Anti-Mormonism and Kirtland Blessings

Introduction and Recent Conference Visit

John Dehlin 0:00 Hello everyone and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories podcast, Joseph Smith Edition, or the Joseph Smith Podcast, as I like to call it. My name is John Dehlin. It is September 23, 2025 and today we are now 16 episodes in to our series with scholar John Turner about his new groundbreaking, I call it a groundbreaking book, Joseph Smith the Rise and Fall of an American Prophet. This is published by Yale University Press. Many of you have been loving, loving, loving this series and the purpose of this series, if you are new to this series, is to just have a super reputable, thoughtful scholar who has never been Mormon, is not ex Mormon. Calling what I like to say balls and strikes regarding Joseph Smith and his history, but also digging deeper than we've ever dug before on Mormon stories into Joseph Smith's history. And I'm learning a ton. And that's after reading, you know, Rough Stone Rolling. That's after reading Fawn Brody's no Man Knows My History now twice. I'm learning stuff every chapter that I've never learned before. So I highly recommend this book. Please buy it. We're, you know, getting no endorsements from anyone. It's just a really good read, really worthwhile read. Please make it international bestseller. And we also appreciate your feedback and comments. I just want to quickly thank our donors who make this show possible. We don't live and die by our Google Ads or our YouTube ads or sponsorships. We don't really do sponsorships. We rely on our donors through our nonprofit to make all this possible. So thanks. If you donate to Mormon Stories generally and for those of you who have donated specifically to the Joseph Smith Podcast project with John Turner, you've helped us be able to make sure that we can fund at least all the episodes we want for this book all the way through. If you value this series with John Turner and you want to see it continue in however way we decide to continue it, if we continue it, you can go to donorbox.org Joseph Smith and donate to the continuation of this partnership and project. Today we are going to be covering chapter 15 of this book. The dates are 1834 to 1835. The title of the chapter is Blessings. We're going to be talking a lot about patriarchal blessings, about other types of blessings. We're also going to be talking about anti Mormonism, specifically Ed Howe's book Mormonism Unveiled, how that affected the church. We're going to talk about the Doctrine and Covenants section, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, the lectures on Faith. We're also going to Be talking about the formation of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Seventy, and the office of Patriarch within the Church. Patriarchal blessings. Even going to be talking about the quorums of the 70 and many other things. So without any further ado, John Turner, welcome back to Mormon Stories podcast.

John Turner 3:05 Thanks, John Dehlin, Great to be back. Since I was last with you, I had a quick trip to the Zion Independence, Jackson County, Missouri for the John Whitmer Historical association meeting. That was a lot of fun. Made it just. It was. It was particularly exciting to me to be there right after we had recorded our Zions camp episode. Fortunately, there was no hailstorm to interrupt. The. The conference. All went well.

John Dehlin 3:37 What about comets? What about a comet shower?

John Turner 3:39 No comet showers, although it would have been harder to see from my best Western hotel room. But I'm excited to be back with you. And we are almost. Almost halfway through just the rise and fall of an American Prophet. And I'm grateful to everyone who's been listening and supporting this podcast.

John Dehlin 4:04 Yeah, man, 16 episodes. That's no small feat. We're about to surpass our. Our. Our number with Matt Harris, so that's. That's no small feat.

John Turner 4:13 Okay, well, you can have him back when he has this Hugh B. Brown biography out if he wants.

John Dehlin 4:20 He knows he's welcome. John Whitmer Conference is like the second of two of the biggest Mormon history annual conferences. Right. It's the Mormon History association, then. John Whitmer, is that right?

John Turner 4:36 Yes. So name for John Whitmer, who Joseph tasked. Joseph Smith tasked In, I think, 1831 with keeping a history of the church. And yeah, I'd say it's, you know, an organization that has a particular relationship with community of Christian, but also attracts all sorts of people who are interested in restoration studies. And it was a lot of fun, a lot of great people there.

John Dehlin 5:11 Well, one of these days I want to go to both MHA and John Whitmer. Maybe 2026 will be my year for that, so. All right, well, what's that?

John Turner 5:21 I said you should do it. MHA is in Vegas this coming June, which. All right, thank you. That's a pretty crazy place for a Mormon History association meeting.

John Dehlin 5:32 I'm sold. I'm sold. Most people don't know that Vegas has a pretty formidable Mormon founding. The. The city of Las Vegas Mormons are heavily involved in its founding.

John Turner 5:44 Very much so. Part of the string of Mormon settlements that stretch to San Bernardino, California.

John Dehlin 5:51 Right, right. All right. Well, yeah, we did Zion's Camp last time. I learned a lot and I'm excited to dig in today, but before we do, we got one comment that I think it'd be fun to address. We really welcome comments either through email@mormonstoriesmail.com or on our YouTube channel. We try to read them all. I think we do read them all. And this one touches on There are a lot of faithful Mormons that are uncomfortable with the stone in the hat narrative. It kind of. They're similar. There's similar Latter Day Saints who are also concerned about the claim that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. They're also sometimes the ones that believe that Joseph Smith was assassinated through an inside job. There's kind of these groups that are faithful Mormons. They're more on the prepper side sometimes, and they're sometimes more on the conspiracy theory side. Not to label them or disparage them, but that's kind of the context for why we're going to be reading this longer comment and just letting John Turner respond to it. And it's because we've covered the peepstone in the hat, the translation, multiple times in past episodes. And so this is giving John Turner a chance to respond to a common claim around the urimum thummim versus the seer stone in the hat narratives, you know, that are prevalent these days. So should we jump in, John?

The Stone in the Hat Translation Debate

John Turner 7:24 Go for it.

John Dehlin 7:25 Any pre. Any disclaimer you want to give or context before I jump in?

John Turner 7:30 Well, I think the only if people aren't familiar what you're referring to is the sources that suggest that at least some of the time during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph placed one of his seer stones or peep stones in a hat, blocked out the light and looked into it as he dictated the text of the Book of Mormon.

John Dehlin 7:54 Yeah. And for those who are just joining us blindly, I'm, you know, for the 45 years I was an active, faithful Mormon, give or take, I was taught one narrative, which is that Joseph Smith got, you know, this urim and thummim, which were these spectacles with glasses and a breastplate and some type of attachment. And he would put the plates down on a table, put on the urimum thummim and translate word for word the golden plates into English. And that's all most of us ever heard of. For all of our lives as members, we never even heard of a seer stone in a hat at all. And. And we've covered that in depth. So a lot of people these days are just going to be disturbed, number one, that the idea of a stone in A hat means something was hid from them. And then the idea of a stone in a hat sounds weird. And then also the stone in the hat was used in treasure digging. So if he was a treasure digger and he used a stone in the hat for that, and then he used the stone in the hat for trans, you know, lady, the Book of Mormon. To some that infects the Book of Mormon with occult or folk magic behaviors. And these are all the reasons, if there's motivated reasoning in the comment I'm about to read, it could be based in at least those three concerns. Did I get them? John Turner do you think?

John Turner 9:18 No, I think that's fair.

John Dehlin 9:20 We're speculating on people's, you know, motives, but I think context matters. But we'll just now what, what historians do is they just rely on the documents and that's, that's why we love history and that's why we love having you on the show. John Turner all right, so I'm going to start reading. You pause me and, and you jump in whenever you want. Is that okay?

John Turner 9:40 You got it. I might let you go all the way and then comment comprehensively, but we'll see.

John Dehlin 9:44 Totally up to you. So for Zion, 1894 wrote the following. I know most viewers will not like this, but amidst the bias and misinformation rampant throughout this video, and it's referring to one of our videos, John asks a reasonable question at around the 40 minute, 30 second point. The question is what was said about the translation in the early years. So that's the question we're going to address right now. Here's the actual information. So they're laying it down now. John Turner here's the actual information, aside from a confused non LDS newspaper account that the writer himself acknowledged was third hand hearsay. So let's pause. So they're already like taking an early source and discrediting it and not actually mentioning it. So what is the, do you know what the confused non LDS newspaper account that the writer himself acknowledged was third hand hearsay. What is that source they're already trying to poison the well with?

John Turner 10:50 Okay, well first of all, I'm just, I, I am going to just back up slightly and say it's never a bad thing to and they're, they're complimenting you for it. John De Lynn to ask for the sources to ask for the information. You know, the I, I guess at one point you had said what was said about the translation in the early years, which is a fine question. I think also a question alongside it would Be what did people who were in the know say about it in. In the later years? That would be fine, too. And, you know, I actually think whether the subject is polygamy or Book of Mormon translation or Book of Abraham, you know, oftentimes historians and sometimes church authorities will declare something settled and, you know, there's no need for further discussion. I actually think it's totally fine to always be going back to some of these questions and to. To take a new look at evidence, but specifically in terms of the early newspaper account, I don't know which source the commenter is referring to, but it might be an 1829 account from the Palmyra Freeman and its editor, Jonathan Hadley. There's a very interesting report there which suggests that by placing the spectacles in a hat and looking into it, Smith could interpret these characters. I think that's a good clue. And there are quite a few other sources along those lines that suggest that whatever Smith used, whether we want to call it spectacles Director Urim and Thummim Seer Stone blocking out light by putting the object in a hat does seem to have been part of the method. So I think from the start, that's important. Whether or not it's Urim and Thummim or Searstone, Smith did put this object in a hat, at least some of the time, block out the light and dictate.

John Dehlin 13:23 And again, what's. So you're saying 1829, who's the witness that's reporting that information?

John Turner 13:30 So it's a Palmyra newspaper editor named Jonathan Hadley now claiming who is the

John Dehlin 13:38 source of that information.

John Turner 13:39 I'm not sure. So I think it's not unfair to say that it's hearsay. You know, I'm not. I'm not sure if he'd heard it from Martin Harris or somebody.

John Dehlin 13:49 The fact that it's corroborated later by Emma, by Whitmer, by Cowdery, by Harris.

John Turner 13:57 Right.

John Dehlin 13:57 That. That bolsters its credibility.

John Turner 13:59 Right, Right. So Joseph Knight, for instance, stalwart supporter of Joseph Smith, said. Now, the way he translated was he put the Urim and Thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes. So I think we have sufficient evidence to conclude that Joseph put something in a hat and blocked out the light during the translation process.

John Dehlin 14:27 Okay. Okay. And Julia. Julia's found a reference to that, so she'll include it in the show notes. Okay, so that's interesting. Now the commenter wants to. Just assuming that this is the source they're referring to, they just want to dismiss it. Out of hand. And I guess you would say it's not a source that, in your opinion would be just something worthy of dismissing out of hand.

John Turner 14:54 Well, correct, because at least much of the information in the source is corroborated from less hostile sources.

John Dehlin 15:04 You could say, okay, it certainly is early. You don't get much earlier than 1829.

John Turner 15:10 Right? It's really early. Yeah, I totally agree.

John Dehlin 15:15 Okay. Okay. They go on to write. The earliest account is an article in a Boston newspaper in early 1832 of an interview with Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith, who is one of his brother's scribes and later one of the eight witnesses. Now, is that true that there's nothing between 1829 and this 1832 Boston newspaper account? Or do you.

John Turner 15:41 You.

John Dehlin 15:41 You may. That may be asking you on the spot.

John Turner 15:46 Yeah. So I'm less certain now. We do have. We do have some comments from Joseph Smith, I think, in 1831, in which he states that he doesn't want to go into the particulars of the translation.

John Dehlin 16:02 So he's kind of avoiding. He's avoiding addressing a subject that may be sensitive or awkward, maybe.

John Turner 16:08 Correct. Or we could just say we don't know exactly why he chooses not to go into it, but he doesn't want to go into it. And it doesn't choose to say much in the format or to the Book of Mormon itself either.

John Dehlin 16:24 Yeah, okay, but. But if he. If, you know, let's just say there's two theories. One is that it's, you know, stone and stone in a hat or objects in a hat versus, like, pristine Urim and Thummim from the Old Testament. Joseph Smith not wanting to talk about it might favor the. The stone in the hat for the reasons that it's an awkward thing to talk about. Maybe.

John Turner 16:53 Could be. And yeah, I think. I think I. You know, he just doesn't give us much to go on. He, you know, I think that's. He does have some later references to having used the Euro men. Thummim. I think one other key point is that term does not really enter the conversation until, I think, the mid-1830s. I don't remember the exact year. The earlier references, for instance, in Joseph's 1832 history, I believe they simply refer to either spectacles or interpreters.

John Dehlin 17:32 So Urim and Thummim doesn't come on the scene until mid-1830s.

John Turner 17:36 Correct.

John Dehlin 17:38 And wasn't. Wasn't he doing a co. Vision with somebody else and it was the other person that mentioned spectacles or seeing something that kind of forced Joseph into introducing that into the narrative. Samuel Lawrence. Julie is reminding me.

Urim and Thummim vs. Seer Stone Evidence

John Turner 17:53 Yeah, I'm not entirely sure and I should check the exact date, but the earliest sources produced by Joseph Smith himself, they don't use the term Urim and Thummim. It's, it's a bit later.

John Dehlin 18:10 Okay. Yeah. All right, so while maybe Joseph doesn't introduce that term until the mid-1830s, we've got. Is it, is it accurate that this Boston newspaper is introducing the Urim and Thummim, you know, artifact in the 1832 time frame?

John Turner 18:29 I'm going to trust the commenter on that. I'd have to go back and take a look at the article. I do think you start seeing it in church. Church sources by late 1832, maybe early 1833. I'm pretty sure Joseph doesn't use the term in his earliest history.

John Dehlin 18:52 Okay, so I wonder where the Boston newspaper would be getting this claim about the Urim and thumb.

John Turner 18:57 Maybe it was becoming, maybe it was entering circulation among church members. It's, that's definitely possible.

John Dehlin 19:05 But there's no, there's no, like Moroni gave me a Urimum thummim prior to 1832 by Joseph.

John Turner 19:13 So yeah, well, if you think about what is described in the Book of Mormon, so it's that an ancient prophet Mosiah translates using interpreters. Two stones attached to the two rims of a bow. And possessing these interpreters is what essentially makes someone a seer. And then Joseph reports finding that interpretive device alongside the gold plates. Now this is another, you know, he reports that window, I think right from the get go.

John Dehlin 19:57 Okay, so he is reporting finding the Urim Thummim along with.

John Turner 20:01 But the term urim and Thummim is not used. It's simply stones attached to the two rims of a bow. Something. And sometimes the term spectacles is used. Lucy Mac Smith, as far as I know, is at least one of, maybe the only or at least one of a very few first hand sources about this object which she reports having felt under a cloth. So this discussion is a little bit akin to our discussion of the gold plates. It's clear that Joseph has some sort of special object and he doesn't make it accessible to anybody else for corroboration in an ordinary way.

John Dehlin 20:53 Yeah, it's this pattern of having objects but not wanting to show them to people, claiming to have objects, not wanting to show them to people, covering them with some type of cloth. And then it begs the question of whether he produces some type of Artifact to feel by the hand as if it's the thing he's claiming to possess but not wanting to actually show people the actual objects.

John Turner 21:25 Exactly.

John Dehlin 21:26 It's a pattern, right?

John Turner 21:27 No, I think, I think that's totally fair. And you know, the, so I would, I would sort of back up and, and say two other things is, you know, number one, I think we can feel confident that one way or another Joseph used stones as part of the translation process. Now whether we want to think about them as new stones connected to the rims of a bow, or whether we want to simply think about them as Joseph's seer stones already in his possession, you know, one way or another, he's, he's, he's using special stones, you could say. And then again, yes, he's not, he's not allowing others to examine them. And then what I think makes this discussion complicated is there are only so many people who have some firsthand sense of what Joseph's doing. So Joseph himself, of course, his scribes, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, who also perhaps scribed a little bit for him as well, maybe some other family members, maybe some of the Whitmers. Now most of those individuals, Harris, Cowdery, I think John and David Whitmer, in their later recollections they used, they both referred to Joseph using Urim and Thummim and also referred to Joseph translating by placing a seer stone in a hat and blocking out the light. I don't know that we necessarily, you know, we don't have a lot of first, we don't have much firsthand evidence from Joseph himself. I don't think we know whether he used the same translation method the whole time. I actually find it a little bit, I don't know, amusing or hard to believe that Joseph for weeks on end would have had his head in a hat. I would have thought, think he would ended up with an extremely stiff neck. But it seems like he did use that method some of the time. And I think we have to say we don't know exactly what he put in the hat, whether they were new stones, whether they were the stones he already had, whether it was a mix of both. And I think what's also interesting here is for the most part this is an intra faithful Mormon argument because the church's more recent statements on the Book of Mormon translation both discuss Urim and Thummim and Joseph putting a seer stone in a hat. And there are some faithful Mormons who think, I think this is my interpretation, who believe The Church has ceded too much ground to its critics by acknowledging that stone in the hat may at least have been part of the method.

John Dehlin 24:55 Okay. And just to kind of cut to the chase, it sounds like Joseph didn't want to. I mean, I think what. What some might suspect is that Joseph did make claims about spectacles and or urimum Thummim along various different parts of the time frame. Joseph clearly likely did use a hat and potentially his seer stone and. Or some sort of spectacles in the hat, but that Joseph just didn't want to ever really fess up to that. And so he. He just decided that he wanted to try and just change the narrative so that it was always a Urim and Thummim and not ever a hat with a stone. Maybe because it's associated with treasure digging, maybe because it's less respectable, maybe because it's less biblical. And there was just an attempt to maybe rewrite history a little bit. And. And I think over time, it seems like what the church did is they actually did it in reverse in a way and started being comfortable calling the seer stone a urimum thummim in a way to just sort of try to get rid of the hat and. Or the seer stone altogether for a long period of time. Isn't that true that the church has called his treasure digging seer stone a urim and thummim at different points?

John Turner 26:34 I think you're right, but I'd have to go back and look at the sources. But what I think is perhaps driving the conversation now is that over the last couple of decades, the Church has been far more open to these. I don't know whether you would call them contradictory or supplemental accounts of the translation process that talk about the seer stone and, you know, is putting those sources out there for people to examine. And I think that new information makes some people want to defend the more traditional narrative. I think that's what's. What's going on.

John Dehlin 27:26 Okay. All right. Because again, not to drag this out too much longer, eventually, can you name all the witnesses that are claiming a stone in the hat?

John Turner 27:40 Well, I'd have to go back and take a look at the ones that come to mind. So there's. Let me just say, for readers who are interested in Jack Welch put together a compilation of all of these sources a number of years ago. Jeff Lindsey in the Interpreter has a rather long piece going through a lot of these sources that's also useful, but at a minimum, Martin Harris, Emma. Emma Smith, Bituman. I think Oliver Cowdery I think John and David Whitmer, I think, you know, one, one reason why people question those accounts is that on balance, they are, you know, they are later retrospective accounts, but they are from all of the principles and we do have very early accounts attesting to the fact that Joseph put some sort of object in a hat. So if you put those things together, it seems a reasonable conclusion that at least part of the time he translated by putting a seer stone in a hat and dictating.

John Dehlin 29:04 It seems like what, what this writer is trying to do is say that because a stone in the hat was mentioned in Mormonism Unveiled, which we're going to be talking about later, that, that, that, that makes the claim not credible that there was ever a stone in the hat actually used because it's tainted by an anti Mormon, which is a really good setup for the chapter we're about to go into.

John Turner 29:30 But they also. Yeah, that's a professional segue, John Dehlin.

John Dehlin 29:35 Right, but, but really quickly, they also want to say that you can't believe David Whitmer because she says wh. He or she says Whitmer was never a scribe and there's no evidence that he actually saw the translation process. What do you think about discrediting Whitmer by the claim that he, he was never a scribe?

John Turner 29:54 Well, no, I mean, so obviously Joseph made it difficult for us to know the details. I think all along the way he didn't show these special objects, plates and interpreters to anyone in an ordinary way. And at least some of the time he separated himself from his scribe during the actual translation process. So with the exception of Joseph himself, you know, almost any information is by definition secondhand. Now, Martin Harris, who's there with Joseph at the outset as his scribe, he does refer to stone in the hat on some later occasions, at least according to, to people who are reporting his comments. So I think there's plenty of evidence for Joseph's use of a seer stone. There's even more overwhelming evidence for Joseph's use of the hat. You know, we, we know, I think as much as we could know anything about the translation process, that at least some of the time Joseph was burying his face in a hat.

John Dehlin 31:21 Okay. And then they also try and discredit Emma's account, saying the plates were covered all the time. So Emma's account is secondhand. So it's not reliable. And it's not reliable also because she, she denied Joseph's polygamy practice in the same document. So that's why Emma's account of the stone in the hat shouldn't be believed.

John Turner 31:48 Right? Well, I think this points to a larger issue with early Mormon history in that it's often possible to raise doubts, sometimes legitimate doubts, about any single source. But if you look at the. If you look at the overall evidence, all the pieces of evidence that we have, I think there's enough to go on to suggest that at least some of the time, Joseph was using a seer stone that he already possessed for the Book of Mormon translation in a way that resembled the method that he had used to find buried treasures.

John Dehlin 32:32 Right. Yeah. Okay. All right, well, so I guess maybe we've covered this enough.

Joseph Smith Returns to Kirtland Amid Criticism

John Turner 32:44 I think we can leave it there for now. It's a fun subject, and I think there's always a lot of grist for discussion because we have all of this evidence, we have all of these different sources, but my goodness, wouldn't we want to know more?

John Dehlin 33:01 Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, you know, there's this weird phenomenon popping up. Normally, historically, when the church speaks, the conversation's over. And historically, there was this official narrative, which was problematic, but all the apologists would just usually just support the church's narrative. There's a weird thing happening on the Internet in the past few years where. Where the church will come out and say, Joseph Smith was a polygamist or Joseph Smith did use a stone in the hat, and there'll be these sort of more ultra conservative, faithful Mormons that are just willing to say, the church is getting this part wrong, but they're. You know, and then that's something that we haven't really seen before. We've always seen critics willing to contradict the church, but it's. It's kind of weird to see faithful Mormons saying for whatever reason, whether it's. There are moles in the church, or the church is becoming corrupt, or the church history department is becoming corrupt. You know, we're getting faithful Mormons who are actively attending church who are saying, joseph never practiced polygamy. The church has it wrong. Joseph never used a stone in the hat. The church has it wrong. And I'm just waiting for the day where the church feels like they have to crack down on those people. Because historically, you get into trouble when you contradict the church's narrative and you're an active, faithful member.

John Turner 34:30 It is a really interesting dynamic. I think it probably points to the larger difficulty that any institution or movement faces in 2025 in terms of, you know, controlling or shaping a narrative and the fact that, you know, there's just less control. You can see the same thing in, in our politics as well. I will say, you know, it's a. It's very much a Joseph Smith like attitude, though, to, you know, we talked about in episode one, Joseph came from a family that didn't like other people telling them what to think, whether that was doctors or ministers or social superiors. Alleged social superiors, the Smiths, they always wanted to trust their own instincts. They were skeptical of received authority. They didn't like being told what to think or to do. And does seem that some of Joseph Smith's ecclesiastical descendants, they might have the same attitude.

John Dehlin 35:55 Yeah, yeah. And. And just like when the church finally cracked down and killed polygamy, let's just say in 1915ish. 1910, 1915, there were 10, 20 years

John Turner 36:09 of,

John Dehlin 36:11 you know, problems with faithful members who were struggling to adjust to the change. And if the church is going to have one official narrative for a long time, which is Urimum thummim, no stone in the Hat, it just makes perfect sense that there's going to be straggling faithful members that are like, wait, you changed the narrative. Or wait, this sounds bad. Or wait, this makes me uncomfortable. And it seems like that that might be what's going on.

John Turner 36:39 Yeah, no, absolutely.

John Dehlin 36:41 Okay, well, that's fun. Thanks. Thanks for covering that, John Turner. And viewers and listeners, you let us know if you felt like that was a worthwhile exchange or if we wasted your time. But I think it was. I think it's a fun and interesting topic to kind of at least broach. So thanks, John Turner, for weighing in, as always. Okay, so Joseph Smith returns. The chapter begins with Joseph Smith returning to Kirtland from Zion's camp. And, you know, and you start setting the stage for what he returns to. Should we start there?

John Turner 37:22 Sure. So this is a little bit of a counterpoint to the end of the prior chapter because Joseph does return to a share of criticism, namely from Sylvester Smith, no relation, who impugned Joseph for his behavior during the March. And there's also a lot of questions about the fact that the March did not redeem Zion. And Judge Joseph has now suggested that it's going to be another two years until Zion is redeemed in September of 1836. So a lot of what we're talking about today in this chapter is at least in a sense, it's Joseph's studying of ecclesiastical affairs in Kirtland after what, at least on the face of it is a unsuccessful or even disastrous string of events. In Missouri, uncharacteristically for Joseph. He stays in and around Kirtland for the next two and a half years. He and Emma finally have a house of their own in Kirtland, something they. They hadn't had since they left harmony back in 1830 for the final time. And Joseph has a lot of his close family and associates living in his vicinity. So one of his goals is to really, I think, lean into that, lean into those who are close to him, find ways of enhancing the church's cohesion and unity in northeastern Ohio.

John Dehlin 39:36 I was surprised at that number two and a half years because he still got Saints who are struggling, you know, as almost refugees, kicked out of Jackson county. And yet he's going to stay in Kirtland for a full two and a half years, basically. Like, how does he get away with all those refugees whose homes were burned, whose property was lost? Just, it would almost seem like neglect. But that's a bias that I'm introducing only out of, like, curiosity. But, but does that even make sense, that question of is that neglect to not visit those Missouri Saints for two and a half years who are refugees?

John Turner 40:19 Well, I don't know whether it constitutes neglect or not. I think Joseph doesn't return to Missouri until 1837. It's before the final collapse of things in Kirtland, when things are beginning to unravel there. He does undertake a trip to Missouri, but you're right, we might have expected him to visit the refugees in Clay county, which he's been there briefly in June of 1834 on science camp. But yeah, he doesn't go back. His energies and efforts, they're focused on affairs in Kirtland, ultimately completing the Kirtland Temple. He's promised, you know, in. In the revelation that ended the Zion's camp expedition, he's promised his elders an endowment of power and blessing in Kirtland. And he suggested that Zion won't be redeemed for a couple additional years.

John Dehlin 41:30 Right. Okay, that makes sense. So the next. We kind of introduced the idea of maybe a second genuine anti Mormon we covered in a prior episode. Who,

Rise of Anti-Mormon Sentiment and Philastus Hurlbut

John Turner 41:49 Dr. Philastis Hurlbut.

John Dehlin 41:51 Right. And so maybe this is the emergence of the second key anti Mormon of the first, you know, four or five years of the church. Do you want to talk about Eber D. Howe and give some background on him?

John Turner 42:05 Sure. Yeah. So Eber D. Howe is. He's a fascinating character. He is a bit older than Joseph. He's been essentially a newspaper publisher, first elsewhere and then in nearby Painesville Ohio Howe is also an abolitionist. I think he plays some role in the underground railroad in later years. Another interesting element to this story is that for how the issue of Mormonism is perhaps personal. He has a wife, a mother in law and a sister who belonged to the church. In the book I believe I have a minor error. I say that how has two sisters in the church. Somebody pointed out to me it was just one sister. Thank you to careful readers out there. And so Howe understands Mormonism as a delusion, as something that is dangerous in that it induces people to commit their lives and money to a deception. How's own wife contributed money to Zion's camp? Not a ton of their money, but you know how, how's how it wants to knock Joseph Smith and Mormonism down to try to prevent other Americans from falling victim to what he sees as nonsense, deception and fraud.

John Dehlin 44:06 So the church, let's just have you talk about this term anti Mormon. You probably know that that I'm referred to in many parts in 2025 as an anti Mormon. I think many of us who have expressed concerns about the church or even discuss. I mean you could argue that there was a time where anyone who told spoke honest, open history was labeled an anti Mormon. So it certainly can be used by the church or by faithful members as a pejorative, as a way to dismiss or demean somebody. But there's also probably truly people that are trying to destroy the church and sometimes in really unethical ways. So do you have any just general framing commentary about the use of this term as a outside historian before we actually decide whether or not it fairly applies to Ebert Howe in this case.

John Turner 45:02 That's a fun question. I've never really thought about it in those terms, John. So I do in the book refer to Philistus Hurlbut as sort of the world's first professional anti Mormon in the sense of people were funding his work. So he sort of was a paid, paid opponent of the church. I, you know, I think there are, you know, almost from the start there are some opponents of Joseph Smith, Abner Cole back in Palmyra. There are certainly people who apostatize from the church who leave the church and then become fierce opponents. Ezra Booth is certainly in that category and Hurlbut has a brief period of church membership. So he's sort of in that category as well. I think then there are other, you know, and for how as I mentioned, you know, on some level this is personal as well because he has a number of family members involved. There are other individuals during Joseph Smith's lifetime who I think it'd be fair to say are more outside observers who are simply alarmed at what they see. They think Joseph Smith, and this is often, I think, a lot of hyperbole, they see Joseph as a clear and present danger to the nation. So you can find, you know, you can find publications along those lines. I think all of that is to say, you know, that that term anti Mormon, probably during Joseph Smith's lifetime down to the present day, probably encompasses a wide range of people with different goals and motivations. Right. I think that, I think that'd be fair to say. There are some people who are just implacable and forceful opponents of the church. So, you know, for instance, the anti Mormons on the ground in places like Jackson county and later in Hancock County, I mean, they are fierce, you know, fierce political and sometimes military opponents. Then there are other people who, you know, critique the church, like Alexander Campbell, and then there are people who have personal concerns and grudges against Joseph Smith. So it's a, it's a real spectrum.

John Dehlin 47:48 Yeah. And I guess, and I, if I'm going to be introspective, I could, I could think of instances where I'm guilty of this too. Like a label can be used almost like dog whistling, to get your side to dismiss someone else's position is not credible. So an example is if, if a critic of the church says, well, Richard Bushman or Terrell Givens, they're apologists, that could be viewed as a dog whistle saying, you can't really believe or trust what they have to say because it implies what they're faithful to the church or they're paid by the church in some way and so don't listen to them. The term anti Mormon can serve the same purpose to basically say you can't trust Ed Howe and Mormonism unveiled because he's an anti Mormon. And so I guess a better question, is it, you know, do you view Ed Howe calling balls and strikes as someone who is credible, is basically a person of credible reputation and, or someone who has either legitimate concerns or legitimate critiques and, or sincere motives when he is publishing things about the church?

John Turner 49:08 Hmm, fun question. I totally agree with what you're saying about, you know, the dog whistle dismissal of people based on labels, which I think is really unfortunate. And that, that is, you know, that's a real issue within the field of Mormon story, excuse Mormon stories, Mormon studies, Mormon history. There's this sense that people are in different camps, so to speak, ideological camps. And if you're not in camp, well, then you shouldn't trust the other camps. I think that's really unfortunate in terms of Mormonism Unveiled. So it's actually a tricky question because this is not information that is coming from Ed Howe as an investigative journalist on his own. So Mormonism Unveiled is a bit of a compendium. So it contains Ezra Booth's critical letters of the Church. It's much easier to find them there than to look them up in the local newspaper. It has Hurlbut's affidavits from some of Joseph Smith's former neighbors and associates. Those are valuable sources. Whether, you know, you. You certainly can take issue with people having access to grind, but they're. They're still valuable sources. We'd be worse off if we didn't have them, I think. How also publishes some of Joseph's revelations. This is before the publication of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. And then Howe has, you know, some of his own commentary. And so some of this information is just more reliable and trustworthy than others. So, for instance, we've talked about the Solomon Spalding hypothesis, the hypothesis that a Solomon Spaulding novel was the source for the Book of Mormon. That's in Mormonism Unveiled. I don't think that's accurate or credible. But Ezra Booth's letters, they have some firsthand information about Joseph smith's activities in 1831 that's corroborated.

John Dehlin 51:33 That's corroborated by the evidence, basically.

John Turner 51:35 At least some of it. Yeah, yeah. You know, we talked about Joseph's summer 1831 trip to Jackson County. Well, Booth has some information about that. You know, Hurlbut's affidavits, you know, we've talked about some of them before. I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand. So. Yeah, So I guess in this case it's complicated because Mormonism Unveiled is a complicated book that has a few different components to it.

John Dehlin 52:11 Okay. Yeah. And so Ezra Booth's letters are useful because they're firsthand accounts of someone that had a bad experience on Zion's camp and wanted to share. Is that right?

John Turner 52:24 Not Zion's camp, but the earlier trip in Missouri. Right, exactly.

John Dehlin 52:28 So it's Ezra Booth travels with Joseph Smith, doesn't have good experiences, and wants to share that. And it's firsthand and early. So, I mean, that's what makes those credible. Right?

John Turner 52:40 Correct.

John Dehlin 52:41 Certainly sharing Joseph Smith's own revelations can't be viewed as anti Mormon.

John Turner 52:45 Right, Correct.

John Dehlin 52:47 If anything is problematic, if they change later. Then it shows revelations changing, or if they don't come to pass, then they show that Joseph Smith's revelations don't come to pass. So it could be viewed as problematic. But it's not fair to dismiss them as anti Mormon. Correct?

John Turner 53:05 Correct.

John Dehlin 53:06 And then the Hurlbut affidavits we've talked about, that's mostly just Dr. Hurlbut interviewing a bunch of people who were neighbors and firsthand witnesses of Joseph and his family's behavior in New York and elsewhere. And that's just people's opinions. There's probably accurate and inaccurate stuff there, but we're certainly better off trying to piece together Joseph's early life with the Hurlbut affidavits than without.

John Turner 53:37 Absolutely. No, totally.

John Dehlin 53:39 That includes Solomon, like Lucy's dad, his, his experiences with Joseph.

John Turner 53:46 I mean, sorry, Emma's dad. Correct.

John Dehlin 53:48 And I think Emma's dad's, you know, experiences with Joseph, specifically with the Silver. Silver Mine expedition. That's all good stuff, right?

John Turner 54:00 Correct. Now, like I said, I think the way you put it is really good, John. We're much better off with those affidavits than not having them. They're important pieces of evidence. I think that doesn't, that doesn't mean we shouldn't question elements of them, I think, I think Emma has a sister, if I'm not mistaken, who has a sort of just negative commentary about the death of their first child or something along those lines. Well, you know, there's a significant rift. Right. Between Emma and her family because of her marriage to Joseph and, you know, subsequent move away. And so we would expect that to color those affidavits, but the recognizing where a source is coming from and evaluating it accordingly, that doesn't mean just dismissing it.

Eber Howe and Mormonism Unvailed Assessed

John Dehlin 55:08 Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So overall, I think you'd probably agree that Ed Howe's Mormonism Unveiled provides important information for people trying to piece together Joseph's early life. Correct?

John Turner 55:23 Absolutely.

John Dehlin 55:24 And it would be a disservice to dismiss it and ignore it as anti Mormon drivel. Correct.

John Turner 55:31 I think that's, I think that's fair. Dan Vogel published a annotated edition of Mormonism Unveiled a few years ago, if I'm remembering correctly. So you can, you know, if listeners are interested, they can find, you know, a PDF of the original very easily on Google Books, or they could check out Dan's edited volume.

John Dehlin 56:01 Okay. And then you, you, you talked about if you had to assess Ed Howe's motives, which is always hard to do. But do you think by, by what you understand about him and what his concerns were and, you know, what he did. Did he have reasonable or credible concerns that he was or was he just a hater? Do you know what I'm saying?

John Turner 56:28 Yeah. So I, you know, my own sense, and I only know so much about Ebert Howe, but my own sense is he's a bit like Abner Cole in Palmyra. He's a religious skeptic and free thinker. He dislikes what he sees as fraud and spiritual excess. I don't know the extent to which his family members association with the church colored his thinking. I do also think, you know, there is still, you know, I understand why church members at the time, and since, you know, they certainly are not going to appreciate the work of Ebert Howe, I do think there's a difference between his approach and what the church's opponents in Missouri and later in Hancock county took. You know, how did express sympathy for. For the victims of the mobs in Missouri. You know, he took note of the violence and expulsions that they had suffered. I think he didn't want to inflame, you know, that level of activity against the church. I think he hoped to simply be able to show in print that Mormonism was nonsensical and to warn other people against it. Now, he didn't ultimately really succeed in that respect. You know, the church. The church continued to grow, but it was nevertheless an influential critique.

John Dehlin 58:30 Right?

John Turner 58:32 Yeah.

John Dehlin 58:32 I mean, just in an observation today, I think many of us could probably agree that, for example, Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses have some practices that are problematic, legally or otherwise, and we're grateful for people that kind of either whistleblowers to that effect or who speak up publicly and say, you know, these types of practices are fine, religious, you know, protection, faith, whatever, but these other practices seem to be harmful. And I, So, so I, I guess I just, like, I, I'm sad when people get dismissed unfairly. And I, I also want to just kind of acknowledge that just like journalism historically in the United States can play an important role in. In holding the government to account. I think journalists and even whistleblowers can play an important role in holding churches, and especially early religions or early religious movements accountable for behavior that's either fraudulent or harmful or deceptive. And in that sense, I guess I want to have us be a little bit more thoughtful about, you know, dismissing people with labels like anti Mormon, you know.

John Turner 59:57 Yeah, no, I think that's. I think that's totally fair. I agree with what you say about journalism, you know, more More broadly, I, you know, and I, you know, in turn, in contemporary terms, I, I both admire. Well, I love religion journalists generally. You know, some of the best in the country live in Utah, so you all are lucky. But I admire both journalists who help outsiders understand what makes a movement tick, who can really explain something that helps outsiders make sense of religious experience. And I also agree, you know, I also love investigative journalism that takes a critical look at religious institutions, both the small and the large ones. So I couldn't agree more.

John Dehlin 1:01:01 Okay. All right, cool. So how damaging was Ed Howe's book Mormonism unveiled to the church during that Kirtland time period? And maybe more importantly, how much, how much did it get under Joseph Smith's skin and the skin of early church members in Kirtland?

Joseph Smith's Response to Early Critics

John Turner 1:01:27 Yeah, so it's a great question, I think. I'm actually not exactly sure how, how alarmed Joseph was. I'd say longer term, this is significant simply for the Spalding theory that Hurlbut and Eberdy Howe put into circulation down to the present day. That remains influential. I happen to think it's not correct, but certainly influential. I do think that Mormonism Unveiled did reinforce Joseph's sense that he and the church needed to do more to control their own narrative. So I don't think it's a coincidence. I mean, there have already been plans in place partly because of prior critics, but, you know, Joseph in 1834, 1835, moves ahead with plans to publish the Doctrine and Covenants. An earlier attempt to publish a Book of Commandments ultimately was disrupted, destroyed by mobs in Missouri. And Joseph says that it's urgent to get this volume into print because the church was evil spoken of in many places. You can see that in some of Joseph's other writings in the 1830s, there's a concern about what other people are saying about the church and a perceived need to get his own message out there.

John Dehlin 1:03:18 Yeah, I've just like, I'm realizing that, and we're going to talk about this in this chapter, how Joseph Smith's failed revelations did not seem to harm him overall. In fact, he always seemed to emerge stronger after failed revelations. It almost seems like the role of the critic of Mormonism in specific, and maybe even cults or religious groups larger is it ends up strengthening them because, number one, they end up making changes to act better or more ethically and they just become more resilient and strong over time, realizing that they can withstand difficult things. So, I mean, I think it's worth, it's worth thinking a bit about whether critics really do harm Mormonism specifically or culture, religions generally, or whether they just end up strengthening them by helping them improve. Does that make sense?

John Turner 1:04:17 Makes sense. Such a huge question. I'm sure. It's really particular, I think, I mean, I'm sure I would feel confident that in the case of Mormonism over the course of the 19th century, I mean, nobody likes any kind of persecution, right. Whether verbal criticism or on the ground persecution. I do think a strong sense of having critics and opponents. I do definitely think that it furthered on some level church unity and cohesion in the sense of a common identity as a persecuted people. I do think that was significant.

John Dehlin 1:05:07 Yeah. So we talked about the Book of Commandments, you know, being printed in Missouri or at least attempted to be printed, but then that printing press, what was destroyed. Are there, there are, are there complete versions or manuscripts of the Book of Commandments as it was originally printed? Do you know?

John Turner 1:05:30 I think so, John. I, But I'm not positive if they are complete or mostly complete. I'll have to check.

John Dehlin 1:05:39 Okay. Oh, I do have one side question going back to the Solomon Spalding theory, and I think we've touched on this previously, but I thought when Ed Howe puts forth the Solomon Spalding manuscript, it's sort of done under the assumption that the Book of Mormontell me if I'm wrong, that the Book of Mormon is so amazing that Joseph, Joseph couldn't have written it. So we've got to figure out who wrote it. And in that way, it's almost a compliment to the Book of Mormon and almost bolsters the claim that it's a magical, miraculous book. Am I onto something there? A little bit. And if we, maybe we've talked about that in previous part of this is

John Turner 1:06:27 the way I, I, this is an irony that I sometimes point at and I think how would be in this category and I'd have to go back and look in general, like a lot of other critics of the Book of Mormon, I think his conclusion is this is pretty wretched, but Joseph Smith was still not up to it in the sense of Joseph Smith is even more wretched than this wretchedness. And so we've got to have sort of a source for it.

John Dehlin 1:07:00 Yeah. Okay. Well, he, your book mentions that Ed Howe wasn't just worried about, you know, people's wives or children being sucked in. He makes the argument that that Mormonism is, is, is a threat to all Americans. That's kind of a real, I mean, some could say that's overblown or paranoid and you basically write that he was concerned that they're going to recruit the Indians, seize power first in Jackson county and then Kirtland. And, and he makes it sound like Joseph Smith has the power and ability to kind of take over the whole United States. I mean, is that just ridiculous that a charlatan and a fraud, you know, by his, by his estimation could slowly gain a following that would at first take over counties and then states and then the entire country? Do you think that was, that was reasonable or do you think that was overblown?

John Turner 1:08:04 I think it's totally overblown. I think it, you know, and look at how's language, you know, we're going to have Pope Joseph the First. I think there is, you know, and a lot of Americans make this, this connection that Joseph Smith, this, you know, with this single individual at the top of this church hierarchy. It smacks of Catholicism and potpourri. And one of the complaints that Americans commonly raise about Catholicism is that the Vatican doesn't accept the separation of church and state. And so Joseph as sort of a Catholic style hierarch is dangerous. Now, sure, if Joseph's church was going to have 10 million members by 1840, that would have been a reasonable concern. But we're talking about a church that, you know, maybe by this point numbers a few thousand. So the idea that they're on the verge of recruiting the Indians and taking over the country is just crazy. How's not the last one to, you know, a lot of people raise that alarm in the early 1840s as well. You know, Protestants really object to this idea of ongoing and immediate revelation.

John Dehlin 1:09:48 Yeah, I was going to ask you about that. Yeah, well, tell us what that means. Immediate revelations, because that's sort of another one of Edie Howe's criticisms of Joseph.

John Turner 1:09:58 Yeah, I mean, so when I see that, I see echoes of the complaints that Massachusetts Bay authorities raised against Ann Hutchinson back in the 1630s, that because she claimed to hear it directly from God, that was a threat to the existing order. Because, you know, what can you say against a revelation from God, except I don't accept it. But if that's a possibility, then that individual has a higher authority than any other authority. And so it's not surprising that now how is not a traditional Protestant, but just that idea that somebody is claiming immediate authority from God, I think that's just something that other Americans find ominous and dangerous.

John Dehlin 1:11:03 Yeah, I mean, if the church likes to say when they're wanting to tout Joseph's abilities, that he grew Nauvoo to be a rival of the city of Chicago, you know, at the peak of Nauvoo's power. And so I think it's. I think it's. I think one could then extrapolate. Well, if in a very short amount of time Joseph was able to grow a following and a city that rivaled Chicago in its day, give him 20 more years, and a lot could happen, especially if growth can become exponential. Right, sure.

John Turner 1:11:42 Well, but I think you could say that about almost any fledgling religious movement, because by their very definition, successful fledgling movements are growing at a really rapid rate. Right now, I am going to say I've been. I've been pretty dismissive of it because I do think it's overblown. And, you know, even if we're talking about Nauvoo rivaling Chicago, I mean, Chicago is not that big in the early to mid-1840s. So it's not, you know, it's not like rivaling Boston or New York City. Now, what I would say, however, is, you know, this. This remains, you know, Mormonism becomes a real salient political issue in the United States, really, from the, you know, around 1850 through the early 1900s, because you do have the establishment of a theocratic kingdom in the Great Basin that, you know, doesn't accept the authority of the nation or at least the, you know, the system of territorial and national sovereignty. But even granting that, you know, in 1834, you know, we're not on the verge of Pope Joseph the First taking over the country.

John Dehlin 1:13:19 Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I seem to remember Grant Palmer, or maybe, no, maybe Michael Quinn saying that at some point, Joseph commits treason. Maybe it was with the Council of 50 because there was some sort of conspiracy to team with the Indians and literally start taking over large amounts of territories in the West. I don't know if you're familiar with that sort of idea, that Joseph actually communicated an intent to team with Indians to commit treason against the United States. So this seems to be an early indication of maybe.

John Turner 1:14:04 I mean, there are definitely prophecies that in some way are along those lines. I think that the talk of treason, when people raise it against Joseph, it does tend to relate to the Council of 50 and Joseph being the people's prophet, priest, and king. But we'd better talk about that when we get to 1844.

John Dehlin 1:14:32 Okay. All right. Okay. So let's go ahead and talk about D and C, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition. And this blew my mind. So go ahead and set it up, and then I'll Tell you what was weird about it for me.

The Lectures on Faith and Early Doctrine and Covenants

John Turner 1:14:51 Okay, well, if, you know, if listeners are not familiar with the early Doctrine and Covenants, the name is purposeful in the sense of the Covenants are Joseph's Revelations. There are about a hundred in the 1835 edition. The doctrine is seven lectures that stem from classes for the elders in Kirtland in the winter of 1834, 1835. We actually don't know a great deal about the provenance of the material. Signe Rigdon was probably the primary teacher at that elder school. Joseph sometimes taught as well. So I think most historians have presumed that Sidney Rigdon is the principal author of these lectures on Faith, which. And I don't think I get into this in the book, but they were eventually sort of de. Canonized, I think, in the early 20th century.

John Dehlin 1:16:21 Okay. The thing that kind of blew me away is a Mormon in the 21st century, a Latter Day Saint in the 21st century is going to think of Doctrine and covenants as just 130, whatever sections of doctrine and Covenants and Pronouncements of Joseph Smith. But we are never taught that. I recall that, that the original term meant basically, as I understand your book, the Lectures on Faith, which was the doctrine.

John Turner 1:17:00 Correct.

John Dehlin 1:17:01 And then the Covenants, which was Joseph Smith's Other Revelations. And we're also not generally taught that, you know, we're. I remember hearing about the Lectures on Faith and being told how they're kind of interesting, but they're not that important. They're not like, they're not at the level of canonization or Scripture. So you hear about the Lectures on Faith. You don't ever learn in mainstream Mormonism that the Lectures on Faith were at once included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were canonized, that the doctrine from the word Doctrine and Covenants was specifically referencing the Lectures on Faith. And then at some point that stuff that had been canonized in the Scriptures, meaning the elections of faith, Lectures on Faith were then removed and. But the name remained Doctrine and Covenants. Like, that's all stuff that my Mormon brain is like, whoa, I didn't really realize any of this. Right. Yeah, well, 45 years as a faithful Mormon.

John Turner 1:18:05 You know what I mean? I mean, I guess at a certain point it wouldn't have made sense to change the name. Then you just have, you know, Book of Mormon Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Right.

John Dehlin 1:18:19 But remind us why the Lectures on Faith were removed. I know we'll probably talk about that later, but since we're talking about it now, why were they ever removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, especially when there's no more official pronouncement of something as doctrine. If it's like canonized and then the actual book includes a name referencing to that part which is canonized. I can't think of a more officially canonized thing than the Lectures on Faith.

John Turner 1:18:50 Right. Someone. I'm sure we could get into the show notes. Somebody wrote a good essay on this as a case study in Decanonization. I can't. No. It's an interesting subject. Right. I mean, something, you know, people, you know, a church or a community can essentially make certain texts Scripture, but they can also decanonize them and then they lose authority. So I don't remember the details of the discussions in the early 20th century. I do think part of the issue is there are things in the Lectures of Faith that clash with some of Joseph's later theological developments. So, for instance, one of the lectures speaks, you know, essentially discusses the Godhead and speaks of the Father as God the Father as a personage of spirit. And, you know, Joseph later taught that God the Father has a body of

John Dehlin 1:20:05 flesh and bone, an exalted body as a former human, basically.

John Turner 1:20:11 Exactly. And the Lectures of Faith, you know, from my reading, and I'm sure people could parse this in somewhat different ways, I think that. I think it's something at least more akin to standard trinitarianism. You know, the Son is a personage of tabernacle, so has a body who possesses the same mind with the Father. So, you know, Joseph Smith's thought continued to. To evolve. And so the Lectures on Faith, in a way, if they remain part of the Mormon canon, at the very least, you can understand how that would have been confusing for church members.

John Dehlin 1:21:03 Yeah, yeah. And so, yeah, then that's the theory. I've heard as well, that because Joseph's beliefs about the Godhead change, the Lectures on Faith represented his earlier position, which would be consistent with his 1832 First Vision account and with the Book of Mormon, that once he's evolved, he changes the Book of Mormon to reflect his evolving view of the Godhead. He changes this First Vision Account to be updated according to his changing view of the Godhead. He's got to get rid or decanonize the Lectures on Faith as a way to really clean up shop as it relates to his evolving view of the Godhead.

John Turner 1:21:51 Well, I don't think he does, but later church leaders do. Church leaders do, yeah. Another change. And I don't. I at least don't Talk about it in this chapter is there is an article on marriage that is published with the Lectures on faith in 1835, and it declares that one man should have one wife and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death. Now, there's been a lot of discussion about that article that because it was, I think, approved while Joseph was absent, that maybe it didn't reflect his teaching at the time. But it's also worth noting that prior to the general canonization of the Lectures on Faith, that article on marriage was removed. And Doctrine and Covenants section, what's now 132 was added.

Polygamy Denial and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants

John Dehlin 1:23:04 Right. So the 1835 version of the DNC has a section 101 which basically condemns polygamy and denies its practice. Correct.

John Turner 1:23:16 I can't remember if it's 101, but I'll. There's an article in it and it basically says that. It's a couple of paragraphs and it lays out, I think, some procedures for marriages within the church. And then it also says that inasmuch as the Church of Christ has been reproached with the sin of fornication and polygamy, we want to declare, you know, we. We practice monogamy.

John Dehlin 1:23:50 Yeah, okay. And just for those who are like to geek out on this stuff. Yeah. I just made sure the Lectures on Faith were officially removed from the DNC in 1921. So they stood for almost a century as canonized scripture removed in 1921. There is an article that Julie is going to link to in dialogue called the Lectures on A Case Study in Decanonization. I think that Mormons and critics of Mormonism probably haven't made enough of the idea that on the one hand, Mormons consider Scripture to be sacred and of God. You know, Mormons consider, and religious people consider Scripture to be authoritative. And then large chunks of the Scripture can just be decanonized. And then more miraculously of all, everyone can forget about it within one or two generations and never remember that this Scripture was even there in the first place, let alone know that Scripture can be decanonized. But it does. I guess, technically it does take some of the shine off of the sacredness of the inviolability of Scripture to know that huge chunks can be decanonized.

John Turner 1:25:06 Right. Yeah. So two things I'd say in relation to that is, despite the decanonization, at least some church leaders continued to quote from and to value the Lectures on Faith. I think I can't think of particular examples, but there is a Quote from the Lectures on Faith about something like a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things doesn't quite capture the power of religion or something like that. I think you can find examples of church leaders quoting that in recent decades. So it doesn't totally lose its influence then. The second thing I'd say is that, yeah, this. It might seem strange to have Scripture revised or even decanonized, or I would say from a Protestant or Catholic perspective added to. Right. That in and of itself is unusual if you're from my tribe. But I think for Joseph Smith, the idea that everything was subject to revision, that was more of a feature than a bug.

John Dehlin 1:26:26 Oh yeah? Yeah. Why?

John Turner 1:26:29 Well, it allowed for new directions. It allowed for responses to changing circumstances. You could say from a faithful perspective, it allowed for ongoing revelation and new understanding.

John Dehlin 1:26:48 Yeah. So a couple. Julie is doing a lot of the fact checking here. It was indeed section 101. That was the. The early section on marriage. So she'll include that in the show notes. She's also saying lecture six, I guess in the Lectures on Faith had that quote about a religion that doesn't require the sacrifice of all things, not having the power sufficient to, you know, save. Like, if somebody wanted to say Mormonism isn't true because big chunks of its canonized scripture were decanonized, could somebody make a similar claim about the older New Testament? Like I could say, can you imagine the, you know, Christianity saying we're taking Song of Solomon out of the Old Testament or we're taking Revelations out of the New Testament because it's caused too many problems? I would think that would just cause mass defections and. Or riots. But then I don't. Maybe in the past 2000 years the Bible underwent similar additions and subtractions, especially when I think about Bart ehrman and Dan McLellan and others. I'm sure the Bible had its own period of volatility in that regard. True or not true?

John Turner 1:28:08 Yeah. Well, I mean, one maybe somewhat pertinent example is Protestant Christians whittling down the Old Testament and removing books that they did not believe were originally written in Hebrew or including them instead as an apocrypha. I mean, that's another example of de canonization. And in a way it's a decent parallel because some of those texts remained beloved and read for a while, even if they were sort of demoted.

John Dehlin 1:28:47 Don't Catholic Bibles include apocryphal? I don't know if that's the adjective apocryphal writings that Protestant Bibles don't correct.

John Turner 1:28:56 Correct. Because those were in early Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures.

John Dehlin 1:29:06 Got it. Okay. The next part of your book that I think is really interesting, it goes on in the top of page 154 to say that all of this stuff, and I think we could say Ed Howe's Mormonism unveiled these criticisms about instant revelation, immediate revelations, you know, a lot of his critics, and then all this stuff with, I don't know, it basically you make the claim that Joseph's pace of producing revelations slows. Do you want to tell us more about that?

The Slowing Pace of Joseph Smith's Revelations

John Turner 1:29:43 Sure. It's a great, great question. Yeah. So in the early 1830s, there are stretches of time in which Joseph is just bringing out a torrent of revelations. You can, you can find months in which there are six revelations. There are a number of really long, theologically rich messages on priesthood or on the three kingdoms of glory. So things change in the mid-1830s. We don't know exactly why, but that pace of revelation slows to a trickle. Now you can, you know, you can find some revelations going forward, but just never again the torrent and flood of divine words that Joseph brought forth in the early 1830s. We don't know why. I lay out a couple of possibilities. Perhaps after the Jackson county debacle, Joseph had lost a measure of revelatory confidence. You know, that's a possibility. Or perhaps he thought changed circumstances required new methods. Or maybe after publishing the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph was a little bit more wary about dictating large numbers of new revelations. And if you don't mind, John, I'll just read my conclusion to that section because I kind of like it.

John Dehlin 1:31:23 Yeah, yeah. It's good stuff.

John Turner 1:31:25 Regardless, the development points to a reason for Joseph's resilience and success. He wasn't a one trick prophet. He set aside his seer stone. He dictated fewer revelations, but improved his rhetoric. Joseph was a constant innovator.

John Dehlin 1:31:44 Yeah, but you also. So, yes. So there's a, there's a, there's kind of a bad and a good there in some degree. You're basically saying maybe he's realizing that putting things to word, putting things to revelation can get him into trouble. So it, you know, and want to talk about slowing to a trickle, let's talk about how many DNC sections have been added since Joseph died. Very, very few. Almost none. And you could argue that maybe God just doesn't have anything more to say to his people, because that seemed to be the value proposition of Mormonism, is that God wants to speak to his people again. Through prophets. So you could say, that's all God's got for us. So once Joseph died, there's pretty much not much else. Or you could say that subsequent church leaders of the Mormon Church learned from Joseph to realize that you put something in writing, it could be wrong, and then you could be held accountable. May be better not to put things in writing anymore. So I do want to pivot to Joseph's resilient innovation, but let's not maybe totally lose sight of the fact that it's problematic to put revelations in print. Right.

John Turner 1:33:05 It's, it's fair enough. But really, would Latter Day Saints want to have a, you know, this thick doctrine and covenants with 600 revelations to study? That would be rough.

John Dehlin 1:33:20 So I think there are some that would. I think there are some like Deborah Snuffer, I don't know. Do you know about Denver Stuffer?

John Turner 1:33:27 We've talked about him before.

John Dehlin 1:33:28 He's produced his own Doctrine of Covenants and he's up to, over. Well, you know, I don't know however many he's up to. But Community of Christ, they continue the tradition of adding sections to their doctrine and covenants, and it included things like being more expansive with LGBT people and other types of things. Giving women the priesthood, giving people of color the priesthood. So, I mean, I guess there's trade offs there, right?

John Turner 1:33:52 I mean, the LDS Church could decide to introduce at least a John Taylor insert.

John Dehlin 1:34:00 What about Brigham Young?

John Turner 1:34:02 Yeah, well, you know, he, you know, I actually think one of Brigham's genius moves in terms of establishing his own leadership was not trying to completely imitate an ape Joseph Smith. And there's this scene I like. I think it's, I think it's 1847, might have been the previous year, where they're, they're heading, they're heading west. Things aren't going well. And Brigham starts writing the Word in the will of the Lord. And I don't know, I kind of think he gets a headache after a while. Like, it's not easy being a revelator. And he eventually just sets it aside and he basically decides to let his words be scripture and authoritative, his spoken words be scripture and authoritative for the people. And, you know, I think, I think there were a lot of church members who were hungering for new written revelations. They basically got that one from Brigham about the organization of the Exodus. You know, I think, I think there, there were different ways to be a prophet, and I think I was actually pretty smart on Brigham's part to try to do it his own way.

John Dehlin 1:35:27 Yeah. Why did Tell tell us? For those who don't know how to connect the dots, what was your joke about the John Taylor insert? Just so that we don't miss what you were saying there.

John Turner 1:35:36 Sorry for the cryptic humor. So, you know, there. There are some revelations from John Taylor, including one.

John Dehlin 1:35:46 Oh, right, the polygamy.

John Turner 1:35:48 Right. Well, yeah, and one in particular. There have been a lot of arguments about its providence and whether or not it was, you know, legitimately from John Taylor and the church released it. The church History library released it on its website earlier this summer. So the church is now acknowledging.

John Dehlin 1:36:16 Right.

John Turner 1:36:17 You know, its providence.

John Dehlin 1:36:19 Yeah. And then, weirdly, Wilford Woodruff issued those declarations, but they weren't actually turned into sections of the dnc. They were just made official declarations.

John Turner 1:36:30 Right.

John Dehlin 1:36:32 Maybe the heavens closed back up. I don't know. I guess we'll have to see. The church could always turn back to adding more sections of the future. Okay. So, yes, Joseph is an innovator. So it's not like he just walked away with his tail between his legs and said, okay, I'm no longer a prophet, seer and revelator. He just kind of pivots. And that's where this chapter really, really progresses. So let's talk about the types of things he did in Kirtland to. To strengthen the church. I think it's fascinating.

Ordinations, Patriarchal Blessings, and Endowment of Power

John Turner 1:37:07 Yeah. So, you know, one. One thing he does, and these two things are connected really, is he proceeds with a series of ordinations and blessings. So the church hierarchy is always confusing during these years. Joseph had been ordained as president of the high priesthood back in 1832. Originally, Signe Rigdon and Jesse Gauss were his counselors. Gauss apostatized. Joseph chose Frederick G. Williams as his replacement. But what he does now is he makes Oliver Cowdery an assistant president and also adds Joseph Smith Sr. His father, and his brother Hyrum Smith as assistant presidents. Probably the most significant part of that is really clarifying that Oliver Cowdery is very much back in good graces and remains a valuable associate. And then subsequently, Joseph bestows a series of ordinations and blessings primarily on men who have. Who had accompanied him on the march to Zion.

John Dehlin 1:38:47 So we concluded with the failure of Zion's camp, him sort of making that promise that they would receive some big blessings, you know, as a result of the failure, basically.

John Turner 1:38:59 Exactly. And Joseph, Joseph makes good on that starting in February of 1835. And, you know, he's very explicit. He tells them, you know, their sacrifices were not in vain. They had proven Themselves, they had shown that they were willing to lay down their lives for his friends. He's ready to proceed with the ordination of 12 men as apostles. 11 out of 12 of them were either members of Zion's camp or had already been in Missouri at the time. And, you know, with Joseph, it's not simply a question of, you know, selecting men and then doing a sort of rote business like ordination. There are rich blessings on the chosen apostles. Their predictions that they will be working miracles, that they will live until the return of Christ, that they will be mighty witnesses for Christ. I think there's a vision, for instance, of Brigham Young standing somewhere in the American west preaching to the. To the natives. And then it's not just the apostles. Joseph also selects an additional 70 followers who are blessed and ordained as members of the 70. It takes two days to go through all of the blessings. And, you know, Joseph is not chintzy with blessing. You know, even some men like Sylvester Smith, they, you know, who have had some been at odds with him in the past, they are rewarded for their past faithful service. You know, and if you put all of this together, I see this as indicative of Joseph's talent as an ecclesiastical leader. You know, that after. After, really, I would describe it as a disaster in Jackson County. And after this unsuccessful march, he finds both theology and ritual that respond to those difficulties and respond to them in a way that stitches these people more closely to each other and to him.

John Dehlin 1:41:49 Yeah. And as I was trying to think about this, and I want to talk a little bit more about the blessings, but, you know, some people like to reduce, you know, let's just say new religious movements to the accumulation of sex, money, and power. Right. And I know that that's a debased, demeaning way to think about things, but you've got different ways to motivate people. You can help them make money. Right. You can give them power, you can give them fame. You can increase their reputation. Right. And. And sometimes religious leaders dole out sexual favors. You know, Warren Jeffs could be an example. Maybe Joseph Smith Nauvoo could be an example of that. But it looks like clearly, and I think we've referenced this in past episodes, and I. And I wondered about this. It almost feels like the doctrine of hell and. Or the doctrine of salvation must create this. Either you could call it a false scarcity, or you could call it a genuine fear or concern that people are going to end up in a bad place or not be with their family, not be with their loved ones or they're going to get to go to the good place where they're with God or Jesus. This idea of your fate in the afterlife is a real carrot that rivals sex, money and power as a motivator to reward and motivate people. Because if you want to just reduce people's behavior to like, you know, pellets in a Skinner box, you know what I mean? The Bell and Pavlov, Pavlov's dog. What, what, what incentives, what reinforcers do you have to get the behavior you want? It seems like this promises of, of good things in the afterlife or fear of bad things in the afterlife is as compelling to people as, as things like sex, money and power and, or status or influence.

John Turner 1:44:06 Yeah, well, the other thing I would, I mean, that is operative as a motivation for early church members and contemporary church members, no doubt. I think the other thing that you can see strongly in these post Zions camp blessings is Joseph. In addition to addressing the anxieties that people have about the afterlife and their families, he also excels at giving large numbers of people a vital place in this story that he is unfolding. So I think the 70s, a good example of that. Right. There are these 12 really important people, these foretold apostles, and they're going to be this traveling high council.

John Dehlin 1:45:05 Okay, well, and we all know Jesus had 12 disciples.

John Turner 1:45:08 So it's like basically they're really important. But okay, maybe you don't, maybe you don't make it into the 12. Right? Well, don't worry, there's 70. And even Sylvester Smith, who Joseph must not like. Right. And somebody you'd rather throw a French horn at. You know, he can.

John Dehlin 1:45:31 This is the one complaining about Joseph's dog in the previous episode, right? Yeah.

John Turner 1:45:35 You know, he learns he will preach to kings and have power over great men. That's part of his blessing.

John Dehlin 1:45:42 Did we know if he ever did that? Did that ever come to pass?

John Turner 1:45:44 I don't think so.

John Dehlin 1:45:45 Okay, keep going, keep going.

John Turner 1:45:47 And then, okay, if you're not chosen as one of the 70, you know, Joseph makes a point that of giving a Zion blessing. Ben park has a, has an essay on this. I think either he, Joseph Sr. Or other high ranching ranking church leaders, you at least get a blessing. And I just see this as a way of Joseph, Joseph stitching these people more, more deeply into, into his story. And honestly, that's been. Now there's, you know, there's probably there's a downside that we could talk about in terms of this as well, but the LDS Church has Always, I think, excelled at. Well, there is a calling for everybody, right. Everybody has something really important to do. And not all religious movements do that so well.

John Dehlin 1:46:43 And that's, that's a feature of the modern LDS Church. Everybody has a calling, whether it's librarian, ward, librarian, boy scout leader. I mean, that's no longer a thing. But Chester, you know, greeter like that, that's a smart thing to do to make everybody feel like they're a part of it. They have a job to do, they have a role and even leadership to aspire to. Maybe all that is actually probably part of the Mormon Church's success or genius. That's rooted in, I guess, Joseph Smith's management style.

John Turner 1:47:18 Yeah, no, I think so for sure.

John Dehlin 1:47:22 Okay. Just a couple of fill in questions. Some of these blessings or prophecies didn't come true and you list a few examples. Do you want to talk about that just for fun, not that it's condemnatory or anything.

John Turner 1:47:32 Sure. Well, do you mind if I back up and just say a little bit about the development of patriarchal blessings?

John Dehlin 1:47:38 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

John Turner 1:47:39 With Joseph Sr. Because it pertains. So there's been some uncertainty among historians about when Joseph Smith Sr. Is ordained as church patriarch. Cowdery, I think at one point dated it to 1833. But most historians, from the Joseph Smith Papers to Mike Marcourt, who's done a lot of work on the subject, and there's a great good book on the subject as well, authors names are escaping me, but maybe we can get it in the show notes. It's probably December of 1834 and there's a fascinating, I think a fascinating feast or gathering a few days after Joseph Sr's ordination as patriarch and the ordination of him and other men as assistant church presidents. Joseph Joseph's parents, siblings and their families come to his house for a feast and Joseph Senior blesses each of his children and their spouses in turn. And you know, I think this is, you know, this is, this is modeled on precedent in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon in terms of, you know, Jacob blessing his sons, Lehi blessing his sons. And that seems to set the precedent for other church members than seeking out Joseph Sr. And receiving blessings from him. This seems to have been particularly significant for church members who did not have parents in the church who regarded themselves as sort of spiritual orphans. But many other church members simply sought him out. Mike Marquardt published a collection of these early patriarchal blessings a number of years ago. It's a fabulous source. A lot of them you know, the, the blessings are, are pretty wild. You know, individuals will live until the return of Jesus Christ. They will work miracles. I think, I think there are some crazy promises. I think there's some that promise that individuals will be able to fly. I'll have to double check that. I hope I'm not making it up then. I also just, I like the sort of rough and ready nature of some of these early patriarchal blessings. They, you know, it wasn't one size fits all. Joseph Sr. Once told a 61 year old church member that because she was already so aged, she wouldn't remain alive until the second coming. She would soon go down to the grave. That's kind of somber. William Phelps, who is a bit of a, bit of an oddball and free thinker. Joseph Sr. Tells him, you are a strange man. And he added that he was a speckled bird and prone to arrogance, but he was promised that he would live until he met his Redeemer on the earth. I think it's really fun reading through those, those early blessings. I think church members treasured them. And then John, I'll engage your question. Of course, a lot of these promises didn't come true. Right. People weren't always working. All of the miracles promised. None of them lived until Christ's return. Some missions were more successful than others, I think. Nevertheless, I don't think most, you know, I'm sure maybe you could find accounts of church members looking back and saying, well, this didn't happen. I feel misled. But I think for the most part church members treasured the blessing, sometimes for the particular promises, but also for the more general sense of assurance and comfort amid setbacks and hardships. They were promised that they had a glorious lineage, that they had a future in Christ's millennial reign. They had a place in Christ's church. I think, you know, I think as far as many church members were concerned, also a lot of what the Josephs, Joseph Jr. And Joseph Sr. A lot of what they promised did seem to be coming true. You know, if they lived in Kirtland, they could see the house of the Lord under construction. They could certainly envision the 12 and the 70 taking the gospel to distant lands. So, you know, Joseph and his followers, they did make good on some of these promises.

John Dehlin 1:53:19 Yeah, and, and there have been patriarchal blessing analyses done in modern times. Lots of people have, lots of modern Mormons have gotten patriarchal blessings with promises that haven't since come true or they died without them coming true. And like as in old, in modern times, Mormons are pretty agile at being able to just reinterpret what the words mean or maybe even assign blame to the unworthiness of the recipients of the blessings. But clearly, faithful Latter Day Saints value the fact that blessings are given much more than they value that the promises in the blessings actually come true. And so critics probably are missing the boat when they, like, think that an unfulfilled promise and a patriarchal blessing somehow means something fatal to the church's credibility. Because in the eyes of the members, it's a nice to, but it's not a has to. Does that make sense?

John Turner 1:54:33 No, that does make sense. I don't know as much about contemporary patriarchal blessings.

John Dehlin 1:54:41 There's a joke that thousands of Mormons have been promised that they'll be one of the two prophets to be killed in the streets of Jerusalem at the Second Coming, and they've all died. You know what I mean?

John Turner 1:54:51 Right, right, right. Yeah. I mean, I do think also, you know, especially in the 1830s, you know, I mean, for. For Joseph, this was an intensely biblical practice he started. You know, he was blessing people before his father was ordained as patriarch. I think, you know, that especially that feast in which Joseph Sr. Blesses the member of his family. That seems like a very tender moment. And I think there was a tenderness and sacredness for many of the. For many individuals when they receive these blessings. I'm sure that is still the case for. For many church members. And I think, again, it speaks to Joseph's talent as a what I would. I would say as a. As a innovator in terms of ritual. And, you know, we talked about this before, you know, in that earlier stretch of time when there was disunity between Joseph and Missouri church leaders, and there's this olive leaf in the school of the prophets. Joseph introduces this ritual of foot washing. It's very powerful. It brings people together. I think, again, here in the wake of Zion's camp, some criticism and fallout, these rituals of blessing. And I don't know if Mormons would think about these as a ritual, but I think that's the best way to think about it. It's very, again, very effective for building ecclesiastical unity and cohesion.

John Dehlin 1:56:44 Yeah. Super important. Okay, I want to go back and ask a question about Oliver before we go on to what I consider to be the beginnings of this notion of, like, ceilings and kind of even spiritual adoption. But before we do, I forgot to mention that one of the reasons you list Oliver Cowdery as falling out of favor with Joseph Smith is because it was Understood that he maybe proposed to a woman, but then jilted her. And that was surprising to me, not only knowing that Fanny Alger is around the corner, like, thinking about what Joseph did with Fanny and. And how that ended for Joseph versus something that's seeming much more benign, proposing and then not following through. And that's enough to. To make Oliver fall out of favor. Can you explain a little more about the history and the context? Because it just doesn't make sense on a lot of levels that one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon and the scribe to the Book of Mormon would fall out of favor with the prophet because he jilted a woman or just changed his mind about marrying a woman. Help me with that.

Oliver Cowdery's Falling Out with Joseph Smith

John Turner 1:58:01 Yeah. So I have to go back and dig up sources to speak in any meaningful detail, but essentially. Well, let me see if I can do. Do this without garbling it too much. So Cowdery eventually marries a Whitmer daughter, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer. I believe their marriage is in 1832. He'd met her, you know, three or four years before that. I think she's 17 at the time of their marriage. He's around 25. I forget if it may be that he had essentially proposed marriage to her and become betrothed prior to his mission to the Lamanites in 1830 and 1831, and then might have behaved as if he were not betrothed during that mission. May, you know, bestowed attention on someone else. It may. May I. And I may be mixing it up. He may have become. He may have made promises to somebody else and then married Elizabeth Whitmer. So one way or. Or one way or the other, essentially the complaint had been that Kadri had made promises to marry someone and then acted like he was unattached. I don't personally think that's the main reason for Rigdon supplanting Cowdery as Joseph's right hand. Prior to that mission, Cowdery had had a couple of conflicts with Joseph. I think he really wasn't comfortable playing second fiddle. He'd made some criticisms of Joseph. He'd wanted to also be able to translate. So I think there were other things. I don't think his behavior toward potential spouses was. Was necessarily the main problem.

John Dehlin 2:00:20 Okay. All right. Well, somehow I got that impression when I was reading along, so that's. That's good clarification. You're not. There's no suggestion of sexual impropriety on Oliver's part?

John Turner 2:00:35 No. I mean, basically, perhaps being inconstant but not sexual impropriety.

John Dehlin 2:00:46 Okay. All right. So in addition to these blessings that are being given, it seems like the beginnings of this idea of spiritual orphans and spiritual orphans being sealed so that they become part of an eternal celestial family starts to be being introduced here in the 1835 timeframe. Do I have that right? And if so, do you? Should we talk about that?

John Turner 2:01:18 So that's a great question. So listeners may or may not be familiar with the law of adoption that was introduced in the nav at the Nauvoo Temple after Joseph's death, in which church members, often, usually couples, were ritually sealed to church hierarchs as a way of, you know, becoming part of their larger eternal families. You know, Maya. And if. If listeners want to know more about that, there's some. There are some great essays by Jonathan Stapley, Samuel Brown and others. There's been some great scholarship on that in recent years. I don't see evidence for those sorts of adoptive ceilings during Joseph's lifetime. There is a sense in these patriarchal blessings that the blessings in and of themselves connect recipients to sort of chains of priesthood. But I think so in. In a way, the function is a bit similar, but there are fewer real world implications. Whereas in the mid to late 1840s, those adoptive ceilings, I would say, created more significant this worldly bonds between recipients and the people they were sealed to.

John Dehlin 2:03:24 Yeah. So it's not totally inaccurate to say that this idea of people fretting that they would be alone in the afterlife, but then. But then getting reassurance that they'll be part of a larger spiritual family, that. That has its origins as early as 1835. Well, through these, through these blessings and prophecies.

John Turner 2:03:53 That's. That's a great question. I may. I may need to give it a little bit more thought, John. I think what I'd say is that in 18. By 1835, and I'm sure we'll talk about this in coming episodes, Joseph is beginning to think about marriage as an eternal connection that extends beyond the grave.

John Dehlin 2:04:20 Yeah.

John Turner 2:04:20 You know, I think he's just. He's just really sharing that teaching for the first time. I, and I think in general Protestants, by this time period, there is this emerging hope that loved ones will be with each other in heaven. It's not an unusual idea. I don't know that these patriarchal blessings for spiritual orphans, I don't know that there's a stated purpose of eternal connection that you would see later on.

John Dehlin 2:05:07 Yeah, well, what made me think about this is the the, the passage at the end of 156, the beginning of 157. I'll just read in. In the months and years that followed, others, other saints sought out Joseph Senior and received blessings at his hands. Many church members like Emma were spiritual orphans. Their parents had died or had rejected the church. Quote, thou art blessed of the Lord, the patriarch told John Murdoch, quote, and shalt have a parental blessing. And you write, the priesthood will remain established in his posterity. Quote, thou mayest no longer be an orphan. He blessed Levi Jackman. No one who embraced the truth would lack for kinship and connection, and it's implied in the afterlife. So that's, I think that's kind of where my questions start to come from. It's like, oh, these seem like seeds that might be sprouting.

John Turner 2:06:06 Well, I. Yeah. And they, they sprout in the years ahead, for sure.

John Dehlin 2:06:11 Yeah.

John Turner 2:06:11 Yeah. You know, I don't think the thinking is that Levi Jackman is necessarily going to spend eternity with Joseph Sr. But in a way.

John Dehlin 2:06:20 Right.

John Turner 2:06:21 You know, I think the initial. One of the initial thoughts is all church members ideally would be able to receive a father's blessing from their father. And those who don't have a father in the church can't do that. And in that sense, they're spiritual orphans and Joseph Sr. Can stand in for their fathers and give them a blessing. I think what's a little, what is maybe a little bit surprising is the, the, that office of patriarch develops to the point where church members who do have a father within the church, they also want Joseph Sr's blessing. But, you know, you can't have too much blessing.

John Dehlin 2:07:09 Absolutely. When Joseph promised people to endow them with power from on high, what power did they think they were receiving?

The Kirtland Endowment of Power and Apostolic Organization

John Turner 2:07:19 That's a great question. So I think, you know, especially through the Kirtland years, it's very much a New Testament reference to being endowed with the Holy Spirit and being equipped for, I would say, missions and miracles.

John Dehlin 2:07:46 What types and miracles. Healing the sick and raising the dead and those sorts of things.

John Turner 2:07:52 Yes. I would say, you know, sort of Pentecostal power of speaking in tongues, visions. But yes, I mean, I think the high priesthood from the start was connected also with miracles. But I would say the endowment of power would also be the power of the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel. I think I would also connect it with the ability to work wonders, because a modern.

John Dehlin 2:08:26 I think a modern Mormon would think, well, I got the gift of the Holy Ghost and I was baptized. And that's what gives Me the power to experience the Holy Ghost. And then I think men would think, okay, I was ordained with the priesthood at 12, and then 14 and then 16 and then higher priesthood. And it's the priesthood that gives me the power to heal and to do ordinances, you know, so. So it's. It almost seems like those types of promises have become democratized for almost for all men in the church and partially for women versus getting special endowments from on high after you've made some big sacrifice for the church that's given by the prophet. Does that make sense?

John Turner 2:09:14 No, that makes sense. And I think those things were also true in the 1830s. But then there's also a couple of times Joseph promises a particular endowment of power, most notably connected with the completion and dedication of the Kirtland Temple and the solemn assembly that follows it, that, you know, the Holy Spirit is going to endow the elders with a particular power at that particular moment for a particular purpose.

John Dehlin 2:09:48 Yeah, yeah. Again, when I talked previously about fate in the afterlife as a reward or incentive or as a reinforcer for behavior, it seems like promises of spiritual power is another almost carrot that Joseph seems to offer people as a way to motivate them and inspire them and make them feel like they're getting a good. A good return from their investments of time and money.

John Turner 2:10:19 Yeah, well, and we'll talk about the Kirtland Temple in a few weeks. It's one of those instances in which Joseph is very much able to make good on a promise, at least as far as many church members are concerned.

John Dehlin 2:10:32 Yeah, that's good. Okay. Why did you wrote that Joseph had the three Book of Mormon witnesses choose the twelve apostles? Why did he have them do it versus just do it himself? Any idea?

John Turner 2:10:45 That is a great question. I just can't remember, you know, there. And I forget when the first reference to the Future ordination of 12 apostles occurs. It's been quite a few years earlier, so that might have been part of the plan from the start, but I just can't remember.

John Dehlin 2:11:05 Okay, and then you write that that when they're ordained, they're ordained literally to find, you know, to basically proselytize the people that would. That would usher in the second Coming and that. So that part of it, you know, maybe hasn't. Hasn't turned out so well, the Second Coming part of it. But I think you've already referenced that previously.

John Turner 2:11:27 Second Coming still coming.

John Dehlin 2:11:29 Okay. The. The forever coming Second Coming.

John Turner 2:11:33 Right.

John Dehlin 2:11:34 Okay. Okay. So. So I guess let's go ahead. I think we're coming to the coming to kind of the end of, of this section. I think it's worth noting. I'm curious how you think about this. That like, if we talk about innovations, there really aren't many other mainstream Christian traditions that have said Jesus had 12 apostles. So our church is going to have 12 apostles and Jesus had a quorum of the 70, so we're going to have a quorum of the 70. Like, what do you think as a historian and as a, you know, I guess a Protestant Christian as well, about Joseph saying, hey, if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the modern church, let's do it? I mean, it's kind of bold, right?

John Turner 2:12:29 Yeah. It's just fascinating and I'm surprised other

John Dehlin 2:12:33 people didn't think of it.

John Turner 2:12:34 Yeah. I'm just sorting through my mind. I'm sure there are some other. There's got to be some other examples, but perhaps not to the extent. Right. Because, yeah, Joseph, he just reaches for these biblical precedents and just brings them back. Right. Foot washing, apostles, 70 spiritual gifts. Yeah. On and on and on. Pentecostal stuff. Yeah, yeah. For people who.

John Dehlin 2:13:13 Prophets. How about prophets?

John Turner 2:13:15 Right. And so for, well, Urim and Thummim. Right. To go back to a prior topic, Temples. Right, right.

John Dehlin 2:13:23 So temple ordinances.

John Turner 2:13:26 Yeah. I mean, for. It's sort of cliche to talk about the United States of this time as a Bible drenched society. You know, not everybody had memorized the Bible and obviously people totally disagreed about its meaning, but it's a powerful source of authority. And so much of Joseph's innovation is rooted one way or another in his innovation with the Bible. Plural marriage is another good example.

John Dehlin 2:13:58 Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And I guess, tell me if I'm right, that Sidney Rigdon and Alexander Campbell were parts of what was called a restorationist movement at the time.

John Turner 2:14:13 Well.

John Dehlin 2:14:14 Or there was a restorationist movement at the time.

John Turner 2:14:17 Yeah. So I don't think, I think a better way of putting it is. I don't think people necessarily refer to it as a restorationist movement. They wanted to restore the primitive church as they understood it. And by that they meant restore the New Testament Church, which, you know, that's a dodgy thing to try to figure out exactly what that was and how to restore it. But Joseph is unusual in talking about the restoration of. I'm going to get the phrase wrong now, the restoration of the ancient order of all things or something like that. Whereas many other reformers want to try to figure out how did early Christianity function? What was the early church like? Let's recapture, that some things have been lost. Joseph simply goes a lot further, partly because he thinks there is essentially one plan of salvation for all time and one pattern to the way Christians should live their life that stretches back to Adam and things get lost in different times and places. He wants to bring everything back.

John Dehlin 2:15:37 And were there churches then, Christian churches then, or are there surviving Christian churches today that represent, other than Joseph Smith, kind of the maximum achievement of a restorationist inclined Protestant church? Does that make sense? Like, it almost seems like Joseph out restored any of the restorationists and nobody's

John Turner 2:16:02 going to out restore Joseph Smith. That's a nice way of putting it. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, there definitely are. There are churches that would also draw on the Old Testament as well as the New. But I would say most streams of restorationism, such as the churches of Christ Christ, which is, you know, still pretty significant, particularly in the American south, they're really focused on New Testament Christianity. So, for instance, they sing without accompaniment because accompaniment is not mentioned in the New Testament.

John Dehlin 2:16:39 So that probably women can't speak in the church.

John Turner 2:16:42 You know, like, I'm not sure, perhaps not, I can't remember. But the idea of restoring everything, that's very Joseph Smith.

John Dehlin 2:16:54 And it's. I think it's. I think we have to just admit that maybe is part of his brilliance. Because I know as a missionary, as a Mormon missionary, I'd go, hey, Jesus had 12 apostles. Well, guess what? So do we.

John Turner 2:17:06 Right?

John Dehlin 2:17:07 And like, that's like, whoa, to somebody that's like looking for power or prophets. Right? You know, they're prophets in the old New Testament. We have prophets today. You know, that logic of like, yeah, why would God care about his people for 6000 years or 5000 years or 4000 years and then all of a sudden not want to talk to his people anymore. That's a compelling line of our argument for some people. And similarly, Jesus had 12 apostles. We have a prophet today, and guess what? 12 apostles, and guess what, a 70. And you know, that's pretty. I think that's. I think we have to give Joseph credit because that has to be at least part of the secret of the Mormon Church's success.

John Turner 2:17:52 Yeah, maybe he got a little bit carried away with plural marriage, but we'll get to that.

John Dehlin 2:17:58 John, we're not there. We're almost there. We're getting there. Okay, well, I think just to summarize, what I wrote, I wrote on the bottom of page 158 is out of disaster, meaning Zion's camp. What does Joseph do in the face of disaster? Well, he creates patriarchs, patriarchal blessings, the beginnings of the office of the patriarch. He creates a quorum of the 12 apostles and a quorum of the 70 and gives a bunch of people and a huge missionary force. And he gets everybody excited about their various roles in the community and their responsibilities to help usher in the second coming of Jesus. Like, what a fantastic pivot and innovate in an example of innovation springing out of Zion's camp. And again, that's your book helped me realize that that's what he did. That's what he does over and over again. He makes these bold pivots and he turns lemons into gallons of lemonade, you know.

Looking Ahead to Kirtland's Challenges

John Turner 2:19:04 Yeah. Unfortunately, some additional lemons and lemonade coming up.

John Dehlin 2:19:10 The lemons keep coming, right?

John Turner 2:19:12 Yep. So next, yeah, next, next time we'll talk about mummies and papyri and tempers fraying. And it's not, it's no matter what, it's never easy to maintain cohesion and unity.

John Dehlin 2:19:33 It's not. Yeah. So next, next week, you know, next episode is chapter 16, Abraham, basically 1835. So we're going to be talking about the Book of Abraham and other things.

John Turner 2:19:47 I will look forward to it. John Delon.

John Dehlin 2:19:49 All right, John Turner, well, thanks so much for joining us today. This is a great chapter. We really appreciate everything you're doing to help us learn more about our own people and our own history.

John Turner 2:20:02 It's fun for me.

John Dehlin 2:20:04 All right. Take care, John. We'll see you next week.

John Turner 2:20:06 All right. Bye bye.

John Dehlin 2:20:08 And thanks everyone, for joining us today on Mormon Stories podcast. Again, the book is Joseph Smith the Rise and Fall of an American Prophet. Buy it with Benchmark Books if you can, or on Amazon or from Yale, directly from Yale University Press. Let's make it a New York Times bestseller. Thank you. For those who donate to Mormon Stories and or who have donated to this Joseph Smith Project, if you want to see this Joseph Smith project continue, go to MormonStories.org Joseph Smith, sorry, go to DonorBox.org Joseph Smith and you can donate to keep this project alive. And yeah, most importantly, just join us for future episodes. We've got a lot to cover, including lots of things with Kirtland and the bank scandal and the Book of Abraham and Fanny Alger and Oliver and Oliver's punishment. And we go on to so much, so much more, including the Council of 50 and the Danites and Liberty Jail and, and then the formation of Nauvoo and John C. Bennett and polygamy and again the Council of 50 and Joseph running for President. There's so much more to cover so please stick with us. Hope you're enjoying it. We love your feedback. Please email us. Well please comment on these episodes on YouTube and Spotify. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and our Spotify channel. That really helps with the algorithms. You can always thumbs up or like the episodes. You can always share them with other people. Those are all things you could do aside from donating or in addition to donating that help make all of this successful. Word of mouth helps as well and then yeah your feedback is always welcome. We would love to read questions or comments you have for John Turner and have that be a consistent part of these episodes. It's just your questions or comments so please keep them coming. Please be good to each other, please be kind to each other and we'll see you all again soon on another episode of the Joseph Podcast and of Mormon Stories podcast. Take care everybody.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.