by Anonymous | Aug 9, 2025 | Doctrine, Doctrines Policy Practice, Joseph Smith
Executive Brief: Did Joseph Smith Practice Polygamy?
Core question: Did Joseph Smith
begin the practice of plural marriage, or did Brigham Young introduce it after
Joseph’s death?
⏳
Timeline Overview
- 1830–1835: Public monogamy;
possible sealing to Fanny Alger.
- 1841–1844: Joseph secretly seals
to 30+ women in Nauvoo. D&C 132 dictated in 1843.
- June 1844: Nauvoo Expositor
exposes polygamy. Joseph and Hyrum killed.
- 1852: Brigham Young announces
polygamy and publishes D&C 132.
- 1860: RLDS founded under Joseph
Smith III, denying Joseph practiced polygamy.
📚
Evidence That Joseph Smith Originated Polygamy
- D&C 132: Dictated July 12, 1843 by Joseph Smith; scribed by William Clayton. Validated
by Clayton, Hyrum Smith, and Kingsbury.
- Plural Wives: Sealed to 29–33
women including Eliza R. Snow, Emily Partridge, Helen Mar Kimball. (Compton, Hales)
- Sexual Relations: Emily Partridge
and Melissa Lott testified under oath to conjugal relations with Joseph.
- Church Acknowledgment: The LDS
Church confirmed Joseph practiced polygamy in the 2014 Gospel Topics essay.
- Scholarly Consensus: Confirmed by
Bushman, Compton, Hales, and even modern RLDS historians.
🔍
The Case That Brigham Young Originated or Exaggerated Polygamy
- Public Denials: Joseph publicly
said he had only one wife, even weeks before his death.
- Emma Smith: Denied Joseph ever
practiced or taught polygamy.
- RLDS Tradition: Joseph Smith III
gathered affidavits supporting his father’s innocence.
- D&C 132 Skepticism: Not
published until 1852. Survives only in copies. Edits by Willard Richards raise
timeline questions.
- Scriptural Conflicts: Book of
Mormon (Jacob 2:24) and Joseph’s JST edits condemn David & Solomon’s plural
marriages.
📊
Comparative Analysis
| Category |
Joseph Started It |
Brigham Invented It |
| Historical Evidence |
Dozens of journals, affidavits, and sealing records |
No
contemporary documents from Joseph; D&C 132 published
posthumously |
| Witness Testimony |
Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, Eliza Snow, William
Clayton |
Emma
Smith, Joseph Smith III, William Marks, RLDS statements |
| Church Position |
LDS
acknowledges Joseph introduced it |
RLDS
originally denied it, now acknowledges it historically |
| Conspiracy Burden |
No
whistleblowers from 70+ alleged participants |
Requires massive, silent conspiracy by Brigham and all Utah
leaders |
| Scriptural Support |
D&C 132, patriarchal precedents |
Jacob 2, JST changes, 1835 D&C monogamy clause |
Conclusion: What We Know and What Remains Uncertain
We know:
- Joseph
Smith secretly practiced polygamy in Nauvoo.
- Brigham
Young openly continued and expanded it in Utah.
- The LDS
Church affirms Joseph’s involvement; RLDS once denied it but later conceded to
the evidence.
Uncertain:
- Joseph’s
private feelings and motivations
- Whether
all sealings were consummated
- Emma’s
true level of knowledge and emotional coping
- Why no
children resulted from plural unions
“Joseph Smith did
practice plural marriage—even if he kept it secret. Brigham Young didn’t invent
it; he exposed it. That’s what the evidence shows.”
Want more?
by Anonymous | Jul 28, 2025 | Church Leaders
Bottom Line
This is theological fiction repackaged as history. McKay’s testimony was firm. Nibley’s writings were firm. The idea that the Book of Mormon was merely authored by Joseph Smith is not supported by any contemporary Church documentation. If it were true, Nibley or McKay’s journals would say so. They do not.
| Podcast |
Radio Free Mormon |
| Episode |
409 |
| Category |
Book of Mormon Historicity / Leadership Faith |
| Quote |
“David McKay told Hugh Nibley that, ‘Well, we already know that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.'” — RFM quoting Gregory Prince quoting Hugh Nibley (Gregory Prince Interview, 00:08:00–00:08:35) |
| Core Claim |
David O. McKay privately confessed disbelief in the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins to Hugh Nibley. |
| Conclusion |
Misleading / Conjectural / Unverifiable |
| Logical Questions |
- Is this quote from David O. McKay documented firsthand?
- Was the conversation verified beyond Nibley’s secondhand, posthumous retelling?
- Does any public or private writing from McKay contradict this?
|
🔍 Core Finding
This quote is a thirdhand hearsay anecdote: Gregory Prince interviewing Hugh Nibley in 1995 about a conversation from the 1960s. The comment was allegedly shared only after Nibley asked Prince to turn off the recorder, then repeated with vague phrasing. There is no documentation in McKay’s journals, First Presidency minutes, or public sermons that supports the idea he rejected the Book of Mormon’s divinity.
Meanwhile, Nibley continued his vigorous public defense of the Book of Mormon throughout the rest of his life—publishing books, teaching at BYU, and never recounting this incident. O.C. Tanner’s influence is exaggerated and conjectural. The idea that McKay reversed lifelong beliefs due to Tanner is narrative embellishment.
📆 Documentary Silence vs. Doctrinal Certainty
- McKay bore testimony of the Book of Mormon repeatedly in Conference and private interviews.
- The claim has no support in firsthand writings or verified audio.
- Nibley’s own writings contradict the idea that he believed McKay denied scripture.
🤖 Statement Against Interest? Or Misremembered?
Podcast host RFM cites legal hearsay exceptions to suggest this is trustworthy. But courts require corroboration. This lacks any. No independent evidence. No diary entry. No tape. And it appears decades after McKay’s death.
📚 Sources
⚠️ Manipulation & Logic Check
- Fallacy: Argument from Silence – Absence of denial is treated as evidence of belief change.
- Fallacy: Guilt by Association – Links McKay to Tanner with no evidence.
- Rhetorical Manipulation: Anecdotal elevation, authority laundering through Prince/Nibley names.
🚨 Defamation & Legal Risk Layer
Although McKay is deceased, the claim borders on “false light” misrepresentation. It assigns beliefs to him contrary to all known public statements. The claim lacks due diligence and presents potential reckless disregard for factual accuracy.
by Anonymous | Jul 23, 2025 | Church Finances
Bottom Line
This isn’t about whether the Church can have wealth. It’s about whether it will honor God in how it stewards that wealth. Legal strategies matter—but moral accountability matters more. Members deserve not only reassurance, but real transparency. And the Lord, if He truly leads the Church, requires nothing less.
The LDS Church, the SEC Fine, and the Shell Companies: A Spiritual and Practical Analysis
📜 The Background
In February 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined Ensign Peak Advisors (EPA)—the investment arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—$4 million, and the Church itself $1 million. The SEC found that from 1997 to 2019, Ensign Peak used 13 shell LLCs to file misleading investment disclosures, effectively concealing the true size and identity of the Church’s investment portfolio (then worth over $30 billion; now estimated near $100 billion). The Church settled without admitting wrongdoing.
The SEC’s report states the Church went to “great lengths” to avoid disclosure, a phrase many critics interpret as confirming systemic deception.
🧭 LDS Doctrine on Honesty and Obedience to Law
Latter-day Saints hold honesty as a sacred covenantal principle, not just an ethical guideline. It’s embedded in:
- Temple recommend interviews: “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?”
- Articles of Faith #12 & #13: “We believe in being honest, true, chaste…”
- Scripture:
- D&C 134:6 – “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.”
- Alma 27:27 – “They were distinguished for their zeal… and their honesty.”
Thus, when an institution that proclaims divine guidance is caught violating federal disclosure laws—even civilly—it invites spiritual scrutiny as well as public criticism.
🧠 Why the Church Did It: The Institutional Logic
The Church has stated that it sought to:
- Preserve the sanctity of sacred funds by avoiding public scrutiny and speculation.
- Protect donor privacy to discourage targeting or harassment.
- Prevent manipulation or market distortion caused by public knowledge of its financial footprint.
In effect, the Church was using perfectly legal strategies—until the SEC ruled that the intent behind those strategies constituted misleading conduct under securities law.
🛡️ The Legal Line Crossed
- Using LLCs to manage investments is not inherently illegal.
- But intentionally masking control and beneficial ownership over $100 billion in assets year after year violated SEC transparency rules.
- Once exposed, Ensign Peak began filing properly in 2020 and settled the case civilly.
🙏 Spiritual Analysis: Where the Church Fell Short
Despite legal motivations, the spiritual concern is this:
⚖️ Intent matters. So does perception.
Even if Church lawyers believed they were acting within the law, the intent to obscure violates the higher law of moral honesty—especially for a Church that requires moral rectitude from its members.
Scriptures reinforcing this principle:
- Mosiah 2:22 – “He doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you… and be honest.”
- 2 Corinthians 8:21 – “Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.”
🧎♂️ Shouldn’t the Lord’s Church Lead by Example?
Members pay tithing in faith, often at personal sacrifice. Discovering that their sacred funds were protected by a shell game—even if well-intentioned—has rightly provoked disappointment, anger, and demands for accountability.
💡 Why Did the SEC Fine Matter So Much?
- It confirmed long-standing suspicions about financial secrecy.
- It contrasted with the Church’s teachings about integrity.
- It revealed dissonance between global financial reality and local member experience.
🧭 The Best Defense: Context, Not Excuses
A fair rebuttal acknowledges the Church’s missteps but also frames the institutional context:
- The Church did not engage in fraud, embezzlement, or insider trading.
- It has since changed its practices and now complies with disclosure laws.
- No funds were lost or stolen.
- Intent was institutional privacy, not personal gain.
- All major religions use tax-exempt strategies to some extent.
But again—“To whom much is given, much is required.”
💬 Balanced Bottom Line
The LDS Church made a serious error in prioritizing financial opacity over transparency. Though not criminal, its legal workaround violated the spirit of its own doctrine on honesty. It must now earn back the trust of its members through transparency, humility, and clear accountability.
📖 Recommended Actions for the Church (Spiritually and Practically)
- Public repentance and acknowledgment, not just legal compliance.
- Detailed annual financial disclosures to members.
- Increase humanitarian aid and ward budgets.
- Model institutional integrity alongside personal virtue.
- Demonstrate that sacred funds serve sacred ends.
by Anonymous | Jul 23, 2025 | Church Conspiracy
Bottom Line
This TikTok attempts to frame the LDS Church as morally culpable through unrelated financial investments. It’s dishonest, manipulative, and disrespects the complexity of modern investment systems.
| Platform |
TikTok |
| Creator |
Jorge Lopez (@jorgesanch333z) |
| Category |
Financial Ethics & Political Manipulation |
| Quote |
“So most people don’t know that Les Wexner, the former CEO of L Brands… gave Jeffrey Epstein full power of attorney… And on top of that, Ensign Peak (Mormon Church) was an investor in L Brands… through shell companies… And all four Utah representatives voted against releasing the Epstein files… This is all so suspicious…” — Jorge Lopez, |
| Core Claim |
The LDS Church knowingly invested in L Brands (linked to Epstein) and covered it up via shell companies; Utah politicians helped hide Epstein’s crimes. |
| Conclusion |
Misleading / Guilt by Association Fallacy |
| Logical Questions |
- Did Ensign Peak knowingly support Epstein-linked entities?
- Were the shell companies criminal or standard investment structures?
- Do passive investments equate to moral complicity?
|
🔍 Core Finding
1. Passive ≠ Complicit. Ensign Peak manages billions across diversified portfolios like most institutional investors. No evidence supports the Church having operational control over L Brands or knowledge of Epstein’s conduct through Les Wexner.
2. “Shell Companies” were regulatory, not criminal. The Church’s 2023 SEC settlement confirms failure to file correctly—not illegal behavior. Many nonprofits and religious groups use intermediaries for privacy and protection.
3. L Brands ≠ Epstein. L Brands was a global brand. Wexner’s poor personal judgment doesn’t taint every shareholder. Claiming so is emotional misdirection and guilt by association.
4. Utah Reps ≠ Church Plot. The Epstein vote (Roll Call 136) split by party, not religion. LDS Church did not direct or lobby the vote. Utah Republicans often vote with national GOP strategy.
🧠 Manipulation & Logic Check
- Fallacy: Guilt by association (Church → Wexner → Epstein).
- Emotional trigger: Weaponizes Epstein’s crimes to imply institutional corruption without evidence.
⚠️ Defamation Risk
While not direct, the accusation pattern may rise to reckless implication. Linking a religion to crimes without evidence introduces reputational harm risk.
📚 Sources
by Anonymous | Jul 22, 2025 | Church Finances
Bottom Line
Quoting a devotional metaphor without its full spiritual context misrepresents both the doctrine and the practice. The Church teaches sacrifice — not starvation. And compassion is the rule, not cruelty.
| Podcast |
YouTube – Alyssa Grenfell |
| Episode |
“How the Mormon Church Secretly Built a $293 Billion Fortune” |
| Category |
Tithing Doctrine & Poverty |
| Quote |
“If a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing.” — Narrator quoting Elder Lynn G. Robbins, 00:01:00 |
| Core Claim |
The LDS Church encourages starving members to pay tithing before buying food, regardless of personal need. |
| Conclusion |
Partial Truth / Doctrinally Isolated & Out-of-Context Quote |
| Logical Questions |
- Was this quote presented with full doctrinal context?
- Do bishops require tithing before giving aid?
- How does the Church treat struggling members?
|
🔍 Core Finding
The quote is real, but it’s not policy. Elder Lynn G. Robbins used it in a sermon to teach faith during hardship, not to promote starvation. The Church’s actual welfare system is built on feeding the hungry — not testing them.
📖 What Elder Robbins Actually Said
“If a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing.” “But they should also go to their bishop for help.”
— GC, Apr. 2005
🧾 Church Policy vs. Sermon Metaphor
- Bishops are instructed to help the poor regardless of tithing status.
- Tithing is voluntary and not enforced by penalty.
- Fast offerings and humanitarian funds exist to meet basic needs.
📚 Sources
