NOM

I just listened to Dan Vogel 's lovely robotic voice for 45 minutes as he responds to Brian Hales defense of JS polyandry with Sylvia Lyons.

It's a great listen and I would recommend it. One great point that he makes is regarding Josephine Lyons (who was the leading candidate to be a polygamous child of JS), and recent DNA testing that shows that she was not the child of JS, but of Windsor Lyons.

Many people, including myself, were dissapointed that the evidence did not confirm JS as the father because this would prove that polyandry was sexual. Brian Hales had argued that JS only was sealed to Sylvia after Sylvia and Windsor had separated so this wasn't technically sexual polyandry. But because Sylvia thought it was JS child when it was in fact Windsor's it shows that both men were having sex with Sylvia at about the same time.

The video is full of lots of gems. Check it out!

https://youtu.be/rjao6DiN2DY

I listened to half of it so far. It's a very dense coverage of the issue with lots of details in place. The apologetic response is usually that Sylvia considered Josephine to be sealed as Joseph's daughter but no naughtiness occurred. The whole situation is complicated and easily ignored by the faithful as the rantings of bitter apostates.

Corsair wrote:I listened to half of it so far. It's a very dense coverage of the issue with lots of details in place. The apologetic response is usually that Sylvia considered Josephine to be sealed as Joseph's daughter but no naughtiness occurred. The whole situation is complicated and easily ignored by the faithful as the rantings of bitter apostates.

As are almost every issue by the faithful. If you want to just believe, it is really easy to dismiss anything and everything.

Now having said that, I loved the connection as potential evidence for polyandry in a sexual definition.

And I have never understood how Hales can be so dismissive of JS marrying other men's wives, even if it is only in the eternities.

Which is worse?

Having sex with another persons spouse, even if it is only once (Hales denies this ever happened)?

Or Having two people stay together in a loving marriage during this life, to have it torn apart FOREVER in heaven, when one of those spouse partners leaves and couples up with JS for eternity, leaving the loving spouse behind?

I think Hales defense of marriages for eternity is actually far worse than what he denies.

hiding in plain sight wrote:I think Hales defense of marriages for eternity is actually far worse than what he denies.

Hale's defense of "marriage for eternity only" is a really painful concept. I cannot conceive of this getting taught in general conference or in a church manual. Instead it just sits as a rickety shim to prop up the inherent problems arising from polyandry.

Bill Reel posted Dan's video on FB yesterday, and asked for peoples thoughts. Most of the comments were supportive of Dan. This brought Bill Reel into the fray with a few lengthy posts and then Dan showed up to shake his head at him.

If you are on FB head over to Bill Reel's page and enjoy.

[quote="hiding in plain sight"]

Or Having two people stay together in a loving marriage during this life, to have it torn apart FOREVER in heaven, when one of those spouse partners leaves and couples up with JS for eternity, leaving the loving spouse behind?
[/quoted]
And we know the eternal partnership IS sexual. That's why, according to Joseph Fielding Smith, people is lesser kingdoms are smoothies.