jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Or where you're preconceived to have it go. That's not fair, Scott. You believe the evidence points elsewhere. We just disagree.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That's not fair, Scott. You believe the evidence points elsewhere. We just disagree. I'm not the one waging attacks on the faith of the Latter-day Saints. I am a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm an unabashed defender. I don't pretend to be unbiased. You apparently do. By the way, prior to last Saturday, when Ugo Perego gave his presentation in the MHA session, many would have said the "evidence points" compellingly to Joseph Smith having fathered Josephine Lyon; suddenly that has changed, and changed dramatically. Funny how that happens sometimes, isn't it? Edited June 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not the one waging attacks on the faith of the Latter-day Saints. I am a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm an unabashed defender. I don't pretend to be unbiased. You apparently do. What was it you said about not personalizing things?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What was it you said about not personalizing things? Touché. I beg your pardon.
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 On June 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM, 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 I do not know how polygamy or anything else worked with when Joseph was alive, but as you noted no children were born to Joseph by any woman but Emma and I do not think they will ever find any. He got Emma pregnant 11 times so it was certainly not because he was not able. It is clear that Joseph had sexual relations with other wives, or is it? Based on the number of women sealed to him, it makes me (at least) wonder how or if he did with so many, where is the evidence. I think that a number of women might have told their children or others as they thought it might give them special treatment. But it did not...when we look to the number of any seed remains and influenced this Church, it is Hyrum and his seed who have influenced this Church more than any other. Indeed Joseph's revelations and teachings are the mainstay of our faith, but it is Hyrum's linage that built this Church from humble beginnings to a worldwide Church. But if Joseph and Hyrum are looking down upon this Church and helping to guide it as Joseph F Smith's incredible vision in D&C 138 suggests, all that matters to them both is that it has flourished. Once again as I have noted before, they knew, they were believing when in their final hours, knowing that soon they would meet their maker that they sought solace in the reading of the Book of Mormon. Either way...I love them both, I may not understand polygamy (but I don't understand it among OT Prophets either) but I understand truth, and the Book of Mormon and the D&C have it as much as the Bible. Joesph and Hyrum had flaws just as all men and women do, as did the Prophets of old. What impresses me is that dispite their flaws, what I marvel in is what they did dispite them, and all of the turmoil going on in their lives. Some of the most beautiful scripture ever penned by any man came during some of their darkest hours in liberty jail. Words, by the way engraved in stone upon the walls that surround that tiny jail today. Liberty jail is off the beaten path, but every Latter-day Saint would do well to visit and see the conditions under which D&C 121 (especially) were written, and feel the Spirit there that will help confirm that Joseph was indeed a Prophet, and Hyrum was in all ways Joseph equal in mighty Spirituality. Three places I have been that each time I knew without doubting the calling of these two men... Liberty Jail Cathiage Jail Their graves in Nauvoo Just as I did back in January 1979, when I read all night for the first time, the Book of Mormon...1Nephi-Mosiah. Having read the Bible from the age of 11, while taking (by mail in those days) correspondence courses from a local Church seminary. The same Spirit I felt and learned to feel while reading the Bible, rested upon me that night and I knew I was reading the word of God. I was in the Army at that time and away from my family who were in Germany with me...two days later I got home and told my wife that I wanted every word of printed material this Church had ever written, little did I know what I was asking for of course. Our neighbors who gave me the BoM, had already given me many pamphlets already which I also read the night I read the Book of Mormon buried me under so much more, including the D&C which only confirmed what I already know. I had found a Church that would change the course of my life, and now the lives of my children and grandchildren. God love both of these great men (Joseph and Hyrum) because I know I do! Bill (Papa) Lee P.S. My oldest granddaughter went to the Temple for the first time to do Baptisims for the dead...she was overflowing with joy and had a long talk with her Papa.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Touché. I beg your pardon. I don't mind mixing it up, Scott, but let's please avoid assigning motivations if we can. Pardon accepted.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't mind mixing it up, Scott, but let's please avoid assigning motivations if we can. Pardon accepted. You mean pardon given, don't you?
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: You mean pardon given, don't you? Pedant. Edited June 14, 2016 by jkwilliams 1
Tacenda Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not the one waging attacks on the faith of the Latter-day Saints. I am a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm an unabashed defender. I don't pretend to be unbiased. You apparently do. By the way, prior to last Saturday, when Ugo Perego gave his in the MHA session, many would have said the "evidence points" compellingly to Joseph Smith having fathered Josephine Lyon; suddenly that has changed, and changed dramatically. Funny how that happens sometimes, isn't it? I don't know Scott...I'm still wondering if somethings been fudged, who else's eyes have seen the evidence? Half kidding here.
Calm Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here is a new blog post on FairMormon.org containing an "official response video" from Brian and Laura Hales responding to the new, convincing finding by Ugo Perego that Joseph Smith was not the father of Josephine Lyon. Not sure what you mean by "official response video"...if you mean this is the Hales' "official response", I can see that. I wouldn't call it an "official response" from FairMormon as lots of stuff is crossposted on FM which is considered worthwhile, but where FM as an organization has no position on.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Just now, Tacenda said: I don't know Scott...I'm still wondering if somethings been fudged, who else's eyes have seen the evidence? Half kidding here. I doubt Brother Perego fudged anything. DNA is DNA, and I have no reason to dispute the results. I'm still waiting for someone to produce an exact quote from Phebe Clark because Hales is a bit unclear. I can't tell if he thinks Phebe though that both of them were told they were "daughters" (which would suggest sealing, not sex) or if Phebe interpreted it to mean that Josephine was Joseph's daughter by sealing or otherwise. Without the original, it's hard to conclude anything.
Popular Post Calm Posted June 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I don't know Scott...I'm still wondering if somethings been fudged, who else's eyes have seen the evidence? Half kidding here. I am extremely disappointed in your continuing efforts to sully the reputation of not only a highly respected scientist, but a good man. Do you even have a clue to how the work is done? And making excuses for it by claiming you are "half kidding". You should be ashamed of yourself. Edited June 14, 2016 by Calm 7
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Pedant. Pedantry is what I do. 1
Tacenda Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Calm said: I am extremely dissapointed in your continuing efforts to sully the reputation of not only a highly respected scientist, but a good man. Do you even have a clue to how the work is done? And making excuses for it by claiming you are "half kidding". You should be ashamed of yourself. I don't think I'm a bad person for having doubts, I guess I have trust issues, but mostly kidding Scott I guess....on his quote below. "I'm not the one waging attacks on the faith of the Latter-day Saints. I am a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm an unabashed defender. I don't pretend to be unbiased. You apparently do. By the way, prior to last Saturday, when Ugo Perego gave his presentation in the MHA session, many would have said the "evidence points" compellingly to Joseph Smith having fathered Josephine Lyon; suddenly that has changed, and changed dramatically. Funny how that happens sometimes, isn't it?" ETA: I'm sorry, I shouldn't have sullied anyone's rep, sorry Ugo. Edited June 14, 2016 by Tacenda 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Not sure what you mean by "official response video"...if you mean this is the Hales' "official response", I can see that. I wouldn't call it an "official response" from FairMormon as lots of stuff is crossposted on FM which is considered worthwhile, but where FM as an organization has no position on. I'm only going by the label that was on the video link itself when I went to the FairMormon blog. At least it was there as of last night, when I found it. Beyond that, I can't tell you what was meant by it, because I don't know. Apparently, the video was picked up by FairMormon from the Hales' own web site. Perhaps it means it is the Hales' own "official response."
ERayR Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 4 hours ago, James Tunney said: This obviously proves too much. Just because there are no children doesn't lead to the no sex no polyandry conclusion. Do the childless marriages of today mean no sex as well? Obviously this would be an obsurd conclusion to make, right? Also, why is it so important to make this conclusion of no polyandry for Joseph Smith when Brigham Young and Willard Richards practiced it? So are we to conclude that Brigham Young was a questionable "prophet" and that the Community of Christ is the correct church? Are you trying to say that Brigham Young should be condemned for his polyandry with Henry Jacob's wife? He had a daughter with her while she was still married to Mr. Jacobs you know and this was after Joseph Smith was with her. Did you also know that Mr. Jacobs was conveniently sent on many missions by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young so they could sleep with his wife? How do you defend this? So is it still ok that Joseph Smith married and had sex with his other wives? To answer the last question first, Yes it is still ok with me. As for Henry Jacobs wife all I can say is from your description of events she must have been quite a desirable woman. 1
ERayR Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: I would imagine that the reason for entering into the polyandrous marriages in the first place was to help maintain secrecy. An accidental pregnancy could be attributed to the women's original husbands, whereas a pregnancy for an apparently unmarried woman would be scandalous and difficult to explain. And so now we are not only trying to keep an adulterous affair secret but we are now going to keep the affairs and polygamous marriages secret.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I don't think I'm a bad person for having doubts, I guess I have trust issues, but mostly kidding Scott I guess....on his quote below. "I'm not the one waging attacks on the faith of the Latter-day Saints. I am a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm an unabashed defender. I don't pretend to be unbiased. You apparently do. By the way, prior to last Saturday, when Ugo Perego gave his presentation in the MHA session, many would have said the "evidence points" compellingly to Joseph Smith having fathered Josephine Lyon; suddenly that has changed, and changed dramatically. Funny how that happens sometimes, isn't it?" ETA: I'm sorry, I shouldn't have sullied anyone's rep, sorry Ugo. I took it as kidding. Tacenda sometimes teases me unmercifully. Edited June 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm only going by the label that was on the video link itself when I went to the FairMormon blog. At least it was there as of last night, when I found it. Beyond that, I can't tell you what was meant by it, because I don't know. Apparently, the video was picked up by FairMormon from the Hales' own web site. Perhaps it means it is the Hales' own "official response." Thanks. I don't remember FM using such terminology on its work and in fact going out of its way to avoid it in many cases. Since it was crossposted from the Hales' own website which is not done in conjunction with FM or FM members as far as I am aware (I believe there is a joint project on another topic), I assume that the Hales used it for their own work...possibly to differentiate it from off the cuff remarks made elsewhere.
Calm Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I took it as kidding. Tacenda sometimes teases me unmercifully. There is a difference between teasing someone you are talking to and accusing a scientist who is not aware of the claim of possibly reporting false data. Would you feel comfortable if Tacenda persistently accused you of intentionally reporting lies in your DN work? It is the fact that Tacenda has continued to suggest the possibility of fudging that angers me. Edited June 14, 2016 by Calm 3
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not the one waging attacks on the faith of the Latter-day Saints. I am a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm an unabashed defender. I don't pretend to be unbiased. You apparently do. By the way, prior to last Saturday, when Ugo Perego gave his presentation in the MHA session, many would have said the "evidence points" compellingly to Joseph Smith having fathered Josephine Lyon; suddenly that has changed, and changed dramatically. Funny how that happens sometimes, isn't it? Be nice, John is a friend of mine. Everyone brings bias to every argument, we all see the world through our own colors through our own prisms (wow I hope I spelled that right or it will destroy my comment). But to engage in constructive debate we must sometimes look away for a moment to see their colors in order to see beyond and to see common ground.
Gray Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, ERayR said: And so now we are not only trying to keep an adulterous affair secret but we are now going to keep the affairs and polygamous marriages secret. If that's how you wish to portray these relationships.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Pa Pa said: Be nice, John is a friend of mine. Everyone brings bias to every argument, we all see the world through our own colors through our own prisms (wow I hope I spelled that right or it will destroy my comment). But to engage in constructive debate we must sometimes look away for a moment to see their colors in order to see beyond and to see common ground. Thanks. I note that Juliann seems to agree that there is at least some evidence of polyandry. It doesn't necessarily require a vendetta against the prophets to think that.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: Be nice, John is a friend of mine. Everyone brings bias to every argument, we all see the world through our own colors through our own prisms (wow I hope I spelled that right or it will destroy my comment). But to engage in constructive debate we must sometimes look away for a moment to see their colors in order to see beyond and to see common ground. I think John and I have already settled this matter. No need to stir the pot that I can see. But if you're suggesting that everyone is biased, I agree. Hence, I don't buy it when somebody pretends not to be. And why I don't make such a pretense for my own part.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I think John and I have already settled this matter. No need to stir the pot that I can see. But if you're suggesting that everyone is biased, I agree. Hence, I don't buy it when somebody pretends not to be. And why I don't make such a pretense for my own part. For the record, I don't believe anyone is unbiased, including myself, so it would be silly to pretend otherwise.
Recommended Posts