S6E13 The CES Letter and Polygamy

Summary

Podcast Summary: Standard of Truth – S6E13 "The CES Letter and Polygamy"

Host: Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (B), with Dr. Richard Leduc (C)
Date: March 26, 2026

Episode Overview

In this engaging and candid episode, Dr. Garrett Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard Leduc address pressing questions from listeners about the infamous "CES Letter," its origins, and its content, with a particular focus on issues of polygamy in early Latter-Day Saint history. The hosts navigate the complexity around faith crises caused by historical controversies, share personal insights, and offer guidance on confronting difficult aspects of church history. The episode combines expert historical analysis, humor, and sincere faith as the hosts strive to help Latter-Day Saints better understand their heritage.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is the CES Letter? (05:37–08:20)

• Definition and Background:
  The CES Letter is described as a modern aggregation of historical and doctrinal criticisms of the Church, styled as a letter to a CES (Church Educational System) director. According to Dr. Dirkmaat, "It's called the CES Letter because the disingenuous person who first cobbled all of this together styled it as a letter that they were writing to a CES director. So that's the idea behind it."

  • The letter compiles “all of the various arguments that have been made over time, presented very matter-of-factly, presented entirely out of context, surprisingly presented with horrific source material.” (07:16)
  • The hosts warn that the letter's name misleads, as it implies church endorsement or authority—which it has none.
  • The document gained traction in the mid-to-late 2000s with the rise of social media and is frequently used as a jumping-off point for those facing faith crises.

• Critique of the CES Letter:

  • The claims are not new; "There is nothing new in it. There is nothing, ‘Oh my goodness, look what I came up with.’" (13:25)
  • It uses logical fallacies such as the “Gish Gallop,” overwhelming readers with a barrage of shallow critiques: "It's a logical fallacy. I throw so many things at you that there must be...where there's smoke, there's fire. And it's like, no, you just keep throwing more crap." (14:50)
  • The majority of the CES Letter's content (about 75%) relates to historical issues or sources. (15:15)

Notable Quote

• Dr. Dirkmaat (07:02):
  "If you're spending more time watching a Netflix series than you are studying the gospel, that is a harsh reality check."

---

2. Addressing Historical Issues: Joseph Smith and Early Polygamy (15:49–24:45)

• Early Practice of Plural Marriage:

  • Listener question: Was Joseph practicing polygamy in 1830?
    • Dr. Dirkmaat clarifies: "It is not well documented that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy in 1830. In fact, Joseph Smith's plural marriages are not well documented at all." (18:35)
    • Earliest claims of knowledge date to 1831, but no evidence supports Joseph practicing at that time.
    • The first plural marriage with some direct historical evidence is to Louisa Beaman in 1841.

• Common Misconceptions in Church Settings:

  • The hosts push back against Sunday school teachings that misrepresent the history or doctrine of polygamy, warning of the dangers of casual doctrinal speculation in church meetings.
  • It is emphasized that plural marriage was practiced under divine command, not as a personal or opportunistic pursuit by Joseph Smith.
  • The common argument that Joseph’s polygamy “wasn’t commanded by God” is refuted with references to Doctrine and Covenants 132 and numerous apostolic and prophetic statements over time.

Notable Quotes

• Dr. Dirkmaat (22:51):
  "No one should be stating something as a matter of doctrine in a gospel doctrine class that is not the Church’s position."
• Dr. Dirkmaat (24:45):
  "If you don’t feel comfortable with the topic of plural marriage, welcome to literally everyone who’s ever talked about it...Joseph Smith and Brigham Young...all of them, they say how uncomfortable they were with the topic."

---

3. Wrestling with Difficult Doctrine and the Limits of Authority (24:45–32:00)

• How to Handle Doctrinal Discomfort:
  • The hosts validate listeners’ discomfort with polygamy, emphasizing it’s normal and even expected.
  • Private wrestlings are differentiated from public declarations; only the President of the Church holds authoritative doctrinal voice.
  • Members are cautioned not to accept alternate narratives from internet sources, YouTube, or well-meaning ward members.
  • The introduction to Official Declaration 1 and other official Church essays are recommended as authoritative sources.

Notable Quotes

• Dr. Dirkmaat (31:27):
  "If there is a problem with the practice of plural marriage in the history of the church, it is not going to come from a YouTube hero or a Sunday school Superman...it’s going to come from the prophet of God."
• Dr. Dirkmaat (32:00):
  "I can tell you what most likely happened in the past, and I can point you toward sources. But as a believer...only the prophet of God holds all of the keys that allow him to declare what is and is not doctrine."

---

4. Global and Historical Contexts for Polygamy (38:12–42:28)

• Fun with Numbers Segment:
  • Pew Research notes 2% of the global population currently lives in polygamous households, with the highest national rate in Burkina Faso (36%).
  • The hosts discuss the contemporary challenge for converts in countries like Nigeria, where polygamy is widespread and culturally accepted—often requiring significant sacrifice for baptism into the LDS Church.

Notable Quote

• Dr. Dirkmaat (41:42):
  "Imagine you’re a woman in Nigeria and you're the second wife in a marriage that's totally acceptable culturally and legally. But you read the Book of Mormon and you know that it's true...you can't join the church unless you get a divorce."

---

5. Responding to Listener Stories and Processing Troubling History (45:46–67:22)

• Inspiration from Unknown Early Saints:

  • Dr. Dirkmaat shares how the faith and perseverance of lesser-known church members, especially women who endured tragic losses, inspire him:
    • Amanda Barnes Smith, Emmaline Anderson, and others are cited as examples of faith under adversity and as a source of personal reflection and aspiration.
    • The episode includes reflections on faith’s role in sustaining belief through hardship, paralleling Book of Mormon themes (Alma 62:41).

• Reconciling Ancestor’s Darker Pasts:

  • A listener, Michelle, asks about dealing with negative aspects in a beloved ancestor’s story.
    • Dr. Dirkmaat suggests granting historical and spiritual grace: “I don't have to figure out whether or not this person is ultimately good or ultimately bad, because that's not my role.” (63:33)
    • He encourages careful source analysis, skepticism of quick judgments, and keeping faith anchored in Christ rather than people.

• Practical Advice on Historical Research:

  • Follow footnotes, use academic sources, and recognize the limitations and biases of both historical and family narratives.

Notable Quotes

• Dr. Dirkmaat (47:05):
  "We all stand on the shoulders of women and men who believed so much that they marched 1,500 miles and over a mountain range to a barren desert next to a salt lake."
• Dr. Dirkmaat (67:22):
  "Always remember that your testimony and your relationship with Jesus isn't actually affected by whether your ancestor ends up being a shining light or not. We all have to come to our celestial kingdom ourselves, holding desperately onto the hand of Jesus."

---

Timestamps for Significant Segments

• CES Letter Explained & Critiqued: 05:37–15:48
• Polygamy in Early LDS Church: 15:49–24:45
• Doctrinal Authority and Faith Struggles: 24:45–32:00
• Global Polygamy Context & Challenges: 38:12–42:28
• Inspiration from Lesser-Known Saints: 45:46–55:36
• Handling Troubling Ancestor Stories: 56:42–67:22

---

Memorable Moments & Humor

• Playful banter about sports brackets and self-awarded book prizes (01:29–02:29).
• “Fun with Numbers” recurring inside joke (38:21 onward).
• Mocking the misleading nature of “authoritative” online church critics and internet sources.
• Suggestion for future segment: “Apostles, Apostates, and Apothecaries – Top 40 Countdown.”

---

Conclusion and Tone

Throughout, Dr. Dirkmaat and Dr. Leduc maintain a respectful, sometimes irreverent but always faith-promoting tone. They blend scholarly rigor, deep empathy, and humor as they urge listeners to anchor their faith in Christ and the living prophet, not in simplistic answers or second-hand critiques. The hosts repeatedly encourage rigorous, source-based study and caution against the dangers of reducing complex history to soundbites or sensational narratives.

Dr. Dirkmaat (31:27):
“If someone is telling you that the Church’s current stated position on literally anything is wrong, it’s time to do some serious soul searching.”

---

This episode is essential listening for anyone wrestling with troubling questions about LDS history, especially regarding the CES Letter and polygamy. Through it all, the underlying message is one of hope, encouragement, and confidence in seeking honest answers from reliable sources while holding to faith.

Transcript

[A]

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.

[B]

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.

[C]

Hello, Garrett. Thanks for having me back. Despite being 43rd out of 300 and whatever people participating in the dead and in Hell bracket Buster NCAA challenge, we couldn't fit. We put more words in it than a book in the 19th century.

[B]

Yeah. A title page from the 19th century where it's like Mormonism unveiled or all the way down. Where are you at in that challenge?

[C]

Interesting. Yeah, it's interesting. 43rd Now I have 13 of the 16 in the Sweet 16, so I feel like I've. I've got a redemption story coming this weekend. Where are you at?

[B]

1/9 out of 372 people. So, I mean, look, tied for my Tide.

[C]

Tied for ninth.

[B]

Well, tied for ninth. Yeah, but. But frankly, I'm only like one slot away from being in fourth. Right. Because it's all tied for ninth.

[C]

Yeah. So it's very close. Instead of doing any show prep, we spent the last 45 minutes going through. What are the odds of you winning or me winning or.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, look, they're not good.

[C]

Tyler. Humble winning.

[B]

But I'll tell you what, if I were to win, I will sign a book to myself, go put it in the mail and mail it to myself.

[C]

That's great.

[B]

And I'll take a video of it. We'll post it on the friends of the show on Facebook.

[C]

That sounds.

[B]

That sounds fantastic of me mailing the book. And then like a few days later, we'll post a picture of me getting the book from the mail with a sign behind me that says champion.

[C]

If I win, I also would like a signed copy of the book and then I will return to sender.

[B]

Just no such person at this address. Well, it's okay. You can fantasize about things like you winning, but let's just talk about what's real here. Why don't we. Why don't we jump right into that. That mailbag? We got a lot going on.

[C]

We have a lot going on. Thanks for all those that participated. It's. It has been very fun. This first email Comes to us from Russell. Two unrelated questions for you. Number one.

[B]

Well, he's trying to. People are trying to. They're trying to shoehorn more than one question in.

[C]

Well, it's like the White House press room, right?

[B]

Where it's like, it's like, when, when do you think that the tax program will be put in place? It's put in place. How are you going to make sure you're measuring on it? And if this happens while you're measuring on it, do you believe that you'll be able to get support of Congress to do that? And if Congress supports it also, one more follow up question to that. Which member of Congress do you think will champion the bill?

[C]

Yeah, that's pretty much. That's pretty much what Russell's doing here.

[B]

Am I a White House press pool reporter?

[C]

Am I an idiot? I hear. Well, I, it's too early to judge,

[B]

but let's hear him out before we decide.

[C]

You're listening to the right, the right podcast to ask that question.

[B]

Yeah, I like how he came to experts. He was like, he was like, hey,

[C]

you guys are idiots.

[B]

Stupid. I need another stupid person that would let me know. Oh, yeah, that Garrett guy. Garrett. You know, stupid people.

[C]

You're an idiot, right? Am I like you?

[B]

I mean, he probably said that because he saw me like I was like licking paint off of a wall somewhere or something. And it was lead based.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, it was. The paint job was 1947. There's paint, there's lead in it.

[B]

It was the same house that we rented in Logan when we were first married.

[C]

Am I an idiot? I hear about the CES letter occasionally. What is this? Was I on my mission when this came out? Like so much pop culture. I will never discover this. By the way, this is true. Is a huge gap for me in Trivial pursuit pop culture, 1998-2000. No idea what happened.

[B]

There are movies that I haven't seen from that time period, and people will reference them and I'll be like, I, I, I, I wasn't one of those missionaries. I mean, of course I could have watched it since I got home, but I didn't. Time marches on.

[C]

Time March. Time marches on. Did I miss some scandal, or is this from a long time ago? I'm too afraid to ask at this point. I don't want to waste my time with it. Instead, I'm wasting yours. Every time I hear the CES letter, I'm waiting for a new education or seminary announcement. Instead, I hear someone read it and left the church. Well, so so before I go to the next friend of the show, Damien, he calls it. Now that's what I call Anti Mormonism 18 or whatever it is, you know, where it's a. It's just a compilation of all the crap in one nice, friendly little place.

[B]

Yeah. And it's called the CES Letter because the disingenuous person who first cobbled all of this together styled it as a letter that they were writing to a CES director. Okay. So that, that's the idea behind it. You know, if you're, you're. If you think the church is true, then what about this? And Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon. I mean, that like. So it's a collection of essentially all of the. I mean, it's essentially Mormonism Unveiled and History of the Saints by John C. Bennett for the modern TikTok age without any attention span. Now, let me just first start off by saying of the things that you better figure out how to have an attention span for, what's true about God is one of them. So. So I get it that sometimes you don't want to spend a lot of time and dig deep on some things. Right? But if you're spending more time watching a Netflix series than you are studying the gospel, that is a harsh reality check. Right. Well, so this letter, I mean, really becomes prominent, really, as the social media Internet boom starts to take off. Right. In the late 2000s. Right. And it's this cobbling together of all of these various arguments that have been made over time, presented very matter of factly, presented entirely out of context, surprisingly presented with horrific source material. And, and so, but, but, but it's bite sized. So the reason why you hear about it all the time is because, you know, it's the kind of go to that someone who's apostatized sends to their friends to show them all the great research they've done. And by that they mean they forwarded an email. And. And so. So that's what it is. It's called the CES letter. Not because the CES wrote it, not because some seminars, the.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. The church education system didn't write that letter, Garrett.

[B]

It's crazy. It's crazy. Chad Webb wasn't like, you know what? I've got a few things on my mind. Honestly, the director of Seminaries and Institute is such an amazing guy. I mean, he probably doesn't know me from Adam, but I've corresponded with him a couple times. I spoke at a fireside for him once. And just an incredible guy. So don't confuse the two. This was styled as that. And honestly, I do think the name of it kind of does lull some members to sleep with their. With their defenses, because presenting it as being in any way connected with the church education system gives it an authenticity that its content does not in any way deserve. Was I using any big words there? Richard and I were interviewed on another podcast this week, and multiple times in the podcast, I was told that I was apparently. Apparently I descended into my British, condescending, historian voice. Like when I used to watch the History Channel when I was a kid, and it was, you know, old guy slumped into this giant leather chair, and he was like, Napoleon knew that had. If he did not stop Blucher, that all of this was going to be for naught. But Blucher arrived on the flank anyway and allowed Wellington's forces to gain the smashing victory they did at Waterloo. It's just.

[C]

It sounds so jowly when you say it like that.

[B]

No, it's just. It's all. It's all. It's essentially if the dogs, you know, the. The droopy dog of cartoons. If droopy had a PhD and was from London. That's. That's what. That's what. Apparently I descended into that. And so both of them first of all looked at me weird and then literally stopped the recording to say, hey, do you want to, like, use a word that other people know?

[C]

So first of all. So it was friend of the show. And I don't think she considers this. So I consider her friend of the show. Lauren.

[B]

No, no, she doesn't want to be tainted with the moniker friend of the show.

[C]

She's lovely. The blonde apologist on the. On the Instagram hater of the show. She's wonderful. She's wonderful. And so she, she. It was very funny because she's. She's so nice that she invited me to come and. Because that's the. That's the show is. Is both of us. And. And I'm like, I, I. What am I? So one of the things is that she is incredibly persuasive, a tremendous salesperson, because she.

[B]

The topic was, she's really good.

[C]

Really good.

[B]

So. So she reaches out and says, hey, I'd love to talk to you. It's. It's time for season 38. I want you to come on my podcast for, you know, 45 minutes and solve all the problems with polygamy.

[C]

Well, so before. But before she did that, she posted to her audience and she was saying, she said very nice things about the Podcast. And since you and I have insatiable egos, we were like, oh, we immediately like her.

[B]

Because you say you and I. But you're the one who contacted her.

[C]

I did. Well, yeah. I reached out and it's like, oh, that's so nice of you to. To. To say such nice things. Anyway, so, yes, it's time for season 38. Let's go. And I thought you did a tremendous job, by the way. I thought you knocked it out of the park.

[B]

So, first of all, I wasn't sure what to say back to her. I was composing an email that was like, there's a reason why I'm waiting till season 38. There's so many problems with everything. And so I didn't respond because I was taking a few days to respond. We ran into her at a podcaster's conference, and she came and sat by us at lunch to force the issue. And so then I think she was just being nice.

[C]

And then she's like, we really need to do this. And I was like, yeah, Garrett, we need to. And you're like, I don't want to.

[B]

And I said, yes. And then as we walked to the car, I was like, richard, I hate you.

[C]

Yeah, that's true. But so anyway, I don't know when that's going to be released. We should, when that is, reference it, because I thought you did a great job. Her questions were great. And I thought it was terrible. I thought it was awesome. I thought it was great.

[B]

Like everything you've ever done. Terrible.

[C]

No, it was awesome. We talk a little Helen Mark Kimball and Mirinda Hyde. What's not to love about that?

[B]

Oh, boy. Anyway, so that's the answer to the first question is. That's what the letter to the CES director is often just called the CES letter. It. And there's nothing new in it. There is nothing. Oh, my goodness. Look what I came up with. I mean, at least the clowns who came up with the late war theory came up with a theory on their own. I mean, it's one of the worst theories of the origin of the Book of Mormon that's ever existed, but at least they came up with it on their own. Yes, this is just a collection of everything that had already been posted, but it's put into one nice, easy place. And therefore, for people who want easy, false answers, they go there because it's quick and they're all together. And in fact, if you're ever in a conversation with someone about the church and they go hopping from shallow, antagonistic answer to shallow antagonistic answer. Like they are going off of the moguls doing a 720 of extreme anti Mormonism. It's almost certain that they're using this or some variation of it because, you know. Well, my big problem is, I mean, Sidney Rigdon is the one who wrote the Book of Mormon. And you, like, go through all the sources on it, you'll show them that's not really the case, and then they'll move on from that as if you didn't just demonstrate that the biggest issue they put up was, was, was, was horrendously sourced. Right. And so it, it tends to. And I'm going to use, you know, the Gish Gallop kind of thing.

[C]

Yeah, it's. It's a logical fallacy. I throw so many things at you that there must be. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And it's like, no, you just keep throwing more crap. Yeah. And, and now I have to mark explicit. I've said crap twice. I think it's. Well, now I.

[B]

Well, we were referencing the founder of the indoor water closet, John C. Crapper. We were not.

[C]

Yeah, well, I think. I can't remember the exact number. We did some analysis on this a year or two or six years ago. I don't know however long it was. But essentially there's something around 250 claims and sub claims. Roughly 75% of those are related to historical claims or sources. And so part of the reason why this would come up frequently, you know, where you're addressing it, Garrett, is because so much of it is, is based in history and sources from history. So.

[B]

Right.

[C]

That's the majority of the issues and problems that people have. But yeah, it's. It is a proverbial load number two. This is interesting here. Many weeks ago, a Sunday school teacher said Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage in 1830. He said it was well documented. I had not heard that before. Now, what was the lesson? The lesson was Joseph. This last. Who's this Sunday school teacher?

[B]

Well, no, no, guaranteed. I can tell you what the lesson was. It was the lesson of Abraham taking other wives. Guaranteed.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

Well, it was either Abraham taking other wives or it was Israel taking other wives. Probably Israel, actually, because it's where he got to the 12 tribes of Israel. So it was probably like, you know, you know, went into his handmaiden, that kind of stuff. So. So my guess is, you know, because every Sunday school teacher in the church wanted to chart out on the board which kids came from which wife, which is actually Very helpful.

[C]

Yeah, sure.

[B]

My guess is in doing that, someone said, so they were practicing polygamy. And. And the response was, well, you know, even Joseph Smith was practicing. Right. So that's.

[C]

You don't think it was like. And so Reuben, the name of my favorite sandwich, decided not to kill Joseph, but rather just to sell him into slavery. You know, someone else named Joseph was Joseph Smith and he started practicing. You don't think it was that?

[B]

I hope not. I mean, first of all, I mean, do you think. Do you think it's kind of like a form of anti Semitism that they name that sandwich to Reuben?

[C]

I'm gonna go ahead and say, yeah, actually I do.

[B]

I mean, it is a sandwich that you can get at some premium Jewish delis.

[C]

Absolutely. Yeah. Quite. Yeah.

[B]

Frankly, I love a Reuben sandwich. I shouldn't because I don't like sauerkraut and I don't even really like rye bread, but I love Reuben sandwiches. I don't.

[C]

Yeah, I don't know what's that. They really do. He said it was well documented. I had not heard this before. I thought it was much later, circa 1840. 1841. There was also an opinion in our ward that plural marriage was something Joseph practiced that wasn't commanded by God. Sounds like you're. You got a real banner Sunday school going there. I was confused by this take, but I'm no PhD. Anyway, so Garrett, you're. He goes on to say he's, you know, his childhood in Southern Idaho talking about people voting for bokeh rights and Ross Perot, which is very funny. So thank you, Russell, for the.

[B]

Russell. Second part of your. Of your two part question, which is now really a three part question.

[C]

The second part of the first part. Yeah.

[B]

Right. Yeah. So you got, you got doctrine just to. To start with. And then luckily it was followed up by even worse false doctrine. So I, I don't know. I mean, look, your teacher was probably, you know, trying to handle some kind of question. It is not well documented that Joseph Smith is practicing polygamy in 1830. In fact, Joseph Smith plural marriages are not well documented at all. There are people who will say when they are talking about plural marriage, people who knew Joseph. Right. People like Orson Pratt. They will say that Joseph knew as early as 1831 when he was translating the Bible, that that's when he first got the impression that they were to practice plural marriage. But we don't have him attempting to practice it. So we've talked a little bit on the podcast before that, you know, there's even question marks surrounding, you know, his first poor wife he had. There are people who will say, both antagonists and protagonists, that Joseph first married Fanny Alger sometime during the Ohio period, which is, which is after 1830. So, so it's well documented that he started practicing 1830 is, is historically and religiously false. That's, that's not true. I see probably where that came from because there are associates of Joseph Smith who say that he knew early on, as early as 1831, but there aren't any scholars who believes he started practicing in 1831. Fanny Alger marriage is one that is also very poorly documented. Neither Joseph nor her ever talk about it. And you only have family members saying that that was the case. In any case, it does not appear to have been a plural marriage. And we don't know the nature of it literally at all. We, we have no idea because nobody talks about it. So was it just some kind of a ceiling? Was it Joseph trying to, trying to fulfill the, the law that he'd been given about practicing plural marriage? You can speculate whatever you want. We don't even know when the marriage would have taken place. The first documented plural marriage, where you actually have someone else sang from, you know, that time period is, is the marriage to Louise Beaman in 1841. And from that time period on you do get a couple of contemporary records, but primarily they're all reminiscent accounts. They are women who were married to Joseph saying, I was married to Joseph. And there are also men who perform those ceilings, saying, yeah, I perform these ceilings. The exception of course, being William Clayton's journal, which is a very detailed daily journal in which he not only discusses Joseph Smith revealing plural marriage to them, but also writing down the revelation as it's being dictated. In 1843. He relates multiple interactions with Joseph Smith on his own practice of plural marriage. That not only is Joseph practicing it, he's authorized William Clayton to practice it. And William Clayton does practice it in Nauvoo. So for historians, the idea that Joseph Smith didn't practice it at all is just, it's a non starter. It seems like though, what you're saying is that someone in your ward is arguing, well, that it wasn't really from God. Well, I think when someone makes that comment, you can invite them to do a couple of things. One, open their doctrine and covenants to section 132, see that the section is in the Doctrine and Covenants, and realize that someone commenting in a Sunday school class doesn't have the ability to declare Whether or not something is from God, that's. That's the prophet's discretion. And they could also. Boy, I got a little angry, didn't I?

[C]

No, it's good. The dandometer is ticking up.

[B]

The problem is I've seen a lot of people misled by this stuff, and so it does get my dander up. By what argument or rationale would you make that plural marriage was practiced, but it wasn't really from God? Well, okay, you're at least on the one side that it was practiced. Okay, so how did you decide that it wasn't from God? Let me help you. Because you don't like it. Well, you know, whoever you are, I. I don't. I don't know that you know this. You're not really taking a gigantic, super bold stance. Saying that you have a problem understanding polygamy in the United States is like saying today that you're opposed to slavery. Congratulations on the courageous front that you've. You've let out on. Joseph Smith has multiple statements on plural marriage, again recorded in William Clayton's journal. You have doctrine covenant, section 132, for which you have witnesses to this effect. And you have all of the quorum of the twelve and. And most of the quorum of the twelve anyway, and Brigham Young and then prophets going on down the line, all saying that it was commanded by God. And even if you were like, yeah, but it was a mistake, that is not the church's position. No one should be stating something as a matter of doctrine in a gospel doctrine class. That is not the church's position. The best part about plural marriage is the church has invested all kinds of time and resources into producing numerous essays, three separate gospel topics, essays alone, a questions and answer essay which actually goes through each of the questions to claim that through some special insight that apparently no one else is allowed into, that plural marriage wasn't really inspired by God is to go well beyond what the church is teaching. I understand why people end up in that place. I really, really, really, really struggle with polygamy. And so the easiest thing is to say is to just do one of two things, right? To either deny it. Right. It's kind of like going through the stages of grief. Just say that it didn't happen at all. Yeah, it just never happened. Joseph never taught it. He never practiced it. It was just all invented later. What about all of these sources? Well, all of them are forged. What about all of these witnesses? All of them are lying. What about these contemporary docs? Those are also forged. What's your evidence that they're forged. I don't like them. Okay. That's. That's not the evidence when you're trying to make a historical argument. But it's the same thing. Like when. When you first find out that a loved one that you care about dies, that's our reaction. No, no, he couldn't have been. I just talked to him. Right. You. You deny the. The information that you don't want to have to deal with. But another, you know, stage. Right. Is this kind of anger. Right. And I feel like that when people say, I know that it wasn't inspired of God. I understand that you. You struggle with it. Everyone should struggle with it a little bit. If you don't have any struggle with polygamy at all, as I've said before, if you don't have any struggles with it, well, you're probably living somewhere in Colorado City, and we need to have a conversation about the groups you affiliate with. Right. So if you don't feel comfortable with the topic of plural marriage, welcome to literally everyone who's ever talked about it. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, Eliza Arson, all of them, they say how uncomfortable they were with the topic. So feeling a discomfort doesn't mean you don't have any faith, and it doesn't mean that you. You. You aren't a good person. It means you're. You're literally everyone else. Every. Everyone feels like that. But the problem is, where we are most apt to be misled is when there's something that we desperately want to believe, but that it isn't coming from God. And you see this in the early church multiple times. Right. The one that we've. We've spent time on before. I mean, you'd have to go back through our supremely indexed podcast. I believe AI is doing transcriptions now. Right. Against our will.

[C]

It does make it easy. You can do. You can search them. That's correct.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, I do want people to still hold on to the thought, though, that if they are searching for something and can't find it, that it's the transcription's fault. Like, absolutely want it to be that. That I. I don't want them to just assume we've never talked about it, because we probably haven't. I want them to just think, oh, it's there somewhere. I'm gonna have to listen to all the podcasts again. That's the only.

[C]

That's right.

[B]

But you know that you look at the early things that rocked the early church where you Almost had a schism in the church with the entire Whitmer family and all over Cowdery and, you know, half the witnesses of the book of the gold plates believing in false revelations that came from Satan. Why? Because those revelations said what people wanted to hear. So this is a very important thing for everybody who's listening. And look, I'm no exception to this. As you can tell, I feel strongly about certain things. When you have to be the most careful that you are not being deceived is when you feel strongly about a topic, because that is when you are most liable to accept a statement, a fake revelation, an argument, because it aligns with the worldview you want to have, rather than what the method of revealing truth is that God has given us. And I recognize that this is a super difficult topic, and maybe that's how someone deals with it themselves in their heart. They just, you know, they say, well, I'm sure that it wasn't really from God, and they haven't dealt with the implications of what that means. When you have a revelation that's canonized about it, when you have dozens and dozens and dozens of prophetic and apostolic statements surrounding it, and when you have the current church statements on it, my goodness. We have an introduction to official declaration, one that in the introduction itself says that it was from God. There's not a gray area here about whether or not the church believes that it was commanded for a time to practice plural marriage. If you think there's a gray area, it's because you've invented the gray area. Go to the church's website. Go there right now. Stop listening to this podcast. It's a terrible podcast anyway. Why am I talking about polygamy? This is ridiculous.

[C]

No, Lauren's. Gotcha. Lauren got you again.

[B]

He's got banned. You just got banned. Russell. No more emails from Russell. Russell, he got. You know what it is? He got me started talking about letter to the CS director.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So that. That already got me on an elevated plane.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And then he just. He, like, swooped in for the kill. If he planted.

[C]

If he isn't at the Washington press corps, he should be at the White House press corps. He should be. He's very, very good.

[B]

Talk about two things that I don't want to talk about. And. And here's the worst part. I'm not even done. I'm still talking about it. But let me. I mean, I'm not. I'm not asking you to go confront the member in your ward or. You said several members that are like oh, that it was a mistake. When someone says something like that, that is patently false doctrine and this is the reason why it's a problem. Okay, let's play that one out. That it was a mistake. What do you think that does to someone's faith? So when someone says that, you can go to your gospel library app, you can go to churchofjesuschrist.org right now, type in plural marriage. You will get a ton of resources, well researched essays, carefully worded statements that say exactly what we do know and what we don't know. We won't get a statement from the church saying, oh, but we made a mistake with that. It wasn't really a revelation. And the way that you'll know that too is doctrine covenants. Section 132 is still in your Doctrine and Covenants. So it, I think in those situations, I mean, I know it's pretty difficult. You don't want to start a war with anybody in church. But I do think you can raise your hand and say, I think it's important to note that the church has multiple essays, multiple statements on plural marriage on their website. None of them state that the church is saying that it was a mistake. All of them say it was commanded by God for a time. So it's important to know what the doctrine of the church is. And if someone wants to privately think to themselves that they know it was a mistake, then, then that's fine. You can, you can believe privately whatever you want. But the moment I know what you believe, I got news for you, ain't private anymore. Because the only way I know what you believe is you're telling folks about it. And so that's not to say, look, if you have questions, there's something wrong with you. But there is a really big difference between saying, I just don't understand why God could have ever commanded this. And that is a really good question. But there's a really big difference between saying that to yourself and announcing to other members of your ward that you know, that it didn't really come from God. The one is part of your private interaction with God as you wrestle with the difficulties that we all wrestle with. The other is a declaration of what is and is not doctrine. And frankly, there's only one person who has the right and ability to declare what is and is not doctrine. And. And it's not me. It's not Richard. Although, you know, he does sometimes get top billing. It's the profit. And so I think this is one of those topics where people feel very passionate about it, they feel very uncomfortable with it. So I would implore everybody listening, do not go to sources that are telling you to dispute what the Church has put out, because if you do, of course you're going to want to believe what they have to say. They're either arguing that it never happened, they're arguing that Brigham Young invented it, they're arguing that it was a mistake, but they're arguing all kinds of things except for what the Church is arguing. So even if they. It seems like they mean well, even if it seems like they're really well informed, even if it seems like they've just got a strongest testimony in the whole world, they just know that Brigham Young invented polygamy. That is not how we receive truth. God has given us a prophet. If there is a problem with the practice of plural marriage in the history of the church, it is not going to come from a YouTube hero or a Sunday school, you know, Superman. It's going to come from the prophet of God. And look, I realize there's a great deal of irony that you're listening to a podcast, right? Right now. Richard's waving in the background, like, stop telling them not to listen to anything that's not on the church website. I can see our numbers dropping off as you're talking, and this isn't even dropped in real time. But I, I mean, I say it again, I am not the arbiter of doctrine. I'm a historian. I don't have any keys. I can tell you what most likely happened in the past, and I can point you towards sources. But I'm also a believer. And as a believer, I believe only the prophet of God holds all of the keys that allow him to declare what is and is not doctrine to the church. So if you have someone telling you that the church's current stated position on literally anything is wrong, it's time to do some serious soul searching. Why would I accept someone who doesn't have the keys to declare doctrine over? The person who I acknowledged through covenant was the person who had the ability to receive that doctrine. So don't be deceived. I know, Russell. I know you weren't deceived. But I'm using it as a vehicle. I mean, frankly, I was deceived into answering that email. I think Richard deceived me. Richard, I've been deceived.

[C]

Well, Garrett, I think this is a perfect time for a segment that, that all the kids love called Fun with Numbers.

[B]

Wait, wait, we said that was a one off.

[C]

Yeah, I know, but the people Cry out. And so we do have, we do have something. There's. I have two, two stats I think that are interesting. The first is the legal betting on the super bowl was.

[B]

What's happening? Polygamy.

[C]

I'm going to get to it. I'm going to get back to it. 1.7 billion. What do you believe is the expected betting for the NCAA tournament for this year? So last year the predicted was 1.7 billion in legal betting, 4 trillion in illegal betting. Higher or lower on NCAA tournament.

[B]

It's got to be higher because there's so many games.

[C]

It's almost double. It's 3 million.

[B]

There you go.

[C]

Or 3 billion. Pardon me.

[B]

And I had a friend who came over to watch some of the games who said he had a friend that had done a 10 part parlay on 10 of the games.

[C]

That's great.

[B]

And I was like, so here's how you know you're a degenerate gambler. If you know what a parlay is. You parlay to. You should only be familiar to you because you've watched Pirates of the Caribbean.

[C]

Caribbean, yeah, yeah.

[B]

And it's just a conversation, a peace conversation. If you know what a betting parlay is, you need to go talk to your bishop.

[C]

Well, so the next fun with numbers. The share of global. This is according to a Pew Research poll, the share of global population living in a polygamous household. What percentage of the world's population do you believe?

[B]

Would you guess right now?

[C]

Right now.

[B]

Okay. It's going to be relatively small because it's essentially none in India and China. So you've already lost, you know, you've already lost 3 billion before you even get started.

[C]

Right.

[B]

I'm gonna say 8%.

[C]

Okay, so that's, that's higher. So the, the number is 2% according to the Pew Research poll. But in, in. Do you have a guess of the country with the highest percentage of polygamists?

[B]

Highest percentage. Wow. Chad.

[C]

Well, that's a good guess. Burkina Faso is 30. It's 36%.

[B]

It's capital. I don't know how to pronounce. It's like Quagadougou or something like that.

[C]

You're just making up words.

[B]

No, it is. Look it up.

[C]

No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

[B]

Look it up.

[C]

Molly is Molly's.

[B]

Look, it used to be called Upper Volta, by the way.

[C]

And it'll always be called that to me.

[B]

Yeah, it's always been it's Upper Volta in my heart.

[C]

Yeah. It'll always be Burma to me. No, that's me. Oh, yeah, no, that's. That's the joke from Seinfeld, where he's like, it'll always be me. And anyway, Nigeria, number three, 28% of. So imagine being a missionary in Nigeria. Almost a third of the people, a little more than a fourth of the people. You're talking to polygamous marriage.

[B]

Yeah. And we've talked to missionaries who've gone to serve in those places. And it's a very difficult thing when someone wants to join the church, but they happen to be the second wife in a marriage. And so, boy, you think some pioneer forebears made a sacrifice to join the church, and a lot of them did. Imagine you're a woman in Nigeria and you're the second wife in a marriage that's totally acceptable culturally and legally. But you read the Book of Mormon and you know that it's true. But you don't want to be separated from your family. You don't want a divorce, but you can't join the church unless you get a divorce. You can't be in a polygamous marriage, even when it's legal.

[C]

Yeah. Now, Garrett, do you want to just jump into to.

[B]

I mean, I feel like at this point going to end up titling this the CES letter in polygamy, probably. I mean, well, that'll get more.

[C]

That'll get more. That'll get more downloads, for sure. People will be disappointed

[B]

at our handling of it. I mean, I do. Let's go through the. A couple other emails, because we did spend a ton of time on polygamy.

[C]

Okay. All right, here we go. Well, this one I'll go through relatively quickly. It's a very kind email. It comes to us from Rachel, and her son is serving his mission in Independence, Missouri, and he's serving there with my nephew, Elder Wilson, and they sent over a picture of the two of them together, and it was absolutely lovely. And so part of the reason for her email is she was so excited when her son got called there because they are related to John Low Butler, who helped rescue the Saints during the election day brawl in 1838.

[B]

Gallatin.

[C]

Yes, in Gallatin. Right. And so he's serving in Spring Hill, far West, Adam on Diamond. It's just like, I can't believe I'm serving my mission here. What a cool place. Anyway, the mom went on and on, and she's very lovely about the podcast and about her wonderful son and about my lovely nephew. It was all wonderful. But then she does ask a question where she says, my reading and Pondering over grandpa's story. I think it's great grandfather four times a story most people don't know has led me to question. Garrett, with all of your knowledge and expertise, partiche in church history, what is your favorite, lesser known moment in the early restoration that touches your heart deeply and inspires you?

[B]

I mean, I probably already shared the ones that. That are the closest to me.

[C]

She does. I'll give you. I'll give you a second. Give me a second to think because there's a P.S. p.S. Richard, don't let Garrett discourage your fun with.

[B]

No wonder you read this. This has nothing to do with your nephew.

[C]

You couldn't care about elder nephew is in the email. There is a picture, but Garrett, don't let Garrett discourage your fun with numbers efforts. Fun with numbers efforts. You fun it up, man. And. And I feel. I feel. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you so very much.

[B]

You found a defender in Rachel. And.

[C]

And she's my favorite litter.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah, of course. Her and her son and my nephew. My favorites.

[B]

I. I like how we all thought that you were. You were reading that because of your love for your nephew.

[C]

I do love.

[B]

It was just a veiled. It was a veiled attempt to get fun with numbers back.

[C]

I don't know. I don't know how veiled it was, but.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, there are so many that I honestly, I've shared a lot of them on here. I mean, I shared at our live event, you know, the story of.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Of Emmaline Anderson, and that's a story nobody knows about. And it's. If you go back and listen to it, you can hear the details on it, but the fact that she lost her husband and her son because of the mob violence in Nauvoo and that she remains faithful because of that, I think the ones that affect me greatly are the ones when people go through unimaginable trials and come out on the other side still believing. Because anyone who has suffered, you know what it's like to be in that gall of bitterness. You know what it's like when you have had everything that, you know, just go against you. And. And I, you know, haven't suffered the same way that other people have. I've only tasted in part the suffering of what some people have. Everybody has had suffering. Everybody has a loved one who's passed away early. Everybody's had, you know, trials and disappointments. And I'm just so. I'm affected by people who go through these just unimaginable trials and what you expect. And you wouldn't even hold it against them. If they came out on the other side and they were just like. I'm not even sure God is there anymore. I feel like you could understand why someone who's just buried a child would say that. You know, I remember I've shared before, you know, from Wilford Woodruff's journal. You know, Phoebe, you know, when he, he sees her looking at a picture of their little boy, Joseph, who was just over a little year old. Over a year old when he died. And the haunting words from Wilford Woodruff's journal. She refused to be comforted because of her children that had been taken from her. Man, that, that is tough and you know it. I mean, maybe, maybe it's just selfish on my part actually. I mean, maybe the reason why those are the kinds of things that, that, that speak to me is because I'm hoping that were I in the same situation that I could have a similar response and a similar result. I'm hoping that were I to suffer in the same way that my, my faith would just be. Would, would be unchallenged, It'd be undaunted. And, and, and I believe that it would be. But I can't say the same thing. I haven't gone through what, what those women and men have gone through. So those are the things that touch me. And often it is from people that are lesser known. I mean, I. You talk about people like Amanda Smith and, and you know, who loses a husband and a son and another son maimed in at the haunts mill tragedy and becomes a pretty, it becomes a pretty daunting thing. But then, then their words are so powerful. I mean, when Amanda Smith and her testimony says I felt the loss of my husband, but not as I would have felt if he would have apostatized. He died in the hopes of a glorious resurrection. And then she goes on. And as for myself, I was, I knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that buoyed me up through all my trials. She is someone who believes and knows. And it reminds me of that verse in the Book of Mormon, you know, at the end of all of the horrible Nephite Lamanite wars in Alma, you know, after all the, after all the stripling warriors, after all the, you know, letters from Captain Moroni to Peor and why you sitting on your throne and your thoughtless stupor, you know, whatever you got, the war finally concludes. I feel like one of the most, One of the most profound verses about our faith and about our nature is in Alma. 62, 41 but behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites, many had become hardened because of the exceedingly great length of the war, and many were softened because of their afflictions, inasmuch as they did humble themselves before God, even to the depth of humility. Boy, that war was terrible. And I won't pretend that everybody went through the same thing in that war. Some people lost multiple family members. Some people might have gotten through without losing one. Some people had huge economic crisis, and other people maybe not as bad. But I always think about that in relation to our mortality, we're all going through the war. The war is either going to make us bitter and angry and reject divinity, or if we trust in God and we allow our faith to do it, the war is going to soften us and humble us before God. And I have personally watched both in people's lives. I have watched people that I love and respect who previously had very strong faith go through very difficult things and abandon faith and say, well, God must not exist at all. And I've seen other people who've gone through horrible, unfair things, and they come out on the other side absolutely certain that the church is true and that God is there. So I would say there's all kinds of stories. I mean, look, we all stand on the shoulders of women and men who believed so much that they marched 1500 miles and over a mountain range to a barren desert next to a salt lake. Whether you crossed. You had ancestors that crossed the plains or not, you could be a convert, you know, in Nigeria tomorrow. And. And there is something that you owe to Amanda Barnes Smith, because her and tens of thousands of people like her went through unimaginable tragedies and kept the faith. And because they kept the faith, there were descendants and missionaries who were then able to come and share that faith with you. And so, I mean, there's a couple of stories, but I think when you study church history, you at times find, you know, things that are difficult. There are a lot of difficult things. People make difficult decisions. But you also see enormous. You see enormous experiences of. Of faith that, at least to me, just kind of. It buoys me up. Yeah, sometimes life is hard, but, boy, it's not as hard as it was for my great, great, great grandmother, whose brother was John Boynton, the Apostle, one of the original members of the Quorum of the twelve Apostles. And he apostatized, and she didn't. Can you imagine if your brother was an apostle? Your brother and he Came home from a quorum of the 12 meeting and said, listen, I gotta level with you. This. This is all fake. There are no keys. There's no prophetic utterance. I don't even have any keys as an apostle. This is all made up. You'd have a lot of people who would say, wow, and that must mean it isn't true. And, you know, my great, great grandmother, she. She believed, in spite of the fact that her brother, who was an apostle, apostatized. So those are the things that. That I gravitate towards, maybe because I'm hoping that by studying them in some small way, not only can I honor their memory, but also when I'm struggling, I can think back to the testimony of Amanda Smith or Phoebe Woodruff or Emma Anderson or, you know, other others like that Wilford Woodruff, and it'll raise my spirits and help me say, you know, this too shall pass, and at some point, everything will be made right.

[C]

That was great.

[B]

Are we roughly out of time at this point?

[C]

We are not roughly. We are out of time.

[B]

That is unfortunate. I think we're gonna call. What are we gonna call this episode? I don't want to call it Letter to the CES director.

[C]

Well, no, you can. Yeah, no, why would we want to call it something that'll get a lot more downloads? Let's call it something, you know, that people won't necessarily recognize.

[B]

And Rich Richard's 150th in the bracket. We'll just call it that.

[C]

I think I'm. I think I'm 34th. Oh, wow.

[B]

You made a real comeback.

[C]

I did. I did. Sunday. Sunday.

[B]

Did you have Tennessee?

[C]

No.

[B]

Oh, you didn't, did you? Yeah, I had him going to the sweet 16.

[C]

Okay. All right.

[B]

You just.

[C]

You just asked if I did, so you could say that you did.

[B]

Oh, yeah, I. I noticed. I didn't say, did you have Florida?

[C]

I didn't. Well, no, I did have Florida Sweet 16. So

[B]

I do want to share one more. We got five minutes. Maybe one more. Okay.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Because apparently there was an email sent to us while someone was in labor that we didn't receive. And they brought the read receipts on this that they did send it, and they had pictures of it, and I feel bad that we never actually covered it, but this is from Michelle. And, you know, it's a. It's a really kind email. And. And, you know, she sent all kinds of proof that the letter was dictated. I mean, I don't know if she knows. I mean, I don't know if she Thought that we would get her email and be like, yep, it looks like that baby was born about seven minutes before she wrote this. We're not gonna be, we're not gonna be reading this, but she has an ancestor and she asks a question that's, I mean, maybe a little similar, but from a different perspective, and that is that she has an ancestor that she's always really admired and then came to find out that he may have been involved in something unsavory from church history. And we, unfortunately, Michelle, I apologize, we've already delayed responding to your in labor email and now we're going to not really answer it because that's, well, frankly, that's, that's what you pay for at the standard podcast is we take a long time to get to it and we don't get to it at all. That's actually, maybe that'll be our new motto. We take a long time getting to it and then we won't actually get to it. But this is funny that she has a hilarious email. I wish we had time to read it all. When she was talking about why we hadn't read the email. This is what she said. Tonight, as I settled into my inconsolable. I settled my inconsolable 5 month old. I took the midnight opportunity to once again search the transcripts of all the Dead and in Hell series in between in a much anticipated answer to my question that I submitted while in labor in September. Now, it was the end of September, but I don't know if we got it or if it just, I mean, maybe at some point we just started deleting them. People started sending them somebody like, you know, delete, delete. Yeah. Remember on Bruce Almighty when he just tries deleting or he tries replying all to accept everything?

[C]

Yes.

[B]

That's basically where we're at. We're getting hundreds of emails a week and so we're getting to the point where it's just like, sounds good. Even though the question, the question is like, so, like, you don't like really have to like keep the law of chastity to go to the social kingdom, do you? Sounds good, Sounds good. Reply all. You know, by the way, if you're, if you're wondering, yes, you do. Just so everyone's aware, yes, you do have to keep the law of chastity. So she says, you know, it was right after part two of Dead in Hell, finding my answer to become an urgent matter after I came across some information that you would no longer be talking about. The Utah War I can't remember what episode that they're so bored which threw me into a panic because my question is about an ancestor of mine during that war. Did I miss my chance? Are these now conflicting policies? Well, I'm going to speak to. Rather than going through. I mean, because your question is about someone in the, in, frankly, it's actually earlier than the Utah War. It's, it's the, it's the Wakara War or Walker War and an Indian War in 1853 and 1854. And for me to set the table on that, we'd be in like dead in hell part 75. So we'll get there eventually in the. On the premium side, in the Condemned to Repeat it podcast. But by the time we get to it, my youngest son, Titus will have his grandson running this podcast. That's. That's when we would get to it. So, look, I really need a grandchild to go and get a PhD in history and specialize in latter day saint history. So just putting it out there for all you grandchildren, for all my kids and grandkids, if you're ever listening to this. But I do want to speak about the fact that she has a beloved ancestor, pioneer ancestor, who, you know, did many, many, many great things. And surrounding this Indian war, there are allegations that he was part of a misidentifying of some Indians that had partaken in this violence and was a part of essentially killing the wrong group of Indians in this ongoing conflict. And so she said that it really stymied her, it really bothered her. And so she asked the question is, you know, I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance, wanting to celebrate the incredible things my ancestors are known for, but also not wanting to sugarcoat something that appears in every sense to be inexcusable, horrific violence. Can you please wave your magic wand of history PhDs as how to understand difficult places of history like this and to know, or at least have a good idea if what you're reading is being told said accurately. What can I do myself when studying history to try to find additional resources to start to make sense of things like this, besides asking AI. Well, please don't do that. I had a conversation with AI earlier and it was about something completely nothing to do with church history, American history. And boy, the answer I got back was just totally wrong. And I was like, yeah, that didn't happen until the 1850s. What are you talking about? You're right to push back on that. That didn't happen until the 1850s. It was like, what, What? What Is this. Anyway, but don't worry, they're about to take over the world. I think what you're experiencing is. First of all, it's the case with every great person from history. Now, sometimes it's not as stark as, you know, being involved in, you know, in something as horrific as a potential massacre of innocence. I mean, that. That is much more difficult than many things. But any person that you study from history, you are going to get to a place where there is some. There is some. Wait a minute. I really admired this person right up until they did this.

[C]

And

[B]

I think, first of all, that's a testament to the fact that we are all fallen and we are all flawed. Hopefully we're not that flawed. But I will also state, you know, history is. It is not an exact science. Oftentimes we are left to go on what sources exist. And very, very, very rarely do we have sources that say from someone's journal, this is exactly what I was thinking when I went and did this. Usually what we're left with is the aftermath of something that happened and, you know, then trying to figure out how someone could do that. I will say, when it comes to things like war, I would guess that unless you are in that situation, that you don't actually know how cloudy things are or what decisions you might make. A lot of things after the fact become very clear to people. And then we sometimes try to rewrite history ourselves. Like, I know we've got all kinds of. Of YouTube subreddit Heroes saying that they knew from the first day of the COVID pandemic that it would end up not being, you know, as bad and that there was no reason to make a run on the stores. And you have, yeah, you can't throw a rock without finding people who are certain that they knew that. But that's a really easy position to take after the fact. And that's normally what you find. And so I think what you try to do is you try to give grace. You don't excuse the horrible things that took place, but you try to give grace and say, you know, I don't know what was going through that, but I know that our heavenly Father, who knows the hearts of all men, and our Savior Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of all humankind, they will offer as much grace as is possible. And honestly, I don't have to figure out whether or not this person is ultimately good or ultimately bad, because that's not my role now. When it's a family member, I mean, you know, I don't really love telling everybody that my great, great, great, great uncle was a giant apostate who tried to destroy the church. So it's not the best way to lead a church history podcast. I'm coming to you from a long family tradition of bringing up all kinds of terrible things about the church. It's not. It's not. It's not the way that you want to start out. You know, it'd be way better if I'd be like, and my great, great, great uncle, strongest testimony ever existed. Instead, it's like, yeah, he was like one of the leading apostates. And it was like, not even close.

[C]

I want to say, for what it's worth, if you are going to do that, I think doing it in the, like, Billboard Top 40 voice is especially effective.

[B]

We should do. We should bring back apostles, apostates, and apothecaries.

[C]

Very popular.

[B]

Let's do a top 40 of apostates.

[C]

I. You know what? That would be incredible.

[B]

And coming in at number 38, that

[C]

would be incredibly popular.

[B]

Moving up the charts, number 38 on our apostles, apostates, Apothecary's countdown. I mean, I don't know how you would move up the charts as someone who's dead. Like, what are you doing there? I mean.

[C]

Well, no, just by. Just by the, the, you know, the body of their work.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, coming in at number 13, George Hinkle. George Hinkle, one of the greatest AP traders known in the early church, called out specifically by Joseph Smith. George Hinkle, horrible person. Number 11 on the cabinet.

[C]

That's great. You know what? I'm gonna start working on that list. I'll get it in front of you.

[B]

I'll re rate them.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

And then I'll come up with a terrible, terrible voice to read them in. But. But back to Michelle's question, because her question is about that kind of cognitive dissonance. And so I think it's important to realize that when you study anyone from the past, you're going to find them making mistakes. I mean, probably no one wants to hear about Joseph Smith being so upset with Emma in some kind of argument that they had that Joseph lost the ability to translate. No, no one wants to hear that. No one wants to hear or think of Joseph Smith, you know, being argumentative and being angry. I know. I don't. At the same time, part of what we can do when we study the past, especially the people that we respect, is when we can see where they made mistakes. We can see what led them to those mistakes. How does this otherwise faithful person, moral person, make this mistake? Well, because what, they jumped to conclusions, they followed incomplete evidence, they decided to make a decisive decision before they had all the facts. And so one of the things you can take away from that is, why do I want to do the same thing when it comes to sources? I mean, if you, if you have an ancestry you want to study, I mean, look, you can start with places like FamilySearch, which usually has a lot of sources that are up on it. When you're studying something that has a lot of surrounding history surrounding it, like, like the Walker War, there are multiple books that are written on it. Now, some are better than others, and some are, frankly, not that good at all. But you can. You can compare those books to each other. You can mind the footnotes if you really want to understand the past. Don't just take someone's word for it. When someone says, you know, the people in Provo believed this and there's a footnote, well, go figure out what that footnote is from. Go track it down. Well, why are they saying that the people in Provo believe this when that's coming from a Salt Lake Tribune article from 1860? How do I know that? The solid Tribune knows that, right? I mean, so. So that's another way to do it. But always remember that your testimony and your relationship with Jesus isn't actually affected by whether your ancestor ends up being a shining light or not. We all have to come to our celestial kingdom ourselves, holding desperately onto the hand of Jesus as he pulls us along. So while it can be disappointing, it doesn't mean that the righteous things he did weren't righteous when he did them. It doesn't mean that he still wasn't a great man at times in his life. It means, like a lot of great people who have ever lived, they made horrible decisions, some that are regrettable, and so try to base our testimony on the restoration itself rather than people. And yeah, do vet your sources. Anything that you find, you know, just from a newspaper article, it's time to go look at some real academic sources. So thank you so much for joining us. Richard's been waving his hand for the past 15 minutes telling us we're overtime. I will note we wouldn't be overtime if we didn't do Fun with Numbers. But I'm just throwing that. No, I'm just throwing it out there. I'm just throwing it out there that I said, no more Fun with numbers. Fun with Numbers made an appearance and suddenly we're over time. I'M just saying it.

[C]

Is it fair?

[B]

Okay. All right. Thank you so much for joining us.

[A]

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.