All Activity

Which part of this do you disagree with? Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility. And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't. It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe. So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar. So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data. Can you point me to the academic study of resurrection? The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, who was probably an apocalyptic itinerant preacher, who probably preached against the Roman Empire, and preached the coming of the Kingdom of God imminently, and was executed because of it. And then we have Jesus' followers afterwards spreading stories about him coming back to life and ministry before leaving again. Are you saying this isn't the mainstream academic view of critical biblical scholarship? Like what exactly is it about this paragraph in particular that you took the time to quote that you have an issue with. Which words go against what the church teaches? Why is it that Dan's chosen profession (making critical biblical scholarship accessible to the masses) bothers you so much?

Sure.

Yes, it is not explicit, but I think it's hard to suggest an alternative reading. I don't think there is any evidence for that. I think the only educated guess is Emma. I keep going back to the assassination of Caesar on the floor of the Senate. We seem to generally accept, on evidence far inferior to what we have about Joseph, the historicity and particulars of the incident, and the participants. Thanks, -Smac

https://wheatandtares.org/2024/11/25/re-writing-origins-of-polygamy-fanny-alger-affair

Yes, not all, not the early the civilally married women whom Joseph didn't civilly marry. Yes, Louisa Beaman as per Don Bradley, which would also explain why the Partridge sisters were sealed twice, I suggest one was an adoption and the other a marriage at the request of Emma who was a part of it and done to avoid trouble as said. And Helen Mar Kimball too, the idea that Joseph Smith may have used the concept of adoptive sealings to make his proposals. Helen Mar Kimball may have believed the marriage was more of a formal ceremony than a real marriage, initially. I have the Wheat and Tares interview but I bet the FAIR version might be better.

What's the source for the Eliza Jane Churchill Webb's testimony? Because I have read that Fanny Alger's marriage might have started more like an adopted daughter (in the Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy volume) but I don't recall him using any testimony from Webb for it.

I agree that we can infer from that that Joseph was sealed to Emma at that time. But it doesn't explicitly state her name. So, there could have been another woman. There's other circumstantial evidence that shows Joseph and Emma were sealed around then as well. But we don't have actual documentation that they were sealed together. We have to make an educated guess. And cipher might be too strong of a word but Taylor shorthand is not easily readable. If the researchers hadn't footnoted it, I would not have known that those scriggly lines actually read out as "w-r m-r-r-d". Willard Richards also does the same thing on June 12, 1843 when he writes about Joseph's sealing to Rhoda (his sister) and his (Willard) sealing to Susan Liptrot. That's one of the few contemporaneous records that indicate Joseph practiced polygamy (though it isn't positive because it doesn't say who married Rhoda) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/263

Do you mean some or for young women or what? The first (most likely) 5 or so sealings were to, iirc, married women who were pregnant and one widow. Don Bradley pointed out the date for Louisa Beaman, the usual first sealing, is suspect as the source isn’t that credible when it comes to date and his description of where it occurred includes a building that wasn’t constructed or used till a year or more later (going solely from memory here, so could be wrong, I welcome corrections). Don gave a FAIR presentation on this, I will try and remember ti get the link later.

Sorry, you are saying the "victim" Helen Mar Kimball is lying or are you? Helen described her sealing to Joseph as being "for eternity alone." Under the developing Latter-day Saint theology of the period, a civil marriage and an eternal sealing served different purposes. Joseph and Emma could be legally married for years before being sealed for eternity. Their May 1843 sealing did not mean that their previous civil marriage had been invalid. Early sealings were being sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony. This theory reconciles the sealing power’s restoration in 1836 with the timing and suggests that the sealing power, was initially for adoptive purposes, was later reinterpreted for polygamy. So, when Joseph Smith was first sealed to the Partridge sisters, likely was part of the early practice. The second sealing was at Emma's demand for an official ceremony, though perhaps unnecessary being they were already sealed together. Praise to the man.

You mean she and her husband were celibate before he died in a culture who saw women’s purpose primarily as having children?

Only some though and possibly only because of “blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character” attending them. Joseph warning her father about them appeared to be to protect her*** (and her brother, though he weaseled permission from their father by claiming the money was committed) rather than socially isolated her from young men. She had attended parties after her sealing in May 1843 and apparently continued even after being restricted from at least that one and possibly a series of dancing parties to do choir and theatre, so it seems unlikely it was because Joseph didn’t want her associating with other men as is sometimes implied. This could have been Joseph concerned about Helen because of the sealing or it could have been him just telling a close friend who he knew loved and protected his daughter. Helen focuses on her father’s motivation to protect her, not Joseph. ***”it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so Isomgood and wise a parent, who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience, were exposed to, though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.” ****AI says they moved in August 1843, so if accurate, that would have been around the same time as her “questionable characters” parties restriction. https://rsc.byu.edu/womans-view/scenes-incidents-nauvoo PS: I wonder if putting the blame on Emma is unfair since she was the one who stopped the addition of a bar in order to increase income.

Seems like we do. From Joseph's journal: From footnote 457: I would be curious about @Notatbm's assessment of this item. The footnote characterizes “w-r m-r-r-d” as shorthand. What makes you think it was a "cipher?" It has a fairly clear phonetic correlation to "were married." And what would the need be for a cipher about Joseph being sealed to Emma? I think the inference would need to be that Joseph and James were married to their respective wives (Emma and Harriet). Thanks, -Smac

Oh I see. That word has to be currently in the lexicon BEFORE revelation can be given concerning the glory of stars. </sarcasm> Besides, how do you know if the original Paulian transcript was complete before it got diluted by "wolves in sheeps coating" ?

We know he didn't have sex with all of his wives. Several of them stated so. And if we look at the behavior of young brides with older men in Utah, it is extremely rare to find them having children until they are 18+. And then when you look at the Temple Lot case where all the woman who testified all said they were "husband and wife in deed" and we find that Helen was not included, even though she was in town and a very vocal polygamist. The evidence weighs pretty heavily towards Helen and Joseph not having sex. There isn't any evidence towards them having sex and a ton of evidence away from them having sex.

He is probably saying this because we have no actual documentation that a sealing ever occurred between Emma and Joseph. In the journal on May 28, 1843, it says that Joseph was married. It uses a cipher to hide the "was married". But it doesn't mention who he was married to. Several of the men who were also sealed that day and the next were monogamists so it is most likely that Joseph was sealed to Emma. I like to bring this up when talking with people who say that Joseph didn't practice polygamy because there are no contemporary records of any of those sealings. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233 is the journal for that day

Sure. Or we just accept that virgin has more meanings than the one you are trying very hard to force.

I'm saying that if 2 Nephi 27 was written because of the Harris/Anthon meeting, it does a really poor job at it. I have no idea who it would be. That's why I mentioned that maybe Joseph had it written before hand and then when Harris came back, Joseph could attach a name to 2 Nephi 27. Honestly, Mitchill might be a better fit but we have so little information on what went on in that meeting so no way to know for certain. When I was younger and heard about the Anthon story and 2 Nephi 27, I thought it was a really good match. And then as I read what Anthon said had happened and the Bennet account later in my life, it was a bit disappointing to me because the two stories really don't match. They match at an extreme superficial but nothing unique to 2 Nephi 27. It doesn't really even match Isaiah 29 either. So, I've started to wonder if attaching Anthon to it is a reframing of the prophecy to make the two match. That's why I can see 2 Nephi 27 being written before hand. Because if it was written afterwards, I would have expected the two stories to match more closely.

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 published-to-the-world social media stuff. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Thanks, -Smac

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