All Activity

You are incredibly thin-skinned about this. Why are you taking this so personally? It is very weird.

Your propaganda masters have made sure you know that she is deeply evil. After all she was willing to investigate the Holy One’s misdeeds. A sacrilege. Because the governor realized that no one on the local level was willing to investigate this seriously? Gotta protect the gang rapists I suppose. They are just running the playbook to set up for a potential appeal and score the requisite political points for pointing out how evil everyone involved is for *checks notes* seriously investigating claims of rape and sexual assault.

I don't see the relevance of this when discussing the trial in 1892. That quote was written in the last decade or so. Yes, a 14 year old marriage in today's environment is very much a terrible thing. If Joseph was alive today and did that, he would be rightfully condemned. I doubt he would do it, though. But we are discussing a trial in 1892 and a marriage to a 14 year old was not condemned and was not considered evil. I'm the one using "dragged". Because back then, talking about sex was not something you want to do. And yet, three women did it because they wanted to prove that Joseph really was a polygamist. And, based on the scenario, I would assume any woman who could testify to that would have been involved. There were men who testified that their sisters had sex with Joseph. It was a way to show that Brigham Young was the true heir of Joseph Smith. With Helen being a being pro-polygamist, I don't see any reason why she would not have been involved if she could have helped. I think I understand where you are coming from. If two people are married, it defaults to sex. 100% agree. That was the default for Helen and Joseph. Sure, there was some evidence that argued otherwise, but the default is that sex happened. It wasn't until I learned about the particulars of the Temple Lot case that I felt there was enough evidence to override the default assumption. If she had sex with Joseph, I see no reason why she would not have been involved. She had every reason to be involved.

A 14 year old marriage was considered weird and “sick” back then, especially outside of the South. There are still states in the US today where you can get married that young with the right approvals but you will be viewed as odd if you do it. This was also not a legal marriage in the eyes of the government.

The fact is she was sealed to Joseph as a wife. Another fact is she wasn’t permitted to go to dances, date etc??? Hmmm wonder why that is? Prob because she was married AND had to hide that fact ( lie?) . In any case if she is married to the guy who is now a known lying liar who had sex with other plural wives and prob to some who were married to other men… well neither one of them have any credibility anyway. The whole thing was/is a twisted web of lies and going behind Emma’s back. Why do all that if you are not at least having sex with your plural wife?? anyway we can agree to disagree… I think the only reason this is so heavily fought against by TBMs is because she was fourteen. No problem admitting he had sex with some of the other ones even though that was flat out adultery because none of these marriages except to Emma were even legal in the first place. So much for the 12th article of faith. The church still can’t follow that one if the sec scandal is any indicator.

In logic, this is your unsupported generalization being used as proof of a particular case. Historical evidence of a sealing establishes only that a sealing occurred. Evidence of sexual relations requires an additional evidentiary basis. "Marriage = Sex" sounds simple, but applying it to every plural sealing ignores all evidence about every other case of eternity-only sealings, like the ones with existing civil marriages and the differences in how each particular relationship was described. The historical consensus among both LDS and non-LDS historians including Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, and George D. Smith is that there is no evidence Helen's sealing was physically consummated. No one is saying that to "defend Joseph". Helen’s own phrase, "The step I now am taking's for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free," directly supports the understanding that there was never cohabitation, never an unescorted visit, no suggestion of sexual relations and maybe a reference to her subsequent marriage to Horace K. Whitney in 1846. Her poem reveals her initial distress, how the social price became heavy, how she was isolated. She remained an active defender of Joseph Smith and polygamy. If she were angry at anyone, it was her father who pressured this. A person’s emotional state does not establish whether Joseph had sexual relations with them. A person can be angry and still be correct, a person can be calm and still be mistaken. Don't reframe our dispute about whether your claim is justified as a dispute about whether you are permitted to make it. Of course you are entitled to an opinion. That does not make your factual claims accurate or exempt them from scrutiny. You have not identified any evidence that the existence of a sealing is sufficient to infer consummation. That inference is merely a starting hypothesis.

Again- this isnt the women going around bragging about sex with Joseph. They were "dragged" in to testify to that fact.

Well the church certainly didnt feel it looked all that great judging by this comment in the GTE re polygamy: "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

Yea I am not retracting my claim. The evidence you cited is an inference. Maybe they should have written her name down in the record instead of being cryptic about it?? I dunno. You are probably right, but the record doesnt say the word "Emma." As for the rest of this discussion, please continue on without me. Over the past year I have seen your posts and your "courtroom" duels with others that extend page after page focusing on even the tiniest of details. I went against my best judgement in even responding to you as I was like yea this is gonna devolve in a repeat of the "argument of the definition of what "is" is."...and it is starting to look that way. Thats fine, but I have better things to do and more interesting hobbies than to spend endless hours here responding to endless challenges. Anyway- im not interested in conversing with you anymore as it seems as if you always require a court battle and fight down to the very last word over EVERYTHING. I prefer more base discussions so I apologize for even responding to you- trust me it will not happen again. I'm not about to get caught up in the circus acts you have dragged others into and have this run on for days on end. You won... As for the CFRs...do what you will with them. Make your final last legalistic point and have a mod go after me and ban me from the thread or whatever. You apparently have the energy to spend all day here like the time is billable hours or something so do whatever.

The church was actively helping. They were the ones dragging the people in to testify. The government wasn't part of the suit. The Temple Lot was between the Hedrickites and the RDLS over who owned the Temple Lot in Missouri. The Hedrickites had purchased it but the purchase was disputed. They also said they owned it by squatter right. The RLDS argued that they were the rightful heirs of Joseph Smith and so they should have it. The Hedrickites asked the LDS to help prove that the RLDS wasn't the rightful heirs. The Hedrickites were against polygamy (just like the RLDS) but they accepted that Joseph practiced and taught it and wanted to show that the RLDS can't be the faithful heirs because they don't practice polygamy. A 14 year old marriage was not sick back then. The polygamy was the problem, not the age. From https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/assessing-the-criticisms-of-early-age-latter-day-saint-marriages In some states, the age of consent was 10 for a girl. A 14 year old girl marrying an older man was rare, but it wasn't considered sick.

I think I saw that my message box is full. That has never happened before, in 22 years! Thank you for two replies.

Hey thanks Navidad. I'll try to talk about things, and being. Another time though. Truthing? I don't think you mean a true thing? Reality....no...I stop. A blessed Sunday to you and Mrs. Navi.

I would fill in your blank with "being." Can we conform our minds to things that are true? I am not sure what you mean by "things." Ideas, thoughts, beliefs, facts? You probably should tell me more about "things." I think we have "faith" in connection with personal and revealed truth. The light of reason would be included in rational truth. However, I would suggest the light of reason does not reveal absolute truth, especially in the sense that reasonable (in your meaning, I think) people could conclude different truths from the information that is being reasoned. I think that engages the mind. I am fascinated by the concept of the "mind" which I believe to be a construct from the soul. I tend to see having truth as exclusivistic. "I have it; you may (if you agree with me) or may not (if you disagree with me). That is the great danger of "having" the truth as a possession. Being the truth is revealing what is inside the self; taking off the cover; that is truth as a verb or gerund - truthing. That is a human struggle. I am also interested in understanding truth in terms of certainty. When you take away "correct" and "incorrect" as attributes of truth, it changes the whole discussion. I think it makes the discussion more meaningful and interesting and deeply human. It seems that truth as correct and incorrect was a mid-to-late 19th century innovation.

Hi my friend: This is a tough question to discuss in the space we have here. Basically I note five forms of truth, each that I believe is valid (if only for the truther). My research indicates (to me) that one of them aligns with an ancient concept of truth across languages and cultures. I think we need to understand truth in terms of the linguistic analysis of what the word meant at a given place, culture, and time. I admit to a bit of a bias against how it is used in todays' culture, place, and time, especially in Western culture. The truth forms I think are valuable are ontological truth, revealed truth, personal truth, rational truth, and truth as being. Except for ontological truth, each has its limitations in generalizability. I do not include absolute truth in the list because I believe to some degree it is unknowable to the human mind, with its limitations. I prefer truth as being as a goal for me in my life. It is closest to the ancient concept of the five across linguistic and cultural analysis. It is a journey, not a possession. Sure there were OT revelations. Sure there probably are revealed truths in visions - I say probably because I have never had one. Sure, there are truths that remain to be revealed. Personal truths are in some way the trickiest, because we tend to generalize them for everyone when they really are personal, probably connect to life experiences. Truth as being tends to turn truth from a noun to a verb. Hope that helps. I tried PMing you, but the system won't let me.

I really enjoy these kinds of videos from him.

He’s easy to watch for me. Interesting- Thanks

For those curious here is Dan recently in educator mode answering good-faith questions:

Dan irks me on occasion as well, and I don't think it's because I have prioritized dogma over data. I think sometimes his online persona just annoys me that day for whatever reason. His videos are sometimes performative--which is not at all an insult, they need to be and they should be if he's going to find any success on social media--and his way of performing is not always my cup of tea or what I find useful. Again, not an insult because my feelings are not the standard for what actually is useful, even if my feelings on what I find useful are completely valid. Dan probably makes missteps as much as the next scholar and I don't think there's any harm in a respectful discussion on his public posts or videos where people disagree about his affectiveness or even discuss how his public views mesh with church teachings. I'm guessing that kind of stuff doesn't bother Dan at all or he wouldn't be so public. Smac and I differ because he tends to moralize his disagreements with people (as in, if someone doesn't say what he thinks they should say or believe what he thinks they should believe then he often implies that it's some kind of moral failure on their part) and I don't often think that is an accurate route to go. I don't believe that Dan is doing anything immoral in the way that he presents data or shows up online but I think that it's valid to discuss his impact on people's faith and I also think that it's valid for Smac to believe that Dan is doing more harm than good, even if I disagree with Smac on that. I've seen other very nuanced public latter-day saint "influencers" who are not at all dogmatic who have also had fair criticisms of Dan. Disagreeing with the way Dan does stuff is not a sign that someone doesn't like the best data that experts have put together.

Being dragged into court as you described it doesn’t sound much like anyone was on a brag about having sex with js. Sounds more like the govt compelled them to give testimony and were under threat of perjury if they lied. as for Helen not testifying… I’m pretty sure the church didn’t want her up there stating she had sex with js as a 14 year old. If one considers that maybe if they did and waited till she was older she would have been 15 at the most since js was killed a year later. That would not have been the flex the church wanted. Even back then this marriage was sick.

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

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

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

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

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

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