Brian Hales Finished A Great "ask Me Anything" Over On Reddit

[helix]

Brian Hales was invited to spend some time over at http://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints discussing whatever questions people wanted to ask him.  He did a great job, answering questions for almost 12 hours straight.  A number of excellent discussions took place, and I figured this forum would be interested in reading them. 

 

You can find the "Ask Me Anything" discussion here: http://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/1sq4a0/i_am_brian_hales_ama_ask_me_any_question_about/.  The discussion is likely to be closed soon, so further replies will likely go answered at this point. 

 

 

[BCSpace]

 

Polygamy is one of the most difficult topics for me from early church history. I'm mostly OK with it in theory, but the way it actually happened in Nauvoo is difficult to come to terms with.

When I heard Zina D Huntington's story, for example, I was outraged and sad. As I understand it Joseph had tried to court her and she turned him down to marry Henry Jacobs. When she was around 7 months pregnant with Henry's child, Joseph Smith sent her a letter telling him that an angel with a flaming sword would slay him if he did not marry her.

Here's the first part of the question: do you believe that an angel did actually command Joseph Smith to marry a married woman who had already turned Joseph down? Why would it be necessary to take other mens' wives in order to establish polygamy?

 

 

[–]brianhales[S] 23 points

11 hoursago

The Zina Huntington story as presented by Todd Compton and Martha Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward is problematic from a documentation standpoint. The evidence JS approached Zina is 1840 disagrees with Zina's own statement the Joseph didn't come until 1841. In addition, the document Martha Bradley viewed substantiating the alleged 1840 visits has been lost. We don't know who wrote it or when. You are not alone in being concerned about the details, but it is important to realize that Zina and Henry Jacobs remained devout followers of Joseph smith and they DID know the details. If we believe they were as discerning as we are, we can conclude we might be okay with it if we knew all the particulars. I guess that takes faith.

 

 

 

 

Great stuff.

[stemelbow]

Holy Cow, though.  As far as I can find, Brian Hales is doing us all such a great service with his work.  Just good honest stuff.  I have tons more to learn about though and this little QA and was fascinating read. 

[rick7475]

I have his books and he has a great web site. This man has great researching skills.

[juliann]

Talk about a Christmas gift!  And I understand he kept this up for 12 hours!  I still have huge issues with his penchant for adding the women are more righteous so there will be more of them in heaven to his solid research but he can't be faulted on his incredible knowledge and willingness to share it.  He is a literal storehouse.

[Fifth Columnist]

The Zina Huntington story as presented by Todd Compton and Martha Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward is problematic from a documentation standpoint. The evidence JS approached Zina is 1840 disagrees with Zina's own statement the Joseph didn't come until 1841. In addition, the document Martha Bradley viewed substantiating the alleged 1840 visits has been lost. We don't know who wrote it or when. You are not alone in being concerned about the details, but it is important to realize that Zina and Henry Jacobs remained devout followers of Joseph smith and they DID know the details. If we believe they were as discerning as we are, we can conclude we might be okay with it if we knew all the particulars. I guess that takes faith.

Mike Quinn nailed this down already:

 

Before listing those children, however, it's necessary to respond to an anachronism that Hales has publicly identified.

 

Interestingly, Zina [Huntington Jacobs] testified that her sealing to Joseph Smith was performed twice. The first time was on October 27, 1841, by Dimick Huntington, her brother. She also affirmed: "When Brigham Young returned from England, he repeated the ceremony for time and eternity." The timeline is problematic because Brigham arrived from England in July 1841.⁷⁵

 

Hales has not recognized that the error was actually the conventional dating of Zina's polygamous marriage as 1841, which was in her 1869 affidavit and its many repetitions thereafter.

 

Three years earlier, Apostle Wilford Woodruff, as the officially appointed "Church Historian,"⁷⁶ recorded the following in his "Historian's Private Journal":

 

Joseph Smith & Louisa Beaman were sealed May 1840 by Joseph B. Noble

 

Joseph Smith & Zina Huntington were sealed Oct. 27, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in Nauvoo

 

Joseph Smith & Presinda [sic] Huntington were sealed Dec 11, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in Nauvoo[.]⁷⁷

 

Although his research-assistant had already provided a typescript of this document to Brian Hales,⁷⁸ his 2010 article did not mention Woodruff's notations that corroborated Zina's "problematic" statement about dating her marriage to Joseph.

 

Woodruff identified no source(s) for this 1866 notation, but Joseph B. Noble also made statements that he performed the Beaman-Smith marriage in 1840.⁷⁹ According to Zina, shortly after Apostle Brigham Young's return to Nauvoo in July 1841, he re-performed her polygamous sealing of 1840 to the Prophet. As President of the Quorum of the Twelve and advocate for the primacy of the apostleship,⁸⁰ Young undoubtedly also re-performed in 1841 the marriages that Louisa and Presendia had previously entered with the Prophet.

 

In 1869, when Joseph F. Smith (one of the most junior members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) began seeking affidavits to prove the realities of plural marriage during his uncle Joseph Smith's leadership,⁸¹ the conflicting years for Nauvoo's first polygamous marriages complicated his endeavors. If presented to the public, the repeated sealings of 1841 would require explanation and might raise more questions than answered by affidavits of the participants. Someone obviously decided that the easiest way to avoid confusion was to emphasize the month and day of the original ceremonies performed in 1840 by two rank-and-file Mormons, yet assign them to the year (1841) when the ceremonies were re-solemnized by apostolic authority.⁸² Similar conflation of dates and documents, plus replacing one man's name for another, had been the standard practice in publishing the Prophet's revelations during the 1830s.⁸³

[canard78]

Talk about a Christmas gift! And I understand he kept this up for 12 hours! I still have huge issues with his penchant for adding the women are more righteous so there will be more of them in heaven to his solid research but he can't be faulted on his incredible knowledge and willingness to share it. He is a literal storehouse.

He did a brief AMA on staylds but unfortunately only answered a couple of questions.

This was one he didn't answer. The number simply don't stack up.

There will be millions more third-world infants in the celestial kingdom than "Mormons-while-on-earth." The birth rate is 50:50 (with a slight skew to boys). So I wonder how he figures there will be an abundance of women in the celestial kingdom. That has always seemed like a retro fit explanation to me.

[BCSpace]

 

Mike Quinn nailed this down already:

 

Before listing those children, however, it's necessary to respond to an anachronism that Hales has publicly identified.

 

Interestingly, Zina [Huntington Jacobs] testified that her sealing to Joseph Smith was performed twice. The first time was on October 27, 1841, by Dimick Huntington, her brother. She also affirmed: "When Brigham Young returned from England, he repeated the ceremony for time and eternity." The timeline is problematic because Brigham arrived from England in July 1841.⁷⁵

 

Hales has not recognized that the error was actually the conventional dating of Zina's polygamous marriage as 1841, which was in her 1869 affidavit and its many repetitions thereafter.

 

Three years earlier, Apostle Wilford Woodruff, as the officially appointed "Church Historian,"⁷⁶ recorded the following in his "Historian's Private Journal":

 

Joseph Smith & Louisa Beaman were sealed May 1840 by Joseph B. Noble

 

Joseph Smith & Zina Huntington were sealed Oct. 27, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in Nauvoo

 

Joseph Smith & Presinda [sic] Huntington were sealed Dec 11, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in Nauvoo[.]⁷⁷

 

Although his research-assistant had already provided a typescript of this document to Brian Hales,⁷⁸ his 2010 article did not mention Woodruff's notations that corroborated Zina's "problematic" statement about dating her marriage to Joseph.

 

Woodruff identified no source(s) for this 1866 notation, but Joseph B. Noble also made statements that he performed the Beaman-Smith marriage in 1840.⁷⁹ According to Zina, shortly after Apostle Brigham Young's return to Nauvoo in July 1841, he re-performed her polygamous sealing of 1840 to the Prophet. As President of the Quorum of the Twelve and advocate for the primacy of the apostleship,⁸⁰ Young undoubtedly also re-performed in 1841 the marriages that Louisa and Presendia had previously entered with the Prophet.

 

In 1869, when Joseph F. Smith (one of the most junior members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) began seeking affidavits to prove the realities of plural marriage during his uncle Joseph Smith's leadership,⁸¹ the conflicting years for Nauvoo's first polygamous marriages complicated his endeavors. If presented to the public, the repeated sealings of 1841 would require explanation and might raise more questions than answered by affidavits of the participants. Someone obviously decided that the easiest way to avoid confusion was to emphasize the month and day of the original ceremonies performed in 1840 by two rank-and-file Mormons, yet assign them to the year (1841) when the ceremonies were re-solemnized by apostolic authority.⁸² Similar conflation of dates and documents, plus replacing one man's name for another, had been the standard practice in publishing the Prophet's revelations during the 1830s.⁸³

 

 

Hales responds:

 

When discussing the plural marriage of Zina Huntington, which was performed by Zina’s brother, Dimick, Quinn begins: “…it’s necessary to respond to an anachronism that Hales has publicly identified… Hales has not recognized that the error was actually the conventional dating of Zina’s polygamous marriage as 1841, which was in her 1869 affidavit [October 27, 1841] and its many repetitions thereafter” (13-14; emphasis in original).¹¹⁹)

 

Quinn supports the theory that Zina was sealed to the Prophet in 1840 by referencing her 1898 declaration:

 

“When Brigham Young returned from England, he repeated the ceremony for time and eternity”¹²⁰ (14). The timetable is problematic because Brigham arrived in Nauvoo from England in July 1841 and theoretically could have performed the October 27, 1841 sealing. To further validate his 1840 dating scheme, Quinn cites evidence from “‘Historian’s Private Journal’ (one volume, 1858-78), entries after 1 July 1866, LDS Church History Library,” which lists an 1840 date for Zina’s sealing to the Prophet, although the original source of the information recorded there is not provided (14). Quinn then writes that “obviously” Zina Huntington was sealed to Joseph Smith in 1840: “Someone obviously decided that the easiest way to avoid confusion was to emphasize the month and day of the original ceremonies performed in 1840 by two rank-and-file Mormons, yet assign them to the year (1841) when the ceremonies were solemnized by apostolic authority” (15).

 

Quinn also defends an 1840 sealing date by disputing the timing of the Prophet’s sealing to a different plural wife, Louisa Beaman, who is traditionally listed as his first Nauvoo polygamist marriage. He quotes RLDS missionary John W. Wight 1890’s statement: “Joseph B. Noble … claims to have sealed Joseph Smith and Louisa Beaman, but is not sure whether it was in 1840, 41 or 42”¹²¹ (77fn79). Quinn also references the Sunday, December 19, 1880, journal entry from Charles L. Walker: “Br Nobles made a few remarks on the celestial order of marriage, He being the man who sealed Louisa Beaman to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1840 under his instructions.”¹²²

 

Quinn’s chronology requires him to dismiss Joseph B. Noble June 26, 1869 affidavits that affirms that “…on the fifth day of April A.D. 1841, At the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, he married or sealed Louisa Beaman, to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, according to the order of Celestial Marriage revealed to the Said Joseph Smith.”¹²³ Another affidavit signed that same day gave additional details: “In the fall of the year A.D. 1840 Joseph Smith, taught him the principle of Celestial marriage or a ‘plurality of wives’, and that the said Joseph Smith declaired that he had received a Revelation from God on the subject, and that the Angel of the Lord had commanded him, (Joseph Smith) to move forward in the said order of marriage.”¹²⁴ In an additional document, Franklin D. Richards recorded Nobles famous quotation regarding Louisa’s disguise for the sealing – a coat and hat – that also specifies 1841: “he performed the first sealing ceremony in this Dispensation in which he united Sister Louisa Beman to the Prop[h]et Joseph in May—I think the 5^th day in 1841 during the evening under an Elm tree in Nauvoo. The Bride disguised in a coat and hat.”¹²⁵

 

Weighing the evidence, Quinn concludes that the sealing between Louisa Beaman and Joseph Smith occurred in 1840 and therefore supports and 1840 sealing date for the Prophet and Zina Huntington¹²⁶ (14, 15, 77fn79).

 

Quinn’s theory of 1840 sealings is problematic.¹²⁷) He employs the same problematic logic in dating Zina Huntington’s sealing as he did with Louisa Beaman, by discounting evidence that is more voluminous and generally considered more reliable than that which he cites. Foremost among the documents he dismisses is a hand signed affidavit from Zina herself giving an exact date:

 

Territory of Utah

 

S.S.

 

County of Salt Lake

 

Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington ^Young^ who was by me Sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-Seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the same; regulating marriage; In the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington.

 

Zina D. H. Young

Subscribed and Sworn to by

the Said Zina D. H. Young, the

day and year first above written

E. Smith

Probate Judge¹²⁸

 

Three other eyewitnesses signed similar affidavits affirming 1841, one from Dimick Huntington,¹²⁹ a second from Fanny Huntington,¹³⁰ and a third from Presendia Huntington declaring her sealing was in 1841 (December 11).¹³¹

 

In summary, Quinn dismisses the sources quoted above corroborating and 1841 date, instead citing a second or third hand entry in the “Historian’s Private Journal” that provides information from an unknown source stating 1840, telling his audience that his interpretation is “obvious.” He then concludes: “Born in January 1821, 19-year-old Zina Diantha Huntington became Joseph Smith’s plural wife more than four months before her civil marriage to Henry Jacobs on 7 March 1841… Thus, all the children to whom Zina gave birth before March 1845 could be regarded as Joseph’s offspring” (15). The specific chronology of the sealing between Zina Huntington and Joseph Smith is not that critical and Quinn is entitled to his opinion. However, this might constitute another example of drawing an extreme conclusion from ambiguous evidences while simultaneously dismissing more reliable contradictory documentation. 

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/dialogues/hales-quinn/

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by BCSpace

[juliann]

In other words, nobody really knows for sure and this can be used either way depending on individual bias. Interesting as this is, it is not proof it is supposition.

[BCSpace]

Well no.  As Hales correctly points out, there is no evidence for sexual polyandry and plenty of evidence against it.

[juliann]

Evidence as in the case of Flora where Hales says on pg. 5 [Vol.2]?  "Almost nothing is known about this marriage and two observations raise questions whether it was ever consummated."   Based on this lack of evidence, Hales says on the next page that her legal marriage to another man "would be more easily understood if she were not sexually involved with the Prophet." 

 

You consider this evidence?

[BCSpace]

Perhaps you haven't read all of what Hales had to say on the issue or considered the doctrine that comes into play?  For example:

 

In reality, by marrying and consummating her civil union with Carlos Gove, Flora had unilaterally broken her marriage covenant with the Prophet. The revelation on Celestial and plural marriage (D&C 132 recorded the previous month) speaks specifically of Flora Ann’s behavior: “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and . . . if one . . . after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132: 61, 63). These verses state that after being sealed in a priesthood marriage, if a plural wife (like Flora Ann Woodworth) is with “another man,” (like Carlos Gove) “she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed.” No exceptions for legal husbands are mentioned.

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 29.10 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.11

On the other hand, if the plural marriage between Flora and Joseph had not been consummated, then the unrecorded consequences might have been different. Flora’s willingness to marry Gove on the spur of the moment and her previous behavior with Orange Wight raise the question regarding the level of physicality in the Flora-Joseph plural union.

Malissa Lott wrote to Andrew Jenson on June 27, 1887: “Flora Ann Woodworth . . . married Carlos Gove at Navoo with the consent of the Prophet.”12 It appears less likely that the Prophet prospectively approved of the civil marriage or had freed Flora from her eternal covenant to him prior to her legal nuptial.13 The keys of sealing are also the keys of loosing. Joseph Smith taught concerning the man who held the sealing keys: “that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (D&C124:93). Christ told Peter similarly: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18; see also Matthew 16:19, Helaman 10:7). Joseph had the power to annul the marriage or in modern parlance, “cancel” the sealing, either before or after Flora wed Gove.

Our understanding of the interactions between Emma, Flora, and Joseph Smith is admittedly very limited. But it seems probable that he retrospectively granted Flora the needed divorce for “time.” Whether other disciplinary action was taken is not recorded. Neither is it known if they agreed to also cancel (or “loosen”) the “eternity” portion of the sealing. Flora received her endowment in the Nauvoo Temple on January 17, 1846, and a temple sealing ordinances to Joseph Smith by proxy on February 4.14

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/flora-ann-woodworth/

 

In other words, there is plenty of evidence to lead us to a more faithful conclusion.

 

[juliann]

Perhaps you haven't read all of what Hales had to say on the issue or considered the doctrine that comes into play?  For example:

 

 

In other words, there is plenty of evidence to lead us to a more faithful conclusion.

 

And thus, the problem.  Other women's sexual behavior (but not the men's)  is associated with "faithful".   So when the game is over and it can no longer be denied that there was polyandry, you will have proved Joseph to be "unfaithful."

 

And the real conversation is going on in the other polyandry thread not this resurrected one...but nice try at a diversion.