Always trying to get that extra Andorra dollar.
Standard of Truth · Season 2 · Episode 43 · 1:05:37
Counterfeiting Scholarship Part 1
The Church's own history says Emma Smith lost a baby in December 1842, but Joseph's journal may only say Emma had a "chill": a scribe's hurried L looked like a D.
Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·
Could you give me a rebuttal to this woman who says she looked at court documents to write her book?
Vicki (listener)
After a mailbag that finally hears from a listener named Bill, Richard reads Vicki's email: family members are troubled by a YouTube video from Kathleen Melonakos, who says she looked at court documents to write her book on early Mormon counterfeiting. Richard gave Gerrit the book for his birthday, and Gerrit uses it to teach how to judge any book: what training does the author have, who published it, and was it reviewed by experts? He shows how even honest original sources can mislead, tracing a supposed December 1842 stillbirth back to Willard Richards's hard-to-read note that Emma had a "chill." He flags the book's habit of saying "it stands to reason" where there is no source, and ends by previewing its claim that Joseph's teachings were borrowed from a relative, which he takes on next week.
Who comes upKathleen MelonakosJoseph SmithEmma SmithWillard RichardsJohn TaylorDon Carlos Smith
Now playing · 0:39
A Spanish postmaster's mailbag
Richard names the mailbag in honor of his missionary son in Barcelona.
Chapters
Tap a chapter to jump thereTranscript
250 moments · tap a time to play from thereIntro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.
Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.
Richard Hello, Gerrit. In this week's podcast, we're going to answer a question that we received from an email. But so we'll start off with the mailbag this week. It is sponsored by Sergio Piano Jimenez.
Richard Hello, Gerrit. In this week's podcast, we're going to answer a question that we received from an email. But so we'll start off with the mailbag this week. It is sponsored by Sergio Piano Jimenez.
Gerrit Wow. Wow.
Gerrit Wow. Wow.
Richard Well, he's the Chief Information Officer for Sociedad Estatal de Correos y Telegrafos. I'm fairly confident.
Richard Well, he's the Chief Information Officer for Sociedad Estatal de Correos y Telegrafos. I'm fairly confident.
Gerrit Your son listening right now is?
Gerrit Your son listening right now is?
Richard Well, he's not listening right now, but so that's the state-owned company responsible for providing postal service in Spain. And due to a bilateral agreement, they also cover Andorra.
Richard Well, he's not listening right now, but so that's the state-owned company responsible for providing postal service in Spain. And due to a bilateral agreement, they also cover Andorra.
Gerrit Yes.
Richard So he is-
Gerrit Yes.
Richard So he is-
Gerrit Always trying to get that extra Andorra dollar.
Gerrit Always trying to get that extra Andorra dollar.
Richard That's true. So we're branching out. That's the tip of the cap to my son in Barcelona, Spain, on his mission. So there you go, Elder LeDuc. You'll hear this in two years.
Richard That's true. So we're branching out. That's the tip of the cap to my son in Barcelona, Spain, on his mission. So there you go, Elder LeDuc. You'll hear this in two years.
Gerrit Or if he's like the other missionary we had listened to in a couple of weeks. That was probably one of my favorite emails ever was, hey, I was rounding up a bunch of illegally downloaded materials, found yours, and then I listened to all of it. Like, okay, I mean, it's good to have you as a fan, but also I'm pretty sure you weren't supposed to.
Gerrit Or if he's like the other missionary we had listened to in a couple of weeks. That was probably one of my favorite emails ever was, hey, I was rounding up a bunch of illegally downloaded materials, found yours, and then I listened to all of it. Like, okay, I mean, it's good to have you as a fan, but also I'm pretty sure you weren't supposed to.
Richard Well, so this first email comes to us, subject Bill I am, and the message, I am a listener named Bill, and that comes to us from Bill.
Richard Well, so this first email comes to us, subject Bill I am, and the message, I am a listener named Bill, and that comes to us from Bill.
Gerrit And that's the only thing in the message. If you recall multiple podcasts ago, I was using an analogy in which I was talking about what happens if Bill, just a fictional Bill were to become, I believe an adulterer is what I said, or an apostate.
Gerrit And that's the only thing in the message. If you recall multiple podcasts ago, I was using an analogy in which I was talking about what happens if Bill, just a fictional Bill were to become, I believe an adulterer is what I said, or an apostate.
Richard That's correct, something like that.
Richard That's correct, something like that.
Gerrit An adulterer, an apostate, I don't know. And then we hypothesized, well, wait a minute, what if there's actually a listener named Bill? What's he gonna think?
Gerrit An adulterer, an apostate, I don't know. And then we hypothesized, well, wait a minute, what if there's actually a listener named Bill? What's he gonna think?
Richard And we assumed that we didn't have a listener named Bill.
Richard And we assumed that we didn't have a listener named Bill.
Gerrit Well, it's easy to assume you don't have a listener named, when you have like six listeners, what are the odds one of them's named Bill?
Gerrit Well, it's easy to assume you don't have a listener named, when you have like six listeners, what are the odds one of them's named Bill?
Richard Well, here we go. And Bill I am. So thank you, Bill.
Richard Well, here we go. And Bill I am. So thank you, Bill.
Gerrit So Bill just sent us a very brief, very terse email letting us know that he's named Bill. I mean, he didn't.
Gerrit So Bill just sent us a very brief, very terse email letting us know that he's named Bill. I mean, he didn't.
Richard He's busy committing adultery.
Richard He's busy committing adultery.
Gerrit Well, no, no, he's not. That was the whole fear that we had.
Gerrit Well, no, no, he's not. That was the whole fear that we had.
Richard That's right. So here's another one, Gerrit and Richard, I hope you still check this email because it's not through your website, but I needed to be able to send a picture. My question is, when are we going to tell us that you guys are in a band? Occasionally, as I listen to your podcast on my commute, I look at the screen of my car and see three emo-ish band members as your photo for the podcast. Have you been dropping Easter eggs hoping someone would catch on and ask you when your Christian Rock band album would be dropping? I will take one for the team. When is it going to be released? Give the public what they want and need. I've attached a photo evidence below. And it is, the picture is absolutely hilarious. We'll try and figure out how to put it on the website, but they really didn't nail it.
Richard That's right. So here's another one, Gerrit and Richard, I hope you still check this email because it's not through your website, but I needed to be able to send a picture. My question is, when are we going to tell us that you guys are in a band? Occasionally, as I listen to your podcast on my commute, I look at the screen of my car and see three emo-ish band members as your photo for the podcast. Have you been dropping Easter eggs hoping someone would catch on and ask you when your Christian Rock band album would be dropping? I will take one for the team. When is it going to be released? Give the public what they want and need. I've attached a photo evidence below. And it is, the picture is absolutely hilarious. We'll try and figure out how to put it on the website, but they really didn't nail it.
Gerrit We don't know what's going on there because she listened to it on Apple podcasts and everyone else who does as well doesn't have that picture come up. So I don't know what's going, I think it's, it might just be your device.
Gerrit We don't know what's going on there because she listened to it on Apple podcasts and everyone else who does as well doesn't have that picture come up. So I don't know what's going, I think it's, it might just be your device.
Richard Well, so yeah, so I emailed her back and I said, you're going to love track four, Joseph and the Gold Bible. It's going to be coming out. It's going to be coming out for, it's got a Christmas album.
Richard Well, so yeah, so I emailed her back and I said, you're going to love track four, Joseph and the Gold Bible. It's going to be coming out. It's going to be coming out for, it's got a Christmas album.
Gerrit The Easter eggs are all around you, right? I mean, what are the tracks to our Christian song? Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, rice tariffs, you and me. I mean, what about townships? Townships everywhere.
Gerrit The Easter eggs are all around you, right? I mean, what are the tracks to our Christian song? Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, rice tariffs, you and me. I mean, what about townships? Townships everywhere.
Richard Not a drop to drink.
Richard Not a drop to drink.
Gerrit Yeah, not a drop to drink. I mean, there are so many. I mean, one of them's called Rachel's mom. I mean, so.
Gerrit Yeah, not a drop to drink. I mean, there are so many. I mean, one of them's called Rachel's mom. I mean, so.
Richard Yeah, yeah. Rachel's mom, she's got it going on.
Richard Yeah, yeah. Rachel's mom, she's got it going on.
Gerrit Yeah, so I'm sure she appreciates that kind of a shout out.
Gerrit Yeah, so I'm sure she appreciates that kind of a shout out.
Richard So, so first of all, she, she responded back to, she, she saw it on, on Apple podcast. She was sad that she wasn't going to be able to join us on the tour because she is with, with child. So Mazel Tov on the, on the baby and hope you're able to join us in, in 2024.
Richard So, so first of all, she, she responded back to, she, she saw it on, on Apple podcast. She was sad that she wasn't going to be able to join us on the tour because she is with, with child. So Mazel Tov on the, on the baby and hope you're able to join us in, in 2024.
Gerrit Although if you're, if your children are having a baby, then my guess is you'll be able to join us in, in 2044. That's probably a better, yeah, it's possible.
Gerrit Although if you're, if your children are having a baby, then my guess is you'll be able to join us in, in 2044. That's probably a better, yeah, it's possible.
Richard She's a better parent than, than we are.
Richard She's a better parent than, than we are.
Gerrit It's not even, sometimes I say things, you know, is it possible? Is it probable? In some cases, it's absolute. In some cases, I don't know her at all, but just with how pithy her email was, she's a better parent than we are.
Gerrit It's not even, sometimes I say things, you know, is it possible? Is it probable? In some cases, it's absolute. In some cases, I don't know her at all, but just with how pithy her email was, she's a better parent than we are.
Richard And so the last email here comes to us from a person named Vicki. And this will be kind of the source of the content of this and potentially, you know, we'll see if, I will say in the, in the prep for this, Gerrit got very agitated several times. And usually what that means is five-parter.
Richard And so the last email here comes to us from a person named Vicki. And this will be kind of the source of the content of this and potentially, you know, we'll see if, I will say in the, in the prep for this, Gerrit got very agitated several times. And usually what that means is five-parter.
Gerrit I'm really going to, I'm going to do my best.
Gerrit I'm really going to, I'm going to do my best.
Richard No, it was.
Richard No, it was.
Gerrit I need to restrain. We have some people who email and they're all, they, when they email, they're excited about it. They're like, I like it when Gerrit gets angry, but I don't like it when Gerrit gets angry. And so I try to, it really is, I, I, maybe I picked the wrong profession because I get. Yeah.
Gerrit I need to restrain. We have some people who email and they're all, they, when they email, they're excited about it. They're like, I like it when Gerrit gets angry, but I don't like it when Gerrit gets angry. And so I try to, it really is, I, I, maybe I picked the wrong profession because I get. Yeah.
Richard History.
Richard History.
Gerrit Yeah. No, I just get, I get, I feel passionate about some things and at times I, I forget myself and my place.
Gerrit Yeah. No, I just get, I get, I feel passionate about some things and at times I, I forget myself and my place.
Richard So it's a very well written email. And like many emails that we receive, it actually comes with a, with a fair amount of heartache and sorrow. And I will say that first of all, the emails that we receive are, they're so kind and they're just, they're so nice. But, but many of the listeners of the podcast, either themselves or more likely family members are struggling with aspects of church doctrine or history, specifically history, that, and the most frustrating thing is based on things that just simply aren't, aren't true, aren't the case.
Richard So it's a very well written email. And like many emails that we receive, it actually comes with a, with a fair amount of heartache and sorrow. And I will say that first of all, the emails that we receive are, they're so kind and they're just, they're so nice. But, but many of the listeners of the podcast, either themselves or more likely family members are struggling with aspects of church doctrine or history, specifically history, that, and the most frustrating thing is based on things that just simply aren't, aren't true, aren't the case.
Gerrit Well, and, and, and that's part of the, where the things, where the, I think the anger comes from. Look, any organization, any, any group that is, you know, 200 years old is going to have parts of their history that are more difficult to handle than others. I mean, uh, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is not anyone's favorite topic to talk about where, where members of our church did perpetrate a horrible atrocity. Um, but the frustrating thing comes when the arguments that people are making, they, they, they often make them in terms of here's the real truth or here's the real history. And I think that's what, you know, if we're trying to figure out what my trigger is, we just, we just found it. I mean, and, and, and honestly, that's, that's where you'll notice that it really bothers me. I understand that most people don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Gerrit Well, and, and, and that's part of the, where the things, where the, I think the anger comes from. Look, any organization, any, any group that is, you know, 200 years old is going to have parts of their history that are more difficult to handle than others. I mean, uh, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is not anyone's favorite topic to talk about where, where members of our church did perpetrate a horrible atrocity. Um, but the frustrating thing comes when the arguments that people are making, they, they, they often make them in terms of here's the real truth or here's the real history. And I think that's what, you know, if we're trying to figure out what my trigger is, we just, we just found it. I mean, and, and, and honestly, that's, that's where you'll notice that it really bothers me. I understand that most people don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Gerrit Of course, most people don't believe that. Most people don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah actually. Right? So, so the idea that most people don't believe, of course they don't. It requires you to believe in miracles. I get it. I get that. So when someone says, I just don't believe, I, I, I take that very well. The problem is when someone attempts to claim a historical fact as the reason why they know the church isn't true, if you say, you know, I just believe that the Presbyterian church is true, that's, you know what? Great. That is a good, it's a good belief to have. It's a wonderful church with wonderful beliefs that have, that have helped many people over the course of centuries. But if you say, I know the church is false because this person said this in, in 1840 and that proves that it's false.
Gerrit Of course, most people don't believe that. Most people don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah actually. Right? So, so the idea that most people don't believe, of course they don't. It requires you to believe in miracles. I get it. I get that. So when someone says, I just don't believe, I, I, I take that very well. The problem is when someone attempts to claim a historical fact as the reason why they know the church isn't true, if you say, you know, I just believe that the Presbyterian church is true, that's, you know what? Great. That is a good, it's a good belief to have. It's a wonderful church with wonderful beliefs that have, that have helped many people over the course of centuries. But if you say, I know the church is false because this person said this in, in 1840 and that proves that it's false.
Gerrit Well, now you're not making a faith argument anymore. You're making a historical argument. And when you're making a historical argument, you then are required to follow the rules of history, meaning not every source is created the same. Not every source means the same thing as it might sound. Sources have to be taken in context. Sources have to be weighed against the other factors surrounding that source. If you say, I believe in congregationalism because I prayed and God gave me a feeling in my soul that congregationalism is the right denomination, well, that is a very defensible position to take. If you say, well, I know that Joseph Smith's a false prophet because he tried to have the governor of Missouri killed. Well, now you're making a factual, you're making a statement of something, it's not a factual statement, but you're making a statement claiming a historical fact or non-fact in this case is why you believe.
Gerrit Well, now you're not making a faith argument anymore. You're making a historical argument. And when you're making a historical argument, you then are required to follow the rules of history, meaning not every source is created the same. Not every source means the same thing as it might sound. Sources have to be taken in context. Sources have to be weighed against the other factors surrounding that source. If you say, I believe in congregationalism because I prayed and God gave me a feeling in my soul that congregationalism is the right denomination, well, that is a very defensible position to take. If you say, well, I know that Joseph Smith's a false prophet because he tried to have the governor of Missouri killed. Well, now you're making a factual, you're making a statement of something, it's not a factual statement, but you're making a statement claiming a historical fact or non-fact in this case is why you believe.
Gerrit And so that's, I think, where we really get, you know, kind of get hung up. Now, I should mention, I realize we have a much smaller listener base after the last couple of weeks because... We finally talked about plural marriage and I think the anticipation was so much. People are going to be so disappointed by those episodes that they're like, why am I even waiting for season 38?
Gerrit And so that's, I think, where we really get, you know, kind of get hung up. Now, I should mention, I realize we have a much smaller listener base after the last couple of weeks because... We finally talked about plural marriage and I think the anticipation was so much. People are going to be so disappointed by those episodes that they're like, why am I even waiting for season 38?
Richard If I know one thing, they're going to be disappointed by what we put out. No matter what the topic.
Richard If I know one thing, they're going to be disappointed by what we put out. No matter what the topic.
Gerrit The topic doesn't really matter. Anyway, that is probably the trigger there. Just as they.
Gerrit The topic doesn't really matter. Anyway, that is probably the trigger there. Just as they.
Richard Yeah, no. So you go from faith to history. And to paraphrase the golfing documentary, Happy Gilmore, well, now you're in my world, Grandma.
Richard Yeah, no. So you go from faith to history. And to paraphrase the golfing documentary, Happy Gilmore, well, now you're in my world, Grandma.
Gerrit Yeah, you're in my world, Grandma.
Gerrit Yeah, you're in my world, Grandma.
Richard So here's the email from Vicki. I first heard Dr. Dirkmaat on Follow Him last year. I heard he had a new podcast last year, but didn't really start listening till this month. I've been very busy listening to this Standard of Truth podcast and I'm currently on episode 21. Well, first of all, Vicki, it's, I mean, it's only going to get downhill from there, but I am so glad you're doing this podcast and hoping I'm not too late to ask these questions. She talks about, and I go ahead and redact it here, she talks about members of her family struggling with certain aspects of things that she's, that they've heard online or that they've seen online or heard online or watched on YouTube videos. She specifically mentions a YouTube video from a woman named Kathleen Melonakos. I haven't listened to it yet, but could you give me a rebuttal to this woman who says she looked at court documents to write her book?
Richard So here's the email from Vicki. I first heard Dr. Dirkmaat on Follow Him last year. I heard he had a new podcast last year, but didn't really start listening till this month. I've been very busy listening to this Standard of Truth podcast and I'm currently on episode 21. Well, first of all, Vicki, it's, I mean, it's only going to get downhill from there, but I am so glad you're doing this podcast and hoping I'm not too late to ask these questions. She talks about, and I go ahead and redact it here, she talks about members of her family struggling with certain aspects of things that she's, that they've heard online or that they've seen online or heard online or watched on YouTube videos. She specifically mentions a YouTube video from a woman named Kathleen Melonakos. I haven't listened to it yet, but could you give me a rebuttal to this woman who says she looked at court documents to write her book?
Richard Vicki. And so actually I have a relatively long-standing tradition where, so Gerrit's birthday is coming up, and for Gerrit's birthday every year, I buy him books that he hates.
Richard Vicki. And so actually I have a relatively long-standing tradition where, so Gerrit's birthday is coming up, and for Gerrit's birthday every year, I buy him books that he hates.
Gerrit It's as only a true friend. What would you like for your birthday? Not that. Here it is.
Gerrit It's as only a true friend. What would you like for your birthday? Not that. Here it is.
Richard So this year for his birthday, I got him by Kathleen Kimball Melonakos. Oh, Kimball. Oh boy. Secret Combinations, Evidence of Early Mormon Counterfeiting, 1800 to 1847. And so there you go. Happy birthday, Gerrit. Happy birthday.
Richard So this year for his birthday, I got him by Kathleen Kimball Melonakos. Oh, Kimball. Oh boy. Secret Combinations, Evidence of Early Mormon Counterfeiting, 1800 to 1847. And so there you go. Happy birthday, Gerrit. Happy birthday.
Gerrit Nice ribbon on that. All right.
Gerrit Nice ribbon on that. All right.
Richard So Theatre of the Mind. No, I literally did. So I wrote back to Vicky and let her know that I purchased this book for Gerrit. And we went through it as well as the YouTube videos and wanted to talk about Kathleen's, some of the arguments that she's making, and some of, it allows larger jumping off points with some of the tactics that she uses in the book.
Richard So Theatre of the Mind. No, I literally did. So I wrote back to Vicky and let her know that I purchased this book for Gerrit. And we went through it as well as the YouTube videos and wanted to talk about Kathleen's, some of the arguments that she's making, and some of, it allows larger jumping off points with some of the tactics that she uses in the book.
Gerrit Yeah. So I think first and foremost, when you confront any book or any, I mean, in this case, any internet, you know, audio, I mean, like this one, like you're listening to now, or any meme that, you know, we covered that in the past couple of podcasts. One of the most important things to do first is to figure out the credibility of the person presenting what it is that they're saying. Now that doesn't, that's not a personal attack on a person, right? I'm not saying that someone, you know, well, let's check their, let's check their morality and make sure that they're a good person. But if someone is claiming to have a historical expertise about a certain thing, how do we know whether or not they have that expertise?
Gerrit Yeah. So I think first and foremost, when you confront any book or any, I mean, in this case, any internet, you know, audio, I mean, like this one, like you're listening to now, or any meme that, you know, we covered that in the past couple of podcasts. One of the most important things to do first is to figure out the credibility of the person presenting what it is that they're saying. Now that doesn't, that's not a personal attack on a person, right? I'm not saying that someone, you know, well, let's check their, let's check their morality and make sure that they're a good person. But if someone is claiming to have a historical expertise about a certain thing, how do we know whether or not they have that expertise?
Gerrit I know we've talked about this multiple times on the podcast, but I figure since we've got a whole new audience, since we started talking about polygamy, even though this one's not about that, although we might talk about it at some point, there are rules to the practice of history. There just are. Now, always the people who didn't follow those rules are the ones saying, yeah, those rules don't matter at all. It's a very interesting thing. You rarely find medical doctors saying it doesn't matter whether or not someone has a medical license or not. You won't find that, right? Unless, you know, I guess if he just lost his medical license through malpractice, then I guess maybe, it's still fine, doesn't matter whether or not you have it. But the point is, and we made that before, that just knowing about a thing doesn't make you an expert. And sometimes people, look, history's fun.
Gerrit I know we've talked about this multiple times on the podcast, but I figure since we've got a whole new audience, since we started talking about polygamy, even though this one's not about that, although we might talk about it at some point, there are rules to the practice of history. There just are. Now, always the people who didn't follow those rules are the ones saying, yeah, those rules don't matter at all. It's a very interesting thing. You rarely find medical doctors saying it doesn't matter whether or not someone has a medical license or not. You won't find that, right? Unless, you know, I guess if he just lost his medical license through malpractice, then I guess maybe, it's still fine, doesn't matter whether or not you have it. But the point is, and we made that before, that just knowing about a thing doesn't make you an expert. And sometimes people, look, history's fun.
Gerrit Why do you think I became a historian? I know that you're thinking right now, it's not fun. But have you heard Richard's dissertation topic in business?
Gerrit Why do you think I became a historian? I know that you're thinking right now, it's not fun. But have you heard Richard's dissertation topic in business?
Richard Oh my gosh, it's so much worse.
Richard Oh my gosh, it's so much worse.
Gerrit It is so much worse. History is boring. I'm so sorry.
Gerrit It is so much worse. History is boring. I'm so sorry.
Richard That's so true. It's just as a quick aside. So I had a conversation today with a person that's an adjunct professor at the University of Utah. And they have interest in going and getting their PhD. And I said, oh my gosh, don't do it, it's so terrible. And then I said, and they asked what my dissertation was. And I started talking. And they asked me, by the way, they asked me and I started talking about it. Her eyes glazed over, she immediately regretted it. And I saw the look on her eyes and I said, okay, I'm so sorry.
Richard That's so true. It's just as a quick aside. So I had a conversation today with a person that's an adjunct professor at the University of Utah. And they have interest in going and getting their PhD. And I said, oh my gosh, don't do it, it's so terrible. And then I said, and they asked what my dissertation was. And I started talking. And they asked me, by the way, they asked me and I started talking about it. Her eyes glazed over, she immediately regretted it. And I saw the look on her eyes and I said, okay, I'm so sorry.
Gerrit You stopped after the first paragraph. I'm so sorry. And that's the reality of the situation is that history is, for some people at least, it's fun. It's cool to tell stories. It's cool to understand how things happened in our past. And so look, there are a lot of enthusiasts. There are a lot of people who love history, but it's kind of like, you know, someone who goes to a lot of jazz games and at one point starts to feel like not only is the team not doing good enough, but if they were on the court, they would help the team most. Now, the last time they played basketball was in a city rec league when they were 25 and they blew out their Achilles. But they're so passionate about it that they start to think that that passion equals expertise.
Gerrit You stopped after the first paragraph. I'm so sorry. And that's the reality of the situation is that history is, for some people at least, it's fun. It's cool to tell stories. It's cool to understand how things happened in our past. And so look, there are a lot of enthusiasts. There are a lot of people who love history, but it's kind of like, you know, someone who goes to a lot of jazz games and at one point starts to feel like not only is the team not doing good enough, but if they were on the court, they would help the team most. Now, the last time they played basketball was in a city rec league when they were 25 and they blew out their Achilles. But they're so passionate about it that they start to think that that passion equals expertise.
Gerrit This happens all the time, I've said before, with coaching, right? I mean, we watch our favorite college football game, like Richard watching Clemson over there, and we second guess a play call and we definitively say things like, well, they should have done this, everyone knows they should have done this. When really, we actually have no idea what's going on, right? Maybe it's a bad play call. Maybe the players on the field didn't run the play as it was called. Maybe there was a penalty that didn't get called. We actually have no idea. But I at least, I'm not going to indict anyone listening. I'll indict myself. I at least all the time, I'm like, I wouldn't have done that. I would have done this. Now I have coached a grand total of two flag football teams. That, essentially, Andy Reid has called me several times. And he said, Gerrit, I can't get Patrick up in my homes to do anything.
Gerrit This happens all the time, I've said before, with coaching, right? I mean, we watch our favorite college football game, like Richard watching Clemson over there, and we second guess a play call and we definitively say things like, well, they should have done this, everyone knows they should have done this. When really, we actually have no idea what's going on, right? Maybe it's a bad play call. Maybe the players on the field didn't run the play as it was called. Maybe there was a penalty that didn't get called. We actually have no idea. But I at least, I'm not going to indict anyone listening. I'll indict myself. I at least all the time, I'm like, I wouldn't have done that. I would have done this. Now I have coached a grand total of two flag football teams. That, essentially, Andy Reid has called me several times. And he said, Gerrit, I can't get Patrick up in my homes to do anything.
Gerrit I desperately need your help. And, you know, I'm willing to step in. I mean, I'm being facetious, obviously. But the point is, there is a gigantic difference between loving a thing and being enthusiastic about a thing and being an expert in that thing. And the problem is when we're really enthusiastic or we're driven by another motive, those lines can get very blurry. I've used the example before, and I'll just use it again, that, you know, we went to, I went with a good friend to a museum a little while ago, went to the USS Constitution Museum where Old Ironsides is. And there was a park ranger there who, not a park ranger, but a museum docent, who wanted to tell everyone all there was to know about USS Constitution.
Gerrit I desperately need your help. And, you know, I'm willing to step in. I mean, I'm being facetious, obviously. But the point is, there is a gigantic difference between loving a thing and being enthusiastic about a thing and being an expert in that thing. And the problem is when we're really enthusiastic or we're driven by another motive, those lines can get very blurry. I've used the example before, and I'll just use it again, that, you know, we went to, I went with a good friend to a museum a little while ago, went to the USS Constitution Museum where Old Ironsides is. And there was a park ranger there who, not a park ranger, but a museum docent, who wanted to tell everyone all there was to know about USS Constitution.
Gerrit And he had an enormous array of facts. He rattled them off, you know, it was built in 1794 and went down the line, and he was telling the whole story. The people that were with, you know, the people that are listening, they all are very impressed, and it was impressive. I'm not saying it wasn't impressive. But they might come away thinking, wow, that guy is an amazing historian of US naval history. But the reality is that Docent was really good at remembering the facts and figures that he read from another historian's book. The historian is the person who creates the material that the park guide then memorizes to tell the story. I don't mean to denigrate that at all.
Gerrit And he had an enormous array of facts. He rattled them off, you know, it was built in 1794 and went down the line, and he was telling the whole story. The people that were with, you know, the people that are listening, they all are very impressed, and it was impressive. I'm not saying it wasn't impressive. But they might come away thinking, wow, that guy is an amazing historian of US naval history. But the reality is that Docent was really good at remembering the facts and figures that he read from another historian's book. The historian is the person who creates the material that the park guide then memorizes to tell the story. I don't mean to denigrate that at all.
Gerrit They're different jobs. But it's kind of like the difference between knowing about someone having a headache and believing that you have the ability to prescribe narcotics to them. They aren't the same thing. And so this is one of the more frustrating things in doing religious history, because by definition, because it is religion, people are even more passionate about it. The only other types of history that are even close to religious history are political history, surprise, and military history. Those are the ones where people feel so passionate about them that they start to think that their knowledge in reading about it is the same thing as being a trained expert in it. And that's something, frankly, that even I deal with.
Gerrit They're different jobs. But it's kind of like the difference between knowing about someone having a headache and believing that you have the ability to prescribe narcotics to them. They aren't the same thing. And so this is one of the more frustrating things in doing religious history, because by definition, because it is religion, people are even more passionate about it. The only other types of history that are even close to religious history are political history, surprise, and military history. Those are the ones where people feel so passionate about them that they start to think that their knowledge in reading about it is the same thing as being a trained expert in it. And that's something, frankly, that even I deal with.
Gerrit I have to deal with the fact that I have only researched and studied firsthand certain parts of American history. Now, I've read a lot of books about American history, but let's say like the 20th century. I am not an expert in the 20th century. Now, I've read, I don't know, many, many, many hundred books on 20th century American history. So I know a lot of things about it, but I don't, I wasn't the one who created that research. And there's a really big difference between the two. That's why your specialty matters so much when you're doing history. Now, what, what, what is that to say? The whole conversation is to say, when someone presents you with something and says, listen to this person, they are an expert, your very first question should be, what makes them an expert? It's not just that they know a lot of things. The very fact that that person is presenting themselves to you as an expert means they're going to know more about whatever it is than you do.
Gerrit I have to deal with the fact that I have only researched and studied firsthand certain parts of American history. Now, I've read a lot of books about American history, but let's say like the 20th century. I am not an expert in the 20th century. Now, I've read, I don't know, many, many, many hundred books on 20th century American history. So I know a lot of things about it, but I don't, I wasn't the one who created that research. And there's a really big difference between the two. That's why your specialty matters so much when you're doing history. Now, what, what, what is that to say? The whole conversation is to say, when someone presents you with something and says, listen to this person, they are an expert, your very first question should be, what makes them an expert? It's not just that they know a lot of things. The very fact that that person is presenting themselves to you as an expert means they're going to know more about whatever it is than you do.
Gerrit The very fact that that person is presenting it to you means they feel very confident in that information. So we can't have a standard that is simply, does this person know more about that topic than I do? Because inevitably if they're the ones presenting it to you, likely they do know more about that topic than you do. So how do we determine then whether or not someone is an expert? Well, I can tell you what the standard is in the field of history. In order to have credibility, an author or a historian needs to have two things. They need to have proper training, meaning in this case a PhD in not just history. In the actual field of history, you would actually have to have a PhD that specializes in the time period and in the topic that you are writing about.
Gerrit The very fact that that person is presenting it to you means they feel very confident in that information. So we can't have a standard that is simply, does this person know more about that topic than I do? Because inevitably if they're the ones presenting it to you, likely they do know more about that topic than you do. So how do we determine then whether or not someone is an expert? Well, I can tell you what the standard is in the field of history. In order to have credibility, an author or a historian needs to have two things. They need to have proper training, meaning in this case a PhD in not just history. In the actual field of history, you would actually have to have a PhD that specializes in the time period and in the topic that you are writing about.
Gerrit If I wrote a book about Roman history when I have a 19th century American history PhD, if there was even anything off about that, and by the way, there would be tons of things off about it, because I mean, again, I've read lots of Roman history. I love Roman history, but I'm not in the archives reading ancient Roman documents. I haven't been trained in how to use those documents, and so there would be some things lacking. Well, so that would be a very big issue, because I don't have the training in that era, even though I have other training. So the first thing is, when an academic calls someone a historian, they don't mean someone who really likes history. We often use that. Oh, yeah, Bill, he's such a historian. Sorry, Bill. Bill, I expect another email from you.
Gerrit If I wrote a book about Roman history when I have a 19th century American history PhD, if there was even anything off about that, and by the way, there would be tons of things off about it, because I mean, again, I've read lots of Roman history. I love Roman history, but I'm not in the archives reading ancient Roman documents. I haven't been trained in how to use those documents, and so there would be some things lacking. Well, so that would be a very big issue, because I don't have the training in that era, even though I have other training. So the first thing is, when an academic calls someone a historian, they don't mean someone who really likes history. We often use that. Oh, yeah, Bill, he's such a historian. Sorry, Bill. Bill, I expect another email from you.
Gerrit But Bill is such a historian. And I know what we mean when we say that. We mean someone's an enthusiast for history. But when an academic uses the term historian, they mean someone who has a Ph.D. in history. And, you know, I worked at an academic journal as one of the editors of Diplomatic History. It's the American Foreign Relations Journal for American Foreign Relations History. It's the journal, the Tier 1 for American Foreign Relations. And part of what I did as my job there as one of the editors was we received submissions and we sent them out for what is called double blind peer review. What does double blind mean? It means that the person I am sending the article to doesn't know who the author is. The person who the author is doesn't know who I'm sending it to. So there's no back channel communication where it's like, hey, I'm pretty sure they're sending you this.
Gerrit But Bill is such a historian. And I know what we mean when we say that. We mean someone's an enthusiast for history. But when an academic uses the term historian, they mean someone who has a Ph.D. in history. And, you know, I worked at an academic journal as one of the editors of Diplomatic History. It's the American Foreign Relations Journal for American Foreign Relations History. It's the journal, the Tier 1 for American Foreign Relations. And part of what I did as my job there as one of the editors was we received submissions and we sent them out for what is called double blind peer review. What does double blind mean? It means that the person I am sending the article to doesn't know who the author is. The person who the author is doesn't know who I'm sending it to. So there's no back channel communication where it's like, hey, I'm pretty sure they're sending you this.
Gerrit Please give me the green light on it. All right. Well, and we had a rule. Who could review articles for our journal? It wasn't good enough to have a PhD in history. You couldn't. You had to have a PhD in history, and you had to have published, in most cases, a book from a university press on the topic that was under consideration. And then you'd be allowed to review an article on the same topic. So even if I had a PhD in American history, and we got an article on American history, I wouldn't be qualified to review it because a qualified reviewer for diplomatic history for this journal was someone who had already been proven an expert in the field by their publication. And so that's the second part of what, you know, something goes through peer review.
Gerrit Please give me the green light on it. All right. Well, and we had a rule. Who could review articles for our journal? It wasn't good enough to have a PhD in history. You couldn't. You had to have a PhD in history, and you had to have published, in most cases, a book from a university press on the topic that was under consideration. And then you'd be allowed to review an article on the same topic. So even if I had a PhD in American history, and we got an article on American history, I wouldn't be qualified to review it because a qualified reviewer for diplomatic history for this journal was someone who had already been proven an expert in the field by their publication. And so that's the second part of what, you know, something goes through peer review.
Gerrit Why does it go through peer review? Well, it goes through peer review because someone who's an expert in what you're trying to write about knows all of the sources. Why is it blind? It's blind because you don't want personal feeling. I mean, look, if Richard wrote an article, Richard?
Gerrit Why does it go through peer review? Well, it goes through peer review because someone who's an expert in what you're trying to write about knows all of the sources. Why is it blind? It's blind because you don't want personal feeling. I mean, look, if Richard wrote an article, Richard?
Richard Yeah, no, I'm going to write an article about implied referrals and their impact on prospective buyer engagement, and I'm going to send it to you.
Richard Yeah, no, I'm going to write an article about implied referrals and their impact on prospective buyer engagement, and I'm going to send it to you.
Gerrit And you sent it to me, and I knew it was his. I would be much harsher on it. I mean, the reality is both of those things can happen. Maybe I know who you are as an author, and I say to myself when I get your article, well, I really don't like her, so I'm going to make sure she doesn't get published. Well, people are still people. So, you know, every academic would say no, that would never, ever, ever happen. But people are still people, which is the reason why it's double blind peer review. Nobody knows who's reviewing the article except for the journal. They do the same thing with books. They get blind reviewers to review the book. Now, the idea behind that is if there are some major issues or inconsistencies in the book, that that other author will point them out. Now, maybe he or she just kind of mails in their job. They don't really take it seriously, and they're like, sounds good, and they rubber stamp it. That's why standard practices, you send it to at least two, if not three other people to look at, because the hope is that not all...
Gerrit And you sent it to me, and I knew it was his. I would be much harsher on it. I mean, the reality is both of those things can happen. Maybe I know who you are as an author, and I say to myself when I get your article, well, I really don't like her, so I'm going to make sure she doesn't get published. Well, people are still people. So, you know, every academic would say no, that would never, ever, ever happen. But people are still people, which is the reason why it's double blind peer review. Nobody knows who's reviewing the article except for the journal. They do the same thing with books. They get blind reviewers to review the book. Now, the idea behind that is if there are some major issues or inconsistencies in the book, that that other author will point them out. Now, maybe he or she just kind of mails in their job. They don't really take it seriously, and they're like, sounds good, and they rubber stamp it. That's why standard practices, you send it to at least two, if not three other people to look at, because the hope is that not all...
Gerrit Now, with all that, are there still some really terrible books that are published by some historians that made it through the review process? Absolutely. But that's not the norm. A lot of things are weeded out. And I review things all the time, not just for Latter-day Saint history stuff, but for American history stuff in areas that I've published in, where someone sends me an article and says, can you review this? And I don't know who wrote it, and I'll go through it and be like, well, you know, this was really, really, really good, but this part here, that source, there's four other sources that say this. They need to track down what's going on with that source, you know, things like that. So the second way that you can determine whether or not something is credible or how much credit you should give to it. First of all, is the author properly trained? Do they have the actual academic qualifications to be an expert in what they're claiming to be an expert in?
Gerrit Now, with all that, are there still some really terrible books that are published by some historians that made it through the review process? Absolutely. But that's not the norm. A lot of things are weeded out. And I review things all the time, not just for Latter-day Saint history stuff, but for American history stuff in areas that I've published in, where someone sends me an article and says, can you review this? And I don't know who wrote it, and I'll go through it and be like, well, you know, this was really, really, really good, but this part here, that source, there's four other sources that say this. They need to track down what's going on with that source, you know, things like that. So the second way that you can determine whether or not something is credible or how much credit you should give to it. First of all, is the author properly trained? Do they have the actual academic qualifications to be an expert in what they're claiming to be an expert in?
Gerrit And as I said before, we do this with every other single walk of life, every other walk of life. No one is okay with a dentist who just says, I'm not accredited, I didn't go to dental school, but I was a hygienist for a little while and I watched a lot of these root canals.
Gerrit And as I said before, we do this with every other single walk of life, every other walk of life. No one is okay with a dentist who just says, I'm not accredited, I didn't go to dental school, but I was a hygienist for a little while and I watched a lot of these root canals.
Richard And there might be listeners that are listening to this saying, well, this is a pretty ridiculous standard for someone who's making an argument about a particular thing. But as you're saying this, we're going to point out specific examples that is claimed by the author to show if she was an expert, she wouldn't have said.
Richard And there might be listeners that are listening to this saying, well, this is a pretty ridiculous standard for someone who's making an argument about a particular thing. But as you're saying this, we're going to point out specific examples that is claimed by the author to show if she was an expert, she wouldn't have said.
Gerrit She wouldn't have made that argument. The mistake. Well, and so you have the first standard is the one of education. Now, again, someone might push back on that and say, well, you're sitting there in your ivory tower and da. The reality is there's a reason why there's a process whereby people become experts. Because it's not just because I opened a subreddit or because I opened a YouTube. I mean, the fact that I have the ability to say something, as you well know, if you've been on social media ever, the fact that someone has the ability to say something doesn't actually make what they say accurate. Right. And so we get that. We understand that in every other walk of our life. But when it's something that we're passionate about, we sometimes set the rules a little bit on the side because we're passionate about it. So that's the first part, the education. The second part is where was this thing published?
Gerrit She wouldn't have made that argument. The mistake. Well, and so you have the first standard is the one of education. Now, again, someone might push back on that and say, well, you're sitting there in your ivory tower and da. The reality is there's a reason why there's a process whereby people become experts. Because it's not just because I opened a subreddit or because I opened a YouTube. I mean, the fact that I have the ability to say something, as you well know, if you've been on social media ever, the fact that someone has the ability to say something doesn't actually make what they say accurate. Right. And so we get that. We understand that in every other walk of our life. But when it's something that we're passionate about, we sometimes set the rules a little bit on the side because we're passionate about it. So that's the first part, the education. The second part is where was this thing published?
Gerrit Who vetted this before it was published? Again, you're not going to weed out all of the incorrect information that's out there. I mean, I read a biography of James Buchanan once that said that James Buchanan sent the army to Utah to punish the Mormons because of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Well, the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened as part of the Mormon reaction to the fact that an army was coming to Utah. So that author was 100% wrong. And clearly, it was a minor part of the biography. And so I'm guessing whoever they sent that biography to wasn't really a Latter-day Saint historian, right? So they didn't know that. So look, things do get through. But here are some really big red flags. So these are some red flags to watch for when someone is claiming to be a credible source of information. If what they are claiming as, again, not religiously, religiously is completely different.
Gerrit Who vetted this before it was published? Again, you're not going to weed out all of the incorrect information that's out there. I mean, I read a biography of James Buchanan once that said that James Buchanan sent the army to Utah to punish the Mormons because of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Well, the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened as part of the Mormon reaction to the fact that an army was coming to Utah. So that author was 100% wrong. And clearly, it was a minor part of the biography. And so I'm guessing whoever they sent that biography to wasn't really a Latter-day Saint historian, right? So they didn't know that. So look, things do get through. But here are some really big red flags. So these are some red flags to watch for when someone is claiming to be a credible source of information. If what they are claiming as, again, not religiously, religiously is completely different.
Gerrit If they're claiming something as historical fact, but it is not being published by a reputable publisher, you have to ask yourself the question of why isn't it? Secondly, when someone claims a wide ranging, oh, no one else knows about this, but me type of argument. One of the things you have to ask yourself, like we talked about a couple podcasts ago, is why is this person the one saying it? If what they're saying is so obvious, if what they're saying really does stand to reason, then why aren't other PhD trained historians saying what that person is saying? Now, that's not to say that people can't uncover new things. I had a woman from my former ward show up at my house a few weeks ago with a letter that was written to her grandfather by one of the apostles.
Gerrit If they're claiming something as historical fact, but it is not being published by a reputable publisher, you have to ask yourself the question of why isn't it? Secondly, when someone claims a wide ranging, oh, no one else knows about this, but me type of argument. One of the things you have to ask yourself, like we talked about a couple podcasts ago, is why is this person the one saying it? If what they're saying is so obvious, if what they're saying really does stand to reason, then why aren't other PhD trained historians saying what that person is saying? Now, that's not to say that people can't uncover new things. I had a woman from my former ward show up at my house a few weeks ago with a letter that was written to her grandfather by one of the apostles.
Gerrit Well, I didn't know that that letter existed. I got to read through it. It was cool. So it's not to say we're not going to learn new things, but it's a way of determining whether or not the person's claim, especially when we're talking religious history, is often nobody knows this. Look what I just discovered that nobody knows. Nobody knows this. Well, is it that nobody knows that? Or is it that everybody knows what you're talking about, at least every academic does, but they just don't agree with your argument? And so the standard in history publishing is university presses. That's the standard. The standard is a university press. University presses follow a standard set of rules. Again, do they publish books that get by the reviewers?
Gerrit Well, I didn't know that that letter existed. I got to read through it. It was cool. So it's not to say we're not going to learn new things, but it's a way of determining whether or not the person's claim, especially when we're talking religious history, is often nobody knows this. Look what I just discovered that nobody knows. Nobody knows this. Well, is it that nobody knows that? Or is it that everybody knows what you're talking about, at least every academic does, but they just don't agree with your argument? And so the standard in history publishing is university presses. That's the standard. The standard is a university press. University presses follow a standard set of rules. Again, do they publish books that get by the reviewers?
Gerrit Sure, but it's not the norm. So when you're confronted with a book like this book, one of the first questions to ask is, what are the qualifications of the author? Second question to ask is, who published it? How reputable is that publisher? Well, we can talk about this. First of all, this author is going to be referred to by the podcast interview that our listener is talking about. She's introduced on that podcast as a historian, but she doesn't have a degree in history. And she doesn't even have a bachelor's degree in history. She is a nurse, a retired nurse, which, you know, nurses are wonderfully intelligent. Nurses smarter than me, but not in history, because that's not what they were trained in. She then got a master's degree in, you know, liberal arts and philosophy is what she says on her bio.
Gerrit Sure, but it's not the norm. So when you're confronted with a book like this book, one of the first questions to ask is, what are the qualifications of the author? Second question to ask is, who published it? How reputable is that publisher? Well, we can talk about this. First of all, this author is going to be referred to by the podcast interview that our listener is talking about. She's introduced on that podcast as a historian, but she doesn't have a degree in history. And she doesn't even have a bachelor's degree in history. She is a nurse, a retired nurse, which, you know, nurses are wonderfully intelligent. Nurses smarter than me, but not in history, because that's not what they were trained in. She then got a master's degree in, you know, liberal arts and philosophy is what she says on her bio.
Gerrit But again, philosophy, it might sound like it's history, but it's not history. It's not. And so that doesn't mean that what she presents is going to be false, but it does mean that I am going to be much more careful about the way she uses sources. Because I know that she has not gone through a PhD training that taught her how to use historical sources. I know that because she hasn't had that education. Now that, again, that's no commentary on anyone's intelligence level. You can be a brilliant person without a PhD, but a brilliant person without a PhD in history hasn't yet been trained on how to properly use historical sources. They haven't been.
Gerrit But again, philosophy, it might sound like it's history, but it's not history. It's not. And so that doesn't mean that what she presents is going to be false, but it does mean that I am going to be much more careful about the way she uses sources. Because I know that she has not gone through a PhD training that taught her how to use historical sources. I know that because she hasn't had that education. Now that, again, that's no commentary on anyone's intelligence level. You can be a brilliant person without a PhD, but a brilliant person without a PhD in history hasn't yet been trained on how to properly use historical sources. They haven't been.
Richard So one example that is cited in the interview and in the book is the importance of original sources. She talks about how she went to original sources, how original sources are so important. Could you speak to original sources and the problem with someone having an original source but not necessarily understanding the context of original sources?
Richard So one example that is cited in the interview and in the book is the importance of original sources. She talks about how she went to original sources, how original sources are so important. Could you speak to original sources and the problem with someone having an original source but not necessarily understanding the context of original sources?
Gerrit Let me first finish up on the second point of the publisher, and then I'll go to that. So who published this book? It's a very fat book. It looks kind of formidable. It has a nice cover, actually. Very good cover art. I mean, whoever did that, it's a very good designer. Well, it's published by a press called Lyrical Productions. Well, I'm not aware of the University of Lyrical Productions, right? So I need to now be a little bit more hesitant because this is not an academic press. So I go do a little bit more investigation. What do I find? Well, Lyrical Productions is actually the name of the publication company that Mrs. Melonakos herself created. So this book is a book that was self-published by the author themselves.
Gerrit Let me first finish up on the second point of the publisher, and then I'll go to that. So who published this book? It's a very fat book. It looks kind of formidable. It has a nice cover, actually. Very good cover art. I mean, whoever did that, it's a very good designer. Well, it's published by a press called Lyrical Productions. Well, I'm not aware of the University of Lyrical Productions, right? So I need to now be a little bit more hesitant because this is not an academic press. So I go do a little bit more investigation. What do I find? Well, Lyrical Productions is actually the name of the publication company that Mrs. Melonakos herself created. So this book is a book that was self-published by the author themselves.
Gerrit Now, does that mean that everything in it is false? No. But what does it tell me immediately? That the level of vetting of the material in that book certainly did not go through double blind peer review. How do I know that it didn't? Well, because she is the publisher. So she couldn't blindly send her own book out to someone not knowing who she was sending it to because she's the one doing it. Even if she arranged with someone to privately or secretly do that, which she doesn't say that she does, that person would know who she is and that she is the author. That is the problem first and foremost. So when we talk about, you know, what is the book fat? Yep, the book is really fat. Does the book have a lot of footnotes? Yes.
Gerrit Now, does that mean that everything in it is false? No. But what does it tell me immediately? That the level of vetting of the material in that book certainly did not go through double blind peer review. How do I know that it didn't? Well, because she is the publisher. So she couldn't blindly send her own book out to someone not knowing who she was sending it to because she's the one doing it. Even if she arranged with someone to privately or secretly do that, which she doesn't say that she does, that person would know who she is and that she is the author. That is the problem first and foremost. So when we talk about, you know, what is the book fat? Yep, the book is really fat. Does the book have a lot of footnotes? Yes.
Gerrit Is it published by a credible publisher? No, it's not. That doesn't mean that the book doesn't look good, but it means that the claims that are in it have not been vetted before it was published by actual double blind peer review historians. Now to the question of footnotes, yeah, she's going to make a claim that, you know, I went to the original sources, I went to the original sources, I went to the original sources. There's a couple of problems with that. As you go through the footnotes in the book, what you find is that almost none of the footnotes are original sources, meaning she's not citing the archive where this letter is actually residing. She didn't make a trip out to Yale and read the letter that's there. She's citing someone else's published version of that source.
Gerrit Is it published by a credible publisher? No, it's not. That doesn't mean that the book doesn't look good, but it means that the claims that are in it have not been vetted before it was published by actual double blind peer review historians. Now to the question of footnotes, yeah, she's going to make a claim that, you know, I went to the original sources, I went to the original sources, I went to the original sources. There's a couple of problems with that. As you go through the footnotes in the book, what you find is that almost none of the footnotes are original sources, meaning she's not citing the archive where this letter is actually residing. She didn't make a trip out to Yale and read the letter that's there. She's citing someone else's published version of that source.
Gerrit Now, that's a practice that's acceptable, but it is important to understand that when someone is claiming, I went and did original research, but then they cite to someone else's published version of what that thing is, that's coming through a filter. I think the question Richard asked is, even if they have those original sources, which in this case, frankly, I don't see a whole lot of evidence. I went through several hundred of these footnotes. Almost every single one of them is simply citing to another published source. Even if you had all of the actual original sources that you went and looked up yourself, part of the problem is you haven't been trained to know how to use that source properly. And again, if you haven't gone through PhD school, you might be sitting there thinking, well, that's ridiculous.
Gerrit Now, that's a practice that's acceptable, but it is important to understand that when someone is claiming, I went and did original research, but then they cite to someone else's published version of what that thing is, that's coming through a filter. I think the question Richard asked is, even if they have those original sources, which in this case, frankly, I don't see a whole lot of evidence. I went through several hundred of these footnotes. Almost every single one of them is simply citing to another published source. Even if you had all of the actual original sources that you went and looked up yourself, part of the problem is you haven't been trained to know how to use that source properly. And again, if you haven't gone through PhD school, you might be sitting there thinking, well, that's ridiculous.
Gerrit All you have to do is read the letter and you know what it means. Well, there's a lot more to it than that actually, because you would understand what is an appropriate and inappropriate use of a source. You would understand how it is you use multiple different sources with different conflicting accounts. You wouldn't know that if you aren't trained how to do it, or at the very least, you didn't have to prove to a PhD board that you actually did that, which is what you have to do to get your PhD. You have to demonstrate your ability to take a bunch of primary sources and essentially write a book, a book that's approved not by people who like you, but by people who want to crush you and want to see you fail.
Gerrit All you have to do is read the letter and you know what it means. Well, there's a lot more to it than that actually, because you would understand what is an appropriate and inappropriate use of a source. You would understand how it is you use multiple different sources with different conflicting accounts. You wouldn't know that if you aren't trained how to do it, or at the very least, you didn't have to prove to a PhD board that you actually did that, which is what you have to do to get your PhD. You have to demonstrate your ability to take a bunch of primary sources and essentially write a book, a book that's approved not by people who like you, but by people who want to crush you and want to see you fail.
Richard Could you speak to maybe even the importance of context? So if you're reading one letter, two letter, a couple of original sources, but you don't know the context of even the timeframe that it's being written, how might that impact something, maybe how you're interpreting it?
Richard Could you speak to maybe even the importance of context? So if you're reading one letter, two letter, a couple of original sources, but you don't know the context of even the timeframe that it's being written, how might that impact something, maybe how you're interpreting it?
Gerrit Yeah, I mean, I think you could even see that even in our day, right? I mean, we have all kinds of phrases that we say that we don't mean literally at all, but we say them. So how often does someone say something like, I'm so mad I could kill somebody, right? Now, maybe you shouldn't say that. I'm not saying that you should. But how often do you hear people say things like that? What if all you had was their tweet saying, oh man, if he didn't pick up that car, I'm going to kill him. Right? Well, great grandfather was a murderer. That's the conclusion you would come to if you didn't actually know that in the 21st century, people often used hyperbolic phrases like that in their tweets without actually meaning that they were going to kill the person for not picking up their car from the mechanic. They use hyperbole in the 19th century too, but how are you going to know what that hyperbole is if you haven't gone through the necessary steps of the training to know it?
Gerrit Yeah, I mean, I think you could even see that even in our day, right? I mean, we have all kinds of phrases that we say that we don't mean literally at all, but we say them. So how often does someone say something like, I'm so mad I could kill somebody, right? Now, maybe you shouldn't say that. I'm not saying that you should. But how often do you hear people say things like that? What if all you had was their tweet saying, oh man, if he didn't pick up that car, I'm going to kill him. Right? Well, great grandfather was a murderer. That's the conclusion you would come to if you didn't actually know that in the 21st century, people often used hyperbolic phrases like that in their tweets without actually meaning that they were going to kill the person for not picking up their car from the mechanic. They use hyperbole in the 19th century too, but how are you going to know what that hyperbole is if you haven't gone through the necessary steps of the training to know it?
Gerrit So you might take something as very literal that was never taken as literal by anyone ever at the time, but you took it because to you it seems literal. I mean, that's an example. Everyone is... Let me just say, as a historian, you want to be very careful that you know the primary sources. When I say a primary source, I mean the original source, what the source originally said. I was talking to Richard about this over a mod pizza, and I told him that, look, this is the case even in the church. We talked a few podcasts ago about how the history of the church was created. Remember, we had a question that someone asked about how, oh, how come what's in the history of the church isn't word for word what was in Joseph Smith's journal? I told Richard that there's a really stunning example of how you can't just rely on what someone did before you to make the argument that you're going to make, that a lot of the times you need to actually replicate that research yourself to make sure that whatever they're saying is accurate.
Gerrit So you might take something as very literal that was never taken as literal by anyone ever at the time, but you took it because to you it seems literal. I mean, that's an example. Everyone is... Let me just say, as a historian, you want to be very careful that you know the primary sources. When I say a primary source, I mean the original source, what the source originally said. I was talking to Richard about this over a mod pizza, and I told him that, look, this is the case even in the church. We talked a few podcasts ago about how the history of the church was created. Remember, we had a question that someone asked about how, oh, how come what's in the history of the church isn't word for word what was in Joseph Smith's journal? I told Richard that there's a really stunning example of how you can't just rely on what someone did before you to make the argument that you're going to make, that a lot of the times you need to actually replicate that research yourself to make sure that whatever they're saying is accurate.
Gerrit So, in fact, I was out in Sharon, Vermont just a little bit ago at the church's historic site there. One of the images they have on the wall is a list of the children of Joseph and Emma Smith. And honestly, it's a tragic list. It's a list that brings tears to your eyes because of just how many children they lose. I mean, we've talked about it before, but they lose their first son. Then they have twins that are born that die immediately. Then they adopt the Murdoch twins, and one of them dies. And then Joseph's toddler dies in 1841. Don Carlos, right after his own brother, dies. I mean, it is certainly an answer to the fact that sometimes bad things happen to good people is certainly the case for Joseph and Emma.
Gerrit So, in fact, I was out in Sharon, Vermont just a little bit ago at the church's historic site there. One of the images they have on the wall is a list of the children of Joseph and Emma Smith. And honestly, it's a tragic list. It's a list that brings tears to your eyes because of just how many children they lose. I mean, we've talked about it before, but they lose their first son. Then they have twins that are born that die immediately. Then they adopt the Murdoch twins, and one of them dies. And then Joseph's toddler dies in 1841. Don Carlos, right after his own brother, dies. I mean, it is certainly an answer to the fact that sometimes bad things happen to good people is certainly the case for Joseph and Emma.
Gerrit They suffer a lot. But on this list, there was a child listed, December 26, 1842, and that child didn't have a name and said died right after birth. Now, I knew about this because I had worked on the Joseph Smith Papers, and I knew why that was there. So I kind of want to demonstrate that to you, why original sources matter. So knowing, first of all, how the history of the church was created matters. You know, because I just think like, oh, this has been, you know, the church vetted all this. Obviously, this is the history of the church. Well, the history of the church was created, as I talked about in those previous episodes. It was primarily, much of it was written, much of the early stuff was written in Joseph Smith's lifetime with Willard Richards serving as one of the primary church historians. After Joseph was murdered, Richards continues to work on it, but he dies in 1854.
Gerrit They suffer a lot. But on this list, there was a child listed, December 26, 1842, and that child didn't have a name and said died right after birth. Now, I knew about this because I had worked on the Joseph Smith Papers, and I knew why that was there. So I kind of want to demonstrate that to you, why original sources matter. So knowing, first of all, how the history of the church was created matters. You know, because I just think like, oh, this has been, you know, the church vetted all this. Obviously, this is the history of the church. Well, the history of the church was created, as I talked about in those previous episodes. It was primarily, much of it was written, much of the early stuff was written in Joseph Smith's lifetime with Willard Richards serving as one of the primary church historians. After Joseph was murdered, Richards continues to work on it, but he dies in 1854.
Gerrit And so, throughout the 1850s, there is a historian's office that is attempting to create this narrative history of the church. And the way they did it was by going through Joseph's letters and by going through Joseph's journals, going through the minutes of meetings, and cobbling all that together in what sounded like a first-person narrative. So the history of Joseph Smith didn't read like this. Then Joseph turning 18 moved to... no, it doesn't... it reads instead, so I decided that when I was 18, I would... like they put Joseph in the driver's seat in a first-person narrative, even though he's rarely writing like that. I mean, you might be quoting a letter where he is. Well, in Joseph's... in the History of the Church, if you go to the History of the Church for December 26 of 1842, let me just read that to you so you know what it says.
Gerrit And so, throughout the 1850s, there is a historian's office that is attempting to create this narrative history of the church. And the way they did it was by going through Joseph's letters and by going through Joseph's journals, going through the minutes of meetings, and cobbling all that together in what sounded like a first-person narrative. So the history of Joseph Smith didn't read like this. Then Joseph turning 18 moved to... no, it doesn't... it reads instead, so I decided that when I was 18, I would... like they put Joseph in the driver's seat in a first-person narrative, even though he's rarely writing like that. I mean, you might be quoting a letter where he is. Well, in Joseph's... in the History of the Church, if you go to the History of the Church for December 26 of 1842, let me just read that to you so you know what it says.
Gerrit And what I'm reading is the manuscript version of this. So this was the handwritten manuscript version of this that would eventually be published, later would be collated and published in the multi-volume History of the Church, you know, the often people have those paperback color coded copies of that, the different volumes. But the manuscript version of this reads explaining on this day, right? You can see how it's in this first person, right? You know, in the morning, held court, I was afterwards arrested by General Wilson Law and the Proclamation of Governor Carlin and elders Henry G. Sherwood and William Clayton went to Carthage to obtain a writ of habeas corpus to take me before the court at Springfield. General Law gave me in custody of Dr. Richards, with whom I visited Sister Maury, who was severely afflicted. So he goes on, you know, all this is what's going on day to day. It's a very busy day. Then when you get down to the end of it, he talks about how he received, you know, a walking stick from Brother Maury.
Gerrit And what I'm reading is the manuscript version of this. So this was the handwritten manuscript version of this that would eventually be published, later would be collated and published in the multi-volume History of the Church, you know, the often people have those paperback color coded copies of that, the different volumes. But the manuscript version of this reads explaining on this day, right? You can see how it's in this first person, right? You know, in the morning, held court, I was afterwards arrested by General Wilson Law and the Proclamation of Governor Carlin and elders Henry G. Sherwood and William Clayton went to Carthage to obtain a writ of habeas corpus to take me before the court at Springfield. General Law gave me in custody of Dr. Richards, with whom I visited Sister Maury, who was severely afflicted. So he goes on, you know, all this is what's going on day to day. It's a very busy day. Then when you get down to the end of it, he talks about how he received, you know, a walking stick from Brother Maury.
Gerrit And then it says, on my return home, I found my wife Emma sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth. Well, you know, Joseph kind of buried the lead, right? He's talking about how he got a walking stick and then, you know, just got home and found out that his wife not only gave birth, but the child died. And so it's yet another whore. And so that's where that information that was on that wall in Sharon came from. It came from this, the history of the church. This manuscript version was then published and it's, you know, you can go find this in your volume of the history of the church right now. But where did the information in the history of the church come from? That is the important question to ask as a historian because I can either accept what's there uncritically or I can go try to find out where it actually came from.
Gerrit And then it says, on my return home, I found my wife Emma sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth. Well, you know, Joseph kind of buried the lead, right? He's talking about how he got a walking stick and then, you know, just got home and found out that his wife not only gave birth, but the child died. And so it's yet another whore. And so that's where that information that was on that wall in Sharon came from. It came from this, the history of the church. This manuscript version was then published and it's, you know, you can go find this in your volume of the history of the church right now. But where did the information in the history of the church come from? That is the important question to ask as a historian because I can either accept what's there uncritically or I can go try to find out where it actually came from.
Gerrit And in this case, it comes from the entry in Joseph Smith's Journal for that day. That journal is kept by Willard Richards. Now, Willard Richards is a, you know, we have so much of church history. I mean, aside from, you know, being caricatured as a, as a five pistol holding murderer, what he actually is, is a, is someone we owe a lot of our church history to, because he spent so much time and effort collecting and producing this early church history. He served as, as a scribe and a clerk for Joseph Smith and as a secretary. And so he is the one who actually records Joseph's Journal. And as we said before, it's not entirely clear whether it's being dictated to him at times, or, or it's just him reflecting on what happened that day, you know, kind of keeping a track of what Joseph does as in the office of the president. But he's the one keeping the Journal for, for that day.
Gerrit And in this case, it comes from the entry in Joseph Smith's Journal for that day. That journal is kept by Willard Richards. Now, Willard Richards is a, you know, we have so much of church history. I mean, aside from, you know, being caricatured as a, as a five pistol holding murderer, what he actually is, is a, is someone we owe a lot of our church history to, because he spent so much time and effort collecting and producing this early church history. He served as, as a scribe and a clerk for Joseph Smith and as a secretary. And so he is the one who actually records Joseph's Journal. And as we said before, it's not entirely clear whether it's being dictated to him at times, or, or it's just him reflecting on what happened that day, you know, kind of keeping a track of what Joseph does as in the office of the president. But he's the one keeping the Journal for, for that day.
Gerrit And so when we go to Joseph Smith's Journal, what we find is some similar things as we're there in the history of the church. But when we get down to that portion that we just read about this, this tragedy of Joseph's child dying, we read this instead. Home. Sister Emma Sick had another, and you can see it's C-H-I-L. And I, you know, I've, I've often said that, you know, Willard Richards at times, he writes quickly. He writes illegibly. There are many times I've been shouting at a page written by Willard Richards. Can I buy a vowel? Willard. What is that? I see a T and that's it. What are the rest of those letters? Because he's in a hurry. And in this case, the way that he's written the second L on the word chill, looks like it could be a D. And so when this was being transcribed, the worker in the historian's office in Utah, so many years removed from this scene, transcribed it as Sister Emma Sick had another child.
Gerrit And so when we go to Joseph Smith's Journal, what we find is some similar things as we're there in the history of the church. But when we get down to that portion that we just read about this, this tragedy of Joseph's child dying, we read this instead. Home. Sister Emma Sick had another, and you can see it's C-H-I-L. And I, you know, I've, I've often said that, you know, Willard Richards at times, he writes quickly. He writes illegibly. There are many times I've been shouting at a page written by Willard Richards. Can I buy a vowel? Willard. What is that? I see a T and that's it. What are the rest of those letters? Because he's in a hurry. And in this case, the way that he's written the second L on the word chill, looks like it could be a D. And so when this was being transcribed, the worker in the historian's office in Utah, so many years removed from this scene, transcribed it as Sister Emma Sick had another child.
Gerrit Well, I think all of the women listening at the very least would argue that there is at least a slight difference between having a chill and being sick and having a baby, that at least I've been told.
Gerrit Well, I think all of the women listening at the very least would argue that there is at least a slight difference between having a chill and being sick and having a baby, that at least I've been told.
Richard I've also been told that.
Richard I've also been told that.
Gerrit Yes, that they're not the same thing. Well, so then you're thinking, well, where does the rest, I mean, because the history of the church says, had it had a child, it didn't survive its birth. Well, because remember, they're creating a narrative. So you can see this poor guy in the historian's office copying this over. And after it's copied over, it's Sister Emma Sick had another, you know, Sister Emma Sick had another child. Well, well, who's that child? I mean, we know who Joe's kids are. I don't know this one. So obviously that child must have died. And so what gets written into the history is on my return home, I found my wife Emma Sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth. Now, maybe the reason why they added the delivered of a son in there was that whoever's working in the historian's office, maybe they remember that Joseph did have a male child that died, or they remember hearing about that.
Gerrit Yes, that they're not the same thing. Well, so then you're thinking, well, where does the rest, I mean, because the history of the church says, had it had a child, it didn't survive its birth. Well, because remember, they're creating a narrative. So you can see this poor guy in the historian's office copying this over. And after it's copied over, it's Sister Emma Sick had another, you know, Sister Emma Sick had another child. Well, well, who's that child? I mean, we know who Joe's kids are. I don't know this one. So obviously that child must have died. And so what gets written into the history is on my return home, I found my wife Emma Sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth. Now, maybe the reason why they added the delivered of a son in there was that whoever's working in the historian's office, maybe they remember that Joseph did have a male child that died, or they remember hearing about that.
Gerrit Maybe they're thinking back in 1828, when Joseph did have a son die at birth, or when Joseph had twins and one of them died at birth, or maybe they were even thinking of Don Carlos, the toddler who dies in 1841. I don't know exactly what they were thinking when they added it, but you can tell that they added the extra information to try to make it make sense. If Joseph had a child, then I think we should know who Joseph's children are. Well, we don't know this one, so that one must not have survived. And so they wrote in there on my return home, I found my wife Emma sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth, even though the actual source says, at home, sister Emma sick had another chill. And then the next line is, had a consultation concerning her with the secretary. The reason why is because, you know, Dr. Richards, right?
Gerrit Maybe they're thinking back in 1828, when Joseph did have a son die at birth, or when Joseph had twins and one of them died at birth, or maybe they were even thinking of Don Carlos, the toddler who dies in 1841. I don't know exactly what they were thinking when they added it, but you can tell that they added the extra information to try to make it make sense. If Joseph had a child, then I think we should know who Joseph's children are. Well, we don't know this one, so that one must not have survived. And so they wrote in there on my return home, I found my wife Emma sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth, even though the actual source says, at home, sister Emma sick had another chill. And then the next line is, had a consultation concerning her with the secretary. The reason why is because, you know, Dr. Richards, right?
Gerrit So there's, she's sick. And so Joseph asked, well, you know, what would you do? Here's an example where there's no ill intent. Nobody is attempting to do anything to deceive anyone here. But inertia is a really powerful thing in the field of history. Once something gets written down and published a certain way, oftentimes people very uncritically take that argument and they build the entire basis of another argument on it. We talked about this when we talked about the faux documentary of Willard Richards and John Taylor and their murderous rage in Carthage. Part of the reason why the author of that film made the argument they did was because an erroneous argument had been published years earlier.
Gerrit So there's, she's sick. And so Joseph asked, well, you know, what would you do? Here's an example where there's no ill intent. Nobody is attempting to do anything to deceive anyone here. But inertia is a really powerful thing in the field of history. Once something gets written down and published a certain way, oftentimes people very uncritically take that argument and they build the entire basis of another argument on it. We talked about this when we talked about the faux documentary of Willard Richards and John Taylor and their murderous rage in Carthage. Part of the reason why the author of that film made the argument they did was because an erroneous argument had been published years earlier.
Gerrit And then using that erroneous argument, but without going back and retracing it to see if that argument was even accurate, that opened the door for opportunities to make other bad arguments. This is something that we actually see here in the beginning of her work and her argument. Just to summarize, one of the arguments that is made, this is a book about a conspiracy theory. She rejects any and all aspects of the divinity of Joseph Smith's mission and in fact tries to place him and his entire family in a wider network of people trying to counterfeit money, treasure dig for money, an affiliation with Masonry, which is pretty convoluted the way that she tries to describe it in her interviews and even more so in the book. And that places a taint on all of Latter-day Saint history, that these people are just a bunch of conspiratorial criminals trying to get away with their crimes.
Gerrit And then using that erroneous argument, but without going back and retracing it to see if that argument was even accurate, that opened the door for opportunities to make other bad arguments. This is something that we actually see here in the beginning of her work and her argument. Just to summarize, one of the arguments that is made, this is a book about a conspiracy theory. She rejects any and all aspects of the divinity of Joseph Smith's mission and in fact tries to place him and his entire family in a wider network of people trying to counterfeit money, treasure dig for money, an affiliation with Masonry, which is pretty convoluted the way that she tries to describe it in her interviews and even more so in the book. And that places a taint on all of Latter-day Saint history, that these people are just a bunch of conspiratorial criminals trying to get away with their crimes.
Gerrit In fact, she'll get to the point in her interview and in the book where she'll argue that part of the reason why Joseph introduced plural marriage was to try to keep those people on the fringes of his counterfeiting network, try to keep them solidified to him through these family marriages. There are, it would take me, honestly, it would take till season 38 to go through every inaccurate, overstated or false claim in the book. And as I go through them, it will come across to you as if I'm being very, you know, very, well, come on, Gerrit, I mean, that's just a small point. I'm giving you only the very briefest of small examples that demonstrate what happens when someone with an ax to grind, who is a part of and affiliated with one of the well, longer standing anti-Mormon groups now, that what kinds of mistakes they make.
Gerrit In fact, she'll get to the point in her interview and in the book where she'll argue that part of the reason why Joseph introduced plural marriage was to try to keep those people on the fringes of his counterfeiting network, try to keep them solidified to him through these family marriages. There are, it would take me, honestly, it would take till season 38 to go through every inaccurate, overstated or false claim in the book. And as I go through them, it will come across to you as if I'm being very, you know, very, well, come on, Gerrit, I mean, that's just a small point. I'm giving you only the very briefest of small examples that demonstrate what happens when someone with an ax to grind, who is a part of and affiliated with one of the well, longer standing anti-Mormon groups now, that what kinds of mistakes they make.
Gerrit I mean, look, some of them are basic mistakes. For instance, you know, she argues that, you know, trying to make a connection between Joseph Smith and the idea of the Native Americans being descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. She makes just a historical factual statement that, you know, as early as 1652, there were, you know, people started, you know, theorizing that Native Americans, you know, might have been part of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Well, if you remember on one of our previous podcasts, it's actually much earlier than that. It's actually a hundred years earlier than that, that people first start saying that there's a connection between Native Americans and the Lost Tribes of Israel. Now, that's a very small point, and you might say, well, come on, Gerrit, you're just being a little bit overly harsh.
Gerrit I mean, look, some of them are basic mistakes. For instance, you know, she argues that, you know, trying to make a connection between Joseph Smith and the idea of the Native Americans being descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. She makes just a historical factual statement that, you know, as early as 1652, there were, you know, people started, you know, theorizing that Native Americans, you know, might have been part of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Well, if you remember on one of our previous podcasts, it's actually much earlier than that. It's actually a hundred years earlier than that, that people first start saying that there's a connection between Native Americans and the Lost Tribes of Israel. Now, that's a very small point, and you might say, well, come on, Gerrit, you're just being a little bit overly harsh.
Gerrit Well, when you are making a claim that Joseph Smith did not receive any miraculous intervention, that he never had gold plates, that he never saw an angel, that he never saw God, and that I can historically prove it. Well, then I guess you better get your history right, because you're the one arguing that Joseph Smith is a liar because you can prove it through history. Well, if you're going to prove things through history, then I suggest getting the argument correct, because when you don't, I don't have... Look, I believe Joseph Smith is a prophet because the Holy Spirit told me that Joseph Smith is a prophet. In addition to that, I've also read all the stuff that he ever wrote and did. But I believe because of the Holy Spirit. But if you want me to accept your argument, your historical argument, well, you don't take historical arguments on faith.
Gerrit Well, when you are making a claim that Joseph Smith did not receive any miraculous intervention, that he never had gold plates, that he never saw an angel, that he never saw God, and that I can historically prove it. Well, then I guess you better get your history right, because you're the one arguing that Joseph Smith is a liar because you can prove it through history. Well, if you're going to prove things through history, then I suggest getting the argument correct, because when you don't, I don't have... Look, I believe Joseph Smith is a prophet because the Holy Spirit told me that Joseph Smith is a prophet. In addition to that, I've also read all the stuff that he ever wrote and did. But I believe because of the Holy Spirit. But if you want me to accept your argument, your historical argument, well, you don't take historical arguments on faith.
Gerrit Historical arguments come with proof. One of the things you'll find in this book, if you were to read it, is over and over and over and over again, you will get things like it stands to reason. Obviously, here's actually really a great clue for life. If ever you're in a discussion with someone, an argument with someone, and they say obviously, what is about to follow is something that clearly isn't obvious. It's a very funny aspect of the English language that whenever we say things like clearly, what we're about to say must not actually be that clear. Because if it was, we wouldn't have to say clearly. Now, look, you could go through and clip me up. I do it all the time because I'm also an American, right? So I speak with that same kind of lexicon. But the reality is when we say things like it stands to reason or Joseph must have or Hyrum certainly would have, if you ever read that, what it means, it is the author with a giant megaphone screaming in your ear, I don't have a source for this.
Gerrit Historical arguments come with proof. One of the things you'll find in this book, if you were to read it, is over and over and over and over again, you will get things like it stands to reason. Obviously, here's actually really a great clue for life. If ever you're in a discussion with someone, an argument with someone, and they say obviously, what is about to follow is something that clearly isn't obvious. It's a very funny aspect of the English language that whenever we say things like clearly, what we're about to say must not actually be that clear. Because if it was, we wouldn't have to say clearly. Now, look, you could go through and clip me up. I do it all the time because I'm also an American, right? So I speak with that same kind of lexicon. But the reality is when we say things like it stands to reason or Joseph must have or Hyrum certainly would have, if you ever read that, what it means, it is the author with a giant megaphone screaming in your ear, I don't have a source for this.
Gerrit But I want it to be true. So I say it. Now, a very responsible scholar would say it this way. It is possible that while Hiram was going to school, he may have made connections with some of the people living in the area. But if he did, we don't have any record of those interactions. Now, that's what a historian writes. What does someone write who is just trying to make an argument and claim that it's historical? Obviously, Hiram would have clearly made associations with the people that were there, and those associations would have influenced his thinking. Now, notice the difference. Not only am I just taking for granted that an association took place, I am then taking it a step further. Obviously, he had an association, and this is what he would have learned from that association.
Gerrit But I want it to be true. So I say it. Now, a very responsible scholar would say it this way. It is possible that while Hiram was going to school, he may have made connections with some of the people living in the area. But if he did, we don't have any record of those interactions. Now, that's what a historian writes. What does someone write who is just trying to make an argument and claim that it's historical? Obviously, Hiram would have clearly made associations with the people that were there, and those associations would have influenced his thinking. Now, notice the difference. Not only am I just taking for granted that an association took place, I am then taking it a step further. Obviously, he had an association, and this is what he would have learned from that association.
Gerrit Two things for which I don't have a source. Historians, careful historians, try to only argue about the things that they can actually prove. Now, I know there was a lot of setup in this episode, but what I want to talk about next time as we cover more of the meaty details of the book is one of the arguments that is made, and it was made again online, and it's kind of making the rounds again, is an argument that is purported to be a new argument, but it's only a new argument if you didn't know that it existed before. When you first learn about something, it's always new to you, right? When Richard tried to tell me what his dissertation topic was, it was very new to me and also very boring. I mean, I don't...
Gerrit Two things for which I don't have a source. Historians, careful historians, try to only argue about the things that they can actually prove. Now, I know there was a lot of setup in this episode, but what I want to talk about next time as we cover more of the meaty details of the book is one of the arguments that is made, and it was made again online, and it's kind of making the rounds again, is an argument that is purported to be a new argument, but it's only a new argument if you didn't know that it existed before. When you first learn about something, it's always new to you, right? When Richard tried to tell me what his dissertation topic was, it was very new to me and also very boring. I mean, I don't...
Richard No, it's very boring.
Richard No, it's very boring.
Gerrit Richard's the one writing it, and he's like, this is just so boring. Amazing, effective, and also...
Gerrit Richard's the one writing it, and he's like, this is just so boring. Amazing, effective, and also...
Richard So very boring.
Richard So very boring.
Gerrit I mean, we could package it and sell it in a way that Ambien never could touch. Absolutely. Maybe we should do it behind... You know what? We're going to start a premium...
Gerrit I mean, we could package it and sell it in a way that Ambien never could touch. Absolutely. Maybe we should do it behind... You know what? We're going to start a premium...
Richard A paywall where I read my dissertation to help people drift off to slumber.
Richard A paywall where I read my dissertation to help people drift off to slumber.
Gerrit How many people struggle with sleep?
Gerrit How many people struggle with sleep?
Richard It's a huge issue.
Richard It's a huge issue.
Gerrit It's a huge issue. And Richard could just be like, what's the title of your dissertation going to be?
Gerrit It's a huge issue. And Richard could just be like, what's the title of your dissertation going to be?
Richard Well, it's a working title.
Richard Well, it's a working title.
Gerrit Give me your prospectus. What's the title of your prospectus?
Gerrit Give me your prospectus. What's the title of your prospectus?
Richard It's essentially the impact of brokerage theory and networking with the variable of implied referrals and several moderating factors on prospective buyer engagement.
Richard It's essentially the impact of brokerage theory and networking with the variable of implied referrals and several moderating factors on prospective buyer engagement.
Gerrit I'm glad we waited till the... We waited till the end of the podcast to do that because now if you drift off to sleep, you'll just miss the guy telling you to share this with anyone that you want to share it with. But one of the primary arguments that is made in both some of our online interviews, but also in this book, is that many of the religious truth claims of the Latter-day Saints, that Latter-day Saints herald as being radical and new and great and wonderful things, are actually pilfered and purloined from a relative of Joseph Smith who lives in the nearby area. Now that is a pretty bold claim because you're claiming again, you are making an argument that you know the origin of where Joseph Smith's truth claims come from. Now Joseph is saying they come from God. So if you're going to make a truth claim that they come from somewhere else, you need to bring something to the table that's more than just, I don't really think so.
Gerrit I'm glad we waited till the... We waited till the end of the podcast to do that because now if you drift off to sleep, you'll just miss the guy telling you to share this with anyone that you want to share it with. But one of the primary arguments that is made in both some of our online interviews, but also in this book, is that many of the religious truth claims of the Latter-day Saints, that Latter-day Saints herald as being radical and new and great and wonderful things, are actually pilfered and purloined from a relative of Joseph Smith who lives in the nearby area. Now that is a pretty bold claim because you're claiming again, you are making an argument that you know the origin of where Joseph Smith's truth claims come from. Now Joseph is saying they come from God. So if you're going to make a truth claim that they come from somewhere else, you need to bring something to the table that's more than just, I don't really think so.
Gerrit And so we will, we're going to get into that in the next episode. So thank you so much for joining us and hopefully we have you back for the completion of this next week.
Gerrit And so we will, we're going to get into that in the next episode. So thank you so much for joining us and hopefully we have you back for the completion of this next week.
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time!
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time!
Quote board
Make a share card from any lineWell, it's easy to assume you don't have a listener named, when you have like six listeners, what are the odds one of them's named Bill?
Most people don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah actually. Right?
You rarely find medical doctors saying it doesn't matter whether or not someone has a medical license or not.
But the point is, there is a gigantic difference between loving a thing and being enthusiastic about a thing and being an expert in that thing.
Well, I think all of the women listening at the very least would argue that there is at least a slight difference between having a chill and being sick and having a baby, that at least I've been told.
But inertia is a really powerful thing in the field of history.
Look, I believe Joseph Smith is a prophet because the Holy Spirit told me that Joseph Smith is a prophet.
If ever you're in a discussion with someone, an argument with someone, and they say obviously, what is about to follow is something that clearly isn't obvious.
I mean, we could package it and sell it in a way that Ambien never could touch.
Source shelf
10 sources cited on air · verses link to the scriptures, Joseph Smith’s documents to the Joseph Smith Papersother
Kathleen Melonakos, YouTube interview on early Mormon counterfeiting
Vicki's family members watched it; she is introduced there as a historian.
book
Kathleen Kimball Melonakos, Secret Combinations: Evidence of Early Mormon Counterfeiting, 1800-1847
Richard's birthday gift to Gerrit; self-published through her own Lyrical Productions.
article
Diplomatic History (journal of American foreign relations history)
Gerrit was one of its editors and explains its double-blind peer review rules.
book
A biography of James Buchanan (not named on air)
Claimed Buchanan sent the army to Utah because of Mountain Meadows, when the massacre happened in reaction to the army coming.
letter
A letter from an apostle to a ward member's grandfather (not named on air)
An example that new sources do turn up; Gerrit hadn't known it existed.
record
List of Joseph and Emma Smith's children at the Sharon, Vermont historic site
Lists an unnamed child born December 26, 1842 who died at birth.
book
History of the Church, manuscript entry for December 26, 1842
on my return home, I found my wife Emma sick. She was delivered of a son, which did not survive its birth.
Written in first person; reports Emma delivered a son who did not survive.
journal
Joseph Smith journal, kept by Willard Richards, December 26, 1842
Sister Emma Sick had another
The original likely says Emma had a "chill," not a child; a hurried L was read as a D.
other
Film claiming Willard Richards and John Taylor killed Joseph Smith in Carthage
An example of building on an earlier erroneous argument without checking it.
book
Melonakos, Secret Combinations, on the Lost Tribes theory from 1652
Gerrit notes people linked Native Americans to the Lost Tribes about a hundred years earlier.
Episode quiz
Pass to stamp your passportQuestion 1 of 7Score 0
What did the listener named Bill write in his email?
Fun with Numbers
This episode, counted from its transcript1:05:37long
13 minbefore the topic starts
10sources read or named
0scripture passages
9different years mentioned
0dollar amounts said
From 1652 to 1854
Every year mentioned in the episode. Tap one to jump to it.
Percentages said on air
Putting numbers to words
All 9,680 words of the automatic transcript, counted against a word list for each theme. It shows how much a theme comes up, not what was said about it. See the lists
Names said most
Joseph counts any Joseph.
Joseph 40Emma Smith 10
Signature words
Said often here and in few other episodes.
peer 7publisher 5footnotes 5nurse 4association 5survive 4
More from this episode
Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.
Claim check
What critics say, and what the episode foundIf an author has hundreds of footnotes and cites original sources, the book must be reliable.
Joseph and Emma lost an unnamed baby on December 26, 1842.
Take it to classReady to use in a lesson or a talk.
Take it to class
Ready to copy into a lesson or a textBefore trusting a history claim, ask two questions: Is the author trained in this field and period? Who published it, and did experts review it first?
Loving a subject and being an expert in it are not the same thing, whether it's football, Old Ironsides or Church history.
When a writer says "obviously" or "it stands to reason," check whether there's a source behind it.
A faith claim and a historical claim follow different rules. Gerrit believes Joseph was a prophet because of the Holy Spirit; a historical argument against him has to bring proof.
Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.
Banter bin
The running jokes, for people who skip aheadMailbag name of the weekSergio Piano Jimenez of Spain's state postal service, which also covers Andorra, a nod to Elder LeDuc in Barcelona (0:39, 1:22).
Bill I amThe fictional Bill turns out to be a real listener; Richard assumes he's busy (2:01, 3:03, 24:41).
The Christian rock bandA listener's car shows three emo band members as the podcast art, so the album tracks include "Joseph and the Gold Bible," "Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo," "Townships Everywhere" and "Rachel's Mom" (3:08, 4:06, 4:17).
Five-parterWhen Gerrit gets agitated during prep, it usually means a five-parter (5:35).
Books Gerrit hatesRichard's birthday tradition (12:14).
Happy Gilmore"Now you're in my world, Grandma" when faith claims become history claims (11:01).
Andy Reid on line oneGerrit's two seasons of flag football coaching have the Chiefs calling (17:21).
Can I buy a vowel, Willard?Gerrit shouting at Willard Richards's handwriting (50:13).
Richard's dissertation as a sleep aidImplied referrals and prospective buyer engagement, behind a paywall, better than Ambien (15:39, 1:03:04, 1:03:35).
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown MailbagSend Gerrit and Richard your question.
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag
Your question could be next week’s episodeQuestions from Litners drive a lot of episodes. Send yours. If it makes the show, Richard reads it on air.
Go deeperWhere to read more.
Go deeper
Deep dives the episode points towardHow double-blind peer review and university presses vet history books (25:43).
How the History of the Church was compiled from Joseph's journals and letters in the 1850s historian's office (45:08).
The Joseph Smith Papers transcription of Joseph's December 26, 1842 journal entry (49:11).
The Lost Tribes theory of Native American origins and how early it began (57:24).
SOT Litner · S2E43.