There are many critics of not only Joseph Smith, but Dr. Ugo Perego as well. At Wheat & Tares, commenter Mike (and apparently others have raised this question as well) posed a question wondering if Emma had sex with one or more of Joseph Smith’s brothers, would that affect Dr. Ugo Perego’s test results? The simple answer is it would have zero impact on Dr. Perego’s results. Here’s why.
I don’t like Mike’s assertion (and I’ve been told it is popping up in ex-mormon rumor mills), but for a moment let’s assume that Mike is right: Emma was fooling around with Joseph Smith’s brothers. Even if this were the case (and there isn’t a hint of historical evidence to think this was remotely true), it simply wouldn’t matter with regards to Dr. Perego’s DNA test results, which state that 0% of Smith DNA has been found in any of the potential children.
Let me repeat, even if Emma had sex with Joseph Sr., Hyrum, Don Carlos, William, Samuel and gave she gave birth to a child of Joseph’s brothers, all the while Joseph Smith is completely clueless (or somehow didn’t care) to this improbable scenario, 0% of Smith DNA was found in Josephine Lyon, John Hancock, Oliver Buell, etc. That rules everyone in the Smith family out. It simply doesn’t matter if their DNA is confused because 0% of their DNA is in the suspected children. None. Not only has the entire Smith family been ruled out as father of the potential children in Dr. Ugo Perego’s test, but the real father has been identified (Parley P. Pratt, Levi Hancock, Windsor Lyon etc.) It is not simply ruling Joseph or the Smith family out, it is ruling Parley in, Levi in, Windsor in, etc. It simply doesn’t matter if Emma had sex with anyone outside of Joseph. Smith DNA is nowhere to be found, and the father of Josephine Lyon has been identified, and it is Windsor Lyon. The father of John Hancock has been identified as Levi Hancock. The father of Moroni Pratt has been identified as Parley P. Pratt. Cases closed.
So even if this highly unlikely scenario is true, Emma’s sexual habits simply don’t matter at all since the entire Smith family has been ruled out and the real fathers have been ruled in and identified.
What’s bothers me that most in this ridiculous conspiracy theory is that it seems to be an attempt (1) to discredit Dr. Perego’s results by throwing up a diversion while (2) impugning the Smith family as sexually licentious. I know that several in the ex-Mormon community have no problem throwing Joseph under the bus, but it seems especially insidious to accuse Emma of being licentious as well. There isn’t even a hint of Emma having sex with any of Joseph’s brothers in any journals, records, newspapers, etc. None. I find such “brainstorming” extremely distasteful and beyond ridiculous. The science is settled. If you don’t understand the issues, read them. They are published and these questions are not only distasteful, but the issues are completely settled.
That leads into my next episode. Dr. Perego discusses a particular critic who said several derogatory things about Dr. Perego, as well as the Smith family.
Ugo: You have to understand that there are people here. No matter how curious you are about history, and how much of a National Geographic experience it is for you, or a Discovery Channel, whatever it is, there are real people involved. People that are alive, people that are descendants of these individuals, and they have a relationship with their ancestors that is a lot different than you have with them. You look at them as historical figures that you can trash, play with, speculate, say whatever you want about them. But to some people, that’s family. They feel very tender about their ancestors. They are here on the earth because these people existed. You have to have that respect. You have to build that trust.
Very likely I met individuals who introduced me to other individuals to be able to—and I feel very much part of the family with regards to [be] more than a friend. They welcomed me with regards to Josephine descendants and the trust that they had bestowed on me, but also with Joseph Smith descendants.
…
I always try to be very respectful and think about besides the DNA that you see on a computer or the kit, or the history that there are actual real people alive with sentiments, with feelings, with concerns, with worries about privacy, about misuse of data. All it takes is one bad example or occurrence and then you kind of ruin their trust, and I value that.
So when Scott was working and had this approach, his approach, and this is what the Josephine descendants told me, his approach totally turned them off. They were absolutely not interested in working with him because of the way he approached the research, the project.
Find out more of who Scott is, and what his issues were with Dr. Perego here. Do you agree that trashing the Smith family is unfair and unseemly? Comments?
Wheat & Tares 
I frequent all the ex-Mormon forums I know of and this is the first I’ve heard of Emma’s alleged infidelity. I think exmos are generally too skeptical to accept such a rumor as true without a shred of supporting evidence, given our experiences with unsupported truth claims in the past.
Hey Mike, in case you didn’t catch it the first time: 0% chance.
Good job Rick, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this segment in DNA.
Morgan, good to “see” you! Thanks for commenting and I’m glad to hear you are enjoying the podcasts!
Thomas, thanks for the note. This is one of the most outrageous theories I’ve ever heard.
As someone who loves and admires Emma, I find this entire topic hugely distasteful and on the level of conspiracy theories.
For clarities sake though, I think this article missed the point of what was argued here on W&T. Mike’s argument was that (possibly) Joseph was sterile and/or castrated and that is why he never fathered any children with his polygamous wives – thus the fathers are of course the other gentleman. The argument is meant to fight against all those who loudly proclaim that Joseph was entirely monogamous (which it doesn’t seem likely W&T readers believe anyway…). To prove/disprove Mike’s theory what Mike needs to know is if Emma’s children were fathered by someone other than Joseph as this is proof of Joseph’s sterility. As Emma’s children’s descendants absolutely have Smith DNA, Mike wants to know if Dr. Perego can prove that this DNA means Joseph is the father or is it equally as possible based on DNA alone that Hyrum, Don Carlos, William, etc. were the fathers?
I’ve seen Alvin’s name brought up in the conversation several times and that one I just don’t get. Joseph was 17 when Alvin died and I believe didn’t know Emma yet. Anyone know why his name keeps getting thrown out there?
Alvin gets listed along with every other Smith, and to make the point that it really is impossible.
The Infants on Thrones guys have been posting and pushing this theory, so thomaskinrade you are just hanging out with a better class of anti-Mormon.
As with most Mormon critics, when they can’t win an argument, they just throw up red herring after red herring so they don’t have to deal with the truth.
Great post! Thanks. One should admire Emma for all she had to endure.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the case that a DNA sample is required to show whether a given male is the father of specified children? If that is so, then a DNA sample from Joseph Smith would be required to show whether he fathered any children. That seems to me the point of Mike’s argument. Without the information obtained from an actual Joseph DNA sample, if required, you are left assuming Joseph was the father of Emma’s children. That is a reasonable assumption, but nevertheless, an assumption.
I appreciate the fact you donât get into major bad discussions with anyone with a hateful agenda. I am a GG granddaughter of John Doyle Lee and 1st Vice President of his organization and the Leeâs Ferry Foundation. You can imagine the discussions I get into and have to keep them civil. 🙂
Lenny W. Brinkerhoff
I am just as happy as anyone to hear this news. I trust DNA more than history. This science shuts us critics up way better than a library full of of journals and writings, regardless of their access. In polite Southern company I might expect to be thanked for implying hard questions, the answers to which put us in a strong position on this point. I accept correction, clarification and being mistaken. Sometimes it takes repetition to comprehend it. Thank you MorganW.
However, I did not make myself very clear. For this I ask for your forgiveness. And I will rejoice again to hear a good strong answer to my greater question. Even twice.
Do the DNA studies undertaken to date by Dr Perego (or anyone else with scientific credibility) exclude Hyrum Smith (born 1800 and died in Carthage jail with the Prophet Joseph Smith) ) or any of their other brothers from being the fathers of Emma Smith’s children? (Not the children of various plural wives. Different question.)
Red Herrings:
I group the children Of Emma Smith into two categories for the purposes of this question:
Group A- Children born before the possible castration and all died very young leaving no descendants. That would be Alvin, and twins Thaddeus and Louisa. Are the locations of their remains known and are/were they in good enough shape to be tested?
Group B- Children born after the possible castration and most of them left many descendants. That would be Joseph Smith III, Frederick, Alexander Hale, David Hyrum and another later child who died very young Don Carlos named after his uncle Don Carlos. (One permutation of this group of questions: Is Don Carlos the father of Don Carlos?)
Joseph Smith III as I mentioned is exceptionally interesting because he was conceived near the time of the possible castration. If he was a full term baby then he was conceived before that unpleasantness (making him the only one with living descendants conceived BEFORE the unpleasantness) but if he was about a month or so premature it is plausible that he was conceived after that unpleasantness and we have no known living descendants from that period.
There could be other unpleasant events lost to history and yet other explanations of infertility. This is only one plausible scenario with some historical evidence.
Another question (bright red herring for some) : Where are the girls? What is the probability of having 7 boys in a row? About 1.6 in a 100? (Maybe still in the pre- existence).
****
As to the allegation that the exmos are picking up on my uniquely horrible ideas and running with it; this brings to mind an old ditty, slightly altered to fit these circumstances: “Where have all the exmos gone, long time passing?” My gosh, has digitalization turned the young minds of exmos into such mush that a dim-witted and nearly senile crackpot like myself can generate an idea founded on new technology they have not already considered? I think not. Back in the days of Fawn and the Tanners and Decker et.al. they came up with their own ideas in great abundance. That was mild compared to the 19th century exmos who used both the pen and the sword (gun) to make their points or rather bullet points in some cases.
*****
Finally, I request you ask yourselves why does this discussion seem to raise such intense emotions? Would it be any different if we were talking about the children of say Jacob Cochran? (A New England polygamist, some of whose followers had interactions with early Mormon leaders). Is it because we have elevated the Prophet Joseph Smith into some kind of demigod? Is it impossible for us to even consider him doing (more) detestable things? Do I detect a little idolatry manifest among the ranks? He was human; he made big mistakes. What were they?
Why does it seem to make sense collectively to throw Brigham Young under the wagon and yet idolize Joseph Smith? Both of them had enormous influence on our religion and it is debatable as to which had the greatest influence. Both made big mistakes. I think if we are to move the worship at the LDS church towards Christ where it needs to go, we are going to have to move it away from the primary emphasis being on the deeply-flawed founders. Searching for their mistakes is part of this process for me.
In the end I am trying to ask scientific questions that are now potentially answerable. One of them has been answered. Can we make it two for two?
*****
ReTx: Thank you for the clarification of what I am asking.
Two Alvins:FYI
1- Older brother and protege to the Prophet whose early death in 1823 from mercury poisoning administered by a quack doctor later played a role in the doctrine of redemption of the dead who did not hear the gospel while alive. His death was a couple months after the first visit by Moroni. His body was exhumed about a year later by his father and brothers. Why is another controversy.
(For the record Emma was 1 1/2 years older than Joseph and only ~5 years younger than Alvin. Their age difference is not unreasonable -25 and 20 yrs old. But they lived hundreds of miles apart. Why not include him for completeness sake, if feasible?)
2-Oldest son of Emma and presumably Joseph who was born and died the same day in 1828, contemporary to Martin Harris losing the 116 pages of the B. of M. This Alvin would have been conceived in Sept 1827 about when Joseph was finally given the golden plates by Moroni on his fourth visitation.
(They could be the same person if you believe in reincarnation).
See wiki articles on all of these people.
Mike, people are used to hearing about any number of possible detestable things Joseph Smith did. The argument is distasteful because you are accusing Emma Smith of long-term adultery without evidence and don’t even grasp that it is entirely inconsistent with the historical record. You seem to be working under the hypothesis that Joseph was having sex ALL THE TIME, and therefore the only reason he did not have children with plural wives was because he was obviously infertile. You didn’t even think twice about throwing Emma under the bus by suggesting she was *constantly* unfaithful to a man who was *constantly* unfaithful to her.
As far as boys? One of my ancestors had 11 boys and 1 girl. It happens. And, btw, it was incredibly common in 17th, 18th, and 19th century Early America and the UK to reuse family names (including siblings). If a baby is named after the husband’s brother, it is *not* evidence that the wife was sleeping with said brother.
Alternate solutions to Joseph’s lack of children from plural wives? Umm, birth control, abortions, or *gasp* maybe he wasn’t having as much sex as everyone thought? How dumb. Let’s go with Emma sleeping around.
Mary Ann:
You and many others don’t seem to grasp the difference between historical records and hard science like DNA. Every generation rewrites and interprets history to suit their own needs. The historical record often tells us more about ourselves than anything that happened in history. It is part chronology and part interpretation which is inherently creative. Much of the history I was taught as a school boy in the Utah public education system is considered wrong today. And my dad had the same experience. I used to argue with him and now we are both wrong. How many times can you count when the contemporary media, one of the foundations upon which history is constructed, paints us Mormons inaccurately? * Dewey won the election of 1948 and Clinton was all but guaranteed to win in 2016. And everyone acts surprised. Fake news is as old as war and some of the historical record is an uncorrected accumulation of it. Sorry, if my faith in the historical record is shaky.
What I desire to know is what recent DNA science can prove to us INDEPENDENT of the historical record. I want to know if DNA can prove that Joseph not Hyrum (or visa versa) was the father of Emma’s children entirely independent of any historical record. That is a very powerful piece of information. So far everyone is getting mad at me for asking the question while it goes unanswered. (Which leads me to suspect the answer is no it can’t- but now I am speculating- which is only uncontested if you go with the majority opinion). And so we are left with our best guess, that would be the historical record.
As far as Joseph having sex all the time. OK, he was married to least 30 women. In our culture marriage is the expected context of sex. Sexless marriages except in the elderly are considered abnormal. And everyone thinks me crazy to not assume there was no sex or just a tintsy little bit of sex? And there is the quote I can’t find the source, from Eliza R. Snow- if you knew Joseph like I knew Joseph… And the one from Jeddy Grant – well, I’d better skip that one, there may be underage readers.
My understanding is that the recent DNA work indicates all of the accepted descendants of Emma Smith had the same father. And this father is different from the fathers of the handful of accepted /suggested (now refuted) children of the plural wives of Joseph Smith. Is that true?
I agree about the naming practices. For about 5 generations large families on one of my lines in Appalachia named all the boys John and and all the girls Ann. Then they gave them nicknames which changed over time. It is likely that some of them are sealed to uncles/aunts or nephews/nieces and maybe even cousins. Not their real spouses in life. It didn’t help that a few also married their cousins. I did not suggest the Don Carlos connection as proof, but only as irony if proven.
And finally you do make the classic logical flaw to overstate what I proposed as a question, to be a conclusion and then claim it to be ridiculous. I raise the question that Emma might have been sleeping with one brother if her husband was infertile (a near Biblical practice) and it was important to have a large posterity. Determining which one requires us to consider each brother individually in turn. I ask the question of the DNA testing, did it prove or not prove it? Not the historical record. And I did not exclude abortions and I am unaware of effect birth control measures at that time aside from abstinence or an unreliable rhythm method.
My sister the marital therapist says something I don’t always agree with: “You are as sick as the one you are with.” There is a tendency for spouses to have or develop similar faults. Whether they are originally attracted to people with complementary faults or develop them under their constant influence is not the point. A woman with a cheating husband seems to be at risk for doing the same thing, perhaps in a different but similarly serious way. Doesn’t prove anything, only raises a question for further consideration. I think Emma Smith had some serious personal issues, to say the least. Nothing surprised me any more about Joseph Smith and I feel the same way about his spouse, Emma. And my hope is that DNA can better settle some questions in these historical figures.
You appeal to the historical record and at the same time you admit that the DNA studies disprove the historical record. You know, the part about how these descendants of Joseph Smith and his plural wives not actually being his descendants. DNA demonstrates the fallibility of the historical record. How far does it go? How far can it go if we start digging? Which parts of the accepted historical record can or will endure the sword of DNA truth and which will fall?
*You need look no further than the largest newspaper in Utah, the Salt lake Tribune. The Deseret News a is almost as inaccurate in the opposite direction. Within the last week we find an inspirational story about how the Houston temple was spared flooding. Oops, it flooded the next day. What else do they get wrong that we can’t verify?
Mike, Not “everyone”, but, of course, you didn’t mean that literally.
Mike, You seem to be making things up. Ever hear that Bigfoot was the love child of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger? Yeah, me neither, but your theory is just as stupid. (If only we could get a DNA test to prove it once and for all!) Please drop it. You’re embarrassing yourself with this stupid, irresponsible, wild speculation.
Mike, in the Josephine Lyon testing, descendants of both Hyrum Smith and Joseph Smith were included. Does that prove Joseph’s descendants were not from Hyrum? Well, that wasn’t really the goal of the project, but I suspect Peregro might’ve noticed something weird if Hyrum, not Joseph, was truly the ancestor. But that doesn’t rule out the other brothers, right? Do you understand you’d be asking those descendants to prove their ancestors weren’t sleeping with Emma just to satisfy your own curiosity? The existing DNA tests have been done because there was historical evidence (if only rumors) suggesting those children might’ve been Joseph’s. It would be incredibly difficult to do this type of testing and get the support of descendants without having real historical evidence to back up the theory.
The emotional reaction is because women have traditionally been collateral damage in historical debates about polygamy. Think, really *think,* about the wider implications of your theories. You automatically assumed the pushback was because some of us didn’t want to believe something bad about Joseph. You didn’t even suspect that we were calling the theory distasteful because of the impact to Emma. Where does that suggest your focus *really* is in pursuing this theory?
I am going to ask that mike be banned from from commenting. He has had his five minutes of fame and it’s time to end NOW!
Mike, give me a DNA test proving you are The. Love child of Dolly Parton and Harold B Lee, then I will think about allowing you to comment. Until then don’t comment anymore
Mike, I think something that might help you understand why there is push back to your theories/requests is the difference between probability and possibility. You seem to lean toward hard science (e.g., DNA) so I would think you would prefer discussing probabilities rather than possibilities. Anything is possible. For example, it is possible you are an alien sent from Tigidon, the fourth planet in the star system Pyrgesus; however, considering all the evidence we have at our disposal, that does not seem like it is probable. In fact, it has a probability being as close to zero as possible without actually being zero.
There is literally no evidence, contemporary or modern, for what you are suggesting. It is far, far more probable that Joseph is the father of Emma’s children than that some other man is their father. Sure, it’s possible that your claim holds true, but then if we had to disprove every possibility in life we would do nothing but spend our time disproving every crackpot, quacky, theory any loon could conceive. Just as it is possible you are an alien sent from Tigidon, it is possible that Joseph is not the father of Emma’s children. Neither one is at all probable, so we’ll spend as much time entertaining your theory as we would searching for evidence to disprove your alien status – zero.
MH, it appears that Mike has an emotional need that overcomes his ability to think. That happens sometimes. Lets hope he can do better on a different thread.
Cody, remember that no one can tell you are a dog on the Internet also probably goes true for aliens from Tigidon.
This is why people get so snarky in apologetics, and why I had to get away from it.
I already know Mike’s response to Cody’s comment.https://giphy.com/embed/ToMjGpKniGqRNLGBrhu
via GIPHY
It’s not just a possibility that Mike is a crackpot, it is a 99.999999% probability.
By the way Stephen, are you calling Mike an apologist?
Engagement apologetics fails again.
In order to develop a full apologetic argument to disprove the possibility of Mike’s argument we’d need to address (1) the cause of Joseph’s infertility (medical or via castration that Fawn Brodie hypothesized Joseph was threatened with yet never was subjected to, which claim of threatened castration Bushman doesn’t believe has merit), and (2) the proximity of Emma to each of Joseph’s four eligible brothers (Hyrum, Samuel, William, and Don Carlos) about 8-10 months before the births of each child. The problem is, Mike doesn’t trust historical records, so even *that* effort would be futile. Which is unfortunate, because I don’t think it’d be that hard to find at least one brother in each of the time windows. But the probability of finding the *same* brother in each of those time windows of 8-10 months before the births of each child would be more difficult, I think. If someone could come up with that, it’d form an *actual* basis for this unlikely theory. Again, though, it wouldn’t mean anything to people who don’t trust historical records.
Not a word about the Smith family, I promise.
I appologize for going too far and being contrary in this discussion. Polygamy is a big issue for me since it did extensive damage in my family and continued far after 1890. I admit to being emotionally attached to a great extend. Perhaps too much for polite conversation. I want to be proven wrong by the DNA! Of course, the historical record is highly probable but not in the same league as DNA. Below is an effort to be rational and demonstrate that I do not want to be kicked off of this site. My other option is to not respond any more (kick myself off) which feels wrong to me and presumes pettiness in others.
***
I tried to understand the molecular biology better. Here is what I found. Correct me if wrong.
The Y chromosome is passed from father to son unchanged except once every 100s or 1000s of years a mutation might happen at any given site. So a lineage of fathers and sons across several generations will have the same genes on the Y chromosome at almost every site.
Many specific locations on the DNA have been identified. I think of these like addresses. All of our DNA has the same map, sort of like all the small Mormon towns had the same grid system in pioneer Utah. But different houses were at each address depending on the town and different genes are possible at different sites.
STRs-short tandem repeats are located at specific addresses and are used because they are bigger and easier to measure than a single base pair. These are places where one base pair is randomly repeated 5 or 10 or 20 times or maybe more. The exact number for one person at one address might be say 14 or 22 or some other similar and useful number. All of the sons of one father will have the same number of STRs (maybe a 14) at that address on the Y chromosome for many generations.
Each of many STR’s has been determined in maybe 1000’s of people and each length has a known frequency in specific populations. At one address or site: the STR of 11 might have a frequency of say 2%, STR of 12 might be 5%, STR of 13 might be 0.3% and so forth for as many as might be found in a population.
Dozens if not hundreds of these addresses of STRs are known and many are named to resemble (to me) car license numbers. The molecular biologists has/comes up with a long list of these addresses or sites with known STRs lengths and frequencies and goes to the lab to test the individuals for each of them. This not as hard as it used to be because commercial kits are available for many sites and technicians do this dozens if not more times every day. Computer data bases and programs speed up the process. I don’t know about controls but expect they are done and assume they are robust.
This example is totally made up to illustrate what I am trying to explain:
Person: Mike
Site ED456- STR 12 repeats- Freq. for 12 is 4%
Site RT4333- STR 23 repeats- Freq. for 23 is 5%
Site VB763- STR 14 repeats- Freq. for 14 is 0.2%
Site EHD122- STR 21 repeats- Freq. for 21 is 9%
and so forth for dozens to hundreds of sites.
Two people who have the same father or grandfather through the male line and so forth back will have the same results for the same sites (12, 23, 14, 21 in my example above.)
By multiplying the frequencies together one gets a probably that a match is due to a genetic relation and not just a coincidence due to random luck. The probability that it is due to randomness can be 1 in the millions or billions if enough sites are tested. This probability for just the 4 sites made up above to happen twice in a row is about 3 in 10 million. A strongly differentiating site has a lowish but not too low of frequencies to seldom be found for many different lengths that adds up to near 100% if possible.
***
I am assuming that Dr Perego used Y chromosomal STR’s for the families in which he is interested. That all of the brothers from one father would have the same signature (12, 23, 14, 21, etc. in my example above) and so forth down for many generations. This would give the results that are being described.
That Y chromosomal DNA STRs are the same from descendants of 2 founder brothers in a study of an extended family of interest with the same father. And that to tell the descendants of two brothers apart by looking at Y chromosomes in the descendants living 5 or 10 generations later, would be impossible with this method.
Other methods seem to require a sample from each founding brother to differentiate their descendants using the somatic genetic differences which reassort every generation during meiosis. This complicates the analysis which I did not research. Unless there is another method which I didn’t find in my search and I would be delighted to be pointed in another direction.
Was there another method used? It seems like an honest question involving none of the atrocities I have been accused of committing previously for which I apologize. If not I think I have answered my questions and hopefully added something of value in this discussion if anyone can look past my personal weaknesses.
Mike, in previous investigations into possible sons of Joseph Smith with plural wives, the Y chromosome was indeed used. In the case of Josephine Lyon, however, autosomal DNA was necessary since she did not inherit the Y chromosome. From the Deseret News article I linked to on the other post:
“He noted that 55 DNA samples, mostly from direct descendants of Joseph Smith and Josephine Lyon, with a few from Hyrum Smith and other Lyon lines used as controls, were collected for the study.
Autosomnal DNA was produced and compared to support recorded genealogical records, first within the Joseph Smith and Josephine Lyon families to validate the genealogical records and biological relationships, and second between the two families to investigate a possible biological connection between Joseph Smith and Josephine Lyon.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865656112/Joseph-Smith-apparently-was-not-Josephine-Lyons-father-Mormon-History-Association-speaker-says.html
So, based on what I’ve been told and researched on my own, while autosomal DNA is indeed distinct for each sibling (as opposed to the Y chromosome which is relatively identical for each brother), figuring out the particular combo of genes for each sibling would be next to impossible relying *only* on descendants 5 or so generations out. We would likely have to rely on your favorite method: digging up dead bodies to identify the particular autosomal DNA of each of the five eligible Smith sons (Joseph, Hyrum, Samuel, William, and Don Carlos). Even then, it’s possible the limited amount of original Smith DNA in a living descendant might not be enough to differentiate between the brothers. That would mean we’d have to likely dig up the bodies of Joseph’s alleged children to conclusively rule out the other brothers as fathers. So, basically, it’s very unlikely you would ever be able to prove or disprove the infertile Joseph/adulterous Emma theory based on DNA testing alone.
Hey Lenny, my post tomorrow is on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We don’t talk about John D. Lee, but I hope you will find it interesting. (Tomorrow commemorates 160 years.)
Ok. Thank you . My questions are answered (actually unanswered). We go back to the historical records which is the best we have. DNA is not the crystal ball. (Yet?)
Thank you again. On to the Mountains Meadows Massacre and see If I can get slaughtered there .