Notice how carefully and deliberately both bob and droopy have avoided answering questions that must be answered for their theory to make any sense, such as the one I asked pages ago:
If you're going to defend bob's proposition, you are going to have to explain things he's refused to explain, such as why, if all Sylvia's affidavit meant was that Josephine was spiritually sealed to Joseph Smith as his daughter, did she single out Josephine when ALL her children would be Joseph Smith', and why do researchers also ignore all the children who would be Joseph Smith's due to the sealings. Clearly, everyone except for a very small group of people interpret Sylvia's statement to mean that Joseph Smith was the biological father of Joseph Smith.
The fact that we are even arguing this point demonstrates how desperate you are.
Bob and droopy, I have a question for both of you:
If it were proven, through DNA, that Josephine was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith, what would that mean to you? Would it alter your opinion of Joseph Smith's prophet-hood? Would you feel that he was justified in having sex with Sylvia because he was married to her? Would you think he had sinned? I really want an answer to this question.
Another question to add: why would Andrew Jenson collect Josephine's statement as evidence that Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy in this life when, according to bob and droopy, it actually demonstrates nothing of the sort???
Notice also how carefully and deliberately bob and droopy have tried to distract the topic of the thread with their ridiculous accusation that I deliberately doctored ad quote to make it appear to say something completely different than it said. I assume bob has read my detailed response refuting this, since he's been on this thread from the beginning, and typically chooses to ignore it and simply repeat his accusation in the hopes that those easily led (like droopy) will simply believe him. It will probably work, but just in case, I will repeat my refutation for droopy, who arrived late:
My former post refuting bob's silly charge:
In regards to this accusation:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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”.
Predictably, droopy also ignores the FARMS article which, although containing the fuller quote (which according to droopy and bob contradict my theory) and arrive at the exact same conclusion as mine:
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
Note how these fervent defenders of the faith also conclude that Josephine's statement is a responsible report of sexual intercourse.
Bob and droopy are holding to a theory even too weak and ridiculous for FARMers to embrace.