VOGEL RESPONDS TO APOLOGIST BRIAN HALES

[_Fifth Columnist]

I agree with Analytics that there was some backlash. Sarah Pratt didn't think too much of Joseph's advances and told her husband as much. Orson agreed and ended up being excommunicated for his unwillingness to yield to Joseph's will.

[_Dan Vogel]

Brian Hales called me an “accuser” of Joseph Smith, but the truth is that he is an accuser of me.

Worse, he won’t even defend his accusations.

If Hales is unwilling to come here and explain himself, he should at least modify his statements to more honestly reflect my views or take them down.

Any comments?

[_Dan Vogel]

Brian Hales responded on another board and I responded to him as follows:

Brian,

I see you changed “Accuser” to “Reporter” in the title of your webpage: “Dan Vogel as an [sic] Reporter of Sexual Impropriety.” While it’s an improvement, it’s far from satisfactory. It in no way addresses your misrepresentations of my position, which you still haven’t addressed or defended.

It is indeed unfortunate that my language alone would create a problem, when the historical data is really what we need to be discussing.

So, why don’t you? Why don’t you defend your accusations of me? Why did you focus only on language?

On the other hand, Dan Vogel labels me an “apologist” apparently without concern. It is loaded language, but I don’t mind being an apologist because I am a believer that Joseph Smith was a virtuous man and a true prophet of the living God.

There’s nothing wrong with being an apologist. The question is: are you more than that? Where is the balanced view in your handling of my comments?

I expect that in another setting, Dan would own the title of “accuser.” He asserts that Joseph Smith was a “well intentioned ‘pious deceiver’… someone who prevaricated for 'good' reasons… an individual who deceives in God’s name while holding sincere religious beliefs.” (Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004, viii). Dan also labels Joseph as a “sincere fraud,” “pious fraud,” and “religious pretender” (viii, xvii, xix). This seems to be accusatory language.

You see it as accusatory, but some extreme anti-Mormons see it as apologetic because I use the terms “sincere”, “pious”, and “religious” in association with Joseph Smith’s name. These terms are unavoidable when articulating my thesis. Only an apologist would label a historian an “accuser” of Joseph Smith. Another historian wouldn’t make it so personal. Feel free to call me a critic if you like.

In an email, Brian said this:

If you are willing, I would enjoy continuing an exchange privately via email on the topic of Joseph Smith's reported sexual polyandry. You seemed quite confident that the historical data supports the position that he indeed practiced it.

Maybe a starting point would be to look at the supportive evidences. I've tried to accumulate every known evidence and post it on my website.

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSP ... cerpt.html

Would you have any interest in sharing the number one best evidence that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry?

I will give my response to this publicly. In my view, he's trying to take advantage of an area where we can't reasonably expect to have evidence. We're lucky to have what we do have. I read D&C 132 as Joseph Smith's repenting of his polyandrous marriages. Nevertheless, he’s attempting to construct an argument from silence precisely because it’s based on an unreasonable demand of the historical record. If he believes these polyandrous marriages were special and different than what is assumed normally under such circumstances, the burden is his to establish his thesis. And it’s not the default position when he finds the evidence weak or ambiguous. Brian invented the phrase “polyandrous sexuality” rather than “polyandrous marriage” as if there’s a legitimate distinction.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump

[_Spanner]

So Brian Hales claims that because D&C 132 doesn't mention polyandry, that Joseph couldn't have been doing it?

But D&C 132 does allow for polyandry:

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

So a woman can be with another man if he has been appointed unto her by the holy anointing.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Mormon polygamy always reminds me of a certain Stanley Kubrick film...

With the proper breeding techniques, and starting with a ratio of, say, ten women to each man, I should estimate the progeny of the original group of 200,000 would emerge a hundred years later as well over a hundred million.

[_grindael]

I'm bumping this gem... enjoy!