Brother Crockett vs...?

[Tator]

You know the most amusing part of this nonsensical exercise? When presented the question:

If it were conclusively proven, to your satisfaction, that Joseph Smith did, indeed, have sex with his polyandrous wives, would it make any difference to you in accepting his prophetic calling?

...apologists always answer no, it would not make any difference.

So why the heck do they work up such a sweat about this, when, in the end, often by their own admission, it either wouldn't matter to them, OR they would think Joseph Smith would have had a right to have sex with his polyandrous wives, anyway??

So coggins and crocket, answer these two questions:

1. If it were conclusively proven to your satisfaction that Joseph Smith had sex with his polyandrous wives, would it make any difference to you in accepting his prophetic calling?

2. If it were conclusively proven to your satisfaction that Joseph Smith had sex with his polyandrous wives, would you believe that he had the right to do so, as their husband?

[_rcrocket]

The only evidence these two jacka*ses would accept is a videotaped confession by Joseph Smith, along with a signed confession, along with a personal interview with said jacka*ses, followed up by visual confirmation of Jospeph Smith screwing the crap out of any number of women. Then, and only then, would either of these two consider the possibility that Jospeh Smith might have had sex outside of marriage.

Oddly enough, they accept less evidence than that that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, or that various "witnesses" saw the plates of gold from which the Book of Mormon are said to have been translated.

It is true that the evidences of faith will meet few legal criteria (but, there are those pesky "Witnesses"), but my comments are focused upon a paternity issue. We don't have to jettison notions of evidence merely because we are in a tit for tat mood.

[_rcrocket]

You know the most amusing part of this nonsensical exercise? When presented the question:

If it were conclusively proven, to your satisfaction, that Joseph Smith did, indeed, have sex with his polyandrous wives, would it make any difference to you in accepting his prophetic calling?

...the answer is almost always no, it would not make any difference.

That is hardly evidence or logic, to change the topic and say that I would act irrationally someplace else and in some other place, so please disregard Crockett's point today that Beastie has no evidence of any reasonable sort (remember, you called it "conclusive evidence") to support her assertion.

How terrible of me to point out that under the law, the statement of a child is not admissible or credible testimony to prove paternity. You and your friends on this thread just aren't going to respond well to evidentiary challenges.

[_the road to hana]

The only evidence these two jacka*ses would accept is a videotaped confession by Joseph Smith, along with a signed confession, along with a personal interview with said jacka*ses, followed up by visual confirmation of Jospeph Smith screwing the crap out of any number of women. Then, and only then, would either of these two consider the possibility that Jospeh Smith might have had sex outside of marriage.

Oddly enough, they accept less evidence than that that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, or that various "witnesses" saw the plates of gold from which the Book of Mormon are said to have been translated.

It is true that the evidences of faith will meet few legal criteria (but, there are those pesky "Witnesses"), but my comments are focused upon a paternity issue. We don't have to jettison notions of evidence merely because we are in a tit for tat mood.

You're still not delineating what you would consider acceptable evidence of a sexual relationship between Joseph Smith and any of his purported plural wives.

[_beastie]

That is hardly evidence or logic, to change the topic and say that I would act irrationally someplace else and in some other place, so please disregard Crockett's point today that Beastie has no evidence of any reasonable sort (remember, you called it "conclusive evidence") to support her assertion.

I didn't say it was evidence or logic. I said that it is what is amusing about these conversations.

How terrible of me to point out that under the law, the statement of a child is not admissible or credible testimony to prove paternity. You and your friends on this thread just aren't going to respond well to evidentiary challenges.

How terrible of you to construct a strawman, and even after I pointed out your strawman, you still continue. The point isn't whether or not a child's statement is admissable in a court of law regarding paternity, and you know it.

The point is whether or not Sylvia's statement conclusively means that she had sex with Joseph Smith - or she's lying. Bob doesn't want to address that point, so he diverts to the paternity issue.

[_Jason Bourne]

I would think that telling one's daughter that her father was Joseph Smith is the equivalent of saying: I had sex with Joseph Smith.

I am sorry Beastie but was this woman a polyandrous wife?

[_Jason Bourne]

Even if it was for eternity only it still seems troubling.

This appears to involve vast assumptions as to just what it means to be a God and Goddess and to have the perceptions and conscousness of a God or Goddess. Go where angels dare to tread if you will.

Perhaps. But we can only view eternity through our current mortal eyes enlightened by the spirit and revelations given us. Can you enlighten me any more? It still seems troublesome.

Read Alan Wyatt's essay at FAIR. Its not nearly so simply and straightforward as you make it out to be

I have. Twice. Wyatt's essay is good but has problems.

[_beastie]

I am sorry Beastie but was this woman a polyandrous wife?

Yes, she was. Sylvia Sessions Lyons.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-Sy ... nsLyon.htm

Sylvia Sessions left Maine for Zion (Missouri) with her parents, Patty and David, in June of 1837. While in Missouri, Sylvia met and married Windsor Lyon. Sylvia’s Mother, Patty, wrote about the wedding in her journal, “Sylvia was married to Windsor P. Lyon, Joseph Smith performed the ceremony...The next day the Prophet was there and a good time it was.”

Sylvia, and husband Windsor, left Missouri for Nauvoo in February of 1839. There, Windsor established a mercantile business, selling “Dry Goods, Groceries, Crockery, Glass, and Hardware, Drugs, and Medicines, Paints and Dry Stuffs.” By this time, they were the parents of two children.

Sylvia married Joseph Smith on February 8, 1842, when she was 23 years old. It is uncertain if her husband, Windsor, was aware of the marriage, but she did continue to live with him. Brigham Young taught that “if the woman preferred a man higher in authority, and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up-there is no Bill of divorce required...it is right in the sight of God”. Brigham also explained that the woman, “...would be in a higher glory”. This may help shed light on Sylvia’s complex marriage arrangement.

10 months later, on December 24th, Joseph’s journal mentions a visit to his wife, Sylvia, who was giving birth to her third child: “Walked with Sec[retary Willard Richards] to see Sister Lyons who was sick. Her baby died 30 minutes before [we] arrived”. Sylvia had lost two of her three children in death. On September 18, 1843, another of Joseph’s visits to Sylvia is recorded by William Clayton, “Joseph and I rode out to borrow money, drank wine at Sister Lyons P.M. I got $50 of Sister Lyons and paid it to D.D. Yearsly.”

On January 27, 1844 her only surviving child, Philofreen, also died. At this time, Sylvia was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.

[_Chap]

How terrible of me to point out that under the law, the statement of a child is not admissible or credible testimony to prove paternity. You and your friends on this thread just aren't going to respond well to evidentiary challenges.

The lawyers I know understand the difference between the rules they have to play by in court, and the rules by which judgments are made on important matters in everyday life. They respect the former, but once outside the courtroom door they do like the rest of us and apply the ordinary rules of common sense decision making.

Evidently you don't. Your problem, not ours.

[_Black Moclips]

Brigham Young taught that “if the woman preferred a man higher in authority, and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up-there is no Bill of divorce required...it is right in the sight of God”. Brigham also explained that the woman, “...would be in a higher glory”.

It is stuff like this (and others) that just shouts WTF in my head. I wish some lady in church would stand up and say, "I want to marry the Bishop since my husband is only teaches the Valiant 9 class". I mean in today's church this is all just crazy talk. Yet it was very, very important to the heads of the church back then. So either they knew something we don't and we have lost our way, or they were making stuff up and just plain wrong. It just hurts my head...