Polygamy justification?

[Goatnapper'96]

I'm curious how I am the poster boy on this topic. I don't recall saying much of anything about Emma.

Indy,

Hi my name is Goatnapper. I usually post complete bullshit in the vain effort to entertain myself and others, with a kernal of truth. The truth kernal is that you represent a more orthodox viewpoint on this venue. That is a comparitive statement that includes the fact that here borderlanders represent the moderates.

[SteelBlue]

well they swam with emma... but not any of the 30 others?

When a woman is married to two men it's easy to say that the child belongs to the non-Joseph husband. Considering the secrecy behind the doctrine it seems this would have been the instruction, no? You can't say "this has to be secret, but if you get pregnant go ahead and let everybody know that it's mine". The "no known children with other wives" reasoning doesn't fly with me.

[Indy Coug]

When a woman is married to two men it's easy to say that the child belongs to the non-Joseph husband. Considering the secrecy behind the doctrine it seems this would have been the instruction, no? You can't say "this has to be secret, but if you get pregnant go ahead and let everybody know that it's mine". The "no known children with other wives" reasoning doesn't fly with me.

Well, that leads to the obvious question of whether or not any of these women had any children to speak of during a period where in hindsight the paternity of that child could be called into question?

I only have the vaguest recollection of one possible child, but can't remember any details.

[SteelBlue]

Well, that leads to the obvious question of whether or not any of these women had any children to speak of during a period where in hindsight the paternity of that child could be called into question?

I only have the vaguest recollection of one possible child, but can't remember any details.

Yes, that is the obvious question. And what is your gut feeling on the answer?

[Indy Coug]

Yes, that is the obvious question. And what is your gut feeling on the answer?

My gut feeling is that there are certain motivated parties that if they were able to make those kinds of assertions would have done so and done so repeatedly. It's also my gut feeling that people like Adam (of CG infamy) would have kept hitting that note for all it was worth. Since I don't recall seeing anything from either, I would guess that there probably isn't any smoke for a fire.

[Goatnapper'96]

Yes, that is the obvious question. And what is your gut feeling on the answer?

My gut feeling is that given the cult of personality surrounding Joseph there would have been more claims of his fathering other children.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When I attended a Bushman fireside last year, the question of JS paternity came up in the Q/A portion. The details are a little fuzzy, but this is what I recall:

1) Several people claimed to be JS descendants through plural wives in late 1800's.

2) There has been a recent DNA study to investigate the claims.

3) The DNA study has found nothing yet, but there is more testing that could be done.

Again I could be wrong on some details, but that is what I recall.

[Indy Coug]

When I attended a Bushman fireside last year, the question of JS paternity came up in the Q/A portion. The details are a little fuzzy, but this is what I recall:

1) Several people claimed to be JS descendants through plural wives in late 1800's.

2) There has been a recent DNA study to investigate the claims.

3) The DNA study has found nothing yet, but there is more testing that could be done.

Again I could be wrong on some details, but that is what I recall.

What is the track record on accurately nailing down 160 year old paternity claims?

[UtahDan]

I agree with your reasoning on why it DOES matter. My MIL's claim is that these were spiritual sealings only, performed in order to gain some special celestial status or blessings. I have no idea how the Lord sees things, but I certainly see a difference between some spiritual ordinance and having sex with someone's wife.

Assume that he did have sex with these women. Would the notion that he was told to do so be tougher to swallow than, for example, that God restored his true church by appearing to a 14 year old boy in the woods, or that he gave him gold plates to translate by, mostly, looking at an old rock in a hat or that there isn't any objective evidence of the massive civilizations described or that the book contains numerous apparent anachronisms and contradictions (don't jump on me folks, I said apparent), that polygamy (with or without polyandry) was instituted, that the scroll that Joseph thought contained the writings of Abraham is an a Egyptian funerary scroll, that God singled out blacks not to hold the priesthood for reasons no one can now articulate, and lets not forget the camel one needs to swallow to believe that BYU football is a missionary tool.

That is not an attack on the church, I'm just highlighting that if the totality of the many things you need to exercise faith on doesn't do your testimony in then it is hard for me to understand why Joseph having sex with whoever God told him to would. I agree that this would be much tougher to rationalize than those other things, but IMO, it is not tougher to rationalize than all of them collectively. Does that make sense?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What is the track record on accurately nailing down 160 year old paternity claims?

I would guess that with DNA analysis it would be fairly easy. But I don't know.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Assume that he did have sex with these women. Would the notion that he was told to do so be tougher to swallow than, for example, that God restored his true church by appearing to a 14 year old boy in the woods, or that he gave him gold plates to translate by, mostly, looking at an old rock in a hat or that there isn't any objective evidence of the massive civilizations described or that the book contains numerous apparent anachronisms and contradictions (don't jump on me folks, I said apparent), that polygamy (with or without polyandry) was instituted, that the scroll that Joseph thought contained the writings of Abraham is an a Egyptian funerary scroll, that God singled out blacks not to hold the priesthood for reasons no one can now articulate, and lets not forget the camel one needs to swallow to believe that BYU football is a missionary tool.

That is not an attack on the church, I'm just highlighting that if the totality of the many things you need to exercise faith on doesn't do your testimony in then it is hard for me to understand why Joseph having sex with whoever God told him to would. I agree that this would be much tougher to rationalize than those other things, but IMO, it is not tougher to rationalize that all of them collectively. Does that make sense?

Makes total sense to me. For some people, when you make the total leap of faith, you can easily ignore the regularities or believe easy explanations for those irregularities(TBM's fit into this role). Some people need to rationalization to squelch the dissonance that they feel in their mind/heart(whichever) over a specific topic(apologists fit here). Some people view the history through a critical eye, but believe in the restoration so all the other stuff doesn't matter(revisionists fit into this role). For those who do not(cannot?) fit into any of these roles, they are either nonbelievers from the word go, or the dissonance slowly erodes the foundations of their initial faith/belief until the house falls in on them and they fall away from the church. Some feel anger to their previous beliefs and become antagonists of the church, some step away and find a way to co-exist with the church despite not believing, and some continue to "go through the motions" of being a member because they cannot fathom walking away from the cultural aspect of being LDS.

Now, did that make sense?

[wuapinmon]

Some feel anger to their previous beliefs and become antagonists of the church, some step away and find a way to co-exist with the church despite not believing, and some continue to "go through the motions" of being a member because they cannot fathom walking away from the cultural aspect of being LDS.

Now, did that make sense?

It made total sense, and reminds me of this book by Miguel de Unamuno I've linked a plot summary for SU:

http://www.answers.com/topic/saint-e...martyr-story-1

[CJF]

I wish CJF would join in this thread. He has particularly illuminating insights into some of these questions.

Thanks for the heads up about this thread. Sorry to be late to the party.

I can state with some certainty that Joseph Smith did have at least one child with a woman not named Emma. There is in fact DNA evidence to prove this and the Church is well aware of this fact.

[RockyBalboa]

When I attended a Bushman fireside last year, the question of JS paternity came up in the Q/A portion. The details are a little fuzzy, but this is what I recall:

1) Several people claimed to be JS descendants through plural wives in late 1800's.

2) There has been a recent DNA study to investigate the claims.

3) The DNA study has found nothing yet, but there is more testing that could be done.

Again I could be wrong on some details, but that is what I recall.

He was asked this same question at the fireside I attended on Sunday and he was fairly emphatic that DNA testing to this point has found no evidence whatsoever to this point.

Considered by most to be the foremost authority on Joseph he seems to know his stuff, but it's possible there's information he isn't and hasn't been privy to.

[I.J. Reilly]

Thanks for the heads up about this thread. Sorry to be late to the party.

I can state with some certainty that Joseph Smith did have at least one child with a woman not named Emma. There is in fact DNA evidence to prove this and the Church is well aware of this fact.

Excuse my ignorance, I'm just wondering what your credentials on the matter are. Others asked for your presence in this thread, so I'm sure that your expertise is well established, I'm just a little ignorant.