That is the issue.

And while it does not make her a pathological liar, it does challenge her credibility. The question one must, because as you say, it is likely that Emma did know about polygamy inspite of her testimony to the contrary, what motivated her to discount Joseph’s involvement in polygamy? If perhaps her motive was to protect her deceased husbands memory, for either the sake of her children or her own worldview, could she not also verify his religious experiences with the same intent in mind. The point is, we don’t know exactly what the truth is, and we also can say that Emma is likely to have lied about some aspects of Church history, so how credible can her witness be?

What difference does it make if the marriage was consummated or not?

To me it makes no difference, but to some people it does. People are all over the board on the issue.

One of the problems I see is that Emma, in her last interview before she died, said that Joseph never preached nor practiced polygamy. Either she is lying, which makes her testimony about his translating the plates less credible, or he did a very good job of deceiving her.

If Emma lied about this one item, that doesn’t make her a pathological liar; she could still tell the truth about other things. There is credible evidence that Emma did, indeed, know about polygamy, regardless of what she may have later claimed.

-Allen

You said, “I think that in such a [voyeuristic] society the question is quite legitimate.”

Your comments suggest that the question of whether JS and ZH had a sexual dimension to their relationship is motivated by a dirty inquiring mind, or a profound boredom with one’s own life such that the personal acts of others become an object of morbid fascination. Your comments further imply that in a non-voyeuristic society, people would have the “decency” to not ask such a personal question as whether a man had sexual relations with other mens’ wives in a polyandrous arrangement. Was that your intent?

Also, why would it make very little difference to you if they did have sex? I thought D&C 132 restricted the practice of polygamy to virgins?

I did not say that the question is a voyeuristic one. I said that we live in a voyeuristic society. I think that in such a society the question is quite legitimate.

To my mind the answer as to whether they did or didn’t have sex makes very little difference. But I understand that with other people that may not be the case.

-Allen

And, whether they did or did not have sex, would the answer make a difference?

The ‘folk legend’ about Eliza Snow and the stairs was addressed in Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, Winter 1982, 86-96.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/22.1Allen.pdf?zoom_highlight=eliza+snow+stairs#search=“eliza snow stairs”

Bob

Now if we could just get the Ensign and Friend articles corrected, the Church members could actually look to the Church website for the most accurate account of Church history and Zina’s life.

Whether “the Church itself” has come to any knowledge about Zina or not is beside the point. The Church is made up of individuals. Some are familiar with the study of history, some are not. In this case, someone familiar with it (me) informed and educated someone unfamiliar with it (those responsible for the web sites).

It is nothing simpler than that–people talking to people.

-Allen

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37799
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=38053

From the bio and Ensign articles, it is obvious the Church itself still hasn’t come to grips with Zina’s unusual situation.

The case of Zina is not a case of simple polygamy as we tend to view the subject. Reason being is that Zina was putatively married to two men at once. (This blog post doesn’t make that clear, but I assumed that was why the subject was of interest. A jaunt over to the FAIR piece on Zina, which the author linked to, reveals that this is, in fact, the case.)

Polyandry, as Zina’s relationship would superficially appear to qualify as, is quite counter to apparent doctrine. This reality has been used by some anti-Mormons to try to gain leverage against the church.

Fortunately, there exist considerations that rationalize the practice with the doctrine, and the question of whether or not Zina or others like her had sex with Joseph is fundamental to many of these considerations. (In particular, this question is fundamental to the consideration that the scopes of such polyandrous marriages did not overlap.)

Perhaps there are also other reasons that these considerations are important. (My understanding of the issues may be a little simpler than others’.) For my part, I’m very pleased to see this bit of research published. Thanks, Allen.

Over at Gently Hew Stone, we are told that there is no genetic proof the Jossph Smith had children by any of his plural wives.