Mormon Polygamy Wiki - User contributions [en]

5: Doctrine & Covenants Teachings on Marriage - 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy

2025-11-30T04:22:32Z

WikiSysop: fixed book of mormon info

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 5: Doctrine & Covenants Teachings on Marriage - 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 5
| date = 2022-02-28
| youtube_id = lXAXj6Attko
| tags = Book Of Mormon, Brigham Young, Changing Scripture, Church History, Contradictions, Joseph Smith, Section 101, Section 132, frederick williams, oliver cowdery, sydney ridgon, yankee guesser
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Scriptures/Doctrine
| summary = In this episode, Michelle Stone explores the history and evolution of the Doctrine & Covenants, particularly regarding marriage and polygamy. She examines how official church doctrine on marriage changed over time, highlighting key editions of the Doctrine & Covenants and the removal of Section 101, which explicitly denounced polygamy. The discussion raises serious questions about the origins and legitimacy of D&C 132 and polygamy as a divinely inspired commandment.<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Key Themes:</h4><ol class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">The Ever-Changing Nature of the Doctrine & Covenants
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">Many assume that LDS scriptures have always existed in their current form, but Stone explains that the Doctrine & Covenants has gone through major revisions.</li>
<li class="">The first official Doctrine & Covenants was published in 1835, compiled by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams.</li>
<li class="">The 1844 edition included additional revelations from Joseph Smith, but polygamy was still not mentioned.</li>
<li class="">Section 132 (which justifies polygamy) was not added until 1876, under Brigham Young’s leadership.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">The Removal of Section 101: The Original LDS Teaching on Marriage
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">The 1835 and 1844 editions of the Doctrine & Covenants included Section 101, which explicitly stated that the church did not practice polygamy.</li>
<li class="">Section 101 read:
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">"We declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death."</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">This section was removed in 1876, the same year that D&C 132 (the polygamy revelation) was added.</li>
<li class="">Stone calls this a clear doctrinal contradiction, raising doubts about whether polygamy was truly part of the original Restoration teachings.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">Did Joseph Smith Approve Section 101?
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">Some church sources claim that Oliver Cowdery wrote Section 101 without Joseph Smith’s approval.</li>
<li class="">However, historical records show that the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants was unanimously approved in a special church-wide conference, with Joseph Smith presiding over the meeting.</li>
<li class="">Every church leader and member present—including the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve—voted in favor of the book.</li>
<li class="">Stone argues that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith objected to Section 101—meaning the church officially denounced polygamy during his lifetime.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">Brigham Young’s Contradictory Claims About Joseph Smith
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">Brigham Young claimed that Joseph Smith secretly taught polygamy, but this contradicts Joseph’s recorded public statements.</li>
<li class="">Stone highlights that many of Brigham Young’s claims about Joseph Smith were made decades after Joseph’s death, when no one could verify or refute them.</li>
<li class="">She notes that Brigham Young had a pattern of making negative claims about former church leaders (including Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and William Law) to justify his own leadership.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">Joseph Smith’s Personal Statements on Marriage
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">Stone points out that every recorded statement from Joseph Smith himself denied practicing or teaching polygamy.</li>
<li class="">In Liberty Jail (1839), Joseph wrote of his love for Emma and referred to her as his "one wife," showing his commitment to monogamy.</li>
<li class="">In the 1836 Kirtland Temple dedication prayer (received by revelation), Joseph prayed for "his wife and children," once again affirming monogamy.</li>
<li class="">Stone argues that if Joseph was secretly practicing polygamy, why would he continue to publicly affirm monogamy in revelation and personal letters?</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">Is D&C 132 an Outlier in LDS Scripture?
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">Stone compares Doctrine & Covenants 132 to other LDS scriptures and finds that it contradicts:
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">The Bible: Genesis, Exodus, and the Ten Commandments emphasize monogamy.</li>
<li class="">The Book of Mormon: Jacob 2 condemns polygamy.</li>
<li class="">Other sections of the Doctrine & Covenants: Multiple verses command monogamy, including D&C 42:22, D&C 49:16-17, and D&C 74.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="">The Bigger Picture: What This Means for LDS Members Today
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="">Stone urges listeners to reevaluate long-held assumptions about polygamy and to consider how much church doctrine has changed over time.</li>
<li class="">She suggests that polygamy was a later doctrinal development, rather than a core part of the Restoration.</li>
<li class="">The episode concludes by setting the stage for a deep dive into D&C 132, where she will explore its contradictions, historical context, and doctrinal implications.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
| links = * History of the D&C
* [https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine_and_Covenants_Editions Link 1]
* [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/12/the-story-of-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng Link 2]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259#full-transcript Original Section 101]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-17-august-1835/7#full-transcript Meeting to accept the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants]
* [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith by Elder Anderson, October 2012]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h00m04s 00:00:04] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. Please remember to listen to these episodes in order, starting with number 1 and continuing on from there. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 5, Doctrine and Covenants, where we'll look at the totality of God's teachings on marriage and the revelations of the Restoration. Studying out polygamy and doctrine and covenants has actually been a very interesting journey. I am I have learned a lot, so I want to share a little bit of that with you first, um, I think it's really easy to assume since we're born and from birth we have this set of scriptures, right? And, and so we just kind of assume that the scriptures have always been and will always be this nice set that we have. So it was interesting to me to learn about the Bible and what a messy and evolving process it was to come up with. what we now consider the the canonized Bible. And it wasn't until I started really studying polygamy that I learned that there was a similar sort of a messy process in coming up with the doctrine and covenants. Nothing like the Bible because it was a much more compact period of time and a smaller group of people, but still, there have been changes, additions, subtractions, and all kinds of All kinds of an ongoing evolutionary process that was very eye-opening to me to learn about. It's interesting. I don't, I imagine that most of us don't know this because I have been a member of my, of the, of the church my entire life. I always attended primary and young women and seminary. I Went to BYU and took all of the religion classes there and still I hadn't learned any of this. So, this might be new information for some of you as well. So, OK, we're just gonna go over some of the high points. So the first time the doctrine of Covenants was officially published under that name was in 1835. Before that, there was, I think the Book of Commandments, and there were compilations, revelations were printed in the newspaper and copied down and but it was the first time that they had an actual publication called The Doctrine of Covenant. So I want to say September of 1834, a committee was organized, headed by Joseph Smith. It had Oliver Cowdry. I'll get to the rest. Oliver Cowdry, Sydney Rigdon, and I want to say Fred Frederick G. Williams were the committee that were assigned to compile and prepare the doctrine and covenants. So that they spent almost 11 months on it and then in 1835 they had a meeting where it was all approved. And published. So that was the first doctrine and covenants. Then it was, there were different publications in England and, you know, some other things happening, but the next official publication in the church was in 1844, which again was headed up by Joseph Smith, and it was prepared for publication before his death. The publication was announced. Before his death, but with the martyrdom and um John Taylor was involved in that as well. So it took a few extra months because there were massive changes that happened. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h03m30s 00:03:30] we're going to talk about the 1835 edition, then the 1844 edition, which had all of the revelations added to it that Joseph Smith had received in the interim. And then after 1844, it wasn't revised again until 1876. So remember the church, the saints came to Utah starting in 1847, and they, so they had been here almost 30 years before a new version of the doctrine and covenants was printed so so I just wanted to go over that history. So, OK, now, now that we've got that understood, we're gonna look at our current doctrine and covenants and one of the things I really appreciate so much that the church does for us is make the scriptures so readily available. I love going online and you can use the search tool so you can search the scriptures for any word which. It's such a huge advantage to us. It just makes all of us have the opportunity to be to be scriptorians. I feel like what's accessible to me might have taken other people a lifetime to be able to find. And so it's really a gift. It's really a blessing to us. So what I wanted to do in the doctrine and Covenants, which I have done before, but I did it specifically just. You know, spelled it out for this episode is to look at wife, W I F E and the doctrine of Covenants and wives. You have to put it in quotation marks, otherwise it will combine them. But wife, the and I, and I'm what I'm wanting to do is look at all of the teachings in the doctrine and covenants, what the doctrine and covenants as a whole teaches. I know what most of 132 teaches, so just for now I'm going to set that aside to look at the rest of the doctrine and covenants and We're just gonna touch on parts of 132 today, but we will get there and get there and, and go in depth on that. It's just that there's a lot of other stuff to cover and, and I think it's important to just kind of have a groundwork. So, wife singular is used 16 times in the doctrine and covenants. Wives plural is used 6 times. So interestingly, OK, so we're gonna look first at the 6 times of the plural of wives used in the doctrine of covenants. So 2 of them are not at all relevant to polygamy because they're talking about multiple husbands. Multiple wives from multiple husbands, they're both found in 123 when it's talking about the the responsibility they have to report the persecutions and to seek redress. So verse 7 says it is an imperative duty that we owe to God to angels with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves and to our wives and children. That's one case of wives. The other is just 2 verses later in 9. Therefore, it is an imperative duty that we owe not only to our wives and children but to the widows and fatherless. So this kind of reminds me of Captain Moroni's title of liberty and memory of our God, our religion and freedom, our um our wives and our children and so it's, it's. Talking about wives, but why all of their wives collectively, right? It also goes on in this verse to talk about the widows and the orphans. So, we're just going to set those aside because they are not relevant to polygamy at all. So that leaves 4 cases of the word wives and the Doctrine of Covenants and interestingly, all 4 of them are found in section 132. There's no case of wives being used or any reference to a plurality of wives anywhere than in section 132 and also interestingly, the doctrine of Covenant has four uses of the word concubines which are also found in section 132. So wives and concubines are both talked about 4 times each in section 132 and nowhere else.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h07m15s 00:07:15] And so I also looked up, you know, did all of the relevant searches about marriage and man and woman and anyway, so, that is all that I can find. If anyone else finds anything else that's relevant or pertinent, then let me know. So, so those are the cases of wives. They're all in 132, and like I said, we're going to get into that in depth later on. So that leaves us with wife, which we'll look at. Wife is used 16 times in the doctrine and covenants, and 10 of those are in section 132, which I think is interesting and we will, we will also talk about. So 10 of the uses of wife are 32. the other six are other places in the doctrine and covenants, and we're going to look at those because I think the goal today, maybe I already said this, forgive me if I did, is to just look at the totality of the teachings of the doctrine and Covenants as a whole. So we have 132 and then we have the entire rest of the doctrine and covenants. So let's look at the cases of wife and the doctrine and covenants, because I think that they are all important. So section 19 verse 25, and again, And this is the savior talking. And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor seek thy neighbor's life. So, OK, just a repetition of commandments that are given in the Bible, repeated in the Book of Mormon, repeated in the doctrine of covenants, and it's relevant because it gives us the foundational understanding that our neighbor will have a wife, and that we shouldn't covet our neighbor's one wife. So it comes from an assumption of monogamy, right? And then we have this one we have '''42:22''', and from the Lord "thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shalt cleave unto her and none else." I, I just don't know what could be more clear than that. It goes on and I, I just, it's so interesting because the Lord gives us these clear, clear commandments that we managed to miss and ignore or every time we read them, we go, oh yeah, except, but, right, except for when and we, we undermine these very clear things that the Lord is saying, again, repeated in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, and in the doctrine and covenants. Very, very clear statement. Of God. So '''42:22''' is, I think the encapsulation of the teachings of marriage in the doctrine of covenants. We'll go on because there that's only two. So the next one is '''49 verses 16 and 17, a'''nd it says, wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation. And that it might be filled with the measure of man according to his creation before the world was made. So again, what we talked about in previous episodes again, an extremely clear commandment repeated in all of our books of scripture and again stating that the earth is capable,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h10m14s 00:10:14] that man is capable of. Answering the end of its of his creation, the the the earth can fulfill its purpose in monogamy with man having one wife and the twain can become one flesh. It's as clear as it could possibly be and that nothing else is needed for us to achieve everything we came to earth to achieve, to learn, to grow. So, so anyway, again, so '''42:22, 49:16 and 17''', really important scriptures that I think we should actually listen to. So then the next one is interesting, it's '''section 74''', which is one I haven't studied very much or heard very much about, but it's referring to '''1 Corinthians 7'''. And it just says, "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy." So it's an interesting section that goes on to talk about circumcision. I actually think that the original version in 1 Corinthians 7. It is more clear. I like what it says. '''Verse 16''', it says, "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband, or How knowest thou, old O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" So I just love that sentiment of bearing with one another, loving each other. Um, I know there's been so much talk of Faith crises and you know over the past several years, and I love this council to love with love each other, bear with each other. The love between husband and wife is the important thing regardless of what either spouse may be struggling with or whatever journey they may be on. So, that's the other again though coming from the assumption of your wife, your wife can save your husband, your husband can save your wife coming from the assumption of monogamy. So then. There are 2 more that both are a little bit similar. So again, just to clarify, we're talking about cases of wife, singular wife, the assumption of monogamy, and the teaching of monogamy, monogamy in the doctrine and covenants, which, um, you know, are the revelations of Joseph Smith given to us for this day. So these are both Joseph. Regarding Emma, so this first one is 109:68. It's the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. It was in 1836, and this was Joseph said this was given by Revelation. So '''verse 68 '''says, "O Lord, remember thy servant Joseph Smith Junior and all his afflictions and persecutions. How he has covenanted with Jehovah and vowed to thee, O mighty God of Jacob, and that and the commandment which thou hast given unto him. And that he hath sincerely striven to do thy will. Have mercy, O Lord, upon his wife and children, that they may be exalted in thy presence and preserved by thy fostering hand." He goes on from there to pray for all of their associates. Then he goes on to pray for the other leaders of the church and their wives and children and their associates, and then he just expands it from there to pray for pretty much everyone in the world, but He specifically prays for his wife and his children, his singular wife,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h13m23s 00:13:23] and this was given by revelation. So I know we always have the line that, that Joseph said one thing and did another, and it was sort of a smokescreen because he was facing persecutions. I think that's at least how I've always heard it explained because as I have, as I have delved into this, and we will get into it more, but. Every single thing that Joseph himself ever said or wrote denied polygamy, denied that he participated in it and denied like that everything that he himself said, everything we have that's contrary to that is second or third hand accounts usually decades later. So that's interesting. So right here in this revelation he received, referring to his one wife. So, if this, you know, so we just have to decide how deep these lies go. Was Joseph Smith lying that this was a revelation or was it a revelation and God was lying? And saying you only had one wife or just withholding that information, which I always taught. I always was taught in my teaching and training by my parents and in the church that half truths are also lies. That's what Satan told Eve in the garden, right? A half truth. So, anyway, that's something to consider is that Joseph, in a prayer received by Revelation, prayed for his one wife and their children. So then, This one is the one that just, ah, get you, get you in the heart. It's, it's from, it's from Liberty Jail 1839, and it's '''122 verse 5''' and um I just think it's important to listen to his feelings for his wife. So will do 5 and 6 "if thou art called to pass through tribulation, if thou art in perils among false brethren, if thou art in perils among robbers, if thou art in perils by land or sea, if thou art accused of all manner of false accusations, if thine enemies fall upon thee, if they, if they t thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters. And if with a drawn sword thine enemy's tear the from the bosom of thy wife and thy offspring and thy elder son, although but 6 years of age, shall cling to thy garments and shall say, My father, my father, why can't you stay with us? Oh my father, where are these men? What are these men going to do with you? And if then ye shall be thrust from and if then he I'll be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison and thine enemies prowl around me like wolves for the blood of the lamb. So he's, it's saying all of these things will give you experience and work together for your good." I'm hoping I wrote that reference down because I was thinking maybe it was 121. So I'll double check what I have written is '''122 verse 5.''' But um the thing that I think is so Just touching there is that he was in jail, and these are the memories, his last memories of his family that are haunting him, and you know he's torn from the bosom of his wife with a drawn sword and his son is thrown down with a sword and he, I just, he loved his family. He really, really loved his family and so it's hard for me to make sense of these things being. Being received by revelation if it was all a smokescreen or if it was all a lie or how would it be to be one of his other wives and he's only talking about this wife
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h16m42s 00:16:42] or how could he have that kind of anyway, we don't, we don't need to go into all of that now because people can have different opinions on it, um, but in any case, the doctrine and covenants all the way through, I think you can see, teaches commands, reveals and assumes monogamy, excuse me. It definitely has the commandment and assumption of monogamy, including with Joseph Smith himself in regard to his wife Emma. And so those are all of the cases of wives and wife in the doctrine of Covenant. So I think you can see that. As a whole, the doctrinal covenants definitely leans very much to the teaching of monogamy, especially again in just '''42:22''', "thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and none else." It's very clearly taught repeatedly. That monogamy is God's establishment of marriage and God's law that he expects his his states to live. So, OK, now we're going to go into something that was one of those things that I learned that stunned me. I was amazed by this. So, it's wonderful now. Another thing that I so appreciate that our church is doing is the Joseph Smith Papers Project. It's been. It's so great because if we are seeking truth, then we have so much more access. And yes, it's, it's in some ways nice to have this just kind of like I talked about with our scriptures, we just think it's this clean little neat package that's always been the way that we assume it is and um, you know, and, and digging into the history, we learned that things are way messier, way messier than they ever thought they were, so it can be challenging and there's definitely some. Some growth that you have to experience going through that. Some things can be unsettling, but it's also so gratifying because we just get to get closer and closer to truth, and we get to get closer and closer to the Lord and seek discernment so that we can really know truth for ourselves, which is what you know, I, I love the hymn Oh Say what is truth and we. We as a people should love truth. That was the whole purpose of the restoration. So we need to keep seeking truth. So, OK, so that, remember at the beginning I talked about the different editions of the Doctrine of Covenants, right? There was the 1835 edition, the 1844 edition, and then the 1876 edition. OK. So in the 1835 edition. That was so a committee was chosen, right? It was Joseph Smith was the head of that committee as well as the president of the church and in that edition there was section 101. So um section 101, let me explain so section 101. Added to the doctrine of Covenants in the 1835 edition. It was included in the 1835 edition overseen by Joseph Smith, and I'll talk a little bit about the approval process for that. It was included again in the 1844 edition, again overseen by Joseph Smith. Then the.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h19m47s 00:19:47] Oh, and, and neither of those included section 132. So then the migration to Utah and then and I think oh I'll have to get into it when it was 1852, I think that Brigham Young revealed that he had, that he had the revelation that became Section 132, which was not added into the doctrine of Covenants until 1876, right? So from 1835 until 1876, Section 101 was in the doctrine and covenants, which was then removed from the 1876. I feel like I'm making this so confusing. There was a section 101 in 1835 included again in 1844 removed in 1876, and all of the numbers were adjusted up. So there is a current 101, but it's not the same one that it was. And then 132 was not in any of those earlier editions and was included, so they kind of did us a switch out in 1876. So I'm going to read 18 '''Doctrine Covenants 101''' is only 4 verses long and I'm, and it's actually the. The churches like it teaches the church how marriage should work, right? How they should do marriage, and it's actually beautiful to read. I'll put up a link cause it's, there are things I just love about it. So I'm just gonna read part of part of verse 2 and then part of verse 4. So this is saying how a marriage should be performed by the high priest or whoever it is, and it's verse 2. "He shall say, calling each by their names. You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition, that is, so listen to the covenant that they are given, that is keeping yourselves holy for each other and from all others during your lives. And when they have answered yes, he shall pronounce them husband and wife in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." I love that because it's just this beautiful. Equality, the two of them together are put under the same covenant to obey God and to keep themselves holy for each other and from all others. I think that that is a beautiful. A beautiful marriage, covenant that they are given. So that's in verse 2. Then in verse 4 it says, "inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife and one woman but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again." OK, '''so that was section 101 of the doctrine and Covenants'''. From 1835 to 1876. So our own teachings were. As absolutely clear as they could possibly be, they align with all of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and the teachings in the Bible, which we also are going to get into in the future. So that is interesting. I hope you will all go read Doctrine Covenants 101 from the 1835 and 1844 edition and um. I want, OK, so sometimes when you read, I, I'll put some links that will include some of the information, just a couple of resources you can look at for the evolution of the doctrine covenants. There are many sources you could look at, so you know, feel free to do your own searching.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h23m21s 00:23:21] I'll just put something to make it a little bit easier. But in the sources that are compiled by the church or that have been in the past, it usually tries to undermine section 101 by saying, well, it just that they cite a source that says that 101 was written by Oliver Cowdery and not approved by Joseph Smith. So I looked into that. I had to buy the book that they cite so I could find it. So I found it just in a little footnote, and what it basically says is Joseph F. Smith's journal contains an entry in 1869 where he quotes Brigham Young claiming that Oliver Cowdry wrote section 101 and included it over Joseph Smith's objections. So included it in the Doctrine of the Covenants over Joseph Smith's objections. OK, so that's the sort of way out, right? We always need a way out when things are really clear. So the way out is that Brigham Young said, well, that Joseph Smith said that Brigham Young said that. That Joseph F. Smith said that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith said that he didn't want it in, but Oliver Cowdrey put it in anyway. OK, so again, like we can play the gossip game there. That's, that's a great way to get information. But in any case, there are so many problems. So I dug in and did some research. So stick with me, OK, cause what I These these little facts and details are kind of important because there is absolutely nothing to support this claim by Brigham Young, and there is a lot to prove it false. So remember this committee was formed. The committee was Joseph Smith, '''Oliver Cowdery''', '''Sydney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams'''. They were the ones put in charge of compiling and arranging the doctrine and covenants and getting it ready for publication, which happened 11 months later. So, Brigham Young was made an apostle in May of 1835, so the committee was formed in September of 1834. It wasn't until May of 1835 that Brigham Young was made an apostle, and then he was immediately sent away on a mission to New England, New York and New England. So I don't know how he would have been involved in this sort of Elite council, it was the presidency of the church, right, that was working on this, and he became an apostle near the end of that and then was immediately then immediately left so he wasn't in the know and then he and then he wasn't even there. So he was gone until after the doctrine covenants was published. So I just don't know how he would have been in the know to say. Who wrote it that Oliver wrote it and to say that Joseph didn't want it included, there there's just no evidence for that. And, and I want to talk about what happened to get this version of the doctrine of Covenants approved. So first of all, remember that Joseph Smith was the head of the committee. Oliver Cowdry would have had no authority to write something on his own and certainly no authority to include it. Over the objections objections of Joseph Smith and in fact the entire church.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h26m41s 00:26:41] So I've talked about where everybody was, right? Brigham Young wasn't an apostle until May and then was in New England and Joseph Smith was head of the committee all the way back from September. When it was ready, when the doctrine covenants was ready to be published, a special general assembly of the church was called. It was held on August 17, 1835. Again, I will put in the notes a link to the Joseph Smith papers where you can read the entire minutes from this meeting. So the purpose of the meeting was quote to see whether the book would the book be approved or not by the authorities of the church that it may, if approved, become a law unto the church and a rule of faith and practice unto the same. So this meeting, Joseph Smith was presiding at the meeting, and again, Brigham Young and actually none of the 12 apostles were there because they were all serving missions. Brigham Young and several others were in New England. So this is a quote from the minutes of the meeting. President O. Cowdery, so I'll just say "President Cowdery, then arose with the book of the with the book of doctrine and Covenants containing the faith articles and covenants of the Latter-day Saints, then proceeded to take the vote of the whole house commencing with the presidents of Zion. So Joseph Smith was the first. Joseph Smith and his presidency were the first ones allowed to vote in favor of accepting. The doctrine covenants as the law and the governing book of the church. President Phelps arose and spoke in high commendation of the book and aforementioned and said that he had examined it carefully, that it was well arranged and calculated to govern the church in righteousness. If followed, would bring the members to see eye to eye and further that he had received the testimony from God that the revelations and commandments contained therein are true. Wherefore, he knew assuredly for himself, having received witness from heaven and not from men." So it goes on and leader after leader after leader stands up and gives similar testimony of the truthfulness of these revelations of the goodness of the revelations and commandments included in it and commends it to the church. So each governing body was allowed individually and well as each governing body was given the opportunity to accept, to affirm, to vote that they affirmed and accepted the book, so. Let's see, I want to read what it was they affirmed to, what it was they voted on. President John Smith then called the vote of the presidency, so this is describing when Joseph Smith and his first presidency got to vote in favor, which was carried as follows that they would receive the book as the rule of their faith and practice and put themselves under the guidance of the same and also. So that they were satisfied with the committee that were chosen to compile it as having discharged their duty faithfully, so they were saying that so I just think it's important to recognize that this was not a smoke smoke screen. This was the scriptures for the members of the church to know the commandments of God to them and to be the governing document for the church. So including one on one in this was no way to was was in no way to like confuse everyone else about what they were doing because they themselves were affirming yes we will live by this yes we agreed to it. Yes, we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h30m13s 00:30:13] affirm that we believe that this is by revelation and the commandment and how we should live so. It it doesn't make sense to say that it was just a smokescreen, and it does definitely not make sense to say that Joseph Smith, that Oliver Cowdery somehow got it done against Joseph Smith's objections. I think, so this is something we'll go into a little bit later, but putting ourselves in the shoes of the early church leaders, they had experienced so much persecution, right? So they came to Utah. And they're in Utah and there's no one looking over their shoulder, right? It can be easy to kind of stretch the truth if there's no one keeping you honest or to kind of say things that are self-protective. And I'm not saying this as a condemnation because I think all of us have a tendency to do that and you know, Brigham Young said a lot of things about Emma Smith, about Oliver Cowdery, about William Law, about many of the others, people that were not there to defend themselves or tell their side or their perspective, and he, said a lot of things about a lot of people and um. And so I'm trying to just say I can understand how that could happen, but I think it's important to recognize that Brigham Young's saying this about Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith is not solid evidence when we have the minutes of the actual meeting where it was approved and received and where Joseph Smith was the head of the committee to put it together and also the head of the church. So, then this is also important, President Phelps, this is a quote again from the minutes. President Phelps then arose and read the written testimony of the 12 apostles in favor of the book and the committee who compiled it. So that would have included Brigham Young. So even he, although the 12 were all away, a statement was read of them all affirming the truthfulness of it and accepting it. And then many more testimonies from leaders and then each governing body voted unanimously in favor, and then this was when I wanted to read this part too. "Brother Gates then took the book and expressed his satisfaction with it. And also called a vote of all the members present, both male and '''female''', and they gave a decided vote in favor of it and also of the committee, there being a very large portion of the church present. All of the above testimonies and votes were voluntarily and unhesitatingly given with the utmost freedom of conscience on the part of the assembly." So the doctrine and covenants in 1835 was unanimously accepted by every leader and member of the church. And then I want to include this. This is, this is interesting because not only was it accepted,''' but the entire section 101 was read aloud at the meeting. That's the section on marriage, righ'''t? that I just read a few parts from. Only one other section was read aloud at the meeting, which was, which was governing, a governing document of the church. So Here's what it says. President Phelps then arose and read a chapter of rules for marriage among the saints, and the whole church voted to receive it. It is therefore attached to the book.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h33m34s 00:33:34] So not only was the doctrine of covenants as a whole received, but even 101 on its own was was received as the governing document of the church and the rules and standards of the church. So. I just think that Brigham Young's claim that Joseph Smith objected to Section 101 or that there was any controversy about it at all is verifiably false. There's no truth to it. I think it's important to know what the original Section 101 was that was included in the doctrine and covenants until it was removed in 1876 when Section 132 was added. So, I know that this can be uncomfortable or tricky because we, we still haven't talked about 132 and I don't want it to seem like I'm picking and choosing scripture or sidestepping it. We are going to get there. It's just such a big subject, so I'm trying to break it up the best way I can. But while we're not going to go into 132, I, I just want to set the stage right now that I think that when we do go into 132, remember it has 10 of the cases of singular wife, and I think that you will see that even 132 itself, other than a few problematic verses, actually strongly and profoundly and deeply teaches monogamy. So we're going to get into that. So. The, the reason I'm doing this with the entire, the entirety of the doctrine of Covenant is because I think it's so important to see what all scriptures say, right? There's always contradiction in scripture. We have Old Testament scriptures that talk about genocide and prostitution and Just, just all kinds of things that we in no way except just because they're in our scriptures, right? So what we have to do always with all scripture is bring our reason and our logic to it and our gift of discernment. We have to bring the spirit to it and ask the Lord how we should weigh things, how we should prioritize things, and what we should take as our guiding, you know, what we should take as the truth that God wants us to know. And so that's what I think we need to do with this principle and with the doctrine and covenant. So Elder Anderson gave a talk that I really liked a while ago called Trial of Your Faith, and he taught an important principle that I want to apply here. He basically said that true doctrine is not obscure or given in one place. It is taught frequently, repeated, repeatedly, and by many different leaders. Here's here's the quote. "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the first presidency and quorum of the 12. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find." He goes on, "the leaders of the church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni, "Condemn me not because of my imperfection, neither my father, but rather give thanks unto God that he hath been that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." I love that he gave that talk and included that part, and I think that is the perfect counsel for us in regard to studying out polygamy. So first of all, He says that the doctrine is not obscure, right? It's, it's taught frequently in many places. So what doctrine is taught from the literal beginning of creation in all like taught in the Bible, taught profoundly in the Book of Mormon,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h37m16s 00:37:16] taught profoundly in the doctrine and covenants, and taught by all of our leaders today as opposed to this one obscure doctrine that is only taught in a few verses of section 132. Which has a problematic past which completely contradicts one on one that was removed, right? And also it is obscure. It's not something like our missionaries aren't out talking to investigators about polygamy, right? Many people join the church and our members for a long time before they even learn about polygamy. It's, it's obscure. We almost intentionally keep it obscure because It's not, you know, it doesn't feel good to us and it doesn't feel good to people learning about us and maybe our discernment is telling us something. So, so, you know, it's, we don't need to just like, just like he quoted Moroni I, we don't need to condemn previous leaders because of their imperfections, but we can give thanks unto God that we can see the imperfections and the mistakes they made so that we can be more wise than they have been. That is such a blessing to us. And again, just going with this council, there are other doctrines that we keep really hidden and obscure. I shouldn't say doctrines, doctrines that Brigham Young taught that he seems to have been the originator of. There are others like that that we don't espouse anymore, such as , we're not really proud of the priesthood band, right? The doctrine. That was claimed to talk about race and the priesthood. We're not terribly proud of Adam God theory and and the ideas that Brigham had there and how that related to polygamy. We're definitely not very proud of blood atonement and that doctrine that was taught. Those things are extremely obscure, only taught by one or two leaders and then let go and tried to be buried. I think that, you know, I think that God uses each of us in the ways that he can. I think that Joseph Smith was so useful to the Lord for receiving revelation, for translation, for establishing the church, right? He wasn't necessarily especially useful to the Lord or, he wasn't successful, shall we say, at running a bank or running a business or doing those kinds of things. The Lord used what all of the strengths of Joseph Smith and had to kind of bear with the weaknesses, right? And I think Brigham Young was incredibly useful to the Lord to bring a people across the entire wilderness, to bring them across the country and establish a new land in the desert, and, you know, that lion of the Lord energy that he apparently had ,but I think that the Lord had to deal with some things that were not terribly useful. I don't think that Brigham Young was very useful to the Lord in terms of doctrine. He himself claimed that he was a '''Yankee guesser,''' not a prophet in the same way of Joseph Smith. And so these were the doctrines that made sense to him in his mind that he taught from the pulpit
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko&t=00h40m24s 00:40:24] and we are trying to sort out now, so. Anyway, so I think it's good to take, to listen to Elder Anderson's counsel and to look for truth in things that are repeated, that are easy to find that are taught in many places by many different people and so we're going to leave it there for today. I know we still have to dig more and more into 132, so I hope that you are staying with me to this point. , I hope you will join me for our next episode, which will be looking at Abraham's polygamy. So again, my name is Michelle Stone, and this is 132 Problems.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Scriptures/Doctrine]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Book Of Mormon]][[Category:Brigham Young]][[Category:Changing Scripture]][[Category:Church History]][[Category:Contradictions]][[Category:Joseph Smith]][[Category:Section 101]][[Category:Section 132]][[Category:frederick williams]][[Category:oliver cowdery]][[Category:sydney ridgon]][[Category:yankee guesser]]
}}

Main Page

2025-09-25T15:36:04Z

WikiSysop: /* Featured Podcast */

<noinclude>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Mormon Polygamy Wiki}}
</noinclude>

<div style="text-align:center; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1em;">
== <big>'''Welcome to the Mormon Polygamy Wiki'''</big> ==
== A central repository of sources, documents, and media about Mormon polygamy ==
</div>

== About the Wiki ==
The '''Mormon Polygamy Wiki''' is a collaborative, open-content project dedicated to documenting the history, sources, and modern scholarship on Mormon polygamy.

Our mission is to:
* Collect and organize '''primary source documents''' (letters, diaries, affidavits, church records, newspaper articles, legal documents).
* Provide '''context and analysis''' from historians, researchers, and community members.
* Host and link to '''podcasts, interviews, and multimedia content''' exploring the topic from a variety of perspectives.
* Serve as a '''central hub''' for anyone interested in studying, understanding, or discussing the legacy and practice of Mormon polygamy.

== What You’ll Find Here ==
* '''Source Library:''' Scanned documents, transcripts, and citations related to early and later Mormon polygamy.
* '''Biographies:''' Pages on key figures—leaders, participants, critics, and commentators.
* '''Timelines:''' Chronological lists of key events, legislation, and doctrinal developments.
* '''Podcast & Media Hub:''' Links and embedded players for podcasts, YouTube videos, and lectures covering Mormon polygamy.
* '''Research Tools:''' Tagging, bibliographies, and cross-referenced topics to aid deeper exploration.

== Getting Started ==
If you’re new here, try these starting points:
* [[Timeline of Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Key Figures in Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Primary Sources Index]]
* [[Podcast and Media Hub]]

== Contributing ==
This wiki is built by volunteers. You can help by:
* Adding new documents or citations.
* Uploading transcripts of podcasts or video episodes.
* Improving page organization, cross-links, and templates.
* Discussing interpretations on article talk pages to ensure balanced coverage.

Before editing, please review our [[Editorial Guidelines]] and [[Citation Standards]] pages to maintain scholarly rigor.

== Featured Podcast ==
<div style="text-align:center; background:#fffbe6; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; width:90%;">
'''This week’s featured podcast:''' 
<big>''[[:Category:132 Problems Episodes|132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy]]''</big> 
Exploring the myths, documents, and stories behind Mormon polygamy.
</div>

<div style="text-align:center; font-size:85%; margin-top:2em;">
This project is not affiliated with any religious organization nor is it affiliated with any other podcast, channel or website.
Content is provided for educational and research purposes.
</div>

Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/ MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2025-09-14T05:13:13Z

WikiSysop:

<noinclude>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Mormon Polygamy Wiki}}
</noinclude>

<div style="text-align:center; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1em;">
== <big>'''Welcome to the Mormon Polygamy Wiki'''</big> ==
== A central repository of sources, documents, and media about Mormon polygamy ==
</div>

== About the Wiki ==
The '''Mormon Polygamy Wiki''' is a collaborative, open-content project dedicated to documenting the history, sources, and modern scholarship on Mormon polygamy.

Our mission is to:
* Collect and organize '''primary source documents''' (letters, diaries, affidavits, church records, newspaper articles, legal documents).
* Provide '''context and analysis''' from historians, researchers, and community members.
* Host and link to '''podcasts, interviews, and multimedia content''' exploring the topic from a variety of perspectives.
* Serve as a '''central hub''' for anyone interested in studying, understanding, or discussing the legacy and practice of Mormon polygamy.

== What You’ll Find Here ==
* '''Source Library:''' Scanned documents, transcripts, and citations related to early and later Mormon polygamy.
* '''Biographies:''' Pages on key figures—leaders, participants, critics, and commentators.
* '''Timelines:''' Chronological lists of key events, legislation, and doctrinal developments.
* '''Podcast & Media Hub:''' Links and embedded players for podcasts, YouTube videos, and lectures covering Mormon polygamy.
* '''Research Tools:''' Tagging, bibliographies, and cross-referenced topics to aid deeper exploration.

== Getting Started ==
If you’re new here, try these starting points:
* [[Timeline of Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Key Figures in Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Primary Sources Index]]
* [[Podcast and Media Hub]]

== Contributing ==
This wiki is built by volunteers. You can help by:
* Adding new documents or citations.
* Uploading transcripts of podcasts or video episodes.
* Improving page organization, cross-links, and templates.
* Discussing interpretations on article talk pages to ensure balanced coverage.

Before editing, please review our [[Editorial Guidelines]] and [[Citation Standards]] pages to maintain scholarly rigor.

== Featured Podcast ==
<div style="text-align:center; background:#fffbe6; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; width:90%;">
'''This week’s featured podcast:''' 
<big>''[[:Category:132 Problems Episodes|132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy]]''</big> 
Exploring the myths, documents, and stories behind Mormon polygamy.
</div>

<div style="text-align:center; font-size:85%; margin-top:2em;">
This project is not affiliated with any religious organization.
Content is provided for educational and research purposes.
</div>

Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/ MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2025-09-14T05:12:51Z

WikiSysop: Protected "Main Page" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

<noinclude>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Mormon Polygamy Wiki}}
</noinclude>

<div style="text-align:center; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1em;">
== <big>'''Welcome to the Mormon Polygamy Wiki'''</big> A central repository of sources, documents, and media about Mormon polygamy ==
</div>

== About the Wiki ==
The '''Mormon Polygamy Wiki''' is a collaborative, open-content project dedicated to documenting the history, sources, and modern scholarship on Mormon polygamy.

Our mission is to:
* Collect and organize '''primary source documents''' (letters, diaries, affidavits, church records, newspaper articles, legal documents).
* Provide '''context and analysis''' from historians, researchers, and community members.
* Host and link to '''podcasts, interviews, and multimedia content''' exploring the topic from a variety of perspectives.
* Serve as a '''central hub''' for anyone interested in studying, understanding, or discussing the legacy and practice of Mormon polygamy.

== What You’ll Find Here ==
* '''Source Library:''' Scanned documents, transcripts, and citations related to early and later Mormon polygamy.
* '''Biographies:''' Pages on key figures—leaders, participants, critics, and commentators.
* '''Timelines:''' Chronological lists of key events, legislation, and doctrinal developments.
* '''Podcast & Media Hub:''' Links and embedded players for podcasts, YouTube videos, and lectures covering Mormon polygamy.
* '''Research Tools:''' Tagging, bibliographies, and cross-referenced topics to aid deeper exploration.

== Getting Started ==
If you’re new here, try these starting points:
* [[Timeline of Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Key Figures in Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Primary Sources Index]]
* [[Podcast and Media Hub]]

== Contributing ==
This wiki is built by volunteers. You can help by:
* Adding new documents or citations.
* Uploading transcripts of podcasts or video episodes.
* Improving page organization, cross-links, and templates.
* Discussing interpretations on article talk pages to ensure balanced coverage.

Before editing, please review our [[Editorial Guidelines]] and [[Citation Standards]] pages to maintain scholarly rigor.

== Featured Podcast ==
<div style="text-align:center; background:#fffbe6; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; width:90%;">
'''This week’s featured podcast:''' 
<big>''[[:Category:132 Problems Episodes|132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy]]''</big> 
Exploring the myths, documents, and stories behind Mormon polygamy.
</div>

<div style="text-align:center; font-size:85%; margin-top:2em;">
This project is not affiliated with any religious organization.
Content is provided for educational and research purposes.
</div>

Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/ MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2025-09-14T05:12:31Z

WikiSysop:

<noinclude>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Mormon Polygamy Wiki}}
</noinclude>

<div style="text-align:center; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1em;">
== <big>'''Welcome to the Mormon Polygamy Wiki'''</big> A central repository of sources, documents, and media about Mormon polygamy ==
</div>

== About the Wiki ==
The '''Mormon Polygamy Wiki''' is a collaborative, open-content project dedicated to documenting the history, sources, and modern scholarship on Mormon polygamy.

Our mission is to:
* Collect and organize '''primary source documents''' (letters, diaries, affidavits, church records, newspaper articles, legal documents).
* Provide '''context and analysis''' from historians, researchers, and community members.
* Host and link to '''podcasts, interviews, and multimedia content''' exploring the topic from a variety of perspectives.
* Serve as a '''central hub''' for anyone interested in studying, understanding, or discussing the legacy and practice of Mormon polygamy.

== What You’ll Find Here ==
* '''Source Library:''' Scanned documents, transcripts, and citations related to early and later Mormon polygamy.
* '''Biographies:''' Pages on key figures—leaders, participants, critics, and commentators.
* '''Timelines:''' Chronological lists of key events, legislation, and doctrinal developments.
* '''Podcast & Media Hub:''' Links and embedded players for podcasts, YouTube videos, and lectures covering Mormon polygamy.
* '''Research Tools:''' Tagging, bibliographies, and cross-referenced topics to aid deeper exploration.

== Getting Started ==
If you’re new here, try these starting points:
* [[Timeline of Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Key Figures in Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Primary Sources Index]]
* [[Podcast and Media Hub]]

== Contributing ==
This wiki is built by volunteers. You can help by:
* Adding new documents or citations.
* Uploading transcripts of podcasts or video episodes.
* Improving page organization, cross-links, and templates.
* Discussing interpretations on article talk pages to ensure balanced coverage.

Before editing, please review our [[Editorial Guidelines]] and [[Citation Standards]] pages to maintain scholarly rigor.

== Featured Podcast ==
<div style="text-align:center; background:#fffbe6; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; width:90%;">
'''This week’s featured podcast:''' 
<big>''[[:Category:132 Problems Episodes|132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy]]''</big> 
Exploring the myths, documents, and stories behind Mormon polygamy.
</div>

<div style="text-align:center; font-size:85%; margin-top:2em;">
This project is not affiliated with any religious organization.
Content is provided for educational and research purposes.
</div>

Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/ MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2025-09-14T05:09:52Z

WikiSysop:

<noinclude>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Mormon Polygamy Wiki}}
</noinclude>

<div style="text-align:center; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1em;">
<big>'''Welcome to the Mormon Polygamy Wiki'''</big> 
A central repository of sources, documents, and media about Mormon polygamy
</div>

== About the Wiki ==
The '''Mormon Polygamy Wiki''' is a collaborative, open-content project dedicated to documenting the history, sources, and modern scholarship on Mormon polygamy.
Our mission is to:
* Collect and organize '''primary source documents''' (letters, diaries, affidavits, church records, newspaper articles, legal documents).
* Provide '''context and analysis''' from historians, researchers, and community members.
* Host and link to '''podcasts, interviews, and multimedia content''' exploring the topic from a variety of perspectives.
* Serve as a '''central hub''' for anyone interested in studying, understanding, or discussing the legacy and practice of Mormon polygamy.

== What You’ll Find Here ==
* '''Source Library:''' Scanned documents, transcripts, and citations related to early and later Mormon polygamy.
* '''Biographies:''' Pages on key figures—leaders, participants, critics, and commentators.
* '''Timelines:''' Chronological lists of key events, legislation, and doctrinal developments.
* '''Podcast & Media Hub:''' Links and embedded players for podcasts, YouTube videos, and lectures covering Mormon polygamy.
* '''Research Tools:''' Tagging, bibliographies, and cross-referenced topics to aid deeper exploration.

== Getting Started ==
If you’re new here, try these starting points:
* [[Timeline of Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Key Figures in Mormon Polygamy]]
* [[Primary Sources Index]]
* [[Podcast and Media Hub]]

== Contributing ==
This wiki is built by volunteers. You can help by:
* Adding new documents or citations.
* Uploading transcripts of podcasts or video episodes.
* Improving page organization, cross-links, and templates.
* Discussing interpretations on article talk pages to ensure balanced coverage.

Before editing, please review our [[Editorial Guidelines]] and [[Citation Standards]] pages to maintain scholarly rigor.

== Featured Podcast ==
<div style="text-align:center; background:#fffbe6; border:1px solid #ccc; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; width:90%;">
'''This week’s featured podcast:''' 
<big>''[[132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy]]''</big> 
Exploring the myths, documents, and stories behind Mormon polygamy.
</div>

== Recent Additions ==
* {{#ask: [[Category:New Sources]] | ?Has date | sort=Has date | order=desc | limit=5 | format=ul }}
* {{#ask: [[Category:New Podcasts]] | ?Has date | sort=Has date | order=desc | limit=5 | format=ul }}

== Community and Discussion ==
* [[Community Portal]]
* [[Recent Changes]]
* [[Help:Contents]] – Learn how to edit

<div style="text-align:center; font-size:85%; margin-top:2em;">
This project is not affiliated with any religious organization.
Content is provided for educational and research purposes.
</div>

Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/ MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Why did the LDS Church remove this from the Doctrine & Covenants?

2025-08-29T23:04:46Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = Why did the LDS Church remove this from the Doctrine & Covenants?
| series = 132 Problems
| date = 2024-04-24
| youtube_id = S2s3buuOpdk
| tags = Doctrine And Covenants, Section 101
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, To The Point
| summary = Did you know that Joseph Smith included a statement on monogamous marriage in his versions of the Doctrine and Covenants? It was later removed from the canon when Brigham Young added section 132. A lot of members have never heard of this original Section 101 - share this short with your friends and family.

#lds #mormons #mormonhistory #polygamy #exmo #exmormon #josephsmith #doctrineandcovenants
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:To The Point]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Doctrine And Covenants]][[Category:Section 101]]
}}

Why did the LDS Church remove this from the Doctrine & Covenants?

2025-08-29T23:04:45Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = Why did the LDS Church remove this from the Doctrine & Covenants?
| series = 132 Problems
| date = 2024-03-21
| youtube_id = N5yVaw0EGzY
| tags = Brigham Young, Doctrine And Covenants, Section 101
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, To The Point
| summary = Did you know that Joseph Smith included a statement on monogamous marriage in his versions of the Doctrine and Covenants? It was later removed from the canon when Brigham Young added section 132. A lot of members have never heard of this original Section 101 - share this short with your friends and family.

#lds #mormons #mormonhistory #polygamy #exmo #exmormon #josephsmith #doctrineandcovenants
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:To The Point]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Brigham Young]][[Category:Doctrine And Covenants]][[Category:Section 101]]
}}

Response to Brian Hales and Steve Pynakker (Mormon Book Review)

2025-08-29T23:04:39Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = Response to Brian Hales and Steve Pynakker (Mormon Book Review)
| series = 132 Problems
| date = 2024-03-15
| youtube_id = O1jINDIriBs
| tags = Brian Hales, Historical Malpractice, Mormon Book Review, Steve Pynakker
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Criticism
| summary = This week Mormon Book Review teamed up with Brian Hales to review (and question the motives of) Michelle and her research without inviting Michelle to join the discussion. This is Michelle's response to that video. Huge THANK YOU to Cheryl Bruno for calling last night and coming to my side to respond to it. This is a very important conversation. Please join us!
| links = * [https://132problems.org/polygamy-joseph-smith-michelle-brady-stone-w-brian-hales/ Original Mormon Book Review Episode to which Michelle and Cheryl are responding]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=00m01s 00:01] Michelle: Welcome to this very exciting extra episode of 132 problems. This was not planned, but after some things that happened yesterday, Cheryl Bruno, who I could not love and respect more reached out to me and we shared our mutual indignation and Cheryl agreed to come on and talk with me to share with all of you our perspective, our feelings and our objections to some things that are happening right now. So Cheryl, welcome and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=00m37s 00:37]
Cheryl Bruno: Hello, everyone. I'm so glad to be here with Michelle and I am glad to have the opportunity to share a few of my thoughts on something that's happened that I think everyone can learn from no matter what you are, no matter what you're um where you are in Mormonism, whether you don't even have any interest in Mormonism. I think that these are important principles that we're going to share um today and I think that they'll be um educational for just about everyone out there. So I'm glad to have that opportunity. Um This is talking about and let me bring up a um do you want me do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=01m16s 01:16]
Michelle: you want, do you want me to? Just so everyone knows we're doing this live. So there will be no editing. It will be a little bit rough because we just needed to bring it out right now. Um Are you in your presentation describing what happened or should we do that first?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=01m30s 01:30]
Cheryl Bruno: Yes, I'll describe a little bit of what happened. So, um this is, this is a response to a video or a podcast that Steven Pinker put up about with Brian Hales. And I think that um Michelle can explain a little bit of the background a little bit better than I can. So I'll, I'll leave that to her. But um this went up where um apparently from what Steve explained, many people were coming to him saying, oh Michelle, um Stone has become a voice in this polygamy um debate and you should have her uh or you should, I don't know, address what she's saying. So instead of um asking Michelle to explain what her views were, he asked his friend Brian Hales to come on and um and respond to Michelle uh before he even had the perspective of what Michelle was all about. And it becomes very obvious throughout the podcast that um that Steve does not know what Michelle is all about. And um and so let me just, let me just, I'm gonna start with my background here. Um And my, I'm gonna give you my Mormon Cred. OK? Because and that's sad that you have to do so. But I want you to explain like where I'm coming from. And um I am not in um the same camp as Michelle is, I believe that Joseph Smith did in initiate polygamy and that he practiced it. And I hope that Michelle and I can have many fun debates on this as time goes on. But um I have also entered the world of Mormon Polygamy with several articles that I've written and I have a book that's coming out in a couple of months. That is actually I noticed last night that it is up for pre or so you can actually preorder this book. It's called Secret Covenants, New Insights On Early Mormon polygamy. And it does come from the standpoint that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy. And in this book, I edited this book and brought together many um of the scholarly um of the, the Mormon historians who are studying early Mormon polygamy and you will recognize many of those names. So, um that is where I'm coming from.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=04m00s 04:00]
Michelle: And can I just add to that, that, that what I one thing I really appreciate about Cheryl is in our private conversations, which we've been having, several of which I have highly valued Cheryl. I've so appreciated that you have acknowledged that you haven't fully engaged in this enough yet to like, like I feel like you have much more humility in your approach where you say this is what it looks like to me, but I can't get fully defend it and I'm open to hearing more evidence, right? Which I really appreciate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=04m31s 04:31]
Cheryl Bruno: Yes. And I have to also tell the audience that Michelle has done the same where I've sometimes given her a little bit of information or pointed something out. She's immediately taken that in and not pushed back against it, but looked at it to see if it had validity and if it did adopted it. So I really appreciate that as well as she is not just um coming at this from a singular point of view and trying to make all the evidence fit into her point of view.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=04m59s 04:59]
Michelle: So shall we say I'm doing the opposite of what Brian Hills is doing?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=05m03s 05:03]
Cheryl Bruno: OK, I will point that out in just a minute here. So um now Brian has often, OK, Michelle and I recorded a podcast. Was it like 10 days? Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=05m18s 05:18]
Michelle: And I should say on Sunday, this is what's so remarkable about all of this. Um My interview with Cheryl is set to be to be released on Sunday. I had planned to release it last Sunday, but with the temple, I released the interview with the clots who are in the restoration branches. So I bumped Cheryl's to this week, which now turns out to be so providential cause we're having this conversation just a few days before we are releasing that conversation. So it was just last week we spoke. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=05m44s 05:44]
Cheryl Bruno: you'll see me again very soon. But I'm doing that conversation, Michelle and I had, we, um, Brian Hills came up and, um, she asked me what my, with Brian had been and I said that we had been, we'd had very cordial conversations um, in the past and that's how I really did remember it. And I remember that Brian is always saying, deal with the evidence. Don't, don't um personally attack me. Don't call me an apologist, talk about the evidence, deal with the evidence. That's what he's always saying to me. But I found that that's not what he is doing here and it's very discouraging. Um And I went back in um the internet record to find some of our old exchanges. And I went back 10 years to April 2014 when his book was just coming out and I did a book review and um I noticed that Brian was using the same technique that he had used in this podcast yesterday. Um And he knows very well what the word ad hominem means. And I think many of, you know what this is a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character motive or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. And this is a classic, classic case of ad hominem. But let me just tell you a little, um, let me just read you what he said publicly about me, he said um this version of him, Joseph Smith she portrays in this post and in her article does not seem to support it. Um Oh, it prompts me to ask Cheryl if she believes Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The version of him she portrays in this post. And in her article does not seem to support it. Are we to classify Cheryl Bruno as another webmaster who teaches that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing number of such voices on the inner these days. And yes, um It's very, that's very classic, Brian Hales. Um Then the other one he says, um I can't quite see it here, but he says, Cheryl proclaims a belief in Joseph Smith. As can you read that? Um Michelle uh the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=08m11s 08:11]
Michelle: bottom paragraph. Yes. Um Cheryl, I am troubled that Cheryl would portray Joseph Smith's plural marriages as indiscretions that arose from his predilections. The prophet taught that ceilings were part of the new and everlasting covenant, a covenant that came through revelation from God. Cheryl proclaims a belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet, but her depiction of him in the article and in our subsequent correspondences seems to contradict
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=08m36s 08:36]
Cheryl Bruno: it. So, um Brian is attacking me and he is bringing up my, he's trying to um to downplay my membership in the church and my uh validity as a Mormon member and whether I my arguments he's not addressing my arguments, but instead he's addressing whether I'm a good Mormon or not, you know, this is ad hominem and, um, and this is, uh, this is something he asks over and over again for people not to do to him. So, um, here's the, here's just a picture of um, a little still of their um, podcast yesterday where, um, Brian comes on and Steve is interviewing him. And, um, I will say that it was the most um discouraging to me, it was very discouraging. And I hope that, um and I do believe that we will all be friends after this, of course. Um because Steve is willing to reach out, I will talk about the problems with um what he did in a minute. But um and Brian I think has, um I don't know, it's, it's so cliche to say he has a good heart, but often I feel like he wants to do the right thing and just does not have the skills. And so I would like to point out to him what he is doing that is objectionable because I feel like he's gonna watch this and say, what did I do? What did I do wrong? You know, because he already has done this now. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=10m12s 10:12]
Michelle: I have to say, I think at this point, I feel like you're being very charitable because this has been pointed out to Brian multiple times and he continues to it. So it looks to me and, and again, I would, I would be happy to go shake hands. Um But it looks to me like this is how he wants to operate and will continue to operate. And I, I think there's just a huge lack of desire to do anything different. And so, so I don't know that the good heart works for me. I think that he very much wants to protect his position as the one who sets the narrative of what we must all believe about polygamy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=10m49s 10:49]
Cheryl Bruno: Ok. Um But I feel that even though you know, that may be true, I feel that we can have a good relationship in the future and that will happen and the debates that we have will be cordial and I really do believe that that will happen.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=11m03s 11:03]
Michelle: So that's OK. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, I agree.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=11m06s 11:06]
Cheryl Bruno: So, um but the reason we are not going on Steve Pinker podcast to come out with this is Steve, your space is not a safe space. You've said that now several times you do not have a safe space and you are not Switzerland. So let me go on a little bit and, and show you why. OK. So um Brian starts by saying, well, they give a little introduction and then Brian starts by saying, very passively aggressive. This is, this is something he does um very well is he, he makes remarks passively aggressively because um that is his training. I think so. He says I have concerns, I have concerns about Michelle. So instead of going on it because Steve Steve invites him on the podcast to talk about um and to respond to Michelle's um evidence and her body of work. And he's instead instead says I have concerns, I just don't understand what Michelle's goal is. Michelle's gonna talk a little bit more about this. What is she trying to accomplish with this? Um is polygamy of God is a question that has already been answered. And then Brian proceeds to give quotes from prophets of the LDS church. Each of whom Michelle has demonstrated has serious credibility issues. And he is um almost willfully ignoring the fact that she has brought those things up and saying, well, here's what, here's what our prophets have said in the past and then says that Michelle is rejecting, dismissing and ignoring prophetic leadership. Her willingness to be critical of church leaders is aggressive, bold. So, you know, I mean, this is a typical male thing to do is say that women are aggressive and bold when men are aggressive and bold, that's fine. And he um has been aggressive and bold in the past. And you know, I, I get angry when people either call women aggressive and bold for bringing out points. Or I don't know, I, what can we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=13m18s 13:18]
Michelle: say? It would be fine to call me bold if it weren't saying he's using bold again, passive aggressively he's saying that what I am doing is not acceptable and not allowed. He, he's telling, he's consistently telling me to sit down and shut up is what he's doing, right? And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=13m36s 13:36]
Cheryl Bruno: he's implying that Michelle is out of step with the teachings of latter day prophets engaging her arguments. Steve agrees with this. Steve agrees with this. He says, as a member of the church, these are her prophets so she should be obeying them, you know, why isn't she obeying her prophets? And then he says that maybe it's OK for someone who, who is outside of the church to bring up the things that Michelle is bringing up. But no, it's not OK for her to bring up these issues about Mormon polygamy. So both men show a profound ignorance of the issues that Michelle has researched and um discussed at length and here is my problem with this. OK? No, I'm gonna, I'm gonna get into that. Sorry. OK. Here's a slide from, here's a slide from their presentation. So Brian says, because he continues in this vein, regardless of what they say and he believe me, he is talking about Michelle here. He is not talking about the amorphous. They um regardless of what they say, the overwhelming result is confusion which often undermines faith in church leaders past and present. So what Brian is doing here is accusing Michelle of apostasy. This is a very serious accusation in our church as Steve. I hope that you know this by now, but you seem to not know this um, in your podcast, this is an extremely serious accusation to accuse someone in our church of apostasy because when, um, someone is judged an apostate, they can lose their church membership and be excommunicated from the church. And so it almost seems that he is trying to remove her voice by getting her excommunicated from the church. And I'm very, very sad about that because faithful dissent is important in our church. It's extremely important. And um I feel like there needs to be a room in our church for faithful dissent. You know, um there are too many people that just get tired of it all and just say, and throw their hands up, I'm leaving. Um and not enough people who are willing to stay and battle it out and talk about issues. And I feel that Michelle is in that space and, and I admire her so much for that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=15m59s 15:59]
Michelle: Thank you Cheryl.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=16m02s 16:02]
Cheryl Bruno: OK. So here's another slide where Brian accuses Michelle. He, he talks about two different um models, one is a transparency is and the other is a propagandist. And he says he is a transparency is who presents all evidence presents personal interpretation, which is what a historian does and allows the audience to decide. And then he says that Michelle is a propagandist who presents selective ignores or dismisses evidences, tries to convince the audience to agree with their interpretation and uses emotion and persuasive language. And the irony is that Brian does not understand it, that this podcast episode shows clearly how he is the propagandist. And um so here's our 55 minute podcast, they give a five minute introduction. These are, these are approximate but pretty um close to what it is five minute introduction, 30 minutes of ad hominem attacks. He puts in six minutes of actually engaging the issues, 10 minutes of testimonial and four minutes of miscellaneous. Um This is egregious and I am appalled by how obvious it is that he is spending the bulk of his time with ad hominem attacks against Michelle. And um I do wanna say that during the six minutes when he actually engaged the issues, I agreed with him several points. He made two points and um this is probably these points are something that I might agree with Brian um If we were just to discuss the issues. So I feel really kind of just annoyed with him that he didn't stick to. Here's what Michelle brought up, here's my documentation, here's my evidence. You know, why didn't he just stick to those issues? Especially since Brian is often saying that people don't allow him the same privilege.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=18m14s 18:14]
Michelle: So can we go, can I just respond to one thing on that point on that six minutes on your side? One, the um this was the thing that I objected to. It's very apparent that Steven has not watched even the one anniversary episode that they were responding to. And it's very apparent that Brian has only watched that one episode and that he only watched it to cherry pick his little portions where you could say I'm out of step. But I want to make this point because he did take that six minutes of engaging issues after saying I'm not gonna go head to head, I'm not going to engage the issues he chose to, to engage on without acknowledging that this was a summary episode. This was an episode where I was trying to fit an overview. So I didn't go into depth on any of the historical issues. It also wasn't an issue specific. I mean, it wasn't an episode specifically about Joseph. I made that very clear, this is the scriptural issue. So I only got into a few things as necessary regarding the history. I have covered those things in depth and I have more than I'm planning to cover in depth. So he took my encapsulation where I said something badly misrepresented it because when I say Brigham magically pulled it out of his desk, I'm making a joke obviously. And he, he I mean, so everything that he engaged there, I would gladly engage with him on those two issues. And I feel extremely confident in what I would bring forward, extremely confident. So I just want to point out that as well that even that one portion of it was badly done.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=19m44s 19:44]
Cheryl Bruno: Yes. And to take a summary issue and then summarize it into two little clips. That's just so mires misrepresentative of, of your body of work. So I'm very sorry about that. And um to go back to this, um he is the propagandist who is presenting selective evidence. He chooses out of two years of your podcast, he chooses two little clips, um not even a minute long each. And um so this is his selective evidence. He ignores or dismisses your entire body of work. He tries to convince the audience to agree with his interpretation and not yours because he's putting you down and saying you are the apostate and he is the faithful member of the church and he uses emotion and persuasive language to try to convince the audience that he is the expert and you are not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=20m38s 20:38]
Michelle: Thank you. Thank. Also, we I, you didn't mention this. I'll just add, I felt like this entire thing was very little other than the ad hominem. And then also the appeal to authority. He always just says, I'm the authority. I've written three volumes. I'm the one you should listen to. So there is no actual engagement. It's just I'm the faithful member, I'm the authority. She's speaking out of life, she should sit down and shut
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=21m02s 21:02]
Cheryl Bruno: up. And the thing is too that um Brian also points to his book often where he says, oh, it's all in my book just go back to my book, just read my book, not realizing that you have um addressed many of the issues in his book and poked holes in many of them. And he needs to go back and revisit those arguments in order to have a leg to stand on. And that's where I um am feeling very betrayed by my community because I feel part of the Mormon historian community. Um And when people say, oh, Mormon historians um have already decided that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and they don't realize that there's this whole entire body of work that we as Mormon historians have not addressed, we need to address these things. Um These are out there making our arguments that we've had in the past that his book from 10 years ago is very out of date and we are just allowing those arguments to become weaker and weaker and weaker because um m mainly because Michelle is destroying all of those arguments. So we need to get back in the game. We can't just point to Ryan's book and say, oh, well, he already addressed that or someone, you know, 100 years ago, I already said this, you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=22m20s 22:20]
Michelle: or Todd Compton. They like, like, yes, I, I could point to source after source, after source that they have neglected that are not included in their book in their books. And it's, it's, it's, it's outdated. I love that you said that. Thank you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=22m35s 22:35]
Cheryl Bruno: Right. And I mean, it makes me want to step up and learn more about, um, what, you know, what the new issues are. Um, and I have to say that I, ok, let me just wait on that one for a minute. Um, I have to say that, um, I haven't watched all of Michelle's podcasts because there's so many of them now. Um, that are amazing. But here is one example. Um, and I have to, um, I have to congratulate Bill real for bringing up the, um, topic of the deeds. And, um, he was very interesting. I did watch that episode, um, talking about, um, what the, the contemporaneous deeds, um, might point to. And that was interesting. Michelle didn't have any expertise in that particular, um, area went and researched in an amazing way, the deeds and I feel that she is our, she has become our foremost expert on those deeds. If you will watch her podcast. Which number is it Michelle? Do you know the one that is?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=23m49s 23:49]
Michelle: Yeah, that's, oh, no, I can find it and I'll link it as soon as I can. But I have two parts on deeds. Yeah, that's Dirty Deeds. And I will say there's a third part on deeds that it's addressing Bill specifically. And I even have an interview that I recorded several months ago that I will release. I did an interview with a phd Professor of Statistics to address his statistical claims as well, so people can look forward to that just to let you know how seriously I am taking this issues. I worked until I found a professor of Statistics that would come and talk to me about his statistical analysis.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=24m22s 24:22]
Cheryl Bruno: Very good. And Michelle just has a very narrow, um, um, she has a very narrow focus and so she has researched this in depth and her um, knowledge and understanding of those deeds is amazing. And, um I think that if Stephen o'brien had watched, um just even a small amount of her work, they would have much more respect for her than they had zero respect for her in this podcast. And it was incredibly um misogynistic of them and um dismissive, they were very dismissive and I felt horrible. Um, after I had just said, and what is going to come out Sunday me saying, oh Brian, it's great to work with, you know, and then I was just like, what, what are you doing? Um OK, so now Steve, you're not gonna get away with this. You are not Switzerland, you and even, and, and here's the thing, Steve came out this morning with um an apology. He pulled the entire episode and he came out with the most. Um I don't know the most. I, I wanna say male, male apology ever where he was basically saying, I'm sorry, you feel that way? Ok. Let me get back to what he said in this podcast. My position regarding anything that I'm not too knowledgeable about is I just go with the scholarly position? Well, he was very obviously unaware of what the scholarly position even was, what the problems with it were. Um Why would he, why would he choose something when he's um often on his podcast says I'm not gonna choose one side or the other. Everyone has a voice. Why would he choose this issue? Which he knows n next to nothing about and admits that he doesn't, why would he choose this issue to take a position on, you know, why would he go with the scholarly position? And, and the thing is the scholarly world doesn't even agree that Brian Hales is the best representative,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=26m30s 26:30]
Michelle: right? And he didn't even know that he wasn't even aware of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=26m33s 26:33]
Cheryl Bruno: No. So um one thing that hurt me, he said, I'm not a polygamy guy. I always go, oh Joseph. Oh man, why did you do it? That was extremely offensive to large parts of his audience? Not only Brian Hills or who represents um the larger um LDS church who believes that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and that it was a command from God, but also those who have um who believe that Joseph Smith would never practice polygamy because he was, you know, a great um man and he was really digging on Joseph, like just, I don't know, it was. So um um what's the word disrespectful towards someone that we all admire and respect. So, you know, I know that there are people that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=27m26s 27:26]
Michelle: what was interesting was that the only group he was aware that he might have offended? There are the current fundamentalists, the current polygamists are the only people that he acknowledged any awareness that, that might be offensive to. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=27m38s 27:38]
Cheryl Bruno: there's another group that, yeah, there's another group that would be, but
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=27m41s 27:41]
Michelle: that's the group that he at least was, he was like trying so hard to not offend anyone to be Switzerland, but completely blind to the entire thing he was doing. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=27m51s 27:51]
Cheryl Bruno: Yes. And giving um giving um Brian validity by saying things like you went on Michelle's channel saying no, ma'am, that's not history. Ha you know, laughing about it and those who know where that quote comes from is from um um Hugh Nibley where he tried to refute um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=28m12s 28:12]
Michelle: Brodie
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=28m13s 28:13]
Cheryl Bruno: Brodie. Yes. And um so, so putting uh Brian in the position of the respected elderly gentleman and putting Michelle in the, in the position almost of an apostate apostate, although we now know that Von Brody had a lot going for her and I, I actually wouldn't mind being compared with fun brody. But, but this is a problem. And so now he says, oh, this is a safe place, Michelle, safe place for you to come on. He is not behaving as a safe place and he is not a safe place. And then um what he did, was he, like I said, came on this morning with an apology. He said, um, let's see. Oh, ok. So first he talked about, um about why, first he gave his excuses about why he is giving this apology or why he doesn't actually feel like he was wrong. You know, he does apologize very sincerely, but he doesn't understand what the problem is with his apology. Ok. So he is apologizing and at first he's defending himself saying, well, I didn't really know that much about it. So I took his side, you know, and as I just pointed out, that's not the thing to do when you're um when you're um trying to act like you're a safe space and then he started saying you hurt but I hurt, I hurt. This is for my mental health that I'm taking this down, you know, I don't want it to blow up. And so basically, it's a very cowardly to do to take this down because people, you know, can go on there and see exactly what happened and make their own decision. And I think that he's scared that they will go on there and um continue to criticize him and he can't take the heat. And so he says, I'm turning down the heat. Yes, he's turning down the heat on himself. But he is not doing this as an apology to Michelle. He's, you know, he's not, she's ok with the heat, you know, she welcomes the heat. She welcomes the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=30m17s 30:17]
Michelle: taking it for. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=30m19s 30:19]
Cheryl Bruno: Yeah. So this is for him. This is his um to take down for his mental health, as he even said, oh, maybe I was insensitive. He says this is a typical male thing to say. He doesn't apologize for being insensitive. He doesn't see himself as insensitive. He says maybe I was insensitive. Um Probably I did this. Oh I had Justin on, I had Kimberly on, I had, you know, other people who he seems to group into, you know, um Michelle's sphere and say, well, you know, if I've had them on that shows that I um welcoming to Michelle which no, it doesn't show that it shows you are welcoming to Justin, but it doesn't show that you are welcoming to Michelle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=31m06s 31:06]
Michelle: Isn't that uh I'm not racist. I have a black friend, right? I, I have, I have a gay friend. Isn't that what it is? I'm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=31m13s 31:13]
Cheryl Bruno: trying to say that but I hesitated.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=31m16s 31:16]
Michelle: Sorry, I know, I hesitate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=31m19s 31:19]
Cheryl Bruno: Yeah, exactly. Then he says to Michelle, oh, then he, he directs his apology. He doesn't pick up the phone call. Michelle apologize to Michelle. He directs his apology publicly and then he virtue signals by saying, oh I took down all my um I'm not gonna make any money off of this, right? I'm so virtuous. Um Then he puts pressure on Michelle bing. You're a Christian woman. I know you'll accept my apology. You're a Christian woman so that if she still is feeling hurt by it or if she chooses not to go on his podcast, that will, you know, passive aggressively show that she's not a Christian woman, right? Um Let's see, he turned off the chat, he said, so it's not going to distract him, right? You know, easily when you're doing a podcast, you don't have to let the chat distract you. You know, it's not that distracting. Um, or he could have turned the chat on later. Um But he turned the chat on so that he would not get criticized. He did not turn the chat off. So Michelle, it was because the things were going in an opposite direction than what he expected. Um I get criticized a lot. He went on and on about, oh, I get criticized a lot for what I do, making the apology about himself and not making the apology about that. He was sorry what he did. And so, um oh, and I'm doing the right thing. Um So I feel like, oh, if I said anything insensitive, I apologize for that. You know, that's another thing that people don't understand. That's not an apology because you are not recognizing why you are insensitive. And I feel like his whole apology showed that he does not understand what he did in his podcast. And he, and he says, oh, I'm, you know, I only decided an hour ago to do this. You know, I really do not feel like his motivation were to apologize. I feel like it was to take the heat off of himself and um you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=33m21s 33:21]
Michelle: to say that to save face.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=33m23s 33:23]
Cheryl Bruno: Yeah. Yeah. So, and so I'm very perturbed that he still does not understand what the issue was about this podcast.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=33m33s 33:33]
Michelle: Can I, can I respond to the apology? Is this a good time for me to do that? Because III I think I'm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=33m39s 33:39]
Cheryl Bruno: pretty much done with this, like, OK, go ahead and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=33m41s 33:41]
Michelle: bring that up. Ok. Um Sorry, I'm trying to get there. Um I lost my cursor. OK. So this is, this is, and I have several things I want to say as well, but um I want to. So I, I am one who really likes to apologize when I mess up. II I, I'm quick to apologize because I don't like feeling like I've done something wrong and I'm very sympathetic to that feeling. I've just had it this week feeling like I messed up and really thankful for someone forgiving me, right? I understand it. However, this is, this is my feeling on it. Steve did call me to inform me like he called me to inform me that he had invited Brian Hales on to discuss my episode. I expressed in that phone call, all of my objections. I said I don't think that this is fair because, and I was also feeling like why are you call? He did not invite me on his podcast. He, throughout the podcast, he misrepresents badly our relationship and his invitations to me. I, I can go into that but he, he just called to inform me my feeling was he's just stirring the pot. He just wants, he's just trying to stir the pot to get views as I was very unhappy and I expressed this to him for two years. He has not handled my work. I could, I would have loved to go on his podcast early on. And he two times reached out to me to say the first time, like, like he, I've always felt like he wants to ride the coattails of something to get views for his channel. So he informed me that, that Mormon stories was going to do a podcast on my episode. He, he got the inside scoop from his friend Gerardo and said Mormon stories is gonna do an episode on your Brian Hills interview and I want you to come on live, right as soon as it airs. So that, so you'll have a platform to talk about it. I'm like, Steve, I have a platform to talk about it. I, I have a platform, you know, but this was a long time ago. It was after the Brian Hills interview. And um so he wanted to, to and he like anytime he would reach out, he'd be like, hey, I think that's gonna air. Remember you're coming on my show right after. And I just was kind of like whatever, you know, they decided not to do it because I came out as a polygamy denier. So they decided to not platform me. And so I never heard from him again. Right. And then uh I don't know, months and months and months later, I got a text from him that said, hey, I should have you on the show And I said, oh, great. Any time, let me know when never heard from him again. So those are our interactions that we've had, right? So then this time he called me to inform me that he was having Brian Hales on. And I said to him after two years of my work, you've never addressed it, you've never had me on. And the first time you're going to address my work, it's with the person, it's with the person who's trying to get me excommunicated like, you know, and he was like, well, I feel free to iii I don't think he, I don't know if we had that conversation at that in that phone call. He just wanted, he said, he said because of professionalism, I, I'm really want to be with professional and, you know, I'm just a good guy. So I just wanted to let you know in fair play that I'm gonna have Brian Hales on to respond to your work. That was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=36m43s 36:43]
Cheryl Bruno: let me break in. Let me break in real quick here. So, so really, Steve, I hope you're watching this. This is this pinpoints why it is not a safe space for Michelle and others. Because when you have someone, instead of presenting her work, you have someone on first before presenting her work to prepare the ground that she's an apostate and that she deserves to be excommunicated. This is not ever going to be a safe space for Michelle,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=37m14s 37:14]
Michelle: right? And that's after giving me the cold shoulder multiple times, he wanted to have me on when it was gonna burst, boost his views. But as soon as it wasn't gonna boost his views, he ghosted me and I don't have respect for that. Right? And so then he calls me the first time he's gonna address my work. It's with Brian Hills, the man who is literally telling me to shut, shut up and sit down or be excommunicated, who came on my own podcast and did not stick with the outline he had agreed to and did not address the topics that we were going to address. But instead told me I need to shut up and sit down on my own podcast, right? And so this is how Steve decided to and, and so he called me, then he called me a few days later letting me know he had recorded the episode and he was gonna release it and it was in that conversation and I think I voiced some of my concerns in earlier conversation. But in that conversation, I very clearly expressed to him how bad I thought this was that he was not letting me speak for my that his first time addressing my work is with the guy who was the most hostile toward my work, right? So I all of the perspectives I also had the conversation with him. I, some people will see the blog post that I put up that I had to alter because I did it in a moment of just free flowing thought. And I went and changed some of these because I didn't fairly represent Don Bradley as I would have liked to, I it was, it was fair but it wasn't in the tone. I would have liked to address him. So I altered that part of it and that's what and, and I profusely apologized to Don. It was actually, I'll just tell the story just filling everyone in. I wrote that post and I referred to various historians. Two of them were Don Bradley and Cheryl and um and, and then, and I didn't think anything about I was getting ready for my, for my conversation with John Bradley and I got a message from Cheryl and all of a sudden I just, the blood drained from my face because I realized what I had done that here. I have these relationships with people and I worried that maybe I had to trade that. So Cheryl, you can say. My very first message was, I'm so, so, so, so,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=39m07s 39:07]
Cheryl Bruno: so sorry. I wasn't. I was like, no, you fairly represented me. Go ahead and use my name. You know, I still felt like you fairly represented Don as well. It's just that I think that people were taking maybe your, your language wasn't expressing exactly what you were trying to say, but I understood what you were trying to say. And um I didn't have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=39m27s 39:27]
Michelle: thank you. I guess what I'm trying to express was I hadn't seen, I hadn't even, I hadn't on Facebook since I wrote it. Like I had not seen a single criticism, but the second I heard from you, I, I was aware of what of a perspective I hadn't thought of. So didn't, I immediately like, say, I'm really, really sorry. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=39m44s 39:44]
Cheryl Bruno: Right. And now Steve had listened to you, if I had been able to listen to you when you were. Now, I would admire that if he had listened to you after he made the podcast and before he aired it, if he had said, oh, you know what that pod cast was in poor taste, you know, and now I can see Michelle's side of it, she's expressed this to me, maybe it wouldn't be the best thing to air that podcast. If he had made the apology, then fine and nobody would have known about it. But instead he chose to make it very public. That's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=40m15s 40:15]
Michelle: exactly, that's exactly the point. So I expressed all of the problems to him on that phone call and I, and I expressed to him the historical problem that we're having, right. So he went ahead. He was like, I understand, ok, that's a good perspective. But then the next day he posted on Facebook that he was going to release it. I commented again, expressing my objections before it was released. I very clearly, people can still read the comment and I'll go ahead and post it on um my comments in case he deletes that I I expressed my objections to this interview very clearly and strongly. He went ahead and released it anyway. Right? And then the, the one saving grace. I had the things that made me feel better because I'm sorry, it is a little bit um There's a little bit of trauma tied up with me with Brian Hills because of what happened in our interview and also because of the threats he made and the co the like he really, really made me feel like he was going to get me excommunicated in our private conversation. And so and he's still doing that again. So it was a hard day for me and but the saving grace was both Cheryl reaching out to me and reading all of the comments that made me feel much, much better. So for Steven to apologize publicly, only because of all of the heat while he ignored everything I said and then to delete the evidence and delete that beautiful stream of comments that is absolutely essential in this conversation. I I'm mad that the, I mean, I'm disappointed that the podcast is taken down because I think people need to see it. I'm furious that the comments are gone. And so I texted Steve and said, thank you for the apology even though it was public instead of personal and it was to save face. But if it's sincere, if you are sincerely apologizing, I hope this time you will listen to me and put the podcast back up with the comments because otherwise it is not an apology at all. It's just saving face. So I guess we'll see what happens. But I wanted to address this. I hope
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=42m16s 42:16]
Cheryl Bruno: you're listening to this because you know, I do that you are trying to be sincere and I hope that you realize that this is coming across as it is. And you know, please show us that you really do want to improve, that you do really do want to be sincere that you do wanna listen to people's voices and you know, respect Michelle in that way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=42m37s 42:37]
Michelle: Yeah. And I will say like I was so thankful that Cheryl was so not angry at me and so thankful, sincerely thankful that Don Bradley forgave me because you know he was like, like I, so I do understand the dynamics. I will say I apologized to both of them personally, very sincerely without heat. You know, like I hadn't, like I just apologized when I realized I didn't, I, that I, that I was worried maybe I had offended them potentially. Right. And so that was a different dynamic. And also, yeah, Steve, I'm totally willing to forgive you and we can move forward. Hopefully I'll learn from this, but I would like to know that you're sincere and right now it doesn't look like you are. So I'm asking if you are sincere, please put it back up with all of the comments included and leave comments open for people to comment and then we can move forward because right now it's kind of like when you apologize but you're hiding what you did, you don't want the evidence to. So it's like it's like a unfaithful spouse only admitting to the little portion they got caught on, but the rest in the back close
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=43m44s 43:44]
Cheryl Bruno: don't make this all about you like, oh, this is gonna hurt my feelings. This is gonna, you know, because yes, you will be hurt and you'll, you'll be maybe ashamed of what was up there a little bit, you know. But if you're truly sincere and apologizing, then you're gonna have to take that medicine.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=44m00s 44:00]
Michelle: Yeah. And it is painful. But that's the way we move forward. I can tell. I, I think for me if he will at least put it back up, I'll have a lot more respect for him than I will otherwise. And I think that most of the community will as well because I think it is unfair. People put a lot of effort and thought into those comments and it's unfair to erase them without their consent. And, and I, I object to that and this needs to be there on the record. This is an important thing that happened. It can't be erased from. We've done enough erasing from history. That's why I exist in the space I'm in. Let's not keep doing that. So, OK, thank you. And well, did you have more to say in your presentation? I wanted you to go
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=44m41s 44:41]
Cheryl Bruno: ahead and show some of the things that OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=44m43s 44:43]
Michelle: so, so we had talked about just making this kind of a short conversation, but now that the podcast is down and I'm not, I don't know if it's going to be put back up. I think it's important to share some of the clips of what was discussed. And so if people don't mind sticking around with us a little bit longer than we had originally intended, we'll go ahead and share um share some of the clips that are there and it's gonna be a little bit cumbersome because I'm going to have to find them as we talk because I wasn't necessarily planning to do this. But I do want to show this was funny to me when he said, no, ma'am, that's not history which I think was a very sexist title for that book. And I just have to for good measure, put this out there because it actually wasn't Brian that says, no, ma'am, that's not history. It was um it was RFM. Let me add this. This was literally the name of his episode that he did responding to me, which I thought was beyond ironic, especially when from his perspective, Fon Brody wins out in the Fond Brody um and H NLY debate, right? So I just was going to, that just struck me as ironic that they didn't even get that detail, right? But um OK, let me go ahead and add this to the stage.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=45m55s 45:55]
Steve Pynakker: Book reviews are an even gel clone. My own restoration. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=45m58s 45:58]
Michelle: pause for a second to get it to the right spot. So first of all, at the very beginning, when he's introducing Brian, he acknowledges that this is the second time he's had Brian Hales on. So he's never had me on. I, I find that ironic and something too interesting. And then right at the beginning, this is like you're saying Cheryl, why he's not Switzerland, he completely poisons the whale. So I want to play this little
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=46m22s 46:22]
Brian Hales: clip with you, Steve, you have such a great channel and uh it's a privilege.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=46m26s 46:26]
Steve Pynakker: So, uh one of the reasons I asked uh Brian to come on is that um recently um Michelle Brady Stone, um her channel has really been growing. Um and she's been posting a lot of things out there that's resonating with a lot of people and gaining a lot of traction. A lot of personal friends of mine are big fans of her. And I've always, you know, this is the thing with Michelle is that she's a part of that camp that denies that Joseph Smith uh practiced polygamy and also instituted it and actually fought it. And this is kind of the basis of their and, and so that's their foundation of where they're coming from. Now. Of course, historically speaking, folks, the R LDS, uh their official uh narrative was that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy and that was, of course, was Emma Smith. So that's where this idea comes. So this is a new idea. Uh This is something that's been around for a very long time, but uh the overwhelming scholars league community, uh basically, there's the consensus is that Joseph Smith did indeed practice polygamy and did indeed institute it and did indeed write section 132. So that's the scholarly consensus on this matter. Does that, is that a good breakdown, Brian? Just to kind of lay the groundwork for our conversation?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=47m37s 47:37]
Michelle: OK. I'm gonna pause it right there. So this is what is infuriating. This was the introduction at the very beginning. So right from the top with his title with his Facebook Post, he's misrepresenting the episode they claim to be responding to because I very clearly say this is about, is polygamy of God. I'm not laying out the case about Joseph Smith. So he's not even aware of what he's talking about. It's just when he thinks of me, he thinks polygamy denier conspiracy theorists not worth engaging with. So uh this is so beyond unacceptable. It's it, I mean, it already would be so bad. But I will say II, I hate to always go to sexism, but I cannot imagine this happening to a man. I, I can, I've n I cannot imagine him doing that. Like he invited a man on who is telling me as a woman talking about polygamy to be silent to talk about why I'm wrong in all of my work. It, it's unbelievable to me.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=48m36s 48:36]
Cheryl Bruno: And um really, I think that it says a lot about the two of them that they did not address really your, your podcast was um focused towards how the scriptures um show us, wasn't it? Um Michelle how the scriptures show us. It
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=48m55s 48:55]
Michelle: was, it was purely scriptural and theological. That was the focus of that podcast, right? And they did not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=49m02s 49:02]
Cheryl Bruno: address that whatsoever. So they kind of missed the point of the entire podcast and didn't address your point. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=49m10s 49:10]
Michelle: and so um the next, the next thing that um I that Brian always does, I said this appeal to authority. So he goes on and says, when, when Steven basically like gives him this perfect pitch of, did I get that right. Brian. Did I make your case for you? Well enough? And Brian of course, jumps right on that and says, for me, I'm someone who's written three volumes on it, which is where he always goes. I'm the expert. I'm the one I even said that to him on my podcast. He's the one that sets the narrative. And if we dare speak in, if we dare disagree with the narrative out loud publicly, then we need to be excommunicated is what he's saying. So anyway, I wanna play this clip and I already spoke to this a little bit, but I feel like this is not true
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=49m53s 49:53]
Steve Pynakker: that that's the position that I'm taking. However, I'm friends with Michelle and, and I just want to let everybody know that I have, I spoke with Michelle on the phone yesterday and I did tell her that uh she's welcome to come on to respond to this. So I just want to let everybody know ahead of time that Michelle has been given the invitation to respond, whether with Brian uh have a conversation with Brian or she would just come and do a singular thing. And I, I want to be fair because, yeah, I will, I will just, I will, I'll reveal my bias if you will on this. I, I accept the scholarly consensus that Justice Smith practice polygamy and as not necessary. I don't have a problem with that because I tell,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=50m24s 50:24]
Michelle: OK, I'm gonna stop it there. That was, yeah, you go for Cheryl, then I will. No, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=50m30s 50:30]
Cheryl Bruno: can't, you know, I'm speechless. I'm speechless at, at how he can even, I mean, surely he can recognize what he's doing here. He, he's completely, um, he's silencing you Michelle here. Um, just to just the fact that he still thinks this is a safe space is just absolutely
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=50m53s 50:53]
Michelle: incredible. He's silencing me and then challenging me if I don't come on, it's because I don't dare to and I don't write, he's also misrepresenting the phone call we had. So this was after the first phone call when all he did was inform me that he was having Brian on. I did not, there was no invitation to come on and there certainly was no like, hey, I want to cover your stuff. Would you want to come talk about it? Like, like which is what should have been all it was was in, out of professionalism. I wanna let you know that I'm speak that I'm having Brian Hills on. I felt like it was 100% just stir the pot just trying to, you know, in the conversation after this. He did the same thing where it was basically, hey, if you wanna come on, I should have you on some time which he's done before and never followed up on, I invite people on my podcast often and I always say, hey, I would love to talk to you could, could we schedule a time? Is that, do you know what I mean? It's not this amorphous. Hey, if you want to come on and have a conversation. So this was, this was a blatant lie and I'm gonna call it out because it makes me mad.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=51m59s 51:59]
Cheryl Bruno: Yeah. And, um, I want all men who ask women on dates to realize this as well that when you say we should go out sometime you have to say, well, let's go out Saturday night. How about seven o'clock? Let's meet blah, blah, blah. Then they feel like you are actually asking them out on a date. But when you say let's hang out sometime that's not asking them on a date. So they are unaware of, of what kind of interest you actually have in them and you are signaling to them that your interest is casual and that you don't um take them seriously enough to actually um decide upon a time and place,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=52m34s 52:34]
Michelle: right? And that advice goes for men and women. But we, since we are talking about the sexism here, I will say what it also does is put the ball in the woman's court. You're saying, let's hang out sometime, which, which puts her in a position of saying, oh, if I want to hang out with you, I have to call I, which is exactly what Steven in the first conversation. He did not even invite me on, in the second conversation. It was a, let's hang out sometime, which he's already done and then goes to me. So it's like, oh, am I supposed to call you and ask you to come on your podcast? It definitely puts him a power play that. And I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=53m09s 53:09]
Cheryl Bruno: mean, there might be like, this is an interesting issue to me. Um because there may be times when, as a woman, I would call a man and say, you know, let's hang out. But, you know, also I would, I would, if I was the one that was initiating this, I would make that, you know, set the time in place and not make him just feel like he's hanging, you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=53m29s 53:29]
Michelle: which is exactly what it was. And it's happened two times previously. So I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=53m34s 53:34]
Cheryl Bruno: there are people that have reached out to Steven said, hey, I want to be on your podcast. Let's put this together. And I think that's perfectly appropriate. But in this situation it was. And what is, that's in the situation, what he's doing is lying. He is misrepresenting the conversations that you've had,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=53m51s 53:51]
Michelle: right? And also I want to say after all the has happened, the last thing I want to do is go drive views on Steven's channel because that's the only way he's used me and I feel very used, both misrepresented and used to serve his own purposes. Which the irony, that's exactly what how women are used in polygamy, which is part of how I object to it. Right? And so I just, I think it's fascinating how the dynamics all come into play in this. Now, I do also want to address what Cheryl brought up. That Brian's first big slide. He loves his slide shows. His first one is what is the objective goal and end game. And he very dismissively and condescendingly and rudely said, he asked me this over a message and I said a lot of words, but he, like he literally said, she said a lot of words, but I could or she, you know, she wrote a lot of words because he said it was over messages, but I could never understand what she was saying. And what shocks me here is, first of all, I wanna say again, I invited Brian on and asked him to talk about the topics of God is polygamy of God and his polygamy of Joseph Smith. He instead came on with a presentation of why I need to be silenced. And in that presentation like all that, this was, was a truncated version of that exact same presentation that he brought onto my um my, my show when I invited him in. So I'm going to play just this portion of our discussion when he literally asked me this exact question on um on my podcast. So let me, I, I want to encapsulate because I did say a lot of words because it was a good question. I had to work through it and think of it. And it, and I explained some very personal experiences of why I felt called to do this and what I was hoping to accomplish. And so he said, when, when he said, what, what is your end game? He asked that, can I ask, what's your end game? The exact question? I said, I, I did my best to share my reasons, like I said, for doing the podcast. And um and I talked about how I felt really blessed to be able to do it. And I talked about how helpful and healing it was after my losses, which my, my losing my daughters. And then, um and then I talked about how blessed I felt with the messages I was getting of how this was helping other people and um and particularly women. And then I said this and so I just want to um play this portion of what, what I said,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=56m13s 56:13]
Brian Hales: you know, maybe I have one more question for you that, that's, that's more on the personal side and, and maybe we can put it last year. I don't know if we're getting to the end here, but you, so you can delete it if you want. But um what, what is your end game?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=56m27s 56:27]
Michelle: OK. So I guess that was where I was playing the question and then I'll fast forward. So that was my answer, what it was composed of. And then, um let's see. I thought I had more of what he said. Yes. Let me go. Let me just fast forward. Thanks for being patient with us. Everyone on this live. I want to go forward to the last part of my answer that he completely ignored and said he couldn't understand anything of what I was saying. So I'll get there as where is it? And I'm almost there. Let's see if this is it. Ok. Here it is. That was the other thing I was going to say. I do feel very strongly that um I think we both mourn about people leaving the church and the church losing so many members. And for me, I, I just strongly believe one of the main reasons that happens is because we attribute the mistakes of man to God. And, and so people think if that's who God is, you know, and a lot of people go to not even believe in God at all. And, and in my, most
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=57m32s 57:32]
Brian Hales: of them do they leave the, the supernatural and embrace the natural world and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=57m37s 57:37]
Michelle: right? And I, and I think that's a loss. I, I think there are a lot of different paths that people take, but I, I want the church to be able to keep more people rather than lose more people. And I think that letting people see this through fresh eyes and say, oh, maybe God does love me in the way that Jacob two thir 231 and 32 teach me rather than how Doctor Covenants 1, 32 section 63 views of verse 63 or whatever other verses about women just as possessions and his property with no feelings and their lives don't matter. And that's really what we see happen throughout. Like every time it establish the women are means to powerful men's ends rather than independent beings who matter themselves, who's seen and are valued, who are seen and valued. So that's, that's my end goal. I don't have an end goal other than I'm just trying my best to do what I feel inspired at this point to do it. And, and I think that people being able to see God more directly rather than through all these sort of muffled lenses of, I believe false traditions, which I believe the book of woman warns us about. I believe that allows people to connect to God more um more purely, more truly. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=59m06s 59:06]
Cheryl Bruno: That's just too many words. It's hard to understand. What do you, what is your end game? You have not explained it in great detail to me. That's the, it's almost like purposely closing his eyes to a very um beautiful answer that you gave him about that. How can he not understand what your end game is after hearing that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=59m32s 59:32]
Michelle: Right? It was a lot of words but that there it was, he asked me this and then answered a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=59m38s 59:38]
Cheryl Bruno: lot of words, right? A lot of words, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=59m42s 59:42]
Michelle: And, and I, I think the thing that's shocking to me is that um or, or what after thinking about this because like you can see from my perspective how shocking this was, right? And, and upsetting how the whole thing was and it, it, it was like, it, I've had a kind of bad based on all of this, you know, and um and so the thing that I am learning from this, I think that in that question being asked again, I think Brian is revealing something about himself because I very clearly answered his question. And I think that maybe what the issue is is he can't comprehend, not having a false agenda. So the fact that I didn't tell him what my false agenda is maybe makes him incapable of hearing that I gave him an answer. I do you have a better thought?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h00m32s 1:00:32]
Cheryl Bruno: Yeah, I mean, uh that's a lot of times we can see um people better through their criticism of other people, right? It tells us a little bit about themselves and, and why didn't he understand that your um end game was altruistic, you know? Um Right. Why, why didn't he catch on to that? Is it possibly because, and um I'm just guessing here, but he has shared before why he got into the subject of Mormon polygamy and it was very personal to his life. And so he has an, an objective um that he can res you know, I want to, I wanna make people not practice polygamy like my sister. You know, I don't want them to get involved in the snares of um evil polygamists who are trying to bring, you know, so, so, I mean,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h01m28s 1:01:28]
Michelle: I, I don't even know if that's where he explains that the reason. He, at least when I've heard him and maybe, you know, more, he explains the reason he got into it. It is because he had family members that became polygamist. But, but he, but I didn't ever sense him. I just kind of thought that was his, his introduction into it. And then I really do think that he just, this is a vehicle for him to have importance to have relevance that, you know, and, and maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I've repeatedly gotten. So I'm, I'm curious to see because I do think it's interesting that he seems oblivious to an alt altruistic purpose that there has to be and, and I don't want to be unfair. But, but that was bizarre. That was bizarre that he asked that question and, and said that I hadn't answered it other than
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h02m17s 1:02:17]
Cheryl Bruno: it's almost like I have this slide. Let me use it again, even though she's already, let's not let it go to waste.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h02m26s 1:02:26]
Michelle: Right. Crazy. He didn't even, he made this slide new. He didn't, you can see in my, in my episode with me, he didn't even have the slide it was a question he asked during it. So he went ahead and made a slide. Yeah, it's very, very
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h02m38s 1:02:38]
Cheryl Bruno: strange and just shows it's, it really points up that he was not listening to you. You know, he's not listening to you. He's silencing your voice. And please, as you too, I'm sure that Brian and, and Steven will watch this. But as you two watch this, please take this to heart.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h02m58s 1:02:58]
Michelle: And yes, it's clear that they haven't listened to me at all through my pod. Neither of them has engaged with my podcast at all. And then they felt like they were the one that they could get up there in their complete ignorance and just nothing but assumptions of what I must think and present on it. It's shameful. I'm like, shame on you, shame on you, you know, thank you for apologizing, but put it back up and Brian certainly hasn't apologized.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h03m27s 1:03:27]
Cheryl Bruno: And um it seems like that um if people are going to call him and call his attention to you and say this is a voice you need to listen to that, he would actually um maybe look at a few of the things you've said or at least have some kind of talking points rather than to just say, well, I, I am going to dismiss her because I go with the scholarly view. And um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h03m52s 1:03:52]
Michelle: so he insulted me that I'm not a scholar, which is,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h03m57s 1:03:57]
Cheryl Bruno: yeah, he is not. And not only does he go with the scholarly view because that's what his, his knee jerk reaction is. But also just, um, um, I don't know, like kicking you in the face saying I'm not even going to take you seriously enough to see if you have an argument, even though my friends have told me that you're someone I should be listening to. So.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h04m20s 1:04:20]
Michelle: Right. Right. Yes. And so, um, anyway, so I think this is, this was just downloading music. I have a few more clips if we're OK to keep going. I, I think it's important. So he, he plays just a clip of my fundamental question in my episode where I say is polygamy of God. I said this is the fundamental question we need to answer is polygamy of God. And in response to that, he says throughout our history, um Well, first of all, he quotes John Taylor. So I wanna let everyone hear how he responds to my question about his polygamy of God. He quotes a series of polygamists of polygamous men. That is his answer every time. So he quotes John Taylor that he says himself throughout our history. Other church leaders and church historians have verified that this is really the position that plural marriage was practiced and that it came from God. And then he refers to the gospel topics, essays and going on and on about how involved he was and how he got to basically have. So much of, you know, he was the one who shaped those. He is the one providing the church with their narrative. So he's saying, look at all of the ways this question has already been answered. Here are the polygamous men. There are the gospel topics, essays. Then he um cites saints and then he goes on on the Joseph Smith papers narrative. All of those I have done episodes expressing my disgust Whitney Horning and I did, I released it in two parts called um Historical Malpractice on how upsetting we find those sources to be and how very dishonest. And we, so anyway, so those are his reputations to show how wrong I am. And then, let's see. Um Oh, and then let me, let me um, play this next clip. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h06m01s 1:06:01]
Cheryl Bruno: while you're doing that, I think that, um, it seems like that. Oh, no, now I've, now I've lost a um, what were we just, what are we just saying?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h06m15s 1:06:15]
Michelle: Ok, I'll grab the clip and you'll be thinking about like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h06m19s 1:06:19]
Cheryl Bruno: ok, yeah. And now I remember, um, so I was going to say that you don't necessarily have to agree with, um, your point of view or you don't have to disagree with Brian that, you know, that, um, you don't have to disagree with what these prophets have said. You know, you can, you can have a belief in polygamy. Um But at least give you the benefit of the doubt that you have addressed these things and speak to what you've actually said about it then rather than what is in your mind of what you've said
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h06m51s 1:06:51]
Michelle: about it. Right. Which is apparently nothing. I don't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h06m55s 1:06:55]
Cheryl Bruno: know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h06m56s 1:06:56]
Michelle: Right. Right. So I'll play this little clip and then I'll tell a little bit more of what he goes on to say.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h07m03s 1:07:03]
Brian Hales: Um, what we find here is Michelle is asking a question that from my perspective has been answered over and over and over by church leaders and church historians. Um But it's an answer that apparently doesn't work, at least for her. And if we look further into the podcast, what we find is that she gives her own answer to the question.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h07m22s 1:07:22]
Michelle: And so it is impossible to claim that polygamy is or ever could be any part of the gospel. So, and he leaves it on this picture. So I will too. But that's after I've laid, I've spent 2/2 hours laying out the case. He plays just by conclusion. And then this is what's hilarious. This is how he goes on to refute the entire very well thought out um body of evidence that I lay out, he ignores it and then refutes it in this way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h07m55s 1:07:55]
Brian Hales: OK. So, so here she's um saying that it's impossible that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h08m01s 1:08:01]
Michelle: that, well, I guess he takes a long time. So I'll take it off and I'll just, I'll just tell you because what this is where to show how a website. Wanted to remove that to show how wrong I was. He played, he reads quotes for Brigham, Young John Taylor, Wilfred Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F Smith. What do those five men all have in common? Should we all say it together? The early
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h08m26s 1:08:26]
Cheryl Bruno: polygamists in the Mormon Church.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h08m28s 1:08:28]
Michelle: Right. Right. My case has never been that that group of men were not polygamous or didn't believe in polygamy. Right. My case is that they were not correct on this topic. And what's also bizarre is that he, he talks about being a transparent system. Ok, Brian, why don't you play the rest of the, of their teachings? Why don't you go through the entire journal of discourses and explain how we need to agree with every single thing they say the entire, um, complete discourses of Brigham Young and show us how everything they say we need to agree with in order to be in the church. It's so dishonest.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h09m03s 1:09:03]
Cheryl Bruno: Right? And that's, um, another point I was going to make in the beginning too that I just kind of left out but was just that, um, he's, he's setting these five men up as our authorities on polygamy, but he doesn't, um, talk about when they changed their minds or when they were wrong and we don't believe in, um, infallibility in our church. That's not what we believe in. And we know that they can make mistakes and we know that sometimes, um, they've gone a different, like even my own lifetime when we changed the um the mission, um the men, young men would go on missions for 18 months. And then that didn't work out and they came out and they said, yeah, we tried this and it didn't work. And so now we're gonna go back, you know, and that's ok with everyone because we know that we have continuing revelation in our church and that's an important part of our church. And so we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h09m54s 1:09:54]
Michelle: also, oh, sorry, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. We also don't believe in prophetic infallibility. We can just say they were wrong. Deseret book just published Paul Reeves book and their little series, the let's talk about series which, which finally admits that the priest, that the racial policies of the church started with Brigham Young and that they came from him and quotes a lot of what he says about it, right? Not all we all reject that and, and good thing we do, right? And so for him to cherry pick this also, it's fascinating that Brian Hills, I have an episode in the works that I'm working on that's called Orson Pratt versus Brian Hills because Brian Hall gives us his reasons for polygamy from his reading of 132. He's come up with five reasons that he claims while saying like he said on my podcast because I started to talk about Orson Pratt's reasons. And he says, well, no I'm not going to defend Orson Pratt. He was wrong. He was and, and he was in an apostle speaking over the pulpit in, in a general conference assigned by the president of the church. And he throws that out as invalid and yet says, does this to me? Oh, he, he is not about the truth at all. He's just protecting the narrative that he sets in order to protect himself is how it looks to me. And I'm sorry, Brian, I don't want to offend you. I do hope we can have a congenial relationship but you got to stop this. Yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h11m21s 1:11:21]
Cheryl Bruno: And so I, I really just want to keep hitting this point over and over again. Brian, you have said so many times to me and to others, you know, look at my arguments, let's, let's use the arguments, let's use the evidence, let's use the documentation, let's talk about them, let's not talk about personalities, let's not talk about this and that, you know, so and I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h11m45s 1:11:45]
Michelle: go ahead. So if,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h11m46s 1:11:46]
Cheryl Bruno: if he can take, you know, certain documentation and say here's and, and he has it, I mean, I think that part of it he did during that six minutes, I think he brought, you know, up a slide of, of lots of different people who
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h11m59s 1:11:59]
Michelle: had the pro of 132 I have an episode. I'm working on that as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h12m03s 1:12:03]
Cheryl Bruno: So, um you know, if he wants to um take that to you and say, well, let's talk about this and let's look at all the different aspects of this. And what do you, what are you saying to these people and, and um, that kind of thing? And that's what I intend to do with you in the future as well because that's great. Got me hooked
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h12m21s 1:12:21]
Michelle: so good, good. And I'm so excited because I really am. I'm like, well, II, I, the way I started this was when, if I became aware that I was wrong about polygamy, that it wasn't of God and it wasn't the highest holiest law along with the law of consecration that we needed to be able to live so we could establish Zion and that we'd live in the celestial kingdom. That's what I used to think. That's what I believed. And, and I was so shocked when I started to see in the scriptures, how naive I was and how wrong I was that I needed to talk to people about it. I started a Facebook group and I was thrilled that so many polygamist apologists and polygamist scholars joined so I could encounter the very best arguments. I just want the truth. So, so that's why I've been like Cheryl. Please come talk to me about this show me like what sources you think just can't be overcome. So I understand, but I'm not that I'm not missing anything. That's what I want to do. And I think that I I, again, and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h13m20s 1:13:20]
Cheryl Bruno: I need to say, I think she is missing some things and you'll see what I think she's missing. Uh, it's just that I, I can't, um, condone what Brian has done here and, um, not, not addressing the issues head on.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h13m34s 1:13:34]
Michelle: Ok. That's great. And I think we'll talk about things because I don't know if you're aware of all of this stuff that I've done either. So I, you know, I think that it's gonna, it, it is a messy topic and it's just a matter of what, what model fits the best, right is what we're trying to figure out. Yeah. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h13m48s 1:13:48]
Cheryl Bruno: I mean, I've even told Michelle that I feel like a lot of reasons why some of these scholars don't engage with her is because they're not quite up to speed. Like I feel the same way. I feel that I need to like, listen to all your podcasts and get up to speed with what you've said, which I, I know some of it but I, like I said, I haven't um listen to all of it. And so, um but to even it takes a lot of time to, to prepare, understand what criticisms you're making and then to prepare an answer to that and, and not everybody has the time to do that. And especially like maybe Brian, since he feels like he's on to a new subject, he's already done so much time in Mormon polygamy. Maybe he doesn't want to do that. But please be transparent about the fact that you don't feel up to addressing some of these issues if that's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h14m38s 1:14:38]
Michelle: true. And, and right, I, I will say like, well, I, I Cheryl, let's tell people our conversations because I didn't want you to feel like you had to do all of this work. And I'm sure I've like, like my um historical podcasts have been as I've been learning, I, I take one subject, I study it like crazy and I present on it and then I go on to the next one. So I'm, I'm in a very, I say, I feel like I've been drinking from a fire hose trying to learn everything and study so hard. So, Cheryl and I, when we've talked about it, I, I've said, please don't feel like you have to go catch up on every episode. I've done, just let each come and say, hey, I have this source that I can, don't, how do you respond to that? And I'll do the same so we can just learn together because I do think the only thing I'm asking for is some degree of humility and some degree of openness. I think it's fine for people to say, um, you know, ok, that's it. It doesn't look that way to me, but maybe, you know, at least I think you're wrong but let's talk about it. That's all I'm asking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h15m36s 1:15:36]
Cheryl Bruno: is a little bit of a little bit of respect for women's voices. Seems like that has a big thing to do with it that we are women's voices. We should be listening to what prophets have said in the past and we should not be um, um picking at them or we shouldn't be um investigating them as women. We should be um accepting of these things and that's very
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h16m00s 1:16:00]
Michelle: sexist. It is. And I will add to that. So the anti polygamy standard that was started by um Jenny Anderson Froth in Utah, the Utah women who were not Mormon and who saw the s offering of polygamy and were trying to help and trying to advocate against. It started a newspaper where they printed the collections of stories that they gathered throughout the territory and then um she published it into a book. There is some incredibly important um information in that Brian throws it all out because it's, you know, I, I would say because it's just women's and we have what the prophets say that is so unacceptable. It because it doesn't tell the story he wants it to tell and we can't do that. Like as a historian, those sources are every bit as valid and maybe more so because they don't have the same bias that the polygamist voices would have, right? Like it's at least as valid is what I would say. So this is an ongoing problem. So, um OK, let me get my next clip ready All right. So since that video is down, I'm playing more of these clips that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h17m05s 1:17:05]
Brian Hales: we, those were church presidents, Brigham Young through Joseph Smith. So I've just pulled one. I could have found dozens if not hundreds more from these individuals and from other church leaders, the, the 12, those that we uh in the church called prophets, Seers and revelator who are saying that yes, polygamy was revealed from God. And they would also add, if we looked a little closer that came through Joseph Smith. So we have Michelle in this podcast asking a question and answering it in a way that seems to uh reject or dismiss or ignore multiple statements that come from our church leaders.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h17m38s 1:17:38]
Michelle: And I wanna, so that's the part you spoke about that he cherry picks quotes from these five polygamous men implying that I am not a member of the church in good standing because I disagree with these 18 hundreds quotes from polygamist men, right? And then yes, this is what you addressed as well. I'm just gonna fast forward a little bit. So I'll hit to get to the heart of what Steven says in response that I found shocking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h18m06s 1:18:06]
Steve Pynakker: as a member of this church. Um These are her prophets that are making these statements. Now, somebody who's outside of the group can, can just dismiss all of those statements saying, well, that's, you know, they're, they're in on the cover up or whatever however they want to approach it, but Michelle's place is in the church. So I think it's important to, to that why these comments would be relevant to the conversation vis a vis uh her, her, her work that she's doing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h18m31s 1:18:31]
Cheryl Bruno: This is one of the most egregious statements he made. And again, I will once again say Steve, how can you think that this is going to be a safe place for her? After you have said something like this? You have just soundly put her in her place. You know, he,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h18m48s 1:18:48]
Michelle: he literally said Michelle's place is.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h18m52s 1:18:52]
Cheryl Bruno: Others can say this if they don't, if they're not members of the church, but Michelle cannot say this, you know, and I think, you know, to probably um let me just um soften it a little bit because I think maybe where Steve was coming from was he was trying to place um Brian's um argument so that we could see what Bri why Brian was bringing up all these, you know, um why Brian was not engaging with you, why he was talking about, you know what the polygamist uh prophets had said. And so maybe uh Steve was just trying to, to put it in context a little bit, but he did that very poorly,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h19m37s 1:19:37]
Michelle: right? And, and I think it is interesting, I'm glad you said that because this is about my work, the amount of time they quoted me compared to the amount of time they quoted polygamous prophets and I would say again, like, like I appreciate you looking at what Steven was maybe trying to say, but he didn't push back, he didn't say. But what about all of the other things that you disagree with? What? Like he's, he's really being a sycophant here to Brian Hales, which I think is a big part of the problem is that he respects him. So he's gonna bow down and honor everything he says and he's going to treat me with a complete lack of respect. So I'll go on to the next to what happens after this. Well, I'll just tell you what happens. I won't play it. This is where you also quoted that Brian is surprised that I would criticize the apostles. He adds, he uses the words, it's bold, it's gutsy and he's basically, he's, he's flat out saying that it implies that I must not value my membership in the church because members can't do that. So he's again calling for my excommunication as directly as he can. And so I definitely take issue with that. And then there was one thing he said really plainly that I thought was quite shocking and, and just go forward to it. It's just one little statement, but I want to hear, hear it. Um If I can get there, I want to hear people say it himself because I thought it was so surprising. So we'll get there in just one second, the available
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h21m06s 1:21:06]
Brian Hales: sources So they think it's new to everybody when it was really just new to them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h21m10s 1:21:10]
Michelle: So this is again where he's so condescending anytime I have tried to engage with him because I thought he either neglected or misrepresented a source. So I would send him and say, hey, Brian, I just found this. What do you have to say? And, and his response always is that's been dealt with, read my book. I don't know who you think you are. You need to be quiet and, and you are just discovering things that we've known about forever. When the question I was always asking was, this doesn't seem to fit into your narrative, right? And so, and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h21m42s 1:21:42]
Cheryl Bruno: those who have not looked into your work do not understand that they think that it has. And, you know, I have to say that that, that's what I thought when you started the podcast a couple of years ago as well is I thought that, you know, it had been dealt with and it was kind of an, a silly, you know, uh perspective to have. And um I have changed my mind 100%. Um because you have brought out things that are new that and that's what they don't understand is these things that you're bringing out are new ways of looking at things that we have not. Yes, Joseph Smith the third, um you know, had the same basic argument, but there are uh new documents out there, there's a, a variety of things that you've looked into very deeply. Um, the deeds being one of them. Um, that no one has looked at in quite this way before that they, um, are just unaware of, completely unaware
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h22m38s 1:22:38]
Michelle: of. Right? Th Thank you. Thank you so much because I just appreciate that you will validate what I've been trying to say this whole time. There is a discussion to be had that needs to be had. And I really do think that the deception like, like I guess I have to thank Brian Hills for the success of my channel in large part and all of the historical community that has been unwilling to do this because it's left, you know, it's left the whole field of untrodden trodden snow that I get to walk through. And you know, and let's go come tell me
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h23m10s 1:23:10]
Cheryl Bruno: I want to tell all my compassion compadres in the Mormon history field. You know, look, there is this Lacuna and we, we, they were walking right through it and look at the, you know, look at the mass of people that are coming on board. You know, we have to be able to address these things or, you know, we're just, we've lost the battle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h23m31s 1:23:31]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. It makes the historical community less relevant because as we read through the things he cites Saints and the um JSP narratives and the essays, we're so disgusted with them that the historical community has completely lost our trust and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h23m48s 1:23:48]
Cheryl Bruno: not a, it's not a good representation of the historical community. I don't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h23m53s 1:23:53]
Michelle: believe, I agree with you. It, however, it is what we, what is shoved down our throats. It's what we're, we have to read and accept, right? And so the historical community is not, I mean, these are the church produced materials that Brian Hills is spearheading and telling us we must accept or be silent. That's the problem. Yeah. So I'm glad you said that the horse historical community is much more broad than that, but the historical community is not doing itself any favors by letting Brian Hill set the narrative on this, which is exactly what they're doing. So OK, let me play this shocking thing that he goes on to say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h24m29s 1:24:29]
Brian Hales: and that may be it, you know. Um and, and Steve, I appreciate you coming at this from the position of an evangelical. But, but let me just point out that, that I think we in the church um have to be kind of careful
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h24m43s 1:24:43]
Michelle: that is a shocking admission that we as members of the church are not allowed to think and speak. We're under a gag order. That's how Brian wants it to be. And that's the only way he can engage. And that's what he came on to my podcast to tell me, I, I think that every member of the church and I hope every church leader is doing some serious soul searching, if that is the narrative we want to lead, right? If we want it to be, you cannot, if you're a member of the church, you have to be careful, you better watch what you say or, or you're gonna be kicked out. Does that strike you the same way? I um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h25m21s 1:25:21]
Cheryl Bruno: yes. And, and uh like I said, I just, I almost, I, I want to um you know, divide Brian from what other Mormon historians feel about the subject because I don't, I don't feel he represents us and I'm sorry that Steve has given him such a voice here and not really. And I feel like Steve will think that he is giving a voice to everyone, but he is prioritizing one of the voices that matters probably the least in this whole discussion now because Brian has become obsolete. Um I think that Don Bradley has kept himself um in the game and he may be beating around the with you quite a bit. Um I've seen that criticism but I feel like he's trying to build and he don is trying to build a um scaffolding from which he can then make his, his um arguments. Um So I think he's at least listening to some of the things you have to say. Um So I just feel like Steve really dismissed the boat on this so much that he thought that Brian would be a good person to come on to introduce us. To the topic, those of us who don't know anything about Michelle that, you know, they would be introduced to you um through Brian Hales like this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h26m48s 1:26:48]
Michelle: What in the world, right? What in the world? And so anyway, so yeah, he, he goes on, I'm just gonna have this is where Steven says that Brian is making a valid point by saying church members need to watch what they say, you know, you come,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h27m02s 1:27:02]
Steve Pynakker: come with a perspective. But I think that Brian is making a valid point that as a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, this conventionally, you know, you're supposed to, I mean, the whole point of this is that being part of that organization is that you're supposed to, you know, you, you, you're to follow a profit, you know, and, and, and that's, that's kind of the whole setup, that's the way it's been. So Michelle's kind of doing something different and I just think,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h27m27s 1:27:27]
Cheryl Bruno: oh, yes. Oh and Steve, um from his back, coming from his background betrays his um perception of mormonism that he does not understand what sustaining a prophet means to the vast majority of the church. Is that not that we, you know, will listen to every, you know, I mean, there was a whole group of people, people um when, during the pandemic that said, well, I don't think that Rosalin Nelson is correct on this, you know, and I don't think I should get a vaccination. Um And so, and you know, that it's not like we follow everything blindly, you know, and prophets are there to lead us and to guide us and we do respect to them and we take their word seriously, but it's not like we say, ok, we shut up now because, you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h28m20s 1:28:20]
Michelle: well, this is how I approach it also. We like we just had our word conference and then our state conference and we sustain our state leaders and we sustain our world leaders. It's exactly the same word and exactly the same concept. So when I sustain my local leaders, what does that mean? Right. I, I try to do what I can to help them and to be a useful member. And I always err on the side of obedience, I listen to them and you know, but that does not mean that I think that everything they do is infallible or flawless or that I could never disagree with something they did or see that they handled something badly. That's ridiculous. So, so why would we like, I, I just want us to all under understand what sustain actually means like, like we're supposed to sustain our spouse as well, you know, and I would not be a good spouse if I always just said, yes, dear, yes, dear. Yes, I never said, hey, babe, I think we need to talk about this, right? Like one of the ways we sustain is by also saying, hey, just so, you know, this, I have a, I, I would like to talk about this, this I have a problem with this, right? I mean, we're not constantly complaining but we're supposed to stay sustain all of our church leaders in exactly the same way. And what I hate about this again, Steve, I mean, this is unbelievable to me that he as someone not a member of our church in a discussion about polygamy is repeatedly validating and adding to telling a woman to shut up. Right. There's no woman that I can point to her and say, oh, look, II, I can, I can quote her and be in good company, right? Like we have to do it on our own power. And then we're being told if you disagree with what the men have said 100 years ago, the polygamous men who would never give women a voice, then you need, then you, there's no place for you in this church and Steve just jumps on the bad wagon. Yeah, there's no room for her in this church instead of at least pointing out maybe that's a problem.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h30m13s 1:30:13]
Cheryl Bruno: Right. And where in his apology did he even recognize that he's doing anything of the sort he does not recognize and that's why his apology falls flat because he doesn't understand what he is apologizing for and what he needs to apologize
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h30m27s 1:30:27]
Michelle: for. Right. Right. He has not tried to reach out to me to understand what it is that maybe I am objecting to. And uh so I want to play this little clip because this is something that I have talked to Brian about in the past. And I think this also again, kind of reveals something not, not only about Brian, but maybe about men more broadly who support polygamy as being from God that I find really troubling. And so I'm just going to play this short little clip right here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h30m57s 1:30:57]
Brian Hales: either. I want to understand. I don't like polygamy. It's unfair. Men can do it. Women can't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h31m02s 1:31:02]
Michelle: that little clip right there. I've, I've addressed this to Brian. How offensive I find that to be because so, Cheryl, if you had permission to do polygamy, isn't it? Just, is it the only bad thing about polygamy is that you can't do it, don't you want to just be marrying a bunch of men and sleeping around with a bunch of men? He's, he's saying the thing that's unfair about it is that men get to do it. Yay. Good luck as we get to do it and women don't get to. So it's not fair.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h31m34s 1:31:34]
Cheryl Bruno: It's not fair. Yeah. He doesn't see the unfairness in polygamy. He, he sees it from a very male centric view. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h31m41s 1:31:41]
Michelle: He thinks that we would all like he wants polygamy and he, men get to do it. It's a, it's a privilege. It's a great benefit for men that women don't get to have the same privilege. Instead of seeing that for me as a woman, my objections to polygamy are so much deeper and more profound than that. I want a marriage with my husband where there is trust and love and unity without any intrusion. In addition, I don't want to believe in a God that sees me as nothing but an, a reward of a piece of an object, uh a thing to be given and taken that doesn't have any independent thought, desire, the experience. Like that's why I, that's what I laid out in that episode. That Jacob two makes it clear how God sees women. Jacob two and three, that God cares deeply about the experiences of women. 132 makes it very clear that women are irrelevant, their feelings don't matter at all. That is our problem with polygamy. It's not that we don't get to have sex with a bunch of other men. Can we please stop addressing it this way?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h32m49s 1:32:49]
Cheryl Bruno: Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h32m51s 1:32:51]
Michelle: Am I saying too much? Sorry. Go
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h32m53s 1:32:53]
Cheryl Bruno: ahead again. It's some, I don't agree with you on. But, um, but I, I can't um fathom um Brian's Brian's stance on this, you know, because it is so, it's so male centric and it's so um dismissive of women and it's so dismissive of any concerns that people would have.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h33m16s 1:33:16]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. And, and maybe I was too strong on that. I don't want to imply that Brian wants polygamy. That's how, that's how I hear this, but I wouldn't, I'm not going to speak to his feelings and thoughts just when I, I would like to request that we stop talking about polygamy in this way, Brian is one of the main, you know, he's the one that goes on the podcast. He's the one that he's the main voice about Polym and I'm going to request that we stop addressing it in this way saying this is what women's objection is to it or this is why it's unfair. It's a completely different, different.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h33m52s 1:33:52]
Cheryl Bruno: And I mean, you've, it's not like you haven't said what your objective is. So why is he putting words in your mouth or thoughts in your head with when you've been very clear on what your objectives objections are?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h34m05s 1:34:05]
Michelle: Right? And so I'm gonna take this off for a minute because I'm, I didn't play any clips from his entire long point about transparency. But I did want to point out just a couple of things that I think he's ignoring when he's the one being the II, I just can't say the word. The transparency is, it's such a silly made up word. But um but again, that was an overview episode, but in his entire thing, when he's talking about how he is a transparency and he brings up word and he's the expert. I just want to bring up one example that he completely ignores that is. Um, well, let's see if this is where I wanted to talk about it. Um, well, ok, I, I guess I'm going out of order a little bit. So let me, let me go back. I apologize. I'm doing, I was doing the wrong thing. So let me add this back and I'm gonna play this next clip and then I'll go
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h34m56s 1:34:56]
Brian Hales: into a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h34m57s 1:34:57]
Michelle: Jacob did it into that part that I wanted to talk about. It's um oh yeah, he goes on to say you, you can't say that it's not of God. But um let's see. Oh, this is it. I'm, I'm going right. So I'm skipping over the whole transparency discussion. I'll get back to it and going ahead to write um 35 09. This part, my editor called me and laughed aloud. Oh, is this OK. So go ahead. OK. I'm gonna play this part like every other scripture Joseph Smith ever brought forth and everything he ever said or wrote on the topic adamantly denied and forbid polygamy in as much as this church has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy. We declare that we believe one man should have one wife and one woman but one husband.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h35m51s 1:35:51]
Brian Hales: Ok. Um One thing that I I'm pretty sure Michelle was aware of is that this particular phrase doesn't say exactly what she said that it says,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h36m06s 1:36:06]
Michelle: OK, it's still on the screen. I read it, word for word and then he responds by saying it doesn't say what I said that it says, do you see how you did was read it? I read it, I read it, I read it and he is implying I read it wrong. Like this is the level of gas lighting that I encounter both in the polygamy discussion but also from Brian. While the, the, the just audaciousness of this, that while it is even on the screen highlighted and underlined, he says it doesn't say what I said. It says, well, I'm being dishonest.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h36m45s 1:36:45]
Cheryl Bruno: Well, here is where I have to um jump on Brian's side for a minute because um he is like, he, he is um projecting, he's projecting what you, how you will read this and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h37m02s 1:37:02]
Michelle: say that he, that he interprets it differently or that he would say it means, but he said, it doesn't say what I said, it said. So, yeah, go ahead. I'll let you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h37m12s 1:37:12]
Cheryl Bruno: there. He did misspeak there. But um I think his point is pretty clear that he makes this point pretty clear that this, this passage can be read two different ways and, you know, polygamy, deniers read it one way and polygamy um defenders read it another way and um I think that he doesn't really have time to make the case for this. Um I have talked to Michelle about this particular passage before and I feel like what we need to do is kind of look at the whole issue of, you know, how did did Joseph Smith, was he, um, being upfront with, um, every statement that he made about polygamy. And let's look at different states, like, let's, since that statement, we can't decide how we're going to necessarily um, interpret it because it can be interpreted these two different ways. One group thinks it's stupid to interpret it, you know, that way. But, but it's not, it's, it's, there's room in that statement to interpret it two to, right? OK. Let's look at some other statements that and maybe Brian didn't have time to do this fully and um hopefully you and I can do it fully. So this is, this is one place where I don't but, but for him to say, oh, she, she didn't, she said it wrong when you just, all you did was quote the scripture. That was a little bit
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h38m38s 1:38:38]
Michelle: and just to quickly, just to quickly continue with what we're talking about. And I know this isn't the only time to have this discussion, but I will say, OK, then let's look at other 1835 writings from Joseph and see where he is. Not. Let's not, let's not look at how we're rereading Jacob 230 which is, is troubling. Like I think that polygamists are expert at saying that words say the opposite of what they very clearly mean. If I tell my child, you can have one cookie. Everybody knows what that means and, and Brian Hills goes on to say, every linguist will tell you this has two interpretations. I think you have to torture it, especially when it goes on to say, except in the time and case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again, especially when it, the whole thing is phrased is in, in response to the accusations of polygamy, then we can add things like one other thing that I think it was Joseph F Smith, but I'd have to look up said is that this wasn't written by Joseph Smith. It was written by Oliver Cowdrey and, and so they try to take Joseph Smith out of it completely as another way to reject it. It was used by every organization in the church and the presidency, the relief site he published in the newspapers often to say we are not doing polygamy, right? And then in addition, John Taylor in 1850 I think in France used this, he had 12 wives at the time and used this to claim that that what what did he say? We are accused here in his, in his debate, we are accused here of polygamy and actions the most indelicate ob obscene and disgusting such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These are too outrageous to admit to admit of belief. Therefore, leaving the sisters of the white veil and the black veil and all he goes on. But anyway, what he goes on to use to refute them is he p he prints this, this part of it. So they all used it to say this, they know exactly what it said. And then in addition, when 132 was added in the 1880 Doctrine and covenants, everyone says 1876 but it was actually printed in 1880. This was removed. And so to claim that like, like this was universally understood, that was just one of Joseph F Smith's arguments so we can get into it later. But I just want, we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h40m50s 1:40:50]
Cheryl Bruno: will, we will definitely get into it. And it's um it's very um I feel like I have a good kiss for it. You feel like you have a good kiss for it. So it should be very interesting. Um But I will say that this is probably the one place in this whole podcast where he actually did. What I think, you know, he should have done is uh is um take one of your arguments and then explain why, why he, why he doesn't disagree. It's a good argument and why he disagrees. And so, so if he could have done that throughout the podcast, I would not have had as much issue with him because he was in that case, he was actually um engaging something you had said. So, yeah, I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h41m34s 1:41:34]
Michelle: I do. That was better than the rest. But I will say that even if he had spent the whole time engaging with what I said without me there to, without ever engaging with me first, it still wouldn't have been ok and, and I would have loved to go head to head with him on this. So, um, and there's more to be said on it. I think so. Ok, I'm going to, this is another point that I think is important and is of why I'm doing this and I think we're just about done. There are just a couple more that I want to um talk about. So I'll play
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h42m02s 1:42:02]
Brian Hales: this one. We didn't know each other very well. So I, I have to confess. II, I realize people are, are very energized by this topic and understandably so um sex and religion are red button topics no matter where or when we're talking and then you throw it in to Joseph Smith who we love and I love just as you do and I wish he hadn't had to do it. See, my version of Joseph Smith is a guy who didn't want to do it. This angel that he reported coming three times. Um And he first came in 1834 according to the accounts and then came a third time. The last time he's got a, a sword, it's not a flaming sword, but it's a sword saying Joseph, we really want you to do this. The reason in my mind that Joseph Smith I believe in is because Joseph didn't want to do it. He didn't want to hurt Emma.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h42m45s 1:42:45]
Michelle: Ok. This, this hits on why I'm doing what I'm doing. Do you ha, do you have any response to that first before I go off? Um,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h42m54s 1:42:54]
Cheryl Bruno: yeah. Um, I think that it's interesting to me to see people's response to that. D, everyone has a different idea of why Joseph Smith did it or didn't do it. Um, and it's almost like, uh, you know, a Touchstone where we can see, like people's hearts almost, uh, when they, when they feel they understand why Joseph was doing this. And I have, of course, a very different one, which one of these days we'll discuss, um, I have a very different kind of idea of what Joseph Smith's motivation was in my head. And so I just find it interesting to look and see that and, and you can almost just apply it, you know, to Brian in a way, you know, because, because we all tend to do that or like, if I was Joseph Smith, what would I have been thinking? You know, if I was Joseph Smith and I did such and such, what would I have been thinking in my head? You know how I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h43m49s 1:43:49]
Michelle: have been? And I think that's a fair thing to do. The thing that I object to so much in this is what I said to Brian in response to why I'm doing what I'm doing. It is attributing to God the mistakes of man. Brian's narrative on polygamy is by far the most harmful one. Here we have Joseph and he didn't want to hurt Emma. But God said an angel that was going to kill him if he didn't betray his wife. So it makes God deplorable for women. It turns God into a monster. And, and that is, that is the central issue that my entire podcast is focused on is this lie about God. And that's why I find this to be so upsetting. And actually, I do, I do get upset by it because you are telling all of these, well, both men and women, right? But I think that it is more like is more often hurting the women to tell them this is who their God is in regard to them. And I object to that with my entire being. I like that is what I want to put a stop to completely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h44m58s 1:44:58]
Cheryl Bruno: So how much richer of a conversation Steve would this have been if you had, you know, just even, I mean, you could have a whole podcast about that one thing but to present um Brian's Brian's view of it and to present Michelle's view of it and to have both of those views being supported and validated and heard that would have been a very rich conversation to have. Um and you lost out there.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h45m27s 1:45:27]
Michelle: Yes. Thank you. Thank you for addressing that. So, so just for the rest, I won't play any more clips. But I, I do also, like I said before, this is, I have a quote from Steve because I object to his excuses of why he hasn't had me on. I think he hasn't had me on because Rick Bennett and I have a good relationship from gospel tangents. We joke around with each other. He has no respect for my perspective. He doesn't understand that he just, I'm going against the historical narrative, the consensus. So I must be dumb. You know, even though everyone I engage with, they, they wake up to some things that they didn't know before and, you know, and I, I've told them I'm gonna win you over. He's gonna owe me dinner. One of these days is our joke. But I know that Steve really admires Rick and Rick has refused to have me on because he won't have polygamy di on. He had me on to talk about Marshall Kaufman, but he won't have me on to talk about this topic. And I think that Steve and then also John Dely won't have me on to talk about this topic. So I think that Steve is maybe taking his cues from those guys that he admires, which I can understand that. But, but I object to him not just acknowledging that because what he keeps saying and what he said to me in our phone calls is polygamy is not that my topic. That's why I haven't had you on. But then he said, so he says that in this podcast as well. But then he goes on to say, literally say I've had, I've had polygamous on, I've had lots of Polyus on Brian Shafer has been on many times and then he talks about how he had an wild on and, and he talks about how much he loves Ogden Kraut. Like, please don't like ardent crowd is horrific. I just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h47m00s 1:47:00]
Cheryl Bruno: not supposed to make you feel better. I mean, is that like, what is that? What you, I think he's trying to show that he's open minded in that way, but he, it's not making his point for him.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h47m14s 1:47:14]
Michelle: No, no, he's contradicting him. He won't just be honest. He, he can't, he has to come up with excuses for why he hasn't had me on because he knows that he should have had me on. Right. And, and then even when he has me on, he doesn't have me on. He has my biggest detractor on who's trying to silence me. And so yeah, he goes on after I haven't delved into polygamy. It's not one of the things I want to talk about. He continues that quote by saying we've done a lot on polygamy on this channel, but we've never done the issue that we talked about today. The issue about you've
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h47m43s 1:47:43]
Cheryl Bruno: done, it's not that you haven't done the issue. It's that you have only done one side and you haven't presented the other side.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h47m50s 1:47:50]
Michelle: Yes, he hasn't presented the other side. And when he finally does, he doesn't have, I, I feel so massively disrespected, so massively insulted. I do feel like this is horribly horribly sexist. Not only because they are two men which they like, Steve invited a man on to this. Yes, polygamy. Right. If, if I were a man, I would still want to be invited on this just gives it a whole new angle and the man goes on and represents God as a polygamist and all of the polygamist men. As I said, this is also the man who's calling for my excommunication. Like with the implication on my podcast, I had my picture of me with my baby daughter. He didn't know, but he still put a picture of me up on the screen saying I needed to be excommunicated, which implies that I would never see my little girls again, right? Like, like there are so many layers to this that are incredibly offensive. And I, I do, I don't ever wanna say I'm speaking on behalf of all women, but I do want to be a voice for women in this church that I desperately desperately hope the church does not excommunicate me because I feel like telling women that you need to be like letting Brian Hales win the day, telling all of us that he's right that men set the standard men are the ones that get to talk about this topic, women that are shut up as, and, or, and sit down or be kicked out of the church. I desperately hope that that is not the mess, mess. I hope that we can just say that's Brian and he's speaking for and I'm sorry, I'm, I'm not being emotionally manipulative, which is the other thing I get accused of because when Brian put my picture up, no,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h49m38s 1:49:38]
Cheryl Bruno: I, I can, I jump in here because I think that um from what I understand of that incident, we need to talk about this a little bit more. Um what Brian did was he had um from what I understand he had you on one side of the screen and he on the other side with prophets and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h49m55s 1:49:55]
Michelle: apostles and President Nelson, President Nelson and him and me,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h50m00s 1:50:00]
Cheryl Bruno: you were on the other side with your darling baby daughter who would die that very day. Um So, I mean, don't feel bad about getting emotional because what he was implying when he put that screen up was I am on the side of the prophets and apostles. I am on the right side, Michelle is on and like I told you, this is very serious accusation that he's making that he she is apostate. She if she is truly an apostate and she loses, loses her membership in the church, she is, you know, condemned to never be with those sweet Children again. And I am I I still do not. And, and Brian in this podcast, he actually referred to this, but he did not explain it and he did not show that he understood in any way why it was emotional for you, why it was damaging for you. He, he did not understand that. And, you know, I, I can see as he, as he talked about it and he was like, yeah, she and she got a little emotional and I said I was sorry, I profusely apologized and we went on, you know, and it was it when I found out what was behind all that, it, it, it just devastated me that he could not wrap his mind around what he had actually done in, in that, in having that situation there. It's just uh so egregious,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h51m29s 1:51:29]
Michelle: it is, it. Thank you. Thank you. It is egregious. And the way he spoke about it again, I um you know, like I'm still, I'm still dealing with this, this happening this week brought up a lot for me. It's like during this week that this all happened, Brian, I got called into my state President's office. It was, it was extremely emotionally taxing, engaging with Brian that first time. And so to have this and, and you know, just like Brian didn't intend to have my picture with my daughter and he defends himself. He again, he doesn't, he doesn't ever sincerely apologize. He never, he said I didn't know it was a Facebook Post. I thought I could use her profile picture. He again defends and justifies himself never expressing the empathy, right? And Steve maybe didn't know all of that, but shame on you, shame on you for doing this again, for bringing this guy on to talk about my work in this way, in this context like no. And so that's why I am making this plea to the church. Whoever happens to be listening to this, please don't send this message to the women in our congregations. Please don't do this to us if you know, I I'm trying so hard to be careful to not cross too far. I I'm, it's really hard, you know, it's hard to be in this space. I feel like I need to be doing what I'm doing. I feel like God directly called me to be doing what I'm doing. I, oh people are gonna come after me. I don't mean I just mean I am following the inspiration from God to me to what I'm doing. And that's my, that's where my loyalty is to God. Please allow room for women to speak about.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h53m10s 1:53:10]
Cheryl Bruno: And from my position too is like saying once again, we need a space for faithful descent. You know, we I'm not only what you said, which is very important, but also um I need a space for faithful descent. I all women need a space to be able to say this doesn't make sense to me you know, let's talk about it, you know, and, and let me, let me tell you what that meant to me to see the two, you know, uh just, uh, because obviously Brian doesn't understand what that meant to you and neither does Steve. And so I'm glad that we have this opportunity to kind of, um, to show them, you know, what our voices are and what a safe space would mean for us and why that is no longer a safe space for. I would say almost any woman, Steve, how can other people go on your podcast and feel like that's a safe space when this has happened and you can try to take it away and make it vanish. But that's why we need to, to, that's why I felt like I needed to come on and present this side of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h54m19s 1:54:19]
Michelle: Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you so much. And, and I wanted, I know we're wrapping up, but I wanted to just add to one thing you said about the importance of making room for dissent, right? I think it is particularly important for women's voices because we are not represented in leadership. And so when I on my podcast show, two examples of apostles saying things that are hurtful to women and Brian cannot like, I need to be able to say this is hurtful, it's hurtful when women's concerns are laughed at, at general conference that's hurtful. And instead of hearing that and trying to understand why that might be women's experience. Instead, he's calling for my excommunication for daring to say it. And so that's why I'm trying to, one of the things I have tried so hard to do is and, and I honor everybody's path. But I've tried to say we don't need to leave the church. This is our church. We can recognize that there have been problems, we don't need to leave. That doesn't need to be our only option, right? That has been a big part of what I've been trying to do, which I expressed to Brian when he asked me that question. So with him calling for me to be kicked out. What does that mean? No, there's not room. Yes, you do have to leave. No, you can't be in the church and have a different and, and you cannot be in the church and believe that God cares and values cares about and values and loves women. You have to be kicked out if you dare say that. So that's my plea.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h55m51s 1:55:51]
Cheryl Bruno: Thank you Michelle. I really, I so much appreciate hearing your voice and I'm so glad that it's gonna be going out and I hope people will take this seriously.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h55m59s 1:55:59]
Michelle: Thank you Cheryl. And everyone can tune in to hear a another conversation we have on Sunday, but I cannot thank you enough. So we'll see you later.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1jINDIriBs&t=1h56m09s 1:56:09]
Cheryl Bruno: Bye.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Criticism]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Brian Hales]][[Category:Historical Malpractice]][[Category:Mormon Book Review]][[Category:Steve Pynakker]]
}}

99: Mormon Meme-ing

2025-08-29T23:04:19Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 99: Mormon Meme-ing
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 99
| date = 2023-12-31
| youtube_id = JrjPaLMgXdk
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Miscellaneous
| summary =
| links = * [https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9881 Brigham Young on fast offerings], December 8 1867, JoD vol 12 pgs 111-116 (Discussion of fast offerings starts last paragraph on page 15)
* [https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/10/lds-church-wont-help/?fbclid=IwAR3i_fPJl9e-pd-6AjKbONi6A7qhNPhpp2Ugu41YrkcoPQpjLHw6B8NqhJ4 Church officially refuses to support vax exemptions]
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/229493556586606/ The Great Apostameme Facebook group]
* [https://www.youtube.com/@IBelieveJoseph I Believe Joseph YouTube channel]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=00m00s 00:00]
Michelle: Happy New Year and welcome to 100 32 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy. What an amazing year it has been here. We are rounding up the year at nearly 10,000 subscribers. I never knew if I would even get to 1000. So this has been amazing. I have learned so much over this year and I hope that those of you who have been on this journey with me also feel like you have learned a tremendous amount. It has been so valuable and productive. And I can honestly say my faith has grown through this journey, which I think is a wonderful thing to be, to be able to say after addressing so many sources and so many challenging topics. So honestly, right, I do not think that truth destroys faith quite the opposite because faith is to have faith in things which are not seen, which are true, right? So true. Faith can only be in truth. And that's what we've been seeking together. It has been such a journey. It's been willing to be here with you. Thank you so much for sticking with me. I have to say I am looking forward to some of the amazing things we have planned for next year. One thing I'll announce right now, we are doing 1/5 Sunday Live Colin Show. Um, next year we might fit in a few others as well. But that's something that I think will be fun. I'm hoping we have some other exciting things happening and if I can pull off what I want to for next week, which will be my 100th episode as well as the first episode of the year. I think it will be amazing. So plan to tune in for that for sure. And, and hopefully there will be some more information coming up in the meantime, for this New Year Eve as episode, I thought it would be fun to just do something a little bit lighter and a little more fun and to enjoy kind of a record of the past year. So we're just doing a year end meme review, which I think will be great. I have gotten into memes a bit this year. It's been fun for me. So I wanted to share that journey with anyone, any of you that aren't there yet and for any that are already there, I think you'll have a lot of fun remembering some of these along with us. So thank you so much for being here as we take this deep dive into the not that murky water of Mormon memory. Welcome to this New Year's Eve episode of 100 32 problems. I am really excited about this episode and hoping it will be a fun one to, to round out the year. I am here with my new friend and now my good friend Jeremy and Jeremy is names and faces have been changed to protect the identity of the innocent. So we will explain a little bit more as we go on. But um we have a lot of people in various communities who don't feel free at this time to have a strong online presence without using a pseudonym. Am I correct about that, Jeremy?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=03m07s 03:07]
Jere-meme: That's true. That's very true.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=03m09s 03:09]
Michelle: Ok. So we went ahead and went with the old school identity protection rather than using a um AAA different, a different new tech method. This worked, this works better for us and I thought was more fun. So I first reached out to Jeremy and asked him if he would be interested in doing this episode and he really wanted to but couldn't. So we, we, we thought this was a really good solution. So, so I'm very happy to introduce you to Jeremy. Um Well, I should I guess introduce the topic that we're talking about. What we are talking about is the power of memes. That's what this episode is about. Jeremy is one of the founders or maybe the founder of the group, the can, can I say it on, on the channel Jeremy? Ok. So it's this great group that I suddenly was added to that. I was like, what is this magical new land of joy and happiness and humor? And it's called, it's called The Great Aposto meme, which even the name itself is a meme because um well, I, I'm sure we will talk about it as we go on in the presentation that Jeremy has put together. We, we were deciding on names. We, I, I was kind of leaning toward Archimedes, but Jeremy chose Jeremy instead. So, so that's the name that we are going with. And I'm really excited like this might seem like a completely light frivolous topic. This is actually our second time recording this episode. And I, the first time I was kind of just amazed by how important memes actually are in our culture. And so I'm excited to bring you this information. So, first, welcome Jeremy. Is there anything you would like to or feel free to tell us about yourself?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=04m48s 04:48]
Jere-meme: Well, I, I'm one of those that's kind of partially in and partially out uh with regards to my um how should you even say it? Um I call it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=05m01s 05:01]
Michelle: nuanced belief that work.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=05m05s 05:05]
Jere-meme: There you go. Excellent. That works for me. But I mean, it's, it's, this is kind of for fun too, just to kind of represent those that are in the situation. And um you know, it, it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to find out who I am,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=05m16s 05:16]
Michelle: right? But we did, I, there was another um another member I, I had reached out to, to include in this conversation who also uses a pseudonym. I think his pseudonym is. Can I say that I'm sure I can. His online presence in the group is Dale Dingman and he has come up with some hilarious memes and he also had the decline for decline for the same reason. So shout out to Dale and shout out to the others that I have invited on that just are like, you can't do it, can't do it right now for family reasons or calling reasons or whatever, sometimes employment reasons, whatever it might be people, this is a tricky space for some people. So um even people who are active members who believe in the precepts and the basic tenets of the gospel having nuance can be difficult. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=06m04s 06:04]
Jere-meme: you nail it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=06m07s 06:07]
Michelle: So I don't know, Dale has, I mean, um not Dale, that's someone else. And luckily I did slip and say your real name, Jeremy has put together a presentation for us. So I don't want to like if I ask any questions in the preliminary discussion that you're going to cover, then you could just tell me, I, I am curious like how you started this group and why is that something you're going to talk about or should we talk about that before I can
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=06m31s 06:31]
Jere-meme: mention it now? So, OK, I, I'd like to think that I have kind of a built in humor in my brain that I find the, the humor in most everything and, um, I wanted an outlet for it and I was kind of spamming some other group, you know, where, where I was, uh, putting memes up all the time, you know, as things would come into my brain. And, um, I was like, well, I'll just make my own, you know, I'll just make my own and I think I started it like a year ago, something like that and just didn't uh I don't know, it was more cathartic for me just to put him out there, you know, these ideas that I had and um a handful of people joined and, and now it's grown and grown ever since. And now it's kind of got gotten a life of its own where people are on there, you know, posting all the time. We, we have like 20 whatever posts every day. It's pretty wild. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=07m26s 07:26]
Michelle: and that's not just posts, those are memes that people put together.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=07m30s 07:30]
Jere-meme: That's right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=07m31s 07:31]
Michelle: Wow. OK. So is that what you expected when you started?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=07m35s 07:35]
Jere-meme: Oh, no, no, it was, it was more about me. Just kind of put, having a repository. I wanted to have a place where, you know, you're talking to your uncle and your uncle says, well, I don't know why it says that in the scriptures are like you not willing to talk to you about it, but you could just send him a meme you know, and I wanted to have kind of like a master list where somebody could go through and find memes and um be, be ready for the meme war.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=08m03s 08:03]
Michelle: OK. So you OK. So, and was there something else you were going to say when I asked that question about? I don't think so. Ok, go ahead and interrupt me anytime. But, um, ok, so, so you had humor and mem in your blood. It sounds like you like you were doing memes already before you started your own group to, to keep them? Ok. And so were you mem things before? Well, do you know what? I know my mom who is 89 listens to this podcast, Jeremy. You be willing to define the word meme that we are using that. My mom is probably going to the same
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=08m39s 08:39]
Jere-meme: thing. So, ok. Well, it's in my presentation about 8, 10, 8 fides in or something like that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=08m47s 08:47]
Michelle: Ok. So we will get to that. So anyone who is like, what are they talking about? Just stick around for a few minutes and all of your questions will be answered and you will, this is gonna be a fun one. I'm actually really excited about it. So, um and I have to say, well, well, first of all, I do want to ask because my kids like, you know, I'm, I'm like a very young xer, but nevertheless, an xer I barely fit into that category and I was like, my kids are like mom, you don't get me humor, like, you're not funny, you don't get it, you know. And so, so I was a little bit like, oh, this, I, I'm one of those oldies, like, ok boomers, kind of what they want to say, even though I'm an expert, you know. But this has been fun for, for me because I'm like, no, I totally get memes kids. I, I am on it. I'm doing it, you know. But um so I'm curious to know if you like, have you been making memes for your whole life or your whole internet life or did you start because of this topic? Do you know what I mean? Like, tell me how you got
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=09m49s 09:49]
Jere-meme: into it. So, um I actually come from an art background, like in a, in a, in a former life. I was an artist and I actually had comic comics and papers which was, uh seems like a lifetime ago. But um so I've got that in my brain where I, I look for funny things and then I think of a comic. It's, it's just been a part of me. Um The uh uh I really didn't start meing until I started to see issues with some of my faith matters for sure. Ok. Yeah. Well, not, not in the scale that I, I do now.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=10m30s 10:30]
Michelle: Ok. But it, it, it was, it was your faith journey that motivated your me practice.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=10m36s 10:36]
Jere-meme: Largely, I mean, before that it was just a handful of things I ever did.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=10m41s 10:41]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. That's really good. Um Are there anything else I should ask as preliminaries? Like, let me ask, let me ask one more thing. Sorry, I, I'm, I'm interrupting myself. But, um, did you, when you started me, you said it was kind of cathartic and I want to talk about that going forward too, kind of cathartic and also a way to be creative and to speak to these things. Did you think it was, have you been surprised by how it's more important than you thought it was going to be? Like you kind of mentioned? OK. Yeah, because it's, it's almost like a missionary tool. Like, is that something you want to talk about now or in your presentation?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=11m16s 11:16]
Jere-meme: I'll do that in the presentation. But, you know, um you know, I was, I was listening to a, um a couple of comedians talking the other day. Um It was like an interview show and one comedian was talking to the other ones talking about how in the olden days we could say things like this, but now we'll be canceled and, and that kind of thing. And I was, I was thinking about the overlay with what we're doing with memes where um there's a lot of things that you might see, you might be a total active member of the church but see something funny and you would love to make kind of poke at it, but you're afraid that you're get, you'll get in trouble somehow. And so the great thing about the memes is that you can get that out there without feeling there's gonna be repercussions for it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=11m59s 11:59]
Michelle: Ok? You can speak to the essence of something without having to. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's a subtlety to it and also a directness to it. That's really an interesting, like when they're done well. Ok. And it is also a way not everyone wants to listen to two plus hour podcast on a top, but if you can send them a meme or five memes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=12m22s 12:22]
Jere-meme: Ok. Well, I've listened to some of your, you know, three hour Jeremy hoop episodes and there's a lot of people that would never do that, but we could have our little meme army make 300 you know, me just from one slide and you know, and get it out there.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=12m40s 12:40]
Michelle: Yeah. From Yeah, you're exactly right. So do you want me to add this to sage? Are you ready to go ahead and get started? Let's go for it. Let's go for it. Ok. So this is Jeremy's presentation, which I am really excited for. So take it away.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=12m52s 12:52]
Jere-meme: Ok. Sharing the mean gospel in the struggle for the attention of men and women. So you see this poor little boy tugging on the shirt. Listen, listen, dad, right? As we're trying to share the gospel with people. Um It's all about. Can you get their attention? So this, you know, a lot of us who served missions can look at this picture and go, oh, I remember those days, hours and hours and hours of knocking on doors and, you know, at the end of the day you go. Well, how many people did we talk to? Well, in some areas, very few in the olden days, missionaries work. You might knock on 100 doors and engage one person. They won't open their doors even if they're home. Right. Um, or even if you do get to talk to them, maybe they won't listen to you because you're, maybe you talk too much or they, they're not interested. So, where are people and where do they open their doors? They are online. This sort of information absolutely fascinates me. Uh, and, and it, it blows my mind and, and, and the, I'm not trying to, um, you know, what, what are your sources, that kind of thing? Just know people spend a lot of flipping time on screens. I don't think anybody debates that the average American spends seven hours and four minutes staring at a screen per day. And then that blue, the gen Z is, is the high height of it followed by millennials and then so forth. But less and less is the older you get, I guess. But that is a lot of hours. That's like a full time job staring at a screen
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=14m36s 14:36]
Michelle: that's crazy. And in some ways I would think this is terrible. But watching my kids and their phones in addition to, you know, you almost think it would be higher than that sometimes because I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=14m46s 14:46]
Jere-meme: would think. Yeah, I, I don't know how accurate these are just, I just think it's interesting to see, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=14m53s 14:53]
Michelle: Yeah, it's a substantial amount of time,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=14m55s 14:55]
Jere-meme: substantial. So, American on the right side, their distribution of American screen time TV is 34% video game, 16 movies, 14 online videos, 12 social media, nine other nine and ebook six make up the total amount of screen time. And I was wondering too, I don't know if this even accounts for work, you know, if that is other may, maybe other is work. I don't know, maybe,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=15m24s 15:24]
Michelle: maybe this is, maybe this is just leisure time because for me, the majority of my screen time is work, you know, for, for someone who's a heavy into researcher. But for most of us, I think everybody has a laptop or a desktop open at work. Most people and go ahead. What were you gonna say? Sorry?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=15m43s 15:43]
Jere-meme: Oh, no, no. Yeah, it's not really clear on this if, whether or not work is covered under other or if it's um above and beyond because some people spend, you know, eight hours at work staring at a screen and then if they were seriously another 87 hours whatever. Oh, my gosh. That is a lot of screen time. It's like constant.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=16m03s 16:03]
Michelle: That's my guess. I'm interpreting this to mean like outside of like leisure time in addition to work. That's crazy. Ok,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=16m11s 16:11]
Jere-meme: so there are countless bids for our attention. Um Nowadays, my goodness gracious if you have a screen open, everything wants a piece of you, emails, Facebook advertisements, Tik Tok, help telegram bla bla bla bla you know, we're piled up with all these bids for our attention. We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom. Right? There's Yeah, I like that one. So because of this sheer amount of information we need to sort at top speed. I I love this episode of, I love Lucy if you remember that one, Chocolate Factory Super super fast. Yeah. And then, and then they start shoving them in their mouths and stuff. It's really funny because of this need to sort things constantly. People increasingly have the attention span of hamsters. Hamsters are known for only me being able to focus on any task for longer than a few seconds or often they're unable to Oh my gosh, that crazy. OK. The rule of thumb and digital advertising is that you must capture the user's attention within the first three seconds of the ad or else you risk losing them completely. So because we're just constantly sorting and things are coming at us. If it doesn't catch our attention immediately, boom, it's gone. We, we scroll on through, it's gone. So Oh, look at this little, he's so cute. Right? Um Getting a message out to the truth seekers, the blind, the distracted and asleep through meme and memes. Are this uh Michelle's mommy? This is what a meme is. These pictures you see that are like, oh that's so cute. Look at this little guy when you're back at work Monday morning trying to put on that smile. Oh, trying so hard. Right. Make you laugh. And that kind of thing, you can even spell words wrong. Like they didn't spell the word, you're right. But I was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=18m05s 18:05]
Michelle: gonna say since, since we like, I, I I'm like it's killing me to not address yes. The you is wrong. You, you sort of, it means it's kind of like whatever.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=18m19s 18:19]
Jere-meme: Yeah. OK. Meme defined an image video piece of text, et cetera, typically humorous in nature that is copied and spread rapidly by internet users often with slight variations.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=18m35s 18:35]
Michelle: OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=18m37s 18:37]
Jere-meme: And I would say too regarding the video, usually if it's gonna be video, it's gonna be a very short clip.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=18m43s 18:43]
Michelle: Mhm So it is, it's a so all of the things that are in this present, you can even go to the next slide, all of these slides in this presentation where like the classic idea of a meme is something like this, a picture with some big, some easy to read text on. It just gets a quick idea across, usually, not always. And we had a discussion about this Jeremy, but usually not that much text. It's usually the picture with a quick text that you can read and often humorous. Not always, but that's kind of the idea. Right. It's kind of a, um, we talked about the old Mormon ad campaign. Remember the posters? Those were early memes. Like they have a poster with some text. And so now, but a meme is that same idea online. And I like that it included that as it gets shared, people change it, it gets a life of its own. OK. All right. So mom, I'm hoping you have that. If you don't let me know, we'll try to put more definitions in. So OK, mom and any other great grandmothers, I'm a grandma. You're a grandma. So you're just goes out. So I can't just say grandparents but anyone who doesn't yet get memes, this is what they are. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=19m51s 19:51]
Jere-meme: And this is one that I grabbed up real quick and this is somebody else's meme. A lot of these are other people's memes. So le let's see here. So how others share the gospel, you know, with their books to people, how I share the gospel because one does not simply share the gospel without memes. And people could think people could think memes are just kind of frivolous or silly, you know, but they can really cause an impact. What were you gonna say, Michelle?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=20m18s 20:18]
Michelle: Um I was just gonna say for anyone also they, they do rely heavily on cultural awareness, like, off, like there are lots and lots of movie memes. And so like this, um, the bottom portion of this, everyone who's watched Lord of the Rings knows exactly what that is. Right. One does not simply walk into mordor. Right. And, um, but people who, so, so if you ever don't get a meme and you're like, well, it's just because you haven't seen the movie, right? And sometimes they're still funny. So I wanted to clarify that. I'm everyone who's like, dad, we know this is for the part of the audience that doesn't necessarily know. So, yeah, so don't give up on memes just because you might not have seen that movie. Ok. Yes. Yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=20m57s 20:57]
Jere-meme: This was a, a comment that I saw online, um, from a woman that had seen a, a meme and I didn't, didn't put the actual meme up here because I thought it was a little too risque for your show. But it said, uh this meme was a big hinge point in my waking up journey. I remember when I first saw it, I was totally scandalized, but I kept coming back to it over the next few weeks and months and et cetera, et cetera. But the point is that the meme helped her to investigate more and to think about things and it helped her to wake up to some stuff. So I think that's, that's a, a great testimonial to the power of memes and in the gospel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=21m39s 21:39]
Michelle: that is really, that's, that's, that's really true. It's really powerful. We can show some examples later on of various memes that have had that effect on people, I think because it really does. It, yeah, you can feel scandalized or just, or just amused first, but it has a way of sticking with you sometimes some good. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=21m59s 21:59]
Jere-meme: So I'm just pointing out the L DS church does use memes. They even have a, you know, on their website where you can download memes and share their memes. So they, they get that they work,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=22m10s 22:10]
Michelle: they have their own downloadable. I didn't realize that. So they, the L DS church, like they want us to be meme warriors, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=22m18s 22:18]
Jere-meme: Yeah. On the, on the right here is actually a screenshot from the church website with memes that you can download and share.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=22m25s 22:25]
Michelle: Oh my gosh, that's crazy. Ok. So we are, we are like we're doing the work we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be with the permission of the church that makes me happy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=22m35s 22:35]
Jere-meme: Um But so do the anti ex Mormon types, right? So they've got their, you know about that. I don't, I'm not going to spend time going over each one of these. But um and so do all the other sects and, you know, fundamental fundamentalist types and, you know, everybody's got memes that they put out there.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=22m52s 22:52]
Michelle: People can go ahead and screen that, pause the screen and go through the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=22m55s 22:55]
Jere-meme: Yeah, there you go. Uh Gerald's top 10 reasons why memes work. Oh This is a surprise. You didn't know this was in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=23m04s 23:04]
Michelle: here. I did it. This is new. I love the scientific. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=23m08s 23:08]
Jere-meme: Number one images get attention content with visuals, get 94% more total views and, and this is I've got no source for this but just know that's totally the truth that you can just say they get a lot more views. If you have visuals. This is I don't think anybody would buddy would refute that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=23m29s 23:29]
Michelle: No, I know that on, on Facebook. I'm not on Instagram. I need to get there. But a lot of times people say picture included just to grab attention and it has nothing to do with just the, you know, like if you want to get more reach include a visual. Yeah, exactly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=23m44s 23:44]
Jere-meme: So what did you first look at when I put this up,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=23m48s 23:48]
Michelle: Brigham's face?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=23m49s 23:49]
Jere-meme: Brigham's face, Brigham's face. I think most people on here would say, yeah, Brigham's face, I think that the order people would look at this in, they'd look at Brigham's face, they look at what he's saying because it's short, they'd probably go up to the greenish words at the top because they're bold and it's the next in kind of the visual hierarchy followed by the two paragraphs that have highlighting in them on the right and then finally, and finally they would probably go over to the left which is all just plain black and white words. That's, that's more than likely the way people's eyes would go. So when I first posted this meme, this is what it looked like and, and it, it hardly had any reach at all. I reposted the exact same meme. This is the, the words from the same meme. It's the same, same exact words only with the picture and, and a question at the top and, and people were willing, people are might not ever read the words if they were just plain, right on the right those two paragraphs, but they are willing to commit to find out what is Brigham saying? I'm going to commit to one sentence was Hiram's Joseph was Hiram Joseph's chosen successor or the one Joseph said would lead the church to hell. Oh, that's a, that'll grab you like, oh, I wanna know what that's about. I'm now willing to read two paragraphs, you know, it kind of teas and helps people get into it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=25m20s 25:20]
Michelle: Yeah. What you actually did was add more text that we have to read
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=25m24s 25:24]
Jere-meme: right in the grand scheme.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=25m26s 25:26]
Michelle: But we have a, you gave us a reason to read it because that was my exact experience. Like I would scroll past that especially when I'm just like, like when I usually am on is when I'm like uh tired at the end of the day and taking a break from work. So you know what I mean? I don't want to commit to reading, but when you give me a reason to read it, then I will. Yeah. Good, good, good example.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=25m49s 25:49]
Jere-meme: OK? You mentioned this one. Pop culture makes it engaging. You know, if you like Marvel, you're like, oh snap, I remember that, you know the Ragnarok was that Ragnarok? I think it was Ragnarok movie. Um Brigham, you know, this is, this is a poke at church history stuff. Brigham. Yes, Joseph, I will. I, and you have to be the one to lead the church. Oh no, Joseph, not I I am but a man God has chosen you. Everyone else will lead the church to hell, Joseph. I see. This must be with great reluctance. I will do it for you and for the Lord and then the choir sings. Oh
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=26m33s 26:33]
Michelle: oh OK. This is so good because people who know the movie get that side of it. People who know church history and, and what you are quoting what you are citing, right? So that's one thing, memes are like the ultimate, the ultra ultra inside jokes as well, right? Like this can amuse anybody but people who really know exactly what you're hitting on are dying. OK. That's awesome.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=27m01s 27:01]
Jere-meme: And, and, and your, and your uncle who won't if you try to send you, you know, you, you mentioned like, well, they know what you're talking about if you were to send that person, the pages from the Joseph Smith papers to read or some clips from articles, they'll be like, oh, I'm not reading that article but if they like Marvel, if they like, you know, uh Homer Simpson or whoever, then maybe they'll read it because it's got something in it from pop culture that actually will draw them in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=27m31s 27:31]
Michelle: and, and you can follow the example of what you did on the Brigham meme where you could send the data points behind it. But the meme first, right? Send the meme and then attach the because if they want to argue with you about that meme. Well, here's all of the evidence and so that's a great way to do it. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=27m51s 27:51]
Jere-meme: Number three, reader doesn't necessarily have to look anything up and this is addressing what I just said actually, uh here's Drake, he's a uh a pop star rapper guy, I believe um getting a friend to open their scriptures to understand a verse. Oh no, oh no. Getting a friend to read a document in the Joseph Smith papers. Oh no. Oh no. Getting a friend to read that same information with a picture of their favorite movie star or cartoon characters, picture. Oh, bring it up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=28m24s 28:24]
Michelle: You got it. Yep. And I have no idea who Drake is, but I've seen this meme all over the place because it's soy. So OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=28m31s 28:31]
Jere-meme: Exactly. So, laughter and learning humor, boost retention. So I found this study it said humor activates the brain's dopamine reward system, stimulating goal oriented motivation and long term memory, which means that humor can improve retention in students of all ages. So if you have something funny in it, um it helps it to stick in their brain. Number five, it's more likely to be shared. It's kind of a, a low quality uh graphic, but it says visual content is now 40 times more likely to be shared on social networks. So if you just do some print, it's chances are substantially less uh po you know, it's, it's le less that it's going to be sent out 40 times more likely if it's got a picture.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=29m27s 29:27]
Michelle: That's cool. That makes me, I have to interrupt you for a second. I'm sorry, because I'm, I'm a little proud of myself that some of my full text, like I, I did a couple of lists of questions about polygamy for people to find out and it got shared broadly. And so I'm like, oh, what picture? Sometimes a picture isn't appropriate, you know, and it still can be shared if it's really good content, but it's good to know to include a picture if at all possible. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=29m52s 29:52]
Jere-meme: and so we should probably make that into a meme too or a bunch of me, you know, with pictures and stuff. So that'd be great on the right here is the olden days, you know, she's got her eighties style hairstyle style hairstyle and she's out there handing out her flyers trying to get information out. You know, that was the olden days now with digital, you don't have to go to the photocopy shop. You don't have to, you know, stand out on a street corner, sweating it up, handing out flyers. You can simply digitally send it out and it gets sent out again and again and again. That's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=30m27s 30:27]
Michelle: great. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=30m29s 30:29]
Jere-meme: Number seven. Breathe for short attention spans. Oh, that got cut off a little bit. Uh You see on the right there, it says gospel topics, essay writers and he's fitting his facts into the church narrative, which is round. This is a scene from one of the greatest documentaries of all time and it's called idiocracy. So if somebody has one of those short hamster attention spans, you know, you can get it really fast because it's this one's nice and punchy. I can't read the scriptures for you, but I can give it to you mean sure enough for your attention span like a hamster still to get come on or the rings, you gotta love it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=31m10s 31:10]
Michelle: That was a good one. I like that one but I saw it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=31m13s 31:13]
Jere-meme: Ok. So number eight outrageous is more memorable. So if you ever do any study into memory, um you know, if you take something that, you know, OK, these guys that can like memorize a whole deck of cards and you go, how do they do that? If you talk to them about, they're like, well, there's the blueberries that were coming out of my eyeballs and they squished on the ground and they turn into ice and like they do these visual things, these outrageous things and it helps it to stick. So, here's an outrageous picture of this little guy LD is pushing on a growing number of members who question. Yeah. Ok. That is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=31m51s 31:51]
Michelle: a hilarious meme. I love that one. It's very, very funny. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=31m57s 31:57]
Jere-meme: Uh So they, they're anonymous. Um, you know, one of the, one of the major issues that you deal with, um Michelle is that you are doing uh a record over time of your journey. If somebody goes back to video number three and compares it to video 100 and whatever and sees that you've changed something, they could make you an offender for a word where they go. You said that you believe da da da, da da and you go, well, I, I've evolved, I used to believe that until I was presented with other information and now I, I believe that fill in the blank and people can give you a hard time about that because memes don't have your name on them unless you want them to, they're just passed around. You could have an idea and send it out into the inter webs and it just does what it's gonna do and you could change your mind later on and make a new meme, but it's not like somebody's gonna bust your chops because of the old meme that you made also. And I'll get one, I'll get one of the reasons for being anonymous. But that, that's a big reason anyways. Yes, we're gonna say Michelle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=33m03s 33:03]
Michelle: Ok. Yeah, you're gonna get into more reasons because there are a lot of other reasons. Well, and in my defense, I do have to say the only thing I think I have changed my mind about is whether or not we can verify that it is whether or not Joseph dabbled it all in polygamy and whether or not we can verify that. I think that's the only thing on my podcast that I really changed my mind about. I think other than that, I've been pretty consistent and it's, yeah, it is. It's because I learned a whole lot more.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=33m30s 33:30]
Jere-meme: Yes. And also any misspoken things that all the technical stuff that you have to go through in the course of an episode. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=33m41s 33:41]
Michelle: Yeah. The worst one were the, were the three I was doing with no producer when I tried to say because I don't believe Joseph was a polygamist and somehow it came out because I don't believe Joseph was a prophet. I got a lot of response on that one. So, so in the record again, I do believe Joseph was a prophet. I don't believe Joseph was a polygamist in case anyone is still hung up on that one. OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=34m03s 34:03]
Jere-meme: so this is a scene from one of the greatest movies of all time. Let me tell you something. Let me, let me tell you about the interesting church history documents. I've been researching la la la, I'm not listening and TB M people say true believing Mormon or you know that that's usually the in the box. Uh Yeah. Um And then the heretic there is on the right now. Uh I, I put this after this other slide just because, you know, sometimes people, um you know, you could share an anonymous, you, you, you don't have, you could be the one that made the, the meme and then share it with somebody who won't hear it from you, but you could give them the meme. That's just, oh, what do you think of this meme? Um And maybe they might listen to it because you're not the one that made it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=34m48s 34:48]
Michelle: Can I, can I say something on this one as well? Are you, are you? Well, I have a couple of questions that this one makes me think of. Um First of all, are you going into the apostate versus heretic? OK. So I'll say that because that's, that was awesome. That was a good epiphany for me, from your, from your group. But also I think a really important thing and maybe you'll go into this as well, but it's how helpful means can be to the meme maker because often you have things that you need to say that you're not free to say, right? Just like people who are in the closet more. I'm, I'm wide out in the open. So this doesn't affect me as much. But I know that when I went through a really difficult time with the church, it was when I was engaging with the bishop over my lot's wife, insights and I, and I knew that those insights were true and I was told that I had to say I was wrong and that I was never to say those things again. And you know, I, and it was so important to me to be able to write that paper out. I thought was the first time I presented at Sunstone. And there's something important about saying what needs to be said. And memes give you the chance to do that like they can actually be, be incredibly cathartic and healing to the person making them who feels, it gives them a voice when they feel like they're not able to express, express themselves and use their voice. And it's so anyone in that situation consider memes, they can be anonymous, you don't have to put, but you can say what needs to be said and that's really
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=36m10s 36:10]
Jere-meme: useful, nailed it. Um And this goes back to that same thing last week's belief that you now realize was just a false tradition. There's spongebob burning it up. Yeah. So, you know, it allows you to evolve where you can make other memes and put away the old ones. And number 10, anyone can make them who me pe people say. Oh no, I've never done that but it's, it's pretty danged easy. Uh So right here this is,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=36m38s 36:38]
Michelle: can I speak to that again as well? Like, like that is for me. That's totally for me because I, you're an artist. I do not have an artistic bone in my body. Really like none. Zero, you know, and so I, the first time I made a meme, I was so proud of myself and I, I do it the like least efficient way. I know nothing about how to do it. But I had this idea that grew from a couple of ideas. I saw that I was like, oh, it's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, you know, and I made a meme and my kids helped me and, and I was like, like, it's really fun and gratifying and you really can learn to make a meme. I think you're gonna help us learn to do it better. But I went on from there and made, I've made several memes now and it's really fun and I can do it and I didn't think I could. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=37m27s 37:27]
Jere-meme: Yeah. You know, back in college I had a Photoshop class. It was a class just on Photoshop and it was so complicated and I think people could think that these um well, you gotta be good at Photoshop. You gotta, you gotta have some expensive software. I, I don't know how to do that stuff. No, no, no, no, no, it's on your stinking phone and most people have phones. Um, and so here on the left, here, uh on the far left, um, I just did a screenshot of a bunch of, you know, this is actually for a Samsung phone. I'm sure iphones are the same deal. You know, you can get on there and find meme generator or meme maker or meme, you know, there's a ton of different apps out there. Generally they're free and or you get a paid version if you don't want ads, that kind of thing, but it makes it totally easy. Uh The one in the middle is for collage making, like sometimes you may have like different pictures you want to put together and there's different apps for that and the one on the far right is uh to cut and paste, like maybe you want to take a head off of somebody and put it on somebody else, that kind of thing. Those are usually the, the three, the three main apps that that I use. Um And I do all my, all mine on the phone um on my phone. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=38m42s 38:42]
Michelle: OK, New Year's resolution for me. I don't do New Year's resolutions, but I am I, I am going to try, I've never done that. Like I make memes the dumbest way, you know, like, like take the pictures myself first of all, or go into like Google slides and try to put some text on. So I am going to use like one from each column and this next year and make a meme and that is my, my goal. So OK, I'm going to get better at me making
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=39m14s 39:14]
Jere-meme: do it. OK. So I'm gonna go ahead and do a meme making tutorial. I recorded this earlier.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=39m21s 39:21]
Michelle: Yeah, let me try to do that for you. Here we go. So this is Jeremy's special presentation just for us on how to make a meme. So everyone get out your notebooks, take notes and be ready to watch this again because it's great fun. Here it goes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=39m36s 39:36]
Jere-meme: Brothers insist. Yeah, we're gonna do a meme tutorial. I have open here, uh an app called Meme Generator. It's free on Android. I don't know about uh iphones but uh if you go to the stores, you can find all kinds of app, free apps uh for the meme making world. And as I kind of scroll through these kind of slow, you can see there's a ton of them. You just choose a picture and slap some words on there and you're off to the races. Bada bing, bada. Boom. Easy. Peasy. Lemon squeezy. You have a meme and you can, you know, save it and share it as I scroll through these. I bet there's a bunch you're like, oh, I know that one. I know that one, that's where people are getting that. Um, like I said, this is just one of many, many apps. So, and, and to do it, I mean, heck you just click on one and then you, you just, you know, change the words to be what you want. So there you go. Um, but we're not gonna do one from a, uh, one of their pictures. I had an idea last night that I wanna do in honor of Michelle Stone and, uh, people like her, you know, as you become a youtube personality and as you become a, um, an authority or a perceived authority on a topic, people start asking you do you to do stuff that they should do for themselves. And I'm not saying that Michelle is, uh, is having that happen, but I imagine she is and, uh, I thought it'd be fun to do something that kind of pokes at that. Um, you know, I, it's just like with anything, any, any channel, I mean, if you've got a gardening channel, uh, people are gonna contact you in the notes and be like, uh, I'm in zone six B, can I plant potatoes in September? Uh, Google it. Silly Billy. Ok. So what I'm gonna do is something about that using this, uh, meme generator, but I'm gonna use my own pictures. So I'm gonna go to Google and I'm gonna put in some keywords to try to find some pictures. I'm gonna do a woman carrying uh heavy, oops, my spelling got bad, carrying a heavy load. Let's see what comes up with images. I'll see what catches my eye. Ok. So there's gonna be a bunch like this that have watermarks on them. I would never use one that has water marks. No, thank you. It just looks bad. I don't, I don't like it no matter how much. I like the picture. I won't use it. Um, and I'm not saying that I won't use some that are from paid sites. Um, it's up to you. What you want to do with that. The reality is, is that, oh, I like this one. I like this one. the reality is, is that, uh, the chances of you being, uh, in trouble for using a, a paid photo in your meme is negligible, um, usually just be in trouble if you used it for, um, you know, if you were trying to make money doing advertising with it or something like that. But, uh, anyways, uh, let's move on. The next one is why don't we do, uh, overwhelmed. Oops, I spelled that weird housewife and see what that comes up with. See what comes out to me. What sticks out. I like the pictures that I just go. Boom. I like that 10, I like that one. Ok. This is a Superstock one and I'll use it whatever. Um, I'm just gonna crop out the part that has the thing that says Superstock on it. Perhaps. You think me of, uh, ill morality. Hey, you just don't do it. Ok. Uh, let's see here. Um, the last one I wanna do is, uh, adult tying, uh, shoes. Let's see what that comes up with. Oh, I like this one. The husband or the man tying the little person's shoes, but it doesn't, it's not my favorite. Oh, I like this one. Let's use that one. Download image. OK. So now I'm going to go back to this meme generator and I'm going to click on this lower right corner that says custom meme and I'm going to do the second from the bottom collage multi panel meme. I'm gonna look for one that's got a place for three pictures, right? Did I miss one? I thought I thought there was one on here. Oh, right here. Ok. Add picture. Um I'm gonna do this lady first make her a little bigger so you can kind of see what's going on. I'm gonna do the second one. Is this lady and I'm gonna kinda make the super stock go off the bottom a little bit, maybe like that. And I'm gonna use the third one. The lady with the little girl tying her shoe. That looks good. Next step. Ok. What are my words? I'm gonna say asking Michelle Stone to do church history research that you could do for yourself is like dot dot dot And let's make this one more line so it fits the space. OK? I like that. I'm gonna say text um asking this woman to carry something for you and I'm gonna go ahead and put a background on that fill, fill the background. Probably don't need that many lines. I I'll just do three lines and see how that looks asking this woman to carry something for you. Ha ha ha ha. OK. Uh Now I'm gonna do this next one. I'm not gonna say woman again, I'm gonna say lady, so it's not redundant asking this. Oops. Yeah, this lady to say mop your floor. Ok. And let's make that smaller. I wanna see the dishes there and I want it to be kind of a similar size as the other one asking this lady to mop your floor. Uh It's a little bit bigger but that looks, that's fine. Ok. Now the next one, asking your mommy, oops, mommy to tie your shoes when you already know how oh snap. OK. Let's move that we have to put this up high because if we put it over her tying of her shoes, then we won't be able to see the fact that she's tying her shoes. All right, let's, let's let this one sink in asking Michelle Stone to do church history research that you could do for yourself is like asking this woman to carry something, carry something for you, asking this lady to mop your floor asking your mommy to tie your shoes. Oh, this is a zinger. This is a zinger. I think that this is to help people to go to empower people, you know, to not rely on Michelle to try to do their, there are research for them. Let me move this over just to here. All right, that's it. So now I'm going to go ahead and press save, save as image. OK? And now this can be shared to your heart's delight.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=47m58s 47:58]
Michelle: Peace. That was great. I love
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=48m06s 48:06]
Jere-meme: it. So easy, so easy. Everyone can do it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=48m10s 48:10]
Michelle: OK? So I'm gonna add your presentation. Do you, are you keep continuing your
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=48m15s 48:15]
Jere-meme: presentation? We're gonna keep on struck. So I'm gonna do just a few tips here to make your memes more effective. Uh First of all, it's interesting. This is an actual meme template. It is so dark. First of all, just the picture is bad, you know. But I, I, you can't, you can't even read what the dude's saying. Can you like there's, the guy is saying something in the upper left one, but you can't read it. So the guy is saying uh maybe don't choose some weird, hard to read font, put it in a contrasting color and make it big enough to read and maybe I'll listen. Yeah. Like so sometimes I see a great meme but like you can't really read it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=48m55s 48:55]
Michelle: I've done that before. Yeah. Yeah. The idea behind the meme Yeah. The idea behind the meme is you don't have to work hard. It's right there. It just, it just shouts out at you. So don't. Yes, that's ok. Point taken very, very
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=49m09s 49:09]
Jere-meme: good. I, I often times will see kids or even adults on the side of the road, like, with a big song in ballpoint pen that says car wash or something and you're driving by, like, I can't read that or they have a bunch of work, you know, it's like uh you need to understand how eyes work brevity wins. So where does your eye go first with this one? Probably the one on the left apostate one who not agree brethren. So that's a brief, whereas the one on the right, it's great, but it's got more words. Bishop. Why on the day that historians say that Joseph Smith gave the 12 authority to leave the church. Does Joseph's journal read simply in counsel and warm somewhat. Oh, that's an easy one. Read. Your scriptures, say your prayers. All the prophet pay your tithing and attend the temple.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=50m00s 50:00]
Michelle: OK. So they're both great. Just the fewer words, the more likely it is to be read and share. So it's not saying you can't use a lot of words just there's a cost benefit.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=50m14s 50:14]
Jere-meme: Exactly. Um So the one on the right here when you ask me to sum up a lifetime of study into a bite size nugget. So you can judge in a moment of deliberation, whether what I believe is right or wrong. There's people that do that to us, they, you know, like, well, just give me the cliff note five seconds, you know, and we're like, oh my gosh, you, you gotta put more effort into it than that. But that's really what memes are trying to do, trying to put it all into just a punch of information that you can give to somebody. Now, this one on the right is one that I made that I count as one of the most important things that I found, ok, that I think is super interesting and everybody should be aware of. I bet you very few have actually taken the time to read it. It's, it's one of those things where it's like I've taken the articles where you don't have to go find them, but there's still old timey documents, old timey, you know, that I don't know if there's enough there to get people to want to read it. I probably need to have a better catch line at the top. You know, there's some things I could do but sometimes they just aren't going to be brief, you know, but as a result and, and like you say, the the result, net result though is less people are going to read it. But still that is a really good bit of information as long as it is.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=51m39s 51:39]
Michelle: Ok? So go back to that one at the at the risk of having you pull out a face at me that is in the first meme. Now that you've got everyone intrigued by what you found, do you want to tell us what it is?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=51m54s 51:54]
Jere-meme: So, a while back, I did a really deep dive into the topic of fast offerings and just trying to find out where did that come from? You know, it's, it's not in the scriptures. Well, it is in the scriptures, it's in Isaiah. Um only if you connect dots that aren't really there. So I, I went back and I found these two articles um that talk about fast offerings and their origin. And it's like it, it is, it's just wild like, you know, you read in the, the church uh curriculum and it will say things like God instituted the law of the fast offering to provide for the poor. It, it says that but there's never gonna be any footnote on it because there is no footnote on it because if you go back to the history of it, the, the one I can't, it's a small writing on my screen, but one of them is basically saying the history is that Joseph Smith had, there's a bunch of people that came into the city and he did a short term fundraiser to um provide for their needs and they called it a fast offering, right? And then much, much later, um Brigham Young instituted again and it became a practice uh in the church, but it doesn't say anything about revelation or God instituted it or it's from the scriptures or anything like that. It was just they, they made it up
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=53m17s 53:17]
Michelle: super good to know. So this is like one of those maybe where you do the meme without um it could be one where you do the meme, then get the point across and then attach, attach the um information for people who wanna learn, learn more is another option. So OK, that's awesome. Thank you. And people will be able to look those sources up or I can include them below because that's like a whole new bit of information for anyone who hasn't seen that before, which chooses me. So, thank you. That's awesome.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=53m44s 53:44]
Jere-meme: Now, um this is kind of a home for people who are kind of like the guy with the tie there, kids, kids, you're both just awful. It's kind of we, we find ourselves in this place where it's like we're not, we're not um completely on board with everything the current church is teaching for, you know, the current narrative with everything. I mean, it may just be one single doctrine or maybe many doctrines or practices or something. And then we're not on the other side and X mo is really not a very good name. These, these names stink. We are so bad about defining, you know, who, who people are because a lot of people go with TB M. True Blue Mormon. Well, I'm a True Blue Mormon, I believe in the book of Mormon. The people that go to church right now, most of them, they don't, they don't believe in the book of Mormon. You know, and most people are like, well, I'm in, I got kicked out of the church but, but I still believe, like, I, I'm not anti Joseph Smith. I'm not, you know, like, so these labels stink but just trying to say that like the people in this group generally are kind of in the middle land where they're like, well, I see that there's some issues with the church. All is, well, not all is not. Well, in Zion and I want to have a place to kind of hash through some of that stuff with other people. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=54m58s 54:58]
Michelle: love it. Let me, let me chime in on the TB M. So usually that's true Blue Mormon or True believing Mormon, how I've come to interpret that now is kind of people who are really concerned with boundaries. Like they're the people who say if you think that why don't you just leave or you need to be kicked out the people who are like anxiously waiting for someone like me to be kicked out of the church, you know, like, like it, it, it does tend to be a little bit of a, um, maybe like, it's used kind of as a pejorative I would say, right. And so, so I don't think it's people who just have a test like I know a lot. So my best friend who I just was talking to last night is as faithful as they come. But she will engage with me and have awesome conversations. Right? So it's just about being open to ideas or being like you're not allowed to say that. Right. That's what I think you're trying to encap, we're trying to encapsulate with that. And now, yeah, the exos are like, throw it all out. Joseph was a con man and anyone who, and the church has only bad and anyone who believes it is kind of stupid, right? Like anyway, maybe that's overstated, but that's kind of what it's getting to. It's like there are a lot of us that don't fit into either category.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=56m02s 56:02]
Jere-meme: Yeah, exactly. So this is an important distinction to make words matter, right? Um So apostate the definition, the actual definition of apostate on the left is someone a person who forsakes his religion cause party et cetera, forsake means complete, complete leave, right? You're completely gone. Whereas heretic is a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by their church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. So that's what this group is about being a heretic, not an apostate where you just completely have said, oh, there's no God, there's no, you know, scriptures are fairy tales and whatever,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=56m49s 56:49]
Michelle: right? I love. This is this is a distinction that memes in this group brought to my attention. I was like, oh, I love that because so an apostate, this is the way I would describe it. Like where I do an apostate is someone who from the, who is on the outside who no longer considers themselves a member of the tribe who doesn't affiliate or, or at least doesn't make, you know what I mean? They do not attend church, they don't grapple with the questions, right? They have left and a heretic is like, we're the ones kind of that are like in the battle, taking arrows from both sides. Like it is a hard place to be, but we're the ones on the inside. Still TB M still true. Leading members of the church who just say, hey, this idea of the prophet can never lead the church astray and follow the prophet isn't great and it's not scriptural, right? Like that's kind of where we are. It's like, like, like there's value in the church, there's so much value in the gospel. There's value in the scriptures and reading the scriptures kind of shows us that all is not well and Zion, oh look the scriptures even tell us all is not well and Zion and don't say that, right? So, so anyway, I think it's good to, to say we are on the inside wanting to be on the inside, right? We like, like I know that many people have left the church or some have been kicked out but still consider themselves believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. So, so I think that's a really useful distinction whenever people call me. Um whenever someone wants to call me an apostate for now, and I'm just gonna say, nope, I'm not an apostate. I'm a heretic.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=58m23s 58:23]
Jere-meme: That's right. Get it straight. And the challenge with that, the, the, the challenge with that though, Michelle Michelle E Kins is that the church has um has changed the definition, you know, to be, I mean, well, well, it, it's if, if you, if you look online, it, it's, if you are disagreeing publicly with the brethren, you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=58m47s 58:47]
Michelle: then you can be labeled being an apostate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=58m50s 58:50]
Jere-meme: Correct. Yeah, you're, you're in apostasy according to I believe the handbook. So, oh, this is a meme about that. But how do you know she's an apostate because she said something different than the quorum of the 15. But do not heretics also say something different than church leaders. Oh, yeah. There are ways of telling whether she is an apostate. Does she talk about these beliefs publicly? Yes. Yes, she does. She's an apostate, excommunicate her.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=59m24s 59:24]
Michelle: That's great. I almost feel like they should also say, throw her in the river, see if she floats. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=59m32s 59:32]
Jere-meme: And I could have added a bunch more. Uh
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=59m34s 59:34]
Michelle: This is great. This is great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=59m37s 59:37]
Jere-meme: So, in our group the apostle group, you know, on one extreme, you might have somebody who attends church every Sunday holds a calling and pays tithing, raises her hand to sustain leaders, believes almost all L Ds doctrines, but firmly believes tithing the poor is wrong and would be happy to show you the scriptures why this is the case. So there's some people that just like maybe they are one thing that's kind of like a hang up, you know. Um and they're there to talk about that and other things and in, in the group and then on the other extreme, you've got people who are happy to attend any Christian church that seeks to follow Christ believes in God and the book of Mormon, but doesn't believe there's been an actual prophet since Joseph Smith views current L DS leadership more like directing more board of a corporation. So, you know, you've got people that are like much more extreme on one end and just coming into the group, you need to realize there's, there's all kinds in the group.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h00m28s 1:00:28]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah, like sometimes I just scroll past memes that are like, I, I personally don't like um super critical, I don't like being hypercritical of leaders or, you know, some people do. And so, so I, I think like, recognize not every meme is going to be for you and give yourself permission to scroll by, right? And I have, I'm sorry to be picky, but I have to correct your meme here. You totally put the women on the wrong side. You have the sleeveless one in the first category, which is a big,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h01m02s 1:01:02]
Jere-meme: oh my gosh. I, I'll have to fix that. Maybe we can fix it and post so and just so, you know, too, there may be people who, who are totally like, oh, I want to get in that groove and stir it up. Well, I'm, you know, yeah, trolls. So just know that it, you won't last long. If you break our rules, if you're annoying, if you're promoting your abominations, you're gonna get kicked out quick. So you might as well save your time and not give us grief.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h01m35s 1:01:35]
Michelle: That's great. And I also have to say we have some, there are some people in the group that are like using it as a cross lighting tool in terms of like their Christian religion or to save people from the abomination of Mormonism or to come in and like, I'm gonna, I'm gonna like, even even be sort of a TB M and I'm gonna call all these people to repent it. Like it's just annoying. Don't do it. That's, that's another group for you. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h01m57s 1:01:57]
Jere-meme: exactly. Um, and I put this one in here, I heard you got kicked out of the vegetarians. Facebook group. Yeah. Those people got no class. Aren't you a meat eater? Well, yeah. Well, what were you posting about? I was telling them how dumb they were, were for not eating meat and you're surprised you got kicked out. Hey, those people just want an echo chamber. It's not my fault if they don't have, if they aren't open minded to other opinions.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h02m22s 1:02:22]
Michelle: Exactly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h02m23s 1:02:23]
Jere-meme: Ok. So, yeah, I know that the group, it's not a, oh, come in and say whatever you want group, it's not, it's not an open discussion group. It's more, it's a niche group for people who are, again, believe that something is, needs to be fixed in church doctrine or practices. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h02m44s 1:02:44]
Michelle: Yeah. And also people who use various groups to come on and sell their wares to promote whatever they like. Like just don't. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h02m53s 1:02:53]
Jere-meme: a, so we have two main different camps uh in our group out of the closet Apostle Meers. These are people that are posting online of, you know, their, their various thoughts, very frankly. Everyone knows, they see issues in the modern church. They have no fear of repercussions. They're like, you know, I already got kicked out or I'm, you know, whatever you do what you're gonna do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h03m16s 1:03:16]
Michelle: or even if they do have fear of repercussions, they just kind of do it anyway.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h03m20s 1:03:20]
Jere-meme: Exactly. Exactly. And then on the other extreme, we've got the in the closet apostle or they want to learn and post without worrying, who knows? They're not ready to face church discipline for beliefs outside the mainstream and don't want to end up in a divorce court when their unwed spouse catches wind. Um They want to be able to do missionary work on their own uh with work to their own people without being labeled as an apostate, thereby making their opportunities to be heard disappear. And I'll talk more about that. Oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h03m52s 1:03:52]
Michelle: here's, here's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h03m54s 1:03:54]
Jere-meme: we will now hear a divorce case between when Judy and Bob Jensen. Judy says that she caught Bob mentioning to a friend online that not all prophetic counsel should be taken as the word of God. She, she says this is a sure sign of apostasy and she can't be married to a man who won't be in the celestial kingdom. She seeks their collection of Janice K Perry sheet music and, and mini Christi. So you know, there are people that you know that they're working on their, their spouse, they want their spouse to learn over time. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h04m25s 1:04:25]
Michelle: this also is a great example of the memes and maybe you're going to get to this. But so often I will see memes and I don't know whether to do like a laugh, uh thumbs up or like a cry. Do you know what I mean? Because that's one powerful thing about memes. They can make you laugh at the tragic, which is important, but it also gives voice. It is tragic that family relationships are so damaged by, you know, by faith, faith transitions or by people learning more. It is really a hard thing. So, so that's, that's one thing like no, no shame, no hate to the in the closet memes or in the closet like like yeah, more power to you so great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h05m07s 1:05:07]
Jere-meme: It's a private group and I have people who, who've contacted me privately for two reasons. One reason is to say I want you to make this group public, make it public. And they, there are people that are short on empathy for people who are still in the closet. They're like, you need to just, you need to not be afraid and, but the, but the reality is this is that um when somebody is labeled an apostate, even if they're still in the church, it can ruin their opportunities to still share to certain people. They're trying to share to because people in our church will stop listening or a lot of them, you know, they will, they'll shun you. So, um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h05m52s 1:05:52]
Michelle: and like you said, if my mom or dad find out or if my wife or the husband finds out or it's just tricky. I, I mean, I shouldn't say finds out. It's just I need to say things that, that I'm not ready for everyone to me. Yeah. Mhm.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h06m10s 1:06:10]
Jere-meme: Um And so this is the one that Dale had posted when your favorite podcaster asked you to talk about something, but you're in an Annon who needs your secret identity. And so there's people that are posting, yeah, there's people that either have fake uh account, you know, fake names or they just post anonymously on, on everything. So this, this is a note that I got from a friend of mine who is serving as a bishop who I had spoke, you know, who had gotten a hold of some of my beliefs, you know, nowadays. And he said I will pray for you my brother because it takes a lot of courage and faith to speak up. Maybe if enough people speak up something can change, we need people who think like you in the church. And, and the funny thing is, is like, what am I talking about? I'm talking about scriptures and church history. Why does it take courage and faith to speak up about church history and scriptures? Oh, yeah. Yeah. And he, and this is a man who, who, who ha he has to private message me. I have people that private message me. Oh my gosh, I can never say anything about this stuff out loud because you know, I'd be ostracized, you know, um in the upper right corner here, this is a quote from a friend of mine. I was sharing out some stuff about uh Gilardi's uh Isaiah writings and one of my friends responded, my mom and siblings told me Gigliotti was recently excommunicated again. Not sure I would read anything recent of his if that was true. And so that that's what can happen is if, if some, if you're labeled uh you know, apostate, oh then then you can shut doors. So just know that you can be anonymous in our group so that you don't have, don't have to shut the door of being able to help out. There are people that share our beliefs that are still every church, every church Sunday they're teaching in primary, they're teaching gospel doctrine and they're dancing around some of these issues just because they don't want to offend people or maybe they're just slyly slipping things in to get help people to think about stuff. You know. So, and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h08m27s 1:08:27]
Michelle: I will say I'm one like, I guess I'm a good taste case study because I am attending every Sunday serving in my colleague, my husband serving in his colleague. We have a son on a mission and I'm very, I, I'm hoping that I'm hoping that that people can see that more space is available to um you know, to speak openly and have a little bit less fear because I think that's a good movement for us. I think, you know, God has never given us the spirit of fear. And if we are in a church where we have fear to speak what feels to us as truth. And like you said, and just like, I think that's a culture, cultural um component that many of us hope will, will start to change. Because I don't think it's a, you know, a lot of people will talk about how good the church gospel is. And how problematic the culture is. And in some ways, I love the culture, but that's one part of the culture. I do not love that. Call their bishop idea. Like, let's minimize that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h09m22s 1:09:22]
Jere-meme: One of my friends um actually had his name removed from the church. And after a while, actually, he called me up, we were chatting and basically, he just expressed how much he just missed like the culture and going to church. And he's like, you know what? Now, I can't, I can't be influential in church. I can't teach lessons. I can't. And he went through a list of things that he can't do now to be influential to people. And he was actually trying to go through the process again of rejoining the church just so that he could still have an influence on his friends and family and stuff at, at church.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h10m00s 1:10:00]
Michelle: You know, that. And for me, it's not even as much about like influencing, like I'm not necessarily trying to like at church. I don't bring any of these topics up, like, and everyone does it their way. For me, it just doesn't feel appropriate, you know, when I was many, many years ago, grappling with things, I probably said a little bit more in com you know, but I just try really hard to be inspired if I'm going to make a comment that, you know, that is very in line with the gospel. I don't feel, I don't, I, I guess for me it's like if everyone brings their variety of issues to church because we have Frog Mos who are still attending. We have, you know what I mean? It's like we can't worship together. So I don't do that, but I do um I do still like without trying to change the ideas of the church at church. What I personally find great value in the church for myself and my family and God has told me to stay. So it's not even that people attending are trying to do something. It's just, I'm, I am a TB M in every way except for a couple of historical things I don't agree with. Right. So there's room for people like that too anyway. So I just wanted to clarify that not everyone is even trying to influence in a different viewpoint, I guess in trying to influence in and like let's be a little bit open open to letting people attend to have different ideas and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h11m19s 1:11:19]
Jere-meme: views. And so often it's this influence that I'm speaking of is let me help you see what the scriptures say. I'm not, I'm not talking about fitting some weird belief system. I'm talking about guess what the scriptures say, you know. Oh my gosh, that's crazy. You know. So um I put this on here. I'm not sure how much time we want to spend on this, but maybe people can pause the screen and read if they like to. But I, I just put a couple of these up here just, you know, it's, it's a long history that we have of this, you know, shunning, you know, people that have beliefs that are outside the, the norm of, you know, what's, what comes from Salt Lake. And then we, we have what comes into to our groups when your private Facebook group has a mole. There, there are people that join these groups just purely to take screenshots and to share them other places and to get people in trouble. And it just happened
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h12m19s 1:12:19]
Michelle: to me this week. It's, it's last week. It's the worst. I hate it because it's just gross. People that do that. It's gross. And then they go, you know, it's gross.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h12m31s 1:12:31]
Jere-meme: And so this lady is saying, hi bishop, I hate to bother you. But there's something you need to know. You have a member in your ward who is in apostasy who posts things online that are unflattering to the church. Who am I? Let's just say I'm a concerned member. So there, there are actually reports of people saying that their bishop got a letter from out of state or people are researching where somebody lives and calling their bishop or state president to say, hey, do you know that? So and so said, don't follow the prophet or you know, like just there, there's people that have a, a reporting um mentality and are trying to wrap people out for what they see is they're perceived stepping outside of the lines.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h13m17s 1:13:17]
Michelle: And I have to say, I don't want that side of our church to win. That is to me, like, like when I deal with these people, it makes me, that's what starts to make me go. I don't want to be in this church. I don't want to be a Mormon. I don't because it's like these, if these are what Mormons are, you know, it's really like, I wish, I wish people who are engaged in this could see what they are doing to the church that there's nothing Godly or Christ like about it. It's the adversary who's the great accuser, right? And it, it pushes people out of the church and leads them away from the church. It is so awful in every possible way. Please let's not do that anymore.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h13m57s 1:13:57]
Jere-meme: Submit to our most modern creed or face the inquisition. That's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h14m02s 1:14:02]
Michelle: what right. And I do like it when people will contact me privately and say, hey, I'm concerned about what something you said or you know, like, like go ahead and call me out to, to me and let's have a conversation. But this reporting thing is awful. OK?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h14m16s 1:14:16]
Jere-meme: I threw this in here kind of random. But he, he's, you know, this meme me adding it to my meme collection and that's my hope is that people will, will go, oh man, that's such a good one and they'll save it, you know, and, and so often in conversations online and such, you know, I'll be in these groups talking about doctrine or something and instead of giving a paragraph or like cutting and pasting like lots of words meme, boom, it answers the question. You know, you can have those just immediate immediate response to somebody. This
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h14m49s 1:14:49]
Michelle: is actually a great, a fantastic idea because as you said, there are so many memes in that group that going and trying to find that one. Yeah. You know, it'll take Yeah. So if you Yeah, hours you can. I'm sad. I haven't been doing this. That's not my, I'm I'm not great at like compiling sources. So that's such a good idea to just have your list of memes that you can just post when you need, when you need them. That's brilliant. I'm glad you included that one.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h15m18s 1:15:18]
Jere-meme: Ok. So now we're, we're just gonna go through some funny memes. Yay, fun, fun and interesting ones. So uh church history be like unedited edited by the church. I actually don't wear makeup. This is how I look naturally. You know, you, you did that temple episode where you're going through the uh you know, saints and such and looking at the footnotes and you, you, when you start to really look into it, you start to see it more on the left panel than the right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h15m49s 1:15:49]
Michelle: Yes. That's great. It's, it's the one is you could use the like, what are the websites like tu where it's like, what, what I ordered. What I, yeah, yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h16m04s 1:16:04]
Jere-meme: Another topic we do a lot of is church culture. A recent convert made the mistake of bringing a cross to an L DS chapel on Sunday. A little overboard with, uh, our disdain of a cross. It
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h16m17s 1:16:17]
Michelle: is funny to be able to poke at our culture with, you know, like, like we have funny cultural practices. Maybe you have the one, but it's the guy that's, there was a recent one where the guy is drinking the monster saying coffee is against the word of wisdom. You know, we have funny stuff like that. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h16m35s 1:16:35]
Jere-meme: So here, here's you at church. Michelle me trying not to make a contro controversial comment at church or like that, you know, like should I say something? Should I say something? Ok, here's one of yours. My
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h16m49s 1:16:49]
Michelle: first name. Yay
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h16m52s 1:16:52]
Jere-meme: Polygamy. We, you know that polygamy is one of many topics we cover, but I, I put a bunch of the polygamy ones on here just for, just for you. This is an inside joke.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h17m03s 1:17:03]
Michelle: Yes. Again, the inside joke thing. Yeah. Go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h17m06s 1:17:06]
Jere-meme: Yeah. Well, if you, if you know, you know on this one. Mhm um Polygamy apologist, explaining how Joseph had 34 wives but no Children.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h17m19s 1:17:19]
Michelle: Ok. So good.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h17m21s 1:17:21]
Jere-meme: Uh I wish to be a descent of one of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives who disappears. You guys here are um L DS church mommy. On the right. Brigham's polygamy statements. Um She's showing love and attention to Joseph's polygamy statements are almost crowning. And then Hiram's Pmy statements are deep underwater, dead skeleton.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h17m48s 1:17:48]
Michelle: These are perfect and we should, we should say I'm glad you included these because it's my podcast. And so people who listen to my podcast will, will get all of these right? But the great aposto, as you said, there are millions of topics. I mean, there are like, there's a wide range of topics covered. We just chose these, oh, this,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h18m06s 1:18:06]
Jere-meme: there's lots of Brigham ones. Uh when someone says that one of Brigham's quotes that makes them sound bad to be read in context, context, look something nice was in it too. And then you got Brigham's actual quote, which is the doggy. Do do I've had that happen so many times where it's like a racist comment or something that Brigham made and, and you can massage it all you want it, it was racist, it was bad, you know. And then they go, well, it makes it worse.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h18m31s 1:18:31]
Michelle: Yes. Yes, it does. It's like, no, why did he say that? He spent a page and a half building up to it and,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h18m40s 1:18:40]
Jere-meme: oh my gosh. Yeah. But, but he did say, you know, I don't know. So, but he did say that we should care for our brother in that. Ok. Ok. That makes the better.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h18m53s 1:18:53]
Michelle: That so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h18m53s 1:18:53]
Jere-meme: funny. So I gave this just an example we, you know, we don't have to read all these, but just, there's a lot of these memes that are just a picture of who said it and the quote with, with a reference I love when it's got a reference where somebody can go. Where did you get that from? You know, references are so important for stuff like this. So somebody can look up online journal of discourses. Volume three. Number one, boy, it really does say those words in here where he was talking about putting the screws on somebody for not paying tithing war, war. W I'm gonna levy your property. So this is one that uh I put together another church history one that uh you know, some of these, I'm not going to dwell on. I'm just gonna skim over them real quickly. But these are, you know, that, that one is visually very interesting. You know, it's like a roar shock of Brigham's head. I think it created some interest and um I did not put any uh references on there, but somebody could easily look those up if they try to.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h19m57s 1:19:57]
Michelle: This was the one I saw as I was preparing for my fourth temple. One that I was like, I didn't include that. So that's and, and I did include it because I saw the meme. So yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h20m10s 1:20:10]
Jere-meme: so we do a lot of these two. I I would call it a fishing, mean that awkward moment when an investigator wants to get baptized and you share 3537 instead of first ne 537. So it doesn't tell you what the scripture is. If you want to know, you gotta look it up. You got your scriptures up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h20m31s 1:20:31]
Michelle: We're not gonna tell him,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h20m32s 1:20:32]
Jere-meme: we're gonna keep going. I'm just gonna keep, so there's, there's a bunch, I mean, you, you've got fans in our group for sure, uh your, your podcast. And so this is one that was made. Uh Thank you for defending Joseph, not you Smith from false accusations. And you've got some of the uh face, familiar faces that are uh you know, uh uh proponents of uh Joseph the mono. There you go. I threw this one up here really quick. Just, you know, like I said, there's a lot of these memes that we have. It's just trying to get you to read a little quote, a picture of, of drawing of Hiram with him talking about um polygamy saying bad stuff about it. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h21m19s 1:21:19]
Michelle: it's good to connect that one to Hiram dead at the bottom of the pool. The quotes of Hiram have just been scrubbed from that what you had. And so that's a good thing we recognize. Where
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h21m31s 1:21:31]
Jere-meme: are his quotes? So, yeah, they're around, they're just buried. This is, this is a quote from you. It was just the thumb, the red brick store. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h21m41s 1:21:41]
Michelle: episodes I should interject here as we're going through. I think Jeremy I think the rest of the presentation is memes that you've just grasped. And so, so I asked him to do this because I just wanted to go through a bunch of them. But I want to just let people know that you can also just go on the great apostle me. Like, like I want, let's talk for a minute and then we'll come back and finish some more of these. Is that OK? And we can um so I'm gonna just like, um take this off for a minute. But I do think like, hopefully you're getting the idea of how memes can be used. And if there's not a meme, you have found that does what you need it to do. It's such an important tool. I love Jeremy's idea of like either gathering them or creating them and share a meme in those conversations that are, you know, ideally with some humor, maybe a little bit of bite you. Like, it's a really effective communication vehicle that's available to us in this day and age. It's so fun and it is, I guess it's important to know how helpful and cathartic. It can be to people who are grappling with these things to both see them with, with the one that um you had deleted Jeremy that you hadn't included the meme but talked about how it makes someone an epiphany. I need to find this one. But the one about welcome, like, like it's Jesus hugging a man saying, I'm so glad you never drank coffee. It, it kind of does the same thing, you know where it's like, oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h23m07s 1:23:07]
Jere-meme: do I really expect that's going to be the case?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h23m09s 1:23:09]
Michelle: Really? Right. Right. It just kind of lets us look at things with like not saying anyone should drink coffee. Just maybe we should change our paradigm. A little help us be a little less judgmental. A little less pharisee and a little more led by the spirit than just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h23m26s 1:23:26]
Jere-meme: I think that there's still a certain amount of people that dismiss means just as thinking that they are um uh frivolous or you know, but they are a powerful communication tool and, and the fact that they can just be passed around like crazy and changed,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h23m47s 1:23:47]
Michelle: right? They have massive cultural impact even in, in all realms. And so it's really like, it's important to really um understand what is happening in this realm and to utilize it. If you feel so, you know, if you feel called to it, we're gonna go through and just continue with some of these. Anyone wants us to stick around, we'll just go through some memes quickly and probably leave you hanging. But we will leave a link below to the great Aposto meme for anyone who would like to join in and then, you know, it would be super fun. I want to invite people in the comments. Please share your favorite memes. Let's like load the comments with memes that people could just scroll through and amuse themselves for a little while or you know, speak some important things that they feel need to be shared. So please share your favorite memes in the comments. In the spirit of sharing. My producer collected several memes that she and I thought were funny. So I'll share a few of those here. This first one is so on point. Dad is Santa Claus a hoax. Of course not, son. Think how many people would have to be in on it, right? How many times are we told that collusion cannot happen even though we see it happening all the time. Oh This one. No, we can't claim that slavery is OK because it's in the Old Testament. But of course, polygamy is not only OK, it's absolutely necessary because it's in the Old Testament, right? This speaks to a much bigger principle. This is so great. I happen to love Jordan Peterson and this Kathy Newman interview was a riot. So yet the evidence for Joseph Smith's polygamy is questionable and deserves critical examination. So what you're saying is that you're an apostate and I shouldn't listen to you pretty much. That's exactly what tends to happen. This one made me laugh. I, I would like to think that I and many others can put a stop to these bad ideas. So that was, that was rather a fun one for me to get to see this one also made me laugh aloud the entire war trying to stop me from quoting Brigham Young. It's so true. Even sometimes when I'm at like discussion groups with very educated church historians or scholars, you cannot quote Brigham Young without getting a lot of pushback. So this one was pretty funny. And then this one, it just, I love the ones that just poke at our culture, right? Better pray that we'll travel home in safety just like we need to pray that the, um, that the donuts and soda will nourish and strengthen our bodies, right? And then this is just so apropos for all of those people who just think polygamy is gonna be just fine, really consider the reality of the situation. Then this one's great. If there was any historical evidence of Joseph that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy, the church would tell us. Yeah. And then this is another one of my all time favorites. Where did Hiram's anti polygamy speech go. This fabulous one sent by my producer is dedicated to my husband and my Children and all of my friends who have to talk to me in real life as painful as this one is. I absolutely love it. And I'm glad to know that there are many out there who relate and then this one hit close to my heart. Yep. We need to reach for those unapproved sources if we want to actually learn the truth. I hope you enjoyed those memes. I want to give a shout out to the channel. I believe Joseph, I'll put a link below. He makes great videos and he said in several of these memes, he does a really good job with both. So, um anyway, I thought that one was fun and then we can continue going through a few more of yours. Anyone who's like done seeing memes for today, go ahead and share some in the comments. Anyone who wants to. Yeah, we'll see you later. Thanks for joining us. Anyone who wants to stick around, we're just gonna keep, keep going through some of these pretty fast. Yeah, and probably not talk much about him. Go ahead. Yep. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h27m50s 1:27:50]
Jere-meme: this is one on your topic. I always thought that was so funny. This uh this talk by Brigham where he was like, I will free every woman in this territory at our next conference. What the first wife? Two. Yes, there shall be not be one held in bondage. All shall be set free. General discourses and then here, here's the, the slave with the, you know, the band around. His next thing set free, free to wander the streets, penniless and ostracized. Those are the whining polygamous wives. You know that, you know, it just this idea of you, you're gonna be free in like a uh desert uh you know. Yeah. Um Yeah. L Ds Church in 1890 telling its members to stop practicing polygamy with a big wink. Yeah. Oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h28m38s 1:28:38]
Michelle: that's great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h28m41s 1:28:41]
Jere-meme: Actual photo. Somebody, uh, somebody, someone explaining how Jacob Two doesn't condemn polygamy. I know. Oh, my God.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h28m49s 1:28:49]
Michelle: Ok. Uh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h28m50s 1:28:50]
Jere-meme: here, here's one of those you gotta know the church history stuff on John Taylor and Brigham Young. After working hard in the print shop, it's about the, the bogus, you know. It's funny.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h28m59s 1:28:59]
Michelle: Yeah. A lot of people don't know that Brigham had to leave. The reason Brigham had to flee navoo early in February instead of in the spring is because of counterfeit.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h29m07s 1:29:07]
Jere-meme: Yeah. Um, like in the scriptures, he's reading the book of Mormon. You done messed up, repent. This can't be like it's kind of small. This can't be right. I'm sure it doesn't apply to me, but this part definitely does. If I ever break my bow, I know just what to do.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h29m28s 1:29:28]
Michelle: Selective application. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h29m31s 1:29:31]
Jere-meme: What kind of anti Mormon trash have you been reading book of Mormon?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h29m36s 1:29:36]
Michelle: There's truth to that. Yeah, it can cause problems. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h29m42s 1:29:42]
Jere-meme: So if Brigham's crew had edited the book of Mormon first Nephi 16 7, and it came to pass that I Nephi took several of the daughters of Ishmael to wife and also each of my brother took at least a few of the daughters of Ishmael to wife and also Zam took the eldest daughter of Ishmael, the wife because we ran out of extra women, seeing his distress and knowing it was necessary for his exaltation. I gave unto him a solemn oath that when we came across more women we, he'd have first pick to which he was satisfied. This is what I, I don't know. No, no. Church historians that won't do. You'll never be able to make them both good. There is just enough merit between them to make one sort of good sort of man on the face and the face that L DS apologists make if you can get them to actually read section 132 all the way through. Yeah, there's, there's parts in there that they're like, well, what about this? This part's creighton like, yeah, there's parts in there that are in keeping with other doctrine. But then you're like, what about that part about all the virgins? And they're like, oh, when your historical church document that opposes polygamy failing into nothing. Exactly. So this one, this one got a lot of fraction. This one has been passed around a lot to Joseph Smith practice polygamy. There is no better source than the prophet himself and his beloved wife Emma. And then just a couple of quotes with, um you know, with the dates on it and this, this one has gone around like crazy. So that, that's a very effective
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h31m17s 1:31:17]
Michelle: meme. That's one of the things I love about that one also is it's one that's positive like I like making the positive case and that's one that I love about this. And one reason that I think it gets shared because also you don't just want to poke and criticize you. You know, like for me, I want to create ones that, that, that just make the positive case and like look at their relationship. It's important we should pay attention. Yeah, I love that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h31m40s 1:31:40]
Jere-meme: This one is a funny one. To me. This is satire. Church news, December 8th, 2023. The Church history department has released a previously unknown photograph that was used to inspire recruitment into Brigham's whistling and Whittling Brigade. The photo has been confirmed to be one of John James Rambo, an immigrant from England. Church historians places age at around eight years old at the time of the photograph. This is poking fun at the, at the many sources that make it want to sound like these were very young boys, you know, like eight year olds out, you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h32m18s 1:32:18]
Michelle: you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h32m18s 1:32:18]
Jere-meme: but enforcers,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h32m20s 1:32:20]
Michelle: you know, it was adult men with Bowie knives actually drawing blood and beating people up and threatening to kill them. Yeah. Oh, this one's funny. I do tend to like the ones that are just short and to the poop. It's like it's still Winnie the pooh. But look, he's fancy. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h32m39s 1:32:39]
Jere-meme: exactly what enduring to the end feels like when you're L DS, what enduring to the end actually is, you know, actually seen in Christ. OK. Here's, here's the special one for Michelle Mormons still thinking it's coming back polygamy. They're holding on to polygamy. I got you. I got you brother Michelle Michelle Stone comes out. Danny devito Michelle Stone with a, with a two by four to whack him in the head. Oh, no, you don't.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h33m08s 1:33:08]
Michelle: And I have to say with this one when it first got shared to me, which is part of why I think it was so brilliant. When I first looked at it, I, I thought it was an enemy that had made. I thought it was a critic. Someone who hated me who made it because the first thing your eye goes to is Danny Devito with Michelle Stone with a two B, you know what I mean? Obviously the villain of the show and like, right, I thought that this was so funny and even after I read it, I, I was like, I don't know if they like me or not, but I laughed the entire day when I saw this one, I thought it was so funny. I loved it. It's so clever.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h33m44s 1:33:44]
Jere-meme: Here's uh Joseph Smith throwing out John C Bennett. And then right behind him is Brigham Young. It didn't solve anything, right? Uh Are you two friends? Jacob two. No. Doctor K went through two. Yes,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h34m01s 1:34:01]
Michelle: that's so good. These are so good.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h34m04s 1:34:04]
Jere-meme: You know what I like. You know what I really like donuts. I'm pretty sure God. God wants me to have as many doughnuts as I want. The more I think about it, the more I feel like God is revealing to me that doughnuts are a celestial food. This is just poking at that. We need to be wary of following the vain imaginations of our heart. You know, we need to, we can,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h34m25s 1:34:25]
Michelle: we can swap out donuts for wives if we're feeling a little bit creative. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h34m29s 1:34:29]
Jere-meme: Exactly. Or any number of other doctors, this just happened. There's a bunch of just Jacob two versus 132 memes on here when Mr Shell Stone provides a plentiful, plentiful sources and citations to back her claims. And a trained historian dismisses her research as false, using only his or her word as an authority with no backing of sources or citations. Warrant warrant. Ma
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h34m54s 1:34:54]
Michelle: Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h34m55s 1:34:55]
Jere-meme: Stop taking phone calls from Michelle Brady Stone. She knows too much. You know, sometimes you call to these different places and whatever point they're gonna go. What's your name?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m05s 1:35:05]
Michelle: My name,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m09s 1:35:09]
Jere-meme: uh My name is Judy Simpson.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m12s 1:35:12]
Michelle: So funny.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m13s 1:35:13]
Jere-meme: This is what a lot of our, our group does. You can't remember, you can't touch the sacred cows. Me, y you know, we're, we're poking fun at the sacred cows. Some of my favorite historical
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m25s 1:35:25]
Michelle: them even not poking fun. Just investigating. Yeah. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m30s 1:35:30]
Jere-meme: Some of my favorite historical fiction books, Becoming Mrs Lewis Saints and The Boy In the Striped pajamas. Oh, it's a lot of us feel this way when you pull up one of church history strings, you know, it just like, it just keeps on unraveling and unraveling and unraveling. So we can identify with this poor kitty eb MS and Anti Mormons. Joseph Smith said. And then the Neo or the, you know, whatever we are. I know more than you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h35m58s 1:35:58]
Michelle: Yeah. And this was in response to that same theme of what is the source of the Joseph Smith quote is that Brigham Young Joseph Smith said, or is that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h36m07s 1:36:07]
Jere-meme: exactly? And a lot of the Manuel will just say Joseph Smith said, even though it was a second hand or third hand, it doesn't say Larry Smith. Yeah, exactly. From an offhand comment. Probably not from any journal. I like this one. A lot source. Here you go. I don't want a source. I want you to be wrong.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h36m26s 1:36:26]
Michelle: Oh, that's so good.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h36m28s 1:36:28]
Jere-meme: Yeah, there's a lot of people that are just like give you busy work and when you help them out they just bust your chops. So, what scriptures are you studying these days? Oh, you mean, come follow me? No, I mean, what book or chapters are you studying the scriptures? Yeah, I don't understand what you're asking. Uh You should go and check out, come follow me. You know, when people start putting emphasis on the curriculum and not on the actual scriptures themselves. Yeah. All I want for Christmas is William Clayton's diaries. Yeah, I think a lot of us do, uh do you support or promote any teachings, practices or doctrine, contrary to those of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Are you talking about the 18 thirties church, the 18 fifties or current? They all taught different things. Uh Do you sustain the president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints as prophet seer and revelator? Will you please define, for me what you mean by this by sustain, also define prophet seer and revelator. Hey, look, man, I just work here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h37m30s 1:37:30]
Michelle: I think this speaks to the struggle. I mean a lot of people have to negotiate how to, how to best navigate temple recommended issues when they are heretical when they are, when they don't have the standard beliefs. And I actually think so this speaks to like we don't need to burden the bishop or the state president with that. You know, it's like like it's ok to navigate that by yourself with God, find out what you believe and how you feel. You should answer the questions then go or don't. But you know what I mean? We like the temple recommend interview those poor bishops just trying to get through a bunch of them. You know, we can have some sympathy for them. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h38m09s 1:38:09]
Jere-meme: Mhm Learn everything you did in all your years such as treacherous story in my spare time using the internet, Michelle Brady Stone while homeschooling 11 kids mic drop. Oh dear. That's a good one. I like that one for you. These are two couple about you. This is the last one making L DS. Church historians look stupid one video at a time. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h38m41s 1:38:41]
Michelle: funny. Yeah. Ok. Ok. It's so funny and I don't want to make enemies of anybody but, um, but it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h38m48s 1:38:48]
Jere-meme: does to other people on your behalf. Ok. This is not you being, you know, I'm not or anything
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h38m55s 1:38:55]
Michelle: like that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h38m57s 1:38:57]
Jere-meme: Other people posted those for you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h38m59s 1:38:59]
Michelle: And I am grateful I'm always grateful to know that people appreciate some of what I'm doing, you know. So thank you again, Jeremy for coming. This was so much fun, I think really instructive and entertaining, which I think is a great way to wrap up the year and have just a fun infotainment
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h39m18s 1:39:18]
Jere-meme: girl infotainment. There we go,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h39m19s 1:39:19]
Michelle: there we go. We can always rely on you for infotainment. So anyway, I thank you. Thank you for sticking with this podcast this year. We have wrapped up another year of 100 and 32 problems, which has been great and I'm excited for more to come. So Jeremy, thank you for coming. Oh, and I will be working a little bit with Jeremy going forward and you'll see some of his work on like graphics. I'm really excited. So anyway, yay. So thank you again and we will see you next time. All right. Thanks
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h39m48s 1:39:48]
Jere-meme: everybody.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjPaLMgXdk&t=1h39m50s 1:39:50]
Michelle: Thank you again for sticking with us. I hope I get to see a lot of your memes in the comments and again, please plan to tune in next week. There should be some information coming before that. Hopefully. So I think it'll be, um, a big episode and a lot of things to look forward to. There is so much to keep learning this next year. So, thank you again and I will see you next week.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Miscellaneous]]
| wp_tags_links =
}}

98: Signs in the Heavens

2025-08-29T23:04:19Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 98: Signs in the Heavens
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 98
| date = 2023-12-24
| youtube_id = wWqJeGjXvfo
| tags = Astrotheology, Heavens, Signs, Zodiac
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Miscellaneous
| summary = Brian Lang and Taylor Child give me a crash course in astro-theology. It is amazing to see how truly all things testify of Christ, and how Christ testifies of all creation. This was such a fun and mind blowing discussion. I am excited to learn more.[https://www.youtube.com/@ancientcosmicclock The Ancient Cosmic Clock][https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Cosmic-Language-Illustrated-Exploration/dp/B0BNV2FY9P The Ancient Cosmic Language (Amazon link)]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=00m00s 00:00] Michelle: Merry Christmas and welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy. I hope you are having a beautiful holiday season. I am so excited to bring you this special holiday episode. I had the great privilege. It was such a treat to sit down with Taylor Child and Brian Lang to talk about the signs in the heavens, which I thought was a perfectly fitting topic for this Christmas episode. So they are going to tell us what they understand about astro theology and I know that might scare some people off. We talk about it a lot in the episode, but I have to say having this conversation has given me an, an entire new depth of appreciation for the creation of God and for the Majesty of Jesus Christ to see how it is literally written in the stars and how all creation points to these truths was a real, was just profound for me. So I am so excited to share this information with you. I really like these guys. I really liked talking to them. It was just so much fun and so I don't know, just like epiphany after epiphany and Tingles and just beautiful artwork. Everything about. This was really a uh just a gift for me. So this is our Christmas gift to you. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And I want to again thank Brian and Taylor for putting this together for us and sharing the work that they are doing. I really appreciated it and I hope that you will too. Merry Christmas. OK. Merry Christmas, everybody. I am so excited to be here for our Christmas episode with my new friends Taylor and Brian, who I actually am just meeting for the first time right now. So I, and I'm gonna let them go ahead and introduce themselves and then we will tell you what we're here to talk about. So, Brian, would you mind letting us know a little bit about who you are and why you're here?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=02m10s 02:10]
Brian: Yeah. Well, we were gonna introduce each other. Yeah, I, I'll go ahead and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=02m13s 02:13]
Michelle: introduce Brian. Perfect. Ok. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=02m16s 02:16]
Taylor: since we're on a, uh on a polygamy themed podcast, I thought I'd introduce him as the husband of one and father to believe it's 1111. And uh
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=02m31s 02:31]
Michelle: I mean, that's like, yeah, I feel you. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=02m36s 02:36]
Taylor: Some of the only people I know who can, who can tell me that five is a good start. So, uh yeah, Brian has studied uh Astro Theology a great deal and has introduced the topic to uh a lot of people. He's, he's written a book on the subject that will just briefly plug on the uh on the slides we've prepared and you can find it on Amazon. It's called the Ancient Cosmic Language. Um My praise and criticism of his book is that it's like reading the first page of about 25 other books. Every page feels like the first page of a whole other book. And just as it gets going, it moves on. And so it gives you a lot of jumping off points and starting points with which to, uh, take your own studies in the direction that you feel most appropriate and where you feel led and guided to, uh to pursue further. So Brian
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=03m29s 03:29]
Michelle: Fabulous, we will link the book below and it sounds to me like it's a great introduction for all of those who are like me and are like, I have no idea what this all is, but I'm really interested in learning about it. Ok?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=03m41s 03:41]
Taylor: And that's exactly how I would describe it. It's an introduction and a starting point and, you know, you might open up a page and say, and then go and study for hours and hours on just, you know, other things that you find as a consequence of that page.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=03m54s 03:54]
Brian: Now, we'd like to introduce the rest of our team. OK, Taylor is like one of the ones that talked, talked me into starting this channel. It was I I'm blaming him for us starting our channel. The ancient cosmic clock. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=04m07s 04:07]
Michelle: OK. So I didn't even know this. So you guys, you, this is your youtube channel, the ancient cosmic clock and you sent me a couple of videos. OK. All right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=04m15s 04:15]
Brian: And that's our, our team and Taylor is one of the ones that helped instigate this and I, we were talking about it. I thought we were joking and, and Taylor's like, no, we're doing this and I'm like, OK, so Taylor is to blame Taylor has uh is one of the most like high IQ people. I know um father of uh a good father, which he puts family
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=04m45s 04:45]
Taylor: so far
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=04m48s 04:48]
Michelle: so far. Yeah, it's about intention. Yeah. Good. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=04m52s 04:52]
Brian: And just like a prodigy in this type of science. Um He's kind of a freak when it comes to what we'll be talking about like the mathematics of the stars and he can like, rattle off all this should be in this position at this time and it just like he has a processor in his brain like no other. So anyways, that's Taylor. I, I do want to talk about the other one. is the one above me with the wild hair. The recreation. That's my wife. She voices a lot of the videos. Um She's probably the most common voice on there. Gorgeous voice, gorgeous soul. And, and another thing about her, she does a lot, a lot of rearranging and editing and, and making sure it comes out and is said just right. Um Really good at, she's really good at getting the message across to the people that are kind of new to these concepts. Um in the middle is Doctor Brian Zang. He also helped on the book was a big part there of that and he helps us with like research and, and fetching documents and what we can show legally and really helps us there. And then um unfortunately, uh Angela, the redhead, she was, has been out of the country or she would have been on here with us. Um She is an astro theologist of like a decade, the best among us superstar on the channel. She knows her stuff and she's, she's been doing astro theology longer than I have. So, anyways, um we're really grateful to have her on the team too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=06m20s 06:20]
Michelle: Ok. That is awesome. So that's the team. So I'm gonna take this off just for a minute so we can talk a little bit and then tell me when to add it back on. So, ok, so I want to tell kind of why we're having this for our Christmas episode. And how like, so I, um someone started posting to me and maybe it was Angela kind of talking to me about Joseph's polygamy, um Astrological. Right. Right. Yes. So, um I very much have come to believe that Joseph absolutely was not. But anyway, I was like, ok, what is this you're talking about? And then Brian reached out to me and we started kind of talking about it and I have been intrigued by the idea. I'm glad to have the term astro theology. That's, that's you guys are introducing me to that term, I think, which basically means signs in the heavens. Right? Isn't that pretty much what we're talking about? Ok. Ok. And so I guess so, I don't want anyone to freak out and be like, oh, you're gonna tell me my sign and, and get into astrology, you know? Right. Right. But my feeling is it's Christmas and the wise men follow the star, like right there, let's just encapsulate right there that it is biblically not only ok and acceptable and nothing to be afraid of, to consider signs in the heavens, but it's actually exemplified and in many ways mandated, it seems to me that the Lord has told us to, to know the signs and to study the signs.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=07m48s 07:48]
Taylor: Right. You're exactly right. And I, I would go further and say that the stars and their positions and their alignments and all of that was placed there at the beginning of creation by the Lord and is beyond man's ability to control, corrupt, destroy, alter. Like it's just there, we can, we can, you know, build big fires and big lights and make it so we can't really see the stars so much in the cities where we live, but they're still there. You like, it's beyond man's ability to change. So it's something that has been in place in the sky for, since the beginning of creation, since, you know, I've got a slide show in a few minutes where we talk about a few of the scriptures that, that describe this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=08m32s 08:32]
Michelle: OK. OK. Great. So, yeah, if I jump ahead into anything that's in your slide show, let me know and we'll, we'll save it. I wanted to just give people a framework. So what you guys do is my understanding is you really are dedicated to studying what, what the history is that we've been handed down throughout. Who knows how many eons of time of how people made um made meaning in the stars found meaning, right? So I think you are working with a rich heritage of what's been handed down and I guess the trick is trying to sort through what is true and what is sort of mythological or cult like other ideas that have. You know, because, because we get such crazy ideas throughout mankind. But also I love what you said that the stars are, they have a permanence that very few other things have. And um you know, so, so it's hard to really mess it up. So am I getting that right? Like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=09m26s 09:26]
Taylor: like we can forget, we can ignore, but we can't change it. We can't damage it. I've got a friend who describes it as it's, it's a testimony that is written in the heavens. By the Lord that was always intended to be understood and paid attention to and you know, it's up to us to decide whether or to what extent we're going to do that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=09m49s 09:49]
Brian: Yeah. And I think the big, I think the big surprise that we have coming for you guys is how much it's gonna be in the scriptures and that we've just looked past it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=09m57s 09:57]
Taylor: It's all over the place. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=10m00s 10:00]
Brian: embedded in my every story in the scriptures. Our books, we can argue that the Bible and the book of Mormon are astro theology books.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=10m09s 10:09]
Michelle: OK? This is gonna be intense. Yes. Go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=10m13s 10:13]
Taylor: OK. So we share the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=10m15s 10:15]
Michelle: story. So let me just back up a little more. So Brian reached out to me and started to kind of talk to me about this and I had to confess, I'm fascinated by it. I'm open to it like I'm, you know, I'm, I'm not, I'm not jumping in with both feet, but I'm definitely willing to start waiting in the water, right? And um and I know almost nothing about it. So that's why I was like, instead of trying to explain it to me through Facebook Messenger, how about you just come and explain it to all of us for our Christmas episode that, you know, everyone might be interested in going? OK. Why did the Wise Men follow a star? Why is this such a scriptural? Um And it's such a big element of our scriptures and why are we so ignorant of it? I guess my last Christmas episode, I think I talked about kind of my struggle between Christmas and like, like Christmas really is this kind of strange conglomeration of a pagan holiday which was the winter solstice. And this and the Christian fathers priest trying to take that over. Right? And so in a way, we're not really like, we have forgotten about what God like there is reason to, to celebrate the winter solstice, the return of light. It's a beautiful thing and it is actually the creation of recognizing that, right? And at the same time anyway, so I'm so I'm really excited to be talking about this for Christmas and Brian was kind enough to agree to do it and Taylor was kind enough to come and pitch in. So anyway, have I gotten the story? Right? And is this, is there anything you guys want to add?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=11m39s 11:39]
Taylor: No, that sounds good to me. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=11m41s 11:41]
Michelle: OK. And so here's my last question we've kind of addressed this already, but why should people not be afraid of you guys and this presentation? And why should they be interested?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=11m53s 11:53]
Taylor: Do you want to take that one or do you want me to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=11m55s 11:55]
Brian: go ahead?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=11m56s 11:56]
Taylor: OK. Why should you be interested one? Because it's cool.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=12m01s 12:01]
Michelle: OK, I agree. I think it's cool
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=12m05s 12:05]
Taylor: like that's kind of where I started with it. I think it's cool. Um Why should you not be afraid because God has not given you the spirit of fear, but of a sound mind and of sound understanding. I'm gonna butcher that power,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=12m18s 12:18]
Michelle: love and a sound mind. Power, love and a sound mind. Yeah. Yeah. Thank
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=12m21s 12:21]
Taylor: you for uh, for completing my, my butcher New Testament quote. But, you know, and with that kind of preface, I would say anything that we say that that doesn't resonate with you, like feel absolutely free to, to set it aside, set it, you know, I, I will give you absolutely no commandments. I will make no major life decisions on your behalf. I will tell you that you have to do absolutely nothing. And so all, all I would ask is, you know, listen here is that if it's interesting to you take it further and if it's not interesting and doesn't resonate with you no hard feelings. So I don't know how, I don't know how less threatening I can be than that. II, I don't know if it comes across on the camera, but I'm, I'm a little bit of a larger imposing figure. And so I, I try to be threat, less threatening than uh that I maybe come across physically.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=13m14s 13:14]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. That's what I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=13m17s 13:17]
Brian: I, I have some things that I'm going to go into in the slide show that's gonna answer that questions, those questions very soon. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=13m22s 13:22]
Michelle: we just wait for excellent. So we'll go ahead and get into it. And, yeah, that's what I would say is this, like, if nothing else it's really interesting and, and kind of cool and maybe kind of fun and everybody has the spirit of discernment. So you can go, oh, that's for me, or? Oh, that's not for me. For every individual element. And you don't need to think it's all one and done and, and first of all, if you think, oh, we shouldn't talk about signs in the heavens, then you don't get to celebrate Christmas anymore. Anyway, so here we go. OK. Are you guys able to, to scroll through? OK, perfect.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=13m58s 13:58]
Taylor: All right. So this is Brian's book that I mentioned. It's like the first page of 25 other books or so. Um Lots of really beautiful graphics, lots of uh interpretive symbols just to give you some, some pondering ideas when you're studying your scriptures and when you're looking at the sky. Um So what I wanted to where I wanted to start is right at the beginning of creation and I kind of stole my own thunder a minute ago and I mentioned this in our, in our discussion a second ago, but right in Genesis and God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. In other words, like God placed it there with the intention that it would mean something to us. Um Another one that I'm really fond of.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=14m56s 14:56]
Michelle: Do you guys mind if I so back on that last screen, I just had a thought because I haven't thought about these things as much as you guys have, but it only makes sense that things would be done carefully and strategically in creation. It's not like God had handfuls of confetti and went, Bob. Where is that? Everything? You know what I mean? Like God created this. We should assume anyway, I'm just realizing we should assume that there's purpose to it. And then it's not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=15m20s 15:20]
Taylor: written in an orderly manner. Um You know, and it's even laid out that way for how it's described in the scriptures that uh that we revere. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=15m30s 15:30]
Michelle: yeah, and we know how precise the laws of the universe are like everything is so precisely attuned that why wouldn't that show up for us? Go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=15m41s 15:41]
Brian: Sometimes some of the fear that surrounds it. It makes you almost wonder like, do you think devil created this and not God?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=15m50s 15:50]
Taylor: When did the devil become gain control over the powers of creation? I mean, I know, I know he claims to be the God of this world in some circumstances, but uh who's the God of heaven, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=16m03s 16:03]
Michelle: And you know what, maybe that's where some of our fear comes from is when, when the um you know, Catholic priests were trying to get the people away from the old ideas, they vilified all of them, right? And so maybe we still are having some of that trickle down to us today where a really great way to get people away from truth is to make it scary and evil when it's not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=16m28s 16:28]
Taylor: Indeed, I, I totally agree. Uh Another, another verse from I won't read the entire verse from the book of Jeremiah. So also Old Testament uh thus says the Lord which giveth the light or the sun for a light by day and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night. If those ordinances depart from before me saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from be from being a nation before me. So the Lord refers to the things happening with the moon and the stars and the sun as ordinances and just, just part of my belief system, my faith is that ordinances are a big deal. They're to be kept and respected and observed exactly as God as God declares. And he refers to what's happening in the heavens as ordinances.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=17m23s 17:23]
Michelle: Uh I'm just, that's hitting me really hard because part of the root, the derivation of ordinance is order, right? You're ordained to an order. So God put these things in order and in a way what I'm gathering from this, you can tell me if I'm getting it wrong that it's almost like the sun coming up every morning is an ordinance, right? Like this is, I agree
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=17m44s 17:44]
Taylor: with that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=17m45s 17:45]
Michelle: It just, I, I love this. First of all, I have to say just as you said, it's cool. Everything I have seen that you guys do is just beautiful. I love the beauty and, and kind of the coolness you put into it. Like, I don't know everything I've seen like I'm just this, like it just has this magical feel but not about, you know what I mean? And so I love, I have so much respect for the work you guys do. And then also, yeah, I just appreciate these ideas. It gives me so much more reverence for what could seem just mundane and normal when you, you know, like these things are actual ordinances that God has put in order and in a way the cosmos is performing ordinances for our sakes. This is gorgeous.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=18m29s 18:29]
Taylor: Yeah, absolutely. And so, you know, with, with uh let's see, the next, the next slide you wanted to talk about, I think this is yours. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=18m38s 18:38]
Brian: So you've heard of the, the title Jesus of Nazareth, right? Um It comes from the root word Nazar in Hebrew and Nazar means the con consecrate or separate, separate out, right? And the same root word comes from the Hebrew word. It's, it's also the same root word Nazar for Mazar or Maza. It's and, and that is the Hebrew word for zodiac. So it's basically synonymous. So Jesus is title Jesus of Nazareth also means Jesus of the zodiac and, and that is like the 12 constellations that you can see from the north and the southern southern hemisphere. And that's what astrology is based on. That's, that's why I think people get scared away from it. But needless to say, like he um sets up, he like there's 12 tribes of Israel called and there's 12 zodiac, he sets apart Consecrates, 12 disciples. And as, as, as, as there are 12 zodiacs, he's, he's mimicking things. It's, it's like the Lord's prayer. He says his intention when he says our father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven he's doing on the earth. What is in the heavens? He's mimicking those things.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=19m59s 19:59]
Michelle: And I'm, I'm not gonna get all the scriptures right now. But what is sealed on the earth is sealed in the heavens? What is sealed in the heavens? Is sealed on the earth, right? So that our scriptures
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=20m09s 20:09]
Brian: are written in the heavens?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=20m12s 20:12]
Michelle: OK. This is amazing. All right. So I'm, I'm, I, I hate to ask this question right now because I just want to kind of sit in how cool what you just shared was. But so just so I can know and we can all know. So do you guys do the like, what's my sign? What does the zodiac tell me today? What do I? Is that, is that how it's used like, are you into astrology, I guess. And anyway, I'm just curious to know how you guys implement this. Can I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=20m38s 20:38]
Brian: answer it with what, you know? So Jesus was born, we'll get into the his birthday later. His, he was born under the sign of Aries, which is the lamb, the lamb of God. It was something that his astrological sign was prophesized about for millennia and realize like you heard of the the disciple Thomas, right? He didn't call him Thomas. He called him Dinius. Dinius means twin. And some people's criticism of that is his twin was never produced. It was never mentioned in biblical history, but Jesus was calling him by a zodiac sign. He, he acts like a, a Gemini like he's calling him, he's so into it. He's calling them by their zodiac sign.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=21m25s 21:25]
Michelle: OK. So my question was just premature. So I'm trying, OK. So maybe to maybe where we'll have a little more respect for those ideas. I know that some people get a little goofy with them and everyone can choose where they want to go with it. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=21m40s 21:40]
Taylor: some people do get a little bit uh a little bit goofy with it and, and you know that the caricature that I, that I use to describe that as, oh, well, they're blaming it on the moon. Um Like you, you can't blame your choices. You can't blame your poor life choices on the moon. It's, it is your fault. What you decided to do,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=21m58s 21:58]
Brian: we don't wanna do anything. We don't want to pitch anything that takes away people's agency.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=22m03s 22:03]
Michelle: Well, and you know what in fairness, as I say, people get goofy with it, people get goofy with Mormonism, right? Like we have so much magical thinking. So I'm just, there's, there's goofiness everywhere. We shouldn't use the goofiness to um to cast out the good. That's, you know, that's, that's the foundation of it. So OK. All right, you guys back to it. I'm loving this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=22m26s 22:26]
Taylor: All right. So th th this is a uh this is a map and I don't know how well you can see the fine details on your screens when you're watching viewers. But right down the center of this figure are the 12 constellations, the 12 signs of the zodiac, which those are 12 constellations that are visible every place on earth where the sun is visible, which is everywhere. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=22m53s 22:53]
Michelle: Like one thing I just wanted to go, Aries and Tara, I wanna make sure we can read them all. And then what's the next one,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=23m05s 23:05]
Brian: the point of this layout when we laid it out when we created this, we actually call this Eve Codman. There was another drawing called Adam Adam Codman that we um we base it off of, but we wanted to switch out and this is related to Christmas time, but we wanted to switch out one of the dec and constellations because on the sides we have the Deccan constellations where there's constellations tied to each zodiac. And there's one that's been kind of erased from our history and, and it's by the Virgin Virgo and above her is like a condescension. There's a, there's like a, a queen that's on the throne holding her infant prints. So that one's called the infant.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=23m43s 23:43]
Taylor: Perhaps we should blink this graphic in the description so people can take a closer look.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=23m47s 23:47]
Michelle: Do you, do you guys have a website or a place that people can go look at? Yeah, this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=23m51s 23:51]
Taylor: is all on, on the channel. So you can you can find it on that will
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=23m54s 23:54]
Michelle: definitely be linked below. But the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=23m56s 23:56]
Brian: idea we wanted to express behind this is that each zodiac sign lays out on the body and, and there's a lot of this symbolism in our scriptures where it talks about Jesus being the head, the head is the ram Aries. It's the lamb of God. And, and if you look at rams, how they grow like a circular sunlike um horn, the sun is exalted in Aries and it is the head. It's the first born. It's the child of the zodiac. It's the first, it's the first fruits. It's the I am, it's the I am of the zodiac like all these phrases that we just we take for granted in scriptures. Those are all cosmic ideas tied to like the lamb of God. And likewise, as you go through the body like the whole church, the whole body of Christ is like I was just thinking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=24m46s 24:46]
Michelle: containing the body of Christ had I have no need of the, but I have no need of the right like that. It just helps you see it in a different way. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=24m56s 24:56]
Brian: Yep. OK. This is basic science, the sine wave. Um This is where we really get into like that. We have a video called the Genesis Genesis unveiled and the idea of the path of the sun, it, it dips up and down, it moves like a serpent in motion. And if you were to look like even back to the Egyptians, they had knowledge of this, they, that's why they clo the, the, the pharaohs in gold and they had stripes like the angles of the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=25m28s 25:28]
Taylor: have like the, the cobra thing on their uh their head, their head,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=25m33s 25:33]
Brian: they come up like there's a cobra. It's, it's, it's, it's actually the religion used to be synonymous with science.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=25m39s 25:39]
Michelle: And so can I really quickly? So I hate interrupting. I'm sorry, I just, I'm worried that people might not know what you mean by the sun moving up and down. Can you explain
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=25m48s 25:48]
Taylor: how the way I would explain that is if you, if you were to uh let's say you were to conduct an experiment for yourself and look at the eastern horizon at the sunrise every day for a year. OK. At the spring equinox, it would be straight east. Ok. And day by day it would move a little bit, a little bit, a little bit, a little bit until the summer solstice when it would be northeast and then it would start moving backwards and you get to the fall equinox and it would be straight east again, perfectly east and then you would get, it would continue moving south until the winter solstice. And that's kind of what he's describing is the sine wave of sun over the course of a year. That's, that's how we describe it in, in modern terms, you know, anciently, they probably were a little more comfortable with geocentric descriptions where the sun revolves around the earth and the sun moves like we, we know the earth revolves around the sun. But from the earth where we stand reckoning, looking upwards into the heavens, which is how the Lord instructed Abraham in the book of Abraham about how to uh view the planets and the stars. That's the phenomenon that we're trying to describe. Does that make sense?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=27m06s 27:06]
Michelle: You described that very well? And it just makes me think how every ancient civilization it seems or the really advanced ones did know this. When you look at their architecture, it was designed, I, I won't steal your thunder. Go ahead, Brian. I'm sorry, interrupting. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=27m18s 27:18]
Brian: another way is like at the summer solstice, the highest part, the most high place of the sun, it peaks high and, and in the winter solstice, it peaks low, it go, it rises, it comes and it condescends again and it keeps dipping and, and if you look at the constellations that are drawn in the sky right before it takes its dive down and hits the fall equinox, the sun goes near oi, I can't say that word of the serpent bear a fews. The serpent bear. So, and when it goes by the serpent bear, it has like the head of the snake right next to Libra. Libra is the balance. It's the companion, it's Eve and she's there at that part of the cross. Or you could say the tree of knowledge of good and evil and, and then the sun dips, it becomes more, it goes into darkness, it goes into the wilderness. You have to put on coats of skins every year at that time because it gets, it gets colder, it gets darker,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=28m18s 28:18]
Taylor: are shorter and darker and colder. And,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=28m20s 28:20]
Brian: and you pass the serpent, the serpents there and Eve and then boom, you go down
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=28m25s 28:25]
Taylor: and then you arrive at the uh the moment soon upon us or I guess by the time this, this airs recently upon us, the uh which is the winter solstice when the course reverses and light begins to return to the earth and the days start to get longer and you know, proclaiming the victory of light over darkness, truth over error. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=28m50s 28:50]
Michelle: So I'm I'm seeing um Yin and Yang in this as well as what you're describing. And I'm curious if that is, I know that's a different cultural description. But does that play in like, are these kind of the same ideas that different cultures described in different ways?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=29m08s 29:08]
Brian: That's a really good analogy. Yeah. Like our winner. So says it's not all the way dark, it has a little bit of light in it here. Right. Right. It's more dark than light. So it's like the dark eye. What has the white eye in it? Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=29m21s 29:21]
Michelle: Yep. And how they keep, there's almost movement built into the Yin and Yang, it keeps turning and, and this is that same kind of a OK. There we go. Ok. And man, it just, it kills me that I love modern electricity and technology and lights, but it separated us from what we're talking about. It separated us from creation. We're not dependent on the sun. I mean, we still are but not to the same degree we're not out seeing the stars, seeing the cosmos like we used to be. And so I'm so thankful you guys are bringing it back to us. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=29m51s 29:51]
Brian: ok. And I think this is why Joseph Smith did so good at understanding things as he was a farm boy out in nature. It was designed for that person out in nature, observing nature.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=30m01s 30:01]
Taylor: Yeah. One of the things that I that I regularly uh remind others, you know, even even members of our team is that these things were intended to be understood by Children. The Lord says become as a little child. This is not the purview of the fancy scholar with the phd in, you know, whatever this is intended to be something that anyone could look up at the sky and see for themselves, you know, Children
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=30m29s 30:29]
Michelle: one more. Yeah, I was just thinking how easily Children can understand. It's time for bed and it's time to get up because the sun tells them that. Right. And in a way, in a way like God wants us to submit to God, but in a way we all submit to this, all of us have to put coats on in the winter, right? All of us have to ideally go to bed when it's dark and be, you know, I mean, like we are all, we all must submit to the creation that God has made. There's something profound in that and we can take that as further to submit to more from God.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=31m04s 31:04]
Taylor: Yeah. And, and it's not because God is smashing you with a hammer. If you disobey, it's, it's like how, you know, you want to put a coat on because it's cold. It like it is a reality. I actually think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=31m19s 31:19]
Michelle: that's how, that's how everything works with God. I don't think God ever smashes us with a hammer so that we'll have to obey. I think this is actually a good way to understand how I think God works in every way is just this invitation to go with it in ways that will be beneficial to us. We're free to run outside without clothes on in the winter, but it might not make it if you like. Yeah. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=31m40s 31:40]
Brian: we're going to, we're going to, we're all Adam and Eve, we're all going through these stories each year. Like our summer where everything grows and is lush, is, is the Garden of Eden. And then when things go dim and, and cold, we're into the drone and lone and dreary wilderness just,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=31m58s 31:58]
Michelle: I love what you said, where we need coats of skin coats of skins, right? Like that's amazing. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=32m07s 32:07]
Taylor: Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=32m08s 32:08]
Brian: Ok. I'll let me give you just like a little, this, this is the path of the sun that it takes. And then we, we drew the ones that are above in the light and the ones that are below in the darkness. Um The first one is a, the lamb of God. The next one is Tarus. It's a symbol of like the fatted cow. It's a symbol of our abundance. It's used so much in scripture.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=32m26s 32:26]
Taylor: Um And notice as he talks about these, like he'll use the scripture language, the fatted cow. Uh the parable, the quality like anyway, continue sorry to interrupt you. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=32m37s 32:37]
Brian: And then the twins, we're gonna go into that one a little more Gemini um Cancers has it carries its shell with it. It's, it's, it should be understood as a home and, and it's the mother of the zodiac. And I think it's, it's actually the only one not mentioned in scripture, but that top peak part of the season where everything's grown. I try to think of that and, and how it could possibly look in the sky is more like the tree of life. It's probably better understood that way, in my opinion.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=33m05s 33:05]
Taylor: Yeah, the mother of the zodiac and the tree of life at the most high place in the sky and you know, make of that whatever you will.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=33m12s 33:12]
Brian: Um Leo the lion, the lion of Judah, right? And then Virgo the Virgin um Libra, the scales of balance, the Companion Eve and Scorpio, the sting of death, the symbol of death. Um um Sagittarius, um with the arrow, the Archer Centaur. It generally takes on the representation when the arrow in the bow comes up. It usually carries the symbolism of a higher learning because it aims high. And uh but it also is a symbol of uh religion, sciences. Um The goat is a, I don't know if you know much about goats but they, um they're loud, they don't go as a lamb to the slaughter. They scream all the way, they're loud, they complain, but they're also at the very darkest place of the zodiac. They're, they hold the winter solstice. Um Aquarius, the water bearer. It's the idea that like, um by the end of that season, every everything's frozen at the start of the season. And by the end of the season, the water is starting to break forth and it's the fountain of waters, it's called the Waters in Scripture. Um Sometimes, um in the book of Revelation described as an angel pouring out its file, the whole book is about us transitioning into the age of Aquarius. That's why they have seven angels because seven is Saturn and it's the ruling planet of Aquarius. It's, it's giving a cosmic shift that the planet is going through. It's literally happening in the sky and then Pisces is the paradise.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=34m41s 34:41]
Michelle: OK. Well, this was awesome. Yeah. So if I'm doing and maybe these are obvious things. I have some questions but uh something that occurred to me is that if I'm doing my math, right? Jesus would have been conceived in Virgo and born in a, right, which
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=34m58s 34:58]
Brian: is, I think we should talk about that a little bit at the end.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=35m03s 35:03]
Michelle: I'm sorry, by jump ahead. And then, and then I guess so when Jesus refers to the sheep and the goats, does that have um connections? Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=35m16s 35:16]
Taylor: So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=35m16s 35:16]
Brian: uh are more submissive, they'll submit to the Lord. They're humble goats are loud, they're complainers, they're murmuring all the time. It's a symbol of, in fact, in the original Hebrew language that was that the Glyph or Capricorn was actually drawn as a thorn. And, and it's a symbol of the father of the zodiac. And, and so in one way, it represents the archetype that the devil is the god of this world, this underworld. But it also Jesus takes on that symbolism when he's given a crown of thorns because the thorn is the capricorn. And that means he suffers the will of the father and all things, right? And then, and so when he takes on that crown of thorns and he suffers, it's a symbol that he's purchased all of creation. And then the, the sun at that darkest point of below all things. It's where everything the son has, the UN has descended to below all, below all things. And it starts its walk back. In fact, the video we sent you is about the idea of Christmas time. We, it may not be the real birth of Jesus, but it's three days in between Christmas and the winter solstice. And it's the idea that like it's been, the sun S UN has been in the tomb for three days and then it's arising again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=36m31s 36:31]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. This is so cool. So OK. So when we see it this way, I, I've always not, I've always, I had the, um the insight a long time ago that when Jesus says I am the first and the last, I think that kind of means I have, I am above all things and I have descended below all things. And just like you said, I, like we can think of that according to the zodiac and really see it in a clear way as well. We'll
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=36m55s 36:55]
Brian: go into that a little more later when we pull up his, we'll do the birth chart for fun at the end. Um But Jesus is the first Aries. The lamb of God is the first and he actually has a couple of placements, has more placements in Pisces, which is the last he is literally the first in their last the stars show that his birth.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=37m14s 37:14]
Michelle: Ok? OK. I am loving this. I hope everyone's loving this as much as I am. OK? And again, it's beautiful. OK?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=37m23s 37:23]
Brian: I want to touch on some scripture studies. I want to show you guys how much these things are embedded into our stories. Um You guys are probably familiar with the Jacob and Esau story. They were born twins. Jacob was named Jacob because it means Supplanter and he's hanging on to Esau's heel when he's coming out. And if you look at the heel on the picture, the shape of it has an extra star out of it's not needed. There's an extra hill there. This is matching the biblical story of Jacob and Esau where he hangs on to Esau's Hill coming out. So, um and then embedded in these stories are the, the ideas and themes of Gemini. Gemini is a symbol of duality of like dueling for a position. It's a symbol of the twins and they're twins, right? Jacob be ia and sometimes Geminis are classified as tricksters, right? And Jacob in his stories, is playing, playing tricks to get his father-in-law back and his father-in-law plays tricks on him about which, which gets him into polygamy, which is the way
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=38m26s 38:26]
Taylor: he conspires with his mother to, uh, to basically trick Isaac if you want to think of it that way into giving him the birthright instead of Esau, which then comes back to him and his father in law tricks him into marrying the woman he didn't intend to. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=38m43s 38:43]
Michelle: yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=38m45s 38:45]
Taylor: you know, so it kind of come and then he has another incident with the lambs. You know, he conspires against his father in law and tricks him into giving him the uh the better lambs. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=38m54s 38:54]
Brian: because it's between the, the pure ones and the spotted ones and he gets the spotted ones and then he breeds the spotted ones to be stronger, right? So he comes out, he comes out better. This is laying out the meanings of that star sign. All those star stories are
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=39m09s 39:09]
Michelle: OK. So I have to ask a question quickly. So, ok, it's, it's blowing my mind how this is all embedded. I guess my question is, where does it come from? Where does the zodiac come from? It's not necessarily spelled out in our scriptures. Where do we get these ideas?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=39m25s 39:25]
Taylor: That that is a interesting question and a long and deep rabbit hole. But I think the, I think the best way I can answer that is, it's something that mankind has valued enough to transmit for 5000 years, at least across language and cultural boundaries several different times until you know, today, where we do, we do, we have it perfectly the way the Lord intended it when he, I'm sure taught it to Adam and definitely taught it to Abraham according to our scriptures. Almost certainly not. Ok. We're almost like I would be shocked if we have, if we have anything perfectly. But this has been something mankind is valued enough to transmit across cultural boundaries. It goes all the way back to Ancient Egypt I think is some of the earliest that we found. We
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m15s 40:15]
Brian: have a video on Dendera where we ta take everybody through the Dendera Zac and it's intact. It's the same as what we have today,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m20s 40:20]
Taylor: which Dendera for those who haven't seen it. That's, that's an Egyptian uh stone that, uh, cars, the signs of the zodiac. And it's what, 5000 years old, at least
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m32s 40:32]
Brian: at the least 22 to 3000. It's really debated actually.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m35s 40:35]
Taylor: Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m35s 40:35]
Brian: Ok. Yeah, I, I show both sides of the debate in the video. We do.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m38s 40:38]
Taylor: I tip my hand. But I think, I think it's really old
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m41s 40:41]
Michelle: and it probably borrowed
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m42s 40:42]
Brian: from me and it's, they have, they have the Zodiac intact in some old Jewish synagogues too. They were like laying out the tap tabernacles. We're going to show a graphic on that later. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=40m54s 40:54]
Taylor: there are cathedrals in Europe that have glass windows of the zodiac signs. I wish I had that at my
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=41m00s 41:00]
Michelle: community. So we don't necessarily have like a Bible for the zodiac, like one universal. But I love, ok. But, um, ok, so it's just like this, this knowledge is just embedded everywhere and, and so it's almost like, even, even if it's not trying to be there, it's there, like the Bible isn't about the zodiac, but the zodiac is in the Bible, just like it's in everything else. That's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=41m29s 41:29]
Taylor: an excellent way to put it very well said.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=41m31s 41:31]
Brian: OK, another story, uh Samson Hebrew was more like shimin, right? Um It's a playoff for the word shamsh. Shamsh is the sun. And, and through that story, we're giving, get being given and told the archetypes of the sun, the sun is the ruling planet of Leo. And, and, and if you notice Samson who takes on the persona of the sun, a symbol of power overpowers the lion. He's the, he rules the lion and uh and, and the lion archetype, which is brought into that story is also the archetype of, of romance. It rules over romance. It's that, that subject. And then there are the, the Samson and Delilah and all his romantic endeavors. So it's once again walking you through the meanings of Leo. And so,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=42m21s 42:21]
Michelle: ok, can I ask another, these are all my beginner questions when you say it's the ruling planet of Leo. Like, can you just kind of walk us through? What does it mean to have a ruling planet of a sign? I, if, if that's not a quick answer, I'll let people study it out.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=42m36s 42:36]
Brian: Yeah. Each constellation has a ruling planet that and, and there's some debate in that because there's a lot of modern astrologists will assign some of the newly discovered planets like Pluto. You see,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=42m53s 42:53]
Taylor: and they make
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=42m54s 42:54]
Brian: those the new rulers, but the scriptures, the old rulers were visible. Um and they, and, and in scriptures, they associate their numbers with those planets in the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=43m03s 43:03]
Taylor: stories and to, to back it up just a little bit. Um the word planet means wandering star, right in, in Greek and the planets, you know that we all learned about in our seventh grade science class Mercury and Venus and Mars and Jupiter and so on. Um They traverse just as the sun does. The sun traverses the entire period of the zodiac. You know, the entire, it starts in a, in, in late March and early April and makes its way through every one of those signs, every one of those constellations. The planets also follow a course through each of the signs. It's not the same as the suns and some of them, you know, the outer planets are quite long. Saturn takes like 30 years to make a complete circle around. Uh Mars takes two ish years and so that, that's what he means by ruling signs. Like when, when Mars or Jupiter or whatever is in a particular sign, does that make
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=44m02s 44:02]
Brian: sense? And it's more like this, they have matching them? So they're, they're at home, for example, Mars is in the Romans is known as the God of war. And Aries is also known as the God of War, which Jesus gives us some self, the title lord of hosts and that's better translated Lord of armies. He's the lord of armies. Therefore, he's the God of war, right? So when Mars and Aries combine, they're considered at home. But if you put Mars the God of War and Libra, the scales of balance, it's considered a detriment. It's, it's in its opposite of its home.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=44m32s 44:32]
Michelle: This is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=44m33s 44:33]
Taylor: war theme at the peace place where it's like, yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=44m39s 44:39]
Michelle: matching energies, an alignment, a uh uh a harmony or a, you know, a symmetry between them instead of a dissonance. OK. OK. And how you just said that Jesus is also the Lord of Hosts made me realize like I wanna say, I think maybe that's what some people are afraid of. I shouldn't say afraid of. But why they dismiss this or think it's bad is because it's like they think it somehow competes with the savior. Like this is a different religion that's not Christian. And I think what I'm hearing from you guys is that Jesus is the Lord of the zodiac, right? Like this entire zodiac is submissive to or so. So this understanding, this is an additional way to worship the Lord. It's an addition brings us additional insight and depth into our testimonies instead of a competition. OK. This
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=45m25s 45:25]
Brian: will strengthen testimonies. I hope it does. I hope
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=45m28s 45:28]
Michelle: so. Ok, that's great. I guess that's what I'm saying. Just like that planet is the Lord of that sign or the ruler Jesus is the ruler of the whole thing, right? So, OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=45m39s 45:39]
Brian: so this one's, I love this one. Jesus is actually really calculating um in scriptures. He, he approaches a Samaritan woman at the well, right? And he, he brings up the the field is a white ready to harvest and his disciples bicker with him and they're like, it's not even four months till the first Jewish harvest. And I'm like, well, he just gave a date there. That's how I think it is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=46m03s 46:03]
Taylor: what it is.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=46m05s 46:05]
Brian: Harvest is like May 20th. He's going into there in Aquarius, the water bearer season, somebody holding a pitcher of water and he's approaching at the well, a woman with a picture of water doing it right? At the so's alignment of that, right? No joke. Wow. And then he's asking her to serve in water. And then the theme, the biggest theme of, of Aquarius is and what it means. And John gives a meeting later, he says the waters which is Aquarius and he says is a representation of all nations kindreds tons and people, right? It's social constructs, it's social constructs and social gatherings. And he, she, he gets her, he convinces her that he's the Messiah and the Messiah is the lion of Judah, Judah archetype. It's the opposite theme to Aquarius. But she goes and enacts the Aquarian theme of social gathering and she gathers everybody to him to meet the Messiah. He just there set up during the sun's alignment with Aquarius, the whole theme of Aquarius. And not only that, like when you overlay this and you look at it, the seasons that are in the sky. Um And we'll go into this a little bit more later, but Saturn is known as that, which takes away, it's what, it's a day of rest, it's retraction. You take these scriptural themes and you have Saturn come into Aquarius. That's what happened during Code of COVID.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=47m28s 47:28]
Taylor: We got a flu that shall not be named. We don't want to get
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=47m32s 47:32]
Brian: taken away our social gatherings, taken away during the Saturn's alignment, which takes away in this constellation Aquarius. You can measure it today and you can see the seasons like it's like, that's the ancient
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=47m47s 47:47]
Taylor: cosmic, that's where the name comes from.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=47m50s 47:50]
Michelle: It's just like this is so cool. I, I I'm like, I know a ton of it is going over my head. I know I'm gonna like go study this and then come back and watch it and get so much more out of it. What I'm understanding is amazing. So just how you said, like, like in some ways, these Bible things that Jesus did can seem sort of strange. Like he went, he very, very intentionally went on this day to this woman at this. Well, like I've always been like, why? Like he, he, he missed all these other people, you know, like there are lots of ways that it can seem almost capricious and you know, it's not. And so you guys are helping me go. Oh That was so intentional because he was speaking in this language as well. This universal language.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=48m34s 48:34]
Brian: We've been trying to scream, it's all in the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=48m36s 48:36]
Taylor: scriptures. It's all been there the whole time.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=48m40s 48:40]
Michelle: Oh my gosh. And it made me when you said that Aquarius is the waters that are our social structures and our social gatherings and maybe like I'm just letting my brain go if I drive you crazy. Let me know. But when it says that the beast will be upon all the many waters at in the in revelation, right? And oh, are you getting that? It's like all of our OK. OK. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m02s 49:02]
Brian: Yes. It is a refer to that and, and, and it's about them taking, putting people into captivity, deceiving people,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m10s 49:10]
Michelle: people. Oh Yeah. So it's controlling all of our interactions with one another and all of our, right. OK. All right. Amazing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m22s 49:22]
Brian: OK. This next one's fun. I don't know if you can guess who this is, but this is LA.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m27s 49:27]
Michelle: OK?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m29s 49:29]
Brian: He's half out drunk there. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m32s 49:32]
Michelle: I thought he'd be wearing nicer robes. We
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=49m35s 49:35]
Brian: wanna give you like like one example of how nature follows the path of the sun. But the scriptures do the same thing. So many of our stories are in linear fashion following the path of the sun. Just like clockwork. Our movies even do this. Some people in our movies understand this kind of stuff, but our scriptures do it too. And so Libras, the scales of balance where everything's well weighed and judged. And that's the first symbol I have up there um to the left and it's about the theme of that is going into the wilderness, but not only that grapes get ripe during that season, everything starts to turn red like wine and it's a symbol of the time because it's the counterbalance. It's the partner, it's marriage, but it's also about has the symbol. It carries a symbol of wine. So not only has Nephi Lehi and co gone into the wilderness, they Laban's got drunk with wine. It's pulling in all the archetypes of Libra that's happening there. And they've had their
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=50m36s 50:36]
Michelle: remind me the time of year that Libra is, is that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=50m39s 50:39]
Taylor: that's uh October ish.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=50m42s 50:42]
Michelle: Yeah, it's autumn OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=50m44s 50:44]
Taylor: End of September, early to mid October. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=50m46s 50:46]
Michelle: So are turning red and almost OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=50m49s 50:49]
Brian: Yes. And then it goes to like towards the end of October and then we get into Halloween season, which is Scorpion season. That's not a coincidence. Um, it's a symbol of the sting of death and what happens, what
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m03s 51:03]
Taylor: happens to Laban if, for anybody who hasn't read Spoiler and, uh, hasn't read past page three of the book of Mormon,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m10s 51:10]
Michelle: he loses his head,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m12s 51:12]
Brian: he gets killed and it's a consequence of him trying to kill Nephi and him robbing Nephi. Those are all the archetypes of Scorpio. It's walking us right through in linear fashion, the, the, the glyphs that the, the zodiac signs. And then the next one,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m28s 51:28]
Taylor: like I takes the stuff that wasn't originally his. That's another Scorpion theme, taking stuff that doesn't originally belong to you. Ok. Back to the wild
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m39s 51:39]
Michelle: at Halloween. Ok. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m41s 51:41]
Brian: then the next one, are we ready to go to Sagittarius? Sagittarius is the archer. Next thing he goes into the wilderness and he breaks his bow,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m48s 51:48]
Michelle: breaks his bow and then has to make the archer.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m52s 51:52]
Brian: And it's a sense goes up and it goes down and it crashes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=51m57s 51:57]
Michelle: So, so I am assuming that this tells us when they left Jerusalem, right? Is that, do you guys tie it in like that? Like, have you looked into dates or does it not even matter because it's themes and it doesn't have to be
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m10s 52:10]
Brian: on, we're talking about the theme of the story, not actual,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m14s 52:14]
Taylor: not necessarily the hard dates, but, but if
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m16s 52:16]
Brian: we want to take a detour after that, I can walk you through some book of Mormon stuff where it matches exactly with the stars.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m23s 52:23]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. Ok. So let's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m25s 52:25]
Brian: do this, this theme, this story because the, the book of Mormon is taking us through the theme and then we'll, then we'll take you to real time. Like what was happening in the Stars of Heaven during the book of Mormon? And if we can verify that or if it shows that it was not a real book, right? We'll go into that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m40s 52:40]
Taylor: Oh.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m41s 52:41]
Michelle: Oh, ok. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=52m43s 52:43]
Brian: Um So Sagittarius is the archer theme. He breaks his bow arrow and it becomes about the that the Nephi story. And then next thing that happens in the story is Capricorn, the whiny goat, his brother start murmuring, pushing back. He's an all new low, he's humbled, brought to his knees in prayers. Capricorn is also the knees of the zodiac he's brought to his knees. Um And then next they come onto the waters, they resolve that problem. They go into the waters, they abuse Nephi, then the waters get turbulent. Now, we're talking about the theme that's the book of Revelation, the angels pouring out his vials and, and because that's the theme of Aquarius, it's the water, bear the angel pouring out its vial and that everything gets turbulent and Nephi has to calm and pray it down and I mean, he prays and calms it down and then, and then the Pisces is also known as the mutable water, but it's also where you make it to the other land, the promised land and they make it to the fall. And so we, it's just taking you through these themes of the zodiac, like these stories, like it's embedded in every single one of the Bible and book of Mormon stories.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=53m58s 53:58]
Michelle: OK. That's amazing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=54m01s 54:01]
Brian: And so there we have this example from page from the book.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=54m04s 54:04]
Taylor: This is one of the pages from the book on Capricorn. So since we were talking about Capricorn complaining goats,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=54m10s 54:10]
Brian: um if you want to, I can go back to your question. Now about is there actual signs in the heavens of um that match to what it's actually saying in real time in the book of Mormon? And uh for example, one, it's a little easier to go to the closer dates. Um but it gives us timeliness in the book of Mormon better than it does the Bible actually. So it's actually more verifiable. And for example, I was reading through it in 35 I don't remember the exact verse, but it says in the sort of justice that hang over your head and it gives a date and it's saying it's like a transition of an year. So they their years go from spring to spring usually. And so I'm looking up spring of that year and I'm pulling out star charts and looking at the coordinates of, of all that and literally Orion's sword, it's hanging in the air and Mars has come into it, like filling up the sword orion's sword more. And I'm like, holy crap.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=55m07s 55:07]
Michelle: OK? Like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=55m08s 55:08]
Brian: like just crazy stuff like that in the book of Mormon. And then other ones were like, and we told you about the alignment that happened during COVID and how it was a match of what, how Jesus described what those constellation alignments meant. And it was talking about them banding up against the Gadot and Robbers and it gave this year that they fortified and went into all one place and they're gonna starve them out, right? And I'm like, oh, that's an easy theme. That means that either Saturn or Pluto would be in the constellation Scorpio because Scorpio is about taking what's not yours. And Scor Saturn and Scorpio would take that it'd be a transition or taking that away from them and I looked it up and it wasn't just one of them that was in those in the constellation Scorpio, but both of them entering into it at that time. And I was like, oh my word, I'm like, this is a literal book. Like this is not just allegory, but there is some, there's an aspect of this, that this stuff, the stars are showing these same things happening in the world.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=56m07s 56:07]
Michelle: OK. OK. This is, so, have you looked at, I'm just curious when, um I think it's nei um third Nephi, when um isn't that what it is, yeah, day and a night and a day. It's the opposite of an eclipse when the savior is born. Right. Have you guys done anything on that? Because I'm super curious. It could
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=56m25s 56:25]
Brian: have been another phenomenon. Like, could be dark matter. It could
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=56m29s 56:29]
Taylor: be. Yeah. One of those phenomena, like, I, I don't know that I've ever seen a phenomenon in the sky that can produce light, like, uh, as though it's daytime at night. Um you know, a day and night and day with no darkness. I, I've heard of that in like, you know, the college astronomy courses I took like, hey, if this star were to have a supernova, it would be like daytime. Like I've heard of that kind of thing theoretically. But who's to say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=56m59s 56:59]
Brian: that's one of the next part of our presentations that we're gonna go into our theories? But we can't like scientifically prove that one on um as of yet, maybe someday
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=57m10s 57:10]
Taylor: I'll need to get in the DeLorean and you know, get it up to 88 mil,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=57m15s 57:15]
Michelle: all of us, right? I needed to orientate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=57m18s 57:18]
Brian: So we, we've tried to lay a foundation that, that like this stuff's real, it's in scripture. And now we want to like use this and push our focus to Jesus and look at the theories like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=57m32s 57:32]
Taylor: that type of things is the Christmas special. This is, you know, we're going to talk about the star of Bethlehem. And what is that? And, you know, we're, we're gonna offer you four theories that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They might all be uh descriptions of what happens. Some of them might be more than others. Yeah. But uh ok, so the, the first one is very literal. It is that it is simply a new star. And I, and I have a hard time reading the scripture without like bringing up my Trump voice. So I'll try not to just do it. You know, because because Trump, if you ever listen to him, he's always the likes of which you've never seen before, you know, he always is the biggest, the greatest. So he live in 14 5. This is, this is Samuel the Lamon night and behold, there shall a new star arise such an one as ye never have beheld, see you on my best behavior. I don't approve and there's also shall be a sign unto you and behold, this is not all, there shall be many signs and wonders in the heavens. So what Samuel is saying, like he says, there's a new star and he like clarifies, it says literally like he's, he's offering you that in such a way that it can't be mistaken one that you've never seen before. Ok. But it goes on and I think validates at least the possibility that there are other interpretations here because behold, this is not all there shall be many signs and wonders in the heaven. Remember wonders in the heaven. We come back to that in a second.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=59m07s 59:07]
Brian: Yeah, let's go to the next slide.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=59m09s 59:09]
Michelle: And I can, I just say one thing here also. I guess I'm still on the, I'm, I'm, I'm, I don't want to harp too much on validating this but think how interesting it is. Like, if, if there was someone who was completely ignorant of anything having to do with the signs in the heavens, would God give them the knowledge, the Foreknowledge, the prophetic knowledge that there are going to be signs and wonders in the heavens, right? I'm guessing that he had some understanding of what that would mean, right? You know what I mean? Like, yeah, just like the more, the more that the greater our knowledge pool, the more that God can give us to understand. And so I think, you know, this is kind of validating that these prophets respected and understood and studied the whatever they call it. The zodiac. What? Right. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=59m59s 59:59]
Taylor: you know, and if you look at the book of Abraham, you know, there, there's an entire chapter where the Lord is explaining the movements of the planets to Abraham. Like it, it was of such a high priority that one, the Lord taught Abraham about it and two Abraham wrote it down and three Joseph Smith translated it so we could end up in our scriptures like it, it mattered. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h00m25s 1:00:25]
Brian: he's saying the same thing in that if you look up, I don't want to detour us too much, but you go and turn to your fil lilies and, and it identifies the middle one as co op that signifies new creation and it has a ram there. A ram a being with a ram head. That's Harry. It's the first creation. It's the first one. It's the first zodiac
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h00m44s 1:00:44]
Taylor: we could go on about this all day.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h00m46s 1:00:46]
Michelle: Ok. So, whatever our problems with Abraham might be with the book of Abraham and the scrolls and the right, it's kind of, that's kind of how I look at it at this point because I haven't delved into that deeply. But it's like the book itself has value of some sort
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m00s 1:01:00]
Taylor: I would encourage on it is to judge it by its content. And you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m05s 1:01:05]
Michelle: know, the story of how it came about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m07s 1:01:07]
Taylor: if, if somebody wants to delve into that more than I do. Like I, I haven't personally been interested enough to uh to search that out. Like I'm more interested in the content of it. I, I start from the presumption that Joseph is for real.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m20s 1:01:20]
Brian: Yeah, and it has some science in it that, that, that is real measurable and the critics will need to deal with. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m27s 1:01:27]
Michelle: I'm hoping to do an episode on the book of Abraham and um and talk about the difficulties I would love to have you guys back on when I do that to kind of present one side of it, it'll be, it'll be a while. But anyway, think about, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m40s 1:01:40]
Taylor: don't think I've ever said no to, uh, to an invitation. So. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h01m46s 1:01:46]
Brian: Ok. Keep, keep in mind when Samuel says such as one you've never beheld, he had to say that there because a new star actually means something completely different to the Ancients. Um, and that is, as a new star means something on the eastern horizon. Even the, among the, whether it be the Israelis or the Egyptians. Um Yeah, new was in the east. Dying is in the west birth
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h02m13s 1:02:13]
Taylor: and death. Yeah, that's,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h02m16s 1:02:16]
Michelle: and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h02m16s 1:02:16]
Brian: so it could naturally mean a star that is having an eastern position in which we are going to go into that in a lot more detail. But yeah, they would call that east and Westing also, the Egyptians would and that's why they would align tombs in Egypt along the west of the Nile, not east of the Nile. So it was, they were lying out things according to the cosmos. So, so that can actually mean other things and we're gonna get into that later.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h02m43s 1:02:43]
Taylor: Ok. So that, that second theory is that a new star was simply a star at the eastern horizon at an appointed time when it would be expected uh by the wise men who would say, where is he? That is born king of the Jews for we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him. Ok? That's one interpretation of what they may have meant. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h03m08s 1:03:08]
Brian: OK. Do you remember what you said about uh around the time of where um the virgin would be is when Jesus would be conceived, right? You remember that comment? So, um yeah, you want to go ahead and read that. Yeah. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h03m25s 1:03:25]
Taylor: So theory number three is, is that a star sign or a sign in the heavens was a star alignment? So this is revelations chapter 12, revelation chapter 12, excuse me, and there appeared a great wonder in heaven. Remember Samuel prophesized about many signs and wonders in heaven. So John is going to tell you what he thinks a wonder in heaven is a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head, a crown of 12 stars. Now, after spending the last, you know, 45 minutes hour hour or so with us, I hope that that's like calling to mind some things like, ok, we've got a virgin and we've got the sun and we've got the moon and they're in particular places, right? And upon her head, a crown of 12 stars and she being with child, cried, travailing in birth and pain to be delivered. So this is describing a particular configuration of stars and planets in the sky and one that doesn't come up very often. I I'm aware of three instances. Um One of them is in September BC two which A as you pointed out earlier, uh is around the time when Mary would have found herself overshadowed by the Holy Ghost and uh great with child or beginning, not great with child yet. Soon to be great with child.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h04m51s 1:04:51]
Brian: Yeah. And then, then the sun is overshadowing. That's a common pheno phenomenon to have the sun go past Virgo at that time of year, right? But the, the alignment of all the other planets is incredibly rare. rare. My dad, OK. So we want to dive into the meaning of this though, but go on.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m07s 1:05:07]
Michelle: Yeah, I want, OK, so the 12 stars and I have you spoken to what that could mean? Leo
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m14s 1:05:14]
Brian: Leo has nine stars and then you have Venus.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m18s 1:05:18]
Michelle: OK? I see
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m20s 1:05:20]
Brian: Mars all up there. So she has her head with 12 because you have Leo nine, the nine of Leo Leo just above her. Then you have the moon under her feet. Yeah. And uh yeah. And then so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m34s 1:05:34]
Michelle: OK, I'm glad I asked that stupid question because the answer made it very clear to me. So OK, there's no
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m39s 1:05:39]
Taylor: stupid question, right? So we, yeah, the stupid question is one you don't ask. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h05m45s 1:05:45]
Brian: so our next slide, we we it's just kind of a recap that of Doctrine covenants 21 3. Some people interpret that different ways. But um some people associate jesus' birth with April 6th that have came out of Mormonism because of this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h06m02s 1:06:02]
Taylor: because of this particular verse. And I I would note that this particular sign that we just had on the last slide, I mentioned that it's appeared in the heavens three times that I'm aware of BC two is one of them. Uh, 1830 is another of them when it appeared in the novel.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h06m22s 1:06:22]
Brian: That was, um, it was, it was 1827 1827. We'll go into that in the next time, but that was the same day that Joseph got the gold plates. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h06m32s 1:06:32]
Taylor: that's right. I'm way up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h06m35s 1:06:35]
Brian: Um But the idea is this April 6th date. Um You've had two people that came from Mormonism that have researched this and they started overlaying calendars with what the book of Mormon said on timelines. I think one was John Pratt and the other one was Brian Weaver and they both calculated out within like a day of each other and got the same date around April 5th or sixth. So like using Book of Mormon math. So Joseph was the type that did that kind of stuff that did that kind of mathematics. For example, he would be if you've read the lectures on faith, he's going through the math of the fathers. And he, if he was doing that there, he may have done that with the book of Mormon also and may have figured that date out that way. So not really sure, but I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h07m22s 1:07:22]
Michelle: it's around about that you're saying he chose to, to organize the church on that day. So these are theories as to how he could have come up with that with that day,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h07m32s 1:07:32]
Taylor: the day he organized the church I believe, was specified by revelation that the Lord said this is the day you're supposed to do it. And it turned out to be April 6th, 1930.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h07m42s 1:07:42]
Brian: Yeah. And then, and then you've had two other people do once again, take the, take sacred calendars and apply them to the book of Mormon to see how far back Jesus was born. And they came up with the same dates like calculated Jesus birth. I haven't done that personally, but there's been two other researchers that have done that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h08m00s 1:08:00]
Michelle: OK. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h08m01s 1:08:01]
Brian: So I want to talk about like the meanings of the constellation like because a lot of people like to point it out, but I want to go through the meanings. Let's hit the next slide. Um Real quick, the sun is a representation of the power of God. It's the most glorious and powerful heavenly body out there. I don't. And it's, that's how it's kind of used and it rules
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h08m19s 1:08:19]
Taylor: the day its strength like we're dependent on it for our lives. For all of the energy, we drive plants, animals like everything depends on the sun. Yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h08m31s 1:08:31]
Brian: Then the next the mo this is where it's gonna be triggering to a lot of people. But uh the moon is a symbol of like a covenant body. It's like the house of God in its depiction in early Hebrew was drawn as a house, a hieroglyph of a house. And therefore there's some ominous warnings when it's put under feet. It's actually a bad omen. Not a, not a good omen for some let's go to the next.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h08m55s 1:08:55]
Michelle: Ok. So just really quickly. So the sun generally is, is masculine like, you know, and the moon is considered feminine, right? And so kind of am I I faith in here? I just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h09m08s 1:09:08]
Brian: one example is Joseph's dream when Joseph in Egypt had a dream that the stars all bowed to him, right? The 12 stars. And um and he talked about the sun and the moon also and and Jacob instantly interpreted it that way he goes, you mean even your father and mother will bow to you and he used the moon as a symbol of the wife, the mother. And that's and think of it in terms of a covenant body or the bride of Christ, right? Ok. So, so it can take on those archetypes and scriptures. Um Venus, the the the goddess of love, right? Um is very, if you put it, it, its hieroglyph was represented as a foot. And if you go to the next slide, like we were getting told about the meaning of the story all along in the Cinderella story, the glass slipper right there, right? And the idea is it, it's about putting underfoot, the old misbehaving family, the unfaithful family and then getting a new covenant, everything about the foot is a new covenant, a new testament, right? And so next slide, um this story came from the Greeks and the Greeks believe it's believed that the Greeks got it from the Egyptians. It's really old. So like we were, we've been being told about these, some of these things in, in our basic fairy tales, but they, they, they hold a lot of truth. So when you put the, the, the moon under foot, it means that there has been an old covenant, but a new covenant is coming,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h10m42s 1:10:42]
Taylor: a replacement, right? Of Christ, a replacement covenant, a replacement uh counterpart. Um And you know, the glass slipper for me always reminds me of the Jewish wedding tradition. I don't know. And I, I don't claim to be an expert on this. I've had this much exposure to it. But the tradition where as part of the wedding ceremony, the bride and the groom break glass, they step on
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h11m09s 1:11:09]
Michelle: glass on it. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h11m11s 1:11:11]
Taylor: Yeah. And, and the glass slipper always reminds me of that. And I think that is appropriate symbolism here for this discussion because the moon under feet breaking like, OK, something old is going away and something new is beginning and with that, it's often referred to as the birth of the kingdom of God. Um very appropriate for Jesus's birth and for Joseph receiving the plates. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h11m35s 1:11:35]
Brian: because, because there's a because once again, covenant and Testament are interchangeable words. They could be translated one way or the other. The Old Testament could be called Old Covenants. The New Testament covenants in the book of Mormon. Another Testament could be also called another covenant of Jesus. Therefore, it's in the star signs have matched in line with all these events as we've gone through this, like the stars are giving their narrative too and these are their alignments to get all those planets there. It's hundreds of years in the making.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h12m09s 1:12:09]
Michelle: So, so when you say a bad omen, um does that what I'm interpreting that to mean is just like saying that a shift is coming. Like there is some sort of you're the one who's being replaced.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h12m23s 1:12:23]
Brian: So it's like the idea of Joseph gives a discourse on that. He said, John, the Baptist was raised up to remove the covenant from the Jews. So when they killed him, it removed their keys. So it's a bad Omen for the Jews. It means the covenant, it's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h12m35s 1:12:35]
Taylor: bad if you're getting the one, if you're the one losing your
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h12m37s 1:12:37]
Brian: covenant, they, they were losing active covenant status. And then the, the, the Christian dispensation receives new covenant status, right? And then then that Omen when Joseph, because it's the same day, if you count it the way that Hebrew from evening to evening because he caught it the one evening and then Stars Line was in the next morning. Um It's showing that like Joseph is receiving another covenant, but then it's also showing that like, the Christian dispensation is over, that they've been stripped of their covenant. That's what a star sign means.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h13m10s 1:13:10]
Taylor: And so, you know, bad omen, that's really up to you whether, you know, if you are receptive to what God is doing or, you know, that's not bad news if you, if you're, if you're in the right place and if you're, if you're in touch with God and you're being building relationship with him and on board with what he's doing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h13m31s 1:13:31]
Michelle: Well, yeah, that's, that's kind of my view on it is like nothing is bad. If we are submissive to God, God does all of these things for our benefit, all these things should work to, to be for our good, right? So, so that's, I guess why I was questioning the use of bad omen because it's kind of like if we're submissive to God, we know everything is good and we just flow with it, right? So there isn't bad good coming from God. Ok?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h13m54s 1:13:54]
Taylor: But it would feel pretty bad if you're the Jews who are losing their covenant status and losing and you're going to have your temple destroyed and you know, be scattered to the four like that would feel pretty
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m05s 1:14:05]
Michelle: bad. But there were a lot but again, came along that, yeah, that only happened because they were so um proud, right? If they had been submissive and humble, then they could have just flowed into the new covenant. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m20s 1:14:20]
Taylor: Absolutely. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m22s 1:14:22]
Michelle: Yeah. So, it doesn't have to be bad for us, I guess, is what I'm saying. It's like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m28s 1:14:28]
Brian: the,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m29s 1:14:29]
Michelle: yeah, exactly. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m33s 1:14:33]
Taylor: All right. Theory. Number four, we had to go here. We had to,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m36s 1:14:36]
Brian: we have to talk about it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m39s 1:14:39]
Michelle: I love it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m40s 1:14:40]
Taylor: I, I love Brian's artwork. I, I love it so much. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h14m44s 1:14:44]
Michelle: incredible. It is in, I just, uh, I love it. It's, it's, it makes it like you could watch these channels to do the whole like a smr meditations. I mean, it's just gorgeous. What you, what you do. So anyway, I, every single slide I'm like, I love it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h15m01s 1:15:01]
Brian: We, we want this to be fun. So should I go here? Huh? Um So we're gonna bring up some things with this theory and this is more for fun. We have to, we want to talk about it but we're um but this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h15m17s 1:15:17]
Michelle: isn't necessarily your theory or your top theory is what I'm hearing it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h15m21s 1:15:21]
Brian: It's a fun theory. I, I can't indefinitely prove it, but we want to talk about it for fun. It's gonna involve this book. Have you heard of this book of Joshua? It was printed by the Mormons out of Salt Lake City and apparently
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h15m34s 1:15:34]
Michelle: I have heard of it. I'm so far not a huge fan but um but I'm, I haven't read it. I just had it quoted at me like, what are you talking about? So, anyway, but, but I'm open to it. The
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h15m45s 1:15:45]
Brian: Bible references the book of Joshua, whether this is the real thing or not, we don't know. Um, it does have some interesting stuff. There's like a star alignment that it's like one of the stories seems to be embodied in a star alignment and that catches my eye. I'm like, huh. That's interesting. Um, and that would be with Orion because it, or the Juicy Orion is the, it's seen as a mighty Hunter Orion, the hunter, right? And the juice see that as Nimrod and he's dressed with garb, he's wearing the coat of many colors, right? And, and that the focus of Orion's consolation is his belt. And, um, so that gives me pause because it identifies that birthright as the coat. Um And then that's, and it makes more sense actually when you have less of the bi when the Bible story tells less, it makes it makes more sense why Joseph's brothers didn't like him if he was receiving the coat that was passed down from Adam in the Garden of the Garden of Eden, that would make a lot more sense. So it, it does have some stuff that's suggestible and then the stars seem to embody that a little bit. So I like that. It also has some stuff that it gives additional details that we find in the book of Mormon, for example, the City of Enoch in the Bible it was just enoch left but in the book of M but in Joseph Smith stuff it in his revelation from the whole city and this book says the city went like there was others that went with him. So there's some stuff that's like actually validated and we know that there was a revelation in the Doctrine covenants that says some things are Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h17m21s 1:17:21]
Taylor: Yeah. So when we're, when we're talking about anything like that, the book of Joshua, I think certainly fits this description. Uh Section 91 of the Doctrine and covenants. Um The Lord, the Lord, the Lord recommends the apocrypha for study most people. When I was learning it in seminary, I wasn't taught it that way. But if you read the plain text of section 91 the Lord says there are many things contained there in that are true and it is mostly translated correctly. He does give you a warning. There are many things contained there in that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men verily, I say unto you that it is not needful, the apocrypha should be translated. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand for the spirit manifested truth and whoso is enlightened by the spirit shall obtain benefit there from like that to me. Sounds like a recommendation, you know, first be enlightened by the spirit and second, you know, if, if so then yeah, these are, there are some things out there that are worthy of study. But definitely, like we said, at the very beginning of this, apply your discernment and recognize. Yeah, these things don't have the, the perfect unqualified endorsement of God as the, the absolute universal truth. The endorsement you get from the Lord is. Yeah, if you uh if you're enlightened by the Holy Spirit, you can benefit from it. Great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h18m46s 1:18:46]
Brian: Ok. So, so one star story in there is, it expands more about Joseph and from our culture, our history, Joseph knew more about the stars. That's another thing that's cross agreeing on. And, and we have a depiction of Joseph who's in Egypt and Benjamin up there. And there's a point in the Joseph getting sold into Egypt's story where um they admit that they sold their brother into Egypt and, and he pulls Benjamin aside who was not involved in the selling of Joseph to Egypt. And he, and he gets talking to him along privately and he's like, hey, I, I hear that um the Hebrews know the mysteries of the stars. Like, do you know about those things? And he's like, yeah, my father taught me them, he taught me in wisdom and, and how to be wise, right? And those are the same keywords that we use to describe the wise men who, who know the stars. And he's like, well, then here are the instruments, here's the map of the stars. And here is this, he gave him the instruments, he goes, you should be able to track down and find what Joseph said. And, and apparently, according to this account, Benjamin looks at it and he gets like, astonished and he's like, goes quiet and Joseph's like, what is it? What do you see? And he's like, well, it shows that Joseph should be here with me. Now. He's like, are you Joseph? And then that's when he confesses that he's Joseph and he's like, but did you not tell your brothers? I'm going to put a cup in your sack. I need to see whether they repented
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h20m25s 1:20:25]
Taylor: or not in this version of it. Like Benjamin's in on the whole cup in the sack. Ok. You know, again, not claiming it's absolutely true. And just, it's interesting and it's cool. So we, it is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h20m39s 1:20:39]
Michelle: really cool. I was gonna say that but, but
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h20m42s 1:20:42]
Brian: what if the wise men were actually using the stars and their knowledge of them and had maps and we're actually tracking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h20m51s 1:20:51]
Taylor: and we're able to use them in that way that unless you've told me, unless you figured it out since the last time we talked about it, I haven't figured out how to do that yet.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h20m58s 1:20:58]
Brian: It would not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h20m59s 1:20:59]
Michelle: That's, isn't that what we all kind of thought? Isn't that what we all kind of think? I don't know. That's what I always thought growing up, that they saw the car.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h21m08s 1:21:08]
Taylor: I grow up. It's like a star hovering over the man. Like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h21m14s 1:21:14]
Brian: my argument against that theory of a star huddling over chasing Jesus would be, that, wouldn't he have found him?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h21m21s 1:21:21]
Michelle: Oh, good point. Plus, have you ever tried to follow the moon or? You know, it's like chasing the end of the rainbow. It's not gonna stay, you know, it's all perspective and relation. You can't see a star in the heaven and choose a manger. I, I choose, you know, one stable from it. And so I, that's, that's funny because I, your fourth theory, which is kind of the one that, you know is, I guess what I thought happened,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h21m45s 1:21:45]
Taylor: none of these were mutually exclusive. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h21m48s 1:21:48]
Michelle: ok, I'm not, I guess I, I hadn't thought of it critically. It's just kind of what I grew up. I'm remembering back to when I was a child being like they knew so much about how to or a teenager, you know, anyway, they can bring the stars like a map.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h22m02s 1:22:02]
Brian: Yep. So we wanna show like we're gonna pull up some stars on some known figures of the channel. And, uh, um, you tell, you, tell us how close we are, right? And, and so, but first before we go into her and then we're gonna jump into Jesus after this, we want you guys to see that this is real and, and, um, then we're gonna, we'll go into it and we'll look at Jesus's stuff after. But let's talk about Whitney first. We're all familiar with Whitney Horning. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h22m33s 1:22:33]
Taylor: Whitney Horning is a friend that we all have in common. Um, hi, Whitney. Love you together.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h22m40s 1:22:40]
Michelle: Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h22m41s 1:22:41]
Brian: Um, you have some interesting star alignments. Like, we've done some work on Joseph and trying to figure out Joseph Smith stars and, um, Whitney Horning has some similar star alignments to her personality that Joseph Smith has. She has like a similar wiring if that makes sense. So, and it's interesting that she felt led to read, to write a book on Joseph Smith when she has like kind of a construct similar to him and, and like to her, if you asked her, hey, how would you like to be with two men and, and she'd be like, that's disgusting, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h23m15s 1:23:15]
Michelle: Like, like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h23m17s 1:23:17]
Brian: but that's her personality. But that was actually Joseph Smith's personality too. So like Gemini rising both of them and uh she has some interesting alignments. She has uh Jupiter in Scorpio and her Scorpio is in the sixth house which is Virgo. So she brings in Scorpio is like a sexual energy and it, and it brings in the virgin, the clean energy, but her stars were retrograding. Jupiter is retrograding to Scorpio, meaning she's taking the inappropriate like sex out like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h23m51s 1:23:51]
Taylor: that into English for just a moment. Um Whitney, what Paul is saying about you is that uh the stars reflect someone who is pure uh chaste virtuous and, and wants those things kept within all of the appropriate boundaries of, of a marriage relationship that is committed. And a, like, that's what her say about her and what Joseph says about him. Yeah. He
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h24m16s 1:24:16]
Brian: doesn't have those exact, um, Jupiters. But she can, they have similar personality view where they would, they would want. But the Jupiter is the blessing. We want to stress that your Jupiter is your blessing. It's what you, what you bring to the world and she's actually doing that. You've seen that over the course of her life and her stars show that. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h24m35s 1:24:35]
Michelle: I'm wondering, OK, that's I'm, I'm wondering, I was, I was thinking maybe I should get Whitney on the phone and let her verify for this. I hate to surprise her with it. I'll see if she responds to my text.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h24m50s 1:24:50]
Brian: That was mainly what I wanted to forget about it. She does also have Saturn and Pisces and it shows that the idea of she, she's gonna, she's given the omen of taking away people's illusions. It's one way that could be
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h25m02s 1:25:02]
Taylor: for her. It's Saturn and 12th House and Taurus for her as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h25m07s 1:25:07]
Brian: So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h25m09s 1:25:09]
Taylor: and uh which is Pisces, we might want to edit this part out. Just she has Saturn and Mars together. I remember. So II I don't think I would like to be around her when she's angry. Maybe that's a question I should ask like her husband or something or maybe if you want to tell me she's like what she's saying. OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h25m30s 1:25:30]
Michelle: she, she never gets angry. Ok, so she, ok. Well, do you know what, even if that's true, she, well, even if that's true, she's passionate about what she believes and what she thinks is right. And I can appreciate that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h25m42s 1:25:42]
Taylor: I love that about her. Absolutely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h25m45s 1:25:45]
Brian: So your stars um Liber Ri, like that's the same as my wife. So I feel like even though we haven't met in person, I'm probably gonna get you because you're gonna wanna bring balance to everything, right? As, as far as like a person, a personality. But what I wanna focus on is you have Jupiter in Aries and what house is that in? Is, is there Jupiter in uh seven, Jupiter is in the seventh house? That's interesting because um Jupiter brings in areas can bring war, can bring, it could be mean that you have the blessing to bring the fight out, right? But it also idea that you could be blessed to be noticed as a person if you notice how big your channel is growing. Um You've kind of came as like a Provent person like Aries is the I am. Your your yourself has kind of been in the spotlight and your stars kind of show that Omen, right? And in the Seventh House, it brings in the expansion of balance. It's, it's the opposite of polygamy. It's it's bringing balance, it's bringing the companion, the partner and bringing everything into balance like your stars show this like four, you like you're for ordained for this, like you're doing what your own show that, that you'll do what you'll bring.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h27m05s 1:27:05]
Taylor: Another one that, that stands out to me is uh Moon in Scorpio. That, that theme suggests you would prefer the ugly truth to a comforting lie every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Like no matter how ugly the truth is, like, that's what you want. Not the ignorance is bliss. Put the blinders on. Um And then I also see, can I talk about Saturn and Cancer
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h27m32s 1:27:32]
Brian: lightly? We'll be, we'll try to tread carefully because this is about your, like, your struggles, your challenges,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h27m38s 1:27:38]
Taylor: um Satur and Cancer and this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h27m40s 1:27:40]
Michelle: is what you just said. I like the ugly truth. So go for it. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h27m45s 1:27:45]
Taylor: I mean, I, I, I'll tread carefully and then if you want to talk more about it off air or not at all, like, that's totally up to you. Uh, that, that suggests some challenges and trials related to uh to motherhood and childbearing. Um, but I'll, I'll leave that to, uh we can talk about it or not. That's totally up to you. I know that's, that those themes can be really, really sensitive.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h28m10s 1:28:10]
Michelle: They are. But I will tell you, um, ah, I'm sorry. Um, ah, it's, it's interesting because a lot of what you're saying. So, so I'm gonna back up to a couple of the things you said before. I, um for years and years and years have known there were things I was supposed to do. I, I knew I was supposed to speak and write to do things that I felt like God wanted me to do and then I had this huge family. Right. And so I always kind of struggled and like, how am I supposed to? Like, I, it was painful to not be doing what I felt like I was supposed to be doing in that area, but I was doing what I was supposed to be doing in the motherhood area, right? And then, um I um had really strong, profound answers to have my little 12th. And um, and, and that was a struggle for me because, well, for so many reasons, you know, but, um anyway, and so when we lost her, I was so, um I felt like God was so cruel, right? Because how could you tell me to do this and make me think it, you know, and then take her away, right? And then same story with my number. I, I had some, an some profound answers with my 12th, but then my 13th, I was told to have her and the same story. And both times I had to like go to the depth of is God cruel, like God, who I know and who I love. Can I trust God or is he kind of this jokester that does such cruel things? Right? And so I guess the reason I'm bringing this up is because I, um, I got the answers. I was given answers both times. And with my 13th, I had been told before, I, I was just in turmoil because our last, I, like there was no fixing it. I somehow thought that if I had another baby would fix something. Do you know what I mean? Like, how can you lose your last child? And, um, anyway, I learned that that's not. But, but anyway, it was, the Lord just told me you don't know what you want, but I know what you want and if you trust me, I'll give you what you want. That was exactly the answer I had for our 13th and when I conceived and it was a little girl, it actually was exactly what we wanted, you know what I wanted. And so when she was taken away, um I just felt like how could you tell me that this is not what I want, you know? And um the Lord told me so profoundly like, well, my little girls told me so profoundly that I always wanted to be their mother. They were supposed to be mine. But the Lord showed me my, my path and said this is what you want, you want to be their mother and you want to do what you are here to do, right? And so in a way, um you know, they're part of the team on the other side of what of what we're all trying to accomplish. So having you validate, that is actually another witness of, you know, that this was written in the stars that, that this there is purpose to all of this and somehow purpose gives you healing, purpose gives you right. Rather than having to always wonder, is God cruel, being able to see. No, this is all in God's hands and this is all exactly what was when I say for ordained, like this is what I chose and this is what I wanted. That, does that make sense? Anyway. So I'm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h31m32s 1:31:32]
Taylor: actually thank you for sharing that with us. I, I confess, I don't know you well enough to, to have already known any of that. So um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h31m43s 1:31:43]
Michelle: yeah, sorry to go off on, on, on that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h31m46s 1:31:46]
Taylor: It's totally OK. I have, I, I'm, I'm kind of feeling emotional about the, the prospect of losing my, my youngest two Children are twins. They're nine months old now and the idea of losing two Children is, is weighing on me a little bit. I'm, I just need to take a breath for a second.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h32m07s 1:32:07]
Michelle: It's, but it has been um anyway, that's really interesting to um you know, that's how I interpret what you said at least.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h32m14s 1:32:14]
Brian: Yeah, that's very in line. Um I do want to bring up one other point on your chart that relates to Jesus. It says very similar alignment to Jesus and, and it's Saturn in the 10th house AM I right. Am I reading that? Right. Yeah. Um That means also and keep in mind sometimes these things can be used where somebody picks it up and they uses it a weapon and I can see that in you a little bit. But um Saturn the Destroying Angel the 10th House is masculinity. Governance like fatherhood. It's the idea of taking a bath and taking it to mass um toxic masculinity. Like it shows that like alignment that could draw the iron of governing people, people that don't like their narrative dismissed. So you have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h33m06s 1:33:06]
Taylor: in your challenging authoritative masculine narrative
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h33m09s 1:33:09]
Brian: and Jesus had that same alignment in his stars, which we're going to get to.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h33m14s 1:33:14]
Michelle: Oh OK. So kind of the OK. OK. That's, that's really interesting. OK. The not, not wanting to break something but telling the truth and having it kind of threatened to break something. OK?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h33m29s 1:33:29]
Brian: Because it takes away the um masculine power in a way like this narrative. Like it takes this tight grip that the authorities say, hey, it's gotta be this way and you've degraded that you've started to go through the flow of not having that act on you as much, but you're using it like a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h33m48s 1:33:48]
Taylor: gift and, and Mars in general like the way you fight is, is with words, you speak, you speak the truth. And uh yeah, so we, we could spend an hour just doing, we could spend two hours.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h34m04s 1:34:04]
Michelle: Go ahead. OK. This is it's so amazing. I, I guess I'm kind of overwhelmed by the amount of time. How, how long would it take to be able to gain some mastery of this so that I could look at it and know how to read it, or?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h34m25s 1:34:25]
Taylor: That's a good question. How, how long was it for you be before? You felt like you had a, uh, a handle on this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h34m32s 1:34:32]
Brian: Well, I keep trying to push myself to learn different aspects of it and, and yeah, I've spent like a decade on it. But um I really feel like that if we put classes together and we simplified it and showed them very basic things and even just in the channel, we're using story from the Bible to show people to help them remember and associate it correctly. Like really people could be after a couple of months if they just dived into it, that would, could get pretty versed in it because they already know a lot of it. It's so much of it's in scripture and then there's just a few little things that we would need to point out that would give them a foundation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h35m10s 1:35:10]
Taylor: So, I mean, you, you could, you can gain a, a competence and a comfort level with it. I would say pretty quickly you can, you know, a few hours into it um over the course of like a month or two. Yeah, you could, you could look at this and, and make more sense of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h35m28s 1:35:28]
Brian: 32 hour classes series to get somebody with a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h35m32s 1:35:32]
Taylor: level of competence with it that you can use it. They could take off.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h35m36s 1:35:36]
Michelle: Ok. So it's like everything you're never done learning, but you can get a, get to a place of just going. Oh, ok. I get this. I can. Ok. That's ok. This is amazing. So I could, you, I'm curious, um, I guess, I guess the question I, I'm, I'm having my tapping into the skeptical mind too. My my need to bring balance to everything. But so, so could you look at somebody? So this is just based on birth date and time, right? Like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m09s 1:36:09]
Taylor: and, and location?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m11s 1:36:11]
Michelle: Oh and location? Oh, because it's where, where the signs are, where you're born? OK. Because it's all about where
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m17s 1:36:17]
Brian: light is positioning itself. So yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m19s 1:36:19]
Michelle: Oh, so cool. OK. So if you knew those facts and if someone just said, hey, I wanna test you. Here is a birthday and time and location, tell me about this person.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m31s 1:36:31]
Taylor: Yeah, that easy,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m34s 1:36:34]
Michelle: easy. And it's, and you feel like it's pretty, there's a lot of a high level of accuracy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m40s 1:36:40]
Brian: We start guessing people what they are and I, I got people yelling at me at work. I'm like, somebody just went off and I'm like, huh?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h36m48s 1:36:48]
Taylor: Yeah. And, and by guessing what they are like, it's uh it's somebody that we know, well, we can reverse engineer this sometimes like, OK, I can look at someone I've known for a long time and I can say, ok, well, I know their birthday so that will tell me their sun sign pretty well. They act this way and they look this way and I can say, you know, I, I, this is one of the things he was saying about me, like I, I can do a lot of this math in my head. But I sometimes I pull out a piece of paper. Say, were you born at like 230 in the afternoon or something? And, you know, I can usually come to it if it's somebody that I know. Well, I can, they'll, they'll have to go get their birth certificate and they'll say, yeah, 234 you know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h37m31s 1:37:31]
Brian: like they fall on people, most people fall into their occupations and everything by this stuff. You'll see
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h37m38s 1:37:38]
Taylor: what they say about what they're going to do for you. You can
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h37m40s 1:37:40]
Brian: start if you know the science really well, you can.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h37m44s 1:37:44]
Michelle: Ok. So do you go ahead? Ok. So, so what you're doing for me right now, you know, like, like putting together mine. Do you do this for people or is this, what is this, what would be called? A, is this a psychic reading is like, what do you call, um,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h38m06s 1:38:06]
Brian: this would be called a natal chart. And so it's not predicting the future as much as it is just like, it's a mapping of the personalities and it's like an overall, just the general life you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h38m17s 1:38:17]
Taylor: can think of it. Like, I mean, I, I like to explain it. You can think of it. Like your, your mental slash spiritual DNA, it doesn't tell you what choices you're going to make. Like you absolutely have agency and you get to choose what you're going to do. It just kind of says like, hey, these are the things that, uh, that you're drawn towards or things that repulse you kind of like I said a few minutes ago, you know, you prefer the ugly truth. I, I've got a friend who definitely prefers the uh the comforting illusion.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h38m51s 1:38:51]
Michelle: OK. OK. Yeah. So, so um oh, what was I gonna say? So I, I have a couple of questions. So how do you guys um explain this? I, I mean, do you just, do you think of it in terms of like God has written all of this specificity in the heavens? And that even comes down into the detail of when we are born and where we're born, that God is, it's kind of God's signature everywhere in all creation or like, I guess I'm trying to give people a way to think about it or because I think some people might think, oh, because I'm born at that time in that place, I'm something like, like, you know, like, yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h39m32s 1:39:32]
Taylor: that makes
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h39m33s 1:39:33]
Brian: sense.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h39m34s 1:39:34]
Taylor: It's like, II I think to answer that question, I would say, I, I like the first version of it where you can, you can see God is being intimately involved in the details of everything right down to when you know, a baby takes his first breath and where that's going to be. And like, yeah, like, I certainly see it a lot that way because I, I get the, uh, I get the skeptical mind of like, Saturn is a zillion miles that way out in space. It doesn't care about you. What on earth are you even talking about where you need to take
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h40m07s 1:40:07]
Brian: a grain of salt analogy? I would use, how are you as a little girl? And how have you changed as an adult? Like we have there's a huge different evolution through these signs like they, they may have an in a subject or a kind of a theme that goes along with them a certain priority if that makes sense. But ultimately, and they may have a flow. You may walk a certain way
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h40m29s 1:40:29]
Taylor: naturally like my daughter who bounces everywhere she goes. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h40m33s 1:40:33]
Brian: Fire rising. OK. Harry's rising people are they, they sometimes get back
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h40m38s 1:40:38]
Taylor: my daughter. If you've seen Winnie the Pooh Tigger, that's, that's my little girl. Five years old. Bounce,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h40m44s 1:40:44]
Brian: bounce, bounce, bounce. My little girl turning seven Aries rising does the same thing just bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce. She skips everywhere.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h40m52s 1:40:52]
Michelle: That's what I'm thinking. This would be so useful just, it's sort of like a personality test, right? The same, it serves the same purpose as like a really involved personality test to kind of just tell you about yourself or how to understand yourself or other people that can be really useful. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h41m06s 1:41:06]
Brian: And we get a lot of like straw men set up with horoscopes and sun signs and sun signs that have a lot less to do with us than our rising where it says ascendant Libra like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h41m16s 1:41:16]
Taylor: for you. So it's that middle section of the uh of the chart where it says, I don't know if you can see my ma or not, that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h41m22s 1:41:22]
Brian: has so much more to do with the angle of the sun was at the very moment you were born of who you are more than anything else.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h41m31s 1:41:31]
Michelle: OK. And I'm thinking when Jesus says like God is, isn't mindful of even this little Daisy, right? The right? Like why would God not be mindful of every soul that is born? Why is it impossible to consider that this would be written in the stars and written in anyway, I think there's something beautiful about this. It kind of makes everything that much more profound.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h41m58s 1:41:58]
Taylor: Yeah, wri written into your uh like it, it's it, you could see it, you know, potentially as, as like a description of your spirit. And so like you could see it as OK, when, when all that, when all of that happened, when all of those things came together, that's when I was scheduled to come into, into the earth on the other side. And, you know, I, I've made my way in and, you know, like I say, some people will look at this and say, oh, well, I'm gonna blame it on the moon. I, you know, just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h42m32s 1:42:32]
Brian: it needs to be approached with balance, it needs to be not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h42m35s 1:42:35]
Taylor: and some people who will, who will ask for these will be like, so what do you think I should do? And I said, well, what do you want to do? Like I, I am not to become anyone psychic. I'm not going to tell anyone how to make, you know, life choices that they're going to make based on this. Like if somebody asked my perspective on a problem that I faced, I'll talk about that just, you know, one human to another. But uh like he and I talk about, hey, what do you do with your kids? You know, when your kids are doing XY and Z, what are you doing about that? We talk about that all the time. That's just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h43m09s 1:43:09]
Michelle: like everything. There's, there's good and bad use of it. Like I'm thinking a really bad use of this would be a really good use would be I want to understand my kids better. And so I know how to be the best parent for them. That's a good use. A bad use would be OK. A bad use would be I want this kind of kids So I'm going to schedule my C section to be exactly this time.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h43m38s 1:43:38]
Taylor: But yeah, yeah, like it's, it's a bit like asking the question is sex good or bad. The answer is from a certain perspective. It was the first commandment Adam Eve, you know, get done business multiply and replenish the earth or in other circumstances. It is horribly destructive of uh peace and society and it, it challenges people for generations when it's misused. You know, you can be cursed with poverty for generations. If you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m11s 1:44:11]
Michelle: there's, there's great sex can go really, really wrong, right? And it can also be, yeah. So, ok, so I guess that's what, so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m21s 1:44:21]
Taylor: is that good or bad? The answer is yes. And is this good or bad? Yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m26s 1:44:26]
Michelle: OK. And so that I did have that thought, forgive me for these weird questions. But does C section affect this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m36s 1:44:36]
Taylor: My, my first child was born as a uh as an emergency C section. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m42s 1:44:42]
Michelle: I guess, I mean, like, like if you don't go into labor naturally, it's still God still can write that all, all of it. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m50s 1:44:50]
Taylor: Yeah, and can figure it out. I do want to point
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h44m53s 1:44:53]
Michelle: one. I have to remind myself that we can't mess up God's plans. We're not that big. So, ok, go ahead,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h45m00s 1:45:00]
Brian: caveat with all this though. Is um the scriptures are pretty clear. We should not rely on the arm of flesh. We should not be putting another person between us and God. Like, like can we try to have that mindset on our channel about? Everybody needs to go through their personal transformation. Everybody needs to um like find God know God on their own and this is life eternal that they might know the, the only true God and Jesus whom now I like it. That's the point of this life. And to, and we try to educate the people on these to where they can know it for themselves. They can, they can understand the signs and the seasons. The way that in the context of the Bible says is appropriate. So and not to be that person that somebody is going to, we don't want somebody hanging on to us. You know what I mean?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h45m48s 1:45:48]
Michelle: I'm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h45m48s 1:45:48]
Taylor: not qualified for that. So, you know, Jesus is the one that you should, you should be going and speaking of Jesus, should we move on from Michelle? Not that we don't love you Michelle, but we move on. Do you want to talk about Jesus?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h45m59s 1:45:59]
Michelle: Let's please get to Jesus. That is yes, much, much better topic. We
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h46m04s 1:46:04]
Brian: wanted to like set a precedent that like we wanted to show that it was real for you. And we want to show that the stars were real for Jesus. So um there's really something amazing that was happening, like when they're setting up the ordinances, they're, they're doing them in replication of the heavens and, and likewise, when they put the tribes of Israel representing the, the 12 tribes of the 12 zodiacs. They're aligning them to the zodiacs of um, what they looked like when Jesus was born because we, we know that he was the sunshine of a lamb. But what it's doing is it's bringing the lion to the east along with the virgin woman and, and, and we, what we've done to triangulate this and I'm eventually gonna probably make a video on it, but I'm still researching it. But Jesus goes out of his way over and over and over again and he associates the Samaritans over and over again with um the tribe a with the constellation Aquarius. And, and we know that the Samaritans were highly populated by Ephram. Mis and Ephram mis were the ones that rebelled against Judah and in and in the zodiac, um the lion of Judah, Leo Aquarius are the opposites. They, they, they hold the oppositional force and that's the whole theme of Ephraim rebelling is the theme of Aquarius. It's rebelling against the main character, Leo the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h47m30s 1:47:30]
Taylor: lion. And so what, and they're, they're opposites like literally like, uh you know, I, I if you're looking for where the sun is, we're talking about the end of July to August and the end of January to February, like it's literally opposite sides of the sky.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h47m46s 1:47:46]
Brian: Hottest and the coldest times of the year, right? So it's oriented laying out the Zodiac or the tribes of Israel to be in the position of the stars when Jesus was born. It's actually truly remarkable in my opinion. And what was interesting is, is Jupiter at the time of his birth was like, like right between Virgo and Judah, like it's between um and I've made a graphic of it where you can see exactly where Jupiter was like, right between Virgo and Leo. And that has some great significance because Jesus with a, a Virgo placement of Jupiter. Jupiter is your blessing. It's what you're incredibly good at, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h48m29s 1:48:29]
Taylor: What comes naturally and relatively easily for you, Virgo's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h48m33s 1:48:33]
Brian: cleanness, holiness. It's, it's an archetype for healing. It's, it rules over the house that governs healing. It means that Je Jesus was born at that time that he was gonna be imbued with the gift of healing
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h48m47s 1:48:47]
Taylor: so much so that people could touch his body and be made whole to that point, he touched the dead and they came back to life
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h48m56s 1:48:56]
Michelle: to that point with healing in his wings
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h49m00s 1:49:00]
Brian: and, and, and, and that healing in his wings means Jupiter and Virgo or Jupiter in the sixth house, it could manifest either way there. Um Those scriptures are describing alignments of his birth um Just before that barely into the lion is when his birth that were where the sun would have been a um what's rising on the horizon. What was on the horizon? What was where the eastern horizon was at? So the, the the sun was in Aries. The eastern horizon is where the the horizon was and it was barely into Leo, which this is complex stuff. I'm gonna try to make it not sound too complex, but it makes um the line of all of his houses start at Leo. And therefore it encompasses mainly the house of Virgo, meaning Ver uh Jupiter was in the first house. And what I mean by that is, it's the other omen of his birth. It gives you two blessings at your, at your birth. We talked about your two blessings and your two cursing jesus'. Other blessing was to be in to have his body be blessed. His body was blessed with expansion. So he was a supercharged, gifted person and a gifted healer. Those were his two main gifts. And it also is a symbol that whoever partakes of his body receives expansion. Life is still
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h50m22s 1:50:22]
Taylor: like almost like he meant that when he said that like take it, this is my body. Take this into your yourself are
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h50m30s 1:50:30]
Brian: testifying of our ordinances and those things like that. I want to make a point out. One other thing, Pluto is aligned as much as it can be with Spiker, the seed of the woman. So that's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h50m41s 1:50:41]
Taylor: uh if you can look at the graphic towards the left of it, the second like where the woman's knees would be,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h50m47s 1:50:47]
Michelle: we can see his mouse, we could see the mouse move on it. Uh
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h50m51s 1:50:51]
Taylor: I can't see the mouse
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h50m53s 1:50:53]
Brian: point to that one and it's aligned with that, that's spiker that's called the seed of the woman. Um And so it's an omen of like where it's like the birthing canal. I think of it as that idea when it's positioned at that place in the sky. And Pluto is a symbol. Now, what, what modern observers um how they view it and it's a symbol of transformation, death and rebirth. So it's a symbol of the one being born that would die and be reborn. So it has that o
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h51m23s 1:51:23]
Taylor: death and resurrection.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h51m27s 1:51:27]
Brian: And he brings that concept to all of us too that we can be born again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h51m32s 1:51:32]
Michelle: Wow. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h51m36s 1:51:36]
Brian: And where we get in Jupiter originally in the early Hebrew language, it was a tent peg and it expands to take stakes of Zion, the idea of expansion, um the power to move
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h51m47s 1:51:47]
Taylor: all of the graphics that look like this. These are from that book that I mentioned at the beginning and, and like I said, the first page of like 25 other books. OK. So then, then Virgo, we talked about that. We talk about Saturn. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h52m04s 1:52:04]
Brian: Let's talk about Saturn. Let's move to Saturn. OK. This is the placement of Saturn. Um This was, there's a scripture to this. Do we have the scripture to this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h52m12s 1:52:12]
Taylor: I don't think I have that in the nose. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h52m14s 1:52:14]
Brian: might just have to quote it. OK. You've heard this the scripture in Isaiah. For unto us, a child is born unto us. A son is given the child in the sun. Once again is Aries. It's the first born of the zodiac. It's the child of the zodiac. And it's a reference to his being born with the son under a um aligning with Aries. But once again, for unto us, as child is born unto us, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulders. Saturn is the governing one. It's the grand governing one, out of all the visible one that moves slowest book of Abraham is like a whatever one moves slower is the greatest, the more powerful one. And it, it is what brings everybody to their knees, it rolls over Capricorn and Capricorn is the knees of the zodiac. But it's interesting that it said the government shall be upon his shoulder, the shoulder of the zodiac. We showed you a graphic where they're all lined on the parts of the body is Taurus. Taurus rolls over the neck and the shoulder area. So to lay Saturn on that means that he takes the curse of Saturn on to aligns with the constellation Taurus. And, and that curse, what it means is, it's the curses of the riches of the earth. It means he's not to receive the riches um on that large scale, like things would happen to him like being born into a manger, right? It's that kind of means or it means that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h53m40s 1:53:40]
Taylor: man has not a place to lay his head,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h53m43s 1:53:43]
Michelle: kind of cursed with poverty, homelessness.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h53m46s 1:53:46]
Brian: And so he even had to like, do a magic trick. I'm being a brat, we had to do a magic trick and have Peter get a piece of gold for him and Peter's taxes. Right? Like he was, didn't have money to give, like he had to do stuff like that. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h54m05s 1:54:05]
Michelle: So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h54m06s 1:54:06]
Brian: but that flips into the 10th house the same way yours does, which is the idea of angering governing bodies. And that truly happened in his life. But it's also the curse of the father. It's like it can manifest and mean that you could have a bad father or not have a father there or like what likely happened, Joseph, who was his caretaker wasn't talked about at the end of his life and he bowed out early. So those type of themes are all throughout jesus' life and that's what a star show and his birth.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h54m38s 1:54:38]
Michelle: Wow. Ok. Wow. So a lot of this comes from Isaiah, meaning Isaiah either understood exactly what he was talking about in this deeper sense and, and meaning he studied the signs in the heavens or he was just inspired to write what he wrote, not even knowing the full implications either way. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h55m03s 1:55:03]
Taylor: Well, and, and uh you know, we, we think it's all flowery nice language mostly because songs have been made of it and I won't torture your audience by attempting to sing it from the Messiah. But uh you know, like we've, we've thought of it that way for so long, but every word was chosen with care by Isaiah. I think he's, he's that kind of guy that he wants to convey, but he's trying to convey something much bigger than himself and he's limited by human language to try to convey it. And this is what has has been transmitted to us across generations and time.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h55m38s 1:55:38]
Brian: Yeah. Isaiah does heavily draw off of the star constellations as well as the Book of Revelation, like when he's talking about making your arrow sharp and it's refining your sciences and your religions getting more sharp with those things because that's the Sagittarius, the arrow of the bone and you know, like it is just filled with that stuff.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h56m00s 1:56:00]
Michelle: OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h56m01s 1:56:01]
Taylor: So it out we do the teaser for Joseph Smith. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h56m05s 1:56:05]
Brian: we want to tease you about possibly doing a Joseph Smith one time sometimes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h56m09s 1:56:09]
Michelle: OK. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h56m12s 1:56:12]
Taylor: No. OK. So this is uh this is Leviticus chapter 16. Uh before I go into this, you know, we, we've got to go up on here, we've talked about goats and the association with the sign of Capricorn. Um We all, I guess some people would be forgiven for not remembering necessarily that Joseph Smith's birth uh was on December 23rd. OK. Which in that year was the day after the winter solstice. So the day that light begins to return to the earth. That's a very fitting omen for Joseph Smith to be born under. Um And so Leviticus 16, uh the way this is, you know, everything in the ordinances is playing out what's, what's in the stars and what's in, what's in the sky and what's in the people that are, that are called by God in ordain to do something. Uh He is to cast lots for two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h57m27s 1:57:27]
Brian: So Joseph being born under the sign of the goat was blamed for everything and killed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h57m33s 1:57:33]
Taylor: He got blamed for everything.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h57m35s 1:57:35]
Brian: And then the other
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h57m36s 1:57:36]
Taylor: one laden with sins went into the wilderness to inhabit a place called Utah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h57m47s 1:57:47]
Brian: Stars are giving allegories and prophesying off the stars and giving us a narration of our history.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h57m54s 1:57:54]
Michelle: Wow. Ok. That's amazing. And yeah, that scapegoating continued even after his death. It's continuing to this day. Ok. We're still,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m05s 1:58:05]
Brian: we're still blaming the goat. He was born on the sign of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m08s 1:58:08]
Taylor: the Yeah, we still blame him for the sins and he still, you know, even though he sacrificed he and it was and was killed and lost his life. The one that went into the wilderness laden with sins.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m21s 1:58:21]
Brian: And it's not the only Jewish prophet Jewish ritual that was actually a prophecy. I mean, we had the high priest that was only the only one allowed to kill the lamb over and over and over again. And then Caiaphas, the high priest is the driving force between and killing. Having Jesus killed, like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m41s 1:58:41]
Michelle: once again and prophesying of that in the power of his office. Amazingly. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m47s 1:58:47]
Taylor: Yeah. Kind of on the nose, isn't it? Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m50s 1:58:50]
Michelle: Kind of. Ok. Wow.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m54s 1:58:54]
Brian: We touched on this a little bit. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h58m56s 1:58:56]
Taylor: so back to that revelations 12 sign. Ok. So this is the woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and she brought forth a man child or a young man who was to rule or teach all nations with a rod of iron or the word of God and her child was caught up unto God and to his throne. Yeah, that sounds like a description of a guy that we know as Joseph Smith
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h59m25s 1:59:25]
Brian: and the alignment that it connects to in that prophecy, which we'll get into more detail. But that was happened the same day that jos have got the gold plates.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h59m38s 1:59:38]
Taylor: That, that's our key for an episode on Joseph Smith. If you should so choose to invite us back to do that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=1h59m43s 1:59:43]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. Everybody please vote yay or nay up or down. I know what my vote is. Yeah, let us know, go ahead and comment and, and tell us if we want. Um, I would be amazed if people don't want a Joseph Smith episode. So we should just plan it. But I'm gonna let people weigh in.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h00m03s 2:00:03]
Brian: So one little like, teaser warning more is it doesn't just talk about the star signs of the prophets, but sometimes give star signs of the anti-christ too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h00m16s 2:00:16]
Taylor: Oh, yeah. Yeah. That could be pretty triggering for some people.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h00m20s 2:00:20]
Michelle: But you know what, I actually feel like it's terribly important in so many ways. Like to be able to, I don't know, it can always go awry, but to be able to be more educated in being more empowered, to be able to identify things that are happening in our day is good, right? That's a good thing. That was amazing. I am so I, I am like overwhelmed and mostly I'm just like I need to go learn about this so that I can understand it and see it better. So I'm really excited to delve more into your channel. I've just, I've been so busy with what I've been doing. I've only watched the videos you've sent me, but I give them two thumbs up. Like I really do recommend the work the work these guys are doing and your team I want to know this is new to me is you call it, did you call it Astro theology? Is that, is that the term Yeah. Is this, are you guys kind of like how many Mormon Astro theological specialists are there in the world? Is this kind of your thing? I don't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h01m24s 2:01:24]
Brian: think there's a lot. In fact, I think there's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h01m26s 2:01:26]
Taylor: five of us.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h01m27s 2:01:27]
Michelle: Ok. That's what I was wondering.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h01m29s 2:01:29]
Brian: I think that our, our channel actually has more of a Christian theme. We're not, we don't, we're not pushing Mormonism but we stay to more Christianity and try to, we have like a bigger tent. Um But it's kind of rare there's other astro theologist out there and that they're almost more of the atheist thought where they, they don't necessarily believe in Jesus. They, but they see the Bible, for example, is the greatest book ever written. They see it as like a book that's expounding on science and it's absolutely true symbolically and walking us through the planets. But that's where we may diff a lot of us may differ is that we're like, oh no, it's just stuff pointing at Jesus like Jesus is true too. And we have that, that those lenses of seeing multiple layers of truth, not just that it's walking us through um the cosmos. Like for example, with when the Son of God rises with healing in its wings, they, they see that as a allegory that the sun is going to come back in the cosmos and it's gonna rise with healing in its wings and it becomes spring again and life's gonna grow again. So they see it more that way where, where some it depends on, but people have their beliefs and they're projecting, we're all projecting, we're all projecting. I project Jesus. Um Taylor projects Jesus. And um some people would be like, oh, that's the planet Sun. It's gonna rise again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h02m54s 2:02:54]
Michelle: Yeah. Ok. Well, I totally hear. So it sounds to me like we better have you back for the Joseph episode because that's not yet that's not available on your channel, right? And so we were gonna say, yeah, ok, that's gonna be fabulous. I, I hope well, if you guys would be able to um be active in the comments so people can ask questions and you can provide more. I'm assuming there will be a lot of questions and um maybe requests and yeah, so that would be great. So go ahead. They're, they're going to be willing to respond to any questions or insights that people have. That would be fabulous because I'm not equipped to answer people's questions on these topics yet. I'm a complete novice but man, this was awesome. I loved it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h03m37s 2:03:37]
Taylor: So what did someone tell us in our comment section today that we were demons from hell?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h03m43s 2:03:43]
Michelle: Oh yeah, we,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h03m44s 2:03:44]
Taylor: we, we sometimes trigger people in comments. So, you know, we, we welcome that too because you know, I I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h03m52s 2:03:52]
Michelle: I'm definitely called a wicked woman by a couple of people in particular. So it's always, it's always fun. You gotta have all, all of the fun, right? Yeah. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h04m00s 2:04:00]
Taylor: I, I just embrace it. I say thank you, thank you very much.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h04m04s 2:04:04]
Michelle: That's good. So anyway, is there anything you guys wanna say before we wrap up?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h04m11s 2:04:11]
Brian: Um We do have one more slide. I think it adds to a little, a little bit like a like a just one more fun thing. Um I just wanted people to understand like the perfection of the universe and how it's laid out. If you look at the graphic, you have like one thing lay out and it's a concept and then 180 degrees to the other side of the sky is the opposite concept drawn in the stars. It's the whole idea of opposition in all things. It's literally laid
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h04m41s 2:04:41]
Taylor: out that way, opposition or balance, you know, the, the self and the partner earthly things and heavenly things, the father and the mother.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h04m51s 2:04:51]
Brian: Yeah, the the universal do all things in balance.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h04m57s 2:04:57]
Michelle: Well, as I'm seeing lower learning and the higher learning, it's almost like learning by study and also by faith, right? Like we can see so many things coming through in our own, in our own scriptures
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h05m10s 2:05:10]
Taylor: and notice, you know, lower learning and higher learning. Notice also the connection, heavenly things and earthly things like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h05m17s 2:05:17]
Michelle: yes, yes,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h05m19s 2:05:19]
Brian: at 90 degrees, they have a connection, you have the family and one of them like the, the son, the partner's son, the mother and the father like all. Yeah, it is like divinely organized. This is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h05m34s 2:05:34]
Michelle: so this is amazing. So really what studying this does is give you more ah more appreciation for the creations of God,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h05m45s 2:05:45]
Taylor: for God and his creation. Definitely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h05m49s 2:05:49]
Michelle: OK. That's, this is incredible. So, thank you guys so much for bringing this to us. I, I hope, oh my goodness, it was, it was my treat. It was my pleasure. So I hope everybody has a beautiful Christmas. This is on Christmas Eve. I believe that you're seeing this and, and the day after Joseph Smith's birthday and my little girl's birthday. So my little girl's turning 13 on Joseph Smith's birthday. So anyway, what day, what day was the solstice? I know what day will the solstice be?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h06m19s 2:06:19]
Taylor: Uh this year it is the 22nd. So this year the day after is the 23rd just like the year Joseph Smith was born. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h06m29s 2:06:29]
Michelle: perfect. So, so right after the solstice into Christmas, the light is returning and I wish everybody a beautiful Christmas. I will see you next time. Merry
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h06m38s 2:06:38]
Taylor: Christmas. Bye.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqJeGjXvfo&t=2h06m41s 2:06:41]
Michelle: Wow. Right. Wasn't that great. I loved it, as I said, and I am looking forward to talking to these people again about these topics. I'm thinking that um it would be great to be able to meet more of their team especially have Angela on. She's the first one I connected with. So I think that this is, I don't know, I, I don't know what you all think of this. But to me, I, I just, I love how mu how many ways there are to find truth and how much there is to learn. I just love knowing that I can keep learning forever. I will never know all of it. I will never know everything in every area, right? So this is a brand new one for me. I I should say brand new but to really delve into it is brand new for me to start to try to learn what this is all of. But um Brian and Taylor stayed on afterward to talk to me more about some of these things. I am so excited to have them come on and talk about Joseph Smith and we're gonna, we're going to get that scheduled. Well, I guess I said, let us know, I hope you guys are interested because I certainly am why I want to talk to them about it anyway. So let me know if you're interested in having an episode on it. But anyway, thank you so much for being here with me on this journey for tuning into these episodes. I appreciate it so much. It means so much to me to know that people are finding value in this journey that we are all on together. And I just wish you the happiest of holidays and I hope that we can all continue to grow in truth and in light and in love and I am so thankful for our savior and our opportunity to remember him every single day. So thank you and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Miscellaneous]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Astrotheology]][[Category:Heavens]][[Category:Signs]][[Category:Zodiac]]
}}

97: Temples Part 4 -- The Endowment: Line Upon Line

2025-08-29T23:04:19Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 97: Temples Part 4 -- The Endowment: Line Upon Line
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 97
| date = 2023-12-17
| youtube_id = S4pHzYtAOeg
| tags = Brigham Young, Endowment, Joseph Smith, Temple
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Temples
| summary = Too few of us understand the history and origin of the temple endowment. After watching this episode you will know exactly what sources we use to claim the endowment came from Joseph Smith, instead of Brigham Young.
no
| links = * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKH4vU1EiB4 Ongoing Restoration video]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/c58aed5c-b5e3-41c8-9006-d776e493ada9/0/9 Brigham Young April 6 1845 Speech Times and Seasons]
* Andrew Ehat papers: Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord? (Only available for download, search terms and download papers)
* [https://archive.org/details/EhatIntroOfTempleOrdinances2 Joseph Smiths Introduction of Temple Ordinances]
* BYU Journal Papers: [https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/line-upon-line-precept-upon-precept-reflections-on-the-1877-commencement-of-the-performance-of-endowments-and-sealings-of-the-dead/ Link 1]
* [https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-20-no-1-2019/line-upon-line-joseph-smiths-growing-understanding-eternal-family#_noteref-87 Link 2]
* [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2010/09/line-upon-line-precept-upon-precept-2-nephi-28-30?lang=eng#title1 Elder Bednar Line Upon Line]
* [https://youtu.be/glJzMcNWn3c Saints Unscripted video]
* Isaiah 28:7-31
* Isaiah 56:10
* Micah 3:5-7
* [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/47nelson?lang=eng#p17 President Nelson Oct 2021]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-1-may-1842-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1 Joseph Smith May 1 1842 sermon] (recorded by Willard Richards)
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-11-june-1843-a-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/2#full-transcript Joseph Smith June 11 1843 sermon] (Wilford RIchards)
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-11-june-1843-a-as-reported-by-eliza-r-snow/1 (Recorded by Eliza Snow)]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-8-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1 Joseph Smith April 8 1844] (recorded by Wilford Woodruff):
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/25 May 4 1842 Original Journal Entry] (Use these links to go to the 3rd and the 5th)
* Draft
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/1#full-transcript CHL]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/707c7146-38a5-41e6-98d8-1cad8d89bcc5/0/3 Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt letter June 11 1842]
* [https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=lib_faculty Temple Pro Tempe]
* [https://books.google.com/books?id=hnlMAAAAIBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_all_issues_r&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=true Feb 15 1884 Deseret news semi-weekly, Lucius Scovil letter to the editor, page 2]
* [UPDATE: Another source regarding point 4 was pointed out by a listener. I WISH I had seen it in time to include it! There is a claim that Dimick B. Huntington also spoke about decorating the red brick store December 12, 1878. The evidence for this claim is very poor. The only source is from a photocopy someone made of undated notes someone else supposedly made claiming Huntington said this. There is no other record. The photocopy is in "Mary Brown Firmage Woodward papers" [https://archives.lib.byu.edu/repositories/ltpsc/resources/upb_mss2650 collection at BYU]
* .
* I will request it when the Library opens on Wednesday, and hopefully record a quick update video.
* This supposed source actually strengthens the case against this happening. It includes completely different people and different details than Lucious Scovil included in his 1884 editorial. He claims completely different people were there and his description of what they did is very different. It also contradicts other, more reliable sources, (for example the claim that he had set up the kingdom never to be thrown down or given to another people, when contemporary sources say he said the exact opposite.)]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/joseph-smiths-store-daybook-a-january-july-1842/269 Joseph Smith Store Daybook]
* [https://archive.org/details/josephsmithjrsre00laun/page/28/mode/2up Joseph Smith Jr's Red Brick Store]
* [https://archive.org/stream/TheJournalOfLJohnNuttall/The%20journal%20of%20L%20John%20Nuttall_djvu.t L. John Nuttall Journal]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/58a1b50f-c250-4190-82c8-5123218b6d19/0/1 July 8 1844 Brigham Young letter to Willard Richards]
* [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v1/37-we-will-prove-them?lang=eng Saints Chapter 37]
* [https://user.xmission.com/~research/family/familypage.htm Nauvoo Temple Records]
| scriptures = * Joel 1-3
* James 5:16
* 2 Kings 22
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h00m00s 00:00:00] Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy where we explore the scriptural theological and historical case for plural marriage. This is the episode, the long awaited long promised episode on the history and origin of the Temple endowment. This is a big one. This has been maybe more work than any of my other episodes so far. And that is saying a lot. I want to first um as always invite people to please start at the beginning of this podcast and understand where we've come from what we have established so far. And um and then come to this one. If you want to listen to this one first, that's fine. Please listen all the way through and please don't judge the podcast just by this episode. I also want to request that people who are listening to this episode. Please listen to at least the 1st 10 minutes of my episode part on Temples part three, that I lay out some really important um foundational pieces for people of faith that I think need to be understood. And then I also want to make the request that if you start this episode, please be determined to continue it to the end. Some of the most important things I think come at the end, I also want to invite people who um are like me in the church. People of faith, people who love the temple and love the church, please be prayerful about whether or not to listen to this episode. I I um everything in it is accurate, as accurate as I possibly have been able to find. And um however, not everyone needs to know everything all the time. So please be prayerful to know if this is an episode that you should listen to at this time. And with all of that being said, thank you so much for joining us as we take this deep dive into the murky waters of the temple endowment. There is a lot to get to in this episode and there was, there was so much that I decided to put a slide show together. So I'm hoping this will all go smoothly and be very, very comprehensible without too many hiccups, but we're going to do the best we can in any case, but we're just gonna dive right in. So I've shared in previous episodes on the temple, how this all happened, how I went to Saint George, right? And had the tour of Brigham Young's home. So I'm gonna go ahead and share and we're gonna get started talking about that. So this is Brigham Young's Saint George Mansion where I got to go on a tour and I talked about how I learned things there that are relevant to the temple. So that's why we're starting there. So picking up back where we left off, they talk so much. It's really an interesting experience. I think anyone who is able to go um to Saint George should go see Brigham Young's Mansion. It's, it's kind of surreal because they talk so much about how poor and frugal and industrious the people were and how they may do with everything. It was very much like if you couldn't make it yourself, you went without and, and this was very much the theme of everything they talked about. And yet here we are in this lush, luxurious home where you see all of these things. So let's go through with some of what you see when you go to Saint um the Saint George mansion. This is um Brigham and Amelia. So the same George Match and like the Gardo House was for her. She was his last wife, his last favorite wife as well. So they're hanging prominently on the wall and you could see his special box piano that it was really interesting because they were talking so much about the sweet sister missionary. She was a um elder like um they're, they're a couple, right? And she was telling us about how they made everything themselves. And so I looked at the piano and I was like, how did they make the piano. 00, no, that had to be shipped. That's a special box. Piano that fits perfectly in a wagon box. So it can be shipped from back east. Oh, so just everyone else had to make everything on their own. Got it, you know, it's hard to escape what you're seeing. And so there you can see so much more of, um, these fireplaces I think are all made out of pine and then painted to look like various kinds of stone. This one looks like marble and then there's Brigham's, this is a famous part. You see his hat in his hat box. That's Brigham Young's very own hat and hat box. And keep in mind these people were, well, we'll talk about it a little bit more. They were very, very poor. And so, um, going forward, you can just see his desk and there hanging on the wall is also his wives, many of his wives that you will see when you go there. This, I don't know if this is a picture from um, Saint George or just a picture that someone put together of several of his wives. But, um, let's see, I, the part that I want, the reason I'm talking about this where I was especially interested was when she took us outside to this little outbuilding I have, oh, let me add it back the day. You have to be patient with me or I have a lot of working parts. I'm trying to navigate to this outbuilding, this little white building. And, um, it's, it's a strange sort of building. It's just off to the side. You can see the mansion right there with the windows and there's this building here are a few more pictures of it. That one's, um, an, an older picture. They put the handrails in since then and when she took us out there, she sat us down on, um, they now have in, in that little building. Um um pews, I guess that are from the old Saint George Tabernacle. I believe that they've now moved into that building. And so this was near the end of the tour. She took us into this building. And the sweet sister just said how strong the spirit was every time she came into this building
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h05m27s 00:05:27] and um how much she loved being in there because this is where Brigham Young sat as he and Wilfred Woodruff wrote the Temple Endowment and the Temple ordinances. OK. What I mean? I'm sure my eyes about shot out of my head because other people might have known that I didn't, I didn't know that Brigham Young wrote the temple ceremonies in Saint George. And that is what started me down this entire track, trying to learn and figure out what in the world this was all about. So this um sister, she really did a good job. But um I don't think they're used to having um historians even amateur historians on the tours, maybe that are kind of willing to have a little bit more of a critical eye because everything, um, kind of made me think a little bit. But, um, I followed her out to, to, well, after the tour I asked her if I could talk to her a little bit and she, um, you know, I was happy to answer my questions and I asked, do you have a book that you use a reference book? And she said, oh yes, we do. And I was like, can I buy a copy? Oh, no, no, that's just for missionaries? OK. Can I look at it? And she was really sweet and took me out to um their little other office and let me look at her book and I flipped through it a little bit and then saw the um references like the, the footnotes, the um not the index but the um the, the citations at the end. And she let me take my, take a ca take um get my camera out and take a picture. And the main book that was cited was this one called All That was Promised by Blaine Jorgenson. I'm not sure if you can see it. Oh And is backward too. But it's called All That was Promised by Blaine Jorgeson. And it's about the Saint George temple and the unfolding of the restoration. So I went immediately and got this book and started my journey. And that's, that was when I thought I was going to do an episode on the Temple. Four episodes, it has expanded and expanded and expanded and I've gone way beyond that. So I just want to give you because I had already done this part for the first episode, just gonna give you some quick highlights from this book. Well, first of all, on the tour, she talked about many of these things that are, several of them are also in the book. But um she, she told us the story of the tower on the Saint George Temple, which is a pretty fun, fun story. So the ever expressive Brigham Young, let me get back. There was pretty disgusted by the finished Saint George Temple because he said that the tower was way too short and squatty and he was quite um quite unhappy about it. And um he, he desperately wanted it replaced to have a taller tower and they knew it was too, too late and too close to the end to the um day that they wanted to dedicate it. So they just weren't able to do to replace the short and squatty tower as he called it. So he died. Oh, I have it in my notes here. But it was less than a year after the Saint George temple was dedicated. And um and just a little while later, let's see. And the following year it says the following year lightning struck and des destroyed the tower, destroyed that short squatty tower. And there was seemed to be universal consensus that it was Brigham still thundering at them that when they and when they dedicated the Saint George Temple after so much sacrifice and work, the stories are just painful. It gave me a whole new respect for the Saint George Saints and not saying a lot because me even just being in Saint George for a little while in the summer now with air conditioning is hard, right? These people that lived there, I have never understood how they did it. And then when you understand what the deprivations they experienced also along with being in that incredibly difficult climate, it's unbelievable. But it, that's what that when they were dedicating the temple, he um he was dealing with his, he just didn't feel good. His feet were in pain. He had rheumatism, I think. Anyway, he slammed his cane down on the brand new podium of the brand new temple really hard as he was just railing at the saints and left a dent in it that's there to this day. And so that was, that was how Brigham dedicated the temple. So when he struck it with lightning, that's what everybody thought. So it took a few years for them to get to it. But finally they replaced the tower on the temple and, and built it back after it was destroyed by the fire. Um They built it back bigger as Brigham had always wanted it. So, anyway, so we're gonna go ahead, let me um remove this for a minute and I'll just start talking you talking to you about what I learned, right? So, as soon as I got this book, as soon as I started reading the prologue, I knew I was in trouble. It was uh not what I expected to hear. And I've shared that story before of the stress of like, am I going to be Jonah or am I going to be a bit a bit of die? And I, that's what I want people to listen to in the last episode.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h10m13s 00:10:13] I won't repeat it here. But i it's important for people to hear um what answer I had. But just in short, I believe that God honors faith and from the example of Jesus and others, God honors temples, temples, the temple at the time of Christ was built by Herod, right, a corrupt leader. And yet Jesus called it my father's house and expected it to be honored. And I really, I, I didn't go into this in the last e in any of the last episodes and I won't this time either. But there is, it's beautiful to read the teachings of Jesus regarding the temple throughout the scriptures. I think it's really good to internalize and recognize that we the temple, right? We are the sacred space that God wants on this earth. And so I I still am. I still kind of believe that idea that temples are a lower law, right? I think that it is important, as I said in the first episode that David the king, after they had the people had gone to a lower law. That's the first time they ever built a temple. And, and learning that Kirtland was actually the house of the lord, not the temple. And that navoo after they had had something taken away and lost the um opportunity to build Zion. That's when they build a temple. There's something to that that I want to investigate. So anyway, a lot to think about. But, but at the same time, I don't want anything that I say here to invalidate people's experiences that we have had in temples because God honors faith and that's what it really comes down to. So anyway, we'll, we'll just keep going on from there. So this book is, as I said, mainly about the building of the Saint George temple, which was the first temple in Utah. You've learned that from my Salt Lake episodes and it was the only one completed during Brigham Young's lifetime. And so much of the book is about the incredible sacrifices and hardships that people endured while they were there. And I'll tell you a couple of examples that um it starvation was a common thing. It sounds like like there were families when you actually, I don't, I don't know how many Children died of starvation but it was more than zero. And, um, there were families that had nothing but pig weed to eat every single meal, every single day. If they had something to eat, it was pigweed. I looked up what that was and it was amaranth and something else. Oh, I can't remember. I deleted it. But anyway, nutritious but hard, hard to live on and hard to eat every day. There's a heartbreaking story of a big brother who gets to go work and gets fed some actual bread and brings it home because he knows that his siblings have nothing but pig weed anyway. It's just, just heartbreaking stories. And so, but um but here are a few examples that I thought were interesting um of how like, like people would be called to go live in Saint George, sell everything they had, go live in Saint George and suffer basically. Right? And so it was a calling and there wasn't compensation or support in the way you would hope that there would be. But um so there was a craftsman named William Henry Thompson who worked nonstop for 2.5 years, including on Christmas Day when Brigham Young kill called him out of the temple and said, Brother Thompson, I want you to go in there and work for nothing and board yourself and stay until further orders. Will you do it? He said I labored without pay until I was down to bedrock, my family, not having the common necessities of life. And these, I think, as I said, um well, I guess I, I haven't released my interview with my second interview with Barbara um Jones Brown yet, but I will soon. But as I said in that this was in a era where they were really maximizing sacrifice, like sacrifice was the order of the day. So the more you could talk about your sacrifice, the more righteous you were in a way. So I don't think they were saying these things to criticize Brigham. They were saying it to say this is what I did, right? And so um there was a man named Thomas Allman who was called to take over his architect and super intendent after the last foreman, Miles Romney was unable to continue because of a terrible fall that ne nearly killed him. And I believe he did die afterward of his injuries. And so I'll quote from the book, Thomas Allman along with many others was in Saint George, serving without pay, moreover, without an income flowing into his home in Provo. And they had multiple wives, right? The pa without income flowing in the past several months into his home in Provo. Since um since he had been sent, his large family had used up their store of food and knew not where to obtain more. And so in his elite position, he was able to partition petition Brigham Young. He was the head architect who allowed his family to quote, have their needs supplied from the tithing office. But he also said to quote, quote, keep a separate account. He told the tithing tithing office to keep a separate, separate account of what is paid. And we will hereafter give you instructions on how to cancel it. So even though he was serving without pay and his family was starving, he was willing to let them have food, but it all had to add up on their account that they would have to pay back later. It's amazing. And so um then let's see,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h15m00s 00:15:00] it's similar to the sermons that Brigham gave in regarding the Salt Lake Temple. This was April 8, 1867. I have told you some few things with regard to the temple. We want the Tabernacle finished. And when a man asked to go and work on it, do not begin with to do not begin to make a wry face and say I have got so and I've got so much work to do says the men will um he says the men will work wherever they will pay you. Six pence a day more. I will work for the devil as quick as work for the Lord, for the Lord Jesus Christ. Do not say that anymore, whether we get a dollar a day or nothing. It is all the same. Uh Not all the same to the person and their family that's getting nothing work, whether we get our pay or not or whether we have money offered to us or not. You. And I will find in the end that there is not a man on earth who can give the, who can give the increase to our labors, but it is the Lord who gives it no matter whether you make 50 cents or $50 a day, the gives the increase and what whatever he pleases to give, he will give and whatever he pleases to withhold, he will withhold. That's, that was the attitude like Brigham who was living in, in so much luxury was telling everyone else. It doesn't matter if you don't get paid. Work. Anyway, work for me anyway. And don't go work somewhere else where you can feed your family. So it's an interesting attitude, right? And so anyway, and I, I always have to compare it to like the widows. Might you the savior that we, we have mistaken thinking when we think, oh, if we teach people principles like tithing, then the Lord will bless them. That's kind of what he's saying. No, the Lord calls on us to bless them. That's the whole point of the gospel, right? Have you fed the poor? Have you clothed the naked? Have you comfort the comfort of the afflicted, right? And so anyway, ok, so this book also contains, we're not even getting to the subject matter yet, but this is what I had put forward first. And I think it's really interesting. So this book has very, a lot of, very interesting tidbits. So I would, I would recommend it if anyone's interested. But one is this one interesting thing read about is the celebration he held in the Tabernacle. This was at 10 o'clock Sunday morning, Sunday morning, 10 o'clock at the Tabernacle March 5th, 1875. And so at this point in Utah, regular church service wasn't really a thing. That's not what they did. That wasn't the culture. And so this was the day after the final stone stone in the walls was laid. And I should mention that a few of the reasons for settling Saint George that Brigham wanted it settled were to go grow cotton so they could produce all their own clothing. That's why it was called Utah's Dixie, right? And to grow grapes so they could produce their own wine, which they did in abundance. If you go on that tour, the Brigham Young tour, they will show tour, they will show you his wine decanter and goblets. And so quoting from page 192 of the book on this. On this Sunday morning, the brass band played and bread and cheese were passed around, the wine was carried in water buckets and brass pitchers. There were bushel bushels of tin cups brought in to drink out of some of the brethren drinks so freely at that wine that they became noisy. Um Brother mcdonald who was the leader said he told the bishops not to serve any more wine as there were some of the brethren that could not take a little wine without drinking so much and becoming noisy and disorderly. So again, Tabernacle Sunday morning, right. It, it was a very different time, a very different culture. Um I think that we tend to think of Mormonism as it's always been like it is, right. No, that's not the case. And so um while it does share some of these amazing stories that I find interesting that are eye opening it, the book in overall is what I would call extreme apologetics. That's um I, I mean, at this point, it starts to feel like spin doctoring when you see that they have these sources and yet this is how they portray them, right? And so um those as always with all of these things, people who haven't read the sources who don't know the history will find much of this compelling like reading saints, you know, but when you have read the sources and you know what they're citing, it's really, really shocking to see how this is done. And I, I anyway, I think I'm, I think that people hopefully just have the blinders on and aren't fully aware of what they're doing because to me it seems crazy. But um anyway, so I shouldn't be too hard on that book for the most part. I liked it, but it was the prologue and chapter 15 that I was like, oh, my goodness. So if anyone's really should just read that and chapter 15, but actually I'm gonna give you all of the sources here. So this book was the first introduction, um, introduction I found into the origin of the Temple Endowment. And so that was when I planned to do the episode. But as time has gone on, I have dug much, much, much deeper. I've gone into all of the sources it cited. Right. I have read a mountain of academic papers and articles, master's thesis, some of them, 100 and 89 pages, um journal articles as well as other books on the topic. It, it has nearly drowned me. And so I will share many of these things in the links for anyone who would like to read more.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h19m56s 00:19:56] And there are also, I will say there are also many articles by religious thinkers either still L DS or now not L DS anymore. Some divergent, you know, ideas that people have sent me. I just couldn't even go into those because there was so much I couldn't get into like temple interpretations or different things like that. So if anyone's hoping that I can go there, I'm sorry, I can't in this episode because there's just too much. So, what I did find through all of this research is that practically every church friendly, meaning apologetic book and paper, which is pretty much what I read because that's pretty much what there is. Right. They all make identical claims repeatedly. They all claim the same things and that's what we're gonna go through. And, uh, frustratingly, historians often seems like almost always cite each other. Right. They cite another book or another paper and I, I just want to know what original sources that they're basing it on. So I had to follow this, um, like, uh, this, what do you call it? I can't think of the word I'm looking for scavenger hunt, right? Going here to, here to, here to try to get to the original source, which I finally, I think I was able to do, I finally have, have narrowed down onto the original sources. But let me just show one example of what I'm talking about. I'll add this back to the screen of kind of this scavenger hunt. So, um, on page eight of Vengeance is mine and I did this interview, that's the Barbara Jones Brown book that I did. And, and that I read to do the interview with her that I thought was great. And, um, on page eight, it says the endowment was a strictly oral ceremony, believed too sacred to write down that massively caught my attention because that's exactly what I had been studying. And I had been looking and looking for the source for that claim. It was a claim I had read quite a bit. And so when I turned to the footnote, right? It said, um, number nine, it referenced Jennifer Anne Mackley. I think Wilford Wood Brook's witness page 168. So knowing that this was a book, I probably needed to read the development of temple doctrine. And knowing that I do way better with audio books because I can do them while I'm running or while I'm doing dishes and, you know, I, I just have a lot more time when I'm sitting and reading, it's working on my podcast. So anything I can listen to is great. So I ordered the audio book and listened all the way through and listened to where a page, 100 68 should be. It doesn't have pages, but I could not find anything. So I went and thought I need to buy the book, but it was like $30 for the Kindle version. So I found it on Desert book for $13. But that, and it didn't have page numbers which was so frustrating and they wouldn't let me return it. I was like, all I need is the page number to see what I'm missing on page 168. That would tell me why we claimed the temple or the temple. Andrey was too sacred to write down. Anyway, it was so frustrating. And so I ended up having to order the hard copy of this book. I have three versions of it now. Oh, and um finally turned to page 100 and 68. And let me show you what I found is, do I do it here? Yes, I actually didn't miss anything. It's the only thing relevant says previously the ceremonies had been passed orally from those who received them under the hand of Joseph Smith to those who officiated in the Nut Temple and then the endowment house. So all it was citing was that they were done orally before they were written down, which I already knew, which is not the citation I needed. I needed to find out why they claimed it was too sacred. So anyway, I, that was a frustrating, right? Not very helpful. Um, scavenger hunt, I went on, but that seems to be how a lot of this goes like why don't you just cite the source that tells us that. So anyway, as I continue to research, while I was waiting for this book to come, I found several papers by Andrew E Hat. He is the one who, who had access to the um, William Clayton journal and who made the notes that got taken from the BYU office and passed around. So that's what I was able to find when, when I got, when I found all of Andy E Hat's papers that was massively helpful because I was able to find where these claims come from. And so that was, that was just anyway, extremely helpful. And so let's see where I wanna go on from there. Um OK. So, yeah, so that, that, that was just one example I gave you of, of how this research goes because of what they cite. And so one of the claims that they often make, um, well, first here, let me just take this off and talk about this. So again, because this topic is so huge and there and the research was so difficult. I did not know how to structure it. I struggled for a long time, which is why I kept doing other parts. But it goes into everything. This topic goes everywhere. It goes into the succession crisis and succession claims, it goes into the priesthood keys, masonry. Um Joseph's original ceremonies, the washings and anointings and ceilings, which for Joseph meant sealing the ordinances of washing and anointing, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h24m55s 00:24:55] And then later meant sealing people to the Lord directly anyway. And then other temple ceremonies, the council of the anointed quorum, the council of friends and on and on. There are so many things. It has seriously been overwhelming to decide where to draw lines and what to include and what not to. And finally, one night in like this burst of inspiration, which now sounds so simple on this side of it. But it really took the Lord's like showing this is how to do it. I was like, oh, ok. And so what I finally decided to do was to limit it only to the endowment I can do other episodes in the future, covering other temple elements like washings and anointings, which are from Joseph and ceilings, garments recommends 2nd, 2nd anointings, all of those things. We'll have to wait for a future episode. So I'm just going to do the endowment and I'm only going to talk about the origin of the endowment ceremony, the origin and history and try to summarize the claims made about it, reading some specific examples and then investigate the sources used to support those claims. So that's what I've narrowed it down to which actually I think is fundamental. It really is the most important part of all of this. So as I said, there is a lot to get into. So OK, I'll share the screen again. So from what I have continually continually seen in all of my research, see what seems to be the ubiquitous explanation for how we got the temple ordinances and why they have changed so much between Brigham and Joseph and continuing on until this day is that God reveals things line upon line. This started with Brigham Young and has continued to do it to do this day. I love this Mormon ad I was able to find I took off a little bit of the other writing just to show line upon line and the temple really clearly, right? And it continues today, I think it's been somewhat rebranded in the idea of the ongoing restoration. This is a recent video released by the church. And um it talks about things like the name of the church, how that changed with President Nelson home centered church. Remember it's home centered church supported um And changing all the shortened Sunday um Sunday meeting schedule, ministering instead of home teaching and visiting teaching elders quorum instead of high priests and elders quorum the end of young men's presidencies and other changes. Um And then there are also other changes not included in this video, but definitely that we have seen like the recent and ongoing changes to the temple ceremony and other ordinances. And so it um it, it's at the end of it is where President Nelson tells us to take our vitamins because of all of the changes they included that. So this idea of line up online started as early as 18 45 as I said with Brigham Young in the April conference where he corrected Joseph's error of allowing women and men to be baptized for their dead relatives of either sex that I talk about this. I know in the episode with Whitney Horning and maybe some other times as well. So it's where Brigham Young publicly taught spiritual wifey to the huge crowd. So that's, that's right. That's what I taught. So you can see some of his quotes. He who gives that law is perfect and reduces it to the capacity of finite beings in order that they may understand it. And then more thus, the infinite being gives line upon line reveals principle after principle as the mind of the finite beings expand I have and then later on, and you have to see, well, I'll explain in a minute how this is being used. But I have now about got through with my preliminaries and shall occupy your attention with some items in relation to the doctrine of the baptism for the dead. When it was first revealed, all of the order of it was not made known afterwards. It was made known. The Lord has led this people all the while in this way by giving them here a little and there a little by giving them. Um And there a little thus, he increases their wisdom. Joseph in his lifetime did not receive everything connected with um the doctrine of redemption. But he has left the keys with those of us who understand how to obtain and teach to this great people, all the things, all that is necessary for their own salvation and exaltation in the celestial kingdom of our God. So that's the idea, right? It comes bit by bit. And you can see that this has continued in, in everything I read. In fact, many of the articles were actually this was in the title like Line Upon Line Precept Upon Precept written by um Richard E Bennett. And let me read some quotes from this one. If I can get this to scroll down speaking, sh shortly after Joseph Smith's death. Brigham Young reaffirmed the neces necessity of this ordinance while admitting to the process of adoption and design. When the doctrine of baptism for the dead was first given. He said in April 1845 that's what I just read. The church was in its infancy and was not capable of receiving all of the knowledge of God in it and hit the highest degree this you all believe. And he goes on to quote what I just quoted and then he says, as the doctrine of baptism for the dead came line upon line. So too came the temple and the endowment, right? So you can see a pattern emerging. Here's another one. Line upon line, Joseph's growing understanding of the eternal family. This says as Joseph Smith continued to learn line upon line,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h29m53s 00:29:53] he gained a greater understanding of the importance of people being sealed or welded together both in God's eternal family as well as with their own individual families. Over many decades, Joseph Smith and his prophetic successors learned and taught line upon line about Malachi's prophecy, Elijah's mission temple worship and ceilings. Then he says the process of learning line upon line was clearly demonstrated in Joseph Smith's line upon line, developmental understanding of the nature of family relationships and eternity. The authority to husbands and wives for eternity was used to perform plural marriage for the living and adoptions to priesthood leaders practices discontinued in the 18 nineties. Since then, prophets have continued to refine the doctrine of eternal families. OK. So, oh, I have continued to refine the doctrine of eternal families. Line up online. Couldn't leave that last line out. That was important. So, and this is where I want to clarify that when they say he learned things, line up online. What it seems to me they are actually saying is uh let's see what they actually tend to point to is, is, is that his actual experiences and teachings didn't fit with what we later claim them to be, right? So he, it seems they're saying he didn't really know what they meant. He had these experiences, but he didn't understand them. It took Brigham Young as mostly Brigham Young, but then sometimes other later leaders as well to fulfill what Joseph didn't. And to reveal what Joseph didn't understand um that his revelations from God were really about. So that's what it tends to mean to me. When I, when as I really dig into line up on online, it's Joseph had this experience, but he didn't know what it was about Brigham Young, his and then we, then we retrofit fit that experience to fit Brigham Young's doctrine, right? And so um let me give you a few more examples. This is um uh uh talk a BYU I address I believe and then a gospel and then a general conference address by President Bednar. So our elder Bednar. So the first thing and he says, I want to. So I'll quote, I think he first quotes Bruce R mcconkie. Um I want to highlight another example from the history of the rest church. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught the following principle. This work of salvation for the dead came to the prophet like every other doctrine piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once when the angel moroni came to the prophet Joseph Smith, one of the things he told him, one of the things he told him was that the hearts of the Children should turn to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the Children. So that when the Lord should come to the earth, when when the Lord should come, the earth should not be smitten with a curse. This is significant. That was the first inkling the prophet had concerning salvation for the dead. And he did not know just what it meant. He had a very vague idea of the meaning of the words of that. I uh that Elijah would come to plant in the hearts of the Children, the promises made to the fathers. And I suppose he pondered a good deal. He pondered over it, a good deal that's from doctrines of salvation, um quoted by Bruce R mcconkie. And so then, um Elder Bed, Elder Bednar goes on to say that first small inkling given to the prophet Joseph Smith grew line upon line precept upon precept and eventually included the restoration of priesthood keys in the Kirtland Temple. And this I will say is about section 110 of the doctrine and covenants and the idea of the restoration of all priesthood keys. This is one of the things I delved into. I it killed me to have to cut it from this episode. But I, we have to save it for another day and do its own episode on it. And so it, it's, it's, I'm so glad I delved into it can include it today. So anyway, he continues the performance of essential ordinances in the nut temple which happened after Joseph's death. So he's listing the things that Joseph got line up online, right? And the availability of more than 100 30 temples throughout the world today, truly progress has been made in this eternal i internally important work line upon line and precept, precept. So you can see how this issue in the following conference. That's the spirit of Revelation. His April 2011 talk. It was different, but it had the similar theme of light coming gradually. He compares it to a sunrise rather than um light switching on with a light switch. So it really was a key feature. This line upon line idea was a key feature in these books as well. And so I'll read from all that was promised, right? Um Right here, I'm just gonna leave that on. And so the prologue starts by trying to establish through Brigham's claims that Joseph and Brigham are basically the same. And so, um so my friend who I have someone that I can kind of special order memes from, um at this point which I love and he's going to come on the podcast soon and he made this meme for me, which I thought was great. And so I'll read the two quotes, rarely have two men been less alike in appearance and temperament, yet closer mind and heart than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. And then it quotes Hugh nly saying their teachings are as one as the, as the minds of the saints and prophets have always been one. So I thought that that was pretty great. Um Let's see. He goes on to say it is,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h34m59s 00:34:59] it is unclear how soon the doctrine of priesthood ordinances that were essential for exultation became part of Joseph's. And therefore Brigham's thinking, we do not know that the rest um that the reception of the, we do not, we do know that the reception of the doctrine followed the Lord's pattern of giving Joseph line upon line or moving from one department to another as Brigham described it whenever the knowledge came, this heaven tutored understanding filled the minds of both prophets with a shared vision of the need for temples and temple ordinances. So it really works hard to establish the idea that Brigham Young is exactly the same as Joseph Smith. There's no difference between no difference between them and so I could have chosen from many different videos to um demonstrate the lens we go to to establish, establish these ideas. But I chose this one that is actually sponsored by the church. And um I think this one should suffice to make the point. So the idea that the endowment ceremony should never change in any way because it was revealed by God exhibits a bit of a misunderstanding of what revelation is and how it is received. Isaiah outlined an extremely important principle. The word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, line upon line here a little and there a little. And we see this kind of revelation all over the place in scripture. The Jared Barges Peter's revelation about missionary work, Nephi Vision of the Tree of Life. Joseph Smith received the temple endowment through a similar gradual piece by piece process. That process implies a progression of changes, adjustments and modifications. In fact, after the first endowment was administered in May 1842 Joseph told Brigham, young brother Brigham, this is not arranged, right? But we've done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed. And I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies. In other words, Joseph knew from the beginning that future changes would need to be made. He knew things weren't exactly as they should be and that was fine. That's how a restoration works. It takes time, you do your best and the Lord keeps you pointed in the right direction. Sometimes I think we humans in many ways are like bowling balls and God sort of acts as the bumpers as we seek to discover his will. Sometimes we wish we could just fly straight down the middle and nail that strike. But in reality, we often follow a jagged path bouncing back and forth between the bumpers until we finally end up somewhere acceptable to God. No. Ok. So we'll go ahead and stop there and hopefully you got the idea right. There's, there was a lot there. I want you to remember that quote about, um, Joseph telling Brigham to organize and systematize these things because they weren't quite right. But it's like, it's, it, it, it's, it's giving us the idea. I mean, it's, it's saying, not even basically saying it is saying that Joseph was basically completely incompetent. He could only throw gutter balls and needed bumper pads to keep from getting everything completely wrong. It, I, I mean, it just makes, we wonder why, why I claim to have profits. What is a profit, right? Like, I don't even as a nonprofit, wanna throw gutter balls my whole life. I certainly as a leader of any organization don't want to keep throwing gutter balls and I don't want someone that's a prophet of God to be that incompetent and not confused and just wrong about every single thing. So I, I think it's shocking that this is the way we present Joseph Smith and everyone seems to be fine with that. I, I do not understand it. So that's what I said. It seems to me that the way that we use line upon line and the idea of the ongoing restoration seems to basically allow us to justify throwing out changing and replacing anything while ignoring any potential contradictions with past practices and teachings, even from Joseph Smith, by claiming, I suppose that the gospel was never fully restored out until now. Like it's, it's never fully restored, we can change anything because it's just, it's never been fully restored. And so at least that's the implication I get. So it's a little bit difficult. So I have to say there is a principle that I think is at work here that human beings seem to be unable to resist telling us exactly what they are doing and following scriptural patterns. It's just as we discussed in part three about the temple renovation. Um and the foundation, right? This also has great application, I believe with our long standing use of line upon line to explain our, our temple and everything else and, and the changes that we make. So I looked that up in the scriptures and the term from what I can find and people are always welcome, welcome to add or correct. But that term is originally like the first time I can see it used is in Isaiah 28 and I strongly recommend reading the entire chapter. It is really important to understand, but I'll just read a few, I'll,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h40m03s 00:40:03] I'll read part of it starting in verse seven. So, but they have air, but they also have erred through wine and through strong drink are out of the way. The priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink. They are swallowed up, they are swallowed up of wine. They are out of the way through strong drink. They err in vision, they stumble in judgment. That verse has a couple of cross references that I also want to refer to um it cross references first to Isaiah 5610. His watchmen are blind. They are all ignorant. They are dumb dogs, they cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yeah, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough. And they are shepherds that cannot understand. They all look to their own way everyone for his own gain from his quarter. Come ye that's come. Ye say they, I will fetch wine and we will fill ourselves with strong drink and tomorrow shall be as the day and much more abundant. So that's one of the cross references. Another cross reference is to Mica 35. Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people err that bite with their teeth and cry peace and he that put it not into their mouths. They even prepare war against him. Therefore, night shall be unto you that ye shall not have a vision and it shall be dark unto you that ye shall not divine and the sun shall go down over the prophet and the dark and, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seer be ashamed and the diviners confuse. Yeah, they shall cover their lips for there is no answer of God. And um this is I, I know I might be getting into somewhat uncomfortable territory, but I just have to say that in 2020 this picture came up in my email and I was really bothered by it. Some of you understand why? And I was led right to that Mica scripture that says that um they shall cover their lips for. There is no answer from God. So that was just an experience I had that really troubled me, right? And so let me continue on and II, I know I'm out on a limb. I do not want to cast aspersions, make claims people will see this, how they want to see it. I know there are some people who have much stronger feelings than I have. All I wanted to do was share my experience. And um and that's, that's what my experience was and it was hard, right? So I'm gonna continue now, now that I've read those um other um scriptures that were footnoted. So I'm gonna continue reading in Isaiah 28 it. This is now to verse eight. For all the tables are full of vomit and filthiness so that there is no place clean, whom shall he teach knowledge and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Then that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line here a little and a little for with stammering lips and another tongue. Will he speak to this people to whom he said? This is the rest wherewith ye may be called the weary to rest and this is the refreshing yet they would not hear but the word of the Lord was unto them, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line here a little and bear a little that they might go and fall backward and be broken and snared and taken wherefore hear the word of the Lord, you scornful men that rule this people, which is in Jerusalem because you have said we have made a covenant with death and with the hell and with hell. Are we at agreement? When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come upon us. For we have made lies our refuge and under falsehood, we have hid ourselves. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation. He that believeth shall not make haste judgment also will I lay to the line and righteousness to the plummet and, and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies and the water shall overflow, the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be dis annulled. And your agreement with hell shall not stand when the overflowing scourge shall pass through. Then shall you be trodden down by it and it goes on and on from there. So I, I think you can see why choosing line upon line as our way to explain. This is potentially troubling or I, I don't know, I I'll leave that to everyone's interpretation. I certainly know what it seems to say to me. And so the same idea is also repeated in the book of Mormon. So mainly and in the second Nephi 28. So I'll read verses 29 through 31 woe be unto Him that shall say we have received the word of God and we need no more of the word of God for we, we for we have enough for behold. Thus saith the Lord God. I will give unto the Children of men, line upon line and precept upon precept here a little and there a little and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts and lend an ear unto my counsel for, they shall learn wisdom for unto Him that receive, I will give more and from them that shall say we have enough from them shall be taken away. Even that which they have cursed is he that put, put his trust in man or maketh flesh, his arm or shall hearken under the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. And so it's so ironic. Again, the entire chapter is about the people refusing truth from God because we are too busy trusting in the arm of flesh and being swallowed up by the false traditions, right? We have enough when and we cannot hear God trying to teach us more. And I think that's exactly the predicament that we have been in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h45m27s 00:45:27] um back when the church was polygamous. And since it's given up polygamy, but just like we do with Jacob 230 I think we take that scripture that is directly relevant to us and twisted on its head to claim it means the exact opposite of what is it is actually saying. And so if we trust God, rather than putting our trust in man, God will give us more and more truth and knowledge, right? And as we, it will be given more and more. But if we shut ourselves down to inspiration because we are so so set on our traditions or our institutional teachings, or we're too afraid to consider something else, or we're too afraid of what might happen to us. If we consider something else, we cannot be given more, it's the exact same thing taught well in many places. But alma 12 is one of my favorites. Just verse 10. I'll just read that one. There's a lot more but, and therefore he, that will harden his heart. The same, receive the lesser portion of the word and he, that will not harden his heart to him is given the greater portion of the word until it is given unto Him to know the mysteries of God until He know them in full. And so I, I think it's a shame that we ignore this true teaching to um twist it to claim that whatever the leaders do is fine because God, it, it's not telling that God teaches us as individuals line upon line and precept on precept. It says that God leads the church line upon line and precept on precept, right, the institution that it's like a bowling ball going back. And I mean, I don't even know how to relate all of that because I don't think we a we are allowed to say that current profits are getting things wrong and throwing gutter balls, right? But we say that about Joseph Smith. And anyway, it's, it's just a really interesting claim that I think we're better off to go to the scriptures and say what they see what they say about it. There are a few references to it in the doctrine covenants as well, particularly section 98 that I wanted to include. But I'm going to save that for when I feel up to doing an episode on 2020 because I think it has on my experiences during 2020 I think it has direct application. So now that we've established these two basic foundations, these two subtle devices. Um claiming that Brigham and Joseph are the same. So that what, what came from one unquestionably came from the other and claiming that God continually restores the gospel to the church leaders line up online now that we've seen those and how they are used to justify the Histo history of the endowment ceremony. I want to read another quote from chapter 15 of all that was promised that brings these, these, these ideas together while Joseph Smith was translating the gold plates, he came upon the following passage for behold, thus saith the Lord God, I will give unto the Children of men. Line upon line precept upon precept here a little and there a little. See, we just take it out of context only that one piece. So it was with the Gospel's restoration. Every blessing or understanding Joseph ever received from the Lord came a little at a time line, line upon line precept upon precept. And it made me think except for those times when the heavens were opened and he spoke to Jesus face to face, to face, to face and received massive outpourings of knowledge and understanding and all of his statements of not being able to tell the people even a portion of what he knew. And the, the teaching, could you gaze into heaven for five minutes? You would know more than you would by reading all that was ever written on the subject. So, you know, except for the things that he said himself about how it worked, he just, it was, it was just a, a slow sun rising, right? And a sunrise all Joseph and then I'll continue with the quote. It said he received this all line upon line, precept, precept. All Joseph had to do was diligently seek. That's it was easy, right? Piece of cake. And as he applied himself to what had already come, Moore was added to it almost from the beginning of his and Joseph's relationship. Brigham recognized this process in his beloved friend and by the time of Joseph martyrdom, it had become so much a part of Brigham's own nature, his own thinking that we might say it was almost automatic. Nothing better illustrates that it illustrates this than the events of in the fall of 1876 when there began to be a major scramble in Saint George on two fronts. The first was to put the physical structure on the temple in order to in in order so actual um or was to put the physical structure of the temple in order. So actual ordinance work could begin for both the living and the dead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h49m51s 00:49:51] The second was to organize and refine the presentation and administration of the various ordinances and finally commit them to writing. So there it is again, always, it's universally agreed upon by historians. Like everyone knows, this was the first time that the temple ceremonies were written down within um the fall and winter of 1876. And so, um that's really interesting, right. And so anyway, it, it also makes it very clear that nothing regarding the endowment ceremony had ever been written down before. Obviously, thus, the entire validity of the temple of the temple endowment rests on the credibility of Brigham Young. And that was something that as someone who has studied a lot about Brigham Young, that made me a little bit uncomfortable, right? So I really wanted to dig in and find out what I could find out. So, OK, so using the foundational claims of line upon line and that Joseph and Brigham are one and the same, it seems a lot of work has been done to make this narrative work to prove that the time endowment ceremony was indeed from Joseph. And to explain why it was never written down to justify that Brigham did indeed have the sacred responsibility to preserve and restore it. And to assert that what he established was not only the same as what Joseph had established, but it was the same as what had been practiced by every true prophet of God in every dispensation of the world throughout time. So I'll quote Bruce R mcconkie from Mormon Doctrine, all of these ordinances of exaltation are performed in the temples for both the living and the dead. Their essential portions have been the same in all dispensations when the fullness of sealing power has been exercised by the Lord's prophets. So I, I won't um and I'm sorry to say it, but I won't insult your intelligence by going through the list of scriptures he cites um for anyone who cares to look them up, the the scriptures are doctrine and covenants. 128 I 1 24 28 to 41 about the needing to finish the Nabu temple, right? It says nothing about that. It has in no way supports any of the claims that he has made and nor does the historical record. So now let's dig in to the sources used to support each of these claims that work together to validate our modern temple practices. So from what I have been able to find there, um the entire argument that the temple came from Joseph and that it passed and um that he passed it on to Brigham Young and others seems to rely primarily on a few central historical claims. So let me show them. So first on May 4th, 1842 Joseph Smith administered the endowment to a small select group of men. These are the things we're going to get into because these are all of the things that work together to give us the um claim that Brigham Young was just continuing on what Joseph started the next day, May 5th, those men administered the endowment to Joseph and Hiram the men that Joseph had in doubt the first day. The reason number three, the reason there is not a shred of contemporary evidence for any of this, not a journal entry, a letter, um an official church record. Nothing is that Joseph told them not to write it down or speak about because it was too sacred. The claim I mentioned before that was so hard to find the evidence for then forth. The previous day, May 3rd, 1842 Joseph had ordered the upper floor of the red brick store to be dressed up to look like the temple. They put canvas between makeshift rooms, right? It was only one room, but they had hung canvas. They had um put plants trees for the creation room. It actually gets better than that as I found out as I researched. So we'll get into that one. And then the fifth is after endowing Brigham Joseph, after, after that endowment on um the fourth, Joseph told Brigham to organize and systematize his apparently defective endowment. So um that's what we're going to get into. So, President Nelson very succinctly included several of these points in his October 2020 2020 one conference talk, the temple and your spiritual foundations will read it until his martyrdom. Joseph Smith continued to receive revelations that further the restoration of the endowment and ceiling ordinances he recognized, however, that further refinement was needed after administering the endowment to Brigham Young in May 1842 Joseph told Brigham this is not arranged, right? But we have done the best we could on the circumstances in which we are placed. And I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize these all these ceremonies. So you heard that in that little video clip, that is a very important claim that is used all the time. So I looked at the footnote for his talk that he provided that little footnote number 11 at the end there. And to my shock, it, the footnote referred only to Saints, which is the self described narrative history designed to give readers a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h54m44s 00:54:44] foundational understanding of church history through the power of a good story, right? So my jaw dropped that Saints is now the definitive source that can be cited in footnotes. So it cites chapter 37 page 455 and I could have saved a ton of research time if I had just started there. But I think that going the way I did, I, I came on this last actually. And so um so I think I gained a much bigger understanding by starting with all of the academic sources and then landing on Saints last. So I won't take time to read it now, but we will read it at the end. And um we will, in the meantime, we are going to cover every single footnote that is included in Saint as well as any of these other um academic works that I have read. So by the time this episode is over, it's gonna be a big one, but you are really going to have a thorough understanding of what we are talking about of the um the origin of the endowment and what we claim the origin of the endowment is. So, let's start with this first claim. That's the first one we're going to look to. And that's um on 4th 1842 Joseph Smith administered the endowment to a small select group of men. So um let me see what I want to show you. Sorry, I said I have a lot of pieces working. OK. So yes, this is, oh, there were, that's what I, I was trying to figure out what my notes were saying. There were other things I really wanted to include. But again, as I said, those will come at um at a different time and different episodes I had to narrow this down. But there are other sources that I looked into in depth and, and I'm desperately excited to share or eager to share. There are things people need to know. So anyway, this claim, um despite this claim that this first claim I should go back to it, we make this, we claim this despite Joseph's many teachings that God would not reveal more to the saints until the temple was finished. And his clear testimony that he did not hold secret meetings or give secret teachings but taught the strongest doctrines in public. So, um despite what, what he said about that, we say that Joseph secretly endowed nine men in the upper floor of the red brick store, which you know was the same place that he secretly dictated. Section 132 to Hira and William Clayton a year later and where several other things were supposed to have happened. It seems like it makes me feel like I'm playing clue, right? It's like Joseph with the y thumb in the red brick store. That's how it could solve the mystery. That always seems to be the answer. But anyway, we'll continue on. So, um a few examples of, I want to share a few examples of the many times that Joseph taught that the temple needed to be finished before more could be revealed. So, um on May 1st 1842 3 days before endowing him and, and eight other men, right? The, the, the, the claim Joseph taught that the keys cannot be revealed until the temple is complete when I say him that was according to. So there were several reports of these talks and I want to give people the version of who wrote the talk so that I, I just want people to understand the sources. I'm using because I'm so frustrated by people not doing that. So that was about Willard Richards. So Willard Richards was supposedly in this group of men, a very important participant. And he is the one that wrote three days before he was secretly ordained that um or secretly endowed that the keys cannot be revealed to the elders, elders till the temple is complete. So then um the footnote provided for that and the Joseph Smith papers is fun. This is what it says. While most states, oh, that's what I was going to show you. So I do need to add that back to the stage. So this is the, that's what I'm reading the discourse by Willard Richards. And the footnote says, um while most saints did not receive the promised information until the completion of the temple. Three days after this discourse, Joseph Smith met with a small group of men in the upper room of his story and introduced them to the sacred ceremonies which included keywords and signs that were later performed in the temple after its completion, right? So again, nothing that Joseph said is real or valid, right? He gave a talk, but then three days later did exactly the opposite of what he gave what he said in his sermon. And so um let's see in, in uh June 11th, 1843 sermon a year after this supposed initial endowment meeting. And this was accorded by Wilfred Woodruff. Joseph asked, what is the object of gathering the Jews together or the people of God in any age of the world. The main object was to build unto the Lord and House, whereby he could reveal unto his people, the ordinances of his house and glories of his kingdom and teach the people the ways of salvation for. There are certain ordinances and principles that when they are taught and practiced must be done in a place or house built for that purpose,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=00h59m39s 00:59:39] right? So he's still teaching this after he's supposedly given the like, like taking people through these ordinances. Eliza Snow recorded that same um that same sermon and said, he beautifully and in the most powerful manner illustrated the necessity of the gathering of the building of the gathering and the building of the temple that those ordinances may be administered, which are necessary preparations for the world to come. He exhorted the people in impressive terms, to be diligent, to be up and doing th the Tabernacle passover and another people um over to another people and we lose the blessings. And he also taught the same thing on April 8th, 1844 just a little while before his death. This again was Wilfred Woodruff when the house is done, baptism font erected and finished and the worthy are what anointed and endowed and ordained kings and priests which must be done in this life. When the place, when the place is prepared, the elders are to go through all America and build up churches until all Zion is built up. But they are not to commence to do this until the temple is built up here. And the elders endowed then go forth and accomplish the work and build up the stakes in all North and South America. Anyway, I just wanted to give you an idea of how often Joseph did claim that the temple had to be finished before these things could be passed on before these things could happen. So, but despite all of these teachings, every church manual lesson book, church historian universally claims that the endowment was restored, restored by Joseph on May 4th 1842. If you search the church website for that date, you will see dozens of examples. So I'll read this one from the Joseph Smith edition. Oops, I guess I highlighted it. Let me fix that, try it again. Um This is from the Joseph Smith edition of the teachings of the presidents of the church because the temple would not be completed for some time. Joseph Smith chose to go forward with the temple endowment outside its sacred walls on May 4th, on May 4th 1842 in the upper room of his red brick store in Navoo. The prophet administered the first endowments to a small group of brethren, including of, of brethren, including Brigham Young. So there we go. There's that claim that just seems to show up everywhere. And I think I have another source I was going to read. And so, um yes, this is so those Andrew E and E hat papers that I read. This is the, oh, whoops, I pushed the wrong thing. This was a really good one called who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord says Quien Reflections on a sacred day fourth of May 1842. And so, um people have some, I saw some papers that read May Fourth be with you, right? Because that's the the force of the endowment. And so this is what he said. Um let's see, in April 1845 Elder Richards was ready to write the history for May of 1842. 0, this is a good quote. It kind of shows us how the history was compiled and how the apologetic historians think about and talk about that. So he said Elder Richards was ready to write the History for May of 1842. They, they had to do it afterwards. It may have seemed just like another day, um seemed like just another day of work on the draft manuscript of what would become the history of the church. But like many times before, during this challenging compiling process, his task was to flash flesh out not merely the memory but also the meaning and the message of an event in church history this time. So you get that you, you don't, you don't get to just use the source, you have to flush it out. Add a lot to it right this time. However, he had the formidable task of describing and explaining what had happened on May. On fourth of May 1842 the day our holy endowment was first administered as given in our temples today. What did he have at hand? Nothing save a scant entry from the Book of the Law of the Lord, the only contemporary account of the events of that important day. So please pay attention to that important part. The only contemporary count account is what I will show you from the Book of the Law of the Lord, which was Joseph's journal. We'll talk about it. It goes on to say while Elder Richards may have had nothing more on paper to aid him in composing the century. He did have it written in his heart. He had been one of the chosen individuals called by the Lord to receive these precious priesthood principles that day. And from the abundance of his heart, he put down in writing the single most sweeping and succinct explanation of the meaning of the endowment in our written literature. So um so OK, you get the idea of how important this is, right? I wanna skip forward and just read one little portion that helps us understand a little bit more about how he talks about this as with many other diary entries that he's so seamlessly included in the history of the church. He humbly wrote the record as if it contained the words of the prophet Joseph Smith. When he could find a diary containing information relating to the prophet Joseph that was found nowhere else he benignly revised and inserted into the history, the words of others as if they were the prophet's own
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h04m42s 01:04:42] that just killed me. Right. He's, he's lying and maybe that was the way they did it back then. I don't know, but he took things and then had them come out of Joseph Smith's own mouth. I mean, and um Andy e describes that as both humble and benign. I don't know that I would agree with that interpretation of that though. That that's humble and benign, right? But, but so it is. And so anyway, let's look at the entry that we're going to talk about. This is the um let me, let me get there. OK. So this is the book of the Law of, I mean, the Book of the Law is that the, the book of the Law of the Lord, which is the only contemporary source we have for this May 4th claim, this very, very important day of where our temple endowment came from. And so um this is, let's see, it's um oh, while you're looking at it, I want you to note the erased words. Let me see if I can show you those as we go forward, there's a close up of them. They were somehow erased for some reason. But um we're going to go ahead and read it. So all it says is in council in the presidents and general offices with Judge Adams Hiram Smith Newell K Whitney William Marks William Law, George Miller Brigham, Young Heber C Kemple and Willard Richards. Then something erased, right? And giving certain instructions concerning the priesthood, something erased. And on the ironic priesthood to the first, something erased, continuing throughout the day. So you can see those erased words. If you look at the Joseph Smith papers, it's, there's something underneath them but they, they can't see them. I don't know how they erased if it was done in pencil, if they had some other method. But that's really strange and that's all that it says. So that is the only thing it says in council with this group of men giving certain instructions concerning the priesthood something and on the ironic priest to the first something continuing through the day. Right. So there are many ways that you can interpret that if you read it, right? I don't know that you would necessarily say, oh, that was the first endowment. Like I, I mean, I don't know, maybe, oh, what I'm going, I'm on the wrong, on the wrong thing. We'll get to those. I have got to go forward a little here to see where I'm going. So anyway, the next version. So what, what Andrew E hat was talking about that Wilfred Woodruff wrote, I do want you to pay attention to William Marks and William Law and like, try to remember what that actually said because now we're going to see what it turned into on this. What did he say? It was April 18 4, five day when um William Law was working on it, you can see. So just like the April October 5th journal entry that we all know about, there's the original journal and that that original journal, we don't even really know what, what that is. We know it was usually written by Willard Richards, the same Willard Richards, right? But it almost certainly wasn't written on the same day that it happened, it was compiled from notes and right, so we have that original journal, whatever that is, but that's the closest to the source, well, which was actually written at least during Joseph's life most of the time, right? And then we have this revision draft. Um these, these earlier in the story, some of them happened in NAVOO, many of them happened later on in Utah, right? This one according to Andy E Hat happened in NAVOO. And then we have the finalized version that was compiled into the church history. So this is the revision draft and you can see very importantly that um um William Marks and William Law are crossed out and it says leave these blank above it, right? We'll we'll talk about that a little bit, but I do want you to pay attention to that because I think it's very interesting and let's see if there's anything else I want to say about that. Anyway, let's go to the next version. So this is the one that was finalized for church history. And these two, the draft version and the finalized version are pretty much identical. So I'll just go ahead and read this one and you can see where it said leave these blanks. He went ahead and left them blank, right? So Wednesday the fourth, I spent the day in the upper room of the store ie my private offices so so so called because in that room, I kept my sacred writings, translated ancient records and received revelations and in my general business or lodge room ie where the Masonic fraternity met occasionally for want of a better place. So, right, that's what that is. Now. It's the Masonic lodge in council with General um with General James Adams of Springfield patriarch Hiram Smith, Bishop Newell K Whitney and George Miller blank blank. That used to be William Marks and William Law, but neither of them are followers of Brigham, right? And presidents Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards instructing them in the principles and order of the priesthood. Attending to Washings Anointings endowments and the, oh, so did you hear that attending to Washings Anointings endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the ironic priesthood. So there we get the ironic priesthood piece that lead
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h09m49s 01:09:49] that worked in there pertaining to the ironic priesthood and so on to the highest order of the Milch priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days and all those plans and principles by which anyone is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings. When it says the Ancient of Days, that's actually really important because Brigham, he talked about that a lot. I, I didn't include the, the um nou temple records that I, that I have found that I think are valid. There are lots that I don't think are valid will do that in another episode as well. But there are some, but Brigham Young talked a lot about Adam God theory in regard to the temple. We'll get to that a little bit later as well. So it's interesting that it's worked in here, right? And then um let's see, um this to, to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been been prepared for the church of the firstborn and come up and abide in the presence of the Elohim in the eternal world, eternal worlds in this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days. And the communications I made to this council were of being spiritual and to be received only by the spirit minded. And there was nothing made known to these men. But what will, what will be made known to all the saints of the last days, so soon as they are prepared to receive and a proper place is prepared to communicate them even to the weakest of the saints. Therefore, let the saints be diligent in building the temple and all houses which they have been or shall hear after be commanded to commanded of God to build and wait their time with patience in all meekness, faith, and perseverance unto the end. Knowing assuredly that all these things referred to in this council are always governed by the principle of revelation. Wow, that's really big and really different than the original entry. And as I said, Andy E had said that happened in 1845 I think he said in April of 1845. And I would need to dig that out more to find out um when that was actually written, I I'm trusting His word, you know, but that is very, very different than what it said in the little draft that we read, right? So that's that first claim that is the single solitary source that is cited for that idea that on May 4th, 1842 Joseph Smith gave the endowment to be I'm using the language like they would use it, right? Like I'll talk about it later, Joseph Smith. Uh from what I have seen, he talked about the endowment of something that came from God, right? That God would give us an endowment of power that would enable us to go and spread the gospel and preach the gospel. That's really how Joseph Smith seemed to talk about it. It seemed to change into something that one man gave to another man. Right? Like you, you, like, I grew up hearing people say you get your endowment, right? Did you have, you have, uh they, they went and got their endowment, right? So it's a different usage and a different way of looking at it. But anyway, it's important to recognize that is the source, the one and only source we have that initial, I'll go back and show you really quick that initial journal entry right there. That's what it says. And then Willard Ritz, JDS altered, it, revised, it changed it, we could say forged it. I don't know how people want to look at it like it depends on how much you trust Willard Richards, right? If you fully trust him, then it's valid. That's, that's all it comes down to. And we end up with that version. That is the first claim. So anyway, ne now let's go on to the second claim, right the next day. Um So, so this one really depends on the first one, right? You have to already really accept the May fourth claim to accept the May 5th claim that those men administered the endowment to Joseph and Hiram the next day. And this follows the exact same power um pattern, a very limited and potentially questionable sources So here you can see this is the book of the Law of the Lord. Um On Tuesday, the fifth Judge Adams left for Springville, the others continued in counsel as the day previous and Joseph and Hiram were erased, eligible, right? Something was erased. And so again, the footnote says, Willard Richards notes of this meeting indicate that Joseph Smith and Hiram Smith having officiated in the ordinance the previous day for others were endowed on this date. And then it gives us that same source we just looked at, right. So that's what we have Joseph of Smith were oh, erase that because we have to make our new version, which there's above is the draft history and below is the finalized, they both say the same thing. Um Five Thursday, the fifth General Adams started for Springfield and the remainder of the council of yesterday continued their meeting at the same place and myself and brother Hiram. So it's remember it's Willard Richards writing on behalf of Joseph Smith, but he's doing it just to be humble and it's benign, right? And myself and brother Hiram received in turn from the others the same I had communicated to them the previous day. So that's what we have for our claim on the fifth.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h15m03s 01:15:03] So now let's go on to the next claim, which is that the reason there is not a shred of contemporary evidence for any of this is that Joseph told them not to write it down or speak of it because it was too sacred. That's the one I referred to a little earlier that I was trying so hard to find a for. And so I do want to reiterate that not only was the endowment ceremony not written down. There really is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence for it. There's, there's nothing, there's not a letter to a spouse, a letter to a, to a family member. No, nothing that at all and not a journal entry. Nothing that would show that this happened. Even with Joseph's secret polygamy, we at least claim to have um William Clayton's journal, right? And uh I maybe we don't have that page. I don't know, we'll have to find out what happens when, if it's ever released. But I just want to again point out Joseph's insistence on record keeping, right? It was a big deal to him. And so as one example of that, I want to show you this source that I think is fabulous and fascinating. This is the elders and the Kirtland elders quorum record and I've just shown you the first page and the last page I believe it's 87 pages or something like that. It's a fabulous record that I cannot believe is not included on the Joseph Smith papers. At least last time I checked it wasn't, I have absolutely no idea why it's not included. It's referenced at times, but it's not included. Um and the um community of Christ archivist is wonderful and very willing to share it. So I hope that it will be at some point because I do not understand why it's not there. It's really important. But um it, it's just another example of how careful Joseph was about keeping records. This has detailed records of washings and anointings and ordination of washings, anointings and ceilings. As I said, they would seal the washing and the anointing and of ordinations and of people being brought into different forms. It, it was very important to them to keep records. And in addition, we also know section 128 right that I've referred to in another episode where Joseph said, the way we seal on earth and seal in heaven is through our records and our record keeping that baptisms for the dead had to be redone if they hadn't been correct, um correctly recorded. So it's very strange to claim that the endowment ordinance, the ceremony was done and no record was kept. That's just as strange as claiming that all of these ceilings were done and no record was kept. But this too have been spun into the narrative. And so from the, I'll read again from the Andy E hat paper. He says, why did none of the nine present write in their diaries on of the events of this glorious day. The prophet Joseph Smith had asked each participant not to record the specifics of what they had heard and seen that day six weeks later in a letter to his to his fellow apostle Parley P. Pratt. So here's the source, right? I finally found it finally after so much looking to um to his fellow apostle Parley B. Pratt Hebrew C. Kimball wrote that these favored few had received quote, some precious things through the, through the prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. However, he added, I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written. Ok? There's the source, I finally found it, right? They, they, the reason there's no record is because it's just so sacred and this is where it comes from this letter. So let's look at it. Let's look at this letter. This is the letter to Parley P. Pratt from Heber C Kimball who was in Nou written June the 17th, 1840 1842. So it is important. I just kind of went over that quickly. This was six weeks, a full six weeks after this endowment happened that this letter is coming. It does not give us any indication of what it's talking about, right? And it doesn't say Joseph asked us to not write them down. It just says there are things that Joseph taught us that I can't tell you about. I, I mean, that can't be written down. So come home so I can tell you about them. So I suppose that it is possible that, well, you know what, we're gonna go ahead and read the letter. That's what I had wanted to do. So let me scroll down to find where it is. OK? Here we go. Here's the letter. We'll read what it actually said. So it said, I wish it was here. So as to feel and hear for yourself, we have received some precious things through the prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. So we've received some things from Joseph about the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written. So you must come and get them for yourself. We have organized a lodge here of Mason since we, since we obtained a charter that was in March and it goes on from there, right? So that's just thrown in there talking about. Anyway, this is really interesting. How would you prove what this is talking of? Why was it written six weeks later? So that's, that's a pretty big deal to use this source. This is, I guess I'm just saying
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h20m20s 01:20:20] an incredibly weak source to try to use to justify the fact that there are no good sources for your other incredibly weak source, right? We use that will that um Willard Richards altered journal to claim that this happened. The reason there is absolutely nothing about it is explained by this six week later letter that doesn't say anything about it. So it's just difficult like to see that this is what this is how we build it, this is how we do it. So I would like to humbly propose a different, alter, an alternative possibility, right? Hebrew C Kimball. So this, you'll remember this letter was written. What was it? June 17th of 1842. So by this point, Hebrew C Kimball who would ultimately marry 43 women, although many didn't stay with him that included um a teenager that he married when he was 56 and did have five Children with so lovely. But um so the Hebrew C Kimball by June of 1842 was deep into polygamy and you'll remember his letters that he was writing and his journal entries, he was writing to Violet about it from um England talking about this principle that we have embraced, right? It's called and um and he we have his journal where they were washing their feet and going to bed, right? Whatever that might mean. He al already at this point had a pregnant wife, Sarah Peak Noon gave birth to Heber's child sometime in 1842. So in June of 1842 she was either pregnant or had already delivered a baby. So this was the situation with Heber C Kimball, right? Um However, Parley p Pratt seems to have not known about polygamy and certainly didn't take his first wife who was Elizabeth Brotherton until 1843 the following year. Right? So what might this sacred secret teaching that he claimed that he, that um Hebrew claimed came from Joseph Smith. But that couldn't be written down b what could that possibly be some about the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice? Right? Is it, is this possibly evidence of Hebrew C Kimball starting to groom parley p pratt into polygamy? That is certainly what it looks like to me and it at least seems like a far more likely claim than talk than saying that he's talking about the six week earlier Temple endowment that we don't have any good evidence happened, right? And so anyway, I think that that is a very valid question to at least consider. And yet this letter is the only evidence we have to support the constant claim that it was too sacred to write down, which is used to justify the complete lack of any sort of evidence, any sort of record of this actually happening. One thing I need to mention here, there seems to be a pattern when we want to claim Joseph did something, but there is a complete lack of evidence for it. Instead of acknowledging the reality that there is no evidence, we try to explain it away when there is no evidence for polygamy, we claim it had to be kept secret because it was just too dangerous for any records to be kept when there is no evidence for the temple endowment, we claim it had to be kept sec kept secret because it was just too sacred for any records to be kept. Strangely, this only ever applies to Joseph. Nobody has explained why all the other nave polygamists left plenty of evidence and nobody has explained why the temple endowment was no longer too sacred to be written down 35 years later. Should we really always ignore all of Joseph's own teachings and statements, including his insistence that he always taught the strongest doctrines in public and never in private. Should we always ignore the actual historical record in favor of decades later claims by notoriously unreliable and heavily motivated sources using Ockham's razor. Can we not acknowledge that it is far simpler and more likely that whenever Brigham and company wanted to claim Joseph was doing something that he wasn't doing, they claimed years after his death when he was not there to defend himself that he had taught it to them in secret. So, OK, that's good to know. That's our second claim so far. I am not finding these to be terribly convincing. So now let's go to the next source. We're on the fourth one, right? The previous day before the um first endowments were done. May 3rd, 1842 Joseph had ordered the upper floor of the red brick store to be dressed up to look like the temple canvas hung between um areas to make makeshift different rooms, plants and trees, brought, brought in for the creation room, et cetera. So this claim is also woven seamlessly into all the narratives of the origin of the endowment. Um Just one example again, from the teachings of the presidents of the church. This is from chapter 36. In response to the, from Joseph Smith's the one I showed you before. In response to the Lord's command, the prophet and the saints moved for, moved forward as quickly as possible to begin building a house of the Lord. But the prophet realized that the construction would take years and he knew that the saints needed the full blessings of the temple. Consequently, on May 4th 1842 even though the temple was not complete, Joseph Smith administered the endowment to a small group of faithful brethren.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h26m07s 01:26:07] The group met in the large upper room of the, of the prophet's red brick store which had been arranged representing the interior of a temple as much as the circumstances would permit. Ok. So we are going to go through these claims. Now, this one is, there's quite a bit to get through, but it's actually pretty fun. I'm gonna read another version where this is talked about. Let's see also is quoting um Lyle G Brown's temple pro TEM he said, and all again, these sources will be linked during the 18 forties. It was literally the no, the center of Nabu society, the Red brick store. While no contemporary description of this upper room prepared for administrating, administering the endowment exists. One retrospective account indicated that it was quote arranged representing the interior of the temple. As much as the circumstances would permit. This quote arrangement consisted of dividing the hall into small compartments using canvas partitions. Nonetheless, Smith recognized recognized the limitations of this modest facility. So, ok, so unlike the the claim, the previous claims, right. Well, the, the um yeah, the first three claims we've went through which at least have a piece of somewhat contemporary evidence, however weak, it might be. This one is based solely on a single newspaper editorial written 42 years later. In response to the RL DS claims that like polygamy, the temple endowment was also a creation of Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith. So that's what we're going to get into. It was written. OK, let me get to my next slide. This was the newspaper article right here, the higher ordinances. And you can see it was, I'll tell you all about it was written in January 2nd, 1884 by Lucius and Scoville. And so that is what we are going to get to. So let meet Lucius Scoville, he was the worshipful master of the Navoo Masonic Lodge. Don't know why that's in lighter writing. It's not meant to be so ignore that. So he was the architect of the Navoo Masonic Hall. He was a Nabu polygamist and interestingly he was also the Nou Baker, his bake shop, the Scoville Bakery has been restored and is still in Nou, which I think is great fun. So, um let me see what I want to tell you about Lucius Scoville. Well, here I guess I'll go to this next slide which is him when he would have written the article. So he was 78 years old at the time that he wrote it. It was 42 years after the event, after the event that he's talking about and he had nearly perfect recollection talking about it. We'll talk about the one thing that he's not certain of. And I just have to point out, um I just had to call my mom this week to ask her for there, there were reasons but to ask her something about when I was born. And um I knew it was a long shot, right? It was over 40 years ago, just like this claim. She could not remember a single thing about my birth. And this is not to criticize my size, my mom, I don't know how much I can remember of each of my children's births. And that was a lot less than 40 plus years ago. Right? Try to think of something over 40 years ago, some random thing and see how, well you can remember it. If, if he, if he had some sort of a journal he could have showed us, then we could have at least said, oh, ok, there's some evidence but he is claiming this very, these very specific things over 40 years later. So we need to really consider that when we decide how to look at his um at his claim. So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen so we can read this editorial together so you can see the Desert Evening news. It was published in the newspaper on February 11th, 1884. This one was really hard for me to find for some reason. So I was thrilled that I finally found it. Oh, and in the process of looking for this, I found some other things that I wanted to share and how to cut. So you can look forward to those. But this is page two. You can see right there where it says the higher ordinances. Let's go ahead and zoom in. We'll have to go back over to it. Ok. Let's just read this entire editorial together because I think we need to because massive claims are made solely on this. We give space to the following communication for the reason that it attempts, that attempts are being made by the leaders of the society, commonly known as the Joseph, fights the RL DS to make it appear that the Sacred Endowment were not authorized and administered by the prophet Joseph, but were invented and added by the, by President Brigham Young and others. Also that such ordinances as the prophet Joseph taught were not to be administered, stirred anywhere under any circumstances except in a temple. That's funny too right there. Like, anyway, it's really interesting. So there, the, the RL DS early on Joseph Smith the third really was right on. So many things. So this is Springville, Springville January 2nd, 1884 editor deseret news. I noticed an article in the deseret news of Ju January 25th, 1884 in relation to church doctrines, I can testify that on the third day of May 1842 Joseph Smith, the prophet called called upon five or six.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h31m32s 01:31:32] The Shadrack Shadrack Roundy Viz is that you said, I think I said it wrong. Viz, Shadrach Roundy Noah Rogers Dimock B Huntington, Daniel Cairns and myself. I am not certain, but the Hosea Stout was there also the one thing in this whole thing that he's not certain of. So remember, this is 42 years ago. He knows exactly the team that was assigned to do this except for maybe not. This one guy can't remember that for sure. Anyway, we'll continue to meet with him, the prophet in his business office, the upper part of his brick store. He told us that the object he he had was for us to go to work and fit up that room preparatory to giving endowments to a few, um, a few elders that he might give unto them all the keys of power pertaining to the ironic and Melchizedek priesthood. Do you recognize how much language comes from that Willard Richards entry that he wrote in the church history? Right. It's good to keep that in mind. We therefore went to work making the necessary preparations and everything was arranged, representing the interior of a temple as much as the circumstances would permit you see where it's quoted everywhere. He being with us dictated everything. So Joseph was there with them the whole time on the third and into the fourth, telling them exactly how to it. He gave us many items that were very interesting to us, which sank with deep weight upon my mind, especially after the temple was finished at Navoo. And I had received the ordinances in which I was among the first as I had been called upon to work in the temple as one of the hands during the winter. So there was a lot there. So right, is not only there directing everything, but also teaching them all of these profound things that he was able to understand as soon as he had his endowment. And he was one of the first that gives us a really good insight into the potential motives to get to um to write this. Right. Let's see where I was. Um as I had was among the first, as I had been called upon to work in the temple as one of the hands during the winter, some weeks previous to the dedication he told us that we should have the privilege of receiving the whole of the ordinances in due time. The history of Joseph Smith speaks for itself, but I can and do testify that I know of a surety, that room was fitted up by his order, which was finished in the forenoon of the said fourth of May 1842. And he gave us to understand that he, he intended to have everything done by him that was in his power while he remained with us. Again, these anachronisms seems that he's, you know, that were part of the story now that he's applying to this earlier time. He said his work was nearly done and he should roll the burden of the kingdom upon the shoulders of the 12. That's one of the sources that killed me to cut out. Sorry, I'm just, I know so many of these things where they come from. So there will be future episodes on things like the succession claims and the keys. That's an important one. Um Let's see upon the 12, I am the only one living that I know of who helped to fit up that room except Josea Stout if he was there. So now we know why he's not certain if Jos Stout backs me up on this, he was there. If he doesn't back me up on that on this, he wasn't there. Isn't that an interesting one piece? Information? Everyone that's dead. He's certain about the living guy who may or may not chime in. He's not sure if he was there or not. I think that was pretty funny. I am most respectfully your brother in the covenant Lucius and Scoville. So, ok, I will stop sharing my screen. I'm sorry if I'm being, um, I, I don't mean to or want to be snarky. It's just incredible to see these things and read these things that we make these certain claims and these huge claims and this is what they are based in. I don't know what to do with that. Right? And so that is the Lucious, the um Scoville claim and that is the one and only source we have for it. That's it. So it's a couple of things that I think it's good to know about Lucius Scoville. Um As I said, well, here I'll go ahead and share the screen again. Um Right. He was a very dedicated mason, right? He was very, very dedicated to masonry. So he was probably very dedicated also to the temple endowment. He was a dedicated, no, um Polygamist dedicated Mormon Polygamist in Utah. Right? He had, I believe it was eight wives can't see where I wrote it. But um yes, I think it was and the most important thing I think to know is that his testimony directly contradicts Joseph Smith's journal, right? And so here we have those three stages again, the original journal, the History draft and the final history of the church. So you remember Lucius Scoville very clearly wrote in his um his editorial, that's the word that Joseph was there with them all day directing everything because I think he had to include that because how would Lucius Scoville know how was it, how a temple was supposed to be set up? Right? Like he'd never been through one. So he would need to include that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h36m53s 01:36:53] Joseph was there telling him exactly how to do it and teaching him all of these wonderful things, right? But here we see Joseph's journal Monday and Tuesday the 2nd and 3rd with his family. That's the original. Then the history draft. Um I, I think there's Tuesday the third, mostly with my family. Tuesday the third, mostly with my family. So it changes from with his family to mostly with his family is that to give it a little wiggle room. I don't know, but his own journal says he was with his family. And yet in this case, although we think the journal is really important on the fourth and how it's fudged to be changed later on. We completely ignore it for the third because we like Lucious Scoville claim better, I suppose. So as I said, I, I don't know that we can be completely clear on what Brother Scoville motives may have been. But I think we got that little indication when he said I was among the first. It seems that he did. Maybe, I, I mean, I, I don't know, he could have been asked to do it. I'm not trying to, you know, I don't have to tell you what his motives were for sure. But I think it is interesting that he seemed to have a desire to feel important and it worked. He's cited in every church manual and in every history that talks about this topic, we know his name. Right. And if he hadn't written that editorial, we wouldn't remember him at all. So as it is, he did become extremely important because he is the one and only critical essential source to make this claim that Joseph had the red brick store dressed up like a makeshift temple. So, um, that's, I, I think we can already see how, I mean, hopefully that you guys agree with me that this is really quite weak but still I wanted to see more, I mean, not only just weak, but it contradicts the journal that we think is important, but I still went through all the records to see what I could find all of the records in the Joseph Smith papers to see if I could find anything to support this claim or that would shed any more light on it. And I didn't find a whole lot, but I did find, um, Joseph Smith's store Daybook and this is really interesting. This is the day book that they, this is like the record of the store. It's really a cool source to look at and it tells us what was bought and sold, right? What was happening in the store? And it's this particular page I'm looking at this is June 18th, 1842 which is where Lucious Scoville is mentioned. And it's really interesting. It lists, um, it, it tells us not only what was ordered and how much it cost, but it also tells us if it was just an individual getting it or if it was someone on behalf of an organization, right? It reminds me of when, when we used to have to go to the c store for our church callings at the local coffee store, at least in Utah. This is how it was. Our church would have an account and I would go tell them I'm, this is my name I'm with primarily or I'm with, with enrichment night or whatever it was and I need to print these programs or, you know, they would just bill it to my account. It kind of reminds me of that. If that's how it was or not, that's how it looks to me or how I think of it. And so anyway, I want to list, um, several of the purchase orders from this particular day. It says George W Thatcher bought £8 of sugar for a dollar James Henry Rollins bought £2 of butter for 16 cents. Interesting. His name will come up again later. Um, three orders for the N House, Philander Colton for $1 Miles Wilson for 63 cents and lower down the page. Lucian Worth charged 2 $2.50 for one small hat. But those were all under the navoo house. Right? So, I guess Lucian Lucian, is that how you say his name? He needed a hat to work on the NAV house. But then we get down to the bottom of the page and there are two more orders you can see there. It says Temple Committee, that's Elias Higby. Um, bought a pair of suspenders for 38 cents. And last, but not least for this page on behalf of the Nabu Lodge, that's the Masonic Hall that Lucius Scoville was um, the architect of I assume, right? He bought four spools of thread which were 10 cents a piece. So 40 cents and six skeins of silk yarn for 38 cents. So we have that written in the store day book. And what that made me think about was they, he had no notice for this, right. Joseph came to him on May 3rd and said deck out the upper room of my red brick store. And it made me think, where would he get those yards and yards and yards of canvas that he would need to hang up as partitions? Where would that come from? Where would all of the other supplies that they needed come from? Right. And the red brick store is where it would have to come from. That's where he, the supplies he needed later on for the, um, Masonic Lodge. It seems
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h41m40s 01:41:40] so. That was another interesting thing that made me think that would be hard to get all of that gathered and there's no record of it anywhere. I don't know that anyone had these, like, miles of canvas just hanging around. Right. They, they hadn't been ordered in advance, like they would be later for the um for when Brigham set up the nave temple. So anyway, doesn't disprove his claim. But I think it's another element that's interesting to consider and this um store Day book will become important later on in later sources. So III I have thought I was finished with this episode so many times, I'm ready to record it. But just yesterday as I was finalizing it, I went through Saint and realized they had two new sources for this claim that I had never seen before. I didn't see them in any other writing. So they seem to be brand new that Saints um ordered them. I mean saints added them. So I think we need to cover them because I just spent the last two days digging these out. So the first one is this book, it's called Joseph Smith Junior's Red Brick Store by I think it's called Lanius and mckiernan is how I was told to pronounce them. And so this was an interesting book. In the world was this. It's really this short little book. I think it's only something like 87 pages. Oh, this is the one that's 87 pages. Uh The Kirtland Record book must be a different amount. I was thinking about this. But um and I, and I couldn't understand what it was. It doesn't even include, as you can see, it doesn't even include a year on the title page like they left the year off. So I had to search it to find out that it was written in 1985. And um I, I was able to find it online, but it wasn't until I talked to the people at the restoration bookstore was able to talk to um people who talked to Pamela Price and asked her some of the questions I had that they actually weighed in on it and told me and I should have recognized the names that Lanius and um Lanius Lo I can't remember Lanius and mckiernan were actually very liberal dedicated. They were members of the RL DS church that were leading this charge to go liberal to go away from Joseph Smith, right? So when there was that big division, they were ones that were very much on that side and that becomes apparent as you look through this book because while I was trying to figure it out, I, I thought it must, must be written by Anti Mormons back in this 85 time. Period, you know, I could, couldn't figure out what it was. And so anyway, I will show you what it says. So here is the pertinent paragraph that is cited by um the by Saints, the book Saints on this claim of um of Lucius Scoville, right? That Joseph to have the red brick store decorated. Sorry, I told you I'm trying to do too many things at once. So let's read this paragraph on May 3rd, 1842 Joseph Smith prepared the assembly room of his store for the introduction of temple of secret temple ceremonies. These religious ordinances Smith believed were a restoration of celestial law of God on, on to the earth. Five or six men aided Smith. So see, it's, it's just from that Lucius Scoville claims he doesn't know for sure if that one guy was there. Jose is out five or six men aided Smith in preparing the room for his for this ritual. Lucius and Scoville, one of these men recalled that the prophet explained that the object he had for us was to go to work and to fix up the room preparatory to giving endowments to a few elders. That's that footnote just gives us that same desert news editorial that we just read. Then James Henry Rollins, remember we just read about him in the um Store Day book, James Henry Rollins, another who assisted in preparing the assembly room, remembered carrying water and other commodities to the room above the store afterwards, I found out it was to give endowments to some of the brethren. So that's what he claimed. So, ok. Footnote 5949 because I hadn't seen that before. So I was like, oh, there's another source, but I didn't know about. So we'll look at what Footnote 49 is, right? There's Footnote 48 that just that same deseret news article and then Footnote 49 is quoted in Hiram L and Helen May Andres, they knew the prophets um which was printed in, printed in 1974. So it's so interesting to see even clear back in these years. Um The RL DS are quoting from so from L DS sources, but here's that book, right? They knew the prophet. This is by the addresses and page 77. So all it is is a book of like remembrances about Joseph Smith and they compiled them. So on page 77 it's talking about this James Henry Rollins and I wanna read the pertinent paragraph that is giving us support for the fact that on May 3rd 1842 Joseph wanted the temp the upper room prepared to be a temple.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h46m31s 01:46:31] It starts by saying during the spring and summer of 1844. Previous to his death, the prophet told me to assist in carrying water and other commodities to the room above the store. Afterwards, I found out it was to give endowments to some of the brethren. So can you see how massively dishonest? Now, I I like this source too because throughout this entire book, that Saint, I cannot believe Saint cites this out of print book, but this out of print book, Lanius and mckiernan are also massively dishonest because they cut out that beginning part, telling us that it was two years over two years later and just include that part to try to claim that um, he, there's another witness for this claim of the red brick store. So I think we can eliminate that footnote as not a good one. And then we'll go on to read the rest of it right now. We'll do the next footnote. This is, but it continues with the men apparently prepared the room by painting a mural of a pastoral scene in the northwest corner and by arranging several sprigs of cassis casing. I don't know how you say it. Olive branches, cedar boughs and other evergreens about the room. This pastoral setting paralleled the garden room and later Mormon Temples and was probably the model for such later buildings. OK. That was a lot, right? So um no 50 actually gives us three different sources that go in order for each thing that it claims. So um the the third one, the House of the Lord by James E Talmage. That one, I'm we're not going to dig into it. It quotes several pages. I think it's page 152 to 168. I read a lot of pages. There was, it's just about temples. So all that they are citing there is the claim that this was the model for later buildings with a garden room and right, it's just describing later temples. So we don't need to go into that one. If anyone wants to read it, please still free, but it doesn't apply to this. Um May 3rd claim that we're looking at. But let's look into these other two sources, shall we? Because I did not know if there's anyone that's like less trustworthy, anything less trustworthy than maybe L DS historians. And apparently as these are L DS historians. So let's look into these sources. I tried. So this first one, this archaeological investigations at the Joseph Smith Red Brick store. I spent hours on that today. That's the source that I called the restoration bookstore. I was able to find some information from them about it was very difficult to find. I should have just from the very beginning. Well, the only place I could find it online, the only place that came up was benchmark books. So that was the only, um, hit that any kind of search gave me. And so I called benchmark books and Brian Buchanan could not have been nicer and he told me that this actually was an RL DS book. And so I quickly emailed the archivist, the RL at the RL DS library and asked, do you have this. And then in the meantime is when I went all these other directions trying to find it, trying to find any way to substantiate these claims. And luckily because I went through so I spent hours on this today. It was ridiculous. But the amazing community of Christ archivist came through in a huge way and sent me the pages and, um, I'll, I'll read to you. I didn't think I was gonna get it. I thought that it was this completely out of print book that I couldn't possibly find. I cannot believe that Saints is using these sources that you can't even find to cite, right? And so this is what I had written before I got it. I said in any case, even the author of the book that was this Jo Joseph Smith Junior's Red Brick Store, they felt this source was unreliable enough that they wrote. Apparently, apparently there was um he painted this mural, right? Yeah. This mural painted, that's, that's what I think this source was trying to tell us because I know what the other things are. So it said that there was this pastoral scene painted this mural, right? And I was trying to find why in the world they claim that because I've never seen that claim. But, and I also am wondering because that's what we read in Saints. That's what they claim as well. Is that there that Joseph had this mural painted? And I was like, first of all Ws and Saints quote directly to this book instead of going through this intermediary book. Right. That's out of print as well. Why don't they just quote the actual source that they want? I can't figure out that because that's the only part of it that they're, that they seem to be taking. But in any case, we are saying that on this one day when Joseph said to Lucious Scoville, this day, I want you to decorate this room this one day. Oh And by the way, paint a mural on the wall of a pastoral scene. Like who was the artist among this group that in, in one day, like with no notice, no time to design, no anything painted a beautiful pastoral scene on the wall to be the garden room in the makeshift temple, right? Like I'm like, what is going on going on? This idea is ludicrous and wouldn't that be like Lucius Scoville said absolutely nothing about that. Wouldn't that be a big thing to mention? Like, not only did we decorate it up, we painted a mural on the wall.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h51m46s 01:51:46] Everyone would have seen it, right? You know, the mural on the wall, do you know what that was for that was for the creation room or the garden room? Isn't that something you would at least mention? But we ignore all of that and, and add this in somehow. So I already had thought that, you know that we could just eliminate that source. But when, um, when I read the actual source that quotes this, I don't think it's an actual book. It's a paper from the, um, scans. I got, it looks like it's just a paper and its pages 73 and 74. I laughed out loud when I read it. So, let's read it together because it's quite fun. So, sometime after the original construction and painting of the walls, a mural or Fresco was done in water colors on the north half of the west wall on the second floor. Unfortunately, not even the general nature of the subject matter could be determined. The soft browns, blues, yellows and gray greens would seem to indicate a landscape or pastoral Stal subject. One sample has a whitewashed over blue on red, another has blue on red and several have gray blue on red. These are all from the second floor west wall and were part of the mural. It appears that part of the of this wall was a basic red as well as whitewashed and unpainted. The Mormon period colors were red, unpainted and whitewashed. The mural was sometime later. So pause on that when the Mormons were there, it was painted red or unpainted or, or whitewashed right in the different areas. The mural came later after the Mormon period. It has been suggested that the mural was done by David Smith who lived in the store for a time and who is known to have been a painter. Oh my gosh. So this mural was known to have been done after the the saints left NAVOO. And they are claiming it not only that source for 1818 44 but now this, this mural that was done, I don't know, decades later, they're claiming that it was there in 1842 as evidence for this temple claim. Now this is the part that just floored me. You can see that um that it has been suggested, right? That is a personal communication from Stoa to mckiernan. The same mckiernan who um wrote the historical introduction in this book. So this mckiernan who himself knows this was David Smith, right? And knows that the mural was not there and who wrote the introduction of this book so knows it's in this book. Let me just go back and point out it's the same mckiernan who wrote this red brick store book. He was blatantly lying. It was he himself who had the communication that said that the mural was done by David Smith. Like that's for anyone who doesn't know that's Joseph Smith. Joseph and Emma's son, right? That was, I think that the son that she was pregnant with at the time, David Hiram Smith, he knows perfectly well that that mural was not there when the Saints were there. And yet he includes it as a source in his book. And then Saints um uses that as a footnote. II, I am floored by this whole thing more than I can tell you. So that's one of the new footnotes that was added in Saints and I hope you are every bit as shocked and surprised as I am because I do not know how we possibly can begin to justify that. Like at this point, I, I don't know, I, I don't even know what to think. Like anyway, it's inexplicable to me. So now let's go on to the third source that is claimed in this book that Saints quotes, right? We're going so Saints cited this book and this book cited three sources for their claims. So that was the first one and now we'll go to the next one which just happens to be good old John Bennett, right? C Bennett is the source that they use and he's the one that tells us also that the um upper room of the red brick store was decorated to look like the temple. So we already all know hopefully that John C Bennett, he was known in his day to be one of the worst liars ever, right? He has absolutely no credibility but for fun. I'm just going to go ahead and read this entire page. So you can see what it is that not only only the RL DS are citing, but what Saints is also citing too, right? So let's read John C Bennett. The ceremonies of initiation are in perfect keeping with the general absurdity of the new dispensation and with Holy Joe's mission for the restoration of the Ancient order of things. The large room is carefully prepared and consecrated and from 12 to 24 sprigs of Cassia olive branches, cedar boughs or other ever evergreens are tastefully arranged about it. Remember we read that? So that's what they're citing. That's the part that we read in the, in the book, the original little book. Um Let's see, these are intended to represent the inter, the eternal life and un mingled bliss which the celestial kingdom will be enjoyed by all who continue in full fellowship with. Um Let's see. I don't know why it says order lodge. The aspiring candidate for Holy Orders obtains admission into the sanctified body. In the following matter, he is stripped naked and blindfolded. He is then brought into the lodge room and in that state is conducted round so that all the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=01h57m30s 01:57:30] members of the lodge may be satisfied by personal inspection that he is a fit subject for their August association and that he possesses the qualifications required in Deuteronomy 23rd chapter. And first verse, look that up. It's worth it. It was too good to miss. So I looked it up for you, Deuteronomy 23 1. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord while the candidate is passing around the room in this ridiculous and degrading condition. The most excellent grandmaster is repeating, I will bring the blind by the way that they know not, I will lead them in past that they have not known I will make darkness light before them and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them and not forsake them. When the candidate has passed satisfactorily this queer examination, he is brought to the oh, sorry, he is brought to the altar, but for which he is made to kneel while he is in, while in this posture, the following oath or obligation is solemnly administered to him by the grand master or his representative. It goes on from there, right? This is this source that we are claiming, I mean that we are citing and can I just in addition, point out that John C Bennett was already massively out of favor. He fled navoo just like I think two weeks after this was supposed to have happened, he was never in any way claimed to be associated with any ceremony or temple ceremony or anything, right? And so why we think that he's valid when you read through all of that? Nothing has like it also shows how good people can be at lying like it just making stuff up that has no basis in reality whatsoever. If anyone thinks that sounds familiar from the any temple experience that they have, you know that anyway, I guess I am just beside myself to see that these are the sources used by Saints. They had to add an additional source and this was the first one that it was, was this book and I just went through the sources they used. I do not think this is credible. I I OK, so now we'll go on to the one other source that Saints claim. So at first claimed that book, Joseph Smith Junior's Red Brick Store. This is the other one. It says a house for the most high um by, by Matthew mcbride. And it tells us to see um page 100 note 10. So we'll go to the screenshot. I grabbed, you can see down here at the bottom. It says page 100 note 10 says IBID. OK. So we can go see what note 10 is talking about. And um this is what it says that leads to footnote 10. Once the position and dimensions of the temple had been determined and marked excavation for the foundation began on February 18th, the on February 18th, the brethren began to dig the cellar. I have no idea what this has to do with what we're talking about. Like completely fluid. So let's go back and read footnote nine since it's IBI. It's the same right work at the temple site itself began in mid February according to William Clayton's record. Enter Alpheus Cutler. Oh Elder Alpheus Cutler, assisted by Elder Reynolds Cohoon and others laid out the foundation of the temple? Ok. So what does that have to do with the red brick store being decorated on um May 3rd? I don't know. So there's the IBI it's um the intimate chronicle, the journals of William Clayton and it tells us page 527. So can you see how many books I buy? I had another version of the journals of William Clayton, but I needed to know what that was talking about on page 527. Go to that. Now this is, remember this book, this house for the most high, I'm sorry, I'll go back to is written by Matthew mcbride. Let's remember that name, right? And it's quoted as it's cited in saints. It's, it does say c also so this is the least important one. But what in the world could it be talking about? So I turned to page 527 and it's talking about May 7th, 1852. What does that have to do with? 1842? I don't know the closest I could get on. I actually searched for pages and pages thinking maybe the citation was just off. It says all the lots are adorned with young firs and other varieties of trees and shrubbery that's talking about the city in 1852. And that's the closest I could get to saying something about the temple being decorated somehow to look like. Anyway, I like, I, I have no idea what that is supposed to be referring to. So let me get back to see where. Ok. So anyway, I just, I have to say like I found this shocking, these are the new sources that are in Saints. Now, remember President Nelson used Saints to justify his claims. That's why his footnotes go to are, is the book Saints and then the Book Saints added these new footnotes. Now, II I really, I spent a long time. I, I feel like this footnote was like gaslighting me because I was like, what's wrong with me? What am I doing wrong? Why can't I make any sense of this? I like, I thought I must not know how to search footnotes and maybe that's true. There is definitely a chance that someone's going to say Michelle,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h03m12s 02:03:12] this is what you did wrong. And I will feel like a complete idiot and come on and say, OK, I got that wrong. That is definitely a possibility that it hasn't generally been my experience. I, I've done this quite a bit and I haven't run. I like, usually know how to know use footnotes. So I, I don't know what's going on. But the first thing I found that I did find interesting is that Matthew mcbride is the director of publications at the church history department. So maybe that makes a little bit more sense. This is Matthew mcbride's book the footnote in, it seems to be really bad. And then Saints, which he's in charge of uses it for a footnote. So that's the first sense I can make of this. If someone else can tell me what's going on, I would love to hear it because I am shocked honestly, like, I think any teacher of history worth their salt would fail a student who used footnotes like this, right, this huge massive team of L DS historians. They're literally like the best historians, money can buy. And maybe there maybe in like maybe there's a literalness to that, maybe they really are the best historians, money can buy because that seems to be what's going on. I I feel bad being so hard on them, but this was shocking and it doesn't seem to be getting better. So, ok, those were the new sources added by saints. Don't seem to be strengthening the claim from what I can find. But let's look at one more thing. I want to also remind everybody about the red brick store, right? So let's go back here and look again at the red brick store. We covered this in one of the expositor episodes and I'm sure we will again. So here's the little red brick store, right? And that's the assembly room is the room we're talking about that would have had the canvas partitions that decades later had a mural painted on the wall. And then there's Joseph Smith's little office, right? And um I just want to talk about the culture of this red brick store, right? And what have been go what would have been going on? So this again was a massively busy place, the center of town, like we've said, this is where all of the historical work was done. This is where all deeds had to be filled out. This was some, this was also used as the bank, this like everything, everything was happening here all of the time. And so, um this was the year before the school started because I looked into that, but that just started the day before. Um William Clayton claims that um section 132 was written down. So that wasn't yet going on, but it was still outrageously busy, busy. And I was able to find some very interesting things that um church website. I mean that Joseph Smith papers has a very useful source that's called the Calendar of Documents. I think that's how I found the Hiram Smith um deed that I think is a really big deal. But so anyway, they include in that all of the things that were that, that are recorded on that day from this nou period. And one of those things is the um oh, let's see. I guess I need to go back. They keep track of thankfully all of the elders licenses. So remember you had to get an elder's license to go preach the gospel and those had to be filled out. And then luckily they were recorded in books, most of the elders licenses that the elders would take with them. We don't have anymore, but we do have the record book that shows that on this day when, well on these days, I think this is the 4th and 5th. Yeah, I think it's you can see the fourth and the fifth, seven different elders journal, um elders licenses were filled out and recorded. So that would have to be happening in this little office, right? That Brigham Young and others claim was being used by Joseph Smith and and these men for their endowment. So that was happening at the same time. And then we can also go to um the again the store daybook entries and you can see on these three days the third through the fifth, there are a full eight pages of entries in Joseph Smith's Daybook. So I guess my, I mean, I mean, in the in the store like this place was hopping and happening, right? So what I find so interesting there, there was no like partition between upstairs and downstairs, there was no sound proofing. It seems to have been really pretty open access. So there was a lot going on, right? And what I am trying to envision is how the upstairs was completely not only out of commission but really a sacred space, right? First of all that, no one would notice there would not be a single testimony of what's going on at the red brick store, right? Like what are all of the, what's that mural about? Right. What are those canvas partitions about in this? So what I find that f is that when Joseph spent so much effort saying we need a temple so that there is a space prepared, finished, consecrated and dedicated, right? So that God can give us these things. Not only was there not a space prepared, it wasn't dedicated. When was this space dedicated? And it was in the middle of like, like everything happening. They were in the middle of a store, like they went to Costco in the middle of Costco,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h08m30s 02:08:30] hung up some curtains and did the temple endowment. That's what we have to invent vision that is happening here. Just Willy nilly on a Wednesday in the busiest place in town. We're gonna do the temple ordinances for the first time. How, how does this make sense to us? So that really is what's going on here. So, ok, I think we've thoroughly established these first, several claims that, uh, I think we can eliminate them, right? 123 and four. I don't know. You, everyone can decide for themselves. I'm not convinced. I'm sad that this is the, um, ah, kind of it hitting me. I'm sad that this is what it is. I'm sad with this reality. It's kind of hard to realize it, but that's the best that there is. That's what it is. So, now the last claim is after endowing Brigham Joseph told Brigham to organize and systematize his apparently defective temple ceremony done in the middle of Costco, basically. Right. That's kind of what's going on. Sorry, I didn't mean to be a downer just I just I want us to do better and I want us to be better. And it makes me really sad. So this is the last claim that we have to cover and we will look into this one. So this claim also has one single source. So let me introduce you to John Nuttle who may very well be a really good guy. This one I do not think is his fault. So we're going to talk about him a little bit. So the claim, right? Is that, well, I guess I can go back to that claim, but the we'll just leave John Nettle there for a little while. He's a good looking guy. So OK, the claim is that and, and you, yeah, did I already say you saw it in the video? You see it everywhere. It's in every record is that Joseph ceremony just wasn't right. It's not arranged quite right. So he needed Brigham to fix it and he charged Brigham to fix it. Now, we have a lot of things that we have to talk about here. Let's first before we look at the source for this source. There's one, let's just look at it logically. So Joseph taught repeatedly. I've said this so many times that the temple could only be built when God commanded it through direct revelation and that God gave specific instructions of exactly how it should be built. Right. So um he demonstrated this in his relationship with William weeks, if you remember in that episode where he insisted that the windows be full circles as God had directed. And so it goes, it goes on and yet and yet it just wasn't right. Right. Like Joseph just couldn't get the temple right. He didn't have the separate rooms for the celestial creation, the garden room that um the ceiling rooms. Um he didn't even have built in places for partitions, those had to be added later, right? And he couldn't even get the makeshift version done, right? Which he had done two years earlier. So, so two years before the temple, before he died, when the temple should have been done within that time, he was like, you know what? I just don't think we're gonna get it done and I'm gonna do it now and then I'm gonna wash my hands of it and say, hey, Brigham, I just couldn't get this right. Will you please take it and fix it like this whole thing looking at it logically just does not work. And so he so yeah, two years before his death, he completely gave up on it and he just couldn't, they couldn't fix the design in the temple like, oh, maybe we should change that. So it works better. Nope, build the temple, we have to build the temple. So God gives us this. But you know, I don't know what it's supposed to be like. So you fix it. Brigham. That's basically what we're saying. Like he said this to Brigham, the traveling mission, that missionary who had only gotten back to NAVOO rather recently, right? And was never a member of the first presidency. He didn't say anything to Hiram about it. He did not because basically, remember Hiram was kind of an idiot. Anyway, he was a good guy. But but Brigham had to really put him in his place a lot. I'm I'm this is all based on Brigham's claims, right? All of this is based on Brigham's claim. So the fact that we believe this narrative. So anyway, so now let's look at the sources. So John Nuttall, he was nine years old and living in England when Joseph and Hiram were murdered. He was baptized in England in 1850 arrived in Utah in 1852. So he is not a witness to any of this, right? He was also a committed polygamist with five wives. Interestingly, his second wife was John Taylor's daughter, Sophie Sophie Taylor. So he was definitely connected and in the know he served in several high callings. Let's see, including the Kanab State president, the Saint George Temple recorder and he was the private secretary for John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff. So he was brought right in as soon as he got to Utah, right, he right into the game. And so as part of his calling as the temple recorder, I believe he and the clerk, he kept a detailed journal where he recorded an informal small gathering in Brigham Young's Saint George mansion. So at the beginning of this episode, I talked about Brigham Young Saint George Mansion. It was in that mansion. And after serving in the newly dedicated Saint George temple for the day, Brigham waxed eloquent on several topics having to do with the temple. So this is a very extensive journal entry. Let's see if that's, yeah, you can see um how many pages it is. This is all this one journal entry from John Nettle um February 7th, 1877.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h13m51s 02:13:51] So it was less than six months I believe at before. Um less than six months before Brigham died. This was right near the end of his life and he had finished his temple. These men had been serving in it all day. They gathered at Brigham's home and Brigham talked and talked and talked right about many things. And as I said, the main thing that he talked about is actually the Adam God doctrine that he was so committed to. So that's the main thing you'll read about in this long um journal entry. And I, I again, I really wanted to read that, but there's just too much going and there's too much, this is already too long. So we'll save that for my episode on Adam. God, I'm glad to have found this source. But, um, that, that I have a long list of things we need to cover. There's no way I, I did start out thinking maybe I'll do 100 32 episodes. Oh, no, it's just, there are more than 100 32 problems. So there are gonna be more than 100 32 episodes. So anyway, it goes on and on and on. But in any case, we're going to go ahead and read this journal entry. I think it's interesting that we rely so heavily on this journal entry because again, it's the only source and it's used you all the time cited everywhere in every discussion in everything about the history of the endowment, right? But we completely ignore everything about the Adam God doctrine. So again, we cherry pick this little part of it, throw the rest of it out, but this part is reliable. You can take this to the bank. So I'm going to start reading and you can follow along if you're able to after supper. A after I have a transcript just I don't want to make it sound like I'm really good at reading this difficult writing. So after supper, went to President Young's President um present President Young W Woodruff E um Evan. Um that's uh Erastus Snow. Brigham Young Junior, and then these guys, I don't know ig bleak em green and myself works in the temple. Being under consideration, President Young was filled with the spirit of God and revelation and said, when we got our washings and anointings under the hands of the prophet Joseph at navoo, we had only one room to work in with the exception of a little side room or office where we were washed and anointed. So remember that little side room or office where seven elders licenses were being filled out and who knows what else? That's where they were being um washed and anointed and had their garments and had our garments placed upon us and received our new name. And after he had performed these ceremonies, he gave the key words, signs, tokens and penalties. Then after we went into the large room over the store in Navoo, Joseph divided up the room, the best that he could hung up the veil marked. It gave us our instructions as we passed along from one department to another. Ok, I wanna interrupt myself here. I apologize. But I just realizing I just want to point out that Scoville testimony, the um editorial in the newspaper came after this. So Brigham Young was saying this first, this record was cited first and then that came later to back it up. So, so he said, Joseph divided up the room the best he could, right and hung, hung it all um hung the veil marked. It gave us our instructions as we passed along from one department to another, giving us signs, tokens penalties with the keywords pertaining to those signs. And then, um, here you can keep reading along. Let's see if I need to go to the next page. Thanks for being patient with me this episode. Ok. Hopefully, the information is worth it even if it's a little clumsy. So you can start reading here. And after we had got through, brother Joseph turned to me, President Brigham Young and said, Brother Brigham, this is not a range strike, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed. And I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and keywords. I did so and each time I got something more so that um when we went through the temple at Nabu, I understand and knew how to place them there. We had our s ceremonies pretty correct. So it goes on from there. So, ok, I hope that this is all coming through clear what the source is for this. This is Brigham Young kind of being a blow hard a bit talking again saying what Joseph said, right? Which is what he was very apt to do. So I have to apologize in advance for this meme, but it was too good not to use. I have had this image in my mind so often when I have read about Brigham telling us what Joseph said. It's this little puppet, right? He's a oh, anyway, and so I, this was the special meme that I special ordered and I love it. And I think it's perfect and I think I should have been using it this entire time in this podcast. So anyway, this is what I think of this claim. It's terrible and we ignore everything else, but we use this because it tells the story that we want, want it to tell. So I'm going to go ahead and remove this for a little while.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h18m57s 02:18:57] So it's not gonna get me into too much trouble because I know that that's a little bit extreme, but honestly, that it just makes me upset. And so that is, that is what we have. These are Brigham's imaginative self glorifying musings to this group of admirers gathered in his Saint George mansion six months before he died. That's exactly what it is. Those are the sources we have now covered all of the sources used to claim that Joseph Smith is the originator of the temple endowment. This is now, now this is, let me, let me say something. I can, I am not intending to set out to prove that that's not true that the endowment is not of God or that Joseph isn't the originator of it. That's not. I'm looking at this purely through a historical lens. And saying the historians, the scribes are trying to use historical sources to make these claims and their sources are terrible. The historical case for this claim for Joseph Smith being the originator of the temple endowment is absolutely terrible. It is there is terrible, terrible evidence for it. And I think it requires a lot, lot of either wishful thinking and motivated reasoning or outright dishonesty to claim that we have the sources to write this as even a narrative history in saints or in all of these other sources. It's the story. Nobody, nobody would ever look at these sources and go oh, the picture is becoming clear, Joseph had the room decorated on the third and then in doubt these on the fourth and then he was, he and I were in doubt on the fifth. Oh and he asked them to not talk, but nobody would look at these sources and come to that conclusion. We have these conclusions and we are desperately going through sources trying to find something to try to hopefully back it up, right? And I know that some historians will say that's how you do history. Well, then we need better historical practices because that's not a good way to find truth in any case. And so so again, we have a 42 years, they claim this claim from Brigham Young is 35 years after the fact. And we have covered everything you now know, you know it all you know, every source that is relied on and I will go through and show you that. And you would think with all of these obscure sources that the church historians are able to find like these out of print RL DS book booklets, right? You would think that they could be aware of, which I think they are aware of. They could choose to include things that they have in their very own church history library that they are charged that, that they have written, you know, that they have to keep track of that. They have to write about that. They have to catalog they have anyway, I'm going to show you a source that came to my awareness. Thank you so much. The people who found this and who shared it. Clark and Steven who shared it with me. You guys are awesome. This is huge. This is a huge source that has been completely ignored and omitted from our church history. And so let me show you what this is because it could not be more important. I think the people who found it might even not have understood yet. Well, I haven't talked to them but I'm hoping they'll understand even more just how important it is. This is a letter that was written from Brigham Young to Willard Richards, right? I it was written on July 8th 1844 less than two weeks after Joseph and Hiram were murdered. And um Brigham Young I believe was in Pennsylvania from reading the letter. And um he was there after not returning to NAVOO, despite Joseph and Hiram both writing to him telling him to return during those very fraught and dangerous days with the expositor and the threats of the mob and all of that happening. And they, they wrote to Brigham to come back and then they wrote to Brigham to tell all of the 12 to come back and he apparently is in Pennsylvania oblivious of the fact that they've both been murdered still at this point on the eighth. So I think this is a really interesting letter that I would love. Well, I would love someone to dig into more and more and to try to figure out what's going on because I don't know if there's something fishy going on or not. But it's, it's really interesting. The reason this is so incredibly important, so relevant and crucial to our discussion is because these are the two most um foundational or crucial members of that supposed endowment group, right, Willard Richards is the one who created the only record we have of it. And Brigham Young is the one who claimed to have been charged to organize and systematize it. These are the two central figures they're writing and there's a letter between them on July 8th. This should be absolutely central to everything about this claim of the temple endowment. And so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h24m07s 02:24:07] we are going to read part of this letter. It has kind of a fun. This is, this is upside down on the front page. It says I have not time look over this letter, take it as it is overlook mistakes, you know. So here's the letter, right? You can, I kind of had to overlap it. It's three pages. I have a transcript that I can send anyone that wants it or that I can post somewhere. And this one line right here is the crucial line that we are going to look at. And so let me zoom in on it and let you read what it says. I pray we may that we may finish the temple and get our endowment. That is what is written by Brigham Young to Willard Richards on July 8th 1844 after Joseph Smith's death. K do let this settle on you for a minute, right? How cred critically important this is, let me just restate Brigham Yang, the man who in who instituted the endowment center ceremony in Navoo and in every temple since then, who claimed Joseph endowed him and told him to fix the flawed endowment ceremony. He had done writing to Willard Richards, the author of the only source we have to claim that this endowment ever happened. This is a letter a week and a half after Joseph Smith's death admitting in no uncertain terms that neither had received their endowment that neither had been endowed. However, we want to say it. Neither one of them had gotten their endowment yet our church historians who again have possession of this letter who are completely responsible for it and who can find all these other sources completely omit this. I like at the very least acknowledge it and write it into your sources. Find a way to explain it way if you must, but at least acknowledge it and include it. It is infuriating that it's those of us who have to, you know, go find these things. I'm so thankful. I'm not the only one. I'm thankful that there are people, awesome people finding awesome sources working hard, right? So OK, that's, that's where we are. This is exactly what we have. This is what um what we rely on. We ignore this letter. I just do this last little offensive video slide that I already did, but we completely ignore this letter that is contemporaneous firsthand, right? Central players. We ignore it for the sake of this 35 year later claim 2nd 3rd hand by I'm sorry, and someone who does not have a great track record of making good claims. So that is the situation that we are in. We are to the end of the sources. That's all of them. We've covered them. So I want to go ahead and now from chapter 37 of saints, we will prove them. It's the one that includes these claims and we are going to talk about what it. Um Well, I, I guess I'll just read through their narrative history that they say is factual, right? That is now cited as the authoritative source and you know, every single footnote that they have included, we've gone over them. So now you can understand it with your eyes wide open, knowing what they're talking about. Here we go. On May 4th, 1842 I'll go. Yeah. Ok. On May 4th 1842 Brigham Young Heber Kimball and Willard Richards found the upper room of Joseph Smith's store transformed on the wall was a newly painted mural. Remember that? Ok. On the wall was a newly painted mural, small trees and plants stood nearby, suggesting a garden setting. Another part of the room was sectioned off with a rug hung like a curtain. That citation right there included the um the Lucius Scoville plus those new, those two new citations that we just went over. So that's what we have there, right? Joseph had invited the three apostles to come to the store that morning for a special meeting. He had invited his brother Hiram and and William Law as well. Both members of the first presidency and two of his closest advisor. Now remember William Law had been crossed out. So we're adding him back in apparently also in attendance were bishops Newell K Whitney and George Miller and NAV um NAVOO state President William Marks again deleted but added back. And church leader James Adams just a random church leader. For the rest of the afternoon, the prophet introduced an ordinance to the men. Part of the part of it involved washing, washings and anointings similar to the ordinances given in the Kirtland temple and the ancient Hebrew Tabernacle, the men were given a sa sacred undergarment that covered their bodies and reminded them of their covenants. Some of these um sources are scriptures, right? So if it's a, if it's that kind of a source, I didn't cover it because it's not a historical source. Joseph called the ordinance, the endowment and trusted the men not to reveal the special knowledge. They learned that day, like the endowment of K of Power in Kirtland, the ordinance was sacred and meant for the spiritually spiritually minded. Yet it was more than the outpouring of spiritual gifts and divine power of on the elders of the church. As soon as the temple was finished, both men and women would be able to receive the ordinances, strengthen their covenant relationships to God and find greater power and protection in consecrating their lives to the Kingdom of God.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h29m36s 02:29:36] And you'll remember the one source for this. He trusted them not to reveal it was that six weeks, six later letter from Heber C Kimball to Harley Pratt that I think it's about polygamy. Um When the ceremony was finished, Joseph gave some instructions to Brigham. This is not arranged, right? He told the Apostle, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed. And I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all of these ceremonies, you know, very well. The one so um source we have for that as they left or that day, the men were in awe of the truths they had learned from the endowment. Some aspects of the ordinance reminded Hebrew C Kimball of Masonic ceremonies in Freemasonry meetings, men acted out all acted out an allegorical story about the architect of Solomon's temple. Masons learned gestures and words. They pledged to keep secret, all of which symbolized that they were building a solid foundation and adding light and knowledge to it by degrees. Yet the endowment was a priesthood ordinance meant for men and women and it taught sacred truths not contained in masonry which Hebrew was eager for others to learn again. You know, the source for that we have received o'hare quotes that we have received some precious strings through the pop prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. Hebrew. Hebrew wrote Parley and, and Mary Anne Pratt in England. I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written. So you must come and get them for yourselves and that's the end of it, right? So that's the situation we are in. The more I have read and studied like, like trying to go what is going on I think the more, the more I've realized that I think I understand what is happening maybe or what has happened. I think the only people doing this work reading through all of these documents full time are those paid by the church and charged with, with supporting the narrative that the church wants supported. Right? II, I don't think they're actually free to see what things say and to try to learn what is really happening because I think the narrative has already been provided for them and their job is to just just find sources, cherry pick things to justify that narrative. So I think the problem is that there are now those of us crazy enough or called by God who do this work without being hired without being right. And, and thankfully, we have the resources. Now, I am so thankful for the Joseph Smith papers. It's so helpful. I'm thankful for the internet. I'm thankful for archivists and his and um librarians that will help us because I want now you can see even more why we need the sources, not the narrative, right? Like we need, we just need sources, we don't need narratives. That's that would be a new tag for, right? New tagline. And so anyway, I think that that's that is what's happening is that those of us who are doing this work without being paid for it are the ones that are able to bring these things forward. Maybe there's something to that. Maybe there's something about priest craft in that somewhere. I don't know. But this is what I see happening and this is the best way I can explain it. So this is the end of our slide show, right? I think we're to the end of the episode, let me go ahead and remove this. And so I can just talk to you a little bit more. We've already spent so much time going through all of these sources that are used to make this case. So I won't spend much more time on this because I think we're all probably exhausted. But I feel like we should, I should at least mention some of the many problems with the narrative. All I've done so far is go through and show you what the narrative rests on and why they can't support the narrative, right? But now I want to make a little bit of the opposite case saying these are why this narrative can't exist anyway. So first of all, as I said, um before the temple was given by complete and was given, I was commanded by God with complete instructions given to Joseph Smith, right? And yet it was not built to accommodate the endowment that Brigham gave. It was built according to God's plan and Joseph's plan, but it didn't work for Brigham's plan. So again, quoting from Brown's Temple, Pro TEM, it's, he says the temple mirrored the Kirtland temple, two large meeting rooms on the ground and second floors and attic office rooms as well as a finished basement. Prior to the temple's completion, young indicated that the first floor mezzanine rooms with their large circular windows would be used for the endowment. But when he had men prepare for prepare the temple for the ritual, he adopted Smith's method of using canvas partitions to subdivide a small meeting in the temple attic. The method he claimed Smith said was, oh, then I wrote that that's the method he claimed that Smith said was not right, right. That he wanted Brigham to fix this arrangement included all the rooms associated with later Utah temples,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h34m27s 02:34:27] even using the same nomenclature, creation room, garden room, world room, terrestrial room, celestial room, ceiling room and even a holy of Holies. So again, do you get this Brigham Yang and the Nabu temple had to canvas partitions to create all of the rooms that he wanted, which later when he built temples in Utah, he built into the temples. And yet when God gave instructions to Joseph Smith to build a temple, it didn't include any of those rooms, right? And, and Joseph just never could get it right. He he even when he tried to do a makeshift version, it wasn't right, let alone the temple being built right for God to be actually able to give them the endowments they needed. So that's the first claim that I think is really problematic that someone needs to explain second and I should say while I'm going through this, this is by no means a comprehensive list of the problems. It's just the first ones I came that came to mind really fast. There are so many more. In fact, I would love people to add other things that you see and like, like I always learn more after doing these episodes from the comments that people make. So I hope that people see other things that I just am too exhausted to include. So the second line, we know that there were oaths of vengeance in the early endowment. People vowed rather violent oaths to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith. And so that obviously could not have been introduced by Joseph Smith and could not have been what Joseph Smith knew was not arranged just right. Right. That could not have been part of the temple ceremony that Joseph Smith introduced. And if anyone, I won't take time to cite sources because I've already quoted many, there are um multiple sources on page eight of mind as well as many references anymore online for anyone who would like to investigate further. Ok. And the third point that I think is important to make here, if Joseph Smith gave the endowment, if that's how they did it or endowed or did the endowment ceremony for Brigham Heber Willard Newell, along with James Adams and George Miller, why did they need to be endowed again? In the Navoo temple. So this is the same question I asked about Joseph ceilings, right? If he was the one mighty and stronger, if he was the one on earth at a time with the keys, why were his ceilings not valid? And why did they have to be redone? And if he thought that the temp that if he thought ceilings could be done outside of the temple, why did they have to be redone in the temple? And how were they valid at that point? And if he thought that the endowment could be done outside the temple, why was it not valid? And why did it have to be redone? So this is a problem that I think people need to think about a little bit deeply. So I um I wanted to show you that, that Brigham and Hebrews and Newell at all of their temple ordinances were done a second time when the nut temple was unfinished, when they were using the Navoo temple, though, when the upper room was dedicated. And so um I have been most like at least two or three times both at the Provo library, the family search library and at the Salt Lake Family History Library. I have looked through the actual books of the Navoo Temple. Well, they're copies of them, but you can see the actual like copies of those original Navoo Temple records. And so I knew from looking at them that Brigham Young went through with the first group. I think that, um, Hebrew C Kimble did as well on, um, December 10th, 1845. I spent a lot of time today trying to get those records. I didn't have time to drive downtown to look at them again. And downtown. It's weird. I had to show my temp recommend to look at them at the, at the BYU library was able to just look at them and then let me take pictures. Unfortunately, they were on my old laptop that died. So I tried to get them again. I couldn't, but I will include below this Nou Temple endowment name index for anyone who to do research. And you can look up names alphabetically and find out everything you want to know that's in those records. And from having seen them, I can substantiate that this information is correct. So you can see right here, Brigham Young went was um his endowment date was the 10th of December 1845 according to the Nut Temple record, right? And so all of these men were endowed a second time which I think was actually them just being endowed the first time because this story developed later on after, after this time. But um let me go ahead and show you what I think is interesting because the other question is again, if, if um Brighams and Hebrews and Willards and Newell um endowment need to be needed to be redone. Why didn't Joseph and Hiram. Right? And so I went on family search and you can look up their ordinance date and you can see right here. Endowment completed fifth of May 1842 right the day after the others. And then you can go and look up both Brigham Young and Hebrew C. Kimball. You can look up all the rest as well and this has their endowment date listed fourth of May 1842 because that's the narrative even though the Nut
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h39m31s 02:39:31] Temple records, which are what we should go off because there were no records for that 8, 1842 endowment. They list very clearly. That was that it was December 10th, 1845. So there's another problem that we just have not managed to work out yet and I think needs to be addressed and dealt with, contended with honestly. So anyway, we're almost done. That's one more point. Is there anything else? Oh, yeah. And then just the final point I'll make, is that nothing? This is my research again. Anyone feel free to show me something I haven't noticed, you know, but nothing to do with the endowment. As introduced by Brigham Young is found anywhere in scripture that I have seen. Um Joseph Smith, like the scriptures focused heavily on the first principles and ordinances of the gospel faith, repentance, baptism by water and baptism by fire, right? He focused heavily on those things and spoke of the people receiving an endowment of power from the Lord. He also spoke of coming into the presence of God. That that's, that's the trajectory we're going on. But, but the endowment and um being blessed with the, with the presence of God, those weren't saving ordinances, those weren't things you had to gain in order to be saved or even to be exalted, right? That like we really have taken like I, I read those scriptures last time. So I want this time too. And um there's a lot to this to take things that are extra and build them on and make them necessary. There's, there's something not quite right about that. And I'll let people investigate that on their own. And again, these are ideas that need that deserve, deserve their own entire episodes. So I won't go into them in depth here, but I cannot find any idea of endowment ceremony or ordinance in Joseph's teachings or in the scriptures that aligns with what I think it came to mean with Brigham's ceremony. So this is the end, right? This is we again, here we are. And so the giant question again is what do we do with this? What does this mean for us? How do we go forward and I'm honestly grappling with this myself, those of you, you know, I know some get frustrated with me that I am so deeply committed to the church and, and I do not feel at this point that I'm told not to go to the temple, right? I don't feel like it's evil. If I go to the temple at all, I am, I still am recovering from 2020. So it's not a question I'm facing right now. I'm just letting God direct me and I'm willing to be patient and see where that leads. I have had many beautiful, profound experiences in the temple. It used to be a place of serious communing with God and revelation for me and I have had beautiful experiences there. So I know for a fact that that can happen and does happen. And so um I, you know, I I'm trying to, I know also that I have had many profound experiences outside of the temple. So I am by no means claiming that you have to be in the temple to have profound experiences. But I think that if someone feels inspired to go to the temple, they should go to the temple, right? I, I like, like I think that like as I said, I think that our relationship with the temple should be mediated by our relationship with the God, with God and not the other way around. So I'm not telling anyone what they need to do with any of this information other than hopefully go to God and let God tell you what you should do with this information. But I did say earlier in, in I think the first episode, I thought there would only be one and then I thought there'd only be two. Please listen all the way to the end because I had, as I was starting to work on this and trying to figure out I, I spent a lot of time, you know, just with the Lord going, what do I do? And I had, I was directed profoundly to some things. I'm hesitant to say that because I never want to make it sound like. Oh yeah, yeah. You know, I, I just, I do want to just say that I felt very profoundly led to these references that just brought some. So I, in my opinion, this is the most important thing I have to share and I hope that people are still listening or that people will just share this, this um part. The important part of all of this is God's continual everlasting invitation to repent, right? We're never done. It's never a game over. It's never too late, I guess until what is it that they're ripened in iniquity and worthy of destruction? We're not there. I know for a fact that we're not there because we're not there. And you know, God is telling me that we are not there, that we always have the opportunity to repent. And so some of the scriptures, there were three particular scriptures that I was just led directly to. One of them is Joel, the book of Joel. Um chapters 123 are this perfect chiasm right, the first um chapter and the first half of the second are the destruction descending pattern. And then the second half of chapter two and the third chapter are the redemption and ascension pattern.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h44m27s 02:44:27] So that middle part is the crucial part, right? It's the the center of the chiasm. That's so important. And that's what I want to read because that shows us how we move from this descending destruction part into the ascending part. It's the part we need to focus on. Right? So Joel two verse one, blow ye the trumpet in Zion and sound an alarm. I just had to include that about the trumpet in Zion and sound an alarm in my holy mountain. Let all the inhabitants of the land. Trouble tremble for the day of the Lord cometh for it is nigh at hand. Now we're going forward to verse 12. Therefore also now say the Lord turn ye even to me with all your heart and with fasting and with weeping and with mourning and rend your heart and not your garments and turn unto the Lord, your God. For he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness and repenteth him of the evil who knoweth if he will return and repent and leave a blessing behind him, even a meal offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God. Um blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast call, a solemn assembly, gather the people sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the Children and those that suck the breasts. Let the bridegrooms go forth of his chamber and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord weep between the porch and the altar and let them say, spare thy people. Oh Lord, and give not thine heritage to rep, to reproach that the heathen should rule over them. Wherefore should they say among the people? Where is their God? Then will the Lord be jealous for his land and pity His people? And you shall eat in plenty and be satisfied and praise the name of the Lord. When you, when it says you shall eat in plenty, I think of that like they search everywhere for something to satisfy them, right? We will have true doctrine. Um and you shall eat in plenty and be satisfied and praise the name of the Lord, your God that hath dealt wondrously with you and my people shall never be ashamed and ye shall know that I am the midst and I am in the midst of Israel and that I am the Lord, your God and none else. And my people shall never be ashamed and it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance as the Lord hath said. And in the remnant, who whom the Lord shall call OK, I think that Joel is profound and speaks directly to us and it is that I, I just remember exactly how I was told to go to it and how profound it is and what we are talking about and how much the Lord means, what the Lord is saying. Right? And so I want to just read a couple of other. This is James. Well, James 516, for those of us who are wondering what should we do? I just love this scripture, the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man aileth much, right? Let's remember that. And now the other source that I want to read is Second Kings 22 which is paralleled in Second Corinthians 34. And this is an incredibly important but often neglected chapter. It's one of my favorites and has been since I discovered it. I think it has extremely important insights on both of on several fronts. But one of them is one of the things we talk about, which is polygamy, right, which erases the feminine in the most profound way. And I think we need a restoration of feminine presence as well as everything else. Iii I don't need to get in trouble as a feminist. I'm I'm actually not a feminist by that term. I think we need the masculine and the feminine. I don't think that our doctrine allowed for that. I think that it disappeared far too much and it needs to be brought forth for us to have more. And I think that this chapter does it beautifully. It's really amazing. And so it goes together both of these, both of these things, both the truth that we can find in our temples and the restoration of understanding the feminine as well as the masculine, right? So see how profoundly this applies to what we're talking about. First. It gives the king's um ancestry like it does the begats, but it does it through the matriarchal line, it tells us his mother and grand. So it's about Josiah rebuilding the temple. Josiah was eight years. So I'm reading, yeah. Second kings. 22 verse one, Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign and he reigned 31 years in Jerusalem. And his mother, mother's name was Jedaiah and the mother and the daughter of Aaya of Bosk. So, right, it gives us his genealogy through the feminine line. That's so interesting. It says that the temple, it tells us the temple was in dis disrepair. So he used the temple treasury to restore the temple and in the process digging through the ruins, this is also applicable, right? They found the Book of the Law and the truth we are trying and that's the like the truths we're trying to dig out of our ruins, right? So this is the crucial part. Again, the center of the chapter, just like the center center of Joel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pHzYtAOeg&t=02h49m40s 02:49:40] that we read before and it came to pass when the king had heard the words of the book of the law that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest and he and several others including the scribe, go ye inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah concerning the words of this book that is found for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. So he he the priest and the others went unto Hoda, the prophetess. Now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college and they communed with her. I love that because again, it's we just neglect the prophetesses in the Bible. And there are prophetesses in the Bible. So I love this that when the king told the priest to go get the word of the Lord, the priest went to the prophetess and she said unto him. Thus, saith the Lord God of Israel. Tell the man that sent you to me. Thus saith the Lord and she warns of cursing the cursing of disobedience that will come on them but says, but to the king of Judah which sent you to inquire of the Lord. Thus, shall ye say to him? Thus, saith the Lord God of Israel as touching the words which thou hast heard because thine heart was tender and thou hast humbled thyself thyself before the Lord. When thou heards that I, what I spake against this place and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse and has rent thy clothes and wept before me. In other words, because you repented when you learned the problems. I also have heard thee saith the Lord and goes on to promise that he will live out his days in peace and no evil will befall his people during his lifetime. So the critical parts I wanted to draw attention to through those are the patterns, the pattern that emerge of recognition of false tradition, followed by repentance and then seeking inspiration and re rebuilding in full submission and obedience to the Lord. Just as Josiah did, just as Joel tells us to do that is what I believe profoundly. God is calling us to as well. We have that exact same opportunity, both individually and collectively as a church and as a people. So thank you again for joining me for this long episode, have a wonderful Christmas and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Temples]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Brigham Young]][[Category:Endowment]][[Category:Joseph Smith]][[Category:Temple]]
}}

95: More Historical Malpractice - Part 2 with Whitney Horning

2025-08-29T23:04:18Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 95: More Historical Malpractice - Part 2 with Whitney Horning
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 95
| date = 2023-12-03
| youtube_id = G-Zk8WbLWtk
| tags = Brian Hales, Church History, Don Bradley, Fake History, Historical Malpractice, John Taylor, July 12 1843, Oliver Olney, Revised documents, The Peacemaker, Whitney Horning, William Clayton Journals, altered documents, plural wifery
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Interview, Whitney Horning
| summary = Don't miss this one! The second half of my conversation with Whitney Horning. We respond in depth to several recent claims by Don Bradley and others, and demonstrate how to be a polygamy researcher. Stay tuned to the end for more bonus content revealing ongoing unbelievable discoveries.Correction! In the bonus content I refer to the deed to Hyrum as "identical" to the deed to Emma and her children. I should have been more precise. The back side of the deeds are "identical" and there is much overlap on the front side, but the lots on the front side are not exactly the same. This does not in any way affect the conclusion that this deed to Hyrum is devastating to the William Clayton journal and the polygamy narrative, and I will clarify in future episodes, but I wanted to correct the record in the meantime.[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G-mISIhxUhePkulXm1Lr7zC0R4BcL0k9/edit#slide=id.p1 Whitney Horning - Presentation Slides] [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nJP2PDONn6DQjsNiwSEoGONhAcdWAiRs/edit#slide=id.p1 (Another link to try if the first doesn't work -- please let me know if you can't access)] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMe1agseXbM&t=4s Whitney and Michelle on Jacob Isbell's channel] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2MkycIxZEE Don Bradley on Ward Radio][https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_order_Jonathan_Dunham,_head_of_the_Nauvoo_legion,_to_rescue_him%3F Fair Mormon article on Hoffmann forgery D. Michael Quinn included in 1994][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVtJvgvHAs&t=2s They're Still Doing It video][https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Michelle%20Brady%20Stone%20brian%20hales June 11 Facebook Post][https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/eb4d0aeb-2c26-4a40-a08a-7a1e8cc0503d/0/37 Franklin D. Richards Scriptural Items Notebook pg 38][https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/deed-to-hyrum-smith-12-july-1843-draft/1 Hyrum Smith July 12, 1843 Deed][https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/deed-to-emma-smith-and-others-12-july-1843-draft/1 Emma Smith July 12, 1843 Deed]* 2:16:12 -- The source for the story of Emma and Joseph weeping together with Clayton serving as their mediator is from William Clayton's extremely problematic July 13, 1843 journal entry.
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=00m00s 00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy where we explore the scriptural theological and historical case for plural marriage. This is part two of my discussion with Whitney Horning and part one. As you recall, we talked about that face to face fireside, discussed that in depth and then went on to reveal some amazing sources that neither of us had known about before. There will be more sources revealed in this episode as we continue our discussion about historical malpractice and the fun and frustration of being a polygamy researcher. So thank you so much for being here as we take this deep dive into the extremely murky waters of the historical narrative of Mormon polygamy. So the next traitor. Can you tell us about '''Oliver Olney'''? Because this is a lesser known one and I have some clips to play on this one. Do you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=01m12s 01:12]
Whitney: want to play those clips first? So people know why we're bringing him up?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=01m16s 01:16] Michelle: Well, now let's talk about him first. Just give us an overview of who he was. So '''Oliver'''
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=01m22s 01:22] Whitney: '''Olney''', let's get like you said, he isn't well known. And in fact, it was very surprising to me when his name came up in the clips you're going to show. But Oliver Olney was excommunicated from the church in 1842. And he has a journal where he recorded his reflections about events that happened in 1842. But he either, his handwriting is so poor that it's really hard to decipher or he wrote in some kind of shorthand, but it's really difficult to understand it. '''But he started alleging that some of the members of the 12 were secretly engaging in illicit behavior with women'''. Then later, he referenced that there were rumors of '''plural wifery''' going on. And then at one point, he charged Joseph with being passionately fond of women after his excommunication, he published an anti Mormon pamphlet titled The Absurdities of Mormonism portrayed. And in that pamphlet, he accused Joseph of printing the document called '''The''' '''Peacemaker'''. So that's the proof that only so was hearing rumors and there were rumors in Nauvoo about Joseph and the heads of the church doing polygamy. There were also rumors that members of the 12 were doing polygamy and we do know from actual accurate documents that there were members of the 12 practicing. So that rumor was true.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=02m55s 02:55] Michelle: But also, can I go ahead quickly add that also explains the rumors about Joseph because the 12 were saying Joseph said Joseph is doing this, Joseph taught us this, they were using Joseph's name just like '''John Bennett''' had done. So there were a lot of people falsely implicated and that's why all of the letters were coming in to Hyrum or Joseph to verify. So it makes sense that these rumors were going around. And I think it's interesting that '''Olney''' first accuses the 12 in his journal and then only later accuses Joseph.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=03m28s 03:28] Whitney: The proof he uses that Joseph was teaching and doing polygamy was a pamphlet titled '''The Peacemaker'''. And Olney later, does another expose on polygamy in 1845 after Joseph has died titled Spiritual wifery at Nauvoo exposed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=03m55s 03:55] Michelle: OK. So now we can talk about the Peacemaker, right? And this one threw me for a loop when I first found it until someone showed me this notice that Joseph intentionally printed in the newspaper because Joseph was out of town when I think it was '''John Taylor''' was running the press at this time if I'm not mistaken and and published the Peace Maker under Joseph's name, listed Joseph as the publisher. And '''Joseph flat out denied it '''and called it, What do he call it a piece, Not a piece of trash but something rigmarole that such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsense, nonsense, folly and trash. So we did call it trash. So I'm gonna try and get back here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=04m46s 04:46]
Whitney: just while you're doing that just to clarify. So this pamphlet, The Peacemaker, John Taylor was the editor of the Times and Seasons. But a man named '''Adne Jacob''' is the one who actually wrote this. But when he wrote it, he put on there that it said, you know, printed in Nauvoo Illinois J Smith editor. So that's where
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=05m08s 05:08]
Michelle: I think a publisher or publisher says it's hard to think its publisher.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=05m13s 05:13] Whitney: So that's where Joseph's name gets brought into this as if he allowed it, he approved it, whatever. And that's why then Joseph immediately is like I had nothing to do with this, and publishes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=05m25s 05:25] Michelle: And I guess we should for anyone who doesn't know what that is. It is horrible. Like Joseph described it accurately that it is nonsense, folly and trash. It's so painful to read. I was actually so disappointed in Joseph when I read it because I was like, I didn't, I've said this before. I didn't think he was this. Just not smart, like it's just so bad, it's so bad, but it is a treatise on polygamy saying we need polygamy and it's not religious at all. He wasn't even a member of the church at the time.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Zk8WbLWtk&t=05m58s 05:58] Whitney: if I ever joined the church. I don't know if I need it. So I wanted to really quickly read this. So in '''1851 Adne Jacob wrote a letter to Brigham Young and he stated that he was the author of the Peacemaker. '''And this is the letter that "I wrote a pamphlet some years since entitled, The Peacemaker. You have certainly a wrong idea of that matter. I was not a member of this church and that pamphlet was not written for this people but for the citizens of the United States who professed to believe in the Bible." So it must have been his attempt at trying to explain biblical polygamy. I don't know, but I find it interesting that he wrote a letter to Brigham Young saying, hey, you know, so to me that says in 1851 he must have been hearing rumors that the church was really saying Joseph did polygamy and here's proof because of this Peacemaker and he's like, no, you guys have the wrong idea. It was all me.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Interview]][[Category:Whitney Horning]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Brian Hales]][[Category:Church History]][[Category:Don Bradley]][[Category:Fake History]][[Category:Historical Malpractice]][[Category:John Taylor]][[Category:July 12 1843]][[Category:Oliver Olney]][[Category:Revised documents]][[Category:The Peacemaker]][[Category:Whitney Horning]][[Category:William Clayton Journals]][[Category:altered documents]][[Category:plural wifery]]
}}

94: Historical Malpractice Part 1 - A Conversation with Whitney Horning

2025-08-29T23:04:18Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 94: Historical Malpractice Part 1 - A Conversation with Whitney Horning
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 94
| date = 2023-11-26
| youtube_id = 1n_mDIsV6LI
| tags = Church History, Face To Face, Historical Malpractice, Quentin L. Cook
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Interview, Whitney Horning
| summary = Whitney and I go through some lesser known sources to discuss and reveal the depth of the historical malpractice we are up against.[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G-mISIhxUhePkulXm1Lr7zC0R4BcL0k9/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107370250945340709203&rtpof=true&sd=true Whitney Horning - Presentation Slides] [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nJP2PDONn6DQjsNiwSEoGONhAcdWAiRs/edit#slide=id.p1 (Another link to try if the first doesn't work -- please let me know if you can't access)] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2018-09-1000-worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults-a-face-to-face-event-with-elder-cook?lang=eng Face to Face with Elder Cook] [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/e8d44719-6577-4503-86b8-1641367be6b9/0/0 Hyrum's Jacob 2 Sermon recorded by Levi Richards: Levi Richards papers, 1837-1867; Diaries; Volume 18, 1843 May 14-June 11; Church History Library,] 
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=00m00s 00:00]
Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy where we explore the scriptural theological and historical case for plural marriage. I know that many of you are anxiously anticipating the next episodes on the temple. I wanted to have those ready this week. Well, at least the next one for a variety of reasons. I am still working on them. Please bear with me, be patient with me. I am trying to be as thorough as I can and these are huge topics, but I am so excited in the meantime to be able to bring to you this series of conversations I have had with my good friend Whitney Horning. We have so much fun and so much frustration as we engage in, I guess, I guess this work of polygamy research, you could call us polygamy researchers maybe. And it is incredible the things that we discover on an ongoing basis that we continually find the the excitement of the new discoveries combined with the incredible, unbelievable. Just yeah, anger and frustration over how things are spun and how these narratives are produced is it's quite, it's quite a ride. So we wanted to invite you all into that to, to see what it's like. And hopefully for those who haven't yet joined in to join in with us on this great adventure. So, um I, I hope that you will enjoy these episodes as much as we enjoyed recording them and preparing them and bringing them to you. I do want to again, thank those so sincerely who have been willing to help this podcast by donating both um information but and also resources. I hope that um more people will be able to do that as well because it would, it really helps me to be able to keep doing this. So, thank you very much for that. As always, please consider listening to the beginning episodes and understanding the journey that we have come on. But for those who are here, thank you for joining us. Please stay tuned at the end because both of these episodes, this conversation will be released in two parts because we had so much to talk about. And after recording both of them, we found new information. And so that was included as bonus content that Whitney was kindly willing to come back and talk to me again just to let you see how this continues it's ongoing. It keeps happening. So, thank you so much for being here and I hope you enjoy this deep dive into the very murky waters of Mormon polygamy. Welcome to 100 and 32 problems. I am here. With my dear friend Whitney Horning who has agreed to come on and have what I hope will be a really fun conversation with me. I have to tell you how this, how the idea for this episode came about. So Whitney and I ended up working somewhat closely together over the, I mean, you know, we kind of always have a text thread going or a Marco Polo thread just as we're finding resources and talking about things. And I just found that I was frequently kind of sending angry Marco Polos to Whitney when I would read something. I was like, oh my gosh, I can't believe they said this and she would respond and be like, I know, I know and, and tell me something she had just seen or tell me about. Well, anyway, we had, we had funny conversations and I was like, we should record this. We should kind of do a collection of lesser known things that cause us some amount of what's the word Whitney like that make us a little frustrated that we read in some of the sources. So Whitney, thank you for being here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=03m42s 03:42]
Whitney: Thank you for having me. Did I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=03m44s 03:44]
Michelle: introduce that? All right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=03m47s 03:47]
Whitney: That's great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=03m49s 03:49]
Michelle: OK, so, so Whitney actually put together a beautiful slide show that has so much information and it will be attached below for anyone that wants to look through it because then um we cut it down quite a bit for the presentation just so they are more manageable slides people can, um, look at, but there's a ton of information additionally below. And I actually think it will be fun as you guys, as we get going, you guys will recognize what it is we're doing and I'm sure many of you have experienced the same thing. So I think it'd be fun if we started kind of compiling these, um, what should we say them, untrustworthy sources, unreliable sources? Is that what we should call them? Like? So if you guys want to add any of the things that you've seen that drive you crazy because we just chose, we just chose them at random. This, this could be an entire episode on its own is kind of what, what are we going to call it? Spin doctoring historical malpractice. What were some of the, what did you say?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=04m51s 04:51]
Whitney: I said I like that historical malpractice.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=04m53s 04:53]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. I think Jeremy Hoop gave me that one. So there are a lot of like, like, so anyway, so I'm gonna go ahead and share the um side show that Whitney made for us that with editing. So we're gonna try to get through it the best we can. Hopefully we won't be too confusing or confused, but I love this. So Whitney, I'm gonna let you take some of this away and um and we'll just go. Is that good?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=05m19s 05:19]
Whitney: Yeah. So I think that all of us who are waking up to the idea that each of us can take upon us the responsibility or just the opportunity to study our own history, to study documents and to make our own conclusions. And so it often to me feels like those who oppose what we are trying to inspire in others is the idea that you never let the truth get in the way of a good faith promoting story. Um And it reminds me of the saying that in order to take people captive, all that is required is for people to be content with their ignorance. It is not necessary for the devil to convince you of lies, only for him to make you content in your ignorance or fearful of the search for truth. And so that's one of the things I love about you Michelle is that you aren't afraid to dive in and figure out the truth in these historical documents.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=06m36s 06:36]
Michelle: OK? What I love so much about that is that, well, I think that's exactly why we're doing this episode is to show why that's so necessary. So I this is a clip I want to start with this clip that I watched clear back from um what was it? 2018? Is that when this clip was some of you may have seen this, but this was a special face to face that um the church did in 2018. I believe we're just gonna play quite a bit of this. Those of you who have seen this may already um know the joy that awaits some of you that haven't made are in for a surprise. So we're just gonna play through some of this to kind of show the difference between looking at the sources yourself and just listening to the narrative we're given. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=07m17s 07:17]
Youth Host: as you can imagine, we received quite a few questions regarding polygamy. Um for example, a young adult from Utah asked, I've struggled for years to come to peace about polygamy in the early church. Why was it necessary for Joseph Smith and many other leaders to practice it? And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=07m35s 07:35]
Michelle: I'm gonna pause it there because again, the question is why was it necessary for Joseph Smith and others to practice polygamy? And that's what the church calls this clip. I'll link it below, right. So right there, we're setting the narrative. Why was it necessary because it was necessary as a given? And also I think it's important to listen like they got a lot of questions about public me and they deserve answers. People are struggling with this and this is our like our youth, right? And so I just think it's important to recognize what a huge issue this is in the church and how important it is to have answers that have some semblance of satisfying truth to them, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=08m15s 08:15]
Whitney: The substance, you know, so much. So many times, I feel like our sincere questions are kind of brushed aside and the idea of, hey, just put that up on your spiritual shelf, you know, you'll understand more, you know, in the millennia, more in the next life. And I want answers that have substance, you know, the truth with substance.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=08m37s 08:37]
Michelle: Yes. That resonate that you can. Yeah. OK. Here we go. So, here's the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=08m41s 08:41]
Youth Host: question Morgan from Florida added. What do I tell my family when they ask about polygamy in the early days of the church? They aren't generally satisfied with the, well, we don't practice it anymore. Answer.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=08m53s 08:53]
Elder Cook: Is it fair to ask you to answer this one, Kate?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=08m57s 08:57]
Kate Holbrook: That's a big question.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m00s 09:00]
Michelle: So also let me
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m03s 09:03]
Kate Holbrook: actually descend from people who, who chose to practice plural marriage. I have great,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m09s 09:09]
Michelle: great, sorry, I couldn't find where to posit. So let me back that up a little bit so we can get into it. And Whitney, you feel free to tell me anywhere you want to pause it. So, OK, we're listening again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m19s 09:19]
Kate Holbrook: That's a big question.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m21s 09:21]
Elder Cook: Is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m22s 09:22]
Youth Host: it when they ask about polygamy in the early days of the church? They aren't generally satisfied with the, well, we don't practice it anymore. Answer. Is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m31s 09:31]
Elder Cook: it fair to ask you to answer this one, Kate?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m34s 09:34]
Kate Holbrook: That's a big question.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m38s 09:38]
Michelle: OK. So do you have anything to say about that little portion?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m42s 09:42]
Whitney: Well, I find it telling that the audience as well as the whole group, there are laughing uncomfortably.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m55s 09:55]
Michelle: The uncomfortable laughter is huge.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=09m57s 09:57]
Whitney: I mean, I should just say it all right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=10m01s 10:01]
Michelle: And also that we have an apostle as you know, as someone who is in the position to be a special witness of Jesus Christ being asked about something that was considered a doctrine that the church still says was of God and was necessary. That's one of the hugest issues going on and they're asked about it and the result is, oh, this is like, it's funny that I'm gonna, we're all gonna acknowledge how uncomfortable this is. And I'm gonna go to the female historian, right? Because a female can make it. Ok. Like they had Brittany Nash write the book. Let's talk about polygamy and she's the one going around the State Center. So it's like if we can have a woman talk about it, it's less embarrassing, right? Less uncomfortable. And we'll go, we'll refer to a historian rather faith promoting historian rather than an apostle. I, I find that interesting.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=10m55s 10:55]
Whitney: It bothers me actually II I, several years ago, well, right after I published my book on Joseph Smith, I contacted the main church historian and asked for a meeting. I wanted to take my book and I wanted to discuss it with them. I naively thought that perhaps they, they needed um help seeing it in a different way and that they would see my research and they would all be like, oh, you're right, like we've been believing this narrative and look at these documents and oh, yay, we can now change the history about Joseph Smith. Right. So I emailed and received back a reply that he was busy for the unforeseeable future. But they referred me to a female historian telling me she was, um, adept at handling female issues.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=11m55s 11:55]
Michelle: Oh, my gosh.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=11m58s 11:58]
Whitney: Yeah. So apparently is only a female issue, you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=12m02s 12:02]
Michelle: know, and it's, they're there, little lady don't trouble your worried little head. That's what I feel like.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=12m09s 12:09]
Whitney: Right. Let's pass it on to the woman because if a woman answers this then because it's really is only women who are bothered, right? Is what they're saying by passing it along to her to Kate. And then all of us women then are supposed to feel like we can't have questions anymore because a female historian answered it for us. I mean, this is just so, so problematic in so many ways
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=12m38s 12:38]
Michelle: and it also sends a message like you said that this isn't a man's problem that men shouldn't have questions about this. And you're, it, it's kind of like that. I don't know. It just is sending this weird message that the only thing to worry about here is the women's hurt feelings. And so it, it allows all that continued sort of um I think many, many men are very deeply bothered by this. So I don't, I'm not painting all men at all, but there is um a type of Mormon man that's just like, oh, if the women weren't so bothered. They would understand that this is how God wants me to be a God. Right. So, it kind of enables that in a way
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=13m15s 13:15]
Whitney: that perpetuates it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=13m17s 13:17]
Michelle: Yeah. Ok. I'll keep going.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=13m19s 13:19]
Kate Holbrook: Uh, but I have studied polygamy actually descend from people who, who chose to practice plural marriage.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=13m27s 13:27]
Michelle: I, I'm sorry, I'm going to pause it again because it still is making me mad that it's the woman that has to be uncomfortable. She because she's a woman. She has to and they always have to start with. It's in my ancestry. I, you know, I just, you can see how uncomfortable she is and it's like you're the apostle, you take it, you take the hit, you answer the hard question. OK, me,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=13m49s 13:49]
Kate Holbrook: I have great, great grandmas and great, great, great grandmas. Who, who did so two of them were named Sarah. It, it wasn't an easy path for them. One of them was the seventh wife and she just didn't receive the resources and support that she needed to support herself and her Children, especially after her husband died. Uh One of the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=14m12s 14:12]
Michelle: OK, I'm sorry, I, I have to say this um Kate, I really love her. She seems like a lovely woman. It's Kate Holbrook. She actually passed away last year. And so I don't want to say anything to criticize her. You, you know, I just, I think she's trying her best and I like that she is being real about it. I think Brittany Nash does the same thing. They're like, this was awful. They're trying to say it in a way that's a little more palatable but it's like I this is rude and I it, you know, but the men just smiling as she's telling this truly heartbreaking story that makes me want to cry. Right. The seventh wife bearing Children with zero support. That's a horrible, horrible story. Right. And they're just like, shut down to it. They, they're like just grinning at her not even able to tap into the empathy which is problematic. So, ok, I'll keep going once
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=15m10s 15:10]
Kate Holbrook: stop life. But all of the descendants say that it was the second wife that was the favorite wife. The second wife got to travel with the husband while the first wife took care of all the kids and did their laundry, made their meals.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=15m24s 15:24]
Michelle: Ok? I, I don't know why Eldra cook is laughing and setting the tone for everyone to laugh. I don't know why. That's funny.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=15m34s 15:34]
Whitney: Well, and look at the faces of the young girls. I'm watching them thinking, are they all thinking to themselves? Ok. If I have to live polygamy again, I wanna be a second wife because then I get all the benefits.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=15m48s 15:48]
Michelle: It's crazy. It's crazy. And my heritage is different because it was the second wife who had all of the Children and was left home because the first wife was um in, in my great grandparents, the first wife was not able to have Children. And so, so they didn't have quite that same thing but like to literally be left home, taking care of everyone's Children while the second wife got to travel with everyone knowing she was the favorite. Like the, I anyway, it is not funny. There's nothing funny. Is that an uncomfortable laugh again? Is, or is it like, oh, funny history stories? What is, like, explain that to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=16m27s 16:27]
Whitney: me? Yeah. I don't, I don't get it either. I mean, I don't know. The only thing I can think is it is a, it is a deeply troubling topic and when we actually speak of things like Kate, speaking of actual history, actual, the people's lives who lived it, I think the only, I think that it is, I think we don't necessarily do a good job of tapping into our emotions and we almost have been raised in a situation as a church that we, you know, everything needs to be something that builds our faith and, and therefore if we have faith, then we're also happy. Like there's this connection that we make that maybe isn't accurate. And so yes, instead of being sad because if they showed empathy and we're sad, then I think there's this idea that then they're saying it was bad. You know, if we're sad it was bad and it was wrong. But if we can be, you know, happy and, oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Just just, you know, laughing it off then, then that means they were doing right. I, I don't know. That's the only thing I can wrap my head around is maybe that's why
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=17m45s 17:45]
Michelle: I think that's a brilliant insight that it's like we can't afford to have empathy because we have to be too shielded up, too guarded to defend the practice that we can't even afford and something going on. It's like it's an abusive thing to say if you have faith and suffering, if, if I make you suffer. Yeah, I mean, like faith is not same as suffering, right? God, Jesus always tells us to alleviate burdens, not to pile them on. And then say, you have so much faith to bear that suffering. Well, like I don't think we honor our ancestors well, to not empathize with their suffering and to claim that it was of God when it wasn't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=18m27s 18:27]
Whitney: exactly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=18m30s 18:30]
Kate Holbrook: Uh but, but what I feel honored to descend from those two sarahs and from their husbands, their example has taught me to center my life on faith and their example has taught me to keep putting 1 ft in front of the other and to do so prayerfully,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=18m55s 18:55]
Michelle: that's the lemonade you were just talking about. We have to see it and I can respect that. I think we can admire anybody who goes through adversity and continues. That doesn't mean that somehow the adversity was good or certainly that it wasn't the gospel principle right
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=19m13s 19:13]
Kate Holbrook: to, to put their lives in a little bit of doctrinal and historical context. The instruction we have in the book of Mormon about plural marriage. It's Jacob chapter two verse 30. And Jacob says monogamy is the Lord's wish for his people. And there are rare exceptions where the Lord commands us to practice plural marriage in order to raise up a righteous people. This is the rare exception that Joseph Smith was commanded to instigate in, in,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=19m51s 19:51]
Michelle: OK. I'll pause it. There you go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=19m55s 19:55]
Whitney: Oh, my goodness. Oh, do we want to get into Jacob two right now with this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=20m01s 20:01]
Michelle: clip or? Well, one thing I think is interesting. One thing that occurs to me is first of all, Jacob 230 was not talked about and it wasn't in our man, like none of us knew about that as a case for polygamy. I remember like when people would discover it or, you know, like now it is being taught to our Children in seminary as the loophole, right? And, and that's why it's coming up here just like we all know Jacob 230. And the new, the new line is that this is the default, this is the nor you know what we're supposed to have. But then sometimes, and we just conveniently always ignore the fact that Joseph didn't have any Children in polygamy. And so for them to always say to raise up seed. And that's the rare exception that Joseph Smith.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=20m50s 20:50]
Whitney: But so my, so I had a reader email me a couple of weeks ago with a document that he had found in Franklin D Richards um journal where Franklin D Richards was like an early twenties, like 2223 years old in Navoo. And he kept a little journal called, I think it was called like scriptural items or something like that. And so this reader stumbled upon um the notes of a sermon Hiram gave and it was, it's dated by the church to be May 1843. But I can't really figure out exactly what date it was. And so I'm still trying to research that. But what was fascinating to me in it, Hiram says, he um says there um there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things. So this makes me think that this is maybe one of Hiram's last talks. I would maybe date this 1844 because from July of 1843 until they deaths in June of 1844 there was a lot of chatter about the ancient order of things. Ok. So I'm thinking this is 1844 because it makes sense to me. But he says, Hiram had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things as Solomon and David having many wives and concubines. It's an abomination in the sight of God. If an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctrine. Hiram saying he would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of blackness over his head, meaning, you know, that's a false angel, right? And then he says, Hiram says a man might have one wife concubines, he should have none. And observe that the idea was that this was given to Jacob, Jacob two given to Jacob for a perpetual principle. You can't be, I mean,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=23m03s 23:03]
Michelle: well, I just, I just want to make sure that everyone's hearing this. Like a reader sent you AAA Hiram Smith sermon that none of us have yet been aware of. This is actually like a song show.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=23m17s 23:17]
Whitney: And it's so exciting because it's exactly what I feel like you and I are are kind of mission if you want to say is to help empower people that they can go do the research too. Like this was somebody else finding it and sending it to me. And it's amazing. It is a total bombshell. So then, so you're, you're seeing now that Hiram is speaking about Jacob Two and, and using it as an anti polygamy teaching right after Joseph and Hiram die, his brother-in-law Joseph fielding records in his journal. And that might be the next slide records in his journal that the women were very upset that polygamy is starting to be spoken of more openly and that the wives are pretty upset about it and that the women are going around using Jacob Two to try to get the men to stop what they're doing. The women are using Jacob two to say man, this is an abomination. It is a whoredom. So my supposition is, is as the women were using it and probably using hiram sermon to try to get the men to stop. Then the men had to come up with the polygamy loophole. That's my supposition is at that time, they had to create a reason why. And so they came up with the whole, well, if God commands it, but if you really understand what Jacob was saying in that sermon, he was telling the people that it, the monogamy was given as a law to their father Lehi. Um As he left Jerusalem, well, in Jerusalem that it was to be for all time. And that he's telling the men when he says, I will command my people. What Jacobs saying is when God wants to raise a righteous seed. And I know you've done an episode on what it means to raise a righteous seed and absolutely brilliant. I, I absolutely agree with you on that theology behind that. But that um what he's actually saying is God will command God gives commandments to people to help them rise up. He's not saying I'm going to command you to do polygamy. He's saying your commandment is monogamy and I'm giving you that commandment because I want you to be a righteous people,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=25m47s 25:47]
Michelle: right? I'm I'm raising you up as a covenant people. So I am giving you my commandments. I'm restating my eternal commandments that those Yahoos back there in Jerusalem. Keep messing up. Right. OK. The fact that this is not included in our history that you had to like that. Your brilliant reader found it and sent it to you and you're now sharing it with us. Like this is a huge find. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. So we have to find it. Right. Right. OK. Thank you. That was brilliant. Thank you so much for sharing that. And I want
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=26m25s 26:25]
Whitney: to thank my reader and anyone else out there, like send us stuff. You know, we, we know everything, we haven't seen every document. So it's just beautiful to me how many people are waking up to the fact that they can go search documents for themselves. And then I'm so grateful when they send them to us.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=26m45s 26:45]
Michelle: Oh my gosh. Yes and II, I love it. And I'm always trying to incorporate them better and better. And so yes, please send us things. I'm so glad that we showed that. So the link to that, you'll send me the link to that, right? And we'll have it below. So everyone can find that amazing resource that's not on the Joseph Smith papers. You have to go to the church history library and read through Franklin D Richards Notes, but we'll give you the link with the page number. So you'll be able to find it because it's so important. It's huge. Hiram Smith is on record saying that Jacob two is not a loophole but is a perpetual law of monogamy. Ok. Incredible.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=27m23s 27:23]
Kate Holbrook: And Joseph Smith didn't want to and he dragged his heels and he was reluctant for years to do this. But eventually he did implement plural marriage because he wanted to be obedient to God's commandment to him. He tried a little to practice plural marriage in the middle 18 thirties. But it was really in 1841 that he more officially slowly began to introduce the practice of plural marriage to his trusted associates. Uh They, when they heard they were shocked. Uh They
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=28m00s 28:00]
Michelle: OK. So I, I want you to like signal if you wanna say anything because if people have been watching these episodes or have read your book, like the things that, that are in the historical record like Hebrew and um Brigham coming up with this in England and knowing it before Joseph ever told them. And then Joseph didn't tell them until 43 but they already were practicing it, right? And then there's no. And anyway, they're so, do you have anything else to add? And I, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=28m29s 28:29]
Whitney: have nothing contemporary contemporaneous, contemporary with them where they are saying that it's difficult. I have found where Hebrew C Kimball talks about that. He hopes Violet will accept it, but I found nothing where they're saying that they were appalled or disturbed or you know, needed to take time to pray about it from the men who do end up practicing it. Instead there is a letter from and her name is actually pronounced violet. Kimball. That's, it's an old spelling that people today pronounce it vate Soviet, whichever you want to do. But it is a different spelling variant spelling of Violet. But there's a letter from her to Heber where she actually talks about Parley P Pratt showing up to their house having learned the principle from a polygamy insider and how eager he is and she's afraid he will run too fast. So my research has not uncovered anyone being hesitant except for Joseph and Hiram who were adamant that men should not enter into it and stay away from it. So this is very upsetting. I feel like this is again one of those alterations of history to promote faith in the men who did um practice polygamy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=30m01s 30:01]
Michelle: Oh A that was, and that was a brilliant example you gave also William Clayton's journals certainly doesn't have any. I would prefer the grave. Those are all later decades later when they had to say that for various reasons. And it wasn't consistently what they said they have their stories changed again and again, also, I she just kind of suddenly slips in, he was commanded repeatedly and, and in the thirties in the mid thirties he tried. That's because we can't date Fanny Alger and they consider her to be the first attempt. Right? Like, oh, and then in 41 and, you know, Don Bradley has just turned out that Louisa Beaman could like Joseph Bates Noble was lying. You know, they just say, oh, he was mistaken about the year. She wasn't the first wife. We can't come to the conclusion. He was a lying liar who lied because that's what, so and so it's like just giving this rough overview of history trying to make. And it's like this is not true. None of this is sourced. Well, none of it's anyway. So it's really discouraging to see that all of our youth are. This is what they're being taught. Hey, I'll continue
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=31m12s 31:12]
Kate Holbrook: pled in prayer with their father in heaven for understanding of this principle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=31m20s 31:20]
Michelle: Did I say also that like the, the thing about Joseph was commanded multiple times, that's the angel until the angel sword maybe. And you just read that source from Hiram saying, even if an angel tells you to do this, isn't that just ironic that the story that emerged was that an angel told him to do it?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=31m41s 31:41]
Kate Holbrook: Yeah. And they received spiritual witnesses to them personally that this was right for them at that time. Now, as plural marriage was practiced officially for about 50 years, it was always something that people could choose.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=32m01s 32:01]
Michelle: Um Whitney, do you have an exception to that rule?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=32m05s 32:05]
Whitney: Well, I wanna say first when she says they, they, they knew it was Right. They had a burning, um, we're taught that, you know, you have a burning in the bosom. I think their burning was somewhere else. Well, you know, so I would say they probably did have a, you know, some kind of experience letting them know this was the right thing to do.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=32m29s 32:29]
Michelle: What, what was it? We said over the phone this week we said they weren't lying for the Lord. They were lying for libido. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=32m36s 32:36]
Whitney: Right. They were, was the lion of the Lord lying. Why I am lying for
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=32m44s 32:44]
Michelle: the Lord. Continue. Sorry, I interrupted,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=32m48s 32:48]
Whitney: go ahead. No, I just, I, I think there were people who, I mean, I guess we always have agency. Right. So whenever we, we all as humans find ourselves in situations throughout our lives where we do feel like we have no choice and we do always have a choice. But I do believe that there are many, many people who entered into polygamy because they felt that they didn't have a choice because they wanted to be obedient to what they believed God had revealed and commanded. Um So I'm, I'm always actually really surprised and really pleased when I find people who talk about that, they were asked to enter into plym me and they said no, like I think that's um I think in the culture and the climate, especially in, in Mormon, Utah in the 18 fifties. Um And on, I think there were, there was a lot of pressure and I don't know if a lot of those saints would be able to, to say that they felt they had a choice.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=34m02s 34:02]
Michelle: Uh Well, we can start with all of the women who were left at home while their husbands went on missions or the converts who came home with their husband only to find that he had other wives, like, or we can go through the entire reformation when the men were threatened with their lives if they didn't comply and join in, I mean, I mean, like to say, to say that only people who wanted to is just not true at all. And it's hard to hear that to try to make people feel better. It's not true. Not to mention that it says right in DNC 132 that if a woman doesn't give her permission, then it doesn't, then she loses her right to give her permission and she'll be damned right and destroyed. So to claim that they all had a choice is bizarre. And then this is a smaller point that's, I think that's important. And then also that they had this testimony of it. Those all were written in later reminiscences in Utah. There's not a single account of a woman having a profound, like God explained this to me, right? And none of them have any understanding to contribute to it. So.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=35m17s 35:17]
Whitney: Well, I think there is a story of Violet Kimball that's told about her having, you know, struggled with it. She knew something, I mean, the story goes something along the lines. I haven't read it for many years, but it was something along the lines that she knew something was bothering Hebrew. Um He wouldn't tell her what it was. So she went to the Lord in prayer and had a revelation and a vision where she saw the Slasher Kingdom and saw polygamy being practiced in it and came to Hebrew and said, I have been shown a vision and how dare you keep me from this, you, you know, must enter into polygamy. So I can't actually find that being an actual firsthand account written by her herself. It seems to have been again a faith promoting story written by someone else in later years.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=36m12s 36:12]
Michelle: Oh my word cause I've read that somewhat recently. I know the exact story but I didn't, I hadn't done the research you have on it. Wow, that's amazing. OK. And also we have the letter from Hebrew saying I'm sneaking behind your back to save your feelings, right? Like, like she obviously was not like, oh Hebrew take more wives to elevate our celestial status, right? So that what we do have contemporaneous is that we know that Hebrew was sneaking and that violet was upset and that it was hurt, it was painful to her. That's what we do know. So OK, I'll continue.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=36m52s 36:52]
Kate Holbrook: We, we don't have exact numbers in, in part because our information is incomplete and in part because it's complicated. So scholars are still trying to get us those numbers about how many
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=37m05s 37:05]
Michelle: records, what did Joseph say about records aren't records important? OK, I'll keep going.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=37m11s 37:11]
Kate Holbrook: Adult. Latter Day Saints actually were in plural marriages. But we know that it was a minority of people.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=37m19s 37:19]
Michelle: I have to make this point. I'm sorry, I keep pausing. You have to tell me if you have things to say, but listen, how much they are trying to promote that. It was hardly anyone, hardly anybody did it. Brigham was saying everybody better do this. And now one of our ways of like if this was of God, why is it so good that nobody did it? Why don't we, everyone, if, if and if it was to raise that more seed, why don't we want to say, look how faithful the people were. 75% of them were living this celestial doctrine. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=37m48s 37:48]
Whitney: Exactly. It, to me it feels again like another way to try and minimize, minimize it. But you're exactly right. I mean, if this was commanded of God and this is what all faithful people should do, then why wasn't everyone living it?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=38m03s 38:03]
Michelle: Right? Would we go somewhere and say, look, only about 2% of our members go to the temple? So it's ok because hardly anyone ever goes right. Why would we brag about that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=38m17s 38:17]
Kate Holbrook: people that were in plural marriages? And we know that many of them were the most devout, the most stalwart members of our church. So in 1890 Wilfred Woodruff issued a manifesto that was to end the practice of plural marriage. And when some people heard this manifesto, they were relieved, plural marriage had been hard for them and they rejoiced. And when some people heard this manifesto, they were devastated and they cried, they had sacrificed so much and they had testimonies of this principle. Now, some of you I know from your questions, wonder what does our past practice of plural marriage mean for the afterlife? For what will greet us after this life? Our church leaders have taught us that monogamy is the rule and plural marriage is the exception. And our church leaders have taught us that plural marriage is not necessary for exultation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=39m30s 39:30]
Michelle: I have to pause there. OK, I'll let you go first.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=39m36s 39:36]
Whitney: Well, I mean, we could. So she brings up the manifesto. So after we discuss the other things, we could go and talk about that, um I find it like, does nobody connect the dots or do very few of us connect the dots that she's saying only the very stalwart. We know that the very stalwart practiced it? OK. So you said it's a very small minority that practiced. Now, you're saying it was only the most faithful, most stalwart members. So does that mean that any of my ancestors who chose not to weren't faithful? They weren't stalwart. And now she's saying, um, you don't need to worry about the next life for exultation. So, in a sense what the brother and I think they actually believe is that polygamy is reserved for the top 2% of people in the church. So if you're not asked to practice it, then you're not a stalwart faithful member. I mean, that's the message that they're giving us.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=40m40s 40:40]
Michelle: Do you know what that is? That lines up perfectly with my biggest haters and detractors who are the lovers of polygamy because they constantly like, why do you even care? It's not for you. It's only for the righteous is like something I've heard so like the most righteous you don't, you don't even need to be bothered about it. There's so much pride attached to it just like Jacob knew OK, that I hadn't put that together. But you're right. It's like, oh, it was hardly anyone, oh, but it was the most faithful ones, right? So it is that same, only 2% go to the temple, but it's the most faithful 2%. Like what is the message
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=41m18s 41:18]
Whitney: I had, I had a man reach out to me a few years ago about polygamy, right? And trying to convince me that it was a God and giving me all these arguments and then he says, you know, polygamy isn't for everyone. It's only for the most righteous that God can trust. And right now, there's only three men in the entire world who qualify and I'm one of them. Whoa.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=41m46s 41:46]
Michelle: And you. But I have been told before that I have the privilege of praying to know whether I could, whether I like the invitation was made for me to pray whether I should marry this particular. It's, it's not happened only once. But yeah, it sounds like he was letting you know, hey, hey, honey, join on my, my train. I'm going directly to heaven and no one else is, wow, that's amazing. Ok. The two points I wanted to hit on as well are first of all, the never answering the question about the eternity, right? Like if there is a widower and a girl is wondering if she should marry him. I had like my husband's best friend, his wife passed away when they were just newlyweds. They were really young. Right? So when, when he was dating a girl again, like she talked to me sometimes about what does this mean? Like I'm, I'm like, we're going to be like she just was planning from the beginning that she was sharing in the next life. So we are just avoiding the question, right? The question that all of these older women have when they're a widow. Like, is he already married on the other side or if I die? Will he marry someone else this haunting? They just pretend it doesn't exist and that bothers me and then I just have to respond to our church leaders have told us it's not required for exultation. Is that what she just said? And I only, I'm just gonna grab one quote of the hundreds literally that you could grab. But um let's see, I wish to say here to the elders of Israel to all the members of this church and kingdom that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It is the word of the Lord. And I wish to say to you and all the world world that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamous, at least in your faith or you will come short of enjoying this, enjoying salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish there were no such thing in existence. If you have it in your heart to say, we will pass along in the church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order. Because for aught that we know this community may be broken up yet. And anyway, he goes on and on. But he says the man that has this in his heart and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the father and the son in celestial glory. The only men who become gods, even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy. And I, I don't like we just, that's not in our history somewhere that when we're talking about polygamy now, along with Jacob 230 and I think it should be like, how can we claim this? Right? And I maybe what she's saying is that our leaders now say it's not necessary and we believe our leaders now not our past leaders. And I think like what this is exposing is why this is such an uncomfortable mess. And like we said, at the beginning, people deserve satisfactory answers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=44m50s 44:50]
Whitney: Well, I mean, think about that you go from Joseph Smith teaching that, you know, it's monogamy and that's God's law on marriage. Then you move to Brigham Young teaching, OK. You know, God's law is many women and in fact, you can't become a son of God, quote unquote and be exalted, quote unquote without many wives. Then you get to the manifestos. And the first manifesto was really just like a, a political stunt. It was just designed to try and throw Congress off the scent of hunting down polygamous and let them practice it and more secretly. And so it wasn't really until the official end of polygamy 1904 when Joseph F Smith testifies before Congress that the church has stopped doing it. And then he comes home reads another letter about ending plural marriage in um conference of April 6th 1904. And that's when it becomes ex communicable. So you've now moved to families who are told you need to be polygamous to be exalted. And then now all of a sudden, well, now if you enter into it, you're going to be excommunicated from the church. I mean, just talk about whiplash. Like, what is it? How, you know, this is a, this is a fundamental doctrine. It's a fundamental doctrine in all religions. How do we rise up and receive the blessings that God has in store? How do we rise up and become an heir with him? Right. And so now you've, you've taken it through monogamy, polygamy now, monogamy, but polygamy for, you know, from Brigham Young from 1944 to 9 or 1844 to 1904. So is that 60 years? That's an, that's a couple of generations have been drilled into them that if you want to become an heir with God as the scriptures teach us, you have to have multiple wives. And now all of a sudden you can be excommunicated for the very thing that would get you exalted. I mean, it's a, it's a muddy mess
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=47m11s 47:11]
Michelle: when we read when 132 itself says for my house is the house of order, not confusion, right? Like that should kill it right there. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=47m22s 47:22]
Whitney: so I have a, I have a friend, she's passed away now. She was, I was her um visiting teacher back when it was called visiting teachers. Um I was like 30 years old and she was 80 her um her grandfather and grandmother were polygamous. Um And so 1904, when this second Manifesto makes it now that you can be excommunicated. Her grandfather chose to leave the first wife with whom he had seven Children and go live with the 16 year old who he had just married just before that second manifesto and never saw his first family ever again, moved 10 miles away in Ogden and never had any association with them ever again, completely abandoned his family. So she is right when she talks about how, so there were people who the manifesto, even though she's not admitting there is a second manifesto that the um gospel topics essays do talk about the second Manifesto. So the church is trying to be more transparent that it did take 214 years apart but it did cause I mean, it tore apart families. So here you have families that are already struggling. I've yet to find one family where everyone was happy, every wife, every you know, with the husband. Um but it tore apart families. It devastated people. I mean, I think left people in terrible confusion. I mean that's where we get all these splinter groups of, you know, the fundamentalist religions who still are doing plague me today because it was so indoctrinated that this was how you pleased God and raised up right to seed. And how you became exalted was through the system of plural marriage. So, it was, even though I'm happy that it ended,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=49m26s 49:26]
Michelle: it shouldn't have ever be,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=49m28s 49:28]
Whitney: it never begun. Exactly. I do feel like the federal government was helping. Right. The ship, you know, the Gods ship. If you look at the restoration like a ship, it was getting off course and it was helping right. That ship and bring them maybe into a repentance, which they should have been doing for years. But it still caused tremendous, tremendous heartache in the process.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=49m56s 49:56]
Michelle: Yes, I did. I do want to point out one thing just based on the temple episode that I just did with all the study. I think that after 1890 members went way, way down and it wasn't being preached anymore. So like it was still being, it was still whispered and being, but they had taken down the endowment house and it was no longer preached that this was so it kind of became again a secret, right? So even though it didn't solve the problem, it did really help it. It tamped it down. And all of those Children that were brought to that temple dedication weren't raised, being taught about polygamy. It was just their parents and grandparents that had to deal with the change. So I do want to like at least point out that that did really change. It didn't, it didn't end it but it, it ended, it being perpetuated, it ended the perpetuation of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=50m47s 50:47]
Whitney: Right. I, yeah, exactly. Like I, I've, in my research seen a huge decline in the number. Yeah. After
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=50m55s 50:55]
Michelle: that, yeah. Oh, good. Ok. I'm glad we concur on that so, very
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=50m59s 50:59]
Whitney: much. Well, think about it if you're someone who doesn't want to do it and you're only doing it because your priest, a leader and president of the church that you consider a prophet is telling you to do it. And then you get, you know, I mean, you get this manifesto that you're like, oh yeah, I don't have to do it like I can now point to something that gives me the freedom to say no.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=51m26s 51:26]
Michelle: Right? And, and it wasn't being pushed on them so they could just live their lives like I think most of them would have. And you know, so, so I think, I think it was a positive thing. It was only the connected people and there was no endowment house. It wasn't easily done anymore. You had to go get permission from someone under the, you know, in the back alley, right? So, ok, I'll play a little bit more of this and then,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=51m49s 51:49]
Kate Holbrook: or for eternal glory. Now, I as a historian and as a church member have felt it really important that although I'm grateful personally that monogamy is the rule in plural marriage is the exception that I not discount those testimonies. And that honorable obedience of our spiritual ancestors who practiced this principle because they were being obedient and they had a testimony that it was right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=52m24s 52:24]
Elder Cook: Thank you very much.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=52m27s 52:27]
Michelle: Came to skip to another spot just because it's a bit long. And with that, I think there is something to be said for that. I just think it's more important to pay attention to their suffering and that it wasn't right and that they were faithful and did it. But that I, I feel and I, I think we've talked about this, I feel extremely called by those who suffered and by those who perpetuated suffering through error to do what I'm doing. And so I think that we are honoring them in the most important way possible when you are honoring victims, you don't sing praises to their victimizers, right? And you, like, if we can say polygamy, victimized people, let's try to help people understand why polygamy is wrong. I think that's how we honor those who were victimized by it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=53m20s 53:20]
Whitney: I agree. Well, said,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=53m23s 53:23]
Michelle: so I'll play this part for a minute. This is the next story. What did you, you told me what his name was? That was Kate Holbrick. This is, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=53m30s 53:30]
Whitney: believe this is Matthew Grove.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=53m33s 53:33]
Michelle: Ok. All right. So he, he just talked for a minute and I just wanted to skip to this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=53m37s 53:37]
Matthew Grove: part from reading your questions about plural marriage. I know many of you have questions about Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage. We don't have time to get into lots of those questions tonight. So I point you towards Saints and the gospel topics, essays.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=53m51s 53:51]
Michelle: That was so great because that's exactly what our whole episode is about is these sources. So I, I don't want time to answer your question. So go look at these sources which Whitney and I this was all just a later edition because we were planning to get into those sources, which we will continue. Maybe this will be a two part instead of just a one part. But isn't that great? So that's where all of your answers are,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=54m15s 54:15]
Whitney: right? And we have, we actually have a family member who is constantly telling us that the gospel topics, essays and saints are not the authoritative voice because they weren't written by the first presidency yet. Here you have a church historian sitting next to an apostle who could have gently stopped him and said, oh, no, no, those are just, you know, those are just narratives written to, you know, to entertain that numbers. Right. Right. And so to me, he's saying they are the authoritative voice,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=54m57s 54:57]
Michelle: right? This is what? And yeah, you're right, the the apostle who deferred to the historians on this doctrinal question, right? And the historian is deferring to the books that the, the things that they have produced. So and with the approval of the first presidency and the 12, that's, I've been told that many times Well, Brian Hall told me I'm not allowed to as a church member to publicly disagree with those because those are authoritative sources for the leaders of our church
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=55m30s 55:30]
Matthew Grove: in Saints. The, the history is told not just through the experience of Joseph Smith or other men, but through the experience of women such as Emma Smith and Emily Partridge and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Leitner, a couple of things I would say to keep in mind about Joe
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=55m49s 55:49]
Michelle: really quickly. Isn't it interesting the women they chose, right? Like the, the ones who have the most to say about it. And again, deferring to the women can if the women support it, then it's good. So I should have interrupted him here. He's saying a couple of things. When you're studying the history of Joseph Smith, he's gonna give us the guidance of what we need. The
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=56m10s 56:10]
Matthew Grove: practice of plural marriage. The first is that we know that at that time, there was a distinction between ceilings for time and eternity that involve commitments in this life and ceilings for eternity alone that only involve commitments in the life to come. We know that uh some of Joseph Smith's ceilings that appear unusual to us and are difficult to understand, fall into that category of ceilings for eternity alone and seem to have been a,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=56m41s 56:41]
Michelle: I'm just curious if you have anything to say about that because I've, I'm still looking for that evidence.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=56m49s 56:49]
Whitney: Well, let's, let's ok. So I think what he's trying to refer to here is, I think he's trying to, you know, being apologetic for the idea that there are historians who say Joseph married, already married women and those would be the commitment in the next life. Does that make it any better? I mean, we're a church that believes in eternal marriage. And so it's so, so it was ok for Joseph to not have them here in this life. They could stay with her husband in this life. But as soon as they died now she's the property of Joseph Smith. I mean, does that, does that mean?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=57m27s 57:27]
Michelle: What does that mean for the husband? Right. And it's only those marriages that are troubling or questionable. It's not all of them. So, like the way we try to soften like he broke Emma's heart, he lied, he cheated, he did all of these things. But it was like some of it was just for the next life. What does that? And what are you basing that on? Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=57m49s 57:49]
Whitney: And, and how does that make it any better? You know, that's one of the things that I know that, um, Don Bradley and I believe Brian Hales and maybe there's another person I think that, you know, have made some comments about me in negative ways to try and steer people away from reading my books. But I, and one of the things that they talk about is how in the preface I talk about how I just chose to believe Joseph's words. But they, they don't even mention the whole idea of being an apologist. I lived 40 something years of my life being an apologist saying stuff just like this historian is saying to try and apologize for our history and to, you know, make it, make sense, right? And to make it not as bad. And that's when I finally decided I'm not going to be unapologetic anymore. And I'm, I'm going to find truth and I'm going to speak truth and was surprised when I did that, that I started finding continual times when Joseph actually spoke the truth and denied polygamy. And so, um I just find it very fascinating that that's exactly what he's trying to do here is to be an apologetic, you know, like you said, soften, soften up what Joseph was, what they believe Joseph was doing by saying, oh, hey, it was just for the next life that that's supposed to be better somehow, somehow that I, I just, I still can't wrap my mind around that. How is that supposed to be better? Because if it's for eternity, well, that sure sounds like an eternal hell, or at least in this life, if you were in polygamy, you could be like, ok, as soon as he dies, I'm free. Can
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=59m42s 59:42]
Michelle: we, can we also try to like connect that to Jacob 230? If it's to raise up seed, then why are you marry, marrying, already married women. Right. Right. To marry in the next life. Like, what does this, like, a bunch of these women were pregnant? Right. Like, how is he? Like, they're not putting the, well, we'll talk, we'll play some clips from Don Bradley talking about putting puzzle pieces together. It's like they have to keep all of these completely separate and there's no cohesive logic to any of it. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h00m19s 1:00:19]
Whitney: so this goes back to the pride of being the few select chosen men because the idea was, and it kind of goes in with the leet marriage, kind of idea that that this woman. So say that Joseph marries some woman named Ann and Ann's currently married and currently pregnant with her husband's child. And the church teaches that the idea is then that this woman and any Children she has with her husband are in the next life going to be the seat of Joseph Smith. So Joseph will have this huge posterity in the next life. So her husband dies and now he doesn't have a wife and now none of his Children
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h01m05s 1:01:05]
Michelle: and he's separate and single, only an angel separate
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h01m07s 1:01:07]
Whitney: and single. I mean, talk about a devastating doctrine and also a prideful doctrine because now you're elevating Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Hebrew C Kimball or a mass align or any number of men that they are the select few that get to have all of the Children.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h01m29s 1:01:29]
Michelle: And that comes up in this too. II, I think I left part of it and I might have cut it out. I'll, I'll go back and find, I mean, I'll, I'll update us it, but it goes into that bloodlines thing that people are still defending, which I find to be absolutely horrific like we needed. Rig's magic sperm everywhere in Utah in order to have the righteous people. Like, what is this bloodlines? Monstrous nonsense. Right. Well, that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h01m58s 1:01:58]
Whitney: that goes back to Hebrew C. Kimball's letter to Violet that you were talking about where he's apologizing for running around behind her back in secret. In that letter, he says, don't, you know, I've been called of God to give my seed to any woman willing to accept it. So it goes back to this idea that these men are, you know, the holy chosen ones and aren't you so lucky? There's a journal of a girl who was 16 in nu in September of 1844. So, you know, a few weeks after Hiram and Joseph were murdered and she writes in her journal that Hebrew, she was really sick. They were converts of Hebrews from the East Coast, they migrated to Navoo and she writes in her journal that Hebrew had come and helped take care of her during her convalescence being sick. And that during that time, he taught her father and her about the principle of plural marriage and then proposed to her. And how lucky was she that she got to be united to God's chosen Apostle. So where the hierarchy that gets instigated into the L DS church, right upon Joseph and Hiram's death. If you go to Jacob, I don't, is it three or five the whole, the long, long whole thing about the um olive trees, right? Jacob Jacob throughout it, it talks about equality, being equal, that no one is above another. No one is above the servant. The servant isn't above anyone. The servant is there to be lower and to serve and to lift up others, right? And so it's this whole idea that I just for me, I mean, I know that we talk about how horrific it was for the women, but we often fail to talk about or recognize how horrific this teaching was for the men. And you know, we, we have some light shed on the lost boys of the ply groups today. But that started immediately with Brigham and Hebrews
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h04m16s 1:04:16]
Michelle: in my family history. We had to get rid of the boys.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h04m20s 1:04:20]
Whitney: And so then we're left with a remnant in our church today. A remnant, a ghost teaching. I don't know what to call it, but it's this idea
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h04m30s 1:04:30]
Michelle: we're
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h04m31s 1:04:31]
Whitney: haunting that um we have to have polygamy in the next side because there's going to be more righteous women than men. Do you see how we treat our men? We're constantly telling them they're not good enough. Then we wonder as women why our husbands don't use their priesthood more boldly. Well, they're continually told you're not in the hierarchy, you're not chosen, you're not good enough. You know, there's going to be more righteous women and so the few righteous men are going to have to have all these wives right in the next life. Because, I mean, it's just, and then we've got God telling us I'm no respecter of persons and all are equal before me.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h05m17s 1:05:17]
Michelle: Right. Right. OK. That's, there's something I was going to say, but I can't remember. So I'm just going to keep playing him. That was beautiful. Thank you for sharing all of that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h05m26s 1:05:26]
Matthew Grove: about creating links between families in the next life. The other thing I would say is that the revelation to practice plural marriage did not come with an instruction manual and that any change on this scale, any change in doctrine, society and culture on this scale of beginning plural marriage is going to be difficult and it's going, there's gonna be some unanswered questions.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h05m51s 1:05:51]
Michelle: So that again is the acknowledgement that Joseph was horrible and did horrible things, right? Isn't that basically when he's leaving us
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h06m00s 1:06:00]
Whitney: there? Right? But I thought now, wait a minute, Michelle, I thought that according to DNC 132 they have the Bible as the instruction manual, right? Isn't there polygamy all throughout the Bible? So, so for pro polygamist, they have the Bible that they're supposed to write. It's all throughout. But then you could say like you and I would say the scriptures are an instruction manual and they say, don't do it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h06m28s 1:06:28]
Michelle: well. And how about um I'm I my brain is too dead right now. So you'll have to tell me, but not only and by the power of the Holy Ghost, you may know the truth of all things, but also the Holy Ghost will teach you all things what you should do, right? Aren't we supposed to like? No? Um Let's see. Yeah, it's secondly, 5 32 5, right? That the Holy Ghost will teach you all things what you should do. And so a and you know, I know that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the Children of men say he shall prepare away for them that they may accomplish that. Like if the these polygamist um doctrines and our excuses for polygamy are just continuing on with Brigham's non scriptural nonsense, right? We just talked in the, I just talked in the last episode on temples about how he had very little use for revelation. Like he made these claims that are in direct contrast to all the direct contradiction to all of our scriptures. And I feel like that claim is as well. It demeans Joseph Smith acknowledges that he was a mess and that he did terrible things, but he didn't have an instruction manual and apparently he didn't have the spirit and apparently God gave him a commandment that he couldn't do the right way. That was too hard for him. Like, it's ridiculous. So, and it looks, it looks like I did cut out where they talk about that. It was to raise up a right to see. And they say a couple of different times that, like, something like 20% of the population of the church is from these polygamous marriages and they have so greatly blessed the church. So, again, it's this elitist doctrine because there's already this bad idea of like I come from pioneer stock. And yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h08m10s 1:08:10]
Whitney: and the thing is, you know, it is, it bothers me. I mean, there's so many things that bother me. One of the things when they talk like that and are the people who, you know, would like to cut off our oxygen. Um Is it inherently they're saying they're, they're basically accusing me of not appreciating or honoring my heritage. Um I very much appreciate, I, I thank God all the time that I have ancestors who heard Joseph Smith's teachings joined this church, came here and raised me. I have because of that. I have a love for the book of Mormon. I have a love for Joseph Smith. I have a love for God. So to say that because I'm trying to now help right? The wrongs that my ancestors suffered is that I don't honor them to me. Like I love earlier, you said something about that and I just absolutely love that that, that we are trying to honor those voices crying from the dust, trying to give us a warning to complete their repentance and stay as far away from this as we can.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h09m25s 1:09:25]
Michelle: Uh, I love it. Yes. Exactly. That's what I, I agree. So, ok, so, so we have that elitist problem and I'm just gonna go forward to, um, elder cook does sum this up and he makes three points and one of them is, hey, we have all of this population in the church who are polygamous kids and they're the best of the best. Remember, it was the most faithful. I mean, he's not saying that I'm adding that in, but let me get this last point. He makes interesting
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h09m53s 1:09:53]
Elder Cook: one is that in the councils of the church uh in the senior councils of the church, uh There's a feeling that Brigay as it was practiced uh served its purpose and we should honor those saints, but that purpose has been accomplished and that, that it isn't necessary. Now, there are unanswered questions. Uh And we don't always receive revelation on everything.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h10m17s 1:10:17]
Michelle: Wow, this is an apostle of the Lord saying we don't always receive. It's like you are talking about this core doctrine. That is the biggest issue for so many people in the church and we don't always receive revelation on everything. Well, you know, I'm getting tons of divine guidance and I know that's maybe a big, but I am, I'm being led to things I know you are as well. You know other people as well. People have amazing experiences when they open, when they open their hearts to this and open their minds to this. When the confirmation of the spirit that people describe again and again is profound. And so what is, what reminds me um again, my mind is drawing a blade. But if you do not have revelations, if you don't have signs among you, it is not, it is because you have no faith. Right? Exactly. So, so we should be having revelation. We should be having revelation. And I feel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h11m17s 1:11:17]
Whitney: like I feel like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth because on one hand, we're told, um the brethren will never lead you astray. And then, and anything that comes out of their mouth is the mind and will of the Lord, which is what revelation is. And then on the other hand, he's saying, well, we don't receive revelation on everything and you know, this whole polygamy thing, like it's, it's served its purpose, it's, it's done. And I think, well, which is it, you know, I don't understand. I don't understand why, like you've pointed out so many times and I point this out in my book, I don't understand why they can't just stand up and admit this is another one of Brigham's bad ideas. I'm like, let's just be done with it. Like let's just, they've admitted racism was bad. They, you know, they admitted that blood at Toma was bad. The Adam do the Adam God theory was bad. Like this is just yet again, another bad idea. Let's just admit it. And then, then we don't have to have these uncomfortable chats where we, we're flooded with questions that we don't want to answer. We can just say, you know what? It was a bad idea. Brighams. There we go. Simple.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h12m31s 1:12:31]
Michelle: Do you know what? I so agree. Yeah. Like the discomfort throughout this whole thing where you and I are like, so comfortable in our skin. Let's talk about like people are posting memes all the time making fun of like, hey, let's talk about polygamy. Like I, I just, I just went to the dentist this week. I talked to her for like 15 minutes about polygamy because she was asking like, oh, what do you do? And I was like, well, but like we're desperate to talk about it all the time because truth is so amazing, right? And one other thing I want to say about what he's saying here, like, well, I appreciate it because this is something I've been able to share with people to say, hey, like you're saying polygamy is in our future and that I'm wrong. But listen to Eldra Cook, he just said it served its purpose that does lead us all the believable. What was its purpose? And if, if you disagree with everything, Brigham young and worse. And pratt and, um, Hebrew Kimball, you know, all, all of those, if you disagree with everything they taught about polygamy, which you're doing, then why are you agreeing with polygamy? Right. Right. Like there's no consistency. But, but what's bothering me is he again, is doing this sort of gas lighting about this hunting, this eternal question that bothers so many people. Um, I'm, I'm, I just scheduled an interview with a good friend who I just learned had married a young widow. I didn't know that as a young couple. And so he's lived with this haunting his whole life because he's in that situation. You talked about where he's not sealed to his wife and he's, ah, and he's not sealed to his Children, you know. And, um, and this is so gaslighting those people in those situations that deserve answers that make sense and of all of the things to get revelation on, maybe this would be a good one. And God says I give like, all you have to do is ask and you'll receive, right? Isn't that what we've all done? And it is true.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h14m28s 1:14:28]
Whitney: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Amen.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h14m31s 1:14:31]
Michelle: Ok. I'll keep going on this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h14m34s 1:14:34]
Elder Cook: President Ballard and I were laughing about this the other day and saying, uh, when the millennium comes, there's 1000 years and we're gonna need 1000 years to, uh, get the answers to all of the issues that surround everything. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h14m49s 1:14:49]
Michelle: again, the acknowledgment of II, I try not to be hard on our leaders and I, but it's such an acknowledgment of the blind leading the blind, right? Like no, he's saying we don't have any answers, we have no answers and, and we can joke about that. We have no answers and it's really actually heartbreaking. Like I don't want, you know, I don't wanna hurt anybody's faith. I don't want to be critical. I just, we need to acknowledge the truth of these things and and allow people to follow the Lord instead of following a hierarchy, hierarchical structure of leaders who are acknowledging repeatedly that they can't give you the answers you seek.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h15m34s 1:15:34]
Whitney: And I would like to just add a little story too because I, I think there's this idea that especially the brethren, know everything and know everything about church history. And you know, we need to have so much charity and compassion because so we have a good friend, Vernon and I have a good friend who several years ago was struggling with this question about polygamy. And so he had a friend who knew Elder Ballard. And so this friend wanted to help our friend. And so he made an appointment with Elder Ballard and the two went into his office and they started, you know, peppering him with their questions and he put up his hands and he said, stop, stop, stop, stop right there. I am just a used car salesman. I don't know anything about church history. I can't help you. On one hand, we could say, well, how dare they. But, you know, these are men who had big careers. A lot of them had very high stress, high, busy, high octane, high work hours a week careers,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h16m53s 1:16:53]
Michelle: serving at high church callings. Exactly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h16m56s 1:16:56]
Whitney: That's what I was going to say, serving in high church callings that, that just doesn't leave them time. Like we met a sick president a few years ago who has never read the book of Mormon. And he said, when do I have time? I am serving, serving, serving and working, working, working to provide for my family. And so while we would love to think that all of our leaders, you know, have read every single document that they've, they know everything about church history. They, they even understand the scriptures backwards and forwards. That's just not how it is. And we could sit there and be critical of that or we could really have compassion and charity. But part of that is I think the reason people get critical is because then they sit at meetings like this and, and pass off expertise and do the whole, just pat the members on the head and say, you know, doubt your doubts, not your faith. And, and I think if they were, I think if they were more honest and more transparent, but I think they get afraid that if they were to be that way that, then we would, then we would all lose our faith. I mean, everything is so much of it is. And that's why, you know, our whole presentation tonight is about altering of history to promote faith. Instead of allowing us, allow us to struggle, allow us to have our own wrestle with God. I mean, the whole story of Jacob in the Bible, he wrestles blessings from God to the point. It puts out his hip wrestling with God is how we learn and grow. And so let us have that freedom, let us have the freedom. And sometimes yes, we're gonna fall on our face. Sometimes we're going to maybe make mistakes. Maybe our compass is gonna point south and God's got to reorient us back to the north. But you know, we're here to exercise our agency. And so I think there's a real fear. I, I can feel it as a parent, I feel that sometimes this fear of wanting to control a narrative of any kind for my Children to help keep them from the potholes and the bruises and the broken bones of spiritually speaking. But um when I do that, eventually something gets them, something that they have to face on their own. And so I can understand why our leaders want everything in nice little tidy packages and to, to kind of keep us. Um I think it was Elder Ballard that gave the talk, stay on the good ships and, and I think he even like, stay safely in the middle. But um I remember when he gave that talk, I um poured my heart out to the Lord and was like, is that really what we're supposed to do? Like, I don't, I don't know, I'm like, I, I need to know and I immediately had um the scripture come to mind of Peter and I heard the words Peter got out of the boat, you know, he gets out into a raging storm to walk on water to go to the Lord. So, you know, I mean, it's scary and I'm gonna tell you, it's scary and, and I think that, you know, the scriptures tell us, you know, be careful that you're not deceived, but we could protect ourselves and bubble wrap ourselves so much. Um trying to avoid being deceived and trying to avoid any pain, but that's not how we grow and it's not how we do it to the Lord,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h20m33s 1:20:33]
Michelle: right? OK. I love that. I, for me how I like for me how that interpretation is because that's like chills, that's a profound answer. And for me, it's not, it's not necessarily about staying in the church or out of the church. It's where you're called, it's about comfort, it's about staying because I, because what I like what you're saying about sort of the devouring mother, right? That like won't allow her Children to grow and what the church should. I hate to say should. But what I wish we were doing is strengthening people so that they are empowered to go out and fight the spiritual battles, right? And to grapple with those questions, to spiritually prepare them rather than keeping them kind of sheltered and bubble wrapped and so weak. And then we're doing that through lies. So if we were to tell the truth, like we're doing here like, hey, this is the truth. This is what this person said. This is what the scriptures say. This is what Joseph said. This is what Brigham said. Go look at it, right? Those might be somewhat hard for people to deal with but how but but people get strengthened through that process, right? And we're giving them truth rather than, oh, don't look at anything. I will just tell you a little story. Oh But you're going to find out that Joseph was like, like sexually manipulating 14 year olds and then go grapple with that and you have no muscle to do it. You know, you have no preparation and the very worst version, right? Why do people
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h22m04s 1:22:04]
Whitney: read a gospel topics, essay and lose all one essay they're done. Why is a ce S letter so powerful because we're not inoculating anyone by creating this beautiful um sugar coated history, right? And so I could see where some people would say, well, that's what I'm doing, right by saying Joseph's not a polygamist. I'm sugarcoating it, but
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h22m34s 1:22:34]
Michelle: I am looking at,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h22m36s 1:22:36]
Whitney: yeah, I think that when you start, you know, exposing the warts, you have to, then grapple because I know that there's people who, um, accuse you and I in particular about, well, if Joseph didn't do it, then that means, and Brigham did, then what does that mean for him? And then what does that mean about this leader? And then what does it mean about this leader? And I'm like, well, well, why is it OK? That we have to grapple with Joseph Smith, but we don't have to grapple with the others. Like why is it? OK? That Joseph Smith is the bad guy. But then we sugar coat that by saying and apologetically saying, well, he was lying for the Lord. Well, then what does that mean about the Lord? We have all these things. We're still grappling with that, that clip you're showing they pan the audience. It's a huge group of people and their number one question they're all coming with is polygamy. So like there are great answers to it if we actually just speak the truth about it,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h23m39s 1:23:39]
Michelle: right? And I think I, I have a lot of people ask me about how, why would God let this happen? How, what does that mean for? You know, and I wanted to do a full episode on it. It's just that my doc gets so full. But let's talk about that right here for a minute. Like if, if that's OK with you. Because for me, you know, my husband and I have talked about this as I pondered it like you could say that about anything. How could God let this happen? Right? How could God let tragedy happen? The fact is God's plan, God's ways are not our ways, but which people say that about polygamy. What a stupid use of that. What it means is like we're down here on a little checkers board and God is playing 3d chess, right? I think maybe I've said some of these things before, but I do think that the people who chose to follow Brigham gave Brigham common consent, which is how our scriptures say that the church is supposed to work, right? So he did have the like, like you could say the exact same thing about how could God that happened among the Jews, how could he let them so misunderstand and get so muddled, muddied into the the legalistic version of the gospel and then, and then crucify Jesus Christ. How could Caiaphas be the leader of the chosen people who had the temples and had the covenants and have the scriptures and had the bloodlines if we want to go there. But they had every claim to being the true Children of God even more than we do because we have to be adopted in, right? Like they were God and God did allowed all of that to happen. God allowed terrible things to happen and still, that's the line that Jesus came through, right? That Jesus came to those people. And so I don't think, I think it's kind of um, like, I think these are ok things to grapple with that help that help us mature in our faith, to be able to, to go, you know what God's got this, this is all in God's hands. And yes, God allowed Brigham to do this. I don't think God inspired, you know, but God allowed and the people that followed him followed him and that was in God's hand. But look what God is inspiring. Now. He's inspiring us and others to the uh we're past the 3rd and 4th generation and we are being inspired to do this and all of the pieces of the restoration, I see us coming back together and finding more and more truth. And, you know, so I, I think it's um I think it's OK to grapple with these real questions. And I think that the church, you cannot preserve faith through lies because people, the one of the reasons like when people say the church lied to me, they're right. Like this fireside is showing they're right. The church did lie to you. I don't think that these leaders and historians are necessarily doing it on purpose. Hopefully, they're like, you know, you only see what you're looking for and they're trying to come up with these faith promoting narratives. And I think I don't want to like, disparage anybody because I think we're all trying even if I disagree with some of what they're doing, you know, but I think it is a massive disservice to all of the youth that are hearing this and all of the people hearing it because like, how is this uncomfortable? Let's just like this unsatisfying uncomfortable answer. Who is this helping? How is that going to keep people in the church? Whereas if we can go, hey, you guys, look, the roots were awesome. The branches got a little wonky. Oh But you know what it talks about that right here in the book of Mormon. Like, look, look, this is it. We're, we're right on schedule, right? It's exactly what's supposed to be happening. I think that is so much more faith promoting and guess what God is always there to accept any degree of repentance and step we take toward God. God's there. We're not done. We're not, it's not an all or you know, like we can repent as individuals and the church. And so I think that saying, how could God allow it to go off? Course? Well, because we're on a fallen world. The awesome thing is God allows it to come back on course too. That's what we are. That, that's beautiful. Anyway, I don't know if you have anything to add to that. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h27m53s 1:27:53]
Whitney: mean, exactly what you're saying. Um It brings to mind when people I've had people say to me. Well, what about Abraham? You know, and what about Jacob in the Bible? Um, I think it's exactly what you're saying. I think that faith, God recognizes faith anywhere and he honors repentance. And those men, I believe those, those stories are in our Bible to, to inspire us, to know that he worked with men who, because of their culture and the circumstances they were placed in. You know, Sarah couldn't have a baby. Hagar was technically a surrogate mother that was allowed in their culture. Then you get Jacob who is tricked into polygamy by a dishonest father-in-law. And he says, if he were to have divorced Leia, that she would have been um basically a scarlet letter on her for the rest of her life in their community, their culture. So these are cultural things that these families, I mean that all of the stories and the scriptures are about families, right? Like if we just boil it down to, it's a family. These are families trying to get along with each other, trying to get along in society and trying to follow God. And so those stories to me are so inspiring because it, it tells me that God never leaves anyone behind. He works with all of us where we are and he accepts our repentance and he works with that repentance to bring us to become better people. And so it it's, it's upsetting to me when people think that we're saying you know anything disparaging about anyone because I'm trying to promote charity for all of us. Like all of us have made mistakes. All of us have thought one way only to find out and to believe a different way. All of us are in constant need of repentance. And so if anything like celebrate with us that we're, we're trying to, um, repent over, you know what we used to believe about Joseph Smith and that we're trying to repent over how we used to. I mean, I just like you, I used to give the, um, the pat little answer that, oh, we'll understand. Plym me when we die in heaven, right? I mean, all of us are trying to repent and,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h30m27s 1:30:27]
Michelle: right. Well, what not just what we thought about Joseph Smith, but what we thought about God because like you said, the book stops with God. Yeah, like that was my big repentance was that I believed that God was capable of this and at some point it would make sense.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h30m42s 1:30:42]
Whitney: Yeah. And that, that's what he thought of his daughters, right? That we could be one of and not the one. But, yeah. So I guess for me, I get, I guess I get a little frustrated, um, when people try to, to silence us by a lot of claims that it just, just, just aren't true and they don't serve anyone. Um, yes, you have to grapple with. What does this mean about Brigham Young I had to grapple with that. Yes, you have to grapple with what does that mean then about the succession? But just like you said, the people that followed Brigham to Utah gave him by common consent, the right to be their leader. God works with God works with faith wherever it is found. And so it is our faith that matters. You go read the lectures on faith and it says right there, the worlds were created by faith. The foundation of the worlds were laid by faith. It is our faith and our repentance individual. Then as a couple, then as a family than as a society that matters to God.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h31m52s 1:31:52]
Michelle: Ah And what are the first two principles of the gospel? Like, like we can just go faith have faith that it's gonna be ok and repentance
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h32m01s 1:32:01]
Whitney: like and so why does, why does God let it happen? Why does God let any of us make choices that this entire world is based on agency? Because we all learn by experience as um Leigh says to his son. He says it's by our experience or maybe it's alma. Maybe both of them might sometimes get confused. I I can remember concepts of the scriptures, but I can't always remember where it's at. But they say um it is by, I think it is Le Ha because he said without the bitter, we would never know the sweet. So how could we ever know truth if we don't have to sift through the lies and deception,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h32m47s 1:32:47]
Michelle: the opposition in all things,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h32m49s 1:32:49]
Whitney: opposition in all things. Yeah, we're in this grand experiment. Sometimes I tell Vern, I feel like I'm like, we're all rats in a cage and God's up there going, oh, let's put a piece of cheese over here and see what they do, you know, like, sometimes I feel like, but for me, that kind of helps me go. OK. Well, what did I learn by experience? Right? Am I learning to hear truth to understand it, to resonate when I hear it? Am I learning how to discern between truth and error?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h33m19s 1:33:19]
Michelle: That? Ok, that's what it comes down to because I wanted to just add like this is an individual experience. We're in fact, the purpose of earth is for us to grow, right? And if like, like what would the alternative be God reestablished? The gospel? And all of a sudden struggle ceases and all we do is just sit comfortably in Zion and never have to row, never have to write, never have to like, just like you said, we're trying to learn discernment. If there's no question about truth or error, how do we learn discernment? Right? So if we look at this instead of like, oh, this is about an organization and an institution. No, it's about an individual, it's about me, it's about you. It is about our walk with God. Are we learning to be humble to have faith to repent, to have discernment to, right? Are we learning those things? That's the question. So it's not about the, the like the question of how could God let this happen? It's so that you could grow. And that's the answer to every single question, every single thing in life. The the question is because we came to this corrupted world, this fallen world where there is where unfair things happen, there is sickness, there is disease, there is, there are accidents, there are, you know, natural disasters, like how you could ask that about anything. And I really think in part, that question of how could God let this happen is kind of still born out of a paradigm that we need to break through of that. It's all perfect, right? It's this perfect paradigm and, and so like, like it's like, well, how could God not let my paradigm be perfect? So do do you know they're still thinking it has to be this perfect picture and it's like no welcome to the struggle. Now you get to start really growing and that's, there's nothing better, there's nothing better. It's terrifying for a minute. But then man, the rewards. So, ok, I don't, I don't know if there's anything left in this clip, but just in case there was,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h35m27s 1:35:27]
Elder Cook: we have a loving heavenly father who has a perfect plan that his plan is one of happiness that we have a savior who did everything for us. We can trust in them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h35m40s 1:35:40]
Michelle: Hm. Ok. So I guess that's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h35m42s 1:35:42]
Whitney: actually a beautiful ending. I agree. You know, put our trust in the Lord.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h35m48s 1:35:48]
Michelle: It is. If we were talking about anything else, I'm gonna be rude again. But it's a plan of happiness.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h35m56s 1:35:56]
Whitney: Well, and actually does it say that anywhere? Because I know it says man is that he might have joy and joy is actually different than happiness.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h36m06s 1:36:06]
Michelle: But, but joy or happiness don't live in the same house as polygamy. No, I mean, and so that's what I'm trying to say if we're going to call it the plan of happiness and it's all about families and this is how we've shaped it. Now we have to deal more honestly with, with this haunting, right? So, so that's why it's interesting
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h36m30s 1:36:30]
Whitney: because again, you could say here there, here he, you know, his ending comments begin with the whole, we talked about it in the councils. It's not necessary anymore. So it's not a thing but then he ends with, but now we've been talking about polygamy and the plan of happiness. And so you could, I could see people saying well, which is it, you know, do because Brigham taught you had to be exalted, which is the plan of salvation or plan of happiness. So yeah, again, I could see where people I could see that maybe there were a lot of very confused young adults out there thinking, well, what is the plan of happiness. And what does that mean? And especially where like you brought up, they still do steal polygamous marriages in the temple. I mean, they have to have a spouse that's dead. And then, and then, oh, and then only if you're a man whose wife is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h37m32s 1:37:32]
Michelle: dead, the women can, now, now
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h37m35s 1:37:35]
Whitney: that, that's a recent change, right? And so then I'm like, so, so then can women
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h37m41s 1:37:41]
Michelle: more than one? How does that work? What does that mean?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h37m44s 1:37:44]
Whitney: There is a lot of confusion and I just, I don't think God is a God of confusion. I loved how you brought up that scripture that his house is a house of order, which means organization and patterns, right? And so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h37m57s 1:37:57]
Michelle: one of those true verses from 132 that I think is valid, right? But I think that um anyway, I guess my question is, were those people satisfied? Did they go away going? Oh, now polygamy, I can, I can take that off of my shelf. That's sophomore. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h38m15s 1:38:15]
Whitney: wouldn't have a 1617, 18 year old if I'd been in that audience. No, it would have still been firmly on my shelf.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h38m24s 1:38:24]
Michelle: Ok. So I, I completely agree and it might have been worse. And I just was sitting there like wanting to cry looking at all of those that beautiful youth that maybe most of them will end up leaving the church and maybe most of those who leave will end up leaving God and that, and I think this, it breaks my heart and I think this is a big part of the reason why. And, um, and so I'm hoping that like, we can get to them first. You know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h38m54s 1:38:54]
Whitney: like I, I want to go back to you brought it up when elder cook said, well, hey, elder balder and I, you know, we were joking about how the millennium we're going to need that 1000 years to answer all these questions. And I think, well, it didn't take me 1000 years,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h39m09s 1:39:09]
Michelle: right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h39m10s 1:39:10]
Whitney: Like I would say, it took me a solid 30 or 40 to really think through a bit to when I really got in and started really researching. That was a few years. Um So, yeah, there's, there are answers out there if they would be brave enough to and, and I think I can see, ok, I can see where it's a muddy mess, right? Because I can see where, like it, like the new Mormon historian is, everybody, everybody should be believed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h39m40s 1:39:40]
Michelle: We're gonna get into this in the slide show. Yeah. So you keep going. You've
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h39m44s 1:39:44]
Whitney: got Joseph's constant consistent, emphatic public denials. Then we've got all these other, you know, 1315 100 pieces of documents, right? Of people saying he did it and if they didn't know he did it, then they heard it from somebody else who said he did it. Um Well, at least, at least I don't give the narrative to us at least give us the documents and be an impartial historian who says, here's all the evidence. Here you go. You God gave you a mind capable of understanding as Joseph taught and, and I agree and you go read it and then you just, you choose for yourself, like let us choose, like present us on, don't, don't present the evidence. And we have this in the slide show like where like, because that's one of the things you and I talked about this whole discussion between Michelle and I started months ago when I had come on her podcast and talked about my new book, Hiram Smith and Hire Smith's um sermon. The damn foolish doctrine of polygamy recalls polygamy a damn foolish doctrine. And it's just a few like a couple of months before he dies and it disappears off of the Joseph Smith papers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h41m03s 1:41:03]
Michelle: We're gonna get to this. So don't go too much. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h41m07s 1:41:07]
Whitney: So that started us on this whole um long conversation for months now. Just her and I would be like, whoa, did you see this document? And did you see how the historians spun this? And so I have in my eyes showing her that in my Joseph Smith papers book where the historians are making commentary and I've like written next to it lies, lies, lies. So like if you're gonna be transparent and honest, present the information like you and I don't tell people, you need to believe this way. We tell people, hey, we read this stuff. We've made this choice. You go read it and you make a choice.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h41m44s 1:41:44]
Michelle: Right. Or? Yeah. And I don't, I don't even like to make a choice language. I like that. What do you think is the most, I guess? I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's not like we're just choosing, it's like this is what it said.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h41m56s 1:41:56]
Whitney: We have used reason. And, um, I'm like, we're
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h42m01s 1:42:01]
Michelle: looking at the actual sources.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h42m03s 1:42:03]
Whitney: Yeah, exactly. And we aren't just, it isn't as simple as I love how they just always passed me off as, oh, and she just chose to believe Joseph. Right. Well, yeah, after, but there's no,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h42m16s 1:42:16]
Michelle: you finally, you finally were like, nothing makes sense. Nothing makes sense. I wonder if that might make sense and then you try that. What is it like, plant the seed, test it, test it and all of a sudden that grew, that was the first thing that made sense. And that's what I think. Well, that I was going to say it didn't take either of us 1000 years, but I think a huge, like, I'm so thankful that God told me to do that sounds, but, you know, I'm so thankful that I, that this is my calling because I feel like you and I didn't have your book and didn't have my podcast. I did, right? Like we're trying to make this even more, um, available to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h43m00s 1:43:00]
Whitney: people. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h43m05s 1:43:05]
Michelle: And so people can, can get this information the same way that we are. And, yeah, anyway, I think it's, I think it's great fun. So, can I go back and add the slide show and? Sure. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h43m15s 1:43:15]
Whitney: Where do we want to go? We kind of covered some of it. So we don't necessarily need to do all of it. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h43m20s 1:43:20]
Michelle: yeah, so everyone will just skip around with us. Let me get back where I can um direct it. But so this is what we're talking about is like a faith promoting story. And I just have to again, make the point. It does not promote faith. It's a story that doesn't promote faith. So, OK, so here we go. This. Do you want to tell him about this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h43m39s 1:43:39]
Whitney: Yes. So I received a desert book invitation and I think it was just, you know, mass mailing, right? A mass email. I'm on their email list. And so this was, I think back in June and it was the final um they were celebrating the, the publication of the final book in the Joseph Smith papers project that, you know, they've been working on for years and years and years. So I thought, well, I wouldn't mind going because they were gonna have a panel of the historians. And I thought, you know, maybe I'll ask some questions, they were gonna have a question and answer with the audience So I show up and that is the banner, I mean, it looks small in this, but it was 30 40 50 ft long, you know, 1520 ft tall over. And that all the historians, the whole panel, which was like seven or eight of them sitting underneath the banner and the banner says that the Joseph Smith papers are the authoritative source for the writings, teachings and records of Joseph Smith. So at first I saw that and I'm like, oh, you're the authoritative voice, are you? I would think Joseph would be the authoritative voice on his own work. But here we are. So I'm sitting there in the audience and somebody asked a question and I don't even remember what the question was, but the historian answered, he said, hey, look, historians are all speculating, all historians speculate. But we urge you to speculate responsibly. And I thought, well, that's probably the most honest thing they've said. But then they went on to somebody asked a question about um Joseph Smith and Emma and polygamy. And again, there was one female historian and all the rest are males and all the males turned to her and said, would you like to handle this question about Emma and polygamy? And she went on to state facts that I'm like, no, that's speculation about how Emma felt about polygamy. But, you know, stated as a fact. And so I, I just found it so ironic and so beautiful because I'm like, yes, if they're all speculating, then it be more responsible with it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h46m12s 1:46:12]
Michelle: Ok. That's so great. I, sorry, go ahead. What? It was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h46m17s 1:46:17]
Whitney: just an interesting evening. I actually ended up not asking any questions because um I just was at a loss for words because so many things that they stated as fact that there's zero proof of. So it was a little bit frustrating and I was ready to leave before
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h46m37s 1:46:37]
Michelle: it was, I love that. I love that speculate response, possibly, quote. I think it's brilliant. And what I find fra frustrating is that in those private sessions, they'll acknowledge that they speculate. But then for us, we do see this consistent pattern and i it's not just the historians, it's also like, you know, those who are saying these books are authoritative and like Brian Hill is telling me, I'm not allowed to disagree publicly with these historians. So there are these consistent patterns of hiding documents. We're going to talk about some of these things to our presentation, altering documents, pushing tra traditional narratives and squelching que questions. I think that's very true. So this was funny, we talked about this a little bit. But at what point do you have to agree with the church? At what point in our history? Just, well, we should have that. He didn't do it because that was Joseph originally, right? He didn't do it, then he did it, then he didn't do it. Then he did it. I wanted to include some pictures, I would say, like during Joseph's life, the narrative was, he didn't do it right. And starting 1852 he did it and boy, did he ever do it? Right. And then getting into the two thousands, no, he didn't do it. And we get starting getting those statues of Joseph and Emma and they're this happy couple that we had, you know, but when, before she was poisoning him and threatening to divorce him, right? And now we're back and he did it again. So.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h48m11s 1:48:11]
Whitney: Well, I think, you know, when you say that, that um I have a lot of people who will say, well, why would Brigham need to pin it on Joseph? Um You know, Brigham was his own man and why, why did you need to pin it on Joseph? And in a nutshell, really, this all boils down to in Navoo they wanted to get away with their business. And so, you know, they would tell people, hey, Joseph's letting us, you know Joseph's on board. But, um, really, it didn't really start being pinned on Joseph till 1852. And when they publicly announced polygamy in Utah, it was all a political move because Brigham had been advised by a US congressman that if they wanted to be allowed to because the law in the land was monogamy and you could be prosecuted for Bigamy polygamy and they considered it adultery. Um legally. And so he was advised that if he could prove that it was a um foundational tenet of Joseph Smith, then they could use the um declaration, right that says, you know that we're allowed men, man should be allowed to um the freedom of religion. So it was the whole freedom of religion ploy. So that's when all the stuff started getting said, oh, it was Joseph, it was Joseph. Joseph started it because it was all political. It was all a political move. So that's the easiest way to explain it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h49m44s 1:49:44]
Michelle: That's fascinating. And it makes it make more sense. The senator that Brigham was talking about in that August 1852 special conference when Andy talks about the senator that he talked to has said this is the best system. There is the rest of the US is going to rot away if they don't have your wonderful system. OK. That's fascinating that it reminds me of actually the truth of the proclamation on the family that was also written to be able to do an amicus am amicus brief, amicus brief. Oh, I'm not pronouncing it, right? But to the case in Hawaii, and they needed to prove that they had a reason to be involved in the case of, of gay marriage in Hawaii. It was a similar thing. That's interesting.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h50m22s 1:50:22]
Whitney: So what's interesting is after 1904 in the manifesto, the church went through a long period where Joseph didn't do it. That's where they get that. And then Joseph statue that's in um Temple Square. You know, they really went through it. Ok. Yeah, it was all a ploy for the government. Now, we're a state, 1896. We're a state. Now, now we've got this Manifesto. Second manifesto. We don't do it anymore. Ok. Now, we can be honest, Joseph didn't do it. And then it was in the, well fawn brodie writes her book in 1945 but everyone at the time knew she was just mad at her family and was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h50m58s 1:50:58]
Michelle: wanting to write just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h51m00s 1:51:00]
Whitney: an anti Mormon book, right? So then probably 19 sixties, 19 seventies, we start getting the new Mormon historian where anti Mormons were getting a hold of more and more documents that Brigham had had created and Joseph F Smith had had created for the government purpose of fooling the government that Joseph, you know, is a foundational tenant of the church. Um They start getting hold of those and, and the new Mormon historians, I kind of say that they wanted to play nice in the sandbox and then also maybe be a little edgy like, hey, you can take me serious as a real historian because I'm bringing forth um this dirty, nasty part of our past. And I'm not a, I'm not shying away from Joseph having done political to me. And so really, then we now shifted really in the 19 seventies, 19 eighties, 19 nineties two back to Joseph did it. So and here we are trying to write the shiver yet again, back to Joseph didn't do it. And let's be honest about our history. Enough documents have now come forward where we can easily explain why there's so many documents saying he did it and we can easily show that Joseph spent his, his lifetime saying he wasn't involved and didn't do it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h52m21s 1:52:21]
Michelle: Awesome. OK. So here is now, speaking of the authoritative sources, this is what we were told to go to, right. So we'll dig in a little bit to the gospel topics and you had pulled out some of the things from the introduction to them. So I have, I think two slides about this. Do you want to talk about?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h52m43s 1:52:43]
Whitney: Well, so, first of all, for those who might be watching us and aren't familiar with the gospel topics, essays, um they are not written by the brethren. They are written by, you know, people that they pulled in and asked who are quote unquote experts. Um And as we had mentioned earlier in this podcast, there's a lot of people whose testimonies have been completely damaged by these essays. Um And I think one of the reasons being that in a lot of the essays, they will make statements like, well, that's how it was done in the past, but it's not done that way today. And so we're just supposed to take it off our shelf and be done with it. And so they really, to me, um, bring in a lot of questions, a add questions that don't need to be there because it's, they're not using good history and not using good sourcing. Um, and then, but so it's, it's, to me ironic that they say that it requires us to distinguish between reliable sources and unreliable sources. And I think that, um, a lot of people know just kind of inherently, but I think it's these, these kind of subtle messaging that gets put into our brains that the L ds.org and the L DS historians are the reliable and anything that's not on L ds.org and doesn't have a church historians name behind, it is unreliable. And so it just does a lot of disservice to, um, us finding truth because it really kind of puts us in a, a fearful position that, oh, you better not trust an unreliable source.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h54m28s 1:54:28]
Michelle: Yeah. And it's kind of, especially concerning it. Like there seem to have been, it's my perception is there have been quite a few talks by, um, church leaders and even like, even, especially by Sister Nelson Wendy Nelson about, like, don't listen to any voices other than my husband only, he's the prophet of God, only listen to him. And that's a concerning stance to hear. I don't like that. And especially when they, it's just so, uh, uh, like, it, it just feels totalitarian, like there are good sources and bad sources. We're the good sources and I don't like censorship in that way at all and saying at once wasn't enough. So they go on and repeat it with, you know, the, the, the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What, what is it? Recognizing that today? So much information about the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources that they started to put the trap, the these gospel topics, essays together. And it's just, it's difficult. I do agree. There are lots of questionable and inaccurate sources. The problem is they believe a lot of them and incorporate a lot of them into their narratives. So you can go on and look at questionable and inaccurate sources.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h55m50s 1:55:50]
Whitney: So as, um I think it was Matthew Grove, the historian in that clip we played and he said, you know, he told the, the people, hey, if you have questions, go read the gospel topics, essays and saints. Well, you know, um Saints was first, um the first volume was published in 2018. And um it's supposed to be eventually a four volume set. They're on volume three right now. Um The preface of it states this true stories well told, can inspire, caution, entertain and instruct Brigham Young understood the power of a good story that's just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h56m34s 1:56:34]
Michelle: priceless. You know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h56m37s 1:56:37]
Whitney: it's so great. It's so great. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h56m43s 1:56:43]
Michelle: And then it also, well, you have the other quote as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h56m46s 1:56:46]
Whitney: Yeah, you can go ahead, you can read that and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h56m48s 1:56:48]
Michelle: that it's a narrative history, a narrative history designed to give readers a foundational understanding of church history. It sounds like it's similar to what were those books that were all the rage? The work and the glory.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h57m02s 1:57:02]
Whitney: Exactly. That's exactly what I compare this to it reads.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h57m08s 1:57:08]
Michelle: So it's like it don't think of this as church history, think of this as historical fiction, just like the work in the glory. But it's in some ways more problematic because it's inaccurate historical fiction. So, ok. Should I go ahead? Yeah. So, oh, I don't know if I'm on the same page as you with what you want to talk about. But, yeah, yeah, you're good. But we do have a record of what happened during Joseph's life, right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h57m33s 1:57:33]
Whitney: So a lot of times they'll bring up the word contemporary or contemporaneous and that means it happened during the person's lifetime. And so I know that, um, somebody, once, I don't know, a few weeks ago, made the statement that this isn't, this isn't tried in a Court of law and it shouldn't be. And I'm like, well, why not? I mean, a court of law should be our highest, um, way to tell. Like, if we, if we, if something can't pass a test in a court of law, right? Then, like, we didn't, then it shouldn't be reliable.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h58m10s 1:58:10]
Michelle: It's our highest means our most um authoritative means of finding truth that we have found. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have found of how to sort out complicated truth when there are people with different motives and different narratives. A court of law is the best way we found to sort through that the best way possible.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h58m30s 1:58:30]
Whitney: Perfect. So in a court of law, contemporary evidence would be given the most um valid weight, right? It would be considered the most valid anything that was produced after the person died. So we first of all, you wouldn't try something in a court of law who's died. I mean, they, they have a right to defend themselves. But if you were to bring this case to a court of law, any evidence uh created or obtained or um yeah, created is the best way of saying it after Joseph died would be, would not, would be given lesser weight to no weight at all because it wasn't created while he was alive. So um the Saints relies on people who were considered traitors to Joseph during his lifetime. They rely on them because that is the only contemporaneous source. So here's so right. So while Joseph was alive,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h59m35s 1:59:35]
Michelle: he go through the contemporaneous. OK. OK. So they inherently
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=1h59m40s 1:59:40]
Whitney: denied any teaching of involvement in plural marriage. All of Joseph's scriptures and revelations support monogamy and decry polygamy. And as a church body, they had, they canonized the law of the church on marriage or is also called a Statement on Marriage, which is about monogamy. Published in 1835 is Section 101 republished again in the 1844 Doctrine and covenants of Section 109. And there was also published numerous times in the Times and Seasons newspaper to remind the saints and the world. This church, the law of God to this church on marriage is one man, one wife, no concubines, period. Could it be any more simple or
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h00m32s 2:00:32]
Michelle: plain? Right? And for the people, uh the people so committed to this that they're like, well, well, um Oliver Cow who did they say wrote that? Oliver Cowdry. Oliver Cowdry wrote that. It's so silly. Joseph Smith was the head of the committee to prepare the 1835 doctor and co Joseph Smith didn't let things happen that he didn't like in general. He had, he was pretty like, like think of, I just talked about the windows and the um William weeks didn't want to do full circle with those. And Joseph said I will have windows the way I saw them in my vision, you know, like he was pretty sure to do what he thought God wanted him to do. He didn't muddle around that. He didn't mince words. And he was the one in charge of both of those printings 1835 and 1844. And he included it and published it several times in newspapers to make sure the Saints. Got it. Ok. Go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h01m26s 2:01:26]
Whitney: Well, just really quick guess where we get the story from that. It was Oliver CRE who wrote it who Brigham Young? Brigham Young is the one who says, well, that was written by Oliver Cowdrey. So, you know, we can just,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h01m41s 2:01:41]
Michelle: I knew that. Why am I not surprised? Ok. So next time someone tells me that. Yeah. Ok. Well, Joseph Smith didn't apparently know that. So it's Brigham Young. That's great. Ok, so yeah, this is what you're talking about. Like these are the ways that evidence should, is weighed in the court of law and absolutely should be weighed by historians. And the like if you have a later account that is heavily motivated, it is not a good source. And then we go to the additional problem of authentic or forged and documents can be forged by the people who actually wrote them. William Clayton could have forged his own journal, right? I maybe forgery isn't the right word, but he could have created a fraudulent history in his own journal. So they could have, you know, like, like I would say he did do that in that in that. That's a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h02m36s 2:02:36]
Whitney: perfect way of saying it. Yeah, people did. I mean, I found the History of Hebrew C. Kimball that was written by William Clayton, but he wrote it as if Heber C Kimball had written it. And so we have, we have all kinds of um documents that were later reminiscences or later um creations trying to, you know, prove that something happened.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h03m06s 2:03:06]
Michelle: Yes. And I'm we, that's the exact same with Joseph Smith's History. Willard Richards wrote a lot of it in first person and some of the things I I've found that I'm gonna present as soon as I can are just going to blow people away because it is, it is a made up story that all of a sudden, um later, later made up story that all of a sudden becomes firsthand Joseph saying it in his own words at the time it happened and that's how it's presented. So we have the original forgeries, I guess I can call them that like forgeries by the person who actually wrote it, but it's fraudulent. But then we also have the huge problem of like Mark Hoffman that is not being adequately addressed and I'm going to bring for forward more of those sources as well by both of these things I'm talking about are in my upcoming um endowments episode as soon as I can possibly get that ready. So these things have to be taken seriously. They are in the court of law. But for some reason, historians don't take them seriously enough in my opinion, just like you said, all are given equal weight, every source is given equal
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h04m04s 2:04:04]
Whitney: weight. Well, you know, where you and I are often accused of being biased, you know, I'm often accused of being biased. Like, oh, she made up her mind, she's going to believe Joseph. So, now she's just things from that narrative. Well, personally I would like to meet anyone who isn't biased in this world. But, you know, one of the things I've noticed with the, um, academics and the historians is they very much have a bias of supporting other academics. You know, and other historians, like, they will take their work, they'll take the work of somebody with a phd over someone like me. Right. You know, so that's, that's not a bias. There's also the bias of church historians who want to continue to perpetuate the narrative that, you know, the, the um succession and that the church is true and, and I, I haven't quite grasped why they think that if they were honest about Joseph and honest about him not being a polygamist, I don't quite understand why they think that would affect them today. But for whatever reason, they feel like they've got to keep, um, they, they can't let Brigham be tainted at all, like it's all going to be on Joseph and then everyone else was just being faithful to him. And so that's a bias. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h05m25s 2:05:25]
Michelle: Absolutely. In fact, I want to play this, well, maybe I'll play this clip later, but I have a clip that the dress is right, right there because I think it's really funny, but we'll go on with this slide show and then we'll get there in a minute. But, um, I think it is important to, like, they try so hard to, especially you to like, demean you by just saying you have a bias, which I find to be truly ridiculous. In fact, in the like, like, and then if you listen, they'll go on and admit their bias, right? They have so much bias and we, I think that there, it's not like you have to have changed your position to have credibility. It's the sources that give you credibility. But the fact that we have changed our positions based on sources should kind of reveal that we're not going on bias, we're going on sources, right? Because if we were biased, we would just, it's like the people that are just arguing in favor of polygamy always just telling me that I don't have that I'm not righteous enough and I don't have enough faith. You know, if I have enough faith, then nothing has to make sense, I guess. Right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h06m29s 2:06:29]
Whitney: Ok. I'm blind following the blind. And I think that scripture ends with saying and they all fall in it, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h06m39s 2:06:39]
Michelle: So this is a good time as I go to this next slide to read, um Doctrine and Covenants 122 verse three, which is thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors, right? And I actually love four as well. And although their influence shall cast thee into trouble and into bars and walls and thou shalt he had, thou shalt be had in honor. And, but for a small moment, and thy voice shall be more terrible in the midst of thine enemies than the fierce lion because of thy righteousness and thy God shall stand by thee forever and ever. And I think that's worth recognizing because of people who mock you because you say, hey, let's listen to what Joseph Smith said. And so when L DS people ignore this, ignore what Joseph Smith said. And instead listen to people like John Bennett, I have to wonder if they've read that scripture. So and so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h07m35s 2:07:35]
Whitney: that's where I go back to again saying that I feel like the Mormon historians of the last, you know, two or three decades have decided they've adopted the idea that every single person was telling the truth. And so they then say, well, you know, John C Bennett must have been telling the truth. Well, John C Bennett rolls into navoo. Um he had left a wife and Children, didn't tell anyone. Rosen and au pretending like he's single. He um was pretty charismatic and pretty good at selling himself. And so he becomes um elected as mayor, he becomes an assistant into the first presidency. Meanwhile, he is going around Nabu seducing women using Joseph's name. You know, when women would say, hey, you know, we're not married, he'd say, oh, it's OK. Joseph said it's ok as long as we keep it between ourselves. You know, we're adults. Um When he was confronted with, first of all, confronted with um his first time he was confronted, it was that, hey, we found out you have a wife and Children and you're passing yourself off as a single man and courting the women here in navoo, he promises to reform. Um then he becomes even more debauches and more um more of a yes. There you go. More brazen in his behavior. He is then again confronted with it and he actually swears out an affidavit that Joseph never taught anything to him. That was immoral or improper in any way. And then he ends up being excommunicated um removed from,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h09m22s 2:09:22]
Michelle: he was only just fellowship, but he was, he was punished in any case. He left n in shape. And yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h09m28s 2:09:28]
Whitney: So he leaves Navoo in disgrace and did not go away. Quietly starts publishing um anti Mormon pamphlets and smear campaign against Joseph. He's, you know, pretty um pretty upset that he really lashes out at them, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h09m51s 2:09:51]
Michelle: So he, yeah, he writes six letters, I think that are published in the Sangamo Journal and other newspapers. He's the first sort of authoritative voice accusing Joseph Smith of spiritual wifey, right? And, and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h10m05s 2:10:05]
Whitney: he was basically a polygamy or a Nabu insider, right? Like he was the mayor and he was rubbing
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h10m12s 2:10:12]
Michelle: shoulders, the counselor in the first presidency,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h10m15s 2:10:15]
Whitney: right? So people thought he was telling the truth,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h10m20s 2:10:20]
Michelle: right? And so Yeah. So Joseph and Hiram however, did not believe he was telling the truth. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h10m28s 2:10:28]
Whitney: Right. No. So they, they take out like, they first publishes a little tiny, little snippet. Hey, you know, we've, um, removed the hand of fellowship to John C Bennett. Well, then he was still in nu at the time and still causing problems. So then they take out an entire, um, the whole newspaper to publicly disavow him and to try to stop the behavior that he had kind of started going in NV. He started kind of these underground, you know, sex rings kind of an idea. And so they take out this as a warning that he's a scoundrel, he's a liar, he's a traitor and then everything he's saying our base falsehoods, anything he's saying negative about Joseph are actual falsehoods. They take out this whole spread in the paper. Then later Joseph goes and gets a bunch of affidavits and prints a, a sheet is what it was called like a, a pamphlet or a tract. And he sends 300 elders throughout the country to disavow the public of the things that um Bennett, the lies that Bennett has been spreading about himself and about the church.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h11m42s 2:11:42]
Michelle: Ok. So he did everything in his power to try to contradict and combat what Bennett was doing and yet, like, he couldn't have done much more, but everyone just ignores that and it's like, well, he just had a guilty conscience So what could he have done if you were innocent? Right. So, ok, now,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h12m04s 2:12:04]
Whitney: today, now, today we um so there's no, so here's the bottom line, there is zero contemporary evidence that says Joseph did polygamy from any trustworthy person. The only contemporary quote unquote evidence comes from traitors. One of them being John Bennett. So today in Saints volume one, which we as a church have been directed to go read, to understand pygmy. It says this on page 485. Of volume one, much of what John Bennett had written was embellished or flatly untrue. But his claim that Joseph had married multiple women was correct. So here we are, we now as an entire church in our church approved church history have now just believed the testimony of a traitor.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h13m04s 2:13:04]
Michelle: So everything that Joseph Smith said, all of his efforts, all of his, everything is undermined by John Bennett's claims. John Bennett is the the is one of the two main sources, William Clayton and John Bennett are the main sources of Joseph's polygamy I would say. And one thing I find so interesting and upsetting about this is, well, first of all, as you were talking about John Bennett, he really was like the consummate psychopath like super, I mean, a narcissistic psychopath, super charismatic, but he always had to go start somewhere new before his past could catch up with him, right? So because, and then he left, he left NAVOO in disgrace just like he left his previous location in Disgrace, went somewhere else and they all loved him at first because he was telling the story about the Mormons. But before long, they were throwing tomatoes at him, which someone said that to me. And it made me laugh aloud because he was the tomato champion. He he thought tomato and tomatoes were a panacea to heal everything. But that's who John Bennett was right. And the question that I have for these church historians and for the proponents of polygamy and our church leaders who are pushing this narrative is, was John Bennett, what Brian Hall would call a polygamy insider? Or was he not everyone who says that Joseph was doing polygamy says that he was pushing it on everyone else, right? Like it wasn't just him. He all of these other men had wives, the polygamy insiders, the super special elite, Secret Dakota Ring club, right? And so if John CB, so he was in the first presidency, so if he was a polygamy insider, why didn't he have plural wives? As far as I understand, he didn't even have one wife in NFU because yet, right, he didn't marry a second wife. So he had no other wives. And so why wasn't he given authorization to become a polygamist if he was a polygamy insider? And if he wasn't a polygamy insider, how would he know about Joseph's polygamy and Joseph's wife?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h15m15s 2:15:15]
Whitney: Excellent point. And if so the way, one of the ways that the church historians and apologetics um spin this is, they say, because, you know, there's so much evidence of how Joseph felt about what Bennett was doing that you can't brush that aside and brush it away. So what they've done instead is they make statements and it's insane. So they make a statement that um what Bena was doing was basically this worldly thing, right? And it, it had no,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h15m50s 2:15:50]
Michelle: it had,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h15m50s 2:15:50]
Whitney: it had no, um, it wasn't, Joseph was doing a high and holy celestial ordinance that had nothing to do with Bennett's spiritual wiery. Well, I'm with you. Why didn't, why didn't Joseph just go to Bennett and say, hey, stop sleeping around? Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Go marry these women and make it official, like, go tell them that they're your wife because you couldn't legally marry a woman, right? So, any woman past wife, number one had to have just been, you know, a sec, super secret priest ordinance, kind of idea. But still, exactly, why wouldn't he have said, hey, you're embarrassing the church. You need to go make these spiritually illegal. I mean,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h16m38s 2:16:38]
Michelle: it doesn't mean they have to choose that. Was he, was he a polygamy insider or was he not? You have to pick a lane on this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h16m47s 2:16:47]
Whitney: And if he was a polygamy insider, then why did Joseph
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h16m51s 2:16:51]
Michelle: consist, wasn't he?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h16m53s 2:16:53]
Whitney: And why was he considered a traitor? And if he wasn't a polygamy? Insider. Then he didn't know what he would just got lucky in using some initials that somebody then found women whose names matched.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h17m06s 2:17:06]
Michelle: Right. Or the Right. Right. That's what? Right. And I will point out a couple of things William Law filled in for him and he didn't have a clue about who the supposed wives were. Like, like I'm gonna do part four in the nave exposure, which will include the one case that William tried to blame Joseph with and had nothing. He had nothing on who Joseph was. Like, he had no idea who these supposed wives were. Right? So it wasn't like everyone around Joseph knew like it was this big secret. Nobody knew, but John Bennett knew why. Right. And for the um sort of anti Joseph anti Mormon types that claim that um no, they were, they were both doing this sleeping around thing, but John Bennett was too loud about it and it got out. That's what that, that's why they say like they, they were both just sleeping around. But John Bennett got found out. So Joseph cut him out. Right. Well, that's a complete lie because the reason John Bennett's got found out is because Joseph and Hiram investigated it. Right. Right. It wasn't known before Joe, before Bennett got kicked out, it wasn't going all around Joseph. Isn't this right? Joseph and Hiram intentionally got the testimony and investigated and found out and found out what was happening with the, what are their names? The Hig BS and, you know, the others that were involved, if they were trying to cover it up, why would they do this big investigation if that were the problem? So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h18m35s 2:18:35]
Whitney: exactly, they would have gone to him and said, you know, you need to leave town quietly like you just need to go. Right. Yeah. No, they did a whole big expose and that's why I think, you know, again, like if they again, here we are. I mean, I'm so glad you read that scripture because we're literally basing Joseph this, this sin and this abomination as God calls it in Jacob two. And again, later when he talks about Rish being a polygamous in the book of Mormon and when he talks about Noah did wickedly and abominably, right? And wicked King, no one has polygamous wives, right? So God's consistent, he consistently through the book of Mormon calls it an abomination. So where today our church with our history narrative are placing this abomination on the shoulders of Joseph Smith based on the testimony of this traitor.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h19m32s 2:19:32]
Michelle: Wasn't that a brilliant point that she just made? I want to again, give a huge thank you to Whitney Horning for all of the amazing work that she has done on this topic. I really hope that this has been an eye opening experience for many of you who maybe haven't seen some of these resources, maybe some of you have and I would have loved to join in this conversation. I hope that there will be vigorous commentary, vigorous discussion in the comments below so that we can see what's happening and try to expose it and help more and more people wake up and maybe help give the church permission to take a little, you know, turn on this on on the way of handling this narrative because I think we would do a lot better with a different direction. And so again, I, as I said, there is bonus content to follow. Please stay tuned for that. I want to thank you again for joining me and please stay tuned for next week where you will get part two of this fantastic conversation. Ok. So it is one day before we are releasing this video, but I called Whitney tonight. Well, actually, we've been Marco Polo all day again and I was like, Whitney, could we jump back on even though we've both been doing laundry and cleaning up and doing our crazy lives all day, she agreed to jump back on because again, even since recording these, this two part episode last week, we've been talking more and we found some crazy things that I've really, really wanted to share. So thank you for being willing to jump back on Whitney. You're awesome. It has been a crazy couple of days, hasn't it?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h21m20s 2:21:20]
Whitney: It has.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h21m22s 2:21:22]
Michelle: So today to just catch everyone up really fast. Um I was supposed to be working on my next Temple episode, which I'm trying to do feverishly. But, um, someone asked, it was Charlie Price, who is the daughter in law of Pamela Price? Who did the Joseph Smith fought polygamy? And she's fabulous and helping with, I think it's volume four. So she asked online, when does the church claim Hiram Smith was introduced to polygamy? What date? And, um, that's something you've been looking into. Right. Right. So, and I didn't know that, but I went ahead and was like, well, I'll just take time away from what I'm supposed to be doing to go look up the Brigham sermon of when Brigham claims that it was. So I shared here, I'll go ahead and share it with the, with the share on the screen. What we, so this is the complete discourses of Brigham Young. They're all available on auto on, um, on Kindle, which is fabulous because you can search keywords, which is really helpful. So from volume four on October 6 October 8th, 1866 Brigham gives this horrible, horrible talk that I shared with her because I think it's a fantastic example of how Brigham just said, whatever he wanted to say with zero evidence for it. And to me this is a great example where you can just see Brigham being massively dishonest. So I'll read just really quickly. He claims this was in the year 1842 and he says that Hiram saw me and said, Brother Brigham, I want to talk to you. We went together and sat upon the rails that were piled up. He commenced by saying, I have a question to ask you in the first place. I say unto you that I do know that you and the 12 know some things that I do not know. I can understand this by the motions and talk and doings of Joseph. And I know there is something or other which I do not understand that is revealed to the 12. Is this? So I replied, I do not, I do not know anything about what you know, but I know what I know. Then he said I have mistrusted for a long time that Joseph had received a revelation that a man should have more than one wife and he has hinted as much to me, but I would not bear it. The thing that makes me crazy about this. First of all is that Hiram would go to Brigham Young to verify this instead of going to Joseph. It's ridiculous on so many levels. Do you have anything to add yet? I'm gonna keep
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h23m43s 2:23:43]
Whitney: going. One of the things that jumped out to me as you were reading this is that in January of 1841 the Lord um calls Hiram to be the core and the co prophet and tells him to learn from Joseph. And we have so many examples of Hiram and Joseph being at each other's side constantly and consistently. So for something that is supposedly as massive revelation as this for the 12 to hear about it and hire him to only hear hints and nods and wink, winks about it around town and to not hear it from Joseph and Joseph was disobeying the Lord because the Lord commanded Joseph to teach Hiram how to be a prophet and a president of the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h24m32s 2:24:32]
Michelle: church. Ok. Ok. That's beautiful. I love it. Also, Brigham is claiming this is in 1842. We know that Hiram goes on after this to give multiple vehement ser sermons against polygamy, right? But but Brigham made those disappear. So he thinks he can just say this. He keeps going on. He, he goes on now to talk about how Joseph came to him. I've read this before and I'll include the link again. So if anyone wants to go read it, Joseph goes and says, come with me to preach tonight and Barrett Brigham says, I can't, I can't stand to be around those people, William Law and Hiram who speak against you. And Bri and Joseph says, if you don't go, I won't go. And so Brigham's like, OK, and then they go to this c they go to this meeting and they hear Hiram preaching about the, the um scriptures and says anything more, more than this cometh of evil. And Joseph has his head in his hands and says, Brigham get up and Brigham gets up and, and completely undermines everything that Hiram says. I wouldn't give a rice straw for these books if it weren't for the living oracles. And he preaches so um fervently and convincingly that Hiram stands up and apologizes to the congregation for everything that he had said. So this is the what, what Brigham claims after talking about this. Then he goes back and oh yeah, Hebrew Campbell says I was there and Brigham says, yes and a good many others were there and heard the lion roar. Speaking of himself. That's how he sums up him putting Hiram in his place by Joseph's request because you know, I I mean, it's just ridiculous. It's insane. Then he goes on and says, I will now now go back to where I met Hiram. He said to me, I am convinced that there is something that has not been told me. I said to him, brother Hiram. Joseph would tell you everything the Lord reveals to him if he could. Uh it's so gross that Brigham is Joseph's confidant and Hiram has to be called to repentance by Brigham. I must confess this. I felt a little sarcastic against Hiram, although he and then he goes on to say, although he was such a good man, he goes on and says, Brother Hiram, I will tell you about this thing which you do not know if you will swear with an uplifted hand before God that you will never say another word against Joseph and his doings and the doctrines. He is preaching to the people. He replied, I will do it with all my heart. And he stood up on his feet saying I want to know the truth and to be saved. And he made a covenant there never again to bring forward one argument or use any influence against Joseph's doings. Did he make a covenant with Brigham? I, I'm not quite sure, but he made a covenant right there. Joseph had many wives sealed to him. I told Hiram the whole whole story and he bowed to it and wept like a child and said, God be praised. He went to Joseph and told him what he had learned and renewed his covenant with Joseph. So I guess it was a covenant to Brigham renewed his covenant with Joseph and they went heart and heart hand at heart and hand together while they lived and they were together when they died and they are together now defending Israel and his whole point in giving this sermon. So George George, a Smith had preached right before this and had talked about Joseph ordaining Hiram to be his successor. And Brigham Young starts out by saying now I know that George A Smith is the church historian and he has a good memory, but he doesn't remember this, right? He was too young and I need to correct him. So he always does that when someone's not telling the story he wants them to tell. So anyway, I I shared this with Charney just kind of going well. According to Brigham Young, it was 1842 because the truth is there's not a date that Hiram was 1st, 1st accepted plural marriage because we made it all up, right? So I shared this and then someone commented and said that on the church website, they said it was May 14th 1842. So at that point, that's when I Marco Polo Whitney, because I was so incensed that the church included this reference on their website. And in their church history, my feeling was Brigham Young says this one thing, it's October 8th 1866. So again, decades later, absolutely nothing to substantiate it to back it up. There's no evidence for any of it and it goes against tons of the things that they, you know, it goes against what there is evidence for. And like even for example, Hiram married his first plural wife, August 1843. That's when he supposedly married mercy. So he was taught it by Brigham in 1842 but waited an entire year to year and a half before he first married a wife after weeping like a child. And you know, I mean, but, but I was so frustrated that the church accept this ridiculous thing that Brigham Young says, no questions, asked yet every single thing that Joseph Emma and Hiram ever said was a lie. I was so frustrated,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h29m29s 2:29:29]
Whitney: it is frustrating. And I think this is a perfect example of how the church historians or whoever it is writing this new narrative. Um you picks and chooses because that discourse is exact proof that Brigham say 1842. And then on their website, they change it to May 14th, 1843 because they have all this evidence that Hiram was speaking out against it. And so, and um the talk that we um I have to,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h30m04s 2:30:04]
Michelle: I have to fill them, let me fill them in and how this happened today. Is that ok, Marco Paed Whitney and was like, oh, can you believe this? And I told her that someone had commented and said, well on the church website, it says it's May, is it 13th, 14th, May 14th, 1843. I was like, where did they even get that? Like II, I asked Whitney, is there any evidence for that? So then Whitney came back and told me now tell
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h30m29s 2:30:29]
Whitney: so his anti polygamy sermon, one of one of the few that we have is on Jacob chapter two was given in the morning of May 14th, 1843. So do does the church saying then that he gives his anti plaga speech? He brings up Jacob two. He says it is given as a perpetual principle, perpetual meaning it never to go away. That men should have one wife only and no concubines. So he gives that in the morning and then, then are they now claiming that by the afternoon he's weeping like a child begging Brigham to. Oh, yes. Now I believe. And I understand and my sermon this morning was wrong. I mean, it's, it, it, it is so frustrating how their targets keep changing and their narrative keeps changing. And, and I was looking at like Michelle and I were discussing this, you know, through Marco Polo today and, and I'm like, this is the pretzel language, the pretzeled language that Brian Hales claims Joseph Smith used to, you know, lie about polygamy into life of the Lord. The pretzeled language belongs to the historians who make Joseph a polygamist. If you believe Joseph and Emma Hiram's words, there's no pretz it's absolutely certain. They don't make up dates. We don't have to make up times. We can specifically point to sermons to um public denials, to newspaper articles to court cases where they in no uncertain terms, deny polygamy, say it's an abomination. You shouldn't do it. It's not right. It's not a God, et cetera, et cetera. No pretz when we take that. And then we put the narrative of Brigham Young and William Clayton and other known polygamists whose dates changed and were all over the place. Then the pret ling begins because we've got to try and figure out, well, why was Hiram on May 14th, 1843 at the temple giving a sermon denouncing plural marriage. And then, but yet Berham said this in 1842 that he claimed in 1842. And then, and then supposedly married some polygamous women in, in August. And so now the pretz la begins.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h32m51s 2:32:51]
Michelle: So, so what Brigham said is absolutely correct. We quote him verbatim except we leave out the date that Brigham said it happened because that can't be so they come back. I did not like, I'm not familiar enough with. This was the Hiram sermon that we just talked about in this episode that was recorded at the Levi Richards. So Levi Richards recorded this sermon that the Hiram gave amazing sermon about Jacob two that a perpetual law. And the church takes Brigham's story and was like, well, it must have been at least after Hiram's sermon um that Levi Richards recorded. So it's gotta be that day or later. And then, and Whitney made that connection. So I went ahead and looked up, let me see if I can share this. Um, looked up where on the website it said it. So this is Saints chapter 14 that I'm gonna let me see that. Thank you. Change volume one chapter 40. You're exactly right. It even says it right there. So it's late at night for me. So, um anyway, I'm gonna scroll down to where this OK chapter 40 I've decided I have to do an entire episode on this one because I have to count the number of I'm sorry, lies like they are lies. The claims in this are insane. I haven't brought myself to read Saints and I think I started with the worst possible chapter because United in an everlasting covenant, this is like hitting right at it. So let me go down to where it does work in this hiram um sermon because Whitney, you pointed out that it was totally hidden, right? The hiram sermon, didn't you have to dig to even find? Well, I actually
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h34m33s 2:34:33]
Whitney: had a reader that was reading Levi Richards journals on the church history library website and sent it to me and said, have you ever seen this? And it is really difficult to find?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h34m46s 2:34:46]
Michelle: Ok. But Whitney and her research today found that, well, I'll get, I'll get to that in a minute that Da Bradley and Brian Hales wrote a paper which included it. So they absolutely know about it, which is, and also here it is in chapter 40 of the um of saints. So this is what it says on May 14th while Joseph was away at another conference. Hiram preached in the temple against men, having more than one wife referring to Jacob's condemnation of unauthorized plural marriages in the book of Mormon Hiram called The Practice an abomination before God. That's the sermon, right? That's the Levi Richards recording. Then listen, what it does after the sermon. Hiram began to question his own certainty about what he had taught I, I just can't, this is complete fiction. I can't discussions about plural marriage swirls around navoo and rumors that Joseph had several wives were also common. Hiram wanted to believe this was not the case, but he wondered if Joseph was not telling him something that this is now, this is all from Brigham, right from Brigham's sermon that we uh Brigham's sermon that we just read. There had been times after all when Joseph had alluded to the practice, perhaps testing Hiram to see how he would react. And Hiram sensed there was, there were some things that Joseph told the 12 that he had not taught him. One day after the sermon, Hiram saw Brigham near his home and asked if they could talk. I know there is something or other which I do not understand that is revealed to the 12. He said, is this? So the men sat down on a pile of rail of fence rails. This is right out of Brigham Young. I do not know anything about what you know, Brigham answered cautiously. Oh, they added the cautiously. But I know what I know. I have mistrusted for a long time that Joseph had received a revelation that a man should have more than one wife. Hiram said, I will tell you about this. Brigham said, if you will swear with an uplifted hand before God, that you will never say another word against Joseph and his doings and the doctrines, he is preaching. Hiram stood up. I will do it with all my heart. He said, I want to know the truth as Brigham taught him about, about the Lord's revelation on Joe on plural marriage. Hiram wept convinced that Joseph had acted under commandment. Honestly, that's what they did with that. I, I find it completely appalling.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h37m10s 2:37:10]
Whitney: Well, yeah. And think about like, so you, you bring out like in this episode, we bring out the actual Jacob two sermon recorded by Levi Richards. Then you bring out Brigham's discourse and then we bring out the saints and it's just this mixing and mingling and mishmash to make it fit to make all the pieces fit, right? Like, but it, it's, it is not transparent historical truth. It is a false narrative that has now been created and is now published and is now going to become like people are now going to quote from the saints and use it as a proof and evidence instead of going to the original sources because the original sources do not back up this story. It is so frustrating, but it exactly proves what this episode is about.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h38m07s 2:38:07]
Michelle: It's insane. And so we wanted to share this the fact that they include that Mar for, I mean May 14th date, Brigham said 1842 they change it to May 14th, 1843 so that they can work it around the hiram sermon that they know full well about. This is so it just fits so perfectly with what we're talking about and that we had to include it. So, um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h38m31s 2:38:31]
Whitney: you know, it's one thing, it's one thing for us to be battling a past narrative, like, like we could say in the past, they did not have access to as much material that we have today. So I could say, ok, those historians were doing the best they could at the time with the documents they had access to. But today there should be zero reason to create a new false narrative. Today there zero, we have the evidence. Now we can see the documents like just lay the truth out like and, and you know, it does come, I mean, I do have compassion on everyone who believes Joseph did it because there is a mountain of evidence of Brigham Joseph F Smith, those people all created, right? But today there is enough evidence of that so much of it like this like it is so obvious. Brigham said one thing and now we've got to turn it into another thing because oh, well, we got, you know, massage this so that it's more believable, right? Like we gotta, we gotta pretend like we're being um truthful historians, but I'm just like, you know, just put it out there just like I know it is just so frustrating. I feel like we are fighting a battle that's occurring as fast as people like you and me who are in this battle to exonerate Joseph and Emma and Hiram and to set out the truth. And, and really, quite frankly, to me, this really the only reason Joseph em and Hiram Matter is because the character of God matters. And so we're fighting this battle and then it feels like this other side is taking everything they think we can possibly use to prove our case and then twisting and turning it and massaging it and manipulating it to, to, you know, just continue to uphold their narrative and to um poke holes, try to poke holes in ours. But for me, I just think it, it's, it's hard for the people who don't know how to research. Like you have done so much to learn how to research. Like you've really dove all in and you spend hours and hours and hours. And so like today we are, we're doing laundry and we're, you know, Michelle's cleaned up after her Thanksgiving and my family Thanksgiving is tomorrow. So I'm preparing for it and we're, you know, watching kids and driving kids places and all this and then in between running and researching. But like we, we've really gotten good at researching so we can, you know, it doesn't take us too many hours to find things. I it really bothers me for the people who are listening to these things and reading these things who first of all don't think to go research. They're just like they, I've been taught, we've all been taught. The church doesn't lead us astray. So, it, it's on L ds.org. It's truth. Right. And so it takes a lot to be brave enough to say, I'm going to go research what's on there and I'm going to find out for myself if it's really true. Because why would we even think that it's not? So, that's my first frustration. And then the second one is, I'm frustrated with those who are trying to learn how to research or are allowing themselves to question, they are asking, you know, some questions and wanting to answers and then they take this mismatch and they would never think to go do the research that you've done to find out all of the lies that are woven into what three little paragraphs
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n_mDIsV6LI&t=2h42m35s 2:42:35]
Michelle: it's, it's like Saints has made us hit a new low. It's like we've hit a new low, right? And so, oh, it's incredible. OK. So I just had to pause for a minute because we have another thing we're going to talk about, but I couldn't remember if it's in part one or part two. So I just um found out from my producer that it's in part two. So we're gonna wrap this bonus content up right now. And then in part two, there will be more bonus content. So the, the search continues and this is why we need all hands on deck. Everybody searching. It was Whitney's reader that sent her the Levi Richards sermon that the church historians have teams of on staff, full time historians. We're like busy moms doing this on our own. So everyone join in, right? Like every resource and never hesitate to reach out to either of us. And you know, just let's keep sharing this content because part of what Whitney said that I loved when we talked about this is how we could just show people how this is like an ongoing search. We're just constantly being detectives seeing what we can find. It's not like we know everything and are presenting to you. We're just looking and the more people looking the better. Like we kind of thought it'll be fun to record after in between laundry and running kids and making dinner, et cetera to let people know how crazy this is. Ok. Thanks again. Have a great week and we'll see you next week.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Interview]][[Category:Whitney Horning]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Church History]][[Category:Face To Face]][[Category:Historical Malpractice]][[Category:Quentin L. Cook]]
}}

93: Revisiting Mountain Meadows w/ Barbara Jones Brown

2025-08-29T23:04:17Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 93: Revisiting Mountain Meadows w/ Barbara Jones Brown
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 93
| date = 2023-11-19
| youtube_id = sHqxrXo-6ls
| tags = Church History, Mountain Meadows
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Barbara Jones Brown, Interview
| summary = Barbara Jones Brown, author with Richard Turley of Vengeance is Mine, The Mountain Meadows Massacre and its Aftermath, joins me to discuss this most horrific part of our Utah and LDS history.[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/99279f54-9c69-41a1-ac5d-e6069f9a2920/0/1701 Brigham's letter]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=00m00s 00:00]
Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy, where we explore the scriptural theological and historical case for plural marriage. Today, we are taking a bit of a side track track from that topic to instead talk about one of the most painful violent events in Mormon history and that is Mountain Meadows massacre. I am so excited for the opportunity to bring this conversation to you with Barbara Jones Brown who I just immensely admire and was so happy to be able to talk to. She is an editor, a historian and author and she is going to come and share some of her insights on this topic. We unfortunately only had a little while to talk. So some of you will be thankful, we maybe appreciate a little bit short episode this week, but she has promised to come back so we could delve into some more issues that I would love to talk to her about. So I'm so thankful that she came to talk to me. I'm thankful that you are here and thank you for joining us as we take this deep dive into the, I can't even call these murky waters into the bloody waters of the Mountain Meadow massacre. Welcome to 100 32 problems. I am thrilled to be here with Barbara Jones Brown today. I'm so thankful that she has agreed to come and talk to me and I'm so just amazed and thankful for the work that she has done. So we're just gonna dive right in and Barbara, I actually don't know that much about you. So I'll tell a little bit of what I know to the audience and then ask you to go ahead and round out the introduction. Is that all right? I, I know that Barbara right now is the CEO of signature books, which I think is awesome. And before that you were the, was it called the managing director, Director of the Mormon History, executive
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=01m55s 01:55]
Barbara: Director of the Mormon History Association?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=01m58s 01:58]
Michelle: Ok. And I know you've done other amazing things. You were the editor on Rick Turley's first book Me Me, I mean, first book on Mountain Meadows, The um Massacre at Mountain Meadows. And then you and Rick Turley co-wrote this recent book, Vengeance Is Mine, which is a brand new way of looking at mountain meadows that I just find compelling. I have to say this book is, it is a must read. That's chilling. I need to go back and reread the first one because it's been many years. It is a hard topic. So I'm eager to talk to you. I just really quickly, I know you did your undergrad at BYU and your master's at the U in American History. And, and you have at least two Children. Is that correct? That's my
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=02m42s 02:42]
Barbara: husband and I have five altogether. So I have three stepsons from my husband's first marriage and then we have two girls together. So, all together. We have five kids and one grandchild and another coming November 30th.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=02m54s 02:54]
Michelle: So. Oh, congrat. Ok. That's exciting. That's so fun. So, anyway, you have had an amazing career and it's, it's so fun to get to talk to you. So, what did I leave out? What should we know about you?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=03m07s 03:07]
Barbara: Uh That covers a lot of it. Um Before I was executive director of the Mormon History Association, I was historical director of Better Days 2020 which is a Utah nonprofit dedicated to increasing awareness of Utah women's role in the suffrage movement and in activism and so forth. So I learned a lot about uh Utah women's history as well through that. And I love history. I'm passionate about it. Uh My background is in editing. I used to be an editor for the Ensign Magazine and for the New Era magazine years ago, uh until I started getting interested in history and Mormon history and then I decided I wanted to become a historian. So went back to school and earn my master's degree in American History.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=03m54s 03:54]
Michelle: Oh, ok. That's good to hear how that happened. So, OK, that, and that's how you got interested in it. And it's so fascinating. So, ok, there's so many directions I want to go talking about this. So Mountain Meadows, did you just get drawn into that topic specifically? Because Richard Turley reached out to you to be his editor? Is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=04m14s 04:14]
Michelle: that ok?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=04m15s 04:15]
Barbara: So this is interesting. The first time I ever heard about the Mountain Meadows massacre was when I was 22 and I actually have the artifact. It happens to be hanging in my office. So I'm just gonna go like this for a second and, and show your viewers that. But um so my dad was really into Mormon History, a Mormon Americana. So he collected all kinds of historical artifacts and things. And so this, that I just showed you was hanging on our wall growing up. And as I looked at it, I it just looked like a mountain scene with the wagon company going into a valley. I never really looked very closely at it. But then in 1990 two, I started looking more closely and there was a group of these very racialized, inaccurate depictions of native Americans. And for the first time I noticed them there in the corner. And so I said, and then I looked at the bottom and it said mountain meadows. And I said, dad, what, what's mountain Meadows? And he told me about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which was just absolutely shocking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=05m23s 05:23]
Michelle: while preparing to release this episode. I realized that in our limited time, we hadn't really described exactly what happened at the Mountain Meadows massacre. So for anyone not familiar with the Mountain Meadows massacre, I thought a very brief overview would enable people to better understand the conversation. I wrote this up taken heavily from Richard Turley's and Barbara Jones Brown's books. I hope I didn't. I'm I'm not misleading anyone on any of the details. If so please correct me in the comments. September 11th, 1857 after a four day siege, a California bound wagon train made up mostly of families who had circled the wagons after a supposed Indian attack was out of water and desperate to find a way out of their terrible predicament. The Mormon leaders worried that witnesses in the wagon train would know that Mormons not just Indians were their Attackers made the horrible decision that anybody old enough quote to tell tales must be eliminated. They called out the militia and gave the men detailed instructions. All the immigrants except the small Children were to be killed using a false flag of truth, promising to escort them safely out of the valley. The Mormons lured the immigrants out of their circled wagons, the women and Children walking ahead, followed by the men and the older boys in a single file line, each with the militia escort walking beside him after walking over a mile, the militia commander turned and yelled the order. Halt at that. Each militia man turned and shot the man or boy beside him. Then the paiutes who had been told to hide along with the militiamen killed all of the women and older Children along with many little ones. After less than six horrific minutes, 120 men, women and Children lay lifeless on the bloody meadow. Only 17 traumatized and some badly injured young Children, 26 year olds and the rest younger who had just watched their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, their entire families brutally and ruthlessly murdered were left alive. The Mountain Meadows massacre. The most horrific event in the history of Mormonism is part of our history that we should know about and grapple with in order to understand our past, our present and help shape our
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=07m52s 07:52]
Michelle: future.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=07m54s 07:54]
Barbara: I said, why, why would these Mormon settlers wipe out a wagon train of immigrants? Why? And he says, well, we don't really know much about it. Um, supposedly they had the gun that killed Joseph Smith and poisoned a well in Utah. And I just said so, even if that's true, like how does that justify wiping out men, women and Children? And he just says, we just don't know much about it. And so ever since then, it was always on my back burner. It's just something I always wanted to learn more about. And so, um, I had turned in a resume to the church history department after I resigned from full time employment at the ensign because I had a, a baby and I wanted to be at home with her, but I still wanted to do freelance work. And so six months later to make a long story short, I got a phone call from Richard E Turley Junior who was managing director of the L DS church history department at the time. And he was working on this book and he just said, I want you to come and interview with me for a full time editing position. And I said, well, what would I be doing? He said, I want you to edit my book on the Mount Meadows Massacre. And I said, I'll be right. Um And so he hired me to, to work on that book. And so that's how I got into Mountain Meadows. And it was while I was working on the subject and just digging into the primary sources to learn everything I could about it. Um I decided I wanted to become a historian. I decided I didn't want to simply edit historians. I wanted to be a historian. And so I went back to graduate school to earn my master's in American history. And then Rick asked me to co-author volume two, Vengeance's Mind, the Mountain Meadows massacre and its aftermath, which covers everything that picking up where the first book massacre in Mountain Meadows left off picking up there and then going all the way through the execution of one of its perpetrators John D Lee and the death of Brigham Young in 1877.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=10m01s 10:01]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. I love that you with two little baby girls, started a whole new career. That's incredible. That's,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=10m09s 10:09]
Michelle: yeah, I definitely
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=10m09s 10:09]
Barbara: had a very, very supportive spouse who um, I was working part time going to grad school part time and we had these two little girls, we were raising, our boys were a little bit older by then, but um very supportive spouse. So that's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=10m26s 10:26]
Michelle: fantastic. That's, that's so good. That's what it takes, right? It's a team. So, have you mentioned that? So I want to explain. So I first actually asked you on, asked Barbara to come on because I was going to do a series on blood atonement. I'm I'm going through kind of Brigham's false doctrines that we've rejected and one of them is blood atonement. So I had a three part series plant and I wanted one of the parts to be a mountain meadows. But I, I, I do uh I don't not know how you studied this so deeply because I didn't even get in depth into mountain meadows, but studying the rest of blood atonement got so dark and so heavy. And it was when I um finally got into the Timpanogos um massacre that I just was like, I, I can't do it anymore. I, you know, I just intentionally, even after well over a month of intensive research, I just set it all aside. I still have all of my files. But like what did doing studying this do to you guys? I can't, I, it's hard. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=11m30s 11:30]
Barbara: So I should, I should first point out that we do talk about, we address the subject of blood, blood atonement in vengeance's mind. And in fact, we have an incident um that is do well documented in which Isaac Hate, who was the state president of Cedar City and Philip Klingensmith, who's the bishop of Cedar City in which they carry out blood atonement on a man who is a repeated uh confessed adulterer with, with a young girl. Um So of course, that was very wrong but but um executing him was not extra legal violence was not OK. But so we do talk about it and address it. But what our research found that the the Mountain Meadows massacre was not a result of blood atonement like blood atonement. Definitely that teaching at the time definitely uh contributed to a mindset of violence. But the motive behind the Mountain Meadows massacre was not blood atonement. But so I just want to say that first but and then we can get into the motives behind the massacre if, if you'd like to as well. But studying the violence of the massacre uh was incredibly difficult. It, it was an incredibly violent, horrific act of group violence. Um And how did I get through it? Eventually I started meaning to send in some victims and I did not know that this would help me get through it. But as I met descendants of victims of the massacre and just told them how sorry I was for what had happened to their ancestors and how wrong it was. What had happened to their ancestors after I started meeting them and then saying what it meant so much to them to hear that from a latter day saint just saying, I'm so sorry. Um And then I would say, what can I do for you? And they wanted the story told about what had happened to their ancestors. They wanted their ancestors to not never be forgotten. And then they wanted the land at the mountain meadows where the remains of their ancestors lie today um to be protected in perpetuity. Um And we achieved that through seeking national historic landmark status together, the various groups coming together. So once I realized there was something I could do for the victims and that was serving their descendants and reaching out to their descendants. And I started doing that, that's how I got through uh learning about the violence because I knew I was researching that violence and telling the truth about that violence for them. Oh Yeah. And that's how I got through it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=14m21s 14:21]
Michelle: OK. So, so did you, while you were backing up just a little, did you feel like you had some sort of trauma from study? Like was it traumatic for you to study it? Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=14m31s 14:31]
Barbara: Absolutely. And there were several of us that were really, um, experiencing the trauma. And in fact, I remember at the time my next door neighbor was a licensed therapist and I was just telling her about the nightmares I was having, I had two little little girls at the time. And right, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=14m49s 14:49]
Michelle: was, you're in the position of those moms trying to hold that baby.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=14m54s 14:54]
Barbara: I did not identify with the Mormon militiamen, even though I'm a lateral, I did not identify with them. I identified with the immigrant women who were suffering and were trying to just protect their Children and could do nothing to protect their Children. They were murdered as well as their Children were being murdered. Um So as I would share what I was going through, you know, the nightmares I was having, I was seeing like images. I would um I remember once I was holding one of my little girls and holding the hand of my other little girl and running to catch a bus, oh my girls and running as fast as I could. And I just started hyperventilating and I had to stop because I, all of a sudden I was at the Mount Meadows running with my Children. Um Just things like that. And so as I was expressing those experiences to my neighbor who's a licensed therapist, she said, you know, everything you're describing are symptoms of PTSD. And I said, can, can someone have ptsd just from studying a violent event. And she said, I don't know, but I do know those are all symptoms of it. So, but again, once I started meeting folks who were descendants of victims and doing those things I described it went away.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=16m10s 16:10]
Michelle: Ok. Do you know what I love about that so much? One thing I talk about a lot is like repentance, the power of repentance, right? That the first two principles of the gospel are faith and repentance. And like, like you didn't do anything wrong, but this kind of generational repentance is part of what I think we have. And that includes telling the truth, confessing, do, doing what we can and then doing what we can to rectify. And so even though you didn't do anything, you being a part of the repentance process on behalf of our people killed you, I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=16m43s 16:43]
Barbara: absolutely. And I would call it like, like you said, none of us alive today are responsible for the massacre. And so um I think a slightly better word than repentance is reconciliation part of the reconciliation process. Um So although I can't repent of committing it, I can reach out to descendants of victims in a spirit of reconciliation and just say, I am so sorry for what happened. Recognizing that it was wrong, recognizing that it happened, expressing that sorrow and saying, OK, what can we do today to heal? So, yeah, it's a very powerful experience and um it's taught me that not just with mountain meadows, but with many, many, a lot of intergenerational trauma, the way to heal from it is, is just starting by acknowledging that that something happened. Yeah. And telling the truth about it and then expressing sorrow,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=17m41s 17:41]
Michelle: being able to acknowledge that our ancestors and our religious tradition did things that were wrong. And I guess that's what I, for me, that's how I look at it as repentance because it's, it's this change of heart, you know, like, like this change of heart to say I can acknow that, that was wrong and, and that, that's not who God is and that's not who I am. And I don't have to say because that was my people and because that was my ancestors, I have to try to defend it. That's like you feel trapped in it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=18m10s 18:10]
Barbara: Exactly. Yeah. And there's absolutely no defense, no justification. Um I think to, to, to truly feel that sorrow for it, you have to understand what happened. And so I was able to express sincere deep sorrow for what happened because I was studying it. And that's what, you know, readers now, they can take uh this book and read it and like, truly personally feel sorrow for what happened. And so I love speaking about me meadows. Every time we speak, I just spoke a couple of days ago, every time we speak about it, we have people come to us and whether they are descendants of perpetrators themselves or just simply members of the church or just simply tans, whatever. Um When they say, oh, I've been reading your book and I'm feeling such incredible sorrow over it. Um That's when you could truly then say I'm so sorry for what happened.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=19m09s 19:09]
Michelle: I OK, I agree. And I wanna say, like people can read this book without reading the first one. I like, I just did that and it makes you really want to go back and read or reread the first one. But you can start with this one, which in a way I kind of like doing because you get all of the context before the gory details. So you kind of know what was going on, why it was happening, what the rep like what ended up happening. Do you know what I mean? It pains it really, it's really good to understand that full picture and then go back and read about the actual events. Thank
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=19m44s 19:44]
Barbara: you. Yeah, that's great to hear because that was our intent. We wanted to write volume two. though it do, does a deep dive into the aftermath of the massacre, we didn't want readers to have to read the first one. And so we start on September 11th, 1857 and go forward. But through the use of flashback and summary, we do bring readers up to speed. So you don't have to read both books. But if you do want to do a deep dive. Like you're saying, you could also um read volume one and also something. Volume one has Massacre at Mountain Meadows has that volume two doesn't, is an appendix appendices of lists of the perpetrators who are involved in the crime and lists of the victims as well. So that in those appendices that are not in volume two.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=20m36s 20:36]
Michelle: OK. So I, I wanted to have the hard copy copy. I should just show everybody but I, I have it on Kindle and on audio, on audible. But I have this right here so I can show this is the book. Vengeance is mine. And so um this is what you're looking for. And I, I wanted to have Barbara on, I know this would be a weird Christmas present maybe. But I'm like, people need to know about this really good book because when we're grappling with our painful, this is like, like when people are so determined to defend the church and all of the, all of the things that happened. This is a really good thing to understand this, this topic. So I think people should definitely consider that. I will say the audio version is fantastic. I love
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=21m18s 21:18]
Michelle: the reader.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=21m19s 21:19]
Barbara: They hired a professional reader, a professional actor and he does all the voices. I was really pleased with how the audio book turned out. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=21m29s 21:29]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. So it's really good. So I know we don't have that long. So I want to just dive into it really quickly because I was glad that you addressed. Um Well, like you didn't, it didn't feel like a incredibly apologetic book I went in not at all. Like it's not at all. Right? Like you include the things that Brigham said. I mean, I know a lot more but you, you quote the hard stuff and you go into it. I love, it feels very fair and even handed you're not sugar coating, but you're also not like, like, you know, there have been other books written, like we either want to do an apologetic version or a really accusatory version. So I've really liked you giving us the sources. That's what I wish historians would always do is say this person said this, this, you know, you give us a good, yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=22m16s 22:16]
Barbara: And I said my, my training, you know, my graduate training in history uh helped with that, you know, and, and of course, my co author had the same feeling but um uh all human beings are biased, that's just part of being human. But the way that you address that um as a historian is, you share as many sources, all the sources you can find and you share the various viewpoints and lay it all out and explain your interpretations. But with your interpretations, you have uh you document all the sources that you're basing your interpretations on. And, and yeah, we, we went to the hard places we shared all of the, the troubling things. Um the troubling themes and, and doctrines like blood atonement that were being taught and um the horrific wrong decisions that were made by people. So we also like to lay out the, the context. There's, there's absolutely zero justification for the Mountain Meadows massacre, no justification whatsoever. But by understanding the historical context, then we can see how something as horrific as this took place.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=23m30s 23:30]
Michelle: That's what I was going to ask. Do you want to, I know we don't have very long. So do you want to just take a few minutes though, to explain how this came about what the um what that context was?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=23m41s 23:41]
Barbara: Sure. So in 1857 President James Buchanan, newly elected president of the United States decides that it's necessary to replace Brigham Young as territorial governor of Utah and also to send uh an army contingent of 2500 soldiers initially to occupy Utah territory. And he makes that decision based on reports. He's receiving that Utah is a uh that there's a growing theocracy in the, in the West and which is true. Brigham Young was not only the governor of the territory, he was also president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So, um and also there were reports that Latter day Saints were forming alliances with local natives. Now, of course, that's based on L DS doctrine that's based on Book of Mormon that, that these kind of, of, of friendships and relationships would take place. But for um people in the East Americans in the East, they were very suspicious of those friendships and alliances. They were concerned about that. And then also there was a concern about polygamy which was now um being public uh practiced publicly by the latter day Saints in Utah. So for all these reasons, Buchanan decides he needs to replace Brigham Young and send an army to make sure that uh this new territorial governor is received and is safe and um just kind of trying to control what's going on in the West simultaneously. You have similar kinds of things going on in the South for different reasons. This is of course just before the civil war, but Buchanan decides to try and quell what he perceives as um a rebellion in the West. So the latter day Saints, when they hear the news that troops are approaching, they from their mindset, they have been violently driven from Illinois and Missouri in the prior two decades. So they react very negatively and with fear. And Brigham Young says we will let the new territorial governor and other appointees come in but the troops shall not enter our territories, they shall not occupy Utah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=26m00s 26:00]
Michelle: Can I ask you a really quick question about that? Of course. So, so one thing in my studies that has, has emerged at times is that the army that was here before was at Steptoe army that was passing, the army had been in Utah. I'm sorry,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=26m17s 26:17]
Barbara: they were passing through, they weren't occupying Utah territory. They were passing through on their
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=26m21s 26:21]
Michelle: way. They were just there for a little while. And, um, and my understanding is is that when they left and went on their way to California, I believe some of the Utah women, I guess they weren't Utah yet, but girls and women kind of saw them as their, it was escape route and went
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=26m37s 26:37]
Michelle: with them. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=26m38s 26:38]
Barbara: some women from Utah did leave with Steptoe army,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=26m43s 26:43]
Michelle: right? And, and then, and then also Brigham complained about them sort of fraternizing with the women in Utah, you know, flirting and I haven't been able to find any accounts of like sexual assault or any, you know, it, it sounds more like Brigham just didn't want them to fraternize and that maybe Brigham kind of wanted to control the girls and the women not allow them to have a different alternatives because they were such a high commodity at that time in Utah. Do you think that that played in at all to part of his insistence that the next arm that Johnston's army did not come to Utah?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=27m19s 27:19]
Barbara: Um Yeah, so um it's called the here's one thing really quick. I just want to correct with people for. So whenever, thank you, people commonly say Johnston's army, which is like, not an accurate term. So I'm just trying to share the word that the actual term was the Utah expedition was the name of that army that came in. Ok. So, yeah, so with the Utah expedition, I think there was definite concern about again, you have army coming in and um concern that maybe some Mormon women, would our troops or when these troops would leave, maybe leave with them. So I think that was definitely part of it. I think just in general, I mean, can you imagine today if all of a sudden we heard that the President of the United States was sending federal troops to come occupy our cities today?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=28m06s 28:06]
Michelle: Yeah, it would be absolutely not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=28m08s 28:08]
Barbara: Right. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=28m10s 28:10]
Michelle: Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=28m11s 28:11]
Michelle: Especially this traumatized people. They also lost n they, I mean, it had happened again and again and I did find quotes where Brigham expected to be chased out of Utah, you know, but then he also expected to go back to Missouri. So I understand at the same time, I'm sympathetic with the United States. Like when you look at the FL DS, you know, that was a horrible thing that happened. The rating of the short creation for Zion Ranch, the FL DS group. But at the same time, it's really good that it happened. So it's hard to, it's hard to weigh these things out. They're difficult on both sides.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=28m44s 28:44]
Barbara: Exactly. And, and again, as a historian, we just share this is this point viewpoint, this is this viewpoint and this is, yeah, why it led to a clash and then people can make their own judgments about how they feel about it, you know. But um yeah, so it's, it's, it's easy to understand both sides, the reaction of both sides from the federal government's point of view and then from the latter day saints point of view where they're coming from. So Brigham Young writes in his journal and again, this is all in our book, we go into it in detail all of this. But he writes in his journal when he hears the troops are coming, he says, I feel to be oppressed no more. And that's one of the titles of our chapters is oppressed no more. So he's determined that the latter of Saints will not be driven from their homes again. And I determined to not have federal soldiers occupying the the territory.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=29m33s 29:33]
Barbara: So he comes up with strategies, he and his advisors come up with strategies to keep the troops out and hopefully convince Congress and the president to pull the troops back. So one of those stra strategies is they send Mormon militiamen uh into what is today Wyoming to burn the grass uh on the trails ahead of the approaching troops and their supply wagons. So some people may have heard of these famous lot Smith expeditions and and others where they're like burning the grass on the trail so that their animals are dying. So they can't keep pulling the wagons, they burn supply wagons. Uh, they have it, um, instructions not to kill anyone, but just to harass the troops and just to stall them on the planes. And in fact, that's exactly what happens. The troops, they cannot, um, progress. They cannot make it into Utah's territory. So they end up wintering on the planes near, um, the burned down Fort Bridger at the time. So that's successful. And then within the territory, Brigham Young is sending um uh advisory letters throughout the territory telling people to preserve their grain, not to sell any of their grain to passing immigrants to store it in case they have have to go into a siege if the army does make it in, prepare your ammunition, your guns and be ready for a possible um war if the troops do make it in. And then another strategy is Brigham Young knows that the Saints best leverage is to say, hey, we've been keeping all of these trails that lead to the we co west coast safe for emigration because we're here. We are mitigating uh conflicts between native peoples and passing immigrants, keeping it so that these trails are still open for immigration. So he starts saying after the troops are on their way, he's preaching this, he's writing letters back east. He is telling reporters all of this. He's saying if you send troops here, I will say to the Indians no more, I will hold them back. No more but say to them do as you please. And so again, he's playing on racialized stereotypes of the 19th century that uh Indians are savages and they are just gonna all hell is gonna break loose and they're gonna start attacking all of these immigrant trains. Um Unless you pull the troops out. Ok. So, so what we documented is that between September 7th and October 3rd, 1857 multiple cattle raids on immigrant companies that are trailing cattle, multiple raids take place on multiple trains through multiple locations throughout Utah territory. Only one of them goes awry and ultimately leads to the massacre.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=32m41s 32:41]
Michelle: Ok. This is, this is super helpful. I wanted people to understand that because I love understanding this context. So Brigham, I want to talk about this part of his strategy because I, so I have to say the more, well, it's hard to know where to go first. But the more I have studied Brigham Young, the more I feel like I'm kind of starting to paint at least in my own mind, kind of a character of who of, of uh you know, an understanding of who at least I think he was. And um and so I, I think that the, the idea that he is telling the federal government, hey, look, the Indians are these wild savages big bad. You need to be so afraid of them and it's just me keeping them at bay while what he's actually doing is, he's the big bad guy. He's the one attacking the trains. He's the one, if any native Americans are involved, it's him stoking. He's, he has to try to encourage them to do it. So, I don't know if you've seen, um, American Tale. That was a movie. I raised my oldest kids on with Fel Masts. It's, it reminds me of the scene where, um, it's, it's the, the rat that is keeping all of the cats safe if they pay him enough, right? And then it turns out no, he's the, he's the leader of this gang of cats, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=33m58s 33:58]
Movie Clip: It's Zach. What? War? And t he's not a rat, he's a cat. He's there. Pay no attention to that little mouse, just throw down all your money and that kid. And I will personally convince these cats to leave you alone.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=34m15s 34:15]
Michelle: And that's what, um, Brigham Young is doing. He's, he's saying, hey, I'm your protector when really what he kind of is, is the instigator. He's the threat, not the, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=34m24s 34:24]
Barbara: will say that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=34m24s 34:24]
Barbara: So, um, he was governor of Utah and then he was also Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah. So every territory, every state had a superintendent of Indian Affairs and that person was, um, had sub agents who actually were trying to mitigate as, as they were encroaching on native lands and taking those lands. They were trying to mitigate and make sure that the, um, native Americans didn't attack and so they would give presents, they would uh and by presence, it was um blankets and clothing and food and wagons. And again, this isn't just in Utah, this is happening throughout the West and also trying to teach native Americans white man's way of farming. So in other words, trying to make them like white men and trying to integrate them into uh white men's culture in order to try and keep those trails open and keep that immigration flowing. It was a way to try and um pacify native Americans whose lands and water and everything were, were being taken. Um So he, he and his agents were doing that. They were mitigating these conflicts beforehand. It's just in 1857. Um He decides to stop mitigating and, but then not only that he is having um Indian interpreters or in other words, interpreters Mormon missionaries to the Indians who speak these languages lead local Indians in raiding cattle,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m01s 36:01]
Michelle: right? That, well, that's, I guess what I mean that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m03s 36:03]
Barbara: just say I don't want a drop of blood to be shed. Um By doing this, we will win public opinion.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m10s 36:10]
Michelle: Mhm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m11s 36:11]
Barbara: So he does not order a massacre but when things go awry with one of these cattle raids at the mountain meadows, eventually it leads to local people particularly um Isaac Haight, who's the local militia leader and state president of Cedar City, making the horrific decision that they need to wipe out these people. And I can tell about how it got to that as well. When, when you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m37s 36:37]
Michelle: do you want, do you want, I can sum that up fast or you sum that up because it's your work. So, um, I have other things I want to get to too. So I, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m47s 36:47]
Michelle: really quickly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=36m48s 36:48]
Barbara: So the first attack on an immigrant train takes place at the mo the one inc camped at the mountain meadows in Southwester Utah takes place on September 7th and instead of just running off the cattle, which is what happens with all of the other raids. Um Some people are killed, some, some of the immigrants are killed in the process and the immigrants form a wagon corral they dig in, they circle their wagons, chain the wheels together. And so they're dug in there. And then when two Mormon militiamen are on their way back from Mount Meadows back to Cedar City, they encounter two emigrant men several miles back who were behind the main company just rounding out straight cattle to bring them in. And when they come upon these two immigrant men, these two Mormon militia men from Cedar City make the horrible decision that to contain the situation. They need to kill these two immigrant men so they fire on them and they kill one of them. We know his name was William Aden and the other one they miss and he rides back and they chase him back all the way to the mountain meadows and this other immigrant man man gets inside his wagon corral. And then so now what you have is inside everyone inside that wagon corral is deemed a witness that White Latter Day Saints are involved in all these raids.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=38m20s 38:20]
Michelle: The necessary story was that it was Native Americans. And the and the Latter day Saints are protecting you from the native Americans that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=38m28s 38:28]
Barbara: then they find out, oh, white Mormons are involved in this attack. Is that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=38m32s 38:32]
Michelle: why they wanted to kill the two men too? Because the, the two men would see these two Mormons and say, oh, this is the Mormons doing it. So that's why they wanted to kill
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=38m40s 38:40]
Michelle: them. They're like, oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=38m41s 38:41]
Barbara: we better contain the situation because otherwise they're gonna, but it was, it was just a horrible, it was just a series of, it's horrible like a domino effect of horrible disease.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=38m51s 38:51]
Michelle: It's kind of like a robbery gone bad. Like I only wanted to go into this house and steal their goods, but they saw they woke up. So now I have to kill everybody that's kind of they were covering.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m03s 39:03]
Michelle: And so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m03s 39:03]
Barbara: this is, this is coming from the the perpetrators words themselves. This is, this is not us making it up or guessing. This is what they thought. This is what they say. The this is why they made this decision. And so that's why they determined to kill everyone inside except those who are too young to tell tales. And so 17 Children aged six and under, most of them babies and toddlers were spared to slaughter.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m29s 39:29]
Michelle: Although many babies out, Rosa
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m31s 39:31]
Barbara: killed, wiped out the witnesses of what was happening.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m35s 39:35]
Michelle: Yeah. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m36s 39:36]
Michelle: So, so they didn't set out with the goal of killing this wagon train, which is it? But it was, they were, they were a people steeped in bloody rhetoric and sometimes steeped in blood. There had already been this really murderous spirit around with, with their, their teaching and some of the things that they did,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m57s 39:57]
Michelle: it might be, it might be
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=39m58s 39:58]
Barbara: going too far to say that all of these people were steeped in blood and you know, they really, but, but they were different. Yeah, like the doctrine of blood atonement that was being taught by Brigham Young at the time. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=40m12s 40:12]
Michelle: Maybe it's possible, I guess that's what it is. It was like within the realm of possibility because this had been the rhetoric. The reformation was awful, the rhetoric from
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=40m22s 40:22]
Barbara: it. Yeah. And it created a, just a uh so you have the reformation which is um just to explain that really quick for, for your listeners is in 1856 and 1857 church leaders started just preaching really, really um strict rhetoric and you know, trying to increase people's activist act activity in the church and commitment to the gospel. They're saying you need to take plural wives. So they're preaching polygamy, they're um and then blood atonement is part of that. You know, if, if anyone commits very serious crimes, they can offer themselves up to be a toned. Um so that they can still go to the celestial kingdom, even if they committed heinous scenes sins like murder or repeated adultery is, is what they deemed heinous sins. Um So you have all the and then you have the war, you know, the fear of war. So war hysteria. So you just have a perfect storm of all of these things that came together at the same time. And then these emigrants who were massacred at Mount Meadows were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=41m28s 41:28]
Michelle: And, and another thing to throw in, in that with the reformation that part of that grew out of, they were in starvation that like they had plague after plague and drown and they were so they were, you know, they were suffering, which probably makes you not at your best. And then they wanted someone to blame for all of this. I'm sure. So, so yes, I think, I think you're right that it was this perfect. I mean, I shouldn't say, I think you're right. I appreciate you describing that way that a perfect storm had come. And so OK, so I app so so really what it was was this war strategy that I definitely have issues with. I don't think it's, I don't think it makes it OK to say Oh, it was this war strategy. I think it was a terrible war strategy that they were doing. I think they
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=42m10s 42:10]
Michelle: were
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=42m11s 42:11]
Barbara: absolutely because look what it led to. So clearly, again, Brigham Young did not intend for this to lead to any deaths. And again, we have the quotes from him saying that in the book uh that are contemporary quotes. But still if you're encouraging counter rating, you know, there can be some consequences and this was very, very serious consequence in time of war. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=42m36s 42:36]
Michelle: So this is part of why I wanted to talk to and part of what I love about you is I do feel like you are just like, so, so just truthful just, you know, I love that and not trying to sugar coat. But, but can we talk for a minute about Brigham? Well, did we leave anything out before we kind of, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=42m55s 42:55]
Barbara: think it's just like a kind of like a brief overview and, and of course, if readers want to learn more, they can dig deep in by reading their book with, you know, a lot more.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=43m04s 43:04]
Michelle: Yes, we've left everything out. Yes, you're right. I, I just meant, was there anything massive in the overview that we needed? I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=43m10s 43:10]
Michelle: overview.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=43m10s 43:10]
Michelle: Sure. Yeah. OK. And I do, I do want to encourage people. I know it's easy to think either I don't want to get into that or um or I don't need to know this book. Starts out in a way that like grabs your heart. It starts out with Rachel Hamlin and this wagon of the 17 traumatized injured babies covered in blood coming to her house and it's the most visceral like from the beginning and then all the way, there are some parts in the middle where it's a lot of names and a lot of, you know, really good information, but you don't want to stop because it gets to the end where it is as important and as captivating as you know, like, like this is a book that you should read from start to finish. It's really, really, really well done. So thank you for it and congratulations on such a good job. But, but I do want to talk about Brigham Young because, um I guess the whole focus is, did he do it? Did he not, did he command it? Did he, did he order it right. And that was the focus from day one when it happened. That was what the, the people that hated and wanted to prove. And, and even now that seems to be the debate. Did Brigham order this? And I think for me, I have sort of a different, well, I kind of, I kind of want to ask first this question from your studies of church history. And do you think Brigham Young? Um What do you think of him? Maybe that's too broad of a question. I'll just kind of explain, like, I really think he was either had some psychopathy or some sociopathy. I, I know he was a massive narcissist. I don't think he had the ability to empathize with people that it wasn't convenient for him to empathize with, for example, with women and their incessant whining, right? Or with like, like, and, and so with this wagon train, I know he was really upset about it but I'm not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=45m06s 45:06]
Barbara: upset at what,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=45m07s 45:07]
Michelle: what do you mean by
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=45m07s 45:07]
Michelle: it about mountain meadows? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm going everywhere
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=45m11s 45:11]
Michelle: it happened.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=45m12s 45:12]
Michelle: He was upset that it happened. Yes. And I know that we have the descriptions but I see, I, I want to kind of give you some of what I see in it and see what you think, you know. But first I, I guess my question is, do you think that if he had the information that, hey, this is your war strategy, you're desperate to keep the army at bay to keep your position and we have white witness, we have witnesses that it's Mormons. Do you think he would have said? Oh, ok. Well, let him go or like, like, do you know what I'm saying? I know that we're not saying he ordered it. But do you think that that that gives him, do you think he wouldn't have, I guess is my question if he had had, if he had been in hates shoes or if he had been there as part of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=45m57s 45:57]
Barbara: Yeah. So that's a great question. That's the first time someone's asked me that with, even with all the interviews I've done. Um So just starting with your first comment on this, Brigham Young is a super complicated person as are most humans. But yeah, there are times that I'm just like, like how he's talking about women um and just telling them to just accept polygamy and get over it and it, you know, as they're traveling across the plains, I've read those accounts, those statements too and it's really troubling. Um There are times I just, and really troubled by a lot of things he says, absolutely. There are other times where he says or does something that's really tender and sweet. So it's, he's complicated
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m43s 46:43]
Michelle: and so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m43s 46:43]
Michelle: I want to clarify
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m45s 46:45]
Michelle: he says
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m46s 46:46]
Barbara: or does and I'll be like, oh my gosh, that is so tender, you know. Um but there's a lot of times he says or does things and I'm like, oh, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m56s 46:56]
Michelle: Yeah. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m57s 46:57]
Barbara: he's, he's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m58s 46:58]
Michelle: accomplished, can I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=46m59s 46:59]
Michelle: clarify that one point? Just sorry. But like my study of narcissism, which I've life has forced me to do, you know, they can be really empathetic when it doesn't hurt them to do. So when it do, you know what I, so I haven't seen Brigham Young choosing empathy at his own expense necessarily anyway, that like I wanted to clarify, that's kind of how I see it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=47m24s 47:24]
Barbara: Yeah. And I'm not a psychologist or, you know, qualified to, you know, um, to, like, analyze somebody psychologically. I'm sure that there are others who are yourself and others. Um, so I wouldn't know if he's a narcissist as well. I would just say he's a very, very complicated person, um, who, and we kind of talk about this in the book, um, with, you know, when we're characterizing him, you know, we're talking about he's saying some really violent things and, and on the other hand, he was tenderly caring for his first wife as she died from TB and did the same for his own mother and then became a father figure for his siblings. And yeah, it's just seems complicated. But do I think he would have said? Oh OK. Yeah, there's witnesses that know about this. Go ahead and wipe these people. I I don't think so. I don't, I mean, Brigham Young had lots of faults but no, I don't think he would have said, wipe out a lot of OK, that goes against, that goes against his beliefs, right? I mean, the Mormon belief system which he preached is if you murder people, you cannot go to the celestial kingdom, right? That's part of their doctor.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=48m40s 48:40]
Michelle: Yeah, it is. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=48m42s 48:42]
Barbara: I think he would have ordered particularly the slaughter of women and Children,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=48m46s 48:46]
Michelle: Children. And that was I, I I'm totally asking you to speculate. So I didn't mean to like put you in it I'm sorry about that. I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=48m54s 48:54]
Barbara: I've never been asked it before but if he had known, like, would he have? Yeah. No,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=49m00s 49:00]
Michelle: I guess, I guess my question is him, how important this strategy was to him and how he didn't seem troubled by the morality or immorality of it,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=49m10s 49:10]
Michelle: of encouraging cattle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=49m10s 49:10]
Barbara: R, yeah, I mean, it,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=49m13s 49:13]
Michelle: and with having to say it's the natives and we're protecting you and having that be blown. I it's hard for me to think he wouldn't prioritize that over just about anything. And then would like, in my opinion, he kind of find ways to just find ways sometimes to justify things that are inconvenient to him. And so I don't think that he would have ordered the murdering of women and Children. I don't even think that's what hate. Like they all I think were horrified after the fact at what they had done. Oh, you don't? Oh, no. Am I wrong? Ok. I thought that I didn't say to do it. You said to do it like they even immediately were trying to blame you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=49m48s 49:48]
Barbara: There is that, but like initially on the Sunday after the mass, I mean, you have 50 to 60 white militiamen that participated, right? And that's, they represent a broad spectrum of different kinds of people, different reactions to it afterwards. So you can't like put them all, you know, paint them with one brush, right? But you do have some that come back. Um, and on September 13th, the Sunday after the massacre, they're bragging about it. So John D Lee comes back and he is, and again, this is all in the book if people want to look into it. But John D Lee comes back and he's like saying Hurrah for Israel and we've overcome our enemies and I mean, he's bra it's, it's bizarre. He's bragging about it until word of Brigham Young's letter comes down. Um Hate had sent a letter uh up on September 7th to Brigham Young saying, what should we do? And Brigham Young says in this letter and that perhaps gives us our best indication of what Brigham Young might have thought. But he says, if you know the Indians will do as they please. He uses that, that statement again, but he says, but you must not meddle with them. And he says, if those who were there will go, let them go in peace. Now, did he have the full story that people within there, the wagon crowl had found out that they knew that Mormons were involved. We don't know if he had that full story or not. But anyways, that's what we do have this letter that was written on September 10th, 1827 and arrives on September 13th in Cedar City.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=51m24s 51:24]
Michelle: Hey, I actually want to add this to the stage and I mean, I want to show you there. It is. Yeah, I, I found the letter and I I'll put a link below because it's in the church history library. I think this is the right one. Right. Yes,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=51m35s 51:35]
Barbara: it is. And we have a transcript of this in both books. And in the first book, me, as we have a picture of this that you can see it in that book. But in the second book, we also have a full transcript of the letter.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=51m48s 51:48]
Michelle: So, so, so like the context, you said, the Isaac Hate sent a letter to Brigham Young that he wrote that got there on the seventh or he wrote on the seventh and wrote it on,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=51m58s 51:58]
Barbara: he, he sent it on September 7th after he learns that there's been this initial
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=52m02s 52:02]
Michelle: attack
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=52m04s 52:04]
Michelle: and we don't have, we don't know exactly what that says because
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=52m07s 52:07]
Barbara: unfortunately, that does not survive. So it was either lost or destroyed. We just, it does not exist. I wish it did. So all we have is descriptions of witnesses who saw the letter being as, as the uh carrier. His name was James Haslam is writing north of Salt Lake City and he's stopping the different towns. Um People are hearing about what the letter from Isaac hate says. And so they're summarizing it in their journals and so forth. So that's all we have. Unfortunately, we don't have the original. But what they're saying is that, um a group of immigrants have been stalled on the planes or that, that, that they're under attack at the Mount Meadows, they're under siege from Indians. Um And Isaac hate is asking what to do. So if there was more detail than that, we just don't know. Unfortunately, so we look at this letter too, that's the other thing you can do is look at this letter and see based on the response that comes back to hate, kind of surmise what hate was asking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=53m11s 53:11]
Michelle: about.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=53m12s 53:12]
Michelle: Right. Right. Ok. So the critical question of we have witnesses, which was the motivation for this. Like this was the critical issue. There are witnesses. We don't know if Brigham was given that piece of information or not. Right? And so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=53m28s 53:28]
Barbara: no, but without that, that the existence of that letter, we don't know. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=53m32s 53:32]
Michelle: OK. And so, um, and it's possible that they didn't tell Brigham that because they also didn't want to get in trouble with Brigham because they massively messed up and maybe not, they don't want Brigham to know it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=53m42s 53:42]
Barbara: Exactly the fact that they are unwilling to tell Brigham Young what happened after they wait a long time, they're arguing over who's gonna tell Brigham they're arguing over what they're gonna say to Brigham. And, and Isaac Hay is telling William Day, the other state president who lives in Parowan who gave the authorization for this to happen with the militiamen. They're arguing over it and hate is saying you cannot tell Brigham Young that militiamen were involved that you have to tell Brigham Young, this is an all Indian massacre. I mean, that right there shows that they knew that this is not what Brigham Young intended. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=54m24s 54:24]
Michelle: Right. And I guess the thing that, that becomes the question to me is like, is it not what Brigham Young intended because of the loss of life is unthinkable or because of the bad, you know, the bad publicity that it would bring to the Mormons, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=54m37s 54:37]
Barbara: think, I think, ok,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=54m40s 54:40]
Michelle: ok, because, because I'm going through it because as I've been, I don't know what you think of. Is it Bill Hickman. Brigham's avenging
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=54m47s 54:47]
Barbara: Wild Bill Hickman. Yeah. Um, Bill Hickman and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=54m50s 54:50]
Michelle: like, like reading his book is part of what I did as I was studying and while, you know, you have to take everything with a grain of salt when you look up these things and we know that there was this obvious, obvious pattern of blaming things on the Indians. Right? Like that. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, when we see who, like Almon Babbitt and John W Long and, and you listed some others in the book, the father and son, I can't think of their names. Um, that were like, like, like murders were happening and then this, you know, the, the Timpanogos tribe that were wiped out, like it seems that there was some, um, well, because Brigham Young, even after Almon Babbitt was killed by, by Indians, right? Which doesn't make any sense to me that, no, it doesn't.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=55m38s 55:38]
Barbara: No, no, it makes sense. Yeah. Yeah, he was, he was his, his, uh, wagon company was wiped out, um, on the planes by a group of Indians. So, I'm not, those kinds of things happened. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=55m50s 55:50]
Michelle: Right. But we have Brigham bragging about it and kind of using it as threats for other people that were inconvenient to him. So, so it's,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=55m57s 55:57]
Michelle: huh, I've never
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=55m58s 55:58]
Barbara: heard that. So, you're, you're more an expert on that than I am.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=56m02s 56:02]
Michelle: No, I'm not. And maybe, and maybe I'll find something I don't want anyway. So it, so it just raises flags, red flags to me, you know, like that these things could have been happening and I guess that's why I come to, it's like did brig didn't, well, it's like more important to understand who he was and I think that this strategy was so important to him, you know, that it's, and, and I think so. So I want to talk about this letter because you point out a couple of things in the book that I'm looking for. But I see a pattern in Brigham Young. I'm, I'm studying polygamy in depth, right? And there's often a tendency to, well, and also studying the history because when I, what I see in the history, the historical process that Brigham Young went through, they've really, really altered the history to tell the story that they wanted to tell that brig, that he calls it the new order of things. And so I see for me a pattern of sort of using letters or even journal entries to tell the story he wants to tell, to put it in the record to try to shape history if that makes sense. And so a couple of examples from the book, oh, go ahead. Did you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=57m05s 57:05]
Michelle: have now, I'm,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=57m06s 57:06]
Barbara: I'm very suspicious of like theories that how people wrote things in their journals that they didn't, they just said this wrote this to cover themselves, but that's not what really happened or people put this in a letter so that later they could say, oh, like I just, yeah, as a historian, I don't, I don't think that's how people behave, like pretend to write things in journals that years later might throw people off. Does that make sense? So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=57m38s 57:38]
Michelle: yes, yes. II I think I hear what you're saying. I'm looking at it specifically with Brigham Young with how he was using the journals and how he was. So let me give you one example and, and we can move on if this is, you know. No, that's great. Let's let's talk about it. OK. This is from chapter 10 of your book and it's um so Brigham's friend um Bell, what's his first name? Um John Bell or Bell will be William Bell. So he's getting ready to leave and um and Brigham he wants safe passage. So it says Young soon wrote Southern Utah leader Isaac leaders, Isaac Hate and John D Lee about the Bell Company just over a month had passed since Young heard Lee's account of the massacre. And Young's letter made clear that he did not want the bell train raided. So William Bell, the William Bell, the letter began a person with whom you are both well acquainted would soon be passing through Southern Utah to California. As the Indians beyond you are reported to be somewhat troublesome and hostile to travelers. Young wrote in a veiled reference, I wish you to procure for Mr Bell and, and all the company, the services of an interpreter and a good Indian. He suggested Jacob Hamblin. And anyway, so, so he's saying, hey, in this letter that, you know, the natives are restless,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=58m51s 58:51]
Barbara: young, young knows he's been encouraging cattle rating that right when he's writing this letter. And so he's just very careful about it as we've heard that the Indians have been, you know, that there's been troubles with Indians further south, please make sure that they pass through safely. And then he says, I want this company to pass through with all their effects, right? So it's clear I don't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=59m16s 59:16]
Michelle: want the Indians to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=59m18s 59:18]
Barbara: rating of no rating of this company. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=59m21s 59:21]
Michelle: Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=59m22s 59:22]
Michelle: So that's one example of a letter where it's, you know, like and there's, and then, and then in his journal, so you talk about this as well. This is Brigham Young's jo this is from chapter three on September 1st. His diary is another example of, I think how he could sometimes be, you know, create these false narratives. And so I think it says the Southern Utah Indians spend about an hour with young. And so, um Hamlin had brought, uh, brought a train from Southern Utah and then when they got there, they were met with young and Huntington in Young's office for about an hour. In that meeting, Huntington said I, I gave them all the cattle that had gone to California the south route. So he's telling them all of those trains, you guys attack those and get all the cattle. The Indians, the Indians opened their eyes wide and surprised responding. You have told us not to steal. So I have Huntington answered, but now they have come to fight us and you for when they kill us, they will kill you. The native leaders replied, they were afraid to fight the Americans and so would raise grain and let the Mormons fight it out with the army. This was a typical and wise response from Utah. Indigenous leaders see these are the things that make me love this book that like honesty and respect. I just, I love that sentence so much. And it's so true. In mid August, ghost shoots had told Huntington they was afraid of the troops and would go home and wait and see how the battle turned out. The Mormon rebuttal was always the same if the troops killed us they would kill them and it's just, they were so using the Native Americans, they were trying to get them to do it and then blaming them and, you know, it was just awful and this is, they kill
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h00m59s 1:00:59]
Barbara: us. Yeah. Sorry, this is a point we make in the book and also when we speak that, that, um, native Americans were also victimized. Yeah, I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h01m07s 1:01:07]
Michelle: so because they will kill us. They'll kill, they would kill them. Huntington said I told them they was, um, that they and the Mormons was one but the Lord had thrown out the gentiles away. So that this is the part though the Native American. So though the native leaders expressed, expressed reluctance to fight young, recorded in his September 1st diary, a spirit seems to be taking possession of the Indians to assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from Exterminating the Americans. That's that same day. So that's what I'm talking about. That's like I see what
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h01m38s 1:01:38]
Barbara: you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. So in, in one thing, so with the first quotations, you're sharing, those are from Dimock, Huntington's journal. OK. So that's how dim Huntington sees it. And then we say, OK, this is what young wrote that day. This is how he sees it. So was Huntington who was translating young, didn't speak these native languages. Did Huntington then turn to young and say, oh, yeah, they're gonna go do this. We don't know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h02m08s 1:02:08]
Michelle: Oh OK. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h02m09s 1:02:09]
Barbara: So whether whether Young, that's what he really believed or whether he's just like, well, I think this is what they're gonna do is just, you just can't be clear, you can only just say what they wrote, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h02m20s 1:02:20]
Michelle: And right, and I guess I see the pattern of, of how I think that Brigham Young shaped narratives intentionally to try to tell his story. Yeah. So, so back to this and, and, you know, and, and again, I, I, but back to this letter, I think what's interesting and we don't, I, I, you know, I, I know he is not saying yes, kill all of them. But I think this is what I think, I think they know how important this strategy is to him and know that they're going to be in serious trouble. So I think they're trying to cover their traps from both tracks, from both Brigham Young and from, you know what I mean? I think they're don't want to be caught by either, but I also, I do wonder why. So I did my own, I tried to do a kind of version of a transcript and um I think we can read through it but I know we're just about out of time. But when I did so interested,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h03m15s 1:03:15]
Barbara: if you want me to, we can, we can talk. Yes. Yeah, absolutely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h03m19s 1:03:19]
Michelle: I would love to have you come back again. Yes. So the fact that it's that it says in this, the Indians will do as they please. And, you know, it's very, um, why did he write that? Because they both knew that the Indians were not attacking that they were because even, uh, I mean, we have Brigham's journal entry saying I can barely hold them back. But even on the, even on the, um, at the scenes of these crimes, like the, in the native Americans were hesitant, right, they kind of had to be pushed along often by the Mormons to do what the Mormons wanted them to do. Yeah, that's where I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h03m56s 1:03:56]
Michelle: find the term that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h03m57s 1:03:57]
Barbara: Indians will do as they pleased. Or in this letter, the Indians we expect will do as they please. So this is that that phrase that's been coming up again and again and again, as young is expounding on this strategy. So in his August 16th 16th address in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, he says it over and over and over again. I will no longer hold the Indians back if the troops come here. But I will say to them, go and do as you please. So and then he's, he's writing this in letters to Washington, he's saying it to William Bell. He's like, you know, so the he he's using that phrase over and over and over again. So that's where that phrase comes from. So so and and again, according to the witnesses who saw this letter from hate going to Young, they're saying that it said that the Indians had a group of immigrants pinned down at the mountain meadows and asking what we should do with them. So young probably does understand that these immigrants are under Indian attack. He also, but like you said, though, he also knows he's been encouraging cattle raiding, um, by Indians. So, yeah, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h05m19s 1:05:19]
Michelle: think he's being
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h05m19s 1:05:19]
Barbara: careful. You're right. Like he's not like going out and saying, well, yeah, this is part of my policy. I know we've been encouraging this, you know, he's not being real forthcoming that way. Yeah. So there's a lot in between the lines. You, you're
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h05m31s 1:05:31]
Michelle: right him writing in a letter. So we just have the letter he wrote to hate and Lee saying, hey, I don't want the Indians to attack this wagon train in November, right? And, and now we have this letter to hate and Lee right to hate saying the Indians will do as they please. But I don't want any Mormons involved in it. So it feels to me that it's like I can't, there are other parts of it that I can't explain. But that's the main sentence that I'm like, that's problematic because they both know that the native Americans aren't doing this. That's the he's saying if
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m07s 1:06:07]
Michelle: you are,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m08s 1:06:08]
Barbara: no, they are, there are native Americans involved in this attack on September 7th? Yeah. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m14s 1:06:14]
Michelle: it was a, wasn't it, um, like, what, what weren't they, weren't they involved in it? Because the Mormons asked them to be involved in it and encourage 100%.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m24s 1:06:24]
Barbara: Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m26s 1:06:26]
Michelle: And so that's what I'm saying. Like, it wasn't the natives doing this, it was the native, like, it was the Mormons doing it being blamed on the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m33s 1:06:33]
Michelle: native. Right. Yeah. The
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h06m34s 1:06:34]
Barbara: Mormons. And again, with Mormons, many of these, these, um, uh, pipes were probably baptized Mormons. That's why I'm really careful to say white Mormons. Um, but, yeah, so the White Mormons were instigating and orchestrating this absolutely 100%. And they are, and, you know, we have the, the various accounts from native Americans who, when they're interviewed about this, they say we, you know, they came to us and asked us to come be involved in this so we could get all the cattle and the spoils
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m05s 1:07:05]
Michelle: and then they felt like they got ripped off after the fact. Anyway, I didn't break it there. Ok. So I, I have so many more things I know that you are an expert on post manifesto polygamy, which I, I'm just dying to talk to you about. But I know
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m20s 1:07:20]
Barbara: that too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m21s 1:07:21]
Michelle: Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m22s 1:07:22]
Michelle: Well, you're out of time for today. Is that right? For today?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m26s 1:07:26]
Barbara: But I'm happy to come
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m27s 1:07:27]
Michelle: back and do it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m28s 1:07:28]
Michelle: I would love to have you come back. Can I ask you one question in closing? I just one thing that I'm trying to help, like I, I agree with you so much like we don't need to be afraid of our history. We need to look it in the face and I use the word, you use the word I use the word repent, you know, like, like, like we need to accept it and grapple with it and see what it teaches us in a huge part so that we don't perpetuate it, right? When we keep denying
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m53s 1:07:53]
Michelle: it, we the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m54s 1:07:54]
Barbara: mistakes of the past.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m56s 1:07:56]
Michelle: Absolutely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h07m57s 1:07:57]
Michelle: Yeah. And so so, and you're an expert in doing this. And I would love to just have you explained to the listeners how you sort of reconcile with your faith, how do you know these things about history and still like, how do you navigate that with the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h08m17s 1:08:17]
Michelle: question that I had
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h08m18s 1:08:18]
Barbara: to think a lot about this? Of course, because it is very, very troubling to learn that this happened and that this was committed by members of my church. And also I, we didn't get into this but years after I started writing budgets is mine. I discovered I was a descendant of a perpetrator.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h08m37s 1:08:37]
Michelle: Oh, that's heavy. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h08m39s 1:08:39]
Michelle: Yeah. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h08m43s 1:08:43]
Barbara: as a historian of American history, I'm also incredibly troubled by our history of slavery and the enslavement of black people. It's, it's hideous. Anyone who studied hideous. It's hideous. I'm deeply troubled by the genocide
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h09m06s 1:09:06]
Michelle: that we didn't talk about the Battle Creek that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h09m08s 1:09:08]
Barbara: was committed against native Americans. I'm deeply troubled by continued racism in our country. Um But yet I'm an American and Yeah, I love my country and I will always be an American. And so studying the history of my church is no different. There are things about my church's history. I'm just appalled by primarily the Mount Meadows Massacre. Um, the racism, I mean, there's so much in our church's history, our nation's history and world history that is, is really troubling. Um And then I condemn um, but it's still my identity. I'm still a Mormon. I'm still an American. I'm still a human. Um The important thing is just, is just, just being willing to learn of these things and condemn them and be against them and then, um just call them out as these things happen and they were wrong and, and standing against them today like I'm, I stand against um extremism in all its form, I stand against racism. Um So that's, that's how I deal with history all history if that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h10m28s 1:10:28]
Michelle: that's beautiful. So, and, and I think another thing I like to remember is that it's not the whole story, it's part of the story, but it's not the whole nobody, nobody is only their worst characteristics or their best characteristics and no institutions
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h10m42s 1:10:42]
Barbara: either. I mean, there are so many things about my church that I love my church's history, there are so many things about our nation's history that are, I mean, even with all of the hideous things that have happened and continue to happen in the United States, it's still a wonderful country and I'm so grateful for the freedoms that I do have here. Do we have a long way to go and things to change? Of course? And do we continue, need to continue to stand up for what is right. Absolutely. And, and hopefully continue to make, uh, changes for the better. Um, so, so, yeah, history is messy and, um, we just, the, the main thing is just to not be afraid of history. It is what it is, don't be afraid of it. Um And just be willing to learn about it and grapple with it, engage with it and be willing to just be sorry for things that were done wrong in the past.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h11m35s 1:11:35]
Michelle: That was beautiful. Thank you so much and thank you for giving me so much of your time and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h11m40s 1:11:40]
Michelle: thank you,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h11m41s 1:11:41]
Barbara: thank you for having me and I'd love to come back and to talk more Michelle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqxrXo-6ls&t=1h11m46s 1:11:46]
Michelle: I so appreciate Barbara's straightforwardness and honesty and just her curiosity, all of these things. I really love talking to people like this and appreciate the work that they do. I'm really thankful that she was open to let me bring forward some new ideas or perspectives and things that we talked about. I know that there, I, I would have loved to talk to her for three hours. So I'm really looking forward to our next conversation and I want to again, thank all of you who are sticking with me on this journey. I know many of you are very eager for the Temple episode. My hope is that I can get it ready to um do next week. That might be tricky. There's a lot going on behind the scenes. But um with any luck, I'll have that. If not, I have a fantastic two part conversation with my friend Whitney Horning that I think. Well, I love it. I loved talking to her for over four hours and I hope that you will all like it as well. And then the Temple episode will be after that. Well, the endowment episode I still have multiple episodes to do on the temple. I am buried in topics. So anyway, thank you for sticking with me. Please know that I am working as hard as I possibly can to bring these out as quickly and as thoroughly as I possibly can. So, thank you again for your support for your viewership and thank you to those who have helped and donated. I appreciate it more than I can say. So, thanks for being here. I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Barbara Jones Brown]][[Category:Interview]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Church History]][[Category:Mountain Meadows]]
}}

89: Polygamy, SRA, and the Law w/ Sgt. Spencer Cannon

2025-08-29T23:04:16Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 89: Polygamy, SRA, and the Law w/ Sgt. Spencer Cannon
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 89
| date = 2023-10-22
| youtube_id = NsO6hRPvQkE
| tags = Ramifications, Sra
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Interview
| summary = Sergeant James Spencer Cannon, Media Relations Officer for the Utah County Sheriff's Office and personal friend, joins me for this very important conversation on some challenging topics.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVJue-FJr88 Utah County Attorney David Leavitt has been talking about ritualistic sex abuse suspect for years] [https://kslnewsradio.com/1969649/utah-county-attorney-says-hes-been-wrongly-accused-of-cannibalism/ Utah County attorney says he’s been wrongly accused of cannibalism] 
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=00m00s 00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy. We are about to start on a three part series that requires a bit of a special introduction. I first want to always say the usual things for those who are new here, please consider going back and listening to these episodes from the beginning to understand the scriptural case that we make about polygamy and then the historical case we've been making more recently. And I also, as always have to thank those who have donated to this podcast. I cannot tell you how helpful it is and how much it means to me and I still could use more support. So if anyone feels inclined, please feel free to contribute to this podcast as well. And now on to the description of this episode. So I have to say I'm deep into the research on the novel Expositor. That's what I've been working on getting ready for the fourth part on that series. And I just hit a wall. I just was blocked, complete stupor of thought every time I went to sit down to my computer. So, um finally, one day when I, you know, I, I feel the urgency and the burden of this and that I have to get it done. So I went on my run and um about four different people had sent me this video on, well, I'm just gonna throw the topic out there on what's called sr a satanic ritual abuse is what the topic of the video was talking about, specifically in Utah. And so I thought, well, if this many people have sent it to me, I better listen to it. So as I went on my run, I listened to it and as I was listening to it, horrified, um trying to decide whether or not I should believe it. But the more I listened, the more it seemed like I needed to believe it because the evidence seemed somewhat solid enough to at least be taken seriously in anyway, a series of scriptures started going through my mind and I just paused and asked Lord, is this what you want me to do right now? I, I've, I've kind of found that if I have a stupor of thought like that, there's usually a different direction I need to go or there's some reason for it rather than just pushing through it, that doesn't seem to usually be the solution. So I felt very strongly that I needed to go this direction, which I didn't fully understand other than um other than one of my basic working principles is if there were fewer enablers, there would be less abuse. So if me using my voice kind of help minimize this problem in any way, then I was willing. But um I, I did some work, I was able to immediately contact the people that I needed to, to set up interviews. And as I got into this deeper and deeper, I realized that this actually isn't a completely separate um issue. There are relations and connections that I had not even known to think about or consider. And so I think that these are things that we need to be aware of. I think that we need to consider what information there is before we just make a knee jerk reaction about them. So, um that is what we're going to go into. I'm hoping that I've already released my um Temple episode, those of you who have been asking for it. Thank you for being patient. I'm sorry that I thought I had to finish up those other topics before I pivoted to the temple. I have heard you and I have been working feverishly to get ready for the episode on the Temple. I'm hoping I'm I'm according this Wednesday night, I'm hoping to release the Temple episode on Sunday. If at all possible, if not, you're getting this episode instead, but I will do the Temple episode next week, then come back to the rest of the episodes in this series. So one way or the other, it's going to come quickly. But um I, I have to just give a little bit of explanation. So this interview that I'm releasing today is actually not the first interview I recorded on this topic. It's the second one, but I thought it would be a better one to release first to kind of set the stage to help people understand what we're going to talk about. It's also a much more gentle episode. I don't think I need any trigger warnings or anything to worry about. In this episode. I had the opportunity to speak with Spencer Cannon who, um, works at the Utah County Sheriff's Department. He is the media relations, um, sergeant there, a great, great guy. So I'm really excited to bring you this episode. And then part two, I will release my episode with Goel. Some of you may recognize his name who have been following this. Some of you may not. He, um, put together a special presentation kind of showing the connections between the investigations he's been doing on this satanic ritual abuse and some ways that it connects with polygamy that are really troubling to me. And then in the third part, I will release an interview with someone who grew up being the, being a victim of ritualistic abuse. And so I, my hope is that we can hear these things in the spirit. They are intended to be shared. I have so many thoughts going back and forth. I'll, I'll introduce, I'll give, give some of the scriptures that I've been thinking of in the introductions of other episodes. But this episode today, I hope that you will listen to with an open heart and open mind. I thought it was actually excellent. I was able to talk to the Sheriff's Department about things like prosecuting po um crimes that happened in polygamy and how that can be better facilitated and how is the best way to approach it as well as many other topics with one of the greatest guys I know. So anyway, I'm so glad that you are here. I hope that you enjoy this episode and are able to learn from it as I speak with my good friend, Spencer Cannon. Welcome to 100 and 32 problems. I am so happy to be here with my good friend. One of the best guys I know this is Spencer Cannon and he actually is the public information officer for the Utah County Sheriff's Office where he's a sergeant. He's been with the, the Sheriff's Department for 33 years and he's been serving in the, in the role of the public information officer for 20 years. So he um has a lot of experience talking to the press, talking about these kinds of issues, sharing um his insights and wisdom, things, but more importantly to me, Spencer and I share grand babies. Spencer's awesome daughter. I get to claim as my daughter in law and she is a gem. And the cannons are gems and so, so it's really fun to do this, semiofficial, semi personal discussion and Spencer. I want to thank you so much for coming and talking to me.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=06m41s 06:41]
Sgt. Cannon: Well, I'm glad to be here with you and I hope that uh I have something to offer and uh you know, uh having, having a connection with the stone family is, is one of the best things in our life.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=06m52s 06:52]
Michelle: So, oh, see, this is what he's the best. Ok. So, um, so Spencer, did I miss anything in your introduction? I know that, I mean, I know quite a bit about your family. You have five kids, I believe we got your youngest,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=07m06s 07:06]
Sgt. Cannon: five Children and 10 grandchildren. And, uh, we love every one of them and the, and the, and the ones that have married into the family too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=07m15s 07:15]
Michelle: Excellent. Well, my gosh, we feel so lucky that we feel so blessed that my son gets you guys for in-laws. We could not have done better. So, so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=07m25s 07:25]
Sgt. Cannon: very much the same.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=07m27s 07:27]
Michelle: Thank you. And, um, and so you, I believe you served in the army. I know you've, you've just had a life in sort of peacekeeping, I guess we could say. Right. So, a lot of experience with all of these issues we're going to discuss.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=07m44s 07:44]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah, I spent four years on active duty and four years in the National Guard and, well, actually a year in the Reserve and three in the National Guard and, uh, lived up there not far from where you guys are in American Fork for 28 years and, and moved a few years ago up into Spanish for Canyon. But, uh, just loving it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=08m02s 08:02]
Michelle: That's great. Ok. Well, so the reason I wanted to have Spencer come on is because I'm going to start delving, I just have felt like I'm supposed to start going into some issues that are a little bit of a stretch for me. Things that I needed to get caught up on a little bit specifically. Um, well, I guess we should just say it some, some of the horrible abuse cases that have been in the press and in the news and in Spencer's Department with Mike Smith, the Sheriff's Department. So specifically things with David Levitt, the Hamlin affidavit. So, what we're talking about is what's known as Sr A or Satanic ritual abuse. And I just did an interview last night with a guy who goes by the pseudonym Goel. I'll be releasing that one as well who has been investigating this intensely for the last 14 years trying to get the information to help the Sheriff's Department be able to prosecute it. Um, I, I, from what I understand, it's hard to prosecute this stuff. You guys are limited on time, on means on money on personnel and it's hard to chase everything down in these difficult cases. Is that correct?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=09m13s 09:13]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah, there is some, there's some reality to that some things that are challenging and, and there's a couple of different areas and you mentioned satanic ritual abuse and, and we recognize that that does go on, um, not all of it is necessarily satanic in nature. Uh, some of it does have a religious, uh, aspect to it. Uh, and that may be sa Satanic or it may be, you know, uh Christian in some way, uh through some sort of formal religious structure. Uh But when in the ones that we deal with that are like this, uh one of the big problems is that typically the cases are so old and we're not talking just a few years, we're talking decades, decades old. And it used to be that Utah's law had a statute of limitations where you either had to initiate a prosecution within four years of the time it was reported or eight years from the time that the uh abuse occurred that changed a number of years ago. So there is no statute of limitation on those things now and there. So if somebody was abused many years ago, then those cases uh can still be prosecuted. But the, the probably one of the biggest problem, well, a number of problems that we encounter when investigating those uh not the least of which is memories, you know, how well and how accurately does somebody remember something. Um the likelihood for example of getting physical evidence. Um if somebody calls and reports abuse that they say happened yesterday and it was, it was horribly painful and created injuries and things. Then there will be physical evidence to support the allegation, not likely that we're going to have that in a case that may be 20 or 30 or more years old. Um And so you're relying on the disclosure from a victim. You also may be relying on disclosure that the victim made to uh other people, maybe a parent, maybe a teacher, maybe a uh uh therapist or maybe even to law enforcement um that for whatever reason wasn't followed up on or wasn't investigated at adequately. And uh so then we are now in a position where we need to go back and, and try to confirm uh with others in some way. Uh besides, and not that we can't move forward on a case with only a, an allegation or a disclosure from a victim. But it makes a case stronger if we have information that we can corroborate that comes from either other victims or, or people that somebody disclosed to when they were, say a child, either a teenager or, or a young single digits aged person. And so it could be complicated that way. But, but memory is a real problem as well and, and how somebody remembers things that doesn't mean that it can't be prosecuted or investigated and prosecuted, but it does make it more challenging.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=12m13s 12:13]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. That all make sense. So if you have the physical evidence, obviously, that's the strongest case and your job. You don't, you don't prosecute the crimes, your job is to get the evidence together so that the prosecutors can choose to prosecute it and can do so successfully.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=12m28s 12:28]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah, that is, that's correct. We, we do, we do interviews. We, we take uh disclosures from victims, we talk to witnesses that they uh tell us about. Uh we, we try to get as much information to confirm what they uh tell us happened to them. And then we put that all together hopefully in a, in a coherent and, and clear uh manner so that when we submit a case to the prosecutors, they can then follow through and, and file criminal charges with courts?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=12m58s 12:58]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. I have so many questions. So, um, ok, a couple of different directions I want to go. So I brought up the big um ritual abuse topic which you weren't in your position in the eighties when these things started being reported and it became the satanic panic. So to me that has kind of, you know, poisoned the, well, so that when people hear, oh, ritual abuse all of a sudden we just think crazy town. So can you kind of speak to like, um, well, I mean, I'm kind of serious, like, do these things happen? Should people believe that these things happen? Did they happen in the eighties? And that was a way to cover it up. I, I'm sure that there are also sort of unstable people making, you know, fallacious reports. So, I'm sure it all gets messy. But how should we think about this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=13m55s 13:55]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah. It's, it's difficult to, to look at and I understand why people may have the inclination to. Oh, that doesn't happen. There was a, a national news organization after we had some information that we put out a year and a half or so ago that wrote a, a very long article basically saying that, uh, we were among those being caught up in the satanic panic. What I find interesting is that if we take a report, a disclosure from, say a, a six year old child who discloses just horrible, uh, unthinkable sexual abuse. Um, and they may be maybe they own a small business or maybe they're a school teacher or maybe they're a sports coach of some kind or maybe they're just a next door neighbor, uh, or something like that. Maybe they're a religious leader of some kind. Um, it's horrible. It's reprehensible. And when we think about it, it just makes us sick to our stomachs, but we don't have a hard time believing what this child is telling us. And especially if it's supported with, uh, you know, forensic evidence, uh, physical evidence that, uh, they tell us this and we find evidence on the child, uh, to support what they said. But the second we throw ritualistic in front of that. Suddenly it's not believable. It couldn't happen. It can't be real. Well, it, it can be real. Uh And it is real and it does happen. It may not be as common as I hate to even say run of the mill sexual abuse. There's nothing about it. It, it's, it's horribly violating to those, to those victims. Um But it can happen in a way that is even more secretive, that may involve multiple parties that may involve uh rituals that uh are either specifically religious in nature or just uh rituals that are uh consistent in the way the abuse is carried out in the way that the threats are made. Uh and those kinds of things that make it seem like it's less real. And so when we have horrible abuse, which I can tell you horrible abuse happens and when we release information about somebody, we've arrested uh and abuse that they perpetrated. People don't have a hard time believing it. They don't want to believe it's true, but they know it is. Yet when we throw the word ritualistic in, there are suddenly, you know, we're getting caught up in the hype and that's, it's not real. I'm here to tell you that it is real and it does happen and while we might, might not investigate those kinds of cases as often they are real and they do happen.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=16m44s 16:44]
Michelle: OK. OK. I really appreciate that. I think that's such a good wake. Up call for all of us to hear. I think that's important. Um, when you say you don't investigate them as often, does that mean they don't come in front of you as often that you don't see them as often or that you choose to investigate them less often.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=17m00s 17:00]
Sgt. Cannon: You know, and I don't, I don't know, the, the statistical numbers on that. Uh, I know that we don't see as many of them that are characterized that way, whether that means that they don't happen as often or they just don't get reported as often. I, I don't know, it may be a little bit of both but, uh, uh sexual abuse is something that is, has for, for decades and I think it's changing for the better now, uh, that a child will come and they'll report something or there will be signs that should be fairly easy for a, an adult or a trusted loved one or a teacher, uh, or, or a trusted adult, you know, to see, but you don't want to believe it's true or it gets reported and maybe it's a neighbor that everybody likes and you don't want them to get in trouble and say, well, we'll just handle this ourselves and, and that is absolutely the wrong approach to take. Uh I think we're getting better at that in, in this generation socially that we're in, but it's still a problem. I mean, there are still, there is still the reality that many people don't want to talk about. It. Don't want to get the problem addressed. Don't want to get somebody arrested because they don't want someone's life to fall apart. But my response is, what about the life of that victim who has been a used? Are we gonna let somebody else's life carry on? Uh pretending to be normal while their life might be falling apart and their future may be mapped out for them already because of the challenges they're going to face emotionally because of the physical and sexual abuse that they may have uh been a part of or been a victim of.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=18m45s 18:45]
Michelle: Ok. I'm so glad you said that that is just like so music to my ears. I have um I have a sister actually who had that experience who was abused by an older man who served in high callings and when it's so hard for these victims to grow to the point of getting over the shame, realizing it wasn't their fault and then going and finally reporting and she reported to three separate bishops who each said, oh God can help you forgive. That was a long time ago. We don't want to ruin this good man's life, think of his wife. And that it's so, I mean that was a couple of decades ago that that happened, but it's so destructive for a victim to finally come forward and either not be, be believed because it's ritualistic or whatever it is or not be prioritized. Yeah. I feel like it revictimizes
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=19m36s 19:36]
Sgt. Cannon: people. Oh, it really does. It really does. I mean, imagine this, uh, and, and imagine we, we may get to this, uh, but I'll, I'll bring it up now. Uh, on May 31st, last year we, uh, put out a press release regarding ritualistic child sexual abuse and that's exactly how it was described and the reason we did it and there was no matter of timing, it was just that it was getting to the point where we realized that this was a, a broader problem than what the original case that we started investigating in April of 2021. Uh We would have thought it was and it took, take, takes all these little side roads uh which is normal in any criminal investigation. But it got to the point where we thought we need, we realized there were probably other victims out there and we wanted to give them an opportunity uh to feel safe in coming forward. So we did that press release and we said, if there is anybody who has experienced this kind of abuse and would like to uh talk to us, we will listen to you, we will believe you and we will conduct investigations. And as a result of that, we had over 100 and 50 people call in a few of them were somebody reporting it uh second party, you know that somebody else had been abused um or uh a therapist, for example, calling in and saying, you know, I, I can help with this if you need help. But the majority of those 150 plus calls uh were people who were themselves victims. Um And so we did, we took every one of them, we found out the best that we could, what happened and where it happened. And many of those, when we put out that press release, we were focusing on an area uh involving Provo in the southern part of Utah County, Sanpete County and Jeb County. And uh what we found is that of these 150 people while a few of those were in that area that I described, uh there were many who were outside of that area here in Utah and even many that were outside the state of Utah. So we made referrals to uh agencies that had jurisdiction over those cases. And, you know, some of these people had never reported it before or never told anybody about it, either law enforcement or a loved one or a family member or anything. And some of them had told a loved one or a, a family member or a teacher in some cases. Um and it just hadn't been taken seriously and it was never reported. So they, they lived with that, they repressed that and put it down and they did what they could to get through life. Uh knowing what they had experienced, but also knowing that those, that they were supposed to be able to trust, couldn't or didn't know how, either they didn't know how or they were afraid to say anything or they didn't want anybody to get in trouble. And so we said we will listen to you, we will talk to you, we will take anything you tell us seriously. And we couldn't promise that every one of those cases will work through to a prosecution because with the issue of time and everything that is problematic in some ways, and there would be some of those cases where you're not going to be able to get the evidence so that it's strong enough to be able to submit a case for prosecution. Um, and that's sad for them, but at least they came to us knowing that we, we were going to take them seriously and we were going to believe them. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to, well, it doesn't mean that if we're going to ignore, uh, information that tells us that what they're saying is not true. And I don't know if that happened in any of these cases, I wasn't directly part of the investigations but, but that sometimes does happen. But at the, at the start of their disclosure to us, we are taking them seriously. We are believing what they tell us and we are following through in the way, the best way we can either by investigating it ourselves with the task force that we had set up or referring it to the proper jurisdictional agency.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=23m33s 23:33]
Michelle: Ok. That is wonderful to hear. I'm so glad and I think that's probably so helpful to people. I, I guess I'm always just wanting to say that if you, if any victims are listening, you know, Spencer is a great guy, like, reach out to this department. You couldn't be in better hands. And, um and, and, and along those lines, I'm gonna ask a question that I hope is OK. I don't want to make you uncomfortable. But um there are some challenges sometimes, like I mentioned about my sister's experience and so the church, um I think that we still struggle on this issue a little bit and haven't always managed it the best. We don't seem to be the best um at prioritizing victims, knowing how to respond, providing training and, you know, prioritizing victims. And so I don't know if you want to kind of say anything about that. I know that we now have the sex abuse hotline. And um anyway, if, if you can share anything along those lines
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=24m32s 24:32]
Sgt. Cannon: um from, I'm L Ds for those of your listeners who don't know, I, I am L DS, I'm also a cop, but I uh I believe strongly in both sides of that. Um And I believe that from my perspective, personally, my goal in both of those is the same. And that is to bring justice for, for victims and even to get help for perpetrators because they, they still need an opportunity to change the way they think the way they act and everything. But our primary focus is helping victims. So what happens sometimes there's no doubt that there has been blatant cover up by uh various religious organizations over the years and I won't name any, I will mention one. But I, I resolved the problem. I, I had a case of uh uh when I was working as a detective many years ago, I had a case of child sexual abuse that happened between two neighbors. Uh they were young teenagers, one was a teenager, one was single digit age. Uh the victim was and uh but the abuse occurred outside of uh the city boundary where they lived. Uh So it became our case and, and the, the leader of that L DS congregation he made uh the, gave the guidance to the parents of both people involved, the young perpetrator and the young younger victim that they, they shouldn't talk to police. And that is II I know that that's not the counsel and the guidance from the church. And I know legally that's not the case. Now, the only situation where a clergyman or clergy person in Utah uh does not have to disclose as if a, if a perpetrator comes them and confesses and they will not at the encouragement of that clergy go to the police. Then the clergy by most religious guidance should not uh report, at least in Utah and Utah clergy are not required to be mandatory reporters. Um So anyway, in this particular case, uh I called that uh L DS Bishop and I told him that uh you can give what counsel you want to, the perpetrator here because I can't tell you what to do with his parents. I would like to talk to him as well. But as for the victim, if you don't, if, if I don't hear from them within two hours about scheduling an appointment to come and have their child interviewed by me, then I will come to your house and arrest you. So I threat threatened to arrest an L DS bishop and within about 45 minutes or an hour, I got a call from both families. Um And I, I was mad uh that he was doing this because I thought it was not treating the victim. Well, um I thought that victim needed justice. I thought uh by covering up and in some, what I thought was a misguided effort to protect the child. Uh and look out for that child's welfare. I thought that, I mean, legally the bishop was wrong. He was required uh by church uh handbook guideline guidance and by Utah state statute to uh contact police because uh he got it from a third party. So he was not protected by the confessional. He did not get it from the, the, the perpetrator, the teenage perpetrator. So he was obligated by law. And uh so he did, he ended up doing the right thing. But uh sometimes I think, uh many of us have that feeling. We don't want to mess up somebody's life. But what we don't think about is while their life might be messed up right now. One, it's of their own doing. And two, if we don't mess up their life now, which it isn't messing up their life, then what's gonna happen to them? 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road if we get to their life and we have an intervention and maybe they have a chance to stop the behavior and never do it again. But if we don't, maybe they will continue and other people, uh other victims will suffer because of our own inaction.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=28m51s 28:51]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. So wishful thinking and just wanting it to go away is not the answer. Yeah. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=28m57s 28:57]
Sgt. Cannon: I'm the leader of our branch up in uh where, where we live up Spanish, Fork Canyon. And uh I, uh I, I told the, uh as I was having the discussion as the call was being extended. I said, I, I know what the handbook says about calling the Abuse helpline. And I said, I'll be glad to call the Abuse helpline, but it will be after I call the police and report it. I think they have the order mixed up. I think that uh the very first thing that helps the child the most is to get help on the way immediately. And I'm not talking just about the police because we aren't the ones that can provide the treatment and the therapy and the services that they need. We can help facilitate those. But our job is to gather evidence and in cases like this, we gather evidence by way of interviews, we have specialists who do physical exams. Uh We don't do those ourselves. Um We sometimes aren't even the ones that do the interviews. Sometimes we have child protective services, uh officials who, who do those interviews. The primary thing that we need to do is get those services rolling. Um and, and then I'll call and I'll get advice from the, from the helpline and I know what the advice is going to be. Uh but uh it's uh it's not going to be in the order that they want it to be.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=30m23s 30:23]
Michelle: Ok. So what's the advice gonna be?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=30m26s 30:26]
Sgt. Cannon: The advice? The advice is gonna be that uh you know, to do, do what you're legally obligated to now in, in Utah, not all states, not all states allow for the confidentiality of the confessional. Um So if, if a perpetrator comes to a religious leader of any church in some states, then uh they, and they confess something, then by law, those clergy members are required to report it in Utah and some other states that is not the case. Utah allows that if somebody comes to a religious leader, whether it's a bishop or a priest or a pastor or whomever and confesses something. And in this case, we're talking about child sexual abuse if they come and they confess that, but they, that religious leader has not heard it from any other source. And despite their encouraging, that person is unwilling to turn themselves in to the police or turn themselves over to law enforcement, then the clergy member is bound by the confessional and, and cannot disclose. Um And that's usually by the guidance of the, the policies of the religious organization. Um I don't know if there are religious organizations in Utah that ignore that and say, I don't care what state law allows. You will, if you're going to be clergy for our organization, you will report it. The L DS church is not one of those. Uh The L DS church does go by the confessional. If somebody comes and confesses, then uh they are, they are not required by church policy to report it despite what the law says.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=32m05s 32:05]
Michelle: So, ok, I, I wanna, I wanna pause on that for a minute if that's ok. So to clarify, it's not only that they're not required to, it's that they're legally not allowed to.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=32m15s 32:15]
Sgt. Cannon: I don't think there's a, I don't think there's a legal uh pro prohibition from doing it if it's church policy. Um But so the church
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=32m25s 32:25]
Michelle: could encourage its leaders to still report to police.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=32m30s 32:30]
Sgt. Cannon: No, they don't. They, they
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=32m33s 32:33]
Michelle: could, they could do that without a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=32m36s 32:36]
Sgt. Cannon: church can whatever they want administratively, that has nothing to do with doctrine. That has everything to do with the administrative side of how any church is, is operated. And I, and I, I assume that they could choose to have their policy be that uh despite what state law allows, we do want you to report it. It's like, it's like if, if uh if a perpetrator goes for counseling to a therapist, a mental health therapist is a mandatory reporter in the state of Utah, a doctor is a mandatory reporter. School teachers are mandatory reporters. So if a, if a perpetrator wants to bear their soul to a therapist and get some help thinking that they are going to be uh protected by disclosing the abuse, they have perpetrated to a mental health uh provider, then they're wrong because a mental health services provider is required to report that. And I think a lot of them uh they give that disclaimer before they start that. Uh you know, certain things if you disclose, I'm a mandatory reporter, blah, blah, blah. Uh So the clergy don't they in Utah are not among those who are considered mandatory reporters.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=33m51s 33:51]
Michelle: Are you allowed as both a leader of your congregation? So a member of the clergy and as a sheriff? Are you allowed to share your opinion on that? Because I have some, I mean, I think on the one hand, I can see like maybe the hope is that people will be willing to talk to someone, but I am so troubled by that because I feel like they're, they're needing to unburden their soul so they're getting the benefit. But without any of the due steps to true repentance, without any help for the victims, without any, like, it just seems like I would lose, lose to me. I can't see a good side of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=34m35s 34:35]
Sgt. Cannon: I, I think I'm inclined to agree with that. I, uh, I, I don't see any value in allowing, uh, somebody to not disclose something so horrible that has happened to a person. There's an interesting, uh, thing when I, many years ago when I first started in law enforcement, I, I was working in the jail, I was a corrections deputy, uh, working in the Utah County jail when I was in the corrections academy. They had, they brought over some, uh, prisoners who were, uh, who were sex offenders and, uh, we got to ask them some questions and things like that. Um, and they had a licensed clinical social worker who talked to us after they, they left and one of the things that in order for them to, to heal and, and everything and get them to disclose what they've done because so many of them they get caught for what they're in prison for, but very often not with all of them, but with many of them, they have perpetrated other things that they never got caught for. So they encourage them to disclose those things and as a, as an inducement for them to be willing to disclose they, they make a commitment that they will not prosecute them. I, I did not like that idea. Uh I think, you know, if they, if they have done it, you know, because for me, you do the right thing because it's right not for fear of the consequences of doing wrong. And, uh if you really want to clean your soul and you're in prison, you should still step up and say, you know what, I'm here for 5 to 15 years or, or whatever, five to life or whatever your sentence is, you should, the right thing to do would be to step forward and own up to everything you've done. Um, but they didn't see it that way. I didn't, I didn't like that idea. So I, I think that, um, I think that there shouldn't be any people exempted from, uh, exempted from having to report when the only source you have for the, um, of the knowledge of the abuse is from the perpetrator themselves. And I think that shouldn't, shouldn't be allowed. That's just my opinion. There was a, there was a bill in the Utah legislature, I think last year that was discussing doing that. I don't think it, it didn't get any traction but it was, it was there if I remember right, because I remember hearing about it on the news and it, I don't know if it ever even got into committee or out of committee or however that all works. I'm not a politician but, uh, I know that there was a bill but it just never went anywhere.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=37m16s 37:16]
Michelle: Ok. So there were so people do see it this way too. I mean, I mean, yeah, it's hard for me to see how I know that if you want to, actually, if we use the word, like, repent, you know, cleanse your soul, like, really overcome the horrors of your past, you can't minimize, you can't only admit the tiny bit you need to because you got caught on it. Right. And it seems like it is reality. Yeah. Yeah. And it seems like saying, hey, you won't have any consequences if you clean your soul. It's like, well, that's not really, that's just going. Oh, good. Ok. I can clean my soul and I mean, it's not going to work. That's not real. It's not, well, it is,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=37m54s 37:54]
Sgt. Cannon: I agree. It's a tough thing. But, um, in reality too, legally speaking and I'm not on a attorney, but this has just been my experience in what I see if we have a case where we have say 30 counts of any crime. But since we're talking about child sexual abuse. We'll talk about that if we have a, if we have a suspect or a defendant who, uh, we have investigated and we believe we have enough evidence to support so many a case for prosecution that includes 30 violations. Reality is when that case gets filed in court, it's probably not going to be 30 case, 30 charges. It's probably gonna be 5 to 10 maybe. Um, and some of those may be reduced down and you know what, it, it gets to a point. It's the old it does. You no good to beat a dead horse. It kind of gets to that point where you have five charges, you have 30 charges and if they're all first degree felonies or even all second degree felonies, uh, if a judge were to sentence them and they were to run them consecutively, then if you have, uh, a, a second degree felony that is, uh, uh, five or 1 to 15 years in prison and they run those consecutive and they have five of them, they're going to be in prison for 75 years. Um, uh, if they have, uh, first degree felonies, it's gonna be 5, 10 or 15 years to life in prison. Uh, and if they have two of those, and the judge runs those consecutively, they may be in prison for as much as 30 years before they're even eligible for parole. Um, so what good is it? Gonna do to throw another 25 charges on top of that. So that's, that's the reality of what I usually see in any kind of case, whether it's burglary or theft or child sex abuse. Um, where there are tens or dozens of potential charges. We cut it down to those that we can prove much more easily and make it easier to understand if it goes in front of a jury as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=39m56s 39:56]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. So, um, so I have a couple of other questions, but I want to pivot to talk a little bit about the Hamlin case, the David Levitt case if that's all right, because that's what really brought this out recently. It seems to me. Um, first, can I just ask you both in your capacity? Of course, no specifics, but in your capacity as a sheriff and also as a congregational leader, how big of a problem is child sex abuse in general general and ritual abuse specifically? Is this something you have dealt with much?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=40m29s 40:29]
Sgt. Cannon: I in, in my, my personal capacity. No, I haven't dealt with it. Um, at all. Uh, in my professional capacity, I've seen it uh a lot. Uh, it, you know, I, I didn't spend a long time as a detective, uh about a year and a half. Uh but is as a deputy and as a public information officer, I, I have either done some initial investigations on it, uh, for the short time that I was a detective. I, I did some full investigations on it now, I just do press releases and talk to media about them when they happen. Um But they uh yeah, they're, they're real uh the ritualistic side of things we don't see as much of. Um and ritualistic is not a criminal charge. Ritualistic is just a description of the circumstances. There's no, there's no state code that says this is forcible sexual abuse and this is forcible, ritualistic, forcible sexual abuse. It's forcible sexual abuse and it's the nature of the circumstances that describes how the abuse happened more than it does. The statutory elements that were met in uh the perpetration of that abuse.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=41m43s 41:43]
Michelle: OK. That makes sense. Just a description. I'm from what I've seen so far and I have not been following this very closely. Um Your daughter kept me updated on it a bit. She likes to follow it. But it um it seems to me that um ritual when you put that ritualistic word, it sometimes is much more extreme and much more severe. I, I mean, I haven't seen the uh you know, I, I luckily I'm not in a job where I have to read this stuff regularly. But um but it seems to me like somehow sometimes when it is ritualistic, it's more horrific because there's this additional element of evil.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=42m25s 42:25]
Sgt. Cannon: It can be. Um I think, I think uh probably more often than, than anything rather than the abuse itself being physically, more, more harmful is the nature of the circumstances where the trust is broken in an even more tragic way. So, for example, I, I even hate to talk about degrees of sin, but there are degrees of sin, there are degrees of, of badness in how something happens. If you've got a neighbor, a teenage neighbor kid, you know, he knows it's wrong. Uh He does it anyway and it can be, it can be awful, it can be physically damaging. Um But when it's done in a, in a broader context and maybe over time, more more often or the things that are done to establish a sense of control and domination uh that might make it ritualistic, uh make it more tragic, the act
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=43m29s 43:29]
Michelle: itself. And the number of people involved
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=43m32s 43:32]
Sgt. Cannon: could be, I mean, ritualistic doesn't have to be a group, it could be one person, but it could also be a group. But when you get more people involved and especially if it goes on over time, uh then the tragedy deepens the tragic nature of what's happening to those victims deepens even more. Um because very often it will be happening at the hands of those uh who should be providing the ultimate protection that that child needs any moment in their life, but especially in that moment of their life.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=44m08s 44:08]
Michelle: Ok. And so my understanding is that there's almost a goal um to create disassociation, is that something you've seen and maybe I, maybe you're the wrong person to ask about this. But then it's like it has some kind of a uh almost psychological motivation to make the, make the Children sort of break a psychic, create a psychic break, which then can lead to them not remembering. Is that an accurate? Well, you know, the memories come up
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=44m41s 44:41]
Sgt. Cannon: later to, to some extent that that happens in anything when somebody perpetrates this kind of a crime. Uh people who do bad things, they don't want to get caught. And so they, they may say something directly or something in an implied way, uh to make sure that their victims don't tell anybody or they may, yeah, they may get them, you know, we threaten them or they may uh tell them in a way that what's happening is normal and it's ok and it's part of growing up. So, and if you get a child young enough, they may legitimately believe that that this really is normal. They, they feel and they recognize that this isn't fun for them, but this is what growing up is. And if you start them at that age young enough, that's what they believe. And that's, that's part of what is so tragic about this is that the people who should be protecting them and who they should be able to trust implicitly are the ones who are doing this and to them and uh, and trying to convince them they're creating a, a, uh, counterfeit sense of normal life for these Children as they're younger that it takes them years and maybe even decades to overcome it and even to come to realize that wait a minute, that wasn't right. And, uh, but even when you recognize that something wasn't right, you still have to overcome the patterns of thinking, uh, about it so that you can re-establish normal patterns because the normal patterns that you and I, and most people are taught when they're young, they get ingrained in us. And if you haven't had those, if what you've been taught has been abnormal, then it takes a while to, to break those patterns and establish new ways of, of uh realizing and protecting yourself and, and what's good and what's right and what's not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=46m43s 46:43]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. So somebody, because that was part of the, that's part of the way to throw out victims, especially the satanic panic thing is that often people remember later, there's, you know, they've maybe attempted suicide dozens of times and, you know, they're, they're a mess and then they start real remembering some of these things that shouldn't necessarily be a reason to not believe them to invalidate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=47m10s 47:10]
Sgt. Cannon: I mean, one of the reasons there, there's two reasons I think why we, why we say you tell us and we'll believe you is we start believing, we start by believing. Um, if something comes up during the course of an investigation, it tells us either one, they have embellished this a little bit, even if they've embellished, it doesn't mean that the original act didn't happen, the original abuse didn't happen, but maybe they embellished in a way that made it safer for them to live with it. Um, and, and so we, we work our way through those things but we start by believing them. Um, and if, uh, something turns out not to be as accurate, either by intention or by, by disillusionment or by accident, then, uh, then we work our way through those things. Um, and we hope that we can do that in a way that's healthy for them. And when I say we, I'm talking a whole group of people. It's not just us as cops and detectives. It's, it's the people we work with the child services specialists, uh, the children's justice centers, the judges, the prosecutors, the therapists, the child protective services workers, you know, child and family services and, and things. It, it's really done as a, as a whole team effort in, in an attempt to get these people and they may still be Children or they may be adults by now back to a sense where they can feel comfortable just being with other people and, and living in their own skin even, you know, that some of that might be a sense of shame because they may have been taught that even that this is a punishment because of their own behaviors you know, it's their
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=48m48s 48:48]
Michelle: fault and they, yeah. Uh huh. Some of these, that's some of the ideas I understand it is that the even baby girls are seductresses so it's always their fault because they, they turned the guy on, they were asking for it. So to even just be, be comfortable.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=49m05s 49:05]
Sgt. Cannon: It makes me, it makes me sick to even think of those things. But, you know, I've, I've seen, I've seen cases that we've had where, where perpetrators uh described a 12 year old girl as seducing a, a 30 year old man. And it just, it really makes me sick to my stomach to, to think that they could even say that and have any and mean it, you know, it's, it's not. Ok. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=49m37s 49:37]
Michelle: Ok. That's great. So, ok, can you kind of back up and just tell me your experience with these, this, this Hamlin the Hamlin affidavits when like what is your experience with those? Give us the background?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=49m51s 49:51]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah. So there was a, a case that and I can't speak to this part of it, but uh Provo Police Department had a case that was reported to them that involved David Hamlin as a suspect about 10 or 12 years ago. I don't know the exact year, maybe 2012 or 2011, something like that. Uh When we had a victim come to us in April of 2021 we knew nothing about this other case that Provo had had that involved David Hamlin. Um, but as
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=50m24s 50:24]
Michelle: well, that's not normal.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=50m27s 50:27]
Sgt. Cannon: It's normal because we had a victim come to us that, that didn't say anything about David Hamlin. Um, and, and the only reason I even mentioned David Hamlin is because he's, he's in jail. Well, he's, he's going through the court process on two cases that we, we helped process to get him, uh, be prosecuted on it. So, but what happens is this person comes to us in April of 2021 and over the next year, uh a little more than a year as we're investigating this and this is normal as we do this, you get a case and it starts right in one spot and as you're going along all of a sudden, you have something that branches off over here or something that branches off over here. And so you have to follow those, those directions that it takes. You. Maybe a new witness comes forward or maybe the original person tells you about somebody that they talk to and you go talk to that person and they send you off in another direction. Well, eventually during the course of that investigation, we became aware of the investigation that pro police department had with David Hamlin. Uh but we still, at that point, didn't have anything to make a case against him. But as we move forward, it developed so that we did and we had uh we had victims who two different victims who did not know each other. Uh, no, no, they were, they were, they were in, they were, they were different people than the original victim that got us started in April of 2021. Um, and so was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=51m59s 51:59]
Michelle: the original victim in 2021? Was that his daughter or you?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=52m03s 52:03]
Sgt. Cannon: I can't comment on that. Honestly, I, I wouldn't be able to comment on it but I honestly don't know who the victim is, whether it's somebody he knows or or not, or if it wasn't even, it wasn't even uh David, that was the focus of our investigation in April. So uh as it, as it moved forward, then we became aware of that case. And as we became aware of that, then uh we developed enough information to be able to have two separate cases where we, we could charge David Hamlin and eventually his now ex-wife uh Rosie, um I don't remember her last name that she's going by now. But uh yeah, so that we did not even, I don't know if we even knew who they were. Uh when we started our case in April of 2021 we became aware of them and then it became to the point where uh David first was a focus of our investigation and then, and then Rosie.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=53m03s 53:03]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. So can I ask? And I don't know, so both of them are facing criminal prosecution. That is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=53m10s 53:10]
Sgt. Cannon: correct. One case against Rosie and two against David. We arrested David Hamlin in September of 2022. He was in jail till about March of this year and was released on bail and he has some conditions for his release, you know, electronic monitoring, I believe and that kind of stuff. And we, we arrested Roselle Stevenson in August of this year and uh she was in jail for about three weeks and was released on bail. So they both uh have, they're not married anymore. Uh But they both have cases pending um in court. And one of those uh for David Hamlin is here in Utah County. The other one is down in Sanpete County and, and Rozelle's uh case is here in Utah County.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=53m56s 53:56]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. So, um so I'll ask about the prosecution of them in, in a little bit more, but I want to know. So did you as a result of doing their case? Did you read the Hamlin daughter's victim statements or not victim statements? They affidavits whatever they brought forward.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=54m15s 54:15]
Sgt. Cannon: Are you talking about one that was involved with the case from 10 or 12 years ago? 100 and 15 page.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=54m23s 54:23]
Michelle: I, I, I'm trying to understand how David Levitt got involved.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=54m28s 54:28]
Sgt. Cannon: Um What I can tell you the only, the only reason I can say anything about that is because that document has been released publicly. Um There was a, uh a statement is about 100 and 15 pages long that was involved in the investigation that pro police department did. There were, uh, local media here who through a public records request, obtained that document. And, uh, we did that did come in our hands. Um, and I, it's been made known and it's publicly available. David Levitt's name is in there. I can't speak to the specifics because I haven't read the entire thing. I've read parts of it but I haven't read the whole thing. Uh, but yeah, that's, that's where his name kind of came into it. But, uh, uh, as far as whether there's any investigation with him or not, I can't say,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=55m20s 55:20]
Michelle: ok. And so, so my understanding is he just kind of held this bizarre press conference because he found out that his name was in that. And then now he's in Scotland. Am I? Am I pretty much caught? He's in a castle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=55m35s 55:35]
Sgt. Cannon: That's a real nutshell version of it. Yeah, he, uh, we, we put our press release out on May 31st of 2022. Um, looking to encourage people who may have been victimized, uh, in a ritualistic kind of way, uh, to come forward and talk to us. And we had a lot of people that did. It was the next day on June 1st of, uh, 2022 that David Levitt held a press conference around noon in the middle of the day or so. Um, and he declared that he was not a cannibal that he was, uh, not, uh, a bunch of things. It's out there. People can Google search it if they want to watch it. It's, uh, pretty unusual. I've been, I've been involved in public relations with the sheriff's office for a long time. I know a lot of local media and I had some of them say, man, that's the, that's the most bizarre press conference I've ever been to. I, I would not disagree with them. I watched it and it was unusual. Uh, but in that he accused a number of people myself and, uh, Sheriff Smith included of, uh, are having political motives and I don't have a political bone in my body. Um,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=56m41s 56:41]
Michelle: I get to that to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=56m43s 56:43]
Sgt. Cannon: those kinds of things. Yes, I am, I am active. I've been a delegate. I've, uh, I try to vote regularly and everything. But, uh, you know, my, my motivation in doing anything when it comes to police work is to protect innocent victims. And that is the only motivation we had in, uh, putting out the press release we did on May 31st. Anybody including David Levitt who said anything otherwise about why we did that is up in the night. They don't know what they're talking about or they can search my phones, they can search my computers and it will be the most boring couple of hours they've had in a long time if they need some help getting to sleep. Look, through my phone. They're pretty boring.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=57m28s 57:28]
Michelle: Ok. So they, so he immediately you call, you said if there are victims, we're ready to, you know, go ahead and call this hotline the very next day he did this press this press release, I mean, this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=57m44s 57:44]
Sgt. Cannon: press conference,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=57m46s 57:46]
Michelle: press conference, not like saying I'm not a cannibal and also it's Spencer Smith and I mean, Spencer Cannon and Mike Smith are bad guys and they're just coming after me
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=58m00s 58:00]
Sgt. Cannon: for resignations and investigations into us and the sheriff's office about who released that document. Uh, when all he would have had to do is call Provo Police Department and say, who did you give this document to? And he would have found out and, uh, it never would have done anything. The Utah County Commission got on board initially and, and initiated an investigation and I think their, their investigation lasted all of a day or two because they then found out where the document came from and that it was not from us.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=58m29s 58:29]
Michelle: Wow. Ok. Do you have any personal, like, do you have any speculation of why he did it? Because, I mean, it makes him guilty as sin first of all, but it also brings up like, what was he doing? I mean, it makes it, to me it gives some credibility to this whole church of Satan.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=58m47s 58:47]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah. No, I, I don't, I, you know, I, I try to avoid that. We, we deal in, in law enforcement. We try to deal with facts and elements of crimes and for me to say anything about why he chose to do that would be just speculation because I don't know exactly why he did. Uh, but what I do know is that, uh, we did not, nobody at the sheriff's office released anything to, uh, the media or anybody in the public. Um, and, uh, we did not have political motives. Those are two things I can say. Uh, but for me to say anything about what his motives are in doing that, it would be speculation and I try to avoid that if I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=59m27s 59:27]
Michelle: can. That's great. I won't make you speculate. But you did say, I mean, but you can say it was the weirdest thing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=59m34s 59:34]
Sgt. Cannon: It was unusual. It was very unusual. I've, I've called a lot of press briefings myself for media. I've, uh, uh, coordinate them for other people to lead them. I've led them myself. I've attended other press briefings and I do have to admit that that was one of the more unusual ones I've ever seen.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=59m53s 59:53]
Michelle: OK. All right. So, um I have a couple of other. So, so for you, you just look at the crime which is sexual abuse, child abuse. So you don't get into even like you said, the ritualistic necessarily and definitely, and probably not like the satanic element, the church of Satan, that's not part of your investigation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h00m12s 1:00:12]
Sgt. Cannon: No, no. In this one, I would, I, I think I could say that Satanic wasn't a part of it but uh ritualistic was a part of it. Uh uh Just a small example of that. One of the press releases I did about uh the David Hamlin arrest. I believe it was the first arrest we made, uh included uh fact that he was told to us by a victim. That part of, part of the process of the abuse included uh religious blessings given to the victim by David Hamlin. Um If that doesn't make something at least somewhat ritualistic in nature, I don't know what does you know. But uh you know, so that, that kind of thing, but, you know, Satanic, I, I wouldn't say that Satanic was a core property of, of these uh ritualistic sexual abuse cases that we're looking at, but it can be, it can be an element of it, but we, we purposely characterize it as ritualistic child sexual abuse. Um not describing the nature or the content of those, whether, you know, we didn't use the word satanic. Uh mainly because we uh that wasn't part of what the allegations were, but uh ritualistic was part of what uh the circumstances included.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h01m32s 1:01:32]
Michelle: Ok. OK. So I want to talk about a couple of other things. So, um interestingly, so with the Hamlin daughters, um testimonies, something that comes up is polygamy. And so that's something I've been kind of looking into is the strange and uncomfortable and upsetting connections between polygamy and this ritualistic abuse. I mean, first of all, I think that my understanding is, and I don't want to, you know, say it's everyone or do broad accusations, but polygamy groups tend to have a lot of problems with sexual abuse. And um, oh, go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h02m15s 1:02:15]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah, I was gonna say, you know, our, we don't, I don't, and, and we at the sheriff's office don't have a lot of experience with, with those kinds of, of cases. I think we like most other people. What we see are, are the things that you see with Warren Jeffs. Uh, and, and polygamy in that kind of a setting clearly is problematic. You know, when you, when you have people being forced into marriage, uh, at, at very, very young ages that, that seems very pro problematic. And from what I saw in the news and again, my expertise on that is not even expertise. It's just knowledge from what I've seen in, in, uh, uh, news reports and things I haven't even read police reports on it. But, uh, those, uh, those were, uh, very unusual. Uh, the, one of the purposes is, is getting married, getting these wives and, and it seems, and that, and that just doesn't seem, uh, right in, in its approach, uh, and how those are done. And, uh, there were some people I think that were treated very badly and it may be that when you see those kinds of cases of abuse. Maybe they are more surrounded with, uh, plural marriage kinds of settings. But I think that's probably not a fair way to, uh, characterize many people who are involved in that. Um, while it might not be something I ever have any interest in doing. Some people are and, you know, from a law enforcement perspective, if people are involved in that and they're treating each other well and they're not abusing their Children. You know, I, I'm not even aware of, of us at the Utah County sheriff's office. At least I have never been involved in a plural marriage or polygamy, bigamy investigation. Um, if they're leaving each other alone, treating each other well and not living off of the, the public dole, you know?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h04m15s 1:04:15]
Michelle: So, so it's just the other.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h04m17s 1:04:17]
Sgt. Cannon: I can't, I can't say that I advocate for making it 100% legal. But I, I can say, I mean, we're not out there looking for people and I, and I know there are places, at least a couple of them in Utah County where, where plural marriage goes on. Uh, the only time I've ever, yeah. The only place I, there's one up, well, it's in a, in a part of the county, uh, that I've been to a couple of times but it was on medical calls. You know, they, they live a very private life. They were nervous about letting us in, but honestly, we were there because some, in one case was having a diabetic problem and they did the right thing by calling and all I cared about was facilitating the ambulance and the paramedics getting in there to help these, these people. I couldn't have cared less how they were living.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h05m06s 1:05:06]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. I appreciate that. I think I'm, I'm trying to navigate this because I started out being very sympathetic to, um, polygamist people who had these beliefs. You know, I wanted to share the investigations I've done in the scripture of why I think that it was a mistake from the beginning was never of God. That's, but I started out doing, you know, but um as I've studied it more, I've seen more and more and more the like actual malignancy of these ideas and, and so there are people who are generally peaceful and, you know, I think there are still, I think it still creates a lot of suffering that's unnecessary. I think it is just a, an idea designed to create misery and suffering. Um So, you know, at its best. But um I've seen more and more things that are deeply problematic. Like for example, in these um Hamlin girl testimonies, they talk about some of the human sacrifices would be like little boys from polygamist groups because there's no record of them and no one knows and they need to get rid of little boys or think there was a little girl that had a maybe a hair lip or some other I, I probably, there's probably a better term I'm supposed to use nowadays but some sort of a facial deformity, you know. So, like, like, I guess I'm just, um, and I've talked to some women that are some people that are advocates for people trying to escape polygamy because that's often what it is. It's a prison of the mind as much as anything else, you know. But sometimes it's actually a physical prison. So I guess I am kind of struggling with the whole decriminalization movement like II, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h06m49s 1:06:49]
Sgt. Cannon: think it's, there's so many things that if you, if you look at uh some of the things in society with, you know, definitions of marriage and even definitions of, of, of who people are and, and gender and all those things. From my perspective in law enforcement. I, you know, I can't, I can have my personal views on something, but I have to be able to separate those when I get a call of either somebody having trouble or somebody being suicidal or somebody having been a victim of a crime or somebody having been involved in a crash. I can't go there and, and look at them and let my personal views come into how I treat them. I have to treat them with complete decency and, and respect um and, and help them through whatever situation they're in. Um, if I ever have a circumstance where my personal views come in and I have had conversations with people when I've been working that the conversation is personal in nature. You know, but that's in a situation. It doesn't happen very often. But, uh, you know, maybe I take someone to jail and, uh, they have something in common with one of my Children that is having some troubles in a certain area. Or maybe, maybe I, uh, uh, a child or a teenager has died in an accident and I'm talking to the parents and for me to be just regimented in my law enforcement, I, I don't believe that's the right thing to do if I can show them some compassion and some caring in what is maybe the worst moment of their life. It's not something that is necessarily described in, in my job description, but it is something that is the right thing to do. I'll give you an example. Uh Sheriff Smith, he is the current elected sheriff and I've been a number of times in situations where he has done uh swearing in ceremonies for new deputies that are just hiring on with the sheriff's office. He gives them a little speech and he says to them, you know, the law gives you the right to take away people's freedom in certain circumstances. But the law never gives you the right to take. No, he says the law never ever, ever gives you the right to take away someone's dignity. Um And so when we work with people no matter what their, their life circumstances or what their, whatever their life circumstances, we try to treat them with respect and afford them the dignity that they deserve. Now, as far as, uh you know, plural marriage goes, like I said, we have not that I'm aware of ever dealt with. I know I have never dealt with a case like that other than a couple of times, a handful of times that I've mentioned where uh there was a medical problem and we were there to assist medical people. Um That's the only interactions that I've had with him from a law enforcement perspective. Um And I didn't ever sense anything in either one of those settings where there was something, somebody being mistreated or anything like that. So I'm, I'm not 100% sure where I, where I stand on this, I know where I stand on it legally. Um There are laws whether people like it or not that we don't make any effort to enforce. Um, you know, uh I'll give you from a traffic perspective if somebody has their gas cap that's not completely connected, that's actually against the law. I've never stopped anybody and enforced that. Um And I don't plan on it. Um, you know, uh so if, if somebody is living in a plural marriage style even, and it's only an infraction now for basic level living in polygamy. Um There are other circumstances where it can be either a third or a second degree felony. But if somebody is living in a circumstance like that from a law enforcement perspective, I'm not even going to give it a second look. Um, if there is somebody being harmed, yeah, we'll take a look at it and we'll, we'll take it as far as we need to. It may be that all we can do is, uh, um, cite them with an infraction, you know, which is, if I write somebody a speeding ticket, that's an infraction. That's what basic level bigamy in Utah is, is an infraction. Now, um if there is fraud involved in it or if there is abuse involved in it, uh If there is coercion involved in it, then it can be become either a third degree or a second degree felony second being more serious. Uh But if it's anything lower than that, we have more important things to work on, you know?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h11m29s 1:11:29]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. Sure. And see, ok, I appreciate this. Like, it's such a complicated conversation because yeah, like my, my homeschool mom of a big family self loves hearing, you know, the last thing I want is more government intrusion into homes and families. Right. And then at the same time as I guess, sort of as I've talked to people who are so aware of the human trafficking happening and the things with like, you know, we have Samuel Bateman and the what are, what are some of the other prophets that have come up and these revelations and we have people's kids being kidnapped and taken. Right. And, I mean, just horrible, horrible things and it seems like there's no ability to help, um, you know, the polygamists from what I understand kind of work with each other and kind of have this underground network of even hiding people's Children. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h12m22s 1:12:22]
Sgt. Cannon: we, there, there may be some of that and those are the kinds of things that well, and you have to look too. Um, there are things that are reprehensible behavior but not illegal. And then there are things that are clearly illegal. Uh, for example, if I'm in the store and, uh, I see a five year old kid reach up for a candy bar and say mom can I have this? And the mom berates the child and tells them how stupid they are. We can't afford that. You know, I want to smack her but she's not breaking the law. She might be a bad parent but she's not breaking the law. Now, if, uh, if that child grabs for that candy bar and says mom can I have that? And she slaps the kid across the face and knocks him onto the floor, she's going in handcuffs, uh, because we can do something about that. Um, if you, if you have these other things, you know, if, if I think a lot of it, we have to be able to separate too. What is just bad parenting and choice of lifestyle that isn't causing, I don't know, it isn't causing damaging harm to somebody
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h13m24s 1:13:24]
Michelle: or at least isn't breaking the law,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h13m26s 1:13:26]
Sgt. Cannon: isn't breaking the law. That's probably the best way to put it, uh, versus what we think is, uh, teaching bad, bad principles. You know, there, there's plenty of examples of, uh, of people who have broken away from some of these, these groups that have been damaging, uh, to them and, you know, I've read a couple of books about them and, and they, they are disturbing but it goes beyond just having a different religious approach to living, which might include plural marriage. Uh, and there's, there's more to it than just that there is moving from state to state or even country to country and, and how the house to hide what's going on. And, uh, yeah, it's, uh, it's scary when it, when it gets to those points when, when they're making an effort to blur the lines of where a family is or where they live and what they do, you have to at least wonder, is there something else going on there? But again, we have to have evidence. I've had a lot, a lot of si situations in my career with other things, not with polygamy, but with other things where I knew a crime had been committed, but I didn't have evidence to prove it and we have to have evidence to prove it. Uh, and to make an arrest, we have to have probable cause to get a conviction. You have to have beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's a, that's a high standard to try to meet, you know?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h14m48s 1:14:48]
Michelle: Sure. Sure. So, I guess that's my question is because it seems to me and from what I have heard and understand is that it's harder to get evidence when I guess decriminalizing polygamy where we know already that secrecy is a huge part of it. Even if it's not being prosecuted, there's, there's a massive secrecy, right? And a lot of that is also hiding clear crimes, but it's really hard to get the evidence because plural marriage itself can't be the evidence, right? And so all of the child labor that is absolutely a part of it. The educational, um, what's the word neglect? Right. And these are, like I said, you know, I don't, I'm so torn on this because I like, I like parental autonomy without the government, but I also don't want these things to happen. And so, and then what we do know of several cases of abductions. And so I guess, I guess I'm just wondering from your perspective, has decriminalizing polygamy made it harder to help people that are being abused in the system and harder to prosecute what might be actual crimes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h16m00s 1:16:00]
Sgt. Cannon: Well, you know, the, I, I think the, the polygamy itself hasn't typically been the, the problem, the underlying problem is when there's abuse going on. Um, is when, uh, Children are being harmed, when they are being secreted away to different locations for the purpose of keeping them from telling anybody or, or keeping, you know, for law enforcement from getting to them and having a conversation with them. Um, they want to control that part of it. Uh, then that, that becomes problematic and the way that happens certainly creates an environment that makes it more difficult for law enforcement to follow up on those things. You know, I say at a basic level, uh you know, the, the infraction level, polygamy, we couldn't care less about what we do care a great deal about is just exactly what you're talking about. The, um, the things that happen if there is abuse going on, either child labor problems or sexual abuse or, um, or whatever it might be, um if those things are happening and, and those victims are being moved to places to hide that, you know, that is a problem and, and if we have evidence to, to prove that those things are happening, yeah, we'll go after them just as hard as we will otherwise. But as I'm sure, you know, these kinds of networks to get into them and get any one of those people to talk to you is extremely challenging and to get hold of a victim or potential victim or even suspicion that there is a victim is really, really hard to do because they are such a tight and closed, closed network. Now, I think being a closed, uh, group like that isn't in itself enough to, to say that we need to make this change because they are undoubted. There's got to be some out there that are completely harmless. They're living a normal life. They're good to each other. Whether they have two or three, spouses or, or whatever. Uh, I'm sure there are some that are, that are living a decent life that aren't harming those nine, who they're supporting their families well, and, and each other emotionally and financially and, and all those things educationally, whatever. Um, but, uh, it, it's particularly worrisome when we know that there are others out there that are not that way that are problematic where abuse does happen. And if they're being moved around to hide that, uh, we know, I mean, with Warren Jeffs is a perfect example of that. How, how deep those dark networks can go in trying to one hide the abuse and then two hide the abusers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h18m46s 1:18:46]
Michelle: Yes. Ok. So, ok, so let me, let me get my thoughts in order. But one thing, um, I guess I'll go here first is that it's so hard because it's such a part of our heritage. And I've been studying the history and I just came across another story. I come across them all the time of a little 14 year old girl with very poor parents. She was the oldest of eight Children in Scotland. Her father was blind and they shipped on the perpetual immigration fund, I believe. And she turned 15 on her way here came, you know, without her parents. And within two months of being in Utah was married off to a 49 year old. And so it's tough and, and it's, you know, this is my great grandmother's story. This is day after day after day, this is our heritage, right? And, and again, it was, it was secluded, isolated, complete control. So, so it's really hard because there tends to be this like softening of it where sociologically it's really been proven that there are no benefits of polygamy. Always the marriage ages of the girls get younger and younger, the boys get, you know, they, you have to get rid of the boys. Like, like there, I'm not even touching on the problems that, that there are with this, but it's always problematic. So it's even hard. Like, yes, there are wonderful people and there are benign families, but in general as a rule, it's not good and there are no good fruits of it, you know. And so, um, so I think what I'm, I guess, I guess what I kind of want to get to is like the Warren Jeff's case when they, um, when the, what was it, that was it, the Texas um police force. Um, I guess, you know, the word invaded is coming to mind, but that's not the right word. But when they went into the yearning for Zion Ranch and, and did that and, and like, I remember me, I was, I totally fell for the show that the polygamist put on feeling like these poor people. I was much, much more sympathetic to it at that point. But now I look at it and I'm like, it is such a dang good thing that they did that. Right. I think that that's, and we wouldn't know that we would just think, oh, they're benign if they, I mean, you know, it's a good thing that Warren Jeffs had the technology to have recording devices and it's a good thing that they did that so they could get those or we would have no idea. And so we don't know what happened in our past and we don't know what's happening elsewhere because it's just secret and no one's done the horrible thing that the Texas, you know, like that was a horrible thing to have to do. But I think generally we're glad that they did it. Like, we think it's a good thing. Right. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h21m15s 1:21:15]
Sgt. Cannon: so I, I completely agree. It was a, it's a good thing that they did it. I, I don't know. I, I would assume, well, I, I'm quite certain that before they went into the, where they had a phone call they had somebody sneak into their office or, or something, they had something that got them to the point where they could start getting search warrants and things like that. Um, well, you know, I, I love our legal system. There are some aspects of it that are really that I, that I, I wish could be different but because I am such a strong believer in it, it has to be that way and even if something's going on, if I can't get it the right way, it's hard to stand back. But it's really what we have to do to preserve the integrity of our legal system, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h22m03s 1:22:03]
Michelle: Which is exactly right. So this is my question that it just is coming to me as we're talking. So when we have these big criminal networks, what usually happens, at least, you know, as someone who grew up watching TV. So, you know, but we go, yeah. Yeah. Like, like we go undercover, right? Like, like you go under, you don't wait for someone to call and turn in a drug dealer or you send or a, you know, you go undercover to, to, um, get at the crime that's happening. And I would say we have definitely plenty of suspicion, you know, reason of evidence to point to, to crimes. So why can't we do things like going undercover into some of like, the Kingstons? My goodness. There's so much, I mean, like, at the very least the baby graveyards because of all the inbreeding and the, like, you know, and then we have these allegations of like polygamous Children being given to a way to, for a, for a ritual sacrifice. Like all of these kinds of things. Couldn't we do an undercover investigation? Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h23m09s 1:23:09]
Sgt. Cannon: You know, in, in, on the, on the face of it you can, uh, under going undercover in any network, uh, is, can be very, very challenging and, uh, for the narcotics world, for example, uh, it's a little bit easier to do because all you gotta do is pretend like you either buying dope or you are working your way up the chain. If you get deep enough, you can even get in with the cartel, uh you know, at the cartel level and things, uh something like this uh would be, I think a lot more challenging because they are such a closed society and it could be very difficult to, to do uh to work your way in to the extent that you can find out exactly what's happening beyond
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h23m52s 1:23:52]
Michelle: just female cops could do it. Female cops could do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h23m56s 1:23:56]
Sgt. Cannon: it anyway. So it is, it would be nice to get in. That is one of the, no doubt, one of the most challenging aspects of, of investigating these kinds of things. Um is uh you know, how do you get in to the inside? How do you gain that trust? Um And, and also you have to, you have to have something that can lead you into doing that you can't just, uh you, you can't just go with, with drug dealing. For example, uh if I know where to go to, to buy drugs, I can go there and I can act like I'm somebody who wants to buy some and if somebody approaches me, then, uh then I've done my job by just acting like I want some or I can even approach somebody and say, hey, I've got some drugs to sell or do you have any drugs you can sell me? Um But with something like this, uh yeah, it would be hard and maybe not even ethical to try to insert yourself into a situation where you don't have any evidence to suggest that something is going badly that there's abuse going on or, or whatever, it might be child labor or whatever. Um It might not even be ethical to try to do that if you don't have some evidence to. Well, I know it would be unethical from a long enforcement perspective to try to do that where you have zero suspicion, even that something like that is going on. You know, beyond just saying, ok, if you, if you throw a broad blanket over and say polygamous families in general tend to do these things, that's not enough really to go into this particular polygamous family and start trying to imagine. I mean, the most public thing that you think, see now is Cody Brown and the sister wives. Um imagine trying to, uh, work your way into that group undercover. You know, and I'm not suggesting that, that they are breaking laws or committing abuse. I, I have no reason to believe that I'm just, you know, for instance, if I wanted to go in there just to see how would I do that? I'm not going to take on another husband
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h26m01s 1:26:01]
Michelle: for sure. But that's what I'm, that's what I'm asking like, in a way if we don't have any suspicion, it seems like it's because we're not looking because we're closing a blind eye to it because you could, you could very easily find work sites with 89, 1011, 1213, 14 year old boys. That's something that would be seeable if we didn't just look away, we can see the young, the young women, right? That are mothers that shouldn't be, we can see. I mean, there are so many things and then even the, you know, like the, um, bleeding the beast, the, um, signing up for benefits. Those are things that we are turning a blind eye to time and time and time again and then even things like the women that, that have left and their Children are being taken from them and they can't get Children. That would be a fantastic reason. So I don't want it to be this broad brush, it seems like, ok, if there's a woman who's saying my Children are missing, that's a pretty big deal and it feels to me like we kind of turn a blind eye. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h27m03s 1:27:03]
Sgt. Cannon: But we have to have them come to us and tell us that in the first place. You know, and, and I think, I think a lot of it is, is getting them to the point where they have the courage. Maybe, maybe they fear that if they come and report something that they will go deeper into hiding and be that much more difficult to find. And we know that they, uh, that from some groups who have been particularly problematic, that they have a good ability to go deep into hiding or, or keep outsiders from getting in. Um, so we, we have to have some information, uh, that is happening. Uh, you know, as far as looking at, uh, say welfare records and things like that, I suppose that could happen. I don't know if it, maybe it has and I don't know, I honestly don't know because I've never been involved in one of the investigations to know I've been involved in other investigations. So if I, for example, suspect that I have reason to believe, probable cause to believe that somebody is, uh, uh, abusing prescriptions, um, then I may be able to get a warrant to search their Doppel records to see their prescription history, you know, and that may then tell me something and open it up, but it also may get me in there and say, oh, well, I guess they're really not, they, if they're misusing prescription drugs, they're getting it from somewhere else but not from doctors. Um, so in a case like this, if, if somebody is, is misusing public welfare resources or they're abusing child labor laws or you've got underage girls, uh, having, having babies. Uh, yeah, we have to look if I see some, if I see a girl who looks like she's 14 years old with a brand new newborn baby walking across the parking lot at Costco in Saint George. Um, that alone isn't enough to tell me even that that baby belong. She's the mother of that child. Um, so we have to be careful about, you know, it's, we have to be careful. We don't trample on people's rights in, in doing that, their constitutional protections, um, search and seizure and all those kinds of things. So we really, we really have to be careful in some circumstances are much more difficult to get that. There may be criminal activity going on that we can't get to because we don't have enough information even to start an investigation, let alone get a warrant or arrest anybody.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h29m22s 1:29:22]
Michelle: Yeah. Ok. So that's, I guess what I'm wondering is if it's possible to make it a little bit higher of a priority, what would need to, what would need to happen because I do feel like there's a lot that, um, there's a lot of evidence there for the getting like, like the way that you put out the press report saying, hey, if anyone has been uh has any information on ritualistic abuse, is there a way to say, hey, if there are problems that someone has experienced of any of this nature, you know what I mean? Like, like, I don't know if there's a way to prioritize it when we know that. I mean, from, from what I've understood just a couple of statistics from some of the advocates, I've been speaking to the rates of suicide in polygamous groups are exponentially higher than just the regular population when, and, and, and that's not illegal, but it's kind of showing the level of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h30m19s 1:30:19]
Sgt. Cannon: an in some way or another, you know, I mean, yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h30m24s 1:30:24]
Michelle: and then when we know that, that, that really like human trafficking, especially when you're talking about taking work crews across state lines. But like those are major crimes when you're taking girls to different locations to be married. Like, and we have every indication that these things have always been happening and are continuing to happen. And, and so what can we do to help this become a higher priority?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h30m49s 1:30:49]
Sgt. Cannon: I think, I think some of it depends on the area where it is uh getting the information. Um You know, maybe, and maybe there is more that could be done proactively uh educating uh officials with authority there, whether it's family services officials or law enforcement. Um you know, somebody writing up AAA document that says, OK, this is the information that I have that makes me believe that this is going on here, whether that can do something for it or not. Uh I don't know. Um But there, yeah, we, we certainly want to address issues where there are problems and whether or not uh having polygamy at a infraction level at the basic level of polygamy in Utah is a good idea or not. Uh, the, the problematic, the other problematic behaviors, um, are, have always been the same level. So if somebody is, is being married off at age 13, uh, you can't do that. That's not ok, you know, or 12 or 11 or whatever, you know. Um, that, that's not ok, whether polygamy is an infraction or a first degree felony, uh, there are certain behaviors and acts that are never, uh, well, I hope never going to be ok, that are wrong whether polygamy is an infraction or felony, you know, you know, educating us, you know, we'll, we'll take education, we're not so high on ourselves to think that we know everything there is to know if there's something going on that, uh, is more serious than we, we understand it to be. Or maybe we're misguided in believing that it isn't that big of a problem. We certainly want to know about it. I mean, uh, my, my wife is a fan of the sister wives show, you know, and they're falling apart. Their family is falling apart. I think there's no doubt about that. And it's, it's sad to see, but I, I think we need to be careful to not rush to judgment and say that they're falling apart because they're living a plama lifestyle. The fact is regular marriages are falling apart of a rate of probably in the neighborhood of 50% or more nationwide. So, is it because of the lifestyle they live maybe? Is it because they're just going through the normal vicissitudes of life and marriage? That might be it too? So, um if there are, if there are things out there that are bad that are going on, that could have something done about them. If we did more about it, we gotta have enough information to steer us in that direction too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h33m33s 1:33:33]
Michelle: Ok. I love, I love you, Spencer. I love that you're just so humble and saying we're willing to learn because I have, I have, um I, well, I have so many thoughts of what you just said because as someone who has spent many years um interacting on this topic, you know, and I often engage with, well, when I initially started my Facebook group on this topic, when, when I suddenly realized that polygamy was never of God. And I had a lot of polygamous men come and join the group and, and you know, tell me their, their biggest insult for me when they realized that they couldn't that, you know, they couldn't convince me was, I would never want you as a wife. I don't know anyone who would want to be married to you. Isn't that funny? That's like the worst insult in the polygamy world that you can give a woman is that she's not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h34m19s 1:34:19]
Sgt. Cannon: three or four wives. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h34m22s 1:34:22]
Michelle: Right. Right. It was amusing. But a lot of the things you're saying are things they would say, like, well monogamy too, like, they have their problems too. And it's so like, and, and like, yes, that's true. But we haven't done the sociological, well, they were done in Canada. Canada looked at the sociological studies of what this actually does and decided to make it completely illegal. Like, like we have done it. Polygamy is, is problematic. It is much, much worse
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h34m48s 1:34:48]
Sgt. Cannon: than I think we need to look at it too is, um, let's, let's assume if, if there is something about polygamy itself that creates problems or creates abuse or whatever you want to say that would not occur. But for polygamy then clearly we would need to address that and do something about it. Now, when I say, uh, when I say creates problem it would not happen. Yeah, if a guy's got four wives and he, and he gets in an argument with all four of them. If he didn't have four wives, you'd only have one wife to get in an argument with, uh, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about, you know, abuse or child welfare, child labor, uh kinds of issues or welfare fraud. Uh Yes, those things happen in monogamy. But if they happen at a greater level or unique to polygamy, then yeah, we need to address those issues should be addressed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h35m48s 1:35:48]
Michelle: OK. OK. So, and then, and then I have, this is my other question. I feel like there is a tendency for us maybe particularly as members of the church and in Utah to really, um, feel somewhat protective of polygamy because it's our heritage. And we still, I, I, I'm serious, like we still have section 132. Many people still believe it's in our future. Many still believe it's a true doctrine. And so we're hesitant to be willing to, um, like I said, um, the stories that are in our heritage could make us think. Oh, well, Brigham Young did it. So it can't be that bad if they're marrying 14 year olds, that's just what they do. I mean, I mean, I feel like there is this tendency and that is where I think it might be useful to provide some degree of um, training or education to help people understand. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h36m40s 1:36:40]
Sgt. Cannon: I can tell you this from a law enforcement perspective. Um, I couldn't care less what history is in the L DS church or any religion. If there are laws that are violated that are particularly harmful to anybody, we're gonna go after them I mean, uh, and I'm a fairly black and white kind of a guy. Uh, and, uh, the, the law is the law. Now, that being said, I, I already mentioned earlier, there are some things that we just don't pay any attention to traffic laws or, or whatever, you know. Um, but, uh, you know, if there are, if there is something specific in polygamy that is creating harm, people are being harmed in a criminal way, uh, in some way, either society through welfare fraud or child labor laws or child sexual abuse, uh, that is couched in the form of uh, marriages, uh whatever it might be, uh, if those are problems there and if they exist and they're happening, which we know to some extent they do. Um then we need to address those and uh if there are aspects of it that are, we need to be able to separate that from the aspects of it that are just maybe distasteful to us. But, you know, you like living that way but I don't so have at it, you know, but if, if there are people being harmed criminally, either through sexual abuse or child labor laws or welfare fraud, that kind of thing. Yeah, we, we need to find a way to address those things if we can. But there are certain aspects, elements of the, those kinds of groups that are particularly difficult to get into and find all that and, and we know that with the, the, the Warren Jeffs thing, I, I was not part of that investigation but just from what I did see, I remember watching news reports on that and thinking that must have been a nightmare to try to get inside of that and to get that information, uh, because they were so protective of each other for so long, many of them, you know?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h38m47s 1:38:47]
Michelle: Right. Right. Ok. Ok. So, I guess that's my plea is like, first of all, if there are people who have evidence or who have um evidence of crime or who have suffered in these systems, either the ritualistic abuse or some of the problems that come up because of polygamy. O obviously, you know, like I like what you're saying, not just the lifestyle is lifestyle, but the problems within it. I hope that people will start reporting more and just like I loved everything you said about. We believe the victims, we prioritize this, you matter, you put out the press release. I'm wanting that same amount of care and attention to be available to people who have experienced abuse and polygamy to know that they can come forward and then it will be taken seriously and prioritized.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h39m37s 1:39:37]
Sgt. Cannon: Yeah. And, and you know, it's interesting and, and what I, a lot of people, a lot of times people don't know where to call, you know, and they worry, should I call it a non emergency number? Should I call 911, if you don't know, just call 911 if, if somebody sees this and they're in one of those situations, if their parents are living in plural marriage and it's otherwise fine, you, you might just have to live with it. But if, if somebody is suffering abuse, uh, in one of those kinds of settings, yeah. Call, call police, call law enforcement, call 911. If you don't know what number to call, everybody knows 911 and it's ok to do that. Um, and, uh, let us let law enforcement look into it. You know, wherever you are, uh, if, if you're suffering abuse at the hands of somebody, whether you're in, in, and we're talking specifically about plural, uh, relationships here, plural marriage relationships. But in any situation, if you're in a city situation where you feel trapped, you feel like you don't have any way to get any place to go. There are people out there in law enforcement and child protective services in, uh, prosecution in judges who in therapists in, in medical people, doctors and nurses who want to help people who have been abused and in this context as well, if somebody happens to see this and they have been a victim of abuse. Absolutely. You know, we, we encourage people tell a trusted adult well, in a setting like that you might not have a trusted adult. And if you don't, uh, find a way that you can get to a phone and call 911 or, uh, whatever we, we want to help you. We want to believe people, we want to get people, resources and services that they need, uh, so that they can feel safe. They can go to bed at night without worrying who's gonna crawl with them or, uh, anything like that, you know, that they can, they can be perfectly safe and perfectly happy in their life, uh, even in an imperfect life. But, uh, in a life with that includes abuse of any kind or child welfare or child labor violations or anything like that. Call 911. If you don't know the number to call, just call 911,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h41m44s 1:41:44]
Michelle: that's, that's excellent. And I'll just, I'll just put out there because I know there's also the fear of if people call and there and it's not able to be proven or there's not enough evidence and then they are just sent back home, their situation could be infinitely worse. So that's a scary thing for some people as well. So if there's anyone that's feeling, go ahead. It
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h42m03s 1:42:03]
Sgt. Cannon: is, it is worrisome and that, that does sometimes happen if somebody comes to us, uh, having experienced something, uh, and we can't gather enough evidence either in terms of statements or, uh, physical evidence, then, yeah, sometimes we aren't able to prove the cases that we know happened, but we just don't have the evidence to prove it. And that is, we try not to let that happen. You know, we, we try to step in and, and with welfare checks and, and things, but uh we want people to come forward and know that they'll be taken seriously.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h42m38s 1:42:38]
Michelle: That's excellent. And so I just want to say, go ahead and email me. My email is 100 and 32 problems at gmail.com and I can, I can help. I know Spencer, I can ask him what direction to go and what would be the most helpful thing. There are, I can also lead you to people who can be a safe house for anyone who just needs to get away from whatever situation they're in and, and I have, I was gonna let you wrap up, oh, go ahead and then I'll ask my last question. Did you have to say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h43m07s 1:43:07]
Sgt. Cannon: no, I just ii I like that, you know, it's uh it's important to get official services involved and things like that, you know, as much as we want to take the poor child in uh and, and protect them. Uh We have to not become part of the problem too. The, you know, if, if a child comes to us and says my dad's abusing me um or he's mean to me or he spanks me. Uh it's not against the law to spank a child, but whatever, if a child comes to us as I just don't feel safe at home, we can't just keep them in our home to protect them. We have to get law enforcement involved. Uh, because if we don't, then we may be put ourselves at risk of, uh, of facing investigation as well. And the ultimate focus is to protect that child. And, uh, if we can prove that they're in a dangerous situation, we'll do everything we can to keep them out of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h44m00s 1:44:00]
Michelle: That's perfect. I, I was trying to offer to be an intermediary for someone who doesn't quite dare call the police, right? They can contact me and I can find out how much information they need. And, you know, like, like I think that there are lots of us who would like to be someone's trusted adult who doesn't feel like they have one, right? That's, that's, I guess what I'm saying, like we can, we, we'll be happy to be your trusted or your trusted source.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h44m24s 1:44:24]
Sgt. Cannon: It may be a situation where um a child isn't in a setting where they are suffering abuse or where they are being forced into child labor situations or something. It may be just that their parents aren't very nice. Um And if you can provide a safe setting for them for a few hours, two or three days a week, you know, maybe that's what we can do. Uh And obviously if it gets worse than that and those other things are happening and they, they tell us about it. We can also pick up the phone and call 911. That's, that's the easiest thing to do.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h45m00s 1:45:00]
Michelle: Ok. That's perfect. And so now, because you said something that made me think of another question when I was gonna let you go. Um, so you had mentioned doing welfare checks and I'm, I guess I'm curious about this problem of, like, there not being any record of births. And again, my, I'm such a small government libertarian type person that, ah, but at the same time when these, like when these babies can just disappear and people can just disappear because there's no record of them. That's concerning. And when we have allegations that that has happened, you know, is there a way to just do welfare checks and make sure there's at least a birth certificate for babies that are born,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h45m42s 1:45:42]
Sgt. Cannon: you know, the young girl, um, I can't just walk up and say, uh, show me this child's birth certificate. It's hard to do. Now, if we have solid information to suggest that that might be the case, maybe there is more we can do, but we can't just, you know, I mean, in, in Russia you can walk up to every person that demand their papers. You can't do that here in America without cause, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h46m14s 1:46:14]
Michelle: Yeah, thank heaven. But I guess so. So these Hamlin girls testimonies that talk about these horrific human sacrifices and they mention Indian reservations and well, Native American Children or, um, polygamous Children because there's no record of them. That's not enough evidence to say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h46m36s 1:46:36]
Sgt. Cannon: you have a, you have to have a reason to believe that there's no record, a reason to investigate that. Uh, and I don't know, I don't even know honestly if it's illegal to be born and not have a, a birth certificate. You know, the State II, I, it's not something I've ever dealt with but, uh, when, when it comes, when they get to a certain age, obviously, there has to be a record of them. You're supposed to have a social security number and all that kind of stuff. But, uh, you know, it's a, it's a challenging thing. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h47m08s 1:47:08]
Michelle: So I guess my hope is that people can kind of put their heads together and figure out better ways not to persecute people. That's not the goal but to protect people from this bad system that are, that are suffering in it. So that's my hope is that we can all work together as a society and a community and you know, as the trusted adults, the responsible people to help people that are suffering in these systems. So, Spencer, thank you so much for taking this time to talk to. Is there anything else you want to say before?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h47m43s 1:47:43]
Sgt. Cannon: I've about spilled my guts on you here. Yeah. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h47m47s 1:47:47]
Michelle: yeah. Well, I sure appreciate it. So, thank you and I'll talk to you soon.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h47m51s 1:47:51]
Sgt. Cannon: OK. Good to talk to you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsO6hRPvQkE&t=1h47m54s 1:47:54]
Michelle: another huge thank you to Spencer for giving me so much of his time and being willing to talk to me. That was a really fun interview to do. I hope that you found it valuable. I will, I promise in the next episodes, I will give you plenty of warning for anything that will be difficult to listen to because the next interview will be more difficult than this one was. But my hope is that all of us can become more aware of the things that are happening around us so that we can do more to help in whatever way we feel called to. I was really happy to be able to talk about some different ways that maybe law enforcement could become more aware of some of the problems. And maybe there, there's some work that can be done there. And I'm thinking that maybe some advocacy could be done to help um educate police officers and help facilitate that work being done in more effective and better ways so that we can help more people. And so anyway, feel free to contact me. If there's anything I can do to help you in a situation you may be in or if you have any great ideas that we can put some coalitions together. I don't know, I'm not a great organizer, but I want to do whatever I can to help. So thank you so much and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Interview]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Ramifications]][[Category:Sra]]
}}

88: False Advocacy - Women Respond to Lindsay Hansen Park on Mormon Stories

2025-08-29T23:04:16Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 88: False Advocacy - Women Respond to Lindsay Hansen Park on Mormon Stories
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 88
| date = 2023-10-15
| youtube_id = wMJ3Ua6C-Jg
| tags = John Dehlin, Lindsay Hansen Park, Mormon Stories, Ramifications
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Interview, Whitney Horning
| summary = A round table discussion on a recent Mormon Stories podcast with Lindsay Hansen Park and Bryan Buchanan.[https://www.facebook.com/breeana.wright.54 Follow Breeana] [https://www.youtube.com/@gwendolynwyne Follow Gwendolyn] [https://www.tiktok.com/@karli_searches_and_prays Follow Karli] [https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Revealed-Exploring-Alternate/dp/1097872726 Joseph Smith Revealed: A Faithful Telling – Exploring an Alternate Polygamy Narrative, by Whitney Horning] [https://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Prophet-Unsung-Whitney-Horning/dp/B0B7QPTNKC Hyrum Smith: A Prophet Unsung, by Whitney Horning][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPukJiqc4wE Mormon Stories, Ep. 1815 - Polygamy Under Joseph Smith w/ Lindsay Hansen Park & Bryan Buchanan] [1:24:50] [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259 Doctrine and Covenants 101 - Marriage (1835 version)] [1:25:50] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko 132 Problems Episode 5 - Doctrine & Covenants Teachings on Marriage] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfTtQGOQxM 132 Problems Episode 68 - The Fruits of Polygamy, with Flora Jessop] [1:35:50] - TRANSCRIPT OF MISSING AUDIO Bryan Buchanan: "The problem is we don’t always know the dates, and so – as the Louisa Beaman case, and our – a lot of these questions would only be really well answered if we had more data."[2:34:40] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 101:46-54 (current version)] [2:50:30] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 132] [2:51:10] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2?lang=eng The Book of Mormon, Jacob 2] [3:07:30] [https://www.josephsmithfoundation.org/journalofdiscourses/speakers/brigham-young/the-people-of-god-disciplined-by-trials-atonement-by-the-shedding-of-blood-our-heavenly-father-a-privilege-given-to-all-the-married/ Discourse by Brigham Young, September 21, 1856.] [3:24:45] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/3?lang=eng The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 3:12] 
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=00m00s 00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 100 32 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy where we explore the scriptural theological and historical case for plural marriage. I always recommend listening to these episodes in order, starting at the beginning for anyone who's new here, that's where we cover the scriptural um discussion and those really important parts for those who are new here. Welcome. Feel free to listen to this episode. I just wanted you to please look over the other titles that we've done and engage in the conversation that way because I think there's a lot to learn. I am so excited for this episode. I get to, I got to sit down with Brianna Wright Gwendolyn Wine, Carly Lyman and Whitney Horning to respond to the episode that Mormon stories did on Polygamy Deniers, I guess is what they were trying to respond to. But I think you will see in the episode that they might want to really consider joining our team because we seem to be on the mo on the same page on most things. I hope that there are some new listeners here who will find this discussion to be a useful invitation and maybe um an opportunity to reconsider some of the narrative that you've believed in up until now. I think it's really useful to look at the new evidence and to consider how the narrative impacts people still today. As always, I want to so sincerely thank those who have been so generous and donated to this podcast. And um I welcome anyone else who feels so inclined and able to please also donate. It would be very much appreciated. So, thank you so much for being here as we take this deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon Polygamy. Welcome to this episode of 132 Problems. I'm actually really excited to be here with this group of amazing women who I get to spend the next couple of hours talking about polygamy with. So this is really exciting. So um I first want to give just a quick um explanation and introduction of what this episode is and then I will introduce all of these awesome humans and then I'll let them talk about themselves and then we'll get going so a little while ago. Um Mormon stories, that's John De Lin did an episode similar to the Mormonism live episode that I responded to with um um with Lindsay Hanson Park and Brian Buchanan about um polygamy and I found it to be interesting and somewhat troubling and I've been sitting on it for a while thinking, oh, do I want to respond? Do I not? And I finally had the inspiration. I will gather a panel of women and we will talk about it together because there are some real issues for women that I feel came up in this episode that I think are important to discuss. And I want very much to let women's voices be heard on these topics that so deeply affect women, but who have an extremely different perspective on these things. Then the woman who was kind of setting herself up to be our, our spokesperson, you know. And so I wanted to be able to talk about that and break a little bit of it down. So that's what we're gonna do. We have uh this panel of women to kind of do somewhat of a response video to many of the things that were said in that episode. So with that being said, I want to introduce this panel. So I'll just go across in the order that we are seated on the screen. So first we have Brianna Wright, who I just kind of had the thought I wanted to invite on because she makes like Brianna is kind of a Facebook warrior is how I think of you Brianna. She just has amazing insights, so much passion, so much integrity and it's just so articulate and profound in her thinking. So I really am excited to have her here. I'm gonna go through all of you and then I'll let you guys say something about yourself and then many of you will recognize and remember Gwendolyn Wine who has an amazing youtube channel that I hope everybody is watching. I love having brilliant women working on these topics and coming up with different profound insights. And so Gwendolyn, I'm so excited to have you back. I think it's just Gwendolyn Wine. But you're doing a series called Polygamy and Enemy have done this, which is also a beautiful title. So, and then we have Carly Lyman and this is Carly's first time on this channel as well. Carly has joined the conversation on tiktok, which I think is great. I love that we're covering the different platforms. Your channel is Carly Searches and praise and I love the way that you are breaking it down into smaller chunks, so thoughtful. So just hitting right at it in the most uplifting and impactful way. So I really appreciate what Carly is doing as well and her voice in this. And then of course, everyone will recognize Whitney Horning. I think Whitney, is this your third or fourth time here? I don't even know. But, uh, we have more episodes planned that, that Whitney is gonna come on and do with me. But Whitney is our print diva, she's the one who literally wrote the book on Joseph Smith's non polygamy. And then, and then Hiram Smith's non polygamy. I know it's much more than that with me. But, um, I just feel like between this group, we've got kind of all the area, all the avenues covered and a lot of just feminine wisdom here to share. So did I get everyone's introduction? Ok. Did I leave off anything that I need to? Whitney? Your book is called Joseph Smith Revealed. Is that correct? The first one? And then the second one is Hiram Smith prophet, a prophet unsung and I cannot recommend them both highly enough. So did I get those right? Ok. Ok. So, and, and of course, we'll have everything linked links below the best we can sometimes I forget to put the links that people have to remind me, but I will remember. So, ok, so these women have all made the enormous sacrifice of watching this entire episode maybe multiple times and carefully and taking notes. I know that that is definitely what I have done. I have all of my notes here and there's a lot to talk about and it was kind of, well, I guess first, just like, can we really take a quick second and everyone just give anything I left off of your introduction and then just give your first impressions of this video, the feelings you have from it, what you think of it and kind of, you know what we're doing here, just go ahead and get fill us in people, just go and order and start Brianna, then Gwendolyn and Carly, then Whitney. Um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=06m28s 06:28]
Breeana: I, so I'll just say that she did say Lindsay said something at the end that, um, she said we don't like to speculate. Um, we just tell you the stories as they are. And I thought, well, I think there was a lot of speculation that went on in that episode. So that was kind of my, one of my biggest things was ok, you don't like to speculate, but there was a lot of speculation in there and we all speculate to some degree. but still, um, that was something I thought maybe I would respond to a little bit eventually.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=07m03s 07:03]
Michelle: Perfect. OK. All right. And I'm sure, and maybe this is premature to do this because we've got all the clips. But like, yeah, like some something that kind of sums it up for you. So, thank you, Brianna Gwendolyn.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=07m16s 07:16]
Gwendolyn: Um I would just add that I'm a former librarian. And so I bring that, um, literary, uh, love and interest into my work. And one of the things that I felt, um watching that podcast with Lindsay and Brian, I, um, I appreciate that they're truth seeking and that's what they say that they are truth seeking. I felt so much darkness watching it and, and as I, um, just had that throughout my day, I just felt a lot of darkness around me. And when I read the book of Mormon and I read about the light of Christ, I feel a lot of light. So to me that's an important contrast. And, um, I'm sad that they have rejected the book of Mormon as a book of scripture because of polygamy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=08m01s 08:01]
Michelle: Oh, great insight. Thank you, Carly, your thoughts.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=08m06s 08:06]
Karli: Um So my first thoughts, goodness. Um Well, II I like this. Um Lindsay had just mentioned at the beginning that she was a liberated woman and she was wearing her tank top. And so I wanted to say showing that I, I think that we are all liberated women and like, I of course, am wearing a tank top as well. But I just wanted to say that it's this information that she called dangerous that liberated me. Like understanding that Joseph didn't teach polygamy was so liberating and completely changed my relationship with God for the better. Um It, it's baffling to me that she called that dangerous information. Um And Brian also even mentioned that he, he knows that a lot of the later accounts were they, they had a motive behind them. So I'm like, OK, well, why can't we focus a little bit more on why they had a motive?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=09m02s 09:02]
Michelle: Yeah, we will have, we have all of these clips that you've mentioned so far. So I'm excited to get into them. Thank you, Carly. I That's beautiful. Thank you Whitney.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=09m11s 09:11]
Whitney: So, uh my thoughts echoed a lot of what um they've already shared. I felt like Lindsay is very well read. She's very knowledgeable. She had a lot of history at her fingertips. Um And, and I used to agree not necessarily with her conclusions about what kind of a man Joseph was. But I used to also believe that polygamy had been instituted by Joseph. And I, for me, what liberated me was realizing there's a third option. So often growing up in a church that um stresses that they're the only true church. So often we feel like we have two choices and two choices only. We have the choice to believe and thereby be saved by that church and the belief in membership in that church or if we disagree with anything that church teaches, then the only other option is that then we're going to, you know, burn in hell. And for me, what liberated me was realizing there's a third option. And that third option is that I can believe in all of the beautiful, true things about Mormonism and the restoration and the things that are from God. And I can separate out the things that were introduced by man. And I found it fascinating that Lindsay um makes a comment that she wishes she could put ply me on Brigham Young. And I think, well, you can, and we've done a lot of research and if you would open your mind and heart to the research we have done, you can squarely lay this on Brigham's shoulders and believe in the beautiful things that Joseph revealed and taught about God and, and our eternal nature
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=11m08s 11:08]
Michelle: that OK, I'm excited to get into this I love all of your insights and it's fun. Every clip you mentioned is one I have. So we'll see how many we can get through because there are some that are really important. But so, so some of my initial thoughts as well is I really, I should have probably introduced Lindsay at the beginning as well. And Brian Buchanan there, you know, so Lindsay did a podcast called Year of polygamy. She had been a blogger on feminist Mormon housewife. So she's a self proclaimed feminist, which is one of the things that I want to talk about because I know the word feminist is really loaded. I don't necessarily claim that word, but I do definitely claim to be an advocate for women and I care deeply about women and that's part of what really troubles me in this, in this episode as well. But I really appreciate that Lindsay did her podcast and brought attention to polygamy that was not talked about enough. I had already gone on my journey. I just looked over the dates again and I think that the blog post that my husband read came out in 2010. So that's when I first was like, OK, this is not, this is not of God, you know, and then the more I engaged on it, the more I learned how not of God it is. But um but still I didn't have any conclusions about Joseph Smith. But it's interesting to see how the timing was because I think when I didn't learn about year of ply me until she was quite a way into it. But she did, the first one I listened to was her episode on The Relief Society. And that's the first time I learned that Brigham Young had shut down the Relief Society, which is a shocking thing for people to learn. Right. And, and then I went back and started to listen to her podcast and was like, glad she was doing it. But it was so I, I was too busy with kids to be doing something at that time. And I was so disappointed in it in a way. It was like, we need better than this, you know, but I am glad that she brought attention to it. So I will say a couple of things when she introduces herself, she tells us that she, what she's up to and she's now she's been running sandstone for a while, which I find very interesting that, you know, that that's taken a turn and been very different with her at the helm. And then yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=13m08s 13:08]
Breeana: Um for us, non Utah people, could you maybe give a quick brief description of Sunstone? Like I have an idea, but I'm not 100% sure.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=13m17s 13:17]
Michelle: Yeah, it's just basically, it's been around a long time. It's kind of like the Mormon think tank, like a place non correlated Mormon ideas to be shared. Do you have a better description. Whitney is that? And so um they, they do magazine presenters I presented there on Lot's wife in, I think, 2015 or something like that. And that's the only time I presented there. So you can, you can submit papers and they have a symposium and they publish a magazine and you know, it, it's anyway, it's, it's nice to have venues like that. It's very different now, it's interesting. And then also the thing that I found a little bit more concerning is that she is now the Hollywood connection for Mormonism. So I don't know who watched, um what was it called under the banner of Heaven. And I, yeah, and my
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=14m05s 14:05]
Gwendolyn: husband and I, we just Michelle when we watched it, we both were like, please tell me that none of our friends and neighbors watched this and think that this is how we are because there were, there were even these like all the little things, there was this one part where the sheriff said, made a piece of Heavenly Father be with you. And we were like, who says that? We don't say that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=14m28s 14:28]
Michelle: Well, that I grew up in Utah in the eighties. And I felt like, like the one thing I said to my husband was, I feel like someone said, anywhere that a normal person would say God change it for Heavenly Father. So it was like, oh my Heavenly Father, I'm like, what, what is this like I was actually really disappointed in Andrew Garfield going, why don't you learn about the people you're portraying? So you don't make a fool of yourself. And so when I learned, did you want to say something Whitney?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=14m57s 14:57]
Whitney: Well, I was just going to say that is the point that Vern and I stopped watching it. We were just like, no, we just can't.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=15m06s 15:06]
Michelle: Right. And so that's just the cultural piece not even getting in which, which it's like, oh, they did have a Mormon advisor. Oh, how unfortunate, you know, and then beyond that, the historical representations in that, that were so skewed and biased and ungrounded and good records and good evidence. So, so anyway, so that's one thing that I'm like, ok, we all need to be aware that she now and she said that she is consulting on many more shows that are upcoming. So we all need to be aware that like the only reason I can assume that film producers are using her is because they hate Mormonism and want to portray it negatively because I feel like she has deep disdain for Mormons and Mormonism. That's what comes across to me very strongly. And so that's one thing I also wanted to speak about is um yeah, and that's one of the reasons I wanted to address this. So we can give a better, more balanced perspective, right? And, and say, hey, Hollywood, there are lots of people you could talk to like get a more nuanced balanced view. But anyway, let me go to this first clip if that's all right and see if we can make this work.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=16m14s 16:14]
Lindsay Hansen Park: It's almost like people are learning how to have fun together. It's really important for me to have conversations with people that I disagree with. And Sandstone is that so that means we have conversations with people all over the spectrum.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=16m28s 16:28]
Michelle: OK. So I wanted to include that little clip because I know for a fact that Whitney has polygamists come, she has anti Mormons come. She has still faithful Mormons come. There is one group that Whitney that Lindsay, oh my gosh. That Lindsay, maybe it's because I'm looking at you that Lindsay is vehemently opposed to and does not have come and that's us, right? Have any of you had interactions along these lines when
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=16m59s 16:59]
Gwendolyn: Michelle I sent her naively because I didn't know this. I sent her my paper that I wrote, um I wrote a paper called Polygamy or the an enemy has done this, the seed and weeds of polygamy. And I sent it to her. Um No response, total silence. And I was like, that's weird because she's the lady who did the year of polygamy. You'd think she'd be interested in like getting to the bottom of this and really wrestling it and uh hey, if we can pin it on, not God, then that would be great. Right? So I was really surprised that she didn't have any interest in engaging with me and, and, uh, especially now hearing that recording that she does have a desire to interact with people of all different beliefs. So, I'm not sure why.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=17m42s 17:42]
Michelle: Ok, that's what I was hoping. Who was talking?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=17m46s 17:46]
Karli: Go ahead. Oh, sorry. Yeah, it was interesting because she said the point of Sunstone is just to kind of say that there's more than one way to Mormon and, I mean, we are Mormon in a certain way and it's a growing movement, you know. Um So yeah, it's very interesting that she doesn't want to give any light to our perspective.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=18m11s 18:11]
Michelle: Right. That's what I find so fascinating. It's like I'm hoping that by playing these clips, I'm hoping that maybe she'll watch this and, and have some self awareness and go. Oh, that's true. I, I am not allowing this way to Mormon and I think that that's a mistake with, like you said, partly how fast it is growing and if they, well I'll go on and play some more clips where they talk about not wanting this to, they're wanting to combat it. If you want to combat it, you have to address it and you have to address the things we're talking about. You have to address it and address it better that so, so anyway, I'll go on to the next clip.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=18m43s 18:43]
Lindsay Hansen Park: So this history is really, really important to me. Not only because it's changed my life professionally.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=18m49s 18:49]
Michelle: I'm gonna pause on the way through this as we go. And I think that that is a lot right there. Like she's, has gotten a new profession, an entire new, new platform, a career in Hollywood now, as well as being the head of Sunstone through polygamy. And I do have to wonder if that really changes her into her perspective and shuts down her ability to look at things. You know, I, I wonder, like she's, she claims to be advocating for communities that she, that we care about. But I wonder if she's advocating more for herself than for those communities. And that's something I find concerning.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=19m22s 19:22]
Karli: Yeah, I think that it can be hard to recognize our own biases because she has put so much time and effort into so much research that she has done. And I think that are evidence that shows that some of the points that she spent so much time on might not be right. It's not her fault. It, it's, that's the sources that she had at the time, but information threatening those conclusions. Could that threaten her profession?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=19m52s 19:52]
Michelle: Yeah, it's really interesting. It's kind of that same idea of Mormonism like I like to talk about. Secondly, I 28 and 29 when, when you're on a sandy foundation, you tremble lest you shall fall. So you fight against more information because you're defending the spot you're on. And it's interesting to see that possibly showing up in different areas because I do feel like, you know what, even if she has this profession, if she can bring more truth into it, she'll be even better at it. It doesn't need to be threatening truth. Shouldn't ever be threatening to where you have to shut it down and not consider it. So, ok, I'll continue.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=20m22s 20:22]
Lindsay Hansen Park: But it's, you know, my heritage, it's my ancestors, a lot of my friends are now, you know, coming from leaving fundamentalist groups, I have current friends who are polygamists because the podcast led me to that. And so it's a history that is misunderstood. It's really important to me. And there's this upswing in conspiracy theories and Joseph Smith polygamy denial that's really taking off. And I would say in a concerning way, the, the arguments are compelling, they are really good at weaving together certain facts to uh frame a narrative that protects the reputation of Joseph Smith so that, you know, we can deny that Joseph Smith practice POY, put a on Brigham Young and believe you me, I wanna blame everything on Brigham Young. But uh I think that that is a dangerous, a dangerous uh approach to our heritage. And if we continue to allow that sort of thinking to get oxygen, it's gonna have real world consequences to um our communities that we care about. And so it's really important to me to get this history out there. So thank you for allowing us to do that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=21m33s 21:33]
Michelle: OK, there was so much there. Yeah, Brianna.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=21m36s 21:36]
Breeana: So I, I mean, I just wrote my thoughts down after she said that I was kind of like, so the reason she's coming against polygamy Deniers is that the current narrative is really important to her. She says, um and to our heritage, but I, I just have questions for her. Like if I could sit down with her, my question, you know, to you Lindsay, if you're watching is basically like, which is it? Did you, did you leave the church? Because you found out about all of this, your heritage? That was so um that's so disgusting to you and that you denounced, you know, but now you're like, oh, this is really important that we hang on to this because it's our heritage. I don't know, it felt, it felt a little double standard is, you know, um I thought, why don't, why if, if you are pro polygamy and pro this narrative so much and, and our heritage and our history, like I, I mean, I didn't mean this unkindly but I thought, well, why not? You know, why, why fight against it so much? Why not be pro FL Ds or I don't know, I just thought, but then later,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=22m45s 22:45]
Michelle: go ahead, you finish. No, go ahead. You finish in a way. That's what's so strange is she is like, we'll talk about that more as we go forward. But she's saying I have friends that are L DS. And she's been in the forefront of saying the FL DS are the real Mormons. They're like, she's really working hard and has been for years to validate polygamists living polygamy, which is so troubling and strange and we'll talk about that a little bit more a week. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=23m12s 23:12]
Breeana: it's contradictory because she's saying Ky was so awful and everything that she says about it the rest of the 3.5 hours, but she's basically promoting it anyway.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=23m22s 23:22]
Michelle: Go ahead. Yep. And I want to ask Whitney really quickly. And then Whitney when she said that about, um, well, there are so many things I want to deposit on all the way through, but when she said I would love to blame it on Brigham Young. I, I feel like I, I guess I want all of your thoughts on this but Whitney, like, I don't feel like that's true. I feel like there is a deep investment that is not based on evidence that is just deter they accuse us of like being motivated by wanting to, by our love for Joseph Smith and wanting to redeem Joseph Smith. That's not the truth. We are looking at the evidence. I feel like they are motivated by a deep need to hate Joseph Smith. I want to know if that feels like, why, why do you say I would love to blame it on Brigham Young. But no, there is a deep need to protect this narrative of bad Joseph.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=24m10s 24:10]
Whitney: Yeah, I agree. I, I felt the same. Um This is the same impression I've received when I hear this. Um I pondered on this a lot probably over the last four or five years. And this is often a comment I receive when people have read the book, they, they don't want to. It is very fascinating to me that there that even apologetics and active mormons are OK with polygamy resting on Joseph's shoulders, but it's very upsetting to them to move it onto Brigham's. And this has been a very fascinating thing for me and I think for those who have left the church. Um and, and one of the um I saw Lindsay, oh, a few months ago, I think on Bill real on his show and she kind of made a comment that almost felt like it came from the bottom of her soul like this gut wrenching comment that basically how dare the polygamy deniers do what they're doing because they're giving people hope. And I thought, I think that's what it is. I think people who have rejected Joseph Smith rejected Mormonism and the restoration, a lot of them end up rejecting God and what they're really rejecting is a hope in a better world, a hope that all of what we're doing matters. And so I think that ultimately, there's some deep seeded um pain that if Joseph is innocent of this, that they need to then reconsider what Joseph taught what he did, who he was in God's plan for us. And ultimately reconsider God. And I think maybe for some people that is just far too painful, it, it, they then need to deal with some really serious pain that this dredges up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=26m18s 26:18]
Michelle: Mm. So, already having dealt with the massive cognitive dissonance and faith crisis in a way, it would require them to re-enter painful, cognitive dissonance and a second faith crisis. That, that, that's an important thing to realize. Thank you. Thank you. Um Carly, you had wanted to say something.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=26m37s 26:37]
Karli: Oh, yeah, it was just along those lines. Um I think that it, it's much simpler to uh I mean, she, she said that we're cons conspiracy theorists, right? And either way you look at it, there's conspiracy. You can say that Brigham was a conspiracy conspiracy theorist or it was Joseph and it's easier to denounce the whole church if everything lays on Joseph's shoulders, you know, he taught plumy, he taught all these false doctrines. Everything he did was wrong and, and horrible and he's a lunatic and so we can just completely throw him out. But if we try to consider that something was wrong in his organization and he was also a victim to another conspiracy, then yeah, we have to reconsider why was he targeted? And what maybe did he teach? That was true. And that, that is definitely hard to reconsider once you've completely thrown him out already.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=27m38s 27:38]
Michelle: Thank you. And for all of us iii I wanna ask and then, yeah, just let me ask this quickly, Gwendolyn, if that's all right. Just um for me, I, this is one thing that drives me a little bit crazy because we get it all the time that we are just based on motivated reasoning. We just need to defend Joseph Smith and, and I want to know if anyone if does that resonate with any of you? Yeah. So OK, because for me, it very much was like, I learned this and it makes you reconsider your perspective of Joe, it's actually the opposite. And I feel like, so I know it's easy for both sides to accuse the other. But I feel like throughout this entire episode, there was so much projection and this is one of the areas I feel like they, they did see the evidence they saw at that time. And so now they are very needing to have, they, they are very motivated to have Joseph be this awful guy, they think he is. And so they're refusing to look at further evidence, which is, which is fascinating because that's what they're accusing us of doing, but it's what they're actually doing. And so, and on a light note, then I'll come to you, we like I did like that. She said this concerning upswing in polygamy denial, like despite themselves, they're having to acknowledge and they're having to acknowledge that we have very compelling arguments. But then she, you know, and the other thing that I think that we will notice throughout this entire discussion is they don't address us at all. They, they're like incapable of actually talking to or about us, which I find fascinating. So, ok, Gwendolyn, then we'll come back.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=29m03s 29:03]
Gwendolyn: Um, one of the things I think this does serve to, um, serves to fulfill God's purposes is that it, it has caused a lot of people to let go of Joseph to let go of their faith in Joseph. And for those who are willing, they have had to just redirect their faith to God. Um So as much as it causes that, that's good, right? Because we don't want to have faith in Joseph, we want to have faith in God. Um But I do, I do think we have very good evidence that Joseph was actually like a good representative for God's Word. Um But I wanted to tell a quick story because when I was writing or I was almost done with the paper that I wrote um about polygamy saying that this is not of God and isn't that great news and we can reject this doctrine and hold on to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. I was put in touch with a very well known. Um It's a man I'm sure this won't be a shocker once you hear the story. Um He was an author, institute teacher featured speaker at various church conferences and he very kindly sacrificed his time to talk with me about um my paper before I publish it. And when he heard, he hadn't read it, but when he heard what my hypo hypothesis was that I, that I was saying that polygamy is not of God. He and how I interpreted Jacob 230 he told me you are treading on dangerous ground. Don't write this, don't publish it. Don't go on any podcast or say anything about it. Just put it on a shelf, forget about it. You care about this too much. And um with that, with my personality that pretty much ensured that I would write it. Publish it. Go on podcast. I remember just being like, wow, thank you for that. Um But I think it's amazing that, that this, this man who was trying to do good and Lindsay, who, who seems like she believes that she's trying to do good. They're singing the same song that it's dangerous to think outside of their narrative. They don't want us to think beyond what they say is true. And I would love for Lindsay and this man to answer what are the real world consequences that you don't want to see manifested if I breathe this right. Lindsay says she doesn't want to give it oxygen, which means she wants to kill it. What are you afraid will happen in the real world? What are you afraid will happen? In the real world, if people, as Whitney said, have hope that God is real and loves us and is ultimately good.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=31m33s 31:33]
Karli: Yeah, I thought that was really interesting how our thinking that polygamy is not of God. And also Joseph didn't teach it is dangerous. But, but in other ways, she's supporting the FL DS. Like, as if, what they're actually actively doing is, is not dangerous.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=31m53s 31:53]
Michelle: Right. That's, I guess what I was like, OK, so, so we know that she threw your plug me by saying that that the fundamentalists are the real Mormons. She really has buddy up with them. She and oh Christina Rosetti, I believe is her name. Um That's a Catholic professor at UU. They were the as, as far as I understand it, like really two of the main voices pushing through the decriminalization of polygamy. And as I've talked ST this more, I just had a couple of really, like, I just adore Tanya Toole who has been on the podcast and I'm hoping we will come on again to talk about some things, but she's in there in the like trying to get this done. And she was really vilified during that debate, like both, both of these women really vilified Tanya, which I just find so heartbreaking and, you know, and this idea that um I guess it's kind of like, yes, we need to be loving and kind. I would never, you know, I have, I do have friends who are polygamous and they not anymore. They don't like me anymore. But, um, but I don't want to be cruel, but at the same time it's kind of like if you have friends from the Middle East who have slaves, do you know what I mean? Should we like, buddy up and advocate for them and say, hey, it's just another way to be a person. It's just another way to mourn it. Like, should we like, like that's what I guess I, I feel like polygamy is dangerous for people. Polygamy is dangerous for communities. It's what harms people. Well, when we validate it, when we validate it, we make it, we empower for the people who are doing it right? We say they're the real Mormons, they're the real fatal ones we buy into that narrative. And then we put down like Tanya told me that one of the best things like she's not going to take a side on the Joseph Smith debate. She's not L DS and she's certainly not an L DS historian. And you know, she's like, I'm not going to touch that, but she did say that if um people, if this could be, if this movement can grow and it can be verified that this didn't begin with Joseph, that would be one of the most profoundly impactful things on polygamist communities. And so that's where I feel some real concern about Lindsay and her position. I'm like, is it dangerous to them or is it dangerous to you? That's something that I think really needs to be considered. So, Brianna, sorry, I interrupted you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=34m14s 34:14]
Breeana: No. And I think I'm just saying what you just said, but basically she was saying it doesn't matter, even if there's, I mean, she talked about sex a lot but even if there's no sex, polygamy is just sex or not, polygamy is just bad and damaging and, you know, tell that to the people, you know that I've talked to that I have been harmed by this. But then she's like, but of course, then back to the beginning. Well, this is a part of our heritage and a lot of people practice this and it's part of their religion anyway. Yes. Go.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=34m40s 34:40]
spk_6: Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=34m41s 34:41]
Michelle: And I'm going to have them come present at sandstone and share their theology and I'm going to validate it and treat it like, like this needs to be held in the same category as slavery. If they really are the twin relics of barbarism, why is it OK? To validate one? If not the other? Yeah, Carly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=34m58s 34:58]
Karli: Um So I don't know if you have this clip from later on at the end. She says she doesn't, she said that Eliza R snow drives her crazy. Do you have a clip about that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=35m06s 35:06]
Michelle: I didn't say the clip. So go ahead and talk about it now because I know which one you're talking about.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=35m10s 35:10]
Karli: So when we were talking just earlier and I didn't know that Lindsay Hansen Park had been vocal about supporting the bill to decriminalize polygamy. Um I went and looked it up and I read an article that was posted in the Salt Lake Tribune that she had written. Um and she actually talks about how we shouldn't compare polygamy to slavery. Um And that, and, and she's like, oh, we all want the easy, the easy out to maybe just decriminalize or to criminalize it so that it can be prosecuted. But she was suspicious of making such a easy con like conclusion. I was like, that's suspicious that you don't want to just criminalize, like make it illegal, keep it illegal so that we can help those victims because decriminalizing it, make it harder to help those victims.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=36m04s 36:04]
Gwendolyn: Can I add something here? So, one of the books that I love pointing to in my podcast is um was a 2018 book. It's a social science book. And so this is our most current data. This is not a faithful book. This is actually based on studies that have been done and it's called The Evils of polygyny. Evidence of its harm to men, to women, men and society. It's by Rose mcdermott and it represents uh long term data right on this and it's a very stunning title because nothing in, in uh in sociology is like evil, right? But she said it's because it was an unequivocal harm there was no evidence of it being good in any way, by any metric, all evidence of good was anecdotal and they could not prove it. And so to me, it's really surprising that, that they're not willing to acknowledge or consider that, that this is actually proven to be a bad thing. Um I would think that that would actually be something you'd want to lean into if you were opposed to it. So there is this question of like, if you're opposed to it, why are you promoting it? And if you're promoting it, you couldn't be opposed to it because it's not just another lifestyle, it's literally a harm.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=37m21s 37:21]
Karli: Yeah. And she mentioned that I forgot, actually say what she said about Eliza Arsal. She said Eliza Arsenal drove her crazy because she used her position of power in the system to hurt other women and to stop other women. And so she, that's women of power and any of us with voices to create any sort of change, shouldn't we be vocal and advocating to help these women out of the system or stop this system as a whole?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=37m54s 37:54]
spk_6: Which I just,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=37m55s 37:55]
Breeana: I agreed with her on that point and she's like, it kind of drives me crazy how we like, you know, put Eliza r snow on a pedestal. I was like, I actually agree with you, Lindsay. I agree about that. I think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=38m05s 38:05]
Michelle: there's a lot, there's a lot we agree on with them as we go through a lot of the clips I grabbed are, are things I'm like, yep, let's team up. But that was a brilliant point because I do feel like in a way Lindsay has built her kingdom on polygamy. And my concern is that to some extent, it may be on the backs of the polygamist, women and Children and men suffering in polygamy because she needs to sleep. That's what I'm concerned about. That's one of the main reasons I wanted to do this response. So in talk to um Tanya who's been very involved with this and um and some other people as well. So the decriminalization has actually been horrible. I want to, you know, give it its due. I understand the idea behind it was if people are afraid that they're going to be arrested, then they can't come and get help if they need it, if there's abuse or if there's rape. But, but built into polygamy is secrecy. It's been that way from the beginning. It's every abuser has to isolate and has to convince you that they're out to get you every abusive sy, every abuser does that and every abusive system does that. So that wasn't ever going to work. And one of the points Tanya made so well is that we have to first get better at prosecuting the actual crimes that are actually happening in polygamy before we talk about decriminalization until we get better at knowing how to deal with things like underage marriage and statutory rape and the um, child trafficking and all, you know, like, like she did say, I mean, well, there's a lot of data that, that still needs to come in but I do know a couple of things, the suicide rate among polygamists is like off the charts. It's, it's the highest I know of. And um I'm going to do an episode on blood atonement because I have similar quotes with Brigham Young and Warren Jeffs talking about all the people coming and begging to be killed, right? Like it is a suicidal doctrine. It creates suicidality profoundly. And then you have to choose between polygamy or I mean, your family or like the, the, the shun and then you're not at all prepared for life, right? And so what it does to humans is something we have to take seriously, right? And then, and then since it's been decriminalized, it's again, just validated the very worst of the polygamist. It's given them a free pass, it's empowered them. And from everything I have heard, things have gotten far, far, far worse. We have all of these FL DS women whose Children are being kidnapped, they're being stolen from them and there's talk of blood atonement. We don't know where the kids are, we don't know if they're being killed. We don't know. And there's like, like things have gotten so much worse since it was decriminalized and I need to hear the people are leading that battle leading that charge say, hey, we need to fix this. If like, I'm really frustrated about hearing women claim to be anyone, anyone, not just women, hearing people claim to be advocates for women and Children and call out wrongs that they see while not acknowledging their part in contributing to it. That's part of what I find so deeply, deeply troubling that we all need to look at honestly. And I guess I'm begging the people who were involved to look honestly at what, what they contributed to. And if that's, you know, because I do again, I love, I don't want to alienate anybody. I want to be inclusive and kind to polygamist, but we have to call out the system for what it is. And I think slavery is about the best comparison. We have to really name it for what it is. So anything else or should we move on to the next clip? Well, I was just,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=41m40s 41:40]
Whitney: I was just going to add that about a year and a half ago, a woman who is kind of a matriarch down in the polygamous community. I reached out to me and, and pleaded for help. She said that it, it's just these last couple of years. It's just getting just horrific for the people in the community. And she has, and I, and I can see, you know, so many things that we try to do in life are a double edged sword. I can see where perhaps the idea behind decriminalizing it was that sometimes when something is labeled as a crime, those involved, it's even harder to come forward. Um You know, it's kind of like branding you with the scarlet letter. And so perhaps the thinking was if we decriminalize this, then they will, we're not going to be adding more shame and guilt to what their um participating in it and going through. But, you know, then we've just seen that the reverse of that is that it's just becoming even more horrific with the abuse and the um victimization that's going on. And so the human trafficking, you know, they, they want the women in particular, the women and the Children. I worked with a woman last year who had gone out of a polygamous marriage and her Children all were taken and are being hidden and she hasn't seen them for over a year. And so there's just horrific things going on, just, just tragedy on top of tragedy. And, and I, I agree, I don't, I don't understand how I guess for me, right? One of the motives, one of the main motives for writing my book was thinking of the good people who are trying to be faithful to the Lord and they believe that being faithful as a Mormon means getting back to the quote unquote fundamentals that they believe Joseph Smith taught. And so good people go and enter into this, um, polygamous lifestyle of marriage. And I guess for me, I thought if I could free them from that and help them separate and realize Joseph wasn't the author of that, that it could keep, um, people today from entering into that and, and, um, I don't know, I just prevent a lot of pain. Yeah. Exactly. And, and so I guess for me that part of what Lindsay said just, I don't understand, I don't understand her thinking that she can believe that what we are trying to do is dangerous for that community. To me. I see. I mean, I do think if you have a good marriage and good f good family structure, you should keep families together, Children suffer when there's divorce. But how can teaching especially the Children a better way of life and a better future. How can that be dangerous? II, I just do not understand that comment at all.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=45m04s 45:04]
Michelle: That's the only way I could make sense of it is it's dangerous for her, not for the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=45m09s 45:09]
Karli: people. And isn't it interesting that the L DS historian? Was it? Who told Gwendolyn that her line of thinking was dangerous? And also it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=45m19s 45:19]
Gwendolyn: was just a, just a faithful, faithful, well known influencer?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=45m24s 45:24]
Karli: Yeah. So how can I make? It
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=45m26s 45:26] Whitney: just makes no sense. So you're saying the one that told you was an active LDS member? So I sense an apologetic for, oh, yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=45m37s 45:37]
Gwendolyn: Well, I would say I would say, generally as a church, faithful church members believe that polygamy. It doesn't make sense now. But it's a, you know, we don't, we don't reject it as a church. And so if you are a faithful church member, especially if you're older, right. I think there's an older generation maybe who hasn't, um, wanted to question these things so much.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=46m06s 46:06]
Michelle: Can I say that one of my just women I love in my ward is older. She raised, she's very similar to me, had 13 and raised 11 Children and is she's brilliant and we have the best conversations and she is just, she has been a, she was born a spunky woman who cared about women's issues way before her time. And so anyway, I just, and my mom is, is almost 89. Like there are people waking up like crazy and it's really easy and sometimes that older generation are some of the best of them and the younger ones are not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=46m44s 46:44]
Gwendolyn: And actually, actually, as you say that, as you say that, like, I want to apologize to the amazing people who I do interact with on my podcast because many of the people who see this the most clearly are older and wiser than me. And they've seen enough to know like I completely acknowledge that. Um I, I think maybe as you get older, you either become more entrenched or more open. Maybe that's maybe that's what this is. So, but Yeah, I guess there's a lot of fear. I think there's fear and because people, um, people who love the structure and the hierarchy and the organization, they're, they're scared and they consider it dangerous because they think if you take this out, you take out everything and, and it's like, you know what, if we take it out and it's not of God, then we're left with what God gave us. So it looks
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=47m35s 47:35]
Michelle: like people, I keep trying to tell people like we've already done that with every other doctrine I taught, like we've already taken every single one of them out and we're still here. Your faith wasn't destroyed when you know, like, and we're all glad, I think we're all thrilled that we are no longer teaching. So like God, God, God is a racist and I think we're thrilled that we're no longer teaching blood atonement. And right. Wouldn't we be thrilled if we were also teaching that God loves women? And like that would be amazing, right? And just, and move on that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=48m13s 48:13]
Whitney: Actually, God is not a liar when he says
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=48m17s 48:17]
Breeana: all the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=48m20s 48:20]
Michelle: right that God doesn't ask you to, doesn't, doesn't give you terrible tests just to see what you'll do. And you know, I like it has so distorted the nature of God into a lie, right? The truth of God has been turned to a lie. And so it, it's not, it does not need to threaten Mormons to get rid of this act of me. Like, I guess members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, sorry. It doesn't need to threaten us to get rid of this. And it also doesn't need to threaten anti Mormons. It shouldn't like whatever negative experiences you didn't, you had in the church or whatever you don't like about the church. It's still valid because it is the church that Brigham Young established that does, you know, so, so it's all valid. We can just look for the truth without being afraid.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=49m05s 49:05]
Karli: Right. Exactly. And because the church, we believe in continuous revelation in modern revelation. And all of us, we have, we've been taught this by the spirit like line upon line and we came to understand this through revelation. And so and lots and lots more people are understanding it the revelation. And so why can't we just accept it as another modern revelation and right? Like, ok, like Brigham was wrong. So we put like leave it alone. Yeah, just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=49m39s 49:39]
Michelle: like everything else. It doesn't have to. And it's funny to me that we have Lindsay saying this is dangerous. We have Gwendolyn's friends saying this is dangerous. We have Brian Hales saying like, told me that what I'm doing is dangerous because it causes confusion. I'm causing confusion. Polygamy is not causing confusion. 132 me talking about it is causing I'm like, can I just tell you how much more clarity I have? And like, and it's, it is, it's by study and by faith, right? It's, but it's mainly for study and then the confirming things and it's like so clear, there's no confusion
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=50m13s 50:13]
spk_6: now, so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=50m14s 50:14]
Breeana: simple, so beautiful, so life giving. Yes,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=50m20s 50:20]
Whitney: I want to say something that Carly mentioned about conspiracies. You know, it just that, I think that's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me when, when these people who don't like our message call us conspiracy theorists. And the main reason they do that is because then it shuts down anybody wanting to listen to us. Like it's just a really easy way to just, oh, they're nutty, they're cuckoo, they're out there, they're conspiracy theorists as if conspiracies don't exist. They've existed since Cain and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=50m50s 50:50]
Gwendolyn: Abel in the book of Mormon calls them secret combinations.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=50m54s 50:54]
Whitney: So a good friend of mine, Matt Loyer. He was on Glenn Becca a few months ago and he, and, and he's been charged with that. Oh, he's a conspiracy theorist. And he says, you know, Glen, I consider myself a conspiracy analyst. And so I love that we are just analyzing the conspiracies that do exist to find what's true and what's not true as
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=51m19s 51:19]
Breeana: was Lindsay and John in their episode, we were analyzing heresies.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=51m25s 51:25]
Michelle: Yes. Exactly. Exactly. OK. So, so one thing that also was in that last clip that was, that was probably the biggest clip that we have to talk about. But one thing is she stated a couple of things. Well, first of all, it was Lindsay that asked John Delyn to have her on so that she could prevent polygamy, the polygamy denial movement from getting oxygen. Right. So she reached out and asked to be on and so ostensibly their whole reason was to respond to the polygamy denial movement. Right? So I found that to be so interesting as I listened because all like they didn't respond to us at all. All they did was go on to harp on the very worst accusations of Joseph Smith, whatever. And, and now that I've researched more and I know, oh, that's Joseph Jackson that said that really, you're going that source. Oh, that's, you know, you can point and you like, oh that's from that book. Like you start to get a sense of what they are considering good, well, at least good enough evidence to assume is true and to share as factual truth. That was interesting to me. I kept so I, I think I saved every clip where they actually did respond to us at all. But that was amazing to me. I'm like, if you're going to ask to come on a podcast because there's a growing movement that you find concerning and you want to respond to it, well, then respond to it. You know, it was like, like I felt, I felt like the what this could successfully do is, is take the completely uninformed and skew their perspective Right. Like, like anyone who has studied all comments. Right. But, but it was just, it was just crazy. So that's, that's one thing I thought was interesting is apparently this was to offer a rebuttal to the polygamy Deniers. And I'm like, oh, did you fail massively fail at that? So I'm hoping that people who watch that will also watch this. Well, and we engage with some of our material that we've got so they can see the actual evidence that we're not the delusional ones here. We're not the ones just so. Anyway. Ok,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=53m35s 53:35]
Gwendolyn: we'll go on to Michelle. Can I, can I add in one more thing? So I think also they, they don't really define polygamy deniers. Um They or they do and they just say, they say Joseph didn't do it. And it's like that's not what polygamy deniers are. Polygamy. Deniers are. People who say this is bad when we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=53m53s 53:53]
Michelle: say God didn't do it. That's why it's not even about Joseph. It's about God. We're just, we're talking about Joseph because of the facts. But for my whole, you guys know that my whole first year of my podcast and my whole 10 plus years of study was about, is this of God, I didn't care about Joseph actually for a long time. So when we're polygamy Deniers, we are denying that polygamy is, is Godly right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=54m16s 54:16]
Gwendolyn: Exactly. It,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=54m17s 54:17]
Breeana: which you agree on, I would think, right? They agree with us. We agree with them. Let's start there.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=54m23s 54:23]
Gwendolyn: And then how sure are we, that we want to pin this on Joseph knowing that it's bad. And that's, that's kind of where our, our church, um, current, conventional thinking is a little bit different because currently we're like, no, it was good because everybody said it was good. And it's like, let's just let's identify what's true doctrine of Christ and what's not Christ. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=54m43s 54:43]
Michelle: That would be a great place to be united. We're united. So Whitney and Carly each had something to say, oh, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=54m48s 54:48]
Whitney: was just going to say so as Michelle knows, my journey started the same way, I wanted to know if it was from God and I came to the conclusion it was not. And therefore, then I went through that cognitive dissonance of, well, then what does that mean about Joseph Smith? And I decided that meant he was a fallen prophet and then I had to work through that. And so I'm not, I mean, Don Bradley to me, gave me a compliment on Ward radio the other day when he said, well, there's this author Whitney Horning and she even says in the beginning of her book, I chose to believe Joseph's public denials as if that literally was all I did just one day said I'm going to believe Joseph and therefore he didn't do it. You know, like that just counts years of research, years of struggling with this issue. You know, most of my life I've struggled with the idea of polygamy being from God and, and mostly for me when I was younger it was how, how can God tell me I am equal if he's going to do this to me? Because I'm a woman. And so for me it was very much my relationship with God and could I trust him because I didn't feel like that meant I was equal. And so there's just to me when they throw out these, you know, oh, you're a polygamy denier. Oh, you're just somebody who chose to believe Joseph. You know, it just discounts how much intellect and reasoning and searching and pondering has gone into for each of us and for everyone I know out there who is on this journey, it is a journey and it is painful and it is difficult and it is a whole lot more to it. And then I was just going to say really quickly, my husband and I met Rick Bennett at an event about a year or so ago
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=56m42s 56:42]
Michelle: has a podcast called The Gospel Tangents. And he's pretty hard on polygamy deniers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=56m48s 56:48]
Whitney: He is. And I almost feel like he might be the one who coined the term polygamy deniers. But we are sitting in front of him and um my husband during the break turned around to him and said, you know, introduced himself and Rick said, oh, your wife's Whitney Horning and burn said, yes, and I just want you to know we don't deny polygamy. We know Brigham did it. I love her. That's great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=57m21s 57:21]
spk_6: Ok,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=57m22s 57:22]
Michelle: I had one thing I was going to say the car that up
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=57m24s 57:24]
Karli: I had first. So well, I just wanted to mention because you two talked about how that started your journey. Like you really wanted to get to the bottom of if polygamy was from God. And I just want to mention for anyone listening, my journey started six months before I ever thought of polygamy. Um I think growing up, I just didn't even think about polygamy like I was taught it and heaven will be polygamists and you don't really have to be, I mean, some people said you have to be, some people said you don't. But I think I just intuitively shoved it to the back of my mind because I'm like, intuitively, I knew God is not going to force anyone into polygamy like that is just not something God would do. Um But my journey actually started because God just told me one day, you know, some of your church leaders say to put your questions on a shelf or doubt your doubts, any question you have just ask me. And I was like, OK, and I didn't even have a question on my mind at that time. But I was like, and I just started, it started with like, I would pray and search the scriptures and, and I was so very devout. At that time, I had never looked at anything outside of church literature. And so I, I would pray about a doctrine or like something kind of weird that I thought was taught in church. And I only search the scriptures and in church literature in the library, in the gospel library app. And I found evidence and the answers that I got from God that false doctrines were being taught. And I got answers for about six months, about a couple of different doctrines that God showed me were false doctrines that, you know, got introduced into the church. And six months later, I got introduced into the evidence that Brigham altered the history. And Joseph wasn't aist like, wow, my journey, it was not motivated recently at all to just say like it's like Joseph didn't do it because I'm trying to hold on to something. But if I in faith, God will show us the truth to everything.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=59m30s 59:30]
Michelle: I love that. OK? And I have to, I have to mention one thing, I love what you guys. I love that Carly. Thank you. And so John Delyn because he's, he's Mormon stories. He's, he's, he's who had um Lindsay on and that we're going to talk about. And Brian, he did his doctoral dissertation, I believe on the question of why Mormons leave because it was so offensive to all of the post Mormons to have the tropes of. They just wanted to sin. They never were really, they never were converted, they were, you know, whatever the excuses are. So he did an actual study to show what the reasons really were. That, that Mormons leave, right? And which we understand they studied the history for a lot of people, right? And I guess I'm asking like John, you did that work and you understand the importance of understanding people and not misrepresenting them. Please apply it to us and listen to what we're saying, the more that like painting us as just motivated reason, we just need to, we can't deal with the cognitive distance. We need to have Joseph on a pedestal. Whatever it is is exactly the same as the tropes that they just wanted to send and they never had a testimony to begin with. I'm hoping I've, I've tried in every way I know to help people hear that on this other side. So I'm gonna try again and hope people can apply this. I understand how important it is to not misrepresent and belittle people who leave the church do the same for us that have come through hard study, hard faith, hard cognitive dissonance, hard faith crises, right? To understand through our study, to have come to the conclusion that Joe, that polygamy wasn't of God was the first time we had to do that, right? And then Joseph wasn't a polygamist. So and, and just like Whitney, I had made peace with Joseph being a polygamist. That's why he lost his spiritual protection, was able to be killed. Ok. You know, until I was like, oh my gosh, there's way more, way more to this story that I didn't know. So, ok, now I'm gonna move on to the next. But
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h01m27s 1:01:27]
John Dehlin: you really get mixed messages about like how bumbling and ignorant and uneducated they were versus potentially, you know, having some education in the, in the family and some status. How do you guys make sense of that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h01m42s 1:01:42] Bryan Buchanan: Well, part of that goes to a larger point that we'll we'll talk about several times a day is the the lack of contemporary records for early Mormonism. And so many of these are reminiscent accounts. And so they will later be used as tools in the, the battle over history. And how do we tell that? And so you'll see that sometimes people will, will specifically portray them as uneducated for a purpose. But then on the other hand, you'll have other people that are like, no, actually they were better educated than you think for a purpose. And so the reminiscent accounts and memory and the nature of how history is written is going to be a theme that will go throughout our discussion. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h02m21s 1:02:21]
John Dehlin: agenda really drives historical tidbits people tend to highlight.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h02m28s 1:02:28]
Michelle: OK. Was that not rich? Do you guys get like? Right, let's be on the same team we're saying exactly the same things. There are not good historical counts. Reminiscences have problems and gender drives narrative, right? Does anyone have anything else to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h02m47s 1:02:47]
Breeana: say? I was going to say one thing that Lindsay said closer to the end is she's like, oh, some people want to call their experience in Mormonism, a cult and some don't. And we want to let people speak for themselves and let people speak to their own experiences. And I thought, why aren't you letting Joseph speak for himself Or Hiram or Emma? Emma was speaking for herself and they're like, oh, Emma was a part of it. Emma lied. You know, Emma was guilty too and, and, and she was part of the, you know, person bringing in girls. And I'm like, but Emma spoke for herself and so did Joseph and, you know, and so did Hiram again and again, and those words are just stuffed and snuffed and thrown under the rug. But let's let everybody else except those three speak for themselves. That didn't, yeah, that didn't make sense to me.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h03m38s 1:03:38]
Michelle: Absolutely. Believe all women except Emma and Sarah Lawrence and anyone else who thinks that it's not true.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h03m44s 1:03:44]
Karli: I just have to say, I think that what we're doing, definitely not motivated reasoning in our research. But I like to call it investigative research where it's like true crime because there's a hidden agenda, there's motive, like there's a lot of conspiracy going on. And so I think that their whole narrative and perspective on Emma is so twisted because, yeah, usually they say she mentions from within the first year of their marriage, Joseph was cheating on her with her friend and she told a neighbor that she made a mistake marrying him. And then later they say that she tried to poison him and then she wanted a divorce and she was stuck in this horrible abuse of marriage with Joseph. And then he passed away and she, like, validated his name and protected his character even after he died. Like that does not mean
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h04m39s 1:04:39]
spk_6: a lot of opposition, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h04m41s 1:04:41]
Karli: That's like if she's free, hallelujah, she's free from this horrible person. Wouldn't she want to pray? Like, thank goodness and talk about her horrible atrocities that she experienced and tell more about why she wanted to poison him or why she wanted to divorce him. You know, like if she had been in that horrible horrible marriage that they painted as like a victim in that position, especially with the, the pedestal, like in the position she had to speak publicly, wouldn't she talk about that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h05m15s 1:05:15]
Michelle: Right. Well, there are a million things, polygamous men don't elevate their wives, they're disobedient wives and put them on pedal. There are a million different ways to approach this one thing that I find so found so interesting. Like I think one of them said in this interview and I know if they've said it before, like the Mormon Church lies about everything. Like they consider that bri they know, they say all of them were just liars, liars, liars. Oh, except on this topic and then everything they said was right. That's what's so bizarre like they are acknowledging. Yeah. These are all reminiscent accounts and people are motivated except on polygamy. And then every single thing they said about Joseph is true. Right. And then,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h05m51s 1:05:51]
Breeana: yeah. Yeah. And to say, well, Emma, you know, some people would say, and maybe Lindsay would respond this way or Brian or John, I don't know that. Well, she was brainwashed, she drank the kool aid, right? So of course she kept defending his name. But why aren't we applying that same possibility to all these later reminiscences that are married, most of them to Brigham and Heber years after Joseph's death. Like why don't we apply that same logic that they could have been put under pressure or, you know, while their husbands, their abusive polygamous husbands were still alive
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h06m23s 1:06:23]
Karli: because at the point of their reminiscent accounts, they were under that system of oppression. 100
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h06m29s 1:06:29]
Michelle: percent. And one thing I've said often is everything that could be forged was forged, right? We have all of the changed records, the change of the false testimonies, anything that is hard evidence that couldn't be forged doesn't exist. There's no child, there's no letter, there's no journal entry legitimate, there's no um request for finances. There's no like if we look at any of the other polygamists starting with Brigham and Hebrew and William Clayton in England in like 1840 we have all kinds of evidence and then we have Children and like we have this, it leaves a trail, right. And so it's like there is no evidence there that couldn't be faked. Everything that could be faked. We have anything that couldn't be faked. We don't have, why don't we look at that honestly, like we're, we're all, that's what I love is all throughout this several times. I have several clips of them acknowledging the problems with the evidence and, and we'll play some more of them and it's like you're right, we have exactly the same evidence and I think we are looking at it way more objectively than they are. But why can't they at least acknowledge that they don't have a done deal? It's not like they shouldn't just be calling us names and writing us off. We should go, oh, you interpret that this way? Interesting. I interpret it this way. That's a conversation that can be had, but they don't want to have it because the only way for them to deal with us is to hope no one listens to us is it's based, it's the exact same thing as don't look at anti Mormon literature, right? That the church was doing forever. They're basically saying, don't look at anti polygamy litera, that's what's happening here, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m05s 1:08:05]
Karli: And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m05s 1:08:05]
Whitney: so I just have to say really quick that I struggled with the whole thing. But this clip you just played in particular because Brian, um, you know, is the owner of Benchmark books and they sell my books and a reader contacted me a couple of weeks ago and told me that he went in and he took my Joseph Smith book up to Brian and just curious what his opinion would be and said, hey, so you know, what can you tell me about this book? And he said, oh, that book's been debunked. Oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m42s 1:08:42]
spk_6: that's what they say about the Brian.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m44s 1:08:44]
Whitney: Listens to this. That is not a good way to sell books.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m51s 1:08:51]
Karli: Go
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m51s 1:08:51]
spk_6: to your store.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h08m53s 1:08:53]
Michelle: Well, and please, Brian, will you send us the debunking Whitney? Have you ever seen the debunking? I've never seen the debunking. I keep hearing about the debunking of your book and about the prices books. And I, I would like, will someone please send me those debunking? I'm, I'm very interested in seeing that. Sorry.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h09m09s 1:09:09]
Karli: It's just like Michael Scott saying I declare bankruptcy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h09m13s 1:09:13]
spk_9: I declare bankruptcy. Hey, he said, hey, I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen. I didn't say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h09m30s 1:09:30]
Gwendolyn: it. I declared it, I have, I have a recommendation for benchmark if they want to sell more books. So the best thing you can do is create a banned book shelf. And so Whitney, yours would be prime, prime real estate, banned books. Whitney Horning. Absolutely. And then they turn
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h09m46s 1:09:46]
Michelle: over if, if Sandstone wants to have their best um attended conference ever or any of these other historical conferences have a panel, have a panel of us and have a panel with us and some of your best polygamy proponents. And let's, let's, let's talk like you, you keep saying this is like at some point, you have to realize you can't just keep trying to ignore it and suffocate it because I'm sorry, as much as you'd like to suffocate us, we're still breathing and we're, it's going to keep going.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h10m18s 1:10:18]
Karli: So, ok, so I want to point out to Brian's, he recognizes and he admits that a lot of the later accounts are have a motive to them. They want to paint them in a certain light at certain times and it, and it changes. And so I did a video on this just recently talking about how we do our research, right? And I even found it, it, it's like when you're on a jury on a trial, they train you on how to tell if, if the witnesses are credible. And, and so this is from Cornell Law, it says is the witness how to determine if they're cuddle inconsistent statements, reputation for untruthfulness, defects and perception, prior convictions that show dishonesty and bias, right? And so we can see all of those things in the Utah accounts, especially from the leaders and the oppression of the women that they were under. Um And and of course, like everybody knows that the dishonesty and the manipulation applies to Brigham Young and, and the other leaders. And so why do we believe anything they say? Um, and then what's really important is it even says this is from a different law website, but in training a jury, it says it's not important how many witnesses there are. What's important is if they're believable and credible, it doesn't matter how many there are, it matters if they're true
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h11m42s 1:11:42]
Breeana: and none of them are contemporaneous, none of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h11m45s 1:11:45]
spk_6: them. And a lot
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h11m46s 1:11:46]
Karli: of their stories contradict the contemporaneous record. This goes into the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h11m52s 1:11:52]
Gwendolyn: Temple case. This goes into the Temple Lot case where the judge was like, you're not credible. This isn't Joseph.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m03s 1:12:03]
Michelle: That's the funny thing. This actually has been tried in a court of law. They already have so OK, I'll go on to the next my
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m11s 1:12:11]
Breeana: mind, by the way, as a normal person, I never even knew that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m16s 1:12:16]
Michelle: Say that again. Sorry, Brianna
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m18s 1:12:18]
Breeana: again. Nothing. I'm just saying as a lifelong member, I never knew about the Temple Lot case. And so when I did learn about that, like, whoa, this was tried in a US court of law like bringing it all to the judge and they lost anyway. That was amazing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m32s 1:12:32]
Michelle: And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m32s 1:12:32]
Gwendolyn: they have, they had the living witnesses too. We don't even have them. Now. They had the living witnesses with all every fiber of their being testimony.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h12m43s 1:12:43]
Michelle: I have episodes coming up on that because if you want to have fun. Well, Whitney can tell us this. Reading the Temple lot. Testimonies is fun. It's, it's, it's like hysterically fun. So, ok, not, I mean, like, it's, it's fun to watch people squirm when they're caught in their bad lies. Right. So, um, ok, so the next one I think, oh, so they go on, I'm, I'm skipping over, like I said, a bunch of the Joseph Smith because really all they're doing is, hey, we're going to debunk the polygamy deniers. So let us just spread all the worst things that anyone ever said about Joseph Smith. That's what a lot of it sounded like to me. With. No. Um Yeah. Yeah. Right. With terrible. They don't provide any sources and, and if you happen to know what they are like, Whitney, were you impressed with the source with their um talking points? Ok. So here, here comes this,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h13m34s 1:13:34]
Lindsay Hansen Park: Joseph Smith has a reputation for a lot of his life um for disorderly conduct, I guess. And that includes women. He has an issue with women. Um His early journals are filled with confessions to God. Uh Lots of guilt, lots of, I'm a sinner stuff and some, you know, historians will say, well, that was just common for the time which it was. But so was men visiting brothels that was quite common, especially frontier people. And we gotta understand Joseph was a, was a frontier kid. Have you hung out with really, really rural kids. Like I don't care if they go to church. They, they've got a morality, a lot of folks do that sort of doesn't always match up with the Bible. You go to church on Sunday and whatever. So the, the that accusation that Joseph Smith liked young ladies is so scandalous to people. But it, to me it makes them very human.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h14m28s 1:14:28]
Michelle: Ok. I wanted to play that clip cause I thought it was a good sample of the level of scholarship here like rural kids. They're a problem. Joseph was a rural, rural kid. He was a pro like, first of all, I think anyone who grew up in a rural setting should be so highly offended by this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h14m47s 1:14:47]
Karli: Um I just moved to rural Tennessee and these are the most pure like Christ like kind people I have ever met. Like these are like true believing, like Bible believing Christians. Like these are really moral people here like their statement,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h15m06s 1:15:06]
spk_6: right? Like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h15m07s 1:15:07]
Breeana: what a weird blanket statement. I, I don't know why you would blanket a whole uh category of people as like no morality even if they go to church. Like what I mean?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h15m21s 1:15:21]
Michelle: I'm sorry. So we have a record in Joseph's journal of him repenting of having a broken heart and a contrite spirit therefore and oh and and back in the day men went to brothels, therefore, Joseph's oh and he was a rural kid and rural kids are really immoral. So, since Joseph was a rural kid back in the day when they went to brothels and he repented, we know he loved the ladies. That's what it looked like was the case there to me. And that's about the level of scholarship I felt was represented in this. But I also wanted to just say, like reading through the scriptures, like, like again to understand who Joseph Smith is. I and I know that here I will put us back on the screen. I know that um all of you are aware of this. But for me, my journey was in the scriptures, right? And I think that's the case for a lot of us and Joseph Smith's scriptures, the book of Mormon and the doctrine of covenants are the most anti polygamist scriptures. We have far more so than the Bible. So just for anyone who's not familiar with this, like making these claims about Joseph Smith, right? We have Jacob one through three, specifically Jacob chapters two through three, they get into the twisted version which I don't think they even understand, read that actually read Jacob two and three. We have Mosiah 11, right? I mean, every single that's King Noah, right? Every single example it says they did. He did not keep the commandments of God, but he would walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines same in Ether 10 5 with replication. And it came to pass that reps did not do that, which was right in the side the Lord for he didn't have many wives and concubines. And then we have Mosiah 2117, which is how they cared for the widows. Now, there were a great number of women more than there was the men. Therefore, Kingdom High commanded that every man should and part of the subs of the substance of the widows and to the widows and their Children that they might not perish with hunger, right? The way we care for widows is by sharing with them, not by forcing them into basic prostitution, right? You have to be my wife. If you don't want to starve to death, we have fourth Nephi 110 which talks about procreate, I mean about multiplying if that's what they want to make it about. And now behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong and did multiply exceedingly fast and they were married like inside the book of Mormon itself. It breaks down any possibility to want to claim that Joseph Smith was promoting polygamy, right? So on the one hand, they want to have Joseph be the sex obsessed, really power hungry guy who's making up scripture and yet he's making up scripture fighting against, right? And then we can go on to the doctrine and covenants. I won't, I have a whole list here, but I'll just do 4222 thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and none else. And he look at after a woman to lust after her. Anyway, it goes like it could not be more clear. There is no wiggle room for polygamy anywhere in any of Joseph's scriptures.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h18m20s 1:18:20]
Gwendolyn: And Michelle don't forget to add in the Joseph Smith's inspired version of the Bible where he corrected
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h18m27s 1:18:27]
Michelle: the verses. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h18m29s 1:18:29]
Gwendolyn: Right. So he corrected the verses in the Bible which talked about David as walking right before the Lord Joseph corrected those that he did not walk, right. His heart was not right. So everything that came from Joseph's hands condemns it 100% consistency including
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h18m48s 1:18:48]
Breeana: section 101 which they brought up and then
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h18m51s 1:18:51]
spk_6: you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h18m53s 1:18:53]
Karli: OK, I just want to mention, yeah, like she said, like, oh, well, he wrote, you know, like Jacob two at the time when he was trying to appease somebody, you know, whatever. And it was like, OK, he wrote that years ago but years like up until his death, like he was preaching against it so many different sermons, the voice of innocence, so many things. And I just wanna like, I, I thought I have like, I think at the end they try to compare him to another cult leader like David Koresh or something. And it's just common sense, nobody becomes that influential and powerful if their actions aren't in line with their own theology. Right. Right. You're trying to seduce women and talk to their husbands or fathers and secretly course them into this, but publicly denouncing it every single day in public. Like, that's not convincing. That's not how you keep a following. And he had a huge following. People completely believed him and loved him. And that would not be possible if he was actually, like, if his actions weren't in line with his teachings,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h20m01s 1:20:01]
Michelle: now we're going to get into the public versus private denials in a minute because that's the wrong, that's the wrong measurement. But I will say if you look at any of these other cult leaders that they continually bring up, you're exactly right, Carly, they practice what they preach every single one of them. It's like, look at Brigham Young, it's hard to keep that system of totalitarianism going, right. They have to preach it constantly. So you could not possibly have this polygamous control with. I mean, like, like you look at every single polygamous leader, including Brigham Young, right? And compare them to Joseph Smith and it does not match, it doesn't work. You're exactly
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h20m41s 1:20:41]
spk_6: right. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h20m42s 1:20:42]
Breeana: do want, I do want to be devil's advocate just for this little point right here and say that cult leaders though, you guys are all, you're right. I agree. But also cult leaders are huge hypocrites. They live, they will hold their people to standards that they won't hold themselves to. So there's also that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h21m00s 1:21:00]
spk_6: little
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h21m01s 1:21:01]
Karli: Yeah, I understand. They oftentimes will be doing things behind the scenes that they're, they're not teaching to the other people. And like David Crush would teach celibacy. But he was the one sleeping with all the women. Like that was a huge hypocrite. But, you know, he was teaching celibate and then secretly sleeping with the women and they caught on to it. They all knew
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h21m23s 1:21:23]
Michelle: he was teaching that he was the bearer. But I want to say, oh, go ahead, go ahead Whitney.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h21m29s 1:21:29]
Whitney: Oh I was just going to say that it's fascinating to me that Joseph can just never win with Lindsay. So if you read my journal and I've, and I've hurt someone's feelings or I've done something that I'm like, oh God, you know, I'm such a sinner and please forgive me. Then, then I need to worry that in 200 years someone's going to get a hold of that journal and assume that I was just out sleeping with every Tom Dick or Harry. Right? And so because I, because I often get accused of being, you know, naive and simple enough to believe Joseph's own words. I want to read what he said about his sinful nature. So in Joseph Smith's history, 128 to 29 he talks about how between the time of when he saw, you know, had the first vision and then 1823 when the angel comes to him at night and teaches him throughout the night, he said I was left to all kinds of temptations and mingling with society. I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the foibles of human nature in making this confession. No one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sin, a disposition to commit such was never in my nature, but I was guilty of levity. So he had a jovial personality and was a kid. And I just personally am extremely offended on Joseph's behalf that him being open and honest about not being, you know, what we would consider like somebody who is perfect and never did anything wrong. That, that that has been turned into him being a lascivious man who was just out sleeping with the ladies. I don't know, I very offended at that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h23m26s 1:23:26]
Michelle: I could not agree more. And I also want to say Brianna that you're right about the hypocrisy but honest. And I know people will look at this and say, oh, but as I have looked at Joseph's life, I can't find that you do not find hypocrisy in his life, in his actions and in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h23m42s 1:23:42]
Breeana: his, I I agree, I just meant in general, if he really was a cool, he would be probably playing all the sides. But we can't find
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h23m51s 1:23:51]
spk_6: evidence of that either. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h23m53s 1:23:53]
Michelle: yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h23m54s 1:23:54]
Gwendolyn: I just want to mention what, what Christ taught. We're supposed to judge a profit by their fruits. That's how you're able to know. And so when I look at the fruits of Jo, so if I can see, you know, clearly the physical progeny just with Emma and then the scriptures that come from him, they're full of light. And I don't see that light coming out of um the polygamous leaders, but I do see that coming from Joseph's hand.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h24m19s 1:24:19]
Michelle: Yes, I love it. I agree. And you know what, Brianna, we should talk about 101 here. Let's because I don't know if, I mean, we're not going to be able to get to all of the clips. So Dr Kevin is 101. They did talk about it. Kind of, I thought it was interesting. It was actually if I'm remembering, right? Wasn't it John Delyn that had to bring it up? Like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h24m36s 1:24:36]
Karli: neither. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h24m39s 1:24:39]
Michelle: what, what did you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h24m40s 1:24:40]
Karli: say? I feel like oftentimes he'll bring it up like a devil's advocate or he'll bring up a document like supporting evidence. But this time he seemed to bring it up like actually questioning like wait, wasn't that at the same time of DNC 101?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h24m54s 1:24:54] Michelle: Right? And the thing that's interesting is I felt like he knew way more about it than they did. None of them knew the section title, none of them knew anything about it. John had to get a note to be able to know what it was and what it said. But Lindsay and Brian couldn't tell you the first thing about [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259 Section 101]. Right. And so that it's like if you don't even know that you can't speak on this topic. No. Right. And so, and so I again, looked, I did an episode where I talked about the doctrine and covenants evidence of polygamy and in the beginning where I hope people will go back and listen to those scripture episodes because I think that's where the real meat of the discussion is. But [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259 Section 101]. So the way that the church now explains it away like Brian Hills and some of the really pro polygamy church members is they claim that Oliver Cowdrey did it without Joseph's permission and that Joseph wasn't there when it was put into the doctrine of covenants. And I have to say, please go watch my [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAXj6Attko episode on Doctrine and covenants]. None of that is true. Zero. It's not true. Jo though that is Joseph's doctrine. Joseph's massive stamp of approval. No, I don't know who was the penman because I don't know who was the penman on the lectures of faith. But are you going to proclaim that Joseph didn't support those like? Right. And,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h26m11s 1:26:11]
Karli: and it was printed in the 1830 3d NC, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h26m14s 1:26:14]
spk_6: And reprinted
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h26m15s 1:26:15]
Michelle: in the 1844.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h26m17s 1:26:17]
Gwendolyn: And it's got Joseph's name on the title page.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h26m22s 1:26:22]
Michelle: He was the head of the committee for both of those printings. And believe me, if Oliver Cowdery had done something that like Joseph, let people know when they did things they weren't supposed to do. Right. Oliver Cowy ended up getting excommunicated. Which, oh, we have to skip over that. But that's something that they talk about. So erroneously. I was gonna let Whitney go off and tell us about like, oh, it's just so, it's like, oh, it's all, uh, sorry, it's really frustrating to know this history and hear how they twist it while they're accusing us of twisting things. So yes. Section 101 absolutely forbids polygamy in no uncertain terms. And oh, we are going to get to it in a minute. I'll play a clip of John talking about. I actually kind of liked John Delyn the best in this episode because he's the most honest, right? So I I'm gonna go to the next to the next clip and then um here it comes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h27m17s 1:27:17]
John Dehlin: So when you mentioned rumors in the early church, what, what are we talking about there? There's rumors of polygamy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h27m23s 1:27:23] Bryan Buchanan: Yeah. And, and this is another one of those great cases where the lack of contemporary records makes it more difficult. But the Eliza winters is one that, that occasionally gets mentioned but not very often. And that it's, it is such a fascinating case because if you connect some of the accounts, it does seem like there was a friendship there. And so again, as we move into Kirtland into Navoo, these women that were friends with Emma Eliza Snow does seem to be a pattern that is there. So there's that one you have, um, there's, there's this down the scale a little bit, there's a woman that was living in Pennsylvania that was thought Joseph Smith came through and some sort of relationship and then he gets run out of town, but we only have a single reference from like 65 years later. And so in all these cases, we have to sort of weigh evidence and how much weight do we give to this and that's history ends up becoming just as much an art form as it does. Science. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h28m25s 1:28:25]
Michelle: I just love how they're making our case for us. Right. Whitney, I don't know if you want to take time to talk about Eliza winters. I, we don't have to go into it. I just feel like they are casting these aspersions wherever they can by saying, well, there is this so there and there is this and it's 65 years later, but it does point to a pattern, right? While acknowledging we have no evidence and we just have to choose what to believe. So I have, I'll play the next. Oh, you go ahead Whitney. Then I, I was just gonna say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h28m57s 1:28:57]
Whitney: really quick that I feel like I've watched enough of these over the last year or so. And, and, and it does make me really, really happy that our belief is a growing, is growing and is catching on and I just find it so fascinating though that, that they take our, some of our, some of our arguments and then they just throw them out in blanket ways. And so like they did with this, like John Delyn saying, well, there were rumors and then Brian saying, yeah, there were rumors and then John will later talk about 101 that it says because this church has been charged with the crime of plague. We always see they were doing it, you know, and it's just to me, it's just so frustrating that they're smart enough to know why there were rumors at the time, they're smart enough to know. So they throw out the, oh, there was the Oneida group and there was the cocker kites and really, that's why the church was charged with plumy. Yes, exactly. Because there was a growing movement in New England. It was, it was called the Garden of Eden movement. And people there were people all over trying to establish churches and get back to this idea of this Garden of Eden and this innocence in this, this pure form of religion. Um And it all of those inevitably ended up going into polygamy. Um because they all started into this belief of all things in common meant my wife is your wife and your husband's my husband. And it just, you know, because it's the fastest way for Satan to destroy anything good is to introduce um sexual immorality and it destroys all trust in a group. And so it is frustrating to me that they, that's how they try to stop our narrative is by kind of like throwing out to their audiences, what they know our arguments will be and what our proof will be. So that then when they hear it, they can just discount it and say, oh yeah. Well, John Dylan talked about that and oh yeah. You know, and it's just frustrating because there is truth in the fact that there were other groups practicing polygamy and practicing um John Noyce's group, theirs was called complex marriage. And it really out there. And so yes, there were these other groups. And so Joseph in the elders journal in like I think it's like 1832 or 33 he lists the top questions that the missionaries were receiving and one of them was you guys share all things in common. Does that include your wives? You know, do you believe in polygamy? And he said no. And so he's trying to to me section 101 is trying to set the record straight like like we are not like these other groups, we do not do it, we believe in monogamy and then you know, lays that out. And so he's trying, I I feel like in that section, the Lord is trying to set his law of marriage for his people. If you want to be my people, this is the law you will obey in marriage.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h32m10s 1:32:10]
Michelle: Thank you for spelling that out. I completely agree with you. It's ridiculous. It's like his journals. He repents in his journals. Therefore, he's a womanizer, right? And he says, hey, we don't do polygamy. Therefore they do polygamy. Like, like what is he supposed to do? Ok. Yeah, they'll go to the next one.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h32m29s 1:32:29]
Gwendolyn: I want to piggyback on what Whitney is saying here, there's a, there's a great book written by Sarah Marshall or Sarah Pearsall called Polygamy in Early American History. And you know, this is an academic scholarly book and one of the quotes she says in there was while everyone knows the Mormons instigated Polygamy in America, this was patently not the case. There was plenty of polygamy before that and there was even more imagining thinking and writing about polygamy in the early modern era. So this is something that should be known by us. Um But we, but we haven't really like grasped that because um we've got these like competing factions within the within and without the church who like the narrative that Joseph started polygamy, but it's very easy to see. It didn't come from Joseph. And then I just want to point out even in our own doctrine and covenants, the Lord tells us what's about to happen in section 38 of the doctrine and covenants which um the Lord says that he's going to tell the saints to go to Ohio. Um and he says, I show unto you in verse 13, I show unto you a mystery, a thing which is had in secret chambers to bring to pass even your destruction in process of time. And you knew it not. And the Lord then tells them, go to Ohio where, where I'll give you my law and then the law that's given Michelle you read it is cleave to your wife and none else. It's super clear. And I wanna point out the date this revelation was given was January 2nd 1831 that should obliterate all of our polygamy doctrinal. Um make believe that we have because right now we say in the heading of section 132 there's evidence that the prophet knew about some of these principles as early as 1831. Well, he had to have known it January like 1st 1831 because on the second, the Lord tells him no, we're not doing that. You're gonna go to Ohio and get this law of monogamy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h34m30s 1:34:30]
Michelle: That's, that's so, I love this discussion because I feel like it's so important to understand the broader context. And it's also so if you're going to be a scholar and a historian about Joseph Smith, you have to include Joseph Smith's words, right? You have to understand the scriptures he wrote and the, and even if you don't think that they're of God and you think he's a fraud still he wrote them and you have to explain that. So yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h34m55s 1:34:55]
Karli: And I just realized in the quote that everyone likes to use about William Marks, uh Joseph saying that he was deceived. Um They just use that one line. I was deceived. But at the end of it, he said that the church was going to be destroyed because of this damnable heresy. And I didn't know before. I used to read that as hearsay um because it's the old type script, but it's heresy, which means it's a teaching that goes against the orthodox doctrine of a church. And it says that he's going to try those men by the laws of the church. And it's so clear, it's against the laws of the church and it's a heresy, it goes against their doctrine of his own.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h35m37s 1:35:37]
Michelle: Awesome. And William Marks later clarified his statement multiple times saying Joseph was saying he was deceived in the brethren, not deceived in the doctrine. So, yeah, OK. Here's, here's the next clip. This is a short one. So that's just along the same lines. Them acknowledging we have no data. Yes, Carly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h36m10s 1:36:10]
spk_6: OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h36m11s 1:36:11]
Karli: This just reminded me of a book I really like. It's a historical fiction called Becoming Mrs Lewis. And it's based on the letters, love letters written between uh an American author and a poet rests. Her name is Joy Davidman. And she started writing letters to CS Lewis and they started corresponding and they fell in love. She moved to England and they got married and it's a historical fiction book based on their love letters. And so that's what they're trying to do is create this narrative and paint the picture of what Joseph's polygamy looked like. Except there are no letters, there's nothing in the world. The only matters we have is between Joseph and Emma and we can tell how in love they are. And I was just reading Eliza Snow's journal because I had found one day that when he was in hiding in 1842 Emma had visited him all day on August 14th. And I had the thought like who was watching the kids, you know, and then I went and read Eliza's journal and she said on August 14th, Emma called for me to stay with them. Oh, Eliza was um and then a couple months later because he's in and out of hiding. A couple of months later, she's still there. Eliza is still staying in their home, but he goes back into hiding. And at that time, Emma was sick. Um And let's see. So he went back into hiding and this is the one letter that I could find that Eliza wrote Joseph. And she said, sir, for your conso consolation, permit me to tell your Emma is better. She soon will be well. And it's like, is that how you talk to somebody who you later say was your beloved husband? The choice of your heart? And crown of your life. So remember to tell you that Emma's doing better. Like that's not a love letter. Like it's not how you speak to your beloved husband.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h38m14s 1:38:14]
Michelle: Right? It's so silly and, and the old trope of, but it had to be kept secret gets just it dies. It's like, well Clayton wrote it. I mean, we have everything of everyone else and a note to Joseph about Emma didn't have to be burned, right? So OK, thank you for sharing that. This next clip is response is, is starting out about the claim by WW Phelps decades later. Again, that Joseph told the men that they would be marrying indigenous women to raise up seed, right? And, and it's so bad and even they acknowledge that it's bad, but I just want to read this little part of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h38m53s 1:38:53]
Lindsay Hansen Park: So this is the joke I was making earlier. It's funny because a lot of, a lot of faithful apologists will use this uh date to say no, no, no. All the fanny, er, all of it is a marriage. It's not an affair because of this 1831 revelation. But uh you give anyone else outside the church an account that's given 30 years later and they don't count it this one. For some reason we count we don't have an accident document of it. We just have William Winne Phelps recording it years later.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h39m23s 1:39:23]
Michelle: Ok. So again, I want to be like, hey, do you guys want to come join our side because you're making our arguments for us, right? There is no reason for the only reason they reject the will the WW Phelps like the church, Brian Hales likes the WW Phelps document because it allows him to say that Fannie Alger was a wife because he already obviously had the doctrine because it was before that, right. That's really the only reason that Lindsay doesn't like it. Do, do you get what I'm saying?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h39m55s 1:39:55]
Gwendolyn: Well, and all that contradicts and that just contradicts Joseph's own scriptures that he wrote that he let's say, what is the cover page, the title page of the Doctrine. And covenant said carefully selected from the revelations of God and compiled by Joseph Smith junior. So that just contradicts his own revelations, which again, it just doesn't make sense. And Brian and sorry and, and John mentions that, are you going to play one of the clips where John tries to make sense of it?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h40m23s 1:40:23]
Michelle: Yes, I am. Yes. Those
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h40m25s 1:40:25]
Gwendolyn: are my favorite.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h40m27s 1:40:27]
Michelle: I'm sharing this little screen right now just because I think it's worthwhile. So, here we go. Ok. I just want to make the point because it's always been Alger until year of polygamy when Lindsay, I believe mispronounced Alger, which it's ok. Everyone mispronounces things, but then everyone started to say Alger and then um I'm trying to figure out why I can't shut this down now. And then um Da Bradley said that it was, um, er, because someone said, well, they say it differently. France too, so I just want to set the record straight. It's always been Alger. It is Alger A G before an E phonetically is a soft G, right? It's Fanny Alger. Can we just have it be Fanny? I guess I can always
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h41m19s 1:41:19]
Gwendolyn: be.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h41m21s 1:41:21]
Michelle: Right. Ok. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h41m23s 1:41:23]
Breeana: For me as much as it is for Lindsay. So I guess I'm with Lindsay on this like, thank you, Michelle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h41m29s 1:41:29]
Michelle: Yes. Well, I've been in this, I've been in this a little bit longer. So that's why I was like, what is this new word? Right. Whitney. We, we, we're the old school, like I taught a lot of kids to read in my homeschooling days. I care about phonetics. So, anyway, ok, now the next clip I know that was a little. So the next step I think is about Fanny Alger. If I'm remembering the right one,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h41m51s 1:41:51]
Lindsay Hansen Park: it's really sketchy. What we know what we do know is a sexual relationship happened. Joseph Smith never that as Richard Bushman points out, he never denies it, but he wants to make it very clear that it was not an affair.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h42m03s 1:42:03]
Michelle: Ok. So you catch that. We have no evidence but Joseph Smith didn't say somewhere I never had sex with Fanny Alger and therefore it happened. We know it because he never denied it. And that's, and we have no evidence for it, but we know it. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h42m19s 1:42:19]
Gwendolyn: he did, he did actually deny quite a bit that he had any extramarital relations with any women. But I guess because he, I guess because he didn't say the name Fannie Al
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h42m35s 1:42:35]
Michelle: I have thought. But Whitney, what did you want to say?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h42m37s 1:42:37]
Whitney: Just what Gwendolyn saying? He denied over and over again that he had no one but Emma, he wasn't guilty of any gross or malignant sin. How can that be any more clear?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h42m53s 1:42:53]
Karli: No. And he explained it in the High Council meeting. I mean, we don't know exactly what he said, but he said he explained the girl business, whatever happened and they tried to twist that like, oh, well, I mean, he told them that it was a spiritual life thing. And so they just believed him and they didn't judge him or whatever. But it's like that happened years before there was any talk of any spiritual life doctrine. The High Council wouldn't have exonerated him or understood that because that wasn't a thought,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h43m21s 1:43:21]
Michelle: right? So they claim and this is all complete in complete contradiction to the historical record. They claim that that Oliver was excommunicated because he accused Joseph of adultery. That's not, that's not why Oliver was excommunicated. That's not true at all. And then they say that Joseph surrounded himself by yes men. And so this high council was just all made up of yes men. So they all did his bidding, excuse me. Like do you know how many people on the High Council? Was it? Who was, who was the guy that left right after that because of the milk stripping and started fighting against them. I'm forgetting his name. So I feel like I'm, I know, but I, I know his name. Someone, someone look it up quickly because that's embarrassing. But, um, also, I mean, there were, there were many in that high council who left immediately and started to persecute Joseph's entire life. He was never surrounded by yes men ever. His first two in a row, two in a row of his counselors and his first presidency were the worst of all, John Bennett and William lot. Like they just ignore all of the factual history to try to claim things. So anyway, I just thought that that was lovely. It was like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h44m29s 1:44:29]
Gwendolyn: the milk stripping is Thomas B Marsh.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h44m32s 1:44:32]
Michelle: Thomas B Marsh. Thank you. Forgive me. That was terrible that I drew that like, but it's so I love that clip because it was like we have no evidence and yet we know this, right? And so,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h44m42s 1:44:42]
Gwendolyn: well, we we also have this, this is sort of our defense too, as we say, well, he never denied celestial plural marriage. So that's what that's what he was doing. And it's like, I'm sorry, how many things do I have to like creatively come up with the name for? So that people know after I died that I wasn't engaged in these crazy things. Like, like nobody called it that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h45m05s 1:45:05]
Michelle: I've asked everyone to show me where he ever called it celestial thorough marriage. He did his best to lump it all in together and I have found 66 excerpts, whatever of Brigham Young, referring to spiritual wifey in, in the 18 forties and fifties before they made the change. We also have it was it Elizabeth, I mean, um Emily um Partridge referring to it that way. So, so like they, they're making these distinctions. So I, I feel like again, there's so much common ground we could have with these people. We both agree that the church narrative is silly. The only problem is they only agree that half of the they, they agree with most of the church narrative, right on polygamy. So OK, I'll go on to this next clip.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h45m49s 1:45:49]
John Dehlin: The fact that section 101 used to be there while polygamy is being practiced and then it was removed and replaced the DNC 132. That seems like one of those really important pieces of information that everyone should know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m02s 1:46:02]
Michelle: Can I get a hallelujah. Is that not exactly what we're all doing? Like trying to make as many people as possible know these things. And so why are we dangerous? Why are they depriving, trying to deprive us of oxygen instead of engaging us when we have so much common ground? OK. And so um now, let's see. Oh, this is another one. These are just clips where I really liked John Delyn in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m33s 1:46:33]
John Dehlin: this. It's a house of chaos that, that would say that any of that was from God to me it seems, I don't know
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m42s 1:46:42]
Michelle: again. Right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m45s 1:46:45]
spk_6: Yeah, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m47s 1:46:47]
Karli: agree with you completely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m50s 1:46:50]
Michelle: We're on the same page 100%
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h46m52s 1:46:52]
Gwendolyn: I would say to John John, the fastest way that we can make sense of this is to stop believing everything that polygamist said as if it's true and that will make sense of it like that, right? You just have to stop believing people who didn't, who told lies, then you can figure it out. But if you believe people who lied, then it will never make sense.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h47m14s 1:47:14]
Michelle: Right? And the idea, I always, I love the analogy. If you think that polygamists couldn't lie, then look at the FL Ds, look at the yearning for Zion Ranch. Look at like the fact that we don't understand that polygamy and lying are like always go together and pride. Even Jacob puts those together. OK. Here's another clip along the same lines.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h47m33s 1:47:33]
John Dehlin: Well, just the fact that DNC 135 or DNC 101 pro prohibited. It uh seems to just, and, and that Joseph was denying polygamy all the way through. It's just hard to swallow that Fannie was a legitimate of God sealed, you know, first polygamous wife to Joseph Smith. It just, it's hard for me to swallow that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h47m57s 1:47:57]
Michelle: again. Right. We all we agree with you completely. This is why it's so silly that they're painting us as like we are looking at the evidence and we agree. Yeah. OK. So this next one, this is wild. Um So this is the under the banner of under the banner of heaven story. I think. So let me um let me see what I wanted to say about this. Um Well, I'll go ahead and play the clip because I can't remember what I wanted to say about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h48m29s 1:48:29]
Lindsay Hansen Park: it. Was it Marinda? Maybe not because I think the date would have placed her at 12 years old.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h48m34s 1:48:34]
Michelle: Yes. So this is the allegations at the when um Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith were um tarred feathered, beaten, left for dead, right? And the allegations that they did it because Joseph was trying to be inappropriate with the girls there, which again, there is no good evidence for what she's kind of go going to acknowledge a little bit. So the story is that she included in under the abandon of heaven is that there was a doctor there to castrate Joseph as part of the mobbing again, very late account, listen to her explanation about it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h49m06s 1:49:06]
Lindsay Hansen Park: Um It could he have been, you know, um inappropriate with a 12 year old. Of course, there's nothing to say that he wa wasn't, but the date is remembered wrong. I think the reminiscences have her as 16 at the time. I think regardless of the actual details. It there was probably a doctor there and he was probably threatened with castration.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h49m29s 1:49:29]
Michelle: Again, the level of scholarship, I think what, regardless of the details, this probably happened, Brianna, you haven't heard from you for a minute. So tell me what you think of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h49m39s 1:49:39]
Breeana: Uh Nothing. So for me, I haven't written a book and I don't have a blog, you know. So um for me, as I was watching a lot of this episode, my thoughts were I would really like to see sources. I, I even went to the description of the episode, you know, the box, like hoping that John or whoever would link all these claims because I'm like, I actually genuinely, I'm, I'm a researcher and I'm a seeker of truth. So as she's saying all these things like Joseph Smith senior was a drunk and all these things like I'm like, can I please see where you're getting this? You obviously got it from somewhere. That's great. That's fine. And you agree with it. But I would like to see it as a, as a researcher and a seeker. Can you point me in this direction because I haven't seen or heard that and I'm willing to look at it, I'm willing to, to, to peak and actually digest and consider that maybe I'm wrong. I've learned that I've been wrong enough in my life to be like to keep the stance of this is where I'm at at the moment, but I could be wrong. I could get more information. I could get more re you know, more knowledge, more research, whatever. And I could be mistaken and I live in that like, please Lord correct me if I'm incorrect in anything and I am so open. So, yeah, those are my thoughts as she's making all these claims of. Can you, can you point us little people in a direction of where you're getting that so I can look and determine,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h51m09s 1:51:09]
Michelle: OK, I I just think that what Brianna said probably resonates so much with all of us being like I just want truth. I'm totally, I just want the information, whatever it is, right? Does that, how does that speak for all of you? Because I think that's where we all are that are in this, in this journey, right? And so yes. So I will say if anyone wants to get this low down on Joseph Smith, she's basically um it's the Grant Palmer narrative, right? And so, um so Grant Palmer, I think is the main, the main source for anyone who wants to investigate these claims. And I would recommend looking at the evidence and seeing if you consider it to be
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h51m46s 1:51:46]
spk_6: valid. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h51m48s 1:51:48]
Breeana: I do remember them saying that. Ok. Awesome.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h51m51s 1:51:51]
Michelle: Yeah, and she's talked about it before. He's the one that claims that Joseph was visiting brothels as a little boy. Well, you know, he was an eight year old drunk kid going to brothels. But I mean, I'm sure I'm exaggerating a bit. But, you know, it's important to look, but this is the problem. People read those books as if they are factual instead of where you should be spending most of your time is in the footnotes, right? It's like, what is the source for that? And then, and then you need to have a broad enough spectrum to know what they're leaving out of the narrative, right? Just like the faithful narrative leaves out any of those sources. Their narrative leaves out so many sources that are much more valid. So, hey,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h52m29s 1:52:29]
Gwendolyn: Michelle tonight, can I share a quick book of Mormon Scripture here? One of my friends, Jana sent this to me because we were, we were discussing this like the records and how do you know who's to believe? And she pointed it out and I thought, oh, this is such a beautiful verse to have in the book of Mormon. It's in third five chapter eight verse one it says, and we know our record to be true for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record for. He truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus. And there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every wit from his iniquity. So people who do the works of Jesus leave true records and that's a great, I think that's a great metric to measure by
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h53m11s 1:53:11]
Michelle: I like that. And do you know what in this same Johnson farm? One of the reasons that Joseph and Emma were staying at the Johnson's farm is because Joseph healed the mother of the farm from her rheum rheumatism. She had a very painful, paralyzed arm and he healed her. He did a miracle, right? So that plays into that too. But of course, they, they don't tell us that part of the story. They just say that there were later claims that he was hitting on the 16 year old daughter. Oh, she happened to be 12, but it still probably happened, right? So anyway, ok, so this next one. So they're saying there's not good evidence to um to trust those sources, right? We don't have good evidence for it, but it probably happened. And this is John's response that I find really interesting.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h53m56s 1:53:56]
John Dehlin: Let's just put it this way. There's no less credibility with that story than with Joseph Smith's own first vision in terms of all the different accounts.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h54m06s 1:54:06]
Michelle: Ok. I wanted to bring that one up just because they're comparing Joseph Smith's vision, the the, the support for that with this other problematic account. Right? Here's the thing they reject Joseph Smith Smith's first vision and they constantly use the the historical conflict about it as reason to reject it. In addition, Joseph Smith's first vision isn't a historical question, right? It's a faith question. Not a anyway, I just thought that was so ironic that they're saying there's no better support for Joseph Smith for the, for Joseph Smith's vision than there is for this. But we're going to reject that, but believe this, ok, so I guess it is so selective, right? And we'll get a little bit more of that information like, ok, so now, so I'm going to skip over, they talk a lot about Louisa Beaman and it's really interesting. I, I'm looking forward to having John Bradley come on because that entire narrative is so fraught and problematic and actually kind of amusing. So I'll skip over that part for now unless anyone has something they want to add. But let me go on to just another clip that I couldn't agree more with what they are saying here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h55m21s 1:55:21]
John Dehlin: Well, I've got so many questions about that just because if, if you know, if you, if you believe Joseph Smith or the DNC, when he says God's house is a house of order, then you're like, why is Joseph practicing polygamy? I mean, at least it's after the ceiling power was given, but it's still before DNC 132 was written and, you know, and he's still denying it the whole time. So it doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem legitimately from God given those facts and DNC 101 at the time is still prohibiting it, by the way
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h55m54s 1:55:54]
Michelle: again, like, shouldn't he just come and join our panel?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m01s 1:56:01]
spk_6: Common
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m02s 1:56:02]
Breeana: sense. John. Yes. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m04s 1:56:04]
Gwendolyn: you got it, John.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m05s 1:56:05]
Karli: Come on your show,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m07s 1:56:07]
Michelle: right? He figured it out like maybe I in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m09s 1:56:09]
spk_6: him on Whitney
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m11s 1:56:11]
Breeana: or Gwendolyn on your show.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m14s 1:56:14]
Karli: And with what he just said, like your episode Michelle on section 128 where you finally got the confirmation that Joseph was not a polygamist because 128 about the ceiling power says nothing about marriage. It's about keeping and baptism, baptism for the dead,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h56m33s 1:56:33]
Michelle: right? And when people ask me about records, the fact is there is a record of Joseph and Emma's marriage, right? Those records were already made. So we do have those records. And so yeah, like, like I just think John, you're already on our team just like like come and have a conversation, any of us will have a conversation any time. It will be a great conversation, right? I think he's talking to the wrong people about this topic. So, ok, here comes the next clip. Let's see if I need to set it up, we'll just go for it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h57m05s 1:57:05]
John Dehlin: But let's just say in Joseph's mind, he felt like he was doing God's will. Do either of you have an opinion and need to be speculating about how pre revelation Joseph would have sort of flipped that bit to say. All right. Well, now I know that polygamy is God's will and so it's time to take on my first plural wife. Do we do either of you have a way to speculate as to what might have been going on in Joseph's mind or was it just he was he was a drug to do her and he was trying to find some way to justify it? Not really thinking about scripture or authority or revelation or the church? How do we make sense of it?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h57m44s 1:57:44]
Michelle: So, what I loved about this, my quick answer is of how would we make sense of it is you read? Um but Brigham Young's and Hebrew C Kimball's England journals, you read William Clayton's mission journal, you read these other records to under and it, you get a very clear picture of how it came into being, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h58m11s 1:58:11]
Karli: You
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h58m11s 1:58:11]
Breeana: can, that's what helped me make sense of all of this. The most was reading um the, the documents of where Brigham Young served his mission and for how long and the dates of where he was and then Hebrew C Kimball and then calling all of the 12 to Seo Maine where the Cochran kites were and all of this coming about because they keep saying, so Lindsay keeps saying that this was during the Missouri time frame, kind of like, you know, this is while Joseph was alive kind of a thing and this is during the Missouri time frame. They mentioned that a lot and you know, I went and relooked up the dates for when was Heber and Brigham and many of the 12 in Seo Maine multiple times and England coming, you know, they coming home with mistresses and you know, second wives and having babies, two babies born before, you know, uh the supposed revelation came on polygamy and spirituality. Anyway, that was, yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m08s 1:59:08]
Michelle: is huge. And then he comes back with Augusta Cobb, another man's wife who just happens to have a child named Brigham. That, that baby dies. But like it's not like like really John's question is exactly spot on. How does this make sense? How can we make sense of this? You can't, if you only look at Joseph, if you look at these other people, you absolutely can including John Bennett. Like if you look at John Bennett's history, it totally makes sense. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m36s 1:59:36]
Karli: so all three of like Brigham Hebert and Willard Richards, all in England at the same time,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m43s 1:59:43]
spk_6: Clayton.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m45s 1:59:45]
Karli: Oh yeah, that's what I meant. And Willard Richards is he's cousin
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m51s 1:59:51]
Gwendolyn: and Willard are cousins.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m53s 1:59:53]
Karli: And so they, they're very much all connected. Yeah. And Taylor started
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=1h59m59s 1:59:59]
Breeana: and it makes sense to me. Um I've been lied about before and so that like to get in the head of Brigham Young is not hard for me, sadly. But um and he's my direct ancestor, ha ha anyway. But um he um you know, it, it makes sense to me that he was walking around teaching, telling people, you know, hey, Joseph said because Joseph was the one with the credibility. And so it makes sense that the rumors were going around, I guess Joseph is teaching this, I guess Joseph says this. And so it makes sense, you know, that, that this was being talked about what didn't come from Joseph, you know, and then eventually he said I will prove them all perjurers and then suddenly he and Hiram and William are all dead, you know, conveniently anyway.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h00m50s 2:00:50]
Michelle: Right. Whitney, have we left anything out that I feel like Whitney is kind of our historical expert.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h00m55s 2:00:55]
Whitney: So not as much as you, you're, you're putting to shame now,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h01m01s 2:01:01]
Michelle: is there. So have we covered that? Like, like that's, that's what I feel like is how you make sense of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h01m08s 2:01:08]
Gwendolyn: Whitney Michelle can I add in Whitney? I know you could add this in. But Brigham, of course, we know at the end of his life when there was a great deal of safety for him, he was, he, he was not in any threat toward the end of his life. He testified publicly. He said, I want you to know that I knew about this. And I have I had a testimony of this in England before Joseph. You ever said a word of it? And so it's, it's like this is really well documented and they said it themselves and this was printed in their newspapers in, in our own, you know, local Utah newspapers during their life. So it's not, it's not, this is Ockham's Razor. This is actually the simplest explanation of all they believe. We have a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h01m52s 2:01:52]
Michelle: collection of people, we have a collection of people who come to Utah. And Brigham told them it was his doctrine and they, they reported that Skyler Koufax is one example and Catherine Lewis and we have, we have several examples of not Catherine Lewis. I'm getting the name wrong is Catherine someone else who wrote a book. But um I anyway, we have many people who bring him, He was in such a tough spot because he needed Joseph to be the author of it. But it also just killed him that he couldn't get credit, you know. And so, and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h02m20s 2:02:20]
Breeana: he believed
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h02m21s 2:02:21]
Gwendolyn: it, he believed it was good. He believed it was from God and he was wrong, you know. So it's like, OK, you believed it was from God and you, you had all these reasons for telling people that it was from Joseph because you thought you were serving the higher good. But we can see from the results that this didn't serve the higher good.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h02m41s 2:02:41]
Karli: I have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h02m42s 2:02:42]
Michelle: a dark, there's a dark spirit of polygamy that convinces people and it's something people need to be aware of. Go ahead. Currently,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h02m49s 2:02:49]
Karli: I think at first he had to pin it on Joseph because in the early Utah days, everyone still had strong faith in Joseph and Brigham was their brave new leader. And so he had to introduce it as Joseph's doctrine. And then about a decade later, this was where was it? 1869 he got a little more confident and he's trying to put himself on the pedestal more. And he says, as to our institutions, we know we are right and polygamy which you object to was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity. After we came here to Utah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h03m25s 2:03:25]
Michelle: that's what goes on. And he says it more and more. He says it many times. So speaking of people potentially lying, let me play this next clip.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h03m35s 2:03:35]
Lindsay Hansen Park: I think it's a question that we discuss all the time because again, with the history, when, when we're acting with just a historian brain, all we know is the documentation and documentation is limited. Uh you know, documentary history is sort of the orthodoxy that we all stand by, but it's problematic too and we need to remember that that what people write down doesn't make it true, right? People lie and what they write down there. We're missing a lot of context for what we write down. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h04m01s 2:04:01]
Michelle: Again, would you like to come join our side? Like it's fascinating to hear them say exactly what we're saying as they like to cry us for saying we agree
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h04m14s 2:04:14]
Karli: on that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h04m17s 2:04:17]
Gwendolyn: And when we, when we say when she says that the documentation is the orthodoxy, that's not entirely true. Physical evidence is also very important to historians and everyone, if there was a child by any of these women, then of course, the game over there would be no discussion about it. And so um like that is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h04m38s 2:04:38]
Michelle: important. I feel there's a, there's a hierarchy, right? Hard physical evidence should be the highest. Then we have contemporaneous firsthand evidence is the second, right? Then we go downhill from there. So everything in those top tiers points to the truth that Joseph had one life and we have to get clear down to 2nd and 3rd hand, decades, late, motivated evidence to have is the first time we get anything to refute that. And so people should pay attention. And so this is going along those lines as well as how we can weigh evidence.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h05m13s 2:05:13]
Lindsay Hansen Park: So it's problematic, but I think about it often and I think that there are several, several theories that you can come up with.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h05m24s 2:05:24]
Michelle: So again, you can come up with several different theories again. Exactly. So you can't decry our side, right? And if they looked at our evidence, right, we can, we are coming up with a theory that we are analyzing just like they are doing and ours and the fact here's, here's a fact, all of their evidence we have looked at, we've looked at it inside, outside, upside down all of our evidence. They are clueless about. They don't have the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h05m56s 2:05:56]
Karli: first idea like if they were to actually go look at the documents that say like like Rob farthing and does a great job of putting the documents on the screen and he says this is where this was edited, this is why this is fishy and stuff. Like if they were to say, just go look at the Whitney Revelation video, like I think he just definitively proves that the Whitney revelation was a perjury by Hebrew C Kimball. And so if they even just look at that one piece of evidence, then all the stories about Whitney and just start to fall apart. And so if that falls apart, what else falls apart.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h06m29s 2:06:29]
Michelle: Right. Right. We have this pattern of deception that is so easy to trace and it does start very early and it continues on. They, they need to look at our evidence. And so, OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h06m41s 2:06:41]
Gwendolyn: let me, I wanna, I wanna give a little bit of, I want, I want to give a little bit of grace to what kind of the signs Lindsay is representing because it's the historians and all those who have come to the narrative that she's defending have come to it with blood sweat and tears like it was so much work over decades and decades and decades to unearth the records that they weren't able to unearth and they went through, you know, paid a ton of money to get phd. Si Mean, there was just so much that went in to getting this out into the open and then, you know, when the church does the gospel topics, essays, it's kind of like a crowning achievement in many ways. It's like finally we've admitted it, but it doesn't ring true, right? It doesn't ring true. You read those gospel topics, essays and you're like, this isn't beautiful. Like this doesn't come from God. There is very dissonant and so kind of the grace I want to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h07m40s 2:07:40]
Michelle: give that apologetics cannot be confirmed by the intellect or the spirit,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h07m45s 2:07:45]
Gwendolyn: right? But kind of the grace I want to give is that they can't like what we're asking for is for is for this level of humility that is like total a basement, right? Where you really give away all of the phd scholarship, scholarship, scholarly work, you give all these things away and you're like we were wrong, we were deceived and that is I, I can't, that's a, that's a mountain to move.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h08m11s 2:08:11]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah, I hear you. But I actually think so in the eighties when we were getting all this from D Michael Quinn and this new information was coming out, you should have believed Joseph was a polygamist, right? That was like we had fon brody, like all of the evidence pointed toward Joseph being a polygamist. It made sense. And so that's fine. Like that's what everyone believes. The problem is we have a lot more evidence now, a ton more evidence now that wasn't available. So I don't think it's about there where like like if you are a phd or anyone, if you're a learner, you should always be looking at the evidence.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h08m47s 2:08:47]
Gwendolyn: Phd S don't, they don't want to get scooped by youtube. They don't want to get scooped by a homeschool mom like that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h08m55s 2:08:55]
Michelle: This is the problem. They stopped, they stopped practicing history, they stopped doing it. They stopped and if you're gonna stop, you're done. Right. And so they should have kept going. They should have kept researching and not just said, hey, Todd Compton wrote this book. We know everything enough of the word of God. We have enough of the word of God and we need no more of the word of God for we know that their wisdom become foolishness and a prophet had them nothing like really let's testify the truthfulness of the book of Mormon in this episode because it's true. So OK. Yes, here we go. He's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h09m27s 2:09:27] Bryan Buchanan: denying it publicly, that's for sure. And that's, that's again, this, he's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h09m32s 2:09:32]
Michelle: saying that he denied it publicly. So this is where I want to talk about the public private dichotomy and a few other
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h09m36s 2:09:36] Bryan Buchanan: things this, this recent spike in, in denying Joseph Smith's involvement with it points to these public denials alone and that's not good history. And also it just doesn't mesh with how reality works. If you only believe public statements from anyone, you're gonna get yourself in trouble real fast because that's not how the world works.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h09m59s 2:09:59]
Michelle: Ok? This one's fun. So who here got here just like Whitney, right? Whitney, you got here because you just chose to only believe Joseph Smith's public statements and close your ears to everything else. Does that resonate with any of you? Thankful? Ok. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h10m21s 2:10:21]
Karli: sorry. Well, one of the strongest evidences of rig changing the history is the October 5th journal entry. It is where he says he's walking through the streets with his scribe, trying people who are practicing the, the doctrine of polygamy for I am the only one on this law or on this law. You know, you can only have one wife unless God says otherwise. And so, and you can see the edit marks and everything clearly. But even if like the editing aside, that is neither a public denial or teaching in private, he was walking through the streets teaching this allegedly. And so that that is completely contradictory. If he only taught it in private, why is he walking through the streets telling everyone?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h11m13s 2:11:13]
Michelle: That's a really good point. That's a really good point. Yeah. And the funny thing is none of them I would guess know about the journal entry because the conversation I had with John Hamer, he didn't know about the journal entry. Don Bradley recently learned about the journal entry when one of us told him, right? Like they don't even know that little bit of factual information. That's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h11m35s 2:11:35]
Karli: why on my tiktok where I just, I try to condense these really long youtube videos of all the history. I condense it to a short little 5 to 10 minute video, I have that one pinned because that's such a strong evidence like you see that first and you instantly start wondering,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h11m53s 2:11:53]
Michelle: right? And when you know that that happens repeatedly, we found more and more and more of those because we're having to do the work to find them. Right? And so there is a massive pattern and yeah, anyway, and, and the point I wanted to make that was along the lines, Carly, like they're saying public and private, that's not what it is at all. It's the things Joseph said in his public discourse, in his private discourse, in his journal, in his letters, in his sermons, in his scriptures, the things we know he said versus the decades later, 2nd and 3rd hand motivated accounts of what he said. So they keep painting it as public and private. It's not public and private. It's Joseph Smith's contemporary words versus brigands and companies much later. Um accusations, false, false reports.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h12m46s 2:12:46]
Gwendolyn: And Joseph invited the women to come forward in one of his last um sermons. He, when he said ever since, you know, I I wasn't married before people started accusing me of having seven wives, but I can only find one and he said, come, come forward, right? All you accusers. And so he was asking for people who, who could show evidence to come forward and no one ever did. Um Right. So it's like we're not, we're not like I, I just don't see the evidence that he actually did this. But I do want to say that, that I know so many people who, um, you know, members of the church who believe he did it because they just don't quite, they just don't quite know. And I would say, um, if you still aren't sure because of the historical murks as you call it Michelle, it's our Christian duty to believe someone, right? If we believe in the golden rule, then we would want to be believed, right? Since there is no actual evidence, like a child or like letters or a marriage record, right? During his life, we would want to be believed. So it's our Christian duty to believe him. Um If we, if we claim to follow Christ,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h14m04s 2:14:04]
Michelle: oh, that's interesting. I think that that one because, because criminals do lie, right? But I do think that where we have, I, I think the evidence is strong.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h14m14s 2:14:14]
Gwendolyn: It's the, it's not like if we wouldn't believe him, if there was a child because then there would be a child. But like you can't find any reason to not believe him except what other people say and you have to then choose who are you going to believe? Well, I would want someone to believe me if there was no actual evidence.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h14m33s 2:14:33]
Michelle: And I want to say, I know that there are people saying there were other reports, like for example, the novel Expositor. Well, I'm in the middle of a four part series on that. If people will look at the actual evidence, it falls apart. Leonard Sobe, I'm gonna handle in the, in the fourth part that I have upcoming on that. There are things that people you need to know about. Like all of it all, it just dissolves in your hands as soon as you start looking at it. Like, yeah, there's a lot of it, there's a, you know, there's a lot of, there were a lot of lies told, but pick up any one of the individual lies and they just melt. There's nothing there. OK? Yeah, they just, they just dissolve.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h15m12s 2:15:12]
Lindsay Hansen Park: I'm trying to throw a bone to faithful believers because I actually want to be respect. I believe in pluralism. I believe I was a believer too. I understand this feeling. However, I want you to know and I've seen it firsthand and I feel very, very strongly about this. Um I have sat in rooms with eight year olds who have been molested by church leaders in fundamentalist communities that use these same arguments that you were using to defend Joseph Smith. If you use these arguments to defend Joseph Smith and his behavior, oh, he was just experimenting with the doctrine. Oh, it was new. He didn't know he was reluctant. Oh, he had to keep it secret, all of these things, an angel, all of those then ergo apply to Warren Jeffs. They apply to uh Samuel Schafer and the Knights of the crystal blade, the guy that locked the little girls up in barrels, this is what you are empowering. And I'm sorry that, that doesn't sound pretty. But when we make defenses for these guys, we have whole groups, thousands of people today that use these arguments to justify their behavior and of course they would because they're following the profit. Why
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h16m23s 2:16:23]
Breeana: are we, um, decriminalizing polygamy in Utah? Lindsay?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h16m29s 2:16:29]
Gwendolyn: I totally agree with Lindsay here like 100%. And that's why we need to deal with the doctrine because it doesn't matter who it comes from, it gives it, it puts forth bad fruit. Like it's terrible.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h16m42s 2:16:42]
Karli: Whoever did it. It's terrible. It didn't come from, from the prophet.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h16m47s 2:16:47]
Michelle: That's what makes me upset about this clip though is that we are the ones saying to all of the people. Let's get into the scriptural record. This is not of God. Oh, and guess what else? It's not of Joseph Smith based on the historical record. We are the ones invalidating the claims that justify polygamist abuse. We are working our tails off. We're the only one to do that I think. And a huge, well, those of us in the, those the polygamy deniers, a huge part of the mo of the motivation like Whitney said is to help people to try to save people. I think Gwendolyn too, like, like I feel like more and more people as we're getting kind of into this last day's energy and people feel uncertain, more and more people are feeling like we need to start living the fullness of the gospel, right? And so our efforts to try to help people see the truth about polygamy would be profoundly impactful. And Lindsay is fighting against us. She is saying that we are dangerous. We are hurting the people, we are hurting the communities while she is dang it advocating for it. She's bringing them into sandstone. She's letting them share their doctrine saying they are the real Mormons. Like it's like her anti Mormons overrides her recognition of people needing that, that truth would help people be saved from these terrible situations. So for me, that was so hypocritical. So now I'll open it to the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h18m19s 2:18:19]
Gwendolyn: floor. I want to say, I think a part of this is maybe could be credited to Lindsay's um like her, her morality shifts a little bit. Um I'm not, I'm not trying to criticize. I'm just saying what she, she left the church and um in the interview, I don't, I don't think you've got that clip, but she talked about she's a mystic now and she uses tarot cards and things like that. And it's like, OK, so you're telling us that you use commercial products to access the divine, which is like, not that far off because in polygamy you're like, yeah, the more wives I can acquire, I can, I can get hired to heaven. It's just like, it's all about acquisition and being able to buy and it's like Christ doctrine is you, you come and you get, you know, without, without money and without price, right? But she also mentions in other parts that, um, you know, she's fine with polygamy between consenting adults and like, like, ok, but if you don't have like a very clear morality, then it's very hard, um, it's very hard to decide what's good and bad. And so she, I think just as you said, Michelle, she's leaning into the perhaps her like desire for, for payback, right? Like she's mad that the church did this and she wants, she wants it to pay and she's gonna pay, make it pay by showing like, hey, this is what the church actually is deep down at its root. And we're trying to say the gospel of Jesus Christ deep down in its root is not this. So if this got into the church, then, then how did that happen? Let's deal with it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h19m51s 2:19:51]
Michelle: And it's really interesting how it aligns so well with Jacob five, which interestingly comes right after the discourse on polygamy with the roots and the branches and the branches overcoming the roots, right? Like, like there are, if we can help anyway, that's, that's I really am pleading with Lindsay and all of her listeners to consider that the best thing that could happen to help free people from the mind prison of polygamy is to understand the evidence that we are bringing forward. And so I hope that if she truly does care about, if this is the question, is she just protecting her own platform, which she thinks is built on the necessity to blame Joseph for ply me or does she really care about the people? Right. That's the question that for, I think for everyone, even the people who are so dedicated to hating Joseph Smith. Ok. But consider this evidence. And I'm not, I it's not motivated reason. I'm not saying you need to believe this because it would help people. I'm saying, look at this evidence because it is compelling and it is very, very hard to ignore. It is going to keep growing and because it's true, it will help people.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h21m04s 2:21:04]
Karli: And that's right. I think that it's hard for people, especially in the fundamentalist church to try to shift their mindset on that because the church has taught that Jacob 230 gives that loophole and that it is not so like for anyone listening, who hasn't yet go back and watch Michelle's episode on Jacob 230 because the very
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h21m26s 2:21:26]
spk_6: first ones,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h21m28s 2:21:28]
Karli: yeah, like, like you actually study it and you study every time it says these things that you study the structure of the chasms or Chiasmus and you can understand the doctrine is not taught by Joseph Smith or in the book of Mormon. And I have an article on it too. I have it in my link tree. I wrote like you did your podcast. I wrote an article on it and several people have because
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h21m54s 2:21:54]
Michelle: there's so much information,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h21m56s 2:21:56]
Karli: revelation to understand how that chapter, how those verses are actually written. It so abundantly clear. There is no loophole.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h22m08s 2:22:08]
Michelle: Yeah. So OK, that, that, that's so, thank you. Thank you for this conversation. I just feel like it's so important. Um So we're gonna skip over the next section because it's the, it's the no babies section
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h22m21s 2:22:21]
Gwendolyn: and I, you debunked it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h22m24s 2:22:24]
Michelle: Well, I'm so disappointed I'm like, if she would have watched my episode on that. Yes. Yes, I did the two parts on and it's like, you know what if you want, if you want to talk to me about that, if you want to show me where IIII I bring the receipts. So let's talk about it if you have some other receipts to bring, but like watch the episode, my word. And um and then she made a new claim in this one. And also again for a feminist, I said this in that episode but for a feminist to continually to refer to people as stupid yokels who aren't smart enough to take care of their bodies. Saying this about women, even a woman who got pregnant today, unintentionally, I would not want her spoken about this way. But these were women, you might as well say stupid yokels who couldn't, didn't have electricity and couldn't fly in airplanes. The technology didn't exist. So anyway, so, yeah, that, and then she added to this one, a new one that was, that Joseph might have had syphilis. And she claimed that because a man with syphilis, his, he can get women pregnant but the babies don't live. Hey, first of all, where is she getting this? Like, just read for 10 minutes with a baby.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h23m43s 2:23:43]
Karli: Like,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h23m44s 2:23:44]
Michelle: like please show me the article the the the like journal that you are getting this from the medical journal. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h23m50s 2:23:50]
Gwendolyn: did look up, I looked up the symptoms because I was like, where, what syphilis? And I looked at the the symptoms and like, you know, there are symptoms and we don't have any record of Joseph exhibiting these symptoms,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h24m03s 2:24:03]
Michelle: right? And also if a baby dies, it's because the mother has syphilis, not the father, right? And that's where the infant mortality would come from. Emma lived to be 74 no signs or symptoms of syphilis. So like these and, and a lot of these claims are like that. She'll just be like, well, I don't know, but and she'll just throw it out, throw it out. It's like just throwing all of this mud mud slinging constantly with. No, that's why I, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h24m34s 2:24:34]
Breeana: do. People need to give this a chance because like what you all have been doing with your channels and your book and Tik Tok, you are literally showing up with like, you said the receipts, whereas her narrative is kind of a popular one and it's kind of a wildly accepted one. And I'm not saying she hasn't done some studying because obviously she has. But yeah, it, it seems like because, um it's just wildly basically accepted by most and it's the easiest way to go. Yeah, she's, there's this, um, she can throw things out and nobody seems to be really questioning it that much, you know, kind of when I, the comments that I saw, I just was wondering like, is anybody like asking questions about these or is anybody wanting sources? Like I am and I didn't see that everyone was just like, oh this is the best thing for my deconstructing this right here. Everyone should watch it and I was like um OK, I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h25m27s 2:25:27]
Michelle: I don't know. Right. I, I have to say I do think John might be um or his team um filtering content comments because only the positive ones are showing up. So there might be a little more push back. One thing that I find tragic is that most of John's listeners now are what does he call them? Never mos people who have never been Mormon and know very little about it. And that's really tragic because it's he does. He, he like John started out, I think being a sincere seeker like we all are genuinely wanting truth II, I hope that that's still what he's interested in because I feel like he is spreading things that aren't true and, and like, like, yeah, Lindsay is allowed to be kind of like you were saying Brianna, she's allowed to be really lazy and sloppy and those are harsh words, but that's really what it is. I can just throw out all kinds of stuff and, you know, and I feel like we have to be extremely careful and thoughtful and, you know, which I'm glad that we are doing that, but I do think that we should have a discussion with receipts, right? We shouldn't just throw out aspersions and like throw things out. And so, ok, here, this next clip felt to me like massive, massive projection. So again, I do want to give the devil his due that we, the church has its problems, undoubtedly, like we could have done without the whole Hinckley era focused on pornography. For example, we could have done with the whole Packer era focused on um on masturbation, right? Like, like we do have our problems, but this clip was wild to me
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h26m59s 2:26:59]
John Dehlin: and, and also about the sex. It's like, and, and maybe then that means since we don't have a lot of evidence of sexual polyandry that maybe it means polygamy. Wasn't you Lizzie? You're already said
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h27m11s 2:27:11]
Lindsay Hansen Park: sex argument. Ok. I'm sorry, I wanna hear Julia's defense. I do, I just have to go on a spiel about this like Mormons. We're so obsessed with sex. It's like our repression just seeps out everywhere in the doctor. And like we, we want Joseph Smith to have a TK smoothie. We don't want him to, to have sex at all. We don't want to think about sex. And yet all of our theology is about building internal increase. Look in the book of Mormon, how many times we talk about seed? It's everywhere and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h27m41s 2:27:41]
John Dehlin: that's code word for sperm.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h27m43s 2:27:43]
Lindsay Hansen Park: Yes. And everything is coded. It's so Victorian still to this day, everything. Even the things about not having sex are about sex and most of Mormonism now is about not having sex, which is about sex. We are sex obsessed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h28m01s 2:28:01]
Michelle: OK? Any comments I have many but I'll let some of you speak
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h28m05s 2:28:05]
Karli: first just that he said that seed is code for sperm. Like did Jesus also use it? I'm talking about seeds and branches a lot too,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h28m19s 2:28:19]
Michelle: right? And so, so one thing I hadn't heard the term TK smoothie. It's actually kind of funny. Did you guys know? So it means cholesterol, it means celestial kingdom smoothie. And like, I guess Joseph Fielding Smith taught that that if you're not celestial, you won't be resurrected with, with sexual organs. So it's like a Ken doll. So that's why they call it a TK smoothie, I guess, which that's like and this is part of why I think it's useful again, like let's not put profits on pedestals like this. Let's recognize that leaders say a lot of really goofy stuff. Right. And not be bound by it. That's another part where we can agree. But anyway, this, like the story of Adam and Eve, it's been in the Bible forever and it's completely 100% about sex. Right. Like this, like, this is where the disdain for Mormonism comes out. It's basically like any people who still believe in marriage, like sex within a marriage are all of a sudden all about sex. I mean, how many like God tells Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth God tells Noah and they save the animals so that they can have sex. And like the fact is human beings are about sex, right? And there have to be structures built to contain that overarching sexual drive. So we're in this massively over sexualized culture where everything is about sex. We in this pornography culture where you can barely turn on like now the pornography is so big. It's filtered into all of the movies. You can barely get away from this overt sexuality. And she's saying we're all about sex. I'm, I'm like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h30m12s 2:30:12]
Gwendolyn: one of their, one of their weaknesses. I think in this discussion is that they do not have a good scriptural foundation, um which is evidenced by the Jacob 230 they were just, you know, brushed it off, but even just now I just pulled up, um Abdi is talking to King Noah who also had a bit of a polygamy problem and Abed is telling King Noah about seed. And he's basically saying seed is not impregnating a bunch of women. He says, all those who have hearkened unto the words of the prophets and believe that the Lord would redeem his people and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins. I say unto you that these are his seed or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God. So the scriptures define what seed is and it's not right in this morning. Occasionally it is,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h31m04s 2:31:04]
Breeana: I just read that very chapter this morning with my kids in our home school. I love that you brought that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h31m10s 2:31:10]
Michelle: up. Well, like the wheat and the tears. There's right. And I mean, it talks about seeds so much by their fruits, you shall know them and you will know if it's a good seed, if you plant it in your heart, like seed is everywhere and it talks about the, the, well, I, and I even think the things that we think are about procreation are about something completely different. I think it's about developing, you know, growing in the gospel, growing into the presence of God. That's what it really is, right? So the seed is what you plant and the fruits are what it bears anyway. So this idea and this is part of what makes me really nervous about her being the Hollywood connection. She has so much disdain for Mormonism and so much projection and so much just judgment and ignorance you can't be, you can't tell someone how to portray a people that you have disdain for. You have to come from a place first of all, of love and empathy and understanding, right? And so I thought that was interesting. And then this, it goes on interestingly again to where she's, I think that this sex argument, this sex obsessed argument again is self serving. As we will see as we go on to these next couple of clips that I actually found the most troubling of the entire thing and were part of my reason for wanting to do this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h32m27s 2:32:27]
Lindsay Hansen Park: And so when we're talking about these ideas, it just drives me crazy when people are like, did Joseph Smith have sex with his 14 year old wife? Did you have sex with his polyandrous wife? Does it matter?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h32m42s 2:32:42]
Michelle: Ok. So we're gonna go on to a lot more of this because I don't want to misrepresent what she's saying. But what are your thoughts on what she just said right there? Like, does it matter if an adult man had sex with a 14 year old? Should that be a relevant point to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m02s 2:33:02]
spk_6: that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m02s 2:33:02]
Karli: matters today with all of the FL DS controversy that we see. And so if we're talking about the foundation of the religion, it absolutely should matter to discover truth to see if that really did happen or not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m18s 2:33:18]
Michelle: I, I guess, yeah, that's, I'm like she's sitting here saying that we're dangerous, right? And then she's saying that if you justify Joseph Smith's ideas or if you, you know, behaviors, these, these claims we make about his polygamy, you're justifying it for these other religious leaders. And now she's saying, does it really matter if, if, if he had sex with a 14 year old, like, should that be an important question in this? Not the damages? I find
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m44s 2:33:44]
Karli: that, yes, it matters.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m47s 2:33:47]
Michelle: I find that deeply troubling.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m49s 2:33:49]
Karli: Yeah, it matters.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h33m53s 2:33:53] Gwendolyn: Well. And I think what she, I think she takes issue with the doctrine, right? Because she's heard so much of our apologetics about it. And so that also frustrates me because I'm like, Lindsay, I totally agree with you. Like this is all about power and this is wrong and in some ways it doesn't even matter because if you're telling a woman, she's your wife and she's only yours and, and you're her head and she's, you know, you're one of many and you know, there's a lot of uh it's just, it's a terror doctrine. It's a tear, it got in and it's a tear. Ok, let's get it out. But it's like she keeps, she's bringing it back to like this is all it is, right? And we're trying to say this isn't all it is. It's not all about polygamy. In fact, polygamy wasn't part of this initial restoration it got in and the scriptures also tell us that in doctrine and covenant [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101?lang=eng section 101, our current 101], it the Lord gives the parable for the redemption of Zion. And in that parable, he says the enemy came in while they were yet laying the foundation. So God saw it. God told us it would happen and God has given us instructions for overcoming it and, and coming out of it. But, but I feel like Lindsay is like not really scripturally literate. And so she wants to stay in this, this anger and condemnation of what terrible thing happened.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h35m14s 2:35:14]
Michelle: Let me go
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h35m17s 2:35:17]
Breeana: ahead. Sorry, Michelle. It's also Matthew 13. That's one that really helped me learn and process the polygamy. You know, the same exact um the parable Christ gives of, you know, an enemy has done this come and planted tears in the night. And to, I always took that as wheat and tears are people, but it can also mean beliefs or teachings or doctrines. So true doctrine could have come along and then simple, beautiful and then a bunch of terror
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h35m45s 2:35:45]
Karli: doctrines got added in like, and, and that's another reference to seeds like you plant the seed. Exactly. And see if it's a good fruit or bad. And, and I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h35m55s 2:35:55]
Michelle: 100% think that that is about ideas and doctrines, not people. I think it's terrible to interpret that as people continue.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h36m03s 2:36:03]
Karli: Car No. Exactly. It's an idea. Ok. You're wondering if this idea is good or not. Or if this doctrine is of God or not, you plant the seed, you do all of the work spiritually and in the scriptures to understand it, to see if it was good or not. And then if its not like Jacob two verses 23 all the way to 35 talk about the damages of plug me sleeping with young women and breaking the hearts of your mother or your wives and Children. Of course, it matters. It completely destroys women,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h36m39s 2:36:39]
Michelle: right? So let me go on to this next clip that builds on it because I understand the point she's making John helps her out to make her point. I think John makes it for her. But here's this next clip
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h36m49s 2:36:49]
Lindsay Hansen Park: to me, it's about power and control, which is what assault and rape and coercion is about power and control. Whether he touched someone below the belt doesn't change the fact that he altered the course of their life. He took ownership of them, of their spirituality and their eternal life. And so this idea where we're like, did he or didn't he? It doesn't matter. The doctrine says he's going to eventually if he doesn't now. And so you're
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h37m19s 2:37:19]
John Dehlin: saying it's awful with or without sex, it's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h37m21s 2:37:21]
Lindsay Hansen Park: awful with or without sex.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h37m25s 2:37:25]
Michelle: Ok? So, you know, and she really gets twisted up here and like it, I I didn't play the clips because she just gets confused and, and it's, it, it turns into a bit of a mess if you remember this section. So I will 100% agree with her that it is awful with or without sex and the desire to dumb it down and say, oh, he didn't have sex with them. Therefore, it wasn't as bad as we think it was, is not a good impulse, right? However, I do think it's fair because I think that when we say as a church, Joseph, that these things are good and are of God and Joseph did these things. And then we combine the historical piece with it and we start seeing these affidavits saying she was 14, she was 15 and this is what happened to them, right? And we are reading it through our lens, not how they were meaning it to come across the people writing the testimonies, but we're reading it through our lens. I think it is valid to go wait, that's too horrible. Is there a way to make it a little bit less horrible? Right. So I understand the L DS impulse to want to do that. I think it's wrong. I think it's erroneous. But what I really object to here is minimizing sexual assault is saying power is the only thing that matters. So power without sexual assault is exactly the same as power with sexual assault. I find that to be one of the most anti feminist ideas, feminine ideas to say it doesn't matter. And she keeps minimizing and belittling if he touched him below the belt. It's just because you Mormons are so sex obsessed, then you're concerned about whether a 14 year old was sexually assaulted. That's the part I object to. I want to know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h39m13s 2:39:13]
Breeana: Can I just say, um, as someone that's also been sexually abused before, on, on this part, I was actually less alarmed and I actually felt, um, empathy and compassion for Lindsay and I thought I, I do know the point she's making that um it's often about power and many times it is and um power and control and um uh that the dynamic of a controller and an abuser versus someone they want to have power over and that does play into sexual abuse, but also all kinds of abuse. I don't know, for me, I guess I saw all of that as instead of it being triggering for me. I thought, I think she's speaking from her own um experiences and was trying to say it's wrong no matter how you abused a young woman, whether he had sex or not, he was still dominating her, you know, is, is her belief and, and that's wrong and it's all wrong. And so I guess um I agree with your um with the assessment too that we absolutely need to. It does matter if someone had sex or not. But I'm just saying for me, I just felt like I could have just, you know, looked in Lindsay's eyes and been like, you know, it, like you're speaking from experience and I'm so sorry that, that you've had a horrible,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h40m40s 2:40:40]
spk_6: that's,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h40m41s 2:40:41]
Breeana: that's deplorable.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h40m43s 2:40:43]
Michelle: And I'm so glad I'm so glad you brought that up. I think the part where it loses the handle for me is it is absolutely about power and sexual abuse is one of the most profound and destructive ways to exert power over somebody. So you can't take it away from it. I, I do not understand the point she's trying to make saying it's about power, right? We all agree. Sexual assault is about power and the sex is the way that, that power is exerted in the most destructive way. So like a couple of examples I use, go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h41m20s 2:41:20]
spk_6: Well, she should
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h41m20s 2:41:20]
Karli: notice if she's that close to the FL DS community because we've seen so many women come forward saying they were a young teenage girl sort of rebellious and then they get married off to get pregnant and then they're stuck in the system.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h41m35s 2:41:35]
Michelle: Right. Right. And when you have, that's exactly right. Like when they have a young rebellious girl, they know impregnate her and, and tame her that way, you know, ensnare her that way. Like these are a couple of examples for people who don't understand the point that I find so damaging here. A father who sends his 14 year old daughter to her room is exerting power over her. Right? But all of us would be like, yeah, that happens sometimes if he then follows her down the hall into her room and has sex with her, that's a very, very, very different thing. And it does matter, right? We can all agree that slavery is very, very wrong. You're literally owning another human being. It's exponentially worse if the master is at the same time raping his slaves, if he's having concubines as 132 would allow for. Right? So that's what I find here is like she's spending a lot of energy talking about how we can't justify these polygamous ideas because it validates the abusers while she's saying and, and I have another clip as well where she it it to me it feels very much like she is minimizing the importance and impact of sex on Children and unwilling participants. Right? That's the point I'm making. There are lots of ways to exert power over people and exerting power isn't good. You cannot say, well, since sexual assault is about power, the sex piece doesn't matter. It matters. If my child was abducted, I would much rather have them be abducted by someone who wanted to use them as a slave, not by someone who wanted to rape them. I don't want them abducted, period. But do you know what I'm saying? Like, like doesn't it matter? Does it matter? Yes, it matters. Right. So I'm gonna play, sorry, this is the part I got I hated about because I I do care about people and these messages we're sending and here's, here's the next piece of it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h43m36s 2:43:36]
Lindsay Hansen Park: to say that, did they, or didn't they have sex? It was still about power and control. It was still about power and control. And it just makes me so mad that, you know, Mormons faithful. Mormons will argue. Well, if he had sex then it was bad. No, that's not what makes it bad. It's, it's the power and the coercion and the lying that makes that makes it bad. If it were sex between consenting adults, then it's great, then it's not our business, but that's not what this is.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h44m07s 2:44:07]
Michelle: Ok. So Gwendolyn, that's part of what you had
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h44m09s 2:44:09]
Gwendolyn: brought up. Yeah, there's those shifting morals, I would say that consenting adults have done horrific things. And so you can't just have consent between people 18 and above. Be your only value you and your only morality. And in fact, we def we define adults now as 18, but like they haven't always been. And that's something the polygamist use too. That's very fluid. Um, maturity in adulthood has been defined very differently throughout time. And that's what actually puts women and girls into these horrific situations because people will say in, in times of old, they'll say, well, once they hit puberty, they are now an adult and you can now be married off. And if the girl is young, I mean, how many of us at age 1213, 14 consented to things that as middle aged women, we would be like no way you are not going to do that to my daughter. Right? That's why women, that's why girls need strong mothers. That's why girls need strong fathers. So I just, I, I think you, you cannot have this sort of shifting morality of consenting adults is your highest value and, and have that work out well, it doesn't work out well. You need something higher. You, I would say you need Christ
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h45m27s 2:45:27]
Michelle: gospel. I, I will agree with her 100% on the idea that if you didn't have sex, it's all good. And if you like, I agree with her on making that an important point that matters somehow, right? But I disagree with her approach to it, to like, and, and yeah, the, the idea that, well, I guess this is what I think marriage was given to mankind by God for the sake of the men, but mainly for the women and the Children, right? Marriage is what protects women. I believe that so strongly like the sexual liberation, we have so many women now who are heartbroken and childless, right? Because they never were able to get married because it doesn't incentivize marriage anyway. It's a whole big discussion. But I do agree that like, they're walking a really wobbly line of values and women trying to say this is ok and this isn't ok. And my concern is that in her desire to impart explain away Joseph not having Children. She's so desperate to do that, that she minimizes the impact of sexual assault is how it sounds to me. And that's highly concerning. There's another clip that I'll play along these lines.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h46m46s 2:46:46]
Gwendolyn: I just think she's, I think she's leaning into the ghost of eternal polygamy, which I probably all of us experienced at some point. And so I think she might be just saying like, hey, even if the actual physical act doesn't happen again, so you've got this thing behind you always, you know that this is your future, you know, this is going to happen because they have control over you. That said um I do agree that that actually having physically, like having that happen to you physically is exponentially worse than believing that it, that it will
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h47m18s 2:47:18]
Michelle: let me ask this question. We have Abraham and Hagar, right? So Hagar was a handmaid. She was a slave, she was picked up and she was a slave that they acquired in Egypt, right? Was it worse that she was a slave? Or was it worse that she became a concubine? And that her very body and the fruit of her womb was theirs for the taking, right? It does matter. It doesn't make it OK to have people in bondage without sex. But you can't use that to say that sex doesn't matter. So here's this next clip. It's also super
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h47m52s 2:47:52]
John Dehlin: problematic. It makes no sense to say. Well, Joseph didn't have sex with his polygamous wives when we know they're bringing me on John Taylor WW, with Lorenzo Snow, Joseph Heber. J Robert Smith and all the other polygamist from Joseph to the end of polygamy were having sex with all their wives. Why would we want to give Joseph a pass and say he didn't have sex?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h48m14s 2:48:14]
Michelle: I actually love that clip.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h48m16s 2:48:16]
Karli: Just true
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h48m18s 2:48:18]
Michelle: again. Come on our team. You've got
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h48m21s 2:48:21]
spk_6: a common sense there.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h48m24s 2:48:24]
Whitney: Like I said, we've never denied that those other men practiced it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h48m28s 2:48:28]
Michelle: Right. And what they did was horrific. It was horrible. And yes, Brigham Young didn't have sex with all of his wives. Right? And it's still horrible when, when it's this, this level of patriarchy is horrible that they were existing. And I just shared an episode I was telling, I mean, I shared the story, my last episode about the 15 year old girl that was sent from Scotland without her parents and married off within two months to a 49 year old man. The entire thing is horrible and it's not horrible. Like that's why if we can help more and more people understand that Joseph didn't do it. That will remove the argument of whether he had sex or not. That's not where the argument should be. For the L Ds side or for Lindsay Hanson Park and her side, right? Like it's forced her into this position. So, hey, a couple more clips. I hope I don't beat this part too much, but I have a couple more clips. The
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h49m24s 2:49:24] Bryan Buchanan: impulse to take the sexual dynamic out of it is so odd because both the book of Mormon, the Jacob Passage and then section the Revelation that becomes section 132 explicitly authorize increase. So to argue that that wasn't a thing is weird because that's not the scriptural text telling you that. That's you telling yourself
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h49m45s 2:49:45]
John Dehlin: that. And both the book of Mormon passage and the DNC 132 passage make it about sex. It's about seed. It's about posterity. That's the whole point of polygamy is to create a righteous posterity.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h49m58s 2:49:58] Bryan Buchanan: So arguing that that was not even in Joseph Smith's mind, what was he doing is weird because clearly it was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h50m05s 2:50:05] Michelle: OK. So can you guys remind me how many polygamous Children did Joseph Smith have? I like? Right. And, and wasn't he intentionally preventing Children because he didn't want to get caught? Like, do you see what I mean? How they're tied up in knots and circles? So to clarify our position, we reject the twisted or reading of [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2?lang=eng Jacob 2:30] that would make it about sex. That is not true. Read it in context and we reject [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng Section 132] at least the portions about polygamy as a legitimate revelation. Come on to our side. We agree. What you can't do is on the one hand, say he had sex with all of them, of course he did except the ones he didn't have sex with and you shouldn't care if he had sex or not. And he didn't have Children because he was, he was trying to prevent it and they were using birth control. And according to John Hamer doing other things and then on the other hand say, oh, but we know it was all about sex because they were trying to have increase because the scriptures say that like, like they need a consistent through line here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h51m08s 2:51:08] Gwendolyn: Um If they watch this and they're like, hey, I don't want to watch all these other videos about [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2?lang=eng Jacob 2:30]. Let's just make it clear the, the part of the things that people will hearken to if the Lord doesn't issue command are the abominable things that David and Solomon did, right? So when you think of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h51m25s 2:51:25]
Michelle: that refers to the things that David and Solomon did and, and it is teaching his people. So it, it very clear to twist it. You need to, I don't have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h51m37s 2:51:37]
Gwendolyn: to be taught by the traditions of your fathers. That's the only way you can read it that way. If you just give it to someone and have them read it, they would never come to that conclusion because it's not part of the text, you have to read it into the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h51m49s 2:51:49]
Karli: text, not only read 30. I, the Lord will command my people otherwise they will harken unto these things that makes no sense. You need the context. So the Lord will command his people otherwise they will harken unto these things. What are these things in the verses? Every single time? It says things. It's talking about the abomination of poly. So if they don't hearken to the Lord's command, then they will do poly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h52m17s 2:52:17]
Breeana: I'm sorry, Whitney. You haven't talked in a while. Go ahead. No, no, you go ahead. OK. I was gonna say like John is partially right here though. Once again, like I agree with him when he says 132 I don't believe that Jacob two is about sex, but he says 132 is about sex. And yeah, all the parts added by Brigham. It's totally about sex. So I agree with him there like he does portray a lot of common sense throughout this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h52m41s 2:52:41]
spk_6: episode, I think. So he just,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h52m44s 2:52:44]
Whitney: he just needs to flip his switch a little more. He's like it's almost there. I just wanted to say that Brian makes the point that he's trying to make the point that Jacob 230 DNC 132 are about raising up a righteous seed. So I would just like to counter that with the first real polygamous story we have in the Bible, Abraham and Hagar as Michelle just pointed out the war between those brothers is still going on today. There
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h53m21s 2:53:21]
Karli: were thousands of years later, so unrighteous that they tried to kill their brother.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h53m30s 2:53:30]
Whitney: There's no right. And so it's hard enough to raise righteous seed when you have a mother and father. Then let's just complicate that by adding more women, more Children. And, and so it just doesn't work. It polygamy doesn't raise a righteous now. Not that some might be, but overall, it's just hard to raise righteous Children, period.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h53m57s 2:53:57]
Gwendolyn: And, and Whitney, as you know, the first polygamy in the Bible, of course, isn't Abraham. That's the first example of someone who ends up becoming righteous and getting ensnared. But of course, the first polygamist is Lamic Cain's descendant who covenants and our book of Scripture is the one who says that about him. So we've got it. It's right here in our scriptures. We've got it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h54m25s 2:54:25]
Michelle: and we can so easily connect. Oh I just go crazy. So all we have to get through. I want to talk about all of these clips. So, but we can so easily connect Brigham's doctrine. He and his cohorts, the polygamist pals were teaching constantly that you basically your wives give birth to your kingdom, to the glory, all of those souls that will worship you are the ones that you create, right? Like I mean, I sorry, I'm starting, I'm I'm starting to want to say words I shouldn't be saying because it just makes me so mad. But we completely agree like John, yes, we completely agree with you on how horrific this is and we can bring, we can help you. We can show you where Brigham taught these things, we can show you how he came up with that and what he taught, you cannot find anything anywhere akin to it in anything Joseph ever taught at all. It's a completely, completely different thing, a different gospel entirely. So, so, ok, I think I have another clip. Maybe along these lines. I've lost track. So let me play this one. Then I'll tell you what it is after.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h55m34s 2:55:34]
Lindsay Hansen Park: Did Joseph Smith have sex with Helen Marr? I don't know. But I, what I do know is that Helen Marr for years, for years and she was faithful, complained that her autonomy was taken away. She was depressed, she couldn't go to dances with her friends, she couldn't flirt with boys. She liked that part of herself was robbed and whether she spent two minutes in the bedroom with some adult man doesn't like seriously though, like, like give women some credit, we can endure a lot of stuff. But the thing that changes it is the power, not the, not the situation, it's, it's the person that's using you and manipulating you. And that's what happened to Helen Mar, whether she slept with him or not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h56m20s 2:56:20]
Michelle: Ok. Again, that was the most dramatic case to me of minimizing. She says who cares about that? Two minutes? Women can deal with a lot like, like it doesn't matter if, if she was in that bedroom with two for two minutes with an adult male, whatever. It's about the power. What in the world is she talking about? Right? Like, can we stop minimizing sexual assault when we talking about polygamy with polygamists? While she's saying that their doctrines are being validated and their behaviors when she goes and says women can endure a lot. Women can overcome a lot. What does that say to every would be assailant? Like, oh women can deal with it. That's what I have a problem with. This is major to me like, like so anti woman in my book, anyone else? It just
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h57m16s 2:57:16]
Breeana: feels flippant, you know, kind of like flippant like we saw what,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h57m19s 2:57:19]
Michelle: two minutes? It's two minutes
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h57m22s 2:57:22]
Breeana: instead of like really thinking about that. Like, yeah, I don't know
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h57m26s 2:57:26]
Michelle: because the fact is they're, they're right. I don't believe Joseph Smith did this but I know who did I know what leaders did? And would she say the same things? Who cares? It doesn't matter if, when it's happening now with the Kingstons and the Jeffs and the other groups, who cares? It's two minutes. It's the power. That's the problem. Not the no, the ultimate manifestation of power is sexual assault. It's the most intrusive form of power in every possible way and you don't get to minimize it. You do not get to minimize it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h58m00s 2:58:00]
Karli: I mean, people go through years of therapy based off of a short incident, a small incident from child
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h58m08s 2:58:08]
Michelle: and, and then John just laughs at the funny. I thought that he would only take two minutes. Like I just, I'm, I this whole thing, I'm like, how are people not seeing this and raising every alarm bell at how, how dramatically destructive and this is what's dangerous when you basically say sexual assault doesn't matter, you can assault someone and it doesn't matter as long as you're not exerting power over them. Like, like what does that even mean? Whitney and Gwendolyn? Did? You both want to say something? I thought you had,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h58m40s 2:58:40]
Whitney: well, I was, I've been thinking that Lindsay started down this path about it being about power a few years ago when this idea that Joseph hadn't done it started gaining some traction. And I think it's her way of, I think she had enough people come to her saying, but he didn't have sex that she had to make up a reason. He was still a bad guy. And so I think if she could, she could disassociate herself from herself and listen with the ears that we're hearing and listen. Um, in that way, I think maybe she would, I, I think she'd maybe be best served if she came up with a different argument to, to us because it is incredibly damaging to men and women who have been sexually assaulted to minimize it down to. It's, you go have sex with whoever you want, just don't have power over people and then you're ok you know, it really does a lot of damage.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=2h59m48s 2:59:48]
Breeana: She also used the term, um she also said that, that Emma had, um enjoyed her soft power. She used the word soft power um in making up things about Emma theories about Emma. But interesting, interesting.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h00m06s 3:00:06]
Gwendolyn: I want to read a little historical tidbit about Hebrew C Kimball who's Helen Mar Kimball's father. So when we, when we listen to her story given after a many decades of indoctrination, this is her father and who he became, right? So these things in the household where she lives. Hebrew C Kimball married 43 wives and had 65 Children and 300 grandchildren at least. And in Utah, he amassed land, cattle and property and was worth more than $100,000 at the time of his death. And if you flip that to 2023 language, that would be in the millions. So it's like she, she was in the polygamous system and she was led to believe that this came from Joseph, but it, he didn't, he didn't like there might have been a sealing ceremony where he was sealed. That's kind of what this is all about, right is that we're later they say why was Joseph sealed to men as like what was it? His sons and women were not daughters or men as brothers. And it's like, yeah, that's what he was doing. He wasn't sealing women as wives.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h01m20s 3:01:20]
Michelle: Yeah. And we're going to get into that later to, to another part of this claim about because she also was speaking on behalf of Helen very incorrectly if you understand what Helen was actually claiming and what she was actually writing, right? So I'm glad you guys can see that because I do feel like it's incredibly important to not Whitney. I was going to say, I, I thought that she started to say this argument more as the um evidence of Joseph not having Children came out as well. She started to say, well, it's not about sex. So that's my concern is that II, I really like Lindsay, if you're happy to listen to this, you know, II I don't want to make an enemy or anything, but I hope you can listen to yourself. I hope she can hear that in her need to vilify Joseph Smith. She's taking it so far and she's so desperate to do that to the point of minimizing sexual assault and minimizing the experience of victims and throwing it away by saying things like who cares about two minutes. And women are women can deal with stuff that is incredibly destructive, especially when we are talking about these polygamous communities which are leading at least like like human trafficking. I think polygamists might be leading the charge at this point, right? With all of these kidnappings and all of these and when you have a child that has been raised, being taught that you are their ticket to Exaltation. And so at 14 and 15, how do you decide if they're consenting or not? They've been indoctrinated. They are being controlled, which is why we need legislation to keep, to prohibit this, to fight against it and why we cannot ever minimize the um the incredible impact of sexual assault. It's not, it is about power and it's the most abusive form of power of using power over others. So thank you for letting me go into that because I found it very deeply problematic. So here's the next claim about Helen.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h03m18s 3:03:18]
Lindsay Hansen Park: But what I'm saying is in this context, this is about power and we need to look at it. So when we try to argue whether he had or didn't have sex with Helen Marr, I say it doesn't matter. He took her life away. And for years, Helen Marr, struggled with deep, deep depression and deep resentment of plumy until the day she died.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h03m38s 3:03:38]
Michelle: OK. So I don't, do you guys, I'll speak to that unless someone else has
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h03m44s 3:03:44]
Gwendolyn: something I want to jump in. This is, this is what I was trying to, I was trying to make that point by reading that about Hebrew C Kimball. She's putting it on Joseph, but this was the result of her father's belief in a doctrine of many wives and concubines. That's what this doctrine does. And when you believe in it and you force people into it, that's the sort of life they have. And we're saying we don't, we don't see the evidence that this came from Joseph. We do see really good evidence that Hebrew was one of the guys that initiated
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h04m13s 3:04:13]
Michelle: this. Yeah, by every claim Hebrew was a very domineering husband and father. And it's interesting to me that they ignore the things written by the anti polygamist league, the women in Utah who were fighting against polygamy at the time, giving us reports of what was happening. Just like the L DS church historians ignore that the anti Mormons ignore that. Why, why wouldn't they be talking about what Hebrew was doing? And one thing I really want to point out is that Helen, I don't know why she calls her Helen Marr Whitney is that isn't her name? Just Helen Mar is her middle name, is her middle name. But I mean, like it's interesting that she always calls her Helen Marr. I didn't know if there was a reason for it, but she actually, she married her choice. Horace Whitney. He was like, she was 18 and he was 22 or 24 or something and they were monogamous most of their lives, right? She actually didn't really live this polygamous lifestyle and it was when she was an older woman that Emmeline Wells maybe. Is that who it was? You can correct me. Whitney came to her and said, hey, will you write your polygamous reminiscences? And she had been living in this system. And she gained so much importance and authority and a platform and validation and who knows what else by writing these things. And she was writing, I wish I could help people understand this. The culture of this day was you gained validity as a woman by how much you sacrificed and suffered for polygamy. Because that was the teaching, the more you suffer, the more glorious your next you know, like, like it was kind of a how much can you take type? I mean, that's what, so she was not in her mind trying to say anything bad about Joseph Smith. She was trying to maximize the sacrifice she made for this divine doctrine does like, and I feel like that's completely lost on them that they make it sound like Helen, I like Helen hated polygamy. She barely even lived it at all. She was trying to promote herself and promote the system that she was in like so many of these other women. So I'm taking this poem that she wrote and these, they take little snippets and like try to frame her life that way. It's so inaccurate and so dishonest. Does anyone else have a thought? A thought on that? Ok. Anyway, if, if it's wrong to say that Helen hated polygamy, I think that she probably did because I think all of the women probably did if you listen to the speeches at the great indignation meeting, but they did not say that because they couldn't have a platform if they said that. Right? So, well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h06m54s 3:06:54] Gwendolyn: we also have a lot of records from the men's speeches, right in the 18 fifties. You start to hear [https://www.josephsmithfoundation.org/journalofdiscourses/speakers/brigham-young/the-people-of-god-disciplined-by-trials-atonement-by-the-shedding-of-blood-our-heavenly-father-a-privilege-given-to-all-the-married/ Brigham saying, I don't want any of the more of this scratching and fighting around me]. You know, everyone's gonna have to, you've got two weeks to accept it or, or there's the door frontier Utah in October, good luck to you. You know, bow down
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h07m15s 3:07:15]
Michelle: before this. Like we were saying, polygamous leaders have to talk about it a lot. It's hard to be a total totalitarian leader and you can't do it duplicitous that way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h07m26s 3:07:26]
Gwendolyn: And the women, the women's complaints filtered up and you can read the women's complaints in the men's condemnation of all the complaining
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h07m35s 3:07:35]
Karli: that incessant whining.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h07m37s 3:07:37]
Michelle: There it is. Yes. My wife tells me she hasn't had a happy day and since I took a second, yeah, that they're so annoyed by the unhappy women. It's an annoyance to them. And that's, that is, I think that so many of these men would have been good men, good husbands and fathers. If they hadn't been so twisted by this abomination, it really is. It's the terror. That's bad. It's the idea that the doctrine, it turns what these would have been good women and these would have been good men. And so we can agree with them fully on that. Oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h08m12s 3:08:12]
Gwendolyn: sorry. There, there's a quote that it says that polygamy turns good men, bad and bad men worse. I mean, it was, this was known.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h08m19s 3:08:19] Michelle: Yeah. And I think it does the same to women. It just twists. I know there are a lot of very good women who came through polygamy but there, it just twists so much. Like if people haven't listened to my [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfTtQGOQxM Flora Jessup episode], please do.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h08m32s 3:08:32]
Breeana: I was just going to bring that up. That was I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h08m38s 3:08:38]
Michelle: Yeah. So here is, this is a short clip that I just wanna address quickly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h08m43s 3:08:43] Bryan Buchanan: One of the most interesting connections is in Brigham Young's journal, which is generally very boring and crappy. He has these two entries on the same page and they're in a Masonic cipher. And the top one says I was admitted to the lodge today. And then the second one is this very cryptic entry where J Smith either saw or was Agnes. And from later counts. Brigham Young is the one that performs the ceremony, sealing Agnes Coolbrith, his brother's widow to Joseph. And so the thought is that this is some sort of acronym for wetted and sealed or sealed and wetted.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h09m23s 3:09:23]
Michelle: OK. Again, it's fascinating to me how both sides use the exact same playbook because this is right out of Brian Hales and it right like and so anyway, I don't know if the rest of you have studied this. I just, I'm ignoring most of the Masonic stuff and I, we skipped over all of the Emma Smith stuff too because I just found it so awful the, the sources that they choose, chose to rely on for Emma were horrible and completely, yeah. Awful
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h09m56s 3:09:56]
Gwendolyn: awful. Emma spoke for herself when she was alive. She spoke for herself.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h10m02s 3:10:02]
Michelle: So. Right. And so they, again, she's claiming to be a feminist while doing this to the primary woman involved in this situation and actually vilifying her, you know, to try to make sense of it. But um this is what's interesting was capital was they've just come up with wetted and sealed. And so, so I'll just tell my little bit of research on this. First of all, the only term we get, the only place we get that term is from the affidavits that Joseph F Smith fills out and has the women sign and they say wedded or sealed, not wedded and sealed and you don't capitalize an a in an acronym, right? You don't include uh and for a, right? So it's so silly and I um I always was like, this is so weird. Why do we say it says that? And I was reading a book and I can't remember what, which Apostle, one of the original apostles was talking about the temple and he said, washed anointed and sanctified and I was like, oh, was washed, anointed and sanctified. And then guess what I found, which is not a find because we all have it memorized. Exodus 4012, which most of you will be very familiar with and thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation and wash them with water and thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments and anoint him and sanctify him that he may minister in the priest's office right there. The scripture that we quote in the only ceremony they would have been doing in the upper floor of the red brick store and it's washed anointed and sanctified. And we again through our polygamy lenses have to say, wetted and sealed as if that's even a thing like have any of you ever said? Oh, I was wetted and sealed on this day and like it's so stupid. So, right. So anyway, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h11m59s 3:11:59]
Karli: just, they don't use that term anywhere else. It's never one source
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h12m05s 3:12:05]
Michelle: I have searched through the um Abra, I mean, the complete discourses of Brigham Young and the journal of discourses, there's no wedded and sealed, there's no sealed and wedded. There is washed, anointed and sanctified. That is a term and it's right out of the scripture that is quote in the ceremony that they're talking about. So they ignore that and like, like, tell me how wedded and sealed is better than washed, anointed and sanctified.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h12m34s 3:12:34]
Gwendolyn: That's that scriptural illiteracy. You got to know your scriptures,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h12m39s 3:12:39]
Michelle: right? And so I know that we did skip over all of the Emma things and all of the um Mason, I think by the end of it we were all just like, which is maybe how people are feeling, listening to this. But I think this has been awesome. So I only have 11 clip left and then we can just talk about a couple of other things. So I'll, I'll go ahead and play this last clip.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h13m01s 3:13:01]
John Dehlin: Well, I think it's time for DNC 132. Is that yours, Brian?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h13m07s 3:13:07] Bryan Buchanan: And that's our best written source outside William Clayton's journals for Nabu Polygamy because it lays out all the rationale that was in his, his head and that we hate to give air to it. But this is another one where denying Joseph Smith's involvement with it, every argument you can think of to argue that this is not legitimate and it's actually better documented than really any other revelation we have. Because if William Clayton writing in his journal, this am received a revelation of 10 pages on the order of marriage, then we have a copy of it. Well, it's not the original. We don't have originals of any of Joseph Smith's revelations. So it's legitimate. There's absolutely no reason to deny it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h13m47s 3:13:47]
Michelle: So again, this is one of, I think only two times that they actually address us at all. Right. And so OK, who wants to go? I'll just open the floor and who wants to respond first to that clip? Anyone?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h14m08s 3:14:08]
Gwendolyn: Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h14m10s 3:14:10]
Breeana: Um I was gonna say, I know we kind of already talked about section 101. But, um, you know, you guys mentioned how it was printed in the Times and Seasons. Am I right? And that, um, and then of course, you know, like he published and on top of that, we also have the meeting minutes, right? The the minutes of the meeting where was read aloud, talked about, discussed and read aloud. So we actually have multiple contemporaneous evidences of section 101 and we have zero for 132. We have a, he said, she said, he said it came in a drawer in my desk, you know, across the plains and years later, Voila here it is. Isn't that convenient? I mean, anyway, so I just had to point that out that they're like we have no reason to deny 132 but 01, I don't think that was real. I think Joseph was out of town. So that's what they say about the two sections.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m04s 3:15:04]
Michelle: Yeah. The fact that he completely fails to mention that it appeared magically out of Brigham's hat. I mean, Brigham's drawer in um in 1852 8 years after Joseph's death. He doesn't mention that that's kind of important information, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m24s 3:15:24]
Karli: And they say it had, it had to stay a secret until then. But then all their stories say, well, they had the document in Navoo and they were showing it to everybody and everybody's making copies. So why did it all of a sudden become a secret after they died.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m38s 3:15:38]
Michelle: Yeah. Right. And good point. Go ahead, Whitney.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m41s 3:15:41]
Whitney: Well, I was just going to say, I also loved how Brian said, oh, this is a fact, like we have evidence, just like William Clay's journals. William Clayton wrote about this. I'm like, hm, who's the common denominator
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m55s 3:15:55]
spk_6: here?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m56s 3:15:56]
Karli: Yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h15m57s 3:15:57]
Michelle: Also his claim, his claim that, um, that our problem with it is that it's not in Joseph's handwriting. Raise your hand if that's your reason to doubt. Oh, if it were in Joseph's handwriting, pulled out of Brigham's desk eight years. Like that's, that's our problem like this straw manning and the misrepresentation. Like he can't even take the time to understand and why we are calling BS on 132 actually. And it's all. And so if people haven't watched my second part, I think it is on the novel Expositor. Is it where I talk about William Clayton's claims even that day, what was going on, like, and, and there's more and more coming out all the time. I just want to go off for an hour on why this is not valid. And you're right when he had complaints, depends entirely on William Clayton. So they're so, he's so either ignorant or dishonest in how they talk about 132 and the reasons to doubt it. You, so Joseph Smith's revelations were published in multiple locations during his lifetime, right? We have the times and seasons. We have other newspapers and then we have the actual doctrine and covenants. And if anything else, all of the other things that were added in 76 8. So 132 pulled out of Brigham's drawer in 1852. Ta da. None of you knew we had this Wink Wink, but we had it. And then we have all of the claims that the RL DS people had of people in Utah, claiming that they contributed to it or that they wrote it that they were involved in the manufacture of it. We have this in higher pattern of Brigham Young and his team falsifying evidence, changing journals coming up with things out of the blue, editing things that didn't go along with what they said, this fits right in with what they did right there, the doctrines that I mean, it does not match Joseph's style at all, the factual errors in it, the inconsistencies throughout it on and on and on. We have dozens and dozens of reasons to doubt the legitimacy of 132 and he is not doing himself any favors by not acknowledging the problems more accurately.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h18m13s 3:18:13]
Gwendolyn: We also have Joseph's own words about the doctrine, right? Because there was something floating around, there was definitely something floating around, which they say the fact that something was floating around and that, that whatever was floating around in the novel Expositor ended up in 132 as evidence that 132 came from Joseph and it's like, well, we also have what Joseph said about it. I just pulled it up. Um This again, thank you Joseph Smith papers project. Joseph Smith read from the expositor. And then he said, where the truth of God was transformed into a lie. And so Joseph said, this is not what I taught, this is not what I said about marriage. This is not the revelation on marriage. We really have good evidence. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h18m59s 3:18:59]
Michelle: wish I had all of his speech right in front of me where he said, like he damned people to hell who were teaching this and pursuing it. Hey, Carly
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h19m07s 3:19:07]
Gwendolyn: Hiram, Hiram really went off.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h19m09s 3:19:09]
Karli: Yeah. Yeah. And I, I think that just looking at the logistics of like, like we have documented that he received a revelation on marriage on July 12th, right? And then he taught it publicly four days later. And like I loved your second part um on the expositor because it's, it's documented. All four of his scribes wrote that the revelation on marriage was an answer about love marriage in loop 20. And it said that marriage can be eternal if it's done in the view of eternity. And that's documented all over. And then they claim that that's this 1 to 32 was that same revelation. But 132 says nothing about love marriage. That's not the question that was asked that tipped off that brought the revelation. And what was the later William Law. He like in his interview, years later, he's like, it didn't have that theological introduction. Well, the introduction that they added in later says that the question they asked was about, you know, Abraham Isaac and all the, all of the biblical polygamists, that was the question that sparked the revelation. But in all of the July 12th documentation says that Leverett Marriage was the question that they asked. And so it just doesn't line up as
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h20m29s 3:20:29]
Michelle: well as Rob Fathering has excellent work on the JST which Gwendolyn brought up. That proves that Joseph would have never asked the question of how they were justified in their polygamy. Not to mention the fact that Isaac is a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h20m42s 3:20:42]
spk_6: nega
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h20m45s 3:20:45]
Michelle: like just the basic like verse one and it's also justifying concubines. What in the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h20m52s 3:20:52]
Karli: world? Oh my gosh. Like, do you know what a concubine knife? I never know what a concubine was. But if you look it up, oh my goodness.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h21m00s 3:21:00]
Michelle: No, it full on gave slave owners permission to have sex with their slaves, which we've already established is worse than just having a slave. Having slaves is atrocious, raping your slaves is worse. OK, Whitney, you were gonna say something I think.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h21m17s 3:21:17]
Whitney: Well, I just wanted to mention really quick before we go to the next clip that something that I felt was um dishonest. And there were many things but one that really stood out to me that Lindsay and Brian both did is they both said that a couple of times they quote, I've seen William Clayton's journals and that unless Lindsay has some in with the church history library that will not let anyone see those journals, I feel like that's very dishonest like she's seen parts of them. And so I just, to me, they say that because then that kills any counter narrative we can give about Clayton's journals and that's just completely dishonest. They have not seen the full Clayton journals.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h22m13s 3:22:13]
spk_6: That's like the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h22m14s 3:22:14]
Michelle: claim. It's, it's like the claim that new LK Whitney, the Whitney revelation was in Newell K Whitney's own hand and yet it doesn't exist and nobody has seen it, but they all just talk about it factually as if they've seen it, right and saying, I, I completely missed that. They said that they had seen those, but they do. I, I think the thing, my biggest takeaway is like they accuse us of motivated reasoning when that is absolutely what they are doing with no curiosity, no openness and no integrity to find out if what they're teaching is true. I get it. It's weird to go wait, this total conspiracy theory. I'm supposed to look into it and take it seriously. I can't just call them idiots. Yeah. And especially the fact that you are saying, seeing how fast it's growing to the point that you need to respond to it. You have the obligation to respond well, and you have the obligation to pursue truth and, and, and be informed on things you're going to speak on. These people are setting themselves up as experts to speak factually when they are massively massively
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h23m21s 3:23:21]
Karli: ignorant. No, Lindsay likes to have conversations with people who disagree and then she has this rebuttal, but she never listened in the first place. You have to look at the evidence we're presenting to be able to refute it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h23m35s 3:23:35]
Michelle: Right. And so anyway, is there anything we left off the table before we kind of start wrapping it up that you guys wanted to mention. There
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h23m44s 3:23:44] Gwendolyn: was one part where Brian mentioned, um if you have a belief in the Bible plus a natural sexual drive, then all bets are off the table. And it was kind of talking about how, how off the rails things can get. And I was like, is he implying that it's not safe to believe in the Bible? Because generally speaking, all people have a sexual drive. So if you have a sexual drive, which everybody does and you believe in the Bible, watch out that's dangerous. It's, it's quite a, it's quite a statement to make. And so the only conclusion I can come to, you know, with Lindsay doing tarot and Brian telling us if you believe in the Bible, if you have a sex drive and you believe in the Bible, you're dangerous is that they really want to destroy faith. And, and that's so sad. Right. And I think that's where a lot of the darkness in watching this interview came from. And I just wanna give another shout out for the book of Mormon in verse Nephi chapter three, verse 12, we read the purpose of the book of Mormon to grow with the Bible. That those two works will those two that which is written will grow together under the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, which which does talk about Children um and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days and also to the knowledge of my covenants. And it's like, hey, if we just pay attention to what the book of Mormon says, we're going to be able to wrap this up really simple because the Bible gives us some confusing doctrine on polygamy. But the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/3?lang=eng Book of Mormon brings it into absolute clarity] and you add in Christ's words and it's done, it's done. It's dead like it is deprived of oxygen when you believe that the book of Mormon is a work of scripture. So I just wanna make a, an appeal to anyone who's um considering like believing Lindsay and Brian's uh interpretation is that it sounds like their, their belief is without, without any actual faith. Um And so I, I don't think that's a, I don't think that's a recipe for a really joyful life.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h25m57s 3:25:57]
Michelle: That's interesting. I have a couple of things I want to respond to like, yeah, it's such a mis attribution to say the problem in the world is people believing in the Bible. I would say that belief in marriage is a very good thing for societies. And that is proven out by every sta every statistical analysis, every study, every history, every society, right? When we break down sexual norms of, of marriage, of any sort, when we break down the traditional marriage and families, we destroy societies. There just is truth to that. And there was another point you said that I wanted to respond to, oh, I love how you said, isn't it interesting from the very beginning that Lindsay wants to deprive our movement of oxygen but doesn't want to deprive belief and polygamy of oxygen. Isn't that the thing? Like, I guess that's what I'm trying to do is say, hey, let's, let's expose how bad all of this is so that it can stop happening. And I wish
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h26m58s 3:26:58]
Karli: II I see a pattern like I don't wanna make any assumptions about her or, but, you know, Gwendolyn talked about like the shift in morality. Um And it seems like the opposite end of the spectrum of morality is that it is these people saying, oh, it's OK to teach kids about sex and these very intimate adult things in early childhood, you know, and, and maybe that's what is kind of pushing this like dismissal of child sex abuse like, oh, we can't really talk bad about childhood sexual interactions because it's ok for them to learn about that. That's what a lot of people are pushing now is it's to teach Children and have them do that. There has to be a boundary, there has to be some morality.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h27m51s 3:27:51]
Michelle: There's definitely a ton of critical thinking, a critical theory in Lindsay's thinking, that's how this impression I get and she just kind of uses it without consistency. And that is a really interesting connection you made Carly how the two sides kind of meet. She's so decrying the FL Ds with eight year olds or the fundamentalists, sexual abusing Children while at the same time, not like kind of softening the, you know, minimizing the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h28m21s 3:28:21]
Karli: harm interactions as a young child won't be detrimental. It's fine.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h28m25s 3:28:25]
Michelle: Right. There's, it's weird. So, anyway, I think, ok, so I hope that people found this interesting. There's so much more we could talk about in this video and I, I guess again, like to beat the dead horse, but really the evidence is she said it herself, the evidence is compelling. The evidence is massively compelling and we're not the ones having to ignore it and twist it in circles and tie it in knots. We are handling every single part of this discussion very effectively. It's to the point where when you learn something that you haven't investigated yet, it's exciting and fun because you're pretty sure what you're gonna find it's gonna melt, right? Because it happens again and again and again. So I hope that maybe Lindsay John Brian will, well, I hope they listened to this and made it all the way through. I hope they will consider at the very least. This is what I always say to people. If you want to keep believing Joseph was the originator of polygamy. Fine. But you at least need to know the research, you at least need to do it honestly to be effective and to maintain any degree of credibility. I have always, I thought, think that John really started out with a truth seeker. I hope he will continue to do that. I hope he will get curious instead of just biased. That's what I'm really hoping for. I think that it's true that the biggest sandstone they would have is a panel with some of us on it, either by ourselves or with some of those who disagree with us. I think that would be incredibly exciting people and well attended and, and we'll see what people's real motives are. If they're really, if they just like the church, what was it? Is it Bh Roberts? Maybe someone else who said if we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed. Ok. There you go. Why are you doing this cover up thing? Um John Delin and Lindsay Hanson Park and Brian and anyone else involved in this? Where are you? Like, we're not going to give it any air time. We're going to it, we're going to deprive it of oxygen instead of engaging, engage with us, engage with our ideas and let the truth win. If you have truth, it can't be harmed by anything we say. If you don't have truth, maybe you ought to consider some different narratives and some different evidence. Anything else anyone else want to say on the way out? Well, I wanna thank you all for the incredible work you're doing. Thank you for staying up so late and, and engaging in this conversation. I thought it was great fun. I hope people will like it but so much. A wonderful night. Keep up the good work. Thank you. I'll
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h31m01s 3:31:01]
spk_6: talk again. Yeah. Thanks bye.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMJ3Ua6C-Jg&t=3h31m07s 3:31:07]
Michelle: Another huge. Thank you to Brianna Gwendolyn Carly and Whitney for sitting down with me. It was such a fun discussion, I think and such an important discussion. I just value each of their insights so much and I so appreciate the work that they're doing. I know that I talk too much. I apologize. This is my first time doing a panel discussion. Hopefully I'll get better at it before we do the next one. But these women were so awesome to come and sit down with me. I hope that the discussion will continue in the comments. Let us know your thoughts on every side of this issue. What things you think we left out, what insights you have, what things you must be especially appreciated so we can keep moving this conversation forward. There are the future episodes coming. There's so much still to cover. So thank you so much for being here and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Interview]][[Category:Whitney Horning]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:John Dehlin]][[Category:Lindsay Hansen Park]][[Category:Mormon Stories]][[Category:Ramifications]]
}}

87: Exposing the Expositor part 3 of 4 - Destruction and Martyrdom

2025-08-29T23:04:15Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 87: Exposing the Expositor part 3 of 4 - Destruction and Martyrdom
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 87
| date = 2023-10-08
| youtube_id = ac_bW82iivA
| tags = Church History, Expositor, Joseph Smith, Nauvoo
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Church History
| summary = Part 3 of 4 on the Nauvoo Expositor. This will build on the first part, continuing the discussion of the conspiracy against Joseph Smith, going forward to the destruction of the Expositor press and the martyrdom. It is hard to believe how misunderstood and intentionally twisted all of these events have been in people's efforts to paint Joseph Smith as a polygamist. Part 4 will again focus on the specific claims of polygamy surrounding the Expositor and the high council meeting.
| links = * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h25m40s [25:40]
* ] [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/oaks/2020-11-30/18_dallin_h._oaks_legally_supressing_the_nauvoo_expositor_in_1844_2014.pdf Dallin H. Oaks Paper]
* [https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=722871 Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor (pgs 862-903)]
* [https://byustudies.byu.edu/author/joseph-i-bentley/ Joseph I. Bentley paper]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h49m30s [49:30]
* ] Warsaw Signal June 14th Extra [https://archive.org/details/warsawsignalextr00wars/mode/2up Original]
* [http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1844.htm#0614 Transcribed]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/mayors-order-to-nauvoo-city-marshal-10-june-1844/1#full-transcript Mayor's Orders to Nauvoo City Marshal]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/112 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/112]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-thomas-ford-16-june-1844/1 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-thomas-ford-16-june-1844/1]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/112 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/112]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/120 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/120]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/120 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/120]
* [http://boap.org/LDS/Nauvoo-Neighbor/1844/6-17-1844!.pdf Nauvoo Neighbor]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/122 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/122]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/124 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/124]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-thomas-ford-22-23-june-1844/3?highlight=We%20do%20know%20that%20it%20is%20common%20for%20police%20in%20Boston,%20N.%20York, Letter to Thomas Ford, 22 June]
* [https://famous-trials.com/carthrage/1308-fordletter https://famous-trials.com/carthrage/1308-fordletter]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-thomas-ford-22-june-1844/1 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-thomas-ford-22-june-1844/1]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-thomas-ford-22-june-1844/1#full-transcript https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-thomas-ford-22-june-1844/1#full-transcript]
* [https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/volume-6-chapter-29/ https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/volume-6-chapter-29/] pg 560
* [https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/volume-6-chapter-30/ https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/volume-6-chapter-30/] pg 566
* [https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Augustine-Spencer-Nauvoo-Gentile-Joseph-Smith-Antagonist.pdf Augustine Spencer: Nauvoo Gentile, Joseph Smith Antagonist]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/140 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/140]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-10-june-1844/14 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-10-june-1844/14]
* 1:33:40 [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/885417da-0dda-4c46-8267-6a5ef955c294/0/0 Richard Law story in Improvement Era]
* 1:40:00 [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/885417da-0dda-4c46-8267-6a5ef955c294/0/0 An Interesting Testimony by Joseph W. McMurrin]
* 1:46:00 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25119379?searchText=polygamy&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Fscope%3DeyJwYWdlTmFtZSI6ICJUaGUgTm9ydGggQW1lcmljYW4gUmV2aWV3IiwgInBhZ2VVcmwiOiAiL2pvdXJuYWwvbm9ydGFtZXJyZXYiLCAidHlwZSI6ICJqb3VybmFsIiwgImpjb2RlcyI6ICJub3J0YW1lcnJldjpub3J0YW1lcnJldm1pc2NqIn0%253D%26Query%3Dpolygamy&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Abd114d6390f50440e007ab501e30a69f&seq=9 Joseph Smith III article in the North American Review]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h00m00s 00:00:00]
Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy where my mom
explores the scriptural theological and historical case for parole marriage.
She's been sick this week and forgot to film her introduction.
So she let me fill in but not to worry, this is going to be a great episode.
So make sure to like and apply.
Thanks for joining us as we take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon Polygamy.
It's so cool that mom has one youtube channel.
I know doing four episodes on the expositor might seem somewhat excessive.
But as I have dug into this, as I said,
it is so critical and essential to this narrative to our understanding of it,
even to the causes and the events about the martyrdom,
which is what we're going to talk about today that
I think it is worth really getting into and understanding.
So
I want to just do a quick recap because it's been a little while.
It's been almost a month since I did the first part. I think maybe it has been a month.
So just to remind people the first part,
we focused primarily on the individuals involved in the novo expositor,
I call them the expositor conspirators.
I really wanted to get in and
understand their characters and look at their motivations
in a, in order to be able to respond to the claim that these were just
really good men who believed in the gospel and loved Joseph Smith,
but just really opposed polygamy and morally couldn't abide polygamy.
So hopefully remember that um episode,
this episode is actually going to build directly on that one.
So hopefully, you remember some of the things we talk, we talked about
in the second part, I took a departure and really looked at the affidavits.
Um The I I delved into the polygamy claims in the affidavits, right?
And the affidavits, as you recall, William Law,
um Jane Law
and Austin Powells all claims that
Hyrum Smith either brought them the revelation or
read the revelation in the High Council,
which is universal, virally understood to be section 132 as we now have it.
And so in that one,
what I really wanted to do was look at the claims
of how we got section 132 how it came to be
and whether
Hiram could or would have read it to the High Council.
So as I said, in this part, we're going to continue on where we left off.
In part one, we will look a little bit more about the um at the motives and the stra
strategy of the expositor conspirators but we also are going to
really look at the destruction of the expositor and investigate the
claim that Joseph ordered the press to be destroyed because he
was just so desperate to keep his secret polygamy hidden.
That's something we'll touch on quite a bit.
But um I really want us to gain more
understanding on what Joseph and the city council did
and why, why they did it and whether or not it was justified
and look at the fallout from it.
I have to say that as I have studied this more and more, I just,
I have come more and more in all of my studies to really appreciate
and respect and love Joseph Smith and just empathize with him.
It is unbelievable what he and his family were put through constantly,
continually.
And
I think that we,
we need to understand what kind of a man
he was and how he responded to these unthinkable
obstacles that most of us can't even imagine. Like, think about it, how many,
you know,
if someone is involved in even like one or
two lawsuits or prosecutions even worse in their life,
that's enough to cause
an immense amount of stress. Do you think of
how many?
I don't know if it was hundreds of times, but it was,
I think over 100 times that he was either
prosecuted or sued or that he had to do legal things. He had a financial problem.
Like so meant much time in the courts that this man had to spend,
that we should at least empathize for that.
I know some people just see that as evidence against him. But I think that's unfair.
I think again, it's not how many times you were sued
or prosecuted, it's who was doing it and why and what was the evidence they had
to see if he really was this perpetrator who just
never could be convicted
or if he really was a good man with
a lot of people who just hated what he was doing for various reasons, which I think is,
is worth considering as we look into this.
So I, I have tried to come at it as
many of, you know, I did,
you know, of course, I grew up with such a strong testimony of Joseph Smith.
And then I had to investigate all of this and I have come to a place of really
wanting to question everything, right? But I will tell you the more I study,
the more I again believe that this was a truly
good and I would even say Godly man. And so, um
and, and so anyway, we're going to look into that.
And then in part four,
we are again going to look into the claims of polygamy more specifically,
I want to really get in and
um investigate and analyze the affidavits themselves. I want to look at
all of the different people who left testimony of Hiram reading the, um,
the revelation in the High Council.
And I,
I want to look at everything that William and that William
law knew about polygamy or the others based on their later,
um, well earlier than this,
but based on the lawsuits based on everything that they tried to do to Joseph,
I think it becomes abundantly clear that they knew absolutely nothing.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h05m32s 00:05:32] And so anyway, that's what it's gonna be. So this is going to be on the destruction and the motivation. And if you know, investigating the claim of whether Joseph was just being tyrannical and authoritarian and hiding his um his secrets in having the expositor destroyed and, and what happened from there? So that's what we're going to look on. So look, look at in this episode, I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time speaking today, but hopefully you can just put up with it. And, you know, again, as I always say, listen to what I mean and not just what I say, if I say something wrong, go ahead and correct me in the comments. I actually really appreciate when people let me know. I said something wrong. So, ok, anyway, continuing on our discussion of the strategy being played played out by the expositor, conspirators. Um You'll remember I talked about the onslaught of legal charges and lawsuits. They just kept bringing lawsuit after lawsuit trying to get him to Carthage or prosecution after prosecution trying to get him to Carthage, which he, he knew was the strategy to try to have him killed. They already pointed out how much they were working toward trying to actually kill Joseph and Hyrum Smith and the entire Smith family. So we're going to go on into that a little bit more. But another part of the um of the strategy. Oh, I also talked about the um the, the church that they started, they really were trying to get rid of the Smiths and usurp the their positions in Nauvoo. And so um another part of their strategy, in addition to all of those was really revving up a full blown assault on the, on the church and its leaders, mostly on its leaders in the local newspapers. And so this is an important thing to understand in our claims that um you know, Joseph was trying to hide polygamy and that's why he destroyed the expositor. So that's what we're going to look at right now. I want to talk about what had already been published. So among other things, because there was always, you know, things being said about the Mormons, but it really started in earnest when John Bennett left and just he was the most resentful and unfortunately capable guy. So he worked really hard to make sure that that lots of bad things happened to Joseph Smith and the Mormon. So he had written six letters which were all had already been published in the Sangamo Journal he had already, it was him that we get the uh Martha Brotherton story and the Nazi Rigdon story and the happiness letter. So those were big points that they talked about and he did share the names of those women. It was from him that we get the cryptic list of initials of supposed wives like lb for Louisa Beaman that I am excited to talk about in the future because new developments there, lots of information. See we like, this is all coming out more and more and it's really exciting. So all of this had already been published in the Sangamo Journal and I believe it was also carried in some major newspapers. I know it was in, I think it was the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. I think those were the papers that had also been carried in and who knows how many others he also had already published his book. This was Mormonism Exposed by John C Bennett and it had sold like crazy. They had multiple republications in multiple new editions just in the first year. So this was all in 1842 2 years before the Nauvoo expositor. All of this was already out and had been everywhere. So um the Warsaw Signal, you'll remember Warsaw was only 20 minutes away from Nauvoo and they republished many of John Bennett's claims. They told the um Martha Brotherton story and the Nancy Rigdon story. They talked about them often. Oh they talked about Sarah Pratt. They kept, they just had an onslaught, a constant stream of articles mocking decrying or vilifying Old Joe as they called him and the Mormons in every possible way. And so, um, and, and as I said, including all of the accusations of polygamy and reprinting all of those things. They have a couple of examples. There are so many, but um some people have shared with me Buckeye's lamentations. They had two Buckeye publications in February and April. Those are, most people agree that those were written by Wilson Law most um most probably. And so there was nothing literally nothing that Joseph could hope to hide about polygamy. The exponent was hardly the first to print accusations of Joseph's spiritual wifey. They had literally been all over the country for a full two years, plus who knows how much before that? Right? And so um so I need someone like the claim that Joseph was trying keep these secret things um about polygamy. It's just ridiculous, like read another expositor. What exactly did it reveal? Every accusation had already been repeatedly made? So by this time, by the, by the time of the expositor, it was literally old news. And so, and like I said, read the expositor. Well, that's what we're going to look into next time to see what they knew they had to add to the conversation. Really nothing. It's become so clear that they just had nothing to contribute to the allegations of Joseph's polygamy. And so, um, the one thing they did add were the accusations against
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h10m44s 00:10:44]
Hiram,
which I've tried to debate if I can do a whole episode on this or how to handle it.
I'll just cover it really quickly right here because I find it really interesting
that all of a sudden when the spotlight had been
so much on Joseph and the accusations were against him,
all of a sudden
they seem to turn and start, um, making out allegations against Hiram Smith.
So it started, I think from what I have seen and go ahead, always, you know,
add to the conversation because so many people know things that I don't know.
But,
um, you'll remember Oremus Bostwick came to Navoo
in November, I believe,
and he started making allegations against
Hyrum.
He only got there in November and by February Joseph
was actually suing him for the allegations he made against
Hyrum and all of the women of NAVOO. You'll remember that's what led to the, um,
voice of innocence, the big meetings that they had,
it was the claims by Orsamus Bostwick and
interestingly guess who represented him as his lawyers,
the higbe,
right?
So it seems to me very, um, very plausible. I think it's not,
um, I, I think it's very obvious to me that the hig be, were involved in putting Orus
Bostwick up to that as we'll see they did with others.
They put the people up to things to help move their motivations along.
And so I, I want to talk about that a little bit more because
it's bizarre to me how our historians handle that we actually give Orus
Bostwick part of this criminal element that was coming into NAVOO
who had no connection to Mormonism had hardly even been there
and he starts making allegations against
Hyrum Smith immediately, once he gets the gets there,
and the Joseph Smith historians actually give him
credit for sort of being a polygamy insider.
They at least justify his allegations and claims.
I find that appalling and very upsetting. To be honest, I'm excited.
I've asked Britney Horning to come on and talk to me about
the, the way that the historians handle so many of these um
sources. So I'm really excited to have that conversation with her.
She's, she's fabulous. So it would be great.
But um in any case that was, that was all of a sudden against
Hiram instead of against Joseph.
And then we have the expositor and the claim started to come out that it was
Hiram that brought the revelation to the laws
and it was Hiram that read the revelation
in the High Council. And I really was like, why in the world are they going after
Hiram? But
the, the most um obvious reason I can see is that
the common cause the expositor had with the Warsaw signal things that
were being published everywhere was their fight against their concern about Hiram
running for Senate. Right. Joseph was running for president
really didn't have a very good chance of being elected,
but
Hiram had a very good chance of being elected in as a state senator.
And so that was a massive concern that they were trying to fight against.
That was part of the urges
to get rid of the Smiths at that at this point.
So I think it's interesting that all of a sudden, I think because of that,
the allegation, the accusations started to have to be revved up against
Hyrum instead of just Joseph because Hyrum had really been
pretty much ignored in most of the accusations before then.
But the expositor hit him really hard. So I find that to be interesting.
So that is the one thing the expositor adds,
I would argue that it was less because they had that additional information
and more because they needed to come after Hiram, right? They needed to find a way to
um go after him. But anyway, we'll look at that more in the next episode.
And as I said, we looked at it previously.
Um the claims that 132 is what Hiram supposedly read. So
there's gonna be a lot more to go into.
But in any case, if anybody wants to continue to claim
that Joseph was wanted,
the press destroyed out of his fear of things getting out about his polygamy,
it reveals that just, they are deeply uninformed, they really don't have any kind of
grasp on what has already been published, what the situation actually was.
It's just completely illogical and it simply does
not match the historical record at all.
So we, that's a,
that's a very ignorant claim to make and I hope
that we can just move on from that as well.
So the real danger of the expositor and the central reason for its destruction
was the genuine and very valid fear of mob violence,
not only mobs from Warsaw and
Carthage,
but also the very real possibility of the
citizens of Nauvoo themselves becoming a mob.
That was the danger. Joseph Smith was desperately trying to prevent.
So that's the strategic double blind,
double bind that I talked about in the first episode that these men intentionally
designed to ensure the death of Joseph Smith.
We have so many reports of Joseph Jackson
and others saying we're gonna cause a tumult and
in Nauvoo and as soon as we get those people riled up people from outside
comment, I I gave some of the quotes
in part one. So anyway, that's the situation that we're looking at again.
So I want to share some examples of this full scale attack and
the calls for the mob that were ratcheting up in the newspaper.
So May 29th, you.
So just a reminder, the um novel Expositor was published on June 7th.
So this is all in the like the days building up to that. So May 29th, the Warsaw.
It, um,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h15m57s 00:15:57] let's see. I think I've read part of this in part one, how Joseph's life was not safe outside of Nauvoo and he would certainly be killed in Carthage. It continued on to say we have seen and heard enough to convince us that old Joe was not safe out of Nauvoo and we would not be surprised to hear of his death by violent means in a short time. And then it goes on to say he has deadly enemies, men whose wrongs have maddened them, whose lives have been sought by Joe and who are prepared at all times to avenge themselves. Just the deep irony of this, like I know we like to claim that Joseph Smith killed people or would kill people. But look at all of these people who did all of this to him and he like even John Bennett, he let him go with like friendship with the hope that he could come back with, you know, like he was so to claim that he was trying to kill anyone. And what is bizarre is that these were the people trying to kill Joseph, right? It's so much projection throughout this. So it goes on to warn that they are actively looking for, quote, the signal for general hostilities. The feeling of this country is now lashed up to its utmost pitch and it will break forth in and fury upon the slightest provocation. We are, we are no advocates of Moy. Oh no. Listen, what they say on the contrary, we have, we regret that there are any who wish to provoke hostilities without a sufficient excuse. But still we must express our conviction that if one drop of blood should be spilled by the Mormons, the conflict will soon be general and there can be no question as regards the result. Ok. Oh my gosh, it goes on. So June 5th, the worse off signal the law and its agents are mocked and yet if the citizens of this community should rise up and res and resort to the only means left to us to rid ourselves of this pest. There are fastidious moralists who would immediately brand us as Mobo Crats persecuting men for religion's sake. And every opprobrious epithet would be applied by distant communities to us. And every palliating phrase used toward the vagabonds who have so long merited their fate. When one, when one portion of the community sets the laws at defiance, um are we bound to respect the laws and of our in our actions toward it? That is a question in ethics which moralists they solve theoretically at their leisure. But if we do not much mistake, the people in this vicinity will solve it practically unless there is speedy and effective reform in NAVOO. So again, they keep accusing them of the people in NAVOO of acting above of like not following the law. They were absolutely following the law. They were following their city charter. Just the other people didn't like the city Charter, they didn't like what, what it said in the power it gave them. So um into this already heated environment comes the novo expositor. And I'm just reading a couple of snippets. It was really ratcheting up and getting in intent, intense. So the people already knew that this was what was being called for. And then the novel Expositor, this is from the introductory, the question is asked, will you bring a mob upon us? Then it goes on to say we don't support mobs but kind of similar to the previous one. But if it is necessary to make a show of force to execute legal process, it will create no sympathy in that case to cry out. We are mobbed. There is such a thing as persons being deceived into a fa sympathy once who the second time will scrutinize very closely to know who or which party are the persecutors. So we're going to mob you, but you're the persecutors. It is not always the first man who cries out stop thief that is robbed. The well being of society, demand it, demand it at our hands. Our country by whose laws we are protected. Asks us for a manifestation of that patriotism which should inspire every American citizen, the interests of the state of Nuvo require it. And as a citizen of Illinois, we intend to respond to the ver to the voice of Duty. So they were very clearly, obviously outrightly calling for mob violence against NAVOO. Right? And that was the intent. They knew that the people in Nauvoo would read this and, and be, you know, themselves, do anything, anything to, like, destroy the expositor or to, um, these were people who had just experienced such severe mob violence in Missouri, right? They knew exactly what they were doing. So that's why it said if there's one drop of blood, if there's one sign of any kind of upheaval, then the mob will come in. So this was the double bind, right? The genuine thoughts from out the genuine threats from mobs outside Navoo was plain and it it was extremely clear to everybody in Navoo that the expositor conspirators were doing all in their power to stir up their mob to as Joseph Smith said to stir up the mob and bring them upon us. So the fact that this this and this alone was the central concern of the church leaders is made very plain in the city council meeting. So remember it was published on June 7th, the city council met on June 8th and again on June 10th to discuss what to do and reading tho those notes were never intended to be published, right? They are accurate notes of what of,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h21m05s 00:21:05] of the minutes of the meeting that we have and so you can read what the concerns actually were. And so the um expositor was destroyed on the evening of the 10th after that second meeting. And then we have, um, Joseph Smith was killed on the 27th. So it build up until that, so that's what we're going to cover is that time frame. So again, I know I read from the city councils and city council and it's in the first part, we're going to read different parts of them again because we're looking at the, the, the decision of what to do with the expositor. So on June 8th, Joseph Smith said, what the opposition party want is to raise a mob on us and take the spoil from us as they did in Missouri if God ever spoke by me and it will not be five years before this city is, is in ashes and we in our graves unless we go to Oregon, California or some other place, if the city does not put down everything which tends to mob aracy. So they're saying mobs are our danger. We have to get rid of anything that will lead to mobs. And he includes in that list, we have to put down their murders, bo bogus makers and scoundrels. So it's like we can't let this happen anymore in the city. You remember I talked about in the first part about how because of the Nauvoo Charter, a criminal element started to move into Nauvoo and Joseph is like, this is not good for us. We have to be much more firm with these people and get them out of here. And so the mayor said the conduct of such men and such papers as the expositor are calculated to destroy the peace of the city and it is not safe that such things should exist on account of the mob spirit which they tend to produce. This was the concern the mob, right, which they had very good to ex to fear and recent experience with. So Hy Smith spoke in relation to the laws, fosters Higby and Sharp, the editor of the Warsaw Signal and of the importance of suppressing that spirit which has driven us from Missouri et cetera. So um there's, if you read through the Warsaw Signal, people were taking these ridiculous claims to Warsaw claiming that Hiram said that he was going to kill Thomas Sharp, the editor of the Warsaw Signal and he was going to destroy that press and it's ridiculous, you can't find any claim of that anywhere and and Hiram swears affidavits and the others that were at, at these meetings saying no, Hiram never said anything like that. So these expositor conspirators were just revving it up on both sides. Joseph Jackson, as I said, taking reports, reports to Warsaw to rev them up and they of course, just believed anything negative about the Mor Mormons. So that was the situation. That's what Hyrum actually said, but um Joseph, as I said, was not only concerned about the, the mob coming in to NTU but also the navoo citizens, they were just crying out to him. You can't let this happen. So he was worried that they were going to destroy the press themselves, which again would lead to the out to the mob coming in from outside. And so his, um Joseph Smith letter to Governor Ford expresses, can it be supposed that after all the indignities to which we have been subjected outside that this people could suffer a set of worthless vagabonds to come into our city and write under our own eyes and protection, vilify and column, not only ourselves but the character of our wives and daughters as was impudently and unblushingly done in that infamous and filthy sheet. There is not a city in the United States that would have suffered such an indignity for 24 hours. Our whole people were indignant and loud, loudly called upon our city authorities for redress of their grievances, which if not attended to, they themselves would have taken the matter into their own hands and have summarily published at the punished the audacious wretches as they deserved. So I I read that out of order that comes a little bit later in the story. But to express what Joseph was worried about what he was dealing with or what the concerns were. So that was the double bind, right? Just as I said, I've explained it a couple of times and so the city council met again two days later, that was from the eighth. This is from the 10th. They read extensively from the expositor and discussed the threats to the Charter by ironically, people who had helped pass the Charter and who had held positions on the city council and never had any problem with any of that until they became enemies and weren't getting what they thought they wanted. Right? So, um so we have like Sylvester Emmons, he was the, he became the editor of the um Novo Expositor and he was a member of the city council and we had all of these others. So anyway, as it is, the um Novo exposure is calling for the destruction of the city charter and the destruction of the city. The mayor says, is it not treasonable against all chartered rights privileges, peace and happiness of the city. And he spoke at great length. And so this was, this was a reasonable charge of treason, right? A quick note on the expositor. So um Dallin H Oaks, wrote a great paper. He wrote actually several great papers. It's been good for me to get in and read some of his research because he did a really good job um researching a lot of these things and I appreciate that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h26m00s 00:26:00] So I will link the um I will link his papers below, but this was a quote that I appreciated. And he said the first and only issue of the Nauvoo expositor was more sensation then distinguished while the paper contained a short story, some poetry, a few news items mostly copied from Eastern newspapers and a scattering of ads. It was principally devoted to attacking Joseph and Hyrum Smith and their unknown unnamed associates in the church and in the government with this is a quote from another, um, someone else with quote lame grammar and turgid rhetoric that Secretary of State John Hay turned dull or laughable. So it was John Hay, the secretary of that said it was lame grammar and turgid rhetoric that was dull or laughable. So truly from top to bottom, the Nauvoo expositor, it is just ridiculous accusations and inflammatory language. So among many other things and I'm not reading this because I'm offended on Joseph's sake. Just the ridiculous accusations they were making it. It calls Joseph one of the blackest and bases scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human exis existence since the days of Nero and Caligula. If you know anything about Nero and Caligula, you're like what? You know, it's just, it's just so silly and then it just goes on, it speaks of other fathers who bled and sacrificed for the laws of the nation. Shall we? Their sons lie still and suffer Joseph Smith to light up the lamp of tyranny and oppression in our midst. God forbid lest the departed spirits of our father cry from the ground against us. Let us arise in the majority of our strength and sweep the influence, the influence of tyrants and miscreants from the face of the land as with the breath of heaven. So you can see how it is calling. It's a call to action, right? It's saying take up arms against Nauvoo. It warns that they must arouse from our lethargy and lend a helping hand. Then gentlemen, organize yourselves and prepare for the dead dreadful conflict to suppress this contaminating influence, which is prostrating our fairest prospects and spreading desolation throughout our veil. Call into field your best men under the solemn pledge to go for the unconditional repeal of the novel Charter and you will have our support. So I will repeat Joseph's question. Is this not treasonable against all chartered rights privileges, peace and the happiness of the city? I would say, yes, it very much is. So Joseph did very well understand the double bind they were in and it is clear how carefully he weighed the risks of each option. So the council decided to quote, pass an ordinance to prevent libelous publication and a lot to prevent conspiracy against the peace of the city, including attempts to take away the charter. So they're saying you can't in Nauvoo, you can't publish this kinds, these kinds of things that are trying to destroy the city and remove the charter. And so, um please notice how hard Joseph and the city council work to follow the law and be sure they were within legal means. And that's something that becomes apparent as we continue on to read through this. It was those who opposed them who did not, um, the, the, they didn't like, as, maybe I already said this but they didn't like the fact that they didn't have the votes to make sure Hiram Smith couldn't get elected. Right. They didn't like the, the, um, legal process being carried out as it was supposed to according to the charter. And they didn't like the democratic process being carried out if they couldn't assure their side victory. And so that's, it's really interesting to see who was actually the acting within the law and was very much not so Joseph moved that the decision to pass the ordinance needed to be unanimous and Hiram seconded. So that makes it very clear that they understood very well the risk that he was that they were taking and that they needed to make it very clear that it was not just personal, this was not just Joseph offended or trying to hide something for him personally. This, um, this was, um, it wasn't him just trying to silence his enemies. This was a unanimous decision of the city council for the sake of the city. So, um, there is a lot of careful and thoughtful legal discussion in these minutes. So I just want to share a little bit of it. So you can understand how hard they actually genuinely were working to make sure that what they were doing was legal. So they discussed the legal definition of nuisance in Chit's Blackstone. So Blackstone was the authoritative book of law at this time and Chitty was the publisher of the 18th edition. And so they reference it often to this is like the legal journal that they're going for information. It defines nuisance as anything that disturbs the peace of the community. And um they read, they referenced Chivy Blackstone page four private wrongs. Volume two. They, you know, put all of that like they're, they're saying, look, here's our legal case. They needed to find a way to prevent the issuing of any more slanderous communications from the paper, the novo expositor that is exciting our enemies abroad and was designed to incite mobs. So that's what they were. Um working on
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h30m55s 00:30:55]
Joseph moved that the decision to pass the
ordinance should be unanimous and Hiram seconded,
seconded to me.
It makes it very clear that he very well understood the risk he was taking upon
himself and the need to make it very clear that this was not just personal,
this was not him acting in a tyrannical or authoritarian way or him just
trying to silence his enemies for his own sake or to keep his secret.
He was, he needed it to be well understood that this was the city council acting
in unanimity for the sake of the city, right?
And it's, it's really good to,
to read through some of these um minutes of these
meetings to see how carefully and thoughtful they were being
to make sure that they were acting within the law.
And so they referenced Chitty Blackstone.
So this is Blackstone was the authoritative legal journal.
Chitty was the publisher of the
18th edition, which is what they refer, what they had at the time.
Joseph actually referenced it often to make sure that he understood law correctly.
So it in um it defines nuisance as anything that disturbs the peace of the community.
And they read that and included it in the notes.
And they go on to talk about how they need to find a way to quote,
prevent the issuing of any more slanderous communications from
the paper that is ex exciting our enemies abroad.
It was designed to incite mobs and that's what they needed to prevent.
So a commentary explains that Blackstone whose
definitive work on the common law um was
studied by the counselors to determine the
legality of the prop of the proposed action
states that certain nuisances may be abated by the
aggrieved party without notice to the person who communicate,
who committed them.
So it was their actions were justified in the foremost legal journal of the time
they still however looked for and considered any other possible solutions.
They suggested issuing fines but realized that that was impossible for a varie
variety of reasons.
The conspirators had no respect for the law and would not comply.
And Joseph and the others had no way to
go to Carthage to prosecute without being killed.
So there was no way to enforce any law that they would pass
or any fine that they would pass and it would have no effect.
So the discussion continued and they realized that the only the option they had
was to abate the nuisance. In other words, destroy the press. Really.
When there are no good choices, you have to try to make the least bad choice.
And I think that's what they very much did. So here are a few examples of the um,
of the opinions that were voiced.
Elias Smith considered that there is but one course to pursue,
they were out of the reach of the law. One course to put an end to the thing at once.
He believed that if the city did not do it, others would by what, by what he had heard.
So it was that same concern.
Um Orson Spencer accorded with the view expressed that this paper is a
nuisance did not consider it wise to give them time to trump it.
1000 lies this property and,
and they did not have the property to pay for if we pass only a fine or imprisonment.
Have we any confidence that they will desist? None at all.
He found these men covenant breakers with God and their wives and we have we any
hope of them doing better.
Their characters have gone before them and you'll recall
all of what we've studied in the first,
the first one, right?
The um these were not general, these were not good guys.
Even William Law who you could argue was the best of them.
He had had an, he was an adulterer, right? So he had had an affair.
So anyway,
conti um Phineas Richards said he referenced the scurry at Hans Mill and the death of
his son at that place said he could not sit still when he saw the same
arising in this place. You see what I mean? This is really like hard stuff to read.
He considered the publishers of the expositors as much murderers
at heart as David was before the death of Uriah.
They were making short work of it.
He was prepared to,
to take his stand by the mayor and wherever he proposed would stand by him to the last,
the quicker it is stopped, the better.
Sorry, it's hard to read these minutes because they're um
you, well, you'll see what they look like. Um
Phillips said he had investigated the Constitution Charter and laws,
the power to declare that office a nuisance is granted to us in the Springfield
Charter as and a resolution declaring it a nuisance is all that is required.
So then Har Alderman Harris spoke from the chair expressed
his feelings that the press ought to be demolished.
The resolution of the printing press was read and passed.
And so, um, that was,
that was what the discussion was and you can see truly what the concern was.
Right. It very much was we need to prevent another Missouri episode.
We need to prevent another Hans Mill.
And, um, that's, um, let's see,
the council made the decision and passed the ordinance and Joseph,
by order of the council issued the order to destroy the press and it was carried out.
So now another really important point to consider is
how the abatement of the press was carried out.
They were abating a nuisance. So the abatement of the press is the
of the press, right?
It was intentionally done in as un
mob like a way as humanly possible,
right?
That there, I'll explain why,
but there was um there were many testimonies of
how it was done both by enemies and friends,
both by non Mormons and Mormons people inside and outside the city.
There was a lot of testimony about this and it all agreed at
the two subsequent court trials for riot that we talk about numerous witnesses,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h36m19s 00:36:19]
including several visitors from cities outside Illinois
testified without significant contradiction
that the whole transaction was accomplished quietly and without noise or tumult,
7 to 12 men went inside and carried out the press and type witnesses agreed that there
was no violence and nothing was destroyed or
damaged that did not pertain to the press.
So that was the summary by um Oaks.
In fact,
if you read the testimonies of these um trials that we're going to talk about,
the only shouting or threats were from Francis Higby and Charles Foster who
were both there when the press was calmly carried out to be destroyed.
And despite the author
authorization given in the order to arrest any who stood in the way,
they were not arrested and were allowed to leave, unhindered,
exposing the complete lie of all of law's inflammatory claims that their
lives were in danger could not be further from the truth.
It is hard for me to understand how anyone who actually reads
the sources could see Joseph Smith as the bad guy here,
he or the city council.
It really was the entire city council, right?
But we just blame it all on Joseph Smith and
claim he was a tyrant trying to hide his polygamy.
And if you read the sources that is so clearly false, people need to do
more than just believe these claims without doing any research on them.
And as to the saying that the expositor was destroyed
because of Joseph's desperation to hide his supposed polygamy.
There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the
historical record to allow for that idea.
It, it you can't believe that if you know anything,
the concerns, conversations and decisions are extremely well documented
and make it clear that the entire issue
was about trying to do whatever they possibly could
to preserve the peace and safety of NAVOO. So
you just can't
say that it was just Joseph trying to cover up polygamy if,
if polygamy entered the picture at all, which it barely did.
It was only as a cheap site accusation that conspirators could use
to try to further defame Joseph and increase the outrage against him.
But it had nothing to do with their desire to kill Joe.
And with the city council's decision to destroy the press, nothing at all.
That is that is a myopic narrative that just reveals that you
are completely ignorant of the facts and the evidence and the sources.
So um the navoo neighbor um the newspaper navoo summed up the situation.
Well, it said a burnt child dreads the fire,
the church as a body and individually has suffered
till forbearance has ceased to be a virtue,
the cries and pleadings of men, women and Children with the authorities will,
will you suffer that servile murderous paper to go on
and vilify and slander the innocent inhabitants of this city
and raise another mob to drive and plunder us again as they did in Missouri,
they explained the legality and the order
destruction and the ordered destruction of the press
and then said, and in the name of free men and and in the name of God,
we beseech all men who have the spirit of honor
in them to cease from persecuting us collectively or individually,
let us enjoy our religion, rights and peace like the rest of mankind,
why start presses to destroy rights and privileges and
bring upon us mobs to plunder and murder?
We ask no more than what belongs to us, the rights of Americans.
So that's, that's where
that every single account we have.
So I know that people still can say, well, Joseph was just doing this secretly,
but you have to find some evidence for that.
We have the minutes, we have the discussions, we have all of his letters,
we have what was printed in the newspapers.
You can't find anywhere to like truly to try to
claim that this was about polygamy that Joseph destroyed it.
About polygamy is just complete in complete
contradiction to the entire historical record.
So we need to just put that claim to rest. So
now we are going to look at whether Joseph, well, the City Council really,
it wasn't Joseph's decision to, to, to destroy the press.
It was the City Council's decision,
but we always blame it on Joseph.
We need to look at whether that was authoritarian, tyrannical,
illegal or at the very least a bad decision.
I would argue very strongly that it was not.
So, um again, that perspective relies on a great deal of ignorance.
So a few facts that people need to know in this discussion,
the Expositor Press was by no means the first nor the last press
to be destroyed in 19th century America, there are dozens and dozens of examples.
So, um, what was unique about the n
the Expositor Press is that it was actually calling
for violence more than any of these other presses.
I'm going to talk about were so, um, so it's kind of an inversion of the situation,
but let's, let's go over a few of these.
So you may recall the Mormons themselves had, had their own
press is destroyed multiple times.
11 years earlier, their press in Missouri was destroyed.
The building burned to the ground and the men tarred, tarred and feathered.
Remember when I talked in the episode on Emma about her lost hymn book,
that was that time, four years later,
their Kirtland press was destroyed and the building torn down around it
never with any legal consequences,
any prosecution and nobody was ever held accountable.
And it wasn't just the Mormons. It was actually a common occurrence in
Illinois alone, presses were destroyed 16 times.
That's just in Illinois in the decades before and after the expositor.
So it wasn't only happening before it continued to happen after.
And not, that's not to mention the rest of the country there.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h41m56s 00:41:56]
It was probably happened hundreds of times.
I just don't have, I only know about Nauvoo.
The most famous and most
applicable example was Eliza Elijah Lovejoy.
He was a fearless abolitionist who had presses
destroyed four times when um both in Missouri.
And in Illinois, when his first press was des
destroyed and thrown in the Missouri river.
In 1836 he was forced like the Mormons to flee Missouri.
Missouri barely escaping with his life.
There was never any prosecution, never any compensation.
Um When he started his fourth press still facing serious death threats,
he gave a speech saying as long as I am an American
citizen and as long as American blood runs in these veins,
I shall hold myself at liberty to speak,
to write and to publish whatever I please being amenable
to the laws of my country for the same.
And again, just like
Eliza, Elijah lovejoy and the Mormons,
they weren't calling for mobs, they weren't calling for destruction.
They were preaching things that were, that we now recognize as good, right?
He was an abolition saying we shouldn't have men
in slavery and the Mormons were Mormons saying,
hey, this is how we worship God.
So nobody was called,
this was a really unique situation with the expositor
press calling directly for mobs to come in and
kill the people destroy the city.
So it's not exactly um applicable, but it still is interesting when um let's see,
he gave that speech and he acquired 1/4 press
which he kept hidden in a warehouse in Illinois.
But the fourth attack came in November of 1837.
This time, in addition to his press being destroyed,
he was shot five times by the mob that was made up primarily of Missouri as well.
Sounds familiar. Right.
And he was killed.
And this time there actually were trials from this fourth destruction,
but none of them had anything to do with the destruction of the press.
The first trials were for them were, um,
the men who were in the building with Lovejoy who survived the attack
and they were charged and stood trial for unlawful defense If you can believe that
um for the
trying to defend themselves and the building and press,
the moers were then put on trial but only for murder,
not for the destruction of the press.
And again, it was only a show trial.
The jury foreman was foreman was one of the leaders
of the mob and all were found not guilty.
So,
you know, this wasn't.
Um anyway, I just, I'm trying to show that like our idea that Joseph was so out of line
doing this is completely, completely wrong. These were all riots, right?
These were very riotous acts, nobody was accused of riot,
nobody held was held accountable in any way.
And um and remember, this was not the only case,
the destruction of printing presses was literally part of the order of the day.
It was commonplace
and I think I
called it something like the um
oh something of the times, the
just just it was, it was just something that happened a lot.
But while the destruction of the Expositor press was not
unique and it wasn't unique that it was destroyed.
What was unique is that this was the first time the destruction of a,
of a press met with this kind of violent outrage and even more impactful and
troubling was legally prosecuted in the way
that it was so Joseph had carefully since
and thoughtfully done the very best he could,
he could possibly do to follow the legal protocol and the precedent.
But still the intentional double bind played out.
Responses were immediate and intense as the expositor cons
conspirators continued to do all they could to
ensure things played out according to their strategy,
to lead to Joseph's to,
to the Mormon's death to Joseph and Hyrum death. So
this is, this was published the next day July 11th in um in the Warsaw signal,
we received the above communication by the hand of
Charles A Foster at about half past 11 o'clock.
Today, we have only to state that this is sufficient exclamation point,
war and extermination is inevitable.
This is all with exclamation points and capitals
citizens arise one and all three exclamation points.
All caps can you stand by and suffer such
capitalized infernal devils with two exclamation points?
Just I won't, I just know that this is how the whole thing is written
to rob men of their property and rights without avenging them.
We have no time for comment. Every man will make his own.
Let it be made with powder and ball.
So the very day Charles Foster ran off to Warsaw to say, ok, it's happened.
We did it, let's go. Right.
And they were, they put it in press that, that same day June 12th,
it said we have one chance left.
Joe will doubtlessly have the power to oppress.
But if he attempts to exercise it,
we will throw ourselves on our reserved rights justice.
We will have if law is che if the law is cheated out
of its efficacy and can no longer protect our persons and property,
we have the consolation to know that steel
and gunpowder can again the projection that they're claiming
they're protecting their persons and property while they

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h47m00s 00:47:00]
are going in to attack and mob navoo,
right and destroy navoo.
So while Charles
Charles Foster sped with the news to Warsaw Francis Hicky raced
to Carthage and swore out complaints accusing Joseph Smith of riot,
demanding his arrest as well as that of the entire city
council and the leaders of the police who carried it out
instead of submitting to the.
So that's what they went different directions, right?
You work on the newspaper angle, I'll work on the legal angle.
We will get the arrest, this is gonna do it.
And so, um so that led to uh uh
uh Marshall came and tried to arrest Joseph Smith and 18 other men,
but instead of submitting to the arrest and extradition to Carthage,
which everybody knew was a death sentence.
Everybody knew that this was all leading to
Joseph's death that if he went to Carthage,
he would be killed.
Joseph again,
relied on Navoo City's habeas corpus statute that I talked about in part one
and he submitted, he did submit to a full day trial in
NAVOO.
Um It, it lasted all day 27 witnesses from both sides.
That's where,
that's one of the trials where we get those reports of how calmly and peaceably,
the destruction of the press was carried out.
And, um,
it was determined that there had been no riot, which is very true.
If you read through all of the reports,
the quote is the main tumult in the entire episode came from shouts and
threats from the publishers of the expositor and that the city council had added,
acted under proper legal authority.
An identical charge was filed the second time this time for so, um,
a, a judge that came into town said, hey, that people aren't going to stand for this.
You can't just have the trial be in their own court.
So they had a second charge brought, that was the same
and he actually stood full of this.
The, the first was just a hearing for a habeas corpus hearing to see if, if there was,
um, if it was just to have him extradited and they decided, no, it wasn't.
The second one was an actual full blown trial with a non
Mormon judge and it was still held again the entire next day,
again an entire day.
And um lots of testimony and the defendants again were dis
and this was on the advice of a non Mormon
judge who was out of town saying this is what you need to do,
giving them legal advice and they submitted and did it
so you can read through the trial notes.
I'll link below the case was very clear,
there was no riot and that was the only charge for arrest.
And yet that the threats continued.
The Warsaw signal um printed an extra on June 14th reporting
on a mass meeting that had been held in Carthage the day
before where both chauncey Higby and especially Francis Higby and some
of the other conspirators were were um major participants and speakers.
So here's, here's quoting from that um extra published on the 14th.
The only recourse left is to take up arms.
They passed a series of resolutions resolved to
command the efforts of the services of every
good citizen to put an immediate stop to the career of the mad prophet and his dem
dem demoniac
coad.
We must not only defend ourselves from danger but we
must resolutely carry the war into the enemy's camp.
We do therefore declare that we will take full vengeance, terrible vengeance.
Should the lives of any of our citizens be lost in the effort that we hold
ourselves at all times in readiness to cooper
with our fellow citizens in this state,
Missouri and Iowa to exterminate utterly exterminate the wicked and abominable.
Mormon leaders and authors of our troubles. That was one of the resolutions.
Here's another resolved to notify all persons in our township,
suspected of being the tools of the prophet
to leave immediately on pain of instant vengeance.
So every Mormon is gonna get kicked out
and then resolved that the time in our opinion has arrived,
when the adherence of Smith as a body should
be driven from the surrounding settlements into navoo.
So they're going going to drive them into NAVOO,
gathering them like this is really chilling to think about it
when the Nazis were gathering all of the Jews into
the ghettos so that they could destroy them altogether,
right?
That's kind of what they were saying.
We have to drive them out of all of the surrounding settlements into navoo
that the prophet and his miscreant adherent should then be demanded at um that
the prophet and and his miscreant here should then be demanded at their hands.
And if not surrendered,
a war of extermination should be waged to
the entire destruction if necessary for our protection
of his adherence.
So hear that again, we in order to protect ourselves,
we have to gather every Mormon man,
woman and child into the city and kill all of them for our protection.
So man, this like projection is insane,
hereby pledging ourselves to aid to the utmost,
the complete consummation of the object in view that we may
be that we may thereby be utterly relieved of the alarm,
anxiety and trouble to which we are now subjected.
They are the ones subjected to alarm and trouble.
We're going to kill all of you so that we don't any longer need to
be afraid of you is basically what they were proposing and resolving to do,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h52m12s 00:52:12]
resolve that every citizen arm himself and be
prepared to sustain the resolutions here and contained.
So that's what was published in the Warsaw Signal.
They immediately began to put these resolutions into action.
There were several you can read through the church history of this time period.
There are so many affidavits gathered
and there were several reports coming in from um
um from Mormons in areas outside aside Nauvoo
being visited by men being told that they needed
to either take up arms to help arrest Joseph and
the others or they needed to surrender their arms and
pack up their families and go immediately to NAVOO.
They were told they had until Monday the 17th.
So this started to be actually carried out.
This was the situation Joseph wrote immediately to Governor Ford telling him
quote that an telling an energetic attempt is being made by some of the citizens and
of this and the surrounding counties to drive
and exterminate the Saints by force of arms.
I ask at your hands, immediate counsel and protection.
Do you hear he's asking for his counsel as well as his protection.
Judge Thomas Judge who he's been listening to so far has been here and given his,
his advice in all in the case,
which I shall strictly follow until I hear from your excellency.
That's true. He had sought his advice and strictly followed it
and now he's asking for direction from the governor, what should I do?
This is what's happening
and in all cases shall adhere to the Constitution and laws.
And Joseph had followed the constitution and laws the very best he possibly could.
The Nabu legion is at your service to quell all
insurrection and support the dignity of the common wheel.
That means the well being of the, the well being of the commonwealth.
Um So he already said here, I will give you command of the n
legion to help what whatever you command us to do we will do.
I wish urgently.
I I wish urgently wish your excellency to come down in person with your staff and
investigate the whole matter without delay and cause
peace to be restored to the country.
And I know not, but this will be the only means of stopping an effusion of blood.
So you can hear it was actually judge Thomas that told
Joseph the governor needs to come here and see this.
That's the only thing that's going to stop this from happening.
So Joseph wrote that, please come if he were the one
in the wrong, would he be telling the governor,
please come and see what's happening, please and tell me what to do.
I will follow all of your advice and here is control of the Novo legion
that's important to know for what comes later. So, Governor Ford did not come. I,
we're gonna talk a little bit about this guy, not as much as we should,
but a little bit.
So news of the impending mob attack continued to pour,
nob mob attack continued to pour into Nauvoo.
With um here are some of the details from these various affidavits,
1500 Missourians that was reported by many
different people along with the Quincy Grays.
That's another militia and other companies from
surrounding counties would all assemble at Warsaw the morning of the 17th,
they had five cannons and were going to NAVOO to demand to take Joseph
and Hyrum Smith and the entire city council also the leaders of the police.
I think there were Joseph Smith plus 18 others.
And if the people did not give them up,
they would blow up the city and kill and exterminate all the inhabitants.
That was literally what was happening.
And so just remember what these people had already experienced.
The attack was planned for Wednesday the 19th.
So people had until Monday the 17th to leave their
homes and go to NAVOO or join the Moers,
right?
And they,
the attack was scheduled for Wednesday the 19th and
these men that they had to turn in,
like you think of,
like they knew they were all going to be killed.
So what, what were these people supposed to do?
It was under this extreme threat that Joseph who had already
twice been found not guilty of the only charges against him,
the only charges against him were riot.
He had had a hearing and then he had stood full trial with
a non Mormon judge on the advice of another non Mormon judge.
And um that's what he had already already done and this is what was happening.
So he wrote the following letters on Monday the 17th letter to the Marshal Sir,
complaint having been made to me on oath that a mob is collecting
at sundry points to make an account on an attack on this city.
You will therefore take such measures as
measures as shall be necessary to preserve the peace of said city according
to the provisions of the charter and the laws of the state.
And with the police and legion,
see that there is no vi that no violent act is committed.
So this is what he's doing.
He's saying, hey,
we need to protect the city and he's doing
it all legally through legal orders that were reported
to the commander of the NVA Legion. He wrote,
you are hereby commanded to order the N
legion to be in readiness to assist said Marshall in keeping the peace and
doing whatever may be necessary to preserve the dignity of the state and city,
perform all services with as little noise and confusion as possible.
Um, he tells him to prevent any groups of men,
any boats from landing in any groups of armed men from becoming ashore.
That's like he's telling him the points to watch for.
It's so clear what they were worried about and why they did all of this
and if any places, if attack is threatened, what are they supposed to do? Right.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=00h57m23s 00:57:23]
They were doing exactly the, the very best they possibly could.
And I would like to hear anyone else say what they should have done instead
the same day, the nun
neighbor printed an extra explaining the situation.
And I really think the entire thing is worth reading to
understand what was actually happening and how they were trying to
keep things calm, give people courage and explain the situation.
So I'll link it below. But let me just read these two sections.
This is how it begins as a soft breeze in a hot day mellows the air.
So does the simple truth calm the feelings of the, of the irritated.
And so we proceed to give the proceedings of the city council
relating to the removal of the novo expositor as a nuisance.
I'll skip down. It says
the men who got at the press were constantly
engaged in resisting the authority or threatening something.
If they were fined an app if they were fined, an appeal was taken.
But the slander went on, that's, we couldn't find them. And when the
came, the course and plan was to destroy the city was marked out
the destruction of the city charter and the ruin of
the Saints was all was the all commanding topic.
So they all knew what the expositor was trying to do
and they,
it goes on and on.
But um if the people had actually, if people will actually read the record,
you will see that this is very true.
This was the central goal and purpose of the Novo expositor.
There's no way to claim that these were good men trying to just
and put down immorality.
These were selfish, greedy, resentful,
bitter men trying to wrest control of Nauvoo
and determined to get revenge and wreak havoc if they couldn't.
That was the true situation.
So Tuesday the next day,
June 18th at 145 in the afternoon with
the imminent attack planned for the next morning,
Joseph finally declared martial law.
This is why he wrote to the marshal of the
city of Nauvoo from the newspapers around us and the
reports as brought in from the surrounding count country.
I have good reason to fear that a mob
is organizing to come upon this city and plunder and
destroy said city as well as murder the citizens
and by virtue of the authority vested in me.
And as mayor and to preserve the city and lives of the citizens.
I do hereby declare that said city with within
the limits of its incorporation under martial law,
the officers therefore of the nuel
the police as well as others will strictly that no persons or
property pass in or out of the city without due orders,
Joseph Smith, the mayor.
And now you also, it's,
I read um many letters of just private citizens in the city writing
to those who were out of the city like they were terrified,
the people were terrified.
And I
think that Joseph Smith did exactly what he needed
to do and exactly what he should have done.
If any of you
like Joseph Smith haters listening to this,
I would be interested to hear how you think he should
have handled this and what you think he should have done
and how you think it, he was in the wrong here if you do so.
Anyway, II,
I think that it would to try to claim that he was in
any way a dictator or a tyrant or that he was paranoid.
These are all things that I hear thrown around about him based on
his decision to declare martial law,
what should he have done and what would you want
have wanted him to do if you were a citizen in
nue? Right?
He then addressed the legion.
It's really a beautiful empower speech.
It's filled with heartbreaking sincerity and he addressed
them for an hour and a half.
I wish that we had
it all recorded,
but you can read various records people took where
he again laid out the case and explained.
That's another thing. These are contemporaneous records.
They are completely consistent.
He lays out this case again and again and again,
you can read it in the city council minutes,
you can read it in the newspapers, you can read it in the letters he said,
and you can read it in this speech.
It's really hard to claim that there's anything else going on here.
The record is so consistent.
So he again laid out the case and explained how he and the city council
were innocent and had followed the law in
every regard and they were literally innocent.
They had been found not guilty of the charges against them.
And so,
um he assured the people that he would do on his power to defend them in
their rights and protect them from the same
unthinkable abuses they had already endured in Missouri.
And then I'll quote him. Now.
He asked the legion,
will you all stand by me to the death and sustain at the peril of your lives,
the laws of our country and the liberties and privileges
which our fathers have transmitted unto this un unto us,
sealed with their blood.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h01m50s 01:01:50]
I shouted thousands.
He continued expressing his love for them
and declaring that he would sacrifice his,
his life for their preservation.
So he was doing the very best he could. I think that you should read this speech.
So if, especially those who don't like Joseph Smith,
read all of these documents and try to find out if I didn't say it before, I,
I might have said it in one of the times that I deleted.
But like
reading through this, my gosh,
I really have gone on a journey with Joseph Smith to
where I used to just have such a testimony of him.
And then I went through this, you know,
learning all of these things as so many of us do and having all of these questions.
And I will tell you the more I study
about this man about his life, about the things that he endured
and suffered, the,
the things that he had to experience that most of us can't even imagine.
And the way that he dealt with them,
the more respect I have for him, not just out of blind testimony, but out,
out of truly reading the record reading about his life.
Most people cannot even imagine like,
like going to trial even once or twice in your
life is so stressful that I think most people would
like to never experience that let alone being like prosecuted
for a serious crime or being taken to prison.
This man stood trial like
I think it was well over 100 times that charges were brought
against him or that he had to be involved in lawsuits.
And some people look at that just as evidence that obviously, you know,
where there's smoke, there's fire.
Obviously he deserved it.
I think instead of looking just at,
at it that way you need to look at again each individual piece, each individual suit
the evidence behind it, the prosecution, the motivations.
What happened, how illegally he was held in prison,
the destruction that he and his people experienced and really like be fair
with the sources because I'll tell you as I read through this,
watching him
just his patience, his
gentleness, his forbearance,
his courage and, and his wisdom is really, really just
amazing to me. I really am
like developing a new genuine love for Joseph Smith, but in an,
in an entirely new way this time, completely informed and, and reading the record,
I think that people need to read more than just the ce s letter,
read the actual records.
So anyway,
I'm gonna go on the legion's show of force which I interpret as Joseph's attempt to
try to forestall the attack until Governor Ford
could and Governor Ford could come help.
It seemed to work. The mob did not attack the next morning Wednesday morning. So
there are a couple of questions we could ask,
was it just scare tactics trying to get the people
to give away their husbands and fathers and their leaders?
Right?
Or what I think is maybe
possible.
Is it turns out that mobbing in the light of
day when you're not completely drunk and you're not attacking,
attacking helpless victims.
And when you know that you are acting illegally,
that takes more courage than most moers can easily muster.
And so, um, I think there's,
I'm gonna take a little sidetrack because it's worth noting that
Joseph and Hiram had written to Brigham Young at the very beginning
of these troubles and told him to come home and to
write to the other 12 and have them all come home.
Um,
I haven't looked into it enough to know
why Brigham apparently didn't respond and didn't obey
and why the rest of the 12 didn't return either. So that's maybe people can
give me resources for that. There was a lot to research.
So I didn't have time to go into really looking into this.
I just find it something to consider. And so I know that, um, what I, I have read,
like I read Hebrew and the late letters during this time and Hebrew learned on,
I think it was July 11th.
He learned of the martyrdom by reading it in the newspaper.
And the truth is he had been summoned home
like a month or two or well, at least a month earlier than that,
they had written to tell all of the 12 to come home, but they hadn't come home.
So I'm not sure why of that, why on that?
And I would be interested to hear more of that why they were all just absent for this.
So, the standoff between the mob and the NAVOO Legion, the people, you know,
lasted for a few days until Governor Ford finally did arrive.
But he didn't arrive in NAVOO as Joseph had
requested.
He instead went to Carthage where he met with
a group which included Wilson and William Law,
Robert Foster, Francis and Chauncey Higby and Joseph Jackson.
And I don't know who else, but I know that those, at least all of those men were there.
He only listened to their side.
He literally refused to hear anything from Joseph's representatives that he
had asked to come to fill him in on their side.
He cited 100% with the mob and insisted that Joseph come unescorted unarmed and
thus completely unprotected to Carthage to stand trial for the charge of riot.
He threatened that if he didn't,
the city would likely be destroyed and the people exterminated.
This was coming from the governor as I alluded to before,
the more I have studied this, the less respect I have for Governor Ford.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h07m07s 01:07:07]
I truly,
oh, I can't cover it in this episode, but I truly see him as a villain in the story.
He was just like a member of the mob.
He just like them hoped to solve the problem by having Joseph and
Hyrum killed and the Mormons either killed or driven from the state.
So
you should read the speech that he gave in
navoo to the people while Joseph and Hyrum were being murdered,
it's just appalling. So
anyway, I'm gonna read a little bit, um,
like, I think that is worth reading, but even more than that, I recommend reading
Forbes and Joseph's letters back and forth. I'll talk about them a little bit.
His letters make it clear that he
would not understand the situation. He did not understand it.
And I would say he refused to understand it.
He literally compared the expositor to newspapers
that printed even offensive things against him
as if this was just about Joseph being offended or having his feelings hurt.
If you think about all of the things that
had been said and printed about Joseph Smith,
like whatever was said or printed about Governor Ford,
couldn't hold a candle to what Joseph had just, you know, let roll off his back.
Things were constantly said about him.
And I,
I find it just incredibly obtuse and
unbelievably arrogant and offensive that Governor Ford
responded to this in this way and made these comparisons and his letters,
the, the threats, the blatant threats that he includes.
It's just, it's just awful. So read those letters. So,
um, Joseph's letter to Governor Ford, make it clear these were sent,
they had letters exchanged, June 22nd,
1844 Joseph's response does again make it clear that I,
I think this is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Joseph and
the situation with the expositor and everything le leading up to his death.
Uh What I was going to say is makes it clear how careful
and thoughtful he had been in trying to understand and following the
law and how sincerely he was trying to act within legal means.
He made very good legal arguments to Governor Ford who didn't have any anything.
I didn't have a leg to stand on. He just wanted to side with the Moers.
So he explained how he had been following legal
legal advice and made very well reasoned legal arguments.
Sorry, I'm repeating myself a bit.
He cited the City Charter and again cited Blackstone as well as
the precedents for legally destroying presses to preserve the peace and avoid
quote.
You have intimated that no press has been abated as a nuisance in the United States.
We refer to your excellency to Humphrey versus Press in Ohio who abated the press
by his own arm for libel and the courts decided on no on prosecution,
no cause of action.
So he's saying, look, there's an exact precedent I can give you a case
you can look at
and we do know that it is common for police in Boston, New York,
et cetera to destroy scurrilous prints.
Um He then explained why they didn't come to Carthage for trial.
Quote,
we pled a habeas corpus as a last resort to save us
from being thrown in the into the power of the mobo Crats
who were then threatening us with death.
We told the constable, the one who had been sent to arrest them on the charge of riot,
that our lives that on our lives.
We dare not go to Carthage for trial and
pled with him to go before any county magistrate.
He pleased in our vicinity.
So are they, our lives might be saved from the threats thus,
thus already issued against us.
And that's true. They had said, take us anywhere.
He says the same thing to Ford, send me anywhere.
I will go stand trial again anywhere, just not in Carthage.
Um He pointed out the fact that that if
what the city council ordered was somehow wrong,
it should be handled through proper legal channels,
which mean it meant over being churned by the Supreme Court,
not by Joseph's personal rest.
And he's exactly right on that. It was ridiculous.
He pointed out the constitutional problems with
again being tried for the same charge,
quote for the constitution expressly says that no man shall twice be
put in jeopardy of life and limb for the same offense.
But notwithstanding this,
we would not hesitate to stand another trial according to your excellency's wish.
Were it not that we are confident our lives would be in danger? We dare not come, sir.
We dare not come for our lives would be in danger and we are guilty of no crime.
He says it again and again, we dare not come, they will kill us.
And we are innocent reading this letter.
I just, I don't know, I find it heartbreaking.
He tried in the most sincere and expressive
language he could to make Ford understand that their
lives genuinely were in danger and that the lives
of the entire city were in serious danger,
especially if he went to Carthage
Ford, then accused him.
Also, he also accused him of um declaring martial law as if that was a crime,
especially for anyone who understood the situation.
That was another of the things that he listed that Joseph has done wrong.
So this is Joe response to that
as to martial law,
we truly say that we were obliged to call
out the forces to protect our lives and the constitution
guarantees to every man that privilege.
We have never gone contrary to the constitution so far as we have been able to learn it

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h12m18s 01:12:18]
by ever, he goes on to say by everything that is sacred.
We implore your excellency to cause our helpless women and Children
to be protected from mob violence
and not let not the blood of innocents cry to heaven against you.
We say again, if anything wrong has been done on our part and we know of nothing,
we will make all things right.
If the government will give us the opportunity,
disperse the mob and secure to us constitutional privileges that
our lives may not be endangered when on trial.
So I, I mean, again, what more could he have done? And again, when,
when Ford accuses him that he was wrong to declare martial law,
please recall that Joseph had already written to ask for advice
to say he would do whatever Ford told him to do
and to give Ford control of the Nabu Legion.
So all of this is just really hard to understand other than
that they wanted to kill them.
So I think it should be clear that Joseph
had honestly and sincerely done everything he could to try
to preserve the peace within the and to act
within legal precedent and through legal and constitutional means.
And he was simply asking Governor Ford to do the same.
But Governor Ford refused. As Joseph Smith said,
there is no help there.
Even though Joseph had offered to give Ford
full control of NAVOO and the Navoo Legion,
he was only met with the exact same awful threats the mob had been making,
but now they were from the governor.
So I'll quote from the Governor's letter, he said, quote,
I am anxious to preserve the peace.
A small indiscretion may bring on a war.
The whole country is now up in arms and a vast number
of people ready to take the matter into their own hands.
Such a state of things might force me to call out the militia to prevent a civil war.
And such is the excitement of the country that I fear
that the militia when assembled would be beyond legal control.
If by refusing to submit,
if you by refusing to submit shall make it necessary to call out the militia.
I have great fears that your city would be destroyed and your people,
many of them exterminated.
And the entire letter goes on in this way,
it is filled with nothing but blatant threats using the most loaded words,
words possible.
He is literally telling a people who just fled a literal extermination order
that they are going to be exterminated. This is the governor of the state doing this.
It is, it is terrible.
It's unbelievable and it just goes on repeating the same
threats again and again in different words numerous times.
So that's when Joseph painfully realized and said there is no help there from
Governor Ford and that there would be no support or protection when that happened.
He again wrote to the President of the United States to plead for help
and they tried to decide what
do
um in the end,
he along with Hiram and 14 other defendants went to Carthage to stand trial for riot,
which he had already stood trial for and been acquitted
of by the Non Mormon judge in his precinct.
Right?
So while we think we know the rest of the story, there's actually more to understand
that again shows how dedicated the expositor conspirators were
to ensuring the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith,
I wanted to go into all of that situation
about the destruction of the expositor because I think
it is important to help us understand what,
what the situation really was and who Joseph Smith really
was so that we can get rid of these claims,
these false claims about him.
Right.
So now we'll go on to the situation at Carthage,
Joseph and the company arrived at Carthage just before midnight on the 24th.
And um from so many reports with all of the militia,
Moers and anti Mormons and camped and running wild.
Carthage was out of control.
It was far more of a riot than anything had ever been in Nauvoo.
Remember that's the only trial, that's the only charge right now riot, right?
Both Joseph's party and his enemies, including William and Wilson Law,
Francis and Chauncey Higby Robert and Charles F.
Foster, Henry O Norton, who will talk about a little
in a minute, John,
a Hicks and Augustine Spencer who will also talk a little bit a little bit more.
All stayed at the Hamilton House.
All of them had been involved in the expositor,
Cyrus Wheelock who was part of Joseph's
party reported that hicks bragged that quote,
it had been determined to shed the blood of Joseph Smith, not only by himself,
but by the laws, Higby Fosters Joseph H Jackson
and many others, whether he was cleared by the law or not.
So they were, they were celebrating.
They were like saying we're going to kill him no matter what they knew,
they didn't have a chance legally
in the trials, but they were going to kill him anyway.
We,
we lock reported this to Governor Ford who treated
it with perfect indifference and just let it happen.
So the next day at 12 minutes to four,
this is also reported in the history report came to Joseph that William and Wilson
Robert D, Foster, Chance L.
Higby and Francis M Higby had said that there was nothing against these men.
The law could not reach them but powder and ball wood
and that they should not go out of Carthage alive.
So they were, they heard these reports that, yeah, there's,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h17m31s 01:17:31]
there's nothing against them.
We can't charge them with anything in the law,
but we can kill them anyway. They won't go out of Carthage alive.
So the reports were clear and it was clear who
was involved and what the goal was here from,
um, from the beginning of the trial, it was clearly a sham and that
and, and it was clear that all of Ford's promises were worthless.
The judge of the hearing was not, um,
Ford had told him he needed to come stand trial
for the original judge who wrote out the order,
but it wasn't,
the judge was Robert F Smith who just happened
to be the captain of the Carthage Grays.
And he also was the head of the anti Mormon party. So I hadn't heard of that.
That was uh
founded in 1841 by Thomas Sharp, the, um,
editor of the War Warsaw Signal who wrote all
of those things about powder and ball and go,
you know, that was trying to stir up the mob.
He started the party and now, um,
Joseph F Smith was the captain of was the head of it
and he was the one who was the judge for this.
So anyway, it, it was ridiculous. The purpose of that party, the anti Mormon party,
it was the sole purpose was to unite Democrats
and whigs to drive the Mor Mormons from Illinois.
So that's who these people were.
The case was actually not tried that day the 25th, but put over until October,
which would have been three months later because a key witness, Francis Higby
who had been the one to file the charges was conveniently not there. So
I it's hard for me to see this as anything other than
just this plotting and strategizing and scheming to keep Joseph Smith in,
in Carthage as long as possible.
They could have just tried the tra case that day,
but Francis Higby didn't show up and they were like, oh, can't try it without him.
And so instead they um they planned to set it three months
later and they set bail for the minor misdemeanor of riot.
The bail was set at the equivalent of almost $260,000 in today's money for these men.
So they were like, no, we're not gonna try you today. We're gonna try you in October.
And by the way, your bail for riot is $260,000. It was $500 for each man.
And that added up to a total. That is the equivalent of $260,000. Today, I did the
I did the calculation.
Um So it was a clear effort to
hold the defendants in custody in Carthage indefinitely.
But man, like amazingly miraculously, the nau citizens came through,
many of them brought their deeds to their homes and their farms
and their property and put it up as collateral to pay the
bail. So the prisoners were free to go and, and to return for the October.
So this was obviously not acceptable. So the same day, both Joseph and
Hyrum and I think just the two of them were served with new arrest warrants
now for the charge of treason signed by that same judge Robert F Smith,
the captain of the Carthage Grays, the head of the anti Mormon party.
So like, oh no, they made bail, ok? Well, now it's treason
and um riot was a minor charge, but treason was not.
It carried a penalty of death by hanging if found guilty.
And more importantly, it did not allow bail.
If you were charged with treason, you could not be given bail. So Joseph and
Hyrum
were now not free to go.
So these are the machinations that were happening and I have to point out that
like, look at like just think about this legally, the um Joseph Bennett,
uh Joseph Bennett I think is his name.
Anyway, I'll include his paper below.
It's called Road to Martyrdom and he does an excellent breakdown of these charges.
He is actually a lawyer so he can speak about them very well and,
and how valid they were or were not.
And so, um but I, but I do want to point out charges needed to be brought, Robert Smith,
the judge, no matter how much he hated Joseph and Hyrum,
he couldn't just make up charges, someone need to, needed to bring them.
So it's important to know who was behind these new charges of treason.
Being brought.
The charge against Joseph Smith was ostensibly filed by Augustine Spencer.
So he, I said we talk about him again.
He was staying at that same hotel with the um rest of the expositor conspirators.
He was the troublemaker in that I talked about in part
one that assault on his brother where he choked his brother.
And that's what started all of the riot when he was, they tried to arrest him
when um Chauncey Higby, I think aimed a gun at Joseph Smith. No, it was, it was true.
Foster aimed again at Joseph Smith and Robert
Foster and Chauncey Higby threatened his life.
It was,
it was that same day.
This is, this is the guy that it was, that choked his brother and, and, um,
started the co, the chaos that day.
He was the one who, 00.
And it's interesting to know that Chauncey Higby, I think it was.
Chauncey Higby defended him in his trial. Right.
So, that's an interesting thing to know.
And I did, I'll attach an interesting paper I read about Augustine,
um, Augustine Spitzer. He was a bad, bad guy. He just
like, there's nothing good about this guy that, um, you can,
he even like embezzled his,
the inheritance from his siblings when his and his mother, when his father died.
It's just
bad news all around. So,
um, let's see.
And then the charge against, and then, as I said,
it was the Higby that defended him in his trial when he was,
when he was arrested for assaulting his brother.
The charge against Hiram was filed by Henry O
Norton. The other name I mentioned who was staying in the hotel with them.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h22m55s 01:22:55]
And it's it convenient that two separate charges were brought
by two separate men at the exact same time,
identical charges for treason.
Hm. That seems a little bit ironic, doesn't it?
So, um,
obviously these were not legitimate charges and bizarrely Norton
had also been charged for assaulting his brother.
I couldn't find as much information about him.
But, um,
Joseph said something about him assaulting his
brother who was apparently lame and helpless.
And so in any case, these were two great guys. Right.
John Taylor described them as two worthless fellows who,
whose word wouldn't be taken for five cents.
But the really interesting thing is who was actually behind these charges.
They had these guys sign them, but you guessed it, it was actually chance
chauncey Higby and Robert Foster who as lawyers understood very well,
the implications of treason charges that there would be no bail.
And these two were the ones who brought the information
and actually filed the charges just getting these two jokers,
Augustine Spencer and Robert O Norton to sign their names to them.
And so anyway, that's,
this follows the pattern I talked about before of like putting people up,
like putting, putting out um
what's his name?
Um Bostwick up to bring it to accusing Hiram Smith right now,
putting these guys up to charging Joseph and
Hyrum when it was really them, the lawyers that were making all of this happen.
So you can see that these novo
um expositor conspirators were involved up until the very end,
making sure that this happened and that this was
carried out that Joseph and Hyrum were indeed killed.
So the charge of, of treason against Joseph and Hyrum is completely ridiculous.
There is no justification for it
whatsoever.
Well, first of all, it was Joseph that declared martial law,
it was justified by because Joseph declared martial law.
Hiram didn't declare martial law so you can't even defend it that way.
But also it's not illegal to declare martial law to protect your city.
That's not treason. Joseph had already again.
I've said this so many times but he had asked the governor for
direction and he had put the governor in charge of the militia.
Right. There was absolutely
no treason at all. Um, let's see. Who is it that sums it up?
Well, oh, this is Joseph Bentley. That's who it is.
Joseph Bentley wrote, murdered in the paper.
I said, I'd attached, he says,
sensing that no objective judge or jury would convict
him if he were able to stand trial,
his enemies acted to hold him in jail until they had achieved their purposes.
And that seems to be very clearly the case.
So Joseph's lawyer, this happened on the 25th, Joseph's lawyer asked for a,
for one day to prepare their defense.
So the trial was set for the morning of the 27th.
But then after the hearing was over and everyone was out of the courtroom,
the Judge Robert Smith on his own by his,
by his himself changed the day of the trial to the 29th.
So apparently to keep Joseph, I imprisoned in Carthage a little longer.
So I don't know if they actually had a plan to kill them or if they just wanted to
drag it out and keep them in Carthage long
enough to give someone a chance to kill them.
So in addition to the clear problems with the judge,
the state's five prosecuting attorneys,
so they had a team of five that were going to prosecute this
and they included Thomas Sharp,
who's the editor of the Warsaw Signal and the founder of the anti
Mormon party that now Judge Robert Smith was the head of Sylvester Emmons.
He's the member of the NAU City Council who was
the editor of the Expositor along with Chauncey Higby.
So clearly,
this was not simply a legal case and this was never going to be an actual fair trial.
Um So of course, the case never went to trial as Joseph and
Hyrum who were genuinely innocent of all of the charges against them,
both riot and now the ridiculous treason charge,
they were both killed the morning of the 20 on, on June 27th,
1844 before the case could go to trial.
So the questions of what actually happened in that
upper room are beyond the scope of this episode,
but
they are well worth investigating and looking into there are many questions.
So regardless of however,
the murders were carried out and whoever was
involved and who the actual gunmen were.
The. Um a few things are certain
that the expositor conspirators were integrally
involved in and ranging and ensuring the
deaths of both of the Smiths and not in any way because of polygamy
which is what we will look into in the next part.
But it's ridiculous to claim that that had anything to do with it.
So we're coming to the end of this episode. I hope this wasn't too much of a trudge.
I do find this information just
really fascinating and important to see the legal machinations of
expositor,
conspirators and how they did in fact lead directly
to the murders of Joseph and Hyland Smith.
It makes it that much more clear to see that
this was the central purpose and motivation for the novo
expositor.
And I hope I've also made it more abundantly clear why Joseph, well,
the city council, it wasn't Joseph,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h27m51s 01:27:51]
it was the city council ordered it to be
destroyed and then why Joseph declared martial law,
we have to understand what he was actually doing if
we want to make any claims about him at all.
But just in case there is any doubt, let me read just a few more sources.
So this is uh an affidavit that Joseph Jackson himself
actually swore out before WW Phelps on June 21st.
He said that on Tuesday, June 11th,
he was in Nauvoo when Francis M Higby while speaking of the
destruction of the printing press said he was very sorry for the
proprietors had set up that press for the destruction of the city
and that he meant to kill Joe Smith and Hiram Smith.
And he said no further.
So there's an affidavit with Joseph Jackson himself saying it.
But if there's still any doubt because yes,
Joseph Jackson was also going and telling
the Warsaw signal that Hiram the the editor that Hiram Smith
had threatened his life and threatened to destroy his press.
So Joseph Jackson is a mess.
But in case there's any doubt again, let's go to our prime witness, William Law,
right, the central conspirator and let's let him clear it up for us in his own words.
So I am again quoting from his 1887
1887 correspondence. This is um the first letter he wrote on January 7th, 1887.
When I left NAVOO,
I left Mormonism behind believing that I had done
my part faithfully done my part faithfully even at
the risk of my life and believing also that
the expositor would continue to do the work.
It was intended to do.
Did you hear that believing the expositor would continue to do the work?
It was intended to do
dismissed thought they had killed it whereas, but by destroying the press,
they gave it a new lease of life and extra power to overthrow them
and drive their followers from the state.
Then the um the doctor we
who he was writing to wrote back and said, oh, did the expositor continue?
He asked for clarification.
So in his January 20th letter, he provided that pro
provided that clarification.
You asked me if the expositor continued?
No when I spoke of its word continuing,
I meant that its destruction it new life and power to destroy its destroyers.
For it was the chief factor in bringing about the deaths of the
Smiths and the expulsion of the Mormons from the state of Illinois.
So right there law makes it very clear what his goal
was from the beginning with the establishment of the Nauvoo Expositor.
So I know that this was a lot, but I think it was valuable.
I um I, I don't think I need to summarize it, but we made those points clear.
I hope you will look forward to the next step
episode
where we will talk about
any, any connections, there were any evidence there is in the novel Expositor or,
or any of the testimonies surrounding the claims in it to,
to prove that Joseph was guilty of polygamy in any way.
So that will be our next episode. Thank you again for joining me.
Oh, and if you feel so inclined,
go ahead and stick around for the bonus content
about another very problematic source about William Law.
We'll see you next time.
Now for this episode's bonus content,
I decided to include it here because it is about William Law.
So it seemed to apply to this episode and yet
it didn't really fit in with the episode anywhere else.
So hence bonus content. So let's get into it.
I want to address an interesting and lesser known
source that some of you may have heard of
the reported recollection of
William Law's son.
So I'll read portions of it first and then we'll get into it and talk about
it. It was written in 1903 by elder
elder Joseph W mcmurrin
who was one of the first presidents of the 70 who was
serving in Boise Idaho where he met Mr Richard S Law.
I'm quoting now
not connected with the church who has
related a circumstance concerning the teachings of Joseph Smith
that is of sufficient importance to be preserved.
This is what he goes on to say.
Shortly after my arrival in Boise,
I was introduced to a gentleman by the name of Richard S Law.
I was greatly surprised,
also very much pleased to learn that he is the son of William Law who
in the early days of the church was a counselor to the prophet Joseph Smith.
Mr Law is now 77 years of age. He goes on to describe him.
I have enjoyed several conversations with the gentleman during
the few weeks where that I have been located here
among the various themes we have discussed the topic in which
I have had the most interest has been plural marriage.
Mr Law was quite surprised to learn that Mr Joseph Smith,
the president of the reorganized church or Joseph Church.
So that's Joseph Smith the third has often denied and again,
recently denied in an article in the New American review that his father,
the prophet Joseph introduced the doctrine of plural marriage in
the church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints.
Mr Law's testimony.
Mr Law has related to me and to others the following circumstance
about the year 1842 he was present present at
an interview between his father and the prophet Joseph.
The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage.
William Law with his arms around the neck of

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h33m02s 01:33:02]
the prophet was pleading with him to withdraw the
doctrine of plural marriage which he had at that
time commenced to teach to some of the brethren.
Mr Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine,
Mormonism would in 50 or 100 years dominate the Christian world.
Mr Law pleaded with this,
pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes.
The prophet was also in tears but he informed the gentleman that he
could not withdraw the doctrine for God had commanded him to teach it
and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.
During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected.
Mr Richard S Law said the interview was a most touching one
and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that he has
kept fresh and distinct in his memory as if it had occurred.
But yesterday,
Mr Law also says that he has no doubt that Joseph believed
he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord,
the prophet's manner, being exceedingly earnest,
so much so that Mr Law was convinced that
the prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration.
So it goes on from there and of course, this will be linked in the notes.
So this account is definitely not universally recognized.
For example, those who hate Joseph, don't have any use
for it and never refer to it.
But um but it's not recognized by others for some reasons that we'll get into. So
it has been however, a comforting story for some,
particularly those who believe Joseph was a prophet,
but who also recognize that polygamy was not ok and are
troubled by what they believe to be his practice of polygamy.
So it, it at least allows them to think that Joseph was sincere
in
his belief that God commanded it. I see some problems with this interpretation.
But mainly if I, if you recognize Joseph was a prophet
and you think that He believed God sincerely commanded it,
you either have to believe that God did indeed
command it perhaps as some sort of cruel test,
which I don't think is how we want to understand God.
I don't think that's the true nature of God or you have to believe
that Joseph who you believe was a prophet got something this major
and this evil, this wrong, right? So I don't think that
that is necessarily a good interpretation.
Just believing that Joseph was sincere doesn't make it ok.
For example, I have no problem believing that
the La Barons or the lafferty, or maybe even the D
bells were to some degree convinced and
convinced that God was commanding them to do what
they did and were perhaps sincere in their beliefs.
I don't know. But whether or not they were sincere doesn't make it, ok.
Joseph being sincere doesn't make things that are wrong, not wrong. Right.
And so anyway,
but there's a much more important way to address
this than just the problems of the interpretation.
And that is those are the massive problems with the validity of the story itself,
which I think make it very clear that this is not in any way
good evidence that Joseph was a polygamist and it should not be relied on.
So first, the more basic and obvious problem is that this story is a third
hand account written 60 years after the fact,
it first appeared in 1903 when it was published in the improvement era.
So
I wanna talk about that a little bit before we go
on to the other problems that are much more obvious.
I just
want to delve into this very interesting time that this
report came into the conversation.
1903 was right in the middle of the massive polygamy confusion in the church.
The first manifesto which had just been for
show had been issued in 1890 but polygamy was
very much still the central doc doctrine of
church leader of church leadership who were all polygamists
and of many faithful members who had been raised,
being taught that the church could never abandon polygamy or it would be an apostasy
and many polygamous marriages were still occurring.
And so in January 1903, just a few months before this
story was published,
the US,
the US Senate had very nearly refused to seat
Reed smoot because he was an LDS apostle.
So the four year Reed smoot hearings were just about to get underway
just a few years before that the House
of Representatives had refused to see BBH Roberts.
Um Unlike so Roberts was a polygamist and he was
not allowed to fulfill his election as a state representative.
Um Smoot wasn't a polygamist. So there was some concern, some
discussion about it just being a
an apostle of a polygamist church
made it so he could not be part of the Senate.
That's why the four year hearings came about.
So this was right at the beginning of that time, right?
This was just two years before John W Taylor and Mathias Cowley were asked by
Joseph F Smith to resign as apostles because
they continued to perform Mar polygamous marriages.
And that was hurting the church's credibility in the Meet Reed Smoot hearings.
And even after that, they continued to um
to perform marriages in Mexico and Canada until they finally, um
in
1911,
John W Taylor was excommunicated and Mathias Cowley in a very unusual and
kind of bizarre compromise wasn't excommunicated but
was instead stripped of his priesthood.
So that's, that's where things were coming from and where they were going.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h38m26s 01:38:26]
So, in 1903, polygamy really was a complete wild card.
Many members were gleeful that Brigham's doctrine was finally over, at least.
So that
thought,
but many were still devoted to it and believed that it would and could never be over.
So I tried to find collections of speeches from this time period.
But so far, I haven't had a lot of luck. The journal of discourses ends in 1886.
And I haven't found anything similar
for after 1886 when the journal of discourses ends.
So if anyone knows of some sort of anthology or some search tool that I'm missing,
please let me know like
there's, there seems to be a big gap in speeches that we can get,
I can start to get some about 1926.
But before that, I haven't been able to find any.
So I would love to know where I can find sermons and speeches from this time. But
in any case,
my strong suspicion is that polygamy at this
time period was very much not being preached.
I'm guessing everybody knew it was there,
but nobody wanted to talk about it was the quintessential elephant in the room.
Nobody knew whether it was coming or going or whether
it was more faithful to be quietly supportive of
polygamy or to follow the prophet and reject it.
I think this was an extremely confusing time for many of the members
other than those who had always just deplored polygamy
and were happy that they were going this direction.
I think for many of the members, there was a lot of confusion
and not understanding which way to go.
So this complicated relationship with polygamy is
apparent even in the publication of this story
just a few years earlier.
Any time before 1890 this would have been front page news spread everywhere,
preached in sermon after sermon, be it would have become a real talking point.
But in 1903,
it was buried in the middle of the auxiliary magazine.
The title cha
the, this magazine
was called The Improvement Era. In 1960 the title changed to the new era.
So it really was like the auxiliary magazine mainly for the
and it wasn't even the front page of the that it was buried on page 33 on,
on the leak I give you.
But it's the, the magazine's pages are cumulative. So it was 500 something.
But that was the only place it was ever
published and it was only published under the title
and interesting testimony.
So that's really telling, right?
I haven't found any explicit teachings on polygamy by Joseph W mcmurrin.
The um the president of the 70 responsible for this story.
But from what I have found.
I think it is fair to assume that he
probably also had a very complicated relationship with polygamy.
I did some digging.
This is what I found out. He married his wife in 1880.
So he would have had time to take a second wife unless definitely that next 10 years.
But remember that polygamy continued on at least until 1904,
if not later for like my grandfather who got married in Mexico and was always in good
standing in the church and held my colleagues called by Joseph F Smith to do it.
So anyway, I talked about that a bit,
but um then Joseph mcmurrin never took another wife.
And on the other hand, his father
uh after 26 years of marriage to Joseph's mother and nine Children with her,
he took a barely 15 year old second wife. He was 49 at the time,
his second wife was the same age as his sixth daughter with his first wife.
I can relate to this. My husband and my six sixth child is currently 16.
My husband is 50. This is
whoa, this is really not a good story.
He went on to have eight more Children with this 15 year old second wife.
And so I know that this, this bonus was supposed to just be a this source.
But I have to quickly tell a little bit about these women's stories because
we have to understand this So Jeanette Irvine, the 15 year old second wife,
she was the oldest of eight Children to an LDS couple in Scotland.
He, the father had been blinded in a work accident.
Both were already illiterate and then he became blind.
And so they were a very impoverished family and could
not afford to come to Zion despite their humble circumstances.
And
I'm assuming, I don't,
I couldn't find anything but I assume with the prodding
from the church and the missionaries and perhaps with the,
with help from the perpetual immigration fund, which really was sort of a um
indentured servitude that the church used that the church had,
they sent their oldest Children to Utah without them.
So I have to assume that they did this in great faith, believing that while they may,
may never see their Children again, at
least they would be giving them a better life where they would be
safe and protected in what they were taught was the kingdom of God.
That's how I have to interpret that.
So 15 year old Jeanette was the oldest and the only girl sent,
she arrived in August on, she arrived August 21st, 1869 and
two months later, she was married to the 48 year old for 48 year old father of nine.
It was always the unprotected girls who didn't have fathers there to
keep them safe from basically being sex trafficked into the polygamist economy.
And so Margaret
Laing.
The first wife who had from everything I have seen,
truly loved her husband and had born nine Children to him,
seemed to have very little say in the matter.
Um I found two short life sketches of her and this is what they say
when her beloved husband married a second wife, it was a sore trial for her.
She was told two days before it happened

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h43m59s 01:43:59]
and the new wife entered her home. So
this woman had a 15 year old,
the age of her six daughter move in with her as her husband's second wife.
Oh, heavy stuff.
So it goes on to say, but I guess it was a trial to all concerned,
which is probably true.
She was loyal and true to the end with the hopes of a glorious resurrection.
And you can see that's what these women would have to do
is hope that somehow this suffering they experienced would be swallowed up in
the glorious promises that they were constantly
promised that kind of future faking.
Don't worry about now because it's gonna be glorious later.
So she, I think for those who understand like mind, body connection, right?
And energetic inputs into our help.
She painfully, she died of very painful facial facial cancer
several years later. So
I have to imagine that William who was Margaret's oldest son.
Margaret was the first wife, William was her oldest son
that he was very likely also very troubled by this.
And had perhaps and and was perhaps desperately hoping that this mess he saw
was somehow
what somehow was indeed of God and not simply as horrible as it appears.
So this is the personality behind the reported testimony.
And I think it helps us understand why polygamy looms so large in his mind
that even in 1903, that was what he most wanted to talk about when he
apparently met, who he thought was William Law's son.
And especially since the R LDS leaders claimed
that Joseph had not been a polygamist,
right?
So that was probably something he struggled with
and at least I'm assuming that.
So that is another very interesting element to this
story is the R LDS denials of polygamy.
After a long lull in the polygamy debates,
Joseph Smith the third had just barely published a new article
on the topic in that what they mentioned the North America
review. This was a highly regarded journal where most of the discussion on
um Mormonism in including the debates between the R LDS
and the LDS on Joseph Smith's polygamy had taken place,
but there hadn't been anything published for a very long time,
but now with the election of Reed Smoot,
um Mormonism was again national headline news.
And so I think that spurred Joseph Smith the third on to again
enter the discussion and he wrote this article which I um he,
he wrote it.
I, as I've read it, I'll and I'll link it below as well.
He basically was explaining again that polygamy began with Brigham Young,
not his father, which by the way, I'll do an episode on this in the future,
but which had was already the consensus.
That was the belief at this time for every, everywhere outside of Utah,
everyone knew this to be the case.
So as I said, we'll go into that more in the future.
Um And he was also discussing why the government had failed to eliminate polygamy.
Um Despite it being illegal,
the paper was called polygamy in the United States has a political significance.
So it was him voicing in on this question of the Reed smoot hearings.
And again, since Mormonism was in front page news being like, hey, we're not them,
you know.
So this was the end
of his paper. It says this article is written and
an earnest wish is expressed that statesmen and
politicians shall not again be fooled or outwitted
into permitting such a political menace to continue.
So this paper was published in March of 1903 and this report
was published in April of 1903 just a few weeks later.
So despite the, now we go on to the report,
despite the unlikely coincidences that right after Joseph Smith,
the third's article was published,
Joseph W mcmurrin would just happen to run into a 77 year old physician from
San Francisco who had traveled to Boise quote
to explore mining opportunities and was quote,
waiting for the weather to moderate in order that
he may get into the mountains and commence,
commence work
upon a mine recently purchased. He was 77 and was a physician from the report itself.
And but a 77 year old was gonna hike up the mountain and start mining
and that he would of course,
um and also the coincidence is that he would of course figure out
that this 77 year old man was the son of William law.
And then of course, start talking about polygamy and hear this heartwarming story.
So
none of these issues or coincidences prove this report is false.
But they do help us understand the climate and the context
of how this story came into being in the first place.
So now on to the more substantial problems with this account and why
nobody should accept it.
So the real Richard Law, the son,
the first child of William and Jane Law was born in 1834 and would have been seven
or eight in 1842 when this tearful conversation
between his father and Joseph supposedly took place.
So we are supposed to believe that Joseph
Smith had this conversation right in front of him
right in front of this seven or eight year old
child regarding a practice that was so super secret that Joseph's
own almost 12 year old son who was supposed to be
the next leader didn't know anything about it even two years
later. Right.
So that's, that's the first thing also we are to believe that this child,
the seven or eight year old child not only knew about polygamy but understood it and
its implications so well that he fully comprehended

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h49m25s 01:49:25] the meaning and impact of this discussion discussion sufficient sufficiently to recall it perfectly over 60 years later. I have an eight year old son. Yeah. No, no, that's not happening there. No. So in addition, this supposed conversation took place in 1842. Ok. So remember in the summer of 1842 William law was wholeheartedly defending Joseph Smith against John Bennett's claims that Joseph taught or practiced spiritual wifey. He wrote this affidavit this in July of 1842 and then law himself in his expos affidavit and in his later um letters and interview claim claims that he didn't learn about polygamy until Hiram brought him the revelation, which obviously couldn't have happened until after July 12th, 1843 when it was supposedly finally written down. So in 1842 law would have known nothing about polygamy. William Law would have known nothing about polygamy. And by the beginning of 1843 he was already actively plotting against Joseph Smith, which again had nothing to do with polygamy as we've already covered. And we'll go into more even according to his own claims, he didn't know about polygamy after um he didn't know about polygamy until after he was already plotting with the Missourians to turn Joseph Smith over to them. So you can get that from the timeline of all of the reports he gives. So there is literally no period where this conversation could have possibly occurred. There's no time period where William Law knew about polygamy but was still in such good, good connection with Joseph that they would have had this tearful conversation together. It never happened. So, um but the biggest problem of all we're gonna keep going on is that mcmurrin clearly states that this man Richard law, supposedly the son of William and Jane law was 77 years old in 1903. This would mean he was born in 1826 William and Jane Law were his parents who were, who were supposedly his parents were married in June, 1833 1826 they were married in 1833 and they had their first child, Richard, who we have no records and know nothing about beyond his birth. He was born February of 1844. And it's interesting, I'll just point out that according to the dates, they would have already would have already been conceived before. Um they were married. So that's an interesting point to keep in mind. But anyway, Jane was only 18 when she married William and gave birth to their actual actual son, Richard. So in 1826 when this 77 year old man would have been born, Jane would have been either 10 or 11 years old. So I think we can safely say whoever this 77 year old man may have been if he existed at all. He was certainly not the son of William William of Jane Law. William and Jane Law. And I have to say, I am just genuinely amazed that people don't even do basic math before accepting, accepting these sources. So the fact is as I mentioned before, other than his birth and one census record that might be about him living in Pennsylvania in 1850 we have absolutely no information about Richard Law. We don't know where he lived beyond 1850. We don't know where or when he died. We know nothing at all about him. So there is no way to verify this record. Even Brian Hales doesn't include it, which says a lot because in my opinion, he includes a lot of dubious claims if they happen to fit his narrative. So I think we can very, very effectively authoritatively throw this source out and assume it has no validity. I don't know how this story came into being or who the BS or was, whether it was mcmurrin, whether it was this random old man. I don't, I, I'm not going to make any claims about that, but whatever the explanation, it seems very likely to me that this testimony did somehow or other grow out of mcmurrin desperate wishful thinking. This was a man who had witnessed some of the very worst pol polygamy had to offer in his own home. After seeing his agonized mother put all of her hope and the glorious reward um her suffering would earn for her. He had then watched polygamy disappear as a salve Solvi doctrine taking away even that hope. So he had watched his mother suffer like this, watched his father take a new wife who was close to his age and watched his mother deal with it the best she could putting her hope in the next life. Then you'd watch that hope disappear. I can imagine this would be that Joseph mcmurrin was likely at least as confused as anybody could possibly be about polygamy at this difficult time. So he must have desperately wanted to make sense of this myths and find some purpose and or meaning in it. At least that's my interpretation of what I know about his life. So this testimony which supported the sincerity of Joseph Smith and justified the necessity of polygamy. While also somehow acknowledging the pain it caused both men were in tears, seems to have been the best possible answer he could hope to provide. So honestly, my heart does go out to Joseph W mcmurrin and everybody else traumatized by
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_bW82iivA&t=01h54m45s 01:54:45]
the pain that this abomination of polygamy
polygamy inevitably caused and continues to cause.
But this report
yet again emphasizes how essential it is
to evaluate sources critically instead of just
accepting them at face value because they were written somewhere by someone
and we see them and we desperately want them to be true.
That's what I hope we will continue to do with all of the sources.
So thank you again for sticking around and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Church History]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Church History]][[Category:Expositor]][[Category:Joseph Smith]][[Category:Nauvoo]]
}}

86: The History is Never Settled w/ John Hamer - 132 Problems

2025-08-29T23:04:15Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 86: The History is Never Settled w/ John Hamer - 132 Problems
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 86
| date = 2023-10-01
| youtube_id = Dt1rySd11ek
| tags = Church History, Historical Malpractice, John Hamer
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Interview, John Hamer
| summary = I'm so thankful that John Hamer, a long-time leading voice on Joseph's polygamy was willing to sit down with me to talk about the evidence. I hope conversations like these can continue to happen, and can continue to move us all closer to truth.
| links = * [0:01:30]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM6O0md1Dfg John Hamer: Joseph Smith and Polygamy]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vecyhTyt6g John Hamer: Joseph Smith III's Unpragmatic Choice on Polygamy]
* [0:55:47]
* [https://restorationbookstore.org/pages/joseph-smith-fought-polygamy-online Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, by Richard and Pamela Price (read for free online)]
* [1:06:50]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-3-15-july-1843-29-february-1844/123 Joseph Smith original journal entry 5 October 1843 (“No man shall have but one wife.”)]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-march-31-december-1843/143 Revisions and additions to journal entry 5 October 1843]
* [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/faenrandir/a_careful_examination/d6ee663e933a8cb01b79ddc33fe1232ac3ef12e5/documents/polygamy/oct5-1843/manuscript-history-of-the-church-october-5-1843-d1-720px.jpg Revised text of journal entry 5 October 1843]
* [2:24:20]
* [https://archive.org/details/contributor0604eng/page/130/mode/2up?view=theater The Contributor (first mention of Whitney “revelation”)]
* [2:29:27]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/12d43acf-10e8-4e5c-b4fd-678613e4c6a3/0/0 Joseph Smith letter to the Whitneys]
* [1:46:38]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-october-1842/14 October 1842 Times and Seasons]
* [1:47:18]
* [https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-10 The Voice of Innocence, read by Emma Smith to the women of Nauvoo, March 1844]
* [2:27:08]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HheHqg4c3HQ Evaluation of 1842 Whitney "Revelation" by Rob Fotheringham]
* [3:17:30]
* [https://www.centreplace.ca/ Toronto Centre Place]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=00m00s 00:00]
Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy. I am so excited to bring you this conversation I was able to have in this episode. This is another one where I invited someone on who does not see eye to eye with me. But I thought that this was a great conversation. I'm so happy that John Hamer agreed to come on and talk to me. I'm really happy with how the conversation went and with how it ended. I always love when there are good feelings afterward. And I think we accomplished that in this discussion. So I'll be really um eager to hear people's thoughts after listening to this another long episode. But those of you who have been with me for a while, know, I always do recommend listening to episodes in order from the beginning. So you can understand the journey that we've been on and the things that we've already covered for those who are here for the first time. Welcome. Feel free to start here as well. And as always, I want to thank those who have been so generous and helpful to donate to this podcast. And I would invite anybody else too as well. If you feel so inclined and able, I really appreciate it. So, thank you so much for being here as we take this deep dive into the murky waters of Joseph's Polygamy. Welcome to this episode. I am actually really excited to have this conversation with my new friend John Hamer who I'm just meeting for the first time and um uh a listener, I think actually a critical listener sent me one of John's recent um presentations and lectures that he gave sort of to challenge me. And I found it very insightful to watch and interesting. And I reached out to John and asked if he'd be willing to come talk to me about it. And thank you so much John for being willing to say yes, that was really impressive to me. I always like when people are willing to um have conversations and kind of back up their words. So I appreciated that. So a quick introduction, John John Hamer. Um he has a very extensive resume in the community, Christ and the broader Mormon. And I would say probably post Mormon community. That's where I've seen you the most. John. Um He has a very interesting religious story that I'm really looking forward to finding out more about. He was raised L DS but began doubting the church and left as a teen. And in what seems to me a fascinating turn of events 10 years ago or so, um joined the community of Christ that, that used to be the RL DS church now, the community of Christ. And he's been serving, it seems very faithfully in that church. He's now a 70 he's the pastor, which I believe is similar to a bishop in our tradition. He's the pastor of the church Toronto congregation and also I believe has a very large online ministry if I understood that correctly, John. And um and I, I will not be able to include everything, but I know that he writes and edits books. He speaks often, he blogs, he's makes maps, he's a photographer, he studies history. He runs organizations. He gives many online presentations and I really did appreciate your um presentation on schisms and Mormonism. I know there have been many others that you've done, but he has a lot of information and lucky for us, he also comes on podcasts. So welcome John Hamer. Thank you so much for being
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=03m25s 03:25]
John Hamer: here. Thank you for that introduction. I'm happy to be here. Good. Well, I really appreciate it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=03m33s 03:33]
Michelle: Thank you. And um I wanted us to spend a little bit of time. Maybe I, I know we have so much to get into so much to talk about. I have sent your presentation to my listeners. So hopefully, some of them already have gained um that information, the two presentations I watched on Joseph Joseph's Polygamy and on Joseph Smith the third. So, so hopefully they should be up to date on some of those um some of those discussion points and anyone that is watching, if you would like to um pause here and go ahead and watch John's presentations first, feel free to do that. They're linked in the description box and then you will be able to come back and be a little more informed about the discussion, not necessary. But also, I think as we go through John, if we're able to refer to that, I can give time stamps so people can go watch the portion that we're talking about as well. So um so anyway, I'm I'm really happy to be able to talk to you. So I know we can't spend long on it because we have so much to discuss. But would you be willing to share a little bit of your faith journey? I just find that fascinating what um specifically, I guess you can share whatever you'd like, but I'd like to know what reached back out to you and drew you to the community of Christ and kind of how your process has gone.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=04m46s 04:46]
John Hamer: Um So I uh like you say, I have a long roots in the tradition. So my ancestors joined uh back uh in 1832 1833 the winter of that and moved to Kirtland and helped build the Kirtland Temple. So we've had that whole long legacy and I grew up Mormon. Um but uh became a doubting teenager over um, about a bunch of the different faith claims. And so things like historicity of the book of Abraham Book of Mormon and that sort of thing. But actually the, uh, breaking point for me was, uh, uh, sexism in the church. So I just did not think that, um, uh, it, I didn't agree with the position that only men should be in priest and that women shouldn't be able to share their giftedness in that same way. Uh And so was that back in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=05m40s 05:40]
Michelle: the seventies?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=05m42s 05:42]
John Hamer: Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm not that old,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=05m46s 05:46]
Michelle: I'm sorry, you were born in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=05m51s 05:51]
John Hamer: the seventies. I was born in 1970. So, yeah. So, no, I was definitely an active L DS in the seventies. I left when I became an adult. And so that was uh in, in 88. It's all right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=06m01s 06:01]
Michelle: Ok. I just, I just was thinking how progressive you were already, that's very forward thinking for a kid, a Mormon kid in the Midwest to be aware of that. That's,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=06m11s 06:11]
John Hamer: well, maybe so. I, I don't know, I feel like this was also uh this was a time, so the seventies was a time when I was growing up, it was a time when the Equal Rights Amendment was around. And uh and so definitely, um we were, I, I think we were very much in favor of all, all of that kind of equality. And so I was very uncomfortable as a child with the um uh the racist exclusion policy, you know, in terms of priesthood in the temple and all that sort of thing. Um And I was also, I was very comfortable even though that P I was happy that that was lifted and uh when I was a child again, but as a teenager going to seminary, um I was nevertheless taught uh by our seminary teachers, the same kind of um you know, racist preexistence doctrine or whatever as doctrine, it's not necessarily doctrine, but whatever the, the law that went behind that. And so I was also um turned off by that in terms of uh being in the church. And so ultimately, that's what just kind of led me to leave. I was uh um attracted al already into history. And so, um I went off and pursued my graduate studies in the University of Michigan. Uh and just left my entire Mormon identity behind. I started focusing on medieval history, but also ancient and classical history. And um and it was only much later um that I came back and found the movement when I started doing uh some of my own family history. And so, like I say, since my family history is all tied up with the restoration, um I actually went back and re explored uh Mormon history. So I had only been raised as a kid reading L DS history manuals and so forth things that had been approved by the church and uh, the church had a policy very much. The L DS church had a policy at that time of, uh, a lot of whitewashing and denying of its history and the manuals were made to be especially boring. And so I just assumed that, uh Mormon history was just intensely boring. And so I went to, um,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=08m23s 08:23]
Michelle: I mean, that sad, I think I probably felt the same way. That's tragic.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=08m28s 08:28]
John Hamer: It was tragic, you know. And so, I mean, I love, here's a kid who loves, loves history, you know. And so, and I, and I was having the struggles over my faith and I tried to get into it through the history. And so I went to Navoo when I was 13 and it was just an amazing for me to experience this place where, you know, my ancestors had lived where they had, you know, their house and all this kind of thing as they were trying to build like a perfect society and community. And, you know, they, I, I dreamed of wanting to, I had, I had, when I was on my paper out, I had dreams of how I could create, like how we could make a replica Nabu temple and put it back, you know, and get it rebuilt, you know. So how exciting when I actually did have a replica Nabu temple got built eventually. And um and yet, and yet, and I went home and I built Nabu out of Legos So, you know, in other words, I have like my entire, you know, this entire giant uh city of Nabu at like, because I was so interested in that. But unfortunately, um again, I couldn't find anything to sink my teeth into the um the only thing out of uh the church history uh that I remember being remotely interested in. Uh and I can even remember when from early morning seminary is uh the one lesson where they actually mentioned that not everybody went west that there were these other churches, there were the strang its and these other groups. And that, and I was like, wow, that's interesting. What, what is that about? You know? And so uh it was, when then I started doing that family history, I started going around uh the Midwest and visiting church history site sites. That's when I really started to encounter all the smaller churches. And it was on my 30th birthday when I went to the Kirtland Temple for the very first time that I met members of community of Christ. And so then, um from that, I started also getting involved in the um church history community. And so I started uh uh uh attending the Mormon History Association meetings and the John Whitmer Historical Association meetings. Uh And I also because like you mentioned, I'm a uh have a background in history and also in um map making. I uh very early on uh did a project where I mapped all of the, um, settlement of Caldwell County, which was the latter day Saint County in Missouri at the time of the 1838 Marvin Missouri War. And so I showed up to my first JWH a, um, with a map of that that was like 7 ft long that showed every single piece of property that everybody owned. And so all of these, um, historians whose books I had read, you know, uh like Steve le swe the guy who wrote, you know, the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, um like Jan Ships, you know, like, uh you know, all of these other just great historians who were there, they're all like, who's this guy who's this guy?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=11m16s 11:16]
Michelle: Yeah, you just illustrated their, their work. They got to see it in.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=11m21s 11:21]
John Hamer: And so, and so that was nice for me because I had a nice foray into it right away. And so, um at that very first conference, even uh Jan Ship said, uh to me, you know, I am the incoming president of this association and I would love for you to serve on my, my program committee. And that just kind of brought me directly into uh John Whitmer, uh which is the community of Christ version of the Mormon History Association. And within a couple of years, uh my husband and I, Mike uh were made the directors of the Association and over time, the directors of it. And then, um and later when we retired from that and passed that on, I became the president of the association, but usually it's an annual historian is the president each year elected annually. And, um, um, anyway, in the, in the course of that, I got to know members of community of Christ very well. And over time, uh at first II, I felt that uh the, the church had made all of these changes that were the kinds of things that Post Mormons are or liberal Mormons even also are constantly complaining about their, the L DS church. And I sort of was kind of listening to them. The internet had just barely started and, and I was uh meeting other former Mormons or inactive Mormons, Post Mormons or liberal Mormons on, on bulletin boards and things like that. And uh and so I was kind of always kind of saying you guys want all these things and this church over here has all these things. Uh maybe, maybe some of you should start joining this other church because it's already done all the things that you want and your church is never going to do those things no matter how much uh the, the liberal Mormon um fever dream is that it's just around the corner that all, all, you know, women's ordination, all these things are gonna happen, they're not going to happen. And uh and I'm sorry to say that I said that all the way back when I left the church and, you know. You know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=13m20s 13:20]
Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I don't want, I don't want to alienate. I mean, I, I'm, I'm up in the air about what should happen, what shouldn't happen because I'm an active member. But I, but I hear you, I know that a lot of people do. A lot of people do leave the L DS church and go to the community of Christ, seeing it as a good next step. I think that that's quite common
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=13m41s 13:41]
John Hamer: and that's what I tried to get people to have that as an idea. Right. So it really was hardly an idea 20 years ago when I started um promoting that among uh liberal Mormons. And so that's been
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=13m54s 13:54]
Michelle: you, that's been you. That's made that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=13m58s 13:58]
John Hamer: that bridge. It's not only me, but I've been certainly one of the people who pioneered that. So I kind of like to say that at a certain point. Um You know, there was a bunch of, let's say liberal, um Americans who say if so and such and such happens, gets elected president again or something like that. I'm moving to Canada, you know, and, and Americans say that all
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=14m18s 14:18]
Michelle: the time I was there. I couldn't see either way. I could stay with either candidate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=14m24s 14:24]
John Hamer: Yeah, exactly. So actually it happens both ways. I said liberal, but actually people say they're moving to Canada either way. So one way or the other. And uh and in this particular case, then we started getting that to the point. Well, you know, people now got to say you started saying, well, if this is this the November policy, I'm joining the community of Christ or something like that, right? And so that became kind of a uh an awareness that is now made I think kind of there and that has now started happening. So there's actually, yes, lots and lots of um wonderful um member, former members of the L DS church uh have all joined community of Christ. And I'm very happy with what they're doing and how they're able to be doing. Um uh having their, having their voice heard, they're empowered, they're able to do ministry that they just wouldn't be welcome in the L DS church because the L DS church is so um intensely programmed. Uh you know, so that everybody is on the same page, you have your manuals, you're supposed to be um you know, doing this particular thing on this particular Sunday and everybody all around the world has the same formula and that kind of a thing which is AAA way to do a church. And so give you grace is a very different way to do a church, you know, so the kind of uh pre uh correlation style latter day saints where uh essentially the individual congregations like this is my congregation here. I'm coming to you from the uh the church in downtown Toronto, Toronto Center place of the Toronto congregation. And we are, you know, really free and at liberty to do all kinds of stuff. Uh as a, as a congregation. Um that is just, it just would be inconceivable for the L DS church. So for example, we are a um uh incorporated as a charity. It is a, it is a subordinate charity to the, the national Church in Canada. But as a charity, we're able to do all kinds of our own, you know, our own things, our own budget, elect our own officers, our own priorities, um deciding what we're, what we're going to focus on and so forth. So for example, as you mentioned, one of our major programs has been to uh have an online ministry which is, has now become the community of Christ's largest online ministry.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=16m38s 16:38]
Michelle: OK. OK. Is that center point? Is it, is it center point that center place, I'm sorry, center place just like in the,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=16m48s 16:48]
John Hamer: in the revelation. Uh you know, the place of the city of Zion is, you know, at a spot in, in independence, not, you know, very close to the border or whatever. And the, and the the spot for the temple is that, you know, near the center place or whatever, this is kind of, you know, that that particular revelation from the DNC. So we're playing off of that when we named, when we named our building here in downtown Toronto, the center place for the Toronto congregation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=17m13s 17:13]
Michelle: OK. OK. That's nice. OK. So I, I want, I don't want to spend too much time on all of this, but I am, I did a um a discussion with a just lovely couple from the restoration branches of the um that broke off from the RL DS church. And um and then I got a little bit of pushback from some members of community of Christ based on. So I, so I wanted to be do a fair representation of the community of Christ. So let me just ask you a few questions about the community of Christ. My understanding and you can tell me if that's accurate. So my understanding is, is there's not, you know, there's kind of a fine line like, like you said, the L DS church is very much um what's the, I can't think of the word like franchised in a way like it's very coordinate, we all do the same things, you know, and then there's a spectrum and it seems like the community of Christ is very much on the other side of the spectrum where there aren't even standardized beliefs and ideas. Like it seems that you can, you know, like some people in the community of Christ do hold the book of Mormon to be the word of God and uh and scripture and other people very much do not. And some people hold Joseph Smith to have been a prophet and some hold him to have been, maybe it seems to me a larger portion hold him to be, have been a bit of a Charlatan more than that. Am I understanding that correctly? Like there's a broad range of beliefs.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=18m33s 18:33]
John Hamer: So, so we're non creedle, which means that we don't have a, um, you don't have to in order to join the church, say, um, uh, like the, for example, the nicene creed, I believe in one God in three parts and so forth, all that kind of thing. Uh And so that, but that doesn't mean that we don't uphold a set of basic beliefs. So community of Christ as a church has uh upholds a set of it even called the basic beliefs. And it also has other other um we also uphold other documents that are sort of like that. And so those include things like our mission initiatives. So we all share uh five mission initiatives and we have nine enduring principles, enduring principles of the restored Gospel. Um But we are not, we're, we're especially not legalistic and so when literal. And so in a lot of these cases, um we are interpreting both in terms of the uh description of the, the basic beliefs, but also in our, our mission initiatives and principles, we are interpreting the spirit of all of those as opposed to let's say literal and legalistic interpretation of that. And so, for example, then we wouldn't have, I mean, actually, I would even say go back and going back to, let's say the doctor, uh the uh the word of wisdom, uh I would say if you actually were being legalistic about it and literal, you would, you would actually read it and it would say this is a word of wisdom, not by way of commandment or constraint, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=20m06s 20:06]
Michelle: And so we should all be drinking beer and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=20m08s 20:08]
John Hamer: we should all be drinking beer in other words. So it's not, it's not, it's, it's interpreted legalistically and not literal in the L DS church. And, and as you probably know the history of that, which is that it became uh uh a test of faith in the 20th century, early 20th century after the L DS church abandoned Plym and needed some identity markers and so forth. Um And so, um, you know, like I mentioned Jan Ships when uh she was always tells in her first RL Ds story when she met, uh Bob Flanders is one of the great old um historians of the RL DS church or first RL DS person that she'd ever met. She, she'd had this experience, um you know, being AAA teacher and so forth in Logan, so kind of like uh old timey, you know, L DS times and, and so forth. And so she's at this conference and Bob Flanders sits down with a, with a, a mug of coffee and she just looks at it like a, like a Mormon whip, like Oh my God, you brought the devil to, you know, to this table. And then Bob Flanders notices that and he looks at her and he says, and he says to her, you'll notice that. I let coffee get cold before I drink it. Yeah. Yeah, that's great.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=21m20s 21:20]
Michelle: I was like drinking my herbal tea. It's now I might
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=21m23s 21:23]
John Hamer: do so. So what I would just say about that is that so, yeah, there are members of community Chris, I've got a great friend, um Ron Romig, who is the former archivist of the church. He baptized me. So he um his interpretation of the word of wisdom is that you shouldn't uh drink alcohol and coffee and tea and so forth and he doesn't drink coffee, you know. And so, and he's a member of the church and that's his interpretation of it. And I think that that's, you know, great, you know, um my interpretation of the word of wisdom is that we should look to what um contemporary science is telling us, you know. So there was a, there were folk concerns in this particular case about hot drinks and so forth at the time. Uh And that we should, and then in general, we should be following a principle of doing things that are healthy and, and doing things in moderation and so forth. And so I consider that to be a um I consider that to be words of wisdom still that are, that are appropriate and that informs my, my own spiritual practice and life, right? So, not try, trying not to um uh do things that are immoderate and therefore unhealthy and so forth. Uh But I don't consider it like this, um, you know, one drop of alcohol or, or drinking a caffeinated coke or whatever it would be in, in other words, a sort of uh uh uh hard rules thing, but rather spirit of thing. And I would say that that's in general how, how things are going. So in terms of you're talking about Book of Mormon as scripture, Book of Mormon is scripture and community of Christ. So that is part of our canon of Scripture. So um um not the pearl of Great Price because the pearl of great price is actually a uh a compilation or pamphlet that was put together in, in England by the Brigham Church many decades after. Um the church is split apart. So that's not part of our canon, but our canon is uh the Bible, Old and New Testament and then uh the Book of Mormon and then the Doctrine and covenants. And we have uh the shared sections that are from uh the nu- up through the NAV period, then the Eld church uh added a whole bunch of other sections that are based on Joseph Smith material in the late 19th century. That's not part of our doctrine and covenants, but every subsequent.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=23m42s 23:42]
Michelle: So you don't have section 132 anywhere as any. I know that our sections diverge. Yeah. So do you still have the traditional section? 101? You do as 124 I believe. Is that correct? Ok. So that's like it's kind of fun to see the differences between our two doctrines and covenant. That's a fun if anyone wants to do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=24m00s 24:00]
John Hamer: that. Yeah. So DNC 132 like you say, so this is a um the document dates to nu but it was not presented to the church openly in nu um It was presented privately secretly to the high council and so forth, the presiding high council, but it was not um uh it was not brought before a church vote. And so our understanding of what becomes scripture in community of Christ is uh a prophet like um and we recognize Joseph Smith Junior as our founding prophet, the first prophet of the church of community of Christ. Um a prophet uh uh the what, what prophets calling is to bring inspired counsel to the body of the church, the body of the church then meeting in a what you call originally a general conference, what we now call a world conference. Um All of the delegates to that conference are called upon to be prophetic people and to discern whether God is calling us to add that to our canon of scripture. And so I have been a delegate to the world conference before while that we are considering adding inspired counsel to the scriptures. And when that happens, then, then that becomes scripture. And so and so and so that's how so so when you're talking about understanding the book of Mormon as scripture or not, we understand it as scripture, but people can understand each individual book and text of scripture in different ways. Then I'd say the more, let's say literal way. I think that scripture is usually understood in, in the L DS tradition.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=25m39s 25:39]
Michelle: OK. So a couple of questions um just quick, like trivia, things are delegates elected by congregations. Is that how the delegates to the conference?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=25m48s 25:48]
John Hamer: So specifically though, um so my congregation will send delegates to our, our, what we, the mission level, which is like um um a district or something like that in the L DS tradition. So I'm trying to think of like uh if all the stakes are make up a district or an area or region or something like that. So, um so Eastern Canada is a mission center and so there's about 43 congregations including mine and we elected delegates to that conference and we're going to have our conference in a couple of weeks here. And then the conference, the conference, the Eastern Canada Conference elects delegates to the World Conference. So, yes, it's elected.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=26m27s 26:27]
Michelle: OK. So it's really interesting. Oh, you're elected as pastor
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=26m33s 26:33]
John Hamer: every year. We have an election. And so, um and so it is not like the L DS tradition where the pastors or the bishops or whatever appointed from above, but rather the congregation itself elects its own pastor.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=26m46s 26:46]
Michelle: Ok. That's so interesting. See, it's so interesting because, like, religion is tricky. Right? I mean, I think the L DS has very much gone to the side of, sort of, I hate to use the word authoritarianism but authoritarianism, you know, like that was kind of the Brigham, my tradition and the community of Christ seems to be almost in some ways, like to my L DS eyes, it looks more like a political organization in a lot of ways. I know that the, like the church became very, you know, liberal politically and, and it's mostly involved in sort of political movements, not in terms of electing the president. But, you know, like it, it, it has a political cause feel to it and a political um way of. Right. So, so it's, it's, I, I don't, I don't know that there's a right or wrong. It's interesting to consider the differences, you know. And so, I mean, it's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=27m33s 27:33]
John Hamer: hard not to make the analogy, right. So the analogy is when you take an organization, so we have a religious, these are two churches, right? So they're religious organizations and operating uh you know, hopefully on faith and so forth and, and, and with, uh uh right, you know, in good intent on, on the fact on the part participants in the adherence and I think that that's largely the case for all the members and in these, in these groups. Um But then when you make an analogy to a government, which is different, so then like you say, the one of them will look like, um you know, some kind of an authoritarian oligarchy that is passed on by seniority or something like that through self appointment. And the other one looks like a democracy where, and, and with all the problems of democracy, which is to say that you would have factions and what can be political parties. And when you, um and when you specifically talk to, um uh for example, you, you know, wonderful folks who are, like you say, restoration as people who um parted ways with the main line of the church, maybe in the eighties. Um It, it felt especially at that time period, like there were political factions and one whole faction decided that they couldn't be part of the, of the body anymore, right? And, um and, and unfortunately, that caused a lot of uh uh uh hurt on both sides the way that all went down. And, um and I, I wasn't a member of community of Christ at that time, but I have subsequently been, you know, a pastor within the tradition. And so, um I can say that 11 one blessing that we've had in my congregation is that um by having our online ministry by, by reaching out by having our services on online every Sunday, people have been able to watch without having the barrier to entry of having to go in a what is an alien church that you're scared of maybe or mad at or angry about. And so there have actually been um a large number of um people who become restorations at certain points and for whom maybe that wasn't as their objections weren't as strong anymore. They're in the pandemic. They start watching our services and they have rejoined the church. But being by being a member of the Toronto congregation, so that is another distinction between the um community of Christ and the L DS church in the L DS church based on where you live geographically, you are assigned a congregation or award in community of Christ. Again, it's a um self directed. So the individual member can decide any congregation they want to have their membership with anywhere on the planet. So, so and so, in fact, actually, one of the times the recorder, the world church recorder um will just give us notices that, oh, these people are now members of your congregation, you know, so I'm like, oh, I've never heard of them before. So now we have to reach out to, you know, we reach out to them, you know, these folks in Michigan or these other folks that are in Arizona or so forth, are now part of the Toronto Canada um congregation. And so And so our, actually our congregation because of uh movement online, uh the majority of the, the members actually don't live within driving distance anymore of this um, church facility.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=30m46s 30:46]
Michelle: So, well, that's interesting. That makes it a very different thing than the, like I said in our, you know, when I was introducing myself, I serve in the nursery, you know, you can't serve in the nursery when you're not meeting. So it's a very, that, that, that's, it's a very different feel, I guess, kind of continuing on from when we had to shut down. So. Ok. Well, thank you for giving that. Um Overall explanation. I think, I think like one of the things I've learned, I think that since um maybe this is the reason but, but since many people who are disaffected from the L DS church tend to go into the community of Christ. What I've, what I've been told is that the Salt Lake community of Christ tends to have a little bit more of an anti Joseph. Like I've been told, you shouldn't judge the whole community of Christ by the flavor in Utah where, where there maybe is a little bit more um more free dismissiveness and criticism of, say Joseph Smith. And you know, because that's one of the discussion points is um people who anyway,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=31m49s 31:49]
John Hamer: well, so, so people can be anywhere. So when I'm saying he is the founding prophet of the church, that doesn't mean you have to have. So again, we don't have this um perspective on prophets that that prophets are, are perfect or that prophets are directly talking to God the way um God talk, the way we talk to other people. God doesn't talk that way. And so, um and so instead, what we're talking about is everybody, we're, we're all called to be prophetic people. Everybody in the tradition is um called to receive personal revelation and so forth. The difference for the prophet is that they have an additional calling, which is to bring inspired counsel to the church. And then the church decides whether or not it, it's going to become scripture. But uh but, but that doesn't mean that they are perfect in their, in their personal lives. And so people in community of Christ are all over the place and everywhere, all over the place. And so, um and so people have had to come to terms with uh with what we call the new Mormon history, right? And so up until um up until the middle of the 20th century, when Von Brodie wrote uh you know, her biography, no man knows my history. Um There really had been almost no um there had been almost no actual like historians who'd done uh surveys of the movement. And so a lot of uh not trained historians anyway. And so there had been um uh in the L DS church, what we call, you know, you have church historians but, and we had church historians in the RL DS church, but these are not people who were trained in the academic discipline of history. And so they're really what we would probably call Antiquarians, uh, which is to say they, they are collecting well or apologist to. And so, and so, you know, in other words, they're collecting, um, old stuff and they're combining it together. Um, and, uh, and, and then, and they're telling the story, they understand it and, and so forth. And, um, and, and in general, those, none of those, mostly those folks, I'm not gonna say none, mostly those folks are, are, are coming from a position of, of earnestness and they're telling it like, um they believe it. And so so in general where people are not being um uh on, you know, uh deliberately deceitful. And so, uh and that, and that starts to change um when, so when there's a huge transformation in, in all of North American society at the end of World War Two, when, when suddenly, you know, the GIS come home, they're uh they're sent to colleges on the G I Bill and so forth and suddenly you go from a population where um whatever it would have been 3% or something like that of the population had a college degree to where we are now where, you know, it's, it's like three quarters or something like that. And, and so as a result of that, that changes. Um the number of people, for example, who have had uh training, for example, in the academic discipline of history. And that's where we get for the very first time I mentioned Jan Ships, um and Bob Flanders, you know, meeting at the beginning of the um the organization of the Mormon History Association, which is, which happens at that same time period, you know, the late sixties, the early seventies, John Whitmer is that that old as well. So suddenly you have people who are trained in this and when that happens, then you suddenly have actual history as opposed to antiquarian memory and, and sacred story that had had developed, you know, and, and unfortunately, um people weren't equipped for it and the early historians um because they were encountering uh such an entrenched vision of a sacred story, an identity myth that people that we had built up both in the RL DS church and in the L DS church because of those identity myths that are so central to how we understand ourselves because those are kind of rooted in the past, what we understand to be history but not, but not academic history. Then unfortunately, those were um susceptible to the actual uh the actual work of academic historians who unfortunately tended to be debunkers as a result, you know. And so von Brody is not writing her, her gray as a um with a pastoral care to the Mormon people. So you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=36m19s 36:19]
Michelle: Yeah. OK. That makes so, ok, there's so many, so many things I want to talk about. So I guess, um we can start with a couple of points of agreement that I think that we have. And then I do wanna talk a little bit just going a little bit to the historians craft because I think that's an interesting discussion to have and then, and then maybe we can go on to talking specific about Joseph's polygamy. And so, so one thing I think that we do agree on that um that you mentioned is that we both think 132 for the most part is quite deplorable. And that polygamy as a whole is awful and was never of God, right? So I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=37m00s 37:00]
John Hamer: agree with that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=37m02s 37:02]
Michelle: OK, so I, I like that, I like that there were some things that we agreed on and then as I was watching the presentations, um a couple of other things that we agree on is I think you did acknowledge that um contemporary evidence is important to establish the truth of stories. And, and I think agree that contemporary evidence um is more highly prioritized than legal reminiscences in general. And um especially if there's um logical problems with the story, like you use the example of the, the women breaking up their China to put in on the, on the Kirtland Temple. And those are nice later reminiscences, but they're not historically accurate for several reasons. Right? And because there
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=37m42s 37:42]
John Hamer: are always about that because because because everyone loves the Kirtland Temple China story.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=37m48s 37:48]
Michelle: I actually loved hearing it wasn't true. They were already so poor and why break China? Like you said, they like put some shards of metal in it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=37m58s 37:58]
John Hamer: Yeah. So no, I mean that's the idea. I think the truth of that story is that they sacrificed everything to build that and they sacrificed so much that they, they literally went bankrupt and they, they lost everything and they had to name Joseph and his, he had to flee Ohio for, for debts and so forth. And, um, and that's certainly true. So my, my great, great, great grandparents, like I said, who were, who helped build it. They, they were loyalists. And so they moved to Far West with, um, with Joseph and Sydney. And, um, anyway, and so they lost everything too. They had to start all over again, you know. So, yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=38m35s 38:35]
Michelle: so that was just an example of like the, the point I want to make was that contemporary evidence. I agree is much more, um is, is very important when we're trying to seek historical truth. And, and then, um, I've really liked this quote, you said, nor should historians have conclusion driven, conclusion, driven apologetics where one starts with the conclusion first and then cherry picks the evidence to insist that because something is impossible to disprove it might have happened. And, um, I think that that is so accurate. And what's interesting is as I've gone on this journey because, you know, two years ago, I very, less than two years ago, I very much believe that Joseph was the originator of polygamy and I very much don't believe that anymore. And so it's interesting to come to it from this direction and see what seems to be that happening on the other side at this point. That's, that's been my perspective. So that's why I really wanted to talk about it. And another thing that I like that you said is primary contemporary accounts. I guess this is my summation of what you said, I'm not quoting you primary contemporary account should be prioritized over later accounts and that we need to take into consideration bias and motive when we're evaluating accounts. And I, and, and then what I wanted to add that I think you would agree with is that if we do have any elements of sort of tangible and like tangible proof, hard physical evidence, that should be very high priority because that's not subject to fraud or bias or anything like that. And then, and then I think that that should include things like when we can show a pattern of bias, forgery, falsehood, you know, that that should play into it. And I think we should also consider lack of evidence when we would very much expect to find evidence, especially when we do find it in the in in very similar situations with other people. Those are
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=40m30s 40:30]
John Hamer: like negative evidence is like you're saying. So even when you have negative evidence is still evidence. So for example, um when we are evaluating, let's say the, the Christmas story that exists in the gospel of Matthew, so Matthew uh in creating that account, uh tells a story that her the great massacres, all of the Children in the area around Bethlehem. Uh and, and, and where there's no evidence of that in any other source, it's only, it's the only found in Matthew that is not found in any other Christian source, any other source. And unfortunately, that story, you know, it was just a huge thing to have happened, you know, you're killing all hundreds, at least of kids, right? And um and what we do have, unfortunately, so that why this is why I'm using this as an example of negative evidence. We have um a very detailed uh unusually detailed accounts of um that kind of time period in Judea Palestine because of the work of Josephus who wrote such an elaborate history of uh including the Herod, the great time period and is no fan of Herod, the great. So, so he is very, very eager to tell all kinds of um rotten stories about Harrod. So it's not a propagandist for Herod who would be um who would be hiding that kind of a thing. And so historians uh are all pretty universally agreed there. Um I would say all no apologetic, sorry. So again, whenever you're getting into things about, about religion, unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of um let's say people who are, who are accredited scholars who are, let's say Christian who are trying to um who would, who would like to have as much of the gospel account be real as possible, who might argue in favor of that because all we're talking about in this case, we're just talking about negative evidence, right? But the negative evidence is pretty overwhelming in that case that if that had happened, we would have some kind of confirmation somewhere. And, and instead, what we can say is the author of Matthew is attempting to um craft that gospel in order to make it mirror the Torah to make it mirror the five books of Moses. And, and what and how, how is Moses, you know, the Moses story uh you know, again begins with a massacre of innocence as Moses is put upon the river.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=42m59s 42:59]
Michelle: OK. II, I hadn't studied that one. So that's really interesting. I think that's a great, that's a perfect example of what we're talking about. You. If you, if you don't find evidence that you should find, then you can hold something in, in something becomes more suspect than it would otherwise be. And I do want to say also, I just have to push back a little bit on saying that it's religious historians. I just think it's people because I think it's about belief and I think that belief goes way beyond religion. Often. There are scientific beliefs that people argue that, you know, like, like evidence is different than belief and it shows up everywhere. So I have to cut the, the religious people.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=43m35s 43:35]
John Hamer: Well, I'm just going to say, I mean, it's not just them, I'm just saying in that particular case, that's where you can see an agenda but behind some of those guys. Um But, but, but I agree with you that it doesn't, it does not only religious at all because actually one of my major, um one of the major people that I end up arguing with, uh uh uh because I, I do, I also have studied a lot, the, um the historical Jesus, right? And so there is a, um all historians of the historical Jesus agree that there was a historical Jesus. So that is a, um we have sufficient evidence that everyone who has looked into this question with one exception. So, so here's the problem. So in other, so there is a guy who is accredited, in other words, he's got a, you know, a degree of phd and so forth and he um is a promoter on youtube of the idea that Jesus didn't exist. It's a myth that people later made up and it is a very popular thing for what I would say, a bunch of post Christians would like everything to be a total fraud or something like that. And so, and so they, they get it in their head and they think, oh, that's a great idea. I want to believe that and it sounds very compelling as he's saying all those things. Um, and so, and, and so I personally, he's not religious, he's an atheist. Now, in other words, I, I personally also see that in this particular case that the only way you can come to this conclusion is that it's agenda driven. Um in other words, an apologetic position because it is so clearly not, we have the evidence. There's, you know, that's just, it's not, you can't draw this conclusion from the historical evidence, you know, that there was no,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=45m18s 45:18]
Michelle: yeah, that's, that's a good example of it. So, yeah, that's, it's so OK, so moving forward, I think the place where we disagree is that from what I understand? Um I, I, like I have now come to believe that Joseph Smith actually was not the originator of polygamy and was not involved in it. And I, it seems to me that you think that that is not a reasonable um that it, it's not reasonable to conclude that based on the evidence. And so, so that's what I think would be an interesting. Did I say that accurate? No, no, no. Yeah. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=45m48s 45:48]
John Hamer: not only just not reasonable, but I'm just saying that all historians who have looked at it. So there's a total historical consensus. In other words, historians have weighed in on this. And Joseph Smith is the originator or in the minimum. Joseph Smith is participating in polygamy even if you so originator, you know, we, we there may be some wiggle room on that. But, and so, so for example, when I'm talking about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure that doesn't bring in on to it. Did he walk on water or all that kind of thing? That is not, that's not the question, you know, but just the existence that is 100% where, you know, not 100%. But anyway, all all historians of the question, um think the mythic, this position is a joke. And so in this particular case, the evidence for Joseph Smith's participation in polygamy in nu is uh is so overwhelming that all, all historians are agreed about it. And so, and so that's what, that's what I'm arguing. And so there's not a place about. And so I appreciate that in the L DS tradition, especially, you know, and I talked about this, we, when we, when we were um even talking about our, our, our identity myths, our sacred stories that we have told that um in the L DS tradition, there has been a um an idea that, that pa the past is a place where we are allowed to have beliefs about it in other words, or rather that that's where we should have that our faith can be resting on beliefs about the past. Um And, and, but that's not where I would argue as a pastor in the latter day saint tradition movement that we should ever be. For me, that's um for us that is like building um building our house upon the sand of history. And then when the historians come in and tell you, you know, the, the storm rages and everything like that our, our house of faith is going to collapse or it has or it's gonna get so, um or it's gonna get so eaten out and worn under that, that you end up with this, um let's say limited geography book of Mormon theory where the nephites are 1220 people living in some cave in Guatemala because you're trying to preserve the, the possibility that it's actually historical. And so you misread the entire text, which is, which is a, which is a hemispheric um understanding, you know, of the, of the, with when it was written in order to try to preserve it. That's like saying there was not a universal flood, there was a historical Noah, but he only got on a boat in one little tiny place. And there were maybe only, you know, not, you know, in other words, it wasn't all the animals or whatever you want. You're so desirous of making it historical that you lose the meaning of it. And so that's why I would say instead that, that as a people of faith, we should be building, you know, our testimonies, you know, on the rock and that is, you know, our relationship to God and to Christ and so forth and not having, um, not building our faith on history. So that would just be my argument.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=48m42s 48:42]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. So there's a lot I want to get into that. I, I want to first ask you a question because um I think, I think this would be interesting to me to hear you answer because as I said, I did just up until recently, even after I had studied polygamy. And III, I mentioned that I believed fervently in polygamy for most of my life and then started studying it in the scriptures. And the scriptures are what convinced me was never of God. Despite the fact that my grandmother was a polygamist, you know, in the L DS church
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=49m12s 49:12]
John Hamer: post my ancestors too, by the way, polygamist. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=49m15s 49:15]
Michelle: Yeah. And so, and so, but I still, you know, thought, of course, it was Joseph Smith. I just, he was wrong. And that's fine. And my perspective was that was why he was allowed to be killed if you know, and I, and I was willing to struggle with Joseph Smith and be like, you know, that's fine. I value the book of Mormon. That doesn't mean I have to think that Joseph Smith is a great guy. It's kind of where I was based on polygamy and some other things, right? And so it's been my step. So I guess my question is I sorry, I should get to the question. Why do you think that this um I don't know if I should call it a movement but this perspective is growing so quickly um among particularly L DS people. I don't know, I don't know beyond just my community. But in my, in the L DS community, this um perspective that Joseph was not involved in polygamy, but fought it is growing exponentially. And I'm curious to know why you think that is.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=50m09s 50:09]
John Hamer: Um So there's a couple of reasons I think, why, why it's growing so fast. So, one is the L DS church um when it became an anti polygamist church, which was not in 1890 in 1890 it became or whatever with the manifesto, the official declaration. Number one, it became again a we are lying about polygamy, uh you know, church, you know, and so it is only with uh the second manifesto and especially the third and final manifesto in the early 20th century that um that the L Ds church actually became an anti polygamist church. And then when it became an anti polygamist church, the L DS church, you know, went all out in a lot of cases and tried to, you know, um attack everybody who was continuing to be polygamist and, and trying to get them rounded up and arrested and, and it's, and it still continues to be that and it also uh purged its history of all of this stuff. So it's, this was not in the manuals, you know, it's not in the movies if you, if you go and, and you look at the, all of the, the phony history that the L DS church presents of itself all the time, like when, in terms of the Statue Gardens, when you're just trying to, you know, it's like, it's almost like you're trying to make it. Um you're trying to make history, you know, really be the way it is and you, and you make it, make it in bronze there, you know, and so it's just, it's just Joseph and Emma, you know, and, and, and that's going to be true for everybody that doesn't, you know, the, the teachings of the prophet Brigham Young is also not talking about all of all of his wives, you know, and so forth. And so it is, it, it got purged all, all, all across. So it's not just about Joseph Smith and, and, and Ju and Brigham Young and uh everybody from Brigham Young to Wilfred Woodruff, you know, are, are in the period of time when the L DS church was openly living polygamy and, uh and was, you know, publishing it and so forth and, and pronouncing it and that it could never stop. So anyway, in other words, it was very open but it went to hiding it. Right. And so I grew up in the L DS church in the, in the seventies. Um I remember, uh, as a first grader, you know, some, some kid in, I lived in New Jersey, some kid asked me, oh, you're a Mormon. How many, how many moms do you have? And I'm like, what are you talking about, kid? What are you talking about? I never, you know, and I, like, I went, I went home and I asked my mom about this. Is it true that uh that, you know, Mormons, you know, whatever were polygamous and things like that. And she says, she says, yes, uh it's true and we, our, our ancestors were polygamous, but we are always descended from the first wife. And I'm like, this wasn't a question that I had, you know what I mean? This was not a concern that I had, you know, are we from the first wife? I'm like, what? You know, so I mean, not only got this confirmation, you know what I mean again? Because it's not something, I mean, I was like a studious kid, you know, ultimately, you know, on my way to be the deacon Squire present all those kind of things, you know, so I was aware of all this stuff, very active Mormon kid, but I've never heard of any of this stuff. And so, and so it was, it was only then like, I say when I confronted my mom and then I actually not only had that transmission that we actually descended, my, my grandparents and great grandparents, not grandparents, but anyway, great, great, great grandparents and so forth were polygamous. But there was even this transmission of what must have been a Utah cultural bias, you know, about which way are you from and so forth because that, that got transmitted down to me as a kid in the seventies even. So. Um So I guess what I would say is that, that why is this taken off now? So because on the one hand, um there has been a purging of this from the L DS church history in a way that actually people in the community of Christ are, are shocked by, they're like, what, how is it that all of these Mormons don't know that, you know, that Joseph was a, was a polygamist, don't they always beat that over our heads with that? In other words? So we've never in community price in the RL DS church. We've never had the shift that Mormons have all made where they have purged this out of their collective memory. We never had, we never got on that page that we knew that that was happening. And I'll tell you, we, we don't, we're not um up to date on a lot of stuff in, in, in the congregation. So a dear um lady here who uh we had a an L DS member that she was, uh, who was also a member of our church. He was a dual citizen and every, and he would keep on getting kicked out of his congre his Mormon ward when he would, because he wouldn't give up coffee and then he'd come and hang out with us, but then he would get bored of us because he wanted to talk more about the book of Mormon and stuff like that. Anyway, so then you go back and every time you go back, um um this lady from my congregation um wanted to come up with all the old polemics about why Briga mis were wrong. And so she comes at me with, OK, well, tell me all about Adam God, the Adam God theory. And I'm like, no, that won't help. You know that there is, we still, we still haven't got the memo that, that, that the L DS church doesn't have Adam God anymore. So, you know, and so anyway, so that, that's kind of where we're at. So what I would say is that's how, that's how that's happened. And then, and then most recently what happened um in the same way that I kind of suggested to you that uh one person who is very active as a blogger or on the internet in podcasts and things like that can introduce into a people, hey, if this and this happens, uh I'm leaving the L DS church and moving to community of Christ, you know, if, uh, in that same way, um, a couple handful of people back in the early two thousands, like Rock Waterman and, and Denver Snuffer, um, got a hold of some old RL DS antiquarian stuff, non his history. And, um, uh, well, if you're
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=55m56s 55:56]
Michelle: talking about the prices, books, the prices, books, those were actually the first volume was published in 2000. So those weren't old. I mean, I can see that you're saying they were Antiquarian in their procedure from your perspective, but they're not old like, OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=56m10s 56:10]
John Hamer: so Joseph is published in 2000, you're saying?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=56m14s 56:14]
Michelle: Right. Right. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=56m19s 56:19]
John Hamer: so what I would say, it's all that is based on the RL Ds Antiquarian claims. So they, they, they published a new book that, that pulls that all together what the old RL Ds Antiquarian claims are. So, in other words, it's not a historian book. It isn't dealing with the historical evidence at all. It's a, um it's a polemic book that is based on old RL Ds polemics that all community of Christ historians understand are not legitimate. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=56m45s 56:45]
Michelle: OK, so I have a super a ton of questions there. So um so OK, I do want to respond but first I have to say like, like I know in our exchanges and in your presentation, I heard you say, um quite, you know, quite fervently and repeatedly that all historians agree and what I find interesting there as I was thinking about it. I, so in the L DS tradition and I think this has been different in the community of Christ tradition. But we have what I see as an unfortunate idea that, you know, that is still somewhat with us that once the prophets have spoken, the thinking has been done, right? And I, and I kind of hear echoes of that in this, once the historians have spoken, the thinking has been done. It's, it's a very similar kind of priestly class because as I look at it, see, I, I very much disagree with why this is growing so fast because I know my experience and I know those who I've been in connection with and it's, we, all of us were absolutely knew about polygamy and absolutely knew about Joseph's polygamy. I never didn't know that Joseph was a polygamist and um and it's actually been things like the Joseph Smith papers and it's been this evidence pouring out that is available to us. Now, that wasn't before. That has really been impactful. Like when someone um shares something um that, that's impactful. It's not a claim from, from, it's not some polemics or as you, you know, like it's not something the price is said, it might be something that the prices showed. But even there, we have a lot more now than when the prices started doing their work. And in fact, um I haven't read fully the prices books but, um, people have sent me quotes from them or different pages from them or told me things to look up or, you know, I think the prices have just gathered things that were written earlier. I mean, in addition to, to their own things like by Edmund Briggs or, I mean, by Jason Briggs or, um, and Edmund, you know, and other writers and their claims have actually often been proven out by the Joseph Smith papers or the complete discourses of Brigham Young. And that's been fascinating to me to see that in many ways, those are better um anchored by evidence by source work than um than the L DS claims that I was raised in. And so that's what's really been the transition for me is like, like I, so when, when now, when I'm told historians agree, I'm like, well, let's not just talk about consensus, let's talk about this source and let's talk about this source and that I find to be more valuable,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=59m24s 59:24]
John Hamer: right? But that's not a academically rigorous approach. So I appreciate that nonspecialists when they um get a hold of some source or other want to look at it and say, oh, well, this one, I can make this explanation about why I don't think this is uh why I don't think that this piece of evidence works because I think uh that this guy, I don't believe this particular guy. And then, and then you've, you've dealt with that one in isolation and say, well, I don't listen to anything that William Law says or whatever. And so then now you're gonna say, well, um, now I'm looking at this source, oh, I also don't believe anything that William Clayton is writing and, and so forth. Um, but I, but that's not, um, that's not how, uh, you look at evidence as a preponderance of evidence from the historical perspective. That is kind of a one on one as you are seeing some particular uh I don't know, statement in the Joseph Smith papers or whatever it would be. You're listening to the uh uh the revelation did it, did it uh dictated to Neil K Whitney. And you think that now Neil K Whitney is a, a liar always. And so he's making this up, you know, later and, and to support Brigham Young or something like that, you know, each individual, one of those things is uh um this is an apologetic uh way of dealing with evidence as it comes up one by one by one by one as you're looking at all that kind of thing. And so that's where I would say it's different.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h00m45s 1:00:45]
Michelle: OK, I hear you. I think I see. I'm glad we're talking because my hope is that maybe it can be beneficial for both of us to kind of understand more about the other side because I do want to understand more about this historical perspective and why historians are sort of the, the gatekeepers of truth in a way. Right? And I think maybe it would be, and maybe I misstated that. I'm sorry if I said
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h01m05s 1:01:05]
John Hamer: just historical truth,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h01m06s 1:01:06]
Michelle: historical truth. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h01m08s 1:01:08]
John Hamer: I mean, so for example, there's a, there's a beautiful city in, oh, I'm sorry, I, I'm sorry, I keep interrupting you. So I'm just so II I love, um, I'm just talking about how I love n, and I love this part of our ancestral heritage of going and trying to build utopia together, right? And so there's a city in Illinois called Zion Illinois where a group of people got together. Um And they built a much more impressive uh city of Zion with a plot that had centered around a temple lot. Uh and they had built a giant Tabernacle there. And uh it was a church in the late 19th century. And um and that church, that community became very famous in the 19 twenties because one of their doctrines was that the world is flat. And so they advertised in, in popular mechanics. Anybody who could prove that the world is not flat, they'll give them a million dollars or something like that. But I mean, there was no way to prove it because you can't ever prove it to the satisfaction of these guys because they've already decided that it is. And so, and so in that case, the keepers of truth, in that case would be uh geologists geographers, you know, physicists and so forth. And so, because that would be a belief that is a religiously based belief, um, that, that particular church group had, they've since given up that belief. But, um, but in any event that was, it's, it's so, that's what I would say. Historians unfortunately are in a position of sometimes, and sometimes they're doing it gleefully. II, I disapprove of historians who are just going around and debunking things and who are trying to tell people. No, this can't, you know, this didn't happen in order to like debunk the I don't never told that story about Kirtland Temple to debunk it. I, what I always am trying to do with everybody um is, is share additional insight so that we can understand our faith in a richer way, you know, so that we can. So, so I've come back to this, knowing all of these things about the historical problems and yet that has caused me to be want to be part of uh of a church that is approaching its history with integrity. And isn't just saying, um man, I'm never putting that, I love the David and Goliath story. You know, where this young stripling, you know, shepherd boy with so much faith is able to fight the giant off with. Uh and I'm never putting in the story where he then uh just kills his servant Uriah the Hittite in order to because he's already had an adulterous affair with the guy's wife. You know. So in other words, there, we, that's in the Bible. You know what I mean? Even though it's not, it's not historical anyway. Go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h03m41s 1:03:41]
Michelle: So, so just like, like I very much value truth. I think that the truth is always the best thing no matter what. So I'm just about wanting to find the truth. Like I said, I was deeply committed to polygamy. I'm on record teaching that polygamy was a beautiful thing and that cost me a lot to change and come out publicly and say no polygamy was never of God. And a and a similar process happened when I came out and said, OK, Joseph was not a polygamist. And so I'm just caring about truth and the thing that I think is um good to like, like I think if you're not able to understand us, you're not able to speak to us. And, and so when I hear you kind of represent what you think we're doing, it feels very much like straw men to me because that is not at all representative of what I do, what I've been doing or what other people that I know. You know, we're definitely not taking one point in isolation trying to debunk. We're trying to look at the totality and find the various sources that this um that this perspective, this narrative is built on and see if they stand up to scrutiny and see what sources have been neglected because that's what seems to me has been happening very much. Like I have so many examples I could go to. But um let me, let me ask you this one just quickly. Have you seen the, and I, and I should have it to show you. I can look it up if you need me to. But the um October 5th entry in, in Joseph Smith's journal. And um have you, have you seen the edits in that through? Do you know which one I'm talking
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h05m12s 1:05:12]
John Hamer: about? I'm not, I'm not, I'm not sure where precise. So you're saying William Clayton is like taking a journal. Is that what it is?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h05m20s 1:05:20]
Michelle: October 5th? Oh my gosh, is the 1843 I believe the entry in Joseph Smith's journal done by, I believe Willard Richards. And so, um, so are you familiar with that? Have you seen?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h05m36s 1:05:36]
John Hamer: Probably, but I mean, you have to point out but I'm not familiar with, I know that some of the entries in the journal um have indications that are that, that something's going on, you know, they, they're obfuscating a little bit about um you know what some of Joseph's because they, they don't want, you know, they're keeping an official record here. But in some cases, people have pointed to journal entries and said that this is hiding a liaison or something like that. And so, and so that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h06m06s 1:06:06]
Michelle: let me, let me tell you this one and I'm a little bit hesitant to share it because I don't want it to. Um I don't want you to think this is the one piece of evidence that I'm glomming onto. You know, this is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h06m17s 1:06:17]
John Hamer: one, no, one piece of evidence is that, that's not how it works, you know. So it doesn't, nothing is hanging on one piece of evidence one way or the other.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h06m26s 1:06:26]
Michelle: So, what's interesting. So, yes, October 5th, 1843 the we can see this now that we have access to the Joseph Smith papers. We were all raised with Joseph Smith saying I have always said no man shall have but one wife unless I say so for there's only one man in authority that was in our manuals, we always read that. That's what Joseph Smith quoted to say that he had evidence that Joseph taught polygamy in the RL DS L DS debate discussions and debates in, in those letters. And so, but if you look at the original journal entry and, and I'm not claiming that Joseph Smith's journals are perfect or anything, but this is a very interesting little tidbit. The original entry says evening at home, walked up and down with scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching the doctrine of plurality of wives on this law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof, no man shall have but one wife, that's the original entry. And then you can see the, the um the edits over time as it was changed and then what it became and you can see the different handwriting, you can see the cross out, you can see things left in. And we have on record many, many um accounts of Brigham Young, sitting with the historians that he appointed, saying that they were editing the history, right? Creating the history, like the things they cut out and the things that they added. So that entry became evening at home and walked up and down the street with my scribe, gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. This is the part that we always read for according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the in the last days. For there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred. And I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise. And so that became that that was added in by Brigham Young. Yes, and that's one piece. But, but that pattern continually emerges. I have myself looked at four at least different documents and there are so many more that do this exact same thing that add these subtle little changes or alterations that are highly concerning, right? And I, and I don't think I, I don't think that, I mean, that's just as I said 11 of many examples that isn't adequately dealt with or even acknowledged by the like. So for me, when I hear this historical consensus, I think the historical cons consensus is outdated because as you said, it started kind of with Von Brodie and grew from there. Right. But Von Brodie knew that Children were an essential part of this argument. And she named many, many Children of Joseph Smith in her book that we now know she was wrong on all of those. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h09m09s 1:09:09]
John Hamer: but ok, but no, it's not, not an essential thing, but she was using that as a as what she thought was additional proof based on, based on several of the women, you know, there were some indications that they thought that that kid was Joseph Smith's kid. And so in some cases, but in other cases, they were just some surmises. But in any event, I appreciate that. Yes, there is a uh there, the story is, is partially modeled because of competing RL Ds and L Ds apologetics. So, so because Joseph Smith the third promoted his particular view about uh Brigham Young being the originator of polygamy um that caused the Brigham Church and Brigham Young specifically to want to have lots of counter and competing evidence. And my view of Brigham Young is that he is a, a scoundrel, a liar, a bigot, a um a murderous person. He was a uh unindicted felon co conspirator. And after the fact that the minimum with the Mountain Meadows massacre. But is actually, I think the blood is sort of on his hands even though he didn't personally necessarily order it to happen the way it actually happened. But he set the events in motion, I would say. And so could he, would he have told his, you know, his historians or would people who are in his, um, his orbit have, uh, doctored stuff to make it even better and so forth and also to um to bolster his claims, of course. So that so, so yes, individual, individual uh evidence has to be read in light of the biases for those sources. So that's how when I'm reading um Brigham Young because I have, I have very negative feelings about Brigham Young and I don't think that he was a good leader and all these kind of things. And so, and so II, I tend to be skeptical of things that he is saying because you have to read into it his own um his own claims and his own agenda in the same way that um II, I would wait the same way John C Bennett stuff as I write Brigham Young stuff, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h11m19s 1:11:19]
Michelle: Sure. OK. So one thing I want to point out this journal entry was changed long before the RL DS claims it was changed early on. II, I wanna say before the 1852 before 132 was presented, I can't, I can't say that for
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h11m34s 1:11:34]
John Hamer: sure. The very first edition of evidence, like the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h11m38s 1:11:38]
Michelle: very first edition of the church history included that, like, what it, what I have seen is that from the very beginning Brigham Young set on a course to alter the history to make it appear that Joseph was a polygamous like and, and what's interesting is when I hear you say um your negative feelings about Brigham Young and, and how untrustworthy he is and yet you completely agree with his narrative. So that's interesting to me because like William Clayton, the more I read of him, the more problems, tremendous problems I see with his account, I, I just did an episode um two times ago on the, the second part of the expositor. So it's not that I'm just trying to throw out William Law, for example, I'm trying to get in and see what can we verify these claims on either side. And then I just did an episode last week where a guy named Jeremy Hoop who's done a lot of work in this area showed the William Law diaries and I think really came as close as you can come to proving that they were not contemporaneous, but that they were later productions just like I believe that section 132 is. And so um so, so here, oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h12m47s 1:12:47]
John Hamer: go ahead for William Law though. I mean, William Clayton, I'm sorry, I thought you were saying
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h12m53s 1:12:53]
Michelle: William Clayton's journal because William Clayton desperately wanted to be in with Brigham Young. You know, he was a Brigham. Absolutely. And so it's fascinating to me that while you have all these problems with Brigham Young, you completely agree with his narrative and the native created by those.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h13m11s 1:13:11]
John Hamer: So for example, he says that he had, you know, he said, for example, says that he has keys. Uh you know, let's feel like they're putting that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h13m19s 1:13:19]
Michelle: key native on polygamy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h13m21s 1:13:21]
John Hamer: OK. But his narrative on polygamy is not merely his narrative. So we are talking about in all of these other, other factions that are also consonant and agree with this. So again, people who went off to become strang its who are absolutely opposed to Brigham Young, they also testified in the same way, the people who became white, its people who again, they are not in favor of Brigham Young people who left the movement altogether uh or people who became Rigdon Nights. Uh people who are all opposed to Brigham Young, their stories are also, you know, you know, bringing back to the same thing that polygamy is being practiced in nu it's authorized by J Smith, whoever the originator of it is, it is not as something that makes any sense for all of these enemies of Brigham Young, if he somehow is the originator of it. And this is a secret cabal that he is running that um that Joseph is somehow fighting. Uh it, it it's, it, it's not all his faction that have done it. It's all the factions who, who go back, look back to this, everybody, uh, mcclellan who is already left, you know, he comes in, uh, and talks to Emma and Emma, you know, confirms all of this that has happened.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h14m37s 1:14:37]
Michelle: So that's one thing I wanted to get into because I, I would somewhat disagree with your framing of that. I would say that, um the, the categories it looks like to me and I haven't studied this universally, but it's sort of enemies of Joseph from all different camps from various ways or brims. And, and I know that there were several sects that um pursued polygamy, like, for example, James Strang. And um anyway, someone else I was going to mention, but I, I don't think that's mysterious. I don't think it's hard to understand why. Um Well, that's something we can get into later. But why religious leaders tend to pursue polygamy is very, it doesn't have to have been taught them by Joseph Smith. It's a very natural thing for religious leaders to do as we can see from history, which in a way makes me that much more, I guess, surprised and impressed that Joseph Smith didn't do that. And I know that we disagree on that. But as I look at it, I'm like, wow, he was a better guy than I thought that's been my take on it. I, this is my this is my belief on polygamy and also blood atonement like men in power don't like restraints, right? If, if you have unrestrained power, unrestrained money, you shouldn't be restrained to one woman, wife's eight. Like that's a restraint. You can't have men in the world like athletes, politicians, business owners, movie stars don't have to worry about that. In general. They can have all the partners that they want. Religious men have a cons restraint that they need to find a way to get around. Right. So I think polygamy happens very naturally as God approved. Lack of restraint, one important area, just like I think blood atomic is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h16m17s 1:16:17]
John Hamer: similar. We agree claimed God approved not really got approved.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h16m22s 1:16:22]
Michelle: Right. Exactly. Yes. It's like if you're going to be a religious leader and not have that restraint, God has to approve it somehow and polygamy is the way that that happens. Just like I think if you are Brigham Young and there's someone who's very annoying to you and you need to get rid of them, you need blood atonement so it can be God approved. Um shedding people's blood, right? I, I haven't done my episodes on blood atonement yet, but I, I have researched it extensively. So anyway, so I don't think it's that surprising that that other religious leaders pursued polygamy and I haven't seen where Jacob Strang said that Joseph taught it to him. Maybe I haven't, maybe I've
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h16m57s 1:16:57]
John Hamer: strang didn't, was an outsider and so he wasn't, he didn't touch James Strang was an outsider. And so he wasn't told what I'm saying is people who became strang who were insiders um still, still continue to testify that it was Joseph who, who had had taught it. And that's what eventually convinced Strang who was initially an opponent of polygamy when he gathered enough insiders around him, then he um was persuaded to it. But he originally was, he originally actually had been a major opponent of polygamy because he was an outsider. You know, so unlike even though he had a very successful uh counterclaim to Brigham Young, it wasn't from being an insider. It was because um Brigham Young wasn't claiming to be a prophet. And so here, here was a guy who was saying, I'm a prophet, I've been appointed by an angel and so forth. I, I've got plates and things and so that became something that gathered people to him. And so for example, William Smith, who had been taught polygamy from his brother, who was continuing to act
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h17m55s 1:17:55]
Michelle: as a polygamy. I haven't seen, I haven't seen where William says that he was taught it by Joseph.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h18m00s 1:18:00]
John Hamer: So we don't have, we don't have him claiming it that he does because actually when he writes stuff, he um perjures himself. He says that there was nothing like that was ever involved, but we know that he was involved with polygamy himself because he was caught at it. Um uh under with the strang its so the strang its kicked him out for being a polygamist and same thing, the early reorganized church, the precursor to the reorganized church twice caught him.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h18m29s 1:18:29]
Michelle: Um Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h18m31s 1:18:31]
John Hamer: and so, and so therefore, when he later says that nobody was a plaga, this is all made up or something like that. He's, he's not telling the truth. So he's not a, he's not a, he's not a truthful witness as a result of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h18m43s 1:18:43]
Michelle: that, but he's definitely a wild card in a lot of ways. So, but,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h18m49s 1:18:49]
John Hamer: but I also want to mention, ok, we've been talking about polygamy being bad and not of God. I do think that case for that in modern times kind of has to also be made because a lot of people say, well, what does it matter if consenting adults all decide they want to do whatever they want to do? Um Why are you arguing against um polygamy now? And so the case, the reason why um specifically uh religious polygyny is against, for example, the Canadian Charter of Human Freedoms, it's understood to be not um something that it's because polygyny specifically, in other words, where it is one patriarch with multiple women creates a system that demeans women and is inherently sexist. So for example, the way it works, people always ask, well, how would the Mormons have, do this, you know, throughout the 19th century, where, where you have polygamy and so forth how is it that they don't have all these extra women for, you know, compared to how many men they have. And the way it works is that the marrying age for women goes way down the, uh, the marrying age for high status men, you know, is still low for low status men. It goes way high, low status men only have a couple wives and they can also get kicked out too in modern, in the modern times, in the smaller churches now that are still like me and so forth. And so that's what I'm just, I just want to make the case why. Um like I say, I left the Mormon church over sexism. I'm still opposed to sexism. That's why I'm also, you know, opposed to religious polygyny. Um You know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h20m22s 1:20:22]
Michelle: I think the difference is, it's not really consenting adults when you are told I speak for God and God says you need to do this, right? That's a very different. Exactly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h20m30s 1:20:30]
John Hamer: It's an abusive authority when somebody is saying that. And so whether or not, whether or not you think Joseph Smith abuse that authority. We don't, I can say for example, that Brigham Young and all of his successors all the way down, you know, until um Hebrew J Grants were all polygamous and Brigham Young and many of them, most of them also, you know, conducted underage marriages. Uh But that's all in the historic record that is also not uh disputed. I think so. Right? A
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h21m01s 1:21:01]
Michelle: very, a very good friend of mine who's been a very faithful member of the church for all of her 70 plus years, just said to me and still is just said to me the other day, Brigham Young was a child trafficker. And so, you know, so we are able to grapple with this history because he, he really like he was a very troubling figure. He's a very troubling figure in our past that we have to grapple with, which also should give some credibility to the fact that we're not just wishful thinking. Because for those like me staying in the church, I'm willing to grapple with difficult history from our leaders, right? I just don't see the evidence. So, so it's not a, it's not a motivated, you know, it's not because I can't handle the truth or I need to somehow save Joseph. I, I've said this, my, my listeners know this because I have said it so many times. It was actually studying Emma's life that convinced me of this perspective. And I do feel, I feel a real closeness to Emma and a real desire to defend her because I do not like what this narrative says about Emma like that, that to me feels more personal, like that I'll fight about, you know, because I have a tremendous amount of respect and love for Emma, what I understand of her. And so so can I there were three main points that I wanted to talk about from your presentation. But I don't want to like if there's anything you want to present, you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h22m21s 1:22:21]
John Hamer: know, I want to, I want to actually react to what you were just saying because actually, I really appreciate what you said in terms of grappling with the other leaders and you're very aware of, you know, what they did and the, and the problems and you, again, I think we are like we said, we agreed that that's not of God. And, and yet these guys are the prophets of the church who were doing that all the way, all the way through up until. Uh and so I, I appreciate that. And so I actually want to just as a um uh for your historical method, you know, as you, as you're working on this, the, the direction now that you need to do in order to create um uh in order to create a different historical um narrative in order to actually have something that, you know, we're not saying the historians are guardians of this and nobody's allowed into the club or something like that. But what you need is a counter thesis. And so if it's going to be something like Brigham Young created it, that the goal now is going to be to start um making all kinds of evidence that is showing that and like, um and, and so, for example, the evidence that you're giving about Brigham Young uh forging the documents and things like that or like in his control that that's going to be helpful for that. And so, and so that's the, the, the, the direction as opposed to um working on explaining away all of the other Joseph Smith evidence. The you need the positive evidence of, of implicating Brigham Young is what I would just suggest you as academic focus
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h23m57s 1:23:57]
Michelle: just so, you know, that's exactly what I and many others are doing. Like we've gone extensively through um um Brigham Young, Brigham Young and Hebrew C Kimball's and William Clayton's diaries and letters in England in 1841 and showed that it preexisted and, and we have so many quotes of Brigham Young acknowledging and admitting that he came up that this was his doctrine, right? And we also have a lot of things to show that William Clayton's accounts are just impossible. Um Like, like this is a little thing, but I think it's an interesting one. For example, William Clayton, you know, it's William Clay, this all rests on William Clayton. Really, we have his journals and then his affidavits. And that's where we get the story of how 132 came about. That. Really, the only other thing we really have is the expositor with Austin Cowell saying it was read in the High Council. Everything else is kind of built on those earlier planes. Oh,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h24m52s 1:24:52]
John Hamer: go ahead in terms of in terms of contemporary evidence, what you're saying,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h24m56s 1:24:56]
Michelle: that's what I'm saying.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h24m59s 1:24:59]
John Hamer: Yeah. So I mean, we have, we have the same, you know, we have the same in terms of uh uh William Marks, you know, has testimony of that. It's simply, but it's not, we don't have his contemporary testimony of it. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h25m13s 1:25:13]
Michelle: we have, we have a very consistent testimony from him that I think is worth understanding. But I like including his, his later statements, clarifying his earlier statements as well. I think that we need to look at that as a totality as a whole because he gave that account made 4 to 6 times and, and in some of the later ones, he was like, hey, this is, you know, he clarifies what he was saying that that rings very true to me. And so I really like William Marks. I think he's a man of integrity, you know, he's very trustworthy. But um what I was saying is that, oh, so William Clayton claims in his affidavit, which we really based this all on and how 132 came about in the upper room of the brick store with just Brigham and Hiram and Clayton and you know that whole story. And then he says that a day or two, that two or three days after he wrote it, Joseph told him that he had let Emma destroy it because she was so whiny and pouty and wouldn't leave him alone. And so just to get rid of her annoyance. He allowed her to burn it. And the only other copy was the one made by Kingsbury, kept by Bishop Whitney who nobody else knew about. Right. It was a secret copy. So that just, this is like I said, a little thing, but it leaves me to wonder, what exactly did Hiram Smith go across the street to get in August of that year to read to the High Council. That's a really interesting question that I haven't seen addressed adequately. And also that same day in the High Council July August 12th, I think if I'm remembering correctly when he supposedly read that the only notes we have, the only minutes we have are that William Marks was teaching with him. And so the fact that William Marks wouldn't have known about 132 would have even had the question of whether Joseph was involved if Hiram read it that day in the High Council makes no sense at all. And these are just really basic parts of this narrative that fall apart with the slightest amount of investigation that I haven't seen people like people just instead call it, call me a polygamy denier and tell me I'm a flat earther and a holocaust denier. And I'm like that. Ok, that's fine. But can we just talk about the evidence? You know, because I think the evidence is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h27m18s 1:27:18]
John Hamer: worth, but even though if you are going to, so I think that you could make a bunch of different questions about the origin of 132 and whether or not we have the exact um there is a revelation that Joseph Smith gives whether or not 132 is, is that is a more detailed and nuanced component of the question, which is Joseph Smith. Yes. Is a polygamist. How much of 132 is, in fact the actual revelation that he dictated and how much of it is uh uh maybe totally different. Was it entirely a forgery and things like that? So that is not um that maybe what that testimony that you're talking about may be core to the, the provenance for 132. But that's not. Um That's not what Joseph Smith as a polygamist is hanging on.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h28m11s 1:28:11]
Michelle: OK. OK. That's fair. So, so I just like, I, I really appreciate us having this discussion because it lets us round out the, the conversation. So there were I, as I listened to your, um to your presentation, I did feel my feeling was if I had listened to this, you know, even five years ago, I would have found it very compelling. But now that I've studied so much, I found it from my perspective, like, like I just all the way through it was like, no, no, no. You know, I felt I, I really objected to a lot of it because of the study I've done. So, so it was hard to kind of narrow down. But there were two and maybe three main points that I kind of wanted to talk about. Not, they're not the only things, but there are things I haven't yet covered on my podcast. And so I think that'll be interesting to the audience and then, and things I was excited to explore. So the, the three things that I wanted to talk about our first kind of the, um the claim that we don't have Emma's account. And, and, you know, you mentioned that we don't have that we would love to, I think the quote was, if I can find it, we would love to have Emma's own words. But we don't, we only have the accounts of what she said to others. So I wanted to talk about that and then another one I really wanted to talk about and, and we can start with whichever one you want. But is Sarah and Whitney, I think that's a great discussion to have because that is the one piece of supposed contemporary evidence that we have is the letter from Joseph to the Whitneys. And so, and then the other one I wanted to talk about was just briefly about, um, Fanny Alger and the sources that you used to tell, talk about Fanny Alger. So is that ok if we talk about those
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h29m41s 1:29:41]
John Hamer: things? But I want to also, um I want to also state though for all of these cases, um this is also an issue. So with the Fanny, er, especially, or Fanny Alger, whichever you would prefer to say, I've heard it pronounced both ways. Um,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h29m57s 1:29:57]
Michelle: I grew up, I always grew up with Fannie. Er, I didn't hear anyone say all
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h30m02s 1:30:02]
John Hamer: but, um, yeah, but I'll say is that there's, there's two different issues. Um, and this is also true when I'm talking about the historical Jesus. Right? And so when I'm doing, um battle with, you know, calling it battle because it's a podcast and so forth or whatever with, with these mythicist guys, you know, on, on a, on a, on a youtube podcast or something like that. Um There is a big difference between what you're talking about to shows that there was a historical Jesus and then once we've established that then going through and trying to unders trying to understand, well, what can we say about the historical Jesus? And um how can we, in the case of people for whom um they are, are members of Christian community, people of faith? Um When we're, how can we be pastoral in talking about things that may not be historical like we were talking about at the beginning of this Christmas stories, which are not, not, which are the, which are made up by the evangelists, right? So the co stories are not uh part of the historical Jesus, right? And so, um and so, and so how do we do that pastorally? And So, what I'll just say is the reason um for my focus especially on, on Emma is because I'm talking to a community of Christ audience. And so for um community of Christ people, they uh they, where they get to at the end of all this, they don't care if Joe Smith abused his power. I mean, they do care, but in other words, they can get over it but, but they get sad about it because Emma is so central to um the reorganization community. Christ is Emma's church. Um After uh after the church was reorganized, she helped us create the next two hymnals, you know, again, so, so four, there are four hymnals in our tradition that were from a a and, and so on. And so, and so it's trying to be pastoral to try to understand for our members, why, why would Emma have, why is this published as Emma's last testimony in the Herald, you know, in other words, because they don't want to disbelieve Emma. And so that's one of the, so that's, that's one of the reasons why I brought that up and talked about that. And then for the um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h32m12s 1:32:12]
Michelle: for
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h32m13s 1:32:13]
John Hamer: Fannie Auger, this is not um this isn't proof at all of anything. So, so what, so if, if, if Joseph Smith's polygamy was limited to the kind of thing that he was doing with Fannie Auger, then um then I would just conclude it was an affair myself but you could conclude whether he did it or not, depending on whether you tend to believe Oliver Cowdery more than Joseph Smith in terms of your, and that kind of almost is coming down to your beliefs about the kind of thing that either one of them would do in different circumstances, right? Um But so, so that's not a proof of anything. Why I, why I would talk about that is once we already understand that Joseph is a polygamist, then what I want to do is to explain to people for whom Joseph Smith is important. How did he get to this place? And so then, and so we hopefully are trying to and sometimes more so than others. I'm trying to be more pastoral or not on that too, even though I ultimately then will conclude that this is an abuse of authority. And we unfortunately have to um have as much or little pity for him as we want to depending on where we are and how we are feeling about what happened. So some people are very angry and that's an appropriate response. Some people are saddened for him or whatever, but in other words, so I wouldn't, I wouldn't be bringing that when I'm doing that, that one presentation and I'm talking about like him talking about it in the book of Mormon, The Layman Night Prophecy and all those kind of things that's not proof because the, if it was only those things we wouldn't, we would be able to dismiss it. Ultimately. What happens is, is, it becomes so widespread in NV, that the evidence is, is overwhelming. So that's all. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h33m50s 1:33:50]
Michelle: So, ok. Yeah. So, so it would be good to talk about each of these because I very much disagree. I, I, so, so, I mean, I, I disagree with the perspective that it was so widespread in NV, that it's overwhelming. I think it's so widespread in Utah and the Utah testimonies are what this is all based in. And, and, and, and we can talk about believing women if we want to. I don't find that to be a compelling argument because you don't believe women in a totalitarian system whose only way is to, you don't believe is Elizabeth Smart. And she says, no, I'm not Elizabeth. You don't believe the FL DS women when they are saying no, this is my child and I was not under age and I don't, you know, when, when women's only way of existing is, is in the system, then you don't call them liars. You look at them in the system that they're in and take that into great consideration with the claims they make, particularly when you take the claims they make and try to investigate them and they fall apart terribly. They can't be verified by history. That's, that's, that would be, is what my argument would be, you know. Yeah. So, so, but, um, and I did, I did appreciate your pastoral approach with Emma. You know, I didn't really get what you were saying with Fannie. Like, I didn't get that. You were trying to be pastoral with Joseph. That's not how it came across to me. But I, but I did with Emma and, and I, um, but isn't Joseph Smith the third also very central to, like, it's even Joseph Smith the third's church more than Emma's because he was the one that had to make the decision to come and be the president, right? And Emma said that she would not advise him either way. So he seems very,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h35m22s 1:35:22]
John Hamer: let me show you here. I'm going to turn this we have on the wall here in the heritage in our library. There's a, we have portraits of Emma and Joseph Smith the third. So, yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h35m37s 1:35:37]
Michelle: that's kind of the of the, of the community of Christ, the RLD. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h35m41s 1:35:41]
John Hamer: we don't have any pictures of Joseph on the walls here of his son. Yes. Um Joseph the third. So, yeah, so, yeah, no, of course, he and, and, and so, and so he has a very nuanced way that he approaches it. Um And, and says his primary and overriding point is that uh whatever was done, it's not of God, right? And so if it had been done, it's not of God. And so, and so, and so definitely he led the anti polygamy faction of the church. So lots of people have been opposed to this. No.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h36m14s 1:36:14]
Michelle: Ok. I personally believe he was 100% sincere and actually that he was 100% right. I don't think that he was, I don't see him the same way as trying to twist something. I think if you understand very much at all about um, religious leaders, like if you look at how well polygamous leaders they are raising up their sons, Joseph had planned for Joseph the third to be his successor from everything I understand. And it's impossible for me to believe that he wouldn't be teaching Joseph the third, the gospel as he understood it. I I 11 is pretty old, like in our tradition, he's about to get the priesthood. He's, you know, he would have been taught and also like the little house they were living in on um July 12th, 1843 when Hiram supposedly brought the revelation to Emma. Emma would have been so shaken up and upset. Like Jose Joseph Smith the third, always testified about how well his parents got along, how loving and kind their household was. And, and there aren't these stories, we only get that from William Clayton. So, so, so for me, I tend to think, oh, wow, we should take Joseph the third's testimony seriously. And then so I guess the question I had was when you talked about Joseph the third and um Emma's final testimony, I got the sense that you were implying that Joseph lied about what his mother had said because you said we don't have Emma's actual words and she may have been Mires, but we,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h37m43s 1:37:43]
John Hamer: we don't know what's happening there. So we know that the testimony is false. Joseph Smith was a polygamist. So, and, and Emma, and we are aware that Emma was aware of it. And so in other words, we have plenty, all we have uh enough testimony that we know what was going on and we know that she was, had been lied to by Joseph Smith about it, that she had a limited participation around the time that the uh the revelation was dictated, the revelation seems to be geared towards her. And so whether or not you believe that that is the actual document, it does seem to be addressing the time uh and what we know about the time. And so then, so then she, in the end is aware of her son's crusade that he has been on where he has um outlived most of the old members, uh the RL DS members who were in the know and who were opposed to his narrative. And uh and so at the very end of her life, um either she uh she lies for him uh because she knows that's what he wants to hear, or she tries to give it a little bit of a nuance. And so some of it is uh is the kind of lie that her husband had been making. So Brigham Young changes the policy of that Joseph Smith junior had about lying about polygamy to being open about it and he changes it on the fly. So, um, you know, LL DS members are off in Europe, disclaiming polygamy and then, and then it, and then, oh, sorry about that. We, we, now we're, now we're coming clean. So, so there's no reason for Emma to follow Brigham Young's policy of not lying about polygamy. She could continue to follow her husband's policy of lying about it. And so whether or not she was doing that or whether or not she was doing it to help her son or whether or not we don't know, just the third wrote it himself. I don't, I'm not saying that he would do that. But anyway, we don't know what happened. I would think probably what's happening is she's following her husband's policy and or, and, or saying what she want, her son wants her to say.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h39m47s 1:39:47]
Michelle: So my perspective is is that the lying for the Lord is a brig aite policy and everyone we have on record doing that is in the Utah tradition and the Brigham Young tradition, I don't think that that came from Joseph Smith. And I think so. That's why I want to investigate. This is because we start with the assumption like, like that quote, I read of yours earlier that we don't start with the end in mind and then cherry pick. So it looks to me like that's what's happening here because it's like we're starting with the end in mind. And as we know, Joseph, we already have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h40m17s 1:40:17]
John Hamer: concluded though, we have concluded it from the evidence that Joseph is a polygamous. Now, we have to explain the tiny bits of counter meaning evidence. And so this is um a, a late statement, reminiscence or whatever of Emma, which is making a counter claim that is motivated by her church's position, public position. And so, and so we can read the bias into this source as a late reminiscence and say this is a uh a biased reminiscence and we can see why it is uh it is contaminated in this way. Therefore,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h40m50s 1:40:50]
Michelle: OK. So, so if, if it's OK, I looked up several statements we do have of Emma's either firsthand, I only have two that are firsthand and then we have several that were reported in interviews. And I just wanted to share those because um because I think it's important to get the whole totality. It's not just her final testimony. And so I'm trying to decide which way. So, so um I guess should I start with that or start with William mcclellan? Because you kind of held up Joseph Smith the third versus William mcclellan, like you kind of said, we don't have Amazon testimony, but we have what her son said about you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h41m20s 1:41:20]
John Hamer: have, you have other statements of Emma that would be more details than I maybe was aware of. But in any event, with the, what I will tell you before I hear them is the policy that she inherited from her husband was lying for the Lord. And that's what they were doing in nu. And so if she is at any time doing that, uh you know, then that's what she's doing. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h41m41s 1:41:41]
Michelle: and to me, that's a huge assumption because I have never seen any evidence of Joseph teaching that saying that the only reason we say that is because the later U to testify of that and William Clayton testifies of it, I have never seen anything from Emma, from Joseph or from anybody else that says, and, and another thing that we always claim is that Joseph was using Brian Hills, calls them carefully worded denials saying it's not polygamy, it's celestial plural marriage. And I, I've never seen Joseph differentiate. He does everything he can from my perspective along with Hiram and Emma to lump them all in together and say no, this is all bad. So um so really quickly with William mcclelland, I was, I was actually astonished that um people take his testimony seriously at all even plausible because, and you can tell me if I'm wrong. But my understanding is that William mcclelland not only left the church but became very actively opposed to the church, was part of the Missouri mobs. And in fact, um we have accounts that he, um, ransacked and robbed Emmas and Joseph's home in Barn when, um, when Joseph was in prison. And then we have accounts that he, um, this is a later Utah reminiscence. So I don't, I can't say for sure, but it's in, it's in the history that he asked the sheriff permission to flog Joseph while he was in custody. And so, um, so he was very much an enemy and yet he writes so, so just for my audience who's not aware with this, I'll fill the fill, fill them in really quickly that, um, William mcclelland wrote two letters to Joseph Smith, the third one in 1861 in 1872. And he said that his, that, that all you need to do is go ask your mother. And he said that he visited Emma in 1847 and that she acknowledged to him or affirmed to him several things that the revelation came from Joseph. She says that he says that Emma acknowledged to him that when Joseph the third was born, um Joseph, his father was having an affair with a Miss Hill and that she forgave him. She said, he said that, you know, it goes on and on and on. And I find it astonishing to think that Emma would sit and tell these things to William mcclelland who had literally robbed and ransacked her home in barn while her husband was in prison. That is I I like, I cannot believe we even give that the slightest amount of credits
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h43m55s 1:43:55]
John Hamer: him to her son in terms of when the reorganization happens. And she thinks that he uh you know, so there's a, there's a letter where she is recommending him to be part of the reorganization. And so the implication, the reason why I mentioned it was because of that because the implication then was that they had to me was that they had uh uh whatever the, the kind of polemics and things that are happening in terms of the Mormon Missouri war period that in the aftermath of the N war, that the implication to me was that maybe they have had a, you know, they've come back together and, and, and settled things and reconciled in some way and that he is, and that's why he was able to stay with them and visit with them. Uh in terms of this recollection that he has for Joseph the third. And so the only reason I brought that up then is because um Emma seems to have been fondly, you know, positively disposed towards him. And he is repeating Emma hearsay the same way that Joseph the third um does in terms of the final testimony, we, we don't and as opposed to something that she's written in her own hand, that we have her letter and her saying this or that and that, that was why I brought that as a try to trying to um for our L DS members who are especially um aware, the probably the only piece of evidence at all that they're aware of. They don't know anything about William Clayton's journals or anything like that. Um That's not part of our narrative. What they're, what they know is what Emma said. And so what we're just trying to understand for uh for them, you know, explain this final testimony that so called of Emmas.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h45m36s 1:45:36]
Michelle: And so you are aware, you are aware that your narrative comes from William Clayton, right?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h45m43s 1:45:43]
John Hamer: So now the evidence of Joseph's polygamy is, is not only from William Clayton, you are, I I appreciate what you're saying that maybe that is the um the major source for us understanding that DNC 132 is the revelation. But we have, we have amazing amounts of evidence contemporary and otherwise of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy and NA O it is not based only on William Clayton's Clayton's journal.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h46m09s 1:46:09]
Michelle: OK. So the only source I have seen other than the later Utah claims which are built on William Clayton, the only sources I have seen for the emergence of 132 or for the um troubles in Joseph and Emma's marriage.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h46m22s 1:46:22]
John Hamer: Why 132? Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h46m24s 1:46:24]
Michelle: I was going to say also
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h46m25s 1:46:25]
John Hamer: for before 132
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h46m28s 1:46:28]
Michelle: but the troubles in Joseph and Emma's marriage, William Clayton is also the only source I'm aware of for that, that's considered to be contemporaneous. So but we can get into it. So, so let me, let me read some of these other quotes from Emma and then maybe it will help us to go on and talk about Sarah and Whitney because that's, that is contemporaneous. So I'm assuming that's when. So, um, anyway, and I can, I can just attach them below if you're not interested in, you know, I don't have to read them right now. So, um, so let's see. Oh, ok, let me sorry, I'm finding my place. Um So Emma had this printed in the newspaper and I know that it's easy to come to it with the bias that she was always lying for the Lord. But I think that that again is a confirma is a assumption that's put on to evidence that we should at least consider what she is saying. So she had printed in the newspaper, we the undersigned members of the Ladies Relief Society and married emails to certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practiced in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Save the one contained in the Doctrine and covenants. And that was published in the October 42 times and seasons. And then also from the Voice of Innocence, that extensive article and that she had written in February and presented in February March of 44. So a couple of parts for it, she says, curse the man that preys upon female virtue. So I'm taking some pieces and putting them together because it's so wordy spurn him from society. Kick the bloodthirsty pimp from the pale of social communion. Drive such fag ends of creation as was kin to the land of not dread, such canker worms more than the pestilence that walk in darkness and shun them as the serpent of the land and the shark of the sea. She goes on to say resolved unanimously that Joseph Smith, the mayor of the city be tendered our thanks for the able and manly manner in which he defended injured innocents in the late trial of, of Bostwick for slandering president hiring Smith and almost all the women of the city. She goes on to say while the marriage bed undefiled is honorable. Let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery and prostitution be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the Gulf of fallen nature where the worms die not. And the fire is not quenched and let all the saints say amen. That was sorry. That was a long one. It's a funny one to read. But then, and so those were during Joseph's life. But then in addition to Joseph, the third final test of em that he interviewed, and I, I do think it's quite a claim to even imply that Joseph the third would lie about his mother. Like that would be so controlling. You know, we don't have any statements of her. Like if if she were acknowledging this to anyone, let alone William mcclellan, she Lucy was the closest thing she had to a mother. She absolutely would have talked to Lucy about it and she would have talked to her friends, you know, like it would be known. So it would be strange to say that Joseph was controlling her language. But, but anyway, we also have had
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h49m10s 1:49:10]
John Hamer: a, he has had a multi decade agenda at that point to suppress all of these stories and argue against them and to, to make this particular claim that he created, but
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h49m20s 1:49:20]
Michelle: to suppress his mother, to claim that his mother is trying to tell the, that Joseph was a polygamist. You know, she's trying to say the truth about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h49m29s 1:49:29]
John Hamer: suborning the testimony of his uncle. So he, he writes
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h49m34s 1:49:34]
Michelle: William. William is a tricky guy and was a wild card. And I anyway, I have it anyway.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h49m39s 1:49:39]
John Hamer: So unfortunately, he is subordinating testimony. And so he's doing that with his mother as well and she is on board with his now agenda and, and is prepared to uh you know, lie for the Lord in this way that like she did in na so and so that na statements are the same. So, so either so so again, part of the, the situation with the women's relief society as we know is that there is a um for a certain amount of the time Emma is being deceived by Jesse Smith in other words. So the the extent of the polygamy that is already happening, she is totally not aware of and she uh and she is being lied to uh continuously by him at a certain point. Uh for a very brief window, she is prepared to accept it. And then she later recants of that. Um and part of what she is doing in the women's relief society is trying to root out uh uh polygamy and she is opposed to it, but it's also the agenda of the church to publish denials which are false. And so that is one of the things that's happening in those, in those contemporary accounts.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h50m48s 1:50:48]
Michelle: OK. And so I'll go on and just mention a few more of these. I I also, when I hear people say that it's so strange to me if you know anything about polygamous men, no, polygamous man would promote a disobedient wife to a high position and allow her to use her voice to speak against polygamy. That's, that's an impossibility from, in my perspective, from everything I have seen of controlling polygamist leaders as we have uh say that Joseph is that, that would be a very strange thing for him to do. Well, he's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h51m19s 1:51:19]
John Hamer: introducing something and he's doing it in a and he's doing it in a surreptitious way. And so, unlike um unlike the later way polygamy is operated in Utah where it is actual polygamy. But what Joseph Smith is doing is, is having illicit relationships with women. And he is um is creating a spiritual, a secret spiritual function for it. He's created ceiling, you know, the whole idea of celestial connections and this kind of a thing. But he is not, for example, building a giant house like uh Brigham Young had, you know, where, where everybody is all going to get to live in the house and, and he's creating a system that uh that Emma is prepared to accept. He has started doing this completely on the fly from her and, and does not want her to know about it. And so, and so at different times, he is having, I think a very good relationship with her. And so in, in that sense, you are able to, um, keep that, keep their, um, per some of their personal fighting and personal issues away from their, their preteen kids. So, uh, so they're not as aware of that. So I don't think that they have actually a terrible relationship. I think that they, they have a pretty good relationship. Actually, one of the things that, um, um, William Law is talking about when he's doing his later reminiscence, um, he is brought in and told about, uh, the principle and so forth during that brief window when Emma is on board. And so he, in his reminiscence is, uh, thinks that she is just as terrible a person as his opinion of Joseph Smith. And so that is a very, that's why his recollection and not a Brigham, my recollection of a reform Mormon who later, uh, has, has lost everything and left. Um, his, his recollection is very anti Emma compared to, um, other recollections where, uh, where people think that Emma was, you know, was very much opposed to this. So it depends on the time period when, when they were part of it when, for example, um, my great, great, great, great grandparents gave their, you know, 14 year old, 15 year old daughter to um Joseph Smith to be a plural wife. This was um this was after, so this was after the time when Hiram was originally opposed to it. And Hiram had been running around trying to think that this was something that Bennett had started or something like that before Joseph brought him into the secret. And so, and so that he talked to um my great, great, great grandparents, eldest son, Benjamin Winchester because they were really good friends. And so Benjamin Winchester, who later went on to become a Rite apostle, he thought that Hiram was opposed to it. In other words, because of the time period when this was all happening. And so it depends on the recollection of when the person um impacted it in nu. And so then later, when, when it did happen, because his young sister had been part of this, he was very much opposed to the polygamy faction. And so he recognized Sidney Rigdon as a leader and he became a Rigdon and apostle and so forth. But the family, um uh who had already been part of this went to Utah and uh and the, the patriarch of that family took on pur of wives and so forth. So OK. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h54m27s 1:54:27]
Michelle: And it's interesting, I, I do see some similarities between William Law and, and Winchester Benjamin Winchester that I will be interesting. But let me just state these. So we have um interviews reported from Emma. The ones I was able to find were William Hepworth Dixon in 1869 JC Christiansen in 1872 Jason Briggs in 1874 Mark Forst in 1877. And then also Edmund Briggs and Harry, a Stebbins and they're all in complete agreement. Emma gives report like all of them give reports of conversations that they had with Emma. They completely agree. And so, um so for example, Dixon was an English writer, he was an Englishman and a writer who was traveling through America and he wrote Emma Joseph's wife and secretary, the partner of all his toil toils and all his glories, glories coolly firmly, permanently denies that her husband ever had any other wife than herself. She declares the story to be false, the revelation of fraud. She denounces polygamy as the invention of young and pratt, a work of the devil brought in by them for the destruction of God's new church on account of this doctrine. She has separated herself from the saints of Utah and has taken up her dwelling with what she calls a remnant of the true church at Navoo. So that's one of these consistent and um Christian Christiansen. It's an interesting name.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h55m47s 1:55:47]
John Hamer: Tell me is the date of that one again. I mean, it's obviously after they've reorganized the church and she is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h55m54s 1:55:54]
Michelle: 69 it's published in 69. So I don't know when the interview happened. Um And then Christiansen his interview, he says, Sister Emma, is it not a fact that your husband had other wives beside you? Emma says, no sir, I was his only wife to my to my knowing during his lifetime.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h56m12s 1:56:12]
John Hamer: That is also true to say it that way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h56m14s 1:56:14]
Michelle: But, but I know, but we have to be careful because what this, if you look at that turn of phrase to my knowing, it was used in that time as my understanding is also to say, which I know for certain
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h56m25s 1:56:25]
John Hamer: to say, yeah, no, I'm not saying it's too annoying. I'm saying there were no other wives because these are all just affairs as far as is concerned. These are not, these are not legitimate. I'm just saying this is how you lying for the Lord. So you, you, you can say, OK, there are none of these are legitimate wives. This, there was no revelation. That's a fraud. I can, I can tell you there is no revelation. It's a fraud. There are no other wives. This is all just affairs. She was the only legal wife.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h57m00s 1:57:00]
Michelle: Yeah. But if she put hands in Joseph's hand and performed a ceiling and Joseph considered them eternal wives. That's what you know, and doctrine and covenants does say why? Section 132.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h57m11s 1:57:11]
John Hamer: So she did that and that was an abuse of power. That was a fraud. It wasn't a legitimate marriage, it wasn't legal and it wasn't of God. So, so, so I could tell you as well from a religious standpoint, she is his only wife. In any real sense. There is a abuse of authority that is happening that where Joseph Smith is calling it a marriage, but I don't call it a marriage in any real sense. You know, I mean, it's an institution that develops later in other, in the, in the various factions that, you know, when, when it becomes open or at least practiced, you know, where you're having, you know, multiple women living with the same, you know, and, and essentially it's open within the community.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h57m50s 1:57:50]
Michelle: But all of the narratives that this is built on do very much say that they are wives, they do very much call it wives and, and polygamous societies consider them to be multiple wives. So Emma would be directly lying even if we want to twist what she's saying. I'll finish this one quickly. Um um He just said, could he not have had a wife without you knowing it. And he, she says, no sir, no one had a better chance and way of knowing it than myself. Sister Emma. Is it not a fact that Joseph Smith received a revelation, favoring polygamy and spiritual wifey? No, sir. There was no revelation given through him on either either spiritual wifey or polygamy. Nor was that abominable doctrine taught either privately or publicly by Joseph um before his death. And so, um oh, and then there's, and then, and then in answer to his question about the claim that she burned it, she said that is a base falsehood made out of whole cloth, which is something that she says often to that question. And so we do have many consistent testimonies from her. And William mcclelland is the only one I know of that stands out in opposition that and then some other ones that I find similarly unreliable cons cons compared to her consistent testimony throughout. I think it's impossible to believe that she would have said something different to William mcclellan even though she was such a forgiving.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=1h59m04s 1:59:04]
John Hamer: So it's earlier, all of these testimonies that you're reading with the exception of the contemporary ones. So the contemporary ones during Joseph Smith's lifetime, where in the policy of the church was lying for the Lord, then the other ones she's in keeping with the reorganization church's new policy again, of lying for the Lord. So, um so, so unfortunately, you know, so, so So, unfortunately, that I agree with you. So, her policy is pretty consistent because we now are seeing it in the, in the different components. So now what she would have said in the intervening time when there is no church or when she's not part of it, when she's cast off to William mcclelland, it mean that you don't have to believe that she actually confided any of those things with him, even in the kind of surreptitious way. He said, well, she would only nod or say yes or no or something like that, that you, you don't have to credit that or not, doesn't matter really. Um The issue again is that the policy that we existed when she was um in the church, when, when Joseph Smith, her husband was alive was that you lie for the Lord. And one of the ways you could, all of the ones that you just barely read are ones that unlike the last testimony, some of the things she says in that are harder to, to square in terms of this, um, Clintonian, I call it Bill Clinton type style doublespeak. You know, I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky because he's defining sex differently. And so he's lying in a way by saying he didn't do he, he's defining sex one way. And so therefore he's, he's speaking in a way which he's saying is legally true, but, but it is meant to deceive you so none of these things were taught because it's, um, because this polygamy would be an infernal doctrine. And so therefore, that wasn't taught, there were no other wives because there's only one legal wife and so on. You know. And so you could, those easily could be that kind of, uh, line for the Lord Clintonian statements. And it would just be that she's consistent from the church policy that she inherited. And so there is no reason for her to adopt Brigham Young's policy, uh post um whatever it is 1852 when they have the open policy. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h01m09s 2:01:09]
Michelle: ok, so I did find a quote from her and I won't remember it. But where she told Brigham and Hebrew, she says that she told Brigham and Hebrew that the first two principles of their gospel are lying and deception. So, and she really, you know, so I, I don't know that, I guess it sounds to me like there's really nothing Emma could say that could be taken that could be seen as credible. Either she's lying for the Lord or, you know. So that's, so that's an interesting perspective. So, um, so like her testimony doesn't really matter which I find ironic when we're told to believe the women and she's really talk about believing
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h01m44s 2:01:44]
John Hamer: the women. There's all the other women who you already said, you're not going to believe all of that. It's not about spiritual wives. You said we're not going to believe them, even though they all gave their affidavits, you discount all of everything they're saying. And so we already said you just, you were, you were discounting at the beginning of this conversation. We're not going to believe the women, you know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h02m02s 2:02:02]
Michelle: So, no, no, II I want to clarify that, that, that I'm saying that if we are going to believe the women, let's look at all of the women and look at their testimony and whose testimony can hold up to scrutiny the best? I don't see Emma see, see, I see these women in a um power structure that does not give them their own voice, right? And, and for example, and the foster sisters is it Sarah and Maria Foster? No Lawrence, the Lawrence sisters. I'm sorry, Sarah and Maria Lawrence, they are claimed to be very important wives of Joseph Smith. In fact, the only claim that William Law can make against Joseph Smith is with Mariah Foster, but she dies in 1850. And Sarah Fo Lawrence, sorry, Sarah Lawrence comes to Utah to combat the claims that she and Jos she and her sister, we're married, we're Joseph's wives and she denies it vehemently. And Emily Pratt says, oh, she's so dark now, she's lost the spirit so much that she lies about this and we believe Emily and not Sarah. And so it's not that we're believing the women. We're not believing the women. So that's why I'm the thing you have to believe the women. I'm not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h03m12s 2:03:12]
John Hamer: saying I, I guess when I was even talking about it in terms of believing the women are not. Um the reason why I even why I even brought that up in our predis discussion is I meant to say, as opposed to Joseph Smith. And so the reason why I meant that is because I think that um central to the um motivation of rehabilitating Joseph Smith is a um a personal belief and picture and image that they uh someone has of Joseph Smith and therefore not wanting him to have committed abuses of his authority in this way. And, and so, and so that's all, that's all I meant in terms of the, the testimonies that um so many of these women have not that every single, any, like we just have to automatically believe every single detail that any of any of these women are giving. Um because actually everybody is subject to the same different kinds of biases and so forth. So Emma has other kinds of reasons in addition to um the stated policy of her church, which is, which is a avowed partisan of Brigham Young church. Brigham Young is saying from the pulpit, just horrific things about Emma. Uh And so, and so what, it's not only polygamy that she is accusing him of lying about, he, he has said hor horrific things you know about, about her and she has other contexts that she is also having to deal with, which is they are now in the very height of the Victorian era. And so her and any of these women actually talking about um personal uh intimate relationships, it is very difficult for them to even talk about. Are you wife in the full sense of the word that you know, in other words, as they're trying to get around us in terms of Victorian um the Victorian era. And also also we are in a, in a time period when, because of the um the ending of the lying for the Lord about polygamy, they're still lying for the Lord about a lot of the things out in Utah. Anyway, when the, when the, when the end of that policy happens, the the level of hatred for Utah Mormons that happens across the planet is crazy. People don't even, people don't realize the amount of um just total hatred in the United States for, for Mormons. And so for all of these Mormons that are living in the Midwest who didn't escape, you know, we don't even call ourselves Mormons because everyone that Joseph the third called himself a Mormon. You know, and all that came when the reorganization happened, the community of Christ happened. But after, after the name Mormon became so hated because of polygamy, um we, we even renounced Star and Mountain Meadows massacre and all those things we renounced our, our own name. You know, we, we now if you talk to community of Christ, even though, even though we consider Joseph, the Smith Junior to be our first prophet and we consider to be our history and all those kind of things, you know, we don't even call, we don't, we totally reject the word Mormon. If you ask community of Christ members, you know, on your restoration as friends too, you know, are, are you Mormons or how do they use the word Mormon? They use the word Mormons to refer to people in Utah only or also to our ancestors sometimes, you know, and so, and so it's, it's such a, it's such a crazy identity freak fe that has happened because of the level of pressure and hatred. So, so for Emma to be, you know, you know, changing the policy that she had inherited uh from the public denials, which is what the policy was in. Nu to know. Yeah. Now I'm gonna openly admit it to everybody in the press and everything like that when I, when this is now being asked of me again on her own, I it would be, I, I think it would be strange for her to, to start doing that, especially when it was something that she was personally had been so opposed to and that she um and it was so shameful, you know, and it was nothing, you know, it's like a uh she'd already the fact that, you know, her husband's name is associated with the Mormon church. You know what I mean? There's community of Christ at a certain point is so tiny that nobody's considering us to anything, anything about us is we're, you know, weirdo Mormons are just lumped in with Mormons, you know, and so, and so all of this was blanketing them. So anyway, so I think it's very understandable why, why her testimony is that way and it's not about believing her and not believing her. It's understanding why um given where she was at, why she would make the statements in that way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h07m27s 2:07:27]
Michelle: OK. Which is exactly what I'm saying about the women in Utah. Because from my perspective, I think Emma is truthful. I don't think she's dissembling or lying for the Lord, but I think the women in Utah are so it's a different. So, so that's why I think it's useful to get into the nuts and bolts and, you know, at least consider what might be a possibility. But um oh, there's 10, and I totally agree with you with the um the, what's the word I'm looking for? Just the way that Mormons were viewed in Utah. And I think that help, that we need to understand that to help us understand William Law's testimony. And Chesterton, I mean, and Winchester's testimony, they really were trying to distance themselves from Joseph Smith or from the foundations. I think that's a better way to understand where they were coming from at that point saying something good about Joseph Smith would not have been cool. So they distance themselves as much as possible. So, um anyway, ok, so going on, let's see, there were other things I was going to, well, well, can we move forward to the um Sarah Anne Whitney? Sure um letter. And so do you want to explain that to the audience or do you want me to? I know most of them will know, but we can give it a quick recap. I will if you,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h08m34s 2:08:34]
John Hamer: we sometimes I think bring that to the four and it usually gets quoted at length because it is a contemporary document again. So, um uh it's wonderful to have uh you know, the later affidavits, but like you say, some of those affidavits are collected by the Brigham White Church, others are um are not in other words. So they're, you, you had to, you had to create kind of two categories because you either are Brigay or what you call enemies of Joseph Smith. Um And so that's a broad category that involves all kinds of different, different people. Um But in any event, that's the uh one of the things that we have in terms of going back to the contemporary evidence of, of loyalists who then later become Brigham mis um are uh this, this letter that uh it is from Joseph Smith to the, the Whitney family during, while he's doing this, hiding out from the law and he, um, is hoping to have them come and, um, come and visit him. And so it is not explicit what about what it says, but what it is explicit about it is they can, they should not come to be there. He, he's saying I've got my own room, it'll be really discreet and everything like that. But don't come if Emma's around. So if Emma's around do not, do not come, you know. And so, and so therefore, um uh it is read uh with the implication though, right? So in other words, it isn't saying uh my dearest wife, I love you and all this kind of thing. And uh I can't, I miss you. I want to have sex with you or something like that. But the um the implication is not very far below the surface. And that's one of the reasons why it's read a lot because it's contemporary and then it was buttressed by um a revelation dictated by Joseph Smith in UK Whitney's hand. Um And so then the question though then is uh because Noel K Whitney for people who are uh brigand might, he is later a loyalist to the, the Brigham my church. Um So the question is to what extent, you know, way you trust no K Whitney as a uh as a scribe for that kind of a revelation. And so, in that case, in other words, because it's very explicit about the plural marriage between Joseph Smith and uh his daughter.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h10m50s 2:10:50]
Michelle: OK. OK. So this letter to the Whitneys to Newell and Elizabeth Whitney and company is written in Joseph's own hand. And it, to my understanding is really the only contemporaneous piece we have written by Joseph that we can point to about his polygamy. That's the main one I know. And then as you said, it's buttressed by a revelation given to Noel K Whitney that includes the marriage ceremony. He is to the words he's to say like it is very explicit, tells him what to say as he's marrying. Um Joseph and Sarah Anne. OK. So, um so getting into this, what I find, well, oh, I have so many questions, but as historians, is it not really important to consider the context, right? Like like in, in investigating this letter, shouldn't we read Joseph's journal for this time period, for example? And, and so does that shape the way you view this letter? Well, and I'll come back to that. I have one more question as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h11m55s 2:11:55]
John Hamer: Well, I think that for example, in that letter is fully quoted, for example, in George D Smith's novel Polygamy, but we called it Plural Marriage or something or celestial marriage. And, and I think he puts even a, I think he even has a calendar of the Joseph Smith's events or whatever right around there in order to give it that kind of a context. Um the place that I was quoting it from was from Todd Compton's book uh in, in Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. And that's one that I just recommend everyone to read. You know, we're talking about um uh getting into, interested in the lives of the women involved, uh whether they become Brigham mis or not. And however much you want to believe them, at least you can also um understand the struggles of early Latter day saint women and pioneers. And we don't often get to see those kind of biographies. And so the fact that uh Todd Compton, you know, put gathered those stories together is, is really worth reading. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h12m52s 2:12:52]
Michelle: I, so I think Todd Compton is one of the best guys. He is such a nice guy. I super appreciate that he did this um the biographies of the women. I, one thing that I did push back with him on when I talked to him, I don't like when historians state things as factual, they state their narrative as factual. And I think that that's one that's like I absolutely say, yes, read that book with the caveat of understanding that he is stating factual things that are based in very questionable evidence from my perspective. So, um but so, so,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h13m23s 2:13:23]
John Hamer: so one of the things that happens, I'll just say one of the things that happens. And this is also like I said, the case when I just talked about this, right at the beginning with the historical Jesus, right? So there is a big difference between um if you're gonna go through and just make the case where we can say thus, it has been demonstrated. There was a historical Jesus, there is a big difference from that argumentative case once that's been demonstrated. Now, now we can go back and look at the the general sources, understanding that there's a historical Jesus. Now, we can, what can we say about this historical Jesus? And we could say more about the historical Jesus then things that are being said about him or whether they're not proofs that he existed, they are given that we know that he existed. This is what we now can say on him based on the sources that we have. And so what I would say that suggests that Todd is doing is not every single part of this is a book that is a proof. Joseph Smith was a plam that has already been conclusively shown by all of the evidence taken, the preponderance of evidence. The fact that this is the um the most likely narrative because the evidence is so great, both contemporaries before or after people who are Briga mights, people who are you call enemies of Joseph Smith. But in other words, people who are insiders who break with him, um people who uh continue in other factions, uh people and who continue to be therefore loyal to Joseph Smith. People who like Benjamin Winchester even if they're not loyal to Joseph Smith have no loyalty to Brigham Young, they hate Brigham Young, you know, and so could have, if Brigham Young was the origin of it, he'd be very happy to have said so. So once we already, we have have that um the preponderance of evidence. In other words, where historians have established that Joseph Smith is a polygamist. Now, you, now we are telling the story based on, uh you know, what, what can, how can we understand it, you know, based on the other evidence. And so, and so that all I would just suggest to you, it isn't this, this entire book is not a every single argument that he's making about reconstructing lives that we can't know as much about, right? So my great, great, great, great grandparents, daughter who is married to Joseph Smith, Nancy, Mariah Winchester, almost nothing is known about her other than our, our, our brief family um remembrances and so forth, you know, we don't have a lot of those documents that like of this letter, you know, we don't have, um we don't have a revelation that Joseph Smith dictated to my great grandfather. We don't have anything, we don't have any writings from my great, great, great grandfather. You know, he, uh and so as a result of that, um it's not a proof Todd Compton in order to create that has had to, um you know, women are not always as uh don't always have as much of a role in history and make the documents in terms of so that we can reconstruct those lives. And so, and so that so if we only had my family's reminiscence, we wouldn't be able to prove a thing about Joseph Smith and polygamy, right. In other words, because it's only in the context of the rest of the evidence that we can try to tease out Nancy's story. And so and so that's OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h16m25s 2:16:25]
Michelle: OK. So, so yes, but the interesting thing is usually Todd Compton's book is used as the authoritative source and the proof. That's how like even when I was contacting the church library, the church family history library and asking for documents and information, even they, their recommendation was read Brian Hale's book and read Todd Compton's book if you want to know about Joseph's polygamy. So, so what I'm saying is we have these narratives, but we haven't done the due diligence to question the assumptions underlying them. And I think that work needs to be done. So that's what I'm trying to engage in now. But I want to go forward,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h17m02s 2:17:02]
John Hamer: we don't maybe have a text that somebody has written. What you know, some historian would have to take it upon themselves to do that thing that I was talking about doing in terms of proving the existence of the historical Jesus where I have an art. I have a, I have a lecture that I did just that. Right. And I don't normally do that. I'm normally talking about all that we can know about the historical Jesus. And so I, I could agree with you that, that probably hasn't been done. And the reason why it hasn't been done is because until you and all of the growing number of people who are, uh, are coming at it from the direction you are, it has not been necessary to do that because the, um it's been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all the historians. And so therefore, nobody's had to argue that we've already come to a place where we are now trying to explain it and so forth. Um But, and so, so I agree with you that maybe that book should be written.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h17m55s 2:17:55]
Michelle: OK. Good. Well, hopefully it will be. So, so I just want to move on. I know we've been talking for a while. So are we OK to go on to Sarah and Whitney? And, and uh so, so one thing I find interesting is you, you said that the revelation is in New? OK, Whitney's hand. Have you seen that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h18m11s 2:18:11]
John Hamer: So, so I was, I think, I think I was quoting Todd for that. I have seen it. I looked it up on the Joseph Smith papers, but I didn't, but um, but I didn't necessarily see what the Joseph Smith papers said, whose hand it is? So has it, is it in somebody else's hand?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h18m25s 2:18:25]
Michelle: So what we have on the Joseph Smith papers, which is the most authoritative source that we have access to. We have a 1912 type written copy that that is what was presented to Joseph F Smith when he requested it from the family. And then the only other two sources we have are two manuscript copies that the Joseph Smith papers just says are circa 1918 70 with no um no explanation as to why they're 1870. It just we have 200 written copies by unknown writers in 1870. It says, and then, but the type written copy is the is the one that was used to, to base this. So I I would be curious to know which came first. Where did they, you know? So we actually, and this was never mentioned at all until, oh, shoot, I have it here. I'll have to find it. I believe it wasn't mentioned until I want to say it was 1865 but I might have that year wrong. I'll have to find it was the first time that a revelation was even mentioned and it was later than that. I'll find it. And it was there was um man, I've got to find my notes published in a newspaper that um that this revelation existed but had never been published. But what's really interesting is that before that newspaper article that said that um it it existed um Elizabeth Ann Whitney had written her autobiography, which was carried. So it was much later than that I will find the dates. But her autobiography was carried in the women's exponent. It's called a Leaf from A P A leaf from an autobiography I believe. And it starts in November of 1878. And not only does she never mention that revelation, which I would think would be a pretty important revelation because it's, you know, she's involved in it and it's very important. But the, the story she gives in the autobiography directly contradicts the story in the um the the revelation, they can't both be true. And so I think that is very high, a highly questionable source to use because we have to, again the context Elizabeth Ann Whitney absolutely would have mentioned it. And so in Elizabeth Ann Whitney's autobiography, she says that it was when Bishop Whitney had the be made of, of section 132 that she, she read it and they fasted and prayed until they were willing to give their daughter to Joseph in the revelation that was given in 1842 a year earlier. I can't remember what month off the top of my head. Um I'll think of it maybe July but um but it said that this what you have agreed to is right. So it says that they had already agreed to give Elizabeth and Whitney. So I see no reason to not assume that this is also a later reproduction at some point in the Utah period either. Um you know, like, like some people hypothesize that it was Hebrew C. Kimball who came up with it, which is part of the reason that if it does, I mean, if it wasn't just created in 1912 or in 1870 if it was copied from something, they're not releasing what that was, it obviously made it across the plains if it was able to be copied in 1870. And most, some people really think it would be a Newell K Whitney's handwriting based on misspellings based on using initials and words. So, so I wanted to point out this is a highly, highly questionable source. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h21m58s 2:21:58]
John Hamer: so, like I said, for that one, like I, what I probably was doing was pulling uh because of the letter, you know, and uh and, and so, and because again, this is something that I was pulling out of Todd Compton's book. Um So in this particular case, I appreciate that we go through and, and uh again, look at in every individual document which is really important to do. Um And it may well be um that a late reminiscence that somebody has, you know, you're making an argument that, that late reminiscence for their autobiography, um where they, that you, that would be a negative evidence, right? That, that she would have remembered this or that would have been important. Well, you know, and people don't always remember how it all, you know, you know what all the order of things are. So I don't, I don't, we would have to make the argument about that in, in particular case, like I say, I didn't have that in that way because I'm not, um, I am not actually a front line historian in terms of the person who is, uh let's say, looking at every one of these documents in the, um, in order to create a book like Todd Compton, Todd Compton will have been doing that. I uh I'm not doing that because it's not, that's not my focus of my work on, you know, but I'm instead taking, taking what is in the, in that case, the secondary sources and um helping people understand why historians have gotten to that place. And so, so I appreciate that we can talk about every particular individual uh piece of the different evidence. The reason why I'll tell you that I, I used the, the letter, the letter is pretty compelling, you know, because it is a uh contemporary. Um and this other document, like I say, when I even introduced it to you to you, I was saying, you know, purports to be from the time whether but like you say, it depends on our understanding of it because of it coming through the, the briga my tradition, which is itself biased and pro polygamy. It wouldn't be, I, I find it highly unlikely it would be something that be created in, in like 1912 because they're not in favor of polygamy at that point. But anyway, but if you're talking about, um, again, is, is the Brigham White Church prepared to forge evidence in the 18 sixties and 18 seventies and 18 fifties even? Yes, of course, they are. So, and all the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h24m21s 2:24:21]
Michelle: way up into the 18 forties. Yeah, the late 18 forties and early 18 fifties because I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h24m25s 2:24:25]
John Hamer: all through that time period. Um Brigham Brigham Young, in my opinion, doesn't have any legitimate claim to for his coup and he has to justify his coup in a bunch of different ways, you know. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h24m36s 2:24:36]
Michelle: so, ok, so I found this. So, so the the Joseph Smith papers say that the earliest we have is 1870 those two manuscript copies, we don't know who they're by then. It was mentioned for the first time it was in contributor which I can show in January 1885 is the first time it says there's this revelation that's never been published, but it exists. So I guess
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h24m57s 2:24:57]
John Hamer: what I had seen on the, on the on the Justice Smith papers is in fact the letter that not the not the purported revelation, right? So that's, that's what I was surprised. I was surprised by the letter being on there. So because I had never looked at it, I read the letter. So that, that's what I guess I had seen on the Joseph Smith papers. Not, I hadn't looked up the revelation. I looked at the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h25m16s 2:25:16]
Michelle: letter. So, ok, so, so then let's talk about the letter because I think so. I hope that you'd like, understand why I see. It's interesting you say the experts in this topic because really, Todd Compton wasn't an expert either. He was an ancient historian, you know, and he was really surprised he was given the grant to study the, um, the journals. And so he's also, you know, so he also was based, had this assumption when he did his work. So really the prices who I know you say they've been debunked. But I don't like, I don't think most people have even read them and considered the amount of information they have to deal with it. You have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h25m54s 2:25:54]
John Hamer: all this became such an issue because of the, because of the remnant. Um, you know, the, the gathering of the, whatever the remnant movement is called, you know, the snuff right movement because this became such a big issue, automatic way back in like the two thousands. Um uh I went and got, you know, Joseph fought polygamy and I, and I read through it and so forth so that I could be able to see what, what was being presented there. But yeah, OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h26m19s 2:26:19]
Michelle: I think that's good because I think it's like, like, um, if I, I mean, I don't know that you want to speak to people like me. I don't know like you said, I don't know if that's your expertise or your wheelhouse that you want to um present on Joseph's polygamy. But since you are presenting on it, it would be good to know what the issues are. You know, because, because you are saying it with such certainty and that's why I like started with that feeling that when the historians speak, the thinking has been done because that perspective doesn't feel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h26m45s 2:26:45]
John Hamer: so it's the dismissal, it's the dismissal of whole washes of evidence. So in other words, if you're going to like the prices, dismiss anything that Brigham Young touch and everything that is an enemy of Joseph. Well, then suddenly you're left with no, you know, you're not left with any honest evidence. And so and so because all you have is Joseph Smith lying and, and all of the other and, and so, and so that's, and so that gives you, that paints you into the picture place that you want to be. So and that's kind of,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h27m16s 2:27:16]
Michelle: well, so to clarify for me, um like I I'm not about dismissing evidence, I'm about investigating it. So for example, the Whitney revelation, I think that's worth investigating. Yeah. Yeah. And I, yeah. So um so anyway, the, the thing that I find interesting with the letter is um so I have to link, I'll link in the show notes, Rob Fathering Ham, who you might know because he's, he's made videos on this topic quite a bit and he did an excellent one on Sarah and Whitney and um, and this situation, so I get some of this quite a bit of this information from him. But um it's interesting to consider the situation, the context again of that letter that I think helps us interpret it in much more um accurate ways. Right? And so Joseph, at this time, as you said, was in hiding because of the murder attempt on Governor Boggs. Right? And so the, the mobs were trying, I mean, the, the Missourians were trying to find him, which they all knew would be a death sentence if they found him. So he was very serious that he was in hiding. Right? And um he also, I just think it is interesting because, you know, he's an extrovert. He's like, you didn't have a computer like this would have been a miserable, miserable time, right? He want, he, he would have craved seeing people. And so, um anyway, and so I guess I'm curious to know, first of all, do you have any evidence that Joseph and Emma were struggling in their relationship at this time or that he was, you know, other than just the narrative, I'm not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h28m42s 2:28:42]
John Hamer: making any claim that Joseph and Emma are struggling. I don't, he doesn't want Emma to know that they're going to come visit because he's having a clandestine relationship with Noel K Whitney's daughter.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h28m53s 2:28:53]
Michelle: And so it's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h28m54s 2:28:54]
John Hamer: not because they're struggling, they're not, he, he's very happy to visit with Emma. He's saying Emma might come some of the time and because, because, because she's coming to visit him because they're, they're getting along just fine. I don't, I don't have this Brigham Young uh uh narrative where Emma was a hell, hell and, and trying to poison him and all of this, all these dumb Brigham young lies, I think that they are, are very good partners. But Joseph Smith is also abusing his authority on the side, on the sly in this way and deceiving her about it. And so, um ok,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h29m25s 2:29:25]
Michelle: that's interesting. That's interesting because the whole narrative we get of Joseph being deceptive and, and this polygamy comes from the same source that, that Emma as this crazy lady comes from, you know, it's all it is all based in the William Clayton journals. And so it's interesting to dismiss part of them and not, you know, you know, to take part of the narrative and, and dismiss
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h29m50s 2:29:50]
John Hamer: a fight. She's opposed to this polygamy
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h29m53s 2:29:53]
Michelle: quick interruption. And then we'll get back into the conversation. I realized that it would be important for the listeners to understand exactly what we're talking about. So I'm going to read the letter written in Joseph Smith's own hand marked August 18th by William Clayton, dear and beloved brother and sister Whitney and et cetera. Now, first, please note it's addressed to beloved brother and sister Whitney and others. It doesn't actually ever say Sarah Anne's name, the assumption we have that this is Sarah Anne Whitney is based upon again, the later testimonies that I believe were built around this letter. I take this opportunity to communicate some of my feelings privately at this time, which I want you through eternally to keep in your own bosoms for my feelings are so strong for you since it, what has passed lately between us that the time of my absence from you seems so long and dreary that it seems as if I could not live long in this way. And if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief of mind if those with whom I am allied do love me. Now is the time to afford me succor in the days of exile for you know, I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Granger's just back at Brother Hiram's farm. It is only one mile from town. The nights are very pleasant. Indeed. All three of you can come in, see me in the fore part of the night. Let brother Whitney come a little ahead and knock at the southeast corner of the house at the window. It is next to the cornfield. I have a room entirely by myself. The whole matter can be attended to with the most perfect safety. Again, please note that the theme of this letter is how they can get there to visit him in safety without threatening his life by giving away his location. I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me. Now, in the time of affliction or not at all now is the time or never, but I have no need of saying any such thing to you for. I know the goodness of your heart and that you will do the will of the Lord. When it is made known to you, the only thing to be careful of is to find out when Emma comes, then you cannot be safe. But when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety. Only be careful to escape observation as much as possible, right? That's the theme of the letter you can't be seen coming to visit me and give away my hiding place. I know it is a heroic undertaking, but so much the greater friendship and the more joy when I see you, I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper. Burn this letter as soon as you read it, keep all locked up in your breasts. My life depends upon it. And who is his life in danger from, from Emma or from the Missourians? One thing I want to see you for is to get the fullness of my blessing sealed upon our heads, et cetera. You will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject. When you consider how lonesome. I must be your good feelings. Know how to make every allowance for me. I close my letter. I think Emma won't come tonight if she don't, don't fail to come tonight. I subscribe myself your most obedient and affectionate companion and friend Joseph Smith. Now, back to the conversation. So, um, so anyway, that week, so we don't actually have a date on that letter William Clayton later wrote in on the top of it, August 18th. And so I think it's interesting to look at this week because um, we know from the journal entries and the letters at this time period that Emma was being closely followed by these people, these Missourians trying to find Joseph Smith, they had to do all kinds of different surreptitious decoys and, you know, send a carriage that way and send one this way, send a writer that way. And Emma got on the carriage part of the way, then walked at night because she was being so closely followed. Right? And so wouldn't that be a very logical explanation of why? Um, they needed to watch out for Emma? Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h33m48s 2:33:48]
John Hamer: I'm sorry. No, it's not. That's not what the, I don't think that I read the letter that way at all. So, no.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h33m53s 2:33:53]
Michelle: So I read, I read a letter to two parents. It's addressed to Newell and Elizabeth Whitney. And the idea and, and Joseph has one room in someone else's house and he's arranging a booty call with the parents who are going to be there while it occurs. That's right. And that seems more likely to you knowing that Emma was being closely followed and that Emma was likely there when this letter was written and may have even been the one who delivered it because she was delivering letters for
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h34m24s 2:34:24]
John Hamer: Joseph. And if, if, if, um, Emma would have delivered a letter like this, which ii, I doubt that a letter like this, which even says on it, I think burn this letter later. You know, don't, don't say this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h34m40s 2:34:40]
Michelle: But do you know why, why do you think it says burn this letter?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h34m43s 2:34:43]
John Hamer: So that again, this kind of these kinds of clandestine communications are not coming to light. And so certainly, so that Emma doesn't get a hold of these, these kind of letters. And so I, again, Joseph is deceiving his wife about these relationships. And so, and so what I, I don't think that anybody is going through the, the risky, I mean, a risky behavior of having her actually deliver them like Rosen Grants and gil during style letters. And unless you really trust that she never opens letters. Um So no, I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h35m17s 2:35:17]
Michelle: so on the night of the 17th, so we, I don't know what day this letter was written. William Clayton adds the 18th, which maybe because there's not a journal entry on the 18th. III I know that William Clayton was going through sources to craft his narrative. That's, that's something we've looked into very deeply. But um but on the, in the middle of the night, on the 17th, they moved Joseph in his place of hiding. Emma was with him. Emma came to tell him that his hiding place had been discovered and it needed to immediately move. And that's when he went. Is it the grangers that he went to? I can't remember what the letter says, but both his journal and the letter are in agreement in that and in the and so his hiding place is very important and in the letter, he says I am at this place, burn this letter.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h36m05s 2:36:05]
John Hamer: Yeah, so that would also be a good, that would be a good reason also to burn it. So in other words, he, he is in hiding and so therefore he does not want this correspondence to get out his hiding place. He doesn't want to get out. But in terms of Emma being with him or not, the letter is also very clear, like you say that Emma is often going to be able to be at this hiding place. So, so the issue is not that he's apart from Emma, but he is sometimes apart from Emma and that's what he wants them to visit.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h36m31s 2:36:31]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. Except so Emma also said, so we have letters going back and forth between Joseph at this time as well. So she comes and visit hits him twice, once on the 11th and there's that meeting on the island and Noel K Whitney is there and Emma is there and Hiram is there. Emma is the only woman there. And Joseph writes about his feelings that night. And so I think it's on, in his, that meeting happened on the 11th and in his journal on the 16th, it says with what unspeakable delight and what transports of joy swelled my bosom. When I took by the hand on that night, my beloved Emma, she, that was my wife, even the wife of my youth and the choice of my heart. Many were the rev reverberations of my mind. When I contemplated for a moment, that many scene we had been called to pass through the fatigues and the toils, the sorrows and sufferings and the joys and consolations from time to time had strewn our ps and crowned our board. Oh, what a com of thought filled my mind for the moment. Again. She here again, she is here even in the seventh, trouble, undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable affectionate Emma. So he wrote that on the 16th. On the 17th. She comes, she's also with him all day, I believe on the 14th. And they talk about, you know, they, they got to have that time together on the 16th. He writes this on the 17th in the middle of the night she comes and moves him and on the 18th, he's arranging a tryst. Yes, that's what we claim. Ok. And, and, and it's based on that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h37m59s 2:37:59]
John Hamer: I don't think there's anything uncomfortable with. I'm sorry to say with that timeline even as you've outlined it because like you said, it's, we're not sure. But let's say, let's say that that date is correct, that is added and that's the timeline. And he is even having those positive thoughts about Emma and his, uh, his partnership with her that is not precluding um, these relationships that he is having with these other women. And so what exactly he feels about those and what exactly the point of those is, is and so forth. But that does not, that's not precluding him doing that. So, so it is not, uh, I agree that there is a, um, an attempt by, uh Brigham Young who is a big enemy of em, em, a big enemy of Brigham Young. Brigham Young is not even an important person at this point in, in, in nu I would say, you know, he, he
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h38m48s 2:38:48]
Michelle: wasn't there at that meeting with Joseph on the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h38m50s 2:38:50]
John Hamer: 11th. I mean, I mean, all of these statues that the L DS make of Brigham Young and, and Joseph Smith is giving him the plans to go west and all this nonsense. Um, you know, my, um, we have like a, in the recollection from Benjamin Winchester, uh, at, you know, at this time, uh, he apparently, uh, um, Joseph Smith said to my great, great, great, great grandmother, this is hearsay. It's just what Benjamin Winchester says. He says that, uh, if Brigham Young ever gets a hold of this church, he'll, he'll lead it to heal. He says to her, you know, a lot of that. And, um, and, and I don't believe necessarily that, that, that he told my great, great grandmother that because I'm not sure that Joseph Smith would have imagined that somebody as low and unimportant as Brigham Young would ever get a hold of a church because he's just, in my opinion, he's sort of like the head of Joseph Smith's dirty tricks people, you know. So when Joseph Smith wants to do um, bad things like, uh assassinate uh bogs or any other illegal thing, he's got a co a coterie of, of these yes men like Brigham Young who do the bad stuff for him. Um, but I don't think that he would have thought of that guy as ever taking over, you know? So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h40m01s 2:40:01]
Michelle: ok. Ok. So I, I want to throw this in because I thought it was interesting. So this isn't directly applicable. But, um, some people have said to me that because Joseph's, um, journal entry says the wife of my youth that he's differentiating Emma from his other wives. But I think it's interesting to recognize Joseph was so familiar with the Bible, right? He was quoting the Old Testament. It's Proverbs 518, which is, which talks about the wife of your, of your youth. And explicitly says, like ban it, bans you from having relationships with anyone other than the wife of your youth. So I think it's interesting that that was the scripture that he referred to in um in, in that letter. But another, so there are a couple of other points along these lines that I think are interesting because I see, I see what you're saying that you are, you interpret this letter this way, but it's based, all we have is the letter and it's just our interpretation of it, right? And especially when we recognize that the revelation is so highly problematic. And like, II, I feel comfortable saying it's absolutely a forgery because Elizabeth Whitney would have known about that revelation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h41m09s 2:41:09]
John Hamer: So whether it is or not, it's actually not, not in the end relevant to the, again, the preponderance of evidence. So the, the letter is read consonant to all of the evidence that we have contemporary and then later of everybody based on all of their different um you know, biases uh pro and against and often very anti Brigham Young, you know, and so, and so that's why that's why like, you know, you're talking about it and you say, well, I'm reading it this way because the, because he's writing this love letter to Emma, what he doesn't have to be on the outs with Emma or hating Emma to be engaged uh in the system because he could have justified it to himself in any number of ways that he's doing it. He's, um, he is definitely, now, by this point made it a system so that he is justifying it religiously even. And it is also involving women who are older, who he's probably not having physical relationships with. But it, um, is, a lot of people have tried to, like Richard Bushman have tried to suggest, well, what really this is like, it's dynastic and so forth. And so when, um, you know, we're, we're, we're saying it in a, in a very negative way, you know, he's talking to the presiding bishop of the church and arranging a booty call or whatever is how you're characterizing it. And I'm saying, sure we can call it that, but this is also, um, they've been sold to it, the idea that, uh, that they are now their family is being sealed to Joseph Smith's family and, and, and himself specifically, uh in the eternities as he is now going to essentially being an exalted God man or something like that. And they are going to be brought into those glories with him. And that would have been the same reason why my great, great, great, great grandparents also as a couple will have given their daughter to Joseph Smith to be a plural wife. So in other words, it's not, um, it's not out of, he's not doing it without talking to the parents. Um In this case, his parents are insiders, you know, like Heber Kimball or whatever, he, he propositions, um, you know, Hebrew's wife or whatever, a couple times, you know, positions. Hebrew, they gave him his wife a couple of times, which doesn't happen, but it's like a loyalty test and then he gets the daughter right and so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h43m21s 2:43:21]
Michelle: forth according to Heber's later reminiscence. But let me go on with this, um, this, these letters and then this is the last piece of evidence. I'll talk about it this one. So um this is um August 16th Emma wrote it and Joseph wrote a letter that says, my dear Emma, I embrace this opportunity to express to you some of the feelings. So the 16th, right, we say the letters written the eight, she was there all day, the 14th, right? They moved on the 17th. So this is the 16th. I wanted to um first of all, I take the liberty to tender you my sincere thanks for the two interesting and consoling visits that you have made made me during my almost exiled situation. Tongue cannot express the gratitude of heart for the warm and true, true hearted friendship. You have manifested in these things towards me that it goes forward. Brother Miller again suggested to me the propriety of me, a company of my accompanying him to the pine woods and then he return and bring you and the Children. My mind will eternally revolt at every suggestion of that kind, my safety is with you if you want to have it. So anything more or less than this cometh of evil. If I go to the pine country country, you shall go with me and the Children. And if you and the Children go not with me, I don't go, I do not wish to exile myself for the sake of my own life. I would rather fight it out. It is for your sakes. Therefore that I would do such a thing. I will go with you then in the same carriage for, I am not willing to trust you in the hands of those who cannot feel the same interest for you that I feel. I think if I could have a respite for about six months with my family, it would be a savor of life unto me. Tell the Children that all is well with their father as yet and that he remains in fervent prayer to the Almighty God. Um All right to God for the safety of himself and for you and for them, tell Mother Smith that it shall be well with her son, yours in haste your affectionate husband until death through all eternity. Forevermore, Joseph Smith. And the thing that I think is particularly interesting. I know you can hear that and just say sure he's duplicitous. He's saying this Emma while
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h45m13s 2:45:13]
John Hamer: he loves his wife.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h45m15s 2:45:15]
Michelle: Yes. And he's also he's also making arrangements with her saying I want to be with you and stay with you and I'll go where you go.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h45m25s 2:45:25]
John Hamer: If I have to escape to the pioneers, if I go to go to Wisconsin, I don't want to go alone. I'm going to go with you guys because I want to take you to be with me and, you know, because I, and not just for any duplicitous reason, it's because I, you know, I'm in love with you and I love their family and I love the kids, you know. So II, I don't think that he's in this place where this is happening as a result of him hating Emma or something like that. None of this is about um not liking Emma. Like I would even say, uh um William Law's uh recollections are, are in fact that they're in it together because of that brief period that he's introduced to. This is when, when Emma is temporarily on board for a second about this. But it's not because of, uh it's not because of a bad partnership that he has with Emma, that this is happening. And certainly by the end, I think, uh even though again, and like you say, uh Emma later in her testimony denies this burning of the, of the revelation or the documents. Uh I think personally that, that at a certain point, he realized what a foolish thing that he had been doing uh in the end of his life and that they um burned this thing together. He took no new uh marriages and he was going to do the same thing that he did with John C Bennett, which is to say after the heat had gotten high, he was going to root it out of the church. He was going to make Brigham Young his scapegoat and he, and he was going to get enlist William marks in order to scapegoat Brigham Young. And if, and if Joseph Smith,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h46m58s 2:46:58]
Michelle: how do you know he was gonna make Brigham Young his scapegoat? I just am curious about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h47m03s 2:47:03]
John Hamer: speculation. I'm sorry, I'm speculating. So, so at this point, I'm saying he's gonna make somebody a scapegoat. And so and so, and so somebody's got to take the fall like John C Bennett took the fall. John C. Bennett had been his best friend. But anyway, at this point, John C Bennett had to take the fall on the first time around. And so now, you know the head of his um yes man, these guys that are doing his, you know, all of Joseph Smith's stealing for the Lord and all those kind of things, Brigham Young. Um I'm just saying he's the, he's the head guy whose head is likely to roll. That's just my, you know, my guess who he picked to take the fall that has nothing to do. But, but, but I do think that what he he he definitely tells, I think William Marks, we've got to root this out of the church and, uh, and he realizes that, you know, this, this whole path has been wrong. And so that's how II I take Joseph Smith and it's not because of a bad partnership with Emma or anything like that. And I actually, when you read that love letter, um, one of the, one of the saddest parts of, of, um, um, I don't know the Brigham my tradition is, is if you just think about it, like for, for Joseph Smith, I mean, you, I think you have a high opinion of Joe Smith and like him and think back at him as the founder of this movement and who you'd like to have, you know, do you think positively of, right? Just think of this incredible betrayal of the Brigham my people in terms of ripping the whole institution away from this family who's then left, right? You know, and so if you can imagine Joseph Smith, if he would have ever have said, oh, yeah, let's just, let's give this church structure to Brigham Young and leave my son alone, you know, destitute here or whatever in the, in the, in the midwest. I mean, and so in that way, I also, um I don't wonder when we go back and look at these things, why then more, more people who are, where you're at don't then want to look at community of Christ and the actual inheritance of, um, Emma and the Smith family. That what Joseph Smith would have wanted um uh as a, as a different alternative. Yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h49m05s 2:49:05]
Michelle: So, well, my, my perspective at this point is, and, and you might not like to hear this, but I think that the community of Christ has betrayed Emma and Joseph Smith the third in the same way that Brigham Young did it. That's what makes me like the doctor and covenants. We have, I think at section 122 I'll have to look it up, but it says that thy friends will not be convinced by the testimony of traitors. And, and that's what makes me sad is, I think that, you know, one of the biggest arguments in favor of Joseph's polygamy is that the RL DS Church or now the community of Christ has gone along with this narrative. But I, I did an episode on that and, and so for me, it wouldn't be like I do, I do believe we have a lot of problems in our history. Brigham Young is a very problematic and troubling figure. I, you know, I think that most of the Smith family was killed um because like um for the sake of a hostile takeover, right? And I think it's tragic. And so it's sad to me to see Joseph and Emma's Legacy Church also go the same direction. That's, and that's why I wanted to bring up because because when you're talking to me, I hear you um continually repeat the narrative, but I'm wanting the sources. I'm wanting the documents and all we have is this Whitney letter. And I would say if we look at like, like, well, well, we could, we, maybe we could talk again or we could do some more correspondence and bring up some other evidences because I would be very open to seeing them. The only things that I have seen are um much better interpreted in a different way with a better context. Like, um you know, like I, I read to you that the changing of the documents, the changing of the history cutting of our tradition in the L DS church when they prepared the um the history, not only did they change things, they just cut things out, they cut, you know, and so they have like, like our history includes John C Bennett's claim. We have that happiness letter as a true part of our history and we've cut out Joseph and Hiram's own words and own publications that's shocking to me. And as I see it go forward, I'm like, let's really look at this from a clean slate instead of wearing this briga my baggage and that has been pushed forward again and again repeatedly, we can look at this and, and with fresh eyes and say, what do we actually have, what is the actual evidence and what is the most likely conclusion within the context that, that we have for it? And we can set aside the later claims for not that we, not that we don't take them seriously, but we should investigate them. Like, for example, Elizabeth Whitney claimed that her daughter was married to Joseph Smith, but it doesn't match up with anything that we have. Right. And I know that you dismiss the problem of no Children. But for me, I, I have done deep research into the um contraceptive knowledge in that day and it convinces me that it is impossible to believe that he would not have Children. And I did another, I had um a fellow come on who's done a statistical analysis of the probability. And Benjamin Winchester, your own great, great, great grandfather claims that um who was it? Louisa Beaman that Joseph came and visited her at least once a week in his own home. So we have tricky claims if we're going to say, you know, we can't make this all work.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h52m28s 2:52:28]
John Hamer: So that so in terms of contraception already in that time period, for example, the whole nation of France's population stabilized. So, so one of the things that is happening is that people are able to, you know, we don't have the modern pill, we don't have that sort of contraception where we have um you know, systems that are always working. But if you are absolutely trying not to have kids, like Joseph Smith is trying not to have kids. So unlike Brigham Young and so forth and, and also frankly, the the justifications for polygamy, which are to raise up a righteous seed and all those kind of things that are maybe worked into the apologetics of why Joseph Smith is doing it. He is not wanting to have kids. And so I think that that is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h53m12s 2:53:12]
Michelle: shown by and again, I want to ask what you have for that,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h53m16s 2:53:16]
John Hamer: it is performed by the fact that there aren't any. And so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h53m19s 2:53:19]
Michelle: and so so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h53m21s 2:53:21]
John Hamer: in other words, so, so therefore, he's not trying, in other words, if, if, if he wanted to have a bunch of kids, he could have a bunch of kids because he's fertile, right? And so, and so, and so, so there's no reason to imagine that he wants to have a lot of kids. And so, and so he has a practice of spiritual wifey, whatever you want to call it celestial marriage, plural marriage where he is being sealed to all of these women and the women are giving affidavits in many cases after the fact, you know, like you say later where they're saying that it was every kind of uh you know, every kind of wife or there was a physical relationship. Uh But uh but what we'd also contemporaneously is um for example, when they're, when they're making uh scapegoating Bannet, you know, one of the things that they say about him is that he was an abortionist that he was involved in, in buggery. And so, um so people have said that that's a charge of Bennett being a homosexual, but actually buggery can refer to all non vaginal intercourse, right? And so one of the ways that you don't have Children is fight, you have other kinds of manual or whatever, these other kinds of, of, of sex. Like we talked about Bill Clinton at the beginning of this in Clintonian line. So, so in other words, there's that way of having sex and the, the way of reproduction that also prevents Children having is abortion. And so the, um, it's hard to hear that in a modern L DS context where people have really adopted the evangelical uh position on abortion. But the original position taught by, um, the church in the 18 forties is that, um, that the spirit only comes into the baby in the quickening, you know, at the moment of the quickening. And this is why, um for example, even in Saturday's warrior, um when the Emily is going to be born and there's a miscarriage, it's not that Emily, the spirit was already in that miscarried fetus, she gets in the next fetus, you know, and so forth because the original, um anyway, the idea is that the spirit enters either the quickening or at birth. And so that was a different Mormon position which would have justified abortion. So, um, ok,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h55m34s 2:55:34]
Michelle: so I have a lot of thoughts on all of this. Well, well, first of all, I think it would be worthwhile to if if you want to watch my episode on um, the insurmountable problem of no Children because I did a deep investigation of, of um, the knowledge of contraceptive concept at this time. And we can look, we have a very clear history of it. It's worth exploring before we, before we make these claims before we claim that they could have that John Bennett was a capable abortionist. I think it's worth that. But um, what's more is that we claim that these are Victorian women who would be very embarrassed about saying they were Joseph's wife and very deed and yet we are saying that they were engaging in anal sex, right? That's bizarre to me, like, completely bizarre to me to like, so this is a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h56m25s 2:56:25]
John Hamer: big difference between the public, what you're willing to say to the public and in an affidavit in court or in a, in a published newspaper and what you're able or willing to do when the prophet of your church who is every single thing else to you, um, is telling you or instructing you whatever you're doing. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h56m47s 2:56:47]
Michelle: yeah, I think, I think that's quite a claim to make. And again, it's only we have access to the same. It's only based on a choice on an interpretive choice. You see the evidence of no Children and go to anal sex and 18 forties abortion. I see the choice of no child, the evidence of no Children and say the possibility that Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, Hiram Smith, all of them were telling the truth in their consistent story. And that Brigham Young and the later dedicated polygamist who we know fudged history completely and we know lied repeatedly about everything, lied about Joseph Smith because they needed to have the validation that this was Joseph's church. And so I think that that is a completely plausible explanation and not only plausible but is a much better explanation for all of the evidence that we have. Like we know that Emma was being followed in the, the Whitney letter is the only thing I know of that's contemporaneous and it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h57m44s 2:57:44]
John Hamer: doesn't matter if it's only contemporaneous. I'm sorry, contemporaneous is not the whole of the historical record. You can't simply cut out all of the testimonies of all the people, including all of the non um non briga testimonies. And there is contemporaneous stuff which is to say, what does John C Bennett have to say? So he is an enemy of Joseph Smith at a certain point. But there that is all published contemporaneously as well. And it's consistent with what then uh people who are enemies of Bennett are saying, including Brigham Young. So, you know, I I'm sorry to say this is not the only evidence that we have, we have a preponderance of evidence that is massive in total. And so then we have to. So my, my thing, what I'm saying is why, why no Children that is what given the fact that we've already shown that Joseph Smith is a polygamist. How do we explain uh why there are no Children? And so the answer is that he is not wanting to produce Children. And that may be again, part of his thinking that's going into uh this polyandry thing. In other words, so that if there was going to be a kid that slips by, it's going to be attributed to the husband that the woman is actually married to you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=2h58m46s 2:58:46]
Michelle: OK. So, so let me, let me just add one and I know we need to go. But um the John C Ben thing is interesting because he gives us the initials, right? So he has LB, which is where we get Louisa Beaman, Louisa Beaman never claimed to have been one of Joseph's wives. I think it's important to recognize that the Brigham Mis absolutely had all of John C Bennett's writings and we have a pattern of them building a narrative on these previous writings. Like I said, they include the happiness letter in their own history as coming from Joseph. And John C. Bennett is the only source for that. And so the LB is interesting because that's where we get the whole story of Louisa Beaman. And now Dodd Bradley, who's going to come on this podcast soon. He um has discovered that that could not have happened with the only claim we have for Louisa Beaman is Joseph Bates Noble and he says, you know, and Don Bradley has learned that his house was not built at the time that Joseph Bates Noble claims that he and Joseph Fates Noble who's also just like all the rest of them. His testimony is everywhere. He does not sound credible. The judge in the Temple lot case did not find them credible in their testimonies. And so so Louisa Beaman has but but now because this narrative is so strong because the, the narrative is Joseph was a polygamist. We know that. So none of the evidence actually matters because we just twist it. So now they're just saying that actually the Louisa Beaman must have been a year or two later than we thought. So she wasn't the first wife. But really, it's I would, I mean, it's just as possible that John Bennett was making these accusations. There was no reason for him not to write the women's names. It wasn't the women who were going to sue him. It was Joseph who would have sued him. Joseph had a history of suing people and he's making the allegations against Joseph. And um so the lb the Briga mis came up with Louisa Beaman to try to fill that in Joseph Bates Noble was willing to say it. Louisa Beaman was already dead by the time they say that. And now we've exposed that as a lie that Joseph Bates Noble said. So all of this, that that's what I see happening is it's continually like this piece of evidence. Oh, nope, it's anal sex. This piece of evidence. Oh no, Joseph Bates Noble got the date wrong. This piece of evidence. Oh, no, it's we already know the outcome. So all of the evidence will be twisted
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h00m59s 3:00:59]
John Hamer: because the apologetic work on doing this is to go around and attack all the whatever the each and, and do a drill down on each and every little piece that's going on. And then again, like you're saying, insisting on pro Joseph Smith in his own handwriting, kind of things from his own time frame as being the the only thing that can really be trusted because anything that goes through uh anyway, somebody, somebody else is problematic. So, uh so anyway, I appreciate, you know, where you're coming from and that you have done a lot of study on this. But it, it, it's not, it's not, not, none of this is convincing, you know. So the fact that if Louisa Beaman is, is not on the list, it doesn't, you know, that's not really particularly relevant, you know. So I appreciate if she is, let me
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h01m46s 3:01:46]
Michelle: ask you one final question, what pieces of evidence am I missing that? I need to look at that. Like you, you have said, we have so much more evidence. I'm very aware of the of the later Utah testimonies. Like what critical pieces are you like? No, we have this and we have this and we have this, like, what comes to mind that you think is the best evidence because I guess I assumed you would have included what you saw as the best evidence in your presentation. So that's what I addressed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h02m11s 3:02:11]
John Hamer: So, no, so it's not about me like, um, finding one little piece of smoking gun evidence or whatever. That's what Joseph the third wanted as well. So in other words, he was willing, you know, uh you know, to do this as if, as if history is a uh a court case where we have to have like one piece of smoking gun evidence, like let's say a genetic study. So that Josephine somebody, whatever had actually been a uh uh a DNA descendant. That's not, that's not how we get to where we are in, in history. You know, with the sometimes there is maybe, I guess a uh something that you want, that you would have that, that can't be questioned. But in any event, it, what we are doing here is it's the entire preponderance of evidence, the weight of all of the testimony from all the sources that are in fact uh biased and bigoted against each other. The fact that there is no way to make the counter narrative. In other words, that Brigham Young is doing this as a cabal, that evidence um is so anyway, late and flimsy and so forth that that is not that that isn't that, in other words, trying to create a different narrative. In other words, that Brigham Young is the originator of this and that Joseph was fighting uh polygamy, you know, during his life, you have to have a competing narrative that has um more evidence that is all consistently waiting together so that you can um to make that case. And so unfortunately, that no, I mean, again, there is a historical consensus about this because that hasn't been made and, and I don't think can be made. And so and so yes, it has to be done if you want to, if you want to change the consensus,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h03m53s 3:03:53]
Michelle: is it possible that um that it has been done and is being done and you're just not aware of it because if people aren't open to looking, if, if you know, like I always say about like if we don't, if we're not willing to ask the questions, we can't be given the answers. That's one thing I think about faith when we already think we have all the answers, like the prophet can never lose the stray, we're not open to learning more. And I think that's also true with any kind of narrative, especially a historical narrative. If we are, if we are so certain of the narrative that we're not willing to ask questions and be curious and look into it, how can we possibly learn more and how can people ever learn that they were wrong? You know, like, like a way this could be a situation where Galileo was saying, hey, look in my microscope, look at what I'm seeing about how the universe works and all of the priests saying no, we already know this. So your piece doesn't matter that you have to look at the totality of what we know and that's what this feels like to me. And so I'm, I'm curious like what would need to be done to help or to allow people like yourself to, to consider looking into some of this counter narrative, some of this other evidence that how, how would
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h05m03s 3:05:03]
John Hamer: that, I mean, it would, it would take it, it would take, I mean, presumably a somebody who is uh you know, getting in a phd thesis, I guess, and who is, is going to be writing, uh you know, writing this narrative and going through uh you know, like all, you know, all of this evidence or something like that, in other words, you would. So history is not static, history is constantly being, um it's not, it's not only built on pre preceding narratives. The um certainly the uh you know, the, the narrative for a whole long time uh was that uh you know, outside of the Mormon tradition? So what was that? The Solomons Balding was the source of the book of Mormon and so forth. That is in every early document and everything like that. And um and that's absolutely not the case, you know. So no, you know, there's a historical consensus at this point that that is not the case, but it was, it was taken outside of the tradition anyway, before anybody had really done, you know, uh uh history on it that, that was taken for, you know, uh as gospel. And so it would have been repeated in, in, in indeed, what was, what, what um qualifies as the early historian sources, you know, people who really didn't have access to the documents and things like that from the 19th and early 20th centuries and so forth. Um And so, no, it would be, it would be completely possible to have new historical consensus. And, um, and I certainly, for example, when I was, uh doing it in more, in my very precise, more, you know, like a little bit more front line field, like I've talked about in terms of like the historical Jesus and so forth. Um I would, I'm very open despite the fact that I'm a Christian pastor there. It is not, in fact incumbent upon me that there was a historical Jesus that does not have to have been the case because, um, you said before that you think that, uh you think that the community of Christ has betrayed Joseph the third? And Emma, in fact, actually, we don't make historical claims as a church. You're talking to me in part as a historian, right? So I am a historian, I'm telling you what, in fact, the entire um latter day saint historians community and people who study the, the field who are not uh Mormon or community of Christ or, or otherwise have concluded based on the preponderance of the evidence. But if a um again, a trained historian, we're able to make the case, uh a counter case, it is completely always possible to change history, which is why I also suggested that you shouldn't be putting your faith on the sands of history. You can, history is simply one of the things that we, what we learn as an academic discipline, how we understand the past. Um But we get confused by that very regularly in the latter day saint tradition. But in fact, in Joseph the third and Emma's Church, we have rejected history claims as um as being the basis of our theology. So our theology is in the, the gospel and our connection to God, the restored principles of the, of the restored Gospel and so forth as opposed to making claims about history one way or the other. And so I have, um I have been speaking to my own people, you know, in terms of how can they uh pastorally, how can they struggle with some things that have become identity myths based on? Um how can they understand the, the historical consensus that has emerged on this? Um And so, and so it's not that there couldn't be another, um it would just be very difficult in this particular case because uh it's very, uh there's so much evidence so, and it's not, you don't have to look for it anymore. But I mean, it's, in other words, it's all of the different testimony that you're aware of a lot of it. And as you said, you're aware of lots of it. You've researched this a lot. Um But it's not discounting um especially later testimony um including including people who are loyalist, even, even, even, even. So. Um it's very difficult to produce a giant cabal that then encompasses all these people who actually hate Brigham Young as well. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h09m10s 3:09:10]
Michelle: OK, well, I appreciate you talking to me. I guess I do have maybe two requests. My hope is that in this conversation, at the very least there can be some light shed on people who do find this um evidence and this narrative more compelling that I'm hoping that there can at least be an understanding that it's not, you know, I mean, we always like, like in our pre predi discussion, I think you compared me, you implied flat earther and holocaust denier. And you know, and I do think that II, I think that's unfair. I, you know, I think it's unfair to assume that we are motivated by a need, you know, that it's wishful thinking or that it's motivated reasoning or that it's anything like that other than a careful examination of the evidence So I'm hoping that at least some room can be made in people's minds and ideally in people's discourse to allow for the fact that there are very intelligent, very honest and very studious people who find compelling reason to think that this narrative is more likely and, and, and whichever way you want to say that it's, you know, I think that that's a more accurate and, and will prove to that that's a more accurate representation that will prove to um age better as the years go forward as this movement continues to grow. And so that's the first thing I would ask. And then the second is, and, and you don't have to, you know, these are my requests for whatever they're worth. The second thing is that um we tend to set ourselves up as experts, you know, without like I really prefer talking about the evidence and I appreciate that you brought evidence forward in your presentation, you know, but as you said, Todd Compton was your main source. And um and, and there are problems with almost all of the evidence that you brought or with your interpretation of it. And so I think that we should all strive, I guess, to be more humble and circumspect in our presentation so that it's not like this is what everybody agrees with, except the, you know, the flat earthers. That makes sense. So that's my hope is that we can recognize the limitations each of us have on our knowledge and the support for our narratives. Like I would not say that Todd Compton is an expert on this. He took the assumption that he had and applied it to the evidence he had and only viewed it through that lens without any investigation or questioning the narrative. And I think that that's important work to do. So I don't know what you think of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h11m35s 3:11:35]
John Hamer: So I disagree with that on this question. So this is not um I, I appreciate uh I'm not saying that you're having any, in any sense, a dishonest inquiry. Um But uh this is not a, this is not a thing that is uh we're in a place right now where it is perfectly appropriate for historians to speak of this as a settled issue. So there we are, we can't always say that there are lots of different things in history which are very open questions where we have to say there are multiple uh academically defensible narratives. Have that going back to the historical Jesus. Um Once we've agreed that the historical Jesus exists, which a couple of people don't, but we essentially everybody who I consider to be legitimate scholars does, then there are multiple academically defensible reconstructions you can make. And so Bart Erman says that he's a failed Apocalyptic prophet John Dominic Crossing says that he's maybe a, a social reformer akin to uh uh a cynic philosopher in the Greek philosophical tradition. Right? And there are plenty more that can be made like that. So that is an open question. Um But this where we are at right now with Joseph Smith and polygamy is not an open question academically and historically. And so, and so it's appropriate for historians, even when it's not their central focus, which is not my central focus. I'll admit, I, I actually uh don't care about Joseph Smith very much myself. So I'm actually interested in the movement and I love the, the movement. I am. Uh I'm motivated by um you know, again that we built, you know, with that nou and going back there and trying to build up Zion and I'm, I'm connected to it that way as a movement. Um I'm probably the, the least Joseph Smithy Mormon historian that exists, you know, in that kind of a sense. Um But, uh but anyway, so that's just, I, I think that we're, we're where we're at in this particular, in this particular place. And so I agree with you that um we should not, uh I, I try to approach, I, I, I'm not always good and I don't always accomplish this. I try to approach these topics pastorally and not by way of debunking. Um My goal always for um I have members of my congregation who grew up and of course, they all thought Brigham Young created polygamy and so forth and, and, and account, you know, uh the historical narrative when they actually hear it as opposed to our uh inherited identity, uh uh sacred story is, is rough. And so what I, and so again, I, what I'm always trying to do whenever I'm talking about that or, or telling, talking about different parts of the gospels that aren't historical or something like that is, is to say, we shouldn't be so focused on history in the first place. And rather we should, when we, when, when we do find out about these historical things, they should, these should enrich our understanding of the movement that we're coming from and our background in our history. And so that's, that's what I want to do. And I, and I, and so I, and so I, I apologize for the flippant examples that I was using in terms of because I was trying, I was actually going to try to come up with a hypothetical one. So because anytime you mentioned Nazis, it's you, you've lost the argument. So holocaust. And so yes, I'm not calling this shouldn't mention that, you know, in others, there are holocaust deniers, there's a historical convinces that the holocaust happened. But there are people who have that best on belief and they, in a lot of cases think that they have evidence or whatever that's not relevant because I'm not going to make that comparison, but it's not, it's not nice and fair and then you lose the any, any kiss, you, you lose any sense of being remotely pastoral. So, what I would just say is I, um, appreciate also the conversation that we've had. I appreciate how much research you've done. You have a lot of information at your fingertips. It is really amazing. And I, and I really appreciate that and I also appreciate that, um, you've come to this place with honesty and integrity and, um, and like I say, it's not that, um, history has ever done. And, and indeed, at the end of the day, um anything that's been written about history now will have to be entirely rewritten in three or four generations because the things that people there, it has to be translated for a time and place and the, and the interest that they have, you know, uh 80 years ago um when history was written totally differently because nobody cared about, I'm not, you mean about it? But they, historians didn't care about women's perspectives now, or regular people, in other words, they only cared about political leaders. And so it would only be about the very much elite and what they were doing and so forth. Now, we care a lot. I think I care a lot. And so I've been part of the revolution of historians who is trying to see how is this affecting the regular people, not worried only about Joseph Smith, what was happening to everybody else, you know? And so, and so um and so well and so that's where we are with history and it, and it's ever moving forward. But, um, I guess my, my, my plea as a pastor who is also a historian is that we work on separating out our faith from our worrying about history and, um, my positions on history. People in my church don't have to agree with me because we're not a history club. Um, and so, and so, what I would just say is this church hasn't abandoned Joseph the third and Emma. And so, and, and, uh, and despite my, um, my, my position is as a historian and it isn't, in any way, I've got their picture on the wall here. Right. So it is not, I'm not uh um attempting to denigrate them in any way. I understand that they were people who went through a lot, what Emma had to go through, you know, I, I, and I'm, I'm, um, there are people who aren't big fans of her like William Law, but I'm a big fan and I, and I, and I very much appreciate her and I think that um, her son is among the most successful and admirable uh figures that the restoration has ever produced. You know, so
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h17m45s 3:17:45]
Michelle: John, I cannot thank you enough for this conversation. I really appreciate just engaging with honesty and integrity and willingness to answer the hard questions. Can you tell us where people can find you? Where do we find your broadcast and how do we engage with people that would like to join your congregation? What information can you give us?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h18m04s 3:18:04]
John Hamer: So, the easiest way to everything that I'm doing is to go to our website for, for the congregation is uh center place, but spelled the Canadian way. So ce ntre place dot C A and one of the things you'll find there is uh you go center place slash lectures or just hit the lectures button. And I have um talked hundreds of hours on yes restoration topics, but also understanding all of Western history and in and indeed, uh Christianity, but from the grounding of a, a restoration pastor. So I don't only see the time period of the last two centuries that we've had as a, as a restored church as being our only inheritance. How, how does the entire rest of the Christian tradition and everything else that went before it inform who we are um as Latter Day saints now in the 21st century. And so, uh I hopefully that will be of interest to uh people that you are also listening to your podcast. And I am so sorry that um I'm expressing a contrary position that I think a lot of the folks who listen to you maybe not like and uh and, and, and, and I probably also did so in a way that was very unconvincing. Uh But in any event, I, I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt1rySd11ek&t=3h19m22s 3:19:22]
Michelle: I I'm just going to consider where the I'm going to start calling us the Galileo Club and we will just wait until we're allowed to come out of house arrest. So that's my, but thank you John, have a great day. I want to again very sincerely thank John for giving me so much of his time for being willing to come on and be um pushed with difficult questions and and be willing to engage. So um agreeably and honestly and vulnerably with someone who disagrees with him. So I really appreciate that. I'm hoping that we can have more of these types of conversations on this topic. But in society in general, I really appreciate being able to engage with somebody who is willing to engage even though we don't see eye to eye. So thank you again, John and thank you for the to the rest of you for being here and sticking with us and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Interview]][[Category:John Hamer]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Church History]][[Category:Historical Malpractice]][[Category:John Hamer]]
}}

85: Proving William Clayton's Journals are NOT Contemporaneous w/ Jeremy Hoop - 132 Problems

2025-08-29T23:04:15Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 85: Proving William Clayton's Journals are NOT Contemporaneous w/ Jeremy Hoop - 132 Problems
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 85
| date = 2023-09-24
| youtube_id = _a91kvdLKSU
| tags = Church History, Fake History, Heber C Kimball, William Clayton Journals
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Interview, Jeremy Hoop
| summary = Everything to do with Joseph Smith's polygamy hinges on William Clayton and his journals. Many people argue that Clayton's journals should be accepted without question -- but they haven't seen this. Jeremy Hoop takes us through an extremely in depth look at everything we know about William Clayton's process of record keeping -- and editing. He clearly demonstrates how we can easily tell the difference between an original draft book and a finalized clean copy, and shows in no uncertain terms (through extensive visual evidence) which category Clayton's journals fall into. This is a very long discussion, which some will find fascinating, and others will find overwhelming. For those who prefer the more condensed version, Jeremy will return in the near future to present a much shorter version of the same presentation and evidence, so you won't completely miss out.
| links = * [https://archive.org/stream/WilliamClaytonJournal/WilliamClaytonJournal_djvu.txt William Clayton's Writings, Fillerup compilation]
* [https://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100166.pdf Joseph Smith's Try the Spirits from Times and Seasons]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=00m00s 00:00]
Michelle: Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. And now the historical case for Joseph Smith's supposed polygamy. OK. This is the long awaited second part of the discussion on William Clayton with Jeremy Ho. Now I have to give a little bit of preliminary information as you, I'm sure have already seen. This is a very long episode. Um Jeremy brought a ton of information, some of you might find this a little bit too in depth and which is just fine. Some of you I know will just love everything that is shared. So to try to um reach the entire audience with this incredibly important information, Jeremy is working on getting this presentation down to about 60 to 90 minutes and we are going to rerecord a second version. So for those who want the entire um three hour and 45 minute discussion, you are in luck here it is for those who feel like this might be a little bit much. I mean, of course, I think there's a ton of valuable information here, but Jeremy is going to go through and and really choose the most important and get it down to what might be a more manageable size for some of you. So if anyone would rather wait, that will be forthcoming. So you will get the information. In either case, I think this is an incredibly important topic and episode, either this one or the one that is coming because in my opinion, Jeremy has just proved that William Clayton's journal cannot be said to be contemporary. Yes, I know, proved is a hard um word. So maybe I should soften that. But I think that someone would have a very difficult time arguing that William Clayton's journal is contemporaneous after watching this episode and this presentation that he has put together. So I'm so excited that you are here. Buckle up and join us for this incredible deep dive into the journals of William Clayton. Welcome to this long anticipated episode of 100 32 problems long anticipated by Jeremy and me as much as anybody else. I have to tell everyone this is our third time count. Then three, we've probably spent already four hours on this episode trying to get it ready. And so now we've got the technology set up, everything should go smoothly, but this is a guy that for my viewers needs no introduction and Jeremy I and my audience cannot thank you enough for your long suffering, enduring to the end your patience to get this information out there because it is so important and I'm so excited to hear it again myself and bring it to my audience. So welcome and thank you in advance for all of this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=03m03s 03:03]
Jeremy Hoop: Thanks for having me again. Um Yeah, this is worth it. I think this, this material is um is really important and uh it's, well, it's really geeky stuff. Uh If you're not in the mood to, to listen to something that gets deep into the tall grass, in fact, goes burrows well beneath the roots of the tallgrass. Um You might wanna save this for another day, although don't save it, just dive in, but it's, we're gonna get kind of document nerdy here today. So,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=03m36s 03:36]
Michelle: but of all the things I thought I'd geek out about in my life, I didn't know William Clayton was high on the list, but the more you study this, the more important you realize it is like we have got to study this guy inside out because he's so central to all of this. It's insane. So it's insane how important this like sad little man turns out to be in this research. So, yeah, we can go ahead and dive right in. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=04m05s 04:05] Jeremy Hoop: I'm excited to um to explore this further. Um uh If, if people are just joining this, this particular topic, William Clayton for the first time and you haven't seeing the other pieces that are foundational. We uh Michelle and I went through um things about Brigham Young and Heber Kimball and the things that they were doing whilst in England, the things that they believed in and were practicing at least uh document is that a word document with uh Heber Kimball, um that's gonna become part of the lexicon. Uh Heber Kimball was absolutely practicing some form of spiritual wifey. Um some form of plurality of wives um in England and Brigham Young at least believed in it and there is some evidence uh later tales of him actually practicing it. Uh uh Well, adultery of some kind or some kind of loose behavior. We've been having technical difficulties from episode to episode to episode. We've even had one in this episode and I think there's some little demon that does not want this information out. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=05m16s 05:16]
Michelle: do you know what it's the, it's Little Willie, we'll call him Little Willie.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=05m22s 05:22] Jeremy Hoop: Willie. Little Willie is a mischievous um disembodied spirit. Oh, we're going to dissect to dissect Little Willie um Today in great detail parts of Little Willie. Um and what we're going to focus on today, I think will help people have much greater context to understand this particular piece of the puzzle related to Joseph Smith and polygamy. Um If you could share my screen, that would be great. Let's dive in. So we have been talking about um characters from, from the restoration history that are have been less than truthful, truthful, proven to have uh fabricated stories and to have embellished and to have changed history. So we started off talking about Brigham and Heber and the things that they were doing prior to Joseph Smith, supposedly ever saying a word to them about the principle that they came to um love and adore and practice and, and that they integrated as what they considered to be the fullness of the gospel, the, the highest principle in the gospel. Brigham and Hebert. Long story short, we're doing these things in England long before Joseph ever supposedly says anything. Well, moving on, we're now talking about William Clayton. William Clayton is a central figure in all of this, primarily uh because of his journal. And in episode one, we talked about aspects of his journals, his England journal and his Nauvoo journal that revealed a lot about his character. Today, we're gonna talk about the journal itself. We're going to dive into the context of the journal. So people have an understanding of what they're reading if they read parts of it and why it is that um that people consider it to be the smoking gun for Joseph Smith's polygamy and why they shouldn't. Frankly, in part three, we're gonna going to examine aspects of the content of that journal. And then in part four, we're going to talk about consistency, the consistency of the story of the revelation from uh uh to Joseph about plural marriage. And Clayton is at the center of that. And so today, we're talking about context and we're gonna ask the question is Clayton's Journal Contemporaneous and secondarily is Clayton credible. So as
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=08m06s 08:06]
Michelle: to compliment you on all of your alliteration, I'm very much enjoying it. This is very well done for Clayton
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=08m12s 08:12]
Jeremy Hoop: Elder Maxwell would be proud, he
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=08m15s 08:15]
Michelle: would be proud
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=08m17s 08:17]
Jeremy Hoop: one of my favorites. Um As we talk about the journal, we're gonna, we're going to talk about what is publicly available. And also we're going to examine what has not been publicly available. But when we refer to the journal that has heretofore been referenced most famously, it's in this book that you see on your screen, an intimate chronicle that was compiled by uh George D Smith back in the mid nineties, I believe 1995 I think. And as I said, we're going to dive into the context of this so we can understand it better. The importance of this record to the Joseph Smith polygamy narrative cannot be overstated. His journal is the singular piece. The only piece of alleged contemporaneous what could actually be called evidence. If it's credible without his novo journal, all we have are uncorroborated accusations, decades old hearsay, wild speculation, loose correlation without causation. That's all that there is. I've I heard Don Bradley, a Mormon historian say that there are 30 pieces of contemporaneous evidence. II, I beg to differ. Those are not evidence is what he will claim things like the happiness letter or things like the Sarah and Whitney letter or things like the, the affidavits and the expositor. Ok. Those things are not evidence, those things. Actually,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=09m44s 09:44]
Michelle: I want to say, I'm actually excited to talk to Don a brat about that because he's going to come on and talk to me about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=09m49s 09:49]
Jeremy Hoop: to be able
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=09m49s 09:49]
Michelle: to hear, um, you know, to be able to discuss that a little further. So, yeah, we'll be able to dig in. Hopefully, I agree with you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=09m56s 09:56]
Jeremy Hoop: By the way I have from everything I've seen of Don Bradley, he seems to be really a wonderful guy and probably one of the best thinkers on this subject that I've encountered on the other side, the most fair minded, um especially as I just heard him blow up the whole Louisa Beaman narrative. Maybe we need to talk about that sometime. But um the historians, the commentators, uh they have not examined the things we're gonna talk about today. I have not heard a single person address what we're going to address today, but rather they have made unfounded claims about the contemporaneous nature of the journal. They trust them implicitly. They, they speak of these journals as though they are. It is a foregone conclusion that they are contemporaneous and we will show today that the journal cannot be said to be contemporaneous with any certainty. And the strongest likelihood is that they, because there are three of them, there are three, if you wanna call them volumes, they were written after the events and thus the credibility of the journals, they must come into question. Also given what Clayton reveals about himself in these journals, the major inconsistencies, um the constant accusations against him, uh serious character flaws that are revealed in the journals be by the way, being an outsider, an outsider to the inner circle of uh Mormon hierarchy. It's always assumed that he's an insider, he's actually not and we're gonna discover a portion of that today. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=11m31s 11:31]
Michelle: he's, he's the OG Mormon wannabe, right? He really is like William, the wannabe. Clayton is kind of how I refer to him in my mind because that's an important part to understand about him.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=11m41s 11:41]
Jeremy Hoop: And I, and I, and other than James Allen who only lets it kind of briefly leak out. I've never heard anyone address this part of his character and I don't know why exactly. I suspect it's because there's a need to have him be part of the team. Um He, he's a very interesting character and, and he's, he's kind of a loner, he's kind of on his own. Um And given all this, given all of these things, we should seriously question the veracity of his story. And without his story and knowing what we know about Brigham and Heber believing in and practicing spiritual wifey in England. I know that by the way, there's people out there who are, maybe you're hearing this for the first time. You're saying it wasn't called spiritual wifey. It was called spiritual wifey. We have many testimonies,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=12m33s 12:33]
Michelle: quotes of Brigham Young himself, calling it spiritual wifey that I've compiled. So it doesn't work.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=12m41s 12:41]
Jeremy Hoop: So, so those of you like Brian Hales who say there was a difference between spiritual wifey and plurality of wives or celestial, plural marriage or polygamy according to their own statements according to Helen Mar Kimball, according to Emily Partridge, according to Brigham Young himself, it was called spiritual wifey in those days. So when I say they were practicing spiritual wifey in England, that's what they were doing. And they were doing this while when they met William and baptized him in England because of these things, we must re examine and question all of the accusations and decades old hearsay. And finally, we need to exonerate Joseph. So, uh first, I think it's really helpful to ask ourselves what would be admissible in a court of law and perhaps that can better help us understand these journals. I asked a really
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=13m33s 13:33]
Michelle: quickly, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I just really want to quickly respond to what you said about. We need to exonerate Joseph because I think that a common misunderstanding is that people think that we are acting under motivated reasoning, that we have the foregone conclusion that Joseph was innocent and that we because of that are looking for the information. And I just wanted to clarify because I know that this is the case with both you and me that it's the opposite. We saw this and said, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that we've got the wrong guy. And when you come to that conclusion, then you want to exonerate the right guy and make sure that we have the right guy accused. So I just wanted to clarify that because I want to head off any of those accusations and misunderstandings. I think if people will look at this information fairly as you and I have done, they will very likely come up with the same conclusions we have. And when you see that you want to exonerate the guy that's been falsely accused.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=14m29s 14:29]
Jeremy Hoop: So incredibly important point. Uh If you ha if this is the first time you're hearing me speak or hearing Michelle speak, I, I'll say again, I used to believe that he was, I used to teach people that he was, I used to think it was a celestial principle. It was only until I examined things closely that my, my belief in this and, and my um my understanding of Joseph himself changed entirely. It's in read, it's in studying him, it's in reading his words, it's in reading the revelations, it's in understanding um his interactions between people. They're not consistent with the tale that's told of him later. They're certainly not consistent with Brigham Young. And so when a as I've come to know Joseph Smith, it, it has nothing to do with. I, I need him to be a polygamist I, I guess I could have needed him to be a polygamist before in order to maintain my current paradigm. Um It was, it is much more, it's, it's much more difficult to go against consensus, to go against power structures, to go against the, the high and mighty and the noble uh academics and historians and commentators who, who garner so much attention. Look, we're a little fringe movement out here, um, growing but a fringe movement growing pretty rapidly. Um But we certainly don't have, there's not a lot of uh of notoriety and fame and fortune in this for us. And so the only thing I care about and you can judge this statement on its, on its merits. Um I care about what's true. And so far, what I have found, I'm open to him being a polygamist. If you'll show me some evidence so far, what I found is the opposite. And so when we're talking about evidence, uh I asked a lawyer friend of mine, hey, could you help me explain the rules of evidence, what's admissible in a court of law? Um And he sent me over the code and basically a journal would be admissible in a court of law if um it was made at or near the time uh of the event and someone by someone who had knowledge of the event, um if it was conducted in a regular course of activity and a journal would be that if it's actually done as a daily record. And also if the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method of circumstance of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Ok. So we have to find the person who prepares it credible. And we also have to find that the, the the mode of creating it was credible. I think Michelle you and I talked about how sometimes in divorce court, you know, journals are fabricated in order for one spouse to implicate the other in things they didn't do. And so uh admitting a journal in a court of law, it's pretty tricky. Um And so,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=17m29s 17:29]
Michelle: and part of that last piece is also the motivation if like, like, so you're hitting, I mean, I mean, is there like I, I did use the example of a, an an unhappy spouse starting to create a journal just to use as evidence and it's somewhat clear when that happens, right? So what I find interesting is that all, all of those points that you um brought up about the credibility of a journal, all four of them are in serious problem with Clayton. I'm assuming you're gonna go into it, but it's kind of fun to get to see a absolutely check, check, check, check, inadmissible, throw it out. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=18m06s 18:06]
Jeremy Hoop: So just to clarify chat G BT helps us to understand just a little bit more the party offering the journal. Um also needs to prove that it's genuine, that the burden of proof really is on them to say this is a genuine record. The church has not released these journals. Ok. We'll talk about that a little bit more. Uh general generally, journals are considered hearsay. And so oftentimes they're not even admissible but, but if they're extremely relevant to the subject matter, um and, and they are considered contemporaneous if they can be established as contemporaneous, they, that hearsay rule can be overcome and then the credibility of the journal itself and the person who created it can impact its weight as evidence. If the journal is inconsistent, contradicts other evidence or seems manipulated, its credibility might be questioned. So just keep those in the back of your mind as we go through this historians, they don't use legal standards. I I get that you don't construct history based on legal standards in terms of considering evidence there, it's a, it's a different rule of thumb. However, when we're stating something definitively that we know happened, ok. Um Then we might consider using a little bit higher standard for the things that we call evidence. Unfortunately, sometimes historians, they will speak with extraordinary certainty. When the available evidence, it requires them, it demands them to speak with more humility and circumspection.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=19m39s 19:39]
Michelle: Absolutely. Oh, can you go back to that slide and just let me do one little exercise. Do you guys remember this from Sesame Street? One of these things is not like the other one of these things just doesn't belong. And I wanna know if you know what I'm referring to because you have a panel of historians with the non historian who is an amateur historian who calls out every other amateur historian. Right. And I just of knowledge that one of those things does not belong, which is the non historian that is doing history and, and using our non historian status to come after us. The irony and hypocrisy of that is just so rich. So I couldn't let that slide pass without.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=20m22s 20:22]
Jeremy Hoop: And that's, that's Brian Hales who's a, an anesthesiologist and by, you know, by occupation, I think he's retired. Um That's not to minimize his work. His work has been extensive and, and in some ways, extremely helpful to this entire discussion. Um frankly, because it's pointed out, I think the weakness is in the argument. Um Now James Allen, the primary biographer, the, the, the, the principal biographer for William Clayton, um he admits his own bias and he says the following which I really appreciate that he gives us a window into how he approached um his work on William Clayton, no historian is totally free from bias. And at this point, I should recognize my own as I studied Clayton's life, I saw success and failure, strength and weakness, inspiration, and stumbling blocks. But out of all of it came a genuine respect for the man that had an obvious effect on what I've written. At the same time, I've tried not to forget the warning implied in a comment made by a friend who criticized an early draft of one chapter in which I rationalized with great empathy. Some of Clayton's problems, quote Williams frailties make him lovable. My critic wrote but not worship. I hope I have adjusted the manuscript so that what comes out is respect without idolatry and a sympathetic presentation of important issues without historic historical distortion, interesting that he might even catch himself in somewhat idolizing William Clayton. Let me also take the liberty of expressing a personal concern that in part arises from my being both a believing latter day saint and a professional historian. The quest of the historian is not only for the facts but also for a sense of balance. As one attempts to recreate the past in the process, at least two troublesome temptations must be avoided, both of which can affect historians of religion all too easily. One is to erase from history, everything but that which is pleasing or non controversial. And the other is to emphasize the sensational, the bizarre and the negative because of their likely appeal to certain readers. Both tendencies tend to distort and neither will ever provide the steady balance. So essential to historical understanding, I have tried to do neither our heritage to paraphrase Paul is made up of many parts that when fitly framed together should provide us all with a better perspective on what the past was all about. OK. So the, the, the, the, the interesting thing is what he's, what, what is leaking out here is what I think affects every one of the historians as well as every one of the commentators. When it comes to William Clayton, they love the things he's written because of the story. It's able to help them tell. And for whatever reason, this story is so important to them, they will not give the story up. They, they will hold and you will notice this if you're watching this and just compare what we're gonna talk about in the detail with which we will examine this and ask yourself if anyone will give this kind of attention to this material. And my supposition is they won't, they'll ignore it. Um Or they'll just try to talk it away as a, as a strange conspiracy theory by really, really, um mentally deranged people. That's my guess.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=23m41s 23:41]
Michelle: You go ahead and then I want to share two things, but you, you finish your thought,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=23m44s 23:44]
Jeremy Hoop: they need this story by William Clayton to be true. And for whatever reason, James Allen is able to overlook a lot um to the point where he almost idolizes William Clayton. He and he's had to in his revisions um uh uh edit his, his telling of the story to give it quote more balance. And so I think we ought to just look at what is the, what is the truth as far as we can ascertain it and, and let go of our, of our need for something to support our argument. I know people accuse us of that, but uh you can judge for yourself whether the information we provide today is, is straight shooting or not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=24m27s 24:27]
Michelle: So I wanna just back up what you were saying with two specific examples that I have because I know we talked about historians having a different standard, but I'm not confident that it's a better standard because I just did that small piece on the William Law Diary. I'm quoted a historian that basically said I chose to utilize it heavily because William Law's voice is so important and, and the fact that it was almost certainly a forgery, very likely a Mark Hoffman forgery, very possibly a Mark Hoffman forgery doesn't matter as much as I want what it says for my story. And I was reported in another conversation where D Michael Quinn and you could double check this, admitted to knowingly using, using a known Hoffman forgery in his book, The Origins, uh whatever it's his origins book. And he did that. And when he was asked about it, he just said because it sounded like what Joseph would say and it's it, I we, we need the voice of, we need the sources of Joseph Smith. They basically want it so much that they lose the ability to, to question it. And that is a huge problem when they are given this, this elevated platform of authority that I think they should need to earn better than
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=25m41s 25:41]
Jeremy Hoop: they do. There are those out there, there are some prominent historians out there right now. I won't call them out. But they, they, they are so I, I don't know what their, what their spiritual or religious sensibilities are. My sense is they're either agnostic or atheist and, and, and they, in their mind, it's just an impossibility that there could be anything divine. And so there has to be a fraudulent bent to the story. And so their perspective is everything is fraudulent. Everything Joseph Smith does is uh has to be explained by some kind of story of a con man. E every part of it can be explained by, by a man who's either mentally deranged. He's got some kind of personality s uh some he's on the um the, the uh narcissistic Personality disorder scale or um or he's got some mental illness or something of that nature. Plus he's also nefarious and he's, and he's always doing things that are self serving. Look in, in this work. Part of this won't be examined today, but part of what is absolutely important to examine are, are the things he says and does that he says and does not what other people said that he said and did you can find a mountain of stuff that people said while he was alive in the exposes that were written that are just pure hogwash that they find no basis in reality. And, and when you, and by the way, many of these historians will find credibility in those statements without anchoring them to something real. Something that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=27m12s 27:12]
Michelle: many of those statements are by folks like Joseph Jackson or John Bennett who, who even in their own day were known, you know, like, like the worst of newspapers, right? The newspapers started out saying this eminent wonderful laudable person just because they were going after Joseph Smith. And within just a little while they have to say, ok, we know this guy has problems, but here's what he's saying. And yet our own historians, LDS, historians even not even just the skeptics use those people as unquestioned authorities and automatically accept everything they say. So everything Joseph Smith said was a lie, even from LDS. Historians and everything these despicable figures said, they were known as despicable figures universally in their own day, everything they said is true. I can't not make sense of that for the life of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=27m59s 27:59]
Jeremy Hoop: they, they John Hayek made a comment once he's a document expert. He um he made a comment that the, the, the he called them, the New Mormon historians give equal weight to all evidence. That's actually not quite true. They, they give, they give weight to whatever evidence they want to give weight to and, and they don't actually assess the evidence based on its actual, um uh, veracity based on, based on whether it ought to be considered credible or not. They, they, they simply, there's a statement over here by Martin Harris. Therefore, it must be true because I want it to be true because it rings true as Michael Quinn said, you know, God rest his soul. And so, um, I think we ought to have a different standard than what is being practiced ubiquitously by the, uh, especially the Mormon historians. I, I have a real issue with the Mormon historians because I frankly, I call it uh his historical malpractice because they, they will never do what we are doing here. And, and I challenge
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=29m03s 29:03]
Michelle: that's why, that's why what we are doing is so important. If no one is there to keep them honest, they don't have to be honest. So even those who disagree with us or think we're ridiculous, at least acknowledge that we are doing a great work to force historians to be more honest. Eventually they're going to have to grapple with these. There's a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=29m21s 29:21]
Jeremy Hoop: new biography coming up by Richard Turley church historian and uh going to be the definitive biography on Joseph Smith. And undoubtedly it will repeat the same nonsense. It's in the book Saints and that's in the Joseph Smith papers,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=29m34s 29:34]
Michelle: which amounts to gaslighting honestly, for those of us who have done the work and studied it, I always feel gas lit when they are so dishonest. You know,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=29m44s 29:44]
Jeremy Hoop: when they tell the story and they talk about it. Those of you watching ask yourself, when do they say the following? Brigham Young in 1867 said that Joseph in 1843 did, when did they say that Emily Partridge in 1892 said under oath in a court case, such and such and it contradicted with what she said in 1877. And also what she wrote in 1884. When did they do that? When do they give you the full context of what they're quoting what they don't do? Is that, that what they say is Joseph Smith in 1842 did such and such or in 1841 he was sealed to Louisa Beaman. They don't tell you where they get the information and what it leaves is an extraordinarily misleading impression that it was a, that, that it, that it's accepted that that just happened. And as we just made reference to Don Bradley has overthrown, the notion that Louisa Beaman was the first quote, plural wife. What else can be overthrown if you actually examine what's going on? Well, we're going to start that with William Clayton. So let's get back to that narrative. So now we only have scant excerpts from what are the Clayton journals um from one historian's notes that historian being Andy E Hat, the historians have unquestionably trusted these experts, these excerpts. Um and they have uh they just make wild assumptions about the credibility of the journals. Now, as I've mentioned, the actual journals themselves have not ever been released to the public, which is odd in a legal sense, if, if you were to claim in a court of law, I have evidence of something happening, a crime being committed or, or something occurring. Um And you don't produce that evidence, but you make a statement about it, you simply claim the evidence exists, but then you fail to produce it that creates something called adverse inference. It's a legal term that basically says this an adverse inference is generally, um is a legal inference adverse to the concerned party made from a party's silence or the absence of requested evidence. For example, as a sanction of spoliation of evidence, a court may instruct the jury, it could draw an inference that the evidence contained in the destroyed documents or the unproduced documents would have been unfavorable. Let me translate. If you don't produce the evidence, the judge can say to the jury, you can basically infer the opposite of what they're saying or that it works against them, that their argument works against them because they're, they refuse to produce that evidence. So it's a strict warning aga against calling something evidence without being able to back it up. Now, why is it to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=32m33s 32:33]
Michelle: its most basic level? It's basically the dog ate my homework. That's basically exactly what it amounts to, right? I have no, I promise, I promise. I did it all. But the dog, that's exactly what we have happening here. So I just wanted to really make that simple. Every this is obvious. It's like just logically basic for everyone to understand this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=32m55s 32:55]
Jeremy Hoop: So why is it taking so long? We have no idea that the church said in 2017 that they would release the journals. Um Just recently, they said they're there, it's still years away, but they're still working on it. I don't know, we can only speculate. Um So now all we can do is examine what we have available to us. Now, let's take a closer look at the clever clerk in his work of creating these the context of these journals. So Allen says this in 1842 William Clayton, this is James Allen in his biography, becoming involved in nearly every important activity in NAVOO, including the private concerns of the prophet as a scribe. He kept the sacred book of the Law of the Lord was officially designated to write the history of the nut temple, helped prepare prepare the official history of Joseph Smith. Indeed, his personal journals became the source for many entries in that history and kept various other books and accounts as assigned, he was a member of the Temple committee and kept all the financial and other records dealing with the building of the temple, including the collection and recording of tithes. Later after the baptismal font was completed, it was up to Clayton to issue receipts, certifying that a person was entitled to the privileges of the font for baptisms for the dead because he had paid because he the person had paid tithing. He became navoo city treasurer, recorder, and clerk of the NAVOO city council secretary pro TEM of the NAVOO Masonic Lodge, an officer in the NAVOO Music Association and a member of the committee responsible for erecting the music hall in Navoo. He also became a member and clerk of the highly important council of 50 as well as a member of Joseph Smith's private prayer circle. So he went from text uh textile clerk to the clerk of the Kingdom. In a pretty short period of time, his work began on the 10th of February 1842 in his Manchester Journal. He writes brother Kimball came in the morning to say that I must go to Joseph Smith's office and assist Brother Richards. I accordingly got re accordingly, got ready and went to the office and commenced entering tithing for the temple. I was still shaking with eu every day. I hope I pronounce that right? Eu every day, but I did it. I did not much, it did not much disable me for work.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=35m05s 35:05]
Michelle: Can I, can I back up and ask a question about your last slide where you kind of showed the, the, the one right before that the pre eminent rise of William Clayton. Is that like have you sourced? That is that all based on William Clayton's own journals? His like, was he a member of Joseph's Prayers work or
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=35m22s 35:22]
Jeremy Hoop: is that well? Ok. That's a, uh I, I've, I've been discussing with Whitney Horning frankly. Um the references in the Wilfred Woodruff Journal, whether or not that's actually a contemporaneous record or not. I know people freak out about saying that, but I think there's some evidence that that also might be a reminiscence rather than a, than a, than a day to day record. Um There is reference in Clayton's journal where he's finally accepted to what some call the quorum. OK. What, what um what is mentioned as the quorum in, in Richard's uh recording. I call it Richard's memo book, but the historians call it Joseph's journal. It's not really a journal, it's a memo book, it's a draft. OK. But in Richard's memo book, um he, he calls it the quorum, the, the group which included, by the way, William Law and William Marks and others. Um they met in the red brick store, they met for prayer meetings with Joseph Smith. He gave instruction. This is where he gave something of some kind of ceremony that we don't have any record of other than what people tell about it. Um And Willard Richards documents, some of this actually a good deal of it in his journal. Um in those references we have and in Clayton's journal, he mentions when he was accepted to that quote quorum and by the way, it was late, it was in the beginning of 1844 you would think that this kid would be, would have been swept up and taken under Joseph's wing, right when he got off the boat or shortly after beginning to work in the temple office. But he didn't, it took quite a bit of time and I think we're going to see why, as we get to know William a little bit better. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=37m03s 37:03]
Michelle: That's, that's why I'm asking because I'm Harry, for example, James Whitehead's version of who William Clayton was and how in the inner circles he was versus William Clayton's claims of being all alone with Joseph and Hyrum for the most important revelation because the three of them were best buds that hung out with nobody else. That, that's what I'm, that's what I'm wanting to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=37m24s 37:24] Jeremy Hoop: us to sort through in the next episode. We'll actually, we're, we're going to read James Whitehead extensively and what he says about William Clayton. So we can get a AAA sense of another narrative and see, see how that fits. But yes, the all of these things you see that Alan mentions are absolutely documented. He, he, he was extraordinarily active in the um in, in recording parts of, of Mormon uh whether it as a clerk um or, or as a uh well, I always as a clerk but recording minutes of meetings um making transcripts of uh of sermons, Joseph gave recording tithing receipts, doing land transactions, creating deeds. Um That was his, that was his occupation. He was a trained clerk from, from Manchester England. He worked in a textile factory um back in the uh 18, late 18 thirties, I believe. Um and, and then quit his job and, and became the second counselor in the mission presidency. Um after he was baptized, they, they would rise people to the ranks of leadership uh in some cases very quickly. Um And, and, and he went from there and he worked extensively with Heber Kimball and Willard Richards whilst in England, which is why he was asked to do these things um in um in NAVOO because they had experience with him and Heber um had the era of Joseph Smith.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=38m47s 38:47]
Michelle: OK. So, so as far as being in Joseph's prayer circle that's valid too, from other sources um or is that just from Clayton?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=38m56s 38:56]
Jeremy Hoop: So, and the, the source that I have says that the 12 voted to admit him. Ok. Now, so what I can't, what I can't tell is whether or not uh Joseph Smith was involved in that decision or not. I don't know. Um And I think there's a lot of things that are assumed by the term quorum because they overlay the narrative of polygamy on top of the, the red brick store meetings and they make them all one thing and they, and they, it doesn't quite work that way. There's, there's a lot of anomalies, a lot of things to, to pull apart about whatever was going on in the red brick store. A lot of things to understand about that, that, that aren't as simple as this is where it all began. It began in the secret meetings above the red brick store where Joseph began to roll out the endowment and some of them, he, he inculcated into the practice of plural marriage. That is um uh it's not that straightforward at all. And so, and, and we only have sparse evidence, only very sparse evidence of what Joseph was doing there. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=39m57s 39:57]
Michelle: So, yeah, so I'll let you continue. I just wanted the, the, the reason I think this is an important question is because according to Clayton in his journal, Joseph is always just giving him an earful about Emma and he's always like, like William Clayton knows everything that happens in Joseph's private life because he's the number one guy which interestingly, William Law then later does the same thing Emma always would complain to me about Joseph. It's always, and so I wanna wanna know that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=40m21s 40:21] Jeremy Hoop: story. That story starts with John Bennett. That story starts with John Bennett and chauncey Higby. One of the, one of the things that they would say to the women, this is for those of you who are not familiar with John Bennett. He was the first big scandalous person in Nauvoo in 1841 1842. Joseph was dealing with, with him for about a year and a half, trying to figure out how to, how to deal with this guy. Finally. Um, they just fellowship him. I don't know if he's ever formally excommunicated but he's out. Um, uh, he, he's, he's kicked out of the Nabu Mason, uh, the, the Masonic Lodge and kicked out as mayor and, and the, and the, and the first presidency for getting the big scandal and it, and it causes Joseph to go public and to teach the release society and to publish things in the times and seasons. It's a big, big deal. Well, in the, in the trials and the, the, the N Nu's uh High Council ST high Council trials, um the women who testify against Chauncey Higby and John Bennett, one of the things they mentioned was they would say, what, why does Joseph, why does he speak against this stuff? Why, why does he keep it so private? Why doesn't he talk about this? Because they would say Joseph told us we could do this. Joseph said we could go around and have free intercourse with you if you don't tell anybody and some of them would say, and I'm gonna marry you, I'm gonna, you know, I promise to take care of you. Why doesn't Joseph do this? Well, because it will cause him trouble in his own household. They would say the women would say. And so, so that story um was part of that narrative. Now, I don't know if Brigham Young and Heber Kimball got it from them, but that was there at least. Ok. So we're going to discover a portion of what, what I believe, um, a piece to this puzzle as to why William is writing these things. We're gonna discover a piece of that today in the next episode. We'll actually read the stuff that he writes about Joseph and Emma. For those of you who think we're gonna skip over the scandal of stuff. We're not, we're gonna actually get into it. We'll show you, um, you can read it yourself, by the way, just go Google it. It's out there, but we'll show you, we'll talk about it, but I'll link it below. One of the things that's really, really important is to understand Clayton's work is what I call a copyist. He began working with Heber Kimball in the 1818 40 43 45 47 doing copy work for Kimball. He was involved in copying the Nabu Mason minute books. He had a pattern of embellishing and leaving blank page pages for future editing. Um, he collaborated extensively with Willard Richards, which we'll talk about. He was involved in copying the Council of 50 Minutes and then we're gonna talk about the infamous nau journal. The reason we're all here today in terms of his work with Heber Kimball and why this is relevant. Um There are many instances in his journal where he talks about working with, with Kimball in 1840. During this time, I preached occasionally on the Sabbath the first three or four days after I came home, I spent writing brother Kimball's history which was lengthy tw 23rd, April 1843. Um Alan James Allen writes, Clayton also at times assisted other church leaders with their writing and helped Heber C. Kimball arrange his history. So he continued to do that into Nauvoo um in the Nut Temple history. Uh Clayton was invited to assist Heber C. Kimball in keeping a record of the Nauvoo Temple. Uh 18 8 April 1847 this morning, this is um Clayton writing in his pioneer journal. This morning, I wrote a letter for Heber to his wife Vate. I commenced writing Heber's journal and wrote considerable. He wants me to write his journal all the journey I also wrote considerable in this book, meaning his own journal. 21st of April 1847 elder Kimball proposed tonight that I should leave a number of pages for so much of his journal as I'm behind in copying and start from the present and keep it up daily. He furnished me as candle and I wrote this uh the journal of this day's travel by candlelight in his journal leaving 56 pages blank. Interesting question. Why in the world would Heber need to quote, rewrite his journal? OK. Now this is to prepare his history. This is, it has a purpose, but it's interesting that he would turn over his journal to William Clayton to have him rewrite it, leave pages blank so they could go back in and edit things. But that was a pattern established in his work with Heber Kimball. He was also involved in copying the Nauvoo Mason minute books. Uh Interestingly enough, he took over for John Bennett. John Bennett was the clerk for the Masonic lodge in Nauvoo. Um and bra Brady Winslow um has an interesting um dial. I think it's a dialogue article, irregularities in the work of the Nauvoo lodge where he helps us understand a pattern that Clayton engaged him. He says this when Clayton transferred the contents of minute book one that was recorded by John Bennett. OK. So he took the contents of minute book one um into Minute Book two. He resolved the issue by reserving several blank pages. So here we go again. We're leaving blank pages for signatures before continuing his copy work. Why? So they could go back in and add stuff later when copying minutes from minute book one into Minute Book two. Clayton also made other changes to the record that cleaned up the manuscript in a few instances where Bennett deleted text in minute book one, whether because of mistakes or conscious revisions. Clayton omitted those deletions from minute book two. OK. So I'm gonna skip over this, but you get the idea. He's starting to change small elements of the record. Uh Winslow says, as a scribe, go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=45m47s 45:47]
Michelle: Yeah, go, I'm just, I'm just seeing so so far we're seeing this pattern of leaving blank pages to be able to rewrite things. And I want to make sure I'm catching what you're, you know what you,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=45m57s 45:57]
Jeremy Hoop: he would copy things over from minute book one and then he would embellish and fill in gaps or create narrative or edit things in the minute book two. He didn't do a straight copy and we uh Winslow says the following, as scribe for Nauvoo Lodge, Clayton felt authorized to make slight changes to the Lodge Lodge's records as he saw it. This is evident in the way that he rephrased some of the things Bennett wrote in minute book one, while some of those modifications reflect a desire for minute entries to follow the same formulaic pattern, others served served to add clarification skipping over. He says though none of these changes significantly alter the meaning of the record, they nevertheless display the agency that Clayton felt he had as a scribe. Ok. In transferring minutes from minute book one to Minute Book two, I only bring this up to say he felt that he could just write things into the record that were not necessarily from the record to clarify or to give um meaning it was helpful. Ok. Now Winslow in this record doesn't see anything that's, that's uh problematic and I assume there's not, however this will play into what we're going to discover.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=47m10s 47:10]
Michelle: Can I tell you what's going through my mind right now? We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. I think it's like when we talk about how things go through the hands of scribes and that's potentially problematic. So it's interesting to see that playing out right here with our own history
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=47m26s 47:26]
Jeremy Hoop: and especially in the book of Mormon. Um actually sorry, I'm gonna get this wrong. The Doctrine and covenants, the wicked one cometh and taketh way, light and truth. By what, by disobedience and by the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct. How do we get our traditions wrong by the scribes by the people who write down the history who tell us this is what happened. And so this is really important to know how these people did this. Now, his collaboration with Richards is really important. Yes,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=47m53s 47:53]
Michelle: I just, I just have to say the connection between scribes and historians at this point in what you just described is pretty profound. Our traditions of our Yeah, and our record keepers, we don't have scribes. Nowadays, we have the historians that give us the narrative. In other words, the traditions of our fathers. I, I think that's pretty interesting to connect the potential. I I think it's important to consider if that scripture can be connected to the narrative from historians instead of just the record of the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=48m22s 48:22]
Jeremy Hoop: scribes. We ha we have to have an accurate view of our history, not a, not a, a propagandized view, not an agenda driven view. And we, we ought to be brave enough to face that. So let's take a look at Clayton and I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=48m37s 48:37]
Michelle: love how you say with humility because I don't think what we need is a definitive authoritative. This is what happened. I think it's so much better to say we have this source, we have this source. We have this source that people have access to the complexity and use their own discernment. That is so much more honest than thinking that you have to put forward a finalized narrative. That is not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=48m59s 48:59]
Jeremy Hoop: true. I have said this before. I'll say it again. Don't trust me. I know you don't, I know, I know that people watching. Don't, that's a great, don't trust me. Read the stuff yourself. Take a look at it yourself. You are smart enough to discern what is true. I I am done with experts, um academics, historians who claim we must go through them to understand the truth. We can read the same documents that they can. And, and for the first time in history, actually, we have a easy access to those same documents and so they cannot be the gatekeepers anymore and they're not and you should not rely on them as the gatekeepers listen to them and take their opinion and see if it lines up with what you can read for yourself. One of those things is looking at Clayton and Richards and their work, the work that they did together the JSP, the Joseph Smith papers in an appendix um on how the Joseph Smith journals were created. They help us understand um what Richards was doing and what Clayton was doing with Richards. They say the following. By the way, they, they catalog four notes four, they call them draft notes that were used in the creation of the journals. They say the four short documents in this appendix appear to be notes, Willard Richards and William Clayton made of some of Joseph Smith's activities in January, March, April and December 1842 and May 1844 respectively. Some of the information contained in these notes inscribed on loose sheets of paper is also featured in the Joseph Smith journal entries of the same dates though frequently in more detail and in more pool in a more polished form suggesting that the notes were inscribed first and that Richards later used the notes as source material for Joseph Smith's journal. By the way, let me pause there. If you look at Joseph Smith's journal, Joseph Smith's journal is sparse. It's a very strange record. So he's taking very loose notes. The moving goes over into what we call the Joseph Smith journal. If you look at the Joseph Smith journal, this thing is more of a draft. It's more of a draft for a history. It has very strange nota he'll put, for example, uh on, on a page, it'll be blank and all it will say is cold and balmy or stormy today. Now, why in the world would you put the date at the top and the notation of the weather at the bottom? If you were not using that as a, as, as color for a later telling of what happened on that day, based on other things that you've gathered, because you have all kinds of notes that you've been taking as we can see on the screen here, you have notes that you're taking. When you're at an event, you're, you're at a sermon, you're writing your notes down in your, in, in, in, on loose pieces of paper or in a notebook or whatever. We don't have most of that. You're taking those notes and you're putting them into another volume and we know from, from Willard Richards position. He was not Joseph's personal secretary. He's referred to that once, but he's really the historian. Ok, that's Willard Richards position. He's the historian. And so he is documenting the history. I think Joseph trusted him in the beginning. I don't think it was till the very end that Joseph did not trust him. And so he would follow Joseph around. Sometimes he's writing things he's not there for, but he's gathering information, he's putting them into this into this memo book into this draft. So this is referring to that effort. Does that make sense? Ok. That's super
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=52m27s 52:27]
Michelle: important. And I also do want to point out even the, even the Joseph Smith historians ad admit that this didn't get carried around. This was a big book. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=52m36s 52:36]
Jeremy Hoop: this one you see on your screen, this the book of the Law of the Lord, for sure, that that is more of a polished um record book that, that contained uh uh some revelations, uh letters, um daily activities of Joseph Smith. It's not a journal at all. It's more, it's more of a history really um that contains really important events and um recordings uh related to the restoration related to Joseph Smith. Um So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=53m04s 53:04]
Michelle: referring to the Joseph Smith journal, we're really dishonest calling these diaries or journals because we, we use that word so freely that it gives a mi of what they really
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=53m16s 53:16]
Jeremy Hoop: are because it gives an impression that Willard Richards is, it gives the impression that Willard Richards is at his hip every day documenting everything he's doing. And that was, that was simply not the case. We know of many instances where he's not there and writing on things he's not there for, he's gathering information from other places. So the these notes that you see on your screen are therefore critical to understand the process by which Richards created Joseph Smith's NOVO journals. And also they help us understand Clayton's process as Well, the documents reproduced here are the only extent notes of Joseph Smith's uh about Joseph Smith kept by Richards. Though they are likely only a small sample of such texts Richards recorded in his effort to keep Joseph Joseph's journal. Joseph Nabu era journals were kept in two records. The first was kept by Willard Richards, William Clayton, Eliza Snow and Erastus Durie. That's what you see on your screen. The book of the Law of the Lord. OK. Who recorded entries uh from December 1841 to December 1842 in that book. Now, beginning 21st December 1842 and continuing to the final week of the prophet's life. Richards inscribed entries in four small volumes designated as President Joseph Smith's journal. Now, the reason they call it that is because Richards called it that. Ok. So he called it President Joseph's journal. So they feel like they can get away with calling it. I just wish they would be honest about really characterizing what these are entries in the former record are clean and relatively free from cancellations. Yeah, I wouldn't call them clean. Um But because they
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=54m48s 54:48]
Michelle: relatively is a helpful word there, they can be relatively clean, can decide what that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=54m54s 54:54] Jeremy Hoop: means. And other scribal evidence that traditionally indicate point of first inscription, many of the entries were clearly written retrospectively also suggesting that the journal text with within the book of the Law of the Lord was copied from some other source, the book's large size um would have rendered it inconvenient for Joe Smith strives to carry around in its concurrent use as a ledger for recording donations for construction of the temple meant that it was kept in the counting room on the lower floor of Joseph Smith's brick store. Unless unlike the massive book of the law of the Lord, the subsequent Joseph Smith journal president Joseph Smith's journal was kept in small pocket size memorandum books that Richards could easily have carried with him, textual evidence such as space to add detail later and incomplete words from hurried note taking indicate that many of the entries in the se second Nauvoo journal were inscribed contemporaneously. Other entries appear to have been written days after the events they describe and were likely based on draft notes like those reproduced here. Three of the four notes describe events recorded in entries during the periods for which Richards was describe of Joseph's journals. OK. So we get the point. He's got these four little memo books, OK, that he's carrying around and he's and he's writing things sometimes on the day, we can't really tell sometimes on the day sometimes retrospectively, but he's leaving blank spaces. It's not a traditional journal. It's a draft, it's a memo book to create a history later, but he's also using other loose pieces of paper or other sources to copy from, to copy in there. You'll notice he oftentimes will record sermons Joseph has given, he's not recording that sermon on the day in that book. He's because it's too clean for that. And we'll see that the way we'll see. What will, what will Willard Richards writing looks like when he's writing in a hurry. Ok. And as we mentioned, there are hundreds and hundreds. It's not just a few. It's hund uh, somebody counted. I haven't counted myself. So I'm gonna take this at their word, but over 600 blank spaces and pages. OK. This is just, it's, and all you have to do is go into the Joseph Smith papers and go through the journals and flip page after page after page. It's unreal how much space is left in here. That's why it's not a journal, it's a draft and he used it for other purposes. You don't see this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=57m11s 57:11]
Michelle: I, I just want to check with you. My assumption is that that was for future, the purpose of that was for future s at a time. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=57m19s 57:19]
Jeremy Hoop: I don't say that that's nefarious by the way, especially in the beginning because Richards was the historian. I think he was keeping notes at least in the beginning. Now. By the way, it's possible he didn't write those at all on the day. It's very possible that he recorded those after Joseph's death. We can't tell because you simply don't know.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=57m41s 57:41]
Michelle: We need to pause here. Just specify clarify for anyone who's not keeping up with this Willard Richards was a polygamist in Nauvoo. He was also. So if anyone's wondering, that's what we're talking about this. Because Will William Clayton was a polygamist in Nauvoo. Willard Richards was a polygamist in Nauvoo. So I know people are like, oh, we're conspiracy theorists. The fact is no matter which side of this you're on, you're a conspiracy theorist, whether you believe Joseph and his inner circle were lying. That's a conspiracy, right? Or whether you believe many people were lying without Josephs and William Marks and several other people's knowledge, it's actually a small, a smaller conspiracy to understand that it was these people that, that's what we're talking about. And Willard Richards is absolutely in on it as is William Clayton
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=58m26s 58:26]
Jeremy Hoop: and, and the, and many of those people lied at the time when they were actually actively practicing plural marriage or they knew about it being practiced. Um And they, they decried it publicly. Um But we're doing the opposite what you see on your screen right now. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=58m43s 58:43]
Michelle: important to acknowledge that I'm sorry. But, but it's like people act like our stance is so ridiculous that we're saying these people were lying about it publicly while doing it privately. They're saying exactly the same thing about not only these people but Joseph Smith, the only difference is who was involved in this known conspiracy. And it's not only Joseph and Hiram that weren't, there were many, many that weren't and a smaller number that were. So I want to just clarify that ours makes more sense. It's a smaller conspiracy and a conspiracy that is provable and that has a hard evidence behind it and there isn't. So anyway, just I needed to throw that in there. But you go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=59m21s 59:21]
Jeremy Hoop: That's ok. What you see on your screen are the actual journals. There were scribes that kept journals for Joseph. Um uh Oliver Cowdery kept part of his journals. Warren Parish, kept part of his journals. You don't see in these quote journals. What you see with Willard Richards. I point this out because these are actual day to day records. These are, these are guys writing stuff on the days. There's no spaces there. They're just, they're messy. Um They're contemporaneous and, and their recordings, they might have been recorded, you know, days after, but regardless they're, they're recorded like an actual journal entry to entry, to entry, to entry, um somewhat sloppy handwriting, recording contemporaneous events that Joseph is having them. He's dictating to them and or they, they, they are, they are making mention of aspects of his life.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h00m13s 1:00:13]
Michelle: So they're not premeditating future changes and Alternations. Ok. That's good
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h00m19s 1:00:19]
Jeremy Hoop: parish or whether it's George Robinson or James Mulholland, the, the, the previous journals to, to Richards are all the same in terms of this type of recording, they change with Richard. So the Book of the Law of the Lord, which is considered one of the, it's in the journal section that's not really a journal. It's more of a, uh uh of a history or a polished record. The Richards Joseph Smith journals are better described as memo books or drafts or draft notes to create Joseph's history. I really would, I, I'm not gonna let the historians get away with this. Let's start being accurate about how we identify documents. I don't care what Richards called it. Let's at least be accurate about what these are now. Why is this so important because of the pattern, you create contemporaneous notes and copy them later into another volume. Clayton participated with Richards in this effort at that time. Now Clayton, as we've shown and we'll see followed this process in his own records creation. He would record contemporaneous notes, copy them into another record. He would leave blank spaces and pages when creating the new draft and then he creates what we call and we'll examine this a clean or fair copy. Now, it should be noted that nothing, absolutely nothing in the Joseph Smith journals implicates in the well, calling them the journals in the memo books, uh implicates Joseph with polygamous activity or sympathy. Just the opposite. The only references to polygamy that by the way, this is one of the reasons why I give them some credibility because I think Richards is recording them somewhere around the time. OK? I think he's purposefully leaving spaces because he knows later. I'm gonna write the history. I just, I'm making notes. I'm just gonna, I'm gonna compile all this stuff together. This is my main draft book that I'm creating, right? I'm leaving, but I gotta write the history later. So this, this is my working material. He would not, I don't believe later on have written some of the things that he recorded in Joseph's in this journal. Quote. Uh that, that where Joseph says, try everyone who's practicing uh spiritual wifey. OK. Uh Polygamy is I forbid it? OK. And we're going to examine that here as well. Can
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h02m32s 1:02:32]
Michelle: I even add one other one other thing? Um One thing I found interesting is so Joseph Smith preached all day on July 16th and that's where in the afternoon he preached about eternal marriage. And it's interesting, eternal monogamous marriage. He didn't even, you know, I have to point out monogamy because he didn't know that polygamy was the thing that was happening under his nose. But William Clayton, I know, um Willard Richards, interestingly, he wasn't there and he reports on his morning speeches and says nothing about the afternoon speech on eternal marriage but leaves a page and a half blank. So that's a prime example right there of where it's already being somewhat altered because it's strange that it doesn't there. You learn as much about what they don't include as you do about what they do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h03m16s 1:03:16]
Jeremy Hoop: include. That's an incredibly important point over time. There's all kinds of things, whether it's Elizabeth Ann Whitney, or whether it's missing newspaper articles or whether it's things that, that William Clayton, for example, does not record on a specific day. Like Hiram's uh 8 April 1884 speech, William Clayton does not record it at all. Um He gives vague reference to it in his journal, but he records it on the wrong day, which is interesting. And so um the only references, by the way in the Richards Journal uh or the the Richards memo book um show that Joseph was decidedly categorically against it. And this will be examined a little more later. So let's examine.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h04m01s 1:04:01]
Michelle: So I have a question. So the, so just repeat that last part is what is categorically against it. That's the Richard's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h04m08s 1:04:08]
Jeremy Hoop: book in the memo book. Yes. In the Richards memo books, there's no instances of Joseph being connected to plural marriage. The only instances relating to plural marriage or spiritual wifey are Joseph being against it or preaching or speaking against it. The only instances,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h04m26s 1:04:26]
Michelle: one thing I think is interesting there is that from what you just read, this memo book was kept most likely in the red book store where Joseph Smith and the other scribes and other people could read it and have access to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h04m38s 1:04:38]
Jeremy Hoop: possibly, possibly, these are small. These are, these are like, these are small. They're about, they're about five by uh seven inches. They're the, they're the little books that you see on top of the book of the Law of the Lord. That's that those are the actual books themselves and so he could, he could carry them around in his bag. I think the, I think these were, these were, he was keeping memos, he was just keeping track of stuff and this was for a later usage and he was also recording other things and other pieces of paper and somehow bringing some of those in there. So it's, it's not entirely clear when he was recording these. The, the point of this is to draw the line between Richards and Clayton and their work, their, their joint work frankly as scribes um who would later also work together on Joseph's history. So now let's examine the pattern. Clayton's work with the Council of 50 record. This, we're gonna go a little more detail because this is critical to understanding the Nauvoo. He was a clerk for the council of 50 starting in early 1844 when the council was created, he was the main clerk really that kept the rough contempo temp contemporaneous minutes. There were other clerks as well, but he did the bulk of it. Joseph asked him and all the other clerks to destroy the minutes. There's a reason for that because the, the mob, Joseph was afraid the mob was coming. There were some things that Joseph talked about where and I believe he was ordained a king. OK. This is a spirit
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h06m08s 1:06:08]
Michelle: get it to the council of 50. Well, I'll, I'll address that in the podcast.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h06m11s 1:06:11]
Jeremy Hoop: In the point of that is Joseph, the papers make it clear that, that Joseph's concerned that, that the, the minutes could be used against him. So he asked people to destroy the minutes and other leaders like Brigham Young would ask the minutes to be destroyed as well after Joseph dies. Well, Clayton kept them and he used them to create a clean or fair copy after Joseph's death. Without anyone's knowledge, Clayton held on to these records for over two years and then he finally handed, handed them over to Brigham Young in 1847. So let's read from the JSP to understand a little bit about these. This is so important because this will help us to understand what he's doing with it with his Nabu journal. The novel era minutes of the Council of 50 were recorded in three small blank books kept by council clerk William Clayton. His journal entry for 5 october 1845 notes that he spent the day recording minutes of the council of 50 that he recorded 43 pages of a small record like this indicating that the blank book he was using for the council record was small like his own journal. In fact, it's exactly like his own journal. Now just put that in the back of your mind. OK. The volumes of the Council of 50 are ex almost identical with minute millimeter difference, but they're basically the same type of record book. Oddly enough, they actually happen to be the exact same size as the Richards memo books, which is interesting. I don't know, we can draw an inference from that or not, but they're the same exact type of volume. Ok. Which is interesting because his England journal is very different. Brigham Young's journal is different. All these other journals are very different, but for whatever reason, the council of 50 the Nauvoo and the Richards memo books are all basically the same. So indicating the blank book he was using for the council record was small like his own journal, Clayton's journal for that period is very close in size and shape to the volumes in which he recorded the council of 50 minutes. Both Richards and Clayton had considerable clerical, clerical experience. Richards served as the regular clerk of the quorum of the 12 apostles since at least 1841 keeping minutes of meetings and writing correspondence on behalf of the quorum, jumping ahead either then might have served well as record keeper. But the records presented in this volume were almost all created originally by Clayton and were all inscribed by him into the permanent record. The survival of original rough copies and later fair copies of Clayton's Minutes for early Utah meetings may provide a window into how Clayton produced the Nabu Era Minutes. While it is evident that the n the Nabu record books that Clayton was copying additional Council documents such as letters, the uh the later original and fair copies reveal just how extensively Clayton relied on such documents. OK. Pause. So for these council of 50 minutes, he's again using other sources, other minutes, rough minutes, letters, notations to compile what we're gonna find in this council of 50 record.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h09m05s 1:09:05]
Michelle: So is this showing us his methods, his methods?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h09m09s 1:09:09]
Jeremy Hoop: You might think this is tedious and boring. And I admit it's extremely tedious and extremely boring. However, it's critical to understand his work here to understand what I think we're going to see going to see. In fact, I know we're going to see in the NUJ, for example, it appears that instead of noting who was present in in his original minutes, Clayton relied on an on an attendance role which he later used to record the names of attendees when he produced the fair copy of the minutes. Additionally, Clayton appears to have relied on written motions submitted to the chair to help formulate his minutes. And in in his rough minutes, Clayton simply numbered the motion named the council members who had offered it in the fair copy, he then transcribed and paraphrased the written motion in addition to cleaning up the language and format of the original minutes. As he prepared the fair copy, Clayton actively reworked his minutes to better conform to parliamentary order and to produce an administrative focus by summarizing or leaving out some of the remarks captured in his rough minutes. Nevertheless, a comparison between these original minutes and the copy in the record book reveals that Clayton made a number of changes to the minutes, adding or deleting words and phrases in an attempt to clarify or Polish the text. Although Clayton began keeping minutes for the council in 10 March 1844 he did not begin the council's record book until the summer of 1844. This is after Joseph is dead at 11 o'clock in the morning. On 23rd, June 1844 Clayton was summoned by council member John P Green to Js Joseph Smith home, Joseph Smith had received a letter from Illinois. Governor Thomas Ford insisting that he and other men charged with the destruction of the Nauvoo expositor, surrender to authorities fearing they would not receive justice. Joseph Smith determined to cross the Mississippi River. During the night, Clayton stated that when he arrived at Joseph Smith's home, Joseph whispered and told me either to put the records of the kingdom into the hands of some faithful men and send them away or burn them or bury them. I don't know that I believe by the way that Joseph told him to preserve them in any way because none of the other clerks say that all of the other clerks as we'll see, um, say they were told to destroy them, but neither here nor there. This is what he says, Joseph says, Clayton returned home and immediately put the records in a small box and buried them in his garden. Around five o'clock that morning, Clayton returned to Joseph's office and gathered all the public and private records together and buried them. Richards received similar instructions from Joseph to destroy the records, root and branch. So Richards was told, don't leave anything, but apparently Clayton was told, yeah, you can, you can hang on to him, just keep him safe. Joseph apparently worried that the papers of the council of 50 would be confiscated and used against him. Joseph apparently worried that uh excuse me. In February 1845 Richards told the council that following these instructions, he had destroyed the council papers in his possession, which may explain why only one routine council paper for 1844 an apology for absence by Almon Babbitt on 5 May 1844 survived. Clayton apparently felt that the immediate danger of the council papers being confiscated passed after the murder of Joseph on the 27th of June 1844 on the third of July. Clayton dug up the records that had been buried, noting that water had got into the place where they were and they were damaged by mid August. The immediate issue of who would succeed Joseph as leader of the church in Navoo had been settled in favor of the quorum of the 12 and Clayton had begun to meet with them and other church leaders as church affairs gradually resumed on the 15th of August. After attending a meeting with the 12, the Navoo House Association and the Temple Committee, the core group that initially formed the council of 50. Clayton noted that a very good feeling prevails in the breasts of the brethren. Around this time, Clayton began working on the first record book of the council of 50. On 18 August 1844 Clayton wrote in his journal that he spent the day at his office copying the record of the kingdom. On 6th September, he again noted spending the day copying the record for the initial 10 March entry in the record book. Clayton must have had access to the original letters from George Miller and Lyman White or a later copy because he began copying the letters into the record book because the original minutes of the council meeting from 1014 to March March 14 had been burned. Clayton then reconstructed brief accounts of these meetings using his journal memory and possibly other documents. Beginning with the entry in the record book for the 19 March 1844 meeting. Clayton was apparently working from original minutes or notes as the minutes became longer and more detailed. Still on only a few uh 1844 entries approached the level of detail contained in the 1845 entries. Yada yada. In on first of March, the council voted that the minutes be destroyed. I wanted to point that out because this destruction of these minutes is a continual theme that Clayton ignores after which Clayton put them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h13m56s 1:13:56]
Michelle: Well, well, you're finished. Then I have several questions. Yeah. Go ahead and finish. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h14m00s 1:14:00]
Jeremy Hoop: then after which Clayton put them in a stove and burned them up for this example, as well as from later Utah era minutes. It appears that Clayton's production of the minutes may have gone through three stages. At least some of the time. First, he took rough minutes during a meeting. Second, he prepared a loose copy to be read in the next meeting. And third, he made a fair copy of the minutes in the record books. OK. So he was keeping his own little rec no matter what he was destroying, he kept his own minutes and his own records behind the scene. And then he would transfer whatever he had into this, what's called a clean and fair copy as the council met more regularly in March and April 1845 Clayton dedicated more time to copying the minutes. According to his journal from 6th March to 28 April, he spent 20 days copying minutes. He's very actively engaged. You see this in his own journal, his nau journal, I spent the day copying the records of the kingdom, spent the day copying the records of the kingdom he's doing this day after day after day, Clayton May. So can
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h14m57s 1:14:57]
Michelle: I ask you two questions quickly? First does anybody know he's doing this because Joseph told everyone to destroy them. I don't want the gun if you. Ok. And then I have a question. Do you? And, and you can tell me if I'm asking too soon. Do you have any indication of why he would disregard what, why he would do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h15m17s 1:15:17]
Jeremy Hoop: this? I have a speculation but I'm gonna call it speculation. We don't, we don't know exactly. But I, but I have a strong, I have a strong suspicion. Yes, we will. Clayton may have begun making the permanent record based on instruction from Joseph Smith or his own accord. That's interesting. He may have. He may have either from Joseph Smith. It's interesting that they say that obviously you can speculate, they may have, but there is absolutely no indication that Joseph ever told him to do this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h15m47s 1:15:47]
Michelle: and Joseph told him to destroy them. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h15m49s 1:15:49]
Jeremy Hoop: exactly, enigmatic statements in the 1845 minutes when the council reconvened suggest that it is possible that neither the council chairman Brigham Young nor the council recorder Willard Richards was aware of Clayton's record when the council, when the council reorganized in February 1845 Lucian Wood Woodworth requested that the minutes of the first councils be read to which Young responded that quote, all the minutes were burned up while Young's statement may refer only to the 14th March 1844 decision to burn the minutes of the first few meetings. Additional discussions suggests that many council members including George Miller and Richards interpreted the lack of re records more broadly later in the in the meeting, Miller appears to have questioned Young's statement quote in regards to the records as he quote, supposed that they had been preserved, but he had learned since that they were destroyed to this. Richards responded that in accordance with Joseph's instructions, he had destroyed the records. Although Clayton spoke immediately after Richards, he did not correct the statements on four Marches. So, so the fact that the Joseph Smith papers speculate that, well, maybe Joseph told him, sorry to, to even put that in the same sentence. If they're gonna be fair, they would say it's possible to, to speculate that Joseph might have said this, but there is absolutely no evidence that Joseph ever did. So it is curious as to why Clayton is doing this when no one else apparently knows. Ok, that's the fair way to make that statement
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h17m26s 1:17:26]
Michelle: does not say anything about it. There's no evidence that Joseph Smith told him to. So you could just leave it out, which would be the most fair and the most accurate
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h17m33s 1:17:33]
Jeremy Hoop: way. What it does is it is it doesn't address what is happening here, which we will see it does not address Clayton himself and his pattern or his character. On 4 March 1845 Richards proposed that the council allow Clayton quote the privilege of taking the minutes and retaining them to copy some names from them before destroying them, still supposed to destroy them. Um Similar motions were made by Richards on 11 and 18 March. At which point, he suggested making it a standing rule of the council that quote, the clerk be instructed hereafter to burn up all the minutes of these councils as fast as he has done with them until otherwise instructed by the council end quote. It is unclear whether Richards knew at this point that Clayton was making a complete copy of the Minutes or whether he was concerned with the loose minutes, which could be more easily lost or misappropriated. I think we will see that he had no, no idea whatsoever as we will see. Now, I want to point this out. So on your left, you see the rough minutes that Clayton was taking on the right. You see, for the very same day, the clean minutes, we're gonna examine this more closely, but I want to point this out that we were step
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h18m46s 1:18:46]
Michelle: one and two of the three or there was the rough minutes. Then the draft copy, then the clean copies. Yeah, this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h18m52s 1:18:52]
Jeremy Hoop: is, this is r these are rough minutes, but he would, he would have very, at the moment, you know, contemporaneous recording. I think that is step two on the left because it's a little cleaner and, and we're gonna see how we're gonna see what Clayton looks like when he's writing. Writing something. Actually, in the moment we're gonna see that where he's writing um stream of consciousness or, or recording something contemporaneously, I wanna point out again. Nevertheless, a comparison between these original minutes and the copy in the record book reveals that Clayton made a number of changes to the minutes, adding or deleting words and phrases in attempt to clarify and polish the text again. He is, he feels him as a scribe, he feels liberty to do so. Ok, to take things that aren't there and to add them to the clean record. Now, did you catch this? Did you catch really catch and let it sink in and nobody knows, nobody knows that he's doing this. Now, they speculate, maybe they knew, maybe they knew, I think I can prove that they absolutely did not know. And we're gonna see why. Ok. He kept those records. Clayton apparently kept the council records with him until he left Nauvoo in 1846 as they do not appear in inventory made when the church records were packed up for the exodus to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake and it records of the council of 50 in April 1847. In winter quarters, Clayton gave the records to Brigham Young finally who apparently transported them west. Now, the Joseph Smith papers just kind of make scant reference to this. Oh, well, he had them. We didn't, didn't, they didn't really know and he just gave them over to Brigham Young. Now, what, why Alan helps us understand
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h20m38s 1:20:38]
Michelle: these pictures? This guy, ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h20m42s 1:20:42]
Jeremy Hoop: This guy you see is a, is a, is a pretty infamous guy named Hosea Stout. There are some guys, Bill Hickman, Hosea Stout. Warn Rockwell. These guys need to be understood in order to understand Brigham Young. John D Lee. John D Lee as well. I think these guys are, are, are arguably far worse than John D Lee ever was. But Allen says the following about a little incident that happened in 1847 Clayton's reports were certainly not unbiased. Speaking of, um, somebody called Hosea Stout, but at least his journal suggests the problems that could occur on such a trip trip on May 17th, 1847 he expressed disappointment with Bishop Miller who had passed by without leaving him any cattle though the Bishop himself had plenty a month later as he rationed out bread to his company. He noted that the men seemed quote very much dis satisfied and growled to each other very much. And I have to chuckle because in his journal, he's constantly complaining, he is constantly complaining about getting the short end of the stick on stuff. We'll talk about that later. Such grumbling was not uncommon but perhaps more serious was the personal animosity between Clayton and at least one other member of the camp Jos Stout seemed to dislike the camp clerk with a passion and the feeling was returned. The reason for the conflict escapes the historian. Oh, James, I'm sorry that it escapes you. But as Clayton saw it, stout even threatened to kill him, some potential problems were avoided. When after William Clayton was instructed to go west with the pioneers of 1847 Brigham Young unexpectedly told stout to remain as the camp of the guard at winter quarters. So he doesn't reprimand stout. He leaves him in place but he sends Clayton off, uh, to go west.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h22m35s 1:22:35]
Michelle: Ok. Now, are you gonna explain this? Now, am I missing some? Ok. Ok. I just, I'm like, I need you to explain that to me. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h22m42s 1:22:42]
Jeremy Hoop: So for whatever reason, and it's unexplained in the journal, we don't know why Jose is Stout so upset with him and we don't know why. All we know is what Clayton says in his journal. I'll read it. April of the 11th, 1847 on a Sunday at home at Fars. That's, uh, his father-in-law's house, Diantha Fars, uh, Winslow Far, her dad, I told Winslow Far concern concerning Hosea Stout's threats to take my life after the 12 are gone. And et cetera, he called at night on his return from the council and told me to be on my guard. April 13th, 1847 2 days later at home, most of the day, Thomas and James started for the farm evening, went to the store and told Brigham and Heber about Hosea Stout's calculations and et cetera. April 14th the following day, Wednesday. This morn morning, severally severely pained with rheumatism in my face. At 11 o'clock, Brigham and Doctor Richards came in. B told me to rise up and start with the pioneers in half an hour's notice. Get up and get out.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h23m48s 1:23:48]
Michelle: Ok. We move across the plains in half an hour's notice. Like, like I couldn't go camping with half an hour's notice. Move move forever. 2000 miles. Ok. I'm OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h24m02s 1:24:02]
Jeremy Hoop: So the n the day after he says he's trying to kill me, he's threatened to kill me. They think about it the next morning, they talk about it with him. Get up and go. You got a half hour and then the very next sentence I delivered to him, the records of the Kingdom of God, explain this to me in the world on the same day that Clayton tells Brigham that Stout's trying to kill him. He delivers the records. We'll come back to this. Hold that thought because this is an important piece of the puzzle that apparently James Allen couldn't put together. So summary of Clayton's creation of council 50 minutes. He works as a clerk. He's the main clerk, Joseph asks him and the other clerks, I submit. Joseph did not tell him you could keep them. Ok? Because all the other clerks had burned them root and branch as Richard says, but he says, I could keep him anyway. He, he was asked to destroy them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h25m06s 1:25:06]
Michelle: Clayton was special. Joseph always was. Clayton was special. Of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h25m11s 1:25:11]
Jeremy Hoop: course, he was. Clayton didn't burn them, he kept them, use them in other documents to create a clean or fair copy of Joseph after Joseph's death. OK. So he starts this right after Joseph's death in September of 1844. Without anyone's knowledge, Clayton held onto these records for over two years and he finally handed them over to Brigham Young in 1847. We'll come back to this later. This is very important. Now, can Clayton's long history? Can his long, long history with copying and creating records help us understand his NOVO journal better? This is of course called the Smoking Gun. This is what puts Joseph at the scene of the crime. Here's a little intro. So there are two primary journals and a third tertiary uh James uh that comprise the NAU journals, James Allen um is gonna tell us a lot about the substance of the journals Robert Filler up, helps us understand the dating of the journals, which is really, really vital. We're going to examine pieces of the actual journals themselves. Things I don't think many people have been able to find. Um Oh, sorry, we're gonna examine actual journals. Clayton's actual journals, real journals, not the NUVO journals, Clayton's real journals, Richard's real journals, Kimball's and Youngs. And then remember Clayton's copy and documentation crea creation process um was part of something called Clayton's private book. He had a private book, compare that we're gonna compare the journals to the council of 50 record. And then we're gonna look at 57 pages that I've been able to find of the actual journal, the actual pictures of the journal itself to see if that can tell something
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h26m47s 1:26:47]
Michelle: other than just the paper. Is that where you were able to find
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h26m50s 1:26:50]
Jeremy Hoop: him? Ok. They, I don't think they know what they've done and then why the Clayton Journal is a clean fair, a later creation, a clean fair copy, a later creation. And it cannot be said to be contemporaneous um or a diary. So, so in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h27m07s 1:27:07]
Michelle: that editorial process, you're saying it's the third step, there were the notes, then the draft copy, then the clean or fair copy. So it's number three,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h27m15s 1:27:15]
Jeremy Hoop: we're, we're going to see that and I think we can provide definitive proof of it. And we're also going to examine how his journals are used in the creation of Joseph Smith history and why that's important. So from James Allen, Clayton made the first entry in his three NUVO journals on November 27th, 1842. For some reason, there is more than an 18 month long gap after the end of the Manches, uh an eight month gap. Sorry at the end of the Manchester Journal, though it's possible even probable that Clayton kept some kind of record that's been lost. We know that's actually not just probable, it's for certain um the journals are a bit difficult to follow for the entries are not always strictly chronological. Apparently Clayton began writing in one journal, moved to another for some reason, then moved back to the original. As a result, the researcher must move back and forth between the volumes. Sometimes there are two entries for the same day and it's not clear why. Ok. I think we can figure out why. Frankly. Now, Robert
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h28m17s 1:28:17]
Michelle: filler lot of irregularities.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h28m20s 1:28:20]
Jeremy Hoop: Very strange. It's a little difficult to follow. As James Allen says, now Robert Filler up, gives us the dates and we can find these dates. They're buried in the Joseph Smith papers too. We, we can, we can discern them in other places, but he helps us understand in book one, it covers the period of 27 November 1842 to 28 April 1843. And then there's a 17 month gap and the very next entry in this one volume picks up on the 25th of September 1844 through the 31st of March 1845. Very strange. This is what Alan is referring to. You have to go from one journal and you go to the other and you go back to the other. OK. So now that's Nabu journal one nuo two covers the gap. OK. Very weird. I, I wanna, I like to call it the gap book. So when I call it the gap book, you know which one I'm referring to book two. It's the book that covers the gap in the, in the, in the book one. OK. It goes from
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h29m26s 1:29:26]
Michelle: two is a critical period. Sorry, you're just gonna say that you
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h29m32s 1:29:32]
Jeremy Hoop: can see the dates. It's 27 8 27. April 1843 to 24. September 1844. This is a critical time and we're gonna see how critical this journal is and there's no
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h29m44s 1:29:44]
Michelle: insight from, from the beginning. Do you have an insight of why William Clayton did
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h29m48s 1:29:48]
Jeremy Hoop: that? I'm going to, I'm going to opine on the subject and people can judge whether or not my opinion has validity.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h29m58s 1:29:58]
Michelle: Ok. But, but James Allen just says it's strange.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h30m01s 1:30:01]
Jeremy Hoop: It's strange. It's just, it's just strange. Then there's a third that it doesn't have a cover. It's only about, it's 14 pages of actual text, maybe some 15 or 16 pages of paper. It was tucked into the volume one. It was just found tucked in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h30m18s 1:30:18]
Michelle: and it covers a very long period. No, no, no,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h30m22s 1:30:22]
Jeremy Hoop: sorry. I wrote that incorrectly. That that should be 44. That's a clerical error. It's, it's a, it's, it's a daily record kept by William Clayton. This is from the JSP. Yeah, that focuses on Joseph Smith's activities during the nine days preceding his flight to Nauvoo. Ok. Clayton's journal contains entries that highlight his own activities on these same days suggesting that his record on Joseph Smith may be a second authorized journal of Joseph Smith authorized journal. Um though no evidence has been found indicating the Smith commission Clayton to keep such a record. I love how they have to keep doing this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h30m57s 1:30:57]
Michelle: because it could be, but there's no evidence
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h31m02s 1:31:02]
Jeremy Hoop: they must maintain his credibility at all costs. Now, James Allen also can comment on what we have available to us that's been published, that, that the notes that Andy E Hat took that were published by the Tanners and that what George Smith published later and that Philip was published. He's gonna comment on these uh on what on what is in an intimate chronicle. He wrote a review of an intimate chronicle in 1995. It's not very um flattering. Despite its strengths, several problems are inherent in this publication journal two. When he says journal two, he doesn't mean what I mean. He means the entirety of the Nau Clayton journals. OK? Because uh George D Smith uh gives us six of Clayton's journals which go from England all the way to the pioneer journal. OK. And it has the Nabu Temple record and su and such journal two for um for George D Smith is the NUVO portion. OK. Which, which is those three? OK. Does that make sense? Is that clear? So when, when Alan's referring to journal two, he's referring to all three together. OK. Despite its strengths, several pro problems are inherent in this publication journal two is so incomplete. That cannot be relied upon to provide a full or balanced perspective. By the way, let me pause for a second in another, in another podcast. It was on um RF MS podcast. One of the commentators gave brief mention to this that he said, well, Alan kind of complained about the journals that is so ridiculous frankly to, to characterize what Alan says, let's let Alan speak for himself. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h32m47s 1:32:47]
Michelle: this, this is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h32m48s 1:32:48]
Jeremy Hoop: a, this is, he said, James Allen. James Allen, you know, said they weren't that great, you know, the, the, the intimate chronicle. He, he kind of tried to give a balanced um comment to say that James Allen uh didn't like what was published, but he didn't explain what James Allen says. That's why I'm going to read this. And it should be noted, James Allen is one of the only people to ever have. Well prior to recently to ever have worked extensively with Clayton's actual journal. He knows it inside and out. He used it as the source material for the biography that he created on Clayton. And he, and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h33m24s 1:33:24]
Michelle: he had seen it as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h33m26s 1:33:26]
Jeremy Hoop: He had um my understanding is that he had access to the journals, whether or not he read them every page. I don't know. Um he worked from the, the typescript that Alan and Dean Jesse made of the journal. He worked from that type script first, but I think he was also given access. So e hat saw it. I think Quinn only saw either the typescript that Alan made or the type script that E hat made. I'm not certain which um and then recently we have a team of people supposedly working on the journal. So there's other people that have access to them now. But very few people in the public discourse have ever even seen these. OK. And James Allen's in his nineties.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h34m05s 1:34:05]
Michelle: OK. So, so for me to understand what you're reading here. So this is James Allen commenting on what was published of William Clayton's journals from the notes that got out correct.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h34m18s 1:34:18]
Jeremy Hoop: He's commenting on George D Smith's in intimate chronicle, which is all anyone has had access to publicly and he's gonna tell us what is contained in that and why he has trouble with it. He says the most problematical document in this collection is Journal two, Nabu Illinois 1842 to 46. That's those three volumes I mentioned the original three volumes which comprise this journal are owned by the LDS church and cover the period of 27 November 1842 to 30 January 1846 scholars should be wary of this abridgment. However, for the editor did not have access to the original journals. Instead, he relied for the most part on highly selected excerpts compiled in 1979 by Andrew E had as notes for his specific research interests and he had who you see on your screen was a, was a grad student at BYU and was this was during Leonard Arrington. And they, they had this brief period of great openness in the church archives which they later learned they don't want to do again because you know, things leak out. And several scholars including Mike Quinn and Andy E Hat and James Allen and and others, Dean Jesse and others were given access, I believe Van Wagner was also given access as well. Anyway, they got in there and they all had their various interests that they were researching and Andy Hat was very interested in the Clayton journals and he, and he combed through Allen's typescript and excerpted from the type script and then was also given access apparently to see the journals themselves. How much he time he had with him. I don't know, unfortunately,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h35m49s 1:35:49]
Michelle: has a type script and we don't have
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h35m51s 1:35:51]
Jeremy Hoop: access to Alan has the only full one that yes, the only full one ever made apparently is Alan's and he has never released it because he has been faithful to the church's request to keep it secret and maybe he turned it over, maybe he doesn't even have it in his possession. But that type script was made and it's never been released. Allen continues, unfortunately. And though through no uh direct fault of e hats, these excerpts were purloined and copied in an unauthorized way by yet another person and he kept it in an office where he was offing uh with a, with a, a bishop on BYU campus. And for whatever reason, other people came into the office, found the notes and they took them, made photocopies of them and they circulated like wildfire.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h36m35s 1:36:35]
Michelle: I have to, I have to say like my heart breaks for Andrew E hat. I think what happened to him was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h36m40s 1:36:40]
Jeremy Hoop: absolutely, it was horrible. And, and I heard him on, on uh in some um historians group setting talking about it, you can tell this was extremely heartbreaking for him because of it because because of how this got out and he still is affected by it today.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h36m57s 1:36:57]
Michelle: And he, and, and I like what Alan said that he was, he was doing specific research. He only, we don't even fully understand why he chose the excerpts he chose, but it certainly should not be used as a fair representation of the Clayton Journal. And the fact that it has been used by historians to make this entire narrative. Despite what I I mean, this whole thing is insane. It's so problematic
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h37m19s 1:37:19]
Jeremy Hoop: as he continues, like the proverbial feathers tossed to the wind duplicates spread rapidly. The excerpts were eventually published and approved with no editing in a photo duplicate by form by Gerald and Sandra Tanner's modern microfilm company of Salt Lake City that later went to court and the Tanners actually won um that they had a right to publish it. Smith's abridgement is based almost entirely on that source, with some editions from a few other sources. Smith's introduction to, by the way, if you want to read the best one, it's Robert Filler up because what filler up does is he, he extracts from all of Alan's writings where Alan actually quotes from the journal because Alan's quoting directly from the journal and that and many of the quotes Alan uses are not in the Andy E Hat excerpt. So Philip compiles it all. So if you want to read the best one that's available, it's filler
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h38m08s 1:38:08]
Michelle: up. OK. I'll attach it below because it's available online on the archive.org. So, so it'll be in the links.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h38m15s 1:38:15]
Jeremy Hoop: Um Smith's introduction to this journal leaves some misleading impressions about its full content. He says for example, that the E hat excerpts comprise approximately one half of the original holograph journal since. However, he never s since he never saw the holograph. However, he had no way of knowing that there are actually 1170 daily entries in the three journals. Smith provides a full or nearly reproduction of 100 and two entries. 8.7% and partial reproductions of another 254 21.7%. Considering all the emissions from the partial entries, it is safe to estimate that less than 25% of the whole is included in this publication. Scholars should be very cau cautious when they try to interpret what is there for 75% of the whole is missing. Moreover, in the case of the Nabu journals, George Smith took no real part in the abridgement. All he had before him were ehat excerpts which were never intended as an abridgement. They were merely verbatim notes to be used in E hat's writing. They were not meant to be published as a collection. What was finally published in by modern microfilm unfortunately was an agglomeration of unconnected except as they related to ee hats studies and out of context excerpts that piqued the interest of the curious because they seemed somewhat sensational. Now, I don't think they seem somewhat sensational. They are extraordinarily sensational. Uh So sorry, James, I disagree with you. Smith correctly observes that Clayton's journals were the source for many entries in the documentary history of the Church edited by Bh Roberts. But he wrongly suggests that most of the 1843 1845 entries are present in edited form in that history. Actually, for the period before the death of Joseph Smith, only about 25 of the daily history of the church entries are clearly drawn from Clayton's journals. We're gonna see. It's quite a bit more than that in the whole of the history, but we'll see. But are these journals and why would it matter if they weren't? So let what Alan sinks in, just let that help us be a little more cautious. Just a little more when we're examining these and and let the one of the only men who has had extensive access to them has made a full type script, really understands the journals inside and out. Let let his words speak and let them be considered.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h40m35s 1:40:35]
Michelle: Can I also make another point here that I find just fascinating. So this whole mess happened, right? Like this is a mess the church has to acknowledge has to know this is a mess, right? You would think that it's like, oh, shoot, we let all of this out. This just happened. Oh, well, I guess we better just release the journals now to put this all to rest.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h40m57s 1:40:57]
Jeremy Hoop: This is why this creates adverse inference,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h41m00s 1:41:00]
Michelle: right. Right. The fact that they're like this mess, this is better than what's in the actual journals is really problematic for all of us to consider. And it's important to also recognize even in what Alan is saying, he is a consummate apologist, his entire everything about him is being an apologist for the church and an apologist for Clayton with a determination to to believe Clayton that that that borders on worship in his own words, right? So everything that Alan says, we have to also view through that lens. It is insane that all of this happened. And the church is like, no, you can't see the rest. You just make your assumptions about him and we have to know that whatever assumptions we're going to make about them is not as bad as what they actually contain.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h41m46s 1:41:46]
Jeremy Hoop: Alan will give us, he'll give us further context uh in a few minutes about the journals themselves to help us balance them out and it is critical to understand. And I think by the way, what Clay, what Allen admits helps us to understand why the church is not, has not released them. OK. At least a little now what you see on your screen to that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h42m13s 1:42:13]
Michelle: or are you telling us now
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h42m15s 1:42:15]
Jeremy Hoop: we're coming to that. That's, uh, it's an important piece. This is suspense
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h42m21s 1:42:21]
Michelle: in this presentation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h42m22s 1:42:22] Jeremy Hoop: This is from Brigham Young's actual journal. Um, this is what an actual journal looks like if you there, I think there are three of his journals that we have. Um, they're just a mess. They're like a normal, like mine, my journals, I can't even read my journals half the time. Um, because I'm, I'm, I'm just, I'm getting stuff out and, ah, and I go back and read it and what the heck did I write on that day? Well, Brigham's is kind of that way and so is Heber Kimball? He Heber Kimball is a real mess. It's just, uh, you know, it's like what you'd expect sometimes doodling scratching, uh, recording certain kind of things that happen and, and, uh, it's very messy. It's very much an actual journal. And of course, when we look at Willard Willard Richards journal, Willard's is even worse than theirs here is his is really, really sloppy and messy and it's day to day and it's actually a journal and even when we look at
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h43m11s 1:43:11]
Michelle: them people access these pages,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h43m12s 1:43:12]
Jeremy Hoop: those are all in the church history library. Ok. Ok. You can find all of those journals, the actual pages in the church history library, um, online.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h43m23s 1:43:23]
Michelle: Yeah. Go,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h43m23s 1:43:23]
Jeremy Hoop: go, go download them. You can, they let you download them so long as you don't use them for, for commercial purposes, then you can actually have them a copy of it and you can, you can go try to read it. It's really hard to read. You know, it is hard stuff. This is Clayton's own journal as we showed before. This is from his mission journal, his actual day to day recording. And by the way, in this journal, one of the ways you can tell it's a journal because he's actually talking about himself revealing things about himself that maybe he might not want out that somebody else has to come in later and has to scratch out.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h43m58s 1:43:58]
Michelle: You can see just one small reduction. There are much, much, much larger
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h44m01s 1:44:01]
Jeremy Hoop: reduction. We have 12 pages of people scratching stuff out. And so this helps us understand what a contemporaneous record looks like. And remember the importance of a contemporaneous record that can actually be used in court and a contemporaneous record in the historical sense is what we rely on. The very, very, very most in journals are one of those things we rely on the most to help us understand what was actually going on. What's going on in the mind of the person. Does it corroborate with other things that are happening on the outside, with letters, with newspapers, with other people's journals, you know, a contemporaneous record and later memoirs, later memoirs do not hold the same weight in understanding the history.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h44m42s 1:44:42]
Michelle: I'm thinking of, I'm thinking of myself like the humiliation you feel when you go read your 13 year old journal that you hope your kids, you know me as a girl. Like so and so is so rude. And so and so you know what I mean? Like that's what it's, that's the value of a contemporaneous journal. If I were to write my life history, I would just, I wouldn't go into that 13 year old journal, right? And so that principle continues, once you have the historical mindset and you're in a completely different place with a completely different set of motivations and worldview, you clean it up to make it very different than what the actual journal would have told you. So that's why this is so important. II I just want people to really understand the difference there like that messy daily record that you keeping it just whatever mood you're in versus the later I'm gonna clean this up. It's a big, big difference.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h45m35s 1:45:35]
Jeremy Hoop: It's a huge difference. And I think anyone who is discerning at all can discern between something that's written like a journal and something is not. Now, can we tell, can we tell if these are or not contemporaneous records? Now, one thing that can help us, I believe is looking at the work of actual scribes, how, how their work determines the kind of record that they're creating. And can we determine from their penmanship? What kind of record they're creating? For example, Thomas Books, Thomas Bullock, who was one of the primary clerks, both at the end of Joseph's life and through the Brigham Brigham Young administration, very key figure in creating the history of the church. This is from his own journal. I this is ridiculous. It almost looks like Egyptian. It looks like Sanskrit. It, it's crazy. Um It's a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h46m31s 1:46:31]
Michelle: and yeah, just OK,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h46m33s 1:46:33]
Jeremy Hoop: this is from a letter that he wrote to William Clayton in 1853. By the way, it's a very, very important letter, very important letter. We don't have time to get into it, but it reveals so much about William Clayton. But this one's even really hard. This is a letter and apparently William could read it. It's really hard to read. Then you look at his minutes when he's recording some, this is some semiofficial. This is, this is rough minutes from a from an actual contemporaneous note notes that he took of of the April 1844 the six through nine conference. Um This
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m06s 1:47:06]
Michelle: is, this is cleaned up. This isn't the contemporary, this isn't the actual notes. This is, yeah, we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m10s 1:47:10]
Jeremy Hoop: don't, we don't know when he recorded this. We have no idea. Um, but this looks
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m14s 1:47:14]
Michelle: like what I have to read when I'm trying to get Hiram speech from.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m18s 1:47:18]
Jeremy Hoop: This is, this is actually Hiram speech. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m20s 1:47:20]
Michelle: really hard to, it's hard
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m22s 1:47:22]
Jeremy Hoop: to read and yet this is cleaner than the previous two. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m28s 1:47:28]
Michelle: So this even, ok, so this one could have been cleaned up though is what
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m32s 1:47:32]
Jeremy Hoop: I think what this indicates is he is actually he's not being meticulous, uh, in the degree that we'll see that he can. This gives some indication that I think that he's either doing this in a hurry somewhat in a hurry or um, he's not doing this for an official record. This is a draft of some kind. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m49s 1:47:49]
Michelle: This is much cleaner than the first.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h47m52s 1:47:52]
Jeremy Hoop: Now, look at this. Now, you can read this clearly. This is a letter to his wife Henrietta and you can tell by this letter he loves this woman and, and he, this, this is Bullock's writing to his, to his wife in 1857 in 1848. This is a blessing, an official blessing that he gave her. Now, this is a think of, think of their mindset about blessings. Ok. These are, these are official recordings to be something to be kept and preserved and look at how gorgeous his writing is. Ok. It's absolutely stunning how he can write and if you go back to the original and compare it and this is um from the history, the official history book that he was working on with Richards. This is the, this is um the official preprint draft, ok, that they would later serialize and print in the papers. It is gorgeous writing. This man has a talent for penmanship, ok. That's, that's Thomas Bullock now
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h48m51s 1:48:51]
Michelle: write like that. It's almost like he didn't want the previous ones to be read by almost
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h48m55s 1:48:55]
Jeremy Hoop: almost he's writing so fast. He's writing in his own code. There are things I write that I can read that nobody else can read. Ok? And this is Richards in his own journal. It's just a mess, absolute mess. This is Richards and Joseph's quote Joseph's journal. One of the reasons why this is not a journal is, it's not that that's Richard's writing a journal journal. Likely as, as we learned, he would write notes, his notes probably look like this. This is a little cleaner. Ok. It's more legible. You can read every word. Sometimes you got a strain because you gotta know how he writes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h49m32s 1:49:32]
Michelle: You know, I'm gonna say, I think that the notes of Joseph's journal would be even worse because when you're writing your own journal, you can at least do it when you have time. You can sit down and think
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h49m41s 1:49:41]
Jeremy Hoop: the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h49m42s 1:49:42]
Michelle: fly he's following him. He's not. Yeah. So I think that that would have been even messier. This
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h49m46s 1:49:46]
Jeremy Hoop: is a letter in 1846 to the camp of Israel. It's much cleaner. It's uh much more orderly. It's still a little, it's, you know, it's similar to this. Ok. And this is uh from the, the history draft. Same thing. This is his level of where he's getting pretty good. And this, um, is a letter to Thomas Ford where it's much cleaner. Ok. So he has the ability to write pretty clean. Ok? And then
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h50m10s 1:50:10]
Michelle: in case anyone's gonna say, I hope people are looking at the dates at the bottom in case anyone's gonna be like, well, they learned to write better like it was a progress over time like a child in high handwriting class. No, this is merely about how important or how finished on, on which cop which, which form of writing they're using for what purpose this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h50m28s 1:50:28]
Jeremy Hoop: is about the best Richards gets. And this happens to be a copy of the supposed July 12th, 1843 Revelation on Celestial Marriage. And I wonder if anyone looking at this realizes the significance of what I just said that there happens to be a copy of the July 12th, 1843 Revelation on Celestial Marriage in Richard's handwriting. We're not gonna take time to go through this. We're gonna do that later because it plays in later in another episode. But just let that ring around in your head. Let
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h51m01s 1:51:01]
Michelle: me just make this point quickly because it was just in my last episode that I mentioned this, that I just mentioned it. But from he's own copy, the original was destroyed after two days, which begs the question of what exactly Hiram read and went across the street to get to read. Right. But no one seems bothered by that but me. But anyway, and then he says that no one knew about the secret um Bishop Whitney copy that Kingsbury made. So the fact that Willard Richards has a copy is highly,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h51m31s 1:51:31]
Jeremy Hoop: is just Bananas Bonkers. Where in Tarnation did this thing come from? And when was it written? Uh by the way, Brian Hales. Brian Hales thinks this was written in 1843 and the church thinks it was at some
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h51m44s 1:51:44]
Michelle: point. He says,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h51m46s 1:51:46]
Jeremy Hoop: well, he said, he said, he says, he, he, he's got in a document, he wrote 1843. And the church also says 1846 when we, I don't know, but this one exists, we'll come back to that later. Now, Joseph
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h51m58s 1:51:58]
Michelle: Kingsbury, it is troubling. I should say it's not troubling to us. It's troubling, troubling to that narrative. It doesn't fit, they haven't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h52m07s 1:52:07]
Jeremy Hoop: Lucy, you got to do so. You've got uh Joseph Kingsbury in 1859 and a letter that he's writing, this is sloppy as can be. It's to Brigham Young and this is a letter to Brigham Young. Uh then you've got a day book that he kept in Joseph Smith's store, by the way, this is why he gets into the picture because he worked for Newell Whitney. He was a clerk for Newell Whitney who kept the, the store that Joseph Smith owned. Ok. And you can see it's a little cleaner but it's still pretty sloppy. Then from his personal history, you can read every word much cleaner and then you copy, you compare that to the infamous revelation on Celestial Marriage. July 12th, 1843. The thing we mentioned that's beautiful. He can write with a beautiful pen. OK? And you can read every
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h52m51s 1:52:51]
Michelle: word. Now, one thing I'm just assuming is that writing this beautifully takes longer than the sloppy chicken
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h52m59s 1:52:59]
Jeremy Hoop: scratches. We don't have time to go into that. But absolutely, because that plays into the narrative we're going to discuss in part four. Absolutely. That's, that's, that's to come. So with each scribe, the penmanship improves according to the importance of the document. OK? With every scribe, it improves with the importance of the document. Just keep that in mind. The contemporaneous journals, journals and minutes are markedly different from the more official pristine and clean writing from each one of these clerks and my computer is going a little slow. So this is popping up a little, a little bit clunky. So you get the point. This is a pattern shown over and over again by each clerk. So do Cla Clayton's writings tell a similar story. Well, here's his journal Ok, this is, it's really hard to read him really, really hard. That's his Manchester journal. This is the rough council of 50 minutes in 1846. It, you can read it a little more but it's still kind of rough. Ok. Then you have other minutes. This is a little cleaner. Ok. This is a, more of a cleaned up copy. But boy, some of his words are hard to, you have to really get used to, to, to reading Clayton in this kind of hand. Then you've got his April 1844 conference minutes. By the way, he doesn't record hiram sermon in this. In this, I think as we may have mentioned, he doesn't record this at all. But this is his recording of those uh sermons. This is um I believe that where the king fet discourse comes from. Ok. And, and Clayton has his own copy of it. And then the trustee's land book, you see his writings, Much Cleaner in the trustee's land book. This is an official capacity clerk writing he's doing this for uh in as the um the working for the trustee and trust, which is Joseph Smith. Ok. These
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h54m48s 1:54:48]
Michelle: are records that are important,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h54m49s 1:54:49]
Jeremy Hoop: recording land deeds and all kinds of things. OK. Land transactions. It's a letter to James Arlington in 1842. This is quite, this is quite nice. He's not quite the penman of the others, but he can write really cleanly and and um really legibly and in a, in a in a lovely hand, I shall say
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h55m08s 1:55:08]
Michelle: his writing cleans up nicely,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h55m10s 1:55:10]
Jeremy Hoop: right? And in, in the book of the Law of the Lord, this is nothing like Bullock, ok? He's not nearly as gifted as Bullock, but this is the book of the Law of the Lord. It's very clean. Every word is legible, ok? This is about the, this is, this is the zenith for him. This is as good as it gets. So as you can see Williams penmanship, just like the other scribes improves with the importance of every document that he's writing a quick review of the Council of 50 records. And what we've learned about William's pattern. Number one, the Council of 50 minutes are written in the same type of book as his navoo journals. Clayton would take rough minutes at the meetings. Then he would reconstruct the brief accounts of these meetings using minutes, his journal memory and possibly other documents, a comparison between the original minutes and the copy in the record book reveals that Clayton would make a, a number of changes to the minutes from the originals to the fair copy, adding or deleting words and phrases in an attempt to clarify and polish the text and his uh record keeping went through three stages. First rough minutes, second, a loose copy to be read at a meeting and then third, he would make a fair copy. And so what's a fair copy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h56m19s 1:56:19]
Michelle: Um, Jerry referring back to what you, to your legal requirements for a diary to be entered. I'm just, again, like, nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Right. Ok. It
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h56m31s 1:56:31]
Jeremy Hoop: must be, it must have been done in the, in the regular business of the day and in a journal setting that's, you're writing every day, it must be authentic and it must be, um, uh, you can't impeach the person who is writing it, meaning they're recording things accurately with knowledge. OK. And so in this setting, if he's taking stuff from a meeting and he's embellishing, this is just the council 50 record where there's probably not that much as, it's probably innocuous my guess. I don't know but because we can't see all the original minutes, but I don't know why he would have a AAA need to embellish those records. However, a fair copy then in this definition, according to Miriam is a neat and exact copy, especially of a corrected draft. Cambridge says it's the final corrected copy of a uh of a piece of a written work. Collins says it's an exact copy of a document manuscript after final corrections. So a fair copy is not precisely an exact copy. It's an edited copy. OK?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h57m30s 1:57:30]
Michelle: It's, it's, I think what is fair to say is it's the final draft, you've done all of your draft work and this is the finished version.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h57m38s 1:57:38]
Jeremy Hoop: Perfect. Perfect. And, and for publication for keeping a record for posterity or something of that nature. OK. This is, these are pages from volume one of the Council of 50. Volume two of the Council of 50. Volume three of the Council of 50. If you flip through the pages you see, it's, it's exactly like this. Every page. Well, you know, there's some, there's some scribbles here and there, there's a little things that some things that are crossed out and written over, but it's very rare and it's very clean. It's a, it's a pristine record of the events of the council of 50.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h58m14s 1:58:14]
Michelle: So making it obvious that it wasn't kept contemporaneously correct. And
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=1h58m19s 1:58:19]
Jeremy Hoop: so when you look at his contemporaneous minutes or his actual journal versus the Council of 50 you can see the distinction with what he's doing. And it's very clear when he's keeping a contemporaneous record versus when he's doing what we, we'd call a fair copy. The now the Council of 50 is what Brigham Young used to claim his authority. Let that sink in. Brigham uses this book or these records to claim the authority of the 12 because it's in this record that Brigham claims that Joseph rolled off the keys onto the 12. That's actually not what happened. OK. That's a long subject. Too much to go into here. But he uses this, this council, the council of 50 to claim that's where the 12 gets the keys from Joseph. OK. That's a long story. We, that's for another day. However, Clayton made this record, remember this, without anyone's knowledge, Clayton held on to these records for two whole years and then finally handed them to Brigham Young in 1847 after just immediately after his life is being threatened by Brigham Young. And these are a sorry by Jose Est out. Thank you a neat clean fair copy of other minutes having been edited and corrected in their final form. So what's the significance of William's creation of the Council of 50 Minutes? Well, one other thing to, to, to note as I've mentioned, the Council of 50 Minutes, the NAVOO journals and Willard Richards journals are all, they're, it's oddly, they all happen to be the same size. I don't think that's that big a deal, but it's just really interesting that two of the primary clerks in this whole thing are using the exact same volumes to create a narrative. OK? Or to create something. All right.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h00m10s 2:00:10]
Michelle: So these are different than all of their other journals. OK. And these are the special ones that are, that are specifically creating the narrative that is NN
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h00m17s 2:00:17]
Jeremy Hoop: journals are in are in the exact same type of volume as the books you see on your screen.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h00m21s 2:00:21]
Michelle: OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h00m23s 2:00:23]
Jeremy Hoop: The same exact size there are these little books he's using to create a uh a fair copy. Is there evidence that William followed the same pattern for the NAVOO journal? OK. James Allen says the following Clayton made the first entry in his three NAVOO journals, November 27th, 1842. It's possible even probable that Clayton kept some kind of record that's lost. We've read that. Now, Robert Filler up says Clayton probably kept a quote, private book or quote record or private record. While in NAVOO, the original is not known to exist but copies of quote extracts from William Clayton's private book do exist. See the note and the date et cetera, et cetera. And Alan says this, the first record recorded presentation of this idea uh was to the members of the Corm of the 12 on June 27th, 1839. As they were preparing for their important mission to England. Apparently, Joseph taught it somewhere. He's talking about detecting spirits. OK. There's this idea that uh if you give your hand, AAA true spirit will not offer their hand to you. A devil will try to shake your hand, et cetera. OK. Apparently Joseph taught it somewhere regularly. After that. It was first published as a revelation in Deseret News. It was first um on April 23rd, 1856 and an end in 1876 it was placed in the Doctrine and covenants as section 129.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h01m46s 2:01:46]
Michelle: OK. Do we have it earlier than 1856?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h01m49s 2:01:49]
Jeremy Hoop: Um No, no, not, not, not published earlier than 1856. OK. But references to Joseph teaching this doctrine are found in August 8th 1839 and in December 1840 in March 21st in 1841 the December 1840 reference is in a curious source titled extracts from William Clayton's private book. The original private book is not available for research. A photocopy of the extracts is available in the Scott G Kenny research collection. J Willard Marriott library blah blah, blah, the Nuttle pa uh uh you John Nuttle also made excerpts from Clayton's private book, but these are incomplete. So now I that might be a little confusing but section 129 of the Doctrine and Covenants was written from the extracts that John Nuttall makes. OK. Uh of William Clayton's private book, we don't have this private book. It doesn't exist but
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h02m52s 2:02:52]
Michelle: is it OK? It it's it does, it's not just not available for research. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h02m56s 2:02:56]
Jeremy Hoop: been no one knows where it is that doesn't mean the church doesn't have it, but it's not known to exist. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h03m03s 2:03:03]
Michelle: So this is not any of his journals. This
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h03m06s 2:03:06]
Jeremy Hoop: is another, this is another journal. This would be, this would be called a journal. OK. Or at least a at least a record book in which Clayton inscribes a bunch of stuff. And one of those things is this teaching that makes its way into the Doctrine and covenants from Clayton's private book. Mind you. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h03m28s 2:03:28]
Michelle: And, and what are the dates of this book? Do we know that we don't
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h03m31s 2:03:31]
Jeremy Hoop: know anything about it? All we know is what John Nuttle, John Nuttall later, he's, he's in the historian's office, makes extracts from it, ok? And those extracts wind their way into the doctrine and covenants. Ok. So this is what we know about those extracts more on that extracts from William Clayton's private book is a handwrit manuscript located in the papers of John Nuttall at Brigham Young University Nuttall's source was apparently a private journal kept by Clayton in which he recorded excerpts from several sermons of Joseph Smith. The extracts are interesting but they say nothing specific about Clayton. Moreover, whether Clayton actually heard these sermons or whether he copied them from someone else's transcription is unclear. One short titled quote a key by Joseph Smith December 1840. So we don't know if he's writing it on the day or if he's recording it later deals with quote, the key by which someone may determine whether a messenger is a spirit of God is a spirit from God or from the devil sev uh On 9th February 1843 Clayton was with the prophet in Nauvoo when he repeated the same instructions as recorded in the Doctrine. Covenants 1 29 4 through nine. That passage is actually a word for word duplication except for one minor difference of Clayton's NAVOO journal entry for that date. This entry was the source for the official transcription when it was prepared for the Doctrine and covenants, the editor of an intimate chronicle could have known this. OK. So what he's saying is there's this other book we don't know it to exist. John Nuttall much later records extracts from Clayton's private book. One of the things he records is this interesting teaching that Joseph apparently taught on more than one occasion where if you, you can detect it, uh one spirit from another, you can detect a true
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h05m14s 2:05:14]
Michelle: spirit from going to like acknowledge here. This is a key I've never needed to use. I, I would be interested to know if anyone has found this to be a useful, I mean, I don't know if it's from Joseph Smith or not, but in any case,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h05m30s 2:05:30]
Jeremy Hoop: I don't, I, I,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h05m33s 2:05:33]
Michelle: I have other ways of knowing what, what spirits
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h05m37s 2:05:37]
Jeremy Hoop: are frankly. His teaching, his, his, his actual verified sermon or write writing called Try the Spirits is far more instructive in my view than just holding out your hand, which teaches you the way to discern the message of true and false messengers. So, um
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h05m56s 2:05:56]
Michelle: you know what, if you'll send me that link, I'll include it because
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h05m59s 2:05:59]
Jeremy Hoop: people try the spirits. Uh try the spirits. I don't know. It's the JSP has it. Um That's an actual verified teaching by Joseph Smith that was never canonized by the LDS church. So, but it's a very important, it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h06m12s 2:06:12]
Michelle: might be a little more useful that's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h06m15s 2:06:15]
Jeremy Hoop: really, really important. But nonetheless, what you find is you have an original cop uh uh writing a recording of this in an earlier book that we don't have John Nuttall has an extract. But then we also have a recording in Clayton's journal of apparently the same thing. Did he use the extract to reconstruct? The journal? Was he really with the prophet on the day? Don't know. But the fact exists,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h06m41s 2:06:41]
Michelle: could the private book be one of those draft copies? Like level two? Oh, we don't know any, we we
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h06m47s 2:06:47]
Jeremy Hoop: can't examine it. But the, but the fact exists, there was another record that Clayton kept that we don't have. So when we say Clayton's quote journal, what, what people typically think when you, they think your journal, I think this is the, this is the book that I re record my notes, my thoughts, my feelings, my experiences. OK? And usually when someone has a journal, they're not, they're not recording four journals simultaneously for different purposes. Maybe, I mean, maybe you might, might have a spiritual thoughts journal, you might have a daily activities journal. I don't know, you might have salacious details journal. I don't know, but typically people aren't doing that kind of thing. OK? He has this book, we don't know what the time frame that it covers, but we know that it did or does exist. OK. So, and we get
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h07m35s 2:07:35]
Michelle: from it. So that's good for everyone to know that. I mean, I think many people know that 132 isn't the only questionable late entry into Doctrine covenant it's useful to check everything that was added in 1876 and try to discern where they came from.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h07m51s 2:07:51]
Jeremy Hoop: It's even more than that there. The doc covenants has lots of interesting things that need to be investigated, I think. And, and that's for other people for another day to talk about. So, the fact that this exists is a very important uh piece of this puzzle. Does it still exist? Does the ch is it still in the possession of the church? Are there any other records that Clayton has that the that the church is, is withholding? Ok. If so the church should release them immediately if they do. Ok. Now, verifiably, Clayton used rough minutes letters, his memory and other documents to create the council of 50 records. Did Clayton use a similar process to create the journals given what we've exposed about these journals given? Um what there wasn't that there wasn't, is a private book, a private journal. What are the chances the journals were recorded contemporaneously? Now, remember um James Allen's warning, the journals are, are are difficult to follow. They don't follow a chronological order. They're problematic. Scholars should be very wary. OK. Remember that warning. Remember that William Clayton's pen penmanship improves with the importance of the document. If we're looking at his Manchester journal versus his Council of 50 minutes, we're looking at page after page after page of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h09m11s 2:09:11]
Michelle: all of these. We're comparing the the rough draft, the distemper to the more finished draft. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h09m16s 2:09:16]
Jeremy Hoop: on the left, what you see is his Manchester journal, his actual journal. He's doing a real journal versus when he's writing a fair copy. OK. Can I just ask you one other question?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h09m27s 2:09:27]
Michelle: Does a fair, do his fair copies ever include things about Raisins or Ginger lozenges?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h09m35s 2:09:35]
Jeremy Hoop: And she gave me 22 pence and a peck on the cheek.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h09m39s 2:09:39]
Michelle: I'm just curious if he's, he's a little more careful, right? It's, it's the difference between like I mentioned before. That was it in this recording that I talked about the 13 year old journal or is that what we went back and did that delete that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h09m51s 2:09:51]
Jeremy Hoop: now to the other side would say, well, he's very, he's very honest about stuff that he does in his Nauvoo. Sure, because he doesn't see any problem with it. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. He just, he has, he, he is utterly clueless about his own situation and station. And so, well, it's,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h10m13s 2:10:13]
Michelle: it's similar to the um affidavits written in Utah by these older women. Now, what they thought they were, this was in a context, I I'm trying to get people to understand this was in a context context where sacrifice for the principle was the highest good. So the greater sacrifice you made the more faithful you were, they weren't writing these things, say Joseph Smith was bad. They were writing them saying, look at the sacrifice I made for the principle, with this kind of lack of awareness of how later people would read that and what that would say about Joseph Smith. So it's a similar thing that you have to get into their mindset. Like Clayton wasn't being honest, he was being faithful to what he was doing. Well,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h10m55s 2:10:55]
Jeremy Hoop: when I say honesty, when he's recording things about himself in his novel journal, I think he's being perfectly honest about himself. Absolutely. And so as we look at the things he records contemporaneously with the things he records officially, we can see it. It's very, very different from his conference minutes to his council of 50 records. On the left side, you see a letter, this becomes more official to his council. This is, this is where it's similar, an official letter, an official document and then another official letter in the official document and then the book of the Law of the Lord. This is where it's most close. OK? The the the the level of uh of clean penmanship, the way the writing is done. Um the official nature of the document, that's it parallels the book of the Law of the Lord. The council of 50 record does.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h11m46s 2:11:46]
Michelle: So on the left, I'm seeing the book of the Law of the Lord or on the left. I'm seeing the council of 50 on the right, I'm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h11m52s 2:11:52]
Jeremy Hoop: seeing no, on the left, you're seeing the book of the Law of the Lord, the big one. That's the big book. And on the right, you're seeing the Council of 50 record.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h12m00s 2:12:00]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. And they both look uh huh. Fair. They both look like fair copies.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h12m05s 2:12:05]
Jeremy Hoop: They, they are both fair copies. Absolutely. And so that pattern through the council of 50 record applies. It's, it's an official document on the right hand side as opposed to a contemporaneous Conte contemporaneously recorded document. Now, where would Clayton's journal fall? So can a comparison help us understand? So let's take a look. Let's compare the Council of 50 record with actual pages from his actual journal side by side. And on one side, you have the NAVOO journal, there's an actual page from the NAVOO journal in front of you and on the other side, you have a page from the Council of 50 record. Now, people seeing this go, what's the big deal? Well, take a look, look and see if you can tell the difference. I have switched them up and so you can see if you can figure it out. One is one and one is the other, which one would be the NAU journal and which one would be the council of 50 record.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h13m03s 2:13:03]
Michelle: Those are pretty clean. I can't see a journal there, especially if you had it up next to his rough stuff. No, no, no, you can't tell.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h13m12s 2:13:12]
Jeremy Hoop: OK, one is the Council of 51 is the nuur and there are page after page after page like this. But can you, can you distinguish which one is a contemporaneous record from which one is a fair and clean copy? I defy any of the historians to explain this away to explain it away.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h13m31s 2:13:31]
Michelle: Like when these are both fair copies,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h13m35s 2:13:35]
Jeremy Hoop: they're both clean pristine and they're, they're, and by the way, remember they're produced in the exact type of volume. OK. Remember when Clayton starts recording the Council of 50 record, it's shortly after Joseph dies. And I think that gives us a clue as to when he likely started copying his nau journal because this is a copy folks, this is a copy, this is not a journal. You are seeing pages from his journal on each, but these are the side by sides with the Council of 50 record. And what you can see is you cannot tell the difference. If you don't know what you're reading, you do not know which one comes from which and I defy any of the historians to, to tell me what this is about. OK. OK.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h14m17s 2:14:17]
Michelle: So let me just let me just make sure I'm on, on, on, on up with you right now. The Council of 50 is his best work. It's his most pristine like scripture keeping type
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h14m28s 2:14:28]
Jeremy Hoop: it. It lines up with it lines up with his best work with his, with the most official letters with the book of the Law of the Lord. It's clean like that. He's not a great Penman. He's not, he's not, he's not amazing, but this is the best that he gets right here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h14m41s 2:14:41]
Michelle: And then we have his journal or his, his contemporaneous, which are an absolute mess, right? And then also what I wanted to point what I want would, would be curious to investigate are a couple of things during Joseph's life. He was busy, he was keeping him well. He was, he was doing a million things after Joseph's death is when he was finalizing his records for the council of 50 minutes and that's recorded often. So you are saying the most likely scenario you can see is that he was doing both of these in a similar time period after Joseph, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h15m11s 2:15:11]
Jeremy Hoop: believe that he starts recording his Nuvo journal at the same time or sometime close to when he's recording the Council of 50 minutes for a purpose as we will see here shortly. So on these pages here on the left, you see this is the Council of 50 record on the right. You see his nuvo journal, the page, this is one page. And fortunately, I know if you know what you're looking at in the Joseph Smith papers, you can find references um in various things they just leak out. II I found these because I was looking up at one of Joseph's discourses. And under if you know, if you've looked at the Joseph Smith papers, they have a section called additional versions and under additional versions, they'll list who else recorded uh the discourse or that event. And in a number of cases like December 21st, 1842 or January 22nd, 1843 you'll notice you can see these are from the William Clayton Journal. OK. So they, they're there, they, they buried them. They're hard to find. But if you search for them, you can find, I found 57 there might be more but 57 actual pages on the Joseph Smith papers. Well, II, I noticed it once and I thought, are you kidding me? This is the, the journal, no one's seen because previous to that, the only page that I'd ever seen was this page that has a kinder Kinderhook played on it and I'll show that here in a second, but I could not believe that they had inadvertently put 57 pages here under these sections as you can see. And I'm gonna show you the actual pages. I want you guys to see these pages. So you can see, I have a representation of pages from all three volumes of the journal, from the, from that nuvo period. And so they represent different spans in the journal. So it's not from one little chunk, it's from the entire span of the whole thing. So you can tell that he's consistently recording this in the exact same way that he recorded his council of 50 minutes. It is the same type of work as he did with the Council of 50 minutes. All of these are right in the Joseph Smith papers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h17m18s 2:17:18]
Michelle: Absolutely. Another thing I'm not seeing and you can correct me, but I'm not seeing blank lines and blank pages, which that was in the middle version, right? We have the sloppy notes. Then the middle version. This is the finalized version without the empty, the empty pages to add. That's another huge
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h17m35s 2:17:35]
Jeremy Hoop: evidence. 100%. He's not doing what he and Richards are so want to do and, and, and uh and by the way, um he doesn't have blank spaces or pages in his, in his Manchester journal either. But that one is sloppy. The, the words are smooshy. There, there's lines on the page, there's edits, there's all kind of like Joseph's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h17m55s 2:17:55]
Michelle: earlier stripes. It's the, it's a contemporaneous that's not in, that's not premeditated. So it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h18m02s 2:18:02]
Jeremy Hoop: doesn't fit, it doesn't fit either the contemporaneous journal or a draft. This is a, this is almost a finished work for him. OK. So 22 pages from the journal,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h18m13s 2:18:13]
Michelle: everybody like please tell me that you are getting this. This is so huge because it's not just your opinion you are showing right here. Answer this, explain this. There's the pattern we have it all. This is the finalized, this is the version to turn into the history. Like this is kind of like the church history version when it's finally after the things have been cut out after all of the decisions have been made. This is amazing. OK, keep going. I, I just want to really let that settle for people what it is that you're showing us here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h18m46s 2:18:46]
Jeremy Hoop: Absolutely. So as we're scrolling through these, just take a look at each page from 27 28 29 pages in the forties pages in the fifties. These are throughout the journal scattered throughout. OK. The, the Joseph Smith papers has given us sections from various parts of the journal, but we can see it's consistent. This is all book one. OK? And every single page is like this, every page is clean and pristine just like the Council of 50 record. It all has the exact same features that we saw with the Council of 50 record. And I, by the way, I invite you to go to the Joseph Smith papers. Download the Council of 50 record. Also just search William Clayton. You will find these. If you know how to search for them, they're, they're not hidden, they're, they're not, they're not rather they are, they are hidden in plain sight. Let's put it that way. I don't think they, I don't think they really want to have these out there, but they put them out there, right? Because these, these pages have to do with important sermons that Joseph gave or certain things. Now these pages here, this is from book two. OK. This is what I, what I like to call the gap book. Ok. And we'll come back to that gap book and how important that is. But again, you see exactly the same thing. Page 1314, 15, page 16 and 18. By the way, those of you who are saying, oh, so big deal. So it's perfect. Some people write Ruly while you go, you show me your journal, show me the journal of the, of the most meticulous um uh teenage girl who has beautiful handwriting. It still doesn't look like
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h20m18s 2:20:18]
Michelle: this. Also. Some days it's in a purple pen. Some days you're really quick and tired. Some days you're this, you cannot see where a page where a day stops and starts. He's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h20m29s 2:20:29]
Jeremy Hoop: using the same pen for large sections of this, which means he's sitting at a desk and he's taking other documents and he's compiling them into a single record.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h20m39s 2:20:39]
Michelle: Well, he's already done. He's already done his middling copy, whatever his draft copy with the blank lines. And he's already made all of his notes. This is the final version and he's already, it's written before. He's copying it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h20m51s 2:20:51]
Jeremy Hoop: in a private book or another journal or minutes he's taking from meetings or a letter that he saw or he's using those other things just like he did the Council of 50 to create this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h21m04s 2:21:04]
Michelle: This brings up another challenge which is him trading back and forth between books. It like that's a really interesting question
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h21m13s 2:21:13]
Jeremy Hoop: as a more suspense as Murdoch would say, hold on to your butts. So from uh it was that Lethal Weapon, I can't remember. No, I don't remember the movie, but this is Journal Three. This is the loose little papers that were in, in volume one. We have all 14 of these. Now, the, the, the papers are distressed and colored because of weathering because it doesn't have a cover. But you'll notice it's exactly the same. This is the narrative about Joseph's last uh the nine days previous to Carthage. Ok. It's a, it's, it's an official, it's like an official record, you know, of the events. And so he's done the exact same thing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h21m55s 2:21:55]
Michelle: These are the nine days before Carthage. That's really interesting
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h21m59s 2:21:59]
Jeremy Hoop: in their very, very important stuff. And, and again, the Joseph Smith paper says it's unclear as to whether Joseph authorized this or not. Ok, Joseph was
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h22m09s 2:22:09]
Michelle: dead. Joseph was dead long before this was done. Ok. So
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h22m14s 2:22:14]
Jeremy Hoop: these 57 random pages that we looked at from all three volumes, they span the length of the entire work and they provide a fair representation of the nature of the entire record. Remember Clayton's NOVO journals are the same size as the Council of 50 Richards memo books and every single page like the Council of 50 record is written neatly and appears to be a clean fair copy on the top. You see the Council of 50 on the bottom, you see pages from his journals. Remember Clayton's missing private journal and his pattern of copying rough notes into clean records. The 57 pages reveal that there are also interesting edits at different points in the journal. So for example, on page 65 it has these little notes written in pencil. He on the day he wrote do blank, do blank, but then he writes notes. OK? On page 71 he also related the following dream. He writes, he also related his dream, whatever. He's clarifying the meaning in a subsequent edit. On page 72 he's, he's drawing lines. You'll notice in the, in the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h23m29s 2:23:29]
Michelle: history. Let me ask you, we don't know for sure that Clayton did this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h23m34s 2:23:34]
Jeremy Hoop: We have no idea. Well, that's Clayton's hand, that's Clayton's handwriting above that, that looks to be his handwriting. OK? Um So he, he, he clarifies, he also related his dream of 10 March. So he adds a date in there on this page. You see a line through the page in the, in the history draft for the church. You'll notice they'll put lines through pages when they've gone through and they've done their edit for that page or they've or they've checked it, you know, we're done with this page. So we're gonna put a line through it. OK? Um And, and this other page, there's more simple little notes clarifying um the words uh we will call on the Saints to defend probably all the Western territory, OK? Instead of call on your call on you to defend probably the western territory, he's making edits to even the pristine copy, which is interesting. Do you go back and do you edit your own journal? Yeah. Do you do that? I mean, maybe, maybe you do. But this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h24m29s 2:24:29]
Michelle: is like I said, if I looked at my 13 year old journal, right? If I made a new copy of like if, when I wrote a later version, that 13 year old journal would not be included as it went. And in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h24m41s 2:24:41]
Jeremy Hoop: your journal, would you make a reference that says see page 82? No,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h24m46s 2:24:46]
Michelle: no. Unless it was no, no. It's bizarre.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h24m49s 2:24:49]
Jeremy Hoop: Why would you do that? Unless this is a document used to create something else which we will see here in a second. Now, why would there be edits in the journal? OK. Now this is what's called what they call proof that the journals contemporaneous. There's a page in the journal where Clayton traces something called a Kinderhook plate. If you're not familiar with that story, go google it, you'll figure it out. But it's, it's plates that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h25m16s 2:25:16]
Michelle: was given to Joseph. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h25m18s 2:25:18]
Jeremy Hoop: supposedly um uh made Joseph look bad. OK. The question is, did Clayton trace this on the day on May 1st 1843 as it says in the journal, the antagonist, the apologists both agree that this is absolute proof that the journals contemporaneous. OK. First, I wanna read really quickly what Allen writes about this. So you understand that there's some problems with this recording of this entry in Clayton's journal. And boy, I love Alan, I just love him because he inadvertently admits stuff that really helps us. Some of the entries in the history based on Clayton's journal reveal the potential problems with this kind of history. The story, by the way, he, what he's referencing is Clay using Clayton's journal to construct Joseph Smith's history. OK. Which we will see more of later. OK. We're gonna see more about that later. Some of the entries in the history. That's Joseph Smith's history based on Clayton's journal reveal the potential problems with this kind of history. The story of the infamous Kinderhook plates is an example on May 1st 1843 Clayton recorded the following and then he records, I've seen six brass plates, et cetera, et cetera. I'm not gonna read the whole thing, the same, the same entry with some slight modifications appeared in the history as follows. OK? I won't read that either just to save time, but they, they record basically, they use Clayton's journal as the, the base text for the history. OK. That's in Joseph's history. The problem here is that the Kinderhook plates were a hoax and because we know this, the entry seems to show that Joseph Smith was hopelessly duped. It must be noted. However, that in his diary, Clayton did not quote Joseph directly. He only reported what he thought was happening. Whether Joseph actually told Clayton that he had translated the plates or whether Clayton was simply reporting what he had heard from a variety of sources is not clear. The latter appears to be the case, especially when one realizes that Clayton's account contains several inaccuracies. The so-called discovery took place in Pike County, not Adams County and there was no skeleton with the plates, only some bones. Further, William Clayton's account is not consistent with similar account by Parley P. Pratt, which was also probably attained by hearsay rather than from the prophet himself. There's no evidence of any direct statement by Joseph Smith about the authenticity of the plates and no evidence that he ever obtained attempted a translation. As historian Stanley B. Kimball has demonstrated all kinds of stories about the plates were circulating, but Joseph did not get involved with the plates at all. What is clear is simply the unfortunate entry got into the history before any of its editors knew the truth. Now, I don't want to get into a discussion today about the Kinderhook plates. That's another subject entirely. However, I just want to point out what Alan notes that there's trouble with the story. And unfortunately, part of the trouble is Clayton himself and the fact that Clayton re recorded some erroneous things that then got uh trusted to be in the official history. Ok. That's number one, Clayton's own entry in the Kinderhook plate is troubling number two is what about Brigham Young who also made a tracing or sketch of the same thing? However, in his journal, there's a problem. He didn't make the sketch on the day, but the date he puts is on May 3rd, 1843. Now, look at the d this is a little strange. These are pages from his actual journal, but his journal is a little weird because he doesn't always kind of like Clayton doesn't always record things exactly. Chronologically. Sometimes he'll be in 1843 and another entry, he'll record something that was said in 1841. Like he'll go back
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h28m51s 2:28:51]
Michelle: reminiscences and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h28m53s 2:28:53]
Jeremy Hoop: that this is not nefarious. This is just like he, you'll have a, um you'll have a revelation. He writes a revelation that happened in 18 thirties from Joseph Smith after he's been recording things in 1843. So it's a little strange. Well, in this section here in August 1018 43 he writes some things. It's hard to read. But he's, uh you know, he's with somebody Elizabeth between five or six, blah, blah, blah. Then the very next page he's recording something that supposedly happened three months earlier. And that's the page that has the Kinderhook plate tracing on it. And then the very next page after that, we're back to October of 1843. And then we're the very page after that, we're in April of 1844. It's almost like he's recording smatterings of things. I don't know exactly why it doesn't seem like a completely contemporaneous journal where you're recording daily. But the point of this is he, it's very possible. In fact, most likely he did not record that on May 3rd, 1843. What he did was he maybe lifted that from another journal or he somehow traced that which is identical to what Clayton traces. Ok. But he didn't do it on the day. So does that mean that Clayton? It's certain that Clayton recorded his on the day? Well, the problem is Clayton had access to papers. Go ahead.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h30m21s 2:30:21]
Michelle: Well, the thing that just drives me crazy and you maybe are gonna get to this. But from the time you very first showed it, what I think is so dumb is that someone recording something after, doesn't prove that it was contemporary. I mean, like the fact that Clayton included a contempt, a Kinder Hut plate in a later production does not prove that it was an earlier production. It would be I I should go the other direction. It would only prove anything if he included the Kinder Hut plate before it was available. Do you know what I'm like? That's, I guess what I'm saying is to, to include the Kinderhook plate later does not prove that it was earlier when he had seen the Kinderhook plate. That's so I I'm not explaining it. Well, maybe you can explain it better, but it's so obvious to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h31m04s 2:31:04]
Jeremy Hoop: me. Well, on the day he says he records it, which is two days before Brigham supposedly records his. But remember Brigham's is not on the day Brigham's is sometime between August of 1843 and October of 1843. You
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h31m17s 2:31:17]
Michelle: know, everyone just opens the journal wherever and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h31m20s 2:31:20]
Jeremy Hoop: randomly and then fills in around it. Exactly. With Clayton the look, I can't prove when he wrote this. I don't know when he wrote it. Exactly. I have a, I have a, I have an idea of when he wrote it, but I don't know exactly when he wrote this particular page. But he could have written a long time after because we have newspaper articles from which he could have made a sketch or he could have cut them out and traced around them because those newspaper articles were made from something called, they're called woodcuts. We also had the woodcuts available, apparently the same person who made the wood cuts for the book of Abraham and printed them in the newspaper. Those are actually, um, they cut the images out of wood and they, and they make etchings say so that you can then put ink on them and put them on a page. And then you have, uh, you have the image, that's what these, what you're seeing in these newspapers are made from wood cuts. They were made by a guy named Ruben Headlock. And apparently Joseph employed him to make the wood cuts of the book of Abraham or also employed him to make the wood cuts of these Kinderhook plates. They got printed in the Times in uh sorry, the navoo neighbor, I believe it was, they got printed in the prophet. So Clayton had access to something those, by the way, the plates were around till the civil war. So they were available, they were around.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h32m33s 2:32:33]
Michelle: We already know that Clayton was using his notes that he took, he could have made a note of it from anything at any time and included it in his later copy. That's what I'm saying. Like it goes, it, that is the dumbest claim to say, look, it includes something that he had 10 years before. That proves that he made it 10 years before. That's so I, I can't, neither
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h32m55s 2:32:55]
Jeremy Hoop: of us are proving, neither of us are proving how or when he did it. And that's not the point. The point is they cannot say that this is proof that it was contemporaneous because it absolutely could have been done after the fact, right? The point is that it does,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m09s 2:33:09]
Michelle: they are completely wrong in saying that that proves that it was written that that is laughably silly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m17s 2:33:17]
Jeremy Hoop: So we can, so I think we can dispense with this. Uh Jacob Vidrine, if you're watching, you can no longer claim that this is contemporaneous
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m27s 2:33:27]
Michelle: and real and all of them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m30s 2:33:30]
Jeremy Hoop: And uh if, if you want to see Brigham's journal, it's available, just go look at it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m36s 2:33:36]
Michelle: So and do you know what the fact that this is what they have as proof? It shows us how silly this entire argument is. They keep saying, why do we even have to discuss this? It's so obvious. I think no, the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m49s 2:33:49]
Jeremy Hoop: table, this is why we have to discuss this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h33m52s 2:33:52]
Michelle: The the tables have now turned where we should say, why do we even have to discuss your stupid claims? This is so stupid.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h34m00s 2:34:00]
Jeremy Hoop: Why, why do we have to dignify? Why do we have to dignify your claims that it's contemporaneous? This is not, this is absolutely not contemporaneous. And for you to say so is, is, well, it's in the face of evidence, contrary to your claims, it should
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h34m14s 2:34:14]
Michelle: be embarrassing. And at some point, it will be, I have a feeling I know which arguments will age better than others.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h34m21s 2:34:21]
Jeremy Hoop: So I think we can, can we can definitively say this. You, you cannot say it's contemporaneous. I believe you can say it's not contemporaneous, but you certainly cannot say it is contemporaneous. We also know there's a private record where the heck is that thing. And also finally, let's listen to James Allen's additional warning about the content of what is in the Inanimate chronicle. The excerpts from E Hat's notes. He says the following, after having said scholars should be very wary. He says the result so far as an intimate chronicle is concerned is an abridgment that leaves the worst kind of imbalance. It is not a scholarly abridgement based on a consistent rationale concerning what is important enough to include or insignificant enough to leave out. For example, e hat's excerpts reveal some problems between Joseph and Emma. But the original journals show with equal clarity that the two were very close and very much in love. Clayton saw the problems, but he also saw the prophet and his wife working together for a common cause in a variety of ways. The excerpts largely obscure that fact. Then he goes through and he gives an example. I won't read it. He gives a beautiful example from the journals of how that looked to, to William Clayton. Even my own analysis of the E hat hat excerpts show that they are reasonably accurate transcriptions of the original Smith's reproduction. Moreover was generally faithful to the EHA material. Nevertheless, the excerpts are highly selective. They usually include only a portion of a daily entry and they do not constitute more than about 25% of the whole for these reasons. I felt it important to warn prospective readers that journal two is not a real abridgement based on the same cons consistent rationale that governs Smith's abridgement of the other journals in an intimate chronicle. Rather, it is an often misleading agglomeration of unconnected and out of context excerpts. This is not a criticism of Smith's editing for, he did a good job with what he had before him. It is simply part of my concern over whether this journal should have been published at all in that form. Now, as you had said previously, he's an apologist for the church and he didn't want them out because the church doesn't want them out. So that's one, that's one thing to acknowledge. But I think it's also important to consider what he's saying. And also this gives us an idea of why the church doesn't want these out. Because if Clayton is saying on the one hand, in certain excerpts, they're having these tremendous problems. And on the other hand, they're very much in love and the entire narrative that that Emma is a psychopath. OK? Is a psychopath, seriously mentally challenged? She's got, she's got real, real mental disorder. OK. That's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h37m08s 2:37:08]
Michelle: what people will say that people actually claim that they actually
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h37m12s 2:37:12]
Jeremy Hoop: get it from this journal and almost exclusively from this journal. OK. So when you have on the one hand, them being very close in Clayton recording that himself. And on the other hand, you have the psychopathy of Emma Smith on detail and Joseph's callousness on detail, which also that does appear, how do you balance those two? Well, Alan did not mention the following. Yeah, James Allen did not mention that every single one of the polygamy references regarding Joseph and Emma those happen to be in the gap book.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h37m54s 2:37:54]
Michelle: Huh? What
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h37m59s 2:37:59]
Jeremy Hoop: every single reference? So why is it that Clayton would create a second book. Why is it that he would stop in the middle of the first one and leave a 17 month gap before the very next entry. And that every single um uh that the gap that he the gap book that he records in the second book contains all of the salacious material. Why would someone do that? Let's answer the question. Why would Clayton do that? Well, I think that's the idea that should be explored. That's the thing that James Allen should have been talking about and should have frankly let us all know in his warning because he knows that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h38m40s 2:38:40]
Michelle: How do you know that? How is that from the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h38m43s 2:38:43]
Jeremy Hoop: page? Because I've gone through meticulously Robert Phillips compilation? OK. And I've color coded them and I've marked them all up and I know exactly where all of them are and they start the references to Joseph Smith with one teeny minor exception, but it's recorded in both books. It's at the very end. It's the, it's the marriage to Margaret Moon. He starts the gap book with his marriage to Margaret Moon and he goes on from there. Ok. So you tell me why Clayton Little Willie is recording these things there. So this gap book elicits some extremely important questions. Why in the first place would he leave the gap? You know, what, what possible motivation? What reason
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h39m32s 2:39:32]
Michelle: go back. What were the dates of the gap again? Just remind us
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h39m35s 2:39:35]
Jeremy Hoop: Ok. So remember the first book goes from 27 November 1842 through 28 April 1843. These dates are so important. Then 20 then the very next entry is 25. September 1844. It's not like there were a bunch of pages torn out people there, there weren't pages torn out. It's just the next entry. Ok. It's 25. September 1844 through 1845. Then the gap book that covers 27 April 1843 through 24. September 1844 that gap that's in the first book. What possible motivation would Clayton have to put all the polygamy references related to Joseph in the gap book? OK. Also given Allen's warning about the out of context ex excerpts from this book. By, by the way, the out of context excerpts, excerpts are all from the gap book. Those out of context salacious ones are from the gap book and the rest of Clayton's journal showing Joseph and Emma to be very close and very much in love. Should we not be more skeptical about this record?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h40m38s 2:40:38]
Michelle: And I also have to say James Allen as the church apologist, very much on the church's side, giving this clear warning. And yet the Joseph Smith, historians, all of the church historians 100% rely on the William P journal for every one historian has told me. It is, it's the definitive story of Joseph's polygamy. It is the only thing they have and it's the only thing they use other than the later um affidavits, which many of them had access to the Clayton narrative.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h41m12s 2:41:12]
Jeremy Hoop: Like why, why, why anyone, why anyone would ever say that without ever examining the, the original, without anyone being able to examine the original shows me this is why I call it historical malpractice, shame on you all frankly for making those statements. When, by the way, those of you who are historians, you can do better work than I've done. Are you serious? Are you kidding me?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h41m38s 2:41:38]
Michelle: I don't know if they can. Their bias gets in the way. It's insane that they are doing this. Their story gets in the way. Maybe it takes people that aren't trained by them in their malpractice to be able to address this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h41m49s 2:41:49]
Jeremy Hoop: Maybe we need to have a different view of historians altogether now, especially since we have so much access to information. So finally, why, why in the world would he would he, would he make a clean fair copy of his journals at all? Why would he do this? Well, Alan L again helps us understand. I love James Allen. He just helps us understand because he inadvertently has written about this stuff. So as one of Joseph scribes, he says, Clayton was on the committee that originally began to prepare Joseph Smith's History of the Church for publication
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m22s 2:42:22]
Michelle: and that was after Joseph's death that was in Utah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m26s 2:42:26]
Jeremy Hoop: He's on the committee. It is well known that much of this history was not written or dictated by Joseph himself. But rather, with this is not while Joseph's alive, he's not on the committee. While Joseph's alive, he's recording lots. He's recording, uh, deeds, he's recording tithing donations. He's not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m44s 2:42:44]
Michelle: true. Revelations.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m45s 2:42:45]
Jeremy Hoop: Yeah, he's not, he's not part of the, his, he's not following Richard's around doing the history. It is well known that much of this history was not written by
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m54s 2:42:54]
Michelle: C
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m55s 2:42:55]
Jeremy Hoop: C was not following Richards
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m57s 2:42:57]
Michelle: was not part of it. I got. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h42m59s 2:42:59]
Jeremy Hoop: Right. Um uh Much of the history was not written or dictated by Joseph himself, but rather was based on journal entries of his scribes or other people. When these entries were made part of the history, the third person references to Joseph were simply changed by the way that stuff gets really, really wonky because they put things in Joseph's mouth that you can find nothing any anywhere in the record that he actually said. So that history is problematic.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h43m23s 2:43:23]
Michelle: Also, let's keep in mind we have the very clear record of them. Absolutely. Changing sources and altering just the October 5th journal entry is probably the most infamous of those. So this committee was up to was up to a lot of mischief. Absolutely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h43m39s 2:43:39]
Jeremy Hoop: And uh o other changes were made to the text though they usually were minor George Albert Smith and Wilfred Wooer finished the work in 1856. Published it serially. Clayton's nou journals were among the valuable resources for this history. For example, some of the revelations now included in the history of the Doctrine and covenants were originally recorded in Clayton's journals. Uh on the evening of February 1918 43 I've already referenced this. That's the one where the spirits of just men made perfect, are able to be detected. Um The entry in Clayton's journal became practically verbatim. The entry in the history and later section 129 of the Doctrine and covenants, something similar is true for much of section 130 recorded in April tw uh 2nd 1843 as a as a few, as well as a few other sections. William Clayton's NAVOO journal is one of several sources that Clayton Willard Richards and others drew on when they were preparing Joseph's History of the church. The excerpts here and are most sim are most similar to the entries in the history. This material illustrates Clayton's importance in preserving the memory of Joseph Smith. In some instances, the Clayton diary was the only source for the entries in the history and many others. It appears that the compilers also relied on different sources, but Clayton's journal still provided the greatest substance now in I highly recommend if you want to see this just read. Um This is from James Allen's uh no toil nor labor fear. Um And at the end of it, no, sorry. This is uh Clayton's compa uh Clayton and the records of the church. At the end, he compiles all of the listings from Clayton's journal and where they find themselves in the history of the church. And there happened to be 69 instances from Clayton's journal pulled directly into the history of the church that is not insignificant at. Oh, so why? It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h45m25s 2:45:25]
Michelle: pretty much all of the polygamy? He's the only source for
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h45m30s 2:45:30]
Jeremy Hoop: that, for that. Yes, they don't, they don't list a lot of the polygamy stuff necessarily in the history. Um because remember they weren't fully ready when they were documenting the history to let the cat out of the bag, as they said, OK, they weren't ready, ready to do that. So, and they were compiling this history starting in 1845 April of 1845 is when they begin. So they're not putting the polygamy stuff in, they're using Clayton's journal, the journal itself for that. However, Clayton is obviously creating a clean, fair copy that can then later be used. We know, for example, this is from the Joseph Smith papers we can see on the in the image on the right, you can see this is in 1845 from the JSP they say Clayton uses, used the Nabu journal to record daily entries da da da. Shortly after Clayton finished making entries in the volume, he apparently loaned or gave it to the church historian's office. And by winter 1845 1846 the office staff had begun using the journal to work on Joseph's history. So they, they're already using this. So the timing, when did he write this? He wrote at least volume one because the entry you're going to see on the page is from volume one. OK. Volume one was completed sometime by end of 1845 sometime beginning of 1846. Because that's when they're using this journal, it's in inventory. Volume one is OK. The journal was listed in inventories that the church historians office produced in the 19th century. So we have it in inventories in 1858 and in 1878. So we know for certain Clayton's journals are in inventory then, but where they're referencing the journals, whether he actually gives it to them permanently. In 1845 we don't know, but they're referencing the journals and the pages from the journals in 1845. As we can see on this page here, this is when Willard Richards and Thomas Bullock are working together to create what's called the history draft. OK. It's a draft of what later becomes the official history. Bullocks and Richards did that together. Ok. Richards is the primary historian. Bullocks is helping him and you can see this is in Bullock's handwriting. It says Clayton's journal pages 53 and 54. They're referencing. Um There are three administrations, angel spirits and devils. When an angel something appears this is, that's what becomes later. Section 129 of the Doctrine and covenants, they record this in 1845. The I point that out, I'm spending time on this. So you understand, he's working on this very likely at the same time he's working on the council of 50 record. When did he start that? September 1844 in the same type of book that he's recording the journal in very likely what he's doing after Joseph dies. He starts to realize, oh, my gosh, I have possession of some records that are important. Oh, my gosh, I'm not even gonna tell anybody. Oh my gosh, I better, I better, I better make this thing look good. So he's recording the Council of 50 records. Doesn't tell Brigham Young doesn't tell Willard Richards. Remember they start recording the history of the church in 1845. Does Clayton turn it over in 1845? Yeah. Not until 1847. Would Brigham Young have wanted that record?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h48m57s 2:48:57]
Michelle: Yeah. So he could decide whether to destroy it or not, what to do with it. Britain wanted to be in charge of all
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h49m02s 2:49:02]
Jeremy Hoop: of it he wanted. In fact, uh I'm gonna read something from William Smith here in a second about that. So after Joseph's death, several of Clayton's journal entries were entered into Joseph Smith history. They became canonized sections of the Doctrine and covenants. That's how important Clayton's journal is. Section 129. 1 31 31. And of course, section 132 which is not in his journal, just a reference. Clayton plays the important role, at least in the story of how that comes about.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h49m35s 2:49:35]
Michelle: Do you know what? I don't know if we know for, I'm just throwing this out there. We don't have all of the pages of the journal. We don't know for sure that 132 isn't in it as well. And I just, on my last episode, Clayton did claim that he wrote the whole thing. And so it is just possible,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h49m52s 2:49:52] Jeremy Hoop: it's possible. We don't, we don't know because we don't have it, we don't know. So ad this is also another piece that's important, a different kind of problem arises from an account in the history that was reported to have come from Clayton's journal. But that actually did not, at least not from the journals. Now, uh extent on May 18th, 1843 Joseph Smith and William Clayton were in Carthage where they dined with Joseph, just Judge Stephen a Douglas at the home of Sherri Sheriff Jacob Bains. Some of that conversation is recording Clayton's journal, but not the way it later appeared in the history. However, in putting the conversation in the history, the editors did not follow their usual pattern of entering whatever they could gather without citing the source. Instead they took pains to state that the following brief account is from the journal of William Clayton who was present. Uh And they write it down, the question is whether this expanded version of Clayton's original entry where it came from, if somehow it really came from Clayton, there are only two possibilities. One is that Clayton wrote it in a more, in more than one journal that day, perhaps in a source that is no longer extant. The the other is simply that Clayton who was still working with the church historians when they were putting all this together, was asked about the prophecy and drawing on a vivid memory of the occasion provided the expanded account because it's not in his journal. Hm OK. My point bringing that up is it shows that he's working with the historians. They're saying it comes from his journal, but we don't have, it's not in his journal. So where did it come from? Another record? Did Clayton make it up? The point is this brings into question what other things Clayton was doing and the completeness, the accuracy, the veracity of what we call the Clayton journals. OK. Those are very important. Even when he was involved in important council meetings. Clayton's name was often left out of the official histories that clo chronicled those meetings. This plays into something we're going to talk about later. Brigham Young's history of April 2018 45 for example, tells of a council attended by himself, Heber Kimball John Taylor, Nel Whitney, where quote we read letters from Parley p pratt pertaining to his activities in the east. But Clayton was also at that meeting and it was he who actually read Pratt's letters to the council. So they don't even record that he's there. I think we're, I think, I think, um, we're going to see here in a second. Ok. So what, so they use the, they used Clayton's journal for the history. Big deal. Who cares? So, what I mean? Come on. Right. Right. We need to understand Brigham Young's involvement in the revision of Joseph's history. As you've just mentioned, I'm just gonna do a very hopefully quick rundown of just some of the things uh that, that we know for certain were revised. You know, I heard Bill real say this the other day. Oh yo, we know Joe uh Brigham revised the history and then, and then he gave a strange example of a, of a quote revelation that Joseph Smith gives, which I believe there's a great, wonderful explanation for. However, he doesn't mention any of this stuff. And Bill, please, would you at least be honest about this and actually acknowledge what Brigham Youngish did, by the way, if you guys want to see a detailed recitation, just go to Rob Fing Ham's discussion of this um or go to Mark Curtis who did a fantastic job with this on Hemlock Knots. Uh Look these up on youtube and, and they give you a deep dive into these things, but just a brief thing on April 8 8, April 1st 1845. Brigham says we started the revision of Joseph Smith's history. Now, this is really important. William Smith says, and summarizing that Brigham took over all of Joseph's papers in 1845 he, he just commandeered them. Uh in contrary to the Smith family's um claims for Joseph's property, they wanted Joseph's papers back, but Brigham took them all over as his own property. Now, why? So he could revise the history of the church. That's exactly why
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h53m47s 2:53:47]
Michelle: that's actually super important because think of it, if your spouse, you get like you're, you're the spouse, right? That's how it should be. Brigham hadn't even settled the succession crisis like he had no business at all. Well, they
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h54m04s 2:54:04]
Jeremy Hoop: did, they did settle that end of 1844. So that was, that was done the 12 took over by that point and then they commandeered the papers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h54m12s 2:54:12]
Michelle: Ok. Ok. They also though were trying, I guess, I guess what I should say is they didn't have unanimity. They were not the recognized authority by everybody, especially not by Emma. And they were desperately, I've mentioned this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again. They were desperately trying to get the um the Bi the Bible translation, which I think is really important to recognize the Bible translation. Rob just did a great video on that as well in no way supports polygamy and in no way can supports 132 and I think they desperately wanted that so they can revise, alter it as well. And it's, it's really important to look at what went through their hands and what didn't because those things tell a very different story.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h54m57s 2:54:57]
Jeremy Hoop: So let me emphasize this from William Smith. It says what you're saying. Brigham Young John Taylor Willard Richards with the appointed bishops has have assumed the publishing of the church documents, the book of Covenants and also Jose's private history as their own property entirely regardless of the rights of the Smith family as there with connected. Ok.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h55m17s 2:55:17]
Michelle: It makes me so angry. It makes me so angry what they did to Emma and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h55m21s 2:55:21]
Jeremy Hoop: why and why did they want everything? And if Clayton was withholding something and they knew about it, would they have let that stand? And if they knew that he had withheld it, would they be happy with little Willie that that question historians you should really look into. Richard Van Wagner has written extensively on this and he's the one who said um regarding the church's history in total, the introductory assurance that no historical or doctrinal statement has been changed is demonstrably wrong, wrong, which by the way, that statement has been repeated in various forms by church leaders for generations. There's nothing wrong in the history. We've never lied about this stuff. We've never changed things, nothing's been altered. Ok. He says overshadowed by editorial censorship, hundreds of deletions, editions and alterations. Hundreds, these seven volumes are not always reliable. That's an understatement. The 19th century propaganda mill was so adroit that few outside Brigham Young's inner circle were aware of the behind the scenes alteration. So seamlessly stitched into the history of the church. The quorum of the 12 under Brigham Young's leadership began altering the historical record shortly after Smith's death. Contrary to the introductions claims Smith did not author the history of the church. The time of his 1844 death, the narrative had been written by Joseph himself only to 5 August 1838. OK. There was nothing after 1838 that Joseph had his hands on Charles Wesley Wandell, assistant church historian at the time in 1844 who had later left the church, who was was aghast at these emendations, commenting on the many changes made to the historical work as it was being serialized. Wandell noted in his diary, I noticed the interpolations because having been employed in the historian's office at NAVOO by Doctor Richards and employed two in 1845 in compiling this very autobiography. I know that a I know, I know that after Joseph's death, his memoir was doctored to suit the new order of things. And this too by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards that this revision. It's an incredibly important quote that everyone overlooks and no one repeats and they should repeat it at nauseam because this is why we, we mentioned this, the false traditions of our fathers are what get us to lose light and truth. If we have been, we, we, we've been told our history, um is, is one thing when in reality it was another and this is demonstrably true from, there are so many stories and so there are hundreds of deletions and insertions in the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h58m07s 2:58:07]
Michelle: history. Yes. And even if it's not from a faith perspective where we're concerned about false doctrines and false beliefs, people should just care about truth and what's true and what's not. Historians should have some amount of pride to not just spout forth lies. They should at least want to get to the truth. I think that Don Bradley does
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h58m29s 2:58:29]
Jeremy Hoop: that Don Bradley is, I can have a great conversation with him. Don Don is a fair minded man and Harold B. Lee was a fair minded man who said, look, I'm paraphrasing, but we, our history can stand up to the truth. We should not be afraid of the truth and, and, and if it's true, we should want to know it. Basically. That's my feeling. If it's true, we should want to know it. And if
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h58m54s 2:58:54]
Michelle: truth damages our narrative, it ought to be damaged.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=2h58m57s 2:58:57]
Jeremy Hoop: That's what he said. That's the other part of what he said continuing that this revision or censorship of the official history came from Brigham Young, as evidenced by an 11th July 1856 reference in Wilfred Woodruff's diary Apostle Woodruff working in the church historian's office. Question Young, respecting a quote piece of history in book E one page 16 81-2 concerning Hiram leading this church. By the way, you can see that on the Joseph Smith papers and tracing the ironic priesthood young advised quote. It was not essential to be inserted into history and had better be omitted as you, as you will see it. When you learn more about Brigham Young, he did not like Hiram at all and he was threatened by the memory of Hiram and was especially threatened by what people remembered about Joseph saying about Hiram leading the church and being the heir to Joseph because Brigham did not want that in the record at all. Years later, Elder Char Charles W Penrose, a member of the first presidency admitted that after Joseph Smith's death, some changes were made in the official record for quote prudential reasons. OK. So there's too many references to, to, to enumerate. But we see in the history of the church, Brigham Young and in his manuscript history as journal, talking about revising the history over and over and over. What do they mean by revising the history? You know, is it just, well, we're just, you know, we're just cleaning up a little bit. No, the revising of the history as it says in this particular document in The Man Man manuscript history to be revised. OK. This section to be revised, it meant actually changing the meaning of the documents as you referenced the October 5th 1843 journal entry from Joseph Smith where he's walking up down the street street with his scribe and he says uh about the preaching of the doctrine of the plurality of wives on this law, Joseph forbids it, he forbids it no man shall have but one wife. But in the revised version, they changed the meeting. Unless, unless I say it's ok. Ok. Unless I say it's ok, then you can't do it. That is. And Brian Hales gives frankly the, the, the the most inane argument for that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h01m09s 3:01:09]
Michelle: my brain, I had to apologize to my brain after watching that and say, I'm sorry for subjecting you to that degree of idiocy. I don't even know how he thinks that is a logical explanation. I'm sorry to be. But yeah, you keep going because you might, I want to point
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h01m27s 3:01:27]
Jeremy Hoop: out well in the letter to the Relief Society on May March 31st 1842 in the con in the notes written by Eliza Snow of the meeting. OK, where she records the letter that Joseph writes to the Relief Society. In that letter, he's responding to the nefarious stuff that John Bennett is doing and John Bennett and chauncey Higby and others that are going around uh uh uh defrauding and defaming and a a and de flowering, I suppose they're, they're, they're abusing women saying Joseph told us we can do this and, and Joseph makes it so abundantly clear that you cannot do any of those things and they will be damned and you will be damned if you follow them. And he says that uh whether they're seer revelator, patriarchs, 12 apostles, elders, priests, mayors, generals, city, city councilors, Alderman, marshals, police lord mayor or the devil. He says, if any of these people come to you saying you can do this stuff, you can basically put them down. Um uh they're, they're culpable and damned for those practices. OK? He's saying I am not, I can't tell you these things and nobody can tell you these things, but they change it. No, the Joseph Smith paper says that the letter in Willard Richards handwriting was first was first for which they can provide absolutely no proof. It's a stand alone letter. It has to be that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h02m52s 3:02:52]
Michelle: way, but it happens to make sense. Of course,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h02m55s 3:02:55]
Jeremy Hoop: it does. It happens to make the same exact editorial change as what we saw with the journal entry, the exact same change. Uh Don't listen to anybody saying this stuff unless it be by message delivered to you by our own mouth. Unless we say so, then you can't do it. OK? Go read that on the Joseph Smith papers and see how they twist themselves in knots to try to make Joseph secretly doing these things while saying another thing publicly
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h03m23s 3:03:23]
Michelle: polygamy doctrine. So Joseph and Hyrum consistently repeatedly said the standards in the scriptures. The long traditional those are what you follow. The polygamist morality is always follow those unless God or your leader says otherwise consistent line that we always find between the two versions which,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h03m46s 3:03:46]
Jeremy Hoop: which follows itself into the happiness letter. For example, that, that same crazy notion. Then we have uh Hiram's 18 April 8th, 1844 talk which he just rails on plural marriage. A polygamy, spiritual wifey for an hour and a half, a fiery sermon.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h04m05s 3:04:05]
Michelle: I just read extensively from that in my last episode. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h04m08s 3:04:08]
Jeremy Hoop: And so the audience knows about this and of course, they took it out of the draft and then they took it out of the prepublication history. They just crossed it out, they just crossed it out. And then when it came to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h04m18s 3:04:18]
Michelle: actually, first they changed it first, they tried to make those editorial correct,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h04m24s 3:04:24]
Jeremy Hoop: they tried to make changes to it, but it didn't even work. So they crossed it out. And then by the time it made it the history, there's nothing there except many other remarks were made by the speaker
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h04m34s 3:04:34]
Michelle: and, and an interesting thing I just found in that also, Hiram said in that speaking of eternal marriage, he doesn't say exactly the same wording, but it's basically, it's so plain, I can make any man understand it. That was fascinating to see that show up in William Clayton version of polygamy, just like Joseph said, according to many references, if Brigham ever led the church, he would lead it directly to hell. Brigham transforms that to be about somebody else, right? But the same wording, I find it fascinating how they did this so that there was enough recognition that people would buy it maybe, but it was changed to fit the new order of things again and again, you find these patterns.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h05m12s 3:05:12] Jeremy Hoop: What, what I, what I, what I would love to see is Brigham Young who was on the stage while he's giving that sermon. I'd love to see Brigham on his face. Oh, yeah. And then we have in July 18th, 1856 I called upon President Young read a piece of history book. He won. I referenced this previously, but this is the reference in um from Wilfred Woodruff's journal where he's recording that Brigham Young doesn't want certain things about Hiram to be put into the, the official history. And then we have a document that says not to go in by bys orders. This is also about Hiram leading the church. That's that same reference that I just mentioned. And then of course, there is this really interesting reference where he says I spent the day in pre. This is Wilfred Woodruff and President Young was with us 3.5 a quarter hours in hearing history. Um read, he asked if there had been any note made of his meeting in Nauvoo at Joseph's house. Now, in a previous episode, talking about Brigham and Heber, I read from 1866 where Brigham Young gives this long recitation of this meeting. He went to at Joseph's house where Hiram was there preaching about the importance of the Canon of scripture. And that if anyone preaches anything contrary to the canon of scripture, you can set him down as an impostor and then Joseph buries his head in his hands. Yeah. Though he's terribly embarrassed and says to Brigham, get up, you correct the record. Brigham basically, and Brigham does correct. The record says I wouldn't give the ashes of a rye straw for all the scriptures in the world without the living oracles. OK. And then Hiram so embarrassed gets up and begs the congregation for forgiveness. Ok. This is a story he tells in 1866. Well, this is what he's referring to um here in 1856. Ok. This is why they're revising the history. So um at the time, Hiram had preached the book of Mormon doctrine and covenants as the standard while I took the ground that there were, they were of no account to us without a living prophet and revelation. I told him we would examine and see. Well, uh there that did not make it into the documentary history of the church. That story, they couldn't figure they couldn't find it. So Brigham in 1866 10 years later because by the way, in 1856 they started publishing it, they start publishing the history of the church in serial form. They couldn't find the reference. So they didn't add it in 1856 1866 he gives a speech as, uh, let me tell you what actually happened. Ok. And guess what? It finally found, it found its way into the History into the book Saints. So, unfortunately, the same kind of chicanery nonsense is going on now. Oh, absolutely.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h07m52s 3:07:52]
Michelle: 100%. In fact, the in, in Saints is the altar version of Hyrum speech references from that. They, yeah, it's, it's, it's absolutely continuing strong
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h08m04s 3:08:04]
Jeremy Hoop: to this. And in this one, they don't say according to Brigham Young in 1866 who gave a sermon uh uh recalling what had happened back in 1843. No, no, no, no, no. What they say is Brother Brigham. They just quoted as though it's happening contemporaneously as though it's happening on the day. That's the kind of stuff that I find to be historical malpractice. And I think it's got to stop. The happiness letter is another one won't go into this. But the happiness letter um was originally dated second of August 1842 is published by John Bennett. Uh It was he who claimed it was in the handwriting of Willard Richards. Uh But it was entered into the manuscript history um in an addendum.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h08m49s 3:08:49]
Michelle: We we so I wanted to point out this was surprising to me, we have no version of this other than what John Bennett printed in the Sangamo Journal. We don't have the a letter from Willard Richards. We don't have anything other than John Bennett's claims. And while they cut Hiram speech out, they actually included John Bennett, the guy who was plotting mercilessly to have Joseph Smith destroyed. They included him in the history. That's insane.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h09m16s 3:09:16]
Jeremy Hoop: Meanwhile, Joseph Sydney Ridding and Nancy Rig and the subject of the woman about whom the whole, the whole subject was uh what was framed. They all denied it was uh it was from Joseph. Um Bennett's claims were never corroborated and it was also published in the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. That's the,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h09m35s 3:09:35]
Michelle: the Sangamo Journal was asking Bennett to get the women to write um affidavits to get it firsthand from them. And so they were asking him for that and he still couldn't come through
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h09m45s 3:09:45]
Jeremy Hoop: now to their credit, the editors of the JSP today, they doubt the connection of the happiness letter to Joseph Smith. And it's no longer published in the History of the Saints. So at least there's that, at least it hasn't continued and, and made its way into the, into the current history,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h10m00s 3:10:00]
Michelle: but it's so gas lighting because they haven't corrected it just pretend it never happened. No,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h10m05s 3:10:05]
Jeremy Hoop: they, they, they, they still leave room for, maybe, maybe it is, but at least they doubt it, at least there's a little progress there
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h10m11s 3:10:11]
Michelle: quoted in general conference multiple times. I will say that. And I'm not blaming her church leaders. They're not the historians, they're just using the sources that they've been given by the historians.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h10m22s 3:10:22]
Jeremy Hoop: And then of course, there's Lucy Mac's history. Brigham wanted all the copies destroyed. Ok. He was really mad because Orson Pratt published an independent copy on his own and he wanted that whole thing swooped up because, well, because it favored Hiram and it said some good things about Emma. You know, it didn't, it didn't, it didn't do exactly what Brigham wanted. According to modern historians, Lucy's history tests extremely well. Uh Brigham said she was an old woman. She had, she lost her memory, she wasn't reliable and she was uh spewing, he calls it um uh transmitting lies to posterity. And I know that the curse of God will rest on everyone who keeps these books in their houses. I mean, he just, he, he spent an entire speech in front of the congregation talking about this and, and, and chastising all the members of the church and, and demanding that they all be rounded up
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h11m17s 3:11:17]
Michelle: in, in another of the many brilliant examples of complete projection, right? Brigham accuses Lucy of teaching lies about the history of the church, the posterity of the church. Brigham accuses Lucy of doing that when that is exactly what
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h11m31s 3:11:31]
Jeremy Hoop: Brigham. And according to all evidence, she was, she was very sharp in her last years, very sharp. And then of course, we have, as we've mentioned the strange journals, uh journals, the, the memo books by Willard Richards. Which why would anyone add to the journals? Why would anyone after Joseph's dead? Not Richards himself? Right. In the journals like Thomas Bullock did, for example. And by the way, these references, the things that are added are about polygamy or about, or about posthumous or about ceilings that took place or about uh uh some, some plural marriages that took place. Bullock recording some of them, for example. Um Oh boy, my computer is not loading as fast as I'd like it to. So you see, he's, he's listing a whole bunch of marriages. Bullock does and he does it. This is long after in the 18 fifties, then you have somebody else writing and this is not Richards. Um Also some things about um uh marriages. Um Let's see, an anointing uh entered in by Brigham Young president of the 12. Why would anybody do this? Why would you write into a journal unless you're doing something to alter the history? Then we have John Bernheisel who records a whole bunch of ceilings. These are really, really strange. So this whole pattern. Um oh and of course he leaves the, the hundreds of pages blank and I think we can see why because he meant to add things later and after he died and Richards died in 1854. OK. People were adding things after he died. I think he meant to add things to it. But people took up the mantle after he died in 1854. And they started adding things to the journal. Anyway. Also, there are sermons that Joseph preached, that we don't have. Uh according to Joseph Smith himself in the, in the Navoo City Council or sorry High Council minutes in the trials of the women who testified against Chauncey Higby and John Bennett and others. One of the things that some of the, that one of the women asked chauncey Higby was, why does Joseph preach so much against what you're teaching me? OK. And Joseph says, when I asked why I publicly preach so much against it, wait, publicly preached against what John Bennett was doing. Where are those sermons? Why don't we have those? OK. And then that pattern continued on for decades afterwards, creating questionable affidavits with legalistic language like married or sealed with glaring inconsistencies. Many with no notary seals, some with outright falsehoods like my great, great great grandfather, Thomas Grover, legal testimonies, fraught with inconsistencies and provable lies. Later, memoirs with glaring omissions, inconsistencies like Joseph Kingsbury and Elizabeth Whitney and Emily Partridge editing letters like Andrew Jensen did with the, the daughter of Elvira Coles lying before Congress like Joseph F Smith did this pattern started by Brigham Young of altering the history and lying about what happened. Started with him and continued on well into the early 20th century.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h14m34s 3:14:34]
Michelle: I love the quote by Emma Smith when she told Brigham Young the first two principles of your gospel are lying and deceit.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h14m41s 3:14:41]
Jeremy Hoop: It's absolutely true. Exactly. Right. The revising of Joseph's history was a critical part of Brigham Young's administration and William Clayton played a key role but not necessarily one that Brigham liked. Remember that William did not tell Brigham about the Council of 50 record for over, for at least two years after Brigham begun, began the revision of Joseph's history. Would he have been happy about that fact? Or would Brigham have been furious? Now, remember what we said on the same day that Clayton tells Brigham that stout's threatening to kill him, he delivers up the record. That's interesting. On the same day, Brigham,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h15m27s 3:15:27]
Michelle: are you thinking that Brigham put stout up to killing Clayton as a way to get the record from him? I have, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h15m33s 3:15:33]
Jeremy Hoop: have no idea that's, that would be that, that would be a bridge too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h15m37s 3:15:37]
Michelle: So we don't, we don't know if you're not making
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h15m39s 3:15:39]
Jeremy Hoop: a point of that. Here's what we can say again. Thank you to James Allen. Much changed for Clayton after 1847. He was never as close to the center of power as he had been in the days of Joseph no longer wa was he the prophet's official scribe and bookkeeper though, for a time, he worked in Brigham Young's office and kept some of the financial records of the church. He also performed the duties of historian or clerk as periodically assigned in 1852. He went on a mission though he was released early because of accusations against him. I'm putting that in brackets. Ok. He was released early from his mission. Well, we're going to learn more about that in the next episode,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h16m18s 3:16:18]
Michelle: just like James White had accused him of. He, he was accused of a lot of a lot accused of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h16m24s 3:16:24]
Jeremy Hoop: theft, he was accused of all kinds of things and and Clayton records a lot of those accusations. We're going to read those in the next episode. But after that, it appears, he stood progressively further outside the prophet's inner circle. Though Clayton continued to preach in public meetings and take care of mis miscellany's tasks at the request of church leaders. He frequently found himself looking backward, longing for his former closeness to the seat of power and in particular, the intimate friendship with the men of power that he uh once enjoyed as one of Joseph's right hand men for some reason, unexplained in the records, William Clayton had fallen out of favor with Brigham Young some months before his mission. In addition, Clayton's correspondent suggests that he had made some personal though unspecified mistakes that, that he wanted deeply to overcome in the footnote in this paper that he's writing. He says in this footnote seven, the main indication of this is in a letter from Clayton to Young January 9th, 1852 Brigham Young papers in which Clayton discussed very formally, some aspects of Young's accounts and says, but if it were lawful and I were not so far fallen beneath your confidence, I would suggest a few ideas which to me look just and right. He closes the letter yours in the depths of sorrow. William Clayton, the tone of part of the letter of October 1840 1852 quoted frequently here also suggests a former falling out with Brigham Young. Why James Allen cannot connect the 1847 incident with the council of 50 records is frankly beyond me. And we're gonna discuss more about the falling out between Brigham Young and William Clayton in the next episode because this is very important to understand. So 1847 he finally delivers up the records the day after he tells Brigham Young that Jose is trying to kill me. And Brigham says you got 30 minutes go. I delivered the records of the kingdom. Brigham Young, could they be connected? I think they are, I think they are. I think somehow Clayton used that. This is, this is me opining for those historians out there. I'm opining now I am stating my opinion and not fact, but I believe that Clayton used that as leverage to somehow get him out of a very sticky situation because Brigham Young never for forsook jos a stout. He kept him employed and kept him very close because he was an essential part of his uh paramilitary or police force. Ok. And so Clayton had a reason to keep the journal secret and then he had a reason to give it up. I believe it's because he was in trouble and he needed to give those records up to Brigham.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h19m10s 3:19:10]
Michelle: Do you think that his reason, what do you think his reason was for keeping it secret? Was it was it to keep in his back pocket, back pocket in case he got in trouble? Do you think he was doing a service for them? That they were, that they'd be so happy to like what was his reason for keeping them and doing it? You
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h19m25s 3:19:25]
Jeremy Hoop: see in his journal, many references to him being on the outside looking in, you see him not being on the inner circle. What you see is a man trying to be on the inner circle and very upset at times that he's not
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h19m36s 3:19:36]
Michelle: the wanna be. That's why I call him the wanna be. Yeah,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h19m38s 3:19:38]
Jeremy Hoop: absolutely. A wanna be and I believe that he knew he had something important and for what we don't know exactly why but, but
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h19m47s 3:19:47]
Michelle: he got to write the history. He could shape it as he wanted to regarding himself. Maybe it was a way to be important or
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h19m55s 3:19:55]
Jeremy Hoop: he could use it later at a time when he needed it or he, because a record, the council of 50 is an incredibly important event in church history. It's incredibly important. And Clayton knew it. Ok. He absolutely knew it. That's why he was making the record. And that's the only reason, that's the only reason we have any record of that organization other than a very few, two or 34 notes minutes that, that have survived. That's all because of Clayton's clear copy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h20m31s 3:20:31]
Michelle: Do you find the Council of 50 records to be accurate and reliable?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h20m35s 3:20:35]
Jeremy Hoop: Because there's no way there's, there's absolutely no way to know. Ok, because as the Joseph Smith papers explained, they tell us how he made it. Ok. Clearly that, that he's, he's reconstructing events
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h20m50s 3:20:50]
Michelle: in general with Clayton and just like with Bennett or others. My perspective is kind of, if I can verify what he said, then I'll accept it if it aligns with other things. But if it's just him, I'm gonna just do a
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h21m03s 3:21:03]
Jeremy Hoop: hand. I think, I think if I think if we're being fair, we should be skeptical about anything recorded after the event, especially from people who have proven themselves to not be trustworthy. Correct. Now, I think we can read it for what it is. It's a fair copy written afterwards. We don't have the original minutes. We don't know exactly what happened on the day
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h21m24s 3:21:24]
Michelle: by a guy who is very unreliable, very motivated, who we've already shown to be extremely dishonest as it serves him for whatever reasons he has. Ok. Can you continue on
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h21m36s 3:21:36]
Jeremy Hoop: at his own funeral? This is what Joseph F Smith and John Taylor said about William Clayton
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h21m46s 3:21:46]
Michelle: and they were the next generation. So he was still on the outs it it handed down.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h21m50s 3:21:50]
Jeremy Hoop: Ok. So imagine imagine something like this being said about you or your father? Naturally, this is Joseph F Smith. Naturally, he was concerned about how he might fare in the next life. That's a good way to start. Naturally. He was concerned if he could have listened to the church leaders who spoke his, his, oh, this sorry, this is um this is Alan, I'm sorry, this is Alan uh about to quote them. Um If he could have listened to church leaders who spoke at his funeral, he would have been comforted James. I don't know why in the world you use that term because this is what they said, quote. He was not without his faults in the flesh, said elder Joseph F Smith. But what were they? Were they such as partook of a deadly character? Did he ever deny the prophet Joseph or did he deny the truth or prove unfaithful to his covenants or to his brethren? No, never but notwithstanding his unflinching integrity and his long life of fidelity, fidelity and usefulness. Let me say to you that as for his faults, however trivial or important he must answer, but he will be able to pay for his debts and to answer for his failings and he will come forth and all that has been pronounced upon his head by Joseph Smith. And the apostles will be confirmed upon him throughout all eternity.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h23m06s 3:23:06]
Michelle: Oh, my word. This is about a dead man at his own funeral in front of his family.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h23m11s 3:23:11]
Jeremy Hoop: Then let me say to the family of our deceased brother, follow in the footsteps of your husband and father accepting where he may have manifested the weaknesses of the flesh, imitate his staunch integrity to the cause of Zion and his fidelity to his brethren. Be true as he was true, be firm as he was firm. Never flinching, never swerving from the truth as God has revealed it to us. And I will promise you in the name of the Lord that you will rise to meet your husband and father in the morning of the first resurrection, close with glory and mortality, internal lives. Ok. In the same spirit, the new leader of the church, John Taylor sanctioned El Elder Smith's remarks and added, if there were any weaknesses in him, pass them by and live for God and for truth, he will be all right. So he tried to soften it a little bit. Can you imagine? Can you imagine John Taylor, the president? Sorry, this is 1879. So yes, the president of the church and Joseph F Smith Apostle that's speaking about you in that fashion at your funeral. Yeah.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h24m17s 3:24:17]
Michelle: Or even it was even on the more local level. We, you know, when we do funerals in the LDS world, the bishop is the final speaker. So what if you were at the funeral of a loved one or whoever it was? And all of a sudden the bishop got up and started doing these kind of jabs and the underhanded. Like, how would you feel about that? That's insane.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h24m36s 3:24:36]
Jeremy Hoop: You only do that if you despise someone,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h24m39s 3:24:39]
Michelle: absolutely despise someone because, yeah, that's her funeral.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h24m43s 3:24:43]
Jeremy Hoop: So given what we know about Brigham's efforts to control all of Joseph's papers and revise the history would Brigham have been bothered by Clayton's withholding the council of 50 record, I think. Absolutely. I think that's where it began, James Allen. He had a falling out with Brigham Young, but I think it happened sometime, probably even before 1847 because he wasn't even in the mix. And I think that's why he delivers the records up in 1847. Given what
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h25m09s 3:25:09]
Michelle: he was doing the records to try to get his way back in that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h25m13s 3:25:13]
Jeremy Hoop: bingo. He
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h25m16s 3:25:16]
Michelle: had
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h25m16s 3:25:16]
Jeremy Hoop: something he knew that they would want. Absolutely. They didn't know they didn't know how close or what he was really to Joseph Smith. I believe they didn't know he was doing all these, they didn't know what records he was keeping. Well, given Williams role, especially through the journal in shaping Joseph's history and given that he would eventually lose favor with Brigham Young. Is it possible that he would have a motive to fabricate any of the stories. Remember what we said about the rules of evidence? You have to prove it's a contemporaneous record. You have to prove it's trustworthy that the person writing it is trustworthy. I think we're proving, we've proved number one, it's not contemporaneous or you cannot say it's contemporaneous.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h26m07s 3:26:07]
Michelle: I, I know, I think we can say we've proven that it's not contemporaneous. I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h26m10s 3:26:10]
Jeremy Hoop: think we are proving the and in the next, we're gonna prove inconsistencies. We're gonna prove about his. We have already been examining his character. He is not a trustworthy individual. He wrote the clean copy from his journal on the very, oh, there are possibilities. By the way, that number one here, let me acknowledge, he wrote this clean copy. You cannot say anything but that it's a clean copy from his journal, from his original journal on the very same day or shortly thereafter. But if so, how do we count for that gap book?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h26m45s 3:26:45]
Michelle: And how do you account for the consistency of the entries? And it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h26m49s 3:26:49] Jeremy Hoop: is possible that he went a week, right? Wrote his journal and said, I just need to, I need to clean this up. So while he's recording the next week's entries, he's going back and recording while he's doing all of his other work, by the way. OK. He's recording a clean copy at the time. OK. He wrote it sometime after, but it is a true, fair or exact copy of the original. But if so then what about that gap book? What, where's the rough gap book as well? OK. He wrote it af I think the most logical, the most consistent he wrote it after Joseph Smith's death, he used it to create a narrative to support quote the new order of things. This ex this explanation accounts for Clayton's pattern of creating records. It accounts for the fair copy nature of the journals. It accounts for the situation Clayton was in with Brigham Young and Clayton's possible motive and it also perfectly accounts for the strange gap book with all of the Joseph Smith polygamy references. It's the only consistent narrative is that he did it afterwards and he invented things and put them in the gap book. Now, could it be considered an authentic um daily record in a court of law? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. It would be thrown out. We would not admit it in, in, in, in any courtroom in the country. Absolutely. And it would also the right now because we, they will not release these. I don't know why they're taking so long. I suspect the reason they're taking so long is they have to try to account for the anomalies that James Allen has. Um ha has admitted to, they have to account for the gap book. They have to count what that, what I believe they're gonna do is in all the references in the journal, they're gonna have to have a footnote that ties every reference to a later affidavit or story from somebody later. So people can then read back and forth and go, oh, of course. Uh He's telling the truth instead of reading it the other way. The affidavits and the later stories used that Clayton journal as the foundation for their later stories. Ok. I think that's why, that's my speculation. I could be wrong. Now, given what we've demonstrated that on that the one singular piece of what you could have legitimately called contemporaneous evidence is proven to be neither contemporaneous nor evidence. Given what we've demonstrated about Brigham and Heber's activities in England and that they believed in a practice spiritual wife, free plurality of wives. Long before Joseph ever could have introduced it to them. Given all the other inconsistencies and lies in the record. Please. To all the commentators, to all the historians, please be more humble and less certain about your pronouncements regarding Joseph and polygamy. Let me offer some humility too in this regard. If you can provide evidence and proof, direct evidence and pro proof, I will give this up, I will give it up and I will admit that you're right. But until you do that, you need to be more humble about what you're saying.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h29m58s 3:29:58]
Michelle: We're the ones that are already on record as following the evidence and changing our minds. I've said repeated, I've said before that I have publicly to my detriment changed my perspective on things multiple times. You kind of evidence,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h30m16s 3:30:16]
Jeremy Hoop: you did it, you, you changed in the middle of a podcast that was the other way and Midwest stream,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h30m25s 3:30:25]
Michelle: right? And before that I had a bit of a, I, I used to teach and, and people really liked me because I believed polygamy was of God. I believed that thoroughly. And some of the people who liked me the most then hate me the most now. And so I, I just want to point out that we are the ones on record following the evidence. Despite the personal cost, I would like to see the other and then the other side of the ones casting aspersions on us saying that we're just guilty of motivated reasoning. I find that to be so highly offensive in my own personal situation because it is there, it is provably false. There's does not have the same record I have of being willing to follow the evidence and change my stance for the sake of truth. Despite the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h31m13s 3:31:13]
Jeremy Hoop: cost, I understand when you staked your claims and you built your reputation and you've, you've given yourself a speaking tour, you've written books and sold books, um, or, or, or you have become, you've had notoriety because of some work you've done in a certain vein that it's very difficult to give that up. I'm making no money off this and I never will. Ok. I'm doing this because I believe Joseph has been maligned, I believe, I believe first and foremost that the historical record doesn't support this. And number two, having looked deeply at Joseph Smith, his life, his character, his work that this man is extraordinary. He is an extraordinary figure in United States history and world history, an extraordinary religious figure and someone that I frankly look up to because of the magnanimity of his soul. He is an extraordinary man. He's not Jesus Christ. And he himself will say that do not look to me. He will say he said, do not think I uh I am a righteous man. He said he would acknowledge his faults, but he would direct people to Christ and the things he would say that he said to people, the things he taught, they are absolutely worthy of examination. And because of this nonsense, too many people cannot look at those things that he actually did and said. And so what I'm hoping is that we can re examine those things from a fresh per perspective, divorcing ourselves of this notion that he was fork tongued, double minded, a liar because he was not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h32m52s 3:32:52]
Michelle: And I have to throw in and I'm sorry. But you know, my stance, I've repeated this also many times. For me, it's Emma and I agree with you on the more I read of I, I had to overcome some hard feelings toward Joseph Smith. I'm still working on some of them to some extent, I'm still a little bit, um, a little bit reserved in my effusive praise of him. Although the more I see of him, the more astounded, the more I love him, I will say that, although that's a hard thing for me to say because it's come from so far. But dang it, Emma the way that William Clayton talks about her, the way that Brigham Young talked about her, the way that and, and I think also it's Emma and it's also woman. It's women. It's how does God view women. How would a servant of God view women treat women? Talk about women. What is woman's place in the kingdom? And that's so, so I do acknowledge that we both have a big old dog in this fight at this point based in what we have learned because of the evidence. You didn't start out just having this respect for Joseph Smith. And I didn't start out being so incensed by these sexist claims against. I mean Joseph Smith. Absolutely. Emma Smith. Every, every step with him in importance and in virtue and sanctity and goodness and in mission from God. And so the two of them together need to be redeemed. And if you want to say we need to, I'm so sick to death of people saying believe the women listen to the testimonies of women. You can't claim ding it. Listen to Emma Smith, listen to Lucy Max Smith, listen to Catherine Smith, listen to um, all of Joseph's sisters, listen to any number of women who were telling the truth. And if you want to talk about these other women, I, I will at some point go through all of their testimonies, all of the just silliness of the things that they claim. And so anyway, I think that both of these, all of these people deserve an honest examination not based in, I, I know that we say that like anti Mormons and ex Mormons now say that Mormons are just defending their sacred cows, like just defending Joseph Smith because we have to, it is exactly the opposite. They will ignore all of the evidence and harp on it because their sacred cow is that Joseph was a pedophile predator that all womanizer and all of these things. And that is where the motivated reasoning comes into play. That is where they are unwilling to engage in honesty and an honest consideration of the
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h35m30s 3:35:30]
Jeremy Hoop: evidence. There are many, there are many people who have left the church who had to fight really hard with their traditions and to try to figure out what their experiences were all about. And now they've gotten to a certain place and they're unwilling to consider it from a new angle because of the fight they had to engage in, in order to get where they are to be somewhat at peace about where they are. I understand why presenting this stuff is simply untenable to those people because it make, it forces them to realize I made a decision partly on wrong information. I made a decision, decision about my faith experience based on bad information. You mean Joseph Smith wasn't this kind of guy? What does that say about what, what I was told about the book of Mormon or about the Book of Abraham or about the treasure digging or whatever, whatever the narrative is that you want to pull out of your hat,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h36m30s 3:36:30]
Michelle: at least be open up to re examination, right? When you, when you rejected the church, II I, the church is the wrong term. When you rejected the gospel, the book of Mormon and connection to God you had to grapple with. But what did that spiritual experience mean that I had? And how can I explain this piece of it? And people had to find ways to explain all of those things? Well, those things are still there, not explained. Well, right? You can still re examine and maybe bring things back. Like I know people were so angry at feeling lied to. The fact is you've been lied to, you've still been lied to the ce s letter is the biggest fattest lie. You can imagine
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h37m12s 3:37:12]
Jeremy Hoop: the ce s letter is, is a wet paper bag. All you have to do is examine it and it falls apart. It's just that simple. It's
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h37m24s 3:37:24]
Michelle: a narrative built on the false church narrative. It's layers of falsehood
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h37m31s 3:37:31]
Jeremy Hoop: So hopefully, this has been a little bit helpful today. And look, we both Michelle and I are really passionate about this subject. And hopefully, hopefully, those of you who are, who find yourselves as ex Mormons or out of the church or you understand that we're not trying to get you to come back to anything to the church. Only to know the truth about this history. If you want to decide something about your relationship to the book of Mormon or to God, that's up to you. But please understand that you have not been given the full story about Joseph Smith and polygamy from John Dely from Radio Free Mormon from Brian Hales from Todd Compton. They have told you things that either they knowingly know are not correct or they're passing on things that are absolutely false and they don't know it. And I hope, I hope people like John Dely will watch this and other things that Michelle's done that other people are doing and they will come to their senses and recognize this is not as cut and dry as they painted it out to be. And so in conclusion of today's episode, oh, please go ahead before
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h38m36s 3:38:36]
Michelle: we wrap up just quickly. I want to give an exit path for those who are bound and determined to hate the church because of the difficult experiences they had and the betrayal they felt you still can. If what you really want to do is hate the church. You still can hate the church, right? Because the fact is it is Brigham Young and it, those people got control of it and your experiences are valid. The the problems in the church are valid. You just don't have to blame the wrong guy to still keep that tradition. And for people who are in the church, who are where I am, you can keep your faith, you can keep connection to the beauty in the gospel. And in the church while recognizing there were huge, huge problems, the idea is to not be a partaker of the problems anymore. So I guess what I'm saying is wherever you are and wherever you want to be accepting the truth doesn't need to be a threat.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h39m32s 3:39:32]
Jeremy Hoop: And when you actually take Joseph, if you can just start neutrally on him, you know, not even that he's an honest man, just start neutrally and you can go and read, go read, try the spirits, go read some of the, the sermons he gave to the relief society. Go, go read the King Fallet discourse, go go read his, his sermon on July 16th 1843. On on eternal marriage. Go and read through the things that we can verifiably say came from him. Not the, not the strange things that were altered and edited by him or by others that, that found their way into the scriptures, not those things, not the things that came after his death. Start with him. You might find something different, maybe even extraordinary. And so in conclusion, if you're
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h40m17s 3:40:17]
Michelle: too triggered by Joseph, you can start with Emma. I'm no, I'm serious. For the Joseph. Watch my episode on Emma, you can start there. You can read the narrative, read the things that William Clayton said about Emma read the things that Brigham Young said about Emma and see how that sits with you genuinely, then read about Emma's actual life. That's another place to start. If the Joseph Smith place is too high because it's too triggering, which I understand.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h40m44s 3:40:44]
Jeremy Hoop: And, and if, if you are one of those people and you got all the way through this man, I applaud you. I really applaud
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h40m50s 3:40:50]
Michelle: you for now.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h40m53s 3:40:53]
Jeremy Hoop: Well, as we've shown today, Clayton's history shows a clear pattern of manufacturing records or at least embellishing them or at least copying them from those sources into other ones. He had every opportunity to manufacture his journal, his novel journal, especially compared to the Council of 50 Records shows all the signs of being a later edited copy rather than an authentic daily journal. Clayton kept other records that are now not now public like Clayton's private book or private journal. All of the polygamy references regarding Joseph and Emma are in that gap book and William's relationship with Brigham proves he had ample motive to fabricate his gap book journal. Clayton's journal is a clean fair copy, a later creation and cannot be said to be a contemporaneous journal or diary. And frankly, the other side has got the burden of proof. So the only final question is, who do you choose to believe? If you will stick with this, if you're on the other side? Still, I promise you there's a lot more to come. If you will stick with this subject, you still probably have lots of. What about, well, what about, well, what about those things? We will examine them? I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h42m13s 3:42:13]
Michelle: always say, please list them in the comments. Let's keep the conversation going. That's where we find truth. I love it when people bring to me a problem that I haven't or a source that I haven't yet investigated because I want the truth. I want to find, I don't want to leave any stone unturned
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h42m29s 3:42:29]
Jeremy Hoop: when you get to the point where, where you can hear everything that Hales or Bradley or Compton or any of the critics talk about related to Joseph Smith. And you can understand that the narrative surrounding name, your pet thing falls apart. When you examine it closely. When you can get to that point, you will understand that it is not what they say and it looks very different and you just might come to the point where you actually believe Joseph.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h42m59s 3:42:59]
Michelle: Wow. Ok. This was a marathon and it was amazing. So worth the long um wait and the many, the many false starts and the, the price we paid. I hope that people will appreciate because I think this was an incredible presentation. I know it was a lot. Everybody I thank you for sticking with us. I Jeremy, I'm excited to have you come back on. I so appreciate this incredible work that you've done. I really appreciate that the te the testimony that you share. It's good for me to hear it every time because I'm not, you know, I, I'm still working my way through all of this. It's tough. It's tricky. There is a lot of damage to overcome based on the things that we've been told, you know, and it's hard, I understand. I understand that it's hard to trust again, but I love hearing you say it and I love the invitation and I think it is so worthwhile. Well, I
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h43m52s 3:43:52]
Jeremy Hoop: appreciate that and, and hopefully, I love the work that you're doing. I think it's so important that people um just pursue the truth and I'm so grateful that you're doing that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a91kvdLKSU&t=3h44m07s 3:44:07]
Michelle: Well, thank you and thank you everybody. We will see you next time for those of you who are still here. You are amazing. Well done. Wow, that was quite a bit. But I did love a lot of the discussion we had and there was so much incredible information here. I hope you agree with that so well done. Go ahead and leave a comment letting us, oh, you made it to the end because I think there should be some sort of award presented to all of you who stuck in this entire time. But um I am so excited to continue to bring forward this information. I think it's so important and I look forward to our next episode. I'll see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Interview]][[Category:Jeremy Hoop]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Church History]][[Category:Fake History]][[Category:Heber C Kimball]][[Category:William Clayton Journals]]
}}

84: Exposing the Expositor Part 2 - Polygamy, Game Over - 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy

2025-08-29T23:04:14Z

WikiSysop: Automated import

{{Podcast episode v2
| title = 84: Exposing the Expositor Part 2 - Polygamy, Game Over - 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy
| series = 132 Problems
| episode = 84
| date = 2023-09-17
| youtube_id = fCjAOUxNzso
| tags = Expositor, Joseph Smith, Nauvoo
| categories = 132 Problems Episodes, Church History
| summary = This is the one. Please watch to the end.
| links = * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OOmVZThUdksmqENbBlPxWXV_qWpFQ_reG3ipyXBc_VM/edit Nauvoo Expositor (Affidavits on pg 2)]
* Joseph Smith July 16 Sermon: [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-july-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1#full-transcript Franklin D Richards]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-july-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1#full-transcript William Clayton]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/e6774c39-facf-48b1-a55b-d08eb24ee8c6/0/11 Levi Richards]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-3-15-july-1843-29-february-1844/44#full-transcript Willard Richards – Joseph Smith “Journal”]
* [https://archive.org/details/NauvooHighCouncilMinutes/page/n83/mode/2up High Council Minutes]
* [https://www.centerplace.org/library/books/earlyhistoryofthereorganization.htm Early History of the Reorganization by Edmund C. Briggs (searchable online version)]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-8-june-1844/2#full-transcript Nauvoo City Council Minutes: June 8,1844]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-8-june-1844/2#full-transcript -June 10, 1844]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/1#full-transcript -Joseph Smith June 16, 1844 sermon]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/daa151c4-7bae-49d0-8cef-d281a70f1d32/0/34 -Hyrum Smith April 8 Sermon]
* ''“While we were in England, I think, the Lord manifested to me by visions and by his spirit, things that I did not then understand…Joseph had never mentioned this, there had never been a thought of it in the church that I knew anything about at the time…When I returned home and Joseph revealed these things to me, I then understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this was not until after I had told him what I understood… this was in 1841; the Revelation was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this." (Complete Discourses vol 5, pg 1101)''
* Brigham Young Quote: June 21, 1874 ''“... the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him [Brigham] and a few others, and permitted and advised to the rest of the church” (see, quoted in The Western Galaxy, Vol. I, p. 247)''
* Soon-to-be Vice President of the United States, Schuyler Colfax, June 17, 1865 [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-letter-to-nancy-rigdon-circa-mid-april-1842/1 Happiness Letter]
* [https://archive.org/stream/CatherineLewisNarrative/Catherine%20Lewis%20Narrative_djvu.txt Catherine Lewis]
* [https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/10070 Times and Season Feb. 1, 1844]
* [https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9987 Times and Seasons March 15, 1844]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/303?highlight=china%20creek China Creek Letter Cut from History]
* [https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/8236 Times and Seasons April 1, 1844]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/ab830b42-45c7-4c77-b32f-b1a1d76dfdfd/0/3 William Clayton Letter]
* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/d091310b-4d88-43dd-a141-bb7ec1579934/0/2 William Clayton Affidavit]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/reference/calendar-of-documents?highlight=january%205%201844%20city%20council%20minutes#1843-07 July 12, 1843 Official Business]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/deed-to-emma-smith-and-others-12-july-1843/1 Smith Family Land Deed (Emma and Children)]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/deed-to-hyrum-smith-12-july-1843-draft/1#full-transcript Hyrum Smith Land Deed]
* [https://restorationbookstore.org/pages/joseph-smith-fought-polygamy-online Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy online]
* vol. 3, [https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0106/5887/3380/files/JSFP3-chp14.pdf?v=1588802602 chapter 14]
* [https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0106/5887/3380/files/JSFP3-chp15.pdf?v=1588802601 chapter 15]
* [http://boap.org/LDS/Nauvoo-Neighbor/1843/8-9-1843.pdf Nauvoo School Announcement] (pg 4, 2nd column)
* [https://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100630.pdf Jason Briggs: Basis of Brighamite Polygamy]
* [https://william-law.org/publications/dr-w-wyl-wilhelm-ritter-von-wymetal-interview-with-william-law-in-shullsburg-wisconsin-30-march-1887-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-31-july-1887/ William Law 1887 Interview]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncaVElUfBA Video on Nauvoo Counterfeiting]
| transcript = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h00m00s 00:00:00] Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. And in this episode, in particular, I think destroy the historical case for Joseph's plural marriage. I am so glad that you are here. This, there is a lot that we are going to get to. I think you are going to be overwhelmed with information in this episode. In the best possible way. It has been slog so much research, so much work. But I think absolutely, totally worth it. I want to again, thank all of those serious, sincere thanks to anyone who has donated to this podcast and thank you to anyone else who feels like they can. I really appreciate it. I also want to say, I hope that you will share this episode far and wide. I think this information is so important and needs to be brought to the discussion. So I'm so glad that you are here. I want to get into it. So thank you for joining us as we take this deep dive into the quickly becoming less murky water of Joseph's polygamy. I'm hoping that most of you have watched part one, but since it's been a couple of weeks, I'm just going to do a quick recap. If you'll remember, we spent that episode really digging into the character and especially the motivations of the nau conspirators, the laws fosters and Higby. I did that mainly to dispel the claim that polygamy was the issue that William Law in particular was just a loyal, faithful, honest guy who just couldn't abide polygamy And then to show the character of all of those, um all of those conspirators. So we talked about their deep financial motivations that um I didn't and and their corrupt business practices. I didn't even go enough into that. There's a lot of evidence that I didn't cover of several of them using Joseph Smith's name to defraud people out of their money to say Joseph is backing what I'm doing and getting people to invest or to buy in and then taking their money and the complaints would come afterwards to Joseph Smith. There were many other things like that. We talk about their immorality. Every single one of them had major moral problems from William Law's adultery to Wilson law being caught on the floor with a teenage orphan girl to um uh is it Francis Higby, venereal disease? Chauncey Higby is joining with Bennett in the attempted seductions of young girls, not to mention everything happening with the fosters. It goes on and on and on. Right. So we talked about a lot of that. Then we went into their very blatant death threats against Joseph Smith. They're joining with a guy like Joseph Jackson, the very worst person to ever enter anything to do with Mormonism or Nauvoo joining with him to plot to take out the entire Smith family um there. And then we talked about their strategy to try to usurp Joseph, take out the Smith family and take over his position. They started an alternate church. They did the entire legal strategy and several other things I wanted to continue on with that to um show the newspaper strategy, how they were using the newspapers and, and the rest of the legal strategy that they used to finally lead to the martyrdom. But so I was going to start there this time, but I really realized that there is just so much material and I don't want people to feel like they're being left hanging for the stuff about the affidavits. That's a really, really big question. So I decided to just hit right on the affidavits in this episode. And then if I can stand to do anything else with the expositor in part three, I'll go back to where I left off and cover the rest of those questions and get into, I guess I do need to do it because get into the, there are questions of credibility of the other sources that people think lend some credence to these claims against Joseph Smith Joseph and Hyrum Smith. So, so part two though, we are just going to get right to it, to the claims of the affidavits, right? And what they do show what they don't show what they prove what they actually disprove all of all of those questions. So I'm first going to just read the affidavits. There are three of them, they're not very long and then I'll explain the claims about them and then we'll start digging in. I I have to say one of the hardest things with all of this, but with this episode, in particular, was knowing how to get all of the information across. Like if I could just take what I've read and studied and just like put it into other people's brains that would be so easy. But it's really hard to get this piece and this piece and this piece that are all such important pieces. So I ask you to please stick me through this entire episode. Even if you need to take it in chunks come back, please make sure you get all the way to the end because there are very, very important pieces of evidence all the way through to the very end that you need to know. Even if you still want to insist that Joseph was the originator of polygamy and that the affidavits prove that
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h05m02s 00:05:02]
you need this evidence. So you can at least argue from
any credibility. You need to answer these incredibly important
direct questions and problems
to your case. You need to know what they are. So please don't miss any of this episode.
I'm gonna try and be as concise as I can. So let's get on with it. Ok.
The first affidavit is William Law. It says
I hereby certify that Hiram Smith did in his office,
read to me a certain written document which he said was a revelation from God.
He said that he, he, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received.
He afterwards gave me the document to read
and I took it to my house and read it
and showed it to my wife and returned it the next day.
The revelations so called authorized certain men to have more wives than one
at a time in this world and in the world to come,
it said this was the law and commanded Joseph to enter into the law
and also that he should administer to others.
Several other items were in the revelation supporting the above doctrines,
doctrines, William Law, Hancock County, right?
So that's William Laws
and um oh, there are so many things I want to say about all of these as I go,
but I'll try to just keep keep going.
But
no, he doesn't tell us when this supposedly happened.
We don't have any indication of a day a time, a time of year, even a year. So
let's get to the next one. This is Jay law.
Um William Law's wife,
I certify that I read the revelation referred
to in the above affidavit of my husband.
It sustained in strong terms,
the doctrine of more wives than one at a time in this world.
And in the next,
it authorized some to have to the number of 10
and set forth that those women who would not allow their husband to have more wives
and one should be under the condemnation before God Jane Law.
So there's, there's the next one. These were all taken May 4th 1844 and
printed in the June 7th
novel Expositor. So the next one, I'm going to skip over the legalese.
This was Austin
Cells.
I'll start here in the latter part of the summer 1843 the patriarch Hiram Smith
did in the High Council of which I was a member,
introduced what he said was a revelation given through the prophet
that the said Hiram Smith did.
Essay that means endeavor to read the said revelation
in the said council that according to his reading,
there was contained the following doctrines.
First, the sealing up of persons to eternal life against all sins,
save that of shedding innocent blood or of consenting.
Thereto
second,
the doctrine of a plurality of wives or marrying
virgins that David and Solomon had many wives.
Yet in this, they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.
This revelation with other evidence that the Aforesaid
heresies were taught and practiced in the church
determined me to leave the office of first
counselor to the president of the church at
Nauvoo
inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws and further depoit
sayeth not. So that's Austin
cells. Ok.
There's so much to go over here.
I think that we're going to have to save for the third part really getting
into the claims in these um in depth and looking at all of the other.
Well, the very few other claims of polygamy that um, the
nauer
made or that any of the um, signers of the Africa
Davids or any of the conspirators made because that will be
an important thing to see if this really was an issue.
That was a true issue at all and if they had any information about it.
So, um, but right now we're just going to look at these affidavits,
there's so much to cover here.
So first just pay attention to who it was that
witnessed these and signed them who the lawyer was.
Right.
Robert Foster, again, the murderous guy who held a gun to his wife's head,
wife's head and
aimed guns at Joseph Smith and many others.
He was just threatening to kill everyone all over the place.
So it doesn't prove anything
just again, speaks to the character of this crew that was, that was doing this.
So, ok, so the argument is, I'll restate it, right.
These were published during Joseph Smith's life a few weeks before he was killed,
they contain clear similarities to parts of section 132 the plurality of wives,
eternal polygamy as a law
condemnation of women who object mention of virgins mentioning David and Solomon
sealed up despite any sin but murder.
So those are the similarities for now in this episode,
we'll have to say that we will ignore
the equally if not far more important
differences between the affidavits and section 132.
We're just going to look at this claim.
They say, since all of those things are the same,
these affidavits prove that 132 as we have it.
Now, the revelation existed in during Joseph's lifetime.
So they prove that Joseph was the originator of polygamy. So
OK, I just have to really quickly say again,
as many of you will understand if you would put it in a different context.
It is very easy to feel certain about things
when you don't have very much information about them,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h09m56s 00:09:56] right? Everyone who has left the church, who used to have a fervent testimony, but then learned a little bit more should be able to understand that including those of us who stay in the church and have learned more, right? It's really easy to have black and white certain thinking when you just don't have all of the information. So I'm hoping that you will understand the importance of getting more information, getting a better grasp on the information trying to understand why you think, you know what you think, you know and where it comes from, right? So that you can know how to make more reliable claims. So the critical question, the Nauvoo expositor affidavits pro pose is, was the revelation William and Jane Law claim to see and that Austin Cowell's claim to hear red in the Nauvoo Council, the same as what we now have in section 132 right? That's the question we're investigating. That's what we're going to try to answer in this episode. And um that seems to be the consensus from all the church historians, the other historians, all of the anti MS like this is what everyone says, which the more I've looked in it, I cannot understand why, but it seems to be the consensus. So we're going to try to get to the bottom of it and see if it should be the consensus, if this should be what we believe. And so, um anyway, remember also that most of the narrative, well, all of the narrative we have about section 132 comes from William Clayton, right? And his testimony. So we're going to look into that to some extent as well. So we can understand what we think we know to get to the bottom of this. We need to ask a few additional questions because they form the basis of our narrative that 132 as we now have it existed and is what Hyrum read to the City council and passed around the city. So the first question is, is our understanding of the coming forth of section 132 trustworthy. Can we believe those claims based solely in William Clayton on William Clayton? Right. Second, are the authors of the affidavits fully trustworthy. Can we believe absolutely everything they say for sure. And third, is there possibly any other explanation, maybe one that is much better, that makes a lot more sense that relies far less on the highly spurious accounts and that matches up with the rest of the evidence. And that is just much more solid and reliable in every way. Is that a possibility? That's what we're going to explore. So spoiler, I vote for number three. There is there is that is the best answer because there is a much better explanation that I think that you will see in this episode and continuing on into further episodes. The best answer for all of this is the evidence, the solid evidence that certain elders including Brigham, Young Hebrew C Kimball and others including William, the wannabe Clayton who desperately just wanted to be included in anything. What could, what could make that guy happier than to be able to claim that he was alone with Joseph and Hyrum and he wrote the revelation that no one else knew about. Uh um stay tuned. I hope that you guys have watched the first episode. I did with Jeremy Hoop on William Clayton. We are about to record the second episode on William Clayton that will air the week after this one does. So I really hope you guys will stay tuned to that because there is this guy matters. It's important to really understand him. So anyway, those elders were going around pursuing polygamy falsely invoking Joseph's name just as John Bennett has done just as the the expositor conspirators did about their investments and their attempted seductions, right? And very possibly passing around at least one if not possibly more fake revelations, which they claimed falsely were from Joseph and then later, further edited and amalgamated with the true revelation from Joseph on eternal marriage that we will get into. They put those all together to create what we now have as section 132. If you are tempted to laugh this off, I challenge you to actually listen to this entire episode and then then let's talk, then I'm happy to engage and answer questions. I love that. So please just get the information first. So even as I said, even if you want to continue to argue, no, absolutely. I insist that the expositor proves that 132 came from Joseph Smith based on William Clayton's Games. Even if you want to continue to insist that you need this information to be able to do so with any credibility whatsoever, you need to answer these things. So OK, here we go where this is where we're gonna start. And remember our entire understanding is based on William Clayton, right? As I said, so we're, we're gonna go into this much more later. And, um, but if we look at what he wrote in his journal, right? What we claim is his journal and what he testified 30 years later in a 1871 letter and in 1874 affidavit, he claims that he wrote the revelation for Joseph the morning of July 12th, 1844. The reason he wrote it is because Hyrum wanted to convince Emma and, and said the doctrine is so plain,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h15m11s 00:15:11]
I can get any man or woman to believe it.
If they can just hear the revelation, he knew that, that they would believe it. So
that's the claim we have July 2nd, 1843 right?
Just four days later, Sunday, July 16th, 1843.
After four days after Joseph dictated this
most important revelation of the restoration,
at least according to Brigham Young and the polygamists,
that's what they always said.
Um When his,
so he had just received this revelation,
his marriage was
barely hanging on by a thread, right?
Remember according to this claim,
he had to give Emma all of the church property and all
of the city property just to keep her from divorcing him.
Right? Based again, only on Clayton's claims,
there's no other evidence for that. We'll go, we'll get into it
but this Sunday the 16th Joseph preached all day,
both morning and evening at the stand in the grove, near and west of the temple,
the temple that was under construction.
So Joseph preached the entire day four days after receiving these
this revelation, right?
And I need to point out these were important
sermons among many other things without mentioning names.
He spoke of secret enemies in the cities, foes of his own house.
He also announced Hiram
was now to be the prophet and president of the church.
Joseph would no longer prophesy.
Hiram
had that authority because it was his birthright.
So that was a big, big thing to announce, right? There were some other things as well.
That afternoon, he taught principles of eternal marriage.
And what's awesome about this is we have contemporary nus
accounts
and multiple accounts.
So it's not depending on one guy or on 30 years later memories,
we know that this happened.
Joseph taught on eternal marriage
while his marriage was hanging on by a thread. Right. Right.
After receiving a revelation on polygamy.
So interesting.
So um we'll read some of the various accounts.
Franklin D Richards, I think is the best. It has the most information.
Um He recorded that Joseph taught all blessings that were ordained for man by
the council of Heaven were on the conditions of obedience to the law thereof.
No man can obtain an eternal blessing until the
contract or covenant be made in view of eternity.
Remember some of these code words, right?
Or these important phrases in view of eternity, all contracts in view of
this life, only
in view of this life, only terminate with this life.
And then he spoke of the case of the woman and seven husbands in Luke 20 right? OK.
So keep that in mind as well. I'll go into it a little bit more.
But remember the sadducees came to Jesus and said,
whose wife would this woman be if her seven husbands die?
And it was a trick question about love,
right? Something that didn't apply anymore. That was just an old law for old times.
So Joseph, that question made him think, oh,
Jesus says they'd no longer give or are giving in marriage.
And so Joseph wanted to know what that meant for marriage and received these
answers about eternal marriage that you need to be married in view of eternity.
And he got that based on Luke 20. Remember some of these critical things
and those who don't are only made angels to
minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation,
never becoming sons of God.
Having never kept the law of God ie eternal law. OK. That's what Joseph taught
William.
Now,
it's important in this because I know people
might just have it so amalgamated in their brain
that they can't, they can't recognize the very important distinctions, right?
Some of these things are in section 132.
That doesn't mean that all of these things are in section 132.
That's the whole point, right.
So, so anyone who needs to keep it straight in their brain,
it's a good idea to go through and check.
Ok, this fits here.
This fits here, but it's not clean because remember Brigham's way of doing things,
Joan's way was to add little keywords here.
Switch up little phrases here, right? That's kind of the, the
way, the way that they did things. But let's keep going on.
William Clayton recorded and I'll include his because it
lines up with what the other people recorded.
He showed that man must enter into an internal covenant with his wife in
this world or he will have no claim on her in the next.
He said that he could not reveal the fullness
of these things until the temple is completed,
et cetera.
Um So
it is interesting that William Clayton at other times later on
really fills out and adds a lot of additional teachings.
But this is what he had teach, taught what he claimed. Joseph taught in this sermon
that does fit with the other accounts. This is from Levi Richards.
He said that Joseph spoke of contracts and covenants made from life,
made from life and with life,
the necessity of the temple that the servants
of God may be sealed in their foreheads.
So you can see some of the similarities, right?
Willard Richards account
in Joseph's journal, which we know was not kept contemporaneously because we know

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h20m10s 00:20:10]
that he always recorded it later on.
Even the Joseph Smith papers, historians admit this,
that he would get notes and different things and then
bring them together and then later on create the journal,
right?
So, um this is the entry for the 16th of July 1843 Sunday
preached all day or am and pm at the stand in the grove near and
west of the temple concerning a man's foes being bay of his own house,
such as having secret enemies in the ci city intermingling with the Satans,
et cetera
and proposing Hiram Smith as a prophet that he might be a priest.
So, so the hearers tell the story.
So apparently, Willard wasn't even there and he didn't ask Joseph,
he just listened to other people.
Then this is what's interesting.
He didn't include anything else.
He didn't include anything about eternal marriage, right?
He left four lines blank and then he left the entire next page blank.
So apparently,
so that he could come fill it in after they
figured out what they needed or wanted it to say,
right?
Remember he was one of these polygamists.
So um again,
point out the entire day of preaching,
saying extremely shocking things including that
Hiram is now the president and the prophet
um which caused a lot of upheaval and a lot
of pushback um claiming that we have traitors among us,
which also caused a lot of
upheaval and a lot of pushback. And also saying that marriage must be for eternity,
um
which also was a revolutionary doctrine because it seemed to contradict the Bible.
And that caused quite a bit of pushback, right?
These were all very revolutionary things that he was willing to say.
Again,
he taught this while his marriage was on the rocks, right?
When he had just um
dictated the revelation on polygamy. But this is, this is what he taught all day.
And for people who like
speak and preach and teach,
you need some preparation, put some thought into that, right?
You get your thoughts together,
you really rely on the spirit and you see the Lord developing ideas.
So it's really weird that he would have this revelation, have all of this on his mind
and none of it would show up in an entire day of preaching.
None of it would show up anywhere even in his mood or in
like, right? Nothing was recorded. So that's a problem
right there. And then um also, it's weird that doc that
Hiram would claim the doctrine is so plain.
I convince I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth,
purity and heavenly origin that's from
of, of um Clayton's records
that he thought it was so plain and so obvious that anyone would get it.
But he didn't say anything about it at all or even anything like it,
it doesn't show up at all.
So it's really, really
interesting.
I, I will say that I wish I had read all of this,
done all of this research before I did my episode on what about eternal marriage?
Because
I didn't realize
that Joseph taught about eternal marriage so extensively and
having absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. So
those who want to claim that polygamy and eternal marriage are
indistinguishably tied together
just because they show up together in
section 132 they're actually completely wrong.
We have Joseph on record extensively teaching about eternal marriage about being
married in view of eternity without anything to do with polygamy.
So that's a really good thing to know
that made me happy. And again, this provides
a the beginning of the evidence that there were separate documents, right,
that there were separate things going around.
So, um apparently though, however, according to Austin Cowell's
narrative
um in the expositor,
while it was too dangerous to teach anything about the revelation four
days after it was written to all of the faithful Saints.
Hiram freely read the revelation just a month later to the entire High Council,
right?
So
the reason it couldn't be known is because it was so super secret,
except when it wasn't, except when it could be public made public, right?
And
Cal's again, just like um
the laws, he doesn't give us a date.
He says it was the latter part of the summer in 43 we have conflicting
dates of when that supposed happened mostly
from other much later and motivated sources,
right?
Who gave statements after the Clayton narrative had been established,
which was done in f with full awareness of Cowell's affidavit, right?
It's not hard to make things match up when
you have full access to the previous claims.
But
in any case, despite the inconsistent dates,
the church has settled on August 12th as
the date that Hiram supposedly read this revelation,
but we can't confirm it because

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h24m41s 00:24:41]
there is no record of this happening.
The High Council kept minutes, right? It was
pretty, pretty organized, pretty important to keep records.
We know that that's part of what they did.
And these are the only contemporary
contemporaneous records. We have even
Cell's statement,
which is the first claim we have of Hiram
reading this that doesn't come until a year later,
right?
So the
very best records we have of what happened
in the High Council are the High Council minutes
and here they are.
And you'll notice it's really interesting how sparse they are,
how little is written.
There are again, later claims,
cleaning that away. But what we have right here are the contemporaneous records.
So let's read them.
August 12th, 1843 council met according to um, adjournment, I think at Hiram
Smith's office, no business before the council teaching by President
Hiram Smith and William Marks adjournment till next Sunday, two o'clock PM
Jos
stout
clerk. Then the 19th, I'll just include that for good measure.
Um, council met according to adjournment at
Hiram's office with Marx and Cowell's presiding.
Then it goes on to give a list of those who attended. Right.
And it doesn't have
Hiram listed as, as attending there,
which is maybe part of why we say it was the 12th that he must have taught it.
So
a couple of things to point out, right?
Just like I said,
they kept these minutes for a reason so that
they would have a record of what happened.
And um many meetings have very extensive detailed records of,
of all of the business that happened.
If something this major would have happened,
Hiram shocking the entire High Council with by reading this revelation,
there would be record of it, right?
It would have been included in the minutes for sure.
It would have at the very least been written in journals in letters.
We have so many letters going around with um ideas of things that were being taught.
There is not a single record of
Hyrum reading this until
well, first Austin
cells and then the decades later claims that were built on what Austin
Cell said.
So I think
that's important to recognize anyone who wants to claim it was just too dangerous
that he, you know, they couldn't write anything about it that falls flat.
It's so ludicrous to claim that when Hiram
read it to the entire High Council. Right?
And when there were already all of these wives and all of these people
being brought into it every time you tried to bring someone into it,
you were risking them
revealing it. And Hiram wasn't even carefully trying to bring people into it.
He just read the dang thing and not in front of the whole High council.
So um so it's,
it's impossible to believe that there would be no record
of it in any journal anywhere other than William Clayton.
He's our only source for this happening, right?
And so, um anyway,
then the things to note I think is that we'll just
go quickly over no attendance list is given on the 19th.
So we don't actually even know who was there.
You will see that people will claim to know who was there, but they must,
the only attendance is listed on the 19th.
So people must be dishonestly
applying the attendance on the 19th to the 12th
because we don't have an attendance for the 12th.
Then
the fact that the the the minutes are used though to claim
this was the day because they say teaching by President Hiram Smith,
that's used to confirm that this was the day the polygamy revelation was read.
But the huge thing that they completely unders um
like ignore and neglect and try to brush away
is that the teaching was done by Hiram Smith and William marks the state president,
the highest in authority at the meeting, other than
Hiram, this, he was the state president and this was his high council, right?
He was not only there, he was presiding and teaching alongside Hiram that day
and he never heard anything about the polygamy revelation.
I find this,
I find it unbelievable that people completely ignoring gloss over this fact.
And so like the contemporaneous minutes we have right now
right here for the meeting should disprove this claim.
The same way we used to claim
Hyrum
was teaching. So it must have been then William Marks was teaching as well.
And so remember, let's go over a few things about William Marks. He was extreme.
He is universally recognized as a very good man with a ton of integrity,
not like William Law who was on who that was only claimed by himself in the fraudulent
Mark Hoffman version of his diary.
And by those who were using his testimony to go after Joseph Smith.
You know, for the anti Mormons, anyone who was on their side was a very good person.
Not like that.
William Marks genuinely from everyone on all sides was recognized as
a very good man of deep integrity and goodness and selflessness.
And so like some people thought he should have made a claim for the church.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h29m40s 00:29:40]
He didn't, right. He just tried to do what he thought was right.
He tried to help Emma after the martyrdom, but he was
quite violently whittled out of town by Brigham's gangs.
And so,
um, the whistlers and whittlers that were actually
fully grown men with Bowie knives, right.
That would, would often rough people up quite a bit on their way out of town.
So, um, this is who William Marks is.
And I read several, I also want to point out remind everyone
he gave a very consistent account throughout his
life of a conversation he had with Joseph Smith
just a few weeks before he was killed. He did not vary that account.
It's very consistent, which gives it even more credibility, right?
I read three versions.
I think of it in my episode I did on the RL even the
R LDS admit that Joseph was a polygamist that was said tongue in cheek,
right?
And I will read two other versions here to make it even more clear.
So this is reading from William Marks just before his death.
So almost a year after that high council meeting,
I had quite a long talk with him, meaning Joseph Smith,
I had been feeling badly about the
rumors that were being circulated about polygamy.
And those old stories started by John C Bennett concerning spiritual wives.
And I was fearful that Joseph was mixed up with them in some way.
So remember not the only way he knows about the stories
of spiritual wifey or polygamy are from John C Bennett,
not from Joseph or Hyrum.
And if he had heard a revelation from
Hiram that had been given to Joseph,
he wouldn't have to wonder if Joseph was mixed up in it.
He would know. Right.
Um, let's see.
But in his conversation,
he denounced all those things in the
strongest language possible and I became satisfied
that Joseph was not abetting the crime of polygamy in any sense or form.
And in fact,
he told me that he would go on the stand the very next Sunday and
announce it publicly and also advised me to look up the matter in the most
thorough manner.
And if I found anyone in the church who was teaching spiritual
wives or any form of polygamy to bring charges against them,
and he would help me to prosecute them until
the church was cleansed of all such characters.
Ok?
You can claim that Joseph was lying.
If you know that's how people might be hearing this,
but then William Marks would have to be lying too.
You have to make sense of that, right?
And the fact is this is consistent with everything
Joseph consistently always did that we will go into.
Um his language was in such earnest solicitude for the
welfare of the church and against evil in any direction
that I was much encouraged and was determined to stand by him to my utmost ability.
I then said, this is now Edmund Briggs speaking brother Marx.
Do you know anything of that purported revelation concerning
polygamy as published in the seer by Orson Pratt.
So remember
this was the, the, um,
the revelation section 132 wasn't printed in the
doctrine of covenants until 1876 I believe.
And so at this time, the only place they had access to it was in Orson Pratt this year.
And, um,
he replied, I never saw any such thing until I saw it in Pratt's paper.
Nor did I ever hear of it during Joseph's life.
It was evidently gotten up by Brigham Young and some of the 12 after Joseph's death,
he said, I think Joseph had been deceived in some men who were hovering around him
and that he had not been aware of their real character until just before his death.
In fact, since then,
I have been led to believe that it was hidden from Joseph until just before his death.
So that's on,
um Briggs book. I'll show the cover of it. Page 106.
And there's yet another account,
another conversation later in his life when Edmund Briggs
reported a conversation he had with William Marks.
So the first one is first hand from William Marks. This is, um, Edwin
Briggs reporting a conversation.
He said,
did you when you had that conversation with bro,
brother Joseph think he had been in any way mixed up in polygamy or had favored it?
He replied, meaning marks, no,
I had more confidence in him at that time than I ever had in my life.
Before
and was satisfied that he was pure from that gross crime.
I had been troubled over the condition of
the church for some time and been fearful that
Joseph did not bring the pressure against some men
in the church that he should have done.
And that seems to be accurate. Right. That's how Joseph got himself in trouble.
Like we've already talked about, he was too forgiving,
he always believed in second chances. He was too trusting.
William Marks thought he should have gotten rid of people before he did.
And he was probably right.
Um, you see from John C Bennett's time, there had been so many rumors going,
going the rounds.
I was fearful that there might be something
in the stories afloat that might implicate Joseph.
And this was an interesting thing to see as well that he was like
everyone is saying this,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h34m19s 00:34:19]
there must be some truth to it, right? It's the same case we make.
If there's this much smoke, there has to be fire.
So many people were starting rumors that even William Marks Joseph
Joseph's close friend and the state president
worried that there might be some truth to it.
I think that can help us understand a lot of the later testimonies we have as well.
Right.
So many people heard so many things,
they just knew them for sure and assumed that they were true.
My husband mentioned in the episode I did with him that one of his
hang ups is that Sidney Rigdon didn't speak
out more vociferously in defense of Joseph,
but maybe he was suffering from the same situation.
Who knows? Right.
I think this is an important insight that Marx gives us here.
Um
But um let's see,
but Joseph was so free and positive in his denunciation
of polygamy in every form that I took courage.
And I could see Joseph was in earnest and felt just as I did about it.
But before the Sunday, following our conversation,
Joseph was having his suit and was killed before he had a chance to commence
his investigation against those who those whom
he had suspicion of teaching it privily.
This also matches up with an account we have from William Smith that I'm just
thinking of right now. So I don't have it written down.
But where he was at a dinner with Joseph just before his life and
told him what Brigham and some of the elder elders were doing and, and Joseph said, uh
let me take care of these other things and then I will take care of that and said,
I'm going to have problems with Brigham.
He knew he was going to have troubles, that was also reported right before his death.
Um continuing with Marx.
But I thought he,
I thought he had been deceived in some of the men and elders
of the church and had too much confidence in some of them.
I then said, brother Marx.
Did you ever see the revelation on polygamy
before it was published in 1852 by Mr Pratt
Marx emphatically replied, no, never.
You were president of the stake at N NAVOO.
And if Joseph had had such a revelation,
would you not have been privileged according to custom,
to have seen it or heard of it?
Yes, he replied. He replied yes.
Without a doubt, there was no such revelation and that's true, right?
These secret revelations, that wasn't a thing.
There was no such revelation in existence when I lived in Navoo
just after Joseph's death, Brigham Young would have, this is important as well.
Just after Joseph's death,
Brigham Young would have showed it to me when I opposed his measures, right?
If there was a succession crisis, if Brigham had this revelation from Joseph,
he would have showed it to prove his case.
Absolutely. That's such a good point.
But he never pretended to any such thing to me
that there was that there was such a revelation on the subject from Joseph.
So those are pretty important testimonies to consider from the man who
was standing alongside Hyrum Smith teaching with him in that meeting,
like each one of these
should be enough.
But there's so much more, there's so much more,
there's so much more I I do want to hear from any
professional historian or anybody else who still wants to claim
that
a Hyrum read section 132 at the August 12th, 1843 High Council meeting.
They need to deal honestly with this.
I am wide open to hearing your explanations as long as
they're not incredibly weak and stupid or just ignoring it.
Really let maybe there is a good
explanation for this. I have yet to hear it. So, ok, moving on
the city council meetings then the following year
when they were dealing with the expositor,
those city council meetings, we went into
um
part one on June 8th and June 10th.
Um important information is added there as well.
Um They record Joseph's and
Hiram's responses to Austin Cowell's claims that they, that
Hiram read that revelation, whatever it was
and they line up perfectly with all of the other accounts and records that we have
other than William Clayton
and the later Utah decades later. Um
testimonies, right?
That's why it's important to look at the contemporaneous things because
some of these things are a mess. William Clayton sticks out like a sore thumb.
Everything else lines up perfectly except him.
That's why we call him into question. That's why we need to do the deep dive.
That's why his quote diaries which have never
been released are so important and so suspect,
I think it's valid to ask those questions.
So, ok, let's go into the city council meetings
in both June 8th and in both the June 8th and June 10th meetings.
Um Hiram
explained very clearly that quote the revelation read
to the High Council was an answer to a
question concerning things which transpired in former days
and had no reference to the present time.
So this is actually
the only way other than Austin
cells. This is the only way we know that
Hiram did read a revelation in the High Council meeting because he said he did

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h38m58s 00:38:58]
and he very likely could have read it
on the day he was teaching with William Marks. So the question is, did Hi
Hiram
read a revelation? The question is what revelation might
Hiram have read that William Marks could have heard and
still not heard anything about polygamy or section 132 right?
And then on the 10th, he repeats himself and says,
he said that it referred to former days not to the present time as stated by cows.
Joseph added on inquiry of the passage in the resurrection.
They neither marry nor are given in marriage I received for answer.
Men in this life must be married in view of eternity.
That was the amount of the revelation. Otherwise they must remain,
remain as angels in heaven.
Ok?
Will you please note how that matches up perfectly with Franklin D Richards,
contemporaneous account of exactly what Joseph taught publicly,
right? Let's put them side by side.
All blessings that were ordained for man,
by the council of Heaven were on the conditions of obedience to the laws thereof.
No man can attain an eternal blessing unless lest the
contract or covenant be made in view of eternity,
right?
He said
they must be married in view of eternity.
All contracts in this life only terminate with this life.
And talks about the case of the woman with seven husbands,
which is Luke 20 which is exactly what Joseph refers to.
It's Luke 2035.
That verse where they neither marry nor are given in marriage that
Joseph was talking about when he received this revelation on eternal marriage,
which would have been what Hiram Smith read.
It's consistent with everything we know. There are more things that go on.
Otherwise they must be single and alone in the
eternal world.
And that and are only made angels to minister to those who will be heirs of salvation,
never becoming sons of God, never having kept the law of God.
You can see the similarities there, right?
If you want to claim that there are similarities between the affidavits and 132
will you please acknowledge the incredible similarities
between what we know Joseph preached publicly
and what he claimed the revelation was
that he acknowledged that he preached publicly,
that he spent a whole day preaching on or at least a whole afternoon, right?
And that Hiram later read to the High Council,
which would be fine to do because it had already been preached publicly.
Can we
make sense of all of this, please? It fits perfectly.
Oh, also, let's note that.
It's talking about Luke chapter 20 which again is talking about Leverett marriage,
which is a law from former times that had no reference to today.
Right. Exactly. As
Hyrum said,
marriage was a terrible old testament ridiculous law because as we,
as I went into on the episode on that women were property of the family,
they were purchased
and if their husband died, then the woman hadn't,
you know,
fulfilled the investment that the family put into
her by having Children for the family.
That's what that was based in.
It had no reference today.
So Hiram also was completely accurate in saying it
was just about the laws from the former times.
Not for today, makes complete sense stands up.
It's consistent.
This works perfectly right, as opposed to all of the later lies.
So, um anyway, we can read those scriptures that it came from.
This is um oh no, what I want to go to now is looking at how this part got amalgamated
into section 132 right?
If we read verses 15 through 17,
you'll see how they match up perfectly with what Joseph and
Hyrum claimed the revelation was and what they both taught publicly.
Therefore, if a man marry him, a wife in the world and he marry her,
not by me nor by my word.
And he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him,
their covenant in marriage are not of force when they
are dead and when they are out of the world,
therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
See how this matches up perfectly.
Therefore, when they are out of the world, they
neither marry nor are given in marriage. There's the reference to Luke 20
but are appointed as angels in heaven as both Joseph said publicly and said,
he said in the city council meeting
are as angels in heaven,
which angels are ministering servants to minister to those who are worthy of a
are more at an exceeding and eternal weight of glory
for these angels did not abide my law.
Therefore,
they cannot be enlarged but remain separately and singly without exaltation
in their saved condition to all eternity.
And from henceforth, are not gods but are angels of God forever and ever.
And I can't know if that last part is,
you know, like Joseph, I mean, Brigham added things here and there.
But this, when I had that experience of the Lord saying which parts are from me?
Sorry.
Um That was a really profound experience I had and
I'm just remembering the confirmation when I read these verses,
that was my experience.
So now being able to nail down
that they actually we have the record to prove that

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h43m55s 00:43:55]
that's pretty profound to me.
I I'm this is this has been a really cool study to embark upon.
I also want to point out how I have talked repeatedly in previous episodes
going over how polygamy does not work scripturally
how these verses in particular throughout this entire section
are strictly and specifically monogamous.
It says repeatedly throughout this, if a man marry a wife, right?
It says it in verse 15, verse 18, verse 19 and verse 26
a man marry a wife. It is purely monogamous.
It then describes the process that the to go through as a couple together,
to progress, to exultation, to have their,
their covenant sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Right? And I
broke down in that episode, how it couldn't work in any other way.
These verses don't only,
I mean, only don't allow for polygamy or introduce polygamy.
They actually preclude polygamy because the process it describes in these verses
cannot work except one on 11 and one husband and wife,
man and woman together.
That's the only way it works. So
a completely consistent record.
And right there,
you can see how these different things were amalgamated into section 132.
I hope this is becoming more and more clear. It's pretty amazing.
Um Let's see.
Also,
the mayor said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public.
Again, we have the record. He preached it publicly on the temple stand, right?
And um and he had not taught it to the anointed in the church in private,
which many there at the meeting confirmed.
So there were many a sense that's true.
And so
this again matches up perfectly with the rest of the record.
And um Joseph Joseph's um sermon July 16th, 1844 he said,
I am bold to declare that I have taught all the strong
doctrines publicly and always stronger than what I teach in private.
Again, that's true. That's consistent.
He would have a revelation and reveal it publicly, right?
Those were strong doctrines that he taught that day when he talked about
Hiram becoming the president and the prophet and
talked about eternal marriage and talked about that.
I mean, those were strong doctrines, right?
He didn't teach him secretly,
go around and then give just like simple things in public.
That's he never did that. So it wouldn't make sense just as he said that he didn't do.
I also, well, there's one more thing I want to point out that um
let's see.
Oh again,
it would be so illogical for Joseph to be
claiming these things here in this city council meeting.
Again,
this was not a public meeting. These were not public records.
Joseph wasn't putting on a performance to try to get something.
He was seriously trying to grapple with what was happening.
There was no reason for him to be lying.
Many of the people in the city council meeting were
also would have also been in the high council meeting,
right?
They
like, why would,
why would he allow this to be preached publicly in the High Council meeting
and then just lie about it in the city council meeting.
It's so ridiculous to make these claims. It just does not make any sense.
And again, to claim that like Joseph surrounded himself,
that the people would have sent to it in
the city council because Joseph just surrounded himself by
sycophants. And yes man, that's,
that's laughable as well because it's his very own first
counselors in his first presidency.
That are the reason that he's having to deal with this at all.
Joseph absolutely did not surround himself only by yes men
who would just say whatever he wanted them to say.
Or John Bennett and William Law wouldn't have done this.
Not to mention all of the others, Sidney Rig and all of the
Oliver
cry, all of the people who, who he did not surround himself by Yes men.
He was not one who the only way you
could do that is if you have authoritarian control as
his successor did and he was surrounded by
yes men because he had authoritarian control.
So everyone
stayed in line with what he wanted.
That's not who Joseph Smith did and that's not
what Joseph Smith was about which the record makes
clear he didn't have control over other people because
he didn't seek to have control over other people.
So, oh, there's so much more I want to say, but let's just keep going. Ok
Joseph Smith said, also,
they make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on earth
while he has one in heaven according to the keys of the Holy priesthood.
And he read the statement of William Law and the expositor where the,
the truth of God was transformed into a lie. OK. This one was interesting to dig into.
So I went through and looked at law's statement
to see what Joseph would have read here.
And it's the revelation so called,
authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a
time in this world and in the world to come.
So Joseph who clearly had never seen this false revelation and he didn't know
what it was about and he was trying to make sense of it.
He connected la's
statement of having

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h48m57s 00:48:57]
more than one wife on earth and in heaven,
I think it makes the most sense. He connected it to
the claims that because
Hyrum
had a dead wife who he was sealed to
that, that somehow justified polygamy. I think that he made
that,
that's what Joseph thought law must be talking about because
Hiram's
wife to
Rusia had died.
And we have
Hiram on record extensively talking about this exact problem.
So they knew this was a problem, right?
So Joseph saying they turned the truth of God into a lie.
Eternal marriage was the truth of God.
And polygamy was the lie that they
turned it into by their willful misunderstanding.
And so, um let's, let's look into Hyrum Smith's speech that's famous
um April 8th sermon.
And I want to point out we have Thomas Bullock's record of it,
but we also have records I now have found.
Um, thank you.
I just want to thank Cheryl Klute again and
the prices for their great work because they just
like Cheryl Klute told me the chapters to read and I
read and the prices had done such great work on this.
They didn't have all of the pieces I have now because I have the Joseph Smith papers
that they didn't have and I've been able to do more work,
but they sure helped to let me see what is in the R LDS record.
And so we do have this speech recorded in,
in um
you know, not,
not extensively,
but we do have records of it in the R LDS record which interestingly,
the LDS always claimed the that were lies until now
we have the Joseph Smith papers so we can validate
and verify that the R LDS and the clue and the
um prices were correct all along. I just think that's really interesting.
So I have to give that shout out. But um
let's see, I want to read, oh, so this is the Thomas Bullock version,
Hyrum speech,
which is the one that there's still so much misunderstanding about this.
Thomas Bullock's version has been removed from the Joseph Smith's papers.
Project. The church historians under Brigham Young took Thomas Bullock's version
and altered it and changed it and adjusted it just like they did with Joseph's
journal and with the letter written to the Relief
Society and so many other things they altered it.
And that is still available on the Joseph Smith papers project.
And that altered version is what's included in
the church narrative and in the book Saints.
And it is so incredibly deceptive, I just can't even believe it.
So,
even people who I found a couple of websites
where people are trying to call out this deception,
that the,
that the Joseph Smith papers has again removed the speech,
they're again trying to make it disappear
and people don't know and, and some people are using
the altered version prepared for the church history that was
edited and claiming that that's the original Thomas Bullock version.
And it's not, we don't have a transcript of it. You have to go through the original,
like, really hard to read.
Well,
I'll show it to you the Thomas Bullock version
to try to read what the original sermon was.
So that's what I've done. And I'm going to read parts of it here.
I'm to read extensively because this is the sermon
that
Hyrum gave apparently
like eight or nine months after he read
the beautiful clear revelation 132 to Emma Smith
and then to the High Council and then
he gave this speech um nine months later. So here it is
one reason I speak to the elders is in consequence
of the 10,000 reports which come to me from abroad.
Almost every fool
man runs to me to inquire if such and such things are true.
And how many spiritual wives a man may have. I know nothing about it.
What he might call a spiritual wife. I should not know anything about
in about half an hour.
Um In, in about half an hour after he is gone, another person begins to say,
the elders tell such and such things all over the country.
I am authorized to tell you from henceforth that any man who comes,
comes in and tells any such damn fool doctrine to tell him to give up his license.
We'll talk a little bit more about licenses.
The elders were written licenses that were their approval to speak on behalf of,
you know, to do their missionary work.
None but a fool teaches such stuff.
The devil himself is not such a fool and every
elder who teaches such stuff ought to have his nose
rung and anyone found guilty of such teaching will be
published and his license will be taken from him.
I wish the elders of Israel to understand it is lawful for a man to marry a wife,
but it is unlawful to have more. And God has not commanded any of you to have more.
And if any of you dare to presume to do any such things, it will spoil your fun for.
You will never, never have the spirit of God to preach to the gospel.
I despise a man who teaches a pack of stuff that will disgrace himself.
So for a man to go into the world and to talk of this spiritual wife system, he is as,
as empty as an open

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h53m46s 00:53:46]
sepher. If the coat suits anyone, let him put it on.
I would call the devil my brother before such a man.
I know I've read this before in another episode,
but we have to read it again because it is so important.
Now, he like Joseph goes on to teach the true doctrine of eternal marriage. So
there we, here we get the truth of God after he has dispelled the lie,
the idea of marrying for eternity is the
seal of the covenant and is easily understood.
And as to speaking of it, I could make all the world believe it for.
See, that's where we get that. It's so plain. I could make anyone believe it.
It comes from this speech. Do you see what they do?
I could make all the world believe it for it is noble and grand.
It is necessary in consequence of the broken covenants in this world.
Um I read that what God, I read that what God joins together. Let no man put asunder.
When I look at the seal of the covenant, it is during the natural lives,
but it is, but it is an end there.
But what is done by the Lord has an endless duration.
No man is married in the morning of the resurrection.
But the marriage covenant must be joined by one who has authority
in order to have effect in the mourning of the resurrection.
Perfect teaching on eternal marriage, right?
Just like Joseph Smith taught and they both claimed
just like the revelation that Joseph received and that
Hiram read to the City Council.
And for anyone who wants to say, well, then why doesn't, why didn't they publish it?
Hyrum goes on to say these are not things that should be published abroad.
Like he was saying, basically, this is the temple work. Joseph said,
I can't
more of this until we have the temple finish which by the way, they never finished.
But
that's what Joseph said. And that's what Hiram says here as well.
Like this is not meant to be published abroad.
This is meant to be taught to the saints in Navoo.
And according to Joseph taught more in the temple when that was ready. I think that's
like the consistency is amazing and recognizing this
true doctrine that was taught is just beautiful.
So
Hiram continues no spiritual wife doctrine ever. Oh I lost my place.
Ever originated with me.
God Almighty has given us a plan of salvation, redemption and deliverance
and the power and authority of the Holy priesthood
under the constitution of the Almighty God.
Everything belongs to man legally and lawfully again,
they have to follow the legal laws of the land, right?
If a thing belongs to me, legally, it cannot belong to anyone.
I married me a wife. Now he's explaining the confusion
and I am the only man who has any right to her till we had five Children.
The covenant was made for our lives. She fell in the grave before God showed us his.
I think that says, answer showed us his answer.
God has showed me that the covenant is dead and had no more force.
Neither could I have her in the resurrection, but we should be angels.
It troubled me.
Brother Joseph said you can be sealed to her upon the
same principle as you can be baptized for the dead.
And it's interesting to note here.
Well, there are so many changes,
it'd be an interesting episode to go just through the changes they
made on this one's speech because it's important to recognize what they were
and what they were trying to do, right? But this was an interesting little change.
It doesn't say that Hiram could be sealed to her.
It says that she could, she, he could have her sealed to him.
It's an important difference and
apparently they couldn't be sealed together as equals.
The man is the center point and the women are the appendages that can be sealed to him,
right?
That's an interesting change right there. So anyway, we'll continue on. Hyrum
goes on in the speech to say if there is any man that
has no sense and will make any story of such a fact,
his name shall be published
and then continues.
There is a power to seal on earth and in
and in heaven how the spirit of Elijah and Elias,
I see a seal that shall never be broken
and be enforced in the morning of the resurrection.
He jokes and makes fun of polygamy.
I believe if a man has one wife and I believe if a man has one wife in his life,
that must be written funny.
And I know if I had to, I should not know what to do.
They might quarrel about me and I might get a whipping one
enough and I warn all of you not to attempt it.
If any man preach any false doctrine, I shall disgrace him.
Get the wife that God and your country let you have.
If any brother hears any person preach such stuff, wring his nose,
look out or he may be stouter than you.
So he's again making a joke.
No man would have more than one wife or they will beat
him if I was a woman and I got so fooled,
I would hide my head.
I give the sisters leave to wring his nose to, to,
to any who teach such stuff. I'll bear you out in it. Another report.
One of the R LDS ones we have said that,
that
Hiram said he would support them if they put a dagger to his heart.
So it was very strong language. In any case,
every man who knows me knows that I have taught these principles from the beginning.
We want the honest and heart, the virtuous, the noble.
We want the good seed gathered here,
let all men repent and the elders gather out the good seed and bring it to navoo.
We want you to understand that if you preach any
anything wrong, you will be published. We don't want bogus makers.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=00h58m48s 00:58:48]
That's counterfeiters like we talked about right.
Bogus makers, counterfeiters or preachers of the spiritual wife system.
He puts them all in the same category. We shall see the wicked flee.
When no man pursueth, we want you to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves,
preach principles that will stand the test of ages,
teach them good principles and save souls go forth as men of God,
be wise and you will find good friends wherever you go,
drink deep of the spirit of truth
and great and mighty work shall be, shall be rot in the world.
They are only waiting to hear the truth.
Have a well ordered life and a Godly conversation.
When thousands and tens of thousands shall flock to the standard
and go up with Zion. Why?
Because they are good souls have the knowledge of
the truth drove into you like a broadside.
I am serious in what I say and it has the power of God in it.
I wanted to read that last part because it is just so clear
how, who Hiram Smith was? How intelligent he was, what a good preacher he was.
What a good thinker he was, how clear he was in what he believed and how consistent
he both was and claimed to be right?
How can we claim that he gave this sermon after stupidly
reading that revelation to Emma and then to the High Council
cannot be the same man any more than it can be the same God
that gave us Jacob chapter two and Doctrine and covenant section 132 right?
You can just recognize the, the man who gave this sermon would not have done that.
It's impossible, right?
So anyway, this speech on its own, like each one of these points,
each one of them alone should be enough to put this all
rest. But we'll continue on. We'll go back to the city council minutes which is where
Hiram and Joseph were explaining what this was all about.
I read that to show you again how consistent their explanations are
with the record we have and thank heaven we have it.
Even though the church historians under Brigham tried so hard to bury
it and have tried to keep it buried for so long.
And so then he read the statement of Austin
calls and said that.
So that would have been Austin Cowell's affidavit and said,
he had never had any private conversation with Austin cows on these subjects.
And he repeats that he had preached on the stand from the Bible showing the order
ancient days have nothing, having nothing to do with the present time. Again,
just like we've said repeatedly, right? He preached it
on the temple stand on the day that we said we have multiple reports of it.
He's correct. He's consistent with the record. The other people aren't.
And so then
they go on and say, 00, well, let me point out this for anyone that is still claiming
that the issue that inspired the expositor and that inspired the destruction of the
expositor.
Um I just read every statement in the
city council meetings about the accusations of polygamy.
They make up three per 3.5% of the total discussion
of those two meetings dealing with the expositor.
Just so the expositor, I think it was 2.5% that anything about polygamy made up.
And in these meetings, it was 3.5% polygamy was not,
not even, was it not the central issue?
It was barely a side issue to just be brushed away. It was not a key factor at all.
So, OK,
now let's go on to some other things that we know right that we have in the record
from Brigham's speeches, his later speeches,
and Hebrew's contemporaneous journals and letters.
We know that they were deeply converted to polygamy while still in England
in 1841 and 1842.
Long before even they claimed that Joseph taught them about polygamy.
We know this as of Clayton as well, right? The episode that we did with Jeremy and so
this if, if you haven't watched recently or haven't watched, um,
oh, I have the episode written down the one, it is the one I did with Jeremy on
the Godfathers of Mormon Polygamy about Hebrew and Kimball, I I Hebrew and Brigham,
I recommend watching that one because it will give you
all of this evidence from their journals and letters and speeches
that they were deeply,
deeply converted and committed to polygamy in
England and most likely already practicing it from
all of the feet washing. Mumbo Jumbo. So anyway,
that's, that's what we already know. And so I'll give you a few quotes.
This is Brigham Young June 21st, 1874.
It is now recorded in the complete discourses volume five page 1101.
Interestingly,
this was included by the prices because it was written by some R LDS writers.
Um Briggs who I quoted earlier,
I think it was his brother Jason Briggs included it in a paper that he wrote
and the LDS just pooh poohed it and said that's not a real quote.
Now, we know that it is Right.
So we need to take the R LDS quotes and claims their
history a little more seriously and give it a little more credibility because
so far they have proven to be more credible as we can
these things up with the actual sources. So this is what Brigham Young's taught
while we were in England.
I think the Lord manifested to me by visions and
by his spirit things that I did not then understand.
Joseph had never mentioned this.
There had never been a thought of it in the church that I knew anything
about at the time when I returned home and Joseph revealed these things to me.
I then understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England.
But this was not until after I had told him what I understood.
This was in 1841 the revelation was given in
1843 but the doctrine was revealed before this.
Ok. Do you, are you catching on? Right, Brigham Young, like
just can't stand it, not,
not getting to get the credit for the doctrine that he should get the credit for it,
right?
Um This is what he said to Skyler

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h04m33s 01:04:33]
Colfax, the soon to be Vice President of the United States.
Kofax recorded this conversation with Brigham Young in his journal on June 17th,
1867 while he was visiting Utah.
Brigham Young brought up polygamy and said that
the revelations of the doctrine and covenants declared for monogamy.
But that polygamy was a later rev revelation commanded
to God commanded by God to him to Brigham
and a few others and permitted and advised to the to the rest of the church.
So this is what um Brigham is telling Skyler
Colfax, right? And
unless,
unless someone wants to claim that Skyler Colfax had some motivation to lie
about what Brigham told him in his conversation that it recorded that evening.
So, ok, anyway, I don't want to spend too much time here. There is so much more.
I recommend watching those episodes. I might do more on this at some point,
but there is a long and extensive record that we have of polygamy showing up
long from these men long before they claim
that Joseph said anything about it and recall,
we have all of these records from them, right?
Contemporaneous letters
and journal entries and the later admissions,
we have nothing like that from Joseph Smith, right?
There's nothing it would have shown up somewhere.
And so, um
ok, let's go on to what else we know.
We also know that there was premeditation for a polygamy revelation in
Nauvoo.
Um
Clayton's story that it was recorded spontaneously simply because Hyrum
begged Joseph for it so that he could show Emma
is highly problematic
um when considered with many of these other evidences.
So let's go into a couple of these things according to Martha Brotherton.
And again, there's question about that because it only comes through John Bennett,
right?
So
if we want to take it,
it's everyone's own decision whether to think the
Martha Brotherton story is reliable or not.
But according to her story,
Brigham had her locked in a room and after propositioning
um propositioning her
said brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for
a man to have two wives for as it was in the days of Abraham.
So it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first
that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessing.
And if you will accept of me, I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom.
And if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come.
Ok? That's interesting. None of this was included in any of um
the affidavits, right of what whatever those men claim to have seen.
So these are new hints we get into new, new insights, we get
that show up and make their way into 132 where as the days of Abraham and
right that it's anyway,
all of there are some more pieces here and this was in 1842 this was published in 1842.
So it was before
the revelation was written down that Brigham Young had it memorized,
had it like word for word well enough to be using it in his attempted seductions.
Right. Like Joseph hadn't written it down.
So how did Brigham Young have it memorized?
Well enough to be able to use against Martha Brotherton and to claim that it existed.
I think that that's interesting. And
you know, if Brigham Young didn't need it written down in order to convince women,
why did Hiram need it written down?
Why couldn't he just go convince Emma without having the actual rebel?
How is the revelation being written down
going to help him? Right.
And so anyway,
this is just more evidence that there were claims of this revelation from Joseph.
And I don't know when,
what parts of it were written down if they were or if
it was all just going around in the rumors and the claims.
But there were claims to be these revelations from this revelation from
Joseph Smith that was going around and being used by the polygamists
in Joseph's name falsely. And while we asking why
Hiram would have needed the revelation written down when Brigham Young, didn't,
we should also ask, why would
Hiram do this at all anyway? Right.
Why would we just heard him speak and heard how intelligent he is?
Why would this like brilliant man
do something
this ridiculous? Right.
Hey, Joseph, I know,
I know it's just so plain and beautiful that Emma
will totally be fine with you secretly behind her back,
sleeping with all of her best friends and
sleeping with the orphan girls and the servant girls living in your home that
you guys are raising as your own daughters and all the rest of it.
She'll be totally fine. If only she can read the revelation
that will make it, make complete sense.
As soon as she sees that God is threatening her with destruction,
she's just going to love it.
Right.
So, you write it down and I'm going to go over to Emma's little house.
They were living at the homestead this time. It's only that little um
section, the rest of it was added much later.
It's a tiny little house, less than 288 square feet.
That is smaller than most official tiny homes.
Now, it's smaller than most small studio apartments. Right.
That's how big Emma's home was where she was
living with her and Joseph's four living Children.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h09m42s 01:09:42]
Also. Lucy. Joseph's mother was now an invalid and had moved in.
And according to these claims that I now am realizing I have
to dig into and see if there's any validity to them.
They had at least two sets of sisters living with them,
plus another servant and another girl with her three siblings.
I, I'm not seeing it in this tiny little home, but in any case,
this would have been right at lunch time.
One of em,
Emma's busiest times trying to get lunch for
all of her Children stopping in from school.
Right. For taking care of Lucy
like moms and in this day and age would have been extreme
busy. Moms of pig families get it.
Now when you're racing and trying to get everything done and, you know,
interruptions can be difficult.
Right.
So Hyrum chooses this time of day to go over to this tiny house where
Emma is where all of those people would have been there because it was lunch time
and take at least 20 to 25 minutes to
read this revelation at her where she is threatened,
threatened with destruction.
Right?
And then strange,
none of these people on the middle of this busy day witnessed this in their home.
All of the people that would have been there.
No one noticed this happening, especially like let's consider.
Well, Hiram claims that Emma gave him, you know that she was.
Clayton says that she was very rebellious.
Hiram says that she gave him the worst talking to he'd ever had in his life.
I wonder why if he was read. She, if she, if he actually read this incredibly
manipulative and threatening revelation, right?
The oh, so here's some more information on the home. It was a 16 by 18 Foundation
and there would have been that many people. And here's what it says
that she had her rebellious
Clayton at another time, calls it a temper tantrum where someone does
where because she was so bitter and full of resentment and anger. She gave hymn
the most severe talking to he had ever received in his life.
This is who, um, William Clayton paints
Emma
and
Hiram to be, this is how he, the, the, the characters that he gives us. Right.
And again, that tiny little house,
there's no witness of it. Even Lucy, who was an invalid living in this home.
These, this wouldn't have been like
soundproofed walls even if it was big enough
288 square feet on the main floor plus 288
square feet for bedrooms upstairs.
Right? Where could this have happened?
And, and how could Emma have been interrupted in the middle of her day?
And if this happened, what would it have done to her?
She would be like, think, think women, right?
You're going to divorce your husband because he's doing
this and now your brother in law comes over
and does this too. You would be like shaking and crying the entire day.
You would need to talk to someone about it. Right.
At the very least,
the only mother you had your very sweet mother
in law who you were incredibly close to so close
that you spent the rest of your life living with her and take the rest of her life,
living with her and taking care of her, right?
She was the only mother Emma had and the mother of the, the dorks doing this to you,
right?
You would absolutely
like someone would have seen this happening if it could have happened.
The whole thing is just completely impossible. But,
you know, we go on to, um, like, like their marriage was so on the,
on the rocks that Joseph was going to give her
all of the property to keep her from divorcing him.
But she's just fine. It just goes on making lunch. Nobody sees this happening
and
Hiram did this
to her and yet, like,
really think that what that would have done to their relationship, right?
How think of how Emma responded to polygamists
both during Joseph's life and after his death,
Emma was not a shrinking violence. She was violent.
She was not afraid to speak her mind very
plainly as we have repeated evidence of her doing.
And yet
the baby that she gives birth to after her husband dies, she names after
Hiram,
Joseph was getting ready to leave. He was on his horse and felt uncertain.
So went back in and gave Emma a blessing and told her
name the baby. David.
Emma said, what if it's a girl? And Joseph said, name him David.
And so that's the only instruction that Joseph gave her Emma on her own,
named him David Hyrum.
After her brother in law,
this didn't happen. It didn't happen,
but even that's not all it goes on. It gets better. Despite Emma's furious reaction,
Hiram apparently still thought, well,
it didn't work with Emma but it's still so plain that of course,
the High Council will just love it.
Right.
So I'll read it to them even though it's supposed to be top secret. Right.
So a month later he does it again.
Oh, and I'll just keep it in my pocket and start showing it all around town.
Just everyone promised that you won't tell anyone
else and won't show it to anybody else.
Right. We have all of these later claims of Hiram showed it to me.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h14m34s 01:14:34]
Hiram brought it to me. Joseph gave it to me. Right?
Really? Like how idiotic do we think Hiram had to be like, really think of this story?
We we believe Hiram is a complete idiot. Does it make sense?
Is there any other record in his life that he was this big of an idiot?
No, he was the most educated and according to some, the most intelligent
of these,
this highly intelligent family. So
it's just ridiculous that we believe this, you know, I would say
Hyrum and Joseph weren't the ones that were idiots in all of this.
And you know, speaking of when I just said that it threatens Emma with destruction,
wouldn't that be a juicy tidbit to include
in your affidavit if you read this revelation
that literally threatened the prophet's wife with destruction
repeatedly if she didn't go along with it,
wouldn't you include that wouldn't especially Jane, a woman who did say that it,
it told women that they would be under condemnation if they didn't go along with it
under condemnation doesn't quite have the same ring as
destroyed, that you will be destroyed. Right? What woman would read? Section 132.
And in summarizing it wouldn't include the parts about being
destroyed and about Joseph's wife
specifically being threatened with destruction.
If she didn't go along.
It comes, it's in like verse 53 and later it's very close to the end.
That's something that I think would stick with you and that you
would want to include in an affidavit if it had been there,
right?
That's why I'm saying.
I think there were different things that were added over time,
different parts and pieces brought together
as they got the all of the part. Like now they knew the austin
cells affidavit and they needed to work that in.
They had all like you can see it all
being amalgamated and leaving their footprints all over it.
That's what makes sense. Not William Clayton's ridiculous story. OK. But
I'm digressing. Let's get back into it.
So we've gone over the Mar the Brotherton account and we have more than that.
Um This is an even less reliable account
because this is only from Bennett.
It's the um it was published in the
Sangamo
Journal and it's the happiness letter, right? It's um
like, let's see.
Oh, and interestingly, I did want to point this out, this happiness letter from the
Sammo journal from John Bennett was included in the church history.
Hiram's speech was excluded many other things we'll get into that
were newspaper articles published and different things were also excluded.
But John Bennett single journal article was included in the church history,
I guess because it told the right story, right?
It was part of the new order of things
and the right narrative like think how unbelievable that is
that Hiram Smith is scrubbed from the church history while John Bennett
with his testimony of traitors is included.
That's an interesting thing to consider.
So we have um this happiness letter and I'll just read this little section of it and,
and I will say looking into this was interesting,
we have no record of this other than what John Bennett printed in the newspaper.
He claims that it was in the writing.
Well, John Bennett claims claims it was in the writing of Apostle William Richards.
I have to assume he means Willard Richards.
And um but, and so that's why people say it's in his writing, but we don't have it.
We don't have anything. All we have is this letter, right? And
all of this is really confusing.
Nancy Rigdon was dating one of the C was dating one of the immoral Higby brothers.
And so
there are all kinds of,
I
don't know where I guess what I'm saying is this story had to go through a
lot of very not credible people in order to come to us as we have it.
So I don't know what you want to do with it. But it did include this sentence,
even things which might be considered abominable to all who
do not understand the order of heaven only in part,
but which in reality were right because
God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.
There it is again, the special polygamy revelation,
the Super secret special revelation, right?
I think that um let's see,
this mentions the special revelation that this letter several times,
but it doesn't give any details again, no dates, no details.
It's the pattern of the polygamists.
They're just like they twist Jacob 230 to say God's laws are firm
unless right, unless God changes his mind. Like someone says there's that.
But in 230 no, there's not the polygamous mindset is
you follow God's laws unless he tells you something different.
That's the pattern we keep, we see repeatedly come through the polygamist.
I can't find it anywhere from Joseph Smith. So and then we'll go on to one more.
I'm Catherine Lewis tells a similar story
in her narrative which is more credible because
it's more reliable because it doesn't come through Bennett.
She published it herself. This is what she said.
I was still strong in the faith until the plurality of wives was taught.
I from the first mention of it opposed it and
told the elder it was the doctrine of the devil.
Again, the elders, right?
But was sharp, sharply rebuked by one of the elders who said,
ought we not to receive everything, Joseph Saith,
no, said I, Joseph is a man and subject to like passions as ourselves. So again,
in Joseph's name said the elder,
this is a direct revelation immediately from heaven.
So there it is, again,
it keeps showing up this secret polygamy

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h19m54s 01:19:54]
revelation or these multiple secret polygamy revelations,
who knows how many versions there might have been
that keep being alluded to and
referred to that shows the premeditation of the polygamist that they had
or needed a revelation from Joseph that taught their polygamy long before.
Section 132 was ever written down.
So what should be clear by this point is that
there was a polygamist underground going around in Nauvoo very possibly
more than one because we know there was the John
Bennett with the Hig BS and who knows who else.
Um And then there was this one with Brigham Young
Heber C Kimball William Clayton and who knows who else?
Just as there were multiple counterfeiting rings.
I'll link a video below again where um
a historian talks about the multiple counterfeiting rings.
There might have been multiple polygamy rings
and the claim is that um people want, people say, well, if this was happening,
clearly, Joseph knew about it,
but I think the evidence strongly supports that he actually didn't know about,
he was so trusting in people that he didn't know that this was happening. Um
I want to say about this.
Um, Brigham and Hebrew and Clayton Ring,
it seems to have been galvanized in England,
which we've talked about before and then really kind of
grown from there when they returned from their mission.
So it happened not while they were in
Nauvoo by Joseph and
Hyrum. It happened when they were out on their own on their missions.
That's when they really got into this and they brought it back into NAVOO.
And um that, that's part of the evidence that Joseph and Hyrum weren't involved.
It didn't come from them or through them, right? It came
underground beneath them and came at them.
So, OK, now,
in addition to all of the evidences from the outside claims
that we've just talked about from these testimonies of these three women
will note that and, and just like, again,
I'll say that just like Robert Foster's accusation of will
against Willard Richards that it was him propositioning his wife.
These were all against the elders.
There's nothing about Joseph Smith in them, right?
And so other than the Martha Brotherton
Hyrum Brigham bringing her, I mean, bringing her to Joseph Smith,
which I went over in another episode.
People who want to make fun of that,
you explain all of these things and come up with a better
explanation and I will be curious to hear what it is.
So, um OK,
people want to claim that all of this
was duplicitous and hypocritically done by Joseph and
Hyrum
to cover their tracks and that nobody was really in trouble unless they got caught.
That was really the only crime
that there was in polygamy getting caught.
So that is ludicrous for so many, so many reasons.
I won't take the time to go into all of them right now.
I'm hoping you can figure them out, we can talk about them later if not just ask,
but
show me any source or any evidence for any of that.
Show me anyone who says that that's really what the issue was. Show me any um
any letter or document, anything from Joseph or
Hyrum or anyone else saying no, this is what you did wrong, right?
Like you, it's so easy to make up these claims and say no,
it was super secret and this is what it really was.
But can you at least recognize how highly speculative that
is and problematic because there's not a shred of evidence
to support it and all of the evidence
that we're pointing out completely contradicts it.
So we've just gone over some of the evidence
that came from outside of the church. The testimonies of these three women who left
evidence of this underground polygamy ring happening.
Now, we're going to look at evidence that comes from inside the church,
from Joseph and
Hyrum themselves, right?
And,
and their reaction to it and what they tried to do
to end it to put it down just like William Marks
testified of and I know
people, people, if they are aware of these, um, all of this evidence,
they will claim, well, Joseph and Hyrum were just doing that,
duplicitous and hypocritically
they, they were just doing it to cover their tracks and they,
they will claim that the real problem wasn't
polygamy and, and spiritual wifey. The real problem was getting caught.
So that's why Joseph and Hyrum would excommunicate someone or kick them out.
It's because they got caught, they weren't secret enough about it. Ok.
That is so ludicrous for so many reasons. I won't even go into all of them.
But first of all, how can you get anyone involved if you don't tell them about it?
Right? How could
Hiram have read it to the High Council?
But then said, no, the problem is getting caught. Is it not being kept secret?
It's so so ridiculous and, and dumb. But, but in addition to that,
I want people to acknowledge to acknowledge how highly speculative that is, right?
Can you show me one piece of evidence anywhere from
Joseph getting mad at someone for not being secretive enough or
Hiram for like show me anything like to,
to nail this down. Give me any piece of evidence to claim that this is true, right?
Otherwise
you were just speculating and how easy would it be
to make up any story about anyone and say,
oh, well, they had to keep it secret so they could I mean,

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h24m52s 01:24:52]
really, we need some evidence. We need something better, better than that.
Please be willing to look at it honestly.
So these are the, I just,
this is also just a small portion of the efforts that Joseph and Hyrum went to,
to try to end polygamy.
There's a lot more than this, but this episode is already long.
So, OK, this is from Times and Seasons. February 1st 1844.
This is what they printed as we have
lately been credibly informed that an elder of the
church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
by the name of Hiram Brown has been preaching
me and other faults and corrupt doctrines in the in the county of Lapira
State of Michigan.
This is to notify him and the church in general that
he has been cut off from the church for his iniquity.
And so that right there, they're not only excommunicating them,
they are publicly excommunicating them saying, hey, no, if you do this,
just like just like Hyrum said in his talk, you're gonna get cut off.
It's not gonna work, it's not gonna happen. Right?
Then we have March 15th. They had this published in um
in,
in the newspaper to the brethren of the church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints living on China Creek in Hancock County.
Greetings.
Whereas Brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today to know
my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place.
And states to me that some of your elders say that a man having a certain priesthood
may have as many wives as he pleases.
And that, and, and that doctrine is taught here,
I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine.
For there is no such doctrine taught here. Neither is any such thing practiced here.
And any man that is found teaching privately or pub
publicly,
any such doctrine is culpable and will stand a chance to be
brought before the High Council and lose his license and mem membership.
So, ok, remember that's repeated again by
Hyrum in his April 8th speech. So it just keeps happening, right?
That just like Hyrum speech was not included in church history.
All of these things were edited out, they didn't want any record of it, right?
So let's go on. This is April 11th, 1844 to the elders abroad.
We very frequently receive letters from
elders and individuals abroad inquiring of us
whether certain statements that they hear and have written to them are true.
Some pertaining to John C Bennett.
Bennett's spiritual wife system,
others in regard to immoral conduct practiced
by individuals and sanctioned by the church.
And as it is possible as, as it is impossible for us to answer all of them,
we take this opportunity of answering them all once and for all
in the first place, we cannot but express our surprise.
I'm skipping ahead because it's long since every our surprise since every
species of iniquity is spoken against and exposed publicly at the stand
and every means made use of that possibly can be to suppress vice,
both religious and civil.
Not only so,
but every species of iniquity has frequently been exposed in the times and seasons
and as practicer and advocates held up to the
world as corrupt men that ought to be avoided.
So they can't believe they're surprised that people
would ask this question or believe it.
We are however, living in the last days a time when it is declared, if it is possible,
the very elect should be deceived.
I want to pause on that for a minute because people spell that at me saying, look,
the very elect are being deceived,
are being deceived into believing that polygamy was not of God.
Can you see how Joseph and
Hyrum Smith used it?
They said the very elect will be deceived by the
doctrine of polygamy that's worth pausing on and pointing out.
Right.
Let's really open up our minds to what it could
mean that the elect can be deceived by false doctrines.
Are we aligned with Joseph Smith and Hiram Smith or not?
I think that's worth worth thinking about it continues.
We have in our midst,
corrupt men who circulate corrupt principles
and spread their pernicious influence abroad.
Such men not unfrequently go abroad and prey upon the f dully of the people.
There are other men who are corrupt and sensual and who
teach corrupt principles for the sake of gratifying their sensual appetites
and at the at the expense and ruin of virtue and innocence,
such men ought to be avoided as pests to society and to
be frowned down with contempt by every virtuous man and woman.
They are reprobate concerning the faith. If they write, they write corruptly.
If they speak, they speak correctly.
They are high and lifted up and would trample
upon the humble and the meek and the unassuming
and are not afraid to teach for the commandments of God,
their own corrupt and devilish doctrines and principles.
Let no man therefore, but be deceived by them.
Let no man harbor them nor bid them God speed. Don't be partakers of their evil deeds.
If any man writes to you or preaches to you doctrines, contrary to the Bible,
the book of Mormon or the book of Doctrine and covenants set him down as an impostor.
There. It is again, the teaching that we,
we, we follow the commandments given in the scriptures.
You need not write us to know what you are to do with such men.
You have authority with them,
try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God.
If they preach or teach or practice contrary to that dis fellowship them,
cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h29m55s 01:29:55]
And if they are belonging to any of the quorums in the church
report them to the president of the quorum to which they belong.
If you cannot find that out.
If they are members of an official standing belonging to NAVOO, report them to us.
Follow after purity, virtue, holiness, integrity, godliness,
and everything that has a tendency to exalt and ennoble the human mind
and shun every man who teaches any other principles.
Do you see the consistent record that they are laying down? Right.
It's exactly the same thing except that it was scrubbed from church history.
That's interesting.
So, um ok, there are so many other
other things we could read the entire purpose of the Relief Society,
the voice of innocent,
so many other sermons of Joseph Smith, their fight goes on and on and on.
So there, there is just this catalog, the more I study,
the more clear the picture becomes and I think
that would happen for anyone who really will start
investigating these claims.
So from the information we have gone over so far,
the following things should be clear first that there was a true
revelation on eternal marriage inspired by jesus' statement in Luke chapter 20
that
in the resurrection, they neither are married nor are given in marriage.
And that Joseph taught multiple times in public just as he said, he did.
And that Hiram read to the High Council
and that parts of that
are included in section 132. That should be pretty clear.
The next thing that I hope is clear is that there were underground polygamy
who falsely used Joseph's name just as John Bennett had done
and claimed to have a revelation at least one revelation in his name
that included many of the elements that we also now find in
section 132 but that we have no record of Joseph teaching anywhere.
And then the third thing that should be clear is that
Joseph and Hyrum are both on record consistently with no exceptions,
trying in every possible
way to put down polygamy to make it
extraordinarily clear that it had no connection to
them or to the gospel and to warn
members from believing anything they heard about it,
no matter who said it, those are the things that we should know at this point, right?
OK. And, but, but that's not all it goes on, it gets better from here.
So remember the only,
I hope that people are still watching
um
send, send it to um starting at this point if anyone
thought this was too long and stopped,
like share it with them and tell them to keep watching from here.
OK. The only
reason that we connect 132 to Joseph Smith at
all is because of William Clayton's story of how it
came about which he told over 30 years later
in his 1871 letter and his 1840 74 affidavit.
So I need to do an entire episode on
William Clayton's affidavit because there is so much.
In fact,
I desperately am hoping, I'm hoping that Brian Hills will come back on
and talk to me just about William
Clayton's affidavit. And then we can go through it piece by piece. So, if anyone has
a connection, that's, well, maybe I'll invite him back on.
I'm not sure if he'll say yes, but I think it would be great.
I really, really hope he will because I think it would be a valuable exercise.
So, um,
anyway, but let's for now, just look into a couple little piece
of it. These are just a few things that we can look into.
There's so much more and we can just see how well it holds up.
So, like I said, I'm ignoring things like his claim that Hiram really wanted the
and Thummim
when they didn't even have the
thummim
and um, many other things like that that should just make it, you know,
that should just exclude it from credibility from the beginning.
We'll, we'll go into a couple of other things. We'll, we'll ignore that. So he says
going to read just little parts of it.
He says on the morning of the 12th of July,
1843 Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office
in the upper story of the brick store,
they were talking on the subject of plural marriage.
So Joseph and Hyrum were freely just talking about
plural marriage as they were walking through this building.
Right.
And as they went into the office, he goes on to make it clear that, you know,
this was a super secret topic of polygamy, but that's ok
because they were all alone on the upper floor. Clayton makes that quite clear.
There were no other people around
and it's very clear that for the entire three hours
that Clayton claims it took to write it down,
plus whatever time it took, either Joseph and
Hiram together,
depending on which version of Clayton's were going to
with either Joseph and he going together or,
um, Clayton's later version
that
Hyrum went alone and he and Joseph stayed alone together
in that upper store. So that's maybe another hour for him to go harass Emma with it.
Right.
So, for that entire time, there was not a single interruption.
They were in complete peace and quiet and solitude
for, um, for that entire morning. Right.
So, first of all, let's just get into this a little bit.
Anybody who has been the president of any organization

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h34m54s 01:34:54]
knows how rare it is to have alone time without interruption
an entire morning without a phone call or someone knocking on your door or an email.
That's what that would equate to in our world or, you know, even a parent.
Like, how often do you even get to go to the bathroom alone? Right.
People need things when you're in charge of things.
And Joseph was in charge of a lot of things.
He was not only the president of the church, he was the mayor of the city.
So he and he was in charge of all of the land trans
transactions because he was at that point, the
trust, the interest, right?
He was in charge of all other business.
He was the prophet of God and the minister to all of the people.
He was also a husband and a father.
He would have been one of the most in demand people in all of history.
It would be hard to compete with how many things he was
in charge of responsible for and how many people would need him.
And
remember Emma talks about how difficult it was
to ever have uninterrupted time with him.
She mentions for example that she never liked it when he worked in the garden because
everything would get trampled by all of the
people coming who needed to talk to Joseph.
But
that entire morning magically,
there was nobody that needed anything and there was
nobody even in the upper floor of the building.
So
this also is the red brick store. So I have the prices to think for a lot of this.
I had to do a lot of work to track things down.
They have a couple of their sources wrong, but I was able to find them thankfully.
And this, this was, this was fun to get into. So
this was the busiest place in town where, um,
all church and city business was transacted.
Right. It doubled as the church headquarters,
the city building, the,
and, and the store, the central store. Right. This was everything, the store.
So here, here's the building, I'll show it to you.
It was on a 40 by 23 ft foundation with a large staircase.
So, only about 900 square feet on each level. A little over.
It was just about three times bigger than Emma and Joseph's tiny homestead
home before they moved into the mansion house when this all happened.
Right.
And you can see in the floor plan, the bottom floor had the mercantile floor,
the store and the counting room, which was the bank, right?
And then the upper floor had the large assembly room,
which was where they had their church meetings.
It also doubled as the church house at this point, right?
And then there were the two tiny little offices, Joseph Smith's office.
One is Martin as the store room, right?
So that's where um William Clayton claims they were
that there was no one in the assembly room,
no one in the store room,
no one. And this is where they would have done all of the land deeds.
All tiding would have been paid
all. Um Oh, it was so much more. I have a list but um
um records made all of the licenses given by when the elders needed licenses.
We, we'll get into that a little bit and on and on and on.
Any official church or city or financial business had to be done
in these,
in these little offices. This is where all of it was, was done.
Also, it's where all of the church records were kept.
So Nauvoo was one of the fastest growing cities in
all of Illinois and not only with all church and
city business and land business done, but also at this time,
Willard Richards and WW Phelps would have been
employed full time in those offices every day,
writing the history of the church.
That's where they were working, right?
Plus we know from the records that I found some records that show that
the city recorder James Sloan was also there and who knows who else?
So this idea that they were there alone is already dead in the water. They weren't.
But you know that, that maybe everyone was sick
that day. Like
what are we going to come up with now?
So anyway, we can see
that we have because of the Joseph Smith papers,
we can see the official business that was transacted that
day and it actually was a pretty busy day.
In addition to the revelation being received in the morning,
we have three licenses for elders being written.
Most days have like two, maybe
three entries on average. There are some with more, some without any.
But this day had seven entries written which is a pretty busy day.
So three of them were the licenses for elders and then we had the revelation.
Then this is interesting.
There were two very big and very important land deeds that were written this day.
One is the very well known landy to Emma for 10th. Well, to Emma and her Children,
$10,000 that if my counting was correct,
I was doing this really late at night last night, but
they were deeded 563 lots.
And so I think a, a block is four lots.
So the deed gave them 563 lots for Emma and her Children for $10,000.
That land deed was transacted.
William Clayton claimed it was to keep Emma from divorcing Joseph Smith.
Ok. Again, I've mentioned it before
when a wife threatens to divorce a husband, the husband doesn't say, oh,
then let me give you not only all of my property
but all of the property of the church and the city.
And
right now now you can divorce me.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h39m55s 01:39:55]
It's so dumb.
A man would protect himself,
not just give everything to his wife if she was wanting to divorce him.
Right? And,
and not to mention when in this busy day,
did they have time to come up with that and to get it done?
We've gone into that before, but there's a lot more to go into.
But that wasn't the only land deed that was transacted that
day there was a much lesser known but equally important one to
Hiram
also for $10,000 deed became over 100 96 acres and 54 lots.
Hm. That's interesting.
I wonder if Hyrum was going to divorce Joseph
too and Joseph was trying to keep him happy,
or is it possible that there's a different explanation for
both of these very similar land deeds for the same
amount of money one granted to Emma and her Children,
one granted to
Hiram for on the very same day,
maybe that's something we should consider.
And I will get into that when we do our episode on
land deeds. So that's a good thing to note.
But there's more, it gets better because guess what?
One day before on July 11th,
a school opened in the assembly hall like you can't make this stuff up.
It's like the Lord is just leaving us all of these golden
nuggets to find everywhere to help in this because this gets ridiculous.
William Clayton claimed they were all alone.
We've already shown how impossible that was.
But this is the best part of all a school
that according to other records had 30 Children in it
was in session their second day of school. These were wooden steps and wood
benches and wooden chairs and tables, right?
It would have been so noisy with all of
these kids excited on their second day of school.
Plus the coal there,
the teachers would all have been there in the assembly hall right
next to the tiny offices that would have had the church recorders,
the, um, the historians, the, all of the business being done,
all of this would have been happening
this morning that William Clayton claims that they had all to themselves,
silence and solitude.
I think this is just delightful to when I had
to look through several newspapers to find this actual announcement,
but it's just beautiful and so fun.
And there's more, this school was so loud that they eventually get kicked out.
A few months later, there are so many complaints that Willard Richards tells them,
tells Joseph that he has to tell them that they
have to leave because they can't do their work.
It's way too distracting to have the school there. So
that, that's like Joseph says, we need the room back. This is not working.
That's how chaotic this this was the morning that
William Clayton claimed that the revelation was received.
Ok?
I hope that people are really hearing this and considering it, these are big things,
right?
As we've said, it's hard to tell good lies.
It's hard to tell.
Like truth has a way of just coming out eventually when we
get access to all of the records as we have now.
So yet again,
what we've already laid out should be more
than enough to disprove this entire thing,
but there's more so we're gonna keep going on.
So, um going back to Clayton's now, I hope we can see it as amusing account.
I think we should all just read William Clayton with a little smile and a little pat
on the head from now on for the poor little man trying to tell his big stories.
But anyway,
um this is, he goes on after saying that,
um Hyrum received that terrible talking to and he came back and Joseph said,
you don't know Emma like I do,
Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket and they both left the office.
The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day.
Again, can we pause and ask when, how, how did this happen?
You can look and see in Joseph's journal that he had several other what we call
journal that he had several other appointments throughout that day.
There were all of these transactions that you be done.
He had to work everything out with Emma, right? So
in, in Clayton's version,
the like the revelation was the only thing happening that day.
And this incredibly busy bustling city with Joseph Smith who had
all of these responsibilities and a marriage on the rocks.
But you know, he, I mean,
he had to go figure out with her somehow how they could make the land transaction,
solve the problem according to one version of Clayton's and anyway on and on and on.
But
they,
they spent the rest of the day showing
the revelation to other important church officials.
And then um he goes on to say, well, and then he explains that that evening.
Um
um Bishop Whitney asked if he could have a copy of me made and, and
Kingsbury made a copy that evening,
which according if you put all of those records together,
Kingsbury claims that took him under an hour, which is interesting.
I dare anyone to try to copy section 132
in perfect penmanship in under an hour even in bad penmanship.
And um
and, and, but it is, if you look at Kingsbury's copy,
you think that was made in under an hour.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h44m56s 01:44:56]
But then
um Helen Mar
Kimball claims that her
husband Horace Whitney made in made a copy of it in winter quarters
and she says it took him the entire day and into the night.
So all of these things are interesting.
There's so much more I want to get into, but I have to just stay on task. So,
ok, anyway,
two or three days,
this is going back to Clayton's record two
or three days after the revelation was written,
Joseph related to me and several others that
Emma had so teased and urgently entreated him.
Just listen to him. Always getting these digs in against Emma.
She had so teased and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it
that he became so weary of her teasing and to get rid of her annoyance,
he told her she might destroy it
and she had done so,
but he had consented to her wish in this matter, to pacify her,
realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly and
could rewrite it at any time if necessary.
So, ok, there's that right?
So less than two or three days after it was
received or two or three days after it was received,
Joseph told Kingsbury that he had let Emma destroy it,
but it didn't matter because he could write it down any time.
And then he goes on to say the copy made by Joseph C.
Kingsbury was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney.
And but few knew of its existence until winter quarters in 1846 right?
And then we get the claims about Brigham keeping
it hidden in his desk all those years,
his desk that
hadn't even crossed the plains because he hadn't
yet crossed the plains and he hadn't built
his office and he hadn't ordered his desk and had it shipped across the plains,
which then he had to put it in. But apparently
the revelation was just sitting in his desk all
of those years since it was first copied by,
since he first got it in winter quarters from Bishop Whitney, apparently, right.
So let's get back to the important part of this, right? There are
the revelation according.
So Clayton is the authoritative source that we rely
on for all of our information about polygamy.
So we should listen to him when he says
that and,
and Brigham repeats over the stand and
everyone knows that Emma destroyed the revelation.
And Clayton lets us know that she just, that Joseph,
that she destroyed it in less than two or three days after it was received.
Right?
So that made me start thinking
if Emma destroyed the only known copy and the other copy
was just secretly kept safe and nobody knew about it.
What exactly did Hiram
have to go across the street to get and bring back to read to the High Council
as Tommy Boy would say. Hm, that's a mystery, right?
What was it that
Hyrum read?
What was it that the law that Hyrum brought to the laws that they kept overnight?
What revelation did they have to make their affidavits affidavits based on,
if we're relying both on William Clayton
and on the laws and the cows to all be telling the truth, someone explain this to me.
Clayton tells us the revelation was destroyed
and yet Hiram
read it
and
the laws kept it and, and, oh, I really,
really wanted to go into all of the claims about
the affidavit going through the Temple Lot is hysterical,
going through
the um testimonies given there,
but I had to limit it because it's already really long.
But hopefully, I, I just want to do another episode on
just the Temple Lot claims about section 132 about the manuscript.
They are delightful. It's so fun to read them. If you really want to be amused,
you can spend hours just laughing at the storm at these people telling their story.
It's really, really funny. So,
anyway, I think that's a valid question right there.
Can someone please explain that to me? Who are we disbelieving
in what part of it and why?
And based on what,
how do you justify picking and choosing what
you believe from all of these different people
when we have a consistent record?
A
Joseph and
Hiram's version gives us a consistent record that
stands up with all of the contemporaneous evidence,
stands up with all of the hard evidence, like no Children,
no records or notes or letters or journal entries anywhere, right?
It is consistent all the way through everything else is a giant mass
of lies that should be so obvious and so clear to anybody.
So
there, there's the next piece according to Clayton,
the revelation was destroyed before July 15th.
So exactly someone needs to tell me exactly what Hiram would have
had to show all around town and to read on August 12th.
I I will, I will look forward to hearing your responses.
So now that hopefully we have proven
that Clayton's entire claim is utterly impossible.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h49m42s 01:49:42]
I won't even say implausible. I will say impossible.
He can't have been telling the truth.
We can go on to look at what evidence we can find of what was the truth
and what actually did happen.
So again, I'll remind you, Brigham Young had the revelation kept safely in his law
to desk until August 1852 18 52/8 years after Joseph's death
and five years after settling in Brigham Young in, in Utah,
Brigham Young called a special conference where the revelation,
the secret polygamy revelation that we've been hearing
about from the elders all of these years in
Nauvoo.
It was finally revealed for the very first time.
And here's his explanation of where it came from.
This revelation has been in my possession many years and who has known it?
None but those who should know it.
I keep a patent lock on my desk and there does not anything leak out that should not.
So it's funny because apparently a few things leaked out that Brigham
didn't want to leak out that he didn't intend to have leaked.
Jason Briggs made a serious study of the claims of Joseph's polygamy.
He's the one that wrote the paper that I'll link to. It's called
um the basis of Brimm
polygamy, a criticism upon the so called Revelation of July 12th, 1843.
And so in that paper where he studied this in depth,
he reported that WW Phelps said from the stand,
speaking about the secret polygamy revelation,
we were some 10 and 10 or 12 days in writing it. I wrote some of it.
So he's quoting
WW Phelps as accidentally oops letting the cat out of the bag.
Now, if anyone wants to in these sources, I'm using here,
um write them off because they're R LDS.
Again, I want to restate what I stated before.
They were right on all of their sources that we
have since verified that we were saying they're wrong on.
So I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt
and also see what seems to make sense. So that's the first piece.
And then, um,
and then I do want to say this, this is sometimes the case, right that
um that not all of the brethren were as tight lipped at and,
and careful about keeping the secrets of the new
order of things as Brigham wanted them to be,
for example,
when Orson Pratt reprinted Lucy Mac book that Lucy Mac Smith's book that,
that just sent Brigham Young into apoplexies.
He was so angry about that and, and just ripped him a new one in the newspaper. Anyway.
It's kind of funny to see
how these things happened again.
It wasn't Joseph Smith who kept, tried to keep this type of control that was Brigham
Young.
And so,
um I'm certain that they weren't eager to publish
or keep records of all of these things happening.
So it's not surprising that we don't find them from the, from the, you know,
from our church history,
but we can find them in other places. And so
this is, this showed up in the journal of discourses.
Well, let's see, there was something else I wanted to read.
Oh, here it is. This is from Charles Derry. So yeah, I knew I had another source.
He was a member of the church who came west to Utah and followed Brigham Young,
but then later converted to the R LDS church.
And he wrote his autobiography.
This is what he says from, from his time in Utah, the information he had. Joseph F.
Smith says the revelation on polygamy was given at different times.
WW Phelps says he
part of it also that Brigham and Joseph wrote part of it exactly what we are claiming,
right?
And that Clayton wrote part of it while Clayton swears, he wrote all of it.
Brigham Young says Phelps lies. So
that sounds to be about, about accurate, right?
You can see all of that happening because we have clearly established
that this was a conglomeration made up afterward in Utah when they,
we're going through and changing and fixing everything,
altering it to make it a fit what Brigham Young called the New Order of things.
They clearly did this with section 132 as well. So I am thinking that these um
reports from Briggs and Derry are something to listen to.
And so what,
what I was going to say is I'm certain that they
weren't eager to keep or publish records of these things,
but I was able to find a,
a couple of references in the complete
teachings of discourses of Brigham Young volume
two that I think maybe um could give us some verification of this.
So
this is from page uh this is from July 9th 1854.
Brigham said brother Phelps takes from the third heaven and the lowest
hell and throw them all out of his mouth at a time.
So,
so this would be in keeping with Brigham being unhappy.
We don't, we don't get the reference for what Brigham is unhappy with Phelps about.
But it sounds to me like it could be about this revelation because he takes from
heaven and from hell and spews them all out of his mouth at the same time.
So Phelps could have been talking about the revelation and saying, hey,
it took us about 10 to 12 days to write it and I wrote part of it
and then, um apparently he was still in the doghouse a few days later,
a week later on July 9th.
Um Brigham said I have no evidence that
brother Phelps has done anything wrong except drinking.
So
again, I couldn't find references to tell me what these statements are about.
So unless some more experienced knowledgeable historian wants to tell me
why Brigham was saying these things about Phelps.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=01h55m08s 01:55:08]
I think it's fair to at least consider whether it might be that
Brigham is reacting to Phelps letting the cat out of the bag.
This was early, it was 1854 when they would have been talking about it before,
it would have been all shut down and locked up and
everyone knew for sure that these things were not to be talked about.
So this was the actual secret that needed to be kept. It wasn't the, the Joseph and
Hyrum polygamy wasn't the secret that needed to be kept in Nauvoo.
It was the secret of coming up with the revelation
and changing the history and editing it all out.
That was the secret that needed to be kept a little bit later on. So
I think that um that is an interesting and fun point to consider that the
Utah Mormons did acknowledge and admit that they had come up with a revelation.
So um OK, there we're gonna go on to more.
There's more because this is the piece I was saving for the end.
This is the real red meat of this entire episode that
it I think is the serious death blow to
the belief that the novel Expo
Expositor affidavits proved that section 132 in Joseph's Day.
I think this will show that they prove exactly
the opposite.
So in addition to everything we've already covered that
all of this was gotten up by the elders,
right?
As is said,
um I hope we can at least agree on this central piece.
Even if you want to throw everything else out
that William Law's voice matters. It's important, right?
We should listen to what William Law says,
particularly those who want to claim that his affidavit is valid and that
it's important that the novel expositor should be relied on as good evidence.
So
William Law just to paint it out again,
he was the primary conspirator behind the expositor.
He was the counselor to Joseph Smith in the first presidency.
He was the president of the new church.
They were organizing the true church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.
He was the clear leader of the conspirators.
He was the most successful and the wealthiest.
He was the most connected politically.
He was the one that wrote almost the entire expositor. He was the only
the expositor conspirator who included his affidavit.
Two of the three critical affidavits we're talking about come from him and his wife
and he gave by far the most testimony in the years afterward.
And so we are basing all of all of this on his testimony.
That's why we should be able to agree that what he says
matters that his voice is extremely important to this entire discussion.
So here's the big reveal,
William Law,
the critical figure in the entire expositor
story himself completely disproves this claim.
So you'll recall at the end of episode one,
the 15 minute part I added where I was talking about the William Law Journal,
which if you haven't like William Law's supposed journal,
if you haven't listened to that,
I hope that you'll go back and listen to it that at least that last 15 minutes,
if not the entire episode.
But um
I mentioned at the end of that, that he wrote three letters and gave one interview
in 1887 that are very important resources for us to consider. He wrote them to dr
We,
he had written a book about the Mormons
and William William Law wrote to him to congratulate him on the
book and to correct some things mainly in large part to say,
no, Joseph never propositioned Jane.
And to say, I don't even want to be attached to this anymore.
But mainly it was that Joseph did not proposition Jane.
So that, that is the one thing that should be thrown out.
And again, if that had happened, wouldn't it have been included in the affidavits?
But
there's more on that, that we'll get into next, next episode with William Law. And
um Austin
Cell's important things to consider that they just happened to
leave out of their affidavits if they had actually happened,
if the polygamy narrative is true.
So anyway, let's go on to that interview.
Um
I will quote, when I will quote from the interview, when um
doctor we
asked William Law about the revelation. This is what he said.
I was astonished to see in your book that the revelation was such a long document.
I remember distinctly distinctly as capitalized
that the original Given Me by Hiram was much shorter, also capitalized.
I remember distinctly that the original
me by
Hyrum was much shorter. It covered not more than two or three pages of Fool's cap.
The contents are substantially the same,
but there was not the theological introduction.
The thing consisted simply in the command of doing it.
And that command was restricted to the high priesthood and to virgins and widows.
But as to Joseph himself, the Lord's chosen servant,
it was restricted to virgins only to clean vessels from
which to procure a pure seed to the Lord.
OK. Did you hear that?
Let's first go over a couple of things because people are
really interested in finding similarities between the affidavits and 132.
Let's compare this.
There is nothing like this. In 132 widows are never mentioned. The high priesthood.
I mean,
the priesthood is mentioned but not the night the high priesthood clean vessels,
pure seed to the Lord.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=02h00m22s 02:00:22]
Restriction to only virgins. None of that is mentioned. And can I
repeat, need I repeat,
Joseph Smith had no Children which all of these people
writing at this time were claiming that he had Children,
right?
It's, it's now that we know definitively that he did not. I mean,
the cons,
the polygamy conspirators knew that because they knew
that Joseph and Hyrum hadn't been polygamous,
but they still were trying to make the case.
So and, and then all of the anti
worm were absolutely certain that Joseph had Children all over the
place because they had no clue what they were talking about.
Right. So
anyway, so not none of that is anywhere but I want to repeat this.
I was astonished to see the, that the revelation was such a long document.
I remember distinctly that the original was much shorter.
It covered not more than two or three pages.
So the interviewer himself, his name is Wilhelm Ritter von
Weedle
said of the interview,
his statement of the false revelation on polygamy is
interesting as showing that it was tinkered up afterwards.
Yep. Exactly. Even the interviewer gets it.
Even the anti Mormon writer gets what happened, right. We have so many voices.
I want to do another episode on all of the
19th century voices knew that this was the case like Skyler
Colfax and Doctor we
and so many others.
And this is why right here like this is why you can't make these
huge sweeping certain claims without doing the
work without digging deeper into it.
So for anyone who has been set on the claim that the
expositor affidavits prove the legitimacy of 132 and Joseph's involvement in poly
polygamy,
I'll put it in legal terms for you if that
will help your own star witness just destroyed your case.
Like it's over.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how historians
or anyone else justify completely ignoring this very important source.
I want to hear what their explanation is because what he says is
exactly what we are showing in the rest of this entire episode.
And there's so much more evidence that I couldn't include
to show us that. Yes. Section 132 what we have is a CRE is a Utah creation that
in
different parts and pieces.
A true revelation from Joseph and these
false claims going around by the polygamists,
conglomerated them all together and,
and pulled it out
in 1852.
That's exactly what happened.
And I think it's so clear and so if we need to go into this anymore,
how could this 2 to 3 page document
that William Law claimed that he had and read? How could that be? Section 132?
Let's go over just
a little bit of. They always like to talk about the Providence of 132.
So we'll talk about some of the history. The Providence of 132.
Clayton testified that the original was 10 pages.
Kingsbury's copy. The one that we still have is eight pages. Oh and um guess what?
Surprise Willard Richards also made a copy.
We don't talk about that yet because they haven't yet woven
that into the narrative to figure out how it uh what,
what they, what they should say about that.
But his flawless copy is seven pages
and the Virgin
in our current Doctrine and covenants is eight pages.
So
how could that be the 2 to 3 page document,
especially when William La himself says it was a lot shorter.
The one I had was a lot shorter.
And the interviewer acknowledges that it was tinkered up afterward.
I think that this is important and should be acknowledged.
And I'll also point out that James Whitehead
who was the actual clerk of Joseph Smith.
William Clayton was a wannabe.
That's all he was, was a water be he never,
he never wrote any revelation for Joseph Smith ever, right?
But he liked to claim that he was important.
But um James Whitehead's testimony lines
up perfectly with William Law's testimony.
He says that he saw a revelation in winter quarters but that it had
nothing to do with polygamy and that it was two or three pages.
So he might have seen um
the true revelation that Joseph had that was floating around at some point.
I don't know.
But in any case, we have multiple testimonies from critical key figures saying
that what they saw
in um either Joseph's life or shortly after his death was not the same
as what was presented as the revelation in 1852 and what is now contained
in the doctrine and covenants.
So let's see if there's anything else I need to talk about.
Oh, there is, but I'm going to save the rest for next week.
We have to still get into things like
the motivations and problems with Austin
cells. Oh, I want to talk about some other
witnesses that people hold in high esteem like Leonard soy,
that's going to be a fun one.
There are many other things to talk about
also still going into the entire expositor.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjAOUxNzso&t=02h05m20s 02:05:20]
I don't know where I'm going to go because this has been exhausting.
So we'll see where I go to next. But those are all on
the, um, stove waiting to be done.
I know people might think that I just talk a big game.
But I hope that I've shown you that I don't,
I don't claim I have things if I don't have them.
It's been really hard to want to get this out so urgently
and to have to work so hard to put it in a format that it could be um
you know, delivered and hopefully consumed and absorbed.
I hope that you guys are able to understand all of these pieces and
recognize that this is just what I chose to include in this episode.
There is so much more. So I want to close though with, with just saying this,
I,
I want to make an invitation a sincere genuine. I'm not being
arrogant or like like sarcastic at all.
Every single one of us believed that Joseph was a polygamist.
Many of us myself included,
believed that polygamy was of God because that was the information we had, right?
We were told that and we were shown that side of
the argument and only shown that side of the information.
So there is no shame in believing that Joseph was a polygamist. None at all.
We all did it because we have to base our beliefs on the evidence. We have.
The question is the question, isn't, did you, did you ever believe this?
The question is,
are you willing to follow the evidence when new evidence is presented?
Are you really seeking truth or are you just um ideologically possessed
and seeking to just prove your narrative despite further evidence coming forward?
So I, I just want to declare that there is no,
there's absolutely no room for like I told you.
So you're certainly never going to get one from me.
I know that I tease a little bit because people have come at me so hard,
but I promise you that I will never try to thumb someone down who,
who looks at this evidence and goes, wow, I hadn't seen that before.
That's a really good case. I may need to reconsider my conclusions.
That's exactly what we should all be doing all the time.
So I hope that people will consider
doing that, you know,
looking seriously at this evidence.
If there are other things that you that still are holding
you up or that feel like hang ups like maybe Leonard soy
or,
or I hope I hope no one will ever again
bring up to be Buckeye's lament as if that is some sort of proof of Joseph's polygamy.
Oh my gosh, like, like no more of this weak, weak sauce stuff.
But if there's anything that you have that's genuinely holding you back,
please let me know and let's dig into it.
I,
I have changed very publicly changed my stance multiple times
to my own expense. I have lost credibility in different um groups of people.
Some of the people who
hate me the most now were some who loved me the most before, before I
changed my stance based on the evidence.
So I just again,
want to say that invitation is there all the time for everyone that's the best we can
do in this life is try our best to seek truth based on the information we have.
So with that being said,
I hope that that's what everyone listening to this will be willing to do.
And I'm always open to conversations and I welcome you to the discussion.
But thank you again for sticking with me again.
Please share this information because it's so important
and I will see you next time.
| wp_categories_links = [[Category:132 Problems Episodes]][[Category:Church History]]
| wp_tags_links = [[Category:Expositor]][[Category:Joseph Smith]][[Category:Nauvoo]]
}}