Select Page

John Dehlin, Are You an Honest Critic?

by | Mar 19, 2026 | Church Conspiracy, Joseph Smith | 0 comments

Graphic novel–style editorial illustration showing John Dehlin speaking into a microphone on the left in warm sepia tones, surrounded by newspaper clippings and allegations about John C. Bennett. On the right, cooler blue tones show Joseph Smith and historian John Turner examining historical documents with an LDS temple in the background. The image contrasts accusations with historical evidence and includes the headline “John Dehlin, Are You an Honest Critic?” and the label “EP. 2118.”

How Joseph Smith Smeared Honest Critics – John Turner Pt. 33 | Ep. 2118

Overview

In this section of Mormon Stories, John Dehlin and historian John G. Turner move through four important issues: John C. Bennett’s credibility, Joseph Smith’s Springfield extradition fight and late anti-slavery language, Brigham Young’s “David” loyalty language, and whether those Nauvoo-era conflicts map directly onto the modern Church’s treatment of critics. The conversation is strongest when it stays close to primary documents and weakest when it turns mixed evidence into settled fact or stretches a nineteenth-century crisis into a single modern institutional “playbook.” The purpose of this article is simple: separate what the record clearly shows from what the podcast merely infers.

1. John C. Bennett was compromised, but he was not irrelevant

Segment reviewed: 00:34:31–00:40:30

John Turner: “In in the end, Bennett was a critic without credibility. It was easy for church leaders to expose him as an adulterer, womanizer, and fraud because he was all of those things.” (Timestamp 00:34:31–00:35:12; transcript lines 146–149.)

John Dehlin: “the way Joseph dealt with these dissenters is to smear them into oblivion using an army of his followers by making up lies and smearing and discrediting them” (Timestamp 00:39:09–00:39:49; transcript lines 167–170.)

John Dehlin: “If you add the fact that John C. Bennett was co-president of the church” (Timestamp 00:10:56; transcript line 50.)

Verdict: Bennett was deeply unreliable, but the podcast still overstates the case when it treats him as either wholly worthless or wholly decisive. The “co-president” label is incorrect.

Turner is right that Bennett was morally compromised. Church history sources identify him as assistant president in the First Presidency, not “co-president,” and they also document his fall from grace and excommunication. That means the podcast inflates Bennett’s office when it calls him a co-president. That may sound small, but it matters: inflated titles make later conflict sound bigger and more dramatic than the record requires.

At the same time, Bennett cannot simply be thrown out as useless. Joseph Smith Papers preserves evidence showing that Bennett published materials historians still have to reckon with, including the text traditionally known as the Happiness Letter and the affidavit of Martha Brotherton. So the sound historical approach is not “trust Bennett” and it is not “ignore Bennett.” It is “read Bennett carefully and corroborate him.”

That is also where Dehlin’s framing goes too far. There is evidence that Joseph and his allies mounted a strong public counterattack against dissenters. But this segment does not prove that every damaging statement was knowingly fabricated. Saying Joseph used followers to “make up lies” states more than the sources establish claim by claim.

What readers should know clearly:

  • Bennett was assistant president in the First Presidency, not a co-president.
  • Bennett was compromised and often unreliable.
  • Bennett still transmitted documents and allegations that historians cannot ignore.
  • The safest conclusion is not total trust or total dismissal, but careful corroboration.

Why this matters: Once a source is called “anti-Mormon” or “without credibility,” readers can be tempted to stop reading entirely. But good history tests hostile sources instead of discarding them automatically.

Sources for this section

2. The Springfield legal story is mostly right, but the slavery and Morehouse claims need clearer facts

Segment reviewed: 00:41:18–00:58:37

John Turner: “Joseph’s on the run because he is wanted as an accessory” (Timestamp 00:41:18–00:42:08; transcript lines 176–179.)

John Turner: “And the reasoning is uh Joseph is not a fugitive from justice in Missouri.” (Timestamp 00:43:10; transcript line 182.)

John Dehlin: “I assume that the Mormon church donated money to Mhouse College.” (Timestamp 00:51:45; transcript line 215.)

John Turner: “Joseph’s 1844 platform when it came to slavery actually was pretty bold at the time.” (Timestamp 00:54:47; transcript line 227.)

Verdict: The Springfield extradition points are strong. The “Lincoln before Lincoln” framing is too sweeping, and the Morehouse funding assumption is wrong on the current record.

The legal history here is one of the stronger parts of the segment. Joseph really was being pursued in connection with the attempted assassination of former Missouri governor Lilburn W. Boggs, and the Illinois proceedings really did turn on whether Joseph was a fugitive from justice in Missouri. On that point, Turner’s explanation tracks the historical documents well.

The race discussion is more complicated. Turner is also right that Joseph’s 1844 presidential platform took a notably anti-slavery position for its time. The platform proposed compensated emancipation by 1850 using federal revenue from public lands. That is historically significant. But it does not justify a simple heroic comparison such as “Lincoln before Lincoln.” Joseph Smith Papers also preserves Joseph’s segregationist language, including the statement that Black people should be confined “by strict law to their own species.” So the fuller record is mixed: late anti-slavery movement in one direction, but not modern racial egalitarianism.

The Morehouse point is easier. A portrait of Joseph Smith was unveiled at Morehouse College on February 1, 2026. But later reporting quoted a Church spokesperson saying the Church did not donate money to Morehouse College and did not pay for the portrait. So Dehlin’s assumption about Church funding is unsupported.

What readers should know clearly:

  • Joseph was pursued in the Boggs case, and the fugitive-from-justice issue really was central in Springfield.
  • Joseph’s 1844 platform did call for ending slavery by 1850.
  • That same historical record also includes segregationist language from Joseph Smith.
  • The current reporting says the Church did not donate money to Morehouse and did not pay for the portrait.

Why this matters: Readers deserve the whole picture. A real anti-slavery plank should be acknowledged, but it should not be used to erase contradictory evidence or to invent facts about a modern event like the Morehouse portrait.

Sources for this section

3. Brigham Young’s “David” language shows loyalty pressure, but the podcast turns it into something bigger than the source says

Segment reviewed: 00:59:21–01:05:07

John Turner: “the implication was that the first loyalty of people should be to to Joseph in this circumstance.” (Timestamp 01:00:08; transcript line 248.)

John Turner: “all he had against Orson was when he came home from his mission he loved his wife better than David.” (Timestamp 01:00:56; transcript line 251.)

John Dehlin: “Joseph above all else. Joseph before all, including your own spouse and children, if necessary.” (Timestamp 01:02:58; transcript line 260.)

Verdict: The source does show strong prophet-centered loyalty language. It does not, by itself, prove a universal doctrine of “Joseph before spouse and children.”

This section begins with a real historical point. Joseph Smith Papers explains that Joseph used David-and-Jonathan language in the fall of 1842, and Turner is right that the implication involved strong loyalty to Joseph in a moment of crisis. The phrase about Orson Pratt loving his wife “better than David” is not made up. It is part of the source tradition.

But Dehlin’s next move is the problem. He takes a difficult, situational loyalty test and turns it into an all-purpose slogan: “Joseph above all else.” That is not the same thing. In fact, Turner himself pushes back in the moment and says that reading may overstate what Brigham Young meant, because Brigham also appears to have had sympathy for Orson Pratt’s impossible position.

So the careful conclusion is narrower and stronger: the documents do show real pressure to prioritize Joseph during this crisis. What they do not plainly show is a universal rule that spouse and children always come second.

What readers should know clearly:

  • The David-and-Jonathan comparison is real and does point to strong loyalty expectations.
  • The phrase about Orson Pratt loving his wife “better than David” is grounded in the historical record.
  • Dehlin’s broader slogan goes beyond what the source itself directly states.

Why this matters: Historical sources often reveal pressure, symbolism, and expectations. That does not always mean they establish a complete doctrine in the absolute form later commentators prefer.

Sources for this section

4. The modern parallel is an argument, not a proven historical chain

Segment reviewed: 01:05:07–01:10:06

John Dehlin: “the modern LDS church’s approach of smearing its honest critics” (Timestamp 01:05:07; transcript line 269.)

John Dehlin: “shows this repeated pattern of the church going after and smearing and uh character assassinating its critics.” (Timestamp 01:05:48; transcript lines 272–276.)

John Turner: “it is it is all too common.” (Timestamp 01:10:06; transcript line 290.)

Verdict: Some later disciplinary examples named in the segment are real. But this section still does not prove a single uninterrupted Church “playbook” from 1842 to the present.

This is where the podcast shifts from historical analysis into a larger institutional argument. Some of the later cases Dehlin names are real enough. The September Six were disciplined in 1993, and Dehlin himself was excommunicated in 2015. So it would be unfair to say the entire modern application is invented.

But the stronger claim is much bigger: that the Nauvoo crisis of 1842–43 establishes the roots of a modern Church strategy of smearing honest critics. That conclusion is not demonstrated just by lining up several painful episodes from different decades. To prove a claim like that, a writer would need to show continuity of method, continuity of institutional intent, and a direct connection across time. This section does not do that work.

Turner’s reply is more disciplined. He says this kind of behavior is “all too common,” meaning institutions under pressure often justify questionable actions in the name of self-preservation. That is a narrower and more defensible historical point.

What readers should know clearly:

  • Some modern examples named in the podcast are real.
  • Those examples alone do not prove one continuous institutional strategy from Nauvoo to today.
  • The more careful claim is that institutions under threat often react badly, and Mormon history is not unique in that respect.

Why this matters: Readers should distinguish between a strong analogy and a proven historical chain. A pattern can be argued, but it still has to be demonstrated.

Sources for this section

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *