Polygamy Conference Controversies & Recap 2026

Journal of Mormon Polygamy Conference Here is a recap of the major highlights, controversies, and presentations. https://youtu.be/IekJUmx5qK4 The 1886 John Taylor Revelation I was part of a panel discussing the 1886 John Taylor revelation, which was recently released by the Church History Library. This revelation was received around September 27, 1886, while President Taylor was in hiding from U.S. government officials due to the Edmunds Act. The original manuscript was discovered written in pencil in Taylor’s desk by his son, Apostle John W. Taylor, while settling his estate in 1887. The interpretation of this document causes a major split:

• The Fundamentalist View: Fundamentalists view the 1886 revelation as an unequivocal mission statement. Because the text states, “I have not revoked this law nor will I,” they interpret this to mean the practice of plural marriage can never be suspended by earthly authority, rendering the 1890 and 1904 manifestos invalid.
• The Mainstream LDS View: Mainstream theology focuses on the word revoked, viewing it as a commandment that can be suspended. Pointing to D&C 132:7, mainstream members argue that only one man on earth holds the keys of the sealing priesthood at a time, meaning the 1886 revelation grants no independent authority to individuals to perform plural marriages without the current Church President’s authorization.

During the Q&A, I stated what I thought was an uncontroversial fact: a major difference between D&C 132 and the 1886 revelation is that section 132 was canonized, and the 1886 text was not. Surprisingly, this drew audible pushback and eye daggers from the audience. A Room Full of “Revisionists” I estimate that 90% of the attendees at the conference were “polygamy revisionists”—individuals who believe Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy and that D&C 132 is a forgery. For many in attendance, their opposition to polygamy seems rooted in the moral belief that the practice is inherently wrong, leading to a strong desire to see section 132 decanonized. This dynamic created an ironic parallel at the conference: both polygamy revisionists and fundamentalists are currently facing excommunication from the mainstream Church for their opposing beliefs regarding Joseph Smith and plural marriage. Stylometry, D&C 132, and “Statistical Noise” One of the most highly anticipated presentations for me was from Ethan Lloyd, who recently published a paper utilizing stylometry (wordprint analysis) to argue that the plural marriage verses of D&C 132 do not match Joseph Smith’s established voice. His study was presented as a direct counter to a recent Interpreter article by Fields et al., which used similar methods to argue that Joseph was the author. As a “math nerd” and statistician, I have serious issues with wordprint studies. While Lloyd rightly points out methodological flaws in the Interpreter study—such as artificially inflating their data by “bootstrapping” short texts—I believe the entire premise of stylometry is flawed. Here is why stylometry falls short on D&C 132:

• Tone vs. Function Words: Lloyd argue that Joseph’s normal revelations have a “pastoral” tone, while D&C 132 sounds “judicial” and harsh. However, stylometry measures invisible, high-frequency function words (like the, and, of, unto.) You cannot use the frequency of the word “and” to objectively prove a shift from a pastoral to a judicial tone.
• Lack of Statistical Variance: In Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which Lloyd used, you typically want your variables to explain 80% to 90% of the variance in the data. In Lloyd’s study, the variance explained was only in the 15% to 30% range. When that much variance is left unexplained, you aren’t finding a definitive signal or voiceprint”—you are just measuring statistical noise.

Ultimately, I agree with historian John Hamer: wordprint studies generally just reflect the bias of the author. Other Conference Highlights

• Helen Mar Kimball: Michelle Stone gave a fascinating historiography arguing that Helen Mar Kimball never actually admitted to being a plural wife of Joseph Smith. She was never considered a possible plural wife until the 1930s “Jubilee letters” surfaced. Mainstream historians generally agree Helen was sealed to Joseph at age 14, but Stone’s paper disputes this.
• The Moral Argument: Connor Boyack received a standing ovation for a presentation making a moral and theological case against concubines and polygamy.
• Fundamentalist Representation: Major credit goes to David Patrick and others from the fundamentalist branch called Christ’s Church for proudly presenting their beliefs in the 1886 revelation to an audience that was overwhelmingly hostile to the practice of polygamy.

Lingering Question for Revisionists I’ll leave you with the same question I posed at the end of the episode regarding the revisionist movement. If you believe D&C 131 and 132 are forgeries that should be thrown out, how do you justify monogamous temple sealings? What scriptures justify monogamous sealings?   William V Smith argues the doctrines of eternal monogamous sealings and plural marriage are so deeply intertwined within the text of section 132 that you cannot simply cut out the polygamy verses and keep the sealing power intact. If you remove section 132 entirely, where is the doctrinal foundation for temple work? What do you think of the 2nd Journal of Mormon Polygamy Conference?