All Activity

Okay, I realize you may not have much experience in this area but this is what is called “having fun with it”. It is something people do to amuse themselves and others. It is playful and a way to inject some levity into things when you are dealing with obtuse ignoramuses. I would think you would recognize it by now. Many here do the same thing when conversing with you here. You reading it as desperation really only says something about you. “It is always projection. Always.”

"That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference." Is her name written there somewhere? Again, no. Are you saying the journal entry cannot form the basis for the reasoned inference? If so, could you elaborate? But that was not your original assertion. You said: "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma." Are you now retracting that claim? Or just qualifying it ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma {until after he had been sealed to several other women})? So do you accept and agree with the reasoned inference, or not? Thanks, -Smac

Wow there is a lot of AI slop in there. Let me take apart your Julius Caesar comparison. Let’s say that we have the same sources but those sources instead of saying a conspiracy killed Caesar said that Jupiter descended in all his glory and killed Julius Caesar declaring Caesar to be a threat to the Republic and striking him down with lightning from his outstretched hand.. Then Jupiter ascended into the clouds. Would you have an equally high degree of confidence that that event happened as described as you do for the assassination that actually was described? Nothing changes except that the whole thing involves divine forces. Do you think that reported occurrence should be treated more skeptically or does that change in the standard of evidence only apply when you don’t believe in the deity that is supposedly intervening? Most of the rest of your response is just attempting to water down the scientific method because it led to some wrong or incomplete conclusions which (and this is important) it self-corrected on as it gathered more data, developed better instruments to study things, and new methods of testing were developed. Then some more special pleading about how historical inquiry has nothing to say about whether the resurrection happened despite Christians continually and rather desperately trying to establish a historical case for it happening. You not only want to make sure that the historicity of the resurrection is something reserved only for divine revelation but want historians and textual critics to shut up about it and they aren’t going to do that. Nor is your approach the one the New Testament takes. The New Testament talks up the validity of eyewitnesses of the Resurrection as evidence it happened. So pick a lane! Does evidence for it matter or not? If it does then it is a fit subject for history and textual criticism. If not, then witnesses of the Resurrection including apostles and prophets and the New Testament and Book of Mormon aren’t evidence or support of anything and individual divine experience is all that matters. Or do we have more special pleading where it somehow counts in this case?

For all your complaining about logical fallacies, you should know better than to ask this question. Could you elaborate? @Notatbm is making an affirmative declaration, that Joseph was not sealed to Emma. I am asking him to substantiate that claim. The Burden of Proof Principle The Claimant Bears the Burden: In logic and debate, the person making a positive or negative assertion is responsible for providing the evidence to support it. The Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): It does become a fallacy if someone asserts a claim and then demands that their opponent prove the claim is false to show it is true (e.g., "You can't prove Joseph Smith was never sealed to Emma, therefore he wasn't"). Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance. The Specific Example (Joseph Smith and Emma Smith) The Historical Fact: Historical records—including entries in Joseph Smith's journals and documents housed in The Joseph Smith Papers—show that Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith were sealed for eternity on May 28, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois. The Assertion: If someone asserts the negative claim ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma"), they are the ones who must provide the evidence. Asking them to back up their assertion is a valid challenge to their claim, not a logical fallacy. However, asking them to prove a negative can be practically difficult or impossible because proving the non-existence of a historical event relies on complete historical records. Here, however, we have some historical and circumstantial evidence that Joseph was sealed to Emma. NotaTBM is, of course, free to assert the opposite, but I think he needs to present some evidence for it. Thanks, -Smac

I guess I'm clueless sometimes, when I looked up the progressive meaning in politics, this is what it said. Do you mind sharing what you don't like in these descriptions? In politics, progressivism is a political philosophy and movement that supports social, economic, and systemic reform through active government intervention. [1, 2] Core Beliefs and Goals Social and Economic Equality: Progressives advocate for policies that reduce wealth gaps, strengthen worker protections, and protect marginalized groups. Active Government Role: Unlike ideologies that favor deregulation or a smaller state, progressivism holds that government should be used as a tool to solve social problems, regulate corporate power, and provide public goods (such as health care, education, and environmental protection). Systemic Transformation: Progressives generally push for bolder, faster structural change to address root causes of inequality rather than relying on incremental moderation. Key platform priorities often include single-payer health care (like Medicare for All), aggressive action on climate change, tax reform on high earners and corporations, and criminal justice reform. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] History The Progressive Era (1890s–1920s): The movement took root in the United States during the Industrial Revolution as a reaction against corporate monopolies, harsh labor conditions, political corruption, and the Gilded Age. Figures like President Theodore Roosevelt (who formed the Bull Moose / Progressive Party in 1912) and Robert La Follette pushed for trust-busting, women’s suffrage, and direct democracy measures like referendums. The New Deal and Beyond: The philosophy expanded mid-century through Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs and later saw major revivals during the civil rights movements and modern-day political alignments. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] Progressivism vs. Liberalism While often used interchangeably or grouped closely together, progressivism and traditional liberalism have distinct nuances: [1] Liberalism traditionally emphasizes individual rights, constitutional governance, and free-market capitalism tempered by social safety nets. Progressivism often places a sharper focus on challenging concentrated corporate power, reducing systemic economic inequality, and demanding deeper structural or institutional changes. [1, 2, 3] You can read more about current policy aims on the Congressional Progressive Caucus platform or explore definitions via Merriam-Webster Dictionary and historical context on BBC News. [1, 2, 3]

I just saw this after another post to you. I am listening. But some revelation had already begun in the Old Testament, no? Are saying that truth simply IS? True truth? There are truths of nature and supernature that remain unrevealed, no? To be revealed or discovered in the future? I am not trying to assertive. I want to understand you rightly, but I fear our definitions of truth might not be the same. Could that be what is making my hesitant? Catholics say that truth is conformation of the mind with reality. That has been my working definition for a while. But I can't conform it to all reality like God. I can only have bits and pieces of it.

Am I required to by forum rules? Then no I see you are pretty invested as well judging by the massive walls of text you create for every response. Ok...you go with the evidence then. I know you want to treat everything as a criminal trial and trot out huge volumes of data, references and whatever else you can find, but many (to include myself) are satisfied with Occam's Razor. Do what you do and I'll do what I do. it isnt a complicated issue. Marriage = Sex. "inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet." OK so what? Im a member of the church as well. I am entitled to an opinion. People can choose whether they want to be offended or not. I think some prophet somewhere described that behavior as a weakness or some such thing. I dont need to take orders from some random stranger on the internet. If you dont enjoy discussions with me then dont respond...its easy.

"That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference." Is her name written there somewhere? I also responded to this same question you asked. We know that until he was married to 22 women other than Emma, JS and Emma were not sealed together. After...like you say, there is a reasoned inference, but again, she isnt named from what I understand. Sooo for about half of the time he was practicing polygamy, he chose to not be sealed to Emma and she was apparently unaware of the whole thing...apparently

For all your complaining about logical fallacies, you should know better than to ask this question.

"Before Abraham was, I AM." The truth exists. We cannot own the truth like a possession. Can we conform our minds to things that are true, and have by faith a level of dark understanding about supernatural reality? I think you would grant that through the light of reason we can conform our minds to demonstrable truths about natural reality with much greater certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, as they say in the courtroom? You have written a lot about this and have given it more thought than I have. I am interested to know if you find it problematic to understand truth in the way I have described? Maybe you could describe hour own relationship to certain truths as you understand them, could be corrupted into "having truth" rather than ____________truth. Maybe you could fill in the blank?

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any. Can you help in this regard? They were married as husband and wife. Totally justified in having sex and also, who would go around bragging about it or making statements. He was hiding all his marriages from Emma. That right there is not only scandalous but indicative of horrible behavior. If it was so honorable to have a bunch of wives (even little girls) why not be open about it??? Probably because it was not only illegal, but he was having sex with them which is.... Adultery on his part and probably on the part of some of the women if they were married to other men at the time. In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this? If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence. What do you write in your journal about your sex life? Probably nothing and if you did you wouldnt share it here would you. Of course there is no evidence. The only "Evidence" anyone needs is a marriage. It is an expectation in marriage. I dont know why some are so hell bent on proving Joseph didnt have sex with some of his wives and not others. The dosctine is lieterally about sex among other things... raising up seed. If he wasnt trying to procreate with each of these wives he was disobeying the lord apparently. My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death. They do? Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s? Yea I they place Joseph Smith in the modern era why not apply the modern era laws? Oh... yea because he would be in preison and looked at no differently than warren Jeffs who still has many of his brides dfending him just like Joseph did. Possibly, yes. Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship. They were married- that is all the proof needed. What proof is there of your fellow ward members having sex?? Esp the ones who have not had children yet? Answer: None unless they are going around talking about it, but everyone knows there is like a 99.99% chance they are. Not sure what you mean here. Look at the crap the AZ Gov candidate lamb is involved in. It isnt polygamy but do you think for a minute running for president (which Joseph did apparently) and everyone knew he had a pile of wives, was detroying printing presses etc he would survive in the current political climate?? He didnt even survive it in his day both figuratively and literally. I think this is incorrect. See here. Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation. Do you have contrary evidence? That Joseph and Emma were never sealed? I have not ever seen any proof with her name on anything resembling a sealing. There might be something out there, but my understanding is it isnt settled science so to speak. Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion. JS is worthy of being mocked. Thats what you get when you marry women behind your wife's back. Thanks, -Smac

I dont have any. "Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her." "You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her." "I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls..." "Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them." "Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them." "Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course" Do you intend to retract or amend any of these statements? Nobody disputes that. If the "marriage" was dynastic, then perhaps not. We are going with the evidence. I encourage you to do the same. I see you are pretty invested in this issue. Your various statements above, and your comparisons between Joseph and Warren Jeffs, are likely coming from a place of disgust and anger, so much so that you are seeking to say inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet. You clearly are not saying these things to persuade, am I right about that? If so, what is the intended purpose of these various statements? And given that you now admit you have no evidence to support your factual averments, why are you presenting them as factual? Thanks, -smac

No. That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference. If you have evidence of an alternative and superior inference, I'm happy to consider it. Okay. What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph? Thanks, -Smac

I am reiterating my request for evidence of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen. On a somewhat related note, my wife is a great-great granddaughter of John D. Lee. Brigham Young adopted Lee on January 25, 1846, when Brigham was 44 years old and Lee was 33. That's only an 11-year difference, and both men were well into adulthood, and Lee's father was still alive (he died in 1850), and Lee did not legally take on his "adoptive" father's surname. So that seems pretty strange, particularly if this point is being presented in a decontextualized way. Some of the weirdness goes away when more context is provided. Both Young and Lee were Latter-day Saints. In the 1840s (especially in Nauvoo), some Church members were sealed to other members—often leaders—in a spiritual father-son relationship. The idea was to create an unbroken chain of sealing back to Adam and to link people into the priesthood network of the kingdom. Brigham Young himself was sealed to Joseph Smith; he in turn had dozens of men (reports commonly put the number around 38) sealed to him as adopted sons in early 1846. John D. Lee was one of them—he later described himself as Young’s second adopted son. Lee was already a loyal, active member (missionary, Council of Fifty clerk, etc.). The sealing formalized a spiritual and practical bond: Lee was to look to Young’s temporal interests, and Young was to secure Lee’s spiritual welfare as an heir in the family. Lee sometimes signed his name in ways that reflected the relationship and referred to himself as Young’s adopted son for years afterward. The practice was later discontinued as the Church’s understanding of sealings developed (especially after temples became available and proxy work for biological ancestors expanded). It was never a conventional adoption meant to raise a minor; Lee was an adult convert and leader at the time. So, contexts matters. It helps us understand a facially strange circumstance. It does not fully resolve the weirdness, it just mitigates it. The Church was, after all, still very much in its formative stages, and I think some practices need to be viewed through that lens. Which brings us to the marriage of Helen Mar Kimball to Joseph Smith, Jr., the examination of which may benefit by comparing and contrasting it with the Young-Lee adoption item. Here's what I think: Both practices were irregular by 19th-century (and modern) social norms, yet were motivated by the same emerging Latter-day Saint theology of sealing: the creation of eternal familial bonds that linked people into a priesthood network extending back to Adam, independent of ordinary biological or legal relationships. In the Law of Adoption, adult men (including John D. Lee) were sealed to Brigham Young as spiritual sons. The relationship was understood as religious and dynastic—Lee was to advance Young’s temporal interests while receiving spiritual inheritance—rather than a conventional parent-child arrangement. It was performed in the Nauvoo Temple period as part of the broader effort to organize the Saints into sealed “families” of the kingdom. Joseph Smith’s sealing to Helen Mar Kimball (age 14 in 1843) operated under the same sealing logic, applied to plural marriage. Contemporary and later accounts from Helen herself and others frame it primarily as a dynastic or protective sealing that connected her family to the prophet, not as an ordinary marriage. Historians across perspectives note the absence of contemporary evidence of consummation; many treat it as consistent with other early sealings that created eternal links without requiring (or, in the case of a 14-year-old, plausibly involving) a sexual relationship. Like the adoptions, it was justified by the theological claim that such sealings secured place and protection in the afterlife and bound families together beyond death. The analogy is therefore structural: both were non-standard sealings that created spiritual kinship for religious ends, performed by prophetic authority, and later discontinued or reframed as the Church’s understanding of sealing developed. The differences are also clear—one was a same-sex, adult-to-adult priesthood adoption; the other involved a minor female under the practice of plural marriage (albeit with her parents' consent (it was Heber's idea, actually)—but both reflect the same mid-1840s impulse to organize eternal relationships through temple ordinances rather than through ordinary civil or biological norms. What are your thoughts about this? Thanks, -Smac

I dont have any. They were sealed as husband and wife. According to LDS doctrine it wouldf have been ok to have sex right?? It def was permissible so why does everyone fall all over themselves trying to prove he didnt? He is supposed to...

Hi longview and TheNehor. I can follow-up with a little more "clarity" longview. The Church has used imagery from the physical cosmos to symbolize the blessed just in eternity. Dante famously used this in his epic poem the Paradiso, while borrowing from other traditional sources. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." (Dan 12:3) I would propose that the firmament is the whole collection of the stars that illuminate the night skies. This would be the glory of all the saints together as one hierarchical and harmonious, beautiful whole. But then there are the individual stars, uniquely special in their assigned place and glory, according to God's will. This is why I agree that there are degrees of glory in heaven as well as in the physical creation with which we are familiar. "But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, and another for fish." (I Cor. 15:39) Here again we see as well as with the verses that follow, a deliberate hierarchy in creation, which all announce God's glory. A fish is certainly a tremendous creation which sings a greater "song" to God than does unanimated matter. But everything God makes gives its praise to God, according to its capacity, to what the created thing is: "O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever." [Daniel 3:66-70] Back to Corinthians and the verse TheNehor was discussing with you longview: "There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." (I Cor. 15:40) Once again we see creation's hierarchy, with a sharp distinct between earthly and heavenly. I think no one would ascribe the praise of fire and heat, blessing or glorifying God, with that of the brute beast. A magnificent horse is a beautiful beast and surely praises God more in obedience to its own nature and capacity. But will fish and horse, or fire and heat be accounted as terrestrial or celestial? I propose that it is plausible to limit the celestial glories to the creature made in God's image. I fear that the Latter-day Saints are understandably focused with God's image as physical (because of all the flak you have to take about it), as to sometimes look past an even sharper distinction between man and the good animals. The animals made without powers of reasoning (an intellect) and loving (free will). I am not trying to convince the LDS of anything except that I wish you could appreciate a little better how the Catholic is filled with wonder at being made in a spiritual image of God. Will and intellect are invisible to the senses. What a responsibility for such a creature to choose to rationally love and obey and praise God? Unlike the always good (obedient to their natures) beasts, we have the potential for evil, to disobey our natures, but we can only do so through disobeying our reason and choosing. This is what the good beasts can never attain, the image of God in man, by our own powers of reasoning and loving. "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory." (I Co. 15:41) This is too long already. If anyone is curious, I will try to explain the plausibility for why one might hold that Jesus is the Sun, His Mother is the moon. and the wise, just, and redeemed will join them shining in the celestial glory of the stars. I do not think a Catholic has to accept this belief, so I certainly don't expect LDS to accept it. But the teaching is supremely beautiful to my beholding of it. Dante immortalizes it with loving poetical fire. According to Artificial Intelligence, Aquinas argues this position in his Commentary on I Corinthians. I would add that if AI is correct, Aquinas follows a respectable school of thought immortalizing a beautiful teaching with cool intellectual rigor. I just love the idea of the loving poet, and rational intellect, representing the two sides of our understanding of the image of God in us. It seems so fitting - coming round to magnify the same theological positions in two different ways! The will and the intellect. Love and reason, like mercy and justice, kissing in peace and harmony! Thanks for your consideration.

i dont know if you have children or not, but is there any proof anywhere you and your spouse had sex? Proof that I can look up? Did you testify of it, write an article, tell all your friends? Etc... There isnt any proof laying around I had sex before having children but i had a few episodes and that was before I was even married. Just because there is no "evidence" or statement that doesn't mean a thing. No one runs around esp back then making a brag about having sex with their secret husband who is married to ten other women. The very purpose of polygamy is to have children so sex is going to be involved ..whether they had kids or not.

Does the doc say her name at all? From what I understand is she was not sealed to Joseph....For sure not before 22 other women were we do know that is pretty much settled. After the 22 initial wives... possibly.

Yea she is a "Victim." I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls, but hey anything to defend Joseph. The poem below written by Hellen Mar Kimball doesnt portray someone who is happy nor really had a choice in the whole matter. I mean what 14 year old girl is going to want to marry some 38 year man? Answer: None "I thought through this life my time will be my own The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free, And as the past hath been the future still will be. To my guileless heart all free from worldly care And full of blissful hopes and youthful visions rare The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept From sight and all looked fair... ...but pitying angels wept. They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold. And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled, Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise, Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price; Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny, And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes, And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart, Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot; But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown, Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn. Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw A glory in obeying this high celestial law, For to thousands who’ve died without the light I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright. I’d been taught to reveire the Prophet of God And receive every word as the word of the Lord, But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth, I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth." Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them. The whole doctrine is for polygamy to be used as a method to rais up seed which means to have sex with his wives. Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them. Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course 1. Helen’s Explicit Use of the Word "Wife" In her later journals, public defenses of polygamy, and autobiographical letters, Helen directly referred to herself as a plural wife. For example, in an 1881 autobiographical letter detailing the arrangement, she signed her name as "Whitney Smith" to acknowledge both her earthly husband (Horace Whitney) and her sealed husband (Joseph Smith). [1, 2, 3]

It seems like you are making Dan an offender for a word: I'm not sure about that, but I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Imagine if you saw the following conversation: Person A: "I am a scholar of religion. Using a hammer to cut a two-by-four into equal lengths doesn't make sense. It violates everything we know about the operation of carpentry. So from a scholarly point of view, cutting a two-by-four with a hammer is not something that is supported by the data." Person B: "Well, yeah. That's pretty obvious. A hammer is not the right tool for the job. The right tool would be a saw. Also, what does your being a 'scholar of religion' have to do with carpentry or cutting a two-by-four?" What "claim" are you referencing here? I don't think Dan lays out much of anything relative to his pronouncements about miraculous events. He does not explain or define evidentiary parameters, what quantum of evidence is or ought to be used when evaluating miraculous claims, how methodological naturalism (and its a priori rejection of miraculous events) is a useful tool for examining miraculous claims, what does and does not constitute admissible and probative "data" or evidence, what paradigmatic presuppositions are in play when evaluating the verity and reality of miraculous events, and so on. In making pronouncements about the miracles of Jesus Christ and the theophanies of Joseph Smith, he offers just conclusory stuff, on the strength of "Hi, I'm Dan McClellan and I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion." I'm not in the same game as Dan. He's all about the social media content, and the clicks that bring notoriety, attention, praise and money. Dan's social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. His content also coming across as more desperate for attention. A sampling of recent splash images for his YouTube vids: To me, this stuff is not congruent with what I had thought was Dan's original purpose in going on social media (as I summed up: "thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience"). He is, of course, at liberty to ham up his social media content, mug for the camera, and do whatever else he thinks might get him more clicks, but those clicks come at a cost. Thanks, -Smac

It really doesn’t. It can have a few meanings but it doesn’t refer to widows.

It is a great place to start, imo. Not too technical, but has some very useful insights.

It seems like you are making Dan an offender for a word: "Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility. And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't. It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe. So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar. So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data." It's exactly the same claim that you are making. "Without extraordinary evidence" there is no way someone that uses the historical critical method can confirm a miracle on the order of the resurrection. He lays it out. Much pithier than you I might add.

So the reference to virgins in Doctrine and Covenants 132 is different from 1 Nephi 11:15–20, 2 Nephi 17:14, and Alma 7:10?

It's possible where some unforeseen death occurs before consumation or they choose to remain celibate.