Have you wondered what’s behind the energy in the polygamy revisionist movement? Are these the same as RLDS polygamy arguments? Back in 2010, Newell Bringhurst wrote a chapter in “Persistence of Polygamy” on the evolution of RLDS thinking on Joseph Smith’s polygamy, how it got forgotten, and recycled among a new generation of LDS members who weren’t aware of the previous history.
Are the modern arguments that Joseph Smith was a strict monogamist actually new? In this deep dive, we explore the “layered archive” of historical claims surrounding Joseph Smith’s polygamy, revealing that many of today’s “polygamy revisionist” arguments are actually recycled 19th-century RLDS positions.
The presentation breaks down the 150-year evolution of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ) through four distinct phases:
The Early Concessions (1852–1860): Contrary to popular belief, early leaders like William Marks and Isaac Sheen did not initially deny Joseph Smith’s involvement. Instead, they claimed he had been involved in “spiritual wifery” but recognized his error and repented shortly before his death in Carthage.
The Era of Absolute Denial (1860–1960): Under the leadership of Joseph Smith III, the strategy shifted toward establishing the absolute innocence of the founding prophet. This century-long “institutional mandate” framed D&C 132 as a “Brighamite forgery” and placed the blame for polygamy entirely on Brigham Young.
The Academic Shockwave (1960s–1980s): The “dam broke” when mid-century historians like Robert Flanders and Lawrence Foster published research that eroded the bedrock of the church’s denial. This led to a painful institutional reckoning, eventually forcing the church to acknowledge Joseph Smith’s foundational role in plural marriage.
The Modern Revisionist Resurgence: Today, a new wave of LDS members—facing their own faith crises—are adopting these older RLDS arguments to resolve cognitive dissonance regarding the prophet’s moral legacy.
Drawing on works like Newell Bringhurst’s The Persistence of Polygamy and Robert Flanders’ Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi, this presentation weighs revisionist claims against the preponderance of contemporaneous evidence. We also discuss the psychological toll of these shifting narratives and the ongoing battle to control the legacy of Joseph Smith.
What are your thoughts about these rejuvenated arguments?
Wheat & Tares 
If a person belongs to the Brighamite branch of Mormonism, then polygamy is still a problem. That belief would leave a person searching for a group that did not go apostate. If Brigham Young was so bad as to bring in polygamy against God’s will, then what else did he invent. And because sealings and the whole temple ceremony was invented to help with polygamy, and were added into the church by Brigham Young then the polygamy deniers have to also say those are wrong. I mean, do they realize that the first time the endowment was written was done by their corrupt apostate Brigham Young.
So, if they are going to throw Brigham Young under the bus to save their idealized image of Joseph Smith, then they really need to be somewhat consistent and throw out everything Brigham Young added to the church.
Me, I solved the polygamy problem by saying the whole thing from the first vision on was a scam. My position in opposition to polygamy is at least consistent that I do not accept any of what Young or Smith claim came from God was really from God.
The other way to solve it is the fallen prophet idea. Accept the Joseph was prophetic until he could keep his hands off Fanny.
See, there were witnesses to that. Emma never claimed she did not catch Joseph in the Barn with his pants down. So, if one is going to believe Emma that Joseph never practiced polygamy, then one has to accept that he committed adultery. Then there is the time before that when Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered for messing with the Johnson girl. The church kind of covers up that the tarring and feathering was because he got caught trying to seduce a teen aged girl and pretends that was religious persecution, but the group of angry men were going to castrate him because he was caught in a compromising situation as a married guy mucking around with a teen aged girl.
And what about all the women who signed a sworn statement that they were married to Joseph? Are you calling them guilty of perjury?
No, sorry, there is just too much evidence against Joseph. And it still leaves you stuck following a corrupt religious leader if you are still in Brigham’s church. And I am not willing to stay in a church that treats women like breeding cattle and that was the group that settled Utah under Brigham Young.
The further you get from the event, the more likely that non-historians will become more ignorant about it. It is ironic that most of the polygamy deniers are now Utah Mormons, not Community of Christ.
Anna, I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the post. One thing that stood out to me, though, is that your response feels more polemical than analytical. I don’t mean that as a criticism of your conclusions—reasonable people can disagree about Joseph Smith and polygamy—but I think the discussion benefits from a bit more nuance.
It also seems to lean fairly heavily on Fawn Brodie’s work, which was groundbreaking in its day but has been supplemented and, in some respects, revised by later scholarship. Even historians who are critical of Joseph Smith, such as John Turner and Dan Vogel, and more sympathetic scholars like Richard Bushman, tend to offer more nuanced treatments than the older “for or against” framing.
I think this is a broader pattern we see across many communities. Polemical arguments are common among polygamy skeptics, faithful Latter-day Saints, and anti-Mormon writers alike. They often generate more heat than light. I’d be interested in seeing the discussion engage more with the strongest and most current scholarship, regardless of where it ultimately leads.
Rick, you asked for discussion on what our *thoughts* were on the new direction the people going back to trying to say Joseph never practiced polygamy. Sorry, but I trusted that you wanted our *thoughts*. Which means conclusions and possible disagreement. To me it sounded like an invitation to give our *thoughts,* not provide a bunch of new research. If you want new proof of a supper old argument, ask that, because, no I am not a researcher and wouldn’t have commented. I need to remember that you do not like discussion even when you invite discussion, and just not comment. Your OP, your posting rules.
Anna, I certainly wasn’t trying to suggest that people shouldn’t share their thoughts. In fact, I appreciate that you did.
My point was a narrower one. The question I was hoping to explore wasn’t whether Joseph Smith or Brigham Young were good or bad, or whether Mormonism is true or false. Rather, I was interested in why some older RLDS arguments denying Joseph Smith’s polygamy are reappearing today, despite several decades of additional historical research.
That’s really a historiographical question. We now have a much larger body of evidence than was available to Fawn Brodie, Juanita Brooks, or the RLDS historians of the mid-twentieth century. Historians who reach very different conclusions about Joseph Smith—Richard Bushman, Dan Vogel, John Turner, Newell Bringhurst, and others—generally agree on much of the documentary record, even if they interpret it differently.
So I wasn’t objecting to you expressing your conclusions. I was simply encouraging us to engage the strongest and most current historical scholarship, whatever conclusions we ultimately draw from it. I think that’s a more productive discussion than simply restating the older apologetic or polemical positions on either side.
Your first comment isn’t really responding to the thesis. It’s shifting the discussion from “What is the historical evidence regarding Joseph Smith’s plural marriages?” to “If Joseph practiced polygamy, Mormonism is false; if he didn’t, Brigham Young is false.” That’s a theological consistency argument, not a historical one. It’s simply a different conversation than I was expecting.
I’m-a guessin’ that it’s ignorance. Youngsters(relative speakin’) are timewise so far removed from the 19th century that the only experience with Mormon polygamy is true crime specials on those “weirdo’s. And those people ain’t them. And they’re also subject to years of repetitive romanticization of Joseph Smith.
What do I think of their arguments, not much.
My mom (back when polygamy was still mentioned) use to quote Joseph Smith denial and then say–are you calling Joseph Smith a liar. My Mom who who believed in looking stylish, said she didn’t like polygamy because of those stern dumpy old women in ugly black dresses sitting in the pews. My mom was a Emma fan, back when Emma was still villanized. And she knew Jospeh had done her wrong. But if you control the narrative, it becomes the truth. And she was pleased with the triumph of monogamous heterosexuality, especially if done with fashionable flair.
Rick B: This is also not going to satisfy your call for scholarly responses, but to piggyback on Anna, there’s something unsavory when the “scholars” being cited are all men having some esoteric pipe-smoking discussion about history and theology that really boils down to the sexual exploitation of women that girls brought up in the church were raised to defend as God’s will–and still are to this day. It’s not really a neutral topic for women in the way it is for men. But I know you know all that.
For those interested in this topic, John Hamer and John-Charles Duffy will be doing a panel at the Sunstone Symposium titled “A Plurality of Denials: The Rhetorical History of Polygamy Trutherism in Mormonism.”
Hawkgrrrl, it’s not a neutral topic for a lot of women, but that emotion is being used to silence women’s voices. As distasteful as polygamy can be, a portion of those women legit believed that what they were doing was God’s will. The polygamy revisionists dismiss the affidavits of many of these ladies by suggesting they were wholly under the influence of Brigham Young and his posse, or even worse (in my opinion), that they were seeking popularity by falsely claiming to be wives of Joseph Smith. It reeks of people dismissing #metoo movement speakers as either attention-seekers or straight-up liars.
It is not supporting women by claiming that Emma’s opinion is the only one that matters. It is also not supporting women when people assume based on scanty evidence that scores of British convert women were sleeping with Brigham Young, HCK, William Clayton, and others in their zeal to claim polygamy started separately from Joseph Smith.
In the debates over whether Joseph did or did not practice polygamy, women are consistently treated as little more than two-dimensional accessories, just pawns moved around at will.
My preferred solution is to research the lives of these women. Yes, we can talk about the power differentials and coercion, but we can also investigate their backgrounds and beliefs. They deserve to have whatever involvement they may or may not have with polygamy put in proper context with the rest of their lives.
You’re right Hawkgrrrl. Maybe I should be referencing Anne Wilde, Kathryn Daines, Kathleen Flake, Michelle Stone, Karen Hyatt, Gwendolyn Wyne, Laura Hales, Amanda Hendrix-Komoto, Ann Hatch, Sarah Gordon, and yes, our own Mary Ann Clements, and many other women who have written and podcasted with divergent opinions on the topic of polygamy. I know it is an emotional topic for many, and many get offended when scholars try to talk about polygamy dispassionately. I just get tired of all the polemics from ALL sides and wish we could discuss the topic without getting bent out of shape every. single. time.
I understand the emotion, but we can’t have productive conversations if that is the first knee jerk reaction, and considered the only legit perspective, as I’ve been lectured at sooooo. many. times, as if I somehow like and support polygamy. (I don’t.) I simply want to understand it without the good/bad dichotomy that haunts sooo many conversations.