My quest to nail down JS as a dirty perv may have reached a dead end with Josephine Lyon (the only real candidate for polygamist offspring of JS).

See referenced article below. Very interesting!

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-persistence-of-polygamy/

Any thoughts on Ugo Perego's "inconclusive" findings? I think Ugo is more than happy to leave it as inconclusive.

There's plenty of other evidence for Joseph's philandering besides possible children...

During the 19th Century, Eliza R. Snow and a number of other of Joseph Smith's other wives gave sworn affadavits that they had had marital relations with him...

This was to counter claims by the Reorganized Church (and Emma) that the practice of polygamy originated with Brigham Young.

Now visualize 19th Century America--this was the Victorian era, BTW, even if she was only Queen of England. And a good many mormons--almost all of my ancestors who were in Utah by then--were born in the British Isles.

Women are admitting to sexual relations that didn't happen? Not likely...

And that's a bald-faced lie--worthy of FAIR--about "marriages to 10 teenagers within the norms of statistics and inherited biological and legal traditions in Joseph’s environment."

That one has been debunked here so many times by 19th Century census figures it's assinine to even pass it off as scholarship. Yes, teens did get married at ages younger than 18, just not often, and nearly always to husbands near their own age. Joseph Smith was in his mid-to-late thirties, fer cryin' out loud...

And I'll wager the site makes no mention of Sarah Pratt, the wife of Orson Pratt, whose reputation Joseph smeared after she rejected his advances...

As for Don Bradley, he posted here as a time as an ex-Mormon and subsequently returned to the church. Happens. He castigated many here because we insisted on "a maximum demonization of Joseph Smith."

And all we were doing was pointing out that he was a sexual predator who was using his stature and leadership position to bed teenage girls...

Now, so what if the DNA evidence remains inconclusive? Seriously, what reason was there for JS to marry 15 and 16 year olds?

For the average apologist trapped in Mormonthink and denial, DNA simply stands for "Does Not Apply."

A Cabdriver Confession: I stole that last one from somebody who first posted it here years ago. A honk of my horn to that unknown individual...

Now, what would you like to know about DNA and how it's used to trace possible descendants? There's a lovely demonstration of its usage in determing that Thomas Jefferson likely fathered one or more children by Sally Hemings...

A bunch of trolling apologists here wound up under the tires of the ol' police interceptor when I pointed out they wanted to use that to discredit Fawn Brodie's biography of our third president because they couldn't touch her on the subject of Joseph Smith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2011 06:16AM by SL Cabbie.

I think Perego would report the results as he sees them regardless of how it looks for the church. He recently published a review of the DNA-Book of Mormon issue and was pretty upfront about the science.

Its too risky for him to try to hide from or not confront the evidence because it is pretty clear. If Smith's DNA appears in a polygamous family then it would be pointless to ignore or hide it. You'd be caught out eventually.

Thanks SL/Simon

I guess you're right Simon about Peregeo. I am obviously biased, I would like to see (un)FAIR have to retract all its convoluted explanations of JS' polygamy trying to show how Jacob 2 and D&C 132 DON'T contradict. they seem to suggest he didn't consumate with his polyandrous wives.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Contradiction_between_Jacob_and_DC_132.html

Makes my head spin.

Even if it was proven that JS did have polygamous chilrden, FAIR would come up with some other garbage.

The idea that it could be inconclusive though is that as far as it goes? is there just not enough evidence? Also what does the statement in the review mean?:

Quote (Presently “considerable discrepancy” is observed to exist between Smith and Lyon family genetics)


Thanks again