Josephine Sessions

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

Droopy wrote:None of his "polyandrous" sealings appear to have included a sexual aspect.


And your evidence for this assertion is? We have one plural wife saying she knew he had children by other married women, one married woman saying she didn't know if her son was her husband's or Joseph's son, and one married woman explicitly telling her daughter that she was Joseph's daughter. If you have evidence that "none of his polyandrous sealings included a sexual aspect," I'm all ears. Let's hear it.

As to his traditional plural marriages, even there, based on the utter dearth of living descendants, there appears to have been a substantial restriction in sexual relations.


So, the 13 women who said they had sex with Joseph were, what, mistaken?

That's just how it stands, from a strictly historical perspective.


Maybe to someone who needs things to stand that way, but not for those of us dealing with reality.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Droopy »

Darth J wrote:
Oh, okay. Four decades ago, you took kung fu classes for a few years.


Forty years ago I was 14 years old. I didn't begin training until 1974, and continued through 1979.

Oh, of course. Some of us had to manage with actually really doing it, but how can that compete with reading Black Belt magazine and watching Hong Kong kung fu porn?


Roughly five years, and difficult and spotty sometimes, considering I had to travel from San Diego to L.A. after 1977 to train with my Sifu.

And I still haven't figured out what the "Kung Fu Porn" genre is. I asked you once, but you declined to answer.

No s***. All of this mythology and folk tale stuff about martial arts is conjectural. But to be fair to what you really said, you said it did not exist, based on: you had never heard of it. This merely begs the question of why you should have heard of it.


All of it surely isn't conjectural. For example, while the Song Shan mountain temple still exists (rebuilt several times, of course), the famous Fukien temple, which is the center of so much martial world legend and history, as yet to be archaeologically or historically documented. Its very well attested in oral and written martial arts history, as are a number of its key figures, but while suggestive artifacts have been found in one area, the temple itself (which was supposed to have been destroyed in the early 18th century) has never been conclusively identified.

Right, right. Like asserting that Tang Soo Do is from Okinawa and that Tae Kwon Do and Tang Soo Do don't borrow their hyung from Shotokan karate, and then proving yourself wrong.


What I showed was that the origins of Tang Soo Do are hotly contested, with martial arts historians from both Japan, China, and Okinawa claiming primacy. Shotokan Karate is a young, early 20th century form, and based primarily upon Okinawan Karate which is of southern Shaolin origin, and is like Taekwondo (or the other modern composite Korean styles, such as Hapkido, Hwa Rang Do, and Kuk Sool Won) in fundamental outline and basic techniques, while Taekwondo contains a large number of divergent, alternate elements and approaches (including the very dynamic and articulate kicking techniques). While there may have been some borrowing, Taekwondo is known to have been assembled from earlier Korean forms, now not extent. There were also influences from Judo, other forms of Karate, and Chinese martial arts).

My own experience with Tai Tzu Chang Chuan and My Jong Law Horn (which, in particular, I deeply regret not being able to pursue after the late seventies) gave me an excellent grounding in the core of the traditional Shaolin martial arts (as descended, in the case of My Jong Law Horn, from the Jing Mo (Ching Wu) school), for which I will be grateful my entire life.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _beastie »

Droopy might as well start spinning a new tale soon. Given the number of years that has passed since the Sessions testing began, we can safely assume that the results are in. And if the results were negative, we would have heard about it long ago. They are stalling for time, trying to figure out how best to contain the inevitable bomb.

And if enough time passes, droopy will claim that he never had a problem with Josephine being Joseph's biological daughter, anyway.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Droopy »

beastie wrote:Droopy might as well start spinning a new tale soon. Given the number of years that has passed since the Sessions testing began, we can safely assume that the results are in. And if the results were negative, we would have heard about it long ago. They are stalling for time, trying to figure out how best to contain the inevitable bomb.

And if enough time passes, droopy will claim that he never had a problem with Josephine being Joseph's biological daughter, anyway.



I've already said I don't given that all available historical evidence indicates that Sylvia wasn't married to Windsor at the time, or at the very least, didn't consider herself so.

That would make her sealing to Joseph a plural marriage of the standard sort. In any case, your fantasizing regarding the testing is just that, fantasizing. It also may be that the tests are utterly inconclusive and there are too many tender toes to be stepped on. Who knows.

Dream until your dream comes true.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _beastie »

Droopy wrote:
I've already said I don't given that all available historical evidence indicates that Sylvia wasn't married to Windsor at the time, or at the very least, didn't consider herself so.

That would make her sealing to Joseph a plural marriage of the standard sort. In any case, your fantasizing regarding the testing is just that, fantasizing. It also may be that the tests are utterly inconclusive and there are too many tender toes to be stepped on. Who knows.

Dream until your dream comes true.


Sylvia went on to have two more children by the man she "divorced". Some divorce.

So here's what we know. Sylvia married Windsor in 1838. Child one born 1839. Child two born 1841. Child three born in 1842. Child four - Josephine - born 1844, fourteen months later. Child five born 1847. Child six born 1848.

So somehow Sylvia snuck in a quickie divorce and then remarriage.

Yeah, that's about par for the course as far as LDS apologetics goes. You can make yourself believe anything if you want to badly enough.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Droopy »

beastie wrote:
Droopy wrote:
I've already said I don't given that all available historical evidence indicates that Sylvia wasn't married to Windsor at the time, or at the very least, didn't consider herself so.

That would make her sealing to Joseph a plural marriage of the standard sort. In any case, your fantasizing regarding the testing is just that, fantasizing. It also may be that the tests are utterly inconclusive and there are too many tender toes to be stepped on. Who knows.

Dream until your dream comes true.


Sylvia went on to have two more children by the man she "divorced". Some divorce.

So here's what we know. Sylvia married Windsor in 1838. Child one born 1839. Child two born 1841. Child three born in 1842. Child four - Josephine - born 1844, fourteen months later. Child five born 1847. Child six born 1848.

So somehow Sylvia snuck in a quickie divorce and then remarriage.

Yeah, that's about par for the course as far as LDS apologetics goes. You can make yourself believe anything if you want to badly enough.



This has already been put to rest. Keep in mind that Sylvia returned to Windsor only after Joseph was dead. Amazing, isn't it?

Time to call it in, Beastie, as you're not even up to the starting gate.
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 30, 2013 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

-

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Droopy »

I'd prefer a shot of Raquel Welch from One Million Years B.C., but we can't all be up to speed all the time.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

-

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Bazooka »

Darth J wrote:Droopy, since you have a difficult time keeping track of what the issue is, I will remind you:

It doesn't really matter, from a "The Church is true!!!!" perspective, whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with Sylvia Sessions. Here is why, as I explained almost three years ago:

Doctrine and Covenants 132 gives specific parameters for when plural marriage is acceptable to the Lord:

*The consent of the previous wife must be sought
*The plural wives must be virgins
*The plural wives must be vowed to no one else
*A man's plural wives "are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth"

D&C 132:61-63

The Book of Mormon also specifies that the purpose of plural marriage is to raise up a seed to the Lord (i.e., have a lot of kids). Jacob 2:30

In practicing plural marriage, Joseph Smith:

*Frequently did not seek Emma's consent/hid his plural marriages from Emma
*On January 17, 1842, married Mary Elizabeth Rollins, who was several months pregnant (obviously not a virgin)
*Entered polyandrous marriages with the wives of other men
*Had no known children with his plural wives

Joseph Smith continuously violated the requirements for plural marriage that the Lord revealed in D&C 132. We also learn from the Doctrine and Covenants that the powers of the priesthood can only be exercised in righteousness.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.


D&C 121

How do you reconcile the claim that Joseph Smith continued to be a prophet until his death with his violating the commandments about plural marriage, which would have caused the Spirit of the Lord to withdraw from him and his priesthood authority to cease?


This ^ is clearly a massive problem for Droopy's testimony.
As big an issue as the historicity of the Book of Abraham and the doctrinal position on a global flood.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Post Reply