S5E15 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? It's Elijah

Summary

Standard of Truth Podcast – Episode S5E15: "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? It's Elijah"

Release Date: April 10, 2025

Host: Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat, Associate Professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU

In Episode 15 of Season 5 of the Standard of Truth podcast, hosts Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard Leduc engage in a lively and insightful discussion centered around church history, personal anecdotes, and listener-submitted questions. This episode delves into the integration of Jewish traditions with Christian beliefs, the historical context of the Book of Mormon, and addresses common misconceptions and challenges regarding prophetic visions within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

---

1. Introduction and Passover Traditions

[00:01 – 02:44]

Dr. Dirkmaat opens the episode with a warm welcome, introducing the podcast's mission to deepen understanding of Latter-Day Saints history and bolster faith through historical analysis. Joined by his colleague, Dr. Richard Leduc, the hosts segue into a personal discussion about blending Jewish Passover traditions with Christian Easter observances.

• Dr. Leduc shares his family's initiative to adopt the "Resurrection Seder," merging the Passover Seder with Easter's focus on the Resurrection and the Atonement. This innovative approach symbolizes the intertwined nature of Jewish and Christian faiths.

• Notable Quote:
  Dr. Richard Leduc (00:49): "We’re doing the Resurrection Seder instead of the Passover Seder."

The conversation humorously touches upon cultural mishaps, such as Dr. Leduc's attempt at a Passover-related joke in a Sephardic synagogue's gift shop, highlighting the challenges of integrating traditions across different faith communities.

---

2. Listener Email: Elder Carter's Missionary Experience

[02:55 – 05:19]

The hosts read and discuss an email from Elder Carter, an Australian missionary stationed in Norway, who humorously describes the struggles of missionary work in a region characterized by long, dark winters and a cultural affinity for defense mechanisms against existential dread.

• Dr. Dirkmaat playfully critiques Elder Carter's reference to Vegemite, an Australian spread, emphasizing the cultural disconnect and the humorous attempt to relate it to missionary challenges.

• Notable Quote:
  Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (04:19): "It's terrible. It's the worst thing that ever has happened."

---

3. Listener Email: Rebecca on Naming Traditions

[06:49 – 15:32]

Rebecca sends an email exploring the historical practice of naming daughters after their mothers, questioning its prevalence compared to modern naming conventions. The discussion reveals:

• Historical Context: Dr. Dirkmaat explains that in the 19th century, larger family sizes made the repetition of names more common, citing examples like Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith.

• Cultural Shifts: The hosts note that with smaller contemporary families, the practice has waned, though it still occurs occasionally.

• Notable Quote:
  Dr. Richard Leduc (14:21): "There are examples like Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith, who named their daughters Lucy."

This segment underscores the evolution of cultural practices within the Church and provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of historical naming trends.

---

4. Listener Email: Joseph's Inquiry on the Book of Mormon Title

[20:51 – 23:05]

A listener named Joseph poses a question regarding the original name Joseph Smith may have used for the Book of Mormon before translating its title page. The hosts navigate this scholarly inquiry by examining:

• Scriptural Evidence: Dr. Dirkmaat references Doctrine and Covenants Sections 3 and 10, which mention the "record of Nephi" and "the Book of Mormon," respectively, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the initial title.

• Historical Variables: The discussion acknowledges gaps in historical records, such as the lost 116 pages, which contribute to uncertainties about the book's original designation.

• Notable Quote:
  Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (22:35): "It's part of how historians write things that no one ever wants to read, because what you want to hear is, nope, no one said it before this."

This analytical exchange provides listeners with a deeper appreciation for the complexities involved in historical documentation and the formation of sacred texts.

---

5. Listener Email: Gabe Challenges Elijah's Visitation

[29:20 – 39:40]

Gabe's email questions the documentation of Elijah's visitation within the Church, asserting a lack of evidence until the 1850s and suggesting it was later added to the Doctrine and Covenants. The hosts engage in a robust rebuttal:

• Historical Accuracy: Dr. Dirkmaat refutes Gabe's claims by pointing to Joseph Smith's journal entries, specifically noting that the account of Elijah's appearance was documented before the 1850s by Warren Cowdery, a prominent early Church member who later apostatized.

• Canonical Evidence: They explain that while the Doctrine and Covenants was canonicalized in 1876, the original accounts existed earlier, debunking the notion that Elijah's visitation was a later fabrication.

• Critique of Antagonistic Arguments: The hosts dismantle the premise that undocumented events are inherently false, drawing parallels to other religious scriptures where miraculous events were not contemporaneously recorded.

• Notable Quotes:
  Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (31:54): "This is a perfect example of really bad anti Mormon arguments that sound really good."
  Dr. Richard Leduc (35:57): "So starting off the name conversation with your wife as, you know, the name, I absolutely refuse. Rebecca. I hate that one."

This segment serves as a comprehensive defense of the Church's historical narratives, emphasizing the importance of primary sources and scholarly interpretation.

---

6. Listener Email: Dennis on Protestant Claims of an Enduring True Church

[45:22 – 58:40]

Dennis, a recent convert to the podcast, questions Protestant assertions that a core of true believers has always constituted the true Church of Christ. The discussion explores:

• Protestant Doctrinal Claims: Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc analyze the Protestant argument that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without the need for organized authority or specific ordinances, contrasting it with LDS teachings.

• Historical Critique: The hosts argue that Protestant claims often lack concrete historical evidence, especially regarding isolated true believers who maintained pure doctrine amidst widespread ecclesiastical corruption.

• Theological Differences: Emphasis is placed on how LDS theology emphasizes both faith and works, along with ordained authority, as essential for salvation and true church membership.

• Notable Quote:
  Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (53:54): "We believe in the wrong Jesus, that's the thing."

This conversation highlights foundational theological distinctions between LDS beliefs and mainstream Protestantism, encouraging listeners to critically evaluate doctrinal claims.

---

7. Conclusion and Final Remarks

[59:00 – End]

As the episode winds down, Dr. Dirkmaat reflects on the passionate exchanges, particularly regarding Elijah's visitation, and stresses the importance of historical evidence in affirming faith. The hosts reiterate their commitment to addressing listener questions with both scholarly rigor and personable dialogue.

• Final Thoughts: They encourage listeners to seek out accurate historical records and to approach theological disputes with both reason and faith.

• Notable Quote:
  Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (60:15): "Thank you so much for listening, Rebecca. We really, really, really hope things went well with the birth."

The episode concludes on a lighthearted note, maintaining the balance between academic discussion and relatable, everyday conversation.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Integration of Traditions: The episode underscores the value of blending cultural and religious practices to enrich personal faith experiences.

• Historical Documentation: Emphasizing the significance of primary sources, the hosts defend the authenticity of church teachings against historical skepticism.

• Theological Clarity: Clear delineation between LDS doctrines and those of other Christian denominations fosters a deeper understanding of unique beliefs.

• Engagement with Listeners: Through addressing emails, the podcast fosters a sense of community and encourages active participation in theological discourse.

Listeners of this episode gain a nuanced perspective on foundational Church history topics, challenged misconceptions, and reinforced the importance of faith grounded in historical truth.

Transcript

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

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.

Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Garrett Dirkmont and I'm joined by my sun tanned and somewhat sunburned friend, Dr. Richard Leduc.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Hello, Garrett. Thanks for having me back. I really appreciate it. I'm excited to dig in today. We're going to talk a little. Well, if there's time, we're going to get to Elijah, we're going to get to Passover. It's very exciting. I'm thrilled about it. Passover is just around the riverbend.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Why are you saying if there's time?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Because we have. There's four emails that we have to read. This is the last of those four.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Out of the hundreds of emails we've received.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But there's four that we have in the queue in the Phoebe Draper Palmer Brown mailbag. And I'm very excited because the last one is a topic I'm excited to talk about and we're not going to have time to get it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I feel like that's because we all know what happens to the extra glass of wine poured at your Passover.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I just got. I just. So I think I mentioned before trying to. Our family's trying to follow First Presidency's invitation to have more of Easter traditions. So I'm combining the Jewish traditions of Passover with the Jesus part of Easter.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

The atonement.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The atonement kind of the main thing. And so we're doing the Resurrection Seder instead of the Passover Seder. And so we were at a Sephardic synagogue not too long ago. A couple days ago, I went through their gift shop and just cleaned them out. And I'm very excited.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Anything that had anything to do with.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Elijah, I did say, which of these cups is Elijah most likely to drink from? The lady was not entertained.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

It was not as. It didn't go over as well as you had hoped that it had.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It did not. Now, she wasn't Jewish. She was just an employee.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Wait, so she was working at the synagogue, but wasn't actually.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

She's working at the synagogue gift shop.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I see. Yes, I see.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So I feel like if she'd have been Jewess. A Jewess.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That. That Joke would have landed better.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Right.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But regardless, I have so many places to put all my bitter herbs. I've got multiple chalices.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I figure that most of your table is just bitter herbs at this point. Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes, that's right. So I'm very excited about it. We won't have time to get to it. That's why I wanted to interject right there.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Okay.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Well, let's go on then.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

This first email comes to us from Elder Carter. G'day. From the land of fjords Vikings.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

That was the worst. Did I accident?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, I think. I think I nailed it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I feel like Elder Carter just went home early from his mission. He heard that and he said, good day. He said, president, things have been rough and I'm going home. Why? Because a guy that a podcast that I listen to tried to imitate our accent and it was so bad that I can't stay out anymore.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

All right, let me try again. This is from Elder Carter. Good day.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

From the land that was actually closer that closer.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

From the land of fjords Vikings and surprisingly expensive cheese. I'm Elder Carter, an Aussie missionary here in Norway, and your podcast has been a lifeline. Honestly, it's been keeping the existential dread at bay, mostly. The long, dark winters and the sheer number of trolls, metaphorical mostly, can get to a person. I've been hearing whispers about these legendary missionary email benefit you offer. Now, while I'm not battling a goat's theological dietary preference yet, I'm engaged in an ongoing uphill battle to convert Norwegians to the gospel. It's a bit like trying to explain Vegemite to a polar bear. Challenging but rewarding Vegemite, by the way.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

It's terrible.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's the worst thing that ever has happened.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

When we went to Australia, multiple people tried to tell us how wonderful it was. All of those people will now go to the telestial kingdom, because that's where liars go. And whosoever loves and makes a lie is the person who says, just try Vegemite. It's awesome.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So for those that have not had Vegemite, let me try to explain it. Do you know this? The. The center of a fig Newton. Okay.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Which I like, though.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, so take this. The consistency of the center of a Fig Newton. Now make that taste like feet. And you've got Vegemite and not just.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Like feet that like, hey, I just got out of the shower. Feet.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, a really. A really heavy gentleman that's been just.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Running laps and I've been wearing sandals out in the dust. For seven days straight. Kind of.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's Vegemite.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

And by the way, Norwegians likely have a similar reaction to the gospel that I have to Vegemite, which is very support.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

We have a good friend who served his mission in. In Norway, and, you know.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, it's great mission, great place, wonderful people. European missions can be tough.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah. Especially Nordic European missions. So keep fighting the good fight, Elder, and eventually you'll be home to all the Vegemite you could possibly want.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, you have your Tim Tam. You'll have a Tim Tam slam. Vegemite.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

You'll be able to go to whatever they call. What do they call Burger King there? What was it they had the special name that they had for it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm going to get the crack research staff on top of that. And I'll interrupt you in the middle of a spiritual point 30 minutes from now with that answer. Between teaching lessons in rapidly deteriorating Norwegian, dodging rogue reindeer, and trying to explain cricket to locals, your podcast has been a real spiritual boost. So would you consider extending these missionary email benefits to a sunburnt Aussie trying to share the good word in the land of the midnight sun? I'd be eternally grateful. P.S. any tips on how to explain the concept of fair dinkum in Norwegian? It's proving difficult. So fair dinkum is. It means, you know, kind of like genuine. Right. Real. In kind of the Aussie slang. I did look it up. This is going to be pronounced very poorly.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, we need Mike to help us.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Ekti. Ekta. E K, T E means real or genuine. Or rigtig means right or correct. It depends on the context. So you can go ahead and try those.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

That's very similar to German.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Is that right? Oh, there you go. So now this next email comes to us from friend of the show, Rebecca. Rebecca. Her entire family is one of my favorite people.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And Rebecca's a warrior.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

She is. Hello, honorable doctors. Well, that's. She's already overstepped.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

You might remember overreached from years past. We once read an email in the Long, long ago. If you're a longtime listener, we once read an email from a woman who wrote to us while she was currently in labor at the hospital. She was writing to us there.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I am once again at the hospital in labor writing to you because the last time I did this, you read my email. And by the way, this is. This is the standard of truth guarantee.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

The promise if you write to us while you're currently in labor and it's not about polygamy. We'll. We'll read the email.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Obviously you could lie about it. So we will need some sort of birth certificate.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, we need. We need a hospital. Discharge papers. We need not just pictures because you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Can just say, oh hey.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Well, we started off saying how much we love the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mission. And we just got a whole bunch of people in Tasmania saying that they were the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania South Mission.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, the elder Carter is in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania North Mission. The last time I did this. You read my email. That's what it takes. I guess it's true. Full disclosure, the anesthesiologist was by recently. I'm in a considerable, considerably better mood. That's how I managed to write my email last time too. And although I may not be as hardcore as the pioneers, it does not change the fact that I'm still technically in labor. So please read my email. I do not expect this email to be the catalyst for a five part series plus an addendum like my last email was from. Oh, she's. She was the one I forgot.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

She's the one that sparked Moroni.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The longest parter of all time and the most hated. I think there's a lot. That list is long.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah. We should start keeping track of the things people hate. They are a legion for their.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes, my face is among them. I hate your stupid face. When our son was born on Moroni Day, we were delighted. But never would have dreamed we'd have a shot at having another baby on another special church History Day. P.S. september 21 is also the day my husband and I became engaged. Yes, he is. I proposed on Moroni Day in the March Madness group. Oh, very good. And he wants me to point out he is currently tied for first place. If you're wondering why he goes on to give username information having another baby.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

We're just going to need the Social Security and we're good to go. We also need your PIN number.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Having another baby on a special day in church history didn't even cross our minds. That is until we found out we were having a baby due in early April. Suddenly, April 6 or April 3 both became real possibilities as they were both within the days of my expected due date. And now here we are. The baby's birthday will be April 4th. We narrowly missed April 3rd and April 6th. You can't time everything well. So my wife never actually went into labor. We had to have it induced every time. So we got to pick our kids birthdays. That was kind of nice, I guess with ours.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I mean, Angie did not want Annika to be born on her birthday, and she was so. Yeah, we did not.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. For all of those that just, like, go into labor, you know. Good. Good for you. We pick the day we go in. It's nice. Every one of the births was great for me, except for the one where I got food sickness. I don't get as much compassion from Becky on that, but we were both really going through it. I went to Din Fung's Chinese buffet. Didn't go well for me.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, I've heard this story about how she was in labor, but you were the one who needed more care.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We were both going through it at the time, so I don't know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

As much sympathy as you've built up with our female listenership over the years, I feel like it's rapidly deteriorating.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm obviously kidding. My situation was much worse. So I guess Isaiah's comparison of the second coming to a woman in travail and Jesus statement that no man knows the day nor the hour are spot on. Like last time. I'm giving you full liberty to use this email to make up a question about church history that you are really in the mood to talk about. And you can pretend this email asked that thing.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

That's funny.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But I do also have a generic question I'd love for you to answer, if you're willing. First, some context. We are naming our daughter Rebecca, which happens to be my name. The short version of the story is that my husband named her, which is. Which is sweet. The longer version of the story is that we went through hundreds of other names, and there just aren't many girl names that my husband and I like in common. As. As in you can count them on one hand, and we already have another daughter for whom we use the only other two names we both like. Anyway, I do like my name, and my parents did a great job because Rebecca.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I figure that he basically has to say he likes her name. I mean, what are you going to say? Like, you know what. You know what name I really hate? Rebecca. I mean, I don't think that's going to go over well.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's true.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

But whether you win the pool or not, in the March madness, if you start off the name conversation with your wife as, you know, the name, I absolutely refuse. Rebecca. I hate that one.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, but it is sweet. He's like, you know, we should name her Rebecca. You have a beautiful name. It's a beautiful name. Rebecca is a wonderful name for a girl to go through with life. By the way, the four pillars of Women in Judaism. In the Sephardic synagogue we went to, they named the four matriarchs, and I forgot one, and I was embarrassed. Hugely embarrassed.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Was it Rebecca that you forgot?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, I didn't. Would never.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Okay. Because your wife.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

My wife saw he was also Rebecca.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Seems like that would be a really big. A big miss.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It'd be a big miss. But it was. It was Rachel, was Leia, Leah. It was Rebecca. And what do you think? The other.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Wait, so you said Rachel.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Rachel, Rebecca, Leah. It's the one that I forgot. And then I'm like, oh, okay. That. It's obvious after I, you know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Sarah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Sarah. It was Sarah. That's it. Well done. Look at you.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And I wasn't there.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I don't remember you going through your Hebrew school, but it's well done.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I did it. Correspondence course.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Rebecca is a wonderful name for a girl to go through life with. Although we'll actually be calling her Becky, which is actually what I call my wife as well. I've gone by Becca and Rebecca, so she will be Becky. To avoid confusion. She goes on to say, isn't your. Yeah. She mentions Becky's name. My wife. Here. Now there's. Now, here's the question for the legendary Dirk Moss. Was the naming a daughter the same as her mother more common historically than it is now? I can't think of a single individual or family that I know personally who has given their daughter the same first given name as the mother. There's the Gilmore Girls example, of course, but that's fictional. Is it, though?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I feel like a lot of people treat it as if it is real.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I will tell you, it's one of my secret loves is that show.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Wow. And that is how the podcast disintegrated.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So I binged the entire thing. My wife and daughter had already seen it. And then I'm watching it on flights and stuff, and I'm landing, like, full. I can't believe she. I thought I didn't go to Harvard.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Anyway, I feel like. I feel like this is going to require a conversation. I'll tell you what.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Not a fan of Dean. I've never really cared for him. I feel like her other boyfriends, she could change them. There's good in there. You know what I mean? Anyway, it's. No, it's still normal in our culture to give a son and father first name. Of course. Anyway, once we decided to name our daughter the same name, I suddenly started noticing examples of it, but none of them contemporary. For example, Joseph Smith Sr. And Lucy Mack Smith had a daughter named Lucy. And I learned from your podcast that the infamous Lucy Harris also had a daughter named Lucy. Anyway, so she goes on to talk about the Ingalls, but. So what are your, what do you think, Garrett?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I think that her anecdotal information is accurate, that it is a less common thing today, although it does happen. But it was much more common in the 19th century, in fact, many families. And now you have to remember that, that, you know, the average woman is giving birth eight to 10 times in the 19th century. So you think you're having a hard time coming up with girl names. I mean, imagine if you had to do it eight more times. Right.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So that's why George Foreman, really.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, just, you know, everyone. George. Yeah, even his daughters. George.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Really, really smart.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, just name them all George. I mean, another example is Wilford and Phoebe Woodruff. They name one of their daughters Phoebe. So it's actually very common in 19th century American names that one of their daughters is going to carry the name of the mother. So, I mean, what you perceive as, you're like, you know, I don't really know. I mean, we could do some deep analytics on that and see what familysearch has to say. But I would guess that it's, it is part of the nature of having smaller family sizes that as you go from having eight to 12 children to only having four children, well, you know, you, you don't have that same, you don't have that same opportunity. But then also, I mean, it seems like the passing on of names is not as prevalent in our culture as certainly as it was in theirs. It is still a fairly common thing for boys to be named after their fathers, but it's not ridiculously common. If you, if you think about it, you, you probably would have to go several families deep in your ward before you found someone who had the exact same name and not just a middle name or, you know, that, that it was, that it was their first name. But yeah, in the 19th century it was very common. In fact, I generally assume when I'm doing, you know, some trying to find out who's related to who for some historical purposes, I assume that I will find a daughter who has the same name as the mother more often than not, actually, when it's a large family.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Hungry Jacks.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Hungry Jacks. Yep, that's it. That's, that's what they call Burger King anyway. And, and you know, April 4th also has a pretty special day because that's the day that Joseph Smith wrote perhaps one of his most heartfelt letters to Emma Smith from Liberty Jail. And he wrote it in his own handwriting. So one of the letters that we have, that's in Joseph's own handwriting and a lot of by 1839, most things Joseph is having someone else write. But one of our holographic, which is what you call it, letters of Joseph Smith to Emma from Liberty jail is April 4, 1839. And you know, it's the one where he says, I sat down just as the sun is going down as we peek through the grates of this lonesome prison to write to you that I may make known to you my situation. It is, I believe, about five months and six days since I've been under the grimace of a guard day and night within the walls, grates and screaking iron doors of a lonesome dark and and dirty prison with emotions known only to God do I write this letter. So it is a powerful letter. I mean, he goes on to talk about what they've gone through and how much he misses Emma. So I think April 4th, you can, you can chalk that up to go find that letter and say this talks about the bond that Joseph and Emma have with one another.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Rebecca concludes with the pps. My sister, pre podcast era Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania missionary who wrote in a few months ago, was also expecting a baby. I guess she decided to announce it to the family on Christmas Day instead of via podcast after all. I miss a missed opportunity. Perhaps I'm rooting for a Pioneer Day baby because that would be epic at this point.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Well, look, if she wants her email read on the podcast, we've got a very clear standard while you're in labor.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, it's not while you're pregnant. Get out of here.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

No, no, we. There are too many people for that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

This next email comes to us from Joseph. What did Joseph call the Book of Mormon before he translated the title page? Since the title page was translated last, that's the subject, which is also the entire thing of the question. Well, let me read it now in the greater context. This question is for Dr. Dirkmaat. I'm a recent BYU graduate and writing a paper about the meaning of the title of the Book of Mormon. I was thinking about how Joseph translated the title page and it led me to wonder what he called the Book of Mormon before he translated the title page and found out it was called the Book of Mormon. I'd love to hear about any information and sources you have on the subject.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

So essentially, Joseph wants me to write his paper for him. Is that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's what he's saying. So we'll go ahead and record this. We'll make the transcript available to Joseph. He can just copy paste it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And of course now so will all the other thousands of people who listen. They can write the paper beforehand.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

This is true, but we're going to watermark the transcript with various comments and statements that you wouldn't want to just copy and paste directly.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, yeah, but he still will anyway. 100 essentially the chat GPT form of writing a paper. This is actually a really good question, which is why we decided to take some time on it. So this is one of those questions that you can't be certain on now. Why can't we be certain about it? A lot of times when we're talking about what did Joseph know and when did he know it, we are going off of assumption. And the reason why we're going off of assumption is there are all kinds of variables for which we can't answer. I mean, obviously you always have the variable of, you know, Joseph got a revelation that told him something that we don't know about. But I mean, even more direct, we know that there are variables that we don't know the answer to. First variable in this equation, Joseph has met with Moroni by the time that he is in, you know, translating the title page. Joseph has met with Moroni at least eight times at this point and he's had multiple conversations with him. Is it possible that any in any of those conversations that Moroni said this record is called the Book of Mormon? Of course that's possible. The second major variable in when did Joseph know it was called the Book of Mormon is the lost 116 pages. I have no idea how the Book of Lehi opens up. It is possible that it opens up with Mormon saying, you know, I Mormon writing my book called the Book of Mormon. I've decided I don't know what it says.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I will say we did have a fair amount of fun at that as we were trying to think about like opening it up with Lehigh. It's like, you know, Lehigh. I Lehigh having been born of decent parents. I mean, they were fine.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah. I Lehigh having been born of, you know, fair dinkum parents. Which wouldn't have been.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, because it would have been in Lehigh.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

No, it would have been. It would have been Mormon saying, well.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But possibly though, because Mormon all the time quotes directly.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

He does quote. There's a lot of quotes. So those are the variables that we have to consider. Now if we go to the actual text of what Exists generally they are referring to it as the record or the record of the Nephites or the plates. And in fact in all of the early revelations prior to that time, that's the reference that they make to it. This is the record that they have got. Now when exactly does Joseph know becomes. It becomes difficult. Part of the problem is we don't have the best dates of our 1829 revelations. So for instance, doctrine and covenant section 10, we don't have complete in the earliest manuscript version, but in it. Right. That you shall publish it as the record of Nephi. And thus I will confound those who have altered my words. So you get this record right, you shall translate this first part of the engravings of Nephi and send forth in this work. And behold, all the remainder of this work doth contain all those parts of my gospel. The holy prophets, yea, and also my disciples desired in their prayers should come forth unto this people. So here you get in, in doctrine covenant section 10. And this is the earliest manuscript version of it, a wide ranging reference to it. Right. That it shall come unto their brother in the Lamanites. And. But you don't get the terminology Book of Mormon from that. That's an, that's a spring 1829 revelation. And an even earlier revelation is doctrine covenant section 3, which again is expansive, talking about Nephites and Zoramites and all the, all the, all the ites are in there. And Doctrine and Covenant Section 3, that's in response to the loss of 116 pages. But no direct reference to this book is called the Book of Mormon now. When does it become a little bit more dicey? Well, on our premium side, the next thing that we're going to be covering, which I mean, not that anyone you know is paying attention to that, we ended up accidentally doing three, three episodes on Doctrine and Covenants Section 18. Because it was about the apostleship and any hopes that Richard had of completing the Doctrine and Covenants this calendar year.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, they were dashed.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, his countenance fell. In fact, he began beating on the ground, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I sat in the. Every time I come to record with Garrett, I always bring sackcloth ashes and one of those kiddie pools that I can sit in. Yeah, that's what it was like it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

So we did three of those. And our next is Doctrine and Covenants Section 19. And one of the things we're going to Talk about section 19 is of the changes that were made in the 2013 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, by far the biggest in terms of both import and impact is the changing of the date of doctrine covenants, section 19, which had always been a March 1830, 30 revelation, but it was actually redated to sometime in the summer of 1829. Now why does that matter? You're thinking, how could I possibly care about that? Well, for your question, how you could possibly care about it is, since it is sometime in the summer of 1829 in that revelation, what do we have? We have the Commandment. Again, this is not complete in the Book of Commandments and Revelations. So the earliest manuscript is not complete, but the portion that we do have says, I command you that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but imparted freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the word of God, which is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of which the Lamanites are a remnant that they may believe the gospel. So you have a, a direct reference to the Book of Mormon in this revelation. Is it possible that the term Book of Mormon is added later? It's always possible because this is being recorded in the Book of Commandments from Revelations in 1831, but it doesn't seem to be an addition. We wouldn't know that. And then, of course, you have the, the title page as well. So. And then the testimony of, of the witnesses surrounding the record. So I, I think that they are calling it plates. They're calling them gold plates, they're calling them the record. They appear to call it the record of the Nephites sometimes, but it, it, it. We don't have a record of them calling it Book of Mormon earlier than sometime in the summer of 1829. But you can't be precise and you can't be definitive because the variables are gigantic. For all I know, the first thing Moroni said to him was, hey, my dad wrote a book. It's going to be called the Book of Mormon, and you're going to be the one publishing it. Just don't tell anyone what the name is yet. I mean, I don't know that. I mean, it seems maybe Moroni was trying to secure copyright, I'm sure life or something. He's like, you know what, we've got to get this, it's got to go through. And then you can tell people it's called the Book of Mormon. But that's a great question. And it's one of those that, you know, we can, we can say we don't have A record of an earlier reference to the. To. To the book as the Book of Mormon prior to that time. So, yeah, that's how historians write things that no one ever wants to read, because what you want to hear is, nope, no one said it before this. And a historian has to say, according to the available sources, it appears that it's unlikely that there was a reference to it. I mean, that's what we end up to talk, which. Which makes people hate our classes and hate us personally.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, that was a good answer. A good answer. Non answer.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, that. Which is. Again, it's part of it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm really excited we're gonna have time now to get to Gabe's email.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yes, let's do it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

All right. A friend of mine introduced me to the podcast and I've been loving it. That's it. That's all I wanted to read from it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Thank you. Thank you so much, Gabe.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Really appreciate it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Tell your friend we love them.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But a question has come up that I'm trying to find an answer to. I'm sure I'm overlooking something or having a hard time finding the right way to search for it, but a friend. I have been discussing the visit. But a friend and I have been discussing the visit of Elijah, and he has someone in his ward going through a faith crisis, and they are saying there is no documentation of Elijah visiting until the 1850s and that it was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. Later, he said there was no mention in journals. It's been a long time since I went through the section of the church history in detail. So my question is if you have covered it or if you could point me to that podcast, or if you're not, if you have not, could you cover it? I have heard my fair share of anti material, but I think I've never heard a controversy surrounding this. Well, there's a reason, Gabe, you haven't heard controversy surrounding this.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And I would say to your friend's friend, I guess our friend's ward member who's bringing this up, first of all, that person is not going through a faith crisis, so to speak, if this is what they are throwing up. They are gorging themselves on the utter depths of anti Mormon subreddits. They. They are not casually wondering about. I mean, think about. Think about just the entire premise of this, right? Well, like, the reason why I know the church isn't true is because they said Elijah came, and we don't have record that he did come until later. So therefore, they were lying about Elijah and Then the whole church isn't true because of that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I mean, the entire premise, everything else is true.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

But the Elijah thing, well, that undercuts everything, right? Which. The entire argument is an ahistorical argument. If I witnessed a miracle when I was 18 and I didn't write about it until I was 40, would that prove that the miracle never took place? Would it prove it? Or would it just be something that a faithless loser uses as an argument to try to undercut what actually happened? I don't know that you've ever called anyone a loser before.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Sorry, this one has gotten your.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Your dander is way up. Maybe we'll edit that out. No, no, we can cut that out.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No. Faithless losers.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Spot on.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But, boy, this one really got you going.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Why did it?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I don't know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Maybe because I enjoy sealing keys. Is that what it is? I don't know. I love my wife and I want to be sealed, and that's great. We're going to cut that out so no one will even know what we're laughing about. So the first of all, on its face, what is the argument? The argument is if something is not recorded, the second that it happened, therefore it is false. By that rationale, all of Judeo Christian scripture is false. If that is the argument that's being made, if you are arguing, unless something. Unless someone's walking around with a pen and as an angel speaking to them, they're like, oh, hold on a second. My, my, my Pitman shorthand's not as good as it used to be. Continue. If your argument is anything that isn't written down, the second that it's going on is therefore a lie and is false. Which, by the way, whoever this friend is in this other ward, they don't do that in their own life. They constantly tell people conversations that they've had that they didn't write down at the moment. But I guess that would make them a liar then, because they didn't write them down at the moment. I mean, you can see how preposterous this is just in everyday life. How much more preposterous is it when you're talking about miracles? The Gospel of John was not written down at the time that those events took place. Does that mean the Gospel of John is false? Now, maybe this friend in another ward isn't just leaving Mormonism. They're leaving Christianity. Okay? But even then, the fact that something's not written down at the time in no way means that it was false. So I first struggle with the premise. The Premise being if no one talked about Elijah until the 1850s, which is what the email said, then therefore it's a lie and it was made up later. And it's not in any journals. Well, I have news for your friends, faithless friend. Literally, the place where the account of Elijah is written down is in Joseph Smith's journal. So they aren't just wrong. They legitimately couldn't be more wrong about what they are saying. Now, it is true that it isn't added to the Doctrine and covenants until 1876, when we go through Joseph's journal and we cut out multiple portions of it of powerful spiritual things that are in there, and we canonize them and make them sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. The way that email is written, it suggests that this person is saying, oh yeah, like there's no record of Elijah coming till the 1850s. They just made that up later. Okay, well, it is true that this account of Elijah appearing, which is doctrine covenant section 110, is written at the end of Joseph's journal, and it is written in the. In the handwriting of one of Joseph scribes, Warren Cowdery. How do I know that this was not written in the 1850s in Joseph's journal? Because Warren Cowdery is only going to be a member of the church for Approximately another, maybe 18 months, depending on when this was written before he apostatizes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So. So the record was written by an apostate in 1850. Wow.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

It's crazy. He snuck back into the church's archives.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's just how deep it goes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

No, that's the conspiracy. He came out to Utah, snuck back into the churches, to the, to the. To the archives, made up this whole story, wrote it in there, even though that would make Joseph Smith look more like a prophet from the faith. He apostates.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Interesting. And we made all these. We built all these temples based on the live and apostles.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

It's crazy. No, so crazy. Richard's obviously being facetious, but in Joseph's journal, so you can go to Joseph Smith, go to Joseph papers, and if you go to what is, you know, it's page 195 of. Of the journal, his 1835, 1836 journal. It'll. It'll tell you. There's an entire historical note saying that these addendums, These additions for April 3, are added by Warren Cowdery in Warren Cowdery's handwriting. Warren Cowdery is not in the church after 1838. So someone saying that it was only written down in 1850 has literally no idea what they're talking about. And this is a perfect example of really bad anti Mormon arguments that sound really good. Was there any part of what that person said that was true, that it was later added to the Doctrine and Covenants? Yep. But that has literally no bearing on the veracity of something. Joseph Smith wrote his letters from Liberty Jail. Whether or not they were added to the Doctrine and covenants before 1876, Joseph Smith had a vision of the celestial kingdom that was recorded in his journal. Whether or not it was in the Doctrine and covenants before 1981, that's section 137. But almost every part of the argument is actually false. That it wasn't written down till the 1850s. False. That it wasn't in any journals. False. It's literally in Joseph's journal that it wasn't added to the Doctrine and Covenants until later. Yes, like most of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, they are added later. I mean, not most, but pretty close to half. So it's one of those arguments that sounds good, but it only sounds good because someone is saying things that aren't accurate. It is true that Joseph Smith publicly does not talk about his visitation from Elijah. He doesn't say, look, when Elijah came, he said this. But it is recorded in his journal in Warren Cowdery's handwriting. And it has to be before 1838, because Warren Cowder is not a member after that. And maybe that's the reason why I got. I shouldn't have gotten mad. Boy, what was wrong with me?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I know, I loved it. I love that you got.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Well, you like the fact that I get angry, but I don't want to get angry. I mean, I'm sure this is a lovely person.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, Gabe's lovely and I'm sure his friends. Lovely, but his friend's friend is.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

I mean, in fact, Warren Cowdery dies in 1851. So like.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So he still could have done it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Right, right. In 1851, that he writes it down. I mean, what's your source for that? Actually? What's the source for the 1850s? You know, first time it was written down. It's a preposterous thing. And the fact that it is allowed to sway some members. Faith is, I think, what's really frustrating.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So there's an additional piece here that's, that's really beautiful for me with Elijah. Part of the reason that I love the Elijah stuff so, so much. So he comes April 3, 1836. Right. He comes during Passover, during Passover as, as. As was predicted in Jewish tradition. Jewish tradition, Torah. Right. So there's that. So when. So for those not as familiar with Passover and for all of the Jewish listeners, I apologize, as I'm skimming over.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

This, I think you're the only Jewish listener.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, well, very good. Well, so when you. During Passover, after the fall of the temple, wine becomes a major part of Passover, as you hope that it would. Right. It's like, hey, we can't go to the temple anymore. Let's at least drink a lot of wine. So there's four different glasses, four different chalices or cups of wine. Right. And each of them represent a different promise from the Lord. I will bring you out, I will deliver you, I will redeem you, and I will take you to myself as a nation. Those were the four glasses of wine. I feel like there's a missed opportunity. They could have had 10 glasses of wine and just come up with more promises.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Right. You probably should just do that anyway. In our family, these are other.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The Resurrection Seder will have that. Well, that'll be grape juice or water, maybe ruby red squirt. Anyway, but that fifth one for Elijah is one of the most central characters in the entire Passover. You have. You have a chalice of undrunk wine that is left for him. You leave the door open for him. You leave a place setting for him. It is. He's. He's the most seminal character in the entire Passover piece. Right. In the Seder now, at least. Right. And outside of God. And for. For Elijah to come during that time is just the most amazing. So it's offensive because.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Because you knew that Joseph was just reading all kinds of Jewish traditions.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The thing like, how would he have even known. Known any of this stuff? I mean, it's just my absolute favorite part. And so for someone to say that it like you're skipping over just even the miracle of Elijah coming at all. But all of the things, all of this fulfillment of Talmud tradition of when Elijah was going to come, you're blowing right past that.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And by the way, it's not just a vision that Joseph has by himself, Right. He has it with Oliver Cowdery. So, so now you're claiming that both Joseph and Oliver just made this up.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Right.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And. And that. That it was made up later and it didn't get into circulation of the church until later. I mean, it's a bad argument. It's a bad argument for religious purposes in the sense that miracles are not defined by when they were Written down. I have stated before on this podcast that I have experienced miracles in my life that I have not written down. The fact that I haven't written them down does not mean that they didn't happen. And it's always the faithless person, it's always the person attempting to tear down rather than to build up, who demands evidence for the miraculous. And, you know, it's a wicked and an adulterous generation that seeketh after a sign, and unto them shall no sign be given. It has been something that is from the beginning of time. Those who demand absolute proof for everything that they believe don't have saving faith anyway. So it wouldn't matter if they saw it. Just like Doctrine and covenants section 5, verse 7 says, if you can't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God by reading the Book of Mormon, by reading the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, it doesn't matter if you saw something that proved something. Because the same spirit that does not hear the words of your Savior when they are written in the Book of Mormon, when they're written in the Doctrine and Covenants, is the same spirit that's going to reject whatever evidence you believe needs to be shown to you. So I would. I would say, Gabe, to your friend, you know, whoever this person is in their ward, they are not casually asking questions. Casually asking questions. Was. Was, you know, a few claims about a journal not existing ago. I mean, that it. It's someone who's attempting to either deliberately deceive or more likely, they don't know that they've been deceived, and so they keep regurgitating things which they clearly themselves did not look up. It is not hard to find the account of Elijah appearing to Joseph and Oliver on the Joseph Smith Papers website. It's one of the easier things to do. And yet he isn't just claiming this false thing, he's claiming it authoritatively and as evidence that the church isn't true. And it's just. It's just a lie. There was one more email I thought maybe we could get to if we had time. So I thought. I thought that I would maybe jump to that email. And someone wrote in asking about the fact that, you know, because they've. They've liked listening to what we talk about. This is Stephen. He said, I'm a fairly recent convert to the podcast. I don't know if we're getting converts. Hopefully just someone who starts listening. Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

For tax purposes, though, starting a religion has its benefits.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And the next thing you know, strangle I particularly enjoy the contrast and context relating to mainstream Christianity. I was wondering if you've ever noticed that regardless of the theology, most adherents to the faith don't seem to actually believe their tenants. I include Latter Day Saints in this category, as I seem to hear every week in meetings, something that contradicts our actual theology. For example, a lot of my Baptist, Pentecostal and evangelical friends don't really seem to believe in hell. Or they believe that since God loves everyone, he understands us and will save us where we are. Oddly enough, I get the same thing from members of my own ward. Why do you think that is? Oh, I think first and foremost, the reality is spiritual laziness. I mean, you know, as President Nelson said, lazy learners in that regard. I mean, if you meet a Baptist who believes that their theology teaches that everyone's going to heaven, you've met a Baptist who isn't quoting a single Baptist theologian.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

One of my dearest friends, he's kind of an acting CFO for a Baptist congregation volunteer. He volunteers in the position. And we've had many conversations about theology. And I mean, he couldn't be more involved in the church. Right. He's great guy doctrinally, just kind of just, you know, loves Jesus. Jesus saves. He knows it's great. And that's kind of where he's at.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, and I think that's where a lot of people are at. I mean, when you say both in our church and out, I mean, that's true. I mean, obviously everyone could learn more about the church than they have in our church as well. But when you're trying to determine what does another faith teach, you should probably never go to the average member because a lot of times it's a reflection of their feelings. I mean, I hear people all the time say things that are not true in my own church. Yes. Because they're saying what they want to be the case. I heard someone in Sunday school not very long ago say, well, Joseph Smith taught X that, you know, that Joseph Smith taught something. Now, of course, they didn't actually quote Joseph. And in fact, the thing that they said Joseph taught. Joseph never, ever, ever, ever taught. But they, in their own belief system, you know, they think that he did. Maybe they read it somewhere. They're a good person. It's not like they're deliberately spreading false doctrine, but it is a. It is a reality that oftentimes we confuse our personal beliefs, our political beliefs, our social beliefs, and our religious beliefs. And I think many, many Protestant Christians who believe that all you need to do is have faith and be saved. They kind of intuitively want to believe that God's just going to save everyone. And look, I appreciate that. I mean, I love the fact that they are thinking about a God who loves everyone. But if I go to a Pentecostal theologian, that's not what he's going to say. If I go to a Baptist theologian, that's not what he's going to say. If I go to evangelical Christian theologians, if I go to evangelical Bible colleges, that is not what they are going to say. So, yeah, I mean, you're like, well, it seems like a lot of my Christian friends are living in ignorance and they are. You know, it's almost as though that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

They know not where to find it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, they're kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. So I wouldn't let that bother you too much because of the fact that we have the same issue. I mean, you know that you have heard multiple times people say things in church that aren't really what we believe. I mean, I don't know how many times I've heard someone say something to the effect of, you know, as long as we follow the commandments and live righteous lives, that we won't have trials happen to us. Someone saying something to the effect that as long as you're good, you'll escape trials. Of course, the problem is that's not true, nor is it something that was taught, and yet people believe it for their own personal reasons. And I wanted to segue off of this since we have a little bit of more time to another question we got about the Baptist religion from another email from Dennis. Dennis says that I believe I've been able to listen to all of your free podcasts, plus a good share of the premium content, since my kids paid for a premium subscription last Christmas. So your kids gave this to you as a Christmas present.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Nice. How about that?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Dennis, I love your kids. You know, I love you, too, but I mean, your kids I really love.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You know, guys, there's only several months I'm going to get the number of days shopping days till Christmas left. You know, do a countdown.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

The countdown to premium subscriptions is on. I admit this may include that some that I've slept through all or part of since I listened. Like, we both know you've slept through all of it, Dennis. Yeah, I listen early in the morning in bed or in my hammock. Wow. Dennis is living the sweet life. Wow, brother. Dirk Mott's factual reports and solid testimony of strength. My own Faith and testimony, especially of the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I recently heard a Baptist pastor on YouTube claim that there have always been a core of true believers since the time of Christ up to the present time that constitute the true church of Christ. I find that hard to believe coming from a Protestant, since their form of quote, true belief and formula for salvation wasn't part of early Catholicism. As far as I know. I've heard this claim before more than a few times on my mission to the north central states in the late 60s. My mission even included a slice of Wisconsin. So I can relate to Garrett's experience. What do you make of this claim? Is there anything to it? Well, what you've hit upon is actually one of the standard Protestant claims as to why there was nothing an apostasy in the sense that Latter Day Saints teach it. Because you would think one of the easier things for a Latter Day Saint to do would be to convince a Protestant that there was a great apostasy from the faith. Right? I mean, like, hey, you know that Catholic church that you're railing against for teaching all kinds of false doctrine? What if in fact they were teaching all kinds of false doctrine? I mean, it seems like it'd be an easy sell, but early on in the Reformation when Catholics attacked Protestants for saying you don't have any authority, you're just manufacturing this new we believe church out of thin air, the response from Reformed and Lutheran theologians was that no, because all you have to have is faith in Jesus to be saved. Even though you had people that were teaching the Papist teachings that you have to have communion and you have to have confirmation and there's all kinds of, then here's super irrigation and extreme unction and all these Catholic doctrines of works. Even though you had people teaching that since the church of Christ is simply believers in Jesus, the claim is to avoid that apostasy issue is that there's always been someone somewhere who simply believed all you had to have was faith to be saved. And that person therefore was a true believer in Jesus. Therefore the church of Jesus existed because that person was a true believer in Jesus. Now if you get into the wickets of it, sometimes it'll be that, well, this true believer in Jesus is misinformed, thinking that they also need to have baptism, but they still have a true faith in Christ and the true faith in Christ is what saves you anyway.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, so we're still cut out, obviously.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Well, we believe in the wrong Jesus, that's the thing.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So it's convenient that all of those that is interesting. All of those teachings, all the things, those are all wrong. That's fine. Christchurch still exists, people still can go to heaven. But a slight different take on that. You're right out.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, yeah. So it is still this argument that you have to believe in the right Jesus. Now let me say this for these Baptist preachers saying it. This is a very, very, very common Protestant argument that the Church of Jesus has always existed on the earth. Even though there was the Reformation, it wasn't like, you know, Martin Luther still believed the right way in Jesus. Of course, if you listen to Martin Luther, he'll explain that he didn't until later when he has his spiritual awakening. But that as long as there were any people who believed that you were saved by faith and grace alone, that you had the true church of Christ on the earth. And of course Trinitarian belief in Jesus, while it's commonly stated there is very, very little actual evidence of this because even some of the best evidences you have, like St. Augustine or St. Augustine, who is all about that grace, I mean he is all about the fact that you're saved by grace. Augustine still is teaching in his writings that baptism is essential for salvation. He's still teaching that there are works that have to be performed. So if the litmus test is that you can't believe in any works to be the true church of Jesus, boy, the only evidences you are going to actually find from early Christian history of people teaching that is going to be people that are considered apostates by the church. They're just, we have very little records from that time period. And so it's kind of a fanciful thing to say, like, well, there were always people who believe that all you needed was faith to be saved. Well, we don't have their names and numbers. I mean they would say Paul, of course, Paul is also teaching at times that you also need works. You know that it's very convenient. We only quote the Pauline portions where he's saying that you don't. But yeah, it's a very common Protestant argument that there was always true believers in Christ even though the Catholic Church became horribly corrupt. Because all you need for the church of Christ to exist is not authority, is not hands on head authority being passed down. All you need is someone to have faith in Jesus and to believe in salvation by grace. And you have the Church of Christ. And so they're essentially kind of shotgunning it out there. Always there was at least someone sitting somewhere on the beach in, you know, in Naples in 800 A.D. he was like, you know what? I think we're just saved by grace. And boom, you have the Church of Christ on Earth because there are no ordinances that are essential. And part and parcel to that is there is no authority that is essential. The Church of Christ is simply anyone who believes in Jesus and believes they're saved by grace. And so they kind of shotgun it out there. But you'll notice he's not providing specific examples. I mean, he'll quote Paul for sure. Now quote me, someone not named Paul between 800, between 80 A.D. and you know, and 15, you know, the 50, early 1500s, it becomes much, much more difficult. So it's really an assumption on the part of Protestants. I mean, maybe they're right, but I don't know how you would prove that in a. In a historically viable way. The reality is, what we get from our early study of Christianity is that early Christians seem to believe that you needed to do things in order to be saved, that you needed to be baptized, that you needed to confess your sins, that you needed to belong to the church. Now, you can say that they're all wrong, and that's fine, but that's not the same thing as saying we have definitive evidence of thousands of believers who all rejected that and just believe they were saved by grace. I think that's overstating the case. But your thoughts on that, Richard?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, no, I think it's a really good point, and I think maybe even a potential better point is that the Standard of Truth premium podcast makes for a great gift for the holidays. And there's 259 shopping days.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

The holidays include Passover.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, we should include all of the Jewish holidays in the holiday purchasing season.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

You know, Sukkot is the time.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Sukkot's a good time.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

When you build your tent. Also build the premium subscription to the Standard of Truth podcast.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You should. For your family. You should get them tour. So we should have available. Yes. If not this week, by next week so people can start signing up for the 2026 tour. It's a great Sukkot gift. Great Pentecost gift. So many.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Perm is huge.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Perm's past. But so. But for next year anyway, it's great.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Yeah, we hopefully, hopefully answering some of these questions was helpful. Sorry, I was a little. I was a little over the top on the Elijah thing, wasn't I? That I feel like I'm going to need to go repent.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, it's. I think part of the reason that you're just. I mean, we Talked through it a little bit, but part of the reason it's so offensive, it's if what you're saying is right, it's stupid. And also, there's a trillion. Some things are very difficult to validate. This one was not one of them. So the argument is garbage by itself, and it was insanely easy for that person if they actually cared to look it up.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Right. So the problem is, not only is that a bad argument, that this never happened because it wasn't written down till later. Secondly, all of the evidence you provided was also false.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Garrett. I think part of the reason why we were talking about this, like, the things I get really upset about, like, Gary gets upset about people and their testimonies and leaving the church, and I get really upset at, like, really reductive business books that tell you to do stuff and, you know, that don't work and will ruin your business. But, like, the reason why it's so upsetting is because this thing isn't in a vacuum. A person's using this thing to try and destroy the testimony of somebody else.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Right.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

And that's something to get pretty.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

And I think that's. So. Look, in general, for all of our listeners, when someone makes a claim that's a historical claim, try to separate it out from whether or not, even if that thing was the case, if that would mean Joseph Smith didn't see God, if Joseph Smith didn't write down the first vision the second he saw Jesus, does that prove it didn't happen? Well, that would be requiring of Joseph Smith something that we don't require of every other religious figure in all of recorded scripture. You know what? But his. His has got to be, like, way higher. I mean, it. It's a false argument on its face. And. And then when you have the bad sourcing made with it, it becomes even more false and even more problematic. So thank you so much for listening. I realize many of you will stop listening after my vicious outburst, but maybe we could go back and cut that out. Richard says we're not going to cut it out.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, I think it was great.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmot]

Okay, well, thank you so much for listening, Rebecca. We really, really, really hope things went well with the birth, and we expect to see much of your family at a Sound of Music presentation soon. So thank you so much for joining us.

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