• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Brian Hales

The CES Letter 50 to 65 Witnesses Continued

June 25, 2016 by Brian Hales

In Video Five in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”.

+

The CES Letter 50 to 65 Witnesses Continued

This video continues to examine The CES Letter’s treatment of the Book of Mormon witnesses on pages 50 to 65. Obviously hypnosis could not explain their experiences, but what about religious frenzy and hysteria? Also, alleged parallels to other testimonies regarding James J. Strang, and The Book and the Roll are scrutinized. In the end, the attempts of naturalists’ and The CES Letter to explain away the declarations of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses seem inadequate.

Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book of Mormon Tagged With: Brian Hales, CES Letter, Joseph Smith, Three Witnesses

The CES Letter 43 to 44 Kinderhook Plates

June 12, 2016 by Brian Hales

In Video Three in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”. Installments in the series run every Monday and can also be found on the FairMormon youtube channel.

kinder

Pages 43 and 44 of The CES Letter contain a discussion of the Kinderhook plates, which were an 1843 attempt to deceive Joseph Smith. Charges that he translated the bogus plates as he had translated the Book of Mormon have circulated for decades. However, in 2012, Don Bradley, with the help of Mark Ashurst-McGee, uncovered plain evidence showing that the “translation” of the Kinderhook plates occurred by comparing one symbol on the plates with one symbol in Joseph’s Egyptian Alphabet lexicon. As evidence of Joseph Smith being a fraud, this accusation should be dismissed by even the most hardened unbelievers. Nevertheless, it continues to occupy two pages in The CES Letter.

brian-hales-67Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

 

Filed Under: Joseph Smith Tagged With: Brian Hales, CES Letter, kinderhook plates

New DNA Evidence Reveals the Father of Josephine Lyon

June 11, 2016 by Brian Hales

Josephine Lyon is the daughter of Windsor Lyon. This proven relationship diminishes the strength of the theory that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry with Sylvia Sessions.

sylvia
Sylvia Sessions

From the following video at JosephSmithsPolygamy.org. Hosted by Brian and Laura Hales:

JosephSmithsPolygamy.org

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: apologetics, Church History, Joseph Smith, Polygamy

The CES Letter 31 to 34 Polyandry

June 5, 2016 by Brian Hales

In Video Two in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”. Installments in the series run every Monday and can also be found on the FairMormon youtube channel.

Joseph Smith Painting

The CES Letter 31 to 34 Polyandry

Touting ambiguous evidences and assumptions, The CES Letter alleges multiple times that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry as the second husband of some of this plural wives. This video examines the possibility and explores numerous factual observations that The CES Letter readily ignores. The historical truth is that there is no evidence from any Nauvoo polygamist, including the plural wives themselves, that a woman ever did have or ever could have had two husbands at the same time.

brian-hales-67

Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

Filed Under: Joseph Smith Tagged With: apologetics, Joseph Smith, Polygamy

The CES Letter 22 to 23 First Vision

May 30, 2016 by Brian Hales

In Video Two in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”. Installments in the series run every Monday and can also be found on the FairMormon youtube channel.

FV

Pages 22 and 23 of The Letter to a CES Director attack the First Vision recounted by Joseph Smith. It is true that minor variations are found in the five primary and four secondary accounts. However, The CES Letter seems to employ highly biased, if not deceptive, methodology as it sensationalizes the differences. When the claims are distilled down and contextualized, it appears that the concerns voiced in The CES Letter regarding the First Vision are less compelling, if not misleading.

brian-hales-67

Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The CES Letter, A Closer Look

May 23, 2016 by Brian Hales

This is Video One in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” wherein Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”. Installments in the series run every Monday and can also be found on the FairMormon youtube channel.

In 2013 research Chris Johnson presented intriguing evidence alleging a parallel between the text of the Book of Mormon and publications printed in the early 1830s. Potential implications weighed heavy regarding the possibility that a purely secular book could duplicate key stylistic and thematic characteristics of the Book of Mormon.

The author of the The CES Letter adopted several of these primary claims, specifically charging a connection between The First Book of Napoleon printed in 1809 and The Late War published a decade later with the Book of Mormon. The CES Letter even presents paragraphs, ostensibly from The First Book of Napoleon and the Book of Mormon, side-by-side to show alleged similarities.

This video looks at things The CES Letter seems to have ignored. For example, numerous major dissimilarities exist between the Book of Mormon and The First Book of Napoleon and The Late War. Also, the attempt to show a parallel between the Book of Mormon and The First Book of Napoleon is exposed as a deception because ellipses are used to create an illusion of similarity that isn’t actually present.

It is true that the Book of Mormon uses the language of the King James Bible so it employs similar vocabulary to most books that were purposefully written to emulate that writing style. The video shows how the critics have simply failed to connect the dots. They cannot demonstrate how the commonalities equate to collusion. The likeness of language does not seem to equal to a collaboration of creators. Without additional data points connecting the two, the claims of The CES Letter seem vacuous and unimportant.

brian-hales-67Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s “D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God”

March 9, 2015 by Brian Hales

temple_night2By Brian and Laura Hales

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has generally not addressed the practice of plural marriage, but increased attention on the subject apparently prompted the Church to release several essays on the topic last year. The postings created a frenzy in the media with coverage by major national newspapers, television news, and countless blogs. While the essays were unexpectedly candid, they did not seem to assuage all of the concerns of members as evidenced by the questions and concerns that continue to be expressed. On February 2, 2015, Kirk Van Allen posted a blog titled, “D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God.” In it, he brings up some valid questions, which have previously been voiced by members and non-members in their quest to try and understand this “strange doctrine.” However, he also advances arguments that seem to superficially examine the topic without taking into account important theological and historical contexts. Since this essay is traversing the blogosphere and stirring up a whirlwind, an alternative view of his assertions seems useful.

Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s “D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God”

Filed Under: Apologetics, LDS History, Polygamy

LDS.ORG Essay on Nauvoo Polygamy: What did Readers Expect?

November 10, 2014 by Brian Hales

LDS.org-screen-shot-blog-515x218

[This post has been cross posted from Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.]

On October 22, 2014, LDS.ORG posted three essays dealing with the practice of plural marriage by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints between the 1830s and 1904. Perhaps the most controversial essay is the one dealing with the earliest period, which discusses Joseph Smith’s practices and teachings as he introduced plurality to fellow Church members.

It appears that some readers’ expectations were not met by this essay. It is true readers did not receive:

A theological examination of plural marriage

An apology for polygamy.

An explanation for why polygamy was not discussed openly in the past.

A defense of polygamy.

A 1500-page or 350-page or 20-page treatise on plural marriage.

A declaration labelling plural marriage as adultery.

A portrayal of Joseph Smith as a hypocrite or libertine.

A statement that D&C 132 was not a true revelation.

A declaration that polygamy was an historical mistake.

A lengthy discussion of Emma’s trials because of the practice.

A list of injustices suffered by Joseph’s plural wives and an exhaustive detailing of their pain and suffering.

What did readers receive?

A concise and accurate history (according to available documents) of the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith.

A brief discussion of all major controversies dealing with this subject.

Permission to discuss these topics in Church meetings without being viewed as an intellectual or apostate.

Another evidence of the transparency the Church is striving to achieve regarding its history.

The omissions in the essay have elicited scathing criticism. However, as authors who have researched this topic exhaustively, we might offer a few observations of our own for those who criticize:

(1) Many critics seemed to have little grasp of the historical record of the period. Therefore, it is not uncommon or surprising that glaring historical errors are promoted in their assessments. To some degree, this undermines the usefulness of the discussions.

(2) Many criticisms seem more focused upon the practice of polygamy than upon the essay itself. It might be said the essay has opened the pressure-release valve for venting about the practice.

(3) Observers who are complimentary to the essay are often labelled as “apologists,” perhaps implying their assessments could not be accurate. This argumentum ad hominem is one of the most overused logical fallacies and undermines the ability to carry on reasonable, articulate discussions.

(4) Joseph Smith’s theological teachings regarding plural marriage are universally ignored.

Several major controversies have been generated in conjunction with the introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo in the early 1840s. All of these are briefly discussed in the introductory essay, which contains 35 paragraphs and 55 endnotes:

Polyandry (paragraphs 20–23, endnotes 29–30). The essay acknowledges that “Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married,” estimating the number of these sealings at 12–14 (endnote 29). Several possible explanations for this curious practice are provided including that the sealings were “for eternity alone” or that the “sealings may have provided a way to create an eternal bond or link between Joseph’s family and other families within the Church.” Another option was that the “women may have believed a sealing to Joseph Smith would give them blessings they might not otherwise receive in the next life.” For those troubled about the possibility that Joseph practiced polyandry, it provides a plausible line of reasoning that he did not. The essay states, “Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith’s sealings functioned in this way, and much evidence works against that view” (endnote 30).

Fanny Alger (paragraph 9). The discussion of Fanny Alger is limited to one paragraph, reflecting the thin historical record regarding the union. “Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angel’s first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s. Several Latter-day Saints who had lived in Kirtland reported decades later that Joseph Smith had married Alger, who lived and worked in the Smith household, after he had obtained her consent and that of her parents.10 Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger. After the marriage with Alger ended in separation, Joseph seems to have set the subject of plural marriage aside until after the Church moved to Nauvoo, Illinois.”

Sexuality (paragraphs 12, 17–18). Despite controversy surrounding religious discussions of sexuality, the essay recognizes: “Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone. Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings.” “The procreation of children and perpetuation of families,” the essay explains, “would continue into the eternities.”

Children with plural wives (endnote 25). Acknowledging the possibility of children, the essay states: “Despite claims that Joseph Smith fathered children within plural marriage, genetic testing has so far been negative, though it is possible he fathered two or three children with plural wives.” Those not satisfied with phrase “possibility of sexual relations” in the discussion of sexuality in time-and-eternity sealings can be placated by the admission of the possibility of children, which would require sexual relations.

Number of plural wives (paragraph 18, endnote 24). The number of women possibly sealed to Joseph is briefly mentioned: “The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary.” However, the estimate of the number of wives was relegated to an endnote: “Careful estimates put the number between 30 and 40.”

Emma Smith’s involvement (paragraphs 25–28). The essay explains that plural marriage was “an excruciating ordeal” for Emma. It also taught: “Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply … Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo. … In the summer of 1843, Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on marriage, a lengthy and complex text containing both glorious promises and stern warnings, some directed at Emma.”

Young wives (paragraph 19). Exposing itself to criticism, the essay euphemistically refers to Helen Mar Kimball’s sealing as occurring “several months before her 15th birthday” rather than at age 14. But it frankly acknowledges: “Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens.”

Denials (paragraph 16, endnote 23). Public denials, reflecting special verbal gymnastics, is conceded: “The rumors [of seductions] prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage.22 The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.” George A. Smith is also quoted: “Any one who will read carefully the denials, as they are termed, of plurality of wives in connection with the circumstances will see clearly that they denounce adultery, fornication, brutal lust and the teaching of plurality of wives by those who were not commanded to do so.”

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

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

Yet, this may be the greatest weakness of most of the critics’ arguments—they are simply incomplete. Joseph Smith taught that couples who are sealed in eternal marriage, not plural marriage, “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths … and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods” (D&C 132:19–20). A plurality of wives allows all worthy women to be sealed to a husband on earth and become eligible for these blessings in heaven. Any woman who is not sealed will: “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever” (v. 17).

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

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

One of Joseph’s plural wives, Helen Mar Kimball, remembered: “The Prophet said that the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith.” Ironically, simply trusting that God commanded them to do so in the past is a test of faith for some Saints today.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Polygamy

Nauvoo Polygamists Were Skeptical — Just Like You and Me

October 27, 2014 by Brian Hales

The historical record shows that Joseph Smith and other Nauvoo Church members were very skeptical and were in no hurry to practice plural marriage. Had it not been taught to them as a commandment, it is probable that few would have ever entered into its practice. In the Book of Mormon the Lord explains that he might command polygamy in order to “raise up seed” to Him (Jacob 2:30). Apparently, He wanted to expand the size of LDS families faster than monogamy would have allowed, but Church members were not excited about it.

Universal Reaction of Church Members to Plural Marriage: Revulsion

The near universal reaction of early Church members to the introduction of plural marriage was negative. Brigham related, “My brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin.” He later commented, “I never should have embraced it had it not been a command from the Almighty.”

John Taylor, who married his first plural wife in 1843, similarly recalled, “[At] the time when men were commanded to take more wives. It made us all pull pretty long faces sometimes. It was not so easy as one might think. When it was revealed to us it looked like the last end of Mormonism. For a man to ask another woman to marry him required more self-confidence than we had.” Also he commented that polygamy “was a very heavy thing for us to meet, for we generally professed to be and were pure men.”  Additionally, he remembered his first feelings: “When Joseph Smith first made known the revelation concerning plural marriage and of having more wives than one, it made my flesh crawl.”

The reaction to the commandment among LDS women was similar—great dislike, or worse. Bathsheba B. Smith remembered, “We discussed it [polygamy] . . . that is, us young girls did, for I was a young girl then, and we talked a good deal about it, and some of us did not like it much.” Recalling an even stronger aversion, Mary Isabella Hales Horne reminisced that at one point: “The brethren and sisters were so averse to polygamy that it could hardly be mentioned.” Eliza R. Snow remembered that, “The subject was very repugnant to my feelings.”

[To continue reading this article, please visit LDS.net.]

Filed Under: Polygamy

“There Began to be Lyings Sent Forth among the People”: The Message of Jeremy Runnells

August 4, 2014 by Brian Hales

Brian Hales
Brian Hales

[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.

Filed Under: Polygamy

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1–3 John; Jude
  • Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 25: Prophecies
  • Have you tried our Faithful Answers app?
  • How One Woman’s Scholarship Helps Us Better Understand Church History
  • Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 24: Blood Atonement

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Dennis Horne on Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1–3 John; Jude
  • Tom on Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1–3 John; Jude
  • Dennis Horne on Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 24: Blood Atonement
  • Trevor Holyoak on FAIR Questions: What did President Nelson mean by “the kind of body with which you will be resurrected” in his General Conference talk?
  • CortC on FAIR Questions: What did President Nelson mean by “the kind of body with which you will be resurrected” in his General Conference talk?

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our Friends

  • BYU Religious Studies Center
  • BYU Studies
  • Book of Mormon Central
  • TheFamilyProclamation.org
  • Interpreter Foundation
  • Wilford Woodruff Papers Project

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2023 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of FAIR, its officers, directors or supporters.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FAIR are solely those of FAIR and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FAIR is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)