Another Child That Joseph Smith Didn'T Father.

[JarMan]

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

I'm trying to find out why people wouldn't be bothered by JS hypothetically having relations with women married to other men. Several people on this thread have stated such whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I'm not really interested in having a personal argument about my reading comprehension skills.

So I'll restate my question to those to whom it applies: How is it that it wouldn't bother you if it could be shown that Joseph Smith had children or relations with married women?

[Xander]

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

It has been a long week. I'm left confused by this warning in reference to my statement:

Apologists have not come up with any reasonable explanation as towhy her mother would just make this up, especially on her death bed. They loveto 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 thereprobably wasn't more than two or three, and I don't know of any critic whoargued otherwise.

For the life of me I do not understand what is wrong with my statement.Waving the "apologist dismissal"? Is it considered an insult to saysomeone’s conclusions are driven by apologetics, and not the evidence? Or is itconsidered an insult to call someone an apologist? In neither case have I saidthis to dismiss anyone, nor have I done this "instead of responding to theposters." I try to respond to as many people who comment on my posts. If thereis an important response I have missed, then I’d be happy to address it ifsomeone would kindly point it out to me.

Having said this, folks on this forum regularly generalize the "critics"in virtually every thread and they usually do so in the worst possible way. Based on frequency alone, this appears to not only be acceptable, but perhaps even required. So I do notunderstand why it is a problem for me to state what the apologists haven'tdemonstrated and what they need to demonstrate. I don’t see it breaking therules, so maybe I cracked one egg shell too many in this thread.

bsix,

In other words, Xander's "strongest evidence" comesentirely from a second-hand (hearsay?) account. Folks such as Xander thusdeclare that we can determine, with a high degree of assumption, therelationship behavior of Joseph with all of his wives from this hearsayevidence.

The strongest evidence lies in the fact that the purpose of polygamy is to raise up seed, according to Jacob. Also, the fact that Joseph Smith lied publiclyabout his relationships with other women. All you've done is taken the scarcityof evidence left by a man who we know tried to cover it up, and they say"see there is no absolute proof that he did this.” I say well, that's thewhole point behind him lying about it. This isn't how historians are obligated to approach this. You keep implythat yours is the responsible and scholarly approach, but it isn’t. It is strictlyapologetic and it relies on numerous double-standards. For instance, you castaspersions on the testimonies of those who do not tow the party line, butaccept other statements uncritically simply because they say things you like tobelieve. So it seems no amount of evidence will really convince you that JosephSmith probably had sex with other women. My reference to Anderson was made toprove the fact that mine isn’t strictly a “critic’s” assumption. It is one thatprofessional historians are obligated to indulge, based on the availableevidence. Historians do not approach history with the court room model you haveenvisioned. They don’t take evidence from history and ask themselves, “couldthis be proven true in a court of law?”

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

Nor would we expect to, since Joseph Smith lied about this issue and hiswives were told to keep this information secret.

We have not independent documentation in the form of birthcertificates, contemporary records, diaries, etc. attesting any physicalrelationship between Sylvia and Joseph...or anyone other than Brother Lyon asthe father of Josephine

Nor would we expect to, since Joseph Smith lied about this issue and hiswives were told to keep this information secret. You’re not dealing with thisfact at all.

All we have as evidence is the hearsay account of Josephine.

No it is not hearsay, it is her firsthand account. Had Josephine told thisto some distant relative, and that relative's account were the only one we had,only then would it be based in hearsay.

Her statement claims that upon her mother's death bed, Sylvia toldJosephine that she (Josephine) was a "daughter" of Joseph Smith. Thisclaim was made in and affidavit in 1915, some 33 years AFTER her mother toldher.

Sure, and so what? You keep missing the point that this was supposed to besensitive information in the earlier years. As time had gone by, the potentialit had for destroying the Church became lessened substantially. But clearly thegeneral membership at the time had little problem with the idea that JosephSmith fathered other children. Apologists questioned and tackled thisaggressively only in recent times, as polygamy became more and more repugnantto our modern sensibilities. Some folks will never accept the idea that JosephSmith would father other children with married women. I understand that. What Iobject to is this silly notion that the only people who believe this is the caseare anti-Mormons who do not understand proper scholarly methodologies forunderstanding history. As is so often the case, scholarship is not on your sidehere. But I understand that a dependence on strictly BYU scholars and faithpromoting material, often gives the impression that such is the case.

This is when Josephine was 71 years old. This is the only recordedinstance where Josephine claimed to be the daughter of Joseph Smith. (At leastthat I am aware of.)

How does this change the fact that she still testifies in her firsthandaccount, that her Mother informed her of this on her death bed? How does this stillchange the fact that neither you nor any other defender has provided areasonable explanation why she or her mother would lie about this?

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

How is this not a double-standard? So for you the fact that Sylvia followedthe Prophet's commandment and kept this matter a secret for so long, isevidence enough for you that she couldn't have been telling the truth later inlife, because she has permanently been branded a “liar” for keeping the information confidential as requested. This isabsolutely amazing! I suspect you'll refrain from applying this standard toJoseph Smith who we know, in fact, lied publicly about his relationships withother women? Based on your logic, he cannot be trusted either.

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

Of course it wouldn't. What has this to do with anything? It never ceasesto astonish me when some folks use the modern court system as a litmus test for"absolute truth." Never mind, that you're leaping to the unwarrantedconclusion of what would and wouldn't be proved in a court of law. If everyoneknew exactly what every verdict would be, then there’d be no point in holding atrial. I think 12 folks on a jury would be absolutely persuaded that Josephinewas Joseph's daughter based on the evidence. But this has nothing to do with"absolute proof." You're still avoiding the fact that we're nottalking about "absolute proof" and we never were. Historians havelittle use for “absolute proof.” We're talking about inductive logic here.Determining what is most probably true.

Scott,

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

Jacob 2:30 is ambiguous at best. It doesn't explicitly state what it is hewill "command" the people to do. Of course this is more to do withJoseph Smith's poorly structured English, but the point is that if you want touse Jacob 2:30 then you have to use all of it and admit that the purpose forpolygamy was to "raise up seed." That was the only reason Godjustified polygamy, and yet apologists want us to believe it had nothing to dowith this at all. Even worse, they want us to believe polygamy or “spiritualwifery” was established with no intention of sexual relationships whatsoever!It is quite difficult to “raise seed” without sexual intercourse, andimpossible in the 19th century.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xander

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it considered an insult to saysomeone’s conclusions are driven by apologetics, and not the evidence?

To say that something is "driven by apologetics and not the evidence" is senseless in itself. And yes, it does sound dismissive. Anyone who undertakes to defend his own position is, by definition, an apologist for that position regardless of whether his argument is sound and well-reasoned. Being "driven by apologetics" does not automatically invalidate one's argument.

And guess what Xander: You are an apologist for your position. If your "driven by apologetics" accusation had any validitity it could be used against you just as well as somebody else.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Jacob 2:30 is ambiguous at best.

On the contrary, I find it very clear and direct.

It doesn't explicitly state what it is hewill "command" the people to do.

If you're reading for comprehension, it is quite clear from context the antecedent is plural marriage.

Of course this is more to do withJoseph Smith's poorly structured English,

Gratuitous cheap shot.

but the point is that if you want touse Jacob 2:30 then you have to use all of it and admit that the purpose forpolygamy was to "raise up seed."

Admit it? I assert it forthrightly. Justification for the practice of plural marriage in this dispensation is clear in light of this reason. Why would I deny it?

That was the only reason Godjustified polygamy,

I don't recognize your authority to put boundaries on the mind of God.

and yet apologists want us to believe it had nothing to dowith this at all.

Perhpas you're engaging in hyperbole here, but I've not seen a defender of Mormonism make this claim; if one has, I don't recognize it as typical.

Even worse, they want us to believe polygamy or “spiritualwifery” was established with no intention of sexual relationships whatsoever!

I think you're misstating others' positions. But at any rate, I'm not here to defend someone else's arguments.

By the way, the term "spiritual wifery" originated in the 1740s and was incorrectly applied to the Saints' practice of plural marriage by the apostate John C. Bennett. It is inaccurate to imply that it was a term employed by the Prophet Joseph Smith or his associates among the Brethren.

It is quite difficult to “raise seed” without sexual intercourse, andimpossible in the 19th century.

As I alluded earlier, the raising up of seed might have application in the post-mortal existence, not just in mortality.

Incidentally, in the interest of convenience, if in the future you intend to respond to me I would appreciate your doing it in a separate post. I almost missed your reply this time, buried as it was in an avalanche of verbiage, most of directed to others.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Xander]

And guess what Xander: You are an apologist for your position. If your "driven by apologetics" accusation had any validitity it could be used against you just as well as somebody else.

But my position was shaped by a logical induction of the evidence. Mormon apologists have a position that is based in something entirely different. Probability means little it seems as stretched plausibility seems to be the metric everyone is shooting for. Not too long ago I was an apologist. My positions were conditioned without engaging in any serious research on any of the issues. I eventually changed my mind based on the evidence. So what was I during my shift? Not an apologist for anything. The reason my mind could be changed was because I abandoned the need to be an apologist for my presuppositions which I believed to be true. I have maintained some of the same conclusions I reached during this time, but I do so only because the evidence continues to lean heavily on the critical side. I don't need the Church to be true, though I would probably prefer that it were. LDS apologists need the Church to be true far more than I believe it to be false.

So no, I'm hardly an apologist in this sense that most people here are apologists. My mind is always willing to be changed, and I have proved this on a number of occasions. It proves I am willing to be reasonable, though some apologists use it as if it were a badge of shame (because I used to be loyal but no longer). So if an apologist cannot convince me that I am in error, it isn't because I'm blindly defending a position just for the sake of argument, or because I refuse to admit being wrong. It is because the evidence isn't on their side. In reality, I would be happy to be proven wrong in all my conclusions. It would make life easier, for sure. I wish the Church were true.

If you're reading for comprehension, it is quite clear from context the antecedent is plural marriage.

Could be. Verse 24 says "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." This is entirely ambiguous because it doesn't clearly say whether having concubines, many wives, or both, is what is considered abominable before the Lord. So the command in verse 30 could just as easily be in reference to concubines. But this is beside the point really. The point is that the purpose of polygamy was to have more kids. Joseph Smith married young attractive women who initially rejected his advances and were already married or pregnaant, so there is every reason to believe he did, or eventually intended to have sexual relations with them.

Gratuitous cheap shot.

Why is that a cheap shot? It is the truth. He was just an ignorant farm boy with a 4th grade education, right?

Admit it? I assert it forthrightly. Justification for the practice of plural marriage in this dispensation is clear in light of this reason. Why would I deny it?

Because my point is that polygamy was for the purpose of raising up seed, which means Joseph Smith had every intention of taking his polygamous relationships to the level of sexual intercourse.

I don't recognize your authority to put boundaries on the mind of God.

I don't believe God justifies it at all, but the point is this was the justification given by Joseph Smith.

Perhpas you're engaging in hyperbole here, but I've not seen a defender of Mormonism make this claim; if one has, I don't recognize it as typical.

I suggest you read through this entire thread. I've been told there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith had or intended to have sexual relations with these women. Polygamy doesn't count as evidence for some people.

As I alluded earlier, the raising up of seed might have application in the post-mortal existence, not just in mortality.

This makes no sense and runs contrary to what we're told.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Xander

[Zakuska]

However, as it applies to the question of Native American ancestry, it suddenly becomes unreliable.

Unreliable?

Acts 2

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.\

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and aproselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mormon Dude]

I happened upon this thread, while looking for more info about this DNA thing. Why? Well there is a lively debate on Wikipedia right now whether or not the article on Fawn Brodie's book, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, should include the fact that some of Brodie's theories, mentioned in the book, about kids of Joseph Smith have now been proven false. It seems some don't want to make mention of that fact that Brodie was wrong, claiming it is undue, etc, etc. But then they think it necessary on her Wikipedia page to say that DNA testing has made her theories about Thomas Jefferson fathering illegitimate possible. I guess everyone has a bias to push on Wikipedia.

[ERayR]

I'm trying to find out why people wouldn't be bothered by JS hypothetically having relations with women married to other men. Several people on this thread have stated such whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I'm not really interested in having a personal argument about my reading comprehension skills.

So I'll restate my question to those to whom it applies: How is it that it wouldn't bother you if it could be shown that Joseph Smith had children or relations with married women?

Sorry for not getting back here sooner. I have a lot on my plate right now so when I get a chance I hurry through and miss some things.

I will again point out that the premise fo your question is faulty. I haven't seen anybody say they wouldn't have a problem with Joseph Smith having (sexual)relations with women married to other men. There is no credible evidence that this happened. There is ample evidence that he was sealed to women who were married to other men but I havn't seen any credible evidence for the premise of your question.

[DonBradley]

If this man doesn't stop not fathering children he will soon have no descendants at all!

[Cobalt-70]

It's definitely surprising that Smith did not have any children with his wives other than Emma. It's pretty well established that these were not sham marriages, and that physical intimacy was involved, as a rule. Presumably there was some kind of birth control involved, given that all this activity was extremely secret, and a birth would be a dead give-away, and they'd probably haul Smith to the clink. But if there are no children from any of his other marriages, I'm not surprised that there are no children from his marriages to already-married women. If you are going to have a child, you shouldn't have a child with a woman married to another man. I'm sure Smith knew that basic rule of manhood.

[Storm Rider]

It's definitely surprising that Smith did not have any children with his wives other than Emma. It's pretty well established that these were not sham marriages, and that physical intimacy was involved, as a rule. Presumably there was some kind of birth control involved, given that all this activity was extremely secret, and a birth would be a dead give-away, and they'd probably haul Smith to the clink. But if there are no children from any of his other marriages, I'm not surprised that there are no children from his marriages to already-married women. If you are going to have a child, you shouldn't have a child with a woman married to another man. I'm sure Smith knew that basic rule of manhood.

There is no evidence that sexual relations was "the rule". It is apparent that Joseph Smith had sexual relations occurred with at least a few of the wives, but "the rule" i.e. we have no evidence for the majority of the sealings was nothing more than just sealings. CFR that they were "the rule", please. Birth Control??? You mean ol'Joe just hopped down to the 5 &10 and picked some local products up? Or are you indicating that ol'Joe practiced the rhythm method? You do know what they call those that practice such for birth control, right? That's right, we call them parents!

If you really don't have anything more than sheer ignorance, at least for "a man", the best advice is to write in your journal, your blog, or speak to the trees. You give anti-Mormons a bad name when such utter silliness.

This is a knee-jerk reaction to stupidity; I apologize in advance.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Storm Rider