Eternity Only Sealings?

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you misinterpreted Dan Vogel in the video.  Let me summarize as I just listened to it again.  

Windsor marries Sylvia in 1838. 

Joseph Smith polyandrously marries Sylvia in February 1842 in a secret sealing ceremony.  

Here is the 1915 statement by Josephine about what her mother Sylvia said (not Patty, I think you got her mixed up with her Mother). "Just prior to my mothers 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 from me and from all others 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 was out of fellowship with the Church.  She also told me that she was sealed to the Prophet about the same time that Zina D. Huntington and Eliza R. Snow were thus sealed.  In conclusion mother told me not to make her statement to me too public as it might cause trouble and arouse unpleasant curiousity.  I have followed her advice and I am relating the facts to-day practically the first time, responding to the request or desire of one of the assistant Church Historians."  

Vogel talks about how a couple apologists suggest that this sealing was just a spiritual sealing and that Josephine would not have been understood to be a biological daughter of Joseph Smith, but then Vogel points out that even Brian Hales rejected this interpretation in his 2013 series on Polygamy.  I did just check Brian's web site an he has changed interpretation to allow for a spiritual sealing possibility.  One problem with Hales interpretation is that he's significantly changed his interpretation about this specific polyandrously marriage to try and fit his theory about eternity only sealings and this idea that Joseph never practiced sexual polyandry.  

Is this what you are suggesting, that the statement by Josephine does not tell us that Sylvia believed her daughter to be the biological daughter of Joseph Smith?  I think the statement of Josephine is pretty clear that she understood herself to be the biological daughter of Joseph Smith.  

I understand very well what Vogel is saying. I am not relying on Hales' interpretation, either before or after the DNA tests. When I first read Josephine's statement I looked at the wording in light of what I know and understand about the sealing ordinances and gave it very little thought. But the wording of that statement, if looked at in the light of the sealing ordinances, which it is explicitly about, would legislate that Josephine was Joseph's daughter by virtue of that sealing. The DNA tests have ruled out Joseph as being the father. So now some are claiming that Sylvia was having sex with both Windsor Lyon and Joseph Smith, but for some reason was sure that Joseph was the father. However, the only thing that she could be sure of was that Josephine was born under the Covenant and thus was sealed to Joseph Smith and was his daughter spiritually.

Sylvia was fond of telling her children of her special sealing to Joseph Smith. Phebe Clark mentions this in her remembrances and does not seem to be aware of the 1842 sealing until the revelation when Sylvia was nigh unto death. It is apparent that Sylvia was talking about the public 1844 sealing when she talked of her "special sealing" to Joseph Smith.

Also, intertwined in this tale is the atmosphere in Nauvoo at the time when rumors of illicit affairs were beginning to circulate. Do you really think that Joseph could have engaged in illicit liaisons during that period of time without people being aware of it? I think that my reasoning is sound based upon the evidence. Of course, you are free to engage in any type of reasoning that you wish also, since we have no definitive proof either way.

Sort of funny though that everyone was waiting with baited breath waiting for the DNA hammer to fall on Joseph. When it did not, more fanciful stories had to be dredged up.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Phebe was the "only one left" in the church of her full siblings (the two she specifically mentions in the quote...Martha & Dell....puts what she is stating in context).  

Iirc, Josephine was not a full sibling, was she?

Why do you continue to say that Sylvia kept her sealing a secret when Phebe states that her Mother spoke often about her special sealing to the Prophet Joseph?  Do you think she was referring to a different sealing?

Julie, Phebe did not look upon Josephine as a half-sister in her memoirs. Sylvia did keep her first (1842) sealing to the Prophet secret until 1882, I believe it was. She was publicly sealed to the prophet after his death in 1844 and yes, I believe that was the sealing that she was referring to when she spoke of her "special sealing."

Glenn

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Why do you care so much if he did or didn't?

And, answer this question:

Why are you just fine with Brigham (another Prophet) and other leaders having relations with their plural wives but not fine if Joseph did?  

I am not aware of anyone who denies that. It's ok as long as women were no doing what the men were doing. What is being denied is that JS engaged in "real" polyandry. The virtue of JS and the church is, in essence, being upheld by what the women did....or didn't do. And given what Ulrich terms the "sex radicalism" of the early church, I think it has more to do with the current need to define virtue through setting boundaries for women than anything that was going on then.

How bizarre is it that it is taken for granted that men could righteously acquire limitless sexual partners but if a woman even had two it takes down the Church? 

Meanwhile, there is 132:41 which requires blinding oneself to ignore that it gives the go ahead for a woman to "be with another man" under the proper authority. And then there are the "what the hey was going on that brought that up" statements. Like Emma being told to cleave only to Joseph and no one else. Or Augusta Cobb writing to an apparently neglectful BY asking for a proxy husband because she wanted another child....a very strange request unless.....

 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie, Phebe did not look upon Josephine as a half-sister in her memoirs. Sylvia did keep her first (1842) sealing to the Prophet secret until 1882, I believe it was. She was publicly sealed to the prophet after his death in 1844 and yes, I believe that was the sealing that she was referring to when she spoke of her "special sealing."

Glenn

This falls apart very quickly if Sylvia kept public knowledge secret until her deathbed. Again, the only out here is to consider her a liar or delusional. Or maybe just downright stupid.....

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie, Phebe did not look upon Josephine as a half-sister in her memoirs. 

But it was Slyvia who is quoted and who is speaking specifically about those three children, it's not Phebe speaking.

And, if the second sealing was not a secret, then Josephine would have already known her Mother was sealed to Joseph and that he was her spiritual Father.   It makes no sense that this was the secret Sylvia revealed on her deathbed.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

For those who object to a woman having similar opportunities to the men, I really want to know....why? What is so much more horrible about a woman with two husbands than a man with 40 wives?

[cdowis]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Sylvia Sessions Lyon is good evidence for sexual polyandry, though. She believed that Joseph Smith was the father of her daughter Josephine, but DNA testing has confirmed that Josephine's father was Sylvia's other husband, Windsor. That indicates she was concurrently having relations with both men. 

Dan Vogel is insistent on this argument.  He got a bit peeved with me when I pointed out that another interpretation of her statement is that, with her being sealed for eternity to JS, that she considered JS as the girl's "real" father,  albeit not the biological father.  FYI, this happens all the time that a child is sealed, but not to the natural father, as happens with illegitimate or adopted children.  

We have to see things through her eyes that her temporal father was  just  temporary.

Edited February 9, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

dup

Edited February 9, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

dup

Edited February 9, 2017 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

Why do you care so much if he did or didn't?

And, answer this question:

Why are you just fine with Brigham (another Prophet) and other leaders having relations with their plural wives but not fine if Joseph did?  

I don't care and that was the point I was trying to make, it's none of my business.

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

So ask the wives.....it's high time we started paying attention to them.

Not me, you can ask.

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Dan Vogel is insistent on this argument.  He got a bit peeved with me when I pointed out that another interpretation of her statement is that, with her being sealed for eternity to JS, that she considered JS as the girl's "real" father,  albeit not the biological father.  

Except that Josephine (and others) already knew Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph.  And Sylvia said she was telling her a secret that no one else knew.  So that explanation doesn't work.

Why would Sylvia tell her not to tell anyone that she was sealed to Joseph "as it might cause trouble and arouse unpleasant curiosity" when people already knew about the sealing?  But if the secret was that Sylvia believed Joseph was Josephine's physical Father, that fits and it makes perfect sense that Sylvia wouldn't want her to tell others this "secret".

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't care and that was the point I was trying to make, it's none of my business.

That's good to know (I don't care either but some fight vehemently against it).  So you don't care if the polyandry involved the woman having sex with both husbands during the same time period?  If so, Then we agree.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[cdowis]

56 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Except that Josephine (and others) already knew Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph.  And Sylvia said she was telling her a secret that no one else knew.  So that explanation doesn't work.

Why would Sylvia tell her not to tell anyone that she was sealed to Joseph "as it might cause trouble and arouse unpleasant curiosity" when people already knew about the sealing?  But if the secret was that Sylvia believed Joseph was Josephine's physical Father, that fits and it makes perfect sense that Sylvia wouldn't want her to tell others this "secret".

I do not believe that in such matters of the heart and emotion, logical and rational thought cannot always be expected.  I assume you are familiar with the concept of hyperbole.  You use one phrase to build your whole argument, but I see it as dramatic hyperbole, and you see it as an admission of adultery.

The FACT is that she was not the biological daughter of JS, and all of the twists and turns of your argument cannot dispute that simple fact.  The antiMormon view is that JS was an adulterer with the knowledge of the community and they accepted that relationship.  And that the Lord Himself continued to maintain JS prophetic role in the church.  IOW, just another false prophet, false religion.

You can choose that JS was a immoral adulterer, or that this was a sealing only relationship.

I have made my choice, and apparently you have done so as well..

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by cdowis

[rongo]

This isn't a pat answer that shuts the door and discussion on all exceptional polygamy claims (i.e., polyandry, teenagers, etc.), but I think it's important to keep in mind that it is important to get to the sources and not outsource the reading, interpreting, and processing to others. This is an example I've used in firesides before that illustrates how much spin and abuse can be inflicted on sources to push an agenda. Hat tip: Greg Smith, years ago, for pointing this out.

George D. Smith (Signature Books) wrote the following for "Secular Humanism" magazine (link no longer works):

Quote

It was the summer of 1842 when thirty-six-year-old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed: “My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.” Three weeks earlier, seventeen-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney had secretly become the fourteenth plural wife of Joseph Smith, founder and leader of the millennialist Latter-day Saints (LDS).[/quote]

This is along the lines of how Joseph Smith's sealings to teenage girls are portrayed and spun. Here is his cited source. Note that what he quotes is in red and underlined. The rest is what the ellipses omit.

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.--

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for it is to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma [Smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,] if she dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend.[/quote]

Quite a difference, isn't it? What is spun and portrayed as him setting up secret sex trysts ends up being an offer to seal the parents and daughter. 

I'm not saying that this is the case with every source, but I have found it helpful to point out to people some of the shenanigans that are pulled with sources to give the worst possibly coloring to them and push an agenda that isn't there. Something to keep in mind.  

Edited February 9, 2017 by rongo

[rongo]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

For those who object to a woman having similar opportunities to the men, I really want to know....why? What is so much more horrible about a woman with two husbands than a man with 40 wives?

Hugh Nibley makes a good point in his writings about the priesthood ban with respect to Pharaoh. He wrote that matriarchal societies make determining fatherhood uncertain, whereas in both matriarchal and patriarchal societies, there is never any doubt about who the mother is. When priesthood is through male descent, one must be able to 100% determine patriarchal descent. In polyandrous societies (such as parts of Nepal), there is doubt as to exact fatherhood. I remember reading about these Nepalese arrangements in anthropology in college. The purpose is to keep land (inherited by brothers) in the same family by having brothers married to one woman, but it does make determining the father inexact. 

It is an intriguing thought that Pharoah's line through Egyptus (the pioneer mother) may be a factor in the priesthood ban relating to him and his descendants. Nibley examines the trouble with matriarchal societies, including polyandrous ones, when priesthood is transmitted lineally through patriarchal lines. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by rongo

[rodheadlee]

55 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's good to know (I don't care either but some fight vehemently against it).  So you don't care if the polyandry involved the woman having sex with both husbands during the same time period?  If so, Then we agree.

My main point is it's impossible to know what really happened. We can't suppose to know what happened unless we ask the people involved directly. I would never be so crass as to kiss and tell or to ask someone if they had sex with so and so. I don't have a problem with polyandry.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I understand very well what Vogel is saying. I am not relying on Hales' interpretation, either before or after the DNA tests. When I first read Josephine's statement I looked at the wording in light of what I know and understand about the sealing ordinances and gave it very little thought. But the wording of that statement, if looked at in the light of the sealing ordinances, which it is explicitly about, would legislate that Josephine was Joseph's daughter by virtue of that sealing. The DNA tests have ruled out Joseph as being the father. So now some are claiming that Sylvia was having sex with both Windsor Lyon and Joseph Smith, but for some reason was sure that Joseph was the father. However, the only thing that she could be sure of was that Josephine was born under the Covenant and thus was sealed to Joseph Smith and was his daughter spiritually.

Sylvia was fond of telling her children of her special sealing to Joseph Smith. Phebe Clark mentions this in her remembrances and does not seem to be aware of the 1842 sealing until the revelation when Sylvia was nigh unto death. It is apparent that Sylvia was talking about the public 1844 sealing when she talked of her "special sealing" to Joseph Smith.

Also, intertwined in this tale is the atmosphere in Nauvoo at the time when rumors of illicit affairs were beginning to circulate. Do you really think that Joseph could have engaged in illicit liaisons during that period of time without people being aware of it? I think that my reasoning is sound based upon the evidence. Of course, you are free to engage in any type of reasoning that you wish also, since we have no definitive proof either way.

Sort of funny though that everyone was waiting with baited breath waiting for the DNA hammer to fall on Joseph. When it did not, more fanciful stories had to be dredged up.

Glenn

Glenn,

Thanks for elaborating on your interpretation.  I understand where you are coming from better now.  However, I completely disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.  I think you're misreading the overarching facts of the case, and you're applying a bias for our modern day sealing practice into a historical context that was much different.  

If Sylvia was fond of telling her children of her special sealing, why didn't she tell any others besides Josephine that they were daughters or sons of JS.  After Sylvia told Josephine of that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith then these accounts in the late 1880s started to spread and Vogel shares some of those recollections.  Its further evidence that Josephine clearly interpreted her mother's words as being a biological child of Joseph Smith.  You have to look at the entire context of this issue and not apply a presentism bias towards Joseph to the historical evidence.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

Dan Vogel is insistent on this argument.  He got a bit peeved with me when I pointed out that another interpretation of her statement is that, with her being sealed for eternity to JS, that she considered JS as the girl's "real" father,  albeit not the biological father.  FYI, this happens all the time that a child is sealed, but not to the natural father, as happens with illegitimate or adopted children.  

We have to see things through her eyes that her temporal father was  just  temporary.

The problem is your interpretation is pure speculation without any evidence, and you're applying a modern view of sealings that we don't find in the historical record anywhere.  

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I do not believe that in such matters of the heart and emotion, logical and rational thought cannot always be expected.  I assume you are familiar with the concept of hyperbole.  You use one phrase to build your whole argument, but I see it as dramatic hyperbole, and you see it as an admission of adultery.

The FACT is that she was not the biological daughter of JS, and all of the twists and turns of your argument cannot dispute that simple fact.  The antiMormon view is that JS was an adulterer with the knowledge of the community and they accepted that relationship.  And that the Lord Himself continued to maintain JS prophetic role in the church.  IOW, just another false prophet, false religion.

You can choose that JS was a immoral adulterer, or that this was a sealing only relationship.

I have made my choice, and apparently you have done so as well..

 

This is not historical analysis that you're impartially applying to the evidence and this is a good example of where Brian Hales is also criticized by professional historians.  You have a definition for what a prophet is, and you are unwilling to accept evidence that contracts your pre-formed definition.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This isn't a pat answer that shuts the door and discussion on all exceptional polygamy claims (i.e., polyandry, teenagers, etc.), but I think it's important to keep in mind that it is important to get to the sources and not outsource the reading, interpreting, and processing to others. This is an example I've used in firesides before that illustrates how much spin and abuse can be inflicted on sources to push an agenda. Hat tip: Greg Smith, years ago, for pointing this out.

George D. Smith (Signature Books) wrote the following for "Secular Humanism" magazine (link no longer works):

Rongo, I don't think you're interpretting the data correctly here, but I agree with your overall idea of not taking things out of context.  Here are a couple other historian's and their interpretations as found on Brian Hales web site.  

Quote

Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery wrote: “This letter clearly indicates that Emma was unaware of Joseph’s marriage to Sarah Ann.”
Hence there was a need to avoid a confrontation between Emma and Sarah Ann (with her parents) in the still Nauvoo darkness.

In the letter Joseph mentioned his desire to “get the fullness of my blessings sealed upon [their] heads,” an allusion to eternally sealing Newell and Elizabeth’s own marriage. Apparently, the threesome did not join the Prophet that night. Todd Compton explained: “There are evidently further ordinances that Smith wants to perform for the Whitneys. This is not just a meeting of husband and plural wife; it is a meeting with Sarah’s family, with a religious aspect. … Three days later, on August 21, Newel and Elizabeth Whitney were sealed to each other for time and eternity.”

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/sarah-ann-whitney/

[rpn]

I think it would have been more accurate to say that we do not KNOW what happened in many cases.  We know JS stayed overnight with Lousia Beaman in her sister's home the day they were married (the first recorded of JS plural marriages).   We don't know what they did behind closed doors, but no one could call that other than intimate behavior in those days.

There is good evidence that Helen Mar Kimball (the 14 year old) had no idea that her marriage would prevent her from going to the dances with her friends (as she wrote in a letter).  She thought she was giving her family exaltation.   If she'd been intimate with JS then how wouldn't she know that things had changed radically about her social status?  So that argues for eternity.

I've read a couple of different versions of what Sy.via Sessions said to her daughter on her deathbed about being JS's.  (DNA proves she isn't JS's.)  I think what she said could have been referring to the sealing,  rather than that Sylvia knew JS was her bio.   So why Sylvia would have said it if she hadn't been intimate with JS so he could be her bio we just don't know.

I think it claims too much to say more than, "so far there is no physical evidence that JS fathered any children other than those with Emma".   We can also fairly say from the evidence that Emma was very very closely monitoring his whereabouts, so it seems less likely that he was doing things that would have been required if those who thought badly of JS (who claim that the reason there are no living descendants is that JS forced the women to have abortions done by John Bennett) are believed.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think it would have been more accurate to say that we do not KNOW what happened in many cases.  We know JS stayed overnight with Lousia Beaman in her sister's home the day they were married (the first recorded of JS plural marriages).   We don't know what they did behind closed doors, but no one could call that other than intimate behavior in those days.

There is good evidence that Helen Mar Kimball (the 14 year old) had no idea that her marriage would prevent her from going to the dances with her friends (as she wrote in a letter).  She thought she was giving her family exaltation.   If she'd been intimate with JS then how wouldn't she know that things had changed radically about her social status?  So that argues for eternity.

I agree with your post and also agree that we just have circumstantial evidence and very few records or statements regarding how polygamy and polyandry were lived.  

But I disagree with your statement or conclusion about Helen Mar Kimball's sealing.  I think how it was for her after the sealing argues for a time and eternity sealing, not just eternity only.  Otherwise why would it have mattered if she dated or went to dances or did all the social things a young girl normally did.  She writes of how different her life was after the sealing.  That argues for a time sealing (along with eternity), IMO.  

However, I don't believe that means this marriage was consummated.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't think you can use the word "certainty" unless there are records that state "eternity only" or statements specifying this.  Otherwise it's just speculation.

The sealing could have been for time and eternity even if Joseph didn't physically live with his plural wives.

I'm hoping JLHPROF will know what was written or stated.

I came into this thread a bit late, and it looks like all the best references have been provided.
I really like this one from JAHS below:

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

In the Reed Smoot hearings of 1905 President Joseph F. Smith testified to the following:

In other words President Smith is saying that all three forms of marriage were conducted now in his time the same as formerly (when polygamy first stared), which included for eternity only.

My issue with this whole situation concerning eternity only sealings is this:  This historically noted practice is being misapplied by many to make people feel better.

And a lot of that comes back to Brian Hales who says on his site "Any of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages where sexuality is not documented could have been an eternity-only sealing including eleven of his fourteen sealings to women with legal husbands."

I take issue with the idea that because polygamy troubles so many and we want Joseph to not be guilty of the same supposed practices we accuse Brigham and others of we start making the "could have beens" into the "here's what happened".

Were there eternity only sealings?  Documentation appears to say there were.
Did Joseph have any?  Documentation is sketchy and most of his marriages ceremonies were not documented as to the type or wording used.
So all we are doing by claiming any of Joseph's marriages were for eternity only because they trouble people for various reasons (polyandry, teenagers etc) is attempting to remove our own cognitive dissonance.

Did Joseph have relations with Helen Kimball?  Fanny Alger?  Zina Huntington?  Mary Rollins Lightner?
Or were they eternity only sealings with no relations?
We don't know, and stating that any we don't like were eternity only with no record of the ceremony isn't history, it's false rationalizing.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If Sylvia was fond of telling her children of her special sealing, why didn't she tell any others besides Josephine that they were daughters or sons of JS.  

Because they already knew.  They knew their mother had been sealed  to Joseph Smith after his death.  There wasn't anything substantial that could have been misinterpreted as scandalous about that.  It was something that was openly shared.  What they didn't know, that Sylvia had kept secret, was that Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph in a prior ceremony, while he was still living.  The reason she kept this secret was for the protection of Joseph, those involved and the entire Church.  Everything Joseph did was turned into scandal regardless of the truth.  To avoid the appearance of scandal and misinterpretation, she kept it a secret.  This was the case with all of Joseph's sealings while he was living, it wasn't anything new.

Quote

After Sylvia told Josephine of that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith then these accounts in the late 1880s started to spread and Vogel shares some of those recollections.

Of course they did, that is human nature.  People want to impute the most salacious interpretation they can think of.  This is partly why she kept it secret.  All of the accounts Vogel shares, (and there aren't that many) you will notice, are rumors.

Quote

 Its further evidence that Josephine clearly interpreted her mother's words as being a biological child of Joseph Smith.

She may or may not have interpreted it that way, there is nothing, "clear" about it, except to those wo have already made up their minds and choose to ignore pertinent facts.

Quote

 You have to look at the entire context of this issue and not apply a presentism bias towards Joseph to the historical evidence.  

You should be careful to follow your own counsel here, it is wise counsel.