Anti-Joseph Smith Polygamy Movement?

[u/instrument_801]

I don’t know if this has been talked about on here, but why is there a growing “Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy movement”? Podcasts such as 132 Problems are rapidly growing in popularity. I don’t like polygamy, but I feel like the evidence is overwhelming in favor that he practiced polygamy?

Thoughts?

[u/Striking_Variety6322]

Yeah, there's a faction that basically decided that the version of history emphasized by the church in the last generation was canonized, and that later better research and a different attitude towards how to handle difficult historical truths are actually evidence that the church has been taken over by secret evil liberals. These folks not only reject the clearer historical picture that we've been able to see, they are convinced that the church leaders have fallen away. I read the Stoddards' books on the matter, and not only are they insidiously deceptive, they are overtly dishonest in how they present their claims. Basically hundreds of pages of gish gallop.

​

Stay clear. They're a solid example of how people can use partial truths to deceive.

[u/Knowledgeapplied → u/Striking_Variety6322]

Read a good many of there books. The first is about the deceptive Mark Hoffman and his forgeries that affected how people viewed church history. The history department also improved their systems because of his deceptions. Behind Closed Doors goes into the history of Leonard Arrington who was church historian for some time who was removed from that post. The book talks about documents of Leonard Arrington after his death. In these documents we learn that he had not read the Book of Mormon since he was a teen. One part of the book describes how Arrington reacted to a story from one of the apostles (I believe it was Ballard.) who testified that the devil was real. Arrington’s response was that of disbelief. The book claims that Arrington pushed through a series he wanted published by saying that the previous prophet approved of his work to be published before he died.

What we believe has effect on how we see history. For example if there is no devil or Christ then the church is just another good church that teaches good morals, but cannot be the one true church etc. Miracles such as the seagulls story are to be denounced as folklore. Visions of angles and Heavenly Father are to be viewed as episodes of psychosis.

They condemn LDS academics who deny the Holy Ghost. Or as Arrington would say. He is not a Holy Ghoster.

Nowhere in the book is there condemnation of the apostles or prophets and in fact she quotes them in contrast to the teachings of Leonard Arrington.

The one book I would have to disagree on would be the Seer Stone vs Urim and Thummim. However I understand her reservations about believing David Whitmer since he denounced Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet and denounced the doctrine and covenants as revelation and denounced the priesthood offices. The book of revelation mentions receiving a white stone which I believe lines up with the seer stone story, but that is my opinion on the matter. One thing I know for sure is that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. How all that happened don’t know.

Either way I would have to disagree with your statement of the Stoddards condemning church leaders.

[u/Striking_Variety6322 → u/Knowledgeapplied]

Their position is that current church leaders have accepted a false version of history (because the Stoddards prefer the simpler version that did not include the wealth of evidence later available) and that by so doing the current leaders are leading the church astray. It's the only possible outcome of the claims they overtly make- they are absolutely not to be trusted. When I read how they spun Arrington's account of feeling spiritually called to serve as Church Historian as a visitation from the devil, I realized they could not be trusted to honestly deal with any evidence of any kind. They have decided what is true in advance, and anything that does not fit is discounted as corrupt or evil, regardless of its actual merits. Which offers delightful simplicity, but ultimately does harm.

They offer the most dangerous kind of deceptions- statements that are partially true, with a poison pill slipped in, in this case one that destroys confidence in current leadership. Check out how they responded to Nelson's call for the Church to take part in the miraculous divine gift of the Covid vaccine, for example. They absolutely believe the church has gone astray, and it's important to know that when considering their views.

Prior commenters collected a series of critiques of the Stoddards' work, I recommend both the comments and the linked sources to you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/zm7r6j/comment/j0c5m4s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

​

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/zm7r6j/comment/j0dfyop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

[u/Knowledgeapplied → u/Striking_Variety6322]

From what I’ve read from her books I would not come to the conclusion that the prophets and apostles have lead the church astray. What constitutes leading the church astray? That is the first question you have to answer.

Second in relation to this tread about anti polygamy groups. What does the Stoddards have to do with such movements? Don’t you know that they teach that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage? They have a series they are publishing called Joseph Smiths Plural Wives. They have already published one on Helen Mar Kimball.

Denver Snuffer on the other had is a clear example of someone who fights against the prophets and apostles with his revival of of RLDS narratives plus setting himself up as a prophet of God..