FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Zina is your best case among weak cases.

Actually, Mary Lightner is better because she says essentially the same thing but in affidavit form.

[_Runtu]

I have serious doubts that Oliver Buell was Joseph Smith's son. Let's review the timeline:

1. Joseph Smith was incarcerated in Liberty Jail from October 31, 1838 to April 16, 1839.
2. Presendia, along with her father, brother, Heber Kimball, and another man visited Joseph in jail in February, 1839, and again in March, this time accompanied by Frederick Williams.
3. On April 16, 1839, Joseph Smith escaped custody and fled to Illinois, arriving on April 22.
4. On April 18, Presendia traveled to Far West from her home in Fishing River, Missouri, to see her family off as they left for Illinois. She then returned to her home in Missouri. It was the last time she would see her mother.
5. Presendia and her husband did not visit Illinois (Quincy) until October or November of 1839.
6. Presendia gave birth to Oliver on January 31, 1840.
7. The Buells then moved to Lima, Illinois, that Fall.
8. Joseph took Presendia as a plural wife on December 11, 1841.

Unless you want to argue that Joseph and she had "conjugal visits" in jail before she married him, I find Joseph's paternity unlikely.

Presendia gave birth to another son, John Hiram Buell in November 1843. To quote Todd Compton, "It is unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father.

So, we're faced with two options:

1. The statement that she wasn't sure of her son's paternity was erroneous.
2. The statement applied to John Hiram Buell, not Oliver.

[_Yoda]

And, all the mocking derision heaped my way from others about my "testimony" and motivations will be ignored as I choose to pursue just the historical facts. I hope tht will be ok with you.

I hope that this comment was not directed toward me and my question. I was not trying to mock you in any way. My question was sincere.

However, if you choose not to answer, I respect that.

[Guest]

Personally, I think it is odd that in a culture so obsessed with pushing the connection between marriage, sex, and producing children, we now see apologists falling all over themselves to claim that Joseph was not interested in either sex or the production of children when he married over two dozen women. Where did the earthy theology of Mormonism go? The collapsing of the space between the divine and human in Mormonism, which is so obvious elsewhere, is suddenly reversed when it comes to the question of Joseph Smith's sexual activities. In this delicate question, Joseph's interest in polygamy is transformed by apologists into something unearthly and spiritual--cutting against the consensus on Mormonism's unique worldview.

edited to replace "reinserted" with "reversed", which is what I originally meant

[_rcrocket]

I have my views about both these women.

What are your personal views, based on what you know?

I'm also curious as to your thoughts on Jason's question regarding how you can reconcile polygamy being required of God and Godly behavior.

As a member who has struggeld with this concept for years, I'm sincerely asking your opinion.

I am not near my library today and can't answer as fully as I'd like.

Plus, you are just a woman and won't understand. [Insert sarcastic eyewink here for Trixie's benefit.]

rcrocket

[_charity]

Forgetting to mention scientifically obtained evidence, and preferring to go on unreliable anecdotal statements, is a serious lapse here.

From this statement are you still claiming that Joseph Smith did not have sex with any of his plural wives?

I never said that. I think it likely that he did. men have been known to have sex with their wives. But what I think isn't really important. Nor is what you think. The important thing is when we don't know something, we shouldn't speculate on it. And especially, speculations are really spurious when a person who is making them is completely biased.

On a thread on another board, some time ago, the question was asked if you knew God commanded it, would you give permission for your daughter to become a plural wife of a prophet. As I recall, a specific prophet was not named, just a prophet. You replied to that, that even if God were to be standing in front of you, you would refuse. I think that indicates a pretty strong bias.

[_Trevor]

men have been known to have sex with their wives.

Thanks for a great signature quote, charity!

[_Runtu]

men have been known to have sex with their wives.

Thanks for a great signature quote, charity!

Why is this such a big deal, anyway? Joseph taught that all contracts, including marriages, were made null and void by the restoration. So, when he took these polyandrous wives, he would not have considered it "sinful" to have relations with the wives because they were his lawful wives, not the husbands'.

I don't think he had sex with all his wives, but there is enough evidence to believe that sex was the default, so one would have to assume he had sex in the absence of evidence he didn't.

[_dartagnan]

The important thing is when we don't know something, we shouldn't speculate on it.

Why not? That’s what speculation is. It is natural. There is nothing “wrong” with it whatsoever. When you don’t know something, you often speculate. The majority of apologetic explanations rely on speculation to some degree or another (i.e. Gee speculates that the Joseph Smith papyrus was 10 feet long). But you seem to think speculation in favor of the Church is good whereas critical speculation is always wrong. This is so stupid.

And especially, speculations are really spurious when a person who is making them is completely biased.

You give me a headache just trying to figure out if you’re actually serious with these types of ridiculous comments. You pump them out every day and they serve a purpose for comic relief. The fact is one would be hard pressed to find an unbiased speculation, but speculation doesn’t become “spurious” simply because the person speculating is biased. If that were true, then nothing the apologist speculated about should be considered since apologists are the most biased people of the lot here.

[_Mercury]

Forgetting to mention scientifically obtained evidence, and preferring to go on unreliable anecdotal statements, is a serious lapse here.

From this statement are you still claiming that Joseph Smith did not have sex with any of his plural wives?

I never said that. I think it likely that he did. men have been known to have sex with their wives. But what I think isn't really important. Nor is what you think. The important thing is when we don't know something, we shouldn't speculate on it. And especially, speculations are really spurious when a person who is making them is completely biased.

On a thread on another board, some time ago, the question was asked if you knew God commanded it, would you give permission for your daughter to become a plural wife of a prophet. As I recall, a specific prophet was not named, just a prophet. You replied to that, that even if God were to be standing in front of you, you would refuse. I think that indicates a pretty strong bias.

It astounds me just how little consistency there is in your communication. If this is the best MA&D has to offer then I am truly deeply astounded at the lack of constitution in your side of the debate.

I am further glad I have the views I have and would like to continue to assert just how dumb you are.