You are correct that work for ancestors was complicated as priesthood heirship was viewed to be imperatively important and not to be left up to the chance that our relatives might merit the fullness of the priesthood.

Further, while Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff (circa 1894), and Thomas S. Monson have distinct conceptions of sealing praxis (and consequent theological ramifications), I’m not sure that it is appropriate to declare the primacy of our modern methods over Joseph’s or Brigham’s in a historical perspective (though for us as members of the modern church, yes) by declaring that later leaders “figured it out.” You are correct however, that what we would conceive as the family tree model has its roots in Woodruff’s declaration in 1894. If this was all that was implied by Fluhman, than chock my comments up to the peril of responding to an incomplete characterization.

John, #7, if you are still out there, I thought Spencer was saying that JS did not ask for Helen. I thought he said the sealing was Heber’s idea, in order to link their families, and so Heber made the offer. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Then maybe we could both be happy if only one or two papers dealt with polemical narratives? What I do want to see more of is a well attended seminar by CES employees where such things are discussed.

I do hope, however, that this kind of approach will find some venue in which it can continue.

What I feel most individuals who struggle with “the facts” need most is not one specific narrative (ie. “what really happened”), but rather context for the events and an alternative world-view that reframes the disconnect between expectations and our best understanding of reality. As Clark mentioned, at that point we are engaging in theology and specifically rejecting/accepting certain propositions about how God interacts with humanity.

For example, Joseph Smith prophesying the success of the Kirtland Safety Society is only a problem if one accepts certain propositions about prophesy, and the problem disintegrates if other propositions are adopted (ie. that God doesn’t know the future acts of free agents perfectly, that all prophesy is conditional based on faithfulness, etc.)

Most presenters, like Steve, were explicit in rejection of the theological framing of the challenges mounted by critics. Steve made the case why the definitions of magic and witchcraft given by Protestants should not be adopted.

In summary, I feel the intended audience (CES employees) were well served by the presentations offered and I am very hopeful we will see more attempts at history and apologetics from this seminar in the future.