Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[canard78]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

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."

Thanks Calm. 

[Duncan]

3 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

it's like how much of our life is recorded, accurately even and of those records that have survived? and that's what historians have to work from. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by Duncan

[sjdawg]

4 hours 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...

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

What is the conclusion of the research?  No DNA Evidence = No Sexual Relations?   No DNA Evidence = No Polyandry?

To me it doesn't even matter if there were children created from the marriages.

TBH I'm just as bothered (or maybe even more bothered) by the marriages of someone like Lorenzo Snow as I am the marriages of Joseph Smith.  Lorenzo married some pretty young girls in his 40's and 50's and those marriages absolutely involved sex.

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by sjdawg

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Hello Tacenda, 

All that has really been proved is that Joseph has no descendants except those that came from his first wife, Emma.  Bluntly, it does not prove or disprove that Joseph had sexual relations with his other plural wives only that they did not produce children.  Some have commented this is strange in that Joseph and Emma seemed fruitful why would he not have been as fruitful with the women that claimed have such relations with him?

What this means to me and my own opinion?  I think that Joseph practiced polygamy and did have sexual relations with some, a few, of his wives.  I suspect that his ability to live as man and wife with this plural wives was rare and intermittent.  It is a bit of a yawner for me because the outcome - DNA or no DNA - does not prove anything one way or another.  We already know Joseph practiced polygamy.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, sjdawg said:

What is the conclusion of the research?  No DNA Evidence = No Sexual Relations?   No DNA Evidence = No Polyandry?

To me it doesn't even matter if there were children created from the marriages.

TBH I'm just as bothered (or maybe even more bothered) by the marriages of someone like Lorenzo Snow as I am the marriages of Joseph Smith.  Lorenzo married some pretty young girls in his 40's and 50's and those marriages absolutely involved sex.

 

The article gave four possible conclusions:

1 - Sylvia (the mother) was actually talking about the covenant relationship.  They showed a previously unseen document from Phebe Clark (I think Josephine's sister) where Phebe claimed to be Joseph's daughter just as Josephine is.  Since the Phebe was conceived after Joseph's death, the only explanation for her is the covenant relationship

2 - Sylvia was unknowingly pregnant when she stopped having sexual relations with her husband (Windsor) and switched to Joseph.

3 - It was a fully polyandrous relationship and Sylvia just assumed Josephine was the child of Joseph.

4 - Sylvia mainly had sex with Joseph but did go back to Windsor a few times.

[Calm]

I highly doubt that Ugo is concluding this means no sexual relations at all or even no sex with potentially polyandrous wives.  I have found him to be cautious in his claims and very professional and aware of what DNA can actually tell us.  Others may use his research to draw that conclusion, but he can't control what they do.

He has answered a question that people have been asking a long time, but only that question.  Sylvia Sessions did not tell her daughter, Josephine, she was Joseph's daughter on her death bed because she was his biological daughter.  It does not answer the question did Sylvia think she was her biological daughter ( or why would she wait till her death bed to tell her if it was only the sealing that made her his daughter?).

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I highly doubt that Ugo is concluding this means no sexual relations at all or even no sex with potentially polyandrous wives.  I have found him to be cautious in his claims and very professional and aware of what DNA can actually tell us.  Others may use his research to draw that conclusion, but he can't control what they do.

I agree.  From what I've read about Ugo, he has integrity and is very well respected.  He can only report his findings.  

I can't imagine that any serious apologist is still trying to claim that there were no sexual relations involved in any of Joseph's plural marriages.  But this result is interesting to learn because of what Sylvia told her daughter.  

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

He has answered a question that people have been asking a long time, but only that question.  Sylvia Sessions did not tell her daughter, Josephine, she was Joseph's daughter on her death bed because she was his biological daughter.  It does not answer the question did Sylvia think she was her biological daughter ( or why would she wait till her death bed to tell her if it was only the sealing that made her his daughter?)

I'm not sure I understand your sentence I put in bold above.  I agree with what you stated next (regarding Sylvia thinking Joseph was the biological daughter).  I really can't imagine that Sylvia would lie to her daughter about this or even bring it up if she didn't believe that it was the truth, but we just don't know.  I think family members believed it was true (or at least many of them).

I think the family was also doing their own DNA analysis and I wonder if now they will continue?  Iiirc, they were using the same lab or facility as Ugo was, so the result would be the same.

.

Edited June 12, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

I am just saying that whatever Sylvia said, Josephine was not Joseph's biological daughter.  Thus it leaves open the question of what she meant.  If the finding had been positive, we could safely conclude imo that Sylvia told her that because she knew Josephine was his biological daughter, but with the opposite result, we are pretty much in the same situation as before imo with the only result being that we probably need to conclude, barring finding some lost writing of her mother, father or Joseph's discussing in detail the relationship of the three, that we will never know in this life.

[Calm]

I think it is possible that Sylvia was referring to a sealing only relationship, and perhaps had remained silent out of respect for the father-daughter bond between Windsor and Josephine, but on her deathbed was looking more towards eternal relationships and wanted to emphasize that with Josephine.  Or she might have gone a bit delusional even and gotten really confused (my recent experiences with my mother make this a definite possibility for me).  Or there might be another reason.  So I don't believe it is a given what Sylvia was intending to convey.  But I find it most likely she thought Joseph was the biological father and that was what she was trying to explain.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just saying that whatever Sylvia said, Josephine was not Joseph's biological daughter.  Thus it leaves open the question of what she meant.  If the finding had been positive, we could safely conclude imo that Sylvia told her that because she knew Josephine was his biological daughter, but with the opposite result, we are pretty much in the same situation as before imo with the only result being that we probably need to conclude, barring finding some lost writing of her mother, father or Joseph's discussing in detail the relationship of the three, that we will never know in this life.

I thought they were only able to determine the findings on males, but not females with DNA.  I guess I don't understand all the result meanings very well.  I was skeptical, but see that it may have been just Sylvia thinking her daughter was Joseph's, or her just wanting her daughter to believe it.  

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just saying that whatever Sylvia said, Josephine was not Joseph's biological daughter.  Thus it leaves open the question of what she meant.  If the finding had been positive, we could safely conclude imo that Sylvia told her that because she knew Josephine was his biological daughter, but with the opposite result, we are pretty much in the same situation as before imo with the only result being that we probably need to conclude, barring finding some lost writing of her mother, father or Joseph's discussing in detail the relationship of the three, that we will never know in this life.

Yes, I agree with all you wrote above.

I do tend to think that Sylvia believed Josephine was Joseph's daughter (or maybe she at least wanted this to be true).  I'd have to read more about her, but if she was one of Joseph's wives, I'd imagine she was someone of high character.  It's hard to believe that she would lie to her daughter on her death bed regarding something like that and she must have felt it was important to tell her (as it wasn't even something that she had to bring up).  You're right that if no other writings are found, we simply will not know why she did this.

.

Edited June 12, 2016 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours 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...

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

The DNA isn't proof of no sexual relations. But we do know that JS and the other women were fertile. It seems odd that none of the proposed offspring were from Joseph, except those by Emma.

[Calm]

Just to be clear, I don't think we can safely assume that she could only have been stating Josephine was his biological daughter and thus either she was confused for some reason or she lied to her daughter.  I do see ways she might have meant a sealing relationship even in that context.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought they were only able to determine the findings on males, but not females with DNA. 

Science evolves.  

https://dna-explained.com/2013/06/23/mythbusting-women-fathers-and-dna/

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, I don't think we can safely assume that she could only have been stating Josephine was his biological daughter and thus either she was confused for some reason or she lied to her daughter.  I do see ways she might have meant a sealing relationship even in that context.

True.  Too bad we don't have more written about this event (or that Sylvia didn't express more to her daughter to record).  It's interesting only because of what her daughter did relate and now we do know that she was not Joseph's biological daughter.  

[SteveO]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

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)

I don't know anything about that, and we aren't discussing history from the far more recent and reliable 1940s--Am I to assume that you're on record as saying every historical document from Nauvoo and Kirtland are infallible?  That all the minutes taken were recorded faithfully? We don't even give that kind of credibility to the standard works.

[Thinking]

51 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It seems odd that none of the proposed offspring were from Joseph, except those by Emma.

You do realize that birth control was possible in the early 1800's?

[JLHPROF]

I attended that session at the MHA and people were on the edge of their seats for the announcement.

My big concern with it wasn't the results, but all the false conclusions that are being drawn from them.
I heard many of these nonsense conclusions being bandied around the MHA.

Like this I came across on FB: "For years, critics have insisted Joseph had a baby with one of his plural wives, who was married to another man in this life. DNA research shows that Joseph is not the biological father of Josephine Lyons, showing again, that while Joseph was sealed to many women, it was mainly a spiritual event for him."

It shows no such thing.

Edited June 12, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Glenn101]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I attended that session at the MHA and people were on the edge of their seats for the announcement.

My big concern with it wasn't the results, but all the false conclusions that are being drawn from them.
I heard many of these nonsense conclusions being bandied around the MHA.

Like this I came across on FB: "For years, critics have insisted Joseph had a baby with one of his plural wives, who was married to another man in this life. DNA research shows that Joseph is not the biological father of Josephine Lyons, showing again, that while Joseph was sealed to many women, it was mainly a spiritual event for him."

It shows no such thing.

The only thing that has pretty much been proven is that Josephine Lyon is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith. After that, it is all speculation.

Glenn

Edited June 12, 2016 by Glenn101

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The only thing that has pretty much been proven is that Josephine Lyon is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith. After that, it is all speculation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by saying "all speculation"?  We have much more than speculation regarding the relations that Joseph had with his plural wives.  Maybe that's not what you meant?

[rpn]

I'm not sure how much we understand that JS and his followers thought that being sealed to the most righteous people they knew was their way to heaven.   Pres. Wilford Woodruff received revelation in the 1890's directing people to only be sealed to their own ancestors, having realized that the way it had been from the beginning was not what God had meant (see intro to manual of his teachings, and temple lesson therein).

Edited June 12, 2016 by rpn
correct date

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to by saying "all speculation"?  We have much more than speculation regarding the relations that Joseph had with his plural wives.  Maybe that's not what you meant?

There were people at the MHA who were refusing to even call these women "wives".  They were making up new terminology as they went for Joseph's relationships to these women.

One woman insisted on referring to them as "covenant companions" or something similar because "wives implies sex".
Another man (who you may be able to guess) was grinning like the cat that got the canary at what he saw as validation of the idea Joseph never had relations within polyandrous sealings.
And of course the always popular "sealings are not marriages" nonsense.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

There were people at the MHA who were refusing to even call these women "wives".  They were making up new terminology as they went for Joseph's relationships to these women.

One woman insisted on referring to them as "covenant companions" or something similar because "wives implies sex".
Another man (who you may be able to guess) was grinning like the cat that got the canary at what he saw as validation of the idea Joseph never had relations within polyandrous sealings.
And of course the always popular "sealings are not marriages" nonsense.

Wow.  How did you sit there and not say anything (maybe you did or maybe it just wasn't the time or place...)?

It's unbelievable to me that anyone who is a serious historian or apologist or even church member who has studied church history, can believe that Joseph did not have relations with at least some of his plural wives.  I just don't get the double standard (between the standard for Joseph and all other members & Prophets who lived polygamy).  We also know that men were having relations with their plural wives as sanctioned by Joseph while he was still alive.  

Why the double standard?

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree with all you wrote above.

I do tend to think that Sylvia believed Josephine was Joseph's daughter (or maybe she at least wanted this to be true).  I'd have to read more about her, but if she was one of Joseph's wives, I'd imagine she was someone of high character.  It's hard to believe that she would lie to her daughter on her death bed regarding something like that and she must have felt it was important to tell her (as it wasn't even something that she had to bring up).  You're right that if no other writings are found, we simply will not know why she did this.

.

We need a nice picture of the two. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  How did you sit there and not say anything (maybe you did or maybe it just wasn't the time or place...)?

It's unbelievable to me that anyone who is a serious historian or apologist or even church member who has studied church history, can believe that Joseph did not have relations with at least some of his plural wives.  I just don't get the double standard (between the standard for Joseph and all other members & Prophets who lived polygamy).  We also know that men were having relations with their plural wives as sanctioned by Joseph while he was still alive.  

Why the double standard?

That's why I was skeptical at first with the findings, I wondered if Ugo was hoping for this outcome all along, and skeptical as to how accurate the findings were.  That puts me with those on this board that will only look at the faith promoting answers.  And will discount anything even smelling of looking bad for the church.  I feel this Meg Stout's blog shows she is in the camp of hoping Joseph Smith was a polygamist in spirit only.  And wonder if Ugo might be too.  But I'm not even sure about that notion so I should just shut up, haha.  

Also, not to your post, but I'm going to have to speak with a relative of Josephine Lyons, who is addicted to genealogy, and ask what she thinks.  Because she was dead sure that Josephine's father is Joseph Smith.