Polygamy Apologetics, Spiritual Wifery, etc w/ LDS Discussions – 29

Introduction and Series Recap

John Dehlin 0:00 Hello everyone and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories podcast. I am your host, John Dehlin. It's November 10, 2022 and we are in episode number 29 of our epic series with Mike from LDS Discussions) covering Mormon Church truth claims in as neutral and as dispassionate of a tone and as an approach as we possibly can to for those of you who are new or just joining us in the middle of this series, there's this amazing website called LDSDiscussions.com where you can find a bunch of really important, valuable footnoted essays that provide you with the information you need to understand Mormon Church truth claims. We are in part six of a six part series within the series on Polygamy. So we're in the final episode covering polygamy when be giving you an overview of what you've missed. Just to kind of summarize, but today we're doing part six which is called Polygamy Apologetics and Conclusions. And the essay for today's episode can be found at ldsdiscussions.com polygamy final before we actually jump into the content for day, I just want to remind everybody, there's a lot of people who have asked. You know, of course LDS Discussions) episodes are integrated into the Mormon Stories podcast feeds on both Spotify and Apple podcast and on YouTube or wherever you consume your podcasts for Mormon stories. But a lot of you have expressed the desire either for yourself or for loved ones to be able to watch or listen to all these episodes back to back without all the other Mormon Stories episodes integrated in. And so for that purpose, please know we do have a Spotify dedicated podcast feed for for LDS discussions that you can search in Spotify and you can listen to or view those episodes in Spotify because Spotify allows video now and then if you just want to view the YouTube videos in sequence, you can also do that through the LDS discussions playlist on the Mormon Stories Podcast YouTube channel. And of course that Spotify playlist can also be found in Apple Podcasts. So that is what we're doing today and we're excited to welcome back to our program Mike, who's the author of the LDS Discussions) essays. Hey Mike.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:21 Hey everybody.

John Dehlin 2:22 Thanks for joining us.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:23 It's good to be back. Finish up on Polygamy.

John Dehlin 2:26 Are you done with polygamy or are you excited for to get one more crack at it? Which one is it?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:32 I guess both. I mean it's such an important topic so you want to make sure you cover it in a good way. And this just Doing these six episodes with you makes me understand why Lindsay Hansen park has over a hundred because it really. We're. We're not getting into the weeds like you'll see with like Year of Polygamy. And it's just. It's such a. It's just a messy topic and it's really important to understand the history behind it, especially today against the way it's framed and the way we were all taught that polygamy was. So I'm not necessarily. I mean, I think we'll be. I think everybody listening to these episodes will probably be good to get a break from it after this episode. But at the same time, I feel like it's important to. To give it the six episode treatment to make sure that we cover as much ground as we can and to make sure we're giving fair coverage to what the church says as well.

John Dehlin 3:18 Absolutely. And I've been getting amazing feedback on this entire series and the miniseries of polygamy. And on that note, we are so thrilled to have back an LDS discussions superstar. Alicia. Hey, Alicia.

Alicia 3:34 I'm so excited to be here. I really appreciate being able to come on and give my commentary. I'm really just still such a learner in this department. But I love this topic. It continues to fascinate me. Polygamy is one of those things that I feel like has. My lens has changed since I've gotten older. I'm a lifelong member, seventh generation Mormon, as I've mentioned before, and I don't know if it's just parenting, having young adults and teenagers of my own. I don't know. My lens for the history of Mormon polygamy has really changed and so I'm. I just. It continues to fascinate me even after deconstructing my faith. And I'm just so impressed with the work that Mike has done here. So anyway, thank you for having me. I'm excited to take part in the conversation today. Learn a little more.

John Dehlin 4:25 Yeah. And it's our pleasure. And the. From the comments, Alicia, people are loving your feedback. So we're really hoping to get you back for other episodes of Mormon stories and. And for LDS discussions as well.

Alicia 4:37 I appreciate that. I adore this community. I just have such a passion for connecting with this community. I just love it so much. So thanks, John.

John Dehlin 4:46 And I think it's worth mentioning, Alicia, that you are a TikToker and your TikTok channel can be found at Faith Unraveled on TikTok. Is that right?

Alicia 4:54 Yeah, absolutely. I love to talk about deconstructing Mormonism. So. Yeah.

John Dehlin 4:59 All right. So make sure and check out Alicia. Okay. So, Mike, we are going to begin by recapping our first five episodes on polygamy for those who either could benefit from a summary or who are joining us kind of midstream and didn't get the benefit of the first five. So why don't you take that away?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 5:18 Yeah. And so just a really quick recap to talk about what we had done in the first five episodes because it's going to all tie back into today since this is going to be somewhat of a summary and looking at the Church's apologetics. So we started by looking at the timeline of polygamy and how that impacts the production of Doctrine and Covenants 132 because it doesn't come until 1843, which is going to really. The revelation is not recorded until long after Joseph is already practicing polygamy for years. We look at what the claimed 1831 revelation on polygamy actually talks about and why it has nothing to do with with what we have today as DNC 132. And that's going to play a role as we look at the apologetics because the Church needs to push it back to 1831. And as we talked about, the revelation was about taking wives and concubines of the Native Americans in order to make their children. And I'm using this as a quote white and delightsome Joseph Smith. We talked about how he produced DNC132 in one sitting. Hyrum had requested that Joseph used his Peepshear Stone, or the Urim and Thumma as the Church likes to call it today. And Joseph did not use it and just rolled off the entire 3,000 plus word revelation in one sitting, which has a lot of implications for his ability to create Scripture. As we've talked about in the production of the Book of Mormon. We talked about the wording of Doctrine and Covenants132, the implication that has for believing members today because this is still doctrine, the implications for mixed faith marriages, and how Joseph Smith broke almost all of the specific rules that were set forth in the revelation of DNC 132. We spent two episodes looking at the some of the polygamists and polyandrous proposals that Joseph Smith made to his followers, the patterns that we saw within them. And then our last episode kind of covered what I find to be one of the most important documents on polygamy that there is, which is Joseph Smith's happiness Letter to Nancy Rigdon and how that ties into DNC132, I love it.

Core Problems with Polygamy Summarized

John Dehlin 7:13 And if I can just recap, and this is as dispassionately as I can, if I can recap the most important elements of polygamy and some of this is going to be repetition, but it's, it's basically that Joseph Smith's first polygamous relationship was with Fanny Alger and even Oliver Cowdery himself called it an affair. Emma considered it, considered it an affair. And that's how it begins. And that happened before the ceiling power and before DNC 132. Were, were you. They were just twinkles in Joseph's eye at that point. So that's deeply problematic. The fact that, that Joseph Smith had 22 wives before he ever actually got sealed to Emma, before DNC132 was ever received, that's deeply problematic. He was lying about it publicly and he was marrying other men's wives, which is polyandry. He was marrying 14, 15, 16 year old girls, sister pairs, mother, daughter pairs. There's just, there's just. And it was, it was the undoing of the church because when William Law, a first counselor in the, in the first presidency, our counselor in the first presidency found out about it, he published a newspaper calling Joseph Smith on it. And that led to Joseph asking for the commanding that the printing press be destroyed, which is what led Joseph to be incarcerated in Carthage jail. So you know, these are all just some of the problems along with I think just what we covered about his patterns for propositioning young girls, which included coercion, threats, promises and pressure and you know, threatening that angels will kill him in, in, in ways that in any other context, as you like to say, Mike would be considered very highly manipulative. Especially when you consider the power differentials between Joseph and all these 13, 14, sorry 14, 15, 16 year old girls, foster children, you know, that were entrusted to his care. Alicia, any other, any other kind of points that stick out for you from the past few episodes that we haven't highlighted?

Alicia 9:21 Well, for today's episode, I kind of spent the week reviewing some of the apologetic points and I really appreciated a position that Laura Hales took. She said, I don't want someone to tell me what to think about polygamy. I want to come to my own conclusions and I think that's such a beautiful and fair stance to take. Obviously the three of us have come to our own conclusions. We're all deconstructed Mormons and, but I do think that that's a really Fair position, people are going to come to different conclusions. I think what's important here is the information that we know. We have some things that we know for sure, some things that are still sort of theoretical. And then you also have subjective lens through which you're viewing things. And as I mentioned before, that has changed for me as I've gotten older. I think our life experience really informs our view of these, of these stories and this information. So anyway, I think that would be just maybe a nice position to take for today's episode. Just everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusion. I think that's a nice perspective.

John Dehlin 10:27 Yeah, absolutely. Okay, Mike, where do we go from here? Do we go to the next slide?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 10:34 Yeah. So now we're just going to kind of talk really quickly about what we're going to cover today because this one, you know, we've covered a lot of the main points of polygamy in the first five episodes and we've covered some of the apologetic arguments as we've gone through it. But now I think it's important to go through and look at the church's best arguments for what Joseph Smith was doing with, with Mormon polygamy to see how it lines up to what we've covered and what the historical record says. And, and just because of that, we're going to have a little bit of overlap. And so when we cover something we've covered in a previous episode, we'll just note that we've already talked about it in more depth there. So we'll cover it quickly here. But let you know where you can look if you're, if you haven't watched those previous episodes. And we'll focus mostly on the Church's gospel topics essay on polygamy and Kirtland and Nauvoo, because those are what the Church considers to be the best arguments to defend what Joseph Smith was doing with polygamy. And I think that that is for us the best place to start, which is straight from an official release from the church. And then we'll kind of finish by looking at the modern day implications of Mormon polygamy, because as we've been saying throughout these episodes, this is still doctrine. And so it's really important to, to understand that, you know, when the church kind of says, you know, someone will say, oh, I'm so glad I didn't have to live through polygamy, I always kind of laugh inside because it's like, well, you don't for right now, but you're going to for eternity. So maybe you'll avoid it for, say, 80 years. But then you're gonna, you know, in theory, under church doctrine, be living in it, you know, for millions of years. So all of these things are really important to kind of wrapping up this topic. And the first thing I want to do before we get into the apologetics is to look at John Taylor's 1886 revelation on polygamy, because this is one I didn't know about for a long time.

John Dehlin 12:17 Okay, so, yeah, let's talk about that. That's important.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 12:20 And I. Yeah, this one's important for, I think, a lot. A lot of reasons, especially because it gives us some insight into how prophets work within the church. But this is something where this is a revelation that John Taylor recorded from God because he was asking God about polygamy. Because, remember, at this time, John Taylor's effectively on the run from the law, and the government is threatening the church over polygamy. And so John Taylor's trying to figure out what to do, because, of course, he's a very big, you know, a supporter of Mormon polygamy. But at the same time, he realizes, you know, that he is also in a horrible situation. And so this is John Taylor asking God if they could end polygamy, which at the time was synonymous with the new and everlasting covenant. Because in the early church, the new and everlasting covenant was polygamy. And so this revelation is really important because God, in the voice of God, answers that question.

John Dehlin 13:13 Okay.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 13:14 And so if we go to the next verse, we'll read the actual text of the revelation. I just wanted to show the. The image because that is. I believe the. The story is that I think this was. Was written down and given to seven different people. And so they all had copies of this revelation. And this is obviously very important to polygamous offshoots today. But as we'll talk about, this is not something that is necessarily controversial as far as being John Taylor's revelation. I think most, Even most apologists will agree that this. This is a legitimate document.

John Taylor's 1886 Revelation on Polygamy

John Dehlin 13:43 All right, so, yeah, the. The third prophet or president of the Mormon Church in 1886, received a revelation on polygamy. And we're going to now hear what it says. Let's do it. Yep.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 13:57 So this is. This is revelation that John Taylor claims is directly from God. And it says, my son John, you have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, how far it is bonding binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority. And how can I revoke an everlasting covenant? For I, the Lord am everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on the subject? You have not great numbers of my people, or sorry. Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments. And yet have I borne with them these many years. And this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times. And furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I, the Lord do not change in my word, and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph, all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting. And those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so. Amen.

John Dehlin 15:24 So, Alicia, I'm just curious if you're willing to share, kind of putting your orthodox Mormon lens on what's interesting to you about. About reading, hearing or reading that text of John Taylor's revelation.

Alicia 15:41 Well, I think if you are an orthodox member of the church and you believe that John Taylor was a prophet of God, I really do think this revelation regarding polygamy introduces a complex challenge because in this revelation, God seems so resolute and not doing away with polygamy. And keep in mind, John Taylor is a shared prophet with even the FLDS today. And I believe most of the modern polygamous Mormon groups, and this is something that they still point to. So, and I just want to capture the gravity of this statement, knowing that God would in fact change his mind a few years later. So the words, how can I revoke an everlasting covenant? For I, the Lord am everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with.

John Dehlin 16:28 But.

Alicia 16:29 But they stand forever. So the records of John Taylor, they are still used today by flds in their defense of polygamy today. And I think it's also worth noting that they, they view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as the great apostates because we moved away from this principle. So anyway, I think to answer your question, I think that for Orthodox members of this church, it presents a complex challenge.

John Dehlin 16:58 Yeah, they're not. Not to pick on Joseph Smith, but, like, there were certain things that Joseph was really clear about. Let's just pick that. You know, Independence, Missouri was going to be the gathering point in. In preparation for the coming of Jesus. That's what everyone was working for. And in another example is D and C132, the new and everlasting covenant. It's kind of amazing how much of a stake Joseph Smith put in the ground only to have the church kind of turn away from what I think, what were key doctrines. I mean, the whole gathering and the New Jerusalem stuff, that's in one of the articles of faith, right? I mean, it's in the Articles of Faith because it's like, central to Mormonism. And that just shows how short our memories can be or how flexible religions can be, because something can be a clear stake in the ground essential to the church's doctrine. And then all of a sudden, fast forward 10, 20, or 30 years and nobody even remembers it or thinks about it anymore.

Alicia 18:04 I think we also. I think we can also tend to overlook the fact that we don't. I don't think a lot of members realize how many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints move into a space of fundamentalism because of this doctrine, because they are convinced that this is what we were supposed to be doing. That was the case with my grandfather. And so deconstructing this stuff has really given me personally a new lens for those who have moved into a position of fundamentalism. Now, I personally. This is what sort of propelled my deconstruction, because I viewed it something more like along the lines of the Branch Davidians or another religion, religious organization of that nature. But for some who are really devout Mormons, they dig into this stuff and there is just so much compelling evidence that polygamy was. Was intended as something that was to be continued during this lifetime and the next. So I think it's really important to look at.

John Dehlin 19:06 It just doesn't make a lot of sense that Joseph would do something so severe, literally give his life for it. I think there's probably no credible, faithful Mormon church historian who wouldn't agree that in the end he gave his life for polygamy, that the Saints endured so much adversity as a result of it, and there was so much persecution. Why in the world would it be done if it was just meant to be ended and our backs turned from it? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Alicia 19:38 Yeah, absolutely.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 19:41 And we talked about this in one of our previous episodes. But, you know, one of the things about, like, the Mormon version of God is that the Mormon version of God is really powerless when the situations around the church are out of their control. And in this case, you see that John Taylor at this point feels like he's got enough control over the church where he can have the voice of God confirm what John Taylor wanted, which is to continue polygamy, because that's what John Taylor was a big proponent of. And then all of a sudden, as we're going to see just in what, four years after this, this revelation, all of a sudden the church is going to stop polygamy because they are powerless to stop it. And the Mormon version of God is powerless to change the government's mind or to protect them in any real way. And to me, it just shows more about how all of the prophets of the church are going to get revelations that confirm what they want. And we've detailed this before with Joseph Smith and we'll detail it more. We've got three episodes on Revelation coming up. But at the same time, the actual power that comes from those revelations is always absent. And so it just shows once you lose control of the situation, all of a sudden, the revelations don't work anymore.

Post-Manifesto Polygamy and Church Leadership

John Dehlin 20:42 Mike, I just realized that I may not. We may not have covered one really essential part about polygamy. And I don't think I saw it in the slides for today. Do. Do we have slides on post manifesto polygamy in today's episode?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 20:57 No. So for.

John Dehlin 20:58 Oh, go ahead.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 20:59 Oh, no, I was gonna say, for the purpose of the overview, I kind of tried to keep it contained to Joseph Smith. And this is one of those areas where I've had. I don't know enough about post manifesto polygamy to really do a whole lot with it outside of just some of the overarching, you know, main theme. So I didn't put one in there. I know that's something people do want to see more of.

John Dehlin 21:17 If it's okay. I'm just gonna. Just because I. If our listeners or viewers are expecting to kind of get a really good overview. Let me just talk about post Manifesto. Plug me really, really quick. Yeah, so, yeah, so. So basically, as I understand it, Joseph Smith gave all. All his. All the members of the church an impression that Jesus was going to be coming by around 1890, whatever. There's been some. Some suggestions or some revelations that basically said that if Joseph lived to a certain age, by that point, Jesus would have come. And so there was kind of this expectation within Mormonism. You know, it's called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a reason. That's another one of the doctrines that has kind of been abandoned is this idea that Jesus is coming any day now, which couples with the, the, the Independence, Missouri and the New Jerusalem kind of teaching. But, but if you look at 19th century Mormonism between 1830 and 1890, they're just waiting for Jesus to come, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses were. And there were even kind of lots of speculation as to what dates once the federal government really started pressing down on church leaders, once they moved to Utah to try and stamp out polygamy. I think Wilford, you know, Brigham Young obviously wasn't going to let go of polygamy. He had like 50, whatever, wives, John, So Joseph Smith, Brigham Young. Oh, yeah. And then once Brigham Young dies and they sort of pass the point where Jesus was supposed to come, and then John Taylor comes as well, he's getting this revelation that polygamy is new and everlasting. But then by the time Wilford Woodruff comes and, and it's around 1890, they're just like, yeah, I don't think Jesus is coming. And if we don't get rid of this polygamy, or at least create the impression that we got rid of polygamy, then it's going to. It's going to mean the end of the church as we know it. And so Wilford Woodruff has to thread this needle of. And plus, I think the Utah territories wanted statehood, you know, and so Wilford Woodruff had to thread this needle of, how do we communicate to the US Federal government that we've stopped polygamy so that they can stop putting us in jail and let us become a legitimate state? But then what do we do with all these revelations and assurances that polygamy is everlasting? And so he kind of did two things. He issued a manifesto in 1890 saying, okay, hey, hey, world, hey, Mormons, everyone, we're giving up polygamy. And that's what's known as the first manifesto, as I understand it. Right. But then what he also did is behind the scenes, you know, they like, sent a bunch of Mormons to Canada, sent a bunch of Mormons to Mexico. And what they did is behind the scenes, they're like, hey, hey, quorum of the 12 and first presidency, let's keep practicing polygamy. Let's just do it in Mexico, do it in Canada. And then, you know, we'll do it sometimes here in the United States, but we'll just keep it really secret. And so what we have is the church literally deceiving the world and members of the First Presidency and or quorum of the 12 continuing to sanction plural marriage all the way up until like the, the, you know, 1905ish time frame. So for 15 years, the church was deceiving the world about its continued practice of polygamy. And, and the government figured that out and eventually they were, they were, you know, the Smoot hearings, as I understand it, were the US Senate putting Mormons on trial, saying that you're still practicing polygamy and that you're lying to everybody about it. And then finally the Mormon Church had to issue a second manifesto which was basically saying, okay, now for real, for real, we're going to stop polygamy. And at that point they actually had to excommunicate, as I understand it, excommunicates certain apostles that wouldn't go along with the cessation of polygamy because they believed, rightly so, that past Mormon prophets had taught that this was a new and everlasting covenant. That's what it was called in D&C132. And so even Mormon apostles had to be excommunicated for their unwillingness to let polygamy go. And that's a really important part of what Mormon polygamous history. Not to throw shade on the church, but just to share objectively that the Mormon Church deceived the world for another 15 years after it promised to stop polygamy. And most members don't know that there was a second manifesto which was required to really stop it. And I think Michael Quinn was actually excommunicated in part, not just for early, you know, you know, his folk magic research, but also because he chronicled a list of all the post manifesto polygamous marriages that he could find and included, you know, the instances where apostles sanctioned the post manifesto polygamy. So Mike, tell me if, if that came close to getting it right based on your understanding, if there's anything you want to correct.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 26:39 No, I mean, I think that's good. I think to me that the biggest tell in all of that is the fact that the leaders of the church, the prophets of the church, fully believe that DNC 132 was the everlasting law. And that's why they fought so hard to hide it from the government. That's why they, after the first, you know, they call it now what official declaration? One.

Alicia 26:56 Right.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 26:56 And so they release it. And like you said, we'll actually. That part is in one of the slides. Wilford Woodruff is going to take another wife. So the prophet of the church is going to make this official declaration saying, we're done with polygamy, then he's going to take another wife. And so it tells you that these leaders of the church fully believe that polygamy is doctrine for eternity. And it really, to me, shows that when they lost control of the situation, they tried to do what is usually referred to as, like, lying for the Lord. So you lie to the government, try to get them off your back so you could do it quietly. But at the same time, the idea that. That God ended polygamy, as the church likes to say today, is absolutely, completely rejected by the actions of the people who were giving these declarations. The people who gave these declarations knew full well that this was the new and everlasting covenant that could not end. And so that's part of what we're gonna do with this apologetic is to look at kind of the. Almost like the. The public relations word game that the church often does when they have to make changes so that members don't realize that these huge parts of their doctrine have been changed. And they don't understand because they weren't taught it. Because now we've. We're teaching a whole different version of whether it's, you know, racism or sexism or, you know, why people's skin got current, turned dark. For the Native Americans, all of those things are what makes up the scriptures of the church and the doctrine of the church. And yet today, like you said, they'll kind of tell you, like, oh, no, polygamy is done. It's like, no, no, it's not done at all. And the current prophet of the church certainly doesn't believe that's true. So why should you?

John Dehlin 28:22 Alicia, anything you want to add about post manifesto polygamy?

Alicia 28:26 I think it's definitely worth doing an episode. I'd be really curious to hear what Mike has dug up on that. I was raised being taught that, that our ancestors or people were sent to, like, Arizona and colonial Juarez in Mexico because they had to keep the families intact, but it was against the law, so they had to keep the laws of the land. So they were, you know, setting up these colonies outside of the U.S. but I think it would be a great episode. I think a lot of the listeners could probably, probably have some ancestral connections to those groups. So I think it would definitely be worth looking into.

John Dehlin 28:59 All right, Mike.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 29:01 Yeah.

John Dehlin 29:01 Looks like we're doing the seventh polygamy episode.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 29:04 We may have to do one down the road. I know. You know, give a quick shout out to the Sunstone history podcast, which Lindsay Hansen park does with Brian Buchanan. And they've been doing. They did a lot with. They're. They're into the Utah period now, and I know they're going to be doing a lot with that, too. So obviously Lindsay knows way more about that than I do, but it's.

John Dehlin 29:23 It's Brian's brilliant as well.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 29:25 Oh, their podcast is great. And for someone like me who just loves, like, listening just straight history stuff, it's great. And not only is it a great podcast, but they do it with a tone that is kind of like, not making fun of anything, but it's more kind of. Not humorous, but a light tone, but covering a lot of stuff that is obviously not necessarily, you know, easy to digest. So I love what they're doing, and so I'll try to learn from them. So we could do a. A podcast down the road on it. Because I know it's an important element of polygamy. And this might sound kind of weird, but for me, when I was doing the overview, it was more like, once you realize this stuff isn't from God, then what happens after isn't necessarily like showing the church isn't true as much as it's just not. It's showing areas where the church hasn't been good, which is something we need to cover. I just didn't do it in this overview.

John Dehlin 30:10 Oh, that's great. All right, well, let's go ahead and jump to the next slide, which is the new and everlasting covenant is polygamy.

Polygamy as the New and Everlasting Covenant

Mike (LDS Discussions) 30:19 Yeah. And so this is one of those things I hear all the time, even in 2022, where you mentioned how the new and everlasting covenant is polygamy, and people say, no, no, no. New and everlasting covenant is celestial marriage. Polygamy is polygamy. Or I guess they would say plural marriage is plural marriage. And this is where this revelation to me is. So, excuse me. So important, because.

John Dehlin 30:38 Can I tease this out a little bit? Yeah, of course I understand it when anybody does a cold reading of DNC 132, the polygamy revelation. It's horrific. But as I understand it, church apologists try and tease out polygamy from the new and everlasting covenant as a way to justify the cessation of polygamy, because if you read D&C 132 and you think of polygamy as being the same as the new and everlasting covenant, then it's codified in scripture, canonized scripture, that polygamy should have never ended. So the apologetic need is to tease out the two and say, oh, no, when DNC132 talks about the new and everlasting covenant, that's some broader thing about ceilings and eternal families or even dynastics ceilings. I don't know if they get into that, but that's separate from like, what they talk about later in the chapter or in the section, which is all that weird polygamy stuff that we've abandoned. Is that, is that why we're talking about this? Mike?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 31:42 Yeah, I mean, that's the thing we talked about in the DNC132 episodes. What they'll say is, well, the revelation is kind of like two revelations. One is on celestial marriage and the second half's on polygamy. But when you read the text of DM1C132, that's not at all what is happening. It's just that DNC132, it starts out and says, here's a new and everlasting covenant, here's a bunch of really nice uplifting stuff. And then, boom, here's the hard stuff. And so to your point, if, if you had said when, I mean, when Joseph Smith was prophet, this was all secret, so you wouldn't really sit out loud, but when Brigham Young was prophet, if you had said, hey, Brigham, the new and everlasting covenant is celestial marriage and polygamy is not. So when you tell me I can't get into the celestial kingdom without polygamy, you're full of crap. You'd be chased out by the Danites by nightfall. Like, this is not how any of the early members believed it, because the early prophets, the ones who wrote it, Joseph Smith and the ones who were around him, absolutely knew the new and everlasting covenant is polygamy. And so to what you're saying and what to Alicia said, the reason that offshoots view the, the, the Brighamite Church, you know, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as apostates, is because by a cold reading, by reading DNC132, by looking at John Taylor's revelation, they're right. The, this is a church that has fallen away from their own doctrine. If you want to believe DNC 132 came from God and so you have that area now, where the church is going, how do we get ourselves out of this bind where we have this new and everlasting covenant of polygamy, but we've also rescinded it because of pressures from the government to make sure that members don't realize that we've completely fallen away from our own revelations. And so that's where we are today, basically.

John Dehlin 33:13 Okay. Anything else? Do we. Do we cover the slide or no?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 33:17 No. This one, yeah. Though this. We still need to cover this. So this is why it's. Yeah, this is so important, because when people say that the new and everlasting covenant is celestial marriage and not polygamy, listen to what John Taylor is saying. For this is obviously John Taylor claiming God said it and have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so. Amen. And so what John Taylor is saying through God, is that the works of Abraham, which we all know means polygamy, is the new and everlasting covenant.

John Dehlin 33:54 It.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 33:54 This revelation ties the words new and everlasting covenant to works of Abraham. So basically what it's saying is a new and everlasting covenant is polygamy through Abraham. And so anyone who tries to say that. That the new and everlasting covenant is celestial marriage has to deal with the fact that DNC132 and this revelation from John Taylor and all the teachings, all the early prophets are saying the exact opposite. And so this is something that is so important because DNC 132 is the everlasting doctrine. Polygamy is everlasting. It is eternal. And so we're going to talk about that through this episode. But every woman in the church who's listening to this has to realize that when you get to the next, you know, when we die, this is your eternity and you will have no say in the matter. As we talked about with DNC132.

John Dehlin 34:37 Elisa, Alicia, anything you want to add?

Alicia 34:40 I love that last statement by Mike. No two ways around it. Yeah. So the term new and everlasting covenant, from what I can see, it was originally intended absolutely to encompass the principle of plural marriage. And this is really important because in DNC131, it states that in order to enter the highest, a man must enter into this priesthood, meaning the new and everlasting covenant. And if he does not he cannot obtain it. So we have to know what that phrase means. Now, the Church has defined that phrase publicly to mean the patriarchal order of marriage or currently the fullness of the gospel. So there's a lot of ambiguity there. But I think there is a lot of evidence indicating in church history, both by prophetic statements and we see even in William Clayton's journal where he talks about even specific number of wives that were told to him by Joseph Smith that he would need to enter the highest degree of glory. I think. I think there's a lot to be said for that. I also just wanted to mention real quick that in the FLDS book of Scripture, Jesus Christ, message to all nations. I did in fact buy this book because I was very curious. Initially I thought it was Warren Jeff's book of just his own revelations. And what I discovered after purchasing it and reading through it, and what I think is worth mentioning today is that this is actually a compilation of revelation statements, prophecies from current and past FLDS prophets, including those shared by the LDS Church. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor. A big focus of this book of prophecies is the commandment on plural marriage. And their defense is that this, this is God's will. Included in this book are journal entries from William Clayton, some of the statements from sworn affidavits of, you know, Joseph Smith's wives, various parts of Journal of, of Discourses, all also LDS sources. And anyway, I found it to be compelling. And from what I can see, plural marriage was absolutely to be included under that umbrella entitled New and Everlasting Covenant.

John Dehlin 36:50 This is one of the things. Thank you, Alicia. This is one of the things I learned early on. For those who are Mormon Stories fans, there's Mormon Stories trivia. The very first video recorded interview I ever did on Mormon Stories was, was with a woman named Ann Wild, and Ann Wild with an E. She was raised traditional orthodox Mormon, and at some point after she had been married in the temple to her first husband, she started studying the journal discourses and early Mormon documents. And she discovered, you know, all these sorts of teachings. And it led her to believe that the Mormon Church was in apostasy. The current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was in apostasy because they were literally living counter to the prophecies received by the first three prophets and to the Scriptures. And this led her to divorce her husband and marry a polygamous man because she wanted to follow the prophets and she wanted to be part of the new and everlasting covenant that would get her into the celestial kingdom. And she knew that she had to be a part of polygamy to do it. So we're going include Ann Wilde's Mormon Stories podcast episode in our in the show notes, you know, because that's what. What the. That's one of the things that feeds modern Mormon fundamentalism is that believing orthodox Mormons simply read the documents and read the prophecies of early Mormon prophets, and they basically force you to become a polygamist if you believe in the words that they actually taught.

Alicia 38:29 Absolutely. This is a huge moment for me, John, because this is exactly what my grandfather came to. And I always believed that he had been led astray. And I mean, I guess while I still do sort of believe that, because I don't. I don't believe in the church anymore. But he was living this doctrine the way that it was absolutely written. And I cannot tell you how many people have come to me personally, just as a ex Mormon content creator, I guess you could say that, have said, oh, my grandfather lived polygamy secretly while still going to church people, even today, living this law and attending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So not only do we have people, you know, leaving the church and going to live formally in fundamentalism, there are also people who are trying to make it work inside the church, believing that we just, you know, that the church just isn't quite on the right track because they're not living this principle.

John Dehlin 39:23 Yeah, they become fundamentalist fodder, Michael.

Alicia 39:27 There's a lot of them. I don't think we realize how many of them there are in the church.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 39:31 Oh, yeah.

John Dehlin 39:32 Oh, yeah. Attending. Yeah. Ann Wilde went on to raise her children in traditional LDS wards in Sandy, Utah. And everybody just thought she was a divorcee, but really her husband, Ogden Kraut, would come visit her, like, every third weekend. And. And the bishop and the members of the ward just had no idea he'd go in the back. It's really fascinating.

Alicia 39:56 Fascinating. Yeah.

John Dehlin 39:57 All right, Mike.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 39:58 No, and the one thing I'll say too, is, you know, we mentioned that that line about from John Taylor's Revelation where he talks about the works of Abraham. But then you also have to look at the other line which says, have I not given my word in great plainness on the subject? You yet have not great number of my people been negligent in the observance of my law. So right there, God is saying, if you want to make the argument that this is all about celestial marriage, why in the world is God then telling John Taylor that a bunch of the people in the church are negligent to the law, because that's not, you know, this is the thing you cannot separate. The new and everlasting covenant is polygamy by the words of God. And so when you have people like Ann Wild who say the church is in apostasy, I mean, she's not wrong. Now this is all made up from a historical standpoint, as we've talked about. There are so many inaccuracies in DNC132 that, you know, right off the bat, this is not, you know, from God because God would be a horrible person with his own scriptures if that were the case, as we'll talk about in this episode. But, but they're right. Like the church is in apostasy if we want to believe this is from God. Like, it's really that kind of like irreconcilable problem that comes from the church now trying to say, oh, no, no, it's over, because it's clearly not.

John Dehlin 41:05 And Mike, it wouldn't, wouldn't it be part of the Church's historical apologetic that, that to question the authenticity of the John Taylor letter and say that it wasn't really authentic, but modern, faithful, reputable historians would, would challenge that apologetic now, is that right?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 41:26 Yeah, and I think, I don't know if I have it in here, my overview.

John Dehlin 41:29 Yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 41:29 In the next slide, it talks about Fair Mormon concedes that this is the legitimate thing, the only.

John Dehlin 41:34 But historically, they, they might have challenged it.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 41:37 They, they might have. I mean, I don't know if they would have challenged it like, you know, 100 years ago or whatever. But the, the funny thing about it is just that what they'll say now is, oh, it's a legitimate revelation, but it was never canonized, so we don't have to worry about it. It's like, no, you still have to worry about it because it's still the written down voice of God. This idea that it doesn't matter because of some legalistic technicality I think is nonsense. And, you know, if it were the other way around and polygamy was still legal, this would be a framed document in every ward, in every church building and beyond one of the walls, you know, basically saying, yeah, this is new and everlasting. You better believe it. And that's why, you know, Brother, Brother Joe has got six wives in his pews, because this is what God wants. So, yeah, like, yeah, they can, you can argue it all you want, but most people would, would concede this is a Legitimate document.

John Dehlin 42:25 Okay, all right. Well, let's. Let's learn how God changes his mind four years after saying polygamy is everlasting.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 42:32 Yeah. And so, as you kind of highlighted, the church is going to produce the first manifesto four years later through Prophet Wilford Woodruff, which is going to seek to end polygamy for time, not eternity. And this is funny because just two years earlier, in 1988, Prophet Woodruff stated that we are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the coming of the Son of Man. It's like, oops. And then this is another thing you mentioned earlier. Joseph Smith was teaching people that God would come back if he lived to, what, 84 years old? We're going to go into this in the Revelations episode, but there's patriarchal blessings all over the place where they talk about you're going to live long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man. Obviously, those revelations all fail. And as I mentioned earlier, Wilford Woodruff is going to take another polygamous wife seven years after he issues a manifesto along with other apostles that are taking polygamous wives, which shows how unserious the church was about ending polygamy. And I mentioned, but that's another story. And that's, like you said, that might be another episode we have to do down the road. And so, you know, as I mentioned, even fair Mormon concedes it appears to be in his handwriting, and it is probably genuine. This revelation is damning not just because God told Prophet Taylor to continue polygamy, but that it explicitly ties polygamy to the new and everlasting covenant. And, you know, just. Just to really think about this, if you want to believe that God would change his mind just four years after stating to Prophet Taylor that I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. And then also two years after, you know, Prophet Woodruff says plural marriage would not end until Jesus returns. Obviously, I can't stop you from, from wanting to. To believe God would do that. But you just have to answer why an unchanging, unmovable God decided to change his mind just four years after giving a very, very clear revelation. And this is the exact same thing we saw when God gave a revelation to, you know, President monson about the Nov. 15 policy of exclusion, where Russell Nelson said it was, you know, you talk about how they all saw revelation come down upon the 12. And then four years later, three and a half years later, God's going to have to reverse that revelation by another revelation because of the fact that that policy blew up in the church's face with regards to a PR standpoint. And so these are problems that come through the church because of the fact that these are not real revelations. And when you call something revelation, you have to remove it. You end up with a massive problem because now you have to explain why God is changing his mind when the, the real answer is that there are men who are trying to speak for him and they don't speak for Him. And so this is just a big problem to show that we're also, on one hand we're told God is unmovable, he's unchanging, he's everything from the beginning of time till the end. On the other hand, oops, four years later, he's changing revelations. Those are not good positions for the church to be in. And it's happening. It's not a one time thing. As we talked about, it happened just a few years ago.

John Dehlin 45:22 I really like someone at some point made the point that Mormons have the view that the church, that God never changes and that the church never changes. I think it's John Larsen who's made the point that you really can't find a single core Mormon doctrine that hasn't fundamentally changed from the beginning until now. And the weird thing is somehow the church has been able to change in a way to where the members have not noticed how over time, how significant the changes have been or just not bothered by it.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 45:58 Yeah, and there's the book. This is my doctrine. I think it's Charles Harrell. He details that every single element of the church's doctrines have changed and they're changed in a way that most members today don't know it. I mean, I certainly as a convert had no idea about all of the stuff that had happened because the church just pretends it didn't happen. But the historical record tells us that all of these things have changed. And typically they change because either social pressures demand it or because of the fact that it's just irreconcilable with what's happening at that particular time. And so to make this claim as we hear all the time, that God is never, you know, unchanging, undaunting, you know, it's like. But yet he does. And so at that point, then you have to say, well, is God an unchanging God, or is it just the people who claim to speak for him, who don't, who are doing it on their own and therefore cleaning up their own mistakes. And it's really obvious once you take a step back and notice that literally every area of the church has had to change. We've detailed that. I mean, my goodness, first vision, priesthood, restoration, erase in the priesthood, all of these things have changed because the people who created it, in this case, Joseph Smith, made a lot of mistakes that have to be cleaned up later on in order to make this work. So it's pretty obvious once you take a step back.

John Dehlin 47:10 Alicia, anything you want to add to this? Anything you want to add to this particular part of the conversation?

Alicia 47:16 I was just going to ask, do either of you recall this statement by one of the general authorities about dead prophets? And it was just to shift the emphasis on living prophets and not to focus

John Dehlin 47:30 Benson's 14 fundamentals of following the Prophet, that the words of a living prophet always trump the words of a dead prophet. Is that what you're saying?

Alicia 47:39 Yeah, maybe that's it. And I didn't realize as it. It was as old as Ezra Tough Benson. I thought it was more current. But yeah, just to me, sort of points to this, like, re. You know, rewriting of Mormon doctrine that like, the emphasis should be on living prophets and what's said today, not what was said a hundred years ago. Which seems convenient, right?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 48:02 Yeah, it is. I mean, we talked about that with the race in the priesthood episode, which is that the church will throw God under the bus before they will throw their current leadership under the bus, because the current leadership needs members to believe they're in charge. And you can't have that if you're willing to say that we have no idea what we're doing. Like, for example, with. With race in the priesthood. Dallin Oaks gets up there and says, I have no idea why God wanted this, but he did. And it's like, what? You know, so you're saying, I have no idea why God was racist for 140 years, but he was. What are you gonna do? When in reality he could have been like, yeah, our earlier leaders of the Mormon Church, our earliest prophets, were actually kind of racist people that could not understand revelation from God, from their own racism. And therefore we have to fix this mess. But instead he's going to throw God under the bus because if he doesn't do that, his own authority is undermined. And that is the one area you cannot touch. And that's why you see that in these different areas, because the living prophet has to be maintained as infallible, even though we're going to say in 20 years that they're Fallible men making mistakes. And the cycle continues every single time we get new leadership.

John Dehlin 49:01 It's kind of brilliant, though, because by definition, if God does it, it's okay. So you can throw pretty much anything on God, and as long as it's God, nobody can question it. And so it's a really powerful form of deflection to keep the heat and the tension off modern day LDS Church leaders. Yeah, obviously our Christian friends hate it because I think in many ways it spoils post Mormons, many post Mormons for belief in God and Jesus because by the end they're so they find God Mormon God and Mormon Jesus so distasteful that they throw God and Jesus out altogether. So anyway, it probably backfires, but I'm not sure how much the church cares if. If ex Mormons stop believing in God or Jesus. They probably want that. They want ex Mormons to be godless heathens, you know, to discredit them either even further. So, anyway, all right, so let's go to the first paragraph of the church's essay on polygamy.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 50:06 Yeah, and this is something we got a little bit in the DNC132 episode. But the first paragraph of the essay says the revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith's study of the old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time. The revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132 states that Joseph prayed to know why God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon in having many wives. The Lord responded that he had commanded them to enter into the practice. And so in the very first paragraph of their essay, they're intentionally distorting the data. There is no suggestion that this came from Joseph Smith translating the Bible in 1831, because if that were the case, Joseph would have made changes in the Joseph Smith translation that would have reflected it. Like, it's really nonsensical to say that God gave him a revelation here, yet didn't change the text of the Bible to actually command these people into polygamy. And so I find that kind of, like, funny, but insulting because as we've talked about, the 1831 revelation that they're going to give a citation to from WW Phelps has nothing to do with biblical stuff, but about going to the Native American women, taking them as wives and concubines so that their children that you have with them become, and I quote, white and delights them. So they don't put that in the essay because it's incredibly racist. And as we've talked about, the Native Americans have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon people because DNA shows that they did not come from Jerusalem. So right off the bat, they're telling us this. And as we've talked about over and over again, the Bible does not have any instance where God is commanding Abraham into polygamy. Not Jacob, you know, not any of these people. And so this is a very misleading paragraph right off the start that shows you that the church knows there's no real justification for it. And so they throw the, the same inaccurate Bible reference that Joseph Smith gives in DNC132, which anyone who opens up their Bible can see is wrong.

John Dehlin 52:01 I love, I love our, our listening and viewing audience because they always send thoughts and reactions that I didn't think of. And one of our, one of our commenters, and I wish I could call out their name, highlighted to me the, the irony that the Book of Mormon claims that the, the Lamanites were given dark skin as a curse so that they would be viewed as repulsive or repugnant or ugly to their white counterparts. And he said, why is it that the Book of Mormon says that? And then Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation basically says, hey, hey, Mormon missionaries that we're sending to the frontiers, hey, if you decide you want to bring on a Native American woman as a concubine, you know, God says that's okay. Doesn't that seem a little bit contradictory? Alicia, what do you think about that?

Alicia 53:00 Oh, my gosh. So, guys, I feel like I'm still so new to this territory. This is something I didn't even recognize as an active believing member. I read the standard works every year. I read the standard works for like 10 years in a row, like the whole thing. And I don't know why my brain did not compute that nowhere in the Old Testament was it saying, sorry, I'm kind of going back to the last conversation. But never did it say, you know, I, God, command Abraham to practice polygamy. Like, that was completely Joseph Smith's narrative. He, you know, sort of, he, he wrote, rewrote that narrative for us and told us that's what it is. So it's immediately what we point to is active believing members to justify polygamy. But it never actually said that. So it's just so wild to me. I'm still untangling it. I also saw that comment and I thought that that was really interesting. Again, this information is still a little overwhelming to me. I haven't really processed all of it, but yeah, definitely, definitely compelling.

John Dehlin 54:05 Yeah. All right, Mike, so what, what's next? I guess it's. It's the spiritual wifery versus plural marriage problem. Is that next?

Spiritual Wifery Versus Plural Marriage

Mike (LDS Discussions) 54:15 Yeah. So this is another one where the church's essay says, nevertheless, rumors spread. A few men unscrupulously use these rumors to seduce women to join them in an unauthorized practice sometimes referred to as spiritual wifery. When this was discovered, the men were cut off from the church. And we talked about this both in the second overview on the polygamous proposals and about with the Happiness Letter. The idea of spiritual wifery was happening at the same time Joseph Smith was ramping up polygamy. And it was happening among those who were the closest to Joseph Smith. And so, you know, they talk about John C. Bennett a lot in the church. They'll say, oh, that, that John C. Bennett was a horrible dude. But because John C. Bennett had become extremely close to Joseph, he was like his right hand man during this time. And so they were having sex with these women under the idea of spiritual wifery, which is, you cannot be in trouble because this is not, you know, this is more of a spiritual thing than it is like a law based thing. But the problem is, we talk about this in the Happiness Letter episode. Joseph Smith's own brother, William Smith was doing it as well. And so the church wants to make you think this is entirely different from plural marriage, but they're really not that different if you view them as you would anyone else who's practicing some form of polygamy where they're saying, hey, we're going to marry each other, you know, for eternity. You can marry some other dude for time. We could still have sex because we are technically married for eternity. I mean, this stuff is, you know, this idea that, that they're pulling this out of thin air is nonsense. And so the church tries to make it sound like John C. Bennett was all on his own. I just find that very hard to believe. I'm not. I think John C. Bennett's biggest crime was getting caught. But the fact is, is we talked about in the Happiness Letter, William Smith is Joseph's brother. And they don't mention that because if they do it all of a sudden, it ties it closer and closer to Joseph.

John Dehlin 55:54 And so family. Yeah, yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 55:56 These are just word games. It's like a word game to say spiritual wifery is awful. Plural marriage, awesome. You know, it's like, you know what I mean? It's just. It's really bad. I know other people have made that joke. It's not. I'm not the first one to say it, but it's true. It's like. It's like if you're in a cartoon, you know, and you've got the bad guys, like, yeah, spiritual, you know, spiritual wifery. That's horrible. And then he turns away from the camera and he's like, but plural marriage is good. You know, it's like, what are we doing here? Like this. These are bad word games to try to say that by. By using a different word, you're privileging it to make one sound, like, completely scandalous and the other to seem righteous. When in reality, as we talked about in our the previous three episodes, Joseph Smith is using a lot of the same tactics, a lot of the same promises that the other people were using. The only difference is Joseph has the authority to get himself out of it, whereas the other people made the crime of letting it get exposed, which meant that the people Joseph was trying to hide it from are starting to find out.

John Dehlin 56:47 It's almost like the church needed a trash can. Joseph. And then later church leaders needed a trash can to throw all the as much ugliness, as much polygamy ugliness as they could into a trash can. And so they created the spirit. And by the way, the only reason why John C. Bennett fell out of favor is because he started doing things Joseph didn't like or started challenging Joseph Smith's authority. But that conveniently gave Joseph Smith and the church this kind of spiritual wifery. John C. Bennett trash can that they could throw all of the polygamy ugliness into, you know, if it happened to be inconvenient. Alicia, anything you want to add to this discussion about spiritual wifery?

Alicia 57:31 Well, I just. I just have this imagery of, like, Joseph Smith setting this up and setting up all these, like, now seemingly arbitrary rules to it, and it just seems like it just slipped through his fingers and it just turned into this huge mess. We've got Joseph Smith saying, you know, it has to be done this exact way, and if it's not done this way and I have to be the authority and I have to make the assignments, we've got Emma saying, no, it never actually should. You know, it's just. It's just entirely this huge mess, and people are using it to go out and be philanders. And, I don't know, it just seems like a gigantic mess. And I also. You use the example of a Cartoon. I was. I. I was picturing kind of like someone on the playground, like, setting up rules for this game. And it was like, no, it's getting out of hand. It's slipping through your fingers. People are doing it in all these ways that you weren't anticipating, and it just kind of gets out of control. So anyway, it's just. It's another one of those, like, is it a psychological horror? Is it a comedy?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 58:27 No, it's true.

John Dehlin 58:27 I mean, it's just.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 58:29 It's all word games. Because Joseph has to maintain what he's doing is okay while then finding a way to demonize what the other people are doing because of the fact that it's now this secretive thing that's starting to get out. And so all of a sudden it's like, oh, wait a second. Guys, guys, didn't you. Don't you realize this is spiritual wifery? That's why that's bad. But, guys, what we're doing behind the doors over here that I'm keeping from Emma because it's so righteous that I can't tell my own wife that's plural marriage. That's okay. And I know I sound facetious, but I'm just saying, like, when you take a step back and you look at the way these two terms are used as if they're completely different, they're just not. And it's like, you know, again, it's like, you know, trying to think of different movies. Like Austin powers. They have Dr. Evil, and he sees Austin Powers. Like, we're not different, you and I. That's what spiritual wifery would say to plural marriage. It's just like, we're not different. We're the same thing with just different names. And. And it's. It's almost comical the way that people cling to these definitions, as if it changes the history behind them.

John Dehlin 59:20 The other. The other thing that the church doesn't mention enough is that John C. Bennett was in the First Presidency. So it would be like Henry B. Eyring or. Or, you know, down H. Oaks is caught in some massive financial scandal, and Russell and Nelson was doing the same types of things. But, you know, it's like, oh, it shouldn't matter because what. Because Oaks or Eyring were doing it? Like, the church tends to downplay the fact that John C. Bennett was in the First Presidency. And that is significant because it's. It's one of the top two or three leaders in the entire church. So. So that's a problem. And it's also a problem that the church just kind of conveniently fails to mention John C. Bennett's position whenever it tends to discredit him? I think, well, no.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:00:08 And when I did the Saints chapter by chapter thing, I was one of the first things I did on the website. And so I was a convert, didn't learn much about John C. Bennett outside the fact that he was viewed as like, a scoundrel. And so I'm reading the Saints book and I'm like, John C. Bennett was. Was that close to Joseph. Oh, John C. Bennett was elevated to these positions. You don't realize John C. Bennett was like the guy, the second hand person for Joseph, kind of running the show. And so to your point, yeah, it would be like today, you know, if Dallin H. Oaks is running the scam, and then Russell Nelson's like, dude, I have no idea what. What he's doing. And then all of a sudden you realize he's doing his own thing. They're just kind of changing the terminology. It. It really is kind of laughable. And yes, John C. Bennett and William Smith were telling these women things that are horrible, but as we talked about in the overviews on polygamy proposals with Joseph Smith, he was telling women things that were horrible too. I mean, what is the difference between. We'll have Alicia read two of these accounts from some of the women. But then you've got to say, well, what's different between that and the Joseph Smith telling Lucy walker, you have 24 hours to decide or the gates to exaltation will be closed against you. I mean, there's. I just don't understand sometimes why we work so hard. I mean, I do understand why we're working so hard to privilege Joseph and we're willing to throw everyone else under the bus in order to maintain the plausibility that what Joseph was doing was righteous and from God, when we know in our heads, if we heard it from any other leader, we'd be like, this is horrific.

John Dehlin 1:01:28 Yeah. Okay, so let's get to the accounts of spiritual wifery from the women involved.

Women's Accounts of Spiritual Wifery

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:01:35 Yeah, so we read two of them in the Happiness Letter episode. So the we're gonna have the first one we read from there and then a third one, which I did not include in that episode. So, Alicia, do you want to read these, since they are the testimonies of some of the women who were involved.

Alicia 1:01:51 Yeah. William Smith has also been to my house on the 27th of last month, being the day I was married, and proposed unlawful connections. But I refused and told him that it was contrary to the teachings of Joseph Smith on the stand. He answered that Joseph was obliged to teach to the contrary on the stand to keep down prejudice and keep peace at home. First, W. Smith insisted very much that I should not marry. That I should not marry, and proposed to supply me with food, etc. If I should remain unmarried and grant his requests. And that's from Katherine Fuller's testimony. You want me to go on to the next one?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:02:35 Yeah, I want you to read the other one too.

Alicia 1:02:38 Okay. So this is a third account from Margaret J. Nyman. During the evening's interview, he, as I have since learned, with wicked lies, proposed that I should yield to his desires and indulge in sexual intercourse with him, stating that such intercourse might be freely indulged in and was no sin that any respectable female might indulge in sexual intercourse, and there was no sin in it, providing the person so indulging keep the same to herself. For there could be no sin where there was no accuser. And nice and most clandestinely, with wicked lies, persuaded me to yield by using the name of Joseph Smith, and as I have since learned, totally false and unauthorized. And in consequence of those arguments, I was influenced to yield to my seducer, Chauncey Higby.

John Dehlin 1:03:31 Okay, so, Mike, if it's okay, can I provide my analysis of those two?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:03:36 Yeah, please do.

John Dehlin 1:03:37 So. So it's basically William Smith acknowledging that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy because he wanted to keep peace with Emma, and he. He didn't want the saints being persecuted. So that suggests an intentional conspiracy between Joseph Smith and William Smith. Is that. What. What is that? At least the main thing we're supposed to glean from that first. From that first quote, Mike?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:04:05 Well, I would say that the first quote, he's telling this woman because she's saying, dude, what are you talking about? We're not doing, like, this kind of extramarital sex. And he's like, yeah, we are just Joseph can't talk about publicly. We know that's true because Joseph Smith was doing it, and he couldn't talk about it publicly. So we know that part is confirmed. And so to me, that. That part is saying, here's William Smith, who knows what Joseph Smith is doing. He's telling the women, this is what Joseph is doing. And so on this testimony, this testimony is working to keep what Joseph Smith is doing secret still. But now, in 2022, or really honestly, just a few years later, they knew that's what Joseph Smith was actually doing. So we know William Smith is at least Telling the truth. He's not making us up out of whole cloth. And so, to me, I don't know if it's necessarily a conspiracy as much as the fact that these women have no idea what Joseph Smith is doing, because they're not in the inner circle of polygamy. And William Smith is trying to pull them in, obviously in ways that Joseph might not have wanted him to, but they're doing it with the teachings of Joseph Smith that we now know were actually being done at the time.

John Dehlin 1:05:10 Why. Why do you. Why do you resist the idea conspiracy to deceive? If this has William Smith saying that Joseph. Why Joseph Smith, his brother was lying to people? Why. Why are you saying that? Why are you resisting the term conspiracy?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:05:26 I guess it's just because I. I think it's. I mean, it's a conspiracy to deceive in the sense of he has an inner circle that knows about this, and they're all being sworn to secrecy. And so in that regard, yeah, it is. I guess, to me, it's not like. I guess maybe I. I'm resisting. It's just because I don't know that there was ever a meeting where Joseph said to William Smith, hey, we got to keep on the download. We do this, you know, we just don't know that. But we do know, to your point, that there was an effort and that would be technically a conspiracy among Joseph and all these people in it, to not tell anyone about it. That's what we talk about time with masonry. That's the whole point. Yeah. It's to keep a secret.

John Dehlin 1:06:00 So, yeah, there's an inner circle of Joseph's closest confidants that are in the know and that are allowed to practice. And then there's an outer circle that are not in the know and that aren't allowed to practice.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:06:14 Yeah. So, I mean, you could use that phrase. I guess for me, I was just thinking, like, the fact is, to me, it's more important that this testimony is actually confirmed by what we know, that Joseph really was keeping a secret because of the fact that he couldn't talk about in public. And so we hear these at the time. They make it sound like this proves William's lying because Joseph wasn't teaching us. Like, oh, no, this proves William was telling the truth because Joseph absolutely was doing these things.

John Dehlin 1:06:35 Yeah, the second paragraph. And, Alicia, I think you and I were both reacting. Tell me if this is what you were thinking, Alicia. It just sounded a lot like the. The exact verbiage from the happiness letter. And we're we're seeing that reappear in. In the account of. Of. Of another person. Is that what you were laughing at,

Alicia 1:06:56 Alicia, that's lying about there is no sin if there is no accuser?

John Dehlin 1:07:01 Yeah.

Alicia 1:07:02 I mean, so, yeah, these. These statements by Katherine Fuller and Margaret Nyman are extremely telling. Hey, Mike, where could people find these? I guess LDS discussions.

John Dehlin 1:07:15 We'll have the reference.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:07:16 Yeah, we've got the references to them. I think they're from journals.

Alicia 1:07:20 Yeah, it's worth. It's worth reading through again. I think this is really telling. But, yeah, just to answer your question, John, the part that really stood out to me is that if there's no accuser, there's no sin. Sounds like some solid moral compass there.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:07:34 And it's coming right from Joseph, and that comes right from Joseph Smith's mouth. So let's go to the next slide. Just because you talk about how ridiculous it is, but we got to remember, these are Joseph Smith's own words. So this is what Joseph Smith taught. In November of 1841, I charged the saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren and said, if you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser, you will enter heaven. And if you follow the revelations and instructions which God gave you through me, I will take you into heaven as my backload. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. I will. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours. For charity covereth a multitude of sins, but many people call sin is not sin. I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down. So this is literally that last testimony comes directly from Joseph Smith's teachings. And so this idea that, you know, these people are lying, and this is the case, was it Chauncey Higgins? Chauncey Higgins is telling this woman exactly what the prophet of God is teaching with regard to no sin of no accuser. And we have, you know, to use the cliche, we have the receipts, we have the journal entry where Joseph Smith says, this is what I taught the saints. And now all of a sudden, when the saints actually do go through with his teachings, he's like, oh, no, you can't do that. I didn't mean that. It's like, no, you did, because you said it, and you were practicing it, and you were teaching in the Happiness Letter. So as what John said, it's in the Happiness letter. It's in this 1841 sermon. And then all of a Sudden, the only crime that these men commit is that they get caught. And these women speak out because they're like, why in the world am I having sex with this dude? Because he said, God says it's okay if I don't, if I don't accuse him of it. It's like, well, it's because that's what Joseph Smith is teaching as well.

John Dehlin 1:09:13 And was that referenced the history of the church? It says history there.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:09:17 Yeah, that's in, that's in the history. It's history in the church.

John Dehlin 1:09:21 Yeah, so. So church members would find that quote credible because it's in church publication.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:09:27 Yeah, that's 100 credible. There's nothing there that is. Is controversial. That, that's from Joseph Smith's. Obviously he dictated it, but that's from his, his own words.

Joseph Smith's Carefully Worded Denials

John Dehlin 1:09:36 Okay, so now we get to some of the classic apologetic arguments for polygamy. And, and the first one we're going to highlight are the, the carefully worded denials as an apologetic. Is that right, Mike?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:09:52 Yeah, and so this is one of the, the things that was, to me was troubling about the, the essay the first time I read it. And because you have all of these instances where Joseph is so dishonest, not just Emma Smith, but to the church as a whole, most of the people in the church, as we just talked about, they didn't know. So there was this kind of like inner circle. And then everyone outside of it was being told this wasn't happening. And so the essay continues and says the rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounce spiritual wifery and polygamy, but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated celestial plural marriage. The statements emphasized that the church practiced no marital law other than monogamy, while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals under direction of God's living prophet might do so. And this paragraph reads like it was written by a lawyer who is trying to stretch the truth as pos as much as they possibly can. While not technically lying. And the footnote from the essay explains these denials in this way. In the denials, polygamy was understood to mean the marriage of one man to more than one woman, but without church sanction, effectively, they are differentiating between polygamy and plural marriage as verbal semantics that Joseph used to lie. It's kind of like, you know, the whole Bill Clinton thing, like, you know, I didn't have sex with that lady because he didn't believe oral sex was sex, or it depends on what the definition of is is. And so the church here is playing very fast and loose with these words to try to find any possible way to avoid saying Joseph Smith was lying to the members of the church, which he was doing.

John Dehlin 1:11:18 Yeah, he was definitely lying to Emma, and he was lying to members of the church, and he was lying to the general public.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:11:24 Yeah.

John Dehlin 1:11:25 You know, Alicia, anything you want to add to that?

Alicia 1:11:28 No, I just. I think it's notable that a lot of the people writing these Gospel topics essays have a legal background. Is that correct?

John Dehlin 1:11:36 Oh, yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:11:36 For.

John Dehlin 1:11:37 For the past several, I think, decades, the church has hired lawyers to be their official church historians. They tried bringing on a real historian, Leonard Arrington, to head the church history department from 1972 to 1982. And he told so much truthful history, even though he was faithful, that they fired him, canceled the department. And then once they. Once they created a church history department again, they made sure from. From then on to never put actual historians as the head of the church history department, but to always put attorneys. And I think that that says a lot.

Alicia 1:12:17 Yeah, yeah. And if you look at the way that these. That these gospel. Gospel topics essays are written like it's very carefully crafted. You can see the wording on some of these. I've got a couple examples coming up here in the next slides. But the wording is. Is. Is crafted. I mean, it's been very explicitly crafted for a certain narrative.

John Dehlin 1:12:42 Yeah, yeah, let's. Let's look at some examples.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:12:45 Yep. And so in one example of Joseph's public carefully worded denials, he said the following. I had not been married scarcely five minutes and made a proclamation of the gospel before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives. And now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that female relief society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses. I'm innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence for you. You know me yourselves, what a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one. I am the same man and as innocent as I was 14 years ago. And I can prove them all perjurers. And when he made the statement, he already has 20 wives. And so, you know, Joseph's mockingly joking about whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives. He's got dozens at this point. And I would also argue that when you say you're as innocent as you were 14 years ago, 14 years ago would be coming off of, you know, the treasure digging. So he wasn't very innocent at that point either. But obviously, I don't think that's what Joseph meant when he said it.

John Dehlin 1:13:54 I mean that. That one slide is like a nuclear bomb instead of a smoking gun. Because it's just. It's Joseph Smith marrying dozens of people again. People, other men's wives, mother, daughter, pair, sister pairs, teenage girls, and just completely blatantly lying about it, not just to the. To the membership worldwide, but to the actual members of the church. For me, that's. That's a nuclear bomb, not a smoking gun to his credibility. Alicia, am I overstating that for you?

Alicia 1:14:31 No. And also, I was just going to say this way that the church is disowning this idea of spiritual wifery. It kind of also reminds me of the way that the church now views aub, flds, the other polygamous traditions. It's like, we don't have anything to do with that. That is absolutely nothing to do with us. You know, I guess I'm kind of going back a little bit, but. But no, I don't think that's an overstatement, John.

John Dehlin 1:14:57 Yeah, it's pretty serious. All right, Mike, the. So there's a second quote you want to read.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:15:03 Yeah. So the next one, if you go. One next slide. Oh, did you finish? Oh, yeah. I was just going to say, you know, he mockingly jokes about whether the command was commandment was given that a man may have seven wives. DNC actually says you can have 10 virgins. I just find it funny that he's mocking that as he claims to have this revelation that specifically says 10 versions. It's almost like, you know, it's just like you can't make it up. And yet here it is. We have the documentation. And to call it a carefully deny, carefully worded. Imagine going to your bishop and they said, hey, are you obeying the word of wisdom? And you're like, well, I haven't drank any wine. And then they find out later that you were doing cocaine and drinking beer all day, and you're like, hey, I implicitly left open the opportunity that, you know, I mean, it's just like, this is stupid to. To try to tell members you're implicitly leaving the. The option open that leaves the entire universe open. It's like, I could say right now, you know, I'm sitting on a chair implicitly leaving anything open because. Because I'm not saying anything else. It's just so stupid to. To say that when we have these documents that show he's outright lying. Like, why not just say Joseph Smith? I mean, they could say Joseph Smith made statements that were not technically true in order to protect the church, but instead they tried to use this word game.

John Dehlin 1:16:13 And if I remember right, in. In the polygamy essay, they actually do acknowledge that they use word like, Joseph wasn't always forthright with Emma about his practice of polygamy. So they do try and acknowledge. They do kind of a head nod to Joseph's deception, at least with Emma. Isn't that right?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:16:33 Well, they use weasel words, right? So they'll say it is. They say something like, it is. It is likely that Emma did not know of all the marriages. And we know that's, like, there is no likely about it. He had a sham marriage with the Partridge Sisters because Emma picked those two girls for him, and he was already married to him. So, like, what in the world are we doing saying she likely didn't know it? Just say Emma did not know of some of the marriages or even just say Emma did not know of at least some of the marriages. Something like that. Because we know that it's a historical record, and yet they're. They're writing these essays to the members in a way that would not even pass their own definition of honesty, which is that if you leave out partial truths, you are being dishonest. That's from their own manual. And yet here they're doing it, and they're doing it in the most brazen and dishonest way possible. And it just. It blows my mind to call this a carefully worded denial or to say Emma likely didn't know. We. We know those are both inaccurate statements.

Alicia 1:17:22 And.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:17:23 And the church is putting those out, what, in 2014. It's just crazy.

John Dehlin 1:17:26 So it's one thing for Joseph Smith to have been dishonest, but it's another thing for the church in modern day to continue. Yeah, and I. I think one of our commenters once made the point that they learned from the Mormon Church that lying was using any words to create a false impression in the mind of somebody else, Right?

Alicia 1:17:47 Yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:17:48 Yeah. I mean, it's just.

Alicia 1:17:49 I mean, that's just. That's just the thing that is so crazy about this. You know, thinking about just my time as a primary teacher and how much emphasis we made on, like, honesty. I mean, there were Times that I. I have one explicit time in my journal that I left Target, got home, realized we didn't pay for a game that I think was 299 is back when my kids were really little and I gathered the kids around, I told. I showed them my receipt. I showed them what happened. We have such a scrupulosity for honesty in the church. I don't know if I'm using that phrase, that term correctly, but like, we really, really make an emphasis on honesty. And then you. And that's for the general membership. But then when you start digging into this stuff and you see what an incredibly dishonest curated presentation of this history that the church is formalizing it. It's the Gospel topics essay. This is our message to the world of what we believe on this topic. And it is so, so blatantly dishonest when you compare it to what's actually in the history. There's so many levels of these essays that are just blatantly dishonest. And I don't know if you guys have covered the. Do Mormons believe they can become God's essays, but this stuff is just dishonest. There's such a. There's just such a discrepancy there.

John Dehlin 1:19:15 Okay.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:19:16 Yeah. So I want to read real quick before we go to the next slide. This is from the church's website. It's from their Gospel principles manual. It's a chapter called Honesty. This is what the church says. There are. There are many forms. There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. So I mean, by their own definition, they are being dishonest here. And, and like, it's just so funny how the. The word games here. And they try, they think by doing these word games that get you out of it, but in reality, once a member finds out, they're a lot more offended by the fact that you were lying to him than if you had just said Emma didn't know about the marriages. And all of a sudden you're like, why? What else you hiding? Because that. It's just the same. It's like the same thing as not telling your spouse. Like, like if I say I go to dinner and I cheat on my wife, I go to dinner in a hotel and I cheat on my wife, and then she goes what would you do tonight, honey? I'm like, oh, I went to dinner. I had a great steak. You know, it was a good night. And then. Then like a week later, she's like, hey, I found out you were cheating on me. And I'm like, no, I said I had a steak. Implicitly leaving open the possibility that had sex with another woman. It's like, this is the kind of crap you get when you start to use these weasel words. And, and like I keep saying, implicit leaving open because that's what the Church does. And. And I hope no one finds. Thinks I'm making fun of. I'm just saying, like, they're. They're. They're doing this to. To hide the worst elements of the Church because they don't want members to know what really happened. And that, by their own definition, is being dishonest.

John Dehlin 1:20:45 Yeah.

Alicia 1:20:46 And you can't weasel out of this by calling it anti Mormon doctrine or answer literature.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:20:51 You can't.

Altering Church History Texts

John Dehlin 1:20:54 All right, well, let's learn how Joseph Smith. Did we do this slide?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:20:58 Go back one more. Go back one more, because this is another one that's interesting. So the Church is going to alter their own history here to erase Joseph Smith being dishonest about polygamy. So in October of 1843, Joseph is going to have dictated by Willard Richards, who's described an even more pointed denial of polygamy. And so he says, Joseph gave instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching, or the doctrine of plurality of wives on this law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. That is in the church's history from 1843. I don't know if Willard Richards didn't know about polygamy at this point, but that's what Joseph dictates, or what Willard Richards dictates this as what Joseph was teaching that day. So this line is very clear. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. So now in the history of the Church, they're going to change this, and it's going to say, evening at home and walked up and down the streets with my scribe gave instructions to try those persons who are preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. For according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days. For there is never but one on earth at a time, on whom the power and its keys are conferred. And I have constantly said, no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.

John Dehlin 1:22:11 Okay, wait. So who would have made that Change. Do we know who would have edited the history of the Church?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:22:17 I don't know.

John Dehlin 1:22:19 And how they would have changed it?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:22:21 I don't know. I know. I think B.H. roberts was one of the ones that did it, but I can't remember. There was someone who, who wrote the history of the Church and then changed it from like third, you know, like kind of into Joseph's own words. And I'm not entirely sure who actually did it, but obviously there was an effort here to try to retrofit what Joseph Smith was doing versus what he was saying. And I just, It's.

John Dehlin 1:22:43 That's just outright fraud. You can't just like rewrite. I mean, we covered this in the Restoration of the Priesthood episodes, but you can't just rewrite Joseph's own journal or his revelations after he's dead. Totally change the meaning. That's. That's completely deceptive.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:23:02 Yeah. And so I'm trying to look it up because I remember we dealt with this in an earlier episode because people say, well, Joseph didn't actually write it. And so they kind of put it into kind of almost a first person language. They said, well, if that's the case, then, you know, why is it? But it's because they took it and they wanted to write it as if Joseph did it so that it reads easier. But at the same time it's not, you know, when you're changing the substance of the text and obviously you're doing it to intentionally deceive members, which, as we talked about, violates their own definition of honesty.

John Dehlin 1:23:31 Alicia, any. Any comment on. On this?

Alicia 1:23:33 Yeah, I just keep thinking about all the ex Mormons that I've connected with over the last three years. It seems just like an overwhelming majority of people that have deconstructed their Mormon theology have made a decision to step away from the church and have done so with integrity and honesty in mind. And we very often talk about, like, after you deconstruct your faith, you have to make a new, you know, you kind of have to redefine what your values are or at least identify what your values are now. And for most people, truth, honesty, integrity, those are at the top of the list. So how does someone that values truth, values honesty, integrity, how do those people now accept an organization that is so willing to bend the narrative, curate the narrative, or as you say, Mike, retrofit. Yeah, it's definitely a problem. I would say it's the biggest problem the church has right now.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:24:36 Yeah. Because it's easy for anyone to find these changes now. And so you can't, like you said, you can't call anti Mortgage Mormon because we could show that the church is changing their own material to, to hide problematic stuff. And, and we talked about that with the first vision, the priesthood restoration. These are not me just saying Joseph Smith changed the story. It's. We have all these documented accounts, we have all these journal entries that are showing Joseph Smith is changing this and here's why he might be changing it. And in this case, we could show that the Church is actively doing it. And so to call us anti Mormon for pointing that out is ridiculous because it's their own doing and changing these stories. And that is why we're able to talk about how they're being dishonest with the material.

John Dehlin 1:25:14 All right, let's go to, let's. Did, did you have a quote you wanted to read?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:25:19 No, no, this is good because these next two we'll go through pretty quickly. This is just, we talked about this in the second episode on Joseph's proposals. And so this is a statement that is published in the church newspaper and it's signed by Emma Smith. And this is actually what Joseph is referring to in that quote about the Relief Society publication. And so they released a statement and it says, we, the undersigned members of the Ladies Relief Society and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage beyond being practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, save the one contained in the Book of doctrine and covenants 15. And we give this certificate to the public to show that J.C. bennett's secret wife system is a disclosure of his own make. And it's signed by Emma Smith, who obviously at this point doesn't know about a lot of the marriages. But it's also signed by Elizabeth Ann Whitney. Her daughter is already married to Joseph Smith. Sarah Cleveland, who is married to Joseph Smith. Eliza R. Snow, married to Joseph Smith. And so they're putting this, this public statement out and Emma Smith obviously is the victim here. And the three, three of her closest people in Relief Society are either married to him or have a daughter married to him. And so they're, they're intentionally putting out this kind of weasel worded statement to say, you know, Joseph, we don't know anything about what John C. Bennett is doing except for the fact that they're violating what is in the, the Doctrine and Covenants at the time actively, and they're signing a statement while doing it.

John Dehlin 1:26:43 Okay, all right. Super shady. Yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:26:47 And so the next slide is just basically the men Also signed the same basic statement disavowing polygamy. And so you had John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Newell K. Whitney. And it's basically going to use almost the identical statement. It's just to show the church is actively saying they're not doing it while they're doing it. So, you know, again, to go back to the church's essay, they're implicitly, you know, they're denying polygamy, all implicitly leaving open the possibility that they're absolutely doing polygamy. It's just. It's so dishonest the way that.

Alicia 1:27:15 Read.

John Dehlin 1:27:15 Should we read this up? Should we read this quote?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:27:18 Yeah, but we definitely can.

John Dehlin 1:27:20 You want me to read it?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:27:21 Sure.

John Dehlin 1:27:22 In so much as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication. And this is already sounding like DNC101, right?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:27:30 Well, I think. I think that is the. In one. I think they put the DNC 101 statement in. In the printed thing. So this is the DNC 101 at first.

John Dehlin 1:27:37 So basically they're. They're. Yeah. So in as much as this Church of Christ has been reproached to the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death when either is at liberty to marry again. We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church to show that Dr. John C. Bennett's, quote, secret wife system, close quote, is a matter of his own manufacture. Oh, my gosh. And further, to disabuse the public ear and show that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend, origin bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and we need but be known to be hated and despised. In support of this position, we present the following certificates. We, the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families, do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. And we give this certificate to show that Dr. John C. Bennett's secret wife system is a creature of his own make, as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did. And it signed 12 men, including Newell Whitney, John Taylor, Wilford WOODRUFF and Sarah McCleveland and Eliza R. Snow. And I'm guessing you include all them because they were actively participating in polygamy. And by 1842, which is when this was signed. Is that right, Mike?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:29:15 Yeah, I'm not positive, actually, if Newell K. Whitney, John Taylor Wilford Woodruff were in polygamous marriages at that point or not. I mentioned the women there. Just because those two state, the Relief Society and the men, it's published next to each other in the paper because they're trying to get, you know, they're trying to circle the wagons here to try to get these rumors about what Joseph Smith is doing out of the, out of the air. And so I.

John Dehlin 1:29:35 But it sounds like, it sounds like the polygamy genie was starting to get out of the bottle. By 1842, Joseph wanted to get the genie back in the bottle. And so he basically says, hey, all this polygamy you're hearing about, that's John C. Bennett's evilness.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:29:50 Yeah.

John Dehlin 1:29:51 And. And this, this denial that Joseph Smith would have approved of and allowed is just, it's just, again, it's another nuclear bomb to credibility.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:30:02 Yeah, well, yeah, because you got, you got Sarah. Sarah Whitney is married to Joseph. So Elizabeth and Whitney signs the Relief Society statement. New. Okay. Whitney signs the, the men's statements. You have all these people here who know full well that they're signing on to something that's just completely not true. And yet the church now is going to say, well, that's a carefully worded denial. It's like, no, no, no, it's not. It is absolutely trying to deceive the membership by trying to use technical language. And as I said earlier, try doing that in your temple recommend interviewing and see how well it goes over, because I guarantee you that they're not going to be okay with you laughing, going, oh, I'm sorry, it was just a carefully word denial. They'd be like, no, you're lying, because you are lying. It's just, this is supposed to be the one true church of God, the only living church on, on earth, and yet they're doing these kinds of legalistic word games because they're too embarrassed about their history. Because they know that if members know the true history, they're going to have a lot of different views about the credibility of the church. I mean, it's as simple as that.

John Dehlin 1:30:58 One of the things I like to always remind people these days is just to tell BYU students who are living under the honor code and or prospective missionaries and or young couples that are going through their temple recommend interviews in preparation for going to the temple. You don't need to be any more honest than Joseph Smith was. Right? Because a kid can be told he can't serve a mission just for masturbating. A kid can be sent home from his mission for, for masturbating. A young couple can send out announcements for the date of their wedding. And then if a bishop finds out that they went a little bit too far, maybe went to second or third base, they can have their entire wedding date changed, which is a signal to everyone that they've. They've engaged in. In improper sexual activity. And then BYU students can literally, if. If they have sex or even engage in heavy petting, by the church's definition, they can be kicked out of their. Of their, you know, university experience at great expense, both in time and money. And those stakes are so high for things as, as ubiquitous as masturbation, let alone petting or minor, minor sexual activities that, that, that I just want to remind all of them, any believing Mormon within the earshot of me, you do not have to be any more honest than Joseph Smith himself was. Alicia, you're smiling.

Alicia 1:32:30 Yeah, I love that. That was a good contribution to the mental health of the active, believing young members of the church today. That was beautiful. Yeah, I agree.

John Dehlin 1:32:43 All right, we have Alicia's approval, so I think we're good. Can we see a thumbs up? Can we see a thumbs up there, Alicia? We get the Alicia thumbs up.

Alicia 1:32:50 All right, I support this statement.

Apologetic: God Was Unclear With Joseph

John Dehlin 1:32:53 All right, so, Mike, now we're on to the next apologetic from the church, which is that God wasn't clear enough with his instructions to Joseph, that Joseph was just trying to figure it out. And we all see through a glass darkly, and God didn't want to be too explicit. And so that's the defense. Do you want to go ahead and lay it out?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:33:16 Yeah. And so we talked about this in the episode. We looked at DNC132, the wording of it. But the essay that the church, Church put out says although the Lord commanded the adoption and later the cessation of plural marriage in the latter days, he did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment at first. Again, I want to say polygamy and plural marriage is not over. And so it's still the doctrine of the church. So they keep saying things like the cessation of plural marriage. They did not end it. They ended it for a time. It is still absolutely considered to be what we are all going to live through in the eternities because DNC132 is still doctrine. And so we need to look no further than Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks. Dallin H. Oaks will be the next prophet. Both of them are sealed to multiple women, and under church doctrine, they will be sealed to them for eternity and will be able to have sex with both of them to create enough spirit children, you know, to populate their worlds as gods. And I would. I would just note that if you truly believe that polygamy is over, do you find it to be a coincidence that Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks both chose second wives who were not previously sealed, meaning that they're going to be with them for eternity? Do you see? Like, I think that, to me, is a big tell that they absolutely believe these women are going to be theirs forever with their first wives. So. All right, yes, I just throw that out there because I hate when the essay keeps saying it's the cessation, it's not over. So we don't need to harp on that. But I do. I always want to point that out because they use these little words to kind of indicate that it's over and it's not over.

John Dehlin 1:34:42 You want to add Alicia.

Alicia 1:34:43 Oh, I just. To me, the history of polygamy, obviously, it's such a massive problem. It remains a sacred doctrine. It's canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants, yet if you live it in this life, you'll be excommunicated. And it's honestly just such a surprise to me, honestly, that the Church hasn't repudiated this as doctrine at this point, written it off as a mistake, but instead uses just these very vague and dishonest ways of talking around it. I don't know.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:35:14 Yeah. Nope, that's it.

John Dehlin 1:35:16 Okay. All right, well, let's go. Let's go to examples of. I mean, we know. We know in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's so one of the reasons the Doctrine and Covenants is such a tedious read is because God can be so. So prescriptive and pedantic and tedious about the most minor things. So that's what I'm guessing we're going to be covering here. Is that right, Mike?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:35:39 Yeah. No, and that's just it. So remember, we talked about this in our first polygamy episode, and I mentioned it earlier. You know, Joseph Smith is going to. To dictate the entire revelation in one sitting. It's over 3,000 words. And so it's an orally dictated text. And that's why you have a lot of these rambling sentences and why God seems to sometimes lose his train of thought because the person who claims to speak for God is doing this all orally and tends to make a lot of mistakes. But these are all areas of DNC132 where we are getting very specific rules. So verse eight says, behold mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. That seems to contradict the essay. Verse 15. Marriage is not performed in the new and everlasting covenant and in death, making all marriages on earth null and void except the ones performed by Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Verse 41 if a woman enters into the new and everlasting covenant and then be with another man, she has committed adultery and will be destroyed. As I mentioned, that's going to not be good for all of the polyandrus wives who Joseph just basically ticketed for destruction. Verse 44 if a woman is faithful but but the husband breaks the vow, then the woman will be given to another who is pure and only Joseph holds the power to do it. That sucks for mixed faith marriages, because when you pass the woman then it's going to be given to another husband for eternity and the husband obviously will be kicked to a lower level. Verse 51 Emma Smith is not allowed to partake of the offer which Joseph Smith made to her, which was either to take additional husband for herself or to offer divorce. DNC 132 rescinds the offer with the claim that it was an Abrahamic test, which is funny because polygamy is talked of as an Abrahamic test, except they went through with that fully. And then if you go, I think the next one, we've got some more. Okay, just to go through them quickly. Verse 54 Emma Smith shall abide and cleave to Joseph Smith, but if she does not accept Joseph's polygamy, she will be, and I quote, destroyed. Verse 57 Joseph Smith should not put any property out of his hands, for Satan seeketh to destroy again. That's ironic because Joseph puts a lot of property out of his hands that very same day later to Emma. Verse 61 and 62 it says men are only allowed to marry virgins, yet Joseph Smith married 11 women who are already married to other men. Then it says men must gain the consent of their first wife. Although DNC132 then gives a loophole four verses later that makes the wife at fault if she does not give consent. And then verse 63 the commandment is to take virgins to replenish and multiply the earth. But if those versions be with another man, they'll be destroyed. Again, it makes clear that the women are to be given to men, which is a theme that is woven throughout basically Mormonism and of course this text. And so these are all very specific rules that are coming in DNC132. And ironically, Joseph Smith breaks pretty much every one of them. And so to say that it wasn't a specific or clear revelation, I think is very. The church doesn't want people to read this. I think, like you said, do a cold reading of it. So they're trying to tell you, like, oh, it wasn't clear. It's like, no, no, it's actually clear. And it's, it's horrific, but it's clear.

John Dehlin 1:38:37 Yeah. Alicia, any responses to the specificity?

Alicia 1:38:42 Yes, that word. I just think it's so incredibly brazen of the church to write this Gospel topics essay when they are literally referring to something that is in Scripture. Like, all you have to do is read Doctrine and Covenants 1322 to see that it actually was very specific. And it says there in the essay, just to reiterate, he did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. And I'm just going to say that that to me is an outright lie. And I think it's just incredibly brazen of the church to write that when any member of the church can go read Doctrine and Covenant, Section 132. Right now, just open your scripture and you're going to see how specific it is. It's got the consequences of it. It's got how it's supposed to be done, who's in charge. So it's crazy.

John Dehlin 1:39:39 I had a friend, I had a friend who's passed away who, who used to say, if you want to hide something from a Mormon, put it in a book. And I didn't totally get what he meant, but I think it, I think he was basically saying Mormons don't tend to read stuff about their own church. And, and I think most Mormons have. If they've never, if they have read DNC 132, they haven't really processed it because it's so problematic.

Alicia 1:40:08 Because I've talked about polygamy on my TikTok channel. I've gotten messages from friends and people that I've known over the years that have said, hey, do you have any sources for polygamy? Like, where does it say that we. That that was ever a thing? And, you know, I, I just point him to doctor, do you want a faithful Source Doctrine and Covenant, Section 132. Like, it's right there.

John Dehlin 1:40:31 Yeah. Yep.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:40:31 I've had that experience, too. They'll reply like, I'll put some on Twitter. Like a quote. Like, that's not part of polygam. Like, it's verse, whatever, verse 42. And they're like, that's not what it means. I'm like, you just said it wasn't there. And all of a sudden you're like, well, he doesn't mean that. It's just. It's most people. And. And again, when I was a member, I'm still a member. When I was an active member, they didn't talk about polygamy really at all, but every once in a while they would. And they would just talk about those first few verses, about, you know, ceilings. They don't talk about anything else. And so to John's point, unless you actively go in and read it and. And you read it while you're like, you're not just reading it because you want to get your 20 minutes of scripture study out of the way. You're reading it because you really want to know.

Alicia 1:41:06 It's.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:41:07 You just gloss over it. But this is so specific, like, to a. To a fault. Like, it's so specific that I'm almost surprised that Joseph Smith was willing to box himself in that much. But I think that's what happens when you're told you need to riff off this. This revelation in one sitting so that you could give it to Emma. You're just trying to. To put all these ideas together that Joseph's trying to use to justify what he's doing. But the problem is, by making all these different rules and having some of them contradict, having Joseph already violating most of them, it leaves you in 2022 with a huge mess on your hands. And that's why the church is trying to basically tell you, oh, it wasn't clear, so don't worry about it. As opposed to them saying, let's go through what the rules were. You know, I think there's a reason for that.

Alicia 1:41:47 And in the chapter summary of 132 is actually the language plural marriage. It's either plurality or plural marriage. It's there in the scriptures. I mean, it is. I don't know what year my scriptures are, but it is in the chapter summary.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:41:59 Oh, yeah.

Alicia 1:41:59 Getting there.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:42:00 So, yeah.

John Dehlin 1:42:02 All right, well, let's go to the next slide, which is the apologetic the church likes to use around polygamy that they use with all early Mormon polygamists, which was that they would rather die when they were told about polygamy. They would have rather died than practice it. Or. And. Or an angel with a flaming sword made them do it. So, Joseph Smith, the reluctant polygamist.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:42:24 Yeah, and so we've talked about this now a few times, but this is such a common apologetic. And of course, it's in the essay. And it's really to imply that Joseph is the victim here. It's not the girls who are the victim. It's not anyone. It's Joseph. And so this is from the essay. When God commands a difficult task, he sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage his people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully and fully means sexual. I think we can all read between the lines on that one.

John Dehlin 1:43:05 Yeah. Okay.

Alicia 1:43:08 So I think this particular clause is interesting because of how it's worded. So I'm thinking about whoever's writing this Gospel topics essay. They're trying to figure out how to plate it in the best possible way. So it starts off by saying that sometimes God has to send additional messengers to encourage his people to obey. But then instead of saying, and in this case God sent an angel with a flaming sword, it says, consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times. So they're leaving this space here for interpretation. Maybe they're not exactly claiming that the angel appeared to him. They're suggesting it, but they're also pointing out that this is what he said, not exactly that it's unequivocally what happened. So I thought that was interesting. And it actually makes me wonder if the church is trying to carve out this space to eventually distance themselves from the doctrine. I don't know. Speculation, but.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:43:59 Oh, go ahead. I was just saying my speculation there. And. And maybe I'm being too cynical, is because if they say associates, they don't have to give you the specifics as to the accounts of where he does this. So otherwise they'd have to tell you that he told it to Zina Huntington after she'd already married her husband. They'd have to tell you that he told it to marry Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, who also said that Joseph basically told her, I think, when she was 11 or 12, that he'd marry her someday. So I mean, the angel with the Drawn Sword story has a lot of really bad details. I'm guessing part of it is just the fact that they want to get away from that as soon as they can, but they also have to address it because of the fact that so many critics now point to it and say, this is one of the tactics he was using. And so I guess maybe I'm just thinking that they're just trying to find a way to word this as loosely as they can because they don't want anyone to look further. That's my take on it, anyways.

Did the Gospel Topics Essays Help the Church?

Alicia 1:44:43 Okay, I got a question for you, Mike, and maybe for you too, John. Do you think the Gospel Topics essays have improved the church's situation, or do you think that it's actually made it worse?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:44:56 John would know better than me, because I think. I think it's a mixed bag because I think more people. There are a lot of people that have contacted me and said that they were. They were all in until they studied the Gospel Topics essay for a lesson, and then they're like, holy crap, that happened. That's not an anti Mormon lie. We're admitting it. On the other. I was gonna say, on the other hand, in a lot of ways it helps them because now when someone says, why didn't you ever tell us that Joseph Smith had 30 to 40 wives? They say, oh, we totally did. It was in that Gospel Topics essay. So I think for them, it gives them that kind of, like, line of plausible deniability when they don't kind of give the full story in their. Their manuals. But at the same time, I think it's caused a lot of people to have faith crisises or crises, however you say it?

John Dehlin 1:45:33 Yeah. Was your. Was your question, Alicia, whether, you know, if. If the church was hemorrhaging people before it released the Gospel Topics essays, having felt deceived or misled about the church's, you know, dishonest representation of history? Are you asking whether or not the release of the Gospel Topics essays accelerated or decelerated the. The hemorrhaging? Is that your question?

Alicia 1:45:58 Exactly.

John Dehlin 1:45:58 I think it's pretty clear it's accelerated the hemorrhaging. That's my. That's my anecdotal experience.

Alicia 1:46:05 And does anyone have any details about why the Gospel Topics originated? Because someone pointed out to me that it may have been a legal situation that they had do it for legality.

John Dehlin 1:46:16 Yeah, there's a. Basically, there. There are a few Mormon stories episodes where we talk about this. There was a book. Oh, I'm what's his name? The guy who did the Ezra Benson. I'm spacing on my. My good friend's name. Let's see Mormon Stories Gospel Topics Essays podcast. His name is. I'm so embarrassed. Okay. Matt Harris Newell Bringhurst wrote an entire book on a sort of an analysis of the Gospel Topics essays. And in the very first chapter of the book, they provide an overview of the history of how the Gospel Topics essays came to be. And I'll say it as humbly as I possibly can. I'm grateful to have been a part of the sort of like the the build up to the church's release of the Gospel Topics essays, because part of that story includes Swedish area authority Hans Mattsson losing his faith, creating a Mormon Stories podcast support group in Sweden, which led to a bunch of Swedish Saints losing their faith, which led to what was called the Swedish Rescue, where Marlon Jensen and the guy who succeeded him as church historian and I'm really bad with names. This morning they went out to try and rescue the Swedish Saints from massive disaffection. And this led to a meeting between Hans Mattson and Greg Prince and Marlon Jensen and my friend Travis Stratford in New York, where we did an entire survey of over 3,000 ex Mormons or Mormons who had lost their faith to let Marlon Jensen know that the Church was losing its best and best and brightest, primarily because they were feeling betrayed by the church. And then Marlon Jensen used that entire study to convince the Brethren to approve the Gospel Topics essays process. Now, I'm not going to say that that was the only reason or even the main reason, but we do know that that was a major contributing factor to the Church ultimately releasing the Gospel Topics essays. So I'll share in the show notes a couple Mormon Stories podcast episodes that talk about this. Was that helpful, Alicia?

Alicia 1:48:52 Yeah, it is. I apologize for the deviation, but as we dig into this stuff, I just think it's worth talking about the context around the GOSP Topics essays because a lot of people will say, well, thank goodness the Church has decided to be honest about this history. And just a few people have clued me in like there's a little bit more to it. So I'm putting this Matt Harris book on my. On my reading list. I just found it on Amazon, the LDS Gospel Topic series, A Scholarly Engagement. So I'm ordering it.

John Dehlin 1:49:20 Awesome. There was also. There was also an episode on a popular podcast called the called Reply all. And this was. I don't know if it's still a super popular podcast, but it certainly was at one time. And in that episode they actually cover this topic as well. And they, they interviewed me for that episode, so I'll include that episode as well. Sometimes critics of mine get really mad when I mention myself at all in these episodes. But you made me, Alicia, you made

Alicia 1:49:50 me go, I'm happy to hear it. I definitely am curious about that. And I think it's relevant to. Into the conversation too. So sorry for the deviation.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:49:58 No, no, it's a good question because it obviously has impacted people and it also, to what you both have said, like, it impacts the way people respond too, because I've had people go, well, they're not hiding it. It's in the Gospel Topics essay. And I know for a long time it still kind of is, but for a long time it was like, what, three clicks deep. That was the joke, right? So you, you never found it unless you knew where you needed to go. And so it was kind of hidden out there until somebody was having a faith crisis, then they could go, oh, we've got this new resource for you. And so even the history of the essays themselves is messy. It's kind of an interesting situation. And as we talked about in our episode on the proposals, using the word before her 15th birthday, the historian last name is Snow. I can't remember his first name now. Even he said that was a mistake because they were trying so hard to privilege Joseph Smith that they oftentimes chose to, I think, water down to the point where even, you know, someone that was unaware of a lot of the details could go, why are you saying before her 15th birthday? We know that means 14. So I think the essays have had a mixed bag of impact and probably for the church's sake, in a lot of ways has led to more members leaving than staying. But I could be wrong on that.

John Dehlin 1:51:04 That's what I've heard. That's been my anecdotal experience. All right, well, let's go ahead and jump to the next slide, which is both DNC132 and the happiness letter make a great clear who wanted the polygamy.

Who Really Wanted Polygamy: God or Joseph?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:51:18 Yeah. And so this is one of those things that we're trying, you know, the church wants so hard to make it sound like God kind of came to Joseph, who wanted nothing to do with this and just forced him into it. And so we've talked about this before, but in DNC132, it says, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and Understand wherein I, the Lord justified my servants, blah blah, is touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines. So DNC 132 is saying Joseph is the one that went to God and said, hey, what about polygamy? And then in the happiness letter, which is another document we talked about in our last episode, Joseph Smith says, if we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon, first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part. And so both of these letters and documents are saying that Joseph Smith is the one who is asking for it, and this is what he desires. And so to then paint Joseph as this reluctant polygamist, I think is irreconcilable with what we have as far as DNC132 and the happiness letter. And I think this is why the church is working so hard to try to avoid giving us more of the data and just kind of keeping it more on the surface level. Because to me, those two statements right there are pretty damning as to why Joseph Smith was looking to do polygamy.

John Dehlin 1:52:39 And, and you know, it's probably reductionistic to say he was just, you know, horny and wanted to have lots of sex with people. There was that certainly that was part of it. And there was probably some other motivations as well, including him trying to figure out why early prophets in the Old Testament were, were engaging these sort of marriage practices. But, but the, I think it just, if the church is going to be fully honest, Joseph clearly liked sex and had a lot of power and charisma, had a lot of access to women. And like many cult leaders and, or leaders of high demand religions, it's just what leaders of high demand religions do, whether it's Warren Jeffs, whether it's, you know, Keith Ranieri, whether it's, you know, the Waco guy, what's his name?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:53:35 Yeah.

John Dehlin 1:53:35 David Bhagwan Srirajneesh. Pick your Jib Jones. Pick your cult leader. They're having sex with lots of women. And it's just clear that, that it would be just a miscarriage of honesty to act like that wasn't a prime driver, in my opinion. Alicia, you agreeing? Disagreeing.

Alicia 1:53:54 Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I agree. It's hard to say when you. Those are hard words when this is your culture. I love the Mormon people more than they're my people. I mean, I consider myself One of them. And so it's really hard to align what the church is today. Such a beautiful group of people. I mean there are complexities there, there are, there is harm, there's, it's a mixed bag. Right. It's, it's hard when that's your tradition to associate the word cult to it. But really when you, when I go back and I view this through my current 44 year old lens as a seventh generation Mormon, that is exactly how it reads to me. It reads as, as a cult leader. I'm sorry, Mike, I know you don't like us to use that term cult on the show, but that's how it reads to me. It's very consistent with all of those groups that you mentioned with the branch divinity, the branch Davidians. I mean you go through those characteristics of, of early cults and it looks very similar to, to the, to the early Mormon Church.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:55:07 Yeah, I'm going to read this quote. We've read this in the Happiness Letter episode, but this is from Jonathan Streeter's presentation from Sunstone. He says, keep in mind that special divine permission is nothing new. Self proclaimed prophet David Koresh and the Branch Davidians claim special divine permission to take child brides for the purpose of producing the 24 elders foretold in the Book of Revelations. Self proclaimed prophet Wayne Bent of the Lord Our Righteousness Church claims special divine permission for having sexual relations with children, even his own daughter in law, in order to avoid God's punishment. To avoid God's punishment. Self proclaimed prophet Julius Shack, now of the sect known as the Work, claims special privilege to promise salvation in exchange for sexual intercourse with women and children, including his own stepdaughter. Self proclaimed prophet Tony Alamo of Alamo Christian Ministries claim special biblical permission to illegal, illegally marry women, multiple women and children. Self proclaimed prophet David Berg of the Children of God claim special divine permission to normalize sexual relation with children. Prophets justifying their own predations as special divine permission through the use of pious language and religious sentiment is nothing new. And it's true. I mean like those, these other prophets who the church, everyone in Mormonism will be like, oh, those are predators. They talk about how God was going to hurt them if they didn't do it. They talk about how these people had relations with their stepdaughters. And remember that Joseph Smith took some of these girls and claimed them as adopted daughters and then married them. So all of these things are still, they're, they're common threads. And so, you know, as John said and as Alicia Said these are themes you see in really bad, high demand in, in cult leaders. And yet Joseph Smith does. And all of a sudden we're like, oh, ours is different. And, and it's just, it's not, it's the same thing. It's just a different, different terminology.

Alicia 1:56:49 We just happen to be a religious organization. I say we. I'm not a member anymore. But that has really flourished. And we've put so much emphasis on things like discipline and education and being well spoken and being kind and compassionate. And of course, I don't ignore that. There are a lot of. There's a paradox there too, with our policies. But in general, you know, the, the people of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are a beautiful people. And so it's hard to associate this culture with that of a cult. But you know, when you go back into the beginning, formative years of the church, it was consistent with all of those other cults that you mentioned, for sure, in my opinion.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:57:34 Yeah.

John Dehlin 1:57:35 Well, let's go on to the next apologetic that the church. Oh, by the way, one thing I was going to mention just to close out the discussion of the gospel topics essays. I think we know. What we know is that the church would pick an expert in, in various topics to have them write the first draft. And my understanding is that Brian Hales is kind of the go to expert on Mormon polygamy. He's actually not a historian. Technically I believe he's an anesthesiologist. But he has become the church's go to apologist on polygamy. And it's my understanding that Brian Hales wrote the first drafts of the church's polygamy polygamy essays. Have you heard that, Alicia?

Alicia 1:58:23 No, I hadn't heard that he wrote the gospel topics essays, but I guess that's not a surprise. And, and I do appreciate his work so much. And also his late wife Laura. Yeah, I mean, I've leaned a lot on their, on their studies. They've done a lot of work.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 1:58:38 Yeah, I mean, and that's the thing. I think, I think Brian Hales is cited eight times in there. He cited more than anyone else. So it would make sense. And honestly it would make sense for him to do it because he probably has the most grasp on polygamy in the church from someone who is a faithful member. I mean, obviously you could go to like Lindsay Hansen park, but I don't think the church wants to know what she thinks about polygamy and certainly is not going to put out to members. So I, I have no doubt that they went to people that they knew had some level of expertise in a certain field and said, can you write the draft? And then of course, I think the race in the priesthood one, they said the first draft was like 50 pages and obviously got whittled down to what is probably like five pages. So I am sure Brian Hale has had a first draft that probably alters or differ. Differs greatly from this. But yeah, I mean, it certainly seems to be heavily reliant on his material, but his material is, is very robust. He's done a great job of not just collecting the documents, but they're all up on his website. So it that in that regard, I mean, obviously I disagree with, with some of the apologetic spin he has, and I know he would disagree with some of my spin, but I do appreciate that he's been pretty transparent with, with a lot of the documentation, which I, I definitely appreciate from, from the work he's done and from Laura, obviously, who passed away. So I think they've been a blessing to, to the church's records in transparency, even from someone who doesn't agree with their, their ultimate kind of outcomes on Joseph Smith as a person.

John Dehlin 2:00:01 Right. All right, let's go to the angel with the Drawn Sword story, which continues the Reluctant Joseph as the reluctant polygamist. Right.

The Angel With the Drawn Sword Narrative

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:00:11 Yeah. And so this is just more to note. You know, the essay is trying to kind of paint Joseph as this victim who refused to enter into polygamy until his life was threatened. And, you know, it just to me kind of shows that we know where Joseph used the story. And so you're trying to give him the rosiest lens to look through. And, you know, Zina Huntington refused his proposal. She married someone she loved, and he still, he wouldn't do the marriage. He refused to do the marriage was through their, their marriage, their wedding day into, to a tailspin. John C. Bennett had to jump in and do the ceremony. Then he goes and says, you know, oh, I tried to, tried to put it up. The angel won't let me. We have the documentation on how he used it on Almera Woodward, Elizabeth Rollins Lightner. She was also already married to her husband Adam, who, you know, we have to believe was a marriage more out of love than, than religious necessity. And so what the essay doesn't tell you is that Joseph used this story multiple times on women who initially rejected his claims, which again lets us know that Joseph was already obeying the commandment fully by the time he was using this story in additional women. So this Idea that the angel is going to come down and say, you're not obeying the commandment fully, maybe the first time, but he's telling it to multiple women who reject him. And so that tells you he realizes this is an effective tactic, and so he keeps using it. Because once you do it the first time, you're already obeying the commandment fully, so why would you need to do it multiple times? And so it just. To me, it shows this idea that he's a reluctant polygamist. It just doesn't line up with the fact that he had almost 40 wives. We know he had sex with at least 11 of them. It just doesn't paint the picture of someone who's trying to do the bare minimum just to get by this. This. This shows someone who is kind of crafting his techniques and finding the ways that work and finding the ways that don't work as he proposes to more and more women. And I think that we've shown that in all the previous episodes. It just doesn't line up with this idea that Joseph Smith really didn't want to do it and was forced into it. Because we could show from DNC132, it was him asking for it, and we could show from the proposals that he's using these same lines on different women, which would make no sense if the whole point was he had to do it fully with. With one person. It just doesn't make sense.

John Dehlin 2:02:13 Yeah, the happiness letter itself is. Is about happiness. And so that. Doesn't that imply that. That. That polygamy and sex would make Joseph happy along with, you know, with. Yeah, with Nancy Rigdon. Right.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:02:28 Yeah. And it also obviously tries to imply that it would make Nancy Rigden happy, which obviously Nancy Rigden knew was not going to make her happy. And I'm sure a lot. The fact that these women all rejected him tells you that in their minds, having sex with Joseph Smith was not what they envisioned as being happy.

John Dehlin 2:02:42 Some of them. Some of them, yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:02:44 Some of them.

John Dehlin 2:02:45 We don't know.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:02:46 Yeah, we don't know.

John Dehlin 2:02:46 Did you want to add.

Alicia 2:02:48 I was just gonna say, I don't know how I never connected the dots there. That right at the beginning of dnc, you can see that he inqu. Of the Lord about this. And so the way that I take that is he basically asked for this. But then it's just so interesting how God is now so serious about enforcing something that Joseph Smith asked for. So I know there's this premise of, like, well, you're not expected to obey a commandment until it's been revealed to you. Right. That's why we can't hold ourselves against other people who don't have the higher law. But it just seems so bizarre now to think about this, that, like, Joseph Smith asked for this. And then God is so serious about him now keeping the commandment that he's going to send an angel with a flaming sword if he does not. He's going to destroy him now if he doesn't.

John Dehlin 2:03:29 That's a really good point.

Alicia 2:03:31 Paints God in just this bizarre way.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:03:35 Yeah.

John Dehlin 2:03:35 It's like, on the one hand, Joseph's like, hey, God, what about this? And God's like, oh, you're asking. Okay, well, here's. Here's, you know, here's my answer. And then just. He's going to turn around and say, you're all toast if you don't do it.

Alicia 2:03:48 It.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:03:48 Yeah, yeah. I go to my dad and I say, dad, I'm really hungry. Can you give me five bucks? I can go to McDonald's? And my dad's like, yeah, yeah, okay.

John Dehlin 2:03:57 You don't go to McDonald's. I'm in. A slave.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:04:00 Yeah. And then, like, three hours later, he's like. He's like, hey, that $5 is still on the counter. Didn't you go to McDonald's? Like, no. You know what? Actually, I just wanted to know if you'd give it to me. I'm not really hungry. And he's like, dude, you're gonna go to McDonald's and you're gonna spend that $5 and you're gonna eat that lunch fully. And if you don't, I am going to freaking kill you. It's so inconsistently bad. That's why, like, people. And again, like, when you. I've told this to a few people that are not in the church, that never part of the church. They laugh at this stuff because they're like, this is so transparently made up. And it's because it. Nothing. Like, like Alicia says, once you start connecting the dots, like, wait, what? It makes no sense. It just really makes you shut off your critical thinking to even give this plausibility because it's so cartoonishly bad. And yet the church is going to try to spin this in the essay as if it makes total sense when even in the essay, they're not giving the details because they know it doesn't make sense.

John Dehlin 2:04:50 Yeah, we're. We're. We're. We're all a little bit ranty today, but we're trying to get all our insight in before we end.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:04:57 Yeah, he does that. Yeah.

John Dehlin 2:04:59 So this is a great segue to the slide on the priorities of God. Of the God of Mormonism.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:05:05 Yeah. And so, you know, basically what God sends an angel down to threaten his prophet for is not having enough polygamous wives and have. Or not having sex with enough polygamous wives. Wives after the prophet asked God why he can't have them. And then you kind of look at that and you go, okay, well if he's sending an angel down for that, what is he not sending an angel down for? And so God never sent an angel down to tell the prophets that banning people with black skin from the temple and exaltation was bad. Never sent angel down because Brigham Young created Utah as a slave state when he had a choice not to. He never sent an angel down to Joseph to tell him that he was getting the Book of Abraham translation completely wrong just before the Rosetta Stone be cracked. He'd be basically exposes a fraud for putting biblical errors directly into the Book of Mormon. They never sent the angel down in November 2015 to tell them not to create a policy of exclusion that they. That God was going to have to reverse three and a half years later. And you might read that and say, I'm being facetious. But the problem is you have to reconcile why God would send an angel down to threaten Joseph Smith to have sex with polygamous wives or else be killed while being completely silent on some of these horrific things that happened in the church that we're now supposed to say, you know, that this is. We just can't understand the ways of God because this is something that tells you that these visions that Joseph Smith have tend to always back up what he wants to do. And yet when it's the other way, God is virtually is absent from it. And that's a very big red flag to me.

John Dehlin 2:06:24 Yeah, absolutely. Alicia, did you want to say anything about that slide?

Alicia 2:06:30 I just want. I really appreciate Mike bringing this to the surface. I saw a tick tock that he had made about this and I think it's such a good import, important point to think about. Like when you think about this God that you love and you worship and what his priorities in life might be, and you think about all the things that were going on during that time with just all sorts of issues, racism and like he has a living prophet on the earth. He can command him to do anything, and this is what he's going to command him to do. To do. I just think, you know, it's. It's really nuts. And I think it was you, Mike, that had also brought to my attention that there were, like, illnesses going on, like people were dying of malaria. If they had given him the revelation to, like, boil the water. Like, there's a lot of useful revelations that could have happened as explicitly that apparently the polygamy revelations happened, and yet nothing.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:07:26 So, yeah, I mean, that's the thing. It's like they have this cholera outbreak which over a dozen members of the church die, and God doesn't come down or send an angel down to say, Joseph, you boil the water. A lot of my, my, you know, my children are going to live instead, silence. And these people die, you know, and we have all of these instances in church history where God is powerless to help. And then all of a sudden, God comes down to fulfill what Joseph Smith already wants to do, which is to, in this case, get women to marry him. And it's just, it's a really big red flag. And it's the same thing that you see today with Russell M. Nelson. You know, he tries to get the church to stop using the name Mormon, and he's rebuffed by Hinckley and Monson. He finally lives old enough. He gets becomes prophet. First thing he does. Oh, God. God just told me I forgot the word. He has inspired me to tell you that he's really upset with you guys for using Mormon. And it's like, well, that's awful convenient that right after you live long enough to become prophet, God's telling you the thing that you've been trying to get done for 30 years. It's a really big red flag. And it's something that you don't. It's not just Mormon prophets. It's any religious leader is getting revelation that backs up what they want. And yet the things that could gen that could genuinely tell us things we don't know or help people with future events, God is just completely absent on it. And that's a big red flag, right?

John Dehlin 2:08:37 I would have loved to see, you know, Mormon God tell early church leaders things like, you know, in addition to, you know, the racism, you know, in the Book of Mormon and the curse of Cain stuff that they had, you know, don't teach the Curse of Cain doctrine. That would have been a good one. How about, you know, be honest in your history so that a hundred years later you don't have massive disaffection from the church for, for having people feel like they've been lied to. That would have been a good thing for Mormon God or Mormon Jesus to tell church leaders. And then another one would have been any sort of revelation on the LGBT same sex marriage stuff.

Alicia 2:09:15 Stuff.

John Dehlin 2:09:15 Because interestingly and suspiciously, the Book of Mormon doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of great price, they're all silent on LGBTQ issues completely. And if. And if God can see the future and if he's speaking with his prophet series of revelators, how awesome would it have been to give clarification really, early on when it could have been codified? Those are a couple things that I would, would. I would probably add to the list.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:09:44 Yep.

John Dehlin 2:09:45 Were you gonna say something, Alicia?

Alicia 2:09:47 Absolutely. No, I just. I was just ring. Yeah, absolutely.

Polyandry, Time-and-Eternity Sealings, and Apologetics

John Dehlin 2:09:52 All right, let's go to. Let's go to the apologetic that Joseph thought he could trick God with polyandry.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:09:59 Yeah. And so we. We talked about in the early episodes that Joseph Smith married a lot of women early on that were already married to other men. And we talked about, from. From our perspective, it seems like maybe he did that because if there was a unwanted pregnancy, it'll be easily. But either way, he married, I believe, in his first, like, 14 marriages. Like 11 were polyandrous or something around there. And so the essay says, these polyandrus ceilings may also be explained by Joseph's reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma. He may have believed that ceilings to married women could comply with the Lord's commandment without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships. This could explain why, according to Lorenzo Snow, the angel reprimanded Joseph for having demurred on plural marriage even after he'd entered into the practice. After this rebuke, according to this interpretation, Joseph returned primarily to ceilings with single women. And again, this is making Joseph like this reluctant victim, this awesome dude who is trying so much to keep Emma from this. But, you know, it makes us forget that at the beginning of the same essay, they're telling us that Joseph got the revelation in 1831. And that revelation tells you it's to, you know, to create worlds without end, you know, more seed and all that. So you can't have it both ways. This idea that Joseph thought he could trick God in the 1840s when we're also told he got the revelation in 1831. It's just. It's insulting the intelligence of anyone reading this essay, if you're paying attention to the details.

John Dehlin 2:11:23 All right, let's jump to the next apologetic, which is trying to distinguish between marriage for time and marriage for eternity. That's a very common Brian Hales apologetic

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:11:38 right yeah, and there are documents from the early church kind of histories where they're trying to detail these marriages. And they'll have like, I think it's, I think it's a T and an E. And so everyone assumes that means time or eternity. And usually, you know, time, I think would mean time and eternity. But the church is trying really hard to use this as some sort of a dividing force to explain Joseph's marriages by saying that if it's a time marriage for time, it means you can have sex now. If it's for eternity, it means you'll have sex later. Although they don't say that. So what they say is during the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter Day Saints distinguished between ceilings for time and eternity and ceilings for eternity only. Ceilings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity only ceilings indicated relationships in the next life alone. And to me, I don't even understand why this, why the church feels like this distinction is important or useful. Because to me, it actually makes polygamy worse. Because if you're in an eternity only relationship marriage with Joseph Smith, it means that when you die, your husband is going to be separated from you forever. Your kids are now going to be Joseph Smith's kids, and now the life you spent with your loving husband, you're going to be married eternally to have sex with Joseph Smith. And it's just like, to me, it's even grosser to basically say that Joseph's the most like, bookmarked you for the eternities. I just don't understand why they're trying to do this. Because we know he had sex with women for time, so why then say, well, some of them weren't for time, they're just for. So he's just planning having sex with them for eternity. It's like, I just don't get it. It to me, so gross.

John Dehlin 2:13:09 My sense is, you know, one of the bad apologetics for polygamy has always been, and I'm surprised we haven't covered it yet, that, you know, there were, there were way too many women on the frontier and not enough men. And the women needed a man to take care of them. And so polygamy was instituted so that all these surplus women on the frontier could still get married and have someone to take care of them and still marry a righteous husband that could take them to the social kingdom. Now, of course, census data and other data shows us that there are actually more women on the frontier, sorry, more men on the frontier than women. And so that has debunked it. But for me, this kind of sex now versus eternity, marriage for time versus marriage for eternity kind of thing is an attempt to muddy the waters, to say, you know what, you know, Joseph Smith, it really wasn't about sex because there's these older women that got sealed to Joseph, and it was very clear that he didn't have sex with these older women. You know, they were just older women that needed to be sealed to somebody, and so they got sealed to Joseph, but it was just for eternity only, and there was no sex, which then allows them to kind of cast a shadow over the rest of the polygamy that kind of tries to paint a question mark as to whether or not Joseph had sex with any of his plural wives. Maybe Joseph was the one Mormon polygamous prophet and one Mormon polygamist of all of them that just never had sex with any of his plural wives. And again, I don't know why. Why it would be okay for all the other Mormon men to have sex without restraint with all their wives, but we got to keep Joseph pure. So this teaching of marriage for eternity, ceilings for eternity, polygamous ceilings for eternity is an attempt to keep Joseph sexless with his plural wives. That's my take. Alicia, what do you think?

Alicia 2:15:12 That's funny, John? I had actually made the same note because I feel like this bumps up against that very common apologetic position which I think is formalized by the church, this idea that we need to have a space for all of the women in heaven. So there's this idea that we would have to have plural marriage because there's going to be apparently so many more righteous women than there are men. But in reality, it's just. Just crowding out men who are living righteously. When you look at the cases of Helen and Horace Whitney, Zina Huntington and Henry Jacobs, both of whom knew, even though they were living the gospel, you know, Henry, he's going after one mission after another for the church faithfully knowing that his wife is going to be sealed to Joseph. And it kind of makes me wonder about, you know, that common phrase used in the church whenever you find something problematic with, like a divorce or abuse or anything like that, that heavenly Father will work it out. We just have to be faithful. That heavenly Father will work it out. But it's just completely. It completely conflicts about this apologetic position of, you know, that we're taking. We're taking wives away in this, in many instances from righteous men. So it just doesn't. Yeah, Just another case where it doesn't add up.

John Dehlin 2:16:27 Yep. Okay. All right. So we're not loving that apologetic.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:16:32 No. And the only other thing, the only thing I would know is we talked about this in a previous episode because you'll hear people say, well, Joseph Smith married some older women, so of course it wasn't all about sex. And I would go, well, yeah, I don't think it was all about sex anyways. But as we talked about, some of those older women were being used to recruit the younger women. And so this idea that they were, you know, kind of this innocent marriage, it's like, no, no, they were still actively involved in polygamy. They might not have been having sex with them, but they were bringing younger girls in who were having sex. I it. To me, that argument falls flat the moment you understand that some of those older women were still actively engaging and bringing other women into the practice. And I think that is something you will not see the church say when they talk about older women and wives and widows and stuff like that.

John Dehlin 2:17:12 Yeah. Okay. The. This next apologetic that we're going to get to is it has to do with the law of adoption and dynastic ceilings. And it's another one of those core Mormon doctrines that appeared early that's just somehow conspicuously disappeared since then. But it's this little known fact that men in. In Joseph Smith's day, once the power of the ceiling got going, it wasn't just polygamous marriages that included sealing. Oddly, you know, men could be sealed to men, and in some ways families could be sealed to families. And there's this idea of the law of adoption, which was that basically Joseph's goal was that everyone was sealed to everyone in the afterlife. That's what's meant by the law of adoption or the law of ceilings. And now you're going to be talking about how those teachings have been used to try and put a cloak over polygamy to say it also wasn't about sex. Is that right?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:18:14 Yeah, I mean, it's just what they're trying. Yeah, they're trying to make this sound like Joseph Smith was just trying to set up this eternal dynasty. And so this is still. When they're talking about the polyandrous marriages. The essay says there are several possible explanations for this practice. These ceilings may have provided a way to create an eternal bond or link between Joseph's family and other families within the Church. These ties extended both vertically from parent to child and horizontally from one family to another. Today, such eternal bonds are achieved through the Temple marriages of individuals who are also sealed to their own birth families in this way linking families together. Joseph Smith's ceilings to women already married may have been an early version of linking one family to another. And just as we talk about the law of adoption was there where you could seal yourself to another man as like an adopted son, or in theory could seal yourself to a woman as an adopted daughter. So Joseph Smith could have made this happen without the need for marrying already married women and taking their children and the woman, you know herself for eternity. They had the tools to do this. And Joseph Smith again makes a deliberate choice to marry them instead of using, like you said, the law of adoption, which was available to him. So I think this idea of dynastic stealings really goes out the window when you realize Joseph Smith could have made this much easier and still chose to go the path of marriages with sexual relations with, you know, at least a dozen of the wives. It's pretty clear to me.

John Dehlin 2:19:33 That reminds me of another, another apologetic that you often hear is there's a lot of men over time who have had sex with a lot of women. You know, stop accusing Joseph of being sexually minded because if he just would have wanted to have sex, he could have just had sex with a lot of women and hit it and lied about it. He wouldn't have needed to create this elaborate theological structure to justify something that he just could have done as a man in power. Do you, do you cover that, Mike or Alicia? Do you have a reaction to that film?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:20:09 I don't cover it, but I would just again say that if that were really the case, you know, he's creating an entire system to basically justify what he's doing. And so I, I agree with people who say if he really just wanted to have sex, he would have done it. We saw that with Fanny Alger. He did do that. At the same time, I don't think it, I guess to put a different way, look at all of the effort some people go through to cheat on their wives or to cheat on their taxes or to, I mean, people go through a lot of work so that they can try to make sure no one else knows what's happening. And so if Joseph Smith was just going around to women and having sex with them when the word of that got out and it would have, he would have been screwed. But by doing it this way, by creating the system underneath it, it gives him not only the right to do it, but, you know, the God approved justification to do it, which he wouldn't have had and so I, I get what you're saying because I hear that sometimes, and I don't believe it was just about sex. I think there's a power element. I think there's a complicity argument that comes from it. But at the same time, I, I just, I think that they're missing a lot of the details. They're trying to make it too simple. And I think the history tells us that Joseph is going through a lot of work here when he could have made it more simple if it really was just about creating these eternal dynasties.

John Dehlin 2:21:18 Okay, okay, so that, does that cover the dynastic ceilings? Do we go to the law of Sarah?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:21:27 I mean, to me, at the end of the day, all you have to say is, Joseph had the law of adoption, he chose not to use it. And to me, that's the end of the, the apologetic. I know that might be too simplistic for people, but if you have a tool that can avoid needing to marry, have sex with these women by just doing the law of adoption and you don't use it, then, then claiming Joseph's just trying to create dynastic links to me just falls flat. But, you know, if you have, if you have, if either of you have any more notes on that, feel free. But to me, I think it's a pretty cut and dry one.

John Dehlin 2:21:55 Yeah, that makes sense. All right, let's jump to the next one, which is the Love Sarah and Joseph Smith's oops moment.

The Law of Sarah and Coercive Proposals

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:22:02 Yeah. And so we talked about this in the DNC 132 episode. But again, remember, this is an orally dictated text. So Joseph Smith is riffing this 3,000 plus word revelation off the top of his head. Hiram wants him to use a stone. He says no. He says basically he knows it by heart. And so this is from the essay about the law of Sarah. It says the revelation on marriage required that a wife gave give her consent before the husband could enter into plural marriage. Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said if the first wife received not this law the command to practice plural marriage, the husband would be exempt from the law of Sarah. Presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women. After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma. Forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emma's rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. Her decision to receive not this law permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent. This set, this paragraph in the church is absolute crap. And they're making it sound like the Law of Sarah was revoked near the end of the revelation. This is. These are four verses apart. Joseph Smith creates this law of Sarah, and I would bet any amount of money realizes that he's giving Emma the ultimate veto power over his polygamous marriages. And so four verses later, he takes it away. And this revelation is written in 1843, after Joseph Smith had married over two dozen women without asking his beloved Emma for permission first. So this idea that Joseph Smith felt like her rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the loss era is interesting because he's doing all of this before he even records the revelation or before he even asks her the first time. So he's violating the rule before he even gives Emma a chance to accept it. I just.

John Dehlin 2:23:42 And.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:23:42 And these are things you can show through all sorts of documentation. So for the church to make it sound like Joseph Smith is playing by the rules here is just nonsensical. And. And again, this is where the church is trying to keep members from understanding all the details. Because if you. Do, you realize that what he's doing here with the Law of Sarah is pretty ridiculous, given the fact that four verses later, he's going to remove it.

John Dehlin 2:24:04 Right? Alicia, something you want to add?

Alicia 2:24:07 I was just going to say, I think the basic breakdown for this is ask present, present. Present the law to your wife. If. If she gives consent, marry the plural wife. If she doesn't give consent, marry the plural wife. Anyway.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:24:23 Yeah. Because we talked about this in the DNC132 episode, and I was half joking, but it's like, you go to your wife and you're like, hey, baby, so Eleanor down the street, I kind of want to marry her. And I'm asking you for permission, and I hope you give it to me, because I would really like to marry her. And I'll spend some nights with her, but I'll spend some nights here, too. But here's the thing, baby. If you don't. If you don't allow me to marry her, I'm gonna do it anyways. And you're gonna get to watch me go down the street and have sex with her. Oh, and by the way, if you do accept it, you're gonna be blessed. You're gonna be blessed, and I will be blessed, too. And if you don't do it, I'm gonna go do it anyways, and I'll be blessed still. But you're gonna be destroyed. But. But I love you. It's Just like, it's so. It's so bad. It's just like on the. On the very surface of it, if you read it, it is so horrible. And I kind of say this sometimes. This is one of those areas where I'm like, if this is from God, then the God of Mormonism is not worthy of my worship, because the God of Mormonism is kind of a jerk. And so I know that might sound offensive, people, but is that really what you want in a God? Someone who's going to tell a woman, a wife, that you have to accept watching your husband or at least knowing that your husband's off having sex with other women or you'll be destroyed? It's so. The fact that it's so contradictory, four verses apart, tells you that Joseph Smith is orally dictating this, realizes what he did, and then has to fix it. We see that in the Book of Mormon, where he's fixing little mistakes he makes. This is no different, except for the fact that he realizes he's giving Emma too much power, and so he has to pull it back before she has a chance to use it.

Alicia 2:25:53 I agree so much.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:25:55 It's so frustrating.

John Dehlin 2:25:58 All right, well, let's go to. I think, unapologetic, that still very. You know, some of these apologetics maybe have fallen a bit out of favor, at least in the Church's modern attempts to justify polygamy, like in 2022. But the next one is still very much in favor. It's basically the argument that we have accounts of many of Joseph Smith's plural wives, either saying they had incredible spiritual experiences bearing their testimony to the truthful sub polygamy, or them just bearing their testimony that they knew polygamy was true and that somehow that's a reasonable defense.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:26:38 Yeah, and this is a formula that they use in a lot of their essays, especially this one, which is to say you are initially going to be disgusted at reading about polygamy and what Joseph Smith was doing. You're going to struggle internally over the details you're reading, and then you're going to follow having these doubts resolved through spiritual experience. And so this is a theme that the Church uses in the essay, not just for the women they talk about, but also they're kind of telling you how you're going to need to go down this path as well. And so the essay says, nevertheless, for many women and men, initial revulsion and anguish was followed by struggle, resolution, and ultimately, light and peace. Sacred experiences enabled the Saints to move forward in faith. And, you know, within the essay the church cites that Joseph Smith's polygamists and polyandrous brides would initially recoil at the idea, but then would have a spiritual experience. And we talked about that in the proposals episodes where Joseph Smith is kind of telling, like, here's what you need to do. We need you to fast, we need you to pray. And we all talk about how when you fast and when you have no sleep, you start to have these experiences. And I just want to be clear. We cannot, we have to honor the lived experiences of these women because we can't speak for what they experience. I can't tell you what Lucy Walker's experience actually was. I could just tell you that she talked about how she had at least two sleepless nights before she felt the room light up after she had been fasting and scared to death about what she needed to do, and that's what gave her the internal permission to marry Joseph Smith. And so we can't say what their experiences was because we weren't there, but we can say these are the same things that are going to be used by every other high demand religion, any other cult leader, to justify what they're doing. It's no different unless you're engaging in special privilege, special pleading.

John Dehlin 2:28:14 Right? Yeah. Yep. Yeah, you listen again, there's a Mormon stories video that I've republished of just. Just people of all different faiths. Islam, Judaism, the FLDS Church, all bearing their testimony using almost identical language. And there's just an Episcopal epistemology problem. You've got, like, I was really taken back when I saw the Keep Sweet documentary. I don't remember if it was on Hulu or on Netflix, but check it out. And you've basically got, you know, when. When the, when the state police were basically incarcerating Warren Jeffs and putting all these FLDS people in prison, you've got these polygamous wives of Warren Jeffs that are all, like, sobbing on tv, talking about how they know Warren Jeffs is a prophet and how they know that their lifestyle is true. And how do you, you know, if you're gonna, you know, you just have to understand that when your whole life is rooted in the church, when you have. When women aren't even allowed to vote, when women aren't allowed to own property, when they have no family or connections outside of the Mormon community that they've given their lives to, basically the power differential and the social pressure and basically the social conditioning is so powerful that what else would you expect for Joseph Smith's wives, for many of them to bear testimony that it was of God. You would almost expect nothing less. Alicia, you want to add anything?

Alicia 2:29:46 Yeah. This really, from what I've observed, is the most common apologetic stance from active members of the church. Like, how can you dismiss their testimonies? And, I mean, I think that's a valid point. We can't dismiss that Helen Mark Kimball had a testimony of polygamy, you know, that we can read her testimony toward the end of her life. And I think it was Lucy Walker, too. But I think we also have to. We have to qualify with this. With the fact that they did have a very limited worldview, that their survival within their tribe was relying on this. This bias. And when you look at the prophet, the way that he approaches her, too, when she. When she's a young girl, when he approaches her about polygamy, he starts off by saying, do you believe that I'm a prophet? And then he tells her what to anticipate will happen to her in the next 24 hours that she's going to. You know, he says something like, I know that you will gain a testimony of this. I know that you will receive light and knowledge. And so she has this experience in her room of, you know, this light and this whole, you know, profound spiritual experience. And I don't mean to belittle that or dismiss it, but I think that the idea that there was some confirmation bias going on here is probably a, you know, a real probability. So I just think that there are a lot of factors that we have to take in mind for this. And I love that you pointed that out, too, John, because I think the FLDS is the closest parallel that we have to the early Mormon Church. And to see the way that Warren Jeffs functioned with his people during that time that he was going to, you know, getting them to go to Zion, getting them to send, in some cases, their children to Zion, without them to be groomed as young wives, as young as 7, 8, 9 years old in some cases. That's how he presented it. He said, do you believe that I'm a prophet? Because if he can get them thinking in those terms, remember, I speak for God, and I know you will have a testimony of this if you pray for it. The likelihood is that that's what they're going to come to, especially with the limited worldview that they have at that time.

John Dehlin 2:31:54 Yeah, yeah. And you just look at the followers of Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, of Keith Ranieri, of David Koresh. It doesn't matter. Pick.

Alicia 2:32:05 It's Consistent.

John Dehlin 2:32:07 They always have women who will say that, that they, that their sexual relationships with the divine leader, it was inspired by God. So what, what makes. Why do we give, like you say, why do we give extra credibility or validity to Joseph Smith's wives? If we do that, then we have an epistemological problem where we've got to, we've got to say that the other wives of the other cult leaders were inspired too. We've. I think we've made the point. Yeah. All right, so. So while you have a whole slide on this, did we already cover it?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:32:43 We pretty much did, yeah. The only thing I would, I would just mention is just, you know, kind of what Alicia said, which is that these, these girls are being told kind of how to do this. You know, you gotta pray and you're being told from the time you're born that if you have these bad feelings, it's the adversary trying to deceive you. And so, so that's why he's asking them, do you believe I'm a prophet? Because all of a sudden they have these bad feelings like that's the devil trying to keep you from doing this. And so to what you said, if we are going to then say from the church's standpoint that because they had spiritual experiences, we cannot question them, then we have to accept those same testimonies from Mormon offstreets, which you just said. Which leads us to the next slide, which has some audio from a girl, a teenage girl who is in the middle of a polygamous marriage in a modern day Mormon offshoot.

John Dehlin 2:33:26 All right, let's go ahead and play it.

▶ Video Clip 1

Video Clip 1 2:33:30 I've been searching for.

Video Clip 1 2:33:32 I'm gonna turn it up.

Video Clip 1 2:33:35 This work and of this church and,

Video Clip 1 2:33:38 and just tonight I got my witness

Video Clip 1 2:33:42 and it's burning within my soul of

Video Clip 1 2:33:46 how important this work is and how true it ends.

Video Clip 1 2:33:50 I know it ends.

Video Clip 1 2:33:53 And it's hard to believe that just a year ago I was in high school and now I'm in a plural marriage and struggling.

Video Clip 1 2:34:05 But I know without a shadow of a doubt that this is the Lord's

Video Clip 1 2:34:12 work, that I have finally found it.

Video Clip 1 2:34:18 I say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

John Dehlin 2:34:21 Holy moly. That's way more effective than I think any of our explanations were. That really, that really drives the point home. And that's a modern. What flds, young woman.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:34:36 It is. I forgot which sect it is, but it's, it's one of the offshoots and I can't, can't read it because it's small, but on the website, we have it on there, but, yeah, it's one of the offshoots. It's. It's modern times. It's, you know, obviously, because they have it on audio recording and. Yeah, I mean, that's. That's what today's Mormon Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That would be your fast and testimony meeting if the government didn't force them to stop polygamy. I mean, like, I don't know how else to say it. Like, this is what the doctrine says should be happening today within the Mormon Church. And so we have all these other people living it, and we look at them, we're like, oh, my goodness, they're horrible. When in reality, they're just doing what Joseph Smith created. This is nothing. This shouldn't. This shouldn't shock you outside the fact that we're trying to privilege Joseph Smith and. And other. The other, you know, to other them and just doesn't work.

John Dehlin 2:35:22 Yeah. Wow. Well, how is that. How is. How is hearing that for you, Alicia?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:35:27 I'm sorry.

John Dehlin 2:35:29 Just. Okay, go ahead.

Alicia 2:35:30 Oh, that's okay. Yeah. This one makes me feel a little emotional. It was. It was pretty stunning to me, actually, to come across this, the video that you mentioned, John, toward the beginning of my faith deconstruction. It was people from a lot of different faiths bearing their testimony. It was the first moment, I think, that it really occurred to me that the intensity and sincerity of my own testimony was not unique, that this kind of emotion and conviction of faith could be found in all kinds of religions. And today, to this day, you know, it almost feels like something special was taken from me when I saw that. And that probably sounds so strange, but it was something that I thought was uniquely shared amongst people of my own faith. And now, you know, looking at this video, the video that we just watched, or the. That other one with the compilation, it just makes me realize that this is a very unique, universal experience. To sense a deep, penetrating truth within your own religious tradition.

John Dehlin 2:36:40 Yeah, absolutely. All right, well said, Alicia. So. So, Mike, the next slide is Joseph Smith once again changes God's words.

Joseph Smith Changing Revelatory Texts

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:36:50 I think this is an important one because we talked about this with the first vision, with the priesthood restoration, with the Book of Mormon, and how Joseph Smith will change God's words, his revelations, in order to basically retrofit his current theology and his current needs into it. And so we've talked about this before, and. But the Book of Mormon says, behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was Abominable before me, saith the Lord. But then you've got DNC132, where God's telling Joseph Smith, David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses, my servants, as also many others of my servants from the beginning of creation until this time. And in nothing did they sin, save in those things which they received not of me. And then the Happiness Letter, which is also Joseph Smith's writings, to Nancy Rigdon. He says, if we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon, first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part heart, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation. And so here we've got Joseph Smith contradicting the Book of Mormon in the Doctrine and Covenants, because the Book of Mormon says that God found it abominable. And in DNC132, he's like, no, no, I justified it, and in nothing did they sin. But then in the Happiness Letter, Joseph takes God and just throws him under the bus and runs him over about 10 times. Because, again, I want to be perfectly clear here. The Book of Mormon says, says David and Solomon's wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Happiness Letter says even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part. So in the Happiness Letter, he's saying anyone who thinks polygamy is abominable knows heaven, knows the order of heaven only in part. And the Book of Mormon says that God calls abominable. So I know, like, I just want to drive that home. In the Happiness Letter, Joseph Smith is saying God knows the order of heaven only in part, because God called having many wives and concubines abominable. And this is Joseph Smith creating more problems by changing the words of God in order to justify his current needs and theology.

John Dehlin 2:38:59 Yeah, that's. Yeah, that's pretty telling. Alicia, anything you want to add?

Alicia 2:39:04 I just. I don't know. I feel like I just can't get to the bottom of this. Why is there such a big difference between what's in Doctrine and Covenants? I mean, I know this is all. We can just all draw our own conclusions here, but I just think it's so weird and suspicious that it's such a different presentation in the Book of Mormon than it is in Doctrine and covenants.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:39:25 Yeah.

Alicia 2:39:27 Is that just because Joseph Smith is trying to work his agenda? Like, I really have no stance here on this. It just seems so, like, suspicious.

John Dehlin 2:39:35 Yeah. For me, this is why this, this entire LDS discussion series is so important. Because we talk about in some of the early episodes how much the church doctrine of theology changes over time. And we talk about how so many of the distinctive Mormon doctrines that show up in the Nauvoo time period or even in the late Kirtland period were never in the Book of Mormon. And so if the Book of Mormon was an independent text of what God wanted his church members in the latter days to draw from, and it's God's one chance to get pure scripture, because we were all taught as Mormons that the Bible is corrupted by the great abominable Catholic Church and others. So God's got one chance to get the fullness of the gospel into the Book of Mormon, which we're all taught is the most correct book. And then he leaves out, you know, Melchizedek priesthood, temple ceilings, eternal marriage, three degrees of glory, you know, the word of wisdom, you're drinking wine, you know, in, in the Book of Mormon for the sacrament, even baptisms for the dead. Just, just all of these distinctive Mormon doctrines somehow aren't in the Book of Mormon. And instead, the Book of Mormon just almost perfectly reflects not only the arguments that were going on in the late 1820s that Joseph Smith was exposed to, but it also reflects Joseph's exact theology when the book was published. That's one of the biggest tells of all. It's that Joseph Smith is, you know, if you're Terrell Givens or Richard Bushman, you're saying that he's innovating as he goes, or that God's teaching line upon line, if you're taking a more secular or skeptical view, it just looks like Joseph Smith's making it up as he goes along. And the scriptures literally reflect snapshots of Joseph's evolving theology over time. Does that, Alicia? I don't know if that makes sense.

Alicia 2:41:47 Yeah, I mean, the line upon line concept works when it's like building foundationally one piece on top of another. But it becomes problematic when you have actual changes in even, like the presentation of the Godhead, when you have like, actual, like literal, literal discrepancies like we see from the Book of Mormon and doctrine and covenants regarding plural marriage. Like, these are. This is not line upon line. This is something entirely different. And that's ultimately what it leads me to believe, that the whole thing was just kind of curated and pieced together and there were holes at the end of it.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:42:23 Yeah. That's why I love the 116 pages episode, because we talk about the fact that the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith loses the first 116 pages. And somehow in the Book of Mormon, it's written into the Book of Mormon that God knew Joseph was going to lose it. So they create the second set of plates. Right. So God is so good at knowing what's going to happen, he creates a second set of plates. But God doesn't put in the Book of Mormon any of these uniquely Mormon things that happen in Nauvoo. And you're like, how does he know about the lost 116 pages but doesn't know about any of these other things that are going to happen in the next 10 years? And it's because Joseph hadn't thought of him yet. The lost 116 pages was happening in real time. So it's easy for Joseph to write it in there. And it just shows how Joseph's mind works to create this theology and then use the Scriptures to be a vehicle for it. But unfortunately, when he changes theology, then he has to change the Scriptures. And that's when he runs into these problems because his fingerprints now are all over these Scriptures and these revelations, and you can't. Even when you change them, we still have the records of those changes. And all of a sudden, once you see him, you're like, oh, crap. Yeah, he's, he's, he's making it up. Because this does not line up with any historical outline from either the Bible or from Joseph Smith's own life. And once you show he can, he's making it up, then all of a sudden you, you could see the patterns throughout all these other things as well.

Gospel Topics Essay Footnotes and Series Wrap-Up

John Dehlin 2:43:36 All right, well, let's go to talking about the footnotes in the polygamy gospel topics essays, Right?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:43:43 Yeah. And so this is one of those things that, you know, when you talk about apologetics, you talk about the church's essays. As you know, I always joke, it's like, follow the footnotes. And I, in my head, I think of it as the Follow the Prophet song. But there are three footnotes I want to look at real quick just to show how they are making these citations so that members think that these are scholarly works that are being cited. But if you actually look at the footnotes, they're either completely contradicting what they're saying or they're kind of. You could see they're being A little deceptive. So we talked about the carefully worded denials earlier. And so this is footnote number 22, and it says in the denials, polygamy was understood to mean the marriage of one man to more than one woman, but without church sanction. And so we talked about this earlier, but this is showing that Joseph Smith is using these verbal semantics, but their citation is literally just telling you that they're thinking polygamy is different. And I think that the fact that they couldn't give you a better citation shows that, you know, he was lying. And I think that we've made that clear earlier in the episode. Then footnote 45, this is where they talk about. It says plural marriage did result in an increased number of children born to believing parents. So if you look at footnote 45, it is a very untrue and apparently intentionally misleading statement because footnote 45 contains no information, but reroutes you to footnote 6 in their Utah polygamy episode or essay, which informs us that studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives, except the first. So. So their statement is plural marriage should result in increased number of children born to believing parents. The footnote eventually tells you that studies show that monogamous women bore more children per wife than polygamous. So it, you know, I think the church would say, well, if you have 50 wives and they, they average a half a child, you're going to get more than one wife. That averages 12 children. But at the same time, that is contradicting, I think, what they're saying in a very real way, at least to me it does.

John Dehlin 2:45:33 And do you have a, do you have that final passage to read there from the slide?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:45:37 Yeah, yeah. And there's one more, just real quick, that this is the third footnote from the Kirtland and Nauvoo essay, which I found to be a little bit misleading. And so it says, actually very misleading. It says, in biblical times, oh, crap, I lost it. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some of his people to practice plural marriage, the marriage of one man and more than one woman. And the footnote to this is going to give you three different sources. One is, is DNC 132, which is not from the Bible, Jacob 2, verse 30, which is obviously not in the Bible, although the church would argue it's biblical times, and Genesis 16. And what's funny is if you look at those actual don't count DNC132, because that's written after the fact. If you look at Jacob or Genesis, in neither of those is God commanding anyone into polygamy. And so they're making this declaration that God commands people into polygamy. They give you citations, and those citations do not say that whatsoever. And it just shows that they're starting this essay on a footing that is just not accurate. And yet that's their entire justification. It blows my mind.

John Dehlin 2:46:40 Alicia, you're. You're shaking your head.

Alicia 2:46:44 My unmuted. Yeah, no, I agree. I just. Yeah, I don't really have anything to add here. I just. Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin 2:46:57 Okay. Well, that's important, Mike. Footnotes. Footnotes are always important. So let's. Let's go to the reality that, you know, I. I think, you know, one of the. One of the. One really significant moment in my faith journey was when Larry King appears. Sorry, when. When Gordon Hinckley appears on Larry King Live and Larry King Live asks. Asks Gordon B. Hinckley about polygamy. And Gordon B. Hinckley, basically, I'm probably mixing it up, but I remember him saying, like, this is a fleck of history. It's no, you know, it's no longer doctrine. Whatever words he used, he really, really wanted the world to just think that polygamy has nothing to do with. With the current church, Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that it's no longer doctrine, and that we no longer practice it. And that has also been a tactic that the church uses to basically say, that's polygamy. That's those weirdos down in Colorado City. That's not something we're doing. And what's your response to that, Mike?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:48:04 Yeah, it's just, you know, as we start to wrap this up, you know, at the end of the day, polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant that the Mormon Church absolutely believes will be practiced in the eternity. And as I mentioned earlier, Russell Nelson and Dallin Oaks are both eternal polygamists on this day, and they both chose to marry a second wife that was not previously married. And so to me, that's a big tell that they believe that by marrying someone who wasn't sealed to another man, they now have two wives for eternity. And. And I guess you could say it's a coincidence, but to me, I think that's a really important detail. And so the church uses these word games to say that polygamy is over. But CNC132 is a canonized revelation. And the church's own essay considers the manifestos to remove polygamy inspired statements and so they say church leaders and members experiences these, experience these challenges as they heeded the command to practice plural marriage and again later as they work to discontinue it after church President Wilford Woodruff issued an inspired statement known as the manifesto in 1890, which led to the end of plural marriage in the church. And so plural marriage in the Church is still going to be the doctrine for the eternity. And the fact is, DNC 132 is a canonized revelation that they have not changed. And even in their own words, they do not consider the manifestos to be revelations, but inspired statements that are basically just making a change for time. And so every woman that's watching this, this is what you have to look forward to, whether you like it or not. And if you come to terms with it and you're okay with it, that's fine. But this is still doctrine. This has not gone away, no matter what words the Church wants to use to try to say that it's over.

Alicia 2:49:40 A lot of people, I don't know, I feel like there's this kind of way to discredit ex Mormons who deconstructed because of polygamy. Like, oh, well, they didn't know about polygamy. I've always known about polygamy, you know, but I, I think for me personally, I always knew about polygamy being in my doctrine, but it wasn't until I really took a closer look at how a. Absurdly it is written and to look at all the details that we, you know, covered today and really I didn't start doing that until my deconstruction and that really just solidified to me that like, this is, this is contrived, this isn't. I, I don't believe anymore that this was inspired by God. So I don't know. I. So I think there is this like kind of in between space too that we like believe that it's going to happen. I knew that at some point in my exalted state, I would have to accept, accept this and that and that being in an exalted state, that I would be fine with it because this is Heavenly Father's will, you know. But it wasn't until I really started to deconstruct it that I, you know, and looked at the details of this and how it's written, really read D&C132. You don't have to deviate from the Scripture to really see the absurdity of it and to make these comparisons and to see the discrepancies and to see the conflict and to see how God is just kind of all over the place on this. That's. That's where I'm at. And I think. And I think I probably speak for a lot of other people that have deconstructed that maybe they. It's not that they didn't know about polygamy. It's that they just hadn't looked closely at it.

John Dehlin 2:51:12 Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And. And, Mike, let's go ahead and jump to. I. I have a final thing I want to say as well on this, but let's go and jump to the next slide, and then I'll make. Make the point.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:51:25 I was.

John Dehlin 2:51:26 Yeah, yeah.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:51:28 You know, and honestly, the next slide we don't even really have to do. It's just kind of what Alicia was saying. We often hear members say, I'm so glad I have to live through polygamy. And yet you do for eternity. And then you also have the leaders saying that phrase, it'll all work out in the end, you know, but the people that it will work out for are the men who are telling you not to worry about it. It's funny when the member. The leaders of the church are telling these women who are worried about polygamy that it'll all work out in the end. But the truth is. But under their own doctrine, it's going to work out for those men because they're the ones that get to make the decisions, which women they take in and which women they don't. And, you know, you often hear. I've heard. I don't know if either of you have heard this, but you'll hear women say, oh, I know that polygamy will be practicing the eternities, but I've told my husband, if he ever does it, I'm going to leave. And I'm thinking to myself, like, you're going to do what? Because you're either going to accept it or be destroyed. Like, you don't get the option to just walk away and be fine. So I just. I think that a lot of times we kind of ignore the elephant in the room because it would create a lot of, you know, pain, cognitive dissonance, whatever you want to call it, to have to think about, like, do I really want to be in a church and worship a God that is going to have me set up for the eternities to either have to accept my husband having sex with other women for eternity, or I get destroyed if, you know, if I don't go along with it, I just. I Feel like, to your point, it's like people know about polygamy, but they just don't want to know the details. Because once you know the details, it forces you to have to make a decision about what you think about the legitimacy and the credibility of the people making those revelations.

Alicia 2:52:49 Yeah, absolutely.

John Dehlin 2:52:50 Yeah.

Alicia 2:52:51 Not to mention that are we not going to have agency in the celestial kingdom? So, like, for those women who are like, well, I don't know. I don't think I want to do that. Apparently there isn't agency in the celestial kingdom because you're not going to have that ability to make that choice.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:53:06 Well, I mean, there's agency. It's just your agency is either choose to accept it or choose to be destroyed. I mean, that's. And that's what we talk about with DNC132. It's like, yeah, you have a choice voice. And that's why, like, from the husband's perspective, like I said earlier, and I know it sounds facetious, but it's like, hey, baby, I want to marry this girl. And you could choose not to do it, but I'm gonna do it anyways, and you're going to be the transgressor. By God's words. It just. That's why it gets so, like, cartoonishly bad, because it doesn't make sense. And it also. It reads like it's written by someone who's trying to create these loopholes because it just. It just makes no sense to say to someone, you can accept this and be blessed, or you can reject it, and I get to do it anyways and be blessed, but you're going to be destroyed. Because now, by God's own words, the word they use is you become the transgressor. It's like, what? So I. Yeah, I just. There's free agency, but the free agency is always the same thing. It's. You have the free agency to choose to obey or else you're going to be punished. So, you know, it's just. It's silly. It really is. Like, sometimes you read it and you're like, this is nonsensical. Like, it doesn't make sense. And then when you try to make sense of it, it's worse because then it turns God into a confused, changing God to just like a bro at the bar who's trying to find ways to score with chicks. And I don't mean to sound facetious, but read DNC132 and tell me how that makes sense with a God that loves families, that doesn't want to. You know, it just, it doesn't work.

Alicia 2:54:25 It is nonsensical. But I prefer the term cartoonishly bad. Yeah, that's literally my favorite term from

John Dehlin 2:54:33 this entire series, except that it has real impact on lives today. And I'm going to mention again, a resource that I've mentioned many times during this series. It's Carolyn Pearson's book, the Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. I also have a podcast where I interviewed her about her book. We'll include those in the show notes. But she talks about how this doctrine of eternal polygamy continues to have very serious and deleterious effects on Mormon women and men to this day in 2022. So it's cartoonish, but it's cartoonish in kind of a horrific way.

Alicia 2:55:15 Yeah, no, I, I do appreciate you pointing that out. And, and I want to be sensitive to, you know, I sometimes feel like, because this is my family legacy, so to speak.

John Dehlin 2:55:26 Yeah, yeah.

Alicia 2:55:27 Like, have a little more room to kind of be light hearted about it. But if I really were to get serious, I think I would get very emotional about it because I come from a long line of first wives, and there was a very interesting dissertation that I think is still being worked on about the possibility of generational trauma coming from first wives. And there are all sorts of implications there of having this trauma, of knowing that you may not be in first place at some point here. So this is, is. This is very painful to talk about. So I do appreciate the levity, but I, I really appreciate you, John, for pointing out the seriousness. This. We all three understand the seriousness of. And the implications even today. And I know the idea of generational trauma is. I don't know if it's like a really credible science, but I personally think that there is something to it. I think personally I come from a line where there is generational trauma from, from being a first wife. It's. It is a very painful situation. I take deep offense to the laughter in Congress, you know, when, when general authorities kind of joke about it and how funny that might be. And even one of the researchers that I was listening to that we've mentioned during this podcast had made a joke about, well, she's not my first wife or I wasn't looking for. I don't remember what it was, but I, I feel the pain of that sentiment. And, and yeah, it's painful. So I appreciate you pointing that out, John. And I just want to convey to our audience that I do have a deep compassion and, and it grieves me that this is something that we, you know, have to deal with as, as, as a people, as people.

John Dehlin 2:57:18 And to be clear, Alicia, I was not calling you out at all. And I think it's number one. I know that this is personal to you because of your own life and story. So you have every right to both laugh and cry. You, you, all of your emotions, Alicia, are valid. I wasn't calling you out. Yeah, sometimes you gotta laugh or you won't cry. But this is the, the way, you know, the Mormon Church God, you know, wants to have it both ways. The Mormon Church God says he's, he's has a house of order, and he's not a God of confusion, but the way that he rolls out his teachings and his doctrine looks more like the Keystone Cops than it does a house of order. And of course, that's a, that's a reference that dates me, but it's just silliness and craziness. And so please check out Carolyn Pearson's book and podcast. The only other thing I was going to say, just to give this context, is if you want to understand what the Mormon Church has to do and why they're treating it this way, way, it's because you know what, what the church values most is, is its prophetic authority. Because if it's church, if its leaders aren't speaking to God, then, then, then the church has no power over its members. And that's its, that's its, that's its primary source of power in 2022. And so it's in this catch 22 of. It's got this embarrassing history. These, these embarrassing scriptures, these embarrassing behaviors from past prophets, seers and revelators that it needs to shed. But as soon as it sheds them explicitly by denouncing them or by explicitly taking things out of the scriptures, then immediately it's going to cause the members to say, wait a minute, if they got it wrong, then, if Joseph got it wrong, if Brigham got it wrong, if the scriptures can be wrong, then what are you getting wrong now? Mormon Church leaders? And so the church has to do this really awkward kabuki dance of slowly no longer talking about or emphasizing past scriptures or doctrine, redirecting members to new or evolved teachings without ever having any accountability or without ever sort of of explicitly addressing the historical or the scriptural problems. And it's all because they want to maintain their power and their prophetic authority. And to explicitly address these issues in an honest way would literally be to undermine their own prophetic authority, and that's why they do it.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 2:59:54 Yeah, yep, 100%.

John Dehlin 2:59:57 Okay. So did you, did you already cover this slide? This is what every woman in the church has to look forward to. You did?

Mike (LDS Discussions) 3:00:03 Yeah. Yeah.

John Dehlin 3:00:04 We can end with the conclusions on Joseph Smith and Mormon polygamy.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 3:00:08 Yeah. And honestly, we've pretty much done all the conclusion already, but it's just we've done six episodes now and I hope it's clear why polygamy is such an important issue to understand and what it tells us about Joseph Smith and his ability not just to create scripture, but to use this authority to get members to do what he wants, what his desires are. And I've mentioned this before, but polygamy is a topic for me that's difficult. And that's why you might hear me get a little angry in these episodes compared to the early ones. And the, and to your point earlier about calling, you know, I didn't want Alicia to feel, to feel like she was being called out because honestly, it should be me because I was being more facetious about it. Because when you read this stuff, it has implications that are really bad. And it also has a lot of contradictions and problems which tell you that it's not true. But it does still impact people. And so for someone like I'm in a mixed faith marriage, there are implications there. As I mentioned earlier, where is in DNC132, it says, because basically your wife's gonna be taken and given to another dude for eternity. And that's weird to me. And there are a lot of marriages today where the spouses depending on which, which one is believing, which one isn't. They have no idea what their attorney is gonna be like, because if you believe this to be from God, this has real world implications. And we also have all of the problems that you guys both just alluded to where, you know, I've heard people talk about this too, where they say, well, if we get to the eternities and my husband dies first and he takes another wife before I get there, and the other wife is better at sex or better at cooking or is funnier, then all of a sudden he's going to want to spend more time with her. And that's why you have. You know, I always look at it as Joseph Smith created like the ultimate trophy wife system where he could basically take younger women that he liked and parade. And we hear this from church historians before, where they actually say it was usually the second wife that was treated the best because that was the one they picked because they wanted to be with them. Them they Wanted to show them off around town. And so there is a competition that's created. And so when God says through Joseph Smith that he's done all of the calculations and this is going to give you the most happiness, the, the evidence of that has shown that is not true. The essay admits that people had a horrible time with it. And so it just shows that God cannot, if you believe this is from God, does not deliver on the promises he makes. This is not what made people happy. The fact that it had to be to referred taken away four years after he said it was everlasting, it could not be revoked. It just shows you that if you really want to believe this from God, you have to answer all of these problems that come underneath it. And as we talked about, these have real world implications today that I think everyone has to come to terms with. If you want to still believe in the church, even though you know what you're going to be subjected to, more power to you. But I think the church does a real disservice to members by telling them that this is over, because it is absolutely not over. And the, the actions of Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks in like I said, marrying to each having a second wife that is not previously sealed tells you they believe that this is going to be doctrine for eternity. So if they believe it and if they're acting and preparing as if it does, why in the world should you believe that it's over? I guess that's right where I come down to it at the end.

John Dehlin 3:03:07 Alicia.

Alicia 3:03:09 Yeah. Well, I just want to say I really appreciate all the time that you put into this, Mike, that this has been a really great series. It's been a great eye opener for me, just digging into it to prepare. And I think it's just so interesting how we view these situations. You know, you were talking about your particular lens and being in a mixed faith marriage and how you probably, you probably identify with certain characters in this story. And I identify with certain characters of this story. When I read Emma's story, I see my grandmother. When I read the stories of these young girls, I think of my young adult daughter. And you know, it's just a whole mixture of emotions here. It's painful, it's absurd. You know, it's angering. And I think it's important as we dig into church history and we start to feel all these emotions that we just really validate ourselves. And in every bit of it, there's going to be anger, there's going to be frustration, there's going to be regret. And I think that we just have to really be gentle with ourselves and allow ourselves to move through these. These stories with. With that grace and just know that it's going to be. It's. It's going to be multifaceted.

John Dehlin 3:04:20 Beautiful. Thank you, Alicia. Mike, there is one more slide. Do we want to cover that or

Mike (LDS Discussions) 3:04:26 it's up to you? I mean, we've kind of covered it. It's more just to say, you know, I've talked about this before, but just look at what Joseph Smith did in the six episodes we've covered and ask yourself, would you believe this is from God if it was another religious leader? Because we've talked about how Joseph Smith. Joseph is using incorrect Bible references to justify this practice. We've shown that the Gospel topics essay uses these citations that don't even say what they're saying. It says, God never commands Abraham into polygamy. And then like we talked about in the episodes that we did on the proposals, you know, proposing to girls in vulnerable situations, having them limit his household, making eternal promises if they do it, eternal threats if they don't. What would you say if this is another religious leader? And I think that that's one of the. The hardest things to do, is to stop engaging in special pleading. But for me, when you look at these six episodes, if you put any other name besides Warren or besides Joseph Smith, every member of the church would say, oh, yeah, this is, this is like a, a, A Warren Jeffs kind of thing, or this is a, you know, David Crush thing. And, and it just shows that I think the more we learn about polygamy, the more you start to see the patterns between what Joseph Smith did and what every other, you know, kind of scandalous religious leader did. And, and I think once you get to that point, you can kind of know whether or not this is from God.

Closing Reflections and Thanks

John Dehlin 3:05:40 All right, well, Mike, I want to thank you so much for this amazing series, both broadly LDS discussions and specifically, you know, this polygamy series and today's episode. I just have so many people telling me how much this series is meaning to them. So thank you, Mike.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 3:05:58 Thank you. And the big star for this miniseries is Alicia. And thank you so much for taking so much time to do all of these. You've. Everybody has just loved your input, loved your demeanor. So thank you so much. I'm so glad you stuck with us for all these episodes. I really do appreciate it.

Alicia 3:06:15 I appreciate being part of it. I really do feel honored to be. To be on this show explicitly this series. So thank you both so much.

John Dehlin 3:06:23 And Elisa, Alicia already played you the I want you back clip, so you got to come back.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 3:06:29 Yeah.

John Dehlin 3:06:30 All right, do it.

Alicia 3:06:32 Sounds good.

Mike (LDS Discussions) 3:06:33 I think. I think everyone watching should send messages to Alicia to let her know that she should come on some more of these episodes so that we can convince her to come back for some more later on because she's been such a great input and such a great voice. And like I said, I love the way she approaches it, and I just, I couldn't think of anyone who could have done it better. So thank you so much.

Alicia 3:06:53 I appreciate that so much, guys. Thank you.

John Dehlin 3:06:56 And check out Alicia's TikTok channel at Faith Unraveled on TikTok.

Alicia 3:07:02 I do love my TikTok community. We got a big community there.

John Dehlin 3:07:07 All right, thanks guys and viewers and listeners again. You can follow this series on Mormon Stories podcast wherever you find it, or you can go to the Spotify feed for the LDS discussion series and view or listen to the episode there. You can watch all these videos in succession at the playlist, the LDS discussions playlist on on Mormon stories podcast face YouTube channel. And yeah, we really appreciate your feedback. Please share these episodes with anyone you want. Please spread the word. We really appreciate. If you're following us on YouTube, please subscribe on YouTube or wherever. We're trying to reach a hundred thousand subscribers on YouTube. That would be a real milestone and we need everyone subscribing to make that happen. And then we could never do any of this without your financial support. So thanks to everyone who donates to Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation. And if you want to support programming like this and other programming, you can go to mormonstories.org click on the donate button button and become a monthly donor. All right, everyone, you guys take care. We love you. Be kind to each other, be good to each other, and we'll see you all again soon on another episode of Mormon Stories podcast. Take care, everyone.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.