S6E23 King Follett Sermon Part 3

Summary

Standard of Truth Podcast – S6E23: King Follett Sermon Part 3

Date: June 11, 2026
Host: Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat
Co-Host: Dr. Richard Leduc
Main Theme: Deep dive into the King Follett Sermon—its context, documentation, interpretation, and controversies surrounding Joseph Smith’s teachings on the nature of God. Includes listener Q&A and a discussion about the intersection of Latter-day Saint history, tradition, and apologetics.

---

Episode Overview

This episode primarily explores the King Follett Sermon, focusing on clarifying Joseph Smith's statements about the nature of God and the debate over differing historical accounts of the sermon. The hosts also address listener questions about early church figures and tangentially discuss folklore about Joseph of Arimathea in Britain, blending historical rigor with humor and practical research advice for church history enthusiasts.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Banter and Setup (00:37–11:14)

• The hosts open with lighthearted remarks about the unpredictability of sports fandom and their own recording and release schedule.
• Notable Moment: Extended banter about New York sports teams, reflecting the podcast’s informal, humorous tone.
  • “The Knicks are the most overrated, overhyped team in the history of not just basketball.” — Dr. Leduc (05:44)
  • “I assume he bought an Aston Martin in Glastonbury, drove it to Israel.” — Dr. Dirkmaat (40:34)

2. Listener Mailbag: Pratt Brothers & Finding Family History (11:14–24:22)

• A listener, Steph (literally emailing while in labor), asks about early church figures Anson William and Nelson Pratt—lesser-known brothers of Orson and Parley Pratt.
• Dr. Dirkmaat provides actionable advice for genealogical research:
  • Resources: Church History Library website and Joseph Smith Papers (navigate to “People” section for referenced documents).
  • Families can find formal records (e.g., William Pratt’s ordination as a Seventy) and mentions in votes or other primary sources.
• Humor centered on the “genealogy aunt” trope and sibling rivalry, even among apostles’ descendants.
• Quote: “Not only are his brothers going to be apostles, he’s also—you know what, you get like two lines.” — Dr. Dirkmaat on William Pratt’s short ordination (20:10)

3. Folklore: Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus, and Cornwall (24:22–43:05)

• An audio question asks about the claim Jesus visited Cornwall with Joseph of Arimathea, who was a tin dealer.
• Dr. Dirkmaat’s Historical Analysis:
  • This tradition’s oldest known written source is William of Malmesbury (early 1100s), who links Joseph of Arimathea to the Christianization of Britain, but not Jesus himself visiting as a child.
  • Later folklore merges Joseph into Arthurian legend and British mythology.
  • William Blake’s poem “Jerusalem” reflects but does not validate the tradition.
• Key Insight: No credible early historical evidence supports Joseph of Arimathea as a Cornish tin dealer or any visit of Jesus to Britain.
  • “If he was Joseph of Glastonbury, the Bible would probably say that.” — Dr. Dirkmaat (39:19)
• Lighthearted exploration of British place names and the confusion of oral tradition with historical fact.

4. Main Topic: King Follett Sermon—Sources and Claims (43:09–76:39)

The Documentation Dilemma

• Problem: Some Latter-day Saint apologists cite one particular contemporary transcription (Thomas Bullock’s version) to suggest Joseph Smith taught that God has always been God—a view more in line with mainstream Christianity.
• Sources Compared:
  • Bullock Version: “He was God from the begin of all eternity.” (47:47)
  • Other Accounts (and the published version): Joseph says it was only supposed or imagined by man that “God was God from all eternity.” (46:39)
  • William Clayton’s version: Joseph is “going to tell you how God came to be God.”
• Key Analysis:
  • Most contemporaneous sources clearly indicate Joseph rejected the “God from all eternity” idea as a supposition.
  • Isolating Bullock’s account, which appears to have transcription errors, contradicts the larger documentary evidence and subsequent LDS doctrinal emphasis.

Apologetics and Faith Integration

• The hosts caution against cherry-picking evidence for easier interfaith dialogue; distortions will be exposed by those familiar with Latter-day Saint history.
• Dr. Dirkmaat on Apologetic Temptation:
  • “Trying to say, well, we don’t really believe the King Follet sermon or it doesn’t really say what it says, is a pretty tough argument to make both historically and theologically.” (74:22)
  • “You’re never going to get what you’re trying to get anyway.” — Dr. Leduc (72:35)

Interfaith Barriers

• Even Bullock’s “God always God” line is bookended by teachings (like God being a man, or once dwelling on an earth) that are doctrinally unacceptable to mainstream Christians.
  • Quote: “God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves.” — Joseph Smith via Bullock, read by Dr. Dirkmaat (67:44)
• LDS doctrine (and Joseph Smith’s radical teachings) set the faith apart regardless of attempts to harmonize terminology or soften distinctives.

Honest Historical Engagement

• The consensus of scholarly and historical sources, as well as repeated teachings by subsequent LDS leaders, supports the unique doctrine taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon.
• Recommendation: Rather than trying to reinterpret uncomfortable doctrine, admit what is not yet fully understood and avoid overexplaining or distorting the historical record.
  • “Just say you don’t know what it means, because Joseph literally says you won’t understand it until long after you’re dead.” — Dr. Dirkmaat (58:19)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If you were to see [God] today, you would see him a man. For Adam was a man, like in fashion and image, like unto Adam walked and talked and communed with him as one man talks and communes with another.” (67:44)
• “The clarion call of idiocy. It really is. None of us have read anything, but I know that that is so stark that it will make you hate them without even explaining what it is.” — Dr. Dirkmaat, on anti-Mormon “gotcha” arguments (64:17)
• [Joking about Methodists:] “We read a healthy portion of the Methodist Book of Discipline. That’s why I called this Methodist Today.” — Dr. Leduc (58:11)
• “You can believe whatever you want to believe. The moment you start playing historian and saying, ‘this is what Joseph actually said,’ well, then you kind of have to read what the sources actually say.” — Dr. Dirkmaat (47:44)
• “If the only reason you’re convincing people is because they don’t know what the rest of it says or the rest of what Joseph said, then that’s not very effective conversion. Nor is it very forthright.” — Dr. Dirkmaat (69:14)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:37–11:14: Opening banter, sports chat.
• 11:14–24:22: Listener email: The lesser-known Pratt brothers and research advice.
• 24:22–43:05: Cornwall, Joseph of Arimathea myth, and English folklore.
• 43:09–52:56: Introduction to King Follett Sermon source controversies.
• 52:56–57:54: Dangers of selective citation and apologetic traps.
• 57:54–66:51: Full context of Joseph Smith’s teachings and interfaith discussion.
• 66:51–76:39: Theological implications, apologetics, honesty in historical debate, and closing remarks.

---

Tone and Takeaways

• The episode expertly blends faith-based history with academic rigor and humor.
• The hosts advocate integrity in representing church history and doctrine, even when facing criticism or difficult teachings.
• Listeners are encouraged to use reputable historical sources, resist oversimplification, and be comfortable with doctrinal complexities inherent in Latter-day Saint history.

---

For those new to the podcast or episode, this summary provides a comprehensive walkthrough of the major themes, discussions, and scholarly approaches evident in S6E23, helping listeners navigate both the substance and style of "Standard of Truth."

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.

[A]

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

[B]

Hello, Garrett. It's great to be back. Thank you for having me back.

[A]

Well, I almost didn't because we released two episodes on the King Follett sermon.

[B]

Yes. And you were just saying how. Just seamless, it all works, how it just flows so well. When you record one episode four years ago, then you record the second to that before that, then release them over the course of a month, broken up by the Declaration of Independence. It's a perfect flow. Is, I believe, what you were saying.

[A]

What I was saying is with something as sensitive and important as the Kingfollet sermon, the fact that we released part two and then released part one, and they are not recorded within four years of one another makes it, let's just say it's harder to make the Rembrandt that I was trying to paint this. This is looking like a Picasso, but not actually Picasso. It's like a Picasso Copycat is what we're looking at right now.

[B]

No, it's true. It's true. But it's like I always say, Garrett, we like our mayors Muslim, we like our bagels Jewish, we like our Christian Dior. Knicks in four. That's what I always say.

[A]

Now, you are not actually a Knicks fan.

[B]

I hate the Knicks. Absolutely hate the Knicks.

[A]

Who's your favorite baseball team?

[B]

The New York Yankees.

[A]

Okay, so literally every single Yankee fan. Every single Yankee fan.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is also a Knicks fan. Every single one of them.

[B]

What are they going to do? Root for the Nets?

[A]

They are the Brooklyn Nets.

[B]

And yet. And here we are. No one cares about. About them.

[A]

I fear for the people of New York City. And I'm not sure whether it'll be Brooklyn better if they win or better if they lose. For the eruption of what is sure to be some kind of revelry or violence.

[B]

There is. There is the. The Instagram on Knicks winning the. The championship is. Is hilarious. One of my favorite. There's a guy, one video, he's in like a. A New York City police, you know, whatever. And he's like, he's Just looking in the mirror, shaking his head like, oh, no, please don't win. And then, and then he's got another one and he's in like a National Guard uniform.

[A]

Please don't win. So, I mean, is it really going to be better if they would end up losing?

[B]

Look, this is the problem. The problem is, is it better or worse if they win? Yes.

[A]

I mean, wasn't it Charles Barkley who famously said they needed to send some plywood to Chicago so they could start boarding up windows?

[B]

That's hilarious.

[A]

I believe. Can you get the crack research?

[B]

Yeah, we'll get them on it.

[A]

I need him to check on whether or not Charles Barkley, I believe, said that they needed to send some plywood to Chicago in preparation for them rioting after they lose to.

[B]

That's funny.

[A]

Probably the Suns at that point.

[B]

That's very, very funny. Yeah, no, I, I, I'm hugely bummed about it. I'm not, I'm not a big Knicks fan at all. I, I love the tears of Knicks fans. Like that's.

[A]

Even though they literally are the same people cheering you on in Yankees.

[B]

So I mean, I mean, I agree to disagree that they're the same people.

[A]

I feel like literally the same. No, I, I am going to ask you to FL find me someone I feel like Yankees fan who is not a Knicks fan.

[B]

I feel like Yankees fans have jobs. I don't know. I don't think, I don't feel like that's necessarily, it's not the straight line necessarily that it is otherwise Knicks fans. I think the problem, the difference that I have, even though they're the same fan, is that the Yankees have won championships recently. One championship.

[A]

So the Yankees are, have an arrogancy about arrogance. They're arrogant.

[B]

They have an arrogancy.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, they have an arrogancy about them, but also they're pointing at their titles while they're doing it.

[B]

They call the place, first of all, Madison Square Gardens. It's fine. I've been to games there. It's fun. The nickname for that place suggests that when I kneel down to pray, I should face Madison Square Garden before I pray. They call it the Mecca. You haven't won anything in my lifetime. And I'm old. And you, you pretend, you pretend like he's a man.

[A]

He's 40.

[B]

Yeah. You pretend like Madison Square Garden is this magical place with all these championships and it's like the best thing that's ever happened to you is somebody came out in a wheelchair, scored four points and then went back like, like, what are you talking about? The Knicks. The Knicks are the most overrated, overhyped team in the history of not just basketball.

[A]

How much of that has to do with Stephen A. Smith?

[B]

I actually like Stephen A. Smith.

[A]

I know, but he is that. He is the kind of Nick homer that, that North Carolina former players are our Tar Heel homers. You know what I mean?

[B]

That's true.

[A]

Like, whenever you're watching, if you're trying to watch ACC basketball and one of the commentators played for North Carolina, you might as well be listening to the fraternity feed. I mean, it is like, that's how we do it at unc. That's how it's like. No, you're. You're a commentator.

[B]

Yeah. As opposed to Duke. They're super neutral.

[A]

They're just as bad. I think it's a North Carolina thing.

[B]

Well, anyway, yeah, dude. The Knicks. The Knicks. Knicks fans are just the absolute worst. Just the worst.

[A]

I think you're still holding it against Spike Lee for tripping that referee.

[B]

Yeah, it's true. The Knicks are horrible. That's. I mean, I was going to do a. So I don't know. So it's, it's tough because Brunson's like, if you go and you look. Also, all I've been doing actually, has been looking at Instagram Nick stuff, which. Which is unhealthy for me, obviously.

[A]

Yeah. Now it seems to be very unhealthy, actually.

[B]

Yeah. But like, they were playing about. There's tons of, like, Brunson hate that they're replaying now that he's, you know, that he's in the position that they're in.

[A]

Oh, when they were saying he wasn't the guy.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Suddenly he's the guy.

[B]

You sold your franchise for Brunson. For Brunson. Nick Wright, especially went hard in the paint on Nick. On Brunson. Which. Anyway, yeah, man, I. It's, it's disappointing. I mean, I mean, you're. Now you've, you've accept you're a Jazz fan now, right?

[A]

Well, so I. I grew up a Spurs fan.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And. And I was a Spurs fan. I, I. Primarily for David Robinson.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Now, look, I'm from Idaho, so we didn't have a team, so it's not like. It's not like cheering for the, you know, the Idaho Falls. Like, it wouldn't even be D League. It'd be like. It'd be like L League. I mean, there's, there's not. I mean, they didn't have anything.

[B]

No. They did not.

[A]

Yeah, I might as well. I might as well be cheering for Medicine Hat.

[B]

Hey, by the way, how is it that you're a Spurs fan? Same situation. We didn't really have cable as when I was super young as a kid and Lakers were really good. I liked the Lakers. You like the Spurs. I'm a bandwagon fan. You're not a bandwagon fan. How does that work? Well, spurs has won more championships recently anyway.

[A]

Yeah, well, so I liked him more then. And then I got to know the Millers via my word.

[B]

Joseph Smith. Yeah, the Joseph Smith.

[A]

And because I'm on the Ensign Peak foundation. And so I got to know them very well. I mean, Gail Miller, anyway. And you know, once you got to know Gail, it was impossible. Look, I never hated the Jazz.

[B]

No. Gosh, no.

[A]

They were always like, you know, I would root for them, but not when they.

[B]

Yeah, it's like, it's like hating a 76 degree day.

[A]

It's fine, it's pleasant, it's, it's a

[B]

pleasant, it's a lovely experience.

[A]

But you know, I'm also, I also am a believer of if you move to a place and you're going to live in that place for a long time, you need to just become a fan of that team because that does represent your city. I mean, what are we even talking about here? We're talking about players from all over the world that have never in their life even stepped foot in the city that they're now representing. So what? Acting like we have some kind of loyalty to a, you know, to a Coyote who's representing a franchise is just, you know, so anyway, so I did lean in hard. I wanted to see the Jazz successful. That was easier a few years ago than it is now. But yeah, I do cheer pretty hard for the Jazz. My mom is a die hard Jazz fan. She watches every single game. You would think that an 81 year old woman would not be able to tell you exactly when the Jazz game starts that night. And you would be wrong because she will know and she'll know what channel it's on. And so anyway.

[B]

Well, so similar for me. I mean, I grew up kind of just kind of agnostic to a favorite basketball team. But then my family, similar to you, we got to know Jerry Buss and his family down in. Then you became a Laker fan, became a Lakers fan. It's tough. It's tough to know Jerry and not, you know, and not be a Lakers fan. It's a family business now. I, I'm not as big of a Mark Walter family. I do like the TWG Global group. I like what they're doing.

[A]

I see. So you're. You're fans of a private equity group that holds them. That's what. That's what you're fans of?

[B]

I kind of am. I mean, they bought them for 10 billion, for heaven's sake. So you know who's. Who can't love that. So, anyway.

[A]

All right, well, let's move on to our email.

[B]

Phoebe Draper Palmer Brown mailbag is back. It's been on hiatus here for the past. You know, was backpacking across Europe for the past few years.

[A]

We were trying to help people have

[B]

love for the country and here. And despite our best efforts, we concealed it, and now we're back. All right, this email comes to us from Steph. My husband is a longtime litner, and I am a newcomer. I know that there are rules about certain questions, so I'll be careful. That's funny. I was wondering if you could tell us more about Anson William and Nelson Pratt. We hear a lot about Orson and Parley P. But I would love to know more about the three other brothers. My husband is a descendant of William Dickinson Pratt, and frankly, we both are curious about what records we have that they have not been able to find. For the record, I'm deep in labor now. You and I had a conversation before recording what that means, perhaps how much what the dilation is. Now. She says I keep in labor, water broken and all, but it slowed down probably due to me having not sent this email. Here's hoping this gets the job done. Steph and Jerem, like the book, very grateful for your faith based answers to other questions, especially tough church history questions that lean towards the nonsensical. So there you go.

[A]

How much do we lean towards the nonsensical?

[B]

Wow, Garrett. She's deep in late. She's deep in labor. Garrett. Let's not. Let's not be overly critical or judgy. The words.

[A]

We have to read the email because she said it while she's in labor. And you know what? Here's what I appreciate about Steph. This isn't her husband writing it while she's in labor and then, you know, just dictating what she's supposed to say and then sending it under his name. We are cracking down. We are. As the email bag explodes, as Phoebe finds herself unable to carry the giant mailbags that she is forced to carry. We cannot just allow people to just willy nilly, you know, say, oh, yeah, my wife was in labor, like, six years ago, read by email. We got it. We've got to crack down on it. So.

[B]

Well, so now I will say, Garrett, one of the other things now, again, she said it's slowing down, but deep in labor. Late stage in labor, you're two to three minutes between contractions.

[A]

So she had to type that in

[B]

3 minutes, 60 to 90 seconds. So it's. Yeah, so she wrote a sentence, had a contraction, then wrote another sentence. And that's actually what we're requiring to read these emails. I think it's very clear we've gotten away with a lot of husbands writing in, and that simply will not go.

[A]

Yeah, we. We just have to throw the flag that. That's 15 yards.

[B]

And that's why I think moving forward, we have everyone with the expectation of being deep in labor.

[A]

Deep in labor. Well, hopefully things went well. We hope to hear from you to find out whether or not, you know, if everything proceeded well and if once you sent the email, labor proceeded. But, you know, this is a good question. I mean, what do you do with the, you know, look, you're in kind of a rough spot. I mean, if you're Sam in the Book of Mormon, I mean, you know, like, there's not a whole heck of a lot written about you. I mean, he's. He's clearly on the good side of things. But I could see where, you know, I mean, Orson Pratt, very well known, certainly as a theologian in the church, and Parley Pratt, I mean, you know, how many people have watched Parley Pratt? The recreation of him in how rare a possession. Eating was a burden to me. Sleep was a burden. When the night came, you know, he just. His powerful conversion. And then, of course, Parley Pratt is murdered, which is going to, you know, you know, both he and Orson become apostles and Parley Pratt is murdered. So that's going to give even more, you know, I guess more fame to them. And so, yeah, it's tough to be the brothers of apostles, I guess, if you're looking for people to know everything about you. So look, when you're looking for family members who were early in the restoration and were, you know, early enough on, like the Pratt brothers were. I mean, this is. You know, all the Pratts are baptized by 1831. There's a couple of things you can do to try to track them down. You can go to the church history library website and type their name in. That will generally pull up the things that have the sources they have from them. You can limit it to, you know, Archival sources. So you don't just get like books and articles and you can see what, what documents they actually have. The other place you can do this, and frankly, which is. Is. Is very well done and very helpful, is on the Joseph Smith Papers website itself. Go to Joseph Smithpapers.org go to their biography section. Okay? They have a section on people. And if there are people that are mentioned in the papers, generally, they'll have a biography of them. Now, the biography, you're probably going to know most of that already from whatever family reunion you went to. And that one aunt that everyone has who. She does genealogy. And you better not make a mistake about saying how many times removed you are from someone in her presence, because she'll let you know. Do you, do you have anyone like that in your family, Richard, who just does genealogy like crazy?

[B]

Yeah, my uncle. My uncle. My Uncle Charlie. He. He. He does. He does quite a bit of it. He's a sealer down in St. George and he.

[A]

And so if you were to just casually say, yeah, I think he's like one of my great, great uncles. He would, He'd. He'd come at you and say, no, no, no, he's.

[B]

Well, so there was. There was an instance where I was actually doing. I was doing some specific work on, on the family history in. In Quebec. Linking it to. Looking at. Looking it, licking it, linking it.

[A]

That's like slurching.

[B]

Well, now, that was. I think slurch was just on the premium. I don't know that it was.

[A]

Well, people will need to go get a subscription if they want to find out about slurching.

[B]

Slurching sounds like what you would say. If you're. If you're pretty drunk and you're trying to. Yeah, yeah. What are you.

[A]

What are you doing? Your words. I just slushed in from my wallet.

[B]

So anyway, I found a couple of things that seemed to connect them and so I made the connection and he, like, emailed me within the week. Hey, where'd you find that? What's that? What's that? I want to make sure that this looks right. It was very.

[A]

You wanted to double check your work.

[B]

Want to double check my work? That I'm not just getting in there for like an eagle, for like a scout project, and I'm connecting family members that don't exist. Anyway. It's very funny. Yeah, he's all, he's all over it.

[A]

Well, so if you go and click on your ancestor's name, they'll have this biography, which you may know more or less of what's in the biography, because that's just a summary of their life. But below it there will be links, hyperlinks to all of the documents that they're actually mentioned in the Joseph Smith papers or where they're referenced. Now look, some of these are where they're just in a footnote. And it's the footnote saying, this isn't the William Pratt you're thinking of. I mean, it's like, you know, so sometimes it's. They aren't even in the document. It's like, I don't know. I don't know which Anson Pratt this is. But this isn't the Anson Pratt you're thinking of because he's in England at the time. So. So they're not always in those documents, but they oftentimes are. And so that's one way to do that. So let me give you an example. Like, so you go do that. You'll find the record of William Pratt, because that's the one that your husband's descended from his ordination to be a member of the 70 in 1835. And so you'll find his. The prayer. Now, a lot of people got some long and pretty flowery ordinations. William Pratt got less of a flowery one. So not only are his brothers going to be apostles, he's also, you know what, you get like two lines. Everyone else, everyone else has got like full on paragraph, paragraphs. This is his ordination to the Seventy. We ordain you and set you apart to be one of the Seventy to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. If you seek with all your heart, you shall go to other lands and preach the gospel in other tongues and do a good and a great work. You shall have success in your ministry and convert many in the nations who will hear you and lead them to Zion, the land of your home. Amen. That was his ordination to being a 70. Now, there are a couple other documents that you could look at, but the one that I want to look at is just, it's purely selfish as I am want to be. And that is, you know, William Pratt is a member of the Nauvoo Legion. Well, the way the Nauvoo Legion determined who their leaders were was they. They elected them. Okay, so they have an election over who is going to be the. The Major General of the Nauvoo Legion. And this is especially after John C. Bennett. So is in the wake of the John C. Bennett. I believe we used the term kerfluffle last time, is that we talk about it.

[B]

That's what you called spiritual wifery.

[A]

Kerfuffle. So, John C. Bennett, one of the people I hate most in church history, he was one of the leaders of the Nauvoo Legion. And after his excommunication, of course, he's dropped from it. Well, so they hold an election of who should be the next Major General of the Nauvoo Legion, essentially the position just below Joseph as the Lieutenant General. And the two people that are standing for the office are William. Sorry, are Wilson Law and Lyman White. So Wilson Law, the brother of William Law, and William and Wilson Law, who will, two years later, not even two years later, not only apostatize, but they will create the Nauvoo Expositor, and they will publish all kinds of horrible things that the destruction of the Expositor will get Joseph murdered. Now, so if you're, you know, if you're ever in an argument, you know, at a family reunion, you know, about which. Which brother could beat up which brother. Now, look, the Orson Pratt descendants, they are going to. They're going to come at you with, you know, well, our great, great, great grandfather was an apostle. And you know what? That's true. But we get to see by the tick marks of this document who voted for who in this election. And Orson Pratt voted for Wilson Law. Yep. Yep. And you would be happy to know that that William Pratt, on the other hand, instead of voting for this horrible person, voted for. Voted for Lyman White. He voted. So he voted. He split with his brother.

[B]

There you go.

[A]

Now, it wasn't enough. Wilson Law wins. And. And William Pratt, you know, I'm sure he and his brother had words with one another about who they thought should be the. We have no idea. But just for some people, we don't have as many documents, and that's a function of, you know, whether or not they kept journals, whether or not they kept their letters, and a function of how those things were passed on through the family. And it doesn't appear that there are a ton of documents for William Pratt, and that's part of the reason why you're having trouble finding them. But I would use Joseph Smith Papers as a good resource to see at least what places is he mentioned in the Joseph Smith Papers. And that'll, you know, it'll be some fun research for you because there's, you know, several dozen of those documents.

[B]

I found. The quote that you were looking for.

[A]

Is it Charles Barkley?

[B]

It was Charles Barkley. It wasn't exactly how you remember it, but. But so. But it Was. So first of all, the, the Suns Bowls series was one of the more fun series.

[A]

So it wasn't about Chicago.

[B]

It was about Chicago.

[A]

Okay. Okay.

[B]

I thought it was about Chicago. So this is the 1993. So there was. There were a couple of quotes there. There was the quote before game five. So the Bulls are up three one. And. And Barkley says before the game, I find it very presumptuous. Presumptuous. Barkley told the media before Game 5. They've got the National Guard out. They've got the police in force. They've got every bar in town boarding up their windows. That's rude. It's like selling the estate before the person's dead. The. After the game. So the, the. The Suns win game five in Chicago.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And Barkley's response was. That was a little premature. I went shopping today and didn't see any windows. I thought I was back in the neighborhood. Take that plywood off the windows. You don't need it tonight.

[A]

Take the plywood off the windows, you

[B]

don't need it tonight. That's a funny. That's a funny line.

[A]

Well, you know, Charles Barkley, not known for saying off the cuffed, you know, kind of.

[B]

Yeah, I love Charles Barker. That's great. So now, now, Garrett, we do have a question about tin dealers in Cornwall. Is there time for that or do we need to. Do we need to punt on that to next?

[A]

No, let's do it. Let's do it.

[B]

Okay. Okay. So in a rare piece here, we have audio from my wife.

[A]

Right, so this is why it's getting played. Just so everyone knows who's about to send us all audio. That's not why this is being played.

[B]

Well, it's very funny as she has her. She's there, she's in Filer, where most British people vacation.

[A]

So many British people in Filer.

[B]

And there's a question. And so I'm going to play it here.

[A]

You should say her brother is married to United Kingdom national.

[B]

Right, Correct. Correct. And the question specifically is on Joseph of Arimathea living in Great Britain, Cornwall specifically, which is beautiful, especially this time of year. I'll go ahead and play that here. Speaking for the oppressed masses which inhabit Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man. And as someone who's 42.3% Scottish, inhaling from descendants of the great heir Scotland from the Great Wilson. And I'm here with a consort of British people who are claiming that Jesus lived in Cornwall where his uncle Joseph of Arimathea was a Tin dealer. I would like to know what your knowledge is of this topic. I would like to know from an actual PhD your thoughts. Please settle this dispute with facts. And you can't use the UK hymn Jerusalem for any of your information.

[A]

Okay, well, that is not a question that I expected to get today. I think this probably, you know, stems from tradition, but if you were to go back to where does this tradition start? This idea that a Joseph of Arimathea, which is not in England, if you're wondering that Joseph of Arimathea went to England after he, you know, shared his tomb with Christ. And then that, that develops over the course of time to a. Essentially a folklore that actually Joseph of Arimathea took the young Jesus. We've talked on this podcast, or at least on the premium side of this podcast, about all of the apocryphal gospels that are created after, you know, they try to fill the gap. So you have the gospels that you have in the Bible and then you have things like the Infancy Gospel of James, right? That, that is trying to explain the huge gap. The gap that you really have is we've got Jesus, you know, going back to the temple and his parents, you know, you've got Mary saying, my father and I sought thee sorrowing, right? And then you've got the child grew and in stature and wisdom before God, man, you got that. That's all you have on Jesus's life. And so you end up getting a lot of oral tradition and folklore. And then also. You, you get actual gospels that are claiming to be written by other apostles or other New Testament figures that scholars essentially, you know, all believe are much later. They, they are not in any way written. This is not written by, you know, Barnabas, right? But that try to fill that gap. Many of those, those apocryphal gospels, they try to fill the gap of where was Jesus during those teenage years? Because we know him when he's 8 and we know him when he's 33, but. Or when he's 30, but where is he for the rest of the time? And so where does this idea develop? Well, the, the, the primary place, the origin of this, really, the earliest that you can find it now, is there oral tradition? Absolutely. There's oral tradition before this, but that doesn't really help us a whole lot. It comes from a monk in England, and his name was William of Malmesbury. Now, there's no way that I said Malmesbury accurately, right?

[B]

I mean, no, no, there's, there's no way.

[A]

I think it's just Malmsbury. I don't think you say the L at all. I think it's Malmsbury.

[B]

Well, I mean, crud. If I'm going to go, it's. I mean, how do you. How do you pronounce. How do you spell Gloucester? Right.

[A]

I mean, yeah, yeah. G, L, O, U. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah.

[B]

So look, look, look. You pronounce it however you want because they. They've been doing that for centuries.

[A]

Right, exactly. Well, so he wrote a. A book called the Early History of Glastonbury. And so William. William Malmesbury writes this book and this. Look, he's writing this in the early 1100s, okay? So this is. This is just after William the Conqueror conquered England. This is, you know, just after the time of, you know, of. Or at the time of Richard the Lionheart that he's writing about this. So as he's writing about this, he's writing about the history of Glastonbury. He says in this. Now he writing this in Latin, by the way. So I'm reading a translation because as much as you think that I can read Latin, I can't. And so, you know, of the many things I don't have the ability to do, this is one of them. So they're talking about Jesus, right? Bestowing upon them a knowledge of tongues. All the believers were together, including the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Luke, the evangelist narrates. And the word of God is being disseminated, and the number of believers increased daily. And they were all of one heart and soul. As a result, the priests of the Jews with the Pharisees and scribes, inflamed by envy's torch and instigated a persecution of the church, killing Stephen, the first martyr, and driving most of the rest far from their homes. The believers who were dispersed by the raging hurricane. It's really hurricane. But I just said hurricane because of Utah. See, two can play this game.

[B]

Yeah, that's right.

[A]

Yeah. The raging hurricane of this persecution sought out the various kingdoms of the world assigned to them by the Lord in order to refresh their inhabitants with the word of salvation. So here's how he's placing this. Because of the intense persecution that took place that, you know, obviously Jesus is crucified, but then in the aftermath, you know, the stoning of Stephen, there's this immediate Christian diaspora where Christians kind of flee all over the world, taking the gospel everywhere as they flee. Okay? St. Philip, as Free Culp attests in the fourth chapter. So he's now quoting another author in the fourth chapter of his second book. Came to the land of the Franks where he converted many of them. Franks being France. Right? That's where the term comes from, Frankia, France. Okay. Where he converted many to the faith by his preaching and baptized them. Desiring to spread the word of Christ further, he sent 12 of his disciples into Britain to teach the word of life. It is said that he appointed as their leader his very dear friend Joseph of Arimathea, who had buried the Lord. They came to Britain in 63 AD, the 15th year after the assumption of the blessed Mary and, and confidently began to preach the faith of Christ. And you know, they go on to talk about this, that, you know, they convert some of these barbarian kings. And these things we learn both from the charter of St Patrick and in the writings of the elders in the Church of St. Edmund and also in the Church of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English. We have seen a work by one of the latter, a historian of the Britons. We're all Britons. I mean, it's pretty tough. That's tough. You know, frankly, it's always going to be hard to get past Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever the term Britain is used. Unfortunately, the story of the Britons which begins there is on the western border of Britain a certain royal island called by its ancient name Glastonia. Spacious and undulating, surrounded by sluggish rivers whose waters are well stocked with fish fit to serve many human needs and best of all, consecrated to sacred offices. Now what's interesting is it's going to go on talking about this, about how this is a place that God, you know, cared about. And it merges this into the book of the deeds of the famous King Arthur. Bears witness of the high born Joseph of Arimathea, together with his son named Joseph and very many others that they came into Greater Britain, now called England and ended his life there. Also recorded is the search of a certain famous knight named Lancelot of the Lake with his help of his comrades of the Round Table. And after a certain hermit had set forth to Walwyn the mystery of the particular fountain, the water from which continually changed its taste and color. A miracle, it was written, that would not cease until the coming of a great lion whose neck was fettered with thick chains. I mean, see you, you actually, you start to delve into like Arthurian lore here. This is again a book that's written in the early 1100s. Okay, again in the latter part of the book about the search for a vessel that is called there the Holy Grail. Almost the same thing is recorded where a white knight explains to Galahad, son of Lancelot, the mystery of the certain miraculous shield which he entrusts him to bear because no one else could carry it. You know, so you kind of get an idea because this is the same source that he's quoting that's talking about King Arthur, that maybe there's a little bit more folklore to this than there is good historical evidence. Now what you'll notice of what I read, there isn't any reference to Jesus going there as a teenager. That actually comes even later as this idea that Joseph of Arimathea settled in Britain and then died in Britain and that he's one of the people who brought the gospel to Britain. Then you get later oral tradition that says, and you know the reason why he came to Britain, he came to Britain because already lived there. He lived in Britain even though it said he was from Arimathea. Obviously he's not from Arimathea, he's from Cornwall. He's Joseph from Glastonbury. That's the real, the real. He's Joseph from Glastonbury. And of course if he already is friends with Jesus family, then of course he's going to say, you know what, you know what Jesus, this carpenter's son needs? He needs to learn the tinning trade. And I know some great tinning a thousand miles away through vessels that sink continually. If you ask Paul in Glastonbury, and that's where that originates now they, I believe they quote a book. Well, they ask about a book that was published. A Latter Day Saints non historian wrote a book in which they kind of highlighted some of these traditions and legends as a means of, you know, trying to claim a connection between Britain and, and Israel and the United States kind of, and the restoration of the gospel. And while there is obviously some kind of connection with the lost tribes, I mean we don't have a doubt of that. You wouldn't find a historian who takes this seriously. I mean it's, it's a thousand years removed from Joseph of Arimathea is your earliest source. And you know, the interesting part of Joseph of Arimathea is he's one of the few people who the Bible tells you where they're actually from. So my guess is if he was Joseph of Glastonbury, the Bible would probably say that.

[B]

Well, so I mean we've gotten the crack research staff on it now that they've solved the Charles Barkley issue. It's just under 3200 miles. But if you're driving, it's only about 54 hours. So if Joseph was driving, that's not too bad. Now you're going to have to catch a ferry.

[A]

He's going to take the Chunnel. Well.

[B]

Well, he's probably going to just take a ferry. That's more reasonable.

[A]

Yeah. In his Aston Martin.

[B]

I mean, it's a British. Yeah. So. Yeah.

[A]

Well, I assume he bought an Aston Martin in Glastonbury, drove it to Israel.

[B]

Is it possible that there's a city or town named Egypt next to Glastonbury? And then when they fled to Egypt, we just always misunderstand. We just assumed it was the closer Egypt.

[A]

Well, I now better understand, you know, we saw three ships come sailing in. Yeah, yeah, they live there. Well, so anyway, that's where that comes from. And you know, the other thing that I think plays upon that, but really I think he's just reflecting what English culture already is, is a poem that was written by William Blake about this. It sounds like he's stating that Jesus actually did come to England when he was younger. And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountain green, and was the holy lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen. Right. So you also have this 19th century poem that's kind of making this same. It's at least reflecting this kind of oral tradition. So that's where that comes from. What do I think? No, I don't believe that Joseph of Arimathea was from England. There's wonderful, lovely people from England. But I don't believe we have a historical reason to claim that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus to Glastonbury to teach him tinning.

[B]

Well, so, Garrett, one of the things that the podcast loves more than anything is townships. And I don't know if this classifies as a township, but there is a hamlet, a small rural settlement community in Buckinghamshire called Egypt that. So it's actually. The more I'm saying this, the more actually I think this is actually connected.

[A]

So you need to write a book then about this and it'll be a bestseller. So there's the answer to that. Now, should we move on to the king forward sermon?

[B]

Yeah, in the 20 minutes we have remaining. Let's just.

[A]

We have to answer the labor questions. You have to.

[B]

We have to get it out.

[A]

So look, when last we left you in our disjointed discussion about this, and as we tried to set context of it, one of the things I was focusing on was the fact that when people try to dismiss the King Follet sermon by claiming that it's somehow mistranscribed or misheard, they do it because what they're trying to do is they're trying to undermine certitude about it. Now, again, as I express, as a historian, I'm all about that. I love whenever anyone is willing to put a little bit of healthy. Wait a minute. Into whatever source they're looking at. But that very. Hey, wait a minute. Let's look at the sources can actually be misused. And when is it misused? It's misused when someone has 5, 6, 7, 8 different accounts of something and there's only one of them that says the thing that they want it to say, and then they make that one account, the, that this is the real account. Well, how do, how do you know that that's the real account? Is that. Was there other people who said, no, I just. This is the one. This is the one. That's right. And so what I, What I had said, the reason why we talked about this is recently there have been Latter Day Saint apologists, you know, some, you know, who do it, you know, all the time. And some are just, you know, casually on, on. On X or whatever, who've attempted to deal with one of the primary problems of the King Follett sermon by claiming that Joseph didn't actually say that God, you know, that it's a supposition that God was God from all eternity. Now, how are they even able to make that. It seems odd that you'd be able to. To say that. Well, it's because one of the accounts, one of our more fuller accounts of the sermons appears to have, you know, a mistranscription. And it is, it's different than the others. But it also is easier to defend because I read part of that. So if you don't remember it, you're going to have to jump back. You're gonna have to forget the Declaration of Independence and you'd have to jump back to part two, where I do read the longer published version and you'll see how there is this discrepancy. Right, because the longer published version says that we've imagined, right, we've supposed that, that God was God from all eternity. But. But that's exactly what it is. It's a supposition. In fact, let me. Maybe I should just read that again really quick just to, just to put it back on our mind that we.

[B]

Good idea.

[A]

We've thought about that. I mean, we could say that, see Here, Probably the. I mean, he does say it a couple of times. So let me go back to the published version where we were reading this. You know, how consoling to the mourner that God who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a man like yourselves. What a consolation. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. Okay, we've imagined it. And then he goes on to say that. That God himself, the father us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And I will show it from the Bible. So why that matters is because, you know, there are. I've heard it now from a couple of people trying to water down what Joseph actually said. They quote from the Thomas Boek version of the King Follett sermon.

[B]

Why?

[A]

Because the Thomas Bullock version appears to be missing some words that are in all of the other versions, or at least the ideas are in all the other versions. To understand the character. This is the Thomas Bullock version. To understand the character and being of God. For I'm going to tell you what sort of a being. What sort of a being of God. So you can already tell we're missing some words, right? That I'm going to tell you what sort of a being of God. For he was God from the begin of all eternity. And if I do not refute it, truth is the touchstone. They are simple. So I've heard several people say, well, you know, one of the versions of the King fallout sermon, you know, Joseph says the exact opposite. Said, he says that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. Now I understand why someone gravitates towards that. Because at least ostensibly, it makes your Christian critic, your traditional Christian critic. It mutes part of their argument. Because you're saying. No, no, I am saying that God was God from all eternity. Because here Joseph is saying God, for he was God from the begin of all eternity. The problem is that is certainly not what's in the published account. Right? It says that you've imagined it is what it says. It's not only. It's not only not the case, but it's something. It's something that you. You have brought into your own mind in order to. So let's. Let's hop now for this very specific portion. Let's hop to William Clayton's version. In order to understand the subject for the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it's necessary they should understand. Going to tell you how God came to be God. So look, if the argument that someone's trying to make is that God was always God from all eternity. You're welcome to make whatever argument you want to make. What you're not welcome to do is to claim that that's what the source actually says. And that's the problem. Look, as we've talked about, you can believe whatever you want to believe. The moment you start playing historian and saying, this is what Joseph actually said, well, then you kind of have to read what the sources actually say. And you can't take one discrepancy and say, no, no, no, this is really what he meant. Oh, I see. So the other five people who recorded it and the people who published it, including Joseph being the editor at the time, they all got it wrong. But the one person who said something the exact opposite, they got it right. What's more likely. Is it more likely that Wilford Woodruff and George Lobb and William Clayton and the Times and Seasons all got it wrong, or that there's some words left out of Thomas Bullock's account? What's more likely?

[B]

What was the reasoning for pointing out Thomas Bullock's account? What was the claim as to how it was more accurate? Was that. Was that part of the claim? I can't remember. Because we talked about this three months ago.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And neither can anyone who's listening to us. They're all like, wait a minute. Are.

[B]

What.

[A]

Are we even talking? Is this. Aren't we. Aren't we. Isn't this Gaddy? Anton 4.

[B]

Yeah, welcome to Methodist Today with Garrett and Richard. Yeah,

[A]

no, the claim was presented like this. Actually, like I said, I've heard it from multiple different sources. So in one of the sources I heard, the person said something to the effect of this. Well, the King Follet sermon doesn't say that. That God was like us. It just says that. That God. That Jesus was like God, and that God was God from all eternity, and Jesus obviously from all eternity. And so when Christians attack us for saying that God became God. Well, no, because one of the accounts of the Kingfollet sermon, it actually says he was God from the begin of all eternity. So Joseph right there says that God was God from the beginning of all eternity.

[B]

So, I mean, there's. I mean, you've articulated this very well. But one of the main problems that exists is that if I make that argument to try to tamp down the particular issue, rather than really addressing the issue, or even, like you said, saying, look, what this exactly means, I don't really know, you open yourself up to far worse consequences. Potentially, because either you're saying, hey, look, this is what was said, and then you're burying those other things, or if you're in kind of a debate style or some sort of discussion with somebody about it, they're going to know that there's all of these other examples and they're going to be able to point those out. And ultimately, while you're trying to soften it, you are only potentially making it much, much worse.

[A]

Well, and, and what would a scholar say? Right? Would, would a scholar, a Latter Day Saint scholar or a non Latter Day Saint scholar, would they take these various different sources, take the missing words, apparent discrepancy of the Bullock one, and say, yeah, that, that's what he really said, that's what he really meant? No, they, they wouldn't. They wouldn't because they understand how sources are created. And, and, and I think, you know, we'll talk more about this because there's, there's some more aspects to this that I want to cover. But one of the reasons why I, I beg everyone to not water down your faith to try to fit in more with traditional Christianity, one of the main reasons why is it won't work. One of the main reasons why you shouldn't try to sell your birthright for a mess of pottage is because you're going to be hungry after. It is not, it's not the winning argument you think it is. I mean, even just taking the Thomas Bullock account, even if I. Let's say that this is the only thing Joseph Smith taught. Let's say Joseph taught just this. There are no other accounts. There's no published account. There's nothing in the history of the Church. You've got no apostles and prophets quoting this for years. Because again, things aren't taken in a vacuum, right? The reason why Latter Day Saints believe God came to be God isn't just because Thomas Bullock wrote something down once. It's because there have been multiple repeated statements of it over the course of time. And we talked about Lorenzo Snow. Let's just read around this and see what other things they might accept. Even if this were the case, even if this were the case, I am going to prove it. Ye ends of the earth. Here. I'm going to prove it to you with the Bible. I'm going to tell you the designs of God to the human race and why he interferes in the affairs of men. God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a man like unto one of yourselves. Okay, full stop. Every Christian, every Christian that is not a Latter Day Saint just believes this is the most blasphemous thing ever said. So, so if you think you've won the argument because now we're saying no, no, no, no, we think God's eternal. Okay, show me the ones who think that God is a man. Is that also a mistranscription? I mean, again, the people that are making the arguments, I understand why they're making them. They're making them because they help break down some barriers to try to help other Christians listen to what it is that we believe. The problem is that only works as long as, as the barriers you're breaking down are accurate. Because if there is a true scholar, and you know, frankly, Latter Day Saint apologetics get away with an awful lot because, I mean, 9, 10 of the people who talk to us and about us haven't even read the Book of Mormon. It's a crazy. It is one of the craziest things in the world. You. Yeah, I'm like an expert on everything Mormons believe. I just haven't read any of their documents or any of Joseph's papers or any of his letters. But I'm like total expert.

[B]

That is fascinating though, right? At least people that, that bag on Islam, they at least read some of the Quran, for heaven's sakes.

[A]

I mean, we, we read, in a recent premium episode, we read a healthy portion of the Methodist Book of Discipline.

[B]

That's why I called this Methodist today.

[A]

I'm not advocating that people become Methodists. What I'm saying is that we kind of get away with this sometimes because our foes, apologetically, the people who are attacking us for not being Christians and attacking Mormonism, they have done so little homework. They have, they have put in so little effort that, you know, the, the 720 double ollie backflip anti Mormon has actually read more documents than a supposed Christian scholar who still hasn't even read the Book of Mormon. You know what I mean? Like, so, so we sometimes get away with it, but there's no there, there, there is no. Oh, now that I've proven this. Now, now maybe you're doing it for yourself. Maybe you have to believe that God has always been God, that that's how you believe it. Okay, but you need to not make the argument. And that's what Joseph taught. Because, because that's not. And you're not going to find a scholar that says that's what Joseph taught. In fact, what does William Law in the Nauvoo Expositor, what is the thing he attacks Joseph, for just as much as polygamy, the idea that God came to be God. Now, of course, you could just say, well, and William Wall was wrong about that, too. Okay, man. Well, we got a lot of people that are just wrong about a lot of things. Got tons of people writing all kinds of stuff down that are all just wrong. And. And I get it. I. I know I'm being flippant. That's called this podcast. I understand the impetus to try to explain away the things that Joseph taught by saying, well, he didn't really say because you don't want to have to deal with it. What I'm begging people to do when it comes to the King Follett sermon is a, don't share it on your door approach. B, you know, if you're a missionary. B. Instead of saying, he didn't really say that. He didn't really teach that. That's not what it says, just say you don't know what it means, because Joseph literally says, you won't understand it until long after you're dead. So why are we saying that? We do. As a historian, I can tell you what Joseph is saying based upon these sources and plus based upon a lot of other sources. Other sources that maybe we'll get to. I fear if I were to read some of the other sources, Richard with a shepherd's Crook would pull me off the stage.

[B]

Oh, no, I love this stuff. No, this is. No, you go. You go all in.

[A]

I don't know. I feel the presence of your dad saying, all right, Garrett, let's rate it.

[B]

Yeah. I actually love the idea of my dad attending a Sunday school class. You know, he's in spirit. You know, spirit paradise or whatever, and he's in a Sunday school class, and someone brings it up, and he's like, guys, guys, we just. We can't go this deep.

[A]

Yes. We got to just. We're going to study today about the King Fallet sermon, because Joseph said, we need to study it long time after we're dead to understand it. And your dad just raises his hands, guys, let's stick to the Book of Mormon, all right?

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And. And the. And the. And the. The class instructor is Hyrum Smith.

[A]

And he's like, no, no, it's okay. Joseph wants me to teach this. Look, if it's not coming from the Book of Mosiah or Alma, I don't

[B]

really want to talk about it. Yeah, yeah, brother. Brother Smith. Let's just stick to the. The DNC89. Let's go to the Word of wisdom. I know you love that.

[A]

Yeah. Let's play to your strengths. So there's no there there, but we could keep reading in the Thomas Bullock and I'll point out everything that Joseph says in Bullock's account that would be utterly rejected by other Christians.

[B]

There's kind of a. And we're well out of time.

[A]

But are we over time already?

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

This is the last time I mentioned Glastonbury in.

[B]

It's actually not your fault. I brought up Egypt, Buckinghamshire, and that took us over by 30 seconds.

[A]

Whenever you bring in Buckinghamshire, you're.

[B]

But so like I. Look, I also understand this and I am guilty of this often. But in this particular case and to your point, they're trying to break down barriers to allow us to have a conversation. But like the Book of Mormon, even if none of this was said, even if none of it was said, even if zero percent of it was said, like, that's not the thing. Do you know what I mean? Like, it's not even close.

[A]

Well, we know that 12 years before this was said, Joseph is being beaten and mobbed and poisoned in Hiram, Ohio.

[B]

It's not polygamy. It's not this. It's not any of those things. Like, those things, they just add to the gift.

[A]

Yeah. They become the best argument. I mean, there's a reason the argument's made. The reason why you keep hearing like Mormons think Jesus and Satan are brothers. Because that's the argument of an idiot speaking to other idiots. It's the clarion call of idiocy. It really is. None of us have read anything, but I know that that is so stark that it will make you hate them without even explaining what it is.

[B]

I'm talking about idiots in the current ambassador to Israel. I, I agree with you on the idiot.

[A]

I am, I am not casting aspersions.

[B]

He's the one during the presidential campaign.

[A]

I know. He did say it. Right. He's making a reference to the fact that, yes, the current ambassador to Israel and former Arkansas governor responded to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign by saying that Mormons asking the question.

[B]

He was asked. He was just asking a question.

[A]

He's an ordained minister, but he's asking the question.

[B]

And I believe the question he was asking was to the journalists at the New York Times who was Jewish theologian. What's that?

[A]

Who is probably Jewish.

[B]

I hope.

[A]

I sure hope that would make that story so much better if he wasn't even a Christian. The person that he said.

[B]

Well, first of all, he's. First of all, I don't know if he has to be Jewish to say he's not a Christian, if he's a reporter at the New York Times.

[A]

We apologize to all of our listeners at the New York Times. How many do you think we have?

[B]

Yeah, we have more in Egypt, Buckinghamshire, than we have at the New York Times.

[A]

Okay. All right, well, what about Glastonbury? Are we going to lose all of our listeners there? Well, we're going to lose all the

[B]

tin dealers out there, that's for sure.

[A]

Well, so let me just go a little bit more. I know it's time to get past it, but, you know, just to give you an idea, That the God himself who sits in throne in yonder heavens is a man like unto one of yourselves who holds this world in orbit and upholds all things by his power. Okay. Christians are fine with that. That's okay. All things by his power. Great. If you were to see him today, you would see him a man. For Adam was a man, like in fashion and image, like unto Adam walked and talked and communed with him as one man talks and communes with another. So that no, Christians don't believe that Adam walks and talks with God the Father, because no man has seen God at any time and lived. All right. No. Right, you. Okay, so we've got the God's always been God for eternity. And it's bookended by two blasphemies that Christians would say, don't understand the nature of God. Right, so what have we actually gained here? He goes on to say, it's necessary to understand the character and being of God. For I'm going to tell you what sort of a being of God. For he was God from the beginning. From the beginning is what is written. But I think he meant beginning of all eternity. And if I do not refute it, truth is the touchstone. They are the simple and first principle of truth. To know for a certainty the character of God that we may converse with him, same as a man and God himself, the Father of all of us, dwelt on an earth same as Jesus Christ himself. Okay.

[B]

Oh, boy.

[A]

So instead of taking the one sentence in there that you can try to shoehorn into traditional Christian theology, I'm telling you right now, the sentence I just read that the God himself, the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself, would not be accepted by any traditional Christian. Any. Now, Joseph, of course, defends it by saying, you know, I will show you from the Bible, right? I could tell the Story in a much manner that that person should cease forever. Jesus said, as the Father hath powered himself to do, even so hath the Son power to do what the Father did? That answer is obvious. In a manner to lay down his body and take it up. Jesus did as my Father laid down his body and take it up again. If you don't believe it, don't believe the Bible. Okay, so here again, a historian is going to have to say that what Joseph is saying is the Father, when he was on an earth like Jesus did the same thing that Jesus did. Now I understand again, the reason why an apologist might make this argument is I'm not saying that God was like me, like some trash can piece of garbage me. I'm just saying the Father was once like Jesus and Jesus is perfect. So that means the Father was always perfect and that he always existed and that he was always perfect. And, and that's kind of where the argument is. Like, I'm not saying that God was. Was a man like us. God was always perfect and, and like Jesus. Now, of course, the, the problem is what I just read would be considered so utterly blasphemous that not a Christian in creation would continue the conversation with you. So what, you think you're winning by trying to prove a type of a city of God, you're actually losing. Because not only do all the other sources say the opposite, the other parts of the source that you're holding to says so many blasphemous things in it that Christians will reject it anyway. So, so you didn't actually move the needle. You moved it with someone who doesn't know what else is in the sermon. And that's the problem. If the only reason you're convincing people is because they don't know what the rest of it says or the rest of what Joseph said, then that, that's not very effective conversion. Nor is it very forthright. I mean, the reality is Joseph did say things that Christians reject.

[B]

Garrett, you're going to love this. So it wasn't New York Times, the newspaper. It was New York Times Magazine.

[A]

Oh, that changes everything.

[B]

And I found the name of the journalist. His name, Mark Leibovich.

[A]

Was he Jewish?

[B]

Of course.

[A]

Well, we can't just guess on the basics. No, no, I looked.

[B]

He was raised in a Jewish family. But I mean, I looked it up. But also, I mean, like my, my grandma's name is. Is Stein.

[A]

I mean, well, it's really Cooper Stein.

[B]

Well, it's. Well, she married Henry. So Cooper Stein married a Henry Stein. So then they just dropped the Cooper. But. But, yeah, when I looked at Mark Leibovich, I laughed. I paused. I muted myself, laughed out loud, looked it up. Raised in a Jewish family.

[A]

I like the fact that I didn't know that, but I also knew that.

[B]

That's so great. I just love the idea that the.

[A]

That a Southern Baptist minister is asking a lapsed reformed Jew, don't Mormons think Jesus and Satan are brothers?

[B]

It's so great, man.

[A]

We really should do a whole podcast where we just go back over that interview. That would seem like we're piling.

[B]

We should. No, we should. We should play clips from it and. Absolutely. Oh, I love that idea. If we can just free up with this other thing. Let's go. Let's get to that.

[A]

Yeah, let's stop talking about what Joseph said. Well, we're out of time. We're apparently going to do another episode on this. Against my will.

[B]

For what it's worth, this is one of my favorite topics ever, and I do love the discussion on it, and I love your perspective on it. And it's a larger point, too, to say, look, whatever it is that we're gaining from this discussion, you're never going to get what you're trying to get anyway.

[A]

Well, yeah, and in part, trying to definitively make an argument that, well, Joseph isn't saying this. He's saying this when you actually aren't sure, or the sources say something else. Well, why are we making the argument then? And I would submit to you, we're making the argument because we want to make it. We're making it because it's what makes us feel more comfortable. It's kind of like saying the reason why Joseph Smith used seer stones is that God, you know, knew that Joseph was just a poor, dirty farm boy and he's illiterate and doesn't have any faith, even in himself. And so God uses things that are familiar to Joseph. And there's already a seer stone culture in New York. And so God uses this already existing culture to help Joseph gain in confidence as a prophet, and that's why he used the stones. And that's a very. It's an argument that would convince. It makes a lot of people feel better. The. The problem is the Book of Mormon, from Brother of Jared on down through Mosiah through Alma, is filled with people using sacred stones to translate. So the very argument that you make to make someone feel better, oh, no, there's nothing to those stones at all. They're just like, they're like training wheels that God used for Joseph to try to get him to feel better about being a prophet. And then eventually, you know, he didn't need him anymore. That very argument, which settles someone's soul right now, would be used by an antagonist to say, well, obviously Joseph wrote that into the Book of Mormon. Then when he wrote it, if the stones themselves have no actual sacred power and ability, but it's just what God uses to make Joseph feel better about himself. Then is Mosiah also trying to feel better about himself? Is the brother of Jared also. Just needs a bit of a pick me up. I mean, the idea behind it, it's one of those things that the argument can be very soothing, but the very argument itself opens up a kind of Pandora's box of the things that we aren't always considering. And that's, I think, what's going on here. Trying to say, well, we don't really believe the King Follett sermon or it doesn't really say. What it says is a pretty tough argument to make both historically and theologically because there are lots of people that have quoted it, talked about it. My goodness. President Hinckley said that it's an important part of our doctrine. It becomes pretty difficult then to say, yeah, well, that's not really what we believe. Clearly it is a part of what we believe. Do we understand it all? Of course not. But we don't understand it all is not the same thing as it was never said or it's not important or it's not true. And I feel like that's the way we're gravitating because that makes it easier for us to interact with Christian critics. So anyway, we've gone on too long. But you know what? It's been a while. It may be a while before we. Because we're going to be. We're going to be going out on tour this week. Yeah. And so we may not be on this topic actually for the next couple

[B]

of weeks in classic a King Follett service.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yes. We'll have two live recordings back to back and then we will resume with. With part four of this sometime toward the end of June.

[A]

What if we just didn't ever come back to it?

[B]

Well, that would also be on brand.

[A]

Yeah, that's what I think. Okay. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Garrett Dirkmot and Dr. Richard Leduc. If you know of anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. Until next time.