Justification vs. Denial: When will the Apologists Learn?

[_Darth J]

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

Not at all.

I'm sorry, but both those things cannot be true. You are agreeing that Joseph Smith flagrantly violated the commandments. D&C 121 says that when we do so, the Spirit withdraws, and amen to the priesthood authority of that man.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

So no, bcspace, D&C 132, D&C 121, and Joseph Smith's actual practice of plural marriage cannot be harmonized. Nor can those three things be harmonized with "the church is true."

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.

Marriage is a legal contract, bcspace. That's why your church supported Prop 8 in California, and why your church quit practicing polygamy. Remember?

Please tell me what valid interpretations there are to Sylvia's statement other than her believing that because she had sex with Joseph Smith.

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.

Unfortunately, Brother Space, you are contradicting yourself. If there is quite good evidence that Windsor resumed conjugal relations with Sylvia while the former was excommunicated, that means that they did not consider his excommunication to have effectively dissolved their marriage. That undermines your assertion that there was no polyandry because everyone supposedly considered their marriage dissolved by his excommunication. So you need to decide which of the mutually exclusive assertions you are making is the one you want to go with.

You're also right back to implying that both Windsor and Joseph Smith were having sex with her at the same time, since she believed Joseph Smith was Josephine's biological father, but it was actually Windsor.

All of the above being a moot point, since Joseph Smith's actions here cannot be theologically justified under Mormon doctrine under any scenario, anyway.

[_Darth J]

--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.

Oh, if only the Church had the governmental authority to declare a legal relationship dissolved, huh?

See, when the critics' observation is that the early Mormon church had no regard for law or society, and you're agreeing, you're not helping.

Why does your church currently define the law of chastity in terms of legally and lawfully wed, Brother Space? Under current LDS doctrine, if a married couple has not been sealed in the temple, but they have sex, are they breaking the law of chastity? Why or why not?

Incidentally, Brother Space, you're using your terminology incorrectly. A "null and void" marriage would mean that a marriage was never legally valid in the first place. That's the difference between an annulment and a divorce (the latter recognizes the validity of a marriage, but ends it.)

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.

Again, Brother Space, when Sylvia Sessions Lyon affirmatively states her belief that Josephine was fathered by Joseph Smith, that's not jumping to conclusions. That's taking her statement at face value.

And it still doesn't matter, because an entirely sexless marriage to an already married woman who is not a virgin is expressly prohibited by the Lord in D&C 132. So Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority either way, per D&C 121.

[_Darth J]

any semblance of intellectual honesty.

Having said that, bcspace, will you agree with me that we are justified in rejecting any claim of fact for which there is no valid evidence?

[_bcspace]

Having said that, bcspace, will you agree with me that we are justified in rejecting any claim of fact for which there is no valid evidence?

Will you agree with me that the sexual sexual polyandry criticism against Joseph Smith is currently baseless?

[_Bazooka]

There really is no doubt Joseph enjoyed marital relations with all or most of his plural wives.

I have not denied that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with some of his wives. Your most or all claim is completely unsupported and is based solely on a desire to smear the Church or justify your own reasons for not believing.

What's the difference between "some" and "most"? Both are more than one!

[_bcspace]

Again, Brother Space, when Sylvia Sessions Lyon affirmatively states her belief that Josephine was fathered by Joseph Smith, that's not jumping to conclusions. That's taking her statement at face value.

Not by a long shot because you are not fully quoting the statement which would provide another possibility or noting other possibilities as well even in for foreshortened quote.

In addition, the statement is

1) 23 years after the fact.
2) Communicated 3rd hand.

Regarding the full quote, what is meant by "daughter of Joseph Smith" in light of such facts as, for example, Heber J Grant was said to be a "son of Joseph Smith" because his mother was also sealed to him?

[_Bazooka]

In addition, the statement is

1) 23 years after the fact.
2) Communicated 3rd hand.

Isn't discussion of the First Vision off-topic?

[_bcspace]

What's the difference between "some" and "most"? Both are more than one!

One implies all or almost all and the other implies a smaller fraction. I think you know that difference already. As for 'one', so far, there is not one case of a women sealed to Joseph Smith displaying any of the hallmarks of a polyandrous relationship.

[_bcspace]

Isn't discussion of the First Vision off-topic?

Are you saying you have faith that Joseph Smith had a sexually polyandrous relationship with Sylvia Lyon?

[_Darth J]

Having said that, bcspace, will you agree with me that we are justified in rejecting any claim of fact for which there is no valid evidence?

Will you agree with me that the sexual sexual polyandry criticism against Joseph Smith is currently baseless?

No, Brother Space. Unlike, for example, the existence of the Nephite civilization, we have direct evidence, in the form of Sylvia Sessions Lyons' statement, that she had sex with Joseph Smith while married to Windsor.

You still have not explained why she would have said that unless she had sex with Joseph Smith. And I'll just reveal the spoiler now that you're not going to explain why, because you can't.

You also have not explained why you are contradicting yourself. Let's review what you said:

"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."

What you said above cannot be reconciled with your assertion that Sylvia considered her marriage to Windsor to be dissolved because he was excommunicated.

Finally, as you keep strenuously avoiding, none of this matters from a theological standpoint. If you wish to assert that Joseph Smith was sealed for eternity to a woman who was not a virgin and had made a vow to another man, then proceeded to have not one single child with her, you certainly may so assert. But that is directly in violation of D&C 132. So Joseph Smith loses his priesthood authority no matter which way you go.

Of course, you could always say that the canonized scriptures in D&C 121 and/or 132 are wrong, but then that precludes the church being true, too.

So by all means, demonstrate how what Joseph Smith did by entering a plural marriage with Sylvia Session Lyon, under whatever sexual scenario you wishto assert, can be reconciled with LDS doctrine.