John C Bennett's Highly Unpopular Boston Anti Mormon Lecture

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Then you and I can go no further as there is no evidence for either. Without cohabitation, there is no polyandrous relationship in the sense anti Mormons want the public to believe.

This is a pretty obvious cop-out from a discussion where you've been cornered. Even very pro-LDS historians (i.e., Hales and Bushman) have conceded that Joseph had polyandrous wives -- Hales even admits that Joseph probably had sex with some of them. I'm amazed you are so reluctant to accept what is very well established, even among many TBM's.

[_Bazooka]

Finally, some progress. I take your answer to mean that you agree Joseph had sexual intercourse with at least some of his plural wives. Is that a correct characterization?

Are you willing to admit there is no evidence for polyandrous relationships and that the evidence that Joseph Smith sent men out on missions in order to marry their wives is slim to none?

Are you willing to admit there is no evidence for God ever visiting Joseph Smith and that the evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus is...none...to less than none?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Of course none of this answers whether or not John C Bennett is a faithful source or what he said to the Boston crowd.

You're right, but it does reveal your agreement that under each man's "version" (your word) both Joseph and Bennett had sexual intercourse with multiple women to whom they were not legally and lawfully wedded.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Then you and I can go no further as there is no evidence for either. Without cohabitation, there is no polyandrous relationship in the sense anti Mormons want the public to believe.

I still don't know what that means. What sense do I (assuming for the moment that I'm an anti-Mormon, which I'm not) want the public to believe?

What we know is that, even according to Brian Hales, Joseph Smith had sex with at least 3 married women. I really don't care what you call it, and cohabitation has nothing to do with whether he had sex with married women. Your silly word games don't help your case at all.

Pick one:

1. There is evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with married women.

2. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with married women.

It's really not that difficult.

[_Kyle Reese]

Then you and I can go no further as there is no evidence for either. Without cohabitation, there is no polyandrous relationship in the sense anti Mormons want the public to believe.

With the absence of evidence of cohabitation with the polyandrous wives (and i presume, you consider this evidence that there were no sexual relations with these wives), what is your conjecture about the motive for keeping these relationships secret?

And as a followup, what is the motive for these and other plural relationships, if not for the raising up of seed?

[_Fence Sitter]

Finally, some progress. I take your answer to mean that you agree Joseph had sexual intercourse with at least some of his plural wives. Is that a correct characterization?

I'm still waiting for bcspace to provide evidence of celibate, sealing-only marriages.

I am still waiting for him to provide evidence that Bennett had sex with his girlfriends.
Where are the children BC?

I like how he is trying to argue that Bennett's polygamous practices were different from Joseph Smith's based on authorization from God. Given that Joseph Smith didn't follow his own rules for how it was to be practiced it ought to be clear both neither were authorized and both were adultery.

....and the mental gymnastics continue.

[_bcspace]

Of course none of this answers whether or not John C Bennett is a faithful source or what he said to the Boston crowd.

You're right, but it does reveal your agreement that under each man's "version" (your word) both Joseph and Bennett had sexual intercourse with multiple women to whom they were not legally and lawfully wedded.

I don't think it does. The evidence point to Joseph Smith and Bennett going in opposite directions on how they handled plural marriage.

Then you and I can go no further as there is no evidence for either. Without cohabitation, there is no polyandrous relationship in the sense anti Mormons want the public to believe.

This is a pretty obvious cop-out from a discussion where you've been cornered.

Not at all. I've already answered your question directly elsewhere. I merely want to see if you'll answer mine here and now. The fact that you're unwilling to discuss plural marriage in context proves that you are the one who's cornered.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I don't think it does. The evidence point to Joseph Smith and Bennett going in opposite directions on how they handled plural marriage.

Again you're being really evasive. What does it mean to go in opposite directions?

Not at all. I've already answered your question directly elsewhere. I merely want to see if you'll answer mine here and now. The fact that you're unwilling to discuss plural marriage in context proves that you are the one who's cornered.

I'm trying to put it in context, and in my view, the evidence strongly favors a sexual element, without which the context is incomplete. I'm not sure why you think that you have to remove sex from the discussion entirely to provide proper context.

[_bcspace]

I am still waiting for him to provide evidence that Bennett had sex with his girlfriends.

Are you saying Bennett never begged forgiveness multiple times on this matter and was never expelled from the Church after seeing that his attempts at repentance were false? Proof left to the student.

[_Equality]

And as a followup, what is the motive for these and other plural relationships, if not for the raising up of seed?

Why, they were "dynastic," of course! That neither Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young nor any other faithful practicing Mormon polygamist ever mentioned that as the purpose should not trouble anyone. That the scriptures commanding polygamy don't mention its "dynastic" purpose should also not worry anyone. After all, the apologists in the 21st century have had a revelation that polygamy (or Joseph Smith's anyway) was non-sexual and "dynastic."

Although, I have never quite gotten an explanation from the "it was dynastic" crowd as to why Joseph could not have accomplished a "dynastic" socio-familial network just as easily by adopting 14-year-old girls as his daughters rather than his wives. Perhaps Bushman is lurking her and can enlighten us all on that.