Another Child That Joseph Smith Didn'T Father.

[mfbukowski]

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Why do you mix three or four different people's comments picking and choosing the arguments you feel you can attack, and then not referring to who made the arguments, and ignoring the rest of their comments?

Do you not know how to use the quote function?

[Loran Blood]

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.

The fundamental point really is that if present empirical evidence is to be the standard, then there are no known descendants of Joseph Smith through any of his polygamous marriages, and none through his polyandrous sealings. We have nine thus far, all through Emma, and a number of claimed descendants, such claims dating all the way back to Brodie, that have been discredited by DNA testing.

If and when some critic of the Church actually comes to the table with actual evidence of Joseph's alleged lecherousness, I fear we'll all be feeding the daisies. If he did have relations with his lawfully sealed polygamous wives, there is no problem with this, as plural marriage is a principle of the gospel and, when ordained by the Lord and controlled by priesthood law, justifiable (and no one else's business). Happily, there is not a shred of evidence of the slightest sexual contact with his polyandrous "wives," and I predict, never will be.

All is innuendo, all is assumption, all is bad faith, and all is inference and conjecture based upon that bad faith. Its easy to believe that Joseph was just another David Koresh-like character who took advantage of this authority and position as a religious leader, that can be admitted openly, especially from the outside of the Church looking in. The question is, is that what really happened?

Its quite easy also to pretend to a level of certainty in such matters that is quite beyond the capacity and power of present evidence to provide. LDS history is made up of much such fragmented and ambiguous evidence, and hence, perhaps, the shrill cries of certainty that emanate from so many of its critics who cannot, in fact, make their case with anything but restrained tentativeness, were they so inclined.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

The fact is the testimony of Joseph Smith's wife counts as reliable historical evidence whether you like it or not.

Disagree. Uncorroborated testimony situated in a distant time period counts as historical evidence, to be sure, but whether it is "reliable" or not is a completely different question.

[Xander]

Disagree. Uncorroborated testimony situated in a distant time period counts as historical evidence, to be sure, but whether it is "reliable" or not is a completely different question.

Reliable until you provide a reason to consider her unreliable. She was obviously reliable enough for the Church to invited her to speak on the subject at BYU. The only reason to consider her unreliable, is apologetic necessity, which is all the reason we need to dismiss that argument.

[Xander]

Why do you mix three or four different people's comments picking and choosing the arguments you feel you can attack, and then not referring to who made the arguments, and ignoring the rest of their comments?

Do you not know how to use the quote function?

If you feel there is something I missed, then please feel free to point it out. I don't think you presented any "arguments" per se, but I think I addressed your comments sufficiently, otherwise you would be responding to my argument instead of complaining about such a silly thing as this.

It makes life easier for me, since I'm usually responding to multiple people on multiple threads, usually at the same time.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

The fundamental point really is that if present empirical evidence is to be the standard, then there are no known descendants of Joseph Smith through any of his polygamous marriages, and none through his polyandrous sealings. We have nine thus far, all through Emma, and a number of claimed descendants, such claims dating all the way back to Brodie, that have been discredited by DNA testing.

If and when some critic of the Church actually comes to the table with actual evidence of Joseph's alleged lecherousness, I fear we'll all be feeding the daisies. If he did have relations with his lawfully sealed polygamous wives, there is no problem with this, as plural marriage is a principle of the gospel and, when ordained by the Lord and controlled by priesthood law, justifiable (and no one else's business). Happily, there is not a shred of evidence of the slightest sexual contact with his polyandrous "wives," and I predict, never will be.

All is innuendo, all is assumption, all is bad faith, and all is inference and conjecture based upon that bad faith. Its easy to believe that Joseph was just another David Koresh-like character who took advantage of this authority and position as a religious leader, that can be admitted openly, especially from the outside of the Church looking in. The question is, is that what really happened?

Its quite easy also to pretend to a level of certainty in such matters that is quite beyond the capacity and power of present evidence to provide. LDS history is made up of much such fragmented and ambiguous evidence, and hence, perhaps, the shrill cries of certainty that emanate from so many of its critics who cannot, in fact, make their case with anything but restrained tentativeness, were they so inclined.

As usual, you spend a great deal of effort with hand waving dismissals, but you never engage the evidence that proves you wrong.

[Deborah]

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.

Not true. There have been multiple discussions on these issues right here. The church itself has said that they don't bring a lot of these things up because they are unable to corroborate many of the claims and they won't publish anything officially that can't be supported by other evidence. The so-called questionable issues are still available for you and anyone else to find in what are church related documents, and church scholars have reviewed and discussed these in multiple settings. In any case context in this situation is a little ambiguous since we really don't have all the facts, but as Loran says "Its quite easy also to pretend to a level of certainty in such matters that is quite beyond the capacity and power of present evidence to provide."

But then it really is a matter of interpretation of what is available. LDS are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. We like the doctrine and therefore assume the best of the man who gave it to us; furthermore those who knew him best and remained closest to him described him as a man of greatest character and integrity. Even Emma never denied his prophetic status, though she wrestled with plural marriage the rest of her life.

Those who hate the church will assume the worst on the most minimal of information. And yes it is minimal, based on second and third hand accounts, sporadic documentation and not looking at the big picture of what was going on at the time. You see we do look at context but it's more than just the quote of the day that seems to put the prophet in a bad light.

[cinepro]

furthermore those who knew him best and remained closest to him described him as a man of greatest character and integrity.

I agree that if we don't count the people that left Joseph and the Church because they had doubts about his character and integrity, then we are left with the people who remained with him because they considered him a man of greatest character and integrity.

[Deborah]

I agree that if we don't count the people that left Joseph and the Church because they had doubts about his character and integrity....

Except the question is whether they actually left for those reasons. From what I have read and heard it seems most people left over pride or over disagreement with the prophet on some personal matters. The most faithful were the ones who knew him best and worked closest to him at the end. Even some of those who left came back and asked forgiveness. Quite interesting if he was of the low character some would like to portray him to be.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Deborah

[Xander]

Not true. There have been multiple discussions on these issues right here

That's not what I said.

. The church itself has said that they don't bring a lot of these things up because they are unable to corroborate many of the claims and they won't publish anything officially that can't be supported by other evidence.

CFR that this is what the Church has said. The Church doesn't bring these matters up because they leave prospective converts with negative impressions, and that goes against everything they're trying to do. Period. As has already been demonstrated, there is plenty of evidence to corroborate many of these claims, but the fact is the Church isn't interested in them because they undermine the image they are constantly trying to create for Joseph Smith. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the Church, not the critics, for trying to present an extremely slanted image of the Prophet.

The so-called questionable issues are still available for you and anyone else to find in what are church related documents, and church scholars have reviewed and discussed these in multiple settings.

And in many cases they agree with the critics, which further undermines what you're trying to say. I have demonstrated this already. Richard Lloyd Anderson admitted that there is reliable evidence to conclude he fathered other children, and yet the apologists insist on calling this an "anti-Mormon" claim. Most of what you have in mind are "reviews" of Compton that usually quibble about irrelevant stuff, but give the impression that they're giving another anti-Mormon a thrashing and proving how we're all a bunch of deceptive liars who rely on partial truths to tell lies, etc.

In any case context in this situation is a little ambiguous since we really don't have all the facts, but as Loran says "Its quite easy also to pretend to a level of certainty in such matters that is quite beyond the capacity and power of present evidence to provide."

This is a double-standard and a cop-out simply because we never have "all the facts" regarding anything, but that doesn't stop the Church and its apologists from pushing some oof the most hagiographic renditions of Joseph Smith's history known to man. How much does one need to know before it is acceptable to speak on a historical incident? The only standard applied by the Church is one of image. If it helps the image of their prophet, it is acceptable, but if it throws a shadow on his character, then suddenly it is unacceptable because we don't know "all the facts." If someone somewhere and at some point in time said something good about Joseph Smith, the Church feeds it to the sheep and they eat it up uncritically. For them it must be true because that jives with their predetermined image of the man. I've alread pointed out several examples of this with citations from both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The apologists didn't have any clue about the context of these statements nor were they verified. They simply accepted them uncritically because the end result is to their liking.

But then it really is a matter of interpretation of what is available.

Another cop-out, or else this would also apply to Mormon usage of history. You don't see critics complaining about your "interpretation" of history, but by your logic we very well could since apparently it is all subjective anyway and truth only exists in the minds of those who make it work for them.

LDS are willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, but you do so for no good reason (only apologetic necessity) when the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. Again, what are we talking about here? We're talking about his sexual encounters with other women and his desire to marry those who were already married to other men. He was after the young and the beautiful even if they were married and pregnant, which throws a huge cloud of doubt on any assumption that physical relations were not intended. Loran likes to point to DNA evidence that disproves some allegations, but the fact is I never really believed any of these candidates were fathered by Joseph Smith except for two, and DNA tests have not been performed for those two. The others I never even heard of.

We like the doctrine and therefore assume the best of the man who gave it to us

No, you don't like the doctrine or else you'd still be practicing it. Polygamy was doen away with a long time ago, so how can you say you like the doctrine? I have seen several LDS on this forum express serious concerns about it.

furthermore those who knew him best and remained closest to him described him as a man of greatest character and integrity.

As cinepro said, this is easy to conclude once you've excluded all those who rejected him because of his character.

Even Emma never denied his prophetic status, though she wrestled with plural marriage the rest of her life.

So? She is also the one who called him a coward for fleeing for the Rocky Mountains. Besides, we can hardly use Emma as a credible witness since "we don't know all the facts," right? I mean where is the "absolute proof" that she really believed her husband's doctrine was from God and that he was a genuine prophet?

Those who hate the church will assume the worst on the most minimal of information.

The opposite has been shown to be true. Nobody "hates the Church." The fact is you adore Joseph Smith based on minimal information. Those of us who question his motivations, his character and integrity, are operating from information the Church would rather not disclose or discuss. Every time I have a debate with apologists it seems I'm always given a CFR because what I say and present is complete news to them. This has been a consistent trend for the past five years. So yo have it backwards.

And yes it is minimal, based on second and third hand accounts, sporadic documentation and not looking at the big picture of what was going on at the time. You see we do look at context but it's more than just the quote of the day that seems to put the prophet in a bad light.

We're not talking "sporadic" documentation. You're backing away from specific points and just offering apologetic platitudes. But on specifics, I have demonstrated that everything you believe in these paragraphs, is false. You have it all backwards. The least reliable source for history on Joseph Smith is anything produced by the Church, simply because it will bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the negatives. This is why so many Mormons thought Rough Stone Rolling was anti-Mormon. They were so used to hagiographic versions of Joseph Smith's history that they didn't know how to handle any negative information whatsoever. The Prophet cannot run away from his history, and his exposure will be an ongoing proceess so long as the Church exists. Historians are obligated to deal with his history, and the Church cannot stop them. All it can do is attack them. The Prophet has no one else to blame but himself, along with the Church he created since it is adamant about keeping certain things off the table during missionary discussions. We both know that if every prospective convert knew one or two simple, irrefutable historic truths about Joseph Smith, the Church would be left to procreation as the sole means of membership expansion. No one with this information would ever join the Church. We know this. And the Church knows this, which is why it is so important to poison the well by attacking everyone who would properly teach history in context. Joseph Smith married other women, sometimes when her husband was sent on missions. That alone is enough to cause an investigator to derail. Anyone who has ever served a mission knows the importance of controling the environment and making sure such topics are not discussed.

[Xander]

Except the question is whether they actually left for those reasons.

The same could be said about those who stuck wiith him. Mormonism became a way of life for some of these people. It was their identity, and they simply didn't know how to live any other way. Saying it was all because they loved his marvelous character is just question begging.

From what I have read and heard it seems most people left over pride or over disagreement with the prophet on some personal matters.

That is what you've been told to believe about everyone who left teh faith, but real history reveals a different reality altogether. People left due to legitimate concerns about his doctrines that range from polygamy to polytheism.

The most faithful were the ones who knew him best and worked closest to him at the end

But you don't know that this is true, you merely assume it is. But so what even if it is? The people closest to George Bush are thsoe he appointed in his cabinet. They never had anything bad to say about him either, so I guess that means George Bush was a perfect man.

Even some of those who left came back and asked forgiveness. Quite interesting if he was of the low character some would like to portray him to be.

And others were threatened and attacked for dissenting or rejecting his marriage proposals. But we have to ignore them, right?

[KevinG]

I thought this thread was about DNA evidence that Joseph Smith fathered descendants through women besides Emma. Why is it now a debate over the character and rumored sexual habits and character of Joseph Smith?

When real evidence of descendents of Joseph Smith is presented I will be interested but not shocked either way.

The passion to turn this into a National Enquirer headline says more about the perverse desires of the critics than it does anything about Joseph' calling as a Prophet.

(PS read Rough Stone Rolling and loved it. So did most of the priesthood holders I know. I doubt there was widespread belief that RSR was anti-mormon by anyone who actually read it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by DaddyG

[Deborah]

The passion to turn this into a National Enquirer headline says more about the perverse desires of the critics than it does anything about Joseph' calling as a Prophet.

I agree.

As to the claims that those of us who believe what we've been told to believe, utter nonsense. The problem I see with a lot of the arguments against the prophet and the church are based on the same old stuff that has been around for a couple of hundred years, which is familiar to most of us. However there is a lot of newer information that has come forth and has been discussed in such things as the Joseph Smith Papers documentary, Sperry Symposium, and scholars such as Madsen and Bushman as well as those who do the panels on BYU TV.

Xander said "CFR that this is what the Church has said." This has been thoroughly discussed in the Joseph Smith Papers documentary that has been on every week for a year. The church will not publish anything in the official manuals that cannot be corroborated. Period. They won't print speculation, second hand accounts, unless they can be substantiated, etc. That is why it took so long for the Joseph Smith Manual to be published. There is so little actual documentation of that time that the researchers had to find substantiating evidence for what was published. Journals are only as reliable as the people who write them and if corroborating information can be found it will be published. Everything that is in that manual has been verified as much as can be.

I for one have never argued Joseph didn't father other children. However, I do argue that he wasn't as active sexually as the critics make him out to be, simply because he wouldn't have had time or opportunity to be so. Nor do I believe he had the inclination to do so.

And need I remind people plural marriage is not the doctrine. The doctrine is the New and Everlasting Covenant which includes marriage and which includes only when authorized plural marriage. I don't have a problem with this and because a very good friend was faced with this issue when his wife died very young I have a clear picture of it's on-going practice in certain circumstances.

[ERayR]

And in many cases they agree with the critics, which further undermines what you're trying to say. I have demonstrated this already. Richard Lloyd Anderson admitted that there is reliable evidence to conclude he fathered other children,

And what bearing does this have on his claims to have been visited by God and Jesus Christ? Even if this were true, and the latest scientific examinations seem to cast doubt on those claims, how would him living according to his understanding of the doctrine of plural wives affect his claims of being a prophet?

This is a double-standard and a cop-out simply because we never have "all the facts" regarding anything, but that doesn't stop the Church and its apologists from pushing some oof the most hagiographic renditions of Joseph Smith's history known to man. How much does one need to know before it is acceptable to speak on a historical incident? The only standard applied by the Church is one of image.

This is a double-standard and a cop-out simply because we never have "all the facts" regarding anything, but that doesn't stop the Church and its apologists anti's and other disaffected from pushing some oof the most hagiographic diabolic renditions of Joseph Smith's history known to man. How much does one need to know before it is acceptable to speak on a historical incident? The only standard applied by the Church enemies of the church is one of image.

If it helps the image of their prophet, it is acceptable, but if it throws a shadow on his character, then suddenly it is unacceptable because we don't know "all the facts." If someone somewhere and at some point in time said something good about Joseph Smith, the Church feeds it to the sheep and they eat it up uncritically. For them it must be true because that jives with their predetermined image of the man. I've alread pointed out several examples of this with citations from both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The apologists didn't have any clue about the context of these statements nor were they verified. They simply accepted them uncritically because the end result is to their liking.

If someone somewhere and at some point in time said something good derogitory about Joseph Smith, the Church anti's feeds it to the sheep and they eat it up uncritically.

Another cop-out, or else this would also apply to Mormon usage of history. You don't see critics complaining about your "interpretation" of history, but by your logic we very well could since apparently it is all subjective anyway and truth only exists in the minds of those who make it work for them.

Oh yes we do.

Edited July 17, 2011 by ERayR

[Deborah]

But you don't know that this is true, you merely assume it is.

As a matter of fact we have several statements from people who lived at the time so there is no assumption. It is fact. We have discussed these things several times here. Here are statements by contemporaries: character of Joseph Smith

[juliann]

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."

Historians are obligated to source "hearsay" along with a few other standard methods.... not just use it. Zina's story is far more nuanced than this although it is titillating. I think one should be very careful in using these women's words because then the only obligation is that all of their words must be given consideration. These were faithful and loyal women to the end and that needs to be acknowledged before, during and after a tiny fraction of their words and lives are used to throw the man they revered as prophet under the bus. In other words, no one gets to dismiss her life.

Also, I'm not sure of the relevance of testimonials to the DNA testing. I am not up to speed on the DNA but am I incorrect in assuming that there is a claim of paternity for any testing to be done?

[mfbukowski]

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think this was all that was addressed to me. Unfortunately, since you refuse to use the quote function unless it supports your presentation of the argument, it is a little hard to tell.

I find these argument very confused.

You are essentially saying this:

Premise: By a "reasonable induction of the evidence", Joseph had sex with other men's wives

Conclusion: Mormonism is "false"

You apparently are unaware that there are a few steps missing.

First, your premise about the "facts" is debatable- you of course are aware of that, with people like Brian Hauglid, and others on the scene- mentioned earlier by Mortal Man and conveniently ignored by you- and others, even these folks: http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htm

Second, one cannot prove nor disprove religious beliefs by historical argument. One cannot prove that Jesus was the Christ and was actually resurrected, for example, through historical evidence. In other words, the prophethood of Joseph cannot be proven by nor disproven by historical evidence

Lastly, EVEN GRANTING THE FIRST TWO, which of course I do not, you refuse to address how it is that a philanderer could not possibly have received "true revelation" at any point in his life.

Your arguments are just a hodge-podge of "throwing stuff against the wall" in hopes that it will stick, are not systematic in any way, nor do they show what you think they show.

Edited July 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Bsix]

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....

I'd like to see the source and context for this claim. Sister Mary is certainly entitled to an opinion. However, I don't know if she has direct knowledge of the circumstances. Did she specify which offspring are supposed to be Joseph's? My impression is that the only children claimed to be from Joseph happen to be from presumed polyandrous sealings. (I'm not familiar with any supposed progyny from sealings to single women.)

And...isn't that the object of the DNA testing? And to date, the DNA evidence appears to be debunking all of the old claims.

Six

[Bsix]

I asked for a reference on the following claim:

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.

No reference has been provided...so I went out an found what I believe to be the talk.

They can be found here: Remarks by Mary Elizabeth Rollins

I have to admit that the basis for her claim is sincere...but founded upon anonymous hearsay. She declares to know children of Joseph Smith because these un-named people claimed to be his offspring.

Isn't this the reason for the DNA testing in the first place? There are all sorts of claims around supposed children of Joseph Smith...but no actual proof.

The identity of the presumed wives of Joseph Smith are pretty well scoped out. The known children of these women are known and documented...even if they have other names. Thus, DNA...not hearsay...seems to be the most reliable way of determining any relationship to Joseph Smith Jr.

For me, the citation of Rollins supports my premise that critics of Mormonism are claiming physical relations on the thinnest of evidence.

[Xander]

I think this was all that was addressed to me. Unfortunately, since you refuse to use the quote function unless it supports your presentation of the argument, it is a little hard to tell.

Unless it supports my presentation? I copy and past responses in wordpad and then write out my responses as I have time. I then copy from wordpad when I get ready to post. I'll use the quote feature usually when my responses amount to quips.

You are essentially saying this:

Premise: By a "reasonable induction of the evidence", Joseph had sex with other men's wives

Conclusion: Mormonism is "false"

It isn't quite that simple.

You apparently are unaware that there are a few steps missing.

This is your straw man, not my argument.

First, your premise about the "facts" is debatable

Only in the sense that there will always be some members of the Church who refuse to accept the truth on this matter. This doesn't in any way change the facts.

you of course are aware of that, with people like Brian Hauglid, and others on the scene- mentioned earlier by Mortal Man and conveniently ignored by you- and others, even these folks: http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htm

Conveniently ignored who??

Second, one cannot prove nor disprove religious beliefs by historical argument.

We're not talking religious beliefs. We're talking religious actions. Actions can be determined with a reasonable degree of reliability via an induction of the available evidence.

One cannot prove that Jesus was the Christ and was actually resurrected, for example, through historical evidence.

We could if we had enough of the evidence. But Joseph Smith's relationships with other women less than 200 years ago is hardly on par with recovering the corpse of someone who lived 2000 years ago.

Lastly, EVEN GRANTING THE FIRST TWO, which of course I do not, you refuse to address how it is that a philanderer could not possibly have received "true revelation" at any point in his life.

Well heck, using this logic an ax murderer could be a prophet. I mean prophets are just humans, after all, right? The real problem for me is that we all know that if people knew of Joseph Smith's numerous relationships with women, that virtually no one would ever convert to the Church. The Church would have to rely strictly on procreation as a means of expansion. So obvioulsy there is a need to quickly shoot down any attempt to talk about these things. And yes, I believe that if a man tells me God wants me to give my wife to him, that this is a result of something else other than legitimate communication with God. We see this happen all the time really. David Koresh and other small religious leaders have abused their position of authority to gratify their carnal desires. If this is explained by divine requirement, then it must be true for all these other polygamous sects as well. And before you point out the Old Testament, let me say that I am just as disgusted with it as I am with any other religious leader claiming God wants him to marry other women.

Your arguments are just a hodge-podge of "throwing stuff against the wall" in hopes that it will stick, are not systematic in any way, nor do they show what you think they show.

If this were true, then you guys wouldn't be so knee-jerkish about this subject. You would let the cards fall where they may. But you lose this argument every time, which explains the aggressive reactions to the data. Yes, the available evidence strongly suggests Joseph Smith had sex with other women. The evidence is so compelling that even Richard Bushman has said so. The DNA tests have not tested the two most probable candidates. Instead, they tested four others who were always considered very unlikely to be the children of Joseph Smith. I'm not even sure who first speculated that these kids belonged to Joseph Smith. Brodie speculated about one of them, but the other three were tested for reasons that are not entirely clear. But teh two most likely candidates haven't been tested yet. Do you know why?

The discussion is about DNA evidence for fathering children which you are now claiming is a denial of sex. I have scanned enough posts to see that is not happening. You formulate what hasn't happened as an accusation. You do it again by using the name of a criminal which is an automatic thread ban which anyone who has read the rules knows so I have to wonder if you are trying to get banned. We are bending over backwards but if you cannot respond to anyone who questions you without off the wall accusations and disrespectful punches in *every* post we are going to have to call this quits.

[LeSellers]

Unless it supports my presentation? I copy and past responses in wordpad and then write out my responses as I have time. I then copy from wordpad when I get ready to post. I'll use the quote feature usually when my responses amount to quips.

Which has nothing at all to do with whether you use the "Reply" feature. Hit "Reply", then copy the message that got your attention and paste it into Wordpad, Word, SWriter, or any other word processor you want to use, do you worst, and then paste your new work into a quick reply. the links will still work.

There are several board members who haven't figured it out, and it is tedious to figure out what you are talking aobut. Most often, I skip these replies because it just isn't worth my time, no matter how much or little effort you put into it.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Unless it supports my presentation? I copy and past responses in wordpad and then write out my responses as I have time. I then copy from wordpad when I get ready to post. I'll use the quote feature usually when my responses amount to quips.

No, see how this post has both my name and YOURS on it? You don't do that- your replies just appear to be a quote pulled from any possible post, SO THE PERSON TO WHOM YOU ARE REPLYING has no clue you are replying to them, and thus miss the post. Notice how in your post to me, which I am now quoting you don't do that?

Pretty clever evasive technique- sometimes you show the name of the person you are replying to and sometimes you don't so I don't believe it is not deliberate. (see for example post 81-above)

It isn't quite that simple.

This is your straw man, not my argument.

Then summarize your argument- you will see it really is this simple- in fact you argue substantially the same thing below.

We're not talking religious beliefs. We're talking religious actions. Actions can be determined with a reasonable degree of reliability via an induction of the available evidence.

What the heck is a "religious action"?

Come on - you are making this up as you go! The entire point is that you cannot show that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and savior of the world, through historical arguments. Period.

We could if we had enough of the evidence. But Joseph Smith's relationships with other women less than 200 years ago is hardly on par with recovering the corpse of someone who lived 2000 years ago.

Recovering his corpse? What would that prove? Buddha has a tomb and yet millions revere him as "Enlightened" and the Dali Lama - a man living today who has every human biological function- including death- is revered as a living god. What evidence would disprove that he is a god? You are just not getting this. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with evidence.

Well heck, using this logic an ax murderer could be a prophet. I mean prophets are just humans, after all, right?

Yes, they are human- what did you want? Someone who can fly? What about David who murdered someone- and is still considered a "prophet" (at least one whos writings are in the Bible) by all Jews and Christians everywhere? A fallen prophet- of course, but a prophet nonetheless. And when I mentioned this in the original post, I was assuming Joseph to be a "fallen prophet" for the sake of argument- but I don't believe he did anything wrong

The real problem for me is that we all know that if people knew of Joseph Smith's numerous relationships with women, that virtually no one would ever convert to the Church. The Church would have to rely strictly on procreation as a means of expansion. So obvioulsy there is a need to quickly shoot down any attempt to talk about these things. And yes, I believe that if a man tells me God wants me to give my wife to him, that this is a result of something else other than legitimate communication with God. We see this happen all the time really. David Koresh and other small religious leaders have abused their position of authority to gratify their carnal desires. If this is explained by divine requirement, then it must be true for all these other polygamous sects as well. And before you point out the Old Testament, let me say that I am just as disgusted with it as I am with any other religious leader claiming God wants him to marry other women.

Fine, well you have sounded your gong for women's rights- hurrah! Unfortunately, you have put your own argument outside of any relevance for anyone who believes in prophets- or who believes prophets are human.

And apparently you know what God wants, so you have in effect set yourself up as your own prophet, having even thrown out the bible. Interesting.

The entire point I was making is that other scholars debate what you call "evidence" and the case on all of this is far from closed- a point you refuse to address.

If this were true, then you guys wouldn't be so knee-jerkish about this subject. You would let the cards fall where they may. But you lose this argument every time, which explains the aggressive reactions to the data. Yes, the available evidence strongly suggests Joseph Smith had sex with other women. The evidence is so compelling that even Richard Bushman has said so.

And of course Richard Bushman has left the church over it, right? No? Gosh maybe he sees something you don't. But of course he is not as bright as you are.

The DNA tests have not tested the two most probable candidates. Instead, they tested four others who were always considered very unlikely to be the children of Joseph Smith. I'm not even sure who first speculated that these kids belonged to Joseph Smith. Brodie speculated about one of them, but the other three were tested for reasons that are not entirely clear. But teh two most likely candidates haven't been tested yet. Do you know why?

Why of course! I am sure it is a vast conspiracy lasting over 150 years. I am sure that it is run by men with black suits and hats in black helicopters, who are employed by the Church, oh, I mean LDS Inc.- who watch every possible descendant of Joseph 24-7, making sure they don't get a DNA test.

You have totally missed the points I made, which are:

1- You can't show the truth - or falsity- of religious beliefs through historical evidence-

2- Prophets are human - and many scholars see things totally differently than you do.

http://mormonscholar...3/brian-c-hales

Even these guys: http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htm

3- Even if one ASSUMES that Joseph went off his rocker- (I am not assuming that- note the "IF") and was sinning- it does not have any relevance to his earlier revelations., like David in the OT- and you have put yourself beyond even Biblical belief, beyond a criticism of Mormonism alone on this issue.

And by the way, we don't practice polygamy anymore, so that last point is a biggie.

Edited July 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Deborah]

And of course Richard Bushman has left the church over it, right? No? Gosh maybe he sees something you don't. But of course he is not as bright as you are.

I just listened to a CD of Bushman giving a talk on "Joseph Smith's Relationship with God". He made the point that he has read and researched the same material all the critics and antis have. The difference in outcome is perception, which includes putting it all together and not parsing it out. He also accepts there are some things we simply don't know and he wouldn't even address them. For example the fact that Joseph was sealed to women who were married to other men. His thought, based on extensive research, was that Joseph was very concerned about family and wanting everyone to be part of a big family, which is the conclusion I had come to. That is the only thing he would surmise on because we have no documentation of any other reasons this might have been done.

The critic on the other hand will put the most negative motivations on such a thing even without any evidence but just based I suppose on what his own motivations would be, which says more about that person than Joseph Smith.

[Deborah]

good grief! What's with the dupes?

Edited July 25, 2011 by Deborah

[Deborah]

dupe.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Deborah