New Church Essay on Translation and Polygamy

Hello everyone and welcome back to another edition of Mormon Stories podcast LDS discussions edition. I am your host today, John Delin. It is September 8th, 2025 and today we are going to be covering the character of the prophet uh Joseph Smith. So recently the Mormon church came out with three new uh gospel topics essays or pages or essays, I don't know what to call them. uh where it's trying to update or improve its transparency around uh Mormon church history. Last time on LDS discussions, we covered uh the new essay or page on the Book of Mormon translation and then we got most of the way through the new polygamy essay. I really recommend you go back and watch that before you watch this. We didn't quite finish the polygamy uh essay or page. So today we're going to start by finishing our polygamy discussion because we had to run last time and then we're going to spend the bulk of today's time on the new essay on Joseph Smith's character. And uh really quickly for those of you who don't know this LDS discussions series is something like 60 or 70 episodes in. Uh many years ago, we brought on our friend Mike, who has a website called LDS discussions, who put out a bunch of essays on LDS church truth claims. So, we started a series on Mormon stories where we've covered something like 60 or 70 episodes going deep on Mormon Church truth claims as objectively and as neutrally as we could possibly muster. It's definitely been one of the most important things Mormon Stories podcast has ever done. Uh we highly recommend you consuming these episodes sequentially which means in theory pause this episode, go back to the beginning of the LDS discussion series, watch the 60 or 70 episodes and then uh enjoy today's episode. Um if you can't do that, you're also welcome to join us now. Um and then I'll just say that the LDS discussion series can be uh found as a playlist on the Mormon Stories podcast YouTube channel. It can also be consumed as part of the Mormon stories uh series on Spotify, but it has its own playlist as well on Spotify and on Apple Podcasts. So you can consume them in sequence without all the other Mormon stories episodes mixed in and so you can share it with family and friends, bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, patriarchs, relief society presidents, general and area authorities, apostles, first presidency members, whoever you think would benefit from this series. Again, it's one of the most important things we've ever done on the podcast. So, uh, I think that's all. I'll also just say thanks so much to the donors that make all this possible. If you value the LDS discussion series and want to see it continue, all you got to do is uh become a monthly donor at mormatories.org. Click on the donate button, become a monthly donor. And we couldn't do this without uh those of you who already donate. Also, if even if you can or can't donate, hitting subscribe on our different channels, liking this episode, commenting, and sharing all help. So, uh without any further ado, let's jump in uh to the concluding parts of the polygamy essay. I am ecstatic to have with us back in studio, the one, the only Sandra Ted. Hey Sandra, welcome back. >> Hey, good morning. Thanks for joining us. I know it's uh under >> not the most simple circumstances that you're here. So, >> glad to be here. >> Did the co You said you hope the coffee kicks in. Did the coffee kick in? >> Uh it's getting there. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, we're we're broadcasting early in the morning today. And also joining us as always on the LDS discussion series is Julia who's heading up this episode. Hey, Julia. >> Hi. >> Thanks for making this happen. >> Yeah, of course. and uh also Nemo. Nemo the Mormon. >> Hello everyone. How are we? >> We're great. Thanks for joining us, Nemo. >> Let me just quickly say, Julia, I saw a post you made about analyzing Mormonism. I want to encourage everyone to check out analyzing Mormonism and also become a donor to Julia's series because she deserves your support. Is that okay to say, Julia? >> Yeah, that's great. Also, don't forget the Nemo. >> All right. And Nemo the Mormon. Yeah, check out Nemo the Mormon on YouTube and you can donate to Nemo the Mormon on donorbox.orgne the Mormon. >> True. >> True. Correct. >> Factually accurate. We're starting this episode as we mean to go on nothing but the truth. >> All right. >> Well, without any further ado, Julia, why don't you take it away and help us uh cover some really important final points on the polygamy essay. >> Yes, of course. So, as we said in the last time, the church news did cover this. They the church is open about them adding these three new pages or essays. So, they're trying to be transparent in that way. And like you said, John, we covered the Book of Mormon translation and most of Plural Marriage. And then today is the Joseph Smith character and then the ending of Plural Marriage. And then, so one so I also think it's interesting to note I didn't mind that these were held till today because some of these reflect Joseph Smith's character, but again, these are this is the ending of the the polygamy. Oh, that's a good point. That's a good point. >> Yeah. So, I just want to read this whole slide. So, what did Emma Smith know about Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage? Emma did not leave any contemporary record of her own thoughts, feelings, or experiences related to plural marriage. According to accounts of others, Emma opposed plural marriage except for a short period of time when she consented to at least four of her husband's plural ceilings. Ultimately, she rejected the practice. Despite emotional turmoil in their marriage over this practice, Emma and Joseph remained deeply committed to one another. >> Before we do, we have any does >> what's important to you about that uh about that page that that paragraph. >> So, the one thing that stuck out to me is that she consented to at least four of her husband's plural ceilings. Can we get Sandra to talk about that if that's okay? >> Sure. >> Well, yeah. Here, Joseph starts practicing polygamy and he marries 20 something women behind Emma's back and then he finally uh tries to get Emma converted to polygamy and uh she finally caves in and says, "Well, okay, you can have four wives if I get to pick them and I'll pick these two girls that are living in the home, the uh Partridge sisters. And uh so, oh, Joseph's so excited. Problem, he had already married them. And so now they have to do a sham marriage in front of Emma so that uh they don't have to tell her. Joseph went behind her back to marry those two girls already. And then the other two girls are the Lawrence sisters. And there's controversy over them because of uh well the fact that they're young girls living in his home and he takes advantage of them but also the problem of uh their estate and whether he's uh misusing his authority as their sort of guardian. But the Mormons want to talk about this as uh isn't it wonderful? Emma agreed to plural marriage, but they don't mention he's already married to 20some women at this point. It's it's just the craziest story. >> I mean, you almost wonder why he didn't just keep it from her for the entire time. I wonder if he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Do we know what made him come clean after 22 wives had already been secretly married to him? >> Well, there had been so much uh talk with the Bennett book and um public uh comment gossip going around about polygamy that pretty hard for Emma not to be aware of what's going on. And I think she was aware. I don't think she was aware to the extent of it, but I think she knew there was something a foot involving other women in the community and I think she thought she could control it if she agreed to these two girls in the home where she could keep an eye on them. Of course, once he actually marries them in front of her, then she can't live with it. So within a month, she drives the girls out of the home because she can't handle the fact that he's bedding these two girls. >> And as we're talking about Joseph's character, like he's coming clean to her about polygamy and he's getting her consent. Why would he lie about these two sisters that he had already married while he's coming clean? Why not just come clean? Why come clean but then offer two sisters that he had already been married to and then stage this resealing as if it's the first ceiling because that's like deception as you're trying to come clean. That's that's almost super dark. >> Well, I don't think he anticipated that his wife would just right off pick the two girls that he happened to have already married. >> Oh, so that surprised him. >> Uh >> oh. Okay, she picked those two. Well, now we got a problem. And so we'll just do it again. But all of it goes to his character that there is not honesty in any of the practice of polygamy. Joseph's introduction of polygamy, the way it's lived out, not just under Joseph Smith, but here in Utah, it's all been done with just boatloads of deception, lying, and misrepresentation. uh in in 1850 you have Apostle John Taylor lying about polygamy over in France denying it when he's got like a dozen wives back home. I mean this has just been the whole history of polygamy. >> I will add too somebody pointed out that none of Joseph Joseph did not marry any of his wives publicly including Emma because as far as I know he and her eloped against her father's wishes. So already he's like even with her it was in a kind of deceptive way. >> But like um I just wanted to say like so I feel like this the church's essay here just feels a little bit deceptive because they're saying she did agree for a short time but they're not being open about Joseph Smith like already doing these marriages and then he had to do fake marriages and then her immediate taking removal of her consent. I just feel like like how how do we feel about that with the church? Like is this honesty? is as transparent. Nemo, do you have thoughts on that? >> I've got thoughts on the way that they phrased that. If you can put that back on the screen, cuz I'm pretty flabbergasted by this. They seem to be trying to give the impression that Emma and Joseph remain deeply committed to one another and therefore that somehow makes this okay. Like every woman who ultimately remains with her husband means that her husband wasn't a bad person or wasn't doing anything wrong because she chose to ultimately stay with him. Which is just we know that's not how that works. Women stay with bad people often. So this it's hard enough for for women to leave bad relationships. Now imagine what it was like in the 1830s in frontier America to be like, "Okay, I'm just going to leave my husband because I don't like the fact that he's and your husband is also the head of your entire social circle. He is the head of your entire religious community. He is everything to all the people around you." Of course, she isn't going to leave him. Of course, she's going to remain committed to their marriage no matter how she actually feels. >> But also, what does that what does that even mean in this context? They both remain deeply committed to one another. Joseph's not committed. >> No. >> And I don't I don't think Emma was as committed, but like you said, women barely have rights now in the 1840s. Anyway, so I just wanted to know if there was any more thoughts on that part. Well, I think >> the other aspect of this is this whole article wants to frame polygamy as though it was uh directed by God absolutely by revelation that Joseph Smith was an honorable man following God's dictates. If in fact they want to tell us this was all righteous, why don't they publish a list of the women? Where is the church list of his wives? If these were righteous marriages, why aren't they listed out? I want to see who they say were these 30 to 40 women. When did he marry them? Were they already married? Were they teenagers? They give us none of this officially. >> Oh, so you're saying by 2025, as of today, you're not aware of the Mormon church releasing a list of Joseph Smith's wives? >> No. If you go to a family search and do look up Joseph's genealogy, you can kind of figure out the the different women, but that's not making a public statement on these articles. They're saying he was a righteous man in all of this. He was obeying God. If he was obeying God, then why don't we have the names of these women? Why don't we have the dates of their marriages, who they were? Like half the time when you see any reference to Eliza R. Snow, they don't say Eliza R. Snow Smith. In fact, they don't say Eliza R. Snow Smith young. Uh it's just very convenient that all these different women that come out to Utah aren't given these plural marriage last names. And so you don't see it in when you read Relief Society information or church history or something. You don't see that these are women that were plural wives of either Joseph or Brighgam, which says to me they aren't really proud of it. >> Yeah. I don't think I'd fully thought about that because there's sources everywhere that lists all the wives like um Todd Compton is one of my favorite sources with his book and sacred loneliness. I hadn't thought about the church not listing them themselves. I think that's very telling. She sure does. Yes, >> Von Brody lists it in No Man knows my history and yeah, there are other websites. Does the Do we know if the Joseph Smith Papers project actually lists out uh the wives? >> I would be surprised, but I haven't looked. >> Okay. All right. Yeah. But I don't know of an official list by the LDS church of his plural wives. And I would challenge them. If you want me to accept that Joseph was an honorable man of God, only obeying God's revelations, then you should be proud of the list. >> Can you predict, Sandra, what complicating factors in the creation of that list would make the church hesitant to want to publish it? Oh, well, there's the little fact that about 12 of them were already married to other men and about 10 or 12 of them are teenagers. Uh, of one of them a few months shy of being 15. And they know it looks bad, >> but haven't they already admitted all that stuff in their essays? >> They don't give you the names of people. They don't list it out. >> Okay. Yeah. So, you're saying even though they've tried to admit some of that stuff in their Gospel Topics essays, you're saying actually creating an official list creates uh it makes it more, I don't know, more obvious or more comp more painful. Well, when they say he had 30 to 40 wives in an article that most people will never read, uh it's easy to just pass that over and not think of them individually to really see the scope of this. And when you see the timeline of when he's marrying these women, it's like the one a month club. It's just bam bam bam bam all these women >> that it becomes >> I put >> very hard to justify when it's >> in the crowded life of Nauvoo when he's so busy. Why is he going to all these women one right after another? Um, it just doesn't look good when you you see the timeline. >> And maybe publishing a list puts a fine point on it. >> It makes the women real. >> Yeah. >> And that's what Todd Compton's book did. It made them real women with real histories, real stories, real agonies, real decisions that they had to face that were very hard things for them to do. the agonies they went through in do I uh go behind my husband's back? Do I sleep with Joseph? Uh these teenage girls, do I give up my social life? Is that what this means? Uh what does it mean to be his wife? It it's making the women real that has made polygamy such an issue in recent years. >> That's powerful. Julie, let me just quickly say one last observation about that essay for me. It's almost like today the Mormon church has its own character problem because even in the discussion uh you know of Joseph Smith's polygamy and his character they're uh hiding the fact that Joseph Smith was hiding the fact that he had already married these two sisters from Emma. And so it's almost like the Mormon church has borrowed their character and their ethics from Joseph. And even in the discussion of polygamy and Joseph Smith's character, they're going to leave things out and be deceptive. But in some ways, they come by it honestly because they learned their morals and ethics from their founding prophet. Is that fair? >> I think that's fair. >> Okay. Sorry, I just had to make that point. >> No, that's good. >> Go ahead, Julia. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I just wanted to show the slide again. So, just going back to Emma um agreed to it for a short time. If we go to DNC 132, verse 54. Nemo, do you mind reading this? >> Me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, sure. And I commanded mine handmmaid Emma Smith to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment, she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord. For I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. >> So, I just wanted to point out that even though the church is saying that she agreed to it for a time, in the scriptures, in this revelation, she'd be destroyed otherwise. So, it doesn't feel very consensual this agreeing to polygamy. I just wanted to make that clear. Well, and along those same lines, when you have the stories of uh different women speaking about Joseph told them God sent an angel with a drawn sword to uh tell him he had to go into polygamy. They don't tell you that he already had other polygamous wives. And it doesn't look like he even told those women that he already had other polygamous wives. And so it it's crazy these uh claims of an angel with a drawn sword. Why why would God do this if Joseph's already fulfilling the command left and right with women before this particular person? It's just an odd story of the why God is sending an angel to make him live polygamy when he's already living it. >> Yeah. And and also just to Joseph Smith's character again, I don't think anybody who believes in Jesus Christ sincerely, and Sander, you can confirm this. >> Who thinks that Jesus is the prince of peace, the the person that exemplifies love and charity and kindness. I don't think anybody believes that Jesus Christ uttered these words uh gave this revelation that Emma would be destroyed if she didn't let you know allow Joseph to practice polygamy. And so if Jesus didn't give Joseph that commandment, then this is one of the biggest smoking guns, I think, in the entire history of the Mormon church. Because now we've got Joseph manufacturing a prophecy, putting it in the mouth of Jesus Christ, claiming that Jesus would threaten Emma with her utter destruction if she doesn't let Joseph sleep with a bunch of, you know, 30 plus women. And again, if you believe uh that that Jesus Christ would send an angel with the flaming sword twice uh to to force Joseph's, you know, uh possible teenage brides to have sex with him. Uh but he wouldn't send an angel with the flaming sword, you know, to to save Europe from Hitler's destruction or to warn humankind about germ theory and disease or to save, you know, mankind from all these natural disasters, do you really believe that that of all the ways Jesus could send an angel with the flaming sword, he's only going to do it to take Emma's free agency away and force her to let Joseph have sex with 30 plus women? like is that Jesus Christ? And if it's not, then what does it say about Joseph's character that he would use his power, use his authority, claim revelation from Jesus Christ uh to force Emma uh to have to to let him have sex with all these women at the the possibility of her own destruction? Emma, I mean, I'm sorry, Emma. Sandra, is that is that the Jesus Christ that you believe in? And no, >> I do not see the Jesus of polygamy in the Bible. I don't see him even in the Book of Mormon for that matter. The Jesus of Christianity uh is not threatening destruction for people to go into polygamy. This is totally beyond anything we see in the New Testament. It's just it's totally foreign to us to think that he would be coercing this kind of situation, especially when he's Joseph already has 25 plural wives. So why now is he giving this horrible revelation to Emma? You've got to accept all these women that he's already taken. >> Yeah. And that's why the revelation, I think, is phrased in such a way as to be like, well, you know, I can do it and if you disagree, you're the problem. It's a heads I win, tails, you lose situation. And for me, this is the very definition of taking the Lord's name in vain. You know, you've got Mormons running around there saying fetching corn dog or whatever they say to try and not swear and you know, but really taking the Lord's name in vain isn't isn't that sort of thing. It's this. It's pretending to be the voice of God in a revelation to try and get your wife to do something that she doesn't want to do. It's putting the name of Jesus Christ to something that is clearly so out of character for him that how could it have possibly come from him. >> Well, it's also making her break the law. I mean, we have to remember this was illegal, >> right? >> It's not like we're just saying you have to go to church on Sunday. It It's you have to break the law with me. Yeah. >> Bigamy was illegal. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it and to me finally, it taints Joseph's production of scripture and his claim to be a prophet because this is maybe the most conspicuous ex example of many, many examples of Joseph just making stuff up, putting it into the mouth of Jesus, putting it into scripture to satisfy his own wants and his needs. It's one thing when he does it, you know, to create to to to get Martin Harris's money or to fix some revelations that are inconvenient or to get the Kirtland people, you know, to give him all all their money or to give him all their land. Like, that's all horrible. That's all abusive. But this just sort of rips the mask off of the claim that Joseph Smith is actually a prophet uh receiving and producing revelation from God for his people. I how do you trust Joseph as a revelator and as the author of God's scripture? >> Right? Most Mormons have not read section 132. And if they have, they did it in a very quick just check out the box. I read through the Doctrine of Covenants this year. How many have stopped and really thought when they read through that revelation of what the implications are that this is Joseph to his faithful wife of all these years demanding on threat of death for her to accept dozens of lizons with other women in the community married single teenagers all of this and she's to accept this or be damned >> and why wouldn't God sent this revelation before Joseph entered into the plural marriage. Why would God wait 22 wives in to then give Emma this commandment? Does that make any Did God not realize the other 22 marriages had happened? Was he asleep? Was he asleep? Was he busy with other worlds so that he Oops. Whoa, Joseph, you went too fast. You already did 22. I've still got to tell Emma. Like, that doesn't make sense. which is why the church tries to say that you he was receiving revelations on this topic from the early 1830s and they're very vague about it because they're trying to justify Fannie Alga and other things like that and basically say that you know while not formally put down Joseph have been thinking about this for a while but it's just it's it's nonsense and it's it's not the fault of all members that they don't know about some of this because regularly lesson manuals don't go past verse 30 or 40 in DNC 132. They just they just don't go there. They don't go towards the end where it gets it gets to the shocking stuff. >> Yeah. Right. They want to keep it just to the general verses, not to the verses that are specifically aimed at Emma. >> Are we beating a dead taper, Julia? >> No. I love this discussion. This is a I love this talk. >> All right. Well, where do we go from here, Julia? >> Okay. So, I wanted to touch on this this uh this the very ending. I I feel like the church is very carefully wording it where it says Joseph and Emma remain deeply committed to each other. So I guess committed like Nemo was saying women stay with men who aren't don't treat them very well. It doesn't say anything about their happiness. But these next two little clips that I'm showing are from my own channel just because it's more concise than bringing them all and talking them about them again. So I'll just show these two clips and then I want to talk about it more. But this first clip is about um Joseph's plural wife Flora and the gold watch. The next day, after finding out that her husband had taken her dear friend Eliza Ars Snow as a polygamous wife, Emma went on a short carriage ride with Joseph. Joseph dropped her off at Lucen Woodworth's house for a visit while he went to attend to some business in the Nauvoo Temple. Emma did not know that Joseph Smith had taken Lucien's 16-year-old daughter, Flora, as a wife in the spring of that year. While Emma was visiting, she noticed that the 16-year-old had one of her husband's gold watches. Emma knew the implications of this watch since he had given one to Eliza Snow. When Joseph returned from the temple, he found that Emma was demanding the watch from Flora and Joseph reprimanded her. Once in the carriage, Emma vented her frustrations to him. How could he do this? What was he thinking? Joseph told his friend William Clayton that Emma continued her abuse after they arrived home. Joseph said he finally had to employ harsh measures to stop her. Because Joseph Smith had a temper and a record of physical violence, it would not surprise me at all to learn that these harsh measures that he used to shut Emma up concerning polygamy was in fact domestic violence. And this is a showing that this book is that this source is taken from um uh Mormon Enigma Mahale Smith by Tippets and New Avery. Um, anyway, so this is just where the sources and I can put these in the show notes too afterwards because these are not Nemo and I had this discussion last time off camera that these are not like uh not affiliated with Brigham Young at all. So that because some people might want to might want to make that about Brigham. Um, but anyway, I just wanted to see if Sandra had any thoughts on this of this story with the watch and this harsh measures with Joseph. Well, it certainly strikes me that it implies some sort of physical action because they already had argued in the carriage ride to home and then when they get home he has to use harsh measures. So that's something beyond the argument in the buggy. Uh, so yes, I think it implies that he someway used physical force to shut her up. >> And it's uncontested that Martin Harris beat Lucy at least a couple times. Correct. >> Yeah. His wife, right? Yeah. >> So Martin Harris beat Lucy. Uh, it it is not too far stretched to think that Joseph might have to hit Emma to get her to fall in line. I think there was a lot more of a cultural acceptance of a man having the right to use physical force to make his wife obey him in that day. And I think our sensitivities today are much more tuned to be um wondering about what physical force was used because now we know that there was much more used at that time than is used generally today. And I think Emma must have had a very sad, hard life in trying to walk a fine line between maintaining a marriage with Joseph and overlooking all of these other women that are being uh brought through her life through polygamy. Uh it and then that article the church posted says that she didn't leave a statement about her feelings. Yes, she did. She told her son Joseph never practiced polygamy. She did leave a statement to her feelings. Obviously, she hated it all or she wouldn't have denied the whole thing for this public record. >> My husband did not have plural wives. And that's again speaking to the current Mormon church's character and credibility because they know that Emma denied that Joseph ever practiced polygamy. And so they're leaving that out intentionally, at least in part because they don't want the polygamy deniers/Melle Stone crowd to have any ammo that would leave doubt in the member's mind that Joseph Smith was actually a polygamist. I'm guessing >> well that this whole problem of every public statement of Joseph Smith is denying polygamy and then to have to turn around and say well those denials don't count and they find some way to say well uh that was about John Bennett's polygamy not about uh celestial marriage and they do this word game of trying to explain why it's not Joseph of lying. But his one of his last statements about the issue is, "What a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one." Which I think is pretty funny that he uses the word seven when he's got between 30 and 40. But okay. >> Is that how many John Bennett alleged? Didn't he allege in his book, in his tell all a certain number of wives by using their initial? >> There's some like seven or nine women that are uh implied by their initials. >> Maybe he's maybe he's referring to Bennett's book. I'm just guessing. >> Could be. >> Okay, Julia. >> Yeah, I was just looking. One, two, three, four. >> You're counting the Bennett. >> Yeah, he Yeah. So, yeah, because we had done an episode on this before. He does Bennett lists specifically um seven. So that's probably exactly why Joseph was saying that. Um so I'll just go to the next clip where um this other story of this Joseph's treatment of Emma. >> I just found another story concerning Joseph Smith's abuse of his wife Emma. The story is told by a man named Richard Rushton Jr. who evidently worked as the steward for the Nauvoo mansion during the 1840s. It was Brother Rushton's job to close up the mansion at night and he worked closely with Emma Smith who handled the keys to the building. Two years after his death in 1884, Wilhelm will published the following story in his book Mormon Portraits. One afternoon, said Mr. Rushton, after the hurry of the dinner work was over, I was sitting in my little office when looking through the window. I saw the prophet Joseph followed by the two partridge girls coming from the back part of the lot and enter all three into the little log cabin, which had been the first home in Nauvoo of the prophet before the mansion was built. A minute or so later, Emma came by and asked him if he had seen Joseph and the Partridge girls enter the cabin. Brother Rush and replied hesitantly that he had seen them. Emma then said, "I'll just put on my sun bonnet and go and see what they are about." A very short time later, Emma returned and came to the office door crying bitterly. "Oh, Brother Restin," she said in broken sobs. "I went into the cabin. I found those two girls with my husband, and Joseph jumped up in a rage when he saw that I had surprised them and struck me a horrid blow." Rushton said that at the same time she showed him the mark of the blow on her cheek. She then dropped, fainting on a chair, weeping and uttering words of despair. A few minutes later, Joseph came in and said, "Oh, dear Emma, I'm so sorry I struck you. I did it in a passion. You must forgive me. I did it without a thought or I wouldn't have done it. Forgive me, but you shouldn't be running after me, watching me, and prying at my actions." He then kissed Emma and apologized again. The relationship between Joseph Smith and Emma is nothing like how the church has portrayed it. Dang, I had not fully internalized that Joseph that there were credible allegations of of beating Emma. I had not internalized that, Julia. Those are great clips, by the way. And I love the the Nauvoo footage. >> Oh, yeah. >> With the horsedrawn carriage and the clip popping and all that. Nice work. >> Thanks. Yeah, I try to go there. I I like to go to Nauvoo because it's only six hours away and I try to get footage, too. So, so for those just listening, there was overlay >> only 6 hours away. >> It's the most American thing anyone's said on this show so far. >> Okay. See if that could be beat. >> Yeah, cuz you travel a whole across your whole country in that time. >> Sorry. Carry on. >> Sandra, did you have any thoughts on that story? >> Uh, well, Nemo made me lose it. >> It was about again Emma's account that Joseph had hit her, I guess. Oh, well, the church of course would say that Wild's book is not credible, that that's a apostate source, and so you can't trust it. But it does fit with Clayton's recounting that uh Joseph had to use harsh measures to stop the argument with Emma. So, it fits. Um I and it seems so believable when you understand the enormity of what Emma's being asked to accept that she would have that kind of reaction. It sort of fits with the um stories of Fanny Algar where Emma supposedly sees them in the barn that that she would be spying on Joseph when she thought he might be with young girls. So, that part would fit with the Fanny story as well. Um, as far as Emma's Rosy relationship with Joseph, I know personally women who've been in abusive marriages and they stay with her husband. Well, in one case, the lady stayed with her husband for a number of years, but did finally leave. It's a problem when you try to equate a happy marriage that means there was no physical abuse because most of us probably know someone who was abused and stayed married for years with someone. Um, women tend to forgive and depending on how important your marriage, your children, your home situation, your ability to support yourself, all come into the decision of whether you can leave the person. But to say the woman stayed with her husband proves that he wasn't abusing her just as not facing reality. So, I don't think we can use that as uh an argument against abuse by saying, "Oh, well, she stayed with Joseph and they had this wonderful marriage." I can readily accept that he could have done such a thing and that she would have forgiven him because it was important for her to stay in the marriage. Obviously, for her to accept the fact that he's got dozens of women, she's putting up with a lot. And also she obviously lied about his general practice of policing, right? >> So, you know, we know that she isn't always truthful. >> That's right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I also wanted to say that because this essay, this main the main bulk of this is about Joseph's character and we'll go and we'll talk about the they the church claims that Joseph was a defendant in 21 criminal cases and some of those are assault and battery. And so there Joseph has a temper. We know this from a lot of these um criminal cases. And so just reading all that and how he would hurt people because he would just get really enraged. And so like that kind of gives a little bit of credibility to me in these sources of him hurting Emma. And then you have the story of Martin Harris where we take a bullhip to his wife just to get her to shut up. So So these this gives a little bit more weight. And this to me even though this is polygamy, this essay, it all kind of speaks to Joseph Smith's character. I mean, I I could hear apologists saying just like with the racist stuff, yeah, men were rougher with their wives at the time. And so, we got to give Joseph a pass because he was a product of his time. And again, I think critics would say someone who speaks with Jesus, somebody who claims to be a a prophet here in Revelator and the greatest man who's ever lived besides Jesus, maybe we should hold him to a higher standard. >> One would think. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. That's great, Julia. Thank you for sharing that. That's important. >> Okay. Yeah. So, there's this next part that actually this is I think the worst part of this essay. Nemo, do you mind just reading the the headline and then the first paragraph if that's okay? >> That's fine. Yeah. How did women experience plural marriage in the 19th century? The experience of living in plural marriages was different for each woman involved. Some found happiness and fulfillment while others struggled. When considering marriage practices in the past, it is helpful to remember that expectations about marriage have changed considerably since the 19th century. This is true for both polygamy and monogamy. I mean, those are some sweeping statements that they failed to justify. >> Did you have more further thoughts on that, Nemo? >> Many. But there's this euphemism around, you know, the idea that, okay, some women found happiness and others struggled, right? They're they're not giving appropriate weight to the depth of emotional despair some of these women went through. I don't think. >> Yeah, I agree. This part made me really frustrated because they're trying to say, "Oh, monogamy is hard. Polygamy is hard, too." But the ways in which that I've seen or at least if you read Todd Compton's book, the ways that they're hard are not the same. Because a lot of times women in polygamy, they they weren't taken care of. They didn't have a husband to support them. They had to get their own job. This isn't this isn't really a struggle in monogamy because that's that's typically how that works. is one of them. At least back in the day, too. The man would work, he would provide for his wife and kids. That's not at all how polygamy was. Sandra, I wasn't sure if you had any thoughts on the way the church is framing this. Like polygamy, like polygamy was hard, but also so is monogamy. Wasn't sure if you had thoughts. >> Uh well, yeah, it I don't know. It's like saying, "Well, it's hard to uh walk uphill for three blocks compared to it's hard to run a marathon." I mean, it's you're kind of looking at apples and oranges. I mean, it's the comparisons are odd. polygamy was uh expentially far exceeds any kind of problems you would have in an average marriage. And to just sweep Emma's problems under this rug by saying, "Oh, well, everyone had trouble and everyone didn't have to deal with their husband sleeping with half the women in town." That just seems like a bridge too far to just say, "Oh, well, everyone has struggles, you know." Uh, but there's also the problem of people need to understand the none of these were marriages. It bothers me when it's all framed in marriages. They weren't marriages. There was nothing legal about this. Joseph wasn't supporting these women. and he wasn't setting up households where they were a woman in charge of her own house. Uh they weren't acknowledged publicly. These are uh at best kept women like a um fellow in that time period might have had a woman on the side in another household >> like mistresses. >> Mistresses. Yeah. Uh, it's not even as good as a mistress because like with the girls, uh, the Partridge sisters, they're only married to Joseph, uh, what, a month or something. When Emma gets so upset about the whole thing, she orders them out of the house and Joseph makes them move down the street. I mean, these are not marriages. It when you use that word, it kind of gives some sort of normaly to it. These are this is not normal kinds of situations. This is a middle-aged man taking advantage of teenage girls behind everyone's back including his wife. And when they come west, it doesn't get much better. Okay, now you get acknowledged as a plural wife out here in the west and you may get your own house, but it may be out in the middle of the desert in some foreign uh faroff community where you're struggling to uh keep bread on the table and your husband may come by and see you once a year. I mean, the many of these plural marriages in Utah were just um once a year things. A lot of women had to support themselves. It was a very uneven system that had a lot of women struggling to just make ends meet. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Yeah. >> I wanted to also talk about this other part in the essay. So, right in the middle of in the in the middle paragraph, it says, I know we've talked about this before, but it says women were free to choose whether to enter into a plural marriage. And I know we've discussed this before with how women weren't didn't really have a choice. Emma didn't have a choice. Joseph Smith talks about the angel with the flaming sword. But already, I just wanted to mention like when you have a mouthpiece for God that's telling you that you need to do this thing, there's already an imbalance of power and that takes away the freedom that these women had to refuse him. And so I just don't think the church is being honest of that part. I don't think women were afraid to reject Joseph Smith. Like I know some of them were able to get away like the story of Martha Brotherton with Brigham Young. She was locked in a room and she was kept trying to like push off her answer it seemed like and then so she eventually didn't get with Brigham but even post even after she passed away Brigham was he heard of her passing and he had her sealed to him. So like I don't like that the church is framing it this way because I don't think that's accurate. Well, I think you look at um Kimell's daughter. She says that >> Kimble Hebra >> Hebc Kimell Helen >> Helen Mar Kimell she says that she accepted Joseph as a polygamist husband because her parents said it was the God ordained thing for her to do. And so you have to also factor in the religious aspect of this that when your parents, your prophet, uh other apostles like Brigham Young are telling you this is God's will for you to do this. How are these young women or married women? How are they to evaluate this when you pull rank on them by religious authority that God has called you to do this? And like poor Emma uh and if you don't do it, you'll be damned. The religious pressure that is put on them to accept this. It would be very obviously it was very hard for women to come against God their whole system of belief and say I just can't do this. I can't believe God would have told you to ask me this. They would have had to have left the community. Who would they have gone to live with? It would just been a a tremendous sacrifice and take a lot of strength for a woman to have walked away from this. And I think we see good examples of that with Nancy Rigdon and with the Happiness Letter and seeing what she went through when she did reject that proposition and uh the way, you know, Joseph Smith tried to shame her publicly and and these sorts of things. It's a great example of both that and just the level of coercion he was trying to put on these women. You read that letter and you see the language he's trying to use to try and get this to happen. That's not a choice. That's, you know, if you know, if you're not as strong as Nancy Rigdon, who must have been an incredibly strong individual, you're probably going to cave to that kind of pressure. And there's no judgment in that because of course you would. >> And to me, you know, now we've talked about not just Joseph Smith's character, but the modern Mormon church's character. Again, this also speaks to Mormon Jesus and Mormon God's character because literally the church teaches free agency. uh that that's a crucial component. What 14, 15, 16, 17 year old girl when told that Mormon God or Mormon Jesus are giving them 24 hours to either accept Joseph's advances on plural marriage, have sex with him, and also the added bonus that all her family will be saved and exalted forever in Mormon heaven if she agrees. But if she doesn't agree in 24 hours, then she and her family will all be left to the wolves, so to speak, in turn of in terms of their own eternal exaltation and salvation. That is coercion and pressure and undue influence on the part of Mormon God and Mormon Jesus that I think defies any uh reasonable standard for decent character. >> Right. And and you also have added into that the situation that many of these young women, Joseph had already stayed in their home uh in earlier years. So that these young girls had already seen their parents accept Joseph Smith as a man who speaks for God. And Joseph then takes advantage of that position of authority of their family's acceptance of Joseph as a spokesperson for God. So that when he finally approaches them, they are weighing their decision against their family's upbringing and acceptance of this man as God's spokesperson. >> Right. Right. Good point. >> I think just a quick point there is to your point, John, about, you know, these teenage girls. This is the same religion that proudly proclaims that 8-year-olds are choosing to be baptized. You know, there's that idea that 8-year-olds under all that social pressure, under all that pressure from their parents, are choosing to be baptized and are choosing to enter into covenants they don't yet understand and are choosing to commit to giving the church 10% of their income for the rest of their life. and they're, you know, committing to all these things at the age of eight. So, it's pretty power for the course then that the church would try and paint it other situations where there's coercion or where there's overt pressure and undue influence as well. Yeah, of course these people have a choice. One of the funny things I think on the whole choice angle is that they they say a child has the ability to make this decision to commit to God to baptism at 8, but they won't let a 13-year-old child resign from the Mormon church because they say he's not old enough to make that decision. What? He was old enough at 8 to join. Why isn't he old enough at 13 to decide he doesn't want to be a member anymore? It's just funny how they play the game of when you're old enough to make an informed decision. >> I wonder if you have to be several months shy of your 15th birthday. >> No, not even then. Because I don't think they'll let you I don't think they'll let someone resign on their own until they're at least 16. Uh, only if the parents agree to it. I don't think they'll let a child under 16 resign. >> Yeah. >> But you can agree to get married to the prophet in polygamy, >> right? >> Yeah. Yeah. That that none of none of this makes sense. The ethics uh just don't make sense here at all. And and it's also so outrageous that eventually Joseph Smith is killed. The saints are driven west and after you know a few decades of pu persecution eventually the entire practice is abandoned after it's stated to be irreparable, unchangeable and never to be taken from the earth. None of that makes sense and that now the church is downplaying it and denying it and distancing itself from it. All of the polygamy stuff stinks to high heaven. None of it adds up or makes sense. Well, then they come along in 1890 because of government pressure and say, "Okay, I guess we'll have to give it up." But it's not a revelation. You look at Doctrine of Covenants. It's not that Woodruff isn't giving a revelation in that statement. He's saying he's advising the brethren to quit practicing polygamy. And they uh didn't follow his advice. He didn't follow his advice. The top leadership continues to go on with polygamy. And uh in the book Solemn Covenant by um uh Carmen Hardy, yeah, Hardy is the last name. Uh in his book at the back he lists 220 men who took plural wives after the 1890 manifesto up until 1904 when they gave the second manifesto that we really really really mean it now. You got to stop polygamy, >> right? >> Uh so you have the church continually lying about polygamy. First they lie about the practice of it. Then they lie about the stopping of the practice of it. It's a whole history of deception. >> Yeah. >> So this actually Oh, John, did you have more? >> Just God and Jesus say they're not the authors of confusion, right? They say >> I just wanted to say this brings us basically to the last slide. This is the very last section of this essay that I've pulled out here. And so I'll just read it. How did plural marriage end in the church? The ending of plural marriage was a gradual process. In 1862, the United States government began enacting a series of increasingly harsh anti-pilgamy laws. As a result of these illegal actions, the church faced disinccorporation by 1890 and was about to lose most of its properties, including its temples. To me, this felt like a really big admittance by the church cuz like if hearing this, I'm like, "Oh, is this even this doesn't sound like a revelation? It sounds like they are reacting to the church government and they are making this, like you said, Sandra, it's not really a revelation. He's not wording it like a revelation, but just the church admitting that the government was about to take away all of its property, including the temple, makes me feel like this isn't really from God, >> right? And they didn't take the leadership didn't take this that seriously because when you look at all the apostles that continued to take plural wise after 1890 obviously they were only doing a sham statement for the sake of the government to keep them from confiscating the Mormon temples. uh the leadership uh had this idea that well king sex we got our fingers crossed behind us it doesn't really count uh we're not really really going to stop polygamy we just will stop doing it publicly so that the people don't see this uh and so the whole history of postmanifesto polygamy uh I mean there's a number of books that detail the problems with all that my own great grandpa Brigham Young Jr. who was an apostle. He took a plural wife after the 1890 manifesto. But he wasn't the only apostle that did this. Many of the apostles took plural wives. It isn't just a matter of oh well farmer Brown way out in Vernal took a plural wife and who knew about that >> or one of the Romney in Mexico. >> Yeah. It's the top leadership. It's the apostles. It's the 70s. It's the stake presidents. It's the bishops. It's the leadership that are taking plural wives with the authority of the church leaders with church sanctioned approval uh sending people to Mexico to avoid the uh government here figuring out that they're still practicing polygamy. It's all done um behind the scenes. It's the same pattern of lying that you had in Nauvoo to cover up polygamy. Both times they're covering up polygamy. Uh to keep from being in trouble with the law. >> Yeah. It's almost like the church needs to issue a new essay entitled Mormon God and Mormon Jesus's character. >> There we go. or just just every time we've been up to our clavical in public relation issues or in government persecution or whatever and here's every time we capitulated. That'd be a really informative essay. You'd get the 1978 revelation. You'd get the 1890 manifesto on polygamy. You'd get well I don't know what else. You'd get the reverse of the LGBTQ ban on children being baptized. Um yeah, I' I'd read that essay. >> Okay. So, so next we if we're done, this is that finishes up the polygamy. I essay. >> Oh, wait, wait, wait. I I have to do one last uh question for Sandra. So, Sandra, recently uh my friend Robert Reynolds Reynolds put out a YouTube series called An Inconvenient Faith. And in there, Terrell Given, uh, you know, chief Mormon apologist in 2025, you know, working at the Maxwell Institute, sort of the successor to Daniel Peterson and and Spencer Flumen and all those people. He says in the polygamy part of the documentary that those who uh those who leave the church because of Joseph Smith's polygamy have unrealistic expectations for what a Mormon prophet uh should behave like. I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that. Did I get that right, Juliet? Did I say that right? >> Yeah. Yeah, you did. Yeah, that was right. >> Okay. Do what do you what would you say to to chief apologist Terrell Given who claims that those who leave the church over Joseph Smith's polygamy have unrealistic expectations of prophets. It's unrealistic for us to expect a prophet of God to be honest, to be chasteed, uh to follow the laws of the land, uh to be honest with his people, to uh be honoring to his wife, to be honest with her. Is this unrealistic for us to expect these things? I I look at all of the uh TV preachers that get arrested for scamming people for millions of dollars and having sexual escapades on the side. Most Mormons would say, "Oh, no. Those people are just terrible. Look at how terrible those preachers are." >> Their churches clearly aren't true. >> Clearly, they aren't true. Uh because we have men of God leading our church. They want to make Joseph uh this um beacon of example of what it means to be a husband and a father and a leader that we should all emulate their actions. If you emulated Joseph Smith's actions, you would get excommunicated. I don't understand this uh thing of uh making Joseph's lying and adultery an inconsequential standard of You mean you would hold that against him? Yes, I would hold that against him. >> Someone take Sandra's microphone off the stand so she can drop it. >> Okay. >> Joseph didn't even follow God's commandments in section 132 of the Doctrine of Covenants. Am I right? >> Right. Yes. He's supposed to ask the first wife's permission and uh of course he put an out a backdoor excuse for himself into the revelation because it says well if you ask the first wife and she says no you're released from the obligation of getting her permission and then you're free to just go ahead anyways. Oh thanks God. Uh >> but he didn't ask the first 22. >> He didn't ask grandma's permission for Yeah. for the first 22. like was the revelation not binding, you know, uh beforehand? I mean, if he was receiving revelations about polygamy as early as 1831, he would have known about the law of Sarah, right? >> One would think, didn't God tell him this before he started taking those 22 wives? >> But doesn't DNC 132 also specifically list virgins, not women who were already married? >> Another another thing Joseph didn't pay attention to, and >> it's for the raising up of righteous seed, right? >> Yeah. Another thing he didn't do of men. Yeah. >> Yes. So, yes, I hold him accountable to these things and I don't accept him as upholding any kind of Christian standard of a man claiming to be a spokesman for God. >> Well, you have unreasonable expectations. >> Yes. >> All right. We love you, Terl. We wish you well. >> All right, Julia. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, with no further ado, we can get started on the Joseph Smith's character essay, which is the bulk of today. Um, so I kind of just want to read this whole paragraph. Nemo, is this a lot to ask you to read? >> Absolutely not. Um, okay. Hang on. Do uh Brooklyn, sorry, you have to edit this. I just can't quite see it. Oh, there we go. >> Oh, you can't. Okay. >> Thousands of people who knew Joseph Smith testified that he was a prophet of God. And millions around the world today have received that same spiritual witness. Through translating the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, restoring priesthood authority, and reestablishing the Lord's church on the earth, Joseph Smith helped people build faith in Jesus Christ and receive the blessings of his atonement. Others have accused Joseph of wrongdoing. Some of these allegations are slander or are based on false information. Some result from an incomplete grasp of historical sources or reflect a misunderstanding of the culture in which Joseph Smith lived. Others simply remind us that while Joseph was a remarkable prophet and a man of character, he was also human. I have so many thoughts um chief among which is going back to something that Sandra said uh during the last episode we did where she talked about all this preloading and all these assumptions or these these assumptions that they make that Joseph did these things. He he restored priesthood power. He translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. They're just making all these claims, not backing any of those up and saying, "Well, all these things make him a good guy." So, what what if what happens if you don't believe he did those things? Then you're just left with a man who did some terrible stuff and there's nothing to redeem him. >> Yeah. Another thing I was thinking is in this spot, the very first sentence, thousands of people who knew Joseph Smith testified that he was a prophet of God. There's a fallacy. I believe it's called the bandwagon fallacy where it's like if everyone's doing it just hop on and you believe that thing too. And that's what the church is doing here. In fact, popularity or >> Yes. Oh, I guess so. That's another appeal to popularity. Yeah. Um which just seems like there's a lot of those kind of fallacies in here. Like everyone thought a lot of people thought well of Joseph. Some of them didn't. But it and then it says the results that the some result from an incomplete grasp of historical sources. I also feel like the church isn't being transparent about the historical sources that it's presenting. like some of the things that we've been talking about where the church is trying to present his character this way by leaving off some things, but we're talking about those things which would give a more full view of Joseph Smith's character that the church is refusing or or not stepping up to do. >> Yes. And there's no listing of what the problem areas might be when they say, "Well, some people see them this other way." Yes. We'd like to know what those other people thought and saw that uh how do we evaluate whether those were untruthful accusations against him? They never discuss the specifics of these things. They just want to dismiss everything with these broad sweeping statements. Well, uh obviously he was a man of God. Look at all of his followers. Look at the things he accomplished. Why? He had built a whole city. He has all of this following. He wrote all these scriptures. It must be of God. Well, one could do the same thing with other church leaders of other faiths. Uh you have um the Ellen White of the Seventh Day Adventists. She formed hospitals and universities and missionaries all over the world. U Mormons aren't giving her the credit of being a prophetess of God uh because of all that she accomplished. I mean, you can go through many different people's lives and say, "Well, look at the wonderful things they accomplished. Maybe they did, but it doesn't make them a prophet of God. It just means they happen to have a gift of leadership or whatever." >> And if I if I just go sentence by sentence with this essay you just put up or this this paragraph or two you just put up, Julia, thousands of people who knew Joseph Smith testified that he was a prophet of God. Well, you could say that about Keith Reeri. You could say that about Warren Jeffs. You can say that about Elron Hubard. You can say that about any, you know, Muhammad. You could say that literally about hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of alleged prophets. Goes on, millions around the world today have received the same spiritual witness. You could say billions around the world uh believe that the Catholic Church is true or or Islam is true. So again, like you said, Julia bandwagon through translating the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. We all know if you've been paying any attention to the Eldius discussion series, Joseph Smith did not translate anything accurately. Not the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Abraham, not the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, and not the Kinderic Plates. He was not a translator. They should literally stop using the T-word. The T-word should be expuned from their entire vocabulary. Joseph Smith never translated anything uh that could be remotely considered scripture. Then it says restoring priesthood authority. If you've been te paying any attention here on LDS discussions, we all know that the claims that Peter, James, and John uh restoring the mazes priesthood and even John the Baptist restoring the ironic priesthood are dubious at best to the point where one of the three witnesses, David Whitmer himself even writes in his uh you know final book or final testimony or final pamphlet that Joseph Smith made up all that uh priesthood stuff. um you know later on after Martin Harris had already uh sorry after David Whitmer had already uh disaffiliated and then it says and establish reestablishing the Lord's uh church upon the earth uh Joseph Smith helped people build faith in Jesus Christ and receive the blessings of his atonement again uh it it's almost like phrase by phrase of this uh essay it's ridiculousness and and deceptive um and again it ends by saying others simply remind that while Joseph was a remarkable prophet and a man of character, he was also human. Is that it? Is that what we're going to claim? Joseph is just human, Sandra. His his sins, his weaknesses, his uh, you know, his mistakes are are just kind of human. >> Yes. Just taking 30 to 40 wives is just human. I mean, every man has less. So why would you hold him to some sort of standard that says that he's a bad guy for that? Well, I think his wife held him to that standard and many of the people in the community did. That's why the William Law and those that set up the Nauvoo Expositor came out in opposition to him. Most Mormons don't understand that it's the insiders that came out with the accusations against him. The reason he destroyed the printing press. Oh, by the way, I think it's funny in these essays like on polygamy, the church does reference the Nauvoo Expositor as a reliable source to prove Joseph's polygamy. M >> that's the newspaper that he orders destroyed because of the liel that's in it. And now they're saying, "Oh, no, that's a good source. We can use that to prove that he was practicing polygamy." >> Okay. It also proves that he was committing adultery. >> This essay gives me the the feeling of of that that line from The Office where Kevin says, "It's only human natural." Like it it's Joseph Smith sure was human but not a particularly good one by the sounds of it. You know people say, "Oh, God has only imperfect humans to work with." Yes, but those humans come in a spectrum. And there are some humans that existed around Joseph Smith's time who weren't taking 30 to 40 plural wives, who weren't lying to their wife about it, who weren't treasure digging, who weren't doing all these sorts of things. There were other people to choose from, >> right? and the Christian ministers of his day were not going around betting half the women in their town. Uh I mean if if a competing pastor in the area were doing the kinds of things that Joseph was doing, Mormons would denounce it as a horrible person that would do such a thing. >> False prophet basically. >> Yes. A false prophet. And yet when Joseph does it, he gets a pass. It doesn't matter what you bring up, Joseph gets a pass. >> Yeah. And and if he's only human, then think of the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that the Mormon church has excommunicated for adultery, for fraud, for child abuse, uh for for for you know all sorts of things. They should have never been excommunicated. They should have never been dysfellowshipped. uh they should their member their their temple recommends should have never been withheld for them. Let alone people that drink tea or coffee or alcohol because Joseph Smith did all that too. Like if we are now going to lower the standard of what it means to be just a normal everyday um excusable human, then the Mormon church should have done away with its disciplinary council process altogether. >> Yeah. Because Joseph doesn't meet the lowest bar that the church currently maintains today to keep your membership within the church. >> Like, yeah. Why? Why am I being held to a higher standard than the prophet of the restoration? Why is that a thing? >> Because you spoke ill of the Lord's anointed, Nemo. >> Oh, I see. Makes total sense. >> That's the test. My >> bad. >> Yeah. Sorry, Julia. Keep going. >> Yeah, this is great. I love this conversation. So this next part of this Joseph Smith's character essay, it says, "Joseph recognized his weaknesses and acknowledged them openly. He even published revelations in which God rebuked him for his mistakes and commanded him to repent." So in Joseph scriptures, oh, God's getting I'm getting in trouble, too. I'm getting punished. I'm being asked to repent, so it's all good. That's kind of what the church is saying here. >> Uh Sandra, did Joseph recognize his weaknesses and acknowledge them openly? I mean he did sometimes in scripture you know or even in the Book of Mormon say hey if there are mistakes are the mistakes of men or you know in his first vision account he he does acknowledge that he had some voicables as a child. So does Joseph acknowledge his weaknesses openly? >> Yes. When there are things that everybody knows about that then oh oh well you know sorry guys. Well, God told me I I was bad for doing that. So, yeah, I repented of that. And and I just got a revelation from God that he said he'd forgive me for that. Uh but you don't see God giving him a revelation forgiving him for uh all of these women. God's telling them he has to live this law and take all of these women. It's just such a double standard. But in these essays, they're just giving these broad statements without any specificity. So, well, Joseph was only human. Well, what were the accusations against him that you're trying to dismiss with that statement? They don't go into the details of that because I think in a lot of those statements, it's obvious that they're trying to dismiss the problems on polygamy for one thing. And yet they never directly give you the examples of it. >> Yeah. >> The other thing I just want to say is that Joseph didn't always acknowledge his uh weaknesses openly. He certainly didn't acknowledge plural marriage openly. And as I have learned recently from reading these biographies on Joseph Smith, he not only denied that he had an affair with Fanny Alger, he denied it to Emma and he denied it. No, sorry. He denied it to the the leaders around him and did not admit it to the church membership. He suppressed and hid his affair with Fanny Alger. Is isn't that fair to say he did not acknowledge his affair openly with Emma? Oh, sorry, with Fanny Alger. >> Yeah, that's why Cry gets thrown out of the church for having the audacity to accuse the prophet of adultery. >> Well, then apologists will just say, "Oh, this wasn't a weakness. It was a plural marriage, so there's nothing to acknowledge. Right. Isn't that how they would respond? >> Right. Well, >> except the revelation hadn't been given yet. >> Right. Right. >> And Oliver was his assistant president. If there had been a polygamy revelation, Oliver would have known. And Joseph could have said, "Ol, stop call stop accusing me of a scrape or an affair. Here's the revelation." But he didn't do that. >> Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, Joseph was not I mean, again, he admitted stuff when his hand was caught in the cookie jar, like you said, Sandra. >> Yes. >> But there's a lot he never admitted. And the most serious things he did not admit. >> This this also reminds me of there's this speech by Joseph and I wish I had the whole thing memorized or that even sourced up here. But even the opposite of that, he would often boast about himself. And there's that famous speech where I can't I don't have it all memorized, but he says, "I have more to boast than any ever than ever any man had." and like he was able to keep a church together. No one else before him has not even Christ. They all left Christ. He's like, "No one the saints have not left for me yet. I can't remember." But he's got this whole speech in the in the history of the church um those seven volumes or the six volumes. And he just it's just very boastful. So like not even I mean I guess sometimes he does admit some of his weaknesses like we mentioned, but like other times he's like putting himself in that speech it really seems like he's putting himself above Christ. So I'll just throw that out there too. That's the same speech where he says, "What a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one." It's the same speech where he's boasting he's done more than even Jesus in keeping the church together. The whole talk is just outrageous in his boasting of how he puts himself above everybody else, >> right? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Isn't there a scripture in the Isn't there a scripture in the Book of Mormon that's like, "I do not boast of myself, but boast of Christ who strengthened me." Something like that. There is a scripture to that sentiment, is there not? >> Well, yeah. In the New Testament, Paul says something to that effect. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Just Yeah. Just wanted to get it. It's in scripture. Joseph probably should have known that. >> Well, I think it pops up in the Book of Mormon in his plagiarism of Bible stuff. >> Yeah. Also, also Sandra, those who have been following the LDS discussion series will know we did an entire episode on Joseph Smith's failed revelations. And we also did an episode on all the changes Joseph made to the book of commandments, doctrine of covenants, and that was all based on your work with Gerald. So, the church is requing Joseph Smith here saying there's no error in the revelations which I have taught. Is that true? that Joseph never taught uh revelations that ended up being erroneous and changed later. >> Well, it's not just a matter of the ones he changed. It's a matter of the ones that never got fulfilled. I mean, he's going to build a temple in Far West and that falls through. They're going to build one in Independence that falls through. So, he's always giving prophecies, but a lot of them fail. And the saints are just able to forgive and forget and just move on. >> Was it Zion's camp prophesied? >> Zion camp. >> Didn't Joseph didn't God prophesy through Joseph that they would go down to Missouri, liberate the saints, and that the the you know the work of Zion in Independence Missouri would continue unabated. >> Right. Well, a little problem there. Yes. Of course. And then uh when they couldn't get down there, then they all get chalera and a bunch of them die. If only they drunk If only they'd been able to drink hot drinks, they might have been able to avoid some colera. >> Yeah, there you are. >> Well, like I'm doing this 30-part series with John Turner on his new biography of Joseph Smith, and it's like every other page there's a failed prophecy, right? >> Like I I I call it out every single episode. >> Joseph pretty much taught that Jesus would come in his lifetime. Yes. >> Am I wrong? >> Right. Right. Uh yes. by 1890 time period approximately. Uh if Joseph lived that long, then Jesus was going to come back. And I'm thinking, well, how come God didn't know he's not going to live to 1890? Why would God even give that kind of a revelation that to Joseph that if he lived to that time period, he would see Christ return? God would have known he wasn't going to live to that time period. So it makes it uh crazy to even give the revelation in the first place. >> Yeah. I think we could make a list of dozens and dozens of failed revelations. Yes. >> On Joseph's part throughout his lifetime. And the church knows this. So again, the character of the Mormon church to allow this type of quote to be perpetuated is is uh is misin it's miseducating its members, I think. >> Right. is giving a very um sugarcoated covering to a lot of problem areas in Joseph's lifetime that if you saw the details would tell you he couldn't be a man of God. But if they can cover it over with enough uh smoke that you won't realize the implication of the failed prophecies of the debacles that he has along the way and his move to different cities and the failure to achieve the things he said they were going to achieve in these different places. Uh you just uh you wave the wand, these aren't the droids you're looking for and you can just go on. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's good. So, this next I'll just move on. So, this next part is what did Joseph's contemporaries say about his character? And I'll just read this whole section. It is rare to find contemporary accounts of Joseph Smith that take a neutral position on the prophet. Joseph Smith had vocal critics, but thousands of converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints praised Joseph Smith's character and admired him as a friend and a prophet. For example, Jane Manning James, a black convert who immigrated to Nauvoo and was welcomed into Joseph and Emma Smith's home, declared, "I do know the prophet Joseph Smith. He was the finest man I ever saw on earth." She testified, "I was certain he was a prophet because I knew it." >> Well, that's could be said of any number of uh men. I mean, look at Warren Jeffs, polygamist, serving a life sentence down in Texas. He still has followers today that swear he's a prophet of God. The fact that someone will uphold you as a prophet of God is not proof that you deserve the title. And Jane Manning, uh, >> is this the same woman who was sealed to Joseph as a servant? >> I was going to ask that. >> Yes, it's the same woman. Go ahead. Go ahead, Nemo. Do you want to ask it? >> Just don't don't. I just want to hear what Sandra has to say. >> It's a black woman sealed to Joseph as a servant. >> Yes. Well, this black family comes into Nauvoo and evidently Joseph helps them out, takes them into his home for a time, and Jane becomes a kind of servant in the Smith home. And according to uh Jane, she claimed that Joseph told her she could be sealed to him. Well, she didn't understand what any of that was about and declined it. Well, later on when she gets out here west, she gets thinking about that. Has failed marriage and things and so she goes to the church. She wants to be to take Joseph up on his offer and be sealed to him. Well, they said, "Well, no, she couldn't be sealed as a wife to him." But they would seal her as a servant to the Smith family. And they invent a ceremony. this in the 1890s. They invent a ceremony for Jane to make her feel good that they're going to seal her as a servant for all eternity to Joseph Smith. Jane doesn't even get to attend this. She has to wait outside. She can't go to the temple to be sealed even as a servant to Joseph Smith. They have to do it by proxy. So using Jane Manning as any kind of support for uh Joseph's uh claim to be a prophet is really problematic because her whole life shows the uh discrepancy on race, on women, on marriage, on uh who can go to the temple. It's just all fraught with so many problems. I'm surprised they even brought her name up. Well, I have thoughts on why they did it. And so, so this reminded me and I think Mimo reminded him of the same thing. So, in a I don't know if how recent it was this fireside with um Brad Wilcox, he um he made these statements, these very racist statements in a presentation and people called him out for it. Hey, these are very racist. And so, he later made a did a video um apologizing. And so, I have this clip that I want to share because it gives me the same vibes. This video gives me the same vibes as this essay that we're that we're reading. So, I'll just I'll just play the clip. >> Some of you may have heard about a talk I gave last Sunday night. Now, it wasn't the first time that I've given that talk, and it wasn't the first time I've used the ideas I shared or the line of reasoning that I used to try to address some difficult topics. In the past, I failed to see how my comments could be seen as insensitive and hurtful. And I'm very grateful for friends, friends like brother Corbett who have helped me and corrected me and taught me. It's it's just screaming, "I have a black friend. Look, it's okay. I'm not racist. I have a black friend." It's like that that's not how that works, Bradley. It just feel it feels it felt at the time and it feels now like they would just wheeled sort of Ahmed Corby out as like look see we have a black general authority and he can make this not be a problem anymore and it seems like that's kind of what the same thing they did with uh with Jane just saying look a black woman said Joseph Smith was a good guy so we don't have any race problems in the church obviously look >> it doesn't work >> in regard to that I think it's curious that uh I went through the um tour of the Saratoga Springs Temple, I think it was. And when you walked through, they have all these pictures of Jesus, which is a new idea they've got now that if you put enough pictures of Jesus in the temple, uh that makes it more Christian. Uh, but along with all the pictures of Jesus, they had this big portrait of this black woman who I assume was supposed to be Jane Manning uh in the temple. And I thought, how strange that uh it's this effort of trying to uh re-educate everyone. See, we aren't racist. We have a picture of a black woman, a painting of a black woman at the temple. And then I went through the um what was it? The St. George temple I think when they had it reopened and they had two black people portraits in that one with all the pictures of Jesus. A man and a woman. Two different ones, one a man, one a woman. And it just the church is trying so hard to convince everyone they aren't racist and the very fact they have to try so hard kind of gives it away that they got a problem. So the that's my thought on that. >> Yeah. Were there other thoughts? This that also makes me think of like if the church is able to commission this is just sort of a side note. If they can commission these portraits to be done for the temple they could have commissioned the rock in the hat. Anyway, but that aside, um, so going on with the essay, there's this line here where it says, so this is the topic is, can a person with flaws, as Joseph Smith had, still be a prophet? And then it says, prophets, they they testify of Christ and they have weaknesses, but it says, but as we see in the lives of Moses, Peter, and others, a prophet's weaknesses do not disqualify him from being called of God. Do we have thoughts on that? Well, I want the list of the things that uh we're talking about. >> Yeah. Name the weaknesses, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. And and weaknesses is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. They're talking about weaknesses. Okay. Let's find the weaknesses of Moses and of Paul. And let's look at what they were. So, okay. Moses didn't like public speaking and refused to kind of speak out loud and got his brother to do it. Is that the same as the weaknesses of Joseph Smith in taking wives behind his wife's back? just to talk of polygamy if not of nothing else of the public dishonesty. Moses wasn't dishonest publicly. He just didn't want to speak whereas Joseph Smith being publicly dishonest with people. >> Are they comparable? >> Mhm. >> I wouldn't see them as comparable. But it's another example how the church is trying to put a smoke screen over the details that would show problems in Joseph Smith's life. uh they will make excuses for him they wouldn't make for anyone else. Other church churches that had leaders that were shown to be lying or taking advantage of the women in the congregation would not be given this pass of well he just has weaknesses. They don't give that to Warren Jeffs or the different polygamists that have been arrested. uh they want to show those people as being oh well see they they're just terrible people but if Joseph does the same thing well yes but we're all human I want to know how human can we be and still be claiming someone as a prophet of God where's the line on this what goes from human weakness to human fault uh it's one thing for your child to still five cent out of your wallet. It's another thing for him to uh go write a false check and draw out everything in your bank account. I mean, there are degrees here of what uh could pass as something you could excuse to just say, well, we all have weaknesses. That's covering a multitude of sins. >> Yeah. Uh, and if you look at for me, uh, this was hard because I have always loved Joseph and respected him because I was conditioned to do so. But it starts with his fraudulent, illegal treasure digging that he made money from, lied about, and never found any treasure and got in legal trouble for. Uh, that's a problem. Then he fraudulently produces the Book of Mormon. Even if he believes that somehow he was channeling it as a revelation, we all know it's a 19th century document, there's no good evidence that there were golden plates. So there's clearly conscious some sort of conscious fraud going on with Joseph Smith with the Book of Mormon in the plates just cuz he's constantly hiding the plates when we've I think we've sealed the deal that he was being deceptive with the golden plates and that the Book of Mormon is clearly a 19th century document. Book of Abraham is a fraudulent thing. Uh he never, you know, c the the Kinderhook plates. He claimed he could translate them when he clearly couldn't. But then you go to the bank fraud in Kirtland. You go to him committing adultery with Fanny Alger and then hiding it and lying about it and excommunicating Oliver just for accurately accusing him of doing that. uh all the way through uh to the way he managed the Missouri Saints sort of with reckless abandon. Joseph definitely contributed to the death of dozens and dozens of people just by all the prophecies and commandments that led to all these people going down to Missouri and ultimately getting killed or massacred. I think that's fair to say. And then you go to Nauvoo and all the hiding and lying of polygamy and the 14-year-olds and other men's wives. Uh and you know, so so like by what standard has Joseph um you know, not become disqualified from being a prophet? And then weirdly um it says here that Joseph Smith turned to the Lord for direction, listened to the counsel he received and grew from his mistakes. I don't know about you Sandra, I just read Fon Brody's final two chapters in No Man No Man knows my history sort of about, you know, his final, you know, year in Nauvoo. As you have a sense of Joseph Smith's learning and taking wisdom from God, does that manifest in Joseph becoming even more righteous and humble um you know during his final year or two in Nauvoo? >> It doesn't look like he's learning much in that last year. Maybe he's learning how to hide the marriages better. But uh Joseph's life is a very complicated life. And to just brush over all of these areas by saying, "Well, we're all human uh is is just a a bridge too far. It it mounts up." And when you get to Nauvoo, it's just beyond the ability to dismiss this. The deception, the line that's going on in the community between him, his wife, uh the church leadership, the rank and file in the city. Joseph's lying to everyone. Uh he's lying to his wife. It's all based on deception. And I don't think you can look at Joseph's life and come away thinking that it's that simple that we can just say, "Oh, we're all human." >> No. And by the end of Dau, he's having himself crowned as the king of the world by the council of 50 and is marching his Nauvoo Legion around neighboring towns, scaring the be Jesus out of everyone around him. And I get the trauma that he experienced in Ohio and and Missouri and elsewhere that probably led to some of that trauma. Um, but he becomes militaristic. He becomes prideful. He becomes reckless and irresponsible. Um, and and careless and even boastful. So, I guess I just take issue with the church making it sound like he grew and he learned and became more and more Christlike with each year he was a prophet. I think he became out of control by the end. And weirdly, in the um Inconvenient Faith documentary, many of the faithful Mormon scholars conclude that that polygamy was Joseph going off the rails, that it was never really commanded of God at all. and even even wondering whether God took Joseph from the earth in 1844 as a as a consequence of him going off the rails as a fallen prophet. So, how can he be a fallen prophet going off the rails with polygamy not even being of God? And how is that consistent with this claim of the church that Joseph listened to the Lord's counsel and grew from his mistakes? What he grew is he grew prideful and reckless and he grew as a narcissist and a megalamomaniac in my opinion. >> That is a perfect segue to the next slide there, John. >> Go for it. >> Yeah. Uh because essentially you talk about God taking him away. That claim is still being made now by prophets. The current prophet of the church claims that if he leads the church astray, God will take him away. I mean, he's 101, so he's clearly not done anything wrong yet, but >> So, we'll just go ahead and play the clip and then we can talk about it. President Nelson, would you ever lead anyone astray? >> Oh, no. >> That's not what prophets do, is it? >> Some of them have said, "If the president of the church should ever lead people astray, God would take him away." So, I like to stay here >> and I won't lead you astray. That's kind of a That's kind of a dark thing to tell a bunch of children, don't you? >> Right. Well, does this mean that the Mormon prophets that only were able to serve for a couple of years or months or whatever, that they were just really bad guys and that's why God had to just zap them right out of there. >> The the irony is Howard W. Hunter was actually a pretty great prophet and he only stuck around for nine months. >> Yes. Kind of a problem. Yeah. And I think the framing of this as well in the lion house, sorry, the Smith family log home in Palmyra, the framing of that there is creating this direct link with Russell M. Nelson to the first prophet of the church. So he's he's implying that standard applied to Joseph Smith too in that, you know, he he couldn't lead you astray or God would take him away. But then to the point of the apologists in that video and to to the broader question that you may then think of is well hang on, Joseph Smith was killed. He died before his time. So, could you not make the argument that God took him away because he was starting to lead the church astray? You could make it. >> He's what, 38 when he dies. And here we have Nelson celebrating, I think, today his 101st birthday. So, >> Nelson is um wow, he's a far greater prophet than Joseph ever thought of being, evidently. And uh it really puts Joseph down because he's the youngest prophet to die. So the implications would seem to be God took Joseph out because he was doing it all bad. >> Let me just ask you Sandra and the panel as well. if we're trying to be fair or at least somewhat objective in the LDS discussion series which many people laugh at. Um I do think we're raising valid legitimate points even if we we all have a bias. But uh can we say if we're trying to be objective that this is progress for the church to admit that not just Joseph uh was fallible and flawed at least a teeny bit but that prophets can be flawed and that prophets make mistakes. Like Sander, you've been paying attention since at least the 50s on some of this stuff. Was there a time where the church would have never even admitted that? And if so, can we can we be gracious enough to say that the church is making progress here? Acknowledging Jose both Joseph's flaws and the ability of prophets generally to get it wrong. >> The church has made strides in moving towards a more candid telling of their story. They have made strides forward in that, but it's been incremental and it's been forced. They didn't do this just because they wanted to tell the story nicer. They have been forced to admit these different problem areas because researchers have gone back and looked at the original documents and the whole Joseph Smith project of them posting all of that early uh artifacts of the history of Mormonism, all the early documents. That's a wonderful thing and I'm glad they've done it. But it also helps to prove what critics have said all along that there are changes, there are problems, there are cover-ups, there are lies, there are inconvenient facts all through the Joseph Smith papers that show the history is a much more bumpy ride than the church has told us in the past. Yes, they're being more forthright, but we still don't have an official church list of Joseph's wives. So they are not just glibly going out there and telling all the story. They are still holding some things back. >> And also with their gospel topics essays, they're not being fully candid and honest, are they? >> No. I mean, otherwise they would give more objective accounts of all the different problematic issues, but they seem to want to always leave out or at best minimize uh and downplay uh the the problems uh which which isn't the level of honesty that the church told me that I should >> exhibit. they would expect more honesty from us as members than they expect from Joseph Smith, which we've talked about earlier. And I think that's very true. Uh if you were dishonest on your job, on the finances of the company, you would get excommunicated for that by the church. They would see you as being uh an immoral person. And yet the Mormon church doesn't come public about all of his financial dealings. There were problems in Joseph Smith's day. There's problems today in church finances. They are not forthright on their own standards where they fail. They just cover up. >> Yeah. >> I also want to add something too, John. When you asked that question, it reminded me so in 2013 in October of 2013, President Ugdorf at the time he was president of the quorum of the 12, he he made this statement. He said to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine. And so I just want to say so he said this publicly like in to all the membership of the church who were watching conference and then immediately after this if I'm not mistaken he was Nelson took charge and he was I don't know if the word corrective word is demoted but he was taken out of the first presidency. And so like I feel like to some degree it was because of this forward thinking that he has. So like to say does the church get credit for saying that prophets make mistakes? Well then why did did in 2013 after making this statement they kind of like lower and I think even Ukarf I think studies have been done that has spoken less and less in conference if I'm not mistaken like and I don't know if it's because of this statement but I just it it's one thing for the church to admit something in an essay that's that's on just somewhere on their website in the gospel topics manual page but it's another thing for them to publicly say that prophets make mistakes but also like I want to go back to this question of like m how many mistakes mistakes can a prophet make before it is leading people astray because even Oakdorf said our doctrines were sometimes not in harmony with what Jesus was teaching. So like if prophets teach doctrine and the doctrines can be wrong and not in line with with Jesus then like where's the line and I want I want to ask that to every member of the church. Where is the line between mistake and leading people astray and where did Joseph fall? >> Right? And that gets you back like to uh Joseph Smith's King Flet sermon where he talked about plural gods and our ability to progress to godhood. Uh and the church today wants to say, "Oh, well, that was not official doctrine." They are walking back on Joseph's teaching at the beginning of the church on deification of man and that our goal is to someday be gods and goddesses and have our own planets. And how many of us have heard the church lately saying we don't believe in a man gets to have his own planet? Well, no. If you go to Google search, you won't find planet used in Mormon discourse. They are not saying man can have his own planet. Man can have his own world. You got to use the word world not planet. Uh which it's just this word game again. But they are still saying that you get to be a god. They just say it more carefully. So it the whole history of Mormonism gets so confusing on what they promote and what they walk back. what they want to say was official and what what they want to say wasn't official. So Brigham Young can teach Adam God and even put it in the temple ceremony in St. George >> and blood atonement >> and blood atonement and oh but those aren't official those were just uh one man's opinion prophet of God in the temple sounds kind of official to me but it's amazing how they can pick and choose what is official what isn't official what we can count in trying to determine are the church leaders ethical are they honest are they forthright they want to say well they made mistakes takes what ones they don't they just make this sweeping statement well they all had their faults like what they don't tell you what they mean by that what are we excusing >> yeah I I think that phrase gets used a lot right uh whereas they say the pope Catholics uh say the pope is infallible but none of them believe it Mormons say the prophet is fallible but none of them believe it >> I think that's true we we functionally act as though they're infallible because we refuse to ever acknowledge times when they get things wrong. And if you refuse to acknowledge it, then what's the functional difference between that and just and just calling them infallible, >> right? >> I think it'd be worthwhile to do a Mormon uh an LDS discussions episode on the top 10 or 20 candidates for the church leaders uh leading the members astray. And I I'll give it an initial list. Okay. So, the Book of Mormon is being a translation. Uh, and and a historical document, that's one. The Book of Abraham is being a translation, that's one. The Kirtland Bake scandal, that's one. Uh, you know, the establishment of Zion in Independence, Missouri and the coming of Jesus Christ along with Zion's camp, that's one. Uh, Joseph Smith lying about polygamy and hiding it. That's one. Uh, I would say the rhetoric. Uh I you know Sandra you mentioned uh Adam God theory and blood atonement by by Brigham Young. I think that's one I or two I think Brigham Young uh creating rhetoric that probably led to the Mountain Meadows massacre and then the subsequent cover up of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I think that's one. I think uh postmanifesto polygamy uh is absolutely one. Uh, not to mention the entire polygamy franchise. How is it that How is it that polygamy itself is not Mormon church leaders leading the church astray? Think about how many people were deceived into polygamy or devastated by polygamy only to have the polygamy doctrine pretty much rescended by modern times. How is that not one? What about the Secret Mormon meetings of 1922 when BH Roberts and all the church leaders were put on notice by BH Roberts that the Book of Mormon wasn't historical, that the Book of Abraham had problems and all of a sudden they just decided to kind of bury that. How is that not uh leading the church astray? And then of course maybe one of the biggest, how is Joseph Smith putting the curse of Cain doctrine into every scripture he produced along with the laymanite dark skin curse problem into the Book of Mormon such that we would have 150 years of horrific racism of treating Native Americans like they were evil, wicked, bad descendants of of naughty, wicked people and withholding the priesthood and temple blessings from an entire entire race of God's children for 150 years until God changes his mind about black people in 1978. And then 20 years later in the Gospel Topics essays, however many it was, then the church says, "Oh, sorry, we were wrong. Uh those that's just folklore. Those were just policies. Those were just the opinions of men." How are those items not pretty clear examples of Mormon church leaders leading the church astray? And if those don't count, what does? >> Right? I want a list of how we determine who is a prophet of God. What are what's the what is the church's criteria for when a man speaks for God and when he doesn't. They don't have they won't give you that kind of a list because they're always afraid you'll be able to show Joseph failed it. >> Yeah. They they benefit by the ambiguity. >> Yes. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if you've ever seen that meme that went around, which is the general conference uh center and then there was like a billboard to one side and it said currently speaking as and then it was just either a man or a prophet and it would light up depending on what they were saying. Uh for for me the way I've always set that standard is if they are speaking in their official capacity as a prophet seer and revelator then you should be able to trust that they're speaking for God. I don't care what they write in their personal journal at home. I don't care what care what they say to their neighbor over the fence. I don't care about any of that stuff. But if they're speaking in their official capacity over a pullpit to a congregation of church members, then you should be able to take that as they're speaking for God. I >> But the First Presidency affirmed in a statement that the priesthood ban was doctrinal. And the First Presidency affirmed in a statement that that in effect the John W. Taylor revelation uh didn't exist or you know was never given you know what I mean like the first presidency's made all sorts of official declarations and all sorts of statements and teachings have been made by prophets and revelators during general conference accompanied with the words thus sayeth the lord that bolster pretty much everything that I just listed. Am I wrong Sandra? >> Well that's about it. >> Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, all right, Julia, >> that was great. That's definitely gonna be a short this whole conversation. So good. Okay, so moving on to the essay. Um Nemo, actually, do you mind reading this little this little section from this just the whole section? >> Yep. In assessing the weaknesses and imperfections of Joseph Smith, we should recall as Elder David A. Ednar taught, "One of the greatest indicators of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of others." So what you're saying there is if you're offended by Joseph Smith's actions, you're not spiritually mature. I would like to point out then according to Russell M. Nelson, Jesus Christ himself is not spiritually mature because according to Russell M. Nelson quote Jesus Christ is offended when we allow nicknames to be used in the in place of the full name of the church. Jesus Christ is offended according to the current prophet of the church. Does that mean Jesus Christ spiritually immature? Elder Bednau. >> Well, evidently uh President Hinckley was immature >> because he liked using the word Mormon. >> Yes. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just this that little phrase just is really funny to me. Like one of the greatest indicators of our spiritual maturity, spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to weakness, inexperience, and potentially offensive actions. Like it really is like if you're offended by Joseph, you're not spiritually mature. Just that them making those the same thing, them making those equal. It just just boggles my mind. Well, if your stake president were brought up on charges of uh sleeping with half the women in your ward. Uh would you be wrong to be offended by that? I mean, they they just don't want to go into what they mean by the what would offend you about Joseph's actions. They can't spell it out because of course you would be offended by those actions. You would be offended by them in anyone else. But Joseph gets a pass. >> But also >> I think that sums up most of that essay, right? Joseph gets a pass. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Sorry. Go on, John. >> But also, what what does this statement say then about modern, you know, first presidency members and prophet seers and revelators? If you look at how the Mormon church dealt with Fon Brody, if you look at how they dealt with Sarah, with Sandra and Gerald Tanner, if you look at how they dealt with the September 6 with David Wright, with Brett Metaf, with Margaret Tusano, with me, with Bill Reel, with Sam Young, with Natasha Hur, with Julie Hanks, like the the the graveyard of Mormon critics is littered with uh, you know, uh, defensive, angry degree hostile reactions from top Mormon church leadership. So, in my in my opinion, this uh this quote by David Bednar condemns worst of all modern prophets, seers, and revelators because they're awful at responding to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of their critics in >> just casually forgetting that I got exun going toe-to-toe with down jokes. It's fine. We we won't talk about it. And Nemo. And Nemo. I'm sorry, Nemo. That's ridiculously forgetful of me. >> Teasing you. >> No, it's good. No, absolutely true. Wait, were you Were you actually communicating, Nemo? >> Yeah, I I heard something happened. My priesthood stopped working. I don't know why. >> I I only li I only live streamed the entire event, but somehow I forgot it. Sorry, Nemo. Nemo, too, everyone. >> Oh, good. >> Yeah. No, but seriously, the church is the worst at at dealing with the weaknesses and experience and offensive actions of others, I think. >> And particularly now, they used to have quite a good sense of humor about certain things, right? Their reaction to the Book of Mormon musical was, you know, I've seen worse reactions to religious satire from >> or they said the book's always better than the play or the movie or whatever, >> stuff like that, right? But now, particularly under the tenure of Russell Nelson, the church seems to have just lost its PR abilities and has gone, "No, we are just going to get legitimately offended by stuff and get upset and start throwing our toys out the pram when a, you know, a Hulu docu series or reality TV show comes out about members of our church. We're going to start to get all upety about it." What happened to the good old days of Mike Austin who knew how to roll with the punches? You know, actually thinking about it now, there is one group of people who the church has shown incredible spiritual maturity in how they've responded to their weaknesses and inexperience and potentially offensive offensive actions. And you know who that is? Pedophiles and child abusers. Yeah, >> that happens to be one small group of people that the church has been phenomenally mature in how it's covered up for them, uh, tolerated them, not punished them, and unfortunately, and I'm being a little bit, uh, probably sarcastic, how darkly, uh, the Mormon church has been willing to cover up and, uh, hide the weaknesses and the inexperience and the offensive actions of child abusers. Did I go too far? >> No. Well, and and getting back to the polygamy issue, I think the average Mormon, at least in the past, has played a sort of double game in their mind on somehow being um turned off by the concept of polygamy and thinking, "Oh, that was I'm glad were past that and that's all in the past. It was just Utah uh territory stuff and they don't want to think about it. But they someway compartmentalize the section 132 and the church has been able to convince them that that's in a two-part thing. One part's about eternal marriage, the other part's about polygamy and we don't need to worry about the polygamy part anymore. And this was brought home to me so much when a few years ago I was talking to one of my former girlfriends from high school and uh who amazingly talked to me. Well, this would have been after Gerald's death. She came to the funeral and then later phoned me and uh I was asking her about how she felt about polygamy and oh well yeah that that was probably a mistake of the church. they should have never got into that it and I says oh that's interesting well how do you reconcile that with section 132 and she's like what and I says well it isn't just that there was this practice that they shouldn't have got into uh it's a revelation I mean what do you do with section 132 what do you do with Joseph Smith telling Emma she has to live this or be destroyed and she's like oh oh well well there's a lot of things we just don't understand and uh But we just can't evaluate all those things. That's too much in the past and all. But she couldn't face the reality of Joseph Smith's polygamy. She intuitively felt the polygamy was wrong but has to someway close off her mind thinking about how it was instituted who started the practice and she just can't go there because I felt she knew to discuss that very far would challenge her belief structure and she just couldn't think about it. I think that's many in the church today. Uh mistakes were made but we don't know by whom and they certainly weren't by Joseph Smith but there's something wrong with polygamy but uh we don't want to discuss who started it >> and I feel like that's one of the reasons again like we were saying that they don't give the list of wives because if they were open about that people would people could be able to learn more about these women because they become real like with um Todd Compton reading his stories and how how heartbreaking polygamy was for them. You can to me it was very clear that this was not of God. And so I think that's exactly why the church doesn't do that is because they don't want people to see things that way. >> Right. We don't want to humanize those women, >> right? >> Let's keep it vague. He had some wives. >> Yeah. And it's the same reason they excommunicate critics. It's the same reason they they excommunicate gay and lesbian people. It it's a way of dehumanizing them so that church members will never actually see that they have legitimate issues or uh should be loved and empathized with. It's it's more mark them as evil and scary and dangerous. Cast them out of our myths so we never get a chance to develop love and empathy or understanding of of their concerns. >> Yes. When you think of the story about um Oh, I can't remember the names now, but of uh the Scarlet Letter, >> Erin. >> Yeah. And so the Scarlet Letter in Mormonism is apostate. It's a instead of it being adultery, it's apostate. And so if they can label you with the term apostate or excommunicated, then they've uh neutralized your ability to persuade people by what you say. So it's their way of making you unimportant in people's lives in determining truth or value or how you respond to people. I would have people come into the bookstore and say, "I just want to ask you one question. Were you excommunicated? And well, yes, after I asked them to take my name off the role, uh, then they excommunicated me. But that it's a way of knowing who not to listen to. If you can, oh, you were put out of the church, then you aren't worth listening to. >> Yeah. Yeah. And Joseph himself, how many people did Joseph himself excommunicate just for like not selling property when he wanted or or selling property when he didn't want it or not giving him the money he wanted or you know like >> or the Nauvoo Expositor. That's how they dismissed those people. Oh well, those were apostates putting out that. >> Never mind the fact it was one of the top leaders in the church. >> Yeah, >> William Law was a top leader in the church. It's And yet they Oh, well, he was an apostate. You can't believe him. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, Joseph, if they're basically calling Joseph Smith spiritually immature in this statement, David Bner is because was was did Joseph uh respond graciously to the weaknesses and experience and offensive actions of others? I mean, probably sometimes, but maybe some of the most critical times he failed that test. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right, Julia, back to you. >> Perfect. Okay, so this next section is, "Was Joseph Smith ever convicted of illegal actions?" And I feel like this is one of the biggest parts of this essay to me. And it says, "Joseph Smith was the defendant in 21 known criminal cases." And that's really all I had highlighted from this because I think it's really interesting that the church is now so I guess, you know, growing up members hear stories of the the Carthage jail, the Liberty Jail, and things like that that they know he was arrested. They know he had runins with the law, but they don't really talk about why he was arrested in those two instances. Um, but hear them saying, you know, he was he was a defendant in 21 criminal cases. Sandra, I wasn't sure if you you could talk about this because I know with uh with you, I think you and your husband um did a lot of research in the in the earliest um glass looking trial that Joseph Smith had. I know I purchased your pamphlet and even members were getting mad at me saying like, "Oh, the tanners lied. This is just full of lies. This isn't even this isn't even like a thing that needs to be worried about." I just wasn't wasn't sure if you could talk about maybe that or just the the how open the church has been about these criminal cases. >> Well, when they dismiss this all of not having convictions, does that prove someone was an honest, upright citizen? How many people have gotten off from uh charges on business fraud that really did business fraud, but somehow were able to skirt prosecution? Uh how about mafia bosses that we could list out here? Well, how many perse prosecutions did they have? How many times were they found guilty? Just because they get off from trials all the time doesn't mean you're innocent. it just means you had a better lawyer or whatever. Um, on the 1826 trial, uh, the point for me was never whether or not he was convicted. Then the documents are not clear on just how it was resolved. There was a hearing. People were brought in on subpoena. Judges were called. There was a the church admits there was an 1826 trial or hearing, whatever way you want to word it. The problem is uh how it was finally uh dealt with. But to me, whether or not he was found guilty, he obviously was a glass slurer, which was the charge. >> He was guilty. >> He was guilty of being a glass looker. So many people are like, "John, stop saying that he was, you know, convicted in the glass looking trial." Like, he was definitely found guilty, but most importantly, nobody, including the church, disputes that he was guilty. So that's such a red herring, I think. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> And then all these other cases that were brought against him. Why is he continually being brought into court hearings? >> 21's a big number. >> Well, I think it's more than that. >> Well, this is the defendant. Not when it comes to him getting wives. That's that's amateur work, John. >> But I don't think the fact that someone's able to evade the law or escape or run away from his trials proves anything favorable for him. Uh they want to uh overstate their case to make it seem like it all was just persecution. Well, if anything, couldn't you argue that 21 times indicates that the justice system was working in that if he was being wrongfully imprisoned, if you think about people in modern times who are wrongfully imprisoned or or taken as political prisoners, right, to try and keep them quiet, they're usually in prison for decades at a time sometimes. You know, you think of someone like Nelson Mandela, for example, put in prison for a long time. Uh Joseph Smith coming in and out of trials and in proceedings and in prisons until ultimately he never left one. that him coming in and out of these trials shows that the justice system was accusing him of things and then it was doing its job and then they were moving on. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. I I think that the sheer number of things brought against him in itself is damning. Um, and that someone they don't talk about him escaping either or running from the law uh where there wasn't a chance to convict him. Just like when Missouri's trying to get him to come back there to face uh charges, he gets up in Nauvoo and sets up this uh uh thing of rid of Hapius Gorbus or whatever it was that you couldn't come in and arrest someone without the mayor's approval. Guess who's the mayor? >> The mayor. So you're not going to come in and get the mayor's okay to come and arrest himself. >> Yeah. So to say he wasn't convicted, uh, he had ways of circumventing the law and avoiding things. >> And if you look at, let's just go through, I'll I'll just list some of the legal troubles that I'm aware of. So the glassing trial of 1826, we all know he was guilty whether or not he was convicted. He's guilty. If you look at uh if you look at the Kirtland Bake scandal, we all know that he was guilty of bank fraud and he ends up leaving Kirtland, running, escaping from Kirtland. So, I guess you know, he didn't stick around to be punished for that fraud, right? >> And then Missouri uh you know, we we we know that he probably could have easily been convicted in Missouri. Why was he let go? He was let go. But my sense was it was almost out of mercy that the governor and or a lot of the mid-level leaders or judicial people didn't want a big war, didn't want a massacre. Um and so they kind of eventually also because there was a lot of national concern about the mob justice that was going on in Missouri. And so, uh, even though the exterminating extermination order was issued on Mormons and Joseph was held in Liberty Jail, it would have been a real blemish on the state of Missouri if they had actually convicted Joseph Smith and executed him because the mob justice was so problematic. And many leaders in Missouri, let alone in the in the broader United States, knew it was a problem. So, Joseph was definitely guilty of causing big problems in Missouri. Um, but he was let go and escaped and so that's why he didn't, you know, wasn't eventually convicted there. Then when you go to Nauvoo, clearly Joseph's guilty of all sorts of things. um including it's pretty likely that he did order the assassination or at least approve of the assassination of Lilburn Bogs via um um who's the assassin Porter Rockwell. Is is that pretty fair that Joseph was okay with Rockwell trying to assassinate Lilurn Bogs? >> Well, I think so. >> I mean, nobody really disputes that that was probably what happened, right? Well, and then you have the thing in uh Nauvoo. Some of the charges against him would have probably found him guilty if he hadn't have been killed in the jail. >> Mhm. >> He was he did have things coming up where charges of u bigamy and uh financial claims against him. So that the legal justice system didn't find him guilty and nauvu of things was simply a matter of him being killed before they would have been processed through the courts. But it doesn't mean those weren't legitimate charges against him just because he died before they could have come to trial. Well, I mean, it's it's, you know, there's defendants who will often, you know, uh, end their own lives before they have a chance to stand trial, right? Uh, and people try and prevent that, but doesn't make them any less guilty of the thing. Doesn't mean the charge is any less legitimate. >> Yeah. So, so this I think again the church gets an F for transparency and honesty with this paragraph because it's basically saying many of these cases resulted from prejudice against the Latterday Saints, false allegations. Almost all were dismissed due to lack of evidence. Um but but but if the church were being honest, the type of level of honesty that they expect from us, they would have said Joseph made a lot of mistakes. He ran a foul with the law a lot. Many of the allegations were credible. Um many of the instances where he could have been convicted. There were circumstances that led to him escaping. But Joseph Smith definitely had a problem with the law. And that's why there are 21 known criminal cases he was the defendant in because he had a problem with the law. He just did. Is that I mean, isn't that fair? >> That's right. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That would be honest. >> I I will say with the transparency the church in the footnote right here with that sentence of 21 known criminal cases. You click on it and it takes you to the Joseph Smith papers and they do list off all the all the criminal cases and some of them you'll see a list of 19 here. It's because some of them have like a part A and a part B. Um, as far as like number 10 and number 18, um, I do think there's value. I don't know, John, if you guys have covered all these criminal cases on Mormon stories before on LDS discussions, I don't think you have. I think there could be value in that and just going through these 21 maybe with somebody like Kobe Reddish, but I just think this would be really interesting. >> So, Julia, right now in Slack, I just uh messaged Colby and said, Colby, we need to do an LDS discussions episode >> on this one slide. So, >> on it. Yeah, perfect. >> You're a prophet, Julia. You're a prophet. >> Well, is there value in listing off? >> Go for it. >> Um, actually, Nemo, do you want to kind of read some of these? I feel like you have your British voice. I just, you know. >> Okay. March 1826, disorderly person or glasslooking. June 1830 of being a disorderly person. June 1830 being a disorderly person. And by the way, aren't all those glass-looking scrier peep stone kind of claims? Disorderly person is just another word >> for continuing to use the peep stone to fool people against the law when he knew better. Am I is that right, Sandra? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Like like scamming people because I think that was a big thing is Willer Chase was being scammed. He was giving his money to this purpose that was a false purpose. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, but yeah, you can keep going, Nemo. >> Yeah. Um, April 1835, assault and battery on Calvin Stoddard. June 1837, conspiring to murder Granderson Newell. September 1838, threatening Judge Adam Black. August 1840, treason against Missouri for the Mormon War. August 1840, alleged burning Jacob Strolling Store in Missouri. August 1840, allegedly setting fire to five buildings the previous year in Missouri. August 1840 in two cases, allegedly stealing and carrying away personal property, including receiving a stolen saddle. August 1840, being an accessory to the murder of Moses Roland. June 1841, treason against Missouri. January 1843, conspiracy to murder Governor Bogs. July 1843, treason against the state of Missouri. August 1843, assault and battery on Walter Bagby. August 1844, perjury in Illinois. October 1844, adultery and fornication with Maria Maria Lawrence. June 1844, two cases over covering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. June 1844, treason against the state of Illinois. >> If I'm looking over that list, it seems like a lot of them are credible. There are a lot of instances of of claims of of assault and battery. I'm interested to know if there's any credibility to that because that speaks to our prior claim today of him potentially beating or hitting Emma. >> U some of those, you know, vandalism sort of things in Missouri. I'll be curious to learn Yeah. arson, whether Joseph was even there, whether he's being accused of of what the Mormon mobs did. uh you know cuz I I'm having a hard time seeing Joseph himself lighting the match on um some of these buildings but then also treason like absolutely was Joseph Smith guilty of treason both for the state of Missouri and the state of Illinois and the United States of America what do you think so >> well he was in Nauvoo when he was going to call out the Nauvoo Legion yeah >> I mean he couldn't have been more treasonous if he chopped down the Statue of Liberty but sounds of it. I mean that wasn't built then obviously but yeah >> you know he was he was definitely just defying the concept of the United States. He was trying to carve his own path. He was setting himself up as this is the thing I don't think is often truly appreciated. He's kind of setting himself up as this almost dictator in Nauvoo. He's got all this power concentrated on himself. And it's no wonder that people around that around him find that threatening >> because it is to see someone with that much power in control of a town with the Nauvoo Legion with a group of soldiers and a militia and and all this sort of stuff refusing to allow people to come in and calm riots. >> It's >> I think I think you would find that the size of the Nauvoo Legion was like um a fourth or half the size of the American army at the time. I mean, it was a huge army. When we say the Nauvoo Legion, we're talking about I think it was a couple thousand men. >> Oh, yeah. For sure. >> And um that's Oh, boy. Hard to remember. I think there was like 6,000 army troops at the time >> for the United States >> in the US government. >> In the US government. >> Yeah. So, so when you got 2,000 guys in a local militia, Yeah. you could see why the neighborhood would be a little concerned about the power this guy was getting. >> So, I think he >> would have been found guilty of treason and calling out the Nauvoo Legion in uh in that case. >> I think I as I'm reading again, no man knows my history, I think there's this point where Joseph's so sick of the persecution, you know, from from Ohio and Missouri as he sees it. And then what's what's mounting up in Illinois that he starts to look towards Texas as a potential place to escape to and he sees the Mexican-American war that's going on. And I think there's a point where he he asks the federal government or the president of the United States to let him command a militia that could eventually be as large as a 100,000 people where Joseph would be given that militia and then allow to be allowed to act as a buffer between the United States and I believe both the Native Americans, the Indians and the Mexicans. And I believe it was Stephen A. Douglas, the famous eventual what? Senator that uh was involved in the Lincoln Douglas debates that said I would resign as a senator now if I could lead uh you know a military force of 100,000 people on the frontier. Now I may have all that wrong but that's what I'm remembering from from >> Well, that's about the way I remember it. >> Okay. Well, I'm on good I'm on good ground if Sandra agrees with that interpretation. Anyway, he was he was unhinged having himself declared as king of the world, denouncing the power of the United States and Illinois and Missouri, he was unhinged. He was treasonous, >> I think, by any standard. >> Yes. Yeah. when he set had himself ordained king privately and set up the council of 50 and the whole concept of Zion that he's got going in the background in Nauvoo. He's certainly putting out the uh framework of a new government, the theocratic government of God that's going to rule with him as the top guy in it. I just say how strange I find it that Joseph Smith is having himself ordained as king. That's what we do. We do that. >> Yes. >> That's that's not Americans said they didn't want a royal family. They said very clearly don't want one. So why is he ordaining himself as a king? >> Also, doesn't the Book of Mormon kind of condemn >> that? Kings are bad guys. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because the Book of Mormon is essentially a a treaties on Anglo-American relations, it seems. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he was unhinged. Anyway, lots of legal problems. Go ahead, Julia. >> Yeah, so going on with the essay, it says, "Existing records document only one unambiguous criminal conviction. In 1843, Joseph visited a city lot in Nauvoo that he believed had been unfairly seized by a county tax collector. The discussion between Joseph and the tax official escalated from verbal argument to a physical confrontation. Immediately afterward, Joseph Smith voluntarily submitted to a local justice of the peace confessed his guilt and paid a fine. >> So he beat So Joseph did beat somebody. Is that what it's saying? >> I think that's Walter Bagley if Bagby I think is what with from that list from 1843. I think that's Walter Baggley that they're talking about. Again, they don't give his name, which is interesting. But yeah, I think he I think this is admitting that he beat this man. This is admitting he it was there was physical confrontation and he submitted it, confessed, and paid a fine. I mean, kudos to the church for admitting one instance of Joseph beating someone and fessing up >> to be to be um sort of eldest discussions about it for a second. Do we know what the threshold for a physical confrontation is? Did he just shove the man? Did he like do you know what I'm saying? Like there >> would have to be bodily harm. >> Okay. >> Again, I would love to cover all this in detail with Colby on another episode. Yeah, >> we will. Yeah. >> Yeah. But also just that that paragraph seems like cherry-picking and downplaying the severity of all the other legal problems Joseph Smith got into. It's nice that they're admitting one, but there's merit to to at least half of of of that list that you put up, I think, Julia. So to say, oh, there's only one that we know of where he really was guilty, >> I think that's deceptive in in my opinion. I would love to see your discussion with someone that knows the legal ramifications of it. >> Yeah, we'll do that. We'll do that later. Maybe we'll bring you back on to >> Well, I don't know the legal stuff at all. >> Okay. Um, so going on in the essay, I think this is an interesting topic that they decided to talk about because I don't see this being discussed and maybe I'm just not with it, but I don't see this this topic in the Mormon or ex Mormon community, but the topic is did Joseph Smith pay his debts? And now I won't read the whole thing, but it says, "But accusations by his critics and disputes with his creditors displayed bankruptcy proceedings displayed bankruptcy proceedings, and many of Joseph Smith Joseph's debts remained unsettled until after his death." And so, like, they're they're trying to say like, "Yes, he was in debt. He tried to pay it. He didn't actually make ends meet before he died." I I just wonder why they're talking about this at all. Um, does do we have any thoughts on why they're covering his debt? Well, I think they know they got a problem there. So, they want to get ahead of it by saying, "Oh, well, yeah, there were some debts, but it all got cleared up by his bankruptcy uh settlement of the estate after he died." But I think that whole thing uh as I recall, there were problems with the way he filed for bankruptcy in trying to hide property to keep it from being taken to pay his debts. Oh, >> and do you mean and by that do you mean whenever he's giving the deeds to his wives? Is that kind of what you're >> talking Well that he put in Emma's name, >> right? >> That would have been done to keep the things from being seized to pay his debts. And I don't remember that part of his story well enough, but I know Fon Broaddy dealt with a lot of this, but it's been too many years since I've read it. Uh about the different debts he incurred and how he was misused. or I don't know you say misusing but overspending church money going into debt uh getting credit all kind of places in Kirtland they was certainly going on getting credit when they knew they didn't have the money to back their species that they were printing and uh so I think there is a lot of guilt there of um I would say fraud I I guess his followers would say it was speculative banking that may not have been done as a fraud but as simply gambling or whatever on the stock market or something and he uh lost out. Uh but I think there's a lot of material there that shows culpability on his part on how he handled finances. Uh but I'm not an expert in that field to go into it. I know for sure that Joseph Smith senior eventually flees New York to Ohio primarily because he's about to be put in debtor's prison for all the debts that the Smith family has incurred in New York. Uh I'm I'm pretty sure I read that recently. So we know they left debts in New York that were unpaid. We know they left debts in Ohio, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that they left in Ohio. I can't imagine they didn't leave debts in Missouri. Um, and I guess we'll have to see how much debt they left in Illinois. >> Well, they're admitting the article is admitting he left a lot of debts when he died and they tried to they imply that it was all settled in after his death. >> But I can't believe that there really was the money to pay everything. I'm assuming some of that just had to be um forgiven because he was dead. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um so another thing I wanted to point out is that the church they linked the Joseph Smith papers they in fact the this previous slide it says as part of the Joseph Smith papers project the church has published all of Joseph's known financial and legal papers online so that scholars and others can study them. And so I just I just am pointing to this website here. So it says legal records 2498 and then financial records 1,726. And so like I think this is a good step in the right direction where the church is trying to be transparent and trying to show all these um legal documents. So I just wanted to point that out that good on them for doing that. And that's why they would put that statement in there that uh gives you the footnote to that because if you're going to put on the Joseph Smith papers all the documents, you better have some sort of generalized statement up front that says, "Oh, well, that's all been taken care of. You don't need to go into all this." Well, who's going to go research all those thousands of pages of documents and know what to make of any of them? But at least now scholars can. So Wilson know >> that's that is another thing I wanted to point out too. I'm glad you pointed that out is that like you you'd have to know what you're looking for and where to look with all these 2,000 or 3,000 legal pages. So >> right >> for sure. Yeah. So so going on with the essay, there's the next topic is did Joseph Smith exercise undue political power in Nauvoo? And I'll just read what I've highlighted. The church's critics in Illinois complained that this mingling of religious and civic authority was dangerous and unamerican. The saints viewed the situation differently. And this is something that I noticed throughout all the essays is that they'll make a statement, critics say this, members say differently. Critics say this, Joseph thought differently. Um, critics say this, the membership over overall understood it differently. So, they're like playing this game where it's like it doesn't really matter like this is still happening. This is still wrong. It doesn't really matter how these other people are framing it. And I just thought that was an interesting thing that they're they're trying to show that they're show I'm showing that here with this with this specific slide. >> It's like other people say my Pella recipes crap, but I think it's great. It's like, well, okay, but we've actually really I've got a biased vested interest there. You know, there's there's this this idea that members are somehow unbiased in their views of Joseph Smith. It's like, oh, well, it's okay. the people that believe he's a prophet of God and choose to follow him, they're cool with it, so you should be too seems to be the weird sort of implication, >> right? And then going on with the uh um complaint about this mingling of religious and civic authority, I just wanted to remind everyone, and we've kind of talked about this already, is that Joseph Smith at this time in Nauvoo, he was prophet and president of the church. He was mayor of Nauvoo. He was the chancellor of the university. He was the major general and inspector general and the master chancery. He had a lot of different roles that would would that would blend this religious and civic authority. And so I just want to point that out. He was Lieutenant General. As I understand it, the only other person in the history of the United States that's claimed the Lieutenant General title is George Washington. >> Whoa. Yes. Right. Disappointed. >> Yeah. Yeah. And not to mention prophet revelator, you know, and translator and all that. Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, going forward, some of Joseph Smith's critics accuse the saints of stretching the Nauvoo Charter's provisions unfairly to protect Joseph from arrest during a time when there were attempts to extradite Joseph to Missouri to face false charges. The Saints view these actions as necessary to protect Joseph from unjust imprisonment or death at the hands of his enemies. Well, that's the same thing they say about hiding all the church authorities at the time of the manifesto when the government wants to find out who all is practicing polygamy. They just like in the Reed Smoot hearings in 1904 when they're trying the government's trying to find out how far Mormon polygamy has continued. The church just sends all of the men that the government wants to subpoena and question. church sends them out of the country. So, isn't that convenient? Sorry. We would have let them testify, but they had to go on a mission to Tahiti. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, this next part, a few months later, a group of dissident church members published a newspaper that made several charges against Joseph, including a claim that, among other things, he unlawfully combined religious and civic authority. >> Hey, Julia, I'm going to do something terrible. >> Sure. I and maybe we need to edit this Brooklyn, but just really quickly going back to that last paragraph about uh you know that statement that some of Joseph's critics accused the saints of stretching the Nauvoo Charter's provisions unfairly. No, what happened was Joseph found a scoundrel in John C. Bennett who he used to uh along with Joseph's minations uh uh in terms of negotiations with varying political parties he used the scoundrel Johnc Bennett along with political manipulations to get the Nauvoo charter passed by the state of Illinois. That's what happened. And what did John C. Bennett the scoundrel get as a reward for helping Joseph get the Nauvoo Charter passed. He was made what? Co-president of the church and was Joseph's right-hand man for a couple years. So, uh I don't know. I think that the passing of the Nauvoo Charter was a lot more devious and dark and sinister than sort of this paragraph seems to want to recognize. And I will also say that it didn't take the state of Illinois very long to recognize how problematic the Nauvoo Charter was because in the final year of Joseph's life in Illinois, the the Nauvoo Governor, sorry, the Illinois governor and the illino legislature, as far as I understand, were trying to figure out how to repeal the charter and take that power back. >> Yeah. >> True. Not true. Yeah, >> I think that's true. I think that's true. All right. Sorry. Keep now. Now, now now um we can go to the next slide. Sorry, Julia. >> No, that was great. That was great. So, so I think because that's that's so the Nauvoo Expos exposure not only exposes polygamy, it exposes what the power Joseph Smith has with this Nauvoo charter. And so, if we go here, the church is saying that it claims that they're combining religious and civic authority. And this is a an excerpt from the Nauvoo expositor. Um Nemo, do you mind actually reading that? >> Sure. Uh, the people of the state of Illinois will consequently see the miss >> Oh, sorry. Did you read the the paragraph before that, Julia? >> Um, yeah. I mean, I I read the highlighted part. That was all I wanted to pull from there. >> Can I can I just address one thing in Brooklyn? I'm sorry. You may have to do a couple edits here before we move on from that previous paragraph. I just want to say one more thing. Is that okay? >> Yeah. Yeah, of course. So looking at this paragraph that the church writes, a few months later, a group of dissident church members published a newspaper that made several charges against Joseph. Like is it fair to only characterize William Law as a dissident church member? How about a member of the church presidency publishes a newspaper that made several legitimate charges against Joseph Smith. is now a credible contemporary source for Joseph Smith's polygamy. Let's not forget that. >> What? What do you mean, Emo? >> As in the church has called the Navu Expositor a credible contemporary source for Joseph Smith's polygamy. >> That's in that other footnote. >> In that other footnote. >> And now when it suits them, they're characterizing it as a newspaper put together by a group of dissident that make these claims. They're either claims or it's a credible contemporary source. Well, and this would be like Don Oaks coming out and accusing President Nelson of something. When you say >> when you dismiss this as oh, just some dissident, >> a dissident church member. >> Yeah. >> How about a member of the First Presidency? And he hadn't been excommunicated yet. I don't I don't Maybe he had. I don't know. Had William Law been excommunicated by the time he >> issues the Nauvoo Exposer? He probably had. I don't know. >> I Boy, I'm not sure on the timeline. Anyway, it's mischaracterization at at >> they were this was Yes, these were top guys making these charges against Joseph Smith, not just some guy living out in the boondocks of uh Missouri or something. These were top leaders. >> Yeah. Yeah. And they weren't fearing a the church leaders, Joseph Smith, weren't fearing a repeat of the violence the Saints experienced in Missouri. I mean maybe he was, but what was he primarily doing in the destruction of the Nauvoo expositor? He was terrified that not only the general public, but the church membership along with many of his leaders would find out that he would he had married and and or bedded 30 to 40 women and was lying about it. So he was trying to manage his reputation. It was a lot uh more sinister than just trying to protect themselves against angry, you know, frontier mobsters that that didn't like his religion, >> right? >> I think >> sorry, had to had to just say that it's >> this text is deceptive to me. >> Yeah, for sure. Yeah. >> And also like we were saying, the Navu expositor exposed not only polygamy, it is exposing this religious and civic authority um power. And so like so so if Nemo if you don't mind reading this excerpt from the Nauvoo Spazer this explains it a little bit more again from William Law who is the second the what the first presidency >> he was in the first presidency >> in the first presidency. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. The people of the state of Illinois will consequently see the necessity of repealing the charter of Nauvoo when such abuses are practiced under it and by virtue of said chartered authority the right of the writ of habius corpus in all cases arising under the city ordinance to give full scope to the desired jurisdiction. The city council have passed ordinance giving the municipal court authority to issue the writ of habius corpus in all cases when the prisoner is held in custody in Nauvoo. No matter whether the offender is committed to the state of Maine or on the continent of Europe, the prisoner being in the city under arrest. >> So basically, it's like it doesn't matter where they're wanted or where they're from. If they're in the city of Nauvoo, then they can't be extradited, >> right? >> Yeah. >> H convenient. >> Yeah. Very. >> Yes. You wonder why he wanted that one in there. He's protecting himself knowing that his way of running things is going to cause those kind of problems. >> Yeah. A lot of people they frame the Nav expositor as just being a document about polygamy. Oh, it's just exposure of polygamy. And that's not just what it was. The church is even saying here, the dissident member um is writing this and they're worried about the civic and religious authority. I really think Joseph was afraid of this getting out there more. Oh, then that would stop him from having this kind of power. And again, I wanted to show as we pointed out in the last episode that the church itself in a previous episode on polygamy calls the Nauvoo expositor a credible contemporary source. >> Right? >> So, yeah. So, really quickly, I just want to kind of summarize for a second what what we what we really can and should uh conclude by this essay on Joseph Smith's character. And I know we're not done yet, but I think we're done with the main sections. And for me, the biggest tell is just to pay attention to what sections, you know, uh are they allowing in this essay? and uh you know and what time do they spend providing excuses and or apologetics for? I think that tells everything because they wouldn't include a section on it and then spend the time and effort to create lame, bad, misleading apologetics if there weren't substance to the claims. So, if we just go through the different uh subject headings, the first one is what did Joseph's contemporaries say about his character? Well, I think it's safe to conclude they thought he was an awful human being and that's why they included this section in the essay and that's why they spent time doing apologetics. The second is can a person with flaws as Joseph Smith had still be a prophet? Well, clearly they're admitting that Joseph Smith had flaws um uh as well. The next section is was Joseph Smith ever convicted of illegal activities? Clearly he was. clearly he was guilty or they wouldn't spend time uh listing that as a problem and uh providing lame apologetics for it. The next one is did Joseph Smith pay his debts? Clearly he didn't or they wouldn't uh you know have a section on it and again provide lame apologetics. The next one is did Joseph exercise undue political power in Nauvoo? Clearly he did and that's why it's included in this essay and that's why they provide the lame apologetics accordingly. So the fact that you know what they include in the essay is the ultimate tell of what he's guilty of in my opinion. >> Yes. >> I think that's a fair list. >> That's a fair list. Okay. Sorry. >> It certainly points us to the places we should look, right? And the places we should further examine. >> Right. So this last there they have this little concluding section that I find really interesting and I just have a few sides slides on that but the last question or one of the last questions is how do I know that Joseph Smith really said the statements that are attributed to him and I just highlighted the part that that really struck me the most reliable sources were created by Joseph himself and I I think that's really interesting like Joseph said he's reliable Joseph said that he that he was a good person Joseph said that he never lived polygamy let's rely on those statements like I just think this is Nobody else would do that. Like you won't you don't do a character assessment just talking to that one person who thinks the best of themselves. You talk to other people. And I guess that does say that in this slide where it says the people who were present when Joseph spoke like and recorded his words. But like but why are the why is the church only giving credibility to the ones who who stayed in the church like not William Law who was in the church high high ranking and then left? Well, I just just putting aside people other than Joseph Smith for a second, what do you think about that statement, Sandra, that the most reliable statements of Joseph Smith were created by Joseph himself? In other words, Joseph didn't lie. Joseph was super honest. If you want to know the truth about Joseph Smith, just look to what he said about himself. Is that true? >> What a thing it is for a man to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one. He repeatedly lied publicly in print about polygamy. So how am I to trust his statements in other areas when I know absolutely he lied in this area? >> Yeah, >> that's fair. >> Yeah. And he lied about Fanny Alger in the affair. Uh he claimed he didn't have an affair and he covered that up. He excommunicate he excommunicated people that doubted him. How in the world can we and and by the way bless you know I I am friends with Michelle Stone. I respect her in many ways. This is her point of view that the reason we know that pol Joseph didn't practice polygamy is because he and Emma said they didn't. And why would Joseph lie? Joseph was too good a man to have lied. >> Most adulterers lie about it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Julian. >> Why would he lie? I think we know why he lied. >> What do you think, Julian Nemo? >> That's That's I'm known for summing things up and making things short and neat and condensed, but I think Sandra did the ultimate sum up there. Adulterers lie about it. >> Yeah, they do. >> Yeah. But also frauds and charlatans lie, >> right? >> Right. >> Yes. And people running anti-banking companies seem to lie about the amount of coins they have to cover their printed money. >> And so >> what we see in Kirtland does not give me confidence in Joseph Smith. >> And scriers and peepers and glasslookers lie when they say they see buried treasure and then they're not able to produce it. And then they say, "Oops, you didn't perform the ritual." Right. The the guardian spirit withdrew the treasure. They're lying. Right. >> Right. And how do we know that words appeared on a stone in a hat that Joseph read off to his scribe? We only have Joseph's word that anything was happening in that hat. No one else is a witness to what is actually happening. Also, was Joseph Smith's uh, you know, first account uh, you know, was Joseph Smith's accounting of his first vision reliable? Did he lie the first time or the second time or the third time or the fourth time or the eighth time? You know, we can't even rely on his own first vision account in terms of what really happened. Well, I think one of the obvious um qualities of a false prophet is one who lies. And I think Joseph Smith proved himself what he was by the fact of his habitual lying throughout his life. >> Which makes this statement by the church that the most reliable sources were created by Joseph Smith himself. That's that's outrageous. It's ridiculous, right? >> It's preposterous. It's deceptive. >> Yes, >> I think. >> Yeah. And just going back a second, Sandra, I think you just referenced this. I don't hear this talked about very much, but for the the bank, the Kirtland Bank, I think there was stories there was sources where they had chests of money um with they they were full of of coins, but but in reality, the source says that they were full of sand with coins on top. And so, I just think that's I think that's what you're referencing, if I'm not mistaken, >> where they said they have enough money, but they don't, >> right? They're putting out to the world that their currency they're printing is backed by sufficient real coins, gold and silver in the vault to uh assure that the paper money has value. And yet there is no evidence that they had anywhere near enough actual coinage to cover the paper they printed. They went back east and racked up all kind of debt using those Kirtland notes that were worthless there. There was no big vault with all that kind of gold and silver in it to make sure that paper money was solid. People lost all sorts of money on that. When the whole thing uh blew up, then people were holding all this paper that was totally worthless because there wasn't anything in the vault of any size. Also, how many people did Joseph promise they would be his successor when he died? >> Well, yes, it seems like it was the uh person of the year award uh who got to be claimed to be prophet. I mean, at one time he talked about David Whitmer being the prophet. Uh, and then he goes on and he's going to have uh his brother, his son just makes the round >> string >> Brigham Young like >> Yeah, it's it's a shady >> uh path to who would succeed him. I mean there there are other people that were in line to do that. He didn't give a clear succession pattern. That's why there was the problem of the succession crisis when he dies because he at times had said different people would be the leader and no one could figure out just what the process should be. Yeah. And then it says it says the most reliable sources were created by Joseph himself or by people who were present when Joseph spoke and who recorded his words surely after he said them. Well, at least that uh confirms the William Clayton journals, right? At least we know those are real. Right. >> Right. Right. And they do have a lot of documentation that they have made available in the Joseph Smith papers, which is very good that they did. But it would be a mixed bag about what parts would support him and what parts would show that he was being deceptive um or some way doing something you wouldn't approve of like polygamy or whatever. So yeah, they have sources, but not all of them would support Joseph's character as being good. Yeah, for example, like right after he was talking about Nancy Rigdon, he stood up and he gave a speech on Sunday saying that she was a of her mother's breast for refusing him. That was published in the papers, the contemporary papers, they have that story in there. And so like somebody had written it down and and to express this to one of the newspapers. And so I just think that's interesting too that like >> Yeah. But the church likes to pick the ones that are favorable. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So going on. So this this is probably the last section. And I just have a couple more slides. So the one of the questions is, "How can I make sense of the conflicting views of Joseph Smith I find online?" It is difficult to get a balanced view of a topic as complex as Joseph Smith's character in online forums. It is important to pursue a more complete perspective and not rely on Joseph's critics to shape our understanding. >> And reading that reading that I felt like that they could put Mormon stories as a footnote right there or or other various or even Sandra Tanner, Sandra and Gerald. What do you mean, Julia? >> Like there it is important to pursue a more complete perspective and not rely on Mormon stories or not rely on Sandra Tanner, not rely on >> Fon Broaddy. >> Every you can list off so many different scholars where the church would say don't rely on them, rely on what Joseph Smith said or or what we're saying about Joseph. >> And I don't think that's very fair. >> In order to get a balanced view, you have to consult the critics. You have to consult those who are giving the other side of something in order to get that balance. And there's a weird way in which they've blamed, oh, it's hard to find it in online forums, as though it's the medium that's at issue here, not that some people know things about Joseph Smith that other people aren't willing to admit are true, and so they're arguing about it. It's it's not the forum that's the problem. It's not the medium through which these discussions are happening that's the issue. It's that Joseph Smith's life was very complicated and there are certain groups of people who have got a very strong sort of motivated reasoning to not admit certain facts about his life. >> Well, they're also making some sort of an assumption that uh well, how would I phrase this? We can't assume false prophets are going to always be honest about when there being a false prophet. Uh, anyone being a false prophet is trying to deceive you by the way they frame things and what they tell you and hiding facts that would make them look bad. And so, well, could that be possible with Joseph Smith? How do we know he wasn't a false prophet who is saying things publicly but living life differently in private? You would have to go to critical sources, not just what the person is saying. And it comes down to having an evaluation of all the different voices around Joseph, not just his public statements. We have we know we have examples of his public statements being lies. That means everything has to be evaluated of whether it's a PR campaign or whether it's fact. >> And does that mean we can't rely on the church or apologists in their opinions of critics? because critics of critics can't be relied upon because they're critics, >> right? >> It gets complicated. >> But also imagine applying that rule to any other cult leader. Warren Jeffs, you can't, you know, you don't consider the feedback of of his dissident, of his defectors, of his critics in judging his character. Keith Reeri of of Nexium, Elron Hubard, uh Jim Jones, pick your cult leader. Imagine applying that standard to any other criminal. Imagine saying you can't, you know, you you can't trust the critics of Al Capone, you know, that that he was a mobster because if if some of his associates defected and then spoke out against him as whistleblowers, well, you can't trust them because they're defectors. That would undermine the entire judicial system because it would mean that that any plaintiffs, any witnesses uh against the defendants should be dismissed purely because they're critics, >> right? It it they muddy the water on how we evaluate sources by just flat out telling you anyone that's a critic of Joseph Smith is deceptive and not to be believed. a reliable source is a church source. But even when you use church sources, they want to someway downplay them as whether they're important or not. Uh I mean, the church sources would list all of these women and their problematic courtships and affairs with Joseph. Uh even when their own church sources give you the data, they will still say, "Oh, well, that uh we're all human. We all have weaknesses." and Joseph has his shortcomings. So, they win no matter what happens. >> Also, if we're going to if we're going to discount the the credibility or the integrity of a critic's voice against Joseph Smith, then we have to denounce Oliver Cry. We have to denounce David Whitmer. We have to denounce Martin Harris. we have to denounce uh so many of of the early church leaders because so many of them uh ultimately were excommunicated and were critics of Joseph. So you can't on one hand say trust Oliver Cry, trust David Whitmer, trust Martin Harris as witnesses to the Book of Mormon and then turn around and say don't trust them because they're critics of the prophet. You you can't really have it both ways. Well, they try. >> And like you're saying, Nemo, in this slide, it's like they're saying that they're it's kind of deceptive because it's they're not really saying this, but they're implying it where it's like in order to get a balanced view, just look at our side and that's balanced because they're they're separating that there are two different thoughts, but that's basically what the church is saying here. >> It is important to pursue and don't look at the critics and but they're implying in the sentence before that that that's a balanced view and I think that's deceptive. >> All right. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay, so the last slide that I have, the church really does this. They just kind of wrap it up this way and they say, "The work of the Lord established through the prophet Joseph." >> Sorry. Sorry, Julia. And sorry, Brooklyn. Uh, I have one more thing I I really want to say. I'm sorry, Brooklyn. I'm sorry, Julia. Can I So, let me just I'll I'll just um >> I'll segue in. >> Sorry. Before we move on to the last slide, there's just one more thing I want to reference. In this essay, it says uh quoting Gordon M. Hinckley uh to highlight the mistakes. Uh let me start from the beginning. President Hinckley noted, "We have those critics who appear to wish to pull out of a past panorama of information those items which demean and belittle some of the men and women of the past who work so hard in laying the foundation of this great cause." First thing I want to say there is, isn't that how the church treats its critics? Isn't how that how the church treats anyone who who criticizes the church? But also, if we're going to be talking about calling out to um you know, aren't isn't the church, you know, history department and aren't church apologists guilty themselves of pulling things out? And then he goes on to say, to highlight the mistakes and gloss over the greater good is to draw a caricature. And I just want to say, isn't uh to to highlight only the good and to gloss over the bad, isn't that also drawing a caricature of Joseph Smith and of early church history? So, isn't the church like pointing its finger, but there are three fingers pointing back on the church's own behavior with this statement by Gordon Bhinckley. Nemo. >> Well, yeah, exactly. It's the the only thing that isn't a caricature is an open honest conversation about what happened as far as we can tell from the historical sources to try and gloss and and we've seen very clear examples throughout all of this of them glossing over things of just saying oh yeah that you know difficulties rather than talking about the actual suffering of women for example they're using euphemistic terms to gloss over the negative parts and then trying to focus you know in that one where they talk about all the things Joseph Smith did and yet still some people criticize see how much was devoted to this very specifics of the the restoration, the translation, the priesthood, all that sort of stuff. And then it's like, oh yeah, but some people still have criticisms. We won't say what those specific criticisms are. We'll say the specific things he did that we like, but we won't say the specific things he did that we don't. And that's a caricature. >> Yeah. It's just as deceptive to overemphasize the good and dismiss or downplay the bad as it is deceptive to overemphasize the bad and downplay the good. >> Fair. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. Sorry. Sorry, Julie. I just had >> No, this is great. I love this conversation. Okay. So, so in the in this essay, the church wraps it up by saying, "The work the Lord established through the prophet Joseph Smith far outweighs Joseph's imperfections. And they kind of go on to list some of these things that he's done, but like he's founded a great city. He's published all these things, but like does it does it outweigh does the good outweigh what he's done bad his imperfections? I they're just trying to like oh, it's fine. It's absolutely fine because all the good like look at that. >> Well, how do you evaluate what was the good and what was the bad? I would say the whole trip west was bad. They got saddled with all of Joseph Smith's teachings and following him that led them to being expelled from the United States and they have to go set up a whole new place out here in the wilderness. And our ancestors all were saddled with polygamy and this theocracy uh living under Brigham Young's rule for decades out here. That's all part of the fruit of Joseph Smith. And that has to be added in when you say the good and the bad. Look at all of the suffering that our ancestors all went through living Joseph Smith's doctrines. This uh this is a a trail of sorrow clear across the United States of people that were affected by his secret practice of polygamy and our families were saddled with with this for generations and women were brought through terrible situations because of this teaching and I count that all as part of the fruit that's bad fruit in what Joseph Smith established. >> I'm a little bit torn on this last paragraph. On the one hand, it reminds me of the argument, look, Hitler created the Autobon and Hitler created the Volkswagen Beetle or whatever. Like, you know, horrific people can use their power and undo influence to still create enduring things. Big buildings. I mean, how many Egyptian slaves died in the creation of the pyramids? And you can say, "Oh, the pyramids are amazing." Unless you're one of the slaves who fell into the pit and got smashed, right? So on the one hand, I don't like this argument that Joseph created a city and created the Book of Mormon and created a religion that's got, you know, four million members today. I don't think that's very logical to just uh leave it there that if you know things, big things are created and endure. The Jehovah's Witness Church is way bigger than the Mormon church, the Catholic Church, uh Islam, they're way bigger than, you know, the Mormon church. So they're extra true. Like it just doesn't carry logical water for me on the one hand. On the other hand, there's a part of me that actually agrees with what this sentiment is trying to convey in the sense that it's hard to create community. It's hard to create a church and a religion and a religious text that endures a decade, let alone a century or two. And there's a part of me that's proud of my heritage, that's proud of uh a lot of what my people has done, whether it's the settlement of Utah or of Idaho or of Arizona or the amazing families that uh have come about as a result of the Mormon church and the community and even the spirituality of the Book of Mormon. I'm not going to just throw the Book of Mormon and say that it's provided no value because I know that it has. So, I can see the argument that they're making that a lot of good has come from Joseph Smith. I'm actually in the spirit of eldest discussions willing to conceive if it weren't for the Mormon church. And so, I I guess I want to say I see what they're doing here. There's a part of me that has sympathy for it and even agrees. And then the only final thing I'll say is I think at the end of the day, I was interviewing this guy named Danny Wrench. Uh the episode's being released today. He was raised in a cult. Um he's an international chess champion. And he has the statement, "Cults work until they don't." And I think it just depends on the person as to whether the Mormon church was good or not. It certainly has been good for many people. It wasn't good for the pioneers who died. It wasn't good for the polygamous wives of Joseph Smith and other general authorities. It wasn't good for the people that were defrauded. It wasn't good for the LGBT people that have wanted to die. Uh it it it it isn't good for the women who underestimated their value in life andor their options. And it isn't good for any of the people that now feel betrayed for the money they spent or the time or the reputation that they gave to the church under false pretenses. So I will say sort of to this to this paragraph. It's been good for some and it's done a lot of damage to others. Well, the good that Mormons that people see today in Mormonism, I see a lot of that is because they've gotten rid of a lot of the stuff that Joseph Smith put in the mix and have sifted out the harmful aspects of Mormonism as it's gone along. So that it's becoming less like Mormonism in today's world than it was when I was a child. Mormonism is very different today than what I was raised in. It's a kinder, gentler ceremony in the temple ceremony. So that uh they can say, "Look at all the good it's accomplished." Yes. Because they've had to clean up a lot of things and get rid of a lot of aspects that were bad in the mix. And given another hundred years, they'll probably even be a nicer organization than they are today. I don't know that that's a particular selling point. I think that's true of most uh organizations that if they survive, they have to survive by weeding out the harmful aspects of the group and bringing it more successful uh things that work better for everyone. So yeah, Mormonism is uh has developed into a lot of good things, but uh that would be true of anything that that succeeds. You have to weed out the harmful parts. >> I would be less hard on Joseph Smith if the church were just honest about him because you know that to me that's the bigger problem. It's always the cover up that's often even more worse than the original crimes. I just wish if the church could just be honest and open about Joseph Smith from start to finish along with all its truth claims. I would I mean I'm probably stretching it a bit, but I'd consider rejoining. like it it just stop lying, stop deceiving and stop issuing essays on character um while displaying bad character and deception in your process of trying to bolster someone's character or credibility. Just church, be honest, be open, don't be deceptive. Um and I think you'll I think a lot of the critics will just disappear at that point. I think >> well there's always going to be critics on Mormon scripture because there's no foundation for them. So unless they're willing to set those aside, um they're always going to have critics. >> Nemo, >> I I would say there's some pragmatism that they could they could benefit from sort of leaning into they could benefit from leaning into the narrative. Okay, right fine. This church exists now and we're trying to do good in the world now and it's a good place to raise your family, etc., etc., and just focus on those things. I think that's where they'll have to go if they want to be sort of truly successful. Um because yeah, they they'll have to be open, honest about Joseph Smith and about the foundations of the church and people will have to be part of it and and this would be difficult and people would leave, but I think people would need to be part of it accepting it for what it truly is or what they can discern it to be through an honest examination of its um of its history. I think the irony in all of this is they have to become more like the reorganized LDS church. >> Yeah, for sure. >> The splinter group that they all denounced has become the leader in uh how to make Mormonism a kinder, gentler outfit, >> much to their own demise, unfortunately. >> Yes. And I think the Mormon church leaders see that. They understand that as the Church of Christ, Community of Christ moves away from Mormon foundational claims, their numbers aren't rising like they would hope. Although I think that nowadays they're picking up a lot of Mormons that leave regular LDS finding familiarity in the community of Christ. But uh I think the LDS leaders see the community of Christ struggling financially. That's why they had to sell off the um Kirtland Temple and these different places that the Mormon church has recently bought from the organized church. They needed the money to pay their staff. >> Yeah. So if you move away from the historic claims, do you lose the uh pressure of people giving sacrificially to your church? If you aren't absolutely 100% God's true restored church and everything about it is true, do you still maintain the same commitment of financial uh sacrifice to keep the church going? >> And the church doesn't need the money anymore. They could run off the interest of what they >> Yeah, but you kind of need people. >> You need people. >> Yeah. And I don't They haven't quite figured out how to solve that one. >> Yes. >> Well, the church is still technically growing just at a slow rate. And it's always going to probably be decently sized in the developing world because the church is super wealthy. And there's always going to be people attracted to the church just because of its wealth and influence and the things that it offers like community structure and even an education these days with pathways. But there's also always going to be a critical mass of wealthy, connected family Mormons that are like sons-in-laws and children and nephews and nieces and extended family of top church leaders who run the businesses that the church hires to do things like construction and management and you know church employees. So the church is always going to have members. It's just going to be a shrieking number of members in the developed world and it's going to more and more just be the wealthy connected family Mormons that financially and socially benefit from church membership in spite of the truth claims. >> Right. >> Yeah. Julia, what do you think? >> Well, because you'd mentioned like maybe you would you would think of rejoining again. I think that's what you were saying if the church was transparent about Joseph. >> Not really. I mean, >> I mean, I I sometimes joke about that, but the truth is I I probably wouldn't. >> Well, and I just wanted to add, right, I just wanted to add to that because like I would love to see the church be more transparent about Joseph. I also want the church to be healthy for people like LGBTQ for people who have been abused. I think you could argue that the the church's treatment of those who have been abused is probably the worst aspect of the church. Just different things like that. If if they were healthier for people overall, then maybe that conversation can be had about going back. But like, sure, I'd love to see these things happen, but it's not enough to just be transparent about the history. >> Yeah. Just the child abuse coverups and the protection of pedophiles and sexual predators alone >> is probably enough to keep me and many from ever wanting to rejoin until the church >> fixes that problem and atones for it, which their want to do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, Julia, great job. Really quickly, I think we gave grades to the first essay on Book of Mormon translation. Let's go around the horn and give the church a grade as it relates to first the polygamy essay overall. Sandra, do you want to give the church a grade in terms of honesty, transparency, spin on the polygamy essay? What do you think? >> Uh, C. >> C is pretty good. >> C minus. >> C minus. You care about the polygamy. What what do you give in the church for its polygamy essay? >> I didn't like that one at all. Is F? >> No. >> Is F too bad? I don't like that one at all. >> Okay. F's pretty harsh. I mean, not even like a D minor. I mean, they give some things, but like just like even going sentence by sentence, some of the things they're kind of being deceptive on. Maybe a D. I don't know. I just don't like it. It's certainly not a passing grade. >> Nemo, you don't you don't even understand this grading system. >> No. Uh the bottom one >> fail >> for polygamy. All right. And then and then what about uh how about the church's character in addressing Joseph Smith's character? Sandra, what grade do you give the church? >> Uh C minus. >> Okay. Still in the C range. Sandra's the most generous grader of all. Julia. >> Um I like the church is conceding some things. The church is saying like he he beat a tax collector. He was in 21 criminal cases. Like they're giving a little bit. He didn't pay all of his debts. So maybe a maybe I would I don't know if C C see seems too high cuz like the church is being deceptive still. So I'd probably still do a D. >> Nemo >> the bottom again. >> Poor character. >> All right. >> Well uh I'm super grateful for uh this series. Sandra, I know it's you know I know you're going through a lot. So, we really appreciate you uh being willing to come back and uh continue participating on these episodes. So, thank you so much for everything. >> Thanks for asking me >> and thanks for all you've done and continue to do. Can people still get the Utah Lighthouse Ministry PDFs from the website? >> Uh yes, we're having a little trouble with the website right now, but um yeah, utlm.org and the website's still there. If you happen to have an old computer, it might come up with an error message, but we're trying to get that fixed. Uh, but yes, we have all our research on there, digital copies of all our books, and our newsletters, which you'll just find a ton of information on all these subjects listed out in those things. >> Yeah. And just Mormon, Mormonism, Shatter, and Reality alone. >> Yeah. Our book is online in digital format for shadow reality. Yes, it's free. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, thanks Sandra and and to the extent that your health and family situation permits, we hope you'll come back again. >> Okay, good. >> Julia, uh you you made today happen. So, thank you so much for making today happen. Um again, please support not only Mormon stories and this project, but also Julia's uh emerging analyzing Mormonism YouTube channel and Tik Tok and Instagram channel. Um, along with Nemo's Nemo the Mormon channel and uh the donorbox.orgnemotheormon uh account is the way you can subscribe and support Nemo along with watching on YouTube and supporting Nemo. Nemo, thank you so much for joining us today and for all your great work. >> Oh, it's been my pleasure. Absolutely. Thank you for having me. >> I'll try and add you to my litany of excommunicants going forward. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes, he's earned his spot. >> He has. He has. H there we go. >> Um >> by Sandra >> what's what's that? What's that? >> It's been verified by Sandra. That's it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> From one apostate to another to another. >> Um we do plan to still continue. Uh we're excited to announce the LDS discussion series. Julia, you're going to be working on uh future episodes. Is that right? >> Yeah, of course. We still have the I we're still doing the CES letter versus whatever topics that that are being talked about. So that series still going and then I would still really like to do the one about these 21 criminal cases. So that's one that's exciting. >> And we want to cover Grant Palmer's An insiders view origins. That's good stuff as well. So lots of stuff there >> um as well. And we hope to bring Sandra back. So if you value the LDS discussion series and you want to see continue, uh please just continue donating to Mormon Stories. Uh thank you if you do. And if you don't support yet Mormon Stories financially, please go to morastories.org. Please click on the donate button. Please become a monthly donor. We lose a dozen or two uh monthly donors every month for lots of different reasons. And if we don't replace them, then we have to start cutting services. So, please sign up and become a monthly donor. It's taxdeductible in the US. We're transparent in our finances. And hopefully all that we do helps support the mission of Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation. So, please continue supporting us. Thanks if you do. You can also support us by subscribing to all our channels on Instagram, Tik Tok, Facebook, uh YouTube, uh etc. and by liking, commenting, emailing us at mormon stories@gmail.com, giving us your feedback and applying to be a guest on Mormon Stories podcast. We are looking for people 40 and above and specifically couples that uh have interesting Mormon stories to tell. We're finding that our process favors younger people who are tech friendly. But if you are 40 and above, 50, 60, 70, 80, and you've got an important Mormon stories to tell, we're putting a call out for uh more chronologically gifted members of our of our community uh to apply to be on Mormon Stories podcast. Anyway, thanks again, Julia, Nemo, and Sandra. Uh thanks for joining us today. Thanks to all our viewers and listeners. Be good to each other. Be kind to each other. Thanks to Brooklyn for all she does with editing um as well. And uh uh be good to each other, be kind to each other. We'll see you all again soon on another episode of Mormon Stories Podcast. Take care, everybody.