When someone first reads the Letter For My Wife, the presentation feels polished, confident, and authoritative. It looks like a sincere search for truth that the author couldn’t find. Once you examine how the arguments are constructed, you begin to see that the entire structure depends on persuasion tactics that do not reflect real historical research. These tactics guide the reader toward predetermined assumptions rather than letting them evaluate the full picture.
The purpose of this page is to outline the most common techniques used in the Letter For My Wife and to show how they shape the conclusion long before the evidence is even discussed.
1. Reliance on Unreliable or Discredited Sources
What the tactic is:
Building an argument on documents and testimonies that reputable historians have dismissed or heavily qualified.
How LFMW uses it:
The author frequently leans on sources such as Fawn Brodie and the testimonies collected by Philastrus Hurlbut. These are some of the weakest historical sources we have, yet the letter treats them as authoritative and unquestionable, because they support the narrative they are trying to get you to believe.
Nearly every major point LFMW makes appears first in No Man Knows My History, either in content or interpretive style. Fawn Brodie created the blueprint in her 1945 book; LFMW modernized the language and argument format. Without Brodie’s work, LFMW as it exists today would not exist.
These unreliable sources are presented as solid historical foundations, even though their credibility is severely limited.
2. Selective Use of Sources
What the tactic is:
Only quoting information that supports the author’s narrative while ignoring evidence that provides a fuller or more accurate understanding.
How LFMW uses it:
The letter cites one sided interpretations and avoids primary sources that contradict the desired conclusion. When discussing the First Vision or polygamy, it highlights critical details but ignores clarifying context found in the very same and other contemporary documents.
3. Quotes Taken Out of Context
What the tactic is:
Removing statements from their original setting so that their meaning is changed.
How LFMW uses it:
The letter lifts short lines from journals, affidavits, and reminiscences and presents them as stand alone facts. Entire paragraphs that give context or clarify meaning are removed. This pattern appears throughout its treatment of the early Saints and in discussions of Joseph’s revelations. A clear example is found in the introduction to the Letter For My Wife, where the author cites a statement from James E. Talmage as if it supports his agenda, even though the line was taken completely out of context. In reality, Talmage was quoting an editor’s comment, not expressing his own view.
4. Assigning Motives Without Evidence
What the tactic is:
Claiming to know why a historical figure acted a certain way without any documentation to support the claim.
How LFMW uses it:
The letter frequently asserts that Joseph Smith or church leaders acted with the intention to hide, deceive, manipulate, or avoid exposure. These are guesses. They are not supported by evidence.
I demonstrate this tactic directly in my article on Thomas Faulk, where the author’s own motives are based on speculation rather than documentation:
5. Turning Gaps in the Historical Record Into Evidence of Deception
What the tactic is:
Treating missing documents or incomplete records as proof that something was hidden.
How LFMW uses it:
When there is a natural gap in the historical record, the letter frames it as intentional wrongdoing. The reality is that almost everything in early American history has missing context because record keeping was inconsistent and often lost. LFMW flips these gaps into accusations.
6. Emotional Framing and Loaded Language
What the tactic is:
Embedding emotionally charged statements inside factual claims to stir doubt or distrust.
How LFMW uses it:
Phrases such as you were not told the truth or the Church hides this are designed to create an emotional reaction before the evidence is even considered. These lines create a feeling of betrayal that makes the reader more likely to accept negative interpretations.
7. Presenting Speculation as Certainty
What the tactic is:
Stating personal theories as if they are established fact or universally accepted scholarship.
How LFMW uses it:
The letter does this in its treatment of DNA, the Book of Abraham, and the reliability of eyewitness accounts. Instead of presenting multiple possibilities, it gives one speculative conclusion and implies that all scholars agree.
8. Cherry Picking the Worst Possible Interpretation
What the tactic is:
Selecting the harshest explanation whenever there are multiple ways to understand an event.
How LFMW uses it:
In the section on polygamy, every single interpretation is the darkest possible one. Positive or neutral firsthand accounts from faithful members who lived through the same events are not mentioned.
I demonstrate this tactic in my write up about the author of Letter For My Wife.
9. Judging Historical People by Modern Standards
What the tactic is:
Attaching modern expectations and cultural norms to nineteenth century frontier life. The reality is that in the 1800’s, culturally there was a significantly different worldview of women, the roles of women and of African Americans.
How LFMW uses it:
When evaluating Joseph Smith or early Saints, the letter uses present day assumptions about marriage, social norms, religious leadership, and cultural behavior, which creates unfair and inaccurate judgments.
10. Overwhelming Readers With a Flood of Accusations
What the tactic is:
Using rapid fire lists of concerns to create the illusion that the evidence is overwhelming.
How LFMW uses it:
The letter piles dozens of bullet points, claims, and questions in quick succession. This flood makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate each point individually. This is specially prevalent in the Science section where Faulk doesn’t even really provide commentary or supporting evidence but just goes on to the next area where the church supposedly changes it’s position on science.
11. Pretending to Be Neutral While Holding a Fixed Agenda
What the tactic is:
Presenting oneself as an objective seeker who stumbled across inconsistencies while studying actual church history while guiding readers toward a predetermined conclusion.
How LFMW uses it:
The introduction frames the author as open minded and curious. The text that follows is anything but neutral.
12. Hypocrisy in Criticizing Changes While Doing The Exact Same Thing
What the tactic is:
Accusing the Church of changing its narratives while he makes changes without admitting them to his letter and website.
How LFMW uses it:
The current version of the Letter For My Wife has undergone significant edits, removals, and rewrites to be more persuasive and reflect the current situation. This is the strategy the author uses to condemn the Church of for inconsistency and proof as false.
It’s natural for things to change over time as people, cultures and audiences change.
13. Ignoring Spiritual Fruits and Positive Evidence
What the tactic is:
Removing anything uplifting so that the conclusion feels predetermined.
How LFMW uses it:
The letter leaves out years of spiritual experiences, miracles, testimonies, and positive historical accounts. Only negative data is permitted.
Conclusion
The Letter For My Wife does not rely on historical methodology. It uses persuasion tactics that shape the reader’s emotions and guide them toward a predetermined assumption. If we are going to evaluate the history of the Restoration, we should do it with full context, reliable sources, and documented evidence.