Did Book of Mormon Lamanites Exist? - Ganesh Cherian

Did the Nephites and the Labanites in the Book of Mormon exist? Hello everyone and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories podcast. I'm your host John Delin. It is August 19th, day before my birthday, uh, 2025. We are live streaming from the Mormon Story Studio. Yes, we're actually doing a live stream. It's been a bit, uh, since we've done it. And today we're answering the question, did the Lammonites and/or the Nephites in the Book of Mormon really exist? Um, and of course, there's many ways to tackle that question. You can tackle it, uh, through DNA. You can tackle it through geography, through anthropology, through archaeology. Uh, but one way you can try to tackle it is through textual analysis. And that's how we're going to be, uh, attempting to approach that question.

Today we are, uh, today also featuring a brand new book, an exciting must-buy, must-read book, um, that, uh, I'm excited to first be, uh, announcing here on Mormon Stories today. The book is called, I've probably maybe referenced it in the past, uh, or it's been referenced slightly, but it's out. The book is called Joseph Smith, the Architect of Mormonism, a Topical Biography by, uh, a face that will be familiar to those of you who are die-hard Mormon Stories fans or who are paying attention to the Mormon YouTube and podcast world. We have back on our show in Mormon Stories Studio, one of our two favorite Kiwis, Ganesha Cherion. Is that okay? Is that, did I pronounce that right? That's perfect. Is that how you pronounce it? Yes. Ex. Yeah. Excellent. And, uh, I, you know, I'm just throwing a bone to Gina Culvin, you know. Is that okay if we? She is a great friend of mine and an an incredible person. So she's a, a, a true Kiwi and an and a, a formidable force in the Mormon world. So yes, she should actually be acknowledged. Yes. All right. So anyway, uh, Ganesh, it's great to have you back on Mormon Stories. I'm really excited about this book. I do want to tell people, buy this book, uh, if you can buy it from Benchmark Books here in Salt Lake City because Ganesha has signed several copies. You can get a signed copy from, uh, Benchmark and also support, uh, one of our favorite bookstores as well. Um, but, uh, Ganesha, really quickly, why don't you give us, you know, those of our viewers and listeners who just want to understand what this book's about. Do you wanna, before we do a quick reintroduction to you, do you want to just tell people what this book's about? Oh, we're also going to talk about it in the presentation. Okay. Well, absolutely. Like, so, um, as the title denotes, it's a topical biography. So, it's about Joseph Smith. It's about his life and really it's about understanding Mormonism through the lens of Joseph Smith and his trajectory, uh, during his lifetime because he is the face of Mormonism, but he is also the soul of Mormonism. And when you start to understand that, Jan Ships, who died recently, she made the comment that you can't understand the book, you can't understand Mormonism and the Book of Mormon unless you understand Joseph Smith. And, and hopefully I've done her a great service and being able to project that in the book because I take Joseph's life, dissect it by topic and look at the trajectory that shows he is really the architect of Mormonism. So that's hence the book. And for people that want us to connect the dots for them, uh, what does understanding Joseph Smith's life have to do with, uh, whether or not Lamanites exist? Just connect those dots for us. Right. One of the seminal works of Joseph Smith is of course the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, which put into the American consciousness the idea that Native Americans had been the, uh, backbone of Christianity in the Americas in an ancient setting. So this was a really big idea in 19th century America, that the idea that the Native Americans were part of the house of Israel some way, and Joseph Smith codified that with the Book of Mormon. The idea that Nephites and Lamanites were the ancestors to present-day Native Americans. So if, if Joseph, if, if Native American, uh, you know, prophets are the authors of the Book of Mormon, then the Book of Mormon, then Lamanites and Nephites probably existed. But if Joseph Smith is the 19th century author of the Book of Mormon, then it's more likely that Lamanites and Nephites did not exist. Is that kind of the premise that we're working from? Okay. And, and, and I go through this chapter by chapter by topic and really, you can use my book as a bit of a commentary on the Book of Mormon because you can go through and look at a various, at various topics and see what the Book of Mormon says about those topics, but then relate it to Joseph Smith's own personal life, his family dynamic, the environment of 19th century, uh, America, and track that through the development and of the church in the early 1830s and then through some, usually some kind of pivot, some change that happens to Joseph and the Saints to what ends up in Nauvoo, and then Joseph, of course, is killed, and the ideas of Nauvoo and of the Book of Mormon end up informing what we have in the church today. Okay. All right. So that's we're going to answer the question, is Joseph Smith, is there good textual evidence, uh, that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon and not ancient, uh, Native American Nephites and Lamanites? So, um, really quickly, because we're live streaming, let me just say a couple things. Please subscribe and like this episode. Uh, we love your comments. Whether you're joining us in the live stream or not, we want to thank our donors. Our YouTube revenue, ad revenue is plummeting. I think it's because we're not spamming our videos with, with, you know, ads every three minutes. And so, uh, our YouTube revenue is plummeting. And I'm okay taking that hit to give y'all a good experience, uh, with the show. But I just want to let everyone know that we exist thanks to the generosity of our donors. We don't do, uh, commercials or ads or product placement, uh, that we receive money for. So, thank you if you're a donor, a monthly donor or annual donor to the Open Stories Foundation, Mormon Stories, uh, you make this possible. If you are not a donor, uh, and you value this type of content and you want to see it continue, then the way you do that is to go to mormonstories.org, click on the donate button, become a monthly donor, and we'll keep Mormon Stories ad and free of product placements, and we'll be able to keep going. So, please become a monthly donor if you're not at mormonstories.org and thank you if you are a donor. All right, that's it. That's all for the ads. Ganesha, maybe do you want to tell people a little bit about yourself? Now, we did interview you with Margie for, uh, you know, multi-hour interview, but let's just, uh, remind people a little bit about you and who you are. Great. Well, um, I'm really excited to be here because of course, two years ago when I did that interview with you, John and Margie, they, you know, I had this idea for this book and it was hopefully coming out so soon and I've promised so much for so long and so it's really nice to have something tangible to, to have available for people to connect with. And part of that interview when I talked about my life and growing up, I live in Wellington, New Zealand. I am a, my parents joined the church when I was young, but I grew up in the church. I went to Church College, which was a Latter-day Saint high school, and I did that for three years, in which case I was the student body president, and then I went on a, a two-year mission to Oakland from Wellington, which is like going from here to, to, um, Wyoming, um, very close by. Um, but it meant that I was connected to a lot of the people who I went to school with and I had an incredibly lovely time. Uh, a fellow missionary who I was really close to, some years later, we ended up getting married. So, my wife Lindy is from Seattle, and, uh, we made our home in New Zealand. I, um, because I married an American and that was a pretty, a bit of a privilege, I guess, in New Zealand, I ended up being on the high council fairly soon after I was married, and then, um, subsequently became the bishop of, of the ward I grew up in and was the bishop there for almost six years. And after that time, we ended up coming and living in the states. We lived in Wyoming where my, uh, in-laws were and my mother-in-law was very sick, and so we got a chance to bring our five boys and have an incredibly lovely experience in the mountain west and enjoy that time immensely, but also was a time where I got to look at the church differently. I come from New Zealand where, uh, being a member of the church is actually quite a privilege and people really look well to the church. And living in Wyoming, um, during the Obama-Mitt Romney election, um, opened my eyes to a number of things, which, which particularly around how Mormons were viewed in the Mountain West and not always very favorably, uh, but that intersection between politics and religion when lots of my little town, uh, at first were resistant to the idea of a Mormon candidate in Mitt Romney. But as soon as he was, uh, now the, uh, had got the primary nomination for the, for the Republican party, they just automatically switched to supporting him. And I was really interested in those dynamics of politics and religion that you factor in how the United States works. And so I did a little bit of digging and realized that the reasons why members of the church might not be considered very highly in the Mountain West were some of the things like Mountain Meadows Massacre, some of the ways that Brigham had infiltrated and, uh, colonized, uh, up and down the Wasatch Front. And so these things led me to looking at church history. And of course, then I realized some of the stories I had been told were not as full as, uh, they could have been, and I wanted to know everything I could. So, I did a number of, uh, tours to church history sites, looked at some of the backgrounds of things like violence and racism because, of course, I'm brown, if you might not have recognized from my, my picture. You know, what that meant for members of the church, but also American citizens. And that led me to look at the church in a whole different light. And of course, once you start looking and you realize the history is different, things cut, start cascading quite quickly into what is going on, what are the real stories, how can I, you know, understand what has happened and why it happened and what we have now. And so the book really is a culmination of understanding that because for many people, and, you know, who look at church history, it gets overwhelming very quickly. And so looking at some of those really big issues. Um, and I was fortunate that when I started to go through this bit of this transition, the, it was just before the Gospel Topics Essays came out. So when they came out in 2013, 2014, they validated all of the things that I had already come to understand. And because they were produced and put out by the church, it was a mechanism for me to be able to talk about them to other members of the church. So I did a, um, a blog along with Gina Culvin. Um, she had a, a blog called Kiwi Mormon, and she allowed me to guest blog on that. And one of the blogs that I did talking about a former bishop who was now confronted with these new ideas through the Gospel Topics Essays, that blog went viral. Um, I, funny story, I met Har, met Matt Harrison, the church history library a year ago, and we got on like a house on fire and we started talking for, for, for some time, and then eventually he went, "Oh, hang on a second. You're that bishop in New Zealand that I wrote about in my Gospel Topics, um, essay book?" And, and it was quite a lovely connection and, and we've had that ever since. But, uh, you know, because I'm outspoken, but also, you know, I have a really lovely position in New Zealand and connected well with the people in New Zealand, but also, um, lots of American saints who came to Wellington, particularly to, to work in the movies or the US embassy or, uh, universities or, or any corporates. I've got a lot of connections throughout the world and, uh, particularly to, uh, Utah. So that was part of my transition. But, uh, when I recognized that things were more complicated, I just had to know everything. So I delved into church history like many people do. And the book really is a culmination of that understanding because I realized for me personally that understanding the chronology of what happened helped me to understand what was going on and why we have got to the particular doctrines and theology in the church that we have. And the book started off really just looking at the differences between the Book of Mormon and what happened in Nauvoo. And it just got bigger and bigger and became effectively a biography because the only way to explain the differences was to explain what was happening in Joseph's life at 23 years old when the Book of Mormon was published, and then 38 years old in Nauvoo when he was killed, and then understand what happened prior to the Book of Mormon that made the Book of Mormon what it is, and then how that was implemented in a religion, in the early church, and then what conflicts Joseph came up with, stumbling blocks, roadblocks that he had to pivot around that then mean the unique doctrines that we see in Nauvoo and that the church has adopted, uh, pretty much to this day. So that's kind of a, a good little backstory. Any questions, John?

Um, I'll just share a couple comments, uh, just for fun. Deborah Harding writes, "Off topic, but Ganesha, your hair is to die for. So people are liking your hair." For those of you who are listening only, you can watch us both on Spotify and on YouTube. But Ganesha, people are digging your hair. How does that feel? Uh, do you feel objectified, Ganesh? I, I'm very happy to. I always feel a little bit more like Santa Claus now that my hair is completely white. And I'm quite jealous of you, John, and also John Turner, who I keep watching and seeing these these guys with full heads of nice dark hair. And I, and I look like Kenny Rogers. So, I'm Kenny Rogers is pretty handsome. I think I, people think I color my hair, but I do not color. I've never colored my hair, so deal with it, internet. Um, really quickly, we are, we are, uh, welcoming comments on the live stream. Uh, Nicola Walker writes, "Loving the South Asian representation." Do you know that this week we released an interview with a woman who converted to the church in India? Yes. Yes. It's a fun little coincidence. Yeah. And I, not that you converted to the church in India. No, but I, you know, I was born in India. My father's from India, of course, and, um, my mother's from New Zealand. And so, yes, I, I love India. I, you know, they're the most beautiful people in the world. And, um, yeah, excited to have that as part of my heritage. Sisha, the, check out the interview with Sisha if you, it's she, she converted to the church and it's heartbreaking, you know. I, I haven't watched it yet, but I, I will. I've been following their family for quite a long time. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Beautiful. Okay. Um, all right. So, maybe we should go ahead and jump into the book. Should we call you, um, Bishop Cherion? Is that what we should do, is call you bishop? Would that be? That's fine. They say once a bishop, always a bishop. Yeah. And look, I, I am active in my ward. I attend. I, um, I'm obviously a, a non-believer in terms of the church's truth claims, but I am, you know, passionate about my Mormon tribe. And, um, part of this book really is to kind of promote some bridges because I think it was really hard for members of the church with many of their family leaving the, the church and not knowing what to do about that and, and, and really difficult for people who, who find out information that is really tough, particularly about Joseph Smith, and find the need to leave, that, you know, that can be incredibly heartbreaking. And so hopefully the book allows for people to feel incredibly validated that, you know, this is tough stuff. Um, and hopefully I've done it in a really lovely way to, to be forthright about the hard things while really under, you know, showing that, you know, there's some empathy there that can be attributed to Joseph Smith and his particular hardness that hopefully will bridge some gaps and allow members who are worried and, uh, you know, maybe former members who are also worried to talk to each other and, uh, get an understanding of Joseph. So clearly you're not trying to destroy the church with this book since you currently actively attend. Correct. Okay. All right. Uh, all right. Well, let's dig in. Should we go to the first slide? Yes. Yes. Let's do it. All right. Let's do it. What do we got on here?

All right. So, we, um, so just a year ago, in fact, exactly a year ago, um, Dan McClellan came on your, your show, of course, and, uh, and talked about his understanding of particularly of the Book of Mormon in light of his biblical criticism, and that is pretty groundbreaking, you know, I think well-received and, uh, probably incredibly watched. Um, so it's really interesting to see how he talks about the Book of Mormon. Um, obviously his work mostly is in biblical criticism, but, um, he's a, a member of the church and he's interested in how people engage in scriptural text. And so he's talked about this quite a bit, but I just pulled a quote from, from that interview that I think is really important. And, um, he, he said, "The data indicate that the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century. From a scholarly methodological approach to the Book of Mormon, there aren't really serious arguments that it is anything other than a product of the 19th century. From a position of faith, absolutely people can believe it is of ancient origin, but that is a position of faith. That is a position that is existing despite what the data indicates, despite the evidence, not the data that are built upon the evidence. Even for folks who do accept it as something of ancient origin, I have long argued that if you want to understand it better, you need to approach it as something at least addressing a 19th century or audience." All right. So, you know, this is a big deal. I think, you know, Dan McClellan is incredibly well regarded, uh, across the world for his his, um, work, you know, totally outside of his LDS faith. So, you know, we need to get to a point, and I think the church is, is, is fast getting there, that we understand that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century text, and it's not likely to have any ancient or historical, uh, connection to the, the indigenous people of the Americas. Um, and so part of the book, you know, you can, like I said, you can use it as a commentary. You can go through and look at the topics, and they are 19th century topics that Joseph is talking about in a 19th century environment to a 19th century audience, and these are the kind of things that Dan McClellan's identifying, and he hasn't talked about them in depth, but hopefully, um, you know, this book gives a good understanding of that and, and a way to work through that, that understanding with a lot of grace, but also, you know, textual evidence.

So, uh, we do have a comment from, uh, a viewer, and let's give us maybe a short answer to this one. It's maybe something we can talk about more in depth after your presentation, but he asks, "I don't understand. If you know your food is poisoned, why do you choose to continue eating that poisoned food? Makes no sense to me." So, he's basically saying, if the, if the Book of Mormon isn't historical, if the Mormon church isn't what it claims to be, he's likening that under poison, and then saying if you continue attending, it's like eating poison. Do you have a quick answer, uh, for Dustin? Yeah. Well, and that's a, it's a valid point, right? You know, if, if what you're told isn't correct, what do you do with that? Um, my short answer would be, being human means engaging in stories. Stories that aren't necessarily accurate. Um, we all have stories that we belong to that we know aren't, um, always the best stories or not necessarily, um, historical or ancient, but there are things that give us a great deal of peace, maybe even bind us as a community. And if you, there are just some places you can't leave. If you're a, if you're a citizen of a country, you're not likely to just be able to pack up and go to another country just because you don't like the story that is being told about your country. Um, we all belong to tribes in some form or another. Um, part of being part of a tribe is investing in a story, uh, that binds us, even when we understand that the story might not necessarily have everything in it that would be useful. And part of being part of a tribe is taking accountability. One of the things I think that if all the people who know that the Book of Mormon is not ancient and historical leave the church, well then the, the church becomes more insular. It becomes, it, it becomes a problem from that perspective. So, I, yeah, and I love my ward. My ward is amazing. They're great people. They're trying to do their best. Um, there are, there's a range of people there from those who are incredibly invested in the story and believe it 100% to those who know that it's a fiction, but they, they appreciate the community that this binds. So that's every story that we belong to. I get it. Makes sense. All right. Well, and, and I'm, I'm attending a ward activity this Saturday. I was invited to a golf scramble in my local ward. So, I'm attending my first ward activity, uh, since 2015. So, that'll be 10 years. So, anyway. All right. Let's go to the next slide.

All right. So, so basically the premise of the book is that Mormonism is Joseph, and Joseph is Mormonism, right? So, the Book of Mormon is a 23-year-old young man who is making his way in the world, trying to understand what it is that he's valuable about and infusing that into the ways that he's dealing with the people around him. And, you know, Nauvoo, Illinois is Joseph at 38. He is a religious leader, a political leader, and he's got a whole city that's, uh, connected to him. So, he's quite a different person by that point. And so, those are the two big data points in the book. Um, and they really explain a lot of what Mormonism is. We, we have these ideals about the poor in the Book of Mormon, and we have these, you know, unique doctrines that developed by Nauvoo, and that's kind of a mesh of what the church is today. And I think understanding that gives us a sense of, you know, what we kind of might be able to pick and choose about the church to engage in or not, right? I, I think that for lots of people, you know, you have to kind of come to the idea that, um, you, especially if you live in Utah, the church is going to be there. So, what parts of it are you going to engage in? Are you going to engage in a Book of Mormon version of, uh, understanding? Are you going to engage in a Nauvoo understanding of the church, you know, or bits in between? Or are you going to reject those things and do, um, whatever is useful to you? Yeah. So, so if I can restate what I'm hearing you say is part of your premise is that theology, doctrine in the Book of Mormon, ala 1830, in many instances, is demonstrably different than Mormon doctrine and theology by 1844 in Nauvoo. And that you can even sort of track what's going on in Joseph's life and evolved understanding that helps explain the change from Book of Mormon theology and doctrine to Nauvoo era theology and doctrine. Correct. Absolutely correct. Okay. In fact, and many times they're complete contradictions. Yeah. So that's, and that's really tough to, to sort out in your head, right? Because for lots of members, they're reading the Book of Mormon on a, on a daily basis and, and feeling that idea of the church in that particular way, but what they actually practice is a Nauvoo era, which might actually be, you know, completely in conflict. And so, yeah, I think one of the challenges of the modern LDS, uh, engagement is that conflict. And, you know, hopefully by understanding the conflict, you can dissipate it. Um, got another comment, and, and we're going to jump right in, but I, I just think it's, it's an abrasive enough comment that I'm going to share it. DJ Nation by DJ Joe writes, "It is disappointing to see you guys finding lies about this church and still following." First of all, just my response, DJ Nation by DJ Joe. I don't know. Following is how the church would characterize what I do personally and on Mormon Stories. Uh, yeah, I think you need to think through your words better because calling me a follower of orthodox Mormonism just has no connection to reality. Um, I'm imagining, uh, you might feel similarly, Ganesha, but also I'll just say for myself that, uh, there's a value in in being strategic and thoughtful about how you want to make influence in the world. And one way is to cut off every association with Mormonism because you think it's false and bad and toxic. And that's fine if that's what you want to do. I would say there's also a value in being both strategic and friendly and inclusive because, uh, as long as you cut people and organizations completely off, your ability to influence and make them better or to make the lives or the experiences of those who are still in them better is very limited. So I would just consider you do whatever you want to in your own life, um, DJ Nation by DJ Joe, but try to open up space in your worldview for people who, uh, want to have influence and make a positive difference in the world in ways that may not make sense to you, but are still valid. Ganesh, anything you want to add to that?

Well, I'm definitely not an apologist. Um, and I'm really seeking for transparency and accountability. And I think that by understanding Joseph, understanding his trajectory and where we are at today, we might be able to look back and go, is this valid? And if it's not valid, we need to change it. This church has got billions of dollars. It's going to be around forever. And it's only going to use that money for the things that church members advocate for. And so part of learning about our history and recognizing that it is problematic and sometimes incredibly harmful in a context of Joseph Smith's life, um, hopefully will allow us to, to make sensible, real changes that, that will provide healing and maybe even, you know, something better in the future. Yeah. All right. Well, let's go ahead and jump to the next slide. And, uh, thanks for the, I may come back, you know, at you and your comments as hard as you come at us or me in your comments, but that's part of the fun of free and open dialogue. So, please don't let my, uh, sharp-elbowed response, uh, deter any of you from sharing more comments because we love the comments. Keep them coming. All right, Ganesha, what's next?

Great. Well, I, I just want to, part of the book's beauty, at least from my perspective and hope for other people reading it, is that it talks about some really hard things in really, you know, forthright measure. And so there's a, there's a few things in that. One is that, um, I, I use five sections. I've got 45 chapters on various topics under five sections. And the first one is settler worldview. So looking at the 19th century settlers who are m, who are moving across the United States westward and, you know, taking up space. What is their understanding of the world? And then, uh, the Native Americans, what, what are they understanding about Native Americans and their place in, in this space? Um, you mean the settlers' perceptions about or understandings about Native Americans? Correct. Okay. Correct. And then, um, you know, there's a number of theologies, a number of, uh, Christian ideals that are coming forward in Joseph's life and in his environment and how they're playing out. So I've got a number of chapters on that. And there, there are also some really specific things, some New England and New York prejudices that Joseph has because he's from New England and he, he migrates to Western New York. These are things that come up in the Book of Mormon and play out through his life that are really interesting. And then I've got also got a section on folk magic because that underpins his understanding of this esoteric, unseen world that he's engaging in. And so I'm, we're going to go through and, and I'm just going to, I've got, like I say, I've got 45 chapters so on various topics and we're not going to be able to go through all of them, but I thought just as a, as a representation, we'd look at patriotism in terms of set the worldview. We'd look at Native American conversion. Uh, we'd look at redemption of the dead as a, as a particular theology. And we'd look at anti-kings as part of those New England and New York prejudices and slippery treasure as part of Joseph's folk magic understanding and track those a little bit. Uh, you know, the book goes through these things in detail and brings them up. We won't be able to do it quite like that, but we, we'll at least be able to give you a good understanding of how that looks as we look at Joseph's life. All right, let's do it. Let's dive in. This sounds fun.

All right, patriotism. So, this is a, a, a big thing in early 19th century America. Um, of course, I, I just, uh, visited somebody on the, well, somebody on the plane when I was flying to Salt Lake. They were telling me about the George Washington biography that they were just reading. And of course, George Washington and the Declaration of Independence is a really big part of the American story. And if we're talking about American stories, this is a very faithful, hopeful one. Of course, it's not shared by all Americans, but it's shared certainly by, um, by, uh, you know, white settlers. And, uh, so we've got, I've got a couple of, um, quotes here. One from George Washington, um, his his address to Canada in 1775. He says, "We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children. We are determined to preserve them or die." Okay, that's already sounding like a, a verse I've, uh, I'm loosely familiar with in the Book of Mormon. Yes, we're going to get to that, right? You know, I'm just, well, I'm just going to like call balls and strikes as I hear them from in an attempted neutral standpoint, but that's already sounding familiar. It's very good. Well, um, and Asael Smith, who's, um, Joseph's grandfather, um, he wrote to his family and he said, "Bless God that you live in a land of liberty and bear yourselves dutifully and and conscientiously. Conscientiously. Oh gosh, that's a ter hard word. Um, towards the authority under which you live. See God's providence in the appointment of the federal constitution and, and hold union and order as a precious jewel." Wow, that's pretty patriotic. Yeah. Well, um, Joseph Smith's both Joseph Smith's grandfathers fought in the Revolution, Revolutionary War. His maternal grandfather fought in the, um, Indian and French War. Um, so the Smiths were gosh, sixth generation, um, New Englanders. When Joseph Smith was born, they were incredibly patriotic. It is part of their DNA, and that is what Joseph grew up with. And when Joseph was seven, the War of 1812 was going on. This was the second, basically the, you know, the second Revolutionary War. The idea that that Britain could overwhelm the United States and take it over again. And basically the US won. So, Joseph was steeped in patriotism, and this made its way into the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is incredibly patriotic. Um, and Alma 46, I don't know if you can see that, John. Can you read it? Yeah. Yeah. You want me to read it? Yeah. Cuz I think, Okay. Alma 46:11-13. "And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalachiah. And it came to pass that he rent his coat, and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it in memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children. And he fastened it upon the end of a pole. And he called it the title of liberty. And he bowed himself to the earth. And he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren." Okay, connect those dots for us, Gesh.

Well, this is throughout the Book of Mormon, right? The, the Book of Mormon is incredibly, uh, patriotic. It wants a new America to be the thing. It talks about the mother Gentiles fighting against the new republic that, that God has destined the United States to be the representative of Jesus on the, the world stage. And so we see this again and again and again in the Book of Mormon. And it's certainly an early 19th century idea of America being great. Yeah. And I, if I'm remembering right, I think there are parts of the Doctrine and Covenants that might even go as far as to claim that the US Constitution is inspired of God. Um, that that sort of thing. Uh, and yeah, a lot of verbiage in the Book of Mormon about America being a chosen land, chosen by God, you know, to, to receive, you know, the, the restoration of the true church, that sort of thing. And, and it comes up with the Native Americans, of course, because part of the story is that the, these Lamanites are wicked and cursed and fallen, and the Gentiles are the new inheritors of this land. So, they're righteous and they're destined by God to take over. So, this is baked into the American exceptionalist understanding of, you know, European settlers in the Americas. Okay. So, there's going to be a pivot by, by the 1840s, 10 years later. Are you going to tell us about the pivot? Yes. So, the pivot actually starts around 1838 because Joseph is, um, kicked out of, um, Kirtland, or unless he, he and, uh, Sidney have to flee for their lives, and they, they go to Far West, and at first they, um, identify through a motto that they are going to be really patriotic, that the, the government, the constitution is really important to establishing peace and liberty. But soon into their experience in Far West, they pivot, and there's a couple of people who talk about this pivot. Uh, uh, one is, uh, W. W. Phelps, who's a, you know, a prominent early member, and also Samson Avard. So, I'll just read what W. W. Phelps says in 1838. He says, "Sydney Rigdon was writing a declaration to declare the church independent. I remarked to him, I thought such a thing treasonable to set up a government within a government." He answered, "It would not be treasonable if they could maintain it or fight till they died." And Samson also at the same trial that these things were being considered, he said that he, Joseph, considered the United States rotten. He compared the Mormon church to the little stone spoken of by the prophet Daniel, and that the dissenters first, and the state next, was part of the image that should be destroyed by this little stone.

Yeah, I'm reading both *No Man Knows My History* right now and John Turner's biography of Joseph Smith. And just for those who are oblivious to actual Mormon church history, Joseph's, Joseph's kicked out of, Joseph and his top leadership are kicked out of Kirtland, Ohio, according to my understanding for two main reasons. One is that there's a scandal because Joseph Smith has been caught in an affair with Fanny Alger, a, a teenage girl living in his home by Emma. Oliver Cowdery finds out. He starts making accusations, and I didn't know this, but Joseph denied that he had been, um, caught in an affair with Fanny Alger. I, so I knew that that Joseph had had an affair and that at some point acknowledged it. What I didn't know is that he denied it to, uh, the top leadership in the church, tried to hide it and keep it from the members. But it started to come out, and that started significant dissension within his top leadership. And then the second thing, of course, is the Kirtland Bank or the anti-banking society. It's basically an illegal bank that Joseph led and founded. And then, of course, people ended up losing their life savings, and something like a third or more of the church apostatized. So those two major events, as I understand it, led to, to Joseph and, and his family being run out of Kirtland, Ohio. Um, so, uh, on the one hand, uh, you know, and, and then when they get to Missouri, the, the Saints in Independence are already, um, being kicked out of Jackson County for various reasons. Um, and, uh, but, but they're mad at the mob rule in both Ohio, I'd say, and, uh, and Missouri. And so they try to get, is it right? Am I right? They try and get help from the US government, from the state of Missouri, and they're not able to get the help they want and need. And then they're just mad about the frontier mob justice that's enacted upon the Mormons. Did I get that right? That's correct.

Well, you know, and particularly in Missouri when they first get there in 1838, um, they are telling the Missouri citizens that this is the promised land. They are now there. They are in charge, and, uh, like it or get out, basically. And of course, this leads to the Missouri Mormon War and the expulsion of the Saints. And so then, you know, by the time that Joseph goes to Nauvoo, he's now speaking against the United States because they haven't protected this minority religious group and provided redress for, for them being effectively kicked out of Missouri. Yeah. Julia's, uh, we don't want to get, um, rabbit hole here, but Julia asks, rightly, was Joseph denying it as an affair, as in it was okay by God and not, uh, an affair? And, you know, John Turner maintains that there really was no polygamy or plural marriage revelation by 1836. And so it was just a flat-out affair that Joseph later recontextualized as his first plural wife. Uh, do you have an opinion on whether Joseph was believing by 1836 that polygamy was of God, and or, and that by the way, that's something that changes from the Book of Mormon to Nauvoo, right? Because what, what does the Book of Mormon say about polygamy? So, polygamy is strongly condemned in the, the Book of Mormon and multiple places in the Doctrine and Covenants as well, 1835. Yeah. So I think that, um, you know, Joseph rightly, as you said, he, he doesn't, um, he, he basically just denies this as an affair. He really doesn't address it in any way. Um, I, I think that later on, um, people assume that Fanny is a plural wife because it, it validates or vindicates Joseph. But during this period of time, there's no indication that he's presenting it as anything at all. You know, he's denying it. As you say, say he's not reframing it as a marriage or, uh, something divine. That is something that's done retrospectively to that event because people want to make sense of, of the historical understanding of Fanny. Yeah. I mean, you would think that if anyone was going to be in on a polygamy doctrine, it would be Oliver, who at various points was basically, you know, co-president of the church, and Oliver just saw it as an affair. So that was Joseph, and, and later Joseph eventually lets, uh, you know, Sydney Rigdon and others know about polygamy. So if there were ever a time for Joseph to let Oliver in on the polygamy doctrine, it would have been the Fanny Alger 1836 affair. Yeah. Yeah. And there's no indication that he does. No, that's correct. So anyway, we don't want to get sidetracked, but, um, yeah, mob, mob justice makes the, the mob justice culminating in 1836 to what, 1838 or 39 turns Joseph and his top leaders against the US government, state and federal governments. Is that right? That's absolutely correct. I mean, it's worth reading that. Um, can you read that other half there? The prophecy that one.

So this is Joseph Smith in by 1843. So, it's a year before his death. He's living in Nauvoo. Um, and he writes, uh, "I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel that unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers, that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potshred left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women, and children and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished. The very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame." Yes, that's a very different tone than, uh, the quotes we read last slide about freedom and, and, and patriotism. And I would also say it's a very different tone than what the article of faith that Joseph produced, which says, "We believe and be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in obeying, honoring, sustaining the law." So I would say two things, just my, uh, attempted at neutral reaction. Definitely a change in position from go rah-rah America patriotism in the early 1830s to like, this government's corrupt and will be overthrown if they don't fix the wrongs. That seems to be a big doctrinal change. And then second, and, and yeah, this whole idea of Joseph, if I, as I understand it, being anointed king, that's treason, right? That's treason. Yeah. So the, the, the Council of Fifty, which was formed in early 1844, was to provide a theocratic government. So a theocracy, um, against the United States, and they sought to leave the United States in order to enact a, a kingdom outside of the bounds of the federal government. So they were actually engaging in treason. They were working to, uh, exit the United States because they felt like it was a fallen nation, which is really interesting as a, as a patriot, patriotism pivot. You know, Joseph is exiting. So, it's just, just crazy. All right. Um, uh, lots of interesting comments coming in. I'll just share one for now and maybe some for later. Chuck KV writes, "Fanny Alger is just Joseph practicing how polygamy works, just like treasure peep stoning was practiced to figure out the translation and revelation how how, uh, I'm adding a word, just, uh, so basically Joseph's treasure peeping was practiced on how to figure out the translation and revelation process." I think he's tongue-in-cheek. I think he's joking that he is. And, and, and it's a good comment, right?

Well, you know, gosh, Joseph is practicing, and what people allow him, and particularly the members of the church, his leadership allow him to do, then provides for what pivot he could actually accomplish. So that's a, it's, yeah, I think that when we look at Joseph's life, um, he, he does come up against these roadblocks, these, uh, conflicts, these pushbacks, and how he then is able to, you know, pivot and, you know, change and get his leadership team on board, sometimes he has to lose people like he did with Oliver Cowdery, just so he can go on to the next thing, and, yeah, it's an interesting dynamic. All right. Well, I'd say Ganesh, one, Book of Mormon historicity zero for this first point because I think it's a clear doctrinal change in terms of patriotism to sort of anti-patriotism, and I think we have the, um, the historical precursors to the change, which is the opposition in Ohio and Missouri and eventually Nauvoo that leads to the anti-US patriotism. So, Ganesh, one, um, and, and it's clearly 19th century America, right? We're talking about this is not ancient America. This, this is not, um, Mayans or Aztecs or

Toltics, you know, dealing with the idea that, you know, patriotism is a really important part of their lifestyle. You know, this is clearly 19th century written to a 19th century audience who understand what it means to be patriotic to a, you know, a government set apart from, you know, colonial America, uh, colonial Europe. Yeah. All right. Well, uh, let's go to number two. Let's see. It's Ganesh one, Book of Mormon historicity, not one. Uh, what's next, Ganesh?

So uh so this is the second section which is talks about Native American understanding and a significant part of the Book of Mormon uh is about native conversion. The idea that the Lammonites who are the an uh the the people who are the descendants of uh you know the Lamemonites particularly that they need to be they are fallen they've been cursed they need to be redeemed and so native conversion was a big part of of colonial America as it set forward and tried to to integrate the indigenous people of particularly the eastern seabboard of the United States. And this comes up again and again in New England and then through into western New York where Joseph is now living.

So we see um just a couple of examples. There's a there's a cleric uh um Samson Oak. He's a famous Moheakin Presbyterian cleric who championed conversion to Christianity for New England tribes. um he helped to broker peace by burying the hatchet, you know, which we see in the Book of Mormon with that idea of burying their weapons of war and helped his people relocate. So in order to um help them connect to this growing American frontier uh and he was Presbyterian. He helped his his people to convert to Presbyterianism but then also relocate their their tribe as part of this new America that was was trying to understand the conflicts between Native Americans and European settlers but also trying to redeem these people for um God because they were fallen Christians. Um, this is a, you know, really prominent early American and early 19th century, uh, understanding of Native Americans. Okay.

And then we know from the Smith family that Hyram Smith attended Moore's Indian Charity School, um, which was run by Dartmouth College. Um, it's an Indian charity school. You know, the Smiths were very poor and somehow got got an an ability to send Hyram to school and so he was the it was a school predominantly set up for the conversion of native children and Hyram had many um in indigenous classmates. So Thomas Murphy talks about this a lot. I mean he he's got a forthcoming book talking about this. The idea that, you know, this not Joseph Smith because he's home lame with his with his leg, but certainly Hyram had an had a connection with indigenous school children that um was a part of his schooling in um Dartmouth. So we have an indication for where this idea in the Book of Mormon comes from of the importance of converting Native Americans to Christianity because Joseph would have been primed to have that on his mind given Hyram Smith and Hyram Smith's association with Moore's Indian Charity School run out of Dartmouth. Exactly. Okay. And maybe you can read the the Book of Mormon.

All right. So, uh, the Book of Mormon title page, this is in 1829, reads, "Wherefore, it is an abridgement," meaning the Book of Mormon, "It is an abridgement of the record of the people of Nephi and also of the Lammonites written to the Lammonites who are a remnant of the house of Israel." And I I think it was Brett Metaf a long long time ago that first brought this to my attention. The number is this right, Ganesh? The number one purpose of the Book of Mormon, if you had to pick one, the number one per purpose of the Book of Mormon stated in the title page, which I understand it is not Joseph Smith allegedly, it's Mormon or Moroni himself. Is that is that right? That's correct. Yeah. States that the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convert the Lammonites or the Native Americans uh back well back to God's covenant because they are remnants or descendants of Israelites. So that presents a problem in 2025. If we don't know who the Lammonites are anymore, then who's the Book of Mormon primarily written for? So that's a problem. That's a huge problem because of course if we can't find the Lammonites and yet the Book of Mormon was written to the Lammonites. Yeah. That that that's insurmountable. Yeah.

And not to not to get sidetracked, but for those who aren't familiar with the history and who are new to these things, many of you Orthodox faithful Mormons are thinking, "Well, we know who the Lammonites are." The Lammonites are any brownskinned person who is a Native American in North America or Alaska or any any brown person basically from Mexico southward to the tip of Chile plus any Polynesians in the Pacific Islands. That's the Lammonites. So, Ganesh, tell us why that's not what the church appears to be uh teaching consistently on a global scale because it's going to be news to people that it's not very obvious, especially to Orthodox Mormons, that it's not obvious who the Lamonites or the descendants of the Lamonites are.

Well, the problem is that we have no DNA that links any of those people back to the same Israelite origins. So, Polynisians, South Americans, North Americans, indigenous people have no DNA connection to uh Israel. We know that they come from uh Southeast Asia. they it's very clear and and the DNA um si Simon Stherton is the expert on this of course and he's spoken more recently about how the even the advances in DNA have just got so sophisticated that you can you can tell how many generations that you go back and nobody we can't find a single layman they are just not available uh if you are looking for them in any kind of DNA uh connection. Yeah. Yeah.

And um so that's a problem. Uh and and the top church leaders may go down to Latin America or the Pacific Islands and quietly in a state conference or an area conference quietly tell the brownskinned Mormons there that that they're lemonites. But what you would want to notice if in 2025 you hear top church leaders referring to Latin Americans, Native Americans or Pacific Islanders in general conference or in a public facing setting as laymanites and and and and I don't think you will, right? I think they've kind of stopped doing that. But for for lots of people particularly well from my area of the world Polynesians they identify themselves as Lemonites it's a mark of prestige and prominence and and a source of pride. So to have this change um is a really big deal uh for them. Uh I mean yeah it's it's incredibly yeah where I'm from this is a a huge issue. Would your would your fellow New Zeal Kiwi Mormons have been taught growing up that they were uh Lammonites? Is that correct?

Yes. And they would have claimed being Lamemonites, even being um more righteous Lammonites or more righteous Nephites. They are the people of Hagoth who went into the into the west sea and got lost and they populated according to this Mormon ethos and legend um the the the places of Hawaii and Tahiti and Easter Island and and New Zealand and Samour and Tonga. This is you know where these people come from. And so they have huge pride with the idea that they could they are the the righteous. They're not the ones that have have fallen, right? They are the the privileged who have been led to the aisles of the sea. So it's a a source of pride. Yeah.

And if you'll just remind us what the DNA evidence seems to suggest in terms of the origins of the native Pacific Islanders that they came from Southeast Asia, particularly around the Taiwan area. Taiwan. Mhm. Okay. So, not Middle East circa 600 BC, not in any shape or form. Okay. Okay. All right.

So, there's a second uh we we've already established that in 1829, the Book of Mormon title page says it's written to the Lamemonites who are remnant of the House of Israel. I think we all know that they mean at the time Joseph Smith meant the Native Americans that were encountered in North Central and South America. Um, but let's read what Second Nephi 30:5 says. It reads, "And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them. Wherefore they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers, and the their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes, and they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." Now, is that the verse that was changed from white and delightsome to pure and delightsome in the Book of Mormon?

Yeah. Okay. And it's basically if I had to if I had to reinterpret that scripture, it's basically saying Native Americans who used to know Jesus Christ, you know, u 1800 years ago or or 2,000 years ago between the publishing of the Book of Mormon and when we believe Native Americans were on um you know, the American continent uh even before Jesus's time. It's basically claiming that they knew who Jesus was back even before Jesus was born in America and that they lost that faith and that the Book of Mormon is going to help reintroduce Jesus to the pure blood of Israel Native Americans and the scales of darkness will fall from their eyes. Meaning they'll reconvert to Christianity and that they'll become their skin as they become more righteous and faithful. that curse of the Lammonite curse of dark skin because of their wickedness. Their skin will literally start turning white and not repulsive or loathsome as the Book of Mormon says dark skin is, but instead white and delightsome, which the Book of Mormon says white skin is. Am I have I got that right?

That sounds absolutely correct. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century how the leopard got its spots. How did the Native Americans um get so dark and filthy and loathsome and cursed? You know, so in part of the Book of Mormon suggests that native or Lammonites who are brown uh when they do convert to Christianity that their skins are turned white. So that's a a prevalent and repeated uh motif of the Book of Mormon. And I think that's the idea of you know this is a 19th century idea that that these savages as described by the you know declaration of independence that they would be redeemed by civilization to be you know able to participate in the American experience because they would assimilate into white colonial society.

All right. So if we believe the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith circa 1830, what I would predict if I were if I were timetraveling back to 1830, I read the Book of Mormon, I listen to Joseph Smith and his other leaders talk, I would predict that for the rest of the time Joseph's alive and is leading the Church of Christ, which it was originally called, um that basically priority number one for the next 14 years of Joseph Smith's life would the missionary work to the Native Americans because the Book of Mormon precipitates or you know predates the creation of the church and the Book of Mormon says it's all about converting Native Americans to Jesus. So that's what I would predict in 1830. Tell me Gesh if that's how early Mormon church history plays out that for the next 14 years job one is converting the Native Americans to Jesus. Something tells me that's not what happens.

Well, in 1830, of course, uh Joseph, that is the priority. um Joseph sends uh four uh men to uh what's then American um Indian territory because in 1830 Andrew Jackson uh signs into law the idea of the Indian Removal Act which removes Native American tribes from the Eastern Seabboard and uh through the Ohio Valley through past the Mississippi into um what is now present day Kansas and Oklahoma and you know and this was design so Andrew Jackson believed in aparite and the early 19th century America enacted apartheite the idea that native Americans would be separated from white settlers uh to reduce conflict and that they would be protected in this new effectively massive reservation country outside the United States called Indian Territory. And so that happened in 1830. um Joseph published the Book of Mormon in 1830. you know, maybe not with this on the horizon because uh when Joseph needed to com, you know, convert native peoples like the Book of Mormon said that it should, he had to send missionaries through to Indian territory to establish the New Jerusalem, which was supposed to be among the Lammonites uh in Indian territory. And of course when Oliver Cowry and Pali Petrat and u and Zina Peterson they went to Indian territory they were rebuffed by Indian agents. So um uh and I put in the slides a failure in Indian territory to give it get a permit from General William Clark of um Louiswis and Clark fame who is their superintendent of Indian affairs west of the Mississippi who would have a a recommend or security before he can give a permit for any stranger or foreigner to go among them to teach or preach. So Oliver Cry gets to Indian territory and he can't. He's not allowed to preach to the Native Americans. They do make some incursions into Indian territory and they try to teach and Oliver sends back a letter saying that the people are receptive but actually you know Oliver Cry is overly optimistic because what really happens is that native people they already have their own religions. They already many of them have already converted to Christianity. They read the Book of Mormon and they're like, "Well, this says that we're dirty and disgusting and and dark and filthome and losome." You know, that's not the hero um of our ancestors that we identify with. And so there was pretty much zero conversion of Native Americans to Mormonism and to the Book of Mormon. And so this was and because they weren't actually allowed to preach in Indian territory effectively this fell over completely. Yeah.

I'm pretty sure maybe you just said this but the federal government basically told our missionaries to get out of Indian territory and so they retreated to Jackson County. And that's sort of how ju independence in Jackson County sort of uh comes onto the map for Mormonism is kind of a wholesale rejection of our missionary program of our, you know, layman Native American early 1830 missionary program. Is that right?

That's right. And and in Jackson County in Independence, this was deemed to be the new Jerusalem because it couldn't be among the Lammonites. And so then the revelations that Joseph got were changed to be on the borders of the Lammonites to reflect the what actually happened. Okay. Yeah. So uh should we switch to the next slide? The the pivot. Well um should I read? Did you Did you cover the left part already? Yes, I covered the left part. And of course they set up, you know, merkantile stores in Independence with the idea that they might be able to trade and get into Indian territory. And that just never quite got off the ground. It never worked. So effectively missionary work to the laymanites, the native Americans in Indian territory was dead in the water. And so Joseph pivoted and that's this doctrine incumbent section 107 if you want to read that.

All right, I'll read it. DNC 10733, written in 1836 or published in 1836, says, "The 12 are a traveling presiding high council to officiate in the name of the Lord under the direction of the presidency of the church, agreeable to the institution of heaven, to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles." Oops, wait, what? First unto the Gentiles. Huh? First unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews. Uh the 12 being sent out holding the keys to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews. Now, I'm confused here in Doctrine and Covenants uh 10733 published in 1836. It's saying Gentiles first, Jews second. That literally flies in the face of the title page of the Book of Mormon as I remember just reading it. It are we being unfair? Are we like is there text I'm not familiar enough with the text of the Book of Mormon to wonder whether there's any text in the Book of Mormon saying the gospel needs to be pre you know there's the whole last shall be first and first shall be last. Uh, is that is is this trying to say last shall be first, meaning the Gentiles shall be first preached to, and then the first, meaning the the Israelites will be preached to last. I'm just trying to ask if there's some text in the Book of Mormon that would corroborate DNC 10733 as published in 1836. I'm I'm going to just admit to being woefully not current on my Book of Mormon readings.

So, one of the things that the the Book of Mormon states is that the Gentiles will bring the gospel to the fallen Jews, the Lammonites, the Native Americans. And so um that's effectively what the missionary effort in 1830 1831 is is that Joseph sends out Oliver Cry and others to go and convert Native Americans. But when they don't convert, Joseph has a problem because actually the people that do convert are settler, you know, Gentiles. And then so they become the people that are being impressed by the message of the Book of Mormon. And so the church pivots and Joseph um you know calls the 12 to be traveling high counselors to be responsible for proclaiming the gospel. And Joseph is having a lot of success in uh Canada and in uh the eastern United States. And he sends the 12 to England and they have success in Europe converting, you know, European Gentiles and bringing them to America and in droves because the industrial revolution is just so hard and cities in and in in particularly England are horrific, you know. People join the church with this promise of this new land, this gathering place, this new Jerusalem, and they come to American droves, but they are gentile European settlers, not Native Americans. And he's just having success there. So the pivot becomes and the priority becomes uh Europeans, not Native Americans. um let's see.

So uh we have a a viewer. This is fun. This is always part of the fun of having a live audience. We have people responding. So Anu Anuviation is sharing first Nephi 13:42. I'll read it. And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles. And after he has manifested himself unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles. um so obviously Jesus would first appear to the Jews in the old world and then according to the Book of Mormon he would die, resurrect and appear in the Americas to uh the Native Americans which is reflected in Third Nephi 11ish in the Book of Mormon. So it's saying, "And after he has manifested himself unto the Jews, and also unto the Gentiles, then he shall manifest himself unto the Gentiles and also unto the Jews, and the last shall be first, and the first shall be last." So I think Anuviation is potentially floating the possibility, and this isn't to challenge you, it's just to try and call balls and strikes in sort of a informal way. Is it possible to read that verse in the Book of Mormon as saying the gospel will first be first be preached to the Gentiles and then to the Jews or Native Americans after? And I'm just thinking out loud, even if that were um a viable uh parallel, it's still seems to conflict with the title page. Yeah. But but tell me what your response would be.

So the in the in the Book of Mormon is very clear that the that the Native Americans, the Lammonites are a fallen people. They don't have Christ anymore. But that the Gentiles who have come from Europe and become settlers in the Americas are the Lord's chosen and that they have Christianity, that they are Jesus's representatives. And so they are the people that are going to go to the um the native Americans and convert them back to to there. So the the Book of Mormon makes that case, but it also suggests that this is already happening that the Jews that the Gentiles are the now America's righteous and that they are supposed to go to the Jews, the Native Americans. And so that's what's happening in 1830 and 1831. So yes, that's correct. But Joseph has zero converts in native with Native Americans in Indian territory. um so I guess he's just going to go gather more Gentiles to be part of the church with to um convert Native Americans. But this never happens. It doesn't happen in Joseph's lifetime. In fact, you know, You know, there is just not any more missions to the Native Americans. The only kind of one you get is in 1843, 1844 where Lyman White is asking what to do with the Native Americans that he's coming across in Texas and per, you know, basically wanting to convert them because that's what the Book of Mormon says. And Joseph is saying, "Yeah, give it a go." But, you know, it's kind of he's very ambivalent about Native Americans joining the church because they just haven't. And that part of the ethos of the Book of Mormon just never comes to pass. Yeah.

And if just for those who are kind of new to these issues and they want to explore more, I'll just say my understanding is once Joseph Smith dies and Brigham Y. Young takes over, you've got Brigham. Young moving the Saints to the Utah territory. If I understand it right, Native Americans were allowed to be slaves, to be enslaved in the Utah territories during the time of of Brigham Young and of those kind of late 19th century time period. Um there, you know, the Mountain Mills massacre is blamed on the Native Americans even though it was white Mormons that actually perpetrated the massacre. And there were other massacres. I believe Brigham Y. Young, we don't know whether Brigham Young signed off on the Mountain Meadows massacre, but we know that Brigham Young literally signed off on a genocide of the Tempenogus tribe, Native Americans, in the mid to late 19th century. So, you just it feels like this priority, this Native American priority falls off the church's radar. And you know, there's a I would say for those who are history-minded, there's a brief resurrection of an emphasis on Native Americans during the time Spencer W. Kimble is a an apostle starting in the early what 1960s. And there's a Indian or lemonite placement program where the the church tries to encourage this adoption program of Native Americans literally with the idea of if if we take Native American children out of the reservations in America, raise them in white Mormon American homes that they'll both become converted but also their skin literally we will become white and delights them again. Spence W. Kimble kind of resurrects this emphasis, but by the 80s and 90s, 1980s and 90s, SpenceW. Kimbell either changes his priority or he dies. um and there's even a general authority named George P. Lee for a brief time period who is a Native American and he's representing uh Native Americans as kind of like the one Native American general authority. Eventually, George, you know, P. Lee gets frustrated that the emphasis on the 1960s to 1990s emphasis on Native Americans is being dropped and he writes a couple letters to the church leaders saying, "Why are you doing this?" Long story short, he's uh excommunicated from the church, possibly for apostasy and also possibly for allegations of what? Sexual abuse. um so the the Native American layman emphasis does resurface briefly for a few decades, but by 2025 other than a few US missions, you know, in New Mexico or Colorado or Arizona, there's really almost no mention of of Native Americans in any special way. Am I wrong about that or

Yeah, that's great. Oh, my wife, her family had a um a Native American placement in their home. So, she had a a a sister who was who was from a tribe um in in uh Montana who came and lived with them. So, this affects a lot of families. It's affected my family. So, that's absolutely true. I I would I would say that in my book, I I have a whole chapter on genocide. And one of the problems of this Native American lack of conversion is that when a fallen, you know, when you give somebody a history and you've erased their real history and basically said, "You're fallen Christians who need to be redeemed." When they don't convert to the church, they are basically unredeemable, which makes them expendable. And that's what happens when when Brigham Y. Young comes to Utah and he's yeah does try to to convert Native Americans and when they don't they become expendable and so Brigham Young you know he he enacts a genocide on the Native American people in Utah and particularly the Tempenogus tribe. uh so that you I highlight that in the book. It's it's huge. it. This is this is a big deal. Imagine, you know, somebody telling you, "Oh, look, your real history is not from where you think it is." And the heroes of your ancestors are not really heroes. They're actually people who are terrible. And you need to repent on their behalf and uh you know convert to this new history and you know new culture that tells you that your ancestors were fallen. I mean it's just and that your dark skin is a reflection of a curse from God because of wickedness. Even though the church teaches that men will not be punished for Adam's transgressions. Somehow descendants of cursed Canaan, you know, cursed descendants of Cain and or cursed descendants of Layman and Lemu are carry the curse of dark skin even though we're not supposed to carry the sins of our fathers metaphorically speaking.

Well, I'm I'm uh point in case uh John, I'm brown, so therefore you can you could absolutely tell just by looking at me that I'm cursed. So um and I grew up in a in a church in an environment where you know that was problematic because as laymanites you might have some privilege in the church but also because I was brown I I'm less than in the church system. So u that's a a big deal and it's it's affected my life. Although they did make you bishop. Oh they did make well in New Zealand the you know the church is predominantly brown so at least I get some kudos there. um but it's a really it's a huge deal. I um another one of my chapters is on white supremacy which is the basis of the Book of Mormon which was the basis of 19th century America at the time. So when we're talking about these these things, we're talking about 19th century understandings of Native Americans, their place in the world, their fallen nature as, you know, the cursed, the savage, the needing to be redeemed. And this is what this erasure of their history and conversion through to Christianity and particularly Mormon Christianity is all about. Yeah. um really quickly, Matt Miller, we're we're uh grateful for all those sending in comments. Matt Miller writes, "The whitewashing of indigenous people's history, which I happen to know a fair bit about, Matt writes, is what sort of began to break my shelf when I left the church about 17 years ago." And I'll just add again to the point of this this part of the presentation and this part of the book that regardless, you know, I think it's I think you you argue again scoreboard. um do you argue convincingly that there's been a shift in emphasis between the Book of Mormon's stated purpose of converting Native Americans to to Christ and how things were by the time Joseph Smith dies in Nauvoo, which is that Native Americans are basically a hiss and a by word and largely forgotten about and neglected. I think that's factually true. So 20 Ganesha basically. But I will add that if you you know if any of you are um trying to determine the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Mormon church, I think you do have to ask yourself how is it that the primary audience that the Book of Mormon is written for. Number one, um not only isn't the primary focus of what the LDS church spends its time and money on today, which is the conver because the church with the church of $300 billion of wealth, it could certainly set up 20 missions around every Native American reservation and have basically a one:1 Mormon missionary to quote Lammonite Native American ratio. so that we're just doing everything we can to convert Native Americans and Latin Americans, but we're not. So, not only are we not prioritizing the conversion of Native Americans, the church no longer knows who the Lammonites are, and they literally don't. So, if you're looking to determine the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church, you do have to kind of be confronted with this problem in my opinion. So, should

Yeah. And and it clearly identifies the Book of Mormon as a 19th century text because these are the ideas of 19th century people about indigenous people particularly the Native Americans of the US right cuz we're Joseph's lifetime this is not Canadian you know Native Americans this is not you know Central America South America this is in his environment yeah absolutely and it's just I I guess we didn't even maybe we didn't even mention and the deep significant problem of second Nephi 30. Who writes Second Nephi 30? Who's the author according to the Book of Mormon of Second Nephi? Nephi. Yeah, I think it's Nephi. Why would Nephi, who literally lived 600 years before Jesus Christ was born, why would he be writing, why would a person who allegedly was an Israelite who who in 600 BC took a boat to America, how would he even know the name of Jesus Christ, you know, 5 to 600 years before Jesus was born, let alone be talking about the gospel of Christ being declared um you know amongst his people. Uh and also you know that that's just an anacronism right there. Am I am I wrong? That's a base anacronism that Native Americans 600 years before the birth of Christ in the old world would not be prophesying about Jesus Christ in the new world because the Jews in the old world didn't know the name of Jesus Christ. Yeah. So why would the why would the Lammonites here in America or the Nephites and I and I have a chapter on that too, right? The idea that you know the way the christologology of the Book of Mormon and Richard Bushman identifies this, you know, the this is the way that 19th century Americans talk about Jesus that they talk about the Jews in the Old Testament that turns up in the Book of Mormon, too. So it's the same thing.

All right. Well, let's go to So I guess I'm going to say Ganesh 2. um Book of Mormon, historical Book of Mormon, not to uh Ganesh, let's go to your third point, redemption of the dead.

All right. So, redemption of the dead, I find us really fascinating because it's so much a part of the modern church. um and it has its roots in 19th century America. So um firstly uh you know infant mortality was a big issue in early 19th century America. Almost half of the children born in the early 1800s died before they reached 5 years old. Both the Smith parents had lost you know infant children and Joseph and M and Emma prior to what we have in the Book of Mormon they lost a baby on the June the 15th 1828. So, you know, this happened a lot. You know, people died a lot. Death was a part of this. And of course, the Smiths lost Alvin, their primary bread winner, the eldest child, um when he was 25 years old in 1823. And at his funeral, the minister, the Presbyterian minister, um, you know, damned him because he was not baptized. Baptizing people in early 19th century America wasn't a big deal. Lots of people didn't get baptized. People were seekers. We know that Lucy Mack in her biography talked about being a seeker and wanting to fulfill her obligation to Christ, but didn't join themselves to individual churches. But this was a big part of uh new uh New York revival um burnt over district understanding that you needed to be baptized. And so this issue became a really big one for the Smiths because Alvin wasn't baptized. um he was shamed, the family was shamed at his funeral. And so Lucy and the older children, Hyram and Sphronia. um they joined the Presbyterian church and um Joseph Smith Jr. and his father Joseph Msenior spurned you know the idea of joining a church for this purpose. um so that was a big conflict in the Smith's home you know being baptized um you know this idea of infant baptism this idea of you know baptism for those people who are even older what what's going to be for them in the resurrection in heaven and so this comes up in the Book of Mormon particularly to redeem innocent children who have died without baptism but also redeem those who who are um ignorant of the law because they haven't received it. And and I've um I've got a couple of passages there. um John, if you want to read them.

Okay. So, this is what the Book of Mormon has to say about the redemption of the dead. um 2 Nephi chapter 9 26 published in 1829 or thereabouts. For the atonement uh satisfyth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them that they are delivered from that awful monster death and hell and the devil and the lake of fire and brimstone which is endless torment. So if I'm putting on my Mormon hat here, Ganesha, I was taught that there's a difference between the atonement and the resurrection. The atonement is when Jesus suffers for the sins of the world and takes upon him the pain and suffering of all the sins, bleeds for every poor. That's the atonement. The resurrection is later, a couple days later, same day or a couple days later where Jesus is literally crucified, murdered, and then on the third day resurrects. He's reunited his spirit with his body and he's resurrected. So, as I'm reading 2 Nephi 9:26, according to my understanding of Mormon doctrine, it's saying that what Jesus suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane satisfies the demands of justice. And even those who do not have the law, meaning they weren't Christian, um they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell. There it is. they uh will be resurrected without uh the need even for conversion to Christianity is what I just read 2 Nephi 9:26 to say is that what you understand and did I get the main points of that

Yes absolutely so the the Book of Mormon doesn't diff differentiate the idea that there is any reward it doesn't have the three degrees of glory right I think who talked about that with John Turner recently. This idea is that on the day that you die in the Book of Mormon is the spirit that will be carried with you into the eternities. That's the spirit which you'll be resurrected with. So if you are willfully disobedient, if you have rejected the church, the truth, the gospel, then that's going to be the the spirit by which you go in the eternities to. you're going to be delivered up to death and hell. But if you were righteous, if you accepted Jesus, you would be redeemed. If you were innocent because you were a child, you would be redeemed. And if you didn't have the law, so you're ignorant of the law, you would be redeemed. That is the basis for which the Book of Mormon understands your heaven. Yeah. Okay.

So let's uh check out the second verse. You have Mosaiah 15:25 and it says, "And little children also have eternal life." Boom. Right there. So what what I read that to mean is that babies who die will be resurrected and not go to hell, but instead will go to heaven. But I'll go ahead and keep reading. Uh, but behold, the Lord redeemth none, such that rebel against him and die in their sins, that have willfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them. These are they that have no part in the first resurrection. All right, I'm confused. What is that second part saying today?

So, it says that if you if you knew about Jesus, but you didn't accept him during your lifetime, then there's no redemption. There's no way for you to change that. the, you know, the the Book of Mormon is clear. You die in your sins, you go to hell. You know, it's just the case. So, if you've been if you've been uh sort of taught Christianity, if you have learned about Jesus, then if you rebel against Jesus and die in your sins, not having repented, that's when you're in trouble. Correct. Okay. So there's there's there's no place in the Book of Mormon that allows for this idea that you can be taught in the spirit world that you might change your circumstance, that you might repent. You know, there's there's no repentance past death in the Book of Mormon. It just isn't. You know, there Joseph managed to in the Book of Mormon allow for these these infant babies who have died, right, because they're innocent. He's allowed for his his um older brother who's a good man but ignorant of these things. um he's allowed for him to be redeemed. But those who have learned about Jesus but not have, you know, connected to him, um they they just don't get it. you know, you can't have a family member who is, you know, who knew that you would you were a Christian and you taught them um if they died in their sins, there is no redemption for them in the Book of Mormon. Just isn't.

Now, really quickly before we jump to the pivot, uh I always find it helpful to see if we can figure out where Joseph is getting his ideas because obviously Alexander Campbell and just Protestant Christianity and Catholic Christianity in, you know, frontier, you know, New England in the early 19th century. There were lively spirited debates as you mentioned about infant baptism, about being saved, about the the requirements of baptism. And that's what distinguished, let's just say, the Catholic Church from Presbyterians and Lutherans and Baptists is that Catholics performed infant baptism, which Protestants felt was evil and corrupt. Protestants for the most part practiced baptism but not infants but taught that if you didn't have a baptism, a literal baptism by immersion, you wouldn't go to heaven. Well, the Book of Mormon is seems to be communicating more of a universalistic ideology that basically says everyone pretty much everyone goes to heaven. And I think we can probably determine where Joseph gets that idea if we know something about his his uh you know parents and grandparents. Do you want to talk about that at all? And it looks like you were going to maybe correct correct me which is great.

So um so the Book of Mormon is uh anti- universalism. Not everybody's going to be saved, right? the whole idea of universalism in Joseph Smith's time particularly from his father and his grandfather and even Martin Harris Martin Harris was a universalist which was the idea that you everybody's going to be saved eventually you know few it's that eat drink and be merry because tomorrow we die and if we've done anything bad God will beat us with a few stripes but we will be saved in the kingdom of God that is heretical to Joseph in the Book of Mormon um but there there. So you have to repent, you have to accept Jesus and you um have to do it within your lifetime or else you will go to hell. That's what the Book of Mormon teaches. um later on Joseph starts to acquies and you know during by 1832 he is suggesting that yeah the the three degrees of heaven suggest that most people are going to get some form of reward for their good works and therefore universal salvation is kind of practically correct. But at this moment in 1829 when these verses are uh dictated, the idea is that no, universalism is a heresy. um but those who are innocent and those who are uh ignorant will be saved. um and and that's yeah pretty much what's happening here. Is it fair to say that the Book of Mormon splits the difference between uh Protestant Christianity and full universalism in the sense that given how many you know humans in the early 19th century had not and would not hear about Christianity. That's a lot of pe and given all the infant deaths. You know, if we're looking at God's success rate in bringing his children back to heaven with him, the Book of Mormon moves the football a lot farther than Protestant Christianity does in terms of universalism. It stops short of full universalism, but I would say it definitely carries the football significantly further than Protestant Christianity. So, is it is it okay to say it it definitely moves the universalism football forward relative to Protestant Christianity or not?

It's it's it's hard to when when we're looking at it from a 21st century lens and looking back these issues of theology are, you know, really to us look like splitting hairs. But to the people in the day in in particularly 19th century America, these were really big distinctions between sex and uh denominations and people really cared about what seems like infantessimal differences to us. They um these were really big deals to the area which again identifies it as a 19th century text. um you know if if we were looking at somebody in um 1830 these are are big deals. uh section 19 uh of the Doctrine and Covenants uh is where where Joseph basically renegs on the Book of Mormon uh to Martin Harris. And I believe this is because you know Martin Harris hasn't been a part of the dictation from uh you know Harmony, Pennsylvania with Oliver Cry. So he doesn't get to read the manuscript till Joseph relocates with uh with Oliver Cry to the Whitmer farm in June of 1829. and Oliver uh when Martin Harris who is a universalist um reads the manuscript as Joseph has done with Oliver Cry he's a ghast at what it says because he sees the text of the Book of Mormon denouncing universalism and Martin Harris is a universalist and so Joseph has to um equivocate he has to appease Martin Harris Harris because Martin Harris is funding the Book of Mormon. And so he tells Martin Harris, look, when when the Book of Mormon says eternal punishment and u eternal torment, it's these are names for God and it's really just God's torment. It's just God's punishment. And this is doesn't mean it's for eternal you or eternity. It's just a way to trick people into repenting now because if they don't repent, they won't be saved. And so, Doctrine Covenant section 19 is really a way to for Joseph to appease um Martin Harris about his universal beliefs that aren't showing up in the Book of Mormon. um and this gives us a really good understanding of what the lost manuscript looked like because Oliver um, Martin Harris produced the lost manuscript with Joseph Smith in early 1828 and this would not have included these ideas against universalism that exist in the current Book of Mormon. And so Joseph has to appease Martin Harris or he won't fund the publication of the Book of Mormon. Yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay, that's clarifying.

And I'll just say uh as a final point before we talk about the pivot on redemption of the dead, just like I mentioned in the last uh point that uh the idea of Native Americans, white Native Americans, 600 BC, 500 BC, talking not only about Jesus Christ, but about sin and the atonement and resurrection and the status of resurrected souls in heaven. It's very inacronistic because you could then ask yourself, why weren't Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, uh, you know, David, Solomon, Isaiah, why weren't they all talking about Jesus Christ by name? Why weren't they talking about uh you know infant baptism by immer or or baptism by immersion and heaven and who gets to go there and the atonement of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of Jesus Christ you know as clearly certainly the Jews who were actually Jews and Israelites who were actual you know um ancestors of Jesus Christ himself by blood. Certainly, if anyone was going to learn early the name of Jesus the Christ and learn about faith, repentance, baptism, and resurrection and atonement, it would have been them, not white Native Americans. So, fair to say this this passage in the Book of Mormon is highly annoc. And it's even worse than that because infant baptism that is denounced in um Moroni as a letter by Mormon um is in anacronistic to the Book of Mormon because when Mormon is sending this epistle to his son Moroni talking about infant baptism, there are nobody who there's nobody who's practicing Christianity. So there's infant baptisms can't be even an issue, right? there's they're worried about cannibalism and and yet there's a a whole treaties on infant baptism in the book of Moroni. uh so it doesn't make any sense unless you understand that by this point in the dictation sequence, Joseph is at the Whitmer farm. He's dealing with the with the conflicts and the concerns of the Whitmer family and they're really interested in this idea of well is infant baptism a big deal or or how do we you know reconcile it and you know this is seems to be a Catholic tradition tradition that is you know creeping into the Protestant church and so Joseph allays their

Fears in the text of Moroni about infant baptism. Um, when, uh, when this shouldn't even be a thing in the context of Mormon and Moroni, because there are no members of the church. They're the only righteous people, right? Mormon is the, well, Moroni is the last righteous person, according to the Book of Mormon. Why does he have to talk about, you know, there's nobody getting baptized? Infant baptism is incredibly anachronistic to the timeline of the Book of Mormon, let alone the timeline of actual, you know, biblical history. And, um, you know, fits more into a 19th-century worldview that Joseph is trying to, uh, address through these particular texts and understandings.

Yeah, absolutely. Um, really, really quickly, tell me if this is right. Anuviation writes that in the Book of Mormon, uh, Jared and his brother Mahon, Moron, Ankimer, they learn pure, true Christianity thousands of years, uh, before Jesus was born. So, the brother of Jared, Jaredite, sort of narrative in the Book of Mormon is even a millennia and a half more anachronistic than, uh, the later parts in Mosiah and Alma. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. All right. So, we've talked about redemption of the dead per the Book of Mormon, which is that, um, you know, everyone but infants, infants and people who have never learned Christianity, and proper Christians will all be resurrected and go to heaven. People who deny Jesus won't, right? That's the, that's, okay. That's how the Book of Mormon says about the redemption of the dead. Tell us how it changes. What's the pivot?

So, um, look, by 1840, um, these beleaguered saints are kicked out of Missouri. They're squatting on this land that Joseph has, you know, purchased for them in Commerce. It's a swamp. Um, people are dying in droves. Um, they've, they've had a terrible experience, uh, being, uh, leaving, uh, leaving Missouri, and they are, you know, basically getting an even worse experience in Commerce because they're dying of malaria in the swamp-infested area that becomes Nauvoo. Uh, and so there's a lot of death in 1840. Um, people are feeling really terrible. They've lost Zion. They've lost Missouri. That's where it's supposed to be. What? Where? What? What? You know, they're just horrific.

So, um, Ann Booth, who is a convert in England, she has a vision of Apostle Patten, who's died during the Mormon Missouri War, teaching the gospel to the dead in the spirit world. And Brigham Young writes to the saints in Nauvoo about Ann Booth's vision, and Joseph and these desperate saints, they embrace this idea, this chance to dream about their loved ones that could be saved by vicarious work for them. And this, um, sets up the idea of baptism for the dead. And Joseph sees that people are captivated by this. It gives them a huge amount of hope. It makes them imagine their loved ones in, you know, heaven, you know, just excited about them. This is, this is the same imagination that we have today with work for the dead, right? That there are thousands of people that we have done all of these baptisms and vicarious temple work for that are going to greet us on the other side because we have done all of this lovely work for them that they couldn't do for themselves. And so baptism for the dead becomes a thing that Joseph jumps on, and he identifies as something really important. And he goes back to, um, the Bible to, you know, he can't reference this in the Book of Mormon, of course. He goes back to the Bible. He talks it, and there are some passages in Corinthians about baptism for the dead, um, 1 Corinthians 15:29, right? That, uh, and he talks about this idea that the spirits in prison in the spirit world can be taught the gospel and by vicarious baptism can be, uh, can repent of their willful disobedience to Jesus in their, in their lifetimes, and therefore, um, be saved in the celestial kingdom along with the beleaguered members of the church who are in Nauvoo in 1840.

Should we read it? Yep. All right. So, this is DNC 127:5, which I, I'm assuming the revelation was penned in 1842. Is that right?

Okay.

And it says, "And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead, when any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be an eyewitness of your baptisms. Let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord, that in all your recordings it may be recorded in heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth may be bound in heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth may be loosed in heaven."

So, that's the baptism for the dead revelation. I'll just note that when the Book of Mormon was published, wasn't it said of the Book of Mormon that it contained the fullness of the gospel? And if that's true, then it does make one wonder if the Book of Mormon, allegedly when it was printed, contained the fullness of the gospel, why it didn't contain these teachings about baptisms for the dead, along with the idea of a Melchizedek priesthood, along with, uh, three degrees of glory, along with, uh, the sealing, you know, power and theosis and men becoming gods, and so many distinctive Mormon beliefs that evolve and emerge in the 1840s. Why is it miraculously that none of them appeared earlier on, along with the fact that so many Book of Mormon teachings and doctrines seem to change with the Doctrine and Covenants? Because I think your point is this is a pivot that contradicts the Book of Mormon passages I just read. And can you just put a fine point on that, Ganesh? How does this DNC scripture about baptisms for the dead conflict with those, uh, two Book of Mormon passages I previously read?

So, there is no redemption for the dead in the Book of Mormon. No point at which you can die and therefore you can be taught the gospel in the spirit world. You can be baptized by vicarious work to be redeemed in the celestial kingdom. That just, there's none of that in the Book of Mormon. But it's now in Nauvoo as these beleaguered saints are having hope over the fact that they can do something. You know, they're, they're, they're feeling terrible about their lives, and yet here they can dream about the idea of saving their loved ones in heaven by doing this work for them.

Remind me, Ganesh, because I'm a little rusty on Mormon temple practices. If you do genealogy for a child that dies less than eight years old, is the work done for them or not?

No. So, there's a Doctrine and Covenants section that talks about that. The idea that little children are, are saved, but before the age of accountability, so eight years old, we don't do any, um, temple work for them.

Okay. Okay. But if you're over eight?

Yes.

Right. And you know how you know? Yeah. Okay. So, okay. So, can, can the temple work for the dead still be consistent with the Book of Mormon passages? Because one of the things the Book of Mormon passages is saying is that infants, uh, just go to heaven, and that's how Mormon baptisms for the dead are being practiced. So, that part's consistent. I guess what's not cons— Well, what's not consistent is that those— Let's see. Oh, it's saying that those who didn't learn of Christianity are just redeemed. Yep. So, in theory, the, the one conflict is people who never learned about Christianity, according to the Book of Mormon, shouldn't need baptisms for the dead. Correct. Is that right?

Correct.

And those people who are willfully disobedient, they don't have any chance. So, you couldn't, you couldn't repent after you die. You can't repent. And we're still doing baptism for the dead work for them.

Correct. Correct. Yeah.

So, okay. And then there's the Sons of Perdition apostate question, which isn't really being addressed.

No, not specifically in any of this.

Okay. Okay. All right. So, that seems like a pretty significant pivot. Both that baptisms for the dead isn't in the Book of Mormon, that's a problem. And that, um, by 1840, 1841, we're baptizing for the dead people that never learned about Christianity who died, whereas in the Book of Mormon, it's just saying they go to heaven. So, that's, that's, uh, that's a pivot. So, I'm giving Ganesh three, uh, Lamanite historical Book of Mormon, not three. So, that's, that's my objective count so far. And, and, and this is 19th-century America. These are the things that they're concerned about. Yeah. You know, we, you know, the Nephites, or if you know, they just wouldn't be concerned about these things.

All right. Um, really quickly, I'll just read a couple comments. Uh, let's see. Brit Bry the Apostate writes, "Former Mormon me would think current ex-Mormon me would go to outer darkness, but Hitler would go to heaven." So, that's reflecting the, the also the recent episode we had with John Turner, where a literal reading of the Doctrine and Covenants would say that Hitler, a murderer, would go to the celestial kingdom of heaven, whereas a son of perdition, someone like, let's just say me, who, according to the church, would have had a testimony but then apostatized, I'd be in a worse state than Hitler in heaven, I guess. Um, Britty the Apostate is reflecting that idea. Is that, is that at some point your understanding as a faithful Orthodox Mormon bishop?

Yes.

Yeah. Okay. It's, it's a sad indictment when you look back on it.

Okay. Um, Bessie Co writes, "While this is great to find out how the baptisms for the dead came to be, makes total sense. He, meaning Joseph, did it to avoid backlash from those who lost their loved ones." And then Bessie Co writes, "Full-blown crazy town." Anyway, Bessie is saying she values this timeline because it helps explain. It's interesting how the timeline can really explain doctrinal and theological evolutions, Ganesh. And that's kind of the premise of your whole book.

Yeah. Exactly.

Uh, Chuck Chuck KV says, "They needed a revelation about malaria. I'd pay double tithing if Joseph had solved malaria for the Nauvoo saints in the world. Wouldn't that have been nice?"

It would have been fabulous. Even if God had just told them to boil water, they, you know, how many of the saints died of cholera, um, you know, which could have been easily avoided if they had boiled their water.

Couple other quick things. Alex Scott writes, "Really interesting point about infant baptism and when it shows up in the Book of Mormon timeline. Um, I never knew or considered that." That's what Alex Scott writes. And, and that's a really big point, and it's one that I talked about two years ago when we were talking originally about the book, was one of the really interesting, um, timeline issues of the Book of Mormon is that the anti-Catholic material that ends up in the Book of Mormon is only in the dictation part of the Book of Mormon that is in Fayette, New York. So, it's, you know, Mormon, uh, Moroni, first and second Nephi. That's when the anti-Catholic, um, of the earth, um, material is in the Book of Mormon. And that is when Joseph and Oliver are now in Fayette, New York, and they're dealing with the Whitmers and their questions and concerns. And they are German Reformists who, um, I believe are heavily anti-Catholic. And so Joseph is reflecting back to them their particular concerns and writing it into the Book of Mormon. I don't think Joseph himself is particularly anti-Catholic, but his new converts, his new, you know, faithful adherents are now concerned about that, and he's now reflecting that in his, in the text of the Book of Mormon timeline.

All right, one last comment. Chuck KV writes, "John, meaning me, isn't up on the latest apologetics." And he writes, "Psych, word apologetics." I don't know if he means word radio. I don't know what he means by that, but I'm not up on the latest apologetics that are clear that Jesus was the name Jesus, the word Jesus was actively stripped out of the Hebrew texts and the ancient prophets actually did know Jesus's name and teachings. Are you familiar with modern apologetics?

Not that point.

Okay. All right. Well, anyway. All right. So, three, Ganesh. Let's go to point four, which is anti-kings. Right. So, section four talks a lot about New England and New York prejudice that Joseph might have or and how they play out in the Book of Mormon. And of course, one of the biggest, um, parts of early 19th-century America was the idea that kings were evil. You know, Britain was represented by King George, and the whole Revolutionary War, and also the War of 1812, were fighting against, you know, Britain having to have superiority and governance over America. Was the idea that as new, um, thinking individuals believing in the destiny of man and their ability to make their own decisions, was the idea of a republic that formed the break-off, um, from colonial Europe and kings. So, kings were viewed as being unrighteous. You know, they, they often, you know, if you had a righteous king, that could be good for you, but actually, most of the time, kings got huge amounts of power. They enacted that power over their people and caused them to sin and to, you know, and caused their lives to be under bondage and tax. And, you know, that was the revolt of New England with the Boston Tea Party, that, you know, the 13 colonies would not be subject to, you know, British tax and would fight for independence. And so the Book of Mormon reflects a great deal of that idea of anti-kings, that kings are bad, that a republic, a voting system is the way to go. So, we have a number of, um, of passages that suggest that, um, you know, I read a couple here. So, Mosiah 23:6, "And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people. But he said unto them, 'Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king. For thus saith the Lord, ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another. Therefore, I say unto you, it is not expedient that you shall have a king.'" You know, and that frames the whole Declaration of Independence, the idea that, you know, all men shall be created equal and that will be that they will have the ability to choose for themselves. And then, of course, Alma 2:2, "Now this Amalickiah, Amalick, sorry, had by his cunning drawn away much people after him, even so much that they began to be a, to be very powerful, and they began to endeavor to establish Amalickiah to be a king over the people. Now, this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amalickiah, for they knew that according to their law, that such things must be established by the voice of the people." So, the Book of Mormon spends a lot of time, um, talking about wicked kings denying, uh, liberty, putting people under bondage, and that people needed to fight against these king men, these people who sought to have power over them that would establish a king in the land. And, and, you know, the text of the Book of Mormon spends a lot of time talking about this issue, which was a big 19th-century issue, particularly with the War of 1812, because there was still a lot of sympathy for Britain in the beginning of the 1800s, and the idea that we should have a king in America, that was really stamped out by the War of 1812, and, you know, the conflict and the ability for, uh, America to fight back against Britain and hold their own as an independent nation.

All right. So, let me just, in the sake of trying to be fair, let me, let me dialogue with you about this point. Is that okay?

Yeah, absolutely.

So, obviously, there have been tribal leaders since humans first originated. I mean, primates have alphas, you know what I mean? And so, I'm sure we could go back into ancient Chinese dynasties or ancient African tribes, and there's a chief, right? So, I'm imagining an apologist here might say, "Okay, the Book of Mormon uses the word king because that's a word that people would have been familiar with in the early 19th century. But the word king could be interchangeably used with emperor or tribal chief or, you know, president or whatever." So, on the one hand, yes, the term, the use of the word king seems anachronistic, and given what we know about the tight translation theory that Joseph was literally seeing these words appear on his peep stone in his hat, and he was saying the word he was reading on the stone, you would, I guess, you would wonder why God would give Joseph the word king, or why the ancient, you know, Mosiah or Alma would write some word that would then by the gift and power of God be translated into the word king, when it's probably doubtful that Native Americans had a king system, but they probably did have tribal leaders. So, again, this is me trying to be fair. On the one hand, the word king doesn't seem to belong. What if somebody says, "Okay, it says king, but it just means some type of monarchy, some type of autocratic rule." I'm guessing that questions about the justice or efficacy of a monarchy predates the early 19th century. That people questioned the rules of kings or of monarchs or of, uh, emperors long before the early 19th century. What do you think, Ganesh?

And that's certainly true. Like the King James Version of the Bible is incredibly, um, king-centric, right? We have kings of ancient Israel. We have, uh, you know, so this, this is—

Well, that's true. David and Solomon were kings, right?

Absolutely. In fact, the, you know, one of the things that the Book of Mormon is really, you know, when it talks about things like David and Solomon and their, their kingly excesses, one of their kingly excesses is polygamy, which the Book of Mormon, you know, fights against and calls an abomination. Um, so the idea that kings, um, might, you know, lead the people astray, that they might engage in sexual excesses or or excessive taxation and bondage. These are things actually that are, uh, really central to stories in the Bible, particularly the King James Version of the Bible. I mean, it's the King James Version, right? Um, and, and the idea that Jesus is a king, you know, that he's a righteous king. So, the, these are all, um, the, these are all features of the time and not necessarily just early 19th-century American features. However, the one thing that the Book of Mormon talks about is voting. Like, it does talk about a republic, the idea of having judges that they are set apart, that there is a higher judges and lower judges that are designed to keep people in checks and balances, much like the new republic that is the, you know, the independent, you know, United States. So, the idea that you might vote and choose somebody, these are things that are, are new. These are new experiments on the world. When, you know, when the United States formed a republic and democracy, this was a new thing. This resolve for democracy was tested by the War of 1812. And the idea that, you know, could a democracy stand up to, you know, a forceful power like a monarchy? This is, these are discussions that are happening in early 19th-century America. And these are the same discussions that are happening in the text of the Book of Mormon. Now, could these have been happening in, you know, tribal ships and chieftains in Central America? Possibly. There are a lot of, you know, city-states in the Mayan empire. I just visited Belize and looked at them and talked to people, you know, who are experts on that, and certainly that's, you know, city-states and, you know, conglomerations or cooperations of city-states are happening. So, yes, that's possible. But when we're talking about actual democracy in practice, like voting, those are things that are quite unique to the United States in the, um, in the late 18th century and early 19th century America. And this is what's being played out in the text of the Book of Mormon. So, yeah, possibly. But it just seems so specific to this American experiment of democracy that it's just hard not to, you know, make the, you know, comparison. And these are, these are the prejudices of New England and New York that Joseph is engaging in.

Yeah, I definitely agree that the use of the word king, that it, it can't be that that's the best word to describe what was going on in Mesoamerica or South America in, you know, in the thousand years preceding Christ. Uh, so that, that it's certain that God could have come up with a better word than king. But if you add to that the, the, the role of judges and of democracy in the Book of Mormon and of voting, um, and then you add to that all the other mountain of anachronisms that we've already highlighted, it's, it's much more reasonable to call that an anachronism than it is to try and redefine what the word might have meant. But that's not even your main point. Because your main point isn't that the mention of mentioning of kings in the Book of Mormon is problematic. It's that by the Nauvoo time period, the church evolves to have a very different view of kings. Is that right?

That's right. So, let's, let's go there. Well, even before that, you see in the early Doctrine and Covenants, the early church, they're forming different quorums and there are checks and balances. The idea that there are, there's a law of common consent in the church, which is almost like a spiritual democracy, and the idea that there are different quorums and that they're equal in power and so that they can provide checks and balances on each other so nobody has too much power, that that's an important part of the early church, um, much like the, you know, the separation of powers in the US government is designed to make sure, or hopefully make sure, that there's some checks and balances. No one has too much power. Um, so this happens in the early church. It happens in the covenants. And what we, but by that pivot point that you talked about, when the, when the Kirtland Bank scandal happens and Joseph and Sydney are ousted and flee for their lives from Kirtland through to Far West, one of the things that Joseph does is he gets a revelation. Now, this revelation is not canonized, but you can go and look it up on the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and he gets a revelation that, um, basically the First Presidency is in charge, and they can't be checked and they can't, um, be, you know, qualified by lower quorums. And this is, um, in 1838. Uh, "Thus saith the Lord, verily I say unto you, no stake shall be appointed except by the presidency, and this presidency be acknowledged by the voice of the same, otherwise it shall not be, um, counted as a stake of Zion." It sounds a bit confusing, but what it, what it means is that the First Presidency, um, Joseph is getting this revelation in early 1838, is the idea, the First Presidency is the top tier. It has all of the power, and it can't be checked. Um, Joseph can't be, you know, basically scuttled or assured, um, you know, he is in charge. The First Presidency is in charge, and, um, any lower quorums like the, you know, the High Council in any place or any of the other quorums, um, you know, they are subservient to the First Presidency, not an equal, um, consent, and therefore can be checked.

So, kind of moving towards an autocracy.

Absolutely.

Okay. And Joseph had been accused of this several times already, which is by his own— by, you know, as I remember in John Turner's book, even the leaders in Independence, Missouri, were accusing Joseph of being autocratic as early as 1832, 1833.

Yeah.

Which he is, right? Because he always wants to be in charge. Yeah. You know, he doesn't like this egalitarian mechanism. That's what I think I show in the book. That's more of Oliver's idea and Oliver's persuasive idea that this is supposed to be egalitarian. It's supposed to be demo— you know, democratic. It's supposed to be, you know, everybody equal. Um, but Joseph always wants to be number one. He's always in the driver's seat. So, you know, he, he fights against this a lot. And of course, this becomes a big issue in early 1838 when, when Joseph and Sydney are, uh, ousted basically and they have to flee for their lives to Far West. Um, so that's the big pivot. But this plays out in the Council of Fifty minutes, which we talked about originally, was this idea of a theocratic kingdom. They're setting up a theocracy. Do you want to read that, John?

Yeah. So, Council of Fifty minutes, 1844. The Council of Fifty was this secret brotherhood. It was kind of a shadow leadership for the Mormon Church, but also kind of an extension of the Danites, um, that that emerged in kind of Far West, Missouri. Is that right?

Yep, that's right. Yeah. Kind of like a secret oath shadow leadership that also is kind of a justice arm or enforcer to protect the saints in Joseph Smith.

Yeah. Yeah. Is that right?

Yes, I believe so.

Council of Fifty minutes, 1844. "He concluded by offering a motion that this honorable assembly receive from this time henceforth and forever Joseph Smith as our prophet, priest and king, and uphold him in that capacity in which God has anointed him." That's the George Q. Cannon journal. That's the, um, the Council of Fifty minutes. Oh, sorry. Uh, the, sorry.

Yes. Council of Fifty minutes. So, the, so in the Council of Fifty, Joseph is crowned king. He's set up as a king. This, you know, this is supposed to be—

That's king of the world.

King of the world, right? We're not exaggerating here. And this is treason.

It is treason.

Yeah, which is why, you know, when Joseph was, uh, you know, arrested, you know, he said to William Clayton, to to bury the, send it away, because this would have shown treason. You know, they were setting up their own theocratic system with Joseph as king. And this was supposed to be secret, but this leaked out to them, to people around them. People knew this. This is one of the accusations in the Nauvoo Expositor. Um, Thomas Ford, the governor, um, knew that this was going on. He talks about this in his history of Illinois. Um, so this is a really big deal. Joseph gets crowned king. He's now the king of Nauvoo, the king of this, king of the world. This is, he's going to take over. Um, and one of the evidences we have for the idea that this is actually him being king, not just, you know, just a title like you might get in the temple as, you know, being, you know, ordained to be, you know, prophet, priest, and king, um, is that George Q. Cannon later in his journal, he states that, um, Brigham Young was crowned king after Joseph, and that President John Taylor was crowned king on the 4th of February 1885. So, these men, Brigham Young was crowned king in Nauvoo after Joseph's death, but then, um, John Taylor was crowned king in Utah in 1885. This was, this was a theocratic kingdom set up, um, to be in competition and outside of the US, you know, democracy, and this was supposed to continue. This was supposed to be the case. I mean, Wilford Woodruff acquiesced, abandoned polygamy, and sought for statehood, and so he was never crowned king. And, you know, this idea of, you know, the prophet of the church being the king of this theocratic society, you know, died with the idea of statehood in Utah. But this was a treasonous act.

Yeah. And I just remember myself reading, uh, *No Man Knows My History* back in the early 2000s. I had never been taught how Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo time period basically went off the rails. You could almost say he kind of went crazy. The polygamy is crazy, you know, marrying 30, 40 women, teenage girls, mother-daughter pairs, sister pairs, all that, lying about it, denying it, but, you know, also seemingly ordering the assassination of Governor Boggs of Missouri, and then of course, um, you know, eventually allowing himself to be anointed as king of the world, and the way he paraded the Nauvoo Legion around, not just Nauvoo, but the surrounding cities to intimidate the people. Like, on the one hand, you get it from the trauma that Joseph Smith and the Mormons experienced between 1830 or 18, somewhere in the 1820s, depending on when you start counting, and 1844. Yes, there's been a lot of trauma and mob rule and mob justice that would lead to the militaristic, um, almost traumatic, um, behaviors of Joseph Smith. On the other hand, uh, it was shocking to me to see how he starts acting almost indistinguishable from a cult leader by the end of his time in Nauvoo. But more to the point, clearly he's embracing the title of king when in the Book of Mormon text you read in multiple places, as you note, that the Book of Mormon preaches against kings, and that that's consistent with the sentiments, kind of the post-colonial sentiments of the early 19th century. So, I'm going to say Ganesh, four, uh, Lamanite historical Book of Mormon, zero. Um, I'm going to, I'm going to award you a fourth point, Ganesh. And I think it's a very objective analysis I'm offering.

Yeah, I'm smiling to the camera. And I, and I would say, you know, he, Joseph does exactly what Amalickiah does in Alma chapter 2, right? He, um, this, this should be alarming, and it was alarming to the people in Nauvoo at the time, and it was alarming to the people in the surrounding areas at the time in 1844, when Joseph was doing this. So, this is, um, in some ways, the Book of Mormon slightly prophetic. You know, it talked about, um, somebody like Amalickiah, and then Joseph became that person in Nauvoo. So, it's, it's, we have to laugh about it and, and, and take it with good humor, because actually, this is really tough stuff. Um, yeah, really hard stuff.

All right, a couple comments. Um, Alex Scott wrote, "Has anybody done an 'I'm king of the world' meme with Joseph Smith on the deck of the Titanic?" Have you seen the Leonardo DiCaprio 'I'm King of the World' scene in the Titanic?

Yeah, that would be fun. That would be fun.

All right. Uh, I, I ask my wonderful audience, for some of you, uh, artists out there, to please share, and I, I'm, I'm king of the world, uh, Titanic referenced meme, and we'll share it, uh, both on Instagram and on Facebook and on YouTube. That's a great idea. I'll also note, you'll be happy to hear, Ganesh, that, uh, there's an RFM in the house. Radio Free Mormon tuned in and said, "I was just thinking last night how a gravestone maker can have so much life in him. Go Ganesh." That's Radio Free Mormon. He's, he's tuning in. He knows the one true podcast. So, RFM, thanks for tuning in. And I did a, um, a podcast with RFM and Bill Reel, you know, a few weeks ago that was, that was fabulous, and RFM's read my book, he's gone through it with a fine-tooth comb, and he endorses it completely, which is hugely validating. So, and also thanks to everyone who's encouraging our viewers and listeners to subscribe to these channels on Facebook and YouTube and to like these episodes and comment. Um, that's super helpful. Um, I, I also have this great chapter in my book, um, about anti-lawyers, which I, um, particularly wrote, you know, that I thought RFM and people like Koby Reddish would really love, because it shows that pivot of Joseph really hating lawyers in his, in his early life, and that making its way into the Book of Mormon, but then being embracing lawyers for their power and, and, um, and incredible prowess to protect him later on in his life.

Yeah, fair.

All right. Well, we'll have to do the anti-lawyer presentation another time. How's that?

All right. We, we're on a five. We're, you know, you're four for four. Ganesh, historical Book of Mormon and existence of Lamanites is zero for four. We're going to go for the fifth point now, which is slippery treasure. And, and I would have to say, I was really grateful when I read your forward that you referenced Mike and LDS Discussions and the LDS Discussions series that we did with Nemo and Julia and Mike. That was nice because I'm proud of that. But also Mike is just such a legend. But we have covered with Sandra Tanner and others, and John Hamer and Dan Vogel, and so many other people, this idea of treasure digging, folk magic, slippery treasure. Wouldn't it be interesting if somehow treasure digging, folk magic, slippery treasure makes it into the Book of Mormon? So, let's, uh, let's have a look. Spoiler alert.

Um, so yes, section five of my book is about folk magic. And this really, you know, hones down the idea that the text of the Book of Mormon, uh, really is central to Joseph Smith and his particular worldview around his esoteric unseen world. Um, and I talk about a number of things in that, in that section, which are fun, you know, things like, um, treasure digging, seer stones, um, hidden knowledge, you know, guardian spirits. Um, and one of them is slippery treasures. And, and this is one I just brought in because I think it's so much fun. And, um, and we have some really great historical understandings of, uh, slippery treasure, particularly in the 18th century and early 19th century. And one of the best examples of that is Benjamin Franklin, because he talks about this, because this is a really big problem in New England. People are incredibly superstitious. They are digging for treasure, and they are creating holes on the landscape all around the place that that Benjamin Franklin is just aghast with. And he writes in 1734 at length, "A mighty hole is dug, and perhaps several cartloads of earth thrown out, but alas, no keg or iron pot is found. No seaman's chest crammed with Spanish pistols or weighty pieces of eight. Then they conclude that through some mistake in the procedure, some rash word spoken, or some rule of art neglected, that the guardian spirit had power to sink it deeper into the earth and convey it out of reach." And it, you know, the idea that these pirates with their their hidden buried treasure have made these, um, places in New England where they've hidden things, and people are out there, you know, trying to win the lottery basically by digging up gold and trying to find them through this kind of, you know, folk magic, you know, seer stones and divining rods. God's trying to uncover the to cover uncover treasure. And yet, every time they get close, these spirits under the under the ground are whisking away this treasure because they have not done exactly the right procedure.

Yeah. You know, it's, it's pirates, it's treasure seeking, it's adventure, it's, you know, it's all of these incredible things that that, yeah, Joseph is engaging as well. And we do have, um, some accounts from Joseph's neighbors about this happening to Joseph Senior and Joseph Junior. So, do you want to—

Not just neighbors, but Isaac Hale, Emma's dad. Yes. He talks about it also, right? And even, even Josiah Stole testifies on behalf of Joseph, but basically verifies all of this behavior as well.

Absolutely. You want me to read that second quote?

Yeah. Yeah.

"Joseph Senior soon returned." This is William Stafford, a neighbor of Joseph Smith's in Manchester, New York, 1833. So, it's, you know, within 10ish, 7 to 10 years of when this would have taken place. Is that right?

Great.

"Uh, Joseph Senior soon returned and said that Joseph Junior had remained all this time in the house looking in his stone and watching the motions of the evil spirit that he saw the spirit come up to the ring and caused the money to sink. We then went into the house, and the old man observed that we had made a mistake in the commencement of the operation. If it had not been for that," said he, "we should have got the money."

Yeah. Guardian, a spirit guardian spirit, withdrawing the treasure because the right procedure wasn't taken.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And we see this come up in the Book of Mormon because, you know, that's why there's all of this hidden treasure under the earth is that the ancient inhabitants had these treasures, and they were because of unrighteousness slipped away under the ground. And so we have a number of passages in the Book of Mormon that talk about this, um, in really great ways. I, I'll read this first one. This is Mormon 1:18, "And these Jaredite robbers who were among the Lamanites did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth, and they became slippery because the Lord had cursed the land, and they could not hold them nor retain them again." It's literally saying slippery treasure in the Book of Mormon. That's so predictable.

Does the B— do we know if the Bible mentions slippery treasure at all?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, that's once in the Book of Mormon. Surely, it doesn't happen more than once. So, Ether 14:1 also says, "So, this is again, this is not the, um, the Lamanites and the Nephites. This is the Jaredites." Um, "And now there began to be a great curse upon all the land because of the iniquity of the people, in which if a man should lay his tool or his sword upon his shelf or upon the place whether he would keep it, behold, upon the morrow he could not find it, so great was the curse upon the land."

Yeah, this is definitely the magic worldview of slippery treasures buried in the ground. Um, and if that weren't enough, your book and this slide mentions what, at least eight more references. If you look below, there's at least, and y'all can screen, y'all can pause the screen, or better yet, buy Ganesh's book and find additional Book of Mormon references to slippery treasure.

Correct. Yeah, there are lots. I also think I also think this point is never made enough in my opinion that the entire story of Moroni with golden plates is an exact replica of the treasure digging structure because if we're talking about buried treasure, golden plates are buried treasure. Moroni is a guardian spirit who's guarding the buried treasure. And we even have slippery treasure because according to Joseph Smith's narrative, he goes multiple times to the plates to the hill to recover the plates, but he's unable to recover them, um, because Moroni doesn't let him. So, I mean, how is that not a direct pivot? Talk about pivots. A direct pivot from treasure digging to earn money to find buried treasure to conveying the same structure of spirits guarding buried treasure but instead producing a religious text, but in both instances, there's the seer who uses a peep stone in a hat to locate, uh, the buried treasure. Like it's a very, for me, conspicuous pivot away from illegal treasure digging where Joseph is still, um, someone with special power to find the buried treasure and recover it, to the Book of Mormon where the treasure that he ends up producing can't get him put in jail anymore. He just produces an allegedly religious text which is completely anachronistic to the time it purports to represent and is completely consistent, as you're pointing out in this book. The Book of Mormon is completely consistent with the flora, the fauna, the governmental structures, and the religious controversies, along with the weapons and, and, uh, you know, everything of 19th-century colonial New York.

Correct. Absolutely. And it, and it's really interesting to see, in fact, those earliest accounts of this treasure guardian who wasn't named Moroni till much later, actually, that Joseph has to kind of contend with the spirit and the, and obtains the plates, but then the spirit takes them back, that, you know, he, Joseph has to do things exactly in order to obtain the record. And this is a big part of this treasure law, right? That you can't obtain it unless you do the exact thing, which becomes a big part of the church because slippery treasure doesn't mean anything to anybody outside of New England and Western New York, where there are a lot of New England refugees. The people who are coming into the church are trying to, because Joseph is giving them revelations that, you know, Zion is going to be theirs, that the New Jerusalem is coming. So, when these things don't happen, he's got to explain why the words of Jesus don't come to pass, and he does it because he says that they effectively, the treasure, the gospel is slippery. You have to be exact to be able to obtain it. So, we see lots of doctrines in Covenants passages which suggest this, and I'm just using one here in Doctrine and Covenants section 105:2. So, this is 1834. "Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church, and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now. But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I require of them at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance as becometh saints to the poor and the afflicted among them." The idea that they are not exact in their obedience, and therefore they're not obtaining the things which the Lord has promised them, things like the New Jerusalem, like Zion, like the riches that God wants to bestow upon them, um, because they're just not being exact. And so, Joseph is able to use this pivot to explain these slippery treasure, these slippery treasures that the gospel is supposed to deliver.

Okay. And there's a DNC, there's a second DNC reference on that slide. Did we read that already?

No.

No. Can you read that first?

Okay. DNC 128:5, um, produced in 1842, according to the slide. "You may think this order of things, specific recording of baptisms with witness certification, to be very particular. But let me tell you that it is only to answer the will of God by conforming to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel."

How is that a pivot from slippery treasure?

So, it's the idea that it's, you have to be exact. So, in this particular, um, Doctrine and Covenants verse, Joseph is, Joseph has pivoted. When we go back to that idea of redemption for the dead, he does another pivot. So, the people are doing baptisms for the dead and they're feeling really good about it, but Joseph tells them, "Yes, you can feel really good about it, but you have to do it exactly. You have to do it in an exact manner with a recorder, and you have to do it in the temple for it all to be valid before God." And this is a way that Joseph, um, gets people excited about having a temple. Remember, they've lost Kirtland Temple. They were supposed to do a temple in Missouri, and they've been kicked out of Missouri. So, they've lost that. Nobody's very excited in 1840 to do a new temple, the Nauvoo Temple. And Joseph uses their excitement around baptism for the dead to get them to, um, work on the house of the Lord and have these ordinances recognized in the temple, because unless they're done with exactness and done in the proper place with the proper authority, witnessed by recorders, and done, you know, with the exact wording, they won't be acceptable to God. And so this way, go, Joseph says, unless you want these baptisms to be valid and to save your ancestors, you have to do it in the temple, which means they have to build the temple, which they're not excited about doing because they've just lost Kirtland. Of course, they are not excited about doing another temple. Joseph gets this exactness to make them do something to get the treasure, to get the reward, to get their salvation. This has to happen in a temple. Has to be exact. These are the ways that we do our ordinances, right? If they're done wrong, the wrong wording's been done, or the wrong priest has been used, or whatever the thing is, they're not valid. You know, the sacrament prayer has to be done again because the, um, the priest has slipped up with the words, or the ordination is not correct because you haven't, you know, invoked the right priesthood. You know, these are things that make us feel like we have to be exact. Patriarchal blessings are a good example of this, right? If you do not, you know, adhere and follow the commandments, your patriarchal blessing promises are not valid. It's all slippery treasure because you have to be exact. And when it, when it doesn't come to pass, of course, you—

Blame yourself that you haven't been exact. You haven't done any other things. You double down on your promises, on your obedience, on your actions, and that then means that you recommit yourself to the church. It's kind of genius, but incredibly problematic. Fascinating. I was expecting, I mean, I think in my mind, I was expecting some sort of DNC condemnation of, you know, seer stone peeping or just this idea that buried treasure can be, you know, pulled away at the last minute, slippery treasure, kind of specific references. So, this is a bit of a more subtle pivot. Is that fair to say? Than maybe the previous four? Yes, I would say so. Yeah.

And, um, and the thing is, it just doesn't, slippery treasure doesn't make sense to anybody outside of Joseph's, you know, folk magic tradition and those earliest converts. So, but the idea that you have to be exact, that makes sense and actually becomes the, um, fodder for the church. And I'll just say a couple really significant slippery treasure related pivots that I, if I'll add that I'm sure your book covers, if that's okay. Yeah. The fact that Joseph Smith, the fact that golden plates were kept and preserved across generations, buried, recovered by Joseph, and he frantically hid them to keep them, uh, from being stolen. The fact that all that happened, all that activity around golden plates happened, that they were recovered, and then when he actually translates the Book of Mormon, according to Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery and Emma and others, the Whitmers who witnessed it, the fact that no plates are actually used in the translation, that feels like a pivot to me that is almost an example of the slippery treasure slipping away even after it's been recovered. And we even, you know, so like, why, why weren't plates used in the translation of the Book of Mormon? That makes no sense. And then if you look at over time, why, why would Joseph use the very instruments of fraud, meaning the peep stone and the hat? Why would he use those for fraud, for illegal activity, which he did, then import those and use them for the alleged translation of the Book of Mormon, but then slowly over time stop using them, uh, and say, which he does by Kirtland, well, I don't need a seer stone anymore to, you know, to provide revelations from God. And he ironically, coincidentally, does this as potential rivals start finding their own peep stones and trying to produce their own revelations. Then conveniently, both because he kept ending up in jail when he used a peep stone, but also because rivals keep popping up trying to threaten his exclusive prophetic authority with other peep stones, does he conveniently move away from the use of peep stones altogether? Kind of, you know, begs the question, why did he ever use them to begin with? Why? Why was he called a seer, uh, when seer meant peeper or scrier or glass-looker? And yet that title of seer persists with current prophet, seers, or revelators. Yet, as far as we know, none of them are using peep stones to be seers in the modern-day church. Why is that? Like, it seems like it's not just a pivot. It's almost like a thrashing and a, and, um, um, a confusion of this practice that in some ways still has its residue today, um, that still doesn't make sense. I mean, if, if the church has Joseph Smith's peep stone in its vault, which we know it does, and Joseph used a peep stone and was called a seer, and if modern church leaders are seers, why aren't they using their peep stone to produce revelations? Like, all of that's very confusing and feels like multiple pivots that don't make a lot of sense to me.

And they do make a lot more sense when you recognize that this is the world that Joseph is swimming in as a New England refugee in Western New York, and he's surrounded by other New England refugees who are also enacting and working in that same environment. You know, the first 50 to 100 members were from that same, you know, backdrop. All of the witnesses, the three and the eight witnesses are from that tradition. They are all interpreting the world and acting in it with the same mechanism. Joseph, you know, we know that Martin Harris is, you know, getting visions. We know that Oliver Cowdery is using a divining rod. We know that David Whitmer has a peep stone, a seer stone, and he's using it. We know that Hiram Page has a seer stone, a peep stone, and he uses it to get revelation, and, um, that is frowned upon by Joseph. So these people are all doing this, but by the time, you know, Joseph is going to Ohio, the people in Ohio are not from that same New England refugee culture. So, a lot of those, um, understandings about how the world works are downplayed and are superseded by other people's, you know, Christian beliefs. Um, but you're right, you know, the slippery ideas, you know, even the fact that the, that the guardian spirit Moroni takes back the plates, that's slippery, right? There's no, there's no mechanism to validate what Joseph has done by actual plates because they're, they're slippery. The Urim and Thummim, which again is a later term, these interpreters, and they're taken back by Moroni. So the only things we have from the translation is the peep stone, the seer stone that the church has in their vault. The one, at least, that they've photographed for the Joseph Smith Papers. That's the only one we physically have a photo of that general members of the church have access to. But we know from people like Keith Erekson that there are hundreds of these, uh, seer stones, peep stones in the church's vaults. And they have other ones of Joseph Smith's, um, seer stones. You know, they have them.

Wait, there's hundreds of seer stones? Oh, yeah. In the church archives. Yep. Because lots of these early members of the church had them. Yeah. So there are, um, yeah, they just got so many, they don't even know who they they're attached to. We know that Joseph had several during his life, and they, the church has various ones of them, and some of them are in private collections, but, um, you know, lots of the members of the church did, especially these early New England refugees in Western New York. They had a lot of them. Yeah. I should mention that there is a point in, I believe, the Kirtland era time period where Joseph is running out of money and there's a lot of debt, and he, he briefly revitalizes the buried treasure conviction and I believe goes to Boston with a couple of his colleagues because he receives a revelation that he can find some buried treasure in some random Boston house. Yeah. Salem, Massachusetts. Yes. Oh, and Salem. Okay. Yeah. And of course, that prophecy doesn't come true, which challenges his title as seer a little bit, as far as I'm concerned. Actually, I think one, one of the chapters I'm most proud of is a, I've got a treasure seeking chapter, and it details a lot of these treasure digs because when you think about it, the Canadian copyright was a, you know, he sent out people to go get the Canadian, you know, sell the Canadian copyright for the Book of Mormon. That was a treasure dig. You know, when he sent those, um, missionaries, Oliver Cowdery and, um, Ziba Peterson and Parley Pratt, to go discover the New Jerusalem in Indian territory, that's a treasure dig. He does this throughout his life, and the most famous of that is Doctor 111, which is the, the Salem, Massachusetts, um, you know, treasure dig. They're going to look at a house, try to find buried treasure in somebody's house to save the church from their debts, which is a big one. But he, he also goes to Monroe after that to, in a similar fashion, they do similar things in Missouri to find land and to consecrate it. So it's, it's an ongoing thing that Joseph does throughout his life. Yeah. Yeah.

So I guess as I'm keeping score in the tally of, of your main five points, in addition to the exactness point that you make, which is, I'll just say a little more subtle but still, uh, meaningful, I'm going to say that absolutely, in addition, Joseph Smith and the church pivot away from not just, you know, the the use of seer stones, um, to find buried treasure or to receive revelations, but also from this idea of slippery treasure. Um, they, they believe in it, they do it, the Book of Mormon's based on it, the Book of Mormon contains multiple passages, and Joseph Smith is even seen, you know, using seer stones to find buried treasure as late as the mid-1830s. And now the church, both Joseph Smith in the towards the Nauvoo time period, and the church overall from Nauvoo until now, has pivoted away from this very fundamental idea of slippery treasure, other than to, other than to still perpetuate the core, um, Book of Mormon golden plates narrative. The other thing I'll say is the fact that the LDS Church for over a century denied that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat, hid that information, claimed that golden plates were used in the Book of Mormon translation when it knew that golden plates weren't used in the Book of Mormon translation, and that Joseph Smith in fact used a seer stone in a hat. While the church continued and continues to perpetuate the idea of a Urim and Thummim being used instead of the peep stone in the hat, which this most recent Gospel Topics essay even tries to perpetuate the idea that both a Urim and Thummim and a peepstone or a seer stone were used. The cover-up, for me, is often more condemning than the original sin or crime. And so for all of those reasons, I'm saying, uh, 50 Ganesha against, uh, a historical Book of Mormon and/or the existence of actual Lamanites and Nephites. I think the text of the Book of Mormon and the practice of the Mormon Church kind of condemns and contradicts itself. There's a lack of internal consistency in both, um, you know, modern Mormon scripture and in official church practice across the past two centuries. That's my verdict. So you proved, you proved it, Ganesha. You, you succeeded. Good job. Well, hopefully too. We took one chapter from each of those five sections, and there are 45 chapters that do exactly the same thing over different ideas and track the 19th century environment, the Smith family dynamic, Joseph Smith's own personal circumstance, and then what and correlate that with what is in the Book of Mormon so that you can see that there's, you know, we're talking about a tale of two Josephs. The idea of a 23-year-old Joseph who infuses his ideals into the Book of Mormon versus a 38-year-old Joseph by Nauvoo who enacts his power onto the city of Nauvoo, and the way that, um, that, yeah, basically the church is by his death. Um, you know, and Brigham takes that and runs with some of those things and goes further with them, but generally those have been walked back to what really was Joseph at 1844. So I find that really fascinating too, that we can really understand Mormonism and its trajectory by understanding Joseph and his own personal development and trajectory over the particularly those 14 years, 15 years between the Book of Mormon's dictation and Joseph's death, in 1844. So hopefully that's what I've done with the book, but also that you can utilize it for various ways. Hey, where did this all go to? But also, you know, utilizing it as a commentary on the Book of Mormon and recognizing it. One of the things I probably didn't say was that every single chapter of the Book of Mormon is referenced in my book against its 19th century environment, the Smith family dynamics, and Joseph's own personal circumstances. That means you can, you know, you can find Joseph, his ideals, his environment in the Book of Mormon, which going back to our original premise for this whole thing, you know, that's more compelling than the idea that this happened to some, you know, tiny group of people in Mesoamerica or somewhere else, um, and that they were actually Nephites and Lamanites. Um, really quickly, I, I was going to make a joke that there is one remaining slippery treasure in Mormonism, and that's, uh, the existence of Lamanites themselves. Because clearly, the existence of actual Lamanites and I would say, uh, the core mission of converting the Lamanites back to Christianity is a slippery treasure for modern Mormonism. Is that fair to say? It's absolutely fair to say. We just can't find them. No matter how hard we look, how many people's DNA we, we, you know, we test, we just can't find them, which, yeah, going back to that original thing, that's what it's supposed to be all about according to the title page of the Book of Mormon. Um, really quickly, you, we had talked about you reading some, comparing some passages, I believe, in Alma in the Book of Mormon. Was it Alma? Mosiah. Mosiah. Yes. Yes. Is it still worth doing that? Is that out of sync with the order? So, yeah, this basically wraps up the book in terms of, you know, understanding Joseph's trajectory and understanding, uh, you know, a topical biography and how hopefully useful it is for members of the church, in and out, being able to understand the, what's actually happening in the church and how it plays out in Joseph's life, but also how it affects today. Um, hopefully I've done a good job to that with that, and I, um, I'm always open for reflection and correction because, you know, no one book is going to be able to, you know, share all of that. But hopefully this gives a good, um, taste and an understanding. You know, John Turner's book is fabulous for reading and, and, um, and connecting the life of Joseph Smith, and hopefully I add to what he's done by, you know, breaking it down by topic so you can see that same, you know, arc of development, um, with individual topics. Um, but yeah, let's, some of the other things I found as I've been studying the life of Joseph Smith, and particularly the Book of Mormon, is, okay, if Joseph is doing this, how is he doing this? And so, um, I can bring that up and show you and give you a good example of how that's actually happening. So, you're going to show us how Joseph authors text in the Book of Mormon. Correct. Okay. Correct.

So, um, one of the great, um, little discoveries I've got through, you know, looking at the text and tracking, you know, Joseph's involvement, um, is by doing a bit of a side-by-side. So, um, Mosiah 9 and Mosiah 10, which in our modern Book of Mormons are two different chapters. In the original Book of Mormon, it was just one chapter. But if you put these side by side, you can see that actually Joseph is using, um, a technique, and you can see what he's doing. And basically, what he's doing is he's memorizing a set of points or set of phrases and then crafting it as a story in the moment when he's dictating it, you know, to his scribe. And in this case, in Mosiah chapter 9, it's, it's likely to be Oliver that he's dictating this to. And so, um, if you, if you're able to bring that up, we can have a look. Okay. So, here, here is, well, that's too far. Um, Mosiah 9 and Mosiah 10, uh, side by side. And we can see that, um, what I've done in this section is I've highlighted various things. So you can see that as you go down, the bits in yellow show, you know, almost a one-to-one correlation of the wordage that is being used. So you can see that he's actually got an idea. He's got a phrase and he's using it again in Mosiah 9 and in Mosiah 10. Um, so it's, these start off with the idea that this is talking about Zeniff, who is inhabiting the original land of Nephi, Lehi, and he is basically wanting to possess the land that's being occupied by the Lamanites. And so it starts off with the land that he, that is being possessed. And in Mosiah, "began to possess the land." And if you look down, you can see that there are a number of correlations. There are building projects that are being alluded to. Then there are, um, phrases that he's using again in the same sequence, in the same ideas, showing a, you know, that he's utilizing the same script. He's basically memorized 30 to 40 ideas and then he's now passing out those ideas with a story behind it. And so Mosiah 9 and 10 are the exact same story. They are. And when you put them side by side, you see that they are, they follow the same script in the same order with the same phrases, but they're crafted into a slightly different narrative. Um, and you even see this with groups of ideas. So in, in, um, blue, I've gone through and shown that, um, the one thing that Joseph does as he goes down, he has a tangent in the text, which in both chapters is an explanation of Lamanites. So you can see that he infuses this Lamanite explanation in two different parts of the text. And so the chapters themselves feel different, the Lamanite explanations are slightly different. And so while the points between Mosiah 9 and Mosiah 10 are exactly the same, the Lamanite explanations and their position in the text give two different feelings to the chapters, which means that when you're reading them, you don't feel like they are any different. You feel like they, you don't see that they're the same. You feel very different. And so that's exactly how Joseph is enacting these stories. He is taking an outline. He's memorizing phrases and points that he wants to get across. When he's dictating, he's performing the points as a story. He's injecting some ideas and going off in tangents. And this is allowing for the fact that the it feels real. It feels, um, dynamic, and it doesn't read and feel like it's exactly the same thing being repeated, but that's exactly what he's doing. And there's several viewers and listeners that are referencing Davis's book, Visions in a Seerstone. Correct. As as a game changer. We've had William Davis on before, but is he at least an influence in your work? Huge. I, um, yeah, William Davis is a great friend and we speak regularly. Um, he really brought to the forefront this idea that Joseph is performing the Book of Mormon. That, you know, we talk about the Book of Mormon being a book, right? It's called the Book of Mormon, but it's actually a play. Joseph is performing it. He's performing it to his scribe. The scribe is the first audience. The scribe is hearing it for the first time. He's writing it down. The other people in the household are also listening to it. We know from Doctrine and Covenants 11 that the text that Joseph is dictating is being used in the moment. So people are reading it in real time, commenting on it and commenting about it with him, discussing it with him, and that becomes the fodder for the next part of the Book of Mormon. And that's why the Book of Mormon feels so dynamic is that Joseph has some outlines. He has some scripts that he's adding to, but he's not opposed to going off on tangents, answering questions. He's able to do this again and again and again. And it feels very dynamic. It feels very real. Feels he's talking about his own ideas, his own circumstances. And that's why we see all of these themes that we've just gone over with regard to the book. But he's also answering questions that his audience, maybe his scribe or the other people in the household are having. And that's making the Book of Mormon feel very real, very persuasive to the reader.

Maybe I'll have you share that side-by-side analysis with Julia. Yep. And then she can include it in the show notes so that people can actually take the time to read the side-by-side because it is striking that two successive chapters in the Book of Mormon have not just a parallel structure, but for how long those two chapters are to maintain that parallel structure is quite striking, and I'd never thought of it, and I read the Book of Mormon like 13 times. Oh, you just don't see it because it doesn't feel like it's the same. Um, the one other cool thing about that, of course, is that he's doing that in the same order, in the same text, right? But if you repeated the pattern back in reverse on the second time, you'd get a chiasmus. Mhm. Yeah. So that's what a chiasmus is, right? He's just doing the same memorization technique. He's doing it in one direction, and then he's repeating it back in the other direction, and that's what gets your chiasmus. So, um, and this idea, the, you know, the idea that you, that he's got a script and he's repeating it happens throughout the Book of Mormon. So we see this a lot. We see this between the, in Alma with Ammon and Aaron, their missionary experiences with the, with the Lamanite kings. Those, if you put them side by side, you see also it's the same script in the same order with the same points being hit and the same ideas. If you do that with King Noah and, um, King Limhi in Mosiah, and King Limhi in Ether, you put those side by side and you can see the same, you know, same ideas in the same order, the same thing going on. You can do that the same with with, um, uh, uh, uh, not, um, who's the antichrist? Not Nehor. Korihor. You put Korihor, um, and Sherem. Uh, so Korihor is in Alma, and Sherem's in, um, in Jacob. You put them side by side and you can do the same thing. So Joseph is utilizing this, and we know it's Joseph because the Book of Mormon is in three parts, right? We've got the, the Mormon abridgement, which is Mosiah through to Mormon, and the, and the Moroni abridgement, which is Ether. And then we've got the, in the Nephite thing, Nephi's abridgement, which is first Nephi through. Those are three different parts of the Book of Mormon which should have different authors, and yet these similar and the same stories are being repeated in different sections of the Book of Mormon. Vocalize makes a comment. Point of fact, Joseph never wrote the Book of Mormon. He dictated it. That's fair. And that's probably my mistake. I would say he authored the text. Yeah. But maybe didn't actually write it down. He had it transcribed. So, fair point. But I think, you know, I think the point is that he's the author. He's the creator. He's the creator, right? And he's and he's performing it, right? It's a play, and that's why it's best read out loud. So, actually, it's quite compelling as a document when you're actually reading it out loud, which you might do as a family, you know, in a family setting, sitting around a fireplace or whatever.

Really quickly, because we have such amazing viewers and listeners, we have already been provided with a "King of the World" meme. There we have it. Joseph Smith on a boat stretching his arms out saying, "I'm king of the world," with, I think that's a photo of Brigham Young, and it says "Council of 50" underneath. So, thanks to our amazing viewers and listeners that provided the meme that we so desperately sought. Um, so, yeah, I'll just, I'll just really quickly, this book's amazing. We're not done yet, but I'll just say, Joseph Smith, The Architect of Mormonism, a topical biography by Ganesh Cherian. Really important book. You will find it very valuable if your goal is not only to determine whether the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church's truth claims are factual or historical or accurate, but also if you just want to try and understand how Mormon doctrine, Mormon theology, Mormon history evolves over time and what the sources are for the evolution. I think it's a fascinating book and I don't think anyone's done it. So, um, please buy this book. If you can buy it through Benchmark, great. Benchmark Books, but you can also get it on Amazon as well. Amazon and, um, ebook through Amazon as well. Oh, ebook. Yeah.

Really quickly, a couple final questions before we end. Ganesh, I know you've been really generous. We talked about this being a two-hour episode, and of course, you probably know Mormon Story struggles to keep things under two hours. Did you know? And I struggle too, because there's so much great stuff, and you know, you know, yeah. And this is literally like a fifth, I'm sorry, like a one to five percent of all the cool findings in this book today's episode. Oh, there are small 45 plus chapters. So, and you could do two hours on every chapter, right? So, maybe we will as part of LDS discussions. Couple quick questions. Number one is, what do you, what would you say to someone who says, it's, I'll just say it, I'll try and simplify this. Humans want and need religion, and secular people haven't been able to come up with viable alternatives to religion that meet all the core needs that religion provides. So to author a book that in effect, weathers or erodes people's faith in its historicity or authenticity or validity, ends up weakening people's faith in a religion or an organization that many, many people find useful or helpful. Why would you want to do that? Uh, what would you say to that sort of position that you're weakening faith in an organization that helps people? Why would you do that?

Well, firstly, it's the 21st century, and we can't ignore this. You know, this is the reality that we're living in. You know, we can't find the Lamanites because there is no DNA for them. It's not like we have to come to terms with the fact that the Book of Mormon is not a historical or an ancient document. It is really a 19th-century text. And there are some lovely things about that that we could embrace. There's also some things that we need to take accountability for and transparency for. We have erased native peoples and indigenous peoples throughout the world because of the Book of Mormon. You know, we've engaged in patriarchy and racism because those are the core tenets of 19th-century America and the basis for the Book of Mormon. And those things are things that we need to really take account for because we have the capacity. The one thing about a great story is that people are captivated by it and they share resources, and we now have huge amounts of resources that we could be utilizing for greatness in our communities, and that's something that we can be excited about, I think, for the future. The Book of Mormon, one of the great tenants of the Book of Mormon is that it really advocates for the poor and the displaced and for the idea that people can give and have things in common. And we have the financial means now that we could solve some of the really big issues of the world. That's something to be incredibly inspired by and work towards. Part of it is that we need to acknowledge that we have marginalized a great deal of people. I think that's a really important thing that we need to do in the 21st century. And for lots of people, that's what's keeping them, well, that's what's meaning that they're leaving, right? Because the church is not acknowledging some of the harm that it's created and also not addressing the idea that it could work towards benefiting mankind in some really effectual ways.

But what, what if someone were to say, and I'll drop it after this, but if someone were to say, "All right, a little bit of colonialism, a little bit of racism, a little bit of sexism, a little bit of historical inaccuracy, a little bit of or a lot of historical inaccuracy, and or, you know, a little bit of anti-science or pseudoscience, or even conspiracy thinking. Is a small price to pay for all the value that the book does provide?" And even as you acknowledge that the book teaches great things about the poor and means a lot to people spiritually, as soon as you start telling people, "Yeah, it's a great book, but it's not actually what it claims to be, and it's kind of a fraud, and it's kind of not historical," clearly, less people are going to be paying attention to its words. Less people are going to be benefiting from the text. People are going to leave the church. And someone could say, "Pick all the problems with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. All of that pales in comparison to the good that comes about because of the church." And as soon as you start striking at the historical validity of the book, you weaken all the number of people and all the ways that the book can be impactful to people. So why do it? Small price to pay. Just let people believe some false or untrue things for the greater good of all the good the book and the church can perform in people's lives if they believe it's actually historical and from God, you know, directly. And that works for some people, and it worked for me for a long time because I was incredibly privileged by my association and my position in the church as a bishop, as a person that looked favorable. But the reality is too, we marginalize a great deal of our community. We tell people that they're broken because they're single, or that they're LGBT, or that they're not wealthy. So there's a lot of people harmed by the stories that we have that are, it's just not fair. And often those people are people that we love. So, you know, if we can get past ourselves and, you know, be adults and recognize that myth is a really good way that communities connect together. Sure. But there, but we can create new myths that are inclusive, new myths that are beautiful, and we can utilize the book. There's certainly some of those there, but we can also take accountability for some of the things that are harmful, that do cause pain, that do marginalize people, and sometimes lead to some really terrible outcomes. What is it that we're going to take? I think this is a maturity thing, and it's a maturity thing that we should be engaged in, particularly in the 21st century. Um, are there some myths that I still adhere to, you know, even though I know that they are not factual? Or, yeah, sure, they're part of the ways that I engage with other people. But there are also some times where I go, we need to take accountability for this, and I think that's part of being a mature church. That's a church that, you know, exists into the future. If we're going to be dogmatic and just ignore actual reality, well, then it's going to dwindle anyway. It's not a pathway to the future. Yeah. Yeah. To argue with myself, I do think that it's very harmful, for example, to tell Native Americans that their skin is cursed because of the wickedness of their ancestors who were ancient Jews. That's, if that's not true, that's a huge disservice to tell generations of people that that's their origin story. You know, it's a huge disservice to tell people that a literal Adam and Eve existed, that there was a literal global flood, which is impossible, and to have them devalue science and geology and history, if we know it's not true. So, it's sad that this leads to a weakening of the church, I think, from some perspectives. But I just don't want to live in a world where science is demeaned, lies are perpetuated, and conspiracy theories are propped up because I think that gets us into trouble. Even if it makes us a little less happy, or even if it weakens some of our communities, I just don't want to live in a world where truth doesn't really matter. That's how I am. Yeah. Yeah. And I feel the same way.

Really quickly, do you want to share how your fellow church members and or church leaders in New Zealand have reacted so far to this book, or would you rather just have that be something that's more private? Oh, no, I'm happy to. I think that, look, this is hard for people, and I get it, and I've worked really hard to make sure that the tone of the book is something that I think would be useful to people, that even if it's tough, that they can get through it with a bit of grace because I have people whom I love who are incredibly dedicated to the church, who absolutely invest in all of its messaging. And some of them are cognizant that these things have some implications and ramifications that are hard or terrible for them, even, but they are really invested. And so I have lots of family and friends who love this book, who are active members of the church, who have read it, who are excited about it, and who are utilizing it. I've also got, you know, friends and family who are really confronted by it, who are just having a very hard time. And I would contrast to, in my particular ward, my bishop, very excited about it. He helped me early on in the process, before he was the bishop, and he's, you know, was excited about it, excited to get his copy and have me sign it and review it. Fabulous. I've got friends who are in the stake presidency who are not excited about it whatsoever, and who are really livid that I have this book out, and, you know, they feel very responsible because they are stake leaders, and they feel like they have to protect people from me. So, that may be something that happens in the future. But generally, most people know me. They know that I, one of my core values is kindness. That I am incredibly sensitive and empathetic to the hard stuff that's going on, and I want to make a difference for good. And even if they might not agree with me in all things, they know that my heart is in the right place. And I'm incredibly grateful for that. So if, you know, I would say there's a non-zero chance that this book and this interview on Mormon Stories has the potential to lead to church discipline. I'm not saying that because I'm trying to invite it. It's just a reality these days.

If that were to come to you, do you have a sense for how you might or might not handle it in terms of attending a disciplinary council, not attending, resigning, feeling sad versus feeling completely unaffected and indifferent? Do you have a sense for how you might feel if that's what comes about? Because I hear Brian Hales is showing interest in your book. Not in a happy, fun way. I know that he is kind of the angel of death when it comes to people's church memberships. I mean, he personally, as I understand it, gathers information that can be used in disciplinary councils and sends that to people's bishops or stake presidents to lay the groundwork for disciplinary councils. I hear he doesn't love this book. Anyway, thoughts on potential church discipline.

Well, Brian and I are friends, and we discuss things. Obviously, we have a different point of view, and we have a robust debate about things. Um, look, for me, I attend church. I am not a believer. So, therefore, I don't have a calling. I don't, they don't ask me to speak in church. And I attend because I love the people. I love my ward. They are my extended family. It's the ward I grew up in. It's the ward I was bishop of. Um, I'm very fortunate to have people who love me and care about me, and I care about them. So, um, an excommunication wouldn't change my life in any way, shape, or form. So, but it would be sad that that's the way that my tribe would wish to deal with me, or at least some of my close friends who are on the stake presidency, you know, how they might feel compelled to act. Um, I would also say that the church, and one of the things I put in the beginning of the book is a mandate from the Church History Library, who have said, "We, the reason why we have the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the reason why we're making this available for you to research and do it on your laptop." The only reason I could do this in my lounge in Wellington, New Zealand, is because the church has made these documents, these primary source documents, available to all church members throughout the world. The only reason I can do that is because they have done a mandate with the idea that they want and they need members, non-members, disaffected members to utilize these resources to tell the next generation of stories for the continuation of this heritage. And it's going to reframe how things are being told in the future. That's just the reality. The church has been through a number of reframings and pivots and ideas. So this is just one idea of what that might be. And so it would seem like an own goal if the church disciplined me for taking the resources that they have made available and done a conscientious treatment of them. I mean, my book has 1,350 references, 1,500 scriptural references. Like, it's incredibly well-cited with this trajectory in mind. So, yeah, if the church decided I was not welcome because I utilized their own resources to do the thing that they wanted me to do, and they just don't agree with it, well, that would be an international story, and the books would sell majorly. And to me, for one of the advantages, John Turner has done this new biography of Joseph, which is fabulous, and he's not a member of the church. So to discipline me as a member of the church, and they can't discipline him because he's not a member of the church, that would seem to be inconsistent and again, counter to the interests that the Joseph Smith Papers was envisioned with. So, yeah, I agree with that.

Uh, your prediction on the probability of some type of disciplinary council? Do you, are you less than 50? Yeah, I have no idea. I guess I, and I'm interested to find out for myself. You know, this is an adventure for me. But, you know, look, I stand behind everything in my book, and I provide, I've got my email address in there. People are supposed to correct it. They're supposed to add to it. They're supposed to push back on it. And if it's robust enough, it'll survive. And if it's not, you know, it'll fade into obscurity, just like lots of things. So, I'm hopeful that this is useful and powerful, and I'm open to whatever it gets to. Beautiful. All right. Well, just for one final plug, the book is Joseph Smith, The Architect of Mormonism, a topical biography by Ganesh, by Bishop Ganesh, by active, by active Bishop Ganesh Cherian, one of our two favorite Kiwis on Mormon Stories podcast. This book is purchasable at Benchmark Books. You can get signed copies there, support Benchmark, and also Amazon, wherever you get your books. Ganesh, I'm so happy we finally got this got this out. Sorry it took a little while. Oh, it's exciting, and I'm glad to make good on what I promised two years ago to you, John. So, I'm very excited that, you know, good things take time, and this is the right place and the right time to make this all happen. All right. Um, yeah, we want to thank everyone who shared their comments and feedback on today's live stream. We shared many of your comments. Those of you who want to, you can always watch YouTube and replay the live chats and comments if you're into that type of stuff. I noticed that you follow the comments on YouTube because oftentimes in the John Turner episodes, you'll chime in and share some of your historical knowledge. So I think you'll commit as well if people buy your book and come up to YouTube or Spotify afterwards and share questions or comments that you'll be willing to come on and respond and interact with their comments on YouTube. Correct. Absolutely. I love that. I want people's experience. I like that whatever I'm doing has an impact, and I want to hear how people are processing that, but also what they're getting from it that might be useful to me to understand. This is a collective process. I love it. Okay. So, please feel free to comment, like this episode, please subscribe to the YouTube channel. Even if you can't donate to Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation, you can always subscribe and like these episodes or the channel. Positive reviews. Some of you say, "I can't donate. What can I do to help?" Well, there's lots of things you can do. You can give us a positive five-star review on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify. You can subscribe and like these episodes. You can share them with friends and family. You can comment on them. And all of that helps. We always welcome your feedback at mormonstories@gmail.com. So please share. Maybe we'll have Ganesh back to help out with some episodes on the LDS discussion series. Is that something you might be willing to do, Ganesh? Happy to do that. And we've got lots of fun things yet to talk about. So if y'all want to hear more from Ganesh, flood the YouTube comments with more Ganesh. Flood my email box with more Ganesh, and we'll see if we can get Ganesh to come back. Does that sound good? And then most importantly, I just want to thank again our donors. We are hemorrhaging ad revenue from YouTube for whatever reason. Our ad revenue is in the toilet, and we don't want to do product placements or, we dramatically reduced the number of ads that we run on YouTube because we just think it's annoying for people to have an ad come up every three minutes. So we've tried to space them out both on Spotify and on YouTube. All to help give y'all a really good experience. So, what you can do to keep us alive. If you're already a donor to Mormon Stories, the Open Stories Foundation, thank you. We couldn't do it without you. If you have financial means and you want to see this type of content continue, it's really easy. Go to mormonstories.org, or click on the donate button at the top, become a monthly donor, and we'll continue creating this type of content for as long as y'all are willing to support it. We're tax-deductible in the United States, and we're transparent in our finances. We publish a 990 every year in conformance, if that's a word, with the IRS, and we try and make sure that all the money you donate goes to the mission of Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation. So please support us. Thanks to those of you who do. Finally, thanks to Julia and Brooklyn for helping produce today's episode, and to the Open Stories Foundation board that allows us to continue. Um, I think that's it for today. Ganesh, thanks again for coming. You're going back to New Zealand soon. Next month. So I'm at the John Whitmer Historical Association presenting on my work there. So that's I'm really looking forward to that. Yeah. Yeah, the John Whitmer is a really important organization, and I'm pretty sure Matt Harris is the incoming president. That's right. You all know who Matt Harris is. Matt Harris, you know, wouldn't be wasting his time if the John Whitmer Historical Association wasn't important. John Hamer and his partner is a former president, I believe, of the John Whitmer Historical Association. Steven Pinkerton goes regularly to that. A lot of the big names do. So, maybe y'all should consider attending the John Whitmer Historical Association conference. What do you think? It is in Independence, Missouri, so that makes it a bit tricky for lots of people, but yeah, it will be a lot of fun. And, um, there's, yeah, lots of great scholarship across the Mormon spectrum, which is worthy of your attention and engagement. All right. And we're getting lots of comments saying "More Ganesh." So, the early voting is in, and it's pretty good for more Ganesh. And lots of people are saying thank you. I'll just share one comment. Alex Scott writes, "Love your kindness and integrity, Ganesh. Thank you for sharing this." And thank you to everyone. So, how does that feel, Ganesh? People are grateful for you. Well, it's absolutely my hope that this, particularly this book, is healing. You know, like I wrote it with people, faithful members who are struggling with their family members who have left the church, and also for those who have left to have validation for some of the reasons that they've gone. So my honest hopeful idea is that this will bridge the gap so that people can talk to each other who are in pain because this is really tough stuff, and it needs a voice that is compassionate and kind and forthright and accountable. So, um, if I can be any of those things and model that engagement to care, I will do anything I can in that endeavor. All right. All right. Everyone, please buy this book. Joseph Smith, The Architect of Mormonism, a topical biography. Um, and let's have Ganesh back on soon. Let's make it a, along with John Turner's book, an international bestseller this year. How does that sound? Ah, love it. All right. Thanks again, Ganesh. Thanks for joining us. Right. And thanks to everyone for joining us today on Mormon Stories. Be good to each other. Be kind to each other. We'll see you all again soon on another episode of Mormon Stories podcast. Take care, everybody.