? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So why are you insisting that the lack of offspring (if the Lyons case doesn't pan out, which, according to the site I linked, looks positive so far) is reason to doubt intimate relations with polyandrous wives, but it's not reason to doubt intimate relations with nonpolyandrous wives?

First of all, I haven't suggested it as a reason to doubt that he had sexual relations with his polyandrous wives. I've suggested that the fact that, thus far at least, no offspring of his polyandrous wives have been identified would be consistent with the possibility that he did not have sexual relations with those wives.

What gives that possibility further point is not genetics, but the fact that, while there are evidently some autobiographical or biographical accounts indicating that he had sexual relations with at least one or more of his non-polyandrous wives, I at least can't recall off hand any such account relating to a polyandrous wife.

If you accept that he had sex with his nonpolyandrous wives, and only those willing to call those women liars would insist otherwise, then you are still left with the problematic lack of biological offspring (for now, until testing is complete).

I accept the possibility that he had sex with one or more (though very likely not all) of his non-polyandrous wives, since there are accounts claiming that he did.

So whatever the reason was that Joseph Smith did not produce children with his nonpolyandrous wives is likely the same reason he did not produce children with the polyandrous children (for now, until testing is complete).

This seems to me a plain non sequitur.

I've explained my reasoning on this. I don't believe that I'm capable of making it any clearer.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie

Jersey Girl -

Are you willing to call the women whose testimonials were accumulated to prove Joseph Smith was a polygamist to the RLDS liars? They apparently did not produce children to show, either, yet these women maintained (in delicate terms, but leaving little doubt) that their marital relationship with Joseph Smith was a physical relationship just like any other marriage.

Just think about this. The vast majority of the time (the exceptions were so rare to be almost not worth mentioning) Joseph Smith was hiding his polygamous relationships from Emma. He was running a church, as well as a town (and many other things as well, such as running for president). He had dozens of plural wives. Just how often was he going to be able to have conjugal relations with each and every wife?

Why are you asking me if I am willing to call women whose testimonies indicate that they did have sexual relations with Joseph Smith a liar?

The post I made that is being responded to was made to demonstrate to Tarski how his argument was inconsistent. If you look in my post to Tarski you will see these words posted by me:

2. Because of D&C 132 (?) that specifies the raising up of seed that constitutes at least low level evidence that his unions included sexual realtions. (and by the way, I do think that they did)

Given what I posted, why are you asking me if I think the women lied or are prepared to call them liars?

I'm not following you, beastie.

[_Tarski]

Tarski

There was a notion of birth contol though wasn't there? How many kids does Hugh Hefner have and what does that indicate?
Also, why did Joseph Smith fail with the raising up of seed rationale given by the Lord himself?

by the way, having secret spiritual wives who were already married (even without sex) seems like spiritual infidelity anyway.

Yes, but Tarski, look at your reasoning above.

1. You introduce birth control as one reason that Joseph Smith offspring from his polygamous unions haven't materialized.

and in the next breath you assert that

2. Because of D&C 132 (?) that specifies the raising up of seed that constitutes at least low level evidence that his unions included sexual realtions. (and by the way, I do think that they did)

Here's the problem:

If the purpose of polygamy was to raise up seed, you can't use birth control as a possible defense against the lack of polygamous progeny produced by Joseph Smith.

In other words, ya need to pick a spot and land on it.

.[/b]

Ah shucks you missed the point because you assume it really was God talking.
In my view the "seed" thing was the excuse he came up not the real reason. It sounded good on paper but it wasn't what was really motivating him. It was a desire to possess and conquer women in some way (probably including sexually). It's in us guys genes you know.
It would only be years later that people would realize that he hadn't produced extra offspring.
Yet perhaps he did and they were raised in the respective families.

[_Jersey Girl]

Tarski

Ah shucks you missed the point because you assume it really was God talking.
In my view the "seed" thing was the excuse he came up not the real reason. It sounded good on paper but it wasn't what was really motivating him. It was a desire to possess and conquer women in some way (probably including sexually). It's in us guys genes you know.
It would only be years later that people would realize that he hadn't produced extra offspring.
Yet perhaps he did and they were raised in the respective families.

No, I don't assume that it was really God talking and I don't know why you think that. I still don't understand your mention of birth control. Are you saying that you think it likely that he did use birth control and that's why there aren't any known off spring (yet) from these unions?

[_beastie]

What gives that possibility further point is not genetics, but the fact that, while there are evidently some autobiographical or biographical accounts indicating that he had sexual relations with at least one or more of his non-polyandrous wives, I at least can't recall off hand any such account relating to a polyandrous wife.

I will just let the fact that you brought up the offspring issue drop, because it makes no sense at all. It isn't evidence of anything, because we know, as you say, from biographical evidence that Joseph Smith did have sex with his nonpolyandrous wives, and children have not been identified from those relationships yet, either.

How can you be forgetting that Sylvia Sessions Lyon told her daughter Josephine that she was the child of Joseph Smith? I'm surprised you forgot that particularly given the fact that the site I linked that referred to the genetic testing stated that, so far, it looks positive for this particular case.

Again:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

Ongoing research includes evaluation of Josephine Lyon (Sylvia Sessions Lyon) autosomal DNA. "Hundreds of DNA samples from male and female descendants of both Josephine Lyon and Joseph Smith have been collected and are being analyzed with the objective of identifying lineage-specific markers..." (Perego, Woodward, Journal of Mormon History, Vol 32, No.2 fn 39). Descendants of Josephine participating in this study have indicated the research is "promising" in confirming Josephine as a daughter of Joseph Smith. The researchers are also hoping to study the other possible children of Joseph Smith and welcome the involvement of descendants.

Jersey Girl -

I'm sorry, I got confused by your repeated challenge to show you the children. I missed your earlier statement that you do believe they had sex. Why do you want to see the children?

[_Some Schmo]

Well then you're either stupid, in denial, or a liar. Shocker!

It is quite possible that two people can disagree over the same evidence and not be stupid, in denial, or a liar.

Sure, it's possible. However, in this case, I stand by my assessment of DCP.

Better get your juliann... er, I mean... your molo fixed. Maybe get yourself fixed too. I'd like to see Mormons stop reproducing, for the good of all mankind.

I think that is a disgusting sentiment. Mormons hurt all mankind? How so? Why not just pick a few other people you disagree with and not let them reproduce either. Eh?

Yes, the world would be much better off with out Mormonism (all religions, in fact). I think it's a disgusting sentiment to think religions should be protected.

And yes, if the people who believe in this supernatural crap would quit reproducing and replicating these ridiculous beliefs, the world would be a much better place. If you think I'm going to apologize for thinking that, you're in for disappointment. Propagating myths as though they're real is disgusting, and doesn't do anyone any favors.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Yes, the world would be much better off with out Mormonism (all religions, in fact). I think it's a disgusting sentiment to think religions should be protected.

And yes, if the people who believe in this supernatural crap would quit reproducing and replicating these ridiculous beliefs, the world would be a much better place. If you think I'm going to apologize for thinking that, you're in for disappointment. Propagating myths as though they're real is disgusting, and doesn't do anyone any favors.

How is it a disgusting sentiment to believe religion should be protected? I don't recall writing that, although I do agree with that. I don't really feel comfortable deciding what people can and can not believe in and then dictating that to them. You're comfortable with that?

Who would decide what everyone could believe? Who then would indoctrinate everyone into that belief system?

As someone who has never really had a strong belief in anything I find it rather alarming that anyone would want to dictate to me what I can and can not believe. I'm pretty sure if someone told me I shouldn't believe in something I'd be picking up the banned groups pamplet. :D

[_Some Schmo]

How is it a disgusting sentiment to believe religion should be protected? I don't recall writing that, although I do agree with that. I don't really feel comfortable deciding what people can and can not believe in and then dictating that to them. You're comfortable with that?

Who would decide what everyone could believe? Who then would indoctrinate everyone into that belief system?

As someone who has never really had a strong belief in anything I find it rather alarming that anyone would want to dictate to me what I can and can not believe. I'm pretty sure if someone told me I shouldn't believe in something I'd be picking up the banned groups pamplet. :D

People will believe whatever they want, and I'm not saying we should be forcing beliefs on anyone. What I am saying is that we should all be free to avidly criticize those irrational beliefs as much as they deserve them. I'm saying I'd like to see a greater emphasis on belief in the concrete, provable, real stuff. It no big deal for people make up their own myths for themselves, if they're apt to make up myths, but if they want to harm others based on they're myths, that's reason for criticism.

So if people want to believe in Santa Claus, that's fine, but it should be open to criticism, especially if your going to start making outrageous claims about other people for not believing in Santa Claus, or start encouraging others to avoid people who don't believe in Santa Claus. Once Santa gets in the way of rational interaction, Santa needs to be blown away.

EDIT: One this is for sure... if someone tells me there isn't much evidence that hurts the truth claims of Santa's existence, I'm likely going to call them stupid, in denial or a liar.

[_guy sajer]

Daniel,

No, I did not miss you saying there are "problem" areas.

But I also did not miss these statements:

"The ugly meaty truths"? There are some problem areas in Church history, but none, in my judgment, that are particularly damaging to the Church's truth claims.

To say there is nothing damaging to the church's truth claims is just another way of saying that there is nothing there that could justify a loss of faith.

Sure, there may be "problems", but nothing that merits losing faith. None of these "problems" have anything to do with the church's truth claims.

and this:

I don't think the Church's history is especially "unsavory." Quite the contrary, actually.

Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives is not unsavory? "God" telling Emma if she doesn't buck up and accept all of this that she will be damned isn't unsavory? All the threats and violent rhetoric that occurred around the time of MMM aren't "unsavory"?

Just what would be "unsavory"?

It depends on what one has become inured to. The Old Testament, for example, is morally abysmal, yet believers accept it hook line and sinker with nary any indication that they find it the least bit troubling.

If one can accept without moral reflection genocide, murder, rape, and slavery, why would polygamy cause them any moral qualms?

The real interesting question here is how religion (or dogmatic belief more generally) serves to effectively to dull the moral sensibilities of otherwise decent, fair, reasonable people.

[_beastie]

guy - good point. What really bothered me after my brief phone discussion with the GD teacher/author of LDS historical book/ about whether or not he had ever learned anything in church history that troubled him, and he simply said "NO" - was that he apparently knew this stuff and it DIDN'T bother him.