57: Making the Case for Joseph’s Polygamy w/ Mark Tensmeyer | 132 Problems Mormon Polygamy

Please consider supporting this podcast:

Links

Hemlock Knots Debates:
Link 1 | Link 2

Transcript

[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological and now historical case for plural marriage. As always, please listen to these episodes from the beginning so you can hear those most important discussions and then continue on from there. In this episode, we are continuing our investigation into Joseph’s polygamy. I am pleased to be able to interview Mark Tensmeyer, who has been one of the, who become one of the foremost experts on proving Joseph’s polygamy. So he really gets into the historical minutia that can show us, um, the evidence, the strongest evidence that there is. So it’s good again, to bring all of The discussions to the forefront so we can really dig in and get the most, the, the best information to make the most solid case. So I hope you enjoy this interview. It’s a little bit difficult at times, or it’s kind of an interesting guy, but I think it is very worthwhile. So thank you for joining us as we take this deep dive into the murky waters of Joseph’s polygamy. Welcome to 132 Problems. I am so excited to bring this episode to you today. So I have a guest, Mark Tensmeyer, and I’m really thankful that he agreed to come and talk to me. So I just a little bit of history. Well, I should do a brief introduction, which I’ll get to, and you can help me with that, Mark. But Mark was in that initial Facebook group that I talked about that I’ve talked about so often that, um, We start that I started so we could start discussing polygamy when I started to have the earth shattering realization that polygamy wasn’t of God. So he’s been on this topic for a long time as well, but I think that you’ve, you’ve gone much more in depth in um the, the, the Joseph’s polygamy issue. I’ve, I’ve been more concerned with the um scriptural case of polygamy, which, and so. So anyway, Mark recently was on a debate on Hemlock knots where he was arguing for the evidence being solid that Joseph was the originator of polygamy. And so I’m really glad that he came on to talk to me because I’m realizing there’s, there are sort of different specialties like Brian Hailes and Todd Compton, um, are, are, they’re in the field of researching polygamy, but they’re not in the specialty of evidence of Joseph’s polygamy. They’re not really as prepared for. That argument as Mark is. So I wanted him to come on and we won’t be able to get into even a fraction of what he knows. He knows so much. So we’re just gonna, well, that’s been my, that’s been my impression. So anyway, but we’ll talk about it and just see where the conversation goes because I want us to have what, what helped me really, um, understand polygamy and the scriptural case for it was was engaging with the best polygamous scriptorians. And so that’s what I’m hoping to do here as well. So just a quick introduction. Mark, I believe you practice law in Texas. Do I have that right? Yeah, that’s right. OK, and um I looked at your bio and that was fun. My son is in his 2nd year of school at um Florida State, and you, I think, went to, no, he’s at the University of Florida and you were at Florida State. Did I get that right? And so, um, so that was a fun, fun connection. So anyway, so, so Mark’s bringing his legal mind to this topic and I’m curious to know. Well, and you can tell me a little about your family and about yourself because I actually don’t know that much about you other than that you’re really good at this topic. Well,

[03:36] Mark Tensmeyer: um, Yeah, so I’m married and I have two little girls. And yeah, I have one that’s 8, another one that’s a toddler age right now, so.

[03:48] Michelle: So you’re busy and we’re keeping you up late at night. This is the only time we could get together.

[03:54] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, that’s been, that’s been, yeah, so there’s that, um. I know a little bit about how I

[04:01] Michelle: that’s what I wanted to go to, yeah, I, I know you went to BYU Idaho and so I, so I assume not that even if it’s not OK if I ask, let me know, but are you an active member of the LDS Church? Are you OK, so you’re a traditional believer in the LDS church and OK, that’s great, that’s great. And then. What did you say? I’m sorry. Yeah, that’s great. And so, um, so yeah, I do want to know what got you interested in polygamy because I think you joined the Facebook group after you had already been researching the topic.

[04:37] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, I did. So, um, you know, history has always been a um interest of mine. My, my grandparents were the directors of the church’s visitor center and all the operations there of Navo in the 90s as part of the mission and so I, you know, I was 89 years old, I went to all those places. I loved it. I ate it up. Um, and I always, I always have been, uh, especially during my mission, after my mission, I got into it. That’s when I read a lot of books and things, and, um, I think it was, it was about 2014. It was, uh, when I was finishing law school, or when I finished law school I was studying for the bar exam. And when I was expecting our first child, when we were expecting our first child, and so it was a real transition point in my life, and I was just You know, at that stage, you go, you know, I was looking for something a hobby or something that I could do that um that I enjoyed that I was good at, that I could also do on the fly with kids and with work and Things like that, like a lot of people did, and um one of the things I really got interested in was um researching other Um, branches of the restoration. So, like I said, you know, I had experience with not if you go to church history sites, that’s, that’s a lot of church members’ first exposure. So there being other ranges of Mormon, right? I mean, there’s, there’s the community of Christ operations in Novo and then in Independence and then of course there’s also heites that own the or the Church of Christ that own the temple and also my mission in Montana and Wyoming, first couple of areas there were a first area I had was Love Wyoming. Second area was the Bitterroot Valley, Montana. And both of those areas are areas that have um communities of the of um. Of the Apostolic United Brethren.

[06:28] Michelle: Oh, OK, so for anyone that doesn’t know that AUB is one of the polygamous sex, there’s the FLDS and the AUB. OK.

[06:36] Mark Tensmeyer: And so exposure to that and um you know, just through other things. So I really kind of got interested into it and so I stumbled on a friend recommended a Facebook group that I have and that was about discussions between different groups. And uh that’s and and I got into that. I’m I’m now I’m now an admin to that we’ve been admin for a while, um.

[07:02] Michelle: Is that still going?

[07:04] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, it is. It’s a restoration. Imit with a number.

[07:10] Michelle: Oh, that sounds really cool.

[07:12] Mark Tensmeyer: Here with me about this. Um,

[07:15] Michelle: OK, I just barely recorded on um the RLDS community of Christ, so I’m a little, I’m more familiar with that I would have been. Oh yeah,

[07:38] Mark Tensmeyer: I was gonna send you some of the Paul Hanson letters but I never, I love that. Yeah, really great stuff that he found. Um, yes, that’s when I really got into it, and there was a lot of discussion about various issues. And so that’s when I really got into academic, I really got into academic history. So I’d read journal articles, I’d read academic books, and I got real good at, at finding primary sources. In this day and age, you can find primary sources are pretty accessible. Just the everyday person. And

[08:00] Michelle: such

[08:00] Mark Tensmeyer: a blessing.

[08:01] Michelle: It’s so much easier. And

[08:02] Mark Tensmeyer: how to weigh and how to balance. And so there’s issues like um like the role of the of the 12, there’s the ordination of Joseph Smith the 3rd as his father’s successor. Uh, there’s a lot of these things and there’s facts and then there’s um. Implications of facts, and Joseph Smith, I know that

[08:25] Michelle: that was in a Mark Hoffman. Is there anything, is there, is there a valid source of Joseph Smith the

[08:31] Mark Tensmeyer: being

[08:32] Michelle: ordained?

[08:34] Mark Tensmeyer: Not contemporary.

[08:36] Michelle: OK,

[08:37] Mark Tensmeyer: um, not, not contemporary, but, uh, I, I think the The uh the the earliest source we have Jacob Ari did a video on that very recently that I highly recommend. He, he actually came up with

[08:51] Michelle: I’m hoping he’ll come on and talk to me as well.

[08:54] Mark Tensmeyer: OK, he’s good, yeah, as you know, I’ve worked with him a lot on this. Um,

[09:00] Michelle: So OK, so, so you got started getting into this issue through your connection to other

[09:10] Mark Tensmeyer: um branches of the art of the rest do that because I wanted to get into just like what are facts on these sort of things because I mean we can we can discuss interpretations of and there’s always gonna be different interpretations of scriptures always gonna be spiritual experience. It’s gonna be different, but what are, what are facts? I mean there are things that did or did not happen. And so the issue of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, this is in 2014. So this is before a lot of the interest in the I guess you disaffected um Church of Jesus Christ Las Saints members took into it. So this is, this is just before Denver Snuffer was excommunicated. This is just before a lot of that happened. That was all happening. OK,

[09:47] Michelle: so, so John Dehlin’s podcast was going, so all of this moment,

[09:51] Mark Tensmeyer: yeah, yeah, yeah, I don’t think was Roman, I think was the first one to really bring the attention to.

[10:00] Michelle: Yeah, he wrote his article. I’m guessing that that’s that’s that’s one of the things that made him polygamy and that’s what he did and then yeah

[10:16] Mark Tensmeyer: yeah there was um then um yeah so so so but really before all that happened, I was discussing this with Um, with, uh, with conservative community members, which there are some, by the way.

[10:31] Michelle: Oh, there still are, OK,

[10:36] Mark Tensmeyer: yeah, yeah, and then, and then um and then that’s

[10:39] Michelle: dedication to stick with it. That’s, you know,

[10:45] Mark Tensmeyer: there’s a really neat guy. He’s a he’s a gentleman that’s uh he’s a quasi conservative. He believes very much in the um. The current day church’s mission and agenda, things like, um, you know, things LGBT inclusion or or nation of women. Um, the emphasis on things like service rather than, um, I don’t know, conversion of people, but he still has very much conservative view on the foundational aspects of the restoration, OK, so he went with the theological changes but not the. So that’s why I am, so that’s when I really got into and I started researching a lot of this stuff, and so when a lot of these things came out like uh Like, uh, there was um there was a Denver Snuffers’s talk, then there was uh the, then there was Leo Ebert’s paper that came out.

[11:43] Michelle: I’m not up on all of this. I think I think I know about Denver. I don’t know if I heard it, but I don’t know the thing you said. So these were

[11:51] Mark Tensmeyer: all. Yeah, so that’s why I really got into that. That was a topic that uh that I just I got I like researching this it’s one that um ostensibly at least, right? I mean it’s something that did or did not happen. And um I got into looking at the sources and I, I enjoy that kind of thing, weighing about and learning just, just the method of history and how all that works. And so and and I think I got, it was almost reluctant to that I got into it too because it was like it was almost like nobody was really responding to all this stuff that was happening. It really wasn’t.

[12:32] Michelle: What do you mean? Like you mean you were writing papers and you couldn’t,

[12:37] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean it didn’t seem like it didn’t seem like there were that many people that had like Leo’s paper that that were that disagreed with him. OK, really got into the things like that so and

[12:46] Michelle: so I don’t know what’s what’s Leo’s paper.

[12:52] Mark Tensmeyer: Oh,

[12:53] Michelle: is it Joseph Smith’s monogamy? Oh, OK, OK,

[12:59] Mark Tensmeyer: yeah, yeah, I mean he was the one of the main reasons I did the debate was Leo was one of the opposite. And so, yeah, and so there were a lot of these groups that were popping up, you know, like yours, and um, there just wasn’t a lot, there were a lot of people that were discussing the topic. And there were people were kind of were against it, right? I mean, people said it was wrong, but not a lot of people that were really um Explaining the reasons and getting into the evidence as to why I thought it was an interesting topic, so that’s, that’s really why I got into it. And especially there were people, a lot of people that were kind of in the middle that would say, um, you know, I read this paper, I read this, and it seems kind of compelling and I don’t, I don’t really know how to answer it. And they weren’t really finding anything, and so.

[13:44] Michelle: You stepped into the breach. OK, so can I ask you a couple of questions that just to kind of set, um, you know, establish where we are. So, um, so I guess my first question is, when you were coming to this research, I assume you were coming to it from the standpoint of believing both in polygamy as well as Joseph Smith’s polygamy. So I’m kind of curious to know your, your thoughts on polygamy, um. Do you know what I mean? Like, like members of the church can be in all different places. Like, do you agree with the narrative

[14:14] Mark Tensmeyer: that moral?

[14:17] Michelle: Just, just in terms of did God established polygamy and then it needed to be taken away, like, like just kind of how does, how, how do you view? Yeah,

[14:26] Mark Tensmeyer: I, I think of it as that. I mean, I think, I think that it’s that it is a principle that that that has been commanded at times and taken away at times. I don’t think that it’s necessarily always been practiced in the right way. you know, I, I think it’s something that I definitely wouldn’t, wouldn’t want to do myself, and I, it’s one of those questions where I’ll really debate the um the morality of it. If I’m, if it’s ever a case where I actually have to do, actually have to do it, I mean, I don’t, I don’t, um. I don’t doubt the the many experiences that uh the that the saints who did practice it had. I mean, I was really surprised on my mission. Like I said, I had exposure to people in the AUB. I was surprised by how many women it were that brought their families into it. I mean, the idea of the um The idea of, of, of, of all the polygamous women being just very, I don’t know, being victimized about it all that. I don’t, I don’t, that’s not been, I experienced the exposure I’ve had to it.

[15:31] Michelle: I think there’s definitely a swath. There are very strongly and there are definitely depends on the personality and the the the amount of um they have it. I mean it’s

[15:53] Mark Tensmeyer: it’s something that I don’t have it’s not something I really honestly I haven’t really felt like I had to. I mean, I feel like I can, I can accept that the that the saints that did practice it the day that they believed it and that’s, that’s good enough for me.

[16:04] Michelle: OK, so your focus has been entirely on almost entirely on the historical case and the,

[16:10] Mark Tensmeyer: the ethical questions are things that I haven’t thought about, I haven’t worried about. I mean, do this research, I made the connection of um. Nancy Morae Winchester is my great great great grandmother. So she’s so she’s, she was a 14 year old that that Joseph. I put her on like a tier two in terms of evidence supporting that marriage actually happening. But so I mean that’s so yeah, so it is a topic that that does something to me but um but you’re right. I mean my main focus has been on the history of it.

[16:46] Michelle: OK. And for me I’m not even for me I don’t focus on the morality and ethics. I mean I do, but my main focus was on the scripts and

[16:53] Mark Tensmeyer: the like. Theology behind it, yeah.

[16:56] Michelle: And the scriptures like when you said that, um, you know that that God commands it at times. I’m curious to know if you are, you know, do you have a time in mind that God commanded it like just off the top of your head, do you, yeah, yeah. OK, so then and but any any scriptural time that that’s connected to, like, do you think that God commanded Abraham and commanded Um, I’m just curious if, if like if, if you haven’t thought about these things, it’s OK. And then, and

[17:28] Mark Tensmeyer: then I think, I think possibly, yeah, but I mean. I mean I think you’d have a really hard time making the case. That God that the Old Testament does not permit depicts God as being against polygamy. I mean, I, I think Uh, there’s a lot of verses in there. There’s a lot of people that do it pretty openly. But at the same time that it’s a sacramental thing, the Old Testament doesn’t really make that case either.

[17:53] Michelle: Yeah, yeah, and yeah, and I, I don’t want to challenge you too much that you’d have a hard time slavery or prostitution or genocide or, you know, so it gets pretty deep I mean really, he’s not really slavery

[17:58] Mark Tensmeyer: and so does that make does that make it right? I mean that that’s a good question too. But uh.

[18:24] Michelle: And so is your assumption that that polygamy will be in Zion and in the celestial kingdom? OK,

[18:33] Mark Tensmeyer: so I don’t, I don’t believe that it’s um. That that it’s going to be like a necessary thing that those that are polygamists are going to be in some sort of higher tier in the celestial kingdom or anything like that. I don’t, I don’t believe that necessarily. Um, and again you can ask Jake if he’s he’s found a lot of good on that um like Brigham or that support that, so you, so you’re disagreeing with Brigham Young and John Taylor and Orson Pratt

[19:05] Michelle: and you know, and Hebrew Kimball and you’re OK to say yeah they got that wrong. Sure, yeah. OK,

[19:15] Mark Tensmeyer: OK. But then again I mean I know my own opinion about anything so. OK. I mean, that’s that’s kind of where I’m at with it now, so. Yeah,

[19:23] Michelle: I appreciate that because that’s been my main focus, so I’d like to know kind of where you’re coming from because I always find it interesting that um that we kind of have this position of they were right about polygamy, but they were wrong about all the details of polygamy, if that makes sense. Like

[19:37] Mark Tensmeyer: they

[19:37] Michelle: didn’t it well

[19:38] Mark Tensmeyer: they preached it. I mean, a mass lineman even said that at one point, says it’s like we, we had it when it came out, we, we implemented it a certain way, but Certain people just fell into the way we’re we’re wrong about it, the way we were doing. I mean, even, even that 7 section 132 itself says there’s stuff that Joseph needed to repent of. And how we implemented it and how, and how he did it.

[20:03] Michelle: OK, OK. Well, if you know much about the life of Brigham Young and a lot of our ancestors, I like, I’m still asking anyone to give me any example of who did it well, you know what families there are that polygamy resulted in more happiness

[20:24] Mark Tensmeyer: as a general rule that’s counterfactual history. How do you know how they would have been done. I mean that’s.

[20:28] Michelle: Right, right, but we can compare, we can compare things like if it was for the purpose of um which which I think is a miss um a twisting of the scriptural, um, the scriptures, but to say that it’s to um raise up seed, which we interpret to mean have more children, and we know that polygamist women had less children, had fewer children. Um, I, you know, so, so we can look at a lot of factual things and we can compare, we can compare divorce rates and polygamy versus non-polygamy. We can, we can look at a lot of things to see, you know, to just kind of get so, so it does get there there are some objective things we can look at as well as the histories. So anyway, so, OK, sorry, and I told you I, I, I, I, I, I go off so. That it’s good to set up. Thank you for sharing. So, OK, so do you care if I ask you some questions first and then I’d like to because I really want you to be able to present. OK, so, so my next question is because, um, you know, this discussion is so difficult because the evidence is, it’s a long time ago, the evidence is scant. There’s, you know, it’s hard. So what I’m curious is what would convince you that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist? What would it take to Make you believe that he wasn’t.

[21:41] Mark Tensmeyer: Well, one of the big um. One of the big issues with trying to say he wasn’t is that the evidence comes from a lot of different places. So if it really was the case that um All the evidence, all the contemporary evidence came from anti-sources, or specifically like anti-sources that were in collusion together. That would be one thing.

[22:09] Michelle: And so we know that’s not going to happen.

[22:13] Mark Tensmeyer: So it really was the case that the The testimonials about Joe Smith being a polygamist came just from Utah Mormonism. And that would be one thing, but that’s not the case. And so that’s, so I think it would be really, really, it would be very, very difficult to do. I don’t. I really don’t even know how, how, how it would be done. Uh, because one of the big things that we talked about is, you know, if, if even in theory for the body of evidence we have coming out of Utah to exist, for it to not be true, there would have to be a very, uh, very organized, very expansive, very deliberate conspiracy involved. But even if that did exist, I don’t, I don’t think it would account for all the evidence. I don’t think it would account for all the sources, and there has to be another good explanation for. How, uh, more and polygamy came about like it did, and I really, it’s tough. I, I really don’t know what what that would consist of, what, what it would have to be. I think I I think I would have to really change my worldview and how I look at how works. I think we have to be the biggest thing. um

[23:24] Michelle: OK, so there’s no piece of evidence that could come forward that could be like, like for me, and I know that, you know, this for me, if, if the um evidence had come forward. Differently and and we knew that that Joseph Smith had a child. Like it would just take one child to be like, OK, done, it’s the it’s over, you know, like there’s a really easy way to disprove that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist side. And I’m wondering if there’s a, if a child with someone other than Emma,

[24:13] Mark Tensmeyer: that would be like, OK, I don’t know about you but I think I think even if we had it, I don’t think this whole movement. I think I mean there’s a huge movement that is with Thomas Jefferson, for example. There’s a whole moon about him having a child with this slave out Sally Hemings. There is a whole group of people that don’t believe that and yet we have DNA evidence of that.

[24:27] Michelle: Well, isn’t it because it could have been,

[24:38] Mark Tensmeyer: you’re saying the same thing could happen with that uncle’s kind of

[24:40] Michelle: it depends on how good the DNA evidence would be.

[24:46] Mark Tensmeyer: OK, it’s Smith, who was a was his cousin George. George A brother William. There would be, I mean, yeah, there’s, there’s all kinds of arguments that could.

[25:01] Michelle: I

[25:01] Mark Tensmeyer: mean,

[25:01] Michelle: I

[25:01] Mark Tensmeyer: think,

[25:01] Michelle: yeah, OK, I see that in this. Yeah I see that in the same way because we had, we did have very strong claims from people saying this is Joseph’s child, and same thing when that’s disproved all of a sudden it’s oh well they were having sex with both their husband and both of their husbands or they were, you know what I mean? So I guess there’s no way to get to the bottom of it, you know. So, OK, so that’s interesting to hear. So you’re saying on your side though, same thing, there’s no evidence that could come forward. Like even if it was if it was revealed.

[25:33] Mark Tensmeyer: I think the, the disagreement, I don’t think it has to do as much with the people and how people synthesize. I think the difference is the mentality more than it is anything else. I think by and large people that are on the side that say Joseph wasn’t a polygamists are pretty aware of the evidence. There’s some of the what I call the third party evidence that people tend to not be as aware of. Um, you said you researched the RL. Did you read the Richard Howard paper? OK, yeah, there’s a that’s in there, yeah. There’s what did you say? Yeah, so there’s a lot that’s in there. Now, now, uh, the paper that the paper that originally came out was one that had been edited and it changed how he ended that paper in the The um the recent issue that came up with his like original when how he originally ended it, which is interesting, but um yeah there’s that’s the most recent issue of the Journal. I got a copy I I I I did a book that was in it.

[26:40] Michelle: So he just kind of altered his conclusions, but he still use pieces of evidence he

[26:45] Mark Tensmeyer: was directed to. There was, there was that whole story too about that paper, but anyhow.

[26:51] Michelle: Yep. OK. OK, so that’s interesting because, yeah, so for me, so like I said, this hasn’t been my topic, but I kind of want to share my, um, perspective on it. So, um, I think like, like, like the question of what would be compelling evidence for Joseph’s innocence, um, it’s just, it’s interesting that it’s a foregone conclusion that he was guilty, where I do feel like, um, well, first of all, there is no hard evidence of, I, I guess I shouldn’t say guilty. I, I mean, I mean that he was a polygamist or that he was not a polygamist, right? Guilty of polygamy is what I could say. But we have zero hard evidence and anytime you were trying to say, look, we’re married, there first of all should be children, especially if the reason for it was to raise up seed. That’s one of the main justifications we give for it. And then, um, also any time that you’re married, it’s like, like what marriage is, is you have sex and usually have children. We know that Joseph was fertile and all of his wives were fertile. I know that Navu was different, but I’m trying to define what marriage is. You cohabitate almost all of the time. You take your husband’s name, you have a marriage license or certificate of. So that we can track some sort of a record, you have some sort of a public awareness, you know what I mean? I’m going down the list of anything that would be evidence, actual evidence of marriage. Like if I were trying to prove that Brigham Young was a polygamist, I would just have tons of stuff even before 1852. There were already children. There were even before it was out in the open. And so I’m trying to compare that to Joseph’s and I guess I appreciate that you’re willing to say that it’s not a slam dunk discussion, you know, but then, and then, and then I I thought you said it wasn’t I thought you were you were you think it is a slam dunk.

[28:39] Mark Tensmeyer: I think, I think that it’s pretty clear. I think that there are questions and I think there are issues that are legitimate. I think people that are coming at it from the side that he wasn’t. Are, um, I think that people that there’s, that there are things that about the narrative that that can make that people can look at and say, well, hey, hey, wait a minute, how does this work? But I think that objectively looking at the evidence in totality, yeah, I think it’s pretty clear that he was.

[29:08] Michelle: OK, OK, that’s really interesting. So is that based to some extent on, I’m guessing that that’s based to some extent on like amount of evidence, the amount of affidavits and claims combined with the the certain critical pieces of contemporary contemporaneous evidence is that is that combination?

[29:30] Mark Tensmeyer: There’s a few things you said. I’m gonna back up just a bit. So when we talk about Joe Smith being, like, what exactly do we mean by that? Like what is the mainstream about that? And so, um. And and you’re right. So there’s a lot of things like, uh, so today, let’s say if we were to say what a marriage exists, there’s basically two ways you can do that. Um, you can say that there’s that like there’s a legal marriage because there’s been a marriage license and it’s been a ceremony and it’s been recorded and so there’s, and so there’s an official marriage that way like, and the other way to do it is by like a common law marriage. And so to establish a common law marriage, like if you have a lawsuit. Um, About a common law marriage, uh, where you have to establish because somebody wants survivors benefits or rent control or something like that, then you have to show all the things you talked about. Did they have? Did they hold themselves out of being married? Um, you know, that sort of thing. Did they introduce themselves to relatives as being married, type of thing. By any estimate, by any view of Joseph’s polygamy, that second one, like how, how it would be to establish like say a common law marriage, those elements would not be there. By any estimation, by any way of looking at it. Um, the sources we have on, when we say that he was a polygamist, well, he’s the founder of polygamy, there’s really a few things we mean. One, that he would have these ceremonies with these women where they would have a ceiling ceremony. Um, generally we think for time and for all eternity, you might have been for eternity only. We think that some of them they definitely were for time as well. And for most of them, it’s, it’s like a rom-com or Disney story. Once it gets up to that point, that’s where the story ends. Todd Compton says that in front of those things like Lucy Walker, there’s a big story that she tells about the lead up to it, but then after the ceremony. We have to know virtually nothing about it. If there, if there was anything after that at all. Now, in some cases, We have, we have sources about there being sexual relations. How much and with how many of the wives, we don’t really have a great idea. The other part of Joseph Smith being a polygamist we know is that it was a principle that he taught to other people. And authorize other people to take on. So we’re not saying, so a lot of the things that that he cohabited in the traditional sense where like they, they have a home together. There there’s not really any indication that that’s true, um. And when people say cohabitate, especially in that sense, there’s an equivocation, is that a euphemism for having sexual relations, or does that mean, does that mean literally that they actually had a home together? Um, there’s there’s really

[32:13] Michelle: not, I guess marriages and even if, even if the women have their own homes there.

[32:20] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, I mean, is that the type of thing I mean we really don’t, we don’t, we don’t have we don’t have a lot of reliable sources on that. And so, and so for a lot of, so that’s what we need. So for a lot of those things, and by the way, whenever I say we have this discussion of Joseph Smith’s polygamy. We need to compare like with like, right? I mean, you mentioned we have a lot of those things for Brigham Young, um, even pre 1852. But that’s still 10 years.

[32:50] Michelle: Well, oh, you mean 10 years from 1842

[32:53] Mark Tensmeyer: when he became a polygamist that’s still 10 years. I mean, Brigham Young is a is is really is a polygamist. Um, you know, 3 or 4 years before he has any children. Willard Richards, he becomes a polygamist in 1843. He doesn’t have a child with a poor wife until 1847. So long after Joseph is dead, long after they’ve left. People’s situations were different. So like the lay like Breaking Mok’s household, we really don’t even know that much about his household, um. During the Nu. Like did Lucy Decker have a take with it, we don’t know. We know a bit, we know a lot about the Clayton household because when Clayton kept the generally talks about it, and his wives were his wife’s sisters who lived in the household and it was easy for them to do. And he goes into embarrassing detail about some of that stuff. That’s part of why we love William Clayton and why we kind of have issues with him too, because he’s so embarrassingly candid. Uh, we know

[33:54] Michelle: we have quite a bit from Hebrewy Kimball as

[33:56] Mark Tensmeyer: well. I was gonna say that Kim Kim house as well because of their letters. And so everyone’s situation is a little bit different and so so that’s kind of what we mean when we say that that’s what this is and so if we don’t have. Marriage license and marriage certificates, we don’t really have official records of feelings until February 1846.

[34:21] Michelle: Right, and that was by proxy after Joseph’s death. So we do have though, you’re saying we do have journals from Hebrewy Kimball, Brigham Young, and William Clayton talking about their polygamy. At least giving insight into it. And so what I find interesting is all of those things you talked about about knowing that Joseph taught it and that and and that and that he had ceremonies, all of that is much later, you know, in the affidavits starting in 1869. There’s contemporary evidence that Joseph was teaching marrying inside of eternity, which both he and Hiram denied had anything to do with polygamy. And, and so I guess what I’m finding interesting is we, we always say, well it was illegal they couldn’t have written it in their journals they couldn’t have written anything in it. We know that Joseph was consistently denying it, as was Hiram and um and we know like, like it’s really become more important to me, Joseph’s statement that for the last 3 years I’ve hired several many very good scribes to follow me around and write down everything I do to prove my innocence and um and so so he was actively trying to keep. Have have um daily journals be kept that would show his interest is innocence, and it’s interesting to me that we don’t have those like we have James Whitehead say that he turned all of that in the 12 and where has it all gone? Like we should have several journals, even the best we could claim is that Joseph was telling them, don’t actually write down what I’m doing. But he does say that he had the reason he had these people keeping his journals was to prove his innocence. And so I’m looking at the difference between Brigham, Heber and William Clayton had journals talking about their polygamy. We have nothing like that from Joseph, but we have constant and continual denials from him. I find that.

[36:19] Mark Tensmeyer: And

[36:19] Michelle: we have we have the strongest denials by far from Joseph. Brigham signed Brigham and Here signed their names to Joseph’s things, which to me lends credibility to the fact that he was so frustrated by all of the elders going out and saying he was doing this when he wasn’t, you know, I think that there’s, there’s, there’s that’s something we should consider. I also Well, well, you go ahead and respond and then I’ll, yeah,

[36:42] Mark Tensmeyer: well, I mean there there’s some, I mean like uh like Richards, so there’s that.

[36:49] Michelle: In, in, in William Clayton’s,

[36:51] Mark Tensmeyer: that Joseph and

[36:51] Michelle: who wrote

[36:51] Mark Tensmeyer: Joseph’s

[36:52] Michelle: who wrote Joseph Smith’s journal?

[36:59] Mark Tensmeyer: Well, where are the Richards?

[37:01] Michelle: OK.

[37:02] Mark Tensmeyer: So it’s Joseph Smith’s, yeah.

[37:05] Michelle: But see, but Joseph Smith said the reason he he employed scribes to keep his journal was to prove his innocence of polygamy. So it’s really strange. That he would have Willard Richards keeping a journal for him recording anything to do with polygamy when his stated reason for having journals kept was to prove his innocence. So I, so, so I will say, I will say this, like, like, yes, from the outset to believe that Joseph wasn’t the originator of polygamy requires you to believe that there was a concerted um. Conspiracy, an intentional effort that continued on into the um affidavits, you know, that continued on for decades in Utah to to paint him as a polygamist, and we know that Brigham did that with several other things like the racial ban they tried to say it came from Joseph when we know that it didn’t. There were, you know, there were we have other, um. Cases where this happened and so, so I’m acknowledging that to say Joseph wasn’t a polygamist is to say there was a conspiracy to paint him as a as a polygamist and and that’s the case that I think like like I was going to say that’s the case that I think is has grown for me, especially when like like getting into the RLDS history, it’s interesting to me how we completely disregard and throw out Joseph Smith the 3rd. I find that fascinating because Joseph Smith as the prophet founder and most likely I think we can assume that, you know, he probably looked to lineal succession. That’s that was the biblical standard, and you know, so it’s hard for me to believe that if he had restored this what you know what the later leaders called it the highest holiest principle of the gospel that was necessary for exaltation that he wouldn’t have taught it to his son. We know, we know that Brigham Young wanted his sons to grow up and, and, you know, and, and Joseph said, at least in my research on Emma, his dying words, his last words to Emma before he went to Carthage were, can you raise up my sons to be men like I am? And um, so he, you know, and, and I think Joseph Smith the 3rd was 11 years old and he had a strong understanding of who his parents were. So, so that’s really like, like I think that we throw out, we throw out a lot too easily and then we overstate a lot and take it without enough credulity. That’s that’s been my opinion

[39:33] Mark Tensmeyer: I think that’s there are all these things that we ought to look at. But I mean it’s, it’s really hard to reconcile. Yeah, to reconcile these this outward denial, this outward picture of being anti-polygamy really for any of them with what they would have been doing privately. Yeah.

[39:53] Michelle: So how do you think about that?

[39:56] Mark Tensmeyer: How do I think about what?

[39:58] Michelle: The outward denials, like, like for me, we have a pattern. We know that Eliza Snow, Brigham Young, Hebrewy. Kimball, John Taylor, we, you know, we have a lot of evidence of them saying what was needful to be said, having the highest good being if we want to call it lying for the Lord. Right? We, we have that pattern of them doing that. We don’t necessarily have that pattern with Joseph Smith unless we find him guilty before we go to the evidence, right? Like if, if Joseph Smith was telling the truth, that like that is very plausible. And so anyway, so we, we, it’s people become a little less trustworthy when you know that they have lied. Right, so we know that all of these leaders have lied. We don’t necessarily know that Joseph lied. We believe that based on the claims of these people that we know lied.

[40:50] Mark Tensmeyer: Does that make sense? Joseph was still alive in 1852. But,

[40:55] Michelle: but when they lied so much about polygamy because they’re still alive.

[41:03] Mark Tensmeyer: Right. And I mean, here’s a good question. So like Whitney died in 1850. There’s no record of him ever publicly acknowledging polygamy. Do you believe that he was not a poly, I haven’t done enough research to know but what do we have, and I would want to know what we have. I mean, are we gonna deny that everything about her being married to Joseph. And then even if you’re young. And even the children that she supposedly had and died, that that’s all made up. I mean,

[41:40] Michelle: I think that we would, we would need to look into the evidence is what I’m saying. If Louisa Beaman was saying they’re lying about me, I didn’t do this and, and, and making these impassioned pleas of innocence, I think I would, I would consider that at least and then try to say, OK, are there, is there anything to disprove that? So I’m looking at Joseph’s impassioned. Please and then saying what is there that can disprove that. And the thing I was going to say is that if these other these um the LDS, we know they lied about polygamy, so it’s hard to say that we know for certain that they didn’t lie about Joseph if that that was the connection I was making, but go ahead, yeah, that’s a good point though that he’s not, he wasn’t alive when he could have admitted it.

[42:19] Mark Tensmeyer: And he’s not the only one really. I mean there’s Adams, there’s there’s like there’s any number of people who were involved in it. And so, um, Yeah, I, I wanted to, I found this a bit after I did my paper and I wanted to include it, but this is something, are you familiar with the Lawrence Foster’s work on this?

[42:43] Michelle: Is he the one that wrote King? Oh, maybe I don’t know, you’ll have to tell me.

[42:50] Mark Tensmeyer: OK, so. You know about how Daniel Bachmann did his research in the 1970s and his thesis is kind of the beginning of what we consider the modern academic.

[43:02] Michelle: Because he found those 1, 1869 affidavits.

[43:05] Mark Tensmeyer: He’s he’s kind of the modern ones. Lawrence Foster was doing his research at the same time. He’s never been a Mormon of any kind ever. And he’s not, he’s he’s very sympathetic. And so he did his thesis at the same time too, and they came to a lot of the same conclusions and he wrote. You know this book, this isn’t the first edition is religion, sexuality, so it’s a book that he wrote. Oh yes, yeah,

[43:30] Michelle: I do have that, uh-huh, yeah,

[43:31] Mark Tensmeyer: and so he wrote, it’s about, it’s also about the shakers and the. And so I liked his perspective because he, when he did his research, he fully considered the RLBS perspective. And um And he says Um, he says, uh, he says this, and I really liked how he put it. I think he says, well, 1 may sympathize with the intense hatred of polygamy. Shown by the organized Mormon Church, the popular RLDS position on this issue is historically untenable. Overwhelming exists that Joseph Smith not only introduced plagiarous beliefs in the Mormon Church, but that he almost certainly engaged in the plagiar Christ himself. The evidence includes contemporary letters, diary accounts, and circumstantial evidence from Mormon believers, including a handwritten letter from Joseph. So that’s talking about the Whitney letter. Uh,

[44:26] Michelle: yeah, contemporary man when you say the Whitney, just to clarify, are you talking about the letter saying come and see me, watch out for Emma By this letter is it that one? OK,

[44:33] Mark Tensmeyer: OK. So we’ll put it in. Yeah, diary accounts, OK. I said that printed accounts by more apostates and anti-Mormons are in a position to know what was happening in Nauru. And a large body of retrospective tests and affidavits or wives opposed to associates. These accounts are supported by statements from most of the early leaders of the organization and by the official RLDS paper the true letters since Harold. It says and he goes on how in the first issue how they they had that issue about Joseph being playing this that statement by Isaac Sheen. Which

[45:06] Michelle: we can get into that. I so I just did a deep dive into all of that and I was actually shocked at how weak that like that that’s what I’m finding happens again and again and again is we have statements like this, basically the science is settled. That’s how I always describe it. But then you get into each of these pieces of evidence and they’re not very good. Like that first edition of the Latter Day Saints Herald, um, even, well, I, I don’t know how much we want to get into the weeds, but, um, but you know, researching, he, he relies on Sheen and Marx, and, and I think that the Sheen one just needs to be thrown. It’s very weak, but even the Marx one, there’s a much more plausible way to understand that that I think makes a lot more sense. OK.

[45:51] Mark Tensmeyer: I’ll finish what he says because this is what he says yeah, despite the wide range of biases represented by these different sources, the degree in which they agree on the basic details of polygamy is impressive. And I think that’s what it is. It’s the convergence of the evidence is where these things converge is the biggest thing for me. The allegation, yeah, and so that’s what I think he, he says, but um. The allegation of the testimonies and affidavits which dueta church later was released to sports position were fraudulent is simply not supported by the evidence. And so I would put it in that there’s one is that there’s such a convergence of the evidence that we have. And that um the evidence that there was a conspiracy to bring it about, uh, the kind of conspiracy, the degree of conspiracy that the size of the conspiracy, I just, I don’t see the evidence being there for that.

[46:40] Michelle: OK, so let me, let me ask you something about the convergence of the evidence, for example. So, so with William Marks, he said that Joseph, you know, pulled him aside and said, I’ve been deceived and, uh, right? And so that actually doesn’t converge at all with all of the Utah evidence. Right, and that’s one of like that was for me that William Marks um testimony that he repeats at least 3 times was a, was a really sticking point for me until I realized it really doesn’t make sense unless we understand. That William that William Marks misunderstood what Joseph Smith was saying. Joseph Smith, when you read William Marks’s account, it becomes clear to me that Joseph Smith was saying, I’ve been deceived in the brethren, not I’ve been deceived in the doctrine of polygamy, and I think he could have cleared that up in a heartbeat if he had lived and understood how William Marks, you know, it’s a very easy misunderstanding to make, and it doesn’t make sense otherwise because, well, anyway, I talk about it in my episode. But that

[47:39] Mark Tensmeyer: but also said that he saw the revelation.

[47:44] Michelle: What did you say?

[47:45] Mark Tensmeyer: Ros also said that he saw the revelation.

[47:49] Michelle: Oh, I’d have to see that because there is a lot of, there’s a and, and see there’s so much like, like again, we only look at one side of the story because there’s so much um um testimony of the revelation having been changed and I also

[48:05] Mark Tensmeyer: like dive into the revelations I think that’s a good way to look at the conversion,

[48:10] Michelle: OK. So, OK, we can, yeah, and um and I and I also, well, well, let me, yes, I, I also see for me, I came through it not through the evidence but for 132 itself. So have you looked at 132 like scripturally, theologically compared what it says to what Joseph did, compared whether Joseph had any with any other commandment or revelation from God completely. Ignored it, disregarded it, disobeyed it. It had no application to what he was really doing, and it had factual errors in it and internal um contradictions. Like, like 132 seems to me to be very different from all of the rest of Joseph’s revelations, including the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants repeatedly, and I can’t find anything else of Joseph Smith that’s like that. So I’m curious if you’ve looked or considered that part of it.

[49:00] Mark Tensmeyer: A lot of that can be very, very subjective. It’s consistent.

[49:04] Michelle: Well, not, no, I mean, I mean, you can say it’s subjective in terms of if you pray about it, you get an answer, but we can look at it and say, OK, here are several factual errors in section 132. Let’s such as Isaac, such as claiming that Isaac was a polygamist in verse one, like there’s just one easy one to go to. Isaac, Isaac wasn’t a polygamist.

[49:27] Mark Tensmeyer: It doesn’t say either way in Genesis whether he was or not.

[49:30] Michelle: It gives us a very detailed account of his marriage and his life and his children, and we, we know about his love story with Rebecca. We know about their children, we know about the inheritance, we know, so it would be, I compared it to cause it’s one of the most beautiful love stories we have in the entire, well, at least the book of Genesis. So it’d be almost like writing Romeo and Juliet and just omitting the fact that Romeo had someone else on the side. It would be it’s a bizarre claim to just throw in 132. It just seems like a factual, like, like just everyone kind of goes, oh yeah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were polygamists without real it’s there’s there’s a high level of biblical illiteracy in 132. That I don’t see.

[50:14] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean you can make the argument too that like, so I mean Joseph revelations talk about Moses being translated when the Bible says in a couple of places that Moses died and was buried. I mean, there’s Joseph’s revelations frequently give more details about um About biblical figures and what we have. In the Bible itself and in some places maybe you encountered it. Uh, but I mean, is that, is that a reason to say that, but even if we go with that, is that a reason to say it’s not historical, I mean.

[50:44] Michelle: That what’s not

[50:45] Mark Tensmeyer: historical that the that the that the revelation is not historical. I mean that it doesn’t match up with things in the Bible. Is that a reason to say it’s not historical?

[50:53] Michelle: I’m not saying it. I mean, I, I don’t, I’m not quite sure what you mean by historical. I don’t believe that Joseph was that I, I know, I don’t believe that God was the author of 132, and I don’t believe that Joseph was the author of 132. Maybe there were portion, I think, I think it’s very possible that there was, um, a revelation on, you know, we have, we have notes from the High Council. So that a revelation was read about eternal marriage of some sort, but both Joseph and Hyrum said it had nothing to do with polygamy at all. And so, so I think that that’s possible, but 132 doesn’t like, like I also like I said, I can’t think of another revelation that Joseph received and didn’t at least try to live like. Um, how 132 specifies the rules that specifies about polygamy, our story of Joseph, like, like 132 is very explicit that it must be virgins, and Joseph is marrying other men’s wives. That’s just another example. There are many examples like that. So, so I just wondered if you,

[51:55] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean, so I mean that those are, I mean, to me those aren’t reasons to dismiss it historically, to dismiss that Joseph wrote that Joseph is the one that wrote it. Those may be reasons to say that it was wrong maybe or theological reasons, yeah.

[52:12] Michelle: So if we had like like like I just wanna know if we had say we have like someone saying, hey, Edgar Allan Poe wrote this poem, and we all read it and we’re like, this is not nearly the quality of anything else he wrote. It doesn’t sound like him. It goes against everything that he had previously written. Wouldn’t that be a reason to say we don’t think that like, like that is. Something that we take into consideration when we’re looking at authorship and claims of authorship is, is it consistent with their style with the other things they wrote with the things they previously wrote, right? I think that is a reason to.

[52:47] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean, but again, a lot of that stuff is gonna be gonna be subjective a good way to do it what I would like to see actually. As if we did like an actual stylemetry analysis on, on it too. Someone’s done that. Maybe I could find it and link it. I know it’s, there’s the study was one that she did in the 60s and she was doing it based on the popular but now debunked notion. That, um, writing styles are like fingerprints and you can just, um, that you can just subjectively go through and pick a bunch of writing styles and I know what a person says. She does use a lot of data, but she doesn’t, she doesn’t really test for statistical significance. I mean, to do a ybermetry, if you’re to do it now, and there’s been things done like that, there’s been, there’s been Um, say like this don’t like the Federalist Papers, for example, um. And what you do to them, yeah. Uh, you do things like you, you test connect certain connecting words and you have to build a big body of, of, of evidence, a big body of sources to compare it to, and you have to test it against the control group and you have to test it for statistical significance, and they can test within like maybe a 95% confidence that it is or not. And, uh, the Duar study, um, another interesting one is there’s, uh, Eleanor Partridge did one too, and she did it on Joseph’s writing styles. And she compared it to his writing styles and she said that it matched really well with his writing style. OK. Well, her main study is about the um. It was about the uh the lectures on faith. This is before a lot of the style themery studies have been done on the lectures on faith. And she came to the conclusion that it was Sydney Riggan. But she, she knows, she said that that there are limitations on, but she did it sort of the same way that um. That Eid dearth did where she looked at his writing style subjectively, and she came to the conclusion that it was more like Sydney Rigin’s writing than it was Joseph’s, the blesses on faith that is, and objective studies have since proven that she was right.

[54:58] Michelle: OK, OK, and for me, I’m, I’m not as interested in the stylistic because that does feel a lot more subjective. I’m more, I guess for me, I’m more talking about how, um, Jacob chapters 2 and 3 talk about women, how woman is treated throughout the Book of Mormon, throughout the doctrine and covenants compared to and compared to section 1 and 132, how um. The, the consistent command to cleave to one wife, you know, it always like throughout the entire doctrine of Covenant, it is a very monogamous book of scripture. It’s always one man and one wife, even without the section 101 that Joseph did approve to have reprinted, you know, and But, but throughout the rest of the doctrine of Covenants, it is always one man and one wife. So 132 is a huge departure theologically in and and it really contradicts everything that Joseph had previously translated and previously revealed in really massive ways without giving um. Like Joseph, when he brings something forward, there’s um an explanation, and understanding. It’s, it comes with light and knowledge, right? Instead of just like flat out contradicting it and pretending it doesn’t exist, or like or being unfamiliar with it or not dealing with it. It doesn’t just, it’s it’s not just ignorant of it or just contradict it. It, it elucidates it, is is my experience with Joseph, as well as the fact that he tries to live the revelations that he’s given. But anyway, we can move it on. That’s that’s, that’s where that’s the main way I come that I started coming to it is just reading, you know, like, like, you know, reading Jacob 2, for example, at 132 and going this is not the same God. Like how God talks about women. His daughters, you know, in Jacob2 compared to how God talks about daughters in 132 with like, like one of them is their complete possessions and their feelings don’t matter and that they don’t even have feelings. They’re just instruments to bring to be used by men as opposed to Jacob too. So I, so I find that to be um compelling to me. And so I, I do bring that part of it too. The research, but I feel like we all should, to some extent we should, right, and then, and then I guess my other question is, as I was reading through the Richard Howard paper, I was really struck with him saying how many affidavits the RLDS Church produced um in the in the 1880s and 1890s or 1970s and 1980s or something and And interestingly, we, I’ve never seen those. Like, do you know where those are cause they have just like the LDS Church was producing all of the affidavits that our LDS Church was as well. But for some reason, we just all accept the LDS ones and, and we’re not even aware of, let alone having studied. or accepting the RLDS affidavits and that’s really interesting to me because it’s my understanding that um the RLD like the judge actually sided with the RLDS. They actually won that case. The judge found them much more credible. I know it was later overturned on a technicality, but um, that the same way that Warren on

[58:12] Mark Tensmeyer: the issue, what Judge Phillips decided was that it didn’t matter whether people get this wrong. OK, um,

[58:23] Michelle: but didn’t he say that he did not find the Utah witnesses credible, especially the, the said he did

[58:27] Mark Tensmeyer: not say that that test. People get this wrong. Uh, what he said is he says is that the question comes up is whether Joseph Smith was a polygamist. He says the um the um. The respondents, the the defendant, which is the uh The Temple at Church. So they produced those witnesses that said they were. And he said it would be uncharitable to just say that they that they gave false testimony, he says, so what he says is ordinarily. We wouldn’t, we wouldn’t just look at, uh, you wouldn’t just dismiss the testimony. What he says in line the totality of the evidence, he says it would be difficult to escape the conclusion. That they were that they were um I think more about sports in this time.

[59:14] Michelle: Right. But what say that

[59:17] Mark Tensmeyer: again they were they were but sports and what is the phrase he uses. And so a lot of people interpret that to mean that he’s saying that they were, they were lying. Nest tidy means This thing has a very specific meaning. That’s a reference to the Henry Ward Beecher case. That phrase was made very popular and answered the vernacular and the case. It means an affair between a religious leader, a secret affair between a religious leader and a member of their congregation. Which is what he was found doing. And then he says, and when he says, look, I might have the the the conclusion is clear that no such marriages occurred under the laws of the church. So what he concluded was is that what mattered for purposes of the um what mattered for the purposes of that case. Was which church was following the canonized law that was established at the time Joseph died. And no one was claiming that polygamy was canonized law. They said there was a relation on it, but that it was he said he said what was actually published and officially canonized by Congress. And by no account was polygamy done that. And if you read the recipe, he goes on to say that he goes, he lists reasons to think why Joe Smith was not a polygamist. He lists. The denials and lack of offspring, but he stopped short of saying that that shows that he wasn’t. have their testimony, we have, we have their testimony. We have these reasons that he wasn’t, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. For the purpose so that he never says in there that the women were not credible. OK. His reasons for them are because of other evidence that would counter what they said, but he never said that the testimony that they gave itself is not credible. So

[1:01:05] Michelle: do you, do you, have you read through the testimonies? I assume you have. Do you find like Emily Partridge credible?

[1:01:15] Mark Tensmeyer: I, I think with Emily Partridge, there is an issue because there’s the whole issue of, uh, the second ceiling, and there’s issues about her dating that come up and there’s issues about, uh, about conflict with whether it happened or not, like including in one’s journal. Because William Clayton said that it was going to happen but it didn’t. And so, so, so that’s the whole issue. Cheryl Bruno has a whole um essay on that that’s going to come out in the same book, you know. So I think with Emily Partridge, I think that there are cases where she I think she’s overstating some. a lot I find to be credible.

[1:01:53] Michelle: I just want to clarify, so overstating she is not being honest like

[1:02:02] Mark Tensmeyer: I don’t know about that. OK, I think a lot of cases like I think I think in like especially like. Like James Whitehead, James Whitehead’s testimony is incredibly problematic, but I don’t think he’s outright lying. A lot of people have wondered like, yeah, like Mike Quin says that said James White had perjured himself. There’s a lot of places where. Things he says is absolutely contradicted, but um, but then Richard Howard Richard Howard gave response as well, he’s not perjuring himself, but he’s an older person. He’s listened to RLBS climatics for many decades. Um, so credibility and truthfulness are, are two different things. They’re not OK. Any, anybody who’s an attorney or anybody that’s done this knows that even people when they’re telling the truth are going to have credibility issues. There’s no testimony that is 100%. Um, it’s 100% credible or 100%.

[1:02:56] Michelle: So I guess, I guess like the truth, the truthfulness is objective to a large extent we can look and say no, those are, that, you know, but the credibility is more subjective. I feel like this person is trying to be truthful,

[1:03:16] Mark Tensmeyer: I have absolutely no credibility that are telling the truth. And we know that because when you can tell that because what they say is Supported by other sources and there’s stuff that there’s no other way they could have known what they’re saying. And there’s that’s to say the convergence of evidence. I mean there’s stuff about that like uh like with John Bennett. I mean John Bennett, yeah, he has. Absolutely. But at the same time, the same time, there’s stuff where he identifies 5 of Joseph Smith’s wives and in 2 cases the men that sealed them that is absolutely supported by other sources.

[1:03:54] Michelle: Right, right, for me, see for me that that is almost like, um, you, you, I, I have, um, I know a couple of people that like the um What are the mediums they can go, oh, I’m getting an R, R, is there an R in your, you know what I mean? He has two letters, he does not have anything like a comprehensive list. Some of them are flat out wrong and you know to me it’s like, like, you know, and we don’t know what rumors were going around, what things were being said, and the affidavits were written long after John Bennett, so they would have had access to it. So anyway, so for me that’s not very um. Uh not very. I don’t find that to be compelling that that he got 5 of the wives right. I, I think we have to really stretch it just like you do with a medium. You have to be wanting them to get it right and kind of helping them along is how it

[1:04:52] Mark Tensmeyer: looks to me. So like, so like the letters are pretty broad and he also he also names Joseph Bates No the person that sealed them. So I mean you’re saying that he just like randomly picked those two and like what and

[1:05:05] Michelle: he doesn’t Louisa, right? He he lists

[1:05:08] Mark Tensmeyer: initials that line up with her I mean she’s Joseph Bates’s sister-in-law who lives with her.

[1:05:19] Michelle: Right, and I, I, so, you know, there’s, there’s obviously, you know, I, there’s, there’s gonna be different perspectives, but I do think it’s entirely possible that like, like I think the fact that the laws got some of the wording from 132 correct isn’t that surprising because people were going. Around saying Joseph is saying to do this. So they would have already had some of the language there. They would have already been making claims of, I don’t find Joseph Bates Noble that credible personally, so he could have very well, um, he and John Bennett could have anyway, they could have very well said,

[1:06:00] Mark Tensmeyer: um, yeah, but I mean even that, I mean that that really I mean this is what you get into is like so these these alternative narratives about how this could have happened if it’s not true. So Joseph Bates Noble and John Bennett get together like in 1842, and then he continues to go with that throughout the rest of the Utah period.

[1:06:17] Michelle: I, I don’t know, possibly, but I don’t know. Yeah,

[1:06:20] Mark Tensmeyer: there’s like Brigham Young as a poor in 1846 and the sea to Joseph for eternity. And so I mean that’s what I’m saying. So there’s a this is this is this is we’re going into even if theoretically we’re saying that it’s not true, it’s going to have to involve a very deliberate conspiracy that played the long game insanely well.

[1:06:47] Michelle: Well, I think so so here here’s where like we can talk about conspiracy in in different ways. We know that Brigham was the absolute ruler, right? And we know that they were in a culture of absolute obedience. To the point that women were, I mean, I mean their covenants to God were actually to obey their husbands, and it was a it was if, if you study the literature at that time, the women’s um histories that they were explaining the culture of absolute obedience, right? So, and when you had this kind of like. We have so many accounts of lying of like John Taylor saying it was useful to lie, like we know that this was happening absolutely. So I will acknowledge that the Louisa Beaman is maybe one of the harder pieces on that side, but it, but then you weigh it against this other side that’s so massive that I’m willing to go, oh. OK, it could have happened these different ways. I, I’m not exactly sure how, you know, but we have to weigh it against, like, like, really, Joseph had no children, and our explanation for that is that John Bennett was doing abortions. Like I’m a woman.

[1:08:08] Mark Tensmeyer: I know how painful that we talked about this in the debate. OK. Yeah, so I went into that and um I mean, we, we really just don’t know how much of the How many sexual encounters he had with these women or if he was if he if he was sexually active with all of them, we don’t know. And not all, not all sexual encounters result in the birth of a child and not all, not all conceptions result in the birth of a child either. I mean, we really don’t know. I mean, the assumption is that he’s marrying these women so that he can have children with them, but I mean, do you know that? Uh, that’s one of the reasons given for plaguing, but is it, does that mean that he was wanting to do it now or that it was the only reason? I mean, like I said, Willie Richards doesn’t have a child with a poor wife until 1847. Um, so I don’t, I mean that’s. See,

[1:08:59] Michelle: and I, as, as someone who does believe in, like I, like I believe in God, and I think that God tries to teach us in many ways, and I think it’s profoundly important that Emma was pregnant at the time of Joseph’s death. That is a huge testimony like from the from God of the truthfulness of Of marriage, right? Emma, if you, if you, if you look at like I did an episode on Emma that you, you know, would kind of explain part of my perspective because we just throw Emma out and ignore everything that she says and everything and and the fact that she was Joseph’s wife and the mother of his children and you know, polygamy just minimizes the importance of marriage in so many ways. It really destroys it. And so uh and I also can’t think of any other doctrine. That, you know, Joseph had a lot of doctrinal innovations. I can’t think of one of them that was bad, that caused this kind of problems, and yet Brigham Young had several doctrinal innovations and all of them were bad. All of them created a lot of problems, and all of them the church has completely gone away from. And that’s another reason that it just doesn’t make sense to me because Joseph didn’t introduce. Like this kind of destructive doctrine that caused so many problems and I

[1:10:27] Mark Tensmeyer: think that’s the biggest thing for a lot of people that just being a polygamist, it just doesn’t seem to fit with the paradigm. Of who Joseph Smith is and how he works. But I mean, but again for me, this is, again, it’s like I said, it’s mentality. I think it’s the biggest difference for people is for me it’s that that we do have these sources and they converge. And uh yeah, I think that’s that’s what it is. So, um,

[1:10:55] Michelle: converging Bennett

[1:11:03] Mark Tensmeyer: and Louisa and yeah and so I mean um. 1845 refers to Louisa Beamman as Louisa Smith. Um, So there’s, there’s stuff like that. On the fact

[1:11:14] Michelle: that you have to get into the mindset of they were trying to frame him, you know what I mean? So I know that’s why it’s um yeah, they try to frame him

[1:11:21] Mark Tensmeyer: ostensibly um contemporary records are like forged after the fact.

[1:11:35] Michelle: Well, well, like, like, for example, no one ever called any of Joseph’s wives by his last name. None of them ever went by Sister Smith. So it’s actually weird that Brigham Young would write Louisa Smith. That’s weird because I never was. They didn’t take it. That’s another thing that would, would be a an indication of marriage is they would take his name and none of them ever did. Like, um, um, Todd Compton talks about reading through Eliza Snow’s journal and having to figure out who all of the sisters were. None of them were called Sister Smith ever, but he went through and figured out who they all were and, and he labels them so and so Smith. Young, so and so Smith Kimball, he gives them that last name, but they never took it. So Brigham Young she like she was never called. Louisa Beamman was never called that.

[1:12:23] Mark Tensmeyer: So like Melissa Lot in in the family Bible like so Melissa Lott’s Joseph Smith is also. So that’s another thing that

[1:12:35] Michelle: isn’t that cryptic? Isn’t that like not actually it doesn’t say Joseph Smith and it doesn’t say that

[1:12:43] Mark Tensmeyer: that um that are by Him and then it says that they gave her to wife. On the same day and then in a in a in a little bit later entry first year as Melissa Smith.

[1:12:56] Michelle: OK.

[1:12:57] Mark Tensmeyer: So when she gets married to um To, uh, what’s his name? Ira Willis. I remember that’s first name, then um. And she’s listed as Melissa Smith. And that’s in 1846, 1845, 1846, she was married to him, so she’s listed there. As Melissa Smith.

[1:13:20] Michelle: OK.

[1:13:21] Mark Tensmeyer: So, there’s that. But yeah, by and large they did, they did. So like I said, it’s a lot of these things where we have the ceremony and we don’t have much else after that.

[1:13:31] Michelle: Well, and even this ceremony, we don’t, we don’t really have, I mean, we have some little indication, but we don’t even have a ceremony necessarily. We have someone claiming that there was a secret ceremony that no one else was aware of really. So it’s, it’s very anyway, so, OK, did you want to dig into um like any of you, well, well, so I will, I will say this. I know, I know it I know that it sounds like there’s this conspiracy, but you know, but when we look at it and see it happening again and again, like I, I have had this, I guess that’s why I finally after it has taken years where I’m just like, I’m not even gonna worry about Joseph Smith cause it’s too messy. I can’t get into it. What finally kind of pushed me to that side is again in the Again and again, I would see something that I was like, oh my gosh, this is really bad. Joseph was not only a polygamist, he was awful. And then there’s always an answer to it that shows that not only was it not Joseph, but there was a conspiracy like, for example, um, just last year, the the peacemakers, that what it’s called, that was printed by

[1:14:34] Mark Tensmeyer: Joseph. Yeah, that’s right,

[1:14:37] Michelle: but I, but I’m telling you this happens again and again. Somebody put Joseph’s name really big on the front of the peacemaker. I was reading it going, this is awful, and all of the people that want to claim how awful Joseph Smith is use all of these sources, and then you realize that Joseph completely disavowed it, said it wasn’t him, it was done while he was gone and So we know that there absolutely was this conspiracy trying to, trying to frame him and it shows up again and again and again and he with his own words is like, hey, I teach everything in public. I don’t teach it in secret. Don’t listen to anyone whether they’re a prophet or an apostle. If they tell you anything different. Then the old established laws in the scriptures like he is saying again and again and again that he’s not doing this, and we know and you know everything I find that makes it look like he’s doing it, I later find out is part of the part of a conspiracy. So pretty soon you go, OK, I, OK.

[1:15:36] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, I mean, so things like that, but then, then you see how big this conspiracy have to be and how many people, how many people like. Like Larry Foster says, people are very divergent, even conflicting biases that are somehow working together. That’s where,

[1:15:55] Michelle: I think that John Bennett was definitely spreading I think a lot of um things were being spread. I think William Marks, it was a misunderstanding. I think, um, I guess, well, let me ask you, have you read the um RLDS affidavits with all of the work you’ve done with RLDS, have you read the their affidavits that. So, um, Dick Howard talks about all of the affidavits that both the LDS and the RLDS Church created in the late 1800s to prove their side of it. And, and he, and he doesn’t go into them in the paper. He just throws them out. He just says, and, and that’s not good evidence. And so he throws it out and ignores it. But, but what I find fascinating is he completely agrees with and believes the Utah affidavits but doesn’t bring up like I want to find the RLDS affidavits of all of those people. OK,

[1:16:51] Mark Tensmeyer: I can when I looked at it too is that what I really what I found really about the Richard is that he doesn’t really go into the Utah. Evidence at all. I, I think that’s not, that’s not really what he gets into. He goes into. He goes in some of the later ones. I mean, there’s, there’s affidavits from all the members like Ebenezer Robinson who says Jose was that he quotes.

[1:17:15] Michelle: OK, not in that paper. He doesn’t in that paper. I

[1:17:18] Mark Tensmeyer: just read it. He does.

[1:17:20] Michelle: Oh, OK.

[1:17:21] Mark Tensmeyer: He does, Richard, he, he puts up Robinson quite a bit. OK.

[1:17:31] Michelle: I’m trying to find the quote. So anyway, so that’s what I’m curious about is have you read, so you haven’t seen any of the RLDS.

[1:17:37] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean there’s affidavits that they had and stuff. There’s memoirs and I think he got statements by. Yes, statements from William Smith, um, his, his uncle. Um, and that’s kind of another thing too is you see really the, the deliberate effort that like um. That the RLDS church goes through. That, uh, like with William Smith, um, Joseph Smith the 3rd tells him in a letter says you need to forget everything you know that connects my father. Well,

[1:18:11] Michelle: that’s not exactly the wording. I, I’ve read that. Yeah,

[1:18:14] Mark Tensmeyer: he says that and he tells them he tells you need to give me an a he goes through that. It’s pretty deliberate. Um, the amount of stuff that they go through. I don’t really see that as much, and I mean that’s the thing about the conspiracy angle specific. Evidence for the kind of conspiracy that exists. I don’t really see that. And there’s several dissenters from Brigham Young Circle, people like the Mayman, George Watt. Mark Fors cut that are very intimately connected with them and they don’t expose this conspiracy. Even the ones that don’t think Joe Smith was a polygamist, they don’t, so I don’t, I have a hard time believing the conspiracy of that magnitude exists that would. That would have to exist dead and then again there’s also third party evidence, so

[1:19:01] Michelle: So when you talk about how massive the conspiracy would be, are you talking about all of the affidavits because,

[1:19:07] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean how do they get the dates, they do they do that? I don’t.

[1:19:12] Michelle: But see, I don’t, I like, like, so you do think that it’s more logical that Joseph was marrying other men’s wives and um and that he was connect like like. Like even the, even the Helen Mar Kimball, she like preaches how much sacrifice there was, and I think it’s because this she was living in a time when sacrifice was honored, you know, so she was talking about the sacrifice, but the theological question of Herey Kimball using his 14 year old daughter as a means to serve his own purposes because he wanted to be connected to Joseph Smith. Um, like, like I know Brian Hailes refers to them as dynastic ceilings, but to me it’s like Can’t we all just agree that that’s bad and that’s and, and, and so Helen is convinced that that’s the correct theology. It doesn’t agree with anything that Brigham Young and Hebrew Kimball and Orson Pratt were teaching. It doesn’t agree with anything we have continued to go on. So theologically, there’s just no

[1:20:23] Mark Tensmeyer: there’s nothing to it that makes any sense. I mean that’s bad. Does that mean it didn’t happen? I mean, because it’s bad.

[1:20:28] Michelle: No, but, but, but I guess our, our idea is like as an active LDS people looking at the narrative, there are so many different angles we could take, you know, but, um, and so, so it’s a different discussion to be had with like anti-Mormon or or people that have left the church over Joseph’s polygamy and and really just dislike him and want to find all the bad. And, you know, there are different questions that we can ask. I think that the theological questions are very relevant and important for people who still have, you know, connection to the church, who still

[1:21:04] Mark Tensmeyer: think they are, but if we’re looking at this, um, just subjectively, I mean just because it’s bad because we don’t, certain aspects of these robusts the wrong way, does that mean that they didn’t happen?

[1:21:14] Michelle: No, no, that’s not what I’m saying though that

[1:21:18] Mark Tensmeyer: the theology doesn’t doesn’t mean that it’s not something that people did. I mean, I don’t, I don’t see that as being the case and so.

[1:21:27] Michelle: OK, yeah, I hear what you’re saying. I guess what I, I kind of lost my train of thought there. What I was saying is, I think that there were absolutely, um, the conditions were perfectly set for people to, to have their highest moral good being saying what they needed to say to prove to to to for the sake of the kingdom. We need to protect the kingdom, we need to defend the kingdom, we need to Um, you, you know, we like, like God needs you to do this, uh, like, like to me that is not a stretch at all in as far as the Utah affidavits. And in fact we’ve found several of them that are Like explicitly lying, like we can objectively say this isn’t this is not true. This is a lie. We can find several of them that do that just like how Brigham Young, you know, was making all of these claims about Emma and was would he would always saying Joseph taught me this in secret. Joseph taught me this in secret. We’re actually Hirum was Joseph’s bigger confidant and even Emma was Joseph’s bigger confidant. Brigham spent most of his time on missions, you know, so there is this pattern of dishonesty

[1:22:42] Mark Tensmeyer: that I think should be taking some of that can be taken into account and but let’s also keep in mind too is that. I mean, Just because something happened doesn’t mean that people can also lie about it and also can’t make up aspects about it too. I mean, I mean, yeah, I mean if you look at that too, I mean if you look at the flip side of that too, I mean there’s stuff that William Smith very clearly lies about when he’s talking about Joseph Smith not being a polygamist and there’s stuff that James Whitehead. Clearly lies. Well,

[1:23:12] Michelle: so that’s my question because you, you like, like it seems to me that you discern, you can correct me, but kind of discern when they’re lying and when they’re being honest based on your conclusion that Joseph was a polygamist, so you just kind of automatically say when they are when they’re saying Joseph wasn’t a polygamist, they’re lying when they do you know what I mean, maybe you could help me

[1:23:35] Mark Tensmeyer: to clarify that too, so in the case of James. I mean James Whitehead, there’s a point where he tells RLDS, he tells um William W. Blair. The RL is fossil. Yes, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and the wives into his hands. And so which is contradictory to a temple deposition. Um, he claims that he was Joseph Smith’s private secretary and that William Clayton had been dismissed. That’s not supported by anything else it’s contradicted by many other things.

[1:24:08] Michelle: What is it contradicted by because that was important to me.

[1:24:17] Mark Tensmeyer: I found that interesting. So I think it’s uh Well, I think it’s uh If he says it’s when is it, he says it’s early 1843 that William Clayton’s dismissed.

[1:24:26] Michelle: So the only thing that contradicts it is the only thing I found that contradicts it is Clayton’s 1874 affidavit when he’s telling the story

[1:24:34] Mark Tensmeyer: there’s numerous papers in Clayton’s handwriting. That date well after that, um, there’s the fact that the Times and Seasons has an article that’s well after early 1843 that talks about William Clayton. Uh, the doctor says Willard Richards is his private secretary and William Clayton is the one that fills in when Will Richards is out. So there’s that. There’s the fact that William Clayton is representing is doing work for Joseph Smith and the uh there’s the William Clayton B. Rhodes case that was in the Carthage courthouse well into 1844. So, and, and whatever, what sporting evidence, there’s not really any sporting that James Wyatt was a private secretary. Does he have any papers or letters that show that? I mean, he doesn’t claim that until the 1890s.

[1:25:27] Michelle: OK, in the Temple Lot, OK.

[1:25:29] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean,

[1:25:30] Michelle: I looked it up so the Joseph Smiths, I looked up his biography and it did him as

[1:25:35] Mark Tensmeyer: he was a

[1:25:36] Michelle: clerk

[1:25:37] Mark Tensmeyer: he was a clerk there are a few papers in his hand, he was a clerk, but he’s saying that like. That that William Clayton had been dismissed and he was Joe dismissed like main. Secretary, we just throw up that that back that up. And so, uh, he says that, so there’s things like, so I mean there’s a bunch of things like that. He says that he didn’t follow very young in one of 4 years but it’s likely that he did.

[1:26:05] Michelle: That he didn’t say that he

[1:26:07] Mark Tensmeyer: that he did and did did relocate to. And he was excommunicated. And then he leaves. So I mean there’s, yeah, there’s there’s a whole lot of things. About what James Whitehead says somewhere. So, but I mean, I wouldn’t look at that and say that because we can look at say that James Whitehead and William Smith have these issues. William Smith and T Watt case swears that he that he did not have polygamy in the church that he um. He presided over in 1940s when he totally did. And yeah,

[1:26:45] Michelle: I know William Smith is messy.

[1:26:48] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, he’s a lot of these things. At one point he says that he never heard about polygamy being practiced before Joseph died, and then in another statement, he says that he overheard Joseph telling Emma that the 12 apostles are practicing lygamy in secret, and those are contradictory. And so, uh, but, but, but, um, because I mean those are both individuals that I don’t see a lot of friends. But I wouldn’t say that, say like Emma Smith, we should call what she says on that basis, because those two guys who are RODS members who are called these things, and we know that there’s a big culture within the ROBS church to try and prove Josepheth wasn’t a polygamist. You know that’s true.

[1:27:32] Michelle: Well, I think it’s unfair to a lot of that stuff from William Smith came before he was RLS, and then he was kicked out of the stray movement. He was kicked out, you know, he

[1:27:49] Mark Tensmeyer: he’s very much. I mean, yeah, and he’s not entirely consistent about that.

[1:27:53] Michelle: OK.

[1:27:54] Mark Tensmeyer: OK.

[1:27:56] Michelle: So and then we could do the same thing on the other side, like, do you find William Clayton’s affidavit credible, because to me I find it quite incredible. I think there’s

[1:28:11] Mark Tensmeyer: like I said, I mean. It’s, it would be wrong to say that um in order to find Joseph Smith to be a polygamist, I need to find all the later accounts to be absolutely 100%. Consistent and credible, but there’s not any overstating that there’s not. So if somebody does show up and does lie about being, I mean that the other people that are that were are lying too? Yeah, lies

[1:28:35] Michelle: about me so I’m kind of a double standard, so really, 00, no, I’m sorry, go

[1:28:43] Mark Tensmeyer: ahead, go ahead, yeah.

[1:28:46] Michelle: Did I interrupt you?

[1:28:47] Mark Tensmeyer: No, go ahead.

[1:28:49] Michelle: Oh, just, um, just William Clayton’s affidavit, he. You know, he makes claims that I don’t think are like even even point saying that Hiram said in um oh I didn’t happen right that Hiram said if you write it, I, I can convince Emma when according to the Partridge Sisters Emma had already approved their marriage had already like. Like, like, according to some of the cases, she had already known about it and had already participated and then it’s after that that they’re saying, no, if you can tell, if you can teach it to Emma, I know that she’ll understand like there are a lot of things, many things, and then William Clayton saying that he, um, he was told that he will write any further revelations, which is really convenient because that’s the only revelation that Joseph, that, you know, that he, he wrote that he claimed that Joseph had and then he

[1:29:46] Mark Tensmeyer: said

[1:29:46] Michelle: that Joseph taught him.

[1:29:48] Mark Tensmeyer: In section 129, I think is the earliest, the earliest manuscript we have of that hand. Oh, OK. Yeah, so it’s, um, but So yeah, I mean, I think that there are. I mean, it’s like, yeah, I think a lot of breaking my own statements about how he toldyrum about being about how that is. I think there’s a lot of stuff in there where he’s laying it on a little bit thicker than it is, and I think that that goes both ways. And I can,

[1:30:14] Michelle: I can buy that

[1:30:16] Mark Tensmeyer: that’s the nature of recollections. And always have issues with that kind of thing, but to all of them because they have some of that that’s.

[1:30:27] Michelle: Well, yeah, I think, I think it’s a question of what we’re throwing out entirely, right? Because I feel like the in order to claim that all of the like what we do in the our polygamy narrative is we claim that all of the Utah stories are true and we throw everything else out.

[1:30:46] Mark Tensmeyer: We all are.

[1:30:47] Michelle: Well, kind of like when we list Joseph’s wives, when we, I, I mean, when we like our, our, our historical narrative has been to this point that, you know, that everything that was said in in these affidavits like that’s, that’s our list of Joseph’s wives, that’s our list of what Joseph was doing. We believe the polyandry, we believe the teenage brides, we, you know, we, we basically. Don’t question those things very much. We’d absolutely believe William Clayton’s account, Hook line and sinker, even though it seems to me that 132 came kind of out of the blue magically in 1852. It was locked in Brigham’s desk and I, you know, and I know that we can say that Kingsbury and, and William Clayton’s account, um, affidavit, he, he says who transcribed it and how that happened, but he wasn’t there, he wasn’t watching it. That wouldn’t be. Yeah like he was just sharing the same version that everybody was saying. Does that make and then anyway, sorry, go ahead.

[1:31:45] Mark Tensmeyer: I don’t think it’s the case that academic historians. Accept all details of the stories 100%. I mean, that’s, that’s been the case when I’ve read things they’ll say this is probably exaggeration. I, I think that that is the case, um. And so yeah, I

[1:32:06] Michelle: don’t I guess I should say that more carefully. It feels like the assumption is these things are true, we’re going to accept them unless there is some specific objective reason that we need to throw something out. OK,

[1:32:17] Mark Tensmeyer: that’s fair. That’s fair and I think that’s because it’s again, um, if we think that there’s enough convergence of evidence to say that Joseph Smith wasn’t this. And that makes these later accounts more credible unless there’s a reason not to, not to. I, I think that’s fair.

[1:32:33] Michelle: OK.

[1:32:34] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, uh, so.

[1:32:37] Michelle: So is your, like, do you feel like people are troubled enough by the fact that we do know about how dishonest, how, how many time, how, how, how many lies we’ve already exposed in the Utah period and affidavits and claims. Like, should that not a little more. Well, I mean, we have a clear record of the Utah leaders lying, you know, like, um, I, I’m not going to think of all of them off the top of my head, but, but one example is Sylvia Sessions lying. Like, like, um, Josephine Lion was our, we knew for sure that she was Joseph’s child. It was said forever. It was on her deathbed. She wouldn’t have lied about it, she, you know. That if that DNA evidence had come out conclusive, that would have kind of been a done deal for most people. It would have been like, OK, he had a child with, you know, the fact that that she was lying about it should be a bigger deal. It should be, it should, you know, tip the scale to the other direction more than it did.

[1:33:43] Mark Tensmeyer: I don’t, I don’t know that we can say she was lying.

[1:33:48] Michelle: OK, yeah, well, I mean she could have said you could be Joseph’s child. It it was lying to say you are Joseph’s child.

[1:33:56] Mark Tensmeyer: Here’s the text of that, so. Uh, so this is the Josephine Fisher gives us affidavit, February 24th, 1915. And so right there from the bat, we have an issue. Because is this, is this, is this Sylvia Sessions line? Or the Sylvia Sessions, this isn’t, this is Josephine, this is so off the bat, this is secondhand.

[1:34:21] Michelle: OK,

[1:34:21] Mark Tensmeyer: OK. Yeah, this is secondhand and it is 33 years after the fact, after she’s so right off the bat. We have that issue. OK, and so this is Josephine telling the story. She says just prior to my mother’s death. 1882, she called me by her bedside and told me the days. OK, she decided to tell me something she kept an entire secret from me and others, but not until what she now desired to communicate. She told me, uh, this is interesting, she told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith. She having been sealed to the prophet at the time her husband, Mr. Lyon, was at a fellowship with the church. OK. So, Um, Yeah, so there’s a lot to impact there. So she’s, is she the daughter of Joseph Smith, is she, does that mean that That um Sylvia, she’s with Joseph Smith and not Windsor lion because Windsor’s out of. Fellowship with the church at the time, that at the time of um her conception. Does that mean that she’s That she is Joseph Smith’s daughter because her because because Windsor Lyon was at a fellowship with the church at the time. It’s tough to say. One of the things Brian Hailes did some research on this. He said that he found a bunch of Other documents from the family at about this time, about like 1950, 1950. We refers to some of, um, what refers to some of um their relatives. Um, that couldn’t have been Joseph’s biological children because they were born to, but. As being his children and so it’s clear that they’re not meaning. In the biological sense of various children, but at the same time, there’s a lot going on here because she says that she didn’t want to make a statement public because it might have caused an unpleasant curiosity. So If she’s saying that she’s, she’s um her child. That she’s Joseph’s child because she sealed the Joseph. I don’t know if that would cause an outcry. But there’s just a lot going on here and it’s really hard to parse out. Sure, yeah, I mean I saw, I saw a blessing given to one of Josephine’s nieces whose mother was born years after Joseph died that says you’re the last born grandchild of Joseph Smith. And it’s from around the side.

[1:36:55] Michelle: OK, so is it fair to say though that this was um seen very much as proof of Joseph’s polygamy because he had a child and Joseph

[1:37:07] Mark Tensmeyer: as the historians took it as a fact. Yes, OK, yeah, but then what’s the conclusion based on that historians took this as a fact, and they were wrong. The historians are wrong that so that means that historians were wrong about something. It doesn’t mean it means

[1:37:25] Michelle: it means that we have a bias toward believing claims of Joseph’s polygamy and um and and we accept them and then because everything you said this is problematic, it’s secondhand, it’s late. That’s true of pretty much everything, you know, that that’s that’s kind of the story of that

[1:37:46] Mark Tensmeyer: have looked at and pointed out before the DNA.

[1:37:50] Michelle: Well, no, I, I guess all I’m saying is I think it’s OK to be a little bit hesitant to just, I, I think that it does show the bias to say Joseph was a polygamist. Anything that’s that is evidence of Joseph’s polygamy, we accept anything that doesn’t show up, that isn’t evidence of that, we are very skeptical of or we ignore it or we downplay and minimize it. I think that that bias is very present. And so now that we know that um that Josephine was not Joseph’s child, now we get in and try to go, OK, it could be for all of these different reasons, but until we knew that for sure, it was like slam dunk evidence of Joseph’s polygamy. That’s how it was considered. That’s how it was used,

[1:38:35] Mark Tensmeyer: you know, like in my experience, yeah, you’re right, that is true. And and OK, I mean, yeah, I mean, I think we can come to there I think that this does show that maybe we haven’t a bit too eager to. Except some of these.

[1:38:47] Michelle: OK. Yeah, and, and, and I will acknowledge also, like, like, yeah, there are tricky things on the other side, you know, William Clayton’s journal is tricky. Um, I had an interesting conversation with some possible solutions about that, um, and, and, you know, John Bennett, while, while I don’t think it’s a slam dunk, it is, you know, it is something that has to be explained and so I guess though that I think, you know, like, like I do think it’s OK to say, hey. You know what, even if some and also even if people believe some of these things like that Joseph read a revelation on ceiling in some way or eternal marriage in some way, which it seems clear he did, does that necessarily mean that all of this is true, which is. Kind of where we want to go with it. Like I think that still, even after the Josephine Lyons came, came out, what I hear still is, well, he was, she was sleeping with both men. That’s still the most common explanation I hear and. So that feels like huge bias, or what did you say?

[1:39:52] Mark Tensmeyer: Or, or just like one in succession, right? I mean. There there’s, there’s a lot of possibilities. Yeah.

[1:39:59] Michelle: Yeah, and so anyway, I have and that’s why I wanted to like, like for me it’s like we need to be a little more, we need to be and I appreciate you for this because I do feel like you’re respectful to people that are um skeptical of Joseph’s polygamy, but a lot of people are like, oh my gosh, you’re a flat earther. You’re a, you know, and I don’t think that that’s, I don’t think this discussion should be

[1:40:22] Mark Tensmeyer: a lot of historians do acknowledge this kind of thing. I mean, Brian Hill says this in quite a few of his statements like, look, we’re trying to come up with. Definite answers like like. Did Joseph was was Joseph Smith sexually active with these uh polyamorous wives and we’re trying to base this on. Really evidence that we, when our evidentiary body, we’re trying to come up with very definite answers to these things when our evidentiary body is not great. I mean that’s, yeah, yeah,

[1:40:49] Michelle: but I feel like Brian Hills is, well, I feel like he’s firmly settled here and he’ll have a little details that he’ll be willing to discuss, but we’re over here and he does not, you know, he, he is very set in

[1:41:02] Mark Tensmeyer: and I mean if you’re wanting to say the whole thing. I mean,

[1:41:09] Michelle: or was he was the author of 132? Oh sorry, that’s Yeah,

[1:41:15] Mark Tensmeyer: do you see I don’t know how much more we want to go into this, but I think going into the deep dive 3 documents on that I think would be a good place to go.

[1:41:24] Michelle: Good, maybe we can do that for our last bit because we have talked for a while. I hope people are still finding this interesting. I am.

[1:41:30] Mark Tensmeyer: OK. So, um, we look in the, um, I don’t know if I want to go over all the sources that they talk about the revelation. There’s a few. So the first ones that we have are going to be private documents about the revelation there’s. There’s Joseph Smith’s Journal. That on the date of the revelation.

[1:41:53] Michelle: Can I clarify something as we get into these?

[1:42:09] Mark Tensmeyer: Um, all of these could be talking about something was in the high, right, but it doesn’t necessarily that he wrote a revelation that it’s in the. William Clayton’s journal says that it is about, um, that it’s about polygamy, it’s about the ancient patriarchs. He wrote, he wrote a revelation on it for Joseph. This is a this is one of Paul Hanson’s um things that he found. And this is a letter that um Jacob Scott wrote in January 18 January 5th, 1844. Paul Hanson is the president of the ROBS form of the 12. He was looking for any evidence related to Joseph Smith’s polygamy. And he, he got this from, um from Jacob Scott’s grandkids who were members of the RLDS church. He verified the postmark and he verified the date. And he says um several relations of great utility and uncommon interests have been communicated to just from the church. But where you and I, where you all are, he’s writing this to his relatives in, I think it’s Ohio. You cannot obey them. One is that all marriage contracts and covenants are to be everlasting, that is that the parties that belong to the church and will obey the will of God and the relationship to others are to be married for both time and eternity. And in this respect, whose partners and in this respect those whose partners are dead before the revelation was given to the church, they had the privilege to be married to their deceased husbands or wives, as the case may be, for eternity. And if it is to be a man who desires to be married for his deceased wife, a sister in the church may stand as proxy as a representative of the deceased in attaining to the marriage of the ceremony. Or in such as the case of the widow who desires to be joined in an everlasting covenant to her dead husband. If they are not thus married for eternity, they must remain in a state of celibacy and be as angels ministering spirits. Or servants to be married to all eternity and can never rise to a greater degree of glory. And many of the members of the church who have already been availed themselves of this privilege have been married to the deceased partners in some cases where a man has been married to 2 or 3 wives and they are dead, he’s been married to them all. And he goes on a bit, a bit about that too, and he says that he wants to be married to his deceased wife and to his current wife. And so that’s, that’s a document that’s dated January 5, 1844.

[1:44:28] Michelle: Yeah, I, I believe Richard Howard includes that in his paper. That’s one that I read, uh-huh

[1:44:33] Mark Tensmeyer: that’s one of the ones that um. That’s one of the ones that uh Paul Hanson. found and was part of the RLES archives and so there’s a lot in there that’s that’s in section 132.

[1:44:46] Michelle: I would say it actually is not very consistent with 132 at all in most ways. I don’t think so because, because that’s talking about ceiling with your deceased spouse and it’s equal it it it mentions both men and women. It’s not anything about 132, about restoring, um, you know, about taking 10 virgins and about the, um, you know, there are so many, um.

[1:45:16] Mark Tensmeyer: But there’s another part in here. There’s another part in here. I, I finished on my screen. Um, that’s

[1:45:23] Michelle: OK. You can just read it to us. You know if you don’t

[1:45:25] Mark Tensmeyer: want. He says, but he says, um, there are many things connected with this subject, which I am not at the ready to communicate with you. where you are living, which would make the plain to the minds says there’s a lot more to this that I’m not at liberty to tell you. And interesting enough, when Paul Hanson got that letter from his grandson, they said that there were actually more letters that went into more detail about about spiritual life doctrine that they were directed to destroy by leaders of the church. Oh, OK. Yeah, Paul Hanson has that in his notes.

[1:46:01] Michelle: OK.

[1:46:02] Mark Tensmeyer: So that there were records that they were, they were not that they were later um. Um, letters by this gentleman about that.

[1:46:10] Michelle: OK. That’s interesting.

[1:46:14] Mark Tensmeyer: Yeah, so, um. There’s, uh, see, I don’t have it up here, but there’s another one. Um, Jacob Vidrine did another video just recently where he goes through a lot of these. Where there’s Franklin Richard’s um account book that he has about the high council, and there’s one where he says where he meets with Hiram, and it’s in August 1843. And that’s where um he says that Hiram says that the doctrine of the the right marriage needs to be it’s going to be restored. So that’s where a man marries his.

[1:46:49] Michelle: His dead brother’s wife’s.

[1:46:52] Mark Tensmeyer: Which is very positive. Which is very possibly what Joseph did with um. But Don Carlos is Uh, widow. Agnes Kolber. And so there there’s that and so it’s August and that some interesting stuff that happens is it’s in the next meeting that the high council has after August 12th. Is September 1st. And that’s when Austin Coles brings charges against um. George J. Adams, related to him preaching polygamy. George J. Adams had previously had his license taken away. For charges regarding adultery and um And slander, which. And according to some accounts about being about teaching spiritual life doctrine, and Joseph gives him his license back and it publishes that in um In June 1843, after after Elder Adams gives testimony against Benjamin Winchester case. And just after that, so he, so he reinstates him after Joseph reinstates him, and so then Austin Coles brings charges against the same charges against. Um, George J. Adams in September 1st, 1843, after the revelations were written. And the high council um doesn’t exonerates him or it doesn’t, doesn’t drop the charges against him, finds him not guilty. And then the next meeting is they publish the, uh, they published the things in the Elder Adams has his license and then it’s later that month that Austin Coles resigns from high council. He resigns as second counselor in the in the presidency. And so he’s the one that gives the affidavit and the exposure. Where he says that there was the revelation that Hiram read last summer to the high council. And he says that it um he says that there’s two parts. One part is about eternal marriage. It says that if two people are married and they’re still live eternal life and they’re Then they’re, they’re sealed up forever unless they commit murder and then the second part is about having many is about, um, is about the ancient patriarch saving many wives and concubines and also is about to marriage. So a good little a good summary of Section 132. And then of course it has William and Jane Law’s affidavits in them as well.

[1:49:17] Michelle: OK, so as far as um. As far as the story of. Him asking Joseph to get the Y thumb and then getting the revelation then and letting you know, and then, and then Joseph reading that in that meeting. I guess whatm reading it in the meeting. So, um, does it make sense to you that they would have been doing this in secret, being married to all of these people, you know, without ever having written the revelation, like what what what was it they were teaching from? Um, I, I

[1:49:55] Mark Tensmeyer: think it is. I mean, they did baptism of the dead, the dead before they had a written revelation on it.

[1:50:00] Michelle: OK, and so what would lead Hirum to read it at that point when they already were living it and when it was already, they were already having so much hostility and denying it all the time. They had already been excommunicating people, they continued to, they were denying it constantly and living it. So why would they at that point put themselves in that much danger to um to read 132.

[1:50:24] Mark Tensmeyer: Um, I think it is. Hirum believes that if people know that it’s about, that there’s a revelation. Um, for it, he believes people will come around.

[1:50:35] Michelle: Based on affidavit,

[1:50:37] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean, that’s, that’s what Ebenezer Robinson says. He is when he’s, uh, when and when he says it too, he says, yeah, Hiram approached me and my wife. This is an RLDS member who’s not a polygamist who’s not in the state. He says, yeah, that’s what Ayrum said. He says that he didn’t believe it until he had, this is a this is a recurring thing. That’s stated in a lot of things. There’s a, there’s a, that’s what Ebenezer Robinson says. It says Hirum says, I didn’t believe it until I knew it came by revelation.

[1:51:07] Michelle: Well, OK, OK, how did Him by revelation before the revelation and that’s that revelation as early as 11 or 13. That’s a long time. That’s what Brian. They, they, they want to claim that Fanny Alger was a wife, which I think is another evidence of just the goofiness of this. So we probably need to wrap this up soon, but this is why I think it gets so problematic is because, you know, like, like trying to fit the trying to fit the pieces all together just gets really. but

[1:51:54] Mark Tensmeyer: I mean, I think, well, to say that Joseph has a revelation onlay doesn’t mean that he has the revelation that’s written in 18 July 1843 on it.

[1:52:06] Michelle: Although that’s what that’s what William Clayton is claiming. He says that he has it memorized. He has it perfectly memorized and recite it and and and and then he has him read it back to him to make sure it was the perfect, but then it’s claimed that he’s had it a long time ago, but it speaks to Emma of things they claim were happening that very. Also, Joseph is so protective of Emma. Why in the world would he have such harsh things said about her red in the high council? Like, like, like a lot of things seem anyway, sorry, go ahead, I’ll let you get the

[1:52:39] Mark Tensmeyer: last word. Have revelations and add to them later.

[1:52:49] Michelle: OK. I mean, that’s, that’s what Jeremiah in the revelations, but it’s it’s it’s it’s that’s not receiving a revelation at that point that he’s reciting a previously received and memorized revelation. That’s what the whole story is framing is that

[1:53:09] Mark Tensmeyer: that’s something that he had and then he’s adding more to it, but maybe I don’t know. I mean, again. Do we is William’s later recollection supposed to be entirely accurate?

[1:53:20] Michelle: Right. Well, this is why it’s so right, this is why it’s so tricky because we all basically what this comes down to is what do you prioritize, what do you believe. What do you question because there’s contradiction all throughout it, it seems to me. I, I know that there are areas of divergence and I mean convergence, but there are also a lot of areas of divergence, and I would say there are areas of, you know, that happens on both sides of the discussion.

[1:53:46] Mark Tensmeyer: Let’s take a look. This is from the Novi neighbor. Um, they meet a couple of times after the exposure comes out on June 8th. Iron refers to revelation right to the high council of the church, which is also much talk about a multiplicity of wives. That said, revelation was an answer to a question concerning things which transpired in the former days and has no reference to the present time. So right there he’s saying that there’s a revelation. But it was just in reference to the former days. Doesn’t have any, doesn’t have any relevance today. And he confirms that the revelation that what that what Austin says is true that there was a revelation the high counsel. So he confirms that that’s true. Joseph says on in the morning on June 10th says they make it a criminality for man to have a life on earth while he has one in heaven. According to the keys of the priest. This again goes to the idea of he’s confirmed that there is one about stealing that you can be married to a wife on earth while also having one that you’re.

[1:54:47] Michelle: Which would make sense with Hirum’s situation because that was his and then he read a statement.

[1:54:58] Mark Tensmeyer: He then read several statements by Austin Color concerning a private interview and said that he never had a private conversation with Boston Coles and the subjects. Which is interesting because Austin Pools never said that they had a private conversation on this subject. He said that Him. Harm read it to the high counsel. He never said that he had a private conversation with Joseph. And that he preached in the stand showing the ancient order of days having nothing to do with the present time. So he says that that he preached from the stand, so again, and then that afternoon. Then Hyer says that the falsehood of Austin exposure in relation to regulation referred to that as a reference to the former days and not at present times related by calls. So again, he’s saying what Austin Pos got wrong. Was that this revelation is relevant to the modern day. So he’s saying it was about polygamy, but it’s just about 4 times. And then Joseph says that he never preached the revelation private as he had thought he had not taught it to the church in private. Which statement may confirmed? Uh, um, OK, so he says he never preached the revelation in private. But then again, Hyrum said earlier that it was read to the council.

[1:56:10] Michelle: Well, but Joseph said he never preached it in private, and all of these affidavits say that he was teaching it in private years and years before this.

[1:56:19] Mark Tensmeyer: Uh, well,

[1:56:23] Michelle: 2 years, yeah, yeah, well, I mean, if we want to make Fannie Alger a wife, which Eliza Snow claims and which Brian Hailes claims.

[1:56:30] Mark Tensmeyer: Right, and he goes on and then he confirms some of the things that are that don’t find the passage resurrection and they need to marry nor given in marriage, and he received from answer that all men in this life must marry and view of eternity. Otherwise they remain as angels and be seen, which is the amount the revelation referred to. OK, so that’s who he says he says that’s the subject of the revelations about eternal marriage. And so there’s a lot of things in there that do confirm what’s that um do you have a 132? And then there’s some things that. And he says the amounts of the revelations, so These things might be re seemed to counter it a bit. They might be reconcilable how Hiram says that the revelation was about he just doesn’t. Pertains to the modern day. And then Joseph says, well, the revelation was about eternal marriage. Right, and it does seem like it like it’s rolling thing.

[1:57:26] Michelle: To me, reading Hiram’s sermon that he gave, um, oh, I won’t remember the date, but he gave it, you know, he asked, he asked. OK, and he, and he, I think he gives sheds more light on this, you know, reading that in the context of this, um, and then, but he, see this, this never says anything about polygamy actually, you know, like, like you’re saying they read a revelation about polygamy, but it just says that they read a revelation about the former times and about marriage and You know, and then Hyrum Smith gives that sermon and he very explicitly is like, polygamy is awful. Everyone should have their nose run. He’s talking about polygamy. So, so I think that that does shed more light on, you know, to me this is actually evidence of that they weren’t doing what it’s claimed that they were doing and it also talks about. And it talks about all of the elders going around and saying this like Joseph is getting reports every 10 minutes from the elders saying how many wives can I like, like asking basically what Here and Brigham and William Clayton and Orson Pratt later claimed and Joseph and Hyrum are very much denying it. So anyway, we’ve got to wrap it up. So go ahead, make your last, um, because I think it’s, I think it’s important to get into this.

[1:58:40] Mark Tensmeyer: One of my issues with this is that nobody really backs up this story. None of the high council members do, um, and. They don’t, they don’t publish the revelation now, which I think they would have had every reason to, um, and this is a special circle that went out in the novel neighborhood. They’re trying to discard, they’re trying to um discredit the exposure, that would have been a good way to do it. But you have, you have William Marks, who’s the president of the um Of the Navvo state, who’s later the first council on the RLBS first presidency, who’s never an apostate, who’s never a polygamist. And he says, Um, He was there when Hy read the revelation on marriage to the high counsel. He says it was about polygamy. He confirms Austin Cole’s side of the story. And then you also have Zenus Gurley Junior who goes to see who goes to see Leonard Toby, who is the other member of the high council who doesn’t go with Burton Young, who also confirms it was about polygamy and it was the same revelation that the Utah Tur publishes. Nobody else backs it, not even Emma backs up the story.

[1:59:53] Michelle: Yeah, and Cushley is third hand like Joseph Smith the 3rd doesn’t give him much credit, you know, like, like that wasn’t the third hand account, but I, but I hear you. So, OK, so, so the question that you’re saying, which I think is valid, is if it was just about this, why didn’t they go ahead and publish it to

[2:00:17] Mark Tensmeyer: Why isn’t there more um Support for that being the case, there’s I mean I don’t.

[2:00:25] Michelle: Yeah, and I, I hear you. I, I, I would count on the other side like if it was the revelation that 132, there’s a lot more scandalous stuff in there that I think they could have been talking about like the things said about Emma and the threats of destruction, you know, there are a lot of other things that I would

[2:00:41] Mark Tensmeyer: have about Emma.

[2:00:45] Michelle: I don’t think about Emma, right. Right, and, and so, so, um, anyway, OK, this, I really appreciate how much time you’ve given me and and I know

[2:00:57] Mark Tensmeyer: that I

[2:00:59] Michelle: I know, I know you have so much more and I really appreciate you engaging with me because I know when I first when I first asked you to come on, it was. Before I had sort of, um, I was much, you know, I’m a little bit more of a skeptic. I’m a lot more of a skeptic now than I was when I first invited you on. So I hadn’t intended to anyway, I really appreciate you as what I’m trying to say, and I hope I didn’t push

[2:01:32] Mark Tensmeyer: too hard. I really like you sharing your um if you.

[2:01:34] Michelle: Yeah, and then what I’m hoping that people will do is really recognize this is complicated and it takes a lot of care and really it might just be like trying to prove the truthfulness of anything where ultimately we just have to, you know, go with our personal answer we get with the best research we can do and the best information we can get. Oh,

[2:01:58] Mark Tensmeyer: but I mean it definitely is a complicated subject for sure.

[2:02:03] Michelle: So, OK, yeah, and obviously we settle on different sides of it, but maybe that’s because we prioritize different, different parts of it. I would like someone to help me understand how 132 is consistent with Joseph Smith. That just, that’s, that’s pretty big one to me. So, and you would like someone to help you understand why there’s so much convergence in all of the different sources. So, well, any, any last words that no, not really

[2:02:34] Mark Tensmeyer: a lot more to go. Yeah,

[2:02:39] Michelle: well, and you know what, I think that maybe um I, I would say like, like look, tell everyone we can look for Mark’s chapter in his book that’s coming out. That sounds really interesting and continue to engage because I do know that you have a lot of knowledge and depth and information on this, so. I think it will be very valuable to continue, to continue to discuss and, you know, it’s not an easy, it’s not an easy, um, topic to get to the bottom of, so. All right. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Oh, well you have a good night, Michelle. You too. I’ll talk to you later. Thank you for sticking with us. Um, I hope that you found this worthwhile and that there were some good insights that you gained. I’m sure there were many times that you were also frustrated. And so I would love the conversation to continue in the comments. Any things you feel like we missed or we didn’t go deep enough into, or I just think it’s really valuable to get, get the most information. That we can from the most voices possible so that we can really dig in and try to figure this thing out. So anyway, I, I definitely appreciate Mark coming. I wasn’t convinced that to me, I’m always surprised by sort of the lack of evidence and the weakness of evidence that people consider very certain. So I thought it was a useful discussion though, and I really do appreciate him coming on. Next week, we will continue. You, um, our investigation of Joseph, but from the other side, I’ll have the chance to talk to Jeremy Hope. And so I hope that you will stick around for that. And going forward, we’re going to continue to look at Joseph, but we’re also going to continue to look at other things. We have some other other exciting episodes planned. So thank you for joining us. I hope you will stick with us going forward. I will see you next time.