Josephine Sessions

[Guest]

Just to clarify, Droopy---

You require clear, convincing and essentially irrefutable empirical evidence before you will believe that Joseph Smith probably had sexual intercourse with a woman to whom he purported to be married via a religious rite he claimed to be superior to secular legal authority.

You do not require clear, convincing and essentially irrefutable empirical evidence before you will believe that a technologically and sociologically advanced civilization of Hebrew immigrants who practiced Christianity persisted for 1,000 years in pre-Columbian America.

You find it implausible that a man and a woman in the 19th century could have had sexual intercourse and not have resulted in a pregnancy carried to full term.

You find it very plausible that the human race began with a mated pair who entered mortality around 4,000 B.C.E. in Missouri.

You are not willing to infer from Sylvia Sessions' belief that she gave birth to Joseph Smith's child that she had sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith.

You are willing to infer that writings containing numerous anachronisms, factual errors, and source material available to Joseph Smith, but attributed to Abraham, must have existed on some missing scrap of papyrus among common Egyptian funerary texts that post-date the alleged existence of Abraham by several hundred years.

Is that pretty much it?

ETA: I previously said "Josephine" when I meant "Sylvia." I attribute this to either a scribal error or a printer's error. My original post was still the most correct post on Earth.

[Guest]

-

[_Droopy]

This actually made me laugh Droops!

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Thanks, Hasa. I try not to take myself too seriously, and taking this place too seriously is not a good idea, from a psychotherapeutic perspective.

[_Darth J]

I try not to take myself too seriously, and taking this place too seriously is not a good idea, from a psychotherapeutic perspective.

So all your pronouncements of doom on those who reject Joe's Frontier Tall Tales, and calling all and sundry who dispute your religious dogma "leftists," and your ongoing inquisition against John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks......that was just self-parody, right?

[_Chap]

... in the 19th century, without ... condoms etc. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Bef ... th_century

From the diary of James Boswell:

Tuesday 10 May 1763
At the bottom of the Haymarket I picked up a strong, jolly young damsel, and taking her under the arm I conducted her to Westminster Bridge, and then in armour complete did I engage her upon this noble edifice. The whim of doing it there with the Thames rolling below us amused me much.

[_Darth J]

in the 19th century, without the Pill, RU-486, IUDs, condoms etc.

History of condoms

The history of condoms goes back at least several centuries, and perhaps beyond.

[_Nightlion]

in the 19th century, without the Pill, RU-486, IUDs, condoms etc.

History of condoms

The history of condoms goes back at least several centuries, and perhaps beyond.

I thought they used socks, ya know.....In days of Old.

[Guest]

-

[_beastie]

I've explained it to you clearly, Mrs. Scratch, and it just doesn't seem to penetrate.

You did no such thing.

[_Droopy]

I try not to take myself too seriously, and taking this place too seriously is not a good idea, from a psychotherapeutic perspective.

So all your pronouncements of doom on those who reject Joe's Frontier Tall Tales, and calling all and sundry who dispute your religious dogma "leftists," and your ongoing inquisition against John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks......that was just self-parody, right?

But I'm quite serious about the hammerhead shark thing...