Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Calm]

He has already given his theory, iirc.  I think he has been working from the assumption she was JS's daughter or maybe something that works for both but keeps Sylvia monogamous sexually.  My memory says while it records Lyons was in town, that he lived at other property and not with his wife during that time period.

I am not convinced much at all when I read it.

[Calm]

Got to stop typing for the day, not sure I will come back to it as busy week.

[Helaman]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Yep.  I really thought that she was the biological daughter of JS, but I was wrong. 

[Eek!]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

You may want to research the context in which the interviews with Joseph's wives in Utah were done. 

I did, though it has been a while. 

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Joseph Smith's son was desperate to prove exactly what you are suggesting. The only difference is that the women who claimed to be married to his father were still alive, so he could ask them directly, and he did. What you're suggesting is a huge conspiracy that not even Joseph Smith III could unravel.

Or, they were telling the truth as far as their experiences went. 

I think the latter is more likely.

I do not think the women who were loyal to Brigham were above stretching the truth for a good cause.   

During trials of polygamists, my understanding is that plural wives conveniently "forgot" who the first wife was, and whose children were whose, when placed on the witness stand by prosecutors seeking to establish who the first (and therefor legal) wife was, as the legal wife could not be compelled to testify against her husband.  Without being able to first firmly establish that a woman was not the legal wife, the prosecution could not compel her to testify.  Clever maneuvering on the part of the Mormon women, and frankly I don't hold it against them one bit. 

That being said I readily concede that the preponderance of the evidence does point to Joseph Smith having had sexual relations with wives other than Emma.

But I'm less willing to concede that the system which emerged under Brigham Young's leadership is what Joseph intended.  If nothing else, I think Joseph would have been far more compassionate towards the many emotionally-deprived women as well as towards the many lonely single young men. 

On a somewhat different tangent:  Joseph ceased entering into Celestial (plural) marriages seven months before he was killed.  For the previous roughly two years he had been marrying at the rate of ten women every six months, and then it abruptly stopped.  It looks to me like the cessation corresponds with his establishment of the Quorum of the Anointed, there being only one sealing (to an elderly woman) after the Order was created.  I speculate that for some reason Joseph's focus may have shifted from Celestial marriage to the Quorum of the Anointed.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Helaman said:

Yep.  I really thought that she was the biological daughter of JS, but I was wrong. 

So did I. The interesting thing is that Sylvia seemed to think so, too. 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got to stop typing for the day, not sure I will come back to it as busy week.

Nice to have you visit for a time!!  You've been MIA for a while!  

[rpn]

Sylvia Session's actual statement can as easily be read to mean that Josephine was Joseph's by sealing, as that she was Joseph's by paternity.   I don't see that it reads in such a way that she had to have believed Joseph could be the father, at all.  

And we do not know whether her health on her death bed made her confuse what her daughter did and did not know.   And perhaps her daughter didn't know or her mother just sought to reassure her about the sealing to Joseph --- all of his sealings were not common knowledge at the time they happened.   Or maybe daughter had a complicated relationship with Dad Lyons that her mother had provided a buffer for, and Sylvia was telling her that it wouldn't be forever.   We just don't know what we don't know.

Edited June 12, 2016 by rpn

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, rpn said:

Sylvia Session's actual statement can as easily be read to mean that Josephine was Joseph's by sealing, as that she was Joseph's by paternity.  

Here is  Sylvia's statement (from an affidavit):

Quote

 

Just prior to my mothers [Sylvia Sessions Lyon] death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret fro me and from others until no but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon had was out of fellowship with the Church.

 

So, I've asked this question before (and I'll try to look this up too)....but, was it a secret that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph Smith prior to her death?  If so, then I'd say it could definitely be read as you stated above.  However, if Josephine (and "others") already knew that her Mother was sealed to Joseph, then no, I think Sylvia was revealing that she believed Josephine was actually Joseph's biological daughter (which we now know is not true).

.

Edited June 12, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.  

This current study involves autosomnal DNA, which is different from DNA testing in the past, which is based solely on the male-inherited Y chromosome.

Being a girl, Josephine would have inherited approximately 50 percent of each of her parents' autosomnal DNA.

I have this from Ugo himself, who emailed me a summary of the paper he delivered at the MHA conference.

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

23 hours 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

Thank you for posting this, Glenn.  I actually did lean towards Josephine being Joseph's daughter (the name her Mother gave her combined with the deathbed statement).  

I would think this isn't good support for Brian Hales' beliefs.  Doesn't he believe that Sylvia wasn't living with her legal husband or having relations with him at the time she conceived Josephine?

This is interesting to know (the results), but of course proves nothing but that Josephine is not Joseph's biological daughter.  I'm actually just fine with and accepting of Joseph having marital relations with many of his wives.

Edited June 13, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, I wonder how those in attendance at the MHA didn't see it!  

I was in attendance.  I believe Sylvia had relations with Joseph and that's why she made the statement she did to Josephine.

Simple as that.
 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

She is neither, imo, having read her reconstruction of Joseph's plural marriages.  She is a writer of fiction.

And it took about 5 minutes after meeting Meg Stout for me to decide she was a quack as far as history was concerned.

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I would like to know what Brian Hales would have had to say had the DNA proved that she was Joseph's daughter.  What kind of explanation he had ready for Sylvia's estrangement from her husband..interesting still.  The results of this said DNA test hasn't changed some fundamental questions.

He'd have spun it.  He's very good at that.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I think the implications of these DNA results are even more disconcerting and begs the question ...

Oops. You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

The phrase does not mean to raise the question or to prompt the question or to bring up the question. If that's what you mean to say, you should phrase it in such a manner.

Quote

... of why would Sylvia Sessions Lyon believe her daughter was fathered by Joseph Smith in the first place and it also puts a dagger in Brian Hales assertion the Sylvia was separated from her husband Winsor Lyons when she and Joseph were sealed.

Maybe I don't understand Brian's position well enough, but I don't see how this "puts a dagger" in his assertion. If Sylvia in her statement to her daughter was referring to a covenantal or kinship relationship between Joseph and the daughter, it could be that the marital relationship was for eternity only, not for time.  Or it could be that the marriage, whatever form it took, was never consummated sexually.

Am I missing something?

Quote

Sylvia, at least believed she was having relations with Joseph and that he had fathered her daughter when in fact it had been a union with her husband within the same timeframe as the union with Joseph that resulted in the baby.  She evidentially was involved with both men at the same time

See above. Perhaps I need to have the dots connected for me.

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I was in attendance.  I believe Sylvia had relations with Joseph and that's why she made the statement she did to Josephine.

Simple as that.
 

And it took about 5 minutes after meeting Meg Stout for me to decide she was a quack as far as history was concerned.

He'd have spun it.  He's very good at that.

I think so too.  Sounds like he was prepared to answer both sides of a story..just doesn't sound right. 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Sylvia in her statement to her daughter was referring to a covenantal or kinship relationship between Joseph and the daughter, it could be that the marital relationship was for eternity only, not for time.  Or it could be that the marriage, whatever form it took, was never consummated sexually.

Am I missing something?

This theory of covenant relationship being meant by the relationship makes no sense.

As Don Bradley pointed out to Brian Hales during the session, another of Sylvia's daughters Phebe (by her final husband) was present in the room with Josephine at the time.

If Sylvia was referring to her children as "spiritual" children of Joseph why would she only have made the statement to Josephine and not to Phebe.  Why of all Sylvia's children would she have singled out Josephine, the only child born during the time Joseph was alive and they were married?  Why would she not have said "Josephine and Phebe, you are both Joseph's daughters because I was sealed to him"?

No, she believed Josephine was Joseph's daughter because they had relations around right time. 
The fact that she turned out to be Windsor's daughter means either relations at the same time, or close consecutively.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

This theory of covenant relationship being meant by the relationship makes no sense.

As Don Bradley pointed out to Brian Hales during the session, another of Sylvia's daughters Phebe (by her final husband) was present in the room with Josephine at the time.

If Sylvia was referring to her children as "spiritual" children of Joseph why would she only have made the statement to Josephine and not to Phebe.  Why of all Sylvia's children would she have singled out Josephine, the only child born during the time Joseph was alive and they were married?  Why would she not have said "Josephine and Phebe, you are both Joseph's daughters because I was sealed to him"?

No, she believed Josephine was Joseph's daughter because they had relations around right time. 
The fact that she turned out to be Windsor's daughter means either relations at the same time, or close consecutively.

That is how I see it, too. Hales had asserted that Windsor Lyon was separated from Sylvia at the time of the marriage to Joseph. Obviously that's not the case. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This theory of covenant relationship being meant by the relationship makes no sense.

As Don Bradley pointed out to Brian Hales during the session, another of Sylvia's daughters Phebe (by her final husband) was present in the room with Josephine at the time.

If Sylvia was referring to her children as "spiritual" children of Joseph why would she only have made the statement to Josephine and not to Phebe.  Why of all Sylvia's children would she have singled out Josephine, the only child born during the time Joseph was alive and they were married?  Why would she not have said "Josephine and Phebe, you are both Joseph's daughters because I was sealed to him"?

No, she believed Josephine was Joseph's daughter because they had relations around right time. 
The fact that she turned out to be Windsor's daughter means either relations at the same time, or close consecutively.

I hope Don Bradley is okay, you mentioned in another post that he wasn't doing well.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

No, she believed Josephine was Joseph's daughter because they had relations around right time. 
The fact that she turned out to be Windsor's daughter means either relations at the same time, or close consecutively.

So are you more open to the idea that polyandry might be celestially acceptable? (pardon me if I am recall your position on it incorrectly)?  Or do you just see it a mortal marriage taking place at the same time as a celestial/eternal and even if Sylvia was later sealed in proxy to Winsor, that sealing would not be in effect?

[Calm]

What was Hales' reponse to Don (dang, this topic is too interesting to control myself)?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So are you more open to the idea that polyandry might be celestially acceptable? (pardon me if I am recall your position on it incorrectly)? 

No - on that Brian Hales and I agree.  He went to great lengths in his presentation to show that "plurality of husbands" has no place in Mormon theology.  And I agree.

Quote

Or do you just see it a mortal marriage taking place at the same time as a celestial/eternal and even if Sylvia was later sealed in proxy to Winsor, that sealing would not be in effect?

This.
She was civilly married to Winsor, and married for time and all eternity to Joseph without leaving Winsor.
As for which husbands she had relations with when - I personally lean towards as Meg put it on her blog:

• A second possibility is that Sylvia had become pregnant by Windsor, but not realized her pregnant state and separated from Windsor and began having exclusive relations with Joseph.  (And then resumed with Winsor after the martyrdom).

• A fourth possibility is that Sylvia mainly had sex with Joseph after the sealing, but did have at least one sexual interlude with Windsor.

Any later sealing to Winsor would likely be invalid, although I don't dispute her agency to choose the companion of her choice.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

What was Hales' reponse to Don (dang, this topic is too interesting to control myself)?

I don't want to put words in their mouths not having transcripts.  They basically agreed to disagree and as we were way out of time the Q&A portion was cut short.
I obviously lean more to Don's explanation, although "A newly shared document from Phebe Clark seems to indicate she felt the deathbed declaration regarding Joseph being father applied also to her. As Phebe was conceived long after Joseph’s death, this argues for the covenant child interpretation" leaves just enough possibility. 

But even with Phebe believing the statement applied to her, Sylvia still singled out Josephine alone as the prophet's daughter, and I believe that was for a reason.

[Calm]

Thanks

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oops. You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

The phrase does not mean to raise the question or to prompt the question or to bring up the question. If that's what you mean to say, you should phrase it in such a manner.

Maybe I don't understand Brian's position well enough, but I don't see how this "puts a dagger" in his assertion. If Sylvia in her statement to her daughter was referring to a covenantal or kinship relationship between Joseph and the daughter, it could be that the marital relationship was for eternity only, not for time.  Or it could be that the marriage, whatever form it took, was never consummated sexually.

Am I missing something?

See above. Perhaps I need to have the dots connected for me.

As soon as I wrote "begs the question"....I thought, oh boy, Scott's going to call me out for using the term in a "improper manner" but then I thought, well we are talking of a woman having sex with both of her husbands...which is an improper manner...so maybe it's improper use is justified...but you were too sharp Scott to let it slide.

thanks for keeping me honest 😜

Edited June 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[rpn]

The daughter doesn't write a direct quote.  And she wrote the affidavit in 1915: more than thirty years after her mother died in 1882 (if my math is correct).  We can't tell if she was paraphrasing her mother's statement or which part she may have changed.   But since Mother said that she was JS's daughter, referring to the sealing, we can as easily believe that, as we can that she was saying that JS had fathered the girl.   (Specially since that is how her sister Phoebe Clark, whom the Hales say was also there, understood it to be.)

[readstoomuch]

Fawn Brodie stated that every polyandrous wife's kid born after being sealed to Joseph was his.  She also accepted as fact every lurid tale about Joseph in No Man Knows My History.  Many people left church or questioned their beliefs from reading this book. I did too until I found how sloppy the research was.  That took some time.  It's one of the books my daughter in law read before leaving the church.  I have tried to get her to read something else, but she is already convinced that it is all a lie.  So, the damage is done and after 71 years Brodie is scientifically proven wrong on all accounts related to this topic finally.  

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, rpn said:

The daughter doesn't write a direct quote.  And she wrote the affidavit in 1915: more than thirty years after her mother died in 1882 (if my math is correct).  We can't tell if she was paraphrasing her mother's statement or which part she may have changed.   But since Mother said that she was JS's daughter, referring to the sealing, we can as easily believe that, as we can that she was saying that JS had fathered the girl.   (Specially since that is how her sister Phoebe Clark, whom the Hales say was also there, understood it to be.)

I have to say that I'd remember every thing my Mother told me when I was by her side as she was about to die.  Even if it was more than 30 years later. But I'd especially remember every word she said about her belief that the man I'd thought was my Father wasn't really my Father, but that the man I'd believed was my Prophet was actually my Father. Funny, but I don't think that time would dim that memory.

Edited June 13, 2016 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

Help me understand one thing...Sylvia thought Joseph was the father of her daughter Josephine but was wrong, DNA shows that in fact Josephine's father was the other guy Sylvia had been sleeping with...her husband...so what exactly is wrong? I don't understand why critics have such a problem with this...

Edited June 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake