A REPLY TO BILL

            Thank you for your comment Bill.  Yes, you heard right, I find nothing wrong with polygamy per se as long as it does not involve coercion.  If you study what geneticists have found about the Y-chromosome, you will see that male Homo Sapiens are basically polygamists by nature.  (See Adam’s Curse by Brian Sykes).

            I feel comfortable in saying that because in this day and age polygamy is not attractive to women without some coercive inducement.  Doctrine & Covenants Section 132 provides that coercive inducement, threatening to destroy first wives if they do not consent to letting their husbands pursue plural wives.  Without that coercive inducement I believe polygamy would be rare and when it did occur it would be mutually beneficial to all concerned, as strange as that may sound.  For example, promiscuity occurs at all levels of society because it is part of the human condition. Many women are content to being the mistress of powerful men.  We might just as well admit that promiscuity is a fact of life and if it is harmful, find an educated way to oppose it that is more meaningful than submitting to promiscuity. In Nevada, for example, legalized prostitution is a lucrative business, just like Mormon polygamy is a lucrative business in Utah. It was my thought that the bigamy and adultery statutes were primarily enacted to protect monogamous wives from wayward, promiscuous husbands.  However this no longer seems to be the case.  Prosecutors are reluctant to use the bigamy and adultery statues.

            I discovered as a sex crime investigator that men who have a satisfactory and meaningful monogamous marriage do not stray and are not apt to become polygamists in spite of the threats made in Section 132.  What I am saying is that almost without exception, when a man or woman is promiscuous it is because something is lacking in their marriage. 

            I am unaware of any lies told by Doris Hansen.  She is a charming, classy lady who is well read when it comes to Mormon history.  I would be interested in where you believe she lied.

            Now let’s address your belief that I do not have the right to call someone a liar and I assume that includes when there is conclusive evidence the individual lied. I have a good friend, Nick, who agrees with you in part.  He told me it was unfair to call someone a liar when they were not able to defend themselves.

            This controversy apparently came to light when both Doris and I agreed that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy when it was being secretly advocated and practiced in Nauvoo. Not only did Joseph lie, but so did John Taylor and Parley P. Pratt.  It is part of the historical record.  (See Nauvoo Polygamy by George D. Smith)  Brigham Young later justified Joseph’s lie by metaphorically saying the people were fed milk and were not ready for meat. You might also argue that because the general population was not ready for such a sacred principle, to make it public would be “casting pearls before swine.”

            Bill, have you heard of a publication called The Peace Maker, by Udney Hay Jacobs?   You can access it on the Internet.  Although Joseph denied having anything to do with The Peace Maker, it was printed on his printing press and it parallels Section 132, which was not made public until 1852 by Brigham Young.  It is a pretty fair bet that the Peace Maker was Joseph’s way of testing how the general population would accept polygamy.  The feedback, as you may guess, was all negative.

            If Joseph lied about polygamy, then where else may he have lied?  We know he lied about William Law and what he did to silence Law and his cohorts was grossly unlawful. 

            Doris and I not only had the right to say Joseph lied, but in the context of a religious discussion, we were morally, duty bound to mention the lie.

            In the course of the investigation of Hill vs Allred and others, the two top religious leaders who were integral participants in the theft, lied.  Surely you are not suggesting that I had no right to point out to the court that they lied?  I was duty bound to reveal the lies.

            In any event, thanks for having the integrity to make your comment even though we disagree.  Possibly we both learned from the exchange.