Comments on: All the prejudiced sources that are fit to blog http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/ Defending Mormonism Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:08:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Robert Fields http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2616 Robert Fields Thu, 08 May 2008 20:07:10 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2616 My understanding is DNA studies are still ongoing on a list of 7 or more reputed children of Joseph Smith via plural wives. That five have been proven not his. With Sylvia Sessions daughter Josephine i am not sure DNA studies on her and her descendants are still ongoing. I heard DNA studies wern't able to confirm, or deny her claim one way or another. I once asked Ugo Perego via e-mail about what the status of his research on her was. He just told me he yet had reached no conclusions, but if he ever did that his research would be published. I hope the research can eventually settle the truth or error of the remaining reputed children rumors. The DNA debate on children of Joseph Smith is far from over. The research is ongoing perhaps for a few years to come. My understanding is DNA studies are still ongoing on a list of 7 or more reputed children of Joseph Smith via plural wives. That five have been proven not his. With Sylvia Sessions daughter Josephine i am not sure DNA studies on her and her descendants are still ongoing. I heard DNA studies wern’t able to confirm, or deny her claim one way or another. I once asked Ugo Perego via e-mail about what the status of his research on her was. He just told me he yet had reached no conclusions, but if he ever did that his research would be published.

I hope the research can eventually settle the truth or error of the remaining reputed children rumors. The DNA debate on children of Joseph Smith is far from over. The research is ongoing perhaps for a few years to come.

]]> By: Allen Lambert (Ithaca, NY) http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2347 Allen Lambert (Ithaca, NY) Sun, 04 May 2008 03:54:53 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2347 There has been a study of alleged/claimed descendants of JS thru wives other than Emma. I heard a DNA researcher present a paper on it at MHA conference in 2005. My understanding is that none of the claims so far holds up. There has been a study of alleged/claimed descendants of JS thru wives other than Emma. I heard a DNA researcher present a paper on it at MHA conference in 2005.
My understanding is that none of the claims so far holds up.

]]> By: Clark http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2099 Clark Thu, 01 May 2008 21:05:21 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2099 Didn't they do DNA tests on purported descendants of Joseph and all came up negative? Didn’t they do DNA tests on purported descendants of Joseph and all came up negative?

]]> By: Robert Fields http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2087 Robert Fields Thu, 01 May 2008 11:43:57 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2087 I think the claim of sex resolves around the issue of children. Let us take the polyandrous cases as an example. Sylvia Session on her death bed told her daughter she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. And also probably because the mother was talking about a Temple thing told her daughter not to talk about it. Was she really Joseph's biological child? We may never know short of DNA test results. But Lucy Walker held her and Heber Kimball's eight kids were Joseph Smiths children in the resurrection. I wonder if Sylvia meant something similar and thus confused the heck out of her daughter. So her daughter took it as a biological claim. Angus Cannon reported hearing Brigham Young say before his death in 1877 that Patty Session's said the same thing? If true then his statement is reliable. If Brigham Young never said it then Angus cannon made it up. D.&C. 132:41-44 prevents a woman from having two husbands at the same time. It seems to require a divorce from the original husband in order not to be counted as adultury. With the 11 women living with the husbands again that requires a divorce from Joseph smith, or the woman would be guilty of adultury. So based on what i noticed i favor viewing these "time and for eternity" ceremonies as marriages in name only. I doubt the women thought it proper to live with Joseph Smith in life or have children. I have read In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton on his list of 33 wives. I find these lists misleading as they seem to lump platonic marriages to Joseph Smith in name only with ones that may have involved sexuality. To me the ceremony wording just does not have to say only married for eternity to be a marriage only for eternity. To me its more of what the women and Joseph Smith thought was improper as far as sharing marital relations in the flesh meant. So to me the wording can be for "time and eternity" but sill be a platonic marriage in name only. I think the claim of sex resolves around the issue of children. Let us take the polyandrous cases as an example. Sylvia Session on her death bed told her daughter she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. And also probably because the mother was talking about a Temple thing told her daughter not to talk about it. Was she really Joseph’s biological child? We may never know short of DNA test results.

But Lucy Walker held her and Heber Kimball’s eight kids were Joseph Smiths children in the resurrection. I wonder if Sylvia meant something similar and thus confused the heck out of her daughter. So her daughter took it as a biological claim.

Angus Cannon reported hearing Brigham Young say before his death in 1877 that Patty Session’s said the same thing? If true then his statement is reliable. If Brigham Young never said it then Angus cannon made it up.

D.&C. 132:41-44 prevents a woman from having two husbands at the same time. It seems to require a divorce from the original husband in order not to be counted as adultury. With the 11 women living with the husbands again that requires a divorce from Joseph smith, or the woman would be guilty of adultury. So based on what i noticed i favor viewing these “time and for eternity” ceremonies as marriages in name only. I doubt the women thought it proper to live with Joseph Smith in life or have children.

I have read In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton on his list of 33 wives. I find these lists misleading as they seem to lump platonic marriages to Joseph Smith in name only with ones that may have involved sexuality. To me the ceremony wording just does not have to say only married for eternity to be a marriage only for eternity. To me its more of what the women and Joseph Smith thought was improper as far as sharing marital relations in the flesh meant. So to me the wording can be for “time and eternity” but sill be a platonic marriage in name only.

]]> By: Greg Smith http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2085 Greg Smith Thu, 01 May 2008 04:06:49 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2085 Bennett there was also no formal aspect to Bennett's behavior. Joseph often had another male relative approach the woman; there were witnesses and a ceremony. None of this happened with Bennett. Besides, the critics ignore that if Joseph was in it for the sex, then Bennett was the very best ally Joseph could have had. Exposing Bennett made everything worse for Joseph; he and Bennett were running things spiritually and temporally in Nauvoo respectively. And, it won't wash to claim that Joseph wanted to be the "alpha male" and be the only one with all the women--he was smacking Bennett down just as he was trying to persuade the 12 to practice plural marriage. Far easier to say this was something God only required of him (and Bennett, if needed) than to push out the one guy who would have supported him, while trying to get up-tight Victorian prudish types like Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, and Hyrum to follow suit.... Bennett there was also no formal aspect to Bennett’s behavior.

Joseph often had another male relative approach the woman; there were witnesses and a ceremony. None of this happened with Bennett.

Besides, the critics ignore that if Joseph was in it for the sex, then Bennett was the very best ally Joseph could have had. Exposing Bennett made everything worse for Joseph; he and Bennett were running things spiritually and temporally in Nauvoo respectively.

And, it won’t wash to claim that Joseph wanted to be the “alpha male” and be the only one with all the women–he was smacking Bennett down just as he was trying to persuade the 12 to practice plural marriage.

Far easier to say this was something God only required of him (and Bennett, if needed) than to push out the one guy who would have supported him, while trying to get up-tight Victorian prudish types like Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, and Hyrum to follow suit….

]]> By: Mike Parker http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2084 Mike Parker Thu, 01 May 2008 00:50:08 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2084 You make a good point, Clark. There are some differences between Joseph and Bennett, of course, and the main one is secrecy. Bennett was having affairs and convincing women under the pretense of fulfilling a revelation about "spiritual wifery." Joseph, on the other hand, was telling other people about plural marriage and commanding <i>them</i> to live it as much as he was. You make a good point, Clark. There are some differences between Joseph and Bennett, of course, and the main one is secrecy. Bennett was having affairs and convincing women under the pretense of fulfilling a revelation about “spiritual wifery.” Joseph, on the other hand, was telling other people about plural marriage and commanding them to live it as much as he was.

]]> By: Clark http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2083 Clark Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:08:49 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2083 Note in case it's not obvious I don't think Joseph was doing it for the sex. Look at some of the ages and appearances and I think one has to shoot that down. Critics bring up a subset of the marriages to indirectly make that case but I think it falls apart when you look at the big picture. I don't think there is a single satisfactory answer for whom Joseph married or why. Compton's theory about it being somewhat like marriages in the ANE to form connections between families makes the most sense. But even that is unsatisfying in many ways. Note in case it’s not obvious I don’t think Joseph was doing it for the sex. Look at some of the ages and appearances and I think one has to shoot that down. Critics bring up a subset of the marriages to indirectly make that case but I think it falls apart when you look at the big picture. I don’t think there is a single satisfactory answer for whom Joseph married or why. Compton’s theory about it being somewhat like marriages in the ANE to form connections between families makes the most sense. But even that is unsatisfying in many ways.

]]> By: Clark http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2082 Clark Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:06:42 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2082 Mike, while there is something to that, I think you also have to consider the motivations to get people to have sex. Religious pressure is a strong incentive. Critics will bring that up. Likewise you have to bring up John Bennett who was going around having affairs but still used something like polygamy to justify it. Mike, while there is something to that, I think you also have to consider the motivations to get people to have sex. Religious pressure is a strong incentive. Critics will bring that up. Likewise you have to bring up John Bennett who was going around having affairs but still used something like polygamy to justify it.

]]> By: Louis Midgley http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2081 Louis Midgley Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:23:45 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2081 Since Mike Parker mentioned this thread to me, I have glanced at it a few times in the hope that Christopher would explain his April 26 "yikes" about my presumably terrible scholarship. The fact is that I am anxious to being shown that I have made mistakes, overlooked something, written the wrong kind of essay or whatever. But "yikes" is hardly an argument. If Christopher would care to explain his remark, but does not care to do so in public in this venue, then I can be reached at l.midgley@comcast.net, or by phone, since my telephone number is in several directories. Since Mike Parker mentioned this thread to me, I have glanced at it a few times in the hope that Christopher would explain his April 26 “yikes” about my presumably terrible scholarship. The fact is that I am anxious to being shown that I have made mistakes, overlooked something, written the wrong kind of essay or whatever. But “yikes” is hardly an argument. If Christopher would care to explain his remark, but does not care to do so in public in this venue, then I can be reached at l.midgley@comcast.net, or by phone, since my telephone number is in several directories.

]]> By: Robert Fields http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/26/all-the-prejudiced-sources-that-are-fit-to-blog/#comment-2079 Robert Fields Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:23:32 +0000 http://www.fairblog.org/?p=78#comment-2079 I try to raise good points in-between my bad spelling. With Helen we don't know what would have happened. She could have been appointed another husband for time. I tried to post on the blog. Timothy Egan might just be repeating wrong stuff he picked up from uninformed others. If i did not know better i would think FLDS polygamy and LDS polygamy was not different. The wiki article on Joseph Smith's marriages to young women article is useful. It helped me see statutory rape laws of today can be abused to attack someone who married young back then. Mr. Egan probably does not have that same correct knowledge. It's unlikely he read Todd Compton's idea Joseph Smith's relationship with Helen was platonic. Instead he probably has read from critics over and over again that she was Joseph Smiths bed-mate. I can't really blame the guy for writing what he thinks true. Now if he knows better and promoted the same untruth anyway i would be less merciful to his conclusions. I try to raise good points in-between my bad spelling. With Helen we don’t know what would have happened. She could have been appointed another husband for time.

I tried to post on the blog. Timothy Egan might just be repeating wrong stuff he picked up from uninformed others. If i did not know better i would think FLDS polygamy and LDS polygamy was not different. The wiki article on Joseph Smith’s marriages to young women article is useful. It helped me see statutory rape laws of today can be abused to attack someone who married young back then. Mr. Egan probably does not have that same correct knowledge.

It’s unlikely he read Todd Compton’s idea Joseph Smith’s relationship with Helen was platonic. Instead he probably has read from critics over and over again that she was Joseph Smiths bed-mate. I can’t really blame the guy for writing what he thinks true. Now if he knows better and promoted the same untruth anyway i would be less merciful to his conclusions.

]]>