Gospel Tangents Podcast

Rick B
  • 4.5 (130)
  • Christianity
  • Semiweekly

A 360-degree view of Mormonism. We interview the best Mormon scholars, scientists, and clergy from all restoration branches, including LDS, Community of Christ, Strangites, Bickertonites, Temple Lot, Remnant, etc.

  1. 3d ago

    Hidden Temple Theology in the Book of Mormon?

    Is there a hidden temple theology in the Book of Mormon temple theology waiting beneath the 1830 text? That question, sparked by my friend Boyd in an online forum, turned into a three-part answer, and this is the final installment. While preparing, an AI tool handed me a word I had to look up: palimpsest, a manuscript scraped clean and written over, where the earlier text still shows through faintly. It turned out to be the perfect frame for the debate. https://youtu.be/b2hHdOXPDRA Temple Theology in the Book of Mormon On one side are Val Larsen, Dave Butler (who writes on the temple as D. John Butler) and Don Bradley. Dave believes temple language appears in the very first verse, where Nephi says he was taught “the mysteries of God,” a phrase that in the ancient world pointed to initiatory rites. He reads the prison story in Helaman 5 as a four-stage temple drama: an outer court, a circle of fire like sacred robes, a guide named Aminadab, and a voice through the veil. Building on Jack Welch, he sees the Sermon on the Mount the same way. Val connects Lehi’s tree of life to the Divine Mother and argues that the veil once worn by women in the prayer circle placed them in her position. Don points to the brother of Jared speaking through a veil, and to an 1830 interview in which Joseph Smith Sr. reportedly said the plates bore Masonic symbols, years before Joseph joined the Masons in Nauvoo. On the other side is historian Jonathan Stapley, author of Holiness to the Lord. Jonathan cautions against what he calls the teleological fallacy: reading highly developed 20th-century temple ideas back into an 1830 book. In his developmental view, the Nauvoo endowment grew out of Joseph’s 1842 Masonic initiation and the urgent need to bind families together before his death. The forum did not let me off easy. Paul argued that the either/or framing is itself the mistake, though he leaned toward Stapley. A former Latter-day Saint explained that the Book of Mormon’s view of God, more Trinitarian than Utah theology, was part of his move to the Community of Christ. Val suggested the real divide is between a dispensational view, where the gospel is revealed, lost and restored, and an evolutionary one. New Testament scholar Chris Thomas even shared an actual palimpsest, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and observed that readers who already know the modern temple tend to be the ones who find it in the text. Paul also shared the story of how his wife’s conch-shell sketch shaped the Community of Christ temple in Independence. Is the temple a restored ancient blueprint or a revelation that grew line upon line? Watch the full forum and decide which layer you see. Listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts.

  2. 5d ago

    Greg Prince Interview: Full 2017 Conversation, Released for the First Time

    This Greg Prince interview is a throwback to 2017, and for the first time the entire conversation is available in one piece. On September 27, 2017, historian Greg Prince was in Salt Lake City to deliver the Sterling McMurrin Lecture at the Salt Lake City Public Library, and before his talk he sat down with me for a long and candid conversation. We originally released it in seven parts. Don’t miss our other conversations with Greg: https://gospeltangents.com/people/greg-prince Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Full Greg Prince Interview Greg is a biomedical researcher by profession, but he is also one of the most careful historians in Mormon studies. He wrote Power From on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (1995), David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (2005), and Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History (2016). When we talked, he was finishing the book that became Gay Rights and the Mormon Church (2019). LDS Church and its Gay Members We start with that research. Greg explains that the word “homosexuality” first appeared in the Church’s General Handbook of Instructions in 1968, the year before the Stonewall riots. From there he traces how policy developed over the next half century. We also discuss the November 2015 policy on children of gay parents. Greg says members of the Quorum of the Twelve told him they learned of it only two days before it leaked to the public. He argues that denying an infant a name and a blessing is a punishment, whatever the intent. The Church reversed that policy in 2019, after this conversation was recorded. Four Leadership Vacuums Greg co-wrote an article in Dialogue titled “Gerontocracy and the Future of Mormonism.” He describes four periods when a church president’s health left a gap at the top: David O. McKay in the late 1960s, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and, at the time we spoke, Thomas S. Monson. Greg believes major decisions were made by others during each of these periods, and he explains why he calls it “not ideal governance.” President Monson died a few months after this interview, in January 2018. Priesthood, Word of Wisdom, & a Pepsi man We also dig into the early development of priesthood offices, and how Joseph Smith’s understanding of authority grew over time. Greg offers a naturalistic reading of the Word of Wisdom, which he sees as reflecting the temperance ideas of 1833. He describes it as moving through three phases, from loosely observed advice to a requirement. Along the way he tells one of my favorite stories: a theater publicist was told President McKay drank Coca-Cola, but one of McKay’s secretaries remembered a refrigerator shelf full of Pepsi. Finally, we look at when and why the Church began ordaining young men to the Aaronic Priesthood, a practice Greg traces to the early 1900s. Hear it all in one place! These conversations first ran as seven separate episodes. This release puts the whole interview together in the order we recorded it, so you can hear how one topic led to the next. It’s a rare chance to spend more than an hour and a half with a historian who has spent decades in the archives. If you enjoy it, please consider supporting Gospel Tangents at https://patreon.com/GospelTangents. Your support helps us bring you more conversations like this one. Listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. Sources: Gregory A. Prince bio, Dialogue Gay Rights and the Mormon Church, Mormon History Association Power From on High, Signature Books Chapters 0:00 Introduction 0:56 History of LDS Policy Toward Gays 20:41 The 4 LDS Leadership Vacuums: What Happened? 33:38 Ailing Church Leaders: “Not Ideal Governance” 50:13 Early LDS Priesthood: Similar to Ancient Christianity? 1:08:44 Naturalistic Explanation for Word of Wisdom? 1:24:30 When Did LDS Start Ordaining Youth? 1:32:25 “There Is Nothing in LDS Policy That Justifies Whacking Infants”

  3. 5d ago

    Raising Kids in Polygamy & Reason Fundamentalists Stay Quiet

    Raising Kids in Polygamy Raising kids in polygamy comes with a hard truth: many children raised in plural families walk away as adults. Some join the LDS Church, some leave religion altogether. So what do plural families hope for their own kids? In the final part of my interview with Joshua, Charlotte and Melissa Erickson of Lehi, Utah, we talk about their hopes for their children, a new fundamentalist fellowship Joshua leads, and why so many fundamentalists still won’t talk to outsiders. https://youtu.be/Ur4R3vtJSvo Don’t miss our other conversations on Mormon fundamentalism: https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/fundamentalim/ Good Spouses First Should the Erickson children practice plural marriage? Charlotte’s answer was simple: “If they want to.” She chose polygamy and finds it worth it, but she doesn’t teach her children that it is required for heaven. “I don’t like the teaching that it has to somehow be white knuckled through because it’s a box to check to get into heaven,” she said. Melissa put her goal another way: she wants to raise sons who are such good husbands that more than one woman would want to marry them. Pointing to passages in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants about taking the same spirit into the next life, she believes an unhappy marriage won’t magically become heaven after death. Her rule for her children: “If polygamy happens, then that’s great. If not, that’s fine too, but you must be a good spouse.” Keeping Kids in the Faith For Charlotte, “the faith” doesn’t mean a particular fundamentalist group. It means faith in God and the scriptures, including the full Latter-day Saint canon. She’d be fine if her children joined a group, but sad if they became atheists. One strategy the family uses is to make the biblical holidays Jesus celebrated a big deal. Their children count down to the next feast as soon as one ends (“except for Shavuot,” Charlotte joked). She sees these as holidays for all the tribes of Israel, not just the Jews. Mormon Legacy Ministries Joshua serves as bishop of Mormon Legacy Ministries, a fellowship that holds a hybrid in-person and Zoom sacrament meeting on the second and fourth Saturdays. Why Saturday? So people who belong to other groups can attend without missing their own Sunday meetings. There is also a women’s group on Tuesdays and a Thursday class, with schedules and Zoom links at mormonlegacy.org. Joshua says the ministry doesn’t want to be a church: it performs no baptisms, ordinations or marriages, but it can refer people to those who will. He describes it as a fellowship and referral service. Why Fundamentalists Stay Private Why are so many fundamentalists insular? Melissa, whose own ancestors were Catholic before joining the LDS Church, points to generational trauma. Neighbors turned in plural families, grandfathers went to prison or had to disavow their wives, and plural wives were introduced as “aunts.” In Utah, polygamy remained a felony until 2020, apart from a brief window after a federal judge struck down part of the law in the Kody Brown case, a ruling later overturned on appeal. Today it is an infraction with a fine of up to $750. “I ain’t paying,” Melissa laughed. But after watching children taken from their parents in Texas, she says, it’s fair to give fundamentalists space when they aren’t willing to talk. Wrapping Up the Series That closes our four-part conversation with the Ericksons. We covered their move from the LDS Church to fundamentalism and the Zarahemla Foundation, Restoration scripture and priesthood authority, and patriarchal polygamy, female priesthood blessings and Black polygamists. Next up is Justin Francom, from the Missouri group that built a fundamentalist temple. Listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. Chapters 00:00 Should Polygamous Kids Practice Polygamy? 01:48 Charlotte: Not a Box to Check for Heaven 03:18 Melissa: Raise Good Spouses First 05:40 Helping Children Stay in the Faith 06:30 Biblical Holidays as a Family Strategy 07:39 Mormon Legacy Ministries 08:20 Why Sacrament Meeting Is on Saturday 09:47 Weekly Schedule & the 1977 Block Schedule 11:04 Joshua’s Role as Bishop 12:15 A Fellowship and Referral Service, Not a Church 13:08 Why Fundamentalists Stay Private 14:58 Utah Bigamy Law: Felony to Infraction

  4. Oct 26

    Why Mark Skousen Was Called into Dallin Oaks BYU Office

    Dallin Oaks BYU: Why Mark Skousen Was Called into His Office Dallin Oaks BYU was a formidable figure, and economist Mark Skousen remembers what happened when a controversial student newspaper editorial brought him face-to-face with the university president. In the final installment of our four-part Gospel Tangents interview, Mark shares some remarkable stories from his years at Brigham Young University, including a confrontation with Dallin H. Oaks, his experiences in student journalism, and his unlikely home teaching partnership with historian Richard Bushman. It’s a fascinating glimpse into BYU history, academic freedom, and the personalities who shaped modern Mormonism. https://youtu.be/OnJC86ppc58 Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Dallin Oaks BYU: “Don’t Ever Do It Again!” Imagine being a young BYU student involved with the campus newspaper and finding yourself summoned to the university president’s office. That’s exactly what happened to Mark Skousen. Mark recalls a controversial editorial that caught the attention of President Dallin H. Oaks. The message Mark remembers receiving was unmistakable: “Don’t ever do it again!” What was so controversial about the editorial? Why did Oaks intervene personally? And what does the incident reveal about the relationship between student journalism and university leadership? Mark tells the story in our interview. Home Teaching with Richard Bushman One of the more unexpected revelations involves historian Richard Bushman, best known to many Latter-day Saints for his biography Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Long before Bushman became one of Mormonism’s most prominent historians, he and Mark Skousen shared a distinctly Mormon responsibility: home teaching. What was it like to serve alongside a future leading historian of Joseph Smith? Mark shares his memories of Bushman and other influential figures he encountered during his BYU years. Why Did BYU Take Control of Its Student Newspaper? The conversation also explores a larger controversy involving BYU’s student newspaper, the Daily Universe. Student newspapers can provide an important forum for debate, criticism, and independent thinking. But what happens when student editors publish material that university administrators find objectionable? Mark reflects on the tensions surrounding student journalism at BYU and the eventual shift toward greater faculty oversight. Was that a necessary safeguard for a religious university, or did it come at the expense of student independence? It’s a question that remains relevant to discussions of academic freedom today. From Jeffrey R. Holland to General Conference Mark also recalls taking a Book of Mormon class from Jeffrey R. Holland and shares other stories about his encounters with prominent Latter-day Saint figures. And there’s a surprising connection to the April 2009 LDS General Conference: a letter Mark wrote was quoted during the conference. These personal experiences provide a different perspective on people who later became widely recognized leaders, scholars, and educators. Watch the Final Gospel Tangents Preview We’ve spent the first three episodes exploring Mark Skousen’s relationship with Uncle Cleon, his views on economics, the John Birch Society, and Joseph Smith’s economic experiments. Now, in Part 4, we turn to the people and controversies that shaped Mark’s years at BYU. What really happened in Dallin Oaks’s office? And what can Mark’s experiences teach us about academic freedom at a religious university? Watch the teaser and join us for the conclusion of this four-part Gospel Tangents interview. Want to hear about upcoming interviews, new episodes, and occasional exclusive content? Subscribe to the free Gospel Tangents newsletter. What Do You Think? Should a university president personally intervene when a student newspaper publishes a controversial editorial? How much editorial independence should students have at a religious university? Are religious universities different from secular universities when it comes to academic freedom? Which of Mark’s stories about prominent Latter-day Saint figures surprised you most? Leave a comment! I’d love to hear your perspective on BYU history, student journalism, and the balance between institutional identity and intellectual independence. Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved

  5. Oct 23

    Was Joseph Smith a Socialist?

    Was Joseph Smith a socialist? Economist Mark Skousen was surprised—and more than a little irritated—when he discovered that a BYU economics professor had classified the founder of Mormonism as a utopian socialist. But when I challenged Mark about Joseph Smith’s economic teachings, his answer was more complicated than a simple yes or no. https://youtu.be/J9AVMBliFvo Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved In Part 3 of our four-part Gospel Tangents interview, Mark Skousen examines the economics of early Mormonism, including the law of consecration, the United Order, private property, and tithing. We also discuss Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and whether Joseph Smith’s economic experiments were closer to socialism or capitalism. And Mark offers a surprising criticism of Joseph Smith’s plans for building Zion. Was Joseph Smith a Socialist? Mark Skousen Responds The question began with a poster at Brigham Young University. Mark recalls that economist Val Lamson had created a chart showing different schools of economic thought. To Mark’s astonishment, Joseph Smith appeared among the utopian socialists. Mark strongly objected. However, he acknowledged that Joseph Smith briefly experimented with economic arrangements that could be described as utopian socialism. Early Latter-day Saints sought to eliminate poverty and create a community in which members shared their resources. But according to Mark, Joseph Smith eventually moved toward an economic system that preserved private property and individual stewardship. So where does Joseph Smith fit economically? Mark suggests that communitarian may be a better description than socialist. He points to the work of historian Leonard Arrington and argues that Joseph Smith wanted a cooperative religious society without eliminating individual responsibility. But that raises another question. If the early Saints were trying to build Zion, why didn’t their economic system last? Why Did the United Order Fail? One of the most interesting parts of our conversation concerns Mark’s explanation for the failure of the United Order. Under early consecration arrangements, members contributed their property and received stewardships intended to meet their needs. Surplus resources were supposed to support the Church and assist others. Mark argues that this arrangement created an economic problem. If people were expected to contribute all their surplus, what incentive did they have to produce more than they needed? He compares that arrangement to a 100% marginal tax rate. Mark also notes that many early Church members were poor. There simply wasn’t enough surplus wealth to sustain the system as envisioned. He contrasts these experiments with tithing, which allows individuals to retain most of their income while contributing a portion to the Church. From Mark’s perspective, tithing creates a better balance between supporting a religious community and encouraging individual initiative. Of course, historians and economists may disagree about whether incentives alone explain the difficulties of the United Order. But Mark’s interpretation raises important questions about the practical challenges of communal religious economies. Was the United Order Really Socialism? Mark also discusses a distinction emphasized by LDS leader Marion G. Romney: the United Order and socialism were not necessarily the same thing. One important difference, according to Romney, involved private property and voluntary consecration. Mark argues that Joseph Smith’s stewardship system preserved an important role for private ownership, even while encouraging members to devote their resources to the common good. We also discuss the scriptural ideal of having no rich or poor among the people, as described in Fourth Nephi and the New Testament book of Acts. Was Joseph Smith trying to establish an entirely new economic system? Or was he adapting biblical principles to the practical needs of a growing religious community? Mark believes Joseph Smith was searching for a middle ground. Is Tithing a Form of Capitalism? This may be the most surprising question of the interview. When I asked whether tithing was an Adam Smith principle, Mark argued that it was much closer to Smith’s philosophy than to centralized economic planning. His reasoning is straightforward. Under tithing, members contribute 10% while retaining control over the rest of their resources. They can save, invest, establish businesses, support charitable causes, or make other financial decisions. Mark believes that arrangement encourages productivity while still providing resources for shared religious purposes. He contrasts it with a system in which Church leaders would need to evaluate each family’s finances, businesses, and economic decisions. Imagine your bishop having to determine how much money you should earn, what investments you should make, or how your business should operate. Mark argues that such a system would be impractical. His conclusion is that tithing provides a more sustainable economic foundation than the early communal experiments. Adam Smith, Keynes, and Marx: Three Competing Economic Visions Before turning to Joseph Smith, I asked Mark to explain some basic differences between major economic schools. Mark organizes economic history around three influential thinkers: Adam Smith: Associated with markets, limited government, private enterprise, and economic liberty. John Maynard Keynes: Associated with government intervention to manage economic downturns and broader macroeconomic policy. Karl Marx: Associated with the critique of capitalism and the replacement of private ownership of productive resources. Mark clearly favors Adam Smith’s approach. But the comparison becomes especially interesting when applied to early Mormonism. Joseph Smith encouraged generosity and cooperation, yet he also established individual stewardships and taught principles of personal responsibility. Does that make him a socialist, a capitalist, or something else entirely? Perhaps our modern political labels don’t fit the religious and economic experiments of the 1830s particularly well. Mark Skousen Criticizes Joseph Smith’s City of Zion Mark’s criticisms aren’t limited to the United Order. We also discuss Joseph Smith’s proposed City of Zion, with its grid layout and central complex of twenty-four houses of the Lord. Mark isn’t impressed with the uniformity of the design. He argues that cities need individuality, variety, and a sense of personality rather than rigid planning. I bring up David Hall’s NewVistas project, which attempted to develop a modern community inspired by Joseph Smith’s city-planning ideas in Vermont. The discussion raises an intriguing issue: How much planning is necessary to build an ideal community, and when does planning become too restrictive? It’s another example of Mark applying economic ideas to subjects that Latter-day Saints usually approach from a religious or historical perspective. “Teach Them Correct Principles” One of Mark’s favorite statements attributed to Joseph Smith is: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” Mark sees this as a powerful expression of individual liberty. In his interpretation, Joseph Smith wanted people to learn principles such as honesty, thrift, hard work, and responsibility—and then make their own decisions. That approach fits Mark’s broader economic philosophy. But it also raises an interesting historical question: How do we reconcile individual self-government with the collective responsibilities envisioned in the law of consecration? The tension between personal freedom and communal obligation remains relevant to Latter-day Saint discussions of economics today. What Can We Learn from Mormon Economic History? Whether or not you agree with Mark Skousen’s conclusions, this conversation offers an unusual perspective on Joseph Smith’s economic experiments. Rather than discussing the United Order only as a theological ideal, Mark examines the incentives, property arrangements, and practical difficulties involved. He challenges the idea that Joseph Smith can be neatly classified as a socialist, explains why he believes tithing was more successful than communal consecration, and questions aspects of Joseph Smith’s plans for Zion. It’s a provocative discussion at the intersection of Mormon history, economics, and theology. Watch Part 3 of my four-part Gospel Tangents interview with Mark Skousen, and let me know what you think. Questions for Discussion Was Joseph Smith a socialist, a capitalist, or something that doesn’t fit either label? Did the United Order fail because of economic incentives, or were other historical factors more important? Does tithing represent a successful adaptation of the law of consecration? Would Joseph Smith’s City of Zion have been a desirable place to live? Can a religious community successfully balance private property with the goal of eliminating poverty? I’d love to hear your perspective in the comments—especially if you think Mark’s economic interpretation overlooks important historical or theological considerations. Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved 0:00 Introduction: The Big Three in Economics 1:20 Adam Smith, Keynes and Marx 4:50 How BYU Economics Changed 5:49 Was Joseph Smith a Utopian Socialist? 7:17 Why the United Order Failed 9:34 Was Joseph Smith a Communitarian? 11:21 Stewardship and Correct Principles 13:58 Joseph Smith’s City of Zion 15:04 Is Tithing an Adam Smith Principle? 17:53 Church Welfare vs. Government Welfare

  6. Oct 20

    Was Eisenhower Soviet Agent? Mark Skousen Challenges Uncle Cleon (Mark Skousen 2 of 4)

    Was Eisenhower Soviet agent? That extraordinary accusation came from John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, who believed President Dwight D. Eisenhower was secretly serving Communist interests. But economist Mark Skousen, nephew of the famous conservative author W. Cleon Skousen, thinks the accusation was outrageous. https://youtu.be/5Hol7hUZExc Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Mark explains why he rejected the John Birch Society’s allegations, where he disagreed with his uncle, and how a surprising conversation about Adam Smith changed his understanding of economics. We also revisit the controversial BYU spy ring, Ezra Taft Benson’s relationship with Ernest Wilkinson, and the importance of academic freedom. Was Eisenhower Soviet Agent Secretly Helping the Communists? During the Cold War, some American conservatives became convinced that President Eisenhower wasn’t doing enough to stop Soviet expansion. Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, went much further. In his book The Politician, he accused Eisenhower of being an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Why would anyone make such an extraordinary claim? Mark explains that Eisenhower repeatedly avoided direct confrontation with the Soviet Union, including during international crises such as the Hungarian Revolution. Critics interpreted his restraint as evidence that he was deliberately allowing communism to spread. But Mark sees Eisenhower’s strategy differently. He argues that Eisenhower understood the Soviet economic system was fundamentally flawed and believed it could eventually collapse without risking a nuclear war. Rather than seeing Eisenhower as a traitor, Mark gives him high marks for his presidency. Mark’s rejection of Welch’s accusation is particularly interesting because his uncle Cleon Skousen was closely associated with the same conservative political movement. Uncle Cleon and the John Birch Society W. Cleon Skousen became one of America’s best-known anti-communist authors through books such as The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist. But how closely was he connected to the John Birch Society? Mark explains that Cleon defended the organization and even wrote a pamphlet titled The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society. However, Mark says Cleon never officially joined the organization and eventually experienced a falling-out with it. Mark himself never became a member. He believed the society’s accusations against Eisenhower went far beyond legitimate concerns about Communist infiltration. This raises an intriguing question: How could two members of the same family, both committed to free-market economics and opposed to communism, reach such different conclusions? The Naked Communist vs. The Naked Capitalist Mark’s disagreements with Uncle Cleon extended beyond the John Birch Society. He strongly admired The Naked Communist, believing it offered an important warning about the dangers of communism. But he was much less impressed with The Naked Capitalist. One reason was Cleon’s portrayal of powerful business figures such as David Rockefeller. Mark had personally interviewed Rockefeller while working for Forbes and didn’t see him as the sinister figure portrayed in some anti-communist accounts. Although Mark disagreed with Rockefeller’s support for larger government, he didn’t believe that made him part of a sinister conspiracy. It’s a revealing distinction: Mark could appreciate his uncle’s contributions while rejecting some of his more controversial conclusions. But there was another disagreement in which Uncle Cleon unexpectedly changed Mark’s mind. Was Adam Smith Inspired by God? While writing his history of economic thought, The Making of Modern Economics, Mark initially adopted economist Murray Rothbard’s critical interpretation of Adam Smith. He wrote a chapter portraying Smith in a largely negative light. Then he visited Uncle Cleon. Mark handed him the chapter and asked whether he was on the right track. Without even reading it, Cleon put his arm around Mark and told him that Adam Smith’s doctrine of the invisible hand was inspired by God. Mark was stunned. Whom should he believe—his respected professional mentor, Murray Rothbard, or his wise old Uncle Cleon? Instead of simply accepting either opinion, Mark decided to investigate for himself. He read all 1,000 pages of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. And when he finished, he concluded that Uncle Cleon was right. Mark rewrote his chapter, transformed the structure of his book, and ultimately dedicated it to Cleon. It’s one of my favorite stories from the interview because it demonstrates how disagreement can lead to serious investigation and a genuine change of mind. Ezra Taft Benson, Ernest Wilkinson, and the BYU Spy Ring Our conversation also returns to a controversial episode from Mark’s student days at Brigham Young University. During Ernest Wilkinson’s administration, students were recruited to monitor professors whose political and economic views concerned conservative university figures. Mark discusses Wilkinson’s close relationship with Ezra Taft Benson and their connections with the Foundation for Economic Education. Did Benson encourage the monitoring effort? Was Wilkinson responsible? And what did the students actually discover? Mark discusses what he remembers, while acknowledging that he cannot establish exactly who initiated the effort. He also reflects on his own participation. Looking back, Mark believes the students were naive. He says he would not participate in such an effort today. Interestingly, he doesn’t believe the episode resulted in professors being fired, although he acknowledges the controversy that followed when the monitoring became known. Why Academic Freedom Matters Perhaps the most unexpected part of the interview is Mark’s defense of intellectual diversity. He recalls a conversation with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman about whether free-market economists should dominate university economics departments. Friedman opposed that approach, arguing that universities should expose students to competing viewpoints. Mark agrees. He discusses the importance of intellectual diversity at BYU and contrasts his experiences teaching at Columbia University and Chapman University. For Mark, a university should be a place where students encounter ideas they disagree with—not merely a place where everyone reinforces the same worldview. That principle also helps explain his complicated relationship with Uncle Cleon. He admired his uncle without agreeing with him on everything. Can We Admire Someone Without Agreeing with Everything They Say? What makes this interview especially interesting is that Mark Skousen doesn’t fit neatly into the political categories we often use. He can praise The Naked Communist while criticizing The Naked Capitalist. He can admire Uncle Cleon while rejecting the John Birch Society’s accusations against Eisenhower. And he can defend free-market economics while insisting that universities should welcome competing perspectives. Perhaps the most important lesson is that intellectual independence requires more than disagreeing with our opponents. Sometimes it means questioning the people we admire most. Watch Part 2 of our four-part Gospel Tangents interview with economist Mark Skousen to hear these stories in his own words. What Do You Think? Why do you think Robert Welch and other conservatives became suspicious of President Eisenhower? Was Mark right to reject the John Birch Society’s accusations? Do you find Cleon’s claim that Adam Smith’s invisible hand was inspired by God persuasive? Should religious universities encourage professors to teach competing political and economic viewpoints? Is it possible to admire someone deeply while rejecting some of their most important ideas? Share your thoughts in the comments. I’d especially like to hear how you think we should evaluate controversial historical figures whose ideas continue to influence Latter-day Saints today. Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved 0:00 The Naked Communist vs. The Naked Capitalist 3:58 Adam Smith Inspired of God? 8:37 Ezra Taft Benson, Wilkinson and FEE 11:44 Why Mark Wasn’t a Bircher 12:02 Robert Welch and Eisenhower 14:16 Cleon and the John Birch Society 15:51 Political Diversity and Academic Freedom 20:02 Fallout from the BYU Spy Ring 21:18 Academic Freedom at Columbia and Chapman

  7. Oct 17

    Cleon Skousen’s Nephew: Surprising Story of BYU Troublemaker (Mark Skousen 1 of 4)

    “Are you the famous Skousen?” Do they mean Cleon Skousen or Mark Skousen? Economist Mark Skousen has heard that question in nearly every ward he’s ever moved into. Usually the person means his uncle, W. Cleon Skousen, the FBI veteran, Salt Lake City police chief and best-selling author of The Naked Communist. When I first saw Mark at the John Whitmer Historical Association meetings, I had the same thought. Put a pair of glasses on him and the resemblance is striking. In Part 1 of my conversation with Mark, we talk about growing up a Skousen, and about his early years as a self-described troublemaker at BYU. https://youtu.be/wQ4gJ9o5iIM Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Cleon Skousen or Mark? Mark’s father, Leroy Skousen, lived a life that paralleled Cleon’s. Both were lawyers, FBI men and committed anti-communists who raised large families. When Leroy died of lung cancer at 46, Cleon became something like a father to Mark: he gave him a father’s blessing, visited the family’s home evenings in Provo, and later chose Mark as the only pallbearer from outside his immediate family. Mark and his wife Jo Ann went on to compile There Were Giants in the Land: Episodes in the Life of W. Cleon Skousen from Cleon’s roughly 150 journals, letting Cleon tell his story in his own words. Mark also tells us he is consulting on historian Benjamin Park’s forthcoming biography of Cleon, and that Matthew Harris plans to include a surprisingly cordial meeting between Cleon and Hugh B. Brown in his upcoming book on Brown. BYU Troublemaker Mark arrived at BYU in the fall of 1965 planning to major in economics, raised on thrift, limited government and the books of Ludwig von Mises. What he found in his first class shocked him: Paul Samuelson’s Keynesian textbook, which taught that deficit spending was good policy during a recession and that thrift was not always a virtue. The supplementary reading was Robert Heilbroner’s The Worldly Philosophers. Mark didn’t stay quiet. He went on local radio to criticize how economics was being taught at “the Lord’s university,” then wrote an exposé for the Daily Universe. He still earned the highest grade in the class, though his professor admitted he had a hard time giving him that A. We also talk about labels. Mark calls himself a liberal, though not in the way most Americans use the word, and explains why he’d rather discuss issues than sort people into camps. His example is a good one: Cleon and Salt Lake mayor J. Bracken Lee wanted to abolish the income tax, cut government spending and keep government out of the way, yet Lee fired Cleon as police chief and the two became bitter enemies. For Mark, that is what happens when labels end the conversation. Part 1 is only the beginning. In Part 2, Mark explains where he and Uncle Cleon parted ways, from The Naked Communist to The Naked Capitalist, and tells the story of the day Cleon called Adam Smith’s invisible hand “inspired of God.” Part 3 turns to Mormon economics and the United Order, and Part 4 takes us inside the Daily Universe newsroom of the early 1970s. Members can watch the entire interview now at patreon.com/gospeltangents. Listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved If you’re interested in using a clip, please send me an email. 0:00 Troublemaker at BYU 4:14 There Were Giants in the Land 6:58 Matt Harris and Hugh B. Brown 8:38 Pronouncing Cleon/Cleon at BYU 9:54 Keynesian Textbook at BYU 14:48 A 1966 Assignment/BYU Spy Ring 19:03 The Liberal Label 21:11 Cleon vs. J. Bracken Lee

  8. Oct 8

    Were Joseph & Hyrum’s Skulls Switched in 1928? (Patrick Bishop 2 of 2)

    Were Joseph and Hyrum’s skulls switched (misidentified) in 1928? Patrick Bishop answers this mystery! https://youtu.be/ZVoXwDdNbVk Don’t miss our other conversations with Patrick: https://gospeltangents.com/people/patrick-bishop/ Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Most of us assume the death mask is the closest thing we have to Joseph Smith’s real face. Just open the eyes, the thinking goes, and there he is. Patrick Bishop thought so too, until 25 years of research changed his mind. In Part 2 of our conversation, the producer of Brother Joseph Again makes a bold claim: the true gold standard for Joseph’s likeness isn’t the death mask at all. It’s his skull, and the skulls themselves may have been mixed up for nearly a century. Joseph & Hyrum Skulls Switched? When the Smith family graves were exhumed in 1928, nobody knew which body was which. Patrick believes the skulls were misidentified, and the evidence is the wound that killed Hyrum. Hyrum was shot in the face. In one skull, the entire facial structure has collapsed, which Patrick says is exactly what happens when a bullet ruptures the small bones of the face and the flesh later decays. The other skull is nearly intact, missing only the upper jaw, and when the team overlaid the wound location, there was solid bone right where Hyrum’s injury should be. I’ve heard strong opinions on both sides of this. Lachlan Mackay has told me the skulls were mixed up; Curtis Weber once insisted they weren’t. Patrick says Curtis has since said publicly that his 2008 study was flawed, though Curtis hasn’t endorsed Patrick’s conclusions either. Then there’s the death mask. Patrick lists the problems: cotton stuffed in the nose, the chin tied up, the weight of the plaster, dehydrated eyes, and injuries Joseph received outside Carthage Jail, which eyewitnesses described in letters, journals and trial minutes. (He’s saving those details for the film.) The most surprising piece of evidence comes from John Taylor, who knew Joseph well and was with him at the martyrdom. Taylor tried to use the death masks to make a true likeness of Joseph and Hyrum and concluded, “We failed.” Once the masks are matched to the skulls and a few millimeters are adjusted, Patrick says, the face begins to look remarkably like the daguerreotype. Some of my favorite moments came when Patrick described the access his team received. The Church, which now owns the locket, let them film at Carthage Jail and the Mansion House, and the Community of Christ opened its archives, including Joseph’s sword, pocket watch and epaulets. Along the way, Patrick gained a new respect for Sutcliffe Maudsley, long dismissed as a caricature artist, whose work turned out to be surprisingly accurate. Patrick is also candid about the case against him. John Hajicek, who provided the Maudsley image of Emma wearing a locket, remains a skeptic. We know Emma owned a locket and a daguerreotype of Joseph, both now lost. But between Joseph Smith III and Lois Smith Larsen there is a 110-year gap in which no one seems to mention this locket at all. So, are the skulls switched? Is the man in the locket Joseph? Patrick has made the most thorough case I’ve seen, and I’m still weighing it. Over these two episodes we’ve gone from Emma’s verdict on the paintings, through provenance and the 1928 camera, to skulls, masks and skeptics. Now it’s your turn to decide. Brother Joseph Again opens in theaters Friday, October 9; Patrick says opening weekend decides how long it stays, so go see it. The companion book from Greg Kofford Books arrives in November. Listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. Don’t miss our other conversations with Patrick: https://gospeltangents.com/people/patrick-bishop/ Also, check out our previous conversation with Lach MacKay about the Joseph Smith photo: https://gospeltangents.com/2022/08/is-this-joseph-smith/ Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Time Chapter 0:00 John Taylor on why the death masks fail 1:09 Is the death mask or the skull the gold standard? 1:54 Skulls Switched/misidentified in 1928 5:05 Hyrum’s missing face: what a bullet does to facial bones 8:22 You can’t just open the eyes of the death mask 12:28 Joseph’s sword, watch and epaulets — and Sutcliffe Maudsley’s accuracy 13:47 What celebrity death masks show about likeness 14:43 The Emma daguerreotype vs. the idealized 1842 painting 16:09 John Hajicek’s objections: a provenance gap of 110 years

See All (200)

4.5
out of 5
130 Ratings

About

A 360-degree view of Mormonism. We interview the best Mormon scholars, scientists, and clergy from all restoration branches, including LDS, Community of Christ, Strangites, Bickertonites, Temple Lot, Remnant, etc.

Information

  • Creator
    Rick B
  • Years Active
    2017 - 2026
  • Episodes
    200
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2025 Gospel Tangents - All Rights Reserved
  • Show Website
    Gospel Tangents Podcast

You Might Also Like