Heavenly Mother?

Heavenly Mother implied in Genesis 1.

Christian tradition is replete with referring to God as 'Heavenly Father'   Jesus instructs his disciples on how to pray.. "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...".     So there is a natural tendency to equate God as a Heavenly Father, but what about "Heavenly Mother"?

To start we need to understand why God is sometimes referred to as "Father"..   it comes from the basic definition of 'Father' to be not only a male parent, but a 'creative, origination source'.   Similarly the word "Mother" holds the same sort of definition.. both being a female 'parent' and an originating creative source.

So what would you call a being who is like God the Father, in image, likeness and creative power, but female in persona?  a Heavenly Mother?

Genesis 1.   It's the first chapter of the Bible, and often it's the only chapter people read, and it's full of information, information that gets stepped on by 'Traditions"   So let's examine.

Genesis 1 is a narrative by a narrator, presumably Moses about "God" or 'Elohiem" translated to "God" in English translations.   The word is technically plural word for "gods", but since the verb in the sentence is singular , it's translated as a singular "God".  This narrative follows a pattern.. First we must remember it's a narrator giving a narration about "Elohiem"..  Eloheim (God) is the primary focal person in the narrative, but the narrative is by a narrator.    The pattern of the text follows the following form.. The Narrator tells us something setup of the situation,

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

I choose to use the NRSV here because it was explained in a lecture by Micheal Hesier, a well known Biblical Hebrew Scholar, that the NRSV unlike many traditional English translations more accurately follows the grammatical syntax of the Hebrew.  So as you notice verses 1 and 2 are one sentence, not two sentences as you might find in a KJV.   Which means they combined form a complete thought rather than two thoughts.   The important thing to notice here is 'WHEN'..God created, there is a pre-existing conditions,  the a earth in a state of a formless void with darkness and a deep.. and Water, which the spirit of God moves across..  This is NOT the NOTHINGNESS that is so often taught by Churches who hold to a Ex-Nihlo belief.   But it's not the purpose of this blog to discuss ex-nihlo, just to point out that the Genesis text calls for some pre-existing materials at least.

Then the narrator proceeds to give us a series of Statements God utters, followed up by some actions..that either involve God participating or simply stating their occurrence.. For instance..

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 

Now another thing I would admonish you understanding, when you read the text, remember just because something is not explained in detail of "How it happened" does not mean that nothing besides what you read happened.  And to that point.. there is a ; break between what God 'Said'.. and what the narrator tells us happened.  Just because the narrator doesn't go into detail of how it happens that when God uttered the command.. the light came to be.. doesn't mean that it just happened.   The latter is what many Churches who hold to the ex-nihlo beliefs claim is going on.. God speaks and his will just happens.   But if you pay attention to the text.. it's not making that claim at all.  The narrator just simply didn't find it relevant to the story to explain that detail, since this is a story about 'eloheim'..and what he did. 

Now to support my point.. we notice the first two verses demonstrates that God didn't start out creating in an empty nothingness.. there were things there.. Earth, the deep, and water.   And if you have taken a physics or chemistry class, you'd know light is simply electromagnetic energy, and such would have been present in the water.   But setting that little bit aside... let examine what verse 4 has to share..

 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.   

Now I ask you to ponder this for a moment.   After verse three, where God speaks and then it's reported his will became reality.. He then engages in what I see as a QA (Quality Assurance) exercise..    I develop software, and if my clients say.. Let there be a program to do..  and I create the program and it is..  the client then sees the program and tells me it's good... and I get paid.   So that's what is going on here..  God after his command was issued, now sees the results and declares them good.   If God's will was the ONLY thing involved in bringing forth the light.. what need would God have to 'See his work and declare it good?"  Wouldn't you be suggesting that God's will can error.. that he can by his very words, will something into existence that isn't good?   That just doesn't make coherent sense.. So what we have in verse four, is God validating that what ever forces are at work  (minions, angels, midi-chlorians) fulfilling his will did what he expected and he declares it good.

We see this pattern going on over and over in the first chapter.    Now sometimes God get's involved.. he issues the directive and then follows up with some actions of his own, and sometimes there are no actions.. things just are like the example of light above.  Or so it goes until verse 26.   Verses 1-25 we see God for the most part being a Solo Actor in the narrative, whether or not there are others doing his will, they aren't mentioned.  Only God is mentioned, and his is governing over this creation by himself.   This all changes when we get to verse 26..

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Verse 26 is totally a statement by God.  No actions.. and it's quite different than all the other statements by God thus far.. It's not only the longest statement, but it's one where he reaches out to one or more OTHERS.. When it comes to making man (humankind) he doesn't go at it alone like he was doing in verses 1-25.  He reaches out to others..  And notice that God didn't appeal to the others to help him make man in HIS Image, but it "OUR" image. These others to who he now involves are according to the text, are like God himself.. They share IMAGE an LIKENESS, and creative abilities.  So what does one call a being like God who exists in the heavenly realm who has his image, likeness and creative abilities?   obviously they aren't humans, becasue humans haven't been created.   So they must be beings that in some ways are on par with God himself..

 Now there are those who's religious beliefs immediately force them into the nonsensical assertion of blasphemy to think this, other rationalize that the others here are none other than the Trinity, but that begs the question why wasn't the Trinity mentioned in verses 1-25?   Only when it comes to making humankind..   I think the answer lies in the verse 27. 

Verse 27, is the narrator speaking, not God, and we know he is only concerned with what God does.. no one else.. and he says'

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Here we see that elohiem crates humankind in his image, which BTW is the same image as the US/OUR in verse 26..  And it identifies the humankind as "THEM" , male and female.  The use of the term "Them" ties this back to verse 26..  which is the "Them" which are in the image and likeness of the "US".    Now throughout the narrative. Elohiem (God) is referenced in the masculine gender..  and yet here he creates a 'female' in the image and likeness of the "US".. which suggests that at least one member of the "US" must be female.

So there you have it. .If there is a Female counterpart to God in verse 26 with his image and likeness, who participates in the making of Man, male and female,   what do you call that being other than a "Heavenly Mother"

How the Gospel of Matthew got its name.

How the Gospel of Matthew got its' name, from the lost manuscript of Theodore

In the days when the Bible was being compiled.. the friends of Theodore gathered in the lower room.. All the boys were there.. Eusebius, Alesandro Caponiski, , Michael blue eyes, Homer the homeophilis, Christophe the Robintino, Samuel the sayer, Eugene, Felix, Otis, and Nigellus. And as they gathered, the brought forth one by one the ancient scrolls that contained the words of the Lord.. And it came to pass that one scroll was brought forth, it was well written in Greek by someone who appears to know Jewish tradition, but it had no authors name attached. So they opened discussion:

Theodore: "Al, did you write this?"
Al: "I know nothing about it."
Theodore : "Sam is this you?"
Sam: "Not I, Sam I am, for I don't write while eating green eggs and ham".
Theodore: "Homie, was it you?"
Homer: "No, my schtick is with poetry"
Theodore: "Well someone wrote it.. Who?"
Mikey: "We have to give it a name. It should be someone important!"
Luigi: "How about Jesus himself?"
Theodore: "No we can't use the Lords' name in vain.. If anything in this story proves not to be accurate, that wouldn't look good, and the boss won't like it. We need some plausible deniability here, we need someone else that can be blamed if there is any inaccuracy"
Luigi: "OK, but they still need to be important like an Apostle.."
Christophe: "How about Peter?"
Theodore: "No, we already have a letters by Peter and the writing style is all wrong.. "
Otis: "How about James?"
Theodore: "James has same issue as with Peter"
Felix: "How about John?"
Theodore: "we already have a one text we are attaching John to.. We already have a john so we can't have two Johns' think of the extra plumbing.."
Eusebius: "Well I heard from someone say that there was this guy Papa Papias who said there was this guy Matthew.."
Theodore: "Matthew? Hmmm, wasn't he an apostle? We don't have a Matthew text. hmmm.. what did the Papa say? "
Eugene: "He said Matthew collected the oracles of Jesus.."
Mikey: "Matthew.. I like it."
Theodore: "OK, well this story text isn't exactly a collection of oracles, it's a gospel."
Mikey: "It doesn't matter we are just looking for a name to use."
Nigellus: "But using Matthew might not be the truth".
Mikey: "We are not looking for truth, Nigellus, were setting up a 'Tradition' , people won't know the difference. And besides most people can't handle the truth"
Theodore: "So all in favor of using Matthew say 'I'"
ALL: "Aye"
Theodore: "Ok Matthew it is.. NEXT"


And that son is how the gospel of Matthew got its' name.

CARM Pharisaical Moderation

 In a recent exchange on CARM regarding a certain nefarious youtube video produced by my brother .. I responded to a poster named Magdalena.. A ex-Mormon anti-Mormon.

 Notice I responded to three questions..  Two in the affirmative and one in the negative.. to which I followed up with explanation and two rhetorical questions.

Apparently CARM Moderation deemed my post as  'Evil Drivel' as I received the following infraction..

Dear oceancoast, You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums. Reason: Rule 6: PG Discussions Only Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation. ------- Divisive and evil

Do not waste our time by posting evil drivel --

Let's recap the Rules the moderator claims I violated..

Rule 6: PG Discussions Only
      The discussion was well within PG content,
Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity  
      No blasphemy or insulting remarks were made toward Christianity.
Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 
      There was no links at all.
Rule 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation.
      There was no vulgarities or bad language etc in the post.

As one can clearly see, there was NO violation of any of the rules stated..  It just came down to the moderator not liking the post and declaring it 'Evil Drivel'   Why would they do such a thing, UNLESS of course the post hits the bullseye on the TRUTH about CARM and it's minions..

My precious

In a recent discussion on CARM with the poster Bonnie on the admonishment of Luck 6:31 and the negativity of Anti-Mormonism. She indicated her devotion to the Anti-Mormonism and said simply

  "I will not give up my Anti-Mormonism".

Not withstanding that it strange that she seems to take ownership of Anti-Mormonism.   Quite repeatedly she and others on CARM make the claim that they ARE anti-Mormonism.  I think her comment quite telling of an obsessive behavior.

To be clear our discussion revolved around the admonishment of Christ - 'Do unto others what you would want them to do you." Luke 6:31   It is one of the hallmark teachings of Christians everywhere..

 I asked Bonnie, if she would advocate people attacking and misrepresenting her faith which is Lutheran (LCMS)..  The obvious answer is "No, she would not advocate that at all"..  simply put to say otherwise would be duplicity of mind.. A kingdom divided against itself, and yet despite he readily saying she would not want people misrepresenting and attacking her faith.. She persists in attacking and misrepresenting the faith of others namely, the LDS faith,.  

Now Jesus never attacked other faiths, instead what he was most vocal and outspoken about was Hypocrisy in his own faith.   And even when anti-Mormon is confronted with this apparently hypocrisy of behavior on her part.. she doubles down and declares she will not give up her anti-Mormonism.

I see this as a classic example of the almost drug like addiction that overcomes Anti-Mormons.  It's as if parts of their mental capacity has been short circuited and they can no longer control themselves.  They are addicted in a way.. to their 'Precious" anti-Mormonism.

The Bizarre moderation of CARM.

Infraction Received: Rule 6: PG Discussions Only Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation.

This is one of the more bizarre moderation I have received from CARM.. It's by no means the first, but just about the most bizarre.  Let's examine..   I'm responding to Catherine Aurelia.. You can find more about her here.. 

Rule 6 PG Discussions.   

     CARM wants to keep the forums on a PG level.. Yet nothing in my response is anything but PG.

Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity.  

     My response is specifically addressed to Anti-Mormons, not Christiantiy.. So no blasphemy or insults on Christianity..

Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments

As one can see, my comments have NO Links at all, let alone offensive material. 

41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation

This really is bizarre, there is NO vulgarities in the post.. My only guess is that the CARM Moderation is a few pints short of a six pack when it comes to the meaning of some words like "Flagrant"..  which means to be brazen or shameless. 

I think its worthy to point out their  Rule 3.1 which states..

Matt Slick and Diane S. or administrators reserve the right to alter the board rules at any time necessary to administrating the forums and maintaining peace on the discussion boards. Admins do have responsibility to dealing with management issues and may have reason to use different rules than the forum guests.

Overall I think this just serves to prove that CARM has NO Rules as Matt, Diane or Carm administrators may have reason to USE DIFFERENT RULES than the guests and can CHANGE rules at any time.. Which means at their whim.  So even if you study their rules and try to adhere, they can just not like you and change the rules for no reason other than they don't like what you say.. Which is often, they simply can't handle truth.

I think what's going on here is CARM forums are dying a slow death.. the Post/View raitios barely keep up with the number of posters in a given discussion.  Every post counts as a view, every edit to a post counts as a view.  The post/view rations seems to suggest that only the few that are engaged in the dialog are actually viewing the posts of each other.   There seems to be no more than a dozen participants on the site anymore, the same names that have been there for 10 years...

So as more and more people are becoming aware of the bigotry of CARM, less and less are stopping by and that decline is scaring them.. They depend on donations.

An Anti-Mormon Rorschach test.

In 1921 Herman Rorschach wrote a book called Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the famous inkblot test known today as a Rorschach test.    In a Rorschach test the subject is presented with abstract inkblots and asked to express what they see in each image.

The general goal of the test is to provide data about cognition and personality variables such as motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal/interpersonal perceptions, including needs and base motives.,

In 1972 the LDS church published a FHE manual which included a graphic for teaching young children about the Jesus Christs relationship to God in contrast to our own.. It was a simple graphic as follows:

It must be emphasized that the Churches intent was to illustrate a difference in genealogy as taught in the Scriptures to a young child..

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;- Mark 1:1

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  Matt 1:20-23

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.    - Luke 1:31-35

compare to a typical chart from ancestry.com

But what do Anti-Mormons see in this graphic is quite telling about the psychology of Anti-Mormonism.

In a recent dialog on CARM this was the topic of discussion.   The anti-Mormons branded the graphic as 'Utter blasphemy!' and insisted there is a sexual inference in the graphic.

Yet as any rational thinking observer can see there is no sexual reference in the graphic at all.  No pictures of genitalia, no mention of sex.. nothing whatsoever.. It's merely a genelogical graphic designed for children who would not even know what sex was.  Yet the anti-Mormon persists in insisting that meaning exists in the graphic.

one such poster on CARM that goes by the handle "Bonnie" illustrates the psychology of anti-Mormonism.  When pressed on the objective facts regarding the graphic and it's intended message, to it's intended audience she says' the following statements..

 TO AN IMMATURE LITTLE CHILD. To a young child, it wouldn't be a sexual reference at all. Because they know nothing about that yet.  

I agree that your church is trying to teach genealogy with that diagram and not about how babies are made...it is keeping it very simple for their very young minds to grasp

.
A child's eyes would see one thing in that diagram, but those looking at it through the eyes of an adult would see something more....because adults KNOW more than a little child does. …

I never said there were graphically expressed pictures of the mechanics of how the egg is fertilized, in the picture.

 I have seen what is meant by the graphic and I have acknowledged it, that it was never meant to show HOW Jesus was produced by Mary and God, only to show genealogy . I Never said that those who originally made the graphic meant anything else.

And yet she persists despite all her admissions that their was no intended message regarding anything sexual.. she contends

Doesn't matter what is "objectively" not there,

…there is the UNexpressed idea of the mechanics that PRODUCES 'you."

 adults, who know much more than children, and who have put away childish things, will see more--much more. They will also see HOW that genealogy is passed on from mommy and daddy to the child. They will see the mechanism behind it.

And I DO accept the INTENDED message of the graphic and have said so But what I am talking about is the UNintended message in the little graphic

The unintended Message?   That would be any message but the intended message.  Which would be any message that the person chooses to IMAGINE.. and it seems the Anti-Mormon imagination is fixated on sex, for even as they acknowledge there is no sexual intent in the message the insist on discussing an un-intended message about pro-creation..

about Jesus' conception--that He was begotten in the same way, of Mary and God, as we are begotten of OUR fathers

 as a mature adult I can ALSO see all the implications of that little picture, since I DO know the facts of life and how babies are made by "mommy" and "daddy" to produce "you."

 what they refuse to say plainly, I will say for them--they mean that heavenly father had a sexual union with his own spirit daughter Mary, in her flesh, so she could conceive Jesus.

What they refuse to say plainly?   LDS say what we say.. we don't plainly say what anti-Mormon cook up in their imagination despite even acknowledging the intended message was nothing of the sort..   I think this speaks volumes of the Anti-Mormon psychology.  It really doesn't matter what the objective facts are.. They will manufacture an idea in their imagination and project it at all cost trying to assert it as LDS belief..  I say that's disingenuous. A fraud and a lie on the part of Anti-Mormons.  Which reinforces my opinion that such are not really Christian.. They may call themselves Christian but they deny the very standards Christ taught.

Sex,Lies and Bigfoot

2001, Frontenac State Park, Minnesota: Church Lady Finds Tracks

Church pastor, Miss Janice Pritchett claims that she found Bigfoot tracks in the mud around the shore of Lake Pepin in Frontenac Park. She was unable to photograph them, even though she says she took several good shots of the impressions with her expensive new camera.
When she got the film developed the footprints did not come out. Those pictures were completely black. Pritchett attributes this to the demonic power she thinks Bigfoot possesses. Pritchett often preaches about the ancient evil that threatens her congregants. So no one was surprised or alarmed by her lack of photographic proof.

2009, Hemphill, Texas: Homeowner Terrorized by Bigfoot

Ernie Franklin owned a house near Sabine National Forest in Hemphill, Texas. His small ranch home was nearly isolated down a single lane road. Franklin started composting in a bin outside his kitchen window. As he prepared his meals he would just scrape the unwanted food into the bin.
After a few weeks, Franklin grew tired of cleaning up his yard after various animals got into the compost bin. So he got rid of it
About a week after he stopped the food composting, he was abruptly woken in the middle of the night by a thumping on his roof. He grabbed his shot gun and rushed outside to see what was on his roof. He just caught a glimpse of a dark figure leap off the sloping one story roof.
Shining his flashlight around for about 10 minutes, Franklin was convinced the animal was gone. He went back inside. But he was unable to go back to sleep because the rest of the night rocks hit his roof and there was a bloodcurdling howl from right outside his house.
In the morning, Franklin found Bigfoot prints in the dirt around his house. He figures that the Bigfoot came to rely upon his compost bin and when it found it gone, it grew frustrated and angry. After that one night, the Bigfoot never returned.

1893, Melissa Lott claims wife in very deed.  

Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

1893, Emily D. Partridge rooms .. 

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

Joseph Nobel wrote.. 

 In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

Keunu Reeves Paternity.

Karen Sala had alleged that Reeves was the father of her four adult children and was seeking $3 million a month in spousal support and $150,000 a month in retroactive child support.

What do these all have in common?   They are CLAIMS being made without corroborating evidence as to their truthfulness.  Now the lack of corroborating evidence is OK when your are BELIEVING in some supernatural being.. or Big Foot.. but when it comes to making claims against someone.  We hold a jurisprudence that holds that someone is innocent until proven Guilty.    This Jurisprudence is founded upon Biblical precedent..

Biblical Standard of truth

When charging someone with a wrong doing the Bible gives us a standard..

A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained. - Deut 19:15

Matt records that Jesus affirms this rule..

 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. - Matt: 18:15-16

And Paul affirms this as well in his letter to the Corinthians.

Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 2 Cor 13:1

CARM and the anti-Mormons.

In recent days the CARM anti-Mormon minions have been on a parade with the claims of Joseph Smith having sex with his wives in an effort to claim Joseph Smith committed some wrong doing.. Either by claiming adultery or a bigamist, even worse, a pedophile, sexual molester..    And yet not one shred of evidence has been put forth that meets the Jurisprudence and Biblical standard for truth.   In fact we have more evidence fot the existence of Big Foot than we do for the claim of Joseph Smith having sexual relations with anyone but Emma Smith...

And its a sexual relationship that is required for any of the claims of adultery, bigamy or sexual molestation to have any credence.   If Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma, then adultery is out of the question.. So is Bigamy, for even if his a religious sealing is viewed as a 'marriage' within the ideals of the LDS Faith..  There is no marriage certificate, or consummation etc, then it's not a marriage by civil standards and thus no Bigamy..  And of course the fallacious pedophilia charge that some Anti-Mormons who seem to have crawled out of the sewer make.. is impossible if there is not sex involved.

This preoccupation with sex seems to be a theme with Anti-Mormons... see the Rorschach test  post.
Nevertheless, many of the arguments and charges of wrong doing by Joseph Smith boils down to whether or not he had sex with anyone but Emma.   And the facts remain, there is no uncorroborated evidence of any sexual relation with anyone but Emma.  None. period.

Yes, there is claims as stated above, a half dozen or so..  Women making claims that their child was the product of a union between they and Joseph Smith,   Its a common claim for a woman make false claims as to he paternity only for DNA evidence to prove the claim false.   Even today as we see the same as mentioned in the leader..Ms Sala claiming Keunu Reeves fathered her children..She claimed in her affidavit," Reeves uses hypnosis and disguises himself as different people, including her ex-husband,"  

As to date not a single claim made about Joseph Smith father a child that can be tested via DNA has been proven true.   A few non-testable claims remain.   Including claims made in affidavits during a court trial about legal rights to the Temple Lot, in Missouri.   None of these testimonies have been corroborated and remain merely a claim, not proof of anything.

Therefore it remains, the jurisprudence and biblical standard applied to the evidence against Joseph Smith .. he is innocent of the alleged wrong doing..  And I believe a true Bible believing Christian who truly believes what Christ admonished, would agree..   He may be guilty of some wrong doings, but having sex with anyone but Emma is not one of them.

So to all those who believe the uncorroborated claims about Joseph Smith sexual activities.. Do you also believe in Big Foot?