All Activity

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

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

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

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

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any. Can you help in this regard? In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this? If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence. My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death. They do? Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s? Possibly, yes. Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship. See also here: The term “open” in this statute is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is “notorious,” “exposed to public view,” or “visible,” and which is “not clandestine.”22 Joseph’s relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition. Possibly, yes. Not sure what you mean here. I think this is incorrect. See here. Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation. Do you have contrary evidence? That Joseph and Emma were never sealed? Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion. Thanks, -Smac

From a historical standpoint there is no reliable evidence that he had a husband/wife relationship with any underage girls. If he had lived long enough it sounds like his marriage to Helen Kimball would have been a normal marriage but all records point to them never being unchaperoned and their relationship never being more than on paper, so to speak. I know that you value honesty, and I’m saying that sincerely. This is one of those times where anyone who values accuracy will want to look into the historical record for themselves and not just repeat what they’ve heard in the past, especially if they’ve heard it from unreliable sources. You said it yourself, people lie. Especially when the lie justifies their biases or serves an agenda. There’s plenty of other stuff that you can be mad at Joseph Smith and the church about, this just doesn’t happen to be a valid criticism.

Well, we can’t necessarily know what decisions Joseph would’ve made in his personal life in today’s climate. The decisions I make today are very different than the decisions I made just 10 years ago.

Man accused in Cornell rape lawsuit wants Letitia James removed from investigation Deeply unimpressed with Letitia James. Not just about her bias, but also her foolishness. Bias is a legitimate concern. Also not impressed with Gov. Hochul. Same reasons. I don't think the dispute is about broad legality of a governor's executive power. I don't think she'll be removed, but this was an unforced error. Thanks, -Smac

Oh my bad. I forgot that no one ever lied back then… especially Joseph smith. for the record he wasn’t sealed to Emma until AFTER he married 22 other women all the while lying about it and breaking the law. So until he got those 22 marriages out of the way… Emma wasn’t sealed to him. Praise to the man. What a guy! Joseph smith would be sharing a cell with Warren jeffs today.

This is important stuff. I think our personal political preferences, ideologies, outlook, etc. need to be substantially "downstream" from our discipleship, as otherwise allegiance to a political party or ideology might end up superseding the "weightier matters" that exist, or should exist, in our lives. Thanks, -Smac

Well, no. My assessment of Dan is in part based on my personal interactions with him (hence my acknowledgment of those interactions), but mostly it's about his public social media stuff. Thanks, -Smac

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

You only pretend to care about the truth if you plan to just ignore Helen Mar Kimball’s own testimony regarding her relationship with Joseph Smith. You try to establish fake facts when the historical record does not establish that claim. And Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Get the history right before lecturing anyone else about it.

It's possible that a widow remained a virgin.

It’s hard for him to fathom, but not everybody is black-and-white

Throwing caution to the wind, of the big red pop-up banner... I don't think he had a political ideological purity that could be pigeon-holed into one or the other even at that time; and even if he did, it would be too difficult to dissect each component from its historical place and then place it neatly into a modern political category box. That said, Joseph's and Rigdon's Mormon Reform Party was likely best categorized as center-left for the time. That's what makes it sticky though, is that rascally "for the time." It had flavors of Jeffersonian democracy, which were pretty radical and progressive at the time but now has a lot of elements that fit perfectly within the realm of modern conservatism. Even the components of classical liberalism that he advocated can't be placed, as a whole, perfectly within on side of the modern political dichotomy. Ultimately, I think at best (and even then, it requires a lot of guesswork and assumptions) you can take a given position or given aspect in a given moment, and mayyyyyybeeeee put it into the modern spectrum; but, placing him on the modern spectrum as a whole is an act in futility, that I think is ultimately more of a reflection of the person doing the categorizing than of Joseph himself.

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her. Why not, she was his wife. You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her, he would be in prison for marrying other men’s wives. Politically, he would not survive with all the shenanigans he was up to. Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma. Praise to the man!

I'm not following. Are you suggesting the learned man in 2 Nephi 27 is not Charles Anthon? Who else could it be? From 1831 Anthon’s name was being used to say he had validated the characters, and from 1835 Mormons were casting him as the learned man of Isaiah 29 and 2 Nephi 27, who asks for the book for gain. Either way Anthon had every reason not to admit in print that he had asked to see the plates, so his silence is not surprising. The positive evidence is Knight: Anthon “rote a very good piece to Joseph and said if he would send the original he would translate it.” Knight doesn’t read to me like someone fitting the account from 2 Nephi. He does see it as fulfilling Isaiah 29 (“Then was fulfild the 29th chapter of Isiah”) but the details don’t follow. The original can’t be shown because “it was Commanded,” not because it’s sealed, and there’s no sealed portion at all. Mitchill and Anthon can translate some of the characters, which is the opposite of “I cannot.” Anthon refuses to go on without the original, and Harris stalls (“I will go home and see”) and then they simply “went to him no more.” His detail that Anthon put his offer in writing isn’t in either text, and Anthon himself admits in 1841 that he gave a written opinion, after denying it in 1834. That looks like a remembered event read through the prophecy, not one invented from it. If Knight was trying to fit his account with 2 Nephi, he'd be more likely to follow 2 Nephi exactly The Butler/Bennett account is the most revealing IMO. There's a strong argument RT makes here that Butler had confused Mitchill and Anthon and Bennett printed the story backwards. If this is the case, then Harris would have visited Mitchill first, and Mitchill would have referred him to Anthon who then "examined them and compared them with other hieroglyphics— thought them very curious—and [said] they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named.” And the printed version would then be Anthon who had "looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them—compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt—and set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more” This seems to me to be the correct reading of the Butler/Bennett account. It was Anthon, not Mitchill, who made a learned dissertation on the characters.

Yes, why is it merciful to an animal and not to a human who might be barely conscious but in unbearable pain? One can be unconscious and still in pain. I think best practice is using medications that lower awareness to the point of not feeling pain, but I am not sure how they work in every case, especially if a patient has developed tolerance. Are there new ones that can be used instead? Also I get the slippery slope issue. It’s dangerous and I believe it should be primarily dealt with using living wills…which I need to get in place though I have let everyone know my wishes. But if we had a way to determine for certainty that someone would not recover (as our medicine improves, the accuracy of prognosis will as well), would anyone not already sort of comfortable with the idea of there are massive safeguards to avoid abuse okay with it then? (I suspect Catholics won’t as it is interfering with nature drastically, but seems like many life saving medications do that, so it is likely there are nuances.) I certainly hope I don’t get placed in a situation where a discussion on something more than withholding life support while making the person comfortable comes up. I also get that many have respect for life in general, but life is not abstract for me, it’s what we experience, not some distinct principle. I don’t see why I should respect a life that every last person would hate including the person living it. What makes a tortured existence of value? Serious question, not trying to be provocative. I don’t understand it? The being who possesses that life needs to be fully respected and cared for, but why doesn’t that sometimes mean helping them die? Not saying I know how to go about it safely, it just seems for many it shouldn’t even be considered as a hypothetical because it’s inherently immoral in their view and I wonder why.

Having experienced excruciating pain and other stuff that removed my rationality for a time, I have to wonder what good could come from prolonging such suffering when the end result is death. Not saying it won’t happen, just not seeing how it could at this point. Don’t we need to be conscious and aware to learn? If all the pain or whatever input swamps all our senses and mind, what learning can take place? Just think of trying to read if you were right next to a fire alarm going off. Sensory overload. It makes sense when there is a way out, an afterward, where is the time for reflection to think back and say ‘I may have felt like I was splitting in two and thought I was going to die and actually wanted to for a moment, but I am grateful now for the baby’ or ‘I couldn’t stand it, but now the skin graft is working, I can see scraping off the dead stuff over and over every day was worth it’. But when there is no after in mortality….I don’t see what difference it makes in the afterlife that we hung around longer in such pain if we didn’t have a choice.

Considering the likely subsistence living on many, knowing it wasn’t as bad doesn’t do anything for me. Nor do those types of justifications usually work (except perhaps when it comes to pain and embarrassment…this wasn’t as bad as….and I survived that). Two wrongs don’t make a right. They should like excuses to me. And using not as bad appears to be granting the premise it is wrong. Not saying the restrained extravagance of the temple was a wrong. Simply analyzing what is unsatisfying because I don’t know the why. It is not for me to say it’s not according to God’s will as I am not the one receiving direction to build or not build it. I never regretted a penny of tithing or other forms of donation to the Church. I love that temples are going up all around so that it is much easier for all Saints to get to them multiple times in their lives. We have never been close to poverty, so tithing is a very different experience for me than someone giving of their necessities. I certainly benefit myself from the sacrifice others make and am grateful for it. I never sit there and think ‘this could have bought so many meals’. (I do admit to sometimes thinking ‘less gold, more wood and stained glass please!’, but that is an aesthetic choice, not thinking of which costs more because I don’t know, labour can be very expensive. I trust temple building is directed by God. To me, that is probably the only thing that justifies it unless people donate without much prompting (limited to hearing of the opportunity). Spontaneous free will offerings, seems like they should be accepted without reservation. People should be able to give if they want to, even if they personally suffer because of it.

I suspect Joseph Smith would find all our political positions abhorrent. He would probably hold on to the political views he had then which definitely aren’t progressive by today’s standards and our current fad version of conservatism is ideologically anti-American Revolution so probably too conservative for him too.

Compare the body counts of God and Satan in the Bible.

I have to say that I think that taking a life in mercy is a mercy when they ask for it or if they certainly would if they could. My fascination with history has led me to a lot of stories of people suffering horrific wounds where death is certain but may take minutes or hours and I want to believe I would have the will to spare them that. Maybe a God can do some good with that horror but I wouldn’t leave a person to face it. I would grant that mercy to an animal. If it is a kindness to a less aware non-human animal I can’t see how humans who can experience the pain even more should not be granted mercy.

Also if it makes you feel better the tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon were both provincial and crude by comparison to the temples of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. Compared to the sprawling temple at Karnak or the temple of Marduk in Babylon it was a hick town chapel type of thing by comparison. Not saying it wasn’t nice and made of nice things but it was not as impressive in terms of size and wealth put into it compared to other contemporary places of worship. It was a big investment for such a small nation of course.