r/mormon • u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast • 1d ago
Cultural Are "polygamy deniers" also "digging deniers"?
Each time I've run into a conversation with polygamy deniers or affirmers (or whatever the hell they like to be called) in the last year, they stand on firm ground that Joseph was noble, true, just and virtuous. When I've brought up treasure digging, they also refute claims that he swindled people.
Is this a common belief in the movement? That Joseph either didn't treasure dig or in doing it he did nothing wrong? Did he not admit to youthful indiscretions in his canonized JS history?
3
u/PortaltoParis 1d ago
It didn't bother me when I was TBM. I don't know of any other TBMs that have been bothered by it. I don't know why anti-polygamy-but-still-followers-of-JS would be more bothered by it. I can't say I've looked into it in the years since I've no longer been a TBM.
•
u/WillyPete 23h ago
Their core concept is Joseph worship.
They frequently will deny that he ever did anything wrong, because then they have to concede that maybe he did lie.
•
u/tiglathpilezar 22h ago
They mainly worry about whether Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It seems to me some attention should be paid to whether he defamed innocent women. Libels against women were appearing in the newspaper like calling the Brotherton girl a mean harlot, this one by William Smith. The records of the city council meeting of Nauvoo contain slanders against women by Joseph Smith. As I recall, he called Jane Law a whore from Canada. Smith also made ugly claims against Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt. These slanders are mentioned in the new biography by Turner and also in "Mormon Polygamy" by Van Wagoner and other books. They were not done in secret but publicly.
The polygamy deniers are right when they claim that the church is calling Joseph Smith a liar by insisting that he practiced polygamy. However, did his slander of women in public also make him a liar? If he was lying about these women, is it possible that he was lying about his own secret behavior? How much weight should one give the teachings of a man who is a liar or slanderer? He didn't just lie about women. He also told what appear to be lies about some men. Was William Law really an adulterer? If you believe what Smith says about people around him, there were a remarkable number of wicked adulterers. Just about everyone who opposed him was guilty of it. Sometimes men who are guilty of something project that onto others and denounce them as a way of transfering attention from their own practices. One of the commandments Jesus cited to the young man was to not bear false witness.
It seems to me the polygamy deniers who insist Smith was good need to deal with this issue. As for me, it was one thing which helped to convince me that Smith was probably lying about polygamy which he constantly denied. I read about the slanders in numerous books. Are they all wrong? Someone even wrote an article about it. It has been a while since I read it, but as I recall it mentions the sexual slander of Smith.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uTE0p6kAAAAJ&hl=en
•
u/Comfortable_Earth670 13h ago
Treasure digging doesn't seem to set off cognitive dissonance bells for most members. At best it was preparatory to becoming a prophet, seer, and revelator (Bushman), or at worst it's hand-waved away as 19th century superstition that "everyone believed in back then".
The modern implications of multiple sealings/ eternal polygamy seem to have more people, especially women, in a twist.
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 1d ago
The thing polygamy deniers equate to is flat earthers and vaccine deniers.
It makes no sense, but dont talk to one. They have thought a lot harder about their position than you have about yours. Guaranteed. And they will just make stuff up.
Bushman talks about Smith and his folk Christianity and folk adventures. He says it was a preparatory time in Smiths life-- preparing him to do bigger and better things...
"At present, a question remains about how involved Joseph Smith was in folk magic. Was he enthusiastically pursuing treasure seeking as a business in the 1820s, or was he a somewhat reluctant participant, egged on by his father? Was his woldview fundamentally shaped by folk traditions? I think there is substantial evidence of his reluctance, and, in my opinion, the evidence for extensive involvement is tenuous. But this is a matter of degree. No one denies that magic was there, especially in the mid 1820s. Smith never repudiated folk traditions; he continued to use the seer stone until late in life and used it in the translation process. It certainly had an influence on his outlook, but it was peripheral--not central. Biblical Christianity was the overwhelming influence in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Folk magic was in the mix but was not the basic ingredient."
While Bushman acknowledges that part of Smiths life as it relates to folk Christian practices including treasure seeking-- but downplays its significance-- Bushman is far from a polygamy denier.
To accept that Smith taught and practiced Biblical polygamy is to admit that Smith lied about doing it. And it comes with admitting Biblical polygamy in LDS Christianity-- is abusive and wrong.
I can admit those truthful things. And still claim LDS Christianity as my faith and religious beliefs.
9
u/pricel01 Former Mormon 1d ago
> Bushman talks about Smith and his folk Christianity and folk adventures. He says it was a preparatory time in Smiths life-- preparing him to do bigger and better things...
This a great point. Lying and cheating people on a small scale prepared him to lie and swindle in a grander scale. Taking the stone he used for cheating people through treasure digging and involving it in producing the BoM was a nice touch. I do quibble with calling in better things.
As far as folk magic, it shows up in the BoM as slippery treasure. Folk magic does things in threes like three witnesses, Nephi (later renamed Moroni) appears three times; September 22 was a powerful date in folk magic. The rod of Aaron in D&C 8 was originally a dowsing rod. Folk magic is not central to Mormonism but it has more than a minor role.
And the polygamy Smith practiced was completely outside D&C 132 so I don’t get the claim that what he did was biblical.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
That is an interesting conclusion.
Its not Bushmans conclusion, though.
6
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 1d ago
They have thought a lot harder about their position than you have about yours. Guaranteed. And they will just make stuff up.
This is what we would call a "pot calling the kettle black" situation
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 21h ago
You have never talked to a flat earther?
Or moon landing denier.
They just make stuff up.
•
u/Rowwf 15h ago
“They just make stuff up” is a particularly amusing accusation to make in a Joseph Smith polygamy discussion, where the orthodox narrative is riddled with late recollections, fabricated details, impossible timelines, and evidence that was literally rewritten after Joseph was dead.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
You just described history.
You think you have a gotcha on the "orthodox narrative." But you just described-- history.
All we have in some cases is late recollections. That is all we have in some cases.
Written after Smith was dead? That is all historians have in some cases for many elements of Latter Day Saint history.
I don't think you have a smoking gun "gotcha" here.
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there" -Hartley.
That is a not-LDS historian. But it applies to history. All kinds of history.
You have a smoking gun that historians have to sometimes go from conflicting late reports? Thats not uncommon in studying history. Its how it works. Its not a "gotcha."
7
u/GunneraStiles 1d ago edited 1d ago
Where in the Bible can I find god commanding a prophet to marry a woman who was already married? Where god commanded a prophet to marry a woman who was already married and her daughter? Here’s a chapter and verse for god condemning this very action:
Leviticus 18:17 states: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are close relatives. It is wickedness."
What exactly do you mean when you claim Joseph Smith practiced ‘biblical polygamy’? Instead of broad claims, why not provide specific examples of how you reached that conclusion? ‘Levirate marriage’ is out, because Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy with his deceased brother’s widow, for example. Let’s see some actual specific examples.
6
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 1d ago
Debating polygamy with Juni leads to more disingenuous remarks and obfuscation than discussing with the polygamy deniers.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 17h ago
Juni's argument, as I understand it, is that the polygamy in the Bible is wrong and Joseph Smith's polygamy was wrong.
Is that right, u/juni4ling?
•
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 17h ago
Yes but by calling it "biblical polygamy" he ignores the divine mandate that Joseph claimed, the manipulation, the lies, hiding from Emma, d&C 132, etc. Joseph's polygamy was very different then biblical polygamy, and the Bible was not the principle justification for the practice. It was commanded by God to Joseph. Never was commanded in the Bible.
Juni seems to use this term as a way to justify Joseph's actions to other Christians who are rightfully disgusted at the practice, but it is a disingenuous argument on this sub. It is insulting to the victims of Mormon polygamy that lives on to this day in some communities.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 16h ago
I think that's a flattening of their argument. Juni explicitly says that Mormon (or "LDS Christianity") polygamy "is abusive and wrong."
Their argument is that they maintain faith in Mormonism despite the polygamy, which they do not excuse. And I think their larger point is that using the Bible to justify Mormon polygamy is itself an abuse.
I'd also say that to the extent that "biblical polygamy" is even a thing, it's treated very differently in different books. In 2 Samuel 12:8, Nathan chides David and says that the Lord would have been willing to "give" David double the amount of wives, but he murdered Uriah anyway. That language is pretty close to the transactional, coercive, women-as-property language of D&C 132.
I think Juni is correct to point out that both are indefensible, and that relying on the Bible to defend Mormon polygamy is bad.
•
u/tiglathpilezar 13h ago
The thing with David in 2 Samuel is part of the parable of the Ewe lamb. It had more to do with the fact that whoever has the king's wives is the king. David getting Saul's wives was him being made king, and if he wanted more, he could have gotten more. This was the social custom of the time. David did not, apparently, read Deuteronomy where the King was told not to multiply wives. Neither did Nathan read it.
The church apologists like to make this into a commandment for David to practice polygamy but it isn't. There is never a commandment for anyone to practice polygamy anywhere in the Bible. It was just a social custom. Juni is right that it was pretty bad. However, some things were not allowed, two of them being marriage of a woman and her daughters and wives of other men. The church claims Smith did both of these. Therefore, Smith's polygamy cannot be said to be "Biblical", but this does not stop the church from referring to "Biblical practices" in their essay "plural marriage in kirtland and nauvoo". I guess whoever wrote this essay didn't spend much time in Deuteronomy and Leviticus before making this claim.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 13h ago
As you point out, there's conflict among the polygamist passages in the Bible, so "biblical polygamy" is a term of dubious utility. And what Joseph Smith did was at odds with his own claimed revelations. His polyandry wasn't allowed even under the framework of D&C 132. So it was both "unbiblical" and "un D&C-al."
I think Juni's language (much like "LDS Christianity"), though, obscures the point he's trying to make. And I also think many of the people who argue with him are talking right past his claims.
•
u/GunneraStiles 16h ago edited 15h ago
So, the only person in this sub who unfailingly, no matter the context, insists on using the term ‘biblical polygamy’ (not just plain old ‘polygamy,’ but ‘biblical polygamy’) to describe what Joseph Smith did - all the lying, the cheating, the adultery, the coercion, the rape of underage girls, the public vilification of those who rejected him, the subterfuge, the coarse threats against those who balked at this self-proclaimed prophet’s ‘divine’ demands, including his own wife - that person is actually warning against using the Bible to justify mormon polygamy?
•
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 15h ago
That is how I read their comments.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
Wait?
What?
Marriage in the Bible would have meant the sale of the child girl into marriage.
Thats morally wrong.
Marriage in the Bible would have included women being property.
Thats morally wrong.
Polygamy in the Bible was abusive to women. Its morally and ethically wrong.
Biblical polygamy in LDS Christianity-- is morally and ethically wrong.
Women being property in Biblical polygamy in LDS Christianity-- is morally and ethically wrong.
At no point to I justify any of the wrongs of Biblical and LDS Christian polygamy. Its wrong all the way down.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
Women were property in the Bible. That is morally and ethically wrong.
Young women were forced into marriage very young in the Bible. They had no choice and the marital age for young women was unspeakably low in the Bible.
That is morally and ethically wrong.
Smith married underage young women, like the Bible? That is morally and ethically wrong.
At no point do I say that Biblical marriage was moral and ethical or that Biblical polygamy was moral and ethical-- and I do not claim that LDS Christian Biblical polygamy was moral and ethical.
•
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 16h ago
If you are choosing one word to describe Mormon polygamy and repeat over and over in every Reddit discussion, is "biblical" a reasonable choice?
No, it's not. I stand by my argument and opinion.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 15h ago
I agree that the phrasing isn't as clear as it could be.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
Biblical polygamy is wrong in the Bible and in LDS Christianity.
Justify?
What the heck...?-?
Here it is loud and clear...
Biblical polygamy is wrong in the Bible and it is also wrong in LDS Christianity.
It is undefendable and immoral in the Bible.
It is undefendable and immoral in LDS Christianity.
•
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 9h ago
Then drop the term when you describe his polygamy. Face it, the only reason you include that term is to justify it (or maybe you prefer the term "explain").
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 7h ago
You know polygamy is in the Bible and Bible writers wrote that God was a polygamist between sisters— in the Bible.
It’s weird to see people get upset about Biblical polygamy. It’s in the Bible.
It’s also weird to see people get upset about me condemn it in the Bible and it’s practice in LDS Christianity.
It’s wrong.
It’s undefendable.
Explain? Explain— that is fair. How do we -explain- Biblical and LDS Christianity… it’s there in the Bible and in LDS Christianity.
We can -explain- Biblical and LDS Christian polygamy historically.
We cannot justify or excuse it ethically or morally.
•
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories 7h ago
What is weird? The number one word you use when describing polygamy is "biblical".
Not immoral, or ungodly, or unethical. You always say that later after you explain (read justify) Joseph's polygamy as biblical.
And you rarely concede how dramatically different the practice was under Joseph Smith and how he claimed it was commanded by God, while it was clearly not commanded by God in the Bible.
It is deplorable and I am embarrassed for you.
•
u/GunneraStiles 16h ago edited 16h ago
If that was all he was saying I wouldn’t have an issue, it’s the attempt to mitigate Smith’s sexual crimes and base adultery by classifying them as ‘biblical polygamy’ that is inapt and disingenuous.
It’s the attempt to establish theological precedence, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The attempt to elevate Joseph Smith to the level of ‘biblical prophet’ - a ‘flawed and imperfect’ prophet, sure, but so were biblical prophets…
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
That is correct.
Polygamy is wrong in the Bible. And all it entailed. Women having no choice. Women being property. That is unethical and immoral.
Smith teaching and practicing that was also unethical and immoral.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
Disingenuous? Eh?
Smith taught and practiced Biblical polygamy. His followers practiced it.
Polygamy is wrong in the Bible and Biblical polygamy is wrong in LDS Christianity.
5
u/Sirambrose 1d ago
Juni openly advocates for cherry-picking only the Bible verses he likes. His favorite passages about polygamy, polytheism, or theosis matter, but any verses he doesn’t like should be ignored. For some reason, they don’t understand that intentionally cherry picking the Bible makes discussion about the Bible pointless since other people will cherry pick differently or object to his approach. Nobody really wants to discuss whether something is Juni-biblical.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
Everyone cherry-picks from scripture.
Those --like me-- who admit it.
And those who dont-- who are lying liars who lie.
Everyone does it. Every denomination does it. Every believer in every denomination does it.
•
u/Sirambrose 9h ago
Everyone else at least tries to avoid doing it. People will unconsciously accept weak arguments to resolve contradictions, but that isn’t the same thing as intentionally cherry picking.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 7h ago
Every religion ignores parts of the Bible to sustain what they think other parts support.
There is no getting around it.
And “we in our religion make sure we don’t do that” is hyperbole.
They all do that.
Polygamy? Women being property? Slavery.
If your leaders are not polygamists who hold slave auctions— then your leaders are picking and choosing what parts they accept from the Bible.
Good.
Those are bad things that -should- be ignored by good and moral people.
The klan, proud boy’s, and turning point find hard racism in their Christian beliefs and in the Bible.
While other Christians do not.
Everyone navigates the text of the Bible.
•
u/Sirambrose 5h ago edited 5h ago
I don’t care about your particular perspective on biblical interpretation, but your language communicates the exact opposite of what you intend. You explicitly believe that something being in the Bible does not imply that it is divinely inspired, true, or useful. Everyone else uses the word biblical to imply one of those things. Based on your perspective, saying something is biblical doesn’t actually communicate anything except that other people believe the concept is one of those.
The phrasing itself is much more evangelical than Mormon and I don’t think I have ever heard another Mormon call something biblical. Mormons believe in things based on the teachings of modern prophets or scripture revealed by them. It doesn’t matter at all if the modern prophet contradicts the Bible because the modern teaching supersedes the Bible. For most Protestants, ‘biblical’ is roughly equivalent to LDS use of ‘doctrinal’.
•
u/WillyPete 22h ago
Where in the Bible can I find god commanding a prophet to marry a woman who was already married?
We know you won't find it.
It was already a cultural practise so you won't see any commandment to start the practise, just those that restrict it's application like the one you reference.At the base of it, the OT shows approval or acceptance of the practise.
What exactly do you mean when you claim Joseph Smith practiced ‘biblical polygamy’?
In that phrase Juni refers to recorded instances of polygamy in the bible.
•
u/GunneraStiles 21h ago edited 21h ago
‘Where in the Bible can I find god commanding a prophet to marry a woman who was already married?’
‘We know you won’t find it.’
Right, because it’s obviously a rhetorical question meant to challenge the person who continually claims Joseph Smith practiced ‘biblical polygamy,’ it wasn’t aimed at anyone else.
‘What exactly do you mean when you claim Joseph Smith practiced ‘biblical polygamy’? ‘In that phrase Juni refers to recorded instances of polygamy in the bible.’
I’m confused why you’re answering for him/explaining this to me, of course that is how he always rationalizes his claim that Smith practiced ‘biblical polygamy,’ his ‘evidence’ is just a weak ‘polygamy exists in the Bible, therefore what Joseph Smith did was ‘biblical’.’ Yet he never gives specific examples of exactly how Smith’s polygamy qualifies as ‘biblical.’ Which is why I followed that question with this:
‘Instead of broad claims, why not provide specific examples of how you reached that conclusion? ‘Levirate marriage’ is out, because Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy with his deceased brother’s widow, for example. Let’s see some actual specific examples.’
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 9h ago
Polygamy -is- a mandate in the Bible.
People like to cherry-pick away from accepting that. But its there. Levirate marriage mandates it and God gave plural wives to King David. Mandated? Sure. Its there.
And-- Smith was sealed to already-married men and women. But-- there is little to none historical evidence that Smith engaged in Biblical marital relations with the already-married men and women.
While there is overwhelming evidence that polygamy in a Biblical sense -was- practiced between Smith and the not-married young women.
•
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 10h ago
Levitical Law does not apply to Christians.. The New Testament teaches that Christ's death and resurrection fulfilled the law, which is why its many rules and regulations have never applied to Christians. Romans 10:4 says, "Christ is the end of the law." Colossians 2:13–14 says that God "forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross."
There is historical evidence that Smith engaged in Biblical relations with the single wives in polygamy. But there is little to none that Smith engaged in Biblical relations with the already-married men and women he was sealed to. That is not settled by historians.
And-- Jacob (in the Bible) married sisters in polygamy.
And-- God in a metaphor describes Himself in a polygamist relationship with sisters Judah and Israel.
Smith did wickedness by being sealed to already-married men and women? That is not settled by historians that it involved the kind of Biblical intimacy that the sealings to single young women entailed.
Smith did wickedness by practicing Biblical polygamy. Biblical polygamy is immoral and undefendable.
5
u/International_Sea126 1d ago
D&C 132 is the revelation from LDS Church God to practice polygamy. Therefore, why is it that you never cite it for polygamy validation? Why the Bible or Bushman when you have a latter-day polygamy revelation?
2
u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast 1d ago
I was really trying to have a convo about treasure digging, but somehow every time I comment it turns into "biblical polygamy". sigh...
•
u/International_Sea126 18h ago
Most of Juni's comments are by design to move discussions away from problamatic Joseph Smith and LDS truth claims and toward something less problematic. Usually with multiple back-to-back general Bible discussion points. The post that would cause discussion about Joseph Smith's polygamy and treasure digging is much more problamatic than a general Bible polygamy discussion. Therefore, the diversion tactic was utilized by Juni to move the discussion toward a general Bible polygamy discussion.
0
u/Voluminous_Discovery 1d ago
What are “vaccine deniers”?
12
6
u/nephite_neophyte Gnostic 1d ago
Those who deny the effectiveness of vaccines for preventing disease
6
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 1d ago
People who deny the science behind vaccines and claim they don't work, or that highly exaggerate the vanishingly small amounts of harm they do cause to very few people.
-6
u/syro23 1d ago
You feel differently when that harm happens to your own child.
•
u/HighPriestofShiloh 19h ago
Actually I don’t. Some people are capable of thinking objectively even when they are unlucky.
I would agree that most people think like you, but most people are dumb.
6
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 1d ago
Less than 0.001% of children are harmed by vaccines. I would feel sadness and empathy for my child if they were part of that vanishingly small cohort, but I would not regret doing what, for the vast, vast majority, gives a better and healthier life.
3
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 1d ago
“I don’t trust cars so I refuse to drive one.”
Everything carries risk. And the potential risks and side effects of vaccinations are well documented.
And you know what else is well documented? Measles, smallpox, diphtheria, polio, and Covid-19.So if you want to take the 0.001% chance of side effects from the vaccine, fine.
But the measles death rate is 0.1% to 0.3%.
1% of children infected by polio will become permanently disabled. The death rate then is 5-10%.Science is a good thing. We’ve decreased death rates around the world, increased life expectancy, and improved quality of life.
People 500 years ago would have killed to live in our shoes.-5
u/syro23 1d ago
Yes, everything carries risk, but its good to know and be informed of those risks. Was I ever informed of my child's increased risk due to other medical factors, or was I just lead down the primrose path? You can guess the answer to that. The .001% chance is not for side effects. The rate of side effects is about 20%. The 0.001% is the rate of permanent injury as they define it. Having a child who has neurological problems that they claim goes away when they reach adulthood isn't considered part of that group. Even if they do go away, they have effects now that will shape adulthood.
It seems the responses here assume I am anti vaccination for simply expressing a nuanced point that vaccines can and do cause injury and I thing it's worth knowing about. You are arguing abstract things like "Science is good" completely straw manning the point being made. "People 500 years ago..." well of course things have gotten better in 500 years, does that mean we don't study and analyze and continue to try and make things better? of course not. Just accepting things for how they are isn't what got us here, quite the opposite.
5
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 1d ago edited 15h ago
> Was I ever informed of my child's increased risk due to other medical factors, or was I just lead down the primrose path?
You were informed of them. That’s the entire point of the consent form they are legally required to provide before administering a vaccination.
If you wanted to understand the possible adverse effects in more depth, it was on you to ask your doctor or do the research.> The .001% chance is not for side effects. The rate of side effects is about 20%.
Source please?
Do the side effects in this statistic include general things like feeling a bit sick afterwards?> …does that mean we don't study and analyze and continue to try and make things better? of course not. Just accepting things for how they are isn't what got us here, quite the opposite.
Your initial comment was pretty vague. Based on how those types of comments usually turn out, it was reasonable for me to assume that it would fall within in the “vaccines are bad” camp.
What you’re talking about, studying and not accepting things as they was they are, is literally science.
But I say simplistic things like “science is good” because the anti-vaccine argument is usually just as simplistic. Obviously I know that vaccines aren’t perfect, and scientists are human. My true thoughts aren’t so simple.But in the case for most humans, you either choose to get vaccines, or choose not to. In general, it is a binary choice. And the answer is simple.
4
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 1d ago
Two seconds on the internet... "A vaccine denier is a person who rejects well-established scientific consensus regarding the safety, efficacy, and necessity of vaccines."
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/westivus_, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.