S5E28 John C. Bennett

Summary

Standard of Truth Podcast: Episode S5E28 - John C. Bennett

Host: Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat
Guest: Dr. Richard Leduc
Release Date: July 3, 2025

---

Introduction

In this engaging and informative episode of the Standard of Truth podcast, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard Leduc delve into the complex history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) with a particular focus on John C. Bennett. The conversation is enriched with humor, scholarly insight, and critical analysis of historical events and doctrinal developments.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Dirkmaat [00:37]: "Hi. Welcome to a special live episode of the Standard of Truth podcast."

---

Casual Banter and Setting the Scene

The episode begins with lighthearted banter between the hosts, setting a relaxed tone. They mention being joined by senior missionaries and share amusing anecdotes about their experiences, including humorous remarks about driving challenges and the logistics of their tours.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Leduc [01:18]: "We do have some guests other than the tour. We have some senior missionaries that are here."

---

Christie's Corner: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 74

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to exploring Section 74 of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), particularly its implications for the LDS Church's stance on infant baptism. The hosts examine historical context, scriptural interpretations, and the evolution of church doctrines.

Key Points:

1. Historical Context of Section 74:

   • Originally recorded in the Book of Commandments and Revelations.
   • Intended for inclusion in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants but published without a date in subsequent editions.
   • Reflects an explanation of First Corinthians 7:14, which discusses the sanctification of unbelieving spouses.

2. Infant Baptism Debate:

   • Dr. Dirkmaat [10:02]: "Children were in some way attached to the covenant of grace that was given to their parents."
   • The episode critiques the theological underpinnings of infant baptism, highlighting its lack of explicit biblical support and its roots in longstanding Christian tradition.
   • Comparison with Protestant practices and the historical justification for infant baptism as a continuation of the Law of Circumcision.

3. Revelation Dating Controversy:

   • Original manuscripts indicate Section 74 was received in 1830, not 1832 as previously documented.
   • Dr. Dirkmaat [26:53]: "We knew exactly what we were going to talk about before this, and so now we're prepared to be able to go."

4. Impact on Church Doctrine:

   • The revelation's misdating affects the understanding of church history and doctrinal development.
   • Analysis of how tradition and cultural practices influence doctrinal stances, often beyond explicit scriptural mandates.

Notable Quotes:

Dr. Dirkmaat [08:14]: "When you wanna look smart in Sunday school, if you want your friends to think you're cool, when you wanna seem wise and not a fool, It's Christy's Corner."

Dr. Dirkmaat [14:05]: "What's the first. It's an infant baptism."

---

Analysis of Protestant and Catholic Justifications for Infant Baptism

The hosts critically assess how different Christian denominations have historically justified infant baptism. They argue that practices like infant baptism are maintained more due to cultural tradition than scriptural mandate, challenging the notion that such practices are essential for salvation.

Key Points:

• Protestant Reformation's Stance:

  • Despite rejecting the saving authority of ordinances, denominations like Lutheranism and Calvinism continued infant baptism.
  • The use of First Corinthians 7:14 to justify the practice, even though the scripture does not explicitly endorse infant baptism.

• Catholic Tradition:

  • Infant baptism is defended as necessary to prevent damnation through the doctrine of original sin.
  • Development of beliefs like limbo to address the fate of unbaptized infants.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Dirkmaat [16:06]: "But it's done it because it's not there in the scriptures. And we can only believe things that are in the scriptures."

---

Mailbag Segment: John C. Bennett

Transitioning to the mailbag segment, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc address an email from a listener named Jeremy, who shares his findings about John C. Bennett's grave in Polk City, Iowa. The discussion reveals detailed historical insights into Bennett's life, his role in the LDS Church, and his notorious reputation.

Key Points:

1. John C. Bennett’s Background:

   • Initially presented as a physician in Nauvoo, though skepticism about his medical qualifications is expressed.
   • His role as a spurious member of the First Presidency and subsequent excommunication due to immoral conduct.

2. Bennett’s Deception and Antagonism:

   • Accusations of Bennett falsely claiming to have joined the LDS Church to expose its practices.
   • His public confessions and subsequent attacks on Joseph Smith, reinforcing his image as a deceitful apostate.

3. Military Service Controversy:

   • Clarification that Bennett's veteran status stems from his short, non-combat role in the Union Army during the Civil War.
   • Dr. Dirkmaat [34:32]: "He was on the side of the Union and he helps raise a regiment."

4. Impact on Church History:

   • Bennett's actions and falsehoods significantly tainted the reputation of the LDS Church and complicated the historical narrative surrounding plural marriage and church leadership.

Notable Quotes:

Dr. Leduc [31:07]: "John C. Bennett assumes a lot of air quotes. Formal medical training where he goes to a medical school and he apprentices."

Dr. Dirkmaat [34:46]: "He's technically a veteran. He just. He doesn't actually serve in any combat theater where he sees any action."

---

Conclusion and Final Remarks

The episode wraps up with the hosts reflecting on the complexities of church history and the challenges of addressing controversial figures like John C. Bennett. They emphasize the importance of scrutinizing historical sources and maintaining scholarly integrity when discussing doctrinal and historical issues.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Dirkmaat [48:11]: "John C. Bennett is one of the greatest of all apostates in the church because of the long shadow that his antagonism casts."

---

Final Thoughts

Episode S5E28 of the Standard of Truth podcast offers a thorough examination of infusing scriptural analysis with historical scrutiny. By exploring Doctrine and Covenants Section 74 and the controversial figure of John C. Bennett, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc provide listeners with a nuanced understanding of LDS Church history and doctrinal developments. Their balanced approach, combining humor with rigorous scholarship, makes for an enlightening and thought-provoking listening experience.

---

Share this episode with fellow Latter-Day Saints or anyone interested in church history to foster a deeper understanding and faith.

Transcript

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

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 a special live episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Garrett Dirkmont, and I'm joined by my friend, Dr. Richard Leduc.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Hello, Garrett. Thanks for having me back. We are here in the shadow of the Keokuk Walmart. I wish the everlasting hills. We are joined this day and always. We are joined here by our Standard of Truth tour. That was our ninth take. They got it. That was perfect.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

They crushed it the first several times. They just did it. Clap the back of their hand.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's true. We do have some guests other than the tour. We have some senior missionaries that are here.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We probably shouldn't name them in case they're in trouble with the mission president.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's right.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yep. They gave us the skinny on the increased cookie sizes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. We don't want anyone to know everything is content.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Just so you know. You say it. I'm gonna say it here. And as well, by the world's greatest bus driver, Lynette.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yep.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I said she, she. I think she backed up all the way to Hans Mill on a dirt road.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

She didn't even have to. She just did it to show off.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Didn't use one.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Slide it both ways.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Didn't use one mirror. Just like I'm gonna do this by the, you know, by the North Star. Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

She is an amazing driver. She drives for Arrow and we're gonna try to have her drive for us every time we come to Nauvoo in Missouri. But my guess is her calendar is gonna become increasingly filled each time we ask. Oh, sorry.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'd love to.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I in Texas and I can't come because of Texas and stuff like that, so.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes, but we'll try. That's very good. She's received 37 Book of Mormons from all of the different tours. She is so grateful for all of them. She's very kind about all of it. So, Garrett, we do have a Christie's Corner.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I asked whether or not we were going to continue Christie's Corner.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's the people cry out. Everyone wants it. The whole reason anyone listens to anything ever church related.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Sound smart.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

To sound smart in Sunday school. It's the only Reason anyone does anything.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Spirit or maybe have some kind of personal.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Everyone's running for Pope, and Sunday school is the time to do it. So the thing is, that one made me laugh. I apologize for the lack of professionalism.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, the Pope was Midwestern this time, so. Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We're so close.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, he's from Chicago. We're not far away.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

He's a White Sox fan, I feel.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Wow.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I know. Southside.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Why didn't he go for the Cubs? I don't know. Yeah. Okay.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Anyway, so the Christie's Corner doctrine covenants, section 74. Now, Garrett, you and I, we go through all of Come Follow Me every day. We knew exactly what we were going to talk about before this, and so now we're prepared to be able to go. It certainly wasn't mentioned. It was five seconds before by one of the TOR members. What sections are for this week? Yeah, we didn't happen.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And I'd like to point out that we actually didn't verify that this actually is for this week. He just said they were, and we setting us up. And you know what?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm gonna check.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Right? We didn't even check Classic. Like, for all I know, this was three weeks ago. And he's like, they're gonna say it. All right. They're gonna say it on there. And so we're going to. We were going. You know, at this point, we're gonna do it. Even if it was four weeks ago, we'll do it live. Yeah, yeah. It's. It's not this week. I see.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, there we go. Okay. All right.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We're. Our audience is helping us understand.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I don't believe any of you. I'm still looking it up.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

That more important than studying the gospel on the schedule of Come Follow Him, Come Follow me in. When is. Is when it's actually being spoken of in church. Right. Because if the entire point is to sound good in Sunday school, one of the requisite parts is being in Sunday school.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's a really great point, Garrett, with the fifth Sunday in June. So this is actually really, really, really important because the whole point is sounding smart, but the reality is you're going to be going through DNC 64 all the way to 74 or 75. And so what's going to happen is the teacher, they're going to start back in the, you know, the mid-60s and going. And you might not get to 74 to make your comment. And so you're going to need to raise your hand.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

You have to interject.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Interrupt.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. So a teacher starts, and it seems like they're on 72. If there's.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

There's five minutes left and it's 72.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

15 minutes in, just raise your hand. You just raise your hand. And probably our listeners are the kind who have to just keep it up there because they don't want to call every. Everyone who's ever taught Sunday school.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I call on Jim, it's going to be a whole thing.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Everyone who's ever taught Sunday school has developed the like, as if you have some kind of blindness in your peripheral. And because the one guy sits over here and he's always doing this. And so you kind of. You teach to the left side of the room.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So this is a.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And you can still see this is going on.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

This is an audio. This is an audio medium. Garrett's waving his hand.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, I was. I was pantomiming someone frantically trying to. To wave in, you know, a destroyer to save them off of a desert island.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

When I.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

When that's what it's like for the guy who has to comment.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

When I taught Sunday school, I would put on Clydesdale blinders.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Oh, yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Specifically to avoid me looking.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Because there were.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Brother England.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Any eye contact? Yeah, I was. I was one time in a ward where, you know, someone was well known for making multiple comments and, you know, they were never really on the topic. And I was doing a pretty good job of teaching to one half of the room. And I saw the hand, and it was. I mean, it was like. It was like the hand was going up and down as though like when a cowboy rides a bull, just throwing it back, trying to get my attention, and I couldn't. I got to the point where I felt like it was. I had to call on them. And I thought to myself, you know what? It's right. I actually had the thought, it's right to call on them. I'm gonna do it. I'm sure it'll be fine. And it ended up being just the most false doctrine that you have ever heard in a Sunday school class. So I feel like I'm justified in really ignoring anyone.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes. But because people do that. That's why it's important for any litners to. So whatever Garrett's about to tell us to help Christy prepare for a talk that she was just assigned very recently. Just make sure you really get into it. So, Garrett. 76. Take it away. 74. Whatever section.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Why don't you just throw another number out?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

86. Take it away. Word of wisdom. 89. Take it away.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Section 139. Take it away.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Community of Christ sections. Take it away.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

So we're gonna talk about Section 74 for Christie's Corner. I assume you've dropped the sounder. I'm gonna.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's gonna be a. It's gonna be a seamless edit right now.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

When you wanna look smart in Sunday school, if you want your friends to think you're cool, when you wanna seem wise and not a fool, It's Christy's corner. Doctor covers. Section 74 has a pretty interesting history. It's one of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants that our understanding of it completely changes on the basis of the Book of Commandments and Revelations that was found not long ago and then was published through the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Now, doctrine covenant, section 74, when it was first recorded, it. It's recorded in the Book of Commandments and Revelations. But when they prepare the Revelations to be published, they don't plan to include it in the Book of Commandments. That's that first attempt to publish the Revelations in Missouri in 1833 that get pitched out the window and they never finish it. It wasn't intended to be included there, but they do intend to include it in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. And it is published, but it's published without a date. It's just published as a section. In 1844, they again, just publish the section without. Without a date attached to it. The section is not super long. I mean, we could, you know. You know, if we were trying to kill time, we'd take turns reading. But then have Richard read several of them because he'd fail at that. And then it would slow it down, but very poorly. But the section is talking about First Corinthians, chapter 7, verse 14, and it's providing this explanation. And I'll have to read some of it, unfortunately.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, no, I'm sure it'll be lovely.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Look, in First Corinthians 7:14, Paul teaches that for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else. Were your children unclean, but now they are holy? Now, that verse doesn't seem to say a whole lot about infant baptism, but this is what was used by primarily Protestants, but also Catholic theologians to argue that children were in some way attached to the covenant of grace that was given to their parents. And because baptism isn't something that saves you, baptism is only something that you do because you have faith. You do it because Jesus told you to do Was practice for all of these.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, Richard, nearly the roast beast.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I feel like most of it's on your shirt.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It is. Well, so we did pick up from Dr. Get Wells is a restaurant here. They did make a fine.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

They really want to shout out on our Latter Day Saint podcast.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

They do. They do. Well, it was great. Samantha, she is getting married. She thought she'd be gone this week, but she won't be leaving until Friday. She's getting married on the 3rd of July. So we wish her well. She doesn't listen. She's not a Latter Day Saint. She has no interest.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I'm pretty sure that. So most Latter Day Saints don't listen. No non Latter Day Saints, except Lynette, when she's forced to because she has to drive us back to the hotel. Listen. But yeah. So people who practiced infant baptism, and that's essentially nearly all Protestants, did at the time, they would justify it by saying that it was something that the covenant that the believing adult had made was given to the child through infant baptism. Now, as we talked about in other episodes, infant baptism is one of the craziest things that is maintained in the Reformation. Right. Because the Catholics are practicing infant baptism, but they're doing it for a very. A very specific reason. They believe if you're not baptized and you die, you go to hell. So, you know, later they'll have a doctrine of limbo. That's not a doctrine, but more a belief that maybe the babies go to this semi state in between heaven and hell where it's not that great and it's not that bad. It's not the game where you try to go under the stick, but they go to limbo. And so it makes sense why that doctrine would develop. If you have to be baptized to go to heaven and so many children die in infancy, well, then you can see why someone would say, well, if you just grab some water and throw it at the baby, you know, within the first eight days and say the prayer that that counts. The really weird part is that in the Protestant Reformation, which rejects the saving authority of any ordinances, why in the world does Martin Luther and John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli and eventually John and Charles Wesley, why are they maintaining infant baptism? Because they don't believe that baptism is essential to go to heaven, so why are they doing it? And again, these are all people that are saying, unless it is spoken directly in the Bible, it is not true. Okay? So anything you want to believe about God, that's wonderful. You have to prove it in the Scriptures that's the foundation of Protestant thought. Only the Bible can give us answers to questions about God. Well, it doesn't take, you know, a rocket scientist. It can take someone with a sauce all over their chest to go through.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The, the, the tin foil or the tin did not maintain its structural integrity. I had multiple roast beefs, and it just, it was garments protected me from being burned by the ajuice.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

By the way, Richard looks like he spent the day working in a meatpacking plant. And he just. It's true. Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's all over my very bright floral shirt he's wearing.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Wearing a shirt that looks like he's on a vacation in Hawaii, but then also with essentially what looks like blood smattered down the front of it. So no wonder the girl was acting weird to you from the catering service, because you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes, she was.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

By the end, looked like you just killed somebody.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Why did they do the infant baptisms? That is interesting, right? Is it tip of the cap to original sin or what was the first.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

It's, it frankly, is one of those things that, that you expect is, is going to be done away because it's not there in the scriptures. And we can only believe things that are in the scriptures. There's not a single instance in the Bible of any child baptisms, let alone infant baptisms. So how do you justify it? And really, it becomes a kind of thing for tradition. I mean, look, for 1500 years, every Christian had their child baptized when it was born for 1500. I mean, that is such a long time. I mean, you know, you place it in perspective, right? I mean, the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Saints barely been around 200 years. The United States of America hasn't been around 300 years. Christians have been all of them in all Christendom baptizing infants shortly after they're born for 1400 years. It's not a way to make a winning argument to say, yeah, we're not going to do that anymore.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's to your point on culture, right? How culture. Culture wins. It's just what you do.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

It's.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You have a baby, if you don't die, we're gonna, we're gonna baptize.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

How are you gonna convince someone that you are teaching the true gospel when the, the closest connection they have to religion is the baptism of their children, Right? And you're going to say, actually, you don't do that anymore. And then they're like, no, no, I want my child baptized. I want them to be a Christian. And the response is, no, no, it doesn't actually matter if they're baptized because, well, they're only Christians if God gives them the gift of faith. And he probably didn't. What were we saying? I mean, that. That's it. You're losing that person at that point. And so Protestants actually kind of worked over time to try to find a way to argue because they weren't alone in this argument. Anabaptist came along. Schleitheim confession.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Anabaptist came along and argued, hey, infant baptism isn't in the scriptures. The only legitimate baptism is one in which someone is re baptized as an adult if they were baptized as an infant. Because baptism has to be based on the confession of faith. So you can't make a confession of faith as an infant. And everyone hated Anabaptist for it. So these reformers had front row seats to what happens if someone attempts to change the culture of infant baptism by saying, you don't do it anymore. I mean, look, the Anabaptists didn't just say, you don't do it. They said it was the foulest product of Popish Catholicism.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I mean, yeah, Mormon said something similar.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, I kind of feel like if you could get together with a Mennonite and read that portion, they'd be like, okay, I don't believe your Mormon book, but I kind of like this guy. Kind of like what he thinks about people who have a problem with infant baptism. So there was a lot of ink that was spilled justifying this. And think about the difficult position you're in. We don't believe anything about Jesus that isn't expressly in the Bible, except for this one thing that affects literally everyone who's a member of every church. It's kind of like the other real problem with Sola Scriptura. And that is we don't believe that there's any other scripture except for the scripture that's in the Bible. Only unfortunately, the Bible doesn't actually say that there's no other scripture but the Bible. So that kind of puts us in a tough place. Right. And so you develop explanations that actually aren't rooted in scripture and you desperately look for things to try to make them fit. Latter Day Saints do the same thing. We do the same thing all the time. We, we get a teaching that we don't understand and we just start making stuff up. We just start inventing. Well, that's because probably before, I mean, maybe when John the Baptist was there, the second time he did that, we just make it up because we're trying to make things work out. And so we. We invent almost a folk horse sometimes. The best example I can think of this is Doctrine and Covenant, Section 41, which we are not covering this week.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, we're not.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

But we could clip this out.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm going to.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And four years from now.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yep.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

What I'm about to say is, now Christie's corn.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's exactly what I'm going to do. Four years from now. That's exactly what I'm going to do.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

This podcast will not exist four months from now, let alone four years from now. So doctrine section 41 was erroneously dated in the history of the Church and therefore in the Doctrine and Covenants to a later date. And it was given. Because it was given this later date. It was. It was given an erroneous explanation in the history of the Church that the entire point of the Revelation was about all the evil and false and lying spirits that had come into the church. And then you read doctrine covenant, section 41, and there's literally nothing in there about any false and lying spirits coming into the church. And so you're like, I. And so you can go read Doctrine and Covenants commentaries that are precede, you know, 2013, when the change was made to the Scriptures. And you'll find all kinds of gymnastics that's going on as people are grabbing a hold of any part of any verse. They're like, okay, where it says, be faithful. That's probably a reference to the fact that there were all these people that were believing false spirits and that because they're trying to find a way to make the explanation that was in the history of the Church equal. What is is, is now in. In the. The Revelation, once we get the Book of Commandments and Revelations, we learn, oh, that Revelation actually had nothing to do with evil spirits at all. It was all about building a home for Joseph and. And Sidney Rigdon to live in. Which is the reason why I didn't talk about evil spirits. It also talked about Edward Partridge. So, I mean, he wasn't an evil spirit, if you're. If you're checking.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I was checking. Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

So. So it is a natural thing to do. But you see it in Protestantism. And in fact, you know, you have one theologian will say that that this verse in Corinthians has been the most heralded to try to defend infant baptism, even though you'll notice what I read in First Corinthians for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. And people use that to justify. Well, the children are holy, and so they're already holy. That's why they get the sign of baptism. But not for the same reason you were. I would say because they still all believe in original sin. Because everybody's going to hell without. Without. They're all condemned for their sin. The sin of Adam. Well, this revelation, I'm saying, way too much time.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, no, you're ridiculous. No, you're killing it. Phoebe Draper Palmer, Mailbag. We just have.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Whoa.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, no, no, it's great. We just. We just have one email, so keep going.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, is.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You're 21 minutes in.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

This is the worst episode we've ever done.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We've done worse episodes. No, we've done a lot of worse episodes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, it's not good, but we've done worse. Right? Now she would say this is the worst episode we've ever done. Leslie. Okay. There's only a couple, though. So those who. Those who are present are witnessing history. The Word, the worst podcast ever done. Which is an incredibly low bar to begin with. Right? I mean, you start at nothing, and we're somehow.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Which ones are worse?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No, yeah, yeah, yeah. Get a list. Yeah. So I want.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I wanna. I wanna. Leslie's top five worst episodes. Let me.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Let me try to wrap this up, but I won't be able to. No, you're.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You're really bringing it home.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

So doctrine. Doctrine and Covenant, Section 74, it goes into explaining this verse of. Of Paul. And it says, it came to pass there rose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision. So again, Protestants would argue that infant baptism was actually a continuation of the law of circumcision. Right? So the. Those who are part of the covenant, they bab. They would circumcise their children at 8 days old. And that. That God intended that to be a continuation into infant baptism. And so they would make this argument about. Again, that's. It's nowhere in there in. In the verse. But this is what they would say. It came to pass. There rose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision. For the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which was. Which law was fulfilled. And it came to pass that the children being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein They became where they became unholy. Wherefore for this cause the apostle wrote to the church, giving unto them a commandment not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever, except the law of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without circumcision, and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy, for it was had among the Jews, but little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ. And this is what the Scriptures mean. Now, part of the reason why when I said this was misidentified, this revelation up until 2013 was always listed as being an 1832 revelation. And in fact, the explanation of this revelation was while Joseph Smith was translating the Bible, in his translating New Testament in 1832, he comes to First Corinthians. And when he's there in First Corinthians, he's aha, here's a better explanation. And doesn't actually make any of these changes to first Corinthians, but receives this revelation, this explanation of Scripture describing it. And it's a sound explanation. The problem is that's not when this revelation was received. We thought that it was received in 1832, because when they were compiling the history of the Church, even though there was no date this revelation in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants or in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants, it sure seemed like it was surrounding Joseph Smith's New Testament translation. Several of the other revelations in the 70s are part of Joseph Smith's New Testament translation. And so it gets put into a New Testament translation with its date until we discover the original manuscript version in the Book of Commandments and Revelations. And if you go to the original manuscript revelation, what you find is some things that are are pretty important. The you find that in fact, the revelation is not something that is.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Received.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

In 1832, but it's actually received in 1830. This is how John Whitmer describes it when he's filling it out in the Revelation book. An explanation of the epistle to the First Corinthians, 7th chapter and 14th verse, given to Joseph the Seer in Wayne County, New York in 1830. Well, Wayne County, New York is where Palmyra is. It's certainly not a revelation that Joseph Smith receives while translating the New Testament, because Joseph hasn't started translating the New Testament in 1830. He starts translating it only after he's already in Ohio. Now, why does that matter? It matters because if you look at Doctrine and covenants section 20, what does it say? Baptism is essential for salvation. Published alongside DNC 20 by the Church is Doctrine and Covenant Section 22, which says that even if you've already been baptized, you have to be re baptized. So the first question you have about baptism is, do you have to do it for salvation? Right. And does it have to be done in a proper way and by proper authority? Okay. The second question is, what if I've already been baptized? That's the second logical question. The response given by the Lord is doctrine, covenant section 22, which is even if you've already been baptized. Well, the third question then is the question that every one of those people that is a parent or about to be a parent has, as they have joined the church. Well, should we baptize our children, our infants? And you know, First Corinthians 7:14 says, and my pastors always said, and when I was a Presbyterian, they said, and they, they burnished. They, they, they built up the idea of infant baptism. And Joseph receives Doctrine and Covenant Section 74. It doesn't have a date, it just says New York, 1830. But my guess is it's very shortly after Doctrine and Covenant Section 22, because it's all based on. And in fact it is, Is something that's. That is related to doctrine covenants section 22 and section 20. Now, I don't know how someone's going to do that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, someone's going to raise their hand and just say that then.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. So, yeah, Christie's Corner bullet points, raise your hand and say Schleitheim Confession.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Which is the Anabaptist like.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

No, it's good. You really brought it home at the end.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I mean, the three questions that they would pre. Progress toward.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And you notice what the Lord declares at the very end of that explanation. Right. That. That little children are holy. This is something that right now the entire Christian world rejects. The entire Christian world believes in some form of original sin or all are corrupt. Some way of saying that all are born in sin and we don't. And one of the reasons why we don't is because of the revelations of the prophet Joseph Smith.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's great. All right, so now to the Phoebe Draper Palmer Brown mailbag. Yeah, we have one email. This comes to us from Jeremy. Greetings. We took our boys to a local cemetery in Polk City, Iowa. I heard that John C. Bennett, a Nauvoo philandering of. Of Nauvoo philandering Fame was buried here. And after some investigation, we found his grave. There were two things that surprised me about his monument. First, that he was a doctor, and second, that he was a veteran. On the first point, I know that he played doctor in Nauvoo. I didn't. Well, okay, they're saying. All right, there's something. There was some booze.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Maybe you should be editing things.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, well, it's.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

It's difficult for Richard to edit on the fly because he's focused so much on the reading.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So much on the reading. I don't think that they meant it the way that the booze necessarily portrayed it, but it's John C. Bennett, so.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Actually, no, he. He actually does work as a physician of sorts.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I think the played doctor is. He wasn't a real doctor. He just played one on TV.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Every doctor in the 19th century is playing doctor.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Every one of them is doing things that are almost always more detrimental to the patient than helping them.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, I'm going to do this again. I'm going to edit it out. All the boos that I got when I said the place. So I'm going to cut it, start over on the first point. I know that he was a doctor in Nauvoo. I didn't realize he claimed to be a real doctor. I suppose that given the medical science was barely advanced beyond leeches and bloodletting, maybe one of the history's greatest liars should be a doctor like the two of you. I have a PhD. No, that's like you paused. No, I paused in the right spot.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I feel like. I feel like you paused. Like the two greatest liars.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I blew through the punctuation on purpose because I thought it was a funnier bit. Yeah. Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I feel like we need to ban this person from emailing this.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes. Maybe one of the greatest liars should be a doctor like the two of you. It was a doctor, period, like the two of you. I have a PhD. I'm the one. Mine took nine years, but I'll tell you. But I tell people that I'm not that kind of doctor because I don't help people. My PhD is in economics. Somehow I doubt John C. Bennett had even the meager qualifications for the doctorate that we have. My real question, though, has to do with the second surprise, that he was an honored veteran. I couldn't find any indication that he was ever in the military except for his time in the Nauvoo Legion. Is it possible that his only claim to veteran status somehow is from the Nauvoo Legion. That seems to add insult to injury that he betrays the Saints in Nauvoo in a variety of ways and then gets military honors resulting from it. If you can possibly verify that he did not serve in the military, I would gladly inform our local American Legion and request that they do not honor him in the future. Thanks for the show.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, so this is a tough one.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I love the pettiness of that.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. I mean, I love going. I want to not honor him. Yeah. So I mean, thank you for your service.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Thank you for your service.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

John C. Better you. Let's talk about a couple of things. First of all, at least from what we can tell, John C. Bennett does have some, again, giant air quotes. Formal medical training where he goes to a medical school and he apprentice. I mean, medical school, such as it is.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You know what. Do you know what? We'll get the crack research staff on.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

It.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

But after his staff, by the way, for those that are.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No, they all thought that we had lots of people hired.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

That's. Why are you pay no attention to that man behind the curtain with the AJU sauce on him.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Just so much.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

It's so much. It's actually hard for me to concentrate. I spent 30 minutes on infant baptism because every time I looked over there was just meat sauce on.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You think so? For those. Those that are listening, think about a person covered in au jusauce. But more AJU sauce. Whatever you can imagine.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

First think. Have I dial it up a notch. So the reference to his military service actually comes later and it comes during the American Civil War. He actually volunteers with. He lives in Iowa after his.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I was going to say what side was he on? But was he. Was he up north but still on the south side?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No, he was on the side of the Union and he helps raise a regiment. And that regiment that he raises, I mean it. You know, here's a list of places where that. That regiment's gonna fight in. In Corinth. You know, what's the. The Battle of Shiloh, essentially. I mean, so that's one of the bloodiest battles the whole war. Up to that point, it had been the bloodiest single day of the war. But John C. Bennett himself doesn't actually participate in those battles. He signs up, he's in the military for a couple of months and then he claims sickness and so he basically leaves and. And goes back home. He's ill. And near the end of the war they actually try to bring him back in as another surgeon for the army. Now you're thinking, wow, he was able to become a surgeon. Well, when being a surgeon means you can use a saw blade on someone's femur, that's what essentially surgeons in the Civil War are. They are chopping off arms and legs, and that's how people are saved from gangrene and blood loss on the battlefield. So he is technically a veteran. He just. He doesn't actually serve in any combat theater where he sees any action. And so, I mean, there's no reason to kick over his gravestone. I will say this, though, about John C. Bennett, since we're talking about kicking over his gravestone. He has to be one of the most pathological liars in Latter Day Saint history. And look, we got all kinds of people who do all kinds of things. I mean, that we don't. That's not a surprise to us. But how do I know that John C. Bennett's a liar? Much like Thomas Ford, I know that John C. Bennett's a liar because John C. Bennett tells me that he's a liar. He wrote it and said it. So I get to, I guess, quote the guy. So let's quote the guy. He writes a book after his excommunication. So John C. Bennett, for those of you who don't know, for you're just thinking, oh, you know, he liked tomatoes. And, you know, he's. He's credited with. With making the tomato famous, actually, in America, he's excommunicated, even though he's a member of the First Presidency, because he begins introducing in Nauvoo something that is termed spiritual wifery. And it is essentially profligate sexual relations between unmarried couples. On the basis of that, as long as you both are believers, then it's fine. It's a spiritual marriage. But the union is quite physical. And he's very persuasive because he's in this high position of power. And that's one of the reasons why it's so hard to actually unpack what is going on with actual legitimate Nauvoo plural marriages, because so much of it is tainted by. By John C. Bennett and his. His and his lies. Now, when Joseph finds out what John C. Bennett's doing, he's immediately excommunicated from the church and actually goes and makes a public confession to the whole city that, yes, he had lied about this. He told people, yeah, Joseph said that was fine. It wasn't fine. And he confesses, but then immediately leaves Nauvoo and begins publishing a series of letters attacking Joseph Smith. Those letters are going to form the basis of a book that he's going to later write in 1842 called the History of the Saints. I one time had a conversation with Glenn Ross and I was like, maybe you don't want to call this History of the Saints, but I think he'd already. He'd already started down that path with this. You know, it's a positive view of the Latter Day Saints called History of the Saints. Like, well, John C. Bennett published a book on that, and he's not exactly who you like. Why do I say he's a liar? Okay, so John C. Bennett joins the church, rapidly rises in the church, and actually becomes a member of the First Presidency, becomes the mayor of Nauvoo, actually. This is what he writes in his book, the opening of his book, First Words, Reasons for joining the Mormons. It is of course, necessary for me to give some explanation of the reasons which led me to join the Mormons and my motives for remaining so long in connection with them. I am happy to state that it is in my power to do this easily and satisfactorily. I find it's almost universally the opinion of those who've heard of me in the eastern part of the United States that I united myself to the Mormons from some conviction of the truth of their doctrines and that I was, at least for a time, a convert to their pretended religion. This, however, is a very gross error. I. And this is italicized, I never believed in them or their doctrines. This is indeed was from the first, well known to my friends and acquaintances, which he provides no evidence in the western country who are all well aware of my reasons for connecting myself with the prophet and which reasons I will here state. He goes on to explain, as a good American, he realized what a threat Mormons pose. And so he deliberately went to Nauvoo, deliberately pretended that he'd been converted, tricked people into thinking that he had a testimony, was able to raise himself up all the way to the pinnacle, top point of the church in order to expose their lies. But when he got caught trying to expose their lies, then they made up this story about him being a fornicator. Now, how do I know that John C. Bennett's a liar about being a fornicator? Well, because John C. Bennett undertakes a speaking circuit where he goes around being paid to tell people the truths of Mormonism. In Boston, we have a newspaper article of a newspaper editor who attended one of his meetings. And at that meeting, as John C. Bennett was going on and on about his stuff, after years of publishing that there was no truth to the Mormon accusations against me at all. Well, why did you make a public confession of it? Because Joseph Smith told me that he would cut me up into catfish bait and throw me into the. Into the Mississippi river if I didn't do it. Okay, well, but like, you then just left like he was going to murder you, but it was like, okay, we'll see you later, and it was fine. And then you wrote this book. Yeah, that's exactly what happened. And so he, for years, has been denying that there was anything to his allegations of sexual misconduct. How do I know he's a liar? Well, because he tells this crowd in Boston that yes, he did have an affair with a fair princess of Nauvoo, but they were guilty of far more crimes. So after years of saying never committed adultery at all, I know that John C. Bennett committed adultery because John C. Bennett said that John C. Bennett committed adultery. And at least on that point, I'm willing to take his word for it. The similarly, his claim that he never, ever, ever believed, but the entire point was to trick people into joining the church so that he could come in and expose things so that he could then destroy the church. It's first of all, idiotic compared to the actual historical record. But second of all, what does John C. Bennett do after he writes this book? After he writes this book, after Joseph is murdered, John C. Bennett, only two years later, two years after he wrote these words, immediately joins himself to James Strang's breakaway Mormon group, from which he's also excommunicated for adultery. But I'm sure they were also just saying it and it never actually happened. So. So. And in the process of that, he claims that he has a revelation that Joseph gave him and told him not to open no matter what, except after I die. And it just so happens to say, oh, and by the way, James Strang is the next prophet. The guy is clearly just a habitual liar. Just from his book alone, we know he's a liar. He either lied in all the times he confessed that he had faith in Mormonism, so that makes him a liar, or he's a liar in his book by saying that he never, ever, ever had faith in Mormonism. Both of those things can't be true. But the very fact that he then joins himself to another offshoot Mormon group suggests what is he trying to expose them to? Are you just going to keep trying to expose people? The cat's out of the bag now we've got your book, John C. Bennett. So he is A distasteful person. We have. We have a friend of the show on the tour, Tim, who went to a great deal of time and effort to make shirts that I don't believe I will ever be allowed to wear, not without being fired, and I mean from my marriage, not just. They are John C. Bennett fan club shirts of which I am not a member, although this shirt states I happen to be the president. My first act as president of the John C. Bennett Fan club is to dissolve the fan club and to revisit the idea of defacing the grave.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So it appears that according to the Joseph Smith papers, if they are to be believed, all of them are lies, that from 1822 to 1820, 25, he trained under his uncle, Dr. Samuel Hidreth, and in. In Ohio, Marietta, Ohio. And so he trained under him. There is some evidence that he may have taken an exam in Chester, Ohio, with the 12th Medical Society of Chester, Ohio. The 12th?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Not the 11th or the 13th, but the 12th.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yes. Oh, the 12th. How its name will live, I don't.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I don't. I can't necessarily verify that. But so he, you know, he gaused up with his uncle for a couple years and doctor. Him. Dr. He is.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yes, John C. Bennett's a lot of things, but one thing that we know he is is a known forger of Joseph Smith documents. He's someone who will, in his book, claim that he has letters written by Joseph Smith that no historian thinks are actually written by Joseph Smith. He's a liar. I mean, and it's unfortunate that even today that there are people that will take anything that John C. Bennett had to say and take it as in any way true. He is one of the greatest of all apostates in the. The church because of the long shadow that his, his antagonism casts. And when, you know, when Joseph makes the fateful decision to have the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper destroyed, this is the one that's published by William Law and the other apostates in Nauvoo that's making all kinds of slanders against the saints in Nauvoo. I think one of the things that pushes them over the edge is that William laud deliberately, instead of describing it as plural marriage, which he knew that it was, he uses the term spiritual wifery, which is the most loaded term you could have possibly used in Nauvoo in 1844, knowing that everyone who read it would think it means profligate sexual relations without any commitments whatsoever. And that's what that term meant. And so he deliberately used that rather than explaining plural marriage as it is. So hopefully that, you know, answers your question about John C. Bennett. And you don't have to talk to the American Legion. I'm not saying you have to go put flowers on his grave. Or at least if you do, make sure it's that one that that stinks really bad that everyone hates. 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 this episode, please share it with them. Until next time.