Was Joseph Smith Really a Polygamist? A Conversation with Michelle Brady Stone

Send us a text

Michelle Brady Stone joins Ian and Jim in an engaging and lively discussion to make the case that Joseph Smith was not, in fact, a polygamist. 

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_01 (00:01):
Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out.
My name is Jim Bennett and I amhere as always with the free Ian

(00:23):
Wilkes.
And...
Based on our last conversation,Ian, you know, I'm sitting here
panicking about what it's liketo live in a, well, we got a
little heated in that lastconversation, at least I did.
You were trying very, very hardto be respectful, and I'm very

(00:44):
grateful for that.
But you are also across theborder, and I'm kind of jealous.
I'm hoping that you're going tolet me come be a refugee up
there.

SPEAKER_02 (00:53):
Well, you're more than welcome.
I thought when he said free, youwere referring to the Trump
election.
Well, I am.
I know you are.
And I was trying to findanything positive that might
come from that.
Since our podcast, and Imentioned this on, I did share
this with you on our messenger,there's been a significant spike
in Americans at inquiring aboutresidency in Canada.

(01:18):
Right.
Like 10,000 hits in one day.

SPEAKER_01 (01:21):
Yeah.
And, you know, I want to escapeto Scotland, but none of my
family seems to want to go withme.

SPEAKER_02 (01:29):
Yeah, Scotland, I'd love to move to Scotland.
It's a bit windy.

SPEAKER_01 (01:34):
It's a bit windy.
It's a bit chilly.
I have, I think, sort of areverse seasonal affective
disorder in that I love rainunless I'm tracting in it.
And then I don't love rain.
But Scottish weather, I justadore weather like that.

SPEAKER_02 (01:50):
Yeah, no, me too, me too.
And so, yeah, so, yeah, Canadais, yeah, if you want to come to
Canada, you hang out with us andget a little bit of freedom.
And, you know, we're happy tohave you.
But, yeah, and very excitedabout today's podcast.

SPEAKER_01 (02:05):
Yes, today's podcast has absolutely nothing to do
with that.
So I just wanted to sort of getthat out of the way.
I'm very excited because we'vegot a really fascinating guest
that I've gotten an opportunityto get to know in the last
couple of days.
She is, I don't know what theofficial title is, but she's
somebody who's got a very largefollowing.

(02:27):
She has 118,000 followers.
followers on YouTube for herchannel.
And she does a podcast showcalled 132 Problems, Revisiting
Mormon Polygamy.
And our mutual friend, StevenPeinecker, said we need to talk
to her.
And I think he was right becauseshe, I think, is a very

(02:48):
important voice in theconversation.
She's got a really fascinatingperspective, and so I'm very
grateful that she's willing tojoin us here on our podcast.
Please welcome everybody,Michelle Brady-Stone.
Michelle, how are you?

SPEAKER_00 (03:03):
I'm well.
Thank you for inviting me.
And I have to say, I felt reallyleft out of that beginning
conversation because I waslaughing because in 2016, with
that election, I was searching,how do I move to Canada?
And currently, my husband islooking for properties in
Scotland.
So there we go.
Yeah.

(03:23):
He's desperate to move toScotland.
I get too cold, but I'm willingto go.

SPEAKER_01 (03:28):
So maybe you and your husband and me will
probably have to end up asroommates.
Okay.
We'll see what happens.
But with all the emigration talkout of the way...
Just wanted to bring you on andgive you an opportunity.

(03:50):
I'm very interested, you know,we've had some conversations now
about your perspective and whereyou are in the church.
But I think there are probably anumber of people who'll be
listening to this who don't knowanything about you.
And I'm just...
want to give you the floor andgive you an opportunity to

(04:12):
introduce yourself and give us alittle bit of background on who
you are and where you're comingfrom.

SPEAKER_00 (04:18):
Okay, so it's a little bit tricky to introduce
myself because I think peoplewant to try to, when we meet
someone, we want to try tocategorize them and try to
understand them.
And I am the first to admit Idon't fit very well into any
category.
So here is a quick introduction.
I am A mother of 13 children whoI've spent my life
homeschooling.

(04:38):
I still have six children athome.
I have been a lifelong member ofthe church.
I am very recently descendedfrom fully Mormon polygamist,
not a fundamentalist, but mygreat-grandfather was called by
Joseph F.
Smith to go to Mexico and take asecond wife in 1906, which some

(05:02):
of your listeners may know istwo years after the second
manifesto.
So my grandfather was apost-manifesto polygamist called
by the who told him, I'm notcalling you as the president of
the church, I'm calling you asthe president of the priesthood,
is what we've been passed downin our family.
So I was raised believing thatpolygamy was the highest,
holiest law of the gospel, thatwe would live in Zion, that we

(05:26):
would live in the celestialkingdom, and I just...
I was taught beautiful storiesof my great grandmothers and
thought someday I'll understandand it's going to be beautiful.
And I genuinely thought that itwas a shame that we couldn't
live the higher laws so thatJesus could come.
That was my perspective for avery long time.
And anyway, so I have gonethrough several different

(05:47):
iterations of my faith.
I So that's my most sort ofconservative perspective.
I also have listened to manyvoices since pretty much the
beginning.
I'm a voracious student of thescriptures.
I also have listened to JohnDeLinn since the very beginning,
at least I did for many, manyyears.

(06:08):
I read a couple of DenverSnuffers books.
I've kind of been everywhere.
I have I will admit I havestruggled to stay in the church
there have been multiple timeswhen I have felt very strongly
that um I needed to leave but Iam one who feels like I receive
answers from the divine I guessI could call myself a mystic

(06:29):
I've I've always been told tostay in the church has is the
answer I've received every timeI've hit one of those breaking
points I have um Anyway, I havegay children.
I am navigating many differentworlds in many different ways.
So to cut to the chase, about,gosh, it's been over 10 years
ago, my husband one day came tome and said, he was reading the

(06:51):
Book of Mormon, and he said, Idon't think polygamy was ever of
God.
And that floored me.
And in my TBM mindset, Ithought, I need to save my
apostate husband before he goesfully apostate.
And I started studying thescriptures in order to prove to
him that polygamy was indeed ofGod, as I knew because my

(07:11):
faithful ancestors and thepresidents of the church had
always taught.
So I started studying, and thishas got to be more than 10 years
ago.
Anyway, I became...
I was astonished at how little Iknew about it, how naive I was,
how ignorant I was.
And the more I studied, the moreit became clear to me that

(07:32):
polygamy was never of God.
It threw me into one iterationof a faith crisis, because how
could I be so certain aboutsomething and be so wrong?
And how could I think I knowbetter than all of the church
leaders that have said thisforever and everybody else?
And so I had to seek out supportand voices anyway I started a
Facebook group in that space tobe able to talk about it and as

(07:55):
a result many polygamistsactually joined particularly
polygamist men and they taggedtheir friends and I ended up
being able to engage with thevery best scholars of polygamy
the theologians who argue infavor of polygamy.
So I was able to encounter allof the best arguments in favor
of polygamy, which is reallyvaluable for me as a critical

(08:16):
thinker.
I like to encounter the bestarguments on the other side.
So I was able to really solidifymy views and go, that's the best
you've got.
Those are the arguments in favorof polygamy.
So for a long time, I was inthat space where as I didn't
delve into the history fully,but I knew that Joseph Smith
started polygamy and I knew itwasn't of God.

(08:36):
And I was in that space for along time.
I also knew that whatever JosephSmith was doing was different
from what Brigham Young and thelater Utah polygamists did.
But he was obviously theoriginator.
Anyway, I had an unusuallydifficult 2020 and 2021.
I know it was difficult foreverybody.
My circumstances were quiteextreme during those years.

(08:57):
I lost a child in 2020 and Ilost another child in 2021.
the tragedy of that wasmagnified by what was happening
in the world and um and sothat's that was one of the times
that I felt like I needed toleave the church it just it was
a very difficult time but umanyway after after that period I

(09:18):
just felt very strongly kind ofas I was um I had I was
recovering and I was you know umum I don't know how to explain
it it wasn't It wasn't out of mytrauma or anything like that.
It was just kind of trying tounderstand my relationship with
God.
I navigated that.
And after I came through that, Ijust felt a strong confirmation

(09:39):
that I needed to talk to otherwomen about what I had learned
about polygamy.
And that was kind of theinstigation for my channel.
It's called 132 Problems becauseit's section 132.
For anyone that isn't aware,that is where Mormons get
polygamy.
That's the only place in ourscriptures that is polygamy
positive.
And then I started my podcastknowing that polygamy wasn't of

(10:00):
God, but knowing that JosephSmith had started it.
A year into my podcast, afterintensive study, I came to the
conclusion that actually JosephSmith hadn't started it.
That was very challenging for meto come to believe.
It took a lot to convince me ofthat.
And it took a lot more toconvince me to speak aloud about

(10:23):
it because I knew the giant...
file of crap I would be steppingright into the middle of, right?
I'm fighting on every singlefront.
So anyway, for about the lastyear and a half, that's the
space I...
Well, for the last two and ahalf years, I've been doing my
podcast.
For about the last year and ahalf, I've become a full-time

(10:44):
historian delving into thedocuments of the restoration.
And it's been...
Actually, I spend...
usually between 60, 70 hours aweek, researching, preparing,
doing what I'm working on.
And it's become, anyway, it'svery fulfilling.
It's very satisfying.
It's very important.
I've developed a very thickskin.

(11:06):
I'm a lot of people's favoriteperson to hate.
I have a lot of people comingafter my membership in the
church.
And that's, anyway, that's kindof where I am at this point.

SPEAKER_01 (11:20):
All right.
That seems to be a very succinctsummation.
And I know what it's like to bea person that everybody loves to
hate.
So I have solidarity with you inthat regard.
So 60, 70 hours spent a weekdoing this.
That's a lot of hours.

(11:42):
Especially with somebody withsix children at home.
How do you juggle that?

SPEAKER_00 (11:48):
Well, I should clarify, after the difficult
time of 2020 and 2021, I nolonger homeschooled my children.
That was part of that process ofjust, so my children are in
school now, which gives me,frees up a whole lot of time.
And as a mother of a largefamily, I've always been pretty

(12:10):
productive, pretty good atgetting a lot of things done and
not much of a sleeper.
Yeah.
So my kids know I'm alwaysavailable.
I'm always interruptible, but Iusually have, I'm usually on my
computer, unfortunately.
So other than when I'm directlyinteracting with them and doing
things with them, I'm able, Idon't make any money from what
I'm doing, but I do have enoughcoming in that I've been able to

(12:31):
hire house help.
So I have help cleaning myhouse, which has freed up a lot
of time as well.
I really appreciate that.

SPEAKER_01 (12:39):
So where is your husband in this?
Is your husband equallypassionate about this?
Or does he just think, oh,here's Michelle going off on her
little hobby horse?

SPEAKER_00 (12:48):
Yes, the second.
He's very sweet.
He's very supportive.
He doesn't want me to talk tohim about it all the time.
Very understandably.
I laugh that he created amonster.
It's his fault.
He started all of this, right?
He was the one that...
That read the scriptures andcame and told me that I was

(13:09):
wrong about polygamy.
So now he's on board.
We have a very similarperspective of the gospel.
We are both active in thechurch.
We both navigate that in anuanced way.
And so it's not been, we don'thave an interfaith marriage by
any means, which I'm reallythankful for.
I

SPEAKER_01 (13:28):
mean,

SPEAKER_00 (13:29):
I support people who do, but.

SPEAKER_01 (13:32):
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
Does he agree with you thatJoseph Smith did not practice
polygamy?

SPEAKER_00 (13:39):
He agrees with me that polygamy was never of God.
He is not yet fully convincedthat Joseph Smith didn't
practice polygamy, but he alsodoesn't listen to my podcast.
He does sometimes, but wheneverhe's like, I'm not convinced,
I'm like, well, you're notlistening.

SPEAKER_01 (13:57):
We talked a little bit.
I mean, I've got this weirdhobby horse that has nothing to
do with the church, but I'm whatthey call an Oxfordian.
I believe that WilliamShakespeare was the pen name of
Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl ofOxford.
I'm even writing a book aboutit.
And my wife is like, well, youknow, good for you.

(14:18):
I couldn't care less.
And pays absolutely no attentionto it.
It's like, well, whatever makesyou happy and whatever...
you'd like to do, then go aheadand do it.
So it's just really interestingto see how those kinds of, when
you find something that reallyanimates you and is something
that you're very passionateabout, it's sometimes difficult

(14:39):
to find other people who areable to share that.
But you seem to have found quitea following.
Of those 118,000 followers thatI can see on YouTube, how many
do you actively sort of engagewith on a regular basis?

SPEAKER_00 (14:54):
Oh, it depends.
I think I have an interestingsituation because I haven't had
the time or energy to do themrecently, but I did a lot of
shorts as well.
And those got way more viewsthan my, you know, sometimes my
videos are two and a half hours.
They're often an hour and a halfto two hours.
So, so not that, Not everybodythat watches the short, say,

(15:15):
will watch the full videos.
But I do have definitely a verylarge support system and a very
large community of people whoare very passionately engaged in
these topics.
I shouldn't even say it's mycommunity.
It's not like I'm the firstperson that's been in this
space.
I thought I was.
When I started my podcast, Ithought it was insane.

(15:37):
I thought it was the dumbestthing ever to start a podcast on
polygamy in 2022.
You know, I couldn't...
Like, it seemed totallyirrelevant.
So it's actually been amazing tosee how extremely relevant this
topic is to so many people.
It really is kind of a...
I don't know.
It's just...
It is as important now as itever has been.

(16:00):
And it's as interesting...
It's more interesting now thanit ever has been because we have
so much more access to sources.
Like, everybody can dig it.
You know, when I do...
my episodes, I'm able to showpeople the document I'm talking
about, and I'm able to link toit so people can go do their own
research, which I think istremendously valuable.
We're no longer dependent ongatekeepers to, they have the

(16:23):
sources, they tell us what theysay.
I really like that we can go doour own research in this day and
age.
It's a huge blessing to us.

SPEAKER_01 (16:31):
Yeah, you've talked about how the Joseph Smith
Papers project is a real gamechanger, and I think that's
absolutely true.
So, yeah, we have access tosources as lay people and we
don't have to rely on historiansnecessarily to filter out what
information they feel is, isuseful or is not.
Uh, so, uh, and I think whatyou're doing, it's, it's, I

(16:56):
mean, I, I am not in, in thisspace and as I, I've told you
before, um, my faith is notcontingent in any way on whether
or not Joseph Smith was apolygamist.
I still firmly believe that hewas, but I'm not really, I mean,

(17:17):
this isn't something where I'veinvestigated the sources as
meticulously as you have, orsomething that I feel really
compelled to explore.
But it does seem to be a subjectthat is gaining traction.
and surprising a lot of people,including traditional
historians.

(17:37):
I think I've seen RichardBushman comment on how surprised
he is that all of a sudden we'rerevisiting polygamy and whether
or not Joseph Smith was apolygamist so long after the
fact.
And more and more people are, Ithink, coming along to your
point of view on that.

(17:58):
Why do you think that is?
Do you think it's just thatthere's more access now or is
there something else drivingthis?

SPEAKER_00 (18:06):
Well, no, I very much agree with you.
I think, and I won't take thetime to trace the whole history
of what has happened in thepolygamy discussion, but you
know, it has been contested fromthe very beginning, right?
This was contested during JosephSmith's lifetime, the
accusations that he was apolygamist, his denials, and
that has continued since withthis debate.

(18:28):
And in the In the 60s, 70s, and80s, people, the debate
continued to some extent,although it's been, I guess I am
tracing it a bit.
It's been an interesting topicbecause the church, was a
polygamist and the church wasthe most determined to say that
Joseph Smith was a polygamistduring the polygamist era of the

(18:49):
church.
Then we got into the early 1900sand the mid-1900s and it
continued on that Joseph was nota polygamist and those were
anti-Mormon lies, right?
And that continued on for quitea while.
Then we got that period ofopenness, Camelot, in Mormon
history when we had LeonardArrington and D.
Michael Quinn was being givenaccess.
So new sources were found andthey were...

(19:12):
the Mormon polygamist sources inthe, like for my perspective,
the Mormon polygamist in theireffort to prove that Joseph
Smith had been a polygamiststarted to create a lot of
evidence in order to prove that.
And that's what was found again,rediscovered in the 70s, 80s,
90s.
And then at the same time, theRLDS church was going through a

(19:35):
change where they were goingmuch more progressive.
Their top leaders had beentrained in progressive Methodist
schools.
They wanted to become much moreecumenical and much less Mormon,
so they were motivated to stepaway from Joseph Smith.
I don't want to speak on behalfof them.
This is my understanding, andmaybe a member of the community
of Christ would have a slightlydifferent take on it, but they

(19:55):
did go extremely liberalextremely quickly, and as a
result, the church really broke,and some of Most of the largest
congregations and the highesttithe paying congregations split
off from the church and theycontinue to be RLDS.
They're called the RestorationBranches and the Community of
Christ.
The biggest issue wasn't evenJoseph's polygamy.

(20:17):
It was actually the ordinationof women.
And that happened in the 80s,right?
So the community of Christ saysthat Joseph was never a
polygamist, but many of theircongregations also don't really
look to Joseph Smith as aprophet either, and they don't
really rely on the Book ofMormon in the same way.
They are, as I said, much lessMormon and much more ecumenical,
whereas the restorationbranches, the RLDS Church, still

(20:39):
adamantly claim that Joseph wasa polygamist.
That's where Richard and PamelaPrice came from, who wrote the
series Joseph Smith FoughtPolygamy.
And so it's been an interestingcoming together now because in
the 90s and the early 2000s,everyone thought that the case
was closed, right?
The opposition dropped theircase.
The tug of war between the RLDSand the Mormon church, the RLDS

(21:01):
dropped.
And the LDS then said, okay,it's settled that Joseph Smith
was a polygamist.
But since that time, very littlework has been done.
And since that time, we've hadthe Trice's books, which, you
know, aren't perfect, and theyare very focused on their
religion, but they have doneincredible work to bring out

(21:21):
sources that we as Mormons werenot aware of.
We've just always ignored theRLDS sources, right?
And then we also had HugoParejo's work done that showed
us that there are actually nodescendants, no polygamous
descendants of Joseph Smith.
He and Emma had not ninebiological children, 11 children
total, but we have shown throughDNA that there are no other

(21:43):
children.
We've had the Joseph Smithpapers open up online where we
are seeing things that we havenever seen before, that were
never part of this discussion.
I say often, it's very easy tobelieve someone's guilty when
you've only heard theprosecution, right?
We are getting in and diggingout sources and people are
learning things that they neverknew before.
So this combination of factorshas given us all a whole new

(22:09):
landscape that we hadn't seen.
And the case Most people whojust have read the histories,
they've read Richard Bushman,they've read D.
Michael Quinn, they've justassumed they're the experts and
they know that this is settledand this is ridiculous.
And I understand thatperspective, but the people that
are really digging into it,including the historians, some
of whom I'm working closelywith, the more they dig into it,

(22:29):
they realize this is not what Ithought.
I thought we had such a strongcase.
I thought this was settled andthey are realizing otherwise.
Holy cow, this is not settled atall.
There is far less evidence forJoseph's polygamy than I assumed
that there was.
And there is far more evidenceagainst it.
Most of them aren't ready tochange their perspective on it.

(22:50):
But more and more are realizingthat there is absolutely a
discussion to be had.
And that's what I'm trying to dois say we need to have this
discussion because...
The case for Joseph's polygamyis not nearly as strong as it
should be.
Everybody needs to engage sothat all sides can separate the
wheat from the chaff.
We can learn what are the goodsources, what are the good
arguments, and what are the weaksources and the weak arguments.

SPEAKER_01 (23:14):
Well, I want to bring Ian in on this because I'm
very interested, Ian, you know,you are no longer in the church,
and I don't know how much thisissue animates you or has
anything to do with it, but...
As Michelle's talking about allof this, what does this do to
you?
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (23:34):
Michelle, I bring a very different perspective, I
think, to this conversation.
I joined the Church of Sixteenin England.
And, you know, went on amission, came on, got a seal in
the temple, served as a bishop,served on a state presidency,
you know, did a lot of research,spent some time actually over
the years studying polygamy andnot to the amount of 60 or 70

(23:57):
hours, I must add.
That's like a full-time job.
But I was always fascinated inpolygamy because it was from
a...
non-member Church of England, nohistory or relationship with the
church whatsoever, and observingthe missionaries trapped in the

(24:17):
neighborhoods where I wasgrowing up and seeing them as
strange, cultish figures, andhearing stories about polygamy,
that they were trying topersuade English girls to go to
Salt Lake through these tunnels,And at the end, these women or

(24:37):
girls would have to...
Where did the Tuttle thing comefrom?
Yeah, this is all across the UKand probably all around the
world.
But there are strange mysteriesthat these Mormon mysteries
would take people, not kidnapthem necessarily, but would
brainwash them.
I think actually this is what alot of the Brits think...

(25:00):
a lot of people still think thisand feel this, that there's some
brainwashing involved and thatback in the 80s when I joined
the church, that there was aneffort by the church to bring
girls, women over to encouragethem and persuade them to enter
into polygamous marriages.
So the polygamy was the thingthat everyone knew about the

(25:23):
Mormon church.
So soon you mentioned Mormonchurch in the UK, England,
Scotland, whatever, and you sawthis on your mission, Jim, a
lot, I'm sure.
Polygamy was the number onething.
And the church did studies inthe UK and across Europe, and
probably across the world, andfound that polygamy was one of
the biggest barriers, limiters,constraints, why people didn't
want to join the church.

(25:43):
Because polygamy is seen as avery strange, odd practice,
notwithstanding it has some ofits origins in the Bible, of
course.
And I think you mentioned thaton your blog I've been reading
earlier.
So, you know, this is anoutside...
church world perspectivepolygamy I think it's been a

(26:03):
huge topic and issue and stillattracts significant interest
from all kinds of people in andoutside of the church it's very
strange I know when Elder Oakshe set me apart on the state
presidency and a question Iwanted to ask him and I didn't
get the chance but I would haveasked him this is you know Elder

(26:27):
Oaks is sealed to two women so Iknow we you know the church for
political reasons backhistorically again I'm not an
expert here came under pressureto start practicing polygamy it
then issued the manifesto thechurch still practiced it for a

(26:48):
period of time and that's myunderstanding from the essays
but at some point it became anofficial position that it
doesn't no longer practicepolygamy.
Notwithstanding, when you go tothe temple, even now, you can
actually be sealed to two ormore women.
You can't do it in the reverse.

(27:09):
And so a question I wanted toask Elder Oaks is, you know, and
this is my understanding fromspeaking with general
authorities, that the churchstill privately, personally,
believes in the principle andpractice of polygamy, albeit it
can't practice it on on theearth today for legal reasons,
but in the eternities, that'spart of the requirement to

(27:33):
achieve eternal life with God.
That's a principle that we haveto follow.
Personally, I always, I thoughtit was, I didn't take it
seriously.
The people I grew up with whowere in the church, when I
joined the church, didn't takeit seriously.
We always said, you know, whenyou die, and if that polygamy

(27:55):
happens, principle and practiceis required.
Our minds will be differently.
We'll think differently.
We'll feel different.
This was the default response tothe questions of polygamy in
seminary or institute or anytime it came up.
Look, God's mind is not ourmind.
His laws are higher than ours.

(28:15):
When we die, we'll think likehim.
We'll feel like him.
It won't be an issue.
I was never interested inpolygamy.
The idea of having um loads ofwives just didn't appeal to me
and i won't get into into why itjust sounds very expensive to me
as well um and and i just youknow i i'm trying to you know

(28:38):
coordinate a relationship withwith one albeit successfully and
i'm quite happy to be you knowmarried in a you know a regular
uh marriage non-polygamy i justif i had the choice of um you
know, in the afterlife of nothaving polygamy, I wouldn't be
interested in polygamy.
But I was always fascinated inthe principle of the temple

(28:58):
where you can be sealed to morethan one woman and more than one
wife.
And they still practice thattoday.
I guess to James' question, somequestions that come to my mind,
Michelle, is What's driving youto have these conversations?
You spend all this time, clearlyvery passionate.
You've delved into the details.

(29:19):
You talk about deep dives onyour website.
What's behind it?
Are you trying to, is it adoctrinal thing?
Is it something that can helpyou reconcile your faith?
Do you think the church hascompletely made a mistake in
coming out and accepting?
I think they've accepted.
I think the official churchposition is that the church has

(29:40):
accepted that Joseph Smith didpractice polygamy.
I've read somewhere on theessays that he had 33 wives, or
32 wives.
So my questions are, if you can,is what's driving you in your
research?
What are you trying to achieve?
What are your objectives?

(30:01):
How do you reconcile yourfindings and your research with
the church's official position?
And what are your thoughts aboutworthy priesthood men being able
to be sealed in today, in 2024,be sealed to more than one
woman?
So there's three questions thatcome to my mind.
I'd love to get your responses.

SPEAKER_00 (30:22):
Those are great questions, and that's a lot, so
I'm going to do my best.
Remind me if I don't cover allof them adequately, because I
have so much to say, so much inmy mind.
First of all, the churches...
Polygamy is just an awful messfor the church.
Terrible, terrible mess, right?
Just as you said, it's a blackeye and has been for a very long

(30:42):
time for the church.
And it's left the church withthis mess to try to clean up.
And there's no good way to cleanit up right now.
And I think in the way that thechurch is approaching it, right?
And so we are left with thisstatement.
The statement of the churchright now is monogamy is the
rule, but polygamy is theexception, right?
And that is...

(31:03):
I just, I, for so many reasons,think that that's a terrible
statement to stance to take.
First of all, it like the bestthing the church has going for
it in regard to polygamy is theignorance of the people.
We just don't know the history.
We don't know the scriptures.
So we are able to believe thingslike that.
That statement cannot besupported scripturally at all.

(31:24):
It's based on a very bad, likeresting of one verse of Jacob
chapter two, which takes itcompletely out of context,
right?
And we could get into that.
And also it is extremelydamaging to women when we do
start digging in and do startunderstanding this.
And so, yes, the idea that mencan be sealed to two women.

(31:44):
Like the church is, I mean, youknow, sort of has one foot in
polygamy and one foot out ofpolygamy, right?
And like Elder Cook has said,the highest councils of the
church believe it has served itspurpose.
It's not going to come backagain.
But then we get statements withPresident Nelson is the first
one for a long time who haseither paraphrased or referred
to or actually quoted verses ofsection 132 that Previous

(32:07):
prophets for many decades havenot approached with a 10-foot
pole.
So our current leadership seemsto be a little bit more in favor
of eternal polygamy than ourpast leaders have been.
And I guess we have yet to seewhere it goes.
I think it just depends on theperspective of whoever the
current leader is, is what we'veseen.
So I do think that the churchhas a big problem with polygamy.

(32:29):
And I think that in general, thebest way through these things is
with Transparency andtruthfulness and letting go of
false traditions.
I don't want to be offensive inany way, but I think one of the
horrible things that hashappened in the church is our
temple ban, our history ofracism, right?

(32:51):
And if the church were stillsaying things like, well...
Full inclusion of all races isthe rule, but racism is the
exception.
And if God ever wants us toexclude a certain race from the
temple, he'll tell us to dothat.
And that's in God's, and we justcan't worry about what that
would mean for people, right?
And saying, well, the reasonthat existed is because people
were fence sitters in heaven.

(33:11):
They were less valued.
Like we have these really,really bad ideas of man.
And then we blame them on God,and then we try to justify them.
And I think that that is a verydestructive approach to take.
And as a woman, it is offensiveto me that we are willing to say

(33:32):
the things that Brigham Youngsaid about certain races were
deplorable.
We mourn over those statements.
We condemn them and disavowthem.
And we wish they hadn't happenedand they were wrong.
We haven't said it in thoseclear of terms, but yes, Carl
Reeves' book has been publishedby Deseret Book.
Let's talk about race andpriesthood, right?

(33:52):
I know that Jim brought that upyesterday.
We're willing to say that.
And yet when it comes to women,the things that Brigham Young
said about women put the thingsthat he said about other races
to shame.
We have a huge catalog ofextremely destructive,
deplorable things said aboutwomen Or we're not willing to

(34:13):
make those same statements.
And while we have, in many ways,I don't think we're fully there
yet.
I've had conversations withmembers of the Church of African
Descent, and there still is adifficulty.
Like, I mourn over the fact thathere the church was in Utah
during the Civil War in America.
The church could have been thisbig.
the city on a hill, this candleon a hill of inclusion.

(34:38):
And I think it's a tragedy thatwe don't have the descendants of
James, children, and all ofthese amazing saints that we
had, right?
I think it's a tragedy.
I am glad that we no longer holdto those statements.
I think it is deplorable thatthe church has not in any
similar way, integrated withwomen and overcome the bad

(35:02):
statements and the bans onwomen.
We are so ignorant of ourhistory and we haven't dealt
with it in ways that we need to.
And so we continue on with...
We

SPEAKER_02 (35:19):
have some connection issues, Jim, I think.

SPEAKER_01 (35:21):
Yeah, this happened yesterday.

SPEAKER_00 (35:23):
Yeah.
Oh, oh, go ahead.
Sorry.
I guess we're losing each other.

SPEAKER_01 (35:27):
We lost you again.

SPEAKER_00 (35:29):
Oh.

SPEAKER_02 (35:30):
No, you were saying it does injustice towards women
if we don't understand andacknowledge, you know, the
historical statements withwomen, like Brigham Young, and
you got a little bitdisconnected.
But you were talking about, Ithink you're trying to answer
the question, what's drivingyou, you know, to, I think
you're trying to, Bring thatjustice to women.

(35:52):
And you're saying that we'reignorant of some of the
historical facts.
We just don't know enough.
And we need to talk about this.

SPEAKER_00 (36:02):
Yes, yes.
I do think that it keeps womenin a position of uncertainty in
their relationship with God,right?
How does God view me?
If I read Jacob chapters 2 and3, then I as a woman see that
God cares about my feelings, myexperience, what my heart yearns

(36:23):
for.
If I read section 132, I seethat God views me as property,
as virgins to be givenwilly-nilly to men with no
regard to my views and withthreats that I'll be destroyed
if I don't just comply withwhatever my husband wants to do.
When I look at how the churchtreats Emma Smith, still based

(36:45):
on these terrible statementsmade by early church leaders,
for me, I explained this to Jima automatically because of
experiences that I'd had andwhen I was losing children in
those incredibly tragic years.

(37:05):
This might sound strange topeople, but truly like somehow,
this was before I had started myhistorical research, but Emma
Smith got me through that.
Like repeatedly, I would justhave this overwhelming feeling
of Emma made it, I can too.
You know, I just developed areal closeness and appreciation

(37:27):
and sort of awe for thesacrifices and the toughness and
the faith of Emma Smith.
And she really became importantto me.
So as I started to dive into theresearch, it was actually
studying Emma Smith, studyingher life, studying all of the
things that were said about herduring her life compared to the

(37:48):
polygamous narrative of her.
That was the thing that actuallyconvinced me this is not true.
These are not true statements.
These are lies.
And if they're lies about Emma,There are also lies about
Joseph, right?
And I started to study it fromthat perspective.
So I automatically center EmmaSmith in my perspective on this

(38:11):
topic when I look at polygamy.
And we have stories that say Godsent an angel with a drawn sword
that threatened to kill JosephSmith if he didn't betray his
wife.
I'm sorry.
I mean, it makes me want toswear like a bull crap.
no that is not who god is rightand so jim and i discussed the
ces letter yesterday right sothat's why the ces letter is

(38:34):
effective because okay i canbelieve that a man claiming to
be a prophet might tell his wifethat but i will not believe that
god did that and in the ldschurch our stance is still that
god did that god sends angelswith swords threatening prophets
that they will be beheaded ifthey don't betray their wives
What is that?
How are we supposed to believethat, right?

(38:55):
And so for me, as a person offaith, when I look at the Book
of Mormon and I read that in 3Nephi chapter 26, it tells us
that we will receive thisportion first and it is to our
condemnation if we don't receivemore.
If we believe what we've beengiven, then we will receive
more.
Or every doctrine comes...

(39:16):
When I read Doctrine andCovenants 84, that tells us that
we are under condemnation fortaking lightly the things that
we have received, namely theBook of Mormon.
And when I recognize that theBook of Mormon, bar none, is the
most anti-polygamy book ofscripture that we have in the
entire canon, it has a lot tosay about polygamy, and it

(39:36):
leaves no question.
We go from opening chapters,which have Lehi.
If we get into the scriptures, Ican show you that polygamy is
that one of the main reasons heleft Jerusalem and one of the
main reasons that Jerusalem wasthreatened with destruction.
That is in there.
He was told to raise up seed inthe covenant.
The Lord was supposed to raiseup seed and God said, I will, I

(39:57):
cannot raise up a seed withpeople who don't honor my
covenant of marriage.
Then we go to, um, In Noah, itsays he did not do that which
was right in the sight of God,for he had many wives and
concubines, right?
We go to Replichish, who did notdo that which was right in the
sight of God, for he had manywives and concubines.

(40:17):
But out of the blue, we have ascripture that starts out
talking about the doctrine ofhaving many wives and
concubines.
That is what verse 1 of section132 says, and that's what it
calls it.
right how do we reconcile theseand so then when people get in
and learn things i'm just goingto go on a little bit of a side
track but We don't know any ofour history.

(40:38):
We don't know that in theoriginal Doctrine and Covenants
that was published in 1835 andagain in 1844, we had a
statement on marriage that wasput in by the leaders of the
church.
Joseph Smith was the head of thecommittee that was creating, you
know, what's the word, editing,I guess, putting together the
Doctrine and Covenants.
That section was universallyvoted on.

(41:00):
It had common consent.
Every organization of the churchvoted on it.
It was called the Statement onMarriage, and it absolutely
Absolutely condemns, denies, anddecries polygamy.
It says that in this church, wesay that one man shall have one
wife and one woman, but onehusband, except in the case of
death when either is at libertyto marry again.
That was section 101 in the 1835Doctrine and Covenants, included

(41:23):
as 109 in the 1844 Doctrine andCovenants.
Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.
So throughout his lifetime, thatis what he included in the
scriptures.
five years after the saints hadcome to Utah, eight years after
Joseph Smith's death, that forthe very first time, Brigham

(41:43):
Young pulled Section 132 out ofhis desk and said, I've had this
here.
Nobody's known about it.
Nobody knew it existed, but I'vehad it.
We also have so many sourcesshowing us how Brigham Young and
his team of historians werealtering documents, getting rid
of documents, changing thehistory.
That is very easily provable.

(42:05):
I could show you that that washappening.
And then it wasn't until 1876,the year before Brigham Young
died, that Section 132 was firstadded to the Doctrine and
Covenants and Section 101 wasremoved.
Right.
And that most people don't knowthat.
And so so we think of this aslike scripture.
You can't talk about scripture,say that this canonized

(42:26):
scripture shouldn't be this way.
Right.
Even if even if people want tobelieve that section 132 did
come from Joseph Smith, which II think is absolutely ridiculous
as I have delved into that.
He intentionally never publishedit.
He didn't include it in the 1844Doctrine and Covenants, right?
We can't claim that he wanted itpublished and canonized.

(42:49):
So even on that alone, we couldsay, should we really have
canonized scriptures that claimthat the doctrine of having many
wives and concubines is of God,that claims that women are
property to be given willy-nillyas rewards for men, and that
threatens women with destructionif they won't get on board with

(43:10):
their men's infidelity, right?
Do we really want that canonizedin our scripture?
So I guess what drives me isthis genuine belief in the Book
of Mormon.
I believe what it says.
I think it's important for us.
I think it is profound that theBook of Mormon has so much to
say about polygamy when we claimthat it's written for our day,
and it calls it an abomination.

(43:31):
And so I feel like we're walkingaround carrying our little pet
abomination in our own backpocket while decrying what we
see as abomination in the restof the world.
And I see so many areas where wedesperately need further light
and knowledge.
We are in so much need of moretruth to be revealed.
And I don't know how we can getit when we won't accept the
truth that we've been given.

SPEAKER_01 (43:52):
Your passion comes across very strongly.
You are a very fierce advocatefor your position.
And I don't think it's possiblenot to respect that.
And I'm grateful for that.
I went and saw a movie lastnight.
Ian and I have talked aboutdoing a podcast on this movie.

(44:13):
It's the new one out with HughGrant.
It's the movie Heretic.

SPEAKER_00 (44:19):
I haven't seen it.

SPEAKER_01 (44:21):
Well, I believe, and Ian, you're seeing it today,
aren't you?

SPEAKER_02 (44:26):
I'm seeing it tonight, yes.

SPEAKER_01 (44:27):
You haven't seen it yet?

SPEAKER_02 (44:29):
I'll see it tonight.

SPEAKER_01 (44:30):
I think in some ways it is the...
finest depiction of latter-daysaints on film that i have ever
seen because these are it's notthat these people are perfect
but they they are very muchrecognizable as latter-day
saints the two sistermissionaries and i don't like

(44:51):
horror movies that much and itgot really kind of gory near the
end and so there's kind ofissues there but they had this
big lengthy discussion aboutpolygamy and uh the sister
missionaries were essentiallymaking the arguments that you're
decrying, this idea that it wasnecessary, that monogamy is the

(45:14):
rule, but polygamy is theexception.
I don't think they said thatspecifically, but they did say
that polygamy was necessary inorder to raise up seed and to
have lots of children, and I'mgoing to agree with you, I
think, here, that the data showsthat that is not the case, that
polygamy did not actuallyincrease the population.

(45:36):
So people sort of look at thatJacob chapter two escape clause
as a reason to say, well, here'swhen polygamy is okay, because
when we need to raise up seed,uh, the, the historical data
does not bear that out.
But, um, Hugh Grant, uh, the,the, the bad guy, um, says,

(45:56):
look, initially he's verypleasant with the sister
missionaries and is talking tothem about how wonderful it is
that they believe and isn't itnice and I'm looking for faith.
And then he says, can I ask youan awkward question?
And the question is, what do youthink about polygamy?
And that's the beginning of sortof the deep dive into the darker

(46:20):
parts of where the movie goes,right?
But the thing that he raises ishe says, Joseph Smith was caught
with Fanny Alger.
He says Fanny Alger's name.
I've always thought it wasAlger.
It

SPEAKER_00 (46:35):
is.
Lindsay Hudson Park startedsaying Alger, so now we say
Alger.
John Bradley talked to somedescendants that say it's Alger.
I've talked to other descendantswho say it's Alger.
The correct phoneticpronunciation is Alger.
So I stick with Alger.

SPEAKER_01 (46:51):
Well, so I have not reviewed all of your material.
And yesterday you asked me, whatis the strongest evidence you
have that Joseph Smith is apolygamist?
And I didn't answer because I'mnot really invested in that
question in the same way youare.
And so I wasn't trying to provemy point.
But after watching that, I went,I would very much like to hear

(47:14):
Michelle's take on Fannie AlgerAlger, because whether or not
Joseph was a polygamist, I thinkthe historical record is very
clear that whatever relationshiphe had with Fanny was enough to
drive Oliver Cowdery out of thechurch.

(47:35):
We have Oliver Cowdery'sstatement about the dirty,
nasty, filthy scrape or affair,depending on which version of
the document you're looking at.
But my understanding of thatevent is that Oliver was
troubled by it, considered itadultery, was called before a

(47:55):
church court to discuss it, andJoseph Smith didn't deny the
relationship, but he deniedadultery.
I'm getting this from RichardBushman, warmed over, so I'm
probably getting the detailswrong.
But certainly there's some kindof relationship between Joseph

(48:18):
and Fanny that That if it's nota polygamous relationship, it's
an adulterous relationship or isit something else?
So that to me is, I've got tofind a way to reconcile that.
And I'd be very interested tohear your perspective.

SPEAKER_00 (48:38):
Sure.
And this is something I wouldlove to get into the documents
on because when I just talkabout it, it might sound
ridiculous.
What's better is when we getinto the documents.
Can I first take a tiny littlesidetrack?
and respond to the raise up seedcomment and then come back to
Fanny Alger.
So this is one thing that Ithink is really important.
It's not merely that.
So all of the excuses that weuse to justify polygamy have

(48:59):
fallen by the wayside, right?
It is needed to take care ofwidows.
Well, no, because there weremore men than women in Utah.
They weren't marrying thewidows.
They were marrying the littlegirls, the teenage girls,
particularly those whose fathershad died.
Also, you don't need to marry awidow to take care of her.
If you tell a widow she has tomarry you in order to have food
and shelter, that'sprostitution, right?

(49:21):
We also have a perfect exampleof King Limhi taking care of
widows by just asking the men toprovide for more in the Book of
Mormon, not by marrying them.
So that's one excuse.
Another is we needed morechildren born.
It's been shown that actuallyfewer children are born.
But also, just I wanted to pointout in that escape clause, if
you go to 1 Nephi 7, when Lehitells his sons to go back to get

(49:43):
Ishmael and the girls and hisdaughters, right?
And it says that he should nottake his family into the
wilderness alone, but that hissons should take daughters to
wife that they might raise upseed unto the Lord in the land
of promise.
Lehi and his descendants weredirectly commanded to raise up
seed.
So we can't keep saying that atsome other time when God will
command people to raise up seed,he'll command polygamy.

(50:06):
We have every time God hascommanded polygamy, people to
multiply and replenish.
And every new beginning, it wasdone in God's perfect
establishment of monogamy.
Adam and Eve, right?
Noah and his wife and all of hissons.
And there were eight souls onthe ark.
Each of Noah's three sons hadone wife.
Each of the animals were one andone.
It wasn't one male and sevenfemales to repopulate the earth,

(50:28):
right?
Then we have Sariah and Lehi,their sons with one wife each.
You can read through and seethat the numbers are perfect.
So this is like an amazing jobof resting the scriptures that
the early polygamists did.
We also have Hiram Smith onrecord Levi Richards recorded a
sermon that Hironsmith gave whenhe said that Jacob, the sermon

(50:49):
of Jacob is to be seen as aperpetual principle.
And he says, if an angel were toappear to you and teach you
polygamy, you would be sure tosee his cloven foot and the
cloud of blackness becausepeople were going around saying
that, you know, there werepeople, there were underground
polygamists in Nauvoo.
The only difference betweenpeople who claim that Joseph was
a polygamist, they claimed thatthere were underground

(51:10):
polygamists in Nauvoo and it wasbeing kept a secret and Joseph
was in on it.
And the big difference is Ithink actually polygamy was
being kept a secret from JosephSmith in Nauvoo, not that Joseph
was part of it.
And you can see that by the factthat there were hardly any
polygamous marriages duringJoseph's lifetime other than
those that we claim.
And any claims for marriagesdon't start until like 1869, way

(51:32):
after the fact.
But as soon as Joseph dies...
polygamy goes crazy in Nauvooand there start to be so many
polygamous wives taken and somany babies born.
So that's, I know that's alittle bit of a sidetrack, but
these are some of the thingsthat I think are important to
get into.
So Fanny Alger was actually astruggle for me in this, in
every way.
How do we make sense of this,right?

(51:52):
Is it an affair?
Is it a polygamous child?
wife.
How do we make sense of it beinga polygamous wife when polygamy
hadn't been revealed yet?
Then we have to go to theseother terrible sources.
So it's a problem for everybody,except the anti-Mormons or the
non-Mormons, the people who haveleft the church, who are just
like, Joseph Smith was a con manand a womanizer, and he was

(52:13):
always sleeping with thebabysitter.

SPEAKER_01 (52:17):
Oh, shoot.
We've lost you again.
Yeah, yesterday, it went out,her phone...

SPEAKER_00 (52:25):
When

SPEAKER_01 (52:25):
I...
Oh, sorry.
You were about to say sleepingwith the babysitter and then you
froze.

SPEAKER_00 (52:31):
Oh, darn it.
Yeah.
Well, so anyway, the post-Mormonposition is the one that's the
most easily explained in theFanny Alger affair.
So how do we make sense of whatshe was, right?
Was she a wife?
Was she an affair?
Was she whatever?
And so when I really dug intothe documents on that, I can
share a couple of differentexperiences.

(52:52):
One challenge I have, I'mhesitant to share insights I
have, One challenge I have isit's so easy for people to view
me as someone who just is actingout of motivated reasoning
because I just desperately needJoseph Smith to be a good guy
and I have him on a pedestal.
So I need to make that makesense.
And I just...
That annoys me so much.

(53:14):
I'm so frustrated by that.
I feel the same way about thatas I do about people saying
about people who leave thechurch that they just did it
because they wanted to sin andthey just never had a testimony
to begin with.
We make up stories about peopleso that we don't have to
actually see them as people andengage with them, right?
So I guess I'm requesting peopleto please do me the honor of not

(53:36):
telling me that that's who I am,when I know that that's not who
I am, right?
But I will say that before I...
History is overwhelming, and thethought of digging into the
history just overwhelmed me whenI was, you know, when I
considered...
studying out Joseph Smith andthis question before I had
decided one way or the other.

(53:57):
And I'll share this experienceand then I'll share a little bit
of the historical record becausethis was the order it came in
for me.
I was reading a book thatsomeone sent me that was, it's
Whitney Horning's book calledJoseph Smith Revealed.
And she wrote a book sayingJoseph wasn't a polygamist,
right?
And I was very skeptical of thatidea.
So I started reading it.

(54:17):
There were things that I reallyappreciated.
There were other things that Ididn't agree with as I read it,
but I got to her Fanny Algersection and it just bothered me
again.
That story has always botheredme, right?
Like, how do I make sense ofthis?
And so I was actually on anairplane.
I was flying and I just set thebook down because none of it was

(54:38):
making sense to me.
And I just prayed and I said,Lord, will you help me
understand what happened withFanny Alger?
You know, like, can you show me?
And this is kind of how I work.
So I'm going to share this atthe risk of being totally
dismissed by people.
But I want to continue on, like,listen to a little bit more of
it.
Anyway, when I prayed that,immediately a scene from my

(55:00):
freshman year of college that Ididn't even know I remembered
came right to mind.
And Jim and I talked about ityesterday.
We were both in theater.
I was a music dance theatermajor at BYU.
And I was in a musical myfreshman year.
And there were four girls.
We were working on a dancenumber.
And we had a pianist who was aguy.
And we were going over thevocals after our rehearsals.

(55:22):
We were all gathered around thepiano.
And being freshmen in college,we were all kind of flirty, I
guess.
One of the girls was giving thepianist a back rub.
The rest of us were therelaughing and giggling.
And all of a sudden, it was notanything other than just you
know, like it was innocentflirtation, but all of a sudden
that pianist sat up straight,lifted the girl's hands off of

(55:43):
his back, walked up and turnedwhite, walked, stood up and
walked toward the door and hiswife had come in.
And so his wife had walked inand he kind of realized I'm
having this flirting.
You know, these girls are allflirting with me.
And so, and I remember my heartsinking and just being like, oh
no, I hope that's okay.

(56:03):
You know, it was really a goodlesson to me of like, oh, I need
to be more aware of, you know,the situation.
Anyway, that came right to mymind.
And I had not even rememberedthat event.
And so it gave me an opening ofa way to possibly think about
Fanny.
Like I just had this, I'm notsaying this is what happened
with Fanny.

(56:23):
I'm saying this is what I feelthe Lord brought to my mind to
give me an opening of a way tothink about Fanny.
And what kind of I envisioned isthe possibility that, like we do
know some things about Fanny.
She was very attractive.
She was very outgoing.
She was very flirtatious.
Right.
And so if she was flirting withJoseph, Emma saw that and was
upset by it, just like thehusband, you know, even though,

(56:46):
and that, and that, um, youknow, and then, and, and so, so
just that possibility.
And then what was fascinating isas I dug into the historical
record, that is the bestexplanation I can find based on
the entire historical record.
And I can give you a couple ofexamples about it.
I won't go into the whole, intothe entire theme.

(57:08):
But yes, it is true that theFannie Alger situation came up
in front of the Kirtland HighCouncil, right?
This was in Kirtland before theyhad gone to Nauvoo.
And it was brought up by OliverCowdery.
But Oliver Cowdery wrote anextensive letter to the Kirtland
High Council about all of hisallegations about Joseph Smith.
He doesn't say anything aboutFannie Alger.

(57:29):
That is not one of his mainissues.
It was brought up in the highcouncil discussion, but Joseph
Smith explained it adequately toease all of those high
councilman's concerns to thepoint that they just described
it as the girl business, whichto me could mean this little

(57:52):
girl business thing thathappened that was not a big
concern.
It's important to recognize someof the people who were in that
high council meeting, includingThomas B.
Marsh, for example, and severalothers who left the church not
soon after that, who weremotivated and were doing
everything they could tobadmouth Joseph Smith, right?

(58:12):
Thomas B.
Marsh admitted that he spreadseveral lies about Joseph Smith.
Oh my goodness, if there hadbeen adultery in there, isn't
that one of the things theywould have accused Joseph Smith
of?
And none of them did.
And so we can go into the entirehistory of all of the
documentation of that.
It's not good documentation, butit shows very clearly that there

(58:34):
is almost nothing here.
The actual clear stories ofFanny Smith come from Mosiah
Hancock, Levi Hancock, and thenMosiah Hancock, like decades
later, building on previousclaims.
You just see that thedocumentation is extremely poor.
And while I get annoyed whenpeople accuse me of motivated

(58:56):
reasoning, what I see actuallyis a lot of motivated reasoning
on all of the other sides, thepeople that won't engage with
me.
The LDS church under BrighamYoung was extremely motivated to
claim that Joseph Smith was apolygamist.
They're absolutely...
Their credibility, theirvalidity as the church, the
successors of Joseph Smithdepended on it, right?

(59:20):
And then we go to today wherethe LDS church is still
motivated to say, the prophetscould never lead us astray.
Our churches just didn't doanything wrong.
They still need to claim thatBrigham Young was right.
And so Joseph was a polygamist.
And then for many, many peoplewho have left the church, that
is such a traumatic, hugeprocess for many people to go

(59:40):
through a faith crisis, to leavethe church.
the last thing they want to dois say, oh, would Joseph Smith
maybe not have been actually theperson I thought that he was,
right?
And I'm not asking anyone tocome back to the church.
I'm not doing any kind ofevangelizing of that sort.
I don't have an end goal ofwhere I want people to be or

(01:00:01):
what I want people to believe.
I just want us to look honestlyat the documentation and have
the rigorous conversations thatneed to be had without the
motivated reasoning I seeeverywhere.
Because for so many of thepeople that are also now
fighting against the church, themain thing that they absolutely
need is to claim that JosephSmith was a polygamist.
It's one of the biggest thingsthat we have to say Joseph Smith

(01:00:22):
was a bad guy.
And I think it's a shame thatthe big podcasters in the post
LDS space won't have me onbecause, you know, as, as
someone has said, we can't letthis get any oxygen, right?
They're, they're not willing toengage in these honest
discussions because of theirmotivated reasoning.
So I don't know if that helpswith your Fannie Alger

(01:00:42):
discussion.
I would love to get into thedocumentation because I think
it's interesting to see how, howweak those, um, the
documentation actually is andhow it's not a good fit at all
to claim she's a plural wife.
The documents do not show that,and the documents do not show
that it was an affair.
The best explanation actuallyturns out to be the one that my

(01:01:04):
mind opened up to, that therewas some flirtation, rather
innocent flirtation, but thatwas inappropriate and was
explained to completely satisfythe counselors that maybe Oliver
Cowdery misunderstood.

SPEAKER_02 (01:01:19):
There's a huge disconnect in this conversation
and what I understand what thechurch's position.
And I think that's where yourwork is focused.
You know, there's historical andseemingly factual disconnect.
You've got this, you've madethis claim that Joe Smith wasn't
a polygamist.
The church has, I think foryears, agreed with you.

(01:01:42):
I think it's taught or suggestedthat Joe Smith wasn't a
polygamist.
That's what I understand.
understood investigating thechurch and during my early years
in the church didn't know oreven heard actually that Joseph
Smith was a polygamist.
I understand that happened fromBrigham Young going forward.
Churches now, for a number ofreasons now, come to the

(01:02:05):
position that officially thechurch states that Joseph Smith
was a polygamist.
In fact, there is some of thework that the churches...

SPEAKER_01 (01:02:15):
You glitched out there, Ian.
The church has stated...

SPEAKER_02 (01:02:19):
Yeah, so historically, the church has had
a position that Joseph Smith, atleast I was taught that Joseph
Smith, when I was younger in thechurch and investigating the
church and in my early years inthe church, that Joseph Smith
didn't practice polygamy.

(01:02:40):
And now, for different reasons,other facts came to the service
and the church positioned nowthat Joseph Smith did in fact
practice polygamy.
How familiar are you with thework of Brian C.
Hales?
I've got an article of his whichis titled, Encouraging Joe Smith
to Practice Plural Marriage, theAccounts.

(01:03:01):
Apparently there are severalaccounts, Jim, of the angel and
the drawn sword.
And Brian Hales says here thatin this historical document,
which I think the churchpublished, accepts, or in part,
he says that the historicalrecord indicates that Joseph
Smith contracted his firstplural marriage in 1835 or in
1836 in Kirtland, Ohio withFanny Alger.

(01:03:23):
He says, upon learning of thisrelationship, his legal wife,
Emma, and a close friend ofOliver Cowdery rejected it,
considering it adulterous.
We've just got into some ofthat.
So the church position orteachings were that Joseph Smith
wasn't a polygamist.
It now states clearly thatJoseph Smith was a polygamist.

(01:03:45):
You're saying he wasn't.
You're saying that the historysuggests that otherwise.
The two questions that come tomind is what, just as a comment
here, it appears that JosephSmith had an affair with Fanny
Alger and to cover it up, gottogether with some of the

(01:04:05):
brethren and said, look, he'shad a sexual relationship with
Fanny Alger.
She's...
How old is she at this point?
Is she 14?
She's 16.
No.
Well,

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:16):
we don't...
You can't say because we don'tknow what year it happened,
right?
Dating it is very challenging.

SPEAKER_02 (01:04:22):
Okay.
I've heard 14.
I've heard 16.
And Jo Smith...
She

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:25):
wasn't 14.
She was at least 16 based on thedating I've seen.
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (01:04:29):
And Jo Smith...
Maybe 18.
How old is it at this stage, JoSmith?
How old is he?

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:33):
Oh, way too old.
In his 30s at that point.

SPEAKER_02 (01:04:36):
And they're old.
So for lots of reasons, youknow, having an affair...
adulterous relationship, whichis what I've just quoted there
from Brian C.
Hales, the position of theprophet, perhaps, and I'm just
kind of making this up, in orderfor this to look as, be a bit
more acceptable than it reallywas, there was this notion that,
you know, he had a spiritualconnection relationship with her

(01:05:00):
and it was sacred and it wassome form or version of polygamy
in order for it to be acceptableperhaps that's what really
happened but my question is withthis big disconnect where the
church has been quiet at bestnow still quiet on the subject
of polygamy and quiet and what'sthis thing to go away i agree
from what you said earlierpolygamy has been a major

(01:05:20):
problem for the church a majorprobably the biggest problem
That, I think, can race in thepriesthood, right?
They're the two, in myexperience, the two big
challenges that the church stillhasn't...
understood hasn't characterizedproperly hasn't addressed and
would love for these issues togo away so but it now accepts
and teaches and positions thatJoseph was a polygamist he

(01:05:43):
doesn't want to talk about itanymore he's saying look you
know in the essays in thearticles he was a polygamist
it's done now it was what it wasit was back then etc etc it was
a different time and and wedon't practice polygamy anymore
we don't teach it but then as Imentioned earlier uh Elder Oaks
has two wives.
He's sealed two wives.
And that's something you didn'taddress when I asked earlier, if

(01:06:06):
you don't mind.
So my questions are, what wasdriving the church to bring him
to introduce polygamy?
Did I characterize thatrelationship, that incident that
happened with Fanny Algercorrectly or not?
And what's your position on thechurch's position that it still

(01:06:29):
teaches in some ways or in someway and practices the principle
and practice of polygamy in thetemple, where a man can go to
the temple and be sealed to twowives.

SPEAKER_01 (01:06:39):
I want to interject very quickly before I let you go
wild here, Michelle, because Iknow you are familiar with the
work of Brian Hales.

UNKNOWN (01:06:49):
Yes.

SPEAKER_01 (01:06:50):
for one game.
I am.
But the one point of order Iwant to establish here is, where
did those balloons come from?
The one point of order I want toestablish here is that I do not
think there was ever a time whenthe church did not teach that

(01:07:10):
Joseph Smith was a polygamist.
Unless you want to count thetime that Joseph Smith was
alive.
I mean, since Brigham Young Idon't know that there's ever
been a time, because I grew upin the church and I can't
remember a time when I didn'tknow Joseph Smith was a
polygamist.
I think that's unusual becausethat's not discussed in a lot of

(01:07:33):
families and a lot ofcircumstances, but it was
discussed in mine.
And if you, section 132 has beenin print.
Yeah.
since, uh, I guess it's 1870when it was added to the
Doctrine and Covenants, but it'sbeen in print since then.
And, and it's very clear thatthe position of the church in

(01:07:53):
section 132 is that this is arevelation that was given to
Joseph Smith and thereforeJoseph Smith was in fact a
polygamist.
So, I mean, so I, I think thatit's important to note that and,
and Either or of you guys arewelcome to push back on that,
but I just wanted to jump inbefore, Michelle.
I let you loose to answer Ian'squestions.

SPEAKER_00 (01:08:16):
When I respond, well, I'll do my best to respond
quickly to each of these things.
I will say, I think that there'sa difference between being a
Utah Mormon descendant ofpolygamists, right, and having
the perspective that we have.
And I know that the missionariesfor a long time did not teach
people, did not teach peoplethat Joseph Smith was a
polygamist.
And I know that the termanti-Mormon lies has been

(01:08:36):
applied to Joseph Smith'spolygamy many times.
And I can't dig out right nowany leadership quotes, but I
know definitely that we weretrying intentionally to
understate, undermine the ideathat Joseph was a polygamist.
I don't know that it's fair tosay I even know some, well, I

(01:08:57):
think it's strange for Utahdescendants of polygamists to
hear other people say they neverknew that Joseph was a
polygamist.
But I think that people who areoutside of Utah and not
descendants from women's arevery valid and legitimate to say
that they were not taught thatand they were taught the
opposite.
Do you have anything to add?

SPEAKER_01 (01:09:13):
That was not taught.
It was hidden.
It was not discussed.
I think that's absolutely true.

SPEAKER_00 (01:09:18):
And it was claimed to be anti-woman lies.
Right.
Like it was claimed to beuntrue.
So that was,

SPEAKER_01 (01:09:24):
yeah.
But in terms of the officialposition of the church, It has
never been, the church has nevertaught since Brigham Young that
Joseph was not a polygamist.

SPEAKER_00 (01:09:36):
Not as an official teaching.

SPEAKER_01 (01:09:37):
Not as an official teaching, but culturally, we
have hidden it, we have refusedto discuss it, we have
obfuscated, and we have outrightlied in a number of cases.

SPEAKER_00 (01:09:47):
Yes, I agree with that.
And then just really quickly tohit on the Elder Oaks question,
since I forgot it last time, andthen I have a lot to say on the
rest of it.
You'll have to, again, make sureI get all of it touched on.
But I think it is a Shame.
A terrible, terrible shame thatwe say that men can be sealed to
two women and women cannot besealed to two men.
And actually, I get in troublefor being emotional, but

(01:10:08):
sometimes these things do makeme emotional because of the
fallout that I see.
We have a horrible problem inthis church for young widows.
Women who lose a husband are inthis terrible, untouchable
class.
where they have, it's not theScarlet A, it's the Scarlet W on
their chest, where they areforced to choose either to break

(01:10:30):
their ceiling with theirhusband, who they loved and who
died, and who his family istelling her, you better not
break your ceiling with our son.
I mean, these situations I know.
or having other men in thechurch refuse to date them and
refuse to marry them because heis left alone.
The children that they have willbe sealed to the first husband.
It is an absolute mess.

(01:10:52):
Here we have a situation whereJesus told us to care for the
widows and the orphans.
And we have a doctrine that isbuilt on the backs and crushes
the widows in our church.
And it is an absolute mess.
It is a shame.
I don't have strong enoughlanguage.
It makes me so upset, right?
I have a friend who told me thesituation.

(01:11:12):
She was a widow.
She married a widower.
And so they weren't sealed andthey had children together.
One time they were driving homeand, you know, it wasn't an
issue for them because they wereboth already sealed, but their
little child was talking abouttheir primary lesson and saying
how glad he was that they werean eternal family.
And, you know, because that wasthe lesson.
And one of the older siblingsthat was broke said, you're not,

(01:11:35):
you weren't an eternal family.
You're not sealed to dad.
And he said, what?
And this child found out that hewas sealed to some man who had
died who he'd never met, right?
And it was devastating and hascontinued to affect that
family's relationship with thechurch.
This is deplorable andinexcusable and needs to stop.
We tell women...

(01:11:56):
just have faith we tell womenlike like elder oaks gave a talk
in general conference about howstock started out talking about
a letter that a woman wrotesaying well i have to share a
house in the celestial kingdomand and he laughed and everybody
laughed and we we can laugh atthe genuine heartache of women
that this false doctrine lovethis it was not okay and so for

(01:12:18):
me We are perfectly happy totell women, just trust God, God
will work it out.
Well, you know what?
That goes for everybody.
If I were, you know, Empress fora day, and I'm not, and I
recognize that, but I wishdeeply.
that the church would recognizethat we don't understand
everything and we don't knoweverything that we think we
know.
And if we would just allow bothwomen and men to be sealed to

(01:12:43):
another spouse after theirspouse dies and say, we trust
God to work it out.
Maybe, you know, receive morelight and knowledge.
That would be lovely.
I think it is a terrible tragedythat we have this inequality in
our church.
And it's just one of many thatneeds to be given voice and it
needs to be spoken out to.
So when you ask what drives me,these are the things that drive

(01:13:04):
me.
I think this is not okay.
So that's my answer to thatquestion.
And then, yes, I am extremelyfamiliar with the work of Brian
Hills.
Unfortunately, Brian Hills isthe one who sets the narrative
for the church.
You know, we have these utterlydeniable gospel doctrine essays

(01:13:25):
that aren't signed.
They're not statements of thechurch.
They're just on the churchwebsite.
No, you know, so that they can,but anyway, and Brian C.
Hales was heavily involved inwriting the one for the Nauvoo,
for Nauvoo polygamy.
His trilogy is, oh, I have somuch I could say.
In my opinion, Brian C.

(01:13:46):
Hales is best seen not as ahistorian, because he's not, but
as an apologist in the negativesense of the word, not the
positive sense of the word,right?
Brian has been involved intrying to get me excommunicated
from the church.
He is not willing to engage indiscourse, and he does not want
these ideas spread.

(01:14:06):
He wants people silenced andpunished for daring to disagree
with him.
He doesn't say that about otherissues.
It's just him trying to protecthis status as the one that, this
is my perspective.
And I try to, I'm trying to playnicely, but this gets really
personal.
Engage in honest history.
Engage in discourse.

(01:14:28):
Do not use these sneakybehind-the-scenes power games to
try to get people deplatformedfrom historical conferences,
which he did.
And he's like beside himselfthat I haven't been
excommunicated.
He's constantly talking aboutwhat local leaders should do,
and he's pulling whateverchannels he can to try to get
people excommunicated.
He doesn't know my family.

(01:14:49):
He doesn't know my relationshipwith the church.
I think that is inexcusableagain, right?
So I think that if we have agood narrative, it should be
able to be discussed rigorouslyand it shouldn't have to be
silenced.
And so I have personally caughtBrian Hales being deeply
dishonest with historicaldocuments, claiming he has seen

(01:15:10):
things and claiming they saythings that they do not say and
vice versa.
He claims that the leaders ofthe church never taught That
polygamy was required forexaltation, which is blatantly
false.
So Brian Hills sets thenarrative for the church.
And if we want to be in linewith the church, we have to
believe the church narrativeaccording to Brian Hills.

(01:15:30):
I strongly disagree, which wouldrequires us literally to believe
that God did indeed send anangel with a sword.
He clarifies it was a drawnsword, not a flaming sword.
We have sources that say both.
It's ridiculous.
It is ridiculous.
But we are required to believethat God sent an angel with a
sword threatening to kill Josephif he didn't betray Emma.
And Emma was apt to blame forthat, for not getting on board

(01:15:53):
with it.
That's what we are required tobelieve.
We are required to believe thatpolygamy, I mean, we are
required to believe things thatare an intellectual complete
contradiction to the actualhistorical record that we can
believe for ourselves, that wecan read for ourselves, right?
The church's stance on polygamyright now is a complete,
complete mess.

(01:16:14):
And it's because they rely onBrian Hales to give them the
narrative that they think is thebest for them.
And I strongly, stronglydisagree that it is the best for
them.
I think it is a terriblenarrative for the church to hold
to because it is verifiablyuntrue.
And the more that people seethat, the more it weakens the
credibility of the church,right?

(01:16:34):
We need to be able to trust thatthe church is telling us the
truth.
Enough of people feeling likethe church lied to them.
And we are pushing falsenarratives on the people.
And then we have people tryingto enforce those narratives and
saying, if you speak aloud anddisagree with the narrative I
said, I will see that you areexcommunicated from the church.

(01:16:55):
I cannot abide that.
I don't know what I can'tremember what the rest of your
question was, Ian, but I'm happyto try to get to the rest of it.

SPEAKER_02 (01:17:03):
No, you've done a fantastic job and your passion,
your strength is incredible,actually.
And I'm glad you brought up theBrian T.
Hills.
And I think this, for many ofour listeners, they've probably
not heard about these issues.
What I have to say is I'd loveto get you back on again.
actually, and do a deep dive onthis.

(01:17:24):
It's something that reallyinterests me, and I'd be most
interested in that.
I just want to go back toanother question, and you've
answered my question, thank you.
I want to go back to another keythread that runs through this
conversation, because I think itconnects so many things, maybe.
What was the objective of thechurch with polygamy?
You know, you've got these bigdisconnects.

(01:17:46):
You've got the Brian C.
Hales position, you've got yourposition, you've got the
church...
walking this fine balancing act,you know, didn't want to talk
about it, wants to go away,making all these claims, some
true, not true.
If we go back to the main thrustof polygamy, the main principle,
the fundamental objective, ifyou like, of polygamy, what was

(01:18:07):
it?
Was it something as base as menwanting to sleep with more women
and justify that in somespiritual cloak, et cetera, the
infidelity of men, men takingadvantage of women, et cetera?
Or was it more spiritual?
Was it a command from God?

(01:18:29):
In your research, is there anyevidence that God did command
you know, men to have polygamy.
Because we read about it in theBible, you know, concubines, and
it's referenced in the Book ofMormon.
So I guess there's twoquestions.
What was the main objective ofthe church in introducing the
polygamy?
What was it trying to achieve?
And the second question is, doyou accept any evidence, based

(01:18:52):
on your research, that God isultimately behind this principle
and practice and that hecommands this principle and
practice periodically throughouthistory.
Sometimes he wants it, othertimes he doesn't.
So there's two questions there.

SPEAKER_00 (01:19:11):
So these are more huge questions.
I will do my best to answer themas concisely as I possibly can.
First of all, no, there is noscriptural evidence that God
ever has ever commandedpolygamy.
Quite the opposite.
We have scripture afterscripture, including in Joseph
Smith's Doctrine and Covenantssection 142, thou shalt cleave
to thy wife and only thy wifeand no one else.

(01:19:32):
And even to look upon a woman tolust after her is adultery,
right?
And polygamy is declared to beabomination.
Verse one of section 132 falselysays that God commanded
polygamy.
He never did.
There's nothing in thehistorical record.
You can see how every timepolygamy happened, why it
happened, it never was as aresult of God, and it always led
to terrible, terrible outcomes.

(01:19:54):
By their fruit, she shall knowthem, right?
So we could go into the biblicaldiscussion, but that would be a
big discussion.
I'm happy to have it.
To the other question of wherethis comes from.
So there are many ways to answerthis.
And I think that differentpeople, all different people are
different, right?
I think that the majority of thepeople were convinced that this
is actually was of God.
There were many people in Utahwho did not want to be

(01:20:15):
polygamous, but who wantedexaltation, right?
That's definitely the case ofmany, many people.
If we go back to the beginning,This is one thing, and I don't
want to...
This is a very big and nuancedconversation, so I'll try to
give it just kind of from ahigh-level view, if that's okay.
Then we can dig in maybe in ournext conversation if you'd like
to.

(01:20:35):
But here's kind of a situation.
Incredibly powerful men who seemlike they have the world in
their hands, right?
Like, we can look atpoliticians, athletes, actors,
whatever it is.
A man that reaches the pinnacledoes not have limits, right?
for the most part, right?
He's not limited in his money,in his wealth, in his access.

(01:20:57):
He can have as many cars as hewants, as many homes as he
wants.
And most men in that positionalso can have as many women as
they want, right?
It's a big challenge for areligious man who reaches the
pinnacle because he can have asmany, I mean, Brigham Young
built home after home after homeafter home as people, as one of
my great-great-grandmothers wasstarving to death and dug out

(01:21:19):
Lehi, literally died ofstarvation, right?
A man at the pinnacle who isreligious needs a way to not be
limited to one wife, right?
Right.
And it's not so much.
Well, there are so manydiscussions we could go to with
this.
But I think the polygamynaturally grows out of a
religious mindset for men at thepinnacle who find a way that God

(01:21:42):
can.
removes the limits.
We have that with David andSolomon.
We have it with many others,right?
Polygamy is part of the naturalman.
We can look back in manydifferent societies, Genghis
Khan.
And I mean, again and again,like women were seen as booty.
And the more powerful you were,the bigger your kingdom was, the
bigger your army was, the biggeryour palace was, and the bigger
your harem was.

(01:22:03):
And that holds true in Mormonpolygamy, right?
So it's not just lust.
It's a bigger...
story it's power and lust andbeing at the top right polygamy
is a very testosterone driveninstitution i'll go into this
really quickly because i did anepisode on Brain chemistry,
polygamy in the male brain, Ithink is what that episode is

(01:22:24):
called.
And it was fascinating to me tostudy this out.
Men's brains, a single man'sbrain is very testosterone
driven.
It's very high in testosteronebecause testosterone is the
conquest hormone, right?
The hunt and find, you'rejockeying for position.
Where do I rank in thehierarchy?
And I need to get the wife, getthe woman, right?

(01:22:45):
That is all very testosterone.
Once a man is married, Differentbrain chemicals take over.
His testosterone actually lowersand his oxytocin rises because
it's no longer conquest and huntand find.
It's now bond, right?
So his brain chemistry actuallychanges and he's no longer
jockeying for position that sameway and he's not out on the

(01:23:05):
prowl the same way.
He's now bonding.
Once that couple has a child,his testosterone again goes down
and his oxytocin again risesbecause it's now bond and
protect and provide and defend,right?
And you can see this happeningwhen we look at societies where
it's like, even, you know, like,movies of different cultures,

(01:23:26):
whereas the young men who wantto go to war and the older men
who are fathers who are saying,hold on, what other options do
we have, right?
And that is a genuine result ofvery positive brain chemistry
that happens.
And so for me, as someone whobelieves in God, I look at this
and I have looked at polygamyEvery single way,

(01:23:47):
sociologically, psychologically,biologically, in every single
way, like all things testify ofChrist, all things testify of
God's establishment of monogamy,right?
A fascinating thing is thatstudies have been done that show
that in polygamy, a male braindoes not undergo the same
changes.
Because even when a man ismarried, if he's polygamous,

(01:24:09):
he's still on the prowl.
He's still jockeying forposition.
I have I've mentioned thisbefore.
I have a sister who, you know,polygamists are very heavily
involved in construction,especially in Utah and the
surrounding areas, right?
And she was working for aconstruction company.
And so she was dealing with alot of polygamist men.
And she had several experiencesof seeing married men Still on

(01:24:33):
the prowl.
It was very foreign to her, butthis is what it is.
She told me about a story wherethere was a woman in her prairie
dress sitting, nursing the baby,taking care of the toddler, and
in walked a pretty girl.
And her husband stood up.
I mean, it's like this outrightflirting that a monogamous man
go through a training and adiscipline that changes who they

(01:24:56):
are.
actually to the level of theirbrain chemistry, right?
And in polygamy, that doesn'thappen.
And that's how we get a KingDavid who was standing out
watching the mikvah on the roof,which was the women's ritual
bath.
Shocking, right?
And his lust was, he was so usedto feeding his lust, to not
having limits, that even whenthere was a woman who was

(01:25:17):
already married, he could nothandle not having his lust
gratified.
And so I think polygamy ismultifaceted.
It's so easy for men to say, oh,I wouldn't want that.
But when you are, I don't know,you've been married for a while
and there's a young pretty girl,when most monogamous men are
trained to say, no, I amcommitted to my wife, right?

(01:25:40):
But when your wife's had acouple of kids, maybe things are
a little bit difficult.
You're equally yoked, and it'shard for a man and a woman
to—marriage is hard, right?
How much easier to be able tojust go get that young girl
instead?
But, you know, who wants to bestuck with a woman in her 40s?
When you can have girls that are15 and 16 is kind of how the

(01:26:00):
mindset changes, right?
And so it's very pernicious andit can be subtle until you
actually look into it.
That was the thing I realized ofhow naive I was, was in
marriage, marriage is hard.
It is hard, right?
To keep a relationship healthy.
And the thing we have going forus is that we're equally yoked.
My husband is as invested in ourrelationship as I am.

(01:26:23):
As soon as polygamy enters, Thatflies out the window.
And what we get is a man who hasall of the power and the women
who hope to please him and tryto be his favorite.
And Keep Sweet growsautomatically out of that.
And we see the beginnings of itin the early Utah polygamist
era, right?
And so it just devastates us.

(01:26:45):
human relationships in so manydifferent ways.
And so, and you know, we do havethis story of Brigham Young
meeting his last favorite wifeand seeing her at the railway
station.
And here he is in, you know, I'msorry, a dirty old man, you
know, just like David was adirty old man.
When David was an old man, Davidin the Bible, they couldn't keep
him warm.
So I don't know, if you can'tkeep grandpa warm, what do you

(01:27:06):
do?
Like put him by the fire, putblankets on him, give him warm
soup.
No, with David, what they neededto do was find the most
beautiful young girl And so theydo go through the whole thing.
to find Abishag, who is, I don'tknow, 12, 13, 14, and they have
her lie with David.
He's too old to consummate, butthese are terrible, terrible

(01:27:30):
things to defend.
When we read the early Mormons,they're defending these things.
They're proclaiming how much Godloves his faithful polygamous
leaders because he provides forthem in this way, right?
So yeah, you have Brigham Youngat the train station seeing this
22-year-old girl and wantingher.
being able to have her, right?
And so it really changes the waythat, like, it changes the way

(01:27:54):
that polygamous men perceive theworld.
And I could go into, like,Joseph Smith, if we look at his
life, this is one of theevidences to me, he and Emma
really were equally yoked.
We could read their letters toeach other, the way they spoke
to each other, the way theyrelied on each other and trusted
each other, how Joseph had Emmainvolved in his business
dealings, how he trusted her,how Joseph put Emma first in as

(01:28:18):
the president of the reliefsociety and told the women to
sustain her i'm sorry polygamousmen do not do this with women in
general and particularly withwomen who oppose polygamy right
we can go to brigham young'ssermons that he gave to the um
Remember, I think it might havebeen the elders and the 70.
He gave the same, a very similarsermon twice that we have some

(01:28:39):
records available to us of.
And if you read what he said,it's a sermon where he told,
where he disbanded the ReliefSociety.
He told them that if you seewomen huddling together, veto
the affair.
Like he said, women were notallowed to talk to each other.
The Relief Society is, what areRelief Societies for?
To relieve us of our best men,right?
He blamed the Relief Society.
And in one of those sermons, Hesays, any man who is led by a

(01:29:02):
woman will be led directly tohell.
No woman will ever get into thecelestial kingdom unless she's
led there by a man.
And a man who follows a womanwill go directly to hell.
And then he literally says thesewords, God knew what Eve was.
Right?
We can see a history of BrighamYoung as sort of a woman hater
to some extent.
We can look at the dynamicbetween Brigham and his wife and

(01:29:26):
compared to the dynamic betweenJoseph and his wife.
So it just...
Polygamy grows out of adifferent kind of mindset, and
then it creates a different kindof mindset.
And I think it is very contraryto the kind of godly men that
God expects his true followersto be.
I

SPEAKER_01 (01:29:48):
can't thank you enough for that perspective.
I think it's really interestingto think of it in that way, and
I hadn't thought of it in termsof the the man on the prowl.
We want to wind this up here alittle bit, but we would very
much, I would very much like tohave you come back and do more
of a deep dive on some of this.
I want to share a quick story.

(01:30:09):
So my great-grandfather on myfather's side is Heber J.
Grant, who was, people don'trealize was a polygamist because
by the time he became presidentof the church, two of his three
wives had died.
And so he sort of presented as amonogamist as president of the
church, but he was in fact apolygamist.

(01:30:30):
And one of the wives that haddied is my great-grandmother.
And at one point, mygrandmother, who was Heber J.
Grant's last surviving daughter,passed away in 1995, I think it
was, was going through some ofhis letters.
his letters to mygreat-grandmother and letters to

(01:30:53):
his other polygamous wives.
And one of Heber J.
Grant's grandsons was TrumanMadsen, who's my first cousin
once removed.
And he was going through theseletters with my grandmother.
And he said to her, Francis, youneed to publish these because
these are so lovely.
And they demonstrate thatpolygamy was not terrible.

(01:31:16):
And they show how a polygamousrelationship Kieber J.
Grant practiced polygamy in amagnanimous and wonderful way,
and his relationship with hiswives was so beautiful.
This would be so good for thechurch if you were to publish
these.
And my grandmother thought,well, jeez, I don't know.

(01:31:37):
What should I do?
And called Spencer W.
Kimball, who was the presidentof the church at the time.
And Spencer W.
Kimball was on her doorstep thatsame day.
to talk to her about it.
And what he said to her was, youare under absolutely no
obligation to publish these.
And furthermore, there's a lotof polygamy in my family and it

(01:32:02):
isn't lovely.
It's really kind of ugly.
And so this was the time in thechurch when it was, let's not
talk about this at all.
Let's tamp this down.
Let's not discuss it.
Let's hope it just sort of goesaway.
And that was the counsel thatthe president of the church gave
my grandmother all those yearsago.

(01:32:25):
And I think we are now dealingwith a reckoning with this.
One of the big problems we havein the church is that we think
if we just don't talk about it,if we just sort of move on, that
the problem goes away.
We're seeing that not just withpolygamy, but we're also
definitely seeing it with race.

(01:32:45):
I went on tour with theTabernacle Choir, and we sang in
the Martin Luther King Jr.
Chapel with Spelman andMorehouse Colleges, these
traditionally black colleges inGeorgia, and sort of tried to
say, okay, here we are with thiswonderful racial reconciliation
that we're having with theworld, but it's not getting

(01:33:07):
there because we still haven'treckoned with our legacy on that
issue.
As Paul Reeve has said, how canyou root out racism if we don't
look at its roots?
And I think the same principleapplies with polygamy.
Again, you have not convinced methat Joseph Smith was not a

(01:33:27):
polygamist.
You have convinced me that wehave not addressed this issue
head on.
Brian Hales apparently used tosing in the Tabernacle Choir.
I hear lovely things about himas a human being.
I think it's terrible that he'strying to get anybody

(01:33:48):
excommunicated, least of allyou.
Not least of all, I mean most ofall you.
But this isn't an indictment ofBrian Hales or anybody else.
It's a, look, we don't have achoice anymore.
We have to look at these things.
We have to confront them.
We have to to reckon with them.
And even if we have to acceptthat Brigham Young introduced

(01:34:13):
polygamy, even though we'vetaught that Joseph did, or we
have to accept that, no, Josephdid, in fact, teach polygamy,
and this is a stain on Joseph.
Because right now, it's a stainon all of us.
Not necessarily even becausepolygamy is right or wrong, but
because we aren't willing to toconfront and accept our history.

SPEAKER_00 (01:34:38):
Can I just add one thing, just really quickly to
what you're saying?
I do want to say, I did not wantto get into the question of
Joseph Smith for huge reasons,because I knew it would eclipse
what I see as the far moreimportant message that I want to
get out.
My overarching message is,polygamy is not of God.
And I hope that you're sayingthat.

(01:35:00):
I don't know that you needed tobe convinced of that, but the
But that is what our churchneeds to deal with at its core.
As I continue to research, Ilearned to my great surprise
that I also believe it's not ofJoseph Smith.
But that's not the importantissue.
The important issue is it's notof God.

SPEAKER_01 (01:35:17):
I don't know if I'm willing to go there fully.
Yeah.
I'm willing to consider that.
When I got married, my wife saidexactly what you're saying.
Polygamy is not of God.
It was all just nonsense.
And I thought, oh, crud.

(01:35:37):
My wife's going to hell.
She's not a true believer.
And the more I've looked atthis, the more I've gotten into
this.
Whether something is of God ornot is...
is a really large and in someways personal question because,
you know, we talked yesterdayabout section 132 and you said,

(01:35:59):
you know, is this of God?
And I can point you to parts ofsection 132 that I absolutely
believe are of God.
I agree.
And then I can point you toparts in section 132 that I
think are absolutely abhorrent.
And so...
Reconciling that, that I thinkto a large degree is the purpose
of mortality, trying to figureout where God's hand is in

(01:36:22):
everything.
And so I'm not willing to saythat God's hand could not have
in any way been involved inpolygamy.
But I am willing to say that weneed to ask that question and we
need to confront it and bewilling to follow wherever the
truth leads.

SPEAKER_00 (01:36:43):
Yeah, I know we're wrapping up.
I just wanted to respond to thatone part really quickly and say
that's where the historical workhelps because it was so, so, I
don't know, just like amazing tome when I saw the evidence to
show that Joseph Smith did teachthe beautiful parts of section
that are now in section 132because Joseph absolutely did.
receive a revelation and teachit on eternal marriage that was

(01:37:06):
later tampered with to create132.
So I just wanted to validatethat I have the same perspective
on section 132.
And I think that that'simportant to recognize that that
can be shown in the historicalrecord.

SPEAKER_01 (01:37:20):
Ian, any parting thoughts?

SPEAKER_02 (01:37:22):
Yeah, just a few.
I'll be real quick.
Michelle, thank you so much forcoming on to the podcast.
I've learned so much from you.
I think you're an extraordinaryindividual.
I mean that.
And I appreciate your feelingsand respect them, your emotions.
You know, this is a veryimportant topic and I would love
to have a more deeper dive onthis for sure.

(01:37:43):
Just some quick thoughts.
I...
Before you came on to thepodcast and had the
conversation, I believe JosephSmith practiced polygamy.
Now, listening to you, andthere's so much more to this
conversation than we have timefor right now, now I don't know.
I've read the Brian C.
Hale stuff.
I know the church's officialposition, read the essay.

(01:38:04):
I know this is a major, majorissue for the church.
Publicly, it denounces polygamy.
Privately, we all know, let'sface it, it still believes it
and practices it in the temple.
I think it would like it to goaway.
I don't think the church wantsto talk about this.
We want to put it in a box andlock it up.

(01:38:25):
And I think that...
That's a mistake from what youguys are saying.
I think it's important to talkabout this.
I am willing to come out andsay, and I've always felt this.
I'm not sure if I shared thiswith Jim.
I never believed polygamy was ofGod, ever.
Even when I was a bishop or onthe state presidency.

(01:38:45):
I mean, that's irrelevant.
That little calling isirrelevant.
It's how I felt personally in mypersonal testament.
I never accepted the rejectionof the blacks in regards to the
priesthood.
Never.
It always felt wrong.
I've read.
awful, disgusting, grotesquequotes by Brigham Young, mostly,
I believe, from what I've read,in regards to the race and the

(01:39:08):
priesthood, that, you know, Ifound deeply offensive.
And I'm a white guy, right?
I can't imagine how those blackfolks felt when they read that
or when they come across thatstuff.
Race and the, you know, the...
Rejection of blacks for thepriesthood and temple blessings

(01:39:29):
is not of God.
Believe me.
I agree.
It's not of God.
I've never believed that.
I don't believe it now, but Iwould love to get you back on if
Jim is open to this and having adeeper conversation because I
think this is, this and the raceof the priesthood, I think the
two biggest differenceschallenges and barriers that the
church faces.

(01:39:50):
And it still hasn't yet, howmany years now, 150, 160, 170
years, still with all of theintelligence that the church
has, still hasn't figured itout.
And where is it?
I think you described it real,it's a complete mess.
It really is.
Anyway, I want to thank you somuch for coming on and I hope
you felt comfortable sharingyour thoughts and your feelings.

SPEAKER_00 (01:40:14):
Oh, I did.
I loved our, I loved ourconversation.
Thank you for letting me go offso many times.
I really appreciate you guys.

SPEAKER_01 (01:40:21):
And we appreciate you.
Thank you very much.
And we also appreciate all ofyou spending this time with us,
listening to Inside Out.
Please be sure to subscribe toour podcast to be notified when
new episodes drop.
And, uh, We're just grateful forall of our listeners and for
everybody that is part of thisdiscussion.

(01:40:41):
And until next time, we willlook forward to seeing you on
Inside Out.
And thank you, Michelle.
And thank you, Ian.

SPEAKER_02 (01:40:50):
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you, Michelle.

SPEAKER_00 (01:40:53):
Thank you.