Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Buffalo]

I thought it was generally accepted by critics and apologists alike that at least some of Joseph Smith's marital relationships had a sexual dimension. I guess it comes down to whether one believes the wives who said they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith. I do.

Here are the facts of the matter: Some of Joseph's plural marriages may have had a sexual dimension. Regarding the derailment of this thread into the Trailerpark's favorite theme, Joseph Smith's sex life (when it isn't waxing eloquent about the liberating joys of homosexuality), the main theme in play were plural marriages to wives who still had living husbands married according to civil law. In the first case, there may have been some sexual relations, but there is a dearth of evidence here, not the least of which is the absence of descendents not traceable to Emma.

In the second case, there is no evidence whatsoever, and Buffalo's challenge to prove the there wasn't, in lieu of showing some evidence that there was, is not going to get us very far.

Sure there is. As has already been stated, one of his polyandrous wives stated that she was intimate with Joseph.

Eliza Snow, when asked if she remained a virgin after marrying Joseph, replied, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.” The women who "married" Joseph knew it was sexual, of course it was sexual. I'm afraid it's Droopy & the Reorganized church vs the LDS Church & Joseph's wives on this issue.

Where is your evidence that ANY of these marriages were asexual, Droops? Your marriage to a woman may have been sexless, but that is not the norm. :)

[_Droopy]

As I recall, the one polyandrous wife who provides evidence of a sexual relationship is Sylvia Lyon. She told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith, not Windsor Lyon. She did not say this to any of her other children. She told Josephine and other family members that Josephine had been conceived at a time when Windsor Lyon had become estranged from the church and was living separately (about a block and a half away from Sylvia).

But this, as you should know if you'd studied the issue, has problems of its own, including the fact that it is a third hand account having been reported as coming from Lyon's daughter, not Lyon herself, and that the definition of the term "daughter" within this context could be quite problematic, and not at all straightforward.

[_Droopy]

I also notice that you think that my sources have an "agenda" and that your sources apparently do not.

Yours are obvious.

And just what is my "agenda"?

[_Buffalo]

As I recall, the one polyandrous wife who provides evidence of a sexual relationship is Sylvia Lyon. She told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith, not Windsor Lyon. She did not say this to any of her other children. She told Josephine and other family members that Josephine had been conceived at a time when Windsor Lyon had become estranged from the church and was living separately (about a block and a half away from Sylvia).

But this, as you should know if you'd studied the issue, has problems of its own, including the fact that it is a third hand account having been reported as coming from Lyon's daughter, not Lyon herself, and that the definition of the term "daughter" within this context could be quite problematic, and not at all straightforward.

That would be second-hand account, from a faithful source.

What are your sources that the marriages were in name only (contrary to D&C 132)? The Reorganized LDS Church?

[_Darth J]

Here are the facts of the matter: Some of Joseph's plural marriages may have had a sexual dimension.

Yes, "may have." It's not as if the Utah church got firsthand accounts from the women involved for the express purpose of countering the claim by RLDS missionaries that Joseph Smith was only "ceremonially" wed to his plural wives.

Regarding the derailment of this thread into the Trailerpark's favorite theme, Joseph Smith's sex life

See, the thing is that when a man says that God gave him these self-serving revelations about how he really, really needed people to give him money, and property, and their daughters/wives as brides, and then the modern LDS Church invites us to accept this man as a prophet, his behavior is of more than passing relevance when assessing his credibility.

(when it isn't waxing eloquent about the liberating joys of homosexuality),

Probably because so many people here masturbated as teenagers. According to a modern prophet of God, masturbating will make you gay if you keep doing it.

the main theme in play were plural marriages to wives who still had living husbands married according to civil law. In the first case, there may have been some sexual relations, but there is a dearth of evidence here,

Except for things like court testimony in the Temple Lot case, affidavits gathered by the Utah church to prove that Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives.........

not the least of which is the absence of descendents not traceable to Emma.

Yet again, Ron, I don't want to get into a whole birds and the bees talk with you, but it turns out that women don't have a baby every time they have sex.

However, the absence of any descendants traceable to Joseph Smith's plural wives does prove that he was not following the justification purportedly given by the Lord as to why plural marriage would sometimes be justified. "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God because he disobeyed the Lord's commandments!" What a beautiful testimony.

In the second case, there is no evidence whatsoever, and Buffalo's challenge to prove the there wasn't, in lieu of showing some evidence that there was, is not going to get us very far.

Once again, I refer Ron Lafferty to that horrid bastion of secular humanist anti-Mormonism, the Maxwell Institute:


As the table and discussion above show, Joseph was sealed to twenty-one women who were unmarried or widowed. Nearly all indications of sexual relations pertain to these marriages. The table and discussion also show that Joseph was sealed to eight women with an existing marriage. In one marriage, that of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, there was a pregnancy, which, according to family tradition, Sylvia related to the time when her husband "was out of fellowship with the Church" (p. 183). As stated in the above discussion on polyandry, even this is not shown to be a concurrent sexual relationship with two husbands. For the remaining seven sealings of Joseph to married women, there is no reliable evidence that these involved sexual relationships. With one known exception, we know only that the ceremony gave these married women the right to be joined to Joseph Smith in the next world. Sources simply do not show a "marital triangulation" in these cases.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=290

All this has already been stated in this thread. Ron Lafferty seems to be rising to Simon Belmont levels of "Nuh-uh!!!"

[_Droopy]

Sure there is. As has already been stated, one of his polyandrous wives stated that she was intimate with Joseph.

No, we don't know that. Sylvia Lyon's daughter, Josephine Fisher, is reported to have said that she heard her mother say that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. If you don't understand the difference in plausibility and tenability between third had hearsay and serious documentary evidence, you shouldn't even be in the discussion, Bluff.

Eliza Snow, when asked if she remained a virgin after marrying Joseph, replied, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.” The women who "married" Joseph knew it was sexual, of course it was sexual. I'm afraid it's Droopy & the Reorganized church vs the LDS Church & Joseph's wives on this issue.

Bluff, Eliza was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, and was not sealed to him while still civilly married to a man still living.

Try to stay logically focused on the subject matter at hand.

Where is your evidence that ANY of these marriages were asexual, Droops? Your marriage to a woman may have been sexless, but that is not the norm.

In other words, you have no evidence whatever to bring to the table, and your only recourse is to ask me to prove a negative (show me that Joseph Smith did not have sex with those woman).

In lieu of actually engaging in a logical, evidence based debate, I suppose this will do, in your case.

[_Buffalo]

Sure there is. As has already been stated, one of his polyandrous wives stated that she was intimate with Joseph.

No, we don't know that. Sylvia Lyon's daughter, Josephine Fisher, is reported to have said that she heard her mother say that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. If you don't understand the difference in plausibility and tenability between third had hearsay and serious documentary evidence, you shouldn't even be in the discussion, Bluff.

Eliza Snow, when asked if she remained a virgin after marrying Joseph, replied, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.” The women who "married" Joseph knew it was sexual, of course it was sexual. I'm afraid it's Droopy & the Reorganized church vs the LDS Church & Joseph's wives on this issue.

Bluff, Eliza was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, and was not sealed to him while still civilly married to a man still living.

Try to stay logically focused on the subject matter at hand.

Where is your evidence that ANY of these marriages were asexual, Droops? Your marriage to a woman may have been sexless, but that is not the norm.

In other words, you have no evidence whatever to bring to the table, and your only recourse is to ask me to prove a negative (show me that Joseph Smith did not have sex with those woman).

In lieu of actually engaging in a logical, evidence based debate, I suppose this will do, in your case.

Yes, Droopy, I have no evidence, aside from first-hand testimony from the women themselves. But as we all know, the women who married Joseph Smith were untrustworthy harpies.

Where is your evidence again? Oh, that's right, you don't have any. :)

Partly to maintain secrecy, Joseph could not have spent much time with [Louisa] Beaman or any of the women he married. He never gathered his wives into a household--as his Utah followers later did--or accompanied them to public events. Close relationships were further curtailed by business. Joseph had to look after Emma and the children, manage the Church, govern the city, and evade the extradition officers from Missouri. As the marriages increased, there were fewer and fewer opportunities for seeing each wife. Even so, nothing indicates that sexual relations were left out of plural marriages.

Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 438-39

[_Melchett]

To get this train back on the tracks.

Droopy, don't you think that Matthew 25:41-45 shows a left leaning?

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

[_Darth J]

No, we don't know that. Sylvia Lyon's daughter, Josephine Fisher, is reported to have said that she heard her mother say that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. If you don't understand the difference in plausibility and tenability between third had hearsay and serious documentary evidence, you shouldn't even be in the discussion, Bluff.

So in your opinion, the Maxwell Institute should not even be in the discussion.

And here I was, relying on this Christmas carol that said that FAIR and the MI had the truth of the matter.

By the way, Ron, what's the evidence of Joseph Smith supposedly having a revelation on plural marriage as early as 1831, as touted in the headnotes to D&C 132? (Hint: Thirty-year-old after the fact hearsay from W.W. Phelps.)

[_Jason Bourne]

You should really try to decide, Jason, whether, in your continual attempt to find fault with the Church,

Not agreeing with you and your strained conservative positions filtering everything about the Church is not disagreeing with the Church. It is disagreeing with you. Big difference. But it is a sure sign you are losing the argument with me when you start attacking my standing and view of the Church.

you wish to tag the UO as a libertarian anarchic society without rules, regulations, or government, or as a socialist welfare state without economic liberty. Either way, you can probably have your cake and eat it too.

I am simply having a discussion and calling it like it seems. You know that all things in common thing found in 4 Nephi.

There is no compulsion in the manner in which one utilizes his stewardship. There are rules governing entrance into and presence within Zion, however. One goes into that situation with eyes open and, just as in the Church itself, one could be separated from it if one chooses to live contrary to its principles.

There is compulsion plain and simple if one is asked to leave because they are choosing to maintain a higher life style then is deemed appropriate. How can it be only the surplus after meeting personal wants and needs and if those are deemed inappropriate and then they are asked to leave?

Do you think there will be porn produced and consumed in Zion, Jason? If one attempted to introduce such in a Zion community, do you not think compulsion would be used to remove that influence?

I hope not. I am not sure how that relates. I am not the one claiming Zion is totally open, free and laisze fare. You are.

If one enters Zion, and then leaves through transgression, one's inheritance stays in Zion. This is clear at the outset.

Thus confiscatory for breaking rules. How is that different from IRS seizing my property if I do not comply with tax law?

Thus compulsion. They are not free to give what they think and live as they wish. The government seizes property and or puts you in jail for not paying taxes. Zion will kick you out if you do not give.

Apples and oranges.

Not really.

One is free to enter or exist Zion at will. One has no choice but to enter into the tax and regulatory system of the country in which one lives (unless one simply wishes not to work or work in the criminal underground) and little choice as to whether one remains within it. In fully socialized countries, mine fields, barbed wire fences, walls, and machine gun towers are used to see to it that people cannot leave the economic circumstances in which they find themselves.

One can move to another country. Is someone making you stay in the USA?

Further, Zion is a rather specialized kind of society with a specific mission and purpose demanding a specific kind of person as a member of it. There will be little incentive for entering it if one's personality and orientation are not conducive to success within that society. I would doubt much compulsion would ever be necessary here, as most people who find a Zion society distasteful, will leave of their own accord, once they get a taste of it. Most others won't

You may be right. But there are still rules that result in expulsion thus a measure of compulsion to comply with having all things in common or lose your property. This is not free market capitalism. And I am not saying that it is bad. Just disagreeing with your portrayal.

Who decides what is reasonable?

Read the relevant D&C verses. The individual, his family in consultation and counsel with his priesthood leaders based on individual circumstances and conditions.

And if the family disagrees with the leaders??? Out they go.

And if the property is not the states, I mean the Church's then why do they leave their inheritance. Clearly this is not theirs to do as they wish. Thus communism.

Right, Jason.

I know I am right.

Anyway, in a socialist society, one is not free to enter or to leave, and one's property becomes the state's by force. In Zion, one is free to enter or exit the community at any time, and one is apprised of the conditions and rules of entrance at the outset. There is no compulsion whatsoever as to deeding one's property to the Church. One does not have to do so. Once may simply choose not to enter a Zion community and remain outside it and hence, outside the jurisdiction of its laws. If you leave your property in Zion because, once there, you choose not to abide by its laws and rules of citizenship, the church has not deprived you of it by force, but you have deprived yourself of it by contractual agreement.

Huge, huge difference.

So I sign an contract to be a communist then. :-)