Brother Crockett vs...?

[_Chap]

I'm not going to debate the Lee quote. It's been sufficiently discussed, and I linked a detailed explanation of it. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not you intentionally changed the meaning of the citation.

In regards to this accusation:

However, in your case, you cited material without attribution as if you had the original quote, and the original quote as you had it ended with a period, rather than a comma and a whole lot of other words which made my case. Shameful. Sloppy. Dishonest. Just like Scratch and Rollo to cite original material from secondary sources without mentioning the secondary.

Wrong, as usual. I linked the website right above the citation. From page 3 of this thread:

beastie, page 3

Sheesh. The affidavit stated that her mother told her Joseph Smith was her father.

Now, either Josephine lied, her mother lied, or her mother had sex with Joseph Smith which led her to believe Joseph Smith was her daughter's father.

So one must question what possible motivation Josephine or her mother would have had to tell such a lie.

This is why these debates are pointless. There is no evidence that defenders of the faith will accept in regards to this point. They'll accept that Joseph Smith had sex with his other plural wives, generally, because it's pretty idiotic to do otherwise. But they draw the line at the polyandrous unions, and insist that, for some reason, THOSE marriages were different.

At any rate, it is still possible DNA may shed some light on the question of Josephine's parentage, according to this website. I'm going to provide the entire citation, because it offers other pertinent information.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

Quote:
(Last Updated: November 2007)

Because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in relative secrecy, the details of children he may have fathered by his plural wives is uncertain. In a 1905 speech at Brigham Young University, Joseph's wife, Mary Elizabeth Rollins explained, "I know he [Joseph] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." ("Remarks", April 14, 1905, BYU Lee Library).

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, 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”.

Beastie:

Ever anxious to be fair, I have been back over the earlier pages of this long thread trying to find exactly what it is that rcrocket has accused you of doing. I am finding it a bit hard to understand what his complaint is about. I suspect I may not be the only one.

Could you kindly, for the public benefit, state what his accusation is in the best and clearest terms you can, so we can see what the two of you are really talking about?

[_beastie]

Beastie:

Ever anxious to be fair, I have been back over the earlier pages of this long thread trying to find exactly what it is that rcrocket has accused you of doing. I am finding it a bit hard to understand what his complaint is about. I suspect I may not be the only one.

Could you kindly, for the public benefit, state what his accusation is in the best and clearest terms you can, so we can see what the two of you are really talking about?

Earlier on page 3 of this thread, I offered this quote from Josephine Lyon, along with the link to the website where I obtained the quote. This was the link I provided:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm


This is the part of the quote I provided that bob found so egregious.

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, 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”.

I offered this quote again on page 8, along with the link. At that time, bob made this accusation:

Even more troubling is Beastie's almost total misquote and mispunctuation of the last sentence of the Josephine quote; had she set it forth accurately the explanation would have been clearly against an implication of cohabitation. I can' t believe it.

I had read about this issue before in Compton's book, and remembered no context that would have changed the meaning of the quote. So I tried to figure out what in the heck he was going on about, and found a FARMS article that verified my assertions. I offered this quote from the FARMS article, along with the link:

What is left to our imaginations, and Compton's speculations, is the nature of these "polyandrous" marriages. Were these unions simply dynastic sealings—the practice of sealing women to certain senior priesthood leaders for eternity only, with little or no temporal relationship—or were they relationships including intimacy and offspring? Compton points to about a half-dozen marriages to single women where physical intimacy is documented. But arguing parallels does not establish such relationships. There is a logical chasm between single and married sealings, and, for the latter, there is no responsible report of sexual intercourse except for Sylvia Sessions Lyon. In 1915, her daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church" (quoted on p. 183). The Fisher document is somewhat supported by Angus Cannon's recollection of hearing that Patty Sessions said the Prophet fathered Sylvia's child (see p. 637). Compton acknowledges Sylvia may have meant that her 1844 child was conceived during Windsor's four years out of the church, from 1842 to 1846 (see p. 183). Though he thinks it "unlikely" that Sylvia denied her husband cohabitation during this period (p. 183), that is a serious possibility. This is implied in the family tradition of her daughter some three decades later.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=290

Bob then declared that I intentionally garbled the quote, as my offering of the "curative" quote above proved:

As you can see from your curative quote, you intentionally garbled your quote but putting a period in where a comment existed, and by leaving out the final phrase.

A person is considered the son or daugther of another by reason of the sealing. I have two half sisters sealed to my father who predeceased their births by over 10 years. Thus, Sylvia was justified in claiming Josephine's daughtership by reason of the sealing, which is what she does, and not sex.

Plus, the Josephine quote got the chronology completely wrong in terms of the Lyon's fellowship in the Church, but I'll leave that you to garble and misconstruct.

Shame, shame, shame on your complete torture of the text by changing the punctuation and leaving a phrase out. For shame.

It took me a while to figure out what bob was going on about. (he made several "for shame, for shame" posts accusing me of deliberately distorting the quote in order to make it say the complete opposite of what it really said) Bob thinks that the addition of "having been sealed to the Prophet" changes the meaning completely. He thinks it no longer means Joseph Smith is the biological father of Josephine, but rather that she is now his "daughter", in the adoptive sense, because he was sealed to her mother. As I pointed out subsequently, this is an awkward reading that makes no sense given the context of the affidavit. It also makes no sense in the context of Josephine being singled out as his child, ignoring the many other children who could also have been called his children in bob's sense of the word. The FARMS article demonstrates that even ardent defenders of the faith agree with my interpretation.

So bob now accuses me of having offered the first quote without attribution, as if I had the original. Of course, he is predictably and tiresomely completely wrong on this point, as I offered the link several times directly with the quote.

This is typical of the smoke and mirrors bob likes to play with.

[_rcrocket]

Which is problematic. Your omission makes it sound like Bishop is trying to "spice things up," though that's not what's being said in the original quote.

But, according to several of Lee's biographers, what Bishop added dozens of pages and pages of accounts of crimes in northern Utah with which Lee would have had no familiarity, which were apparently drafted for Bishop (at least in my view) by a Salt Lake Tribune reporter.

Again: problematic. This has nothing to do with things "connected with the trial and history of the case." Instead, it sounds like you were just trying to tar Bishop's credibility.

You are starting to catch on. Bishop said he was going to add things "connected with the trial and history of the case." You see that phrase as a limitation of the rest of the sentence. In other words, you see it as not "spicing things up" but saying just a few things about a small subject matter.

I see "connected with the trial and history of the case" as just more of the same -- major mutilation of the confession to spice things up.

And, my version proved correct. Unbeknownst to Bishop, Lee delivered two written confessions; one to Bishop and one to Howard. The one Bishop eventually published was dozens of pages longer -- containing many more details of crimes and offenses of which Lee could possibly have no knowledge. Sex crimes, murders and atrocities leading up to the massacre -- miles from where Lee lived. Details implicating George Albert Smith directly in the crime in Parowan -- when Smith was in Salt Lake City speaking in the bowery!

These details may not interest you; they did me at one time. But, I have the quote and facts completely accurate, and you just assert garbling with making no effort to understand it or read my published work. Don't accuse me of manipulating my sources without reading them.

[_rcrocket]

This was Beastie's original post:

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”.

What Josephine really said was this, picking up from "told me".

"told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church"

Note that the sentence did not end at "Smith," as Beastie originally posted, but at "Church." [I should also point out that Josephine was wrong on the details; Joseph was sealed to Sylvia before Lyon was out of the church. Just another example as to why Josephine is not reliable here.]

I called her on this misquote and she fixed it by finishing the sentence, but claims that she lifted it from an internet source. Following that source, one has to ask the question as to why Beastie would rely upon a source like that when she otherwise had the correct quote.

What is particularly troublesome is that the missing material completely changes the meaning of the quote. I say that the missing material establishes (not conclusively, of course, but evidence) that Sylvia was only "sealed" to Joseph Smith, and that Josephine was considered Joseph's daugher not because they were married, but because they were sealed. Lyon's physical daughter, but Joseph Smith's sealed daughter.

But, no, Beastie will neither admit to the original error, nor the error of citing an mere internet source with no scholarship behind it, nor to citing to weak material when she had better. No, Beastie does two things. First, she attacks me for published and peer-reviewed material of mine, several years old, in which she claims I dropped a phrase. She didn't even understand what phrase I had dropped or its meaning. Second, she cites other Mormons who read Josephine the way she does.

This is too fun. I have to stop.

[_rcrocket]

Moreover, unknown to Bishop, Lee

Ah, yes, that triggers a memory. Bishop Lee. Lee Bishop.

Two more anonymous cowards who previously posted on this board.

Umm, with one exception where I made three posts to myself years ago, I have never posted anonymously. If I use a pseudonym (and rcrocket is one) I identify myself with a post, or my bio, or my tag line.

And contrary to the claims of other speculators on this board that I post with my real name because I mistakenly have done so, that is untrue.

You, sir, are a brigand for posting anonymously.

But, I say such things in jest.

[_Chap]

This was Beastie's original post:

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”.

What Josephine really said was this, picking up from "told me".

"told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church"

Note that the sentence did not end at "Smith," as Beastie originally posted, but at "Church." [I should also point out that Josephine was wrong on the details; Joseph was sealed to Sylvia before Lyon was out of the church. Just another example as to why Josephine is not reliable here.]

I called her on this misquote and she fixed it by finishing the sentence, but claims that she lifted it from an internet source. Following that source, one has to ask the question as to why Beastie would rely upon a source like that when she otherwise had the correct quote.

What is particularly troublesome is that the missing material completely changes the meaning of the quote. I say that the missing material establishes (not conclusively, of course, but evidence) that Sylvia was only "sealed" to Joseph Smith, and that Josephine was considered Joseph's daugher not because they were married, but because they were sealed. Lyon's physical daughter, but Joseph Smith's sealed daughter.

But, no, Beastie will neither admit to the original error, nor the error of citing an mere internet source with no scholarship behind it, nor to citing to weak material when she had better. No, Beastie does two things. First, she attacks me for published and peer-reviewed material of mine, several years old, in which she claims I dropped a phrase. She didn't even understand what phrase I had dropped or its meaning. Second, she cites other Mormons who read Josephine the way she does.

This is too fun. I have to stop.

I now see what your point is, having in the interval plugged Josephine's words into Google to try to see if I could find a longer version - I eventually did, here:

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Joseph ... _wives.htm

So your complaint amounts to this: Beastie posted a link to this website (which states that it has been compiled by "a lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."):

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

and quoted this from the site whose address she gave:

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, 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”.

That quote was exactly as it appeared on the website whose address she gave. Perfectly straightforward. However, according to second website the sentence with which the quoted passage ends is longer:

Sylvia P. Sessions, married to Windsor P. Lyon, gave birth to a daughter on 8 February 1844, less than five months before Joseph Smith's martyrdom. That daughter, Josephine, related in a 24 February 1915 statement that prior to her mother's death in 1882 "she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about 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 all others but which she now desired to communicate to me." Josephine's mother told her she was "the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."

You seem to think that the reference to 'sealing' somehow changes the reference to being Joseph Smith's daughter to something purely adoptive and symbolic, and that it definitely excludes physical parenthood. Good luck to you, if that makes you feel better, but I don't think anybody else here is at all persuaded.

As for your elaborate attempts to represent Beastie as somehow dishonest, they are laughable. She gives a reference to a website. She cites exactly what is on that website. She, like me, has no problem with the extra material given elsewhere to which you refer, and would no doubt have cited the longer form if she had been aware of it when she made her initial post. You are grasping at straws here.

[_beastie]

Chap is absolutely correct. I simply looked for the quote I already knew existed. Had I found the longer quote first, I would have happily used that one.

crocket's participation on this thread:



and

[_cksalmon]

People who cite material from Internet sources are pathetic. See here.

[_the road to hana]

Moreover, unknown to Bishop, Lee

Ah, yes, that triggers a memory. Bishop Lee. Lee Bishop.

Two more anonymous cowards who previously posted on this board.

Umm, with one exception where I made three posts to myself years ago, I have never posted anonymously. If I use a pseudonym (and rcrocket is one) I identify myself with a post, or my bio, or my tag line.

But, I say such things in jest.

Can you even recall all the pseudonyms you've had on this board?

[_beastie]

I will add one more point about bob's reference.

This is his justification:

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).

And yet his edit deleted the very part that would have elucidated the bold part above.

As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

And this justification:

But, according to several of Lee's biographers, what Bishop added dozens of pages and pages of accounts of crimes in northern Utah with which Lee would have had no familiarity, which were apparently drafted for Bishop (at least in my view) by a Salt Lake Tribune reporter.

demonstrates that you understand the difference between the two statements (the original and your edit), and that you felt justified changing the meaning of the original with your edit. You actually don't think that Bishop was going to add facts associated with the massacre. You think he intended to add all sorts of damaging information that had nothing to do with the massacre. You may or may not be correct on that point, and if you had the evidence, you could certainly make that case - but you could have made it without editing the quote at all. You edited the quote to make your case stronger. Your edit makes Bishop's intent appear different than it really was.

Of course I have zero expectation that you will be able to appreciate this point, for various reasons, but perhaps this clarification will help others see my point.

Now the only case you could make that I had engaged in similar conduct would be if I had tried to present the case that Sylvia and Joseph simply had an affair without engaging in plural marriage. That is the only way that omitting "having been sealed to Joseph" would have made any difference at all.