Bob Loblaw wrote: Brian Hales's evidence that Windsor and Sylvia separated is that they aren't explicitly mentioned together by others. I'd say that's a very low standard of evidence.
An extremely low standard. But, judging from droopy's overall posting, I'd say keeping in mind things that aren't true is the way he manages life in general.
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.
Here's Hales's discussion of the alleged separation:
A significant observation is that after his excommunication, Windsor did return to Nauvoo, but it does not appear that he was then residing with Sylvia in the Lyon home. Land records for Nauvoo show that Windsor owned a store with attached living quarters, as well as a house located less than a block away.53 It is possible that the couple were separated but lived close to each other so Windsor could participate in parental responsibilities to their child Philofreen (b. June 1841).54 This view is substantiated by several accounts written during this period that mention Sylvia or Windsor in Nauvoo, but do not describe them as being together. Windsor must have returned to Nauvoo within a few weeks of his excommunication because Patty Session’s biographer penned: “On the 12th of February [1843] . . . Bro. Joseph was at her house, and Mr. Lyons, Sylvia’s husband, lent him five hundred dollars.”55 We notice that transaction did not take place at the Lyon home and that Sylvia was evidently not involved. On June 5, 1843, Sylvia, apparently alone, bought a building lot from Joseph Smith for $500.56
Another starker example is found with the Partridge daughters, Emily and Eliza, who needed new lodging in the latter half of 1843. Emily wrote: “My sister Eliza found a home with the family of Brother Joseph Coolidge, and I went to live with Sister Sylvia Lyons. She was a good woman, and one of the lord’s chosen few.57 In the reference, Emily mentioned “the family of Brother Joseph Coolidge,” but she did not similarly refer to the “family of Brother Windsor Lyon.” Instead Emily went to live with “Sister Sylvia Lyons,” suggesting the Windsor was not living with his wife at that time.58
Strong evidence, indeed. But there's more:
Available research shows Sylvia rejoined Windsor shortly after his 1846 rebaptism. Enoch Tripp, a relative of Patty Sessions, wrote: “On Sunday morning, February 1, 1846, Heber C. Kimball came to the house of Mr. Windsor P. Lyon in order to rebaptize him into the church and they sent up to the temple and got a large bath tub. The mob violence was so strong, Heber C. Kimball did not dare to do it in public.”59
In short, the evidence that Windsor Lyon returned to his wife shortly after his rebaptism is ... that he was rebaptized! Ironclad, I'd say.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
'Josephine Sessions' sounds like a cheap 80's porn movie.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
beastie wrote:Hey now, don't rob droopy of his entire worldview.
Brian Hales's evidence that Windsor and Sylvia separated is that they aren't explicitly mentioned together by others. I'd say that's a very low standard of evidence.
Actually, Bob, he has at least two family sources saying this. I remember because I found them. =)
DonBradley wrote:Actually, Bob, he has at least two family sources saying this. I remember because I found them. =)
Don
What date were the family sources?
by the way, I've been quoted your statement on MDD about your confidence that Josephine will be validated as the daughter of Joseph Smith via DNA. It's been a very long time since the beginning of this particular investigation.
Ongoing research includes evaluation of Josephine Lyon (Sylvia Sessions Lyon) autosomal DNA. "Hundreds of DNA samples from male and female descendants of both Josephine Lyon and Joseph Smith have been collected and are being analyzed with the objective of identifying lineage-specific markers..." (Perego, Woodward, Journal of Mormon History, Vol 32, No.2 fn 39). In January 2004, Descendants of Josephine participating in this study indicated the research is "promising" in confirming Josephine as a daughter of Joseph Smith. An August 2008 “Mormon Times” article indicates, “…they should know in the ‘next year or so’”.
This has the appearance of a bit of a stall. My suspicion is that someone is buying time in order to find more evidence that Sylvia was, indeed, at the least separated from Windsor during this period. Would you understand how someone could form that impression?
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.
Darth J has, to my mind, raised a key question regarding the sexuality of this marriage. Even if Sylvia's child wasn't actually Joseph's, how could she even believe the child to have been Joseph's unless their marital relationship was a sexual one?
As mentioned above by others, Brian Hales has written at length about this marriage, arguing that it was sexual (and that Josephine was Joseph's child) while also arguing that it was not sexually polyandrous (i.e., that Sylvia and Windsor were separated and de facto divorced during the time Joseph was married to her). Not everyone will be convinced by his evidence on this point, but I think that even many of those disinclined to take his view on whether the relationship was sexually polyandrous will be surprised at the evidence he can adduce for it or that there actually is evidence for it (e.g., family members who later reported a separation).
I will (eventually) be writing a paper on whether Josephine was Joseph Smith's daughter. Josephine stated by affidavit that Sylvia, from her death bed, had told Josephine that she was Joseph's child. Skepticism has been raised about whether he meant she was his literal, physical child. But I have several as-yet-unpublished sources from before Sylvia was near death which state unambiguously that Joseph Smith was Sylvia's biological father.
Josephine's grandmother (Patty Sessions) believed her to have been Joseph's daughter, as did her mother and a number of others.
The evidence I have on this is clear and was in wide circulation during Sylvia's lifetime, giving her a chance to debunk it, if she wish. Instead, she affirmed it.
This project is not a high priority among the number I have to complete and submit for publication. In the mean time, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. But I would refer them to the substantial body of evidence Brian has compiled on Sylvia as Joseph's wife and Josephine as his daughter. In light of the evidence he has published, and the much greater amount that I have in reserve, I'd strongly recommend to fellow Latter-day Saints that they not stake religious truth claims, or much of their own credibility, on the idea that Joseph and Sylvia could not have had a sexual relationship as part of their marriage.
Instead, I think it would be more valuable to embrace the available evidence for this (at least provisionally, until more solid genetic or historical evidence is published) and deal with the probability that they did have a full marital relationship and a child together. Brian Hales has argued for one way to understand the relationship. Other LDS (and of course non-LDS) interpreters are similarly free to develop interpretations, hopefully grounding them in evidence and cogent thought.
Brian presents one evidence-based solution to the problem of Joseph's apparent "sexual polyandry." He also argues that sexual polyandry would always be adultery.
However, I also know intelligent, devout Latter-day Saints who believe Joseph did practice sexual polyandry in this and other cases and who have no problem with it, either because they embrace Joseph's principle that "whatever the Lord requires is right" or because, coming from a feminist vantage point, they believe that polyandry is no more inherently wrong than is polygyny.
A third option would be to just leave the question open. One needn't understand everything in Mormon history in order to be Mormon, no more than one need understand everything in quantum physics to believe it reflects reality.
And I'm sure there are other ways of approaching Joseph Smith's "polyandry." The one approach I would advise against is flouting the published evidence on the subject. That evidence is strong as it is, more is coming, and, in the long run, ignoring evidence for difficult ideas tends not to work out well. It sets people up for disappointment and disillusionment.
A more straightforward approach to the historical evidence on this and other questions is decidedly best. After all, "It is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."
Obviously their value as evidence is reduced by their lateness, but they do provide some evidence for the idea that Joseph and Sylvia conceived Josephine while Sylvia was separated from Windsor.
My point isn't to argue for the accuracy of this interpretation (which readers of Brian's work can assess for themselves) but just to mention that it isn't an interpretation Brian is coming up with out of thin air. It's an interpretation given in some of the sources he uses, and one that he then embraces and defends using other sources.
May I suggest a title for your upcoming paper on whether Josephine was Joseph Smith's daughter?
"Where Are The Children?"
It has a ring to it.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
