I like the idea he is remaining active. It can be a useful provokation.

Heck yes, let him remain active. However, if I was his Bishop I would let him know he is using the facilities and although he isn't required to pay tithing he doesn't get a free ride either. I would charge him a useage fee for the amount of time spent in the building.

Just to clarify, he went public after the church informed him that they were going public.

That being said I am sure his family would have suffered whatever embarrassment they will suffer whether the leaders read his name in church or not. It is not as if these things don't become popular on the relief society gossip circuit.

You are right. He is probably really ticked that it comes out that he is a theological threat, not very juicy.

If it had been left up to the imagination of the sisters, he could be a well known Don Jaun in the area. A cheating SOB.

how could a guy who just found out that JS had more than one wife be a threat. He must be a mental midget.

The real threat is the ward and leaders of the ward he grew up in. Sounds like his brothers are also folding like cheap suits over the issue.

I am greatful for my ward leaders and parents. Countless inaccuracies coming to light have not injured me.

I recall the Petersons growing up. They taught a sunday school class when I was about 14 or so. They were great. They were Mormon liberals, and would slip in a juicy fact or two during their lessons. Stuff that had been carefully hidden from us up until that point. I can't remember any examples, but stuff like "Joseph Smith had more than one wife you know". I don't know if it was that, but stuff that made your eyebrows raise a little.

I remember that they were taken in by the bishopric and reprimanded. I can't remember if they were released or just told to not mention stuff like that again.

Thank you Br. and Sister Peterson for telling the truth.

Not a comment on the person in the story, but my own personal experience - I was aware growing up of JS' polygamy, but NOT of his polyandry. To me there is a clear difference between the two. Polygamy as a religious principle is understandable in a historical context; polyandry is much more difficult and without scriptural precedent. Not a testimony breaker for me, just a perplexing question for which I have not heard a good answer. Clearly there are enough reputable historical citations and eyewitness testimonies to support the fact that the polyandry occurred. I don't understand the context or how it was justified.

The dude in Eagle Mountain is a lot strange. I believe Sterling Allen is fully funded by folks who donate money to him. Methinks he is a bit of a threat.

However, he is unique in Eagle Mountain. He pays his phone and internet bill. Monthly, and not one check has bounced!

Why then did it not object to the title Bruce R. McConkie gave to his book?