Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Glenn101]

Meg Stout on her latest blog reporting from the Mormon History Association reports that DNA testing reveals that Josephine Lyon is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith. Thus far, DNA testing has found no biological children of Joseph Smith with women that were sealed to him while married to other men. 

Meg's blog can be found here.

Glenn

[Eek!]

18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Meg Stout on her latest blog reporting from the Mormon History Association reports that DNA testing reveals that Josephine Lyon is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith. Thus far, DNA testing has found no biological children of Joseph Smith with women that were sealed to him while married to other men. 

Meg's blog can be found here.

Glenn

Thanks for posting this so quickly.  Josephine seemed to me like the best bet for being Joseph Smith's child out of the six that I'd read about, given Sylvia's deathbed testimonial. 

I don't know whether this finding will change anyone's mind, but it conveniently does not derail my current amateur theory about Joseph Smith and what I think he was trying to do. 

What, if anything, do you see as the implication(s) of this new information? 

[JAHS]

Has there been any DNA proof of any other children besides those he had with Emma?

[TheSkepticChristian]

50 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Meg Stout on her latest blog reporting from the Mormon History Association reports that DNA testing reveals that Josephine Lyon is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith. Thus far, DNA testing has found no biological children of Joseph Smith with women that were sealed to him while married to other men. 

Good! However, it is clear that History can't give us much. Both apologists and critics put too much weight on History. 

For example, 

1. Hostile anti-Mormon accounts are not reliable. 

2. Testimony of Book of Mormon witnesses is not evidence. Faith promoting accounts are not evidence. 

Bart Ehrman said, "Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the past because the past is done with...Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The Ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we’ll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over" 

19 minutes ago, Eek! said:

What, if anything, do you see as the implication(s) of this new information? 

I am now Agnostic, but Joseph Smith remains one of my heroes. It means Joseph Smith probably didn't practice Polyandry as we understand it. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Thanks for posting this so quickly.  Josephine seemed to me like the best bet for being Joseph Smith's child out of the six that I'd read about, given Sylvia's deathbed testimonial. 

I don't know whether this finding will change anyone's mind, but it conveniently does not derail my current amateur theory about Joseph Smith and what I think he was trying to do. 

What, if anything, do you see as the implication(s) of this new information? 

Although the DNA evidence does not preclude Joseph having sexual relations with any of the women he was sealed to, the lack of progeny from such relations would be puzzling. I do not think any critics will be fazed by this information. I think that at this point in time, it maybe will help people who are struggling with this aspect of Church History give themselves a break and relax a bit on the subject and wait for further light and information.

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Has there been any DNA proof of any other children besides those he had with Emma?

So far there has been none that I am aware of. Ugo Perego has done a lot of work on this, letting the evidence take him where it points. 

Glenn

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Has there been any DNA proof of any other children besides those he had with Emma?

No.  All of the rumors and family declarations of being a descendant of Joseph Smith have not proven to be accurate - none of them, as of yet, have been found to have a DNA match. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No.  All of the rumors and family declarations of being a descendant of Joseph Smith have not proven to be accurate - none of them, as of yet, have been found to have a DNA match. 

So what exactly has been proven?  I've been pretty anxiously awaiting the verdict, since my nephews are related to Josephine.  Maybe Ugo hasn't found anything yet, by the sound of it.  Here is what his Go Fund Me page has him saying...It appears his research is still ongoing.  I think Meg Stout doesn't give much evidence, only wishful thinking.

[Calm]

Ugo has proven Joseph is not Josephine's father.

From the link:

Ugo reviewed the science of DNA and past results. In the past, Ugo has constructed a very accurate Y chromosome signature for Joseph Smith.

Other cases Ugo had evaluated had all come up negative for Joseph being able to be the biological father.

Ugo now has been able to assemble 6000 relationship pairs, with fifty five individuals specifically tested for this evaluation. The unit of resemblance is cM, centi Morgans. A grandchild would be expected to share ~1700 cM with their grandfather.

The expected cM would be 106.25 cM for the relationship pairs of Joseph was the fathe. The actual was 0 for Joseph but greater than 0 for descendants of Windsor Lyon.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ugo has proven Joseph is not Josephine's father.

From the link:

Ugo reviewed the science of DNA and past results. In the past, Ugo has constructed a very accurate Y chromosome signature for Joseph Smith.

Other cases Ugo had evaluated had all come up negative for Joseph being able to be the biological father.

Ugo now has been able to assemble 6000 relationship pairs, with fifty five individuals specifically tested for this evaluation. The unit of resemblance is cM, centi Morgans. A grandchild would be expected to share ~1700 cM with their grandfather.

The expected cM would be 106.25 cM for the relationship pairs of Joseph was the fathe. The actual was 0 for Joseph but greater than 0 for descendants of Windsor Lyon.

I'm still a skeptic, sort of like the members of this board that want to discount critics I guess. Forgot to post his Go Fund Me page.  https://www.gofundme.com/JosephSmithDNA

[Calm]

Which states he was going to share the results, which he did.

Ugo is a highly respected scientist.  Is there any reason you have to doubt his findings beside personal bias?

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Ugo is a highly respected scientist.  Is there any reason you have to doubt his findings beside personal bias?

I don't doubt his findings, like always Science gives us the answer. Science works. 

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 it maybe will help people who are struggling with this aspect of Church History give themselves a break and relax a bit on the subject and wait for further light and information.

I do feel a little better, but LDS History on plural marriage has never bothered me.   

[Eek!]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am now Agnostic, but Joseph Smith remains one of my heroes. It means Joseph Smith probably didn't practice Polyandry as we understand it. 

I agree, Joseph Smith taught some brilliant concepts, and in my mind he really stands out for that. 

My understanding is that there has been no confirmation of Joseph having sired children by anyone other than Emma, so maybe it's not just his Polyandry that we ought to re-examine, but his practice of Celestial Marriage altogether... especially if its justification was to "raise up seed". 

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Although the DNA evidence does not preclude Joseph having sexual relations with any of the women he was sealed to, the lack of progeny from such relations would be puzzling. I do not think any critics will be fazed by this information. I think that at this point in time, it maybe will help people who are struggling with this aspect of Church History give themselves a break and relax a bit on the subject and wait for further light and information.

So far there has been none that I am aware of. Ugo Perego has done a lot of work on this, letting the evidence take him where it points. 

The lack of progeny certainly raises questions, and in my opinion could cast doubt on all the testimonies from women in the late 1800's who claimed to have been the wife of Joseph Smith in word and deed. 

In my mind there is some question as to whether Joseph Smith's version of plural marriage was really the same thing that Brigham Young attributed to him, taught, and practiced.  

Edited June 12, 2016 by Eek!

[BCSpace]

Quote

Good! However, it is clear that History can't give us much. Both apologists and critics put too much weight on History. 

For example, 

1. Hostile anti-Mormon accounts are not reliable. 

2. Testimony of Book of Mormon witnesses is not evidence. Faith promoting accounts are not evidence. 

Actually, history confirms quite well that there was no polyandry.  Start with this page from the link on my siggy:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polyandry-plurality-of-wives-sorry-not-practiced-or-permitted/

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Actually, history confirms quite well that there was no polyandry.  Start with this page from the link on my siggy:

LOL  Brian Hales used to believe that Joseph Smith was the Father. Hales wrote, "his legal/religiousmarriage triangle is unique among all of the Prophet’s plural marriages because there is strong evidence that Sylvia bore children to both men. She became pregnant by Windsor Lyon in October of 1838, September of 1840, and April of 1842. Then a year later became pregnant with a daughter (named Josephine—born February 8, 1844) that was purportedly fathered by the Prophet. (Click here to view evidences.) She was the only child conceived between April of 1842 and the martyrdom...All researchers do not agree this statement clearly declares Josephine to be the biological daughter of the Prophet. 2 However, other details support that Josephine was Joseph Smith’s literal offspring. In addition, DNA testing has been performed and a correlation is found, but due to cross-marrying in the generations prior to Joseph and Sylvia, no absolute conclusions are possible at this time"   

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/sylvia-sessions/

Thanks to Science (Not History) we now know the answer. Science is cool. Global Warming is a Science fact and it's a dangerous threat. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Actually, history confirms quite well that there was no polyandry.  Start with this page from the link on my siggy:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polyandry-plurality-of-wives-sorry-not-practiced-or-permitted/

 

I'm beginning to wonder how much of the "troubling" aspects of church history are due to incomplete historical records or misunderstandings in transmitting information?  I know a guy who approaches Brigham Young's Adam/God theory by simply assuming someone misheard or didn't understand...history is just not something I'd be putting all my eggs into

[Thinking]

Isn't amazing how reliable DNA evidence is when it shows no biological children of Joseph Smith with women that were sealed to him while married to other men? Yet in other situations...

Polyandry (with or without sexual intimacy) never made sense to me.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Thinking

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

history is just not something I'd be putting all my eggs into

I simply hope you don't have a double standard. Are you just talking about "troubling" History? or are you also talking about "faith" promoting History? 

[BCSpace]

15 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I'm beginning to wonder how much of the "troubling" aspects of church history are due to incomplete historical records or misunderstandings in transmitting information?  I know a guy who approaches Brigham Young's Adam/God theory by simply assuming someone misheard or didn't understand...history is just not something I'd be putting all my eggs into

I wouldn't either.  But:

1. Critics of the Church claim history supports their view when in reality, it does not.

2. History led us to, and actually predicted, the scientific conclusion in this case.

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Isn't amazing how reliable DNA evidence is when it shows no biological children of Joseph Smith with women that were sealed to him while married to other men. Yet in other situations...

It is reliable imo within the limitations those who actually understand it (the scientists/researchers/professionals) state.  Thus it is inappropriate to claim DNA proves presence of a type in a particular location while ignoring any time limitations or other such limitations associated with the science.

[SteveO]

28 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I simply hope you don't have a double standard. Are you just talking about "troubling" History? or are you also talking about "faith" promoting History? 

Both. I read the Book of Mormon broseph, I've got like one egg in church history--the other 99 are in the standard works 

[James Tunney]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal if he didn't have children with his other wives. Is it common to get a woman pregnant after one try? Two? It took my wife and I several years to get pregnant and I'm sure that is similar to many couples' experience. So why is this news? Isn't the main issue that Joseph was sleeping with other women not his lawful wife and some were married and some were under age?

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Actually, history confirms quite well that there was no polyandry.  Start with this page from the link on my siggy:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polyandry-plurality-of-wives-sorry-not-practiced-or-permitted/

 

Thanks for posting the link.

Based on what I read at the link, it looks like Joseph's marriages to Sylvia Lyon and Sarah Ann Whitney fit the description of "polyandry" in that they were for "time and eternity" (rather than for eternity only) to a woman who was already civilly married, in the case of Sylvia, and to a woman who subsequently civilly married while Joseph was still alive, in the case of Sarah Ann. 

Am I missing something?  Correct me if I'm wrong, 

[canard78]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

Has there been any DNA proof of any other children besides those he had with Emma?

Has DNA proven that he was the father of Emma's children?

That is a genuine question. I'm not casting aspersions on either Emma or Joseph with that question. I'm happy to assume that he was the father. 

My question is simply to understand what the "control variable" looks like. 

If we've got DNA evidence to show what  Emma & Joseph's descendants' DNA looks like, then it helps to show that the test is valid. 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

I'm beginning to wonder how much of the "troubling" aspects of church history are due to incomplete historical records or misunderstandings in transmitting information?  I know a guy who approaches Brigham Young's Adam/God theory by simply assuming someone misheard or didn't understand...history is just not something I'd be putting all my eggs into

How about when we have a 1940s letter signed by the first presidency? Shall we assume they were misheard too?

(I'm talking about the letter exchange with Dr Lowry Nelson)

[Calm]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2008-fair-conference/2008-joseph-smith-dna-revealed-new-clues-from-the-prophets-genes

"

We first looked around for Joseph Smith’s posterity to see if we could find any living, direct, male descendants on an unbroken paternal line. Ideally, for studies like this one, you would need 2 or 3 individuals sharing Joseph Smith Jr. as the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Basically, starting with Joseph Smith Jr., if we could obtain a DNA sample from a couple of his sons’ living descendants, we would be able to confidently reconstruct his Y chromosome. This would be as accurate as taking a sample directly from Joseph Smith Jr. himself. Luckily, we found some individuals that matched the requirements we were looking for. This wasn’t very easy because, although Joseph Smith had 11 children with Emma (two adopted), only four biological sons grew up to adulthood, and only two of them are survived by a living biological posterity. There are few hundred descendants, but you can trace all of them to Alexander Hale Smith, who was an apostle in the Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ), and Joseph Smith III, who was the first president of that church. We collected DNA from representatives of each of the two male lines and obtained matching Y chromosome profiles that allowed us to infer with accuracy Joseph Smith Jr.’s own Y chromosome. This was exactly what we hoped for. There are instances in which the genealogy does not match the DNA because of an undocumented adoption or illegitimacy. In other words, you have the right genealogy, but the wrong DNA. This is called the “milkman syndrome” or, in more scientific terms, a non-paternity event (NPE). Luckily the markers matched so we knew that the genealogical information was also correct and we now know what Joseph Smith Jr.’s Y chromosome looks like. If I would have had Joseph Smith right here, standing next to me, and I was able to get a cheek swab from him, the DNA obtained wouldn’t be any different from the profile we reconstructed from his living descendants. This is how accurate this information is."

Edited June 12, 2016 by Calm