I thoroughly enjoyed my third conversation with researcher Don Bradley! We discuss the content of my two-year anniversary episode, 107: God Is Not a Polygamist, and find that we have many similar views on biblical monogamy, the real meaning of Jacob 2:30, and more!
Please consider supporting this podcast:
Transcript:
[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy where we explore the scriptural theological and historical evidence for plural marriage. I am so excited to be bringing you my third conversation with Don Bradley. I have to say in all sincerity that every time I engage with Don, I just like him more and more. I think so highly of him and have so much respect and appreciation for him, especially the way he handled some tricky, tricky things that happened while we were engaging this conversation. Thank you again, Don. And um I want to remind everybody about the website 132problems.org where you can go find all of the transcripts, the searchable resources and the evidence and the sources, everything should be there. I also want to encourage people to check out the blog and the forum that will be a great place to be able to discuss all of these different things that we are talking about. Also, I want to reach out and encourage content creators, whether you have written papers or you have a blog or um a book or whatever it may be or if you have a podcast or your own youtube channel. Please reach out to us so that we can um add those to the resources on the website. I think it will be a great um just gathering place for people in our community to be able to go see what great content there is available for them to learn more about these topics. And now back to the conversation about DA this is our conversation about the script and the theology of polygamy. It’s based in large part on the anniversary episode I released where I tried to just lay as much out as possible about the scriptural case of polygamy. And so that’s what we engage in. We’re going to get to the historical sources going forward in our next two conversations that we have planned so far. So I really appreciate these conversations that we are having. I think they are extremely important. I appreciate don’s willingness to talk about these things and to be open. And I know that there are some delicate things we’re talking about here, but I think it’s very worthwhile. I wanna let you know this. Um I compared this conversation to a soccer game for my husband. He’s a big soccer fan and you soccer games last a long time, you watch for a long time and not that much seems to be happening. And then all of a sudden like the adrenaline is pumping and it’s so exciting and that’s how this conversation felt it’s quite long, but I think it is worth every minute. There are parts that are so exciting. So I hope that you will engage and enjoy it as much as I did. I hope that Dawn did as well. And um I also want to thank all of those who have contributed to this podcast. Please consider doing that. If you are at all able, it is very helpful for all of the things we’re trying to accomplish. So, with that being said, thank you so much for joining us as Don and I take this deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon Polygamy. Welcome to 132 problems. I am so happy to be here for my third conversation with my friend Don Bradley and I’m so thankful that he is here to speak to me again and for this ongoing series of conversations that we are engaging in, I’m hoping that we will continue to both learn a lot and that those of you listening will also be able to glean a lot from these conversations. So welcome, Don and thank you so much for coming back again.
[03:18] Don Bradley: Thank you Michelle and thank you so much for having me on again.
[03:22] Michelle: Yes, it is my pleasure. Definitely. Um So Don and I, as we’ve been, we’ve, we’ve had far more conversations on the phone that we’ve, that we’ve had um in front of the camera. And as we’ve tried to structure what the how these conversations could go. I think what we talked about talking, um, what we talked about this time is that since I had recently laid out, sort of my, I guess we can say my scriptural thesis of polygamy in the anniversary episode, episode 107 for anyone who hasn’t seen it that um I asked Don if he, well, because he kind of asked me where I was coming from and why I see it this way. So I suggested that maybe he could watch that and then we could kind of discuss his views on that. I could answer questions that he could poke at it. I could ask questions that we could kind of start, start at that place. And so I think that that’s where we’re going to go. Do I have that right, Don? Are you, we’re
[04:13] Don Bradley: on the same pitch?
[04:15] Michelle: Perfect. OK. So Don, do you want to like kind of let me know I can, I can spell out some of the things I proposed in that episode or you can go ahead and tell me some of your thoughts,
[04:26] Don Bradley: maybe, you know, I’d be interested in maybe just giving some initial overall thoughts and then maybe having you Michelle go into some of the specifics and we can dialogue about those.
[04:38] Michelle: That would be great. I would be very, I’m, I’m, I’m eager for this conversation. Yeah. Yeah, that would be great.
[04:45] Don Bradley: Um As I watched your anniversary episode, um where you talked a great deal, did a great deal of analysis on different passages from the scriptures, from the Bible and from Latter Day Saints scripture, um I picked up definitely some overall themes, right? I mean, just that you start out and you’ve got at the creation, you know, how does God create human beings? Well, he creates them in a pair, right? This is that the Genesis creation account, right? Has God creating Adam and Eve. So you and, and then they’re, they’re married to each other in the Garden of Eden, right? And so you have uh starting things out with one man, one woman. And then you look at from there like different ways that this is sort of reiterated, right? So Adam and Eve’s Children pair off two by two. Noah has, it’s Noah and his wife and then his three sons, each with their wife. So the scriptures talk about there being eight souls on the Ark. So we know that the sons each have one wife, right? And then you talk about, you know, so where does polygamy if this is how God starts things in Genesis? Then where does polygamy come from? You point to the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible being I believe, flame or
[06:09] Michelle: I say maybe I say
[06:12] Don Bradley: so. Um And so since lame is a he’s a bad dude, right? He he commits murder, right? Um Then
[06:22] Michelle: he, he covenant with Satan in a similar way that came in
[06:26] Don Bradley: the book of Moses, right? It gives more detail on that, right? And so, uh since he’s the first one who’s mentioned as having multiple wives, he’s mentioned as having two wives, then you connect that with the, the powers of darkness and then looking forward in the Bible, like you look at, you know, different biblical figures. And were they monogamous or polygamous? And um were there, were there where they were polygamous? Were those happy marriages? Were they, you know, things we would want to emulate ourselves in our lives? And it, you know, like looks generally like not
[07:03] Michelle: and well, and can I add 111 element to that as well? I also asked the question of, can these polygamists be used to justify the Mormon theological approach to polygamy? Right? Because that’s, I think the, the bigger question is they are the ones that are used to justify even according to 132 right? And then, and then, and then the claim is made that God commanded all of their polygamy and that God continues to command polygamy. So I think it goes deeper than just are those cautionary tales or, you know, are they proscriptive or descriptive?
[07:37] Don Bradley: Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Ok. Right. So, so Mormon polygamy takes a certain form and it’s not just a cultural practice, it’s seen as a commandment and a theological requirement, like a requirement for exaltation. So then you’re looking at do the biblical narratives that are referenced in that story? And like in DNC 132 do they bear that sto that theological story of Mormon polygamy? Do they bear that story up or not? Right. And so you’re finding holes, right? Where they don’t, that those stories don’t align with or they’re not good supports for the story that they’re used to support later. Um And then like turning, um I saw in particular to the book of Mormon because it’s so unambiguous regarding polygamy and Jacob two is so strenuous on that subject, right? Uh Like I, I saw a great emphasis on that and that’s one where we’ll want to get into the details obviously of the text later. Um But just, but that, that was maybe the part in what you presented where and maybe, maybe this is just my perception um where maybe it seems to me like maybe you were kind of most impassioned, right? When you talked about like Jacob two and here, what what I saw and what I heard um is that you are looking at how in this passage, the Lord is, he’s protecting these women, right? The women are being misused, abused by the men among the nephites who want these many wives and concubines, right? And so the Lord is saying like I won’t like I um I will not suffer, right? That the men of my people will lead away captive, the daughter of my people because of their tenderness, right? The Lord says, I delight in the chastity of women. And he, there’s this clearly protective role that the Lord is taking here. And so part of what I got from what you’re saying was I think you, you talked about like our Heavenly Father loves his daughters, right? And um so, so for thinking of God, right? Like in our Heavenly Father, right? So there’s a, there’s a a masculinity there that, that protects it values women and it protects,
[10:10] Michelle: that’s an interesting, I, I was going to say, I kind of like how you’re using the word protect because that’s not, I hadn’t thought of it in that way, but I like what you’re saying. I, I do think of God as both male and female, as both father and mother. And so, so I think that both like, like God includes both the feminine and
[10:28] Don Bradley: yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, which is actually a question that I wanted to bring up. So there we go. Um Should we just go there
[10:36] Michelle: now and then or? Yeah, you continue.
[10:38] Don Bradley: So um so in, so that that’s good to know and we’re definitely on the same page or in, in what you had been talking about in that episode, I, I heard you uh and we can come back to mother in heaven, but I heard you specifically talking about Heavenly Father loves his daughters. And so in that frame I’m seeing and, and Jacob two, like uh he was talking about God there, the Lord, right is talking about he, so there uh I’m seeing like uh like kind of a protective masculinity, masculinity doing what it’s actually supposed to do and protecting rather than masculinity doing what it’s not supposed to do and abusing and harming, which is what the Lord is trying to protect against in that past. And, and so, um I very much thought that your sort of vibe on that so to speak is actually the same vibe that’s in the passage itself that there, there is that strong value placed on women and there is that strong protection that’s being exercised on behalf of women. And so protection from male, you know, I, I in, in the context of that passage, right, like um sort of lust driven male abuses of women. And so, um and then, um I saw when you’re talking about like in the Doctrine, covenants, right? You talked about and we can go into all these in more detail. I’m just sort of giving overview of some of the things um that I noted the um that the article on marriage, the original section 101 and the Doctrine and covenants was like an, an official statement, right? And a canonized statements of the church saying in 1835 you know, we believe in one man having one wife and one woman having one husband, right? Monogamy, right? And then it gets replaced later when they, when it’s dec canonized, it gets replaced with DNC 132. And you talked extensively about it relates to troubling language in DNC 132 where it adopts a very threatening tone and it speaks of women being taken from one man given to another as if the women were belongings, property rather than human beings with agency. And then looking of course also at um which, which is jarring to read, right? And particularly, I think if you look at the Elect Lady Revelation for Emma previous revelation for Emma, the tone is so opposite, right? She’s addressed by God as my daughter, right? She’s, she’s given the title of Elect Lady. She’s told that she would be ordained under justice hand to exhort the church and expound the scriptures as it would be given her by God’s spirit. And so then to see the same woman addressed in such a different register altogether in DNC 132 where there are threats of destruction and and so on is, is really troubling and it’s such a stark contrast. And so, um so I kind of just overall I saw this um you laying out that, you know, the the scriptures with beginning with Genesis appear to establish a kind of default monogamy, right? The the first couple, the first humans created it’s monogamy, right? And then sort of moving from there to show a consistency across the scriptures. And um to argue against, you know, claims that polygamy as it appears in the Bible is a good support for early, the early polygamy as taught in practice by early Latter Day saints. And then you’re pointing out just various real ethical issues in Mormon polygamy, right, where there was like a lack of consent um or, or, or a very incomplete consent, if, if a woman’s, you know, she’s told she’s asked to give her consent, but then her consent can be overridden or um like women um are talked about in like property language and so on. Just things that obviously are deeply problematic.
[15:25] Michelle: OK. Yeah, I mean, I mean, you hit on a lot of what I talked about. I would always frame it somewhat differently, but I think you did a really good job of encapsulating many of those arguments. But yeah, there’s, there’s more to it from my perspective. But yes, I, I’m very satisfied. I’m like, oh, well done. Don you so yeah.
[15:45] Don Bradley: Good, good. Yeah. So I wanted to make sure upfront that I wanted to communicate kind of an overall gist of sort of what I understood. And then like uh as sort of a prelude maybe to talking about some specifics and to communicate that I, like, I, I do understand and I see right, like the why some of the things and I absolutely understand why as we talked about previously, like much that was in early Mormon polygamy, like would be disturbing. Right. And I think I talked about that during the period when I myself left the church, one of the things that I put in my, you know, I was out for five years and came back. But like, one of the things I put in my letter, resigning my membership, I put some things about polygamy, right? So this was an ethical objection that I have to um being a latter day saying to, to what I understood at that time of polygamy. And um like, I, I definitely see, you know, I, I share the same disturbance with like property language applied to human beings, right? And I share the same sense that, um you know, masculinity in its at its best is protective, obviously, like, like it’s supposed to be the opposite of abusive, right? And so I like
[17:13] Michelle: that I wanted to clarify that one point because, um because I don’t, I, I actually really liked your dichotomy between the masculine, either protecting or abusing, you know, but I definitely as a mom or like there is a feminine protectiveness. Absolutely. So I don’t think it’s, it’s strictly a male role. I just wanted to clarify
[17:34] Don Bradley: and I think, yeah, and I, I agree with you. So I um I mean, I’m the, the most, one of the most famous um examples of protectiveness is a mama bear. Right. Right. You don’t, you don’t mess with the mama bear, right? So, for the protection of Children Right. And even our grown Children, right. We, we still feel protective of her. And so obviously, like, um, if one were living in a polygamous culture and had daughters, right. I’m certain that like, uh protective instinct would kick in very strongly.
[18:10] Michelle: The protective instinct of mothers has to be crushed in polygamy. And I think that’s actually harder to do than the protective instinct of fathers often, fathers often are happy to trade away their daughters for their own glory. And I think it crushes the mothers hearts often because they know what’s in store for their daughters. So anyway, that was just since we went on the sidetrack, I’ll just throw that in there that I do think that actually, you know, fathers are the big strong ones that can be the active, don’t mess with me. But I think that mothers have an innate, um, like the protective instinct of a mother holding her babies in her arms. No, has no parallel. Right. Right.
[18:46] Don Bradley: Right. Right. So, if we think absolutely. And so if we think about, I mean, I, I was blessed, sorry. Well, um I was blessed to have a truly amazing mother. Um And so I see that. Absolutely. Um So, um, like I can only imagine, right, that a divine mother, right? Or heavenly mother would have like a deep protectiveness, a deep concern, right? At such a deep love for her Children. Right? And that, you know, her daughters being like images of her, right. Um Like, there would be a particular connection there. Uh that can be like extremely um nurturing and empowering. And so, um I, I do, I’d be interested actually in seeing more discussion. I’m not saying from you in particular. I just, just a, a thought of mine, more discussion of like mother in heaven. Um It’s sort of our relationship to mother in heaven and then how that might factor into people’s discussions about doctrines like polygamy or ideas and practices like polygamy, right? Because
[20:20] Michelle: I tend to agree with you very strongly, I’ll let you finish your sentence and then I’ll respond. I didn’t know
[20:24] Don Bradley: because we talk in the restoration, like in the restoration, we’re blessed with a doctrine of a divine feminine doctrine of a heavenly mother. I think that like most of the Christian world is kind of much of the Christian world. Let me say it that way is seeking that. Now they’re thinking, well, we’ve always talked about God in masculine terms, where’s, where’s the mother and where’s the feminine. And so they’re having to try to look really hard to find a divine mother or in some ways kind of create a notion of a divine mother. Whereas for latter day saints, this has been in our understanding since the time of Joseph Smith. And so like, we just haven’t flesh it out very much. We don’t talk about it very much. And so in these discussions about polygamy. I think that could, that’s probably particularly galling for women, I would think, right? Because like the idea is, well, you, you’re, you’re that people are being told like, well, your father in heaven is requiring you woman, women, right to like, share your husband’s forever. And we know that that’s the case because like we have certain male journal authorities who have said so in the past or, or, or present and we have maybe sort of like male scholars who’ve said so. And so the whole thing sounds like uh a giant patriarchal structure from the way that it’s described from God on, right on down, right to do. Do you see what I’m saying? I, I would,
[22:02] Michelle: oh, of course. Yeah. Yeah, I’m not, I’m not quite sure. Um I mean, I mean, we’re kind of, we can, we can talk about this topic. You know, I’m kind of curious to know what questions you have. I definitely, my patriarchal blessing does mention the relationship I would develop with my heavenly mother. It mentions that both with, with every member of the Godhead and includes heaven. It says my relationship I would develop with my heavenly mother. So I haven’t felt that same. Um I guess bar like that’s not allowed, although I think we are all raised in this and, and I’ve talked to many other women and, you know, women and it kind of doesn’t bother you until it bothers you. You’re oblivious to it until all of a sudden you’re smacked in the face by it somehow for some reason or just, it just happens, you know. And, um, and I can, I remember like some of the cases where that happened where it was like I realized there was not feminine, but I was a grown woman with many Children when that happened, you know. And so I do think that, um, I don’t, I don’t know that everyone can relate to. Oh, this is a problem for me. I know some people do and then it’s hard for people who haven’t experienced that to be sympathetic with it, you know. But I, I do, I do. Definitely, I um like, I know it’s a confusing issue because in polygamy, the, the first that I’m aware of like explicit statement of heavenly mother was Eliza Snow and you know, what became to him? Oh my father, right? And it talks about a heavenly mother explicitly, but it talks about a heavenly mother, which is interesting. But, but I think the idea of the feminine divine is much, much older. It stems all the way back to Genesis. Our creation story, male and female in the, in the image of God, God created male and female, right? And so we know that God from right, from the beginning, it contains male and
[23:48] Don Bradley: female, female and female.
[23:51] Michelle: Right. Right. Right. So we know that God is male and female and it’s not that male is the default and female is the other. It’s, it’s, it’s the two halves of a whole. Right. That creates God. And so I do think that we are missing something when it skews too far into the silencing of women and valuing of mail when, when it’s not, um, more when they’re both, not equally valued and represented and heard we, we get problems. So, yeah. So that’s my thoughts on that. But I don’t know
[24:25] Don Bradley: when they sort of, when they’re sort of when they’re out of balance, you might say when the masculine and feminine are, they’re meant to be in balance, right? And this is in Genesis, right? Like, like you’re saying, they’re created in the image of God, which is plural there, Elohim, right? Male and female. So what does that say about God? Right? And a divine, masculine and divine feminine. And they are co creating, they’re co creating, they core this,
[24:55] Michelle: this male beings cannot create Children ever, right? We can’t have God, the Father Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as three males that create mankind. It doesn’t work that way. And I’m not saying that God creates us sexually. I’m not getting into any of that. I’m just saying we are obviously missing parts of this that we haven’t, that, that people haven’t thought through. Well, yeah,
[25:19] Don Bradley: exactly. And so, yeah, the fact that there is in on the divine level, there’s that balance and there’s that co creation suggests that that’s what’s supposed to be happening on our level. Right. That’s, yeah. Yes.
[25:35] Michelle: Quickly throw out there for people love to call me a feminist. And I think that’s funny in so many ways. First of all, they mean it purely as an insult. And I know a lot of people who wear that name proudly. I’m not. And I think it’s so funny. I am a mother of 13 who has spent my entire life raising my family and homeschooling my family. I even dropped out of a full scholarship at BYU to have my maybe and not, you know, like, I mean, I’ve always counted that as like look at my motherhood stripes is I’ve sacrificed everything for motherhood, right? And so I just wanna throw out for people that equality doesn’t have to mean sameness. I don’t wanna prescribe roles. I’m just, these are the ones that worked beautifully for us. I have loved being a mom, right? So I wanted to throw that out that I’m not calling for. I, I just people get so they just are determined to accuse me of everything. So anyway, I had to include that in there that yes, I think equality is, is important. However, that looks in people’s individual families and however that looks in society, it doesn’t have to mean sameness,
[26:37] Don Bradley: right? It doesn’t have to mean that
[26:41] Michelle: yeah, equal respect, equal honor. Actually, one of my big problems with the feminist movement is I feel like they’ve spent far too long saying look, women are just as good at being men as men are as men are, which I think is the wrong way to go. I think it should be, look, the feminine, the traditional feminine role is just as important as the traditional masculine role. That’s, that’s how I would approach it. So, OK, continue
[27:05] Don Bradley: to bring the two into balance and they’re complementary, they synergize with each other. That’s how it’s meant to be. So when I, I guess a question that I guess kind of implicitly come up, but I would like to ask you in particular and then go maybe back into the, the specific scriptures, maybe as like, like you laying out more of your understanding about them and we can dialogue about them. Um So do you think so kind of the scenario that I had in my mind earlier? Um I’m wondering not being a latter day saint woman, right myself. Um I’m wondering to what extent in these discussions about polygamy. I’m wondering how much it’s galling or difficult for latter day saint women that um it’s not the, there, there’s the actual facts of how Mormon polygamy was practiced and the the pain involved in that and the inequality, right? And then there’s also the fact that when modern, well at that time and now um women were being told that polygamy was commanded and polygamy was necessary, was necessary for them to show their husband and who are they being told this by, they’re being told it by men and they’re being scolded by, um, men who, when polygamy was being practiced, let’s say in Utah, right? Um In the 19th century, it was the ones who, whom polygamy put in a more one up, more powerful position, who were the very ones advocating polygamy and saying to the women, you have to do this. And then the way that we’ve tended, his letter seems to talk about God, even though we do have a divine feminine because there hasn’t been a sort of balance in our, how we talk about them. Um that basically women were told and, and maybe are told in terms of like eternal polygamy and so on that, like the your your like God conceived in masculine terms is telling you that you have to share your husband and you’re being told this through male leaders. Does that, that seems to me like it sort of adds insult to injury. But I don’t, I’m
[29:50] Michelle: so for me. So I absolutely hear what you’re saying. I do think that there is a huge problem. Well, there are many ways I can address this polygamy always has been that it’s always the king that has all of the wives. It’s the most powerful man that has all the wives, then you have to get rid of all of the other men. Like back in the days of the kings, they would create eunuchs, right? Or they would create wars, they would have ways to get rid of the surplus masculine population, right? And so what is uh I would say more diabolical about Mormon polygamy is that it’s not just I’m the king so I can do this. It’s God, I’m doing this on behalf of God and, and Brigham Young really did turn himself into God. You know, Hebrew talked about how Brigham is his God and, and he, and each man was the God of his family. So for when, so when a woman was told to be obedient to God, it meant be to your husband and to the priesthood leader. When men were told to be obedient to God, it meant be obedient to the priesthood leader. And it’s important to know that when you read their own sermons because when they say things like you obey and you obey God, even if it goes against your instincts, even if it doesn’t seem right. That’s what, that’s what they were saying in those, in that, in those terms, right? So I do think there’s a huge problem where this actually has a more um malignant twist to it because it’s not just man is doing this and man sometimes does bad things. It’s I’m do it. It’s, it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain in the most, like in the most explicit way, in the worst way, saying on behalf of God, God needs you to, you know, stop your incessant in your infernal whining. Right. And just, and so, yes, but for myself in my own journey, I actually came to all of that understanding later because I am, I, I’m, I’m weird in that for me, polygamy wasn’t a feminist issue. That’s not how I came to it. I completely accepted it and not, and it wasn’t hard for me. I thought it would be beautiful. I thought, you know, like, like I heard the stories of my grandmother and, and the sister, wife and I, you know, I just thought there are things we don’t understand and I just wanted to be obedient to God. So it was so for me, the issue isn’t um all of those later, all of those things about the more, the more feminist approach have been later additions to me to come to understand based on what God taught me about polygamy. So for me, it’s just been about the truth of God more than about fighting for womanhood if that makes sense. So I don’t come to it necessarily emotionally in that way. I come to it. Now, at this point, though I am deeply offended, deeply offended by the taking the Lord’s name in vain in this way by saying this is who God is. So it sounded before with what you were maybe asking was like, if polygamy were done better, would it be ok if it weren’t combined with sort of how it was abusive to women. And I would say no, no God, I, I believe to my core in the establishment of marriage that God not only describes but proscribes. You know, it’s not just a, a template that’s laid. God does lay the template and commands the template and repeatedly commands the template again and again and again and says, this is the way that human beings join and dwell and raise families, right? And so so I, I think that the thing that is like, like I am firmly committed to that truth that I find throughout scripture and most explicitly in the book of Mormon and also in the doctrine and covenants, but also consistently in the Bible, right? So I, I feel like no, this is the truth of God and we have to stop lying about it. We have to stop defending bad things because of our traditions. That’s more how I approach it. That,
[33:30] Don Bradley: that, that helps me understand much better. So, so what I’m, what I’m hearing is that um as you look. So, so, so yes, historically, there have been practices where powerful men would make it so that they had a greater number of women. So they could monopolize women more
[33:53] Michelle: who’s most represented in DNA, in the world. I believe it’s Genghis Khan, it’s for this reason, right? Like like that’s, that’s what it was.
[34:04] Don Bradley: So, so that is something that’s happened across human history as a human doing
[34:11] Michelle: failing just like rape across human history. Because God in the Garden of Eden when he tells Eve, when he warns Eve of the conditions of a fallen world like he does to Adam and says man will rule over you. He is not commanding the man to rule over the woman. He is warning that in a fallen world, wicked men exercise unrighteous Dominion and take advantage of women. Right? That’s how I see it
[34:36] Don Bradley: anyway. So, so, right. It’s descriptive. Yeah. Yeah. Excellent. Yeah. So then um so the the big problem that you have then is what, what kicks this up to another level for you is that you see, you look through history and you see abuses like this by powerful man, but then to have it attributed to God um is something that is like galling to you like a disturbing that this kind of practice would be attributed to God. And you look at the scriptures and you see a, a consistency on this subject where there’s a sort of divine consistency. And so then when people are presenting polygamy as well, polygamy is God’s way polygamy is what God commanded of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and so on, right? And they were just following God’s law and this is necessary you have to live this way, you know, in order to have your family forever and be like God, then that is so far from what you’re seeing in the scriptures that it’s just, you feel like we’re like as a sort of Mormon culture, we’ve like, been deceiving ourselves and we need to go back to what is in the scriptures.
[36:01] Michelle: Yeah. Yes, I do. It offends me in that way in saying this is what, who God is. II, I felt a deep repentance process to II. I felt um it’s, it’s hard to explain. I think people will relate to this who have gone in the same way. But the fact that I thought that that’s who God was, I felt that was something I deeply repented of if that makes sense. And, and so I feel like in order to defend this awful doctrine of polygamy, which it’s so see, there are so many things I want to say 132 offends me also intellectually because it’s just so bad. Like verse one, like I’ve talked about often Isaac was never a polygamist. But then we add to that Abraham and Jacob were never commanded to practice polygamy. I mean, there are so many contradictions both internally within 132 and throughout the rest of scripture that I do find it frustrating. It’s like this is bad, it’s badly, it’s, it’s not even a good fake revelation. It’s a bad fake revelation is how I look at it. We can, we can look at it intellectually and just go, this is not good, right? But then, but then on the spiritual level, much more deeply to where we, in order to protect this false tradition, we throw Joseph Smith under the bus big time, we say he did horrible things. And in addition, we throw God under the bus, we throw Emma Smith under the bus. We majorly throw Hiram Smith under the bus. We do all of this in order to protect Brigham Young who is beyond our protection. If we just go through and read his sermons, it’s pretty hard to defend many of the things that Brigham Young and the e and many of the other early leaders said and did it’s very difficult to defend. But we don’t have that same problem with Joseph and Emma and Hiram. They’re not hard to defend unless we believe Brigham’s narrative. And Brigham is the one that said it, it’s also not hard to defend God unless we believe Brigham’s narrative. And so we are elevating this narrative that’s based on such bad evidence. And in the process, we are saying Joseph did all of these things wrong. Emma was a crazy person that was a murderer, tried to kill her husband multiple times and much more. Right. Hiram Smith was an idiot and oh, and by the way, God, you know, he does these things that we just don’t understand. But you know, like, like, like it’s God, who, who are we to say what God does when they are horrible things that destroy the very nature of God. That’s what I find offensive.
[38:38] Don Bradley: So
[38:39] Michelle: I got a little impassioned there.
[38:42] Don Bradley: So, so the clash you see, so you see so much inconsistency in 132 intellectually as well as morally, like, like it’s inconsistent with the biblical narratives in Genesis that you’re analyzing and then like the, the things that it attributes to God offend you morally.
[39:04] Michelle: Yeah. Yes. Yes. And in fact, in this recent study, it was fascinating for me to find so many of Brigham’s doctrines embedded into 132 for example, blood atonement. That’s a fascinating find that that really has given me more insight into that. I think blood atonement is in 132. That is purely from Brigham Young, right? We can trace where that started in 1845 in, in regard the first time I’ve seen it is in regard to a mixed race marriage where he said, if they were living outside of the United States where we could get away with it, they’d have to have their blood spilled and then it goes on from there to be actually practiced in Utah. And, and the way he talked about, I, I talked about this a little bit later in the episode. So maybe I don’t know if you got that far. But that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about that is not God, we should not be trying to defend these things. And I think we would do so much better if we just acknowledge them and repent of them. And move on looking for the better parts, the better things.
[40:04] Don Bradley: Yeah. So you see more, much more beautiful things in scripture and our theology that you want us to be able to let go of sort of the dross like refine that out. So we can get to the beautiful things.
[40:19] Michelle: Yes. And so we can add to the beautiful because like I also spoke about in the episode, we are told repeatedly in the book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants that while we are still keeping these abominations in our back pocket, we will not receive more, right? We’ve all just settled down into this sort of self satisfied stupor of expecting that. This is exactly what it is when the promises of the book of Mormon are so grand, right? So much has been promised to the saints if we will embrace truth and abandon abomination. And so I feel like it’s, it’s two fold, it’s really, really holding us back. We’re so mired in our, it’s, it’s just explained everywhere in the book of Mormon, right? We are so stuck in the Sandy Foundation and we’re so busy defending false traditions that we are foregoing all of God’s promises. That’s what I find painful.
[41:13] Don Bradley: OK. OK. OK.
[41:15] Michelle: Am I too much? Sorry. Sorry. No,
[41:17] Don Bradley: no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, I think that like um the book of Mormon definitely promises like greater things. It says that the, the we’re given the lesser things. And then those are used as a trial of our faith, right? So that we can um prove ourselves worthy of the greater things. So this would be like the sealed portion of the book of Mormon and further scripture. And so there might be so much out there for us awaiting us in the restoration as we, as we become prepared for it. And that, I mean, that’s a vision that I sympathize with completely and to be honest with you always have ever since I was a teenager.
[42:02] Michelle: Mhm I like one scripture that I go to often and it’s repeated throughout the book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and covenants. But I love, I love 3526. And um I’ll just look at verse 10, well, I nine and 10 and when they shall receive this, the portion we have, right? This little, this little part of it that doesn’t, doesn’t contain and a half, right, which is expedient that they should have first to try their faith. And if it so be that they shall believe these things which we have not done because the book of Mormon is the strongest document. It’s the strongest scripture against a um polygamy, right? So if I were the adversary, what is the thing I would do to destroy the book of Mormon, I would bring in polygamy and pollute the book of Mormon with polygamy. So that instead of the instead of actually reading the book of Mormon, everybody just thinks of the bad things that the Mormon church did polygamy and um blood atonement. So they reject the book of Mormon completely. Right. So, um if it’s so, if, if they shall believe these things, then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them and if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them unto their condemnation, right? And I think that’s exactly where we are. We’re told multiple times that this is the reality. And, and I think I, I do believe I do want us to be a people who believe the book of Mormon. I think that would be a great thing.
[43:30] Don Bradley: No. OK.
[43:32] Michelle: So I guess I kind of want like you’ve done a good job describing what I said and, but I want you to go further. I wanna know, I
[43:40] Don Bradley: wanna go, I wanna go into the meat of it.
[43:43] Michelle: So can I, can I ask you first though? Can I just ask you like, if you, I, I don’t know if you were able to watch the whole video. I know it was long, I always recommend I already speak fast. So it’s hard to watch it on double speed. But I always, but um that is an option. I’m wondering what you thought like, would you still after watching that defend polygamy as a doctrine of God? So
[44:11] Don Bradley: um maybe the, the OK, so the way I would approach it would be more to maybe dive into the specific scriptures and then I can kind of lay out what I think kind of more along the way and give a more like definite statement of that after
[44:34] Michelle: a more nuanced answer. OK. Yeah,
[44:37] Don Bradley: so kind of like, so, so when you talk about, you know, going literally right back to the beginning, right, Adam and Eve, right? Uh So I, I do see, um that, you know, looking at the biblical creation account which is repeated, right? In the book of Moses and, and Book of Abraham, you have a, you have one man and one woman. This certainly would suggest in that sort of biblical framework that monogamy is the default, right? And then uh the fact that Adam and Eve’s Children pair off similarly and you’ve got the same kind of thing, you know, a few generations later, several generations later with Noah, would, that would obviously go along with the fact that men and women are born at, you know, approximately equal, um and approximately equal proportions maybe.
[45:33] Michelle: Did I tell you this last time? Actually, the male birth rate is slightly higher because the male mortality rate, sorry, I won’t repeat it then. I just, I like, I like knowing that because of the argument that there would be more women in heaven.
[45:47] Don Bradley: Oh, yeah. So certainly 11 line of reasoning then is what God, you know, God appears to have made monogamy the human default based on just how he created Adam and Eve originally in Genesis and then how he creates, how God creates people now in approximately equal numbers. And I think, I mean, there might be, I, I, I’ll II, I grant that reasoning. I see that reasoning myself. Right. Um I mean, there would be further complexities about kind of like, I mean, um the proportion of human cultures that have practiced polygyny. Um It’s, it’s a high proportion of human cultures might suggest some sort of, um I don’t know, it, it’s, it would be interesting to think about for me, kind of like, why do, why have human cultures tended to develop polygyny even though humans tend to be born in approximately equal numbers with, with more male births than female births. Um And, and definitely, I think that, like, I, I don’t know, there are, I think
[47:09] Michelle: that can I respond to that or do you want to keep?
[47:12] Don Bradley: No, because I,
[47:13] Michelle: I, I won’t remember the name of the study right now, but um I’ll look it up and the people who have done it, people have actually looked into this and it’s been studied. There are many things that have been practiced culturally throughout time. The question is, and we can kind of figure out why and then we should ask, is that good or is it bad? Right. Like slavery is ubiquitous throughout human history. We know why it’s hard to do all the work, the work that needs to be done before electricity. It is really easy for us now to be so anti slavery. I don’t, I I’m not talking about just American and African American slavery. I’m talking about slavery throughout time. The reason they’re called slaves is because of the slavs, right? And so um so I guess the point I’m saying is yes, we can see why slavery happened throughout time. Many, many human civilizations did it? Does that mean it’s good, right? We can look at rape has happened throughout time. Um Human sacrifices like the thing that happens throughout time is the propensity of humans to have the powerful abuse, the less powerful, that’s what all of these come down to including polygamy, right? And so, so what we should, what I think is a better question is where do we find human flourishing? And that’s those are the studies that have been done that have compared societies that, that um allow polygamy to societies that don’t allow polygamy, for example. Oh, and I, I can’t remember who did it, but I’ll, I’ll add it. As I said, when Canada, when the Canadian Supreme Court or whatever they’re called in, Canada was deciding this many studies were done and were looked at and considered and showed that universally across the board societies that allow polygamy have worse outcomes. They’re less um affluent, abundant, stable, um successful societies. They, they are not good for human flour, polygamy is not good for human flourishing. So I think you add all of that. We know that fathers are important, right? Fathers are important in human development that’s shown across the board as well. And and the more successful a polygamous man is the less of a father his Children have, you know, when you have men that are having hundreds of Children, we have so many stories of men not even knowing who their Children are or were right or are in polygamous colonies communities. So, so on every single measure, we can look at the fruits of polygamy, we can look at God’s creation and then we can look at the fruits of polygamy. It’s all bad. It all points to the the consistency of what God established and commanded.
[49:40] Don Bradley: So interesting. OK. So, so I guess one thing I should clarify is that like I’m, I’m not saying that um polygyny has been widely practiced. Therefore, um that means it’s good, right? I’m saying if, if I’m looking at just like the question of kind of like the biblical creation account setting up, well, there’s, there’s man and there’s woman, there’s a man and a woman, right, a monogamous couple and then looking at the birth ratios, right? I’m saying in my mind that gets that’s not absolutely definitive, right? I see the consideration strongly. I’m saying it’s not absolutely definitive because then I think, well, there are other sorts of complexities, like, like why has this been practiced in various human cultures? And so for instance, if it’s just a matter of power dynamics and, and polygynous marriages happen or, or, or polygamous marriages of any kind, because there are a handful of cultures that have polyandrous marriages, right? If it’s just, which wouldn’t presumably be due to power dynamics unless the one
[50:53] Michelle: they have different dynamics. So that’s also a very negative and it’s usually due to extreme poverty where there’s a high bride price. So the family will buy one bride for, for multiple brothers. It’s, it’s like I have from what I have seen, those are the usual types of reasons for polyandry, those kinds of things. It’s not a, it’s not a flourishing system.
[51:15] Don Bradley: OK. So the, um I know that in some, um hunter gatherer societies um in Africa or like horticultural societies, those are actually uh uh hunter gatherer societies are actually known for being relatively egalitarian, like less patriarchal. And yet there are a great many of them that allow polygyny. And so it doesn’t seem that polygyny is just
[51:50] Michelle: a byproduct’s um investigated more. I would need to investigate that more. I know that there are a lot of claims like that. But when I have read many um different text, I think that we can define um patriarchy in sort of the more biblical western way and have it be the structural thing. But when you look at a lot of indigenous cultures. And we claim that they have this more egalitarian structure. We’re ignoring things like for example, in Africa, um female genital mutilation, you know, or so we’re not,
[52:23] Don Bradley: we’re not societies, not hunter gatherer societies. What
[52:28] Michelle: did you say? I’m sorry, say
[52:30] Don Bradley: that again, extraordinarily wide range of cultures, female genital mutilation is happening in certain Islamic countries in North Africa. It’s not a, it’s not a hunter gatherer like tribal practice, But,
[52:44] Michelle: but I think there are things that go back a very, very long time and we, we kind of look at them and take what we want to take from them and don’t look at what might actually be happening. Some of them are very violent societies and, and women often were not, were treated, you know, weren’t treated as well as women today would want to be treated necessarily. I don’t think that we can just as, you know, it’s kind of like the, what is it called? The um noble savage? I’m not, you know, it’s like, what is our idea of nature? Is it just, oh, they were all good before there was civilization. I don’t think that that’s a fair representation. I don’t think we know, but I, I kind of curious what like, like what your thought process is, why we’re discussing these things, right?
[53:26] Don Bradley: So, so something where I would agree with you um greatly where I think actually we’re completely on the same page, right? Would be when you reference studies and you talk about looking at human flourishing. Right? And so I, um, I, I’m into studies, I’m into research, I’m into understanding what’s actually the case. I don’t like, I’m, I don’t want to be ideological. I wanna, like, have my beliefs represent actual reality. And so, you know, I, I know that there is, there’s a lot of anthropological research right now on different societies. Right. Um, and they’re, they’re different forms of marriage and family. And so whatever those studies end up showing on the whole across time, right, about these different like practices and how they affect human well being, human suffering, human flourishing. I’m completely open to taking the judgment of those studies and, and, you know, similar things are happening in modern Western society. You have the currently kind of the rise of polyamory, which is like a sort of polygamy, but like on a, on a very different basis where it’s not based on sort of male power. You know, it’s, it’s meant to be the people practicing are generally very liberal, right? And so the egalitarian. And so, so what I’m saying is just that I know and we’re gonna
[54:58] Michelle: have different perspectives on that for sure.
[55:00] Don Bradley: I’m just saying, I know that there are a lot of studies being done, a lot, there’s a lot of research being done on that right now because it’s such a growing thing in American society. And so basically I’m willing to go with ultimately. What, what did the studies show about? What’s, you know, kind of like what’s good for people as far as the question, what’s good for human beings? Like, I’m just open to whatever the data shows. If it, if it turns out, like you’re saying that, um, you know, the, the weight of the evidence is that certain practices are bad for human beings, bad for human flourishing, then I wouldn’t want people to have those practices. I, I don’t know how much there might be individual variation on that where sort of like a, a family form or relationship form that might work for one person wouldn’t work for another. Um But definitely for humans. Yeah.
[55:52] Michelle: Yeah, there are definitely exceptions to every rule. There’s definitely the individual, everyone has to deal with their own set of circumstances. So I’m not, I’m never saying this is what everyone needs to do. I feel like the like if we want to talk about a science that settled, I don’t agree that the, that the story about the Joseph Smith narrative is settled. But I do think there is so much evidence that that a family raising their Children is how the best societies are created the most stable they’re established. I think that we really have to leave a lot of it. Um Like we have to twist things around to pretend that there, there, there are different systems that work as well. We have to ignore a lot. We have to make it politically not correct. Right. We know what establishes good families and good societies with stability, with human flourishing that that has been known for a long time. And even if we want to just look at the world, right. I feel like we are the beneficiaries of a great civilization that was established based on the, the very biblical morality of a mother and a father raising their Children. I know that there was bad behavior I like, but that was the um accepted norm. That was what was expected. If men did have affairs, they were expected to keep them quiet, right? It would not have been looked upon nice. So even if it did happen, it was not accepted is what I’m trying to say and, and we have inherited this great civilization build on that. And now we are just like we are doing with everything else going, hey, why don’t we just throw that out and throw that out and throw that out? And I think we do that at our own peril. There’s the meme of the bird or, or the person sitting on the twig, you know, sighing off what they’re attached to and what their whole foundation is. I think, I think we are in peril as a society now because we’re throwing out all of these things. I’m all for investigating them. I’m not for throwing them out. And I do also take the book of Mormon. Seriously where it says in Jacob two and other places that cursed is the land cursed, be the land for their sakes. If they abandon the traditional morality that God has given us, if we embrace abomination, that happened with the early church. Absolutely. You can’t get much more cursed than they were with constant plagues and famines and horrible, horrible things happening. Right. And we’ve been doing a lot better since we’ve gotten rid of polygamy. I, I think that we should take those warnings seriously. I, I think the family has got established. It leads to human flourishing and nothing else compares.
[58:21] Don Bradley: So, so you’re probably familiar with that quote by DK Chesterton that says something like, um never tear down a fence, never tear down a wall before you understand why it was built.
[58:37] Michelle: Oh, I like
[58:37] Don Bradley: that. Ok. So, um I’m not for just kind of like taking cultural practices evolve for reasons. Those reasons are not always good. Um We do see forms of discrimination against all different kinds of groups, you know, racial and like things that have been done to people who are LGBT Q across time and so on, right. Things that would, we would detest um now rightly, right. But like in our culture as a whole, like I tend to think that cultural practices evolved for a reason that they were effective, at least to a certain degree. And so I don’t just take the view of Well, hey, I don’t know exactly why this cultural norm exists. Let’s throw it out, right? I would take a more careful kind of approach and a more reasoned approach. So kind of like what you were saying, Michelle, like investigating things like, right? Like not, I definitely would not want a sort of knee jerk reflex reaction of let’s throw out, let’s throw out things that appear to have been working or something like that, you know, like, like I would say for sure, like, you know, let’s get more knowledge, let’s get more information about what does help with human flourishing for, for, you know, various people and for society as a whole. And then let’s, let’s run with that.
[1:00:08] Michelle: OK. So, so can I OK, I want to narrow in on trying to understand my understanding of this conversation and you can correct me. So what I’m gathering is that maybe you’re using new poly amorous forms of marriage to say that marriage has got established, it might not be as set in stone as we thought it was in order to defend that polygamy might also have fit within that category of it. I’m trying to understand why we’re discussing polyamory in this conversation on Mormon polygamy. Like II, I just maybe you’re seeing a connection that I’m not fully comprehend. So, so
[1:00:46] Don Bradley: Mormon polygamy doesn’t look a lot like modern polyamory. So I’m not saying traditional Mormon polygamy does look a lot like modern polyamory on the one hand, like I’m agreeing, right. I’m that I’m seeing something that you’re seeing, right? Which is the biblical creation account. It begins, there’s a man and a woman. God creates a man and a woman uh in the divine image, right? And so on. OK. And then um men and women are born in roughly equal ratios with actually more males born than females, right? So we agree on that. And then I’m uh so for me, then the sort of question is, so does that sort of settle the issue? Right? And I’m saying, well, there actually seem to be more complexities as you look at like, what human cultures around the world have done, that doesn’t appear to me always to be just motivated by like, like dynamics of male power. And then I’m saying that um I’m agreeing with you that like, like setting what actually works for human beings, how do human beings flourish that I’m completely on board with that. So I’m basically, I’m agreeing but saying like, there might be other considerations and maybe those considerations don’t so much apply specifically to Mormon polygamy um as they do to sort of just like um the question of whether monogamy is kind of the abs an absolute invariant um standard.
[1:02:19] Michelle: OK. So what I’m hearing if I’m gathering this right is you are open to playing with marriage or to consider like, like, like that to, considering that monogamy might not be the only absolute right. You’re open to that possibility and, and um, so, ok, however, you wouldn’t think that Mormon polygamy is a model that that should, should be considered. And I, I guess I’m really interested because what you, you’re a member of the church and what the thing that people are getting mad at me about, right is questioning polygamy, but I am standing for marriage. I’m hearing you say no, I don’t think polygamy was good. And I’m also not convinced that traditional marriage is the it needs to be the only a absolute right. Like, like I, I guess I’m kind of confused about um and we, we definitely have all kinds of issues going on with. Um We have no good answers for gay members of the church. We just don’t, it’s really sad. I made a short about that a while ago because that’s part of my feeling is like we’re being so hypocritical and maybe we would be inspired with better answers for gay members of the church if we would, if we would clean up our own house first, so we could get better answers because how we’re handling it is not working, it’s not good and it’s creating a lot of suffering needlessly, but I don’t think we have the answers of how we can handle it as a as a people, you know. So anyway, so I, so I I’m so sympathetic to, to all of the um all of the situations that various people that various people face in their lives, right? And I, I just, at this point, don’t see how um iii I still at this point feel like traditional marriage as God established. It is important and, and when we talk about polyamory and these different things, what I, what I think is really happening is kind of the destruction of traditional marriage. And um and I know people can argue with that, but we sure have seen that happening. Like marriage is going the way of the dodo, right? And I think that that’s a concern and I think that we as Mormons, we as a people could advocate better in better ways and with less internal contradiction and hypocrisy if we actually stood for marriage consistently, instead of keeping this our own abomination called out in our scriptures in our back pocket. So,
[1:04:51] Don Bradley: right. So, so as far as so as far as trying to like see kind of like where sort of nail nail me down on this, right? Where I’m at? Well, it’s, I see a lot of complexity, I guess that’s part of what I’m saying. And I, I, so some of the issues like for LGBT Q members, I definitely, I think the good answers are still forthcoming. Those are still yet to come, right? I agree. And like, um I don’t um I see deep problems in the practice of Mormon polygamy. Um There is much that disturbs me personally. Um And so it’s not like, I think to myself, like the way that I would want to live would be to have like, say two wives who like, they each have sort of half of a life with a husband and I have sort of half of an intimacy with a wife. So, so that is not appealing to me, right? And so um I, I see the problem on that, on that personal level and then other sort of ethical levels of sort of ethical critique with how women believe in this practice. But that, but I don’t necessarily completely reject it as um I don’t entirely reject it. And I think that there, I see space for in my view, it it seems like in every area of life. And this is the case in scripture, this is the case in church history, this is the case in the world at large, like it’s a complex place, things are complicated. And so I, I see like arguments from scripture like starting, right? You can start, right in Genesis, right? And come up with arguments for sort of a default of monogamy, right? And so I, I see that um and then I also s see complexity and I don’t, maybe I need to formulate my thoughts better, um maybe for a future episode or something, but uh further comment might clarify what I’m getting at. So, so there are different questions at play in this kind of discussion, right. So one question would be sort of the theology of specifically Mormon polygamy, the way, the way that it was practiced and the way that it was taught the specific sorts of scriptures that are, that were used to argue for it or, or, or that it’s partly based on, right? And then there’s also the question that where you’re getting, you’re going in, in your discussion of the scriptures and polygamy, you’ve gone beyond just critiquing specifically DNC 132 or Mormon polygamy to making a case for like monogamy as sort of like the scriptural standard, like the standard. And so I guess that my bringing up like poly polygamy and different polygyny and polyandry in different cultures and like modern polyamory. And so it isn’t to, it’s not like to advocate certain things. It’s just to say, well, I know that there are people who have tried polygamy or polygamy, like relationship practices on a different basis from like Mormon polygamy, right? Practice in different ways. And I would be interested in seeing what the the research on human flourishing says about the sort of the different practices and will ultimately say in the future about them. So, so if I’m thinking about like sort of like absolutes, is this an absolute to me? Well, I mean, one of the kinds of things that I would want to take into, I, I want to take into account all sorts of ethical considerations, moral considerations, you know, how this, how, how different um things that practices people may do in different cultures and so on affect their lives. And then um along with that, right, look at what, what does the research say about how such practices affect human flourishing. So, so I’m not bringing all that up to um address Mormon polygamy specifically, but rather to address the larger subject that you brought up of sort of like is monogamy like the one in variant standard. And so to me that gets complex, I
[1:09:42] Michelle: guess, OK, that’s so interesting. So, II, I think we can circle back to that, but I first want to ask you another question that kind of hits the nail a little more on the head for the polygamy question. And then we can talk more about just like tradition. I mean, more generalized questions of marriage, right? Is 132 revelation from God.
[1:10:04] Don Bradley: So I think that there is revelation in DNC 132. I think that and, and I do think that it comes from Joseph Smith and that
[1:10:20] Michelle: we might agree on that. You might be surprised to know that we agree on both of those points, but continue.
[1:10:25] Don Bradley: Um now we might disagree on the specifics of sort of like which parts and so on because I um so I think that because I do think Justice Smith practiced polygamy and, and in our, I believe our next episode, we’re gonna go into like details of kind of like, well, why, why do I think that? Right, and, and um discuss our respective reasons for our respective positions in detail. Um So when I look at, when I look at revelation, I see revelation as always being filtered through the mind of a human being, a prophet, right? And so I don’t see revelation as just kind of like it’s all completely 100% divine or it’s, or it’s all false, right? And so I look at, um, I mean, I, I don’t know that I want to sort of religiously weigh in on what I think is specifically is divine or not divine. I mean, maybe some things um in 132 like I do find the language that’s used very problematic, right? So the language you were talking about, about the, the giving and taking the sort of belonging or property
[1:11:54] Michelle: for me that doesn’t come down to language. It’s much, much deeper than perspective. It’s the mind that it came from. It’s how does this consciousness view women and men and humanity?
[1:12:11] Don Bradley: Ok. Yeah, fair enough. Um So, um there are certainly things in 132 that I personally have problems with, but I don’t reject 132 as a whole as revelation. So I do see the divine in it and I think that it’s coming from Joseph Smith and like I said, I mean, like an actual sort of like set of, sort of like reasons like why do you think that would be for our anticipated future?
[1:12:50] Michelle: Ok. So can I ask? So let me ask another question kind of piggybacking on that last one. So did Joseph Smith dictate section 132 as we currently have it to William Clayton in the presence of Hyrum on July 12th, 1843 in the upper room of the red brick store. I think he did. So you, so you accept that? So you think that the whole thing came from Joseph and the problems that you have with it are where Joseph’s mind got some pure, something’s not pure and he said he, he dictated that. And so, so William Clayton’s, you, you accept William Clayton’s narrative on that, that that’s fine. I’m just trying to clarify.
[1:13:31] Don Bradley: So I, I mean, yes, like I, I would make the caveat that like I would accept the outlines of William Clayton’s narrative on this. I would per our previous discussion about historical sources. We would not treat him as some sort of absolute. I would try to his account in the context of other accounts.
[1:14:00] Michelle: But the general sense, the general sense that Joseph Smith did dictate this on that date and it was written as we now have it. So it, so it’s not been tinkered with or adjusted. It’s, it’s what like what like, so I guess what I question is saying is you are kind of reserving the right to say yes, that came from Joseph, but I don’t have to accept all of it as revelation. He said all of it that day, but I can look at it and go uh I’m throwing that part out personally. Am I understanding that correctly?
[1:14:31] Don Bradley: Basically? So, yeah, I think that Joseph himself is an imperfect revelatory instrument, so to speak. And I think that the enormous pressure of the situation did not bring out the best in Joseph and that that gets reflected in how this revelation is dictated. OK.
[1:14:56] Michelle: OK. This is really helpful to help me understand your perspective too. So can I piggy back on that again? Um What other revelations of Joseph, do you also take issue with or do you reject partial portions of them or all of them? Or is it just specifically 132?
[1:15:14] Don Bradley: Um That’s a good question. So I mean, my same general sense that I bring to 132 I bring to revelation in general, right? So, so through Joseph Smith, but also through other prophets, like in other books of script, in the various books of scripture, right? And so I it’s not the way that I would frame it is not, oh, like I accept parts of certain revelations and then reject other parts. It’s that I see because I see revelation inherently as a kind of divine human co creation. Then I see in some places more of the divine and in some places, more of the human. And so sometimes the human can be very problematic. I, I mean, I think it’s, that’s easiest to see, like, let’s say in like the Old Testament, right? Where there are a variety of laws that seem horrendous, right? And so on. Um, in justice Smith’s revelations, um specifically, like, what do I see? This is a good question. I mean, I would have to think about it like places where I think that Joseph was like, um well, OK, I think um uh DNC Tan um calls Martin Harris a wicked man and um seems rather harsh toward Martin regarding the loss of the 116 pages. Um There are things in DNC 10 where I, I suspect that Joseph’s own like the, the the human part of this human divine collaboration that is revelation. I, I see places where maybe the human is more dominant, let’s say. And so maybe sometimes there are certain revelations rebuking certain people, like in this case, Martin, that are overly harsh. And um I think you actually have the same thing in DNC 19 again to Martin Harris. Um And um the there’s a narrative, it’s controversial, but I, I have evidence I have papers that I intend to publish that right, that I’ve done research for the papers are not fully written at this point but about what’s known as the Canadian Copyright Revelation. Um So for years, this was known only kind of by rumor. So to speak historical rumor. You might say like um David more than rumor, but like there were historical sources that said that in 18, in like early 1830 Joseph Smith had a revelation saying that they could finance the publication of the perform and they could cut Martin Harris out of that process because Martin wasn’t sort of cooperating sufficiently by selling a Canadian copyright to going up sending people up to Canada, Oliver Cowdrey and others up to Canada to secure a Canadian copyright to the Revelation. I mean to the book Mormon, which they could then be sold, which would then produce more than enough revenue. It was thought to pay off the printer for those books. And at the Grandon Press right now, this revelation um Hyrum page was one of the people involved in going with Oliver Cowy up to Canada based on this revelation. He wrote about it in the 18 forties. David Whitmer remembered it decades later. Um Some historians disputed, latter disa historians disputed whether it had ever happened. And then um a manuscript revelation book was disclosed, had actually been in the possession of the first presidency was handed over to the Joseph Smith papers like 15, more than 15 years ago, I think. And so it’s that revelation is now published, right? Um Joseph Smith, because the revelation had um kind of not worked out for the people who were sent to Canada, they weren’t able to find a buyer in the city that they were specifically sent to and so on.
[1:19:45] Michelle: I remember
[1:19:47] Don Bradley: Joseph um reportedly said he didn’t intend to publish the revelation because there were problems with it. And uh it, it was not published in the Book of Commandments in the 1835 do covenants. So I, I have and I have other other things that I lay out in this paper indicating that Joseph himself did in fact think that the revelation was problematic and I don’t know that what he thought is. I think it’s the way it’s usually painted as he thought the whole revelation was a false revelation. I’m not convinced. That’s what he thought at all. I think actually, maybe he thought that there were aspects of the revelation that came from his own mind, that sort of bled into what was otherwise a divine communication. And so he chose not to publish it. You know, I
[1:20:33] Michelle: get that that concept. He said that there are revelations of God, there are revelations of devil and there are revelations of man or whatever order he put
[1:20:40] Don Bradley: in. OK. Right. Right. Right. And I think maybe, maybe what happens is that revelations actually can actually be even, there can even be a blend of the human and the divine. I think there’s inevitably a kind of blend of the human and, and it’s stronger in some, some places you’re dealing so clearly in scripture, you’re so clearly dealing with the divine, you’re dealing with something that’s so beautiful and transcendent and inspiring. And then in some places in, in the scriptures, there are things that seem more strange or jarring or like so, so latter day saints are not fundamentalists. When it comes to those, they’re not like Christian fundamentals. We don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture. The book of Mormon says on its title page right toward the end, you know, if there be faults that they be the mistakes of men, therefore condemn that nothing of God, right? And so there is this um sense in Latter day Saints scripture, that Latter day Saints scripture itself does not have to be perfect, does not have to be free from error. Does not have to be 100% divine in order to actually be legitimate.
[1:21:51] Michelle: Ok, I really appreciate that answer. Thank you. That was very thoughtful and actually, I’m super impressed. I didn’t mean to put you on the spot quite like that. And, and when you pulled out Dr N covenant’s 10 and I’m like, wow, good like that. Anyway, I, that was, that was really impressive. I wanna thank you for that sincere answer. Um I, I wasn’t, I want to clarify, I wasn’t asking it in order to try to trap you or trip you up like, you know, I, I sorry if it came across that way, I just, for me, there is such a distinct difference between 132 and all of the rest of the scriptures and I do have my little hang ups here and there are things that I’m like, uh, I, I don’t love how that sounds, you know, and I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m very willing to think critically about them and I don’t just accept it all. It’s just 132 seems to be in its own, complete, completely different category where, so that’s why I was asking like, like to me it would be like, whoa Joseph jumped the shark with that one that was completely out of character for him. And I, you know, and, and that seems, um that seems kind of like a hard historical case to make because Joseph faced a lot of stress in his life. So that’s, that’s why I was kind of asking to just, you know, does that make sense to you that it does seem quite different?
[1:23:03] Don Bradley: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I can understand that. Yeah.
[1:23:06] Michelle: Ok. So, ok, so where else did you want to go? Did you have somewhere else you wanted to go?
[1:23:10] Don Bradley: So, I guess a couple, um, well, actually, I guess before I speak too much here, let me actually look at the notes that I wrote. I think I’ve largely been covering this. Ok, I guess, um I guess that I would be interested in talking about maybe like Abraham and Jacob. Oh Great Bible and then Jacob two in the book of Mormon. Um maybe, maybe a quick comment on 132 before that. So I, and maybe this is part of, maybe this goes along with how you feel about 132 in terms of like, because you expressed, you think that part of it um was from God and came to Joseph. Um So I look at something like um versus, I think it’s like 19 and 20 it actually says, oh, OK, well, maybe preface to this. So if you look back in the 18 hundreds in the church, you have George Kuc Canon giving this idea that like the, the latter day Saint Doctrine of Exaltation or Deification somehow didn’t apply to women. OK, men become gods, but women don’t become goddesses. And he was apparently getting this from how he read like some passage in Jeremiah about how they weren’t supposed to worship the queen of heaven who was like a particular pagan deity. And so he’s thinking it means there are no female gods, there are no goddesses, right? Um You have, when Bursa mcconkey’s first edition of Mormon Doctrine came out in 1958. There was actually a kind of private critique done by Mary Peterson, you know, strange, these are both super doctrinal conservatives, right? Um But nonetheless, Marky Peterson had heavy criticisms of mcconkey’s manuscript and one of the issues that he raised is that Brusa mcconkie said that when they’re exalted men become gods and women become goddesses. And Mary Peterson was questioning whether women actually become goddesses. He’s questioning whether there’s, it seems like the idea that George Kuchan had and Mary Peterson at least might have had or considered, was that, like, men become divine? But women don’t, women are something less. Now. You look at DNC 132 and like, it’s strange that if these guys believe in DNC 132 it’s strange that they would think this because, um, I think it’s, like I said, I think it’s like 19 and 20 maybe. But like it, it talks about, you know, if, if a couple they like enter into like, you know, the n
[1:25:57] Michelle: normal shall come forth in the first resurrection and it shall be. Um and, and if it should be after the resurrection and the next resurrection and shall inherit Thrones, kingdoms, Principalities, powers dominions all heights and depths then shall it be? And it goes on from there that they together as a couple receive all of the prophecies,
[1:26:15] Don Bradley: things were subject to them. Who is it talking about? It’s clearly talking about that man and woman, right? And so 132 like, yes, it has like the the giving and taking sort of aspect, right? But then it’s also saying women along with men become gods, right? And so it doesn’t, I don’t look at 132 and see it as entirely, entirely um demoting to or disturbing regarding women. I also see things here are literally elevating and exulting
[1:26:57] Michelle: about equality. So I’ve actually talked about this quite a bit because those verses, that whole section right there that does talk about eternal marriage is, is, um, well, I, I can’t think of the word I’m looking for, but it is one man and one woman and there could be no exception to that. It couldn’t work in any other way. But all of those verses describe maybe starting with 14 and going on. I’ll have to check. But, um, that’s, that’s the, I guess 15, it talks about if a man marry a wife the entire way through that entire section is restrictively monogamous because it makes no allowance. It’s a man and a woman and together they follow this, what, whichever of these paths they are following, right? And I find that to be extremely interesting and quite important because everything that, that does resonate as true in 132 or that is, um, potentially something to investigate as true is, is, is um monogamous. And there’s no exception to that. It can’t be different just like the rest of the doctrine of covenants. And see, that’s why I think it’s interesting because Joseph Smith, I think we do have the evidence to show that he had a revel on eternal marriage and that he taught it publicly. I’ve, I’ve mentioned it before, but he on July 16th, 1843 4 days after he supposedly dictated this revelation. And when his marriage with Emma was in shambles and blah, blah, blah, he spoke all day at the temple stand. And that afternoon, we have, I think 33 or four different sources of the sermon he gave where he taught eternal marriage. And he spoke about um the the sadducees coming to Jesus and, and asking him posing him the question, right? And then, and then he gave the answer that, that they need to be married in view of eternity and said that um more could be given after the temple was, was established, right? So that could have been a new revelation he received. Then if we go forward, we have um Hiram Smith teaching the same concepts, at least in the, in the unedited version of his April 8th sermon. In 1844 Hiram talked about being troubled that Jerusha had died. And um you know, and then it was edited to say that he was sealed to both women, but that’s not what the original said. And there’s no way to Hiram was not ambiguous in that sermon, the whole reason for that conference, as I understand it was to put down polygamy and to oppose polygamy, right? So he, he gave us scathing speech and he spoke on eternal marriage. And then if we go forward even further, when the Novo expositor, when William Law was claiming that Hiram had showed him this revelation, right? When Joseph and Hyrum were denying that in the June 4th, I mean, the June 8th and 10th, 1844 um city council meetings. They say again what exactly what the revelation was that it was based on the question of the sadducees. I think it’s in Luke 20 or Luke 22. Anyway, saying that this, that they, that the, the whole amount of the revelation was that a man needed to be married in view of eternity. Hiram said that anything that anything else had to do with former times not now, which is that question of the about lever at marriage, which they knew was a stupid law. So they were using it to try to trip Jesus up. You know what I’m saying? Like they knew it was problematic and then we go forward beyond that. I just, I know this is for our next discussion. I just part of what you were asking is how I came to this and, and it seems to fit in here because I think this applies. So I think Joseph, I think there is strong evidence that it absolutely did have a revelation on eternal marriage that he taught. Hyrum said, because some people have asked, well, why wouldn’t they have published it in 1844 doctrine covenant. But Hiram said in that April 8th sermon that this was not to go abroad to the world, but to be to be taught only to the people in navoo who were contributing to the temple. So this was like a temple worthy doctrine which I think is interesting is how I read that. But then if we go forward, um William Law claims that Hyrum brought him the revelation, right? But William Law in his, oh, what is it? The 1884 I’ll have to look up the date interview with doctor we, his letters back and forth and then his interview that he did and he says explicitly that the revelation he was shown, I be I, I think there could very well have been a false revelation going around. What I don’t believe is that Hyrum brought it to him. I think that’s the part they were lying about. But he explicitly says that it was three pages long and that the rest of it was gotten up in Utah is what both he and doctor we say. So he is on testimony like William Law, one of the main um contemporaneous sources. We have of anything to do with Joseph polygamy himself says it was only three pages. And then we have um James Whitehead who was one of Joseph scribes, who in the temple lot case also says that he saw a revelation, I believe in winter quarters and that it only taught eternal marriage. It was shown to him by Bishop Whitney. It only taught eternal marriage, didn’t have anything about polygamy at all. And that it was three pages long. And so if we put all of those and and that generally is completely ignored. So to me, when I look at those pieces of evidence, and I look at this portion of doctrine and covenants 132 that is about eternal marriage and is strictly monogamous. I can see that and then I can look at all of this other garbage that doesn’t, that doesn’t go along with it at all. And the mistakes are in all of these other parts like verse one saying that Joseph asked God how he justified Abraham Isaac Jacob and, and David and Solomon when and then we say he asked that question because he was working on his translation of the Bible. But if we go look at Joseph’s translation of the Bible, every single time it talked about David Joseph made it more harsh. He made David more condemned for his, for his po you know, like that is that is not, it’s impossible to say that Joseph would have asked that question. And then that’s on top of the doc of the book of Mormon that he either translated or came up with whatever people. However, people want to interpret it because I’m, I’m, we’re fighting on two fronts, both the Mormon, the traditional Mormon narrative and the anti Mormon narrative, right? But, but everything that Joseph ever said did wrote everything points to his dedication to monogamy. And so even in the JST, he was changing it to shore it up to make sure that David could never be used as an excuse for polygamy. So that’s why 132 is so bizarre. So sorry, I just, there’s a bunch of, um, there, there’s a bunch of, like, notes for next time. There’s, there’s a bunch of cheat sheet for the next conversation. So I know we’re not getting into that, but I want to spell it out because we were talking about this. I’m not asking you to respond to it.
[1:33:38] Don Bradley: Right. So, there’s a lot we’ll talk about about um like, why would one believe that 132 like as a whole uh comes from Joseph? And then I
[1:33:51] Michelle: just, I’m just trying to make the case. I’m trying to explain to you why I see it differently. I’m not trying to necessarily say, you know, I’m just saying what you brought up about these beautiful parts of what or these potentially true parts of 132 make perfect sense in the model that I see, right? I think they, they support that model. So anyway, we can move on. I just wanted to explain why I was going into that. So you could kind of have a better understanding of where I’m coming from.
[1:34:18] Don Bradley: Yeah. OK. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so, um like, I think for sure there’s, there’s definitely contemporaneous evidence that there was a revelation, right, as you’re pointing out. And so then, um then the question becomes what did and did not the revelation contain. And so, um you know, that uh we can talk more about that next time. Um As, as an aside, I guess I would say verses 14 through, I think it’s 20. I would see them as it’s interesting that like it talks about a man and a woman, right? I would see that as descriptively monogamous. Um I don’t see it actually saying the only way that people can be exalted is if they like this can only apply to like a man and a woman. Can I explain how I get there? But I definitely do see that it is talking about a man and a woman. I think that’s absolutely important in interpreting it because it’s not making polygamy some kind of requirement to reach, you know, 19 verses 18 through 20 or whatever. It’s not making it some sort of requirement to achieve exaltation,
[1:35:34] Michelle: right? The the reason, some of the reasons and II I did, I’ve talked about this in previous episodes, so I won’t go into it fully. But one thing I find interesting is it says that if they are, if they are um not together, right, then they are separate and single and alone and as the angels in heaven, right? And so I guess the, and it also describes the process of how they ascend together, one and one, you know, like together as a unit. So that’s the question they ascend through this process as a unit. So does the man then leave and leave the wife separate and single while he goes and ascends again with another woman. And it makes no allowance for there being more than one woman in that ascendant process. And so I do think that even if, if you try to look at it really logically and, and consider what it’s saying, how could it possibly work in any other way than what it’s, than what it’s laying out for us? Because if he, if he leaves his one wife to go ascend through this process with another wife, she’s separate and single as the angels. They’re not united as what?
[1:36:40] Don Bradley: Yeah. Um Yeah. OK. So there’s like, I mean, I do say that there’s like some theological interpretation of it there, like about them being like one versus separate and single and it’s actually something to which I would be somewhat sympathetic because I do see like I look at like Mormon polygamy, right? And like I said earlier, I see it like, I mean, I wouldn’t, this isn’t what I would, I wouldn’t want to feel divided right in my
[1:37:13] Michelle: right? But that’s not the question. The question is, is this of God or what portions of it are of God? And how can we, how can we um decipher, you know, how could we separate it out?
[1:37:24] Don Bradley: So, but I was just getting to the issue of, and we, it’s something that we see differently, right? But whether, whether those verses, if we agree that they’re talking about a man and a woman. And so it certainly makes it sound like a man and a woman can be exalted, right? It seems like it would be difficult to read it some other way in those. Versus, um, I don’t see it as it specifically excluding the possibility of some kind of, of, of polygamy. But that’s, um, but, but like, but we absolutely agree. There is a contemporaneous revelation. There’s contemporaneous evidence for a revelation
[1:38:05] Michelle: And I would say a real revelation and at least one false revelation, one fraudulent revelation that many of the apostles were talking, many of the polygamists were talking about. But go ahead, I just wanted to clarify that I don’t think there was just one
[1:38:17] Don Bradley: document. I mean, I don’t see a contemporaneous evidence for multiple revelations circulating at that time. Um But like, so, so the the question of like the origins of 132. Yeah, we’ll, we’ll get into like more of the historical evidence on that in our next
[1:38:39] Michelle: discussion. OK. Yeah. So, and, and I was bringing this up more just trying to show the theological problems as I see them because it’s interesting that you say 132 itself makes it clear that that um monogamy is at least perfectly sufficient for exaltation, right? And yet all of the polygamist taught very different than that, right? We have Brigham Young on record and, and the only men who will be the gods or even the son of God are those who are polygamous, at least in their heart. And that’s just one of many, many quotes. And, um, and so I think that, um, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s interesting how to make the polygamous theological claim. We have to separate all the pieces apart and not really think of it. You know, it doesn’t, it doesn’t work, the theological claim for polygamy doesn’t work. And so that’s why I’m so, so it sounds like to me, you’re saying from your perspective at this time, which I just want to make sure I’m clear this did come from Joseph Smith, part of, from God and part of it was not valid revelation and, and, and the, what the polygamist taught about polygamy was incorrect because it’s not
[1:39:48] Don Bradley: right. So I would say it came, um I would say my perspective is that 132 was dictated by Joseph Smith that it is by, by the nature of how I view revelation and the revelatory process. It is a sort of human, divine collaboration where in parts of it, we see more of the divine and in parts of we see more of the human. And um that uh yes, I don’t, there are, there are complexities in exegesis and I’ve done a lot in the past, a lot of exegesis with the NC 132. I do want to try to understand it like on its own terms. What it’s saying, I’ve had different views at different times about what is it saying? And this part or that part about whether polygamy is essential to exaltation, it definitely does not look like. And I’ll, I’ll say in the verses that we were looking that we’re talking about like 14 to like 19 or 20. I think it, it, I see those verses don’t mention polygamy at all. And yet they talk about couples being exalted. And so it certainly does not look there like polygamy is essential to exaltation. It does look like maybe another parts of 132 like it might be, might be saying that. And so that’s, and so then we get into questions of how do you correctly interpret those passages and then we get into questions that, you know, you and I are going to discuss further about, well, how much of this was this all from Justice Smith or, or was some of it added or, or some by others or something like that? But
[1:41:27] Michelle: yeah, yeah, that’s a good point that to me, that’s more of the internal contradiction that shows that it’s very problematic. So, so in any case, we can at least agree that at least many of the polygamous portions of 132 are not from God, you would agree to that. So,
[1:41:48] Don Bradley: so, so again, I mean, the way that the way that I’m framing this and how I think about it and then how I, and therefore how I describe it is different from the form that the your questions are changing. So the way that I frame it is revelation inherently is a human divine collaboration or co creation, different aspects of revelation reflect some of them reflect more of the divine, some reflect more of the human. So my point isn’t to say why reject this as divine? I mean, there are, there are things that are very problematic in 132 that I think reflect Joseph Smith’s level of frustration and so on in the situation. And so you could say, yeah, I, I guess that’s how I would phrase it. Um
[1:42:45] Michelle: So if I were to say like verse 63 I can read it if you want. It’s just my particular favorite verse of the whole thing, you know, but um if I were to read that verse, would you say it’s like 9010 Joseph God 5050. Where, where do you want
[1:43:04] Don Bradley: given to Him to bear the souls of men in the eternal world?
[1:43:07] Michelle: But if either of the 10 virgins after she has 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 fill, fulfill the promise which was given by God before the foundation of the world and for their exultation in the eternal worlds for that um that they bear the souls of men for herein is the work of my father continued that he may be glorified. So I, I like that verse. We could just go with the first half of it, right? But if, if, if one of either of the 10 virgins that have been given to him in the previous verse, after she has a spouse 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. So God
[1:43:53] Don Bradley: Joseph, I would have so I would have points of disturbance and points of critique in this verse as with others. Uh in 132 I, the way that I view it, I guess isn’t just that like a certain part is sort of like all Joseph or all God.
[1:44:23] Michelle: This is why I’m asking, let me clarify this matters and this is where I get intense. Is this how God views women? That’s the question is this how God views women? And we, we keep so like, like pandering around it. And you know, this is the verse that President Nelson referenced in his very first. Um um what do you call it press conference as the new president of the church? Right? It’s like what’s going on because we’ve really ignored it before that. So that brought it back into the forefront like, like I, I just want to know we as a people is this who we say God is that matters. So
[1:45:04] Don Bradley: you’re saying to help me understand. So you’re saying like specifically in this verse, that the idea that they’re given to a man. So so, so we can have a whole group of women
[1:45:18] Michelle: given unto him by this law, we cannot commit adultery for they belong to him and they are given unto him. Therefore, it’s justified. But if one of the 10 virgins commit adultery, she’s committed, then she shall be destroyed. That, that, that, that’s just one, one little encapsulation of this concept of this perspective. It’s not wording, it’s not language. It is what are women, what are men and what are women and how do they interact with one another correctly according to God.
[1:45:48] Don Bradley: So are, are men and women equals who come together on a kind of equal footing and there is a fit between them, there’s a synergy between them and this is how it is between like our heavenly parents and this is what they want for us or is it like you have a whole group of women who belong to a particular man and they’re given to him to like create a bunch of Children and sort of that’s his glory or their glory or, or
[1:46:24] Michelle: yeah, and more
[1:46:24] Don Bradley: sort of framing to alternative viewpoints. So my viewpoint would be the first.
[1:46:33] Michelle: So this is not from God. So you would reject at least these verses and say these are not, this does not represent the mind of God, can we at least agree on that portion?
[1:46:42] Don Bradley: So I would say that to the extent that what I just characterized in the second statement, second alternative is what this is saying that I would see that as more coming from the human aspect here than the divine aspect. Yes, I don’t see that. I don’t see that as a good description of how God views women.
[1:47:10] Michelle: OK. I, I think it matters because this is currently in our canonized scriptures, right? As I talked about in that episode, um we haven’t lived, I think 101 was canonized according to um common consent and was in the doctrine and covenants until 8, 1980. And so only for 10 years, 1880. Thank you. Anyway, so this is, this wasn’t put in by common consent. It wasn’t, it didn’t follow the same procedure. It wasn’t, you know that that wasn’t removed by common. So we haven’t been following the procedures of the church. And I think the reason this matters is because so many people, both men and women read this and think this is how God views men and women. So this is how I should view men and women like men read that and adopt it. Women read that and are devastated and that’s why it matters, right? So when we, when we kind of soft pedal around it, we don’t, we don’t do what we need to do. I mean, this is, this is when I say I’m, I’m offended by this perspective of God, this is part of what I’m talking about because, because this is in, this is now canonized, not by common consent, not according to the law of the church, not done correctly, but since it’s canonized, right, the fruits of it follow. And that’s what we see in early Mormon polygamy. And that’s what we see ongoing in fundamentalist communities and, and, and even just in attitudes because people who even aren’t living polygamy but are expecting to someday both men and women. It does really bad things, it twists people’s souls in negative ways.
[1:48:48] Don Bradley: Yes. Yes, yes. So, so an analogy. So um it has been pointed out that the Canon of Scripture and this is mostly pointed out by people just whose canon is the Bible, right? But it applies for the whole latter day Saint Cannon as well. It’s been pointed out that the Canon of Scripture contains a number of terrible acts of violence and that to the extent that that is canonical and therefore seen as divine. That that’s problematic because it can encourage people to think that such violence is OK. We have slavery in the Old Testament.
[1:49:32] Michelle: Can I speak to that last point? I don’t want to interrupt you. I just wanted to bring that into the, into this discussion. Exactly what you said. Those acts of violence being in our scriptures is troubling, right? Like the concubine in the city of Gaia is a really troubling story that I don’t like. And when people use that to, in any positive way, I want to know what they’re talking about. Right. But, um, but for example, Ogden Kraut, he’s one of the main, um polygamy scholars. But as I looked in and studied more, I realized all he’s doing is Echoing Orson Pratt, he’s just regurgitating Orson Pratt’s
[1:50:11] Don Bradley: arguments. One of the main Mormon fundamentalist authors
[1:50:14] Michelle: advocating, yes, I’m sorry, he’s, he’s II I, I’m thinking of what I’m going to say. So I don’t have my words coming out. Right. Yes, he’s, he’s the script and the, he’s written many, many books defending polygamy scripturally relying primarily on Orson Pratt’s arguments. He goes in depth in at least one of his books that might be polygamy in the Bible or something else talking about, like as evidence of how much God loves polygamy is that when they were, when the He doesn’t use the word, I will use that when they were commanded to go do these genocides, they weren’t supposed to kill the little girls and that so all of these valiant soldiers could have additional wives because God wanted to honor them and God polygamy so much that’s horrific, horrific. We are talking about little traumatized girls whose entire family murdered and then they were raped. That’s what we’re
[1:51:06] Don Bradley: defending and they have to spend their whole lives that way.
[1:51:10] Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. Well, unless they’re rejected, there are rules about how the guy gets to decide if he wants to keep her or not after he’s raped her. Right. There are rules about like, like all of that is unacceptable and we have embraced it more than any other religion. Right? And, and are still defending it in this polygamous mindset. So, that’s right. So, I agree with you completely.
[1:51:33] Don Bradley: Right. So there are things like that that are in the canon of scripture that are stomach turning, right? Like they make you want to vomit, right?
[1:51:40] Michelle: Except that we have the polygamists embrace them and he has like three exclamation points after each sentence. How excited he is about this. So sorry, it is stomach turning it,
[1:51:52] Don Bradley: it’s horrible. So then this raises larger questions for people who have a canon of scripture that has things in it that are morally problematic and in some cases, far more than just morally problematic. That’s a deep understatement like here, right? So um I,
[1:52:17] Michelle: yeah, I don’t see this is another part of that. Like I understand this argument, but I don’t see an equivalency because the Old Testament is how many thousands of years old came from, what sources has been reworked in what ways defending what cultural practices and what kingdom and right. So it’s we can expect it to be problematic and we can each decide how to deal with that. 1, 32 came in 1852. It was abhorrent at the time to the entire society. It cannot be defended as some ancient thing that is problematic. We just have to figure out how to interpret it. It is said to be current modern revelation directly from God. And I would say that most, I appreciate that you’re willing to view it. And I would, even if you don’t say it directly, I would say that it sounds to me like you’re condemning parts of it at least. right? And um like the verses we just read and it’s, it’s coming, I would say that most Mormons won’t many, many members of the church have a problem doing that because it’s canonized. So we think we have to accept it and grapple with it, but it doesn’t, it’s not the same as the Old Testament because it’s new and it was in opposition to the society, the entire society was horrified at what Brigham Young was doing, right? And so, so it can’t be justified. We can’t equate it to the Old Testament and say, oh, they’re kind of the same. It’s a problem in both. This is
[1:53:44] Don Bradley: far worse. We can, so we can point out how these instances are different, right? So we can point out that like in the case of some of these laws that are given in the Old Testament and narratives that are given in the Old Testament, there are absolutely horrendous things that occur and that are described and that are prescribed, right? And so, um then because there’s such a time distance between us and the reported events because there’s such a time distance between us and the text. And so we don’t know who wrote the text necessarily how it was changed over time. It might be easier to grapple with those things and say, well, that reflected the culture at the time or that was some sort of interpolation into the text. So I, I,
[1:54:35] Michelle: we don’t view it as an errant, right? So,
[1:54:39] Don Bradley: so I see the, so I do see the differences that you’re pointing out, right? I al I also think that where there is a commonality is that these are, these things are all in our canon of scripture. And so that is the same, whether other things are the same or not. So to me, there are larger questions about so, so there, the book of Mormon is also, right? Like it’s talking about events in an ancient context. It is modern Latter day Saints scripture. But when it talks about like the Lamanites being cursed with the skin of blackness and this was to make them abhorrent or whatever, this is deeply problematic stuff that’s in restoration scripture. So I don’t think restoration scripture is free of like difficult things. We have things in the canon that are, are distasteful and morally repugnant and should be morally repugnant to us. And so then what do we do with the fact that they’re in the canon? So I’m just saying for me personally, when I look at things that I have a problem with in DNC 132, I see it as part of a larger problem of problematic and morally repugnant things in scripture rather than just like sort of a one off event where this occurs in 132. But nowhere else. That’s, that’s, that’s all I’m saying.
[1:56:18] Michelle: OK, I can appreciate that. I, and I would push back on um a couple of things because I do think that the point that this is a morally reprehensible scripture brought forward in 1852. And you know, is it makes it very different than the Bible that we inherited, right? And then also I would push back on your um inter in, in your um way of viewing the racism in the book of Mormon. I think that I highly, highly recommend the work of Marvin Perkins. I think he’s done beautiful work on this. And um he’s been on this channel, I think he’s great. And also, II I think you, I think you would find it interesting how he points to it actually is consistent with Old Testament idioms that would have been about the same time job is described as having a skin of blackness. There are other times that, that in Jeremiah as well and it’s talking about a dejected or a darkened or a depressed or a suffering state where, where a light countenance is, is used in that way, not to talk about race, but to talk about other, other aspects of humans. And I think that’s useful and also I think it’s useful to recognize, like, for example, in Jacob two and three, the book of Mormon in so many ways is an anti racist books. It condemns the nephites for being racist. So I, again, like I hear what you’re saying. I just don’t think that there’s equivalency between these things. I think 132 is, is quite unique in its badness.
[1:57:49] Don Bradley: Well, I, I don’t think it’s unique in its badness. And so we, we would on
[1:57:55] Michelle: that, I guess I’m saying the Old Testament has plenty of awful stuff in it. The New Testament has some, in my opinion, stuff that I don’t resonate with at all that I do not think came from God. Right. But, but we didn’t, we didn’t add those things to our scriptures in 1880. Sure. That’s, that’s, I guess what I mean? You know, that’s something we can. At least we didn’t claim that God spoke that in the modern world and here it is for us. So, ok, so should we, now that we’ve talked all this time, should we go to Abraham and Jacob? Are you still up to continuing?
[1:58:30] Don Bradley: Ok. I mean, maybe, I don’t know if this, trying to think if this analogy would help. Um
[1:58:37] Michelle: Yeah, go for it.
[1:58:38] Don Bradley: I mean, I think in, I think it’s, is it moroi chapter nine. Uh There’s like a letter that I might be getting it wrong. Um where like Mormon is writing to Moon and he talks about, he’s actually, he’s talking about the depredations that the Nephites committed against the Lamanites, particularly the Lamanites women. You’re
[1:59:04] Michelle: good, you know, your scripture as well. Yeah, it looks like it is a Maronite night
[1:59:08] Don Bradley: and it says like that they deprive them of that, which was most precious above all other things which is chastity or virtue. Now like the clear intent here in the passage is to like defend women, right? That the clear intent is to say how terrible it is that they would do something so horrendous to these women, right? It’s to show what a low level they had sunk to that’s preceding their destruction, right? But the the language that it’s clothed in in order to make that very positive point is such that it actually suggests that women can be forcibly deprived of what is most valuable about them. So for survivors of sexual abuse, this iii I know from talking to some sorry. Now that’s what, but this is a really painful thing, right? And so I do look at scripture even where there are things in scripture that are very they have maybe a positive basis to them or intention. There can be things in scripture that cause a great deal of pain. There can be things in scripture that are off in various ways and I’m not saying that’s equivalent to I’m not trying to say that’s equivalent to certain things in 132. I’m just trying to say, I’m just trying to give my larger perspective that like scripture has things in it that are problematic scripture as a whole. And so for me, there’s just an issue of what do we do with the fact that we have things in our canon of scripture that cause pain or that sometimes are distasteful or morally repugnant. You know, what, what do we do with that? And so then that’s where, that’s the kind of place that my mind goes when I look at something like 132. And so we can, we can talk, we can argue about, you know, is there really an equivalence, a full equivalence? And, and that’s not, I mean, that’s, that’s not, I guess something that I would try to demonstrate that somehow there is a full equivalent here. Um But I, but I do think when, when I just answer for myself personally, when I look at difficult things in 132 that’s the kind of frame that I’m bringing is, hey, I see this kind of, I, I see different problematic things in scripture more generally. How do I deal with that right now? Now, the our, our restoration cousins, the community of Christ, actually, um they have come up with their own way of dealing with it, you know, they’ve kept adding to their doctrine. Covenants in their section. I think it was 163 several years ago from their President Steven Vesey, who is now being replaced by actually uh um Stacy, a cram, a woman uh prophetess, um female prophet. Um uh the revelation actually talks about scripture and it says things in scripture cannot be used to justify discrimination or inequality. And so you kind of have four members of the community of Christ. This is part of their way. How do they deal with difficult things within their canon of scripture? Will they have more scripture that says to them, sort of like meta scripture. It’s scripture about scripture, that’s saying, well, the way that we deal with difficult things in script is if it’s oppressive to people, we don’t use it as some sort of precedent or basis. We reject that in light of higher principles in scripture and scripture. Definitely, there’s an idea, it’s a very old idea. Um and at least protestantism and it may go back further. But like there’s an idea of what they call like a canon within the canon. So not everything within the canon is equally canonical, it’s all in the canon. But like words of Jesus are gonna hold more weight than the words of Leviticus or, or, or the words of anybody probably, right. But like the words of Jesus are gonna hold more weight than the words of Alma or you know,
[2:03:21] Michelle: Song of Solomon faith. Yeah.
[2:03:23] Don Bradley: And so, and so there are sort of higher principles within the canon that can be used maybe to judge le lesser lower things within the canon, right? And say no, that’s not, that’s not right because we have this higher principle to judge by. Um So I see, I see like a lot of complexity in our canon of scripture. I don’t think that I actually don’t think that everything in the canon, like I, I do think like the Bogor says, there are mistakes of man, I do think that there are things in scripture that don’t fit with each other that sometimes they jar um and sort of what, what do we do with that as believers, right? What do we do with that as well? For me, it’s part of a reflection of the larger complexity of the world. God, God has made an extraordinarily complex world. And when we want to understand that um like a lot of people leave a lot of people that I’ve observed, lose their faith because of the idea that everything is simple. Like, like I grew up hearing and I hear still over the pulpit. Well, the gospel is just so perfectly simple and that’s how we know that it’s true. And then people study into church history or they find complexities in doctrine or scripture or things about. They look at like LGBT Q issues and they find complexities and went on there. It’s not simple. Therefore, it’s not true, right? And, and, and I think about that and I think, well, when we study astronomy, when we study the world, we expect complexity. When we study organic chemistry, we expect complexity. When we study sociology or economics, we expect complexity. But then we think that when we’re talking about the God that created all of that, we expect total simplicity. No, that’s not how it works. That the complexity of the world should be an indicator to us that there’s going to be complexity all over God has made a complex world. I find complexity in the world. I find complexity in the human world. I find complexity in scripture and religion. I and so and so I um that’s just kind of part of my approach.
[2:05:37] Michelle: Yeah, I actually love that. Thank you so much for sharing all of that. I think that that is really beautiful and profound and I’m really glad you shared nau 999 because I think it’s good for us to be more aware of pain points that can be triggered like, you know, from people’s individual experience. I think that’s really useful. I have, I have in the past read this as someone trying to have compassion for the victims and, and yeah, but, but, but I think that is one of those different words would have been helpful there. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, so OK, thank you for, thank you for explaining all of that. I really do appreciate it. Yeah. Ok.
[2:06:21] Don Bradley: Um Abraham and Jacob and Jacob and Jacob. How’s that? Ok. That’s great Jacobs for the price of one. So, um, forget Abraham Isaac and Jacob, we’ll do Abraham Jacob and Jacob.
[2:06:33] Michelle: So you will, you will agree that that’s a mistake that, so,
[2:06:37] Don Bradley: so I will agree that the Bible doesn’t say anything at all about Isaac practicing polygamy and it does not make it look at all as though he practiced polygamy. It just mentions one wife.
[2:06:47] Michelle: OK. All right.
[2:06:49] Don Bradley: Um So my, yeah, my guess in 132 would be that Abraham Isaac and Jacob is such a common. That’s what I think formula that, that’s why it gets employed there rather than specifically because Isaac is supposed to be a polygamist.
[2:07:05] Michelle: And I don’t think that Brigham Young knew his scriptures that well, but that was a joke. OK. Continue on. He said he didn’t take time to read the Bible and I think he had help. Do we get? But I think he was involved. OK. But I think you’re exactly right. It’s just Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs. They were polygamous, therefore, polygamy. Yeah.
[2:07:22] Don Bradley: Right. Right. Right. So Abraham and Jacob, so you talked in your um so, so with Jacob, if I understand you correctly and I’ll go back to Abraham with Jacob, you see polygamy in the form of like concubinage, right? These, these women are like these,
[2:07:42] Michelle: not with Leah and Rachel, but with ZPA and Bill High. I think that’s pretty clear. Yes.
[2:07:47] Don Bradley: Ok. So they are the, the situation with each of them is that they’re the women who are their sort of masters. Um uh Rachel and Leah. Um are they? Well, Rachel can’t bear a child uh initially. And so she gives her husband, her handmaid to bear Children for her by proxy. So this is kind of a female parallel to like the Leverett Law for males in a way where one woman is supposed to without the whole death thing, right? But like one woman is supposed to be able to act as a sort of proxy for another woman. This was a cultural practice where
[2:08:33] Michelle: I don’t think it’s related to love marriage. I don’t see it that way. I think it’s just the surrogacy. I think that when you had a slave, that’s what
[2:08:39] Don Bradley: I’m saying is that the surrogacy is what they have in common. I’m not saying otherwise related.
[2:08:44] Michelle: Yeah, I think, I mean, it’s the same as Abram. Um What were they, Sai Abram and Sarai at the time that this happened that um that since Hagar was a slave that was given to her in Egypt, she possessed her, they owned her body, right? And so they could use her as a surrogate to create a child for them. And Rachel and Leah Rachel was loved, but Leah was able to have Children, both of them like that’s where we get the word Sarah, that’s where we get these horrible knowing how awful these things are. Right? And so Rachel wanted to have Children. So she employed her slave the same way Leah wanted to be l so it became, I call them, I call the the concubines weapons of mass reproduction in this arms race between these two women vying for the love of their husband.
[2:09:32] Don Bradley: They were and they were vying for the love of their husband. And it’s an extraordinarily, I mean, anyone who thinks that this story is a kind of role model story needs to read the story. It’s a story of immense emotional pain. You have, you know, a woman who is infertile, who because of that, she feels like she needs to purchase the love of her husband by giving him uh her, her slave, her handmaid as uh a polygamous wife so that she can have Children for him. So that then he will love her because she has Children for him while she’s competing with her sister for who can give him the most Children. And and then that the sister Leah is unloved, she’s she’s the unfav wife. And so she’s desperate to produce as many Children as she can personally. And then by giving him her handmaid like so, so it’s a, it’s a story of sort of like perpetual heartbreak. And so it’s, it’s uh and these that the women are of different statuses, right? They, that some women are above other women in this order of things, hierarchy. And so there’s just sort of like pain all the way around here. It’s, it’s not a happy story at
[2:10:51] Michelle: all, right? And just like Lame was polygamy was introduced originally by Lame, right? This was introduced by the extremely corrupt, horrible father is layman, right?
[2:11:05] Don Bradley: That I think he was actually their brother. I thought it was
[2:11:11] Michelle: but he um I mean, I could look it up but, but I’m just saying it was not like doctor in the covenants multiple times says that both Abraham and Isaac and Jacob says that they were commanded by God. That’s ridiculous. That’s utterly ridiculous. And to imply that God would want this is ridiculous. Right? So, so um the grandparents Abraham and so, and um Sarah had the same problem that Rachel and um I am losing my names that Jacob and is it Rachel would have had? Right? But with Rachel, it was compounded because at least Sarah didn’t have to see her husband having Children with her sister that neither of them liked, right? That was compounded. It was worse because of what Laban did. So and so so I, I anyway, so yeah, it makes everything worse. And even so um Masa after proposing that her slave as a surrogate, it was too horrible, right? And it ended up in child abandonment. There was no covenant, there was no commandment. So I guess that’s part of it is like these are terribly tragic stories that make our hearts break. And yet again, just like, just like with the genocides in the Old Testament 132 elevates them and glorifies them and prescribes them as in how God wants it to be and how it should be for all of us.
[2:12:40] Don Bradley: So um yeah, very tragic story, stories of deep human pain. Um and then you look at um I mean, the story of Sarah and Hagar, right, a similarly distressing set of events. I know that in your. So, so you said that um like Bill Han Zoa are definitely like, well, and I mean, Ra Rachel Leah, Bill Han Zopa are all clearly in the story. They’re all married to Jacob. So this is polygamy. These are plural wives, Bill Han Zoa are given given to, you know, Abraham by their respective mistresses masters uh uh Rachel and Leah. And um so in the case of Abraham and Hagar, I know in the uh anniversary episode, you said that this wasn’t even polygamy. Hagar is not actually like a wife if I understood
[2:13:40] Michelle: you. I don’t, I think it’s incorrect to refer to Abraham as a polygamist in any way that we would recognize because, well, one thing I just want to add in, I think is interesting as you said, accurately that Leah and Rachel and Sarah gave their handmaids to their husbands. That’s because they were theirs to give because they owned them, they were their possession, right? And so again, it’s interesting that 132 incorporates that in verse 4034 where it says God commanded Abram and Sarah gave Hagar to Abram to wife. And then it goes on to have the law of Sarah, which is that a woman has to give another wife to her husband. And it misses the point that those women, tho those slave girls were theirs to give because they owned them, right? So I just, I just wanted to point out another problem in 132. But yes, go ahead. I, I guess the reason I would say that Abraham wasn’t as a polygamist. He was obeying deferring to the wishes of his wife according to the culture and the law at that time that you could use a slave as a surrogate to have a baby for them. The baby was never meant to be Hagar’s baby. Sarah says maybe she will have a baby for us for, you know, they were going to take the baby and have it be theirs. And so, and then once she conceived, she was Abram, never Abraham never treated her as a wife. He intentionally said to Sarah, no, you’re in charge. She’s your slave. Her status remains Sarah’s slave. And then um she never conceived again. It was not ongoing, right? It was just um if they had had a better technology, they would, you’d have used a better technology. The goal was a child. That was it. So it was surrogacy. And you know, I’ve referred to it before as sex slavery. She, she was a slave who they had sexual access to and could claim the fruit of her womb. So, yeah, so anyway, that’s my perspective on it,
[2:15:34] Don Bradley: right? Again, so again, a horrible story, right? There’s, there’s a clear hierarchy of human beings here where Hagar is definitely under and owned by sai. Um And so, um yeah, disturbing narrative right now, I, I would see. Um so, so if what Jacob is doing in um being given Bill Han Zoa uh to bear sort of proxy Children by, for Rachel and Leah, then I would see Abraham practicing polygamy by parallel. If the one’s polygamy, I would see the other as polygamy, but it’s definitely not in either case, the case of Hagar h it is, it’s not monogamy.
[2:16:25] Michelle: OK. I think
[2:16:27] Don Bradley: we’re trying to establish the idea that like there’s a sort of consistency of monogamy, right? In scripture. Well, there, there’s not and there, there’s not in the case of Abraham. And I will acknowledge that in the biblical stories, it’s not saying God told these men to marry these wives. And so 132 would seem to posit sort of an alternate version of these narratives, right, where there was like actually divine command along with whatever else is happening, but that’s definitely not something that these stories are saying and the stories themselves are tragic human stories. They’re not, when I look at these stories, they do nothing to make me want to imitate them.
[2:17:15] Michelle: Right. That, that portion I think, I think the thing I was trying to say with Abraham, like, and maybe it’s not an important point because Jacob absolutely was a polygamist but Abraham didn’t continue. It wasn’t like even with Jacob, he bore multiple Children with each of those concubines. Abraham just wanted ac like Sarah, so Sarah Sarai just wanted a surrogate. It wasn’t even Abraham that wanted it. So that’s why I say like like that’s a, that’s a difficult case because it wasn’t like he had multiple wives, you know, he was using a surrogate and then that was the only purpose and then didn’t bear another child with her and then even abandoned her at he, he, he consistently um consented to do what his wife asked him to do, right? But he did not in any way see himself and, and in addition, it didn’t add to their glory. I I think this is part of why Abraham and Jacob were not condemned in Jacob two is because neither of them wanted it. Neither of them saw that both of them were, I would say victims of public me more than anything else. These two men, neither of them saw in any way as a way to glorify themselves and neither of them ever engaged in unrighteous Dominion. Both of them were completely um I, I, they hearkened to the wishes of their wives, right? Like, like the wives of Jacob would even tell him who, like who he was sleeping with that night based on their own, their own plans. And so I think that that is very, very different than David and Solomon who are condemned and very, very different than the Mormon polygamists.
[2:18:51] Don Bradley: Yes. I, I think there are hosts of differences. I think that you’re right about that. And I, so as I look at these stories with the caveat that these are tragic stories, right? These are not, these don’t look like great role model stories. These are tragic stories um is nonetheless, I don’t see that. Well, let me take a step back maybe. So um when Orson Pratt laid out his defense of polygamy starting in 1852 like at length in 1852 is like scriptural defense of polygamy and then later sermons in the journal of discourses defending polygamy. He makes it sound like this. The scriptures are just consistent on teaching polygamy. And he says, you can’t show me one passage in the scriptures that in the Bible that opposes polygamy. And he says that, you know, if any book of scripture could be said to condemn polygamy be the book of Mormon. But then he says, but there’s a proviso, right? With, with the, you know, which we’ll talk about, but like um there’s this loophole. So um he wants to have this view of the scriptures where the scriptures are absolutely uniform in what they say about marriage and it’s all polygamy all the time. Right. And that as, as, as we’ve discussed scriptures today, that’s just so clearly not the case, right? Um I would feel like I was making the opposite, the same kind of error in the opposite direction. If I were to say no, the scriptures are just absolutely univocal on monogamy. They don’t leave any sort of room for polygamy. Hm I don’t see that. I mean, Abraham, this is a tragic story, but who is Abraham when the New Testament? He’s the father of the faithful. He’s not just the progenitor of the Jews. He’s like this model for the Christians. Now that doesn’t, I’m not saying that means this means Christians are supposed to practice polygamy or have a surrogate for the an infertile woman or, or whatever I’m saying, if polygamy was that bad? If polygamy was satanic or something, why is it that like the Old Testament role model for Christians in the letters of Paul is this guy who he wasn’t, he’s not a straight up monogamist or when, when God is choosing similarly, when God is choosing the house of Israel right now. Now you, you talked about and it’s just the plainest thing in the world like Jacob’s Sons, they’re a freaking mess, right? They do the number of terrible things that they do is like without question Right. And so it’s not, the idea is not, well, they did these terrible things so we should do them too. Right. But the fact that Jacob’s family was formed like he has, why does he have the 12 sons that he has? Where do the 12 tribes of Israel come from? He come from this polygamous marriage. So if polygamy is like this, like if it’s like sort of the satanic counterfeit to God’s true order of marriage, then God used a really funny way of producing his chosen people like the, the 12 tribes in the first place. So, so that, that, and, and, and, and then I think like, well, if, if polygamy again, if it’s that bad, if it’s like Satanic, then I would expect that the Bible would have like explicit, like forbidding of hold. And so I just, I don’t see sort of like I was saying earlier about the world is complex. There are contradictions and complexities and contradictions in scripture. I think it would be possible to make a case that monogamy is like the standard. But then like, but then there are these complexities regarding that I see regarding polygamy. So I don’t see it as just like, well, it’s the, the canon of Scripture is all polygamous or the canon of Scripture is all monogamous. I actually think that there’s more complexity and even contradiction in it. That’s, that’s,
[2:23:08] Michelle: yeah, I think that’s really fair and I guess, I guess I have a couple of thoughts and it’s, it’s a um let me see the best way to approach it. OK. So here are a couple of things, God deals with us in our cultures, right? God deals with us in our circumstances and none of us is perfect, right? The question is, how do we do in the circumstances we are given? Right? And so God doesn’t wait. Well, like if, if we believe, I mean, I hear, I hear you saying this about, about Abraham and Jacob. But I find it fascinating that you’re using it kind of to defend polygamy especially. We already, we already said how that Abraham and Jacob have absolutely nothing in common with freedom, young and Hebrew J Grand and Dia Grand and John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff. Nothing is the same about their circumstances, right? But in addition, Abraham and Jacob and Isaac all had slaves, right? That was their culture. And um and so I guess the question, isn’t, does that mean that God is cool with slavery? Or is the question, can we, can we hope that they were people who treated that, that they were in that situation in those circumstances? Did they do the best they could in those circumstances? Right? So I would say Abraham was in this horrible circumstance where his they were childless. He was being given all of these promises about his posterity in my reading of it. I imagine that Sarai was heartbroken feeling like she was, you know, that was a woman’s only worth, I think it would be hard. It’s hard for women who want Children today to not have them. And that day that was her purpose and she felt, you know, so it’s very easy for me to see how suffering they were and how they were trying so hard to do their best in these impossible circumstances. This is what I don’t think there’s a bad guy in this story. I think it’s humans trying. Right? And so um yes, it is. It is. And it’s a, it’s a we should instead of blaming or abuse, we should empathize. Right? And so I think that um how Abraham navigated that human story that he had, it tells us more about how God works with us. None of us can be free from the blood and sins of our generation. All of us have cultural taint on us, right? None of us can be, can be perfect for what God wants us to be. Jacob was put in this horrible situation where his chosen wife, his, the wife that he knew he was supposed to marry and who he was in love with couldn’t be his right. And so and so people say, well he chose to marry Rachel. Yes he did because he was tricked into this situation and he suffered it. But do you know what he never did? He didn’t exercise unrighteous opinion. He didn’t glory in it. He didn’t, right? Like I think he navigated it incredibly well. And for me, that gives a lot of comfort to all of us that the circumstances of our lives may not be ideal. We may come from all different kinds of circumstances, all of us face them, right? How do we navigate them is the question? And so I, I like, like for example, in, in Mormon, I was always raised believing that our founding fathers were chosen by God that it speaks of them in the book of Mormon that George Washington and others were righteous spirits, you know, preordained to do the things that they did, they were born into the slave culture. But if you look at the writings of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and others, how much they despised it and wanted a better system, but there wasn’t an easy way out of it, right? They couldn’t just free there. I mean, I don’t want to get into difficult situations that people haven’t. I mean difficult topics that people haven’t studied, but they were trapped in these awful situations. So the question is like, like for example, if, if a polygamist family today, you know, learned these things and read the scriptures and saw something different, the question isn’t like the question is, what do you do now that you know more, how do you navigate it now? How can you walk with God? Right? And so, so that’s what I think that’s how I would answer that question. I don’t think we should look at that at all to say, oh, look, God’s totally cool with POY because then we also have to say God’s totally cool with slavery at the very least, including sex slavery, right? And which, which it’s really troubling that doctrine of covenants section 132 verse one talks about the principle and doctrine of concubines, especially when you consider that this is coming to a slave America. And what would a concubine have been in America at that period? It would have been a slave that is that a master had sexual access to, right? Like, like anyway, so I, so that’s why I get a little intense about it just because it’s like these were incredibly good men navigating their situation. So we should look at how they navigated their situation, not try to justify ourselves in glorifying the hardest parts of their lives and saying that’s how it should be. Right. Right. Right.
[2:28:02] Don Bradley: Right. Right. Right. Right. So, so people can look at and have looked at like, let’s say the story of Jacob uh like in Ogden Krauts book, like um pull Me In the Bible um to say like, well, this is, this is how we’re supposed to live. This is they try to make a positive case for polygamy as like ideal using the story, which is actually a very tragic human story. Right? So that’s not what I’m saying that’s not, I’m trying to do, I’m not trying to make a positive case for polygamy. I do acknowledge like you’re saying that like I was saying about revelation itself, my view of it is, it’s like a divine human collaboration. Well, so is all of sacred history. So, so like what’s going on with that? The, the sacred figures in the Bible, like Abraham or Jacob or Peter and Paul or whoever, right is a sort of divine human collaboration. These are human beings working with God, sort of doing their best and sometimes making mistakes and being influenced by their culture. And obviously, we all our culture is our starting point. It’s the material we it’s sort of the pre-existing material that we create from necessarily because that’s what we have to work with the same, the same is true for us as for them, right? And um so my thought here is in addition to the obvious, like human error, human suffering, human culture, I get curious like if polygamy, if we’re saying theologically, well, not only is polygamy, not like sort of the invariant divine standard and what you have to do to be exalted. And these, these biblical stories show it if we’re and, and if, instead of saying that we’re saying like the opposite, like monogamy is the invariant divine standard polygamy is this satanic um counterfeit, then why did, then I, then what I wanna know is not just why did Jacob end up with multiple wives. But why did God because God in the Bible and scripture is seen as an active agent in shaping human events. And so why like, I don’t know if, if polygamy is so bad as to be like anti-god like satanic, then why does God use a polygamist family to start his chosen nation of Israel? Those 12 tribes? I mean, it’s not like you’re gonna have the same 12 Children from like, like one particular wife as you get from these four women, like, like genetically or otherwise, right? And so I i it’s not, it’s not a, I’m not saying it’s, it’s not a positive argument for why people should practice polygamy. I guess it’s just pointing out like a sort of hesitation that I have in saying, well, it’s sort of all monogamy all the time and everything else is of Satan.
[2:31:08] Michelle: So, can I respond? So, a couple of a couple of thoughts, first of all, I, I definitely wouldn’t say that. I mean, I wouldn’t say polygamy is satanic because that implies that polygamists are all Satan worshippers or, you know, I, I would say that God established God God’s way and then God’s establishment is corrupt in this fallen. But God’s, it’s a corruption of God’s established, perfect form of God’s establishment and commanded form of marriage. That’s what I’d say. It’s a corruption, not necessarily a satanic, right? But, and then a couple of things that I think are interesting. I think the reason that you’re asking this and we’re having this conversation is does stem from section 132 and Mormon polygamy. Because what I don’t hear you saying is, well, like later we hear you asking the same questions about slavery, for example, right? And I don’t think you would want to say, you know what like slavery really? I, well, I will say this polygamists. I I’m sorry if I’m offending anyone. It’s just true. Polygamists hold to all of Brigham Young’s doctrines and defenders of polygamy that also elevate bri because a lot of people in the LDS church still really defend polygamy. They also hold to Brigham’s recent um teachings on race and they’re extremely racist, right? And for some reason, our society has said, no, we’re not OK with that. Our church has said we’re not OK with that. So most polygamists don’t speak freely about their ideas on race, but they do still about their ideas on men and women and polygamy, right? So I guess I would say, do you have the same question about slavery because of Jacob and Abraham? Are you like, well, clearly God’s OK with it because he chose them? You get what I’m saying or
[2:32:48] Don Bradley: so. So I guess that’s a very good question and a very good point. So, I guess um I mean, first I would say that clearly God’s OK with it isn’t something that I said, right? Like what I was saying, I’m sort of countering the idea that like polygamy. But I thought I heard in your anniversary episode when you were talking specific way you raise it. Um When you were talking initially about lame e and I thought you were generalizing it to say that polygamy is satanic. And so I would
[2:33:27] Michelle: say it’s satanic in the same way that slavery is Satanic. I, I just mean, it’s a corruption of what God established. So you,
[2:33:33] Don Bradley: so your point about um like the wives, some of the wives being in wives involved here. So, so the topic we’ve had under discussion was polygamy, not slavery, right? So, obviously, my mind has gone specifically in the scriptures about polygamy not addressing slavery as such. But you raise a good point. But in this story, um Bill Han Zoa are handmaids. Apparently slaves. I have not looked at the, the underlying Hebrew, but presumably the meaning here is that they were slaves of Rachel and Leah. Um And so, uh if that is part of how uh Jacob’s family is being formed, um would we have to like um condone or say slavery must not be that bad? That’s, that’s a, that’s a very good point that may, I would maybe before I’d say anything definitive, wanna think it through more rather than say on the spot. But that, that may be an effective counter to my reasoning that maybe on, on, on the, on God’s potential use of polygamy here to start Jacob’s family and start the house for Israel because I, I decidedly don’t think that slavery it is or ever has been OK. I, I do understand that it, it was so prevalent like you’re saying, but I think that the idea of a human being, owning another human being, like, like having a slave, right is simply reprehensible wherever it has occurred. Even if there are cultures where it, people just accepted it without question.
[2:35:22] Michelle: OK, I appreciate that. Thank you. II I think another thing like I kind of wanna take level that up just one point that as I look at the stories of Abraham and Jacob, I don’t see any more justification for claiming polygamy to be a highly, a high order of God a command than I do for slavery, right? Like poly, these were unfortunate cultural practices, right? That I think they’ve hopefully navigated very well. I believe Abraham was very good to his servants. I don’t think he was a awful slave master, right? However, it is, it is interesting that the polygamists looked at their stories and said we can use that to justify polygamy, right? And so that’s why I think it’s interesting that we’re having this discussion, I think that they are equivalents because they’re societal practices that were unfortunate. But um I would say that from the stories, we know that Jacob and Abraham went into polygamy less willingly than they went into slavery, right? That was part of their culture. And um and so anyway, I, I do think it’s interesting that we, like I said, try to elevate polygamy while not necessarily doing the same with slavery. However, Brigham Young did say, I want to say it was in 1852 January, maybe it was, I might have to check on that date. Did say that he knew through, he knew that poly, that slavery was of God. So he also was a big advocate of slavery. We we’re talking about African American slavery at this time in America. He’s not talking, you know, he, he at least didn’t take it to. It’s the highly highest holiest principle of the gospel and only men who own slaves or at least want to own slaves will be exalted, right? Which is what he did with polygamy. So, so yes, I appreciate that, that we can see the comparison between those two and and then I do think it’s interesting, you are very familiar with the story of Judah and Tamar. And people often will say God chose Jesus to come through this line. This is the house of Israel. So again, we would have to do the same thing with prostitution, right? And say clearly, God wants us all to practice prostitution because that’s the chosen line, right? That’s, that’s how it looks to me.
[2:37:32] Don Bradley: Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Now I did not come today prepared with like a comprehensive list of biblical, w my, my impression looking at this years ago, not recently was I did not get the sense that everyone in the Bible who was described as being polygamous was like a negative figure. Uh My impression was that there were positive figures. I didn’t see like divine commandments like prohibiting polygamy. And so because you have that practice but not um things prohibiting it. And it seemed like there were laws regulating it, maybe in the law of Moses, but not prohibiting it. Like, again, I’m not, you would be more up to date on different passages. But my point and all that would just be to say, like I was saying earlier, I don’t see for myself and I’m not here to make a case for the scriptures are like so in favor of polygamy or something that’s I, I just wanted to dialogue about this and, and the things that you had discussed and what you’re seeing in scripture and, and enter into a dialogue with that without trying to say, hey, I’m setting up on everything about polygamy in the scriptures. And I’m trying to make a case for something which I’m not. But I my sense is that there that, that, like I said earlier that there isn’t like a uniformity there. It’s the, the scripture that can, isn’t univocal on this that um people could understand, could have different understandings that there are complexities here where I think that it’s much more clear is in the book of Mormon specifically and you talked in that episode about um was it Noah and Rle, was that who
[2:39:31] Michelle: it was Noah and Reps
[2:39:34] Don Bradley: who were like respectively like Nephite and Jared Kings who had many wives and concubines, right? They’re, they’re very negative figures in the book of Mormon, their polygamy and their whole character and Reign as Kings is presented in a very negative way. So the book or does not provide us with any or argue, people might argue that the Bible presents us with role models who practice polygamy. No one can argue that the book of Mormon is presenting us with role models who practice polygamy, right? And so then we come to the the most, by far, the most targeted part of the book of Mormon when it comes to polygamy, Jacob chapter two. And this like section of scripture just has like such a complex history and of interpretation, right? And um you laid out different things about, you know, the sort of the inner relationship of different parts of this passage because it does start out talking about like, you know, um how you know this people like begin to uh however, it says that the air because they desire many wives and concubines like unto you know, David and Solomon, his son. And then it says, you know, uh it goes on to say that, you know, something like behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was a bond before me saith the Lord. And then it says like where like I think it’s talking about it’s the Lord has led this people out of the land of Jerusalem. So you drew the connection because there’s a connecting word there where that meaning therefore, right? So it’s saying like, well, David and Solomon practice polygamy. Well, then that therefore would indicate that Lehigh’s family being required to leave has something to do with the polygamy that had been practiced in Jerusalem, that harks back to David and Solomon and so on. Um So, and then if you kind of like, so, so um a difficulty that we have in our use of scripture, of course, is proof texting where we just pull a passage out of its context and we just deploy it. Well, this passage says this, well, no passage of scripture has its entire meaning contained just within a single verse. That verse is always part of a larger context, right? And so if um if we take a parable of Jesus where um we have, there are parables of Jesus where he presents like negative figures, right? Like a, a debtor who has been forgiven by his creditor but won’t forgive another debtor, right? So, so if we just quote the part where in, in that parable where the unforgiving debtor is speaking, we’re not, we, we can’t just quote that, oh, here are the words of Jesus do you see what I’m saying? Like like,
[2:42:41] Michelle: yes, I’m very familiar with this entire,
[2:42:44] Don Bradley: so there’s a context. So um well, I’m not Michelle, I’m not saying you’re not familiar with, you’re
[2:42:51] Michelle: saying that
[2:42:52] Don Bradley: right? I’m trying to use this as a way of talking about Jacob too in ways that you are familiar with and that you were talking about. So I apologize if that came across. I’m talking down to you. No, no, I think I’m actually trying to explain something surrounding what I see you doing with Jacob two in the episode is you’re not proof texting. You’re not just pulling a single verse out and saying, well, look, it says this, right? And so you rightly point out that um uh verse 30 which is used as the loophole for polygamy historically, the, the supervisor for polygamy um begins with the word for, right? So for like where it’s a connecting word. So it’s connecting it back with what had just been said, well, what had just been said was the commandments to have but you know, save it be one wife and, and no concubines and then talking about the curses that would happen if they don’t obey Lord’s commandments in the promised land. And so uh you pointed out that, that four is sometimes it’s like actually replaced, it’s either left out or it’s just replaced with the word, but which, but, and four have an opposite relationship to what comes prior, right? The one is
[2:44:07] Michelle: nevertheless, unless, but I’ve seen it replaced with any number of those
[2:44:12] Don Bradley: four means I’m telling you this because of what I just said. But I’m telling you this, in spite of what I just said, those are two entirely different relationships. They’re opposites. Right. And so I actually, when I, I have a lengthy manuscript on this, that I need to complete further and probably actually break into multiple articles where I’ve tried to do lengthy exegesis of Jacob two verse particularly verse 30. And I do think that there are some my word that I love her complexities to be discussed surrounding it. I nonetheless think that if we’re taking the passage in its textual context at face value, it doesn’t mean what it has been deployed to mean traditionally in support of polygamy. So um if um so in, in that passage, as you pointed out, you know, it says for if I will say the Lord of host race scene unto me, I will command my people otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. Well, so then the question is, what is, what’s the commandment and what’s the things? And you pointed out that things earlier in that passage refers to the things which were written concerning David and Solomon, right? So, so shall hearken. And this is like, people might actually need to look at the passage in order to like, I don’t know for me, if I hear somebody talking about details of how to interpret a passage. And I’m not looking at it that can be kind of difficult, but like the, so in that passage where it says others, so the traditional interpretation as you know, you know, because it’s saying like, um for, if I will say, if the Lord of host uh raise up soon to me, I would command my people. The assumption is I would command my people polygamy and that otherwise they shall hearken under these things is taken to refer back to the commandments of monogamy that he had just given when actually things like earlier referred to the things written concerning David and Solomon polygamy. Whereas what he had just commanded, which is the word used here, command was monogamy, right? And so the the most straightforward reading of verse 30 would be that it’s reiterating what has just been said rather than opposing, what had just been said and providing some kind of loophole against it, right? And so I think you pointed to uh first Nephi 71 where, you know Leigh’s family. So the idea in this traditional polygamous interpretation of verse 30 is um that God wasn’t commanding Leigh’s family to raise up seed under him. Well, where are we getting that idea? Because in verse 23 it says he brought them out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch to him. And in first Nephi 71 is it used, it’s the only place in scripture and this just heightens what you had said about it. It’s the actually the only place in scripture where the exact phrasing is used of verse 30. The, the raise up seed unto me or the the Lord, right? Like that, raise up seed unto the Lord is the language used in verse 9571 and then raise up seed unto me is the language used in um check at 2 32 30. And so, if we’re trying to understand one of these passages, surely we ought to look at the other because they’re the only ones using this exact language, you know, raise, raise up seed on to God. And so the, the Nephites Leighs had been commanded to raise up seed and God in first Nephi 71, and how were they commanded to do it? Well, they were sent back to get Ishmael’s family, which had the exact number of daughters that each unattached male in Leigh’s family needed in order to marry monogamously. So it looks for all the world here, like seed is being raised up to God in the promised land by Lehigh’s family through monogamy. And so that, and so then the um so, so I’m agreeing with your interpretation that the, that the most direct reading of this passage on its own internal logic would be that it’s reinforcing the pro monogamy um message, not like contradicting it or trying to provide a loophole in it. Um Seems like I had another thought. But, yeah. Ok.
[2:48:51] Michelle: Well, maybe it’ll come to you that I, I really appreciate that. I, so, do you agree that Jacob 230 is not a loophole that undermines the rest of Jacob sermon.
[2:49:03] Don Bradley: It’s, I don’t see it as a loophole. I think that the most straightforward reading it would not be a loophole. I think that, I think that it’s still and, and here’s, here’s presumably where we wouldn’t see this the same, right? But I do think that so Laity Saints seem to have had the idea that Jacob two has to provide a loophole or there’s no way there could be like polygamy in the restoration and that be OK. And uh so I think that the argument that would need to be made when the details of Jacob two are actually looked at um to figure out what it’s trying to say on its own merits would be that even though there’s not a loophole in the book of Mormon, that people would believe that somehow polygamy was later divinely commanded, even though Jacob Two doesn’t give a loophole. So I’m saying, I still see a way where someone could say polygamy commanded. But I don’t think that Jacob 230 read closely in its context provides a loophole for polygamy. And I actually think that another actually think that there’s further evidence that so, so coming out as a historian as well as like a, you know, someone who studies scripture, right? I see evidence that the earliest latter day saints were not interpreting it as a loophole. So I think that in light of later polygamy, the the later polygamy becomes a lens through which we have red Jacob 230. And so then it becomes difficult for us to see it any other way. If you know the I’m sure you know the familiar thing that Stephen cubby showed of like the the image that has actually like the old woman and the young woman in the same image. And then do you know what I’m talking about where the if people are primed by seeing an image of the young woman first, they will and they can only see the young woman, they can’t see the old woman. And if they’ve been primed with the image of the old woman, they can only see the old woman. And so they talk to each other and they think the others are crazy. What do you mean? You see a young woman? I see this old old woman. What do you see when you see it? Old woman? You know, like and so um we’ve been primed to see something and so of course, we see it. So then the question is, what is the texture saying on its own merits when we look at it up close? Um And then there’s a question historically, what did the earliest latter day saints see when they looked at it because I think the assumption has been, this gets translated by Joseph Smith. And everybody’s thinking, well, God’s against polygamy, but this is saying, unless he wants to raise up seed to him, then he’ll command a, um, was that how they were reading it? So I see reason to believe that they weren’t reading it that way. At least, at least some of them, I obviously can’t say we don’t have records from like the thousands of people encountered the book of Mormon saying how they read this passage. But I do think we have indication that Hiram Smith did not read it this way. And you will be familiar with this journal entry. So Levi Richards journal May 14th, 1843. Um He records notes of a sermon that Hiram gave at the temple that day, right? And Hiram was up in arms. He’s hearing rumors about polygamy and he’s trying to put them down and he’s quoting the book of Mormon, right? And he says, um there were a great many that had a great deal, there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things as David and Solomon and David having many wives and concubines, but is an abomination in the sight of God. If an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctrine, some would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of darkness over his head, those garments might shine white as snow. A man might have one con uh one wife but concubines, he should have none. He observed the idea that this was given to Jacob for perpetual principle. Ok. So what I’m seeing in what Hiram Smith is saying? So imagine that Hiram Smith is already familiar with the idea by this point that Jacob 230 is a loophole for polygamy. OK. Imagine that he thought that Jacob 230 says that if God commands polygamy, if God wants to raise up seed to himself, then he’ll command polygamy. So then polygamy is OK. Well, what he actually says in the sermon is that if an angel came and taught that it would be a, a fallen angel, it would be a false angel. So, but the idea of an angel coming and teaching it is that God commands it, right? So if Hiram thinks that there’s a loophole for God commanding it, why isn’t that coming through in his sermon? Why is he saying instead? Well, God wouldn’t command that. That would only be a false God wouldn’t send an angel to command that that would only be a false angel, right? And then when he says that this principle, this what Jacob is saying about polygamy that a man should have one wife and no concubines was given for perpetual principle. He means that’s permanent, what’s permanent. He’s not thinking that there’s a loophole, right? It doesn’t make sense for him to hold the ideas and went well, I see that Jacob gives this massive loophole for divinely commanded polygamy, but it was a perpetual principle you’re always supposed to do monogamy. Those don’t go together. So, what I’m seeing is evidence that prior to people like having embraced like Mormon polygamy, they’re not seeing Jacob 230 as a loophole, at least Hiram wasn’t. Ok. And so, and so that would potentially go along with what you and I have both been doing here in terms of like reading Jacob two based on the internal relationships within the text rather than, you know, it taking the tradition of interpretation that uses it as a polygamy loophole. I think that the text is most straightforwardly read as not providing loophole for polygamy, which again, doesn’t mean polygamy could never be commanded, but it does mean Jacob’s not opening any kind of loophole like that at all. He seems if anything you would think he’s doing the opposite, right? And then early earliest, latter day saints are not, they don’t seem to be reading. It doesn’t look to me in this case, certainly, like they’re reading it that way either that all needs to be taken into account in trying to correctly interpret this passage. So when it comes to all these things, I’m, I’m open right to like, um so, so just because I think that just Smith did teach and practice polygamy doesn’t mean that I want to take each source and like try to interpret it in a way that like supports polygamy or something. Here, we have a text that I look at it, this text, I look at it and I see an anti polygamy text, right? And so, um I accept that and, and like I said, I, I will get into some sort of complexities related to it and kind of like these larger papers when I get those published. Um But I’m, I’m comfortable with the idea that like the book of Mormon does not have a kind of loophole for, is not presenting a kind of loophole for divinely commanded polygamy.
[2:56:42] Michelle: OK. I appreciate you bringing up Hiram’s sermon. I think that’s a really valuable source. Did you say that’s May 13th, 1843
[2:56:50] Don Bradley: it was May 14th. Let me see. I,
[2:56:53] Michelle: I, I have it in my files, but I didn’t want to bring it up while you were talking.
[2:57:00] Don Bradley: I had it up and then it looks like you closed the
[2:57:04] Michelle: well, was it 1843? In any case, it was 1843? And one thing I think is really interesting. So, so I appreciate you say that because it does look to me like Orson Pratt was the main script, Orian who was charged by Brigham Young to justify polygamy in the scriptures. He’s the one that presented it. He’s the one that you know, they were doing this for political reasons too. And Orson Pratt went out to Washington DC to preach that they should have religious freedom to pursue polygamy. Right? And, um, and so, so I think that’s really interesting and I do think it appears to me very much that he was proof texting to try to find justification for polygamy. And that’s how he dealt with Jacob Jacob sermon because he doesn’t say anything about King Noah or replica. She just ignores those. He just has to find some way to undermine the book of Mormon.
[2:57:54] Don Bradley: I don’t think Orson Pratt comes up with it originally. But um so because I have an 1844 source shortly after Joseph dies and Joseph’s brother William
[2:58:07] Michelle: William Smith, what is complicated though? I, I couldn’t date that for certain and it, and it coming from that, it’s, it’s complicated.
[2:58:15] Don Bradley: It is very, it’s very complicated. It’s admittedly, it’s very
[2:58:19] Michelle: complicated. So I guess, I mean, the first time I can nail it down for, for
[2:58:24] Don Bradley: whatever it’s worth, I think you’re, you’re probably familiar with this. I’m probably very familiar with this, but like um Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, in one of her accounts about conversations with Justice Smith and polygamy, she says that when Joseph was first commanded to practice polygamy by the angel with a drawn sword that he argues with the angel using Jacob two. So
[2:58:53] Michelle: can you, can you just remind me what year that was written roughly?
[2:58:57] Don Bradley: So this would be late, this would be very late. And
[2:59:00] Michelle: so I just wanted to clarify that. I
[2:59:02] Don Bradley: think it might be around 1880. She left accounts as late as like 1912 or something. She was the longest lived of the women who were identified as Joseph Smith’s plural wives. Um So yeah, iiii I, that’s why I’m just saying for, for whatever it’s worth. But even in that account, notice something interesting. Notice that it assumes. Oh, ok. So what the, what the angel is supposed to reply next in her account is yes. But it says in that passage for if I will say Lord raise up unto me, I will command my people. OK. And, and God is commanding you. So it’s actually putting that interpretation on the lips of the angel. But if Joseph Smith had already had that interpretation, kind of like in a parallel to the hiram situation. If Joseph Smith had already seen uh polygamy, Jacob 230 as a loophole for polygamy, why would there be an idea that he would be, why wouldn’t he just respond to the angel by saying, well, I guess God’s commanding it just like it says in that loophole in verse 30 right? So even in Mary Elizabeth Roland’s Lighter’s account, it actually seems to assume that prior to the introduction of Mormon polygamy, this passage was not being read as a loophole for polygamy. It’s read as a loophole in retrospect, not in prospect, not beforehand
[3:00:24] Michelle: right after the fact. Yeah, I appreciate that. And the, the reason I wanted to ask about the year of the Hiram sermon is because according to Brigham Young, he’s the only source to tell us when Hiram accepted polygamy. And do you recall the date that Hiram accepted polygamy? I think it, it so,
[3:00:44] Don Bradley: so I recall that William Clayton’s journal says something like Hiram accepted the doctrine of the priesthood which is under, has been understood to be polygamy and then it’s like May 20th or something. So it would be actually immediately after the sermon. Right.
[3:01:02] Michelle: Right. So I know
[3:01:03] Don Bradley: what Brigham, I remember there was some dating information from Brigham, but I don’t remember specifically. Do
[3:01:09] Michelle: you? Yeah, I think it was right around the time of this sermon, like my, the, the the how it looked to me is like they have to find a way to make this all fit together. Right. So according to our narrative right now, so I appreciate that you are that you are really looking at Jacob Jacob and the entire book of Mormon in context. That’s really refreshing. Thank you so much, you know, so, but that makes it a challenge to have our standard narrative in the church that we’ve now come to, you know, it changes over time. But the standard narrative now that’s used is that monogamy is the rule except when there’s an exception and God commands it for God’s own reasons that, that we don’t fully understand. But, you know, that’s kind of how they talk about it now for the most part, I mean, Brian Hills has come up with his four reasons, but they disagree with other people’s reasons and they all disagree with or some reasons. And, you know, and so anyway, so the thing I find interesting is that we have Hyrum giving the sermon and then we have Brigham Young being the source of saying that he was, you know, they were sitting out and Hiram came up to him and said, I there’s something that you know, that I don’t know. And Brigham says, oh, I’ll tell you and you know, and that he, he says, I will only tell you if you promise, you will never say another word against Joseph Smith. And this of course is what in the 18 sixties that Brigham man is saying that maybe the 18 fifties, I can’t remember which cases which Brigham told a lot of stories. But this is what I find interesting is that again, the history, historical record. Well, and then I should finish the story that he Brigham explained it all to Hiram because you know, Joseph couldn’t have possibly helped him under, made him understand. It took Brigham to make a Hiram understand and he wept like a child and he covenanted with Brigham, right then and there that he would never say another word against Joseph Smith. And then he went to Joseph and repented to him and made the same covenant with him and then they went arm in arm, hand in hand to their graves. You know. So, so I think this is what’s fascinating is that we have these stories of Brigham just saying these things which he did repeatedly like saying that Emma tried to poison Joseph twice and it goes on and on and on and we just accept them and believe them. And we have this record that we can look at in Levi Richards Contemporaneous Journal and see what Hiram actually taught. But we throw it out and say, yeah, Hiram taught that one day. But the next week Brigham convinced him. And so then he told that. So I’m I’m not, I’m not asking you to respond. I’m just, I’m just explaining to you how it looks to me why I think one model is far superior to another model. Sure, sure,
[3:03:41] Don Bradley: sure, sure, sure, it makes sense. And so, you know, like, like, you know that I love to say and like I said, in our um earlier episode on historical method, like, like um much of history is just getting the events in the right order, right? And then we see the story emerge. And so to me like, and I, I acknowledge my fallibility and understanding things and that my own understandings will change and evolve with time and hopefully change in the direction of being more refined and being more accurate, right? But like the way that I am seeing this is that the um because I do think Joseph is practicing polygamy. So in that account, um Brigham says that Hiram says basically something like I’ve long suspected that Joseph is practicing polygamy, right? Um The um when Hiram references an angel, I’d suggest he may be hearing a story of an angel commanding polygamy, there’s also an illusion to that in one of the Bennett like accounts, right? In 42. Um So if there’s already a story circulating that polygamy is being commanded by an angel, um uh as we hear in the later accounts, um Hiram may actually be responding to those circulating stories. And then um I, I think that what’s going on is that things come to a head on this issue with Hiram because Hiram is now ramping up the public opposition to polygamy. And so then there have to be internal conversations where Hiram is taught polygamy and then his acceptance of it. Uh I don’t think it’s coincidence that we have Hiram making his th this blatant public statement against polygamy. And then we have the reports that right after this, he accepts polygamy. I think that that’s what brings it to a head. Obviously, there, there are different models here. There are different like ways of they can like taking the puzzle pieces and maybe organizing them right into a narrative. No, nobody has all the puzzle pieces, right? So we try to put the puzzle pieces together in the way that makes the most sense of things. And that’s not gonna be just by looking at these particular puzzle pieces about Hyrum and so on, it’s gonna be the larger set of puzzle pieces. Um Of course, that you know about Joseph and polygamy and you know, what, what might indicate that he did or didn’t practice it that are going to, that, that larger model is going to provide more of the basis for interpreting specific events like
[3:06:29] Michelle: this. Sure. Sure. And I’m open for that. I, I guess from my perspective when I read Brigham Young’s version of Hyrum Hiram is an idiot. Brigham Young does like constantly talks about Hyrum being kind of an idiot. He, you know, he, he doesn’t have a high reading, in my opinion, Brigham and William Clayton’s version of Hyrum Hiram’s kind of dumb, right? And so, but when I read Hiram’s actual words, he’s highly intelligent spot on insightful, very brilliant. He was setting traps for the polygamists at this point right before this, right. Talking about it calling anyway. So, so I, what I find interesting is that Brigham said something to Hiram that made him understand it so well that he wept like a child and then said to Joseph, it’s so plain. The doctrine is so plain. If you just write it down, I know I can convince Emma and what we get is 132 that’s laying out the doctrine so plain that anyone could understand it Right. And then, and then a hiram’s like, oh, look, it threatens her with destruction. She’s just gonna love this. I’m gonna march my little self right down to her house where she’s busy taking care of Lucy and all of the Children and I’m gonna read this to her. Right. And that’s gonna really convince her and, and then, well, our relationship will be so good after that, that she’ll name her unborn child at the time of my death. After me. David Hiram Smith, right? I guess that’s why I’m looking at this story going, it’s dumb like like so so and I don’t mean to put you on the spot and I really appreciate you talking to me. I just, I’m kind of trying to share how I see this now. So let me ask you this question, Da Bradley in your heart of hearts. Do you believe that an angel came to Joseph Smith with a drawn sword sword threatening to basically decapitate him if he didn’t cheat on his wife? And Joseph said, but look, look, the scripture say I don’t have to. And he says, now Joseph, I’m commanding you, you better go sleep with the 14 year old or the 17 year old or not sleep with whatever excuse we wanna make or else do you believe that that is a valid like the source on that? Does that sound true to you in your heart of hearts? If you kind of just pray and ask God, what do you think of that story?
[3:08:56] Don Bradley: OK. So not to put me on the spot, right?
[3:08:59] Michelle: I’m sorry. And if you don’t want to answer, you don’t have to answer. I that let’s just move on because that’s just a hypothetical to say, we might
[3:09:07] Don Bradley: let me maybe say something sort of surrounding that because I actually, I do have work that directly relates to the angel with a drawn sword narrative and relates to
[3:09:18] Michelle: and I still think we should call it flaming because there are several sources, no matter how Brian tries to undermine him, we do also have a flaming sword. So anyway, go ahead. I like the flaming sword
[3:09:29] Don Bradley: better. It’s, it’s um definitely be more motivating, right? But I don’t
[3:09:36] Michelle: know, I mean, you’re gonna be decapitated either way it’s bloody to
[3:09:40] Don Bradley: me, be more intimidating about that. Um So, um yeah, so I do have um research that I’ve done where I’ve tried to line up different events in N wu to understand how polygamy unfolds. Um There the narrative, the way that I’m and this, this would be like, I’m presenting, I’m scheduled to present at the Mormon History Association Conference on some of this. And then I’m working on a couple things to submit to the Journal of Mormon History. So this rather than something that I would lay out in podcast form at this point might be something that I would lay out in future podcasts after it’s in print, right? But like, but, but sort of maybe the um part of it would be um I, I actually think that even taking the perspective that I do that Joseph Smith did introduce polygamy, I think there are a lot of surprises in the narrative that comes together from looking at the sources that are not the traditional version of the story. I think that I see where the angel with a drawn sword narrative. What I think I see an actual event from which it emerges. I think that the event is more complicated than like a physical like resurrected angel with an actual sword coming and making threats to Joseph Smith. Um And yes, that story sounds the way that it’s literally presented. Sounds very strange, disturbing, right? Like
[3:11:39] Michelle: so,
[3:11:40] Don Bradley: so I um and I also think that while I do very much think Joseph Smith initiates polygamy in Nauvoo, I also think, and this is not something that I have heard from other historians to this point, but it will be in these um this conference presentation, these couple of papers. I do think that actually Brigham Young has a substantial influence on the form that polygamy takes during Joseph Smith’s lifetime that polygamy actually evolves during Joseph’s lifetime. And so I think that to that, well, I do again, very much think Joseph Smith institutes Mormon polygamy. I also think that part of the way he institutes, it is different and I then has been understood. And I think that Brigham plays a role in how it evolves which people might see as positive or negative, depending on their viewpoint on Brigham Young and on how, how the changes that come into Mormon polygamy. But I, I guess sort of my, it, it would be insufficient. I know vastly insufficient to satisfy people who are skeptical that Joseph Smith started polygamy. That’s sort of my, one of my, one of, one of multiple nods or sort of hat tips that I can make. Um uh to those skeptical that justice misheard polygamy and who think that Brigham Young started it um is that they’re not wrong that Brigham had a larger influence on the practice than has been understood in the past. Um And so, um I know that’s cryptic for me to say, but this is not something I want to try it lay on podcast form before it’s published. So, so I do think that there’s such room for productive dialogue between people of different vantage points because once I came to see what I’m describing, what I’m alluding to seeing now, I thought, oh, I had just dismissed the people saying, well, Brigham Young starts, started polygamy um without sort of any um like, like maybe taking into account possibilities for how Brigham may have been involved in ways that we haven’t traditionally thought in that process. And so again, this is probably going to satisfy no one. on any side. But, but I do think that the emergence of Novo polygamy, I think it’s initiated by Joseph. I also think that Joseph is not the only player in how it evolves. And I think that Joseph’s, I, I also think that Joseph’s initial version of polygamy was intended to be more egalitarian. And I think that um and this will be and all these things will be in these like probably two papers. Um I also think that when Joseph and others in Navoo were looking back at the biblical stories of people like Jacob, that they actually saw appalling things in those stories that they did not want to restore, but that they wanted to correct. And so I think that they were in some ways attempting to come up with a form of polygamy that didn’t have all these problematic aspects. And I think there was an attempt to be more moral and ethical and not just take random practices from the Bible and restore them regardless of their merits and just bring them back in their original problematic forms. And so I know that’s all like a, a bunch of stuff for me to say that’s, and this is something that I’ll be publishing out into the future. But I, but I guess I want to say all that just to say that like as a historian, I in saying that I think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I’m not saying, oh, the standard story is just, it’s just 100% right. We know it’s just always been told. Exactly right. We know that Joseph did this and the angel said that and this happened and, you know, it’s, it’s uh and Joseph started polygamy in exactly the way that it ends up being practiced and, and, and so on. Um in Utah. So I don’t, I wanna say, I, I want to acknowledge that there are complexities here and that I’m not trying to defend a traditional story. II I want, in my way, I just want to know what happened. And if you know, if we come to different conclusions on that temporarily, hopefully there’s some point out on the horizon where those trajectories converge out in the future and we’re at least closer together in our understandings and maybe that won’t happen. But in any case, I think um we can still be friends, we can still be fellow saints. We can still have productive dialogues on all of those.
[3:16:45] Michelle: OK. That’s fantastic. So what I’m hearing you say is that you have now developed a hybrid model that like you’ve taken into consideration um some of the polygamy denier arguments and considered some of the weaknesses of the standard narrative arguments and have seen a new possibility that brings both together a little bit
[3:17:07] Don Bradley: more. I think, I think you could say yes, it would, it would be at least a little bit more of a convergence between the two models, there would still be substantial disagreement. But, but the idea that, yeah, Joseph Smith is the only mind behind the way that it’s only him thinking about polygamy that leads to the form that Mormon polygamy takes. It’s nothing of anybody else like Brim on. I don’t think that’s correct. And I, I think that there’s a sort of dialogue that there’s a sort of mutual influence among different people, not just, it’s not just a one man show of Joseph Smith doing all these things.
[3:17:52] Michelle: OK. OK. This is really helpful to understand. So couple of quick questions. So um so I guess since we are arguing on two fronts, right? There’s the standard narrative. It sounds to me like you’re kind of saying, yeah, the standard narrative is not comprehend, it’s not completed, ignores too many sources we need to rethink that like for example, I’m assuming maybe some of the um letters and journals in England in 1841. And right, maybe that’s one of the things you’re taking into consideration. He he Clayton
[3:18:23] Don Bradley: Brigham says that he had polygamy revealed to him in England. So then what I wonder is, what form did that polygamy take? Like what when he talks about polygamy had to have an image in mind of that. It’s not just like the I I doubt that it’s just like the word polygamy popped into his mind or something. He had some concept of polygamy. What does, what does lived poly
[3:18:44] Michelle: look like. Have you looked into the Cochran connection and have you read the letters and journals from England to get a sense of what that may be? It looked a little bit more in my estimation, like spiritual wifey, which is what they called it.
[3:19:00] Don Bradley: So, so I am ok. It has, I have not recently looked at Cochran nights. I had looked at the Cochrans sometime several years back and I see the Cochrans as part of the larger milieu regarding polygamy. There’s actually a book Polygamy and Early American History. Sarah Pearsall, she gives a History of polygamy in the United States back from like the like the 17 hundreds and 18 hundreds. OK. And so I actually think that this is people coming from all sides of this question would probably benefit from looking at larger milieu regarding polygamy in the United States at the time, like the Cochrans which early latter day saint missionaries like Orson Hyde and others did encounter. Um And they were practicing like having spiritual wives and so on. Um I think all of that is relevant context for understanding the rise of Mormon polygamy. Now, I don’t I in saying that I’m not subscribing to the idea that like, well, the apostles went out and encountered the Cochran nights and they introduced polygamy because that’s not the, that’s not the perspective that I’m taking. But nonetheless, I do think that we need to understand that larger context if we’re going to understand why they say in its context. Yeah. So I
[3:20:28] Michelle: don’t want to open more rabbit holes. I just curious. Do you reject the story of Augusta Cobb marrying Brigham that from the.
[3:20:38] Don Bradley: So, so remind me Augusta
[3:20:40] Michelle: Cobb, my understanding. And I have a, it was very
[3:20:43] Don Bradley: early, she
[3:20:44] Michelle: was, she was with the cochran kites left, I think her husband and seven Children or something and came with Brigham Young and there’s tricky stuff there. Right. So, and then, and then Brigham did like they were, I think there’s very strong evidence that they were doing some sort of spiritual marriage, something in England. And so anyway, we don’t have to get into it. Now,
[3:21:08] Don Bradley: I watched, I watched something you did. Was it, did you, have you had conversations about the, the England? Yeah,
[3:21:17] Michelle: Jeremy who came on and
[3:21:20] Don Bradley: um so, uh yeah, I did watch that and I, I don’t have it very fresh in my mind right now. I do. I, I remember thinking, yes, there’s clearly something interesting going on in those journals. I didn’t, I didn’t see it as reflecting something polygamy like, but I, but it was, it definitely something that calls out for explanation. What are they talking about? So, I’m, I’m intrigued with it. Right. And I um yeah.
[3:21:51] Michelle: Ok. Well, ok, this is, this is good to hear because what I’m, how I’m interpreting this and you would, I know you wouldn’t want it, stated this. Um abruptly. But what I’m hearing is that you are somewhat rejecting the, the standard narrative and saying it’s insufficient, it ignores too many things. So you’re coming up with a new proposed hybrid model is how I would describe it. Saying Brigham and Joseph working together. I am, I did have one more question that I just wanted to ask. Which is um so the, you know, the Mormon perspective is more the angel with a drawn sword. That’s kind of the Brian Hills model. The anti Mormon perspective is the like libido driven Joseph coming up with stories about angels with a drawn sword. Um If you had to like where, where are you on that um spectrum?
[3:22:40] Don Bradley: OK. Yeah. So, um this would get into deeper issues regarding my view of Joseph Smith himself that I, so, so I’m gonna struggle to characterize her. Um I, I see polygamy as something that is actually in some ways, sort of part of Joseph Smith’s prophetic practice that um I think that he understands that in various ways, it’s actually important for him to practice it in order to fulfill his role as a prophet. And I know some of this, I, I there’s a lot that actually what I should be doing, a lot is much more writing and publishing because I have so many things that I have seen in the data that I haven’t gotten out. And so then that makes it harder because there’s such detailed arguments from the sources. It makes it difficult to make like blanket statements on something like a podcast when I’m behind on what I should have already published right
[3:23:48] Michelle: now. So just so, you know, I’m coming from the exact same perspective, I feel like I should have written things out. But I feel like the value of discourse because we’re not setting out finalized conclusions. We’re inviting people into the, the, the research into the study, right? We’re trying to figure it out. So, so I don’t want you to feel like you anything is set in stone. I just, I understand that both of us are still learning. Yeah.
[3:24:10] Don Bradley: So some of this might sound offhand. It might sound crazy, particularly for listeners of this podcast who are skeptical that Justin Smith practiced polygamy at all, right? But just to put out like things that I what I’m perceiving in the data, right? And will eventually be publishing. So I would say that um I, I know you’ve talked a lot about Levert marriage and, and sort of critical ways that are critical of Levert marriage and how it’s been used in like Mormon polygamy discourse
[3:24:43] Michelle: on it.
[3:24:45] Don Bradley: So I think that um I actually think in some cases, Joseph Smith is doing like a polygamous Leverett marriage and that the intention is actually to um and again, I know this might sound crazy um to sort of make a connection with someone through the veil like the deceased husband, the woman’s deceased husband. So kind of like if you think about baptism for the dead. Um in First Corinthians, it uses the phrase baptism for the dead, but it doesn’t actually lay out a description of a practice of proxy baptism. So where in the Canon of Scripture before the introduction of latty saint, baptism for the dead is the idea of proxy work for the dead. Introduced that a living person can do for a dead person with the dead person can’t do for themselves. Leverett marriage is actually the best model of that, right? Because a man can’t procreate when he’s dead. But if his brother does it for him, that’s by proxy, right? So I actually think that Joseph’s contemplation of like proxy ordinance work in N Wu is, I think that part of what he’s thinking through is things like proxy concepts in scripture like with Leverett marriage. And then I think that in his polygamy, that sometimes this kind of idea comes into play. There’s a an attempt to connect with someone through the veil. I also think that many of the women who reportedly married him actually are women who were impressive in a variety of ways. They had really deep spiritual experiences. And so I look at justice ploy and I don’t see him trying to choose like nu’s hottest babes or whatever, right? That, that it’s like driven by sex. I actually think that the reason for the choice of some of the specific women is precisely because of their sort of spiritual qualifications. So I see him looking for sort of coworkers in what he’s doing rather than trying to amass a sexual harm. And so, um again, I know that without, without, I
[3:26:55] Michelle: appreciate you spelling it
[3:26:56] Don Bradley: out without any sort of detailed like analysis of sources or laying out that this may sound like just wing ideas. And so I wouldn’t be at all offended if people just dismiss this. But, but since you asked, right, these are some of the things that I’m understanding about Joseph Smith and polygamy. And so I don’t, is it like uh a resurrected being standing bodily before Joseph Smith with an actual sword threatening to cut him down at that moment? No, I, I don’t think so. Right? And I will have, like I said, further publication that will go into that very specifically what I would argue did happen. I in that story and to argue that story is coming from somewhere, but if it can be taken much too literally. Um And then on the other hand, I don’t think that this is something that’s driven by Joseph Libido. And I used to think that that was perspective for a long time. And then the more I got into analyzing the data and the more I got into looking at him, the the the person and what’s motivating him more generally, I see someone who like he’s looking at the world around him. He he believes like it says in DNC 59 or 58 that like against none as the Lord JRA Kindle, save those who keep uh uh his commands and acknowledge not his hand in all things. I think Justice Smith acknowledges hand God’s hand in all things. He looks for signs of divine providence in the world around Him. He realizes God is the creator of the world. And so God might actually put things in our lives to teach us. And so I think I see Joseph, I see certain events happening in his life and suddenly Joseph like changes direction based on this event because he’s looking and he’s saying, oh, God is telling me something through this event. And so I, I see his concept of revelation as a much more expansive concept that includes not only like visions and the voice in the mind or whatever, but also interpreting spiritually interpreting like day to day events and so on. And so then this factors into my understanding of how he practiced his hi his polygamy because I see him when I line up the events and I see well, this event happened and then this is the marriage date that’s given for him marrying a certain woman. Hm. That doesn’t seem coincidental. These two things seem related. I’m thinking, you know, this event is something he’s interpreting as part of God telling him that he needs to be sailed to this woman or whatever. And so, um, and, and so do you see what I’m saying? That that’s kind of, I think as sort of a middle ground position where I’m not saying, I don’t think he’s sexually motivated or that, that’s where polygamy is coming from. I mean, any marriage system, sex is involved, right? If it’s an actual marriage system. So, in monogamy, people’s choice of a marriage partner, like, like sexual, why, why wouldn’t it play
[3:30:00] Michelle: role
[3:30:00] Don Bradley: in polygamy? Right? So I’m not saying it doesn’t play a role, but I don’t see it as the initiating factor in justice polygamy. I do see him as being on a much higher level than that, that he has spiritual aims that he’s seeking. But it’s not this, but it’s not the literal angel standing there with the literal sword ready to literally kill him. And it’s not the, on the one hand, it’s not the sexual liberty on the other. It’s a much more complex historical character.
[3:30:31] Michelle: OK. OK. This is, this is really interesting. So if I’m interpreting correctly, it sounds to me like you’re kind of building on the presentation you did on Leverett Marriage. It’s kind of maybe that’s a foundation that you’re going to expand and, and modify. Um Is that so because I was thinking I could go ahead and link that presentation below because you did address Leverett Marriage in Joseph’s view of polygamy,
[3:30:57] Don Bradley: I addressed it in a in a really simple way. And so, um yeah, and um the right,
[3:31:08] Michelle: you know, so if I give everyone the caveat that’s
[3:31:11] Don Bradley: related, you’re right that that’s related in my mind. And then, um and then I’m looking at other later things that happen that are actually reported incidents of polygamy where it’s arguably a Leverett the intention is Leverett marriage. And yeah, that’s what I’m hearing it through that sort of framework.
[3:31:30] Michelle: OK. So I’ll go ahead and link below your presentation and then I’ll also link my episode I did on Levert Marriage and I know I was just a little bit on, on your, was it just your punch line? I don’t think you’ve watched the episode. I, I actually very much disagree that Joseph’s marriages have anything to do with Leverett Marriage. Those are the ideas that I, that I, but I think it, but it’s an interesting thing to consider and to discuss.
[3:31:54] Don Bradley: So, so in that, what I, what I saw in that episode was that um you had to use like the punch line and such, but then you didn’t include any of the framing of why was I raising this question in the first place, which had to do with like that. We had different people saying that Joseph and Emma’s first child, the one who died, right? Who
[3:32:16] Michelle: was apparently
[3:32:18] Don Bradley: that he was going to actually possess the plates. He was supposed to be able to read the sale portion he was supposed to come into possession of the sort of Laban. We have people saying that in Emma’s family, we have people saying that up in Palmyra, we have such a wide spread of people saying that it, it seems like it’s something that Jo was actually saying. So then what, what got me thinking about this was why does he think this? Why does he think this and then the lever at marriage connection with Alvin was something that came out of that. So I wasn’t, even if people see that interpretation is too speculative. I wasn’t like literally drawing that from nowhere. There was a particular historical problem I was trying to solve and this is where I went and trying to
[3:32:56] Michelle: solve it. And that’s why I will tell people this. I will say this. Please watch Don’s presentation first and then, and then if you want to watch my episode on Love Marriage, you’re not the only source I talk about. You’re just one of many. And I will, I will say right now, if I was at all, I can’t remember it. But if it, if I was at all harsh or flippant or unfair, I apologize. Please listen to Don’s first like I apologize. Don, if I was, I would need to watch it again. I just II I
[3:33:24] Don Bradley: don’t remember it well enough to know. I remember at the time I thought, oh, I didn’t feel like that really represented why I was on this conclusion. That was, well, thank you
[3:33:34] Michelle: for forgiving me. It sounds, I mean, we could be friends and I’ll link it below because I do think it plays into what you’re developing now. I think those ideas are present in your model. So I think that’d be an interesting place. But my gosh, we have talked for hours and I thought it’s been phenomenal. I, I am, I really liked this conversation. I really appreciate this was more the theological and I guess in the next one, we’ll get more into the historical and, and um and so anyway, thank you, Don. This was awesome. I’m really glad we’re doing this and I really appreciate it. I
[3:34:08] Don Bradley: love it, Michelle. Thank you again so much for having me on your show multiple times and that we’re able to really have a truly open dialogue and there’s, you know, um and we were at different perspectives here, but there’s a kind of spirit of collaboration. And II, I thank you so much. I appreciate that.
[3:34:29] Michelle: Thank you to all of you who stuck around at the end of this conversation. And another massive thank you to Don. I really am just so excited about this collaboration that we have going on and how we are able to both learn from each other and move this knowledge forward. I really appreciate the way that he engages. I think both of us are just looking for truth and discourse is a great way to find it. So, thank you again for being here. Thank you Don and I will see you next time.
