All Activity

Even though you have no evidence for it. Okay. Yes. I'm happy to consider alternative inferences. So you are conceding the inference about Joseph and Emma being sealed is "probably right," but you are refusing to retract your claim that Joseph and Emma were never sealed? Thanks, -Smac

I didn't say she was evil. I think prosecutors need to dispassionately evaluate the evidence and avoid political pressures. That's not happening here. Thanks, -Smac

It's odd that the LDS Church would create a doctrine of a heavenly mother but then not pose any possible explanations for her origin. You already know the drill on this topic. See Liahona, March 2017, Why don’t we know much about our Heavenly Mother? “We know that we have both a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This knowledge appears to have originated with Joseph Smith and has been repeatedly reinforced by inspired teachings of Church leaders over the years. However, beyond the existence of a Heavenly Mother and the role of our heavenly parents in working together for the salvation and exaltation of their children, no further details about Heavenly Mother have been revealed. For now, we know enough to understand that we are children of heavenly parents, who want us to become like them. This understanding helps us see who we are and what we can become. It shows us that gender is part of our eternal identity and that men and women cannot be exalted without each other. And those are rare and precious truths in themselves.” Later in part 1 of your reply, you said that it is not defined what is meant by "we are the offspring of heavenly parents". You seem not to know yourself what literal "offspring" means, even though you claim to believe in eternal increase. God has not revealed what literal “offspring” means. It’s taught in the Bible to be literal given what the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29 literally means (referring to the “kind” of being that we all are). But no further details are given. Do you believe people (as eternal, uncreated intelligences) were divine in origin and nature before becoming spirit children of heavenly parents or did these eternal core elements only become present upon their spirit birth? The word “origin” implies a beginning, and spirits or intelligences are eternal and don’t have a beginning. Therefore, having a “divine origin” suggests that God (the “God of gods”, the one Supreme divine being above all) simply organized some kind of change in our eternal existence that brought us in alignment with him, which constitutes our “divine origin”. I find no ambiguity in any of the statements you quoted. An embryo is a very early developmental stage of any type of being, and lacks many of the attributes of a mature version of that being. Furthermore, your view of the definition of the word “God” is limited by your tradition similar to how you view angelic beings. For angels, you tried to assert that there is such a thing as a “nature of angels” when the Bible just uses the word “angel” as a job description. And it’s not me that says that we are the same kind of being that God is, the Bible says that in Acts 17:28-29 when it teaches that we are all the very génos of God, and the Greek word “génos” refers to the “kind” of being. We need to go with what the Bible says on that. I will withdraw my statement until I can find something more conclusive. You say that you withdraw your statement, yet you continue to misconstrue the things that Joseph Smith taught with the underlying assertion that he did teach that “many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father of our Earth”. If you are going to continue that assertion, then you need to support it by quoting Joseph Smith teaching such a thing. And as explained previously, Joseph Smith taught God had a “father” in the sense of his mortal experience, which means that his mortal body was begotten by a “father”. That “father” would not be his “God”, because God the Father is the “head God” and “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). So, all your other speculation on this issue is meaningless. And the fact that various worlds are in different stages of progression doesn’t prove anything. As said above, God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods”, and God the Father has created “worlds without number”. So, there is no reason for you to use the fact that there are many worlds that God has created in support of your speculation that there are Gods above “the Eternal God of all other gods”. You started out with the King Follet Discourse, then you switched to the Sermon in the Grove in between, and that’s the discourse that has only one primary source for most of it, from the incomplete notes of Thomas Bullock. The King Follet Discourse is on pages 342-361 of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Sermon in the Grove is on pages 369-376. Don’t confuse the two. Obviously, that would be Jesus Christ. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. (1 Timothy 2:5) God the Father appointed Jesus Christ to be his image bearer and mediator. In your reply on September 20 2026, you said you don't know how we are "offspring" of heavenly parents. The fact that we are the “offspring” of God (the same “kind” of being as God) is biblical. And you are the one who said how Paul’s audience would have understood the term. Why do you keep trying to get away from what Paul taught in the Bible? The key question here is this: What did Paul’s audience understand Paul to be teaching them? What about "literal father of the flesh" (which only seems to have applied to Jesus) and literal father of the spirit (which applies to all)? Hebrews 12:7-9 isn’t saying that the literal “fathers of our flesh” only applies to Jesus. It uses the word “our”, which is plural. So why would you try to say that only applies to Jesus? The verses compare the literal fathers of “our” flesh with the “Father of spirits”. It’s a direct comparison. We all have fathers of our flesh, and we all have a Father of our spirits, God the Father. The verse is teaching that God is the Father of spirits in a way similar how our earthly fathers are the fathers of our flesh, and that’s why God chastens us at times, for the same reasons why our earthly fathers may do the same. Do you believe the angels (not to be confused with spirit offspring) created by God are the same kind of being as He is? You already know that there is no such thing as the “nature of angels” in the Bible. An “angel” is just a job description in the Bible. See our prior discussion on this topic in my post on 05/26/2025 (and others). To have that job description doesn't change the individual's nature or "status", because even Jesus is described as the “angel of the LORD”. You also already know that the Bible does not teach that God created angels. And again, you still are attempting to get around the clear meaning of the word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which teaches that we are the same “kind” of being that God is. That we are the same “kind” of being as God is not something that can be explained away by attempting to divert attention to other meanings of “Father”. Focus on what the word génos means. It’s in the Bible. As for our prior discussion on the nature of angels, see the topic, “Differentiating between gods and angels”. In some way, yes. But let me clarify what I mean. Paul's use of Greek poets in Acts 17 does not mean that he was endorsing pagan theology as true revelation about God. Paul was addressing a pagan audience and used ideas familiar to them as a starting point, but he then radically redirected those ideas toward the biblical God. In Acts 17:24–31, Paul describes God as the Creator of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth, the One who needs nothing from humanity, the Judge of the world, and the One who raised Jesus from the dead. He explicitly rejects the pagan conception of deities [Zeus and others] represented by images of gold, silver, and stone. Even if Epimenides originally applied the statement ("For in him we live, and move, and have our being ") to Zeus, Paul's quotation does not mean that Paul accepted Zeus as the true God. Paul regularly used concepts and language familiar to his audience without endorsing the religious system from which they came. The other part, "for we are also his offspring" is not attributed to Epimenides. It is attributed to Aratus of Soli, from his Phaenomena. "From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars". https://intertextual.bible/text/aratus-phaenomena-5/acts-17.28 https://netbible.org/bible/Acts+17 Paul takes language originally used of Zeus and applies it to the God he is proclaiming-without implying that Paul regarded Zeus as the true God. Good, you’re coming around. This is exactly what I said in my prior post, and what the intertextualbible reference I posted said. So, the question remains, since Paul was applying the phrases from the Greek poets to the true God of the Bible, the phrases that say, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being " (from Epimenides), and “for we are also his offspring” (from Aratus), why don’t you believe what Paul was teaching the Athenians, that we are all the very génos of God, the “kind” of being that God is? Why do you reject that teaching? John 8 provides a clear example where fatherhood language describes moral/relational affiliation rather than biological generation. No, no, and no. You keep trying to ignore and avoid the literal biological generation which is plainly displayed in the text of John 8:33-44, a passage which describes both a literal biological generation and a moral/relational affiliation. And Jesus affirmed both. Jesus said (paraphrasing), “Yes, I know you are Abraham’s seed [literal biological generation] but because you want to kill me you aren’t Abraham’s children, you have for your ‘father’ the devil” (behaviorally speaking). Do you acknowledge that there is a literal biological generation meaning of a “child” or “father” presented in the text of John 8:33-44 as well as the behavioral meaning of the same? Similarly, the Bible teaches that we are both literal “offspring” of God (génos, the very kind of being as God) and that we need to “become” his children in the moral/relational and behavioral affiliation by receiving Jesus Christ. And just like you keep trying to ignore and avoid the literal offspring of Abraham in John 8:33-44, you do the same for Acts 17:28-29 and Hebrews 12:9. Both meanings of “child” and “father” are clearly there in the text of the Bible. Jesus had both of these meanings in mind in Matthew 5:43-45 when he taught that we need to love our enemies and bless them that hate you so that you “may be” the children of our literal “Father” in heaven. According to your way of thinking, Jesus shouldn’t have said that. He should have said that we need to love our enemies and bless them that hate us, so “that you may be the children of God”, because we can only become children of God through adoption (according to you). Why did Jesus not explain it your way when he was teaching the multitude in the sermon on the mount? Why did Jesus say to the multitude that God was “your Father which is in heaven” but we “may be” his children in some other way? That is simply not true and you know it. God creating and sustaining humanity is only the beginning of Paul’s connection with his audience, not his emphasis. That omits the essential logical argument that Paul was making, without which Paul’s entire argument falls apart. The final emphasis of Paul’s sermon is the fact that we are all the very génos of God, the very kind of being as God, and since we are the very génos of God it is completely illogical to worship gods of gold, silver, or stone, because we are not gold or silver or stone (and gold or silver or stone are also creations of God that he sustains). If Paul’s only emphasis was on God creating humanity, then it puts humanity in the same box as the objects that they are worshipping and makes his argument completely meaningless, because it gives his audience no recognizable frame of reference for them to understand what God is like. But by Paul teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God, it gives his audience a perfect way of coming to understand what God is like and why it is illogical to worship gods of gold or silver or stone. We can relate to God because we are the same kind of being that he is, and without that connection Paul's argument is worthless. Come to terms with what the text is actually teaching there, and stop trying to get around the fact that Paul taught that we are all the very génos of God. The claim that Smith's statement was "only with regard to creation" is not quite right. The "worlds coming into existence" statement is certainly about creation, but Joseph Smith connects the Father's experience with working out a kingdom, obtaining kingdom upon kingdom, and receiving further exaltation. He did not provide a detailed account of the Father's earthly life. In the King Follett Discourse, however, he taught that the Father was once a man, dwelt on an earth as Jesus did, laid down His life and took it up again, and worked out His own kingdom. Joseph Smith also said that the Father obtained 'kingdom upon kingdom' and that Jesus was following in His Father's tracks ("The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did"). I didn’t say Joseph Smith said “only with regard to creation” alone. That statement was made at the beginning of a longer sentence that included other things regarding “God the Father’s earthly experience”. I was referring to the Father’s earthly experience. And the Father obtaining “kingdom upon kingdom” and thus getting a “higher exaltation” is right in line with God the Father, the “head God” who is “the Eternal God of all other gods” having created worlds without number. So of course Jesus was following in his Father’s example. And none of this supports the mistaken idea that you are trying to portray, which is that God the Father has a God above him. It’s simply not in anything Joseph Smith taught. However, their God was Zeus – a pagan deity, like all the gods in the Greek pantheon. But the Greeks, through their own poetry and philosophy, had already stumbled onto “something real about God”, and Paul recognized that fact and used it to teach the reality of the true God of the Bible, that we are indeed his “offspring”. The fact that Zeus was a pagan deity didn’t stop Paul from using the statement from their poets to teach the truth that we are all the offspring of God of the true God of the Bible, and we are all the same kind of being as God. Why don’t you believe what Paul teaches us about God in the Bible? Before I show you Bible translations where "eternity" is used instead of everlasting for Proverbs 8:23 and Psalm 90:2, I’ll quote what a previous LDS President taught. From eternity to eternity is the same thing as from everlasting to everlasting. "... and he is the literal and personal father of the spirits of all men. He is omnipotent and omniscient; he has all power and all wisdom; and his perfections consist in the possession of all knowledge, all faith or power, all justice, all judgment, all mercy, all truth, and the fullness of all godly attributes ... If we are to have that perfect faith by which we can lay hold upon eternal life, we must believe in God as the possessor of the fullness of all these characteristics and attributes. I say also that he is an infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity". The same wording is mentioned in the May 1971 Ensign article titled "The Most Important Knowledge". The same equating of the terms is also taught in the "New Testament Teacher Resource Manual". "Christ is the Great I AM, the I AM, the I AM THAT I AM, meaning that he is the Eternal One, the One ‘who is from all eternity to all eternity’ (D. & C. 39:1; Ex. 3:14), the God who is ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ (Ps. 90:2)". There are at least two big problems with your response above. First of all, whether or not some English speaking people interpret the word “everlasting” to be the same as “eternity” does nothing to disprove the original meaning of the Hebrew word ʿôlām in Proverbs 8:23 and Psalm 90:2, which Young’s Literal Translation translates (literally) as “age”. Second, you are mixing up contexts in the statements that are made in your quotes above. Saying that God “is an infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity" is a completely different statement than saying he is God from eternity to eternity, which is what you misconstrue Psalm 90:2 to be saying. Latter day scripture actually uses the phrase “eternity to eternity” to say that God has specific attributes eternally. “From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:4), and “Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ” (Doctrine and Covenants 39:1). God the Father and Jesus Christ have existed from all eternity to all eternity, there’s no question about that. You should have also included the New World Translation of these verses, for all its worth. As with the New World Translation, translators often lean toward a translation that promotes their personal biases and theology such as those you present above. The fact of the matter remains, Hebrew word ʿôlām means “age”, and Young’s Literal Translation translates these verses literally as: “From the age I was anointed, from the first, From former states of the earth.” “Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.” And the problem with Proverbs 8:23 is that you have God “setting up” and “bringing forth” something in the context of those verses. It’s not “from eternity”. You said, "The bolded portion above in the quote from Brigham Young is the only part of his address that is referenced in Nielson's article (pertaining to the presumption that "every earth has its redeemer"). And you'll notice that there is nothing in the quote from Brigham Young (above) that is remotely like anything you are attributing to Brigham Young. Maybe there is some other reference to Brigham Young saying those things? But here you only have Kent Nielson's interpretation and speculation on the items in his article". Yes. I understood your point in your reply. That's why I acknowledged your correction of me and introduced how the two statements differed. "One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world". That statement is a presumption. It's open to speculation. Brigham Young's statement is not a presumption. There is no speculation. "Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof ...". That statement doesn’t support what you want it to say. That statement comes from Brigham Young’s reasoning that sin is upon every earth and therefore every earth has to have a Redeemer, so that “people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer”. It’s just as easy to read it to mean that every earth has to be redeemed by the Savior (Jesus Christ) because “sins is upon every earth that ever was created”. It's easy to see here that he is firstborn of his earthly mother. Ah, so you do acknowledge that there are also literal meanings of "firstborn" in scripture. But when it's not that "easy to see" it's easier for you to try to make it mean something else like you do below. "Begotten" does not necessarily mean "made", as in being born of heavenly parents. Several good articles explain it: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-begotten-not-made-mean/ https://nickcady.org/2026/04/11/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-the-begotten-son-of-god/ The New Testament connects "begotten" with Jesus being "firstborn from the dead". Acts 13:33 - Paul applies Psalm 2:7 to Jesus ("Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"). Immediately afterward, Paul speaks of Jesus being raised from the dead ("And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption"). This is significant because Paul connects "begotten" (Psalm 2:7) with Christ's resurrection. There are others: "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence" (Colossians 1:18). "Jesus Christ... the first begotten of the dead..." (Revelation 1:5). The Greek in Revelation 1:5 is ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν (ho prōtotokos tōn nekrōn), literally "the firstborn of the dead." So there are two closely related expressions: "Begotten" → resurrection" and "Firstborn from/of the dead" → resurrection Various Bible translations render Revelation 1:5, using either firstborn or first begotten. Here are a few examples: "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth" (KJV) "...and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth." (New King James Version). https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Revelation 1%3A5 You are doing the same thing here as you keep trying to do with the “offspring of God” teaching in Acts 17:28-29. Just because there are multiple meanings of “firstborn” does not negate the fact that Jesus is the “firstbegotten” of the Father before the world, and God brought his “firstbegotten into the world”. Even the Nicene Creed states: "We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made". Acts 13:33, which is quoting Psalm 2:7, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The Greek word which is translated as "begotten" in that verse is the same as that used in the Nicene Creed. It is "gennao", which means "to procreate (prop. of the father, but by extens. of the mother); fig. to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring". On July 26 2026, you said something similar: "And God the Father would have also had an earthly father and mother when he dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And that's exactly the way Joseph Smith taught it". When the LDS Heavenly Father was born of his father and mother on that earth, which of his parents was a God at that time? Nobody was the God of God the Father. God the Father is the God of all other gods, as scripture says. And the only “grandfather” he ever had would be the like the grandfathers that Jesus had while he was on earth, as I posted on July 26, where I said, “As for the identity of Jesus’ grandfather, it depends on which genealogy is correct. According to the gospel of Matthew, his grandfather was Jacob (Matthew 1:16). According to the gospel of Luke, his grandfather was Heli (Luke 3:23). Some say this is the genealogy of Mary, but that works too. And whichever one you want to pick, God the Father is still the God of all others and has no God over him. And God the Father would have also had an earthly father and mother when he dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And that’s exactly the way Joseph Smith taught it.” Do you believe Satan was evil before being born to his heavenly parents, when he supposedly existed as an eternal, uncreated intelligence? If yes, then God did not create evil. If no, then the LDS Heavenly Father knew he would become evil and used him to cause the Fall. Satan is an eternal being and as such he has had his own agency eternally. To be “evil” suggests that he always intended to bring about deliberate harm to others, but as far as I know that didn’t come about until Satan rejected God’s plan and sought to destroy God’s plan and bring others down with him. But of course the God of the Bible knew what Satan would do. The God of the Bible placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, and the God of the Bible cast Satan down to earth and allowed him to tempt Adam and Eve. The God of the Bible knew how it would turn out, which is why he prepared Jesus to be the “lamb” slain from before the foundations of the world (Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 1:9). So, unlike your view, where you have Jesus creating Satan from nothing and bringing evil into existence by his intentional act of creation (even though the Bible says no such thing), the true God did not create Satan from nothing, and simply used the evil that came about by Satan’s rebellion as part of his plan to provide an environment for others to be able to choose between good from evil, with redemption and salvation coming through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yes. This reminds me of the fortunate and necessary Fall in LDS theology. It's taught that people even celebrate Eve's act. Good, I’m glad that you see that LDS theology resembles early Christian doctrines. Christian doctrines have changed through time, which is why there was a need for a restoration.

I like your sense of perspective. Where Joseph Smith would fall on the current political spectrum; exactly what practices accompanied his being sealed to multiple women; and what lens we should view all of that through may be very interesting topics, and I have no objection to these topics being studied and debated, but I don't think they really effect how I ought to live my life.

Leonardo DiCaprio comes to mind. He is 51 and routinely dates early twenties girls. He just got roasted at some Hollywood event about it… yea it isn’t cool and is def creepy Agreed. I bet not a single one of them WANTED to make public statements about their sex life with the prophet.

It was condemned. Think of it like a 70 year old marrying an 18 year old. It happens today and is legal but you are going to get side eyed and they will think the older person is a creep. I don’t think these women really wanted to prove that Joseph was a polygamist. I think the church leadership wanted to prove it and convinced these women to help. I feel a little bad for the women having to do this since it wouldn’t have been a fun experience.

You are incredibly thin-skinned about this. Why are you taking this so personally? It is very weird.

Your propaganda masters have made sure you know that she is deeply evil. After all she was willing to investigate the Holy One’s misdeeds. A sacrilege. Because the governor realized that no one on the local level was willing to investigate this seriously? Gotta protect the gang rapists I suppose. They are just running the playbook to set up for a potential appeal and score the requisite political points for pointing out how evil everyone involved is for *checks notes* seriously investigating claims of rape and sexual assault.

I don't see the relevance of this when discussing the trial in 1892. That quote was written in the last decade or so. Yes, a 14 year old marriage in today's environment is very much a terrible thing. If Joseph was alive today and did that, he would be rightfully condemned. I doubt he would do it, though. But we are discussing a trial in 1892 and a marriage to a 14 year old was not condemned and was not considered evil. I'm the one using "dragged". Because back then, talking about sex was not something you want to do. And yet, three women did it because they wanted to prove that Joseph really was a polygamist. And, based on the scenario, I would assume any woman who could testify to that would have been involved. There were men who testified that their sisters had sex with Joseph. It was a way to show that Brigham Young was the true heir of Joseph Smith. With Helen being a being pro-polygamist, I don't see any reason why she would not have been involved if she could have helped. I think I understand where you are coming from. If two people are married, it defaults to sex. 100% agree. That was the default for Helen and Joseph. Sure, there was some evidence that argued otherwise, but the default is that sex happened. It wasn't until I learned about the particulars of the Temple Lot case that I felt there was enough evidence to override the default assumption. If she had sex with Joseph, I see no reason why she would not have been involved. She had every reason to be involved.

A 14 year old marriage was considered weird and “sick” back then, especially outside of the South. There are still states in the US today where you can get married that young with the right approvals but you will be viewed as odd if you do it. This was also not a legal marriage in the eyes of the government.

The fact is she was sealed to Joseph as a wife. Another fact is she wasn’t permitted to go to dances, date etc??? Hmmm wonder why that is? Prob because she was married AND had to hide that fact ( lie?) . In any case if she is married to the guy who is now a known lying liar who had sex with other plural wives and prob to some who were married to other men… well neither one of them have any credibility anyway. The whole thing was/is a twisted web of lies and going behind Emma’s back. Why do all that if you are not at least having sex with your plural wife?? anyway we can agree to disagree… I think the only reason this is so heavily fought against by TBMs is because she was fourteen. No problem admitting he had sex with some of the other ones even though that was flat out adultery because none of these marriages except to Emma were even legal in the first place. So much for the 12th article of faith. The church still can’t follow that one if the sec scandal is any indicator.

In logic, this is your unsupported generalization being used as proof of a particular case. Historical evidence of a sealing establishes only that a sealing occurred. Evidence of sexual relations requires an additional evidentiary basis. "Marriage = Sex" sounds simple, but applying it to every plural sealing ignores all evidence about every other case of eternity-only sealings, like the ones with existing civil marriages and the differences in how each particular relationship was described. The historical consensus among both LDS and non-LDS historians including Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, and George D. Smith is that there is no evidence Helen's sealing was physically consummated. No one is saying that to "defend Joseph". Helen’s own phrase, "The step I now am taking's for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free," directly supports the understanding that there was never cohabitation, never an unescorted visit, no suggestion of sexual relations and maybe a reference to her subsequent marriage to Horace K. Whitney in 1846. Her poem reveals her initial distress, how the social price became heavy, how she was isolated. She remained an active defender of Joseph Smith and polygamy. If she were angry at anyone, it was her father who pressured this. A person’s emotional state does not establish whether Joseph had sexual relations with them. A person can be angry and still be correct, a person can be calm and still be mistaken. Don't reframe our dispute about whether your claim is justified as a dispute about whether you are permitted to make it. Of course you are entitled to an opinion. That does not make your factual claims accurate or exempt them from scrutiny. You have not identified any evidence that the existence of a sealing is sufficient to infer consummation. That inference is merely a starting hypothesis.

Again- this isnt the women going around bragging about sex with Joseph. They were "dragged" in to testify to that fact.

Well the church certainly didnt feel it looked all that great judging by this comment in the GTE re polygamy: "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

Yea I am not retracting my claim. The evidence you cited is an inference. Maybe they should have written her name down in the record instead of being cryptic about it?? I dunno. You are probably right, but the record doesnt say the word "Emma." As for the rest of this discussion, please continue on without me. Over the past year I have seen your posts and your "courtroom" duels with others that extend page after page focusing on even the tiniest of details. I went against my best judgement in even responding to you as I was like yea this is gonna devolve in a repeat of the "argument of the definition of what "is" is."...and it is starting to look that way. Thats fine, but I have better things to do and more interesting hobbies than to spend endless hours here responding to endless challenges. Anyway- im not interested in conversing with you anymore as it seems as if you always require a court battle and fight down to the very last word over EVERYTHING. I prefer more base discussions so I apologize for even responding to you- trust me it will not happen again. I'm not about to get caught up in the circus acts you have dragged others into and have this run on for days on end. You won... As for the CFRs...do what you will with them. Make your final last legalistic point and have a mod go after me and ban me from the thread or whatever. You apparently have the energy to spend all day here like the time is billable hours or something so do whatever.

The church was actively helping. They were the ones dragging the people in to testify. The government wasn't part of the suit. The Temple Lot was between the Hedrickites and the RDLS over who owned the Temple Lot in Missouri. The Hedrickites had purchased it but the purchase was disputed. They also said they owned it by squatter right. The RLDS argued that they were the rightful heirs of Joseph Smith and so they should have it. The Hedrickites asked the LDS to help prove that the RLDS wasn't the rightful heirs. The Hedrickites were against polygamy (just like the RLDS) but they accepted that Joseph practiced and taught it and wanted to show that the RLDS can't be the faithful heirs because they don't practice polygamy. A 14 year old marriage was not sick back then. The polygamy was the problem, not the age. From https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/assessing-the-criticisms-of-early-age-latter-day-saint-marriages In some states, the age of consent was 10 for a girl. A 14 year old girl marrying an older man was rare, but it wasn't considered sick.

I think I saw that my message box is full. That has never happened before, in 22 years! Thank you for two replies.

Hey thanks Navidad. I'll try to talk about things, and being. Another time though. Truthing? I don't think you mean a true thing? Reality....no...I stop. A blessed Sunday to you and Mrs. Navi.

I would fill in your blank with "being." Can we conform our minds to things that are true? I am not sure what you mean by "things." Ideas, thoughts, beliefs, facts? You probably should tell me more about "things." I think we have "faith" in connection with personal and revealed truth. The light of reason would be included in rational truth. However, I would suggest the light of reason does not reveal absolute truth, especially in the sense that reasonable (in your meaning, I think) people could conclude different truths from the information that is being reasoned. I think that engages the mind. I am fascinated by the concept of the "mind" which I believe to be a construct from the soul. I tend to see having truth as exclusivistic. "I have it; you may (if you agree with me) or may not (if you disagree with me). That is the great danger of "having" the truth as a possession. Being the truth is revealing what is inside the self; taking off the cover; that is truth as a verb or gerund - truthing. That is a human struggle. I am also interested in understanding truth in terms of certainty. When you take away "correct" and "incorrect" as attributes of truth, it changes the whole discussion. I think it makes the discussion more meaningful and interesting and deeply human. It seems that truth as correct and incorrect was a mid-to-late 19th century innovation.

Hi my friend: This is a tough question to discuss in the space we have here. Basically I note five forms of truth, each that I believe is valid (if only for the truther). My research indicates (to me) that one of them aligns with an ancient concept of truth across languages and cultures. I think we need to understand truth in terms of the linguistic analysis of what the word meant at a given place, culture, and time. I admit to a bit of a bias against how it is used in todays' culture, place, and time, especially in Western culture. The truth forms I think are valuable are ontological truth, revealed truth, personal truth, rational truth, and truth as being. Except for ontological truth, each has its limitations in generalizability. I do not include absolute truth in the list because I believe to some degree it is unknowable to the human mind, with its limitations. I prefer truth as being as a goal for me in my life. It is closest to the ancient concept of the five across linguistic and cultural analysis. It is a journey, not a possession. Sure there were OT revelations. Sure there probably are revealed truths in visions - I say probably because I have never had one. Sure, there are truths that remain to be revealed. Personal truths are in some way the trickiest, because we tend to generalize them for everyone when they really are personal, probably connect to life experiences. Truth as being tends to turn truth from a noun to a verb. Hope that helps. I tried PMing you, but the system won't let me.

I really enjoy these kinds of videos from him.

He’s easy to watch for me. Interesting- Thanks

For those curious here is Dan recently in educator mode answering good-faith questions:

Dan irks me on occasion as well, and I don't think it's because I have prioritized dogma over data. I think sometimes his online persona just annoys me that day for whatever reason. His videos are sometimes performative--which is not at all an insult, they need to be and they should be if he's going to find any success on social media--and his way of performing is not always my cup of tea or what I find useful. Again, not an insult because my feelings are not the standard for what actually is useful, even if my feelings on what I find useful are completely valid. Dan probably makes missteps as much as the next scholar and I don't think there's any harm in a respectful discussion on his public posts or videos where people disagree about his affectiveness or even discuss how his public views mesh with church teachings. I'm guessing that kind of stuff doesn't bother Dan at all or he wouldn't be so public. Smac and I differ because he tends to moralize his disagreements with people (as in, if someone doesn't say what he thinks they should say or believe what he thinks they should believe then he often implies that it's some kind of moral failure on their part) and I don't often think that is an accurate route to go. I don't believe that Dan is doing anything immoral in the way that he presents data or shows up online but I think that it's valid to discuss his impact on people's faith and I also think that it's valid for Smac to believe that Dan is doing more harm than good, even if I disagree with Smac on that. I've seen other very nuanced public latter-day saint "influencers" who are not at all dogmatic who have also had fair criticisms of Dan. Disagreeing with the way Dan does stuff is not a sign that someone doesn't like the best data that experts have put together.

Being dragged into court as you described it doesn’t sound much like anyone was on a brag about having sex with js. Sounds more like the govt compelled them to give testimony and were under threat of perjury if they lied. as for Helen not testifying… I’m pretty sure the church didn’t want her up there stating she had sex with js as a 14 year old. If one considers that maybe if they did and waited till she was older she would have been 15 at the most since js was killed a year later. That would not have been the flex the church wanted. Even back then this marriage was sick.