wavePod

Get Wave AI

S5E45 Changes to the Section Headings and Polygamy - Standard of Truth | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to Standard of Truth

S5E45 Changes to the Section Headings and Polygamy

Standard of Truth

Thu Oct 30 2025

Summary

Podcast Summary: Standard of Truth S5E45 - "Changes to the Section Headings and Polygamy"

Date: October 30, 2025
Hosts: Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (GD) & Dr. Richard Leduc (RL)

Episode Overview

This episode explores recent historical changes to the section headings of the Doctrine & Covenants, the implications of those changes (with a particular focus on plural marriage), and related Church history context. Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc provide insight into how and why these changes were made, help listeners understand their faith’s history on a deeper level, and clarify common misunderstandings—especially regarding polygamy. The hosts also manage, with their trademark humor and asides, to weave in personal anecdotes, listener correspondence, and call for charity via Sweetwater Rescue.

1. Personal Anecdotes and Charity Updates

Timestamps: 00:35 – 16:26

RL recounts a trip to Church history sites (Liberty Jail, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Haun’s Mill), reading the Hyrum Smith affidavit about Mormon persecutions in Missouri—a deeply sobering experience.
- “...it’s the most terrible thing you'll ever read in your life.” (GD, 03:37)
Transition to a comic/tragic event: RL’s car is broken into during a Kansas City Chiefs game, losing valuables, passport, headphones, etc. This segues into lighthearted banter about leaving sports games early to “beat traffic.”
RL shares about Sweetwater Rescue—a charity aiding global Saints to attend the temple, with “every dollar literally goes to getting a Latter-day Saint to the temple, not to an overhead...” (GD, 13:50)
- Upcoming fundraiser: eat at “Hug Hess” (Utah restaurants) Nov 6–8; 34% of proceeds to Sweetwater Rescue's Kenya Nairobi Temple initiative.

2. Christie’s Corner: Unpacking D&C Section 124

Timestamps: 16:29 – 26:09

Key Points

Section 124 is a “gigantic revelation” laying out ordinances for the Nauvoo Temple (endowment, washings/anointings, baptisms for the dead).
Doctrine Flexibility: The Lord says some temple things are revealed specifically for the "dispensation of the fulness of times." (D&C 124:41)
- “There are at least some things revealed that actually have not been revealed before...for the dispensation of the fullness of times.” (GD, 16:43)
- Takeaway: Don’t stress if ceremonies change over time—they are intended to be adapted for new dispensations and peoples.
The Nauvoo House: Verses 111–119 outline the building of a hotel/event center for economic/work relief of poor Saints—intended as a form of welfare employment.
- “Part of the purpose of God giving this revelation...is this early attempt to provide [for] the poor of the Church through work...the origin” of employment-based welfare, akin to DI. (GD, 25:18)

3. Listener Email & Community Engagement

Timestamps: 26:09 – 36:24

Listener "John" from Texas emails about his family’s Church experiences, LDS history interests, and his son on a mission. The email is read at length with commentary and jokes from hosts.
- “Your podcast has made me go from not really interested in church history to wanting to learn and understand more and more and even American history.” (Listener “John”, 35:35)
- RL and GD riff on Idaho towns (“we’re big in Atomic City”, 32:04) and misadventures in March Madness bracket predictions.
John’s reflection: Since listening, his testimony of Joseph Smith has grown “like the light of the sun compared to the light of the stars of my prior testimony...” (34:27)
The email segues into hosts discussing the importance of learning true history and answering challenging gospel questions thoughtfully.

4. Main Content: Changes to D&C Section Headings

Timestamps: 36:24 – 66:16

a) Background on Changes

In October 2025, the Church released updates—mostly to D&C headings; a few to Book of Mormon chapter summaries.
The majority of changes are later in D&C, reflecting historical clarifications made possible by the completed Joseph Smith Papers project.
- “Most of the changes now...is to the second half of it. And look, some of them are just minor...” (GD, 38:44)
Many 2013 changes focused on early D&C chapters, based on Joseph Smith Papers findings up to that point.

b) Types of Changes

Chronological detail: Dates and timeframe corrections, e.g., “July 20, 1833” replaces “July 1833” in Section 98.
Contextual Clarification: E.g.,
- D&C 121–123 now explicitly indicate these are excerpts from longer letters written by Joseph Smith. (41:35)
- “...most people...are surprised. They’re like, it [D&C 121] does [come from a larger letter]? Now it’s directly in the section heading...” (GD, 41:21)
Doctrinal Clarification:
- Law of Consecration vs. Tithing (Section 119 & 120)
  - Headings now clarify that tithing did not replace the law of consecration.
  - “The law of consecration...that you’re willing to give everything to God that God asks for is part of being a Saint...it wasn’t terribly accurate [to treat it as replaced].” (GD, 48:21)
- Section 98: now notes temporal proximity to Jackson County expulsion.

c) Substantive Updates Addressing Misunderstandings

Polygamy (Section 132):
- Old heading: “Evidence indicates that some principles...were known to the prophet as early as 1831.”
- New heading: “Evidence indicates some...were known by the prophet earlier.”
- The change removes the specific 1831 date due to lack of definitive documentary support (such as direct revelation manuscripts from then), as most evidence involves later (but still pre-1843) discussions and secondhand recollections.
  - “...Joseph could have been thinking about these things as early as translating the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon in 1829...One of the reasons why I think 1831 became...problematic is a lot of that...was tied to what W.W. Phelps claimed happened in July of 1831...” (GD, 53:09)
- RL anticipates critics seizing on this as “softening.” GD responds:
  - “There is nothing new. These arguments that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy...those were all made by the Reorganized Church...Guess who no longer makes those arguments? The Reorganized Church.” (GD, 62:52)
  - “The very women that they claim they care about, they will call liars because they say that God told them to practice plural marriage. So please don't fall under that seduction. I know it’s seductive.” (GD, 60:20)

d) Theological and Historical Guidance

Reminder: discomfort with polygamy is natural and understandable, but historical and doctrinal evidence is unequivocal.
- “If you’re not uncomfortable with it...that’s very weird, because in America...polygamy is seen as something...horrifically wrong, always...it is a very natural reaction to feel uncomfortable about plural marriage.” (GD, 59:38)
The problem with “comfort theology”: sometimes, critics seduce believers away from truth by confirming what they want to hear. GD powerfully warns listeners to stay anchored to actual prophetic teachings.
- “When we have discomfort...that’s when someone can...say...they found that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy...and [then] they’ll go on to malign the dozens and dozens...who testified that Joseph Smith taught them...” (GD, 60:13)
- “The prophet of God is the only person who has the ability to determine what scripture is and what the doctrine of the Church is. And that prophet and every prophet since Joseph Smith has said that section 132 is a revelation from God and a scripture.” (GD, 64:09)

5. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

“If you want to look smart in Sunday School...Christie’s Corner exists for it to seem like you have a depth of understanding...” (GD, 16:41)
“Every dollar literally goes to getting a Latter-day Saint to the temple, not to an overhead...If listening to this podcast hasn’t taught you that you can create something with literally no money and no administrative support, this is it.” (GD, 13:50)
“There are very good people, believing people, who themselves are very uncomfortable with polygamy. Look, every person should be uncomfortable with polygamy.” (GD, 59:34)
“Please don't fall under that seduction. I know it’s seductive. It’s the most seductive when someone is telling you exactly what you want to hear...” (GD, 61:04)
“The prophet of God is the only person who has the ability to determine what scripture is and what the doctrine of the Church is.” (GD, 64:17)

6. Episode Structure & Tone

Tone: Warm, humorous, candid, and deeply faithful; the hosts blend personal storytelling and Church history expertise, never shying from difficult topics but framing them with doctrinal conviction and charity.
Structure:
- Opening banter and anecdotes (including RL’s Kansas City misfortune and Sweetwater Rescue update)
- Christie’s Corner: deep dive on D&C 124 (temple, evolving ordinances, early LDS welfare)
- Listener correspondence—building community, testimony
- Commentary and analysis on changes to scripture headings, with a focus on law of consecration/tithing and polygamy
- Exhortation to anchor faith in true historical study and prophetic authority

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode:

This episode demystifies why and how the Church updates scriptural headings—always to clarify, not to “cover up”—and provides a model of how to faithfully grapple with challenging history. It is a robust resource for understanding both recent changes and enduring questions about the law of consecration, polygamy, and the living nature of Latter-day Saint revelation. The hosts’ candor and humor make even the most serious topics approachable for believing members seeking deeper faith and understanding.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Narrator (0:01)

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

Dr. Richard Leduc (0:29)

Foreign.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (0:37)

Hi. Welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Garrett Dirkmont, and I am joined by my, well, temporarily poor co host, Dr. Richard Leduc, who had an unfortunate incident at. At a certain sporting event.

Dr. Richard Leduc (0:56)

I feel like. Hello, Garrett. Thanks for having me back. I feel like there is a lost opportunity for the state of Missouri to say essentially that they've been robbing the Mormons since whenever.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (1:12)

Since 1831. I mean, yeah. Really? They only robbed us beginning in 1833, but yeah.

Dr. Richard Leduc (1:19)

When did they become a state? I felt like the moment they became a state, they. Some Missourian is immediately robbing some Mormons.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (1:26)

Some became a state before there were Mormons.

Dr. Richard Leduc (1:30)

Still, I'm going to get to the bottom of it.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (1:34)

Okay.

Dr. Richard Leduc (1:35)

I had a. I had a pretty fun and eventful day. I went to the BYU Iowa State game. That was one of the most fun games I've ever been to. It was a blast. Iowa State fans could not have been nicer. They were absolutely lovely. Wonderful. When I went to a Texas BYU game, I was offered beer everywhere. When I went to the Iowa State BYU game, I was offered apple pie and cornbread and it was. The fans were wonderful. It was a great experience. The game was a lot of fun. Drove down with my friends to Kansas City, Missouri. We were going to go to a Monday night game, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Washington Commanders.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (2:21)

And because Richard's a pretty big Taylor Swift fan, he was hoping that he would be able to see Taylor and Travis, did you.

Dr. Richard Leduc (2:30)

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (16:43)

Garrett, boy, we shouldn't do Christie's corners of gigantic revelations, especially ones that are about the temple and especially ones that are so important, like section 124. I mean, section 124 is the section that outlines what the. The ordinances are in this new Nauvoo temple that they're building because it talks about endowments. It talks about washings and anointings. It talks about baptisms for the dead. I mean, Section 124 is incredible. And so I thought, you know, what better way to talk about it than to talk about something that won't be talked about in your Sunday school? And that will make you. Because look again, if you want to look smart in Sunday school, if you want your friends to think you're cool, Christie's Corner exists for it to seem like you have a depth of understanding that allows you to become the Stake Relief Society president. That's. This is. It's. It's all baby steps as you progressed, either to Stake Relief Society president or to MTC district leader, that you're. You're working your way up by demonstrating your knowledge that you have there is. They will cover this for sure in whatever class you're in. But it's so cool, we still have to reference it. And that is that a lot of the time I think we try to find. Exactly. Like I'll have people say to me, like, so do you think that when Peter went to the temple in Jesus time, was the temple ceremony for Peter exactly the same, or was the. Was the temple ceremony for Adam? You know, were the covenants exactly the same? Of course, the answer to that is I don't know. Right. And that's the reality. I don't really know. But you do get something very interesting in verses 39, 40, and 41 that suggests that there are some things that are for the last dispensation of the fullness of times. Therefore, I say unto you that your anointings and your washings and your baptisms, for your dead and your solemn assemblies and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, your statutes and judgments, for the beginnings of the revelations and the foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of. Of all her municipals are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name. And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people. For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hiding from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times. So verse 41 of section 124 suggests that there are at least some things revealed that actually have not been revealed before in the temple that they pertain directly to, to the dispensation of the fullness of times, which is the dispensation we live in. So I always think, you know, it's important not to get hung up on, well, if they change any part of the presentation of the endowment, then how could it possibly be the same as it was in Solomon's temple? Well, the Lord is telling you that he is going to reveal things in this temple that have been kept hiding from before the foundation of the world. So, you know, it's okay that God's people make covenants, that is certain, that those covenants have always been made in exactly the same way. Well, of course they haven't. That God speaks to people according to their own culture, their own light, their own understanding to make those covenants more real. Now, the second thing I want to talk about is the part that I guarantee won't be talked about. I mean, maybe it will. I mean, probably you have like, some Gospel doctrine teacher who's also like a professor, you know, church history and doctrine. And they're like, let me tell you something. But if you drop all the way down to verse 111. So, I mean, you're. If you're reading through this in class, you aren't going to get to verse 1:11. But if you get down there, you'll see that it starts talking about that unto whom I've appointed to build a house for boarding, even the Nauvoo House. So you might have heard of the Nauvoo House before. And this is this undertaking in Nauvoo that is designed to build this, well, I mean, gigantic hotel and event center. I mean, for the 19th century purposes. I mean, it's not like they're building the MGM grand, but that God is commanding them to build this giant hotel. And you can, when you go to Nauvoo, if you're going on our tour with us in Nauvoo, or if you go to Nauvoo, you can see what remains of what they built of the Nauvoo House. They don't complete it. But the saints, there are several saints who are by name commanded to invest in this. What's really interesting. So the church is building it, but people are supposed to buy stock into it. And then, of course, they could all make some of the proceeds from it when it's done. But listen to who's allowed to buy stock into the Nauvoo House. If you drop down to verse 119. And again, verily I say unto you, let no man pay stock to the Quorum of the Nauvoo House unless he shall be a believer in the Book of Mormon. And in the revelations that I have given unto you, saith the Lord your God, for that which is more or less than this cometh of evil, and shall be attended with cursings and not blessings, saith the Lord your God. Even so. Amen. And again, verily I say unto you, let the Quorum of the Nauvoo House have a just recompense of wages for all their labors which they shall do in building the Nauvoo House, and let their wages be agreed among themselves as pertaining to the price thereof. And, you know, so it's going to go on talking about this. Well, Joseph Smith receives another revelation that's not in the Doctrine and Covenants a couple of months later pertaining to this Nauvoo House. So what's going on in Nauvoo in 1841? Well, you have thousands of people moving there, and this is going to accelerate over the course of 1842 and 43, and many of them are poor immigrants from Europe. And they're going to arrive in Nauvoo with legitimately nothing. Now, if you go to Nauvoo, you'll notice it's not exactly, you know, a center of manufacturing and industry. Right. It's not like, oh, well, we'll just get jobs at the local car manufacturing plant. So you have thousands of people showing up who don't have any money, so how are you going to provide for them? Part of the purpose of God Giving this Revelation 1:24 is this early attempt to provide the poor of the Church through work. If you had to trace DI back to its origins, this would be the origin. I mean, obviously not, you know, Desert Industries is a different corporation. I'm not saying that it is, but this revelation explains, let my servant William Allred and Henry Miller take stock in the house. Now, why? Why are we building the house? This is this revelation again. This is not in the Doctrine Covenants. This is an unpublished revelation, March 20, 1841, that the poor of my people may have employment. So part of the reason for spending the thousands and thousands of dollars to build this massive hotel was so that when poor people arrived, well, I don't have any money and I don't have any skills. Can you chop wood? Well, yeah. Okay, we'll go chop wood for the Nauvoo House and we'll pay you for your labor on the Nauvoo House. You'll be able to take that money and you'll be able to start fresh from the bottom up.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (38:54)

And so let me give you a perspective on that. Okay. In 2013, so. So roughly 12 years ago. Well, roughly. I mean, yeah, in 2013. I mean, I don't know exactly what part of the year they released it. The Church made changes to the Doctrine and Covenant sections headings then, but most of those changes, again, not all of them, but many of them were from the first portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. And you'll notice on the church's release, they explain that many of those in the Doctrine and Covenants were occasioned by the changes, were occasioned by findings from the Joseph Smith Papers project. So in 2013, only a few of the documents volumes, which are the meat volumes, the volumes of where these revelations would be covered and the letters surrounding them, only a few of them had already been published by 2013 or completed, the work on them completed. And so there were changes made to some of the other section headings from things that we already knew. But the bulk of the big changes were to the sections that had already had a thorough historical going over. And again, the Joseph Smith Papers volumes are reviewed by the quorum of the 12 and by the First Presidency. So it's not just like some guy by himself sitting in a closet somewhere at the church history, Like, I don't know, like, what if we said Fishing river here? No, there's a huge process to this. And so what's really interesting is that most of the changes in 2013 were to the first part of the Doctrine and Covenants, and most of the changes now that they've completed all of these other documents volumes is to the second half of it. And look, some of them are just minor, you know, like you can see on that, on that chart, you know, section 98, it used to say in July of 1833. Now it says exactly when. July 20, 1833. Right. Well, and how could I maintain my testimony having would when you lied to me and said that it was in July before instead of July 20th? You know, because we have a better clarification on some of these chronologies and dates, you know, so, for instance, if you see section 107, it used to say May 3rd. It now says May 4th, because now we know when that. When that took place, we have a better understanding of it. Some of the things like we just talked about last week with doctrine, covenant, section 121, 122 and 123. One of the things that I always had to. To teach my students and that we tried to talk about last week with our giant Christie's Corner that was really a Christie's highway or Christie's, you know, long, you know, giant Empire State Building wasn't really a corner was that these are all excerpted from two much longer letters. And so before it used to say that it was written by the prophet Joseph Smith and an epistle to the Church. Now it tells you directly that it's excerpted from Two epistles. Now, you might think that doesn't make any difference, but it actually does. Because most people that I tell that DNC 121, 122, and 123 that they come from a larger letter. They don't. They're surprised. They're like it does now. It's directly in the section heading where someone reading the section heading will go, oh, this is only part of what Joseph wrote. They know right away it's only part of what Joseph. Now they may still want to go out and find what else Joseph wrote, and that'll make them mad.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (43:17)

Right. So look, some of the section heading changes. If you drop down further, you'll see in some of the introductions, like section 89, that's changed to directly include the fact that all of our accounts of why Joseph asked this question involve Emma Smith being a part of saying to Joseph, hey, are they really going to spit tobacco juice all over my floor? Would we come and talk about God? I mean, so they not only show you what's changed, but you see, that's really great there. They kind of give in the parentheses this kind of explanation for why it was changed. A great example of something that, you know, doesn't seem like it's a big deal, but kind of feels like it's a big deal is section 98. In section 98, it didn't used to give a time relationship to when the mob demanded that the Saints leave Jackson County. Right here, you get it now. In the section eight, three days later, church leaders sign an agreement to do so. Right. So it's giving you a little bit of a time element so you have a better understanding of what's going on. Well, what are some of the big ones? One of the biggest ones, I think is one of Richard's favorite sections and that we spent a lot of Christie Corner time on. And that's section 110. You always used to have to explain to people, you know, when this took place, it now says directly on it that this was on Easter Sunday after a Sabbath day meeting. Rather than, you know, you having to say to people, hey, just so you know, this was also over Easter when Joseph had these. These Departed saints come and give him the keys. Moses, Elias, and Elijah. I think the context that's added to section 112 is pretty interesting as well. We added a bunch of this context. So what's funny is I didn't know what this was coming out. Obviously, I'm not in the loop. I'm not important. No one cares about me. No one's asking my opinion. No one cares about me. But we spent time. When we went over section 112 on the podcast, we spent time talking about the fact that there was a lot of dissension going on, that there was a lot of people that had apostatized. And so what did they do? They added, at this time, there was a significant dissension in the church over Joseph Smith's leadership, including among some of the apostles. And so now that that same context that we were trying to kind of give, I mean, frankly, what the church is doing is they're killing Christie's Corner. I mean, they're just. They're giving you all the information. And now we're going to have to go to, like, Christie's Super Corner. It's going to have to be, like, the most obscure thing ever. Like, what was the middle name of Thomas B. Marshall? You don't know that, do you? And now make me a steak Sunday school present. So that one's very interesting. One of the ones that I think is really key and will affect how we look at things going forward is there are few things more misunderstood in the church more commonly misunderstood than the law of consecration. Now, the law of consecration, I think most people think they know what it is, but almost invariably when someone talks about the law of consecration in early church history, what they mean is the consecration of properties. That's what they mean. They'll be like, oh, yeah, well, the saints, they were living the law of consecration in Missouri. What do they mean? They mean that the saints were giving all of their property to the church, and the church was giving them back a stewardship. The problem was that made things kind of unclear, you know. You know, this. This used to say that, you know, they had the law of consecration. God took it away and gave them the law of tithing. As if the law of tithing somehow replaced the law of consecration. Well, that can be a little bit confusing given some of the covenants that people make. Right. So given the covenants people make, they're like, you know, I'm pretty sure I am still covenanting to consecrate. I. Right. And so the new wording kind of eliminates that connection.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (48:22)

And it even says that in the parentheses. This removes the implication that the law of consecration was replaced by the law of tithing is no longer in effect. Obviously the law of consecration, that you're willing to give everything to God that God asked for is part of being a saint. In fact, you can do a self evaluation real quickly just by asking yourself what would you actually be willing to give up for the church and for God? And you start going through that mental list in your mind, would you really be willing to give up everything? The idea that God asks us to consecrate everything, meaning if it's needed, we give everything. The idea that it was replaced by the law of tithing really was, you know, it wasn't terribly accurate. And so now it's there. And plus it's positioned in this time frame of this financial crisis for the church and for the country. Right. That things are really bad in the country at the time. They are really bad financially. So I think that change is going to have a long lasting impact because section 119, often you've heard people say, oh, God gave people the law of tithing to replace the law of consecration. I've heard that literally dozens and dozens and dozens of times. But that's not the case. One other change that I think people might notice, maybe they won't, maybe they should, I don't know, is to section 132. Now, section 132 is the revelation on plural marriage. So look, I start talking about this and we're immediately going to be inundated by 75 emails from people who didn't listen to the rest of the episode. But somehow some AI chatbot caught this part and they're going to be responding to that. But it used to say that. It used to say as early as 1831, in when did Joseph Smith know about these principles? So, you know, it used to say that although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of these, the principles involved in this revelation were known to the prophet as early as 1831. That's what it used to say. It now says evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the prophet earlier. So not as early as 1831. But also, you know, one of the, one of the problems with pegging it to 1831 is you're saying that that thought had never crossed Joseph's mind before that. Right. And since you don't actually have a document that says when Joseph understands this, you do have other people Secondhand accounts of people who say, well, Joseph told me that when he was translating the Old Testament, this and that. Right? So you have later accounts of when people are saying, clearly Joseph Smith understands the principle of plural marriage before July 12, 1843, because he's already marrying people before July 12 of 1843. He's already in his own plural marriages before July 12, 1843. And when we have our record of this revelation being written down, it's the writing down of it July 12th of 1843, not when Joseph first received it. I mean, Joseph could have been thinking about these things as early as translating the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon in 1829. He could have been thinking about these things as early as receiving the Book of moses in. In 1830. One of the reasons why I think 1831 became a little bit problematic is a lot of that, I think, was tied to what W.W. phelps claimed happened in July of 1831. We've actually referenced it on this podcast before that, in July of 1831. So very early in the church, Phelps claimed that Joseph received a revelation that commanded them, even though they were married men, to marry among the Lamanites and Nephites, to marry among the Native Americans. And he also claimed after that. So he claims that there's a revelation, he claimed after that, that about three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph privately, how is it that we are mentioned in the Revelations, could take wives from the natives, as we are all married men. He replied instantly, in the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and that Jacob took Rachel and Billah and Zilpah by revelation. So this is recorded in a letter that W.W. phelps writes to Brigham Young, August 12, 1861. So he is looking back on what he says happened 30 years earlier. Now, I am not saying that it didn't happen, but the way that he writes this out, he writes it out as a revelation that's versified. I mean, it's. It is. It looks like it's coming out of the Book of Commandments and Revelations. It is ready to rock and roll. But even Phelps himself, in presenting this to Brigham Young, says, I have the pleasure of sending you the substance of a revelation by Joseph, meaning this was the gist of it, even though it's phrased as if it was literally written down by Joseph.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (55:08)

Oh, for sure. I mean, at the same time, like, okay, so let's say you're a member of an apostate group or you're a member of the church who's about to become an apostate because you believe the church is lying about Joseph Smith practicing plural marriage and that Brigham Young was a false prophet. And yet somehow we still have a true prophet today, even though those keys go through Brigham Young. It's very. It's a very convoluted mess that you end up in when you try to make those arguments. But there are multiple prominent apostate groups right now that make the argument that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy. They will certainly say, ah, yes, they're doing this to, you know, to soften, to ease us into eventually the church saying that Joseph Smith never taught it at all. Well, the easiest way to do that would be to not have Doctrine and Covenant Section 132 as Scripture, because the section heading, which is not scripture, has no bearing on whether or not this is scripture. It was so difficult for people to believe that some people gave away their membership over it. There is no possible way that hell doesn't exist, because every Christian who's ever lived says that it does, and now Joseph Smith says that it doesn't. Well, obviously, you know, people would say, well, polygamy is much. That's much more difficult. Well, it's honestly not that much more difficult. In fact, if you had to weigh the two together, claiming that eternal hell doesn't exist. I mean, Martin Luther even opines that plural marriage is ratified by the Bible, right? But he isn't going to opine that hell doesn't exist. Hell not existing is the most radical of those two viewpoints, right? If you're going to say, like, there's no possible way that God would ever command anyone to practice polygamy. The problem is the Bible exists. I heard a very popular street preacher. He's all over the Internets and the YouTubes. He's popular guy. And he made the statement, you know, how could polygamy be true? You know, where. Where in the Bible does it say that you can practice polygamy? And I thought to myself, man, what a crazy argument for someone who's claiming. Because this guy is all about every word in the Bible is actual, absolutely written by God. Really? A better question would be, so since the cultures involved in the time of the Bible being written are all polygamous cultures. If God has a problem with it, period, why isn't there a single verse in the Bible in which God says, no one is ever allowed to practice this, ever, Including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and also Moses and Isaiah. Right.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (58:54)

Yeah, yeah, he's got it for the Nauvoo House. I mean, it's a very. And you can run this through ChatGPT and Grok and all those, and you'll find that while it will initially say, oh, yeah, the Bible is totally against plural marriage, that if you ask the question, well, show me where it can't. That it'll come back eventually and say, well, it's a cultural thing, because the Bible, at the very least, does not make any pronouncements against plural marriage. In reality, some of the Mosaic law talks exactly about how to deal with plural marriages. And so, look, this is not a pro plural marriage advocacy show. That's a different podcast. That's for after we get excommunicated. But the. It is a very destructive and seductive argument that is being made by many people. And the sad part is that there are very good people believing people, people who want to do what's right, who themselves are very uncomfortable with polygamy. Look, every person should be uncomfortable with polygamy. If you're not uncomfortable with it, then I have to start asking questions about what part of, you know, of Orderville do you live in? Right. I mean, because if. If you have no discomfort over it at all, that's very weird, because in America, in Canada, in the Western hemisphere, in Europe, polygamy is seen as something that is horrifically wrong always. Now, that same culture has no problem at all with infidelity. Rampant infidelity, that. Oh, yeah, sure, you probably shouldn't do that, but there's nothing horrific about it. And so it is a very natural reaction to feel very uncomfortable about plural marriage. That's why the church produced its Gospel topics essays about it. So here's the problem. When we have a discomfort about some aspect of what the church teaches, that's when someone can come along and say to you, oh, I love Joseph Smith. Oh, I love the Book of Mormon. Nothing matters to me more than the Gospel. The Gospel is the most important thing to me in the world. And, oh, by the way, you know, they found that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, Right? And then they'll take you to a YouTube channel, which will not have a historian on it. Well, it'll have someone claiming they're a historian. And what they mean by that is, I like history and I'm talking about it. But they won't have a PhD historian. They'll show a couple of documents and they'll say, see? See? Joseph never taught it. And then they'll go on to malign the dozens and dozens and dozens of men and women who testified that Joseph Smith taught them to practice plural marriage. The very women that they claim they care about, they will call liars because they say that God told them to practice plural marriage. So please don't fall under that seduction. I know it's seductive. It's the most seductive when someone is telling you exactly what you want to hear. Just like the saints who were told by Hyrum Page's revelations that they wouldn't have to move to Missouri. That's the Richard right now, that'd be the most seductive thing you'd ever hear. Hey, Richard, you don't have to move to Kansas City.

Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat (62:52)

That's about the best this moment. Richard's now on board. He's now a part of an apostate group. Just because of that. I mean, and I don't want to make light of it because I know it's deadly serious for a lot of people. I think almost everyone listening knows someone who might be struggling with this. And you need to know when someone says, oh, look at the new documents, there is nothing new. These arguments that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy, that Doctrine and Covenant Section 132 is somehow a forgery, and on and on and on. Those were all made by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a hundred years. Guess who no longer makes those arguments? The Reorganized Church. They don't make them because they're not historically viable arguments to make. But people who haven't heard them before think, wow, this is a really good argument. And the person who I'm Talking to. They just keep saying how they know the Holy Spirit's told them. And they really strongly believe in the Book of Mormon. Remember that all of the people that have been deceived in this dispensation, many of them the ones that have been truly deceived, they think that they're doing right. That's what being deceived is all about. That's why God told us, you follow the prophet, you don't follow me. You don't follow some YouTube sensation, you don't follow a TikTok reel, you don't follow some really cool influencers, some great religion professor who sounds really smart. The prophet of God is the only person who has the ability to determine what scripture is and what the doctrine of the Church is. And that prophet and every prophet since Joseph Smith has said that section 132 is a revelation from God and a scripture. And that's what all of the historical evidence points towards, that Joseph Smith received revelation to practice plural marriage. It's what all of the religious evidence points towards, and it's what the key holders of this dispensation continue to maintain. So, yeah, they might have taken the word earlier, as early as 1831 out, so that we're no longer pegging it to a certain date, but the very fact that that's all they changed is kind of a reiteration that this is still scripture. So don't let someone who claims they have your best interests try to talk you out of what the Church just released through its prophets. So I think that we've covered a lot. We've probably gone way over time. Richard, are we always over time?