All Activity

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.

I think it is good that we are taking allegations of sexual assault seriously. I think there are aspects of reactions that are problematic: the rush to judgment, the mobocratic rage, the inversion of the presumption of innocence, the vitriolic responses to suggestions that we dispassionately and fairly review the evidence, and so on. I don't think anyone is "defending" the accusers. The sexual licentiousness and behavior was deplorable. That said, one of the accused, Matthew Ingalls, has an apparently contemporary charge against Jane Doe: ‘Cornell 7’ frat bro claimed accuser ‘sodomized’ him and that school didn’t care he was sex-assault ‘survivor:’ report Jane Doe makes a claim of sexual assault, and is presumptively believed, and any other response (such as a proposal to set aside emotionalisms and rage and dispassionately examine the evidence) is shouted down as "enabling" rapists and rape culture. Mr. Ingalls makes a claim of sexual assault, and is ignored and/or presumed to be lying. I am troubled by the inverted and contradictory assumptions that seem to be in play. I am sorry you have been distressed. I'm not sure why you would participate in a conversation that is causing such distress. In any event, I and going to respectfully decline what I see to be an implied request, namely, to not ask any questions or express any concern about the facts of this case. I think we can and should have difficult discussions, as this is a discussion board. Thanks, -Smac

It’s relatively easy to flash a phone in front of someone’s face or grab their finger for Touch ID. Unless her phone is only password protected, I don’t see this as an issue. I have taken my husband’s phone and held it up in front of his face with him glimpsing it and it opened when he was too preoccupied to find something on it himself. Once it was even to send a text to our daughter. I did not have my phone with me. Eyes just need to be opened I believe and possibly focused on the screen, possible even with a semiconscious person if one waves the phone around as eyes will likely track it unless completely spaced. Many a crime show has fingers or thumbs cut off for this purpose or forensic scientists even ‘wearing’ the dead guy’s skin to open the victim’s phone to save the tech guys work. With a living body, even if passed out, seems like a no brainer. I can also see someone shoving a phone at her and telling her to respond “I don’t know”. Not sure how much conscious, focused brain power that would take with how often most people are messaging. I think there are quite a few possibilities once it is established her phone isn’t password protected added: or attention required for Face ID. If it is either of those, at that point, seems it would have to be not incapacitated, but coerced. Whether that could fit the timeline or not, I don’t know. Added: I change my mind, I just opened my phone with my eyes closed (after swiping up with eyes closed, I turned it to face away from my face, though I could see the screen at a sharp angle). She could be incapacitated if she didn’t have the ‘requires attention’ option or didn’t have it activated. I don’t know the legal requirements, but just because she might be able to process and respond to a simple text, does that mean she’s not impaired enough to not be able to give consent. “idk” is not evidence of higher level brain power in my book. People drive cars heavily impaired after all. My mother under the influence of Ambien walked into my brother and his wife’s room after everyone had gone to bed and sat at the foot of the bed, talking to them. They thought it odd due to the timing, she had never done it before and the conversation wasn’t urgent, even if coherent and reasonable (think it was about the next day, but it has been a couple of decades, so not sure). They, however, knew immediately she was out of her mind when while talking, she started to take off her clothes. Quickly stopped her and took her back to bed. She did not remember in the morning. I don’t know if Ketamine could have the same sort of effect. The three times I was under it, I don’t think I was witty in my speech, though the second time I might have been more complicated as I complained it wasn’t working like it had. I might have been able to read and text that time as I was surely, painfully bored and spent time looking around, but since no reading material, who knows. The therapist just checked on us briefly unless something went wrong, at the desk I believe the rest of her time. It was one of the reasons I became dissatisfied with it and didn’t urge my daughter to continue as the most benefit comes (from the research I have read) through talking with the therapist at least during the latter part of the experience. But you can’t line people up in multiple recliners in a small room with one therapist supervising 5 or so clients if you go that route (no complaints about the therapist, loved her, she didn’t stick around very long, they lost most associated with the clinic originally once they got taken over by a franchise). The third time I had a nasty hellish trip and I remember coming out of it and hearing her repeat where I was, I was safe, she was there with me, etc and I responded back “this isn’t good, this isn’t good, this isn’t good….” once and “I don’t like this” another and “thank you for staying here” when it started to finally lift a bit before getting sucked back in each time, so I may have been semi coherent for a few minutes but overall incapacitated big time. First time was a very lovely, very colorful gentle roller coaster ride, remember a brief check, not sure how I responded. Anyway…it is possible she had brief moments of coherency enough to respond to a text, especially if someone prompted her if her ketamine experience was anything like mine were at times. Which is a stretch given mine was medical and hers recreational and combined with alcohol.

I think it’s more “the most consistent with the rest of his comments and behaviour, past and present, interpretation” and “the cherry picking, taken out of context interpretation” myself to be blunt.

Immediately before the disputed "sweet spot" statement, Dan describes having both supporters and detractors across the religious spectrum. He then explains that he is putting data out there and that people will interpret it in different ways. That context supports a reading in which he sees his role as providing evidence without dictating what conclusions people must draw from it. But smac is not unreasonable to focus on the words "doing something right." Those words express a favorable assessment of his position. The question in my mind, however, is what he (Dan) thinks he's doing right. There are at least two plausible interpretations: - The charitable interpretation: He's doing something right because he is presenting evidence consistently, without tailoring his conclusions to satisfy either religious believers or skeptics. - The critical interpretation: He's doing something right because his work supplies arguments that help people justify either maintaining or abandoning religious faith, and he considers both outcomes desirable. I don't think the quote alone can definitively establish which interpretation he intended. His accompanying explanation about presenting data and allowing people to interpret it supports the first, although it doesn't completely eliminate the second.

Not to me. But reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac

When you accuse him of being subversive about faith, etc over and over again and post a definition of “tending or intending to subvert, overthrow, destroy, or undermine an establishedsystem, government, authority, institution, or set of beliefs"” when he has said he’s not out to destroy anyone’s belief, that seems a pretty clear accusation of lying to me.

Yes. Not sure I have accused him of lying. Thanks, -Smac

‘Cornell 7’ accuser sent roommate 3-letter text during alleged gang rape, newly released messages show The contemporaneous text creates a significant credibility problem for Jane Doe's account in her civil complaint, as well as in any criminal investigation. Reporting from the New York Post, TMZ, and other outlets confirms the exchange: the roommate texted Jane Doe around 3:05 a.m. asking if she was coming home, and she replied “idk.” That timestamp falls squarely inside the multi-hour window the complaint describes as an ongoing, incapacitating sexual assault in which she was too impaired to consent, her phone was across the room, and she felt she had no way to escape. To reconcile the “idk” reply with the complaint’s narrative she would need a coherent account of several things at once: During the very time she was being sexually assaulted, she was able to cross the room, locate and unlock her phone, read the incoming message, and send a coherent reply to it while at the same time being too incapacitated to consent or to send any message indicating distress or requesting help. There is a plausible reason the complaint omitted this text exchange and instead stated that the phone was on the other side of the room and that escape was not possible. The same level of functioning that allowed a short, context-appropriate reply to her roommate did not allow a different short reply that would have summoned assistance ("Help. Call the cops."). Those points are hard to square without additional evidence that has not been publicly reported. And if such supporting evidence existed, it stands to reason that she would have given it to her attorney, or her attorney would have asked for it, and it would have been included or at least referenced in the civil complaint. An alternative explanation, that someone else sent the "idk" text, would raise its own problems: modern phones are typically locked, the complaint does not mention anyone else using her phone, and any claim of spoliation or third-party use would need to be developed with the device itself. This message does not stand alone. Other reported texts from the days immediately afterward show her describing the events in terms that also conflict with the later “incapacitated / non-consensual” framing in the lawsuit (statements that the sexual activity was not illegal, that she liked being with certain of the men, and “our body our choice”). Those later messages are subject to the same trauma/processing explanations her counsel has offered, but they remain part of the contemporaneous record that defense counsel will use to test the complaint’s allegations. In short, the 3:05 a.m. exchange is a concrete, time-stamped data point that is difficult to reconcile with the degree of incapacitation and lack of opportunity alleged in the complaint. How much weight it ultimately receives will depend on the full evidentiary record, any forensic examination of the phone, and how the inconsistencies are explained under oath. On the information currently public, however, it is a material problem for the narrative that she was continuously too impaired to consent or to seek help during that period. Thanks, -Smac

Like calling someone a lying subversive wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Actually I'm not sure! I have heard that before, not sure how important it really is.

Is the advice to get your degrees at different institutions not as accepted as it once was?

Retain as BYU students

I would love to see a strong focus on better maternal and child health care, including prenatal and postnatal support. This should, imo, be tied tightly to welfare to help ensure pregnant women and children get their nutritional needs met no matter how or why they got pregnant, what their family situation is, or how many jobs, if any, parents have. (I wish we could do it for all, but believe we need to focus on the most vulnerable and dependent individuals first). With our focus on the value of family, it makes sense to support and invest in them. Maternal health is a high indicator of the health of the family and its individuals. Not only physical and emotional, but financial. And it extends way beyond the family. You want a safe bet for building a stronger economy? Invest in mothers’ health. Give them good medical care and good food at the very least. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4814064/

“Retain” In Utah or as church members?

I have no idea how to calculate probabilities here, so I'm not sure which is more probably. #1 seems as plausible as anything. As you note, it introduces the possibility of infinite regress, that seems to generally make us uncomfortable. I can't tell if my reticence to accept this theory is grounded in truth or my own discomfort with infinite regress. #2 seems to patriarchal to me. Why should the male God create His spouse instead of the other way around (the female Goddess creates Her spouse)? Of course, how much of my rejection of this one is grounded in real truth and how much is my own rejection of the complementarian/patriarchal notion that male is the default and female is a derivative of the male? #3 seems to also bring up the whole infinite regress thing, which, for me, seems to be its main sticking point. #4 would be my preferred belief, mostly because I prefer to believe God is truly self-existent and not dependent on some other being (like a parent) for His divinity. Again, how much of that is actual truth and how much is my preference to believe that God is in some way eternally self-existent? Of course, this tends to put an asterisk beside my own possible exaltation, in that my divinity at that point will always be derived from the divinity of my Parents and Their Christ rather than self-existent -- a kind of "lesser God" than my Parents. It often seems to me that this notion of "eternally self-existent" (or similar) is the main driver of our comfort/discomfort with whatever we come up with here, since so much of the broader Christian notion of God includes the ideas that He is in some way eternally existent as Himself. His existence and nature are not dependent on anything else.

Both, I think. I'm not sure how much one will be prioritized over the other. I have a brother-in-law, Matthew Cornish, who is a pediatrician (now professor of medicine at Augusta University) who has had fairly extensive international experience (he spent several years providing medical services in Vanuatu, where my sister - his wife - served her mission). I had a good discussion with him about the medical school during his visit to Utah over the July 4 holiday. He previously practiced in Utah County, but now lives in Georgia. My understanding is that he has been consulted for input about the school. The things he said were very encouraging and exciting. I suspect those areas that cater to the most important and fundamental international needs. So yes, that would involve areas such as those you have noted. I think many Americans would be shocked at just how much of the world lives with only limited access to medical care. My BIL's comments did not seem to involve any confidential information, but I nevertheless don't want to publish them without his consent. Suffice it to say, though, that I think the Latter-day Saints will be very pleased with the efforts of this project, and the international community will benefit from it a lot. I suspect the school will require vast sums of money to open and operate. This will be particularly acute where, I think, many of the students will have limited financial means. So the Church will be subsidizing a lot. That money will come from the coffers of the Church, which funds in turn originated, directly or derivatively, from the tithes of faithful Latter-day Saints. I hope they will see these expenditures as being worthwhile. Thanks, -Smac

I know so many BYU pre-med students who came to our area for med school, and then move back to Utah once they graduate. I'm sure they'll retain a lot more students with this new program.