All Activity

Then feel free to not participate. Hectoring those who do want to participate in the discussion, and who are doing so with civility and decorum, ought not be part of your repertoire. For my part, this discussion has some value in assessing the merits of constraints as to volitional and consensual behaviors, as this tends to keep us further away from compromised, unwise, dangerous, unhealthy, and even potentially nonconsensual behaviors. The constraints I have in my life are found in the scriptures, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Chastity, and ongoing counsel from living prophets and apostles. I am grateful for that. And because people keep commenting on it and responding to others' comments, including you and me. I think it's relevant. A) Objections to “all men are potential rapists” The core criticism is that the statement treats an entire sex as presumptively dangerous or guilty by category. It substitutes group-based suspicion for situational awareness, individual evidence, and due process. Critics argue it is both descriptively false (the large majority of men never commit rape) and practically corrosive: it trains people - notably young women - to view ordinary male presence, interaction, or disagreement as latent threat, which chills normal social trust, discourages due process, and invites reciprocal stereotyping. The objection is not “rape never happens” or “women never face risk”; it is that framing half the population as latent criminals is an ugly and counterproductive form of prejudice. Parallel formulations that cast all women as “potential” gold-diggers, false accusers, or opportunists are, or should be, rejected on the same grounds—collective characterizations that ignore individual variation and invert the presumption of innocence. B) Collective branding in the Cornell matter In the Cornell case, seven named men (and, in public discourse, often the broader fraternity or “the guys”) were rapidly labeled as rapists or participants in a gang rape on the basis of a civil complaint, Title IX findings against some, and contemporaneous Snapchat messages that invited others to join sexual activity. Public and media treatment frequently collapsed distinctions: between men found responsible by the university panel and those not; between the Snapchat invitations and proven non-consent; and between early contemporaneous texts in which the complainant described the activity as non-illegal and later allegations of continuous incapacitation and non-consent. The result has been a durable collective stigma applied to a group of men before criminal charges (none have been filed) and while significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts remain part of the public record. That pattern is what critics mean by “branding”—a move from specific, evidence-based claims about particular individuals to a broader presumption that the group as a whole committed rape. Anyway, Bluebell brought this topic to this board, and you have not expressed any complaint or criticism about that. Respectfully, I do not accept this framing. We may also want to talk about what "rape culture" means, and whether it exists in the U.S. in 2026. What “rape culture” is typically taken to mean As I see it, “rape culture” is the claim that a society systematically normalizes, condones, rationalizes, excuses, or ignores rape. In activist and academic usage it is said to appear in attitudes, media, institutional practices, and social norms that treat sexual violence as inevitable, trivial, or the victim’s fault, thereby reducing the likelihood that it will be prevented or punished. Why the label does not fit the United States in 2026 Every U.S. jurisdiction maintains strict criminal prohibitions on rape and related sexual offenses, with severe penalties. Reporting systems, Title IX processes, specialized investigative units, and public campaigns against sexual violence are widespread. Cases that reach prosecutors are subject to ordinary evidentiary requirements, statutes of limitation, and prosecutorial discretion—constraints that apply to every serious crime, not only rape. Those practical limits on enforcement are not the same as cultural normalization or institutional indifference. The existence of unsolved or uncharged cases, delayed reporting, contested consent, or uneven outcomes does not establish that the society as a whole treats rape as acceptable. The legal baseline, the institutional apparatus, and the prevailing public condemnation of sexual violence all run very much in the opposite direction. Describing the present U.S. environment as a “rape culture” therefore overstates the evidence and conflates ordinary enforcement difficulties with systemic endorsement of rape. That's my take. I would be interested in hearing yours. I can appreciate that. For myself, I see rather the opposite. Look at the societal response to these text messages. Putting aside the ambiguity (that is, whether the texts must be construed as advertising nonconsensual sex), the response has been effectively wholly condemnatory. Collectively we are not winking or shrugging, or doing the "Yeah, well, boys will be boys" response. Some few, mostly anonymous and online, trolls are saying provocative things against Jane Doe, but the cumulative response does not reflect a "culture" in which a society systematically normalizes, condones, rationalizes, excuses, or ignores rape. The Snapchat messages are crude, dehumanizing, and indefensible. Treating a woman as “free p^&%y” available for others to join is ugly and depraved and morally evil behavior, and the university panel rightly treated those messages as evidence of misconduct by some of the men involved. That does not make the texts evidence of a broader “rape culture.” The texts show a group of intoxicated young men at a party behaving badly and inviting others into sexual activity. They do not show a society that normalizes, excuses, or ignores rape. The same messages became a key exhibit in a Title IX process that produced expulsions and suspensions, they appear in a high-profile civil complaint, and they have been publicized by national media. That is the opposite of institutional indifference. If the standard for “rape culture” is the existence of crude, objectifying talk among some young men, then the term loses any useful meaning—it would apply to virtually every society that has ever existed. And contrary to what the obvious inference is in the rhetoric, "not all men" speak this way about women. We are all sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, and most of us maintain strong protective instincts as to women and girls of our acquaintance. We are not a part of "rape culture." And I think most such men would deeply resent and object to being characterized as "potential rapists." I think no small number of women feel the same way. For example, I have read to my wife some excerpts from this board about the explanations and justifications for labeling "all men" as "potential rapists." She was, both as a wife and a mother to four sons, appalled at this notion, and both surprised and disappointed, even appalled, to hear that this stuff is being advocated by some her fellow Latter-day Saint women. In the end, the relevant question is whether the surrounding institutions treat non-consensual sex as acceptable or instead treat it as a serious offense subject to investigation and sanction. On that measure, the Cornell case itself shows the opposite of a rape culture: the texts triggered formal processes and public condemnation, not rationalization or silence. A better question, in my view, would be "Are U.S. citizens, in 2026, predominantly looking at these text messages and shrugging, or ignoring, or justifying and excusing them, or are these text messages being broadly and strenuously denounced? And if the latter, is that evidence for or against the claim that America has a 'rape culture?'" I think that's a fair question. But it hasn't really been asked much, nor assessed much, nor has the answer been acknowledged much. First, the texts are ambiguous. I know that is a frustrating thing to hear, but that's the dispassionate truth. Second, we presently have little information about how many of the frat guys A) received the text (sent, as it was, in the middle of the night), B) construed it as indicating nonconsensual sex in the frat house, and C) ignored or condoned, or acted on, the "invitation." Third, we know of at least one frat guy who says he did respond to the text in the way you and I would hope to see: Boston Globe (Oct. 3, 2026): “One of the frat brothers who went to the room said he did it to investigate, later telling college officials that he was worried about the woman. According to material from Cornell’s investigation obtained by The New York Times, he said that he neither took drugs in that room nor touched Jane Doe, and that he left after a few minutes. ‘If she wasn’t [OK], I’d like to think that I would have helped out and did something about it,’ he said. But, apparently, having determined that Jane Doe was a willing participant, this student did report back to the group afterward that the offer of her body was genuine, because he had seen her for himself. ‘First person pov not a bit,’ he told the group.” https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/10/03/metro/cornell-rape-allegations-fraternity/ New York Times (reporting on investigative materials): Scott Norris told investigators he saw the Snapchat message, thought it might be a joke, and “was genuinely concerned and wanted to investigate what’s going on.” He and Scott Kretzschmar entered the room, determined that everything appeared “normal” and that nothing improper was happening, then left. Norris later responded in the group chat (including affirming that the “shop” was still open). https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/10/nyregion/cornell-rape-lawsuit-fraternity-brothers.html/ CBS News New York and related coverage (including statements from Scott Kretzschmar’s attorney Jeremy Saland): Kretzschmar saw the messages, went into the room for only a few minutes, and left. His lawyer stated: “She was not undressed. He didn’t see her under duress. She wasn’t having a hard time articulating any things.” Saland has also said his client went upstairs looking for someone he had been with and made only an “immature comment” in the chat. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/cornell-university-rape-allegation-chi-phi-snapchat-conversation/ Related: https://okmagazine.com/p/cornell-7-scott-kretzschmar-lawyer-explains-snapchat-response/ These accounts come from Title IX investigative materials, the men’s statements to investigators, and their attorneys. They are disputed by Jane Doe’s account and by the civil complaint, which treats the men’s entry into the room as part of the alleged non-consensual activity. No criminal charges have been filed. All of this means, in my view, that we need to let the investigation proceed in normal course. Who was telling the truth, who was lying, who was embellishing, who was misremembering and/or blotto, such things need to be assessed based on evidence, and the assessment must be fair and reasoned and dispassionate. Okay. I hope you will lay out your reasoning, as I presently find it opaque. Conclusory stuff doesn't do much to clarify. I just don't see the U.S. in 2026 as "cultivating a carelessness in regards to rape of women." Quite the opposite, actually. Again, the Cornell case itself shows the opposite of a rape culture: the texts triggered formal processes and public condemnation, not rationalization or silence or "boys will be boys." FWIW, publicly declaring terrible and per se prejudiced statements that "all men are potential rapists" also has a pretty solid likelihood of creating "harm" to "relationships." Not sure if this is a bug or a feature of the sentiment. By way of example, I have interacted with you and Bluebell for many years on this board, but if I were to encounter you on the street, I would walk on by and not interact in any way at all. Knowing, as I do, that you view me, and all other men, as a "'potential' rapist," I have no interest in any in-person interaction with someone who carries such a corrosive and unpleasant presumption about me. Much safer to give you, in terms of physical proximity or verbal discussion or interaction, as wide a berth as possible. Yes, look at that. Normative and benign "behaviors of friendship" are disappearing because people - including quite a few men - are scared that any such hug or pat on the back or whatever will trigger some reputation-and-career-destroying accusation because, in the eyes of some, "all men are 'potential' rapists." For my part, I have substantially altered my behavior toward women, in large part because of your and Bluebell's comments on this board. Except when I am with my wife, I stay well away from and do not interact with women. I don't say hello or strike up any conversation, as I may previously have done on the train or in a long grocery line. I may open a door, but I will not say anything except "Good morning." Because I just don't know the mindset held by a woman encountered in the store or sidewalk, and because you and Bluebell and others have gone to such great lengths to explain the "all men are 'potential' rapists" sentiment as not only justifiable, but an affirmative and necessary good, and because I don't know if that random woman shares your perspective, I err on the side of caution and assume that she does share it, and therefore I avoid her as a general and overarching principles. I do not want to say or do anything that might be construed - reasonably or irrationally - as a manifestation that "all men are 'potential' rapists," or that I am part of a "rape culture." There have been some few exceptions. I was at Wal-Mart a few weeks ago and, while looking for Gatorade powder, I noticed an older women about 15 feet away who was struggling to reach an item on a high shelf. I kept looking for the Gatorade, and she clocked me. I kept looking. She clocked me again. I then turned to her and said "Ma'am, would you like me to help you grab that can?" She immediately smiled and said "Yes, thank you very much." I reached up, retrieved the can, and gave it to her. She thanked me again. Such incidents are, still, exceptions. Thanks to the lessons (if they can be called that) you and Bluebell have been so persistently advancing, you have succeeded in persuading me that past notions of men civilly interacting with women must be set aside because, well, men are now seen by some - fortunately not all - women as "'potential' rapists." Men should, then, act with this sentiment in mind. That is how people like you see people like me, so people like me are better of at not interacting with people like you. This is intriguing. You are describing an unpleasant and ugly social milieu involving "rape culture" (whatever that actually means). I am describing an unpleasant and ugly social milieu involving men, out of a sense of self-preservation (and preservation of reputation, and career, and so on), abstain from previously normative and civil and kind interactions with women because they - the men - are seen by some women as "'potential' rapists," such that the safest course is to eliminate or minimize those interactions. And now that I'm a bit into this, I'm finding it's really not that hard for me. I am fortunate to have a large family and circle of friends and acquaintances with whom I feel comfortable interacting in a normative sense. But in the store or on the sidewalk or at an event, I stay as far away from interacting with women as possible. Had that woman at Wal-Mart been younger, I would have turned around and walked away. Walking away and not interacting with women = "less likely to be a 'potential' rapist." Thanks, -Smac

We aren’t responsible for the verdict or the punishment if any of those involved. We aren’t the immediate victims having to live with the consequences (though I see our society as a whole victimized due to such behavior being allowed to continue without much consequence). Railing against the system would be pretty meaningless and a waste of energy and increase unnecessary stress, so not that healthy. Better to respond in a constructive way and go to work promoting the change you need to see…such as stronger penalties for colleges that avoid doing more than checking the box when it comes to the Campus SaVE act that requires, I believe, the evidence based effective bystanders intervention program. Apparently all colleges are ‘complying’, but if compliance is one event when students and faculty first join the college when they are likely already overwhelmed from all the other new info they are exposed to, that’s just performance and not commitment. The requirement needs to be tougher. These are programs that actually work to prevent rapes. Another intelligent response would be to discontinue frat or sorority houses as their culture is correlated the likelihood of sexual assault (drinking especially, but also social expectations with dating/sex) and disband any club with members engaging in excessive drinking behavior at formal and informal gatherings (sure, kids will get together and do it any way off campus, etc, but making it harder and less prestigious is likely to help).

I used to assume that eternal progeny meant eternal sex too, but I think the theories of Monogamy as Divine Design make more sense: MDD 3. "Wouldn't being a polygamist mean that God the Father can produce more spirit children more quickly?" Many Latter-day Saints have assumed that if we teach of resurrected bodies, eternal marriage, and eternal progeny, then there must be eternal procreative sex too. This assertion has been used to argue for the validity (and even advantage) of eternal polygamy as well. While a woman living infinitely could be consecutively pregnant with an infinite number of children even if produced one-by-one, it is noted that a God-man with more than one immortal partner can produce an infinite number of children at an even faster rate than if He has only one partner. This has been an argument for eternal polygamy for at least a hundred years. It has caused outside critics to point out that such an idea means a heaven of men potentially having eternal harems of women who are eternally pregnant and burdened with child-bearing. This "women as eternal incubators" idea has sometimes been given as reason when asked why we do not hear more of Heavenly Mother, asserting that She is too busy spiritually birthing more spirit children, and so being more involved in our lives is therefore not part of Her role. But it would be worthy to consider why the mechanics of human reproduction are as they are, and consider if they are perhaps mechanics that only apply to humans — Males emit about 200 to 500 million sperm with each ejaculation. Even when conception succeeds, only one (or in rare cases, two or three) sperm ever successfully fertilize an egg. This "less than 100,000,000 to 1 odds" is an evolutionary feature to help ensure that only one of the highest caliber of sperm succeed in fertilizing the egg, but the inefficiency of having literally hundreds of millions of sperm be wasted with every emission in order to weed out any defective or weak sperm would not likely be a feature of reproduction in a heavenly realm with no risk of genetic imperfections. Having mothers carry developing babies in their own body is protective to the survival and the development of the child. It serves as a safety feature by which the developing baby cannot be separated from the mother; the placenta acts as a mechanism for all needed nutrients to reach the developing baby from the mother; and the placenta also acts as a barrier to protect the baby from environmental toxins. That women are usually only pregnant with one developing baby at a time is also a survival mechanism, as it helps ensure the survival of one baby by not having that baby be competing for nutrients with another. These evolutionary protective mechanisms are potentially features that are only existent on earth. If we know that human fertilization is an act of evolutionary "one winner to many losers" feature, and that female childbearing is to protect a developing human fetus from the threats of a brutally-naturalistic earth, it could be reasoned that our fertilization and child-bearing mechanism for creating human life is solely a telestial-based model. The creation of spirit bodies in a higher realm would not necessitate any "survival of the fittest" competition between genetic material (if our spirit bodies have anything that could be termed "genetic material"), there would be no mortality-based threats against any "infant" spirit children being created, and no limitation of nutrient, space, attention, or anything else to hinder one Father and Mother God from forming an unlimited number of spirit children simultaneously. MDD 4 ~ Perhaps born of the creation-mind of God, not of Their bodies ~ We have not been explicitly given any doctrinal answer as to by what mechanism God the Father and Mother formed our spirit bodies, but if we believe that God created the earth, and everything on it, through the organization of existant matter and the guided development of biological organisms, and that this was achieved solely through the intended will of the mind of God acting on natural laws, could our spirit bodies have also been formed by solely the intention of God? Could we suppose it to be possible that our spirit bodies were perhaps formed by the united mind of a Man & Woman God, rather than by some kind of resurrection-fluid passing between resurrected bodies? The idea that we were created by the will of God (as opposed to thinking that our spirit bodies exited out of a god-vagina) is a belief held by all the rest of Christendom, and it fits more closely with the language of Abraham 3:22 where we read, "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was;" Monogamy as Divine Design

By "For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage..." are you implying that certain church members weren't being instructed to practice polygyny in D&C 132? Because in verse 3 it says, "for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." And then verse 64 states that the Lord will destroy any wife who has been taught of this but does not "believe and administer" in it. Those who insist that Section 132 is only talking about Joseph & Emma seem to be forgetting those verses of it entirely.

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape. Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law, will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?

In scriptural idioms, a "virgin" in the context of marriage simply referred to her status at the time she entered the covenant (as opposed to a widow or divorcee). The descriptor applies when she is espoused (betrothed/married). If a law said, "If a man marry a maiden, and she bear him children..." nobody interprets that to mean she remained a literal "maiden" after childbirth. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language a "virgin" can be an unattached woman. The main point of verse 61 is stating that if a man marries a woman who is not bound to another husband, and then enters a subsequent marriage with another unattached woman under priesthood authority, he is not committing adultery. It is addressing covenant legalities, not demanding that previous wives remain perpetually untouched.

Verse 61 doesn't really make sense. It assumes you will marry a virgin, then she will remain a virgin all the while you are looking for your second or other virgins to marry. Would your 5 wives really remain virgins as you march toward your tally of ten mentioned in the next verse?

Are you a child of heavenly parents who used their fully functioning sexual organs to form you?

Not all of the people in this discussion accept revealed truth as valid. Analytics definitely doesn't. I do it because I want to understand what really happened. Did Joseph actually have a set of ancient plates that he supernaturally translated? Or did he pre-write it and then read it off? Did he pre-write it himself or with others? Did he make it up on the fly? That to me is what I'm interested in.

Have you read https://rsc.byu.edu/approaching-antiquity-joseph-smith-ancient-world/git-them-translated-translating-characters-gold-plates? Because that's kind of the same idea. And I'm actually in favor of that. At the beginning, Joseph wasn't really attempting to translate. He had received the plates, put up a curtain, and then copied several characters and gave them to Martin Harris so he could shop around for someone to actually translate the plates. But Anthon does indicate that there was some supernatural mechanism. He said in his 1834 letter: That sounds like a supernatural ability. I doubt Anthon is telling us that the spectacles are ordinary, scientific spectacles. I would bet Anthon is writing that to indicate how he sees this whole attempt as a fraud, but that does show that Martin did talk about some supernatural process. I don't think there are any statements of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon purely by inspiration (no stone, spectacles, etc). But yes, I do agree the direction is the same. Joseph first looked at the plates (behind a curtain), then used the interpreters (in a hat), then used the seer stone (in a hat), then after translating the Book of Mormon he kept progressing till the point that he didn't need any instrument at all. Ok, that is over a year later, so yeah, Joseph could incorporate it there. But I do wonder, did Joseph already have Isaiah in mind when he sent Martin to find scholars? Did Joseph already have this snippet in the Book of Mormon and just needed Martin to act it out so he could show a prophecy fulfilled? Or did he incorporate it only after Martin came back?

What I don't understand is that I think each of you in this discussion accepts revealed truth as valid as indicated in the famous Moroni challenge In Moroni 10. If that is correct, then why is there all the emphasis on this thread from all sides participating on trying to create rational truth to demonstrate the historicity (or "truth") of the Book of Mormon? If folks don't believe, they probably won't accept your rational belief anyway. If they do believe, there is no need for rational belief. What am I missing? Might it have something to do with Cardinal Newman's concept of illative truth?

Section 132 is not a restatement of the Levitical law codes. Leviticus 21:13-14 and Ezekiel 44:22 restrict the High Priest exclusively to virgins of Israel. Joseph Smith’s later plural sealing included non-virgin widows, the same for many other early LDS polygamists. It seems 132 is a copy of a letter to Emma concerning Joseph’s marriages to Emily and Eliza Partridge specifically who were indeed virgins, but also sisters which is against Levitical law, 132 is not a rule book for all plural marriages in the future.

For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage in Doctrine and Covenants 132:61, was the mandate to only marry virgins a principle carried over from Old Testament teachings? "And he shall take a wife in her virginity ... but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife" (Leviticus 21:13-14, KJV). "They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the descendants of the house of Israel, or widows of priests" (Ezekiel 44:22, NKJV)

All three cases have to do with the Church. Where’s that connection here? I find the topic irrelevant to the board’s purpose. Seems like it’s on here in its current form because someone was bored. Bluebell first bought it up in regards to the “not all men” topic because of the text sent out to 57 men and answered by many. Not really seeing how your dissection of the case (and I have gone along with it because my attention is easily caught) has much to do with that discussion or the larger one of rape culture. Added: If we keep to the original topic of rape culture and not all men, I think there is a valid discussion of what in the case could be said to contribute to a rape culture. You brought up a definition of rape culture and then said iirc, you didn’t see such as prevalent in our society. I would see the texts themselves as strong evidence for it myself. Violence is not just physical, but includes humiliation…verbal and emotional violence. A good question we could be exploring is do most women see such texts as humiliating? Would the awareness that such was circulating about us among men we associated with cause us harm? Just the content shared among the 50+ men so far. Were there any protests from the men involved speaking against sending the texts out either during or after before the threat of the law became likely and CYA behaviour likely kicks in? My vote is for a major yes that these texts are symptoms of rape culture and contributed to such culture themselves. From discussions I have been hearing of since a youth, similar conversations that reduce girls and women to sexual objects for men’s enjoyment have always been common and in our society, they look to be promoted in my view given how often they are used in entertainment for humor, advertising, etc. And just to preempt the “but what about men, don’t they matter as much?… When I say “rape culture” I am not limiting it to only one sex or gender. I am relatively certain that a society that cultivates a carelessness in regards to rape of women probably increases sexual violence over all, meaning men are more likely to become victims as well. Plus there is the harm done to relationships in general because such attitudes will affect a wide range of interactions. Look at how hugs, pats on the backs and others such behaviours of friendship, even compassion now must be avoided to prevent giving cover to more aggressive, exploitative behaviour. Humanity is programmed to communicate through touch as well as sight and sound. We risk isolating ourselves when this gets removed. Would be great to have a culture where such behaviour was low risk for the vulnerable. At this point we don’t have one.

I don't, because this discussion is not a part of the legal process so no presumption of innocence is necessary. I also don't believe that starting out in favor of those accused rapists serves any good purpose here in this discussion. In a courtroom, of course, but not here. In this discussion those men are not owed the benefit of the doubt. I believe it would be morally wrong to begin this discussion by automatically elevating the men's position over that of Jane Doe's, which is exactly what we would have to do if we started with the presumption that they are telling the truth and she is lying. That puts her at a deficit and them at an advantage in this discussion that I don't believe is justified or reasonable. Edit to add: Because I know you are fond of AI summaries, it has a good one on why I don't believe the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt is valid in most social interactions (including this board): The principle is institutional: As noted in legal analyses like those from the Canadian Lawyer Magazine, the presumption of innocence is designed specifically to restrain the massive coercive power of the government. Private citizens do not possess police powers or state authority, so the same rules do not apply to private judgment or social consequences

Can you share why you believe the presumption of innocence is important for a message board? A message board serves none of the purposes of the legal system for example, so I'm unsure why you believe it should track the principles. I agree we can certainly look at the evidence and share opinions about it's weight, relevance, accuracy, etc, but that is very different than finding the truth isn't it? Is there anyway that we here could discuss this rape case and learn the actual truth of what happened through our discussion? We can't really do the same though. A tithing lawsuit with all the direct and forensic evidence is a completely different animal than a rape case, where the evidence is largely circumstantial and based on inference, right? This would be especially true in an acquaintance or date-rape scenario where proving consent when the interaction between everyone involved started out as voluntary is incredibly complex and much of the time based solely or mostly on 'he said-she said' testimony. On top of all of that you have to add the deep-seated and millenia-old cultural biases that exist surrounding female sexuality to the mix--best illustrated by the whole 'what were you wearing' theme we are all very well aware of--which adds an entire other level of complexity to achieving justice that just does not exist in financial litigation. So I reiterate that we cannot do the same when discussing this matter as we could when discussing the tithing lawsuits. I'm sincerely surprised that you think we could.

In case you missed it, in the beginning God created the human generations of the heaven and in His own image, a divine image that fully extends to the natures of both human males and human females. The context of Genesis 1 makes it clear that prior to the fall these human males and females were created by God to be sexual beings capable of bringing forth offspring by means of obeying the very first commandment God ever gave to man, which is to lawfully engage in the act of sexual procreation. And since the generations of the heaven and earth were created in the very image of God as both male AND female, to many Latter-Day Saints (Yours Truly included) it’s perfectly reasonable and logical and to expect that the divine nature of God’s family circle would include both male and female natures. After all, God himself declared the divine nature to be both male and female. And when was there ever a father who was able bring forth a son without the indispensable contribution of a mother? And let’s not forget that prior to the fall, while in Eden, that God commanded the then immortal and sinless Adam and Eve, to multiply and replenish the earth. In this regard, it always amuses me that it never seems to dawn on non-LDS Christians that redemption from the fall should include the redemptive blessing of being able to bring forth children while existing in a state of holiness since prior to the fall Adam and Eve were an eternally married couple who were under the commandment to bring forth children while living without sin in God’s immediate presence. In other words, redemption from the fall should necessarily include a return to the state of eternal marriage that was enjoyed by our first parents before their fall, including the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to multiply while living lives of holiness in the presence of God. We can actually get a glimpse of how the male and female divine natures combine to work in wondrous ways when it’s understood that by means of the sexual reproductive system of Mary God’s Son gestated in her womb and was born into the world with a human body. God wisely implemented the holy miracle of human sexual procreation for his eternal purposes, its spiritually blind men and women who ignore its sanctity and debase it. It’s fallen mankind who made sex “dirty” but In the beginning it was highly esteemed as the holy mechanism through which God’s great purposes in the creation to roll forward. It’s the refusal to believe that human sexuality can continue beyond the grave that makes “first wave,” mid-19th century Mormonism appear so strange to many. Nevertheless, if we’re going to be raised from the dead with fully functioning human organs suited to a holier state, why is it so hard to imagine that the human sexual reproductive system can also be perfected in the resurrected to function in a holier state? But I guess it’s easier and less icky to presume that all human beings are going to be raised from the dead with either anatomically incorrect Barbie and Ken bodies that will ultimately serve to prove that gender really is nothing more than a human construct. “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and PURPOSE” (The Family, a Proclamation to the World)

Not in the sense of the us legal system. In the sense of posting on this message board. I can see that. I think discussions on a message board ought to track at least some of the principles upon which our legal system is based. The presumption of innocence, for example. Yes. We can look at the evidence. Our legal system is, in most respects, left open to the general public, so we can end up having access to quite a bit of what both sides produce. Consider our discussions about Joseph Bishop and McKenna Denson. We addressed a lot of stuff, and I provisionally concluded that A) Joseph Bishop did something extremely inappropriate while he was the MTC president, but not conduct amounting to rape, and B) McKenna Denson was the victim of Bishop's misconduct, but I don't think she was truthful in her allegations of rape. I think she significantly embellished/fabricated. Look at the SEC dispute. We addressed a lot of the evidence. We were able to figure out quite a bit. Look at the Hunstman lawsuit. Again, the evidence was there for anyone to examine. We examined it, and discussed it, and reached informed conclusions about what "the truth." And so it goes. At this stage? Provisionally, perhaps. It becomes more difficult to do when there is so much vitriolic and mobocratic behavior. Jane Doe's allegations certainly deserve real consideration. I don't think their validity is a foregone conclusion. Rather, I think allegations of rape should be treated the same way allegations of any other crime are treated. Here, though, the presumption of innocence has been inverted, critiques of Jane Doe's 2024 statement and text messages and 2026 civil lawsuit have been shouted down as "defending the rapists," and so on. My preliminary assessment is that Jane Doe's allegations are, quality-wise, fairly poor. I think there is effectively zero chance of a criminal conviction. The prosecution has become politicized, and that is quite unfortunate, but we have safeguards for that sort of thing. As for Jane Doe's civil claim, I think it is unlikely she will be able to meet the "preponderance" standard. Again, her contemporaneous text messages and her 2024 statement is overall fairly damaging to her later claims of nonconsensual sexual contact. The transcripts of her 2024 interviews with police might be very important, as it appears the prosecutor did not receive those, and I don't think they have been made public. Her civil complaint does not seem to reference much in the way of corroborating evidence. We spent a few years examining the "tithing" lawsuits. Somewhat early on I predicted that the Church would win and the lawsuits would fail, and that was borne out. This was not just guesswork on my part, but was based on the facts alleged and the applicable principles of law. My prediction was not entirely correct, either, just mostly. We can do the same when discussing the Cornell matter. It will require us to set aside emotionalisms and examine the evidence in a dispassionate and fair-minded manner. That's not really happening in this thread. Thanks, -Smac

I guess we come from very different places. Again, you presuppose that a rape occurred. This begs the question. No "alleged" victim, just a question-begging "victim." Ipso facto, the seven men are "rapists" in your view? If so, how do you reconcile this with the presumption of innocence? If you were the mother or sister of someone accused of rape, and who denies the allegation, would you still characterize him as a rapist (no "alleged")? Here is my perspective: The presumption that applies in the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence for the accused, not a presumption that the complainant is telling the truth (which is apparently what you are saying). Police investigate reported crimes; they do not begin with a formal presumption that any particular account is accurate, whether the crime is rape, robbery, or anything else. In practice, officers take a report seriously and look for evidence that can corroborate or contradict it. That is different from starting with the conclusion that the complainant’s version is true and treating skepticism or contrary evidence as “victim blaming.” The latter approach short-circuits the investigation. It treats the accusation itself as sufficient to establish that a crime occurred and that the named person committed it. Rape is not unique in involving delayed reporting, inconsistent statements, or questions about capacity and consent. Those issues arise in other crimes too. The proper response is still to examine the evidence—including contemporaneous communications, physical evidence, witness accounts, and the evolution of the complainant’s statements—rather than to treat any scrutiny as improper. When early statements or conduct are inconsistent with the later account, noting that inconsistency is ordinary investigative work. Presuming the complainant’s narrative at the outset does the opposite of what the system requires: it shifts the burden onto the accused to disprove the claim before the evidence has been fully developed. An investigation can (and should) treat a report as worthy of thorough review without adopting the legal or rhetorical posture that the accused is already presumed to have committed the offense. Thank you for your thoughts here. A few responses: First, I have not suggested that we treat all evidence as if it has the same probative weight. Second, no one is saying every possibility carries equal weight or that mere speculation equals evidence. The point is narrower: when there is actual evidence that is consistent with consent (or inconsistent with the claim of continuous non-consent/incapacitation), that evidence cannot be dismissed in advance simply because an accusation has been made. But that seems to be what is happening in some quarters. Third, evaluating the weight of evidence is exactly what an investigation and, if charges are brought, a trial are for. Contemporaneous statements, conduct, and communications that align with consent are not “just a possibility”; they are facts in the record that any fair assessment has to account for. In my view, treating those facts as irrelevant, or as automatically outweighed by the later accusation, is what "stacks the deck." It converts the accusation itself into the decisive evidence and requires the accused to disprove it. Fourth, I think the proper approach is not to declare all possibilities equal. It is to let the evidence that actually exists—including evidence that cuts against the later narrative—be considered on its merits rather than ruled out of bounds at the start. That is ordinary evidence evaluation, not an assumption that every theory is equally probable. Thanks, -Smac

This is how obvious - - -

Not in the sense of the us legal system. In the sense of posting on this message board. Do we have any hope of getting to the truth here in our discussion? You said that for you, posting here is about getting to the truth. I'm asking if you think it's possible for you to get to the truth in this discussion.

In a sense, it completely does presume that the victim was harmed, as it should. An investigation done right should allow the police to determine the validity of the victims accusations, but in the beginning yes the police should presume that the victim is telling the truth just as they do with victims of any other crime. Police don't start out neutral in any other crime so why should they start out that way with rape? Treating all evidence as if it has the same weight, and assuming all possibilities are equal to probabilities also stacks the deck and makes a possibility alone evidence until itself.

The "Gods" of 4:1 are "them" of 3:24. For some reason, you want "the Gods" to be one exclusive group of non-human, infinite deities, while completely separating them from the noble and great spirits. I imagine it's because you are stuck in a theological box where a being is either a 100% immutable God or a 100% non-divine being, with zero overlap or trajectory in between them. You claim Abraham 4 excludes the noble spirits. But look at the textual chain. Abraham 3:22-23: God stands among the "intelligences that were organized... among all these...the noble and great ones... God... said: These I will make my rulers... Abraham, thou art one of them..." Abraham 3:24: "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down... and we will make an earth..." Abraham 4:1: "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down... and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens..." Who is "with Him", the noble and great spirit who was like God in 3:24? The other noble and great spirits. When Abraham 4:1 says "and they, that is the Gods," the text is not introducing a mystery third party; it is giving the title ("the Gods" elohim) to Jehovah and the noble spirit leaders executing the creation. Abraham 4 is not in isolation, it does not invent a foreign concept here. In the first Genesis Creation account, Genesis 1:1 "Bereshit bara Elohim... [the Gods created]" the earth, who are also the same "us" of Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image", which already depicts that Creation was a collaborative, plural endeavor involving the divine council. The first Creation account concludes in Genesis 2:4, "these are the generations [toledot] of the heavens" toledot denotes begettings, genealogy, and family, refers directly to the progeny of God and the bene Elohim were begotten [or adopted] at some point during Creation or before it. In the Psalms Creation, Psalm 104:1-4, Day One the Lord wrapped Himself in a robe of divine light, establishes His court, and "make the winds [spirits] your messengers, fire and flame [glorious angels] your ministers", a verse that Hebrews 1:7 explicitly applies to the organization of heavenly beings at Creation. In the Job Creation, Job 38:4-7 the "sons of God" [bene Elohim] shouted for joy to see the foundation of the earth laid and Job 15:7-8 where the "First Man" Adam stood in the council before the hills. While Michael isn't spelled out in Abraham 4, D&C 27:11 and D&C 107:54-55 has Michael the Archangel placed under Christ in the heavenly hierarchy as far as great spirits go, and Michael became Adam, "the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel." The great spirits that God made "rulers", aka the celestial princes of the nations. It's a position, they only have as much power and authority they were portioned and justifies the title of god. Lackluster gods, but gods. Exodus 22:28 "You shall not curse the gods, and you shall not curse the ruler [prince] of your people". The word "gods" in this biblical context is a title given to the celestial princes of several nations. The "prince of Persia" in the Bible (Daniel 10) is a celestial patron assigned to the kingdom of Persia, while the "prince of Tyre" (Ezekiel 28) refers to the celestial patron assigned to Tyre, who is distingushed from the "king of Tyre" the human ruler. Like in the Jewish Christian text Clementine Recognitions 3:42, "Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes".

Which of these spirits are deities?

Considering that Abraham 4:1 refers to them as “Gods,” it makes more sense that Jesus is specifically addressing these Gods in Abraham 3:24. You’re assuming that the phrase “let us” includes the Gods plus many of the great and noble ones, while excluding everyone who was neither great nor noble. In other words, “let us, but not them.” Abraham 4:1 clarifies who the “let us” refers to. You still haven’t demonstrated how figures such as Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, or Uriel are mentioned in chapter 4. The text identifies no one else as assisting the Gods in creating things such as the Sun, the Moon, or Adam from the dust of the earth.