Do they know it's not true?

[_BishopRic]

This "you are more arrogant than I am" contest is silly. We will have to wait a few years to find out the results.

Okay...Charity, will you please 'come back' and tell us the results after your death?

I'll come back, but I don't think you will be able to hear me.

Classic Mormon arrogance. Okay, at least tell somebody that will let others know so we may join you...

[_JAK]

Jak and sethbag, You have both attacked my world view as being out of touch, wrong, etc. ignorant, etc. Which of course, means that you have some superior vantage point with which to evaluate my world view. Rather arrogant of you, while chiding me for my "arrogance" in continuing to maintain my belief in the midst of all this supposed truth and enlightenment that you spew forth.

I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility.

And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!

Charity,

I do not speak for sethbag, and so far as I know, I have never addressed any of his posts.

Please feel free to quote me directly and respond to exactly what I stated.

Your post here (Jan 29, 2008 5:51) seems to some extend a misreading of my comments directly to you.

More information is superior to less information. The more accurately we can take into account all the available information, the more likely we are to have a valid or reliable view.

Conversely, the less information we have, the less likely we are to have a valid or reliable view.

It is my position that any religious doctrine/dogma which is derived from multiple languages and multiple translations over thousands of years is unlikely to be reliable.

So my comments are not an attack of you personally. In my last post I stated that you had my “sympathy” and “understanding.” I clarified what I meant by that expression.

I strongly suspect that you regard Islam as wrong or perhaps unreliable. I would agree with you if that is your view. Islam has a particular religious doctrine/dogma.

If you, Charity, had grown into adulthood in a Muslim family (from birth up), what would your religious views be? You will recall that I said we are all products of our heredity and environment.

That statement can be well supported with evidence about any of us.

If I never studied Russian, never heard Russian spoken, I would NOT know Russian (environment). None of us can escape our cradle up environment.

However, today, unlike centuries or even several decades ago, we have access to information on a far higher level as a result of several modern inventions (anything in print – books, newspapers, etc., television, Internet, university study).

I feel fortunate that both my parents were university graduates and provided me with exposure to a large world of information and ideas. They challenged me to think.

I have often asked parents who appear to be stifling critical thought in this way: Do you want to raise your children to blind belief or do you want to raise your children to think?

When put that way, most parents (even those who want to control their kids) tend to respond by saying the want their children to think.

Occasionally, there are people who really don’t want their children to think. They want to think for them. They want to control them. They want to mold them to be a virtual clone of themselves.

Religious indoctrination attempts to mold people in such a way that the people do not think, do not question, do not explore.

How do we get great science? We get it from people who do think, question, and explore. You communicate on this forum as a result of people before you who thought, who explored and who challenged previous means and methods of communication.

The first printing press and typewriter were products of people who thought.

People who claim to be “prophet” or “seer” in the context of a specific religious dogma are unreliable. Why is that? It’s because many who make such claims make different claims.

I recall some individuals who claimed that God told them the world would end on X date. The date came and went. Their claim was unreliable.

Now sometimes a person may, by accident, make a claim which turns out to be correct. But no one is successful in predicting future events with reliability. I’m not speaking here of stating the obvious.

For example: If someone tells another person that someday he will die, that’s a statement of the obvious. Anyone could have stated that with objective information.

You may have heard someone say something (of a religious nature). But, you were a willing believer not a skeptical listener. You offered no specifics here. Therefore, I cannot address specifics you didn’t state.

However, it’s the “responsibility” of a listener to use his/her brain. That is, it’s a listener’s responsibility to listen to extraordinary claims with extraordinary skepticism.

I expect you would do that if you were visited by a Muslim who claimed the truth of his religious doctrines and beliefs to you.

You might take an extraordinarily rational, reasoned view toward the claims of a religious pundit which made such claims outside your religion box.

Now you stated:
Charity:
And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!

On the contrary, there is nothing “hypocritical” to require clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review a claim which someone makes.

How is that “hypocritical”? Second, asking for clear evidence is how we can arrive at the validity and reliability of what someone says or claims.

Most who question are open to that clear, transparent evidence.

When the Wright brothers were challenged: How in the world can you think this thing will fly?, the Wright brothers had answers. More than that, they said, in effect: Come with us to the place where we are going to try to fly this thing. People came. A few had cameras. The evidence was clear, transparent, and open for all to see.

Some came away shaking their heads saying: I would not have believed it if I had not seen it. And, they should not have believed it on the say so of the Wright brothers.

The skeptical review was beneficial in establishing the reliability of the claims made by the Wright brothers.

Now you stated:
Charity:
I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility.
That’s not a clear, open statement. What was said? Who said it? How many heard it? Were the listeners already convinced?

It certainly is not the responsibility of the listener to be uncritical. On the contrary, if the listener has a brain and the capacity to ask intelligent questions, the listener has the responsibility to do that.

You’re quite incorrect to conclude that the listener should come with a pre-convinced supposition to the expressions of someone.

I am non-specific here only because your words are non-specific. That is, I cannot address what you did not say.

But, I can address the principle of skeptical listening. In various posts, I have given examples of how a claim is supported. (These have not all been addressed to you, so I can understand if you did not see them.)

If I claim I have water a foot deep in my basement, you, the listener have a listening responsibility. You could simply choose to believe my claim. If there were 10 inches of rain just before, the claim is quite ordinary. Nevertheless, you could say upon my claim: I want to see this. I’m skeptical.

If I take you to my basement and you wade the water and bring your ruler, you can confirm the reliability of my claim, or you can confirm that I have only 3 inches of water, or you can observe there is no evidence for my claim. All these are ways to test the reliability of my claim. You could bring a friend. You could bring 5 friends. All of you would make objective review of my claim at the time I make the claim.

Now if I tell you after the fact, it may be more difficult for you to confirm or reject my claim. Yet, there might be water marks on the wall, clear, definite, and such that you understand there is honest, open evidence for the claim which I have made.

Let me emphasize that my challenge (not speaking for sethbag) is that claims require evidence.

Even more importantly, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be if that claim is to be regarded as reliable. That’s the principle.

Religion relies on claims absent evidence. That fact is evidence that religion is unreliable. And different religions make different claims. In the case of this bb, the same religion has multiple and contradictory claims.

JAK

[_charity]

This "you are more arrogant than I am" contest is silly. We will have to wait a few years to find out the results.

Okay...Charity, will you please 'come back' and tell us the results after your death?

I'll come back, but I don't think you will be able to hear me.

Classic Mormon arrogance. Okay, at least tell somebody that will let others know so we may join you...

Pardon me, Ric, but I don't think you are sincere. After all, Moroni came back, Joseph Smith told you about it, but you refused to believe him. Why would you believe anyone who knocked on your door and said, "Charity sent me to tell you she came back and spoke to me."

[_Sethbag]

Charity, let's exchange some kind of secret that only the two of us will ever know, and which you promise never to reveal to anyone else. Then when you die and come back to visit one of the faithful who will be able to see you, you tell them the secret, and they'll come tell it to me. I guarantee you I'll take what they have to say a lot more seriously. Guaranteed. And if I should get into an accident and die before you, I'll do my best to get someone to smuggle the message out of spirit prison for me and visit you with it.

You still haven't answered my criticism of the Apostles not testifying of seeing Christ and interacting with him personally as one man interacts with another. It would be the greatest, strongest testimony the Apostles could ever deliver to the world, and it would be the most important message the world could ever hear. A good part of this world, a majority, don't even believe in Jesus Christ at all. If he were real, and if the Apostles could testify to this and testify boldly of their personal and physical interactions with him, that would be exceedingly powerful, and badly needed in the world.

And why don't they? Because you can say people wouldn't listen anyway? So what if people didn't? Is that a reason not to stand up and testify boldly? Your excuses are lame. People need to know if Jesus Christ is really real. Expressions of feelings just doesn't cut it. If he's real, and the Twelve Apostles know this because they've seen him, handled him, and interacted with him face to face, then people need to know it.

[_charity]

[quote="JAK"]Charity,

Please feel free to quote me directly and respond to exactly what I stated.

I will respond in red so as to eliminate pesky quotes.

Your post here (Jan 29, 2008 5:51) seems to some extend a misreading of my comments directly to you.

More information is superior to less information. The more accurately we can take into account all the available information, the more likely we are to have a valid or reliable view. Conversely, the less information we have, the less likely we are to have a valid or reliable view. It is my position that any religious doctrine/dogma which is derived from multiple languages and multiple translations over thousands of years is unlikely to be reliable.

I believe you are speaking of the Bible. The Book of Mormon has a 2 step process. Mormon was writing in the same language as the all the prophets of the thousand year period. It was translated into English. The Doctrine and Covenants is in English.

So my comments are not an attack of you personally. In my last post I stated that you had my “sympathy” and “understanding.” I clarified what I meant by that expression.

Sympathy and understanding under the circumstances are condescending and demeaning.

I strongly suspect that you regard Islam as wrong or perhaps unreliable. I would agree with you if that is your view. Islam has a particular religious doctrine/dogma. If you, Charity, had grown into adulthood in a Muslim family (from birth up), what would your religious views be? You will recall that I said we are all products of our heredity and environment. That statement can be well supported with evidence about any of us. f I never studied Russian, never heard Russian spoken, I would NOT know Russian (environment). None of us can escape our cradle up environment.

However, today, unlike centuries or even several decades ago, we have access to information on a far higher level as a result of several modern inventions (anything in print – books, newspapers, etc., television, Internet, university study).

I feel fortunate that both my parents were university graduates and provided me with exposure to a large world of information and ideas. They challenged me to think.

My parents had the highest education level of their siblings. I was the first person of my cousins on my fatthers side to attend college, and only one other cousin set of my mother's family had college educations. But my parents taught me to think. I was not raised in the LDS Church, but joined when I was 19 years old and in college.

I have often asked parents who appear to be stifling critical thought in this way: Do you want to raise your children to blind belief or do you want to raise your children to think? When put that way, most parents (even those who want to control their kids) tend to respond by saying the want their children to think. Occasionally, there are people who really don’t want their children to think. They want to think for them. They want to control them. They want to mold them to be a virtual clone of themselves. Religious indoctrination attempts to mold people in such a way that the people do not think, do not question, do not explore.

That's why my children were neither controlled nor stifled in their thoughts.

How do we get great science? We get it from people who do think, question, and explore. You communicate on this forum as a result of people before you who thought, who explored and who challenged previous means and methods of communication. The first printing press and typewriter were products of people who thought.

My husband's graduate degree is in physical chemsitry. I have a graduate degree in psychology. He think my science is "soft science. But I like the "thinkers" of my discipline.

People who claim to be “prophet” or “seer” in the context of a specific religious dogma are unreliable. Why is that? It’s because many who make such claims make different claims.

So Gallileo was wrong because Ptolemy made a different claim? Then you should throw out all of psychology because there are many different theories of human behavior and thought processes. I

recall some individuals who claimed that God told them the world would end on X date. The date came and went. Their claim was unreliable.

So, that makes everyone wrong, those who said it and those who didn't. That is some crazy way of looking at things.

Now sometimes a person may, by accident, make a claim which turns out to be correct. But no one is successful in predicting future events with reliability. I’m not speaking here of stating the obvious. For example: If someone tells another person that someday he will die, that’s a statement of the obvious. Anyone could have stated that with objective information. You may have heard someone say something (of a religious nature). But, you were a willing believer not a skeptical listener. You offered no specifics here. Therefore, I cannot address specifics you didn’t state.

The Jean Dixon's of the world make their money by percentages. Prophets have to be right every time. It is a very high standard.

However, it’s the “responsibility” of a listener to use his/her brain. That is, it’s a listener’s responsibility to listen to extraordinary claims with extraordinary skepticism. I expect you would do that if you were visited by a Muslim who claimed the truth of his religious doctrines and beliefs to you. You might take an extraordinarily rational, reasoned view toward the claims of a religious pundit which made such claims outside your religion box.

I did.

Now you stated:

And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!

On the contrary, there is nothing “hypocritical” to require clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review a claim which someone makes. How is that “hypocritical”? Second, asking for clear evidence is how we can arrive at the validity and reliability of what someone says or claims. Most who question are open to that clear, transparent evidence.

When the Wright brothers were challenged: How in the world can you think this thing will fly?, the Wright brothers had answers. More than that, they said, in effect: Come with us to the place where we are going to try to fly this thing. People came. A few had cameras. The evidence was clear, transparent, and open for all to see. Some came away shaking their heads saying: I would not have believed it if I had not seen it. And, they should not have believed it on the say so of the Wright brothers. The skeptical review was beneficial in establishing the reliability of the claims made by the Wright brothers.

What about those who, to use your example, would have stood there on the beach at Kitty Hawk, seen that little short hoppper flight and said, "No. that thing did not really fly. It was a collective hallucijnation. Something heavier than air CANNOT fly, and we know it! "

Now you stated:

"I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility."

That’s not a clear, open statement. What was said? Who said it? How many heard it? Were the listeners already convinced? It certainly is not the responsibility of the listener to be uncritical. On the contrary, if the listener has a brain and the capacity to ask intelligent questions, the listener has the responsibility to do that.

This is where you need to ask the question of what kind of evidence. If you limit evidence to the brain, you are cutting off a whole body of evidence. Or are you the guy who says the Kitty Hawk flight couldn't have happened and must have been a hallucination?

You’re quite incorrect to conclude that the listener should come with a pre-convinced supposition to the expressions of someone. I am non-specific here only because your words are non-specific. That is, I cannot address what you did not say. But, I can address the principle of skeptical listening. In various posts, I have given examples of how a claim is supported. (These have not all been addressed to you, so I can understand if you did not see them.)

If I claim I have water a foot deep in my basement, you, the listener have a listening responsibility. You could simply choose to believe my claim. If there were 10 inches of rain just before, the claim is quite ordinary. Nevertheless, you could say upon my claim: I want to see this. I’m skeptical.

If I take you to my basement and you wade the water and bring your ruler, you can confirm the reliability of my claim, or you can confirm that I have only 3 inches of water, or you can observe there is no evidence for my claim. All these are ways to test the reliability of my claim. You could bring a friend. You could bring 5 friends. All of you would make objective review of my claim at the time I make the claim.

Now if I tell you after the fact, it may be more difficult for you to confirm or reject my claim. Yet, there might be water marks on the wall, clear, definite, and such that you understand there is honest, open evidence for the claim which I have made. Let me emphasize that my challenge (not speaking for sethbag) is that claims require evidence.


We can both agree on that. We will have our major difference on what qualifies as evidence.

Even more importantly, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be if that claim is to be regarded as reliable. That’s the principle.

Right. But again, extraordinary evidence of what kind?

Religion relies on claims absent evidence. That fact is evidence that religion is unreliable. And different religions make different claims. In the case of this bb, the same religion has multiple and contradictory claims.

How do you define "same?" LDS don't have multiple, contradictory claims. If you are lumping all Christian denominations, that is probably correct.

[_Runtu]

So, you tell people they have seared consciences, and swallow their consciences when you don't think you are absolutley correct? I'd never say anything like that to a person if I thought I could be wrong.

I said that's what you're telling me to do. I have no idea what your conscience tells you. I know what mine does, and that's what I was speaking of. And for the record, of course I could be wrong. That is not threatening to me at all.

I guess you weren't just having a little fun with that stupid picture. Don't bother to pm me again, john. I really don't want to continue any kind of communication with you under the circumstances.

Fine. You've said some incredibly hurtful things to me, and I said nothing because I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But now you misread what I said and think the worst. Maybe I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.

[_charity]

So, you tell people they have seared consciences, and swallow their consciences when you don't think you are absolutley correct? I'd never say anything like that to a person if I thought I could be wrong.

I said that's what you're telling me to do. I have no idea what your conscience tells you. I know what mine does, and that's what I was speaking of. And for the record, of course I could be wrong. That is not threatening to me at all.

I guess you weren't just having a little fun with that stupid picture. Don't bother to pm me again, john. I really don't want to continue any kind of communication with you under the circumstances.

Fine. You've said some incredibly hurtful things to me, and I said nothing because I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But now you misread what I said and think the worst. Maybe I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.

So let's look at the history of this little tiff.

I said Joseph Smith was a good and moral man. You replied that that statement was why you would never go back to the Church because your conscience wouldn't allow you to accept his actions and standing up for him. So I replied:

Your problem is not your conscience. It is that you have believed lies and misinterpretations and things of God that haven't been explained. And it is that you are now so firmly backed into the corner of defending your loss of testimony that you will not even admit that your understanding might be wrong.

A conscience reacts to right vs wrong. You have a beliefe in what is right. New information comes in to be held up to the light of this belief. This where the problem can arise. If you have misinterpreations of facts, a set of false "facts" then the conscience cannot make a reasonable judgement. The conscience is not warped. It is the fact set that is wrong.

It is absolutely true that you have to defend you current position with regard to the Church. Just as I have to defend my current position with regard to the Church. We ought to be willing to say that we are willing to defend what we believe.

You have stated an absolute position that does not admit to the possibility of being wrong.

I cannot see where any of that should be "hurtful." You have made your choice. If you are not content with that choice, then you can make another. So, can you show me what is "hurtful."

Then you replied to me"

The problem here is that you have to take things that are obviously wrong (promising exaltation to families in exchange for teenage daughters, marrying other women behind your wife's back, and marrying other men's wives behind the husbands' backs, lying to the public and to the church about polygamy, etc.) and say, "I don't care what the facts are. I simply won't allow myself to believe anything wrong of the beloved prophet." And so you swallow your conscience and defend what deep inside you know is wrong. LDS scriptures talk about being "past feeling" and having a "seared" conscience. And in the statement from charity, that's exactly what we see.

This is obviously and on its face meant to be an indictment of me. You can't wiggle out of that. You have stated that my consicence is "warped." I think my conscience is probably in as good a shape as yours. I don't believe what you think you know are the relevant facts here.

Joseph Smith did not have sex with young girls. You think he did and you are wrong. I believe that when Joseph went behind Emma's back he was caught between a rock and a hard place. God tells him to do something, and Emma is not accepting that. So he chose to obey God and try to keep Emma happy at the same time. Can you tell me what you would do in a similar dilemma? Disobey God? For Joseph that was not an option. We don't know what the polyandrous sealings meant. We know there is no reason to believe they were marriages. No children, the husbands were not upset. So your anger on behalf of these men is totally without reasons. Now, you have chosen to believe all the worst. And that is a choice.

As the hymn goes, "choose the right when a choice is placed before you."

To state that I know deep down that I am wrong, and am going agaisnt my conscience is insulting and defaming. You have portrayed yourself in pm's to me as a "friendly" combatant. That accusation against me from someone who is up front about hostility toward me and my stand is one thing. From a "friend" it is a stab in the back. How does that stack up with your conscience?

[_Runtu]

This is obviously and on its face meant to be an indictment of me. You can't wiggle out of that. You have stated that my consicence is "warped." I think my conscience is probably in as good a shape as yours. I don't believe what you think you know are the relevant facts here.

It was meant as an indictment of what I would have to do to believe in Mormonism again. You tell me that I simply view things "wrong," and I'm telling you that, whether or not your attitude works for you, it doesn't for me. As I said, if your conscience allows you to do that, I don't have a problem with it. Mine won't, and that's what I was getting at.

Joseph Smith did not have sex with young girls. You think he did and you are wrong.

I said nothing of the sort.

I believe that when Joseph went behind Emma's back he was caught between a rock and a hard place. God tells him to do something, and Emma is not accepting that. So he chose to obey God and try to keep Emma happy at the same time. Can you tell me what you would do in a similar dilemma? Disobey God? For Joseph that was not an option.

Was he commanded to take Fanny Alger as his wife? How could Emma not accept a principle she wasn't told of.

We don't know what the polyandrous sealings meant. We know there is no reason to believe they were marriages. No children, the husbands were not upset.

Sylvia Sessions would not have wondered if Josephine was Joseph's daughter had it not been a marriage. Yes, there is reason to believe they were marriages.

So your anger on behalf of these men is totally without reasons.

Please show me anyt expression of anger on behalf of these men from me.

Now, you have chosen to believe all the worst. And that is a choice.

Of course it's a choice. As is your choice to engage in denial and rationalization.

As the hymn goes, "choose the right when a choice is placed before you."

My point exactly.

To state that I know deep down that I am wrong, and am going agaisnt my conscience is insulting and defaming.

I never said anything like that. If you read it that way, I apologize.

You have portrayed yourself in pm's to me as a "friendly" combatant. That accusation against me from someone who is up front about hostility toward me and my stand is one thing. From a "friend" it is a stab in the back. How does that stack up with your conscience?

All I can say is that it wasn't aimed at you.

[_JAK]

Jak and sethbag, You have both attacked my world view as being out of touch, wrong, etc. ignorant, etc. Which of course, means that you have some superior vantage point with which to evaluate my world view. Rather arrogant of you, while chiding me for my "arrogance" in continuing to maintain my belief in the midst of all this supposed truth and enlightenment that you spew forth.

I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility.

And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!

Charity,

The phrase “world view” would seem to apply to a comprehensive, historically supported analysis of the world and today would necessarily include the known universe.

To claim a “world view” which is really a view through a very narrow perspective is to mis-use the phrase “world view.”

If one must claim a “world view,” one likely does not have such a thing.

It’s incorrect to purport that one has a comprehensive, well documented, and information based world view from a narrow perspective such as a single context of a single denomination of a single religion.

How much information do you recognize?

Do you recognize that there are numerous world religions presently?

Do you recognize that some of these claim that only their religion is the right one?

Do you recognize science? (in all the forms which we find science: medical, commercial, construction, space, etc.)

Ideas, perceptions, conclusions, and information is in a continuous state of change (evolution). That is well documented and constitutes a world view.

With that in mind, religions from ancient times represent the least reliable of perceptions and conclusions.

They lacked essential information. Since they lacked reliable knowledge, they (their proponents) made up stories with events as an attempt to explain what they didn’t understand and what they could not factually explain. They were uninformed.

It’s important in a world view to recognize the discovery of information which was not previously known. It’s important to recognize that these discoveries are ongoing. Those discoveries make possible our exchange here (to reference our common denominator, the computer).

However, we have arrived at this level of knowledge over a period of all of human evolution. We, today, are at the cutting edge of tomorrow. And I speak not only literally but also metaphorically. Collectively, humans know more today than they had known previously

In another 50 years, we humans will know more than we know presently.
(That’s a world view.)

We know as a result of exploration, examination (including telescope and microscope), and study. We move from what we know (collectively) to what the brightest intellects discover.

And we all benefit (or can benefit) from the discoveries and inventions in medical science (for example) or computer science (much overlap with medical science and science of all kinds).

Rejecting the above observations is regressive not progressive.

I understand that some people want all the benefits which modern science provides while denying the findings of that science.

Such a position is hardly a world view of merit.
Would you agree?

If you do, you surely recognize that a reliable world view necessarily must take into account what we know and reject what is speculation or is demonstrably false.

JAK

[_charity]

This is obviously and on its face meant to be an indictment of me. You can't wiggle out of that. You have stated that my consicence is "warped." I think my conscience is probably in as good a shape as yours. I don't believe what you think you know are the relevant facts here.

It was meant as an indictment of what I would have to do to believe in Mormonism again. You tell me that I simply view things "wrong," and I'm telling you that, whether or not your attitude works for you, it doesn't for me. As I said, if your conscience allows you to do that, I don't have a problem with it. Mine won't, and that's what I was getting at.

Can't you undestand what you yourself say? "If my conscience allows me to" what? Deny what I know to be correct? That means some type of internal dishonesty. And your superior conscience won't allow to do that. Can't you see what you are saying?

Sylvia Sessions would not have wondered if Josephine was Joseph's daughter had it not been a marriage. Yes, there is reason to believe they were marriages.

Sylvia said Josephine was Joseph's daughter. There do not have to be marriages to have children sealed to a non-biological parent. I can tell you two right off hand that I know in my ward and family. When a couple is sealed, any children subsequently born to the wife, no matter who the father is, is the child of the man she is sealed to, irrespective of biology.I know one woman who married in the temple, had a child, and then her husband was killed in the Viet Nam War. She married a second time and had 5 children. In the Church, all are considered children of the first husband who died. One of my daughters was married in the temple, had two children. Her husband left her, they divorced, and she got a cancellation of sealing. She is now sealed to her second husband. Those two children are considered his, irrespective of biology. That is the way it works with the sealing power.

Can you bring yourself to admit that your were wrong on this one?

Now, you have chosen to believe all the worst. And that is a choice.

Of course it's a choice. As is your choice to engage in denial and rationalization.

Oh, what arrogance. Your choice is absolutely correct, but mine is a product of denial and rationalization.

[

To state that I know deep down that I am wrong, and am going agaisnt my conscience is insulting and defaming.

I never said anything like that. If you read it that way, I apologize.

Oh for crying out loud. READ WHAT YOU WROTE!

[

You have portrayed yourself in pm's to me as a "friendly" combatant. That accusation against me from someone who is up front about hostility toward me and my stand is one thing. From a "friend" it is a stab in the back. How does that stack up with your conscience?

All I can say is that it wasn't aimed at you.

Then leave my name out of it. You specifically named me. And what did you expect people who read the post to take from that?