To continue to debunk Hales' irrational claims, he writes this on his website about Joseph's theology concerning polygamy:
Making Eternal Marriage Available to Everyone
The fourth reason Joseph Smith gave for the practice of plural marriage dwarfs the other three explanations in significance because it deals with eternity. The message of D&C 132:16–17 states that men and women who are not sealed in eternal marriages during this life (or vicariously later) “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity.”
In other words, “exaltation,” the highest salvation, requires eternal marriage. No unmarried person can be exalted according to Joseph Smith’s teachings.
Doctrine and Covenants section 132 seems to anticipate more worthy women than men as it approves a plurality of wives14 and disallows a plurality of husbands.15
Verse 63 states that a plurality of wives is “for their [the wives] exaltation in the eternal worlds.”
Section 132 supports that eternity was the primary focus of the Joseph’s marriage theology rather than plurality or sexuality. Eternal, rather than plural, marriage was his zenith doctrine. It appears that the crucial objective of polygamy on earth was to allow all worthy women to be eternally sealed to a husband and thus obtain all the ordinances needed for exaltation.
According to these teachings, a plurality of wives in some form may be practiced in eternity, but not by all worthy men and women. We know that polygamy on earth is unequal and difficult, but we know nothing about how eternal marriage or eternal plural marriage might feel in eternity.
Brigham Young acknowledged that eternal marriage (not plural marriage) is “the thread which runs from the beginning to the end” in God’s plan for His children:
The whole subject of the marriage [not plural marriage] relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach. We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity.
16
Hales, of course, is correct that "exaltation" requires eternal marriage. But what he does after this is rather insidious, to set the tone for his presentist interpretation of Section 132. He writes,
Doctrine and Covenants section 132 seems to anticipate more worthy women than men as it approves a plurality of wives14
Notice the language: "seems to anticipate more worthy women". And the footnote?
See vv. 34, 37–39, 52, 55, 61–65.
Verse 34:
God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
Nothing about there being more worthy women than men.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
Nothing about MORE worthy women than men.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
Nothing about MORE worthy women than men.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
Nothing about MORE worthy women than men. In fact, this (above) speaks about how Emma would be UNWORTHY for not submitting to Joseph's desires.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, 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, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
Again, Nothing about MORE worthy women than men. And here is the crazy part. In another section called "inaccurate explanations", Hales writes,
The argument that polygamy was needed because the numbers of single women exceeded the number of unmarried men is not generally supported by population studies of the period. Neither does it appear Joseph Smith ever advanced this idea.
If one simply reads the verses that Hales cites above, it is obvious that they are speaking of a man having more than one wife. Hence Hales is assuming that there would be more "worthy women" than men, yet he states that there were no excess women in the population and that "Joseph never advanced this idea".
So where were all those "worthy" women to come from? Hales has no idea, because his methodology is flawed and he is making things up to support his ridiculous notion that there would be more "worthy women" than men. This is absolutely senseless, but not if the focus of 132 is raising up seed, which it is.
He then makes the comment that plurality of wives is for their exaltation in the eternal worlds. Well, sure it is, but it is also for the exaltation of MEN. Why was it written that way by Joseph, when Hales says this is all about monogamy and eternal marriage? It states specifically that these "virgins" were to be given to Joseph to multiply and replentish the earth, and for their exaltation. But Hales ignores this, and writes,
Section 132 supports that eternity was the primary focus of the Joseph’s marriage theology rather than plurality or sexuality.
This is simply irrational, since 132 specifically states,
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; 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.
Smith claims that exaltation and glory is "a continuation of the SEEDS forever and ever." This is the whole purpose of "eternal marriage"! What does Hales think all this is about? Verse 21 states specifically:
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory. [continuation of the SEEDS]
What LAW? Well, we have to go all the way back to the beginning of the "revelation" to find out:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
What Law? What has been mentioned up to this point? "THE PRINCIPLE AND DOCTRINE OF THEIR HAVING MANY WIVES AND CONCUBINES..."
Hales has this exactly backwards. 132 is about polygamy, and the eternal marriage part of it (sealing) explains how it is to go on in the "eternal worlds". Joseph's zenith doctrine is not "eternal marriage" but "a continuation of the seeds", which makes men GODS, for ONLY THEY "have all power." That is why Brigham Young would later quite clearly state that the only men who become gods are those that practice polygamy!
Yet, Hales states,
It appears that the crucial objective of polygamy on earth was to allow all worthy women to be eternally sealed to a husband and thus obtain all the ordinances needed for exaltation.
No, it was to "raise up seed". If (as Hales states) there were not large numbers of excess women, why in the world would men need to have multiple partners? His thinking is irrational.
He then gives us this whopper:
According to these teachings, a plurality of wives in some form may be practiced in eternity, but not by all worthy men and women.
That is NOT what it says, and of course Hales is speculating here because he is simply making this up. Smith wrote,
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
He is referring to "this law", which is covered in the first three verses which are all about how the patriarchs had "many wives and concubines". This was the entire point of the "revelation", to explain why they practiced polygamy! Hales then writes,
We know that polygamy on earth is unequal and difficult, but we know nothing about how eternal marriage or eternal plural marriage might feel in eternity.
Unequal and difficult? But that's not what Joseph Smith taught! He specifically said,
Everything that God gives us is lawful and right, and ’tis proper that we should enjoy his gifts and blessings whenever and wherever he is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon these same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the [p.159]end, and we should have to go down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed, and as God has designed our happiness, the happiness of all his creatures, he never has, he never will institute an ordinance, or give a commandment to his people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which he has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his laws and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant–the proffered good returns of the giver, the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive, and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly; but unto him that hath not, or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.
Does this sound like it is "unequal and difficult"? Hales also wrote,
Polygamy on earth is unfair to women. Laura and I never try to defend it because in mortality, it is essentially indefensible.
But what does the Book of Mormon state? "Men are that they might have joy". Yet Hales writes,
Plural marriage on earth expands a man’s emotional and sexual opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. Simply put, it is sexist and unfair. I am sometimes asked to speak on plural marriage, and while I’m comfortable defending Joseph Smith as a worthy prophet, I never try to defend the earthly practice of polygamy. It is easy to find emotional stories of suffering and even despair among plural wives sharing a husband. https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/opportunity-lost/
Yet Hales defends it at every turn, and speculates that it will all be ok in eternity! Unfair is defined as "not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice." Is this how the Mormon God operates? According to Hales, it is.
This directly contradicts what Smith taught about it: "Happiness is the object and design of our existence..." said Smith in his letter to Nancy Rigdon to try and get her to become one of his Spiritual Wives. Hales then goes on to misquote Brigham Young by claiming this:
The whole subject of the marriage [not plural marriage] relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach. We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity.
But Brigham Young was speaking of polygamy, not monogamy. If one simply reads his speech, it is all about polygamy, not monogamy. Young was elaborating on a discourse that Orson Hyde had just given, where he was speaking about polygamy and claiming that Jesus practiced it. Young opened his speech with this:
I do not wish to eradicate any items from the lecture Elder Hyde has given us this evening, [about polygamy] but simply to give you my views, in a few words, on the portion touching Bishops and Deacons.
He also said,
Instead of my believing for a moment that Paul wished to signify to Timothy that he must select a man to fill the office of a Bishop that would have but one wife, I believe directly the reverse; but his advice to Timothy amounts simply to this—It would not be wise for you to ordain a man to the office of a Bishop unless he has a wife; you must not ordain a single or unmarried man to that calling.
And,
I have no reasonable grounds upon which to say it was not the custom in ancient times for a man to have more than one wife, but every reason to believe that it was the custom among the Jews, from the days of Abraham to the days of the Apostles, for they were lineal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom taught and practiced the doctrine of plurality of wives, and were revered by the whole Jewish nation, and it is but natural that they should have respected and followed their teachings and example. So much I wished to say to my brethren and sisters. We have had a splendid address from brother Hyde, for which I am grateful.
Young then states, and here is where Hales inserts his wrong interpretation that this is NOT about plural marriage:
I say to the congregation, treasure up in your hearts what you have heard tonight, and at other times. You will hear more with regard to the doctrine, [PLURAL MARRIAGE] that is, our “Marriage Relations.” Elder Hyde says he has only just dipped into it, but, if it will not be displeasing to him, I will say he has not dipped into it yet; he has only run round the edge of the field. He has done so beautifully, and it will have its desired effect. But the whole subject of the marriage relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man's reach on this earth.
Young here is very clear that "marriage relation" is all about "the doctrine" that Hyde just explained, PLURALITY OF WIVES.
How disingenuous can you get? Yet, this is the irrational world of Brian Hales.