? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Could there have been other factors for no as yet descendants from these women? Maybe timing was such he did not make love with these women during the three day ovulation period reducing chances of falling pregnant?

It's certainly possible. But the more often he had sex, and the more women he had sex with, the more improbable that seems.

What was the health like of the children he had with emma? Didn't one have mental health problems?

Yes. One did. But he existed, as did Emma's other children.

[_Nightingale]

DCP:
"...I want to point out that, if you take me to be saying that I don't "understand" why some leave, you have misread me completely."

Yes. I get that you said you understand. Especially as you specifically stated it:

"Since I believe Mormonism to be true, I do not believe that loss of faith in Mormonism is ever ultimately justified.

That does not mean, however, that I do not or cannot understand why, given the limits of our understanding and knowledge in this life, some people lose faith."

I must not have made my point clear. I meant that saying you understand why someone would leave Mormonism is all that could be hoped for; that asking you to acknowledge that it is justified is likely doomed to failure. This is not surprising, given what I assumed you believe due to Mormon teachings; namely, that it is never justified to leave because it is "true" and, more importantly and accurately, given what you have clearly stated.

Perhaps you can see, though, that not saying it is justified to leave, can be seen by an ex-member as lack of validation for what could be a nightmare scenario in their life. There are many examples of gross injustice that has been ameliorated in one of the only ways possible after the fact - by means of acknowledgement of the wrong and a formal apology. In my country, one example can be seen re injustices in the First Nations (Native) communities; i.e., systemic abuse at government schools. The victims (now grown) and their communities still harbour distrust of officialdom and would likely vigorously resist further attempts to set up similar institutions. It would be gross insensitivity to opine that they should "just get over it" and return to the same system that so negatively impacted their lives, multi-generationally. It is to deny the harm that was caused to them. No matter how much improvement has been made or understanding forged, to say the communities are not justified in how they felt and still feel is seen as siding with the thing that hurt them or saying that it wasn't that bad.

I think just simple acknowledgement goes a long way in fostering detente between opposing parties. When I was baptized into the Mormon Church, a very unfortunate incident occurred. It is not an overstatement to say that it devastated me spiritually. I did not attend church for a couple of months following that and finally agreed to meet with the bishop (who I had never met; I had been assigned to a new ward immediately following the baptism). The new bishop had heard from my LDS friend who baptized me what had occurred at my baptism and the first thing he said upon meeting me was "I understand why you have not come back to church". It was an acknowledgement and apology to me that was the single biggest factor in my decision to go back and try again. He lost nothing by being honest enough to acknowledge that yeah, it was not good.

I have witnessed, read, heard and myself lived through some of the very negative experiences people have with Mormonism. It may or may not be because of Mormonism but Mormonism is intertwined with it (i.e., abusive parents, fundamentalist approaches to the belief, childhood sexual abuse, mental illness of parent or child, etc). If someone suffers a very negative childhood because of verbal, emotional, physical or sexual abuse from parents, another relative, a church leader or member, I don't think that saying they are justified in leaving is necessarily an acknowledgement that the church is not "true". In fact, I think it promotes compassion to acknowledge the very understandable reaction of a victim in those circumstances. Saying someone is never justified, under any circumstances, means they are expected to just live with it, put up with it, accept it and carry on. That is a great deal to expect and far easier to seek to impose that on someone than it is for them to live it; thus, inherently an unfair judgement.

I'm not sure if that bishop meant I was justified, in his view, in choosing not to return to church (although I eventually decided to give it a go - an attempt that lasted for three years and then I had to just leave). I'm not sure what he or anyone would lose by acknowledging that, if it is the case.

Apart from all that, yes, I do understand that you said you understand.

I see but don't agree with the aversion to acknowledging that leavetaking is "justified" though.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "justification".

So maybe we're back to definitions again.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "justification".

So maybe we're back to definitions again.

It seems so. But I'm pretty much defined out.

[_Tarski]

Your reference to the genetic testing makes less sense the more I think about it, if you were talking only about the polyandrous unions. Genetic testing as yet to identify an offspring of Joseph Smith from any of his plural wives, including the ones with only him as a husband. Yet you seem to agree it's a given Joseph Smith had sex with them. So I'm entirely confused as to your point with the testing.

Suppose that Joseph Smith had lots and lots of sex with sixty women. We know that he was capable of fathering children, since he had children by Emma. Yet suppose that no other women appear to have had any children fathered by him.

This would be -- it is -- exceedingly puzzling.

So perhaps something has to give. Perhaps he didn't have lots and lots of sex with sixty women. Suppose he had no sex except with Emma. That would solve the problem, but it probably isn't true.

Nonetheless, decreasing the amount of sex and/or the amount of women certainly moves us toward an easier explanation of why there don't appear to be any verifiably non-Emma-borne Joseph Smith descendants out there yet.

The question was asked about the already-married women. In my opinion, assuming that Joseph Smith didn't have lots and lots of sex with those women moves us toward an easier explanation of why there don't appear to be any verifiably non-Emma-borne Joseph Smith descendants out there yet. In fact, assuming that Joseph Smith didn't have sex with those women at all moves us even closer.

Thus, when the question was asked whether I thought Joseph Smith had sex with those already-married women, I answered that I thought it possible that he did not, because that would be consistent with the fact that no verifiably non-Emma-borne Joseph Smith descendants have yet been identified.

1. Joseph Smith had sex with his nonpolyandrous wives.
a - genetic testing has not yet identified offspring from those wives
2. Joseph Smith may not have had sex with his polyandrous wives and the fact that genetic testing has not yet identified offspring from polyandrous wives supports that contention.

You see my confusion? Just what does the testing prove or not prove to you?

Pending future discoveries, it seems to indicate that Joseph Smith was not having lots of sex with lots of women.
.

There was a notion of birth contol though wasn't there? How many kids does Hugh Hefner have and what does that indicate?
Also, why did Joseph Smith fail with the raising up of seed rationale given by the Lord himself?

by the way, having secret spiritual wives who were already married (even without sex) seems like spiritual infidelity anyway.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Finally, I believe the testimonies of scores of people who knew him very well that he was a good man. Many of these testimonies are included in Mark McConkie's recent book, Remembering Joseph.

So what, a bunch of his followers had great things to say about his public persona. Those are great objective points right?

I am sure you could find thousands of similar comments about Warren Jeffs within the FLDS, and even outside of the FLDS. He seems like a nice enough guy.. who is following his religion to a T. The only thing he did wrong was to not observe the laws of the land... hey, he was emulating old Joe.

What about all of the testimonies that were not favorable of Smith?

Are those invalid because they spoke negatively of Smith?

It is amusing to see members swallow just about ANY feel good story about old Joe, regardless of how wonderful, yet you can show them factual history which casts him in a bad light, even his own history, or by his mother or HC, and they immediatley disregard it as ANTI-MORMON lies.

Dan, I hope you like sheep, cuz you are surrounded and out numbered by them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Tarski

There was a notion of birth contol though wasn't there? How many kids does Hugh Hefner have and what does that indicate?
Also, why did Joseph Smith fail with the raising up of seed rationale given by the Lord himself?

by the way, having secret spiritual wives who were already married (even without sex) seems like spiritual infidelity anyway.

Yes, but Tarski, look at your reasoning above.

1. You introduce birth control as one reason that Joseph Smith offspring from his polygamous unions haven't materialized.

and in the next breath you assert that

2. Because of D&C 132 (?) that specifies the raising up of seed that constitutes at least low level evidence that his unions included sexual realtions. (and by the way, I do think that they did)

Here's the problem:

If the purpose of polygamy was to raise up seed, you can't use birth control as a possible defense against the lack of polygamous progeny produced by Joseph Smith.

In other words, ya need to pick a spot and land on it.

:-)

And I say as I have so many times in the past:

Show me the children of Joseph Smith and his wives.

[_James Clifford Miller]

... Since not having had sex with those already-married women would, if true, mean that he was having less sex with fewer women, and since having less sex with fewer women seems more compatible with the currently-known DNA results than does the notion that he was having more sex with more women, the currently-known DNA results seem to lend at least some credence to the possibility that he was not having sex with those already-married women. It's not proof, but it's a hint in one direction rather than another.

My dear Doctor, I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

You apologists claim that lack of supporting DNA evidence does not disprove Church claims of Hebrew ancestry for American Indians(*). But then you switch positions and claim that lack of supporting DNA evidence tends to support (not prove) some LDS claims that Smith may not have had sex with his plural wives. That is, to at least some apologists, the use of the lack of supporting DNA evidence proves something only when it helps LDS positions and is to be discarded when it does not.

As for me, I would be surprised (though pleasantly) if any Smith DNA turned up in the progeny of his plural wives because

(1) documentable evidence can be produced to indicate that in Smith's day and location, effective contraception -- including condoms -- was available and being used,
(2) Bennett may well have, as others have suggested, performed abortions at Smith's request and need,
(3) furtive and infrequent sex between emotionally stressed partners considerably reduces the odds of conception,
(4) the unethical, abusive, and exploitive seduction methods related by some of Smith's plural wives suggests that to Smith the marriages may have been in part, or largely, for sex (and with the "raising up of righteous seed" only given some time later as justification), and
(5) Smith's substantial and well-documented explicit deceit to Emma, the Church, and in publications about his plural wives (why lie about it if it was strictly platonic and non-sexual?).

(*)BYU's Dr. Michael Whiting, in his FARMS-published article, DOES state that lack of DNA evidence DOES tend to disprove Hebrew ancestry for the Global Colonization Hyphothesis. Dr. Whiting: "If we grant that the global colonization hyphothesis is the correct lineage history emerging from the Book of Mormon, this hypothesis predicts that the modern-day descendants of the Lamanite lineage should contain the Middle Eastern genetic signature. Since the current population genetics suggests that Native Americans (presumed by some to be the direct genetic descendants of the Lamanites) have an Asian genetic signature, the above hypothesis is indeed incorrect. To this point all we have shown is that the global colonization hypothesis appears falsified by current genetic evidence." Michael Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," FARMS, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 28-31. Whether the Global or Local Colonization Hypothesis is the more correct has not been determined, though the proponderance of statements in Church settings and publications by LDS GAs and Church Presidents supports the Global.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_Daniel Peterson]

You apologists claim that lack of supporting DNA evidence does not disprove Church claims of Hebrew ancestry for American Indians(*). But then you switch positions

It's not a switch of positions. It's a switch of subjects.

Attempting to identify DNA evidence in a huge population for the existence of a person who lived 2600 years ago is a quite distinct problem from attempting to identify additional biological descendants of a person known to have lived roughly six generations ago and known to already have identifiable living biological descendants.

I know Mike Whiting's article well. I helped to edit it for publication.

Have you read the other articles that FARMS has published on the subject?

[Aristotle Smith]

I admit that this story is not firsthand, and rises only to the level of hearsay, but here goes;

A friend of mine talked with some individuals who submitted samples for genetic testing in regards to Josephs possible offspring. These folk never heard back on the results of their samples. When an inquiry was finally made by those participants about their genetic samples, they were flatly told that the results would not be made available - end of story.

Just curious if anybody else has heard of these types of nondisclosure scenarios?

[_Jason Bourne]

beastie, Dan has other things to consider as well.

Family, his wife and children are devote members. I am sure most of his extended family is as well.

His current employer, the Mormon church(BYU) would not look favorable if he quit professing belief in and defending Mormonism.

His lifelong associates and friends related to Mormonism would be lost.

I am sure he is well known in his neighborhood, ward and stake as one of the "Lord's Scholars".

Most of his adult life has been devoted to defending Mormonism. If he quit now, the repercussions from family, friends, community, and work(BYU) might be too much for him to handle.

Understanding that he has much more to lose than most members helps one understand his reasoning.

Personally I think this is unfair. He comes here and explains why he is less bothered by what he stated was the most diffucult issue and you dismiss the integrity of the statement by "Well he must just say he still believes because he has a lost to lose." If you cannot win be arguing then you impugn his charecter. Just cause he comes to different conclusions then you when examining the same facts does not mean he is not honest.

Heck, we could argue you left but bases on your story you seemed pretty much like a weak kneed Mormon to start with, or that you were looking for an excuse to sin. That is the same thing you just did to Daniel Peterson.