I don't accept FARMS material cited to me. Sorry. Good or bad. I don't cite them to you. I use them for reference material, but I can reach my own conclusions about original material. I find their articles of spotty quality although some articles are really very good.
And, it is very true that the Church was in a battle royale over Missouri property and needed affidavits to buttress the claim that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. But, I disagree with Jensen's conclusions about Fanny Alger, for instance. As to Sylvia Lyon, the statement of her daughter is certainly couched in a most unique way that rings with folks familiar with the issue.
Your premise is weak. Whether or not you accept FARMs articles, it is significant that even your fellow defenders of the faith agree that the issue is that Joseph Smith was the biological father of Josephine. If it were as you suggest, why in the world would Sylvia need to keep that a secret, revealed only on her deathbed? And why the reference to Cannon's memory that Patty Sessions mentioning that Joseph Smith "fathered" Josephine? You're grasping at a flimsy straw, not even supported by fellow believers, here or at FARMs. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of deliberately crafting a misleading citation. You, of all people.
And Scottie is correct - her other children are not referred to as Joseph Smith' children. Nor are the many others that, technically, would be Joseph Smith's "children" in the celestial kingdom, since he stole them from their biological fathers.
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.
I don't accept FARMS material cited to me. Sorry. Good or bad. I don't cite them to you. I use them for reference material, but I can reach my own conclusions about original material. I find their articles of spotty quality although some articles are really very good.
And, it is very true that the Church was in a battle royale over Missouri property and needed affidavits to buttress the claim that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. But, I disagree with Jensen's conclusions about Fanny Alger, for instance. As to Sylvia Lyon, the statement of her daughter is certainly couched in a most unique way that rings with folks familiar with the issue.
Your premise is weak. Whether or not you accept FARMs articles, it is significant that even your fellow defenders of the faith agree that the issue is that Joseph Smith was the biological father of Josephine. If it were as you suggest, why in the world would Sylvia need to keep that a secret, revealed only on her deathbed? And why the reference to Cannon's memory that Patty Sessions mentioning that Joseph Smith "fathered" Josephine? You're grasping at a flimsy straw, not even supported by fellow believers, here or at FARMs. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of deliberately crafting a misleading citation. You, of all people.
I have never crafted a misleading citation in any of my published pieces, at least that I know of, so to charge me with that anonymously is a malicious libel. Prove it. And you, sister, did deliberately craft a misleading citation in order to shade the argument in your favor. How improper.
Don't paint me with the same brush as "fellow" apologists. I can form my own conclusions, and my conclusions are that you deliberately falsify your quotes to gain an advantage. My conclusions are that you are so thinly read in church and secular history that you have a hard time reaching correct conclusions that don't quite match the picture you have painted about a hated and despised religion.
I don't need these fellow apologists to tell me what to say and think. I don't really post on their board. I don't agree with all of what they say. I am the one you previously referenced who was kicked off of a super-secret apologetics list for expressing disagreement with FARMS Review and some of its goings-on (in particular, with respect to Grant Palmer).
Yes, Jason, but you've passed the second test. You have been able and willing to turn off your sense of moral outrage to know this but yet still conclude that Joseph Smith and BY were prophets of God. In other words, your test is NOT to surrender you wife to God (and his servants) but to surrender your sense of moral reason.
Amazing how much easier it is to hear all this and still believe when it happens to someone else, but if it happens to you . . . ?
Actually I have moral out rage that it happened at all. For me this is a major issue and I do not think Smith or Young were acting as prophets at all in regards to this topic. In fact, it this topic more than any other caused me to re-examine the prophetic call of Joseph Smith and to come to some non TBM conclusions. I am really sad about that but it is what it is. And yes I know I a damn hypocrite.
John D. Lee went around his whole life claiming to be Brigham Young's son.
There is a bishop in my stake with the last name of a prominent 19th Century apostle whose only connection with that apostle was a sealing, not a physical descendancy. Because his great great grandmother was sealed to the apostle, rather than to the father of her children, she took the apostle's name when her husband left the church. But she never had any children by the apostle.
I think you overlook the most obvious explanation. These dynastic sealings had real meaning; they were suspended by Pres. Woodruff in 1894. To us today they seem odd, but they were done frequently by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and less so by their successors.
To claim that one's father was Brigham Young (as did John D. Lee and many others who were merely sealed) or to claim that one's father was Joseph Smith (as did Josephine) was a very big deal to those folks. Josephine's statement about the "sealing" would have no other meaning. Josephine's mother was living with Lyon.
Yes I understand that but I cannot read that into the alleged comment by Sylvia at all. Lee's case was much different. And other apologists reach the exact same conclusion that has been reached here. If Sylvia said it then she meant it literally. Why wait until her death to state it in a sealing sense? Why keep it hidden from her daughter and the world? Was it not known that she was a polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith? And even if she was living with Lyon she still could have been sexual with Joseph Smith and conceived a daughter?
But, because you hate and despise the faith of your fathers, you are willing (as was van Wagoner in many respects, I might add, and as was Quinn, in some respects) just to accept at face value unprovenanced evidence.
I don't think much is proven but I think that it is narrowed down to the three options discussed here.
Don't paint me with the same brush as "fellow" apologists. I can form my own conclusions, and my conclusions are that you deliberately falsify your quotes to gain an advantage. My conclusions are that you are so thinly read in church and secular history that you have a hard time reaching correct conclusions that don't quite match the picture you have painted about a hated and despised religion.
I don't need these fellow apologists to tell me what to say and think. I don't really post on their board. I don't agree with all of what they say. I am the one you previously referenced who was kicked off of a super-secret apologetics list for expressing disagreement with FARMS Review and some of its goings-on (in particular, with respect to Grant Palmer).
Well this is fair enough. But it does show that your conclusion is one that none or few have reached and thus may have less credibility. That's ok thought. You could be right.
Jason Bourne wrote:Why wait until her death to state it in a sealing sense? Why keep it hidden from her daughter and the world?
Undoubtedly because Joseph told her not to tell anybody. And she didn't, nor did his other wives until decades after his death.
This case is not different than John D. Lee's or the case of the "wife" of the apostle I mention above. It seems that dynastic sealings were "father to son" and "husband to wife" but in no other way.
Bob's proposition makes zero sense. Why would Sylvia had singled out Josephine? All of her children would have been Joseph's, if she were talking about the spiritual sealing alone.
Whatever fantasy bob has constructed, I think it's clear that Andrew Jenson and Cannon believed this was a reference to biological paternity.
Bob, your deliberate distortion of an important citation has been proven many times on this site. I have no doubt that you will continue to deny the obvious, as is your wont.
Let me again point out that the words of the quote I left out would have improved the proposition I was seeking to advance; I merely edited that phrase out as well as dozens of others in an effort to eliminate redundant material to save space.
The simple fact remained that the quote, before and after my edit, established the same fact -- John D. Lee's lawyer William Bishop stated an intention to edit Lee's "confession" to add things -- things about the history and the case (in other words, all subject matters pertaining to the massacre).
The second fact is that Will Bagley is thorougly familiar with my work (which reviewed his); we have discussed it at length. We have discussed this particular letter at length. He was critical of some things, but not my use of the letter. Indeed, he admitted to me in writing that he should have used the letter in his work.
So, it is a malicious libel for you and Scratch to accuse me of dishonesty in my publications. But, I can't stop you, and you are certainly shameless about putting a period where a comma exists in a particular quote and then leaving out the rest instead of using elipses to signal your deletion. Shame on you.