Another Child That Joseph Smith Didn'T Father.

[Bsix]

good grief! What's with the dupes?

We "dupes" blindly follow Joseph Smith no matter what. We have been brainwashed you know!

Six

[Bsix]

Yes, the available evidence strongly suggests Joseph Smith had sex with other women.

With all due respect, I don't think that is in disupute as it relates to Joseph and some of his plural marriages. The topic here is the state of DNA evidence regarding the supposed polyanderous offspring.

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.

Actually, that's 5 down, 2 that are untestable, two left to go.

But teh two most likely candidates haven't been tested yet. Do you know why?

Well...it certainly isn't the LDS Church making these claims of paternity. I'd say that it is the critics of the Church.

Of all the women to whom Joseph was sealed to, only seven bore children within a time frame that might yield a son or daughter of Joseph. As such, all of them are in play as candidates.

Of the nine children in question, 5 have been proven to NOT be Joseph Smith Jr. progeny.

Two cannot be tested because the children died without offspring...and the graves cannot be located.

That leaves ony two possible candidates.

One is a female (Josephine Lyon) and DNA tests cannot be performed for female progeny at this time.

The other is a male (Frank Hyde)...claimed by Fawn Brodie...as a possible child. Testing is incomplete. Also, the estimated birthdate tends to eliminate him.

What is also of note is that historians have relied on supposed claims by contemporaries that spoke with certainty that some of the nine were children of Jospeph...only to be proven wrong by DNA testing. It goes to show that opinions don't always have a lot of authority.

Six

[Xander]

The discussion is about DNA evidence for fathering children which you are now claiming is a denial of sex.

Denial of sex was an issue from the beginning of this discussion. I didn't bring it up, bcspace and others did when they said lack of children is an "ironclad" argument against sexual activity. It was at that point I responded.

I have scanned enough posts to see that is not happening. You formulate what hasn't happened as an accusation.

You lost me. What hasn't happened? Sex? I've argued that there is evidence that he did father other children but also that the ultimate goal was essentially physical relationships, even if he didn't engage in them immediately. The reason he didn't immediately choose to have kids with all of these women should be obvious. He was coaxing them into the polygamy doctrine at his own pace. Zina Huntington's curious relationships and her role as the "wife" with husbands Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, should be indicative of what was expected from these women because they were sealed to the Prophet.

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.

Sorry, I don't see criminals mentioned in the rules. Is there another list of rules I missed? When I think of Koresh, "criminal" doesn't immediately come to mind. He was a religious leader who believed God told him to do the things he did. I only brought him up because he was the first example that came to mind. I suppose I could point to others, but they would all be criminals as well I suppose. Polygamy is illegal, after all. My point is that when a religious leader claims God wants him to be with multiple women, this isn't unique to Mormonism. It is what many small religious leaders have said and done. Within the context of small religious movements, I think this best explains why Joseph Smith came up with the doctrine. He was given a tremendous amount of power and authority and he ultimately abused that authority. Even prophets are fallible, right? Now Mormons can say polygamy was God's command for Joseph Smith, but subsequent history undermines this. As we all know, polygamy was short lived and the Church itself no longer accepts it. So we have to wonder what exactly was the purpose for polygamy and this doctrine of multiple eternity sealings with other men's wives. The cost was obviously greater than the benefits. The cost being that it was the slippery slope that led to Joseph Smith's demise and near destruction of the restoration. The benefits, being....? No benefits at all for the Church. The only benefit it seems is that Joseph Smith got to be with many attractive young women. That's it. After all, he insisted on persuing specific women even after they denied him. The angel only commanded that he practice polygamy, it didn't command him to marry specific women. So he could have easily complied with the commandment by sealing himself to every widow in town. But he didn't do that. Why? The only logical explanation lies in the differences between old widows and young beautiful women. Once we can establish that sex was the most probable factor driving his choice of young attractive brides, then this further supports the evidence pointing the argument that he fathered other children and he was acting as one might expect from a leader of a new religious movement.

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.

I don't think I have disrespected anyone here. I've given my opinion about Mormon history and I have backed it up with evidence. Granted, it isn't the most flattering opinion of Joseph Smith, but does it have to be?

mfbukowski,

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?

It is more convenient for me, considering that I am the lone critic getting bombarded with questions from multiple apologists. If you responded to anything I said, then you're reading my response and can see where I am responding to you. I can't believe this is what you're complaining about.

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)

Right. It is an "evasive" technique, of course. The idea is that by posting a response without your name on it, that you're obviously going to miss it. That's the idea right? Good grief.

What the heck is a "religious action"?

Uh, an action influenced by religious doctrine such as having sex with other married women because God told you to marry them too.

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.

Making what up? Who ever said anything about proving Jesus is the Christ? The inability to prove Jesus walked on water or that Alexander the Great existed, is not a good reason to believe a true prophet would seek out the wives of other men.

Recovering his corpse? What would that prove?

That he didn't resurrect himself, which is what you said. I don't have time for your derailments and you clearly cannot keep up with what you've said.

bsix,

With all due respect, I don't think that is in disupute as it relates to Joseph and some of his plural marriages. The topic here is the state of DNA evidence regarding the supposed polyanderous offspring.

Josephine Lyons was informed by her mother on her deathbed that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Her mother was sealed to the Prophet while married to her husband Windsor Lyons. This is the strongest evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with the wives of other men. There is really no reason to doubt the testimony, and the DNA tests are incomplete.

Actually, that's 5 down, 2 that are untestable, two left to go.

But the two most likely candidates have not been tested. And why were the other five tested at all? Who really speculated that they were his kids? They tested for Zebulon Jacobs? Zina was seven months pregnant with him at the time of her sealing with the Prophet. Who ever speculated that he was the father? I never heard anyone suspect Moroni Pratt either.

Well...it certainly isn't the LDS Church making these claims of paternity. I'd say that it is the critics of the Church.

What critics? The articles covering this news doesn't provide any references to critics who created these suspicions. It seems highly suspicious to me that someone is just trying to rack up a bunch of negative results so they'd have something to talk about in the news. In any event, the fact that he didn't father Moroni or Zebulon does nothing to prove he didn't father Josephine.

Of all the women to whom Joseph was sealed to, only seven bore children within a time frame that might yield a son or daughter of Joseph. As such, all of them are in play as candidates

So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the critics. They're just gathering all possible candidates. OK. But so far they haven't really disproved any of the candidates claimed by critics.

What is also of note is that historians have relied on supposed claims by contemporaries that spoke with certainty that some of the nine were children of Jospeph...only to be proven wrong by DNA testing. It goes to show that opinions don't always have a lot of authority.

Which historians? Which claims? Which contemporaries spoke with certainty?

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

It wouldn't bother me if Joseph did have physical relations with his wives. But proof is another matter. Children are the Gold Standard when it comes to alleged sex. Todate, other than the children he had with Emma, NONE of the proposed children have been shown to have come from Joseph.

[mfbukowski]

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.

That's the way I see it too. If you really understand the Patriarchal Order you will understand that its whole objective is that indeed we all be sealed together - all of humanity- as "one family" with Our Father at its head. It is not at all surprising to me that Joseph might well have tried to do just that.

[mfbukowski]

I don't have time for your derailments and you clearly cannot keep up with what you've said.

Derailments?

I have been EXACTLY on topic with every post.

Your avoidance of the issues I have raised speaks for itself.

[Xander]

mfbukowski

I have been EXACTLY on topic with every post.

So far you've spent most of your time complaining about your name not appearing before your quotations, as well as my failure to prove Jesus was the Christ. That's hardly "on topic."

That's the way I see it too. If you really understand the Patriarchal Order you will understand that its whole objective is that indeed we all be sealed together - all of humanity- as "one family" with Our Father at its head. It is not at all surprising to me that Joseph might well have tried to do just that.

Even if this made a lick of sense, the problem with this is that Joseph Smith wasn't just "trying" something. He claimed he was obeying God's commandment. It wasn't a temporary experiment. He said it was a principle of God that had to be accepted by him and everyone else. There was no indication that it was intended to be temporary at all. How can something so permanent as an "eternal sealing" be a temporary experiment? He began this practice and called it divine. Now the Church rejects it and anyone else who tries to practice it.

Joseph Smith also targeted specific women who were young and attractive while claiming God only commanded him to practice polygamy. He could have obeyed God without pushing Zina for marriage. The only reasonable explanation here is that he wanted a physical relationship with her. The young and attractive were the most desirable, and Zina was apparently so attractive that Brigham Young needed to marry her as well.

You want us to believe he established a religion that is all about the family unity, while his doctrine and persistence essentially destroyed the holy union between Zina and her husband. The psychological damage that was done to his first wife Emma becomes apparent through her life-long denials that polygamy ever took place. So what was the benefit and purpose of all this again? It created more problems than anything. It was a disaster just waiting to happen, and that is the main reason why so many people began to dissent and the Nauvoo Expositor was published. They caught wind of the practice and felt this wasn't something God would condone.

Joseph Smith sent Zina's husband away on distant missions while Zina stayed home with the kids alone, relying on the only husband she had in the area, Joseph. Her poor husband had to endure this separation even after Joseph Smith died, because Brigham Young decided Zina needed to be "sealed" to him as well while he was away on missions. Now please explain to me why 51 wives wasn't enough for Brigham Young. Is it really reasonable to assume God felt Zina had to be added to the list when she was already married to her first love? Please, make sense of this for me.

thesometimesaint,

It wouldn't bother me if Joseph did have physical relations with his wives

Even those who were already happily married to their husbands?

But proof is another matter. Children are the Gold Standard when it comes to alleged sex. Todate, other than the children he had with Emma, NONE of the proposed children have been shown to have come from Joseph.

And we wouldn't really expect them to be "shown" definitively when DNA testing is a recent science and most of the data required to prove these things, have become scarce or lost entirely. Also, we know for a fact that he lied about polygamy and kept these things a secret. When you know this for a fact, there is little room to complain because proof hasn't been revealed. That's the whole point about lying and hiding, so these things never become revealed. If he were willing to hide his marriages, how much more would he be willing to hide offspring from these marriages? Again, Josephine Lyons is probably his daughter. Apologists have not come up with any reasonable explanation as to why her mother would just make this up, especially on her death bed. They love to dismiss it as "anonymous hearsay" which is something it is not. Her mother said it was to be kept a secret, and another wife to Joseph smith, Mary Rollins, said she knew of three children from other women. I suspect there probably wasn't more than two or three, and I don't know of any critic who argued otherwise.

But why would Mary Rollins lie about this? She bore testimony at BYU with nary a protest. She was Joseph Smith's wife, so she was an insider at the very least. Polygamous wives to the same man are generally close like sisters. Testing nine different candidates just because it was technically "possible" that Joseph Smith was their father, seems silly to me. The tests should focus on the two who are the most probability candidates based on historical evidence. DNA evidence has not disproved this probability.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Xander

[mfbukowski]

Underlining added

You want us to believe he established a religion that is all about the family unity, while his doctrine and persistence essentially destroyed the holy union between Zina and her husband. The psychological damage that was done to his first wife Emma becomes apparent through her life-long denials that polygamy ever took place.

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.

LOL

Get your story straight next time. Either the wives produce credible evidence or they don't, and here you have one contradicting the other because one has "psychological damage".

Uh huh.

I'd say this gives you some "credibility damage"

And you still have not addressed a single of my three arguments!

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.

Edited July 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Deborah]

Even if this made a lick of sense, the problem with this is that Joseph Smith wasn't just "trying" something. He claimed he was obeying God's commandment. It wasn't a temporary experiment. He said it was a principle of God that had to be accepted by him and everyone else. There was no indication that it was intended to be temporary at all.

CFR. It seems clear from the scriptures that plural marriage is to be done only when commanded. It is not always commanded. The fact that sealing are permanent doesn't mean that plural marriage itself would be a permanent practice.

[mfbukowski]

CFR. It seems clear from the scriptures that plural marriage is to be done only when commanded. It is not always commanded. The fact that sealing are permanent doesn't mean that plural marriage itself would be a permanent practice.

And equating the Patriarchal Order with eternal marriage is another confusion as well as calling the Patriarchal Order "temporary"- I think he doesn't understand the PO or Church of the Firstborn at all.

[Minos]

mfbukowski

So far you've spent most of your time complaining about your name not appearing before your quotations, as well as my failure to prove Jesus was the Christ. That's hardly "on topic."

Even if this made a lick of sense, the problem with this is that Joseph Smith wasn't just "trying" something. He claimed he was obeying God's commandment. It wasn't a temporary experiment. He said it was a principle of God that had to be accepted by him and everyone else. There was no indication that it was intended to be temporary at all. How can something so permanent as an "eternal sealing" be a temporary experiment? He began this practice and called it divine. Now the Church rejects it and anyone else who tries to practice it.

Joseph Smith also targeted specific women who were young and attractive while claiming God only commanded him to practice polygamy. He could have obeyed God without pushing Zina for marriage. The only reasonable explanation here is that he wanted a physical relationship with her. The young and attractive were the most desirable, and Zina was apparently so attractive that Brigham Young needed to marry her as well.

You want us to believe he established a religion that is all about the family unity, while his doctrine and persistence essentially destroyed the holy union between Zina and her husband. The psychological damage that was done to his first wife Emma becomes apparent through her life-long denials that polygamy ever took place. So what was the benefit and purpose of all this again? It created more problems than anything. It was a disaster just waiting to happen, and that is the main reason why so many people began to dissent and the Nauvoo Expositor was published. They caught wind of the practice and felt this wasn't something God would condone.

Joseph Smith sent Zina's husband away on distant missions while Zina stayed home with the kids alone, relying on the only husband she had in the area, Joseph. Her poor husband had to endure this separation even after Joseph Smith died, because Brigham Young decided Zina needed to be "sealed" to him as well while he was away on missions. Now please explain to me why 51 wives wasn't enough for Brigham Young. Is it really reasonable to assume God felt Zina had to be added to the list when she was already married to her first love? Please, make sense of this for me.

thesometimesaint,

Even those who were already happily married to their husbands?

And we wouldn't really expect them to be "shown" definitively when DNA testing is a recent science and most of the data required to prove these things, have become scarce or lost entirely. Also, we know for a fact that he lied about polygamy and kept these things a secret. When you know this for a fact, there is little room to complain because proof hasn't been revealed. That's the whole point about lying and hiding, so these things never become revealed. If he were willing to hide his marriages, how much more would he be willing to hide offspring from these marriages? Again, Josephine Lyons is probably his daughter. Apologists have not come up with any reasonable explanation as to why her mother would just make this up, especially on her death bed. They love to dismiss it as "anonymous hearsay" which is something it is not. Her mother said it was to be kept a secret, and another wife to Joseph smith, Mary Rollins, said she knew of three children from other women. I suspect there probably wasn't more than two or three, and I don't know of any critic who argued otherwise.

But why would Mary Rollins lie about this? She bore testimony at BYU with nary a protest. She was Joseph Smith's wife, so she was an insider at the very least. Polygamous wives to the same man are generally close like sisters. Testing nine different candidates just because it was technically "possible" that Joseph Smith was their father, seems silly to me. The tests should focus on the two who are the most probability candidates based on historical evidence. DNA evidence has not disproved this probability.

FINAL warning. If you wave the "apologist" dismissal one more time instead of responding to posters you will be banned from the thread. There is no such thing as one "apologist" opinion anymore than there is one "anti" opinon.

[Storm Rider]

Sorry, I don't see criminals mentioned in the rules. Is there another list of rules I missed? When I think of Koresh, "criminal" doesn't immediately come to mind. He was a religious leader who believed God told him to do the things he did. I only brought him up because he was the first example that came to mind. I suppose I could point to others, but they would all be criminals as well I suppose.

I suppose you could have mentioned the thousands of priests that abused little boys, forcing them to have sex, etc. Of course, you could have also thought of the thousands of priests who abused married women and fathered children with them. Then there is the group that wanted women for themselves, but could not bring themselves to marry them. They preferred to just fornicate and produce children.

On the other hand, you could have mentioned the numberless archbishops, bishops, and priests that have abscounded with hundreds of thousands of dollars for their own use that was intended to feed the poor. No need to search for Koresh when your house is so full of examples. It is difficult to criticize one's own house. Something about a a beam in one's own eye comes to mind.

Do NOT malign other religions on this board.

[JarMan]

Several people in this thread have said that it wouldn't bother them to know that JS had relations with other men's wives. Why, exactly, is this not bothersome?

[ERayR]

Several people in this thread have said that it wouldn't bother them to know that JS had relations with other men's wives. Why, exactly, is this not bothersome?

That's not what they said. Go back and read for comprehension.

[Bsix]

Josephine Lyons was informed by her mother on her deathbed that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Her mother was sealed to the Prophet while married to her husband Windsor Lyons. This is the strongest evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with the wives of other men. There is really no reason to doubt the testimony, and the DNA tests are incomplete.

Well...after six pages...we get down to the core non-DNA evidence.

I guess that Xander and I will disagree on the quality of this evidence...and how this evidence is extrapolated to apply to all of Joseph's sealings.

In other words, Xander's "strongest evidence" comes entirely from a second-hand (hearsay?) account. Folks such as Xander thus declare that we can determine, with a high degree of assumption, the relationship behavior of Joseph with all of his wives from this hearsay evidence.

Let's look at what evidence we don't have regarding the relationship:

-- For starters, we do not have the word of Joseph Smith or Sylvia Sessions Lyon on this matter.

-- We have not independent documentation in the form of birth certificates, contemporary records, diaries, etc. attesting any physical relationship between Sylvia and Joseph...or anyone other than Brother Lyon as the father of Josephine.

-- We have no contemporary witnesses claiming that Joseph Smith was involved physically with Lyons.

All we have as evidence is the hearsay account of Josephine. Her statement claims that upon her mother's death bed, Sylvia told Josephine that she (Josephine) was a "daughter" of Joseph Smith. This claim was made in and affidavit in 1915, some 33 years AFTER her mother told her. This is when Josephine was 71 years old. This is the only recorded instance where Josephine claimed to be the daughter of Joseph Smith. (At least that I am aware of.)

The usual rebuttle to skepticism is to support the integrity and veracity of both Sylvia and Josephine. All fine and good...but Sylvia was a liar. Either she lied all those years claiming that Brother Lyon was Josephine's real father...or she lied when (if she ever did) tell Josephine that Joseph Smith was her father. You have to choose which version was the truth...and which version is the lie. They can't both be true. At some point, she lied.

Some consider this 70-years-after-the-fact, lone, second-hand claim to be conclusive enough to declare with a degree of certainty how Joseph behaved.

With all due respect, that is pretty thin proof. I doubt that by itself, it wouldn't hold up in any secular court as proof of paternity.

Six

Extra comment. Amazingly, a co-worker just shared with me a little family history drama this afternoon. It actually fits quite well with this very point.

His mother-in-law and his wife are very emotionally disraught because the family just received an official copy of the mother-in-law's birth certificate. The certificate names a different man as the mother-in-laws father than her own mother told her for entire life. In other words, the mother-in-law's paternal father, as claimed by her mother, is most likely false! The beloved matriarch lied to the entire family.

What is the family considering to get to the absolute truth? You guessed it...DNA testing.

I don't personally consider Josephine's account to be absolute or reliable as evidence. She could be mistaken in what she understood her mother told her...she could misrepresent or make up something her mother never said. (There are no other witnesses). Or, her mother could have lied or referred to Josephine being a daughter by virtual of eternal sealing. I am not asserting that anyone was deliberately deceptive...we just don't know.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Bsix

[Areabird]

The usual rebuttle to skepticism is to support the integrity and veracity of both Sylvia and Josephine. All fine and good...but Sylvia was a liar. Either she lied all those years claiming that Brother Lyon was Josephine's real father...or she lied when (if she ever did) tell Josephine that Joseph Smith was her father. You have to choose which version was the truth...and which version is the lie. They can't both be true. At some point, she lied.

Joseph lied about participating in polygamy. Since he lied about that, then do we have to discount everything else he came up with?

[Bsix]

Joseph lied about participating in polygamy. Since he lied about that, then do we have to discount everything else he came up with?

I guess you'll have to make up your own mind as to what exactly Joseph said, if he told untruths, and what you choose to believe.

However, it doesn't change the fact that Josephine Lyons account is pretty thin proof of what folks like Xander advertise it to be.

Six

[JarMan]

That's not what they said. Go back and read for comprehension.

I think that the lack of Joseph Smith children, thus far, most damages the common anti-Mormon insinuation that Joseph was engaged in virtually a perpetual orgy of sexual encounters.

It's certainly . . . um, conceivable that this or that sexual encounter resulted in no children. But the resounding lack of children, thus far, seems consistent with the notion that these sealings were often more about relationships and kinship than about sex, and that many of them may not have involved any sex at all.

I'm not bothered, even slightly, by the idea of a sexual component to any of these marriages.

For the record and even if the DNA proved otherwise, I (as does the Lord) stand completely behind Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling.

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

It would make absolutely NO difference to me whatsoever.

Since I'm apparently challenged in the reading comprehension department, help me out here.

[ERayR]

Since I'm apparently challenged in the reading comprehension department, help me out here.

This is the phrase you are having trouble with. "I'm not bothered, even slightly, by the idea of a sexual component to any of these marriages."

The key word in that phrase is marriages. Marriage and sealing are not synonymous. Some of Joseph's unions were marriages some were sealings. This mistake(treating the terms marriage and sealing as synonymous) is common with LDS members and non-members alike and may very well be the fault of members for using the terms inerchangably.

Some of the connections you are talking about were marriages and some were sealings. A marriage with a sealing connects the two as husband and wife. A sealing does not, it connects those sealed in a family connection. Now you may argue whether or not the ceremony was a sealing or a marriage but those I have read about(who already had husbands) say it was a sealing.

We know that some were married to Joseph and some were sealed and as far as we are able to tell Joseph fathered no children with anybody but Emma.

As far as Josephine Lyons being Joseph Smith's daughter, her mother was sealed to the prophet and so her children were/are also sealed to Joseph. Example: My wife's mother and all her children are sealed to her second husband. The children were sired by her first husbasnd but are children of her second through sealing.

We do know that he was married and sealed to some and only sealed to others. Now reread the statement you are having trouble with.

[Nenahnezad]

This, another discussion proving Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

[JarMan]

This is the phrase you are having trouble with. "I'm not bothered, even slightly, by the idea of a sexual component to any of these marriages."

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you didn't address the other two quotes?

The key word in that phrase is marriages. Marriage and sealing are not synonymous. Some of Joseph's unions were marriages some were sealings. This mistake(treating the terms marriage and sealing as synonymous) is common with LDS members and non-members alike and may very well be the fault of members for using the terms inerchangably.

Some of the connections you are talking about were marriages and some were sealings. A marriage with a sealing connects the two as husband and wife. A sealing does not, it connects those sealed in a family connection. Now you may argue whether or not the ceremony was a sealing or a marriage but those I have read about(who already had husbands) say it was a sealing.

We know that some were married to Joseph and some were sealed and as far as we are able to tell Joseph fathered no children with anybody but Emma.

As far as Josephine Lyons being Joseph Smith's daughter, her mother was sealed to the prophet and so her children were/are also sealed to Joseph. Example: My wife's mother and all her children are sealed to her second husband. The children were sired by her first husbasnd but are children of her second through sealing.

We do know that he was married and sealed to some and only sealed to others.

Thanks for stating the obvious. I don't buy your explanation, though. I suppose DCP could clarify what he meant if he chooses to.

Now reread the statement you are having trouble with.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond to my question in the first place since it clearly wasn't directed at you. And you may want to think about whether or not it's good form to be guilty of that which you accuse others.

[Scott Lloyd]

... even though the Book of Mormon gives "raising up seed" as the only reason God would command polygamy.

The "raising up of seed" could apply to the hereafter, not just mortality, in which case, sealing-only marriages in mortality would be included.

So in this instance, I don't think it's a matter of apologetic arguments complicating that matter; rather it's a matter of resolving endless quibbling by critics.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

mfbukowski

Even if this made a lick of sense, the problem with this is that Joseph Smith wasn't just "trying" something. He claimed he was obeying God's commandment. It wasn't a temporary experiment. He said it was a principle of God that had to be accepted by him and everyone else. There was no indication that it was intended to be temporary at all.

The Book of Mormon passage, Jacob 2:30, indicates that plural marriage is provisional and that monogamy is the default condition unless God commands otherwise. The eternal principle here is that plural marriage is to be practiced if and when God commands it.

This may not have been well understood by early members of the Church, but we today have the benefit of further light and knowledge.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR. It seems clear from the scriptures that plural marriage is to be done only when commanded. It is not always commanded. The fact that sealing are permanent doesn't mean that plural marriage itself would be a permanent practice.

It seems that Deborah had already expressed what I said, but she did it more concisely.

I repeat her post here for emphasis.

Anyway, the passage in Jacob, contrary to Xander's assertion, is indication enough that plural marriage was to be temporary — as it always is whenever God sees fit to institute it.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond to my question in the first place since it clearly wasn't directed at you. And you may want to think about whether or not it's good form to be guilty of that which you accuse others.

I didn't think this was a personal message board and your statement clearly exhibited a lack of understanding. Next time label it as a personal message and I will pass it by.

Cheers