All Activity

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.

For some reason, you wanted "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. The PoGP noble great spirits are in the place of the biblical Bene Elohim (Sons of God). In Hebrew biblical terms (Psalm 82:6, Job 38:7), the offspring of El Elyon are themselves called bene elohim and elohim ("sons of God" and "gods"). 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... [and] the noble and great ones." 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" in 3:24? The text explicitly says "unto those who were with him" the 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 Creation account matches Genesis. 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. Abraham 4 is not in isolation, it does not invent a foreign concept here. In the Genesis Creation, Genesis 2:4 the "begettings 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 undefined point in Creation. 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. But D&C 27:11 & D&C 107:54-55 has Michael the Archangel placed under Christ in the heavenly hierarchy as far as great spirits go. In LDS theology, Michael became Adam.

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.

I asked Grok to summarize the text messages that are or may be pertinent to Jane Doe's allegations against the "Cornel 7": Overview of reported text messages from the Cornell Jane Doe case Publicly reported text messages involving the woman identified as Jane Doe in the 2026 civil complaint against seven former Chi Phi fraternity members (and others) at Cornell show a clear evolution in her descriptions of the October 19–20, 2024 night. Early messages are friendly and frame the events as non-criminal and involving mutual intoxication; later ones shift toward describing most of the activity as non-consensual. These messages also sit alongside specific allegations in her civil complaint and statements to investigators about incapacitation and lack of access to her phone. Roommate exchange during the alleged assault At 3:05 a.m. on October 20, 2024, Doe’s roommate texted: “You coming home tn [tonight]?” Doe replied: “idk.” The civil complaint alleges that by this point (after a “free p&^^y” Snapchat message at ~1:42 a.m. and subsequent activity), Doe was so intoxicated she could not process events, her phone was “on the other side of the room,” and she “felt as if there was no way for her to escape this room full of predatory, fraternity men.” The complaint further describes her as becoming “completely incapacitated” later that night, with the alleged assaults continuing until around 5:45 a.m. Lawyers for at least one accused man have pointed to the “idk” reply as evidence she could read, process, and respond to a message while the alleged events were ongoing. (Reported in New York Post, Oct. 13, 2026, and related coverage; complaint excerpts via DocumentCloud and contemporaneous reporting.) Early post-event messages (Oct. 21–23) Days later, Doe exchanged messages with at least one of the men she later accused (Jonathan Newell). She wrote that her memory was “super clouded too,” that “we were all way to f–king drunk and high,” and that “at the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really like being w u and matt. so anything anyone has to say about the gamgbang [sic] is out of their jurisdiction.” She added: “I don’t think we should feel any shame for the part. our body our choice asf.” She also referenced doing ketamine off his body as “one of the most insane/jaw-dropping moments of the night” and suggested they “smoke again sometime but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine.” Separately, she texted Matthew Ingalls about campus rumors, including prior “transgender allegations” that she said she had given “no attention and it disappeared.” She advised: “Silence is the most powerful response always but i always want to say something is the prob.” She later wrote: “Also i had transgender allegations last year too so if anyone mentions it i mention the fact that i’ve been rumored about so many times. And we know i’m not transgender so.” She described the Chi Phi rumors as “ruining” her life temporarily and said people needed to “grow up cause sexuality and sex and s[–]t is changing.” (New York Post, Oct. 15, 2026, citing CBS News-obtained messages; earlier New York Post, Oct. 8, 2026; CBS New York reporting.) Later shift (Nov. 3) On November 3, she texted Newell: “Let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. i was given more key [ketamine] than i can remember and i know that i told you i felt uncomfortable and i didn’t know anyone in the room. all i remember after that was u giving me ket to do off your d–k in front of everyone like a sex doll/worker.” (Multiple outlets, including New York Post and CBS.) Other reported context She asked about lost earrings her mother had given her and continued some friendly or neutral exchanges for days/weeks. She reported going to the ER for a rape kit around November 7 and contacted police around November 8. Her lawyer has described the early friendly messages as consistent with “textbook” delayed recognition or trauma responses. The district attorney has noted differences between her original statements to police and the civil complaint allegations. These are the main publicly reported messages and the points of tension with the civil complaint’s timeline and descriptions of continuous incapacitation and inability to reach her phone. All of the above draws from contemporaneous reporting by the New York Post, CBS News/CBS New York, the New York Times, and related outlets that obtained and published screenshots or excerpts; the civil complaint is public (NYSCEF). The accused men have denied the allegations of non-consensual conduct. Sources: https://nypost.com/2026/10/15/us-news/cornell-7-rape-accuser-claims-she-was-falsely-called-transgender/ https://nypost.com/2026/10/13/us-news/cornell-7-accuser-sent-3-letter-text-during-alleged-gang-rape-messages-show/ https://nypost.com/2026/10/08/us-news/texts-between-cornell-7-jane-doe-frat-brother-she-later-accused-of-rape-revealed-our-body-our-choice/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jane-doe-text-messages-cornell-fraternity-member/ https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/text-messages-reveal-new-details-in-alleged-gang-rape-at-cornell-university/ https://www.wwaytv3.com/jane-does-account-of-what-happened-at-cornell-frat-from-text-messages-and-investigators-transcripts/ https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/url-cornell-university-jane-doe-rape-case-statement.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cornell-student-2024-statement-police-reveals-new-details-rcna600803 https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/2026/10/06/i-felt-like-bait-timeline-cornell-university-rape-allegations/ https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/03/us/cornell-rape-case-timeline-hnk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Cornell_University_rape_allegations https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28717537/pages/jane-doe-v-cornell-university-complaint-p28.txt https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/cornell-texts-rape-investigation https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/09/30/cornell-7-jane-doe-rape-case-timeline/92003702007/ https://katiecouric.com/news/national-news/cornell-sexual-assault-lawsuit-what-we-know/ https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/cornell-university-student-rape-accusations-20261001.html https://lamag.com/crimeinla/cornell-seven-what-changed-between-jane-does-2024-police-statement-and-her-lawsuit/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-the-cornell-seven-rape-case-became-a-national-scandal https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/gngbang-newly-surfaced-texts-show-alleged-victims-initial-reaction-before-accusing-cornell-students/news-story/39215151f513918fbd5a35cb97dad066 https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/new-texts-between-cornell-7-2061773 https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/northeast/texts-cornell-frat-assault/ https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16204281/Cornell-Jane-Doe-texts-roommate-rape.html --- I then asked Grok: "What provisional conclusions can be reasonably drawn from these text messages?" The response: Provisional conclusions reasonably supported by the reported text messages The messages, as reported in multiple outlets that published screenshots or detailed excerpts (New York Post, CBS News, and others), allow a few limited, evidence-based observations. These are not legal findings about consent, criminal liability, or the truth of the civil complaint; they are inferences from the content and timing of the texts themselves. Doe was able to send and receive coherent text messages during the period she later described as continuous incapacitation. The 3:05 a.m. exchange with her roommate (“You coming home tn?” / “idk”) occurred after the ~1:42 a.m. “free p&^^y” Snapchat message and during the window in which the civil complaint alleges she was too intoxicated to process events, her phone was across the room, and she felt there was “no way to escape.” The reply is short but responsive and grammatically coherent. This is inconsistent with a claim of total functional incapacitation at that moment, at least with respect to operating a phone. In the days immediately afterward, Doe characterized the sexual activity as non-criminal and expressed positive or neutral feelings toward at least two of the men later named as defendants. Texts from roughly October 21–23 include statements that “none of the sexual stuff was illegal,” that she “really like[d] being w u and matt,” that they should feel no shame because “our body our choice,” and that doing ketamine off one of the men’s bodies was “one of the most insane/jaw-dropping moments of the night.” She also suggested meeting again (while excluding “the extra 5 billion men and ketamine”). These contemporaneous statements are difficult to reconcile with an immediate understanding of the events as a non-consensual gang rape. Her account shifted markedly within roughly two weeks. By November 3 she wrote that “90% of what happened that night was not consensual,” that she had been given more ketamine than she could remember, that she had expressed discomfort and did not know people in the room, and that she remembered specific acts she later framed as non-consensual. This is an evolution from the earlier “nothing illegal / our body our choice” framing. The messages do not themselves explain the change; they only document that it occurred. She continued some ordinary, non-accusatory communication for days. She asked about lost earrings, discussed campus gossip (including prior “transgender allegations” that she said she had ignored), and maintained relatively friendly or casual exchanges. This is consistent with delayed recognition, trauma response, social pressure, or a genuine change in her assessment of events—none of which can be distinguished from the texts alone. The early messages undercut any narrative that she immediately and consistently described the night as non-consensual. Whatever the ultimate facts, the texts show that her first documented private characterizations (to people who were present) treated the sexual activity as legal, mutual in at least some respects, and not something for which the men should feel shame. That is the opposite of the core theory later advanced in the civil complaint. These points are limited to what the reported messages say and when they were sent. They do not resolve questions of consent, intoxication level over the full night, or what occurred outside the text record. They do, however, create a documented timeline in which Doe’s own contemporaneous statements differ substantially from the account later set out in her civil complaint and some statements to investigators. The accused men have denied the non-consensual allegations. --- I also asked: "For people who have reviewed Jane Doe's 2024 statement, and her civil complaint, and the text messages, what overall reasonable and evidence-based inferences can be drawn so far?" The response: Overall reasonable and evidence-based inferences from the reported 2024 statement, 2026 civil complaint, and text messages The publicly reported record (police/Title IX materials summarized in the New York Times, NBC, CBS, and others; the civil complaint; and the text messages published by the New York Post, CBS, and related outlets) supports a limited set of provisional inferences. These are not findings of fact about what occurred, nor determinations of consent or liability. They address consistency, timing, and the evolution of the account across the available sources. Doe’s characterization of the night evolved substantially between the immediate aftermath, the November 2024 statements, and the 2026 civil complaint. In texts roughly 1–4 days after the event she described the sexual activity as not illegal, said she liked being with at least two of the men, invoked “our body our choice,” and referenced specific acts (including ketamine off a man’s body) in non-accusatory terms. By November 3 she was writing that 90% was not consensual. In her November 2024 police interview she stated she was raped with high confidence as to portions of the night and described significant incapacitation, but the written statement prepared from that interview was more limited. The 2026 civil complaint presents a more continuous picture of non-consent and incapacity across much of the encounter. The record therefore shows a clear progression in how she framed the same events. The contemporaneous texts are difficult to reconcile with a narrative of continuous, near-total functional incapacitation during the critical early-morning window. The civil complaint and some portions of the 2024 statements describe her as so intoxicated she could not process events, with her phone on the other side of the room and no practical way to escape after the ~1:42 a.m. Snapchat message. Yet at 3:05 a.m. she received and replied (“idk”) to a roommate text asking if she was coming home. The reply is short but responsive. This does not prove she was fully capable of consenting to sex; it does indicate she could operate her phone and form a coherent reply at a time the later account places her in a state of profound impairment. There are documented differences between the 2024 investigative materials and the 2026 civil complaint in the degree and timing of alleged incapacity. Reporting on the police interview and the six-page written statement indicates she described the encounter as beginning with consensual or at least non-forced activity that later became unwanted, with escalating intoxication and ketamine use. She also told investigators she took additional ketamine at one point in part hoping to pass out so that continued activity would more clearly constitute rape. The civil complaint more uniformly emphasizes inability to consent from relatively early in the sexual activity and describes her as “completely incapacitated” by the later stages. The Tompkins County District Attorney has publicly noted that the original materials he reviewed “provide a different narrative and set of facts” from the lawsuit. These differences are part of the public record. Early private communications do not support an immediate, consistent understanding on her part that the events were a non-consensual gang rape. The friendly, non-accusatory, and in places affirmative texts to men later named as defendants (plus the ordinary request about lost earrings and discussion of campus gossip) are contemporaneous evidence of how she was characterizing the night to participants in the days afterward. Whatever psychological, social, or memory processes may explain a later shift, the texts themselves show that her first documented private statements treated key aspects of the sexual activity as legal and not something for which the men should feel shame. The available sources leave significant gaps that prevent firm conclusions about the full sequence of events. The texts cover only discrete moments and later reflections. The 2024 statements and the civil complaint are Doe’s accounts; they are not independent contemporaneous records of the entire night. No public criminal charges have been filed. The accused men have denied the non-consensual allegations. The materials support the inference that Doe’s account changed over time and that some of her own contemporaneous statements are in tension with the strongest versions of continuous incapacitation later advanced, but they do not resolve what actually occurred between the parties. These inferences rest on the content, timing, and reported differences among the three categories of material. They are provisional and limited to what those materials, as publicly described, show. --- I then asked this: "What are the better pieces of evidence which support and substantiate Jane Doe's allegations?" The response: Better pieces of evidence that support and substantiate Jane Doe’s allegations (based on the public record) The strongest publicly reported evidence favoring her account comes from contemporaneous fraternity communications, the university’s Title IX process and findings, elements of her statements to investigators, and limited physical documentation. These do not prove the civil complaint’s full version of events, and they sit alongside counter-evidence (including her own early texts and differences between her 2024 materials and the 2026 complaint). They are the pieces that most independently or consistently align with core aspects of her allegations. Contemporaneous Snapchat messages from Chi Phi members. At approximately 1:42 a.m. on October 20, 2024, a message was sent in the fraternity’s “Chi Phi Actives” Snapchat group (roughly 40+ members) stating there was “free p&^^y” upstairs (or similar phrasing inviting people to “pull up”). Subsequent messages included “Like you can walk in and whip it out,” questions such as “Shop still open?” (answered affirmatively), and “Are you guys at least naked?” A photo of Doe was also shared in the chat. These messages are independent of Doe’s later statements. They show fraternity members treating the situation as one in which others were invited to join sexual activity with her. Cornell’s Title IX panel treated the Snapchat record as significant evidence. (Reported across New York Times, CBS News, CNN, and the civil complaint; video/screenshots obtained by multiple outlets.) Cornell Title IX investigation process and outcomes. The university conducted an extensive investigation (more than 50 interviews with roughly 32 witnesses, electronic evidence including the Snapchat video, and a multi-day hearing process lasting about 12 days before a faculty/staff panel). Outcomes included: expulsions of two men (Matthew Ingalls and Jonathan Newell), suspensions or campus bars for others, lighter sanctions (reflection papers, education requirements) for some, and permanent closure of the Chi Phi chapter. The panel found certain respondents responsible for sexual assault or attempted sexual exploitation; it did not find all seven responsible for sexual assault. It also treated as undisputed various facts about the sequence of activity, ketamine use, and the Snapchat invitation. This is an administrative (preponderance-of-the-evidence) process, not a criminal trial, but it is the most thorough formal review of the evidence conducted to date and produced sanctions consistent with findings of misconduct by some participants. (Cornell statements, New York Times reporting on discipline summaries, Wikipedia summary of panel findings, CNN, and related coverage.) Doe’s statements to Cornell police and Title IX investigators (November 2024). In a lengthy interview (transcript reportedly ~120 pages), she stated “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped” regarding the later portions of the night, described becoming “completely and totally incapacitated,” referenced physical hitting, coercion (including giving in after repeated requests while exhausted/intoxicated), and gaps in memory. She distinguished an initial encounter she was “pretty OK with” from later events. She signed a shorter six-page written statement after review and corrections. The transcript contains more explicit language than the condensed written statement that was initially provided to the district attorney. Core elements of her account (escalating intoxication, additional men entering, discomfort, ketamine) appear across her statements to investigators, roommates, and the later complaint. (CBS News, New York Times, NBC, and Independent reporting on the transcript and statement.) Limited physical and medical documentation. Doe reported a urinary tract infection contracted “in a traumatic way” when she sought care shortly afterward. She took photographs of a hickey on her neck and fading bruises on her buttocks that she attributed to being hit. She later went to an ER and requested a sexual assault forensic exam (rape kit) on November 7—more than two weeks later, limiting its forensic value for DNA. She reportedly preserved clothing. These provide some contemporaneous documentation of injury or medical issues she linked to the night, though they are not independently diagnostic of non-consent. (New York Times and related reporting.) Supporting statements from some witnesses and consistency on certain points. Roommates reported that when she returned she described consuming ketamine and having sex with multiple men. Some fraternity members’ accounts to investigators acknowledged the Snapchat invitation, entry into the room, and sexual activity or ketamine use, though their descriptions of consent and her condition differed from hers and from each other. The Title IX panel found certain facts about the sequence and Snapchat activity to be materially undisputed. Ketamine was known to be in use at the house around that time. Important limitations. No criminal charges have been filed. The district attorney has noted differences between the 2024 materials and the civil complaint. Forensic DNA evidence was limited by the delayed exam. Several of the accused have denied non-consensual conduct. Doe’s own early text messages (friendly framing, “none of the sexual stuff was illegal,” “our body our choice”) and the 3:05 a.m. roommate reply sit in tension with the strongest continuous-incapacity claims. The Title IX process used a lower evidentiary standard than a criminal case. The Snapchat messages and the Title IX findings/sanctions are the pieces least dependent on Doe’s later narrative and most frequently cited as corroborative of the core allegation that the situation was treated by at least some participants as an open invitation for others to join sexual activity with her. Thanks, -Smac

The account of Harris meeting Anthon is literally in the Book of Mormon. 2 Nephi 27 And somehow, Anthon's telling of his meeting with Harris is more aligned with the Book of Mormon than the official 1838 JS History account

Fair point that the curtain was simple and nobody objected. But I think that’s because of what people thought was happening in 1828. Anthon informs us in 1834 that Harris initially said nothing in 1828 about a divine or supernatural process. According to Harris, Anthon endorsed the translation when he understood the "decypherment" to be the result of a natural process. Then take the account from Joseph’s 1838 history as told by Martin: Joseph had copied characters off the plates and made a translation of some of them, and Martin carried both to Anthon to have the translation checked. Whatever one thinks of Anthon’s later denials, the people involved clearly understood the work at that stage as reading an actual ancient script, the kind of thing scholars like Mitchill and Anthon could verify the decipherment. And it seems they both did verify initially, at least before the story shifted to the supernatural. The reason I tend to push back on defenses of a supernatural method like yours is that I don’t think the early accounts require one. According to Martin’s own account, Mitchill and Anthon, the most learned men he could find in New York in 1828, were at first satisfied with the characters and with the sample translation. Everyone involved treated it as something scholars could check. The story only turned supernatural when the angel came up, and Anthon withdrew. I sometimes wonder how the Book of Mormon would have been received if the supernatural elements had never come up, and Martin had come home with that certificate intact. Apologies, I should have explained better. What I had in mind is this Lorenzo Brown account 1880: “After I got through translating the Book of Mormon, I took up the Bible to read with the Urim and Thummim. I read the first chapter of Genesis and saw things as they were done…the whole passed before me like a grand panorama.” (source) It’s late and Matthews argues there’s no evidence a stone was used in the actual JST. There's only this report that Joseph first “looked at” the Bible with it. Orson Pratt said Joseph stopped needing the instrument once he was experienced. So the most I’d claim is that the Genesis work may have begun with the stone, and that the method then moved from instrument to inspiration. Interestingly that’s the same direction I think the numerous accounts of mutliple methods of translation show.

Yes. The unspoken premise - that you torture puppies for fun and profit - is false and imaginary, but I smuggled it in. So it is with you various statements and their false and imaginary unspoken premises. No, that is not my position. At all. And I'm simply pointing out that you should stop torturing puppies for fun and profit. You are free to disregard my posts. There is also no need for you to continue to torture puppies, and yet here we are. Again: I still watch some of Dan's content, but his social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. That is sort of the risk you take when you make yourself a social media content creator. Clicks count. Edgy and provocative stuff gets clicks. I have also pointed to his statements to Dehlin and Rogan and elsewhere, and explained at length why I find them problematic. I have also said that I am reconsidering my assessment. I find it interesting that you are coming to the Dan's defense as regarding his devotion to the truth claims of the Church. If he really does believe in the tenets of our faith, it would be odd to see you white knight for him. Alternatively, if he is instead subversive in his intent (that is, we assume the worst about his comments re: "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and calling this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right," and his appreciation for compliments from the most prominent anti-Mormon alive, who is "cheering" him on), then I could certainly understand why folks like you and SU would - like Dehlin - be happy about "cheering" him on. That said, I am reconsidering my assessment. Again, from a previous post: You might be right. My personal interactions with Dan were really quite unpleasant and offputting, so perhaps personality conflicts have unduly affected my assessment of him. Baseless and inflammatory accusations from online strangers from the likes of anonymous posters like some on this board are standard fare for online discussions, but I guess I expect more from a scholar of Dan's stature. I also find fair portions of his social media content to be grating insofar as he mixes personal invective and dunking and ridicule into his commentary on biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, you've made some solid points. Thank you for your input. Thanks, -Smac

Though not mutually exclusive, the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah could still exist and belong in the theology while still being wrong to worship her instead of the Lord of Israel. When King Hezekiah took out Nehushtan the Brazen Serpent of Moses (and Asherah which was there for 2/3rds of the temple's existence) because people were burning incense to it instead of the Lord has not much to do with whether Nehushtan had a rightful place in the theology of the temple when they first put it in there.

The puppies are imaginary. Dan is a real person that you seem to feel it is your duty to go after for subversion and being a wolf in sheep's clothing. You liken him to others who have been excommunicated by the Church for subversion all because he uses his scholarly approach to questions about the scriptures. I'm simply pointing out that if you are looking for faith, visions, the supernatural, you should stick to General Conference and the carefully collated lesson manuals the Church puts out. For those that are interested in a more scholarly nuanced understanding of the scriptures, then Dan may help with that. If you don't like what he writes, then look elsewhere to find someone that already agrees with you. No need to call him names and attempt to rally support in his ousting from the Church. If that is not your intent, what is the reason you feel the need to attack Dan and his methods?

Actually, it does. Positivism is not a strawman because the larger academic world has long been dominated by Positivism, a world view on which moderates what counts as evidence, which voices count as authoritative, which questions get asked, who gets published and reviewed. It is directly akin to a famous comment Bacon I quoted. Where Bacon declare "don't theorize" he also exposes exactly his problem, a refusal to become self critical, to think about his own assumptions in comparison to another set of assumptions that explain the same observations in a different way, and it happens, solves problems that he does not engage. I notice that you have not acknowledged that I pointed out a set of interlocking serious issues with your statement that "Time is linear, therefore the Book of Mormon is not ancient." I pointed out that the primary Book of Mormon authors and editors post-date the New Testament, that both Mormon and Moroni reported personal encounters with the Risen Jesus (who, I think, was not ignorant of the New Testament), which, in concert with the report that the Risen Jesus also appeared to the Nephites earlier and told them many things, more of which were not recorded than were recorded, and that the translator of the Book of Mormon was not isolated from the New Testament before beginning his efforts, and therefore was open to influence from the single most influential text and translation in his culture and language, your assumptions of an easy, open and shut case, has serious and legitimate competition that you have no acknowledged or addressed, in exactly the same way that Bacon does not consider how his interpretation of his observations of heavenly motions might be accounted for by another theory, and indeed how that theory might better account for planetary motion, just as other theories, such as explored at depth and in detail by John Sorenson in Mormon's Codex, and Brant Gardner in The Book of Mormon as History, and literally hundreds of other scholars publishing via Interpreter and Maxwell Institute, account for countless details in the Book of Mormon that your easy dismissal does not so much as acknowledge as problems worth mentioning in public. Back in 1953 Hugh Nibley pointed out Blass’s rules for authenticating historical documents, based on the experience of Renaissance scholars dealing with the flood of new manuscripts: What was remarkable about Barker’s approach in comparison to most non-Latter Day Saint scholars is that it actually allows that assumption to inform her test. She reads it against the Jerusalem 600 BCE context that it claims for itself, rather than uncritically supposing that it must be a 19th Century fabrication by Joseph Smith, maybe persons unknown. And that is the point Nibley made: “If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.” Price began, as Professor Midgley observes of some LDS scholars, and most outside critics do, and that is “to approach the text of the Book of Mormon already knowing, from sources exterior to the text, both the questions and the answers.” It also happens that arguments that a particular set of words and titles used in the Book of Mormon are or are not anachronistic, is always subject to revision in light of new evidence. For instance, Elsewhere, Roper has considered generally all of the major claims of anachronism that have been put forward against the Book of Mormon, and has demonstrated that the general tendency is towards resolution. And you demonstrate that you have not carefully considered what I actually wrote here, let alone what I have published elsewhere. I did not only cite Barker. I also linked James Charlesworth's 1978 paper on the Book of Mormon, in which he offered his own suggestions for dealing with apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon via translator influence, which suggestions were preceded by Hugh Nibley in Since Cumorah, and followed later by Blake Ostler in his 1987 Dialogue essay on the Expansion Hypothesis. And besides that, your dismissal of Barker simply does not account for the many credentialed scholars who appreciate and champion her work. Those who voted her to the Presidency of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1998 clearly saw something in her work that you do not. Those Doctors who invited her to speak and work at a range of Universities in the UK actually exist. The Archbishop of Canterbury awarded her the Lambeth Doctor of Divinity because he appreciated her work. She has 18 books in print. (Do you?) In a review of The Risen Lord, Professor John McDade said: And when giving the Gifford lectures, N.T. Wright notes that Barker has done "remarkable work in alerting scholarly and popular circles to a temple based understanding". Barker has never had a formal academic post, around this time she served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, she was invited by the Centre of Advanced Religious and Theological Studies at Cambridge to devise a research project. She later withdrew, and the essays she produced as seed for that project along with six essays that she had previously published in various journals was published in 2002 as The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy. Far from being isolated, in 2008, Margaret Barker, Robin Griffith-Jones, Laurence Hemming, Susan Parsons and Bishop Geoffrey Rowell organized a Temple Studies Group to promote “study of the Temple in Jerusalem, believing that the worldview, traditions, customs and symbolism of the Temple were formative influences on the development of Christianity.” The group successfully organized symposia for several years running, up to 2018 and COVID. After the publication of Temple Themes in Christian Worship, the Archbishop of Canterbury awarded her a Lambeth Doctor of Divinity “in recognition of her work on the Jerusalem Temple and the origins of Christian Liturgy, which has made a significantly new contribution to our understanding of the New Testament and opened up important fields for research.” In 2015, scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis, in the introduction to the first volume of Jesus Monotheism, mentions Margaret Barker as “a muse to many of us, albeit from beyond the immediate confines of Oxford on the cosmology and religious experiences nurtured by Israel’s Temple.” A noted scholar like Andrei Orlov at Marquette incorporated her journal articles into the syllabus for his classes. So if the Academy in general is committed to a secular view of the Bible, and various other academics in schools run by Evangelicals or Catholics or whomever, and many of them do not publicly endorse Barker's work in ways that would directly challenge the paradigm communities upon which their careers were built and lively-hoods depend, that is the way of things. Paradigm change takes generations, particularly in religious matters. Depicting her as isolated does not account for this kind of thing. She has not been adopted by the majority, but she has her champions in many notable places. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

The idea of changing the method because of the number of observers kind of makes sense (barely), but I don't think the statements we have match that at all. Stone in the hat is used for both private situations (Emma and Martin) and public situations (David and Isaac). Curtain is used in private situation (Martin) and public (Martin). Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. I think it is pretty certain that he started with a curtain. And he already had simple explanation for why he needed the curtain and why they couldn't look behind the curtain. Why does he need a different way? It is simple, easy, and accomplishes everything he needs. And people appear to have had no problems with it; the blanket is actually rarely mentioned in the statements so either it wasn't used or people were so accepting that they felt like they didn't need to mention it. JST is not the Book of Mormon. And I believe all accounts have him reading from the Bible for the JST. I don't know of any that say Joseph didn't have a Bible directly in front of him. We even have the Bible that he used for most of the JST - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/bible-used-for-bible-revision/1. Statements from the JST about him having a Bible in front of him can't be used for evidence of the Book of Mormon translation. We actually are pretty sure that all of the Original Manuscript that we contain (which includes the Isaiah sections) was all dictated. All the errors that are seen are dictation errors, none are copying errors. And there would be no point for Joseph to dictate something from his hat and not have it written down. None of the statements about using the hat indicate that a scribe wasn't present or not writing it down. You have to remember that they are rushing through this. They spend 5+ hours a day on this. He isn't taking a lot of breaks or doing magic shows for visitors. The number of days available and the amount of words that were recorded just makes it difficult to include him doing a dictation show with out it being included in the Book of Mormon. A curtain and warnings fit perfectly for someone doing a pre-written manuscript. But they also fit perfectly for his supernatural story (plates that no one is allowed to see). Honestly, it is the stone in the hat that doesn't fit his supernatural story (why the existence of the plates if he doesn't even use them?). But the stone in the hat, in my mind, forces Joseph to either be telling the truth, memorizing it, making itl up on the spot, or some mixture of the memorization and invention. The reason why I got the white hat was to determine if a manuscript could be read from it as that would add another way for it to work and after experimenting with it, I just don't see that being feasible. So, I can't add "reading a pre-existing manuscript" to the possibilities. So, I'm back to memorization and on-the-spot invention. Why do you find it telling? He is told to not show anyone the plates. He needs to copy a few characters. He thus needs to do it behind a curtain. I don't see anything from this that even tells us anything about how he actually did the translation. This just tells us that he had some physical object that no one was supposed to see but there are other statements that tell us that as well. I'll wait for your post, but you are talking about a different thing than what I'm talking about. I'm saying the visit of 1828 to those 3 is too late for the content of the Book of Mormon. But yes, before 1828, Joseph may have heard of those things and may have incorporated them into his story (I don't think we even need to say he heard about it from those three vs he heard about in the environment he was in). But the 1828 visit is too late to trigger a lot of changes to the story. And the "Harris visited all three two months before the translation started" makes it seem like Joseph knew about the contents of the visit for 2 months. Harris visited Joseph for a day or two in March, went back to Palmyra, came back for 2 weeks, then went back to Palmyra, and then returned to actually start the translation around April 12. So Joseph knew about the visits at most 1 month before and more like 2-3 weeks before. Still not that much time to actually change his story.

Quite a few loaded statements here. I hope you stop torturing puppies for fun and profit. Those are my thoughts. You just don't like them for some reason. Thanks, -Smac

Seems like this wording ("victim blaming or victim shaming") is begging the question and inverting the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. Again, your comment here ("a woman might not report a rape right away"), as applied to Jane Doe, begs the question and inverts the presumption of innocence. I fully agree that these are potential responses. I think it is also possible that Jane Doe consented to the sexual contact that night. There is evidence for that possibility. Denying that evidence and that possibility stacks the deck, makes an accusation alone evidence unto itself, begs the question, and inverts the presumption of innocence. Hence the need to resist the mob mentality and rush to judgment, and to attempt to dispassionately evaluate the evidence. I acknowledge all of this. Applied specifically to Jane Doe, though, this begs the question. Thanks, -Smac

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation? In the sense of the U.S. legal system yielding an evidence-based assessment of the evidence and a reasoned and fair conclusion derived therefrom, yes. Our system is far from perfect, but it's quite good, and about as good as we can hope to get. None of us is in a position to act as a judge or jury in a legal sense, but we each of us can evaluate events and allegations and evidence and draw reasonable inferences and conclusions (or, alternatively, refrain from doing so). We do this all the time on this board. Just look at how many conversations have we had about Joseph Bishop and McKenna Denson, Tim Ballard, Ammon Bundy, the SEC issue, the Huntsman lawsuit, Nemo the Mormon, Mark Lamb, Paul Adams, Mark Lehnhof Stevens, Masterpiece Cakeshop, James Hamula, Shawn Gooden, Abraham Issac Cruz Hernandez, and so on. Sometimes the issues are pretty straightforward, sometimes not. I think it's quite likely that Joseph Bishop did some terrible things while president of the MTC, but I also think McKenna Denson fabricated and mischaracterized a lot of stuff. I think many of the allegations against Tim Ballard are substantively true, but I also think there has been some overreach. Ammon Bundy is straightforward. James Huntsman's allegations were not really borne out well at all. Paul Adams clearly did some evil things. I have an acquaintance who was sexually assaulted. After charges were filed, the accuser tracked her down at her work (janitorial work on campus) and arm-barred her against a wall. She got a TRO against him. There was forensic evidence. Despite all this, the prosecutor dropped the charges. I firmly believe my acquaintance, and was greatly discouraged at the outcome. I also have an acquaintance who was falsely accused of rape. He had "hung out" with a young woman twice, then ended things. A few weeks later, she posted an accusation of rape against him on an "Am I Dating an A7sh&^e" Facebook group (with tens of thousands of members). He lost his job as a direct result of this, and he also had a (female) friend end their friendship because of the accusation (she had seen the FB post). He could not find a lawyer who would help him with a civil case. I ended up helping him a bit until he found a law firm that would take his case. They negotiated a settlement involving a retraction of the accusation and an agreement to not repeat it. This cost him thousands of dollars of his own money. I firmly believe my acquaintance (I know him very well, her allegation was vague and fairly falsifiable, and she withdrew it), and was gratified with the outcome but troubled that my acquaintance's life was so damaged. I have no reflexive skepticism of allegations of sexual assault, but I think they need to be treated in essentially the same way as are allegations of other types of misconduct. Presumption of innocence, hold off on a rush to judgment, hold off on mobocratic rage, evaluate the evidence, let things play out before reaching any firm conclusions. I haven't seen that much here. I think there is value in the public being informed and educated about the allegations, the facts, the evidence, and so on as pertaining to serious and important issues. Sometimes these matters don't garner The Cornell matter seems to be a cause célèbre that is creating a sort of fever pitch rush to judgment and mob mentality, without sufficient regard for examining the evidence dispassionately. Thanks, -Smac

I was commenting on your call to have Dan excommunicated because you think he is subverting members and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Dan's job is not to tell faith based stories, but rather to give insight, context, understanding of biblical times and how scholars view the origins of the BoM. Others, such as church leaders have a job of making the origins of the BoM faith based and ignore all the data that Dan brings up. I don't think his job is to pick and choose what you want to hear him say because you find his data does and a scholarly evaluation does not support the faith based viewpoint you have or of the Church. Those were my thoughts. You just don't like them for some reason.

There are two more scenarios. One: she is really the queen of heaven mentioned by Jeremiah. The Jews were burning incense and pouring out drink offerings to her instead of God. Two: she is the imagination from the mind of men.

They would (and they have in other rape cases). Unfortunately, most don't have the knowledge necessary to provide a reasoned assessment of this kind of evidence and they unintentionally end up victim blaming or victim shaming because of their ignorance. This website is very short and explains some of the different ways that a person being sexually assaulted might legitimately respond in the moment. It's doesn't include all the different ways, just some typical ones. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/tools-for-victims-and-survivors/understanding-your-response/fight-or-flight/ This website discusses the many legitimate reasons that a woman might not report a rape right away. Sometimes it takes a woman a while to even be able to admit to herself that she was sexually assaulted (this most often happens when the rapist was someone that she knew or when she thinks that people aren't going to believe her and she knows she's going to suffer a second time from the consequences of reporting it. It takes a while for many women to weigh the pros and cons of speaking out). https://jacksonhealth.org/blog/2018-01-25-five-reasons-sexual-assault/

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation? And if it is possible to get to the truth here on this message board, what would that accomplish outside of the message board? (I guess I'm asking, how viable is your stated goal and what is the positive outcome you are expecting should you achieve it)

Opposite really. My opinion is that a variety of methods and combinations of methods were used, and the method would be dependent on the conditions in the room (lighting etc) and the number of observers in the room and whether or not they were hostile witnesses or sympathetic etc. Because sitting behind a curtain and telling observers that they will be struck dead if they look behind it is super sus and people were starting to ask why he needed the curtain. Isaiah is just an example, memorized sessions could have been from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or from any other manuscript memorized in advance. Other than Emma's comment about the walls of Jerusalem, we have no accounts describing the content being dictated so we can't know if what was being dictated ever even makes it into the Book of Mormon. We have no idea what was dictated in the presence of observers. I tend to agree with you that it would not be Isaiah because I believe the evidence points to Isaiah being read directly from an open Bible, and there is one account of Joseph dictating JST with a Bible open in front of him. If that's the case, it shows that there were times when Joseph was dictating from an open book, so we might add that to the list of methods above. Curious why you find these as being something to expect if Joseph was really translating. A curtain that could hide a pre-wrtitten mansuscript and penalties for those that get too curious sound like the kind of thing someone hiding a pre-written manuscript would do. I find it truly interesting that Joseph was deciphering characters off the plates using large spectacles behind a curtain before February 1828, before the translation began. And that he was handing around the results. That's the earliest account I have found and its very telling that the very first attempts at translating the gold plates were concealed behind a curtain. As for Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon informing the content of the Book of Mormon. It would not be too late as Bradish visited Egypt and Jerusalem in 1821. There would have been 8 years for Harris or the Smiths to cross paths with him on his trips back to Palmyra. Mitchill's theories on America being the Garden of Eden and a great battle of extinction between a light skinned and a dark skinned race 60 miles from Palmyra were in print since 1821. Anthon's Classical Dictionary was in print in 1825 with another edition in 1827. Harris visited all three two months before the translation started, but the material had been circulating for years before. I'm writing up more on this, and will post to another thread some day rather than derail this one.

And this is another reason why I think you have a difficult time understanding how women think when under threat or at least believe they are. I've been litigating for 22 years now. I've observed dozens and dozens of judges in hundreds of hearings, and many more dozens of lawyers in hearings and depositions and such. The question above is not definitive, but it's well within the boundaries of fair and reasonable inquiry in a legal setting. I think most other lawyers and judges examining these issues would ask the same questions I am asking. And I'm not drawing any hard or definitive conclusions. I'm presenting evidence and a reasoned assessment of it. I have no commitment to inculpating Jane Doe or exculpating the frat guys, or vice versa. The text message exchange between Jane Doe and her roommate at 3:05 a.m. may well end up being an important piece of evidence. I surely would spend a lot of time on it if I was an attorney involved on either side. Thanks, -Smac