Ep164: The Great Land Deeds Debate with Michelle Stone and Bill Reel 

The fact this debate happened at all is awesome! Very cool to watch.

Very admirable of all of you to be willing to discuss this subject. Let's all try to remain open-minded to either perspective as more facts are discovered.

My deepest thanks to Mormonish , mormondiscussuons, RFM Mormon stories You guys are Rockstars Keep exposing the darkness We all see you and support all you do . ♥️♥️♥️

As a mormon for 40+ years that also believed Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, I come away from this debate more convinced by Bill's argument than Michelle's. Bill was calm, consice, showed up with historical data and statistics that were more overwhelming than any data that Michelle brought to the debate to counter Bill's position. Bill's data aligns with the current historical narrative and is what the majority of historians agree on, while Michelle's data requires conspiracy and conjuncture beyond what would be considered reasonable. As much as I would love for Joseph Smith to be cleared of Polygamy, the data presented here in this debate are not in his favor.

Bill carries himself so well. I totally love the way he expresses his views and keeps his cool. His closing remarks were also wonderful. Overall great discussion! Thanks for putting this together!

I really enjoyed this conversation. I’m excited to hear how the audience responds

This is very interesting, thanks so much for collaborating!

I do think at times M. Stone was too caught up with B. Reel’s errors which were either corrected or discarded as not pertinent to the overall question. It reminded me of the initial rebuke of the CES letter because of some inconsequential errors that were corrected later. I’m looking forward to more data gathering to further the discussion. Overall this debate was pretty well pulled off. I have to admit I’m always nervous that a debate like this will turn into a shouting match with both parties loudly talking over each other. This one was very respectful. Great job to all.

Thank you for making this space available.

As a active, nuanced, believing member of the church, I really liked it. Very informative, and both Bill and Michelle were pretty respectful of one another.

Thanks Michelle and Bill you can hear the passion in what you both believe. Very interesting hearing both sides.

I’m not now and never have been a Mormon. I have no dog in this fight (a phrase I hate but applicable here.) Admittedly, I had a really hard time listening to Michelle for various reasons but did my best to enter the debate as a juror with no knowledge of the subject. It seems to me that Michelle had prior knowledge of Bill’s case and could have (and should have) had a much more concise explanation of points she wanted to make in response. I’m not convinced Michelle disproved Bill or proved her case.

It is interesting to me that Michelle claims she has proven her case. I'd like to ask to whom. She hasn't proven it to me, and I am fairly well read in Mormon history, listening today to try to hear both side of the story so as to be fair to myself as a student of history

Michelle also seems to be kind of nasty and mean spirited. I don’t think that helps her. Even though she makes her digs with a smile on her face, she seems to be too emotionally attached to her opinions.

Kudos to Michelle for coming on!

Good show! 4 very intelligent people and a great discussion! Thanks

I am having a hard time with her anxiety and how much time she keeps saying “ I don’t have enough time or I do not have a picture” and talks faster and faster causing me to discredit her.

This reminded me of the Chad Daybell trial, for some reason. The prosecution claimed Chad was the ringleader of a bunch of loons. The defense was that, since there were other loons involved, Chad was actually innocent.

If I had to guess based on my own world experience with men in Mormon leadership I would guess Joseph was a predator but obviously I have a bias.

This was a great conversation I Loved hearing both sides. I think you both were rational levelheaded and not angry at each other. It was a great conversation.

I am trying so hard to understand what Michelle is saying. I am not sure why it is difficult. I used phone, Bose speaker and then IPhone ear buds.😢

This was beyond painful to watch. Michelle’s “unbiased” and “independent” statistician from UVU is almost certainly Mormon (maybe don’t west crew top G’s when you don’t want to give it away). If I’m correct he covenanted to support the church. Throw out those claims entirely. Also, neither of these people has a solid grasp on statistics. I’m not an authority on the history but if I assume that 14/34 (41%) of JS polygamous wives had deeds transferred to them, we need to know the comparison of how many comparable females (between 14-50yo) there were in that time frame that had deeds transferred that weren’t JS wives (or otherwise closely related to JS). Based on their discussion, even accounting for the uncertainty of any of these figures, there appears to be a statistically significant difference between random 14-50yo LDS women in Nauvoo and those were were also JS wives. We don’t know why there was a difference but I agree that having a polygamous link with the trustee (who was previously involved in a fraudulent banking scheme) is high on the list of possible explanations. Also, the hyper vigilance about the deeds being “sold” vs. “given” is a joke. Unless you can show bank records documenting the funds leaving one account and entering another account corresponding to the amount listed on the deed, no one has a clue what actually happened behind the scenes. Again, we’re dealing with an individual with multiple prior criminal activities and completely unchecked power.

I suggest that all four of you read Skeptics' Guide To The Universe: How To Know What's Really Real In a World Increasingly Full Of Fake by Dr. Steven Novella and pay special attention to chapter 25: Conspiracy Theories. While listening to your discussion, I was reminded of this book and reread chapter 25. Doing so helped me understand why I felt Bill and Michelle's discussion kept getting off track for me. There were too many assumptions I had to agree to that I could not do and keep my mental integrity.

Either as Bill asserts Joseph Smith was a lying polygamist or as Michelle claims Brigham Young was a lying polygamist.

Thank you Bill for being calm and trying to work with her anxiety.

It was frustrating to listen to Bill and Michelle trying to communicate. Bill was so macro focused and Michelle so micro focused they couldn’t understand each other.

This was incredibly interesting to listen to. Michelle is very knowledgeable but Bill was far less biased and had better arguments. I appreciate that they both ended up with further questions and ideas for further research.

Good heavenly Father, Mormon apologetics is exhausting.

I would like to suggest a couple of other checks on Bill's arguments. They are based on a simplistic model, as any statistician will tell you, but I'm a physicist. Take a spherical polygamist . . . Anyway, there ought to be a baseline of deeds transferred to women with no men on the deed. It should be checked what proportion of the total number of deeds fall in this category from 1840 to 1846. If Bill's suggestion is correct, there should be an increase in the proportion of deeds transferred to women above the baseline from 1842 to 1844. Care is needed because there are other explanations for an increase, such as increased financial security leaving more resources to worry about dowries for example. If possible, data from surrounding towns should be gathered. What fraction of deeds were transferred to women in Carthage or Warsaw during this time? I think there's a lot of data that could be relevant. Perhaps the data surrounding deeds is inconclusive. I expect that would be the case, but if not it would add credibility to the argument.

I'll listen in podcast form at work. 😇

Michelle, the Leonora Taylor who was sole grantee on those two deeds was John Taylor's wife, not his daughter. The Mary Ann Taylor sole grantee was the wife of another guy. You aren't verifying the identities of the grantees or examining the context of each deed.

Michelle stated at the beginning that she’s willing to change her mind. Not happening. Bill wont either. If they do this 100 deeds exercise they’ll come back and go in another huge mind numbing circle. I’m officially done with Michelle and Bill’s beef.

Excellent debate! I like that I get to be convinced by each debater in turn. I’m a bear of very little brain

This is so unusual and much appreciated.

Bill, each deed needs to be understood within its own context *before* the deeds can be considered as a group. Nauvoo property records are different from other locations in that the date of the official deed doesn't necessarily reflect when the grantee took possession. The Trustee Land Books often indicate that the grantee purchased the property years before a deed was ever issued. For example, the property in the deed issued to Helen Mar Kimball as sole grantee was purchased by her father, Heber C. Kimball, previously. You have to look at the history of the property (previous purchase, subsequent sales, tax records, etc.).

This is great so much better than an echo chamber of belief or non belief

Michelle uses the Mormon tactic of acting like they have proven their point by using a straw-man argument and then acting like it’s so obvious that anyone should see it. I thought it was a very polite debate though.

This is interesting from the perspective of how easy it is to look back at the same history but draw wildly different narrative conclusions. Then there’s the part of me that really doesn’t care who is right, because ultimately Joseph Smith was not a prophet, didn’t translate ANY ancient texts, and didn’t restore the one true church to the earth. This debate in that regard is the equivalent of arguing whether or not Han shot first.

Wow… I loved this… it was uncomfortable at times, and I could tell both sides felt strongly about their opinions and struggling to come to an understanding… but that they were willing to have a conversation and do it in a respectful way… just wow. Great job to both of you for being willing to do that. 🙌 I am genuinely curious though… is Michelle still a faithful practicing member? Because if so, I’m confused by her stance… 😅 I feel like that just opens a whole other can of worms. 😅 so… I guess that is my question for Michelle, are you still a faithful member? And if so, how do you justify that if Brigham Young, Joseph’s successor, essentially framed Joseph as the founder of polygamy, and created this whole deceptive scheme?……. I genuinely want to know…. 😅 still a “going to church, want to believe member”, but also struggling with some of these bigger issues and feeling like there aren’t any satisfactory answers. 🤷‍♀️😪🤷‍♀️ But, I really did appreciate this episode. Rebecca and Landon, you guys were so kind to both sides, and great hosts. Thank you for putting out great content.

We also have to ask what was Joseph' modus operandi for signing over deeds to women who were supposedly his plural wives. At the end of his life Joseph was getting rid of much of his money and chattle, giving it away to Emma and maybe his children. His plan may have been to declare bankruptcy. After being declared bankrupt, he may have planned on getting his property back from Emma and the rest of his wives, thus, in reality, regaining much of his property and money he had before his bankruptcy. Sadly for Joseph, his plans might have been disrupted by his unexpected death. If I understand correctly, Joseph was in bankruptcy court at the time he died. Whether Joseph practiced polygamy or not, does not matter to me. There is sufficient evidence from his life for me to conclude that he was still a crook and a charlatan. He cheated many people out of huge sums of money he had borrowed and had never paid back Finally the government was coming after him, but he died before courts of law could convict him; however, they had declared that Joseph was not allowed to declare bankruptcy and that he had to pay off his creditors. After a few years or so, the deeds Joseph had signed over to his wives were worthless, Emma may have made so money from sales. But i wonder what the other wives did with the deeds.

As far as I can tell none of this matters unless you are digging for a reason to stay in or leave the church... Church says Jo Fish was the founder of polygamy in the Mormon church and the founder of the church..

I love Michelle. I usually disagree with her conclusions, but I respect her willingness to do the work to back up her claims. I hated the disrespectful way she was treated by the Midnight Mormons.

The disconnect is that Michelle doesn't understand how powerful statistics are. Statics are the bedrock of engineering and especially science. Everything from advancements in healthcare to aerospace to cyber security all fundamentally depend on statistics. Without statistics we would not have this modern society. Since it's been 40 years since taking my college level stats class, I had to resort to AI to help me understand the impact of the numbers that Bill referenced. Here is the question that I asked: "In the first jar of a 1000 marbles, 300 of them are orange. In the second jar of a 1000 marbles, 34 marbles are orange. How much more likely am I to pull an orange marble out of the first jar than I am the 2nd?" Gemini replied "8.82 times more likely" or in other words "0.113 times as likely to give you an orange marble out of the second jar" Probability (Jar 1) = 0.3 Probability (Jar 2) = 0.034 Remember, these are very conservative numbers. Michelle needs to be far more successful is disqualifying the sample size than she was in this podcast to put a dent in these probabilities.

Was the first documented mention of JS's alleged polygamy really not until 1862? That seems strange to me. Does anyone know how Dan Vogel thinks of this? When I read "In Sacred Silence," some of the women had such detailed accounts of marrying Joseph. I remember one of the Partridge sisters (Eliza?) literally running away from Joseph and expressing what felt to me like panic and trauma. Was that account not pre-1862?

Michelle keeps going to her "statistician" 's suggestions to modify the experiment with different assumptions. Speaking as a scientist, this is ludicrous. Bill can't get into the minds of the people of the day to make "better" assumptions. As a first approximation approach (and in my view the only you can take), Bill got it right. Too many of these deeds are tied up with polygamy participants. Michelle is wrong and her statistician is a poor scientist. Or maybe the statistician will provide us with convincing assumptions?? I'm not holding my breath.

Michelle, or some other starry-eyed MAN praiser needs to do what flat earthers and creationists have been failing to do for decades. Make a model of how your reality works. Write a biography on Joseph Smith using only sources that you deem reliable and we’ll see how coherent your proposed history is. In the name of Joseph Smith, Amen.

To exonerate Joseph you must find villains: and Brigham, Heber, Willard, etc, fit the bill. The big problem with this theory is: Brigham & Heber are the least likely candidates to be innovators and traitors to Joseph. Joseph states: "of all the twelve, all have kicked up their heels against me EXCEPT Brigham Young and Heber Kimball"(paraphrase). We are to believe that Brigham picks up from Joseph on every main doctrine in the church and either extends these doctrines or expands them (such as Adam-God), but when it comes to POLYGAMY, this is supposed to be a complete FABRICATION on Brigham's part. And for this to all fit, you must assume a conspiracy so vast as to really become absurd. This just doesn't ring true with me. I think Brigham and Heber are not great innovators--they are consummate followers of Joseph Smith. Michelle Stone is so invested in her conclusions she simply won't weigh the actual evidence in any fair way.

This "criterion of embarrassment" is interesting. I can see what Bill is saying there.

Are you having both of them on? Or are you just going to give commentary on their stances?

Bill, Joseph had AT LEAST 34 wives. With as secret as he wanted to keep his wives, it's likely MORE of those deeds WERE given to JoS wives--just ones we don't have confirmation for. Your numbers are the MINIMUM possible. It was probably MORE.

Bill apparently didn’t hear Michelle’s answer to his main question. She is saying “the same people that would support the church by buying deeds are the same people that went to Utah and would again support the church by claiming to be polygamous wives”, but Bill’s response was “there’s plenty of evidence that these weren’t made after the fact”(paraphrased). Huh?

How many marbles spent decades of their existence being painted black?

Knowing that Joseph was a con artist prior to his "1st" visión, it is not a stretch to think that he was a polygamist behind the scenes!

I'm 100% confident if there was any chance Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy, the LDS church would take it and run. Sadly it's quite clear JS did and the church admits it too. To me, that's the real smoking gun.

It only takes 2 women for it to be polygamy. She wants the number to be 14. Make it 12. 8...It's still polygamy. It's WILD that Michelle just dismisses Helen Mar Kimball as having "a wild imagination." As if she didn't have enough heaped on her. Sad.

"A" for effort. The math clearly points to an issue. Among the problems here are the lack of independence of the data, for example only landowners can transfer land, second is land is usually transferred for a reason (motivation) which is not random. So it is nonrandom non independent data, yet it shows Joseph had a motivation. .

This whole discussion is rather tedious. Why? Because Stone takes the RLDS position that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. However, we have scores of first-person statements by the women involved that they were introduced to and involved in plural marriage with Joseph Smith. Then, many of these women then jump on board with Brigham Young and Heber Kimball and become their plural wives after Joseph Smith's death. This includes several women who, in Nauvoo signed a statement (petition?) that denied that polygamy was being taught by Joseph Smith and practiced there. Most of these women then flip their public stance and jump right on the polygamy train with Brigham and & Heber when they come to Salt Lake. I used to take Snuffer very seriously, but when he flipped and now insists Joseph never practiced polygamy, I am sorry but it is just too much to believe. The conspiracy to manufacture Brigham Young into the author of this practice would have to be so large, and so well-orchestrated that it stretches all credulity in my opinion. And the circumlocutions that Stone and her supporters go to to make their theory "fit" the evidence is just too strained. And yes Bill, much as I like you, I think you are arguing your point too strongly: odd coincidences do occur all the time. If you've ever seen the roulette numbers that report on a board of the last 20 spins, it's not all that uncommon to see 2 or 3 repeats of numbers come up. It's not too far of a stretch to even see say 8 Red come up in a row (only 256-1). Likewise, here you have the statistical problem of fairly small population: how large is the population we are talking about? It makes a lot of difference because a population of 1000 people just isn't all that much. The larger the population, the more reliable it would be to say that deviations from the statistical norm are not just random variance. Let's say from a base of 100 million, 1% of the population will get a dread disease in their lifetime, so 1 million people. That's a pretty reliable stat, and life insurance companies use the "law of large numbers" all the time to estimate insurance rates. But what if out of 1000 people, only 5 people get that disease (.5%), or 40 people do (4%). Is that significant? It probably doesn't mean anything because a very small sample size just doesn't necessarily compute to anything meaningful.

It’s nice to see a move from “conspiracy” polarizing language to this good faith conversation.

They both have some good points. It's frustrating that Michelle is constantly trying to paint Bill as biased when she acts far more biased than he does. She's desperate to find any wild explanation other than a polygamy connection. Bill is much more focused, but he should try harder to evaluate Michelle's alternative explanations. Michelle is so full of distractions. For example, of what possible value is the fact that this is new evidence that hasn't been considered before? Is old evidence better than new discoveries?

I believe Eliza and Vienna had their own property or fathers/brothers /husbands with property, and maybe some others?

How did Michelle actually come up with the fact that JS WASN’T a polygamist? Is it because Emma denied it?

It seems like the root of this debate is pretty simple. Bill did not come to his conclusions about Polygamy based on land deed arguments. And Michelle did not come to her conclusion about Polygamy based on land deed arguments. Both came to polygamy conclusions based on other evidences. Land deeds can be explained under both paradigms, so it is not (and should not be) a convincing argument to either side. It's simply an interesting thing to speculate about after you've already reached your conclusions from other arguments.

I kept waiting for her to layout the Texas sharp-shooter connection which is what she was hinting to. She never strongly demonstrated that though. Bill just can't get over the somewhat conservatively high ratio, but when you understand that when the polygamists were drumming up their list of wives for Joseph, they had to pick from women who were connected to Joseph historically. What better sources than land deeds to connect to Joseph? They were bullet holes that were fine picking to draw targets around. Only about 5% of the men in Nauvoo were polygamist and that is mostly after 1844, yet I would bet we find a much larger ratio connected to Joseph through the land deeds. The correlation is now power, money, and sex... The bottom feeders aren't going to be buying land because they don't have money, they don't have power, so they won't get the influence over unsuspecting victims of sex trafficking.

Oh my Michelle… you burned. The only thing you apologize for on behalf of js is that he was not a polygamist. You tried too hard to prove him innocent but your arguments fall short. Js ls deeply buried in scandal of all kinds. Still the question remains why 13 women alleged wives receiving deeds. Joseph never made an honest living. Emotional investment most always sways your reasoning and focus.

Let's not do anything like this again.

Michelle is delusional in denying Joseph's polygamy. But she is dead on showing how harmful polygamy has been for the church. I wish she would focus more on the latter. And less on her former delusions that greatly discredits her message.

I do wonder how Michelle Stone escapes excommunication? I mean Kirk and Lindsay Van Allen were excommunicated for rejecting 132 and the polygamy that its taught. Their account is found on Mormon Stories - 530: Kirk and Lindsay Van Allen - Facing Church Discipline for Rejecting Polygamy (D&C 132). I fail to see the difference.

Slow down Michelle!

Michelle needs to join the RLDS. Their teaching would align better with her beliefs.

34 land deeds and 34 felonies..... 😂

Wow. Bill came with facts. Michelle not so much

You both need to come with evidence for an explanation for each of the deeds in question. Both are automatically assuming their bias towards the deeds and what they mean. I feel that evidence would be hard to find on both sides. This discussion is non-conclusive both ways. 😮

Michelle, I think you rock! You were calm and clear and I admire your ability!

Michelle the type to still believe the church is true even if rusty got convicted of war crimes

We fought a War so not to create a Kingdom

He's just never going to budge, and his bias is obvious. Good conversation Michelle, but feels like wasted breath when he doesn't seem to really want to learn.

I think at THAT TIME women could NOT own land - saying why is Joseph or the church handing out LAND to WOMEN if it’s not legal?

I usually agree with Bill but I see Michelle's point more on this specific issue but I still believe Jospeh was a polygamist.

My respect for Michelle Stone is trending up 📈

Are there documents showing him building houses for them on the land?

At certain times God has ordained polygamy for various reasons...the plurality of wives is also all up in the old testament as well...doesnt need to shake anyones testimony....and now the ideal situation is a heterosexual monogomous marriage...but if god decides to change that its his perogative...and if polygamy is what happens for some in the eternities I am sure its only for those who want it or need it for whatever reason

Michelle, it takes bravery to stick up for where you think the evidence leads regardless of how you have been received to date. Good for you!

If you don’t watch Michelle’s podcast and all of her very thorough research then it will be hard for you to appreciate all that has been done to refute all the “historians” whose arguments fall flat when put up to hers. She used to believe in Joseph’s polygamy, but has followed the evidence.

Love Michelle. Anxious for her. Want her to win but alas.

Bill Reel, please stop saying statistically significant without presenting the actual statistics. What p-value are you using to determine your statistical significance?

Michelle, I thought you were stellar! Your summary was excellent. I think you did better than you think you did. I thought Bill was unusually meek.I kept picturing that someone had coached him that he better be super subdued to go up against a woman. I kept thinking "It's a trap!" I thought you did fantastic the whole time.

Seems like Michelle came out on top

The question to Bill was never answered. “ What in his opinion was the purpose of the deeds. As a pay off to supposed wives, a bribe to get them to marry him or some other reason”. This question needs to be answered before the discussion has any real validity. Why were deeds given??