, that if no one complained, nothing “wrong” was done. Once again, we have all of history to show us that this is simply not the case; that many are and were fooled by men they put their complete trust in, especially in religious matters.

Hales then tries to muddy the waters by claiming,

Zina’s alleged openness concerning such a delicate topic also contrasts her 1898 interview statements. She then remarked that, “It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years.” She declared to the interviewer, “We hardly dared speak of it. The very walls had ears. We spoke of it only in whispers . . . you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life.”[47]

Again there was no alleged “openness” by Zina Young. These were comments made to Ann Eliza Webb that were private since she didn’t claim that the conversation was made in a public setting. We also have Zina herself admitting that she did talk about it. She says, “I never breathed it for years”. This is something that a person would only say after they had “breathed it”. If one does something and does not speak of it, they say “I never spoke of it”. If one did speak of it, eventually, one says, I did not speak of it … for years. If Zina Huntington never spoke of such things, then why did she say, “We spoke of it only in whispers”? This implies that yes, Zina did speak of such matters, but only “in whispers”, (in Nauvoo) and then again years later, perhaps to someone like one of her sister wives (In private, not openly). Zina’s remarks here are contradictory and Hales’ interpretation of them is contrived to support an argument based on his own red herring.

Also, on his website Hales claims that:

“In light of the contradictory evidence and the inability of historians to examine the described document, the credibility of this story is not established and should be quoted with caution.”[48]

Isn’t it kind of hypocritical of Hales to quote this interview with Zina, when he claims that the RLDS Church (who published the interview) doctored the Temple Lot Case testimony and that they can’t be trusted; and goes after Jeremy for doing so? But without it, Hales’ claims about Zina Huntington fall apart as do his criticisms of Jeremy Runnells.

Concerning Zina Huntington Young, there is no reason to give credence to her “declared reticence” to keep totally silent about her marriage to Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo years because there is a declaration that she spoke of it “only in whispers” because “the walls had ears”. It cannot be both.

It was obviously to protect herself and Smith that she “spoke of it only in whispers” in Nauvoo. And this could also have been Zina’s own paranoia. For example, this makes far more sense if Zina was approached by Smith early (like in 1840 or 1841), a scenario that Hales rejects, even though Zina’s own descendants affirm this.[49] Later, when Smith was marrying more women, he was more open about it as the testimony of Melissa Lott Willes affirms.[50] Smith also had many more wives, who obviously helped Smith recruit new ones and supported each other. Helen Mar Kimball claimed later that she was close to Sarah Ann Whitney (another of Smith’s spiritual wives) during the Nauvoo period.[51]

To illustrate this, in all her Temple Lot Testimony, Melissa Lott never once mentions that it was “taboo” to talk about her “marriage” to Joseph which took place on September 20, 1843, and she admitted having sex with Joseph Smith! She also claims that some of her family attended her “wedding” ceremony. This is hardly someone who was worried that “the walls had ears”. For example, here is her testimony about her being “married” to Smith:

79 Q:–Now was this marriage public or private? A:–There was quite a number present. 81 Q:–Answer the question,–was it public of [sic] private? A:–It was not very private.

82 Q:–Who was present? A:–I can’t remember all who were there.

83 Q:–Well give us the names of the parties who were present as well as you can remember them? A:–My father and mother were there and several others and they are all in their graves today but myself.

84 Q:–Well who else was present besides yourself, your father and your mother? A:–Joseph Smith was there.

85:–Q:–Well I know that, but who else was there? A:–Well some of my brothers, — one of my brothers, and the witnesses that were necessary.[52]

Though Melissa Lott testified that Emma was notified, she was not present and so that was simply hearsay from Joseph Smith who we know did not inform Emma of any of his “marriages” until he was caught and had to; so there is no reason to believe that Smith informed Emma about this one either.[53]

This of course is long after Smith approached Zina Huntington. Hales’ assertion that Huntington’s relationship to Smith was non-sexual is troubling when considering what Zina herself wrote later,

When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriag that we would have the privilige of associating in family relationship in \the/ worlds to come I searched the scripture & buy humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for himself that God had required that order to be established in his church. I mad[e] a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be look uppon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved could I compremise conscience lay aside the sure testimony of the spirit of God for the Glory of this world. [54]

If these “marriages” were simply a ceremony for the next world, Huntington surely would not have felt that her honor was compromised, since the marriage would not be for “time”, but for the afterlife. Hyrum Smith would later openly preach about being “sealed” to his first (dead) wife while being married to another in April, 1844. Why would it be a greater sacrifice than her life to only be “sealed” to Smith in a marriage that would not affect her at all until the afterlife? Hales’ scenario makes no sense. Yet, according to Hales,

… Zina was undoubtedly aware that the RLDS interviewer was trying to establish that Joseph Smith did not experience conjugal relations with anyone but Emma, his legal wife. An admission by Zina that her marriage was for “eternity only” and without sexual relations played right into Wight’s hands by providing him with the exact evidence he was seeking.

Nonetheless, Zina knew that some of Joseph’s plural marriages were for “time and eternity” and included connubial relations. As a consequence, she may have been reticent to comply with Wight’s designs by providing evidence that might have used to perpetuate a deception.[55]

If she was so savvy about what was going on why does Zina demand to know of John W. Wight near the end of the interview, “what is your object in quizzing me like this?” Zina Young also seemed to not be able to make up her mind if she was married for “time” or “time and eternity”, which casts doubt on Hales’ assertion that some of the “marriages” were eternity only non-sexual sealings.

When Wight asks her at the end of the interview, “Mrs. Young, you have stated that you were married to Joseph Smith for time and eternity. Now, how could you marry Joseph Smith for time when at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?” Zina does not correct Wight, instead she says “I do not wish to reply. I only know that this is the work of God upon the earth…”[56]

This makes little sense since it was known by many for years that Zina had been one of Joseph Smith’s plural wives. Wight even gives her the perfect opportunity to do so, but she declines! Why would she have so much trouble speaking about what was only (according to Hales) an eternity only non-sexual sealing that took place decades earlier and was well known by the public? After all, she had been a polygamous wife to Brigham Young for decades. Common sense tells us that this was about more than just a “non-sexual sealing.” Another thing to think about is that Zina did not want to give Wight exactly what he wanted because it would have been a lie.

Instead, we see that Zina’s attitude towards anyone asking her questions about her polygamous “marriage” to Smith was hostile. She herself claimed that “I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved…” It is obvious that Huntington just doesn’t care about Wight, or his case. In many cases, these women only thought they would have to answer that they were Joseph’s wives, which they were happy to do. They did not anticipate having to be cross examined and resented it. Zina didn’t really want to answer those kinds of questions and dodged most of them. Hales’ speculations here are absurd.

It would have been much easier for Zina to talk with Ann Eliza Young about such matters, for she was also a spiritual wife. Wight (an outsider) was asking her the very questions that she had claimed were such a trouble to her conscience. Again, if this was not about sex, why was Zina so troubled by her marriage to Joseph? If it was secret and only for “eternity” and non-sexual then how would her status as an honorable woman come into play, especially so many years after the fact? She had been a polygamous wife to Brigham Young for years as we have mentioned above. Why was the period she spent with Joseph Smith so hard for her to explain? The answer is because it was for time and eternity and involved sexual relations with two men simultaneously just as Ann Eliza was told by Zina herself.

Hales claims that there are problems with Zina’s own family reminiscences because they do not fit the narrative he is promoting, but these family recollections agree with what Ann Eliza Young claimed that Zina Huntington told her.[57]

Hales would rather rely on the evidence from the 1898 interview, given under hostile circumstances which clearly shows Zina Young unwilling to answer even the most innocuous of questions without interjecting “that is none of your concern,” or “that is no matter”. Hales will even quote this to rebut Jeremy’s claims about Zina Huntington even though he warns on his website that it is a “suspect” interview. Contrast that with Melissa Lott Willes’ testimony during the Temple Lot Case,

227 Q:–Did you ever room with Joseph Smith as his wife? A. Yes sir. 228 Q:– At what place? A:– At Nauvoo

229 Q:– What place in Nauvoo? A:– The Nauvoo Mansion.

230 Q. At what place in the Mansion? A. Do you want to know the number of the room, or what?

231 Q. Well just what part of the house the room was in if you can give it? A. Well I can give it and the number of the room too. It was room number one.

232 [sic] Q. Room number one? A. Yes sir.

233 Q:–Who else roomed there? A:–I don’t know of any one.

234 Q:–Where was Emma Smith at that time? A:–I don’t know I didn’t ask where she was.

235 Q:–Did you know where she was at that time? A:–No sir I didn’t.

236 Q:–Did she know where you were at that time? A:–I did not ask her whether she did or not.

237 Q:–So you roomed with him in the Nauvoo Mansion in room number one? A:–Yes sir.

238 Q:–That was the house that Joseph Smith lived in was it not? A:–Yes sir.

239 Q:–And you don’t know whether Emma Smith was in the house or not? A:–No sir.

240 Q:– And you can’t say whether she knew where you were? A:–No sir. I couldn’t say where she was, and I don’t know that she knew about me, for I did not speak to her.

241 Q:–Well she was at home? A: Yes sir.

242 Q:–How do you know? A:–She was there when I see her last.

243 Q:–What time was that? A:–That I saw her?

244 Q:–Yes madam? A:–I can’t tell you the time, If I had thought I was to be asked all these questions I might have kept a note of all these things, but as I didn’t know anything about this examination I didn’t.

245 Q:–How often did you room there with Joseph Smith? A. Well that is something I can’t tell you.

246 Q:–Well was it more than once? A:–Yes sir, and more than twice.

247 Q:–Well that is something I would like to know? A:–Well there is something I would like to know. If I am to be asked these questions I would like to know if I am to answer them. I have told you all about this thing that I know, and I can’t see any reason in your worrying me with these questions, and I would like to know if I have to answer them?

248 Q:–Well if you decline to answer them say so, and that will do? A:–I don’t decline to answer any question that I know anything about.

249 Q:–Well answer that question then? A:–What is the question?

250 Q:–I asked how many times you had roomed there in the house with Joseph Smith? I do not expect you to answer positively the exact number of times, but I would like to have you tell us the number of times as nearly as you can remember it? A:–Well I can’t tell you. I think I have acted the part of a lady in answering your questions as well as I have, and I don’t think you are acting the part of a gentleman in asking me these questions.

251 Q:–Well I will ask you the question over again in this form, –was it more than twice? A:–Yes sir.

252 Q:–Well How many times? A:–I could not say.

253 Q:–Did you ever at any other place room with him? A:–In what way.

254 Q:– Of course I mean as his wife? A:–Yes sir.

255 Q:– At what places? A:–In my father’s house.[58]

Of course, Willes here is concerned with answering “like a lady”, but her testimony is not near as hostile as Zina Young’s was. Hales has the evidence, but won’t see anything but what he wants to see in it. A good example of this is with the testimony above. If one goes to Hales’ website and reads it, Hales does not list the question numbers (so you have no idea there is a break except for some small ellipsis) and so he leaves out much pertinent information about Emma Smith being in the Mansion and Melissa Lott never seeing her or interacting with her; and that she was frustrated in having to reveal intimate details about her relations with Smith, even though she knew ahead of time that this was why she was called. She was much better about this though, than Zina Huntington ever was, who was extremely hostile about it and refused to answer any questions with any real clarity except to defend Joseph Smith as a “prophet”. Zina was married to two men, while Malissa Lott was only married to one. Zina’s final “I only know that this is the work of God upon the earth…” is really the only point she wanted to make.

From Wille’s testimony it can be deduced that Emma Smith didn’t know the full purpose of why she was there at the Mansion House, since (according to Willes) the two women never spoke or met there. She saw Emma when she left the Mansion House, but doesn’t remember when that was and after Joseph’s death she even stayed with Emma for awhile. This would not have been all right with Emma if she had known that Malissa had been secretly married to her husband.

This is hardly an open “marriage” that Emma knew all about. What is interesting is that on another part of his website Hales does provide some of the missing testimony of Melissa Lott, but does not include the testimony about Emma Smith.

The testimony in bold above, is all the testimony that Hales leaves out (on his page about Melissa Lott Willes), which is very relevant in getting a complete picture of her testimony. Hales claims to have “the latest research” but tries to manipulate that research to his own irrational ends. Also, this “latest research” is scattered over his entire website, with plenty of Hales’ conjectures sandwiched between it. It is not a collection of evidence by topic that one can easily find and read (like the one here at fullerconsideration.com) without having to wade through Hales obvious apologetic speculations.[59]

Hales is hardly the person to be judging the correctness of Jeremy Runnell’s conclusions, how he arrived at them, or declaring deception by him because as we can see, more than one historian has arrived at the same conclusions as Jeremy, something Hales does not address or acknowledge in his hit piece on Jeremy. In fact, Jeremy provides ample documentation to show that Hales’ conclusions differ from almost every historian that has published major works on polygamy. Here is one example by Jeremy of a graphic which was included in a presentation by Brian Hales at a FAIRMORMON Conference.[60]

Hales then tries to bring out his same tired argument that D&C 132 isn’t really about polygamy and that sexuality is not needed. He then claims that “it appears that Runnells is unaware of Joseph Smith’s teachings dealing with plural marriage.” Well, we know that Helen Mar Kimball was “aware” and she completely disagrees with Hales’ forced presentist interpretation of Section 132.[61]

Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, who was pressured into “marrying” Joseph Smith when she was only 14 years old explains on page 7 of a pamphlet she published in 1884 titled Why we practice Plural Marriage, that Smith established polygamy and “all who entered into it in righteousness (including herself) have done so for the purpose of “raising up righteous seed”.[62]

Whitney here admits that polygamy is about the mandate to “raise up righteous seed’. In fact, the entire pamphlet is all about this, because Joseph Smith taught that there are many choice spirits waiting to take mortal bodies and this is how the bodies are provided for them. (By sex and plural marriage).

Even in Smith’s Book of Mormon it claims that if polygamy is commanded by God it would be done for the purpose of raising up seed.[63] You can’t raise up righteous seed by not having sex with the women who you marry for that purpose now, can you? Only in Brian Hales’ world is this logical or rational.

Even though Whitney claims that the only reason for polygamy is to raise up righteous seed and that all who “righteously” enter into it do so for that purpose, the conflict in her “marriage” to Joseph Smith was that initially she was lied to about this.[64]

It seems that it is Brian Hales (who references this pamphlet in his writings) who is unaware of Smith’s Nauvoo teachings dealing with polygamy even though he has the evidence right in front of him.

Michael Quinn has spent years in the Church Archives gathering and analyzing original documents that have to do with Joseph Smith’s polygamy and his conclusions are far different than those of Brian Hales. For example, Hales writes at Rational Faiths,

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.[65]

Hales’ “strong evidence” is simply a series of conjectures that he postulates and has no way of knowing could be true. There is though, “strong evidence” that Helen Mar Kimball had sex with Joseph Smith. Catherine Lewis, who was courted by Heber C. Kimball to become one of his polygamous wives and lived with the Kimballs in Nauvoo, wrote in 1848:

The Twelve took Joseph’s wives after his death. Kimball and Young took most of them; the daughter of Kimball was one of Joseph’s wives. I heard her say to her mother, “I will never be sealed to my Father, (meaning as a wife) as I would never have been sealed (married) to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me , by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it. I say again, I will never be sealed to my Father; no, I will sooner be damned and go to hell, if I must. Neither will I be sealed to Brigham Young.” The Apostles said they only took Joseph’s wives to raise up children, carry them through to the next world, there deliver them up to him, by so doing they should gain his approbation, &c.[66]

This is a remarkable statement that has been discounted by those like Brian Hales and Todd Compton as having problems because it was overheard and related by what Hales deems an “anti-Mormon source”, and that there was no doctrine in place about daughters being sealed to their fathers. Some have also claimed that this is hearsay, but actually it is not, since Catherine Lewis actually heard the conversation herself. Catherine Lewis did have direct knowledge that Helen Kimball told this to her mother because she was there and heard it. (See Note #77.)

Then there is the case of Flora Ann Woodworth. Hales writes that her marriage to Joseph Smith was “probably” not consummated. But that is simply wishful thinking and that is the best he can do. So how can Hales condemn Jeremy for his own conclusions, and call them “lyings” from Satan? As Jeremy writes,

Imagine you spent 50 years living with your devoted spouse, fully intending to be married together in heaven for all eternity, just like you have enjoyed on earth for the last 50 years and then the prophet says he wants your wife to be his 33rd wife. So, in the next life you don’t get your devoted wife of 50 years; instead you have to find another. Are we to believe that God actually commanded the prophet to do this? This is even crueler than having someone else have sex with your wife.

What moral justification can possibly be made for marrying other living men’s legally and lawfully married wives? Most of them were good LDS men. Orson Hyde was an Apostle on the Lord’s errand in Palestine to dedicate the land for the gospel when Joseph married his wife Marinda Hyde behind his back. Henry B. Jacobs was a faithful Latter-day Saint who served missions at great hardship. Other men were likewise on missions for the Church giving their time in service to the Church as faithful Latter-day Saints. What a wonderful reward for their service, loyalty, and dedication to the gospel.

How would a married, faithful, LDS man (even if he wasn’t sealed to his wife) feel today if he were to accept a mission call, only to return to find that Thomas S. Monson had secretly married and was sealed to his wife?[67]

Jeremy is right to declare that FAIRMORMON is completely wrong in declaring that polyandrous marriages had “little effect upon the lives of the women involved”. Sixteen year old Flora Woodworth was not happy having to “marry” Joseph Smith, especially when she had to deal with Emma’s unpredictable fury. It seems that Joseph Smith had given Flora a watch and that Emma saw her with it. Emma then confronted Woodworth and angrily demanded it back. The very next day after this encounter, Woodworth up and married a non member of the Church, Carlos Gove. D. Michael Quinn picks up the story from there:

Hales also acknowledged that (during the week after her legal marriage to non-Mormon Carlos Gove in August 1843 at the nearby town of Warsaw), Joseph Smith’s previously married wife Flora Ann Woodworth met with the Prophet alone at William Clayton’s house in Nauvoo, while Clayton was intentionally absent. Hales argues in today’s presentation that Joseph Smith’s private secretary was too discreet to record these encounters if they were for sexual intercourse.

He also sees significance in the fact that Clayton’s journal did not refer to “bed” or “bedroom” for these solitary appointments of the two at Clayton’s house. However, Clayton’s journal referred to performing a polygamous marriage for the Prophet, referred to Emma Smith’s jealousy about Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives Eliza R.Snow, Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, and Flora Woodworth, referred to the Prophet’s suspicions about “familiarity” between his legal wife Emma and Clayton, referred to the polygamous marriages of Joseph B. Noble, Vinson Knight, Parley P. Pratt, and Brigham Young, referred to the Prophet’s performing Clayton’s own polygamous marriage, referred to Clayton sexually consummating it three days afterward (with no reference to “bed” or “bedroom”),referred to his own cohabitation-visits with this plural wife (with no reference to “bed” or “bedroom”), admitted that “I had slept with her” (no reference to “bed” or “bedroom”), referred to her pregnancy, referred to what Joseph said would be the meaningless punishment if they were exposed to public condemnation, and Clayton’s journal referred to the birth of his polygamous wife’s child, as well as to its death.

There is no basis whatever to claim that an alleged “discretion” on Clayton’s part prevented him from also referring obliquely to Joseph Smith’s sexual trysts that were scheduled for Clayton’s house. Flora later said that she “felt condemned for” her “rash” decision “in a reckless moment “to marry this young non-Mormon, a remorse the 16-year-old girl probably experienced the morning after. Two subsequent trysts with the 37-year-old Prophet in Clayton’s house on consecutive days showed how much she regretted marrying a younger man earlier in the week.

It strains credulity for Hales to claim in today’s presentation that it required those visits–beginning two days after Joseph Smith had already met with her and her mother–for him to inform Flora repeatedly that he was ending their own relationship. By contrast with what Hales asserts about her alleged “DIVORCE,” Joseph actually ended his polygamous marriages with two sisters during the same year by abruptly informing them of the fact.

Although he had previously “roomed” with Emily and Eliza Partridge individually, with whom he had “carnal intercourse,” Joseph Smith didn’t take two consecutive days in Clayton’s otherwise empty house to tell a wife that their polygamous relationship was finished–especially, if he had already announced that fact to Flora and her mother. Emily’s candor (which was “forced out of her under adversarial questioning,” while she was under oath) was as far as middle-class women of Victorian America could go in referring to sexual intercourse.

More typical was the published statement of the Prophet’s polygamous wife Lucy Walker, who married Apostle Heber C. Kimball after she became a widow. I am also able to testify that Emma Smith, the Prophet’s first wife, gave her consent to the marriage of at least four other girls to her husband, and that she was well aware that he associated with them as wives within the meaning of all that word implies.

Her opaque phrase referred to Emily D. Partridge, Eliza M. Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence. Like Lucy Walker, who stated that her own marriage to Joseph involved sex, those four had married him during the spring of 1843. Marrying him in September of that year, Malissa Lott said: “The Prophet … explained it to her, that it was not for voluptuous love”—yet when asked decades later if she had been his wife “in very deed,” Malissa affirmed that she was. Furthermore, even Hales admits: “It seems probable that emotional and physical attraction played a part in some of Joseph’s plural relationships.”[68]

Of course, Hales is the one who knows exactly which relationships were physical and which weren’t. For Hales, everything he contests must be totally spelled out or he simply will not believe it. He writes,

In the aftermath of her daughter’s marriage to Carlos Gove, Flora’s mother once again entered the picture attempting to assist her strong-willed daughter. On August 26 Clayton wrote: “Joseph met Mrs. W[oo]d[wor]th and F[lora] and conversed some time.” Clayton’s journal also reports two additional visits between Joseph and Flora at Clayton’s home, occurring August 28 and 29. These meetings were undoubtedly to deal with the future of Flora’s sealing to the Prophet, as well as to consider the theological consequences of her rash decision to marry Gove. Joseph was positioned to judge (D&C 132: 46) and apply needed disciplinary measures, a process that might have included additional meetings beyond August 29 that Clayton did not record.[69]

So Joseph Smith met with Flora Woodworth and her mother on August 26 and “conversed some time”, and then had to meet with her on two more consecutive days to iron out disciplinary details? First, this was one of Smith’s “wives”. She was a sixteen year old girl that Smith decided to “marry” and add to his already large collection of “wives”, who Helen Mar Kimball Whitney said agreed to “raise up righteous seed” when they were married to the “prophet”. This means that every marriage was expected to involve sex, (both in this world or the world to come) period. There are simply no exceptions to this rule. D&C 132 does not allow any exceptions:

…for they [spiritual wives] 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.[70]

Why would this be any different for Joseph’s spiritual wives? Hales has no reasonable answer to this, and no evidence that it would be different for any of his spiritual wives. Hales objects to Quinn’s interpretation that Flora had sex with the “prophet” in those two days because,

“it ignores the moral, emotional, theological, and traditional values that were embraced by most Nauvooans (and probably Flora Ann as well). Those values would have universally labeled such activities as promiscuous. That she would have repeatedly engaged in such low behavior seems less likely.”[71]

Yet, Flora had no problems secretly and illegally “marrying” a man much older than herself and doing so behind the back of his legal wife! This was absolutely considered by society as “low behavior”. So she was already engaging in it! She had no objections to meeting with the prophet alone. She also had no problem leading on young Orange Wight, who she didn’t tell about her “marriage” to Smith, and who had to find out from Flora’s mother that she was “married” to Smith after getting caught together by the “prophet” who appears to have been stalking her. Smith supposedly spies Wight and Woodworth walking along the street “near his house” and picks them up in his carriage. He drives them all over town and this conveniently allows Smith to question Wight. Wight also says that he had to give Flora “a mild lecture” for leading him on like she did.[72]

This is the person that Hales states had such impeccable 19th Century morals? Self proclaimed “prophets” throughout history have proved that they can easily compromise the morals of almost anyone.[73] As Dan Vogel writes,

There’s more to historiography than simply collecting document[s]. You should know the difference between a strong and weak argument and what is more or less likely. What does it mean “in accordance with his teachings” when JS frequently changed his teachings? It’s like saying the BOM doesn’t teach a modalistic concept of the Godhead, or the Lectures on Faith don’t teach a binitarian view because that would contradict what he clearly taught in Nauvoo. Or, the BOM can’t be anti-Masonic because he became a Mason in Nauvoo. These are all examples of the Idealist Fallacy, because humans do contradict themselves and violate their own teachings. However, JS may have had a way of rationalizing his polyandrous marriages. He did say that whatever God commands is right no matter what it is—even if it seems abominable to us.

Next, your expectation that some of the dozen women would have complained about JS’s proposals is an attempt at an argument from silence. I say attempt because some women did complain. I can think of two: Sarah Pratt and Jane Law.

You might issue your challenge to prove JS had sex with his polyandrous wives, but do you conclude JS only had sex with his polygamous wives for whom there is evidence? No. Why? Because you assume marriage includes sexual access. You only engage in this sort of special pleading with polyandrous wives because you personally find the notion abhorrent. Nonetheless, you didn’t respond to my counter challenge to produce evidence that JS treated his polyandrous wives different than the other polygamous wives. You are the one with a theory that needs evidence. You are attempting to take advantage of a silence in the historical record where one is expected. Here is a test of your theory: Look at the historical record of other early 19th century childless marriages and see how often you can demonstrate they had sex.[74]

Hales also writes that “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.”[75]

Actually that was not any kind of “pattern” but rather, as Todd Compton writes, “there are cases of Mormons in Utah marrying young girls and refraining from sexuality until they were older.”[76]

And how many would that be? Where is the documentation by Hales to prove this was a common practice? Nowhere to be found. This is hardly a “policy” and to even suggest that this “began with the prophet” Joseph Smith has no evidentiary basis, rather, the evidence shows that Smith did indeed have sex with his young wives.[77]

Though Compton says that the evidence for Helen Mar Kimball Whitney is “ambiguous”, we still have the statement by Whitney herself that the only reason women practiced polygamy was to raise up righteous seed. We also have Catherine Lewis’ recollection made just a few years after Helen claimed that she was “deceived” about polygamy being only a “ceremony”, and that they deceived her (her Father and Joseph Smith).

If Helen Kimball was to be some kind of token wife until she was 18, what was the great “trial” she spoke of? Not going to a few dances? Really? Why did she tell her mother then, that if she had known it would be more than ceremony she would have backed out? It was obvious that she was not attracted to older men. After Smith died she married a man much closer to her age, rejecting the offer of Smith’s Apostles to be one of their wives.

There is also the letter from her father who stated that he and her mother “seek your welfare for time as well as eternity.” Heber Kimball also states in that letter:

You have done that which will be for your everlasting good for this world and that which is to come.”[78]

Certainly Joseph had lots of other “wives” that he would have needed to spend time with. Since men and women could be sealed at any time in the Church, what was the hurry for Smith to have these women sealed to him, unless it was to consummate a “marriage” to “raise up seed”? If the “marriages” did not have to involve sex, then why would an angel appear to him with a drawn sword (as he claimed)? To prod him into non-sexual “sealings”? Only in Hales’ irrational world.

Why would Smith have a problem with this idea? Why choose married women when there were lots of single women to choose from? Why arrange “front” husbands, if it were all just for the next life? If God is just, as Smith claimed, then they would have been his in eternity anyway. This was about convenience for Smith and who could keep secrets, or he simply would have married anyone.

There would certainly be ways of judiciously explaining such a doctrine as Hyrum Smith did in 1844. If, as Brian Hales asserts, polygamy is only some sort of appendage to monogamous “sealing”, and “non-sexual eternity only sealings fulfill the primary purpose”, then why would Smith ever have to consummate any of the spiritual marriages? To fulfill the letter of the law? Since when does God accept only token compliance? This is simply an apologist excuse, and makes little sense, especially when Smith claimed that God promised to give him whatever he asked for.[79]

In fact, what happened to Heber C. Kimball himself casts doubt on the concept of non-sexual sealings, as his first choice to marry after being commanded by Smith was to choose older women that would not involve sexuality. As Helen Mar Kimball later wrote,

“When first hearing the principle taught, believing that he would be called upon to enter into it, he had thought of two elderly ladies named Pitkin, great friends of my mother’s who, he believed, would cause her little, if any, unhappiness. But the woman he was commanded to take was an English lady named Sarah Noon, nearer my mother’s age, who came over with the company of Saints in the same ship in which father and Brother Brigham returned from Europe. She had been married and was the mother of two little girls, but left her husband on account of his drunken and dissolute habits. Father was told to take her as his wife and provide for her and her children, and he did so. [80]

Smith rejected Kimball’s initial choice and told him to take a younger wife he could have sex with, claiming that such an arrangement was “of the devil”. We know this because Kimball had children with her, and Lorenzo Snow affirmed it. (See Note above). Heber C. Kimball’s marriage to Sarah Noon was not a “non-sexual sealing”. Why then, would Smith not be satisfied with Heber C. Kimball’s first choice if this was all about eternity? As for the concept of non-sexual sealings, there is strong evidence that they were very rare and only performed well after Smith’s death. This, of course is disputed by Mormon apologists, like those of SHIELDS who write in a review of Todd Compton’s book “In Sacred Loneliness”:

In discussing polyandry, LDS leaders have claimed that Joseph Smith was sealed to other men’s wives for eternity, rather than for time and eternity. Compton disallows this as implausible, noting “there are no known instances of marriages for ‘eternity only’ in the 19th century.” While specific instances may not be available, Joseph F. Smith, in his testimony before the senatorial committee investigating Reed Smoot, said that he was personally aware of such marriages occurring until about 20 years previous:

Mr. TAYLER. Living persons have been united for eternity, have they not? Mr. SMITH. I think there have been some few cases of that kind. Mr. VANCOTT. To what time, Mr. Tayler, do you limit your question? Mr. TAYLER. I was going to ask him. How recently have you known that kind of a marriage? Mr. SMITH. Not very recently. Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean five years or twenty-five years? Mr. SMITH. Oh, twenty years or more.

Joseph F. Smith’s testimony in this regard is important in another aspect, for he stated unequivocally, that sealings for eternity did not allow for earthly cohabitation. After Smith saying that it was possible to be sealed for time, time and eternity, or only for eternity, the committee chairman asked about the possible rights of cohabitation between those sealed only for eternity:

The CHAIRMAN. According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation? Mr. SMITH. It was not so understood. The CHAIRMAN. Then, what is your— Mr. SMITH. It does not carry that right.

Since such a marriage did not carry rights of cohabitation in 1904, it is plausible that Joseph F. Smith was simply describing a policy that had been in place since the days of Nauvoo. Evidence that this was also the policy in Nauvoo is found in the one historical document, largely ignored by Compton, specifying the parameters of plural marriage: the 132nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This document came as the revelation explaining and approving plural marriage, in an effort to justify Joseph Smith’s actions and convince doubters. If his actions included polyandry, it seems very strange that the revelation does not address that concept.[81]

There are some real problems with this argument, one of which is that Allred does not quote enough of Joseph F. Smith’s testimony to give an accurate picture of what he really said. Here is the testimony of Smith that relates to “sealings” given at the Smoot Hearings,

Mr. TAYLER. And do you have as many different kinds of marriage now as formerly ? Mr. SMITH. We have as many different kinds of marriage now as formerly.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me call your attention to what I mean, because it will save time: Sealing for time only, sealing for time and eternity, and sealing for eternity only.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you have those ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. All three of them ?

Mr. SMITH. All three of them. …[82]

Mr. TAYLER. Do you perform celestial marriage ceremonies now?

Mr. SMITH. That is simply a marriage for time and eternity.

Mr. TAYLER. Time and eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. That is what it means, nothing more and nothing less.

Mr. TAYLER. That, according to the civil or municipal law, is an ordinary marriage, is it not?

Mr. SMITH. Those that are married in that way outside of the temples, it is simply a civil contract for time, but where they have obtained these licenses and go to the temples to be married they are sealed for time and eternity.

Mr. TAYLER. Are there sealings still going on for eternity alone, not for time?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of, unless the parties are dead.

Senator FORAKER. Do you marry people for eternity and not for time?

Mr. SMITH. When they are dead; yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. You marry them after they are dead?

Mr. SMITH. After they are dead; and, Mr. Senator, we do not have to have a license from the court to do that.

Senator FORAKER. That is simply a church marriage?

Mr. SMITH. That is just simply a principle that we believe in, that men and women are immortal beings.

Senator FORAKER. Are both the parties to that marriage dead at the time it is solemnized?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; they are often dead, and they are represented by their heirs, either their sons or daughters, or some of their kinsmen.

Mr. TAYLER. Living persons have been united for eternity, have they not?

Mr. SMITH. I think there have been some few cases of that kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. To what time, Mr. Tayler, do you limit your question?

Mr. TAYLER. I was going to ask him. How recently have you known that kind of a marriage?

Mr. SMITH. Not very recently.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean five years or twenty -five years?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, twenty years or more.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there any rule of the church prohibiting that kind of marriage?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. It has merely fallen into disuse; is that all?

Mr. SMITH. It has merely fallen into disuse; that is all. I do not know that it could be said to have fallen absolutely into disuse.

Mr. TAYLER. Or rather, that the principle which still adheres has not been invoked or exercised so often?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has not been invoked.[83]

With further questioning we learn,

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you remembered two instances where persons had been sealed by the church for eternity; you said one or two instances ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; one or two instances .

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long ago were those?

Mr. SMITH. Twenty-five to thirty years ago.

Taylor then wants everyone to totally understand what Smith is saying and further questions him:

Mr. TAYLER. Just one question. I want to be sure that I understand you correctly. You say that Apostle Teasdale told you that to this wife, from whom he had to obtain a divorce, he had been sealed for eternity only?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That he had not been married either for time or for time and eternity, but only for that third form eternity only?

Mr. SMITH. Well, now, Mr. Tayler, I could not tell you as to the form of the ceremony.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand that. I am not speaking about that. But it was merely for eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the understanding they had. It was for eternity, and not for time.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly; and therefore the relations between them as contemplated at the time of the ceremony were that they should never cohabit?

Mr. SMITH. Never cohabit.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Therefore his relations with her were as chaste as if she were his sister or a stranger to him ?

Mr. SMITH. Perfectly so.[84]

With Smith’s full testimony before us, a completely different picture emerges about these “eternity only sealings.”

First, they were performed almost exclusively for the dead, meaning that a living person was sealed to a dead one, or a dead person to a dead person, since there would be no need to seal them for “time”.

Second, in all his time in the Church Joseph F. Smith had only heard about “one or two” eternity only sealings between two living people.

Third, it is those “one or two instances” that Smith was dating, giving one example of George Teasdale and one of his wives that had occurred a few decades before. They were sealed, but later divorced. According to Smith’s testimony, these kinds of sealings were very rare, since he had only heard of “one or two” in his entire lifetime. (Remember, Smith had collected as many affidavits from Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives that he could in 1869, so he was familiar with those “marriages” and still claims to only know about only one or two eternity only sealings between living persons). In fact they were so rare that Angus Cannon who also testified, had never performed or seen one.

Angus M. Cannon (who was the nephew of John Taylor) immigrated to Nauvoo in 1842 with his family and went west with the Church. His older brother was George Q. Cannon. He also served in the mission field with John Taylor and was the President of the Salt Lake City Stake and it was said of him that he “was without equal in the field of Church law.”[85]

At the Reed Smoot hearings Cannon testified about sealings:

Senator OVERMAN. What do you mean by a sealing-for-eternity ceremony? Mr. CANNON. A marriage for eternity. Senator OVERMAN. As different from a marriage upon this earth ? Mr. CANNON. Sir? Senator OVERMAN. Different from the ordinary marriage? Mr. CANNON. Oh; there is a ceremony for marriage for time and also for eternity. Senator OVERMAN. Are your wives sealed to you for time or for eternity? Mr. CANNON. Time and eternity. Senator OVERMAN. Time and eternity both all six of them? Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. Senator OVERMAN. Are there such marriages as sealing for time and sealing for eternity, and some for time’ and some for eternity? Mr. CANNON. I have witnessed many marriages for time. I never witnessed any for eternity and not for time. Senator OVERMAN. Are there such marriages as that? Mr. CANNON. I can not say whether there are or not. Of course there are marriages performed between living people and dead people, by having persons act vicariously for the dead. Senator OVERMAN. There are such marriages, then, with dead people? Mr. CANNON. That is necessarily for eternity. It cannot be for time. Senator OVERMAN. I say, you do have such marriages as that? Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. Senator OVERMAN. A living person marrying a dead person? Mr. CANNON. By the dead person being represented by a living person. Senator OVERMAN. By having a representative here on earth he marries a living person here ? Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; vicariously, the same as Paul spoke of baptism for the dead. Senator OVERMAN. Have you seen such marriages as that? Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; acting for the dead. Mr. TAYLER. That does not result in the marriage for time between the proxy and the person who is married to the other for eternity only, does it? Mr. CANNON. No; it only relates to the dead. Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall any instances in the history of the church where the proxy vicariously representing the dead person has insisted that for time the woman was his? Mr. CANNON. No; I never heard of such a thing. We would cut them off the church if they did. Mr. TAYLER. I would think so. That is all.[86]

Both of these men testified that they knew of sealings for eternity but they had to do with the dead. Cannon testifies that he never witnessed a marriage for eternity between two living persons and “could not say” if there were marriages only for “eternity” for two living people.

Joseph F. Smith, who only mentions knowing about “one or two” that occurred about twenty to thirty years before, which would be in the 1870-80’s. This testimony shows that “eternity-only” sealings were very rare between two living parties, and not the norm. They were so rare in fact that an expert on Church Law had never heard of one. To claim that Joseph Smith participated in over a dozen of these without any evidence is wishful thinking, given the testimony above.

SHIELDS though, has no qualms about taking this testimony from Joseph F. Smith and selectively quoting it to make it appear that these kinds of sealings were normal until about twenty years before the time when Joseph F. Smith testified.

As for Section 132, as Dan Vogel explains in response to Brian Hales about the similar apologetic interpretation of D&C 132 that Allred makes:

Brian: Your reading of D&C 22[:1] is anachronistic. You are attempting to apply an 1840s definition to an 1830 term. At the time it was given, only the Catholics considered marriage a religious ceremony. Protestants rejected marriage as a sacrament of the church. Mormons were no different. While they insisted that converts be rebaptized, they didn’t require them to be remarried.

“In Joseph Smith’s theology, a woman could never have two husbands.”

You are presumably basing this on the July 1843 revelation (D&C 132:61-62). Yet, you have admitted that JS married at least three women who had living husbands. So, to save your thesis, you propose the following ad hoc hypothesis: “A marriage sealing in the new and everlasting covenant would cause the civil marriage to be done away from a Church standpoint.” However, this interpretation is aided by your anachronistic borrowing from D&C 22, which you haven’t shown that JS applied to marriage in the 1840s. Yours is a private interpretation of scripture since the Church’s position has been that non-Mormon marriage, or Mormon marriage out side the temple for that matter, is valid and binding for this life only but is dissolved at death. This is apparently the view expressed in D&C 132:41-44, which mentions that it is considered adultery if either the husband or wife breaks the marriage “vow” even if their marriage was “not in the new and everlasting covenant”. Indeed, the Church has always treated non-temple marriage as legitimate.

Nevertheless, you have only shown that under a certain semantic construction JS didn’t commit adultery; there still remains the issue of sexual polyandry. In other words, you seem to be arguing two things simultaneously: JS didn’t have sex with married women, but if he did he didn’t consider it adultery. And you say I’m subtle. Polyandry is polyandry. The revelation’s use of the term “virgins” (132: 61-62) would tend to exclude your specialized definition, which would require you to go deeper into semantics and equivocation. I[t] turns out that when you say everyone but you has ignored JS’s theology, you mean they don’t understand it in the unique (and unlikely) way that you do.

Given JS previous marriages to married women, D&C 132 is apparently JS’s repentance from polyandry. Under the definition in verses 61-62, JS had committed adultery, but his salvation was assured as long as he didn’t commit murder or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (D&C 132:19, 26-27). “I seal upon you your exaltation” (v. 49). The revelation warns not to judge JS, “for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions” (v. 60). Makes you wonder what this revelation is really about, doesn’t it? Universal salvation was also part of JS’s secret theology (D&C 19).

[You say], “there is no credible historical evidence for the teaching and practice of sexual polyandry in Nauvoo or afterwards.”

I say, there is. What you mean to say is: there are no explicit teachings or discussions of polyandry. This should not be surprising, especially given the nature of our questions. We therefore must build circumstantial cases and decide which is the most reasonable, which deserves the most respect. Historians do that all the time. Even in the most perfectly documented world, an imaginative apologist can always find a way to escape evidence. Rarely is there a decisive piece of evidence that ends debate. The most that can be hoped for is that an interpretation becomes increasingly ad hoc as it tries to accommodate adverse evidence and eventually falls out of favor. I have a feeling that in responding to Quinn’s evidence, the ad hoc nature of your position will become more apparent.

[You say,]“Quinn has amassed a remarkable volume of alleged evidences, but none of them constitute a clear documentation of the behavior. Not even once.”

Quinn is doing what a historian does.

[You say,]“And, like you, he completely ignores the theology and the reactions of the alleged participants.”

What theology? The theology that shows JS contradicted his own teachings or the one that shows that he couldn’t contradict them? You want Quinn to commit the Idealist Fallacy? We have discussed this. You don’t know how the participants reacted.

[You say,]“What we can document is that there is an important difference theologically: sexual polygamy was acceptable and sexual polyandry was adultery.”

Not according to your definition discussed above. Again, you don’t know that BY and John Taylor knew about polyandry, if they saw it as hypocritical, or how they would have reacted. At what point do you start to question someone you believe is a prophet speaking for God and telling you to reject the norms of society? Being under the influence of a charismatic leader of a religious cult who is sexually abusing some of his followers is probably the clearest example of why the Idealist Fallacy exists. Humans aren’t always rational and do not always behave in predictable ways. None of these follows possessed the qualities of Emma, who was alone in standing up to JS. I hope you see that you are on very shaky ground when you rely on this kind of argument from silence.

I understand that Orson Pratt struggled with the conflicting stories of JS and his wife, nearly lost his mind, but finally decided in JS favor. That was a mistake. JS’s denials about Jane Law and Sarah Pratt are not credible. We know that he was willing to lie to cover up polygamy. On 26 May 1844, JS said: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” (DHC 6:411). Given the fact that Orson was so distraught over the incident with his wife, it is really no surprise that he would ultimately side with JS. Regardless, OP’s opinion says nothing about the veracity of Sarah’s claim. Neither does the attempt of JS and some of his followers to malign Sarah in 1842 by claiming she had an illicit sexual affair with John C. Bennett. Not only should those statements be read with skepticism, but they are irrelevant. What possible motivation could Sarah have for falsely accusing JS and drawing certain persecution on herself? Where did she get the idea in 1842 that JS was entering polyandrous marriages?

Given the context, Jane Law is more believable than JS. In fact, JS’s version doesn’t make sense. JS has a reputation for proposing marriage to multiple women, including married women. What in Jane Law’s history tells you she would propose to JS? Where did she get such an idea? JS was denying polygamy in public and trying to keep the church from disintegrating, so why is it so incredible that he would lie about Jane and her husband? It’s a complicated story, but still a clear example of JS’s unsuccessfully trying to enter a sexual polyandrous marriage.[87]

This exchange between Hales and Vogel is very informative, because Hales continues to harp about what he claims is a major problem with Joseph Smith’s critics, that they don’t understand nor address his theology. For example in a Blog Article about the new Essays (that Hales possibly contributed to) on November 9, 2014, he writes:

In lauding the Church’s effort to explain this difficult topic, some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not. On earth, polygamy expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife. The practice is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel.

However, within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, a few eternal polygamists are needed. This reality is routinely ignored by almost all critics who often declare or imply that libido drove the process. That is, they allege the implementation of plural marriage occurred because Joseph wanted to expand his sexual opportunities. Those authors seem confident that any of the Prophet’s associated teachings were simply a cover up, so there was no need to take them seriously and it seems none of the critics of the essay do either.

Yet, this may be the greatest weakness of most of the critics’ arguments—they are simply incomplete. Joseph Smith taught that couples who are sealed in eternal marriage, not plural marriage, “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths … and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods” (D&C 132:19–20). A plurality of wives allows all worthy women to be sealed to a husband on earth and become eligible for these blessings in heaven. Any woman who is not sealed will: “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” (v. 17).

It is easy to denounce polygamy on earth, but for believers, the discussions should also include the importance of plurality in eternity. As described in section 132, it allows all of God’s children to receive His promised blessings by making eternal marriage available to everyone who seeks it. As the essay explains: “Joseph Smith’s revelation on marriage declared the “continuation of the seeds forever and ever” helped to fulfill God’s purposes for His children. This promise was given to all couples who were married by priesthood authority and were faithful to their covenants” (paragraph 12).

It appears that readers of the essay may only be able to appreciate its value if they are able to appreciate Joseph Smith’s teachings about eternal marriage. Without that understanding, they will see only an unjust earthly practice that is easily condemned. The fact that the eternal contributions of plurality have not been addressed by virtually any critic suggests that additional study on the topic might result in different critiques of this watershed essay.[88]

Hales is absolutely defending polygamy no matter how hard he tries to deny this—that is painfully obvious. Hales has deftly tried to refocus what Section 132 is really all about, which we discuss below (See also, Note #61).

And “only a few” eternal polygamists are needed? Where does he get this from? Nowhere does the polygamy revelation stipulate this. This is simply an invention of the Hales.

He also tries to claim (again and again it seems) that “Joseph Smith’s theological teachings regarding plural marriage are universally ignored.” Actually, they are not. Let’s put this to the test with a good example here. Hales claims above that “The practice [of polygamy] is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel.”

If Hales (as he claims) understands Joseph’s theology, then how can he make such a statement and reconcile it with Mormon theology? Especially in the light of this letter by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon:

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”

“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.”

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.”

Be wise today; ’tis madness to defer: Next day the fatal precedent may plead. Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time Into eternity.

“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: “Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;” but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.”[89]

Claiming that polygamy is “unfair and emotionally cruel” by its very nature (which we all know it is) directly contradicts what Joseph Smith claimed: that God would never institute a commandment or ordinance that by its nature is unjust (Hales word) or designed to promote unhappiness or unfairness.

At lds.org they write,

God is just, true, and righteous in all things (see Revelation 15:3; Psalm 89:14; Ether 3:12).

The problem with the Hales is that they are not Mormon Authorities. They are simply apologists who promote irrational arguments to defend Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy. What they claim directly contradicts what Joseph Smith taught: that “happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it…” A foundational Mormon theological concept is that men and women are born on earth that they might experience joy. The Book of Mormon declares:

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:25)

How can one pursue the path to happiness when forced to live a principle that according to Brian Hales is by design “unfair and emotionally cruel”? This makes little sense theologically or otherwise. As Milton R. Hunter taught to a General Conference audience in 1954:

I believe with all my heart that God the eternal Father wants his children on this earth to have joy, an abundance of joy. I believe, also, that he expects members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we who have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ, to live an abundant, joyful, happy life. Our lives should be lived in such a way as to bring to us a fulness of joy today, tomorrow, next week, ten years from now , a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, and even, throughout the eternities. I want to remind each of us that God has placed within the reach of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ the possibilities of that joy, that perpetual and eternal joy, if we will just obey the laws that bring that joy into our lives.[90]

This is Mormon Doctrine, not the invented doctrine of Brian Hales. How does a practice that is emotionally cruel and unfair at its core bring joy into the lives of those that are commanded to practice it? In the end, was polygamy “joy”? Not for the vast majority of the women involved in it along with many of the men. It may have been joyful to those men who could discard their women at will, like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, (as he did with the Partridge sisters and others) but not for everyone else that was forced to live the principle or pay a hefty $10 divorce fee that Brigham Young charged. Most of them looked at it as an unpleasant duty to their religion. There were many cases (for example) of men who married more than one woman and then refused to live with any but one (their favorite) and they were condemned for it.

Even marriage according to the Apostle Paul, should never get in the way of the gospel and so he admonished those who were single to stay so, even as he was, but that if you felt the need to be married, do so.[91] Even Paul claimed that, “…those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”[92]

Yet Joseph gave polygamy as a commandment, not an option as Paul does with marriage.

Hales theological argument about polygamy makes little sense if one looks back historically at the practice