DiscussMormonism.com

bcspace wrote:

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.

Great! Please cite me the extant statute and/or case law from Joseph Smith's lifetime indicating that estrangement between a husband and wife legally dissolved their marriage.

I also regret to inform you that not only does Brother Hales fail to reconcile all this babbling about "ceremonial polyandy" with the plain language of the word of the Lord in D&C 132, he also concedes that Sylvia remained legally married to her actual husband during her dalliance with Joseph Smith.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... do-we-find

Looking at the timeline, we find that Windsor and Sylvia married in 1838. She conceives three children, then he’s excommunicated and that’s when they separate. It’s not a legal divorce, but she is then sealed to Joseph in a marriage that I argue would have superseded the legal marriage anyway, which would curtail any conjugality between Sylvia and Windsor. Josephine is conceived. Joseph Smith is killed. Windsor is rebaptized and then they come back together and the legal marriage is still intact.

You have no theological justification for polyandrous anything within Mormon dogma, Brother Space. I'm sorry. Justification is simply a non-starter for you. Since you cannot justify Joseph Smith's actions under his own purported revelations from God, you may as well admit you cannot produce any objective guidelines Joseph Smith would have followed as to which plural "wives" he had sex with, and which he did not.

Incidentally, Brother Space, how is it that in this thread you are agreeing that Joseph Smith had sex with at least some of his plural wives? Have you checked the children?

Great! Please cite me the extant statute and/or case law from Joseph Smith's lifetime indicating that estrangement between a husband and wife legally dissolved their marriage.

Please give an argument more concrete than "Something MUST have happened."

Darth J wrote:Great! Please cite me the extant statute and/or case law from Joseph Smith's lifetime indicating that estrangement between a husband and wife legally dissolved their marriage.

I also regret to inform you that not only does Brother Hales fail to reconcile all this babbling about "ceremonial polyandy" with the plain language of the word of the Lord in D&C 132, he also concedes that Sylvia remained legally married to her actual husband during her dalliance with Joseph Smith.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... do-we-find

Looking at the timeline, we find that Windsor and Sylvia married in 1838. She conceives three children, then he’s excommunicated and that’s when they separate. It’s not a legal divorce, but she is then sealed to Joseph in a marriage that I argue would have superseded the legal marriage anyway, which would curtail any conjugality between Sylvia and Windsor. Josephine is conceived. Joseph Smith is killed. Windsor is rebaptized and then they come back together and the legal marriage is still intact.

You have no theological justification for polyandrous anything within Mormon dogma, Brother Space. I'm sorry. Justification is simply a non-starter for you. Since you cannot justify Joseph Smith's actions under his own purported revelations from God, you may as well admit you cannot produce any objective guidelines Joseph Smith would have followed as to which plural "wives" he had sex with, and which he did not.

Incidentally, Brother Space, how is it that in this thread you are agreeing that Joseph Smith had sex with at least some of his plural wives? Have you checked the children?

What's funny is that in the same breath that bcspace condemns you and me and practically everyone else who's ever looked at these issues for making assumptions, he uses Hales' arguments, which are based on nothing but assumptions.

he uses Hales' arguments, which are based on nothing but assumptions.

Incorrect. They are based on the fact of no evidence for sexual polyandry and possible evidence to the contrary. Critics of the Church read it like a closed book without mentioning things like Windsor owning a store next to where Sylvia lived during his excommunication.

Darth J wrote:

bcspace wrote: I have not denied that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with some of his wives.

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. Also, I would like to know where I can find the criteria are that Joseph Smith followed in ascertaining which of his plural wives he would have sex with, and which ones he would not. This will go a long way in explaining why it is not a justified inference that Joseph Smith generally had sex with the females he purported to marry.

The more specific references you have to D&C 132 and other official doctrine, the better.

Thanks in advance.

Oh Mr. Darth J this request is simply answered thus

Ugly = No Sex

Pretty and Especially Young = Lots and Lots and Lots of Sex

See how Simple the Goosepel of Horny Holy Joe is.

bcspace wrote:

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.

Okay. Therefore, per D&C 121, you agree that Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority.

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.

No, I am falling back on Sylvia's own statement to her daughter, which makes no sense at all unless Sylvia knew she had sex with Joseph Smith. There is simply no other reason she would have suspected that Josephine was his daughter.

And as you have already conceded, it doesn't matter from a "the church is true" perspective whether something MUST have happened. Joseph Smith was violating the commandments given in D&C 132 under any scenario.

Once you agree that Joseph Smith violated D&C 132, then either he lost his priesthood authority, so the church is not true, or D&C 121 is false doctrine that was canonized, which means the LDS Church is not true. Or the specific conditions said to come from the Lord in D&C 132 are not a real revelation, but was canonized still the same, meaning the church is not true.

Which do you prefer?

bcspace wrote:

Darth J wrote: Great! Please cite me the extant statute and/or case law from Joseph Smith's lifetime indicating that estrangement between a husband and wife legally dissolved their marriage.

Please give an argument more concrete than "Something MUST have happened."

Again, bcspace, I am not merely asserting something must have happened. Sylvia is affirmatively asserting that something did happen.

Nor am I merely asserting that mere estrangement has never been equivalent to a divorce in American law. Not only is that an irrefutable fact, Hales concedes that Sylvia went back to her lawful husband post-Joseph Smith, with her marriage to the former still intact.

But what you're really doing is working very hard to avoid the theological issue. From that standpoint, it doesn't matter if "something happened." The plural marriage to Sylvia Sessions Lyon was expressly forbidden by the revelation canonized as D&C 132, irrespective of sexual relations. So you cannot reconcile Joseph Smith's actions with his purported revelations, no matter what you want to believe about his sex life with Sylvia.

bcspace wrote:Incorrect. They are based on the fact of no evidence for sexual polyandry and possible evidence to the contrary. Critics of the Church read it like a closed book without mentioning things like Windsor owning a store next to where Sylvia lived during his excommunication.

That's simply not the case. Yes, she did live next to his store. That is well known. Maybe you could explain what that has to do with whether she had sex with Joseph Smith. I've read Hales's stuff, and it rests on the acceptance of an alternative date, and that alternative date presents its own problems.

But even if we grant Hales' case, he simply says that Windsor was excommunicated, so Sylvia didn't consider herself married to him during that time. Is there any evidence for that? Nope.

bcspace wrote:

he uses Hales' arguments, which are based on nothing but assumptions.

Incorrect. They are based on the fact of no evidence for sexual polyandry and possible evidence to the contrary.

--Does D&C 132 allow for any polyandry of any kind?

You have already conceded that it does not.

--Was Sylvia ever divorced from her legal husband?

Hales concedes that she was not, and you have provided no basis in American legal history for the assertion that mere separation equals a divorce. Nor are you going to, since that has never been the case in American law.

--Would Sylvia have had any reason to suspect Josephine was Joseph Smith's daughter, unless Sylvia had had sex with Joseph Smith around the time Josephine was conceived?

No.

Critics of the Church read it like a closed book without mentioning things like Windsor owning a store next to where Sylvia lived during his excommunication.

You really ought to think things through before you post them, so as to avoid looking like a fish desperately flailing on the deck, training to get back in the water. What you're saying here implies that Sylvia was having sex with bother Windsor and Joseph Smith around the time Josephine was conceived, since she suspected Joseph Smith was the biological father but he actually was not.

Okay. Therefore, per D&C 121, you agree that Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority.

Not at all.

No, I am falling back on Sylvia's own statement to her daughter, which makes no sense at all unless Sylvia knew she had sex with Joseph Smith. There is simply no other reason she would have suspected that Josephine was his daughter.

Meaningless. There are other valid historical interpretations of that statement and as noted before, the evidence is against sexual polyandry. If Joseph Smith had sexual relations with her, Windsor was in an excommunicated state nullifying the religious contracts. But there is still a question of whether or not Windsor resumed conjugal relations with her in his excommunicated state and the evidence for that possibility is quite good.

In other words, critics have no traction on this issue unless they lie.

--Was Sylvia ever divorced from her legal husband?

Hales concedes that she was not, and you have provided no basis in American legal history for the assertion that mere separation equals a divorce. Nor are you going to, since that has never been the case in American law.

No need to make that argument and besides, Hales, Compton, and Daynes agree that it was a common consideration and at least two of them agree that the Church considered such cases to be null and void.

On top of that, we still don't have to go there because once again all you have is a "Something MUST have happened" argument with NO concrete evidenced that something did in fact happen.

I realize it's difficult for you to give up a favorite chestnut, but I recommend you do to preserve any semblance of intellectual honesty.