Justification vs. Denial: When will the Apologists Learn?

[_Darth J]

bcspace, I would like to know where I can objectively determine that the Lord wanted Joseph Smith to have sex with some of his wives, but not all of them.

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

The evidence is that Sylvia Sessions Lyon would not have told her daughter Josephine that she (Sylvia) believed Josephine to be Joseph Smith's daughter unless Sylvia had had sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith. That's just sort of basic human experience in suspecting a specific male to be the father of a child, particularly before the advent of genetic testing.

It would not have been in Sylvia's interest to make that statement unless she actually did have sex with Joseph Smith, since that kind of frankness about sexuality was not usual, and was in fact quite scandalous, in Victorian America.

So what you do here is articulate why Sylvia Sessions Lyon would believe she had a child with Joseph Smith, while simultaneously believing that she never had sex with him. As always, thanks in advance.

[_bcspace]

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

The evidence is that Sylvia Sessions Lyon would not have told her daughter Josephine that she (Sylvia) believed Josephine to be Joseph Smith's daughter unless Sylvia had had sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith.

Already handled in the other thread(s). No concrete evidence of sexual polyandry in this ONE case. Biological daughter and the marriage/sealing itself as a polyandrous one are still up in the air with the evidence leaning against on the latter issue.

[_Darth J]

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

Brother Space, you need to understand that this doesn't help you at all. Doctrine and Covenants 132:61 specifically requires that a man's plural wives must be virgins who have not made a vow to any other man.

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

By entering plural marriages with women who were already married to other men, Joseph Smith was disobeying the Lord's explicit instructions concerning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. From the standpoint of internal consistency in Mormon dogma, Joseph Smith would have lost his priesthood authority for flagrantly, systematically disregarding the commandments he received directly from the Lord.

Nor will it suffice to assert that Joseph Smith did not know about this proviso prior to the revelation later known as D&C 132 being written down. The historical record, touted as faith-promoting by your church, has Joseph Smith claiming that he had long known about the conditions for plural marriage in exactness.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), 327–334

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii).

The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother’s “urgent request” that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, “for he knew the revelation from beginning to end” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii). When he had finished dictating, William Clayton read it back slowly, and Joseph said that it was exact.

So in light of the thread's title, denial isn't helping you, since Joseph Smith had no justification for entering polyandrous plural marriages anyway. What you need to do now is find another revelation superseding D&C 132, wherein the Lord explains that he was mistaken about his terms and conditions for the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, and accidentally told Joseph Smith that his plural wives had to be virgins who had not made a vow to another man.

You know, in addition to finding those objective standards by which Joseph Smith decided which plural wives he would have sex with and which ones he would not.

[_Darth J]

The evidence is that Sylvia Sessions Lyon would not have told her daughter Josephine that she (Sylvia) believed Josephine to be Joseph Smith's daughter unless Sylvia had had sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith.

Already handled in the other thread(s). No concrete evidence of sexual polyandry in this ONE case. Biological daughter and the marriage/sealing itself as a polyandrous one are still up in the air with the evidence leaning against on the latter issue.

I'm sorry, bcspace, but that is wrong. Back in them frontier days, mere absence of the husband was not in fact equivalent to a divorce. You don't even have to know anything about family law to be aware of that. You can simply observe that when Sylvia Sessions Lyon went back to her lawful husband, they did not participate in a new marriage ceremony before cohabitating again.

Further, Brother Space, whether Josephine actually was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith is irrelevant. The issue is why Sylvia would have believed that Josephine was his daughter. And artificial insemination not being known in her lifetime, we can reasonably infer that Sylvia would have believed this on the basis of having sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith.

[_bcspace]

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

Brother Space, you need to understand that this doesn't help you at all.

If, and that's a big if, Josephine is Joseph Smith' biological daughter, then since there was no polyandry, what's the problem? And which ones were married for time and eternity, time only, or eternity only? You consistently avoid the facts because it doesn't match the narrative you are trying to manufacture.

[_bcspace]

I'm sorry, bcspace, but that is wrong. Back in them frontier days, mere absence of the husband was not in fact equivalent to a divorce.

Brian C Hales, who's facts presented you are loathe to discuss, handles this pretty well and it seems that even Todd Compton agrees.

[_Runtu]

Brian C Hales, who's facts presented you are loathe to discuss, handles this pretty well and it seems that even Todd Compton agrees.

His conclusions are based on a single notation of the marriage date that differs from the rest. It's not a solid case at all, and I have certainly not seen Todd Compton agree with that conclusion. Michael Quinn did a pretty thorough job not only of refuting Hales's conclusions but also provided other examples of sexual polyandry.

[_schreech]

[_Darth J]

Brother Space, you need to understand that this doesn't help you at all.

If, and that's a big if, Josephine is Joseph Smith' biological daughter, then since there was no polyandry, what's the problem?

Well, you see, Sylvia was not a virgin and she had made a vow to another man. She was therefore disqualified from even being considered as a plural wife for Joseph Smith, according to a revelation from the Lord.

And again, Sylvia's belief that Josephine was Joseph Smith's daughter could only have been based on Sylvia having had sex with Joseph Smith. Whether her belief was in fact accurate is irrelevant to that question.

Also, as I just barely said, Syliva obviously did not really consider herself divorced from her lawful husband, since she did not participate in a marriage ceremony prior to cohabitating with him again.

And which ones were married for time and eternity, time only, or eternity only? You consistently avoid the facts because it doesn't match the narrative you are trying to manufacture.

It's irrelevant whether Joseph Smith purported to marry already-married women for time only or for eternity only. D&C 132 does not allow for either.

Also, please note that D&C 132:63 quite clearly says that if a plural wife goes and makes a vow with another man, she will be destroyed.

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

You can't get to a justification for any kind of polyandry within the confines of Mormon dogma, Brother Space. Justification is a non-starter for you, even if you wish to remain in denial. The claim that Joseph Smith remained a prophet (see D&C 121) and the claim that D&C 132 is a true revelation cannot be reconciled.

[_bcspace]

It's irrelevant whether Joseph Smith purported to marry already-married women for time only or for eternity only. D&C 132 does not allow for either.

Never made that claim. AND again you are falling back on the "something MUST have happened argument" without even taking into considering what a variety of historians, such as Compton and Daynes, have said such as the fact that Windsor owned a store next to where Sylvia live while he was in a state of excommunication.