S2E40 Prosperity Theology Part 2 1/2 and Other Bad Arguments

Summary

Standard of Truth Podcast: Episode S2E40 – Prosperity Theology Part 2 1/2 and Other Bad Arguments

Release Date: October 6, 2022

Hosted by Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, an associate professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU, the "Standard of Truth" podcast aims to illuminate the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) and bolster the faith of its members. In episode 40, titled "Prosperity Theology Part 2 1/2 and Other Bad Arguments," Dr. Dirkmaat is joined by Professor Richard Leduc and guest Dave to delve into the contentious topic of prosperity theology and address misleading historical arguments concerning church practices.

---

Introduction

The episode opens with Dr. Dirkmaat welcoming listeners to the podcast, setting the stage for an in-depth exploration of prosperity theology and its implications within the LDS community. Professor Richard Leduc and Dave join the conversation, bringing their unique perspectives to the discussion.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat:
"Welcome to the Standard of Truth podcast... where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..." [00:01]

---

Listener Mailbag: Prosperity Theology

The first segment addresses an email from a listener named Dave, who raises concerns about the LDS teaching that obedience to commandments leads to material prosperity. Dave's email questions the dichotomy between cause and effect in blessings, reflecting on scriptural promises found in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

Dave:
"I am struggling with the dichotomy of cause and effect... If you keep my commandments, you shall prosper in the land." [13:21]

---

Understanding Prosperity Theology

Professor Richard Leduc responds to Dave's inquiry by unpacking the nuanced relationship between righteousness and blessings. He emphasizes that while scriptures affirm that obedience can lead to blessings, these blessings are not always material or immediate. Instead, they can manifest in various forms, including spiritual growth and personal fulfillment.

Professor Richard Leduc:
"We know that God blesses us, but we don't know exactly what blessings correlate to what obedience... God's promises are not always swift, but they are always certain." [09:03]

Leduc references Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's 2010 General Conference talk, "Continuing Patience," to illustrate that divine blessings often transcend human expectations and timelines. The talk underscores the importance of patience and trust in God's timing, highlighting that blessings may come in ways that are not directly tied to specific actions or desires.

Professor Richard Leduc:
"The promises of the Lord, if perhaps not always swift, are always certain." [31:32]

---

Listener Mailbag: Apostasy and Historical Misconceptions on Polygamy

The conversation shifts as Dave shares a more personal and heart-wrenching email from a sister dealing with her father's apostasy. Her father has left the LDS Church, joining groups that propagate historical inaccuracies, particularly regarding the church's practice of polygamy. He believes that Brigham Young altered Joseph Smith's journals to conceal polygamous teachings, feeding into a narrative that the church misrepresents its past.

Dave:
"My dad... has started down a dark path on the Internet until he found a guy that he called Anonymous... They believe that Brigham Young killed Joseph Smith so that he could practice polygamy." [39:05]

---

Debunking Historical Inaccuracies

Dr. Leduc and Professor Leduc tackle these misconceptions head-on, dismantling the erroneous claims made by apostate groups. They meticulously analyze a meme circulating within these communities that falsely asserts Joseph Smith's opposition to polygamy, suggesting that Brigham Young edited his journals to hide his true practices.

Professor Richard Leduc:
"Joseph’s journal remains completely unaltered... Joseph is not writing in the third person; it's his scribe who documents the daily records." [58:54]

They explain the historical context and process behind the "History of the Church" project, clarifying that the portrayal of Joseph Smith in these documents is a product of meticulous historical scholarship, not manipulation by Brigham Young. The hosts highlight the abundance of contemporaneous sources, including diaries and testimonies, that unequivocally support Joseph Smith's practice and teaching of plural marriage.

Professor Richard Leduc:
"There are dozens and dozens of sources surrounding it that confirm Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage." [63:07]

Furthermore, they advocate for reliance on reputable resources like the Joseph Smith Papers, which provide transparent and comprehensive access to primary documents, allowing members to verify historical facts independently.

---

Navigating Faith and Historical Truth

Throughout the episode, Dr. Dirkmaat and Professor Leduc emphasize the importance of balancing faith with a commitment to historical accuracy. They encourage listeners to approach such sensitive topics with both spiritual discernment and intellectual rigor, advocating for thorough research and consultation of authoritative sources.

Professor Richard Leduc:
"If you're going to make a historical argument about something, then you better find some actual experts in the actual field who actually are recognized by actual publications who agree with the position you're taking." [39:47]

They also address the emotional and familial challenges that arise when members of the church encounter differing beliefs, offering empathy and practical advice on maintaining faith amidst adversity.

---

Conclusion

Episode S2E40 of the "Standard of Truth" podcast serves as a critical examination of prosperity theology and the importance of historical integrity within the LDS Church. By addressing listener concerns and debunking falsified historical claims, Dr. Dirkmaat and Professor Leduc provide valuable insights that empower members to navigate their faith with confidence and informed understanding.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat:
"If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them." [67:40]

Listeners are encouraged to visit standardoftruth.com for additional resources and to continue their journey of faith and knowledge.

---

Notable Quotes:

1. Professor Richard Leduc:
   "God's promises are not always swift, but they are always certain." [09:03]

2. Dave:
   "My dad... has started down a dark path on the Internet until he found a guy that he called Anonymous... They believe that Brigham Young killed Joseph Smith so that he could practice polygamy." [39:05]

3. Professor Richard Leduc:
   "There are dozens and dozens of sources surrounding it that confirm Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage." [63:07]

4. Professor Richard Leduc:
   "If you're going to make a historical argument about something, then you better find some actual experts in the actual field who actually are recognized by actual publications who agree with the position you're taking." [39:47]

This episode underscores the necessity of distinguishing between faith-based beliefs and historically substantiated facts, fostering a more resilient and informed Latter-Day Saints community.

Transcript

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Welcome to the Standard of Truth podcast hosted by historian Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Foreign. Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Garrett Dirkmont, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard leduc.

[Dave]

Hello, Garrett. In this week's podcast, we're gonna kick things off with the telos4fournier mailbag. The telos4fournierfournier mailbag.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

I feel that there might be some of your ancestry coming to bear. Yes.

[Dave]

Oh, my gosh. He's so French Canadian. He's from Quebec. Canadian post master in 1875. Only served a few months before being put in as the. As a member of the Supreme Court in Canada.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Wow. You. You went big. I did, absolutely. I like how these Quebecois flex their muscles. You know, it wasn't enough to just find a postmaster somewhere, but.

[Dave]

No. Also a member of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Richard's family goes very far back to Quebec.

[Dave]

We do. I believe I mentioned this on the podcast before, but we were kicked out of France in 1690. From Lyon.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah.

[Dave]

And so we've been in North America for some time.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah. At what point did you become United States of American instead of Canadian North Americans?

[Dave]

I think we started migrating over in the early 1900s. Wisconsin, Minnesota. And then you just.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

You just crossed the border then.

[Dave]

Absolutely we did.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah. You walked across Sault Ste. Marie. You saw. You saw the French name Sault Ste. Marie. That's got to be open to us. And then just. Well, that makes sense.

[Dave]

So this first email comes to us from a gentleman named Dave, esteemed Dr. Dirkmot and Corps Sergeant Major Leduc. Your most recent episode mentioned that you're looking for new titles for Richard. I originally thought about Sultan, Pharaoh, Maharaja, or any bin czar, but then landed nicely on core Sergeant Major because it's the highest rank of non commissioned officer can reach in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

So now I see why we're using Canadian.

[Dave]

That's right. That's the connection. That's right.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Okay.

[Dave]

I thought it played nicely with Richard's deep and rich Canadian heritage. First off, thanks for the tip. The sports tip on the Red Sox. I've been. That was an episode where we were looking at a format change and I gave to sports betting, Sports gambling. And my wife did not think that was funny.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

She told Us, we could never do that again at all. Yeah.

[Dave]

Also because we lost every one of those picks.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Dave]

I have been a Boston fan since I was little and it's nice to know someone besides me is naive enough to believe that they will actually win. They actually didn't get the over under for wins for the season. Dave, sorry about that second off. I would like to thank you guys for once again doing this podcast. I have listened to all the episodes multiple times. So you're the one driving our numbers. That's right. And I'm currently cycling through them again. I literally never get tired of them. Of particular note, there are episodes you did on the TV show Under the Banner of Heaven. Just yesterday I had a work colleague and friend who is not a member of our faith ask me about this TV show. Apparently he was watching it and had some legitimate questions. I will admit that even though I lived in Utah my entire life and was alive in 1984 when the Lafferty brothers were running amok, I did not know much about this.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Sorry, running a mug, kind of underselling it there.

[Dave]

But yeah, I did not know much about the tragic events until I listened to your episodes on the subject. Thanks for your insights and the response from Richard. From Richard Turley's references referenced in your show notes, I was able to answer his questions and we had a good conversation about it. Also, several months ago my wife and I were visiting my daughter and son in law's ward and the gospel doctrine teacher said that he was convinced that Abraham Lincoln had read the Book of Mormon. He also said that Lincoln spent considerable amount of time in the war chapters in Alma, specifically the chapters with the 2000 Stripling Warriors. He said he knew this because when Lincoln returned the book to the Library of Congress, the pages in that part of the book were dog eared and Lincoln was known to dog ear book pages when he read.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Wow, I may have to just interrupt there at that point. I don't know if you've listened to that one, but.

[Dave]

Oh, I'm sure that's what he's referencing.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

No, no. I mean not, not David, but anyone else. I don't know if anyone else has listened to the other, the other podcast episodes besides Rachel's mom.

[Dave]

And.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Rachel's mom, I found out, signed up for our tour.

[Dave]

That's true, that's true.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

So those people going are going to spend some quality time with Rich. You're able to the real reveal. What's Rachel's mom's real name? We've actually had lots of People emailing, guessing who the Rachel is, whose mom it is. And you know that the reveal is.

[Dave]

Coming and by the way, so just, just as an aside, it, it is actually stunning for this, the, the silly podcast that's been now going on a little over a year. The, the listeners are just the absolute first of all. The emails are always very funny that people send in.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

They're giving you fake titles.

[Dave]

But, but the, the response to the tour was actually awesome. It was ridiculous.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

I'm excited.

[Dave]

Yeah, we had, it was nearly completely full within a week. We do have about four spots that we're looking to open up additionally. But I mean it was, we'll do.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

It again unless it's a total failure and everyone says the worst thing that they ever experienced.

[Dave]

So we won't be doing it again.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Okay, so he's he's just like, he's betting the Red Sox. He's betting the outcome of our tour. He's got problem. And I'm gonna need Brady, his bishop to step in.

[Dave]

All right, so, so then he says, so, by the way, so your, your thoughts really quick on the Lincoln.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Well, on the Lincoln thing, I mean, you know, it, you know, we've talked a lot on this podcast about how we know things. How we know things. You know, that is, you know, it's an important thing when someone says, I know Joseph Smith X, I know Abraham Lincoln. Yeah. How do we know those things? And in fact, we're going to talk a little bit about that on this podcast today. But, so what do people think they know? Well, that Lincoln was scouring the pages of the Book of Mormon and he dog eared the pages. Even when you say Lincoln was known to dog ear pages that he liked. Well, first of all, that would suggest a chain of custody of the Book of Mormon in the Library of Congress that no one else had ever checked it out unless someone had checked it out, took pictures of every page, saw which ones were dog eared, and also had a sticky note that wasn't invented yet from Abraham Lincoln saying, by the way, I'm gonna use Helaman's plan to stop Leonidas Polk's advance in the, in the upper Mississippi Valley. And I expect someone to know the Leonidas Polk reference. By the way, he was a, he was a preacher and, and a terrible general, but he was a, he was a, he was a preacher who argued that the Bible, argued that slavery was from God and.

[Dave]

Okay, that's good.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Well, way to bring it down. Yeah, you know, I think, yeah. Anyway, but the point being, you know, here someone is making a claim because someone else has made that claim that definitively you know something, when in fact, what do we know? We know that the White House had the Book of Mormon in its possession. We actually don't know whether or not Abraham Lincoln read it. We know that it's eventually returned, and we know that shortly after its return, Lincoln signs the first anti Mormon bill in American history. So as we said on that podcast, I don't know how touched he was by the strategy of Helaman, if he was reading it, but much more likely he was. He was trying to understand this religion that radical Republicans in the Congress were trying to restrict. At any point, at any rate, that's, you know, that it's. It's a great to always step back and say, how do I know what it is I say that I know especially. We're talking about historical facts. We're talking about the Holy Spirit. We're talking about miracles. Look, I know that Jesus Christ lives through the Holy Spirit. I don't know that through historical facts. I don't have the ability to know that just through facts alone. But once we start to make claims about the past and we say them definitively, well, then we need to have. We need to make sure we're following rules that historians would follow to make a claim about the past.

[Dave]

Well, I think one of the other most important takeaways is that the job of a gospel doctrine teacher is difficult, but don't make stuff up.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Right. So it goes back to my dissertation advisor. Very first methods class. If any of you decide, you know what, I kind of like this podcast. I too, would like to be underemployed and have a podcast that generates no revenue. What if I were to go get a history PhD? At least Richard's getting a PhD in business.

[Dave]

Yeah.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Which is meaningless in the business world. They're like, I don't care whether or not you have a PhD, but.

[Dave]

But it. But it's. But it's. I found it incredibly valuable in the church history podcast world.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Oh, man, it's open so many doors. At first, I didn't even want him on the podcast. He said, but wait, I'm getting a PhD and I'm so ivory tower. I was like, okay, fine, I'll fight. I'll let you in the door. But if you ever did, the first thing you'd learn going through a history PhD, your methods class, one of the first things they teach you is what my methods teacher said. The key rule of history is one you can't make anything up. Now, that sounds like that's a pretty easy rule. But what you'll find, and actually, one of the topics we're going to cover today is oftentimes we don't make up the sources, but we certainly invent a narrative and a conclusion about that source that is. Is not really warranted or not really supported. And so you can't make anything up. And the other is you can't leave anything out. So if. If you know that there are three separate sources talking about the marriage of someone in a questionable marriage, well, then you don't get to just take the one that suits your purposes. You have to describe all of them.

[Dave]

And this is one of the things that you talk about quite a bit, where one of the problems with people that are amateur historians is that they know of a source and might even be a decent source. But in the particular case you're talking about, which we're going to discuss in a future podcast, we're really going to discuss it in a future podcast, not.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Like how we normally. So maybe we better finish Dave's email to tell you why.

[Dave]

Oh, yeah, it's a good point.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Hold on.

[Dave]

Okay. So he says, thank you, by the way, for. For telling him about. About that, so that he was aware of, you know, providing some clarity. And then he says, as for suggestions for future podcasts, I can honestly say I don't really care if you ever get to polygamy.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

And again, I'm assuming he means talking about it, not practicing it either, or.

[Dave]

It'S just not something I'm all that interested in. Maybe I'm the only listener that that actually is true, Dave, who feels this way, but I would much rather hear you guys talk about the Kirtland Safety Society or Zion's Camp, which topics we.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Do need to cover at some point.

[Dave]

Absolutely. So he's saying, well, you know what? Don't get to Polygamy.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah. Season 38, season 39. I don't care.

[Dave]

I don't care.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

You know what? And so because of that. Because what we were waiting for was for someone to say, I don't really care if you cover it. We're going to cover it. Dave, he did the whole switcheroo, you know, the kind of psychological thing, you know, and. And so now I feel like, you know what? Now we're going to have to. So we're going to talk about it a little bit today in response to a listener's question, and then in a couple of forthcoming podcasts, we're gonna. We are going to Take the plunge. We're gonna go 50, you know, 20,000 leagues under the sea, so. And then probably be destroyed by a giant squid.

[Dave]

So anyway, thank you, Dave, very much. Second podcast.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Email.

[Dave]

That's what I meant. What am I.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Well, we're just going to start another podcast.

[Dave]

Second. Second podcast that I'm also listening to.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Leave. He's planning to leave this.

[Dave]

You.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

You can't see this, but while we're doing this, he has two separate iPads open to the left of him with different football games on that he's watching instead of talking. The reason why he got hung up there is I think he saw Clemson score.

[Dave]

I saw Clemson not score.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

That's part of the problem.

[Dave]

So. Dear Dr. Dirkmot and Professor Leduc, I can't tell you how much I look forward to your podcast each week. You're two parter or you're true parter.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah. No, no, no, you're keeping that. I'm not cutting that out.

[Dave]

All right, let me try that again. Your two part podcast regarding Marlene's great question might even require a third part. I am struggling with the dichotomy of cause and effect. I was left pondering at the end of episode 38, not sure if there is an answer. Stuff just happens. But what keeps ringing in my ears is the scriptural teaching that is oft repeated. If you keep my commandments, you shall prosper in the land. A hundred times in the Book of Mormon and doctrine covenants, section 130, verses 20 through 21, there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. Your discussion kind of made it sound like blessing slash prosperity and their opposites are not attributable to God, but are more often just cosmic. Part of the plan we agreed upon. So far 70 years I have been living under the assumption that God will bless us for our righteousness. Of course, we don't know exactly what blessings correlate to what obedience. Probably different for each person, but according to the scriptures, there seems like there is some connection. I hope you can sense my confusion and help clear it up. Or maybe the question is just too complex to answer. I can accept that. Thanks again, Dan.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Where's Dan writing to us from? Tell us.

[Dave]

I. I think he did, but I'm trying.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

I. I protect it. Yeah, yeah. Dave was riding to us from Springville and tonight my ninth. My son's ninth grade football team is. Is Playing the, the Springville juggernaut they've torn through Springville is torn through that ninth grade league like it was, I mean, just Swiss cheese and it was a hot knife. I mean, I don't think hardly anyone's even scored on him. So I'm hoping that my son's team, you know, puts up a good effort, loses by 40. But Dan, that's a really good question. Now, Dan. So everyone knows there is two parts to the, that prosperity podcast. And Dan emailed us after the first one. And so part of, I think Dan's question, we do, we do cover, in fact, we cover those specific scriptures in the second one. So maybe he would have waited and not sent exactly that had he read it. Or probably he'd have been more frustrated at our terrible explanation. I try to make clear in the second part of that podcast that we absolutely believe that God blesses us for righteous living. The great problem of mortality, however, is we don't know what God intends to bless us with. With. I told you on an earlier podcast, very early, back before we had bad mics and when you didn't want to listen anymore and then somehow came back to it later because someone said, no, no, it's better. And then you're listening now and saying, not that even, you know, that, that when I, when even the graduate school I went to, I went to in kind of a haze of disappointments because what I thought I had earned, you know, my. By living a righteous life, by doing all the things I was supposed to do, by getting the highest grade you can possibly get, right, was that I'd get to go to the graduate school, my choice. And when the one I wanted, you know, turned me down, I was stunned. And, and I think that gives us a little bit of an insight. We don't know what it is that God deems to bless us with. And, and yes, in the Book of Mormon, I think because we think of the collective pride cycle of the Nephites, that we often attempt to apply it to individual life circumstances, right? So we think, well, you know, as long as I'm being righteous, God's going to bless me with wealth. And then because I have wealth, I'm going to start to become prideful. So I've just really got to, what I need to get is right on the top of that curve, right? I need to get to where I'm riding the wave, where I have the wealth, but I don't have the pride. And it's tough. You know, you got to, you got to keep the Commandments. Right. But almost always when that's being referenced, it's. It's a reference to the people collectively rather than individually. I think of in Alma, where they're talking about the exceedingly great length of the war, that there were many people who stopped believing in God, and then there were many people who, because of the great length of the war, who. Who believed even more. These people went through similar experiences. The reality is many people view blessings as things that you can call your shot on. Right. I'm going to go to the temple four times. And so because of that, God's going to make sure that my son does better in high school than he's doing well. Well, while we certainly can go to the temple more, while we certainly can pray more, and that might be the blessing we are asking for, I would guess that every single person listening has had the experience of fervently praying for a very specific outcome and blessing and not getting it.

[Dave]

One of the examples that we talked about as we. As we were doing show prep and reading this email before, by that he.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Means two minutes before we turn on.

[Dave]

That's right. When I turned off the Clemson, by.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

The way, I shamed him. He just turned.

[Dave]

I just turned them off. Yeah, they were. I was literally watching both of them two games at the same time, which.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Is why he said potter, old man potter rather than parter. I'm not even sure partner's a word either, though.

[Dave]

I don't think any of the things I've said were words. Was one of the things we talked about as an example of this was third Nephi, after the Savior comes to the people and you have the majority of 4th Nephi talks about things are great.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

They never could have been a happier people.

[Dave]

Yeah, right. That they had. They were. There were no poor among them and that everything was wonderful. But even in that circumstance where it's certainly the case where the people are prospering in the land, it's almost impossible to think in that hundred years that there weren't individual tragedy.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Right. Because it wasn't the millennium. So it's not like people were immortal at that point. It's not like children didn't die and they were being twinkled. You know, the reality was there still were personal tragedies. And I think that that's the difference. I think. I think that the Nephites collectively needed to be righteous in order for God to bless them collectively. But it's not much of a blessing if you're Teancum's wife and he gets killed trying to kill the leader of the Lamanites.

[Dave]

And it wasn't even just individual suffering, specifically as it relating to prospering. You can't imagine in that hundred years that there wasn't a farmer who didn't have a crop failure or that somebody didn't have a bad year as a merchant. Like everything wasn't all great all the time, despite righteousness. And certainly it's the case that the Lord does bless us, but. But the email even brings up this law irrevocably decreed in heaven. I think sometimes that we assign a prosperity or a blessing to a thing that actually isn't the law irrevocably decreed.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

And isn't the will of the Lord. Joseph says that what will eventually be in the Doctrine and Covenants comes from William Clayton's journal and it's a part of a wide ranging conversation that they're having about different topics. But if there's anybody who knows that simply living righteously doesn't bring you wealth and prosperity, it's Joseph Smith. He was living very righteously when the Kirtland Safety Society collapsed. He was living very righteously when he lost everything that he had and was thrown in jail in Missouri. The reality is, I guess if we're looking to say as long as I do X, then I'm guaranteed I'm going to get that job. I think what we have instead is the guarantee from the Lord that He knows who we are and that he is going to provide for us. Right? The same way he provides for the sparrows and the lilies of the field. But the lilies of the field aren't driving BMWs. Right? The Sparrows are not living in the biggest nest that ever existed. God certainly blesses people at times with material wealth and they in turn bless others with that wealth. But when you look at some of the most righteous people that we know, we don't see that at all. All of you right now know somebody who is a very good man or woman, who very much has dedicated their life to God and yet they haven't become wealthy or prosperous as far as the world is concerned. Now maybe, maybe even where they're at is in part because God has blessed them. But I think usually when people are having this question, they're thinking about it more in terms of I'm going to get ahead in the business world because I went to the temple last week and I know why we want to think that way. But there's a lot of reasons why it's best not to think that way. I know I've told this parable before. I mean, like, it's my parable. It's from the New Testament. Okay? But I focused on it before because I think it's really important. There's two parables in that, in the New Testament where Jesus speaks directly to this idea. One where he talks about the rich man who has so many goods, he doesn't even have a place to put them all. What am I going to do? I have so much stuff, I don't have room in my barns anymore. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to tear down my barns and build even bigger ones. And what is, you know, sure. The Lord says to him, right, that thou fool this night shall thy life be required of thee. And it doesn't really matter how much stuff you have in the barns if you die that night, Right, I'll build bigger barns. Well, you don't. You're not alive anymore, so I guess you won't be building any bigger barns. That trying to say, you know, the dangers of wealth. But then secondly, the, the poignant story of the rich man and Lazarus, where, where you have Lazarus, this righteous, very, very, very poor man. And you have, you have this rich man who apparently is not terribly righteous. He's certainly not doing anything to help Lazarus. And the, the Lazarus isn't just poor with, with no substance. He's not just homeless. He's not just eating crumbs that fall from the, from the, the table of the rich man. His body's covered in source. He doesn't have physical health. He doesn't have material wealth. He doesn't have security. He doesn't have anything. But as Jesus tells the parable, they both, you know, they die. And Lazarus goes directly to the bosom of Abraham. And the rich man, who Jesus said fared sumptuously day to day, he goes to hell. And in looking up in hell, that's when he asked that, that. That Lazarus would come and dip his finger in water and cool his tongue. For I am tormented in these flames. One of the major points of that story is that the blessings of righteous living, the most important ones, the ultimate ones, come, come in the next life. Why does that matter? It matters because it can actually cause a faith crisis for us. If I go on my mission, and I am, I really believe that as long as I keep the mission rules and I pray fervently every day and I study my scriptures and I do my best, that God will bless me with baptisms and success. Well, what happens Then when I don't have any success. And do you find yourself, like Marlene, where you say, well, there's only two things that can be at fault here. Either I'm not worthy enough or I'm not working hard enough. And of course, as we talked about in those podcasts, there's actually another will that's operative, other people's will, and we are in this mortal realm. I'd like to share. I know I've shared it before, but I'd like to share it again. This part of this talk from Elder Uchtdorf. This was early on in his apostleship, but it stuck with me so much. It was a talk on the Word of Wisdom. Now, we don't get a ton of talks on the word of wisdom in conference, but the reason why it stuck with me wasn't because, you know, I. I put down a Marlboro and a Sanka at the time, and so I guess I better start obeying the word of wisdom. No more natty light for me. It was because Elder Uchtdorf was both very vulnerable in talking about his faith and his youth, and also because of the important principle that it, that it taught me. The Talk is from 2010, the priesthood session of General Conference, April of 2010. And it's called Continuing Patience. And part of it, he's talking about how we just. We don't always receive all the things we want to receive when we want to receive them. And one of the subheadings of that talk is the Lord's way in time. So I'm going to quote from this. The children of Israel waited 40 years in the wilderness before they could enter the promised land. Jacob waited seven long years for Rachel. The Jews waited 70 years in Babylon before they could return to rebuild the temple. The Nephites waited for a sign of Christ's birth, even knowing that if the sign did not come, they would perish. Joseph Smith's trials in Liberty Jail caused even the prophet of God to wonder how long in each case, Heavenly Father had a purpose in requiring that his children wait. Every one of us is called to wait in our own way. We wait for answers, for prayers. We wait for things which at the time may appear so right and so good to us that we can't possibly imagine why Heavenly Father would delay the answer. I mean, obviously it's. Again, we break away from the talk. It's a righteous desire to want to baptize people on your mission. It's a righteous desire to want to be able to share the gospel with other people. So why am I not getting it, even if I'm doing the things I'm supposed to do? Back to the talk. I remember when I was preparing to be trained as a fighter pilot, we spent a great deal of our preliminary military training and physical exercise. I'm still not exactly sure why endless running is considered an essential preparatory part of becoming a pilot. Nevertheless, we ran and we ran and we ran some more. And this is the part that I want to focus on. This is young Elder Uchtdorf, a young man growing up in Germany at a time when there are very few members of the church living there. What does that mean? It means that his whole life he would have been an outlier to the people around him. I don't know if you know this, but Germany has an entire month where they celebrate drinking alcohol. And they also, you know, smoking and the drinking of both tea and coffee is essentially ubiquitous. Almost everyone does it. So think of how many times young Dieter had to explain that because of his faith he wasn't going to drink alcohol, that he wasn't going to smoke, that he wasn't going to. And so as they approach all this physical exercise, the very fact that he has been an outlier in keeping the word of Wisdom causes him to have some introspection that actually causes him some trouble. Back to his talk. As I was running, I began to notice something that frankly troubled me time and again. I was being passed by men who smoked, drank, and did all manner of things that were contrary to the Gospel and in particular to the Word of Wisdom. I remember thinking, wait a minute, aren't I supposed to be able to run and not be weary? But I was weary and I was overtaken by people who were definitely not following the Word of Wisdom. I confess it troubled me at the time. I asked myself, was the promise true or was it not? I love this talk because of the vulnerability of Elder Uchtdorf as an apostle, explaining that when he was a young man he had a faith question. I don't know if we want to call it a crisis, but what happened? Because he had endured at least some societal ostracization for practicing the Word of Wisdom, if not some kind of persecution, he had come to believe that the fact that he followed it would translate into immediate temporal physical blessings.

[Dave]

And as the question is brought up in the email, sometimes we, you know, we are obedient to a thing and then hoping for there to be a benefit for that thing. As it relates to doctrine covenants, section 89, it's actually pretty specific. As it says if you do these things, then these things.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

But what does run and not be weary mean? Does it mean I'm faster than every man in my unit? Does it mean that I'm going to suddenly become the best basketball player ever just because I'm obeying the word of wisdom? I don't know that we know what it means. In fact, part of that promise is that you will have great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures, revealed to you. One thing that's also interesting about Elder's talk here is there isn't an easy resolution. You know, as Dan, I love how thoughtful Dan was. He said, you know, maybe there isn't really an answer for this. Look, I'm obviously not. I'm not God. I don't know how things work. So I don't know how the tick marks of blessings work in this life or the next. And that's okay to not know. I think the problem actually comes when we think we do know. And so then we can no longer reconcile. I paid my tithing faithfully my whole life. Why would God let me lose my home? Because we thought that paying tithing meant that we would be immune from any. Any financial distress. The people who lost everything in the. In the Kirtland Safety Society were the faithful members of the church because they were the ones that were trying to do what Joseph had talked about in pooling the money together. I think of Amanda Barnes Smith, who happens to be in Haun's Mill the night that the Livingston county militia attacks and massacres everyone. She didn't even live in Hans Mill. Why was she on her way? She was walking to Far West. Why? Because Joseph Smith had received a revelation that said, go to Far West. And so her and her family was on their way to Far west. And because they were following the commandment. They were there when they were slaughtered, when her. When her husband and her son were murdered and her other son was maimed. The reality is she could easily shake her fist at heaven and say, God, why didn't you protect me since I was keeping your commandments? You know what prospering in the land means to me. Not having my son and husband murdered. That's what it means to me. And for Elder Uchtdorf, he clearly thought, well, as he tells us, that what he thought the blessings of the word of Wisdom would mean is that you know what? All these guys are breaking the commandments. All of them are doing all kinds of sinning. I'm going to be by far the most physically fit person there. And then the guy who's smoking three packs a day, unfiltered, passes him while they're running. Well, now what? And, and one of the things I love about it is that he's so honest that he didn't get the answer right away. They had a question. Wait a minute. How am I being blessed with this if it's not the blessing that I want it to be? The answer didn't come immediately, he says, but eventually I learned that God's promises are not always fulfilled as quickly or in the way that we might hope they come according to his timing and his ways. Looking back, I now I know for sure that the promises of the Lord, if perhaps not always swift, are always certain. So I really want to focus on that. God's promises are not fulfilled as quickly as we want or in the way that we might hope. And so I think when we say, you know what, we are going to study the Book of Mormon as a family every single day. And you know what else? Because of that, I am going to get a better job at work and I'm going to make more money for my family, which is a righteous desire. And we study the Book of Mormon and we do all these things, and not only do we not get the better job, I get laid off from my job. Well, now, what I've been saying in my personal prayers, I've been. I've been thinking to myself, if only we just follow the commandments of President Nelson, we make the Book of Mormon study. We do it the way that we're supposed to do it. I'd connected that, that commandment to a promised blessing that I hadn't actually been promised. And I think that that is, is. Is the dichotomy. You know, as Dan says, I don't think we have an answer. I don't think there's a way to know that if I only do X and Y, that I will avoid bad things, that I'll baptize 100 people in Barcelona, or that I will. I will, you know, get the job I'm looking for at work. At times, the blessings of the Lord will take those. Those forms, and at other times, it will take other forms. My, my experience is that, that it's very difficult to assign reasons for why things happen. As a historian, we do it all the time. We try to sort things out to say, okay, well, X happened, and then because of X happened, Y happened, and after Y happened, Z happened. But as a historian, I'm using documents and I'm using events and I'm using rationality as A believer. I don't really have those same things open to me because it might make perfect sense to me that if I follow certain commandments, that God blesses me in a certain way. But as the Lord reminds us, my ways are not thy ways. Right. My thoughts are not thy thoughts. Just because something seems to be a logical conclusion to us doesn't mean that it actually is. And, and for all the people who, you know, lift themselves up and they start out poor and, and, and as they, as they strive in the gospel and get an education, they end up having made a great deal of themselves, there are also people that have it go the other way. There are rich members of the church who lose everything trying to defend the church and to pay for things of the church. Are they just not faithful? Are they just. If only they were more righteous, would they have made their wealth back? I think the problem comes in trying to assign it. I believe God blesses us, but I believe that when he's talking about people being blessed, he's talking about it collectively. He clearly can't be talking about it individually because Joseph dies in a great deal of debt, so he can't be saying, oh, Joseph's going to be prospered in the land. And as I said, there's many other examples of that as well. Now, before we leave our incredibly French mailbag.

[Dave]

We have one more. This one's a little bit longer of an email. This comes to us from, from Sister. So, and so sometimes we, when we get emails from people that are, you know, they're, they're glowing with this or that or whatever, we, we give the name.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

But when those are the emails, we just make up. Dave doesn't even exist. Dan doesn't exist.

[Dave]

Great question, Dave. Thanks for asking.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yeah, Ari, thank you so much. Like, there's two Ari's in the same ward in Missouri. There's nothing even members in Missouri, as far as I know. Now I'm getting angry.

[Dave]

Yeah, but, so, so, but when, when we get one of the things that's actually, it's very touching in, in this is we, we get emails from people that are really having struggles either for themselves or for family members. And so when we get those kinds of emails, we don't like to, we like to redact them as much as possible, not give names.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

You know, names have been changed to protect the innocent.

[Dave]

That's right. So first of all, I just wanted to thank you for these podcasts. I absolutely love them. I look forward to these every week. Many have helped me understand more about why things happen the way they did. Many things I have missed in my own readings or in our Gospel doctrine class. I listened to them all and some a few times. My favorite one so far are 2 and 3 which are good but of.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Poor poor audio quality. I mean I really peaked early and by that I mean before we started doing the podcasts.

[Dave]

For me those helped me at a time when my family is falling apart. My dad has left the church and is now preaching loudly against many of their teachings. I am far from being knowledgeable about the scriptures so it is hard for me to disagree with him in a way to prove he is wrong. I feel that I have the gift of discernment and can feel what he is saying is wrong. My dad is the type that loves to read and study. It is probably the college professor in him. He has been reading the scriptures for about six plus hours a day and anything on the Internet to help him further to study further for over 10 years. He has always had theories about things. Things we do not need to know to get through this earthly life. But sometimes fun to ponder on but not teach I would say. In 2012 he started reading dreams. End of time dreams usually which led him to Julie Rowe. We knew the family she married into so it seemed kind kind of fun at first to read her first book. The second book came out and I was no longer interested in it. But my sister and mom and dad continued on. Then the third and then her podcast. I couldn't even be in the house anymore when they listened to her. My dad couldn't get enough. This is where I see he spiraled. She taught multiple mortal probations. He soon believed this theory. He came up with a few of his own that weren't for fun. He believed them and then began to search for having his calling and election made sure he is so positive you have to have it in this life. And has started down a dark path on the Internet until he found a guy that he called Anonymous and was telling him everything he wanted to hear. Remember in Dallin H. Oaks talk in 2018 truth and the Plan. He warns against this very thing. Well, my dad ends up meeting his new idol and he confirms how right my dad is. His name is Phil Davis, the chocolate factory vision guy. He is basically a Denver Snuffer wannabe, apparently very smart and likes to pick apart the scriptures for his own agenda. Well, this is where I cannot battle. I cannot let him feel or I cannot let him feel the warnings coming from these teachings. So he and my brother and sister have joined this group, they called themselves the School of the Prophets. A few other teachings are that the church was condemned because they could not live the higher law. The church name was changed because of that. They were condemned because they did not finish the temple in Nauvoo. And they believe that Brigham Young killed Joseph Smith so that he could practice polygamy me so he does not sustain Russell M. Nelson. In fact, they say he is evil and I belong to the great and abominable church. They live next door to me. So this has been really hard.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

That is tough.

[Dave]

Yeah, I can't imagine. And going to church with all of the ward knowing how crazy he went is so much fun. She gives an example of a Facebook post that he shared about Joseph Smith that Garrett, you're going to talk about in just a second. But to conclude, where can I go to find accurate information? Not a big fan of the Internet, since I know people can put out fake information all the time. I don't need to go to him with an argument. But it's nice to know these things for myself. Sometimes just trusting the Spirit is great, but sometimes I would like to see the proof myself. I realize that I may not always have that, but some validation is nice. Thanks again for doing the podcast. I hope they continue for a long time. I definitely look forward to them. Thanks again, Sister. So and so.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Man, I It is very hard when you, when you get comments or emails. I get posts and calls and all kinds of stuff all the time from people who are really struggling. And it's all, you know, always when people are struggling most, it's when they're in a family situation where someone is leaving. And, and as Richard's talked about in a previous podcast, it's especially difficult when someone is seen as just intellectually superior or, you know, that maybe they have more education than other people in the family and then they use that to kind of browbeat the other members of their family. Well, I'm just smarter than you, and I know these sources and you don't. So that's how I know what's true. I mean, there are so many aspects to the claim that are being made that are not, that are not believed by historians. And I don't mean Latter Day Saints. I mean, go find a Presbyterian who writes on Latter Day Saint history and they will not say that these are correct things, these movements. You know, she referenced a couple that we've talked about before, Denver Snuffer and Phil Davis. These apostate movements, part of the reason why they gain traction in our day is because they seek to dismiss. Well, first of all, it's very self serving because, oh, the church is fallen. But guess what? I actually have the real truth that works out really well that you know, that the same person saying that it's fallen just so happens to also be the same person who has the solution and it's them. But also it allows them to avoid some of the more difficult discussions. Right. Well, lots of people struggle with plural marriage. Even though we told Dave we're going to talk about it. You know what? Probably still not. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. We'll talk about a little bit today. We'll talk about a little bit today. That it's a real struggle. Now again, we're being a little ethnocentric here. It's a real struggle if you happen to be a member of the church from certain areas in the western hemisphere. It is not a real struggle for some members of the church in other places. But if you are culturally from the western hemisphere, then yes, it's a real difficulty for many people. Even though we aren't practicing it, even though the quickest way to get excommunicated is to call up your bishop and say, hey Brady, I just got married to someone else. In Richard's case, it would be a real, it would be a real fight to the finish to see whether he would get excommunicated first or whether Becky would, would leave him first. Anyway, this, these movements like to argue that Joseph was a true prophet because everyone in the church today wants to believe that, but then say after that that the church was led by false prophets. Why? Well, because then they falsely attribute historically every teaching about plural marriage, every teaching about race and the priesthood that our church now repudiates and rejects. The things that make us feel most uncomfortable, they don't have to deal with because they just say, oh yes, well, Brigham Young was a false prophet, or in this case, Brigham Young conspired to have Joseph Smith murdered. There is not, and let me reiterate this again, you know, for however wonderfully intelligent your father might think that he is as a professor, he should know better that if you're going to make a historical argument about something, then you better find some actual experts in the actual field who actually are recognized by actual publications who agree with the position you're taking. I'm not saying that every academic has the right conclusions or does the right research. What I'm saying is this group that he's affiliated with is making a historical argument. It's one thing to Say, I just think that the church has fallen. Okay? That's a religious argument when you say that the church is fallen and Brigham Young conspired to have Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith murdered by having John Taylor and Willard Richards kill them. Well, now you're making a historical argument. And the thing about history and about academia is that you actually have to have evidence for the things that you argue. There is not. And again, let me reiterate. There is not a PhD holding professor of history that believes that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced plural marriage. But that's what these groups tell their followers. Because that is a way. Because, of course, none of them, like, you know what, we never even taught it. That was all evil. Brigham Young, Joseph never taught it. But you can't find an actual historian to say it. Why? Because we have so many sources. So anyway, they. They post this meme that, again, she's being. This. This poor woman's being browbeat with, and maybe we'll put an image of it up. I'm not sure how we can have people see it. We can maybe put a link to it or something, although I don't really want to link to anything that they're doing. And. And it's in a big black box, and on one side of a column, it's split into two columns. On one side of the column, it says Joseph Smith's unedited journal. And then there's a line drawn down the page. On the other side of the column, it says Brigham's edited version. So already here's a claim that's being made. Here's Joseph's journal. And Brigham changed Joseph's journal, right? Because on the right side, you have certain discussion, and on the left side, you have something that's more. At the bottom of the box, you have the quizzically looking. Wait a minute. Huh? Kind of, you know, emoji face. And the question, why did he edit his journal? Now, the point of all memes, really, the point of all, you know, you know, political cartoons, all art is to convey a very big idea in. In just a small image, in just a little bit of information. So images have that ability, right? I can not even know how to read, but see an image of Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden of Eden and understand some of the story, even if I'm not literate. In. In our day and age, this often takes the form of memes where people take a very small snippet of obviously, what is a much larger source. Joseph's journal. I'm going to take 1/1,000th of 1% of his journal, put it up and then next to it put something that is different and say, you know the implication, right? It's, it's edited because of the topic. Again, the argument being made by this group is that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy in Joseph's Journal, which first and foremost, understanding the source is pretty important. They're clearly cutting and pasting these images, by the way, from the Joseph Smith Papers website. So they didn't actually do any of this research themselves. They cut and pasted. I mean even the footnotes to the Joseph Smith Papers website are still in the what the. They didn't even clean up their meme is what I'm saying. They this was a lazy meme, you know, my wife would not be okay with it. It's from the 5th of October 1843. And you can do this. You can go to Joseph Smithpapers.org I want you to actually be able to access and know where these sources come from. So go to Joseph Smith Papers.

[Dave]

We'll put the link there on.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

We'll put that link and maybe also a link to the Clemson score that still bedevils Richard to this moment as he keeps glancing over to the side. His son is a huge Clemson fan. That's the reason why it matters to him. That's true. He doesn't even really care about Clemson, but he wants his son to be happy.

[Dave]

As we're interrupting this game, we're going to the Clemson Notre Dame game later. If they lose, I'll be able to get cheaper tickets. I mean this thing has financial.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

There's a lot of wider implications. We're not even talking about the money. He's been on it anyway. The October 1843 Joseph Smith Journal Thursday, October 5 morning rode out with Esquire, Butterfield to Farm, etc p.m. road on Prairie to shoe Some brethren, some land. Eve at home walked up and down street with scribe and gave in. Well that frankly it actually says instruction but instruction to try those who are preaching, teaching or the doctrine of plurality of wives on this law, period. Joseph forbids it. Period. And the practice thereof, no man shall have but one wife. So that's what's in the the journal. And so the argument is being made by this group, see, Joseph taught against polygamy. Now of course, what's going on in October of 1843 is that Joseph is currently practicing plural marriage and has been for years. Actually for a couple of years. And so as there are rumors and allegations of it, Joseph is publicly, it says, walking up and down the street telling people you can't be teaching the practice of plural marriage. Now when they say Brigham changed it. So first and foremost, important to understand your source when they say, here's what Joseph wrote. Well, Joseph didn't write this. In Nauvoo, all of Joseph's journals are kept by his scribes. In this case Willard Richards, Lord Richards keeps the journal for him. And so you'll actually find that, I mean, because it's kind of weird, right? If you were to read this and thinking it was actually Joseph writing, it's very weird that Joseph writes, Joseph forbids it, right? I mean, is. Is Joseph just like, you know, is he a popular movie star and he just refers to himself in the third person now he's like, Joseph thinks that Joseph's gonna have to go over there and get some more cornbread. Joseph is pretty excited about that. You know, Joseph's ready for that, right? I mean, that it's obvious as well as with the handwriting, if you look at the original source, that while these journals are kept at by Joseph's secretary and talk about the things Joseph does each day, these are not things that Joseph is himself writing. And in most cases it appears he's not dictating it, but rather his scribe is trying to keep a daily record of Joseph behavior here. Now, when they say Brigham Young changed it, now that's a huge alligator. Brigham's edited version here is what they're talking about. Let me read again just what they have. Thursday 5th. This morning I rode out with Esquire, Butterfield to the farm, et cetera, in the afternoon road to the prairie to show some brother, some brethren, some land, evening at home and walked up and down the streets with my scribe gave instructions to try those persons who were 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. Now where are they getting that other source? Well, they're getting that source from the multi year project to write what is first called the history of Joseph Smith, but then will later be published as the history of the Church. Willard Richards is actually someone who takes a very active participation in this and he assembles some draft notes of what he wants to write about, about this. And then the way that they write the History of the Church is they write it as if it's Joseph writing. You'll notice the difference, right? For according to this law, I hold the keys. Well, in the other one it's, it's Joseph in the third person. But the way they write the history is, is if you've ever read, you know, the six volume history of the Church, if you might have those, you know, old colored coded volumes on your shelf, they write it in first person. Which is actually a very common way of writing histories of people back then is you take their third person accounts and you write them back into first person. Why? So that it reads more like a narrative, more like a story. Now that's a weird thing for us to do today. If you were to take all of my documents and write my biography and write it into, you know, I. Garrett said, you know, I mean, you would say, well, that's weird because if you're not Garrett, why are you writing that? But it's actually a very common form of biographical writing in the 19th century, which of course this meme doesn't, doesn't describe that at all, nor the project of it. And as they're doing that, they consult multiple different sources and they will move back and forth between sources very rapidly. You know, Willard Richards will include this part of Joseph's journal, this part of William Clayton's journal, this part of a letter Joseph wrote, and this part, part of, of the Church minutes without ever telling the reader where he's getting the source of the information. Now again, at josephsmithpapers.org they have a great link that you can go to that will show you on the daily entries of the history of the Church, what sources the historians were using to write the history. Now, it still might be troubling to someone. Well, wait a minute, there's, there's this addition to, you know, Joseph has the keys and he's the one who can confer it. Well, I don't know what the historians writing this are referring to. It's possible that they have a conversation with someone like Brigham Young and he says, oh, well, Joseph was saying that because, you know, he was forbidding people preaching the practice of plural marriage unless they had authorization. They were acting like they could just do it. Now, while that might make someone feel uncomfortable, the point of this meme is to simply say, you know, the only reason why you think that the Church taught polygamy is because Brigham Young went in and, and altered Joseph's journal. First of all, Joseph's journal remains completely unaltered.

[Dave]

I was going to say we have. So we will have both links to the original journal. And then the other thing, it's crazy for the church to then post both of these things.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Well, we didn't realize how intrepid her dad was going to be.

[Dave]

Oh, I got. He discovered it.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Yes. Well, and so that's, that's the other thing. Right. Because the shock value of this is. But you didn't know that this happened. Well, frankly, I hate to break it to your father. I did know that it happened. And my guess is I understand better how the history of the, the church was created then he does. Just like whatever he was a professor in when he taught at a university. He would know that better than me. The idea behind this is, oh, look, look what I found. Look what they're hiding from you. And again, I hate to break it to him and all of the Phil Davis acolytes, historians know. We're well aware. We're well aware that the portion of Joseph's journal, this portion that's copied into the history of the church, expands upon it not just here, but literally everywhere. Everywhere. It's expanded upon. In some cases, it's expanded upon through eyewitness testimony. You talk to the person that Joseph was talking to and you add more information, sometimes from a letter, sometimes we don't know where it's expanded from. But here's the point. That is not the only reason why we think Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy. But that's what this meme wants you to think. You know, look, the only reason you think Joseph ever taught in practice, they just added that in later. Well, that and the hundreds of other sources that exist that are conveniently left out of this meme. And so that's the dishonesty again. I realize that someone who might, you know, be enamored with Julie Rowe or with the Phil Davis group, you see a giant wide conspiracy all around you. But here's the reality. Latter Day Saint scholars and atheist scholars and Presbyterian scholars and Jewish scholars and Catholic scholars and every scholar, every person who's made a name for themselves in writing 19th century history related to Latter Day Saints, all of them believe that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage because of the weight of the sources. So this meme is very disingenuous. First of all, it doesn't, doesn't show Brigham changing anything. Brigham will have the history read to him at times, but even that, I can't. I can only verify some places where he vets it before it's ever published. Maybe the scribes are simply providing more clarity because they know that there's only one person who has the keys. Of course, there's other times that Joseph teaches something like that, so maybe they feel justified in adding that in there. Regardless, this is not the only source on Joseph Smith plural marriage that exists. There are dozens and dozens of sources. It's very common. First, people affiliated with these certain apostate groups to say, well, they, you know, doctrine covenant section 132, that that wasn't written until years later. And. And, you know, it wasn't added to the doctrine covenants till 1876. Yeah, it's added to the doctrine covenants in 1876 because that's the next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants after Joseph's murder. Joseph's murdered. There is an addition in 1844, and it's not included, along with dozens of other revelations that Joseph has received that are not included. And then it's added in 1876. So the argument goes. You know what? I'll bet Brigham Young just wrote that. Well, there are some problems with that one. We have William Clayton's actual journal. He's the scribe for that revelation. And what do you find in his journal? A notation on the day that it's received saying that he received that revelation. So now your conspiracy actually goes further than you think it does. Now, William Clayton actually conspired to write in his journal many years after Joseph already teaching plural marriage, but a year before you claim Brigham Young was going to murder Joseph in order to get him to be able to.

[Dave]

That's how deep it goes.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

They go so deep that. That in fact, Clayton wrote contemporarily in his journal that he was receiving a revelation that he, of course, wasn't actually receiving, because that's going to be something that's later written, but he knew that it was going to be later written. You can see the circles that are being run in. Look, anyone can believe whatever they want to believe. My dander is raised when someone begins to make a historical truth claim that's not historically accurate. If you don't want to believe that President Nelson's a prophet, there are many, many other billions of people in the world who don't believe he's a prophet. But if you're going to make the argument that it's historically provable that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced plural marriage because of this one difference between Joseph's journal and the published history of the church, well, then it's a terrible argument it's not actually historical. If you could Point this out in every other single instance that polygamy is mentioned with every other source, then maybe it'd be a good argument. And even then, I doubt it would convince most historians, because in order to believe that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy, you would have to reject the witnesses of dozens and dozens and dozens, dozens of men and women. The very women that we. We say that we feel so bad for because of the fact that they were forced to practice polygamy. We, you know, people say things like that those same women were calling them liars because they're the ones saying that they did. You can only criticize it so far before you actually criticize the very women who said they had a spiritual experience that convinced them to practice it, like Eliza R. Snow or Lucy Walker Kimball. The reality is that plural marriages are very difficult and as I'll talk about in a future podcast, but maybe never. There are so many sources surrounding it that this is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to talk about the topic. This person, in this pithy little meme for which they did not provide any historiography, didn't inform people how Joseph's journal worked, nor how the history of the church worked in class. In fact, claiming that Brigham edited it means you're actually making a false historical claim, since Brigham isn't the one writing this. That in an attempt to convey this, because you think, ah, it's. It's proof, it's perfect, it's black and white, it's cut and dried. Anyone who believes this is being misled. You're. You're frankly not doing your due diligence. You're trying to make an easy argument. And as I've said before, easy arguments are almost always incorrect to a certain degree. They just are, because there's a lot more nuance, especially when you're talking about multiple different sources from the past. I don't think this is going to convince your father. I don't think it's going to convince anyone with that group. Because the point isn't actually to get to the historical truth of things. If it was, this meme would have a giant. Instead of a giant heading about Brigham Young lying, it would have a giant heading of. Historical sources are varied, and Joseph's journal was kept by a different scribe. So we're not entirely sure you'd have that. If the point was for you to understand history, then they would help you understand the source they're quoting. But it's not the point. The point is to do a gotcha. The point is to say, see, see, look what they've done. What else have they done? But like I said, you can't find a non Latter Day Saint historian who's going to make the argument that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy. It's not because they're desperately trying to defend President Nelson. It's because it's not a good historical argument. Hopefully that helped. I know that this is a little confusing and convoluted. I think it's fair further convincing me that we should never talk about polygamy again.

[Dave]

Until next week.

[Professor Richard Leduc]

Until next week when we all of Dave's hopes and dreams come to fruition and we we talk about the one topic he said he didn't care about. I think that we are going to be recalcitrant like that going forward. Thank you very much.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast hosted by historian Dr. Garrett Dirkmot. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth. Com. Until next time.