It seems incredulous that the Mormon church apologists would use DNA to prove that Orrison Smith, son of Fanny Alger, was not the son of Joseph Smith:

Mormons, of course, reject DNA as yet unproven and do not publicly accept its conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be an account of Jews in America since there is no middle eastern DNA in living descendants of the "lamanites."

Here is an excerpt from their ridiculous article and if you want to read the whole enchilada in context (and have a few laughs), check it out at

http://ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com/2011/11/joseph-smiths-spiritual-wives.html

EXCERPT:

There are several cases were there are hearsay accounts and rumors that the first child of some of Joseph Smith's "spiritual wives" belonged to Joseph Smith. However, recent Y-Chromosome DNA testing has been done on almost all the direct descentants of these possible offspring of Joseph Smith. Turns out, JOSEPH WAS NOT THE FATHER in any of the cases. In 2005, DNA testing showed that Orrison Smith, son of Fanny Alger, was not the offspring of Joseph Smith. (Perego et al., 2005). So, Joseph Smith entered into these "spiritual sealings" and there is no evidence that there was any "physical" aspect to any of these relationships except rumors and hearsay.



Kathleen Waters

The other reason why there might not be offspring from any of JSs other plural wives is because he was onto the next one right away.

TSCC is anti-science.

If they could get away with it, they'd probably throw it all out. Since most people have some degree of trust in science, though, they can't do that.

Instead they've settled for using people's suspicion of science to promote their brand.

They do want it both ways.

There is no evidence that there was any "physical" aspect to any Lamanites except rumors and hearsay.

When it comes to Lamanites, Mormons say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But when it comes to Joseph Smith's plural marriages, Mormons reverse their position as if absence of evidence is evidence of abstinence.

+1 for "absence of evidence is evidence of abstinence." That's beautifully phrased Michael.

"Mormons reverse their position as if absence of evidence is evidence of abstinence."

Haha,michaelm. Clever. And so true. Finally the term absence of evidence is in their (supposed) favor.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2014 05:43PM by blueorchid.

Why are apologists keen to argue that these plural marriages produced no babies? Do they want to imply they were not sexual? This is a non starter. At the very beginning of DnC 132, Joseph asks God "Am I committing adultery in doing what I'm doing? This wouldn't be a question if he were not having sex with his plural wives. Later in DnC 132, god himself tells Joseph that the purpose of plural marriage is babymakin'. If the apologists argue that he had no babies from his plural wives they are arguing that he is a failure in following the laws of celestial marriage.

Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm

Based on ldsblogspot's article, the statement of Eliza R. Snow is just rumor and gossip.

As though she didn't know for sure?

Don't they mean, really, that a woman's statement will not be considered.



KW

Bingo, HtG!

"Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."

I haven't seen it before (I have with other suggested sons of JS, including Oliver Buell whom Fawn Brodie suggested as a possible offspring).

That claim "rules out" is inconsistent with something Perego would say; he's a good enough geneticist to know he can't make such a statement with certainty, and I'd like to see the evidence, if any.

There's been far too much faith-promoting malarky by the apologetics crowd for me to take a claim like this at face value.

So if someone is willing to post a link (I'm busy, but not that busy), I'd be willing to give the research a gander (and stand for any DNA scientists to review my conclusions).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2014 10:31PM by SL Cabbie.

It's probably in the article I linked to in my first post.

Perego is owned by the church, but I would like to know what you think of his research.


KW

"So, Joseph Smith entered into these "spiritual sealings" and there is no evidence that there was any "physical" aspect to any of these relationships except rumors and hearsay."


At least he admits rumors and hearsay count as evidence.


So let's say I get brought into a court of love for adultery, based on accusations. Does this mean that I can't be ex'ed as long as I didn't produce offspring? After all, all they have are rumors and hearsay of those in my ward...or am I missing something here?

Surely these apologists would vouchsafe my character like they do Joseph's, right?

"Joseph didn't actually diddle his spiritual wives! The church is true!" Uh... so the eternal principle of polygamy was restored and Horny Joe's successor didn't have any problem producing lots of offspring by diddling his many wives.... Why is it important that Joe didn't when there is no question that Brigham did?

I just can't see how this matters at all....

If Joseph did not produce offspring, the supposed righteous purpose of spiritual wifery was not kept.

Brigham had 52 wives and 56 children.
If each of those wives had their own husband, the number of offspring would have been much higher. Even counting only the ones who were still childbearing age, the average of 4 to 7 kids would still have yielded a much higher count than only 56.

Both of these men failed in the supposedly righteous use of polygamy.