John Tucker's journey from Kingston Order polygamy group to LDS church member

[AnchoredinChrist]

John Tucker was born to a prominent family in the Kingston Order of polygamists, his father being the leader of the Order. This video details his life growing up in the Order, marrying, suffering from growing doubts, before eventually leaving with his wife and being baptized into the LDS church. After joining the LDS church, he received a baptism of fire experience, saw visions of Christ, saw his ancestor in the temple, was taught the scriptures personally by the Spirit and by Christ, and gained a testimony that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist and that polygamy was never of God. I included timestamps for the video below.

00:00 Introduction

03:30 John's predecessors forming the Order from LDS dissenters

10:00 John growing up not knowing he had a father, wives living as single mothers, incestual infertility

17:15 Origins of the Order, family dynamics, and Order dynamics

23:15 His mother's devotion, testimonies of polygamy

28:30 The devolution of polygamous systems, marriages being orchestrated

30:45 Spiritual experiences within and outside of the Order, John's father saving him at birth, polygamous miracles and lessons

48:30 Gender number imbalances, polygamous dating relationships

55:00 Cognitive dissonance, the doctrine of exaltation

57:30 The hardest challenge within the Order, and his relationships with his siblings

59:50 Near fatal experience in the mine, being saved by his mother's Spirit-prompted prayer

1:09:10 Doctrinal doubts, severe financial struggles

1:35:35 LDS missionaries knock on his door, attending LDS church

1:48:00 Jesus teaching him the scriptures

1:55:15 Criminal abuses within the Order

2:01:45 Birth defects within the Order, and "the promises of the fathers"

2:06:50 Leaving the Order officially, joining the LDS church, seeing his ancestor in the temple, COVID years

2:20:45 His baptism of fire experience, visions of the Savior

2:36:20 Gaining a testimony that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, being taught of the Spirit that polygamy is never of God

2:42:30 Outreach to his extended family

2:50:30 His post-polygamy mentality

 

[3DOP]

On 10/17/2026 at 6:33 PM, AnchoredinChrist said:

 

 

 

Edited October 19 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

But Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I mean, if your visions contradict reality which is wrong? Your visions or reality?

[AnchoredinChrist]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

But Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I mean, if your visions contradict reality which is wrong? Your visions or reality?

You can listen to the 7 minutes he talks about it at 2:36:00 — It wasn't through his visions that he first became convinced Joseph didn't practice polygamy, but through his online reading of others who were making that claim and the info they shared. He thought they were "crazy" at first (that was the same as me actually, I thought it was a super delulu idea when I first heard it) and then it was afterwards that the Spirit ordered him (he didn't want to) to do a verse-by-verse analysis of Section 132 and make note of all of the problems with it.

Once he was done, the Spirit ordered him to share it with his polygamist family members, which he again really didn't want to do.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

You can listen to the 7 minutes he talks about it at 2:36:00 — It wasn't through his visions that he first became convinced Joseph didn't practice polygamy, but through his online reading of others who were making that claim and the info they shared. He thought they were "crazy" at first (that was the same as me actually, I thought it was a super delulu idea when I first heard it) and then it was afterwards that the Spirit ordered him (he didn't want to) to do a verse-by-verse analysis of Section 132 and make note of all of the problems with it.

Once he was done, the Spirit ordered him to share it with his polygamist family members, which he again really didn't want to do.

Section 132 is definitely filled with problems but that is not evidence for Joseph Smith practicing or not practicing polygamy.

[AnchoredinChrist]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Section 132 is definitely filled with problems but that is not evidence for Joseph Smith practicing or not practicing polygamy.

I summarized everything that he said relating to the topic, but you can listen from 2:36:00 to hear his words specifically on how he first came to believe that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy. His study of Section 132 and sharing it with his family only came after he had first become convinced that Joseph didn't practice it.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

I summarized everything that he said relating to the topic, but you can listen from 2:36:00 to hear his words specifically on how he first came to believe that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy. His study of Section 132 and sharing it with his family only came after he had first become convinced that Joseph didn't practice it.

I listened and am not convinced. I don’t find the argument plausible.

[AnchoredinChrist]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I listened and am not convinced. I don’t find the argument plausible.

That's understandable, as he only talks about it for a couple of minutes and doesn't go into any detail. I wouldn't have become convinced by the two minutes that he touches on it either.

If you don't find the argument even half-way plausible, I would encourage reading Historical Monogamy Doctrine, as that has quickly-readable sections and actual proper layout for information intake. (Monogamy as Divine Design is great too, but it doesn't talk about Joseph Smith so much.) Even if you don't end up being convinced by the sites, they would still be helpful to you to read to understand the viewpoint of those of us who have converted to the other side, as opposed to thinking, "They must all just be collectively delusional" (as I thought when I first heard about it.) There are more and more of us Mormons who are coming to believe in Joseph's monogamy as time goes on, so you might like to see what's going on inside our heads: Historical Monogamy Doctrine

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

Historical Monogamy Doctrine

That is a masterclass in selective source reading.

[AnchoredinChrist]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a masterclass in selective source reading.

I hope that won't put you off from reading it. It's one-sided with short sections as it's meant only to be an introductory reading of the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't polygamous and that polygamy wasn't of God. It's very open right there in its intro paragraph that it is an introduction (so it doesn't go in-depth) and that it's intention is to make the introductory case for Joseph's monogamy and monogamy-only doctrine: "These section points are meant to provide a basic foundational understanding of the narrative that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, together with the elementary case for plural marriage as a whole to be rejected as doctrine."  In its last section, it references the Further Study page for more in-depth and nuanced study, including Whitney Horning's book which I think is over 400 pages long.

As an introduction site, it's actually rather long -- I think it's about three hours to read. If you were to insist that it should "show both sides" then it would be at least twice as long at that, which simply wouldn't work for one webpage. As far as giving an overview goes, it's rather comprehensive, and reading this site first serves to be a good jumping off point to dive in deeper to the topic afterwards, which this site recommends people do by providing the links for the further study materials itself:

 

110. 'What if I'm still not yet convinced?'

Many aspects of early Mormon polygamy are more complex and not easily addressed by simple Question-Answer format. Deeper understanding of this narrative, with important and relevant details of Joseph Smith's life and ministry, can be gained by accessing the listed content on the Further Study page. Additional theological arguments against polygamy, integrated with the psychosocial evidence showing polygamy to be a harmful practice, can be found on the sister website linked below, titled, Monogamy as Divine Design.

Also seek confirmation of the truth from the Lord in prayer, as "by the voice of the Spirit ye may know the truth of all things," and as Joseph Smith read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."

historicalmonogamy.wisxite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

I hope that won't put you off from reading it. It's one-sided with short sections as it's meant only to be an introductory reading of the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't polygamous and that polygamy wasn't of God. It's very open right there in its intro paragraph that it is an introduction (so it doesn't go in-depth) and that it's intention is to make the introductory case for Joseph's monogamy and monogamy-only doctrine: "These section points are meant to provide a basic foundational understanding of the narrative that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, together with the elementary case for plural marriage as a whole to be rejected as doctrine."  In its last section, it references the Further Study page for more in-depth and nuanced study, including Whitney Horning's book which I think is over 400 pages long.

As an introduction site, it's actually rather long -- I think it's about three hours to read. If you were to insist that it should "show both sides" then it would be at least twice as long at that, which simply wouldn't work for one webpage. As far as giving an overview goes, it's rather comprehensive, and reading this site first serves to be a good jumping off point to dive in deeper to the topic afterwards, which this site recommends people do by providing the links for the further study materials itself:

 

110. 'What if I'm still not yet convinced?'

Many aspects of early Mormon polygamy are more complex and not easily addressed by simple Question-Answer format. Deeper understanding of this narrative, with important and relevant details of Joseph Smith's life and ministry, can be gained by accessing the listed content on the Further Study page. Additional theological arguments against polygamy, integrated with the psychosocial evidence showing polygamy to be a harmful practice, can be found on the sister website linked below, titled, Monogamy as Divine Design.

Also seek confirmation of the truth from the Lord in prayer, as "by the voice of the Spirit ye may know the truth of all things," and as Joseph Smith read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."

historicalmonogamy.wisxite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Showing both sides would require more than one webpage? On the internet? Where that amount of space is completely trivial? That is a ridiculous justification for not including it. I don’t necessarily think they need to present the comprehensive case but there is a lot more stuff that needs refutation.

I don’t trust answers to prayers as an indicator of truth anymore.

[AnchoredinChrist]

On 10/21/2026 at 12:22 AM, The Nehor said:

Showing both sides would require more than one webpage? On the internet? Where that amount of space is completely trivial? That is a ridiculous justification for not including it. I don’t necessarily think they need to present the comprehensive case but there is a lot more stuff that needs refutation.

I just did a word count check on the Historical Monogamy Doctrine main page, and it's over 25,000 words long, which is as long or longer than some graduate thesis papers are. That wouldn't be including the text on any of the graphic inserts. I then counted the Denunciations page and there were several thousand words' worth of quotes on there as well. 

Maybe the writer didn't think it necessary to rewrite what has already been written. The LDS church's argued narrative of events can be found on several sites and publications already, there have already been hundreds-of-pages-long books written on the monogamy-only topic (which the writer herself recommends for more in-depth study) and there are literally hundreds of hours of YouTube videos going in depth on it as well, which are also on the Further Study page. Obviously, the website is an apologetic argument towards a non-polygamous Book of Mormon, D&C, and Joseph Smith, so like other apologetics, it's arguing things from the standpoint of their own stance being a valid stance. 

I went ahead and checked the word count on Monogamy as Divine Design too, and it's even longer -- nearly 27,000 words (26,800-something). 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Certainly, polygyny in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a complicated topic.  That said, I wish more people understood that, essentially, an argument that it is not of God is an argument that some of us shouldn't exist.

Should I, quite literally, be willing to fall on my sword to assuage your squeamishness?  I hope you'll forgive me if I'm at least a little bit reluctant to do that.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That said, I wish more people understood that, essentially, an argument that it is not of God is an argument that some of us shouldn't exist.

Isn’t an argument that rape is not of God an argument that some of us shouldn’t exist by the same type of reasoning?  Because some people are born because their mother was raped by their sperm donor (even donor sounds wrong there)?

Serious question, if I am wrong please point out where because I am not following your logic.

[Teancum]

On 10/19/2026 at 11:29 PM, AnchoredinChrist said:

You can listen to the 7 minutes he talks about it at 2:36:00 — It wasn't through his visions that he first became convinced Joseph didn't practice polygamy, but through his online reading of others who were making that claim and the info they shared. He thought they were "crazy" at first (that was the same as me actually, I thought it was a super delulu idea when I first heard it) and then it was afterwards that the Spirit ordered him (he didn't want to) to do a verse-by-verse analysis of Section 132 and make note of all of the problems with it.

Once he was done, the Spirit ordered him to share it with his polygamist family members, which he again really didn't want to do.

It seems to me one always ought to be cautious buying into claims of some self anointed recipient of visions and revelations that grant that person some special insight. Especially when it blatantly contradicts the body of evidence.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Certainly, polygyny in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a complicated topic.  That said, I wish more people understood that, essentially, an argument that it is not of God is an argument that some of us shouldn't exist.

Should I, quite literally, be willing to fall on my sword to assuage your squeamishness?  I hope you'll forgive me if I'm at least a little bit reluctant to do that.

Could you please clarify the bolded item above? I do not see the correlation.

[smac97]

On 10/20/2026 at 8:28 AM, AnchoredinChrist said:

There are more and more of us Mormons who are coming to believe in Joseph's monogamy as time goes on, so you might like to see what's going on inside our heads: Historical Monogamy Doctrine

I love being a Latter-day Saint, and I personally struggle with the ethics and basic "rightness" of polygamy (as I do with a few other topics, such as animal sacrifice).  None of these is anywhere near sufficient to dissuade me from my convictions regarding the Restored Gospel, but they are there.

That said, I think we Latter-day Saints do not do ourselves any favors when we circumnavigate difficult or unpleasant aspects of our doctrines.  I think the link you are provided is attempting to do that.

In my view, the article is not a credible historical assessment. Joseph Smith’s participation in plural marriage is established beyond reasonable dispute by the weight of contemporary and near-contemporary evidence. The site is an advocacy piece that selectively emphasizes public denials while systematically minimizing or dismissing the private practice that the historical record documents.

What the site does

It compiles Joseph’s and others’ public statements against polygamy (including the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants article on marriage, Nauvoo-era denunciations, and Emma Smith’s statements), notes the absence of documented children with alleged plural wives, highlights later RLDS/Community of Christ denials, and argues that sealings were non-sexual family linkages and that Section 132 was a later Brigham Young innovation. These points are real and well-known. Public denials occurred; the practice was secret; no children with plural wives have been genetically confirmed as Joseph’s; and some family members later denied it.

What it omits or downplays

The consensus among historians (both in and out of the Church) is that Joseph Smith was sealed to roughly 30–40 women. Supporting evidence includes:

• Contemporary or near-contemporary statements from participants and close associates (e.g., Louisa Beaman sealing performed by Joseph B. Noble in 1841; accounts from the Partridge sisters, Zina Huntington, and others).
• Journals and records from the Nauvoo period (including William Clayton’s) that reference the practice.
• The text of the 1844 Nauvoo Expositor and related controversies that specifically alleged plural marriage under Joseph.
• Affidavits and temple-lot case testimony from the 1860s–1890s by people who had been in Nauvoo, many of whom described sexual relationships or “time and eternity” marriages.
• The Church’s own 2014 Gospel Topics essay and the documentary work of historians such as Todd Compton, George D. Smith, and Brian C. Hales (the last of whom is more conservative in interpretation but still concludes Joseph practiced plural marriage).

The site treats late testimonies as unreliable while relying heavily on late RLDS denials, treats the absence of children as decisive (ignoring known contraceptive practices, short duration of many marriages, and the possibility of non-consummation in some cases), and reinterprets sealings as non-marital without engaging the language and context used by participants at the time. It does not seriously address the volume of independent, mutually corroborating accounts that would require an implausibly large conspiracy if they were fabrications.

Bottom line

Public denials are compatible with secret practice; they do not negate it (particularly given the exigencies arising from physical threats at the time). The historical record supports that Joseph Smith both publicly opposed polygamy and privately taught and practiced it among a limited circle in Nauvoo. The site’s contrary conclusion requires discarding or radically reinterpreting the bulk of the participant testimony and contemporaneous documentation while elevating later denials from one side of the post-martyrdom schism. That is not how the evidence is weighed by historians. The practice is not “beyond reasonable dispute” in the absolute sense that every detail is settled, but the core fact that Joseph Smith participated in plural marriage is.

Brian Hales' website is a very good resource: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/

I am curious.  If you believe that Joseph Smith never participated in polygamy, then how do you account for Brian Hales and his research?  He is, by all accounts, a faithful and devoted Latter-day Saint, so why do you think would he speak and document so much about a topic that is so controversial and difficult to accept?  Moreover, what do you make of his scholarship?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do with a few other topics, such as animal sacrifice

I assume you are a meat eater, so killing animals is not the issue for you.  Animal sacrifice done by Hebrews did not torture the animals (except perhaps by the scent of blood and the fear that might have spread).  Which doesn’t sound any worse than slaughterhouses.

So I am wondering what the issue is.  Is it the mechanics or why would God need it done or something else?

My view is while it was a hardship for the owner, it was much like tithing today.  Some of slaughtered animal and other food products were used to feed the priest community which didn’t own land or farm themselves, so needed this type of support while the rest returned to the owner for a neighborhood feast which was to include the poor, so it wasn’t wasteful and invited sharing.  

Edited Wednesday at 06:01 PM by Calm

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I do with a few other topics, such as animal sacrifice

I assume you are a meat eater, so killing animals is not the issue for you.  

No, it's not an issue.  Killing an animal to immediately burn its carcass on an altar.  That's the part with which I struggle.

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Animal sacrifice done by Hebrews did not torture the animals (except perhaps by the scent of blood and the fear that might have spread).  Which doesn’t sound any worse than slaughterhouses.

That is not my struggle.

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

So I am wondering what the issue is.  Is it the mechanics or why would God need it done or something else?

See above.

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

My view is while it was a hardship for the owner, it was much like tithing today.  

Tithing is put to good use.

Killing an animal and burning its carcass has no apparent (and mundane) utility.  It is purely an expression of faith.

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some of slaughtered animal and other food products were used to feed the priest community which didn’t own land or farm themselves, so needed this type of support while the rest returned to the owner for a neighborhood feast which was to include the poor, so it wasn’t wasteful and invited sharing.  

I was referencing burnt offerings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

was referencing burnt offerings.

That is understandable as it looks like a waste of resources in a time when many were at or below survival level.

I see those as similar to using gold and other expensive materials in the temple to show respect to God.  I doubt he’s that into such things and is fine with us taking care of a lovely garden to worship in instead if it was about his own desires.

I assume he has us do these things on occasion (burnt offerings were limited to high, holy days iirc, so an occasional thing) so we can figure out how much our respect of God matters to us rather than matters to him.

So I am okay with that as much as I am okay with investing massive funds into temples…meaning sometimes I am quite uncomfortable about it…especially when my favorite temple is beautiful and has little gold and shiny things in it that I remember.  Though it had lots of wood and that might be more expensive.

But in mortality most of us constantly get chances to decide what we are willing to sacrifice for what and who we love.  Makes sense God gets included in that.  

Edited Wednesday at 07:28 PM by Calm

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see those as similar to using gold and other expensive materials in the temple to show respect to God.  

So do I.  But using gold and other expensive materials to glorify God and keep His commandments does not require killing.  That is the distinction I draw.

I retain belief in the divinity of the commandments associated with this practice, but I struggle with it still, as it doesn't quite work with my personal moral code.  I maintain belief because part of my faith requires me to accept that "man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9).  So I trust that where my moral barometer does not sync with what I understand to be God's commandments, I need to take a serious look at my own understanding.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not an issue.  Killing an animal to immediately burn its carcass on an altar.  That's the part with which I struggle.

That is not my struggle.

See above.

Tithing is put to good use.

Killing an animal and burning its carcass has no apparent (and mundane) utility.  It is purely an expression of faith.

I was referencing burnt offerings.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have good news for you then. Most of the edible parts of the animal weren’t lost in most sacrifices. This varied by the type of sacrifice but in most of the commanded sacrifices some cuts of meat were kept by the priest and some went to the person who offered the animal to eat themselves. So you would go to the temple with your family and basically have a sacred bbq. Again, this varied by the type of sacrifice. The passover sacrifice, for example, was eaten by the family that offered the animal with some cuts going to the priests and levites. It was a ritual offering but also a ritual feast.

This was reportedly part of the problem with Eli’s sons. They were stealing the cuts the offerer was supposed to leave for God and/or for the offerer. More seriously they were also having almost certainly coerced sex with the women who worked at the tabernacle who, in essence, worked for them. It is very hard to argue it is consensual when the boss’s son who can probably ruin your life if you refuse propositions you.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

That is understandable as it looks like a waste of resources in a time when many were at or below survival level.

I see those as similar to using gold and other expensive materials in the temple to show respect to God.  I doubt he’s that into such things and is fine with us taking care of a lovely garden to worship in instead if it was about his own desires.

I assume he has us do these things on occasion (burnt offerings were limited to high, holy days iirc, so an occasional thing) so we can figure out how much our respect of God matters to us rather than matters to him.

So I am okay with that as much as I am okay with investing massive funds into temples…meaning sometimes I am quite uncomfortable about it…especially when my favorite temple is beautiful and has little gold and shiny things in it that I remember.  Though it had lots of wood and that might be more expensive.

But in mortality most of us constantly get chances to decide what we are willing to sacrifice for what and who we love.  Makes sense God gets included in that.  

Also if it makes you feel better the tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon were both provincial and crude by comparison to the temples of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. Compared to the sprawling temple at Karnak or the temple of Marduk in Babylon it was a hick town chapel type of thing by comparison. Not saying it wasn’t nice and made of nice things but it was not as impressive in terms of size and wealth put into it compared to other contemporary places of worship. It was a big investment for such a small nation of course.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Also if it makes you feel better the tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon were both provincial and crude by comparison to the temples of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. Compared to the sprawling temple at Karnak or the temple of Marduk in Babylon it was a hick town chapel type of thing by comparison. Not saying it wasn’t nice and made of nice things but it was not as impressive in terms of size and wealth put into it compared to other contemporary places of worship. It was a big investment for such a small nation of course.

Considering the likely subsistence living on many, knowing it wasn’t as bad doesn’t do anything for me.  Nor do those types of justifications usually work (except perhaps when it comes to pain and embarrassment…this wasn’t as bad as….and I survived that).  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  They should like excuses to me.  And using not as bad appears to be granting the premise it is wrong.

Not saying the restrained extravagance of the temple was a wrong.  Simply analyzing what is unsatisfying because I don’t know the why.

It is not for me to say it’s not according to God’s will as I am not the one receiving direction to build or not build it.  I never regretted a penny of tithing or other forms of donation to the Church.  I love that temples are going up all around so that it is much easier for all Saints to get to them multiple times in their lives.

We have never been close to poverty, so tithing is a very different experience for me than someone giving of their necessities.  I certainly benefit myself from the sacrifice others make and am grateful for it.  I never sit there and think ‘this could have bought so many meals’.  (I do admit to sometimes thinking ‘less gold, more wood and stained glass please!’, but that is an aesthetic choice, not thinking of which costs more because I don’t know, labour can be very expensive.  

I trust temple building is directed by God. To me, that is probably the only thing that justifies it unless people donate without much prompting (limited to hearing of the opportunity).  Spontaneous free will offerings, seems like they should be accepted without reservation.  People should be able to give if they want to, even if they personally suffer because of it.

Edited yesterday at 06:47 AM by Calm