Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[JVW]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Wow! That is a lot of I do and I do not believe. It is a tough issue to get one's head around and still believe this nonsense was somehow divinely commanded. Ocam's razor seems useful here.

I was too wordy. I do not believe that polygamy was divinely commanded.

Quote

So if there is one false revelation how can you trust the others are not false as well?

My experience with the Book of Mormon leads me to believe that it is God's word. I don't have any issue with the Book of Mormon. My experience with the rest of the standard works is a mixed bag and requires a lot of effort on my part to determine what is God's word in those texts. Because of my personal conclusion regarding D&C 132 I don't trust any of the D&C excepting section 76 and 138 (for personal reasons). So I don't read the D&C very often because I'm not interested in spending that much time and energy wrestling with each section to make up my mind about what's true and not.

Edited January 3 by JVW

[JVW]

On 12/30/2025 at 5:43 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excommunicatin' the faithful, now, eh?  Tsk-tsk-tsk!     Makes me wonder if I'm next ... not!  Oh, well!  Sucks to be her, I guess!

 

You should check out some of her interview on Mormon Stories. I watched from around the hour 2.5-3.5 mark which is when she describes her experience with the excommunication process. If you even watch like 30 seconds of her speaking you'd understand what kind of person she is. She's one of the good ones. You know how there's only a few in each ward who actually care? She's one of those.

She calls out John Dehlin several times (because he is pretty negative and cynical towards anyone LDS). She has no bitterness, no anger or resentment. She was extremely happy with how the council went, with her Stake President and other leaders. She felt God with her during her polygamy research, she felt God with her during her excommunication process, and after the council ended her Stake President came up to her and told her he didn't know how it would all work out but that he'd see her in the Celestial Kingdom. The day after she was excommunicated she helped clean the church and is currently peacefully and joyfully participating in her local ward.

Before her second meeting with the Stake President (the third was the excommunication council) she felt that it would be the meeting in which she would be asked to give back her temple recommend. As an adult convert, never before having done temple baptisms, she took the time to do some in preparation for the meeting and had a wonderful experience.

Based off of the opinions she expressed in the part of the interview I watched, I can say that I do not agree with all of her opinions. But that woman has a heart of gold and stands blameless before God. I'll die on that hill. She is an angel and handled her interview with that snake Dehlin incredibly well. I haven't seen her polygamy video yet but I intend to. She said it is 90% Joseph Smith papers and doesn't explicitly come to any conclusions and that the reason she was excommunicated was because she is promoting something that comes to a different conclusion than the church essay on lds.org even though it uses evidence published by the church.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

... But that woman has a heart of gold and stands blameless before God. I'll die on that hill. ...

OK.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, juliann said:

Reel doesn't have the expertise to destroy anything.

Meh. I think he and RFM are pretty bright and knowledgeable about things LDS. I did not expect you or any other LDS apologist to agree.

20 hours ago, juliann said:

If he did, the church would be dead by now.

That is quite the stretch of a casual relationship. Is that the criteria of a strong critic now? 

20 hours ago, juliann said:

 

That aside, the value of Stone is in her punching a few holes in the standard scholarly narrative. She pays attention to some things that they don't and it needs to be addressed. I've only looked into her stuff once and immediately saw this in at least one instance (which I no longer recall.) I'm unconcerned with how right or wrong she is, however, I will never dismiss the women's statements from JS's wives. But I'm also skeptical of the polygamy advocacy of the more vocal researchers that have shaped the narrative. I will never be able to take them seriously until they stop denying polyandry....just as she denies polygyny. They are no different in that sense. 

Interesting take. 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I was too wordy. I do not believe that polygamy was divinely commanded.

My experience with the Book of Mormon leads me to believe that it is God's word. I don't have any issue with the Book of Mormon. My experience with the rest of the standard works is a mixed bag and requires a lot of effort on my part to determine what is God's word in those texts. Because of my personal conclusion regarding D&C 132 I don't trust any of the D&C excepting section 76 and 138 (for personal reasons). So I don't read the D&C very often because I'm not interested in spending that much time and energy wrestling with each section to make up my mind about what's true and not.

Fair enough.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

You know how there's only a few in each ward who actually care?

I don’t know the wards you have been in or what you mean by few, but there have been many in all the wards I have been in that cared and did their best to contribute.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

She has no bitterness, no anger or resentment. She was extremely happy with how the council went, with her Stake President and other leaders. She felt God with her during her polygamy research, she felt God with her during her excommunication process, and after the council ended her Stake President came up to her and told her he didn't know how it would all work out but that he'd see her in the Celestial Kingdom. The day after she was excommunicated she helped clean the church and is currently peacefully and joyfully participating in her local ward.

This is good to hear.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

think he and RFM are pretty bright and knowledgeable about things LDS. I did not expect you or any other LDS apologist to agree.

Reel is sloppy, likely deceptive.  He still hasn’t corrected Bathsheba Smith’s husband on his website, (George, not Hyrum and doesn’t even have enough respect to spell her name correctly) and let’s an accusation of lying stand that has been disproven on a thread he was participating on here (all one had to do is watch the video of Pres Holland rotating the Book of Mormon to see the wear patterns on the book are consistent with Elder Holland’s claims as the spine and the corners wore differently as is common on books in my experience), things that have been pointed out to him multiple times here when he’s shown up over the past 7 years.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[JVW]

On 1/3/2026 at 4:04 PM, Calm said:

I don’t know the wards you have been in or what you mean by few, but there have been many in all the wards I have been in that cared and did their best to contribute.

My experience has been similar to my experiences at work for various businesses. It follows in line with the Pareto Principle. 20% of the people do 80% of the work. In my ward's previous ward council they called it something like "the same 10 people" or something. The same 10 sign up for volunteer work, setting up chairs, cleaning the church, helping people move, and faithfully do their ministering. I view that idea of "the same 10 people" not as the 20% who care, but the ones who lead the pack of those who care.

ETA: I believe that everyone "does their best to contribute". I don't want to sound like I'm overly harsh. But a lot of people's best doesn't involve caring about the church. For some it's just getting out of bed and going to church on Sunday that is their best. For others, they can't do church but they can let in missionaries or ministers when they visit. A person's best varies widely. But! If someone actually cares, the way they act and the choices they make are different. A lot of people just don't care.

Edited January 5 by JVW

[Calm]

17 hours ago, JVW said:

I view that idea of "the same 10 people" not as the 20% who care, but the ones who lead the pack of those who care.

20% is not a few to me, I was thinking you meant at most a half dozen people who put any effort into their callings and more.

Quote

For others, they can't do church but they can let in missionaries or ministers when they visit. A person's best varies widely. But! If someone actually cares, the way they act and the choices they make are different. A lot of people just don't care.

Don't forget there are a lot of members who do care a great deal, but can’t.  Many were powerhouses for the Church in the past, but health and age or other life situations (having to work on Sundays because now a single parent or caregiver) prevent them from attending.  I don’t think it’s fair or respectful to use activity as a sign of “caring”.

Edited January 6 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 1/3/2026 at 4:14 PM, Calm said:

Reel is sloppy, likely deceptive.  He still hasn’t corrected Bathsheba Smith’s husband on his website, (George, not Hyrum and doesn’t even have enough respect to spell her name correctly) and let’s an accusation of lying stand that has been disproven on a thread he was participating on here (all one had to do is watch the video of Pres Holland rotating the Book of Mormon to see the wear patterns on the book are consistent with Elder Holland’s claims as the spine and the corners wore differently as is common on books in my experience), things that have been pointed out to him multiple times here when he’s shown up over the past 7 years.

Sloppy? Do you have more than one example? 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sloppy? Do you have more than one example? 

It’s been quite awhile since I have engaged with his arguments.  The accusation against Holland is so riddled with errors based on lack of follow through plus his refusal to address criticisms that it stuck in my head (especially what is to me a sign of disrespect for Bathsheba Smith, not only getting her husband wrong but refusing to take the wee moment it would need to correct the spelling of her name…but he never cared).  It is a prime example, imo, of how he used others’ claims and rather than doing the research himself and just repeated it with more drama before ensuring it was accurate….or if he actually did look at the actual video and complete news articles rather than the cherry picked version on the anti site that first posted the info (assuming he got the stills from there, but he might have seen them after someone else posted them), just not bothering to question the criticisms once he adopted them himself.

I think that one topic serves for many examples myself, shows his methodology at least up to that time, but I also watched him in action overtime while he was here and at FAIR and saw him arguing with those much better versed in sociology, etc and refusing to alter his opinions and methods when better options were suggested and gaps pointed out to him.  That’s sloppy to me.  He had his pet arguments and would rarely alter them to improve them from what I saw.  He pulled in a lot, but either didn’t make the effort to organize so he could see the weaknesses and do something about them or perhaps lacked the skill but wasn’t willing to accept others’ constructive criticism.   Not a major issue if pursuing a topic for fun…unless one sets oneself up as an authority or well of knowledge and insight or worse, engages in moral judgment of others based on faulty conclusions. (And I have mentioned before that if something is a bad argument, I don’t care what the point of the argument is; it falls into the category of ‘bad argument, should not be used’ if it’s not decently structured with solid claims, not because I don’t agree with its conclusion.)

The only other thing that pops into my head since he brought it up a lot once he stumbled across it was his overdependence on Fowler, which lacked to the best of my knowledge when I researched it strong empirical support (iirc its earlier stages which he borrowed from others had the best support, the latter not so much) and it’s limited in its usefulness.  In my view, it’s a rather overly simplistic, Western/Christian-centric, hierarchical framework of faith development too focused on the abstract and not behavior, so it’s weighted heavily in favor of higher education levels.  Spirituality is seen as more mature more if one says the right things rather than if one lives a compassionate, faithful life.  Perry’s approach is better supported empirically and has much broader application.  It did have the same problem of using a limited sample size, but others have remedied that issue a great deal in areas of gender, culture, economic status, etc.  I don’t remember him ever engaging with the benefits of using Perry over Fowler when others tried to open the conversation into that direction, but I may be wrong on that.  

If you require more specific examples, that would take time and interest I lack at the moment, so I wouldn’t count on more, but who knows, it might happen if your request takes up residence in my brain.

Edited January 8 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

And then there's this, from Daniel C. Peterson:

Why — cue portentous music — has the Interpreter Foundation had nothing to say about polygamy denialism?  Well, it has had something to say about polygamy denialism:

Historical and Stylometric Evidence for the Authorship of Doctrine and Covenants 132

Edited January 8 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

On 1/8/2026 at 4:29 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

And then there's this, from Daniel C. Peterson:

Why — cue portentous music — has the Interpreter Foundation had nothing to say about polygamy denialism?  Well, it has had something to say about polygamy denialism:

Historical and Stylometric Evidence for the Authorship of Doctrine and Covenants 132

This quote from a polygamy denialists in that article is amazing:

Quote

Those familiar with Joseph Smith’s prophetic linguistic style have long recognized that Section 132 just does not sound like him when compared to other prophecies by him in the Doctrine and Covenants. In his private writings and letters, Joseph’s style is remarkably erudite, poetic, upbeat, and greathearted. And his verifiable prophetic writings that were published by the Church during his lifetime are known for their marvelous ideation and spiritual majesty. The above words [Doctrine and Covenants 132] . . . do not flow melodically, nor do the ideas build empirically to an uplifting crescendo, as do Joseph’s. Instead, they are delivered haltingly and grate at the listener’s sensibilities. They sound as if they were authored by a man whose writings are known for their desultory and gruff style. They sound like the words of Brigham Young.

*spit take*

LOL, even LMAO.

“Joseph Smith’s words are filled with rapturous radiant benevolence and poetic genius and he probably farts out rainbow unicorns that sing angelic symphonies. Brigham Young’s words are gruff and jarring and are like nails on a chalkboard and farts out demons that will give you a wedgie and steal your lunch money.”

Yeah, sure buddy.

[Tacenda]

 

[The Nehor]

To be clear I am not saying that a writer’s style, tone, vocabulary, and the like is not useful in determining who the author of a text is. I am just saying that this is a very stupid and clumsy and loaded way to attempt to use that tool.

[JVW]

On 1/17/2026 at 12:09 AM, The Nehor said:

This quote from a polygamy denialists in that article is amazing:

*spit take*

LOL, even LMAO.

“Joseph Smith’s words are filled with rapturous radiant benevolence and poetic genius and he probably farts out rainbow unicorns that sing angelic symphonies. Brigham Young’s words are gruff and jarring and are like nails on a chalkboard and farts out demons that will give you a wedgie and steal your lunch money.”

Yeah, sure buddy.

I haven't read through the whole document yet (around 2/3 way through) but my favorite part so far has been:

Quote

Joseph F. Smith reported that Brigham Young had said that Oliver Cowdery wrote it

Sounds like the telephone game. I also liked the part where they reviewed how many subscribers different YT channels have.

They do make some good arguments and present some interesting evidence, but I will note that it's all people reporting on stuff, there isn't very many quotes from Joseph Smith or what he said about polygamy. All in all, under the context that it's a "research paper" I give it a 4/10, I don't think it's very well written, it's incredibly wordy, and I doubt that the authors had anyone with opposing views read it and give them feedback, which is a shame because it would have improved their writing and arguments.

[JVW]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Thanks for sharing this. I am about halfway through it. It sucks that people are getting excommunicated over this. There are much better reasons to get rid of members. If we pretend we live in a world where these people are right, then assuming that the church eventually changes its stance I wonder what the fallout would look like. I wonder if people would act like they always knew there was something off about it and that God had a purpose in letting the church believe as it did for so long. Or if people would dig in their heels and leave in a mass exodus.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, JVW said:

I haven't read through the whole document yet (around 2/3 way through) but my favorite part so far has been:

Sounds like the telephone game. I also liked the part where they reviewed how many subscribers different YT channels have.

At the point you judge truth by subscription numbers you are giving the bot farms a big vote on what is true. Not sure if they care much in this case of course but yeah.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

They do make some good arguments and present some interesting evidence, but I will note that it's all people reporting on stuff, there isn't very many quotes from Joseph Smith or what he said about polygamy. All in all, under the context that it's a "research paper" I give it a 4/10, I don't think it's very well written, it's incredibly wordy, and I doubt that the authors had anyone with opposing views read it and give them feedback, which is a shame because it would have improved their writing and arguments.

I think the number of records and reports we have show Joseph Smith dictated 132. The arguments against come down to a kind of special pleading that Joseph Smith wouldn’t do that. Appealing to Joseph Smith III who was 11 when his dad died is a big stretch.

[JVW]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

At the point you judge truth by subscription numbers you are giving the bot farms a big vote on what is true. Not sure if they care much in this case of course but yeah.

I think the number of records and reports we have show Joseph Smith dictated 132. The arguments against come down to a kind of special pleading that Joseph Smith wouldn’t do that. Appealing to Joseph Smith III who was 11 when his dad died is a big stretch.

I agree that Joseph wrote section 132. I haven't personally come to a manner of how to reconcile that, but I think it shouldn't be regarded as canon. The way that section treats women is awful, I can't think of a single way to defend a text that reads, "And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord;" Could you imagine saying this to your wife?  Either Joseph was a d**k or he honestly believed that this was God speaking to him. What happened to the fruits of the Spirit? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that it may have been an unfinished draft. I'm more inclined to believe that it was a message from the devil.

ETA: For the record, the more I learn about Joseph Smith the more I like him and believe that God did work through him to restore the church. I'm not anti-Joseph by any stretch of the imagination. I also believe that Brigham Young was not apostate, or fallen, or that he orchestrated Joseph's murder. Brigham Young is, in fact, my favorite latter-day prophet. Just to be clear because I imagine that people could read this response and think I hate Joseph.

Edited January 21 by JVW

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I agree that Joseph wrote section 132. I haven't personally come to a manner of how to reconcile that, but I think it shouldn't be regarded as canon. The way that section treats women is awful, I can't think of a single way to defend a text that reads, "And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord;" Could you imagine saying this to your wife?  Either Joseph was a d**k or he honestly believed that this was God speaking to him. What happened to the fruits of the Spirit? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that it may have been an unfinished draft. I'm more inclined to believe that it was a message from the devil.

ETA: For the record, the more I learn about Joseph Smith the more I like him and believe that God did work through him to restore the church. I'm not anti-Joseph by any stretch of the imagination. I also believe that Brigham Young was not apostate, or fallen, or that he orchestrated Joseph's murder. Brigham Young is, in fact, my favorite latter-day prophet. Just to be clear because I imagine that people could read this response and think I hate Joseph.

I’m wondering what’s going to happen on the day of judgement when God reveals to the recalcitrant plural marriage naysayers that the early leaders of his restored church were fully justified of him when they practiced polygamy and canonized Section 132. I’m thinking there’s even the possibility that there will be some among the remaining naysayers who’ll  be so convinced that they’re right that they’ll even boldly contend with the Lord face to face on the issue, insisting with great zeal and passion that he’s been deceived by the devil. Hopefully those remaining naysayers will actually speak up and make their protestations known because I’d hate to see any man violate his own good conscience by silently acquiescing to something he doesn’t believe is right due to what he perceives to be coercive pressure. It should make for a most interesting and enlightening encounter.

Edited January 21 by teddyaware

[Senator]

59 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering what’s going to happen on the day of judgement when God reveals to the recalcitrant plural marriage naysayers that the early leaders of his restored church were fully justified of him when they practiced polygamy and canonized Section 132. I’m thinking there’s even the possibility that there will be some among the remaining naysayers who’ll  be so convinced that they’re right that they’ll even boldly contend with the Lord face to face on the issue, insisting with great zeal and passion that he’s been deceived by the devil. Hopefully those remaining naysayers will actually speak up and make their protestations known because I’d hate to see any man violate his own good conscience by silently acquiescing to something he doesn’t believe is right due to what he perceives to be coercive pressure. It should make for a most interesting and enlightening encounter.

You seem to dwell a lot on the "day of judgement" scene.  Wonder why that is?

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

You seem to dwell a lot on the "day of judgement" scene.  Wonder why that is?

It appears he likes to fantasize that we are all going to be discovered wrong and he is going to be discovered right. It’s an interesting way of viewing the world. Very black and white.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering what’s going to happen on the day of judgement when God reveals to the recalcitrant plural marriage naysayers that the early leaders of his restored church were fully justified of him when they practiced polygamy and canonized Section 132. I’m thinking there’s even the possibility that there will be some among the remaining naysayers who’ll be so convinced that they’re right that they’ll even boldly contend with the Lord face to face on the issue, insisting with great zeal and passion that he’s been deceived by the devil. Hopefully those remaining naysayers will actually speak up and make their protestations known because I’d hate to see any man violate his own good conscience by silently acquiescing to something he doesn’t believe is right due to what he perceives to be coercive pressure. It should make for a most interesting and enlightening encounter.

I don't doubt that I'm probably going to hell, I definitely deserve to go there. I will also readily agree that I'm probably wrong or, at the very least, incomplete in my views. But my belief that the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Doctrine and Covenants and believing Jacob over D&C 132 was the result of a multi-year journey with lots of fasting, prayers, pondering, research, and study. I personally believe that where I'm at was a result of God's guidance and personal revelation, and I feel complete peace regarding polygamy in church history. I will defend every aspect of church polygamy excepting one thing: current church apologetics for it. God would never command Christ's disciples to commit adultery while using David and Solomon as excuses to do so. I don't believe it. That is exactly what Jacob was arguing against!

I can't communicate very well regarding polygamy, so I rarely talk about it with others. I've never felt called to bring it up in conversations or make podcasts, videos, or articles on the topic. I don't even really talk about it with my wife. I understand that it's a heavy topic and that my views are radical in relation to it. I've participated in the conversation in this post because this forum feels like a very safe place to talk about crazy and interesting things. I also enjoy practicing and refining my ability to communicate. Writing has an effect on me; it helps me learn and grow as a person. And it's been lovely to read so many interesting perspectives on this forum.

If I am wrong then several things logically follow, all of which are possible:

- the peace I feel regarding polygamy and the historical practice of it isn't actually peace and I'm deceiving myself.

- God inspired me and led me into a state of deception, or He refrained from guiding me and allowed the devil to do so instead.

- What I've experienced as personal revelation wasn't actually revelation and was either from the devil or from my own mind.

My question for you is, have you actually received a personal witness from God that He ever commanded polygamy? Have you actually asked Him and received an answer on it? How long did it take you to receive the answer? What was your journey like as you sought to understand the mind of God?

In my case, due to the magnitude of the experiences I went through, which I could probably write an entire book about, I feel around an 8/10 in my confidence that I have not been deceived by God and that He answered my sincere prayers regarding this topic.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering what’s going to happen on the day of judgement when God reveals to...

It's a significant tangent from the main thread topic, but I often wonder about all of the people who sincerely believe stuff that I think is wrong. What will happen to all the sincere Protestants and Catholics and other Christians who failed to accept the restored gospel? What will happen to all of the sincere LGBTQ who reject the church's stance on their choices because they believe God has communicated that He approves of their choices? What will happen to the sincere LDS who believe (or have believed) that race is an indicator of divine disfavor? What about sincere LDS who believe that all are alike unto God and race is meaningless? I look around the world and I often think of the fate of those who sincerely believe the wrong thing.

Most of the time, I end up in a place where God knows how to redeem these sincere believers. Latter-day Saintism has taught me that God has contingency plans to re-educate in the next life those who didn't know better in this life. He has taught that necessary ordinances/rites/sacraments can be performed by proxy so that no one misses out on those.

At that point, I usually end up trying to figure out what might be the important things to learn in this life. 

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m thinking there’s even the possibility that there will be some among the remaining naysayers who’ll  be so convinced that they’re right that they’ll even boldly contend with the Lord face to face on the issue, insisting with great zeal and passion that he’s been deceived by the devil.

From this comment, I wonder if the most important thing to learn in this life is epistemic humility. The ability to accept that you might be wrong about something and are willing to change your beliefs and practices if/when God tells you they need to be changed. This might even be what Alma was talking about (Alma 42) when he talks about "the penitent man." Of course, I look around at my fellow LDS and I see some who seem so certain of their beliefs that I wonder if they, too, will find themselves arguing with God when He tells them something they believe is wrong.