S5E20 The Power of Shared Visions

Summary

Podcast Summary: Standard of Truth | S5E20 The Power of Shared Visions

Release Date: May 8, 2025
Hosts: Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat & Dr. Richard Leduc
Description: The Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat, Associate Professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU, aims to help Latter-Day Saints better understand their history and strengthen their faith through insightful discussions, historical analysis, and engaging dialogues.

---

Introduction

In Episode 5 Season 20 of the Standard of Truth podcast titled "The Power of Shared Visions," hosts Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard Leduc delve into the significance of collective visionary experiences within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). This episode intertwines theological discussions with light-hearted banter, providing listeners with both depth and entertainment.

---

Hosts' Banter and New Segment Introduction (00:01 - 06:16)

The episode opens with Dr. Dirkmaat welcoming his co-host, Dr. Richard Leduc, humorously addressing the confusion surrounding Richard's name due to multiple individuals named Dr. Richard Leduc in Montreal. Their playful exchange sets a relaxed tone for the episode.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [00:29]: "Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Dr. Richard Leduc."

As the conversation progresses, Richard introduces a new segment, "Christie's Last Minute Prep," inspired by listener emails seeking assistance with sermon preparation. Although Dr. Dirkmaat is skeptical about the segment's longevity, Richard remains optimistic about its potential appeal.

---

Doctrine and Covenants Section 45 Discussion (06:16 - 25:21)

The hosts transition to discussing Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) Section 45, focusing on verse 32: "Standing in holy places." This segment addresses Christy's query about preparing a sacrament meeting talk on this scripture.

Key Points:

• Interpretation of "Standing in Holy Places": Dr. Dirkmaat draws parallels between D&C 45:32 and biblical accounts, such as Moses at the burning bush and the divisions within Solomon's Temple. He suggests that "standing in holy places" symbolizes being close to God, especially in turbulent times preceding the Second Coming.

• Contrast with Protestant Theology: The discussion highlights how Protestant theologians interpret similar phrases differently, often rejecting the notion of sacred spaces that bridge the believer with God, emphasizing personal faith instead.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [12:03]: "Which is a much better, much better podcast."

Dr. Leduc supports Dirkmaat's interpretation, emphasizing the importance of temple attendance and preparation for the Second Coming.

---

Listener Emails: Christie's Last Minute Prep and Tanya's Inquiry (25:21 - 40:04)

1. Christie's Last Minute Prep

Christy, a listener, reaches out seeking guidance for her upcoming Mother's Day sacrament talk. She grapples with the overlap between the prescribed weekly study ("Come, Follow Me") and the thematic requirements of her talk.

Notable Quotes:

Dr. Richard Leduc [25:25]: "We started with the Doctrine Covenants. We're studying that this year."

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [30:19]: "Christy's Last Minute Prep."

2. Tanya's Inquiry on Shared Visions and Skepticism

Tanya's email explores the efficacy of multiple witnesses in validating the LDS Church's truth claims compared to other religious movements. She questions whether other religions possess similar shared visionary experiences that bolster their claims.

Key Points:

• Multiple Witnesses: Dr. Leduc underscores the uniqueness of the LDS Church in having numerous individuals, including prominent figures like Martin Harris and David Whitmer, who collectively witnessed and testified to divine manifestations.

• Contrast with Other Religions: The hosts compare the LDS approach to shared visions with other faiths, noting that many offshoots lack such collective experiences, weakening their foundational claims.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Richard Leduc [28:38]: "It is a big deal that you can't just blithely explain away Joseph's revelation, Joseph's experiences, the same way you could with other religious people."

---

Analyzing Skepticism and Anti-Mormon Arguments (40:04 - 60:37)

The conversation shifts to addressing common skepticism and anti-Mormon rhetoric, particularly focusing on the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's revelations and the authenticity of shared visions among early church leaders.

Key Points:

• Addressing Doubts: Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc challenge the skeptic’s assertions that Joseph Smith fabricated his experiences by emphasizing the collective nature of the testimonies and the enduring faith of the witnesses despite persecution.

• Historical Evidence vs. Skepticism: They argue that without substantial historical evidence to refute the multiple accounts of divine visions, dismissing them as mere fabrications remains unfounded.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [43:28]: "The greatest misnomer among anti Mormons is the claim that all these Latter Day Saints, they believe everything and they won't even look at the evidence."

---

Offshoot Religions and False Prophets (60:37 - 55:58)

The hosts explore various offshoots of the LDS Church, highlighting how they often lack the shared visionary experiences that underpin the mainline church’s doctrines.

Key Points:

• Gladden Bishop Case Study: Dr. Dirkmaat introduces a fictional (or possibly satirical) prophet figure, Gladden Bishop, who has been repeatedly excommunicated for making extraordinary claims without substantiated communal visions, illustrating the pitfalls of false prophetic leadership.

• Comparison with Historical Figures: They compare Gladden Bishop’s lack of credible shared visions to historical LDS leaders, reinforcing the importance of collective spiritual experiences in authentic faith establishment.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Richard Leduc [55:22]: "Gladden Bishop is going to claim multiple visionary experiences. He is the guy who gets excommunicated, like every other week from the church."

---

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Belief (55:58 - 68:55)

Concluding the episode, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc discuss the necessity of personal revelation through the Holy Spirit in affirming faith and understanding church doctrines.

Key Points:

• Personal Revelation vs. Historical Evidence: While historical analysis provides context and understanding, personal spiritual experiences are paramount in validating beliefs for individuals.

• Strengthening Faith: The hosts encourage listeners to seek spiritual confirmation through the Holy Spirit, emphasizing that this personal revelation complements historical knowledge and communal testimonies.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Richard Leduc [35:19]: "This is where we have to be much more critical of the arguments that people are making to us and reject them on their face."

---

Humorous Interludes and Light-Hearted Moments

Throughout the episode, the hosts intersperse theological discussions with humorous exchanges about sports, bettings on Papal selections, and playful jabs at fictional characters like Gladden Bishop. These moments provide levity and showcase the hosts' camaraderie and wit.

Notable Humorous Exchanges:

• Betting Lines on Popes:

  Dr. Richard Leduc [04:15]: "I can't endorse gambling on a religious outcome."

• Gladden Bishop's Claims:

  Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [55:58]: "He just invented something on the fly, I'm telling you."

---

Conclusion and Closing Remarks

As the episode wraps up, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc express their gratitude to listeners, acknowledge the influx of missionary emails, and reiterate the importance of faith complemented by historical understanding. They tease future segments and encourage sharing the podcast with others who might benefit from its informative and engaging content.

Notable Closing Quote:

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [68:55]: "If you know of anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. Until next time."

---

Key Takeaways

1. Shared Visions Strengthen Faith: The collective visionary experiences within the LDS Church provide a robust foundation that distinguishes it from other religious movements.

2. Addressing Skepticism with Evidence: The hosts advocate for responding to skepticism with historical and doctrinal evidence rather than dismissive rhetoric.

3. Importance of Personal Revelation: Beyond historical analysis, personal spiritual experiences through the Holy Spirit are crucial for individual faith affirmation.

4. Vigilance Against False Prophets: Authentic leadership is characterized by genuine shared visions and consistent, credible testimonies, unlike the fictional example of Gladden Bishop.

5. Engaging Delivery: The blend of serious theological discourse with humor makes complex topics accessible and maintains listener engagement.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [30:20]: "Christy's Last Minute Prep."

• Dr. Richard Leduc [28:38]: "It is a big deal that you can't just blithely explain away Joseph's revelation, Joseph's experiences, the same way you could with other religious people."

• Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [43:28]: "The greatest misnomer among anti Mormons is the claim that all these Latter Day Saints, they believe everything and they won't even look at the evidence."

• Dr. Richard Leduc [35:19]: "This is where we have to be much more critical of the arguments that people are making to us and reject them on their face."

• Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat [68:55]: "If you know of anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. Until next time."

---

Episode Reflection

In "The Power of Shared Visions," Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc effectively blend scholarly insights with relatable humor to explore the foundational role of collective spiritual experiences in the LDS Church. By addressing listener questions and debunking common skeptic arguments, the episode serves as a valuable resource for both current members seeking to deepen their understanding and curious individuals exploring the faith.

Transcript

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

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.

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. Although he's. He's changed his name on our little studio here to Dr. Richard Andrew Leduc Senior. I'm not entirely sure about why you need the senior. Is there something about Andrew I don't know?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, well, I can't walk the streets of Montreal without being confused with other Dr. Leducs. There's actually a biochemist in Montreal who's Dr. Richard Leduc. Actually, he's the far more. Yeah, yeah, he's the far, far more successful Dr. Richard Leduc of the Dr. Richard Leducs.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

So now your mission should be to convert him so that we can get a better Dr. Leduc in your seat.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That would be. That would be great. In fact, he wouldn't even have to be converted to be better than me.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

But there's no question, given Catholic doctrines, like, I start teaching and he's like, that's the reason why we pray to the sands for intercession. I mean, assuming if he's from Montreal, I don't know.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, he's outrageously French. Yeah, yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

No, he's Monty Python French is what you're saying.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Quite. He's quite accomplished. Brilliant. Obviously not related anyway. Well, Garrett, we've got. We've got a fun, action packed episode to. To really dig into here. We're gonna. We're gonna roll out a brand new segment that we're gonna. That we're gonna do that. I think.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I don't think we would ever do it again. Richard likes to roll out segments and then tell me that we're gonna do them every week. No, we're not doing them every week, folks. We barely turn the record button on.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I think we did a Rich leduc top five twice. I don't think so, Garrett. I think this. This one's gonna catch on because this one, this one, as I've often said, I'm a man of the people.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I feel like you're just avoiding talking about the Lakers looting to the Timberwolves in that series.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That was. That was unfortun. I don't know why I hate the Knicks and they keep rallying and it's just, it's not working out for me. You know, it's just Richard is a, is a.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

He's a study of contradictions. His favorite baseball team is the Yankees.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's true.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

His most hated basketball team is the Knicks. So literally the same fans that he's sitting next to at a Yankee game, he hates them the other half of the year.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much the case. So when I was a kid in Idaho, we had no professional team, and so we had no cable, and so I watched.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

You had to tell people that Idaho doesn't have a professional team. That's interesting. Why don't you educate all of our listeners in Ghana as to the fact that Idaho doesn't have a professional team? Ghana does have one, though. That's, that's, that's where we're at.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Didn't they beat us in or did we tie them in World Cup 20 years ago? I can't remember. Anyway, by the way, Garrett, I don't know if you're following the, the betting lines on the Popes. That has been quite fun. Now, again, we do not endorse gambling. We'd like to recommend everyone to President Hinckley's here.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I mean, of all the gambling I don't endorse betting on a religious outcome. Is the gambling I'm least okay with?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, I'm offended for sure. But I'm following it closely. I believe, I believe that the, that the Pope from. Is it the Philippines? I think is, is, I think second.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Or third the cardinal, you mean? Because if he's already, you know, the best way to get the odds right is if the white smoke's already coming out and you're like, you know what? I'm gonna put my money on this guy.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, so they, they've, they've gathered. Right. So awesome.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Black smoke already. So that means they voted and they didn't get the two thirds.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, there we go. I think that that Pope Francis, something like he, he was responsible for placing almost two thirds of the voting because I think you're under 80 years old as a cardinal.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Under 80 as a cardinal to vote and you have to have a two thirds.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. So anyway, I, I'm very excited. I've been following the lines. They're hilarious. So anyway, what were we talking about? Sportsman.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I can't remember. But I'd like to see the lines that are, like, created by Calvinist theologians. Like, what's their line on who The.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Calvinist theologian waits for the outcome and said, yeah, that's what God always wanted.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah, it's true. How do I know that God wanted this? It happened, didn't it?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, well, Gary, we can kick things off with the Phoebe. And I'm telling you, this, this thing that we're going to do, it's going to be, it's going to be a weekly hit, I really believe.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Not happening.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Bottom of my heart, this.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Most of this podcast is Richard trying to make me do more work and me saying, I'm drowning. Richard, please listen to me. And him saying, no, no, it'll be fine, it'll be fine, it'll be fine.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

This one's got a catchy name to it though, I think. Wait, I don't even know if you're inventing this.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

We are witnessing Richard inventing something real time. We have legitimately not talked about this at all. He's inventing this. He's like, he's like for last is hurlbut with the origins of the Book of Mormon. He's just.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I have signed affidavits, I have signed affidavits that people cry out, Garrett. Anyway, this first one comes to us from Elder and Sister Quinn. Hello, doctors. I'm currently serving as the mission health advisor in the Illinois Historic Sites Mission, which is a dream mission, Nauvoo in Carthage. We'll be seeing you in about a month, so that's very exciting. I've enjoyed listening to your podcast while I iron my shirts and do chores around the house. I have learned a great deal and have felt the spirit and enjoy the humor. My wife serves in the sewing room in the Nauvoo, working on historic dresses, shirts and accessories. A link to premium content would be appreciated. So obviously we're kissing up to the Quinns as we're going to be there.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

We're hopeful that the Quinns will help us with any tour related things that we need. And you know, sometimes we get asked, well, can a. Can a senior missionary get the. Yeah, sure. Hey, look, if you're willing to serve God as a missionary, you're getting a link. Now you won't want the link, but you're getting it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, so this next email comes to us from Christy. Hello, Doctors Dirk, Mott and Leduc. Not sure either is spelled correctly. Well, Christy, Garrett's was spelled right, mine wasn't. So there you go.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

You know what? I think that's about right. I think that's about right.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's good. I have been a long time listener to your podcast, but this is my first time reaching out. I want to start off by thanking both of you for what you are doing with this podcast. It has changed my life, my testimony and my confidence I now feel when church history is brought up. I love listening to your podcast and really appreciate the ability I have to use your education and knowledge for my benefit. The first podcast I listened to that really stuck with me was the Word of Wisdom one done a long time ago. It was an incredible view of the Word of Wisdom and I have shared it with numerous people since then, though I am sure no one else has bothered to listen. You know what Christy, you're spot on.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Rachel's mom probably listened to it a couple times. My mom Renee probably did, yes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Anyways, I was asked to speak last Sunday for this coming Sunday Mother's Day due to a change in speaking assignments and I'm scrambling a bit for prep. While I'm neither a missionary nor giving birth, I am hoping that's very funny. I am hoping you you can possibly answer my question though with how quickly you don't answer emails. This won't help me at all. For this week the subject I was asked to speak on is Standing in Holy Places with the reference to doctrine covenants section 45, verse 32. I started. Which by the way is is the section for for Gospel doctrine study this week or I guess we're in that's.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

By chance because I mean that's not really a Mother's Day lesson. Do you think that that ward assigns their sacrament talks based upon where you're at in come follow me.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, I believe I've mentioned on the podcast that I once attended my nephew's mission farewell. That was on Easter Sunday and the topic was tithing. So I don't. I don't know how you know people. Some people zig, others zag. You know, you're kind of doing your own thing. I I started doing some digging in my week prep and I have for well so week.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

She means week long. Not like this is weak. What's the answer you're about to get is weak as in W E A K. Yes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That I have for the talk and to be honest, I can't find much about this phrase. I didn't I didn't you who it now that's that is one of the better search engines by the way of all of all chocolate drinks. You're going to find most answers there of any of the chocolate drinks. But I did Google stand in Holy Places and the main reference came up were LDs references, which is good, but it got me thinking of other religious uses of that phrase or something similar. I like to reach out to my circle when I'm preparing to speak to get insight from my sources. And through that circle, I asked some Christian friends of mine what their thoughts were. And the main response was, I have never heard that phrase before, so I'm assuming it's great research.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Hey, what do you guys think about Stand in holy places? Get away from me, Mormon.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

She's asking all of her Baptist friends and they're like, yeah, no, what's that?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I have never heard faith. And was it the word grace? And if it wasn't, those two, move along.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But if you have any insight into it or if you even wanted to do a pre show for Section 45, I would appreciate it. As I said previously, my expectations for this response to this are low. And if by chance it does get answered, my expectations for that answer are even lower.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Because that's why we're. Because you have no expectation.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Because I listen to you and know. Haha. In all seriousness, thank you for all that you do always know you have a solid fan and listener deep in the heart of Texas. This is from Christie. And so Garrett, this is the. This is the thing. So in the. In the Follow him or the Come follow me and also follow him. Follow him actually follows Come Follow Me.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Which is a much better, much better podcast.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You should stop listening right now and go straight to a sports book that's picking popes. Anyway, on your way. But so we started with the Doctrine Covenants. We're studying that this year. We're to section 20 and the come follow me is to section 45 this week. So to Christy's question, which I thought was a good question, I would like to introduce a new segment where every week you just give, you know what? Just, just give a little nugget. Just a little. A little quick hit that somebody that we would call now Christie's Last Minute Prep.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

So every name it after her.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, Christy's Last Minute Prep. Standing in holy places, section 45. Give a little something so that someone sounds smarter in Sunday school, which is the whole reason that you listen to church podcasts anyway. And go.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

But for her it's sacramenting. She has to sound extra.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Higher stakes. There's no question it's higher stakes for Christie. Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Because you know, in Sunday school you've just got all the people who, you know, they don't have a calling to go somewhere else. I say that because I'm perpetually in The Sunday school. But in, in, in sacrament meeting, especially on Mother's Day.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Mother's Day.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Oh, yeah, everybody's. I mean, what does your award do for mothers on Mother's Day.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

This year? We're having the youth speak on different aspects of the divine role of mothers.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

And like, what presents do you give them? Like, do you hand out like a plant or you do a brisket?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I don't know. And we, we do chocolates. And, and, and then the elders quorum does like a full, like they bring in a full meal and it's, they, they actually do a really nice job. Yeah, it's good.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Okay. I don't remember. I mean, our ward's done lots of different things, but so this, so first of all, I mean, you know, you recognize pretty quickly just by doing a Google search that this is not a phrase that is readily, readily utilized by other Christians in the way that they talk about things. Now that there is the most that Christians talk about it. And I know that, that, you know, I, I, it's not going to be the same type of thing. It is similar. Right? So doctrine, covenant, section 45 is. A lot of things in here are referencing the, the Second Coming, right? That the second coming is near, that there's things that are going on. I mean, you know, you know, right after 32, I mean, which sounds like, you know, great stand in holy places. 33 is. And there shall be earthquakes in diverse places and many desolations. And men will harden their hearts against, against me. And I'll take up the sword, one against another. They'll kill one another. I mean, it's, it's a, it's a revelation talking about the end times. So there are a couple of ways that you can look at this in the context, right, where it says, and there shall be men standing in that generation that shall not pass away till they see an overflowing scourge, for the desolating sickness shall cover the land. That verse 31 got quoted all the time during the COVID They're like, oh, this is it. And then they selected a whole bunch of days in 2021. And spoiler alert, that didn't happen. The second coming didn't happen. But my disciples shall stand in holy place and shall not be moved. This is actually, I mean, if we were looking at what it most directly resembles, It's Matthew, chapter 24, where again, it's the same thing. In fact, many of these are very similar phrases of what's going to happen, you know, when, when shall you know, the second coming happen. And it's verse 15 where it says, when you shall therefore see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. Whoso readeth, let him understand. So it's not the same, but when Christians engage with this phraseology of stand in the holy place, they're not sure what it means. And there's a considerable amount of biblical interpretation where they take this phrase to mean the exact opposite of what. What we take it to mean in D&C 45. In D&C 45, we take it as the Lord saying to us, hey, if you see these signs, probably time to do what you're supposed to do. Right. Is that how you take it, Richard? I mean, not betting on popes? Probably. I mean, but also, yes, betting on popes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm not saying that we should bet on popes. I'm just saying I think it's interesting the. The lines that they have right now, that's all that I imagine.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Those lines move every time smoke goes up that chimney. Right?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, that's exactly right. But yes, Garrett, when it's. When it's, you know, when it's apocalypse time, we should probably, you know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Well, so a pretty common interpretation of this, because they don't really know what that means now, especially among Protestant theologians. Right. Because what is a Protestant theologian? What is one of the things that they are most repelled over? The idea that there's some kind of sacred place that, you know, where there are relics or saints. Right. So in Protestant thought, you know, the development of the worship of relics and the worship of saints, I mean, not that Catholics worship relics. Okay. For a Protestant, they feel like they are. The development of those things made them reject even the idea basically of, oh, here's a very sacred spot. Now, as a Protestant, you can still go to Israel, and. And those places are sacred because, you know, that's where biblical things took place. But this kind of idea that there's a place you go to that is more holy than other places, that. That doesn't really fly very well in Protestantism, because that's putting a place between you and God. And so the only thing that really matters is, do you have faith in God? How do I stand in the holy place? Do I have faith in Jesus? Well, then I'm in the holy place right now. Wherever I am, that's the holy place, because I have faith in Jesus. And so they often interpret this to be one of the signs, Matthew 24, where they say, when you therefore see the Abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. They will often argue this is a reference to the Romans placing their standards like the Roman eagle and the signs of the legion in the temple, defiling the temple. And that's how you know the destruction is about to happen. So they think it's referencing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. i can give this isn't everybody. These are several commentaries that the state that the stand is. When you see these Roman standards placed in the temple, then you know that it's things are going to be destroyed. So they actually take it a very different way.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, the exact opposite.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah, exactly. Not like, hey, you need to go to a holy place. And, you know, that kind of makes sense for a Protestant theologian. Right. I mean, one of your main deals is there is literally nothing between you and God. What about this place where it's like closer to God? That place doesn't exist. Right. So you could see why that interpretation might come about. I'm guessing that's not going to be very helpful for Christy in her sacrament meeting talk. I will say this, however, the idea of standing in a holy place, the first thing that came to mind for me is probably the first thing that came to your mind too, Richard, when you hear it is what happened when Moses goes up to, to the, the burning bush, right. And when the Lord saw, he turned aside. Lord saw that he turned aside to see God called him out of the midst of the bush and said, moses, Moses. This is Exodus, chapter three. And he said, here I am. And he said, draw not hither, Put off thy shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. So this, this idea that there could be a holy place certainly exists in the Old Testament. And it's there where Moses is communing with God. One thing that has come to my mind, and again, I don't know if this is what is intended, but, boy, I mean, so I don't want to teach any false doctrine, but, you know, everyone always says that right before the next thing, you know, false doctrine. And, and I am not an expert in this. I obviously have colleagues who are experts in the Hebrew Bible and in the Old Testament and. But one image that comes to my mind that I think is at least applicable, maybe it's not what was intended, but it certainly is helpful for people to think. In the Temple of Solomon and, and in, in the Tabernacle as well, there were multiple divisions in the places where people went. Well, the place that was Inside of the sanctuary, but just outside of the holiest place, on the other side of the veil of the temple. The Holy of Holies is where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. Right. So that was the most sacred place in the temple. And only the high priest could go there and only once a year. Right. The Holy of Holies, you don't go in there. So what's the closest we can get to the Holy of Holies? Well, it's this other area that is actually called the Holy place. So you have the holy place and then inside the veil, you have the. What's called the most holy place or the Holy of Holies. I mean, if we were looking for some symbolism, the idea that what do you need to do to prepare for the Second Coming, which is what D&C 45 is all about, to stand in the holy place is to literally stand at the veil of the temple. And just on the other side is for the people of Israel, the Ark of the Covenant. But which is of course a symbolism of Christ. Again, I'm not a theologian. I certainly don't have the ability to declare doctrine. I mean, I barely have the ability to declare where, you know, you should put the smart money on popes. I. But it is something that I think about is that if you think of that tabernacle or Solomon's Temple, if you think about the fact that where you are when you're the closest to the most holy place that you're allowed to be, it's right there at the veil in the. What is called the holy place. So that may or may not be helpful. I do think if you can extrapolate out what's the whole point of Doctrine and covenant? Section 45, it's a revelation on the Second Coming. And so why are the disciples to stand in holy places? Because things are about to get real. Right? That things are going to be fraught with peril. But the disciples who stand in holy places shall not be moved. Well, that's the same thing that President Nelson has said. You need to be going to the temple. You need to be in the Temple. You need to spend time in the Temple. If you want to be prepared for the second coming of Jesus, then you need to go to the temple. And I think that's exactly the best message that you can get from doctrine and covenant. Section 4532. I don't know. What are your thoughts on that, Richard?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I think that's great. And this has been Christie's last minute prep.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Okay, wait. We can't Wouldn't we have to like license it with Christie or we just. We're not going to tell anyone. Which Chris.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We didn't say her last name. Yeah, no, we're gonna, we're gonna take her idea. We're just gonna, we're gonna steal it. By the way, on March 23rd there was a significant spike for a Cardinal Pizzabala. I'm pretty sure I'm pronouncing that exactly correct.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Cardinal Pizza.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

P, I, Z, Z, A, B, A L, L, A Pizza Balla. Yeah, I'm sure that's not offensive.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

So we've just offended every Italian listening.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, the Italians were huge in Italy. Oh yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

One one place where Latter Day Saints and Standard Truth Podcast is just wrecking the numbers. Italy.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

He shot up to 47.1% odds on March 23rd and now he's come back down to earth a little bit. He's at 9.3. And the former secretary. Oh, yeah, yeah. The Secretary of State. He's now the leader in the clubhouse at 28. But very excited. Garrett. Can't wait for that white smoke. Thank you very much to Christy. And again, that has been Christie's last minute prep. Next email comes to us.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

He just invented something on the fly, I'm telling you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The people cry out and then your answer was, great, by the way. That was, I mean, much better than the average crap that we do. But that was really good. I like that.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

As opposed to anything else we've ever.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Said that was good. This email comes to us from friend of the show, Tanya. In recent home church discussions, we noted how God ensured how multiple witnesses to the resurrected savior, both in two scriptural witnesses of the Bible and Book of Mormon, but also in early church history events like Sidney Rigdon actually seeing the resurrected savior with Joseph Smith giving credibility to Joseph in that he wasn't the only person claiming to have seen Jesus and building a case for his prophetic calling. Not only that, there are witnesses of the ongoing restoration going back to the beginning the first vision. Though no one witnessed the actual event other than Joseph, his mother was able to clock the event by corroborating their exchange immediately thereafter, the visit of Moroni. Again a personal experience. Both family members corroborating the events. The Book of Mormon in translation of the plaints, Emma, Martin, Harris, Oliver and David as scribes among others who could testify the existence of the plates. The three witnesses, Oliver, David and Martin, the eight witnesses. The restoration of the priesthood, vision of the celestial kingdom and degrees of glory. There are so many miraculous events that were witnessed by others. It got me thinking of the truth claims of other religious movements. Did you. By the way, as an aside, did you see there was a great. There's a fairly popular atheist that makes his way around Instagram and he was asked on a Christian podcast which, if any religion, he would join any Christian religion. Did you see that?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yes, I did.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It was great. He said Mormon and everyone on the podcast laughed. And then he cited all the reasons, if I was one of them, even.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Said, that's not even Christian.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, it was funny. And actually he's. Many of the things he cited were some of the things that, that Tanya mentions here. It got me thinking of the truth claims other religious movements, especially the immediate historical offshoots of the church as well as modern offshoots with former members of the church, particularly one that rhymes with Snver Duffer and the other that rhymes with Jiren Wefts. We.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I think. I think Joran is probably a little more.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, Joran. Joran Wefts. Yes. Jaron is actually a name. We have claims to be the true mouthpiece of God and know his will. Do any of the churches that have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, either in the early days of the restoration or modern movement, have multiple witness events or claims that laid the foundation of their religious organizations or their teachings? Has any other religion for that matter, experienced such a long list of event after event building on each other with multiple credible witnesses?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Well, that's, that's pretty heavy. I mean, for our, for our mid, Our mid range. This isn't part of Christie's Corner. Right. So this is. This is more of the corner.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's a whole new segment that we should also start. But Christie's last minute prep is the name of the segment.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Okay, well, it's a great question.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I like Chrissy's Corner, actually.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

And honestly, it's. Well, it has the alliteration. That's the thing.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Good.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. Right.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

And it doesn't.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You can spell corner with K, by the way.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Oh, yeah. Oh, for sure. But with. And like with a backwards R, it's just a. Just as a way of giving it a little something. Yeah. So this is actually one of my, my more favorite aspects of the restoration to discuss because when you're talking with someone who dismisses the restoration and they dismiss it out of hand, you're talking to someone who is blithely saying that there are legions of people, not just like one guy, who are all lying about their shared collective visionary experiences. Now you know, it's easy for a skeptic to refute Lucy Mack Smith saying that, oh, Joseph came and talked to me and said, I learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true. It's easy for them to refute it because they'll say, well, of course she's going to say that. She's his mom. She didn't tell us what day he said it. She's saying it 25 years after the fact. So of course she's going to write that. Of course she's going to say it. That doesn't prove that it happened. And so yeah, skeptics can deny those kinds of events, you know, so the first level of this kind of skepticism is the kind of just reject everything, anything that they say is false and everybody's a liar. That's kind of the first level, Right? So, well, Joseph Smith said he saw God. Nope, he didn't. He's a liar and he made it up because he just wanted to get people to follow him. Right. So in that first level of skepticism, Joseph is, and I don't mean to like put these in levels like one's better or worse. I'm not like doing Dante's Rings of Hell here. Although maybe, you know what, you're probably in Dante's Rings of Hell listening to this. But the reality of the matter is these people are rejecting, without evidence and without really explanation, everything out of hand. I mean, everything. So Joseph said that he found gold plates. Obviously he didn't. He's lying about that. Joseph said an angel appeared to him. He's lying about that. So in that first level of skepticism, Joseph Smith is a con artist who never ever had any spiritual manifestations or inclinations. Joseph is inventing the fact that he had those experiences to try to gain credence. But of course he didn't have any because he didn't. And he's a con man and he made it up. Right. So this is, I mean, the level where most anti Mormons operate. Honestly, Joseph Smith's a liar. Joseph Smith made it up. Joseph Smith's a liar. Joseph Smith made it up. Da da da da. Now it's easy for someone who just wants to reject everything that is that there is about Latter Day Saints to say things like that. What is much more difficult for them to do is to demonstrate that through what historians call evidence. And I know I'm a little tongue in cheek when I say that, but you know, so for instance, an antagonist on, on the Internet, you know, who, you know, didn't bother to listen to Christie's Quarter before they, they went to, they went to go, you know, publish their YouTube rant against the church. They are going to say things like, have you ever looked at, like, View of the Hebrews? And it, like, talks about how, like, I, I, I got to get into the. It's not quite. Is that extreme anti Mormonism? Probably. Yeah. So it's a guy who's like, you know, he's pulling a 720, you know, like, you. The Hebrews, you know.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, so that was, that was a little bit different that, that anti, that's subreddit anti Mormon. He's more of the whispering anti Mormon.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Right, well, so, so that person's like, have you ever, have you ever, you know, looked at View of the Hebrews? I mean, it talks about how the Indians are all descended from the Jews. And so that proves that Joseph Smith just stole the whole Book of Mormon from View of the Hebrews. Now, if you're a Latter Day Saint who has never, ever heard a View of the Hebrews, and no one's, no one's ever told you that that idea existed. And we've covered it on a podcast. Richard, pull it up. But we won't, because that's the kind of people we are. I mean, look, Richard will say he's gonna pull it up.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna pull it up.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I think it's one of the early arguments against Joseph Smith, the late war ones, isn't it?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, no, these are the, The Late War and View of the Hebrews. Late War is for sure. You want to see Garrett's Dander Up? It's View of the.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

It's an angry Garrett podcast.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You of the Hebrews is like, all right, let's talk about it. Late War is like, you get out of here.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah, you. Late War is you're a liar and you lie about the lies that you lie about.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Why do you lie? Oh, yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Why do you lie? Why do you lie? So look, that can, that can. Someone says that, and someone's like, I didn't know that. So there was a book that was already published that said that Indians were descended from the House of Israel. Right. And so when that strikes someone as a surprise, then that person like, yeah, and the church has been lying to you about it the whole time. That's where the whole Book of Mormon came from. It's always important at that point of that extreme anti Mormonism to stop and to ask yourself or see if you can find the answer. Do any credible PhD historians believe that the view of the Hebrews is the. That book is the origin of the Book of Mormon. Because, let's say, I grant you view of the Hebrews. I'm giving here's view of the Hebrews. I give it all to you. I wrap it up in a nice package. Richard creates a fake segment on the podcast for it, and you have view the Hebrews and you have it all day long. I grant to you the idea that Joseph Smith just stole the idea of Israelites coming to America from view of the Hebrews. Now, there's all kinds of problems with that much. You know, one of them being that we have no idea whether or not Joseph ever read it. And there aren't any, you know, the similar phrases or writing. But. But if. I grant you that, okay, so now Joseph has the idea that Israelites came to America. Where do the other 600 pages of the book come from? Because the problem with the Book of Mormon isn't. Isn't that, oh, I don't know how anyone could have come up with this idea. I mean, we talked about this when we talked about the, the Bunyan, right, The John Bunyan stories, right? That the, the problem isn't like. Yeah, and like, Joseph wrote a book where there were, like, good people and bad people, and the good people had to fight against the bad people. And that's like, exactly like literally every Greek mythology. I mean, like, of course, if you're looking for watered down, you know, tangential similarities, you can find something like that, but none of those things writes the book. Okay? You can believe that Joseph got the idea of Israelites coming to America from view of the Hebrews all day long. That doesn't write Alma 5. It doesn't write Moroni 10. It. It doesn't put these multiple different complex and complicated narratives into the book. And so scholars, like actual scholars, not, you know, your Uncle Bill in the basement of his mom's house, that actual scholars don't make that as an argument. You won't find a history of the United States that includes, you know, references to the Book of Mormon and the rise of Latter Day Saints and, And the Book of Mormon that says. But we all know that, like, the only place the Book of Mormon came from was like, view the Hebrews and stuff like, that's not in there. So why isn't it in there? So this is where we have to be much more critical of the arguments that people are making to us and reject them on their face. You're telling me. Because view of the Hebrews has An idea in it that is also represented in the Book of Mormon. That therefore that's where the Book of Mormon came from. Well if that's true, why are you the one telling me that and not someone who's a Harvard professor? Because it's not a good argument. Because you still have the problem of where does the text come from. Now I know I've gotten derailed a little bit from Tanya's question and that's going to happen. And that's all we actually do. I think people ask, we get derailed.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I find a Cyrillic R, throw it on the end of Christie's Corner and away we go.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Okay, great. Okay, well, so that that idea, I mean the book itself is already a hugely problematic thing. How do you explain it away? But then what do you do about the shared collective visionary experiences? So I can say all I want. Joe Smith lied about the angel appearing to him in his room and then he lied again about it appearing in his room. Then he lied again and again and again. And Joe's just lies. And every other day Joe's like, yeah, an angel appeared to me and Joseph like again, that helps you sleep at night if you're an apostate or an anti Mormon. Yeah, yeah, but why? How do you explain the fact that Martin Harris says that he saw an angel too, that David Whitmer says that he saw an angel, and that even though these people like Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris are persecuted for the remainder of their lives for claiming that they saw an angel, Oliver Cowdery loses an election solely based on the fact that he claims he saw an angel and the very fact that it's hurting them that they say they saw it even after they're out of the church. Well why, why are they saying they saw an angel? Again, an anti Mormon say, well they're just also lying. Okay, now what about all the people who are in the school, the prophets room, when the Savior and the Father appear to them and we have contemporary accounts in the minutes of the church of many of the brethren present had a heavenly vision of the Savior. Are they also all lying? I mean, are all the eight witnesses lying that they lifted the plates? I mean after a while to maintain this kind of weak argument that Joseph Smith just made everything up. It's impossible without Joseph having hundreds of co conspirators. And it is actually a fairly unique thing. I've talked about this before that when a historian's doing religious history, it's not their job to figure out whether or not a Revelation actually happened. Right. So when, when Mother Ann Lee, the founder of the Shakers, when she says she had a revelation from God, a historian does not sit down and say, well, she says she had a revelation. But I know she didn't because, like, why would God tell people that they couldn't get married? I mean, we, we don't try to decide whether or not that revelation was true. What do we do? We try to figure out whether or not she actually believed what she told people. Now, sometimes people will say things they don't actually believe. It happens, as I said before, with politicians all the time. This is going to come as a great surprise in 21st century America, but in the 19th century, it was a pretty regular occurrence that a politician would say something publicly and then privately write a letter and say, I don't actually agree with this at all. I just said that so that people would be okay with it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

What with, with the rare exception of Rebecca's dad.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Oh yeah, there. Look, are there modern politicians who've saved us from the Rolf hating selves that we were? Yes. Who were willing to speak truth to power. We came in hot saying that Rolf was an evil Nazi and that he turned in the whole family. And with kindness. With kindness, yeah. He gently pushed back educating us.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

And kindness. And refreshments at the play.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah. I've never, I want to be wrong again just so he will once again take me to the play and get me refreshments. But the, the, the interesting aspect of all of this, right, I know nothing's interesting is what you're thinking, but is we have all of Joseph Smith's documents, okay. I mean, obviously we're going to still find some. There's 12,000 of them. In all of them, Joseph Smith really seems to believe he was called by God. Now from a historian's perspective, just from a historian, not this historian, but any other historian, that doesn't prove Joseph was called by God. What does it prove? It proves that Joseph believes he was called by God. And that is very, very, very different than that basic first level of skepticism and anti Mormonism that is saying Joseph made everything up. Joseph pretended that he had plates, never had plates. Joseph said he had an angel appear to him, never had an angel appear to him. But a lot of that gets tied up in the fact that, okay, you want to say that Joseph is just crazy. You know, maybe Joseph's crazy, maybe he, maybe he just thinks that he saw God, but he never did. Okay, well, how did his crazy infect Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery? To the point where they saw Jesus and they saw the Father and they saw many of these things. Well, Sidney Rigdon did. And then, and then Oliver saw Moses, Elias and Elijah. And this is not just a one time thing. When Oliver Cowdery is trying to get back into the church, he's writing letters back and forth with, with some of the, the faithful members and he, he talks about the fact that, yeah, I was super sensitive to some of the things that have been said about me since. He's apostatized. Right. And clearly there were things that were over the top, you know, that people said, things that Cowdery wasn't actually guilty of, even though there were some things that he was. And what's Cowdery's response? You know, if, if you'd had Peter's hands on your head, you would, you would, you'd be just as sensitive as I am. Right. Even in Cowdery's own defense of his actions, he's saying, hey, these miraculous events all happen. If you had talked to John the Baptist like I've talked to John the Baptist, you wouldn't really take it too kindly when someone called you a liar because you would have been in the presence of John the Baptist and Peter and James and John. And so one of the things that I think is actually one of the best arguments for the veracity of the restoration is that there are multiple shared visionary experiences where it's not just Joseph alone, it's Joseph and other people. And none of those other people ever claim that it was a sham and those visions didn't happen. Now when you say, what about these other groups? So we have a lot of that now, you know, who else has an awful lot of shared visionary experiences? The New Testament church, where, yep, Paul, you know, has his personal experience with Jesus. But Jesus also appears above 500 brethren at once. He appears to more than one disciple on the road to Emmaus. He, you know, not only appears and speaks to Thomas, you know, and says, you know, here, thrust the hand in, but he speaks to all of the 12. He has the multiple women who see and speak with Jesus. You have multiple shared experiences with the resurrected Lord. And I think back to the point that, that, you know, the atheist Richard referenced is he was saying, look, there's as many eyewitnesses of the miracles that Latter Day Saints claim from the time that they were, I'm sure he said Mormon because. But from the time that Latter Day Saints claim that they were organized as there are from the New Testament. And there's even More So they've got 11 people who said they've seen plates. They've got dozens of people who said they've seen angels. There's all kinds of miraculous claims. Now, of course he's going to pooh, pooh it and say, well, you know, no one, you know, all these things are false. But it is a big deal that you can't just blithely explain away Joseph's revelation, Joseph's experiences, the same way you could with other religious people. Back to Mother Ann Lee. If Mother Ann Lee says she had a revelation, a historian says this is what Mother Ann Lee said. She said she had a revelation. And it leaves the door open for, well, Mother and Lee might be very sincere, but she also might be very sincerely wrong. Anne White says that she received revelation. She's the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, and she might very well believe it. A historian just says, this is what Anne White said happened. We don't attempt to try to say, well, obviously it didn't. So there's lots of people who claim to have had powerful spiritual experiences or revelations or even visions. In other religions, it is much more rare for people to claim that they had a shared collective visionary experience as it relates to the offshoots that you talk about. There are certainly people who apostatize and create their own churches and claim to have miraculous manifestations. One of these is James Strang. James Strang claims that he's received revelations. He claims that he has had revealed knowledge. But those claims were all personal, right? So he's going to claim that he had visions and very well, you know, so someone could say a story that he did. But there's not a shared collective visionary experience. Now there is a shared experience among James Frank when he finds the voree plates. There are five people with him when he finds the plates who swear an affidavit that they saw the plates when he found them. Now, several of them will later apostatize and then claim that they actually didn't. And, you know, there's all kinds of stuff going on there. I don't have time to go into all of it. But of course, someone could easily say, well, yeah, they were with him when he found them, but if he's the one who made them and hid them there, then I guess he had a pretty good idea he was gonna find him, didn't he? You know, I mean, and. And so that's not. That's not miraculous. It's not miraculous to find the plates with five other people if in Fact, you're the one who buried them there. Now, I'm not saying that happened or didn't. I'm saying that's not a shared collect. That's not an angel coming down from heaven and saying, these plates were translated by the power of God, which is what you have with the Book of Mormon. Sidney Rigdon is going to claim to receive revelations later in life, but he's not going to claim a shared collective visionary experience. One of my favorite. We've already talked about him, I think, a little bit before. Is my favorite. Why would I say he's my favorite? I hate this guy. I mean, you're not supposed to hate anyone, but also kind of is Gladden Bishop.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, he's my favorite, too. Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

He always your favorite? I think it's just. His name's Bishop, right?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Gladden.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Oh, you know, what do you think he likes singing? You know, there's sunshine in my soul today.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure that he did.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

He could make the pathway bright. I mean, what he. You'd think he'd be just barrels of fun. Gladden Bishop.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's a name like Gladden. I. Look, I don't mean to judge a person by their name, but Gladden suggests a rotund figure. Was he. Was he a larger individual?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

No, he was. He was. He was. He was svelte.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. Interesting.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

I mean, for a while. I don't know. I know.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I know. Seven or eight gladdens, they're all heavy, so maybe that's what I'm thinking.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah. So, like. Yeah, when you were in school, there were like 19 gladdens. We have, like when you. When you went to the gift shop at the end of a museum and they had the little license plates, like 90 of them were glad and one Richard. Is that what you're saying happened?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's what I'm saying.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah. By the way, I. In my life, I have never been able to buy one of those license plates.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, of course not, Garrett. It's not. It's not happening. Yeah, same. Same for our son Rigden, by the way.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

No Rigdens, but Andrew and Richard just killing it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. Max, Lily, Parker.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Lily. Probably not spelled the right way.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, it's spelled the wrong way, but we count it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Okay, so she's just willing to have a license plate with her name spelled wrong.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

What's. It's Utah. So we spell with a silent Q, obviously, but.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah, yeah, with that. We spell it with the ampersand and a number sign. It's one of our favorite things to do look at our diversity. I'm going to use an exclamation point in the name. Garrett. So Gladden Bishop is going to claim multiple visionary experiences. I mean, he is going to. He's the guy who gets excommunicated, like every other week from the church. And after one of his excommunications, he is going to write a little pamphlet, I mean, a little book talking about all the visionary experiences that he's had as he's condemning the 12 for not properly following him. It's called An Address to the Sons and Daughters of Zion Scattered abroad through all the Earth. I think actually his first name is Francis, by the way. He just goes by his middle name, which is Gladden. So I can only assume Gladden's actually not a first name. It's probably the surname of his mother, you know, before she was married. And so Francis Gladden Bishop. But he went by Gladden. So, I mean, okay, he must have decided that's what he wanted to do. In fact, people who followed him were called Glad Knights.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, yeah, you're going to want to. You're going to want to be an ITE of that. And if he was an apostle, it'd be F. Gladden Bishop, which is a good ring.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Gladden Bishop. Yep. I don't want the Francis. Yeah, so he's going to claim multiple visionary experiences. So for instance, he's going to say that. That the crown. He goes on a rant about how the crown that's talked about in Revelations is a literal crown. And. And that it's important that you know what it looks like. I mean, this. This comes across as crazy, right? But this is what he says. Page 12 of his pamphlet, right? Now, this crown of life was shown unto me by the holy angel is composed of two crowns representing the two priesthoods. One is called the Crown of Israel and the other is called the CR Glory. Right. So he's claiming that. That an angel came down and showed him these crowns. It's not stated how many crowns are on the head in Revelation 19:12. It's not stated how many crowns were on his head, either in the first or second quotation. But as the crowns represent the priesthood, which are two only. Of course there are only two. I said the first crown was the crown of Israel, and it is so called because it represents the twelve tribes of Israel, as it's composed of silver and gold and curiously wrought into stars and adorned with 12 precious stones of the same kind as those in Aaron's breastplate. And also the two stones of the Urim and Thummim, all of which are curiously set on the board of the crown. So he's going on and on and on about how an angel came down and showed him this crown and that this is something that you definitely need to. To know about that, you know, it's something that's key. It's key to the understanding. And he is going to talk about having the same experiences that Joseph have. So and in doing so, by the way, he's going to mock James Strang as well. So, you know, be prepared for that. And I will say here that the Lord has set forth the proclamation as the flying rail of only to fulfill the prophecy, reading it, but to be the basis of faith in all things. For who can so minutely describe the sacred things and translate the title page of the sealed record? So he claims he's now translating the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, which is a great place to go, don't you think? And also a few of the characters that were translated from the Book of Life without seeing them. Indeed, who dare attempt such a thing unless God commands it? Has such a thing ever been attempted by any person before? Some may say that the Beaver island prophet, that's, That's James Strang, has been pretending to translate the sealed record, but he did not say that they were fine. Did he not say that they were fine brass instead of gold? Which of if so, plainly shows he knows nothing about the sealed record, and it also shows his ignorance of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps it is proper to remark here, lest some might look for the Colorado prophets or some other pretender to possess this at the same time that it was never given into the hands of any other person after Joseph returned them to the angel, until with the other sacred things by the same angel it was brought to me, for he said unto me. And as to a further disposition of them, see the last clause of the third paragraph of the proclamation. Now, as to myself and all the first elders of the church of Christ under Joseph, we are all well, well acquainted. Acquainted with me, and cannot in reason believe that I would attempt to deceive in this matter. For my moral character has to this day stood unblemished. Well, that. I mean, I. I don't know how many times you have to be excommunicated before your moral character is at least, I don't know, somewhat called into question. I mean, I. I feel like. I mean, how many freebies do you get on excommunication before someone has the right to go? I don't know that you're always right, Cladden. I mean, what do you think? What's the number? What's the over under on excommunications before you can start to say, you know what, Gladden? A little watery.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

7.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Well, I think he still surpassed it. So I think, I think, I think he's still, you know, with six excommunications, I was like, he has never committed a sin. He got to seven. And I'm like, okay, maybe he has.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The early church, though. I mean, they're coming and going a little bit, you know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah, you're coming and going. So. So he's making a very big claim that he actually has all of the things that were brought to Joseph are now brought to him. He says that he's going to showcase them. He never actually showcases them. So in answer to Tanya's question about the offshoot branches, there are lots of people who claim prophetic authority in Revelation, and many that claim that they've even had visitations, but they're not claiming them as shared collective experiences. And that's the same. Look, as far as I know, look, I am not someone who is attending every one of, you know, Denver snuffers, you know, meetings. Okay, I. I know that you wish I was, but I'm not. So, I mean, maybe at some point he's claimed to have had a shared collective visionary experience, but from what I know, he's claiming that he's been visited by Jesus on dozens and dozens and dozens of occasions, but it's. It's a singular experience. It's him claiming that he had the experience and then telling other people about it. And he'll say, well, that's the same thing that Joseph Smith said. It is true that that's the same thing Joseph Smith said for the first vision. But then Joseph had multiple shared visionary experiences. And they're important because they demonstrate that Joseph isn't just making things up on the fly. Joseph isn't just claiming because it sounds good, as many anti Mormons will say. Well, yeah, Joseph's just like. He's like invented that Peter, James and John came. That's why he like doesn't talk about them until later, because they didn't really come. Well, why is Oliver Cowdery talking about it then? Because he's also lying about it. Okay, well, why is Sidney Rigdon saying that he saw the Kingdoms of Glory? Because he's also. He's also lying about it. He's also saying it's just a lie. Well, what about all the People who see the angels at the Kirtland Temple, it says they're always also. They're also lying. And what about all the people in the school? They're also. It's just everybody. I mean, when the answer to every evidence that's presented to you is that every single person is lying, but you actually don't have evidence that they're lying. You don't have just, you know, accounts where they contradict one another. You don't have accounts where they say, yeah, I didn't really believe. You're just saying you're taking it upon yourself to say that they're a liar. That's unisom. Anti Mormonism. That's you claiming that you've had some kind of special insight, which would be a revelation, by the way, that goes beyond the sources that exist. You don't have a source that proves that Oliver Cowdery never saw an angel and never saw the place. You don't have that source. So if you're going to state it categorically, I mean, talk about taking things without evidence. The greatest misnomer among anti Mormons is the claim that all these Latter Day Saints, they believe everything and they won't even look at the evidence. Oh, it's ridiculous. Well, claiming that those visionary experiences didn't happen is a rejection of the evidence without any kind of explanation about why you're rejecting it. And if the reason why you're rejecting it is, well, I, I find it pretty hard to believe. Well, that's duly noted. And not surprising from someone who's faithless. I believe faithless loser was something that we coined not in Christie's corner. I mean, that's no faithless loser corner. That's. That's one that we probably should. Should hold back on. But from that person who's, who's faithless, you know, you're. You're claiming something for which you don't actually have evidence. Oh, you've got a lot of it stands to reason. Well. Well, I mean, I know if an angel appeared to me, I would say this. First of all, you don't know what would happen if an angel appeared to you. And second of all, even what you're saying, you can't prove, you. You can't ever prove your way to the gospel being true. But certainly a lot of the arguments that people put up claiming that it's obviously not are just so shallow and so watery and so lacking any actual source. You don't find historians. Again, that's different than Bill in his basement with his computer. You don't find historians saying that it's obvious that Martin Harris and David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery lied about ever seeing the angel. You don't find historians saying that. Now a historian is going to say, well, these people claimed that they saw an angel and they claim the angel told them that. They're going to put it like that, but they're not going to provide evidence that it didn't happen. And it's not because they care about our church. It's because they don't have a way of saying that. Now they might provide. You know, many years later, a recent excommunicant from the church claimed that he overheard and a conversation that Martin Harris said that he never saw the plates or the angel, but Martin Harris himself and all the accounts we have never says that. I mean, so yeah, historian might provide that context. Well, look, there is someone who later claimed that they heard Martinez said it, but that's a really bad source. And so I'll let you know it exists. But it's a bad source because it's not coming from the person who talked about it. And I, I mean, we would have to go through every single apostate sect to make sure that that's the case. But at least in general, I mean, the Bickertonites are not claiming that they had a shared collective visionary experience. The William McClellan's not claiming that he's had additional shared collective visionary experiences. A lot of them are claiming that they've had revelations, but none of them are claiming that they've seen angels with other people. And so I think that gets to the point of what Tanya was saying. Remember though, for all the great evidence that there is, the only way that you can actually know these things are true is through the Holy Spirit. And that requires you wanting to believe and you opening your heart to the Holy Spirit and letting it speak to you. And you won't get answers for everything, but at least hopefully you recognize at times, you know, whoever you are out there listening, that a lot of the arguments that just get regurgitated on social media and here's on this reel and here's a TikTok. They're such a terrible arguments and you know, they're terrible because historians aren't making them. And that's how you know they're terrible. If your argument is so good, if it's so powerful, if it's so overwhelming, why isn't a historian making it? Why is it a clown who's a keyboard warrior? So thank you so much for joining us. And we will eventually get to more emails, but probably not. We apologize. We can't get to all of them. We are drowning in missionary emails. We're getting, like, I don't know, 100 a week. I mean, how many are we getting? Richard? Is it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, I, I added, I added 67 new missionaries to the Google Drive today and yesterday.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

So I, I have some more names for you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So it's gonna be more San Diego. It's.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmont]

Yeah, it's gonna be more. There's gonna be more than that. So, anyway, so thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Garrett Dirkmont 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.