The Nauvoo Expositor

Hello and welcome to the very latest episode of Inside Out. I'm Ian. I'm here with Jim Bennett and Greg Prince.

How are you both? Doing well. How are you?

I'm doing well. Thank you.

Well, it's wonderful to continue these conversations with you both. I personally, as you know, both know, I get a lot from our conversations. Sometimes I forget we, you know, when I get into the conversations, we have an audience out there who is fascinated, intrigued by hopefully many of the things that we talk about. The conversations are quite extraordinary. And I was reflecting upon the many conversations we've had and the conversations, Jim, I'm sure you'll agree, have been deeply enriched and incredibly enhanced by the valuable, invaluable contributions and wisdom of Greg Prince. I've learned so much from you, Greg. You're just a wise owl in making sense of a lot of these issues. There were two things as I was reflecting on the many conversations we've had, and again, reading and contemplating and thinking about the Roadmap for Improving Mormonism. Craig, this roadmap that you put together, which is a very genuine and very thoughtful document. It's not a panacea, of course, to all the issues with the church, but it does contain some important guidance and, and frameworks and, and insights, I think, which are incredibly valuable. And beneficial for improving the church. And notwithstanding the, um, the fact that you've now embarked on a revision, I think, of Roadmap 1.0 with 2.0, or 2.0 as we Brits would say, and looking at where you can improve on that, there were two things that came to mind as I was reflecting upon that. One is, um, the key word that stands out to me is the word improve. And that's in the title of the roadmap. And, and there's, I can't think of a better word to describe the roadmap or describe or capture in one word these conversations that we're having with you, uh, Greg. We are three fellas here, uh, trying to be, um, genuine and thoughtful and respectful towards the church. And we are genuine when we say that we want the church to improve. The second thought that comes to mind is, I think, the answer to many, maybe not all, but many of the church's issues and problems. And it's something that I mentioned before we, uh, I did the introduction of this podcast, and that's the word honesty. And it's the, uh, it's found, uh, in the 13th, uh, article of faith, uh, right there. It said, we believe in being Uh, honest. We believe in being honest, true and chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. But the first word is honest. And I think if the church was more honest and more open, and Jim talks about infallibility, but honesty is the fundamental building block, the guiding principle, which is what it is in the gospel. I think a lot of these issues would be, uh, maybe perhaps not resolved, but it would create an atmosphere where we can have these conversations, these conversations that we're having right now on the podcast, but to enable members of the church and leaders to have these constructive conversations in that framework of honesty. And so, uh, with that in mind, I, I, this thinking process, um, shapes very much my listening and my learning and my teaching and my life and this is the filter and lens that I see a lot of the church issues through. And so today's topic is another example of a problem, historical problem, a very serious one that if we do the research on, I don't know, you're both familiar with this, and I'm talking about the infamous Novu Expositor., and we are looking forward to getting into that and having a bit of a deep dive on that. Many historians, scholars, um, would argue that the decision that Joseph Smith made while mayor, uh, of, uh, Nauvoo— was it Nauvoo? Um, to destroy the printing press that, uh, published the Nauvoo Expositor, uh, led to his early death, and we'll get into that as we have this conversation. And so today, folks, we'll be talking about the Novo Expositor. And by way of introduction, I just want to read, um, the official formal, uh, declaration or statement on this by the church, who's on the, on the website. Again, I, I read this through the filter of honesty. I see some issues in respect to being perhaps disingenuous in parts.. But as you, as I read this, you can make your own mind up. On Friday, June 7th, 1844, dissenters from the church published the one and only issue of an opposition newspaper they called the Nauvoo Expositor. The publishers were a former first counselor in the First Presidency, William Law, Law's brother Wilson, Charles Evans, Charles and Robert Foster, and Francis and Shaughnessy Higbee. The dissenters, several of whom had been recently excommunicated, published the Expositor to stir up controversy over practices and teachings which they strongly disagreed. Using inflammatory language, they voiced their discontent with the practice of plural marriage, Joseph Smith's teachings on the nature of God, from his recent King Follett sermon and his mixing of religious and civic authority in Nauvoo. I may add, by the way, it's not in here, I don't believe, I've read it before, that Joseph Smith actually was the mayor at the Nauvoo City Council. On Saturday, June 8th, and the following Monday, June 10th, the Nauvoo City Council convened to determine a course of action. There were multiple reasons the council felt the need to act. Most significantly, the Saints had experienced violence in Missouri and Ohio. With tension mounting in Illinois, the council members were concerned about the Expositor's potential to incite further violence against both the Saints and the owners of the press. Additionally, in the honor of culture of 19th century America, men were expected to respond to public attacks on their characters. The social norm that made it difficult to let offenses pass. With the sanction of the city council, Joseph Smith ordered a marshal with the assistance of the, of the Nauvoo Legion to destroy the printing press. On Monday evening, June the 10th, the marshal and his posse of approximately 100 men removed the press, scattered the type, and burned the remaining copies of the newspaper. The Novo City Council had reason to believe their actions were legal. Uh, I want to get into that a little bit later, and I know President Oaks has made his position clear on that. We'll get into that a bit later. It goes on to read, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits government interference with the press, applied only to the federal government, not state or local governments, until after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. During the council meetings, Joseph Smith cited both American legal precedent and William Blackstone's Commentary, an influential treatise on common law, interpreting those sources as allowing the destruction of the Expositor on the grounds that it was a public nuisance, something that posed a danger, a danger to the safety and welfare of society. While the destruction of a press was somewhat unusual in 19th century America, Some might argue it was illegal. There were many instances both before and after this time of local and state governments suppressing unpopular presses. As late as 18— 1929, state Supreme Court approved the closure of a press considered a nuisance, although this was later reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Scholars have concluded that the Norville City Council acted legally to destroy copies of the newspaper, but may have exceeded its authority by destroying the press itself. And coming to a close here, the destruction of the Expositor fanned the flames of controversy. In neighboring Warsaw, Illinois, Thomas Sharp, a newspaper editor known for opposing the church, seized this opportunity to mobilize Hancock County citizens against the Saints. Trying to prevent a civil war, Illinois Governor Thomas Ford reviewed the Nauvoo City Council's legal justification for suppressing the newspaper and decided Joseph Smith needed to stand trial in Carthage, the county seat, on the charge of riot. And in closing here, though he accepted Forge's promise of protection and submitted to arrest, Joseph Smith never stood trial to defend his actions as mayor. Uh, legal references, mayor, a mob stormed Cathy's jail and murdered him and his brother Aaron. Uh, your opening thoughts on that, Greg, and then we'll hear from Jim. What's your synopsis of that?

Uh, I've reread the Expositor. It's not a lengthy newspaper. It only had one issue before the press was destroyed. The problem for Joseph Smith and for those of the church who were still following him by then was not that this was printing falsehoods, it's that it was printing the truth. And there were four main allegations made in the Expositor, all of them being factually true. Number one, that plural marriage was being practiced in Nauvoo, and it went right to the top. That probably was the most sensitive issue for Smith, because he had been trying for years to tamp down the rumors and say that it wasn't being practiced, but it was all the way along. And now here have a former counselor in the First Presidency who's gone public saying, yes, it has been practiced and it is being practiced. Number 2 was a charge of blasphemy. This, as you pointed out, Ian, came on the heels of the King Follett sermon where Joseph Smith really embellished his developing theology of deity. And talked about many gods. If you look up a definition of blasphemy, that's square in the middle of it. We may defend it as one of the tenets of our theology, although you find fewer and fewer of the brethren who are willing to stake out that terrain publicly anymore because it opens us so widely to the charge of blasphemy by others, particularly by other Christians. The third complaint of the expositor was that Joseph Smith had blended church and state and had created a theocracy, which is absolutely true. And then the fourth, which was not highlighted as much, is a complaint against secret societies, which went right to the heart of the developing temple ceremony in the Nauvoo Temple that was still under construction, wherein the inductees to the new Nauvoo Endowment, which was introduced initially in 1842, were put under a very strict obligation of secrecy to the extent that if they violated, they agreed that their lives might be forfeited. So there are the four main tenets of this newspaper: polygamy, blasphemy, theocracy, and secrecy. And all four of them were accurately portrayed there. It was different than the book published 2 years prior to that called The City of the Saints by John C. Bennett— no relationship to our co-host over there— where Bennett was trying to bring the church down and embellish the truth quite markedly throughout that book. The Expositor stayed much more close to the facts, man. So, this did represent an existential threat to Joseph Smith and to the Church. His response wasn't a very good idea. I think you can draw a fairly short, fairly straight line between the destruction of the Expositor and his murder 2 and a half weeks later.

Wow.

Before we bring Jim Bennett in here, just a quick question as I listen to what you're saying. Do you think one of the main motivations then was, wasn't just the content, you know, speaking the truth? I mean, the truth hurts, clearly. Was it the fact also that they were distributing this, that you had this printing press? It was the Asia Print, right? And that this, uh, expositor, this newspaper, would be published thousands of copies, and that would have— oh, I think I know the answer to that question. It's clearly a numerical factor as well, right?

Well, by the time John C. Bennett published his book in 1842, he was pretty much discredited and disaffected and thrown out of the church. Now, Law had been excommunicated, but it hadn't been very recently. And Law was a counselor in the First Presidency, as Bennett had been. So in both cases, you had betrayal at the highest possible level of the president of the church. Nobody's closer than his counselors.

Right.

Valid point. Jim, as I read that, uh, official position from the church in response, you know, uh, historical review of the church and listening to Greg's insights there. What's your thoughts, your reaction to that?

Uh, I've got a number of reactions. Um, one of the things that I want to point out, whenever anybody talks about the Nauvoo Expositor, and whenever critics of the church talk about the Nauvoo Expositor, uh, they use it as sort of a smoking gun for Joseph Smith's authoritarianism and for Joseph Smith's fallen prophethood, that, that this is, this is the evidence that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be. And I always balk at that because I cannot remember— and I'm not trying to gaslight anybody here if this was not your experience then that's fine, I believe you, if this was not your experience. But in my experience, I cannot remember a single time the Nauvoo Expositor was brought up where it wasn't also referenced as a terrible and tragic mistake on Joseph's part. Uh, in fact, Dallin Oaks himself wrote an article a law review article that concludes by saying— the whole article is written to try to justify legally the fact that destroying the printing press was legal, and that seems to be the focus of the paper. But he concludes by saying, a historian friendly to the people of Nauvoo has called the suppression of the Nauvoo expositor, the grand Mormon mistake, that its consequences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders, and that alternative means might better have been employed— and that, I'm sorry, that alternative means might better have been employed— cannot be doubted. Uh, this was written years and years ago, before— over 40 years ago, it was written in 1965. So really over 60 years ago, long before Dallin Oaks was an apostle. Now this is going to take a bit of a left turn here, and I am somewhat uncomfortable taking this left turn. We talked about this before this started, but I just don't feel any other way. I feel kind of a responsibility to point this out. When I wrote my CES Letter reply, Jeremy Runnells, who wrote the CES Letter, had made a charge about how the Church tries to justify the Nauvoo Expositor. And I went looking for sources that pointed out that the Nauvoo Expositor's destruction was indeed a mistake. And I was thrilled to discover on that occasion— this is about a decade ago— that one of the sources talking about the Nauvoo Expositor being a mistake was our own mission president. Ian was Ben B. Banks. He gave a talk on February 21st, 2006, a Brigham Young, you know, Brigham Young University, Idaho devotional, and it was called Joseph Smith: Last Months and Martyrdom., and in the course of it, he talks about how the, um, let's see, I'm, I'm trying to pull this up. I'm gonna pull up the audio here in a minute for reasons that will become clear. But he had said something along the lines of, this was a mistake. And in my CES letter reply, I said, if even Ben Banks, who's probably the most orthodox company man you could possibly ask for, thought this was a mistake, then it's clearly not heretical to argue that. So today, in preparation for the, um, for this podcast, I decided to go look up that speech again, and I found it. But I found something more that I am again, a little bit uncomfortable sharing, but I think you talk about the importance of honesty, Ian, and I think this is important to highlight. So I have audio here that I am going to share, just the beginning of President Banks' BYU-Idaho speech.

It is an honor and a privilege and a blessing in the life of myself, my wife, the opportunity of being with you this afternoon in this devotional. And thank you, sisters, for sharing your beautiful voices with us. And to you, Elder Saunders, it's been a while since I've been in Fiji, but I would say to you, bulava naka. I would like to share with you what took place in the life of the Prophet Joseph during the last months of his life that led up to his martyrdom.

So all of that you heard is entirely original. He's talking, he's sort of speaking off the cuff, but now he goes into his prepared remarks, and I want you to just listen to the first couple of sentences.

It is winter 1844, and the Prophet Joseph Smith is Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, mayor of the city which has become the largest and the most flourishing in all of Illinois, and also a revelator to the Saints. But he is also a man whose time is running out. To Elizabeth Rawlins, he had confided in the spring of 1844, quote, "I must seal my testimony with my blood," end quote. That testament is of no force, Paul said, until the death of the testator.

Okay, so I remember 10 years ago when I looked up this speech, I went, this is kind of out of character. For President Banks, because President Banks, when he was called as a General Authority and was replaced by Joseph Fielding McConkie, he said, I am no great gospel scholar, and you all should be grateful you're going to have this great scriptorian— was the word he used, which is a Mormon word. Nobody outside the church ever talks about scriptorians. They talk about Bible scholars, but we have additional scriptures to the Bible, and so we have this word. And, and so when, as I was listening to this, I thought, wow, this is, or when I read it, this is the first time I've actually listened to it. When I read it, I thought, wow, this is really amazing that President Banks did this research. Well, in preparation for today, I Googled praises and Googled Ben Banks on this, and another speech came up., and it's a speech by Truman Madsen, who was my first cousin once removed. And Ian, you and I used to listen to a lot of these speeches. Truman Madsen had a series of audio tapes that we listened to on our missions, and they were derived from his Joseph Smith lectures. And I want to share with you the audio from Truman Madsen's Joseph Smith Lecture 8: The Last Months and Martyrdom.

We're up to winter 1844, and the Prophet Joseph Smith is also Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, mayor of a city which has become the largest and most flourishing in all of Illinois, revelator to the Saints, and a man whose time is running out. To Elizabeth Rollins he confided in the spring of 1844, "I must seal my testimony with my blood." A testament is not of force, says the New Testament, Paul speaking, until the death of the testator.

Okay, that is sufficient to demonstrate my point here. Ben Banks gave his speech in 2006. This Joseph Smith Lecture was recorded in 1978, uh, decades before President Banks gave that speech. Now, in the audio, there are slight changes in the words. But that's Truman Madsen going off script, because if you look at the text, the written text that's included with both of those audio, they are word for word identical. And there is no other conclusion to come to other than the reality that Ben Banks lifted, plagiarized word for word a speech by Truman Madsen with no attribution.

And hello, this is future Jim Bennett, or at least the Jim Bennett that is recording after I had met with Greg Prince and Ian Wilkes to record that episode. Later in the episode, and I'm going to take that audio out because I want to make the point here, later in the episode I discovered on the website in the transcript, at the end of the transcript, there is an asterisk. And the asterisk, it doesn't have any reference to an asterisk in the actual text of the speech, the transcript of the speech, but it does say, portions of this address were excerpted from the book Joseph Smith: The Prophet by Truman G. Madsen, published in 1989 by Bookcraft Salt Lake City. So that mitigates this somewhat, but not entirely in my mind, because as far as I can tell, the audience that sat and listened to this did not hear that disclaimer. And for all we know, that disclaimer was added long after the fact, perhaps when somebody called attention to the fact that it's not just portions. This entire speech comes from Truman Madsen. And I don't know, I don't have the book in front of me. I know that he gave those lectures. Those lectures were incorporated into audio tapes and those audio tapes were adapted into the book. Now, I want to make it clear how much I adore and respect Ben B. Banks. And one error like this does not tarnish his lifetime of service and the goodness of who this man is and just what a huge role he has played in my life and has blessed my life with. And so I felt it important to point out that there is some attribution, but at the same time, I don't— I think this still needs to be called out for what it is. It was inappropriate to give this speech and not announce at the outset that it was entirely written by Truman Madsen and not at all written by Ben B.

Banks.

So now I, future Jim, return you to your regularly scheduled podcast now in progress.

Now, I don't know. I want to give President Banks the benefit of the doubt here. He may have been let down by a member of his staff. I remember when Joe Biden gave a speech that was a plagiarism of Neil Kinnock, who was a British member of Parliament, and it almost derailed— it actually did derail his 1988 presidential campaign. Because of this plagiarism. But I, I find it just deeply, deeply unsettling to discover that this plagiarism exists. And I would love to find some kind of excuse, some kind of explanation for it that lets President Banks off the hook, because he is, uh, next to members of my family, he is just one of the dearest human beings to me on planet Earth. He performed the sealing for my wife and myself. He, he kind of essentially saved my life, saved my mission. I have nothing but praise for this man. But when I see something like this, I just don't know that it can go unspoken. I think it needs to be called out. And so that may derail our discussion, and I think we'll get back to the expositor. But I would love to hear both of your reactions to this. And Greg, you don't know Ben Banks, I'm assuming. I mean, what's your reaction when you find out that a General Authority has essentially lifted a speech word for word from somebody else?

Disappointment. He's not the only one who did this in the church either. I remember when, oh golly, am I gonna blank on his name, the former president of Brigham Young University who did the same thing and who was caught and had to apologize, Merrill Bateman.

Merrill Bateman, who, what did he plagiarize?

I don't recall what it was. It wasn't this. And so, Yeah, this happens. Sometimes it may be the fault of speechwriters who don't pass along to the speaker that this was lifted from something else. But more often, I think it's just laziness. And the fact that nearly 30 years elapsed between Madsen giving his speech and Banks repeating it, may have said to him, nobody will figure this out.

Ian, I mean, you, you adore President Banks as much as I do. What's your reaction to this?

Uh, I hold him in the same regard as you do, Jim. Of course, um, I am surprised and disappointed. Uh, President Banks is not a scriptorian. He, he, as you said, he will, he will tell people that, but very intelligent man and, uh, disappointing that he didn't do his research or background. I, I, I think even back then it wouldn't, wouldn't have been difficult to, to learn, um, that there was a correlation. Well, like lifting word for word, quoting Truman Madsen. If you're gonna take excerpts from it or sections from someone's talk or material, you have to give them credit for that. But to read it, you know, word for word,, verbatim, is, is, is quite shocking, really.

I don't know that this is any kind of a, a large scandal, but I do think it demonstrates that, first of all, church leaders can make profound mistakes, can do things wrong, and that there's nothing faithless about recognizing that. There's, you know, a lot of people refuse to say, okay, we can't, we can't say this because this is evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. And I don't think it is ever evil speaking to tell the truth. This happened. This is real. And, and just not saying it, just not acknowledging it. Is, is I think a disservice to anybody who, who reveres the truth. So this is my segue. I don't— unless anybody else wants to continue talking about President Banks, I want to return to the Nauvoo Expositor because I think that same principle applies to the Nauvoo Expositor. Because, um, the Nauvoo Expositor, as Greg points out, was making accusations that time has demonstrated to be almost entirely true. And you can use in Truman Madsen's talk that, that Ben Banks plagiarized, it talks about intemperate language and that it was, you know, heightened sense of— it was designed to inflame the sentiments of the people of Nauvoo and therefore was a public nuisance. Well, okay, yeah, you can point to heightened language. You can point to the fact that they're accusing Joseph Smith in terms that are intemperate. And in fact, at one point it says, let this, you know, let this be settled with gun and ball. Uh, you can draw a very clear line from the Nauvoo Expositor to Carthage and the Prophet's death. This was the direct catalyst for the mob that combined to murder Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage, Illinois. There's no dispute about that. No dispute among secular historians, no dispute among believing historians. Everybody seems to recognize what a terrible, horrible mistake this was for Joseph to have done this. But it's fascinating to me now that as the church starts to, um, become— as the church is more transparent, as the church is going through Joseph Smith's papers, publishing all of them, and is also taking action against people who insist that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. You know, our friend Michelle Brady Stone that we've had on a couple of times here, uh, has— was told to take down her entire YouTube channel because she was spending all of her time saying Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. And there is a growing movement of people who are denying Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I don't think the historical record lets them get away with that. And I do think that people believe a lot of weird things in this church, and I don't see the value in excommunicating them for that. But in response to it, the church cites, uh, sources to demonstrate Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and now cites in the Joseph Smith Papers as a legitimate source the Nauvoo Expositor. As evidence for Joseph Smith's polygamy. So the Church now accepts not only, I think, that it was a mistake, which I think it's accepted for a very long time, but it now is saying it's telling the truth. The Nauvoo Expositor is a reliable historical source, uh, from which to evaluate the Prophet Joseph Smith. So I, I, I think that's significant. And I think that is really interesting going forward as the church confronts the reality of having no choice but to confront the difficulties and the challenges of our historical record.

Let me jump in here. You've heard the phrase, history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes. And this one is not rhyming. It repeats itself. All you need to do is look at today, right now, because we're seeing a repeat of this. In this case, it's not Joseph Smith saying, let's go destroy the press. It's Donald Trump saying, the press is writing stories I don't like. That's treason. Go after these guys. Tell me the difference between those two. I don't see it.

At the risk of getting complaints about how political I am, I think you're 100% on the money. And it's so frustrating to me that members of the church aren't able to sort of draw that line. Correct. That, yeah, this is history repeating itself note for note. It's not rhyming. It's definitely repetition.

Yes. Yeah.

And it's ugly and it's dangerous in both instances. Uh, I hope we don't see the explosion now that we saw in the aftermath of the Nauvoo Expositor, but tighten your seat belts because we're not sure.

Yeah. As I listen to you both, and I I, I'm reminded, Greg, of what you said at the beginning early on in our conversation, and even prior to that when we talked about, um, the opening words in the, uh, 13th Article of Faith that we believe in being honest. There's an obligation on the part of government, church, all of us, members of society, the press, to be honest. You know, the press do print lies. They do. Uh, and that gives people like Trump, um, in his world at least, excuses for doing what he's doing. If you look at the BBC, you, you, this was covered across national US media channels as it was in the UK where the BBC doctored the, I think it was the November 6th, um, insurgency, uh, event. And they took pieces and they spliced it together and they were found to be, uh, guilty of, uh, miscommunication and misdirection and not being genuine and honest with the truth. So the, the, the, the press and the media have a moral legal obligation to speak the truth, speak the facts. Absolutely. When they don't, it gives people like Trump, um, the, uh, you know, the opportunity, you know, to call them out and then to argue that the press are always dishonest, which they're not, of course. We need a, it's important that we have a free press that can, um, speak openly and constructively, honestly, and hold organizations, including government, to account. I think the expositor was, I can't speak to the motivations of the individuals behind it other than, you You know, was it personal? Probably, uh, you know, personal vendettas, scores to settle. But I also can't rule out that another motivation, um, by those people that wrote that, uh, expositor was to highlight facts and the truth. We can't rule that out. You said at the, uh, at the beginning, Greg, that there's nothing in the Expositor that was not true.

It was true.

Um, the big issue, I think, and you can challenge me on this, was polygamy, plural marriage. It was a, you know, it's a major problem today. The church will never shake that off. Back then, I didn't live back then, but it was a, a major problem for the church and it plagued the church. It was a, we won't get into whether it was a mistake or not. Um, there's a whole conversation depending on your perspective on that, but you know, whether it was from God or not. But Joseph Smith denied practicing plural marriage. He said this, he said, what a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having 7 wives when I can only find one. He, he lied about practicing plural marriage. He kept it from his wife. He wasn't honest. About that for reasons, uh, known perhaps only to him. All the reasons he wasn't completely open or transparent on that. And then we contrast, you know, we try to connect all the dots here. We've got the problem around plural marriage, polygamy, the impact that's having on the church. We've got people who the church describes as dissenters, including highlighting the fact that some of them excommunicated. I think that's a highly strategic article that I read at the very beginning to try to present the church in as best favorable light as it can. I think parts of it are disingenuous, but I can see why the church is trying to protect itself. Um, I just read the quote there that Joseph, uh, talked, you know, denying plural marriage. And then we've got this, you know, according to accounts provided by Joseph Smith himself to his associates. An angel appeared to him 3 times between 1834 and 1842, commanding him to establish the practice of plural marriage. Final, most dramatic visitation, where the angel reportedly appeared with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction if he did not obey, is generally cited as occurring in the early 1840s. Um, and the purpose of the angel was to was to demand that Joseph Smith move forward with the practice of polygamy, celestial marriage, which he had been hesitant to fully implement. There were more visits, and the last visit, but by different angels, and the third visit was this angel with a drawn sword. Uh, the angel threatened to slay Joseph if he did not comply. So there was a commandment, there was a threat, there was, you know, the visitation of an angel. Threatened to slay Joseph Smith if he didn't practice polygamy, yet he denied, uh, practicing polygamy. So I think this, you know, the, the, the, the issue with the expository there, I can see why it was problematic. The content, you know, the, the accuracy of the content, it was truth and it was going to be distributed. Thousands of people would read that and would, uh, that would be a massive impact on the, uh, on the church. And what was interesting in the article, I thought, um, and I'd love to get your, uh, uh, your comments on this, was the, um, where the church said that back then, uh, it was, um, really additionally in the honor culture of 19th century America, men were expected to respond to public attacks on their character, a social norm that made it difficult to let offenses pass. I think Joseph was like many people, of course, including today, were very, you know, uh, proud. And you know, when someone attacks our character, a natural defense is to protect our own character. And he was probably trying to do that. He went too far. It was clearly illegal, uh, under federal laws. Would you argue, uh, that it was, uh, what's your position on whether it was legal for a city council to destroy the press? Do you believe it was legal, technically legal to do that, or do you think it was illegal?

Uh, that's a question that needs to be addressed by a legal expert. Which I am not. I agree with Jim Bennett's earlier statement. Whether it was legal or not, it was stupid. I want to go back again to the cycles of history, the lessons of history. We have a repeating theme here at a much lower profile level, and that is how many times have we seen that church members often with no ill intent, say something that is true, and the church goes after them. It, on a lesser scale, is the same thing we saw with the expositor.

Yeah.

That there are times when inconvenient truth simply is not welcomed, and the response is not pleasant. And not correct.

Yeah. Well, that's the Boyd K. Packer approach.

Yeah.

Right.

You beat me to it, Grady. I was gonna say the same thing. Um, sorry, Jim Bennett, put you off. Um, you know, the, the, the whole idea of destroying the Expositor, I think, was, or the, the objective was trying to stop that information from getting out. Right. It was truth. It was uncomfortable, probably verifiable. They didn't like it. It was an attack on the character and on the church. Not what's changed today. Fast forward to today, it's the same thing. The leaders of the church do not like being challenged or attacked. Jim Bennett, you have responded to President Moncks' talk, remarks, with respect and dignity, no doubt in my mind, but on a point of principle, and rightly so. When, to Greg's point, when we try to do that with church leaders, Many of them do not like it and react because they think it's an attack on their character. And now with, you know, modern day technology with podcasts and internet, et cetera, when truths are spoken, like on the inside out, and I'm thinking about John DeLynn's Mormon Stories, who has been very successful in highlighting some of the inconsistencies around the, uh, Church of True Claims. It's been very successful. Uh, the church, I think, probably, perhaps, maybe sees the Mormon Stories and similar podcasts, uh, expositors, digital expositors highlighting facts and truths that are deeply uncomfortable, that the church and the church leaders would prefer if they didn't exist or if they were cautioned or sanctioned, uh, in some way to somehow control the narrative. Um, is that what you were thinking, Greg, when you were sharing your remarks, uh, that there's a relationship, a correlation between Joseph Smith's decision and the threat that he saw in the Expositor back then, you know, the printing press, and the church being uncomfortable and happy about podcasts talking about the issues. Is that what you were referring to? Yeah.

Sometimes you'll hear the phrase, the Watergate effect. Almost invariably, it's the reaction to something rather than the something that gets people and institutions into deep trouble. It was a third-rate burglary, but the reaction to Watergate brought down the president. The Nauvoo Expositor, had it been left alone, might never have been sensationalized. What pushed it to the forefront and kept it there was the response to it. And so often we see this, that Even if people are well-meaning, if they overreact to something, it's the overreaction that becomes the story. Right, right. And almost inevitably, that gets them into trouble. Right. Whereas if you would just say, let's everybody cool it, um, the status quo would be a lot healthier and a lot less violent, right?

So if, if, uh, if the church acted more intelligently around the John DeLynn case, and we've talked about this, Jim, you've talked about this on the podcast, where it, it should reach out to people like John DeLynn in a constructive, respectful, uh, thoughtful, collaborative way to work together to have these kind of conversations, if it were to do that intelligently, then it would be seen as being a, a, a, a actor, you know, acting in good faith, you know, with integrity. In contrast, it's now trying to destroy the Mormon Stories printing press essentially, and they're very actively doing that. Jim, I think you've mentioned this before, the numbers now on the John DeLynn podcast around the also, you know, the viewers has increased significantly, haven't they?

Yeah, doubled, more than doubled.

Jim, do you see that correlation then between the DeLinn case and the Expositor?

I do to some degree. Yeah. It's, it's fascinating to me that I was going to say the church doesn't understand the Streisand effect. You know, Barbra Streisand didn't want pictures of her Malibu house anywhere and sued like crazy. And so of course that picture spread everywhere. And that's become a standard thing. When you call attention to something or you crack down on something that you don't want people to see or don't want people to know, the unintended consequence is that you expand its reach and you expand its influence. And I think that's very clearly happening here with the John Dehlin lawsuit. It's interesting, my mind went back actually to Nemo the Mormon's excommunication. Nemo approached me before he was going in. He did not want to be excommunicated. He wanted to stay a member of the Church. And he asked me if I would write a letter of support. And in my letter of support to Nemo, I pointed out, look, if Nemo were advocating adultery or even advocating drinking coffee or advocating doing something contrary to the teachings of the church, then you might have a point here. But you're excommunicating Nemo for telling the truth. And when we do that, Uh, the, the reason why I think this is to some degree different and in some ways worse than the Expositor is that we are still operating as a church under the premise that we have the power to control the narrative. In 1844, destroying a printing press could legitimately suppress information. There weren't that many public sources of information, and censorship had a great deal more, um, effectiveness in that kind of a media environment than it does now, when anybody can get on a computer and type anything and have it visible to anyone anywhere in the world. And we are still operating under the assumption that we can quash narratives we don't like, that we can silence critics, um, that we can bully them into silence. And it, it just doesn't work. It just doesn't work. In fact, that's the best case scenario is that it's ineffective. The worst case and most likely scenario is it blows up in our face every time we do this, every time we go after somebody, every time we silence somebody for telling the truth. Now, this was Boyd K. Packer's Some Things That Are True Are Not Very Useful. And if you believe Michael Quinn, and I do, he said that in a private meeting that Boyd Packer says, my problem with historians is that they idolize the truth. And I think if we can't idolize the truth, uh, then, then what is our faith based on? If our faith is not based on an ability to confront true, real things, reality, uh, then our faith is not sustainable, and our faith is— we are a faith crisis waiting to happen. I, I really, Greg, am interested in the positive response we've gotten for our last conversation where you brought up these things about the First Vision that are not in dispute, the things that the church doesn't talk about. But, you know, this was not known by members of the church. There is no history of persecution. I, I don't remember off the top of my head exactly what those were. You, you probably do. But a lot of people were like, oh, it's so helpful to just to have that information and to incorporate that information into a sustainable faith. Because I've said for my part that the First Vision and the different accounts of the First Vision and the discrepancies in those accounts poses no threat to my personal faith. I think there is a very plausible and realistic way to justify that, that, that doesn't bother me at all. But I think if you are somebody who has been taught that the church, everything the church says is not only 100% accurate, but there's only one interpretation to it, that there's only one way to look at things and it's the church's way. And if you're not looking at it the church's way, then shut up and go away. That does not work. It's a recipe for failure going forward. And I don't think we do the church any favors by perpetuating things that are not true.

Even the church do itself any favors by trying to swap things down. Whether they're true or even if they're not true, I have often referred on this podcast to my good friend Lester Bush. He said he was on a CIA assignment in Africa. He didn't say what it was about, but he talked about being in an open vehicle., and he kept swatting flies that were buzzing around him. And as a result, he never saw what was all this amazing scenery that was going by. And finally the driver said, "Quit swatting." And when he quit swatting, the flies didn't bother him anymore. That's the cycle you can get into if this church is even close to what it says it is. And with its nearly 18 million members and being one of the wealthiest churches in the world, if not the wealthiest church, why is it swatting flies? Come on now. We need to be more mature than that. As you're swatting them, as you said, Jim, you're just giving them more attention. I get back to what Daniel Shore on NPR said, don't even ignore them.

Don't even ignore them.

Yep.

I love that. That is a great way to look at it.

Takes too much energy.

Yeah, absolutely. The church is actually pretty good at not even ignoring a lot of things. Some things that I wish they wouldn't not even ignore. You know, the church tends to ignore world events, and we've lamented that over and over again. But that seems to be sort of their strategy there. But here now, the strategy exactly the opposite. And I, I think they— they're— I'd like to see them swap what they don't ignore.

Yeah.

Uh, with what they're doing here.

I, I've just heard something I've not heard before on any podcast like this about the church. And you've just said, both of you, that the church is, you know, swatting flies where it shouldn't and doesn't have to, you know, focusing on those things that really shouldn't be focusing on, right? You know, taking down, you know, podcasts and, and, and, and being, um, you know, the, the, the very prescriptive on, on small things which bother them, right? Like the fly analogy. It's a great analogy. Yet the big issues of the day, it's silence. Why is he not swatting that? I've not heard that before. I've not understood, seen the church through that light before. So thank you for that. Um, I want to tie this conversation. We've got maybe 10 minutes left here or so. We want to tie, uh, which is so easy to do this, um, these concepts, these principles, these examples of the, uh, novel expository, you know, the truth and honesty, et cetera. You know, trying to control the narrative to the, um, important distinctions identified in the Roadmap 2.0 and, and 1.0. And that is the, you know, in the tapestry of that in document, document titled The Roadmap for Improving Mormonism. As I've mentioned at the very beginning, uh, at least made references, the, the, the, the principle there, the, the red line that, or thread rather, that runs through the tapestry of the roadmap is, uh, honesty. That's what it is for me, at least. That's what I get from that. Others might get something different. You got the title, you know, improving, uh, a roadmap for improving Mormonism, and the answer is right there in front of our eyes. It's in the 13th Article of Faith. Be honest. Um, and so when I was thinking and preparing for for this conversation, I found an old lesson book that we used to have in the '80s. I was taught this by the missionaries when I first joined the church. You have to do a little bit of digging, but it is online still. It says, you know, the 13th Article of Faith, it starts open with quoting that, you know, we believe in being honest. And then it says, complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. Brigham Young said, if we accept salvation on the terms it is offered to us, we have, we've got to be honest in every thought, in our reflections, in our meditations, in our private circles, in our dealings, in our declarations, and in every act of our lives. It says here, God is honest and just in all things. Alma 7:20. We must be honest in all things to become like him. Brother Jared testified, yay, Lord, I know that thou art God of truth and canst not lie. In contrast, the devil is a liar. In fact, he is the father of lies. Those who choose to cheat and lie and deceive, misrepresent, become his slaves. According to Mark E. Peterson, it goes on. The lesson material goes on to say, honest people love truth and justice. This is the manual. This is what I was taught. It's still there. They are honest in their words and actions. They do not lie, steal, or cheat. To lie is to be dishonest. Lying intentionally is— lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to his children of Israel. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. The Ten Commandments, right, right there. Jesus also taught this when he was on earth. And many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, when we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, or by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest, and the Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty. And we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie.. He says this, yea, lie a little, uh, there is no harm in this. Uh, 2 Nephi 28:8. Satan encourages to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan's temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be— listen to this— even when it seems to be to their disadvantage. It goes on to say that, um, a little bit more about cheating and being dishonest. We must not excuse our dishonesty. What happens to us spiritually when we excuse our dishonesty? People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them. Some excuse themselves for stealing, thinking they deserve what they took, uh, they took intent to return it or need it more than the owner. Some cheat to get better grades, etc. Uh, the lesson's absolutely, uh, amazing. He says here, uh, we must be completely honest. To become completely honest, we must look carefully at our lives. If there are ways in which we are being even the least bit dishonest, least bit dishonest, we should repent of them, um, immediately. And the lesson just, uh, continues to talk about the importance of— he says here, when we are completely honest, we cannot be corrupted. We are true to every trust, duty, agreement, or covenant. Even if it costs us money, friends, or our lives. Then we can face the Lord, ourselves, and others without shame. And then finally it says here, President Joseph F. Smith counseled that every man's life be so that his character will bear the closest inspection, that it may be seen as an open book, so that he will have nothing to shrink from or be ashamed of. I thought that lesson, gentlemen, when I, when I heard it and thought it and, and, and taught it as well was absolutely amazing. And you know what, after reading that and living it, uh, to the best of my ability, you know, and, and, and seeing the church as the only— and this sounds a bit naive, perhaps a bit foolish on my part— for many years until 2016, I honestly believed that the church wasn't just the only true church on the earth. That it was the only honest church on the earth. I really believed that. I believed that when I paid my tithes and donations, that every cent, every penny would be used with wisdom and discretion and thoughtfulness and honesty. I believed everything they said foolishly. Now I look back and I think how foolish I was, that everything the church spoke officially as a prophet of God, as an apostle, you know, when they spoke as representatives of God, that was so important to get right, that we would hang on every word and that we could have full confidence and trust that everything they were saying and teaching and writing was correct, that it'd been vetted by the Spirit and by God, and that we had no reason to doubt or disbelieve. I actually thought that way. I believed that way. I felt that way, and I would defend the church, uh, on every inch of ground. Anyone who, uh, said otherwise about the church, I was one of its greatest defenders and believed to say anything official was sanctioned and approved by God, and the church would never mislead us or be dishonest. And when I read that lesson and was taught that lesson. I felt the spirit and believed it was the only honest, the only one honest organization on earth that I could, that I'd found. Thankfully I'd found something I could trust and believe in and could follow. I didn't have to doubt. And, you know, I'd come home and God had found me. And thank goodness there was an organization on the earth that was like this because everything else was, you just couldn't trust. Um, as I hear myself speak, I realize I'm It was quite naive, but that's how much faith and trust I had in the Church.

There was a statement that didn't make it into the Articles of Faith. I think it should have. It was on the masthead of the Church's newspaper in Nauvoo. The Nauvoo was Times and Seasons. Underneath it was the quote simply, Truth will prevail. What are we worried about? Yeah. Yeah.

That's the thing. We've got a great story and the true story is so much more compelling than the gussied up fake tinsel that we put on the story. It, it, you know, I've said many times how inspiring it was to me to learn that my great-grandfather, David O. McKay, that I had been intimidated by my entire life, was kind of a lousy missionary and was very much like me when he was my age. And, you know, that is such a better story, such a more inspiring story. The idea that flawed people have been able to do this great work and accomplish so much. It's, it's a much more inspiring and faith-promoting story than perfect people have managed this church from day one, and you're never going to be perfect, so just sit back and enjoy the ride as these perfect people do everything for you. I seem to recall that we rejected a plan where we would be forced to be perfect. This, this is the story we ought to have been telling all along. It's a story some people have been telling all along, but I think the church has a ways to go before it realizes that that's the only way forward, that we don't have a choice to tell anything but the truth.

Yeah. As we thank you for that, Jim Bennett, and your comments, Greg. So grateful to have this conversation with you both. As I say, I, I, I get so much from my own life on this, and I'm sure many of our listeners and, and viewers, uh, have the same experience. As we bring this conversation to a close, I have a, a, a question that burns here. Why, why do we know this, right? Three fellas, our level, different backgrounds. I get that, you know, We all have our own experiences here. Why do we see this and know this and the church leaders don't? Or they do, but they are not addressing it. You know, what, what's the block? What's that barrier? Why are they not approaching it in the way that we are? And I'm not saying we have a, you know, perfect knowledge by any means, but why don't they see it? The way we do or talk about it the way we do?

Because from an early age, I would argue in some cases, even in primary, there are people, men, who self-vet to want to climb the ladder. And for them, the goal is, I need to make the institution look good. And once you step foot on that path, it leads you into areas that are counterproductive. The institution is strong. It can take care of itself. I had a conversation with George Smith, who was the founder of Signature Books. And he said he was in a meeting at one of the annual meetings of the Mormon History Association. There was an after-hours gathering in somebody's hotel room with a bunch of people in there passing around M&Ms. And Leonard Arrington, the Church historian, just said out of the blue, God doesn't need our lives. But we often act as if God isn't powerful enough to preserve this institution, so we have to step in and clean up the mess.

That's absolutely brilliant. God does not need our lies. That could be the tagline for this podcast.

Now, Jim, I gave attribution, so don't be saying that I lifted that from somebody else.

Yep. Nope. The attribution is all there.

That's, uh, words of wisdom right there. That sums it up. I think that is a title there, Jim. Thank you so much, Tibor, for, um, these conversations. They're so helpful. And they will help so many others. As we close, uh, Jim Bennett, do you want to offer any final thoughts and comments? And then we'll give the final minute or so to, to our friend Greg on.

I, I think what Greg said there at the end is the summation of everything that we've talked about here. And I just want to let that be at least my last word. And Greg has other words of wisdom to add. I'd be happy to hear those too.

When your great-grandfather died, one of the brethren went to Claire Middlemas, his secretary, and asked if he had had a favorite hymn. And Claire Middlemas immediately responded, yes, O Say What Is Truth.

And folks, we will close on that. Greg, Thank you so much. We love you and appreciate you and so grateful that you such an important part of the Inside Out Conversations. Jim, as always, it's always an honor to work together with you on this. And the goal is to help people. That's all we're trying to do. Thank you both. And thank you to all of our listeners. And we look forward to doing more of these with Greg Prince as we go forward. Forward and we explore further items and opportunities in the ongoing developing roadmap for improving modernism. Thank you, Jim Bennett, and thank you, Greg.

Thank you.