Polygamy--What if...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _Brackite »

why me wrote:
She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she [u]having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."[/u]

She equated the sealing with being the daughter of Joseph Smith. It does seem that she was referring to the daughter as being the spiritual daughter of Joseph Smith. I see nothing about sex here.




Here is information about this, From Another Fair Wiki Web Site Page:

Josephine's account is also noteworthy because her mother emphasizes that "…she [had] been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."[42] This may explain her reasoning for being sealed to Joseph at all—her husband was out of fellowship. Alternatively—or additionally—it may explain why she was cohabitating with Joseph. Todd Compton opines that "[i]t seems unlikely that Sylvia would deny [her husband] cohabitation rights after he was excommunicated," but this conclusion seems based on little but a gut reaction.[43] These women took their religion seriously; given Sylvia's deathbed remarks, this was a point she considered important enough to emphasize. She apparently believed it would provide an explanation for something that her daughter might have otherwise misunderstood.

There is also clear evidence that at least some early members of the Church would have taken a similar attitude toward sexual relations with an unbelieving spouse. My own third-great grandfather, Isaiah Moses Coombs, provides a striking illustration of this from the general membership of the Church.

Coombs had immigrated to Utah, but his non-member spouse refused to accompany him. Heartsick, he consulted Brigham Young for advice. Young "sat with one hand on my knee, looking at my face and listen[ing] attentively." Then, Young took the new arrival "by the hand in his fatherly way," and said "[Y]ou had better take a mission to the States…to preach the gospel and visit your wife…visit your wife as often as you please; preach the gospel to her, and if she is worth having she will come with you when you return to the valley. God bless and prosper you."[44]

Coombs did as instructed, but was not successful in persuading his wife. His description of his thoughts is intriguing, and worth quoting at length:

I may as well state here, however, that during all my stay in the States, [my wife and I] were nothing more to each other than friends. I never proposed or hinted for a closer intimacy only on condition of her baptism into the Church. I felt that I could not take her as a wife on any other terms and stand guiltless in the sight of God or my own conscience…I could not yield to her wishes and she would not bend to mine. And so I merely visited her as a friend. This was a source of wonder to our mutual acquaintances; and well it might be for had not my faith been founded on the eternal rock of Truth, I never could have stood such a test, I never could have withstood the temptations that assailed me, but I should have yielded and have abandoned myself to the life of carnal pleasure that awaited me in the arms of my beautiful and adored wife. She was now indeed beautiful. I had thought her lovely as a child—as a maiden she had seemed to me surpassing fair, but as a woman with a form well developed and all the charms of her persona matured, she far surpassed in womanly beauty anything I had ever dreamed of.[45]

Coombs' account is startlingly blunt and explicit for the age. Yet, if this young twenty-two-year-old male refused marital intimacy with his wife (whom he married knowing their religious differences), Compton's confidence that Sylvia Sessions would not deny marital relations to her excommunicated husband seems misplaced. Sessions may, like Coombs, have seen her faithfulness to the sealing ordinances sufficient to "eventually either in this life or that which is to come enable me to bind my [spouse] to me in bands that could not be broken." Like him, she may have believed that "[My spouse] was blind then but the day would come when [he] would see."[46]

Brian Hales has recently published work demonstrating that Todd Compton misread the data on Session's first marriage. In Hales' view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions' marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous, and the evidence for Josephine Lyons being Joseph's child is even stronger. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]



( http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_a ... ok_chapter , Bold Emphasis Mine. )



Josephine Rosetta Lyon Fisher is indeed very, very much likely to have been the Biological Daughter of Joseph Smith.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _why me »

Brackite wrote:
Brian Hales has recently published work demonstrating that Todd Compton misread the data on Session's first marriage. In Hales' view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions' marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous, and the evidence for Josephine Lyons being Joseph's child is even stronger. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

Josephine Rosetta Lyon Fisher is indeed very, very much likely to have been the Biological Daughter of Joseph Smith.


I saw this but I ignored it because it is based on conjecture. My point was based less on conjecture and it was an analysis of what Sessions said. However, you must admit that the fairwiki is objective and it considers various viewpoints.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _beastie »

I'm going to repeat my questions for whyme:

Tell me why she singled out ONE offspring. Tell me why she shared it only on her deathbed. Tell me why church leaders used this as evidence of Joseph Smith' practice of polygamy, in order to silence the RLDS.
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.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _why me »

beastie wrote:I'm going to repeat my questions for whyme:

Tell me why she singled out ONE offspring. Tell me why she shared it only on her deathbed. Tell me why church leaders used this as evidence of Joseph Smith' practice of polygamy, in order to silence the RLDS.

I have no idea. Who would have the answer to your questions? They rest only inside her mind and she is dead. However, how she phrased the statement is important and it is important that she referred to a sealing and not to actual sex. And that is important. Also, I have no idea who was present at her deathbed. Do you know who was at her deathbed? And what question that child could have asked her? Much is unkown.

In terms of silencing the rlds, I would say that if Sessions mentions a sealing that would be enough to silence the rlds.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _harmony »

why me wrote:
Brackite wrote:
Brian Hales has recently published work demonstrating that Todd Compton misread the data on Session's first marriage. In Hales' view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions' marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous, and the evidence for Josephine Lyons being Joseph's child is even stronger. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

Josephine Rosetta Lyon Fisher is indeed very, very much likely to have been the Biological Daughter of Joseph Smith.


I saw this but I ignored it because it is based on conjecture. My point was based less on conjecture and it was an analysis of what Sessions said. However, you must admit that the fairwiki is objective and it considers various viewpoints.


It doesn't matter what Sessions' considered herself. It matters what the law considered her. Like virtually everything that Joseph penned after 1833, it's impossible to believe the 12th Article of Faith, since members obviously considered themselves above the law. Sylvia Sessions was legally and lawfully wed to her first husband, Mr Lyon. She did not divorce him. Therefore she could not, under any circumstances, consider herself wedded to Joseph Smith. So... any child resulting from her liaison with Joseph was a bastard resulting from an adulterous affair. And that can of worms is one the Brethren today don't want opened up... hence, the DNA study disappeared.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _ajax18 »

He was no different than other men who use similar tactics to excuse sexual infidelity.


Who says there is such a law as sexual fidelity? I'm afraid that hell will not just mean if you get fat, you'll have a fat wife. Different laws protect different people. But what goes around always comes back around just the same.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _DarkHelmet »

truth dancer wrote:
People with high expectations would have been disappointed in him.


People with LOW expectations were disappointed.


LOL. This is true, but maybe that was god's plan all along. Joseph Smith set the ball so low for character and integrity as a prophet, that all prophets after him would look extra spiritual in comparison. Just think, if Joseph Smith was a decent man, would the saints have put up with Brigham Young's antics in Utah? BY was no more corrupt than Joseph Smith, and the leaders have gradually become better and better people over time so that TSM looks like Mother Theresa compared to those guys.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _why me »

harmony wrote:
It doesn't matter what Sessions' considered herself. It matters what the law considered her. Like virtually everything that Joseph penned after 1833, it's impossible to believe the 12th Article of Faith, since members obviously considered themselves above the law. Sylvia Sessions was legally and lawfully wed to her first husband, Mr Lyon. She did not divorce him. Therefore she could not, under any circumstances, consider herself wedded to Joseph Smith. So... any child resulting from her liaison with Joseph was a bastard resulting from an adulterous affair. And that can of worms is one the Brethren today don't want opened up... hence, the DNA study disappeared.


It is how she penned it. She said sealing. That can also mean that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith but not necessarily the biological daughter. But quite frankly, it would not bother me in the least if she were the biological daughter of Joseph Smith.

However, since you are a card carrying temple recommend holder, you can ask your temple president. I am sure that he will help you. Also, don't forget to stress your honest opinion of Joseph Smith. That is important for clarity sake. Then, you can explain your opinions about the current leadership of the LDS church. This is also important so that the temple president can see the direction that you are coming from with your questions.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _beastie »

I have no idea. Who would have the answer to your questions? They rest only inside her mind and she is dead. However, how she phrased the statement is important and it is important that she referred to a sealing and not to actual sex. And that is important. Also, I have no idea who was present at her deathbed. Do you know who was at her deathbed? And what question that child could have asked her? Much is unkown.

In terms of silencing the rlds, I would say that if Sessions mentions a sealing that would be enough to silence the rlds.


You obviously cannot even conjecture about why she singled out ONE daughter, and why she waited until her deathbed because your premise is illogical given these circumstances.

The evidence collected for the RLDS was clearly demonstrating not just that Joseph Smith was sealed to these women, but that he had them as WIVES in the full sense of the word. That's why they collected statements such as witnesses stating Joseph Smith shared a bed with a wife - that's as close as you're going to get, for the time period, to flat out stating "Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives". In the midst of these sort of testimonies, according to your logic, suddenly they inserted a statement that only referred to a sealing, and nothing more. It makes absolutely no sense.

Besides, as liz pointed out above, why the big deal over it? They were his wives, weren't they? Sesssion was his wife. Would he have been sinning if he had had sex with her and conceived a child?
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.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Polygamy--What if...

Post by _harmony »

why me wrote:However, since you are a card carrying temple recommend holder, you can ask your temple president. I am sure that he will help you. Also, don't forget to stress your honest opinion of Joseph Smith. That is important for clarity sake. Then, you can explain your opinions about the current leadership of the LDS church. This is also important so that the temple president can see the direction that you are coming from with your questions.


Been there, done that. Did you think I hadn't? Did you think I don't know him well? Did you think I don't know ALL my leaders well? Did you think he isn't related to my family? Good grief, why me... did you think I haven't done all those things and more?

Did you expect me to cower and hide? My leaders know what I think, and they know my testimony, and they go forth with faith, as do I. Your implication is that you so hope that I will be kicked out for my thoughts. I am the one Christ went looking for, why me. You are one of the 99 who stayed behind, whispering and complaining.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply