smac97

I wonder if she was "willing to alter stuff on plural marriage" because she was personally so troubled by it. She wanted to create a narrative that conformed to her preferences on that subject. Perhaps notably, her sons stated that they "apologized to our mother for putting the questions respecting polygamy and plural wives, as we felt we ought to do." Even decades later, the topic was very painful to her. I don't know that she had a motive to substantively depart from the truth as to other matters in her life. See here: See here: Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Likely for a variety of reasons. Pretty much. See here: The RLDS/COC folks believe theirs is the legitimate successor to the Church organized by Joseph Smith in 1830. The Latter-day Saints believe that the Church instituted in 1830 has no "successor," and instead has continued to exist from 1830 to today. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. I wonder if Emma's beliefs would align with those of the CoC, particularly as pertaining to the Book of Mormon. Well, she rejected plural marriage. And she had substantial disagreements with Brigham Young. And she was geographically isolated from the Church led by Brigham Young. As much as we can trust any historical figure. We work with the evidence at hand, and make reasoned conclusions based thereon. I think Emma's utter repudiation/denial of plural marriage originating with Joseph taints her credibility as a historical source on that specific issue, since the evidence of Joseph's involvement in polygamy is pretty much beyond dispute. However, pretty much everything else about which she spoke are matters of opinion or belief or both, or matters about which she was a percipient witness. For example, her statements about the Plates are corroborated by other witnesses. Do you "trust Emma" on that point? If not, why not? Looking at the totality of her life, would you characterize Emma as a good person? An honest one? For the same reason we trust, or do not trust, everyone who has ever lived since Jesus Christ: Because she was human, and hence had foibles and weaknesses and errors, just like all of us, but she also had strengths and virtues and was a percipient witness to many things. Again, I am curious as to your perspective on the Plates. Do you "trust her" insofar as her statements about the Plates are corroborated by the other witnesses? I appreciate your input. Thanks, -Smac

So what do they conclude she saw these teachings as since it seems at times she rejected them as revelation? I'm not sure they reach a conclusion one way or another (BTW, what you are quoting is not me, but the Grok summary). The "at times" seems to be an important part of your question. I think Emma went through terrible trials throughout much of her life. I surmise that by 1879, her hostility against polygamy had come to affect her perspective on it. Her 1879 statement about Joseph's polygamy ("At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent."), must be construed in light of the clear and extensive evidence we now have that Joseph did introduce the concept and practice of plural marriage. Emma's 1879 statement is dated, but not the statement within it which she attributes to Joseph ("At one time..."). Per the Hales: Assuming there is some accuracy to Emma's statement, we don't know when in the above timeline it happened. The reference to John C. Bennett is interesting. The Hales wrote a good article, "John C. Bennett's Spiritual Wifery." A summary: I have wondered, but not really investigated, whether by 1879 Emma, who despised even the religious practice of plural marriage introduced by Joseph Smith, had come to conflate it with the illicit "spiritual wifery" depredations arising from John C. Bennett's behaviors. A few thoughts along these lines: Strong negative association with the term: “Spiritual wifery” / “spiritual wife system” was publicly and scandalously tied to Bennett’s conduct in 1842. Joseph, Hyrum, Emma (in Relief Society), and other leaders repeatedly denounced it. The phrase carried a strong connotation of unauthorized, illicit sexual behavior. Emma’s deep and longstanding opposition: Emma opposed plural marriage during Joseph’s lifetime (with only brief, reluctant periods of acquiescence) and rejected it completely afterward. She taught her children that Joseph never practiced or taught it and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young and others. Over 35 years, her rejection hardened into a clear, consistent public position. Time and memory: The 1879 interview occurred 35+ years after the events. Memory can be reconstructive. It is not uncommon for people to simplify or merge related but distinct painful experiences over decades, especially when they already view both negatively. Rhetorical and religious incentives: Emma was aligned with the Reorganized Church tradition, which rejected polygamy and taught that it originated after Joseph’s death. Framing any form of “spiritual” or plural marriage as something Joseph himself rejected (and associating it with the disreputable Bennett episode) fit the narrative she and her sons maintained. Language in the 1879 statement itself: Emma does not carefully distinguish categories. She groups “polygamy,” “spiritual wives,” and “spiritual marriages/wifery” together and issues a blanket denial that Joseph taught or practiced any of it. This is consistent with conflation. Thanks, -Smac

Um, she did: "Sister Emma, in speaking of the condition of the Church after her husband’s death, said to me, “I was threatened by Brigham Young because I opposed and denounced his measures and would not go west with them. At that time, they did not know where they were going themselves, but he told me that he would yet bring me prostrate to his feet.” (Early History of the Reorganization, Apostle Edmund C. Briggs, pp. 88, 93-95) She says she opposed and denounced Brigham Young, Thank you for your response. She says she "opposed and denounced" Brigham Young about "his measures." To what do you think she was referring here? I can understand and appreciate that perspective, even if I do not fully share it. From later on in the interview: Her beef with Brigham Young may have influenced her perspective about whether "the Church (that went west)," the group led by the individual with whom she had substantial personal, financial and religious disagreements, amounted to the "Mormonism" of which she spoke in 1879. For herself, she separated the two. For myself, I think the Church as now constituted and led by Pres. Oaks is the same one that Joseph founded in 1830. My assessment is that the “measures” Emma most consistently opposed were plural marriage (polygamy) and, secondarily, Brigham Young’s leadership claims and the associated financial/property decisions after Joseph’s death. Her perspective on Brigham became strongly negative. From FAIR: Brigham and Emma did not agree on the disposition of Joseph's estate Furthermore, Brigham and Emma did not agree on the disposition of Joseph's estate. Illinois law at the time held that no church could hold more than ten acres of property, and so much of the church's properties were held in Joseph's name. At the same time, much of the Church's debt was held by Joseph as a private citizen—thus, Emma was liable for Joseph/the Church's debts, but had a less clear claim on the Church's lands that Joseph held as Trustee-in-Trust. Emma's repudiation/denial of Joseph's plural marriages contravene the great weight of historical evidence. Brigham Young's accusation of poisoning was, as Bro. Bushman put it, "unfounded." Both Emma and Brigham did tremendous things to advance the Lord's work. And both of them had substantial flaws in their behavior and temperament as well. Hence the value of the Atonement in their - and our - lives. Also, what are your thoughts about this statement attributed to Emma? The question, I suppose, is what she thought of to be "Mormonism" at this point in time. She was 74 when she was interviewed by her son, and had suffered challenges and tribulations far worse than anything most of us will encounter. Also, her inconsistent approach to polygamy was well-known. Her conflict about it was deep-seated. From FAIR: Emma did teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young Emma never denied Joseph's prophetic calling; she did, however, teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young. Torn between two certitudes—her conviction of Joseph's prophetic calling, and her hatred of plural marriage—Emma had difficult choices to make for which we ought not to judge her. But, the critics ought to let all of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later: Allen J. Stout: "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness" Emma Smith: "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report: Emma Smith: "I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting" Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma: When I consider Emma's statements about polygamy, Brigham Young, the "Church" (the one that went West), and the translation of the Book of Mormon, and so on, I consider it in the context of her life and circumstances, her perspective and knowledge and information, and her foibles and weaknesses, and also in light of Mormon 9:31 ("Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."). I wonder if the "new-fangled notion" was plural marriage, and if plural marriage had become, for her, a dealbreaker in terms of the authority of the Church led west by Brigham Young. She did that too: "At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise." (1 October 1879 - "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saint's Herald, Vol. 26, No 19 p. 289.) Again, Emma's approach to polygamy was inconsistent, with her acknowledging and accepting it at times and denouncing and attempting to thwart it at others. From the above link: "Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that 'from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: "Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel."'" "Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. 'What I said I have got [to] repent of,' lamented Emma. 'The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.'" "At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise." What are we to make of the inconsistency? For me, I think claiming that Emma "flatly denied plural marriage" is a half-truth that needs context and clarification. Well, yes. Her sons reported that statement in 1879. We have other historical sources indicating that she had at times accepted the principle of plural marriage ("The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."). So did Emma accept the principle of plural marriage or not? A "flat" answer either way does not seem to work. No. But then, they also did not include the "super relevant quotes" above (e.g., "'The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.'"). The YouTube video was not, I think, intended to be an exhaustive analysis of Emma's particularized statements about any given topic, but rather an assessment of her life overall. Indeed, I think Don Bradley was speaking against the idea of using Emma "a premise in arguments about polygamy, succession, or Church history," but rather treating her "as a full person." Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts. -Smac

This came out two weeks ago: Very much worth a watch, though it's long (1 hr 45 min). For those not so inclined, here is a Grok summary: At about 1:21 Don addresses situations in which some critics have "tried to use Emma," or "co-opt{ing} her" as being on their "side." A Grok summary of that bit: I appreciate this effort to bring Emma into discussion, into being the topic of discussions. Not just in relation to Joseph, but in her own right. Any thoughts about Don's points? What is your overall assessment of Emma? What did she leave behind that has value to you? Thanks, -Smac

This thread having started a week ago, and Pyreaux having responded that same day, I am wondering if you are intending to participate in the threads you start. Any input? Thanks, _Smac

What are your thoughts about these changes? Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Let's take a look. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify? I assume you are referring to then-Elder Kimball's address starting on page 32. Am I correct about that? Here is the text of his address: A Grok summary: I also asked Grok: "What did Elder Kimball have to say about 'race' or 'skin' or 'blood' in this talk?" The response: The Church has clearly distanced itself from the idea that skin color is a sign of divine favor or disfavor. In 1981 the Church changed the Book of Mormon wording in 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” (restoring a change Joseph Smith had made in the 1840 edition). This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original. The 2013 Gospel Topics essay “Race and the Priesthood” explicitly disavows past theories that black skin (or any skin color) is a curse or a mark of unrighteousness. It states that Church leaders today “unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” Current teaching materials and manuals almost never quote or reference Kimball’s 1960 skin-color remarks. Most active members who are aware of the talk therefore treat Kimball’s comments as a product of his time and of the then-common interpretation of the Book of Mormon text, not as binding doctrine. Elder (and, later, President) Kimball was an admirable man. He was, to some extent, fettered to some extent by the prevailing notions of the day. Nevertheless, he sought and received the 1978 revelation ending the priesthood/temple restriction for Black members, and that he spent decades advocating for Native American education and advancement. Consequently, I separate his 1960 racial assumptions from what I see as his overall ministry of inclusion. Your post starts with "No questions herein, just observations." Are you interested in having a discussion about these matters? Thanks, -Smac

BCC post about this case (Sam Brunson) : Good summary, this. This is a good example of legal concepts that depart from "common sense," but are nonetheless sensible in their own sphere. This is quite right. And this point of law has nothing to do with the Church being a religious organization. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for sharing this. I just saw a news item about it. For those not interested in reading the entire opinion, here's a Grok summary: Still a terrible story for the victim. I cannot imagine what she has gone through. This appears to end a long and sad legal dispute. Thanks, -Smac

Legendary LDS writer and advocate Carol Lynn Pearson dies, leaves a final poem to her fans My condolences to her family. She left quite a legacy. Thanks, -Smac

Looks like the Church can continue its suit against the insurance companies: Paywall after that. The 10th Circuit decision is here. A Grok summary: This suit does not impact my assessment of the Church or arguments for or against it. This is just a straightforward contractual dispute. Thanks, -Smac

I hear the distinction you are drawing between arguing and engaging. In my experience, a real argument is a form of engagement — it’s the exchange of ideas, evidence, and reasoning, especially when people start from different premises. I’ve been on this board for 22 years. My usual approach is to listen carefully to what someone has actually said, respond to the specific points raised, explain where and why I disagree, and try to keep the discussion grounded in evidence and reasoning rather than talking points. When I push back, it’s almost always because I’m testing an idea, clarifying a distinction, or trying to separate facts from assumptions. This board is peopled by people with strongly-held positions on some topics, so there is little chance of reaching consensus. I am nevertheless interested in listening to these folks, as I want to test my own perspective. As Joseph Smith put it: "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." If something I’ve written has come across as shallow or purely oppositional, I’m open to hearing which part felt that way. I’m generally more interested in understanding the strongest version of a position than in scoring points. Thanks, -Smac

Not "unquestioning." I do, after all, regularly post topics here which I know will elicit responses from people whose perspective varies from my own. If I wanted to avoid questions, I would not do that. Also, "outrage porn" is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing. I think most of what I link to is not remotely that sort of thing. Some articles are, and yet I post them anyway because, in party, I want them to be critiqued. Thanks, -Smac

You just assume that is what transgender people are doing. I am not. Some members of the LGBT community are engaging in sexualizing/grooming behaviors, as are some members of the "straight" community. I think plenty of other people in the LGBT community are, like I am, repulsed by these behaviors. In the general sense, yes. I am glad we agree on that. I have never made any such categorical claim. Wishful thinking. I think it's happening, and will happen more in the future. No, you have not. You have produced panic pieces written by propagandists with only a vague understanding of the actual data. I think the Cass Report is not accurately described as a "panic piece." Same goes for Dr. Paul McHugh's 2019 Amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the NY Times article about Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy and her decision, on for political reasons, to not publish "a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs." And this October 2022 Reuters article, "Youth In Transition," which included Parts 1 through 4 ("A Dearth of Science," "The Social Element," "Lost in Limbo" and "The Matter of Regret"). And this 2026 story, "Cairns Clinic Scandal: Urgent Call to Halt Child Transition": More here: And this 2023 article in the British Medical Journal, "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement," which includes this intro: And this: Joshua P. Cohen, Europe and U.S. Diverge Sharply on Treatment of Gender Incongruence in Minors, Forbes (updated Dec. 2, 2023). And this: Azeen Ghorayshi, Youth Gender Medications Limited in England, Part of Big Shift in Europe, N.Y. Times (Apr. 9, 2024) And this: Hannah Barnes, Why Disturbing Leaks from US Gender Group WPATH Ring Alarm Bells in the NHS, Guardian (Mar. 9, 2024) And this: Azeen Ghorayshi, Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2024) More: I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’ The Responsibility to Inform The pullback from youth gender transition has begun A Slow Trek Back to Truth? Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex The Cass Report Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ It is unfortunate that so much reporting is affected by political slants, but the foregoing articles include a lot of citations to substantive clinical data, studies, etc. Which is why we have to stop all those Jews who are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christian babies in their satanic and depraved “religious” festivals. I think the sexualization/grooming behaviors I have been referencing are not at all comparable to blood libels. June 2023 NY Post Article (no link b/c the photos are NSFW) : This Pride month, fellow gays, keep your kinks at home — and away from kids June 2023 CBS Austin: Video of man twerking while children watch at Minneapolis Pride goes viral April 2023: Florida ‘Pride’ Parade Canceled After Law Against Exposing Kids to Sexually Explicit Events June 2023 Newsweek: Nudity at Seattle Pride Sparks Outrage: ‘Why Were They Not Arrested?’ Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ See above. Thanks, -Smac