questions

[Just_A_Guy]

One couple, no, but 27? Of 27 wives and ONLY Emma has kids? Come on... Whose evidence is stacked?

Without wanting to get overly voyeuristic:

When it comes to conception, the issue isn't just whether he had sex with a particular wife; but how often.

I've known couples who were "trying" - and had timed things pretty well--for three or four years in a row; but somehow just didn't get pregnant.

And you may also know that one out of every five pregnancies ends in miscarriage--often before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

Saying that "no children = no sex" is a very, very weak argument indeed. And it certainly doesn't refute the presumption that arises out of multiple sworn statements to the contrary.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Snow]

Oh, I am sure Brigham Young could be very convincing.

That wasn't the question but it's interesting that you think Brigham Young convinced Joseph Smith's wives to lie. That's quite an allegation against a prophet - one for which you have offered zero evidence.

Do you think that Brigham Young also convinced them to lie to family and friends and write about it in their personal journals?

[Snow]

Well, the evidence I do have, is that every time they do a DNA test on one of these supposed children, the tests come back validating my theory and against your theory.

That isn't the issue and you know it.

i suppose you also want us to believe that the lack of archeological evidence means that the Book of Mormon is false.

[bytebear]

Without wanting to get overly voyeuristic:

When it comes to conception, the issue isn't just whether he had sex with a particular wife; but how often.

I've known couples who were "trying" - and had timed things pretty well--for three or four years in a row; but somehow just didn't get pregnant.

And you may also know that one out of every five pregnancies ends in miscarriage--often before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

Saying that "no children = no sex" is a very, very weak argument indeed. And it certainly doesn't refute the presumption that arises out of multiple sworn statements to the contrary.

We know Smith was potent. He had not trouble at all getting Emma pregnant. It is a very weak argument that of the other 26 women, all of them were either infertile or all got lucky with the rhythm method. I agree that there is a chance, but Achems Razor favors me.

[Snow]

We know Smith was potent. He had not trouble at all getting Emma pregnant. It is a very weak argument that of the other 26 women, all of them were either infertile or all got lucky with the rhythm method.

Keep the argument honest. There is no evidence that you can produce that Joseph Smith did not have non-Emma offspring.

I agree that there is a chance, but Achems Razor favors me.

Methinks that you are not well versed in the law of parsimony - OBVIOUSLY (though you will miss why it is obvious) - which states:

"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"

Care to tell us what the two competing theories are and how your theory proposes the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities?

[bytebear]

Keep the argument honest. There is no evidence that you can produce that Joseph Smith did not have non-Emma offspring.

Nor is there any evidence that he did, so we are both dishonest?

Methinks that you are not well versed in the law of parsimony - OBVIOUSLY (though you will miss why it is obvious) - which states:

"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"

Care to tell us what the two competing theories are and how your theory proposes the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities?

Methinks you have decided to try to make things personal, which is the poorest argument of all.

[Snow]

Nor is there any evidence that he did, so we are both dishonest?

That is absolutely glaringly and completely false.

There is ample evidence. There are the affidavits so attesting by 13 separate wives of Joseph Smith as well as private journals and reports to family and friends by the wives

Methinks you have decided to try to make things personal, which is the poorest argument of all.

It was just a trick bytebear. I knew you were unfamiliar with the law of parsimony and had no idea how it applied to this case, but just so you are clear now, the law of parsimony contradicts your position and supports the opposite position.

[Elphaba]

I have never "met" anyone like bytebear who has obviously spent a good deal of time learning the history of the Church, but who has it so completely and utterly and astonishingly wrong.

It's a waste of time showing him references, including first-hand testimony, because if he doesn't happen to like the truth, he simply ignores it.

For example, he refuses to believe that Joseph used his seer stone to translate part of the Book of Mormon, insisting all accounts of this are third-hand. I gave him references from Bushman and Quinn, quoting all four of Joseph's scribes' first-hand accounts, and byte just dismissed it, again insisting all we have are third-hand accounts.

I admit, I was stumped, becuase I don't know if he purposely ignores the evidence, or if he really is that obtuse.

Elphaba

[bytebear]

That is absolutely glaringly and completely false.

There is ample evidence. There are the affidavits so attesting by 13 separate wives of Joseph Smith as well as private journals and reports to family and friends by the wives

It was just a trick bytebear. I knew you were unfamiliar with the law of parsimony and had no idea how it applied to this case, but just so you are clear now, the law of parsimony contradicts your position and supports the opposite position.

If I were a 19th century woman writing to her friends, and wanted to elevate her social status. I could easly see her telling friends how close she was to the prophet, and I would bet she might even exaggerate her status to the point of lying about her "sealings" and cosumation of it. We know historically, that Smith's death created a legacy, and anyone who could claim an intimate relationship (socially, religiously, or in this case sexually) with the prophet would gain favor in the community. We also know that Brigham Young was fighting against the testimony of Emma Smith, who denied everything. I can easily see Young bolstering his claim by "encouraging" a few women to swear to their claims of a sexual relationship with Smith.

In other words, your evidence is a bit tainted.

[bytebear]

I have never "met" anyone like bytebear who has obviously spent a good deal of time learning the history of the Church, but who has it so completely and utterly and astonishingly wrong.

It's a waste of time showing him references, including first-hand testimony, because if he doesn't happen to like the truth, he simply ignores it.

For example, he refuses to believe that Joseph used his seer stone to translate part of the Book of Mormon, insisting all accounts of this are third-hand. I gave him references from Bushman and Quinn, quoting all four of Joseph's scribes' first-hand accounts, and byte just dismissed it, again insisting all we have are third-hand accounts.

I admit, I was stumped, becuase I don't know if he purposely ignores the evidence, or if he really is that obtuse.

Elphaba

I have explained quite well how those first hand accounts could easily be tainted. I have also explained how the accounts of the seer stone are 1) second hand and 2) never directly mention translating the Golden Plates. Aii I am saying is that the holes in our history have been filled in with pat answers for so long, we have forgotten to look at all the evidence objectively. Look more carefully at the history, and you may change your opinion.

[Elphaba]

I have explained quite well how those first hand accounts could easily be tainted.

I don't want an explanation. I want evidence.

I have also explained how the accounts of the seer stone are 1) second hand and 2) never directly mention translating the Golden Plates

And I have given you evidence of four first-hand accounts that clearly say the seer stones were used in the translation.

Where is your evidence that disproves this?

Aii I am saying is that the holes in our history have been filled in with pat answers for so long, we have forgotten to look at all the evidence objectively. Look more carefully at the history, and you may change your opinion.

Look where? What books, journals, newspaper accounts, professional historian's books/essays, theses, etc. are you talking about?

All I've seen you do so far is just explain why everyone, including every LDS historian/scholar is wrong. I admit I haven't read every single post you've written, so perhaps your evidence is in one of them. If so, would you please post a link to it?

Elphaba

[bytebear]

I don't want an explanation. I want evidence.

And I have given you evidence of four first-hand accounts that clearly say the seer stones were used in the translation.

Where is your evidence that disproves this?

Look where? What books, journals, newspaper accounts, professional historian's books/essays, theses, etc. are you talking about?

All I've seen you do so far is just explain why everyone, including every LDS historian/scholar is wrong. I admit I haven't read every single post you've written, so perhaps your evidence is in one of them. If so, would you please post a link to it?

Elphaba

Used in the translation of what? Please give those exact quotes> I'd like to seem them, because I know of no first hand account that links the seer stones to the Golden Plates. They were used to translate the BoA, and probably even for use with the JST, as well as a plethora of other things, but there is no first hand account of them being used with the Golden Plates.

I realize my theory is unusual, but I also know that 99% of Christians accept the trinity because it has been "proven" for thousands of years, and yet, we as Latter-day Saints know that even with massive support for an idea, the idea can still be false.

[Snow]

If I were a 19th century woman writing to her friends, and wanted to elevate her social status. I could easly see her telling friends how close she was to the prophet, and I would bet she might even exaggerate her status to the point of lying about her "sealings" and cosumation of it. We know historically, that Smith's death created a legacy, and anyone who could claim an intimate relationship (socially, religiously, or in this case sexually) with the prophet would gain favor in the community. We also know that Brigham Young was fighting against the testimony of Emma Smith, who denied everything. I can easily see Young bolstering his claim by "encouraging" a few women to swear to their claims of a sexual relationship with Smith.

In other words, your evidence is a bit tainted.

You just made all that up.

THe evidence isn't tainted. You fabricated the taint. Deal with the evidence, not your imagination.

[Snow]

I have never "met" anyone like bytebear who has obviously spent a good deal of time learning the history of the Church, but who has it so completely and utterly and astonishingly wrong.

It's a waste of time showing him references, including first-hand testimony, because if he doesn't happen to like the truth, he simply ignores it.

For example, he refuses to believe that Joseph used his seer stone to translate part of the Book of Mormon, insisting all accounts of this are third-hand. I gave him references from Bushman and Quinn, quoting all four of Joseph's scribes' first-hand accounts, and byte just dismissed it, again insisting all we have are third-hand accounts.

I admit, I was stumped, becuase I don't know if he purposely ignores the evidence, or if he really is that obtuse.

Elphaba

Is that true bytebear?

There are all sorts of posters on the internet.

On one side:

There are ignorant posters who know so little and refuse to learn that meaningful discussion is pointless.

There are irrational posters who lack the ability to engage rationally - (there's a lot of those) - discussion with them is futile

There are dishonest posters who don't deserve engagement in discussion.

Sooner of later an honest, rational, knowledgeable poster has to simply avoid discussions with such folks because there is no profit to it.

On the other side:

There are posters who are either knowledgeable or who can process knowledge during the discussion, who can reason, who are honest with whom meaningful conversation is mutually profitable and enjoyable - regardless or whether or not you both agree

The conversation with you has been odd. You certainly are not ignorant but you have not been assiduously honest or at least accurate (for example falsely claiming that there was no evidence) and your rationality leaves a lot to be desired. For example, you claim that the evidence was tainted but have no evidence is tainted - only a line of thinking in your head that has no relationship to actual history.

Now I hear that you refuse to acknowledge what is known and understood by all or practically all knowledgeable, honest, rational students of LDS history - so is that what you think? If so, it would explain your perspective on the JS matter but leave me totally unenthused about further discussions with you.

Hoping for better...

Snow

[Elphaba]

Used in the translation of what? Please give those exact quotes> I'd like to seem them, because I know of no first hand account that links the seer stones to the Golden Plates. They were used to translate the BoA, and probably even for use with the JST, as well as a plethora of other things, but there is no first hand account of them being used with the Golden Plates.

From Rough Stone Rolling:

p. 56:

In writing for J[oseph] S[mith]. I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in a hat, with the stone in it and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

p. 71:

Neither Joseph nor Oliver explained how translation worked, but Joseph did not pretend to look at the “reformed Egyptian” words, the language on the plates, according to the book’s own description. The plates lay covered on a table, while Joseph’s head was in a hat looking at the seer stone, which by this time had replaced the interpreters. (italics mine)

p. 131:

In fact, as work on the Book of Mormon proceeded, a seer stone took the place of the Urim and Thummim as an aid in the work, blending magic with inspired translation.

p. 291:

When he “translated” the Book of Mormon, he did not read from the gold plates; he looked into the crystals of the Urim and Thummim or gazed at the seer stone.

p. 578, n. 46:

Of the translation process, Emma said:The first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.

From Early Mormonism and the Magic World View:

p. 171:

Not simply a crisis in Joseph’s personal life, the loss of the 116 pages changed the instrument he used for translation. David Whitmer explained that as a punishment, Moroni never returned to Smith the Urim and Thummim found with the plates.

Instead, the angel allowed him to translate with the brown seer stone he already possessed. However, Whitmer described it as if this seer stone were a new gift (probably because he did not meet the young prophet until after Joseph had stopped serving as a treasure-seer for “money diggers”). Under the mistaken impression that this was Joseph’s first use of the brown stone, Whitmer wrote: “By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor and was presented with a strange, oval shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which it was promised should serve the same purpose as the missing Urim and Thummim. . . With this stone all of the present Book of Mormon was translated.

p. 172:

Whitmer’s sister, later Cowdrey’s wife, also witnessed the translation with the seer stone. She stated: He would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light.

p. 172:

For example, believer William W. Blair interviewed Michael Morse, who witnessed Joseph translating the Book of Mormon. According to Morse (who married Emma’s sister): The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph’s placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribe--Emma, John Whitmer, O[liver]. Cowdrey, or some other, wrote it down.

p. 173:

The following is David Whitmer’s account of the translation process. Whitmer was at one time one of Joseph’s scribes. He wrote:I will now give you a description of the manner in which The Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone in a hat, and then put his face in the hat, drawing it close around his face go to exclude the light’ and then in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. He repeated this in numerous interviews. . . ..

The following three essays describe Joseph’s use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon:

A Treasured Testament

Elder Russell M. Nelson

Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

　

Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing

Joseph Smith/Seer stones - FAIRMormon

I realize my theory is unusual, but I also know that 99% of Christians accept the trinity because it has been "proven" for thousands of years, and yet, we as Latter-day Saints know that even with massive support for an idea, the idea can still be false.

The issue at hand is Joseph's use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, for which we have first-hand accounts, and thus, evidence.

Elphaba

Edited September 20, 2009 by Elphaba

[MrsAri]

I beg your pardon...there are two threads entitled "questions".

Edited September 20, 2009 by GrandmaAri

[Just_A_Guy]

We know historically, that Smith's death created a legacy, and anyone who could claim an intimate relationship (socially, religiously, or in this case sexually) with the prophet would gain favor in the community.

Well, that certainly backfired. In their own time these women were labeled "sports" by a Missouri Federal District Court judge hearing a succession dispute between the RLDS and the Church of Christ Temple Lot. In the here-and-now, we have you basically labeling them as theological gold diggers.

Some legacy!

[Elphaba]

Well, that certainly backfired. In their own time these women were labeled "sports" by a Missouri Federal District Court judge hearing a succession dispute between the RLDS and the Church of Christ Temple Lot.

I did not know that! I don't even know what to say to that!

I'm speechless.

Elphaba

[MrsAri]

l had asked about the polygamy thing in another thread and from what l understand, it was commanded by God? but then stopped when it became against the law right?

my question about why polygamy was practiced in the first place wasn't fully answered either. why was it put in place in the first place? even if it isn't practiced now, it was, so the Mormon religion cannot say it is a sin or morally wrong, but polygamy IS wrong, at least l think so...

Marriage is between a man and a woman, not women... >_>

my friend gave me a book of mormon and if l have time l'll try reading some of it, but this religion seems a little strange for me. l'll prolly just stick with being agnostic. that doesn't mean l'm no longer curious about your beliefs, l wanna understand her religion better.

Why does it seem that men, moreso than women, are most likely to keep the subject of polygamy alive? It's a non-issue. Polygamy is illegal. Incidentally, if men are so gung ho to practice polygamy in the hereafter, do they enjoy the prospect of sharing their wives with other men?

[Just_A_Guy]

Elphaba -

Yup. See this case, at page 954.

[Elphaba]

Yup. See this case, at page 954.

Wow. I have read innumerable journals, contemporary newspapers, personal histories, official documents, etc., and I have never read anything like this before.

I'm only about halfway through it (I think), but it is riveting.

I found the "sports" reference: "But sports in the nest hiding."

When I think of these women and their commitment to the Church and the sacrifices they made, this is appalling. Though, I must say, it is more appalling today for bytebear to accuse these women of being conniving liars.

Either way, it's disgusting.

I also found this nugget and thought it was funny:

Certainly it (polygamy) was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized as doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young.

I can just picture Emma having a heart to heart with this person to straighten out "the facts." (I love Emma!)

Which brings me to my question. Who did write it? And why?

I understand the issue is who owns the land at Temple Lot. If that's true, then why was it necessary to go into such intricate detail about so many aspects of the Church beyond who was the rightful owner of the land?

I felt like I was reading something a member wrote . . . and then, it would get, I don't know . . . haughty? Arrogant?

Was it written by a representative of the RLDS?

Thank you for this--I just love this stuff!

UPDATE: I just read in your post to bytebear that it was a succession issue. That gives me a better perspective.

Elphaba

Edited September 20, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Yup. See this case, at page 954.

Wow. I have read innumerable journals, contemporary newspapers, personal histories, official documents, etc., and I have never read anything like this before.

I'm only about halfway through it (I think), but it is riveting.

I found the "sports" reference: "But sports in the nest hiding."

When I think of these women and their commitment to the Church and the sacrifices they made, this is appalling. Though, I must say, it is more appalling today for bytebear to accuse these women of being conniving liars.

Either way, it's disgusting.

I also found this nugget and thought it was funny:

Certainly it (polygamy) was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized as doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young.

I can just picture Emma having a heart to heart with this person to straighten out "the facts." (I love Emma!)

Which brings me to my question. Who did write it? And why?

I understand the issue is who owns the land at Temple Lot. If that's true, then why was it necessary to go into such intricate detail about so many aspects of the Church beyond who was the rightful owner of the land?

I felt like I was reading something a member wrote . . . and then, it would get, I don't know . . . haughty? Arrogant?

Was it written by a representative of the RLDS?

Thank you for this--I just love this stuff!

Update: I just re-read a post your wrote to bytebear and see it was a succession argument. That adds some perspective for me.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah; basically it was a tug-of-war between the two churches over who would get control over the Independence temple lot. I haven't done much digging on it, but there is a Wikipedia entry on the case. I would suspect that as a federal judge and a Missourian, the judge would have little love for Mormons in general and Brighamites in particular. As the Brighamites were indirectly involved, I think the judge was eager to take an opportunity to give them a judicial bench-slap even if it meant going out of his way a little (or a lot!).

[bytebear]

So, does it make sense, that to fight for the right to claim Smith as "their" prophet, the Utah Saints, led by Young, might just fabricate or exagerate stories that would justify their claim above the Prairie Saints and the RLDS?

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, the Missouri judge basically thought they were non-reputable females trying to legitimize their activities after the fact.

He, at least, was convinced there was intercourse (but no marriage).