bcspace wrote:All the claims that Joseph Smith fathered children through other women besides Emma so far have been unsubstantiated. I daresay none of you is without sin in that matter.........
So far, all claims of Nephites & Lamanties inhabiting the America's have been unsubstantiated yet you believe it. How come the standards you require for substantiation are somewhat 'flexible'?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
bcspace wrote:All the claims that Joseph Smith fathered children through other women besides Emma so far have been unsubstantiated. I daresay none of you is without sin in that matter.........
Is it bcspace's position that Joseph Smith did not have sex with any woman except Emma?
If so, his position differs from that put forward by the CoJCoLDS in the Temple Lot case, where the church adduced numerous affidavits from faithful LDS woman who declared to the court that they had had sexual relations with Smith.
I am not particularly interested in whether Smith succeeded in making any woman pregnant except Emma, though I see no reason to think it impossible. There can be all kinds of reasons for that, ranging from the medical to what we may call the prudential.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
So far, all claims of Nephites & Lamanties inhabiting the America's have been unsubstantiated yet you believe it. How come the standards you require for substantiation are somewhat 'flexible'?
Did I say that substantiation is required for belief? No, but the premise of the thread seems to require it hence the hypocrisy.......