In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Not Buying It » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:56 am

Just kidding! Brian Hales is a mealy-mouthed punk who makes excuses for sexual predators. See his list in the comments for the article below:

http://www.116pages.com/2016/08/evidenc ... exual.html
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
Yobispo
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Yobispo » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:38 am

Per BH: "5. It is true Joseph was revered, but we know of at least five women who turned him down without at repercussion." Thanks Brian, we also know about women he called whores because they didn't accept. We also have young Martha Brotherton who was first assaulted by JS and BY and then smeared when she went public.

Thank you Brian. You have once again shown the utter dishonesty of LDS apologetics.

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:06 pm

This one really gets me.
2. Secrecy was sometimes required, but polygamy insiders were free to talk to each other as in the case of Sylvia Sessions attending the sealing of her mother Patty to the Prophet.
How can a guy like Hales reasonably come to the conclusions he has? There is so much evidence that supports Joseph Smith’s character flaws.

Here’s a great resource for a lot of info on polygamy.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-c ... Final.docx
Last edited by Red Ryder on Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Not Buying It » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:37 pm

1. Helen also said she was too young to understand what Joseph said. This conversation took place in front of Helen’s parents, neither of which recalled this supernal promise. What, Brian, you asked them and they didn't recall "this supernal promise"? Or is your argument neither of them ever wrote about it so it must not have happened? Even though Helen said it did. When she was 14.

2. Secrecy was sometimes required, but polygamy insiders were free to talk to each other as in the case of Sylvia Sessions attending the sealing of her mother Patty to the Prophet. Secrecy is OK as long as those in on the secret are allowed to talk about it. Right.

3. This is misleading. No wife reported Joseph saying he would be killed if they personally did not comply. What - an angel with a drawn sword shouldn't be considered a threat to a person's life? My hell, what do you think Joseph was insinuating with the talk about the angel with the drawn sword? You're the one being misleading, Brian buddy.

4. The promise is if “a man marries a wife.” It is a promise of eternal marriage not plural marriage—Monogamy not Polygamy. This is misleading, we know that Joseph sometimes promised his plural wives and their families eternal life. Don't try and distract us on this point.

5. It is true Joseph was revered, but we know of at least five women who turned him down without at repercussion. Oh, I don't know, I'd say being called a "mean harlot" in the local paper probably qualifies as a repercussion.

6. Within days Joseph allowed them to speak to each other. "Allowed them to speak with each other"??? Shall we unpack that and talk about all the levels of wrongness contained therein?

7. Joseph told them all to pray about everything. Several reported angels and other divine witnesses. Yeah, lots of religious sexual predators tell their victims to pray about it. Some of the victims receive answers. You don't think Warren Jeffs' teenage wives prayed about it and thought they got an answer? So was he a prophet like Joseph?

8. This is a misrepresentation. It speaks of a woman committing adultery after she is married. Being “destroyed” is to not receive exaltation. No, you're the one making a misrepresentation. Nowhere in D&C 132 does it say that "destroyed is to not receive exaltation". You made that up. It simply says "destroyed". You should be ashamed of yourself.

9. This is a misrepresentation. Vv 16-17 explain that without eternal marriage, a person lives eternally without exaltation. An eternal marriage performed by proper authority, including a plural sealing, makes a person eligible for exaltation. Consent is unimportant. Obedience is. Consent is unimportant. Oh boy, do I even need to say anything?

10. It appears you haven’t read much of what Emily wrote. She considered herself Joseph’s wife in every way. So what? It doesn't mean he wasn't a sexual predator. And if the Church is so damn sure Emily was a "wife in every way", then let's talk about her and the thirty odd other wives. I mean, if this is all on the up and up, we should be hearing about it in General Conference and talking about it in Sunday School, right? Funny how we aren't.

11. Joseph knew that many of his followers had received a testimony of his divine calling as a prophet and eternal and plural marriage came as revelations, just as the Book of Mormon. Translation: Joseph knew many of his followers believed he was a prophet and would have sex with him if he said God wanted it. Wait, that doesn't sound so cool, does it?

12. This is dramatic. Initially, Emily told Joseph to not bother her and he complied, but on her 18th birthday he asked again and she was then willing. Since Emily lived for many decades, her experience with Joseph is well documented and this version problematic. Nope, you are glossing over the fact that the Patridge sisters and the Lawrence sisters were taken in by the Smith family and Joseph sexually exploited girls and women who looked on him as a foster father. Don't try and make it sound like it isn't icky. It is.

13. This quote from Eliza (who wrote very little) doesn’t mention Joseph so it isn’t an example of what “Joseph taught” his “victims” (and I expect Eliza would bristle at the idea that she was a victim). Not all victims realize they are victims. You'd be an insensitive Neanderthal to suggest otherwise.

14. Joseph initially sought non-sexual eternity sealings after an 1841 sealing to Louisa Beaman but reported a February 1842 visit from the angel commanding polygamy. Thereafter he entered time-and-eternity sealings without telling Emma. Emma learned in the Spring of 1843 and participated in four including sealings. It seems unfortunate that Joseph didn’t tell Emma sooner and perhaps this is why D&C 132:56 tells Emma to forgive Joseph, which she did. Brian Hales says it's OK for a guy to have relationships with other women without telling his wife. How do you all feel about that?

15. This is the only reference to a relationship that began in the pre-mortal existence. Nothing more is known about this possibility. Well, hell, isn't one too many? Or are you going to try and tell us she was lying about it?

16. You speculate what “gate” would be closed. It could be destruction or simply the opportunity to be sealed to Joseph. Other women turned him down and he said, “I will pray for you—Sarah Granger.” Eternal marriage is required for exaltation but not plural marriage or being sealed to Joseph Smith. Threatening to close any kind of "gate" is improperly coercive and manipulative when it is coming from a leader of a church to one of his followers. And it is perfectly reasonable to speculate that the "gate" was eternal life.

17. This is very misleading. There are two sealing dates for Marinda and the more reliable is after Orson returned. The “Spring 1842” date was over a year after Orson had left on his mission, hardly consistent with the idea that Joseph had sent Orson (as a member of the Twelve) away so he could be sealed to Marinda). What the hell??? Either way he was marrying someone who was already married to another man, and that man happened to be a freakin' apostle? What does the date matter, its is incredibly messed up no matter when it happened.

18. We marry people we know. This seems meaningless. Not generally people who we knew as little kids when we were adults, you sicko.

19. This is speculation. None of the men complained against Joseph or accused him regarding his plural sealings. Who the hell cares if they complained? If Warren Jeffs stole someone's wife and the husband was too brainwashed to complain, does that make it OK? What does the complaint of the husband have to do with the morality of the action?

20. This again is speculation. Joseph did approach Lorin Walker, Lucy’s brother, for permission to be sealed to Lucy before he approached her. How is it speculation? He moved Lucy in with him, he sent Walker on a mission, that isn't speculation. And how does asking the brother making you feel any better about the arrangement?

21. This is simply not true. Five women turned him down without any repercussion. When Nancy, Martha, and Sarah Pratt went public, Joseph publically denied the false accusations. So - you're cool with publicly calling women harlots when they accuse Joseph of coming on to them? And by the way, calling them "false accusations" is speculation on your part, you don't know they were false accusations, and they fit Joseph's MO pretty well.

Joseph was sealed to 35 women and none of them left any criticism of him, even the seven that left the Church. Personally, I think they would be very displeased with accusations as those published in this list. How many of Warren Jeff's wives criticized him? Does that make him right? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? Have you no moral compass?
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
fetchface
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by fetchface » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:57 pm

What it all comes down to for me is this: if God commanded and approved of the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, God should be ashamed of himself. A God who approves of sexual predation does not deserve worship.

Arguments like Hales makes disgust me. It is defense of sexual predation. Sexual predation is wrong whether God commanded it or not.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/

User avatar
SincereInquirer
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:49 am

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by SincereInquirer » Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:37 pm

Not Buying It wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:37 pm

...mic drop...
Bravo NBI! I was laughing out loud reading this. Brian Hales should be ashamed of himself. I am sure he has read some pretty good books but the truth is responses like this make him look like a real dodo.
fetchface wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:57 pm
What it all comes down to for me is this: if God commanded and approved of the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, God should be ashamed of himself. A God who approves of sexual predation does not deserve worship.
Agreed. The Mormon God is a real bunghole.

It is nice to know that if I am going to believe in a God it won't be the Mormon version.
"I don't need the Mormon church to be true, I just need it to not be verifiably false." - something I read somewhere...(help me give proper citation credit if you know where this came from)

User avatar
Just This Guy
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Almost Heaven

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Just This Guy » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:46 am

3. This is misleading. No wife reported Joseph saying he would be killed if they personally did not comply.

That is misleading in itself. You are saying that no woman who married him made that claim, but you exclude all the women who didn't marry him that made the claim. Of course, it is flat out wrong to start with. 4 of his wives are on record stating that JS used the angel with the drawn sword line on them, and the worst part is that is in Brian Hales's own work. So he is flat out lying about it.

mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uplo ... -Sword.pdf
10. It appears you haven’t read much of what Emily wrote. She considered herself Joseph’s wife in every way.
This also means that it was defiantly a sexual relationship. Bang goes the claim that JS married them and didn't have sex.
"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

User avatar
græy
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:52 pm
Location: Central TX

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by græy » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:19 am

Not Buying It wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:37 pm
2. Secrecy was sometimes required, but polygamy insiders were free to talk to each other as in the case of Sylvia Sessions attending the sealing of her mother Patty to the Prophet.
What about the case of Eliza and Emily Partridge who weren't allowed to speak to each other about it until much later.
"I and my sister Eliza received it and were married to br. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time, everything was so secret."

Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl,” undated manuscript, CHL, Ms 5220, pages 186, 186b.
I'm better than dirt... well most dirt. Not that fancy store bought stuff, I can't compete with that... full of nutrients and everything. -Moe Sizlack

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Corsair » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:22 am

Not Buying It wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:37 pm
...
Joseph was sealed to 35 women and none of them left any criticism of him, even the seven that left the Church. Personally, I think they would be very displeased with accusations as those published in this list. How many of Warren Jeff's wives criticized him? Does that make him right? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? Have you no moral compass?
Well stated. Thank you for this commentary on Hales' apologetics.

In related news, I met Brian Hales at Sunstone in August. I got a picture with him just before he gave his presentation defending the Book of Mormon.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1839
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Palerider » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:38 am

Not Buying It wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:37 pm

Joseph was sealed to 35 women and none of them left any criticism of him, even the seven that left the Church. Personally, I think they would be very displeased with accusations as those published in this list. How many of Warren Jeff's wives criticized him? Does that make him right? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? Have you no moral compass?
This points up two issues.

1. Leaving the church in and of itself is in fact an unspoken criticism of its leadership and their doctrine as well. It speaks volumes. People don't leave where they are happy and comfortable. Or are we supposed to believe that all seven of these women left because of some minor offense by another member? Somehow I doubt that.

2. It is very likely that all of these seven women knew the penalties for criticizing church leadership, especially Joseph or Brigham. It could make their lives very ugly and difficult. Much better to just leave as quietly as possible.

So saying they weren't publicly critical of Joseph is a non-starter. I would be very interested to read any personal diaries they may have left or speak to any of their descendents who know the family history. It could be enlightening.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Red Ryder » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

“græy” wrote:
Not Buying It wrote: 2. Secrecy was sometimes required, but polygamy insiders were free to talk to each other as in the case of Sylvia Sessions attending the sealing of her mother Patty to the Prophet.
What about the case of Eliza and Emily Partridge who weren't allowed to speak to each other about it until much later.
"I and my sister Eliza received it and were married to br. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time, everything was so secret."

Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl,” undated manuscript, CHL, Ms 5220, pages 186, 186b.
The partridge sister story is really a sad one. Their dad dies, they end up living in the Smith home, and are individually singled out to marry The Prophet secretly behind Emma’s back as well as each other. Then to end up with Brigham Young?

Life must have been miserable for them.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by blazerb » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:59 am

Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:06 pm
This one really gets me.
2. Secrecy was sometimes required, but polygamy insiders were free to talk to each other as in the case of Sylvia Sessions attending the sealing of her mother Patty to the Prophet.
How can a guy like Hales reasonably come to the conclusions he has? There is so much evidence that supports Joseph Smith’s character flaws.

Here’s a great resource for a lot of info on polygamy.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-c ... Final.docx
For someone like Hales, JS's prophethood is the most important thing. It does not matter what he did, apologists will find a way to explain it away. Eventually that house of cards gets too wobbly for a lot of us.

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: In Which Brian Hales Reassures Me Joseph Wasn't a Sexual Predator

Post by Mormorrisey » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm

Corsair wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:22 am
Not Buying It wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:37 pm
...
Joseph was sealed to 35 women and none of them left any criticism of him, even the seven that left the Church. Personally, I think they would be very displeased with accusations as those published in this list. How many of Warren Jeff's wives criticized him? Does that make him right? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? Have you no moral compass?
Well stated. Thank you for this commentary on Hales' apologetics.
I agree, well stated. The biggest challenge I have with all of this, is the statement I always receive when I discuss polygamy with some people, that sometimes prophets speak as prophets, and sometimes as men. Well, what happens when they act like sexual predators? That's a BIG problem. Just one apologists don't want to acknowledge.
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests