S5E29 Bad Sources and the Quorum of the Twelve Part 1

Summary

Standard of Truth Podcast - S5E29: "Bad Sources and the Quorum of the Twelve Part 1"

Release Date: July 10, 2025
Host: Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat
Guest: Dr. Richard Leduc

---

Episode Overview

In Season 5, Episode 29 of the Standard of Truth podcast, host Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat teams up once again with his colleague Dr. Richard Leduc to delve into the complexities of church history, specifically addressing the challenges posed by unreliable sources concerning the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. This episode, titled "Bad Sources and the Quorum of the Twelve Part 1," aims to equip Latter-Day Saints with the knowledge to discern credible historical information, thereby strengthening their faith and understanding of church doctrines.

Christie's Corner: Doctrine and Covenants Section 76

The episode begins with the segment Christie's Corner, where Dr. Dirkmaat focuses on Doctrine and Covenants Section 76, a pivotal revelation concerning the afterlife and salvation. He highlights the radical nature of this section, emphasizing that it declares the absence of an eternal hell and introduces the concept of multiple degrees of heaven.

Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (06:17): "The radical nature of the vision in Doctrine and Covenants Section 76 is that it's declaring that there is no eternal hell."

Dr. Dirkmaat references Brigham Young's interpretation of this doctrine, where Young expresses comfort in the notion of universal salvation, asserting that "all of the inhabitants of the earth will be saved in kingdoms somewhere," aligning with Jesus Christ's teachings about the vastness of the celestial realms.

Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (07:32): "The atonement doesn't just pertain to those who take advantage of it in this life... even the most wicked, after they've suffered for their sins, will eventually go to at least the telestial kingdom."

He contrasts these teachings with prevalent Protestant beliefs that often exclude the possibility of salvation for those who die without faith in Jesus, thereby reinforcing the LDS perspective on universal redemption.

Listener Mailbag: Addressing Historical Inaccuracies

The core of the episode revolves around Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc addressing listener-submitted emails that raise concerns and misconceptions about church history and doctrines.

1. Email from David: Doctrine and Covenants 66:10

Dr. Richard Leduc (18:04): "Do you think that Garrett's extensive knowledge of Joseph Smith Revelations and Doctrine Covenants Section 66, verse 10 are subliminal sources for Bill the Adulterer?"

David's email questions the authenticity of Doctrine and Covenants Section 66:10, suggesting it refers to William McClellan, whom he labels "Bill the Adulterer." The hosts scrutinize this claim, pointing out the lack of credible historical sources supporting such an assertion.

Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (19:31): "William McClellan is one of those people who go to Sidney Rigdon's house and Joseph Smith's house and steal items from their houses."

They debunk the notion by referencing documented accounts from the Joseph Smith Papers, clarifying that McClellan's actions were indeed detrimental but not as the email suggests.

2. Email from Coach Mark: Abraham Lincoln and "Dixie"

Coach Mark's email explores the historical accuracy of the claim that Abraham Lincoln requested the Confederate anthem "Dixie" be played after General Lee's surrender, a narrative popularized in songs like Johnny Horton's "Johnny Reb."

Coach Mark (23:18): "Did Lincoln honestly request Dixie be played after Lee's surrender, or is this just a case of Horton history revisionism?"

Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc analyze contemporary newspaper accounts, revealing that while Lincoln did request "Dixie" be played, it was not out of respect for the Confederates but rather a response to Union workers celebrating the war's end. They also discuss the origins of "Dixie" in minstrel shows, highlighting its complex and problematic history.

Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (30:09): "Lincoln is making a point of it, that it is a prize of war. It's ours now and we're gonna play it."

3. Email from Jill: Family Concerns Over Apostasy

Jill shares a heartfelt concern about her daughter adopting anti-Mormon arguments against the church's history, citing fabricated claims about Doctrine and Covenants Sections 84 and 76.

Jill (34:38): "The early saints rejected the doctrine of Christ or the fullness of the gospel that Joseph originally restored... Can you restore something that hasn't been lost to the church as a whole?"

Dr. Dirkmaat responds with empathy, acknowledging the difficulty of addressing family apostasy and the painful impact of misinformation. He emphasizes the importance of relying on validated historical sources and cautions against engaging with ahistorical narratives that lack scholarly support.

Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (35:20): "The problem is that what I will read as part of this email is filled with absolutely ahistorical arguments... they are arguments that are so poorly sourced, that even non-LDS historians do not accept them as accurate."

Handling Apostasy and Bad Sources

Throughout the episode, the hosts stress the importance of critical evaluation of sources. They advocate for:

• Verifying Historical Facts: Encouraging listeners to consult primary sources, such as the Joseph Smith Papers, to confirm historical claims.

• Addressing Misconceptions Respectfully: Advising on how to engage with family members or peers who may hold misinformed views without causing further alienation.

• Recognizing the Impact of Misinformation: Understanding how false historical narratives can erode faith and community ties.

Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (41:54): "People are hoping that there's some kind of magic bullet that I can give that will stop this road to apostasy or refute it or will change someone's mind. And my experience is that that doesn't really work."

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (06:17): "The radical nature of the vision in Doctrine and Covenants Section 76 is that it's declaring that there is no eternal hell."

• Dr. Richard Leduc (18:04): "Do you think that Garrett's extensive knowledge of Joseph Smith Revelations and Doctrine Covenants Section 66, verse 10 are subliminal sources for Bill the Adulterer?"

• Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (19:31): "William McClellan is one of those people who go to Sidney Rigdon's house and Joseph Smith's house and steal items from their houses."

• Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (30:09): "Lincoln is making a point of it, that it is a prize of war. It's ours now and we're gonna play it."

Conclusion and Insights

In this thought-provoking episode, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc adeptly navigate the murky waters of church history, confronting misinformation and unreliable sources head-on. They provide listeners with valuable strategies for evaluating historical claims and maintaining faith amidst challenges to doctrinal truths. By addressing real concerns from their audience with empathy and academic rigor, the hosts exemplify the podcast's mission to deepen understanding and bolster faith among Latter-Day Saints.

Listeners are encouraged to remain vigilant against historical inaccuracies and to seek out credible sources to support their beliefs. The episode underscores the importance of historical literacy in fostering a resilient and informed faith community.

---

For further exploration of the topics discussed, listeners can refer to the Joseph Smith Papers at josephsmithpapers.org and revisit previous episodes of the Standard of Truth podcast.

Transcript

[Narrator]

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

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

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

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Hello, Garrett. Thanks for having me back.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, that was a quick hello, Garrett. I feel like you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We have so much to get.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Usually you're more sewing. No, usually there's a little bit of a pause, a two step, three step. Hello, Garrett.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We have so much to get to. There's no time to waste. So I wanted to start by talking about who you think is going to win the NHL championship this year. Do we think the Panthers are going to three peat? It's very exciting.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, doesn't your heart want to be with the Oilers?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Edmondson?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Leduc is just outside of Edmonton, I feel like. But with the Utah Mammoths.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No, no, no chance.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Right? You hate the Phoenix Coyotes so much. Well, again, we have so much to get to.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I have no time to. I wanted them to be the Yetis.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I did too, actually.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I wanted Utah Yetis and now that it's just Mammoth, which I mean, basically describes your average hockey fan.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, that's hurtful. They're hairy and the size of an elephant.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, kind of.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, yeah, you know what? Okay, well, that's. Well, that pushes off all of our Canadian listeners. We just went through some of the stats and It's Canada's number two. U.S. number one, obviously. And then we get down to eat. We have five in Egypt. We're so excited.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I feel like most of those in Egypt. Were you and Becky when you were in Egypt.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I don't listen to this.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

That makes a lot of sense.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So we wanted to actually start with a text from my sister. My sister Sarah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No nepotism involved, though.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, so I love my sister and she lives in McKin, Texas, where they're having no trouble putting a temple there.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And. And the only opposition is totally based solely on the height of the building or the lights on it. The potential parking literally has nothing to do with the denomination putting it up.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We're excited for the Frisco or Fairfield or McKenna or apparently now Oklahoma City Temple again. They're going to get another one anyway, so she sent Me a text. She says, I love Christie's Corner so much. First of all, thank you, Sarah, for listening. We do appreciate it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

She's not a premium listener.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Is she teaching Sunday school? Is that why she.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

She is. She is not. But that's funny that you say that. Really makes me feel superior. And isn't that really the point? Yes, I responded. It's the only point. She said, too bad we only got to section 72. And then I said, that's why you have to interrupt and force it in. You have to raise your hand.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Christie's Corner exists for you to do what members of the church have been doing in gospel doctrine classes since the beginning of time, and that is derailing the lesson based upon what you want to talk about as opposed to what.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The teacher wants to teach about since 1838 or 1828.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, frankly, in the Presbyterian Church that Lucy Mack Smith attended, guarantee it was going on well.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So it was a very funny text from my sister. She's very funny. And so. But we want it. We want to just jump right into Christie's Corner. So here we go.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

When you want to look smart in Sunday School, if you want your friends to think you're cool, when you want to seem wise and not a fool, it's Christy's Corner.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So the real challenge comes on a fifth Sunday. On a fifth Sunday, you are now for that first Sunday from a fifth Sunday, you have so many weeks of material that you need to get to.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And three weeks. It was a fifth Sunday.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's what I'm saying.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Last week.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. So she wasn't able to. Because they didn't get to 74. They only got to 72. So on a fifth Sunday, you really have to get in there.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Speaking of fifth Sundays, our friend Brady, you know, I happened to be attending Rigdon's. Welcome home.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

As any good friend might.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I thought, well, there needs to be more people in the seats than. He has parasites, at the very least. So I drove up. Is there any way that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, he has so many parasites. But so really quickly, when we did the live recording.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Right.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Rigdon did not stay for it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

He was there with us.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And then went home.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

And went home.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, to the hotel.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, yeah. The funny part about that is, is that he's the one that said, when you have nothing else to do, it's okay. He had just not much else, but something else.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

But he was home from a mission and could theoretically watch tv.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Immediately left.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Which I think that all of our listeners will eventually do leave us or find something better to do. There's so many better things to do. Yeah, there's a lot of better things to do. So Fifth Sunday. Fifth Sunday. And I go and Richard says to me, hey, Brady, his bishop, our good friend is teaching the fifth Sunday lesson. It might be cool if you went in there with him. So. Okay. And so I go in there.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, I immediately abandoned you. I had to teach you.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No, he didn't come in. So I went in and I sat down and Brady starts the lesson and he has a big fan chart where that someone has created essentially a tree looking thing, but it's more like a tree from like Lord of the Rings type of tree, you know, and it has all of the religions of the world on it and where essentially they broke off from to create their denominations.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Right.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

So he invites me up to the front and, and says, you know, I want you to see this. And it shows that, you know, Mormonism, even I. I hate to break it to everyone listening that not as many people have adopted calling us by our proper name outside of the church as you would think.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Just cab drivers in Peru, that those.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Are the only ones. Yeah. Nope. Well, so. And. And this chart of these religions and their origin showed the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints as being a break off from Methodism, which it of course was not. I mean, and. But it was, you know, so we had a conversation about it. I'm standing in front of the classroom, I'm not prepared at all. And then Brady proceeds to just continue asking me questions about various religions and then asked me to talk about Joseph Smith and asked various questions. And that was the entire lesson. I was up there for 55 minutes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It was very well received. People loved it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I mean, that's what they say now, but. Yeah, yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I thought the youth lesson, it was not as well received because you didn't.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Have the fan chart.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's true.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

You had a fan chart. That's the deciding factor in most lessons.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's true. Anyway, the Sand Springs ward of the Layton Legacy Steak thanks you for your service.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, well, that's good to know. And also I'll no longer be attending your ward for any reason, so we could cover a lot for this week's Christie's Corner, but I think we would be remiss if we didn't cover doctrine covenant section 76. I don't know who your gospel doctrine teacher is. And your various wards, if they decide that that's the one they're going to skip, you know, that that's rough. You know, they're like, no, no, we've got to get Section 79 in. We've got to do that right now. Hopefully they spend time on 76. So here's your little insight to DNC 76. We obviously have some podcasts, you know, on this, actually, in the first season, I think we cover it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yes. Actually, it's one of the very first things that we do.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Because it's so important. So unlike, you know, Christie's Corner. We went right to it. So I think here's the important takeaway that you may not get. You know, it's something, since you're trying to sound smart in Sunday school, is the radical nature of the vision Doctrine and Covenant Section 76 is that it's declaring that there is no eternal hell. Yes, it's radical to say there's multiple degrees of heaven, but that's not causing people to leave the church. What's causing people to leave the church is the idea that there is no eternal hell. Brigham Young actually struggles with that doctrine a great deal. And so I thought maybe I'd share with you for Christie's Corner, what Brigham Young had to say as he talked about this revelation almost three decades later in Utah in 1860. He says, Talking about the vision, that it is a source of much comfort, consolation and gratification to behold the goodness and long suffering and the kindness and the parental feeling of our Father and our God, preparing the way, providing the means to save the children of men. Not you and I alone, not the Latter Day Saints alone, not those that have the privilege of the first principles of celestial kingdom exclusively. Sorry, this is a rough transcription. But to save all, a universal salvation, a universal redemption. Now, I don't want any of you to conclude that I've become a universalist as you understand it. He's talking about the Universalist Church. Although the doctrine is true in part, like the doctrines of all the Christian world, they have truth. It was said here yesterday by one who spoke that when he was a Methodist, he enjoyed the Spirit of the Lord. There is no doubt of it. There is hundreds here before me that has, and probably all to a greater or lesser degree before they heard the gospel of salvation that we preach. So cool. Part of this sermon is that Brigham Young saying, of course you can feel the Spirit when truth is taught, even though it's in another church. Then when we inquire who will be saved, all will be saved, as Jesus said, speaking to his twelve apostles, except the sons of perdition. If you inquire where they will be saved. How? In a very few words I can tell you. They will be saved through the atonement and their good works, according to the law that is given to them. Will the heathens be saved? Yes. Will they that who died without law be saved, Those who never heard of the name of the Savior be saved? Yes. Now, of course, Brigham is saying this. In a world where if you die without faith in Jesus, you go directly to hell, and it doesn't matter why you don't have faith in Jesus. There's no such thing as work for the dead in Protestant Christianity. How do you know whether or not someone goes to hell? It's very simple. Did they have faith in Jesus when they died? If the answer is no, it doesn't actually matter why the answer is no. If the answer is no, they go to hell, period. And there's no waiting period. You go immediately when you die. Brigham Young continues. This priesthood that the Lord has bestowed is for the express purpose of preparing a portion of the people all that will receive the first principles pertaining to the law of the celestial kingdom. And if you and I abide this law and preserve it inviolate within ourselves and live according to it, we will be prepared to enjoy the blessings of the celestial kingdom. Will any more? Yes. Thousands and millions of the inhabitants of the earth that would have received and abided the law that we preach if they'd had the privilege of being saved. When the Lord shall bring again Zion and the watchman shall see eye to eye, and Zion shall be established, and the Savior shall come upon Zion, will save all the sons and daughters of Adam that are capable of being saved by administering for them. Is not this pleasing, glorifying? Is not this a soul consoling feeling, an influence upon the mind of every intelligent being while we look abroad and we contemplate our former teachings that we have received a faith that a very few was going to be saved in any kind of kingdom, but instead come to damnation. This is not so. All of the inhabitants of the earth will be saved in kingdoms somewhere. As Jesus said, in my Father's house, there are many mansions. Were it not so, I would have told you I go to prepare a place for you, you that have received and abide a celestial law that have committed to you. This is the highest of all the celestial, telestial and terrestrial. Spoken of how many more? It is not for me to say, I don't know, but that there are innumerable to me. It is a source of great joy, is it not the Vision is the greatest vision I ever knew, delivered to any of the children of men. It incorporates more in a few pages than any other revelation I have any knowledge of. This gospel of salvation. This is our testimony. So says Joseph and Sidney. The heavens were open and to show them the inhabitants of the earth, who will be saved? Will the Methodists be saved? Yes. I thank the brethren for the increase in intelligence which they have manifested. I could hardly think you could find an elder now that would rise up in a congregation of unbelievers and tell them that old John Wesley, he's the founder of Methodism, was weltering in hell. Did the elders ever preach such a doctrine? Yes. I mean, so at first, before people understood that God was going to create a kingdom for everyone, they took with them their same culture that they had, that if you don't believe the truth, you go to hell. So he says, yes, they used to teach that, that all the reformers and the best men who have ever lived, from the days of the apostle till now, until Joseph Smith received the priesthood himself, that they were damned. I don't think you could hear such a doctrine from any man. Now there is a chance for those who have lived and two for those who now live. The gospel has come. Truth, light and righteousness sent forth into the world. And those that receive it will be saved in the celestial kingdom. And those who don't receive it, through ignorance, tradition, superstition and the precepts of the fathers, they will get a good and glorious kingdom, and they will enjoy and receive more than ever entered into the heart of man, unless he had revelation. My heart is comforted. I think when you study doctrine covenant, section 76, it's fundamentally an expansion of our understanding of the atonement of Jesus Christ. The atonement doesn't just pertain to those who take advantage of it in this life, who accept Jesus because of Christ's atonement. Even the most wicked, after they've suffered for their sins, will eventually go to at least the telestial kingdom, which Joseph described as a kingdom of bliss. And so, you know, I've said before, it's a funny thing that Latter Day Saints are often accused. You'll hear people say things like, well, you Mormons think that only Mormons can go to heaven. And it's literally the opposite. We literally believe everyone's going to heaven with exceptions. Too few dimension, as President Oaks says, only those that are sons of perdition are not going to go to some degree of glory in heaven. So there's your Christie's corner. Maybe your sister can do a better job trying to break in.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I think she'll be able to. 76 will be discussed. You can go to the transcript if you're listening on Google or in Spotify and you can pull that and read that quote verbatim. That will allow for you.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Raise your hand and just talk for five, six minutes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Just seven to eight minutes less than the next person who gives a comment. Especially if that person just got back from a trip.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Garrett now going on to the Phoebe Draper Palmer Brown mailbag.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Before we do, I want to give a shout out to two of our listeners in Arizona who know my sister in law Heather. Shout out to Dottie and Evony who are listening or probably not anymore, but if they are, shout out to you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's very good. That's very good. So sisters and sister in law friends. Yeah, that's all that.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

That's most of our mailbox.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's all we got.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, we've got like four people who listen and three of them are. And one of them is not your son anymore. We just lost.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Of course he was listening on the Google Drive anyway. So.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, didn't count.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So this next email comes from David. And by this next email I mean the first email comes from David. It's been a while since I wrote and I'm super excited for the tour in a month. So he'll be joining us in Baltimore and. And in Palmyra.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We've had a lot of interest in the Palmyra tour. Even though we have two next year, both of them are already sold out. And so we may. We got to figure something out. I mean but probably because I've got kids coming home from missions and kids leaving on missions and not all of us are Richard. And we'll just, you know. Well, they'll figure it out. Get to the MTC yourself.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, well, yes, we did do that. Also figure out how to get home. We did both of those things. I fairly maxed out. I have a real job that I enjoy and it would be difficult to take nine months off.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We'll get the 2027 Tour scheduled soon.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's right. It's been a while since I've written him. I just had one quick question. Do you think that Garrett's extensive knowledge of Joseph Smith Revelations and doctrine covenants section 66, verse 10 are subliminal source for Bill the Adulterer? I'm a little embarrassed to say that was my main takeaway from Come Follow Me a couple weeks ago. But there we are. Have a great week, David. And so. Boy, let me pull that up.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Doctrine Covenants 66, verse 10. And Garrett, who is this toward?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

It's to William McClellan.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

William McClellan. And here's what it says. Seek not to be cumbered, forsake all unrighteousness. Commit not adultery, a temptation with which thou hast been troubled.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

You got me, David. I mean, look, I wanted everyone to think that I was just randomly throwing out a possible person named Bill who also possibly was an adulterer. But also Doctrine and Covenant Section 66 suggests that William McClellan is at least tempted by it. So if you want to think of him being Bill the adulterer, I can't think of a better person. Let me tell you a little bit about William McClellan. Not only does he apostatize after his apostasy, he is charged by multiple members of the church in Far west that when the extermination order is given and the militia goes into Far west and they begin ransacking and assaulting and killing people. William McClellan is one of those people who goes to Sidney Rigdon's house and goes to Joseph Smith's house and steals items from their houses.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

How about that?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. I mean, I could even pull up the list of charges against him. But needless to say, William McClellan of the People I like to not like. He's pretty close. He's there.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

He's on the top of the. Like, do not like.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

He's on that. He's on the. You know. Garrett, who would you like to see fight? John C. Bennett and. And Falasis Hurl, but in a cage match? Yeah, Yeah, I. Like a three way death match. Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, this next email comes to us from. Well, coach Mark.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Coach Mark.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I'm old. Well, not Brigham Young was my bishop old. Just 63.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Brigham Young didn't serve as a bishop, so that would make it. Yeah, you could still be that old. I mean, because Brigham Young didn't serve.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

As a bishop, but old enough to know. I'll probably never live to see the day when the Condemned to Repeat it podcast finally gets to the civil. There's no chance.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We had to put a lot of things on hold.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We're, We're. Did we make it to the.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We were. We were discussing the attempt to ratify the Constitution.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, we got to the Constitution.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, we, we, we talked about the arguments, but we didn't. We didn't make it all the way through.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We have, we have several Federalist papers.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

No, we weren't even there.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, very good.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We're only going to read the ones by Hamilton anyway. John J. Forget you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So, like, 70 of them or whatever. Yeah, let's be honest. I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever even get to an episode. Another episode before the Second Coming. But I digress. Knowing that Garrett's favorite singer is the great Johnny Horton, which makes me like him even more. I had a question. I figured only you fine historians. Well, I mean, so I'm not a historian and Garrett's not fine. So I don't know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, fine and historian being thrown around relatively quickly here.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, that's right. Might be willing to nerd out on in Horton's Song, Johnny Reb, which, by the way, written for us by the illustrious. Let's see. I did look this up. Merle Kilgore is the author. Johnny Rebuild Popular.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I have a hard time believing that Merle Kil. Merle Kilgore wrote those lyrics.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You know what?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Where's Merle Kilgore from?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

He grew up in Louisiana, but spent some time in Oklahoma.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Okay. Okay.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It claims. The interweb, claims that he wrote it and Johnny Horton popularized it.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Okay.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's the claim.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

But you haven't verified any of that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, I don't know that any of this is true. Absolutely not. So here's. Here's the verse. The final verse says, when Honest Abe heard the news. Actually, you know what? Why don't we just play it?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

But play the final verse.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

We're gonna play the final verse, and.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Then, Garrett, the whole song is essentially. It's like a kind of a battle march tribute to the Confederate soldier, which they called them Johnny Reb. And they called the Union soldiers Billy Yanks.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah. So if you're wondering, we'll play this clip.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

When Honest Abe heard the news about your fall, the folks thought he'd call a great victory Bowl. But he asked the fan to play the song Dixie for you, Johnny Rib. And all that you believe. Cause you fought all the way, Johnny Rib. Johnny Rib.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

You fought all the way, Johnny.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That's quite the rousing anthem.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yep, yep. You can see why you're marching to that. It's a very good question whether or not. Now, did you. Oh, you got to finish reading this question here.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, yes, that's right. So is there any historical truth to this? Did Lincoln honestly request Dixie be played after Lee's surrender? Or is this just a case of Horton history revisionism? Figured I'd ask so you can be prepared in case this comes up on your Eastermost big bus tour, or at least before you get sidetracked for 20 minutes discussing who invented the shoelace, thanks for all you do. Seriously love the podcast. Yours, an endless historical Curiosity, Coach Mark. P.S. if this does turn into an episode, which. Which it didn't.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I want royalties or at least a shout out.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, we already gave you the shout out.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, we did. What more, Coach Mark?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

What? Yeah, we've dunged it. What more we've done? We've dunged it again. So whether or not there's any historical truth to that, like a lot of things that happen in the past, there are aspects of truth to them, but certainly not the way that they are presented in this song. This song suggests the way that Abraham Lincoln asked for Dixie to be played was as a tribute, you know, which would make sense. You know, Lincoln said, you know, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna heal the nation's wound. That's what he said at the second inaugural address to bind up the nation's wounds, that they're, they're. They're going to bring, you know, malice towards none, charity for all. It would make sense that Lincoln, in that spirit, said, you know what? Let's play their anthem in honor of them. Except that's not what happened. You can read the original press dispatch. It's from the Associated Press back in the day. This one is from the Boston Post, but you could find this in several papers. The intelligence of Lee's surrender was last night known only to a few persons. But this morning, the scenes of joyous excitement such as prevailed here last Monday were everywhere renewed. The clerks of the Treasury Department in procession went to the President's house, in front of which they sang the Star Spangled Banner and Old Hundred, and then passed to the War Department, shouting, rally around the flag, boys. The secretary of the War Department hadn't been called for, and after repeated and urgent demands appeared before the people. He was received with cheering, but asked to be excused on account of his health for making any remarks. The workmen in the Navy yard, some 1500 or 2000 in number, formed a procession headed by a band and marched into the city, firing repeatedly a howitzer and huzzaing. The line was increased by persons falling in on the way. Their design was to congratulate the President, who last night returned from Richmond. Thousands assembled in front of the Executive Mansion. Bands played, and many in the crowd sang in unison with the music. Cannons were fired and repeated calls were made for the President. When he appeared at the window, he was greeted with Huzzahs and clapping of hands and the waving of hats. He said, so Abraham Lincoln said, I'm very greatly rejoiced that an occasion has occurred so pleasurable that the people can't restrain themselves. And then it says, there's cheers. The crowd's going crazy. I suppose arrangements are being made for some sort of formal demonstration, perhaps this evening or tomorrow. The voices. We can't wait. We can't wait. If there should be such a demonstration, I, of course, will have to respond to it. A voice, bully for you. And I will have nothing to say if you dribble it all. Dribble it out of me. So he's essentially saying, I don't. I don't want to do this now. Like, there's already going to be a formal celebration and if I say anything now, then I won't have anything to say then and I'll have nothing to say if you dribble it at me. LAUGHTER AND CRIES OF we want to hear you now. I see that you have a band. Yes, we have three of them. I propose now, closing up by request that you play a certain piece of music or a tune. I thought Dixie, one of the best tunes I've ever heard. And there's laughter from the crowd. The band began to play Dixie, but soon ceased as the President had not concluded his remarks. He continued, I'd heard that our adversaries over the way attempted to appropriate it. I insisted yesterday that we had fairly captured it. CHEERS AND LAUGHTER I presented the question to the Attorney General and he gave his opinion that it is our lawful prize. LAUGHTER AND CHEERS that's great. I asked the band to give us a good turn upon it. The band accordingly played Dixie with extraordinary vigor when three cheers and a tiger were given, followed by the tune of Yankee Doodle. So they go on and they'll play Hail Columbia and some other songs as well. So what happens in the post Civil War era is there's a romanticization of things that took place place really, in an attempt to try to heal the country back together, and Lincoln is at the forefront of trying to do it. The problem is, in this particular case, that doesn't seem to be what he's trying to do.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Having a little fun.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yep. And look, Dixie is essentially the Confederate battle anthem. It's not the anthem of the Confederacy, but it's played by all the Confederate military marches, as if that. It is. Here's the thing. Lincoln is a little bit right. It's actually written by a Northern guy. It's. It's written by the son of an abolitionist. But before you start thinking, oh, I'm sure he must have been a great guy. It was written for minstrel shows that were taking place in the North.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I see.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

If you don't know what minstrel shows are, please don't google them.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I mean, on a work computer at least.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. There was an entire genre of quote unquote entertainment in the 19th century America. I mean, frankly, unfortunately, well into the 20th century, where white actors and singers would put on blackface and dress up as if they were black Americans and then sing songs. And that song Dixie was written and performed by one of these minstrel groups. So you can see why a minstrel group racistly pretending to be blacks from the south are singing about how much they miss Dixie.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So the son rebelling against his abolitionist father.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I don't really know. Although, I mean, obviously got popular. The song, it comes out in 58, and so it's popularized by the south and it becomes their battle anthem. And so while Johnny Horton, you know, it's a nice, like kind of a pride swelling thing. Like, you know, what, how, how merciful was Lincoln that he said, you know what? To honor them. We better play that. But it's pretty obvious when you read the multiple accounts, it's not. It's that Lincoln actually liked the song because he probably heard it before it became a southern battle anthem because it was being played in the north through these minstrel shows. And he liked the song. And now he was making a point of it, that it is a prize of war. It's ours now and we're gonna play it.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I would like to state, first of all, you are 13 months and two weeks older than me. You are reading a newspaper article on the screen here.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yes.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

A font that can not be seen by anyone. I don't know how you can read that. I have. I have 72 font over here on my computer.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

If you look over at Richard's computer, the whole page is just like four letters and he just keeps sliding it down. It's not even one word, it's just a letter.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So many hyphens. Doesn't fit on the screen anyway. Well, that's interesting.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

So the reason why I thought I'd respond to that is, first of all, yeah, hopefully we'll get to the Civil War, but sometime after both Richard and I are dead. But it demonstrates how there can be particles of truth in a historical claim. But the context and the presentation of it are the deciding factor in whether or not it's accurate. Because what was being conveyed by the song that Lincoln so honored these Southern soldiers that he wanted to play their battle anthem to honor them at the end of the war. In fact, even says the crowd got together expecting a huge party. And. And that's not what happened. Yes, he requested the band to play Dixie, but it wasn't because he was trying to honor Johnny Reb. It was because there were a bunch of union workers there who had been sacrificing in the shipyards and at the War Department and they were happy the war was basically over. And he kind of spiked the football a little bit. And by kind of, I mean totally.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Our last email here comes to us from Jill. Jill writes in Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc. My husband and I are brokenhearted that our daughter has gone down a path that has left us bewildered. We are in our 80s and have been involved with the church all of our lives. I have pioneer heritage on both sides of my family. My great great uncle was Archibald Gardner, who sat with Brigham Young on the foundation of the Salt Lake Temple and told him the foundation would have to be torn down and rebuilt. So Jill's family been delivering bad news since the mid-1800s. Dr. D, I believe that's you, Garrett.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I think it's really a reference to you.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I know I was an excellent defender in basketball as a young man. I know that you are working on the Brigham Young papers. I'm going to copy and paste a portion of the email that our daughter sent us and I would like to know if you have sources that any of this is true. We have no idea how to confront this, especially considering our gospel doctrine. Gospel doctrine lesson from July 6th here's a portion of her email that we are so troubled by.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

And then they put that there. So this is a pretty difficult thing for me to respond to and honestly, probably I shouldn't be. I mean, I'm not that the wrong time to make this decision is right now while we're recording probably, but like everything else, we kind of do it on the fly here. Let me put this out as a caveat. We get emails all the time from people who are struggling, and especially people who are struggling because members of their family have started buying into anti Mormon arguments or have trouble with some aspect of the church. And I wish I knew how to help those people. The problem with trying to respond to these is that what I will read as part of this email is filled, filled with absolutely ahistorical, meaning no actual historian with an actual degree inside of the church or outside of the church would be making these arguments. Okay, so the reason why it's hard is obviously we love the people in our families. And, you know, we've had questions before when we responded to someone's question about. About plural marriage, in which we said that, you know, the. The source of this person was using was a bad source. And, you know, we even got feedback from that, where people felt like we were being mean by responding to it that way. That it. That's part of the problem. Right? It's kind of like, you know, it's. It's all fine and good to be the dream crusher. When someone says, hey, my great, great, great grandfather was a bodyguard of Joseph Smith. It's another thing entirely when we're dealing with something much more visceral and closer to home. And that's someone that we love deeply, who is claiming things that are not true. And the reason why that places me in such a bad position is my impetus, my sinful nature, is that when I see people telling lies about Joseph Smith, about the history of the church, about Brigham Young, I end up responding by explaining how terrible their sources are and how bad their argument is. And that can sometimes make people feel bad because they love their daughter, their son, or their husband. And that's not my intent. I'm not trying to. I'm not inviting you or anyone. You know, Jill. I'm not inviting you or anyone listening to share podcasts like this with the person who's struggling, because the person who's already sending this email to you is well beyond changing their opinions because of this podcast. And I think that's part of the problem, is that people are hoping that there's some kind of magic bullet that I can give that will stop this road to apostasy or refute it or will change someone's mind. And my experience is that that doesn't really work. Someone who wants to believe something that's false, they. They don't want to hear the other side, or they've convinced themselves that they already know both sides. I actually got an email from someone who said, I used to listen to your podcast, but then I heard more about plural marriage, and I just got worried that you weren't telling us the whole truth on it and you were trying to hide things. And now there's so much stuff out there that shows that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced it, that. That. That's why I'm just asking, is there any way you can. You can even respond to this? Well, the weirdest part about that email was I had questions, so I stopped listening. Think about that for a minute. I'm not sure what's true. I'm looking for truth. I'm looking for sources. So I stopped listening to you. Now, I'm not saying I'm right about everything. And certainly it's not anyone's testimony that they listen to this podcast. What I'm saying is people do this all the time with their scriptures. They do it all the time with the prophets and apostles. They say, I'm just looking for answers. And then they only look for answers in the place that tells them what they want to hear. And they make historical arguments, meaning they make arguments that sound like their history. Here's a source, here's a year, here's a date. And yet they are arguments that are so poorly sourced, that are so poorly argued that even non Latter Day Saint historians do not accept them as accurate. And that's where, you know, I get into trouble, because I'm trained as a historian. And when someone presents an argument that is ahistorical and false, well, the way that I'm going to demonstrate that it's a historical and false is by citing to the sources that demonstrate that it's ahistorical and false. And that can sometimes come across like me spiking the floor football.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So there's an additional piece to this too, is that people aren't saying, hey, look, you guys don't believe that God and Jesus are the same person. I'd like to point out a couple of scriptures. The attack is, hey, this person that you believe to be a prophet and that you love, he's a murderer, he's a racist, he's an adulterer, he's the worst possible things that have ever been, and you are a fool for believing them. And so just even in the response to those, even if you were to do it in a, in a measured way, it's difficult to do it in a way that doesn't seem like you're attacking.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Like, so, for instance, and this kind of touches on part of what's in this email, someone who claims that Doctrine and covenants section 132 is a forgery that was invented by Brigham Young and the Quorum of the twelve Apostles so that they could indulge in plural marriage, and that all of the prophets and apostles who followed after that all kept up the charade, claiming that it was actually a Joseph Smith revelation, one that wasn't. Someone who's claiming that may not realize the extent of what they are saying. They are saying that five, six, seven prophets of the church, even down to the prophet today, are all lying about that being a revelation from God. And in the case of these early prophets, not just lying, they're the ones who forged it. And that means that so are the dozens and dozens and dozens of men and women who say that they practiced it or that they heard Joseph Smith teach it. So it's not a light thing to say. Well, this is a forged document and Joseph Smith never taught it. First of all, it's not light historically, because once again, you cannot find a PhD historian who will say that that's what the sources say. You won't find it. Now, you'll find all kinds of people who are more than willing to say that they do history, but you won't find someone who's been vetted by the academy who says that that is the conclusion we draw from the sources. So it's already something that's broaching. It's a historical truth. Right? These sources exist or they don't. So let me just read part of this. This is a portion of the email. The early saints rejected the doctrine of Christ or fullness of the gospel that Joseph originally restored, just as the children of Israel did with Moses, with the same pattern, and were warned in 1832. See Doctrine and Covenant, section 8454 through 50, and then demoted in 1834 to a preparatory gospel, just like the children of Israel were with Moses the same pattern. See Doctrine and Covenant, Section 8419 through 27. So let me read the sentence again, because that was all a parenthetical. And then demoted in 1834 to a preparatory gospel when the name changed from Church of Christ to Church of the Latter Day Saints. Those who had the Melchizedek priesthood, and this is underlined in the text ordained upon them lost it. Those who had the Melchizedek priesthood sealed upon them underline at the Isaac Morley Farm in 1831, retained it as long as they were true and faithful. You can see in Doctrine and covenants, Section 109, Joseph, in the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, petitioned the Lord to restore the fullness of the gospel. Can you restore something that hasn't been lost to the church as a whole? Again, so that's the opening paragraph. Frankly, were I to respond to everything in this opening paragraph, we would have part nine of Did Abraham Lincoln Play Dixie? So there's so much wrong with this that again, the person's making a historical claim that in 1834 the church was demoted from having the Melchizedek priesthood to having the only the Aaronic priesthood, just like the children of Israel. You will notice that there is no source that says that. They will say, well, like is explained in D&C 84, 19 through 27. That's just an explanation that that's what happened to the children of Israel. Certainly not an explanation. That's what happened to the church. Those who had the Melchizedek priesthood ordained upon them lost it. And those who had the Melchizedek priesthood sealed on them at the Isaac Morlock farm retained it as long as they were true and faithful. Now, let me read the beginning part of the second paragraph before I begin to respond, because it's part of my response. Brigham Young and the later 12 after Joseph died were not all caps part of that group at the Isaac Morley farm. They instead decided to be lazy and not seek after the endowment of powers instructed by Joseph prior to their missions. I don't know where we want to start with this, but let's start with the first sentence of that second paragraph.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's a good way to start. Where do we start? The first sentence of the second paragraph.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

The second paragraph, and then I'll go backwards.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Okay, that's good.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, I'll moonwalk.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

It's like you're telling a story. You're going to cut it up, you're going to send it back, you're going.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

To flash forward, you're going to flash sideways. It'll be similar to. It'll be similar to a Picasso. The pieces will be there, but they'll all be jagged and in different, you know, cubist ways.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I can't wait to see where this goes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah. Brigham Young and the later 12 were not part of the group at the Isaac Morley farm. Well, this is an example of making an accusation that is both ridiculous and. And false. It is true. Brigham Young was not at the Isaac Morley farm for the church conference that was held there June 6th through the 9th in 1831.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Was he at, like, at a swimming hole being lazy?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, I mean, he was listening to Dixie being played. The main reason why Brigham Young wasn't at Isaac Morley's Farm in 1831 is Brigham Young wasn't a member of the church so lazy. So a stunning aspect of him not being there is that he's not a member. Neither is John Taylor and neither is Wilford Woodruff. And yet none of them were there.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

The list of lazy.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

What a cr. Isn't it incredible that they didn't even go, yeah, it's Stunning. It's stunning that they didn't go. But you know what? Let's just put that aside because maybe what they meant was, well, Brigham Young wasn't there, and that's where the real priesthood was given. Ergo, Brigham Young never got the real priesthood. Now, that's not how they wrote it, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So the real priesthood is given there. It's only given there. And anyone that wasn't there does not have the priesthood.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Yeah, because Joseph Smith said that, like, so many times, except not one time. I mean, don't you think if Joseph Smith did say that, and that was the entire point of their argument, that the first place they would cite to wouldn't be, look what happened to the Children of Israel. It would be, here's where Joseph Smith said the church lost the priesthood.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

So just as a quick. As a quick aside, Jill is talking about how, boy, when we got this, we didn't even know what to think of it. Part of the reason that she might not have known what to think about it is because of the ridiculous nature of what is being asserted here.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

This is not something that comes up in your average gospel doctrine class because for someone to assert it, they have to believe things for which there are no sources. So. So, I mean, yeah, there's some partial truth to it. Brigham Young wasn't even there at the Isaac Morley farm. Yep, he wasn't, because he wasn't baptized. So. Yep. I mean, I mean, again, it's kind of like going back to Dixie. Right. It's not that that's wholly false. It's that the context in which it's being presented portrays a false idea, that this person is presenting this as an idea that because Brigham Young wasn't there, he didn't have the real priesthood. Right.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, but just not just that, because he was lazy, he wasn't there.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, he didn't seek after the endowment of power, even though they were instructed by Joseph. Um, Brigham Young and the later 12 were not part of that group at the Isaac Morley farm.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I say, yes.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Well, let's pull up the group that was at the Isaac Morley farm, because guess what? We have documents, unlike this paragraph, that doesn't include any sources. Because why would I include sources to railing accusations for which I can't prove? Here's the minutes to the June conference of the Church, which lists everyone who was there June 3, 1831. Okay? Remember, Brigham Young and the original quorum of the 12 were not there. Who was there? Parley Pratt. Dang it. He was one of the original members of the quorum of the 12. Shoot. So already the statement. My point is, the sentence says, none of the original members of the quorum of the 12 were there at that meeting, except for Parley Pratt, who was at that meeting, and Thomas B. Marsh, who was at that meeting, and Lyman White, who was at that meeting. But none of the original members of the quorum of the 12 except for also Orson Pratt. So you can see the reason why that kind of gets my dander up a little bit.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You don't say.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Because there's actually four. So not just. Not just. Oh, there was one, and I forgot that Lyman White was actually an apostle. Four of the original Quorum of the twelve were there, so why would you even write that sentence?

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

A third are there? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, a third of them are there. But, like, none of them were there. I mean, it's a. It's a pretty. It's one of those things that becomes very frustrating. It's very frustrating when someone makes an authoritative statement. None of the quorum of the 12 were even there. And as long as you don't check, you won't realize that that statement in and of itself is false. And it's at this point where you want to push pause on someone's argument. This person wrote this argument up. This was their decision about how they wanted to make their argument. And what they wrote as the beginning of an entire paragraph is that none of the later members of the quorum of the 12 were at this meeting. That is factually false. And it's false not just once. It's false twice, and it's false three times, and it's false four times, that should immediately cause you to stop. If you are ever finding yourself going down a rabbit hole where someone is claiming something and you determine that on a basic fact, because this isn't hidden anywhere. Every single person right now can go to josephsmithpapers.org and go to the June 3rd 4th conference, and they can read the list of the people who were there. And I don't mean that the Joseph Smith papers wrote out a list. I mean, you can read the original Minute Book. It's right there. Huh? Richard? You can see it. Well, nice handwriting. Well, Richard, can't. I can't.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

I mean, there's. There's. There's squiggly lines. Garrett's telling me that these are names. I can't. I can't read any of them.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Anything that's beyond six inches away from Richard's face has to be in 7,000 point font for him to be able to see it. But, but the point being this is, this is a takeaway that everyone should have. If someone is making an argument and the starting point of their argument is something that is demonstrably factually false, the fact that you don't have answers to all of the other parts of their argument, it shouldn't actually matter that much because, yeah, maybe I don't have time to track down every single sentence, but, but I know with this sentence it is ragingly false and manipulative. Now, now look, maybe, maybe they don't know that Brigham Young wasn't a member of the church yet, in which case they could literally do any Google search at all and they would know when he became a member. Now, I, I'm loathe to. I'm loathe to. To do this. I didn't want this to be a part one. And I, I've got a lot more material.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

You do? You have. There are 486 tabs.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

Every tab on my computer that could be open is actually open and.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Yeah, well, look, Leslie's gonna love this episode.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I. You know, I met Ryan's sister today.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Oh, did you?

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

I was speaking at a BYU event and Ryan's sister came up and said, hey, do you know my. My brother and, and sister in law, Ryan? And do I know Ryan and Leslie? I believe on one of our last podcasts, Leslie said that there were only a couple of podcasts that were worse than the one that we were doing.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Which means that it wasn't the worst.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

She said it live.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

She did.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

She did. I think Leslie hate listens to the show.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

Well, she, she does love when your dander is up. And this is, this is a spinal tap. 11. In terms of dander.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

We're gonna crank it up to 11. I mean, I apologize again. Let me reiterate. My intent is not to try to make people feel bad. It is just hard for me when I know that other people are being made to feel bad, not. Not based about. Look, the gospel is difficult enough. Life is difficult enough. There are all kinds of things that I don't have answers to. There are all kinds of questions that I'm going to ask in the next life. Things are difficult enough without someone making false statements and convincing people that the false statements are somehow true, because I've already got questions. I don't know exactly how X or Y works in the next life, but when we muddy the waters with things that aren't even true to begin with, but we present them as if they are factually true. I think that's. That's part of the problem. So I apologize again to everyone, but apparently not enough. Because we will be doing Part two. Is that correct? Yep. Let's hope there's no Part two. If next week we are doing another BYU Christmas football game brawl, then I will have won the argument and Richard will have lost. Is that.

[Dr. Richard Leduc]

That is. That's how you'll know.

[Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat]

That's. That's how everyone will know. Until next time when you find out whether or not we do a Part two.

[Narrator]

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