The First Day of the Rest . . .

[Tom]

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!

I’m a bit confused here, Reverend. Do you happen to know why Blythe contacted Terryl about Fiona’s participation? I’m puzzled that Blythe apparently did not contact Fiona directly first. Or did he?

I understand that the Interpreter Foundation will be releasing short videos about Brigham Young each week during 2026 beginning at the end of this month.

[I Have Questions]

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!

I’m a bit confused here, Reverend. Do you happen to know why Blythe contacted Terryl about Fiona’s participation? I’m puzzled that Blythe apparently did not contact Fiona directly first. Or did he?

I was also struck by that Tom. It reads as is if the menfolk (Christopher and Terryl) decided what the womenfolk (in this case, Fiona) could or should do, and then informed Fiona of their decision.

As a slight aside. Typically when a Bishop or Stake President (males) decides to call a married woman to, say, Relief Society or Primary in some capacity, they would approach that woman’s husband first, to
Make sure he’s okay with it. This might be a cultural hangover from the early days of polygamy where a man approaching another’s man’s wife for a private conversation would have had other connotations.

[Kishkumen]

I’m a bit confused here, Reverend. Do you happen to know why Blythe contacted Terryl about Fiona’s participation? I’m puzzled that Blythe apparently did not contact Fiona directly first. Or did he?

I don’t think he contacted Fiona first. I put it in the “order of the priesthood” category. When the bishop seeks to extend a calling to a married woman, he approaches her husband first. So, if you think you may have business with a man’s wife, you approach him. That’s how I was seeing this.

The thing is, Blythe is pretty old school and politically on the right, so I was not surprised by that at all.

[Kishkumen]

I was also struck by that Tom. It reads as is if the menfolk (Christopher and Terryl) decided what the womenfolk (in this case, Fiona) could or should do, and then informed Fiona of their decision.

As a slight aside. Typically when a Bishop or Stake President (males) decides to call a married woman to, say, Relief Society or Primary in some capacity, they would approach that woman’s husband first, to
Make sure he’s okay with it. This might be a cultural hangover from the early days of polygamy where a man approaching another’s man’s wife for a private conversation would have had other connotations.

I should have read your response first. Yep! I think this is the case. I can’t say for certain about Blythe’s motives, however.

[Doctor Scratch]

These are fascinating developments, Reverend. It would seem that even after all these years, the Chapel/Internet Mormon divide is still relevant. I do have questions about Blythe, however--is he really a legitimate Mopologist? The story you laid out has him behaving in way that seems somewhat like the "busybody"/interfering behavior we've seen from classic Mopologists--I'm thinking here of (e.g.) Midgley's hectoring of Gina Colvin and her husband, or Tvedtnes's attempt to affect someone's bid for tenure. Here, though, it's not like Blythe was going after someone, though, right? It's more a case where he didn't want to see any legitimacy lent to this admittedly crank theory?

All that said, I do wonder how/when/where the "classic-FARMS" Mopologists will engage with this issue. They have had no problem in the past targeting other Latter-day Saints--the Transhumanists, FIRM and the Heartlanders, or even the most recent Greg Smith "hit piece." Why not a hit piece on the polygamy deniers?

[Res Ipsa]

I have a thought. We all saw how heterodox interpretations of LDS doctrine by members led to multiple tragedies: fractured families, abused children, and child murder. Oaks is a lawyer and a judge and cannot help but see the world through those eyes. Lawyers and judges live in a world of rules. Would it be surprising to see Oaks tighten up the rules of apostasy to clamp down on heterodox belief. After all, Jesus has 15 men with the authority to tell the membership what the rules are. Why should the rules allow for deviance from doctrine as proclaimed by them? Is the excommunication of a member for defending Smith from allegations of polygamy a sign of this tightening. Are the recent intellectual property threats against Dehlin's enterprise. Perhaps it's too early to say. But each prophet seems determined to make a mark. Will this be Oaks'?

If it is, where does that leave Mopology? Why is there need for an Interpreter when the membership has leaders appointed by God to interpret the Gospel? Which side of the orthodox/heterodox boundary will the Mopologists find themselves on? Will the 15 look upon the invention of Ghostly Translators the same way they look upon the denial of Smith's multiple wives? Weill they share the fate of ark steadiers of the past?

Could be interesting.

[Kishkumen]

These are fascinating developments, Reverend. It would seem that even after all these years, the Chapel/Internet Mormon divide is still relevant. I do have questions about Blythe, however--is he really a legitimate Mopologist? The story you laid out has him behaving in way that seems somewhat like the "busybody"/interfering behavior we've seen from classic Mopologists--I'm thinking here of (e.g.) Midgley's hectoring of Gina Colvin and her husband, or Tvedtnes's attempt to affect someone's bid for tenure. Here, though, it's not like Blythe was going after someone, though, right? It's more a case where he didn't want to see any legitimacy lent to this admittedly crank theory?

All that said, I do wonder how/when/where the "classic-FARMS" Mopologists will engage with this issue. They have had no problem in the past targeting other Latter-day Saints--the Transhumanists, FIRM and the Heartlanders, or even the most recent Greg Smith "hit piece." Why not a hit piece on the polygamy deniers?

Excellent points, Doctor Scratch! You remind us of the importance of real expertise and peer review. No, I am not confident that he has crossed the line into Mopologetics yet. I raise Mopologetics in connection with Blythe not because he is yet going after particular individuals in long, drawn-out crusades, but because of the comparison with the fierce and underhanded Mopologetic crusade against Heartlanders. Now, I have seen Blythe repeatedly go after individual critics, and I do think he has a jones for attacking polygamy deniers. These actions are occurring on social media, however, not the traditional Mopologetic venues. Finally, I have the sense that he views his conflict with "apostates" and "critics" to be a kind of personal ministry he is engaging in.

[Kishkumen]

If it is, where does that leave Mopology? Why is there need for an Interpreter when the membership has leaders appointed by God to interpret the Gospel? Which side of the orthodox/heterodox boundary will the Mopologists find themselves on? Will the 15 look upon the invention of Ghostly Translators the same way they look upon the denial of Smith's multiple wives? Weill they share the fate of ark steadiers of the past?

Could be interesting.

Yes, great thoughts, RI. I think the key difference here is the regular expressions of absolute fealty to the Brethren. Mopologists generally see themselves as big supporters of their priesthood leaders, and they are careful to keep a loose grip on their loyalty to their creative theories. Given a choice between the Brethren and Limited Geography, they will vociferously invoke loyalty to the Brethren first, while grumbling sub rosa about how such and such apostle "just doesn't understand." We saw the high-water mark of disloyalty surrounding Maxwell Institute upheavals, but the Mopologists backed down from their public complaints, which, after all, were mostly restricted to the MADD board. Now they intone the names of Maxwell, Oaks, and Holland to reassure themselves that apostolic authority always really smiled upon their work.

Doctor Scratch is the expert, however, and I look forward to his views on the subject.

[Philo Sofee]

Kish:
Finally, I have the sense that he views his conflict with "apostates" and "critics" to be a kind of personal ministry he is engaging in.

Yes, when I was in apologetics, we called this being valiant in our testimonies. Refuting critics is what the Almas in the Book of Mormon did, and by gum, we all wanted to be Almas......

[Doctor Scratch]

I raise Mopologetics in connection with Blythe not because he is yet going after particular individuals in long, drawn-out crusades, but because of the comparison with the fierce and underhanded Mopologetic crusade against Heartlanders. Now, I have seen Blythe repeatedly go after individual critics, and I do think he has a jones for attacking polygamy deniers. These actions are occurring on social media, however, not the traditional Mopologetic venues. Finally, I have the sense that he views his conflict with "apostates" and "critics" to be a kind of personal ministry he is engaging in.

Huh. That is a good point re: the Heartlanders. As I recall, Midgley attempted to interfere with the sale of one of Rodney Meldrum's books at Deseret Book. So there are some clear similarities. And may I ask: which social media platform is this occurring on?