Do they know it's not true?

[_Sethbag]

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.

It doesn't "work" that way. It's just the warped and twisted way some human beings choose to think it does.

But a thought does occur to me. Joseph Smith robbed the men who were first husband to some of his "wives" of their children, according to Mormonism. Sylvia Sessions said that Josephine was Joseph's daughter, and it wouldn't matter if it's because she was conceived with his sperm or Mr. Sessions'. Josephine was Joseph's because he'd had himself "sealed" to Sylvia, and not Sylvia to Mr. Sessions. So however many children Mr. Sessions fathered with Sylvia, they all belonged to Joseph Smith.

So Joseph Smith actually gets whatever children were born to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs, sired by Henry Jacobs after Joseph barged into their marriage and had himself "sealed" to her.

Joseph Smith gets all the children of the 8 or 12 or however many it really was women to whom he had himself sealed, even though they were sired by their first and legal husbands, because it was to Joseph that these women were sealed.

Thanks, Charity, for pointing that out to us. In Mormon theology Joseph Smith stole the biological children of a good 8 to 12 men by "marrying" their wives, usually behind their backs. Got it. What an asshole he was.

[_guy sajer]

I'm glad you started this thread, Runtu. (by the way, we all on for lunch this Wednesday?)

I have several reasons for believing the current LDS General Authorities to be sincere. Among them, the following:

1) Having read letters, diaries, quorum minutes, and other primary source materials by previous General Authorities, I know that many of them were quite sincere and devout, or gave every appearance of being so, in private as well as public.

2) The General Authorities are drawn from the local authorities, and the great majority of the latter (e.g., my dad) appear to be perfectly sincere. It's difficult for me to believe that being granted "General" authority status suddenly changes one from a sincere religionist into a self-serving hypocrite, or the like.

3) In my experience, religious people on the whole are quite capable of believing things that nonbelievers find extremely unlikely, even despite considerable evidence against these beliefs. And there's little or no reason to think LDS General Authorities are the exception to this rule.

4) The General Authorities are chosen for their administrative capacities and devotion, rather than for demonstrations of superb critical thinking, or impressive academic CVs. Why would one expect them to take a historian's or investigator's approach to the church they administer, rather than an administrator's approach? And how would administering the church show them that it wasn't true??

5) While the General Authorities are moderately more likely than average members to hear the latest critical arguments against the church, they are significantly more likely to hear all the local faith-promoting stories. Accounts of spiritual and miraculous experiences have a way of filtering up through the hierarchy, as evidenced by the many member letters and stories the General Authorities like to quote in Conference.

6) Average members and local leaders of the LDS church tend to have fairly frequent experiences, particularly in church contexts, that they take as divine witnesses of their faith. General Authorities, whose lives are largely lived in church contexts, would be likely to have these even more frequently and strongly, and therefore to believe with correspondingly greater strength.

7) LDS General Authorities appear to run the church in substantially the way that sincere religious leaders would. They take conservative stances in line with traditional LDS theology (e.g., the Proclamation on the Family), maintain rigorous moral standards--without evident exception for a secret few who get to practice polygamy or spiritual wifery or the like, etc.

8) Former Mormons can easily see how the LDS General Authorities can believe simply by casting their minds back on their own previous belief, and looking at the family, friends, and acquaintances around them who are able to reconcile faith with just about any state of the evidence. Given that the ordinary members tend to believe so 'stubbornly,' it's only natural to think the members at the top--who were chosen in part for their extraordinary devotion--could and would do the same.

Like Runtu, I also find Steve Benson's accounts persuasive on this issue. Even the best informed of the LDS Authorities are basically winging it, relying on the apologetics created by FARMS writers and the like. And Maxwell, for whom FARMS has been renamed, and who was known as one of the most intellectual of the General Authorities, wasn't even informed on what all the issues were.

In the case of President Hinckley, I think the claim that he was sure to have know the faith was false is particularly misguided. Gordon B. Hinckley was a man of significant practical knowledge. By all accounts, he knew a fair amount about electrical wiring, construction, and the like, and plainly knew a good deal about communications and public relations. But I've yet to see any assertions that the man was an academic, an intellectual, or a scholar. Having access to the First Presidency's Office Vault would not have made him an accomplished critical reader of its contents. This simply was not an area of his expertise. I see essentially no reason to think the man insincere in his professed beliefs, and plenty of reason to think otherwise. He dedicated his life to Mormonism for nealy a century, with no signs that he was guided by laziness, greed, lust, or anything else but sincere conviction and a willingness to serve.

Those former Mormons unable to believe the LDS General Authorities are sincere lack considerably in memory, logic, and imagination.

Don

Bravo Don. This topic appears to pop up every few weeks on this or other DAMU boards.

I see absolutely no reason to think that any of the Brethren are hidden skeptics for reasons Don so eqloquently describes.

However, I do admit a greater possibility that some of the Brethren do become skeptical or cynical during their tenure in the big Phallus downtown, less due to doctrinal issues, but more due to the realization that the Church operates no differently than does any other large, bureaucratical organization. They see every day the lack of inspiration that does into making decisions; they see the pettiness among so-called Holy Men; they see the squalid turf battles among people presumably working jointly to bring God's reign here on earth; they see the meaness and uncharitable behaviors of men held up as role models; and so on. I can easily imagine that there are a great number of deeply cynical people toiling in the bowels of the Church bureaucracy. At some level for many of them (including even the Brethren), this begins to eat away at the rose colored glasses which which they view certain other of the Church's claims.

[_charity]

It doesn't "work" that way. It's just the warped and twisted way some human beings choose to think it does.

I hope I am nowhere around at the judgement when you are there, Sethbag. I would probably lose my place in Heaven, whatever that is, because I would petty and little enough to enjoy seeing the look on your face when you finally figure it out.

Now, I have to go repent, and try to find it in my heart to be sad for you after the mean things you say.

[_Who Knows]

It doesn't "work" that way. It's just the warped and twisted way some human beings choose to think it does.

I hope I am nowhere around at the judgement when you are there, Sethbag. I would probably lose my place in Heaven, whatever that is, because I would petty and little enough to enjoy seeing the look on your face when you finally figure it out.

Now, I have to go repent, and try to find it in my heart to be sad for you after the mean things you say.

Seth (and myself) will be in a long line with billions of other humans with a 'wtf' look on our face. In fact, over 99.999% of the worlds population will be there, with the miniscule .0001% of Mormons with a 'told ya so' look on their faces.

Man, god sure tricked us all good.



Keep dreamin' charity.

[Guest]

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.

Charity shows her true colors.

This arrogance is exactly why boards like this one exist. If Charity simply had a cherished belief which she wanted to share because she thinks it would help, that would be one thing, but she insists on pointing out that the answer will be given "in a few years." This is her way of declaring victory. This demonstrates that she is not concerned with "charity" or "compassion." She only wants to win at all costs.

Her threats prove that this world is about a contest of ideas, of the survival of the fittest ideas, and charity just doesn't realize that her words are simply the bloody sputum of her ideology's convulsive death throws.

If Charity is right, which she is not, she is certainly not going to any celestial kingdom until she repents of the enjoyment she finds in taunting those who do not share her faith. She will just be hanging out with the rest of us in the lower kingdoms and then we can say... "So glad you were right, it's nice here. So sorry that your malicious attitude prevented you from living for eternity with your family and loved ones, but that's okay because you ultimately got what you wanted anyway---to hang out everyday, all day, taunting unbelievers."

[_Sethbag]

It doesn't "work" that way. It's just the warped and twisted way some human beings choose to think it does.

I hope I am nowhere around at the judgement when you are there, Sethbag. I would probably lose my place in Heaven, whatever that is, because I would petty and little enough to enjoy seeing the look on your face when you finally figure it out.

Now, I have to go repent, and try to find it in my heart to be sad for you after the mean things you say.

Nice manufactured compassion there. Kinda funny you're having to force yourself to feel sad for me not "getting it".

And, in the context of this last post, what is it that I don't get, precisely? It's apparently that I don't get why it is that a man should lose his children to another man because that man, secretly and behind is back, got himself sealed to the first man's wife after the first man and the lady were already married. Which is precisely what Mormons believe would happen.

How many children did Orson Hyde have with his first wife? How many of them came after Joseph Smith "married" this wife while Orson was out dedicating Jerusalem? So these children of Orson Hyde the Apostle and his wife will actually be Joseph Smith's children in the hereafter? Because Smith had Brigham Young or one of his other henchman "seal" him to Orson's wife while Orson was away?

And you're gonna go off and make yourself be all sad for me because I just don't get why that should be. Haha, that's just way too funny. Charity, you've given your mind over to a fraud, and it's making you think and believe stupid things. I feel sad for you because of it, and it takes me no effort whatsoever to reach that state.

[_Who Knows]

If Charity is right, which she is not, she is certainly not going to any celestial kingdom until she repents of the enjoyment she finds in taunting those who do not share her faith. She will just be hanging out with the rest of us in the lower kingdoms and then we can say... "So glad you were right, it's nice here. So sorry that your malicious attitude prevented you from living for eternity with your family and loved ones, but that's okay because you ultimately got what you wanted anyway---to hang out everyday, all day, taunting unbelievers."

Meanwhile, over on muslimdiscussions.com, mohamed just said this to johnny the christian:

"Johnny, i can't wait to see the look on your face when you see me with my 72 virgins, while you're burning in hell." praise allah!

[_amantha]

If Charity is right, which she is not, she is certainly not going to any celestial kingdom until she repents of the enjoyment she finds in taunting those who do not share her faith. She will just be hanging out with the rest of us in the lower kingdoms and then we can say... "So glad you were right, it's nice here. So sorry that your malicious attitude prevented you from living for eternity with your family and loved ones, but that's okay because you ultimately got what you wanted anyway---to hang out everyday, all day, taunting unbelievers."

Meanwhile, over on muslimdiscussions.com, mohamed just said this to johnny the christian:

"Johnny, I can't wait to see the look on your face when you see me with my 72 virgins, while you're burning in hell." praise allah!

LOL. Exactly.

[_charity]

Charity shows her true colors.

This arrogance is exactly why boards like this one exist. If Charity simply had a cherished belief which she wanted to share because she thinks it would help, that would be one thing, but she insists on pointing out that the answer will be given "in a few years." This is her way of declaring victory. This demonstrates that she is not concerned with "charity" or "compassion." She only wants to win at all costs.

There is no "win at all costs." Winning means someone loses. That is not the way God works. Everyone can "win" if they so chose. We can all get gold medals. The answers are already here. They aren't going to be given down the road.

Sorry if I go into teacher mode. When I gave tests, the students could all have the answers. If they studied, if they came to class, if they listened to the discussions, they could all have the answers. They took a test on the material. Not everybody had learned what they needed to learn. "The answer in a few years" concept is that I didn't make the keyes to the tests available to them until AFTER the test was over. But the informatino was all there all the time. When we leave this earth, when the test is over, we will have the key. But the test was fair because all the information for every question on the test was in the textbook and lecture notes they had.

Her threats prove that this world is about a contest of ideas, of the survival of the fittest ideas, and charity just doesn't realize that her words are simply the bloody sputum of her ideology's convulsive death throws.

I made no threats. What can I threaten anyone with? When they face the judgement, I am not the judge. Everyone has to answer for his own choices, but not to me. You see threats where there are none.

If Charity is right, which she is not, she is certainly not going to any celestial kingdom until she repents of the enjoyment she finds in taunting those who do not share her faith. She will just be hanging out with the rest of us in the lower kingdoms and then we can say... "So glad you were right, it's nice here. So sorry that your malicious attitude prevented you from living for eternity with your family and loved ones, but that's okay because you ultimately got what you wanted anyway---to hang out everyday, all day, taunting unbelievers."

How pitiful, amantha. I am not taunting anyone. In fact, I am the one who gets taunted all the time by posts like yours and those who insult and mock my deeply held beliefs. And yes, I repent a lot. I am far from perfect, and just occasionally when someone has been particularly vicious, it does ease the stab wounds a little to think they are going to get what's coming to them. Then I repent, because that is really an unworthy thought.

[_Runtu]

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?

Yes, I am saying that my conscience does not allow me to rationalize the facts as I see them. I am fully aware that I may in fact be wrong. I don't think so, but there it is. My conscience is not superior to anyone's, and I certainly said nothing about your conscience. Apparently, you see what I said as some sort of attack on your personal morality. It wasn't.

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.

I know how it works. What I'm wondering is why Sylvia Sessions Lyons told only Josephine that she was Joseph's. Sylvia had other children later; why were they not notified that they too were Joseph's children? That's right. She meant something different from sealing.

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

No, for the reasons I outlined.

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

No, my choice is correct for me. Yours may well be correct for you. And what have you been doing on this thread other than rationalizing Joseph's behavior? You said that the things he is alleged to have done are either misrepresented or false.

Oh for crying out loud. READ WHAT YOU WROTE!

I did read it again. I'm sorry you read it the way you did.

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?

I'm sorry I at all aimed my comments at you.