All Activity

Actually, it does. Positivism is not a strawman because the larger academic world has long been dominated by Positivism, a world view on which moderates what counts as evidence, which voices count as authoritative, which questions get asked, who gets published and reviewed. It is directly akin to a famous comment Bacon I quoted. Where Bacon declare "don't theorize" he also exposes exactly his problem, a refusal to become self critical, to think about his own assumptions in comparison to another set of assumptions that explain the same observations in a different way, and it happens, solves problems that he does not engage. I notice that you have not acknowledged that I pointed out a set of interlocking serious issues with your statement that "Time is linear, therefore the Book of Mormon is not ancient." I pointed out that the primary Book of Mormon authors and editors post-date the New Testament, that both Mormon and Moroni reported personal encounters with the Risen Jesus (who, I think, was not ignorant of the New Testament), which, in concert with the report that the Risen Jesus also appeared to the Nephites earlier and told them many things, more of which were not recorded than were recorded, and that the translator of the Book of Mormon was not isolated from the New Testament before beginning his efforts, and therefore was open to influence from the single most influential text and translation in his culture and language, your assumptions of an easy, open and shut case, has serious and legitimate competition that you have no acknowledged or addressed, in exactly the same way that Bacon does not consider how his interpretation of his observations of heavenly motions might be accounted for by another theory, and indeed how that theory might better account for planetary motion, just as other theories, such as explored at depth and in detail by John Sorenson in Mormon's Codex, and Brant Gardner in The Book of Mormon as History, and literally hundreds of other scholars publishing via Interpreter and Maxwell Institute, account for countless details in the Book of Mormon that your easy dismissal does not so much as acknowledge as problems worth mentioning in public. Back in 1953 Hugh Nibley pointed out Blass’s rules for authenticating historical documents, based on the experience of Renaissance scholars dealing with the flood of new manuscripts: What was remarkable about Barker’s approach in comparison to most non-Latter Day Saint scholars is that it actually allows that assumption to inform her test. She reads it against the Jerusalem 600 BCE context that it claims for itself, rather than uncritically supposing that it must be a 19th Century fabrication by Joseph Smith, maybe persons unknown. And that is the point Nibley made: “If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.” Price began, as Professor Midgley observes of some LDS scholars, and most outside critics do, and that is “to approach the text of the Book of Mormon already knowing, from sources exterior to the text, both the questions and the answers.” It also happens that arguments that a particular set of words and titles used in the Book of Mormon are or are not anachronistic, is always subject to revision in light of new evidence. For instance, Elsewhere, Roper has considered generally all of the major claims of anachronism that have been put forward against the Book of Mormon, and has demonstrated that the general tendency is towards resolution. And you demonstrate that you have not carefully considered what I actually wrote here, let alone what I have published elsewhere. I did not only cite Barker. I also linked James Charlesworth's 1978 paper on the Book of Mormon, in which he offered his own suggestions for dealing with apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon via translator influence, which suggestions were preceded by Hugh Nibley in Since Cumorah, and followed later by Blake Ostler in his 1987 Dialogue essay on the Expansion Hypothesis. And besides that, your dismissal of Barker simply does not account for the many credentialed scholars who appreciate and champion her work. Those who voted her to the Presidency of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1998 clearly saw something in her work that you do not. Those Doctors who invited her to speak and work at a range of Universities in the UK actually exist. The Archbishop of Canterbury awarded her the Lambeth Doctor of Divinity because he appreciated her work. She has 18 books in print. (Do you?) In a review of The Risen Lord, Professor John McDade said: And when giving the Gifford lectures, N.T. Wright notes that Barker has done "remarkable work in alerting scholarly and popular circles to a temple based understanding". Barker has never had a formal academic post, around this time she served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, she was invited by the Centre of Advanced Religious and Theological Studies at Cambridge to devise a research project. She later withdrew, and the essays she produced as seed for that project along with six essays that she had previously published in various journals was published in 2002 as The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy. Far from being isolated, in 2008, Margaret Barker, Robin Griffith-Jones, Laurence Hemming, Susan Parsons and Bishop Geoffrey Rowell organized a Temple Studies Group to promote “study of the Temple in Jerusalem, believing that the worldview, traditions, customs and symbolism of the Temple were formative influences on the development of Christianity.” The group successfully organized symposia for several years running, up to 2018 and COVID. After the publication of Temple Themes in Christian Worship, the Archbishop of Canterbury awarded her a Lambeth Doctor of Divinity “in recognition of her work on the Jerusalem Temple and the origins of Christian Liturgy, which has made a significantly new contribution to our understanding of the New Testament and opened up important fields for research.” In 2015, scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis, in the introduction to the first volume of Jesus Monotheism, mentions Margaret Barker as “a muse to many of us, albeit from beyond the immediate confines of Oxford on the cosmology and religious experiences nurtured by Israel’s Temple.” A noted scholar like Andrei Orlov at Marquette incorporated her journal articles into the syllabus for his classes. So if the Academy in general is committed to a secular view of the Bible, and various other academics in schools run by Evangelicals or Catholics or whomever, and many of them do not publicly endorse Barker's work in ways that would directly challenge the paradigm communities upon which their careers were built and lively-hoods depend, that is the way of things. Paradigm change takes generations, particularly in religious matters. Depicting her as isolated does not account for this kind of thing. She has not been adopted by the majority, but she has her champions in many notable places. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

The idea of changing the method because of the number of observers kind of makes sense (barely), but I don't think the statements we have match that at all. Stone in the hat is used for both private situations (Emma and Martin) and public situations (David and Isaac). Curtain is used in private situation (Martin) and public (Martin). Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. I think it is pretty certain that he started with a curtain. And he already had simple explanation for why he needed the curtain and why they couldn't look behind the curtain. Why does he need a different way? It is simple, easy, and accomplishes everything he needs. And people appear to have had no problems with it; the blanket is actually rarely mentioned in the statements so either it wasn't used or people were so accepting that they felt like they didn't need to mention it. JST is not the Book of Mormon. And I believe all accounts have him reading from the Bible for the JST. I don't know of any that say Joseph didn't have a Bible directly in front of him. We even have the Bible that he used for most of the JST - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/bible-used-for-bible-revision/1. Statements from the JST about him having a Bible in front of him can't be used for evidence of the Book of Mormon translation. We actually are pretty sure that all of the Original Manuscript that we contain (which includes the Isaiah sections) was all dictated. All the errors that are seen are dictation errors, none are copying errors. And there would be no point for Joseph to dictate something from his hat and not have it written down. None of the statements about using the hat indicate that a scribe wasn't present or not writing it down. You have to remember that they are rushing through this. They spend 5+ hours a day on this. He isn't taking a lot of breaks or doing magic shows for visitors. The number of days available and the amount of words that were recorded just makes it difficult to include him doing a dictation show with out it being included in the Book of Mormon. A curtain and warnings fit perfectly for someone doing a pre-written manuscript. But they also fit perfectly for his supernatural story (plates that no one is allowed to see). Honestly, it is the stone in the hat that doesn't fit his supernatural story (why the existence of the plates if he doesn't even use them?). But the stone in the hat, in my mind, forces Joseph to either be telling the truth, memorizing it, making itl up on the spot, or some mixture of the memorization and invention. The reason why I got the white hat was to determine if a manuscript could be read from it as that would add another way for it to work and after experimenting with it, I just don't see that being feasible. So, I can't add "reading a pre-existing manuscript" to the possibilities. So, I'm back to memorization and on-the-spot invention. Why do you find it telling? He is told to not show anyone the plates. He needs to copy a few characters. He thus needs to do it behind a curtain. I don't see anything from this that even tells us anything about how he actually did the translation. This just tells us that he had some physical object that no one was supposed to see but there are other statements that tell us that as well. I'll wait for your post, but you are talking about a different thing than what I'm talking about. I'm saying the visit of 1828 to those 3 is too late for the content of the Book of Mormon. But yes, before 1828, Joseph may have heard of those things and may have incorporated them into his story (I don't think we even need to say he heard about it from those three vs he heard about in the environment he was in). But the 1828 visit is too late to trigger a lot of changes to the story. And the "Harris visited all three two months before the translation started" makes it seem like Joseph knew about the contents of the visit for 2 months. Harris visited Joseph for a day or two in March, went back to Palmyra, came back for 2 weeks, then went back to Palmyra, and then returned to actually start the translation around April 12. So Joseph knew about the visits at most 1 month before and more like 2-3 weeks before. Still not that much time to actually change his story.

Quite a few loaded statements here. I hope you stop torturing puppies for fun and profit. Those are my thoughts. You just don't like them for some reason. Thanks, -Smac

Seems like this wording ("victim blaming or victim shaming") is begging the question and inverting the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. Again, your comment here ("a woman might not report a rape right away"), as applied to Jane Doe, begs the question and inverts the presumption of innocence. I fully agree that these are potential responses. I think it is also possible that Jane Doe consented to the sexual contact that night. There is evidence for that possibility. Denying that evidence and that possibility stacks the deck, makes an accusation alone evidence unto itself, begs the question, and inverts the presumption of innocence. Hence the need to resist the mob mentality and rush to judgment, and to attempt to dispassionately evaluate the evidence. I acknowledge all of this. Applied specifically to Jane Doe, though, this begs the question. Thanks, -Smac

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation? In the sense of the U.S. legal system yielding an evidence-based assessment of the evidence and a reasoned and fair conclusion derived therefrom, yes. Our system is far from perfect, but it's quite good, and about as good as we can hope to get. None of us is in a position to act as a judge or jury in a legal sense, but we each of us can evaluate events and allegations and evidence and draw reasonable inferences and conclusions (or, alternatively, refrain from doing so). We do this all the time on this board. Just look at how many conversations have we had about Joseph Bishop and McKenna Denson, Tim Ballard, Ammon Bundy, the SEC issue, the Huntsman lawsuit, Nemo the Mormon, Mark Lamb, Paul Adams, Mark Lehnhof Stevens, Masterpiece Cakeshop, James Hamula, Shawn Gooden, Abraham Issac Cruz Hernandez, and so on. Sometimes the issues are pretty straightforward, sometimes not. I think it's quite likely that Joseph Bishop did some terrible things while president of the MTC, but I also think McKenna Denson fabricated and mischaracterized a lot of stuff. I think many of the allegations against Tim Ballard are substantively true, but I also think there has been some overreach. Ammon Bundy is straightforward. James Huntsman's allegations were not really borne out well at all. Paul Adams clearly did some evil things. I have an acquaintance who was sexually assaulted. After charges were filed, the accuser tracked her down at her work (janitorial work on campus) and arm-barred her against a wall. She got a TRO against him. There was forensic evidence. Despite all this, the prosecutor dropped the charges. I firmly believe my acquaintance, and was greatly discouraged at the outcome. I also have an acquaintance who was falsely accused of rape. He had "hung out" with a young woman twice, then ended things. A few weeks later, she posted an accusation of rape against him on an "Am I Dating an A7sh&^e" Facebook group (with tens of thousands of members). He lost his job as a direct result of this, and he also had a (female) friend end their friendship because of the accusation (she had seen the FB post). He could not find a lawyer who would help him with a civil case. I ended up helping him a bit until he found a law firm that would take his case. They negotiated a settlement involving a retraction of the accusation and an agreement to not repeat it. This cost him thousands of dollars of his own money. I firmly believe my acquaintance (I know him very well, her allegation was vague and fairly falsifiable, and she withdrew it), and was gratified with the outcome but troubled that my acquaintance's life was so damaged. I have no reflexive skepticism of allegations of sexual assault, but I think they need to be treated in essentially the same way as are allegations of other types of misconduct. Presumption of innocence, hold off on a rush to judgment, hold off on mobocratic rage, evaluate the evidence, let things play out before reaching any firm conclusions. I haven't seen that much here. I think there is value in the public being informed and educated about the allegations, the facts, the evidence, and so on as pertaining to serious and important issues. Sometimes these matters don't garner The Cornell matter seems to be a cause célèbre that is creating a sort of fever pitch rush to judgment and mob mentality, without sufficient regard for examining the evidence dispassionately. Thanks, -Smac

I was commenting on your call to have Dan excommunicated because you think he is subverting members and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Dan's job is not to tell faith based stories, but rather to give insight, context, understanding of biblical times and how scholars view the origins of the BoM. Others, such as church leaders have a job of making the origins of the BoM faith based and ignore all the data that Dan brings up. I don't think his job is to pick and choose what you want to hear him say because you find his data does and a scholarly evaluation does not support the faith based viewpoint you have or of the Church. Those were my thoughts. You just don't like them for some reason.

There are two more scenarios. One: she is really the queen of heaven mentioned by Jeremiah. The Jews were burning incense and pouring out drink offerings to her instead of God. Two: she is the imagination from the mind of men.

They would (and they have in other rape cases). Unfortunately, most don't have the knowledge necessary to provide a reasoned assessment of this kind of evidence and they unintentionally end up victim blaming or victim shaming because of their ignorance. This website is very short and explains some of the different ways that a person being sexually assaulted might legitimately respond in the moment. It's doesn't include all the different ways, just some typical ones. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/tools-for-victims-and-survivors/understanding-your-response/fight-or-flight/ This website discusses the many legitimate reasons that a woman might not report a rape right away. Sometimes it takes a woman a while to even be able to admit to herself that she was sexually assaulted (this most often happens when the rapist was someone that she knew or when she thinks that people aren't going to believe her and she knows she's going to suffer a second time from the consequences of reporting it. It takes a while for many women to weigh the pros and cons of speaking out). https://jacksonhealth.org/blog/2018-01-25-five-reasons-sexual-assault/

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation? And if it is possible to get to the truth here on this message board, what would that accomplish outside of the message board? (I guess I'm asking, how viable is your stated goal and what is the positive outcome you are expecting should you achieve it)

Opposite really. My opinion is that a variety of methods and combinations of methods were used, and the method would be dependent on the conditions in the room (lighting etc) and the number of observers in the room and whether or not they were hostile witnesses or sympathetic etc. Because sitting behind a curtain and telling observers that they will be struck dead if they look behind it is super sus and people were starting to ask why he needed the curtain. Isaiah is just an example, memorized sessions could have been from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or from any other manuscript memorized in advance. Other than Emma's comment about the walls of Jerusalem, we have no accounts describing the content being dictated so we can't know if what was being dictated ever even makes it into the Book of Mormon. We have no idea what was dictated in the presence of observers. I tend to agree with you that it would not be Isaiah because I believe the evidence points to Isaiah being read directly from an open Bible, and there is one account of Joseph dictating JST with a Bible open in front of him. If that's the case, it shows that there were times when Joseph was dictating from an open book, so we might add that to the list of methods above. Curious why you find these as being something to expect if Joseph was really translating. A curtain that could hide a pre-wrtitten mansuscript and penalties for those that get too curious sound like the kind of thing someone hiding a pre-written manuscript would do. I find it truly interesting that Joseph was deciphering characters off the plates using large spectacles behind a curtain before February 1828, before the translation began. And that he was handing around the results. That's the earliest account I have found and its very telling that the very first attempts at translating the gold plates were concealed behind a curtain. As for Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon informing the content of the Book of Mormon. It would not be too late as Bradish visited Egypt and Jerusalem in 1821. There would have been 8 years for Harris or the Smiths to cross paths with him on his trips back to Palmyra. Mitchill's theories on America being the Garden of Eden and a great battle of extinction between a light skinned and a dark skinned race 60 miles from Palmyra were in print since 1821. Anthon's Classical Dictionary was in print in 1825 with another edition in 1827. Harris visited all three two months before the translation started, but the material had been circulating for years before. I'm writing up more on this, and will post to another thread some day rather than derail this one.

And this is another reason why I think you have a difficult time understanding how women think when under threat or at least believe they are. I've been litigating for 22 years now. I've observed dozens and dozens of judges in hundreds of hearings, and many more dozens of lawyers in hearings and depositions and such. The question above is not definitive, but it's well within the boundaries of fair and reasonable inquiry in a legal setting. I think most other lawyers and judges examining these issues would ask the same questions I am asking. And I'm not drawing any hard or definitive conclusions. I'm presenting evidence and a reasoned assessment of it. I have no commitment to inculpating Jane Doe or exculpating the frat guys, or vice versa. The text message exchange between Jane Doe and her roommate at 3:05 a.m. may well end up being an important piece of evidence. I surely would spend a lot of time on it if I was an attorney involved on either side. Thanks, -Smac

I believe the phrase is assuming facts not in evidence…at least on TV it is, lol. What facts do you think I am assuming? We work with the evidence we have and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. Thanks, -Smac

You want me to stop participating in this discussion, then? Okay. I have never suggested that. There is a lot of evidence that has been made publicly available. We can examine that evidence to some extent. Thanks, -Smac

And this is another reason why I think you have a difficult time understanding how women think when under threat or at least believe they are. And why I don’t see your pursuit of truth as that objective since you are apparently relying on your gut to speculate about what a woman might do in her situation rather than research actual women’s reactions under threat. I don’t even rely on personal experience because I get that not all women will respond as I did or as my friends and acquaintances who were assaulted did. I go and look at studies. Unfortunately we have a very large base of women to draw from who can relate how they experience assault and responded to it. For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11251444/ It’s around 40-50% of women who experience tonic immobility in trauma (the freezing response that often includes denial, etc), which includes sexual assault. Count me as one of them. Happens to guys too. Might be even more traumatic to them when it happens given how our culture expect men to respond when attacked. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-King-49/publication/233184867_Adult_male_rape_and_sexual_assault_prevalence_re-victimisation_and_the_tonic_immobility_response/links/56e95bcd08ae77f87278f900/Adult-male-rape-and-sexual-assault-prevalence-re-victimisation-and-the-tonic-immobility-response.pdf A more accessible article summarizing findings that reflects in particular on the Cornell case and what should actually be expected if educated about actual reactions in real life: https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a74083702/sexual-assault-survivors-psychology/ Fight, flight, or fawning…. Ensuring they do not anger the person confronting or assaulting them, hoping that will more likely let them get out alive, pretending it’s not even happening to them as in disassociation…not every woman will go to “help me” or “scream bloody murder” and go for the eyes or crotch in an uncertain situation. In fact, we have to often be trained to do so and are told to practice, practice, practice. I hadn’t had any self defense classes by that point and we didn’t train when I did either. I like the more modern ones much better where women don’t just visualize or model, but actually get to hit a very wel protected aggressor. And this downplaying, denial, disassociation, etc can be extended long after the assault or trauma: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11705429/ As would typically happen in cases where it was consensual and in cases where it wasn’t, but the victim is in shock and/or denial or doubling down on fawning. I understand such behaviours are common enough in assault and trauma cases they are listed in the DSM 5 under PTSD and ASD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191/box/part1_ch3.box16/

I believe the phrase is assuming facts not in evidence…at least on TV it is, lol. If you want to find the truth, only deal with the facts dispassionately, shouldn’t you determine if she was the one who used the phone before pooh-poohing any speculation? Didn’t you just say as much? There is of course the option she was in full control of her body, her mind, and her phone even though she had consumed a large amount of alcohol earlier and continued to do so and as I just googled, drunkenness peaks around 1 to 1.5 hours after consumption and can last from 2 to 6 hours…don’t know it this is average for men and women, as I understand women are more susceptible due to size. Google states she was likely drunk for at least 9-10 hours, having started with six shots of vodka at her sorority house, continuing at 2 bars until 10:30 pm when she went to the frat house. Campus police has her self reporting as 5 out of 10 drunk…as if self reporting when drunk would be accurate. It would appear she was familiar with alcohol, but this incident had her drinking excessively for her as well as lacking experience with the drugs, ketamine and marijuana. I don’t think I could have accurately judged how intoxicated I was with either ketamine or cannabis the first time I used either. In fact I know I couldn’t with cannabis because I described my experience to a doctor at an opiate class saying it didn’t do much for me and his eyes opened up and he said I was much more under than I thought and was likely close to having my breathing shut down (due to other medications I was taking). Fun times. But let’s assume even with the amount of alcohol she had partaken over time, she hadn’t consumed enough nor did the addition of more intoxicants push her past her actual limit and she was exaggerating her intoxication level when taking to campus police. If she did have enough presence of mind to realize she was being assaulted, maybe she had enough presence of mind to realize it could turn ugly fast if the men became aware she was alerting someone to the rape. It’s not uncommon for women to have been killed to cover up an assault. So she didn’t even if she had a free moment. Its really odd you seem to think if men were actually raping her, they wouldn’t be paying attention to what she was doing to make sure any text she sent was harmless for them. Or that they wouldn’t tell her to answer the text so as to not alert anyone to come look for her, etc. But perhaps they, unlike her, were actually too intoxicated to take in their surroundings and there were no issues with her texting because they were just laying around consensually having sex, while she checked her phone for messages (ouch, doesn’t bode well for their dignity). Talking about the guys who said they were group taking drugs and making out with her with her awareness and permission, not just the two she had (idiotically imo) initially agreed to or the one(s) that deny any involvement. Apparently one of the first guys (speaking for both) stated in a text message he and the other were too intoxicated to stop other guys from entering the room and joining the fun which led to it getting “way out of hand”. Seems odd he would see it as way out of hand, but she would see it as consensual. Out of hand generally means out of control. Out of control implies lack of consent because it is not what is expected and no one is controlling it so consent can be properly gotten. Hmmm….Maybe he was just a lot more drunk than she and thus it was distorted for him. Not saying any of this is what happened. I am passionately and subjectively exploring possibilities…all of them, not just one side. Could keep going with other ideas, need to post this before it gets blocked for too long since verified. PS: not commenting on lawyer stuff because not a lawyer or lawyer adjacent, unlike the psychological stuff…have some training and experience there in psychology (not massive of course unlike others on this list including MustardSeed, the professional) and some minor, very minor experience about how women think….including personal experience being under assault (not rape, restriction as he backed off when I blame my dad for not allowing me to date him…and guess what, I didn’t call out even though there was a police station likely within shouting range, not did I mention it to anyone or called it an assault until years later nor was I anything but my usual friendly self when I saw him in class the next day…and the rest of the year, so embarrassed and humiliated by it, didn’t think I had anything to feel victimized about as he didn’t hurt me and I had willing gone on one date with him).

Then why are you doing it here instead of some criminal or law website where people are more familiar with such things? It appears our comments are not that insightful in regards to finding the truth of what happened. No one here has any personal connection or ability to question those involved in the investigation, etc. I hung out in Websleuths while as I trying to ascertain the truth of the Daybell missing kids. Got a lot of good info there. Also the freedom forums as there were people much more familiar with the circumstances. I shared info here because I thought people would be interested, but I don’t think I expected to get any significant tidbits of truth to determine the facts of the crime, if there was one, here. That would have been unexpected even though there was a much closer connection with the Daybells here than there is connection with the Cornell case. This is a religious themed message board. Also things related to the LDS faith and culture. Cornell case facts is very off topic. Now if you want to discuss the moral implications, that is relevant to a religious setting…but that’s neither objective or dispassionate conversation.

That's all right. You are incorrect. I don't "enjoy" discussing this topic at all. It is altogether unpleasant. It is, however, important. The American judicial system relies heavily on an adversarial process, in which allegations are presented by an self-interested party (the plaintiff) and are responded to by the self-interested party who is subject of those allegations (the defendant). It is the job of advocates on both sides to collect evidence, examine it, and present it to a factfinder (the judge or jury). The plaintiff's narrative is vetted by the defendant's efforts, and vice versa. In the end, the goal is, or ought to be, to ascertain - as best as we can - the truth of what happened. It's not about "for the sport of it" at all. Not for me. It's about getting to the truth. Allegations of sexual assault are very serious, and ought to be treated as such. They should also be carefully and dispassionately examined. Thanks, -Smac

I’m sorry Smac I find it very difficult to engage with you. I suspect you just enjoy debate for the sport of it and I don’t want to participate in that anymore. peace

She had enough presence of mind to send a context-appropriate response to her roommate while she was being sexually assaulted, but she did not have enough presence of mind to mention the then-ongoing sexual assault? And the frat guys who were allegedly were sexually assaulting her saw her receiving and sending text messages during a sexual assault, and did nothing about it? They used force to facilitate the sexual assault (see paragraph 173), but they did not use force to keep her cell phone away from her during the sexual assault? Yes, that could have happened. Could it also be that she sent the text during a consensual encounter (that is, again, how she characterized her multiple threesomes in her 2024 statement)? Yes. If a woman is being sexually assaulted, and if she has an opportunity to contact a friend and alert the friend of what is happening, wouldn't it seem likely that she would make use of that opportunity? I agree. It is also possible that she received the text message and sent a response without having been prompted or coerced. Again, her 2024 statement gives no indication that the sexual contact was nonconsensual. And she did not mention any of this stuff about texts between her and her roommate. Not in 2024. Not in 2026. Thanks, -Smac

It’s relatively easy to flash a phone in front of someone’s face or grab their finger for Touch ID. I agree. That's why I presented this "alternative explanation." We don't know if her phone was locked, but I think it is reasonable to provisionally assume that it was. We don't know if her phone's security feature was based on fingerprint or face recognition (as opposed to a passcode or pattern code). I don't think it is reasonable to make a provisional assumption either way at this point. We don't know why Jane Doe's lawyer did not include any reference to this text message. The options for assumptions are likely A) Jane Doe will say she did not remember sending this text, or that B) she did not send it (implying someone else, one of the frat guys, did). Despite our not knowing these things, I think this development is significant. I do. I think it is potentially a huge issue in terms of maintaining Jane Doe's narrative and timeline. Jane Doe did not present this text exchange with her roommate, or reference it at all, in her civil complaint, either as a factual allegation or as a defense/explanation. The judge will want to know why. The jury will want to know why. The attorneys will want to know why. What the roommate will say will be important. Technical examination of the phone will be important. If she no longer has the phone, that will be important. And so on. If this issue develops at all, it seems far more likely to cut against her credibility than bolster it. Jane Doe will have to present an explanation as to why she did not mention the text exchange in 2024 or 2026, as she did with so many other details. The factual allegations in her civil complaint start on page 23, numbered paragraph 132. She includes all sorts of small but specific details of that night, such as the brand of vodka she drank at the sorority house that night (para. 136), that she then took an Uber to a bar, got an "X" stamped on both hands, but she had "at least one" drink there (para. 137-138), that around 10:00 p.m. she went to another bar, but an "under 21 wristband" (para. 141-142), that by this point "she had consumed about 10 standard drinks within the past 3 hours" (para. 144), that she then went to the frat house, that Ingalls greeted her and gave her a beer and they then danced (para. 145-147), and so on. More details about where she went, with whom, who did what, who was sitting where, who brought out the Ketamine, the commencement of the sexual behavior and details about it, and so on. All sorts of minutiae about that night, but no mention whatsoever of her having received a text message, and of her having responded to it, right in the middle of the alleged sexual assault. That seems like a significant omission, a significant gap in the factual narrative. Similarly, Jane Doe's not-very-compatible-with-the-2026-civil-complaint written statement from 2024 is likewise replete with lots of specific details prior to and during the sexual behavior, but she didn't mention the text exchange with her roommate there, either. Nowhere, in either of these fairly extensive accounts, does Jane Doe recount anything about her or someone else using her cell phone to send a context-appropriate text message to her roommate at 3:05 a.m., or that anyone else did, or that her roommate never mentioned this text message to her (even after she filed a complaint in 2024 and before or after she filed a civil suit in 2026), or that she (Jane Doe) was aware or not aware of the text message on her phone. Now, is it possible that A) Jane Doe's phone had a face or fingerprint style security feature, and B) was across the room, such that she could not reach it, and that C) one of the frat guys, despite apparently being in an alcohol-and-ketamine-induced stupor, immediately noticed at 3:05 a.m. that a text had come in on Jane Doe's, then D) this guy still had the presence of mind to think something like "Hey, someone may be texting her to check on her, so we need to head that off," and also figured out that the phone needed to be unlocked via fingerprint or face scan, and on that basis he E) picked up the phone, and F) walked it over to Jane Doe, and G) held the phone in front of Jane Doe's face or touched her finger to the screen to unlock the phone, and G) opened up the text messaging app and read the text message ("You coming home {tonight})?"), and H) typed in an innocuous response ("idk") and sent it, and I) accomplished items (C) through (H) within a few minutes of 3:05 a.m. (there is no intervening timestamp between the roommate's text message and the "idk" response to it), and I) Jane Doe had absolutely no recollection whatsoever about the frat guy using her phone (despite having ample supposed recollections of all sorts of other details as to what was going on in that room), which is J) why she never mentioned any of this stuff in either her 2024 statement or to her attorney in 2026, and/or why he did not include any reference to it in the civil complaint? Yes, it's possible. Is there any evidence of this sequence of events? So far, no. Is it possible that Jane Doe sent the text? Yes. Is it likely that she did so while being sexually assaulted? IMO, No. Is it possible that she did so while participating in consensual sexual behavior (which is how she characterized that behavior in her 2024 statement)? Yes. Assuming the civil suit proceeds, the roommate is almost certainly going to be deposed. There are a lot of assumptions built in to that assessment. Far fewer, I think, than the alternative, which - applying Occam's Razor - would make it more likely that the phone was not "on the other side of the room," that Jane Doe noticed the text come in, unlocked her phone, and sent a brief response to it, which response gave no indication that she was being sexually assaulted. I think the accused frat guys and their lawyers are finding this development to be really significant. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them are already preparing deposition questions for the roommate, subpoenas for Jane Doe's phone, and research and arguments about spoliation of evidence (in case the phone is not available). Thanks, -Smac

Candles didn't do anything. I could tell there was a candle through the hat but the natural lighting was brighter and the candle just made a yellow glow on the hat. Sorry, I misremembered. The statements were about how Joseph found the seer stone to be easier to use vs the interpreters. And I inferred that interpreters were for behind the curtain and the seer stone was in the hat. It does point to the fact that he didn't use a lens to see better in the hat if he preferred to use a opaque stone vs a potentially magnifying lens. This sounds very similar to the arguments that Joseph never used the stone in the hat process. That instead, he always used a blanket and always had the plates in front of him and only used the interpreters. The problem I have with that argument is why would he ever perform the stone in the hat stunt. He's got a great thing going. He is doing everything behind a curtain, he is warning people from looking behind the curtain, he can comfortably do his trick. And then every now and then he decides to show off his translation power with a stone in the hat? Huh? That makes no sense to me. He is willing to mess up so badly that people would catch on to him for a stunt? And why would the watchers even accept that stunt? It is nothing like how he supposedly translates, since he doesn't have the plates in front of him and he isn't using the interpreters. This argument feels like an attempt to force Joseph to use a blanket instead of accepting the evidence we have. Additionally, why did Joseph use the stone in the hat with Martin and Emma? With both of them, there is no one present. If he is already using the blanket mechanism, why would he occasionally use the stone in the hat when he is in a private situation? And Emma says it was just her and him for multiple hours for multiple days with his head in the hat. I find it interesting you mentioned memorizing Isaiah. I've heard that but don't understand why Isaiah is always brought up like that. If he was making up the Book of Mormon, then he either wrote it out himself and so he could have memorized any section of it or he was making it up on the fly so no need for memorization. In fact, it would be simpler to do the stunt on parts of the Book of Mormon that aren't Isaiah since there is no way he could mess up as it was his own invention. And it was 1/3 of the Book of Mormon at Fayette. Alma to Moroni is 323 pages. 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon is 145 pages. Oliver and Joseph were in Harmony from April 6 to about June 1 (54 days) and they were finished around July 1 (~30 days). And for me, the blanket and death penalties actually make a lot of sense if it was real. So I don't find the existence of those 2 things as much factor on whether or not Joseph invented it. If we are talking about how the translation occurred, they are way too early in the process to tell us much. They would only know about the very beginning of the translation. They would know nothing about Oliver or Fayette. If we are talking about the contents of the Book of Mormon, I've said this to you before, but I find them way to late in the process to be a factor. So, in one situation, they are too early. In another situation, they are too late.

Are you suggesting this is the only other response here besides your own and any similar ones? I am curious as to how you are seeing the entirety of the conversation, because you present the discussion framework mostly as two sided, the above and your more dispassionate examination of the facts.

Most of the time I can see others’ POV, even the times I don’t think it’s reasonable. But not seeing it at all here. You defined “subversion” as destroying and he said he wasn’t destroying. How is that not lying in your view?

The dismissiveness of the alleged victim’s claims even though her behaviour is consistent with actual victims’ behaviour, the justification of the men’s behaviour, the insistence of giving the men the benefit of the doubt for the sake of justice, innocent until proven guilty, etc while making their case by doubting the woman, the emphasis on how it will ruin these men’s lives while ignoring how even making the claim can ruin hers, and so on. Just to be clear, I don’t think you are wrong in your list of problematic aspects where those are actually happening. I just think your list is only seeing half of the picture.

Wolf in sheep’s clothing is inherently lying.