wavePod

Get Wave AI

S5E10 Thus Saith the Lord - Standard of Truth | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to Standard of Truth

S5E10 Thus Saith the Lord

Standard of Truth

Thu Mar 06 2025

Summary

Podcast Summary: Standard of Truth – Episode S5E10 "Thus Saith the Lord"

Podcast Information:

Title: Standard of Truth
Host/Author: Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat
Description: Aimed at helping Latter-Day Saints better understand their history and bolster their faith, the podcast is hosted by Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, an associate professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU.
Episode: S5E10 "Thus Saith the Lord"
Release Date: March 6, 2025

Introduction

In episode S5E10, titled "Thus Saith the Lord," Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard Leduc delve into various aspects of Latter-Day Saint history, addressing listener queries, and unpacking complex theological and historical issues. The episode is a blend of insightful discussions, humor, and expert analysis aimed at enriching the faith and knowledge of its listeners.

Listener Emails and Interactions

1. Justin’s Missionary Challenge

Justin writes humorously about his missionary son stationed in the Kobe, Japan area of the joint Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Tucson mission. His playful plea highlights the ongoing "Missionary Madness March" tournament, challenging over 120 missionaries to increase engagement with the podcast.

Dr. Dirkmaat (02:40): "Right, so you're saying that your sons are not doing as good a job in moving the needle in getting people to ask for the files."
Dr. Leduc (03:01): "Kobe, Japan is now in the lead, so good work on that, Justin."

2. Brandon’s Evening Duties

Brandon shares his nightly responsibilities as the church's nighttime guardian, humorously mentioning his routine of searching for forgotten snacks and dealing with less pleasant surprises.

Dr. Dirkmaat (05:17): "You must have a young ward if there's dirty diapers in every bathroom every night."
Dr. Leduc (05:52): "You're welcome. That I got my wife hooked on your podcast about four months ago."

3. Dawson’s Encounter with Anti-Mormon Claims

Dawson narrates his experience on platform X (formerly Twitter), where he confronted an individual asserting that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. He highlights the importance of discerning credible historical sources and avoiding counterfeited scholarship.

Dr. Leduc (07:29): "Let's hear them out, guys. Let's hear them out."
Dawson (07:21 - 09:02): He explains how the individual cited a supposed expert lacking formal historical training, leading Dawson to appreciate the podcast's role in clarifying historical inaccuracies.

4. Charlene’s Inquiry on Revelation Language

Charlene poses a theological question regarding the evolution of language in church revelations. She notes that early revelations often began with "Thus saith the Lord," whereas modern revelations do not, prompting curiosity about this linguistic shift.

Charlene (33:33): "I also wonder about the language of revelation and why it has changed."

Main Discussions

A. Addressing Plural Marriage Criticisms

Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc engage in a comprehensive discussion about the historical practice of plural marriage within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They emphasize the significance of multiple independent sources corroborating Joseph Smith’s involvement in plural marriages, countering arguments that solely rely on Emma Smith’s later denials.

Dr. Dirkmaat (12:03): "The antagonistic attack, the Tanners are not biased."
Dr. Leduc (14:09): "I am not a PhD historian. Right. I am not published in this field."
Key Point: The importance of recognizing trained historians versus self-proclaimed experts in evaluating historical claims.

B. Evaluating Source Credibility

The hosts stress the necessity of relying on credible, academically trained historians when assessing historical claims about church history. They caution against accepting arguments from individuals lacking formal training or publication credentials.

Dr. Dirkmaat (12:03): "There are some things that Latter Day Saint historians believe that non Latter Day Saint historians surprisingly don't believe."
Dr. Leduc (19:13): "In history, that person is as much as a historian, is Dr. Philosis Hurlbut is a doctor."

C. Evolution of Revelation Language

Responding to Charlene’s question, the hosts explore why modern revelations no longer use phrases like "Thus saith the Lord." They attribute this shift to respect for the teachings of early prophets and the seamless integration of revelation without the need for repetitive authoritative phrases.

Dr. Dirkmaat (34:48): "In the days of Joseph Smith, it was thus saith the Lord almost daily until the revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had been given."
Dr. Leduc (35:02): "If you have this spirit, this is our guide. We know what is the true voice from heaven."

D. The Role of Living Prophets and Adaptation

The discussion highlights the adaptive nature of church teachings and the reliance on living prophets and apostles to guide the church. They argue that the authoritative teachings do not always require explicit divine phrasing to be considered revelation.

Dr. Dirkmaat (47:57): "The Family proclamation signed by all 15 prophets and revelators is a wonderful illustration of that principle."
Dr. Leduc (55:16): "Why, you have a faithful family in the church, and they are saying the exact same thing that Emma’s saying."

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

Dr. Leduc (07:29): "Or on X. Yeah, yeah. No, no."
Dr. Dirkmaat (14:15): "Do not accept the premise of a pseudo intellectual masquerading as a historian. Reject the premise outright."
Dr. Dirkmaat (33:02): "You should always, always exhibit Christlike attributes, even in those cases."
Dr. Dirkmaat (55:48): "If President Nelson says this, then it's not really. That's not really from God."
Dr. Leduc (61:40): "Kobe, Japan is out. And they're actually. We did get some others, so."

Conclusions and Insights

In this episode, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc effectively address both light-hearted and serious listener inquiries, providing a balanced perspective on church history and contemporary theological questions. They emphasize the importance of credible historical scholarship, caution against accepting unfounded claims, and elucidate the evolution of revelation language within the Church.

Key takeaways include:

Discernment in Historical Claims: Always evaluate the credibility of sources, prioritizing academically trained historians over self-proclaimed experts.
Understanding Revelation Evolution: The shift away from phrases like "Thus saith the Lord" in modern revelations is intentional, aiming to foster a deeper, more personal connection with divine guidance.
Embracing Change and Continuity: The Church's teachings adapt over time while maintaining core doctrines, emphasizing the role of living prophets and apostles in guiding members.
Cultivating Faith and Discernment: Followers are encouraged to cultivate their faith and discernment, trusting in the collective teachings of church leaders even when linguistic styles evolve.

The episode concludes with a call to listeners to continue engaging with historical and theological content, fostering a deeper understanding and strengthening their faith.

Closing Remarks: Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc wrap up the episode with their trademark humor, reflecting on the ongoing missionary challenges and encouraging listeners to share the podcast with others who might benefit from its insights.

Dr. Dirkmaat (62:08): "Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast... Until next time."

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the essence of episode S5E10 "Thus Saith the Lord," offering a detailed overview for those who haven't listened while maintaining the engaging and informative spirit of the podcast.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (0:01)

Welcome to the Standard of Truth podcast. In this podcast, Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard Leduc explore the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the life and teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. They examine the original historical sources and provide context for events of the past. They approach the history of the church with faith expertise and humor.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (0:28)

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, Dr. Richard Leduc.

Dr. Richard Leduc (0:45)

Hello Garrett. Thanks for having me back. I'm really glad to be here.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (0:48)

Well, and he means physically here. Here he is in my upstairs guest bedroom that we lovingly call a studio and also storage closet.

Dr. Richard Leduc (0:58)

Yes, thank you for putting me up with such wonderful accommodations. Absolutely lovely.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (1:03)

We aren't the Marriott and I don't even have to list off any other chains because Richard in his high browed self will only stay at Marriott's.

Dr. Richard Leduc (1:12)

It is true. It is true. You made fun of me last episode. For my snobbery with travel. Again, I'm not paying for it. It's just you travel a lot for work. You're accustomed to a certain lifestyle.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (1:25)

You've become accustomed to her face.

Dr. Richard Leduc (1:27)

That's exactly right. And so, but it's very nice here. You have a, you have a lovely continental breakfast which I very much appreciate.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (1:32)

We actually don't ever eat breakfast. Yeah.

Dr. Richard Leduc (1:34)

Well, so we have so many things to get to Gary. So many, so many things. We're just going to dive straight into the Phoebe Draper Palmer Brown mailbag. And the first email comes to us from Justin. It is my humblest of honors to write to you kind sirs on behalf of, of on the behest of my missionary child, grovel for mere chance of obtaining the content heretofore labeled as premium. It may be of interest to both of you that my son is in the Kobe, Japan area of the joint Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Tucson mission.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (9:02)

Oh, awesome. So this is exactly part of the reason why we did that episode and why we do what we do is that when people are trying to make historical arguments, they're trying to make academic arguments. I have proof that X happened or that why happened. If they're making an argument that both a non Latter Day Saint historian and a Latter Day Saint historian are not willing to make, that is a gigantic red flag. Now look, there are some things that Latter Day Saint historians believe that non Latter Day Saint historians surprisingly don't believe. Like for instance, I believe that the Book of Mormon is a translation of gold plates and it's the word of God. Now you're going to find your average Catholic historian who's writing about Latter Day Saint issues doesn't believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. But that's a difference in religious beliefs. If you have someone who's saying something like there's historical proof that Joseph didn't practice plural marriage, well then that historical proof of whether or not that event happened, not whether or not he should have or how he did it, but did he teach and practice plural marriage? If you can't find historians of any stripe inside or outside of the church that are actually qualified. Again, not just because someone's an enthusiastic. Not just because someone really believes they know a lot. There's all kinds of people who really believe they know a lot. There's they, they're falling off the back of milk trucks everywhere. You can find someone who thinks that they Are they are well versed in a topic. It's easy to find. And that's why I think what you did is. It's a great question. Look, if you're trying to tell me it's so obvious that Joseph didn't teach or practice plural marriage, why are you the one trying to tell me that? Why isn't someone who stands to profit greatly in their career from proving that? Why aren't they doing it in an academic space in a way that would publish? And the answer is actually very simple, because given the sources that exist, it's not a tenable, credible argument. There would have to be legions upon legions of false testimonies, of false reports, of false documents all conspiratorially created and put together over the course of decades in order for that one thing to be the case. And, and there really isn't evidence of any of those things. So I'm glad that that was helpful to you.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (14:47)

Yeah, because it's easy to merge having a discussion about religion and having a discussion about history. And they do, they do coincide a great deal. There's a very big difference between the argument about whether or not a man named Jesus lived and the argument about whether or not he was the Messiah. There are those atheists who argue that Jesus never even existed, that Jesus was made up, that Jesus is a myth. Now, the people making that argument are not credible historians. They aren't PhD historians because whether or not Jesus lived is a fact. And you won't find historians, again, credible historians know, PhD wielding historians arguing that Jesus never existed. But you'll find passionate people who, in their, you know, anger at Christianity will make that argument and they'll put, put it forward as if it's provable when literally no one accepts them. Even agnostic and atheist historians, agnostic historians who have completely rejected Christianity will say, guys, obviously Jesus lived. Instead of arguing over something about whether or not he even existed, just argue about whether or not he was resurrected. Why are you going to the point of arguing that didn't even happen? And it's kind of similar to people making the argument about, about the Book of Mormon. Right? Well, you don't have to as a Latter Day Saint or a non Latter Day Saint. You'd have to, as a non Latter Day Saint, you know, come up in your mind with the way that the Book of Mormon came about. You can just, you know, shelve that in the back of your mind that somehow Joseph Smith did it. Now there's, it's pretty hard to prove that, but you can at least put that in your mind. But when you start making the argument, it's proven that Sidney Rigdon was converted beforehand, secretly went to Harmony and then to Fayette and secretly wrote all the Book of Mormon, secretly using another text that no one knew that he was there, that there weren't any references to that until decades and decades and decades later. And that's where the Book of Mormon actually comes from. Just. Just dial it back. Because what you're arguing is something that no historian who doesn't believe in our church would argue, which means it's not a credible historical argument.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (19:36)

Right? It certainly doesn't mean that you've been trained on how to use sources. I mean, and this happens inside Latter Day Saint circles as well. I mean, I get emails all the time from people who say things like, I got an email just the other day from someone who said, well, given the fact that, you know, Emma, you know, said that Joseph Smith translated with a seer stone and put his. Put his face into the hat. And given the fact that in that same interview, Emma wasn't certain on when her wedding date was, doesn't that mean that we should just throw that entire thing out? No, it doesn't, because that's not how a historian uses a source. A historian is well aware, especially when someone is reminiscing about something, that they may not have all the details right as they're looking backwards, that, that they might say, for instance, Oliver Cowdery in his letters mixes up how old Joseph Smith was with the first vision and with the Angel Moroni's visit, and then tries to correct his mistake and actually corrects it to being wr after he was already wrong. So, so twice he was wrong. A historian doesn't say, obviously, Oliver Cowdery is a liar. Obviously, he wasn't even part of the translation. He obviously doesn't know. Not one word did he say is true. Instead, a historian checks to see of the things that are in those letters. What are the other independent multiple attestation sources that verify some of the things that are there? Okay, well, I can verify that. That, you know, Emma was wrong about the date of her marriage as she's reminiscing back, or actually possibly could have been written down wrong by the person interviewing her, because we don't have the original interview, actually. We just have what was published. And. But. But a historian doesn't say, well, that proves she was never married to Joseph Smith. A historian doesn't do that. Parley Pratt was present for a revelation that Joseph Smith received Doctrine Covenant, Section 49. But that revelation ended up being misdated when it was put into the Doctrine and Covenants. We know it was misdated. We have all the early versions of it, and it was misdated, but because when Parley Pratt wrote his biography, he was using the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. As how, you know, as a guideline to when these things happen. In his early life, he copied in the date that was the wrong date. And so someone might come along and say, you see, Parley Pratt was never even there. Parley Pratt's obviously a known liar. He was never there for a revelation, never even happened because he wrote the date wrong for when the revelation took place. What troubled me about the email that I got surrounding this, surrounding the translation, is that here was a faithful Latter Day Saint, someone who really believes but is so troubled by what President Nelson, the Gospel topics essays, the church's manuals are teaching that they are trying to pick apart the sources of that talk about how Joseph Smith translated by doing the exact same thing that anti Mormons do with our sources for us. What do they do? Joseph Smith said that he was about 14 in one of them and then he said he was 14 in the other. Then obviously he's making it up. I mean like you can't allow yourself to be sucked into these, these non academic ahistorical arguments that are treating sources as if they themselves are, are, are, you know, the, the Protestant Bible where each word is complete and total and there's nothing that can be done about it. So, you know, as I wrote back to the person, what. Let's first of all deal with what the question even is. You think that because Emma is wrong about some of the things she says in her email. You know what, in her email.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (24:21)

Yeah. Oh, guarantee she's on a 56K. I mean, in her interview. I'm sorry, I was referencing the email and also I'm not smart that, that because she is. She is demonstrably not accurate on some of the details she provides in, in her interview. So let's say we throw out every single thing that's in that interview. Well, first of all, you'd be throwing things out. Like Joseph Smith could barely write a carefully worded letter at the time of the translation, let alone translate the Book of Mormon. You're throwing out a lot of things that you don't want to throw out. But second of all, we would still believe that the way Joseph Smith translated was by using several different seer stones over the course of time, placing them into a hat to block out the light. Why? Because the reason why we believe that isn't because of One source. It's because of a dozen sources from half a dozen different people over the course of decades. And you have to stop and think, well, okay, Emma doesn't remember how the translation took place. What's her, what's her motivation here in why she's saying what she's saying? You know, because, because someone might say, yeah, but Emma's, you know, Emma apostatized. So, so you can't take anything that she said is true. Okay, but what's she doing in that interview? Is she attacking Joseph Smith? Is she trying to claim that the Book of Mormon is not really a miracle from God? She's literally doing the exact opposite. She's defending Joseph Smith, she's defending his character, and she's categorically staying stating that the Book of Mormon is a miracle. So if she's trying to prove that it's a miracle, regardless of her status with the, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah, why, since she was a scribe, since it was her own husband, since she was sitting across the table from him, why wouldn't she just say how it actually happened? And why, if she was going to not remember how it actually happened, which is a pretty weird thing to not remember, why would she, in place of what did happen, would she be quoting an anti Mormon book like Mormonism Unveiled, that mocked and ridiculed and attacked her husband and was one of the causes of the persecution that she and her family suffered throughout the rest of their lives? You know, I don't really remember, but you know what? Let's just say what the anti Mormons say. That's what I'll remember. Oh, the anti Mormons mock him because they said he had a stone that he placed in a hat. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was it. That was it. Book of Mormons. Totally true, though. And, and frankly, the argument just doesn't work very well for other sources. I mean, Joseph Knight isn't an apostate. He isn't writing it later in life. He isn't. He isn't trying to hurt Joseph. He doesn't ever apostatize. He's the Knight family's most faithful family in the history of the Church. And he's saying the exact same thing that Emma's saying. So why is he doing it? Because. Because he's also confused, even though it's not late. I mean, part of, the, part of what historians look for is the aggregate of multiple independent attestations of events that took place. If only one person said something took place, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But it certainly means it's much harder to verify. If dozens of people over dozens of different sources over dozens of years, all independently, without knowing that the other sources exist, say that the thing happened, well, then a historian is going to take that as a very credible evidence that that's how something happened. And, and when it comes back to the. The discussion on plural marriage, I mean, like I said, those who would say, oh, Joseph Smith never taught it or practiced it would point to two sources in which Emma kind of technically denies that Joseph practiced it by. By. By saying, you know, I only knew of one wife, you know? Well, and look, technically, Joseph was only legally married to one woman. And. And Joseph denying plural marriage publicly. When people are making allegations of the John C. Bennett version of plural marriage, which was the. The spiritual wifery thing, they'll point to that and say that proves Joseph never taught or practiced it. And what will they throw out? The dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of firsthand eyewitness accounts of people who were sealed by Joseph Smith, of people who were in marriages that Joseph Smith knew about, of people who kept records that they were in marriages that Joseph Smith sealed. And when those records do come up, like, well, what do you do with William Clayton's journal where he has multiple conversations about plural marriage with Joseph Smith? They'll say, well, William Clayton's journal is a forgery. Okay, so now you've become an archivist. You've examined the pages, you know the ink, you know that it's a for. You're saying that not because you have any evidence of it. You're saying it because you want it to be true. And that's actually the whole problem with the discussion. In the first place. You're not doing history. You just think you are because you're citing to one historical source or another, but you're not doing it the way a historian does it. A historian carefully weighs all of the evidence. It's not that the Presbyterian historian who covers Latter Day Saint history doesn't know that Emma later in life denied that Joseph practiced it. He's well aware that Emma said that, and it's not credible to him. Why? He thinks Emma is very, very credible. But unlike talking about the Book of Mormon translation, she has a very vested interest in obfuscating plural marriage. One, to protect Joseph Smith. If there's anyone who knows that no one is going to accept any explanation about plural marriage that is in any way acceptable to anyone, it is Emma Smith. By the 1860s, she has seen how the nation has reacted to the practice in Utah, and it's a doctrine that's denied by the church her son now leads. There's all kinds of reasons to carefully obfuscate that to protect Joseph's honor. But does that one statement trump the journal entries that we have? Does it trump the legion of other reminiscent testimonies of men and women who talk about being taught by Joseph, who practiced? Doesn't. And that's part of the reason why people need training. Because otherwise, you know, as, as Dawson said, you know, I might have, I might have been really troubled by the fact that they brought up one name. First of all, if all someone can bring up is one name, don't let that trouble you either. If something is so obvious that you should be arguing about it on X, there better be more than one person who thinks it. And if there's not, it is certainly not as cut and dried and as obvious as that person is claiming that it is.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (35:12)

It's interesting because people wonder where is the shift and things like that. It seems like at least part of the reason why was out of respect for. For Joseph and the revelations that he had. Now, of course, you can read Doctrine and covenant section 136 in the doctrine and Covenants. It sounds pretty much like it's the Lord speaking, right? And that's a revelation given to Brigham Young. There's a couple of places where. Where prophets talk about the fact that they. That they no longer speak that way because we shouldn't require that. Let me give you an example from Brigham Young in 1860. In 1860, Brigham Young says that no man has ever preached a sermon except by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Without this power, there is no light. In the preaching, Brother Bywater remarked that he did not desire a man of God when he arose to speak to the people, to say, thus saith the Lord of God Almighty, or thus saith Jesus Christ. So he was quoting him there. And then Brigham says, people who require this, who constantly require written revelation, have not a correct conception of revelation and its spirit. What do the present professing Christian world know about the words of the Lord that came to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other ancient prophets? They read and hear without understanding much. They have not a true conception of the truth or principles of what they're reading. This is the case with those who are continually desiring to have thus saith the Lord or more written revelations. Those who possess the spirit of revelation know the voice of the good shepherd when they hear it. And a stranger they will not follow. They discern the difference between the spirit and power of the gospel and the precepts of men. When they hear truth pour upon out upon the people in comparison like the cataract of Niagara, meaning Niagara Falls, they do not want thus saith the Lord, for it carries with it its own evidence and is revelation to the believer. They understand and the fountain within them springs up to everlasting life. And they are happy partakers of the grace of God through the administration of his servants and the truths of the Lord. It just end of the truths the Lord dispenses. And they receive truth upon truth, light upon light which cheers and comforts their hearts day by day. If you wish to understand the true principles of revelation, live it. There is no other way of obtaining eternal life. And so, you know, oftentimes people would say something similar to Brigham Young. Now, Brigham did receive revelations that were in Thus saith the Lord, but he kind of pulled back from doing that. And part of his explanation was, you should already recognize the truth. I should not have to every time I speak, say thus saith the Lord, for you to believe that it's the doctrine of the Church. If I do, then you are a bad, a bad sheep. If every single time I'm not going to listen. I mean, look, he can teach whatever he wants, but unless it's written down as a revelation, I'm not going to believe. Of course I don't. Charlene doesn't think this. I'm talking about the people that Brigham Young is chastising here. Daniel H. Wells talked about this similarly also in an 1860 conference. If we cultivate the Spirit and influence what was spoken of today, if we notice and observe its operations, it will be like the voice of the true shepherd speaking to us. If we clothe ourselves in that spirit, we shall be blessed with its guidance and inspiration. From time to time, we shall have line upon line and precept upon precept. If this influence and spirit were to control us continually, we should see, feel and appreciate it. We should know that it was from heaven and the voice of the Almighty unto us. I have heard many say that they required not thus saith the Lord because they knew the words of the servants of God to be true by the Spirit and the influence that accompanied them. This satisfies anyone who has the spirit of truth within him. And this is what we can all have. We can all attain to it. If we have this spirit, this is our guide. We know what is the true voice from heaven, and we can tell when anything emanates from the right source. So, so what's going on in the 1850s and 1860s is. Is a teaching that, you know, it's not meat that I command in all things. Early on, Joseph is receiving revelations that are rocking the foundations of all Christendom. That Jesus had to grow and progress to have all knowledge. Doctrine covenant, section 93, that hell doesn't actually exist in the way the Christian world thinks that it does. Doctrine covenant, section 76, that temples are places of sacred, eternal ordinances for Brigham. He thinks that anyone at this point who's in Utah, who is only going to follow the prophet every time the prophet says, thus saith the Lord and calls it a revelation, is someone who hasn't followed those first revelations anyway. So what would be the point in it? How would it be efficacious to them? So I think that you hear a lot of people say things like this, and when they do it, they do it primarily because they are trying to undercut teachings, doctrines and practices of the church that they don't personally want to accept. And that's the reason why. I mean, I don't know how often you'll hear people say things like, well, the proclamation on the family. That's not the doctrine of the Church. That's just. That's just a statement that that could change. Well, I mean, you don't have to look very far to know that it's the doctrine of the church. Right. Had I had a colleague the other day say that, that it's been referenced somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 times in general conference since it was. Since it was released. I mean, maybe. Maybe they believe it. I don't know. I mean, I mean, but if it was 201 times, then I would believe it really does kind of go back to the fact that as. As believers, as people are part of this restoration, we believe in following what the church is. Is teaching. But I have a much more stark example. I know that you're thinking, well, that wasn't as direct. Well, I can tell you very directly from. From Wilford Woodruff's journal when he was the prophet. He says it very clearly. I wish to make. This is. Sorry, I should tell you. This is from Wilford Woodruff's Journal, October 1891. Okay. October 25, 1891. I wish to make the following remarks upon the principle of revelation. Now, why is Wilford Woodruff making this statement? Well, 1891, you might recall, is one year removed from the manifesto that was received. That was incredibly controversial to. To us today. The manifesto is not controversial at all. We're all kinds of excited about the fact that we don't practice polygamy. But you also weren't someone coming from a polygamous household who spent the last 50 years defending the fact that it was a true principle taught by God. It was very difficult for many of the saints when it first came out. And so Wilford Woodruff is talking about this because already there were some people saying, well, it's not received as a revelation. Thus saith the Lord. So, I mean, it's. It's what Wilford Woodruff saying, but it's not revelation from God. It's not the doctrine from God. And so Wilford Woodruff said, I wish to make the following remarks upon the principle of revelation. Some had thought that revelation had ceased, but this is not the case. The Lord is with us and gives us revelation. But I will say for myself that I wish to avoid saying thus saith the Lord as far as I can when I give the will of the Lord to the people. In the days of Joseph Smith, it was thus saith the Lord almost daily until the revelations now embodied in the Book Doctrine and Covenants had been given. Since that day, President Brigham Young, President John Taylor, and myself have seldom used the words thus saith the Lord when giving the word of the Lord to the people. He goes on to say that in section 68 of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, he's giving this, obviously, with the 1876 Doctrine and Covenants. It's versioning here. It says that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, it is the word of the Lord and Revelation. I have received a revelation and a commandment from the Lord which I have not revealed to any man, which I shall reveal to this assembly. And the command of the Lord I shall give to this people. Which is this? The Lord has revealed to me that there are many in the Church who feel badly tried by the manifesto and also about the testimony of the Presidency and apostles before the Master in Chancery. That's a court. The Lord has commanded me to put the following question to the saints. And those who will give attention to it shall have the Holy Ghost to be within them to inspire them to answer that question for themselves. And the Lord has promised that the answer will be to all, all alike. This is the question which is the wisest course for the Latter Day Saints to pursue, to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage with the laws of the nation against it, in the opposition of 60 million of the people and at the cost and confiscation and the loss of all the temples and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and the 12 and the leaders or heads of the family in the church, the confiscation of the personal property of the people, all of which themselves would stop the practice. So, you know, he obviously goes on. This is what he records in his journal of the sermon that he gives. But it's very interesting that Wilford Woodruff explains that it was a practice from Brigham Young to John Taylor to. To him and on down the line to not simply say thus saith the Lord after every time they spoke. And in fact, we can see that there are times when it becomes a problematic thing because some people refuse to follow whatever was said if it didn't come out in the spirit of revelation. I guarantee there's someone listening to us right now who has a friend, a family member, co worker, you know, I guess confrontation person on X that has said something to the effect of, well, that's not doctrine because it wasn't a written revelation that. Well, I know that the Church teaches us, but that's not doctrine because of this.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (47:59)

Great example. Right. Let me jump back to one more statement from Brigham Young. In 1864, in the midst of the American Civil War, Brigham Young said that he wishes us to be one in our efforts to advance this kingdom. That God. Sorry, God wishes us to be one in our efforts to advance his kingdom. He wishes every man, every woman, every child that has attained to the years of discretion to be one in putting forth their hands, their means, and their influence to bring about this desired object. I could give you, thus saith the Lord, but the faith that we have embraced is so reasonable, rational, and consistent and so easily proved that I am not under the necessity of saying thus saith the Lord. If I wanted you to believe a mass of folly and nonsense such as others would wish you to believe, then it would be necessary to say thus saith the Lord, to operate upon the fears of the more ignorant and the superstitious of mankind. The truth always stands upon its own foundation and speaks for itself. For at this time, every elder and saint should so live that the Spirit of the Lord will witness unto them the truth of my words and the words of the apostles, without my being under the necessity of saying thus saith the Lord to enforce it. So you can see part of the point that what Brigham Young's trying to make, a true disciple, someone who believes in the restoration, who believes that God has called prophets and apostles, doesn't spend a ton of time trying to figure out if this conference talk is something I should follow, because I'm not really sure that that's doctrine. Because he didn't say the words Thus saith the Lord. In in more modern times, both Elder Anderson and President Oaks have really kind of, you know, hit this. And in his October 2019 conference talk, Trust in the Lord, President Oaks quotes some of the teachings of Elder Anderson in part because they're having a discussion about what happens in the spirit world. And part of what President Oaks is teaching is we don't know very much. The Lord has only revealed a certain amount, he says. Beyond these basics, our canon of Scripture contains very little about the Spirit world that follows death and precedes the final judgment. So what else do we know about the spirit world? Many members of the Church have had visions or other inspirations to inform them about how things operate or organize in the spirit world. But these personal spiritual experiences are not to be understood or taught as the official doctrine of the Church. And of course, there is abundant speculation by members and others in published sources like books on near death experience experiences as to all of these. The wise cautions of Elder D. Todd Christofferson and Elder Neil Neil L. Anderson in earlier General Conference messages are important to remember. Elder Christofferson taught, it should be remembered that not every statement made by a church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole church. In the following conference, Elder Anderson taught this principle. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. And this I want to emphasize so loudly I don't have the ability to highlight this. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. And again, all of you know somebody who thinks that it is. If you aren't going to listen to the apostles and prophets saying that it's not, then it doesn't really matter what you think you found in the obscure paragraph of a single talk. The family. This. Now back to this is President Oaks speaking. The Family proclamation signed by all 15 prophets, seers and revelators is a wonderful illustration of that principle. What does he say? The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidents, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Family Proclamation signed by all 15 prophets and revelators is a wonderful illustration of that principle. So it, I understand the question because, you know, language changes over time. We might speculate as to why the revelation and the doctrine given sounds different now than it did then. But I suspect that the majority of the reason why people question whether or not something is quote, a revelation from God or quote doctrine of the Church today is when they are trying to find a reason to diminish, undercut and redirect the teachings of the prophets and apostles. Today, they don't like what was taught. And so what do they do? They say, well, that's not doctrine. Well, it's being taught by the Church. That makes it by definition, doctrine. Doctrine means what is being taught. Yeah, but, but it's going to change. Well, how do you know that it's going to change? Because I don't like it. Well, that you now you finally got to the point in the argument that's not a provable statement. So just giving you a historical background of how, you know, the shift in language has happened and it was a conscientious shift. Brigham Young often said, look, I can receive a revelation as easily as I can walk home. If God needs to give us a revelation, we're going to get a revelation. But I'm not getting a revelation just so you can feel better about the truth you've already received. You need to figure out how to believe in the truth you've already received. And I think as the, as the, as the restoration unfolded, the doctrine of the, the, the doctrine of, of having living prophets and apostles is so central that God expects people who are baptized members of his church to follow what those prophets and apostles teach, what the current prophets and apostles teach without having to be commanded in every single instance.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (55:48)

If the only time that you're going to listen to President Nelson is if he says, I've had a vision or I've had a revelation, then it doesn't really matter what the church is teaching because you're not living the kind of life that you have embraced that this is the Savior's church. Imagine having that same conversation with Jesus. If Jesus Were to teach something, would you. Would you throw a mic up into his face and say, now, I know you said this, but, but, but is that, like, doctrine? Is that, like, really true? Because I don't really want to believe it. So is it, like, truthishly true or like, like. I mean, like, if it was doctrine. You just said it was doctrine. Right. I. I submit that the. The person who's always trying to figure out how not to follow what it is the prophets, apostles, and general leadership of the church is teaching is someone who's missing a place in their heart of full consecration and full commitment to the kingdom of God on earth. Yeah, obviously the things that are taught change over time. The world changes over time. Things change over time. And we expect a living church, a true and living church, to change as it responds to the needs of the members as well as it responds to the changing times as we rapidly approach the second coming of the Lord. But I hope that people listening won't try to justify their desire to not follow prophetic counsel simply because the word thus saith the Lord isn't in front of it. I know that. That none of that is what Charlene was saying. She was asking a historical question. But I kind of broadened it out because I know that there's lots of people who think, well, if President Nelson says this, then it's not really. That's not really from God. Unless he says, God told me. And every single time, without fail, the person who is saying that is someone who doesn't like what's being said every single time. And I've said it before, the true test of discipleship is not every general conference getting to the one talk that is your most favorite part. That is taught that that totally aligns to your political beliefs, to your social beliefs, to your religious beliefs. And posting that all over X looking for a fight, and posting that all over Instagram and posting that over Facebook. That's not the sign of discipleship. It's not proof of discipleship to take the thing you already believe that you already 100% agree with and broadcast it everywhere. The true sign of discipleship is taking the one that you don't agree with and not broadcast it everywhere because you're putting in the comment section. This is terrible. I can't believe this. Broadcast it everywhere and say, this is what a prophet or an apostle taught. It's tough. Look, I understand that our natural man wants to believe what they want to believe. All of our beliefs, by definition, are things that we think are reasonable, that we think are proven that we think are the case, otherwise we wouldn't believe them. We'd be super schizophrenic if in fact, we, we. We knew that what we believed was false, but we just still believed it anyway because we wanted to. So by definition, something that you believe is something you think is the case. And part of the act of discipleship, part of embracing the restoration, is saying there are going to come times when what a prophet or the Quorum of the twelve and the First Presidency together teach is not what I want to believe. And am I going to believe it, or am I going to push back, fight against it, denigrate it, find every, you know, find all manner of ways, you know, to speak against it falsely. And so hopefully everyone listening, you can, you can kind of re. Examine ourselves. We need to be sheep. It is the sheep who hear the shepherd's voice, and they are known of him and we of them of him. You know, so we. We need to. To cultivate in ourselves a willingness to follow what God continually teaches. And, yeah, people will say, oh, so you're just going to blindly follow? Yeah, just super blindly following. You know, I've only spent the last two decades of my life reading every single thing that Joseph Smith ever taught, said, or did, and all the revelations publisher unpublished and early. Brigham Young as well. But I'm just totally blindly doing it. I feel like when people say you're blindly following, what they really mean is, I don't have the same faith that you do. And so I'm going to denigrate your choice rather than ask myself the really, really, really hard question, why don't I have faith in what living prophets teach? Because the answer to that question would cause some introspection that I don't think everyone wants. So thank you so much for listening. Thank you for the great questions. They weren't the best of answers, but they were answers. They were there. And I feel like that's what we do on this podcast. And, you know, hey, we got to see which mission is going to come in with the most missionary requests.