All Activity

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

Your summaries and paraphrases of my ideas are almost always inaccurate, substantially so. No. When I need to nail a nail into a piece of wood, I just a hammer, not a saw. When I want to cut a piece of wood, I use a saw, not a hammer. The scientific method and standard historiographical methods are all quite good and useful in their sphere, but they are not the only tools available. No. I do look at this, though: Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." This, we are told, is "data > dogma." Okay. It certainly has its flaws, but it's the best system, or one of the best, devised so far. I'm skeptical that the lawyers you know would disagree with my characterization of how court proceedings and briefs are in terms of tone and decorum. I think his approach has changed a lot. I think he likes to use his "I'm a scholar" bona fides to bolster and lend undo credence and probative weight to issues about which reasonable minds can disagree. But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Please provide some "factually correct" things he has said which I do not like. I acknowledge that. I take him serious as a scholar. I take him less seriously when he makes forays outside of his realm of expertise. I also take him less seriously given his, shall we say, inconsistent application of "data > dogma." I also take him less seriously when he dunks on amateurs and resorts to snipes and digs, as this materially detracts from what I thought he was positioning himself to do, which was to thoughtfully distill and present the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. He does that still, which is why I pay attention to him. Thanks, -Smac

Jacob Hansen professes to be a Latter-day Saint devoted to his faith. And I think he is well versed in his familiarity with the doctrines and history. And I think he cares a lot about the Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church. In the end, he is sharing his perspective on the Church, and defending it. When I listen to Jacob's content, he is clear about his faith and his perspective. Is he looking for clicks? Yes. Garnering attention is the name of the game. I don't fault him for that, particularly since I think Jacob's content is not only "thorough and well reasoned," it is decorous. His splashes don't have the increasingly hammy/mugging flavor I'm seeing in Dan's channel. But even more important than that, he is civil in his disagreements. Take a look at this: I asked Grok to sum up the taunts and insults the pastor dished out, and the same for Jacob: Jacob sticks to the argument and the facts, (substantially) avoids ad hominem and insults and putdowns. I was impressed by and proud of his behavior. In contrast, I was pretty disappointed by and unimpressed with the pastor. Of the two participants in the above video, I think Dan hews substantially more toward the pastor's behavior. Free with personal taunts and insults. He regularly dunks on amateurs, and then adds taunts and insults to finish up. He imputes terrible motives onto the people he is critiquing, and then attacks them for it. I'm not on X much, but I'll give it a go: From October 23: October 19: Also October 19: October 16: October 13: October 13: October 12: October 12: Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." October 11: October 10: Sounds like some ExMos have looked at what Dan is saying and think his staying in the Church is "so he can bring more people out" of it. Boy, ExMo Reddit threads discussing Dan are . . . illuminating. They seem to have drawn conclusions about Dan and the Church. These are the impressions Dan is giving former Latter-day Saints: I still don’t think it is possible to do what Dan does in public and answer these questions with his priesthood leaders honestly. I believe that since he views all religion as nothing more than a cognitive tool humans developed since the beginning of time, he has no problem participating in the religion from that point of view. I listened to his mormon stories interview and concluded that he probably doesn't believe the church is true. I genuinely believe he views it as a social club (because in reality that's what it is). So he treats it like a social club. I don't think Dan has come out directly and talked about his current beliefs, but it's probably safe to say he doesn't literally believe Mormon truth claims. He could be in the church for social and cultural reasons. My guess is that he’s a nonbeliever. Whatever funny business he's doing to remain in good standing as a Mormon is, in my view, a heroic act of interfaith dialogue that is maybe a little tricky, but is fundamentally about catching bad faith indoctrination in a meaningful way. I don't care how he justifies it to himself or his church. He's doing the No-Lords work so much better than any millennial atheist icon ever did. I think it’s pretty straightforward, he is a cultural Mormon. He claims to be a theist - but it’s clear he doesn’t believe in Mormonism. If you listen to him. He uses his education and platform to discredit Monotheism and Christianity as well as the Bible. He has been clear many times that he doesn't hold to a literal belief in the truth claims nor doctrine of Mormonism. It is essentially his cultural/social structure. I believe he knows the church is not true. I think he figured out that he is able to help the most misguided church members by staying in the church on paper... I assumed he was ex Mormon. I was shocked when I found out he wasn't I would be VERY surprised to learn he wasnt PIMO. I just cant fathom he actually beleives in the church... He walks a line so thin that both sides like him. I admire that. But as a Exmormon he has the knowledge to directly show the church is false. Anyway, back to Jacob: His X channel going back several weeks does not contain the same sort of dunking-on-amateurs and gratuitous digs and insults that I have seen in Dan's content. Perhaps a sampling error. I'll keep looking. Thanks, -Smac

I’m interested in understanding your experience. Are you an attorney or were you the deponent? I’ve taken hundreds of depositions and defended hundreds more. While attorneys may occasionally engage in spirited debate among themselves during depositions, I don’t remember ever seeing a deponent being mistreated. I certainly would never have let my client be mistreated by opposing counsel in a deposition. Nor would I have allowed mistreatment of a proposed expert witness for my client during their deposition. That said, I have seen a few expert witnesses become frustrated, occasionally bordering on indignation, when an attorney digs into the basis of their opinions during a deposition. That digging is done both to test the validity of the expert’s opinion and to determine how effective the expert would be on the witness stand at trial. Good expert witnesses are accustomed to, and unfazed by, opposing counsel putting their opinions under a microscope.

I agree about Dan and thanks for the mention…Will check Janega out. Always looking for scholars with wit.

“Prove to me he was(or wasnt) sexual” is as productive to me as Amazon requesting proof that my package “did not arrive”. Marriage for legit reasons insinuates a sexual relationship more than suggesting a document only relationship. If people are concerned that perhaps joseph was sexual with a 14 year old wife, let it be. Im glad we dont allow such gross practice today.

You're overselling this. I don't think so. Serious topics deserve serious discussion. I'm sorry to hear that. I have attended dozens of depositions, and conducted many of them. While I have seen tense moments, I haven't seen any attorney misconduct, and incivilities are measures (no shouting, etc.). Depositions are a tough thing to the extent there is no referee - the judge - to step in and stop problems. Thanks, -Smac

Why does it have to be the same? I see nothing wrong with the meaning being different. Especially when you look at how Joseph and others followed it. I have never seen any teaching that says that a polygamist wife must never have had sex.

I'm just pointing that the term virgin doesn't just mean someone who hasn't sex.

So you want things to exist in a kind of limbo where textual criticism and historical study can be dismissed when it is problematic but brought in when you find it valuable but spiritual/ecstatic experiences overrule everything. Heads I win, tails you lose. I assume this is some deep moral cost and that it somehow discredits Dan somehow. The law and our justice system is, in many ways, deeply absurd. The best lawyers I associate with know and understand this so I don’t put a lot of credit into your ‘I am big serious man discussing important things reclining in my chair in my smoking jacket while toying with my monocle’ bit. You’re wrong. His approach hasn’t changed much at all. You just dislike him more because he is saying things that are factually correct that you do not like. But Nehor you might say: “How do you know that Smac doesn’t just hate click-batey garbage in general?” Good question, dear reader. You see Smac routinely post articles in his “serious and substantial” discussions by posting disreputable click-bait articles from ridiculous websites maintained by drooling idiots. With how often he posts such articles ‘for discussion’ he must spend a lot of time in these unserious pseudoscience spewing dregs of the internet. So no, I don’t think the problem is that things are designed to attract attention. I think it is character assassination. Dan is taken seriously as a scholar. Many scholars who do public engagement have fun with it. My favorite is Eleanor Janega, a medieval historian. She is brilliant, knows her stuff and is engaging and funny and I suspect you would completely hate her. I don’t think Dan is trying to appeal to stick in the mud pseudoscience peddlers who imagine they are serious and decorous. So you aren’t a target audience I think he wants to win over. In fact he would probably laugh if he read this post. He is a good guy that way.

You're overselling this. I've been on the receiving end of a significant amount of nastiness, unprofessional behavior, and lack of decorum in numerous depositions.

Understood. Mugging for the camera so as to garner more social media clicks may be "having fun with it." But it comes at a cost, I think. I work as an attorney, and we are generally addressing serious topics. While some verbal asides during oral argument and very brief forays in written briefs may arise, substantive discussions about the law and its impact are important, and so are treated with seriousness and decorum. Again: 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. I first said this about two years ago, and it seems to be even more applicable now. Well, no. I do not have any social media presence. I do not want attention from the public at large. I'm content to post thoughts on this seemingly obscure and sparsely-visited message board. I acknowledge that "desperate for attention" does not cast Dan in a good light, but that's what his more recent splashes convey to me. If he wants to be taken seriously as a scholar, I would not think he would be mugging for the camera for click-baity video splashes. Thanks, -Smac

If you are going to simultaneously praise Jacob Hansen (as you've done elsewhere in this thread) for being thorough and well reasoned and criticize Dan for appealing to clicks, I suggest you need to look at more of Hansen's content, especially on Twitter/X. Hansen is orders of magnitude more guilty of the aforementioned "sins" than Dan, IMO.

One - I think NotaTBM is barking up the wrong tree. Based on my recollection (especially from the JSP and In Sacred Loneliness) I really don't think there's any question Joseph was sealed to Emma, but I do also recall it was after he had already been sealed to a number of other women. Two - Your question, as stated, looks a lot like the simple fallacious demand to prove a negative.

Some of the summary about Caesar, yes. Though I have previously spoken of the historical evidence for Caesar's assassination, including Nicolaus, etc. No. I think reasoned skepticism about miraculous events is generally appropriate. My previous discussions have analogized evidence for the assassination with the evidence for the physicality of the Gold Plates. Any thoughts on that? If I say that a saw is better than a hammer for cutting a two-by-four in half, I am not "attempting to water down" the utility of a hammer in its own sphere. I just pointing to the better tool. And yet we still have substantial problems with Irreproducibility, Human biases and incentives, External influences, non-neutral Methodological and theoretical presumptions, Peer review, and so on. And then there's the whole "Using a hammer to cut a two-by-four" issue of trying to apply the Scientific Method to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the theophanies of Joseph Smith. Not "only," but otherwise, yes. No, I don't want that. As does the historical record about Caesar's assassination talks up the validity and reliability of the extant historical narratives. There is nothing close to a one-to-one comparison in view, I acknowledge that. Hence the more appropriate comparison between Caesar's assassination and the physical reality of the Gold Plates. It does. But the methodology and presuppositions matter. In the U.S., courts of law are not an appropriate forum for adjudicating religious disputes. The Scientific Method cannot be meaningfully applied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the theophanies of Joseph Smith. I agree. I also think that a hammer is "fit" for nailing things into wood, but not for cutting wood in half. Thanks, -Smac

You’re doing it backwards. They don’t need to substantiate their claim. They need to refute the extant evidence that indicates Joseph and Emma were sealed or show how it is flawed or inaccurate or how other things show it is unlikely to be accurate. All that being said I don’t think there is a good case for the sealing not happening.

Am I required to by forum rules? Then no I think you are required by thee forum rules, see here: It certainly is a strong expectation on the board. I am invested in being a Latter-day Saint, yes. I have strong beliefs about the Restored Gospel. I come to this board to vet and test what I believe and why, and to listen to divergent points of view. I am interested in your point of view, for example, hence my questions posed to you. You are making repeated and various factual assertions of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen, while at the same time admitting that you have no evidence for those claims. Yes, as well as personal and prophetic revelation and my own reasoning. The evidence relative to the relationship between Joseph and Helen merits real attention. And it's a serious topic, so I would hope it is addressed with decorum and reasoning and civility. The evidence against a sexual relationship is largely negative—there is no contemporary record of consummation—and is reinforced by Helen’s own later accounts. No contemporary source (letters, diaries, affidavits from the 1840s) describes sexual relations. The sealing is documented as a religious ordinance arranged by Helen’s parents (especially her father, Heber C. Kimball) to create a dynastic link. Helen’s own writings, composed decades later, frame the event as a sealing she accepted at her father’s request for eternal family purposes. She does not describe cohabitation or a sexual marriage; her language emphasizes the spiritual and familial character of the ordinance and the difficulty of understanding it at age 14. There is no record of pregnancy, childbirth, or other physical evidence that would indicate consummation. The arrangement fits the same mid-1840s sealing logic seen in the Law of Adoption (adult men sealed to leaders for spiritual kinship). In that context, many early plural sealings functioned as eternal bonds without requiring or documenting ordinary marital cohabitation, particularly where the woman was very young. Later critics and some historians have inferred a sexual relationship from the fact of the sealing itself and from the broader practice of plural marriage, but that inference rests on assumption rather than direct evidence specific to Helen. In short, the historical record supports a parent-initiated dynastic sealing; it does not contain positive evidence of a sexual relationship. For my part, applying Occam's Razor to the foregoing scenario points away from a sexual relationship, and towards what was seen at the time as a dynastic one. I did not know you were a member of the Church, and I fully support your right to both have an opinion and express it. Some come here to socialize. I don't. I come here to discuss and debate and learn and listen. Your comments in this thread appear calculated not to education or inform, but rather to incite offense and anger. While you are certainly at liberty to do that (there is a limit re: "trolling"), I hope you will set aside the vitriol and have a conversation about the evidence. If you are right in your assessment of Joseph Smith, I want to know that. Your comments appear to be calculated to give offense, but I haven't taken offense. I also have not given you any "orders." Just requests, framed with intentions toward civility and inquiry about your perspective. Thanks, -Smac

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. You reading it as desperation really only says something about you. “It is always projection. Always.”