All Activity

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any. Can you help in this regard? In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this? If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence. My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death. They do? Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s? Possibly, yes. Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship. See also here: The term “open” in this statute is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is “notorious,” “exposed to public view,” or “visible,” and which is “not clandestine.”22 Joseph’s relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition. Possibly, yes. Not sure what you mean here. I think this is incorrect. See here. Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation. Do you have contrary evidence? That Joseph and Emma were never sealed? Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion. Thanks, -Smac

From a historical standpoint there is no reliable evidence that he had a husband/wife relationship with any underage girls. If he had lived long enough it sounds like his marriage to Helen Kimball would have been a normal marriage but all records point to them never being unchaperoned and their relationship never being more than on paper, so to speak. I know that you value honesty, and I’m saying that sincerely. This is one of those times where anyone who values accuracy will want to look into the historical record for themselves and not just repeat what they’ve heard in the past, especially if they’ve heard it from unreliable sources. You said it yourself, people lie. Especially when the lie justifies their biases or serves an agenda. There’s plenty of other stuff that you can be mad at Joseph Smith and the church about, this just doesn’t happen to be a valid criticism.

Well, we can’t necessarily know what decisions Joseph would’ve made in his personal life in today’s climate. The decisions I make today are very different than the decisions I made just 10 years ago.

Man accused in Cornell rape lawsuit wants Letitia James removed from investigation Deeply unimpressed with Letitia James. Not just about her bias, but also her foolishness. Bias is a legitimate concern. Also not impressed with Gov. Hochul. Same reasons. I don't think the dispute is about broad legality of a governor's executive power. I don't think she'll be removed, but this was an unforced error. Thanks, -Smac

Oh my bad. I forgot that no one ever lied back then… especially Joseph smith. for the record he wasn’t sealed to Emma until AFTER he married 22 other women all the while lying about it and breaking the law. So until he got those 22 marriages out of the way… Emma wasn’t sealed to him. Praise to the man. What a guy! Joseph smith would be sharing a cell with Warren jeffs today.

This is important stuff. I think our personal political preferences, ideologies, outlook, etc. need to be substantially "downstream" from our discipleship, as otherwise allegiance to a political party or ideology might end up superseding the "weightier matters" that exist, or should exist, in our lives. Thanks, -Smac

Well, no. My assessment of Dan is in part based on my personal interactions with him (hence my acknowledgment of those interactions), but mostly it's about his public social media stuff. Thanks, -Smac

In case anyone was wondering, this whole thing is because it's personal for Spencer.

You only pretend to care about the truth if you plan to just ignore Helen Mar Kimball’s own testimony regarding her relationship with Joseph Smith. You try to establish fake facts when the historical record does not establish that claim. And Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Get the history right before lecturing anyone else about it.

It's possible that a widow remained a virgin.

It’s hard for him to fathom, but not everybody is black-and-white

Throwing caution to the wind, of the big red pop-up banner... I don't think he had a political ideological purity that could be pigeon-holed into one or the other even at that time; and even if he did, it would be too difficult to dissect each component from its historical place and then place it neatly into a modern political category box. That said, Joseph's and Rigdon's Mormon Reform Party was likely best categorized as center-left for the time. That's what makes it sticky though, is that rascally "for the time." It had flavors of Jeffersonian democracy, which were pretty radical and progressive at the time but now has a lot of elements that fit perfectly within the realm of modern conservatism. Even the components of classical liberalism that he advocated can't be placed, as a whole, perfectly within on side of the modern political dichotomy. Ultimately, I think at best (and even then, it requires a lot of guesswork and assumptions) you can take a given position or given aspect in a given moment, and mayyyyyybeeeee put it into the modern spectrum; but, placing him on the modern spectrum as a whole is an act in futility, that I think is ultimately more of a reflection of the person doing the categorizing than of Joseph himself.

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her. Why not, she was his wife. You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her, he would be in prison for marrying other men’s wives. Politically, he would not survive with all the shenanigans he was up to. Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma. Praise to the man!

I'm not following. Are you suggesting the learned man in 2 Nephi 27 is not Charles Anthon? Who else could it be? From 1831 Anthon’s name was being used to say he had validated the characters, and from 1835 Mormons were casting him as the learned man of Isaiah 29 and 2 Nephi 27, who asks for the book for gain. Either way Anthon had every reason not to admit in print that he had asked to see the plates, so his silence is not surprising. The positive evidence is Knight: Anthon “rote a very good piece to Joseph and said if he would send the original he would translate it.” Knight doesn’t read to me like someone fitting the account from 2 Nephi. He does see it as fulfilling Isaiah 29 (“Then was fulfild the 29th chapter of Isiah”) but the details don’t follow. The original can’t be shown because “it was Commanded,” not because it’s sealed, and there’s no sealed portion at all. Mitchill and Anthon can translate some of the characters, which is the opposite of “I cannot.” Anthon refuses to go on without the original, and Harris stalls (“I will go home and see”) and then they simply “went to him no more.” His detail that Anthon put his offer in writing isn’t in either text, and Anthon himself admits in 1841 that he gave a written opinion, after denying it in 1834. That looks like a remembered event read through the prophecy, not one invented from it. If Knight was trying to fit his account with 2 Nephi, he'd be more likely to follow 2 Nephi exactly The Butler/Bennett account is the most revealing IMO. There's a strong argument RT makes here that Butler had confused Mitchill and Anthon and Bennett printed the story backwards. If this is the case, then Harris would have visited Mitchill first, and Mitchill would have referred him to Anthon who then "examined them and compared them with other hieroglyphics— thought them very curious—and [said] they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named.” And the printed version would then be Anthon who had "looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them—compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt—and set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more” This seems to me to be the correct reading of the Butler/Bennett account. It was Anthon, not Mitchill, who made a learned dissertation on the characters.

Yes, why is it merciful to an animal and not to a human who might be barely conscious but in unbearable pain? One can be unconscious and still in pain. I think best practice is using medications that lower awareness to the point of not feeling pain, but I am not sure how they work in every case, especially if a patient has developed tolerance. Are there new ones that can be used instead? Also I get the slippery slope issue. It’s dangerous and I believe it should be primarily dealt with using living wills…which I need to get in place though I have let everyone know my wishes. But if we had a way to determine for certainty that someone would not recover (as our medicine improves, the accuracy of prognosis will as well), would anyone not already sort of comfortable with the idea of there are massive safeguards to avoid abuse okay with it then? (I suspect Catholics won’t as it is interfering with nature drastically, but seems like many life saving medications do that, so it is likely there are nuances.) I certainly hope I don’t get placed in a situation where a discussion on something more than withholding life support while making the person comfortable comes up. I also get that many have respect for life in general, but life is not abstract for me, it’s what we experience, not some distinct principle. I don’t see why I should respect a life that every last person would hate including the person living it. What makes a tortured existence of value? Serious question, not trying to be provocative. I don’t understand it? The being who possesses that life needs to be fully respected and cared for, but why doesn’t that sometimes mean helping them die? Not saying I know how to go about it safely, it just seems for many it shouldn’t even be considered as a hypothetical because it’s inherently immoral in their view and I wonder why.

Having experienced excruciating pain and other stuff that removed my rationality for a time, I have to wonder what good could come from prolonging such suffering when the end result is death. Not saying it won’t happen, just not seeing how it could at this point. Don’t we need to be conscious and aware to learn? If all the pain or whatever input swamps all our senses and mind, what learning can take place? Just think of trying to read if you were right next to a fire alarm going off. Sensory overload. It makes sense when there is a way out, an afterward, where is the time for reflection to think back and say ‘I may have felt like I was splitting in two and thought I was going to die and actually wanted to for a moment, but I am grateful now for the baby’ or ‘I couldn’t stand it, but now the skin graft is working, I can see scraping off the dead stuff over and over every day was worth it’. But when there is no after in mortality….I don’t see what difference it makes in the afterlife that we hung around longer in such pain if we didn’t have a choice.

Considering the likely subsistence living on many, knowing it wasn’t as bad doesn’t do anything for me. Nor do those types of justifications usually work (except perhaps when it comes to pain and embarrassment…this wasn’t as bad as….and I survived that). Two wrongs don’t make a right. They should like excuses to me. And using not as bad appears to be granting the premise it is wrong. Not saying the restrained extravagance of the temple was a wrong. Simply analyzing what is unsatisfying because I don’t know the why. It is not for me to say it’s not according to God’s will as I am not the one receiving direction to build or not build it. I never regretted a penny of tithing or other forms of donation to the Church. I love that temples are going up all around so that it is much easier for all Saints to get to them multiple times in their lives. We have never been close to poverty, so tithing is a very different experience for me than someone giving of their necessities. I certainly benefit myself from the sacrifice others make and am grateful for it. I never sit there and think ‘this could have bought so many meals’. (I do admit to sometimes thinking ‘less gold, more wood and stained glass please!’, but that is an aesthetic choice, not thinking of which costs more because I don’t know, labour can be very expensive. I trust temple building is directed by God. To me, that is probably the only thing that justifies it unless people donate without much prompting (limited to hearing of the opportunity). Spontaneous free will offerings, seems like they should be accepted without reservation. People should be able to give if they want to, even if they personally suffer because of it.

I suspect Joseph Smith would find all our political positions abhorrent. He would probably hold on to the political views he had then which definitely aren’t progressive by today’s standards and our current fad version of conservatism is ideologically anti-American Revolution so probably too conservative for him too.

Compare the body counts of God and Satan in the Bible.

I have to say that I think that taking a life in mercy is a mercy when they ask for it or if they certainly would if they could. My fascination with history has led me to a lot of stories of people suffering horrific wounds where death is certain but may take minutes or hours and I want to believe I would have the will to spare them that. Maybe a God can do some good with that horror but I wouldn’t leave a person to face it. I would grant that mercy to an animal. If it is a kindness to a less aware non-human animal I can’t see how humans who can experience the pain even more should not be granted mercy.

Also if it makes you feel better the tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon were both provincial and crude by comparison to the temples of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. Compared to the sprawling temple at Karnak or the temple of Marduk in Babylon it was a hick town chapel type of thing by comparison. Not saying it wasn’t nice and made of nice things but it was not as impressive in terms of size and wealth put into it compared to other contemporary places of worship. It was a big investment for such a small nation of course.

I have good news for you then. Most of the edible parts of the animal weren’t lost in most sacrifices. This varied by the type of sacrifice but in most of the commanded sacrifices some cuts of meat were kept by the priest and some went to the person who offered the animal to eat themselves. So you would go to the temple with your family and basically have a sacred bbq. Again, this varied by the type of sacrifice. The passover sacrifice, for example, was eaten by the family that offered the animal with some cuts going to the priests and levites. It was a ritual offering but also a ritual feast. This was reportedly part of the problem with Eli’s sons. They were stealing the cuts the offerer was supposed to leave for God and/or for the offerer. More seriously they were also having almost certainly coerced sex with the women who worked at the tabernacle who, in essence, worked for them. It is very hard to argue it is consensual when the boss’s son who can probably ruin your life if you refuse propositions you.

I was under the impression that 2 Nephi 27 isn't a very good match of what happened and it really needed a reframing to fit. Joseph Knight would be part of that reframing since he is a believer and would have that oral tradition. The 1832 history is also part of the reframing. Reading just what Anthon wrote in his letters (https://cipherfoundation.org/older-ciphers/anthon-transcript/charles-anthons-letters/) and what Bennet wrote in the Morning Courier (http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/courier.htm), there really doesn't seem to be anything like the back and forth as portrayed in 2 Nephi 27: "Bring hither the book, and I will read them." "I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed." "I cannot read it." I believe the earliest that shows up is Joseph's 1832 history which points to being a possible reframing of the story to fit 2 Nephi 27 since it doesn't naturally fit it.

As President Oaks once said, paraphrasing, there is some truth in Conservatism, some truth in Liberalism, but no salvation in any of them. When Christ returns, He will do so as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and what He says, goes. Which, to me, indicates that He might have to ask anyone who is too tightly wedded to a particular political ideology (whatever space one might claim on the political spectrum), "Will ye also go away?" John 6:67. I hope everyone here would answer as Peter did: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life." John 6:68.

Ever an inflammatory and historically inaccurate bully. Dispite being a religious sealing, even marrying a 14-year-old and having sex with a 14-year-old are legally different issues. Whether a marriage itself would be illegal, and whether sexual activity would constitute a crime, depends on the applicable state's laws and the circumstances. The historical record says he didn't have any marital relations with any 14-year-old. So as always, you don't know what you are talking about.