Another Child That Joseph Smith Didn'T Father.

[katherine the great]

IIRC Ugo Perego's work which is the most extensively done for a genetic connection to Joseph, has yielded no other descendants of Joseph other than that from him and Emma (thus far). He has ruled out many thought to have previously been from Joseph. Here is a wonderful site about DNA and Joseph (it is Ugo's site)

Interesting papers! Thanks for posting that. The paper on DNA analysis from an alleged Mountain Meadow's survivor was fascinating too!

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

We also run into the fact that both JS and the women were fertile. One would begin to suspect that there would be at least one child of Joseph that wasn't also Emma's.

[Bsix]

To think these were just spiritual marriages that would involve no sexual relations until their reunion in the spirit world, is a nice assumption I suppose, but I think the most reasonable conclusion is quite different.

This goes to the heart of the antiMormon innuendo logic. If Joseph was eternally sealed to a woman who was mortally married to someone else...it must be a "reasonable conclusion" that sexual relations were involved - without a shred of proof.

Many antiMormon propagandists, having no firm proof, rely on frontier rumors, second-hand claims, or phyical characteristiss to make unsubstantiated claims.

Six

[ERayR]

Yes but they also have a "success" rate (and the pill is highly successful if used properly.)

I must be too subtle? Abstinence as in non-consumated marriages. Sorry.

[Glenn101]

Just so I'm clear, is it supposed to be more damaging to Joseph Smith to argue that he did consummate some of his polygamous marriages, or that he didn't? Because as far as I can tell, the wives themselves and 19th century LDS in general were pretty insistent that he had.

But now I'm told that the idea that Joseph might have actually treated his polygamous marriages as marriages in the same way Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant did is an "antiMormon" proposition, even though the Book of Mormon gives "raising up seed" as the only reason God would command polygamy.

The Gospel might be simply wonderful and wonderfully simple, but sometimes apologetics can be downright confusing!

cinepro, aren't you taking a specific directive and applying it in a general manner? The Lord did not tell the Nephites that raising up seed was the only reason He would ever authorize polygamy. When you look at the Old Testament, polygamy was authorized under the law of Moses and in some times actually commanded, at a time when the Israelites were a numerous people.

And then, there is this bit when the prophet Nathan was delivering a message to King David after the murder of Uriah the Hittite:

"2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Here the Lord is on record as actually giving David several wives that Saul had left widowed. That is not apologetics, it is history.

Glenn

[Loran Blood]

Just how many children did this man not father? I've never heard of so many children not belonging to one man...!

Don

Apparently, I believe, 9, as of this posting, all of which can be associated with Emma Smith.

[Loran Blood]

Such a scenario is certainly consistent with an organized plot to discredit the prophet, as believed by some.

All one has to do is get a group of women who agree and have a motive.

Ahh...the "Anita Hill Gambit" writ large across the 19th century sky. Given much of the other stuff that could be found in print at the time regarding Joseph and the LDS community, this is not anything less than plausible, it would seem to me.

[cinepro]

cinepro, aren't you taking a specific directive and applying it in a general manner? The Lord did not tell the Nephites that raising up seed was the only reason He would ever authorize polygamy. When you look at the Old Testament, polygamy was authorized under the law of Moses and in some times actually commanded, at a time when the Israelites were a numerous people.

I guess each of us will have to decide how Old Testament polygamy fits into the Lord's plan according to the Book of Mormon, and what the "if...otherwise" clause in verse 30 means as far as the different reasons God might have for commanding polygamy.

Jacob 2

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Edited July 14, 2011 by cinepro

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ahh...the "Anita Hill Gambit" writ large across the 19th century sky. Given much of the other stuff that could be found in print at the time regarding Joseph and the LDS community, this is not anything less than plausible, it would seem to me.

Great wit. "The Anita Hill Gambit. Brilliant.

[Loran Blood]

Great wit. "The Anita Hill Gambit. Brilliant.

Well, its been used before, on other occasions, on another board, to great effect.

[Mortal Man]

Just how many children did this man not father? I've never heard of so many children not belonging to one man...!

Don, do you agree with Brian that Joseph had "two or perhaps three children" with other women?

[Storm Rider]

Don, do you agree with Brian that Joseph had "two or perhaps three children" with other women?

You did not ask me, but my nose is twitching. No, I don't believe it.

[Xander]

According to anti-Mormons Richard L. Anderson and Scott Faulring:

"There is a logical chasm between single and married sealings, and, for the latter, there is no responsible report of sexual intercourse except for Sylvia Sessions Lyon. In 1915, her daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church" (quoted on p. 183). The Fisher document is somewhat supported by Angus Cannon's recollection of hearing that Patty Sessions said the Prophet fathered Sylvia's child (see p. 637). Compton acknowledges Sylvia may have meant that her 1844 child was conceived during Windsor's four years out of the church, from 1842 to 1846 (see p. 183). Though he thinks it "unlikely" that Sylvia denied her husband cohabitation during this period (p. 183), that is a serious possibility. This is implied in the family tradition of her daughter some three decades later. Reliable evidence indicates that Joseph Smith fathered some children through his plural marriages with single women..."

Why is it difficult to find direct evidence for Joseph Smith's other children? This is easily explained by the fact that he tried to keep polygamy a secret. He can't really expect to hide polygamy while openly telling folks he is the father of children born from multiple wives. The secrecy was so important that at least one child was unaware of who her own father was, until her mother died. So this apologetic fails. The one that says there are no other children that we know of, therefore he didn't have sexual relations with other women. The best evidence that he had sex or intended to have sex with at least some of them is probably the fact that he felt the need to marry them.

Joseph Smith's wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins once gave a speech at BYU in 1905. She bore her testimony that she knew Joseph Smith fathered other children, and that she was aware of at least three who went by different names. She was in a position to know such information, and she had no reason to make this stuff up, especially as a guest speaker for the Church.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Xander

[Storm Rider]

According to anti-Mormons Richard L. Anderson and Scott Faulring:

"There is a logical chasm between single and married sealings, and, for the latter, there is no responsible report of sexual intercourse except for Sylvia Sessions Lyon. In 1915, her daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church" (quoted on p. 183). The Fisher document is somewhat supported by Angus Cannon's recollection of hearing that Patty Sessions said the Prophet fathered Sylvia's child (see p. 637). Compton acknowledges Sylvia may have meant that her 1844 child was conceived during Windsor's four years out of the church, from 1842 to 1846 (see p. 183). Though he thinks it "unlikely" that Sylvia denied her husband cohabitation during this period (p. 183), that is a serious possibility. This is implied in the family tradition of her daughter some three decades later. Reliable evidence indicates that Joseph Smith fathered some children through his plural marriages with single women..."

Why is it difficult to find direct evidence for Joseph Smith's other children? This is easily explained by the fact that he tried to keep polygamy a secret. He can't really expect to hide polygamy while openly telling folks he is the father of children born from multiple wives. The secrecy was so important that at least one child was unaware of who her own father was, until her mother died. So this apologetic fails. The one that says there are no other children that we know of, therefore he didn't have sexual relations with other women. The best evidence that he had sex or intended to have sex with at least some of them is probably the fact that he felt the need to marry them.

Joseph Smith's wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins once gave a speech at BYU in 1905. She bore her testimony that she knew Joseph Smith fathered other children, and that she was aware of at least three who went by different names. She was in a position to know such information, and she had no reason to make this stuff up, especially as a guest speaker for the Church.

I apologize but just because ME Rollings believed it does not make it so. To the best of her knowledge she may have thought Joseph fathered at least three other children, but unless she fathered all three, it would be impossible for her to speak from actual knowledge.

Second, the LDS Church does not deny that Joseph had sexual relations with some of those women sealed to him. To the contrary, it is apparent that he did. It is also apparent that he did not have sexual relations with many of those sealed to him. The teaching of being sealed, a plural wife, during the time of Joseph was more focused on the eternities than this mortal life. One evidence of this the number of men that were sealed to Joseph and to other men. It was the family unit that was of prime importance.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith's wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins once gave a speech at BYU in 1905. She bore her testimony that she knew Joseph Smith fathered other children....

Uh huh.

Golly, they could have put her on Jerry Springer!

Clearly she must have had DNA evidence.....

But what if he had? No evidence that he did but WHAT IF??

It would make absolutely NO difference to me whatsoever. When science combines a time machine with a mind reading machine and we can go back and discover precisely what happened in each bedroom and what the thoughts and motivations were, someone MIGHT have a case.

But suppose we had such a machine?

If Einstein were a philanderer would that make a difference to the theory of relativity? For me, that is what you would have to show- that the Theory of Relativity would be tainted by Einstein's proven philandering.

Good luck on that one. Ultimately, the revelations stand on their own merit regardless of the source.

[Deborah]

Ultimately, the revelations stand on their own merit regardless of the source.

Which is precisely why I don't think Joseph Smith was the scoundrel many portray him to be. In order to produce some of these magnificent and beautiful works there had to be so much more to the man than the critics like to portray.

[Xander]

Which is precisely why I don't think Joseph Smith was the scoundrel many portray him to be. In order to produce some of these magnificent and beautiful works there had to be so much more to the man than the critics like to portray.

That's a non sequitur. Scoundrels are perfectly capable of producing writings that some might describe as "beautiful." Others might call it incoherent. But if God can condone the slaughter of children, and still be considered benevolent and just, then why is it hard to believe immoral individuals can produce inspirational literature? Not saying Smith was immoral or a scoundrel, only that your logic doesn't follow.

[mfbukowski]

That's a non sequitur. Scoundrels are perfectly capable of producing writings that some might describe as "beautiful." Others might call it incoherent. But if God can condone the slaughter of children, and still be considered benevolent and just, then why is it hard to believe immoral individuals can produce inspirational literature? Not saying Smith was immoral or a scoundrel, only that your logic doesn't follow.

Logic?

Follow your own. Your points don't even follow from your premises here.

[mfbukowski]

Which is precisely why I don't think Joseph Smith was the scoundrel many portray him to be. In order to produce some of these magnificent and beautiful works there had to be so much more to the man than the critics like to portray.

[Xander]

Uh huh.

Golly, they could have put her on Jerry Springer!

Clearly she must have had DNA evidence.....

But what if he had? No evidence that he did but WHAT IF??

It would make absolutely NO difference to me whatsoever.

Then why are you bending over backwards trying to discredit Joseph Smith's wife? You say that you refuse to believe it unless we have a time machine to go back and employ some kind of mind-reading mechanism or DNA test, but do you hold to that standard for other pieces of historical evidences used by apologists? The fact is the testimony of Joseph Smith's wife counts as reliable historical evidence whether you like it or not. No one said it was "scientific" such as DNA evidence, but it is still evidence, and provides good reason to believe Joseph Smith fathered other children.

You say it doesn't matter to you, but I think it should. It would be troubling to me to think anyone would be OK with this. I am glad to hear Katherine say she would be "deeply disturbed" if she knew this were true. Seriously. Sending men off on missions and then marrying their wives while they were gone... That doesn't trouble in the least bit?

Case in point. Joseph Smith proposed to Zina Huntington while she was engaged to Henry Jacobs. She declined Joseph Smith's proposal and married Henry. But Joseph Smith kept pushing it further, stating that he was commanded by an angel with a flaming sword to engage in polygamy. If true, I'm sure there were a dozen or so widows or elderly women who could have accomodated his desire to avoid a flaming death. But Joseph Smith insisted on marrying the young, beautiful and pregnant (!) Zina, whose husband was subsequently sent on three missions to Chicago, New York and Tennessee. The intention to have a physical relationship is clear. And after Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young sent Henry Jacobs on a mission to England, who wrote back to his wife saying, "...the same affection is there...But I feel alone...I do not Blame Eny person...may the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham...all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph.” How exactly does this jive with the Church's modern stance of family unity?

To think that someone could join the Church, only to have the love of their life lured away from them by two Church Presidents... how sad for young Henry. It is most disturbing to see how numb he has become to this, accepting blindly the claim that this is what God wants and he was meant to suffer as the inferior husband who was always away on missions while other men were playing the role of husband and father in his family.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Xander

[mfbukowski]

Then why are you bending over backwards trying to discredit Joseph Smith's wife? You say that you refuse to believe it unless we have a time machine to go back and employ some kind of mind-reading mechanism or DNA test, but do you hold to that standard for other pieces of historical evidences used by apologists? The fact is the testimony of Joseph Smith's wife counts as reliable historical evidence whether you like it or not. No one said it was "scientific" such as DNA evidence, but it is still evidence, and provides good reason to believe Joseph Smith fathered other children.

You say it doesn't matter to you, but I think it should. It would be troubling to me to think anyone would be OK with this. I am glad to hear Katherine say she would be "deeply disturbed" if she knew this were true. Seriously. Sending men off on missions and then marrying their wives while they were gone... That doesn't trouble in the least bit?

Case in point. Joseph Smith proposed to Zina Huntington while she was engaged to Henry Jacobs. She declined Joseph Smith's proposal and married Henry. But Joseph Smith kept pushing it further, stating that he was commanded by an angel with a flaming sword to engage in polygamy. If true, I'm sure there were a dozen or so widows or elderly women who could have accomodated his desire to avoid a flaming death. But Joseph Smith insisted on marrying the young, beautiful and pregnant (!) Zina, whose husband was subsequently sent on three missions to Chicago, New York and Tennessee. The intention to have a physical relationship is clear. And after Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young sent Henry Jacobs on a mission to England, who wrote back to his wife saying, "...the same affection is there...But I feel alone...I do not Blame Eny person...may the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham...all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph.” How exactly does this jive with the Church's modern stance of family unity?

To think that someone could join the Church, only to have the love of their life lured away from them by two Church Presidents... how sad for young Henry. It is most disturbing to see how numb he has become to this, accepting blindly the claim that this is what God wants and he was meant to suffer as the inferior husband who was always away on missions while other men were playing the role of husband and father in his family.

You are missing the point here.

There are two questions here-

1- Whether or not your evidence is "true" - ie shows historically factual MOTIVATIONS or is hearsay. This kind of evidence would never hold up in a court of law even "proving beyond a reasonable doubt" IF these people could be deposed properly in the first place.

And of course the standard here is much higher- there must be absolute proof that Joseph was a fraud, or you will never convince crazy TBM's like me that it was true.

We have our experiences on one side, and your "evidence" on the other.

2- Let us assume (I do not believe it, but for sake of argument) that Joseph was indeed a fallen prophet.

What can you tell me about the personal character of Mohammad? The person Siddhartha Guatama? The person known as Zoroaster? It is all lost in legend as this already has been.

And what difference would any allegations make to their followers?

Can immoral people write "inspirational literature" to use your phrase? Of course they can! You think of yourself as a "critical thinker" but cannot get past the idea that ideas are by their very nature all ambiguous and vague poems, and mirror only what we interpret them as meaning in our lives. You need a little

in your life.

[Nathair/|\]

You are missing the point here.

There are two questions here-

1- Whether or not your evidence is "true" - ie shows historically factual MOTIVATIONS or is hearsay. This kind of evidence would never hold up in a court of law even "proving beyond a reasonable doubt" IF these people could be deposed properly in the first place.

And of course the standard here is much higher- there must be absolute proof that Joseph was a fraud, or you will never convince crazy TBM's like me that it was true.

We have our experiences on one side, and your "evidence" on the other.

2- Let us assume (I do not believe it, but for sake of argument) that Joseph was indeed a fallen prophet.

What can you tell me about the personal character of Mohammad? The person Siddhartha Guatama? The person known as Zoroaster? It is all lost in legend as this already has been.

And what difference would any allegations make to their followers?

Can immoral people write "inspirational literature" to use your phrase? Of course they can! You think of yourself as a "critical thinker" but cannot get past the idea that ideas are by their very nature all ambiguous and vague poems, and mirror only what we interpret them as meaning in our lives. You need a little

in your life.

Some of The Great Beast, Aleister Crowley's work is pretty inspirational.

[Deborah]

...is pretty inspirational.

Ok let's separate inspirational from doctrinal. I find the LOTR very inspirational as well but certainly not in a doctrinal sense. The doctrine Joseph taught is very profound and explains the questions I was asking before I joined the church. Such doctrine doesn't come from an ordinary man with so little education without divine input. Of course some don't like the doctrine so they mock the man.

[Deborah]

Not saying Smith was immoral or a scoundrel, only that your logic doesn't follow.

I disagree. I don't think something like sections 121 and 122 come from someone who hasn't truly experienced God, whatever his human flaws may be.

[Xander]

You are missing the point here.

No, you're avoiding the point by trying to derail.

There are two questions here-

1- Whether or not your evidence is "true"

It is true, based on a reasonable induction of the evidence.

This kind of evidence would never hold up in a court of law even "proving beyond a reasonable doubt" IF these people could be deposed properly in the first place.

Unfortunately for you, this doesn't matter. Do you think for a second that any of the LDS truth claims would endure ten seconds in a court of law? You don't seem to understand what hearsay is, and how historians are obligated to use hearsay to interpret the past. It most certainly counts as evidence, but we're not talking about hearsay. Zina Huntington's autobiography provides a first hand account. And Joseph Smith's wife is perhaps the best witness a historian could ever hope to get. If she knew Joseph Smith had sex with other women and that he felt the need to keep it a secret, then who are you to say she is lying? She wasn't attacking her husband when she said this, she was simply stating something she had come to learn as his wife and close associate to those involved in his polygamous circle. You don't get to dismiss her testimony just because you demand "absolute proof."

And of course the standard here is much higher- there must be absolute proof that Joseph was a fraud, or you will never convince crazy TBM's like me that it was true.

This is what you don't get. Your standards are infinitely lower when you begin with wild claims and then demand they be proved incorrect with "absolute proof." Following this train of irrational thought, one can justify believing pretty much anything he or she wants. Hey, the moon is made of cheese. Prove me wrong! Can you do it? Of course not. But this kind of desperate maneuvering is to be expected from those who have no reasonable evidence-based grounds for their beliefs. They're left with attacking the concept of truth since they cannot reconcile their beliefs to fit within that model.

2- Let us assume (I do not believe it, but for sake of argument) that Joseph was indeed a fallen prophet.

I don't begin with that assumption. I let the evidence determine the conclusion. I don't believe he was a fallen prophet, because this presupposes he was ever a prophet to begin with.

What can you tell me about the personal character of Mohammad? The person Siddhartha Guatama? The person known as Zoroaster? It is all lost in legend as this already has been.

So? We know enough about Joseph Smith to know that he told his followers that God wanted him to marry their wives. We know he lied publicly about this. You're not going to be able to sweep this under the rug because you think this wouldn't stand in a court of law. You're wrong about that too, but it is beside the point. Joseph Smith will forever stand in the court of public opinion. If the Church wants people to join the faith, they shoudl expect people to investigate the character of the person responsible for the "restoration." And I think it is safe to say that no one would ever join the Church if they knew these things about Joseph Smith beforehand.

And what difference would any allegations make to their followers?

We're not talking mere allegations. We're talking historical facts. And what it matters to existing followers is beside the point. What matters is how prospective converts interpret this information. I don't think any critic on this forum believes the TBMs on this forum are going to change their minds.

Ok let's separate inspirational from doctrinal. I find the LOTR very inspirational as well but certainly not in a doctrinal sense. The doctrine Joseph taught is very profound and explains the questions I was asking before I joined the church. Such doctrine doesn't come from an ordinary man with so little education without divine input.

Obviously it does. There is no compelling reason to believe Joseph Smith's theological roller coaster was a product of the divine. Joseph Smith was a product of his environment, which was one conducive to "restoration" movements claiming to be the "real" true Church. He provided answers that some people wanted to hear, and I admit I was taken in by those answer too. But in the long run, the whole plan of salvation becomes incomprehensible. His desire to marry multiple women who were already married doesn't reconcile with the whole "family unit" theme that runs so prominently in modern LDS propaganda.

Of course some don't like the doctrine so they mock the man.

Liking the doctrine isn't the issue. Joseph Smith is "mocked" only in the sense that he is held accountable for his action by making his history known, including all the nasty stuff the Church would rather not talk about. You see the critics aren't the ones ignoring context as they are so frequently accused. No apologist has been able to provide enough context to make his actions "OK" in the eyes of those investigating the Church. This is why it is important that they keep this information away from them. So, instead of dealing with the historical facts, they poison the well by calling the messenger a dishonest anti-Mormon and then call all the data presented "anti-Mormonism."

I disagree. I don't think something like sections 121 and 122 come from someone who hasn't truly experienced God, whatever his human flaws may be.

I just read through those sections again. It sounds like something you might expect from someone trapped in a prison, thinking he is a prophet. Hardly divine.