Introduction and Episode Overview

John Dehlin [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3. Hello, everyone, and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm your host, John Dehlin. It is August 28, 2020, and we could not be more excited today to bring you a new episode of Mormon Stories Podcast. Just to give you a little bit of background, last month, I think it was in July, I had on the podcast, Shannon Caldwell Montez. Shannon was raised in the LDS Church, was living the Mormon dream. I say that in quotes. Got married, had lots of kids, and decided to go back to school to get her master's degree in history. And she decided to study BH Roberts. And while she was studying B H Roberts, she learned all sorts of really cool things that not only were important for the historical record and for us, but also she, you know, started to question her orthodox Mormon faith. So we did two major sit downs with Shannon, and in those sit downs, we talked about her story. And it's an amazing story, and I recommend that you all go back and listen to it. And then the second thing that we did was we had Shannon get us an overview of the life of B.H. roberts. And B.H. roberts is a really important figure in Mormonism for so many reasons. And we're going to be covering that a little bit again today. But basically that episode was called the Rise and Fall of BH Roberts. After that episode, there were some Mormon apologists, specifically Stephen Smoot, who responded and kind of did the typical Mormon apologist attack, ad hominem sort of thing, where they attacked me, they attacked Mormon stories, they attacked Shannon, they attacked Shannon's scholarship. And the basic attack really was a straw man. It was basically saying that we were wrong in the podcast by claiming that BH Roberts lost his testimony in Mormonism. And I don't think that was ever the claim of either me or Shannon. What the episode tried to discuss was it was basically discussing the rise and follow B H Roberts. And then it was basically touching on the idea that eventually B H Roberts lost his faith in Book of Mormon historicity. And because that was challenged by Stephen Smoot, what we've decided that we want to do today is go into depth on this question of whether or not BH Roberts lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon and specifically a Book of Mormon historicity. And I'm going to say that this is just the beginning of what I hope is a long series with Shannon, because after today, we still will not have got to the core of her thesis, which was an in depth drill down on the participants of what are called the 1922 Secret Mormon Meetings. So that's the substance of Shannon's thesis. But we wanted to take a little bit of time to address this issue of BH Roberts and his testimony, Book of Mormon historicity, before we dove into those secret morning meetings. So I promise you, viewers and listeners, and I promise you, Shannon Caldwell Montez, that we will get to the substance of your thesis. But we needed to tackle this question today. So I have a couple people to thank before we dive in. One is Jonathan Streeter of Thinker of Thoughts. Jonathan set me up with this new super slick tech technology platform that we're using now where we're live streaming simultaneously to several Facebook groups and pages and to YouTube. And so I want to welcome all of our listeners and viewers that are joining us live on the stream. This is super cool that we could do this. And so I want to welcome you all. I want to also thank my good friend Gerardo, who helped set me up with the camera with really good lighting so that we can kind of up the game of Mormon Stories podcast. So that's what you're seeing here is the great work of Gerardo, plus the support of Jonathan Streeter. Thanks to all of you. This is brought to you by a new YouTube channel that we're launching called Understanding Mormonism with Dr. John Dehlin. Please go to that YouTube channel right now and subscribe because we want to have as many subscribers as possible. This is also brought to you by Mormon Stories Podcast. And the topic for today again is did BH Roberts lose his testimony of the Book of Mormon with Shannon Caldwell Montes. So that is the topic of today's discussion and we are going to dig in pretty soon. But before I begin, let me welcome you, Shannon Caldwell Montez, back to Mormon Stories Podcast. It's so great to see you.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:04:53] Thanks. Fun to be here again.

John Dehlin [00:04:55] How are you feeling?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:04:58] I don't know. Covid and my daughter just left for college and I don't know, I don't know how I'm feeling anymore.

John Dehlin [00:05:06] Tell us what the reaction has been to your, your first couple interviews on Mormon Stories Podcast. Just to bring us up to speed,

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:05:13] I would say it's been overwhelmingly positive, everyone. I've had a lot of people reach out about my personal story and tell me how well they can relate and you know, how it's. I, I feel like it was a pretty normal story, which is probably why so many people could relate. Just, you know, just the everyday difficulties and toxicity and things like that. And as far as the, I think that there was a lot of Interest in the historical aspect as well. Those people didn't reach out as much to me because I think those are more conversations they would have with each other and, you know, just the theories and thinking about it and talking about it. But it has been interesting to see what apologists say about it as well. So I think it's brought about some really interesting conversation.

John Dehlin [00:06:12] Totally agree. And that's what we're going to dig into today. So today we are going to answer the question, you know, did BH Roberts lose his testimony of the Book of Mormon? Well, I don't think we're going to answer that question. Why don't you go ahead and give your disclaimer about whether that, that question is really answerable?

Did B.H. Roberts Lose His Testimony?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:06:32] Yeah, I mean, it's something that. That's one criticism that people have given me that, you know, I didn't really address all the things that he said afterwards and whether or not his testimony he maintained a belief in historicity. And I made the point, this is not, first of all, that was never the point of my thesis. My thesis was to discover these meetings and to talk about who they were and what happened and why they were important. So that was the point of my thesis, was to uncover and discover these series of meetings. So talking about BH Roberts testimony is out of the scope of my thesis. Like, to decide what somebody believed would be a ridiculous thing to put to make as a thesis, because you can never prove what one person's ultimate beliefs are. But that said, in the course of my research, I found a lot of things that would point me towards the idea that he no longer had a belief in historicity. Again, I'm not going to make a firm stand on that as a historian, because you can't know somebody's mind. But when I look at evidence and quotes and other testimony, I do believe there was a strong hit on his belief in historicity.

John Dehlin [00:07:58] Absolutely. There are some listeners asking, where, where's the link to the thesis? That is. That is from Amy Azizi. Where's the link to the thesis, Amy? We put a link to the thesis in the description of this episode. So whether you're on YouTube or whether you're on Facebook, whichever post you're accessing it from, you can find a link to the thesis there. And if one of you who's online

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:08:29] wants to share the link, you can just Google it. Just Google Secret Mormon meetings of 1922. It's right there. Top of the results. So easy to find.

John Dehlin [00:08:40] And I will actually share that now in the stream as well. For anyone who wants to access it. Okay. This is so slick, the software that we're using. All right, so even though we can't know if BH we can't know if BH Roberts totally lost his testimony in either the Book of Mormon or in the LDS Church, overall, I think there's a lot of evidence that provides a compelling case that he certainly lost his testimony of Book of Mormon historicity. And I think that's what we're going to cover now. Is that all right, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:09:21] Yeah, and again, this isn't my thesis, so I don't have this as well documented, but I do. I have spent the last day or so trying to gather the sources that I had looked at that would lead me to that conclusion. So again, a little bit of a disclaimer that I may not have this all tidied up.

John Dehlin [00:09:41] I'm going to, just for fun, add a comment from Frederick Willis. Frederick writes Shannon, My wife was incredibly moved by your story and so was I. Thank you for sharing. That's just one of many people, Al writes Shannon, thank you for your time and wisdom. Kelleran writes. Just want to say an upfront huge thanks to Shannon for standing up for basic academic honesty and integrity. So we love the comments from the listeners. Please keep them coming. Let's now dig into the substance of Today's presentation. Did B.H. roberts lose his testimony of the Book of Mormon? So I'm going to provide a little bit of a background and Shannon, I'm going to ask you to jump in whenever you want. Is that okay?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:10:23] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:10:25] So B.H. roberts, just as a background, was born in 1857. He was a Utah politician. He was LDS Church historian. He was a general authority for the church. He was not an apostle, but he was in the quorum of the 70. Talk quickly, Shannon, about why what it meant to be in the 70 was, was maybe a little bit different than what it means today relative to an apostle.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:10:50] Yeah, they just were more on par with an apostle. There was a change in the, I believe it was late 1920s where they were kind of battling out who who got like the biggest say in things and who reported to who and the apostles ended up winning that argument. But at the time, the 70s, and especially the presidency of the 70s, which Roberts was, was on par with an apostle. People probably would have known him as well as they, as people today know an apostle.

John Dehlin [00:11:28] Absolutely. And as you read about the history, both in your wonderful thesis and in several other articles that I've been reading on Dialogue and elsewhere, Roberts is working super closely with Talmadge, with Ivins, with Lyman, with all these apostles. He's just working. In fact, you know, Grant delegates this job to Roberts, or at least, you know, to Talmadge, and then Talmadge to Roberts. And so clearly, Roberts was a super important player.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:11:56] Yeah, he was considered the top apologist. I was looking yesterday at a letter from Heber J. Grant to one of Roberts friends, Isaac Russell, and he was saying, yeah, BH Roberts is probably our top apologist and greatest defender. And he's, you know, one of the best scholars we have. So he was definitely well respected.

John Dehlin [00:12:19] Absolutely. Okay, so back to our. Back to our discussion of Roberts. He died in 1933, which we'll talk. Talk about at the very end of this presentation. But that's kind of a brief overview. I went ahead and gathered just some of the publications that Roberts released relative to Book of Mormon historicity. So in 1895, he releases a new Witness for God. And then between 1902 and 1932, he releases the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints in seven volumes. 1909, he releases New Witnesses for God, volumes two and three, both of them diving deep into the Book of Mormon. And then from 1907 to 1912, he publishes something called Defense of the Faith and the Saints in two volumes. So, like you said, totally into defending the Book of Mormon. And this is important because one of the things apologists like to do is quote stuff that he wrote before 1922 as examples of him not losing his faith. Is that. Do I have that right, Shannon?

Roberts as Apologist Before 1922

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:13:28] Right. Yeah. If you look at the apologetic articles, especially before the papers came out, they were basically pulling tons of quotes from before 1922 to talk about how much he was, how much he believed, how strongly he felt that it was defendable, just how absolute his belief was. But that was pretty much always from 1922. Before 1922.

John Dehlin [00:13:58] Exactly. So if you want to know what B.H. roberts believed at the end of his life about the Book of Mormon and its historicity, you can't really look at anything before 1921, because 1921 was when the church kind of heard this shot heard around the world for the church that we're going to talk about in right now, basically. So one thing that I wanted to highlight is just this super, I'm going to begin and I'm going to end with this quote that comes from New Witnesses for God, volume two, again written in 1909. This is B.H. roberts. And you're gonna have to just forgive us, because we're gonna dive in, show the work, as Dr. Robert Rittner encourages us to do from a previous Mormon Stories episode, the Great Robert Rittner. And we're going to read some quotes. So here I go. This is B H Roberts in 1909. If the origin of the Book of Mormon could be proved to be other than that set forth by Joseph Smith, if the book itself could be proved to be other than it claims to be, which is a translation of ancient, you know, golden plates. Right. Then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its message and doctrines must fall. For if that book is other than it claims to be. Again, a translation of golden plates delivered by an angel to Joseph Smith. Yeah. If. If the book is other than claims to be, then the Church. For if that book is other than claims to be, if its origins is other than that ascribed to it by Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith says that which is untrue. He is a false prophet of false prophets, and all he taught and all his claims to inspiration and divine authority are not only vain but wicked. And all that he did as a religious teacher is not only useless, but mischievous beyond human comprehending. So I start with that quote, because this is BH Roberts basically saying. He's basically laying down the gauntlet here and saying, if Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon isn't exactly what Joseph Smith claims to be, a translation of ancient records, golden plates delivered to him by Mormon, then it's all a fraud. And that's going to come in later. But I just want you to keep that in your minds as you're hearing the rest of this presentation. I will continue to another paragraph. Again, New Witnesses for God, Volume 2, 1909. Those who accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be may not so state their case that its security chiefly rests on the inability of its opponents to prove a negative. This is basically talking about apologists and the burden of proof that apologists must show when they're defending the Book of Mormon. He writes, the affirmative side of the question belongs to us who hold out the Book of Mormon to the world as a revelation of God. The burden of proof rests upon us in every discussion. For not only must the Book of Mormon not be proved to have other origin than that which we set forth or be other than what we say it is, but we must prove its origin to be what we say it is, and the book itself to be what we proclaim it to be, a revelation from God. To be known, the truth must be stated, and the clearer and more complete the statement is, the better opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for testifying to the souls of men that the work is true. Now, why am I bringing this up? I'm bringing this up because even though we can call B.H. roberts an apologist, he is not. He is not a 21st century Mormon apologist in the sense that he had integrity. And he basically said it's not good enough just to come up with vapid, irrelevant, pseudoscientific answers that just provide plausible deniability that perhaps the Book of Mormon could be true in some vague sense. He's basically saying it's beholden on Mormon apologists to demonstrate beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon affirmingly, in truth, really is what it claims. Do you want to add anything to that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:18:16] Yeah, I just. I think it's remarkable, his confidence. I think it kind of shows that current leaders probably don't believe the way he did. They don't. They probably know that they can't make such a bold statement as he did at that time. They're not going to say, oh, you can't prove, you know, we have to prove that it's true. They're saying, you can't prove that it's false, like he was saying you can't do. But you just don't hear that kind of challenge anymore. And I think that's because they know it can't be challenged in that way.

John Dehlin [00:18:56] Absolutely. So. So having set that bar really high, and again, these are B H Roberts own words, the next thing I want to, you know, discuss is an article that I'd stumbled on this morning from Dialogue, a Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 29, Number 2, Summer of 19, 1996. And it's a book. It's an article that's called Mr. Couch and Elder Roberts. And this is by Richard F. Keillor. And it tells the story of how all of this hubbub came to be, starting in 1921. And so what we learn about from this article is that there was a man named Dr. James F. Couch. He was born in Massachusetts, he went to Harvard, got a bachelor's degree from Harvard in 1913. He went on to get a PhD from American University by 1926. But during that time he was working on his graduate work. And after he worked for the U.S. department of Agriculture, the USDA. And just to sort of round out the credibility of Dr. Couch, this article says that by the end of his career, Couch was, quote, senior author of about 90 scientific papers, mostly focused on poisonous plants and toxins. Now, this is all fine and good, but what in the heck does it have to do with B. H. Roberts? Well, here's what it has to do with BH Roberts. So James F. Couch was conducting for the. For the United States government research on poisonous plants. And at the US Experiment Station in Gooseberry Canyon near Salina, Utah, in the summers of the years leading up to 1921, and while he was working in Salina, Utah, he met a young student from what was then Utah State Agriculture College, which is now Utah State University, called William Emerson Ryder, who was studying botany and in fact got his bachelor's degree in botany in 1922 from what became Utah State University. And I think. I think you tell me if I'm wrong, Shannon, but it sounds like Ryder basically shares the Book of Mormon with Couch. Is that kind of your understanding?

The James Couch Letter and Early Problems

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:21:19] Yeah, I think he was being a good little missionary and, you know, telling him to read the Book of Mormon and you know how great it is. And I think Ryder or I think Couch was like, interesting, and I'm sure, like, if.

John Dehlin [00:21:35] If Heavenly Father, the Mormon Heavenly Father, could go back in time, as soon as, you know, as soon as Ryder was about to share the Book of Mormon with Couch, Heavenly Father would have gone, no, you know, please don't share the Book of Mormon with James Couch, because what James, Dr. James F. Couch did is he read the Book of Mormon. And he read it from. He must have read it from COVID to cover, because what he did is he came up with five major scientific problems with the Book of Mormon, and he gave those to William Ryder. And then William Ryder writes a letter to LDS apostle and scientist James E. Talmadge on August 22, 1921. And then apparently. And you write this in your wonderful thesis. What does Talmadge do when he gets the letter?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:22:30] Ignores it.

John Dehlin [00:22:31] Kind of ignores.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:22:33] Seems that he ignored it the first time. And then Couch or writer, writes him a second letter about a month later and says, hey, I'm waiting on an answer. And I think it's at that point that Talmadge hands it off to BH Roberts and says, I don't know what to do with this. You handle it.

John Dehlin [00:22:50] Yeah, and tell me if I'm wrong, but what I read from your thesis is Ryder ends up writing Talmadge three times in one year, saying, what the freak? Where's my answer?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:22:59] And then like a month later, he. He writes him again. And then B.H. roberts, it's the end of December, the third time he writes, and B.H. roberts writes back and says, hey, I'm gonna handle this, but I need a little more time. And then he writes to Heber J. Grant and says, help. We need to. We have. We need to have a meeting. Because I have these questions that are more problematic than I had originally anticipated.

John Dehlin [00:23:26] And I just. I just have to note how freaking awesome number one, James F. Couch was for reading the Book of Mormon, taking it seriously, and coming up with these scientific questions, and then how freaking ninja William Ryder is to hassle a Mormon apostle three times, like a span of like eight or nine months, tenaciously saying, I need my freaking answers. Where are my freaking answers? Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:23:49] Well, we know he actually wrote at least one more time. So at the end of all this. So he. He was pretty.

John Dehlin [00:23:56] Pretty tenacious, super tenacious, and basically a ninja, a legend. So we've got James F. Couch, a senior chemist for the usda, writing William Ryder or giving questions to William Ryder. William Ryder writes James E. Talmage. And these are the five questions from James F. Couch to the LDS Church through Talmadge. Question number one. And these are summarized. Number one, if the Nephites. And this is just so profound, Shannon, because what we're going to find out today, and this blows my mind in 2020, I'm just learning about this stuff now. You know, so many, the majority of Mormons in the world have never even heard of B H Roberts. They've never heard of any of these problems of the Book of Mormon. They've never heard of Mormon stories. They've never heard of CES Letter. Like, they're ignorant to all this stuff, right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:24:50] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:24:51] So me, I've been studying this stuff 20 years. I'm just now at age 51 in 2020, digging into this stuff. But what I want you guys all to think about is, is for how long these issues have been discussed, unbeknownst to all of us, and under full awareness of the First Presidency and the quorum of the 12 and the quorum of the 70, we're going to go back 100 years to demonstrate that this stuff has been known and contemplated and avoided and ignored by Mormon Church leaders for over 100 years. So here are the five questions that Couch writes to the LDS Church. Number one, if the Nephites populated the Americas knowing Hebrew. Okay, so that's, you know, Nephi and Lehi, Certainly they're Jews, they're Israelis, they come over to America. Certainly they know and speak Hebrew. And apparently they also know how to write Egyptian. Right. If they come over here 600 B.C. knowing Hebrew, there's no way that five distinct linguistic stocks of Native American language could have developed in only 2700 years. So just to kind of. Do you want to restate that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:26:16] Yeah. Languages, especially stable languages such as Hebrew, have. They take a long time to change. I mean, you'll have like, little. Little words here and there that change, but to become an entirely different language stock, we're talking like German and French are from similar language stock. But, you know, for them to become so different takes thousands and thousands of years.

John Dehlin [00:26:45] Absolutely. So. So you wouldn't find, number one. I think it's just obvious if you come, if you discover Native Americans in the 1400s or 1500s, if they had all started, you know, however many years previously, speaking Hebrew, writing Egyptian, you would have remnants of Hebrew and Egyptian in their language. You know, Latin root, just like English has Latin roots. You know, you would expect whatever languages Native Americans are speaking, you know, for those languages to have either Egyptian or Hebrew roots, but you would also not expect five major linguistic stocks or strands of languages to have to have developed in only 27.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:27:30] And they're not similar. We're not talking about, like, French and German. We're talking about, like, Japanese and German. Right. They're not. They're different language stocks. They're from different sources.

John Dehlin [00:27:41] Right. So that's the first problem, just the linguistics of it. The second problem that Couch poses to the. To the LDS Church is horses. Why in the freak are horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon when we know absolutely through science that there were zero horses during the Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica or in North America or in South America. And. And of course, Michael Coe, in a previous Mormon Stories interview, you know, verifies that and validates it. And of course, when the explorers came over, you know, to the Americas in the 14 to 1500s, they brought the horses, and there's no evidence of them ever finding a single Native American ever sitting on a horse. Anything you want to add there?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:28:28] Art shows that there's the horses. When they came, they changed the continent so completely that there's just no way some tiny band of people had horses and chariots and kept it under wraps. It's like a disruptive technology. It would have made them so powerful and everyone would have wanted it. There's just no way that somebody had horses and was using them and kept it secret.

John Dehlin [00:28:56] Yeah. And frankly, if the Native Americans had had horses, the Spanish would have never been able to defeat them, probably.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:29:03] Well, still as well.

John Dehlin [00:29:05] Right, right, right, right. So that Takes us to concern number three that Couch presents to Talmuds in the LDS Church that Nephi used a bow of steel, but The Jews in 600 B.C. did not know how to make steel. And that doesn't even mention the many instances in the text of the Book of Mormon where Nephites and Lamanites are dealing with swords and steel swords, et cetera. There just wasn't metallurgy creating weapons in the Americas during the Mesoamerican times of the Book of Mormon. Correct, Shannon?

The Four Book of Mormon Problems Examined

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:29:43] Right. Something that could, as we were saying before, something that could chop off an arm would. It just did not exist.

John Dehlin [00:29:50] Especially dozens of arms. Right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:29:52] Yeah, dozens of arms in a row. Like there was not that kind of technology. Most of the wars they would injure each other, they wouldn't kill each other. So it was a different, completely different technology they had.

John Dehlin [00:30:08] Brilliant. Okay. Problem number four from Couch is the Book of Mormon frequently uses the word cimeter, but both the weapon and the term were developed post Christianity. In other words, why in the freak is Joseph Smith or why is the word cimeter at all appearing in the Book of Mormon when scimiters were developed, sort of, as I understand it, by Muslim nations, sort of 600 A.D. afterwards. And there's no way that 600 B.C. you know, Nephi or Lehi or whoever, or his descendants, their descendants would ever be even using the word scimitar because the weapon or the word didn't exist until a hundred plus a thousand plus years later. And by the way, you know, if. If the Lord can reveal to Nephi words like curlum and kumam or whatever those weird words are, certainly the Lord could give Nephi a proper word and not use the word simeter. Any thoughts you want to add to that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:31:12] Yeah, it's. It's hilarious. It's like, you know, Abe Lincoln saying Abe Lincoln was talking about using a cell phone. Like it's not. It doesn't make sense because there was no such thing at that time, even in the world, no matter where it was, but for it to show up on a different continent before it was ever invented. And yeah, there could have been other words made up, words used, but they're using the word that has youth.

John Dehlin [00:31:41] But later, I'm grateful for the comments that are rolling in on social media, which validates our. Our decision to use this wonderful platform called Streamyard. Kelleran writes, correction, there was some metallurgy used for weapon making, but they were largely ceremonial and nowhere near what we would call a steel sword. So thanks, Kelleran.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:32:03] Right. Was for decoration. They did have like gold, but they were like softer metals. There was no need for the hardened metal. We didn't have bursts of beasts of burden to pull wagons and things. It was just they had sufficient for their needs and they didn't need the hardened steel that came about later on another continent.

John Dehlin [00:32:26] Absolutely. And then the final thing that was mentioned by Couch is the Book of Mormon mentioned silk, but silk was not known in the Americas during that era. And again, we have Michael Coe on Mormon stories, you know, the Yale Mesoamerican anthropologist validating that in fact, Native Americans never had steel, never had silk during that time period. And so there's no reason that the Book of Mormon should ever mention silk. Okay, so.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:32:55] And that doesn't even. Well, yeah, that doesn't even get into the things that it should mention. That it doesn't. You know, like the normal foods they would eat or, oh, chocolate and turkeys

John Dehlin [00:33:04] and you know, like, if you want an amazing Mormon Stories episode, go listen to the Michael Koh. The two interviews I do with Michael. It's spelled C O E. He just devastates the Book of Mormon from a archaeological, anthropological perspective. And he just goes into depth about all the things that the Book of Mormon mentions that shouldn't be there. Wheat, barley, steel, horses, chariots, you know, just a million different things. And then he talks about all the things that should be in the Book of Mormon that aren't like chocolate and turkeys and corn and tomatoes and all the things that we know Native Americans had that the Europeans didn't. So.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:33:45] So he had. Couch had good enough questions. He didn't ask all the questions. He had great questions.

John Dehlin [00:33:52] But these five are pretty good, right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:33:53] Yeah, they're. They're enough. I mean, we don't need to keep proving the same point.

John Dehlin [00:33:59] But it's in 1921. That's so mind blowing here. Okay, so Talmage can't, you know, by the. By this time, Talmadge has sort of given up on science. He's become a full blown apologist in my reading of where he turns out on this. So he punts this to B.H. roberts, who's general authority and church historian.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:34:18] And I want to push back for just Talmage. I think Talmadge, he still respected science. He. He didn't. If we're talking about scientists giving up science for this, I think Widsoe would be the person that we talk about who basically abandoned science and said, well, religion matters more and kind of stopped worrying about science. Talmadge was a little more Conflicted. He was later talking about how the age of the earth had to be older than 6,000 years. So he was more on BH Roberts team here as far as trying to use science in order to further their case. But I just think he punted it to B.H. roberts because Roberts had already done a lot of this research in his previous book.

John Dehlin [00:35:10] Yeah. And admittedly, I'm a little bit salty at Talmadge because I know he's a hero in so many ways. I know he deserves respect. I think one of the. One of the quotes from your thesis that kind of got me a little bit upset with him was when he wrote, well, we're going to get to it in a second. We're going to get to it in a second. I'm explaining why I'm a little bit salty.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:35:39] I think he supported his son pushing back. I talk about this in my thesis. There's an episode where his son is pushing back against Joseph Field Fielding Smith. And I think Talmadge is like, yeah, I totally agree, but you have to say I can't because he's my superior.

John Dehlin [00:35:58] Which. Which in and of itself is so fascinating. And you talk about this again in your thesis that Mormon seniority is so important, just apostolic seniority, that even though. Even though, you know, Talmage was just called slightly after Joseph Fielding Smith.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:36:15] Right, right.

John Dehlin [00:36:16] Joseph Fielding Smith was called as an apostle via nepotism through his dad, Joseph

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:36:21] F. Smith, at like 32, I think, some young age.

John Dehlin [00:36:26] But because Joseph Fielding Smith had like a year on Talmadge, Talmadge had to continually defer and had to. Had to sort of fight battles with Joseph Fielding Smith through his son, which is a whole level of weird, distorted politics.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:36:38] Had to be an indirect thing because he couldn't, like, directly oppose him because of the promises he made, I'm guessing. And yeah, I mean, it goes down to, like, who gets to leave and enter a room and who.

John Dehlin [00:36:52] Who eats the chocolates first.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:36:53] Right. Yeah, It's. It's like seniority is everything.

John Dehlin [00:36:57] Yeah. Okay. So. So Talmage Punster Roberts. And then I got. Love this quote from your. From. I got this quote from George Smith. So there's so many amazing articles out of Dialogue, a Journal Mormon thought that you can find on. On BH Roberts. This one's from George D. Smith 1996 dialogue article called Is there any Way to Escape these Difficulties? The Book of Mormon Studies of B H Roberts. And he writes while knowing that some parts of my treatment of Book of Mormon problems. Oh, by the way, this is B H. Roberts. So this is B.H. roberts quoted in George D. Smith's article. So Roberts says, quote, while knowing that some parts of my treatment of Book of Mormon problems in that work, meaning New Witnesses for God, the book I referred to earlier had not been altogether as convincing as they would have liked to have had them. I still believe that reasonable explanations could be made regarding the Book of Mormon. But as I proceeded with my recent investigations, I found the difficulties more serious than I had thought. So what does this demonstrate to you, Shannon Caldwell Montez?

Roberts Writes to the First Presidency

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:38:11] Yeah, so this is the letter that B.H. roberts wrote to the First Presidency saying, hey, we need to have a meeting. And he's saying, these answers are not good. Like, I thought I had answered this. When I look closer, I did not answer it. And the sources I used were not great. So I need your help.

John Dehlin [00:38:32] Absolutely. And then I have. And so. And so what. What happened next is that that starting in late 1921, and you tell me if I'm wrong, Robert starts writing these, these manuscripts that we referred to in our last episode, but neither of us were ready to sort of dig in at this level. And so, on a tip for my friend Gerardo, I decided that we're going to dig in a little bit to these manuscripts today and discuss them a little bit more in detail. Do you want to give us just an overview again of these manuscripts before we actually dig into them? Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:39:10] Sure. So the first one is.

John Dehlin [00:39:16] Let me go ahead and pull it up, because I've actually. So just give, before we talk about each one individually, just give an overview of kind of what, what happened and what Robert's decided to do.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:39:27] So, yeah, he's started to explore this subject more. And I personally think it started about a year earlier, and we can go into this later, but they had a series of meetings to determine the Book of Mormon geography. That was in 1940.

John Dehlin [00:39:42] So talk about those are the geography meanings of 21, right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:39:45] Yeah. 1921, they. They were actually putting out a new edition of the Book of Mormon. And so there were a lot of committee meetings deciding several things. For example, P.H. roberts was able to get them to update some of the grammar that was a little folksy, such as I was going a thither or we were adjourning, things like that. He got those taken out and replaced with more formal English. But as part of this process of updating the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon, they were thinking of putting in a map of Book of Mormon lands. And as they tried to pin it down, they started to realize that the dimensions that are mentioned in the Book of Mormons, you know, saying, oh, we went across from here to across the entire land in two days. Or I can't remember the details, but it was like, oh, we are limited by what the Book of Mormon says to a space this large. They started to realize that they couldn't have the entire Book of Mormon be from north to South America, east to west, that it wasn't the entire continent, that that wouldn't work based on what the book said. So they had these meetings to try to determine where this could be. And I think actually these meetings were the first time they acknowledged that the Book of Mormon put a limit on the size of. Of Book of Mormon lands. So I think this kind of, like, surprised Roberts and was like, oh, shoot. Huh? And so I kind of feel like this topic was already on his mind before Couch started. Before Couch and Ryder sent these letters to him to ask for questions. So I think this is something that was kind of brewing for him before then. So I think he thought about it for a year, but then in December, he gets these letters and he's like, oh, here's the chance to actually put this down and to answer these questions. Obviously, I'm not the only one wondering about this. Let's. Let's get these answered. And so he starts writing this, and he ends up with 400 pages, 421 pages, I believe, of. Of material to kind of support that our historicity issues are a little bit suspect.

The Studies Manuscript and Its Contents

John Dehlin [00:42:08] I have a quick question from Alan Mount, Our dear friend Alan, who runs marriage on a tightrope podcast. He asked, does anyone have the full quote on hand? Ellipses always make me nervous. Thank you, Alan, for keeping us honest. Alan, I just posted to a link to George Smith's article in dialogue called Is there any way to escape these Difficulties? And that will provide you with all the. All the primary sources and all the references. And we can provide more of that later.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:42:34] Find the full letters in the. In the. In the back, the appendix of my thesis. So I have, like, that full letter that Robert sent to the First Presidency asking for this meeting and the one afterward where he talks about his disappointment in the meeting. So those kind of things can be found in my thesis as well, as well as they're all in studies of the Book of Mormon. This book that's published by. That has the full. All of the papers, the entire papers that they found and published. So those are all there as well.

John Dehlin [00:43:17] Excellent. Okay, so these Book of Mormon geography meetings lead sort of give BH Roberts a head start. But certainly once he gets this letter, you know, from Couch, he starts to study and write more in haste. Is that right, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:43:39] Yes. Yeah, he, I think, yeah, I think he put this together pretty quickly and had a lot. I think he probably gathered the stuff he'd already written in 1909 and then added to it. So a lot of it's kind of just cutting and pasting what he had, all his materials, but he did have this 400 plus page document that he presented in January, on January 4th and 5th of 1922.

John Dehlin [00:44:11] Okay, and how many. So, so let's go ahead and talk about the manuscripts themselves and we'll go into depth on each of the three manuscripts. Is that okay? Okay, so what I have, and there's a couple bullets on here that need to be edited, but let's just talk about it generally. Manuscript number one, we're going to call Book of Mormon Difficulties a study. Now, how many pages was that was that document, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:44:40] Well, it looks like you said 291. I don't remember then for some reason I was thinking it was 420 and then, or maybe the 420 was both of them together. Yeah, right. It's 141 pages, typed pages.

John Dehlin [00:44:58] Okay. So, and I, I only put a question mark there because I, I, I think depending on how you count the pages, I found some, some other reports of the number of pages. So around, it's fair to say around 140 pages. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:45:12] That's where I was. Yeah. The one was 141 typed pages. The first one called Book of Mormon Difficulties A Study.

John Dehlin [00:45:20] Okay, so in Book of Mormon Difficulties A Study, basically B H Roberts talks about three main things. He talks about the linguistic problems. He gives his best assessment of the linguistic problems. He talks about what Thomas Alexander summarized as physical culture. I'm going to basically describe that as anachronisms. So that's basically the problems with horses and steel, all the things that the CES letter, Michael Coe bring out, the Mormon stories brought out that are causing Mormons in 2020 to lose their mind and to lose their faith. BH Roberts was telling the first presidencies of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of the Seventy about these anachronisms back in 1922. So everyone was put on notice about those problems in the Book of Mormon from Manuscript 1, the Book of Mormon Difficulties. And then the third thing that is brought up is the racial origins of Native Americans. Now, of course we didn't have DNA studies back then. But back then it was pretty obvious to archeologists and anthropologists that likely Native Americans came from Asia, not from Israel. Anything you want to add to that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:46:35] Right. I think he's, yeah, he's like, back then when Joseph Smith was writing this, everyone believed there was this 10 tribes thing where some of the lost tribes came across. And that was kind of what view of the Hebrews was about. But it was a common belief in like early America or, you know, post revolution that the, the natives are, are a lost tribe from the 10 tribes. So that was kind of the prevailing idea. But as time as the years passed, they, the new idea was that there was the land bridge from Asia and that was how this continent was peopled.

John Dehlin [00:47:22] Love it. A couple comments from our listeners that are just too fun not to post. RB writes, when is the Book of Mormon Archaeological Museum going to open? Thank you.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:47:34] I remember being a little kid and being like, isn't there a museum we could go to? See the Book of Mormon? The gold plates. I remember asking my mom like, where can I go see those? And she was like, oh, an angel took them back. And I was like, oh, dang, that's too bad.

John Dehlin [00:47:50] Stock a barrel, writes John. Video quality looking okay. That's again, thanks to Gerardo for his support on that. All right, so going back to the Description of Manuscript 1 or Book of Mormon difficulties of study, it's pretty clear that Roberts wrote this to present to the church during the the. The big meetings that happen in January of 1922. So I have a quick quote here again from your thesis. It says, however, as Roberts proceeded with his investigations, he found the difficulties more serious, quote, more serious than I had thought. Quote meaning Roberts and quote, again, Roberts the more I investigated, the more difficult I the more difficulty I found, the more difficult I found the formulation of an answer to Mr. Couch's inquiries to be close. Quote. Then you write Shannon. As he researched expanding on the questions Roberts decided he should not answer without the input of others. Why do you think he decided to loop in the First Presidency, quorum of the 12 of the quorum of the 70 and didn't just respond himself.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:49:07] Shannon Caldwell Montez because the questions were too difficult. And he said in the letter, like, I think we need to do this from our collective wisdom and from something about like, the spirit, you know, of revelation. Like, hopefully if we all get together, God's going to help us come up with an answer here because it's more than I can handle.

John Dehlin [00:49:31] Yeah. And I have to Think that at minimum he felt like there was a lot at stake. Like if he wrote some lame answer that then got published, you know, I don't know, in the New York Times, just like the Book of Abraham stuff had been published in, I don't know, 1912 or whatever, like that could be really embarrassing for the church. But it sounds like what you're saying is maybe he still had some earnest faith in the prophetic mantle and that he was looking to the general authorities, to the apostles, to the prophet, to the First Presidency as people that could use their inspiration to help him get answers.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:50:04] Right, right. He was a true believer. I really. He believed in revelation and inspiration and he believed this and he thought that they would. Together they could conquer anything.

John Dehlin [00:50:17] And that's super important because later we're going to talk about his disappointment with the Brethren. Right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:50:22] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:50:23] So. So Talmage goes to Roberts and then Roberts goes to Heber J. Grant. Right, right. This leads to the 1-19-22 meetings. This is something we talked about, you know, with you before, Shannon. These are held in Salt Lake City. Who are the attendees, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:50:40] All of the 12 apostles, the first presidency and the quorum of the 70s. So basically every general authority in the world that existed. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:50:52] And it wasn't just two days, it was three full days. Right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:50:57] Right. Yeah. So the first two days were Robert's making his presentation of his document, the first document that deals with the external and scientific issues. I believe the third day was more a discussion with Ivins, who was one of the people who was in this geography meeting and therefore had some knowledge about Book of Mormon lands. I think the third meeting was more of a discussion and partially a rebuttal. And I think after that third meeting, a lot of the Brethren were kind of like, oh, okay, cool, Ivan's. I like Ivan's answers. We'll be fine. Because he had some plausibilities that people were fine with.

John Dehlin [00:51:47] Right. And this is. I just can't. There needs to be a documentary written about these meetings and the. The history before and after. Like somebody needs to write a screenplay. Everybody wants like a Mormon going. Clear. We know that a couple friends of mine are working on a Netflix documentary on Mark Hoffman, which is going to be amazing. What we really need is a documentary. Not a documentary, but like a historical feature length film on B H Roberts and this whole situation and this meeting and what came before and the aftermath. Because. Because it's. It's really got to be a pivotal moment in Mormon history that no one freaking knows about.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:52:26] Is that Fair to say that's what I think. That's why I was like so proud of myself when I wrote this thesis because I was like, wait, what? Why aren't we talking about the fact that all of the general authorities were put on notice in 1922? Like this is, this seems like a big deal. And they sent it seemed to just kind of be glossed over even when the papers came out. I think the papers were so exciting that they were only talking about the papers. And you know, me coming along 30 years after that discussion, I'm like, but wait, what about those meetings? Let's, let's learn more about that. And that's why I was surprised people hadn't delved into this. So I decided I better do it.

John Dehlin [00:53:11] And I just want to say, you are freaking brilliant, Shannon Caldwell Montez. But if you go back into the 80s and 90s with dialogue, a journal of Mormon Thought, you'll have top notch historians talking in detail about these meetings and the aftermath and what came before. And what's so mind boggling and frustrating about Mormonism and Mormon history is how history, intellectual history, goes down the memory hole and generation across generation. Either this information doesn't penetrate the public consciousness or, or it gets freaking completely forgotten by the members. And so most members to this date have never learned any of this stuff. But even though there was a massive upsurge in research about B H Roberts in the 80s and 90s, of course as the Roberts manuscripts are published, it then dies down and then you've got new generations that have never heard of this stuff again. And that's something that is just killing me. We've got to do a better job of penetrating Mormon consciousness with the truth about Mormon history. So this stuff doesn't keep getting lost generation across generation.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:54:18] Right? Well, I think what happened in the past was that this was talked about among intellectuals, but the church says don't go to Sunstone, don't pick up dialogue, don't, don't do these things. And so they were. And I think, I'm not sure, but it seems like the September 6th may have been the first major excommunication for intellectual reasons. I don't think they were doing that very much in the past. I think they were generally just left Von Brody.

John Dehlin [00:54:49] I think Juanita Brooks was maybe threatened but didn't end up getting excommunicated. Sterling McMurran was kind of threatened, but yeah, you're right, there weren't a lot

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:54:59] of like right after that. So you know, Mark Hoffman, this all came out right before the bombing. So I think it was a big deal. But then the bombing happened and that was like huge and traumatic. And I just don't think it really got picked up again after that. And there was no Internet. So, you know, we're not going to go find it on a message board. I just think. And a lot of those people who at the time were still Mormons, I'm reading, like, George Smith talking about how we need a halfway covenant so that people that aren't full believers can still be members and like, be seen as okay. He's talking about that in the 1980s, saying, you know, we should, we should be able to have intellectuals, non literal believers and literal believers in the same group. But it seems like since that time there was kind of a crackdown in trying to push out non literal believers so those people weren't there to bring up the next generation. And I guess it was a good tactic because it didn't. It worked like there was no next generation of intellectuals coming up. They would just leave.

John Dehlin [00:56:10] Yeah, until 2000. Until 2004, 2005, when the Internet comes on. Blogging and then podcasting, Mormon podcasting starts. And then, you know, you know, there's Mormon stories, then there's Mormon think, then there's, you know, Mormon expression with John Larsen. Then there's, you know, Jeremy, Jeremy Runnels, CES letter. And, you know, now we've got Radio Free Mormon and Dancing park, you know, your polygamy. And my call to all of you is the call to this generation is to make the truth about Mormon history pervasive within broad Mormon consciousness. Because the scholarships, so much of it's already been done. Like, Shannon and I are just like, whoa, this is amazing. This is cool. Mostly Shannon, but then Shannon helps me learn about it, but then I dig back the dialogue and like, there's articles and articles and articles about this stuff that we just don't know.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:57:06] Already been said. Like, this conversation's already been had and like all the things that you're wondering and it's all out there. Like, it's already there. And that's why, again, this wasn't part of my thesis, because this whole portion, 1985 and on, when the papers came to light and all of these intellectual discussions were happening, you know, that's 60 years after the main period of my paper. And it just didn't really work to talk about both of those things. So I ended up cutting that, even though I did write about 50 pages of that history, the 1980s, and all the dialogue happening between apologists and can

John Dehlin [00:57:47] you share that with us at some point?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:57:48] Yeah, I was thinking of maybe putting out an article or something, but because it gets a little. It's a little heavy just talking about the back and forth. You have to be pretty interested to want to read it.

The Secret 1922 Leadership Meetings

John Dehlin [00:58:03] Couple quick questions. So, actually, comments. Joel Hernandez writes, Love the studio. Thanks, Joel. Trent writes, are there minutes from those meetings? So from the secret 1922 meetings, Shannon Caldo Montez, were minutes kept? And do those minutes exist?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:58:20] I'm sure they do, but they are not allowed to be seen. I asked for those and they laughed at me, honestly.

John Dehlin [00:58:28] They were like, who'd you ask? And who laughed?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:58:31] I asked the employees at the church history library. I was like, can I see the first presidency meetings from minutes from these meetings? And they were like, yeah, right. You're never gonna. Those things are definitely topsy secret, off limits. So. No, but I did. I was actually just reading last night an article that James Allen, I think, wrote about the Way the Truth the

John Dehlin [00:58:57] Light, which was a B H Roberts manuscript.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:59:00] The Way the Light, I always get it wrong Order.

John Dehlin [00:59:03] It's like his final magnum opus on Mormon theology.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:59:06] Right. And in the footnotes he talks about getting access to First Presidency minutes. And like all of these, he like lists all the document, not the actual documents, but the types of things he got. And he's like, and I'm just going to call it the TWL collection. But I was like, I wanted that TWL collection so bad, but because I wasn't, you know, a full time paid employee who'd been vetted by the church, there was no way they were letting me have that.

John Dehlin [00:59:35] Yeah. Which is dishonest. Open up the record.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:59:38] So I think so.

John Dehlin [00:59:40] All right. Taryn writes, is Shannon related to BH Roberts or have a connection to him somehow?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:59:46] Nope.

John Dehlin [00:59:46] No.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [00:59:47] I just thought he was interesting.

John Dehlin [00:59:49] Yeah, he is super interesting and super important. Okay, so there's other good, good comments coming, but I don't want to lose the momentum of the story. So let's jump back. These meetings Happen January, it's 4th and 5th. Right. And then 26th, is that right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:00:07] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:00:08] And

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:00:11] those are the leadership meetings. My thesis is actually about a different set of meetings, but those are the leadership meetings that we touch on and

John Dehlin [01:00:20] we'll leave that as a cliffhanger towards the end so that people know to stay tuned for more.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:00:24] There's other meetings.

John Dehlin [01:00:26] Yeah, say that again.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:00:28] There are other meetings, but I think for most people's purposes, and what most people are curious about is what the leadership Knows when did they know it.

Speaker C [01:00:37] It.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:00:37] All of that. So that, that's why we keep talking about it, because the leadership meetings are the ones that have the most interest, but they also are the most tightly kept secrets. So I couldn't write a thesis on that either because I couldn't get access to those documents.

John Dehlin [01:00:52] So what do we know about the format of those meetings? Like, was it just Roberts up monologuing for 18 hours or 26 hours?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:01:01] I believe so, from the documents I could find, which were just a couple of journals. It was, yeah. That BH Roberts presented his documents in two full day meetings.

John Dehlin [01:01:14] Yeah. And then again, that third, that third day meeting was what?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:01:19] I think it was more Ivan saying, oh, I think we can look at it this way. And Roberts is saying, no, we can't look at it that way. But I think a lot of the guys were just like overwhelmed and tired by this conversation. And this is the, the, the 26th is the meeting where they all basically get up and bear testimony that they know it's true. And that's kind of when Roberts is

John Dehlin [01:01:39] like, oh, wait, don't steal my thunder. Don't steal my thunder.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:01:42] Sorry.

Talmage and Apostles Respond to Roberts

John Dehlin [01:01:42] All right, so James E. Talmage from his journal summarizes. We've got him summarizing his impression of the meeting. So this is James E. Talmage from his journal of 4, 5 dating 4th, the January 4th, 5th and 26th of 1922.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:02:00] No, this is his journal, I believe. From the 4th.

John Dehlin [01:02:04] From the 4th. Okay. Brother Roberts says this is Talmage. Quote, Brother Roberts has assembled a long list of points called difficulties, meaning thereby what non believers in the Book of Mormon call discrepancies between that record and the results of archaeological and other scientific investigations. As examples of these difficulties may be mentioned the views put forth by some living writers to the effect that no vestige of either Hebrew or Egyptian appears in the language of the American Indians, or Amerans. What are Amerans?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:02:37] Amerins. It's like American Indians.

John Dehlin [01:02:41] I believe that's just another name. Amorans. Yeah. Another is the positive declaration by certain writers that the horse did not exist upon the western continent during historic times prior to the coming of Columbus. Then Talmad's jumps apologist. I know the Book of Mormon to be a true record and many of the, quote, difficulties, unquote, he's got difficulties in quotes. Many of the, quote, difficulties or objections, as opposing critics would urge, are after all, but negative in their nature. What should they be? Anyway? He finally writes, the Book of Mormon states that Lehi and his Colony found horses upon this continent when they arrived. And this is the, this is the quote that made me salty at Talmadge, quote. And therefore horses were here at that time. End quote.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:03:35] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:03:36] Is it not okay for me to be salty about that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:03:40] No, it's definitely circular reasoning. It's not good scientific reasoning. You know, it's kind of like saying, well, platform nine and three quarters is at King's Cross Station. Therefore, because Harry Potter says it's at King's Cross station, I know it's there even if nobody else can see it.

John Dehlin [01:04:01] You should know better. Right? As a scientist, like, do you leave your scientist at the door when you become an apostle?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:04:07] Actually, yeah.

John Dehlin [01:04:08] Yeah, you do. Okay, so now then we have Apostle Lyman's response. Richard Lyman, he's going to come up later in this presentation and then he's also going to really come up in our discussion about the. The secret meetings that we'll talk about in a future episode. But Apostle Lyman's response. This comes. This is quoting your master's thesis. It says, quote, roberts reminded Lyman that at the conclusion of the 1922 leadership meeting. Do you want to set up the source or the context for this quote really quick?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:04:43] So this letter is. Wait, let me see it again. You had it.

John Dehlin [01:04:50] Here it is.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:04:52] Oh, this is the letter that he sends to Lyman where. I believe this is the one where he's sending him the parallels and saying, remember when this happened? And anyway, I know you're interested in this thing.

John Dehlin [01:05:09] Okay. And we'll cover that. We'll cover that in just a second. But basically I felt like this quote was important. Maybe it goes a little bit later in the presentation, but I'm going to read it here. Anyway, Roberts reminded Lyman, Apostle Lyman, that at the conclusion of the 1922 leadership meetings, he had announced. So this is basically recounting Robert's recollection of Lyman's response to the meeting.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:05:33] Right, right. He's saying, okay, remember when this happened at these meetings? And now you can say, this is what happened at the meeting.

John Dehlin [01:05:40] So Roberts reminded Lyman that at the conclusion of the 1922 leadership meetings, he had announced that there were other problems beside the ones they had spoken of in the meetings. Meaning that Roberts didn't just talk about all the problems of the Book of Mormon we've already discussed. He puts the brethren on notice that there are yet more problems haven't been touched during the meetings.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:06:02] Yeah, I think he's working on the second document and saying, dudes, you think this is bad? We've got some More.

John Dehlin [01:06:10] Yeah. So Lyman had been asked, quote, and this is Lyman asking Roberts, and this is so damning, in my opinion. Lyman asks Roberts, quote, well, will these additional problems that we haven't discussed yet, will these help solve our present problems or will it increase our difficulties? Closed quote. So Lyman's saying, hey, all these other problems we haven't talked about yet, are they going to make things better or worse for us? Right. Roberts replied, quote, it would very greatly increase our problems. Close quote. Basically saying, you ain't seen nothing yet. At which Lyman rather lightly said, quote, well, I don't see why we should bother with them then. Close quote. And then you write, Roberts responded that he would continue his studies anyway. That seems like a really important exchange in the history of all this. True.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:07:09] Yeah. Yeah. And Roberts mentioned it several times like that. You could tell it just kind of grated on him that he would just rather lightly say, then why are we going to bother? If it's, if it's going to be a bigger problem than we already have, let's just not deal with it. And that was just like more than Roberts could handle. And so he brings it up in that letter. He brings it up in a letter to Heber J. Grant. He brings it up in the conversation with Wesley Lloyd 11 years later saying, yeah, Lyman said this thing just flippant. And it really bothered me.

John Dehlin [01:07:48] Yeah. I mean, if Roberts did lose his testimony in the Book of Mormon historicity, which I think he did, this, this story, this exchange with Lyman was probably a really important linchpin.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:08:00] Yeah. Between that and the, the men getting up and bearing their testimony after all of his efforts the last several days.

John Dehlin [01:08:10] Well, let's read that quote. Let's read that quote right now. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I've got the quote here. Is that okay?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:08:15] Yeah, that's cool.

John Dehlin [01:08:18] I think it's in this quote. Let me read it. But if it's not here, I think we'll get to it in a second. Roberts. So this is basically B.H. roberts letter to Heber J. Grant on January 9, 1922, and it's discussing his disappointment over this whole conversation. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:08:40] This is four days after the second meeting, you know, where he's presented basically everything. This is four days after the meetings.

John Dehlin [01:08:49] And let's make sure we get that quote in that you were just going to tell us about, which is all the brethren bearing their testimony. I know I have it in my notes, so if I don't have it

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:08:56] in a PowerPoint slide, that's from the Lloyd Journal.

John Dehlin [01:08:59] Okay, I'll pull it up. Okay, so here is what Roberts writes to Heber J. Grant. Quote, There was so much said that was utterly irrelevant and so little said, if anything at all, that was helpful in the matters at issue that I came away from the conference quite disappointed. While on the difficulties of linguistics, nothing was said that could result to our advantage at all or stand the analysis of enlightened criticism. I was also disappointed in the results of our conference. But notwithstanding that, I shall be most earnestly alert upon the subject of Book of Mormon difficulties, hoping for the development of new knowledge and for new light to fall upon what has already been learned, to the vindication of what God has revealed in the Book of Mormon. But I cannot be other than painfully conscious of the fact that our means of defense, should we be vigorously attacked along the lines of Mr. Couch's questions are very inadequate. What do you want to say about that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:10:06] Sorry, I don't know how to turn off. I hope you can't hear that. Just got a phone call.

John Dehlin [01:10:12] Oh, no problem. I didn't hear it at all. And don't worry about it.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:10:15] Okay, good. Because I keep getting notices and I. I'm afraid they're showing up and I can't.

John Dehlin [01:10:19] They're not. So just.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:10:20] Sorry. So I missed that. I got a little distracted. What was the question?

John Dehlin [01:10:25] So. So the question is anything you want to just comment on? As we just read that quote, I'll put it back on the screen about Robert's disappointment in the discussion, in the meaning.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:10:39] I think it's pretty clear that he was just very disappointed. He's like, we're in trouble. I'm painfully conscious that our defenses are inadequate. This is really painful to me. And what you guys said was so utterly irrelevant that, like, this was worse than a waste. Like, he was just so sad that they disappointed him, that they didn't pull any. They didn't. They didn't help him in any way. His answers were the best they had. Nobody contributed to this discussion in a meaningful way.

John Dehlin [01:11:21] And later. This is the quote. I'm basically trying to edit a slide as we talk, basically. And this is super important. And I'm not going to get the source right yet, so I'm going to delete it. But I want. This is the quote you were going to read earlier, but this is basically Hebrew. J. This is basically. Tell us what this quote is.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:11:48] This is from a conversation that B.H. roberts had with Wesley Lloyd, who had been a missionary in his mission. They were close friends. He worked at byu and several weeks before Roberts died, he had this three and a half hour long conversation with Wesley Lloyd. And Lloyd was so struck by this conversation, he immediately wrote it down in his journal. He like, he wrote revolutionary and then like crossed it out and said surprising. But like, you could tell he was just shocked by this conversation and had to get it down immediately. So he thought journal is a really excellent source of what BH Roberts was talking about in the weeks before he died. And he, he tells him about this, these leadership meetings.

John Dehlin [01:12:38] Yeah. And, and so, so Lloyd basically tells us what, in this quote, what Roberts told him about his response to these meetings. And it says, quote, brethren had no answer, only emotion. In answer, they merely, one by one, stood up and bore testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. George Albert Smith, in tears, testified that his faith in the book had not been shaken by the question. President Ivins, the man most likely to be able to answer a question on that subject, was unable to produce the solution. No answer was available. So I guess we're kind of beating a dead horse here. But this just illustrates again how disappointed Roberts was that these prophets, seers and revelators, First Presidency, Quorum of the twelve, had nothing. True.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:13:30] Yeah, yeah. He was like, they just, they helped. They had nothing. They had their testimony and that was all they could do.

Manuscript Two and Roberts's Deeper Doubts

John Dehlin [01:13:41] Okay, so now what we do is we go to manuscript two. Tell us about manuscript two comes after these, these 19, this January 1922 meeting, correct?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:13:52] Right.

John Dehlin [01:13:52] Okay.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:13:53] It was probably finished before he left on his mission in May, or mostly finished. I think he did the majority of it before May of 1922.

John Dehlin [01:14:04] And I actually found in some. In one place in your thesis, I thought I read that it was unclear whether this ever got presented to the Brethren. I think I read in George Smith's article that this manuscript was sent to President Grant and the Twelve on March 5, 1923.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:14:20] Does that make sense? The first article written about this on the Church's side by Truman Madsen, he says that Robert sent it in 1923 as well. So at first they're saying he'd send. Sent this in, but then after that they're denying that anyone ever saw this. They're saying that Roberts had this document and kept it secret and nobody knew. So I think it was a way of creating plausible deniability to say he never sent this manuscript and there's no way to prove that he did. Well, actually, in the Lloyd conversation, I believe he says he sent it, but the Church denies that they sent it. They deny that they have either set of papers at this point. I couldn't. They told me they didn't have them.

John Dehlin [01:15:09] Yeah, and how credible.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:15:10] Michael Quinn said they had them. He said he had seen them. I actually, it just felt so serendipitous. I ran into him at the Church History library. He told me he had seen them with his own eyes. Both of these documents.

John Dehlin [01:15:22] So manuscript one and manuscript two. Right, yeah, so. So remember, manuscript one was about sort of, you know, the racial origins of the Native Americans. It was about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon and it was about archeological problems and linguistic problems. Right, right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:15:42] External evidence.

John Dehlin [01:15:43] External evidences. So manuscript two is about what, what we can refer to as internal difficulties or think back to our interviews with David Bachavoy, the scholar, literary criticism. So reading the text itself to try and understand if by reading the actual text itself we can find problems with the Book of Mormon. And there's a really good summary by, of the three main questions that manuscript two asks. And they are the following, number one, question number one, and these are so powerful that Roberts is thinking about this in 1922, 1923, question number one was literature available in early 19th century America, which might have served as a quote, ground plan which Joseph Smith could have used for the Book of Mormon. So right there, Roberts is basically asking the question, okay, if Joseph Smith didn't get the Book of Mormon, let's just theorize. If Joseph didn't actually get the Book of Mormon from an angel through golden plates and translate it, was, was there enough information available to Joseph, you know, in 1827 or whatever material from which he could draw to create the Book of Mormon? Almost like a ground plan. Right? We'll get to that in just a second. The second question that Manuscript 2 asks is, Did Joseph Smith have a sufficiently creative imagination to have accomplished such a work? And I just ask any of my listeners who have read anything about Joseph Smith, did Joseph Smith have. Did he have a sufficiently creative imagination to have authored the Book of Mormon? What do we know about what Joseph Smith's own mom said about Joseph Shannon Caldwell Montez?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:17:43] He was very creative, really great at making up stories and making you feel like you were there. So, yeah, sitting around the fireplace, right? Yeah. And he was fascinated by Native Americans and, you know, their civilization and their culture. And he was always talking about this since he was a child, that he

John Dehlin [01:18:03] could keep people spellbound for hours. This is way prior to the publishing of the Book of Mormon, prior to him even receiving the plates. Receiving the plates, he could keep Members of his family spellbound for hours as he told stories about the Native Americans.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:18:20] Right.

John Dehlin [01:18:21] Is there any question that he had the sufficiently creative imagination?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:18:26] Well, B H Roberts definitely looks into this.

John Dehlin [01:18:30] And then the third question was, were cultural traits revealed in the Book of Mormon also present in early 19th century America? And we have very little on this in today's presentation. Can you tell us what he's basically asking with that question? Shannon Caldwell Montes I think he's saying,

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:18:47] are some of these ideas part of Joseph Smith's upbringing? You know, like the milieu around him? Are people like religiously, are we talking about the same topics, you know, as people point out, like Masonry? That shows up as a big theme in the Book of Mormon, like secret combinations. And that was a huge, huge topic in the early 19 or mid-1920s when there's this whole anti Mason party and all of these things. So he's exploring the, the milieu around Joseph smith in the 1920s.

John Dehlin [01:19:24] And can I just add something that's just blatantly completely bull you over the head obvious. What's the probability that between 600 BC and 0, you know, and 0, the birth of Christ, that in Mesoamerica or in, you know, amongst the Native Americans,

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:19:45] they were talking about Jesus and baptism, specifically Protestant Christianity.

John Dehlin [01:19:52] Protestant Christianity, that, that King Benjamin is going to be giving Protestant sermons that sound an awful lot like the Protestant revival preachers that were running around the burned over district in New York.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:20:06] Right. And talking about seeds growing in your heart, like there were people giving sermons very similar to King Benjamin at that time. It's just. Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:20:17] And anyone who's read the Book of Mormon and Knows Anything about 19th century American history knows that the exact sermons and doctrines and principles taught in the Book of Mormon were the exact issues that were being debated in early 19th century America during Joseph Smith's day. Infant baptism, faith, repentance, baptism, authority, Jesus, resurrection, the atonement, the Spirit, priesthood, all that stuff was what, what's more likely that Native Americans, 600 years before Jesus was even born were talking about Jesus and resurrection and Mary and, and priesthood and faith and repentance and baptism that. Or that Joseph Smith wrote all that into the Book of Mormon, which is more likely.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:21:11] Right. And let's add that because it was so current, it really appealed to the people of the day. So when it came out it felt so relevant because it was talking about all these things they had questions about. Like I don't think we today can really understand how relevant it felt at the time when it came out because it just answered so many questions and just really felt like a relief to know these things that they've been wondering about.

John Dehlin [01:21:43] And that really was the value proposition of the Book of Mormon, is that it answered all the compelling, major, significant questions theologically, apparently of the day. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:21:53] And it also, and BH Roberts actually talks about this in one of his, in a radio address in 1924. He's like, how unfair is a God who does it, who requires us to be baptized and acknowledge him, but then doesn't give that knowledge to, you know, the people on this other continent? The Book of Mormon solves that problem for us. It shows that God is fair. So, you know, in, in the belief that everyone has to know God and accept God in order to go to heaven, it's only fair that God presents this information to the people on the other side of the world. So he's using this as a way to say, even if it wasn't true, wouldn't we want it to be true? Is what he says in this later speech.

John Dehlin [01:22:42] And what does that mean to you? Or what can we potentially.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:22:45] I personally think it was him saying, look, whether or not Mormonism is true, it's valuable. And this is why.

John Dehlin [01:22:51] Yeah. So back to the second manuscript. I thought it was profound that basically, if we wanted to summarize what B.H. roberts was looking into in manuscript two, it was, was Joseph Smith the translator of the Book of Mormon or was he the author? And that's so significant because in 2020, we've got Spencer Fluman, Patrick Mason Terrell and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, all trying to change the narrative that even though for over 150 years, the church and Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon itself and all the prophets, seers and revelators from then to now had a unified front, that the Book of Mormon was what? SHANNON Montez, history.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:23:39] It was a history book. It was a translation written by ancient Americans, translated into English by Joseph Smith through the gift and power of God.

John Dehlin [01:23:51] That was the narrative from the beginning until recently.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:23:56] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:23:57] And we even have BH Roberts saying, remember that quote I read at the very beginning, BH Roberts saying that if the Book of Mormon isn't exactly that narrative, then Joseph Smith was a fraud and it was all ridiculous. Right, Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:24:08] Because that's what he says it is. So if it's other than that, he was lying.

John Dehlin [01:24:12] So, so here we have B.H. roberts now, you know, by, by 1922, 1923, basically asking the question, was Joseph Smith the translator or was he the author Right, right. And. And that shows that now he's seriously considering what he said before was enough to destroy the entire Mormon proposition.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:24:37] Right, right. Yeah. He's like, oh, better figure this out.

John Dehlin [01:24:42] And so his main arguments are he basically draws parallels between the. The Book of Mormon and a book that was published in 1823 in upstate New England by the preacher of none

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:24:57] other than who, Shannon Caldwell, Oliver Cowdery.

John Dehlin [01:25:01] Right. So Oliver Cowdery has a preacher named Ethan Smith who comes out with a book in 1823 called A View of the Hebrews. And it turns out there are incredibly striking parallels between A View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. And even though modern apologists sort of create a red herring, basically saying, well, clearly, if you look at the text of View of the Hebrews, it's not. The Book of Mormon wasn't plagiarized from A View of the Hebrews. You can't find, like, texts being copied and pasted in. So clearly, you know, there's no smoke, there's no fire here. But that's not the question B.H. roberts was asking. If you go up to previously, B. Roberts was asking, can, can the view of the Hebrews be viewed as a ground plan for the book that Joseph ended up producing?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:25:57] Right. He's not saying, is it plagiarized? He. He's saying, was it inspired by. Or is there anyone else that could have given him ideas that he put into this book?

John Dehlin [01:26:07] Was the structure sort of borrowed? Did he basically take the structure of the View of the Hebrews and then riff on it? The other things that. I think it's really interesting that BH Roberts was asking, is, is the Book of Mormon overly miraculous? In other words, are the types of things said in the Book of Mormon, do they just defy reason and science? I think that's a really good question. And then the final thing is, are the characters too archetypal and overly simplistic? Why are you smiling, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:26:39] Because, yeah, that's a question he asked and answers. So a lot of times the apologists are saying, oh, he didn't believe any of these questions. He's just posing questions. But if you look at the document, he's actually posing answers as well. He's not just questioning, he's also answering his questions in this document.

John Dehlin [01:27:02] Yeah. And so he writes this document up and he sends it to President Grant and the quorum of the 12 on March 15, 1923. I think according to George Smith. That's my. I think that's where that quote comes from.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:27:15] But I can, according to Truman Madsen and George Smith.

John Dehlin [01:27:19] Okay.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:27:19] And then Truman Madsen changes his story when Jack Welch gets involved, who's a lawyer.

John Dehlin [01:27:24] Love it. Yeah. So we'll come back to that. So here is a quote from. From B. H Roberts in a Book of Mormon study that I think is really relevant. He writes, quote, but I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently. So this is for manuscript too, right, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:27:51] I'm not sure what document.

John Dehlin [01:27:53] I'm pretty sure you shared this with me earlier today, but let me just read it. Quote, but I shall hold that which is here. What is here presented illustrates sufficient. Okay, yeah. This is the quote that you texted me earlier today that begins to strike at the heart of whether B.H. roberts lost his faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormons. Let me show it on the screen. Isn't that right? Isn't that the quote you shared with me earlier today?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:28:23] Yeah, this is from the end of chapter three of his second document.

John Dehlin [01:28:31] So this. This is how he summarizes a part of this manuscript that we're talking about. He writes, but I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently that the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely, that they are all of one breed and brand, so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped but. And that a young and undeveloped but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit points, some will contend to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene, separated by long periods of time and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America. Now, I kind of hackneyed read that because I haven't rehearsed reading it. Do you have any additional response you want to have as to what you basically think BH Roberts is saying when he gives that quote?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:29:45] Okay, so when I'm looking at it in this book, the. From the papers, and I don't know if this was edited, but you're saying the evidencely. I sorrowfully submit some points will contend that's not in here. It says the evidence. I sorrowfully submit points, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. He's saying that personally.

John Dehlin [01:30:07] Yeah, I got that. Why don't you. If you'll just monologue for me for just a second, I'm gonna find the actual quote and I'm gonna get that. I'm gonna get that in here.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:30:18] I'm not sure where you found that one, but from what I found or what I was reading this morning in the book that publishes his papers in full. That's what it says. That the evidence I sorrowfully submit points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene, separated by long periods of time and among a race which was the ancestral red man of America. So he's just like, there's no way these are. This is all the product of one mind. Somebody's telling a story. It's not even that intelligent really, is what he was saying. He's like, this is a piously inclined mind, but it's pretty undeveloped. Like this story. He's talking about two different sets of people separated by hundreds of years, and they're so, so similar. And he also is talking about stuff like, you know, oh, the stripling warriors being at war for two years and nobody gets. Everyone gets injured and nobody dies. Like, that's again, too miraculous, too much of a story to really believe as history. So he's. He's really got some doubts that I think are very clear there.

John Dehlin [01:31:38] Yeah. And I'm just correcting, I'm correcting the quote. I put this presentation together kind of frantically.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:31:44] He does the same thing. There's another similar one where he's talking about the Jaredites and how it was just like so incredulous that again, it's just, you know, obviously a piously inclined mind. But, you know, we can't, we can't just lean on miracles for everything because we don't see miracles now to this extent. So how can we believe that those were not just stories rather than actual history?

John Dehlin [01:32:14] Absolutely. And so is it. So when he's saying I sorrowfully, he says, I sorrowfully submit, right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:32:22] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:32:24] Is that basically him saying, this bums me out to be sharing this.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:32:28] Yeah. I'm sorry, but this is the answer is what he's saying. He's like, I think this can be only the only answer.

John Dehlin [01:32:36] Yeah, the evidence I saw. I'm just going to read this again. The evidence I sorrowfully submit points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene, separated by long periods of time and among a race which was the ancestral race of the Red man of America. And he even kind of insults Joseph Smith a little bit in this, doesn't he?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:33:02] A young and undeveloped but piously inclined mind.

John Dehlin [01:33:06] A young and undeveloped but piously inclined mind.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:33:10] Oh, you know what? This is actually the quote where he's talking about The Jaredites. You know, he's saying the whole atmosphere of the book is a miracle. Miracle. Sometimes it takes on almost childish, childish expression illustrated by the following circumstance. You know, he's just saying these are such wonder tales. And he says that somewhere else that it's a. Is this really history or is it a wonder tale? And he's saying I think it's a wonder tale. Like I'm sorry to say. And that's not him posing a question. I would say he's posing an answer. The evidence I sorrowfully submit points to Joseph Smith as the author.

John Dehlin [01:33:52] So for, for Smoot and you know, Givens and all the people that want to say BH Roberts never lost his testimony. Is this quote enough to conclude that he lost his testimony in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:34:05] Well, what they do is try to discount this entire document. So I believe, you know, if you're going to take what somebody says at face value, I think he is saying this personally, whether or not anyone's reading it. He is saying this as his own conclusion. They're trying to point paint this as no, this wasn't his conclusion. We can discount all of this. He was like a lawyer presenting a brief. He didn't actually believe any of this. This is just one sided. He was posing questions. But I'm saying I don't think these were questions. I think he had answers that he was posing as well. So I think you have to take him at his word.

John Dehlin [01:34:44] Why would he say the evidence I sorrowfully submit points to Joseph Smith as their creator. Why would he sorrowfully submit that if he didn't buy into it.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:34:54] Right. He would have no feelings about it. He'd be like this is a ridiculous argument. Argument, but the critics are dumb. Like that's how he would be saying it if he didn't believe it. But he wouldn't be sorrowfully submitting something that you know, he's just saying this is an unfortunate thing that we're gonna have to deal with. Let's work it out. And you know, the community of Christ did do this. So we're, you know, they also believe that all these things that he said are valid as well. Like his, his conclusions are historically and scientifically and literarily correct.

John Dehlin [01:35:34] Yeah, there are a couple more quotes that I pulled out of my research from this morning. This is from Thomas Alexander's really wonderful kind of review of B H Robertson, the Book of Mormon. It's published in Dialogue in 1986, Volume 19, Number 1 1. Alexander writes Roberts's analysis And synthesis suggested affirmative answers to all three questions. Those are the three questions I just referred to in manuscript two. Again, the questions being, you know, is there text evidence that could have been a ground plan, meaning the view of the Hebrews? Did Joseph Smith have the imagination to do this? And were cultural traits revealed in the Book of Mormon that were also present in 19th century America? Alexander summarizes it by saying there was sufficient common knowledge of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, to have made it possible for him, Joseph Smith, to create a book such as the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, quote, there can be no doubt as to the possession of vividly strong creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the prophet. So this is, I'm pretty sure this is, this is Alexander quoting B.H. roberts, is that right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:36:59] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [01:37:02] So, so basically Roberts is answering these questions.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:37:05] Yeah, the study, I think from this book, because it looks like it is on page 250.

John Dehlin [01:37:10] Yeah, he's basically saying it's a slam dunk. He's saying, I started out with these three questions and the answers are, yes, the view of the Hebrews is the ground plan. Likely is the ground plan. Two, Joseph Smith had the creative imagination. And three, the Book of Mormon is full of 19th century artifacts. And that's something that now all credible neo apologetic Mormon scholars are agreeing to. That the 19th, that the Book of Mormon is clearly a 19th century document. And we'll probably talk about that more.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:37:42] Are all apologists agreeing on that?

John Dehlin [01:37:44] Oh, that's why I said neo apologists, right? Oh yeah, that's where, that's where Spencer Fluman and Terrell Givens. That's where the whole.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:37:51] Yeah, but you don't get like, you don't get this from the actual top. This is like the side group that they can point people to. Like, if you're questioning, maybe these guys will help. But at the top, they're still saying this is actual history. At the top, don't question it.

John Dehlin [01:38:08] But, but ironically, at the Maxwell Institute, Spencer Fluman is sitting there along with Terrell Givens. When they have private meetings with people having a faith crisis, they're saying, don't think of the Book of Mormon as a translation. Think of it as Joseph Smith's grandest revelation. And they're having conferences at Utah State University with Bushman and Givens and Janet Reese and all sorts of, you know, neo apologetic Mormon scholars.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:38:31] And that's, I think, exactly where BH Roberts ended up. Even though in the beginning he's saying we can't prove a negative. He's saying, well, okay, even if, even if it's not true, isn't it great and isn't it wonderful? And can't we learn so much from

John Dehlin [01:38:47] this and we'll get there. I'm just saying that it's ironic that the church is funding these neo apologetic scholars to spread the gospel of the Book of Mormon not being a translation, but instead being a revelation. Right, but they're not yet admitting it in general conference at the top level. Or actually I'm wrong. Didn't we have in April of 2020 a general authority admit for the first time that we should think of the Book of Mormon as a revelation, not

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:39:14] as a translation in a kind of a way? I think he was like, you know, this is.

John Dehlin [01:39:20] Do you remember who it was?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:39:21] I don't, I don't remember.

John Dehlin [01:39:23] It was the Brazilian. It was the Brazilian apostle, Suarez. Suarez, right. Our listeners need to paste the quote because I don't have it ready.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:39:34] But I, but I remember seeing someone say, don't look at this as a history book, look at this as an inspirational. Like I think he's saying though. I think he follows that up by saying it is historical, but don't look at it for history, look at it for spiritual knowledge.

John Dehlin [01:39:48] Yeah, Gerardo says it's Elder Suarez. And if one of you guys can provide that quote, it's taking us off the story. Beats Roberts, but it's so easy to get sidetracked. Okay, so that's manuscript two. And then what we get to finally is manuscript three, which is referred to in sort of the literature as a parallel. Is that right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:40:11] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:40:13] And what parallel becomes is this in depth comparison between the Book of Mormon and a view of the Hebrews. He's basically summarizing manuscript two.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:40:25] He's like, here's just a taste of manuscript too. And this. So manuscript two, he's talking about, you know, as we were just saying all of these. Could Joseph Smith have written this? Blah, blah, blah. The parallels is only talking about between Ethan Smith and Book of Mormon. So he's just talking about that one part of this study. What's saying, that's saying, could this have been the foundation for, for the Book of Mormon? So that's, that's what he's summarizing in the parallels document.

John Dehlin [01:40:55] Right. So, so he apparently he sends Manuscript 3 to Apostle Richard Lyman in October 1927. So again, the Quorum of the Twelve is, is served. And, and in this, you know, it's written that this document then gets passed around in these secrets. Mormon intelligentsia, liberal faithful, Mormon circles from 1927 to 1985.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:41:22] Right.

John Dehlin [01:41:23] And I just want to read a couple quotes from a website. Mormonhandbook.com has has some quotes that I think are really relevant about what BH Roberts says and about View of the Hebrews, because I think this is really important stuff. So here's what I wanted to share. This is BH Roberts. It is often represented by Mormon speakers and writers that the Book of Mormon was first to represent the American Indians as descendants of the Hebrews. That basically Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon were first to tie American Indians to, you know, the Hebrews. And then Roberts goes on to write, holding that the Book of Mormon is unique in this. And then he says the claim is sometimes still ignorantly made. He's basically saying that it's ignorant to say that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon were the first books out of the gate to tie Native Americans, you know, to Israel. Is that right, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:42:25] Yeah, I think I hadn't seen that quote. That's pretty awesome that he's like, you know, we didn't, we didn't come up

John Dehlin [01:42:31] with this and that that comes from.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:42:34] Nobody was surprised by what, what the Book of Mormon said. It wasn't groundbreaking. It was confirming what they already thought.

John Dehlin [01:42:42] And that's what Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins and a lot of Dan Vogel's work, it basically all shows, you know, not only was the Book of Mormon not novel or not creative, if you understood the myths about the mounds, the Indian burial mounds, the legends about Native Americans, the racism that refused to accept that that dark skinned people could create advanced civilizations, there had to have been a light skinned predecessor to the Native Americans because darkies, you know, that's an offensive term. But dark Native Americans could never have created these advanced civilizations. There must have been light skinned. That was all common understanding and belief in the early, you know, 1820s.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:43:29] Right. And it was used in order to justify the cruelty that they were doing toward the Native Americans, saying, well, you guys did this before. Obviously you're not smart enough to have created these civilizations, so you must have killed these people, therefore you're getting what's coming. You guys deserve this genocide that we're doing because you've also done a genocide, you're not innocent, therefore you know, we're totally justified in this. That was like the common knowledge at the time. The whole mound builder myth was a racist way to justify their horrible actions.

John Dehlin [01:44:06] Right. And so basically what B H. Roberts is saying here in this quote is that lots of people wrote about Native Americans coming from Israel. That was just super common in the day.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:44:23] I need to look that up.

John Dehlin [01:44:24] I'd like to know what irritation. 323 studies of the Book of Mormon.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:44:29] Oh, right here.

John Dehlin [01:44:30] See if you can find it right here. While you're. While you're looking that up, I'm going to read the next one. So the next one is again, studies of the Book of Mormon, page 152. This is BH Roberts. For years, such materials as were then found and discussed theories as to the origin of the American Indians, including, quote, the 10 lost tribes, end quote. Theory of Hebrew infusion into the American race, together with frequent mention of cultural traits favorable to this supposed Hebrew infusion. All this was matter of common speculation in the literature of America before the publication of either priests, American iniquities, American antiquities, or the Book of Mormon. So again, that's Roberts saying again that all of this Native Americans were Israelis was just the total cultural milieu and understanding of that Joseph Smith was swimming in. Right, Shannon?

View of the Hebrews Parallels Explored

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:45:27] Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that, that first quote that I was wondering about, it's actually in the parallels. It just didn't stick out to me because I haven't read the parallels as many. You know, I just was like, oh, that's what that is. So, yeah, I didn't have. I didn't recognize it from there, but that's exactly where it is. It's his fourth point in the parallels.

John Dehlin [01:45:47] Yeah. And so I'm glad I have it in the right place. Yeah. Okay, so. And then one more quote. One more quote. No, sorry. Those are all the quotes from B.H. roberts. But then what I just wanted to do was just to kind of beat this horse dead to the. Just to pulverize this horse. From this website, MormonHandbook.com they basically show a list of the parallels between the view of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. And it's going to be hard to read visually, but you can see it visually. But hopefully everyone visually and audibly can just hear me make the list of comparisons. So this is basically showing items that appear both in the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. All right, so first of all, View the Hebrews is published 1823. Right. Seven Years before the Book of Mormon is published. Secondly, where it's published in Vermont. Right. Where was Joseph Smith born in Vermont? Oliver Cowdery, one of the Book of Mormon witnesses, lived in Pulteney, which is where the Book View of the Hebrews was published in Portland, Vermont. He lived in Pulteney when the View of the Hebrews was published. And again, I think he even attended the church of the author, the church the pastor of which was Ethan Smith, the author. So we've got literally Ethan Smith, a pastor in Pulteney, Vermont. Oliver Cowdery is one of the parishioners. Ethan Smith publishes View of the Hebrews and Oliver Cowdery certainly would have known about it and read it. And then he saunters at some point to New York, eventually to Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, and starts assisting Joseph Smith in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Could it be a coincidence that the entire foundation of the Book of Mormon, according to B.H. roberts, can be found in View of the Hebrews? Am I.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:47:50] Not only was this book around, it had a close tie to Joseph Smith. It wasn't just like, oh, somebody published a book like that somewhere. But, you know, you can't say he was just kind of illiterate. He never read books. He. He wouldn't have known that this book was around. Books are expensive. Like, it's even closer than just there was a book. It was. There was a book written by al, you know, 30 miles away, written by this pastor that, like, you've got two degrees of separation. A friend of a friend. It's not. It's not hard to find.

John Dehlin [01:48:25] Absolutely. And so let me just go through quickly the list of parallels now. The destruction of Jerusalem in both books. The scattering of Israel in both books. The restoration of the ten tribes in both books, Hebrews leave the old world for the new world in both books, religion is a motivating factor. Both books, migrations in a long journey. Both books encounters seas of many waters. Both books, the Americas, an uninhabited land, in both books that they come to an uninhabited land, which is actually what the Book of Mormon claims. Apologists try and spin that later to get out of the problems found in the Book of Mormon. Settlers journey northward, encounter a valley of a great river, a unity of race settled the land of a Hebrew race settled the land and are the ancestral origin of American Indians. Hebrew, the origin of Indian language, Egyptian hieroglyphics. Now, I can't overstate the importance here. As we were talking to Robert Ridner about where did Joseph get the idea of, you know, the Book of Mormon be being written in Egyptian? We. I hadn't remembered and it was Dan Vogel, I think, who helped us remember this. But it was freaking the view of the Hebrews that gave Joseph Smith the idea to claim that the Plates were written in Egyptian. It's right there in the view of the Hebrews.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:49:55] Right.

John Dehlin [01:49:56] The view of the Hebrews is saying. Is saying, you know, it contains Egyptian hieroglyphics in connection with these Native Americans and Hebrews.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:50:07] They actually say it's not a parallel. Apologists say it's not a parallel because Joseph Smith said it was reformed Egyptian, which is so obviously not the same.

John Dehlin [01:50:20] Yeah, super dumb. A couple more things. Lost Indian records, breastplate, Urim and Thummim. Guess what, in view of the Hebrews prophets, I mean, that. That is so significant. When Joseph tells everyone about the plates, he says what's buried with the plates is a breastplate and a Urim. And Thummim, guess what? He gets that idea from view of the Hebrews or from whatever. Wherever Ethan Smith got that idea from, it doesn't really matter.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:50:49] Oliver Cowdery saying, oh, hey, what about this idea? Like. Like it doesn't matter. He didn't create it. It's not ancient, right?

John Dehlin [01:50:57] It's not ancient prophets, spiritually gifted men translating generational records. In both books, the gospel preached to the Americas. In both books, whole chapters of Isaiah are quoted. Like, I can't even believe. Both Joseph Smith and in the view of the Hebrews, entire chapters of Isaiah are quoted. Now, it's not the same chapters, but. But the idea of quoting chapters from Isaiah is in this 1823 book that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith both had access to. And yet there's more. Jesus, the Messiah visits the Americas. Oh, my gosh, the Book of Mormon. The miraculous thing about the Book of Mormon is that it claims that Jesus visits the Americas. Guess what? Joseph Smith got that from view of the Hebrews or from wherever that source got the information from. That's not even unique. The. The another testament of Jesus Christ. And even in the Book of Mormon, when Jesus is speaking, Joseph is plagiarizing the King James version of the Bible as he's quoting Jesus. So he's not even. In that case, he's clearly not translating golden plates into the Book of Mormon because he's simply plagiarizing the King James Version of the Book of Mormon that he has at the time. Am I right, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:52:13] Right.

Speaker C [01:52:14] Yeah.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:52:15] And yeah, we've already talked about, like, David Bachavoy, I think, talked about this how, like the Beatitudes that he's talking about. They weren't around at that point, like

John Dehlin [01:52:27] the Beatitudes, yet Beatitudes be appearing in the. In the golden plates or in the Before.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:52:33] Yeah, yeah, right. It's it's. Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [01:52:38] And again, good and bad are necessary. Opposition in all things in view of the Hebrews, generosity encouraged and pride denounced in. In the view of the Hebrews, polygamy is denounced in both view of the Hebrews and the freaking Book of Mormon. So even though Joseph Smith eventually practices polygamy, the Book of Mormon denounces polygamy. But that wasn't even original. The view of the Hebrews had already denounced polygamy beforehand.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:53:06] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:53:08] And then idolatry and human sacrifice. Sacred towers in high places. You know Rami, um, to many one, right. Hebrews divided into two classes, civilized and barbarous. Civilized thrive in art, written language, metallurgy and navigation. This is where the Book of Mormon gets super racist. Because the light skinned Nephites, you know, are civilized and they have art and language and metallurgy and navigation. But, but of course the Lamanites are savages because dark people are savages and they can't do sophisticated things. Government charge changes from monarchy to republic in the view of the Hebrews. Why are you laughing at that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:53:49] Just like a republic. That was such a like American thing, you know, when they got rid of monarchy and they're like we're going to do a republic. Like that was just such an American thing. And to be like, to have like ancient Americans creating a republic.

John Dehlin [01:54:05] Democracy hadn't even been invented yet, let alone a representative republic.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:54:09] Right. I mean it's kind of like the Greeks or Roman. The Greeks did this. But like it wasn't. He's presenting it in a very American form. That didn't happen until, you know, the 1780s.

John Dehlin [01:54:22] The Native Americans weren't aware of Greece. Right. They weren't reading Plato and Socrates and

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:54:27] Aristotle, but their governments were based on those, those ideas. So.

John Dehlin [01:54:32] Right. And we're beating a dead horse, but it's just so profound. Civil and ecclesiastical power is united in the same person. That's, that's in the view of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. Long wars break. Guess what? Long wars break out between the civilized and the barbarous. Extensive military fortifications, observations and watchtowers. Duh. That's like half the Book of Mormon is the wars, fortifications and the military stuff. The barbarous exterminate the civilized. So again, the light skinned are, are exterminated by the dark skinned. The civilized extermined. Extermined by. Exterminated by, by the, the dark skinned. I'm probably not saying that.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:55:17] Right.

John Dehlin [01:55:18] And then finally it discusses the United States. So again the view the Hebrews Somehow discusses the United States as some form of prophecy. Well, so does the United. So does the Book of Mormon. It prophesies of the United States, etc. Etc.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:55:35] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:55:35] Talks about Ethan and Ether. It says Ethan. Roberts noted that Ethan is prominently connected with the recording of the matter in the one case and Ether in the other. So there's even some names that appear to be way too similar. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:55:52] Yeah. Right.

John Dehlin [01:55:53] Okay, so we beat a dead horse. Is there anything you want to add to that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:55:57] No.

John Dehlin [01:55:58] Okay.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:55:59] It's pretty clear that this could have been the foundation for the Book of Mormon, I would say.

John Dehlin [01:56:06] And again, if it wasn't the view of the Hebrews, it was whatever mul you. The view of the Hebrews and the Book.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:56:12] Yeah. The mound builder myth is not Ethan Smith's idea either. So like these ideas of a race that had been civilized getting completely exterminated, that was common knowledge. And so again, Joseph Smith was just answering the questions everyone had. These were not like new ideas that he was presenting because they were some ancient document. These are ideas that everyone wanted to know the answers to and he conveniently provided them. You know, these supposedly ancient documents have very modern answers and very modern ideas.

John Dehlin [01:56:55] Yeah. And if we just step back for a second, there's just no freaking way that B.H. roberts is doing this in depth analysis, basically laying out all the clear evidences that the Book of Mormon is a. Is a product of a 19th century, immature kind of a naive mind. And yet in his mind, it's not becoming really clear that the Book of Mormon is not, in fact what it claimed to be, but instead is a work of fiction. And maybe it inspired fiction, but certainly not a translation. I mean, there's just, in my mind, there's no way that BH Roberts isn't connecting the dots. Frankly, he's smarter than you and I and a hundred of us put together. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:57:38] I mean, yeah, he put some real work into this. And, you know, we're looking at his work being like, wow, good job. But he's the one that like, put this all together and people have been trying to either hide it or bring it forward for the last hundred years.

John Dehlin [01:57:53] Right. So one final quote about this, this third manuscript, Roberts writes, it is altogether probable. Probable, Right. It says it's most likely that these two books. Oh, he's talking about here, Wonders of Nature and Providence. So he's talking about a couple books here. It is altogether probable that these two books, Priests, Wonders of Nature and Providence in 1824, which I don't know what that is. But we should probably look into that. And Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, 1st edition, 1823, and the 2nd edition, 1825, were either possessed by Joseph Smith or certainly known by him, for they were surely available to him. This is B H Roberts connecting the dots even further, saying, we have pretty much no doubt that Joseph Smith had in his possession or was aware about both view of the Hebrews and wonders of nature and Providence, and certainly Oliver Cowdery did as well.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:58:55] Right, right, right. And he's not even saying, oh, it's just this one book View of the Hebrews, that that was the foundation. He's saying, you know, there's other books too, like a lot of these things probably all contributed. But to think that he didn't have access and that he wasn't drawing on these seems a little incredulous.

Roberts's Exchanges with Church Leaders

John Dehlin [01:59:19] Right, okay, so let's go back to your wonderful thesis, Shannon. And I just want to talk about again, Roberts's exchanges with Lyman because I think, I think they're relevant here. So here I'm going to be reading now from your thesis. Is that okay?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:59:37] Okay, yeah.

John Dehlin [01:59:39] So Roberts reminded Lyman, we've already talked about this. Quote. Roberts reminded Lyman that at the conclusion of the 1922 leadership meetings. Now, when is.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [01:59:50] Robert, we already actually talked about this.

John Dehlin [01:59:52] Yeah, yeah, yeah, we did. But I just want to reiterate it because, because you go on and I just want to. I want to read what, what right after that. So for our listeners. Quote. Roberts reminded Lyman that at the conclusion of the 1922 leadership meeting, he had announced that there were other problems besides the ones they had spoken of in the meetings. Lyman had been asked, well, will these help solve our present problems or will it increase our difficulties? Roberts replied, it would very greatly increase our problems. At which Lyman rather lightly said, well, I don't see why we should bother with them. Then Roberts responded that he would continue his studies anyway. So this is, you know, manuscript two and three is basically Roberts making good on his promise. Right. To continue his studies anyway. But it goes on. Your thesis says as he. Roberts presented a. The. A parallel, which is the third manuscript. Roberts told Lyman that he had indeed continued his investigations and had come upon, quote, a possible theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon that is quite unique and could be, quote, very embarrassing, end quote. If presented by, quote, a skillful opponent, close quote. Roberts told Lyman that he had, quote, drawn up a somewhat lengthy report, close quote, as well as a letter of submission, before leaving for his mission in 1922. But quote, in the hurry of getting away and the impossibility at that time of having my report considered, I dropped the matter and have not yet decided whether I shall present that report to the First Presidency or not. Clarity, Close quote. Why did you include that in your thesis? Shannon Caldwell Montez what does it tell us about both BH Roberts's exchanges with Lyman and kind of how he felt and thought after? He not only was disappointed that the results of the 1922 meetings, but miraculously, a few months later, called on a mission far, far away from Salt Lake City to serve in the New York area for what, five years?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:02:09] Yep.

John Dehlin [02:02:10] What does this quote tell us that,

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:02:13] you know, that he was really bothered by this matter. He was still trying to get it in front of people that wasn't, you know, the issues he had investigated five years earlier had not gone away. So a lot of times, in order to discount these documents, apologetic sources just say, well, he just, he threw these together in five months and then put them away and didn't work on him anymore. And he went to work on his mission and he was testifying of the Book of Mormon and using that in his Book of Mormon, like in teaching people. So therefore he still believed in the Book of Mormon. They're trying to use his mission and as proof that he still believed in the historicity. And so they kind of have to say he was unbothered by these documents. But when you see this letter in 1927, he was still clearly bothered by these issues and trying to get someone to listen.

John Dehlin [02:03:17] And what do we make of this quote in the hurry of getting away and the impossibility at that time of having my report considered, why would he say it was impossible to have his report considered? SHANNON Caldwell Montez I think he very

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:03:34] clearly, in January had seen a lack of interest and also maybe even a sending him away because there was such lack of interest, such a discomfort with what he was saying. I think he was like, I can read the room. I know they didn't want to hear any more about this. And at that point, and maybe they're ready now, I don't know.

John Dehlin [02:03:57] Yeah. So basically says, I dropped the matter and have not yet decided whether I shall present that report to the First Presidency.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:04:04] Right.

John Dehlin [02:04:05] And that's just so crazy that.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:04:06] And so again, on this one, when he says, I haven't decided if I should present that report, that people are wondering, does, does that mean he never sent them the documents, or has he not presented it in person? Like, what does that mean? So we again, there's some ambiguity about whether or not top leadership saw this second document. And they're going to try to say that they didn't because this is definitely the most damning document, the one that he has the most strong opinions about, and just kind of destroys the Book of Mormon in that second document. So I understand why, for their own protection, the Church doesn't want to acknowledge that they received this. And I'm just saying that letter is one that people are saying, see, he didn't present it, therefore the Church never saw it.

John Dehlin [02:04:54] Yeah. And he's working so closely with Lyman and Talmadge. How in the world is it possible that the highest levels of the Church weren't aware? It's obviously a transparent approach by apologists to muddy the waters, to try and make things uncertain or, you know, ambiguous.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:05:15] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:05:15] So that they can create a reason of doubt for the credible history that shows that the brethren knew.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:05:23] Right, right. And even if they didn't know about this second document, which, you know, I still don't think that is any sort of plausible deniability because they knew about the first one. And the first one was also very damning, so to say. Oh, leadership wasn't aware of BH Roberts problems. You know, whatever he presented in these papers, we can just ignore those because they're pretty inconvenient and we want to say leadership didn't know about them. And I'm just saying leadership definitely knew about the first one and I would say likely knew about the second one, although they never did speak to him personally about it. I can.

John Dehlin [02:06:05] Yeah, because. Because once you. Once you know what a guy's got evidence, that brings the whole enterprise down. What do you do as a corporation if you're not. If your primary concern is maintaining faith and power and status and the reputation of the Church, which Lyman and Talmage and all those dudes already showed. And we showed the evidence that they showed that. Then when a. When an honest truth seeker guy comes forward with information that could blow up the whole enterprise, what do you do? You freaking send him on a mission and you stop entertaining. You stop giving him audience.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:06:41] Right. Will this greatly improve our problems? Yes. Okay, well then stop.

John Dehlin [02:06:45] Stop. Right. And go on a mission. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:06:48] Yeah. Just go. Let's give you some busy work. Let's. Let's give you something else to think

John Dehlin [02:06:52] about, because clearly there's nothing better for robbers to do at this point than to go on a mission. There's no one else that could be mission president for the next five years. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:07:02] Right.

John Dehlin [02:07:03] Yeah.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:07:03] Yeah. I Think that. I think both sides were kind of relieved to have him gone. I think he was kind of frustrated and annoyed and I think he will. Actually. My friend's grandfather was in B.H. roberts mission and she showed me a letter where he was just. He had to go to Salt Lake and he was kind of depressed trying to, you know, having to kind of associate with all the people in Salt Lake. Like, I think it had become kind of a problem. Like it was hard for him to be around these people because he was feeling hurt by the lack of attention that he was, that these problems were getting and the way that they kind of were shunting him to the side and treating him as a problem rather than the issues he was bringing up.

John Dehlin [02:07:52] Absolutely. Okay, your. Your wonderful thesis goes on to say as he presented a parallel, Roberts told Lyman that he had indeed continued his investigations. I haven't read this yet. Right. He indeed continued his investigations and had come upon a possible theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon that is quite unique and could be very embarrassing if presented by a scheme skillful appointment. This is where Roberts told Lyman that he had drawn up a somewhat lengthy report as well as a letter of submission before leaving for his mission. Oh, I'm sorry, we just read. Okay, next quote, forgive me, quote from your thesis. It seems that Roberts could tell that the general authorities were not ready to listen to more of this information before his mission and was aware of the fact that the mission call may have been a way to interrupt his studies, redirect his attention and remove him from sight. Five years later, he was still wrestling with whether or not to present the second paper to church officials and hope that Lyman would offer clarity of assistance. So what you basically are saying there is you feel like Roberts wondered whether he was sent in exile. Right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:09:00] Yeah, I mean, I. Yeah, I think he. I think everyone knew when he was being sent, why he was being sent. I don't think that was really a question. I think they were kind of like, why don't you go cool off and go do something else?

John Dehlin [02:09:19] Right. You want to write? He ex. Roberts explained to Lyman that if the question arose as to whether or not Joseph Smith used View the Hebrews to provide the structure and some of the material to the alleged Nephite record, it would, quote, be greatly to the advantage of our future defenders of the faith if they had in hand a thorough digest of the subject matter. I submit it to you, and if you are sufficiently interested, you may submit it to others of your counsel. Let me say also that the parallel that I send you is not one fourth part of what can be presented in this form. And the un unpresented part is quite as striking as this that I submit. So what, what can we take from that, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:10:00] Yeah, first of all, he's calling it alleged Nephite scripture. So he, and he's saying, look, what I have is just a tiny taste. Like it's not even a fourth. And if you're shocked by this parallel, know that everything else I have to say is just as shocking as this. I mean, striking, maybe shocking, adding a little more emotion. But he definitely found it striking. Kind of hard to ignore these parallels and saying we, you know, I still believe that we need to be looking at this.

John Dehlin [02:10:37] Right. And again, how significant is it that he says alleged Nephite record? Why would he write that?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:10:47] Right. If he believed it was historical, he would just say this Nephite record.

John Dehlin [02:10:53] Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:10:54] This historical Nephite record. Or. But when he's saying alleged, it just adds a little bit of doubt. Right. To the historicity.

John Dehlin [02:11:05] Absolutely. Okay, so what, what happens then? And this is kind of where this story concludes. Tell us about the relationship between B.H. roberts and Wesley Lloyd.

Wesley Lloyd and Roberts's Private Admissions

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:11:20] So Wesley Lloyd was a missionary in Robert's mission. They stayed close, they were good friends. He ended up becoming a dean of graduate studies at byu. And he also actually went to divinity school after this conversation with Roberts. But several weeks before Roberts died, he and Wesley Lloyd had a three and a half hour long conversation about a lot of things. But at some point it turned to this episode and Lloyd was so struck by this conversation, he wrote it down as quickly and as accurately as he could. And so that's where we got a lot of insight as to what B.H. roberts was thinking here at the end of his life. So, you know, we had 1922, his papers say this, 1927, he's still working on this. And then 1933, he's talking to Wesley Lloyd. He's still beating this drum that we have a problem here. We need to talk about this. I'm feeling hurt that I was ignored. This is what I mean. These are kind of all the things that his, this conversation touches on.

John Dehlin [02:12:38] Okay, perfect. So as we talk about BH Roberts relationship with Wesley Lloyd, Wesley Lloyd was a former dean of the graduate school at byu. He was a missionary under Roberts and the Eastern States Mission. You've said a lot of this already. Robert met with Lloyd weeks before his death in 1933, spent three and a half hours talking. And as you mentioned to us earlier, Lloyd was So taken back by this conversation, that in August 7, 1933, he wrote it all down in his journal, Correct?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:13:09] Right.

John Dehlin [02:13:11] So this was, this is something that he immediately went and wrote down. And again, this is in 1933, the same year that that Robert Sties. And here is some quotes that I pulled out from your thesis. Quote the conversation. And this is, this is Lloyd writing, right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:13:29] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:13:30] The conversation then drifted to the Book of Mormon and this surprising story he related to me.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:13:36] And I want to point out, he actually, in the handwritten note, he said this revolutionary. And then he crossed it out and said surprising. So he kind of was like, holy crap. Wait, that's maybe a little strong. I'm going to say surprising, because maybe I think revolutionary meant he didn't really believe it. He's just surprised that Robert's it.

John Dehlin [02:13:56] And there's so much fear. Like, I, I know this today. Like, I'm aware of a general authority that lost their faith before they died, you know, now. And, and this person recently passed away. And what, you know, you know, this guy didn't come clean.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:14:12] He.

John Dehlin [02:14:12] He was Grant Palmer's general authority. And, you know, so this is the person that met with Grant Palmer several times before Grant Palmer died, gave Grant Palmer all this important information. He, to the whole world, presented himself until his death as a believer, and his wife did, too. And he told Grant Palmer, you know, we're afraid for our pension. We're afraid at the social repercussions if we come clean. So this general authority and his wife, until the general authority's dying day, publicly maintained they believe, but they were so afraid of the social and the financial consequences of being honest and that this general authority kept this secret to his death. And so, you know, apologists want to say, unless a general authority publishes in the Deseret News, which they never publish, the church is a fraud, then it never happened. But what you have to understand is, is that these guys are afraid. They're terrified at the consequences, not just for themselves, but for their posterity and their legacy if they come clean.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:15:17] So I think this is a closely held secret because he knows. He saw the reactions of the people in the room when he said this. He knew how people would feel if he was too open about how he felt. So this became something that he had to struggle with privately.

John Dehlin [02:15:37] Absolutely.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:15:38] And this, this was a very close friend that he had this conversation with. This isn't something he was going to go tell everyone line.

John Dehlin [02:15:45] Absolutely. So, so, Shannon, you write the conversation then drifted to the Book of Mormon and this Surprising story he related to me. So this is Lloyd saying Lloyd recorded that Roberts told him of writer's letter and of his assignment to answer it, how he had been stumped and asked for help from the brethren. Roberts had then presented his findings to the general authorities only to be disappointed. Pointed in answer, they merely, one by one, stood up and bore testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. George Albert Smith, in tears, testified that his faith in the book had not been shaken by the question. President Ivins, the man most likely to be able to answer a question on that subject, was unable to produce the solution. No answer was available. Now, this quote we read earlier in today's presentation, but I think part of what's important about this is, is that, is that, is that, is that Lloyd is basically in his story. Isn't all the evidence we have of the actual historical record, doesn't all the evidence corroborate Lloyd's account of what Roberts told him?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:16:53] The fact that he. He names Ryder, like, that's the, you know, Ryder's just some random guy from Logan who, you know, may not even be that active 11 years later, if we look at the questions he's asking. And then again, his response to BH Roberts letter was like, well, what about the Negroes and the priesthood? So, like, he was obviously questioning a lot of this. So the fact that he can name Ryder and say, oh, he got a letter from Ryder, that's like, indisputable. So there's no way that this, that Lloyd could have this knowledge without BH Roberts giving it to him.

John Dehlin [02:17:35] Right. Because Lloyd didn't have dialogue A Journal of Mormon Thought in Shannon Caldwell Montez thesis and, you know, the notes and the diaries from Talmadge.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:17:45] And he wasn't going through the B.H. roberts paper saying, who is this writer guy? What is this letter? Like? B.H. roberts is like, this guy writer sent me a letter and about this. And there's just no way that he would know this without Roberts telling him

John Dehlin [02:18:00] the fact that he writes it down in freaking 1933. Right, right, right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:18:04] When it happens.

John Dehlin [02:18:05] Right when.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:18:06] After it happens.

John Dehlin [02:18:07] And again, this is stuff that Smoot and Givens and other neo apologists are trying to dismiss and downplay and make irrelevant. And I think it's. I think it's incredibly relevant and credible. True.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:18:19] Right, Right. Yeah. What he says privately sometimes matters more than what he says publicly. I was telling a friend recently, you know, no matter how often President Trump says he's the most wonderful person that women can ever know and that he respects women. If he privately says, you can grab them by the pussy, that's actually really concerning. The private words should not be discounted. That's not the whole story. You can't just look at public words and, and pretend like that's the only thing that matters ever. Not just in this situation.

John Dehlin [02:18:55] Right, so. So going back to continue what you write in your book, Roberts told Lloyd that, quote, there was however, a committee appointed to study this problem consisting of brothers Talmadge, Ballard, Roberts and one of their apostle. But again, Roberts was disappointed. They met and looked vacantly at one another, but none seemed to know what to do about it. Again, Shannon Colomontes. Is he naming, you know, the right apostles there?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:19:28] Actually, Ballard was not part of that. But yeah, he is named.

John Dehlin [02:19:33] That we know of.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:19:34] Yeah, right, that we know of. So Ballard it could have been. But you know, again, does it really matter if every single detail is the right ones? There was a committee of apostles that met together, stared vacantly at one another and said, what? What should we do?

John Dehlin [02:19:54] Yep, they met and looked vacantly at one another, but none seem to know what to do about it. So these are prophet seers and revelators, all kind of going, I don't know,

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:20:04] what do you think?

John Dehlin [02:20:05] What do you think we should do, Hiram? I don't know, Joseph. So finally Robert said he had attempted an answer, but it was one that would satisfy people that didn't think, but a very inadequate answer to a thinking man. So here Roberts is basically saying, I've got an answer, but it won't satisfy a thinking man. It would only satisfy people who didn't think.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:20:32] And this committee only looks good on the surface, but if he digs a little farther, it's not going to hold up is what he's saying.

John Dehlin [02:20:40] And the committee said they just. And so Roberts goes on to say they decided it was, quote, about the best they could do, end quote, and voted to adopt it. So here we have Roberts telling them we've got a bad answer. It's an answer not for thinking people, it's an answer for non thinking people. And you've got apostles going, that sounds good. Any answer is better than no answer.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:21:05] Right? And we actually have the letter that he sent. So again, this corroborates with the evidence that yeah, they sat around, they came up with an answer. Obviously Roberts wasn't pleased with the answer, but it was the best they could do. And so he sent this letter to Mr. Ryder. So you can see that that did happen.

John Dehlin [02:21:28] Absolutely. And then you go on to write after this, Brother Roberts made a special Book of Mormon study, treated the problem systematically and historically and in a 400. So this is again, this is Lloyd, right? What he writes about his conversation with Roberts, correct?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:21:45] Yes.

John Dehlin [02:21:46] So Lloyd's writing after this, Brother Roberts made a special Book of Mormon study, treated the problem systematically and historically, and in a 400 typewritten page thesis, set forth a revolutionary article on the origin of the Book of Mormon and sent it to President Grant. Now when he refers to a 400 page thesis, what does he mean by that? Are we talking about the three?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:22:09] Tell me about both studies. Because there was 41. Yeah. And then I don't remember the page of numbers. Numbers are the worst.

John Dehlin [02:22:19] Was that parallels included? Was that all three?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:22:21] Yeah, parallels, I believe was also included that if you add up all the numbers and maybe one or two of the letters, like cover letters would be. I don't know. Actually in this one, the 400 typewritten pages I think is more of an estimate. There's another source, I think one from his secretary or a cover letter that says it's about Florida. 400 pages. And again, exact number.

Suppression of Roberts's Work After His Death

John Dehlin [02:22:50] In 1933, none of this stuff had been made public. Correct?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:22:55] Right. Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:22:56] How would Lloyd know that Roberts had written 400 plus pages on all these problems?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:23:02] Only if Roberts told him.

John Dehlin [02:23:04] Only if Roberts told him and told him the year he died. Right?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:23:08] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:23:08] So treated the problem systematically and historically and in a foreigner type written page thesis, set forth a revolutionary. And that's. You said it did say what? Before Revolutionary. Well, that was scratched out, right? Revolutionary.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:23:24] Yeah, well, revolutionary was actually earlier. This one is. This one he keeps in revolutionary, a

John Dehlin [02:23:32] revolutionary article on the origin of the Book of Mormon and sent it to President Grant. It's an article far too strong. And I need to pull up the actual quote here. It's an article far too strong for the average church member. So here's this elitism of the brethren. Get to know one set of facts, but the average church member, they can't know. They can't handle the truth. They. We've got to hide it from them. Right. It's an article far too strong for the average church member. But for the intellectual group, he considers it a contribution to assist in explaining Mormonism. He swings to a psycho. This is like probably the most important part of the whole question about whether B.H. roberts lost his testimony in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Is that right, Shannon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:24:20] I would say yes.

John Dehlin [02:24:22] Okay, here it is. So this is Lloyd recounting what Roberts told him. He swings to A psychological explanation of the Book of Mormon and shows that the plates were not objective, meaning they weren't real, they weren't material, but subjective. With Joseph Smith, that his exception. Go ahead. What?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:24:47] They were in his head. They were subjective. They were.

John Dehlin [02:24:51] So this is what Roberts tells Lloyd, that the plates were not objective but subjective with Joseph Smith, that his exceptional imagination qualified him psychologically for the experience which he had in presenting to the world the Book of Mormon, and that the plates with the Urim and Thummim were not objective. He then explained certain literary. That makes sense. Why? Because Joseph never produced the Urim and Thummim or the breastplates, and no one saw them. And when people saw him translating, translating the Book of Mormon, what was he using? Shannon Colbo Montez?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:25:35] Not a breastplate.

John Dehlin [02:25:36] Was he using a breastplate with spectacles and urimum?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:25:38] Thummim, what was he using? A rock and a hat.

John Dehlin [02:25:42] The same freaking peep stone that he had used to treasure dig to deceive people into thinking that he could find buried treasure when he never, ever found any buried treasure, Ever, ever the same pursuit that he cries, apologizing to Isaac Hale, Emma's dad, saying, I'm sorry for these foolish things that I've been doing. I promise I'll stop. The same stone and hat that he

Speaker C [02:26:08] used

John Dehlin [02:26:10] in the deception of so many earnest foolish farmers in upstate New York takes that same peep stone and translates or produces the Book of Mormon. Now B H Roberts is admitting that there never was a Urim and Thummim, that there never was a breastplate, but instead he used the peep stones. He goes on to say he then explained certain literary difficulties in the book. These are some of the things which has made Brother Robert shift his base on the Book of Mormon. Shift his base on the Book of Mormon. Instead of regarding it as the strongest evidence we have of Church divinity, he now regards it as the one which needs the most bolstering. So by B.H. roberts's death in 1933, he shifted from saying the Book of Mormon is the strongest evidence we have that the Church is true to the one artifact that needs the most bolstering. His greatest claim for the divinity, the power of the prophet Joseph Smith lies in the Doctrine and Covenants. So that basically says that by his death, Roberts was saying, no, no, no, it's not the Book of Mormon that's the great witness of Mormonism. It's the Doctrine and Covenants. Anything you want to say?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:27:30] Joseph Smith being a prophet, that's the. That's the message of Mormonism that Joseph Smith was inspired. But to say the Book of Mormon is our greatest proof because it's archaeologically, you know, it's an actual history of ancient Americans, that is, he no longer believes that that's the reason that the Book of Mormon is true. He's saying that the best evidence we have for more, the best reason for Mormonism is Joseph Smith. And you can see that from, you know, nobody's claiming that he's in the dnc, nobody's claiming that he's translating. So that's going to be our easiest one to use to prove him as a prophet, because here he is just speaking directly to God. So I think that's cooler than this translation. That's pretty iffy.

Apologetic Dishonesty and Gaslighting Members

John Dehlin [02:28:19] So tell me this. When disingenuous, deceptive, and these are my words, I'm not putting them in your mouth. When disingenuous, deceptive, dishonest apologists like, like Stephen Smooth read this quote and still maintain the BH Roberts never lost his testimony in the history historicity of the Book of Mormon. How do they justify those deceptive and dishonest arguments?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:28:48] Well, they try not to. Read this quote, first of all. Second of all, I've heard it said he was really sick. He was old and sick, and he was probably just feeling cranky and critical. They probably caught him on a bad day. They kind of say this kind of thing. Just, I don't think we can trust him because he was old and tired. I don't, I honestly don't know. I think what they say is, well, that's only one account. Look at. They'll gather every, every speech he ever gave in which he would say the word ancient and use that as proof that he, he still believed it was ancient.

John Dehlin [02:29:32] Sources from before 1922 sometimes.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:29:35] But then there are. They do that for sure. But then once they get called on it, they're also like, I mean, Stephen Smith you were talking about, that's what he did. He pulled it after 1922, every, like, speech he could find where he mentions the Book of Mormon and especially if he says the word ancient and, and acts like it's history, then in every. That's what they say. Oh, look at all these dozens or even hundreds of times that he referenced the Book of Mormon in the final 11 years of his life. But again, I'm kind of thinking if I was to talk about, I mean, I don't know if you've heard that podcast, Harry Potter and the Sacred Text, they, You can get like sacred Ideas from fiction. And I think that's kind of where B.H. roberts was at this point in his life. So if he's saying, you know, if, if I was talking about Harry Potter and I'm saying it's about magic, I wouldn't. It doesn't necessarily believe that I think it's magic. But. So if you're saying this is a book about the ancient inhabitants of America, it doesn't necessarily mean that he believes they are ancient and that it's an actual documented history. I, I don't know. I haven't, I honestly have not read every word that, that they present as him believing. I kind of feel like it doesn't matter what he said publicly as much as, you know, I don't think you can discount what he said privately. And what he said privately I think often tells a more accurate story than what he said privately or that publicly, as you were just pointing out with this other supposed faith, losing general authority, what they said, or, you know, as I said again with Donald Trump, like what they say privately, sure, you can say that they believe that as well. But to completely discount what they said privately is very, I would say unethical if you're actually trying to look for true historical knowledge.

John Dehlin [02:31:41] And I would imagine that like apologists do, they often try and attack the critic, or in this case, can we call Lloyd even a critic? Was Lloyd like a disaffected anti Mormon?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:31:53] Like, no, he stayed active his whole life. He worked at byu. He was, you know, as I said, the dean of graduate studies. He was, he's not a critic. And he actually, he didn't even go public with this journal. He wasn't going around telling everyone this. This journal also came to light after the B.H. roberts papers and they started interviewing people like, so the other thing they do is they find quotes from people who knew him and say, well, how did he talk to you about the Book of Mormon? And I think it's in this process that they discovered that Lloyd had a journal. He's like, oh yeah, no, he actually thought this way. And I actually have this journal. And they're like, awesome, let us see it. And that's what it says. So there are a couple of quotes of people who knew him. And they also draw on. There's one quote that's super dramatic by a Jack Christensen that that's what the apologists lean on. And it happened to come forth after these papers come out or, well, they're not published. But after that, these papers are known to exist after there's been photocopies of them put into the church history or into the news library. And there's this one quote by Jack Christensen that's like BH Roberts pointed his finger in my face and said, you better believe it. And Ethan Smith had no part of this. It's just like, so dramatic and so, like, it's hard to believe that this, this other source that's not written down, that's recalled 50 years after the fact, is more accurate and more reliable than the one that was written down at the time and preserved like, as it happened in a lot more reliable way than quotes taken 45 years later by people who already knew that his belief in historicity was being questioned.

John Dehlin [02:34:05] And this, yeah, and this is a good source problem. This is, you know, this is the. This is the. The crazy. Thoughts. And I. I'm having a hard time collecting my thoughts, but this is the. The mind F. I'm going to say mind F. That has been perpetrated on us as Mormons because we're trained and nurtured from infancy to doubt and question any, any statement that would ever be negative, that would ever make us feel yucky, that would ever. Was ever written by a critic of the church or a liberal or any unauthorized source. Right. And you're supposed to only believe trusted sources and church leaders and stuff published by Deseret book, etc. And so. But the problem is, is that the truth is, it's oftentimes the people that got mad at the church who were the most credible. Like going all the way back to William Law and the Nauvoo Expositor. If you go read the Nauvoo Exposure Expositor and what William Law wrote, there he was in the First Presidency. What he wrote in the Nauvoo expositor was like 99.9% true. Joseph was secretly practicing polygamy. And yet what the Church has conditioned our minds to do is to not trust anything from anyone who ever left the church or had any doubts or was liberal or was progressive or whatever. When usually it's those sources of information that are most true. And then the flip side is apologists tell us. Dallin H. Oaks tells us, Lyman told us, Talmadge told us, Joseph Fielding Smith told us that they go with their feelings. And if the evidence ever conflicts their feelings conflicts with their feelings, they're going to go with their feelings every single time. And so Smoot and Givens and Bushman and Peterson and Muhlstein and Guy and Nibley and Joseph Feely, all the apologists, including you Know, Talmage and, and all those guys, they're not credible at all. Smooth's not credible. He's the opposite of credible. Because they tell you where they begin. They begin with their conclusion that it has to be true. Because I felt it, and then because I felt it and because I've, I've concluded that it's true. I'm going to find any specious, non credible, fraudulent pseudoscience, shoddy historical, logically fallacious and broken arguments to try and salvage the church's reputation and the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham or the church's truth claims. And instead of just going, oh, my gosh, BH Roberts was a student. He was a man of integrity. And this Lloyd guy had every reason to tell the truth. He was faithful, and he freaking wrote it down in 1933 immediately after having the actual conversations with Roberts. Therefore, Roberts must have lost his testimony in the histories of the Book of Mormon. Okay, let's deal with it. They attack me, they attack you, they attack Roberts, they attack Lloyd, or they defend Robertson, dismiss Lloyd, whatever they've got to do to fool and deceive the church membership. And I'm tired of it. It's been 100 years that we've known about this stuff. The Book of Abraham crap came out in 1912 in the New York Times, and we're still just learning about this now in 2020. It's driving me crazy that the gaslighting is so successful and that the dishonest apologetics continues. Stop Terrell Gibbons. Stop at Richard Bushman. Stop it. Patrick Mason, Spencer Fluman, Steven Smoot, Daniel Peterson, John Gee, Kerry Muhlstein freaking stop gaslighting the members of the church. They deserve to know the truth. Beats Roberts lost his testimony of the historicity of, of the Book of Mormon. Deal with that. Instead of smearing me and deluding and confusing and deceiving the general church membership.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:38:27] Right? It's intellectually dishonest. And that's honestly, that's why I realized recently how the head of the historical department is almost always a lawyer. Not like Richard Turley, 30 years the church historian, or the executive director. He's a lawyer who does history, not a historian. Because as a lawyer, it's fine to present one side of the story. It's not ethically questionable to only present the information that works for your side as historian, that is definitely ethically irresponsible. It's bad history work. So I, you know, I see that they have reasons to protect themselves, but it is dishonest the way they're doing it. And it, you know, I feel like Roberts was trying to show them a way that they can have both. You can believe in the Book of Mormon, you can believe in Revelation, you can believe in whatever you want. You can still have value in this. But let's be honest about it, because if it's, if it's not true, it's weak and it, it, it's easy to debunk and it can really send people sideways. I think there's thousands of us who have been in that situation where when you believe it's 100% true, you, when you believe you've been lied to, that's a much harder thing to overcome than to believe that you were mistaken. It's the. I can believe that they were wrong in the past and that they made mistakes, but we're currently good and we're doing good things, and I want my kids to be raised this way. But when you feel like you're being currently lied to, it gives you no place to go. And I think a lot of us are upset because we've been left with no place to go. There's no acknowledgement that this is what it is and this is how they, there's just. So when you find this out, there's, there's no recourse. You can't talk about this at church. You can't talk about this to your parents, you can't talk about this to your spouse because they might leave you. Like, it's, it's doing so much damage by not being honest. So I can say that they can love the church, but if they're with the dishonesty is harming people. They need to figure out a better way. And I feel like BH Roberts was really trying to do that, and that's why I love him for this. But at the same time, 100 years later, we're actually having the exact same conversation. Nothing has been, has been improved. In fact, it's been made worse. Because when I look at back in 1922, when Roberts is saying we can't prove, we can't rely on the ability of inability to prove a negative, we can't say, well, you can't say there's no flying spaghetti monster. Therefore it's possible that there is one like he, the way he had, he approached the issues. And I was looking at his Book of Abraham, the way he approached that issue was much more straightforward than you would see today. And I can, I really personally believe that it was this episode, these papers, this These meetings that undermined the confidence that they had in the early 1920s, in the. In the strength of the church. And since then, it's gotten more brittle, more secretive, more toxic, more destructive because they can't. They're not talking about the glory of God as intelligence. They're saying, well, intelligence is important. But, you know, there's. There's always a but. But behind what you feel is the most important.

John Dehlin [02:42:13] What you feel. Right. What we need to feel is what's important. The truth is expendable. Right? Facts and evidence and the truth and science and factual, credible history, they're all expendable. What matters is the feelings that we've conditioned you to feel.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:42:29] Right? And that only I believe happened in the wake of these meetings. I mean, there's always some, like, you know, you have to talk good about your leaders and things like that. But there was never. There was always this belief that the history and the knowledge and like that Mormonism is just adding all knowledge. You're bringing together all knowledge. If it's good and it's true, it's part of our theology. That's not really how they talk about it anymore. And so part of me feels nostalgic for these days that B.H. roberts was in and even Talmadge, I feel like, was kind of, kind of in that they were trying to push it that way. But by the 1930s, it had not gone that way and it was starting to take this other direction.

John Dehlin [02:43:15] I'm getting grief. Well, most of the listeners are, like, applauding at this exchange between us, and I've been sharing on the video excerpts from some of the quotes. So, you know, just imagine viewers and listeners like lots and lots and lots of really affirming quotes. I do, because we want to be fair and objective. I want to share a comment of a. Of a viewer who's being critical. Brent Smith, we welcome your criticism. Brent writes, will John post my comment that yelling doesn't help. Who will be persuaded by the ranting known? In my opinion, who is the audience? Brent, in some sense, you're right. Yelling and anger usually creates a backfire effect. On the other hand, I. My audience is not orthodox Mormons who are never going to listen to this in the first place. My audience is truth seekers. My audience is people that want to know the truth. And Brent Smith, I'll just give you my opinion. If there is a viewer or listener right now that is seriously, earnestly, sincerely trying to find out the truth, I guarantee you, after listening to 2 hours, 44 minutes and 54 seconds of my exchange with Shannon. They have been provided with evidence that that will be persuasive to them about the things that we discuss. So yes, I'm angry, yes, I'm passionate, yes, I'm tired of this. That's my passion coming through. But I'm not going to apologize for it. And I don't think it harms our ability to reach out to the audience that we care about. We care about truth seekers. And if you care about evidence and truth and history and science and facts, I'm pretty sure my passion's not going to dissuade you from, from evenhandedly considering the things that Shannon Montez and and all the other scholars have been sharing with us about BH Roberts. But thank you, Brent, for the criticism. I hope you'll continue providing your criticisms here on Mormon Stories podcast. Okay, Shannon, let's go ahead and finish reading from your thesis. We're almost done, listeners. We're going to be able to wrap up, I think, by three hours, which is really a land speed record for Mormon Stories podcast as far as I'm aware. You go on to write in your beautiful thesis, Shannon called the secret Mormon meetings of 1922. Quote, Lloyd's journal entry confirmed many of the details that would only be known by Roberts. So that's again making the point that Lloyd's account is credible because how else would he have known all these details that weren't more broadly available? You go on to write, written at the time of their conversation, it gave many new details, such as the reactions of those in the leadership meetings. It said the second study had been submitted to President Grant and indicated that Roberts wanted intellectuals to have access to it. It also confirmed that Roberts did not believe in historicity of the Book of Mormon, but that he maintained belief in Joseph Smith as a divinely inspired prophet. Which, by the way, Stephen Fetching Smoot, none of us ever claim differently. None of us ever claimed that Joseph, that B H Roberts lost his apostle,

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:46:28] that he would have been the new. You know this. He didn't write a CES letter. He wasn't trying to work against the Church. We never have said that he's the apostate poster boy.

John Dehlin [02:46:40] But that's what apologists do. They create these fake, red herring, specious arguments to try and distract listeners and viewers from the real arguments that are happening. And if I don't think anywhere I said that BH Roberts lost his faith in Joseph Smith or the church overall, if I did, I'm saying right now, I never meant to say that that was a mistake, but I don't think I said it. But what's more conspicuous and more relevant is the deceptive, gaslighting tactics of people like Smoot and others to present an argument that none of us made, and then to knock that down. That's called a strong argument. It's a classic logical fallacy. It's dishonest and deceptive and freaking. Steven Smoot, you should be ashamed of yourself for what you've done and continue to do, along with Gee and. And Muhlstein, Peterson, Midgley, and all the other apologists that are deceiving us generation across generation. So to go back to your wonderful prose. Yeah. So it also confirmed that Roberts did not believe in the history of the Book of Mormon, but that he maintained belief in Joseph Smith as a divinely inspired prophet. We're not saying otherwise. Lloyd's shock at the story and the effort he made to write it down in as much detail as possible showed that this news was startling, even revolutionary to him and would likely be so to other church members. Anything you want to add to that? Shannon Caldwell? Montez.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:48:19] No, I.

John Dehlin [02:48:20] Do you want me to pull that quote back up? Are you looking at it?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:48:23] Hold on.

Speaker C [02:48:27] No.

John Dehlin [02:48:29] Are you looking up something different?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:48:31] Yeah. So I was remembering some of the quotes that. That. So as I was trying to say, I. I found a lot of evidence that I believe that B.H. roberts lost faith. In addition to this. This journal entry and some of the conversations he had with other people, one of the things that I was looking at was his, like, his personal notebook that he was keeping quotes and things in. And there was a quote by Abraham Lincoln. And I. Let me see if I can find that. But it was basically like. I mean, there were several quotes that talked about how important it was to be true and to have your faith on things that are true and not to have faith in things that are not true. So let me. You go ahead and monologue for a minute while I find that one. But it was. It was just so interesting, some of these other quotes that he was using in order to kind of remind himself that what he was doing was right.

John Dehlin [02:49:42] Do you have them or do you want me to monologue for a second?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:49:44] Hold on. I think I actually found it, and I'm opening it. Shoot. Sorry. Go ahead.

John Dehlin [02:49:54] I'll just read a couple quotes here.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:49:56] I found it. Yeah. So he says, this is his thought book. And on the first page, like the title page, he writes, this is BH Roberts personal, like, notebook that he writes down quotes and things. And so some of these I just thought were so telling. So the Druid's Prayer. Oh, God, grant thy protection. And in thy protection, strength. And in strength, discretion. And in discretion, justice. And in justice, love. And in love to love God, and in loving God, to love all things. And then here's one that he wrote down by hand. It says, and it's a quote from the Washington Herald from April 30, 1927. And it says, just feeling sure that you are right, but being unable to give reasons for your stand helps little. When and then underlined, the grounds for your beliefs are questioned. There's other ones. God, thou art love. I build my faith on that. By Pericles, please. He says, oh, the Abraham Lincoln quote, one that I thought was so great. And this is his personal scriptural reference book. And he has it in this book. Abraham Lincoln quote. He says, I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, Stand with him while he is right, and then underlined and part with him when he goes wrong. I just thought that was, like, really telling that he's like, I have to do what's right and I have to stand for right, and things like that. There's another one from his lecture notes. To be. To be effective, this is underlined, to be effective, faith must be coupled with to truth. And then he has in parentheses, if you plant gunpowder, it will not bring forth gunpowder plants. And that's a quote from Orson Pratt. And then he says, belief in error, not effective to salvation. So again, he's saying, you know, our beliefs have to be true in order for them to be effective. We can't just do it. On feeling. He's saying, you know, faith on something that's not true is a problem. It's pointless.

Roberts Compared to Modern Apologists

John Dehlin [02:52:34] And that's where it's almost unfair to call BH Roberts a Mormon apologist. Because what we've learned from Mormon apologists, from Hugh Nibley in the 60s on, is that they don't care about the truth. They literally care about putting forward whatever specious garbage they can put forward to try and create, you know, to try and cast doubt on anything that would cause doubt and to try and bolster the faith. But what B H Roberts believed in is that the truth needs to be the bedrock of the foundation of faith. And that faith built on untruths is bad, weak, flimsy faith. And so, yeah, and so that's why I even feel bad calling BH Roberts an apologist. Because Peterson, Nibley, Guy Muhlstein, you know, you know, Smoot and all those apologists have given Mormon apologetics such an awful, horrible name. And that's what makes B.H. roberts a hero in my book. Even though I don't care if he maintained his faith, that's great. He was willing to follow the evidence where it took him. And he, as a matter of personal courage and integrity and sacrifice, he spoke truth to the church leaders as far as he could until the point where they said, we don't want to hear this anymore.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:54:05] And even then he tried to pioneer a way to make it work without a literal belief. He kept talking about the virtues of the church and why, you know, even if it's not true, as this radio address from 1924, even if it's not true, one would hope that it is, because this is what it provides and this is why it's good and valuable and adds to the canon of Christian belief because it makes God look more fair and it makes God look more loving. And that's what Mormonism does. It adds a new aspect to Christianity that makes it more complete and more beautiful and more full. And that's why I love Mormonism. And I think that's where he kind of landed on this. It's like again, I feel like it's, it's beautiful and that Joseph Smith must have done something amazing by bringing this forward. That's why I'm going to recognize him as a prophet. But again, I think he was inspired by, rather than bringing than as a translator of actual documents. I don't think he was a translator. I think he was an inspired prophet is kind of where he took that direction. And I'm fine with that. I think it can be proved if, you know, it can be believed that he was inspired. But to make it try to prove that he was a translator is a much different exercise and much harder to make maintain.

John Dehlin [02:55:33] And this, this is, I think, a great segue. I'm showing a quote by Alyssa. She says, this interview just lit a serious fire in my soul. We're glad to know that, Alyssa. And that's why Shannon Caldwell Montez is so amazing. NBH Roberts was so amazing. And all the scholars in freaking Dialogue and Sunstone and all the different scholars that help make all this possible, they're so amazing. This is a great segue because while we're going to conclude right now our discussion about B H Roberts losing his faith in Book of Mormon historicity we still have and don't go away because I have to conclude, but what I want listeners and viewers to understand is that we're not done yet. Shannon Caldwell Montez. We still haven't gotten to the core of Shannon Caldwell Montez's thesis, which is about these secret Mormon meetings that happened after B H Roberts leaves his interactions with the first presidency of the quorum of the 12 disenchanted. He calls together some of the top non leader intellectuals that can find scientists, physicians, scholars to try and come up with better answers because clearly the prophet seers and revelators weren't able to come up with any. So what we're going to be covering in our next conversation with, with Shannon, called Montez, and I promise we will, Shannon, is the nature of those meetings and biographies of the people who participated in those meetings. Anything else you want to say about that before I conclude with some important stuff about BH Roberts?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:57:10] I would say, you know, regardless of any interest in this thesis and the people that were in these meetings, I think it's enough to just say that these meetings were held on some level. I think these meetings are one more proof that BH Roberts was seriously concerned and was looking for answers. So you know, anyone saying this was just a lawyer's brief, these documents, you know, he didn't actually believe, he wasn't actually troubled by this information. It just is one more evidence that what he was saying he was, he really meant he was actually concerned. These documents need to be treated as BH Roberts own words and his own concerns. And to do otherwise is dishonest.

John Dehlin [02:57:59] Yeah. And, and again, what I think is super important that we'll cover in the next session is that the limited geography theory and this catalyst theory that is used previously for the Book of Abraham is now being used for the Book of Mormon in neo apologetic circles by Bushman and Givens and Mason and Fluman and others. You know, this, all of this originates from B.H. roberts and his meetings with these Mormon intellectuals. So what's crazy is we've got, you know, current, you know, people like Blake Osler or you know, again, Terrell Givens or Spencer Fluman, say, or, or you know, whoever advances the limited geography theory. All these people nowadays acting like that's something novel or innovative, it's an apologetic response. All this stuff comes out of BH Roberts's meetings with these intellectuals. And so again, I'm just kind of repeating what you already said. Why would Roberts develop a, a catalyst theory for the Book of Mormon if he thought it Was historical. Right.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:59:05] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:59:06] Why would he develop that theory at all?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:59:09] Exactly. He doesn't. Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:59:11] And why would he develop a limited geography theory if he didn't see it deeply problematic? And by the way, the thing that kept him from embracing a limited geography theory, which I don't think he ever did, was that Joseph Smith himself had. Had made revelations and declarations that the Lamanites covered all of the Americas.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [02:59:31] Right. It was only in this 1921 meeting that they were like, wait a minute, this can't work. As far as the geography fits. One of the guys in there was a map maker and he was like this, you know, we can't put this down over the whole continent. It's got to be smaller. And so that was. That was really the first time that was ever really acknowledged, I believe. And so again, all of these issues are coming up in the 1920s, and that's why I think this is such a fascinating time to look at. And that's why I feel like it's a valuable exercise to go through this meeting, these meetings, and understand what happened and how it affected change from there on.

John Dehlin [03:00:17] Yeah. And s. Vance writes, B.H. roberts also pioneered the Joseph used both the Seer stone and the Urim and Thummim argument. The church adopted this in their 2013 Gospel Topics essay. They are still channeling Roberts, and that's interesting because they're channeling arguments from a guy who lost his faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Speaker C [03:00:37] Yeah.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:00:39] I wanted to say one more thing as you were kind of going off on the neo apologists, I actually have no problem with the apologists. I think they're doing what BH Rob. They're doing what should have been done a hundred years ago. They're trying to create a space that people can be both intellectual and Mormon. But the problem is that this, they're also seen as a side gig. They're not the mainstream of Mormonism. In fact, they're only there on the very last stop out of the church. If the top leadership would acknowledge this a little bit more and just make a little more room, you know, then the people like my bishop wouldn't be telling people that if they don't have a literal belief, they can't have a temple recommend. This needs to come at the top. It can't just come from these guys being paid in this little institute to answer a few questions for people as their last stop effort. So I think what they're doing is valuable. I just think it needs to be done at the Top and not on the side.

John Dehlin [03:01:44] And I, you know, I, I, you know, I was talking to my dear friend David Bachavoy the other day, and, you know, I'm like, aren't you ever mad at Givens and those guys? And he's like, no, they're, they're like, they're a way station. They're a soft landing for people to leave the church. And, you know, he, I think he finds them valuable for other reasons. But, but I have three concerns with Neo apologists, at least I have several. But here are the three. Why? I do think that they're dangerous and harmful in many ways. That doesn't mean that they aren't good people. I think these are, you know, Mason. I know Mason. He's a nice guy. Lumen's a nice guy. Bushman's a legend. You know, I don't know many people that think Givens is a nice guy, but that's another story. Anyway, but the three things that, the three things that concern me about Neo apologists, one is that there's a lot of people, let's just say an LGBT youth, that is thinking suicide, right? If, if they had all the factual information about the church when they're 17 or 18, before they decide to go on a mission, before they decide to get into a mixed orientation marriage, before they have kids and commit their whole life to the church, to then realize that, you know, they were gay all along and should have never made any of those decisions and should have run from the church and pick any other people in a mixed faith marriage where a doubter now is getting divorced from his believing spouse because he lost his faith. There's so many ways the church hurts people. But if the people were given the information and a credible, objective spin on the information, they would be able to make informed decisions that then would prevent them from subsequent harm.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:03:23] Right?

John Dehlin [03:03:23] That's what's needed. And if the extent to which neapologists delay or postpone people being able to see the church for what it really is, see the history for what it really is, see the truth claims for what they really are, such that they then commit themselves to a Mormon life that then ends up in catastrophe, I think they're doing harm. That's one. The second thing that they're doing is they're creating this duplicitous speaking out of both sides of your mouth Mormonism, where the brethren keep, to get, to keep spewing an orthodox version of Mormonism in General conference. But then they're secretly and silently in these secret little Conferences that you only get a special invite to get to give a totally different version of Mormonism. That's duplicitous. That's not honest. So they're participating consciously, knowingly, in a duplicitous approach to deceiving the membership. Because we should all be on the same page. It shouldn't be that the general membership hears the orthodox view and then elite, secret, privileged, special, connected people get to hear this more nuanced, advanced version.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:04:35] And that's actually my point is the top needs to be saying this. Not exactly givens.

John Dehlin [03:04:39] Exactly. So that's. So that's one problem with neo apologetics. The second is that they. Yeah, sorry, that's the second problem, the duplicity. The third problem is the lack of accountability. What neo apologists do is instead of the brethren being held to account for deceiving us, for misleading us, for gaslighting us, for punishing, you know, sincere, correct, thoughtful scholars, for smearing their names, for excommunicating them from.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:05:08] From keeping them, keeping them out of their daughter's weddings.

John Dehlin [03:05:12] Yeah, yeah, all that stuff. Instead of the brethren being held accountable for the deceptions and the punishments and the violence that they've conducted on scholars, academics, thinking people, whatever. Apologists are carrying water for the brethren, propping up their authority, propping up their claims for our money, for our time, for our devotion, without calling for any accountability. They're not saying. Bushman's not. Bushman's not saying, hey, brethren, you misled our members. You need to fix that. Bushman's quietly saying, in a secret little group of. Of privileged elite Mormon intellectuals, the narrative that the Church has been teaching isn't sustainable because it's not accurate. And then when it's actually made public on YouTube and he's called on it, he backtracks and says, whoa, everybody's misinterpreting what I said. That's, number one, duplicitous. And number two, it's not holding the brethren accountable for the harm that they've caused for over 100 years. That's why I have a problem with neo apologists. And that's why I think they're actually, in many ways, causing harm. Even though they're good people and even though they do good things.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:06:21] I'm thinking it needs to be done, just not as a side project. This is. The whole church needs to be held accountable, and this isn't something that they can just pay someone on the side to do. And, yeah, it does do harm when it's not being acknowledged at the Top and on the entire, on the level of the entire church, everyone in the pews should know things or at least know that you can't just make it so black and white and that the person who is doubting isn't actually doubting. They just have a different point of view. It's fine to have a different point of view. That's what needs to happen.

John Dehlin [03:07:02] You know, I can't incorporate all the amazing comments that we're getting on YouTube and on Facebook. Oil Stories writes, I ignored my 15 year old self that this was all BS and hypocrisy, only to find out the same thing 30 years later. That's just one of. Think of all the divorces from mixed faith marriages. Think of all the LGBT suicides. Think about all the depression, all the anxiety, all the trauma that Mormons have experienced, thinking that they were part of something that was true, signing up for something that they were about, talking, taught was true. When the actual factual historical narrative of what they were signing up to was fraudulent and intentionally deceptive from over a hundred plus years ago. That's again, why I think, yeah, it's like too late.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:07:49] They've been, they've been being apologists for a hundred years and it's created these situations where marriages are at stake and people are committing, you know, dying by suicide over the cognitive dissonance that arises when your life is based on one thing. They've taken it so far from reality that when people are trying to bridge that gap, it creates a lot of damage. And so again, I think Roberts was the hero here in that he was trying to keep us on solid ground and they chose to reject that solid ground and go on feelings. And then a church that's based on feelings is pretty weak. And you can't, you know, you can't talk about things and you can't even have a real marriage because certain things are just supposed to be kept quiet. Everything stays very surface level if you're not allowed to dig deep.

John Dehlin [03:08:47] Amen. A couple comments, Jerem writes, I'd love to see an episode about how we know the church pays apologists and how that all works. That's super important, Jerem. When we think about the church funding Daniel Peterson, funding Hugh Nibley, funding John Gee, funding Carol Muhlstein, funding the Maxwell Institute and funding Givens and funding Bushman and funding Flumen and even buying academic seats like, you know, the chairs at Claremont or the chairs at Utah State. You know, they're only existing because the church funnels money into these endowed chairs and the Church makes sure that only faithful, supportive people fill those chairs. And someone like Michael Quinn, who in every sense deserved to sit in some academic chair somewhere to be, you know, a scholar of Mormon studies, the church blackballs and derails Michael Quinn and then makes sure that Kathleen Flake or, you know, Patrick Mason or Fluman or whoever, Barlow Bushman, they get to sit in the endowed chairs because they're willing to carry water for the brethren. I think, Jerem, that would be amazing episode to sort of peel off the COVID of how the church for over a hundred years has funded through nonprofits, through back, back door money, through freaking. What's that?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:10:11] Through byu. They give him a job as an Egyptologist and then he's getting paid.

John Dehlin [03:10:16] And also Saints unscripted and the YouTube channels that are coming out now and freaking Kwaku. L like, the church continues to flood the world with money to pay for gaslighting its members. And that needs to be uncovered. And Jerem, I'm, I'm really glad you called it, called us on it. Okay. I'm, I'm really stirred up here. Yeah. And Adam Jacobson writes, case in point, the More Good foundation, for those who want to know, the More Good foundation is a nonprofit that is funneling money to Saints Unscripted, that's funneling money to Fair Mormon, to, you know, Book of Mormon Central to Book of Abraham Central. You know, the church gets super wealthy donors to fund these nonprofits that then gaslight the membership and it need donors.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:11:06] They've got $100 billion of liquid asset funds that they, you know, it's like, of course they have the money to put into this and they have the money to lose if people leave. You know, we, we stopped paying thousands of dollars of tithing. Like, every person they lose is a problem for their bottom line. And I mean, they're definitely motivated to not keep people finding this out.

John Dehlin [03:11:29] But. But now it doesn't matter because with $120 billion in probably $200 billion in assets, if they just make 7% on their money every year, which is probably pretty easy, they can, they easily have more than enough money to cover the annual budget. So in truth, the Mormon Church doesn't need the tithing anymore. They want it. Right, but they don't need it.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:11:50] So just let's come clean. Let's try to be a good organization rather than the truest truth that I was ever said that was true. It's fine. Like, we don't have to maintain that, that unmaintainable thing that it's Historically accurate.

John Dehlin [03:12:06] I mean, the church is going to keep doing it, but it's fundamentally dishonest.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:12:10] Well, and that's what causes the damage. And the fact that they lie and people believe them. And then when someone finds out it's a lie, the damage that it causes in those families, in those relationships, it's their fault. It's not the person who finds the truth that's the problem. But they're treated as such.

John Dehlin [03:12:28] Yeah. And I'm gonna. I'll share one last quote from our listeners and then I'm going to read. And we're going to end with B H Roberts. In this episode, Oil Stories writes again. The only way to combat the church funding their apologists is for us to fund the truth seekers, truth tellers and truth preservers. Like she says. John De Lynn. Thank you. Oil Stories. Jonathan Streeter. Dan. She says John Vogel. She means Dan Vogel. I would add Shannon Caldwell Montez. I would add, you know, Sunstone. I would add dialogue. I would add freaking RFM Radio Free Mormon podcast. Lindsay Hansen park your polygamy, you freaking people. If you care about this stuff, if you believe in it, if you want to see the gaslighting to stop donate, I will fund Shannon Caldwell Montez. If you donate to Mormon Stories, I will pay Shannon Caldwell Montez to keep doing research on Mormonism. And we can. All her work so far is completely voluntary. I'm right now willing to set up a Shannon Caldwell Montez fund through the Open Stories Foundation. 100% of your donations will go to funding Shannon Caldwell Montez's research. And we'll bring her on Mormon Stories regularly and we'll have her share her research with the world. We'll create YouTube videos, we'll fund her publishing stuff with signature books or with the Mormon History association, whatever we need to fund truth. Because the only way to fight the gaslighting that apologists do is to fund truth. So donate to Mormon stories podcast@mormonstories.org, donate to Radio Free Mormon, to Bill Real, donate to Lindsay Anson park, donate to Sunstone, donate to dialogue and fund projects that will specifically, here's the thing. I just want to end with I'm sorry we're talking so much. My mind has been being blown because of you, Shannon Caldwell Montez. But one thing we have never done in the history of Mormonism, and I was talking to RFM about this this morning. It's blowing my mind. This stuff was like top of mind amongst Mormon intellectuals in the 80s and 90s, like Dialogue and Sunstone published Infinite articles about BH Roberts and all this

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:14:36] stuff, not Infinite, maybe 10, but they were really great articles.

John Dehlin [03:14:42] Not only was it never. Did it never penetrate the Mormon consciousness at all, but freaking thoughtful intellectual Mormons have forgotten it. So that we're here in 2020, all of us learning this crap for the first time when the research was done 20 or 30 years ago and where these documents have existed for over 100 years. So what we need in Mormonism is, is not, not we, we do need more scholarship, but we need something more than scholarship. We need people who can deliver the scholarship to the common Mormon. That's why Jeremy Runnels was so brilliant, that's why Grant Palmer was so brilliant, that's why RFM is so brilliant, is because we need people that can communicate the scholarship to the membership. Because if it just stays in dialogue, if it just stays the pinheaded Mormon academic liberals talking about this at lunch and at tea, it's never going to have an impact. And that's why I'm starting a freaking YouTube channel. The YouTube channel is called Understanding Mormonism with Dr. John Dehlin. Go right now to YouTube. Subscribe to the YouTube channel Understanding Mormonism of Dr. John Dehlin. We are going to be creating short 10 minute video snippets that can be shared with youth, it can be shared with missionaries, it can be shared with young adults, it can be shared with 20 something and then 30 somethings, seminary students, high school students. We need to communicate the truths of Mormon scholarship, Mormon history to the masses of Mormonism. And that's why I want your Support for the YouTube channel. Go, subscribe, support us and pay attention because we're going to be releasing that YouTube channel in the coming weeks and months. Huge shout out again to Jonathan Streeter and Gerardo and others and donors to Mormon stories that has made all of this possible. Shannon, I'm so sorry for my effusiveness. I just can't control myself and it's fault.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:16:44] Well, it's fascinating information and it's so much fun to talk about and it's, I think it's the Mormonism that we could have had and that's why I love it because I loved being a Mormon. I loved, I'm honestly still heartbroken that there's no place in the middle, that there's no place between literal belief and apostasy. So like again, as I was saying, if the top leadership would acknowledge this and if every bishop knew that this was an issue, it wouldn't be such a, like a disaster anytime somebody found out the truth. So I think you're right that the more we talk about this and the more accessible this information is, the more that it's going to have to just become mainstream and that it doesn't do the amount of damage that it's done at this point.

John Dehlin [03:17:34] Amen. Several listeners and viewers are saying they love the Passion. Brent Smith says, I hope your YouTube snippets are more controlled. They will. YouTube snippets will not be rants. They're going to be me in a poised, thoughtful, hopefully engaging way, just sharing the truth and the information. So, Brent Smith, thank you for keeping us honest today on Mormon stories. And Shannon, before we end with A quote from B.H. roberts, Is there any final thing you want to say about BH Roberts and you know, his loss of faith in Book of Mormon historicity or anything else we've talked about today?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:18:12] No, I think we've covered it. We've kind of, this is the second one we've done about this basically. And again, this wasn't my thesis but, but I definitely did do a lot of research into this. And I just think it's undeniable that Roberts had a shift in his belief. And to do to try to prove otherwise is difficult and dishonest. But I think he's a good example. I don't think we need to throw him aside. I think he's actually one of the best examples of what a thinking Mormon should do.

John Dehlin [03:18:43] So stop gaslighting the members Stephen Smooth and Daniel Peterson and Fairmormon and the Maxwell Institute and Terrell Givens. By the way, I had someone share with me that Terrell Givens, when he runs around talking to B.H. roberts, says the B.H. roberts didn't understand the issues in depth enough and that he was basing his beliefs in the Book of Mormon on a faulty premise, which was that, you know, Lamanites covered Lamanites and Nephites covered America from the tips of North America to the tip of South America. BH Roberts knew the issues. Terrell Givens, he just also knew that Joseph Smith had made a prophecy which precluded the possibility of the limited geography theory. And he was intellectually honest enough to note that and to consider it and to make it so he couldn't then reduce the Book of Mormon happenings to a super small geographical area so tiny that it could never be assailed by

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:19:42] critics, which do years to develop. When he, when he found this out there was no limited geography theory that he could fall back on, he said we can't fall back on A limited geography theory for these reasons, you know, this, there, there are Joseph Smith's own words preclude us from saying that there can't. That this was just a small, small group of people on a otherwise inhabited continent. They thought they were alone, but they weren't. He's, you know, he's, he's saying that that can't, we can't fall onto that. And for them to be able to say that there's a limited geography theory and to try to make it mainstream, it's only because of this hundred years of being able to undermine the, the whatever continental theory that they can even make that argument now. It wasn't even a possible argument for Roberts at the time. So to say that he didn't understand is kind of ridiculous. It was the only thing that they could fall back on. And it's again, it still should be because that's what Joseph Smith was talking about. It's intended to be the history of this entire continent.

John Dehlin [03:20:58] So Stephen Smoot, Terrell Givens, Spencer Fluman, Patrick Mason, Richard Bushman, you know, John Gee, Terry, Kerry Muhlstein, stop Gaslighting now.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:21:10] I would say Russell M. Nelson, Della Nate jokes. I'm not going to even put it on those guys. They're not the ones responsible here. The ones that are responsible are the ones at the top. They are the ones doing the damage. These guys are following behind the cart trying to put band aids and you know, trying to help people who have been damaged by this. But those guys are driving the cart that's running over people and they're letting it happen. I don't care who's behind the cart. Being a nurse and helping out, that's not the problem. The problem is the people at the top driving this cart that is running over people, causing damage. And they won't acknowledge it. And I know it would take, it would damage things to acknowledge it suddenly and fully. But that's not our problem. The problem is that they won't acknowledge it at all. And they need to be more honest. And these guys are trying to be a little bit more honest, but it's not their fault. It's the guys at the top that are really causing the problems. Yes, they may be keeping people in longer than they should. The people at the top are the ones that are really the ones that need to own up and to be honest.

John Dehlin [03:22:23] Amen. Amen. Shannon. I, I do think the neo apologists know better.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:22:29] Right?

John Dehlin [03:22:29] I do think they should.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:22:30] I think those guys at the top know better too. Yeah, the plausible Deniability and pass it off on these guys. They can say, oh, well, we're. We're not intellectuals. That's not our business. We're about the spiritual side. There's no way they're not acquainted with some of these issues. There's no.

John Dehlin [03:22:48] Not only are they acquainted with them, they've been acquainted for them for over 100 years.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:22:53] Right.

John Dehlin [03:22:53] And have consciously and systematically suppressed, withheld, hid information and punished anyone who talked openly about it and misled the members. And we're talking about Gordon B. Hinckley. We're talking about Talmadge Wood Stowe, Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Tap Benson, like Oaks, Russell M. Nelson, Boyd K. Packer, Bruce Armaconki. They're all in on it, right? All in on it.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:23:20] And that's what I'm saying. They are the problem.

John Dehlin [03:23:22] They are part of the problem.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:23:24] We're not gonna let them off the hook. They don't get to be invisible here. They don't get to be innocent here. They are not invisible and they're not innocent. They're the ones that could fix this problem, and they're not.

John Dehlin [03:23:33] Amen. Preach it. Preach it, Shannon. Preach it. All right. Lots of. Lots of listeners are chiming in and agreeing. So many great conversations. I've loved this platform today, this streamyard platform. Again, thanks to Jonathan Streeter for making this possible. Thanks to Gerardo for improving the visual look. If any of you like the technology we're using, the updated visual, the updated audio, Please support Mormon Stories podcast. Go to mormonstories.org Click on the Donate button. Become a monthly donor. We use that. Those donations to pay for me my time to. To pay for this equipment, to pay for the Internet and the services and the new camera and the lighting, just to make the experience better. Please support us. Your donations make a lot. I'm going to again, repeat. We are starting a YouTube channel called Understanding Mormonism. Please subscribe to it. Please have your friends subscribe to it. I will start a Shannon Caldwell Montes research fund. If you. If you want to donate to that, reach out. And Shannon, how would you like to make a little bit of money for your research?

Implications for Book of Mormon Historicity

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:24:40] That'd be awesome. There's. I was just thinking yesterday about, you know, this other project that I would. I. This alternate idea I had for my thesis. This guy kind of related to BH Roberts, who's doing, like, PR and all of this. Like, there are so many things, so many directions that we could take this. It's really exciting.

John Dehlin [03:25:03] I love it. And so what I want to do now is end as we began. I think this is super important. I'm going to read what B.H. roberts said in 1909, and this is going to be a repeat. But I think it's a really important way to end. BH Roberts said, if the origin of the Book of Mormon could be proved to be other than that set forth by Joseph Smith, if the book itself could be proved to be other than it claims to be, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its messages and doctrines must fall. For if that book is other than it claims to be, if its origin is other than that ascribed to it by Joseph Smith, meaning a translation of golden plates given to him by an angel, Right. Then Joseph Smith says that which is untrue. He is a false prophet of false prophets. And all he taught and all his claims to inspiration and divine authority are not only vain but wicked. And all that he did as a religious teacher is not only useless, but mischievous beyond human comprehending. That's the first point I want to make, which is that BH Roberts himself is making that argument. And I'd be curious to present that quote to him now, knowing that he concluded that the Book of Mormon wasn't historical, how he still retained a belief in the divinity of Joseph Smith in the church, because that seems to be contradictory to his previous position. Is that fair to say? Shannon Montez?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:26:44] Yeah, I think that's a very strong example of black and white thinking. You know, it's all true, it's all false, it's all good, or it's all bad. I think there's room, and I think he realized later that there's room in the middle for good, that, you know, truth without a capital T and good without a capital G, that there is, you know, good things that can come out of religion as long as it's not so dogmatic and that it's not causing harm. So I think. I think he became more nuanced, but I definitely think he had a black and white view at that point. And if he was to hold the Church to those standards, then I think he would have realized that Joseph Smith is mischievous beyond understanding or whatever he said. It's like the worst of the worst here. He's a terrible person, which I wouldn't actually argue against knowing more about the history of Joseph Smith.

Closing Reflections and Listener Support

John Dehlin [03:27:50] Really quickly, before I give the last quote, Alan Mount is asking, can we include a note for Shannon in our donation to help her continue? Yes. What I'm going to do is set up an actual dedicated donation account for Shannon through the Open Stories foundation. And we're going to start raising money for you. If, Shannon, you accept that offer? Do you accept that offer?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:28:10] Sure. I have not found a job since graduating. Has been only a few months, but Covid and all that. So this would be an awesome job. I'd love it.

John Dehlin [03:28:20] And I don't think BYU is going to entertain your candidacy.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:28:24] No, I talked to them at the church history library and I'd have to have a temple recommended, so that one's not going to happen either.

John Dehlin [03:28:31] Okay. All right. All right. Great question. Alan Mount, we love you. Marriage on a tightrope. Check it out. Donate to them as well. I'll end with this final quote from B.H. roberts. And this is for freaking Steven Smooth, Gibbons, Peterson, Russell, Nelson, Dallin, Freaking H. Oaks. Anyone who's an apologist for Mormonism, and anyone who wants to respond to this interview with Shannon Montez, Caldwell Montez. To my interview with Robert Rittner about the Book of Abraham, here is BH Roberts's words to you freaking Mormon apologists. Those who accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be may not. And I'll say the Book of Abraham. I'll say the Doctrine and Covenants. I'll say Mormonism may not. So state their case that its security chiefly rests on. On the inability of its opponents to prove a negative. Why? Because it's impossible to prove a negative. And that's what apologists nowadays rely on. They try and get people to prove a negative. Prove that Joseph Smith didn't talk to God. Prove that there weren't golden plates. We can't prove there were golden plates because Joseph never produced them. They mysteriously were taken up by an

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:29:51] angel, something that didn't exist.

John Dehlin [03:29:53] But that's the world that apologists live in. Prove that plates didn't exist, right? Prove that a scroll, a longer scroll, didn't exist for the Book of Abraham. That's what apologists do. And even B H Roberts would say that's dishonest. Stop it, Mormon apologists. He goes on to write, the affirmative side of the question belongs to you apologists who hold out the Book of Mormon to the world as a revelation from God or as a translation from God. The burden of proof rests upon you in every discussion. For not only must the Book of Mormon not be proved to have other origin than that which we set forth or be other than what we say it is, but we must prove. You must prove its origin to be what you say it is, and the Book itself to be what you proclaim it to be a revelation from God, a translation of ancient plates to be known. The truth must be stated. And the clearer and more complete the statement is, the better the opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for testifying to the souls of men that the work is true. SOS to Mormon apologists and Russell M. Nelson. The Holy Ghost will not bear witness to lies, to deceptions, to vapid pseudoscience. Mormon apologetics. So from the words of B.H. roberts, stop it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your claims are true, not us to prove, you know, negatives that are impossible to disprove.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:31:38] And good. Feelings are not proof.

John Dehlin [03:31:40] Feelings are not proof. Amen. I couldn't have said it any better. All right, Shannon Caldwell Montez, will you come back and discuss your thesis with us?

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:31:49] Yes. We've been teasing that for a long time, so I'll still do it again. I mean, it did get, you know, thousands of downloads on. You know, once we talked about it, it looks like there was quite a bit of interest. So I, I'm wondering if everyone who actually had interest has already figured out about it, but maybe for the people who don't want to bother reading this huge document, we'll, we'll try to make it a little bit more succinct and just talk about it.

John Dehlin [03:32:21] Well, I'm just going to tell you my biggest fear, Shannon Caldwell Montez, is that you're going to go get a PhD. I know that's probably really good for you, but I would rather see you helping us take Mormon history and truth and scholarship to the masses, because the last thing we need, and I'm not telling you what to do, and I hope get that if you want it, but the last thing we need is another dissertation. It gets put on a shelf, never gets read another book published by an author and, and generations of Mormons remain unaware of the basic truths of Mormon history.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:32:55] So, yeah, if we can pop that Mormon bubble and, and make this something that people would listen to and be open to, and then we could somehow reduce the damage, I think that would be amazing.

John Dehlin [03:33:07] So I'm, I hope you'll work with me, Shannon Caldwell Montez. I'm working with RFM Radio Free Mormon. If any of you want to volunteer to help us, we need help creating these short videos. We need other cool Mormon stories podcast episodes. So please reach out@mormonstories gmail.com and let us know how you can help. Because we need an army of people to spread the truth, to keep future, current and future generations from being Gas lit. So that's it. That's the work that we have today. Thanks to everyone for joining us. Shannon, you would be happy to know that this is the largest live audience we've ever had on the history of Mormon Stories podcast. Really, or at least close to that. We reached close to 500 simultaneous viewers throughout most of this presentation and this platform's been amazing. So listeners and viewers, thank you. And Shannon Caldwell Montez, bless you. Stay safe, stay healthy. Please keep up your work. And please join us again soon on Mormon Stories podcast.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:34:07] Happy to do it. It's fun.

John Dehlin [03:34:11] All right. Thanks, Shannon. You're awesome. And. And listeners, please donate to Mormon stories podcast@mormonstories.org or I'll be putting up a post a link in this post allowing you to donate directly to Shannon Caldwell Montes if you want to, to support her research. But please also could donate to Mormon Stories podcast. And with your donations, we'll be able to keep this programming going. We'll be able to start this YouTube channel, and we will. We'll be able to do much More in the 15 years that we've been alive. We'll do much more in the 15 years ahead with your ongoing support, because technology is going to make that even more possible. So thanks, everybody. We love you. Stay tuned. I'm so excited. And stay tuned for more cool episodes of Mormon Stories podcast in the months, weeks, and years ahead. Bye, everybody. Take care, Shannon. You're freaking awesome.

Shannon Caldwell Montez [03:35:06] Bye. Thanks.

Speaker C [03:35:27] Come, come ye saints, no toil nor labor fear but with joy wend your way though hard to you this journey may appear Grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive our useless cat from us to drive to the San Jo your hearts will swell. Oh, all is well. All is well. Why should we mourn? I think I our lot is hard Tis not so, all is right. Why should we think to earn a great reward if we now shun the fight? Good luck up your lo Fresh courage take our God will ever us for sake soon we'll have tale of tales oh, all is well. All is well. Oh, all is well. All is well. Sam. And should we die before our journey is through Happy day. All is well. We that are free from toil and sorrow too with the just we shall dwell but if our lives are spared again to see the saints there rest obtain Or I will make this glory swell. Oh, all is well. All is well. All is well. All is well. All is well. All is well. All

John Dehlin [03:39:39] is away.

Speaker C [03:39:42] All is away.

John Dehlin [03:39:53] Sat.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.