The Wacky World of Polygamy Deniers

[Mormonism Live: 227] Welcome to the alternate reality where Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, the angels with swords were just metaphors, and dozens of wives—including teenagers and already-married women—somehow just… didn’t exist.
In this week’s episode of Mormonism Live, Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon are joined by Mormonism Historian Dan Vogel as they dive headfirst into the bizarre and baffling claims of the "Polygamy Deniers"—a fringe group, but growing number of Mormon defenders who insist, against overwhelming historical evidence, that Joseph Smith was monogamous. Armed with logic, primary sources, and just the right amount of snark, we dismantle the contorted reasoning and cherry-picked narratives that fuel this historical revisionism.

Why deny what the historical record screams? What tactics do these deniers use to twist facts into faith-promoting fiction? And why does this matter for modern Mormonism?

Join us for a wild ride through the land of bad apologetics, historical amnesia, and the desperate need to preserve a prophet’s purity—no matter the cost to truth. This is one you won’t want to miss.

Evidence Joseph Smith Practiced Polygamy Part 3

[explorethishumanlife]

What wasn’t covered in this broadcast is we might actually see excommunications of polygamy deniers. Many who are public in this space are under pressure from their local leaders to stop.

But the “funny” part is in the past, members were excommunicated for discussing Joseph’s polygamy. Now they’ll be excommunicated for denying Joseph’s polygamy.

[merrybachelorette]

Thank you thank you thank you for dedicating this time and energy to this matter. These things have been exhausting to me as I try to detangle Mormonism from my belief system- I am out a year and a half- not so much out of the church since I have not been a member of the church for some time, but from fundamentalist Mormonism - only to have so many friends and acquaintances send me Michelle Stone videos or Jeremy videos arguing their thing- and I’d have to take the time to walk them through the issues again and again- I’m frustrated. I was a second wife for 3 years and though I have been public in the past, during that 3 year period I was not public or open, but hidden about my beliefs - I kept an extensive journal where I poured all my feelings.

I get upset when so many women who were deceived by Joseph smith into becoming his plural wives are discounted in their journals, affidavits, testimonies. They didn’t have the privilege of living openly or broadcasting their arrangement or being acknowledged - they were secreted away and suffered a lot of privation. They believed him! They believed he was a prophet as did I! And they were trying to live to that belief as did I. And as much as they were deceived, their beliefs should always least be acknowledged as the reason for their practice of polygamy and for their commitment to it- I hope that Michelle Stone, who seems like a very sweet woman, will find what she needs emotionally and spiritually to face the truth about Joseph smith and be able to let him go- I have found peace and love through Jesus Christ and no longer need anything Mormon.

[LenaLindroth-gv]

We all need moore of Mr Dan V. He is truly

[randyjordan]

At the 40 minute mark, the guys discuss the affidavits in the Nauvoo Expositor. Michelle Stone's stance is that William Law and Austin Cowles were bad guys who had "motivated reasoning" to lie about Joseph's involvement in polygamy. Their motivation, according to Michelle, was money (as if Joseph Smith himself didn't have a motivation to lie about polygamy.) Michelle also believes that the polygamy opponents in Nauvoo who went on to found or join the anti-polygamy RLDS movement were the good and honest people, Now, here's the problem with Michelle's stance:

"After Smith's death, Cowles accepted the succession claims of James Strang. In 1847, Cowles was appointed by Strang to be the presiding high priest in Kirtland, Ohio.

"Cowles died in Hamilton Township, Decatur County, Iowa, on January 15, 1872, aged seventy-nine. He was affiliated with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints led by Joseph Smith III, and his obituary was published in the church's periodical, the Saints' Herald."---Wikipedia.

So, Cowles was not some horrible person who lied about Joseph and Hyrum being behind polygamy for some reason. After Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths, he continued to believe in the "restored gospel, " and died a member of the anti-polygamy RLDS church. He was one of the Nauvoo Mormon who believed that Joseph's introduction of polygamy made him a "fallen prophet." Another polygamy opponent, Ebenezer Robinson, wrote in his life story that Cowles "was one of the best men in the place." Cowles not only opposed polygamy, he was highly upset that Joseph Smith had plural married his daughter Elvira Annie in June 1843. Elvira was the Relief Society treasurer under president Emma Smith.

Those facts completely contradict Michelle's opinion that Cowles had some reason to make up a complete lie about Hyrum Smith presenting the revelation on celestial marriage during an August 12, 1843 Nauvoo High Council meeting. Also, let's remember that five other men who were present in that meeting swore affidavits that Hyrum read the revelation in that meeting. Those men included four who accepted and practiced polygamy and went west, as well as one, Leonard Soby, who left the church because of polygamy and lived out his life in New Jersey. All six men's affidavits concurred that the document Hyrum read in that meeting is the same text as D&C 132. Also, it's vital to know that Cowles' (and William Law's) affidavits were sworn during Joseph's lifetime. That simple fact demolishes the polygamy deniers' assertion that "There is no evidence produced during Joseph's lifetime to show that he practiced polygamy."

So, Michelle's and her fellow travelers' stance that Law's and Cowles' May 4, 1844 affidavits are suspect is without foundation.

[benjamingardea]

The fact that these people obsess over this to save their sacred calf and keep their testimony is laughable. Even if he practiced polygamy in an authorized way, there is so much evidence against his prophetic ability, that this is a footnote about his behavior, far more than his calling as a prophet.

[WayOutHerePodcast]

Laurel here again. I am a printmaker. A wood cut or any other type of print making is done backwards so as to print correctly when stamped. You cannot trace over a wood block print of the plate because it would be backwards.

[TEAM__POSEIDN]

Regarding the discussion at around 53:45:00, just a few days ago I was writing some things down using a really nice "Blackwing 602" pencil. I noticed that the letters were quite thick and decided to sharpen the pencil. As if by magic, after sharpening, my writing became much thinner and looked quite different. It even inspired me to see how much more compact and fine I could write...just for fun. I guess that means I was no longer writing. Someone else was because the writing definitely looks different before and after the pencil sharpening. This is the nature of the polygamy deniers' evidence. Ignore your lying eyes and the mountains of circumstantial evidence and focus on ambiguously trivial anomalies...then you too can know that Joe wasn't lying when he publicly denied that he was committing adultery and breaking laws.

[morley]

What difference does it make? Polygamy was in the D&C. With condemnation of Emma. Emma wasn't Brigham's wife for heaven sake

[kentthalman]

Yes, it is a wacky world of polygamy deniers. What this movement truly demonstrates is how many Mormons find JS's polygamy so deeply disturbing. BTW, so do I.

[roberterickson]

In trying to keep up with all three of you, it would be much easier to allow your guest, Dan Vogel, to explain. Not that everyone's comments aren't of great worth. I am beginning to wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Pins, polygamists, commentators, guests, and audience. My head is spinning, wondering how many rotations my head can make to make sense of the topic(s) at hand. Whew!

[yorgasor]

If the Joseph Smith doppleganger trick was used against Martha Brotherton, what would have happened if she agreed to the marriage? She would have stayed around and met the real Joseph and would have caused the whole scam to fall apart when she told him what Brigham and Heber did. This would have been a horrible method to get her to agree to the marriage!

[Mik-ha-El]

It’s a bit disturbing that they’re totally willing to pin the blame on a victim in order to exonerate the perpetrator.

[danvogel]

[2:43:16] On Nathan’s call-in question about how Hedlock would have created the woodcut for the newspapers and placard. I think I was making it too complicated by comparing it to the Book of Abraham facsimiles. RFM described it more simply at 2:45:00. The simplest way to create the woodcut would be to ink the actual plates and then transfer that to a square block of wood, then carve out around the plate and etch the characters into the wood. These blocks could then be used in the form to directly print onto the paper. Conceivably, this could be done on soft lead blocks as well. At any rate, the relief of the bell-shaped plates would be too low to trace.

[unfeigned]

Speaking of denial, this 3 hour presentation is just that—an exhausting exercise in denying the vast body of recent, well-documented research that has emerged. Dan’s anti-Mormon stance makes his position predictable: he clings to the outdated narrative that Joseph Smith was a manipulative polygamist, because admitting otherwise would destabilize the entire framework he’s built his criticisms on.

But what’s truly troubling is how resistant some scholars are to even considering new possibilities—especially when those possibilities are grounded in contemporaneous evidence. Why is it so threatening to ask new questions or reexamine old assumptions? We wouldn’t respond this way if new findings came to light about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. And yet, when it comes to Joseph Smith, bias overrides curiosity.

This unwillingness to engage with modern research (like the work brought forward by Stone and Hoop) not only reveals personal prejudice, but raises ethical concerns. According to the American Historical Association’s own code of ethics, scholars are expected to give fair consideration to emerging evidence. To disregard it outright is not just unprofessional, it’s intellectually dishonest.

I admire the extensive amount of work and years of research Stone and Jeremy Hoop have dedicated to this topic. Jeremy, himself, has researched for over 10 years. The two of them are highly intelligent and lay out a very succinct argument, backed by contemporaneous evidence, not hearsay or theories or motivated musings and claims decades later. Their work is worthy of respect, acknowledgment and further investigation.

As a side note, the caller who sounded drunk and dropped an f-bomb was pretty classless. Ugh.

[WayOutHerePodcast]

The most shocking thing to me about Michelle Stone's interview on Mormon Stories was when she admitted she'd only been studying church history for like two years or something! My jaw about hit the floor because she talks like she has so much authority and so much knowledge… But I have been studying church history for eight years and I'm still learning new things monthly. Why in the world would anyone trust her over people who have been studying Joseph Smith and these issues for decades??

[UmWhaaat]

Well, done, gentlemen! Awesome as always.

[unfeigned]

We don’t deny polygamy, we know very well that Brigham Young started it and practiced it.

[boydx]

I feel like Michelle and others totally deny that Joseph's and Hyrum's denial are totally self serving. Defendants usually don't testify in their own defense because their testimony is perceived as being especially biased; and of course because they don't want to face cross examination.

[TEAM__POSEIDN]

With JS polygamy deniers like Hoop and Stone, I'm reminded of people who misunderstand the "beyond all reasonable doubt" burden-of-proof concept. For some reason, they can't see the word "reasonable" and think that if ANY alternative hypothesis they can come up with, however ludicrous, can create ANY kind of doubt, then they can defeat the equivalent of smoking-gun evidence and a mountain of reasonably interpreted circumstantial evidence. "Well, why couldn't Elvis Presley have time traveled back to Nauvoo and, using 25th century technology, successfully mind control nearly all of the leaders of the Church (appointed, anointed, called and promoted by Joseph Smith) and cause them to all conspire and cooperate and coordinate a massive frame-up job against Joseph Smith, so that they could openly practice polygamy after he died?"

[zackc]

I wasn't going to watch but then Dan Vogel came on so I guess I'll download and burn it to a CD so it'll exist forever.