What is your best evidence for Joseph Smith sleeping with his wives?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

asbestosman -

Your entire argument consists of wishful thinking that is a luxury accommodated by your ignorance.

There is no doubt that Joseph Smith had sexual relationships with many, if not most, of his wives. The LDS church itself made that clear when it reacted to Joseph Smith III and the RLDS church's denial of these facts by obtaining statements from Joseph Smith' still living wives.

There is also no doubt that he married women who were already married to other men, and who often remained married to those first husbands, as well as Joseph Smith. Ironically, the DNA evidence looks the most promising for one of those polyandrous wives, Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, at least according to this:

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). Descendants of Josephine participating in this study have indicated the research is "promising" in confirming Josephine as a daughter of Joseph Smith. The researchers are also hoping to study the other possible children of Joseph Smith and welcome the involvement of descendants.


http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

Frankly, given the fact that this would be a proven child of a polyandrous union, I doubt the final results will ever see the light of day.

Now, you have a choice, given the statements of Joseph Smith' wives. You can choose to regard them as unrepentant liars, or you can take them at their word when they assert that Joseph Smith had sexual relationships with his wives.

From the same site:


Because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in relative secrecy, the details of children he may have fathered by his plural wives is uncertain. In a 1905 speech at Brigham Young University, Joseph's wife, Mary Elizabeth Rollins explained, "I know he [Joseph] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." ("Remarks", April 14, 1905, BYU Lee Library).

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.


Obviously, his wives did not know just how many wives Joseph Smith had.
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
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

beastie wrote:asbestosman -

Your entire argument consists of wishful thinking that is a luxury accommodated by your ignorance.


Agreed. It seems to me you either deal with the facts, or you don't. Wishful thinking about "so-called" facts doesn't help anyone.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Runtu wrote:I guess I don't see the big deal about admitting that Joseph was sexually intimate with his wives. Why does that bother people so much?

Good point. It doens't bother me if he had sex with polygamous wives. It would only bother me if he were being manipulative, but again there are degrees. I can apply pressure to coworkers to get stuff done but I hardly consider it maniuplation and I don't think they do either.

If he was a prophet and he was indeed commanded to take other wives, why would it have been wrong for him to do so? No one cares that Brigham Young had sex with his wives, but to suggest that Joseph did the same is somehow scandalous. Why is that?

I don't think it is and I don't think that's the position of other apologists. Rather I think it a case of in-depth defense. You can't even prove that he had sex with his other wives in the first place, but if you could it still wouldn't matter because . . . (next line of defense).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

asbestosman wrote:Good point. It doens't bother me if he had sex with polygamous wives. It would only bother me if he were being manipulative, but again there are degrees. I can apply pressure to coworkers to get stuff done but I hardly consider it maniuplation and I don't think they do either.


Which of the following statements is manipulative?

1. If you want your family to see the celestial kingdom, become my bride and have sex with me.
2. If you don't become my bride and have sex with me, an angel with a flaming sword is going to kill me.
3. If you don't agree to become my bride and have sex with me, I'll ruin your reputation.

I don't think it is and I don't think that's the position of other apologists. Rather I think it a case of in-depth defense. You can't even prove that he had sex with his other wives in the first place, but if you could it still wouldn't matter because . . . (next line of defense).


You're probably right. Of course, there's ample proof he had sex with his wives. The church itself stood behind the wives when they signed affidavits to that effect.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Runtu wrote:Which of the following statements is manipulative?

1. If you want your family to see the celestial kingdom, become my bride and have sex with me.
2. If you don't become my bride and have sex with me, an angel with a flaming sword is going to kill me.
3. If you don't agree to become my bride and have sex with me, I'll ruin your reputation.


3

Do apologists actually acknlodge 3 as legit and still hold Joseph Smith as justified? If so, I've definately got a lot of training to do before I'll be a serious contender in the mental gymnastics. ;)

(And I'd prefer removing the explicit mention of having sex as I don't think it was explicitly stated in any proposals, but perhaps I'm wrong there too).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

asbestosman wrote:
Runtu wrote:Which of the following statements is manipulative?

1. If you want your family to see the celestial kingdom, become my bride and have sex with me.
2. If you don't become my bride and have sex with me, an angel with a flaming sword is going to kill me.
3. If you don't agree to become my bride and have sex with me, I'll ruin your reputation.


3

Do apologists actually acknlodge 3 as legit and still hold Joseph Smith as justified? If so, I've definately got a lot of training to do before I'll be a serious contender in the mental gymnastics. ;)

(And I'd prefer removing the explicit mention of having sex as I don't think it was explicitly stated in any proposals, but perhaps I'm wrong there too).


Depends on the apologist. Richard Van Wagonen acknowledges it as "legit." I would imagine some folks on the MAD board wouldn't.

Fair enough about the sex part. Everything I have ever read from any of the wives says that they understood that to be part of the deal. But it's not "explicitly" stated.

Edit: You really don't see 1 and 2 as being manipulative? 2 reminds me of the Oral Roberts thing from several years ago: "If you don't send me enough money, God is going to kill me." And making your entire family's exaltation dependent on accepting the "marriage" proposal seems just a tad coercive to me. We are talking about a 14 year old, after all.
Last edited by cacheman on Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Runtu wrote:The church itself stood behind the wives when they signed affidavits to that effect.

Keep in mind that I'm not too keen on the fact that the church itself once stood behind the priesthood ban.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Do apologists actually acknlodge 3 as legit and still hold Joseph Smith as justified? If so, I've definately got a lot of training to do before I'll be a serious contender in the mental gymnastics. ;)

(And I'd prefer removing the explicit mention of having sex as I don't think it was explicitly stated in any proposals, but perhaps I'm wrong there too).


Apologists usually ignore the outrageous slander and libel that was heaped upon women who dared to turn Joseph Smith or BY down. There really is no defense of it, hence, better to ignore it.

In regards to the explicit mention of having sex - come on, this was the victorian era. These women were as explicit as the era demanded... statements like they were married "in very deed".

If there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with his wives, why do you think the LDS church worked so hard to provide that very evidence to the RLDS church? Were they just making it up? Were the leaders encouraging the wives of Joseph Smith to lie?
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
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Runtu wrote:Depends on the apologist. Richard Van Wagonen acknowledges it as "legit." I would imagine some folks on the MAD board wouldn't.

I'm sure Charity wouldn't, but what about William Schriver, Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and the like?

I cannot imagine a circumstance in which it is right to publicly smear someone's reputation even if that person refused to obey a commandment from God. At most I think it only proper to state which commandment a person refused to obey, but even that should generally be nobody's business except perhaps those involved in the church court.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

asbestosman wrote:
Runtu wrote:The church itself stood behind the wives when they signed affidavits to that effect.

Keep in mind that I'm not too keen on the fact that the church itself once stood behind the priesthood ban.


So, these women lied? All of them? I'm supposed to accept the word of the 11 witnesses that they saw the gold plates, but I'm supposed to believe that all these women made up stories about Joseph Smith?
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply