The First Day of the Rest . . .

[Kishkumen]

Now that we are in 2026, my mind readily turns to one of the most profoundly important questions any faculty member or student at Cassius University can entertain at the start of a new year:

How will Mopologetics evolve in the coming year?

We have seen a theme develop over the past handful of years: the lionization of Brigham Young, the defense of his legacy, and the punishment of those who see his presidency as a departure from the supposedly purer prophethood of Joseph Smith.

Some of this lionization of Young comes from the alt-right corners of the Mormosphere: the DezNat folk. Of course, they love Brigham. For them, the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s is the apex of the Mormon Zion and what every true blue believer must pine for in order to be considered a REAL Mormon. Other aspects of this spring from anti-wokeness. If Brigham in the minds of liberal Mormons is a racist tyrant, then it is important for Mormon apologists to protect Brigham from this woke caricature of a guy whom they view as somewhat flawed, perhaps, but mostly a great hero.

Lastly, there are those who are troubled by the rise of an effort to rewrite history to dissociate Joseph Smith from polygamy, which these "polygamy deniers" attribute to the decline of Mormonism under Brigham Young. This seems to be sad result of the LDS Church's efforts to move past polygamy by not talking about it, to join forces with other religionists to fight gay marriage by insisting that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and to convert Protestants to Mormonism.

You put these three efforts together, and you have a wonderful recipe for breeding an anti-polygamy conspiracy theory among Mormons who have been folded into pretzels by the contradictory efforts of their own leaders. Again, it was at church that these folks got three messages:

1. Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy.
2. God says marriage is the union of one man and one woman (it's Adam and Eve!).
3. Mormonism is Christian and not fundamentally different in many ways from Protestant Christianity.

Now, before the chorus of Mormon apologists pipes up to correct me by saying that the LDS Church did not formally teach these things as the doctrine of the LDS Church, no need--I am not saying they did. Return to my final sentence before the list: it was "AT CHURCH" that these folks got three messages. You might say that these three messages belong to the popular discourse of Mormonism from the 1990s to the 2010s and beyond. No one really knows what official church doctrine is anyway, which is wonderfully useful when someone wants to eschew responsibility for a teaching on behalf of the Church's leaders. And, honestly, I see no reason to have that argument.

The important thing, to me, is that these messages were prevalent. The LDS Church did not actively contradict them. And, numerous members were shaped by these messages, with the result that now, in an age of conspiracy theories, it was inevitable that this should be one of those that would flourish.

Because, let's face it, polygamy is, on the whole, a real drag on Mormonism. It is the one thing that really sets it apart its history from that of any other major Christian sect. It is great fodder for comedy, and it generates no small amount of outrage and disgust. Finally, the LDS Church just does not know what to do with it. Now they are stuck defending the polygamy of Joseph Smith in an era when the Christian tradwife as the one partner of the ideal Christian husband is resurgent. That tradwife does not have a dozen sister wives or even one. Where does the polygamist fit in?

So, at the end of 2025, there was a little hullaballoo in the online Mormosphere, when Dr. Christopher Blythe of the English Department at BYU went apoplectic because Fiona Givens was scheduled to speak at a conference on polygamy in which some polygamy deniers were attending. He was so upset that he contacted Terryl Givens about it. And, it appears that Professor Givens talked his spouse into dropping out of the conference! This incident is just one of a number of efforts that Dr. Blythe has undertaken to fight polygamy denialism and protect the legacy of Brigham Young.

So, in short, one of the developments in Mopologetics that should be on the radar of Cassius U faculty and students is the birth of a new face of Mopologetics: Dr. Christopher Blythe.

I have known Dr. Blythe for some years. He is a skilled scholar who writes on Mormon Studies. He does not take the old Nibley approach of defending Mormonism through the ancient world. What I did not know until recently is that he is now turning to Mopologetics. And, unfortunately, for him and the LDS Church, he is pretty aggressive about it. Like many other social media influencer types, he is blocking, banning, and unfriending people who get into the slightest disagreement with him. Now, that last part is just a symptom. I think the real story here is that he is a rising figure in Mopologetics, and it will be interesting to watch his apologetics develop.

[Philo Sofee]

It will, indeed, be interesting to see what changes occur with Mopologetics this year. If Blythe is any indication, we are in for a screaming fun and contradictory warfare year all across the boards.....

[I Have Questions]

Is Blythe a new apologetic voice in the Mopolosphere? Or is he associated with one of the existing (and competing) mopologists frat houses?

[Gadianton]

This is quite fascinating, Reverend, but I do have several questions. It's a whirlwind of information out of nowhere.

So Fiona was going to give a talk on Polygamy (yes P happened) but Dr. B stopped it (yes P happened) because certain audience members (no P didn't happen) were going to be there? Why is that? Was it to protect Fiona from detractors? I feel like I'm missing something.

Can you give an example of polygamy denialism? Do they mean neither Joseph or Brigham practiced polygamy? Is that a Snuffer thing -- Brigham was in apostasy? I'd like to understand the basic angle here.

Finally, as you point out, it's interesting how cover-ups eventually explode, that the knowing lies of leaders will have their bill come due, but to me it seems like there's a way out. Given identity politics pushes extremes, I'd think embracing polygamy could work with the alt-right. Beards get bigger, wives get younger and more beaten, and why not add more manly insult with multiple wives? There's all kinds of apologetics in the Journal of Discourses making fun of weak and frail men who could only get one wife compared to the stout polygamist. Seems to me that could sell.

[Kishkumen]

This is quite fascinating, Reverend, but I do have several questions. It's a whirlwind of information out of nowhere.

Indeed! The Mormosphere is always a complicated, busy place with plenty of drama.

So Fiona was going to give a talk on Polygamy (yes P happened) but Dr. B stopped it (yes P happened) because certain audience members (no P didn't happen) were going to be there? Why is that? Was it to protect Fiona from detractors? I feel like I'm missing something.

Yes, Fiona was scheduled to speak at a conference on the topic of polygamy sponsored by the Journal of Mormon Polygamy. This journal is a young publication that has taken the controversial step of including input and publications from folks who do not believe that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. The journal has faced criticism and blowback from those who think it is dangerous to give a platform to conspiracy theorists. It is unclear whether Fiona knew all of this backstory before she agreed to speak at the conference. My guess is that she did not.

Dr. B found out that Fiona was scheduled to speak in this conference, and he contacted Prof. G to let him know. Thereafter, Fiona pulled out of the conference. I think it is safe to say, based on what I know of Dr. B's views that he viewed it as risky if not destructive to lend any color of legitimacy to the polygamy deniers. The root problem is that polygamy deniers have been included in this effort and will continue to be included. When you factor in the Church's recent ex-communication of a polygamy denier, it is hard to see how folks as understandably careful as the Givenses could possibly participate.

But, Fiona's exit was upsetting to the organizers, and they resented Dr. B's intervention.

Can you give an example of polygamy denialism? Do they mean neither Joseph or Brigham practiced polygamy? Is that a Snuffer thing -- Brigham was in apostasy? I'd like to understand the basic angle here.

Yeah, so, it is the claim that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, and that shifting to polygamy later represented some form of apostasy or at least a fall from a higher law. So Brigham and others wickedly pursue polygamy after Smith's assassination, and then they retcon polygamist history in Smith's life to legitimize their lustful practices.

Finally, as you point out, it's interesting how cover-ups eventually explode, that the knowing lies of leaders will have their bill come due, but to me it seems like there's a way out. Given identity politics pushes extremes, I'd think embracing polygamy could work with the alt-right. Beards get bigger, wives get younger and more beaten, and why not add more manly insult with multiple wives? There's all kinds of apologetics in the Journal of Discourses making fun of weak and frail men who could only get one wife compared to the stout polygamist. Seems to me that could sell.

I mean, you might think so, and maybe that will end up being true. At present though, I think the commitment to the anti-LGBTQ+ argument of one man and one woman is a problem for that. Traditional marriage in the West, if defined in line with the practices of the Greeks and Romans, was one man and one woman, and a lot of fornication, adultery, and prostitution at the same time. This is because marriage was mostly about the transmission of property to legitimate offspring. But, of course, the Bible-only folk point to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as their proof of God's design.

That is a pretty powerful argument, and I do not see the polygamy folk offering anything that counters it effectively. After all, look at D&C 132's mention of Solomon. David and Solomon were much messier figures who could be called failures. Solomon with his many wives and concubines isn't exactly a positive model for the righteous to follow. Smith really went out on a limb with polygamy, and the results speak for themselves. It was a disaster.

So, I have a hard time imagining polygamy as a future alt-right success. But, I could be wrong.

[Gadianton]

I think it is safe to say, based on what I know of Dr. B's views that he viewed it as risky if not destructive to lend any color of legitimacy to the polygamy deniers. The root problem is that polygamy deniers have been included in this effort

Aha! The light just went on. I totally missed what you were saying. I was thinking there would be polygamy deniers in the audience, and that was why she was pulled. Interesting assumption I brought to the table that forbade me from even considering that the deniers might be speaking. Wow, that is getting serious. I find myself befuddled. On the one hand, "Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is an anti-Mormon lie" sounds very Chapel Mormon and orthodox, on the other, it sounds crazy to pursue it as a serious apologetic. Like, it's a higher truth we either secretly really knew or upon learning, knew deep down, immediately, that we weren't getting out of it and accept as a higher truth that we should continue to cover up by evasiveness or to apologize for depending on the situation.

I suppose in this context, the fact it's linked to Denver Snuffer and apostate groups would seem to taint it as inappropriate. I don't know, this wasn't a situation I'd have predicted.

[Kishkumen]

Aha! The light just went on. I totally missed what you were saying. I was thinking there would be polygamy deniers in the audience, and that was why she was pulled. Interesting assumption I brought to the table that forbade me from even considering that the deniers might be speaking. Wow, that is getting serious. I find myself befuddled. On the one hand, "Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is an anti-Mormon lie" sounds very Chapel Mormon and orthodox, on the other, it sounds crazy to pursue it as a serious apologetic. Like, it's a higher truth we either secretly really knew or upon learning, knew deep down, immediately, that we weren't getting out of it and accept as a higher truth that we should continue to cover up by evasiveness or to apologize for depending on the situation.

I suppose in this context, the fact it's linked to Denver Snuffer and apostate groups would seem to taint it as inappropriate. I don't know, this wasn't a situation I'd have predicted.

The more traditional Mormon historians involved in the conference and journal gamble that it is better to keep your opponent in the tent and benefit from the argument in-house instead of setting up an adversarial relationship with fellow members. In a sense, you might say that this is an attempt to treat members with radically differing views in a way that Mopologists utterly failed to do. I am sympathetic to that, but then in my view the idea that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy is so utterly bonkers and silly that I have a hard time faulting those who say setting up journals and conferences with conspiracy theorists is a bridge too far. Honestly, I am not sure how to handle the situation.

I don't think, though, that those who want to be guardians on the watchtower, so to speak, have any choice but to warn people off of platforming conspiracy theories. And that is what polygamy denial is: a conspiracy theory that is motivated by sympathetic reasons. Who wants to see the founding prophet of Mormonism as a lecher chasing teens? That's the rub, right? Once you accept that he was a polygamist, and you look at the list of women whom he "married" in that practice, you can't help but notice that some of these women were already married to other men, and that some of them were pretty damn young. I find the whole thing stomach churning. But that is what you have to defend if you accept the history and accept the religion in a more or less straightforward way. Polygamy deniers reject the history and spin the conspiracy theory to get around it and save their faith in the prophet.

But you are right, in the long run polygamy denying is a losing strategy. People commit to lunacy by sticking with it. We can understand why they did, but it is not that different from Q people believing in Pizzagate, demonic Democrats, and Trump as a savior figure. The difference is that this conspiracy theory seeks to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by circumstances that have arisen in a church they belonged to long before they embraced the conspiracy itself. What happens when they eventually come to see that they have embraced a conspiracy theory and then reject it?

Still, I can't go beyond accepting the historical validity of the apologetic perspective to embrace the religious motivations underlying the defense of the good historical method. This fight takes us into a strange fracas of different right-wing groups, all of whom I have problems with. Those who support the history as believers seem to believe that God really did want some elite Mormon men to marry other men's wives, teenagers, and as many women as they possibly could. It's frankly just grotesque, and I don't want anything to do with it.

[Gadianton]

Still, I can't go beyond accepting the historical validity of the apologetic perspective to embrace the religious motivations underlying the defense of the good historical method. This fight takes us into a strange fracas of different right-wing groups, all of whom I have problems with. Those who support the history as believers seem to believe that God really did want some elite Mormon men to marry other men's wives, teenagers, and as many women as they possibly could. It's frankly just grotesque, and I don't want anything to do with it.

Are there any possible avenues? What if we admit polygamy was real, but Joseph fell from grace and becomes like David. Perhaps he's lucky if he gets the telestial kingdom. He still restored the gospel, we must acknowledge it, but then to what extent can we talk positively about him without it reducing to looking the other way and permitting it? Such a situation could be a legitimate reason for moving focus back to Jesus. I suppose even if the right balance were found, I'd struggle with the fact that really, God? Do true prophets and false prophets alike all need to look the same, like rockstars using their notoriety to get as much sex as possible? Can you at least cross out the "by their fruits" scriptures if so? And then Joseph Smith is not like Jim Baker, getting it on the side and getting caught, but like you-know-who, figuring out creative ways to get in front of it, and weave it into a feature. Too much doctrine is steeped in the premise of it.

It's possible that polygamy makes Mormonism the very most difficult religion to redeem of all time.

[I Have Questions]

Still, I can't go beyond accepting the historical validity of the apologetic perspective to embrace the religious motivations underlying the defense of the good historical method. This fight takes us into a strange fracas of different right-wing groups, all of whom I have problems with. Those who support the history as believers seem to believe that God really did want some elite Mormon men to marry other men's wives, teenagers, and as many women as they possibly could. It's frankly just grotesque, and I don't want anything to do with it.

Are there any possible avenues? What if we admit polygamy was real, but Joseph fell from grace and becomes like David. Perhaps he's lucky if he gets the telestial kingdom. He still restored the gospel, we must acknowledge it, but then to what extent can we talk positively about him without it reducing to looking the other way and permitting it? Such a situation could be a legitimate reason for moving focus back to Jesus. I suppose even if the right balance were found, I'd struggle with the fact that really, God? Do true prophets and false prophets alike all need to look the same, like rockstars using their notoriety to get as much sex as possible? Can you at least cross out the "by their fruits" scriptures if so? And then Joseph Smith is not like Jim Baker, getting it on the side and getting caught, but like you-know-who, figuring out creative ways to get in front of it, and weave it into a feature. Too much doctrine is steeped in the premise of it.

It's possible that polygamy makes Mormonism the very most difficult religion to redeem of all time.

Part of the awkwardness is the fact that the Church hasn’t really got a clear, definitive position on the topic. Was it the part of the restoration? Is it non doctrinal? Is it a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom? Will people like Nelson and Oaks be polygamists in the afterlife or do they have to drop all wives except one? Had the church disavowed the plural marriage practice of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, in the same way as they’ve distanced the Church from people like Warren Jeffs? What is said to those African members who have plural wives when they join the Church?

It’s a mess.

In limited, specific cases the Lord has commanded His followers to practice plural marriage.

So plural marriage is commanded sometimes, for some people, for some reason. Could it be any more ambiguous and unclear?

If you want a laugh, get chatting to a Mormon couple and ask them if they’d be prepared to live in the afterlife in a plural marriage arrangement like Nelson and Oaks will have in the Celestial Kingdom if that’s the requirement. If they say “yes” (chances are you’ll get multiple answers) then ask if they have someone in mind…when it gets real, it gets real awkward.

[Markk]

If you want a laugh, get chatting to a Mormon couple and ask them if they’d be prepared to live in the afterlife in a plural marriage arrangement like Nelson and Oaks will have in the Celestial Kingdom if that’s the requirement. If they say “yes” (chances are you’ll get multiple answers) then ask if they have someone in mind…when it gets real, it gets real awkward.

If you want to get their attention show them this short documentary.

Tell then the story about Joseph and Helen Mar Kimball, and then show them the documentary at 14:24 minutes.

https://vimeo.com/132442998?Florida=pl&fe=cm#t=14m24s