Beastie, If I had to make an educated guess I would say, from the evidence that points to him having sexual relations, that he did have sex with some of his wives. I was merely stating that unless the DNA evidence supports the argument there is no certainty. As I wrote that last night I was thinking about Thomas Jefferson and his liaisons with his slaves. To me it's essentially the same.
I understand your position, and I do try not to make claims on this issue that can't be supported by evidence (as an example, I do not believe Joseph Smith has sex with Helen Mar). But I don't quite understand why the statements of Joseph Smith' wives themselves isn't as adequate evidence as DNA.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
You are correct that some of the husbands were aware of the marriages and handed their wives to Joseph as commanded by him. Henry Jacobs was quoted once as calling Joseph Smith "our God." It's not surprising that he stood there in the Nauvoo temple as a witness. These church members who gave their wives to Joseph were fanatical in their beliefs and devotion to Joseph Smith. I think you should read more about Henry Jacobs. Marriages outside the New and Everlasting covenant were no longer considered valid. There was a statement I can't find at the moment of all contracts/marriages being done away with after 132 was revealed.
Hi 7. I am very familiar with the Zina story. It is a heartbreaker. Ok, I can see your points. Believe me, I am not all the strong on arguing that there was no sexual relations. I can see why the circumstantial evidence is more compelling then I thought.
Beastie, If I had to make an educated guess I would say, from the evidence that points to him having sexual relations, that he did have sex with some of his wives. I was merely stating that unless the DNA evidence supports the argument there is no certainty. As I wrote that last night I was thinking about Thomas Jefferson and his liaisons with his slaves. To me it's essentially the same.
I understand your position, and I do try not to make claims on this issue that can't be supported by evidence (as an example, I do not believe Joseph Smith has sex with Helen Mar). But I don't quite understand why the statements of Joseph Smith' wives themselves isn't as adequate evidence as DNA.
His wives claims are evidence. They just are not irrefutable evidence. If everyone took the wives statements on their merit there wouldn't be the controversy. I can claim some man fathered my child, but DNA would determine the factuality of that claim.
I don't think Jason realized Sylvia was already married, and that was why he accepted that evidence but questioned the evidence for sexual polyandry in specific.
That was my impression. The evidence is there, and Sylvia was a polyandrous wife. It seems pretty clear to me.
And I'm not trying to argue with Jason, whom I have always respected for his evenhanded approach to things. I just thought he wasn't aware of some of the evidence.
I think the arguments here are reasonable. The fact that the revelation mandates raising seed, the Sylvia Sessions issue and the WOW eye opener the beastie posted from D&C 132, along with the fact that Zina eventually consummated her marriage for time to BY (course BY told Henry to hit the road) it seems more probable then not the sex was part of some of these polyandrous relations.
His wives claims are evidence. They just are not irrefutable evidence. If everyone took the wives statements on their merit there wouldn't be the controversy. I can claim some man fathered my child, but DNA would determine the factuality of that claim.
The people who argue against sexual relations in these marriages are often unaware of these statements. For a believing LDS to act as if these statements aren't conclusive, he/she would have to be implicating the church leaders in manufacturing false evidence. That would be an extraordinarily unlikely for a believer.
You have to remember that, despite the claims of MADdites who go ballistic at the suggestion that the church is deliberately misleading about this particular historical event, when people rely on the church - its meetings, its curriculum - as the primary source of their information, they usually do not know these sort of details. So, in my opinion, the controversy is kept alive largely through ignorance.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
His wives claims are evidence. They just are not irrefutable evidence. If everyone took the wives statements on their merit there wouldn't be the controversy. I can claim some man fathered my child, but DNA would determine the factuality of that claim.
The people who argue against sexual relations in these marriages are often unaware of these statements. For a believing LDS to act as if these statements aren't conclusive, he/she would have to be implicating the church leaders in manufacturing false evidence. That would be an extraordinarily unlikely for a believer.
You have to remember that, despite the claims of MADdites who go ballistic at the suggestion that the church is deliberately misleading about this particular historical event, when people rely on the church - its meetings, its curriculum - as the primary source of their information, they usually do not know these sort of details. So, in my opinion, the controversy is kept alive largely through ignorance.
I agree with you. I don't believe that most LDS know about this or bother to research it.
I wonder how those on these boards that are made aware of this evidence feel. I imagine it would be unsettling.
It seems to me the Church should confront these issues head on and there would be a lot less ex-mos. I was surprised when I saw on the official JosephSmith website that it never mentioned the polygamy. It seems to me that since he was killed for the practice and martyred that most LDS SHOULD know about this part of the history. If it didn't play into his martyrdom I could sort of understand not thinking it particularly relevant. But it is relevant as to why and when he was killed.
His wives claims are evidence. They just are not irrefutable evidence. If everyone took the wives statements on their merit there wouldn't be the controversy. I can claim some man fathered my child, but DNA would determine the factuality of that claim.
The people who argue against sexual relations in these marriages are often unaware of these statements. For a believing LDS to act as if these statements aren't conclusive, he/she would have to be implicating the church leaders in manufacturing false evidence. That would be an extraordinarily unlikely for a believer.
You have to remember that, despite the claims of MADdites who go ballistic at the suggestion that the church is deliberately misleading about this particular historical event, when people rely on the church - its meetings, its curriculum - as the primary source of their information, they usually do not know these sort of details. So, in my opinion, the controversy is kept alive largely through ignorance.
I agree with you. I don't believe that most LDS know about this or bother to research it.
I wonder how those on these boards that are made aware of this evidence feel. I imagine it would be unsettling.
It seems to me the Church should confront these issues head on and there would be a lot less ex-mos. I was surprised when I saw on the official JosephSmith website that it never mentioned the polygamy. It seems to me that since he was killed for the practice and martyred that most LDS SHOULD know about this part of the history. If it didn't play into his martyrdom I could sort of understand not thinking it particularly relevant. But it is relevant as to why and when he was killed.
OK, so I concede you're not rcrocket. He never said anything this reasonable in the whole time he was here.
Sigh, one more in the long list of things I've gotten wrong.
(I still suspect that ALitD is our old friend, though.)
By the way, I agree. A little up-frontness, a little honesty (for a change) would go a long way to inoculating many of the faithful to the hard (and ugly) truths of Mormon history.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
I agree with you. I don't believe that most LDS know about this or bother to research it.
I wonder how those on these boards that are made aware of this evidence feel. I imagine it would be unsettling.
It seems to me the Church should confront these issues head on and there would be a lot less ex-mos. I was surprised when I saw on the official JosephSmith website that it never mentioned the polygamy. It seems to me that since he was killed for the practice and martyred that most LDS SHOULD know about this part of the history. If it didn't play into his martyrdom I could sort of understand not thinking it particularly relevant. But it is relevant as to why and when he was killed.
I can remember relief society lessons devoted to particular women in church history, notably Emma and Eliza Snow. It was open that Eliza was a plural wife of BY, but unmentioned that she was first a plural wife to Joseph Smith. I think it's disrespectful to these women and the sacrifice they made for their religious beliefs. Eliza, of all his wives, was immensely proud to be the prophet's wife.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Or if he came and said, "I want your wife?" "O yes," he would say, "here she is, there are plenty more" . . . Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, second counselor to Brigham Young and father of President Heber J. Grant, sermon delivered on 19 February 1854 (JD 2: 13-14)
As if she was a horse or a cow. As if she was chattel. As if she wasn't a person... just give her away. Grrrrr. And if we'd learned something in the last 5-6 generations, I'd be happy. But we haven't. This attitude still prevails today, and will until Sex 132 is out of the canon.
beastie wrote:I can remember relief society lessons devoted to particular women in church history, notably Emma and Eliza Snow. It was open that Eliza was a plural wife of BY, but unmentioned that she was first a plural wife to Joseph Smith. I think it's disrespectful to these women and the sacrifice they made for their religious beliefs. Eliza, of all his wives, was immensely proud to be the prophet's wife.
I remember when Emma was persona non grata in Relief Society, when no one spoke highly of her. Things have changed since then, but not enough.