Joe1 wrote "I wonder why members would care whether Joseph Smith had sex
with his plural wives or not."Prior to the DNA evidence, LDS
did not question that Joseph Smith had been intimate with his plural wives. It
was rather a point of pride, in fact, to claim Joseph as a possible ancestor.However with the majority of modern church members being new converts
and with all the conclusive data to date refuting tales that Joseph fathered
children by plural wives, the possibility arises that Joseph was entirely
physically faithful to his first wife, Emma.Joseph undoubtedly
established plural marriage amongst his followers. But if he, himself, was not
inspired by lust, then modern LDS can contemplate a founding prophet who was
acting for ideological reasons. Writ properly, this monogamous Joseph becomes a
tragic and heroic figure, and the debate must shift from discussing Joseph's
lechery to discussing the merit of Joseph's theology.FWIW, I am
descended from one of Joseph's plural wives (Elvira Annie Cowles) and am a
believing member of the modern Church.
I wonder why members would care whether Joseph Smith had sex with his plural
wives or not. They were his wives. Why wouldn't he? Every other instance of
polygamy that I can think of, both in and out of the LDS church, assumes sex is
permitted with your plural wives. Why would Joseph Smith's polygamy be
Razzle2: 1. Joseph had a revelation about plural marriage. it was taught to
all 3 years after the revelation. 2. polygamy was racticed before they came to
Utah and well before Josephs death. 3. Polygamy wasn't started for sexual
purposes. Hence the fact that Joseph had no other children than those he had
with Emma. It was started for the purposes of protecting the widows and the
children. 4 Once they arrived in Utah there was no need for the practice.
There's a HUGE difference in terms of accuracy between tracing a bloodline back
200 years contrasted with 2000 years. There are so many variables in DNA that
even linking Jews to ancestry dating back 2000 years is next to impossible. So
until we understand DNA tracing A LOT better than we do today, the jury is still
WAY out on lamanite herritage issues. It's a little rediculous that it's being
used as being clear cut science at this point.
With Josephine conceived during the polyandry years of 43', and 44' it is
imperative to conduct careful research on the autosomal DNA and publish as soon
as can be confirmed.
@ Mike WTo read my post and then ask if I respect Warren Jeffs
indicates that you believe Jeff's relationships to be 'god-ordained' to group
them with those I mentioned. You and I will have to differ on that since I
don't respect him.
I am EXTREMELY irritated at this story. Obviously, Fawn Brodie doesn't know her
own history, let alone Joseph Smith's. If Ugo Perego had done a little research
of his own before beginning the DNA testing, he would have seen that Mosiah
Hancock was born BEFORE plural marriage was ever revealed. Mosiah was the eldest
son of Levi and Clarissa Reed Hancock and his younger brother was John Reed
Hancock. This story (according to Brodie) implies that Joseph Smith had an
extramarital affair with a married woman who already had children. What an
absolute joke. That was not the purpose for plural marriage. Anyone who believes
this woman would believe ANYTHING. I will not sit by and say
nothing. I am a direct descendant of Levi, Clarissa, and Mosiah Hancock. Let's
not forget the women whose names are being tarnished by Brody who is only in it
for profit, not truth.
HA! Another hater's story is shot to pieces. Go DNA!Next time don't make
DNA and the LamanitesThe idea that all American Indians were
descendents of Lehi's family, the Lamanites, became popular with Mormons in the
1950's. The introduction of the Book of Mormon published by the LDS Church
stated that "all were destroyed except the Lamanites and they are the
principle ancestors of the American Indians." The intro has recently been
removed and was never canonized as scripture.First, the introduction
did not claim that Lamanites were descendents of Lehi's family. Although the
original group came from Lehi in 600 BC the race did not stay pure in the Book
and we don't know what happened to the Lamanites since 400 AD. Second, the People of Zarahemla (Mulekites) play a role in the Book of Mormon
because of the missionary efforts of Mosiah. If the Mulekites had not converted
they probably would not have been mentioned in the Book. How many other groups
were in America that could have joined the Lamanites before or after the great
battle of Cumorah?Although, the idea that some Native Americans are
descendents of the Book of Mormon people is probable, the idea that they are
literal DNA descendents of Lehi is very unlikely.
John Corrill: Hi Razzle2. Here is what Apostle John A. Widtsoe had to say
about that:[QUOTE] Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and
frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many
non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of
marriage among the Latter-day Saints.The most common of these
conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide
husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in
this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church,
is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to
have been more males than females in the Church...The United States
census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly
show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church... The
theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church
members fails from lack of evidence...[UNQUOTE] (Widtsoe, John A., Evidences
And Reconciliation, pgs 307 310, The Bookcraft Company, 1943, Salt Lake City,
Brigham Young wanted to rise up a righteous generation and since there were
nearly 8 women to every man he used the plural marriage card Joseph had given
him (or prophesized). Men were scarce for many reasons; slow to convert, more
likely to die on the plains, left Utah for California gold or Colorado
silver.----------------I saw the statistics for Utah in the
early 1850's and there were NOT 8 women to every man. That is a myth. Look it
up for yourself. They were nearly even.
Why did Joseph Smith teach plural marriage only to a select few?Why didn't
the LDS Church announce the practice until 1850 in Utah?Why was plural
marriage only allowed by certain families?Why did God change his mind in
1890?According to my ancestors stories; the Mormons were pushed out
of Missouri because of the fear of a Mormon voting block in a state that allowed
slavery. My ancestors were abolitionists. They did not know anything about
plural marriage until they got to Utah. Brigham Young wanted to rise up a
righteous generation and since there were nearly 8 women to every man he used
the plural marriage card Joseph had given him (or prophesized). Men were scarce
for many reasons; slow to convert, more likely to die on the plains, left Utah
for California gold or Colorado silver.After the railroad arrived to Utah
in 1869 the balance of the sexes begin to level out. In 1890 plural marriage was
abandoned the LDS Church.Although a minority of the LDS Church
practiced plural marriage; the majority of the next generations were descendents
of these families and the genealogy continues today.
Brodie's book while not perfect still stands as not only a remarkable honest
assessment of Joseph Smith's life and work but one of if not the first to
address the hard issues. Defenders who still buy into the lusterware Joseph
Smith taught in Church will certainly not like many of her assertions because
they do not match the myth that the Church has crafted over the past 167 years.
People like Richard Bushman however have remarked that her work, now
over 65 years old, still provides valuable insights in the life of Smith and is
for the most part in line with current history. Current historians not only rely
on it for information but it help pave the way for more open and honest LDS
history. I know Nibley and other defenders like to malign her work but I've
found most of that to be little more blind apologia.Brodie did
propose that a number of children could have been Smith's by polyandrous wives.
Current DNA seems to show that she was wrong on many of them but testing
for some still remains including Josephine Lyon Fisher.
The problem with Brodie is not so much what she said in her book, but what she
and others said thereafter.She later stated (to Dale Morgan, I
believe) that "if Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, then I am
not a Brimhall", referring to her mother's maiden name, thereby asserting
her confidence. She was wrong.So many subsequent authors (George D
Smith to name one) regurgitated her reserved suppositions and later confident
claims as fact, that it has always been assumed that Joseph was an
uncontrollable lecher.Yes, he had relations with some of his
polygamous wives, but far, far fewer than most have assumed and, to my
knowledge, none of his polyandrous wives.Rest assured that if a
positive DNA paternity test ever occurs for a child not born of Emma, the
critics will never tire of repeating it.
@Serenity"Does it make a difference if Joseph Smith had children with
his plural wives? "Not really. If one believes polygamy was
okay then his having other kids isn't going to change anything. After all
Brigham Young had plenty of children with plenty of different wives so it's not
like a Prophet having kids with multiple women would be anything completely new
in church history. "and how the religion itself is
growing."That's not a valid argument for proof of correctness.
Personally, I don't think it is ANY of my business as to how many children
Joseph Smith was the biological father of. Its just not relevant to my belief
in the gospel at all.
re. MikB. Go to fairlds.org, click on google on the right side of the screen
and type in DNA. There you will find a plethora of scientific articles that do
not agree with your conclusions.
Seems our friends have some new accounts : ), and some oldies.. Zarathusthra. Im warming up to Native American DNA also as research
progresses and takes into account morphology, interactions, etc. Points to
ponder from non-LDS scholarsAncient American morphology is not Asian, but
includes Polynesian, Middle East, Armenian, etc.Recent research indicates
a FEW interactions with founders (Amerindians, Olmec, Jaredites, Mulekites etc)
can bury invading DNA, but morphology takes longer. People related
to Native Americans include Jews (in much higher percentages than Asians),
Turkic peoples of Central Asia (more than East Asians) etc some Jewish scholars
recently claim Native American marker Q-p36 is a founding Jewish lineage.
Manassehs mother is thought to be related to Mongolian Turks and perhaps
Seljuks (who possibly carried steeled iron bows from ME etc) The earliest
Americans may have been descended from these people, as well as Asenat. There are several good articles on FAIR lds on polygamy etc. It is
wrong in our world, but not in Abraham, Moses, Joseph's world. Before becoming
LDS some early Saints lived in communes and practiced free love, sorta the
original American hippies, so polygamy was perhaps conservative for them. @joggle... or misinformation?
Tragically, many Mormons are not even fully aware of the doctrines and history
of their own church so when an article like this appears they grab onto it to
support that their faith is justified while ignoring information that could make
them question it. Does this specific DNA determination really matter when there
is so much information out there that would make most people question the
varacity of the LDS Church as a whole?
"Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had offspring from God-ordained polygamous
relationships. My respect for Joseph Smith won't be changed if he is found to be
in the same category."So I can assume you have the same
"respect" for Warren Jeffs and Phillip Garrido?
The DNA evidence cont'd: In excess of a hundred and fifty tribes have been
tested now, these are scattered all over north and central and South America,
even to Greenland. And from that survey, in excess of five and a half thousand
individuals have been involved and have been tested, from those five and a half
thousand, 99.4% of Native Americans have a mitochondrial DNA lineage that
originated in Asia. There can be no question: 99.4%. The other 0.6% have either
a European or an African mitochondrial lineage. The very tiny minority of
European and African lineages that they do find came after Columbus. Currently
on the available evidence theres nothing to suggest a [Native American Indian]
relationship whatsoever with Israelites. (Dr. Simon Southerton, Molecular
Listen Up Brothers and Sisters: the DNA argument used in this preemptive defense
of Joseph Smith and denial of Brodie's work is the sharpest of all swords
against the LDS foundation: I quote "Thomas Murphy, (anthropologist, Mormon
scholar, and DNA researcher), acknowledges the problem that the DNA evidence
presents for the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. We [i.e., Mormons]
are in a dilemma now, the genetic evidence shows clearly that American Indians
are not Hebrews, they are not Israelites. The Book of Mormon is not true.
@ John CorrillVery uncool to quote Brodie's book to discredit the
author of the article but conveniently leave out key statements made by Brodie
that were on the very page you quoted. Similarly, the article does not state
that Brodie claimed Moroni Pratt was a descendant of Joseph as you mistakenly
challenged. Rather, the article clearly indicates a descendant of Moroni's read
the book an wanted to then find out about his lineage.Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob all had offspring from God-ordained polygamous relationships. My
respect for Joseph Smith won't be changed if he is found to be in the same
DNA can solve many things but what has it solved about Israelites in the
Hi Michael,Based on some of the recent comments, many readers are
still being misinformed by your article that "Brodie got it wrong"
regarding the paternity of John Hancock.Per our previous discussion
where it was demonstrated that Brodie expressed "CONSIDERABLE RESERVE"
about the idea of Joseph Smith being John Hancock's father, would you be willing
to correct your article or post an addenda at the bottom of it to correct
Andy said:"This research says more about Fawn Brodie than about
Joseph Smith." Really? So your position is that he didn't have
more than one wife? Are you a Reorg? Even most of them have given that up.
If not lets have your list of possible kids."The evidence
continues to mount that Ms. Brodie is the charlatan, or at least an
undisciplined researcher. So much for her emotional history and "read
between the lines" research techniques she relied upon so heavily.
"Are you aware that Fawn is Pres Mckay's granddaughter and had
access to the church archives? Do you further know that Bushman had access to
the archives and that although different in tone, both books are very similar in
content?Kudos on the "mounting evidence of a charlatan"
"It's so interesting that so much science is now adding more and more
evidence to the truthfulness of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon and how much
so-called science that disputed the Book of Mormon has now been shown to be
wrong."Funny, I was thinking just the opposite...
According to Ugo Perego, this DNA research was his own personal research and not
by his employer Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. He said
the John Reed Hancock case followed the same methodology he has used for other
cases. For example, look at the Fall 2005 issue of the Journal of Mormon History
for Moroni Pratt, Zebulon Jacobs and Orrison Smith and in the 2008 issue of the
John Whitmer Historical Association Journal for Oliver Buell and Mosiah Hancock.
Anybody can look at these articles and the tables with actual genetic profiles.
You can see how the profiles were obtained, check the pedigrees, and judge how
the analysis was performed. "In science," Perego said, "you are
required to make these details known so that others can 'confirm biased
findings...'" This is the type of information he said he will include in
the article he is working on for the Mormon Historical Studies journal. So
everything will be out there for people to look at.Here is a link to
a pdf of one article by Perego: http://bit.ly/qOtZZU
This research says more about Fawn Brodie than about Joseph Smith. The evidence continues to mount that Ms. Brodie is the charlatan, or at least
an undisciplined researcher. So much for her emotional history and "read
between the lines" research techniques she relied upon so heavily.
"What exactly is a "closet anti-Mormon"? Couldn't that describe
just about every member of the LDS Church today?"No, just the
ones who call themselves LDS, but yet find every possible reason to disagree
with the LDS church on about every issue they can. Sound familiar? The idea that
one has a testimony would include that they 'know' that it is true, and that
revelation is true. Knowing that God has far greater 'skills' to reason, use
logic, and have a perfect understanding of right and wrong.... makes it this
simple-There are those who have their testimony and decide to trust
in God when even they don't always understand his reasons... and there are those
who have their testimony, then dwindle away arguing against God's reasons. The
reason people fight God is because it is easier to disagree and voice that
die-hard opinion, than it is to consider... 'am I wrong?' or 'perhaps God knows
more than I do about morality, etc'Faith, as I see it, is about
trusting God. Something many don't realize is that some people who voice loudly
against things like gay marriage may have questioned it themselves, but used
I just Know, Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son, so he is actually a
Prophet of God.Thank you.
Serenity,"...a strong closet anti-Mormon..."?What exactly is a "closet anti-Mormon"? Couldn't that describe just
about every member of the LDS Church today?
Mr. De Groote---While I am decidedly not a believer in JS, I appreciate you
taking part in the followup discussion. I have always thought writers would
have no interest in the comments because they devolve into prejudice-sharing
rants (both ways) most of the time when it comes to the LDS church. Thanks
Grace,"It's so much easier to belong to religeous groups who
don't have controversy surrounding the progeny, wives, doctrines and revelations
of their founders: Who aren't hounded out of communities, states and territories
for breaking civil and Biblical laws. Whose artifacts don't disappear, whose
heavenly visitors hang around for an interview, whose motives aren't
impugned..."That's kind of the entire point. It's not always
easy to have faith. The Lord has said repeatedly throughout history that He will
test His people. He will give them obstacles to their faith and He will put them
through the refining fire. But, if you have a firm testimony of the restored
gospel, which many of us on this board do, then those tests just don't matter.
Michael De Groote...(d-news) seems to 'protest too much' in his effort to
discredit Fawn Brodie... seems desperate. The 'disinterested' and proper method
by a credible journalist...would be to seek out an outside opinion on Sorensons
biased mormon research... do it right... other wise it is an embarrassment...
@Michael De GrooteThanks for the clarification. I'm glad to hear they
used multiple sources descending from multiple sons to assure that the sample
for Joseph Smith's profile was sound. Hopefully they will gain the
ability to do analysis not involving the Y chromosome in order to evaluate the
possibility that Joseph Smith had daugthers from his polygamous marriages.
I only trust science and dna studies when it feels good. If they tell me
something that doesn't sound right, I just feel "icky" and then i know
they have a hidden agenda. My seminary teacher said Brodies book was basically
pulled out of a hat. When peoople compare Joseph Smith to Warren
Jeffs, they are way out of line. They aren't alike at all!
It is good to see LDS readers warming up to DNA evidence. Does this mean you
will now become interested in what DNA tells us about the origins of Native
VocalLocal | 8:16 a.m. July 12, 2011 "I'd like to know how they
created the genetic profile of Joseph Smith"The DNA profile is
of Joseph Smith's Y Chromosome. Unlike autosomal DNA (that's the bulk of DNA
that is shuffled 50/50 between a mom and dad everytime they have a kid), the Y
Chromosome is virtually unchanged as is passes from father to son to grandson,
etc.To get Joseph Smith's Y Chromosome, they took DNA samples from
many of his known male descendants and from his brother Hyrum's male
descendants. They should all have the same Y chromosome DNA -- which would be
the same as Joseph's and Joseph Smith Sr's. So they are able to get the exact
profile the same as if he gave a sample himself.The original
motivation to get the profile was to trace the Smith family DNA back to England
to see if they could solve missing info. in his genealogy, not to learn about
First, I believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. I believe God required
him to reinstitute polygamy likely beginning in Kirtland. I don't understand
why polyandry was part of this, but it's not a problem for me. There is
credible evidence that some of his plural relationships included sexual
relations. Second, this set of comments has become a forum on Fawn
Brodie's trustworthiness as a historian, not really the subject of the article
upon which we are commenting. I believe she was a tabloid historian,
particularly interested in prurient and controversial hidden stories in
prominent people's lives. If you read her article Hidden Presidents: Looking
through their memoirs for involuntary truth, Harper's, April 1977, pp. 61-76,
you will find her strong allegation that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the
death of his mother (p. 71). Fawn Brodie did get many things right in her book
about Joseph Smith, but what she got wrong about Joseph Smith and Abraham
Lincoln and... was their underlying goodness and their important God-given roles
in human history. It's good that she didn't write a biography of the prophet
Abraham using her Freudian approach to history. Duane
First off I'd like to know how they created the genetic profile of Joseph
Smith-if there was any inaccuracy in that then the whole analysis is
meaningless.Also as I understand it there were few polygamous wives
who claimed that Joseph Smith was the father of their children and the most
prominent claim was a daughter-which the article makes clear is difficult to
confirm and has not yet been tested.Last Fawn Brodie, though she
perhaps speculated too much, has proven to be ahead of her time. Much of what
she wrote is now accepted by LDS and non-LDS scholars alike as the likely story
of Joseph Smith. What is sad is that the Church she belonged to felt so
threatened by the truth that they took such firm action against her.
%Serenity, I like your post, but I have heard the story told a little
differently. I heard Fawn Brodie was related to presidend Mckay and she was
commissioned by the church to write the book for the church centenial. It was
her's and the church's thought that the book would be a compliment to the church
and Brodie. However, when she did her research for the book she learned the
truth was different than the church's version and being an honest author she
wrote the truth as revealed by the facts rather than the church's wish for
faith promoting fiction. This caused her friction with the church and the loss
of her membership. I think the Palmer story is some what similar. I hope if this
story in incorrect that you will correct it. Thx.
... breaking news from a 'mormon research firm'...(Sorenson) after reviewing
this story... there are many unanswered questions about 'flawed research' and
criteria... For years people have beein trying to discredit Ms. Brodie. Here
research has proven flawless. I think there needs to be an outside firm to
'confirm' biased findings...
We can speculate all we want about the nature of Joseph Smith's relationships
with his wives. All we know for sure is that Emma bore 9 children and they were
all his children and none of the other wives did. None of us knows personally
any of the people involved and to try to attach any kind of improper or immoral
behavior to any of the people involved is unfair to them since they can't defend
Does it make a difference if Joseph Smith had children with his plural wives?
He was commanded to practice it for the propagation of the saints at the time.
This is not that unusual. Most prophets and kings in the old testament
practiced it, like Solomon with his wives and even concubines. The Lord
prospered these people and didn't condemn them. Even today in the Muslim world,
they are allowed up to four wives. Joseph was obeying the Lord's commandment
even if reluctantly. Fawn Brodie was bound to write a book as
"No Man Knows my History" because she had an anti-Mormon influences
even in her home when growing up. Her mother was a strong closet anti-Mormon
and she made comments which Brodie used in her book. Eventually her mother left
the Church, so Brodie had her justification for writing the book. You can believe what you want about Joseph Smith, but the truth is so apparent
in the way he translated the BOM and how the religion itself is growing. I
think the best proof of its truthfulness is the quality and the holiness of the
people who truly live the Gospel.
We can fight against Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the teachings of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all we want, but it will only be to
our own detriment.The book is from God and Joseph Smith was called
by our Divine Maker to be the mighty prophet to restore the Savior's gospel.Praise to the man!
It's so much easier to belong to religeous groups who don't have controversy
surrounding the progeny, wives, doctrines and revelations of their founders:
Who aren't hounded out of communities, states and territories for breaking civil
and Biblical laws. Whose artifacts don't disappear, whose heavenly visitors
hang around for an interview, whose motives aren't impugned...Would
love to interview Jesus, Mary, Peter/Shimon, Paul/Shaul, Daniel, Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses/Moshe, Mohammed and Joseph S. Only two in that
group, however, claimed that polygamy was commanded by God. The others followed
cultural or personal reasons. For New Testament and Book of Mormon believers,
the issue was settled in the text and no DNA proof is needed. Would enjoy a De
Groote article on that topic.
Sharrona: What edition of the Doctrine and Covenants are you using?
Interesting bit of research. I think a great deal of history,is more mythology
than a factual representation of what happened. I agree that those with a
specific agenda,seem to publish books on what they think happened, according to
their own personal bias and political/religious agendas.I personally am
not threatened by any warts in the history of the LDS Church at all. Not coming
from "pioneer stock", I don't see the pioneer history in any other
light, than (in most cases) courageous actions of individuals seeking to better
themselves and their families. Of course people are going to have
"blights" in their lives,no one escapes that. How is leaving those
things out of history helpful in the long run? It isn't. Just my opinion.For the record, I don't believe for a second, that given the academic training
of Joseph Smith and those who assisted him, that they could have of their own
accord, come up with or produced the Book of Mormon. Sorry folks, they were NOT
that smart or academically talented enough to commit such a fraud. Just don't
see evidence of that at all.
The rest of what Brodie said about John Reed Hancock in her book:Brodie Page 345: "Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points
to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably
John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841 in Nauvoo. Oddly, the next Hancock child,
born considerably after Joseph Smith's death, was named Levison, as if to
satisfy any doubt that Levi Hancock was in truth the father."Mr. John Corrill at 12:19 a.m. July 11, 2011, posted only part of what Brodie
had written. Here is the rest of what she wrote (after what John quoted) on Page
464:"It is of some interest, however, to note that one of Levi
Hancock's sons, born on June 9, 1845 in Nauvoo, was named Levison, as though to
distinguish his parentage from that of a preceding son, born on april 19, 1841
and named John Reed Hancock. The latter might have been the child in
question."Thank you to a friend of mine who had Brodie's book
handy and was kind enough to forward me these quotes.
%Big Lunch: I agree with you, it is all very confusing; and if Joseph Smith took
his other brothers wives as his plural wives would that not be denying his
brothern that in the celestial kingdom that JS wanted for himself. That dosen't
seem very brotherly.
I do not understand, that if it is understood and accepted that Joseph Smith
practiced polygamy as a holy principal, and that stated purpose of that
principal is to bear seed (D & C 132), why would we be so anxious to declare
Joseph Smith as utterly failing in this capacity? Why are we equating the lack
of these children existing as a defense of his moral character?
@Dixie MikeDNA paternity tests require a sample of the parent's DNA.
Apparently, Joseph Smith's DNA has been obtained (probably from a bloodstain).
Then we can compare somebody's DNA and look for matching "markers".Nobody has a sample of any of Lehi's family DNA. Therefore a match
cannot be made. However, other DNA tests can be made on people to match origin
in a broad way. DNA analysis did not identify a middle eastern origin of Native
Americans, but did identify several distinct origin patterns. However, a colony
of 10 or 20 Jews arriving and mixing with natives already there, would probably
not leave a discernable DNA source.DNA analysis does destroy the old
Mormon myth that all Indians are descendants of Lehi. That the Lehites interbred
with natives is clearly shown in Jacob, where he chides the people for their
extra wives, etc. There would have been less than a hundred Lehites if the
promised land were empty, so clearly Laman and Lemuel joined one tribe and the
Nephites joined another. Jacob makes it clear that the term Nephite and Lamanite
were political terms.
Michael De Groote: As long as you have Brodie's book handy, why not give the
whole quote from p. 464 about what she said about Hancock? If I remember
correctly (I don't have her book handy) she was doing a bit more than just
reporting speculation. She seemed to be presenting an argument.John
Corrill: Your recollection would be incorrect. Perhaps you should scoot on down
to the library and see what the book actually says - rather than relying on your
readers to do your research - and then issue appropriate corrections to your
article.Michael De Groote: The point of the article was not to slam
Brodie. I only mentioned her because she is the documentary source that many
people rely upon in this matter.John Corrill: Perhaps not, but the
information in your article was incorrect and multiple reader comments
castigated Brodie for "getting it wrong" when in fact, she did not.Michael De Groote: She raised the question. Other historians writing
about the same topic did not.John Corrill: The women who were
married to Joseph Smith were the ones who indicated they had children with
Joseph Smith. Brodie was EXPLORING who the children MIGHT be.
It appears that, insofar as anyone can determine thus far, Joseph Smith had NO
children other than those borne by Emma. And even if he did, I am convinced that
they would have been born in the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage (See
D&C 132). Thus, in God's eyes they would have been Joseph's legitimate
offspring, entitled to all the blessings that God offers, in this life and the
next.As a side note, there were numerous persons sealed to Joseph Smith
after his death. This doctrine of "adoption" was later ended by the
skeptic: No family histories are kept under lock and key. It is all open to
anyone who wants to see it.
It appears that some here are interpreting the DNA results as evidence that
Joseph didn't have sexual relations with his wives. I think that is the wrong
conclusion to make, since many of his wives made statements and even signed
court affidavits indicating that they did in fact have sexual relations. It
seems the more logical conclusion to be further investigated is that Joseph may
have taken steps to prevent pregnancies with his polygamous wives. I'm not sure
what the implications of that are, other than it would seem to run contrary to
some of the teachings of allowing polygamy to raise up seed and whatnot.
Again with Ms. Brodie in regards to her books on Jefferson and Smith, the
difficulty is she presents the books as biographical-not historical fiction. She
uses scurilous undocumented speculative sensational material in the books in the
guise of fact or well accept understandings of the facts which they were not at
the time of the writing of the books. Such effort does not aid the reader or
the historian. It only adds to book sales, which seems to be the purpose. This
from a professor of history is very disturbing. The comparison to Bushman is a
very long reach. His work is meticulous in its documentation and research.
Comparing Brodie, even though some of what she speculated is confirmed by
Bushman, to Bushman is like comparing the writings of my 3-year old daughter to
Shakespeare. (No offense to my daugther or Shakespeare).
@John Corrill | 12:19 a.m. July 11, 2011 As long as you have
Brodie's book handy, why not give the whole quote from p. 464 about what she
said about Hancock? If I remember correctly (I don't have her book handy) she
was doing a bit more than just reporting speculation. She seemed to be
presenting an argument.She also hedges her bet as you quoted. Good
for her.I think there was something also on p.345. (Sorry, I don't
have her book here)The point of the article was not to slam Brodie.
I only mentioned her because she is the documentary source that many people rely
upon in this matter. She raised the question. Other historians writing about the
same topic did not.
How is he just an impartial scientist if he's hoping to have his work published?
If he finds a child of Joseph Smith then it'll become that much more valuable
to him. I'd say this is far from impartial.
IRS probably knows about the finances of the LDS Church. Even nonprofits have to
file and are subject to audit. Other than that the top leaders of the church and
those under them entrusted with the running of these businesses know. I've
audited quite a few operations of the church and can attest that they are well
documented and controlled. Most for profit businesses report a tiny fraction of
the total volume of data to the general public and only what is required.
Wouldn't want to give your competitors an advantage. When I worked as controller
of large privately held companies the data was severely restricted to a need to
know basis. The LDS Church follows these sound business practices.As far
as this article goes, Brigham Young DNA proves he fathered many children with
his plural wives and he was a prophet of God. Joseph may have as well. I can
wait for this answer. No hurry.
So who is this evidence for??If we go to great lengths and prove
that Joseph smith's polygamy was non-sexual, we may restore some of the lost
faith in Joseph Smith (there are many other problems for me, but for the sake of
argument). We now have to reconcile Joseph Smith's polygamy with Brigham Youngs
(we aren't debating whether he fathered children with multiple wives), and that
actually scores points for the formerly reorganized Church, not the mainstream
organization. Polygamy was the principle divider between the two sects.
RE: voice of reason & RE: ?, I have a copy of (D&C 17:22,23) The
communion service,which describes the blessing of the bread and the blessing of
the wine, the sacrament of the Lords supper is also found in (D&C
20:75-79). Verses 1-21 of D&C 17 were edited out.Did you know (John
C.)Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded with
the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him about his
troubles with Emma, his wife. He asked me, said Bennett, smilingly, what he
should do to get out of the trouble ? I said, This is very simple. GET A
REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end. (Dr.
W. Wyl, Mormon Portraits: Joseph Smith The Prophet His Family and His Friends,
61-62). JS had 34 wives from 14-56 years old, 11 were still married to other
men, i.e. Orson and Marinda Hyde. Google, remembering the wives of JS.
My GGG Grandmother Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon was sealed to Joseph Smith during
his life time and may have born his child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Dr. Perego
solicited DNA samples from many of my cousins and family members. Since DNA is
harder to trace through feminine genes it still remains a mystery at last
report. I am wondering if Dr. Perego and Sorenson Research is any closer to
solving this mystery. I understand to date all other claimants have been
disproven. Personally, I choose to be the GGG Grandson of Windsor Palmer Lyon.
He is my hero and was a great Latter Day Saint in his own right. He built and
was burned out of Far West, then on to Nauvoo he built again the Lyon Drug
Store. Excommunicated by William Marks unjustly, he remained faithful and
started west with the pioneers. He died in Winter Quarters. Here's to you
Grandfather Lyon and our wonderful Mormon History and heritage!
Dixie Mike "LDS shouldn't take DNA technology too seriously.
Researchers have and have processed DNA samples of all the native tribes of the
Americas, and they haven't found a single Lamanite or decendant of
Lehi."That's not true for several reasons.First,
they're constantly finding "new" tribes along the Amazon that have no
contact whatsoever with the outside world. They're completely closed off and
primitive, and no DNA work has ever been done on them.Second, many,
many tribes have vanished completely over the centuries, even just since
Columbus. Entire languages, cultures and people have been completely wiped out.
I'm not sure how you can establish a DNA profile on these tribes when we only
know of their existence through written records.Third, and this is
the big one, we don't KNOW what the Lamanite/Nephite DNA looked like. We don't
know what the Jaredite DNA looked like. We have no idea what lineage Ishmael,
Sariah or Ishmael's wife had. We have no idea how that DNA mixed with local
populations and dispersed over the years. We can't rule out Lamanite DNA in
American native tribes, because we don't know what we're looking for.
@toosmartforyou, cats, Michael D GrooteThose quick to judge Brodie
critically for writing about possible ancestry that turned out invalid should
remember the change made by the church to the introduction of the Book of
Mormon.On Nov 8, 2007, the Deseret News reported that, "Past
editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book "were
destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the
American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same, but says the
Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."It is wrong to dismiss an entire work based on so little whether it's Know Man
Knows my history or the Book of Mormon.
RE: John CorrillThanks for the enlightenment regarding Fawn Brodies
actual comments about the paternity of John Reed Hancock and Moroni Pratt. Her
recommendation for readers to use considerable reserve regarding her information
is a far cry from the villain some on this board have made her out to be.So much for letting an agenda drive one's understanding of the facts.
The DNA research proves little as far as the polygamy debate is concerned.
Joseph did take plural wives and documentary evidence maintains he had sexual
relations with some of those wives. It does little to dismiss Fawn
Brodie's analysis. Love it or hate it, it will be an important work now and in
the future.I do appreciate the work of this researcher, but I
greatly appreciate his attitude towards discerning the truth. The LDS Church
has nothing to fear from the truth.
James B Young, I believe that pural marriage was 'invented' by God. Lets look at
the Bible. How about Abraham and Jacob, many in the Old Testiment and those in
the New Testiment. As a matter of fact having sent a son to Canada on a mission.
There are those of other Christian faiths that have more then one wife there. A
cousin who went to Africa taught a man with 5 wives who had never read the Bible
and knew nothing of Joesph Smith or the Book of Mormon. Poligamy is not an
invention of Joesph Smith. I read Brodie's book on the prophet as a young woman
and was so offended by her speculation. How can she put thoughts into someone
elses mind? Speculation is an assumption. Guessing what happened and how others
felt is fiction. A LIE!
I'm confused by the reaction of some commenters here who seem to think there are
larger conclusions to be drawn from the results of this DNA research.
Here is what Brodie's book actually says about John Reed Hancock (emphasis
mine):[QUOTE] There is a tradition among some of the descendants of
Levi Hancock that Mrs. Hancock was sealed to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and that one
of her sons may have been his child. Since there seems to be no printed or
manuscript evidence to support this story, however, it must be taken with
CONSIDERABLE RESERVE. [END QUOTE] (pg 464)So we see that Brodie was
actually not convinced of the Hancock family tradition and now, due to this
article, we know that she was correct in her analysis.Also, contrary
to what the article says, Brodie did not say that Moroni Pratt was the son of
Joseph Smith. What she did say was (emphasis mine):[QUOTE] [Mary
Ann Frost's] son, Moroni...may be added to the list of boys who MIGHT POSSIBLY
have been the sons of Joseph Smith [END QUOTE] (pg 484)So, it
appears she was not comfortable making a proclamation one way or the other
regarding Moroni's paternity. Thanks Mr. Perego, for this
Please, sharrona (or anyone on here) answer me this...What was this
comment supposed to mean? It was directed at me and I'll be quite honest I'm a
little lost.--------"RE: A voice of reason. So in
the end, if people feel the church is hiding things... they should try to find
out for themselves how OPEN the church is.I have a copy of (D&C
17:22,23) The communion service,which describes the blessing of the bread and
the blessing of the wine,the sacrament of the Lords supper. Do you?"--------Is this supposed to say that I am either
transgressing or at very least that I am not saying or doing what I should on
here? I'm not sure whether this is a personal attack at me or something to
somehow address the point I made about people being able to access the Church's
historical materials and information.Either way, I will clarify my
comment as I can only guess it was either taken the wrong way or not understood
at all.I simply meant that the Church isn't hiding things and
answers can easily be found.I'm confused and a little concerned.
This is a great article...However, it doesn't really look at the fact that
adoption could've occurred back then. I have several adoptees in my genealogy
and DNA tests would only be able to look at the birth family. I have 2 adopted
children and they are fully part of my genealogy even though they aren't
biological. These people in the past could've adopted babies or children and
kept it a secret, so DNA wouldn't match up.
Dixie MikeThere were close to 4000 different native languages spoken
in the Americas, so that tells me there were quite a few tribes out there. Some
of them have been gone for hundreds of years so how did all of those races get
there DNA tested. Its funny even about a 115 or so years back the white people
didnt even know that there was the Hopi Natives tribe out there in Oraibi
Village. What else is real funny and cool is that just in the past month there
was an unknown tribe of people found in the jungles of Brazil. We as
people like to think that we are know of all things, well we don't. I have
studied about all the DNA testing and the whole Lamanite or Nephite controversy
and to me it really doesnt sway my thinking in anyway. I believe what I believe,
and I am one of those people that years ago I tried to find anything to keep me
away from my LDS faith. Guess what the more I studied the more my LDS faith made
sense and proved to me what was true.
%snowman, As you say, some of the church records and some materials from private
libraries are available, but archives of the Mormon history that tell the rest
of the story are kept under lock and key and not made available for public view
Dixie Mike:I understand your point, but I think that you
misunderstand. The DNA testing is credible in testing the paternity of Joseph
Smith, but not credible for establishing a link to the descendents of Lehi,
because we have a known sample of Joseph Smith's DNA to test, but we have no
such sample of ancient Israelite DNA that predates the Babylonian captivity.
The Lehite population diverged from the gene pool of Israel 2600 years ago.
With so little genetic data, we can neither disprove or prove anything.
I am not LDS but believe plural marriage was initiated by Joseph Smith, and I
have read all of the material and looked at almost all of the evidence
personally and up close. This is a simple caution for some of the snarky
replies. Give some grace, please. Fawn did a great job for the day in some
ways, and her conclusions on the ancestry were probabilities; whether she left
LDS'ism is immaterial to the story. Simply look at the sources and follow them.
The scientist is merely ruling out some of the possibilities, not all or even
most of them, and that is good to do. None of this changes the overwhelming
probability that Joseph Smith initiated plural marriage in Nauvoo. Too many
contemporary first hand accounts from full time players on that scene testified
that he did.
skeptic: The records are open to all who want to do the research.
Alex,The real shock is that with all of the speculation passed off as fact, they
have yet to produce 1 verifiable offspring that didn't come through Emma. That
is the real embarrassment!Zebulon Jacobs was not Joseph Smith's son. Zina
Huntington Jacobs married Joseph on October 27,1841. Henry Jacobs Zinas other
husband was Zebulons father.Oliver Buell was not Joseph Smith's son.
Presendia Huntington Buell married Joseph Smith on December 11, 1841. Joseph
had married her sister, Zina two months prior. Norman Buell Presendias other
husband was Olivers father.
@ Cats, the article was not about DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon. There is
zero DNA evidence to corroborate the Book of Mormon stories.Joseph
Smith had secret polyandrous and polygamous relationships and the relationships
were kept hidden from church members until being exposed by the Nauvoo
Expositor. The Ancestry website has proof of the marriages.
Re: Dixie Mike, You may want to do some further research. DNA has been found to
link some Native Americans to those of the Lamanites. Rod Meldrum has brought
forth such information.
Brodie's book has never been out of print and continues to be the most popular
"biography" about Joseph Smith, even though it mainly qualifies as
biographical fiction. She wrote it to justify to herself her own lack of faith.
Instead of trying to study the evidence objectively, she picked and chose
sources that were obviously hostile because they supported her own prejudices.
Still, she did raise some important questions, which truly qualified researchers
like Bushman have worked to address. Her book was intended to harm the LDS
Church, but I think ultimately it will do more good than she intended.
Ugo Perego was one of my friends at BYU. It's great to hear what he's up to and
that he's doing such interesting and important work.Very interesting
article, Mr. DeGroote. It grabbed the reader in and we followed along with the
clues until we found out the answer at the end. It was fun and was instructive
as to what DNA testing can do for historical research.
LDS shouldn't take DNA technology too seriously. Researchers have and have
processed DNA samples of all the native tribes of the Americas, and they haven't
found a single Lamanite or decendant of Lehi.
Whether or not Joseph Smith is the father to any children other than Emma's does
not really change anything for me. I'm OK either way. Why? It is my deeply
held conviction that plural marriage was a commandment of God, as well as the
commandment to cease, and I am pretty comfortable in that. Now if you believe
the same, it shouldn't be too difficult to accept the reality that married
people frequently have children. There will always be those who will present
speculation as fact, and in the most unflattering way they can.The
real shock is that with all of the speculation passed off as fact, they have yet
to produce 1 verifiable offspring that didn't come through Emma. That is the
Skeptic...that is a good question. While you are on your knees sometime, ask the
Lord for a look into His historical files and those of this descip;les also. I
suppose it depenbds on how you might approch looking at sacred things. Not many
such requests are granted by those who hold them in respect and safekeeping.
Live by Faith like most of us believers are reqauired to do.
I am glad to see the Deseret News publish an article that shows the validity of
DNA testing for proving and/or disproving bloodlines.
RE: the Truth 5:42 p.m.He validated fanny alger and polyandry which
was a shock to my life-long Bishop Father-in-law, but you are correct that he
did not validate Brodie's conclusions. I'll meet you half way.I
think his statement on page 439 of RSR supports my contention that this is not a
closed case:"...nothing indicates that sexual relations were
left out of plural marriages".
zero_limits_33 | 3:02 p.m. July 10, 2011 "So it does seem a little
disingenuous in the manner in which you critiqued her book."I
didn't really critique Brodie's book, I only gave it as a source for why Ugo
Perego investigated the DNA of Moroni Pratt, etc. She raised the issue with
Hancock as well.You are correct, Brodie did not present the
information as strictly "factual." Sometimes, however, she sounded
quite sure in her unsureness.
Sharrona: I think the verses you are looking for is Doctrine and Covenants
20:77,79.Not sure which version of the Doctrine and Covenants you
are using, but it is definately different than the one the rest of us use where
section 17 only has 9 verses.
To EnglishAlan 3:03 pmYou are exactly right. I love your
perspective. It is one that can only come about by reading and praying, as you
indicated. If one is sincere in so doing, the Holy Ghost will testify the
truthfulness of it, and he will receive a witness from God through the Spirit.
Thank you for your enlightening post.
RE: Major Bidamon | 3:10 p.mRepeating someone else's words is NOT
validation.Believing something is true does not make something
true.It appears Joseph Smith was a much better man than his critics
give him credit for.Funny how they rush to believe the words of his
critics, but not him or his friends.
RE: A voice of reason. So in the end, if people feel the church is hiding
things... they should try to find out for themselves how OPEN the church is.I have a copy of (D&C 17:22,23) The communion service,which
describes the blessing of the bread and the blessing of the wine,the sacrament
of the Lords supper. Do you?
RE Joseph Smith's activities: Whether or not Joseph fathered children outside
the confines of the type of marriage the Church currently calls
"traditional" doesn't change or invalidate his teachings or
accomplishments. He was human like the rest of us.RE Church
openness: Where can I find published numbers regarding how much was earned in
Church-owned farming (and other) businesses over the past few years?
I just want to add that in my previous comment... the 'critics sit on the couch
and take spoon-fed opinions' bit wasn't meant to be rude... but simply to say
that most people I've met who criticize the church take their information from
whatever sources are most convenient to them. They don't do their own research,
and if they did actual investigating... they would not only find a different
conclusion... but would find that there is much more to things that T.V. or well
publicized critics of the church usually offer.In retrospect... I
would also LOVE to point out one other thing. I'm would actually say this same
thing about a lot of criticism. I personally believe that we should avoid
passing judgements on others or other groups without either having a proper
place to judge (authority, etc) or without having the most informed background
possible on the topic before making such decisions.So in the end, if
people feel the church is hiding things... they should try to find out for
themselves how open the church is. Most critics I have met who feel the church
hides things have never tried to actually research anything.
I honestly don't know why people are upset with Brodie. Bushman validated much
of what she laid out. In any case, for all sides of this issue, this is far
from a closed area of inquiry.
As a convert to the LDS Church of over forty years I found this interesting, but
not definitive. For me, what is definitive is that I read the Book of Mormon,
and prayed about its authenticity. The Holy Ghost testified of its
authenticity. All else is of interest, but does not sway me one way or the
other. If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph was a Prophet. If Joseph was a
Prophet, the LDS Church is led by a Prophet today. Joseph was a
man, and therefore imperfect. So were Moses, Abraham and Isaiah. Their
imperfections did not prevent the Lord from using them, and it did not prevent
Him from using Joseph. It's the message that needs to be perfect, not the
messenger. It was, even though he was not.
@Michael De GrooteI was not aware of that criticism of Dr. Brodie,
but I can concede that, there was a fair amount of speculation on the thoughts
of Smith. What I am really interested in is the factual evidence/history
presented by Brodie. I do not believe I am mistaken that Richard Bushman came up
with similar facts in his "Rough Stone Rolling" the difference is his
was written from a position of faith.All that aside, my original
point was Brodie was speculating on that Joseph was the father of the child, and
it was not presented as factual. So it does seem a little disingenuous in the
manner in which you critiqued her book.
Thank you, Michael, for the clarification. Those with closed minds, who want to
hate Joesph Smith, will. Those who are willing to believe that Heavenly Father
will speak to a boy, calling him by name, and give him knowledge, understanding
and help, will believe. If there are those sitting on the fence questioning
whether or not any of the things the LDS Church proclaim are true, they need to
read The Book of Mormon with an open heart. Make up your own mind.
Much of what passes for history today is really biased and selective recording
of what was a complex many faceted current event. Too many of the
Relativists/Post Modernists start with a premise or agenda and then cherry pick
what they want to construct a preconceived reality.
For an interesting summary of criticism of Brodie's book on Thomas Jefferson,
there is an article on PBS here:http://to.pbs.org/q2po0nFor an
LDS review of Brodie's book on Joseph Smith, there is an FARMS review article by
the indomitable Louis Midgley here:http://bit.ly/nMNb5G(FYI:
Deseret News staff are allowed to post URLs.)
@skeptic | 12:25 p.m. July 10, 2011 "So why doesn't the church open
their files for research and documentation of the true history and end the
speculation." There are not a lot files to open up on this subject. But as
for the church's openness, take a look at the Joseph Smith Papers project or its
book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. @zero_limits_33 | 12:46 p.m.
July 10, 2011 If I recall correctly, the criticism of Brodie's work on
Jefferson did not center on Hemming, but on often Brodie speculated on what
Jefferson's actual thoughts were. Non-LDS historians were not sensitive to this
mind-reading ability in her book on Joseph Smith, but they didn't like it in her
book on Jefferson.
Quote: "So why dosen't the church open their files for research and
documentation of the true history and end the speculation."I
personally know many and know OF many people who criticize the church. Most of
them sit on a couch, willingly take whatever the T.V. spoon-feeds them about
anything... and they develop their beliefs this way.Those who
actually do take the time to question the church can get their answers.1) The Joseph Smith Papers are an invaluable resource into his daily life.
This is an unparalleled tool for research that can withstand any objective
scrutiny thrown at it.2) The Church publishes the largest resource
on the planet for Genealogy. This is not a 'secret' database.3) Any
legitimate claims people have with the Church... the Church addresses.People would do a lot better to take the time to consider humility, question
whether there really is a God, and in true desire to want to know... kneel down
and pray in hope that an answer will come. More answers would come from this
then all the logical arguments and evidence that can ever be provided on this
planet.Ask and ye shall receive.
I found this article fascinating and very well-written. It read like a
mini-mystery-page-turner. And I find some of the snarky comments on the article
very bland and predictable. I loved the comment of the researcher where he says
he isn't tied to one outcome or another, because just knowing what
"is" is fascinating in itself. Trolling commenters to this article
would do well to remember that. I often find that many comments on an article
involving the LDS Church in any way are negative, petty, and a waste of time.
I am not sure the point you are trying to make. The DNA evidence combined with
the weight of historical evidence, leads us to the conclusion that the father
was most likely Thomas Jefferson.I would say that Dr. Brodie was
fairly accurate, in keeping with my previous post. Just like she was fairly
accurate concerning Smith.
So why dosen't the church open their files for research and documentation of the
true history and end the speculation.
zero limits,I believe that the latest DNA research on Thomas Jefferson
fathering a child with Sally Hemming is that Thomas Jefferson or a close
relative, possibly Thomas' brother, fathered the child. So to say it was Thomas
is likely true, but not definitive. I read this a couple of years ago, so there
may have been subsequent clarification.
Possibly others are not so excited to have Joseph Smith as an ancestor, and have
not come forward?
@ too smart for you,Fawn Brodie may not have gotten everything
right, but did hit the nail on the head. If I recall it was mere speculation
about the offspring of Smith. If I am not mistaken further, much of what Richard
Bushman wrote was in line with what Brodie said. On a side note if
the founding father you are referring to is Thomas Jefferson, she was proven to
be correct that he had an illegitimate child with one of his slaves. Not exactly
an impeachment of the good Dr's historical prowess.
I am personally convinced that history and science have done nothing to harm
Joseph Smith's story. I am becoming convinced that the preponderance of evidence
available today, including the voluminous work on the Book of Mormon, is
becoming powerful evidence that Smith was what he said he was. Certainly, it is
becoming more and more difficult to simply dismiss the BOM as a fraud or
extrapolation of something Smith might have read. Nobody has been able to
formulate a plausible explanation for the BOM other than Smith's and his family
and colleagues' testimony.If you insist that Smith was a fraud, then
you are obligated to explain the BOM's complexity, internal harmony, hebrew
poetry, and volume, all "written" by Smith in 20 weeks while in humble
surroundings. Absent Smith, explain how anybody could have written the BOM in
I read "No Man Knows My History" long ago out of curiosity and I can
see it sitting on my book shelf of to my left. I read it when I was inactive in
the church hoping it would keep me inactive. It was an interesting read, but
much of it seemed to be a well written made up tale, ooops I better get dressed
for church I don't want to be late:)
Interesting effort what a tenacious researcher. And with regard to Ms. Brodie
the title to her book just needs to be expanded to No Man nor Woman Knows My
History, which is true before and after reading the book.
As scarce as truth is, the supply is always greater than the demand. Isn't it
interesting that the opposite is true for frauds and hoaxes (both the supply and
demand are always high)? By that alone, one can usually tell the difference.
Joseph had no other children than those he had with Emma.
Poor Fawn. It's too bad that she chose to sell her birthright for a mess a
pottage.It's so interesting that so much science is now adding more
and more evidence to the truthfulness of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon and
how much so-called science that disputed the Book of Mormon has now been shown
to be wrong.
I have always been amazed at how people are so willing to believe anything,
unless it is true.
Hugh Nibley wrote a response to Faun Brodie entitled "No, Ma'am, That's Not
History." This is additional evidence supporting Nibley's conclusion.
It's really interesting to me how many people years ago put such trust in Fawn
Brodie's work and now that it is being examined more closely, a lot of what she
alledges is absolutely false. Many scholars trusted her regarding Joseph Smith
and then later, after they saw what she wrote about one of the founding fathers,
her credibility went to zero. Another example is how she claimed the account of
the First Vision was a fabrication of Joseph that didn't occur until the mid
1830's, only to have an 1831 version show up. So much for letting an agenda
drive one's research for truth.