All Activity

Active Latter-Day Saints who have a good understanding of their religion know that empathy untethered to justice and accountability before God is all too often taken as a green light to persist in destructive sinful behavior. There can be no true mercy unless the appropriate and necessary measure of justice is placed into the opposing cup on the scale.

From the results, it seems like "empathy" as understood by those responding, might be more of a non-Christian value than Christian. It appears that the Christian value of good will and the need to love our neighbors includes a balance that recognizes that loving everyone cannot blur the distinction between good and evil behaviors which we might discover among those for whom we are called to love. Unconditional love and good will to all? Yes. But that cannot mean unconditional approval of every possible kind of human behavior.

I am make a concerted effort. I don't think you and most other participants can say the same. I don't even think you guys are trying. I've been watching a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment all the way. I think that is a mistake. First, your statement's references to "perpetrators" and "victim" begs the question. You previously referred to "the alleged perpetrators ," and I think that is more apt. Second, I do not favor the frat members. I find their licentious behavior to be depraved and reprehensible. The issue is whether the evidence - most notably Jane Doe's contemporaneous statement in 2024 and her text messages - indicates that their behavior amounted to nonconsensual sexual contact - rape. Right now there is real doubt about whether a prosecutor could even get an indictment, let alone a conviction. Third, if a sufficient measure of inculpatory evidence eventually accumulates, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. As I noted in my first post about this: "I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." Fourth, you have described yourself as a "full blown pervert." If you, in behaving in ways that demonstrate this self-appellation, were ever accused of crossing the line into nonconsensual behavior, I think you would suddenly have all sorts of appreciation for the presumption of innocence, and for people who decline to do what you have done here, namely, disregard the evidence and go with a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment. Thanks, -Smac

Interestingly enough, it's possible that some of the earliest creation narratives actually started with Noah and the Flood. The flood itself is described in terms akin to the waters of chaos covering the earth at the start of Genesis 1.

Indeed that is a possibility, and also kind of the point I tried to make a few times in my previous posts (and perhaps failed to get across. My bad). The original figure wasn't my attempt to provide a particular proof of a particular timeline or lineage. It was my own private attempt (originally) to understand how different textual traditions developed and understood different patriarchal narratives, including Joseph Smith, but also the Yahwist, Priestly and other redactors of the Hebrew Bible.

I hope that won't put you off from reading it. It's one-sided with short sections as it's meant only to be an introductory reading of the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't polygamous and that polygamy wasn't of God. It's very open right there in its intro paragraph that it is an introduction (so it doesn't go in-depth) and that it's intention is to make the introductory case for Joseph's monogamy and monogamy-only doctrine: "These section points are meant to provide a basic foundational understanding of the narrative that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, together with the elementary case for plural marriage as a whole to be rejected as doctrine." In its last section, it references the Further Study page for more in-depth and nuanced study, including Whitney Horning's book which I think is over 400 pages long. As an introduction site, it's actually rather long -- I think it's about three hours to read. If you were to insist that it should "show both sides" then it would be at least twice as long at that, which simply wouldn't work for one webpage. As far as giving an overview goes, it's rather comprehensive, and reading this site first serves to be a good jumping off point to dive in deeper to the topic afterwards, which this site recommends people do by providing the links for the further study materials itself: 110. 'What if I'm still not yet convinced?' Many aspects of early Mormon polygamy are more complex and not easily addressed by simple Question-Answer format. Deeper understanding of this narrative, with important and relevant details of Joseph Smith's life and ministry, can be gained by accessing the listed content on the Further Study page. Additional theological arguments against polygamy, integrated with the psychosocial evidence showing polygamy to be a harmful practice, can be found on the sister website linked below, titled, Monogamy as Divine Design. Also seek confirmation of the truth from the Lord in prayer, as "by the voice of the Spirit ye may know the truth of all things," and as Joseph Smith read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." historicalmonogamy.wisxite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

A recent survey on empathy found that white Evangelicals care the least about empathy, followed by Latter-Day Saints. Although LDS people scored low, white evangelicals scored by far the lowest. A symptom of America's recent moral decline. I hope LDS leadership can shore up the Christian value of empathy among church members even as radical extremists try to poison their followers against this traditional Christian value. https://religionnews.com/2026/10/20/an-empathy-gap-divides-americans-ahead-of-the-midterms-say-prri-report/ "Religious groups were also split. At least two-thirds of most major religious groups said empathy “is a foundational moral value for a healthy society,” as did 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans. White evangelicals were the least likely to name empathy as a foundational social value (42%), and more than half of white evangelicals (54%) said, “empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.”

In order to make things neat and tidy we diminish their sacrifice. BF Larsen on his mother Lorena said: (emphasis added by me)

I received my copy from family. Do you have a familysearch account? https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/memories/KW8P-5HR search for autobiography

That is a masterclass in selective source reading.

I found out just today that Brigham Young's youngest wife was 13, when he was 43 -- beginning at 8:35,

What a story, so many men clamoring for her when she was fifteen years old, and she seems to be especially perceptive as she's rebuffing them -- to think that as a fifteen year old girl she wasn't intimidated by all of these men who are so much older than her. What is the name of her autobiography?

Talking about how the Cornell case relates to rape culture and not all men is not the same topic that needs one to analyze timelines, etc, to prove truth or falseness of accusations. In fact, it comes across as avoiding the original topics to me at this point, though I suspect the reality is people just got distracted. I think they are interrelated. The rush to judgment in the Cornell matter, the inversion of the presumption of innocence, the generalized disregard or selective assessment of the evidence are all arguably perpetuations of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment you and others have been endorsing for years. "All men are potential rapists," so an accusation alone is sufficient to validate that presumption. "All men are potential rapists," so we are free to disregard or invert the presumption of innocence and mobocratic rush to judgment. "All men are potential rapists," so we don't need to dispassionately examine the evidence. And so on. True. I am just curious why you see this as a thread topic that holds any relevance to the board. Asked and answered. Yeah….somehow that feels like this is justifying gossip, etc. My focus has been on attempting to dispassionately examine the evidence in a widely-reported story involving allegations of sexual assault. This includes evaluating Jane Doe's allegations in her voluntary and sworn statement to law enforcement in 2024. That is not "justifying gossip." This includes evaluating Jane Doe's allegations in her 2026 civil lawsuit. That is not "justifying gossip." This includes evaluating the text messages (to/from Jane Doe and some of the frat members, to/from Jane Doe and her roommate, to/from the frat members to each other). That is not "justifying gossip." This includes examining the published responses from the accused (the denials, defenses, the claim of exculpatory forensic evidence as to one of the accused, etc.). That is not "justifying gossip." If you want to call your own participation in the discussion "gossip," feel free. I don't think I'll do the same. I'd like to see that. But does that sentence apply to Jane Doe (who, by her own 2024 account, consented to the sexual contact that night)? Or is it just the "potential rapists" who are aptly described by it? Moreover, the issue is more than about sexually licentious behavior. The allegations are about sexual assault, which are serious and deserve some real examination. But that doesn’t lead to a need to actually demonstrate what you think is a dispassionate assessment of evidence. We are all here voluntarily. There is no "need" for any of us to say anything about any topic at all. Thanks, -Smac

All this, I have polygamy in my heritage and it was something those who were commanded to do it put up with without much enthusiasm and they treated it as a requirement for exaltation. So……frustrating which is bad but not nearly as bad as the way it was turning adult men into sex pests about literal children as SU says. The “it was never mandatory” apologetic requires ignoring the reality of reported experience.

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote: Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed: Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled: Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight: Here are more proposals: Another a week later: She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second: There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

No, JUST NO! Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’. Also it has not been established that the sexual conduct on that night 2 years ago was nonconsensual. Perhaps some of it was and other parts was not. Perhaps, then, we ought to examine the evidence rather than rush to judgment. As it happens, one of the primary sources for the idea that the frat members were inebriated is . . . Jane Doe. According to her own 2024 sworn statement to Cornell police (and consistent details in contemporaneous reporting), she described the men as intoxicated and high on ketamine. Key points from her account (primarily the six-page voluntary statement she reviewed, edited, and signed under penalty of perjury): The night involved heavy drinking and ketamine use by the group. She described snorting ketamine off the men’s bodies (and vice versa), including one instance of snorting it off a man’s genitals. (Interestingly, there may be forensic evidence that rebuts this allegation as to one of the accused). Specific men were heavily impaired: one passed out and later said he wanted sex again for “redemption” after passing out earlier; another was dry-heaving / struggling not to vomit. She characterized the overall scene as involving men who were sufficiently intoxicated that some had trouble staying conscious, while she herself rated her intoxication at various points as a 5–6 out of 10 early on and later as high as an 8 out of 10 (“the most intoxicated I’ve ever been”). She and the men were described as jointly using ketamine and alcohol during the encounters. Her later civil lawsuit emphasizes her own incapacitation and claims of pressure/coercion more strongly, while her contemporaneous police statement portrays a drug- and alcohol-fueled night in which both she and the men were using substances and were impaired. The men have generally denied wrongdoing and described any sexual contact as consensual. That's the allegation, yes, alongside Jane Doe's statements about her "snorting the stuff off of" the body of one of the frat members. Jane Doe's 2024 statement seems to merit some attention: From the Tompkins County DA’s summary of her statement: the night involved “the group snorting ketamine off each other’s naked bodies and guzzling booze as they had sex — with some of the men struggling to stay conscious and dry-heaving as they tried not to vomit.” “At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as ‘5 or 6 out of 10’ and that she was ‘pretty ok with having this threesome.’” Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Male Number 4 “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” She responded, “Sure.” In the interview that formed the basis of the statement (per transcript reporting), when asked if she was OK with the initial encounter: “Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there. … But I was pretty OK with all of this.” She made these statements as an adult, voluntarily, under oath, within a fairly close timeframe of the events in question (when her recollections would have been most clear), and verified their accuracy. All these are generally indicia of reliability and trustworthiness. So should we believe her statements here or not? If not, why not? Her 2026 civil suit should also be taken seriously, despite it's self-serving and self-interested nature. "Alleged perpetrators." I am glad to see you using this terminology. Truly. If they are innocent of rape, then I would want their reputations restored as to that point, yes. As to their sexually licentious behaviors? I think besmirched reputations have already happened there. I am curious if you think sexually licentious persons should have their reputations destroyed because of that behavior. You, earlier in this thread: "Seriously, I am a full blown pervert but you can do much more taboo stuff with consent from all involved and have a lot more fun." Pervert: "A person whose sexual behavior or desires are considered abnormal, obsessive, or socially unacceptable." I think the better way is for individuals to change themselves through faith, repentance, and morally upright conduct. As it is, though, there are folks inverting the presumption of innocence, and are not dispassionately examining the evidence, and are instead rushing to judgment based on mobocratic rage. I think sexual licentiousness is a terrible thing. I would hope that individuals indulging in it would stop, reconsider their behavior, repent, and proceed to live virtuous lives. Those who continue in licentiousness run the very real risk of doing harm to their reputation and standing in society. Or not, since licentiousness is, in many quarters, endorsed and celebrated. In the end, I think we should each focus less about social standing and more about our standing before "the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead" (Moroni 10:34). “For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts" (D&C 137:9). Social opprobrium can, I suppose, have some utility. Directed against sexual assault, and perhaps also against sexual licentiousness. It is. However, I think there are legitimate distinctions between sexual licentiousness and sexual assault. All are depraved and unhealthy and wrong, but the latter is - in my view - more serious because of its nonconsensual aspect. Thanks, -Smac

FWIW Dan explains why he is a full tithe payer: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2026/10/20/why-i-tithe/

No. The Lindsay Clancy jury nearly acquitted her. Had that happened, I don't think we would be "morally bound" to accept such a travesty of justice. Similarly, I think we all know O.J. did it. We were not "morally bound" to accept the verdict that let him go free. Casey Anthony. The Rodney King officers. Acquiescing to problematic verdicts is not my point. Dispassionately reviewing the evidence is my point. I think any agreement or disagreement with a verdict should be based on the evidence and a dispassionate assessment thereof. Here, I don't see anything close to that. I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence. I agree. What I don't see, though, is evidence of "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone." I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence. I agree. But "support the system" does not mean we uncritically endorse every decision it makes. Mistakes can happen. Here, though, what I see at present on this thread is a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence. I agree. We are also not under any personal obligation to reflexively and uncritically accept or reject serious accusations. We should examine the evidence and develop - as you put it - "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone." I don't see that happening on this thread. Instead, what I see is . . . well, you know. I am curious. Are you saying we should not base our assessment on the evidence? If so, then upon what should our assessment be based? We do have other options to non-evidence-based assessments, I guess: political considerations, "identity"-based affiliations and sympathies and antipathies, mobocratic rage, rushes to judgment, arbitrarily disregarding or inverting the presumption of innocence, prejudice. None of these is good, IMO. Assessing the evidence, dispassionately, is better. None of us is perfect at this. We all have our emotions and biases and subjective preferences. For example, I really love the Church and am quite partial to it. And yet years ago, while I was in law school, my initial assessment of the Main Street Plaza dispute was reflexively in favor of the Church. However, as the case progressed, I came to see the merits of the legal arguments against SLC's agreement with the Church. When the 10th Circuit's decision came out, I reviewed it and found it to be substantially correct. Both the facts and the law were not on the side of the Church on that one. I've said this, or something like it, a few times: I have no affinity with the frat members accused of misconduct. There is no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex. I don't know any of them or have any personal connection with them. Nor is there particularized affinity with or presumptive antipathy toward Jane Doe, either. I don't know her or have any connection to her either. The presumption I do hold, however, is the presumption of innocence. It is foundational for several interlocking reasons. As a legal principle: It requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing punishment. The accused starts free of the stigma and consequences of a conviction; the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove innocence. This protects against conviction on weak, incomplete, or contested evidence and reduces the risk of punishing the innocent—an outcome that is irreversible and far more damaging than letting a guilty person go free in a given case. As a component of a high-trust society: It underwrites the expectation that ordinary people will be treated as free and not under permanent suspicion. When the default is innocence rather than guilt, social and economic life can proceed with less fear that an accusation alone will destroy reputation, livelihood, or liberty. That baseline trust makes cooperation, commerce, and voluntary association easier; a society that routinely treats accusation as sufficient tends toward suspicion, self-censorship, and fragmentation. As a constraint on state power: It limits the state’s ability to punish on the basis of its own assertion or convenience. By forcing the government to meet a high evidentiary standard in an adversarial process, it checks arbitrary or politically motivated prosecutions, reduces the leverage of officials over private citizens, and preserves the idea that the individual is free unless and until the state affirmatively proves otherwise. Without it, the coercive power of the state expands dramatically and the practical difference between accusation and conviction shrinks. I am troubled by what seems to be common and widespread licentious behaviors, both as to sexual conduct and recreational use of mind-altering substances. The inculpatory evidence published so far is, in my view, fairly poor. We have the group text shared by the frat members, but that can be reasonably interpreted in ways other than an invitation to join in sexual assault of an incapacitated woman. We have Jane Doe's claims, but we also have contravening evidence - including her own statements. Thanks, -Smac

That's understandable, as he only talks about it for a couple of minutes and doesn't go into any detail. I wouldn't have become convinced by the two minutes that he touches on it either. If you don't find the argument even half-way plausible, I would encourage reading Historical Monogamy Doctrine, as that has quickly-readable sections and actual proper layout for information intake. (Monogamy as Divine Design is great too, but it doesn't talk about Joseph Smith so much.) Even if you don't end up being convinced by the sites, they would still be helpful to you to read to understand the viewpoint of those of us who have converted to the other side, as opposed to thinking, "They must all just be collectively delusional" (as I thought when I first heard about it.) There are more and more of us Mormons who are coming to believe in Joseph's monogamy as time goes on, so you might like to see what's going on inside our heads: Historical Monogamy Doctrine

This both begs the question and, in my view, is not based on a dispassionate view of the evidence. I think we need to examine the evidence. It has. If she was assaulted, she deserves every measure of support and understanding. Again: "A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general." "To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity." "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something." "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling." "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}." If she was not assaulted, if she is making false accusations, then the risk of serious adverse consequences is fairly small. Again: One year. Heidi Jones pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of filing a false report. She got three years of probation and 350 hours of community service, matched to the hours the police spent on the case, and she lost the WABC job. No jail. Tawana Brawley totally got away with her false accusations. A grand jury found the story fabricated. She was not prosecuted. Crystal Mangum also got away with it. The Attorney General declared the players innocent in 2007. She was not charged for the false report. (FYI, she is currently in prison for stabbing her boyfriend to death in 2011. She admitted the Duke story was false in 2024, from that prison.) Wanetta Gibson got away with it. She was never charged. Prosecutors said a case would be hard to prove because she was a juvenile at the time and would not formally repeat the recantation. "Jackie," the accuser in the Rolling Stone article, was not charged. Danmell Ndonye got away with it. The Nassau County District Attorney declined to charge her. The condition was counseling and 250 hours of community service, Biurny Peguero pleaded guilty to perjury in 2009 and was sentenced to one to three years. Nikki Yovino pleaded guilty to falsely reporting an incident and was sentenced in 2018 to a year in jail. Thanks, -Smac

I listened and am not convinced. I don’t find the argument plausible.

Do you mean 1882? Or 1884? Do you mean 1883?

I summarized everything that he said relating to the topic, but you can listen from 2:36:00 to hear his words specifically on how he first came to believe that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy. His study of Section 132 and sharing it with his family only came after he had first become convinced that Joseph didn't practice it.

God specifically says in the D&C that "no man" needs to break the lands of the land that the Saints were living under at the time. Monogamy as Divine Design expounds on this too! (They're really great sites, I really recommend reading them.) These are the specific sections in question, they're situated right next to eachother on the website: MDD 7. 'Couldn't the practice of polygamy still have been given to Brigham Young as a temporary commandment?' One talk in the October 2024 General Conference contained this quote, The Lord’s commandments are of two types: permanent, like the doctrine of Christ, and temporary. Temporary commandments are those necessary for the needs of the Lord’s Church or the faithful in temporary circumstances, but to be set aside when the need has passed. An example of temporary commandments are the Lord’s directions to the early leadership of the Church to move the Saints from New York to Ohio, to Missouri, and to Illinois... Dallin H. Oaks, October 2024 General Conference Some have argued this to be the case for early Mormon polygamy — that it was a temporary commandment, meant to be followed for only a set period of time before being discontinued. But this assertion does not align with an exegetical reading of D&C 132, as the text does not leave itself open to be viewed as a temporary commandment when it reads, "all those who have this law revealed to them must obey the same." (D&C 132:3) Another issue with applying a commandment to "move the Saints" with a practice like polygamy is that moving homes doesn't break any previously-established commandments, whereas polygamy will always break the previously-given commandment to have only one wife. A "temporary commandment" cannot be morally described as such if it is something that breaks a permanent commandment. MDD 8. 'But the Spirit told Nephi to kill Laban, which was against the commandment to not kill.' Nephi's actions of killing Laban qualified as self defense (and defense of others), even under the conditions of the law of Moses and the law of the land of his time, as Laban was actively seeking to kill Nephi and his brothers. That Laban had already given the orders to kill Nephi (and had even sent his men out to fulfill those orders) justified Nephi under the law to take the actions against Laban that he did. Laban had also stolen Nephi's family's property by force, meaning Nephi was then justified to take Laban's brass plates by the law of Moses "eye for an eye" reasoning of recovering property of an equal or lesser value. It is significant that the Lord did not deliver Laban into Nephi's hands until the conditions had been met that Nephi would be morally justified in taking the plates for his family. Nephi did not violate any law of God or law of the land by killing Laban or taking his plates, and the Lord from the outset orchestrated it to be so. However, these conditions of self defense did not apply to Mormon polygamy, and cannot apply to polygamy in any circumstance. There is no scenario in which a Mormon man has to practice polygamy as a means of self defense. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Section 132 is definitely filled with problems but that is not evidence for Joseph Smith practicing or not practicing polygamy.