SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
Near the Keokuk Walmart
S5E28 · John C. Bennett
0:00 / 48:35
14 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 5 · Episode 28 · 48:35

John C. Bennett

John C. Bennett's gravestone in Iowa calls him a veteran, and he really was one: he helped raise a Union regiment in the Civil War, though he never saw combat.

Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·
Is it possible that his only claim to veteran status somehow is from the Nauvoo Legion?
Jeremy (listener)

Recorded live on the Standard of Truth tour near Nauvoo, this episode opens with Kristy's Corner on D&C 74. Gerrit explains that the revelation, long dated 1832, was really received in 1830 alongside the call for rebaptism, and that its point is that little children are holy, which most of the Christian world rejected. Then Jeremy writes about finding John C. Bennett's grave in Polk City, Iowa, which calls him a doctor and a veteran. Gerrit explains Bennett's Union service in the Civil War, his spiritual wifery and excommunication in Nauvoo, his book claiming he only pretended to convert, and why historians treat him as a habitual liar and forger.

Who comes upJohn C. BennettJoseph SmithPaulJohn WhitmerJames StrangWilliam Law
Now playing · 0:49

Near the Keokuk Walmart

Richard and Gerrit record live with the tour group and praise their bus driver.

Chapters

Tap a chapter to jump there

Transcript

187 moments · tap a time to play from there
Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth podcast. In this podcast, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard LeDuc explore the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the life and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. They examine the original historical sources and provide context for events of the past. They approach the history of the Church with faith, expertise, and humor.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to a special live episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Dr. Richard LeDuc.
Richard Hello, Gerrit. Thanks for having me back. We are here in the shadow of the Keokuk Walmart.
Gerrit I wish.
Richard The everlasting hills. We are joined. This day and always. We are joined here by our Standard of Truth Tour. That was our ninth take. They got it. That was perfect. They crushed it.
Gerrit The first several times, they just did it, clap the back of their hand.
Richard This is true. We do have some guests. Other than the tour, we have some senior missionaries that are here.
Gerrit We probably shouldn't name them in case they're in trouble with the mission president.
Richard That's right. They gave us the skinny on the increased cookie sizes.
Gerrit We don't want anyone to know.
Richard Everything is content, just so you know. You say it, I'm going to say it here. As well by the world's greatest bus driver, Lynette. I think she backed up all the way to Hans Mill on a dirt road.
Gerrit She didn't even have to, she just did it to show off.
Intro Didn't use one, slide it both ways.
Richard Not, didn't use one mirror. Just like, I'm going to do this by the, you know, by the North Star. Yeah.
Gerrit She is an amazing driver. She drives for Aero and we're going to try to have her drive for us every time we come to Nauvoo and Missouri. But my guess is her calendar is going to become increasingly filled each time we ask, Oh, sorry, I have a thing in Texas. And I can't come because of Texas and stuff like that. So yes, we'll try.
Richard That's very good. She's received 37 Book of Mormons from all of the different tours. She is so grateful for all of them. She's very kind about all of it. So Gerrit, we do have a Kristy's Corner.
Gerrit I asked whether or not we were going to continue Kristy's Corner.
Richard It's the people cry out. Everyone wants it. The whole reason anyone listens to anything ever, church-related. It's to sound smart in Sunday school. It's the only reason anyone does anything.
Gerrit They wouldn't feel the spirit or maybe have some kind of personal.
Richard Everyone's running for Pope and Sunday school is the time to do it. So the thing is, that one made me laugh. I apologize for the lack of professionalism.
Gerrit I mean, the Pope was Midwestern this time.
Richard It's true.
Gerrit Yeah.
Richard We're so close.
Gerrit I mean, he's from Chicago.
Richard He is.
Gerrit We're not far away.
Richard He's a White Sox fan.
Gerrit I feel. Wow.
Richard I know, Southside.
Gerrit Why didn't he go for the Cubs?
Richard I don't know.
Gerrit Yeah. Okay.
Richard Anyway, so the Kristy's Corner, Doctrine Covenants, Section 74. Now, Gerrit, you and I, we go through all of Come Follow Me every day. We knew exactly what we were going to talk about before this. So now, we're prepared to be able to go. Certainly, it wasn't mentioned, it was 5 seconds before, by one of the tour members, what sections are for this week.
Gerrit Yeah.
Richard That didn't happen.
Gerrit And I'd like to point out that we actually didn't verify that this actually is for this week. He just said they were. He's setting us up.
Richard You know what? I'm going to check right now.
Gerrit We didn't even check. Classic. Like for all I know, this was three weeks ago. Yeah, classic Rob of them, right? They're going to say it on air. And so we're going to, we were going, and you know what? At this point, we're going to do it even if it was four weeks ago.
Richard We'll do it live. Yeah.
Gerrit Yeah. It's not this week?
Intro But it's the next time next week.
Gerrit I see.
Richard Oh, there we go.
Gerrit Okay. All right. Our audience is helping us understand that-
Richard I don't believe any of you. I'm still looking it up.
Gerrit That more important than studying the gospel on the schedule of Come Follow Me is when it's actually being spoken of in church. Because if the entire point is to sound good in Sunday school, one of the requisite parts is being in Sunday school.
Richard It's a really great point, Gerrit. With the fifth Sunday in June, so this is actually really, really, really important. Because the whole point is sounding smart, but the reality is, is you're going to be going through D&C 64 all the way to 74 or 75. So what's going to happen is, the teacher, they're going to start back in the mid-60s and going, and you might not get to 74 to make your comment.
Gerrit So you're going to need to raise your hand. You have to interject, you have to interrupt. Yeah. So a teacher starts, and it seems like they're on 72.
Richard There's five minutes left, and it's 72, it's not going to happen.
Gerrit If they're still on 72, 15 minutes in.
Richard Just raise your hand.
Gerrit You just raise your hand, and probably our listeners are the kind who have to just keep it up there because they don't want to call on them. Everyone who's ever taught Sunday School.
Richard If I call on Jim, it's going to be a whole thing.
Gerrit Everyone who's ever taught Sunday School has developed the like as if you have some kind of blindness in your peripheral. Because the one guy sits over here, and he's always doing this. And so you kind of teach to the left side of the room. And you can still see this going on.
Richard This is an audio medium. Gareth's waving his hand.
Gerrit Yeah. I was pantomiming someone frantically trying to wave in a destroyer to save them off of a desert island. And that's what it's like for the guy who has to comment.
Richard When I taught Sunday School, I would put on Clydesdale blinders.
Gerrit Oh yeah.
Richard Specifically to avoid me looking at Brother England, Bishop England.
Gerrit If you made any eye contact. Yeah. I was one time in a ward where, you know, someone was well known for making multiple comments. And, you know, they were never really on the topic. And I was doing a pretty good job of teaching to one half of the room. And I saw the hand, and it was, I mean, it was like, it was like a, the hand was going up and down as though, like when a cowboy rides a bull.
Richard Just throwing it back.
Gerrit Trying to get my attention. And I couldn't, I got to the point where I felt like it was, I had to call on them. And I thought to myself, you know what, it's right, I actually had the thought, it's right to call on them. I'm going to do it. I'm sure it'll be fine. And it ended up being just the most false doctrine that you have ever heard in a Sunday school class. So I feel like I'm justified in really ignoring anyone.
Richard Yes. But because people do that, that's why it's important for any Litners to the show, whatever Gerrit's about to tell us to help Kristy prepare for a talk that she was just assigned very recently, just make sure you really get into it. So, Gerrit, 76, take it away. 74, whatever section.
Gerrit Why don't you just throw another number out.
Richard 86, take it away. Word of Wisdom, 89, take it away.
Gerrit Section 139.
Richard Take it away. Community of Christ sections, take it away.
Gerrit So we're going to talk about section 74 for Kristy's Corner. I assume you've dropped the sounder.
Richard I'm going to, it's going to be a seamless edit right now.
Gerrit Dr. Govind's section 74 has a pretty interesting history. It's one of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants that our understanding of it completely changes on the basis of the Book of Commandments and Revelations that was found not long ago. Then was published through the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Now, Doctrine and Covenants section 74, when it was first recorded, it's recorded in the Book of Commandments and Revelations. But when they prepare the Revelations to be published, they don't plan to include it in the Book of Commandments. That's that first attempt to publish the Revelations in Missouri in 1833 that get pitched out the window and they never finish it. It wasn't intended to be included there. But they do intend to include it in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and it is published. But it's published without a date. It's just published as a section.
Gerrit In 1844, they again just publish the section without a date attached to it. The section is not super long. I mean, if we were trying to kill time, we'd take turns reading, but then have Richard read several of them because he'd fail at that, and then it would slow down. But the section is talking about 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 14, and it's providing this explanation. And I'll have to read some of it, unfortunately.
Richard Oh no, it should be lovely.
Gerrit Well, look, in 1 Corinthians 7, 14, Paul teaches that, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Now, that verse doesn't seem to say a whole lot about infant baptism, but this is what was used by primarily Protestants, but also Catholic theologians to argue that children were in some way attached to the covenant of grace that was given to their parents. And because baptism isn't something that saves you, baptism is only something that you do because you have faith, you do it because Jesus told you to do it, it was practice for all of these...
Richard No.
Gerrit Richard nearly died.
Richard The roast beef.
Gerrit I feel like most of it's on your shirt.
Richard It is. Well, so we did pick up from Dr. Gitwell's is a restaurant here, they make a fine roast beef.
Gerrit They really wanna shout out on our Latter-day Saint podcast.
Richard They do, they do. Well, it was great. Samantha, she is getting married. She thought she'd be gone this week, but she won't be leaving until Friday. She's getting married on the 3rd of July, so we wish her well. She doesn't listen, she's not a Latter-day Saint, and she has no interest.
Gerrit I'm pretty sure that, so most Latter-day Saints don't listen. No non-Latter-day Saints, except Lynette when she's forced to, because she has to drive us back to the hotel, listen. But yeah, so people who practiced infant baptism, and that's essentially nearly all Protestants did at the time, they would justify it by saying that it was something that the covenant, that the believing adult had made was given to the child through infant baptism. Now, as we've talked about in other episodes, infant baptism is one of the craziest things that is maintained in the Reformation. Because the Catholics are practicing infant baptism, but they're doing it for a very specific reason. They believe if you're not baptized and you die, you go to hell. So, you know, later they'll have a doctrine of limbo that's not a doctrine but more a belief that maybe the babies go to this semi-state in between heaven and hell where it's not that great and it's not that bad.
Gerrit It's not the game where you try to go under the stick, but would they go to limbo? And so it makes sense why that doctrine would develop. If you have to be baptized to go to heaven and so many children die in infancy, well, then you can see why someone would say, well, if you just grab some water and throw it at the baby, you know, within the first eight days and say the prayer, that that counts. The really weird part is that in the Protestant Reformation, which rejects the saving authority of any ordinances, why in the world does Martin Luther and John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli and eventually John and Charles Wesley, why are they maintaining infant baptism? Because they don't believe that baptism is essential to go to heaven. So why are they doing it? And again, these are all people that are saying, unless it is spoken directly in the Bible, it is not true. Okay, so anything you want to believe about God, that's wonderful.
Gerrit You have to prove it in the scriptures. That's the foundation of Protestant thought. Only the Bible can give us answers to questions about God. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, it can take someone with au jus sauce all over their chest.
Richard Again, the tin foil or the tin did not maintain its structural integrity. I had multiple roast beefs and it just, it was... The government's protected me from being burned by the au jus, by the way.
Gerrit Richard looks like he spent the day working at a meatpacking plant. And he just... It's true.
Richard It's all over my very bright floral shirt.
Gerrit He's wearing a shirt that looks like he's on a vacation in Hawaii, but then also with essentially what looks like blood smattered down the front of it. So no wonder the girl was acting weird to you from the catering service.
Richard Yeah, she was.
Gerrit By the end, it looked like you just killed somebody.
Richard Yeah, it was. Why did they do the infant baptism? That is interesting, right? Is it tip of the cap to original sin or what was the purpose?
Gerrit It frankly is one of those things that you expect is going to be done away because it's not there in the scriptures. And we can only believe things that are in the scriptures. There's not a single instance in the Bible of any child baptisms, let alone infant baptisms. So how do you justify it? And really, it becomes a kind of thing for tradition. I mean, look, for 1500 years, every Christian had their child baptized when it was born. For 1500, I mean, that is such a long time. I mean, you place it in perspective, right? I mean, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints barely been around 200 years. The United States of America hasn't been around 300 years. Christians have been, all of them, in all Christendom, baptizing infants shortly after they're born for 1,400 years.
Gerrit It's not a way to make a winning argument to say, yeah, we're not going to do that anymore.
Richard It's to your point on culture, right? How culture wins is just what you do.
Gerrit It's what you've always done.
Richard If you don't die, we're going to baptize it.
Gerrit How are you going to convince someone that you are teaching the true gospel when the closest connection they have to religion is the baptism of their children, right? And you're going to say, actually, you don't do that anymore. And then they're like, no, no, I want my child baptized. I want them to be a Christian. And the response is, no, no, it doesn't actually matter if they're baptized because, well, they're only Christians if God gives them the gift of faith and he probably didn't. What were we saying? I mean, you're losing that person at that point. And so, Protestants actually kind of worked over time to try to find a way to argue, because they weren't alone in this argument. Anabaptists came along, Schleitheim Confession. Anabaptists came along and argued, hey, infant baptism isn't in the scriptures. The only legitimate baptism is one in which someone is rebaptized as an adult if they were baptized as an infant, because baptism has to be based on the confession of faith. So you can't make a confession of faith as an infant, and everyone hated anabaptists for it.
Gerrit So these reformers had front row seats to what happens if someone attempts to change the culture of infant baptism by saying, you don't do it anymore. I mean, look, the anabaptists didn't just say you don't do it. They said it was the foulest product of Popish Catholicism.
Richard Yeah, Mormon said something similar.
Gerrit Yeah. I kind of feel like if you could get together with a Mennonite and read that portion, they'd be like, okay, I don't believe your Mormon book, but I kind of like this guy, kind of like what he thinks about people who have a problem with infant baptism. So there was a lot of ink that was spilled justifying this. And think about the difficult position you're in. We don't believe anything about Jesus that isn't expressly in the Bible, except for this one thing that affects literally everyone who's a member of every church. I mean, it's kind of like the other real problem with Sola Scriptura, and that is we don't believe that there's any other scripture except for the scripture that's in the Bible. Only unfortunately, the Bible doesn't actually say that there's no other scripture but the Bible, so it kind of puts us in a tough place, right? And so you develop explanations that actually aren't rooted in scripture, and you desperately look for things to try to make them fit.
Gerrit Latter-day Saints do the same thing. We do the same thing all the time. We get a teaching that we don't understand, and we just start making stuff up. We just start inventing. Well, that's because probably before, I mean, maybe when John the Baptist was there the second time he did that, we just make it up because we're trying to make things work out. And so we invent almost a folk course sometimes. The best example I can think of this is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 41, which we are not covering this week.
Richard No, we're not.
Gerrit But we could clip this out.
Richard I'm going to.
Gerrit And four years from now, what I'm about to say is now Kristy's corner.
Richard That's exactly what I'm gonna do. Four years from now, that's exactly what I'm gonna do.
Gerrit This podcast will not exist for months from now, let alone four years from now. So, Doctrine and Covenants section 41 was erroneously dated in the history of the church and therefore in the Doctrine and Covenants to a later date. And it was given, because it was given this later date, it was given an erroneous explanation in the history of the church, that the entire point of the revelation was about all the evil and false and lying spirits that had come into the church. And then you read Doctrine and Covenants section 41, and there's literally nothing in there about any false and lying spirits coming into the church. And so you're like, I, ah. And so you can go read Doctrine and Covenants commentaries that are, precede, you know, 2013, when the change was made to the scriptures, and you'll find all kinds of gymnastics that's going on.
Gerrit As people are grabbing a hold of any part of any verse, they're like, okay, where it says be faithful, that's probably a reference to the fact that there were all these people that were believing false spirits. And that, because they're trying to find a way to make the explanation that was in the history of the church equal what is now in the revelation. Once we get the Book of Commandments and Revelations, we learn, oh, that revelation actually had nothing to do with evil spirits at all. It was all about building a home for Joseph and Sidney Rigdon to live in, which is the reason why I didn't talk about evil spirits. It also talked about Edward Partridge. So, I mean, he wasn't an evil spirit, if you're checking.
Richard I was checking.
Gerrit So, it is a natural thing to do, but you see it in Protestantism, and in fact, you have one theologian will say that this verse in Corinthians has been the most heralded to try to defend infant baptism, even though you'll notice what I read in 1 Corinthians, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. And people use that to justify, well, the children are holy, and so they're already holy, that's why they get the sign of baptism, but not for the same reason you or I would say, because they still all believe in original sin, because everybody's going to hell without, without, they're all condemned for their sin, the sin of Adam. Well, this revelation, I'm thinking way too much time.
Richard This is ridiculous. No, you're killing it. Phebe Draper, Palmer Mailbag, we just have one.
Gerrit Oh, yeah.
Richard No, no, it's great. We just have one email. So keep going.
Gerrit I mean, it's...
Richard You're 21 minutes in.
Gerrit This is the worst episode we've ever done.
Richard We've done worse episodes. And it's a lot. No, we've done a lot of worse episodes. I mean, it's not good, but we've done worse.
Gerrit If we ask Leslie right now, she would say, this is the worst episode we've ever done.
Richard That's true.
Gerrit Leslie?
Richard There's a couple.
Gerrit Okay. There's only a couple though. So those who are present are witnessing history.
Richard There's a couple that are worse.
Gerrit The worst podcast ever done, which is an incredibly low bar to begin with. I mean, you start at nothing, and we're somehow in the negative. Which ones are worse? Yeah. Yeah, get a list. Yes, send me the list.
Richard I want Leslie's top five worst episodes.
Gerrit Let me try to wrap this up, but I won't be able to.
Intro No, you're really bringing it home.
Gerrit So, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 74, it goes into explaining this verse of Paul. And it says, it came to pass, there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision. So again, Protestants would argue that infant baptism was actually a continuation of the law of circumcision, right? So, those who were a part of the covenant, they would circumcise their children at eight days old, and that God intended that to be a continuation into infant baptism. And so they would make this argument about, again, it's nowhere in there in the verse, but this is what they would say. It came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled. And it came to pass that the children being brought up in the subjection of the law of Moses gave heed to the traditions of their fathers, and believe not the gospel of Christ wherein they became unholy.
Gerrit Wherefore, for this cause, the apostle wrote to the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever except the law of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without circumcision, and that the tradition might be done away, which sayeth that little children are unholy, for it was had among the Jews. But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ. And this is what the scriptures mean. Now, part of the reason why, when I said this was misidentified, this revelation up until 2013 was always listed as being an 1832 revelation. And in fact, the explanation of this revelation was, while Joseph Smith was translating the Bible, and he's translating the New Testament in 1832, he comes to 1st Corinthians, and when he's there in 1st Corinthians, he's, aha, here's a better explanation, and doesn't actually make any of these changes to 1st Corinthians, but receives this revelation, this explanation of scripture describing it.
Gerrit And it's a sound explanation. The problem is, that's not when this revelation was received. We thought that it was received in 1832, because when they were compiling the history of the church, even though there was no date on this revelation in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants or in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants, it sure seemed like it was surrounding Joseph Smith's New Testament translation. Several of the other revelations in the 70s are part of Joseph Smith's New Testament translation. And so it gets put into a New Testament translation with its date, until we discover the original manuscript version in the Book of Commandments and Revelations. And if you go to the original manuscript revelation, what you find is some things that are pretty important.
Gerrit And you find that, in fact, the revelation is not something that is received in 1832, but it's actually received in 1830. This is how John Whitmer describes it when he's filling it out in the Revelation Book. An explanation of the Epistle to the First Corinthians, the seventh chapter and fourteenth verse, given to Joseph the Seer in Wayne County, New York in 1830. Well, Wayne County, New York is where Palmyra is. It's certainly not a revelation that Joseph Smith receives while translating the New Testament, because Joseph hasn't started translating the New Testament in 1830. He starts translating it only after he's already in Ohio. Now, why does that matter? It matters because if you look at Doctrine and Covenants, Section 20, what does it say? Baptism is essential for salvation.
Gerrit Published alongside D&C 20 by the church, is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22, which says that even if you've already been baptized, you have to be re-baptized. So the first question you have about baptism is, do you have to do it for salvation? And does it have to be done in a proper way and by proper authority? The second question is, what if I've already been baptized? That's the second logical question. The response given by the Lord is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22, which is even if you've already been baptized. Well, the third question then, is the question that every one of those people that is a parent or about to be a parent has as they have joined the church. Well, should we baptize our children, our infants? And you know, 1 Corinthians 7, 14 says, and my pastors always said, and when I was a Presbyterian, they said, and they burnished, they built up the idea of infant baptism, and Joseph receives Doctrine and Covenants, Section 74.
Gerrit It doesn't have a date. It just says New York, 1830. But my guess is it's very shortly after Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22, because it's all based on, and in fact, it is something that is related to Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22 and Section 20. Now, I don't know how someone's going to do that by waving their arms. Yeah, someone's going to raise their hand and just say that, then, in the Doctrine and Covenants, so, Kristy's Corner bullet points, raise your hand and say, Schleitheim Confession, which is the Anabaptist Confession.
Richard No, it's good. You really brought it home at the end. Some of the three questions that they would progress toward.
Gerrit And you notice what the Lord declares at the very end of that explanation, right? That little children are holy. This is something that right now, the entire Christian world rejects. The entire Christian world believes in some form of original sin or all are corrupt, some way of saying that all are born in sin. And we don't. And one of the reasons why we don't is because of the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Richard That's great. All right. So now to the Phebe Draper Palmer Brown mailbag. Yeah, we have one email. This comes to us from Jeremy. Greetings. We took our boys to a local cemetery in Polk City, Iowa. I heard that John C. Bennett, a Nauvoo philandering of Nauvoo philandering fame, was buried here. And after some investigation, we found his grave. There were two things that surprised me about his monument. First, that he was a doctor. And second, that he was a veteran. On the first point, I know that he played doctor in Nauvoo. I didn't... Well, okay, there's some... There was some booze there.
Gerrit Probably, maybe you should be editing things.
Richard Yeah, well, it's...
Gerrit It's difficult for Richard to edit on the fly, because he's focused so much on the reading.
Richard So much on the reading. I don't think that they meant it the way that the booze necessarily portrayed it, but it's John C. Bennett, so actually probably.
Gerrit No, he actually does work as a physician of sorts.
Richard I think the played doctor is he wasn't a real doctor. He just played one on TV.
Gerrit Every doctor in the 19th century is playing doctor.
Intro Okay.
Gerrit Every one of them is doing things that are almost always more detrimental to the patient than helping them.
Richard Okay. I'm going to do this again. I'm going to edit it out, all the booze that I got when I said the played doctor. So I'm going to cut it. On the first point, I know that he was a doctor in Nauvoo. I didn't realize he claimed to be a real doctor. I suppose that given the medical science was barely advanced beyond leeches and bloodletting, maybe one of history's greatest liars should be a doctor, like the two of you. I have a PhD. No, that was-
Gerrit I feel like you paused. No, I paused in the right spot. I feel like you paused, like the two greatest liars, like you two.
Richard I blew through the punctuation on purpose, because I thought it was a funnier bit. Yeah.
Gerrit I feel like we need to ban this person from emailing the show.
Richard Yes. Maybe one of the greatest liars should be a doctor, like the two of you. It was a doctor, period. Like the two of you, I have a PhD. I'm the one. Mine took nine years. But I'll tell you, but I tell people that I'm not that kind of doctor, because I don't help people. My PhD is in economics. Somehow, I doubt John C. Bennett had even the meager qualifications for the doctor that we have. My real question, though, has to do with the second surprise, that he was an honored veteran. I couldn't find any indication that he was ever in the military, except for his time in the Nauvoo Legion. Is it possible that his only claim to veteran status somehow is from the Nauvoo Legion? That seems to add insult to injury, that he betrays the Saints of Nauvoo in a variety of ways, and then gets military honors resulting from it. If you can possibly verify that he did not serve in the military, I would gladly inform our local American Legion in request that they do not honor him in the future.
Richard Thanks for the show.
Gerrit Well, so this is a tough one. That's tremendous, actually.
Richard I love the pettiness of that.
Gerrit Yeah. I mean, I want to not honor him. Yeah. So, I mean, thank you for your service.
Richard Thank you for your service, John C. Bennett.
Gerrit But not you. Let's talk about a couple of things. First of all, at least from what we can tell, John C. Bennett does have some, again, giant air quotes, formal medical training, where he goes to a medical school and he apprentice, I mean, medical school such as it is.
Richard Do you know what, we'll get the crack research staff on it?
Gerrit Yeah, get the research staff on that.
Richard No, we'll get the crack research staff on that.
Gerrit But after his-
Richard This is the crack research staff, by the way, for those that aren't here.
Gerrit No, they all thought that we had lots of people hired.
Richard I know.
Gerrit Why are you, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain with the OJU sauce on him.
Richard Just so much OJU sauce.
Gerrit It's so much. It's actually hard for me to concentrate. I spent 30 minutes on infant baptism because every time I looked over, there was this meat sauce on you.
Richard Think, so for those that are listening, think about a person covered in OJU sauce, but more OJU sauce than you can imagine.
Gerrit Yeah, whatever you first think, have AI dial it up a notch. So the reverence to his military service actually comes later, and it comes during the American Civil War. He actually volunteers with, he lives in Iowa after his-
Richard I was going to say, what side was he on? Was he up north but still on the south side?
Gerrit No, he was on the side of the Union. He helps raise a regiment, and that regiment that he raises, I mean, here's a list of places where that regiment is going to fight in Corinth. What's the Battle of Shiloh essentially. So that's one of the bloodiest battles of the war. Up to that point, it had been the bloodiest single day of the war. But John C. Bennett himself doesn't actually participate in those battles. He signs up, he's in the military for a couple of months, and then he claims sickness, and so he basically leaves and goes back home. He's ill, and near the end of the war, they actually try to bring him back in as another surgeon for the army. And they're thinking, wow, he was able to become a surgeon. Well, when being a surgeon means you can use a saw blade on someone's femur, that's what essentially surgeons in the Civil War are. They are chopping off arms and legs, and that's how people are saved from gangrene and blood loss in the battlefield.
Gerrit So he is technically a veteran. He doesn't actually serve in any combat theater where he sees any action. And so, I mean, there's no reason to kick over his gravestone. I will say this, though, about John C. Bennett, since we're talking about kicking over his gravestone. He has to be one of the most pathological liars in Latter-day Saint history. And we've got all kinds of people who do all kinds of things. I mean, that's not a surprise to us. But how do I know that John C. Bennett's a liar? Much like Thomas Ford, I know that John C. Bennett's a liar because John C. Bennett tells me that he's a liar. He wrote it and said it. So I get to, I guess, quote the guy. So let's quote the guy. He writes a book after his ex-communication. So John C. Bennett, for those of you who don't know, for you're just thinking, oh, you know, he liked tomatoes and he's credited with making the tomato famous, actually, in America.
Gerrit He's ex-communicated even though he's a member of the First Presidency, because he begins introducing in Nauvoo something that is termed spiritual wifery. It is essentially profligate sexual relations between unmarried couples. On the basis that, as long as you both are believers, then it's fine. It's a spiritual marriage, but the union is quite physical. And he's very persuasive because he's in this high position of power. And that's one of the reasons why it's so hard to actually unpack what is going on with actual, legitimate Nauvoo plural marriages, because so much of it is tainted by John C. Bennett and his lies. Now, when Joseph finds out what John C. Bennett's doing, he's immediately excommunicated from the church and actually goes and makes a public confession to the whole city that, yes, he had lied about this.
Gerrit He told people, yeah, Joseph said that was fine. It wasn't fine. And he confesses, but then immediately leaves Nauvoo and begins publishing a series of letters attacking Joseph Smith. Those letters are going to form the basis of a book that he's going to later write in 1842 called The History of the Saints. I one time had a conversation with Glenn Ross, and I was like, maybe you don't want to call this History of the Saints. But I think he'd already started down that path with this, you know, it's a positive view of the Latter-day Saints called History of the Saints. Like, well, John C. Bennett published a book on that, and he's not exactly who you like. Why do I say he's a liar? Okay, so John C. Bennett joins the church, rapidly rises in the church, and actually becomes a member of the First Presidency, becomes the mayor of Nauvoo, actually. This is what he writes in his book, the opening of his book. First words, reasons for joining the Mormons.
Gerrit It is, of course, necessary for me to give some explanation of the reasons which led me to join the Mormons and my motives for remaining so long in connection with them. I am happy to state that it is in my power to do this easily and satisfactorily. I find it's almost universally the opinion of those who've heard of me in the eastern part of the United States that I united myself to the Mormons from some conviction of the truth of their doctrines, and that I was, at least for a time, a convert to their pretended religion. This, however, is a very gross error. I, and this is italicized, I never believed in them or their doctrines. This is, indeed was, from the first well-known to my friends and acquaintances, which he provides no evidence, in the western country, who were all well aware of my reasons for connecting myself with the prophet and which reasons I will here state.
Gerrit He goes on to explain, as a good American, he realized what a threat Mormons posed. And so, he deliberately went to Nauvoo, deliberately pretended that he had been converted, tricked people into thinking that he had a testimony, was able to raise himself up all the way to the pinnacle, top point of the church, in order to expose their lies. But when he got caught trying to expose their lies, then they made up this story about him being a fornicator. Now, how do I know that John C. Bennett's a liar about being a fornicator? Well, because John C. Bennett undertakes a speaking circuit where he goes around being paid to tell people the truths of Mormonism. In Boston, we have a newspaper article of a newspaper editor who attended one of his meetings.
Gerrit And at that meeting, as John C. Bennett was going on and on about his stuff after years of publishing that there was no truth to the Mormon accusations against me at all. Well, why did you make a public confession of it? Because Joseph Smith told me that he would cut me up into catfish bait and throw me into the Mississippi River if I didn't do it. Okay, well, but like you then just left, like he was going to murder you, but he was like, okay, we'll see you later. And it was fine. And then you wrote this book. Yeah, that's exactly what happened. And so he for years has been denying that there was anything to his allegations of sexual misconduct. How do I know he's a liar? Well, because he tells this crowd in Boston that, yes, he did have an affair with a fair princess of Nauvoo, but they were guilty of far more crimes. So after years of saying, never committed adultery at all, I know that John C. Bennett committed adultery because John C. Bennett said that John C.
Gerrit Bennett committed adultery. At least on that point, I'm willing to take his word for it. Similarly, his claim that he never ever believed, but the entire point was to trick people into joining the church so that he could come in and expose things so that he could then destroy the church. It's, first of all, idiotic compared to the actual historical record, but second of all, what does John C. Bennett do after he writes this book? After he writes this book, after Joseph is murdered, John C. Bennett, only two years later, two years after he wrote these words, immediately joins himself to James Strang's breakaway Mormon group, from which he's also excommunicated for adultery. But I'm sure they were also just saying it, and it never actually happened.
Gerrit So, and in the process of that, he claims that he has a revelation that Joseph gave him and told him not to open, no matter what, except after I die, and it just so happens to say, oh, and by the way, James Strang is the next prophet. The guy is clearly just a habitual liar. Just from his book alone, we know he's a liar. He either lied in all the times he confessed that he had faith in Mormonism, so that makes him a liar, or he's a liar in his book by saying that he never ever ever had faith in Mormonism. Both of those things can't be true, but the very fact that he then joins himself to another offshoot Mormon group suggests, what is he trying to expose them to? Are you just going to keep trying to expose people? The cat's out of the bag now. We've got your book, John C. Bennett. So he is a distasteful person. We have a friend of the show on the tour, Tim, who went to a great deal of time and effort to make shirts that I don't believe I will ever be allowed to wear, not without being fired.
Gerrit I mean from my marriage, not just they are John C. Bennett fan club shirts, of which I am not a member. Although this shirt states, I happen to be the president. My first act as president of the John C. Bennett fan club is to dissolve the fan club and to revisit the idea of defacing the grave.
Richard So it appears that according to the Joseph Smith Papers, if they are to be believed.
Gerrit All of them are lies.
Richard That from 1822 to 1825, he trained under his uncle, Dr. Samuel Hildreth in Ohio, Marietta, Ohio. And so he trained under him. There is some evidence that he may have taken an exam in Chester, Ohio with the 12th Medical Society of Chester, Ohio. The 12th, not the 11th or the 13th, but the 12th.
Gerrit Yes, oh, the 12th, how its name will live.
Richard I can't necessarily verify that, but so he gauzed up with his uncle for a couple years and doctor him, doctor he is.
Gerrit Yes. John C. Bennett's a lot of things, but one thing that we know he is, is a known forger of Joseph Smith documents. He's someone who will in his book, claim that he has letters written by Joseph Smith that no historian thinks are actually written by Joseph Smith. He's a liar. I mean, and it's unfortunate that even today, that there are people that will take anything that John C. Bennett had to say, and take it as in any way true. He is one of the greatest of all apostates in the church, because of the long shadow that his antagonism casts. And when Joseph makes the fateful decision to have the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper destroyed, this is the one that's published by William Law and the other apostates in Nauvoo, that's making all kinds of slanders against the saints in Nauvoo.
Gerrit I think one of the things that pushes them over the edge is that William Law deliberately, instead of describing it as plural marriage, which he knew that it was, he uses the term spiritual wifery, which is the most loaded term you could have possibly used in Nauvoo in 1844, knowing that everyone who read it would think it means profligate sexual relations without any commitments whatsoever. And that's what that term meant, and so he deliberately used that, rather than explaining plural marriage as it is. So hopefully, that answers your question about John C. Bennett, and you don't have to talk to the American Legion. I'm not saying you have to go put flowers on his grave, or at least if you do, make sure it's that one that stinks really bad that everyone hates. So thank you so much for joining us.
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat and Dr. Richard LeDuc. If you know of anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. Until next time.

Quote board

Make a share card from any line

It's to sound smart in Sunday school. It's the only reason anyone does anything.

RichardBanter

Everyone who's ever taught Sunday School has developed the like as if you have some kind of blindness in your peripheral.

GerritBanter

When I taught Sunday School, I would put on Clydesdale blinders.

RichardBanter

He's wearing a shirt that looks like he's on a vacation in Hawaii, but then also with essentially what looks like blood smattered down the front of it.

GerritBanter

We get a teaching that we don't understand, and we just start making stuff up.

GerritInsight

That little children are holy. This is something that right now, the entire Christian world rejects.

GerritInsight

Every doctor in the 19th century is playing doctor.

GerritBanter

I love the pettiness of that.

RichardBanter

Much like Thomas Ford, I know that John C. Bennett's a liar because John C. Bennett tells me that he's a liar.

GerritInsight

My first act as president of the John C. Bennett fan club is to dissolve the fan club and to revisit the idea of defacing the grave.

GerritBanter

More from this episode

Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.

Claim check

What critics say, and what the episode found
D&C 74 came while Joseph was translating 1 Corinthians in 1832.
John C. Bennett only pretended to convert so he could expose the Mormons.
Take it to classReady to use in a lesson or a talk.

Take it to class

Ready to copy into a lesson or a text

D&C 74 answers a question every new convert parent had in 1830: should we baptize our infants? Its answer is that little children are holy through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Finding the original revelation manuscripts corrected dates for sections like D&C 74 and D&C 41, and with the right date, the meaning becomes clearer.

When we don't understand a teaching, we're tempted to invent explanations; better sources often show the simpler meaning.

John C. Bennett told contradicting stories about his own faith and conduct, so historians don't take his claims about Joseph Smith at face value.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
Kristy's CornerGerrit asked whether they were still doing it (2:45); the segment exists so you can sound smart in Sunday School (2:48); they didn't check whether D&C 74 was this week's lesson (3:28-4:29); then a 'seamless edit' to the sounder (8:10).
The perpetual hand-raiserTeaching to one side of the room, Clydesdale blinders, and the comment that was 'the most false doctrine' (5:31-7:04).
Au jus everywhereRichard's roast beef from Dr. Gitwell's ends up on his floral shirt (10:59-14:50), and Gerrit can't concentrate (34:06-34:29).
The worst episode we've ever doneGerrit declares it at 21 minutes in; Richard insists they've done worse, and they want Leslie's top five worst (22:18-23:08).
Lynette, the world's greatest bus driverShe backed up all the way to Haun's Mill without mirrors and has received 37 copies of the Book of Mormon (1:36-2:33).
A Midwestern PopeHe's from Chicago and a White Sox fan; why not the Cubs? (3:11-3:25).
The crack research staffRichard's the whole staff, the tour learns (33:53-34:06); he reports back on Bennett's medical training (45:18), including the 12th Medical Society (45:45).
Like the two of youJeremy's email calls history's greatest liar a doctor 'like the two of you'; Richard blows through the punctuation on purpose (31:28-32:10).
The John C. Bennett buttonTim's John C. Bennett fan club shirts make Gerrit the president, and his first act is to dissolve the club (43:28-44:42); flowers for his grave should be the stinky kind (47:07).
Doctor inflationEvery 19th-century doctor is 'playing doctor' (31:15); Jeremy's PhD took nine years and he's 'not that kind of doctor' (32:10).
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown MailbagSend Gerrit and Richard your question.

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

Your question could be next week’s episode
Questions from Litners drive a lot of episodes. Send yours. If it makes the show, Richard reads it on air.
General ConferenceGeneral Conference talks that cite a scripture read in this episode.

In General Conference

Talks from the latest General Conference that cite a scripture this episode reads or names on air
October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 20Divine AppointmentsPresident Timothy L. FarnesPresident Farnes recalls a discouraging day as a young priesthood leader when then-Elder Dallin H.October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 20Spiritual ImmunityElder Christian C. ChigbunduElder Chigbundu, recalling the talk of "immunity" during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes building spiritual immunity through four small and simple things: scripture study, prayer, the sacrament, and keeping covenants, including temple worship.October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 20Courage Born of Our Faith in Jesus ChristElder Neil L. AndersenElder Andersen welcomes President Rosemary Chibota, who joined the Church at 17 after reading a pamphlet about Joseph Smith, and teaches that spiritual courage, born of faith in Jesus Christ, has always been required of disciples, from Moroni to today.

Summaries, themes and lessons for every talk are on What Did They Say?

Go deeperWhere to read more.

Go deeper

Deep dives the episode points toward
How the Book of Commandments and Revelations changed the dating of D&C 74 and D&C 41, and other sections redated in the 2013 edition (19:28, 25:41).
Infant baptism in the Reformation: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Wesleys keeping it, and the Anabaptists' Schleitheim Confession (12:41, 16:15).
John C. Bennett's 1842 The History of the Saints and the spiritual wifery scandal in Nauvoo (37:08, 38:14).
Why William Law's Nauvoo Expositor used the term 'spiritual wifery' and how it led to the press's destruction (46:00).
SOT Litner · S5E28.