- Ivan Wolfe on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “The Journal of Mormon Polygamy probably should not be in this list, as it clearly was started to promote and provide cover for polygamy denial. But, it’s not like academic journals in general have much room or standing to criticize them, what with recent issues like hoax articles, replication problems, AI slop, and predatory journals making the whole “peer reviewed articles” thing somewhat of a joke outside a handful of top tier journals (and even some of those have had serious issues in recent years).” May 5, 17:01
- on What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday, 5/3?: “On the ten commandments, one person noted that the last six come down to “don’t harm your neighbor”, and while doing no harm is not sufficient for loving our neighbor, it’s certainly necessary. And, I’d add, something our society struggles with. On the golden calf, I agree with your teacher that it was intended as a way to worship Jehovah, but heavily influenced by the cultures around the Israelites. (The fact that nakedness was involved is a pretty good sign it was not a positive influence.) We can learn a lot from devoted Christians who are not part of our Church, but we need to be selective. The Givens’ book All Things New makes a pretty good case that we still have too much Augustine and Luther in our thinking about sin and atonement, and don’t get me started on the “religious right.” Our teacher showed a video that was basically a tour of a CGI reconstruction of the tabernacle. I noted one significant difference between it and modern temples: in our temples today, we all pass through the veil. This goes to your point about distancing, and I think Exodus 20:19 is the key: “And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” They chose not to develop a direct relationship with the Lord, accepting intermediaries instead. Our temple experience culminates in our passing through the veil and being welcomed into the presence of the Lord. All of us. Every time. (Of course, we do have to make the appropriate covenants to get that far.) That’s the image the Lord wants us to remember, and we should return and remind ourselves of it often.” May 5, 16:35
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “JMP seems like it could be the academic equivalent of “I’m just asking questions!” Quibble about sources and such, but don’t touch the $64k question of whether Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy because in an academic journal you’d have to deal with the very strong evidence that he did. Meanwhile, in the world of podcasts and such, where cherry-picking evidence is the norm, polygamy deniers can point to articles in a peer-reviewed journal(!) that raise doubts, while ignoring all the articles in peer-reviewed journals that would settle them. If that’s actually the case, and I’m speculating, then I do think someone should consider the entire project before lending their credibility to the journal component. But that’s a judgment call, and I’m not sure it merits losing their credibility unless the journal’s content itself is not credible.” May 5, 15:53
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “Some of that is from the fact that (I think) Dialogue had a special issue on the subject, plus Lefevor at Utah State is incredibly prolific, but yes, you’d think a majority of religionists were sexual/gender minorities.” May 5, 14:00
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “Articles on LGBT issues continue be overrepresented. Wonder how long this trend lasts.” May 5, 13:38
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “Not to sidetrack, and I know very little about the Journal of Mormon Polygamy but given how weird and dysfunctional academia is about these things (“Oh no, this person saw me with that person who’s friends with that person who is on the bad list for the top person in the field, I’m doomed!), it is kind of refreshing to have somebody who’s more like “I don’t believe in Bigfoot, but hells yeah I want to be on the editorial board of your Journal of Cryptozoology.”” May 5, 09:36
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “jpv, that’s the question, isn’t it? Even in the best of circumstances, the review and approval process for an academic journal is subjective and prone to the biases of the editors and reviewers, which muddies the picture and prevents a clear-cut answer. Officially, the goal they had was to create a credible academic publication, and that is the rhetoric they are still using to explain what they are doing as a publication. But given the prominence of JS polygamy deniers in setting up the journal (i.e., Michelle Stone as a founder) and in the publications it has put out so far, most academics I’ve heard from won’t touch it with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole. (Cheryl Bruno has lost most of her credibility in the scholarly community for taking part in the founding, for example, even though she is not a polygamy denier.) So, that alone creates biases in what is submitted to the journal and who is reviewing and approving pieces for the journal. It remains to be seen what will happen. The intention is to be “actually academic,” but there is a significant risk of it being relegated to a “truther outlet” based on how it is going so far.” May 5, 09:24
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “I was wondering if it was truther outlet or if they were actually academic and allowed them to publish given enough peer review and editing.” May 5, 08:32
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “The practical reality seems to be that the journal was created to give an academic forum for polygamy deniers to publish stuff, since the established journals don’t take them seriously (usually with good reason).” May 5, 06:33
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “I continue to wonder why the Journal of Mormon Polygamy exists. Maybe there’s a need for an outlet in addition to the Journal of Mormon History and other established journals, but if so, the situation is opaque to me. That being said, Michelle Stone’s article sounds very interesting. Is she suggesting that Helen Mar Kimball was not actually sealed to Joseph Smith, or at least not in 1843? It seems like she’s pointing in that direction without stating it directly. Or am I misinterpreting the abstract?” May 5, 04:10
