All Activity

I think it does the opposite. It says a miracle is outside the discipline of historical method. It can neither confirm or deny. It contradicts all the known laws of science, so it qualifies as an impossibility in terms of the study of science.

Okay. Only a handful of people have seen Dan's various calumnies against me and my character, and not all of them have credited Dan's calumnies, and I am unlikely to meet any of the people who do credit them, and several of those who do dislike me already. Also, I found much of Dan's calumnies to be out-of-hand stupid. So me being - what's the term? - "butthurt" is certainly up to you, but it's not really borne out by the evidence. My adverse critique of Dan has more to do with the potential and/or actual damage he is doing to the faith of other Latter-day Saints, including unsuspecting ones who may assume that Dan, being a Latter-day Saint, would be a useful resource for someone hoping to strengthen or rehabilitate their faith, and may not fully appreciate that he has now repeatedly bragged about "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that he has called this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right." I would hope that Dan would like to advance the work of the Church. I would also hope that he is a genuinely devout Latter-day Saint. At present I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on these points, despite what I have seen him say. For me, the fundamental reason I stay in the Church is because I believe it is what it claims to be. That it also does all sorts of wonderful things to improve society is a natural and intrinsic "by their fruits"-style outgrowth of that fundamental reason. I want to effect positive change within the Church, but in supportive and sustaining ways, and not in an adversarial or subversive or "loyal opposition" sort of way. I would hope Dan could say the same. I would much prefer to view him as a Terryl Givens or a Richard L. Bushman than a John Dehlin or a Sam Young. Thanks, -Smac

The main point of disagreement is not with the existence of a historical Jesus or with the mainstream scholarly reconstruction of him as an apocalyptic preacher who was executed under Roman authority. Those are widely accepted conclusions in critical historical work, and nothing in the quoted paragraph on that score contradicts Latter-day Saint belief. The disagreement is with the first half of the statement—the claim that, from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is a physical impossibility that “the data” do not support and for which we lack evidence that clears an especially high bar. That framing treats a reported miracle as the kind of claim historical method is equipped to confirm or disconfirm in the same way it handles ordinary events. Historical scholarship operates under methodological naturalism: it explains the past using ordinary historical causes and evidence that can, in principle, be assessed without invoking the supernatural. Under that rule, a bodily resurrection is excluded from the set of possible explanations before the evidence is even examined. Calling the result “what the data show” or “what scholars can say” therefore reflects a prior methodological commitment more than an empirical finding about the evidence itself. How can the resurrection of Jesus Christ be empirically verified or falsified? What would count as evidence that could “get over the bar”? Eyewitness testimony, empty-tomb reports, and early creedal material are the main historical data we have; they are also the data critical scholars already use when they reconstruct the rise of belief in the resurrection. Those data are not typically treated as sufficient to establish the event under ordinary historical standards, because the standards themselves do not allow miraculous causation. Whether the proper standard should be preponderance, clear and convincing evidence, or something stronger is rarely made explicit, and it is not clear that any of those legal-style thresholds map cleanly onto a singular claim from the first century. In short, it is difficult to speak of “the data” ruling the resurrection in or out when the method in use has already decided that such an event lies outside what historical data are permitted to establish. This is a recognized feature of the discipline rather than a novel observation. Many scholars who work on the historical Jesus or the origins of Christianity explicitly distinguish between what can be said under historical method and what may be affirmed on other grounds (theological, experiential, or otherwise). The quoted statement collapses that distinction by presenting the methodological exclusion as a straightforward conclusion about the evidence. So I find it odd to see a scholar of Dan's caliber A) presuppose, and rely on a methodological naturalism paradigm that presupposes, the absence of miraculous events, and then B) characterize that paradigm as establishing authoritative parameters of "the data," and all C) while not informing his neophyte audience. There is nothing insightful or scholarly in announcing "the data do not support the miracle" when the speaker is acting within a paradigm that does not allow for the possibility that the miracle happened. Put another way, once Dan presents the interpretive method, and given that this method a priori and in advance rules out miraculous causation, announcing that "the data" - which Dan has already paradigmatically curated to exclude any consideration of miracles - do not establish the miracle is not an independent finding; it is the method restating its own starting assumption. As for the Latter-day Saint context, the Church teaches the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a foundational historical event, not merely as a later interpretive story. When someone who identifies as Latter-day Saint and presents himself as guided by “the data” publicly treats the resurrection as something the evidence does not support, that creates an obvious tension with the Church’s position. The objection is not to the study or public explanation of critical scholarship as such; it is to the implication that the resurrection fails an evidentiary test that historical method is not designed to apply in the first place. The tension is heightened precisely because Dan presents the conclusion as what "scholarship" and "the data" show rather than as what one methodological framework concludes. Thanks, -Smac

Benjamin Park puts out some interesting stuff; I'm not sure this is one of them.

I know what the focus of your posts has been. My opinion on the motive behind your posts remains unchanged.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2020-2024-fair-conferences/august-2023-fair-conference/knowing-brother-joseph-how-the-historical-record-demonstrates-the-prophets-religious-sincerity That topic isn’t the primary focus, so it may not be as detailed. For those who don’t want to read the whole presentation, here is the section on dating the Beamann (edited: I never spell her surname correctly) sealing:

You don't have to take my word for it. The content of my various posts in this thread is available for review. The content focuses overwhelmingly on Dan's social media stuff. Thanks, -Smac

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 civilly 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. 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 Beamann, 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? 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