All Activity

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.

There are other meanings but when you are talking about virgins being married the context clue there really ties it down to the “not having had sex yet” definition. If that is not what is meant than God and/or Joseph Smith are really really bad communicators.

I am 99% sure I know exactly what he is talking about. Note the ultra-specific word choice. He refuses to say Jesus is a failed prophet but is perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet. In other words whomever wrote the gospel got it wrong. Jesus did give prophecies that didn’t happen. Three of the gospels have Jesus promising the end of days before “this generation” is gone. It didn’t happen. This isn’t as controversial or as blasphemous a statement as you want to make it be. LOL, no. You are wrong. In general Dan presents the scholarly consensus on the texts and is not holding up his scholarly credentials and going out on a limb. When he is speaking for a minority view he makes that clear. So no, you are misrepresenting how he communicates. Enjoy: I am not convinced you are capable of competently distinguishing between the two. You can’t even communicate the things he says and represents correctly and are trying to drag him through the mud based on your ‘vibes’ of what you imagine he is trying to do. You are such a petty little man. Also CFR He dunks on amateurs because those amateurs are spreading disinformation. He also dunks on professionals that are spreading misinformation. Equal opportunity dunker. Dan is educational and kind when dealing with good faith questions. He can be ruthless at exposing bad scholarship. Both are good. And it doesn’t detract from what he is doing. It is part of why so many from all kinds of faith traditions like him. He shares the truth about the text and what the author was most likely trying to communicate whether Dan likes what the text is saying or not. Dan doesn’t like the anti-gay stuff. He really doesn’t like all the pro-slavery stuff in the Bible but he is ruthless about those that try to downplay it or minimize it. It is there. You are tied heavily to your dogma. Dan tends to really tick off people who prioritize their dogmas over the data about the actual text. Hence why he irks you. He shares the best data the experts have put together.

Most of her stuff is video and podcasts now. She doesn’t use her blog much but it is some of her best work: https://going-medieval.com

Helen's story is more complicated than you are attributing to it. She wrote one very public rebuttal to Joseph Smith III on how Joseph Smith actually taught polygamy. In it, she named 4 wives (the Lawrence sisters and the Partridge sisters). In another publication talking about family life, she again mentions wives of Joseph Smith (Sarah Whitney, Lucy Walker). She also says how there are other wives of Joseph Smith living in Utah. Neither time does she say she is included in that list. And, in regards to "no one bragging about sex", in the Temple Lot case, that was specifically what they were doing. Not really bragging but definitely trying to prove that Joseph had sex with the women. Women from multiple places in Utah were dragged into Salt Lake City to testify that they had sex with Joseph. That was the entire reason that the Utah church was involved in the case (not sure how much you know about the Temple Lot case but it was between the Hedrickites and the RLDS; the LDS was only involved to prove polygamy was real). The Temple Lot case was in 1892. Helen, by that time, was a well known advocate for polygamy and there were only 9 wives still alive. 3 of them were deposed: Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, and Lucy Walker. All 3 of them testified that they had sex with Joseph. Lucy Walker traveled all the way from Logan to attend. Helen was living in Salt Lake City. We know she was paying attention to the case (she mentions it in her journal). This is the one time where the church wanted any woman who could testify that they had sex with Joseph to be available. And yet Helen was never invited. Of the other 5, we have evidence that one had sex with Joseph (Almera Johnson) but she was ill and lived down in Parowan so that is a good reason she didn't testify. The others (Patty Session, Zina Huntington, Martha McBride, Mary Rollins) almost definitely weren't wives in the sexual sense (Patty, Martha, and Mary) or were more complicated (Zina). Helen's case wasn't complicated so the best reason for why she didn't testify is because she didn't have sex. For me, until I saw the Temple Lot situation, I thought it was likely that Helen and Joseph were intimate. But the Temple Lot case, plus everything else, convinced me that there was no sexual relationship between the two.

I have testified 81 times as an expert. Most of the attorneys behave professionally. There are numerous instances in which I have had to endure personal attacks. I have to take it while remaining calm and composed; and for the most part I have. I have been yelled at. I have been impugned both verbally and in motions in limine. I have been lied about and misrepresented on many, many occasions. Spare me the notion that ALL attorneys behave ethically; it simply is not the case.

That is my assessment as well. And yet NotaTBM is only kinda sorta retracting his claim that Joseph was not sealed to Emma. I'm not sure. In the Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam), Person A asserts a claim and then demands that Person B prove the claim is false to show that Person A's claim is true . Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance. But that is not what has happened here. NotaTBM ("Person A") made a factual claim: that Joseph was not sealed to Emma "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma." Person B (smac97) responded: And here: From footnote 457: Person A made the assertion, and so he generally has the obligation to provide evidence for it. This does not change if the assertion is "negative." Thanks, -Smac

Your summaries and paraphrases of my ideas are almost always inaccurate, substantially so. No. When I need to nail a nail into a piece of wood, I just a hammer, not a saw. When I want to cut a piece of wood, I use a saw, not a hammer. The scientific method and standard historiographical methods are all quite good and useful in their sphere, but they are not the only tools available. No. I do look at this, though: Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." This, we are told, is "data > dogma." Okay. It certainly has its flaws, but it's the best system, or one of the best, devised so far. I'm skeptical that the lawyers you know would disagree with my characterization of how court proceedings and briefs are in terms of tone and decorum. I think his approach has changed a lot. I think he likes to use his "I'm a scholar" bona fides to bolster and lend undo credence and probative weight to issues about which reasonable minds can disagree. But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Please provide some "factually correct" things he has said which I do not like. I acknowledge that. I take him serious as a scholar. I take him less seriously when he makes forays outside of his realm of expertise. I also take him less seriously given his, shall we say, inconsistent application of "data > dogma." I also take him less seriously when he dunks on amateurs and resorts to snipes and digs, as this materially detracts from what I thought he was positioning himself to do, which was to thoughtfully distill and present the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. He does that still, which is why I pay attention to him. Thanks, -Smac

Jacob Hansen professes to be a Latter-day Saint devoted to his faith. And I think he is well versed in his familiarity with the doctrines and history. And I think he cares a lot about the Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church. In the end, he is sharing his perspective on the Church, and defending it. When I listen to Jacob's content, he is clear about his faith and his perspective. Is he looking for clicks? Yes. Garnering attention is the name of the game. I don't fault him for that, particularly since I think Jacob's content is not only "thorough and well reasoned," it is decorous. His splashes don't have the increasingly hammy/mugging flavor I'm seeing in Dan's channel. But even more important than that, he is civil in his disagreements. Take a look at this: I asked Grok to sum up the taunts and insults the pastor dished out, and the same for Jacob: Jacob sticks to the argument and the facts, (substantially) avoids ad hominem and insults and putdowns. I was impressed by and proud of his behavior. In contrast, I was pretty disappointed by and unimpressed with the pastor. Of the two participants in the above video, I think Dan hews substantially more toward the pastor's behavior. Free with personal taunts and insults. He regularly dunks on amateurs, and then adds taunts and insults to finish up. He imputes terrible motives onto the people he is critiquing, and then attacks them for it. I'm not on X much, but I'll give it a go: From October 23: October 19: Also October 19: October 16: October 13: October 13: October 12: October 12: Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." October 11: October 10: Sounds like some ExMos have looked at what Dan is saying and think his staying in the Church is "so he can bring more people out" of it. Boy, ExMo Reddit threads discussing Dan are . . . illuminating. They seem to have drawn conclusions about Dan and the Church. These are the impressions Dan is giving former Latter-day Saints: I still don’t think it is possible to do what Dan does in public and answer these questions with his priesthood leaders honestly. I believe that since he views all religion as nothing more than a cognitive tool humans developed since the beginning of time, he has no problem participating in the religion from that point of view. I listened to his mormon stories interview and concluded that he probably doesn't believe the church is true. I genuinely believe he views it as a social club (because in reality that's what it is). So he treats it like a social club. I don't think Dan has come out directly and talked about his current beliefs, but it's probably safe to say he doesn't literally believe Mormon truth claims. He could be in the church for social and cultural reasons. My guess is that he’s a nonbeliever. Whatever funny business he's doing to remain in good standing as a Mormon is, in my view, a heroic act of interfaith dialogue that is maybe a little tricky, but is fundamentally about catching bad faith indoctrination in a meaningful way. I don't care how he justifies it to himself or his church. He's doing the No-Lords work so much better than any millennial atheist icon ever did. I think it’s pretty straightforward, he is a cultural Mormon. He claims to be a theist - but it’s clear he doesn’t believe in Mormonism. If you listen to him. He uses his education and platform to discredit Monotheism and Christianity as well as the Bible. He has been clear many times that he doesn't hold to a literal belief in the truth claims nor doctrine of Mormonism. It is essentially his cultural/social structure. I believe he knows the church is not true. I think he figured out that he is able to help the most misguided church members by staying in the church on paper... I assumed he was ex Mormon. I was shocked when I found out he wasn't I would be VERY surprised to learn he wasnt PIMO. I just cant fathom he actually beleives in the church... He walks a line so thin that both sides like him. I admire that. But as a Exmormon he has the knowledge to directly show the church is false. Anyway, back to Jacob: His X channel going back several weeks does not contain the same sort of dunking-on-amateurs and gratuitous digs and insults that I have seen in Dan's content. Perhaps a sampling error. I'll keep looking. Thanks, -Smac

I’m interested in understanding your experience. Are you an attorney or were you the deponent? I’ve taken hundreds of depositions and defended hundreds more. While attorneys may occasionally engage in spirited debate among themselves during depositions, I don’t remember ever seeing a deponent being mistreated. I certainly would never have let my client be mistreated by opposing counsel in a deposition. Nor would I have allowed mistreatment of a proposed expert witness for my client during their deposition. That said, I have seen a few expert witnesses become frustrated, occasionally bordering on indignation, when an attorney digs into the basis of their opinions during a deposition. That digging is done both to test the validity of the expert’s opinion and to determine how effective the expert would be on the witness stand at trial. Good expert witnesses are accustomed to, and unfazed by, opposing counsel putting their opinions under a microscope.

I agree about Dan and thanks for the mention…Will check Janega out. Always looking for scholars with wit.

“Prove to me he was(or wasnt) sexual” is as productive to me as Amazon requesting proof that my package “did not arrive”. Marriage for legit reasons insinuates a sexual relationship more than suggesting a document only relationship. If people are concerned that perhaps joseph was sexual with a 14 year old wife, let it be. Im glad we dont allow such gross practice today.

You're overselling this. I don't think so. Serious topics deserve serious discussion. I'm sorry to hear that. I have attended dozens of depositions, and conducted many of them. While I have seen tense moments, I haven't seen any attorney misconduct, and incivilities are measures (no shouting, etc.). Depositions are a tough thing to the extent there is no referee - the judge - to step in and stop problems. Thanks, -Smac

Why does it have to be the same? I see nothing wrong with the meaning being different. Especially when you look at how Joseph and others followed it. I have never seen any teaching that says that a polygamist wife must never have had sex.

I'm just pointing that the term virgin doesn't just mean someone who hasn't sex.