[This post was originally written by Brian Hales and is cross posted from his blog at Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.]
The Book of Mormon prophet Samuel prophesied that five years from the time of his preaching, Christ would be born, and “a new star [would] arise” in their heavens (Hel. 14:5). As predicted, the star arose, which might have validated Samuel as a true prophet in the eyes of the people. Instead, “it came to pass that from this time forth there began to be lyings sent forth among the people, by Satan, to harden their hearts, to the intent that they might not believe in those signs and wonders which they had seen” (3 Ne. 1:22).
The sending forth of “lyings” is not a new phenomenon. It began with the first generation of this earth: “And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters. And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not” (Moses 5:12–13).
Recently Jeremy Runnells wrote two articles, “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony” and “Debunking FAIR’s Debunking,” where he outlines his reasons for his current disbelief. I analyzed his statements regarding plural marriage in a short essay entitled “Jeremy Runnells—the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?” There I examine his primary claims and methodology, of which I am quite critical. Jeremy responded on a blog:
Hales is not a scholar. He’s an anesthesiologist who hired Don Bradley to do his research for him. He then wrote 3 books using his employee’s homework.
Author? Sure. Apologist? Yes. Amateur? Yes. Scholar? No. He’s an apologist disguising himself as a scholar. The real scholars in the field of polygamy have issues with many of Hales’ conclusions and interpretations.
Anyone with big bucks and writing skills can do what Brian did. All you have to do is hire guys like Don Bradley to do all the work for you and then you throw the stuff in a nice hardcover book with your name on it.
I never claimed to be a scholar or expert or that my letter is an academic paper. This is the false assumption that Brian makes in his hit piece.
I wrote in response:
Runnells is correct that I am an amateur historian. I do not have a PhD in history and so will never be a professional historian. In fact, I tell people my books are part of my “full anesthesia services.”
It is true that Don Bradley did most of the field research. In addition, he contributed to the overall interpretations in the book, but I alone am responsible for what is written. Don was living with my family at the time [I was writing and compiling] and we had so many conversations regarding the evidences, that I ultimately listed him as an assistant, a title he clearly deserved. For clarification, I did all the writing, except for a few excerpts from emails Don sent to me that are all plainly identified and footnoted. Don did a great job and I’m grateful for his help. The three volumes could not have been written without his contribution. . . .
Over the past few years I’ve tried to view every known document dealing with polygamy. As a consequence of that effort, my belief in Joseph as a true prophet, a reluctant polygamist, and a man who tried sincerely to live his teachings, has been strengthened. It is quite a different story than the fraud, hypocrite, and adulterer portrayed by Jeremy. I believe that when all of the evidence is available, Joseph does just fine.
At this point, perhaps a primary concern is Jeremy’s admission that his Letter to a CES Director was not an “academic paper,” and he is not “a scholar or expert.” It seems he is saying he has not really researched the accuracy of the things he has published on the Internet. If his writings on plural marriage are any indication, then it is obvious to me that he has not. In addition, if scholarship is not the primary goal, then what motivates Jeremy Runnells to expend so much energy portraying Joseph Smith as a false prophet?
Throughout history, opposition has always accompanied the expansion of truth (see 2 Nephi 2:11). Christ told his disciples: “It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matthew 18:7). Jeremy Runnells reflects confidence in his interpretations and satisfaction in his aggressive antagonism of the Church and its teachings. He is obviously entitled to his own opinions and to believe whatever voices he chooses to believe. However, it may be possible to see in him and in his actions, a process as old as Adam and as predictable as the sunset turning into the blackness of night.
Elder Neal A. Maxwell’s observed in 1996:
Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves, of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone. Like the throng on the ramparts of the “great and spacious building,” they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders (1 Ne. 8:26–28, 33). Considering their ceaseless preoccupation, one wonders, “Is there no diversionary activity available to them, especially in such a large building—like a bowling alley?” Perhaps in their mockings and beneath the stir are repressed doubts of their doubts. In any case, given the perils of popularity, Brigham Young advised that this “people must be kept where the finger of scorn can be pointed at them.”[1]
When lyings gain traction in the media, sometimes due to the efforts of individuals like Jeremy, Latter-day Saints are saddened, but not surprised.
[1]: Neal A. Maxwell, “Becometh as a Child,” Ensign, May 1996, accessed July 29, 2014, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/05/becometh-as-a-child?lang=eng.
Brian,
There are a number of reasons why there is so much aggression coming from the ex-mormon’s such as Jeremy. Most of us who are antagonistic live in Utah or have family that is actively Mormon. I don’t think most of you folks understand what it is like to be ostracized by your closest relatives and friends for following after a philosophy which you think coincides with reality, or rejecting one that you think doesn’t coincide with reality. Many of us who are antagonistic are afraid of what may happen to us when we tell the world the truth of who we are. Others are bitter about the way we’ve been treated. I don’t think you understand what its like to find out that all those sacrifices that you made your whole life ended up being all for not. Many of us don’t know how to cope with the situation, as everything we were taught before was centered around the Church’s teachings. Its difficult to not be angry. I personally have been antagonistic at times, for which I am personally sorry. But can you blame us for it?
I served served a mission a number of years ago. I remember preaching a specific version of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. When I came home I found that what I was preaching was markedly different than I had expected. I didn’t want it to be. I was at BYU, the woman I loved was Mormon, I loved and still do love reading the scriptures. But I realized that my whole world wasn’t as concrete as I had expected, and that I didn’t agree with the doctrines that I previously did not know about (whether “official” or not). But I believed knowledge about God’s universe to ordered. I believed that a loving God would not make his truth deceitful. I asked God with an open heart to whether or not the things that I had studied were true. It was painful the terms I had to come to with that answer. I was depressed. I pretend to believe in the church to this day because I love and don’t know how to make them understand.
We lecture on doctrines because we really feel like we need to be defensive. Our families may never respect our decisions, because there is only one truth – but we want to be understood. We get frustrated when people won’t discuss these things in a decent manner, so we get offensive. We can’t leave it alone because we were indoctrinated when we were young and painfully let it go when it no longer made sense. Its permanently with us for the rest of our lives, even in our culture. We criticize the use of resources used because we see our loved ones giving money to a business that builds up malls rather than building up the poor like we always thought it was. It at times feels good to attack that institution that you believe has been lying to you.
I personally don’t expect you to understand. I know that you and the leaders of the church believe this to be true and that you all are probably trying your best. I want to be a good person according to the dictates of my own conscience. I do not believe the answer I got about the church to be a lie, because I believe it came from God. I believe it to be true because of the imporvement and peace that I have seen in my life since leaving. I have been lucky enough to hold onto my belief in God, unlike most former members. Many of these people still live in darkness, and its simply because of the environment in which they have been placed in. I have walked with God, and I only wish that my family could understand that. I wish they could feel what I feel.
-D.
Hi Brian,
Curious as to what “lyings” Runnels is telling? Any time someone has pointed out something inaccurate in his letter, he corrects it. Also, do you care to address anything else in his letter besides polygamy, or is that all you’re concerned with?
Hi Reeraat,
I appreciate your candid and respectful comments. I’m not sure I can offer much help, but let me make a few observations.
First, it is unfortunate and indefensible to hear that Latter-day Saints are ostracizing individuals simply because they differ in beliefs. We are to have charity to all men and women. I’m saddened to hear of your experience. I don’t blame you for being disappointed and it is natural to allow frustrations to prompt reactions.
Second, one issue in the Church that sometimes can be overlooked by critics is the doctrine of Satan. On October 3, 1942, the First Presidency advised: “There is no crime he would not commit, no debauchery he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” I mention this to offer an explanation for any confusions that may have arisen. He will create complexities and misunderstanding wherever he can. Perhaps he was successful in a few minor doctrinal points in the Church. However, I believe the ordinances and covenants are unchanged and still effective. Teaching truth is important—absolutely—and Satan will seek to create confusion in the process. But I submit that the authority is still here to perform valid ordinances. And such authority has always been here.
Third, I’d like to comment on the idea that building the City Creek Mall might have been a manifestation of improper priorities. The mall was not built with any Church funds, but it is true that Church leaders controlled the companies that controlled the funds (indirectly at least). If the leaders had preferred to spend multimillions on helping the poor instead of building the mall, they could have. However, the Church’s mission is also to do work for the dead. If you have visited any of the older U.S. cities, you will probably have seen how the downtown areas have become rundown and perhaps even dangerous. One reason to keep the SLC downtown area vibrant, is to support the temple (not to mention the other Church offices and functionaries located there).
Christ observed: “For the poor always ye have with you” (John 12:8) and so it is today. The Church could sell all assets and give all their money to the poor and it would not alleviate the entire problem throughout the world. But the Church needs to balance all of its responsibilities. Giving all assets to the poor would curtail missionary work, meetinghouse construction, temples etc. People who criticize the efforts to build up the areas about our temples just don’t seem to see the bigger picture or to sense all of the priorities incumbent upon the Church today. (See the Ogden City projects owned by the Church that are across the street from the temple west and north; see also the area around the Mesa Temple.) It is important to keep these areas vibrant and complimentary to the sacred building located nearby.
I have no advice for you—I’m hardly one to offer any. However, I wonder if a focus on the covenants and authority could be helpful? It is so easy to be bogged down in the half-truths and misrepresentations promoted by the Adversary. I too was a missionary in the 1970s, but do not see any significant changes in doctrine, but acknowledge that some policies have been altered. Such changes are part of the process of expanding the Church, but also in reacting to Satan’s latest ploys.
Thanks again for the courteous comments. May God bless you and may we all come to a knowledge of eternal truths that can exalt us to be with Him again.
All my best,
Brian Hales
Hi Whitethunder,
Unfortunately, my expertise is strictly with the topic of plural marriage. Like you and others, I have studied Jeremy’s other claims and believe them to be just as problematic as his polygamy statements, but I will leave those responses to individuals who have studied them more than I have.
Regarding his plural marriage charges, I submit that they are all misrepresentations of the evidence. From an evidentiary standpoint, Joseph Smith did not have sex with 14-year-olds, he did not practice sexual polyandry, he did try to be kind and sensitive to Emma, he did not commit adultery with Fanny Alger, his public denials were accurate according to that time and circumstances, and he was not a hypocrite or adulterer.
It is unfortunate that so many authors have taken partial evidences, then added their assumptions, and headed of to races condemning Joseph Smith.
Within the next year I plan to upload all of my 10 gigabytes of research to the Internet so everyone can access everything. Then no one can hide behind a half-truth (including me or Joseph Smith’s critics).
Take Care,
Brian Hales
Brian, you made so many troubling statements here that I don’t even know where to start. You speak with such confidence concerning Joseph Smith’s polygamy but you are rebutted by scholars who are actual historians on all sides (Bruno, Marquardt, Vogel, Quinn, etc.) and have seen all the same evidence you have. Who am I more inclined to believe? Studying what these scholars have written and what you have written and what the original documents show, I’m left totally baffled as to how you reach your conclusions. I do wonder if you use purely inductive reasoning where you start with a conclusion and work backwards with a strong confirmation bias. It’s hard to imagine you get there any other way.
You keep claiming that JS “does just fine” when all the evidence is examined. No he doesn’t, and for one main reason: the fact that polygamy ever happened. Do you honestly want to live that law or follow a God who commanded it? Especially when it was so secretive and damaging to the emotional well-being of many who were involved? I’d rather live in a lower kingdom of heaven than live like the polygamist families did in Nauvoo or early Utah. There’s a reason the church never talks about polygamy in any correlated documents.
I’m very troubled that you paint Runnels with such broad brush strokes, saying that his other findings are just as problematic, yet you provide no supporting evidence anywhere hat I’ve seen. This is a case of put up or shut up. I’ve read his letter and found much of his writing to be quite sound and supported by original documents. For example, what he writes about the historical discrepancies of the First Vision is correct as far as the evidence shows. I would be interested to see why you or “someone who has studied it more than you have” would think what he writes there is problematic. Marquardt has studied the First Vision way more than you have and his work agrees with what Runnels writes.
Hi Again,
You pose a good question. On one side of polygamy issues are “Bruno, Marquardt, Vogel, Quinn” and you forgot George D. Smith, Larry Foster, and Gary Bergera. So from a pure numbers point of view, they win hands down.
But I have a better suggestion. How about we discuss the evidence? Why don’t you read it for yourself and defend your position if it disagrees with mine? There’s the challenge.
You say I use “inductive reasoning.” I disagree. Might I suggest that you allege this because you don’t agree with my conclusions due to you own a priori biases. So you say I start with the conclusion and work backwards. If that is true, you should be able to expose this discrepancy with historical documentation. There’s the challenge.
You see, I’m trying to move this discussion away from secondary sources to primary sources. I’d like us to move away from labels. I’m called an “apologist,” but I don’t think any of the people named above are actual believers (based upon their writings anyway). There’s a clue regarding why they all depict a Joseph Smith who is a womanizer, fraud, hypocrite, and adulterer.
Runnells’ works are just a rehash of old material nicely packaged in the latest Internet garb. What is saddest is that he doesn’t understand the evidence beyond what little snippets he has discovered to support his apostate views (at least regarding polygamy). And he doesn’t seem to understand that he doesn’t understand. I realize he is probably getting assistance from others, so we can’t expect him to know everything. He’s energetic and aggressive, and no doubt will be effective for a time.
You say I don’t provide any evidence. How about my website (http://JosephSmithsPolygamy.ORG ) or my 1500+ pages of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology? Or perhaps you were referring to one specific thing? Let me know what you are thinking and I will respond.
Best!
Brian
I don’t know what to exactly make with the varied ways scholars view Joseph Smith’s polygamy, but I am at least willing to give Joseph Smith a chance. If Don Brandley thinks Joseph Smith was sincere, I want to know why for myself.
I ordered Brian’s first book today. Even if I ended up not coming to the same conclusion, I look forward to this resource.
Of course, having to sympathize with polygamy is kind of opening the way to being sympathetic to multi-partner relationships. I can be okay with that.
Ok, let’s talk evidence. The original documents as found in your book and in plenty of other sources suggest that Joseph Smith was a polygynist many times over. He also practiced polyandry. These are both problems. We agree on what the evidence says in that JS was a polygamist. And by your own admission on your recent interview with Russell Stevenson, “polygamy is kinda icky”. But that’s Runnels’ main problem: that it’s “icky” and that it happened at all. Additionally, it’s still Mormon doctrine and the church has done a pretty good job of keeping JS’s polygamy quiet. My mother at 70 years old, a lifelong pioneer stock Mormon, only learned the extent of JS’s polygamy after I sent her a copy of Rough Stone Rolling a few months ago, and it has been very troubling to her as it was to Runnels. This is a pretty common experience in the church. The only difference is my mother hasn’t written a public document about it.
My way of dealing with polygamy is clearly different than yours, but that’s likely due to what assumptions we carry into the journey. If you assume the church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet, then you find a way to make polygamy work (the most common way Mormons do this is “that’s in the past and I hope it never happens again,” of which there is no promise). However, if you start with no assumptions at all and examine all the evidence from the beginning (meaning from the birth of JS onward), then you might not ever reach the point where you *need* to make polygamy work.
When I said “you provide no supporting evidence”, I was referring specifically to your claim that “I have studied Jeremy’s other claims and believe them to be just as problematic as his polygamy statements”. I would like to see your supporting evidence for that since you’re making the claim. If you haven’t the evidence to do so, then don’t make the claim. If you’d like to talk something specific, let’s talk about the First Vision, since that’s the foundational event of modern-day Mormonism.
Hi Whitethunder,
I appreciate the response although I find it curious that you would want to change the subject to the First Vision. I have never published on that topic, but it isn’t too difficult to become an expert. Just go to the Church’s website http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision and read them for yourself.
It is interesting how often I get people telling me my biases are the problem rather than telling me the evidences are the problem. I’m sounding like a broken record here I know, but rather than classifying me as an apologist or overly biased, why can’t people produce historical documentation that solidly supports their position and rebuts my own? That is the invitation and the challenge.
Let’s talk specifics. You wrote “He [Joseph Smith] also practiced polyandry.” If you mean a “plurality of husbands,” then we have a great discussion point. I affirm that none of Joseph Smith’s plural wives ever believed they had two husbands. Also, he taught plurality of husbands was adultery and in two cases said that “the woman would be destroyed” if she engaged in such relations.
So I give you the opportunity to defend your statement with documentation. In fact, let me help you. You may want to read Mike Quinn’s essay, which you can download from my website: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Quinns-FINAL-RESPONSE.pdf . Mike is arguable the most accomplished of any scholar in Mormon-related studies and he has produced a very long essay supporting the idea that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry, that is, a genuine “plurality of husbands.” Of course, you can also download my response to his claims here http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/dialogues/hales-quinn/
You may want to take particular note of endnote 267 (page 118) where Mike chides me for expecting there to be some unambiguous evidence of sexual polyandry. His criticism is also a tacit acknowledgement that in all his research has hasn’t found any. That is, there is no reference to a woman having two husband at the same time. There are no complaints, no passing allusions, and most surprising, no defenses of the behavior, which probably would be expected if it actually occurred. In fact, even the anti-Mormons did not accuse Joseph of sexual polyandry until several years after his death. By most people’s standards, sexual polyandry has a strong “ick” factor, but if you read all available documents dealing with Nauvoo polygamy, it is as if it didn’t even happen there.
Or maybe you can show otherwise? I’d appreciate learning what makes you so confident that Joseph Smith “also practiced polyandry.”
Thanks,
Brian Hales
It’s about the quality of the evidence. Hales research doesn’t suddenly become false just because he is an anesthesiologist. The data is impressive and carries more impact than other viewpoints because it is better data. His research uses better first hand data than that used by many other historians even though they be PhD’s in the field. His conclusions are more consistent with and are a better fit to the best historic data.
The negative viewpoint of Joseph Smith is often presented in “historical” works but these “histories” of Joseph Smith consistently rely on the more dubious third hand and hearsay sources rather than the better first hand sources which are available. Indeed, some of the authors seem to go out of their way to exclude the better first hand evidence from their publications. Many of these works end up being critics citing other critics, none of whom use the better first hand historic sources that are now more readily available than ever before.
Simply put, the old viewpoint that is so often presented of Joseph Smith being a fraud or an adulterer or a pedophile or [insert any other negative term] just doesn’t hold up in light of the better research being done by Hales and some others. Their research makes much better use of primary sources and first hand witnesses. Critics often use third hand hearsay sources that are less believable in order to maintain a negative viewpoint of Joseph Smith. Hale acknowledges all the sources, even the negative ones, but shows that the better and more reliable historic sources support an honest Joseph Smith who really was what he claimed to be.
Why not focus on the issues and make your case using the best historic data available? That’s exactly what Brian Hales has done. I recommend thoroughly studying the historic data presented at his website.
Hi Whitethunder,
You mention Joseph Smith’s practice of polygyny as if that is a problem. Why is that a problem? As a prophet of God Joseph Smith restored the doctrines and practices of the original Christians and the ancient Biblical Prophets. His restoration of the Biblical practice of plural marriage is evidence that he was truly a prophet in the same tradition of the Biblical prophets. Righteous Abraham and Jacob had plural wives and Jesus said says that the righteous do the works of Abraham (John 8:39). Abraham’s major work was to be the father of many nations which he accomplished by practicing polygamy with God’s permission.
Jesus said that those polygamists would be in heaven (Luke 13:29; Luke 16: 19-31) So Jesus taught that polygamists can go to heaven. We see Christ affirming this again in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus wherein Jesus tells us that Abraham, that old polygamist, is in paradise while the Rich man is in Hell (Luke 16: 19-31).
God told David, through the prophet Nathan, to have plural wives (2 Samual 12:8). So God has commanded the practice of plural marriage in the past – the Bible proves that. Since God commanded the practice of polygamy through a Biblical prophet, then the fact that God commanding Joseph Smith to practice it cannot be used as evidence against Joseph Smith unless one wants to admit that it proves the bible prophets also false. In the bible a righteous king who honored the Lord had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:8-12,21)
Joseph Smith’s wives are evidence that Joseph was a prophet on par with the ancient righteous prophets and patriarchs who also practiced plural marriage and Joseph was telling the truth when he said that he was restoring true Biblical doctrines and practices.
Hi reeraat,
I acknowledge that in some instances real antagonism and ostracization is experienced by people who leave the Church. That is unfortunate. If this is what you have experienced I am truly sorry. It may be that in some cases tolerance has been lacking
It’s Ok to have questions and doubts about the Church. It is from these that we can experience growth. It is my consistent experience throughout my life that I have repeatedly encountered information about the Church that seems quite disturbing. It has also been my repeated experience that, given time and more complete research, those troubling issues are answered. In each case it turned out that the information I had encountered was presented in an inaccurate and/or incomplete way. Indeed, these bits of troubling information seemed to be deliberately crafted to present the Church and Joseph Smith in the worst light possible.
However, later, when I learned the historic facts in a more detailed and complete context I found that the idea of a Joseph Smith as an honest man was much more consistent with the better historic data that I was discovering. I have dialogued with many people who have doubts or who have left the Church and are critical of it. Almost without exception these people were basing their rejection of the Church on slanted and incomplete versions historic events. They were almost always relying on some book that an “historian” had published which ignored the better first hand evidence that is now available.
Certainly it is frightening and isolating to leave the Church. Most of the time there is a great deal of tolerance in the Church. Often people who leave the church have a self-imposed persecution complex. Let me illustrate what I mean with a real life example that I experienced:
I was good friends with a couple in my ward. After they went inactive the Bishop saw the wife come out of a building smoking a cigarette. I didn’t know anything about this event but later I was talking with her and she brought it up. She explained that when the Bishop saw her smoking he was judging her and condemning her.
Later I was in the company of the Bishop and, without my having mentioned anything about the event at all he brought it up and expressed his genuine love and concern for this woman. Yes, he was surprised to see her smoking but he was not judging or condemning her at all. I did not reject this couple and neither did the Bishop. However, because of her feelings of guilt she, in her mind, assumed that we were judging and rejecting her. Not the case. Shortly thereafter the couple moved away. We did not withdraw our friendship from them, rather, they removed themselves from our circle of friendship by their own choice and behavior, but, in their view, we rejected them.
This is a phenomenon I have seen repeatedly. When people in the Church are not living as they should they have a bit of a guilt complex. That’s normal and everyone who is still under the influence of the Light of Christ will have that. That’s a good thing. A sense of morality is what helps us repent and change our lives for the better. However, these people often assume that everyone else in the Church is judging them and looking down on them when, in fact they are usually not. Most of the people in the Church usually don’t even know about the individual’s personal struggles. Most friends or relatives are not judging; rather; they are just saddened and also uncomfortable with the lifestyle change – one which they don’t want to be around or participate in. Truth is – we want to be around people that uphold the same standards we do and conversely, people who change their lifestyle don’t feel comfortable anymore around their former relatives or friends who continue to be active in the Church. It’s just a natural process – people gravitate to people who are like they are and they tend away from those who are dissimilar.
I would add something else which often comes into play. It is human nature to look for reasons to justify our lifestyle. We all want to justify our behavior or justify a decision we have made etc…. When people leave the Church it’s no different. In such cases it is easy to latch on to any and every argument that is critical of the Church. Why? Because it makes us feel better about leaving. If the critics are right and Joseph Smith was really the terrible person they claim he was then you don’t have to feel guilty about leaving the Church. People are psychologically looking for a reason to feel better about their decision to leave and the critics give it to them. It also provides a sense of relief and a false sense of freedom. Now I don’t have to spend Sundays in meetings. Now I don’t have to do my home teaching and a calling. Now I don’t have to live up to those expectations, etc… I have repeatedly observed that people in this frame of mind don’t seem to want to correct the distorted version of Church history that they have learned from the critics. If you present them with better, more accurate, and well documented historic information which soundly refutes the incorrect information they often get agitated or mad.
Also people who have left the Church often claim a sense of relief and happiness. I think they do experience a sense of relief and freedom. However, it does not last. A number of people who have experienced this have confirmed later that they really weren’t happier. My sister in law and her husband have left the church and she claims to be happier. I know them quite well and it is blatantly obvious that they are not happier. They have more problems with their marriage and problems with their children, and emotional turmoil over various issues which they never had before. But, according to her, she is happier.
Brian,
You stated:
“You say I don’t provide any evidence. How about my website (http://JosephSmithsPolygamy.ORG ) or my 1500+ pages of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology? Or perhaps you were referring to one specific thing? Let me know what you are thinking and I will respond.”
To which I responded:
“When I said ‘you provide no supporting evidence’, I was referring specifically to your claim that ‘I have studied Jeremy’s other claims and believe them to be just as problematic as his polygamy statements’. I would like to see your supporting evidence for that since you’re making the claim. If you haven’t the evidence to do so, then don’t make the claim. If you’d like to talk something specific, let’s talk about the First Vision, since that’s the foundational event of modern-day Mormonism.”
I’m not changing the subject – YOU asked for something specific and I gave it to you. Specifically, we can talk about what problems there are with what Jeremy wrote about the First Vision. Again, if you can’t provide evidence that his other claims are problematic, please don’t make the statement. I’ve read the accounts of the First Vision many, many times on the JSP website. I have studied the history surrounding the alleged event many, many times via original documents (H. Michael Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism). What Jeremy wrote is a distillation of almost exactly what I’ve encountered as I’ve studied. His statements could use further elaboration but that wasn’t the purpose of his letter.
I think you missed my point entirely on the subject of polygamy. EVEN IF no wife of JS believed she was practicing polyandry (which clearly depends on how you define “being married” and at what point that is still a valid union), JS still married them. You haven’t solved the problem – you’ve just put it in different terms as if that makes it any better. Do you think God speaking to David Koresh made his practice of spiritual wifery acceptable? How about Warren Jeffs? Maybe it was ok for Muhammed? I can’t see why it was any different for these men as it was for JS. Each one claimed God spoke to them and commanded it. Each one obeyed. You can’t prove God didn’t speak to them. But I don’t accept any of their claims, JS included. Please do tell me where I’ve gone wrong here since you keep defending JS’s polygamy.
dhrogers,
Brian mentioned earlier the problem of “a priori biases”. It appears as though you have brought several to the table. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you’re using Abraham and Jacob as examples of righteous polygyny, you first need to show that Abraham and Jacob were real people, because that is in dispute by many reputable historians. A story being ancient doesn’t make it real. A story that has been written in the Bible doesn’t make it real.
Hi Whitethunder,
Thanks for the response.
I disagree. You did suggest a change of subject to the First Vision. At first I thought, “Oh, I guess he doesn’t find there to be any problems with Joseph Smith’s polygamy since he wants to address a new topic.” And by the way, I think all the First Vision discussion is “Much ado about nothing.” Anyone who studies Joseph’s life and believes him to be truthful can easily understand that he didn’t reveal everything to every audience. The details in each situation differed in minor ways, which is consistent with his overall sharing of his visionary experiences. He explained: “Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.” He knew much more than he readily shared.
Let me also compliment you for your argumentation. You have demanded that I provide a response to all of Jeremy Runnell’s allegations. You also added three more questions for me to answer: “Do you think God speaking to David Koresh made his practice of spiritual wifery acceptable? How about Warren Jeffs? Maybe it was ok for Muhammed?” Plus we have your other general claims to address. Your approach puts the burden of proof on me and would take many hours of my time if I were inclined to invest it that way. It won’t happen soon. Hence, you can easily claim victory. It is a great polemic but it is not good scholarship.
That is why I’m asking for evidence. You say Joseph Smith practiced a plurality of husbands. I say, “Show me the most convincing evidence supporting your belief.” I’m not asking you to address three general questions or someone else’s claims. I’m asking you to produce one unambiguous documentation that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry. You seem quite certain he did it so this shouldn’t be too difficult.
If this question doesn’t work, then you can pick another one. However, it needs to be within the area of my expertise and that is Joseph Smith and plural marriage. If you have no problems with Joseph Smith and polygamy, then I can’t contribute much to help you in your doubts about the Prophet. You pick the polygamy issue and then let’s talk evidence. Fair?
Take Care,
Brian
Brian,
After reading the article as well as all of the comments, there were a couple of things that came to mind that I’d like to share.
1. We are always teaching how the gospel of Jesus Christ is so simple, yet our religion is not simple. Take polygamy for example. Why is it that Brigham can declare it a salvational requirement to achieve the highest degree of celestial glory, yet now we not only denounce polygamy, but we excommunicate if you practice it? That’s a huge contradiction that now causes confusion among members, this taking the simplicity away from the Gospel. You claim that Satan is the one causing the confusion, but it looks pretty clear to me that it isn’t Satan at all. Our very own leaders have made salvation a moving target. I know you’ll try to tell me how modern revelation always trumps past revelation, which is an awfully convenient way to denounce stuff we don’t like while keeping the stuff we do. The problem there is that you have to throw past prophets who thought they were the mouthpiece of God on this earth under the bus. As a member I’m them confronted with the problem of if we can throw past prophets under the bus even though they thought they were speaking for God, then how do I know what the current prophet is saying won’t later be denounced by a future prophet? In my opinion a revealed doctrine of salvation is an eternal principle that doesn’t change, yet the Church has clearly changed it’s stance. Bin fact the Strengthening Church Members Committee was specifically formed to protect the Church against the practice of polygamy (See Elder Holland BBC interview on YouTube)
2. D&C 132 clearly outlines the requirements for entering into a polygamous marriage as three things. First, the woman must be a virgin. Second, the woman must not be married to another man, and third, the man must have consent from his current wife. Joseph revealed this doctrine, yet didn’t abide by it himself by taking wives who weren’t virgins, practicing polyandry, and marrying at least three of the women without Emma even knowing he did it, and when she found out, she was furious. By his own revealed standards, he is an adulterer, plain and simple.
3. As someone seeking for truth, I just can’t wrap my head around why in order to find it I must devote my life to researching controversial topics. You yourself said that your area if expertise is limited to polygamy. You’ve spent years studying the topic, and you aren’t anywhere near a point of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re right. That’s just one topic. I don’t have enough time in 10 lifetimes to study every possible topic of controversy that there is. I find it interesting that you attack Jeremy Runnells for his superficial attempt to find truth, and that he should do more reaearch. The point is, I just can’t believe in a God that would make us have to traverse such a huge minefield of controversial issues in order to receive salvation. Whether you like to admit it or not, mormon doctrine has changed, take the book Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation as just a superficial example. Prophets are constantly throwing each other under the bus and salvation is a moving target in Mormonism. If anyone has broken their covenants, it’s the Church because when I look at what I was taught, believed, prayed about, and received a personal witness of my whole life is not what it started out as. For example, polygamy isn’t what we said it was, blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence isn’t what we said it was, the Book of Mormon translation didn’t happen how we said it did, the first vision didn’t happen how we said it did, getting our own planets isn’t what we said it was, American Indians aren’t who we said they are, the Book of Abraham translation isn’t what we said it was…the list goes on and on!!!
I’m sorry my friend, but the mental gymnastics required to put all of that on the shelf and continue to have faith even when science, logic, reason, and evidence contradict is too great. You can tell me 1+1=3 all day and that I just need to have faith, bit that doesn’t work. My final straw was the revelation Joseph had about Zelph the white Lamenite. If you had anyone else tell you those stories, you’d laugh and call them crazy!!! Good for you if you can still jump through the hoops of control tactics employed by the church to keep people in fear of losing eternal salvation through guilt and shame, but I just can’t believe in a God who is that exclusionary and condemning.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the comments. I think several things you express are shared by others. Could I suggest, however, that it is obvious you have spent a lot of time learning of the critics views without spending enough time to learn whether they are true. You allude to things like “Zelph the white Nephite,” but have you studied the primary documents? You may wish to do so before judging what you think Joseph actually said concerning the skeleton.
You are right that the Mormon God does not require us to “traverse such a huge minefield of controversial issues in order to receive salvation.” The only people so required are those who choose to enter the minefield in the first place. There are plenty of Latter-day Saints who study the scriptures, pray sincerely, attend their meetings where they renew sacred covenants, and receive assurances from the Holy Spirit that they are in the right course. They avoid the minefield and will receive their rewards after they die.
But there are others who insist upon entering the minefield of doubts. As a result of their decisions, they inherit additional obligations. If they find something that shakes their faith, then they are expected to research that topic to learn the truth. Of course, few people do that. They believe the spinmeisters and their misrepresentations, half-truths, and falsehoods and they leave the Church. And Satan rejoices in another successful deception. Unfortunately, it happens over and over.
For example, you mentioned Brigham Young said polygamy was required for exaltation. Hmmm. He said they needed to live it at that time and place as a sign of obedience, but could you find me a quote from him or Joseph Smith or John Taylor etc. saying that every exalted man has to be a polygamist on earth irrespective of when and where he lived? This may be a good example of a half-truth creating doubt. It certainly is not the orthodox religion today nor was it ever in the nineteenth century.
Here’s another example. You say “D&C 132 clearly outlines the requirements for entering into a polygamous marriage as three things. First, the woman must be a virgin. Second, the woman must not be married to another man, and third, the man must have consent from his current wife.” It makes me wonder if you have read the revelation recently. The word “virgin” is only mentioned in verses 61-63. The rest of the text speaks of wives in a general way. Plus it doesn’t say ONLY a virgin so we don’t know the status of worthy non-virgins. You are correct that a woman could not be married to another man IF you mean a marriage “sealed” in the new and everlasting covenant. A woman with a legal marriage to one man and a sealing to another man still only has one husband because the new and everlasting covenant would supersede he legal marriage (D&C 22:1 132:4). Plus you may want to reread v. 65 which states that if the woman does not minister to her husband, “he is exempt from the law of Sarah.”
Paul explained: “For God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), but Satan is. You may think that TRUTH is strong enough to prevail in the world, but it is an illusion. Truth can only grow in the hearts of men and women and when those hearts are full of doubt, truth may become a byword and a non-issue. Some will even affirm it doesn’t exist. Yet, the problem is doubt, not truth.
Take Care,
Brian
Brian,
I am positive that we could go on for months debating each of the controversial topics out there, and understand that at the end of the day it all depends on which lens you choose to look at things through. My point is that finding salvation shouldn’t require me to have to study the original documents of every topic out there. If this were his true church, then when a prophet says something is the way it is, then it ought to be that way. It ought to be able to stand the test of time, science, logic, and reason. The fact of the matter is, too often the truth claims made by the church haven’t held up and we ended up hiding as much of it as we possibly could for as long as we could. Now that the Information Age is upon us, hiding the material that correlation deemed unnecessary and controversial is no longer possible and we find ourselves throwing past prophets under the bus. We use convenient little sayings like well they are only prophets when they are speaking as a prophet. I guarantee that when Brigham Young spoke and had it printed in the Journal of Discourse that he meant it to be taken as scripture. I believe there is even a quote of him saying as much.
I have spent significant time looking at as much of the evidence for and against as a guy with a family, career, and other obligations can possibly devote to it. I have tried to wipe all preconceived notions away and start fresh as a juror. I have listened to the prosecution, and I have heard the defense. At some point I have to make a decision, and based on the evidence present for and against, as a juror, I would have to say that beyond a reasonable doubt, the Church’s story doesn’t hold up. That decision was not an easy decision for me to come to due to the fact that I’m a third generation member who served a mission, was married in the temple, who worked at the Church Office Building for a few years, who is now serving as and Elders Quorum President, and who has kids that are being taught a historical account that is not accurate. I have cried and begged God to help me, to show me if Satan is deceiving me for many months and years. Through all of this I can honestly say that I am as sure as ever that I am on the path that God wants me on, which is not the path of continuing to practice Mormonism. I’m dealing with all of the fallout of that decision and confirmation now as family, friends, and neighbors shun me, and many other consequences that I won’t go into here.
The one thing I find interesting in your response above is that in one instance you interpret a scripture to your benefit by saying “the scripture doesn’t say ONLY…” yet in the case of Brigham’s teachings on polygamy you say that “he said they needed to live it at that time and place as a sign of obedience”, which he did NOT say. In one case you leave the door open for other possibilities, but in the other case you don’t. So what I see from your response is that you’re good at doing the mental gymnastics to make things fit the lens that you want to view things through. This is what Brigham actually said. To me, there is no room for interpretation. He didn’t mean it for those people at that time, he meant it as a revelation for all people now, and forever as an unchanging required doctrine for salvation.
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the
blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc.” The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
You said that the only people who are required to traverse the minefield are those who choose to enter it, but I would argue that if the truth claims of the church are what they say they are, then there shouldn’t even BE a minefield. I would argue that everything said by a past prophet would stand the test of time without a need to be changed, clarified, or denounced as so much has been done. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been a message, not a program. The Mormon Church has taken that message and converted it into a program with the bar raised so high, that it’s near impossible for anyone to ever feel worthy of receiving salvation. I’m not alone when I say that I just want to leave the church and leave it alone forever, but the church has created a narrative that incorrectly explains my disaffection by vilifying me, and has also woven an internal mechanism so that my actions ruin the Celestial afterlife of my spouse, parents, and children, creating a spiritual hostage crisis and rendering any hope of a peaceful exit both near-impossible and costly. That is not a Church, religion, or God that I can stand behind.
I respect that you’re able to make it all work, but you’re by far in the minority. Our church is so saturated with controversy and changing doctrines at every turn that most have no choice but to abandon the faith. I do sincerely appreciate that you’re taking on these difficult topics in hopes of helping people through their doubts. At the end of the day, I just have to believe that when I stand before God, I will be able to say that I spent my life trying to find truth, build a relationship with Him, and that I sought to know his will. I made the best decisions that I could with the information I had, and I truly believe that it will all work out in the end. I agree that God is not the author of confusion. Leaders of our church have caused the confusion because they have said contradictory and confusing things, and have changed salvational doctrines on multiple occasions. I say back to the basics of the Gospel message, the message of love and service to others, and God will work it out in the end.
Hi Daniel,
I’m sad to hear that due to your change in beliefs, you have had a lot of “fallout” from leaving the Church. It is a conundrum for members. Paul admonished: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). But regarding one who struggles we are instructed, “ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name” (3 Ne. 18:30).
I agree we could continue this back-and-forth for a long while. I don’t derive any joy in doing so, but I am compelled to teach truth, like clarifying what you wrote about polygamy and D&C 132. Your treatment of Brigham Young and polygamy is also problematic.
In the quote you provided, Brigham says first: “if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists AT LEAST IN YOUR FAITH” and then later he states “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” So which is it? Was Brigham contradicting himself? If the only “men who become Gods” are those who “enter into polygamy” during mortality, then all the Book of Mormon believers are damned from godhood because they were all monogamists (for example). Between the 1840s and 1890 polygamy was taught as a commandment. But God told Joseph:
“I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.” (D&C 58:32-33.)
The “men” of the U.S. Government prevented the practice of plural marriage and God revoked the commandment. God also explained to the Prophet:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.” (D&C 124:49.)
No other people have been commanded to practice polygamy, but the Children of Israel were given a unique commandment to practice the Law of Moses and Abraham the law of circumcision, etc. We can blame the Biblical God for changing commandments, but please don’t pin it on the Church or its leaders.
But I realize this isn’t really about polygamy. I have met others who have done some studying and concluded the Church is false. I just wish they would study more. It seems to me that the answer to their doubts is more knowledge. But then faith is also required, “even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). I’ve spent many hours trying to help others who’ve lost the testimony. It seems that faith is the real problem, faith in Christ and His prophet Joseph Smith, faith in living prophets, faith in the Book of Mormon etc.
After Christ taught the Bread of Life sermon, “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” I love Peter’s reply: “to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:66-68). Sometimes I ask people what convictions have displaced their belief in the restoration? Many times they just say they know the Church is not true. But I push back and ask, well, then what is true? (John 18:38.) Sometimes applying the same magnifying glass to your new beliefs can help reveal the problems that are even greater. Faith is required no matter what we choose to believe.
I wish I could give the gift of faith and belief. Yes it does work for me, a tender mercy in my way of thinking.
God bless you,
Brian
dm2103 ,
You mention the mine field that Brian also referred to when learning about Mormon History as a member of the LDS Church. Sounds like you aren’t LDS anymore, at least in spirit. (No offense meant by that.) I’m guessing you are still a Christian though, so I would ask you, since you mentioned that the Gospel should be simple. Was it always simple for the earliest Christians? Didn’t Paul and the other Apostles have to deal with doctrinal problems/questions coming from the Jews and the current accepted understanding of the scriptures of their day? Jesus had to deal with it too, and that from his own children, if you believe what he said about himself. Many of his followers, at different times, left him while he was still alive. Imagine that! the Son of God being rejected by his own people and religion. Yet, he told them that his yoke was easy and his burden was light. Some of the earliest followers of Jesus were excommunicated from the Synagog (church) for believing in he was the messiah. I’ll bet that was very confusing to them. I’ll bet it was hard for most back then, especially when Jesus asserted that he was God! If someone were to go around today saying that, what would you immediately think? What would it take for you to believe that person. How much harder would it be if you heard about it later, after he was killed for his assertions, especially when there was much controversy about that individual, and the non believers had had time to come up with opposing arguments against his doctrine? Any different from today? Not with Jesus, his Apostles, the earliest Christian rank and file, nor with Joseph Smith and we members of the Restored Church.
Did you know that later on, after the time of the Apostles, Pagan philosophers even went so far as to create materials (de-briefing stuff) that included anti-christian hear-say to help pull Christians from their absurd beliefs!. Was the Gospel complicated then or were others trying to make things appear complicated in order to de-convert converts?
My belief is that what is happening to day is nothing new. Aren’t the few writings we have in the N.T. evidence of that? Paul taught some complicated ideas while trying to explicate faith in Christ. They were a bit confusing then, to the point that some early followers had a hard time with it. My question about Paul’s teachings would be, since they are scripture, are they part of the Gospel, or just his convoluted opinion? I think, you can find a lot in the ancient scriptures, that could be considered confusing and not simple, yet it was considered to be doctrine. I don’t think most early Christians were scholars, or needed to be, to gain a testimony of Christ.
I’m a convert to the Church coming from a Catholic background. At a point in my life I started reading the Bible (from Genesis to Revelations!) and really gained a testimony of God, prayer, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, even though I didn’t understand a fraction of the stuff I read in the Bible.
God revealed himself to me in ways that I can’t deny, years before I became a Mormon. During that period of my life, I had impressions that caused me to start searching. I talked to many people of different faiths, and went by my spiritual experiences and impressions, and not by Bible knowledge alone. Putting my trust in God, I continued searching until, through some (to me) incredible spiritual experiences, I found the Restored Gospel.
My understanding of the earliest Christians, which by no means is perfect, leads me to believe that the Gospel was preached and received by the Holy Ghost, not so much by scholarship or argumentation. Not being a scholar didn’t keep me from gaining a testimony or getting my prayers answered. As a matter of fact, I think it was better that I hadn’t become sophisticated in my Bible/religious knowledge. I think that knowledge doesn’t always equal truth, especially when it comes to truth about God. There are many examples of that in the scriptures, both ancient and modern.
On a slightly different topic, I can understand yours and others feelings of alienation, especially if you live in Utah. I’m not from Utah but moved here from Washington State. Coming here was quite a culture shock for me. Mormons, for various reasons, can be somewhat exclusive, to say the least. I don’t think that is new either. The scriptures also bear witness to that human failing, amongst others, as well. A lot of what the Prophets and Apostles, ancient and modern, have to say concerns those types of issues and how all of us should try to deal with them. I don’t do it very well, that often, but my testimony is still there.
Please forgive me if this reply seems a bit muddled. I’m a lousy writer, it’s 2:00 am, and I’ve been up since 9:00 am. I’m a bit tired. 😐
dm2103, I wish you well.
sincerely,
rjh58
Brian,
Again, I suggested we could talk about the First Vision because you appeared to be asking for something specific that we could discuss about Runnels’ letter. I hate to do this but to quote you yet again, you said “Or perhaps you were referring to one specific thing?” We were talking about how you were painting the CES Letter with broad brush strokes and you asked for something specific we could talk about. Anyway, enough on that. It’s clear that you’re not going to put up. When people make general statements about polygamy, do you ask them to provide evidence and specifics? Of course you do. It would be nice if you did the same here concerning the letter in general.
In your brief remarks on the First Vision, you seem to be referring to the differing accounts JS gave, but that’s the symptom of the real problem. The real problem is that the most reliable evidence points to the vision not happening the way JS and the church tell the story, which is kind of a big deal. That explains why the story is so different every time JS tells it. That’s the problem I’d *like* to discuss as Runnels explained in his letter, but again, you make it clear that that’s not going to happen. Fair enough.
Concerning my references to cult leaders who also practiced polygamy, I’m not sure where scholarship even needs to come into play yet, since you accuse me of bad scholarship. It’s a simple lead-off question: what makes JS different than David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, or Muhammed? If they’re all practicing spiritual wifery as commanded by God as did the prophets of old, who is wrong and why? Or are they all right? If there is a polygamy issue I’d like to discuss with you, this is it right here.
“I’m asking you to produce one unambiguous documentation that Joseph practiced sexual polyandry.” Before we go there, I want you to go back over our discussion and point to me where I made the claim that JS practiced sexual polyandry. Polyandry isn’t just a problem if it’s sexual. It’s a problem if it happens in any form. If you don’t believe me, take a survey of living, active, LDS men who would be ok with their wife being sealed to another man whether for this life only, eternity only, or this life and eternity. Pick any configuration you choose. Make sure you state “the relationship won’t be sexual.” I took the liberty of doing a survey of a group of ex-Mormons here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1HgR7MtyjMGqGWzLRwy3dDMf_hHoDEB1Q6DUkoENBDVk/viewanalytics. You will notice that polyandry is only one of many problems that they have with the practice of polygamy.
Fortunately for us, your excellent research (and I do say that sincerely) has proven over and over again that JS was a polygamist. Arguing that he did it “right” doesn’t really help the problem – it compounds it. Now we not only have to deal with a man who had multiple wives (and more than likely had sexual relations with a number of them), we have a God and a religion that condone the practice! So you might find some errors in Runnels’ letter concerning polygamy (I sincerely doubt they can be accurately characterized as “lyings”, speaking of polemics), but by correcting him, you’re only bolstering his argument that there is a problem.
Hi Whitethunder,
Thanks for the message.
I puzzle over your request that we discuss the First Vision for several reasons. First, my original request deal with “one” issue concerning polygamy. Those are the only critiques I have leveled at Runnells. I think that should have been fairly obvious. The offer still stands. Second, am I to assume that you agree with me and disagree with Jeremy Runnells regarding his criticisms of Joseph plural marriage teachings and practices? If not, then what is an area where you agree with him. We can start there. Third, I’ve read the First Vision accounts and am nonplussed by the criticisms. Joseph gave different details to different audiences, which was exactly how he dealt with plural marriage years later. I see no contradiction. Fourth, Joseph reported many visions and so the focus on the First Vision seems disproportionate. I realize it is unique in several ways. Perhaps I could refer you to Alex Baugh’s article, “Parting the Veil: Joseph Smith’s Seventy-six Documented Visionary Experiences” (in John W. Welch, with Erick B. Carlson, ed., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844. Provo, Utah: BYU Press/Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005, 265-326).
You ask a general question: “What makes JS different than David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, or Muhammad?” The problem is that the answer could involve several volumes of research and writing. It is a common polemic technique to ask questions like this (or several), knowing the respondent could not possibly answer it adequately in the time/space provided. After the respondent stumbles or withdraws, the questioner can walk away with his/her head held high claiming the victory.
On the other hand, if we want to make a scholarly inquiry, we first would study David Koresh. If we did, we would find he was an adulterer before creating his church and that he had sex with his followers without any attempt to marry them. He was the boss and he dominated his adherent in many ways including sexually. We would also study Joseph Smith and learn that before he even organized a Church, he taught that breaking the law of chastity was next to murder (Alma 39:5). He did not possess a reputation for licentiousness throughout his life until 1842 when rumors of plural marriage started. No woman ever accused him of seducing her. Even his 35 plural wives never criticized him even decades after his death. After doing this level of research, then if we found a parallel between Joseph Smith and David Koresh, we could ask a specific question.
In your August 15 message you wrote that Joseph “also practiced polyandry.” Joseph taught that true “polyandry” in the sense of a woman having a “plurality of husbands,” was adultery and he did not practice it and never would have tolerated it. I seldom use the word “polyandry” anymore because it can generate confusion. A woman with a legal husband on earth and another husband in heaven is not practicing polyandry but consecutive marriages. The primary purpose for plural marriage is to allow all worthy women to be sealed to a husband in eternity (D&C 132: 19-20-16-17, 63). It wasn’t sex, and according to available documents, Joseph did have much of it.
You wrote: “Polyandry isn’t just a problem if it’s sexual. It’s a problem if it happens in any form. If you don’t believe me, take a survey of living, active, LDS men who would be ok with their wife being sealed to another man. . .” Perhaps you were unaware, but virtually no one in Nauvoo liked a plurality of wives (and a plurality of husbands was not permitted). Popularity is not a very good way to judge God’s commandments. Do we think Abraham liked the law of circumcision? Did the children of Israel like the Law of Moses that prevented them from eating bacon? You are right husbands don’t like it. Henry Jacob was very sad Zina chose Joseph. Albert Smith was sad his wife Esther chose the Prophet. Lucy Walker remembered Joseph’s teaching: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” It was a teaching for the first generation of pluralists in this dispensation and has not been allowed since.
You suggest that by correcting Runnells, I am “bolstering his argument that there is a problem.” If polygamy is a problem, then you must not currently embrace the Judeo-Christian tradition (or Islam for that matter). Abraham, Jacob, and Moses were all polygamists.
Personally I’m excited to see the Church confront some of the more controversial teachings through the “Gospel Topics” essay on LDS.ORG. Just this past week our bishop said he wants to address “gospel meat” in a combine adult class on the fifth Sundays. I was asked a few weeks ago to give a fireside on polygamy down in L.A. and they flew down to present it. None of these things could have happened even five years ago. It represents a change, a good change.
But it is also a sifting. It is apparent, Whitethunder, you have no belief that polygamy could ever be correct. Other people who believe as you do will also leave the Church and probably the Christian tradition altogether. Joseph was warned: “For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish” (D&C 19:22). Today keeping meaty (controversial) topics from those who will be shaken by them is impossible due to the internet. It is a sifting process and it is rapidly occurring.
I believe those members with mature faith in the truths found in Joseph’s revelations and the Book of Mormon will not be daunted. Joseph’s God tries our patience (3 Nephi 26:9). I don’t mean to sound superior only faithful—faith full. My faith sustains me through my doubts and questions, which always arise. It is part of learning. Don Bradley once told me that through studying the history of the Church he found his faith. It seems the answer to doubt is more knowledge if we care to prayerfully study.
God Bless,
Brian
Hi DM2103 (Daniel?)
You said “at the end of the day it all depends on which lens you choose to look at things through.” I think that is really true and I hope it is OK that I comment further on that statement and later I would like to comment on a few other things you brought up. I do so with the hope that a different lens will become available. Sometimes we don’t see all the lenses available to us or we don’t always pick the one with the clearest view.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. What is proof to one person is not to another. Therefore, in the end, archeology, science, and scholarship, cannot prove or disprove spiritual truths. God is testing us. God allows competing voices, even those which oppose God, so that we can be tested. The voices from both sides are compelling. We think we are testing the evidences but the evidences are really testing us. The persuasive voices from both sides are testing us to see which way our hearts lean (Which lens we chose to look through).
Some Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Because the Church does not currently practice plural marriage, critics claim this means that either the past leaders were wrong, or that current members are not destined for exaltation.
The commandment to practice plural marriage was probably necessary for the salvation of those who received it; not because they needed to have plural wives, but because they needed to be obedient to God.
Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14). Was Noah’s temporal salvation dependent on obeying God and building the arc? Certainly it was. Was Noah’s spiritual salvation dependent on obeying God? Certainly it was because otherwise he would have been in a state of disobedience to God. Does this mean that later prophets are damned because they don’t build arcs like Noah did? No. Well then, does that mean that Noah was a false prophet and he was lying or mistaken when he said God commanded him to build an arc? No, it doesn’t mean that either. What it means is that God required Noah to be obedient and to build the arc and that he does not require us to do that today. It’s as simple as that.
The Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
• Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)
• Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)
• Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)
• Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1:1-3
• Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
• The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people (Acts 10:14-28)
The real issue is this: Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the true church restored to the earth? Is Joseph Smith a true prophet of God? Is the Book of Mormon true? If so then it was God, and not Joseph Smith or any other man who directed the changes just as He has done in the past in other multiple major issues. God can do that sort of thing. He is God.
One’s knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the current prophet is really a prophet comes by the power and witness of the Holy Ghost. There will always be historical anomalies and difficult questions and so forth. So, it depends on whether we let the issues that trouble us prevail or whether we will let the promptings of the Holy Ghost prevail.
However, I would add that I have consistently and repeatedly found that a more thorough and complete examination of the best historic data available always vindicates the honesty and integrity of Joseph Smith and of the Church. Those who let information critical of the Church shake their faith are almost always using incomplete information. The information is usually filtered by critics who leave out the better first hand sources or in a few cases they may have done the best they could but just didn’t have the better data available to them. Either way, it always turns out that the best and most accurate historic data vindicates Joseph Smith and the Church.
Hi DM2103
In your post of August 22nd you state: “Whether you like to admit it or not, mormon doctrine has changed, take the book Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation as just a superficial example.”
It would be well to remember that Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation are not official publications of the Church. Official doctrine is found in the standard works and other official pronouncements. Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation while containing much that is in harmony with the official doctrine of the Church also contain personal views of the authors which may not always be in harmony with the Church. They are private publications and are not published by the Church.
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956), 3:203. ()
Similar thoughts were expressed by President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference: “If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
More recently Elder D. Todd Christofferson counseled: “At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”
—D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,”, general conference, April 2012.
Hi DM2103
Re having to have Emma’s permission:
You may have missed the parts where it says that if Emma refused to give consent Joseph was to proceed without her consent.. Read carefullyD&C 132: 54-55 and D&C 132:64-65.
So, with a more careful reading we see that Joseph did not violate the revelation.
Hi DM2103
In your post of August 22nd you give a list of things that you think the Church has been wrong about or has flip flopped on. I have also looked into each and every one of those you listed and many many more. I have consistently found that an incomplete (sometimes deliberately incomplete) telling of those events by critics does seem to make the Church look bad. But when I dug much deeper I found the Church’s behavior and practices to be vindicated by better and more accurate history. It would take more space than reasonable for me to respond to each of the items on your list. Perhaps I can try to briefly respond to a couple.
The story of Zelph published in the History of the Church was created by amalgamating journal entries of six or seven people. None of the accounts were recorded or approved by Joseph Smith:
• Wilford Woodruff
• Heber C. Kimball
• George A. Smith
• Levi Hancock
• Moses Martin
• Reuben McBride
Wilford Woodruff’s journal account mentions that the ruins and bones were “probably [related to] the Nephites and Lamanites,” the printed version left out the “probably,” and implied that it was a certainty.
“The mere ‘arrow’ of the three earliest accounts became an ‘Indian Arrow’ (as in Kimball), and finally a ‘Lamanitish Arrow.’
If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion’s Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place.
It is unclear as to which details are correct and which are variations that developed over time or which are a result of the writers personal interpretation or remembrances. The information was not vetted or approved by Joseph Smith and was never published by him or the Church as an official revelation.
Regarding the Book of Abraham, there are a number of issues that could be discussed. It is impossible for me to know what alleged issues you are thinking of. I wrote a paper of about 80 pages on the BoA for my own benefit just to gather all the information for my own study. I certainly can’t repeat that here. However, perhaps I can say a few things.
The critics argue that Joseph was wrong because the Book of Abraham text is not found on any of the eleven extant papyri fragments. They are right, it isn’t. It’s not supposed to be. Many eye witnesses from the 1830’s and 1840’s describe multiple long rolls of papyri and also smaller fragments. They describe that Joseph translated the BoA text from only one of the long rolls in his possession having both black and red ink. They also describe the smaller fragments as having only black ink. The long rolls are still missing. Existing historic documents trace the long rolls to the Woods museum in Chicago which burned down in the 1871 fire. The small pieces took a different route and ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Life in NYC. These match the description of the fragments given by eye witnesses in the 1840’s with only black ink and so forth.
The Book of Abraham remains one of the great witnesses of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling. Why? Because he got so many things right that were unknowable through scholarship in his day. Many details in both the Facsimiles and in the text are supported by subsequent scholarly research and document finds not available in Joseph Smith’s day. Examples are available if interested.
Discoveries such as “The Apocalypse of Abraham”,first published in 1897, and “The Testament of Abraham which also surfaced long after the time of Joseph Smith, and many other ancient Abrahamic accounts now confirm many details in Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham – details that Joseph, nor anyone else from his time, could have guessed – yet Joseph’s translation gets those details right. . Nobody in Joseph Smiths time had the information. It’s too bad we don’t have space here to post examples of the things Joseph’s translation gets right.
So critics are right when they say that the extant papyri don’t match Josephs translation. What the critics don’t seem to understand is that Joseph didn’t make the translation from those particular pieces of papyri. He made it from one of the longer rolls which is still missing. You might ask: Well then why is Facsimile 1 in the extant fragments? If we had time we could discuss the Egyptian practice of using vignettes (Facsimiles) and placing the text that discusses the vignette elsewhere.
The other issues you raise are equally not a problem for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith and/or the Church. Too bad we can’t discuss in more detail but space here won’t allow that.
Dwight
Brian,
“First, my original request deal with “one” issue concerning polygamy. Those are the only critiques I have leveled at Runnells.”
Not true. You made a very general critique when you said, “Like you and others, I have studied Jeremy’s other claims and believe them to be just as problematic as his polygamy statements.” So far you have not been willing to point out a single solitary instance of this, so until you do, I have to assume that you haven’t actually done it.
“Second, am I to assume that you agree with me and disagree with Jeremy Runnells regarding his criticisms of Joseph plural marriage teachings and practices? If not, then what is an area where you agree with him. We can start there.”
The specifics don’t even matter that much to me. You might be right and he might be wrong on some details. The area where you two *agree* is where I have a problem (at least). You agree that JS was a polygamist. You agree that he married other mens’ wives. You agree that he had sex with a lot of women in his lifetime. You don’t seem to think that those things are a problem, which is funny because you’re parading around the Internet telling everyone that people have JS’s polygamy all wrong with statements like, “Runnells writes that Joseph ‘married at least 11 women who were married to other living men. In fact, I count 14.” I hope you can see why such a statement is only making the problem that most people have with polygamy worse. Not only are you confirming that it happened the way it did, it happened even more frequently than some people thought. Kudos to you for being honest but you’re actually strengthening the critics’ position by writing things like that.
“Third, I’ve read the First Vision accounts and am nonplussed by the criticisms. Joseph gave different details to different audiences, which was exactly how he dealt with plural marriage years later. I see no contradiction.”
Do you see a contradiction that town records don’t put the Smiths in Palmyra until 1822? Do you see a contradiction when Lucy Mack Smith indicates that the revival that got JS interested in praying about religion started after Alvin’s death (which happened in November of 1823)? Or when William Smith says that JS was awakened one night by a vision as a result of his questioning religion due to the ongoing revival in about 1823? The list goes on but I imagine by now you can see you’ve beaten up a straw man.
“Fourth, Joseph reported many visions and so the focus on the First Vision seems disproportionate.”
Concerning this particular vision, Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud … upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.” Given that you accept him as a prophet, seer, and revelator, do you feel that his “focus on the First Vision seems disproportionate”? Does his same statement apply to other visions? I’m quite baffled that you’d make such a statement. I seem to recall missionary lessons that almost uniformly include the First Vision as a focal point of the first discussion along with the Book of Mormon. It seems as though you disagree with your church by making such a statement, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
Concerning David Koresh’s “adultery”, as far as I’ve read, he claimed that God told him to have sex with the people he did. He even had “spiritual wives,” both single and already married, which sounds familiar. As disgusting as what he did is, I don’t see how it was all that different than JS’s practice of polygamy.
“Popularity is not a very good way to judge God’s commandments.”
Then why did/does the church make such a big effort to keep its former command and practice of polygamy quiet? You don’t seem to be concerned with the popularity of the practice but the church sure does. In fact, when the church made changes to the temple ceremony in 1990, it was likely due to popular demand based on surveys administered by the church. I suppose you might level your criticism of shying away from unpopular practices at your own church.
“Abraham, Jacob, and Moses were all polygamists.”
They were also probably not real people. At least not in the way they are depicted in the Bible. Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s real or true. Basing your defense of a practice rooted in myth is a foolish man building his house on the sand.
“It is a sifting process and it is rapidly occurring.”
Agreed. People that are able to aim critical thought at their faith are realizing that they have been bamboozled. This is happening at a faster rate than in the past due to information being freely available and the church acknowledging things that critics have been saying for many decades. I predict that the church will continue to distance itself from controversial things in the same way it did with the Race and the Priesthood essay. It will renounce and condemn past practices in an effort to stay alive as the flow of members continues out the door.
“Don Bradley once told me that through studying the history of the Church he found his faith.”
So did I. It just happens to be vastly different than what I was taught growing up. I’d be interested to hear how Don Bradley deals with certain historical issues.
Hi Whitethunder,
I am enjoying our discussion and responding to your claims and questions.
Let me commend you for your point-by-point response. You briefly referred to Jeremy Runnells, polygamy, polyandry, the First Vision, the reality (or not) of Old Testament prophets, and your own experience studying Mormon history. Doubtless your comments were sufficient to persuade you that you have prevailed with truth and exposed errors. Hopefully comprehending truth is your objective.
It seems our discussion has splattered a little bit. I’m happy to address each of the topics in separate messages. Would it be okay if we started with my original offer to discuss one issue dealing with Joseph Smith and plural marriage that you find problematic—like a narrative that you think it shows he was an adulterer etc.? You can choose form Jeremy’s list if you like.
There is a reason why I keep insisting upon this. As someone who has tried to see all of the evidence dealing with JS and polygamy, I detect a pattern by the Jeremy Runnells of the world (and the people he quotes). Let me give you an example. Consider the story of a woman who lies asleep in a room at midnight. A masked man quickly enters, grabs a knife, and plunges it into the woman’s abdomen. An hour later she has bled to death. With this description, many might conclude that the poor woman had been murdered in her sleep by an intruder. In actuality, the woman was an anesthetized patient in an operating room, and the man with the knife, or more properly scalpel, was a vascular surgeon performing an emergency operation to stop internal bleeding from severe abdominal trauma, but he was unsuccessful.
Undeniably, the way a story is told can highly influence the perception of what occurred, even allowing skilled physicians to be transformed into murderers. This happens in polygamy over and over and I’m inviting you (again) to pick one single allegations that convinces you Joseph was immoral and then we can analyze the historical documents to see what they support. I believe people condemn the Prophet based upon their assumptions, not credible evidence, but you can show me I’m wrong.
Once we’ve finished discussing plural marriage, we can apply this process to the First Vision (you have prompted me to return to studying them) and anything else you would like discuss.
Take Care,
Brian Hales
This is a test – delete me
Brian,
We can talk about how Joseph Smith was an adulterer, but the problem is that we probably don’t agree on what it means to be an adulterer. The conversation would be fruitless because you believe that God commanded JS to be a polygamist. I see it as no different than other historical figures who claimed the same thing. They were also adulterers.
Regarding JS’s immorality: Is it immoral to lie? Did Joseph Smith publicly lie about polygamy on more than one occasion?