Loading summary
Transcript49 lines
- [00:01]
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.
- [00:26]
Foreign. Hi. Welcome to the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Garrett Dirkmot, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard Leduc.
- [00:38]
Professor Richard Leduc
Hello, Garrett. In this week's podcast, we're going to continue our discussion of the topic that shall not be named. We.
- [00:47]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
I like that. We'll just. We'll just say we're talking about something. Don't know what it is, but we're talking about it.
- [00:55]
Professor Richard Leduc
So when last we left you, Garrett had provided some additional context of kind of the genesis of some of these claims. We received an email from a sweet sister who has a loved one. And so just to reset that a little bit, to quote parts of this email. So his biggest issues are with Joseph Smith and church history. He did tell me that he got some of the. That he got them from reliable sources. And remember, he is an attorney, that Joseph Smith sent men on missions and while they were gone, he married their wives and that this is the real reason so many early leaders left the church. He says he knows prophets aren't perfect, but this is disgusting and totally unacceptable. And he can no longer believe he was inspired of God. Is it really true? If not, how do we know it isn't? If this is what many. If this is what many who are leaving the church are hearing with no defense of it out there, it's easy to understand why they are. And so the email, it was a very long email full of a lot of just kind of heartbreaking sentiment. And so this tugged at Garrett's proverbial heartstrings to be able to bring up kind of this topic. So, Garrett, you talked a little bit about polygamy, just slightly, and then jumped in both feet into polyandry and kind of explained that. And you had just gotten to kind of a specific case here that you were going to discuss.
- [02:34]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Yeah. And again, responding specifically to this claim that's being made that this sister is dealing with, when someone claims that they are getting their information from a. From a reliable source, the fact that they claim that they are or the fact that they think that they are is not the same thing as that they are. I know I've told this story before, but it has actually happened on a couple of occasions, but differently. But the One I remember most was giving a fireside once, and someone came up afterwards and said that, you know, I. It's all fine and good what you talked about here, but, you know, when I read this, you know, I just knew that the church couldn't possibly be true. And I said, oh, well, where did you read that? And he's like, oh, it's in the Joseph Smith papers. I read it in the Joseph Smith papers.
- [03:29]
Professor Richard Leduc
I read it there.
- [03:29]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
So, I mean, that's how you know it's true. And I don't think you really have a response to that. I mean, you can do your little fireside. He was pretty antagonistic. He said, you can do your little firesides all you want, but I mean, that's in there. That's in the Joseph Smith papers. And so how do you, how do you deal with that? And. And I said, well, that's not in the Joseph Smith papers. He's like, no, it is. I know it is. I've read it in there. And I was like, well, I know it's not, because the volume you're talking about, I wrote.
- [03:56]
Professor Richard Leduc
So it's a bit of a flex.
- [03:58]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Yeah, well, when you get.
- [04:01]
Professor Richard Leduc
Yeah, no, it's one of those things. So this is one of my favorite things about Garrett is he is a humble person and it's really a fun thing as we, as we do this podcast. And Garrett does almost all of it without notes. He just goes, right. He lives this stuff, he knows this stuff, and it's great. And so he generally is meek in his response to people who have questions or issues. You're always great about that.
- [04:35]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
But then occasionally when they say that Willard Richards killed Joseph Smith.
- [04:40]
Professor Richard Leduc
Yeah. There are a couple of triggers that Garrett has. And then is his wrath kindled and he drops it. And so this is my wife's very Old Testament in her style. And this is her favorite. When somebody says something, her favorite version.
- [04:57]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Of me is angry me.
- [05:00]
Professor Richard Leduc
Well, it is very fun. Right? So anyway, I know that generally this isn't the case. And when people have questions or issues or concerns, you're always very kind. And even when they come to you and they're incredibly wrong, but they're well intentioned.
- [05:15]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Right.
- [05:15]
Professor Richard Leduc
Then it's like, okay, well, you know, yeah.
- [05:17]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
And so, I mean, because I tried with this guy several times to explain that, no, that's not coming where it's. And he was adamant that it was. And so, yeah, at that point I had to explain, well, if what you were saying was in the Joseph Smith papers, it would be in Documents Volume one. And I wrote Documents Volume one. So I, I know that it's not in there. And he was like, oh, well, I know I've read it somewhere. And I said, I have no doubt that you've read it somewhere, but that's not the same thing as having read it from an authoritative source. And you know, honestly, I mean, Richard's right. Look, I desperately want people to believe because I believe. And it's not because it's something that, you know, BYU is not sending me an extra check in the mail for meeting with someone and trying to help them with their testimony. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ has brought great joy into my life. It has answered all kinds of questions for me. The reason why I know that I have a heavenly father and a heavenly mother, the reason why I know I can be with my family again in the next life, the fact of who I am, am that I pre existed this life. These things are things I have because of the Gospel. And, and so of course I want other people to feel that. But I also understand with so much negative things in the world, with so much sin and so much just, just evil and suffering that causes us to question and a doubt, and then with so many voices that are saying so many things, oh, definitively. Let me just tell you this about this. That proves Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet. I mean, I understand why it is that people would have doubts. I understand why when they're confronted with something that they've never heard before, that it can shake them. And so I certainly want to have empathy to people in that position because I was in that position once myself, where when I was first learning about things, it was something I hadn't learned before. And all of us are going to be in that position. All of us are at some point going to learn something about the church, its history or its doctrine that we didn't know before. And if it's presented in a negative light, well, then that might cause us to have negative feelings about it. And sometimes we're not able to process it and those things start to snowball and they start to build on top of one another and suddenly it's not just one thing, it's a dozen things. I want to have empathy for people who feel like that. I understand what it can feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you. So I want to try to provide answers for people. But I also, you're right, there are times I'm triggered.
- [08:24]
Professor Richard Leduc
Well, so, and this is when you.
- [08:28]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
When you say that Willard Richards Murdered Joseph Smith. That's apparently one of them.
- [08:32]
Professor Richard Leduc
It is one of them, but I will say that this is also one of them. You have a sweet sister who is saying that. He's saying a lot of things that I'm having a difficult time with. The problem for her is that he is a very educated individual that is probably the smartest person that she knows. Very likely. And.
- [08:57]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
And a loved one. So two things. So. So I want to believe what he's saying because I love him and he's the smartest person that I know.
- [09:06]
Professor Richard Leduc
And he's coming to me almost in this authoritative way as an attorney, saying to me, I, I know reliable sources as an attorney, this is what I live in. And builds this argument like he would in a case for why Joseph Smith sent multiple people out on mission so that he could marry their wives. And just the nature of that was such that it triggered me.
- [09:32]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Yeah, well, I mean, it's because, look, I mean, and again, you know, this person expressed that, you know, this person's still, you know, being kind about their membership and stuff like that. You know, obviously I'm not saying that this loved one isn't a great person who's just confused. I'm sure that that's the case. There's a good person. But it is a troubling thing to me when someone attempts to use facts from the past to browbeat other people into submission vis a vis their testimony. And the reason why is whether it's intentional or not. And look, oftentimes it's not intentional. Sometimes it's just someone repeating something that they heard on the latest TikTok about the church. But whether it's intentional or not, it makes assertions that are either factual or they are not. And if they're not factual, then the conclusion that is then drawn by them is also can't follow. You'll notice in this email the conclusion that, that this good sister was drawing was, you know, well, this, this would be really troubling, you know, if this is the case. So that means we need to figure out what is the case. What do we know and not know about these? And my guess is that given the lack of vetting of sources, that was done by her loved one since apparently he didn't say to her, hey, here's this John C. Bennett affidavit that even anti Mormons of the time period thought was a bunch of garbage, this is the proof that I'm using. I don't think that that's what he did. My guess is he was really making reference to one of the most. One of the most visible and popular antagonistic attacks on Joseph Smith along this line. And that is his ceiling to Mirinda Hyde. Now, Mirinda Hyde is the daughter of the Johnsons. You, you, you've probably some of you been to the John Johnson home in Hiram, Ohio. She marries orson Hyde in 1834. And the reason why this becomes problematic is in the 20th century, people begin to check essentially when the sealings took place. And then they cross reference that with Orsonheide, which most Latter Day Saints mostly know Orsonheide because they know that he was sent on the mission to Palestine. He's the one who dedicates Palestine for the return of the Jews. And so especially when we're doing Old Testament year, you probably have already talked about that a little bit. And so it appeared, or at least the argument is made, that Joseph sent Orson Hyde on his mission to Palestine so that he could marry Marinda Hyde while he was gone. Now, that argument is not an argument that's made in the 19th century. Even John C. Bennett's little affidavit that we read doesn't include any names and certainly doesn't mention that it's a later argument that's made. Where does the argument come from? Well, there is in Joseph Smith's journal, there is a notation that is made at the back of it, and it's clearly made after Joseph Smith is deceased. There's a list of apparent sealing dates, and some of them we can cross reference. For instance, one of the ceiling dates. Well, we actually don't know that they're ceiling dates. That's what we assume that they are. So, for instance, one of the entries is 1843, April 27th, William Clayton and Margaret Moon by JS at HC KS. Well, that's Heber C. Kimball's. JS is Joseph Smith. And so you have this list. April 27th, William Clayton and Margaret Moon at Joseph Smith's. At Heber C. Kimball's. William Clayton is one of the earliest practitioners of plural marriage. And he marries Margaret Moon, the. The sister of Ruth Moon, his first wife, in a plural. He marries Margaret in a plural marriage. And so some of these dates are then verifiable because William Clayton writes in his journal about the ceiling. Right. Some of these other ceilings are ceilings that we, you know, don't have as good of information on. But for instance, you have Wilford Woodruff being sealed to his wife, his first wife, Phoebe Carter, November 11, 1843. Now, so this list has, you know, several marriages. They are not all Joseph Smith marriages, in fact, most of them aren't. But at the very top, written obviously after the fact, is above the 1843 that the rest of the list is under, there is a lighter 42 that's written. And off to the side of that 42 is April on one side, and on the other side is Marinda Johnson to Joseph Smith. That's it. There is no commentary, there's no explanation. There is just the scribe who wouldn't even have been in Nauvoo in April of 42. So he literally can't be a firsthand witness. Thomas Bullock can't be a firsthand witness to this. He has written a list of ceilings and apparently after the fact, is it included this 42. Mirinda Johnson to Joseph Smith. There's no explanation, there's no declaration. There is simply these words on the page. Now that then can be taken to say, well, Orson Hyde was on his mission from late 1840 until early 1843.
- [16:05]
Professor Richard Leduc
Aha.
- [16:06]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
That means if she was sealed to Joseph Smith, she was sealed to Joseph Smith while her husband Orson was gone. That proves that there's something nefarious. Now, notice even what I just did there goes beyond the source. If this is the only source I have of that ceiling, I actually don't know anything about it. I don't know why the ceiling happened in April of 42. I don't have any commentary from Orson Hyde saying that Joseph Smith sent me to Palestine. I don't know what his voice sounded like, honestly. He was kind of a. He was a kind of a shorter guy. So maybe, I don't know, I guess I kind of made him sound like. Like Mr. Ed. But you know, that Joseph Smith, you know, sent me to Palestine so he could marry my wife. Do you have Mirinda Hyde saying that? No. You don't have any commentary from the people that are involved saying that. What do you have? You have after the fact, after this list is created, an emendation to it written at the top of the page that says April 42. Mirinda Johnson to Joseph Smith. Now, as much as people would like to argue that that's the only source that exists for this question, the reality is it's not the only Source in the 1860s. Now, this is going to seem very, very odd. If we ever do a series on polygamy, which I think these two have convinced me, I will never ever talk about it again. If we ever do do a series on plural marriage, one of the things that we'll have to spend a ton of time on is where our sources even come from. Remember I said in the first episode that plural marriage is primarily practiced in secret and only among a very small number of people in Nauvoo. Well, after Joseph Smith is murdered and after Brigham Young and the quorum of the 12 begin to lead the church, one thing becomes very apparent, and that is that because Joseph Smith taught Brigham Young plural marriage. And Brigham Young is not just taught it, he knows it, he's practicing it. He sees it. He was part of some of the sealing ceremonies. Brigham Young is not willing to just simply stop teaching what Joseph taught. There are several people who break away from the church after Joseph is murdered. One of the allegations that's made in the email that was sent to us was that so many early leaders of the church left because Joseph Smith sent them on missions to marry their wives. Well, there aren't any people that I can think of for whom that's true. William Law will apostatize. He's the one who really is the founder of the Nauvoo Expositor, and he'll eventually start his own church, and then he'll eventually abandon that and abandon Mormonism also altogether later in his life. But he. There's often the claim made that Joseph Smith attempted to marry William Law's wife. But William Law certainly isn't on a mission. And William Law himself says that that didn't happen. So when someone makes that claim, they're actually making a claim on the basis of someone that isn't William Law and that isn't a first hand witness of that. Again, Joseph was being sealed to several women during that time period. So I'm not, I'm not trying to argue that Joseph isn't practicing plural marriage. But what some people tried to argue after Joseph was murdered was that he had never taught plural marriage, that he hadn't ever taught it. This matters because this is an argument that's once again being made today by multiple apostate groups. I had a woman in my ward just the other day text me a text and ask me about something that she had seen on the Internet in which a woman claimed that different things about, about Joseph Smith and the practice of plural marriage and how there just wasn't any evidence at all that Joseph Smith ever practiced plural marriage. Well, that argument is something that was made by multiple offshoot branches like the Reorganized Church, which didn't exist right away, but eventually forms. And when it forms, one of its primary arguments is Joseph Smith never taught and practiced polygamy. Therefore Brigham Young and all The Mountain Saints out there in Utah are all apostates because they're practicing polygamy and God never taught or practiced polygamy. And D&C132 is a false revelation. Now that was the stance of what would become the reorganized church, which would become the community of Christ for many years. But it's no longer the position. As more and more sources came out, as more and more sources and research has been done, it's essentially become impossible for any historian to argue that Joseph Smith didn't teach and practice plural marriage. Yet you still have apostate groups in Utah today, such as the Denver Snuffer Group that is arguing that hey, you know how he can be the real true leader of God's people on earth? Well, it's because there wasn't really a true prophet after Joseph Smith. And you know that because Brigham Young taught polygamy and Joseph Smith never taught polygamy. The similar thing is argued by the Phil Davis group and those affiliated with him that well, Joseph Smith never taught polygamy, never taught polygamy, never taught polygamy. You'll notice in all of their claims they won't ever have a historian, a PhD holding university educated historian saying it. And you have to ask yourself that question of why. It's not like the average American historian is a friend of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If they could prove that Joseph Smith never taught polygamy, never practiced polygamy, and that all originated from Brigham Young, that would be a Pulitzer Prize best winning book and award winning book and would make them a great deal of money and would land their career. So why don't they do that? If they have the ability to do it, then why don't they? Well, you can either invent a gigantic conspiracy theory that, oh, you know, the, the Presbyterian historians and the Pentecostal historians and the Catholic historians and the Jewish historians and all the historians are all in a giant cabal desperately trying to prove that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy even though he never practiced polygamy. And by the way, they're also in league with all the Latter Day Saint historians who also believe that Joseph Smith practice practice polygamy. It's one giant unspoken cabal. Or you could take the much more rational approach. And that is the reason why someone who is no fan of the church doesn't make a name for their themselves just by proving that Brigham Young is the originator of all polygamy in Mormon is. There is no way to make that argument credible given the sources that we have. So that's my lead in to say that we once had a very different view of plural marriage in the church. I'm not saying it wasn't always difficult. It wasn't always hard. I mean, obviously that's one of the reasons why we struggle with it today, is just the very thought of it is so difficult that we wish it never happened. Many people. But in the 1860s, when the reorganized church was making the claim that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced it, it was actually our church that undertook to collect affidavits and statements and letters from the men and women who actually did practice it in Joseph Smith's time. One of those letters is William Clayton, who writes out, who explains how he wrote Doctrine and Covenant, Section 132, as Joseph Smith dictated it to him. Now, that might sound like, you know, well, William Clayton just said that, of course, after the fact. I mean, of course he'd say that. Yeah, yeah, I guess, if you want to throw that source away. Except for the fact that William Clayton in his journal on that day says that he dictates the revelation on plural marriage by Joseph Smith. That's not a credible thing for historian to throw out. Unless we're claiming that William Clayton, in July of 1843, deliberately wrote a false entry in his journal saying that he wrote out a revelation from Joseph Smith amidst other things like sold some land today and then did it, you know, and then wrote that, wrote that all out, knowing that eventually there would be a breakaway church that would claim that there wasn't any plural marriage, and he'd be able get to use that to prove that there was, in order to keep going. The plural marriage that was never taught at all in the first place.
- [25:42]
Professor Richard Leduc
That's just how deep the conspiracy goes.
- [25:43]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
And that's. Yeah. Next thing you know, the moon landing was all on a set anyway. So in order to demonstrate this, they. They knew the women that were married to Joseph Smith in his life, and they, many of them, were asked to submit affidavits attesting to that fact. Well, one of those women is Marinda Hyde. So if we go to the actual affidavit that Mirinda Hyde signs, what do we find? Here it is. So these affidavits were collected. They're sometimes called the Joseph F. Smith affidavits because he was the church historian in the 1860s and 70s that was collecting these affidavits proving that Joseph had in fact, practiced plural marriage. Of course, you know, Heber C. Kimball and William Clayton and others had it in their journals. But this was, you know, essentially pushing back against those that were claiming Joseph Smith never taught it or never practiced it from 1869 be remembered on this first day of May, 1869, personally appeared before me Elias Smith, probate judge for said county. So that's the Eliasmith is the judge Mirinda Nancy Johnson Hyde, who was by me sworn in due form of law and upon her oath saith that on the. And the day is missing here, not filled in, but the month is May, 1843, at the City of Nauvoo county of Hancock, state of Illinois. She was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Brigham Young, president of the quorum of the twelve apostles of said church, according to the laws of the same regulating marriage in the presence of Eliza Maria Partridge Lyman and Emily Dow Partridge Young. And then you have the signature of Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde. So you'll notice our problem here, because the allegation is what the allegation is. Joseph sent Orson Hyde on a mission to Palestine not to dedicate it for the return of the Jews, but so that he could nefariously, when Orson, as soon as his carriage pulls out of distance, run off and marry his wife. And yet Mirinda Hyde, in this affidavit that she gives herself and before this is a great controversy, before, you know, Fawn Brody writes her book, and before, you know, the letter to the CES director is a thing. She is saying that they were sealed in May of 1843, which would be after her husband returns. So first and foremost, I have a problem, because it's not a problem of whether or not Mirinda Hyde was sealed to Joseph Smith. Now, of course, there are many people that are sealed to Joseph Smith. In fact, after Joseph Smith's death, many women petitioned to be sealed to Joseph Smith. And in general, that that petition is granted again. Remember, they're doing adoptionary sealings at the time. And. And of course, as we've talked about before, they don't view sealing as some kind of welding with iron and concrete that now someone is married to someone, whether they like it or not, they view it as something that allows for the possibility if the agency of both parties was. Was intact. The same way that when you and I go and do baptisms for the dead in the temple, none of us come out of the font and say, well, now Jim Johnson is a Mormon, whether he likes it or not.
- [29:36]
Professor Richard Leduc
We did actually joke with my grandmother about that. We did that.
- [29:40]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
You said you're Gonna be a Mormon, whether you like it or not.
- [29:42]
Professor Richard Leduc
We literally made that exact joke.
- [29:44]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
What did she say?
- [29:44]
Professor Richard Leduc
She thought it was funny.
- [29:45]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
That's right.
- [29:46]
Professor Richard Leduc
But so. So when. When does the. The previously mentioned, you know, scrap of paper with the date. When does that become a controversy? Because you brought up a really interesting point here, that this is 1869. When does that turn into. He was sent to Palestine.
- [30:05]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Yeah, it's not until the 20th century, because we don't have a transcript of Joseph's journals until the 20th century.
- [30:11]
Professor Richard Leduc
So, like mid 20th. I mean, primarily, even 100 years.
- [30:14]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Primarily from Fawn Brody's book.
- [30:16]
Professor Richard Leduc
Book.
- [30:17]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
The, you know, no man knows my history is where this. This argument is. Is being made. Because once we have a transcript of Joseph's journals and those records are now, you know, we have people that. We have an archive that people can go look at them. They can then see the list and they can say, aha. This proves.
- [30:32]
Professor Richard Leduc
So almost 100 years after the. So this. This affidavit is taken far before there's anything that's even right now.
- [30:39]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Now, obviously, Marinda Hyde is well aware that she's in a very odd situation, right, because she's. She's literally married to the president of the Quorum of the twelve Apostles. Orson Hyde is the president of the Quorum of the twelve Apostles. He's the most senior apostle. And so, you know, when Joseph F. Smith is taking this affidavit, the head of the quorum of the 12 is Orson Hyde. Right. The point is that the argument that was made deliberately to make it more nefarious is made about something that, as a historian, I actually don't know the answer to. When was Mirinda Hyde sealed to Joseph Smith? Well, I have a notation written later in Joseph's journal that gives an April 1842 date. I have an affidavit from Mirinda Hyde herself taken later in Utah that says it was May of 18. May of 1843. I don't know which of those dates one is earlier, but not from her and not from an eyewitness. One is later, but it's from her and from an eyewitness. So.
- [32:01]
Professor Richard Leduc
So then what does. What does Orson have to say on the matter?
- [32:06]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Orson doesn't have anything to say on the matter. And in fact, one thing that we were able to essentially uncover while we were working on the Joseph Smith papers is yet another statement on this from Mirinda Hyde. This is not one that was public at the time that many of these controversies were playing out. This is a document that Became public later. It's now publicly available, and it's written by Miranda Hyde. The peculiarity of my condition in life seems to call for an explanation at my hand. The Lord gave me to Joseph Smith before I married Orson Hyde. This I did not know until 10 years after, when Joseph taught me the doctrine of celestial marriage. This was in the fall of 1841. So now we have a completely different date. A date that's different from the ceiling date and a date that's different from the notation date. Now, she isn't saying she's sealed here. The following December. The following revelation was brought to me by the apostle Wilford Woodruff. And this is a revelation that essentially says that she needs to be better taken care of while her husband's gone on. On a mission. This document, this, this statement of hers, we don't know exactly when it was written, but she references the death of Orson Hyde. Now, you should know that she actually divorces orson Hyde in 1870. So, so one of the. One of the explanations, potential explanations again, which I don't know. I don't know the answers to these things, but a potential explanation for why she was sealed to Joseph is that, you know, maybe she didn't want to be sealed to Orson. She eventually, you know, you can't get a divorce in Illinois if you're a woman, but in Utah, you can. In Utah, women are essentially the first place in the country almost where. Where they can get a no fault, essentially irreconcilable differences, divorce that they initiate. And so she does divorce him. So, so people speculated maybe that's why she was. Was. Was sealed to Joseph instead. At any rate, she, after this revelation says that she needs to be better taken care of. She then gives the rest of her explanation. Ebenezer Robinson and wife, I guess Ebenezer Robinson and wife received me and gave us shelter. Me and mine. Her and her kids gave us shelter until another place was provided. I have followed the command of the prophet Joseph as above instructed, and cherish it in my heart, the hope of. With the hope of reaching the fulfillment of its promises and blessings therein contained. And then she includes this caveat. A few years before, Mr. Hyde departed this life, and as I said, that matters for the dating. He dies in 1878, and then she dies in 1886. Which means even though this is an undated affidavit, it is signed by her, and in it she says Mr. Hyde has departed this life. So it's sometime after 1878, but before 1886, obviously, since she's the one signing it. So in the church history department, they have it as circa or around 1880, which sounds about right. A few years before Mr. Hyde departed his. This life, he told me that Joseph Smith, before our marriage, requested him not to marry me, but gave no reason for the request. And then her signature, Nancy Marin Hyde, which is interesting that she signs her middle name first there, and it seems to be. I think she might have gone by Nancy more, but. So now I have yet another wrinkle that's thrown in there, and that is that she's saying that Joseph first tells her about plural marriage in 1841, not in 42 or in 43. Now, she doesn't say in this affidavit when she was sealed. When Orson Hyde returns home from. From Palestine, he makes no mention of this. He makes no mention of this ever. And in fact himself begins practicing plural marriage and marries two other wives shortly after. Shortly after the time he returns. But this is used as one of the main, you know, clubs to beat Latter Day Saints over the head with. Ah, See what Joseph did in sending Orson Hyde on his mission in order to marry Mirinda Hyde, like a lot of things, there are some true parts of that statement. Was Joseph Smith sealed to Miranda Hyde? Yes, but the nefarious part is that. And it was done in Orson's absence, and clearly it was nefarious. And that's what makes Joseph not, you know. You know, prophets can be, you know, they're not perfect. But that's just disgusting, right, that, that argument? Well, you're making a conclusion on the basis of something that you don't even know if it happened. That they were sealed. Yes. The nature of that ceiling, we don't know at all. She doesn't live in Joseph's household. She doesn't seem to be living as if she is one, you know, like other wives of Joseph Smith that are living in the household. She does reference the fact that she was sealed to him. So she certainly feels like she was married and sealed to him in her later affidavit. But of course, like all of Joseph's plural marriages, there are no children from that marriage at all. And so we don't. We don't really know. You can see the problem with saying I know X happened when you actually don't even know if it did. You certainly don't know. Anyone who definitively says that they know when Mirinda Hyde was sealed to Joseph Smith is not telling you the truth. At the very least, they can say there's a possibility that Joseph might have married Marinda Hyde while Orson Hyde was gone. That's a true statement. It's possible. But if it's only possible, then why are we coming up with all of the other conclusions that follow it? Because it's actually just as possible, and you might even argue more possible that that ceiling took place after Orson had already returned. Also, the problem is trying to essentially create attention that the participants themselves don't seem to have. Orson Hyde doesn't seem to have that. As I said, he begins practicing plural marriage himself, and he continues to live with. With Marinda Hyde after he returns and continues to have children with her. And so we don't understand the nature of that ceiling. So someone who wants to conclude to you, A, that it was nefarious and hidden, B, that it was nefarious and wr. They are making those claims on the basis of what their opinion is, not on the basis of what the facts state. What's interesting about her affidavit is that we know from multiple sources, including some of Joseph's wives, and Orson Pratt talks about this, that Joseph, as I said in the first, seemed to know that he was supposed to teach and practice plural marriage as early as 1831, but he didn't. It would make sense then why she is reporting this conversation with. With. With Joseph Smith, perhaps that Joseph had already had revealed that he was supposed to be sealed to Mirinda Hyde and of course, was still resisting the practice of plural marriage we have in our minds. And that, of course, because it's plural marriage, everyone entered into it. Just, you know, all the men were just, you know, dancing and cheering as they did it. Instead of things like Brigham Young saying that he desired the grave, there's an entry in William Clayton's journal in which Emma and Joseph are both weeping over the fact of the revelation, knowing that they have to follow it and knowing how hard it is. It's a trite thing to place inside of someone else what their motivations are to judge them on the basis of a life you haven't lived and on the basis only of what you think you would do if you were in the circumstance. Frankly, none of us have had an angel with a drawn sword stand over us and tell us to practice plural marriage. In which case, if that's the case, then none of us have had that experience, then we don't actually know how we. We would react. And maybe that's what causes so much consternation. At any rate, if that conversation that she describes is. She's relating it correctly, then it's possible that Joseph, knowing that he was supposed to be sealed to her, but was unwilling to actually follow through on it, that in 1834 he tried to convince Orsonide, oh, you probably shouldn't marry her, and but didn't give a reason. And so Orsonide went ahead and married her. And again, they will eventually divorce. But this is an example of why actually knowing the sources and when someone says, I have this from reliable sources. Well, all of these sources are publicly available. The fact that there's multiple sealing dates for Mirinda Hyde, the fact that we don't actually know when she was sealed is something that you can do a Google search for. If you were to just go to the Wikipedia page, which you should never go to the Wikipedia page because anyone can edit it and they can put whatever they want there. If you've decided that Wikipedia is your, your, you know. No, no, I read it on Wikipedia. I mean, you know, please do better homework than that. But if that's all you did, if all you did was go to Wikipedia, you would know as you read that entry until you know what, someone listening right now is going to go change it. They're like, no, I wouldn't look. And it's not there anymore. But you would know as you read it that there are two different dates given for Mirinda Johnson Hyde's ceiling to Joseph Smith. If you were to go to the Joseph Smith Papers website and look up Mirinda Johnson Hyde, you'd see that there's two different ceiling dates given for and. And the commentary of we don't know which one it is. So anyone who's having a conversation about Mirinda Hyde being. Being sealed to Joseph, the first thing that they should say, that they don't know when it happened. Now, I understand the very fact that she was sealed to Joseph can still cause consternation and difficulty for people, but that's a different conversation than the one that we have in our email. The one we have in our email is that Joseph was deliberately sending people abroad so he could marry their wives. That's a pretty bold statement. Is, Is it the case? Well, in one case, in Miranda Johnson Hyde's case, it's possible, although it's kind of a weird argument to say, oh, yes, he's just sending people on missions to marry their wives. Orson Hyde leaves on his mission in 1840. So he, you know, he's so desperate to marry Marinda that he sends Orson Hyde but then waits two years before he actually does it. You know, that's it. That doesn't necessarily fall. And again, it's a historically ambiguous thing. I realize it's an incredibly difficult topic to talk about. And that's the reason why so many apostate groups in Utah and in America and in the world today have gained followers by simply trying to claim that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. We received another question from another listener that maybe we'll cover on another episode related to this very thing, the argument that Joseph never taught or practiced it at all. And again, what is that person doing? They are cherry picking sources to try to make an argument that no historian makes. Why doesn't any historian make it? Even one who has no, no love for the church? Because it's not a single source that demonstrates that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy. It is dozens and dozens and dozens of sources and dozens and dozens and dozens of affidavits of people who say that they practiced it. And you can see how difficult it is to make the argument. Look, Eliza R. Snow says she was married to Joseph Smith. So either Eliza R. Snow was married to Joseph Smith or she's a liar. It's pretty hard to read Eliza R. Snow's diary and all of the things she sacrifices for the church, her desperate faith in the kingdom, and to come away with the conclusion, yeah, she's just a liar. She just lies about everything. Just a liar. The reality is that there are many men and women, and especially these women who make incredible sacrifices because they believe that they're commanded by God to do it. I can think of, you know, Phoebe Woodruff statement, you know, Phoebe and Wilford Woodruff desperately loved one another. I mean, they, they were the kind of hallmark story of the 19th century, if such a thing existed. And when she talks about it, she says that when she first heard of polygamy, she fought against it as much as she possibly could. And she said, until I became sick and wretched. The one. Once I became convinced that it was a revelation through the prophet Joseph Smith, I determined to live it because she knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Now, that didn't mean that it was easy. The reality is, and I think we've covered that multiple times on these podcasts, mortality is not easy. And the reality of plural marriages is the same reality of monogamous marriages. Some of them are terrible even inside of the church, even among people who've gone to the temple, and even people who seem on the outside to be just the wonderful, great, nicest person person. Sometimes there's monsters beneath the surface. There are many tears that are shed inside of plural marriages. But there are also many men, and especially women, who defend the practice, who say that they practice it because God told them to. Women like Lucy Walker, who said an angel appears to her, tells her to practice it. We can only go so far in criticizing plural marriage before we actually begin to criticize the very women that we claim we care about. We claim that we're so concerned about the fact that they were in a plural marriage. And yet, as you read what they have to say about it, they don't want your sympathy. They don't. They want your faith. They're sending petitions to Congress calling people liars, hypocrites, and fornicators who have a problem with plural marriage. They. They are desperately arguing in the public sphere, in their writing, that God has commanded him to do it, and the federal government should allow them to do whatever God has commanded them to do. In our modern age, it makes things difficult. Every time we've ever told someone that we're a member of the church. Oh, you're one of those Mormons. How many wives you have? That kind of stuff compounded by the vile way that it has been abused and practiced by some apostate and fractional groups, you know, that have broken away from the church over the course of time, practiced in ways that it wasn't practiced when it was practiced among. Among our people. And people see those things, they. Oh, yes, that must be the way that it was. The reality is, as I said before, there are tens of thousands of individual experiences in the practice of plural marriage. And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of open questions about the practice that I can't answer as a historian. I don't know. I don't know for a certainty when Mirinda Hyde was sealed to Joseph. I know that she says that she was. And that's about where I'm at on what I can know. When we deal with a difficult topic, though, I think it's important that we take a step back and we say, so now what? Okay, I've had to come to terms with the fact that Joseph practiced plural marriage. Does that mean that he didn't actually see God in Jesus? Is the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ, or is it not? Did Joseph see and talk to the Savior of all mankind and not just once, over and over and over again? And did that same savior of all mankind deliver to him knowledge that is essential for your happiness and understanding of who you are? The very fact that you are an actual child of God, that you are a son or daughter of God that comes from Joseph Smith. Oh, I realize other Christians say we're children of God. What they mean is that we are creations of God that God created at the moment of our conception and that he formed the clay together to make us, but we didn't exist before that we are children of God to them in the meaning that we are the creations that God made out of nothing, that are totally meaningless, but that God cares about most. That's not what we mean because of Joseph Smith. We believe we have a father and a mother in heaven. We believe that we have the ability to progress, to become like our heavenly parents. We believe that we had a pre existent life. You didn't just poof into existence, that you chose to come to this mortality, even with all of its evils, even with all the difficulties, even with a bunch of sourcing problems for a historian, because you knew that was the only way to become like your. Your heavenly Father and your heavenly mother. We believe that marriage can, if both sides choose it, we believe it can be for eternity. I realize it makes us uncomfortable when we deal with plural marriage and we start to ask questions like, wait a minute, who's going to be married to who then in the next life? But the only reason you're even asking that question is because Joseph Smith's a prophet. Because no other Christian believes that marriage exists in the next life at all. So the moment Joseph Smith. If you allow Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage to cause you to believe that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet at all, you are not just throwing away the practice of plural marriage or later conceptions in the church. You're actually throwing away the fact that marriage exists at all in the next life because we're the ones who teach that. It's not taught by anyone else. You're throwing away the idea that you're a literal spirit child of God and not just some creation. You're throwing away the idea of eternal progression. You're throwing away the idea of a universal salvation of all mankind. And in its place, what do you find? Billions upon billions condemned to hell forever. Marriage relations all ceasing because they're unimportant and unnecessary in the next life. And you go from being an eternal being that's always existed to being just another creation. Sure, a favored creation of God, but one that didn't exist 50 years ago or 70 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. Instead, you give up that premortal life. Many people want to have their cake and eat it too. Many people want to continue to believe the parts of Joseph Smith's teachings that they want to believe, but without accepting the more difficult parts that he taught at the time. Though this is a difficult topic. Plural marriage, one that I hope to never cover again. Richard, please stop me if I ever again so attempt.
- [54:35]
Professor Richard Leduc
Well, at least till season 38.
- [54:37]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Season 38, we promised it. How old will I be in season 38?
- [54:41]
Professor Richard Leduc
You'll be. You'll be dead for 20 years.
- [54:43]
Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat
Okay. In 20 years, after I'm dead, my spirit will come back and do the. You know, I can't promise that. It's not mine to promise. But I do hope in all seriousness, though, that we focus on the things that we desperately want to believe, the things we want to know that are true, and with the things that we don't fully understand, we can acknowledge that we feel uncomfortable with them. That's called being normal. That's a normal reaction. But there's a big difference between a normal reaction of I'm not sure about this, to a definitive one that says there's no way this is true. The only way we can know whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet of God is the same way that we can know whether or not Jesus is your savior only through the Holy Spirit. There are always going to be those who say, Joseph Smith was not a prophet and let me show you my proof. Just like there are those who today say, Jesus was not the Christ and let me show you my proof, but Jesus is the Christ. He really did die for our sins, just as Joseph Smith really did see him and really did receive these revelations. So thanks so much for joining us and hopefully we'll cover a topic much more like rice tariffs and townships going forward.
- [56:15]
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.