Select Page
Are Mormon Missionaries being “Exploited”? A Closer Look at Alyssa Grenfell’s Claims

Are Mormon Missionaries being “Exploited”? A Closer Look at Alyssa Grenfell’s Claims

by | Mar 12, 2026 | Doctrines Policy Practice, Polygamy

Podcast / Episode / Title / Category: YouTube transcript excerpt / “You Were Never Supposed to See Inside ” / MTC, missionary work, policy, history, mental-health framing.
Speaker in all quoted lines below: Alyssa Grenfell

1) MTC purpose, hours, and money

Word-for-word quote: “I was specifically hired to train the missionaries on how to convert other people to get them baptized…”  “The Provo, Utah can hold up to about 3,700 missionaries at a time.” “They do not get paid. They don’t even have their way paid for.”

Claim type: factual + interpretive.

Classifications:

  • “Train missionaries … to get them baptized” — Partial Truth. Official missionary materials do train missionaries to invite people to baptism, even in the first lesson, but the Church’s stated purpose is broader than “close the sale”: help people develop faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Provo MTC can hold about 3,700 missionaries” — True. Official Church sources describe the Provo MTC as able to train up to about 3,700 missionaries at a time. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Missionaries work about 11 hours a day” — Mostly True, but rhetorically compressed. The sample daily schedule includes a 10:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. block for finding, teaching, and serving, but the full day also includes study, meals, planning, exercise, and preparation. Calling it simply “11 hours of knocking doors” compresses the actual schedule. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “They do not get paid” — True. Missionary service is voluntary and unpaid. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “They don’t even have their way paid for” — False / Misleading. The Church pays travel to and from the MTC and mission field, and missionaries receive monthly funds in the field for food, transportation, and other living expenses. Families and wards do contribute financially, but “the Church covers nothing” is not accurate. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Currently … about $400 a month” — Not independently confirmed in the official current sources I checked. The official sources I found describe monthly missionary contributions and equalized worldwide support, but the cited public passages do not state a single global current figure. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Core rebuttal: This segment mixes real missionary sacrifice with overstatement. Yes, missionaries are unpaid volunteers and yes, the schedule is demanding. But the claim that the Church “doesn’t even have their way paid for” materially distorts the record. The Church explicitly funds missionary travel to and from the field and distributes living-expense support during service. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Bottom line: Mixed segment. Real rigor, real sacrifice, but a materially false exploitation frame.

Logic / legal note: The framing equates voluntary religious service with wage labor and then adds a false factual kicker (“the Church pays nothing”). That combination creates a stronger false-light risk than the underlying true facts alone. Defamation law generally turns on false factual statements that harm reputation. (law.cornell.edu)

2) Companion rules, media, dress, and family contact

Word-for-word quote: “You have to be within sight and sound of your assigned companion.” “You’re also not allowed to consume any media that’s not church approved.” “You are not allowed to call them by their first name.” “You could only talk to your family via video call or phone call two times per year.”

Claim type: factual, some outdated.

Classifications:

  • Sight-and-sound companion rule — True. Current missionary standards say missionaries should be able to see and hear their companion at all times except limited situations such as using the restroom, interviews, or baptismal interviews. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Media restrictions — Mostly True. Current standards say choose approved and appropriate media, avoid television, movies, video games, and unauthorized videos, and use approved tech/social media for missionary purposes. So “strict media standards” is right; “only church-approved media” is slightly too absolute. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Use “Elder” and “Sister,” not first names — True in general practice. Current standards explicitly say to use titles such as “Elder” or “Sister” for other missionaries. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Dress and grooming standards are strict — True. Current and historical missionary standards plainly regulate appearance and conduct. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • No in-person family visits during the mission — Mostly True. The current rule is that family and friends generally should not visit, though the mission president may approve exceptions. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Only two phone/video calls per year — Historically plausible, but outdated as a present-day claim. Since February 2019, missionaries have been authorized to communicate weekly with family on preparation day through text, phone, video, and similar tools, plus special occasions. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)

Core rebuttal: The strictness is real. The overreach is in treating older rules as if they remain unchanged. Current missionary policy is more flexible on family communication than the narrator suggests. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)

Bottom line: Mostly true, but partly outdated and overstated.

Logic / legal note: This is a classic chronology problem: older personal experience gets repackaged as if it is still the present rule.

3) Hiring, role play, and the “sales training center” label

Word-for-word quote: “you have to have a current temple recommend” “you may take on additional responsibilities as an actor to role play as a non-member” “I was basically doing like sales training.”

Claim type: factual + analogy.

Classifications:

  • Temple-worthiness standard for Church employment — Broadly True. The General Handbook says Church employees must be worthy of a temple recommend. That is consistent with her description of temple-recommend screening. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Role-playing investigators at the MTC — True. Official MTC training materials include “Being an Investigator,” and the transcript’s job-posting description is consistent with role-play training. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Highly competitive,” “highest-paid BYU campus job,” and similar interview lore — Not Provable / anecdotal. Those are personal recollections not established by the record I checked.
  • “Sales training center” — Misleading analogy. Missionary work does involve commitments, invitations, and follow-up. But official standards define it as representing Jesus Christ, teaching repentance, and using Christlike, honest, compassionate communication. Reducing it to “sales” is an interpretive frame, not the Church’s stated purpose. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Core rebuttal: She is strongest when describing role play and structured teaching. She is weakest when she insists structure itself proves a commercial “sales” enterprise. Any serious religious movement trains its representatives; training does not by itself convert gospel teaching into salesmanship. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Bottom line: Factual core is mostly right; the “sales” label is a loaded interpretive leap.

Logic / legal note: This is a category error: gospel invitation is recast as commerce by analogy, not by direct evidence.

4) Baptismal invitations, tracking, “love bombing,” and transparency

Word-for-word quote: “The baptism date is a huge thing … one of the first lessons … would be the invitation to be baptized.” “will you commit to being baptized on the 31st of this month?” “We were encouraged to have contact with our potential investigators daily.” “It’s just not informed consent.”

Claim type: factual + interpretive.

Classifications:

  • Invite people to baptism early, with a date — True. Official MTC guidance says missionaries should invite investigators to baptism in the first lesson and set a specific date no later than the second lesson. Official Preach My Gospel language is also direct and date-specific. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Daily contact, promise blessings, follow up, member participation, key indicators, record keeping — True. The Church’s materials expressly teach daily follow-up, recording commitments, involving members in lessons, and tracking key indicators of conversion. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “There are currently about 74,000 missionaries … in 150 countries” — Time-sensitive and stale as stated. Official Church reporting put the number above 74,000 in August 2024, about 80,000 in February 2025, and more than 84,000 later in 2025, in more than 150 countries. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Missionaries never tell people about garments, temples, or Joseph Smith’s polygamy, so there is no informed consent” — Partial Truth / Overgeneralization. Individual missionaries may absolutely fail to explain enough. But the Church publicly explains temple worship, temple garments, and Joseph Smith’s plural marriages on official sites. It also teaches that temple endowment normally comes only after at least a year of Church membership, and garments are associated with the endowment, not initial baptism. So “systemwide concealment” is too strong. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Core rebuttal: The structure she describes is real. The accusation that the Church hides the basics is not. The Church has public temple pages, public garment explanations, and public historical material on Joseph Smith’s plural marriages. Her critique works as a complaint about incomplete missionary teaching; it fails as proof of deliberate institutional concealment. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Bottom line: The mechanics are real; the concealment claim is overstated.

Logic / legal note: This section relies heavily on anecdote-to-system reasoning: one Reddit complaint becomes “objective proof” of a churchwide deception model. That is not a disciplined evidentiary move.

5) Mental health, family communication, and funeral / early-return claims

Word-for-word quote: “Don’t tell your family the negative things.” “If a parent passes away on their mission, you will be heavily instructed … you shouldn’t go home to the funeral. That’s what’s in the handbook.” “How many of them were feeling like they needed to say, ‘I’m having thoughts of ending my life.’”

Claim type: factual + anecdotal + moral framing.

Classifications:

  • Missionaries can suffer sadness, anxiety, homesickness, guilt, or depression — True. Current missionary standards explicitly acknowledge these realities and say there is no shame in seeking help. Mission leaders and medical coordinators are directed to connect missionaries with mental-health resources. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Don’t tell your family the negative things” — Not proven here as an official current rule, and contradicted by current standards. Current rules allow weekly family communication and additional communication on special occasions. The 2019 policy expanded this substantially. So even if an older culture or older instruction sometimes discouraged negativity, that is not an accurate present-day policy summary. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “You shouldn’t go home to the funeral. That’s what’s in the handbook” — Misleading. The current General Handbook says a missionary may choose to return home temporarily for an immediate family member’s funeral, though generally counseled to remain in the field. That is not the same as “the handbook says you shouldn’t go.” (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • Early-return missionaries face stigma — Partial Truth. Cultural stigma may occur, but the current handbook also says bishops and stake presidents should give special support to missionaries who return early for health, worthiness, or other reasons. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Most missionaries seemed scared / many suicidal” — Not Provable / anecdotal as a systemwide claim. Her memories may be sincere, but anecdote is not the same as institution-wide proof.

Core rebuttal: This is the emotionally strongest part of the transcript, but it is where careful classification matters most. Mental-health struggles are real, and the Church’s current standards openly acknowledge them. What the record does not support is the blanket impression that the system simply suppresses family contact and forbids funeral return. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Bottom line: Serious pastoral concerns deserve compassion; several of the policy claims are overdrawn or wrong.

Logic / legal note: Strong anecdotal material can create a powerful impression, but false light often arises precisely when moving from painful anecdotes to sweeping policy claims. (law.cornell.edu)

6) Polygamy, doctrine, and the closing “coercive/unethical” judgment

Word-for-word quote: “legalized polygamy tomorrow, the entire Mormon church would resurrect the doctrine of polygamy” “he was actually right. It is still in the DNC. There is still polygamy in heaven.” “sometimes in the mainstream Mormon church, there are people who privately practice polygamy” “the way that the church does missionary work is … far too coercive … unethical.”

Claim type: doctrinal/history claim + opinion.

Classifications:

  • Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage — True, and publicly acknowledged by the Church. Official Church history pages openly state that Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “The Church still effectively believes/practices polygamy and would restore it if legalized” — False / Misleading as an official-church claim. Current Church doctrine and policy state that Latter-day Saints do not practice plural marriage today, that monogamy is the standing law, and that people who enter plural marriages or promote the practice cannot remain members of the Church. Splinter groups and dissidents do not define official Church policy. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Some mainstream members quietly practice polygamy” — Not established here, and if true of isolated dissidents it still does not describe Church policy. The official policy is the opposite: plural marriage is prohibited. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  • “Missionary work is coercive/unethical” — Opinion / value judgment. That is not a verifiable fact claim in the same way the age, travel, funeral, or polygamy-policy claims are.

Core rebuttal: The most important distinction here is between history and current policy. The Church openly acknowledges Joseph Smith’s plural marriages. It also openly states that plural marriage is not practiced today and that those who enter or promote it cannot remain members. That makes the “they’d bring it all back if legal” claim speculative rhetoric, not a documented present policy. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Bottom line: The history is real; the present-policy insinuation is false.

Logic / legal note: This is the most reputationally serious factual cluster, because it implies ongoing institutional sympathy for a practice the Church explicitly forbids. Pure opinion receives more protection than false factual implication, and labeling a claim as “I realized he was actually right” does not automatically immunize a verifiable assertion. (law.cornell.edu)

Overall judgment

The strongest factual corrections are these:

  1. Missionaries are unpaid, but the Church does pay travel to and from the MTC/field and provides monthly field support. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  2. The handbook does not simply say “don’t go home” for a funeral; it says the missionary may choose to return home temporarily, though generally counseled to remain. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  3. The Church does not currently practice plural marriage, and those who enter or promote it cannot remain members. (churchofjesuschrist.org)
  4. Temple worship, garments, and Joseph Smith’s plural marriages are publicly explained on official Church sites. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Everything else in the excerpt falls into one of three buckets: strict but real missionary rules, partial truths framed in the harshest possible way, or personal anecdote / opinion presented as though it proves the entire system. That is the central weakness of the section as a rebuttal-proof document. It has emotional force, but it is not consistently careful with categories. (churchofjesuschrist.org)

John Dehlin Misinformation re Polygamy

John Dehlin Misinformation re Polygamy

by | Jan 28, 2026 | Polygamy

Findings 1

The Church finally published an official list of Joseph Smith’s wives in late 2025.

“Up until late 2025, the LDS church had never actually published an official list of Joseph Smith’s wives… then the church did publish a list… it lists Fanny Alger as his first plural wife.”

What the record actually shows

  • In July 2025, the Church published Q&A‑style resources about translation, Joseph’s character, and plural marriage. They answer common questions and point to prior material; they’re not introduced as a definitive roster.

  • The Church’s Topics & Questions: “Plural Marriage” (2025) summarizes history and links to existing Church History Topics pages (e.g., Fanny Alger), which long pre‑date 2025 and already reported that several Latter‑day Saints later said Fanny married Joseph, becoming his first plural wife. That’s context—again, not a new, signed “official list.”

  • Earlier background essays (2014) like “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” also provided historical framing years before 2025.

Calling the 2025 pages an “official list” overstates what they are. They’re Q&A resources that point to already‑available historical write‑ups (including the standing page on Fanny Alger). “Fanny as first” reflects a common 19th‑century recollection summarized for years—not a brand‑new 2025 proclamation.

Evaluation Table

Claim in a sentence Verdict Why we say that Sources
“The Church published an official list in late 2025; it puts Fanny first.” Partial / Misleading 2025 pages are Q&A resources linking to pre‑existing history pages; they’re not presented as a definitive list. Fanny Alger’s being “first” reflects long‑noted recollections already summarized earlier. Church Newsroom Q&A; Topics & Questions “Plural Marriage”; Church History Topics “Fanny Alger”; Gospel Topics essay.

Findings 2

Joseph violated his own revelation (D&C 132) by not telling Emma.

“I don’t think there’s evidence that he broaches the subject with Emma until May of 1843.”

“So he violates the rules of the revelation that he ends up producing later.” — “I think that’s fair.”

Core claim

Because Emma wasn’t informed early, Joseph broke D&C 132’s rules.

What the record actually shows

  • D&C 132 was recorded July 12, 1843—after early Nauvoo sealings began. Reading it like a rulebook retroactively applied to 1841 behavior is anachronistic.

  • The text itself is complex: it expects discussion with the first wife, but also contains an exception clause (vv. 61–65) alongside teaching on priesthood keys (v. 7). Latter‑day Saint sources consistently note monogamy as the standing law unless the Lord commands otherwise; the 2014 essays explain that context.

It’s fair to say Emma learned late and that created serious personal strain. But calling that a violation of a revelation not yet recorded (and whose own wording is nuanced) is over‑simple and time‑shifted.

Claim in a sentence Verdict Why we say that Sources
“He violated his own revelation by not telling Emma early.” Oversimplified / Anachronistic D&C 132’s recording date (July 12, 1843) postdates early sealings; its wording is nuanced, not a simple “tell first or it’s invalid” rule. D&C 132; Institute/Seminary commentary; Essay “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.”

Findings 3

Topic: “The Louisa Beaman sealing was done in disguise and consummated; a witness ‘saw them in bed.’”

Word‑for‑word quotes

“According to one source, Louisa disguised herself with a coat and a hat….”

“The sealing was consummated afterwards… I saw him in bed with her.”

“That statement is in the 1890s… decades later… he may be over‑emphatic.”

Core claim

The first Nauvoo sealing involved a disguise and sex that night, witnessed by Joseph B. Noble.

What the record actually shows (summary)

  • Disguise under a tree: presented as from a single late source (“one source”). Good historians flag that as possible but not firm. The show itself notes it’s unusual.

  • “Saw them in bed” comes from Joseph B. Noble’s Temple Lot deposition decades later; the Q&A shows hedging under cross‑examination (he alternates between that night vs. “two or three nights after”). Treat as late, contested evidence, not a contemporaneous diary entry.

Bottom line:
A sealing to Louisa Beaman (April 5, 1841) is well attested; details like disguise and same‑night consummation rely on late and not‑fully‑consistent recollections. Caution is warranted.

Evaluation Table

Start End Claim in a sentence Verdict Why we say that Sources
00:22:20 00:25:29 “Disguise + same‑night sex witnessed first‑hand.” Partly supported / Heavily contested The sealing is solid; “disguise” and immediate consummation rest on late testimony with internal hedging. JSPolygamy (Louisa Beaman; Evidence of Sexuality); B. H. Roberts transcript page.

Findings 4

Topic: “There was a quid pro quo: Noble performs the Beaman sealing (1841); exactly two years later Joseph seals Noble to Sarah B. Alley (1843).”

Word‑for‑word quotes

“Exactly two years after Noble seals Joseph Smith to Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith sealed Noble to a woman named Sarah Alley… could be coincidence or quid pro quo.”

“I mentioned the reward later… Do we know about a threat or a promise in this case?”

Core claim

The timing proves a “you help me, I’ll get you a wife” deal.

What the record actually shows (summary)

  • Sarah B. Alley did become Noble’s plural wife on April 5, 1843 (biographical databases and academic work record it). The date matches the “two years later” observation.

  • But evidence of an explicit trade (“you get me a wife, I’ll get you wives”) is not documented. The show itself admits the tie “could be coincidence.” Correlation ≠ contract.

  • Nauvoo records do show tight trust networks (loyal men, kin ties, intermediaries). That context can explain timing without positing a transactional “swap.”

Bottom line:
Dating aligns; quid‑pro‑quo intent is not proven. It’s an inference—one possible reading, not the only one.

Evaluation Table

Claim in a sentence Verdict Why we say that Sources
“Two‑years‑to‑the‑day = quid pro quo.” Speculative / Not proven The marriage date is attested; no primary source confirms a deal. The show itself notes it might be coincidence. CHD entry “Sarah B. Alley”; UVA Nauvoo projects; Dialogue analysis listing early polygamists.

Findings 5

Topic: “Joseph used the ‘angel with a drawn sword’ and promises of salvation to pressure women (e.g., Mary Rollins Lightner).”

Word‑for‑word quotes

“An angel with a drawn sword… he doesn’t have any choice… ‘this marriage will ensure her salvation. All that God gives me, I shall take with me, for I have that authority and that power.’”

“Joseph uses the justification that an angel appears to him three times threatening to slay him.”

Core claim

Joseph invoked a threatening angel and eternal promises to push women into plural marriage.

What the record actually shows (public summary)

  • The “angel with a drawn sword” motif appears in later reminiscences (not in an 1841 diary entry). A 1905 BYU talk by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner is the best‑known source; the line is widely reproduced in collections. That makes the story late, but it does exist in first‑person reminiscence.

  • Lightner also remembered promises framed in salvation terms. Those statements reflect her words about Joseph later in life; others described personal spiritual confirmations, while some declined proposals. FAIR summaries point out that agency remained and not all accepted.

Bottom line:
Yes—late sources do record Joseph invoking an angel and speaking in eternal‑salvation terms, and that language could feel heavy to listeners. Historically, these are late recollections that must be weighed with care, alongside cases where women declined or reported their own spiritual witnesses.

Evaluation Table

Start End Claim in a sentence Verdict Why we say that Sources
01:31:36 01:33:12 “Angel with sword + promise of salvation used as pressure.” Partly supported / Based on late sources The angel account and salvation promise are chiefly from late reminiscences (e.g., 1905 Lightner). Powerful language? Yes. Contemporaneous proof of systematic coercion? Mixed record; some accepted, others declined. BYU 1905 remarks; BHRoberts/compilations; JS‑Polygamy summaries; FAIR overview.

Legal & Logic Notes

  • Anachronism risk: Applying a July 1843 text (D&C 132) as if it governed 1841 behavior is a timing error.

  • Inference vs. proof: The “quid pro quo” point is interpretation built on timing, not on an explicit written deal.

  • Late testimony caution: Claims like “I saw him in bed” and angel narratives rest on decades‑later accounts; that doesn’t erase them, but it does lower evidentiary weight compared with contemporary records.

  • Defamation/false‑light flags: Strong language such as “violated his own revelation” or “quid pro quo wife‑swaps” is opinion/inference, not established fact; labeling it as fact could mislead. (🟠 Moderate false‑light risk if presented as proven.)

Sources

  • Church Newsroom Q&A (July 30, 2025) — overview including plural marriage FAQs.

  • Topics & Questions: “Plural Marriage” (2025) — Q&A resource hub.

  • Church History Topics: “Fanny Alger.” (Longstanding page; summarizes 19th‑century reports that she became Joseph’s first plural wife.)

  • Gospel Topics Essay: “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” (2014).

  • D&C 132 (recorded July 12, 1843).

  • JosephSmithsPolygamy.org (Louisa Beaman; Evidence of Sexuality) — excerpts of the Temple Lot deposition (late, contested).

  • B. H. Roberts transcription hub — Noble deposition excerpts.

  • Church History Biographical Database: Sarah B. Alley (married Joseph B. Noble Apr 5, 1843).

  • UVA Nauvoo database / Dialogue articles — early Nauvoo plural marriage dating.

  • Mary E. Rollins Lightner remarks (1905) & compilations — angel‑sword wording in late reminiscences.

  • FAIR overviews — agency/consent discussions (balanced apologetic summaries).

Transcript citations map

  • “Official list… Fanny first.” — 00:06:34–00:07:15

  • “Didn’t broach with Emma until May 1843.” — 00:11:56–00:12:40

  • “Violates his own revelation… ‘that’s fair.’” — 00:14:13–00:14:53

  • “Disguise; ‘I saw him in bed with her.’” — 00:23:50–00:25:29

  • “Two years later—Sarah B. Alley.” — 00:34:16–00:35:51

  • “Angel appears three times threatening to slay him.” — 02:09:45–02:10:24

  • “Ensure her salvation… ‘All that God gives me, I shall take with me…’” — ~01:31:36–01:33:12

Quick “public‑read” wrap‑up

  • The 2025 Church pages aren’t a master list; they’re Q&As pointing to earlier materials (including Fanny Alger as commonly considered first).

  • Saying Joseph “violated” D&C 132 assumes a rulebook was in force before it was recorded and ignores its internal complexity.

  • Louisa Beaman: sealing strong; disguise and same‑night consummation are late/contested details.

  • Noble–Alley timing fits; explicit quid‑pro‑quo is unproven.

  • Angel/salvation language comes mainly from late reminiscences; powerful, yes—but late. Some women declined; others reported confirmations.

Did Joseph Smith Practice Polygamy?

Did Joseph Smith Practice Polygamy?

by | Jan 28, 2026 | Joseph Smith Secrecy, Polygamy

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?