Marinda Nancy Hyde

[_cognitiveharmony]

Except that he didn't marry another man's wife according to the evidence. You're logic is no different than "Something MUST have happened." which is all you have presently. Do you have anything to gainsay the evidence I presented in my above post? I didn't think so.

Your sloppy apologetic quote just confirmed that he married another man's wife. Just because Joseph Smith chose to ignore her marriage to Windsor doesn't mean she wasn't married to him. This is ridiculous. So where's the evidence of their divorce? Where's the evidence of them being remarried? This is some of the worst apologetics I've seen. "It was OK because Joseph thought it was OK". Asinine. by the way, marriages with children are never annulled. That they would suggest that a marriage with children could just be annulled by ignoring it is plain stupid.

[_cognitiveharmony]

Explain to me how her "child bearing chronology" suggests that they weren't cohabiting? Maybe they were just having marital problems during this time and weren't having much sex quite possibly due to his estrangement from the church. It certainly suggests nothing about their living arrangements. This is mere speculation to fuel a sloppy apologetic theory.

[_cognitiveharmony]

According to BC and his quote, if any of you single (or married I guess) guys want to go hook up with some married women that weren't married by a Mormon clergyman, you're totally cool. There's nothing wrong with that and it's definitely not adultery. Of course you'll have to figure out a way to marry them for a little while first. Dangit, where's old Joseph Smith when you need him?

[_bcspace]

This is some pretty sad apologetics. She was still Windsor's wife.

Meaningless. The evidence shows that while they often took long periods of estrangement to be a divorce, they were also pretty serious about making sure of that fact before remarriage.

On top of that, this is the only potential case out of all the possible cases where it might look like sexual polyandry on the surface. Digging deeper into the facts and the reality of the situation, I think Hales is right. Sexual polyandry in Joseph Smith's case is a myth.

See also the many instances of manufactured "minutia" it takes for the critics to build a case like this.

Bottom line: cognitiveharmony has nothing just like the rest.

[_cognitiveharmony]

This is some pretty sad apologetics. She was still Windsor's wife.

Meaningless. The evidence shows that while they often took long periods of estrangement to be a divorce, they were also pretty serious about making sure of that fact before remarriage.

On top of that, this is the only potential case out of all the possible cases where it might look like sexual polyandry on the surface. Digging deeper into the facts and the reality of the situation, I think Hales is right. Sexual polyandry in Joseph Smith's case is a myth.

See also the many instances of manufactured "minutia" it takes for the critics to build a case like this.

Bottom line: cognitiveharmony has nothing just like the rest.

Way to not address my posts. By your non-response, I assume you concede every point. There is no evidence of estrangement, there is no evidence of divorce, there is no evidence of them not living with each other, and there is no evidence of them being re-married. Case closed. He was sleeping with another man's wife.

[_bcspace]

Way to not address my posts. By your non-response, I assume you concede every point.

I already addressed your initial points and you've yet to respond to the information given AND you continue to promulgate the false narrative. Let me know when you have something.

[_DrW]

What I'm saying is that this episode is a problem the way you present it. I'm saying that I don't think your version is all that helpful. Of course, you can ask Greenmormon. Greenmormon, does bcspace's version of the story that Joseph was sealed to Orson's wife a second time in 1843 after he came back make the whole thing all right? Are his apologetics working?

This whole dirty situation makes me sick!! That a "prophet of God" could claim that an angel came to him and threatened him with a sword forcing him to marry and sleep with other men's wives is repugnant. Where does that leave the church started by that man?

BC,

Looks as if you have some feedback here regarding the effectiveness (or rather lack thereof) of your apologetics.

[_cognitiveharmony]

[

I already addressed your initial points and you've yet to respond to the information given AND you continue to promulgate the false narrative. Let me know when you have something.

Now you're making yourself look silly. You've only responded with "Joseph Smith wasn't committing adultery because he didn't recognize their marriage regardless of it's legality and the children involved". The only evidence that exists is the evidence that says that Sylvia and Windsor were married and then Joseph Smith married Sylvia and slept with her while she was still married to Windsor. You have nothing but self serving speculation to suggest otherwise.

[_Spanner]

Is there a Brodie award category that we can nominate BCSpace for? He totally leaves President Paternoster and Elder Delaney in the dust.

[_moksha]

Hi Brackite! We ought to set these two quotations together with some banjo music. Let Comptons duel amongst themselves:

Todd Compton reports it in this manner:

“The motivation for this mobbing has been debated. Clark Braden…alleged…that Marinda’s brother Eli led a mob against Smith because the prophet had been too intimate with Marinda. This tradition suggests that Smith may have married Marinda at this early time, and some circumstantial factors support such a possibility. The castration attempt might be taken as evidence that the mob felt that Joseph had committed a sexual impropriety; since the attempt is reported by [Marinda's brother who became LDS apostle] Luke Johnson, there is no good reason to doubt it. Also, they had planned the operation in advance, as they brought along a doctor to perform it. The first revelations had been received in 1831, by historian Danel Bachman’s dating. Also, Joseph did tend to marry women who had stayed at his house or in whose house he had stayed” (In Sacred Loneliness, page 231).

Brodie’s willingness to believe Braden’s claims without significant scrutiny is unfortunate. Todd Compton observed: “There is no good evidence supporting the position (found in Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 119, 462) that Joseph Smith was married to Marinda Johnson . . . or had an affair with her, in 1831, and was mobbed by ‘her brother Eli’ and others as a result.”10 Nor is there any documentation to suggest that Braden’s version of the mob’s motives was known to anyone during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Marinda recalled in 1877: “I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”11

One item that Bc failed to include was a CRF that Marinda ever existed outside the fevered imagination of Fawn Brodie. Now, how is that for novel apologetics?

If Marinda and Joseph fell down in a forest and there was no one to witness the event, were sound waves ever present before the Fall - remember that was over 6000 years ago and sound recorders were not invented. That my friend is apologetics in action!