Response to Brian Hales and Steve Pynakker (Mormon Book Review)

This week Mormon Book Review teamed up with Brian Hales to review (and question the motives of) Michelle and her research without inviting Michelle to join the discussion. This is Michelle’s response to that video. Huge THANK YOU to Cheryl Bruno for calling last night and coming to my side to respond to it.
This is a very important conversation. Please join us!

Links:

Original Mormon Book Review Episode to which Michelle and Cheryl are responding

Transcript:

[00:01] Michelle: Welcome to this very exciting extra episode of 132 problems. This was not planned, but after some things that happened yesterday, Cheryl Bruno, who I could not love and respect more reached out to me and we shared our mutual indignation and Cheryl agreed to come on and talk with me to share with all of you our perspective, our feelings and our objections to some things that are happening right now. So Cheryl, welcome and thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[00:37] Cheryl Bruno: Hello, everyone. I’m so glad to be here with Michelle and I am glad to have the opportunity to share a few of my thoughts on something that’s happened that I think everyone can learn from no matter what you are, no matter what you’re um where you are in Mormonism, whether you don’t even have any interest in Mormonism. I think that these are important principles that we’re going to share um today and I think that they’ll be um educational for just about everyone out there. So I’m glad to have that opportunity. Um This is talking about and let me bring up a um do you want me do

[01:16] Michelle: you want, do you want me to? Just so everyone knows we’re doing this live. So there will be no editing. It will be a little bit rough because we just needed to bring it out right now. Um Are you in your presentation describing what happened or should we do that first?

[01:30] Cheryl Bruno: Yes, I’ll describe a little bit of what happened. So, um this is, this is a response to a video or a podcast that Steven Pinker put up about with Brian Hales. And I think that um Michelle can explain a little bit of the background a little bit better than I can. So I’ll, I’ll leave that to her. But um this went up where um apparently from what Steve explained, many people were coming to him saying, oh Michelle, um Stone has become a voice in this polygamy um debate and you should have her uh or you should, I don’t know, address what she’s saying. So instead of um asking Michelle to explain what her views were, he asked his friend Brian Hales to come on and um and respond to Michelle uh before he even had the perspective of what Michelle was all about. And it becomes very obvious throughout the podcast that um that Steve does not know what Michelle is all about. And um and so let me just, let me just, I’m gonna start with my background here. Um And my, I’m gonna give you my Mormon Cred. OK? Because and that’s sad that you have to do so. But I want you to explain like where I’m coming from. And um I am not in um the same camp as Michelle is, I believe that Joseph Smith did in initiate polygamy and that he practiced it. And I hope that Michelle and I can have many fun debates on this as time goes on. But um I have also entered the world of Mormon Polygamy with several articles that I’ve written and I have a book that’s coming out in a couple of months. That is actually I noticed last night that it is up for pre or so you can actually preorder this book. It’s called Secret Covenants, New Insights On Early Mormon polygamy. And it does come from the standpoint that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy. And in this book, I edited this book and brought together many um of the scholarly um of the, the Mormon historians who are studying early Mormon polygamy and you will recognize many of those names. So, um that is where I’m coming from.

[04:00] Michelle: And can I just add to that, that, that what I one thing I really appreciate about Cheryl is in our private conversations, which we’ve been having, several of which I have highly valued Cheryl. I’ve so appreciated that you have acknowledged that you haven’t fully engaged in this enough yet to like, like I feel like you have much more humility in your approach where you say this is what it looks like to me, but I can’t get fully defend it and I’m open to hearing more evidence, right? Which I really appreciate.

[04:31] Cheryl Bruno: Yes. And I have to also tell the audience that Michelle has done the same where I’ve sometimes given her a little bit of information or pointed something out. She’s immediately taken that in and not pushed back against it, but looked at it to see if it had validity and if it did adopted it. So I really appreciate that as well as she is not just um coming at this from a singular point of view and trying to make all the evidence fit into her point of view.

[04:59] Michelle: So shall we say I’m doing the opposite of what Brian Hills is doing?

[05:03] Cheryl Bruno: OK, I will point that out in just a minute here. So um now Brian has often, OK, Michelle and I recorded a podcast. Was it like 10 days? Yeah.

[05:18] Michelle: And I should say on Sunday, this is what’s so remarkable about all of this. Um My interview with Cheryl is set to be to be released on Sunday. I had planned to release it last Sunday, but with the temple, I released the interview with the clots who are in the restoration branches. So I bumped Cheryl’s to this week, which now turns out to be so providential cause we’re having this conversation just a few days before we are releasing that conversation. So it was just last week we spoke. So

[05:44] Cheryl Bruno: you’ll see me again very soon. But I’m doing that conversation, Michelle and I had, we, um, Brian Hills came up and, um, she asked me what my, with Brian had been and I said that we had been, we’d had very cordial conversations um, in the past and that’s how I really did remember it. And I remember that Brian is always saying, deal with the evidence. Don’t, don’t um personally attack me. Don’t call me an apologist, talk about the evidence, deal with the evidence. That’s what he’s always saying to me. But I found that that’s not what he is doing here and it’s very discouraging. Um And I went back in um the internet record to find some of our old exchanges. And I went back 10 years to April 2014 when his book was just coming out and I did a book review and um I noticed that Brian was using the same technique that he had used in this podcast yesterday. Um And he knows very well what the word ad hominem means. And I think many of, you know what this is a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character motive or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. And this is a classic, classic case of ad hominem. But let me just tell you a little, um, let me just read you what he said publicly about me, he said um this version of him, Joseph Smith she portrays in this post and in her article does not seem to support it. Um Oh, it prompts me to ask Cheryl if she believes Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The version of him she portrays in this post. And in her article does not seem to support it. Are we to classify Cheryl Bruno as another webmaster who teaches that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing number of such voices on the inner these days. And yes, um It’s very, that’s very classic, Brian Hales. Um Then the other one he says, um I can’t quite see it here, but he says, Cheryl proclaims a belief in Joseph Smith. As can you read that? Um Michelle uh the

[08:11] Michelle: bottom paragraph. Yes. Um Cheryl, I am troubled that Cheryl would portray Joseph Smith’s plural marriages as indiscretions that arose from his predilections. The prophet taught that ceilings were part of the new and everlasting covenant, a covenant that came through revelation from God. Cheryl proclaims a belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet, but her depiction of him in the article and in our subsequent correspondences seems to contradict

[08:36] Cheryl Bruno: it. So, um Brian is attacking me and he is bringing up my, he’s trying to um to downplay my membership in the church and my uh validity as a Mormon member and whether I my arguments he’s not addressing my arguments, but instead he’s addressing whether I’m a good Mormon or not, you know, this is ad hominem and, um, and this is, uh, this is something he asks over and over again for people not to do to him. So, um, here’s the, here’s just a picture of um, a little still of their um, podcast yesterday where, um, Brian comes on and Steve is interviewing him. And, um, I will say that it was the most um discouraging to me, it was very discouraging. And I hope that, um and I do believe that we will all be friends after this, of course. Um because Steve is willing to reach out, I will talk about the problems with um what he did in a minute. But um and Brian I think has, um I don’t know, it’s, it’s so cliche to say he has a good heart, but often I feel like he wants to do the right thing and just does not have the skills. And so I would like to point out to him what he is doing that is objectionable because I feel like he’s gonna watch this and say, what did I do? What did I do wrong? You know, because he already has done this now. Um

[10:12] Michelle: I have to say, I think at this point, I feel like you’re being very charitable because this has been pointed out to Brian multiple times and he continues to it. So it looks to me and, and again, I would, I would be happy to go shake hands. Um But it looks to me like this is how he wants to operate and will continue to operate. And I, I think there’s just a huge lack of desire to do anything different. And so, so I don’t know that the good heart works for me. I think that he very much wants to protect his position as the one who sets the narrative of what we must all believe about polygamy.

[10:49] Cheryl Bruno: Ok. Um But I feel that even though you know, that may be true, I feel that we can have a good relationship in the future and that will happen and the debates that we have will be cordial and I really do believe that that will happen.

[11:03] Michelle: So that’s OK. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, I agree.

[11:06] Cheryl Bruno: So, um but the reason we are not going on Steve Pinker podcast to come out with this is Steve, your space is not a safe space. You’ve said that now several times you do not have a safe space and you are not Switzerland. So let me go on a little bit and, and show you why. OK. So um Brian starts by saying, well, they give a little introduction and then Brian starts by saying, very passively aggressive. This is, this is something he does um very well is he, he makes remarks passively aggressively because um that is his training. I think so. He says I have concerns, I have concerns about Michelle. So instead of going on it because Steve Steve invites him on the podcast to talk about um and to respond to Michelle’s um evidence and her body of work. And he’s instead instead says I have concerns, I just don’t understand what Michelle’s goal is. Michelle’s gonna talk a little bit more about this. What is she trying to accomplish with this? Um is polygamy of God is a question that has already been answered. And then Brian proceeds to give quotes from prophets of the LDS church. Each of whom Michelle has demonstrated has serious credibility issues. And he is um almost willfully ignoring the fact that she has brought those things up and saying, well, here’s what, here’s what our prophets have said in the past and then says that Michelle is rejecting, dismissing and ignoring prophetic leadership. Her willingness to be critical of church leaders is aggressive, bold. So, you know, I mean, this is a typical male thing to do is say that women are aggressive and bold when men are aggressive and bold, that’s fine. And he um has been aggressive and bold in the past. And you know, I, I get angry when people either call women aggressive and bold for bringing out points. Or I don’t know, I, what can we

[13:18] Michelle: say? It would be fine to call me bold if it weren’t saying he’s using bold again, passive aggressively he’s saying that what I am doing is not acceptable and not allowed. He, he’s telling, he’s consistently telling me to sit down and shut up is what he’s doing, right? And

[13:36] Cheryl Bruno: he’s implying that Michelle is out of step with the teachings of latter day prophets engaging her arguments. Steve agrees with this. Steve agrees with this. He says, as a member of the church, these are her prophets so she should be obeying them, you know, why isn’t she obeying her prophets? And then he says that maybe it’s OK for someone who, who is outside of the church to bring up the things that Michelle is bringing up. But no, it’s not OK for her to bring up these issues about Mormon polygamy. So both men show a profound ignorance of the issues that Michelle has researched and um discussed at length and here is my problem with this. OK? No, I’m gonna, I’m gonna get into that. Sorry. OK. Here’s a slide from, here’s a slide from their presentation. So Brian says, because he continues in this vein, regardless of what they say and he believe me, he is talking about Michelle here. He is not talking about the amorphous. They um regardless of what they say, the overwhelming result is confusion which often undermines faith in church leaders past and present. So what Brian is doing here is accusing Michelle of apostasy. This is a very serious accusation in our church as Steve. I hope that you know this by now, but you seem to not know this um, in your podcast, this is an extremely serious accusation to accuse someone in our church of apostasy because when, um, someone is judged an apostate, they can lose their church membership and be excommunicated from the church. And so it almost seems that he is trying to remove her voice by getting her excommunicated from the church. And I’m very, very sad about that because faithful dissent is important in our church. It’s extremely important. And um I feel like there needs to be a room in our church for faithful dissent. You know, um there are too many people that just get tired of it all and just say, and throw their hands up, I’m leaving. Um and not enough people who are willing to stay and battle it out and talk about issues. And I feel that Michelle is in that space and, and I admire her so much for that.

[15:59] Michelle: Thank you Cheryl.

[16:02] Cheryl Bruno: OK. So here’s another slide where Brian accuses Michelle. He, he talks about two different um models, one is a transparency is and the other is a propagandist. And he says he is a transparency is who presents all evidence presents personal interpretation, which is what a historian does and allows the audience to decide. And then he says that Michelle is a propagandist who presents selective ignores or dismisses evidences, tries to convince the audience to agree with their interpretation and uses emotion and persuasive language. And the irony is that Brian does not understand it, that this podcast episode shows clearly how he is the propagandist. And um so here’s our 55 minute podcast, they give a five minute introduction. These are, these are approximate but pretty um close to what it is five minute introduction, 30 minutes of ad hominem attacks. He puts in six minutes of actually engaging the issues, 10 minutes of testimonial and four minutes of miscellaneous. Um This is egregious and I am appalled by how obvious it is that he is spending the bulk of his time with ad hominem attacks against Michelle. And um I do wanna say that during the six minutes when he actually engaged the issues, I agreed with him several points. He made two points and um this is probably these points are something that I might agree with Brian um If we were just to discuss the issues. So I feel really kind of just annoyed with him that he didn’t stick to. Here’s what Michelle brought up, here’s my documentation, here’s my evidence. You know, why didn’t he just stick to those issues? Especially since Brian is often saying that people don’t allow him the same privilege.

[18:14] Michelle: So can we go, can I just respond to one thing on that point on that six minutes on your side? One, the um this was the thing that I objected to. It’s very apparent that Steven has not watched even the one anniversary episode that they were responding to. And it’s very apparent that Brian has only watched that one episode and that he only watched it to cherry pick his little portions where you could say I’m out of step. But I want to make this point because he did take that six minutes of engaging issues after saying I’m not gonna go head to head, I’m not going to engage the issues he chose to, to engage on without acknowledging that this was a summary episode. This was an episode where I was trying to fit an overview. So I didn’t go into depth on any of the historical issues. It also wasn’t an issue specific. I mean, it wasn’t an episode specifically about Joseph. I made that very clear, this is the scriptural issue. So I only got into a few things as necessary regarding the history. I have covered those things in depth and I have more than I’m planning to cover in depth. So he took my encapsulation where I said something badly misrepresented it because when I say Brigham magically pulled it out of his desk, I’m making a joke obviously. And he, he I mean, so everything that he engaged there, I would gladly engage with him on those two issues. And I feel extremely confident in what I would bring forward, extremely confident. So I just want to point out that as well that even that one portion of it was badly done.

[19:44] Cheryl Bruno: Yes. And to take a summary issue and then summarize it into two little clips. That’s just so mires misrepresentative of, of your body of work. So I’m very sorry about that. And um to go back to this, um he is the propagandist who is presenting selective evidence. He chooses out of two years of your podcast, he chooses two little clips, um not even a minute long each. And um so this is his selective evidence. He ignores or dismisses your entire body of work. He tries to convince the audience to agree with his interpretation and not yours because he’s putting you down and saying you are the apostate and he is the faithful member of the church and he uses emotion and persuasive language to try to convince the audience that he is the expert and you are not.

[20:38] Michelle: Thank you. Thank. Also, we I, you didn’t mention this. I’ll just add, I felt like this entire thing was very little other than the ad hominem. And then also the appeal to authority. He always just says, I’m the authority. I’ve written three volumes. I’m the one you should listen to. So there is no actual engagement. It’s just I’m the faithful member, I’m the authority. She’s speaking out of life, she should sit down and shut

[21:02] Cheryl Bruno: up. And the thing is too that um Brian also points to his book often where he says, oh, it’s all in my book just go back to my book, just read my book, not realizing that you have um addressed many of the issues in his book and poked holes in many of them. And he needs to go back and revisit those arguments in order to have a leg to stand on. And that’s where I um am feeling very betrayed by my community because I feel part of the Mormon historian community. Um And when people say, oh, Mormon historians um have already decided that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and they don’t realize that there’s this whole entire body of work that we as Mormon historians have not addressed, we need to address these things. Um These are out there making our arguments that we’ve had in the past that his book from 10 years ago is very out of date and we are just allowing those arguments to become weaker and weaker and weaker because um m mainly because Michelle is destroying all of those arguments. So we need to get back in the game. We can’t just point to Ryan’s book and say, oh, well, he already addressed that or someone, you know, 100 years ago, I already said this, you know,

[22:20] Michelle: or Todd Compton. They like, like, yes, I, I could point to source after source, after source that they have neglected that are not included in their book in their books. And it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s outdated. I love that you said that. Thank you.

[22:35] Cheryl Bruno: Right. And I mean, it makes me want to step up and learn more about, um, what, you know, what the new issues are. Um, and I have to say that I, ok, let me just wait on that one for a minute. Um, I have to say that, um, I haven’t watched all of Michelle’s podcasts because there’s so many of them now. Um, that are amazing. But here is one example. Um, and I have to, um, I have to congratulate Bill real for bringing up the, um, topic of the deeds. And, um, he was very interesting. I did watch that episode, um, talking about, um, what the, the contemporaneous deeds, um, might point to. And that was interesting. Michelle didn’t have any expertise in that particular, um, area went and researched in an amazing way, the deeds and I feel that she is our, she has become our foremost expert on those deeds. If you will watch her podcast. Which number is it Michelle? Do you know the one that is?

[23:49] Michelle: Yeah, that’s, oh, no, I can find it and I’ll link it as soon as I can. But I have two parts on deeds. Yeah, that’s Dirty Deeds. And I will say there’s a third part on deeds that it’s addressing Bill specifically. And I even have an interview that I recorded several months ago that I will release. I did an interview with a phd Professor of Statistics to address his statistical claims as well, so people can look forward to that just to let you know how seriously I am taking this issues. I worked until I found a professor of Statistics that would come and talk to me about his statistical analysis.

[24:22] Cheryl Bruno: Very good. And Michelle just has a very narrow, um, um, she has a very narrow focus and so she has researched this in depth and her um, knowledge and understanding of those deeds is amazing. And, um I think that if Stephen o’brien had watched, um just even a small amount of her work, they would have much more respect for her than they had zero respect for her in this podcast. And it was incredibly um misogynistic of them and um dismissive, they were very dismissive and I felt horrible. Um, after I had just said, and what is going to come out Sunday me saying, oh Brian, it’s great to work with, you know, and then I was just like, what, what are you doing? Um OK, so now Steve, you’re not gonna get away with this. You are not Switzerland, you and even, and, and here’s the thing, Steve came out this morning with um an apology. He pulled the entire episode and he came out with the most. Um I don’t know the most. I, I wanna say male, male apology ever where he was basically saying, I’m sorry, you feel that way? Ok. Let me get back to what he said in this podcast. My position regarding anything that I’m not too knowledgeable about is I just go with the scholarly position? Well, he was very obviously unaware of what the scholarly position even was, what the problems with it were. Um Why would he, why would he choose something when he’s um often on his podcast says I’m not gonna choose one side or the other. Everyone has a voice. Why would he choose this issue? Which he knows n next to nothing about and admits that he doesn’t, why would he choose this issue to take a position on, you know, why would he go with the scholarly position? And, and the thing is the scholarly world doesn’t even agree that Brian Hales is the best representative,

[26:30] Michelle: right? And he didn’t even know that he wasn’t even aware of that.

[26:33] Cheryl Bruno: No. So um one thing that hurt me, he said, I’m not a polygamy guy. I always go, oh Joseph. Oh man, why did you do it? That was extremely offensive to large parts of his audience? Not only Brian Hills or who represents um the larger um LDS church who believes that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and that it was a command from God, but also those who have um who believe that Joseph Smith would never practice polygamy because he was, you know, a great um man and he was really digging on Joseph, like just, I don’t know, it was. So um um what’s the word disrespectful towards someone that we all admire and respect. So, you know, I know that there are people that,

[27:26] Michelle: what was interesting was that the only group he was aware that he might have offended? There are the current fundamentalists, the current polygamists are the only people that he acknowledged any awareness that, that might be offensive to. And

[27:38] Cheryl Bruno: there’s another group that, yeah, there’s another group that would be, but

[27:41] Michelle: that’s the group that he at least was, he was like trying so hard to not offend anyone to be Switzerland, but completely blind to the entire thing he was doing. Yeah.

[27:51] Cheryl Bruno: Yes. And giving um giving um Brian validity by saying things like you went on Michelle’s channel saying no, ma’am, that’s not history. Ha you know, laughing about it and those who know where that quote comes from is from um um Hugh Nibley where he tried to refute um

[28:12] Michelle: Brodie

[28:13] Cheryl Bruno: Brodie. Yes. And um so, so putting uh Brian in the position of the respected elderly gentleman and putting Michelle in the, in the position almost of an apostate apostate, although we now know that Von Brody had a lot going for her and I, I actually wouldn’t mind being compared with fun brody. But, but this is a problem. And so now he says, oh, this is a safe place, Michelle, safe place for you to come on. He is not behaving as a safe place and he is not a safe place. And then um what he did, was he, like I said, came on this morning with an apology. He said, um, let’s see. Oh, ok. So first he talked about, um about why, first he gave his excuses about why he is giving this apology or why he doesn’t actually feel like he was wrong. You know, he does apologize very sincerely, but he doesn’t understand what the problem is with his apology. Ok. So he is apologizing and at first he’s defending himself saying, well, I didn’t really know that much about it. So I took his side, you know, and as I just pointed out, that’s not the thing to do when you’re um when you’re um trying to act like you’re a safe space and then he started saying you hurt but I hurt, I hurt. This is for my mental health that I’m taking this down, you know, I don’t want it to blow up. And so basically, it’s a very cowardly to do to take this down because people, you know, can go on there and see exactly what happened and make their own decision. And I think that he’s scared that they will go on there and um continue to criticize him and he can’t take the heat. And so he says, I’m turning down the heat. Yes, he’s turning down the heat on himself. But he is not doing this as an apology to Michelle. He’s, you know, he’s not, she’s ok with the heat, you know, she welcomes the heat. She welcomes the

[30:17] Michelle: taking it for. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

[30:19] Cheryl Bruno: Yeah. So this is for him. This is his um to take down for his mental health, as he even said, oh, maybe I was insensitive. He says this is a typical male thing to say. He doesn’t apologize for being insensitive. He doesn’t see himself as insensitive. He says maybe I was insensitive. Um Probably I did this. Oh I had Justin on, I had Kimberly on, I had, you know, other people who he seems to group into, you know, um Michelle’s sphere and say, well, you know, if I’ve had them on that shows that I um welcoming to Michelle which no, it doesn’t show that it shows you are welcoming to Justin, but it doesn’t show that you are welcoming to Michelle.

[31:06] Michelle: Isn’t that uh I’m not racist. I have a black friend, right? I, I have, I have a gay friend. Isn’t that what it is? I’m

[31:13] Cheryl Bruno: trying to say that but I hesitated.

[31:16] Michelle: Sorry, I know, I hesitate.

[31:19] Cheryl Bruno: Yeah, exactly. Then he says to Michelle, oh, then he, he directs his apology. He doesn’t pick up the phone call. Michelle apologize to Michelle. He directs his apology publicly and then he virtue signals by saying, oh I took down all my um I’m not gonna make any money off of this, right? I’m so virtuous. Um Then he puts pressure on Michelle bing. You’re a Christian woman. I know you’ll accept my apology. You’re a Christian woman so that if she still is feeling hurt by it or if she chooses not to go on his podcast, that will, you know, passive aggressively show that she’s not a Christian woman, right? Um Let’s see, he turned off the chat, he said, so it’s not going to distract him, right? You know, easily when you’re doing a podcast, you don’t have to let the chat distract you. You know, it’s not that distracting. Um, or he could have turned the chat on later. Um But he turned the chat on so that he would not get criticized. He did not turn the chat off. So Michelle, it was because the things were going in an opposite direction than what he expected. Um I get criticized a lot. He went on and on about, oh, I get criticized a lot for what I do, making the apology about himself and not making the apology about that. He was sorry what he did. And so, um oh, and I’m doing the right thing. Um So I feel like, oh, if I said anything insensitive, I apologize for that. You know, that’s another thing that people don’t understand. That’s not an apology because you are not recognizing why you are insensitive. And I feel like his whole apology showed that he does not understand what he did in his podcast. And he, and he says, oh, I’m, you know, I only decided an hour ago to do this. You know, I really do not feel like his motivation were to apologize. I feel like it was to take the heat off of himself and um you know,

[33:21] Michelle: to say that to save face.

[33:23] Cheryl Bruno: Yeah. Yeah. So, and so I’m very perturbed that he still does not understand what the issue was about this podcast.

[33:33] Michelle: Can I, can I respond to the apology? Is this a good time for me to do that? Because III I think I’m

[33:39] Cheryl Bruno: pretty much done with this, like, OK, go ahead and

[33:41] Michelle: bring that up. Ok. Um Sorry, I’m trying to get there. Um I lost my cursor. OK. So this is, this is, and I have several things I want to say as well, but um I want to. So I, I am one who really likes to apologize when I mess up. II I, I’m quick to apologize because I don’t like feeling like I’ve done something wrong and I’m very sympathetic to that feeling. I’ve just had it this week feeling like I messed up and really thankful for someone forgiving me, right? I understand it. However, this is, this is my feeling on it. Steve did call me to inform me like he called me to inform me that he had invited Brian Hales on to discuss my episode. I expressed in that phone call, all of my objections. I said I don’t think that this is fair because, and I was also feeling like why are you call? He did not invite me on his podcast. He, throughout the podcast, he misrepresents badly our relationship and his invitations to me. I, I can go into that but he, he just called to inform me my feeling was he’s just stirring the pot. He just wants, he’s just trying to stir the pot to get views as I was very unhappy and I expressed this to him for two years. He has not handled my work. I could, I would have loved to go on his podcast early on. And he two times reached out to me to say the first time, like, like he, I’ve always felt like he wants to ride the coattails of something to get views for his channel. So he informed me that, that Mormon stories was going to do a podcast on my episode. He, he got the inside scoop from his friend Gerardo and said Mormon stories is gonna do an episode on your Brian Hills interview and I want you to come on live, right as soon as it airs. So that, so you’ll have a platform to talk about it. I’m like, Steve, I have a platform to talk about it. I, I have a platform, you know, but this was a long time ago. It was after the Brian Hills interview. And um so he wanted to, to and he like anytime he would reach out, he’d be like, hey, I think that’s gonna air. Remember you’re coming on my show right after. And I just was kind of like whatever, you know, they decided not to do it because I came out as a polygamy denier. So they decided to not platform me. And so I never heard from him again. Right. And then uh I don’t know, months and months and months later, I got a text from him that said, hey, I should have you on the show And I said, oh, great. Any time, let me know when never heard from him again. So those are our interactions that we’ve had, right? So then this time he called me to inform me that he was having Brian Hales on. And I said to him after two years of my work, you’ve never addressed it, you’ve never had me on. And the first time you’re going to address my work, it’s with the person, it’s with the person who’s trying to get me excommunicated like, you know, and he was like, well, I feel free to iii I don’t think he, I don’t know if we had that conversation at that in that phone call. He just wanted, he said, he said because of professionalism, I, I’m really want to be with professional and, you know, I’m just a good guy. So I just wanted to let you know in fair play that I’m gonna have Brian Hales on to respond to your work. That was

[36:43] Cheryl Bruno: let me break in. Let me break in real quick here. So, so really, Steve, I hope you’re watching this. This is this pinpoints why it is not a safe space for Michelle and others. Because when you have someone, instead of presenting her work, you have someone on first before presenting her work to prepare the ground that she’s an apostate and that she deserves to be excommunicated. This is not ever going to be a safe space for Michelle,

[37:14] Michelle: right? And that’s after giving me the cold shoulder multiple times, he wanted to have me on when it was gonna burst, boost his views. But as soon as it wasn’t gonna boost his views, he ghosted me and I don’t have respect for that. Right? And so then he calls me the first time he’s gonna address my work. It’s with Brian Hills, the man who is literally telling me to shut, shut up and sit down or be excommunicated, who came on my own podcast and did not stick with the outline he had agreed to and did not address the topics that we were going to address. But instead told me I need to shut up and sit down on my own podcast, right? And so this is how Steve decided to and, and so he called me, then he called me a few days later letting me know he had recorded the episode and he was gonna release it and it was in that conversation and I think I voiced some of my concerns in earlier conversation. But in that conversation, I very clearly expressed to him how bad I thought this was that he was not letting me speak for my that his first time addressing my work is with the guy who was the most hostile toward my work, right? So I all of the perspectives I also had the conversation with him. I, some people will see the blog post that I put up that I had to alter because I did it in a moment of just free flowing thought. And I went and changed some of these because I didn’t fairly represent Don Bradley as I would have liked to, I it was, it was fair but it wasn’t in the tone. I would have liked to address him. So I altered that part of it and that’s what and, and I profusely apologized to Don. It was actually, I’ll just tell the story just filling everyone in. I wrote that post and I referred to various historians. Two of them were Don Bradley and Cheryl and um and, and then, and I didn’t think anything about I was getting ready for my, for my conversation with John Bradley and I got a message from Cheryl and all of a sudden I just, the blood drained from my face because I realized what I had done that here. I have these relationships with people and I worried that maybe I had to trade that. So Cheryl, you can say. My very first message was, I’m so, so, so, so,

[39:07] Cheryl Bruno: so sorry. I wasn’t. I was like, no, you fairly represented me. Go ahead and use my name. You know, I still felt like you fairly represented Don as well. It’s just that I think that people were taking maybe your, your language wasn’t expressing exactly what you were trying to say, but I understood what you were trying to say. And um I didn’t have

[39:27] Michelle: thank you. I guess what I’m trying to express was I hadn’t seen, I hadn’t even, I hadn’t on Facebook since I wrote it. Like I had not seen a single criticism, but the second I heard from you, I, I was aware of what of a perspective I hadn’t thought of. So didn’t, I immediately like, say, I’m really, really sorry. Right.

[39:44] Cheryl Bruno: Right. And now Steve had listened to you, if I had been able to listen to you when you were. Now, I would admire that if he had listened to you after he made the podcast and before he aired it, if he had said, oh, you know what that pod cast was in poor taste, you know, and now I can see Michelle’s side of it, she’s expressed this to me, maybe it wouldn’t be the best thing to air that podcast. If he had made the apology, then fine and nobody would have known about it. But instead he chose to make it very public. That’s

[40:15] Michelle: exactly, that’s exactly the point. So I expressed all of the problems to him on that phone call and I, and I expressed to him the historical problem that we’re having, right. So he went ahead. He was like, I understand, ok, that’s a good perspective. But then the next day he posted on Facebook that he was going to release it. I commented again, expressing my objections before it was released. I very clearly, people can still read the comment and I’ll go ahead and post it on um my comments in case he deletes that I I expressed my objections to this interview very clearly and strongly. He went ahead and released it anyway. Right? And then the, the one saving grace. I had the things that made me feel better because I’m sorry, it is a little bit um There’s a little bit of trauma tied up with me with Brian Hills because of what happened in our interview and also because of the threats he made and the co the like he really, really made me feel like he was going to get me excommunicated in our private conversation. And so and he’s still doing that again. So it was a hard day for me and but the saving grace was both Cheryl reaching out to me and reading all of the comments that made me feel much, much better. So for Steven to apologize publicly, only because of all of the heat while he ignored everything I said and then to delete the evidence and delete that beautiful stream of comments that is absolutely essential in this conversation. I I’m mad that the, I mean, I’m disappointed that the podcast is taken down because I think people need to see it. I’m furious that the comments are gone. And so I texted Steve and said, thank you for the apology even though it was public instead of personal and it was to save face. But if it’s sincere, if you are sincerely apologizing, I hope this time you will listen to me and put the podcast back up with the comments because otherwise it is not an apology at all. It’s just saving face. So I guess we’ll see what happens. But I wanted to address this. I hope

[42:16] Cheryl Bruno: you’re listening to this because you know, I do that you are trying to be sincere and I hope that you realize that this is coming across as it is. And you know, please show us that you really do want to improve, that you do really do want to be sincere that you do wanna listen to people’s voices and you know, respect Michelle in that way.

[42:37] Michelle: Yeah. And I will say like I was so thankful that Cheryl was so not angry at me and so thankful, sincerely thankful that Don Bradley forgave me because you know he was like, like I, so I do understand the dynamics. I will say I apologized to both of them personally, very sincerely without heat. You know, like I hadn’t, like I just apologized when I realized I didn’t, I, that I, that I was worried maybe I had offended them potentially. Right. And so that was a different dynamic. And also, yeah, Steve, I’m totally willing to forgive you and we can move forward. Hopefully I’ll learn from this, but I would like to know that you’re sincere and right now it doesn’t look like you are. So I’m asking if you are sincere, please put it back up with all of the comments included and leave comments open for people to comment and then we can move forward because right now it’s kind of like when you apologize but you’re hiding what you did, you don’t want the evidence to. So it’s like it’s like a unfaithful spouse only admitting to the little portion they got caught on, but the rest in the back close

[43:44] Cheryl Bruno: don’t make this all about you like, oh, this is gonna hurt my feelings. This is gonna, you know, because yes, you will be hurt and you’ll, you’ll be maybe ashamed of what was up there a little bit, you know. But if you’re truly sincere and apologizing, then you’re gonna have to take that medicine.

[44:00] Michelle: Yeah. And it is painful. But that’s the way we move forward. I can tell. I, I think for me if he will at least put it back up, I’ll have a lot more respect for him than I will otherwise. And I think that most of the community will as well because I think it is unfair. People put a lot of effort and thought into those comments and it’s unfair to erase them without their consent. And, and I, I object to that and this needs to be there on the record. This is an important thing that happened. It can’t be erased from. We’ve done enough erasing from history. That’s why I exist in the space I’m in. Let’s not keep doing that. So, OK, thank you. And well, did you have more to say in your presentation? I wanted you to go

[44:41] Cheryl Bruno: ahead and show some of the things that OK,

[44:43] Michelle: so, so we had talked about just making this kind of a short conversation, but now that the podcast is down and I’m not, I don’t know if it’s going to be put back up. I think it’s important to share some of the clips of what was discussed. And so if people don’t mind sticking around with us a little bit longer than we had originally intended, we’ll go ahead and share um share some of the clips that are there and it’s gonna be a little bit cumbersome because I’m going to have to find them as we talk because I wasn’t necessarily planning to do this. But I do want to show this was funny to me when he said, no, ma’am, that’s not history which I think was a very sexist title for that book. And I just have to for good measure, put this out there because it actually wasn’t Brian that says, no, ma’am, that’s not history. It was um it was RFM. Let me add this. This was literally the name of his episode that he did responding to me, which I thought was beyond ironic, especially when from his perspective, Fon Brody wins out in the Fond Brody um and H NLY debate, right? So I just was going to, that just struck me as ironic that they didn’t even get that detail, right? But um OK, let me go ahead and add this to the stage.

[45:55] Steve Pynakker: Book reviews are an even gel clone. My own restoration. I

[45:58] Michelle: pause for a second to get it to the right spot. So first of all, at the very beginning, when he’s introducing Brian, he acknowledges that this is the second time he’s had Brian Hales on. So he’s never had me on. I, I find that ironic and something too interesting. And then right at the beginning, this is like you’re saying Cheryl, why he’s not Switzerland, he completely poisons the whale. So I want to play this little

[46:22] Brian Hales: clip with you, Steve, you have such a great channel and uh it’s a privilege.

[46:26] Steve Pynakker: So, uh one of the reasons I asked uh Brian to come on is that um recently um Michelle Brady Stone, um her channel has really been growing. Um and she’s been posting a lot of things out there that’s resonating with a lot of people and gaining a lot of traction. A lot of personal friends of mine are big fans of her. And I’ve always, you know, this is the thing with Michelle is that she’s a part of that camp that denies that Joseph Smith uh practiced polygamy and also instituted it and actually fought it. And this is kind of the basis of their and, and so that’s their foundation of where they’re coming from. Now. Of course, historically speaking, folks, the R LDS, uh their official uh narrative was that Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy and that was, of course, was Emma Smith. So that’s where this idea comes. So this is a new idea. Uh This is something that’s been around for a very long time, but uh the overwhelming scholars league community, uh basically, there’s the consensus is that Joseph Smith did indeed practice polygamy and did indeed institute it and did indeed write section 132. So that’s the scholarly consensus on this matter. Does that, is that a good breakdown, Brian? Just to kind of lay the groundwork for our conversation?

[47:37] Michelle: OK. I’m gonna pause it right there. So this is what is infuriating. This was the introduction at the very beginning. So right from the top with his title with his Facebook Post, he’s misrepresenting the episode they claim to be responding to because I very clearly say this is about, is polygamy of God. I’m not laying out the case about Joseph Smith. So he’s not even aware of what he’s talking about. It’s just when he thinks of me, he thinks polygamy denier conspiracy theorists not worth engaging with. So uh this is so beyond unacceptable. It’s it, I mean, it already would be so bad. But I will say II, I hate to always go to sexism, but I cannot imagine this happening to a man. I, I can, I’ve n I cannot imagine him doing that. Like he invited a man on who is telling me as a woman talking about polygamy to be silent to talk about why I’m wrong in all of my work. It, it’s unbelievable to me.

[48:36] Cheryl Bruno: And um really, I think that it says a lot about the two of them that they did not address really your, your podcast was um focused towards how the scriptures um show us, wasn’t it? Um Michelle how the scriptures show us. It

[48:55] Michelle: was, it was purely scriptural and theological. That was the focus of that podcast, right? And they did not

[49:02] Cheryl Bruno: address that whatsoever. So they kind of missed the point of the entire podcast and didn’t address your point. So

[49:10] Michelle: and so um the next, the next thing that um I that Brian always does, I said this appeal to authority. So he goes on and says, when, when Steven basically like gives him this perfect pitch of, did I get that right. Brian. Did I make your case for you? Well enough? And Brian of course, jumps right on that and says, for me, I’m someone who’s written three volumes on it, which is where he always goes. I’m the expert. I’m the one I even said that to him on my podcast. He’s the one that sets the narrative. And if we dare speak in, if we dare disagree with the narrative out loud publicly, then we need to be excommunicated is what he’s saying. So anyway, I wanna play this clip and I already spoke to this a little bit, but I feel like this is not true

[49:53] Steve Pynakker: that that’s the position that I’m taking. However, I’m friends with Michelle and, and I just want to let everybody know that I have, I spoke with Michelle on the phone yesterday and I did tell her that uh she’s welcome to come on to respond to this. So I just want to let everybody know ahead of time that Michelle has been given the invitation to respond, whether with Brian uh have a conversation with Brian or she would just come and do a singular thing. And I, I want to be fair because, yeah, I will, I will just, I will, I’ll reveal my bias if you will on this. I, I accept the scholarly consensus that Justice Smith practice polygamy and as not necessary. I don’t have a problem with that because I tell,

[50:24] Michelle: OK, I’m gonna stop it there. That was, yeah, you go for Cheryl, then I will. No, I

[50:30] Cheryl Bruno: can’t, you know, I’m speechless. I’m speechless at, at how he can even, I mean, surely he can recognize what he’s doing here. He, he’s completely, um, he’s silencing you Michelle here. Um, just to just the fact that he still thinks this is a safe space is just absolutely

[50:53] Michelle: incredible. He’s silencing me and then challenging me if I don’t come on, it’s because I don’t dare to and I don’t write, he’s also misrepresenting the phone call we had. So this was after the first phone call when all he did was inform me that he was having Brian on. I did not, there was no invitation to come on and there certainly was no like, hey, I want to cover your stuff. Would you want to come talk about it? Like, like which is what should have been all it was was in, out of professionalism. I wanna let you know that I’m speak that I’m having Brian Hills on. I felt like it was 100% just stir the pot just trying to, you know, in the conversation after this. He did the same thing where it was basically, hey, if you wanna come on, I should have you on some time which he’s done before and never followed up on, I invite people on my podcast often and I always say, hey, I would love to talk to you could, could we schedule a time? Is that, do you know what I mean? It’s not this amorphous. Hey, if you want to come on and have a conversation. So this was, this was a blatant lie and I’m gonna call it out because it makes me mad.

[51:59] Cheryl Bruno: Yeah. And, um, I want all men who ask women on dates to realize this as well that when you say we should go out sometime you have to say, well, let’s go out Saturday night. How about seven o’clock? Let’s meet blah, blah, blah. Then they feel like you are actually asking them out on a date. But when you say let’s hang out sometime that’s not asking them on a date. So they are unaware of, of what kind of interest you actually have in them and you are signaling to them that your interest is casual and that you don’t um take them seriously enough to actually um decide upon a time and place,

[52:34] Michelle: right? And that advice goes for men and women. But we, since we are talking about the sexism here, I will say what it also does is put the ball in the woman’s court. You’re saying, let’s hang out sometime, which, which puts her in a position of saying, oh, if I want to hang out with you, I have to call I, which is exactly what Steven in the first conversation. He did not even invite me on, in the second conversation. It was a, let’s hang out sometime, which he’s already done and then goes to me. So it’s like, oh, am I supposed to call you and ask you to come on your podcast? It definitely puts him a power play that. And I

[53:09] Cheryl Bruno: mean, there might be like, this is an interesting issue to me. Um because there may be times when, as a woman, I would call a man and say, you know, let’s hang out. But, you know, also I would, I would, if I was the one that was initiating this, I would make that, you know, set the time in place and not make him just feel like he’s hanging, you know,

[53:29] Michelle: which is exactly what it was. And it’s happened two times previously. So I think

[53:34] Cheryl Bruno: there are people that have reached out to Steven said, hey, I want to be on your podcast. Let’s put this together. And I think that’s perfectly appropriate. But in this situation it was. And what is, that’s in the situation, what he’s doing is lying. He is misrepresenting the conversations that you’ve had,

[53:51] Michelle: right? And also I want to say after all the has happened, the last thing I want to do is go drive views on Steven’s channel because that’s the only way he’s used me and I feel very used, both misrepresented and used to serve his own purposes. Which the irony, that’s exactly what how women are used in polygamy, which is part of how I object to it. Right? And so I just, I think it’s fascinating how the dynamics all come into play in this. Now, I do also want to address what Cheryl brought up. That Brian’s first big slide. He loves his slide shows. His first one is what is the objective goal and end game. And he very dismissively and condescendingly and rudely said, he asked me this over a message and I said a lot of words, but he, like he literally said, she said a lot of words, but I could or she, you know, she wrote a lot of words because he said it was over messages, but I could never understand what she was saying. And what shocks me here is, first of all, I wanna say again, I invited Brian on and asked him to talk about the topics of God is polygamy of God and his polygamy of Joseph Smith. He instead came on with a presentation of why I need to be silenced. And in that presentation like all that, this was, was a truncated version of that exact same presentation that he brought onto my um my, my show when I invited him in. So I’m going to play just this portion of our discussion when he literally asked me this exact question on um on my podcast. So let me, I, I want to encapsulate because I did say a lot of words because it was a good question. I had to work through it and think of it. And it, and I explained some very personal experiences of why I felt called to do this and what I was hoping to accomplish. And so he said, when, when he said, what, what is your end game? He asked that, can I ask, what’s your end game? The exact question? I said, I, I did my best to share my reasons, like I said, for doing the podcast. And um and I talked about how I felt really blessed to be able to do it. And I talked about how helpful and healing it was after my losses, which my, my losing my daughters. And then, um and then I talked about how blessed I felt with the messages I was getting of how this was helping other people and um and particularly women. And then I said this and so I just want to um play this portion of what, what I said,

[56:13] Brian Hales: you know, maybe I have one more question for you that, that’s, that’s more on the personal side and, and maybe we can put it last year. I don’t know if we’re getting to the end here, but you, so you can delete it if you want. But um what, what is your end game?

[56:27] Michelle: OK. So I guess that was where I was playing the question and then I’ll fast forward. So that was my answer, what it was composed of. And then, um let’s see. I thought I had more of what he said. Yes. Let me go. Let me just fast forward. Thanks for being patient with us. Everyone on this live. I want to go forward to the last part of my answer that he completely ignored and said he couldn’t understand anything of what I was saying. So I’ll get there as where is it? And I’m almost there. Let’s see if this is it. Ok. Here it is. That was the other thing I was going to say. I do feel very strongly that um I think we both mourn about people leaving the church and the church losing so many members. And for me, I, I just strongly believe one of the main reasons that happens is because we attribute the mistakes of man to God. And, and so people think if that’s who God is, you know, and a lot of people go to not even believe in God at all. And, and in my, most

[57:32] Brian Hales: of them do they leave the, the supernatural and embrace the natural world and

[57:37] Michelle: right? And I, and I think that’s a loss. I, I think there are a lot of different paths that people take, but I, I want the church to be able to keep more people rather than lose more people. And I think that letting people see this through fresh eyes and say, oh, maybe God does love me in the way that Jacob two thir 231 and 32 teach me rather than how Doctor Covenants 1, 32 section 63 views of verse 63 or whatever other verses about women just as possessions and his property with no feelings and their lives don’t matter. And that’s really what we see happen throughout. Like every time it establish the women are means to powerful men’s ends rather than independent beings who matter themselves, who’s seen and are valued, who are seen and valued. So that’s, that’s my end goal. I don’t have an end goal other than I’m just trying my best to do what I feel inspired at this point to do it. And, and I think that people being able to see God more directly rather than through all these sort of muffled lenses of, I believe false traditions, which I believe the book of woman warns us about. I believe that allows people to connect to God more um more purely, more truly. OK.

[59:06] Cheryl Bruno: That’s just too many words. It’s hard to understand. What do you, what is your end game? You have not explained it in great detail to me. That’s the, it’s almost like purposely closing his eyes to a very um beautiful answer that you gave him about that. How can he not understand what your end game is after hearing that?

[59:32] Michelle: Right? It was a lot of words but that there it was, he asked me this and then answered a

[59:38] Cheryl Bruno: lot of words, right? A lot of words, right?

[59:42] Michelle: And, and I, I think the thing that’s shocking to me is that um or, or what after thinking about this because like you can see from my perspective how shocking this was, right? And, and upsetting how the whole thing was and it, it, it was like, it, I’ve had a kind of bad based on all of this, you know, and um and so the thing that I am learning from this, I think that in that question being asked again, I think Brian is revealing something about himself because I very clearly answered his question. And I think that maybe what the issue is is he can’t comprehend, not having a false agenda. So the fact that I didn’t tell him what my false agenda is maybe makes him incapable of hearing that I gave him an answer. I do you have a better thought?

[1:00:32] Cheryl Bruno: Yeah, I mean, uh that’s a lot of times we can see um people better through their criticism of other people, right? It tells us a little bit about themselves and, and why didn’t he understand that your um end game was altruistic, you know? Um Right. Why, why didn’t he catch on to that? Is it possibly because, and um I’m just guessing here, but he has shared before why he got into the subject of Mormon polygamy and it was very personal to his life. And so he has an, an objective um that he can res you know, I want to, I wanna make people not practice polygamy like my sister. You know, I don’t want them to get involved in the snares of um evil polygamists who are trying to bring, you know, so, so, I mean,

[1:01:28] Michelle: I, I don’t even know if that’s where he explains that the reason. He, at least when I’ve heard him and maybe, you know, more, he explains the reason he got into it. It is because he had family members that became polygamist. But, but he, but I didn’t ever sense him. I just kind of thought that was his, his introduction into it. And then I really do think that he just, this is a vehicle for him to have importance to have relevance that, you know, and, and maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I’ve repeatedly gotten. So I’m, I’m curious to see because I do think it’s interesting that he seems oblivious to an alt altruistic purpose that there has to be and, and I don’t want to be unfair. But, but that was bizarre. That was bizarre that he asked that question and, and said that I hadn’t answered it other than

[1:02:17] Cheryl Bruno: it’s almost like I have this slide. Let me use it again, even though she’s already, let’s not let it go to waste.

[1:02:26] Michelle: Right. Crazy. He didn’t even, he made this slide new. He didn’t, you can see in my, in my episode with me, he didn’t even have the slide it was a question he asked during it. So he went ahead and made a slide. Yeah, it’s very, very

[1:02:38] Cheryl Bruno: strange and just shows it’s, it really points up that he was not listening to you. You know, he’s not listening to you. He’s silencing your voice. And please, as you too, I’m sure that Brian and, and Steven will watch this. But as you two watch this, please take this to heart.

[1:02:58] Michelle: And yes, it’s clear that they haven’t listened to me at all through my pod. Neither of them has engaged with my podcast at all. And then they felt like they were the one that they could get up there in their complete ignorance and just nothing but assumptions of what I must think and present on it. It’s shameful. I’m like, shame on you, shame on you, you know, thank you for apologizing, but put it back up and Brian certainly hasn’t apologized.

[1:03:27] Cheryl Bruno: And um it seems like that um if people are going to call him and call his attention to you and say this is a voice you need to listen to that, he would actually um maybe look at a few of the things you’ve said or at least have some kind of talking points rather than to just say, well, I, I am going to dismiss her because I go with the scholarly view. And um

[1:03:52] Michelle: so he insulted me that I’m not a scholar, which is,

[1:03:57] Cheryl Bruno: yeah, he is not. And not only does he go with the scholarly view because that’s what his, his knee jerk reaction is. But also just, um, um, I don’t know, like kicking you in the face saying I’m not even going to take you seriously enough to see if you have an argument, even though my friends have told me that you’re someone I should be listening to. So.

[1:04:20] Michelle: Right. Right. Yes. And so, um, anyway, so I think this is, this was just downloading music. I have a few more clips if we’re OK to keep going. I, I think it’s important. So he, he plays just a clip of my fundamental question in my episode where I say is polygamy of God. I said this is the fundamental question we need to answer is polygamy of God. And in response to that, he says throughout our history, um Well, first of all, he quotes John Taylor. So I wanna let everyone hear how he responds to my question about his polygamy of God. He quotes a series of polygamists of polygamous men. That is his answer every time. So he quotes John Taylor that he says himself throughout our history. Other church leaders and church historians have verified that this is really the position that plural marriage was practiced and that it came from God. And then he refers to the gospel topics, essays and going on and on about how involved he was and how he got to basically have. So much of, you know, he was the one who shaped those. He is the one providing the church with their narrative. So he’s saying, look at all of the ways this question has already been answered. Here are the polygamous men. There are the gospel topics, essays. Then he um cites saints and then he goes on on the Joseph Smith papers narrative. All of those I have done episodes expressing my disgust Whitney Horning and I did, I released it in two parts called um Historical Malpractice on how upsetting we find those sources to be and how very dishonest. And we, so anyway, so those are his reputations to show how wrong I am. And then, let’s see. Um Oh, and then let me, let me um, play this next clip. So,

[1:06:01] Cheryl Bruno: while you’re doing that, I think that, um, it seems like that. Oh, no, now I’ve, now I’ve lost a um, what were we just, what are we just saying?

[1:06:15] Michelle: Ok, I’ll grab the clip and you’ll be thinking about like,

[1:06:19] Cheryl Bruno: ok, yeah. And now I remember, um, so I was going to say that you don’t necessarily have to agree with, um, your point of view or you don’t have to disagree with Brian that, you know, that, um, you don’t have to disagree with what these prophets have said. You know, you can, you can have a belief in polygamy. Um But at least give you the benefit of the doubt that you have addressed these things and speak to what you’ve actually said about it then rather than what is in your mind of what you’ve said

[1:06:51] Michelle: about it. Right. Which is apparently nothing. I don’t

[1:06:55] Cheryl Bruno: know.

[1:06:56] Michelle: Right. Right. So I’ll play this little clip and then I’ll tell a little bit more of what he goes on to say.

[1:07:03] Brian Hales: Um, what we find here is Michelle is asking a question that from my perspective has been answered over and over and over by church leaders and church historians. Um But it’s an answer that apparently doesn’t work, at least for her. And if we look further into the podcast, what we find is that she gives her own answer to the question.

[1:07:22] Michelle: And so it is impossible to claim that polygamy is or ever could be any part of the gospel. So, and he leaves it on this picture. So I will too. But that’s after I’ve laid, I’ve spent 2/2 hours laying out the case. He plays just by conclusion. And then this is what’s hilarious. This is how he goes on to refute the entire very well thought out um body of evidence that I lay out, he ignores it and then refutes it in this way.

[1:07:55] Brian Hales: OK. So, so here she’s um saying that it’s impossible that,

[1:08:01] Michelle: that, well, I guess he takes a long time. So I’ll take it off and I’ll just, I’ll just tell you because what this is where to show how a website. Wanted to remove that to show how wrong I was. He played, he reads quotes for Brigham, Young John Taylor, Wilfred Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F Smith. What do those five men all have in common? Should we all say it together? The early

[1:08:26] Cheryl Bruno: polygamists in the Mormon Church.

[1:08:28] Michelle: Right. Right. My case has never been that that group of men were not polygamous or didn’t believe in polygamy. Right. My case is that they were not correct on this topic. And what’s also bizarre is that he, he talks about being a transparent system. Ok, Brian, why don’t you play the rest of the, of their teachings? Why don’t you go through the entire journal of discourses and explain how we need to agree with every single thing they say the entire, um, complete discourses of Brigham Young and show us how everything they say we need to agree with in order to be in the church. It’s so dishonest.

[1:09:03] Cheryl Bruno: Right? And that’s, um, another point I was going to make in the beginning too that I just kind of left out but was just that, um, he’s, he’s setting these five men up as our authorities on polygamy, but he doesn’t, um, talk about when they changed their minds or when they were wrong and we don’t believe in, um, infallibility in our church. That’s not what we believe in. And we know that they can make mistakes and we know that sometimes, um, they’ve gone a different, like even my own lifetime when we changed the um the mission, um the men, young men would go on missions for 18 months. And then that didn’t work out and they came out and they said, yeah, we tried this and it didn’t work. And so now we’re gonna go back, you know, and that’s ok with everyone because we know that we have continuing revelation in our church and that’s an important part of our church. And so we

[1:09:54] Michelle: also, oh, sorry, I’m sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. We also don’t believe in prophetic infallibility. We can just say they were wrong. Deseret book just published Paul Reeves book and their little series, the let’s talk about series which, which finally admits that the priest, that the racial policies of the church started with Brigham Young and that they came from him and quotes a lot of what he says about it, right? Not all we all reject that and, and good thing we do, right? And so for him to cherry pick this also, it’s fascinating that Brian Hills, I have an episode in the works that I’m working on that’s called Orson Pratt versus Brian Hills because Brian Hall gives us his reasons for polygamy from his reading of 132. He’s come up with five reasons that he claims while saying like he said on my podcast because I started to talk about Orson Pratt’s reasons. And he says, well, no I’m not going to defend Orson Pratt. He was wrong. He was and, and he was in an apostle speaking over the pulpit in, in a general conference assigned by the president of the church. And he throws that out as invalid and yet says, does this to me? Oh, he, he is not about the truth at all. He’s just protecting the narrative that he sets in order to protect himself is how it looks to me. And I’m sorry, Brian, I don’t want to offend you. I do hope we can have a congenial relationship but you got to stop this. Yes.

[1:11:21] Cheryl Bruno: And so I, I really just want to keep hitting this point over and over again. Brian, you have said so many times to me and to others, you know, look at my arguments, let’s, let’s use the arguments, let’s use the evidence, let’s use the documentation, let’s talk about them, let’s not talk about personalities, let’s not talk about this and that, you know, so and I

[1:11:45] Michelle: go ahead. So if,

[1:11:46] Cheryl Bruno: if he can take, you know, certain documentation and say here’s and, and he has it, I mean, I think that part of it he did during that six minutes, I think he brought, you know, up a slide of, of lots of different people who

[1:11:59] Michelle: had the pro of 132 I have an episode. I’m working on that as well.

[1:12:03] Cheryl Bruno: So, um you know, if he wants to um take that to you and say, well, let’s talk about this and let’s look at all the different aspects of this. And what do you, what are you saying to these people and, and um, that kind of thing? And that’s what I intend to do with you in the future as well because that’s great. Got me hooked

[1:12:21] Michelle: so good, good. And I’m so excited because I really am. I’m like, well, II, I, the way I started this was when, if I became aware that I was wrong about polygamy, that it wasn’t of God and it wasn’t the highest holiest law along with the law of consecration that we needed to be able to live so we could establish Zion and that we’d live in the celestial kingdom. That’s what I used to think. That’s what I believed. And, and I was so shocked when I started to see in the scriptures, how naive I was and how wrong I was that I needed to talk to people about it. I started a Facebook group and I was thrilled that so many polygamist apologists and polygamist scholars joined so I could encounter the very best arguments. I just want the truth. So, so that’s why I’ve been like Cheryl. Please come talk to me about this show me like what sources you think just can’t be overcome. So I understand, but I’m not that I’m not missing anything. That’s what I want to do. And I think that I I, again, and

[1:13:20] Cheryl Bruno: I need to say, I think she is missing some things and you’ll see what I think she’s missing. Uh, it’s just that I, I can’t, um, condone what Brian has done here and, um, not, not addressing the issues head on.

[1:13:34] Michelle: Ok. That’s great. And I think we’ll talk about things because I don’t know if you’re aware of all of this stuff that I’ve done either. So I, you know, I think that it’s gonna, it, it is a messy topic and it’s just a matter of what, what model fits the best, right is what we’re trying to figure out. Yeah. And

[1:13:48] Cheryl Bruno: I mean, I’ve even told Michelle that I feel like a lot of reasons why some of these scholars don’t engage with her is because they’re not quite up to speed. Like I feel the same way. I feel that I need to like, listen to all your podcasts and get up to speed with what you’ve said, which I, I know some of it but I, like I said, I haven’t um listen to all of it. And so, um but to even it takes a lot of time to, to prepare, understand what criticisms you’re making and then to prepare an answer to that and, and not everybody has the time to do that. And especially like maybe Brian, since he feels like he’s on to a new subject, he’s already done so much time in Mormon polygamy. Maybe he doesn’t want to do that. But please be transparent about the fact that you don’t feel up to addressing some of these issues if that’s

[1:14:38] Michelle: true. And, and right, I, I will say like, well, I, I Cheryl, let’s tell people our conversations because I didn’t want you to feel like you had to do all of this work. And I’m sure I’ve like, like my um historical podcasts have been as I’ve been learning, I, I take one subject, I study it like crazy and I present on it and then I go on to the next one. So I’m, I’m in a very, I say, I feel like I’ve been drinking from a fire hose trying to learn everything and study so hard. So, Cheryl and I, when we’ve talked about it, I, I’ve said, please don’t feel like you have to go catch up on every episode. I’ve done, just let each come and say, hey, I have this source that I can, don’t, how do you respond to that? And I’ll do the same so we can just learn together because I do think the only thing I’m asking for is some degree of humility and some degree of openness. I think it’s fine for people to say, um, you know, ok, that’s it. It doesn’t look that way to me, but maybe, you know, at least I think you’re wrong but let’s talk about it. That’s all I’m asking

[1:15:36] Cheryl Bruno: is a little bit of a little bit of respect for women’s voices. Seems like that has a big thing to do with it that we are women’s voices. We should be listening to what prophets have said in the past and we should not be um, um picking at them or we shouldn’t be um investigating them as women. We should be um accepting of these things and that’s very

[1:16:00] Michelle: sexist. It is. And I will add to that. So the anti polygamy standard that was started by um Jenny Anderson Froth in Utah, the Utah women who were not Mormon and who saw the s offering of polygamy and were trying to help and trying to advocate against. It started a newspaper where they printed the collections of stories that they gathered throughout the territory and then um she published it into a book. There is some incredibly important um information in that Brian throws it all out because it’s, you know, I, I would say because it’s just women’s and we have what the prophets say that is so unacceptable. It because it doesn’t tell the story he wants it to tell and we can’t do that. Like as a historian, those sources are every bit as valid and maybe more so because they don’t have the same bias that the polygamist voices would have, right? Like it’s at least as valid is what I would say. So this is an ongoing problem. So, um OK, let me get my next clip ready All right. So since that video is down, I’m playing more of these clips that

[1:17:05] Brian Hales: we, those were church presidents, Brigham Young through Joseph Smith. So I’ve just pulled one. I could have found dozens if not hundreds more from these individuals and from other church leaders, the, the 12, those that we uh in the church called prophets, Seers and revelator who are saying that yes, polygamy was revealed from God. And they would also add, if we looked a little closer that came through Joseph Smith. So we have Michelle in this podcast asking a question and answering it in a way that seems to uh reject or dismiss or ignore multiple statements that come from our church leaders.

[1:17:38] Michelle: And I wanna, so that’s the part you spoke about that he cherry picks quotes from these five polygamous men implying that I am not a member of the church in good standing because I disagree with these 18 hundreds quotes from polygamist men, right? And then yes, this is what you addressed as well. I’m just gonna fast forward a little bit. So I’ll hit to get to the heart of what Steven says in response that I found shocking

[1:18:06] Steve Pynakker: as a member of this church. Um These are her prophets that are making these statements. Now, somebody who’s outside of the group can, can just dismiss all of those statements saying, well, that’s, you know, they’re, they’re in on the cover up or whatever however they want to approach it, but Michelle’s place is in the church. So I think it’s important to, to that why these comments would be relevant to the conversation vis a vis uh her, her, her work that she’s doing.

[1:18:31] Cheryl Bruno: This is one of the most egregious statements he made. And again, I will once again say Steve, how can you think that this is going to be a safe place for her? After you have said something like this? You have just soundly put her in her place. You know, he,

[1:18:48] Michelle: he literally said Michelle’s place is.

[1:18:52] Cheryl Bruno: Others can say this if they don’t, if they’re not members of the church, but Michelle cannot say this, you know, and I think, you know, to probably um let me just um soften it a little bit because I think maybe where Steve was coming from was he was trying to place um Brian’s um argument so that we could see what Bri why Brian was bringing up all these, you know, um why Brian was not engaging with you, why he was talking about, you know what the polygamist uh prophets had said. And so maybe uh Steve was just trying to, to put it in context a little bit, but he did that very poorly,

[1:19:37] Michelle: right? And, and I think it is interesting, I’m glad you said that because this is about my work, the amount of time they quoted me compared to the amount of time they quoted polygamous prophets and I would say again, like, like I appreciate you looking at what Steven was maybe trying to say, but he didn’t push back, he didn’t say. But what about all of the other things that you disagree with? What? Like he’s, he’s really being a sycophant here to Brian Hales, which I think is a big part of the problem is that he respects him. So he’s gonna bow down and honor everything he says and he’s going to treat me with a complete lack of respect. So I’ll go on to the next to what happens after this. Well, I’ll just tell you what happens. I won’t play it. This is where you also quoted that Brian is surprised that I would criticize the apostles. He adds, he uses the words, it’s bold, it’s gutsy and he’s basically, he’s, he’s flat out saying that it implies that I must not value my membership in the church because members can’t do that. So he’s again calling for my excommunication as directly as he can. And so I definitely take issue with that. And then there was one thing he said really plainly that I thought was quite shocking and, and just go forward to it. It’s just one little statement, but I want to hear, hear it. Um If I can get there, I want to hear people say it himself because I thought it was so surprising. So we’ll get there in just one second, the available

[1:21:06] Brian Hales: sources So they think it’s new to everybody when it was really just new to them.

[1:21:10] Michelle: So this is again where he’s so condescending anytime I have tried to engage with him because I thought he either neglected or misrepresented a source. So I would send him and say, hey, Brian, I just found this. What do you have to say? And, and his response always is that’s been dealt with, read my book. I don’t know who you think you are. You need to be quiet and, and you are just discovering things that we’ve known about forever. When the question I was always asking was, this doesn’t seem to fit into your narrative, right? And so, and

[1:21:42] Cheryl Bruno: those who have not looked into your work do not understand that they think that it has. And, you know, I have to say that that, that’s what I thought when you started the podcast a couple of years ago as well is I thought that, you know, it had been dealt with and it was kind of an, a silly, you know, uh perspective to have. And um I have changed my mind 100%. Um because you have brought out things that are new that and that’s what they don’t understand is these things that you’re bringing out are new ways of looking at things that we have not. Yes, Joseph Smith the third, um you know, had the same basic argument, but there are uh new documents out there, there’s a, a variety of things that you’ve looked into very deeply. Um, the deeds being one of them. Um, that no one has looked at in quite this way before that they, um, are just unaware of, completely unaware

[1:22:38] Michelle: of. Right? Th Thank you. Thank you so much because I just appreciate that you will validate what I’ve been trying to say this whole time. There is a discussion to be had that needs to be had. And I really do think that the deception like, like I guess I have to thank Brian Hills for the success of my channel in large part and all of the historical community that has been unwilling to do this because it’s left, you know, it’s left the whole field of untrodden trodden snow that I get to walk through. And you know, and let’s go come tell me

[1:23:10] Cheryl Bruno: I want to tell all my compassion compadres in the Mormon history field. You know, look, there is this Lacuna and we, we, they were walking right through it and look at the, you know, look at the mass of people that are coming on board. You know, we have to be able to address these things or, you know, we’re just, we’ve lost the battle.

[1:23:31] Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. It makes the historical community less relevant because as we read through the things he cites Saints and the um JSP narratives and the essays, we’re so disgusted with them that the historical community has completely lost our trust and

[1:23:48] Cheryl Bruno: not a, it’s not a good representation of the historical community. I don’t

[1:23:53] Michelle: believe, I agree with you. It, however, it is what we, what is shoved down our throats. It’s what we’re, we have to read and accept, right? And so the historical community is not, I mean, these are the church produced materials that Brian Hills is spearheading and telling us we must accept or be silent. That’s the problem. Yeah. So I’m glad you said that the horse historical community is much more broad than that, but the historical community is not doing itself any favors by letting Brian Hill set the narrative on this, which is exactly what they’re doing. So OK, let me play this shocking thing that he goes on to say

[1:24:29] Brian Hales: and that may be it, you know. Um and, and Steve, I appreciate you coming at this from the position of an evangelical. But, but let me just point out that, that I think we in the church um have to be kind of careful

[1:24:43] Michelle: that is a shocking admission that we as members of the church are not allowed to think and speak. We’re under a gag order. That’s how Brian wants it to be. And that’s the only way he can engage. And that’s what he came on to my podcast to tell me, I, I think that every member of the church and I hope every church leader is doing some serious soul searching, if that is the narrative we want to lead, right? If we want it to be, you cannot, if you’re a member of the church, you have to be careful, you better watch what you say or, or you’re gonna be kicked out. Does that strike you the same way? I um

[1:25:21] Cheryl Bruno: yes. And, and uh like I said, I just, I almost, I, I want to um you know, divide Brian from what other Mormon historians feel about the subject because I don’t, I don’t feel he represents us and I’m sorry that Steve has given him such a voice here and not really. And I feel like Steve will think that he is giving a voice to everyone, but he is prioritizing one of the voices that matters probably the least in this whole discussion now because Brian has become obsolete. Um I think that Don Bradley has kept himself um in the game and he may be beating around the with you quite a bit. Um I’ve seen that criticism but I feel like he’s trying to build and he don is trying to build a um scaffolding from which he can then make his, his um arguments. Um So I think he’s at least listening to some of the things you have to say. Um So I just feel like Steve really dismissed the boat on this so much that he thought that Brian would be a good person to come on to introduce us. To the topic, those of us who don’t know anything about Michelle that, you know, they would be introduced to you um through Brian Hales like this.

[1:26:48] Michelle: What in the world, right? What in the world? And so anyway, so yeah, he, he goes on, I’m just gonna have this is where Steven says that Brian is making a valid point by saying church members need to watch what they say, you know, you come,

[1:27:02] Steve Pynakker: come with a perspective. But I think that Brian is making a valid point that as a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, this conventionally, you know, you’re supposed to, I mean, the whole point of this is that being part of that organization is that you’re supposed to, you know, you, you, you’re to follow a profit, you know, and, and, and that’s, that’s kind of the whole setup, that’s the way it’s been. So Michelle’s kind of doing something different and I just think,

[1:27:27] Cheryl Bruno: oh, yes. Oh and Steve, um from his back, coming from his background betrays his um perception of mormonism that he does not understand what sustaining a prophet means to the vast majority of the church. Is that not that we, you know, will listen to every, you know, I mean, there was a whole group of people, people um when, during the pandemic that said, well, I don’t think that Rosalin Nelson is correct on this, you know, and I don’t think I should get a vaccination. Um And so, and you know, that it’s not like we follow everything blindly, you know, and prophets are there to lead us and to guide us and we do respect to them and we take their word seriously, but it’s not like we say, ok, we shut up now because, you know,

[1:28:20] Michelle: well, this is how I approach it also. We like we just had our word conference and then our state conference and we sustain our state leaders and we sustain our world leaders. It’s exactly the same word and exactly the same concept. So when I sustain my local leaders, what does that mean? Right. I, I try to do what I can to help them and to be a useful member. And I always err on the side of obedience, I listen to them and you know, but that does not mean that I think that everything they do is infallible or flawless or that I could never disagree with something they did or see that they handled something badly. That’s ridiculous. So, so why would we like, I, I just want us to all under understand what sustain actually means like, like we’re supposed to sustain our spouse as well, you know, and I would not be a good spouse if I always just said, yes, dear, yes, dear. Yes, I never said, hey, babe, I think we need to talk about this, right? Like one of the ways we sustain is by also saying, hey, just so, you know, this, I have a, I, I would like to talk about this, this I have a problem with this, right? I mean, we’re not constantly complaining but we’re supposed to stay sustain all of our church leaders in exactly the same way. And what I hate about this again, Steve, I mean, this is unbelievable to me that he as someone not a member of our church in a discussion about polygamy is repeatedly validating and adding to telling a woman to shut up. Right. There’s no woman that I can point to her and say, oh, look, II, I can, I can quote her and be in good company, right? Like we have to do it on our own power. And then we’re being told if you disagree with what the men have said 100 years ago, the polygamous men who would never give women a voice, then you need, then you, there’s no place for you in this church and Steve just jumps on the bad wagon. Yeah, there’s no room for her in this church instead of at least pointing out maybe that’s a problem.

[1:30:13] Cheryl Bruno: Right. And where in his apology did he even recognize that he’s doing anything of the sort he does not recognize and that’s why his apology falls flat because he doesn’t understand what he is apologizing for and what he needs to apologize

[1:30:27] Michelle: for. Right. Right. He has not tried to reach out to me to understand what it is that maybe I am objecting to. And uh so I want to play this little clip because this is something that I have talked to Brian about in the past. And I think this also again, kind of reveals something not, not only about Brian, but maybe about men more broadly who support polygamy as being from God that I find really troubling. And so I’m just going to play this short little clip right here

[1:30:57] Brian Hales: either. I want to understand. I don’t like polygamy. It’s unfair. Men can do it. Women can’t

[1:31:02] Michelle: that little clip right there. I’ve, I’ve addressed this to Brian. How offensive I find that to be because so, Cheryl, if you had permission to do polygamy, isn’t it? Just, is it the only bad thing about polygamy is that you can’t do it, don’t you want to just be marrying a bunch of men and sleeping around with a bunch of men? He’s, he’s saying the thing that’s unfair about it is that men get to do it. Yay. Good luck as we get to do it and women don’t get to. So it’s not fair.

[1:31:34] Cheryl Bruno: It’s not fair. Yeah. He doesn’t see the unfairness in polygamy. He, he sees it from a very male centric view. Right.

[1:31:41] Michelle: He thinks that we would all like he wants polygamy and he, men get to do it. It’s a, it’s a privilege. It’s a great benefit for men that women don’t get to have the same privilege. Instead of seeing that for me as a woman, my objections to polygamy are so much deeper and more profound than that. I want a marriage with my husband where there is trust and love and unity without any intrusion. In addition, I don’t want to believe in a God that sees me as nothing but an, a reward of a piece of an object, uh a thing to be given and taken that doesn’t have any independent thought, desire, the experience. Like that’s why I, that’s what I laid out in that episode. That Jacob two makes it clear how God sees women. Jacob two and three, that God cares deeply about the experiences of women. 132 makes it very clear that women are irrelevant, their feelings don’t matter at all. That is our problem with polygamy. It’s not that we don’t get to have sex with a bunch of other men. Can we please stop addressing it this way?

[1:32:49] Cheryl Bruno: Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Um

[1:32:51] Michelle: Am I saying too much? Sorry. Go

[1:32:53] Cheryl Bruno: ahead again. It’s some, I don’t agree with you on. But, um, but I, I can’t um fathom um Brian’s Brian’s stance on this, you know, because it is so, it’s so male centric and it’s so um dismissive of women and it’s so dismissive of any concerns that people would have.

[1:33:16] Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. And, and maybe I was too strong on that. I don’t want to imply that Brian wants polygamy. That’s how, that’s how I hear this, but I wouldn’t, I’m not going to speak to his feelings and thoughts just when I, I would like to request that we stop talking about polygamy in this way, Brian is one of the main, you know, he’s the one that goes on the podcast. He’s the one that he’s the main voice about Polym and I’m going to request that we stop addressing it in this way saying this is what women’s objection is to it or this is why it’s unfair. It’s a completely different, different.

[1:33:52] Cheryl Bruno: And I mean, you’ve, it’s not like you haven’t said what your objective is. So why is he putting words in your mouth or thoughts in your head with when you’ve been very clear on what your objectives objections are?

[1:34:05] Michelle: Right? And so I’m gonna take this off for a minute because I’m, I didn’t play any clips from his entire long point about transparency. But I did want to point out just a couple of things that I think he’s ignoring when he’s the one being the II, I just can’t say the word. The transparency is, it’s such a silly made up word. But um but again, that was an overview episode, but in his entire thing, when he’s talking about how he is a transparency and he brings up word and he’s the expert. I just want to bring up one example that he completely ignores that is. Um, well, let’s see if this is where I wanted to talk about it. Um, well, ok, I, I guess I’m going out of order a little bit. So let me, let me go back. I apologize. I’m doing, I was doing the wrong thing. So let me add this back and I’m gonna play this next clip and then I’ll go

[1:34:56] Brian Hales: into a

[1:34:57] Michelle: Jacob did it into that part that I wanted to talk about. It’s um oh yeah, he goes on to say you, you can’t say that it’s not of God. But um let’s see. Oh, this is it. I’m, I’m going right. So I’m skipping over the whole transparency discussion. I’ll get back to it and going ahead to write um 35 09. This part, my editor called me and laughed aloud. Oh, is this OK. So go ahead. OK. I’m gonna play this part like every other scripture Joseph Smith ever brought forth and everything he ever said or wrote on the topic adamantly denied and forbid polygamy in as much as this church has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy. We declare that we believe one man should have one wife and one woman but one husband.

[1:35:51] Brian Hales: Ok. Um One thing that I I’m pretty sure Michelle was aware of is that this particular phrase doesn’t say exactly what she said that it says,

[1:36:06] Michelle: OK, it’s still on the screen. I read it, word for word and then he responds by saying it doesn’t say what I said that it says, do you see how you did was read it? I read it, I read it, I read it and he is implying I read it wrong. Like this is the level of gas lighting that I encounter both in the polygamy discussion but also from Brian. While the, the, the just audaciousness of this, that while it is even on the screen highlighted and underlined, he says it doesn’t say what I said. It says, well, I’m being dishonest.

[1:36:45] Cheryl Bruno: Well, here is where I have to um jump on Brian’s side for a minute because um he is like, he, he is um projecting, he’s projecting what you, how you will read this and

[1:37:02] Michelle: say that he, that he interprets it differently or that he would say it means, but he said, it doesn’t say what I said, it said. So, yeah, go ahead. I’ll let you

[1:37:12] Cheryl Bruno: there. He did misspeak there. But um I think his point is pretty clear that he makes this point pretty clear that this, this passage can be read two different ways and, you know, polygamy, deniers read it one way and polygamy um defenders read it another way and um I think that he doesn’t really have time to make the case for this. Um I have talked to Michelle about this particular passage before and I feel like what we need to do is kind of look at the whole issue of, you know, how did did Joseph Smith, was he, um, being upfront with, um, every statement that he made about polygamy. And let’s look at different states, like, let’s, since that statement, we can’t decide how we’re going to necessarily um, interpret it because it can be interpreted these two different ways. One group thinks it’s stupid to interpret it, you know, that way. But, but it’s not, it’s, it’s, there’s room in that statement to interpret it two to, right? OK. Let’s look at some other statements that and maybe Brian didn’t have time to do this fully and um hopefully you and I can do it fully. So this is, this is one place where I don’t but, but for him to say, oh, she, she didn’t, she said it wrong when you just, all you did was quote the scripture. That was a little bit

[1:38:38] Michelle: and just to quickly, just to quickly continue with what we’re talking about. And I know this isn’t the only time to have this discussion, but I will say, OK, then let’s look at other 1835 writings from Joseph and see where he is. Not. Let’s not, let’s not look at how we’re rereading Jacob 230 which is, is troubling. Like I think that polygamists are expert at saying that words say the opposite of what they very clearly mean. If I tell my child, you can have one cookie. Everybody knows what that means and, and Brian Hills goes on to say, every linguist will tell you this has two interpretations. I think you have to torture it, especially when it goes on to say, except in the time and case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again, especially when it, the whole thing is phrased is in, in response to the accusations of polygamy, then we can add things like one other thing that I think it was Joseph F Smith, but I’d have to look up said is that this wasn’t written by Joseph Smith. It was written by Oliver Cowdrey and, and so they try to take Joseph Smith out of it completely as another way to reject it. It was used by every organization in the church and the presidency, the relief site he published in the newspapers often to say we are not doing polygamy, right? And then in addition, John Taylor in 1850 I think in France used this, he had 12 wives at the time and used this to claim that that what what did he say? We are accused here in his, in his debate, we are accused here of polygamy and actions the most indelicate ob obscene and disgusting such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These are too outrageous to admit to admit of belief. Therefore, leaving the sisters of the white veil and the black veil and all he goes on. But anyway, what he goes on to use to refute them is he p he prints this, this part of it. So they all used it to say this, they know exactly what it said. And then in addition, when 132 was added in the 1880 Doctrine and covenants, everyone says 1876 but it was actually printed in 1880. This was removed. And so to claim that like, like this was universally understood, that was just one of Joseph F Smith’s arguments so we can get into it later. But I just want, we

[1:40:50] Cheryl Bruno: will, we will definitely get into it. And it’s um it’s very um I feel like I have a good kiss for it. You feel like you have a good kiss for it. So it should be very interesting. Um But I will say that this is probably the one place in this whole podcast where he actually did. What I think, you know, he should have done is uh is um take one of your arguments and then explain why, why he, why he doesn’t disagree. It’s a good argument and why he disagrees. And so, so if he could have done that throughout the podcast, I would not have had as much issue with him because he was in that case, he was actually um engaging something you had said. So, yeah, I,

[1:41:34] Michelle: I do. That was better than the rest. But I will say that even if he had spent the whole time engaging with what I said without me there to, without ever engaging with me first, it still wouldn’t have been ok and, and I would have loved to go head to head with him on this. So, um, and there’s more to be said on it. I think so. Ok, I’m going to, this is another point that I think is important and is of why I’m doing this and I think we’re just about done. There are just a couple more that I want to um talk about. So I’ll play

[1:42:02] Brian Hales: this one. We didn’t know each other very well. So I, I have to confess. II, I realize people are, are very energized by this topic and understandably so um sex and religion are red button topics no matter where or when we’re talking and then you throw it in to Joseph Smith who we love and I love just as you do and I wish he hadn’t had to do it. See, my version of Joseph Smith is a guy who didn’t want to do it. This angel that he reported coming three times. Um And he first came in 1834 according to the accounts and then came a third time. The last time he’s got a, a sword, it’s not a flaming sword, but it’s a sword saying Joseph, we really want you to do this. The reason in my mind that Joseph Smith I believe in is because Joseph didn’t want to do it. He didn’t want to hurt Emma.

[1:42:45] Michelle: Ok. This, this hits on why I’m doing what I’m doing. Do you ha, do you have any response to that first before I go off? Um,

[1:42:54] Cheryl Bruno: yeah. Um, I think that it’s interesting to me to see people’s response to that. D, everyone has a different idea of why Joseph Smith did it or didn’t do it. Um, and it’s almost like, uh, you know, a Touchstone where we can see, like people’s hearts almost, uh, when they, when they feel they understand why Joseph was doing this. And I have, of course, a very different one, which one of these days we’ll discuss, um, I have a very different kind of idea of what Joseph Smith’s motivation was in my head. And so I just find it interesting to look and see that and, and you can almost just apply it, you know, to Brian in a way, you know, because, because we all tend to do that or like, if I was Joseph Smith, what would I have been thinking? You know, if I was Joseph Smith and I did such and such, what would I have been thinking in my head? You know how I

[1:43:49] Michelle: have been? And I think that’s a fair thing to do. The thing that I object to so much in this is what I said to Brian in response to why I’m doing what I’m doing. It is attributing to God the mistakes of man. Brian’s narrative on polygamy is by far the most harmful one. Here we have Joseph and he didn’t want to hurt Emma. But God said an angel that was going to kill him if he didn’t betray his wife. So it makes God deplorable for women. It turns God into a monster. And, and that is, that is the central issue that my entire podcast is focused on is this lie about God. And that’s why I find this to be so upsetting. And actually, I do, I do get upset by it because you are telling all of these, well, both men and women, right? But I think that it is more like is more often hurting the women to tell them this is who their God is in regard to them. And I object to that with my entire being. I like that is what I want to put a stop to completely.

[1:44:58] Cheryl Bruno: So how much richer of a conversation Steve would this have been if you had, you know, just even, I mean, you could have a whole podcast about that one thing but to present um Brian’s Brian’s view of it and to present Michelle’s view of it and to have both of those views being supported and validated and heard that would have been a very rich conversation to have. Um and you lost out there.

[1:45:27] Michelle: Yes. Thank you. Thank you for addressing that. So, so just for the rest, I won’t play any more clips. But I, I do also, like I said before, this is, I have a quote from Steve because I object to his excuses of why he hasn’t had me on. I think he hasn’t had me on because Rick Bennett and I have a good relationship from gospel tangents. We joke around with each other. He has no respect for my perspective. He doesn’t understand that he just, I’m going against the historical narrative, the consensus. So I must be dumb. You know, even though everyone I engage with, they, they wake up to some things that they didn’t know before and, you know, and I, I’ve told them I’m gonna win you over. He’s gonna owe me dinner. One of these days is our joke. But I know that Steve really admires Rick and Rick has refused to have me on because he won’t have polygamy di on. He had me on to talk about Marshall Kaufman, but he won’t have me on to talk about this topic. And I think that Steve and then also John Dely won’t have me on to talk about this topic. So I think that Steve is maybe taking his cues from those guys that he admires, which I can understand that. But, but I object to him not just acknowledging that because what he keeps saying and what he said to me in our phone calls is polygamy is not that my topic. That’s why I haven’t had you on. But then he said, so he says that in this podcast as well. But then he goes on to say, literally say I’ve had, I’ve had polygamous on, I’ve had lots of Polyus on Brian Shafer has been on many times and then he talks about how he had an wild on and, and he talks about how much he loves Ogden Kraut. Like, please don’t like ardent crowd is horrific. I just

[1:47:00] Cheryl Bruno: not supposed to make you feel better. I mean, is that like, what is that? What you, I think he’s trying to show that he’s open minded in that way, but he, it’s not making his point for him.

[1:47:14] Michelle: No, no, he’s contradicting him. He won’t just be honest. He, he can’t, he has to come up with excuses for why he hasn’t had me on because he knows that he should have had me on. Right. And, and then even when he has me on, he doesn’t have me on. He has my biggest detractor on who’s trying to silence me. And so yeah, he goes on after I haven’t delved into polygamy. It’s not one of the things I want to talk about. He continues that quote by saying we’ve done a lot on polygamy on this channel, but we’ve never done the issue that we talked about today. The issue about you’ve

[1:47:43] Cheryl Bruno: done, it’s not that you haven’t done the issue. It’s that you have only done one side and you haven’t presented the other side.

[1:47:50] Michelle: Yes, he hasn’t presented the other side. And when he finally does, he doesn’t have, I, I feel so massively disrespected, so massively insulted. I do feel like this is horribly horribly sexist. Not only because they are two men which they like, Steve invited a man on to this. Yes, polygamy. Right. If, if I were a man, I would still want to be invited on this just gives it a whole new angle and the man goes on and represents God as a polygamist and all of the polygamist men. As I said, this is also the man who’s calling for my excommunication. Like with the implication on my podcast, I had my picture of me with my baby daughter. He didn’t know, but he still put a picture of me up on the screen saying I needed to be excommunicated, which implies that I would never see my little girls again, right? Like, like there are so many layers to this that are incredibly offensive. And I, I do, I don’t ever wanna say I’m speaking on behalf of all women, but I do want to be a voice for women in this church that I desperately desperately hope the church does not excommunicate me because I feel like telling women that you need to be like letting Brian Hales win the day, telling all of us that he’s right that men set the standard men are the ones that get to talk about this topic, women that are shut up as, and, or, and sit down or be kicked out of the church. I desperately hope that that is not the mess, mess. I hope that we can just say that’s Brian and he’s speaking for and I’m sorry, I’m, I’m not being emotionally manipulative, which is the other thing I get accused of because when Brian put my picture up, no,

[1:49:38] Cheryl Bruno: I, I can, I jump in here because I think that um from what I understand of that incident, we need to talk about this a little bit more. Um what Brian did was he had um from what I understand he had you on one side of the screen and he on the other side with prophets and

[1:49:55] Michelle: apostles and President Nelson, President Nelson and him and me,

[1:50:00] Cheryl Bruno: you were on the other side with your darling baby daughter who would die that very day. Um So, I mean, don’t feel bad about getting emotional because what he was implying when he put that screen up was I am on the side of the prophets and apostles. I am on the right side, Michelle is on and like I told you, this is very serious accusation that he’s making that he she is apostate. She if she is truly an apostate and she loses, loses her membership in the church, she is, you know, condemned to never be with those sweet Children again. And I am I I still do not. And, and Brian in this podcast, he actually referred to this, but he did not explain it and he did not show that he understood in any way why it was emotional for you, why it was damaging for you. He, he did not understand that. And, you know, I, I can see as he, as he talked about it and he was like, yeah, she and she got a little emotional and I said I was sorry, I profusely apologized and we went on, you know, and it was it when I found out what was behind all that, it, it, it just devastated me that he could not wrap his mind around what he had actually done in, in that, in having that situation there. It’s just uh so egregious,

[1:51:29] Michelle: it is, it. Thank you. Thank you. It is egregious. And the way he spoke about it again, I um you know, like I’m still, I’m still dealing with this, this happening this week brought up a lot for me. It’s like during this week that this all happened, Brian, I got called into my state President’s office. It was, it was extremely emotionally taxing, engaging with Brian that first time. And so to have this and, and you know, just like Brian didn’t intend to have my picture with my daughter and he defends himself. He again, he doesn’t, he doesn’t ever sincerely apologize. He never, he said I didn’t know it was a Facebook Post. I thought I could use her profile picture. He again defends and justifies himself never expressing the empathy, right? And Steve maybe didn’t know all of that, but shame on you, shame on you for doing this again, for bringing this guy on to talk about my work in this way, in this context like no. And so that’s why I am making this plea to the church. Whoever happens to be listening to this, please don’t send this message to the women in our congregations. Please don’t do this to us if you know, I I’m trying so hard to be careful to not cross too far. I I’m, it’s really hard, you know, it’s hard to be in this space. I feel like I need to be doing what I’m doing. I feel like God directly called me to be doing what I’m doing. I, oh people are gonna come after me. I don’t mean I just mean I am following the inspiration from God to me to what I’m doing. And that’s my, that’s where my loyalty is to God. Please allow room for women to speak about.

[1:53:10] Cheryl Bruno: And from my position too is like saying once again, we need a space for faithful descent. You know, we I’m not only what you said, which is very important, but also um I need a space for faithful descent. I all women need a space to be able to say this doesn’t make sense to me you know, let’s talk about it, you know, and, and let me, let me tell you what that meant to me to see the two, you know, uh just, uh, because obviously Brian doesn’t understand what that meant to you and neither does Steve. And so I’m glad that we have this opportunity to kind of, um, to show them, you know, what our voices are and what a safe space would mean for us and why that is no longer a safe space for. I would say almost any woman, Steve, how can other people go on your podcast and feel like that’s a safe space when this has happened and you can try to take it away and make it vanish. But that’s why we need to, to, that’s why I felt like I needed to come on and present this side of it.

[1:54:19] Michelle: Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you so much. And, and I wanted, I know we’re wrapping up, but I wanted to just add to one thing you said about the importance of making room for dissent, right? I think it is particularly important for women’s voices because we are not represented in leadership. And so when I on my podcast show, two examples of apostles saying things that are hurtful to women and Brian cannot like, I need to be able to say this is hurtful, it’s hurtful when women’s concerns are laughed at, at general conference that’s hurtful. And instead of hearing that and trying to understand why that might be women’s experience. Instead, he’s calling for my excommunication for daring to say it. And so that’s why I’m trying to, one of the things I have tried so hard to do is and, and I honor everybody’s path. But I’ve tried to say we don’t need to leave the church. This is our church. We can recognize that there have been problems, we don’t need to leave. That doesn’t need to be our only option, right? That has been a big part of what I’ve been trying to do, which I expressed to Brian when he asked me that question. So with him calling for me to be kicked out. What does that mean? No, there’s not room. Yes, you do have to leave. No, you can’t be in the church and have a different and, and you cannot be in the church and believe that God cares and values cares about and values and loves women. You have to be kicked out if you dare say that. So that’s my plea.

[1:55:51] Cheryl Bruno: Thank you Michelle. I really, I so much appreciate hearing your voice and I’m so glad that it’s gonna be going out and I hope people will take this seriously.

[1:55:59] Michelle: Thank you Cheryl. And everyone can tune in to hear a another conversation we have on Sunday, but I cannot thank you enough. So we’ll see you later.

[1:56:09] Cheryl Bruno: Bye.