Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I wouldn't call them 'miracle stories', just what life is actually like as a member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ.

 

To take your example of "visiting a sick elderly sister on Sunday after church, give her a priesthood blessing and see her immediately improve." That's very rare in my experience. So far no one has died after a blessing from me, so there's that.

Life as a member of the church is a kaleidoscope of sometimes very different experiences.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

There have been many, many responses to Runnells' letter:

• Kevin Christensen's article in Interpreter: Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay
• Kevin Christensen's second article in Interpreter: Image is Everything: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
• FAIR's "Response to 'Letter to a CES Director' and 'Debunking FAIR's Debunking' (Debunking FairMormon)
• Michael Ash's "Bamboozled by the 'CES Letter'"
• Jonathan's Cannon's "One Believer’s Reactions to the CES Letter"
• Daniel Peterson's "Some Reflections On That Letter To a CES Director"
• Anonymous ("Church is True")'s post, "CES Letter"
• Jim Bennett's "A Reply from a Former CES Employee" (as well his many, many articles on Runnell's piece, though I haven't checked to see if they are duplicative of his "Reply")
• Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 1: The Case For The Book Of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells)
• Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 2: The Case For The Book Of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells)
• Jeff Lindsay's "Coping with the 'Big List' of Attacks on the LDS Faith
• Stephen Smoot's "The 'Real Scholars' of Jeremy Runnells"
• Stephen Smoot's "More Blatant Misrepresentations from Jeremy Runnells"
• Stephen Smoot's "Who's the Real Amateur?"
• Brian Hales's "Jeremy Runnells – the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?"

 

Very little of what is in the CES letter is original content by Mr Runnells.  Pretty much anyone who has two or three anti-LDS books could write a similar letter over a weekend.  It was not a great intellectual accomplishment for Mr Runnells to have made that "letter". 

Most issues can be reasonably answers I believe.  Some issues are pretty difficult but so what.  Nobody knows the answers to everything.  In reality, the issues in the CES letter have been responded to for decades in various formats.  The advantage that Runnells has is people have poor attention spans.  They want answers right now.  They don't want to to work for an answer.  Lies spread far faster than truth.  A person can make a false claim in 50 words or less but it might take 500 words or more to adequately address the false claim.  

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, we can survey his conduct, evaluate the extant evidence, and then formulate reasoned conclusions.

I agree.  I don't think I have judged his heart, just his conduct.  The letter strikes me as nothing like an "honest quest."  Instead, the letter comes across as Mr. Runnells pretending (yes, I'm suggesting bad faith here) that there are no substantive responses to his laundry list of cut n' paste complaints.  FAIR.  Jeff Lindsay.  Mormon Interpreter.  FARMS.  BookofMormonCentral.  Dozens (hundreds?) of published books.  Virtually everything Runnells presents has been addressed over and over and over.  It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is manifestly bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to meaningfully interact with them at all.  

That is what Runnells has done, IMO.  So my assessment of his "letter" is there is no good faith here.  The "concerns" and "questions" here are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.  Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.  They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."  His "questions" are, I think, obviously not the product of meaningful and rigorous study, but are instead just a cobbled-together list of complaints and criticisms he found online.  

There is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."  These "questions" and "concerns" are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive.  These "questions" instead disregard such resources, or pretend they don't exist, or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed.

So for me, the letter is a ploy.  It is not presented it good faith.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.  None of these things is present.  The letter is not a genuine effort by the author to procure information from a "CES director."  He could have done that in any number of ways privately.  His intended audience is . . . struggling Latter-day Saints.  The purpose is to tear down faith.  To sow seeds of doubt and discord.  And to make money while doing it.

Those are my conclusions, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe all of this could have been avoided if the CES Director would have kept his word and answered his questions.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The unspoken assumption seems to be that LDS scholarship provides good answers to many if not all of the issues Runnells addresses. Oh, if only that were true.

Who decides that a good answer is?  Does it require everyone to accept the answer to determine it to be good.  If 10 people are given an answer to issue A and say 5 of the 10 agree that the answer adequately addressed issue A, then the answer was a good answer for 5 people.  Does all of the issues raised need to be addressed adequately?  Perhaps some people that is yes but for others the answer is probably no. 

I think most people don't demand answers to everything.  They may however ask that at least attempts are made to address things.  This is where the Church has fallen short.  Ignoring issues do not make them go away.  People will want answers to things so the Church has a choice.  It can address them directly or ignore them and cause people to look for answers elsewhere.  Many sources who may desire to lead people out of the Church.

Edited August 29, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Maybe all of this could have been avoided if the CES Director would have kept his word and answered his questions.

I'm not inclined to take Mr. Runnells's recitation of events as reliable.  Perhaps the CES Director was expecting a genuine and good faith effort by Mr. Runnells to present actual concerns and questions borne of actual study and effort, and instead got a massive, presented-in-bad-faith, cut-and-paste Gish Gallop.

Perhaps the CES Director perceived what Mr. Runnells was angling for, and opted not to fall prey to his shenanigans.

Perhaps the CES Director did attempt to work with Mr. Runnells, and Mr. Runnells did not reciprocate those efforts.

We'll never know, I guess.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Really?  You're going to pretend that the CES letter is not an attempt to denigrate and slander a religious group?

What about the words "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

What about the words "Christ Killer?"

What about the words "Jesus Jammies?"

What about the words "Ritualistic Cannibalism?"

What about "Towelhead" or "Raghead?"

All of these are mere words.  But they intended to denigrate and slander. 

Yes, we are all chuckling along with it.  🤨

Oh.  So denigrations and slanders of a religious minority are okay as long as they are obscure.  Is that how it works?

And Ottley apparently went out of his way to showcase it (bragging about it on Reddit).  What does that indicate?

Thanks,

-Smac

Where did all of this come from?  None of this is in the CES letter.  Asking questions about history and doctrine does not necessary denote intention to denigrate and slander.  

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

 Joseph did marry girls as young as 14...

Yawn.
You "forgot" to mention that he had the permission of both the young woman and her father, who also attended the wedding  FWIW, there was no offspring from this marriage.  One of the kings of England (one of the King Henrys) was born when his mother was that age.

 

.he also married other teenagers and most without Emma's knowledge or consent. 

She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission,  but it later caused dissention between.  It seems that they came to an agreement not to announce his new marriages for the sake of their relationship.

For the sake of a marriage, sometimes it is best to be silent and not to discuss certain  topics.  It is not necessary for her to give permission for each marriage.

I've already stated that it's unfortunate that members read this and then many don't follow up and do their own research once they learn it's the truth.  And, "shock value" is there because it is truly a shock for most members to learn the details regarding how Joseph really lived polygamy.

I have said many times already that it is unfortunate that the antiMormons "forget" to mention context and and certain important details.  They are adept at poisoning minds with their garbage.  But they will be held accountable and I am ok with that.

All I know is that members are still hearing about the CES letter and reading it.  I doubt it's going to go away.  Members are leaving over what they learn from reading the letter too.

What do you believe the solution to that is?

Simple. Do our best to inform with the full truth, and then leave it up to the Lord to take care of the rest.  He is very good at that.

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by cdowis

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Demonized?"  I think not.

But he has been effective in destroying the religioius beliefs of other people.  I will grant him that.

That he has done so by competently and fairly and reasonably addressing controversies in the Church's history and doctrine . . . not so much.

In my view, Runnells is pretty much a yellow journalist.  Unfortunately, yellow journalism, unethical journalism, shallow and largely-ignorant-of-the-subject-matter journalism, can nevertheless have a significant impact on the reading public.

It probably is.  I retract the comparison.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are giving jeremy too much credit.  He hasn't destroyed anyone's religious beliefs. He has just asked some questions.  Most of these questions are straight forward.  I think the destroying of religious beliefs is in part due to the non-answers or worse, the convoluted, twisted logic that passes for apologetics.   I am sure you are going to disagree.  But the proof is in the pudding.  Many people have read the letter and have left.  Reddit is full of testimonials to the CES letter.  This fact cannot be dismissed with a wave of a hand or over the top ranting.

Edited August 29, 2018 by sunstoned

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission.

That’s not true.  There were many that Emma did not know about when they took place.  She did give permission for a few, but your blanket statement above is false.  Joseph was not honest with her about many of them.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

I find the part where he says he won't be reading the Book of Mormon any longer because it "isn't very well written" to be rather amusing. 

I don't usually think of comic book artists as being rigorous textual critics, but maybe this guy is the exception.  

Not only that, but the BofM is written in Early Modern English, containing grammar not used in the 19th century or in our day.  Like the KJV of the Bible it makes for difficult reading.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Not to derail, but I'm not sure how anyone can make that judgment about someone's intentions. In my limited interactions with Jeremy, he has always come across as honest and with good intentions. We may disagree with his conclusions and his publication of the letter, but it's not really fair to judge his heart. 

The road to hell is lined with good intentions, and actions speak louder than words.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think so.  He's not trading on "information."  He's trading on shock value.  Decontextualization.  Sensationalism. 

"He's the instrument?"  Who, then, is the master?  Who is using Runnells as an "instrument?"

"Just one example."  Death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts.  The "Big List" fallacy ("If Only 10% of These Charges Are True...").

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't really get involved in discussions that could hurt someone's faith.  I think it is up to each individual to find out what they believe, what is true and what is false.  But you keep using the"Big List" defense as your only real defense you have offered.  The problem with this is that many of the individual CES points have been discussed in length on this board, like page after page after page type discussions An example would be claims of what the Book of Abraham is that were made by Joseph Smith.  All of the physical and scholarly rebuttal is totally against the idea the Abraham himself wrote the papyrus.  The age of the papyrus don't match neither does any of the content.  Theories put forth by some seem as far fetched as the claims Joseph Smith made.  

My point is, some of the issues in the CES letter have been fleshed out until everyone had their say.  A lot of people can not support the apologists conclusions.  This kind of makes your constant assertion that the CES letter fails because it is just a big list.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Joseph did marry girls as young as 14.

Every time this comes up, I am reminded that my stepmother's first marriage took place at age 14. In the 1940s. In Kansas. Legally, with both her and her parents consent. Of course it was unusual. Marriage at that age has always been unusual, and rightly so.  

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Every time this comes up, I am reminded that my stepmother's first marriage took place at age 14. In the 1940s. In Kansas. Legally, with both her and her parents consent. Of course it was unusual. Marriage at that age has always been unusual, and rightly so.  

The point being made is that the letter does give true information (it’s not filled with lies like some claim).  When church members read this about Joseph along with other information they weren’t aware of, it’s upsetting to many.  That your stepmother got married at 14, is beside the point.  I doubt she was your Dad’s 20th (or more) wife and that he married her secretly without his legal wife’s knowledge.  If Joseph’s legal (and only wife) was only 14 years old, I think it may raise a few eyebrows, but that’s about it.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

The point being made is that the letter does give true information (it’s not filled with lies like some claim).  

It's filled with all sorts of problems.  Inaccuracies.  Distortions.  Exaggerations.  Omissions.  Specious sourcing.  Faulty reasoning.  Loaded questions.  And on and on and on.

I spent some time last night reading Jim Bennett's "A Reply from a Former CES Employee."  Interesting stuff, and quite humorous in places.  It's a massive, 250-page fisking of Runnells's letter.  Long, but definitely worth a read.  

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

When church members read this about Joseph along with other information they weren’t aware of, it’s upsetting to many.  

Yes.  Part of that is our fault ("our" as in "the Church").  The essays were a good start, but I think we can and should do more.

Part of that is the fault of the individual, who relied too much on the three-hour block, and disregarded copious exhortations from leaders of the Church to make gospel study an important part of his/her life.  Having failed to do so, the individual is surprised at information that has been readily available and discussed and analyzed and explained, often for many decades.

Much of this reaction, however, is the intended and calculated result sought by Mr. Runnells.  He's a yellow journalist.  He's trading on shock value.  Decontextualization.  Sensationalism.  So a lot of the "success" Runnells has had in alienating people from their faith is in the packaging.  The slant.  The rhetoric.  The omissions.  The refusal to address the many reasoned and reasonable responses to his "questions, which enables him to pretend that there are no such responses, such that his readers needn't be bothered to look any further than his "letter."  As ALarson put it, the letter becomes, for some, "a one stop reading for many searching for information and answers."  But he's an unreliable narrator.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

That your stepmother got married at 14, is beside the point.  

No, it's not.  Context matters.  Setting aside "shock value" and "sensationalism" and presentism fallacies matters.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I doubt she was your Dad’s 20th (or more) wife and that he married her secretly without his legal wife’s knowledge.  

How do you know that Emma didn't know?

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

If Joseph’s legal (and only wife) was only 14 years old, I think it may raise a few eyebrows, but that’s about it.

So Runnells is trading on ethnocentrism and presentism.  And this improves his argument?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Every time this comes up, I am reminded that my stepmother's first marriage took place at age 14. In the 1940s. In Kansas. Legally, with both her and her parents consent. Of course it was unusual. Marriage at that age has always been unusual, and rightly so.  

There was a debate several years back about whether the Catholic Church was a force for good. One of the charges against them was that they had previously supported slavery. The defense was that they couldn't be on the hook for that view because everyone at the time thought the same. One of the participants, Stephen Fry responded, "Then what are you for?" If those who claim to be the mouthpieces for God cannot be counted on to have moral insights beyond the limits of their own cultural environment, then what indeed are they for? That is one of the problems here - why didn't Joseph Smith have the moral insight that young girls cannot meaningfully consent to marriage, given his prophetic mantel?

And of course that ignores all the other problems with his marriages as well. The lies, going behind his wife's back, and so forth.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Gray

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you know that Emma didn't know?

Do you believe she knew about all of Joseph’s marriages at the time they took place?

How about what he did with the mock weddings for Emma’s benefit with the Partridge sisters.  How honest with Emma was he about his first marriages to them?  Talk about omissions!  

Edited August 29, 2018 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

It seems that they came to an agreement not to announce his new marriages for the sake of their relationship.

CFR. If that's the case, the second marriage ceremonies for the Partridge sisters make no sense. They went through a second ceremony precisely because Emma consented, not knowing that Joseph had already married them (and consummated the marriages). 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe she knew about all of Joseph’s marriages at the time they took place?

How about what he did with the mock weddings for Emma’s benefit with the Lawrence sisters.  How honest with Emma was he about his first marriages to them?  Talk about omissions!  

There's no question that Emma wasn't aware of many (most?) of the marriages. The documentary evidence is pretty clear. 

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Every time this comes up, I am reminded that my stepmother's first marriage took place at age 14. In the 1940s. In Kansas. Legally, with both her and her parents consent. Of course it was unusual. Marriage at that age has always been unusual, and rightly so.  

That's nice (and I hope it was a good marriage as I know many get married young).  But, it's not real relevant to what is being discussed here.  Some have stated that Runnell's claims are not true and when asked which ones  are not true, they cannot come up with anything (other than attacking his conclusions and I agree that many of his conclusions have issues).  The polygamy statement I made was just an example of how the claims are true and members are shocked when they read them, but then don't take the time to do their own research (and simply leave the church.  But that's not because the claim isn't true.  Joseph did marry 14 year old girls (and other teenagers) and he lied to Emma and others in order to enter these secret marriages.  

And, then they also learn he married other men's wives.......

Members are shaken by this and at first many believe they are lies, but then learn it's the truth.  

That's why this letter is effective and is getting information out there to many members who haven't heard these details before (and other details regarding church history, past doctrines taught and so on).  It's pretty much all there in one document.  The church needs to do a better job about getting ahead of that and informing members about these details in a faithful setting.  They're slowly working on it, but members are reading the letter faster than they are moving towards fixing the problem (if it's even fixable).

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Quote

How do you know that Emma didn't know?

Do you believe she knew about all of Joseph’s marriages at the time they took place?

Please don't dodge the question.  How do you know that Emma didn't know?  CFR, if you please.  Chapter and verse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yawn

Sorry, but that's not the reaction of most members when they learn about it.  It might be old news to you, but many members still are not aware of these marriages to young teens.  They are also not aware of the marriages of Joseph's that took place with other men's legal wives.  

And, your claims that Emma knew about all of Joseph's polygamous marriages at the time is flat out untrue.  

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please don't dodge the question.  How do you know that Emma didn't know?  CFR, if you please.  Chapter and verse.

Thanks,

-Smac

In the spring of 1842, Joseph brought up the subject of plural marriage with Emily Partridge, who refused to discuss the matter. Soon after, the sisters were approached by Elizabeth Durfee, whom Joseph frequently employed to convey his proposals to prospective wives:

“Mrs. Durf – came to me one day and said Joseph would like an opportunity to talk with me. I asked her if she knew what he wanted. She said she thought he wanted me for a wife. I was thirely [thoroughly] prepared for almost anything. I was to meet him in the evening at Mr. Kimball’s. (Women’s Exponent, v. 14, August 1, 1885, p. 38)

According to Emily, the Partridge sisters were married to Joseph Smith in March, 1843, and her sister married him a few days later. Eliza wrote,

“I cannot tell all Joseph said, but he said the Lord had commanded [Joseph] to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him and although I had got badly frightened he knew I would yet have him…. Well I was married there and then. Joseph went home his way and I going my way alone. A strange way of getting married wasen’t it?” (Eliza Lyman autobiography, p. 219).

Emily writes in the Historical Record (again, it’s in Google Books, so look it up):

"My sister Eliza and I, having arrived at an age at which we might earn our own living and perhaps contribute something to help our mother and the smaller children, were considering what we had better do, when the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family, and they treated us with great kindness. We had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March, 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph Smith a few days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith. Two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives, provided he would give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself, and to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed. Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma’s presence, she giving her free and full consent thereto. (Historical Record, p. 240)."

Emily affirmed in her Temple Lot case affidavit that she had roomed with Joseph and had carnal intercourse with him the night of their marriage.

According to George D. Smith, “when asked by Temple Lot attorneys in 1892 if her marriage went beyond an ‘eternal sealing’ and involved sexual relations, Emily affirmed that she had ‘slept’ with Joseph after their first marriage on March 4 and ‘roomed’ with him the day of their second marriage, May 11. She was not able to ‘live with him’ after that because of Emma’s close surveillance” (Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 181, citing Reorganized Church v. Church of Christ, questions 310-11, 480-84, 747-62).

Todd Compton (In Sacred Loneliness, 732) cites Emily’s testimony as follows:

Q: Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?
A: Yes sir…

Q: Do you make the declaration that you never slept with him but one night?
A: Yes sir.

Q: And that was the only time and place that you were ever in bed with him?
A: No sir.

This is corroborated by the statement of Benjamin Johnson, who wrote that in April, 1843,

“The Prophet again Came and at my house occupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister [Almera Johnson] that the month previous he had occupied with the Daughter of the Late Bishop Partridge.” (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also “The Origin of Plural Marriage,” Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

The case of 17-year-old Lucy Walker is similar. When Lucy’s mother died, Joseph Smith sent her father, John Walker, on a mission to the eastern states, and Lucy moved into the prophet’s home. Joseph approached Lucy privately, and she consented to marry him:

"The Lawrence girls were married to the prophet, too. … Weddings were not performed publicly in those days. … The Partridge girls were married to him also. …

"It was the 1st day of May, 1843, when I married him [Joseph Smith]. … Elder William Clayton performed the ceremony. Emma Smith was not present, and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all.

"No, sir, she did not know anything about my marriage to her husband. I shall not answer your question as to what room I occupied on the 1st day of May, 1843, after my marriage. I decline to answer whether I occupied the same room with Joseph Smith on the night of the 1st day of May, 1843. I decline to answer whether I ever occupied the same room with Joseph Smith on the night of May 1, or any other night, and there is no law that will compel me to do so, or upholds you in intruding into my affairs. I decline to answer your questions because I consider them insulting; yes, sir, I do." (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant, vs. The Church of Christ at Independence Missouri et al., 373-374.)

It’s clear what happened according to the direct testimony of the women involved (and these are just three of Joseph’s 33 or so wives). In neither case was Emma aware of her husband’s actions,

Edited August 29, 2018 by jkwilliams

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please don't dodge the question.  How do you know that Emma didn't know?  CFR, if you please.  Chapter and verse.

Do you believe she knew about Joseph and Fanny’s marriage beforehand or approved of it?

Do you believe she knew about Joseph’s actual marriages to the Partidge sisters?  If so, then why do you think he had to tell them not to let Emma know about them?  Why did he do fake sealings for Emma’s benefit if she knew about the real ones?

I’m not on my computer but I’ll look up references later when I’m home if you need them.

Edited August 29, 2018 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

Here's the pertinent part of Emily Partridge's testimony in the Temple Lot case:

Quote

750 Q-And you also make the declaration that you roomed with him on the night of the 11th of May 1843? A-No sir I said it was in my mind that that was the day that I was married to him the second time, but when you read his diary I see that I was mistaken and I don’t say that was the date now, although it always run in my mind that that was the time.
751 Q-Well do you make the declaration that you ever roomed with him at any time? A-Yes sir.
752 Q-Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed? A-Yes sir.
753 Q-How many nights? A-One.
754 Q-Only one night? A-Yes sir.
755 Q-Then you only slept with him in the same bed one night? A-Yes sir.
756 Q-Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith? A-Yes sir.
757 Q-How many nights? A-I could not tell you.
758 Q-Do you make the declaration that you never slept with him but one night? A-Yes sir.
759 Q-And that was the only time and place that you ever were in bed with him? A-No sir.
760 Q-Were you in bed with him at any time before that time? A-Before what time?
761 Q-Before you were married? A-No sir, not before I was married to him I never was.
762 Q-Do you mean that you were in bed with him after the 4th of March 1843? A-Yes sir, but that was after I was first married to him.
763 Q-And that was before this revelation on plural marriage was given wasn’t it? A-I supposed it was.

So, she says she had carnal intercourse with Joseph but can't tell how many nights she did. She says she slept with him just once, on the night of the second wedding in May 1843 but that she had been in bed with him after the first wedding. This means Joseph had married her and consummated the marriage 2 months before Emma consented to the marriage. The second ceremony was performed "to save family trouble," meaning that Emma likely would have been very upset had she known Joseph had already married them.