Another Child That Joseph Smith Didn'T Father.

[Bsix]

It seems that I have evolved into a rare visitor...and even rarer participant here. An occasional story will cause me to visit and see what is being discussed about it. Please excuse me if I missed a thread on this topic.

There is an update on the ongoing saga of the children that Joseph Smith Jr. was supposed to have sired through his polyandrous wives. Please excuse me if I missed any discussion of this topic.

You may recall a few years ago on either the ZLMB board or an early version of this board, some critics of the LDS Church were abuzz with excitement. DNA research was about to confirm long-standing antiMormon claims of certain children being those of Joseph Smith -- rather than the men to whom the women were married. If proven, these critics felt that this would confirm that Joseph Smith had marital relations with the wives of other men.

The rumor turned out to be false. Every case has proven to be a dead end for the critics. The DNA dectective work continues...with a new result being announced.

The latest findings on the topic is that Joseph Smith is NOT the father of John Reed Hancock. (Children of Joseph Smith Jr.)

The Deseret News story on the findings can be read here: Deseret News: DNA solves a Joseph Smith mystery.

Here is the status so far:

-- Nine alleged polyandrous offspring -- eight males, one female

-- Of the eight males, only six can have possible DNA testing. (Two died in infancy without known, confirmable remains.)

-- Of the six males with decendents, five have been proven NOT to have Joseph Smith Jr. as their biological father.

-- The lone female cannot be fully tested at this time.

Intersting stuff.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Bsix

[sjdawg]

I'm not entirely sure why the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had children from his plural wives is so important to either side. The question is whether or not his marriages were righteously motivated or driven by lust or other worldly concern. I suppose that a child would prove a physical relationship but lack of a child doesn't prove a lack of physicality.

Edited July 11, 2011 by sjdawg

[Nofear]

Here is the status so far:

-- Nine alleged polyandrous offspring -- eight males, one female

-- Of the eight males, only six can have possible DNA testing. (Two died in infancy without known, confirmable remains.)

-- Of the six males with decendents, five have been proven NOT to have Joseph Smith Jr. as their biological father.

-- The lone female cannot be fully tested at this time.

Intersting stuff.

Interesting stuff indeed. Thanks for posting this!

[katherine the great]

I don't think most LDS people give a hoot if Joseph Smith had children with his otherwise single plural wives. I do think it would be deeply disturbing to many though if he was shown to have fathered children with the married women he had sealed to him. That would bother me anyway. At any rate, no evidence that I can see.

[De Groote]

I think part of the interest comes from having a topic (Nauvoo plural marriage) that has so many uncertainties. With DNA, we have a certain answer on at least one question in an uncertain topic area. Perego told me he will leave the larger implications of that certain answer up to the historical experts.

[Storm Rider]

I'm not entirely sure why the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had children from his plural wives is so important to either side. The question is whether or not his marriages were righteously motivated or driven by lust or other worldly concern. I suppose that a child would prove a physical relationship but lack of a child doesn't prove a lack of physicality.

Critics and anti-Mormons are notoriously hardheaded and they would never abandon anything that is sleazy, tawdry, lascivious, etc. about Joseph Smith, Jr. Hard evidence does not suffice, documents are ignored; it is almost they have trained themselves on thinking the National Enquirer is the pinnacle of trustworthy jounalism and they follow suit with gusto.

This information on the supposed offspring of JS is of little value other than to disprove the allegations of individuals. It does not prove anything other than they were wrong in their claims.

[sjdawg]

Critics and anti-Mormons are notoriously hardheaded

Yes they are. It is one of the characteristics they share with many LDS people.

Edited July 11, 2011 by sjdawg

[BCSpace]

"Have you checked the children?" is a virtually iron-clad argument against those who accuse JS of lust as the reason for multiple sealings/wives. How could a 19th century horndog (ostensibly) get away with not having some children under these circumstances?

[cinepro]

DNA research was about to confirm long-standing antiMormon claims of certain children being those of Joseph Smith -- rather than the men to whom the women were married. If proven, these critics felt that this would confirm that Joseph Smith had marital relations with the wives of other men.

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

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

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

[bluebell]

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

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

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

I think that katherine the great summed up pretty well in her post why some members would care if JS had children with some of his marriages.

Edited July 11, 2011 by bluebell

[BCSpace]

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

I don't think it has anything to do with whether he did or didn't, but it has everything to do with the yellow journalistic sensationalism engaged in from the "critical" side.

[mfbukowski]

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

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

Well it seems I am the one who is confused by this.

I am not clear on what you are saying. You appear to be saying that there is an inconsistency between Joseph's polygamy and this:

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

(from the link you provided above)

Please clarify?

From a critic's point of view, do you think that Joseph "forgot he wrote that", or just that he didn't care? I am always interested in arguments which appear to assert that Joseph was an inconsistent bufoon, because in my opinion, even if I was a critic, I would find that hard to believe.

[Thinking]

It's interesting to me that when it proves that JS did not father a child, DNA evidence is accepted by LDS apologists.

With DNA, we have a certain answer on at least one question in an uncertain topic area.

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

[cinepro]

From a critic's point of view, do you think that Joseph "forgot he wrote that", or just that he didn't care? I am always interested in arguments which appear to assert that Joseph was an inconsistent bufoon, because in my opinion, even if I was a critic, I would find that hard to believe.

It's my understanding that Joseph was consistent, and viewed "raising up seed" as an important reason for polygamous marriages and so attempted to do so. There was enough variety in the age and marital status of his wives that I don't think this was the focus with every marriage, but I believe what the women themselves said when they said that farming was at least attempted.

[Bsix]

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

Methinks you confuse the point. From what I have seen of antiMormon propaganda, the issue of sex plays large in attempts to depict Joseph Smith as a sexual preditor and philanderer. What is being discussed here is not Joseph's polygamy in general...but specifically the subset of any presumed polyandrous sealings.

Critics point to sexual polyandrous sealings as proof that Joseph was committing adultery with other men's wives. DNA-validated offspring would prove such relationships. Hence the excitement in some quarters at the prospect of such proof.

For some people, there is a rather large distinction between Joesph Smith Junior having otherwise single women in full-fledged husband/wife relationships than that of married women.

Six

[Bsix]

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

Apples and oranges as it relates to the limits of the science and data available.

Six

[TAO]

Cinepro, I remember one person arguing on the other forum that Joseph was a 'predecessor' of things, and that he wasn't actually required to have children... that he was setting things up. Alas, that is for a different story.

[Daniel Peterson]

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. But if there were non-consummated sealings, let alone a considerable number of them, that seems to cast doubt upon the idea that Joseph's libido was the driving force behind early Mormon polygamy.

It's interesting to me that when it proves that JS did not father a child, DNA evidence is accepted by LDS apologists.

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

I'm told by a certain type of critic, fairly often, that LDS apologists dismiss and vilify the science of genetics in defense of the Book of Mormon.

Having edited almost all of the articles on the subject from believing Latter-day Saints (and even edited a book on the subject), I confess that I've not seen such dismissals from any of the LDS geneticists and others with whom I've worked.

Could you supply a reference?

I would be fascinated to see where, say, John Butler or Michael Whiting or David McClellan rejects the science of genetics.

[Xander]

"Have you checked the children?" is a virtually iron-clad argument against those who accuse JS of lust as the reason for multiple sealings/wives. How could a 19th century horndog (ostensibly) get away with not having some children under these circumstances?

Fairly easily actually. My wife and I have never used birth control, but we have children only when we want to. We've been married for 9 1/2 years now and have only two kids. Both of them were planned. So I don't get this argument that Joseph Smith's lack of offspring somehow means he didn't have sex with any of these women.

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.

Joseph Smith had a tendency to pick the younger, attractive women for a reason. His affair with his teenage housekeeper, Fanny Alger, upset Oliver Cowdery a great deal, and led to his excommunication. To think these were just spiritual marriages that would involve no sexual relations until their reunion in the spirit world, is a nice assumption I suppose, but I think the most reasonable conclusion is quite different. And of course, Joseph Smith lied publicly about the secret practice of polygamy. Why lie at all if there was nothing going on?

[Mortal Man]

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.

Have you read this anti-Mormon website? The guy (who happens to be a friend and colleague of my brother) insinuates that the "lack of children" is not "resounding".

Sexual relations were present in some of the Prophet’s plural marriages...

It appears that only two or perhaps three children were born through those unions.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

Cinepro, I remember one person arguing on the other forum that Joseph was a 'predecessor' of things, and that he wasn't actually required to have children... that he was setting things up. Alas, that is for a different story.

Joseph Smith was Brigham Young's predecessor, was he not? As cinepro pointed out over here, BY apparently encouraged wife swapping (pardon the blunt expression but what else can you call it?) in order to increase the seed of infertile men.

[Storm Rider]

Yes they are. It is one of the characteristics they share with many LDS people.

I would have to agree. Organized religion does seem to produce its share of blind zealots. It is strange that some take the truth given to them and then demand that only their faith is of value and all others should bow down at their feet and worship in their manner. Does not give to all mankind truth to follow? If we do anything, let us always seek for more truth and admire those truths possessed by others.

[Storm Rider]

It's interesting to me that when it proves that JS did not father a child, DNA evidence is accepted by LDS apologists.

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

No, that would not be accurate; we might need to get a record player and just push the button when snide comment or ignorance rears its head. Let's look at the logic:

1) Were the children Joseph's? No, as set aside by DNA analysis.

2) Is it possible that there were any Jewish inhabitants in the Americas. According to current DNA analysis, the answer is no.

Does the science of man know the answers to all things? What was that saying about putting your faith in the arm of flesh? What did John Paul II say about the difference between faith and reason? What do all faithful Christians say about faith and reason?

[Xander]

And the argument that JS was just a sexual hound (You know, he was just out to get some tail) is lame too.

I never said he was a sexual hound, but he did abuse his power and authority by seducing the women he was attracted to. If they refused him, he threatened to destroy their reputation.

[Doctor Ninja]

Yes they are. It is one of the characteristics they share with many LDS people.

You left out his main point....."sleazy, tawdry, lascivious, etc. about Joseph Smith, Jr.".

But I will just chalk it up to what anti-Mormons and critics do, you know - leave out the important stuff!