Please consider supporting this podcast:
This one is intense! Please share your thoughts!
Transcript
[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to this special episode of 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy. As always, please listen to these episodes starting at the beginning so you can understand the scriptural case that we have already made since that is what I feel is the most important part of this discussion. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 49, which is my first conversation with Brian Hailes. This one was tough, um, so, so valuable, but really tough. I, we didn’t discuss the things that I had anticipated cause um Brian had a different some different things on his mind that were his, um, priorities, so we discussed those things first and then we moved into some of the topic, topics that I wanted to discuss. I actually am so happy with how it turned out, because though it was difficult, I think that these are some of the most important conversations we can be having, um, today. Well, at all times, but especially right now. So I hope that you will, that, well, if you’re like me, I, I, I wanted this to be a very, um, Congenial conversation where we could just share ideas. I didn’t want it to to be adversarial and I think we accomplished that. But I know I didn’t push back on, push hard on a lot of things and um, so I hope that you will join the conversation in the comments cause there is so much to discuss here. And Brian very kindly has agreed to come back on again because I think these are important conversations to be having. So I’m so thankful to him to um be willing to sit down and engage. One thing I really value about Brian is that I think he is very transparent and willing to engage in the difficult conversations even if we don’t see eye to eye on things. So buckle up and enjoy this episode of 132 Problems. Hello, welcome to this episode of 132 Problems. I am very pleased today to welcome Brian Hailes, who was very kindly agreed to come on and have have a discussion with me. I’m really excited. I think that It seems like every time I listen to Brian, I learn something new, and I also have many new questions to go investigate. So, let me give a quick introduction. Brian Hailes, I think anyone interested in polygamy very likely knows quite a bit about Brian Hailes. He’s been working on this. Problem, this issue for a very long time. And so just a quick introduction. He, as I did grow up in Utah, he attended, um, medical school at the U and is an anesthesiologist. I believe practicing at the University of Utah, if I’m correct, you can correct me if I’m wrong.
[02:48] Brian Hales: Actually, I retired when my wife was diagnosed with cancer last year, and so I’m still retired. That’s why I have extra time, which is nice.
[02:56] Michelle: OK, so now he has more time to dedicate to The, the real work of his life, I guess, which is investigating polygamy. So I think anyone, we, we all, all of us who are interested in church history and especially the topic of polygamy, uh, owe a huge debt of gratitude to Brian Hailes. He has funded so much research, made so much information available to all of us. I know I definitely have benefited from what he has done. He’s written something I couldn’t even figure it out for sure. Something like 8 books, you can again correct me if I’m wrong. And, um, um, his biggest work, I think, is Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, that larger series. And then he has his website, Joseph Smith Polygamy, which he keeps up and keeps so much information available. And I did want to share that, um, I have also really appreciated the work that Laura Hills did, Brian’s wife, and, um, So many of her presentations were just very touching to me and very informative and insightful. And just want to express my condolences, Brian, for your loss. She was, she was a gem and a loss to all of us, but I know not to anyone as much as you. So, anyway, I’m sure you have much more that you could tell us about yourself, but I did want to start by thanking you for all of the work that you have done on this topic.
[04:14] Brian Hales: I, I appreciate that, Michelle, and I, I am grateful also to be able to talk about a couple of ideas that will help provide context for the audience, um, as, as I go forward with my discussion, because I, I have been critical, highly critical of individuals who, who want to question whether Joseph Smith. Uh, practice plural marriage, and we’re gonna talk about that topic in a minute, but I want to kind of pro provide this context. So let me, I, I
[04:46] Michelle: just
[04:46] Brian Hales: got,
[04:48] Michelle: before, before we go to that, I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. That’s why Brian has a, um, about a 10 minute presentation, he said that he wants to share. And that’s great. I just want to clarify a few things because, um, Brian, you’ve said you’ve watched some of our, some of my episodes, so you’re somewhat familiar with, um, with my podcast. But I did want to clarify, um, I, I kind of wanted to, well, we’ll see how this discussion goes. My initial plan was to release it in two parts. First, discussing whether polygamy was of God, and then second, discussing whether polygamy originated with Joseph Smith or with other leaders. And I think that those, for me, that’s a very important distinction, because my initial Well, I don’t know if you’ve watched my original stories, but I was a committed believer in polygamy and that polygamy was of God and was what we would be living in Zion and the celestial kingdom. And, you know, I, I was raised on all of that. I’ve said several times, I’m, my grandmother was the oldest daughter of post manifesto polygamists in Mexico and I was raised on all the good stories. And, um, but then I started really studying it, and that’s when I became convinced, much to my chagrin. I actually set out to prove the opposite. I, I became convinced to my shock and somewhat to my horror, that I didn’t believe polygamy was of God. I thought it was an error or a corruption of man to what God perfectly established. And, and I, that’s what I originally set out to talk about. And the question of Joseph Smith’s involvement of polygamy for me was not central to that. So I can explain that a little more. I, I believe very much in not putting our trust in the arm of flesh, and that we know throughout. Time that Joseph was corrected over many things. And so if he made an error in this, I, through a lot of pondering and prayer, found ways to make peace with that. And I found ways to make peace with whether he wasn’t involved. So for me, that wasn’t the central answer, because that detracted from the central answer of whether polygamy was of God. If that makes sense. So I, so I wonder if it would be possible to discuss those two issues, and we could just do it all together in a modgepodge, see how it goes. But I didn’t want you to misunderstand. You know, for me, the more I have studied it, and particularly when I did one episode on Joseph and Emma, I’ve come much more to, to be persuaded, and I’ve had some experiences that have very much Made me believe personally quite strongly that Joseph actually was not the originator of polygamy, but that is not the central thesis of what I think is the most important. Does that make sense?
[07:24] Brian Hales: No, I appreciate all all that you said, I totally believe you’re sincere and that you want to find the truth and, and yet, as we sit here uh with this podcast that is being disseminated generally to the membership if they choose to watch or listen. Um, there are some principles that I think we need to talk about that are important to us, uh, personally, and And that’s why I wanted to provide this, uh, this little discussion. So again, it’s only a few slides here. And if I, if I’m sounding condescending or anything, please, please forgive me. That is not my intent. If I’m telling you things you already know, again, I apologize, but there’s context here that we really need to agree on and I think we can, and then we can move forward in a much more comfortable way.
[08:10] Michelle: Perfect. And I’m sorry, I’m interrupting one more time. So rude of me. And then I will let you go. I just wanted to give one other little, um, I guess, preliminary disclaimer. I really, um, hope that I know that I will not have all of the names, dates, quotes, exact. I, I told you just a minute ago that I haven’t had nearly as much time to prepare as I would have liked. I’ve been sick for several days and it was Christmas, we have a missionary leaving and All of my 11 kids here, life is crazy. But, um, but I, I really hope that this will be a discussion that can hopefully lead to future discussions. And not, I didn’t want this to feel like a gotcha at all on either side. I want to have an open, honest discussion and see what we can. You know what agreements we find or what disagreements we find and where we can go from there. So anyway, I hope it would be a vehicle to lead to future discussion and further discussion if that’s, if that’s amenable to you. But now I won’t interrupt you and you go ahead with your
[09:08] Brian Hales: You’re welcome to interrupt me anytime, Michelle, and uh I, this is a topic. I, my first book came out on polygamy in 1991. I’m, I’m kind of an old guy right now. So I’ve been, I’ve been dealing with this and questions for a long time and I’m,
[09:22] Michelle: I’m barely out of junior high then, so yeah.
[09:26] Brian Hales: There you go. Um, so let me share the screen and and I like slides, that’s that I think helps the uh the audience. I hope it does. Um, are you able to see the slide there? I am, yeah. OK. Um, the, uh, I wanna just talk about some basic principles again. Forgive me if they’re so basic that I’m insulting your intelligence, but they’re important. Uh, church members can believe whatever they want and remain members of the church. You know, I could believe in Buddha or Islam, but if I’m staying in the covenant path and and and all, I, I can still be a member of the church. Um, The uh But when church members start to teach membership, the membership generally, we are usurping the role of a general authority, and I put your picture there. I could put my picture there. I’m, I’m just as much an alternate voice as, as you are, Michelle. And, and the reason that that that becomes important is that uh we have our canonized teachings and scriptures, but those, I would argue, and maybe we can talk about this if you disagree. But they’re not open for public debate. Now, let me give some examples so that we understand what I’m trying to say. This is actually a, uh, an illustration from an article I have coming out in the Interpreter in a couple, in a few weeks. But what it illustrates is that there are lots of ideas about where the Book of Mormon took place. Where was the Promised Land Book of Mormon? There’s the middle of the, you know, heartland of the United States, there’s Baja, there’s Mesoamer, there’s Peru. And you and I and, and, and people can just argue all we want. Hopefully, we would do it with charity, um, and, and we can be firm on one of these, and yet nothing is gonna happen to our church membership, our, our bishops are not gonna be worried because the church has no official teaching on that topic. Now, Let me give you an example, though, what if a member said that they didn’t believe this scripture? It says, this is DNC 272, for I behold, I say unto you that it mattereth not what we shall eat or what we shall drink when you partake of the sacrament. We use water now. Um, and yet what if a member came out and said, no, I believe it has to be wine, and they, they publicly started to disagree. OK, because this is a doctrine of the church, OK, that member is teaching an opposite message as a, as in a usurper of a, as a, of a general authority position, and it’s contradicting the ordained the position of the ordained general authority. And see, that’s where problems start to be found. Now, um, what do we do though? What do you and I do if we disagree, say with our local leader or with our uh general authority or with a general teaching of the church, and it’s an official teaching. What are we supposed to do? I love this story from John Taylor. Um, no, and I misspelled his name here, sorry. Uh, I just barely threw these slides together, like less than an hour ago.
[12:29] Michelle: I won’t try to excommunicated because you misspelled
[12:31] Brian Hales: his name. Yeah, yeah, he probably wouldn’t care, but you’re right. Um, but here’s what he said. Suppose a corrupt man
[12:39] Michelle: disagree on things, but go ahead,
[12:41] Brian Hales: OK. Um, suppose a corrupt man is presiding in a certain place. His corruptions are soon known. People need not strive to turn good into evil because they think that some man does wrong. They need not turn colluminators or defamers, for all will come right in its turn. Then attend to your own business, work the works of righteousness, sustain the constituted authorities of the church until God removes them and he will do it in his own time. Bishops be after such men. As speak against the Lord’s anointed, speak against Brigham, speak against Joseph, saying they made mistakes when, you know, it’s, it’s a, they didn’t in, in, in the official view. And so the, the council here is to um To, to not become an activist and being critical. I had to look up the word coumniator. Columniate is a very old word, and actually John Taylor uses it quite a number of times in his, in his discourses, but it’s to make false statements about. Now, even if I’m sincere about making these statements, if it, if they are not true according to our official teachings, then that’s where the problems can, can be found. And, and this is where we can, you and I can disagree, but when we start to disagree publicly with the official position of the church, that’s the problem. You can disagree with Brian Hailes all you want. He, his opinion does not matter in any, in any way. I’m not your bishop, I’m not anybody’s bishop. Now, when we get to the topic of plural marriage, I would argue that this is the official position of the church. Um, it was restored by Joseph Smith. These are the verses. It was practiced by Joseph Smith. These are the verses, and, and there’s a little ambiguity in the wording. I, I admit that, but when you put it in context, I don’t think there’s any other interpretation. And then plural marriage is talked about in
[14:31] Michelle: verses aren’t showing. What are you saying are the? Oh,
[14:34] Brian Hales: I’m sorry. I’m, I’m, I’m advancing the wrong thing. Thank you for pointing that out. I have two screens here with it. There you go. Thank you, Michelle. Please, please make sure I’m I’m looking at the right thing here. So, so we have these verses from DNC 132 and, and, and they, if you will read them, they, they are very clear and 132 was accepted in 1876 as canonized scripture. And It also, the, the teaching that Joseph Smith introduced polygamy. He was a polygamist, and that polygamy when it is permitted, you can’t freelance plural marriage, um, then it is, is something that is ordained of God, and which is one of the topics you wanted to talk about. Well, we’ll come back to that if you’d like. But it’s also found in the Gospel topic essay. It’s, it’s found in the official church. History, which of course we’re familiar with. Um, it’s, it is the conclusion of the Joseph Smith Papers Project historians 100%, and I know them because I’ve worked with them. And, and so, uh, it’s also my conclusion when I came out with my three volumes in 2013. Now, when I wrote these volumes, and when I put up my websites, and when um I go on a podcast, I am an alternate voice, OK? And, and, and alternate voices are good when we’re able to sustain what the church’s official teachings are. Um, but the problem comes when we want to publicly disagree. Because what happens is we have alternate voices. Sorry, I threw your picture up there again, but again, I could put mine or any number of people. But when, when our general authorities and the official teachings say one thing and an alternate voice says another, church members can become confused. OK. So what are the church leaders supposed to do about that? Well, I think you can imagine. Now, the other part of it is looking at it from the position of the church leadership. I think Joseph Smith, and this quote is in the video, you’ve seen it, but it’s, it teaches a very important principle, important to me and important to you. It says, this is Joseph Smith. I will inform you that it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the church or anyone to receive instructions for those in authority higher than themselves. Therefore, you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them. But if any person have a vision or visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for their own benefit and instruction, for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the church are vested in the keys of the kingdom. OK, so if, if Brian Hailes comes out and I disagree with the official position, am I inspired by, you know, God, uh, according to Joseph’s teachings, I couldn’t be. Because God wouldn’t tell Brian Has that, that, that, I’m supposed to go out and disagree with Russell Nelson or with anything that is an official position publicly. I can believe whatever I want privately. But when we publicly disagree, that’s where the problems occur. Joseph Smith said, there are many spirits which are false spirits which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world. These again are are slides from the video, and nothing is of greater injury to the children of men to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the spirit of God. And so, Um, that’s, that’s kind of the context, and, and why I have expressed such concern, and you’ve been very gracious, Michelle, and our private messages back and forth on Facebook, to, to listen to what I say, to what I’ve said, and, and I, I guess I’d love to to hear your, your response to these ideas. Uh, it might help me going forward to, to know how I can be of, of most use in our, in our conversation. And I’m hitting you point blank. I apologize for that.
[18:22] Michelle: Yeah, I had fun that we could cover this at the end, which I thought I expressed, but, but we’ll do it this way instead. So are you done sharing your screen, or are you still wanting to?
[18:33] Brian Hales: Well, I, I, uh,
[18:35] Michelle: do you have more?
[18:36] Brian Hales: There, well, I’m, I’m shifting gears now to talking about Joseph Smith and plural marriage. So here, I’ll, I’ll give up.
[18:42] Michelle: I would prefer to have a discussion if we could, or I mean there were several things that I could respond to along the way in that, um, you know, I, it’s like I, I, I, I’ll try to, I was trying to take mental notes of things to respond to because there were many. But um, But first, I got a shake off of it. I, I don’t know if you know, but the picture you just included to accuse me is of my little girl that passed away in 2020, and I think that was pretty thoughtless. So it’s gonna take me a minute to shake that off.
[19:13] Brian Hales: So, I, I am very sorry. It was the that was on your website and, and I thought that would be
[19:18] Michelle: accusations like that, you don’t know what you’re gonna, you know,
[19:23] Brian Hales: I, I don’t think I’ve made any accusations. OK? I, I, I’m gonna have to hit the pause button there. If you feel like I’m accusing you, I’m, I’m teaching a general principle and it applies to alternate voices, whether it’s me or with you.
[19:37] Michelle: Yeah, I’m sorry. I, I just meant putting my picture up felt um. That just, you know, I just got to take a second. OK.
[19:45] Brian Hales: I’m sorry. I,
[19:46] Brian Hales: I apologize. I should look longer. My, my children didn’t leave until an hour before this, and I just was in a big hurry to grab pictures to, to illustrate the alternate voices. I had my own up there as well. And, and I apologize.
[20:01] Michelle: Um, Anyway, a couple, a couple of, so I do have, cause I did think about the questions you sent, I would have preferred to, um, to speak about them. I, you know, like, I am, it is pretty intense to be hit with a, um, presentation when I thought we were having a conversation, you know, and hope that we could. Share thoughts.
[20:21] Brian Hales: Well, Michelle, if you want to just delete what I’ve just done, we, we can, uh, maybe proceed,
[20:28] Brian Hales: but it’s, it’s
[20:30] Michelle: OK. I’ll go ahead and I, I know, I, I perfectly understand because I from the beginning of our messages and you know, I, I, I invited you onto the podcast and said I would love to let you present. Um, your ideas and your beliefs and your evidence, because my, my goal has been to present as much information as possible so that I can let my listeners make up their own minds and seek their own inspiration. That’s been, that, that’s, I believe, the best pathway to truth. I, I like being able to do that. So, particularly with the, um, question of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, since I for so long was just undecided and that wasn’t my central question. I had wanted to bring people on from both sides because there are people who are very committed to their beliefs on either side of that. So I think it’s worthwhile to let people hear both sides and make up their mind. I, you know, I think that, that, anyway, that, that was my initial desire. So it was interesting to me. And now, and maybe you could help me understand this, because from my very first message to you this last little while, your response every single time has kind of been about how People like me or people who, who, um, believe something different than the church than the church currently has in a gospel topics essay, which is rather a, a rather remote reference. It’s not, you know, but, but anyway, um, that we need to face church discipline if we speak publicly. And that’s really. Surprised me because I thought, oh, could we have a conversation without threatening one another’s church membership? You know, that, that’s been confusing to me. And so, um, but I will go ahead, and I, I mean, maybe you could help me understand why that’s so, so important to you, and then I’ll go ahead and respond. Like Like for me, the truth will win. And so if we allow voices to speak, um, particularly sincere people who are seeking truth, that’s how everybody, we believe that everybody has the gift of the Holy Ghost and that we Can seek the gift of discernment. So to me, the best thing we can do is let, let the voices and the ideas be spoken, and then let people discern the truth for themselves. So I’m, I’m curious to know why that seems objectionable to you.
[22:48] Brian Hales: Well, and, and I apologize if any of my previous communications have felt threatening to you. Um I, like I said, I, my first book on polygamy came out in ’91. I have been doing this for 30 years. I have watched lots of people who, who disagree with the church on something. It could be on, we should be practicing polygamy. More recently, we’re getting people say, well, Joseph was a monogamist, um, within the context of the historical record, and my research, that’s a false teaching. And if somebody is embracing a false teaching, and let me just teach generally, OK? Don’t take this personally, and I mean anybody can take it personally, but a person who embraces a false teaching. is on the pathway that will lead them out of the church eventually, and it usually comes from deadening. They embrace that with gusto, and over time it can’t sustain their their faith and their faith wanes. And so the best thing I can do for any person who is an alternate voice disagreeing with the church, I think in the long term is to help them recognize what’s going on here. And, and, and, and something that’s moving them to disagree, and in my view, teach false teachings, is going to eventually lead them out of the church. And, and, and on this topic though, this topic is easier because the historical evidence is, is, is very clear to me. I, you know, there’s, well, we, we can postpone that. So, so it’s historical truth and it’s, and it’s gospel truth, and it’s being disagreed. You you’re, you’re saying everybody gets to have the Holy Ghost. Holy Ghost doesn’t do that. He’s not gonna tell John over there that polygamy, Joseph was a monogamist when the, the 15 apostles who are seers. Prophets and and revelators have have determined in 1876 and, and since then that Joseph was a polygamist. You see, the Holy Ghost doesn’t tell people different messages. And, and, and so that’s where I’m coming from and I, and you want to say something, so I’ll be quiet.
[24:47] Michelle: Yeah, well, let me, let me ask a question. Let me just, um, I, I, I mean, I have a lot of questions I’d like to ask. But for example, um, one of my heroes is Jane Manning James. And, you know, that we, I was taught growing up, the stories of her going to church president after church president saying, Can I have my blessings, and I’ll outlive you. And she, she knew that she should receive temple blessings and that she, you know, and, um, And so what I’m hearing is a little tricky to me because the fact is, the church has changed many things over time. Even looking at polygamy, we went from being completely disavowed, completely, um, denied to being required to being, again, And not allowed to being really ignored and shushed and tried to hide away to then it, you know, it becoming out in the open again with the historians in the 80s to, I, I mean, I mean, we have a lot of and so I guess people who, um, believed that the priesthood ban was In error and was a very sad thing and led people to leave the church. I think that there’s a difference between saying, I really don’t think this is of God. And I, right? And, and saying, brethren, you need to do this and everyone should leave the church. And I like, so I’m confused because I think people did have the Holy Spirit tell them, Oh my goodness, my black brother is every bit as much. Of, of, of as much worth as I am, and every bit is loved of God, and every bit as valiant and of deserving of every blessing. And so I’m confused how we can say that there is only one message that the Holy Ghost can give, and we all have to be in agreement, because my experience is very different from that.
[26:35] Brian Hales: Well, let me, let me first say, again, I apologize for using the wrong picture, that, that I should have thought harder on that. Um, and also I sense that you’re pulling your punches, you’re being kind in your verbiage and, and I appreciate that. Thank you. I hope I will be the same. But I think Jane Manning James is a good example, because she didn’t um publish a book, she didn’t go on the circuit lecturing about how she was being a victim victimized by the church’s policy. She quietly Disagreed and waited for the Lord, and eventually it it became OK. Things worked out for her. And
[27:17] Michelle: I would say things did not work out with her because I think one of the tragedies is that all of her deposterity left the church. And I think that is a stain that we wear to this day that is heartbreaking. For the sacrifices that she made, that faithful woman, boy, if that were me, I would have wanted to know that my posterity was blessed by my sacrifices. And I think that’s heartbreaking.
[27:42] Brian Hales: Well, and, and I’ll be honest, uh, the, you know, priesthood band is not my area of expertise, and, and so you’re, you’re probably more familiar with some of the details than I am. But again, when we look at individualized, uh, when we look at her behavior, that’s, I think what God wants us all to do if we are uncomfortable with a teaching or with a leader, local or general. Um, to, to become an activist, to provide, uh, you know, counterpoint, and to gather a following behind that counterpoint is, is not what Joseph Smith taught the Holy Spirit is going to do.
[28:16] Michelle: So can you make another clarification that to me is important and I, you know, like I think that I, I think you’re, um, referring to me as an activist, which is quite surprising to me because, um, there is abso there’s literally nothing that I am. Asking the church to do. Certainly. There’s nothing that I’m asking anybody to do. I’m, and, and you did ask if I, you know, in our exchanges and your questions, if I felt inspired to do this. And I will say, like, profoundly, very much profoundly, and I can share some of those experiences if you’re interested. But, um, but I don’t have to. But I think that saying This is what I believe is truth. And this is why I believe it’s important. And these are the reasons why to to people to let them consider without ever saying, I mean, I’ve made it abundantly clear just as you have. I have no calling. I have no authority. I have no anything. I’m just sharing scriptural insights that I think are important, and I, and I, it’s hard for me to see how that could be. Either threatening or if you do that, you can’t worship with us cause we agree on this topic and you’re not just silent. We disagree on this topic and you’re not just silent about it. It’s really hard for me to understand that.
[29:37] Brian Hales: So, so if somebody thought that we should be drinking wine instead of water, and they were having podcasts and gathering followers and, and trying to explore that narrative, that would be OK too? Well,
[29:50] Michelle: let me clarify again. I’m, we are living monogamy. I’m not trying to change anything the church is doing, so I’m not trying to get us to start. Drinking wine instead of water. And I have actually, to be honest, wondered as I’ve read through the scriptures, going, Oh, where was the revelation to change the literal wording of the sacrament? Prayer. I don’t know. That’s interesting. So I have pondered on that with groups of friends before. I’ll I’m thankful that we drink water instead of wine. But it’s, you know, I think it’s a question that could definitely be discussed. And, and so I’m not, so, but that is an important clarification because I’m not trying to get the church to change anything. The church is living what I believe to be truth.
[30:32] Brian Hales: Well, what if somebody thought women should be ordained? I mean, is there any dogma, any doctrine, any scripture in our canon that shouldn’t be open for public debate on podcasts or websites in, in your, in your thoughts? By active members, by believers.
[30:49] Michelle: I guess there’s differences in opinion. Uh, like, for me, I love the scriptures, and I think approaching the scriptures with openness and curiosity is so much better than assuming that because of our cherry-picked parts and manuals that we already know what they say, right? And so, so, uh, I think that scriptures should be able to be discussed. The things that, I mean, I mean, you, I, I think that if you set yourself up in Lo direct opposition to the church in terms of saying Um, it’s awful, it’s going to lead you to hell, you shouldn’t be part of it. Well, well then, you know, may we, we can discuss that. I personally am not really a big fan of excommunication in general. I think it Doesn’t do much to benefit many people, you know, I think, I think it’s quite medieval and draconian and violent, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But, um, but I can see, yeah, I, I just discussed this with Brian Hailes, if you, I mean, you’re Brian Hailes. I just discussed this with Patrick Mason a few weeks ago and kind of asked these I’m sorry, go ahead.
[31:55] Brian Hales: No, I, I like that podcast. I like.
[31:58] Michelle: Oh, good. And, and, you know, we had some of these similar discussions. I asked him some really hard questions, kind of leaning toward the other end about like, how far can we push it, you know, but, but I think that, um, what I’m honestly much more concerned about is that we, um, Excommunicate. Well, like you sent me the scripture about wolves among the sheep. And, um, and, and it’s so strange when people like, call me a wolf in sheep’s clothing or say I’m a wolf when I’m very open and clear with what I believe and I’m not, you know, I think the wolves are, um, Men in leadership who take advantage of young girls or young boys and do horrible things and are allowed to stay in the church, those are things that I think that that’s speaking toward. Toward much more, but you know, we have an example in my ward recently of an excommunication that came decades after the thing occurred and it was all, it’s all hard, and so So I think yes, there is a place for excommunication when there are people who actually present a danger to people who are not empowered to protect themselves. Absolutely, I’m 100% for it in those cases when we need to actually protect people. I, it’s hard for me to relate that to myself.
[33:17] Brian Hales: Um, well, there’s several reasons, and if you look at the handbook, and it’s been a while since I was in a position where I had to, but, um, one reason that that the church leaders need to excommunicate a person that trumps even the effect it has on the person is if that person is leading people out of the church, like Denver snuffer has been excommunicated cause he was teaching that the uh the the church is an apostasy. And uh, so otherwise members are just going to be confused. And, and that’s the stewardship that they have. And if they don’t do it, if they don’t, uh, and it’s in DNC 64, I, I sent you the reference, they can offend God. I mean, it’s part of their, their stewardship to, to keep the, the vessel pure.
[34:03] Michelle: And The, the challenge is confusion. That’s kind of what you’re finding to be the, the, that’s what we need to protect is to not have members be confused. Am I understanding that correctly? because they won’t know who it’s safe to believe. Like, I think it’s pretty clear who the church leaders are and who the nobodies are, right? Big nobody right here. And the church leaders have, um, they do have the platform, the general conference, and the, you, you know, we, we sustain them officially. And, um, I guess I, I would have the same question on the other side that you asked me about. Well, how, like, who would you excommunicate? And for me, I’m like, well, Like, like, for example, I have a different interpretation of several scriptures. Um, Lot’s wife is one I’ve talked about quite a few times. In my view, I think that a pillar of salt is a powerful reference that the savior gives to her. She’s one of my heroes, my scriptural heroes that I think has very important messages for mothers. And, and I think, while that’s not the conventional view, that’s what the Lord taught me. And I think there’s worth and use to it. I would never, I would never stand and say, everyone has gotten this wrong but me. But I do think that it’s valuable for me to be able to say, hey, here’s an interpretation that has served me well, if anyone else would like to look at it. I don’t think that means I need, need to be kicked out of the church.
[35:29] Brian Hales: Well, I, I think we need to, to drill down a little bit on, on what maybe I need to drill down. Believing differently, as I said in, in the number one principle is not the problem. The problem is when we teach contrary to the accepted scriptures and doctrines of the church, and we do it publicly. You can stay home and discuss with your family anything you want, and it won’t be a problem. So when you come out.
[35:56] Michelle: Yeah, yeah. Can I, can I stop you there? Cause you, you’ve said the doctrines and the scriptures and doctrines. And what’s interesting there is actually, I think I’m in perfect alignment with the scriptures. That’s what my whole podcast has been dedicated to. And also, polygamy isn’t a doctrine. I can’t find scripturally where it’s called a doctrine. And actually, President Hinckley even On a worldwide stage, said it was not doctrinal. So again, that’s interesting to be accused of opposing scriptures and doctrine. When I feel like I’m doing exactly the opposite. I feel like I’m really delving into the scriptures and the doctrine of marriage as I believe God ordained it, which is the script, which I believe the scriptures teach.
[36:40] Brian Hales: OK. Well, well, let me, let me respond with two observations. I did a study on, on what the early leaders, how, what words they use to, to refer to polygamy. And and law and commandment and doctrine were used on occasion, but the best way to refer to it, and you already know this probably, is it’s a principle. And a practice, and that’s all. It is not the new and everlasting covenant. It is, it is not a law commanded always because bookmoan peoples weren’t polygamists. And, and so, so the, the idea of that, that I’m talking just about your references to polygamy as a non-doctrine or whatever isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about What you’ve told me you believe that polygamy was a mistake of men. That that that goes contrary to the official narrative of the church, which is that Joseph was commanded. I, I’ve written an article. I compiled 9 individuals who all knew Joseph personally. They all left accounts later of him telling them, and there’s 22 now on my list, the article only had 20, I think, but that they all reported Joseph saying, and angel commanded him to establish the practice of polygamy. Now that’s the official narrative. Now, if you want to believe differently than that, I, I let, let me, let me back up. If a person wants to believe differently, that’s their right, and they can reject it wholly. But if they want to try to convince other people or to cast doubt on the official. Uh, uh, position by saying that it’s open for debate. I think that’s where the problem comes. Again, if they want to talk about where the promised land is, that’s not a problem, because there is no official teaching. But we have Joseph Smith quoted by 9 individuals over 20 times saying an angel commanded it. And then we have another voice saying, no, it was a mistake of men. Do you see a contradiction and a potential problem there?
[38:40] Michelle: 00, I see a contradiction. Absolutely. Of course, we all do. I don’t see a potential problem in terms of, um, I guess I do have confidence in what I believe the Book of Mormon repeatedly teaches, which is the way to discern truth and error. And it’s not about what voices are kicked out by the community and what are, what voices are allowed, or by the institution. It’s by what the Lord. Inspires us to believe is true. If, like, if we want to apply what I, what I’m hearing to be your standard. And, um, and you know, I know we can talk about this because the church at different times. But, but if we are going to say the church of the day gets to decide who can and cannot be heard and who can and cannot speak truth, well then, no, no biblical or book of Mormon prophet or even Joseph Smith would survive, you know, we would certainly like, like. Samuel the Lamanite, Lehi, none of them were established prophets. Jesus Christ Himself, all of them were people who, and let me clarify in case this gets misconstrued, I am not claiming to be a prophet or comparing myself to scriptural figures. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m looking at the principle of how we decide what is truth. And it’s confusing to me to say, well, The institution gets to set their standard for the day of what, you know, gets to set the narrative. And anyone who disagrees with that needs to be thrown off the wall. You know, kicked out of the when the scriptures even say like, don’t, don’t kick them out from among you. And so, and, and Joseph Smith said how much he loved to not be given dictates that he had to believe. I, I, I have the quote somewhere. But and so, um, so I guess, and, and I’d like to move on to talk about some other things. I think, I think I understand. Um, just, I mean, I, I definitely understand your perspective. I still don’t quite understand why it’s so essentially important to you. Maybe we can tease that out a little bit more, you know, cause for me, I think that the more people that come together and worship and we learn through, I, I know, I certainly have learned so much through people who disagree with me. I learned much more from engaging with people who disagree with me. Than I do engaging with people who agreed with me from the beginning. And so I think that God made us this way intentionally and gives us each the answers that we are capable of understanding and receiving. And we all, I think when we all know everything, we’ll all agree. But in the meantime, we all have to just settle for the part, the little bits that we know and, and try to learn more as we engage together in love and community and You know, and charity, I guess, that’s my perspective.
[41:22] Brian Hales: Well, I, I think I agree with, with some of the things that you said, but let, let me use an example. Right after the Book of Mormon is is published, Hiram Page has a sear stone, and he starts to produce pages of Revelation. He convinces the Whitvers and even Oliver Cowy.
[41:38] Michelle: And he was also directing Joseph and what should happen, and no,
[41:42] Brian Hales: no, they didn’t go that far. He was, he was saying where where Zion would be, but we really don’t know
[41:48] Michelle: what
[41:48] Brian Hales: the
[41:49] Michelle: relation. What the church should do. And so just to clarify, I don’t wanna, but I’m not claiming to receive revelation. I’m not writing scripture, I’m not directing what the church should do. I’m not doing any of those things. I’m like, like, if someone were to say, well, the, the church now with the gospel topic essay has definitely opened the door to believe, to say the priesthood ban, you can interpret it to say it was an error of men. It was due to prejudice. And I think that many of us tend to agree that it was never of God. And if there are people who believe that it was of God, that’s, that’s, I happen to think that’s a sad belief, but that’s their prerogative. But I would be hard pressed to say, if you believe this wasn’t of God, you have to be kicked out. And I guess I’m in the same place with polygamy. I think. That’s very strange to say you have to believe what I believe or we get to kick you out.
[42:44] Brian Hales: No, you, you, you’re, you’re mis misrepresenting what I’m saying here, Michelle. Let me try.
[42:49] Michelle: I’m
[42:49] Brian Hales: sorry,
[42:50] Michelle: um, because I’m saying it because I’m saying it publicly because,
[42:54] Brian Hales: well, you’re, you’re actively promoting an alternate view that contradicts the church’s accepted scripture and narrative. Now, the active part of it, the public part of it is the problem. You can believe whatever you want, and that’s my concern for you and for uh Rob Fotheringham, Whitney Horning, Demmer Snuffer, you know, uh, he’s gone, and, and, but their voices are promoting an alternate narrative. Now, in the gospel, there is one truth. And you’re familiar with the scripture that said, whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same. Now, the servants aren’t always perfect. But Joseph Smith did say, I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations. So, and, and this was after DNC 132 was given. And so, uh,
[43:45] Michelle: OK, OK, that’s up for debate, but
[43:47] Brian Hales: OK. No, it isn’t up for debate. Look at the timeline,
[43:50] Michelle: OK. Well, look at William Clayton’s claims.
[43:54] Brian Hales: Look at,
[43:56] Brian Hales: well, you want to talk about DNC 132? Well, we could talk about it. It’s the next element in my presentation here, um, if, if you want me to go there, but the point is that, uh, DNC 132 has been accepted. And so when we disagree with that, that’s where uh we’re going against accepted teachings.
[44:21] Michelle: And let me ask, 00, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt.
[44:23] Brian Hales: Well, I never actually finished the high page story because today, and, and I just listened to a podcast by a guy who’s kind of affiliated with the community of Christ and he was trying to bring everybody under the same tent and then listening to. Him. I just thought, you know, I bet if Hiram Page showed up at your door, you’d just gladly receive him in your congregation because you just want to have everybody worshiping together. But, you know, for Joseph Smith, he told Oliver Cowdery, go tell Hiram that his revelations are not of me, and he’s deceived by the devil. So I think there’s a process here where very sincere people who are doing very religious things, who have very strong feelings that they’re being guided by God can be deceived. And, and, and that’s why I, I wonder about when you said, if I understood you correctly, that we can have all kinds of opinions. Well, yes, we can on things that aren’t orthodox or scriptorial. But I, I disagree that lots of opinions are healthy for the church or for the cause of truth, um, if, if in fact truth does exist. If you believe that the brethren are, are generally guided, that the scriptures are canonized and should be followed.
[45:31] Michelle: OK. So, so I have a couple of questions. Um, first, so it’s my understanding, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that the that, well, I know with the Gospel topics essays that the church reached out to different people and asked them to work on those. You know, the church leaders aren’t, I, I know my dad and all of his church leadership was busy with his church leadership and wasn’t studying Mormon history necessarily, right? And so it’s my understanding that most of the church leaders aren’t the same as the church historians. And so, so I know that um like Patrick Mason told me that they hired him to do the um essay on violence and um mainly the mountain. Meadow massacre, meadows massacre and some other things. And it’s my understanding that the church tapped you to do the essay on Navu polygamy. I, I used to think you did all of them, but I’ve been corrected. So maybe you can clarify that. Were you working on the Nu, the polygamy and Navvu essay?
[46:29] Brian Hales: What happened was I was doing the research um for my trilogy. And uh as I would interface with them, asking the historians, uh the church historians for permission to use documents, and they always granted it. In the meantime, I would share with them my discoveries and gave them, you know, copies of all of, all of my notes. They wrote the essay, and then they, they sent it to me a few months before it was posted. I went through it and made a bunch of recommendations. They accepted. I think all of the ones that I wrote on the copy, there are a few uh more general things I was recommending that would have taken it back to the uh brethren, cause they vetted all of those and, and those they didn’t accept, but every one of the ones in the, in the text, they, they accepted, and then it was posted. So I, I shared information. I’m not a writer. I mean, I’m a doc I’m a physician. So, you know, they wouldn’t have had me do what Patrick could do cause Patrick’s such a fine writer. Um, and yeah, yeah, so anyway, that was my input, but they, they were very happy to To let me be involved. And I was very glad to, to be able to share, you know, the research that I had.
[47:36] Michelle: I think that’s great. I’m glad to know that there’s the working together. And, um, you know, I think, I think the thing though that I find a little bit, um, confusing or maybe potentially troubling. I, I don’t wanna, but, but, you know, I, like, you’re not telling me that if I don’t believe that the priesthood ban was of God. That I need to, you know, that it’s confusing and I need to be disciplined, you know, but, but when it comes to the essay that you like, like in a, in a way we could see that you provided the narrative for the church. Because it’s changed over time, and this isn’t what the church has always said is the case, but it’s what the church is saying now in the Gospel topics essay, which you worked on. So part of what I’m kind of hearing is that it sounds to me a little like you’re saying, I My, I, I helped to determine what the church’s narrative is, and if you publicly disagree with it, then you can’t be in the church. That, that’s a little off-putting, potentially. Does that make sense?
[48:40] Brian Hales: No, it it doesn’t make sense at all to me, um, but, uh, you, you mentioned that in one of your, your messages, and I, I, I had to to recognize that we’re in different places. Um, and, and you keep going back to the priesthood that as an example of a church leader who in your view was wrong and so we can generalize that principle that all the leaders could be wrong or any of them could be wrong at any one time. Therefore, we don’t have to trust what they teach, and that isn’t how our church, but that’s what, that’s what I’m hearing. So, so tell me why that isn’t what you’re saying.
[49:13] Michelle: Well, I actually do think it’s an important thing to recognize that the, the buck stops with us. Throughout, like I’ve mentioned a couple of times, throughout the Book of Mormon, when we are taught how to recognize and discern and find truth, it’s never, it never teaches us. It’s What the head of the institution teaches. It’s always, um, the one on one spiritual discernment from the Holy Ghost, from the Lord speaking directly to us. And I think that’s really important because this life is about spiritual growth and spiritual progression. And coming to God. And I think we do have to do that individually. And I think that when we, when we sort of, um, don’t step into our own responsibility, but we abdicate it. And, you know, like I think of when Moses, oh, I won’t get the scripture reference, I’ve mentioned it before, but he wanted all of the children of Israel to come and meet God. You know, and he said, what to the Lord that all the Lord’s people were prophets. And the scriptures talk about in that day, they will not have to say to one another, they won’t have to teach one another of God and say, ask one another, know ye the Lord, because all men will know the Lord. So I do think that this individual responsibility that we are given as children of God is important. And, and I, I have a lot of respect for that.
[50:32] Brian Hales: Well, and, and I do too. But in the church, and Joseph Smith referred to this on that quote that I that I mentioned, there are two pathways to God in our church, not one, there’s 21 of them comes through the ordinances, through the priesthood and through the leadership, and that scripture says, whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same. God is telling us truth can come through our leaders. And then, of course, we have a direct path to go. Now, false spirits can can influence leaders, but the fact that we have a quorums that have to be unanimous on the big decisions, that helps us have confidence that our leaders are not being led 100% by a false spirit. But individuals are very easy to fool, as was Hiram Page, OK, and those that followed him briefly, you know, the Whitms and Oliver Cowry. And so when the two disagree, can you understand why I think I would put my money with our leaders, and maybe Brigham was wrong. I mean, you overread, I think, what the gospel topic essay is saying. I mean, it could leave the door open for that interpretation, but it does not say that, that Brigham was wrong.
[51:39] Michelle: No, I said that you, I think it could be interpreted either way. I think the church is trying to allow room for people to believe it either way. It is how I read
[51:47] Brian Hales: that. But, but I, if you are saying that that there’s enough fallibility in our leaders that that the doctrines that we have accepted, particularly on the teachings of Joseph Smith and plural marriage, that those can be dismissed because maybe the all of the people who say that it’s true were were are wrong. I think that’s extreme, if, if, if not uh highly problematic.
[52:08] Michelle: OK. OK. That’s, that’s. So, so let me ask you a question, because you have spoken about, um, disagreeing with scripture. And, um, and I think I actually do believe that 132 is problematic. You know, my top, my title is 132 Problems. Um, but what’s interesting to me is that Section 101, the original Section 101 in the 1835 and 1844 doctrine and covenants, the article on marriage, very strongly and, you know, with no room for no wiggle room, said marriage between one man and one woman was God’s law and is all that is, was all that is acceptable in the church. So it’s, it’s been really interesting to me to know that that was included in the document. After the covenant up until 1876. And so for all of that time, the teacher, the leaders of the church were teaching in opposition to their canonized and accepted scriptures. I find that to be really interesting, that like, how, how do you think about that?
[53:15] Brian Hales: Well, again, I, I think you’re way over reading section CI 101 of the 1835 doctrine and Covenants. Let me quote. Joseph F. Smith, he was church president at the time, this is 1902. He’s referring to section CI of the 1835 uh doctrine and Covenants. He said this, the declaration that one man should have one wife and one woman but one husband bears the implication that a man might possibly be permitted at some time to have more than one wife, while the woman was to have but one husband. Now, that’s his statement. What he’s saying is that that the statement is ambiguous. Even if, even if people don’t want to say it is, the statement that a man should have one wife could be at least one wife or only one wife. It’s ambiguous on that. That’s what President Joseph F. Smith is saying here in this quotation. And, and so to say that it’s, it’s, it’s an ironclad 11 man, one woman declaration is not it. I, I don’t think Joseph intentionally created that language with the loophole there, but, you know, he, he was, I believe he was inspired and he may have known the future, so maybe that’s why the ambiguity is there. But again, I, I don’t read it to say, and neither did Joseph F. Smith, what, what you are interpreting it to have said.
[54:32] Michelle: OK. So, so that’s really interesting. I’m trying to look it up cause I don’t have it memorized. So I’ll see if I can find it. And see, for me, what that speaks to is the, um, motivated reasoning that I think is present in so much of polygamy. Cause I think that, like, from my perspective, any reasonable person going to read this would interpret it as it said. And then you have to kind of twist it into a pretzel to claim it means the opposite of what it means in order to justify a belief. It’s how, that’s how that, that sounds to me. Let me, let me see if I can
[55:06] Brian Hales: read it. I’m not saying it meant that. I’m not even saying it’s intentional, but to say that it’s ironclad is going well beyond the words of, of the, uh, of the section. In my view. Well,
[55:18] Michelle: it certainly is absolutely how Emma Smith interpreted it. She used it repeatedly to proclaim monogamy, and that that was God’s law, and that that was what was in their scripture. It was so it was certainly interpreted, and it was designed to, to teach the world that look, you’re accusing us of this, but we’re not doing it. This is what we believe, and this is what we say God has established and ordained, and this is what we practice. So I think that the general consensus would be that it was claiming that um let’s see, here it is, inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe one man should have one wife and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death when either is at liberty to marry again. So to say that because it says but one husband and says I have one wife is Like, like, to me it’s looking for ways to um You, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s the same to me as what people do to Jacob 2:30 to try to claim that that is a loophole that says God doesn’t really mean everything he’s saying here, cause we can twist it to mean. And, and, and I also just don’t think that, I don’t think Joseph Smith was deceptive. I know God isn’t deceptive. And so it, that’s tricky to me. But
[56:41] Brian Hales: I, I was just, I was just disputing the, the, the what I thought was kind of an extreme interpretation saying that it was, I don’t remember what word you use, it’s not ironclad and, and if you disagree with Joseph ethnic, go ahead. I’m not defending. You know, what he said, and, and it’s interesting because he’s actually responding to an RLDS uh publication that was the first that I could find to identify this, this verbiage that actually isn’t as clear as it initially seems to be. I, to me, it’s just an entertaining side story. But when people want to say CI is exclusively monogamy, they really are going beyond the actual verbiage.
[57:18] Michelle: Oh, that’s interesting. OK. That, well, see, that tells me more about how, um, polygamists interpret things than about what, um, CI actually says, in my, in my opinion. But I, I hear what you’re saying. I, um, I had a couple of thoughts. Like, so I did want to start. And, and maybe we can back up and then come back to this and, and kind of, you know, I’ll, I’ll back up and talk about some of these other things, and then we can come back to this topic if that works for you.
[57:43] Brian Hales: Yeah, can I just do one thing? Let me share the screen for just a second. This is an article that I wrote, um, where I talk about all of Joseph’s reported denials, and it does talk about, um, section CI in the 1835, uh, uh. Doctrine and covenants and you can, you can just Google my name and, and polygamy denials or something. I think it’ll come up, you can download it for free. So, anyway, I just want to throw that in. But yeah, go ahead, whatever you’d like.
[58:13] Michelle: That’s great. I’ve actually read that article. I appreciated it. So that was, um, thank you. Um, OK, so one of the things, uh, now I, I noticed, I just saw today as I was trying to hurry and get a little bit of preparation. You know, we canceled this and then put it back on at the last minute. That I’m telling all of the listeners. So I really didn’t have time to prepare, unfortunately, like I would have liked to. But I saw that you are now, um, like more recently, defending the authorship of the Book of Mormon, that, that Joseph Smith didn’t come up with some way to come up with the Book of Mormon. And, um, and it’s interesting cause that’s not a. That I find necessary for me. I, I love the Book of Mormon. I find truth in it. I am, you know, I just, so it’s interesting to me to hear the discussions about how he might have put papers in the bottom of a hat with holes in it, or, you know, all those different topics. But I did want to acknowledge that you were working on that and, um, and appreciate it. And, and it You know, one of the things that I have come to appreciate and love and has been an additional testimony for me about the Book of Mormon even more as I’ve been studying this, um, you know, I, I’ve studied polygamy for many years, but most intensely this last year as I’ve been doing this podcast has been That in my like, well, like not even in my estimation, the Book of Mormon is the strongest book of scripture in its prohibition of polygamy of all scriptures. Like it, it very strongly condemns and forbids polygamy more than any other book of scripture does, and it does so repeatedly. So I’m I, I guess I’m kind of curious how you make sense of that, where we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, and we believe it to be the most correct book, and yet how do you believe that and then also believe that polygamy is of God.
[1:00:07] Brian Hales: Well, I, I mean, you, you referred to it earlier, um. You know, there’s the levirate law. Let me, let me talk about that for a second, because the verbiage could be important. In, in the Old Testament under the law of Moses, if a man dies, Um, his brother is to marry the widow if they don’t have any male offspring already. Now, if the, the brother is already married, the, the widow becomes his second wife. That’s polygamy. It was acknowledged to be, uh, Something that could be practiced in Christ’s time. I don’t know that we have any examples of it, but to say that Christ was against polygamy is not exactly supported because he acknowledged this, this dynamic which which could create polygamy, at least a a big a bigamy with with one extra wife. But the language of that, um, uh, and I, I can’t bring up the scripture, the big, but it, it’s, uh, that the, the brother marries the widow to raise up seed to the deceased to the deceased. that language is the same language we find in Jacob 2:30. And you said it’s not a loophole. I think it absolutely isn’t a loophole, and I will probably just have to agree to disagree, but I don’t know what else it could possibly be referring to. But you’re absolutely right. There is no authorized polygamy within the Book of Mormon. Um, but I read that statement to raise up seed to be the same application that we see in the Levirate law and that God was, was reserving that possibility. Um, that he could command it, which, which he, uh, we, I believe he did through Joseph.
[1:01:49] Michelle: OK, OK, so, so for you, Jacob 2:30 kind of trumps. Trumps anything else in the Book of Mormon. Because for me, it’s, um, the, the examples we have of polygamy at the in the Book of Mormon are some of the most despicable characters like King Noah and Riplike, and each time the Lord very, um, points it out, points it out to condemn, to condemn polygamy. And, um, and then I think that Jacob too. I think we do a big disservice to both Jacob 2 and 3 by only focusing on verse 30. And so, so, here, let, let me go to this, this question. Um, I, I have heard, and I appreciate this because I think it matters, but I’ve heard you, and maybe, maybe Laura did, maybe not. I can’t remember. You can remind me, but you, you have a presentation where you get, or you at different times have talked about potential reasons for polygamy. And do you mind sharing? Sharing what those are, do you have them on the top, off the top of your head?
[1:02:54] Brian Hales: Well, book the, uh, section, sorry, I’m trying to get my light a little better here. It’s, it’s getting darker. Yeah, um, the section 132 gives four reasons why it could be practiced, not commanded, but just practice. One of them is a restoration of all things. It’s verses 40 and 45. The second one is a specialized trial for that time and place. That’s verse 51. Uh, to multiply and replenish the earth is verse 63, and then 1/4 1 is, uh, verses 16 and 17 tell us that if a person dies and they aren’t in the New Everlasting covenant, they live separately and singly without exaltation and their safe condition to all eternity. And so everybody needs to be married, and ostensibly plural marriage, and we’re talking about polygyny, not polyandry, that’s never been permitted. Polygyny could allow more worthy women to have the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and then be a candidate for exaltation. So those are the four reasons that could be permitted, but we don’t have any. A declaration from Joseph Brigham, any of the leaders why Joseph taught that it was commanded between the early 1840s and then Wilfred Woodruff taught it was no longer commanded in 1890.
[1:04:10] Michelle: Oh, OK. That’s interesting. I want to come back to that. And I, um, um, so, so just really quickly, I, I believe that, um, Jacob 2:31 gives us a very clear reason of why polygamy is forbidden. And, um, it’s, it’s stated in other places as well, but it’s It’s sad to me that we always ignore this, that we just read 30 and read, and it says, For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yeah, and in all the lands of my people because of the wickedness and abominations of their husband continuing on to 32. And I will not suffer, sayeth the Lord of hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, sayeth the Lord of hosts. So I think the reasons, like the Lord wants us to understand the reasons for his commands. And to me, this reason is really important, especially when I compare, like, I think when I was reading Jacob 2:30 and Section 132 at the same time, that was one of my like kind of You know, central consequential moments, cause I was like, this is not the same God. These were not written by the same author, because in 132, the women are just treated as possessions and given willy-nilly and threatened. And, and here God is saying, I see women and I care about their experiences. And that’s really important to me, you know? And so, um, so in talking about the reasons for polygamy, I just read, reread, um, Orson Pratt’s speech from the 1852 special conference they had where they revealed Section 1, well, what became Section 132. And, um, and in that he does outline reasons. And, and so I guess what I’m finding, these are the things that I find so problematic or confusing because his reasons are so different from any reasons we would recognize or give today.
[1:06:08] Brian Hales: I don’t quote them. I don’t know if you want to push back against Orson Pratt, go ahead, but I’m not going to defend him. So I, I don’t, I don’t quote him in my trilogy. I think some of those ideas are ridiculous and, uh. Yeah, yeah. And I don’t, I don’t blame anybody for Being offended by some of those ideas. They, they weren’t, uh, kind to, to women, I
[1:06:29] Michelle: think. Well, and it, and I think it goes beyond that. But I think the thing that I find interesting is, like, I just was listening to, 00, I’ll probably do an episode on it, but someone that does a podcast that was talking about polygamy, and he, and he was saying, which I’ve heard many times, that we can’t receive the same confirmation and, um, understanding a witness of it that they could, cause we’re not commanded to live it. But so then I find this, and I think how strange that we think that we understand the reasons better than the the original leaders who we claim were commanded to live it and who were charged to teach it. So they taught it to their people and taught the reasons for it and all of the testimonies given of it, especially, well, I, I’ve, I’ve done a lot of, you know, tried to research to some extent the testimonies of women, and they’re all based in the same reasoning to some extent. So it’s strange to me that we, we believe their testimonies of it and their reasons for it. But I mean, I mean, we, we reject those, but then we keep the teaching and then kind of come up with our own reasons for it. Does that, do you get what I’m saying? Does that trouble you at all?
[1:07:41] Brian Hales: Well, I don’t think there’s any official teaching. Now you could say Orson Pratt was an apostle and speaking in a special general conference, so that’s, that’s
[1:07:50] Brian Hales: canon.
[1:07:52] Michelle: Yeah,
[1:07:52] Brian Hales: that’s canonized scripture. But if you look at what’s script or what is authoritative teachings in the church, it really falls down because it’s not repeated. It’s certainly not in our day. I think it
[1:08:04] Michelle: was repeated often in that day. Many of those. Yeah, but, but that’s what we are talking about is like, like you’re saying to me that I can’t disagree publicly with the current teachings of the church, but I think that recognizing that current teachings of the church change while we have an unchanging God with unchanging commandments and doctrines, I think that’s important to recognize. I’m sorry, I interrupted you though.
[1:08:33] Brian Hales: No, no, I think you’re bringing up a good point. The, the, the, the things that apostles say are not always telling the same story. And uh Joseph Smith taught, a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such. So the voice of one apostle, um, can be declaring scripture, I guess we could say, less likely because most of that’s gonna come from a combined unanimous quorum and And so I, I just, I worry that that that the next step is that we can say, well, those guys were wrong, so maybe these guys are wrong, and well, if they’re wrong, then why not them? Pretty soon we can question any doctrine, any scripture, and do it publicly, and we, we demand that right. And that’s not what our religion is about. That’s not what any religion really is about. I guess today everybody They maybe they are. They’ll let you go ahead and and oppose them and still retain membership, but, but that’s not what we are because of of what I told you that, that the brethren are commissioned to keep the doctrine pure. And if I come out and disagree with them, they, they have a responsibility to help the members realize that that I was wrong, if, if I was in fact teaching a false teaching.
[1:09:46] Michelle: Well, wouldn’t a good way to do that be Um, wouldn’t it a good way to do that, to be, um, to Tell a better truth, tell a better story, to give a talk saying, here are the scriptures that support this perspective. And when isn’t that a better way to come to truth rather than to silence? Like when, to me, you know, what, who is it? Um, I, I don’t know Kim Eun-jil, you know, like the, the leader of North Korea or the leader of China are the ones who silence other voices cause they’re trying to They’re trying to protect lies. It, it seems to me like a closed society that doesn’t allow, um, dialogue and the exchange of ideas. I think it’s, it’s, it feels to me like it’s trying to protect things that it doesn’t feel like it can defend through discourse and through inspiration and discernment. Whereas the great American idea. which we believe God was instrumental in the foundation of America, was the contest of ideas. And we believe that as the freedom of speech and as the contest of ideas occurs, the best ideas will win out. And the Book of Mormon teaches us that it’s very rare for the majority of the people to be deceived. And so we can have a confidence in people’s ability to discern. is what I believe. And, and, you know, it is interesting because it was Brigham Young. It wasn’t just Orson Pratt’s ideas. Brigham Young charged Orson Pratt to teach the, to teach this. And, and then Brigham Young, um, what’s the word I’m looking for? Confirmed it or amended, you know, he, he supported everything that Orson Pratt had said. And then Brigham Young charged Orson Pratt with changing the doctrine and covenants for the 1876 version. And so it was Orson Pratt who added section 132 and removed. Anyway, it was Brigham who assigned Orson to also change the doctrine and covenants for the new revision for 1876. So Orson Pratt, who was the one who gave all of those reasons that, you know, that I think you are justifiably disagreeing with to support the doctrine of polygamy and call it a doctrine, was also the same one who added Section 132. To the doctrine and covenant. So it is, it is interesting to say, well, I, I recognize the authority to make the change and add 132, but I don’t recognize the authority to provide the reasons for the doctrine that they claimed was revealed to them and that they were commanded to live. Does that make sense to you?
[1:12:26] Brian Hales: Well, again, I think it’s apples and oranges. The uh the decision to put Section 132 in the 1876 doctrine of Covenants was not Orson Pratt’s decision. He may have been a spearhead, but he, he, all of those things were approved by the all of the leaders, including Brigham Young. I mean, to think that Orson Pratt could have slipped this into the doctrine and Covenants and nobody would have noticed and he was 100% responsible. Oh
[1:12:49] Brian Hales: no, he was,
[1:12:51] Michelle: he was the one charged with doing all of the revisions,
[1:12:54] Brian Hales: right, but they would have been approved by the entire quorum of the 12 and the first presidency, and I’m not an expert on that. event. So, you know, I’m making assumptions here, but, um, and then to say that Orson’s giving and I, I don’t disagree with all of the things Orson said in that very long talk, I thought. Um, but there are some things that he said in there that I think are, are dubious at best.
[1:13:16] Brian Hales: And
[1:13:17] Michelle: OK. And we can, we can cover some of those, cause I, I’m, I’d be hard pressed to find many of them that I do agree with. But, but, OK, let me, let me, um, change lanes for a minute and ask you a different question. So one thing that I have heard, um, both you and Laura say is that nobody will be forced to live polygamy. And I’m curious about that, because I do think that polygamy introduces a really interesting problem with our idea of moral agency or free agency. However, we were raised to talk about it. You know, that God, the central, um, value of God sort of is the agency of man, so that we can choose righteousness. And, um, and, and, and how that interacts with polygamy. So, So I guess I’m curious, how do you view the the the the stories of the angel with the sword, whether flaming or not, I know there are varying accounts.
[1:14:12] Brian Hales: There’s only one that says flaming and it’s from a non-latter they say quoting Eliza, and he’s just elaborating.
[1:14:18] Michelle: Well, or, oh, I thought we exchanged that uh with that over YouTube comments, cause, cause I, Orson, is it Orson Whitney’s um biography
[1:14:28] Brian Hales: you didn’t know Joseph. I’m talking just about the people who heard Joseph say it or could have actually some
[1:14:34] Michelle: of them. Oh, so you’re saying Eliza is the only one, not Orson Whitney, talking about Here writing about his. Father, Hebrews. Kimball. Thor
[1:14:41] Brian Hales: and Whitney say that Hebrew saw a flaming sword? I, I’m unaware of that.
[1:14:46] Michelle: Well, he, it’s in his biography of Hebrew that he talks about the flaming sword. But in any case, um, it, I, I, my reading of that is that stories tend to grow and get better with the telling and with time. That seems to be a, a common thing that happens. But so how do you explain the angel with the concept of agency? And, and I guess beyond that, The other part of that question that’s tough for me is Emma, the women. Emma was forced, if the stories of Joseph are true. Emma was forced against her will. And I know that my great, great grandmother was forced, and I have many answers. There are many stories of, particularly women, also men who felt forced, but definitely girls and women. And so how do, how do we make sense of that?
[1:15:40] Brian Hales: You know, it’s a great question. It’s an excellent question. I’m, I’m not sure I have a satisfactory answer except to say that God gives trials. And when we overcome them, we’re blessed and, and if we don’t, then, you know, God has mercy and all that. But why these men and women were, were called to to endure this. I don’t like polygamy, let me just say that. Uh, it’s unfair, men can do it, women can’t, you can’t defend it. I never defend polygamy. Um, it fractures the, uh, the foundation of exclusivity in a monogamous marriage. I’ve been married twice, uh, and I can’t imagine having a second wife. It would, it would totally, uh, make marriage a whole different dynamic, and I don’t think it would be an improvement. So, I don’t defend that. But why, why did these men and women, why were they put in this situation? Um, it’s just like, why are men and women born when they’re born? Were they born with Color skin or location opportunities for education. I can’t answer it. It doesn’t seem fair to me. But if we want to think that God is fair, all we have to do is look around, OK? Somebody’s born in, in Africa to, you know, starving and somebody’s born in Boston to privilege. I, there’s just too many variables there and we can, we can criticize God, but that isn’t gonna do us any good. Um, what we can say, and, and you mentioned this earlier, and I hope it’s OK if I respond, but I don’t believe I’m gonna be a polygamist in eternity. I don’t believe anybody’s gonna have to be a polygamist in eternity for several reasons. Um, the, uh, the, the important thing is that God said that we, those who inherit exaltation will have eternal happiness, that we can trust. The power to seal is the power to loosen, and that can be done by proxy or live. And men, I believe that men and women, everyone who’s worthy, will be in a marriage to a partner and in a marriage dynamic that they 100% accept and have chosen. OK. Nobody’s gonna be forced in eternity into marriage situations that they are not 100% supportive of. And that’s, that’ll that’ll come during the millennium. That’s my personal belief. And if somebody wanted a polygamy, that’s fine. I, I personally think that Joseph was sealed the thirty-something wives. I don’t think they’re all gonna stay with him. That’s my personal opinion, just because the dynamic is weird, but we know nothing about almost nothing about eternal marriage, and we know even less about eternal plural marriage. So, so talking about it, uh, is, is really talking about something that is totally insoluble. We just don’t know.
[1:18:13] Michelle: OK. OK. So, so I guess for me, I think there is a lot that we do know. You know, we know a lot about what God teaches about marriage and the rejections that God makes of plural marriage and the reasons that God gives. Another reason in the Book of Mormon is that I’m sorry, I don’t know what’s happening.
[1:18:35] Brian Hales: Hey, my camera is not blurry at the moment, so that’s a good thing. So I turned on a little more light and before it was making a blurry, so.
[1:18:42] Michelle: We should have done it earlier. So, and now I forgot what I was saying again, um.
[1:18:47] Brian Hales: Oh, we were talking about women in the trials that they were going through, or?
[1:18:52] Michelle: Yeah. Darn it, well, we’ll just start here. We got, we, we’ve had some problems. We have to restart our Zoom meeting and neither of us can remember the sentence we were in the middle of. So hopefully, hopefully we don’t leave you hanging too badly. But, um, but as far as the question about agency, I, I am curious about Emma specifically. Do you believe that Emma is A polygamist in eternity. Cause it sounds to me like what you’re saying is no one will be forced to be a polygamist in eternity regardless of what happens in this life. And, and it’s really interesting cause it’s sorry, I’ll come back to that question about Emma, cause maybe that’s a hard one. I didn’t mean to give you.
[1:19:33] Brian Hales: So, I, I wrote 4 chapters on Emma, so I can certainly speak to that.
[1:19:38] Michelle: OK. Well, you go ahead with, with your view of Emma and eternity, and then I’ll come back to my other. Question.
[1:19:43] Brian Hales: Well, again, you, you said we know more about polygamy and eternity, and I, I, I’m still waiting to hear any details. But as far as Emma’s role, I mean, she was a polygamist wife to Joseph, um, but the power to seal is the power to loosen for any of, of, uh, a man’s wives. And if you’re worthy, that’s the issue, you know, stay in the covenant path, and Emma did. Uh, before she died, she, she wrote a blessing and she said she, she wanted to stay by Joseph’s side in eternity. So she sustained Joseph. She was a polygamy insider. She knew the details. She still sustained him as a prophet. And, and I think that’s, that’s why Joseph said that, that, you know, I would, I would do whatever I have to to get her and I, I’m totally confident that they are together, that she was worthy. Um, she had the hardest, uh, row to hoe, if you will, um, because all of The other uh women could say, well, Joseph told my husband to do it, but Emma always had to worry about, well, maybe this is Joseph’s libido, and he just doesn’t like me anymore or something. I mean, she had a very specific dynamic, and my heart goes out to her and no one should judge her. Um, but again, if you want me to speculate on eternity, will she be a polygamist? I, I don’t know. I mean,
[1:20:55] Michelle: who,
[1:20:57] Brian Hales: who could even go
[1:20:57] Michelle: there. I guess, I guess the question is, in response to, cause it sounds like you, it sounded to me like you have said with quite with, with a lot of confidence that nobody will be forced to live polygamy that doesn’t want to.
[1:21:10] Brian Hales: Well, nobody, no keyholder, no church president has ever said, all these all the beings are. And, and the fundamentalists want to twist a few things that Brigham or Joseph F. Smith said. Those are the quotes they always come up with. But when you look and put them into context, that’s not what they’re saying. And how hard would it be if it were true for a church president, the keyholder, the one who’s in charge of all marriages, whether they’re monogamous or polygamists, to say, you must be a polygamist to be exalted. Nobody ever said that because it isn’t true. So we don’t need to worry about that, even though that may be a tradition or it may be uh uh Abraham Smith said it or something, OK, we don’t have to worry about that. Well, in my opinion, in my opinion.
[1:21:52] Michelle: Orson Pratt said it very clearly under Brigham Young’s direction and with Brigham Young’s um confirming pound on the pulpit in support.
[1:22:03] Brian Hales: Between the 1840s and 1890, polygamy was taught as a commandment. If you wanted all of the, of the blessings, the, it appears you’d have to be participating in polygamy. Now, with that said, 1/4 of the leaders of the church were monogamists. So you had bishops presiding for decades, you know, they did that back then, who are monogamists. So if it were that important, uh, even though it was taught over the pulpit that that they, at that time and place, it was expected. And, and Wilfred Woodruff, when he issued the 1890 manifesto said, we formally taught that polygamy was, was necessary. But you, you can’t make an argument that all exalted beings are polygamists. I, you know, I mean, your, your observations about the Book of Mormon are very insightful. There’s no authorized polygamy in, in the covers. So, so again, I, I don’t think that’s a strong argument, and they just lived under a special commandment for a few decades. I’m glad I’m not living then.
[1:22:59] Michelle: OK. See, that’s interesting. So I, I, I, it’s interesting to hear how you interpret it, cause for me, that’s another confirmation of the faults of the error of polygamy. Because everything that they did claim about polygamy, we no longer believe. We, we reject the things that they taught about it, and we criticize the things that they did. So it’s interesting to me that we want to Claimed the belief while rejecting everything about it and acknowledging the bad fruits everywhere.
[1:23:29] Brian Hales: Well, I, I think you’re overstating the situation. They didn’t believe that all exalted beings were polygamists. They believed that God was commanding, I, I mean by they, I mean the church leaders weren’t teaching that. This church president never taught that. Now, there may have been members and you can go to private journals where they’re talking about all kinds of really crazy things in in in the context of the whole gospel. And that’s not a good source. We need to go to the church president who holds the keys. And when he says, even in the, in, in 1856, 1957, the Reformation in the late 1880s when again, the persecution is hot, uh nobody is saying everybody has to be a polygamist. If you want to be,
[1:24:13] Michelle: like, like in the that very first meeting, they acknowledged the, the, the common teaching and the general understanding, and I wish I had, you know, I, I can find resources and post them later in the comments or and, and you can feel free to do the same. But, um, it was very well understood that if you had this teaching taught to you. And you refuse to live it, you would be damned. That was universally understood. In fact, that was yelled from the crowd in that initial 1852 meeting. Someone said, what will happen if you don’t live this and someone yelled from the crowd, they’ll be damned and everyone. Agreed. Like it was very well understood, and that’s how it was interpreted. And the, and 132 can be interpreted to say that. And it also threatens at least women with destruction if they were taught it. And so you’ll either be damned or destroyed. And I know we try to soft pedal those words, but for me, that’s also troubling because Like, like, Orson Pratt even says, like, this is Mormon version of damned, which means you’ll be stunted from your exaltation if you don’t lift polygamy. But then my question is, then, well then, what’s the difference of having been taught it or not having been taught it? If all it is is you don’t get exalted without it, what’s the difference? You know, and then we also try to soft pedal destroyed to also just mean not exalted. But I’ve looked through the scriptures like just this morning I did another. You know, word search of destroy in the scriptures. And it’s pretty, it pretty much means destroyed. It’s a strong word, except in 132 where we pretend it means something different. So that’s why to me, the takeaway from that all is, yeah, it was all a big mistake. But, but I, I acknowledge that you read that very differently.
[1:25:56] Brian Hales: Well, I, I think, and I wish Laura were here. She had a really nice presentation where she presented God’s words to Emma in section 25, how they were kind and validating, and then in section 132, it is harsh. And, and there’s no, you know, getting around that. Um, but see, we, we have a God who is willing to show loving kindness to us, but he’s also willing to send earthquakes and whirlwinds. Uh, section 43 just talks about God has done everything he could to try to get our attention. And I read section 132 as Emma was at that point where she needed strong language, and Lord had tried soft language wasn’t working. And, and if you look at the history behind it, what’s going on behind the scenes, it, it absolutely fits. I mean, behind the scenes, Emma is telling the women, when she’s giving temple ordinances to them, Bathsheba Smith remembered her saying, you know, you, you’ve got To put your foot down, we’re not gonna do, let our husbands do polygamy. So she is working against, uh, against Joseph, and then as the release I president in 1843, 1844, they come out with, with their statement that condemns polygamy. And, and Brigham later said that it was the relief society that relieved them of their prophets, Joseph and Hiram. So, and she was the president. So of course, that’s Brigham’s opinion and he’s highly biased, but the point is that that there definitely is, is some something like this going on between Joseph and Emma on polygamy. And so to be to believe that that Joseph’s God would use strong language with her is very believable for me and doesn’t, is not an indication that it’s a false revelation.
[1:27:40] Michelle: OK, that’s really interesting, cause yeah, I obviously interpret all of that very differently. I love that in section 25, Emma is called to, um, she is told she was it would be ordained and called to expound and exhort, expound scripture and exhort the church, which, which I talked about in that episode, how, how in opposition that was to the New Testament and how I believe that Joseph is correcting errors in the New Testament or the God God through Joseph is doing that there. And, um, and then Emma was expounding the scriptures, using, often section 101 to exhort the church, expound scriptures, and, and I find that to be an important through line in her call. I, you know, I think that Emma was as called as Joseph in, in my understanding from my study that I’ve done of the two of them. And so it’s so it’s really interesting to hear the different perspectives.
[1:28:37] Brian Hales: Well, Joseph had the keys of the mystery, uh, Emma didn’t, so, uh, but whatever.
[1:28:43] Michelle: OK, we can, we can move on. Joseph, um, yeah, anyway, so, so yeah, I did an episode on Joseph and Emma that for me was really an important one. So if anyone
[1:28:53] Brian Hales: that maybe I need to.
[1:28:55] Michelle: OK, so for anyone listening, that, that explains some of my perspective on why I say that. But um, OK, so did you have any que we can, I’m, I’m looking at my notes, but in the meantime, do you have anything you want to bring up or address?
[1:29:10] Brian Hales: Um, There’s, there’s so much. I, let, let me, um, Well, I, I, what I was going to say, because I didn’t have a formal presentation is that I’ve done videos, I’ve got websites, I’ve got books, um, that all talk about the evidence of supporting that Joseph absolutely was the one who introduced and practiced plural marriage. So I didn’t see any reason to duplicate that. So like,
[1:29:35] Michelle: I would refer everybody to what there is a lot of material, um, that Brian has done and has put out there, and I, as I said, I’m very grateful for it. So I would refer everyone to that. I think. To, to, to study that all out. I think you’re right, we don’t need to reach to produce it here, but I do want to acknowledge how useful it is and
[1:29:53] Brian Hales: helpful. Um,
[1:29:54] Brian Hales: you know, maybe I have one more question for you that that’s, that’s more on the personal side, and, and maybe we can put it last year. I don’t know if we’re getting to the end here, but you so you can delete it if you want, but, um, what, what is your endgame?
[1:30:09] Michelle: Oh, that’s a good question. Um, OK, sorry. Um, So this does get a little bit personal for me, and I don’t
[1:30:19] Brian Hales: have to.
[1:30:21] Michelle: Oh, no, it’s just, I just have to breathe for a second. Um, so I was very, very strongly, um, inspired, told to have my little 12th, my 12th baby, which was a struggle for me. My 11th had health problems and, you know, a big long story anyway, and I did, and, um, and we weren’t able to keep her. And, um, and then through a series of answers, I was inspired to have her little sister, who, um, we also only got to keep for a very short time.
[1:30:53] Brian Hales: And, um.
[1:30:54] Michelle: Yeah, that was my that was my little 2. And I, and I didn’t mean to, I, I hope that didn’t seem like I was trying to, that, that I just, you know, it’s just still hard. That was only a couple of years ago. So, um, so anyway, um, Um, I, in the wake of that, it was several, several months later. But, but I will say this, I had, while I was expecting my 12th and my 13th were the hardest times of my life. If, if maybe at some point I’ll do an episode explaining all of the elements of things that were happening during that time, it was quite unthinkable. Um, And um at one point, I was in a very, very dark place and I was um Huh, it’s a lot to explain. So I’ll, I’ll just, I was given peace and healing and wisdom that felt like as big as infinity, and it was made clear to me later that that was Oh, I don’t have a word for it. You know, things come and I don’t, but I’ll, I’ll give the words, the wisdom of the mothers. You know, it felt like the wisdom of the polygamist women who had experienced so much of these things and struggled with some things that in some ways must have been similar to what some of the things I was struggling with. And, um, and I was, um, healed miraculously. I didn’t, life was still very, very difficult for a long time. But in my Prayers of saying, how can I Repay you. Like, what can I do for you? I was so profoundly grateful. And I was given the answer, Tell other women, Tell women the things that I had spent years before that, learning what I believed about polygamy. And so that, I had that answer and just left it, you know, and then after that, we lost my little 12th. I had my 13th, and we lost her. And it was several months, it was after that that one day I was just told, it’s time. And so, and the Just like I see all of this stuff I’m not good at. I, I’m not good at technology. I’m not good at. I’m good at raising a large. Well, it was, it was literally like one of those me by building a ship experiences. I got, I was just told this is the room you can use. I have a big family. We don’t have a spare room in our house, you know. This is the space you can use. This is how what you can do. This is what you can for every little part of that, I was just told what to do. And I, um, set it up and I just started and, and even as far as the editing, which I couldn’t, I mean, the production of it, which there’s not a lot of production, but the little bit was too much for me, and I was just told who to call, and I was, every piece of it was put in place. And I’ve been doing it, and it’s been bringing me a lot of, um, purpose and fulfillment and peace, and like I’m doing something good, even though I don’t. Have my little girls, um, that I would be spending that time with. And so I truly don’t have an end game other than, I will say the messages that I receive both from men, but particularly from women, feel to me like Um, more frosting on the cake than anyone deserves. They, it really is a blessing to me to know that women are being given hope and peace and connection to God and sometimes to their husbands that was lacking before when they, uh, under the shadow. And also, um, I think that there there was something else I was just gonna say and I lost it, so I’ll I’ll have to come back to it, but um Darn it, it was important. My brain does that.
[1:34:38] Brian Hales: Well, you, you’ve done very well on camera. So, so you, you’re able by, by promoting the Joseph was a monogamous narrative, you can bring solace to women who are worried about polygamy or or by discounting it as, as a mistake, then they don’t have to worry about it in the future. I’m just trying to.
[1:34:57] Michelle: It’s definitely not that Joseph is a monogamous narrative. I know that. That’s what, what your, you know, what, what the main, the main thing that you have expertise in is Joseph Fliyy. But as I said, it’s about gods. What did God establish? How does God view women? What that, that’s what it really comes down to for me. And that was the other thing I was going to say. I do feel very strongly that, um, I think we both mourn about people leaving the church and the church losing so many members. And for me, I, I just strongly believe one of the main reasons that happens is because we attribute the mistakes of man to God. And, and so people think of that’s who God is, you know, and a lot of people go to not even believe in God at all. And, and
[1:35:42] Brian Hales: in my. Most of
[1:35:43] Brian Hales: them do, they leave the the supernatural and embrace the natural world and Right. And I, I.
[1:35:50] Michelle: I think that’s a loss. I, I think there are a lot of different paths that people take, but I, I want the church to be able to keep more people rather than lose more people. And I think that letting people see this through fresh eyes and say, oh, Maybe God does love me in the way that Jacob 23231 and 32 teach me rather than how Doctor Covenants 132 section 63 views verse 63 or whatever other verse is about. Women just as possessions and as property with no feelings and their lives don’t matter. And that’s really what we see happen throughout polygamy every time it’s established. The women are means to powerful men’s ends, rather than independent beings who matter themselves, who’s seen and are valued, who are seen and valued. So that’s, that’s my end goal. I don’t have an end goal other than I’m just trying my best to do what I feel. Inspired at this point to do. And, and I think that people being able to see God. More directly rather than through all these sort of muffled lenses of, I believe, false traditions, which I believe the Book of Mormon warns us about. I believe that allows people to connect to God more, um, more purely, more truly. So, anyway, there’s a long answer.
[1:37:17] Brian Hales: That was, that was very well said. And, and I, I appreciate your sincerity. I, I followed a lot of people who disagree with the, the mainstream church in some way, and they’re almost always very sincere. I’m not here to try to push back about what you just said other than I, I believe that God is with our leaders, that our scriptures and our narratives do represent truth. And I encourage us all to embrace that, um, but that’s probably all I need to say. I I’d be repeating myself, right?
[1:37:45] Michelle: That’s, no, I, well, that’s great. I really appreciate your perspective. And I, and it is hard to disagree with people that, uh, the likable, knowledgeable people, you know, like, I guess that is my hope is that there’s value in disagreement, right? That we can disagree with, I, my hope, mutual respect, and, you know, and I know that I’m on the side of that, that maybe the other side doesn’t see as deserving of respect. But I think so. I think that we all serve one another. By bringing the hard questions. I think hard questions are where we learn the most. And so, I have so many more questions I wanted to ask, but it’s getting late and we’ve been at it for a while.
[1:38:27] Brian Hales: So, um. Oh,
[1:38:27] Michelle: and vice versa. I appreciate it. I do have a lot of other things that I would like to talk about. So if you have more time in the future, could we, could we do this again?
[1:38:37] Brian Hales: Yeah, you bet. You know, uh, when, whenever I’ve, I’ve got extra time now I’m retired, so yeah, just contact me and, and we can get back and maybe get a little more specific on, on events and, and. And teachings if you’d like, whatever.
[1:38:51] Michelle: That would be great. Well, I really appreciate it. Everyone, I hope that you are as appreciative for Brian to Brian as I am for giving us his time and for all that you have contributed to these important topics and discussions. We’re all, we truly are all in your debt. So thank you,
[1:39:05] Brian Hales: Brian. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you for letting me come on. Appreciate it. Yeah. Mhm.
[1:39:11] Michelle: I hope you found that conversation useful, um, maybe at times frustrating, maybe really invigorating. I think it is so valuable to have discussions with people who see the world and see different topics differently than we do because. That is how we learn. I’m just so convinced of that. So I want to once again thank Brian for coming on. I hope that going forward, all of us can learn the value of disagreeing without being disagreeable. I, I really appreciated how that was able to happen in this conversation, um. And so I hope that as you are commenting and sharing your views, that you can stick to the topics in a positive and kind and uplifting way so that we can continue these discussions because I really do think that it’s so important. It’s becoming more and more a lost art to be able to converse and discuss important topics with people we disagree with. So hopefully that’s something that can keep happening. I’m really profoundly thankful that Brian was willing to come on. I’m really looking forward to being able to talk to him again. If in the comments, if you have any questions that you would like to ask him or any thoughts that you’ve had, please include them because I think that that can just help, you know, the more brains, the better as we move these things along. So once again, thank you for joining us. Still, I, I, I Next episode we’ll be responding to some of the things we talked about. One in particular, I want to focus on the reasons given about polygamy. I think that’s a useful topic and then we have some more exciting conversations going forward. So thank you so much for joining us. I’m Michelle Stone, and this is 132 Problems.
