malkie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 7:50 pm
Based on MG's answers/non-answers to fairly direct questions:
- Given{MG's] extensive use of conjecture and suppositions - in other words, non-factuals, or "hypotheticals" - is it OK for other people, including me, to also use them? Or do you still hold that as a valid criticism?
No, it is not valid to criticise someone for using hypotheticals. In fact, but sides of the critic/defender line use them. They are an almost indispensable part of many fruitful discussions, often teasing out the details of one side's position, by isolation parts of an argument, or by forcing the consideration of alternatives and consequences. For example: "If a creator-god exits ...", or "If you study the life of Jesus ...", or If 6 Was 9. Note: some would argue that the contrafactual in this last example demands use of the subjunctive. If this describes you, feel free to start another thread 
- Could Joseph not have been sealed to Emma before he took and was sealed to plural "wives"?
I've seen nothing to suggest that it would not have been possible for Joseph to choose to be sealed to Emma (whom he put first in many other situations)
- Can you say clearly what Joseph and Fanny were doing in the barn that caused Oliver to talk about the incident as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair"?
All of the evidence points to Joseph having been caught 𝙞𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚 with Fanny - that is, in the act of sexual intercourse.
- Do you know whether the late sealing to Emma (after 20+ plural "wives") was Joseph's idea, or that of Emma?
In spite of MG suggesting that it was because Emma was upset, there appears to be no actual evidence of that being the reason. Since Joseph forced Emma to comply with other demands related to polygamy, it's reasonable to assume that this was his decision, and not hers. I'm not sure (correct me if there is actual evidence) that Emma knew about the first such sealings, and so could not have deliberately delayed her sealing to Joseph to avoid being first, any more than she could have insisted on being first.
- Do "She would likely have refused." and "Without a doubt." have the same meaning, so that you do not have to choose one or the other?
Are you kidding? "? "She would likely have refused." means that there is a doubt.
- Was Joseph guilty, under the civil law, of fornication/adultery with his plural "wives"?
Since it has been agreed that Joseph had a sexual relationship with at least some of his plural "wives", and that polygamy was illegal in the jurisdiction(s) in which the "marriages" took place, then it follows that Joseph was guilty, under the civil law, of fornication/adultery with his plural "wives".
- Do you think that how her sealing to Joseph affected Helen's youth is justified by [MG's] description of her later life as "full"?
Regardless of how full a life Helen eventually had, her youth was clearly devastated by her sealing to Joseph. That the sealing took place without her fully-informed consent is also clearly abusive.
- Do you know of any other occasion on which a Mormon prophet has promised someone "your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred"?
No.
- Look out!! Hypothetical ahead!! Is that the kind of promise a true prophet is entitled to make, "this step" being entering into celestial marriage with the prophet?
I have to say that, for [malkie], it all seems rather self serving, and the promise seems rather broad.
This kind of promise appears to have been made only to persuade a girl/woman to submit to plural "marriage" to Joseph Smith - and perhaps only in the case of Helen Mar Kimball.
Given that it violated Helen's free will, and forced her to sacrifice herself to Joseph's desires, it does not appear to be the kind of promise a true prophet is entitled to make.
Overall as I look at your response it becomes rather obvious that the risks of conflating divine mandate with personal desire can lead to outcomes that are other than what might expect/hope them to be. Agency, consent, and prophetic authority were in their infancy/adolescent stage in the beginnings of the restoration. As time went on, and as I've said at other times, evolution seems to play a part in almost every aspect of what occurs in the world. Including human development and progress. Including what happens through the revelatory processes and the 'moving parts' that are whirling and turning around as time moves on and lessons are learned.
With Helen Mar Kimball agency was compromised. What we would not call 'informed consent' was not a thing in the way that it is now. Joseph and others viewed the promised 'spiritual blessings' as trumping any 'temporal' inconvenience or hardship. This seemed to happen over and over again. Secrets were kept in order to maintain what was thought to be the command of God while at the same time technically obeying the current laws of the land.
As time moved along it became rather obvious that there were 'theological tensions' between what the scriptures seemed to teach and what was actually being done/practiced 'on the ground', so to speak. Changes were made in order to come into alignment to the theological and cultural influences that the leaders/members became more 'aware' of and then were able to clearly see where they may have strayed on one point or another even though the basic principles (teach them correct principles) may have been valid or influenced/revealed from God.
Today as we look back, we can see some of the imperfect implementation of principles and divine knowledge that were revealed to the early Saints. They, again, were in their infancy/adolescent phase of church/gospel/theological development. We have continued to receive further light and knowledge and now have a better understanding of the interplay between agency, transparency, accountability, and how to 'hear' the influence/voice of the Holy Ghost. The fact that nowadays there is consensus and/or common consent among General Authorities before anything is pronounced as doctrinal change is significant. We still have hiccups such as the unfortunate confusion that resulted a few years ago with the whole thing with gay parents and their children. Even then, I'm sure lessons were learned at the highest levels in regard to how to listen to and hear God's word relative to hearing one's 'own voice' or the 'community voice'.
Thanks for providing this post. You put some time and thought into it, and it caused me to do a bit more introspection on some of these things that straddle the line between black and white positive knowledge.
Regards,
MG
