All Activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how obvious - - -

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

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

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

Which of these spirits are deities?

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

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