Ugo Perego and the Case of the Missing DNA

[_canpakes]

I've said this many times before.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

1. Members of the Church have been "donating" to the Church while alive, in Wills, etc. since it's beginning, OUTSIDE of Tithing.
The church thus started buying various businesses with those funds that can support the mission of the Church, including it's latter day mission, but are still businesses.
So, you asked "how".... That's how.

Tithing was always designated for the Churches daily "spiritual" needs and operations, not outside things.

2. Utterly false.... It happened exactly as I've stated above. Call that a "good number of pots of gold resting at the butt end of rainbows" if you want, but that's what happened. Not saying of course "some" Tithing at some point especially at the beginning of the church that might have done something other than the long designated rules of Tithing usage, but this has been the general policy of the church from the beginning, to not use Tithing for anything other than the "Work" of the Lord.

Sorry, faqs, but without some source to support you, the numbers just don't add up.

[_tapirrider]

This issue raises questions of ethics about Ancestry.com. What consent release was given by those who submitted their samples for Dr. Perego's initial testing? Did they consent to have their samples sold for a profit making business? Why is Dr. Perego unable to use the original samples?

Here is a short overview of the association of Ancestry.com and Sorenson Molecular Institute.
http://dna-explained.com/2012/08/30/is- ... -ancestry/

The ethics questions might extend beyond the Joseph Smith genealogy testing. Were anthropological assets that Dr. Perego had been involved with also sold to Ancestry.com? Were the indigenous American peoples who had given consent to their testing ever informed that their results would be used for profit by Ancestry.com?

[_I have a question]

Low and behold the price just went up...

First of all, I want to express my gratitude to all those who've contributed to Dr. Ugo Perego's "Reconstructing Joseph Smith Genome" project. He has met his initial goal of $5000, which will permit him to do a great deal of work, and has announced a new goal-total of $10,000.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

[_moksha]

I know I am going to regret this but Ldsfaqs, in your opinion, if DNA research showed Josephine Lyon (or someone else not born to Emma) as fathered by Joseph Smith, would that be:
1. Information damaging to the church
2. Information that the church would embrace and be proud of, or
3. Completely irrelevant to how Joseph Smith's standing as a prophet?

Please, I am not asking if you believe it will show he fathered children by other women, only how you would view irrefutable evidence that he did.

Exactly right! The entire fabric of the Land of Apologia would come unraveled. Only Ugo Pergo can save the day by coming up with the right supportive answer. Can he do it by substituting the test tube full of Fido the Wonder Hound DNA for the real thing in time before Professors Midgely and Hamblin start to fade? Even now the edges of LDSfaqs beard are starting to fray.

[_DarkHelmet]

That. is. so. cute... that you consider yourself an apologist.

That's not fair. Almost everything LDSfaqs says sounds apologetic in nature.

Mainly because he parrots what the apologists say.

[_Tator]

Mainly because he parrots what the apologists say.

DarkHelmet be careful, be very careful you have been slapped down pretty hard with, "Mr. Smarty Pants". I can't imagine what else ldsfaqs might come up with.

[_deacon blues]

Are you s******g me? You use the argument that there is no proof that Joseph had sex with his wives ALL THE TIME!

And you only prove anti-mormons don't read and comprehend.

What I state "all the time", is that Joseph "may" have had sex with some of his wives, but the evidence is contradictory and can mean other things.
I also state "all the time" that Joseph only practiced the Sealing Ordinance, not Polygamy, that he only had one official wife, and whether he had relations with any of his wives is a different question, one which I'm not willing to say ya or nay on until the evidence is solid.

Polygamy was my second primary issue I left the church and became anti-mormon and anti-religion.
It is one of the biggest things I've studied of anything, and the evidences go both ways, so I can't in good concious say one way or the other.

I'm confused. Is lds.faqs saying he/she is anti-mormon?

[_DarkHelmet]

Mainly because he parrots what the apologists say.

DarkHelmet be careful, be very careful you have been slapped down pretty hard with, "Mr. Smarty Pants". I can't imagine what else ldsfaqs might come up with.

Yeah, it was so devastating, and I had nothing to come back with. But then, after tearfully thinking about it for hours, it finally hit me, the most epic comeback. : "Oh yeah, well the jerk store called, they're running out of you." I just have to wait for the perfect opportunity.

[_canpakes]

Joseph's sealing to other mens wives were all Sealings, further leading to the fact that it was a Religious Ordinance, not in fact Polygamy as anti's like to claim.

To restate how I read your response - you're saying that these don't represent polygamy or polyandry on the part of either participant, and that these actions are not, in any sense, a marriage of any type. Is that correct?

Further, if you read FAIR on these sealings, you will see they were done with full knowledge of the Husbands.

Of course, if you read an anti-mormon website, they lie stating Joseph's sealings were "hidden".

I may have just missed it, but I don't see that either FAIR or Hales (via the link on the FAIR page) reports that all were done with "full knowledge" of the husbands. I only see where FAIR notes that the other husbands "didn't complain". That claim can also apply to a dead person, yes? So it similarly applies to a living person, and your statement needs something more to back it up.

Can you point to the statement from the FAIR page that supports your claim?

Your response:

1. Nothing about that is false, they were sealings, not Polygamy. My not mentioning other issues and facts in that particular statement does not equal me not stating things at other times.

2. Polygamy is living with and having a relationship with more than one wife, and legally married.
All of Joseph's Polyandry marriages were Eternal Only Sealings, not time, thus they can't be classified as Polygamy.
If Joseph actually did in fact have sex with some of his wives, they "might" be able to be classifed as Polygamy, because they were legally married/sealed, and some of those marriages were for "Time" which could mean intimate relations were possible, but they would be more "daliances" rather than actual polygamy. But, they could quality. However, since I don't find "certainty" yet on whether he did have relations with any, I'm not going to call it anything other than what the evidence shows, Sealings only.

3. Not having any public statement from some of the Husbands or otherwise doesn't somehow mean Joseph was taking advantage of Married mens wives. Clearly his doing this with whatever support of the husbands shows that most of the marriages at least were only Sealings, and not in fact for his perverted fun and pleasure as anti's claim.

This response does not fully answer the questions.

1. You assert that Joseph's 'sealings' do not equate to polygamy. Do you interpret that the women that were sealed to him while simultaneously married to other fellows were practicing polyandry? I get the sense that you'd say, 'No', but I'd like for you to confirm this.

2. (Again) Can you point to the statement from the FAIR page that supports your claim that the other husbands of these women all knew that their wives were marrying Joseph?

3. You seem to be claiming that a 'sealing' is not equivalent to nor a replacement, in any way, for a marriage. What, then, is the purpose of a sealing, and how does it differ from a marriage? I want to know the differences apart from the 'time/eternity' argument, which doesn't answer the question that I'm asking.

If you are actually invested in and serious about the LDS faith, then I'd guess that you would have no trouble at all with the third question.


Edited: to fix my atrocious typing, lol.

[_canpakes]

faqs, do you have an answer for me yet about the difference between sealings and marriage?