It was 8 years ago that Brian Hales published his 3-volume set on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy. How does he feel about polygamy criticisms of his work? Check out our conversation…
Copyright © 2021
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.
Introduction
I’m excited to have Dr. Brian Hales back on the show. It was 8 years ago that Brian Hales published his 3-volume set on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy. How has that held up? How does Brian address critics of his work? Check out our conversation….
Polygamy Criticisms
GT 01:19 Welcome to Gospel Tangents. I’m excited to have Dr. Brian Hales back on the show. Now, some of you, especially if you’re not early listeners, probably missed his first interview back in 2017. I have to laugh about that, Brian, because I remember when I called you and you said, “No, my wife’s doing a podcast, and she wants me to be on hers.” I said, “Brian, polygamists were never exclusive.”
Brian 01:46 (Chuckling)
GT 01:47 Anyway, she got the first interview with you, but I got one after that. Remind us, I think you were an Aggie, and a Ute. Is that right?
Brian 01:56 Oh, wow, you have a good memory. Yes, I graduated with my undergrad from Utah State and then did medical school at the U[niversity of Utah.]
GT 02:04 About a month ago, I went to a fireside, and I laugh, because you made a joke that you put people to sleep, because you’re an anesthesiologist.
Brian 02:14 Right.
GT 02:14 But when it comes to Mormon history, I think the opposite happens. You get people riled up.
Brian 02:22 We do have some spirited conversations and exchanges on media.
GT 02:29 It’s fun. I remember the last time we talked, we talked a little bit about polygamy. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on there. In the last three or four years, I know there was even a conversation today where they called you out on Facebook about some of your conclusions. Anything you want to add really quickly on polygamy since our last chat?
Brian 02:51 You know, there’s always critics. But, recently, my friend Larry Foster, and others have said that the three volumes that Don Bradley and I put together in 2013–they’re eight years old now.
GT 03:07 Wow.
Brian 03:09 They do contain, really, transcripts or references to all of the pertinent documents to the topic. I remember Don and I speaking that when we brought these out in 2013, that if in 10 years, we could look back and say we had found 90%, we’d feel pretty good about it. Well, I honestly think we’ve got the DNA issue. Then, there’s this issue about Eliza R. Snow, perhaps being raped in Missouri. There’s two or three kind of important things that would have been included in the volumes, if we had had that data.
GT 03:44 Right.
Brian 03:44 [These points] obviously are not in there. But there really is no real big body of new polygamy documentation that’s come out, that allows an upgrade or a significant change in what we’re looking at as we try to understand what’s happening. For people to say that we really got most of it, or all of it, it makes me feel very good. Even though people disagree with what I say, I like to say, “Don’t call me an apologist, call me a transparency-ist.” That, I think, is borne out, because if Don and I were able to gather it and publish it all, from anti’s and supporters and all the sources in the trilogy, then we’re really working more to being transparent with the documentation rather than just giving one view. Now, I do interpret the things and I think we earn that when we gather the data, the person doing that work kind of earns the right to give an interpretation. Of course, that’s where people push back, and I’m happy to go there as long as we’re talking from the documents and not opinions. Anyway, I think we find ourselves in a very good place for at least understanding what can be understood about what happened in Nauvoo.
GT 05:00 Great. So, I’ve had Dr. Larry Foster on [my podcast, along with] Anne Wilde. I’ve had Jim Vun Cannon who said, of course, Joseph was a monogamist. [I’ve had] Denver Snuffer [on], who seems to agree with that. Do you have any thoughts on any critics there that you think are unfair attacks or anything like that?
Brian 05:19 I just think there are a lot of uninformed attacks. When people start disagreeing with me, that’s fine. I don’t mind that. In fact, I sometimes wished they were going to bring some new data, but most of the time, they don’t even understand the old data that’s already out there. This Facebook discussion we had, I don’t know that it was an attack. But discussion was really, I think, based upon people making accusations that the more valid interpretation, I think, is that which I have advanced, not because I’m a believer, but because that is what the evidence leads you to, better than any other interpretation. That’s subjective, I understand. But I’m not interpreting it the way I do, because I believe. I’m interpreting in that way, because I think that is the best interpretation.
GT 06:05 Well, let me ask you this, because I know this did come up on the Facebook group. One of the criticisms is that you will dismiss certain arguments if they’re too late in the record. But, if they support your arguments, then you’ll accept those arguments because they support your interpretation. There seems to be an inconsistency on whether something is an early record or a late record, as to how you would interpret it. Do you think that’s a fair criticism?
Brian 06:36 I’m an amateur historian, trying to become a professional historian. There’s one thing that historians do, and it’s critical source analysis; [is it] late or early? Is it firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand? When was it recorded after it occurred? All of these are factors that historians have to look at to weigh the value. There’s contradictory evidence. Absolutely, there is. But, again, I assert that the interpretations I have taken is because you have to drive a pathway through the contradictory evidences, through the ambiguities that are there and come up with an interpretation, which you think is the most valid. It’s also the same interpretation that the Church has kind of solidified in the Saints, and in the Gospel Topic essay. You’ll find there’s no contradiction in my three volumes and the material that they’re presenting in those sources, but those are from believers. When you look at people who think Joseph was a fraud, and an adulterer, they’re going to interpret the data differently, not because they’re looking at different data, it’s just they’re going in with different biases. So, it’s not necessarily what the evidence says, as much as the person’s a priori beliefs before they see the data. I don’t know how you get past that. That’s just human nature.
GT 07:56 I still get some people, especially, it seems to be Denver Snuffer followers, who insists that Joseph Smith was monogamous. It boggles my mind how anybody, who really studies the history, can come to that conclusion. I know Denver says, “Well, if you just chop out all the evidence after June 27, 1844, when Joseph Smith was killed…” I don’t think that’s a good, valid way to do history. I guess if you do that, it takes out a lot of the Temple Lot case and a lot of the evidence that we have. But do you have any response to those people that want to insist that Joseph was a monogamist?
Brian 08:16 Well, they’re manipulating the data. I mean, let’s just be transparent. Truth is things as they really are. Joseph Smith taught that in D&C 93 and so why are we worried about what comes after? It can be valid. A person doesn’t suddenly lose their memory on a certain date, and these things involving polygamy were poignant. These are not memories that would be easily forgotten. There may be details that are lost, but it’s just an artificial history that they’re creating–a fantasy world that goes along with Denver’s theology. I know Denver. He’s one of the more sophisticated alternate voices that the Church has had in the recent decades. I’m old enough to have seen several come and go. I think Denver will be going. We’ll just watch. He and I are about the same age, so we may go the same time. But his theology does not impress me. His claims to authority or non-authority or whatever.
GT 09:40 He’s kind of a libertarian when it comes to authority, I think.
Brian 09:44 I’m sad that people are being caught in that net because he can’t provide the ordinances needed, I think, to regain the blessings that Joseph talked about, Joseph Smith.
GT 09:59 Well, cool.
Copyright © 2021
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.
Don’t miss our previous conversations with Brian!
053: Did Hales Write the Gospel Topics Essays?
052: Emma Denied Joseph Practiced Polygamy?
051: Polygamy & the Temple Lot Case
049: Mormon Polyandry: More Than One Husband?
050: Joseph’s Youngest Teen Brides
048: What are the Theological Justifications of Polygamy?
047: Fanny Alger Part 2: Marriage or Adultery?
046: 1st Plural Wife Fanny Alger: Time or Eternity Polygamy?
045: Polygamy Rumors – Declaration on Marriage
044: Does D&C 132 Conflict with Genesis?
043: Canadian Polygamy – Should it be Legal?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 11:10 — 10.4MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
