Brother Crockett vs...?

[_Jason Bourne]

Bottom line, Cogs, BY married a woman who was already married and had sex (and a child) with her.

Bottom line, we have no historical evidence that she was still married, under the assumptions and conditions of the times, when she married BY.

Read the essay.

The problem is that Wyatt argues that the lack of legal divorce was an over site or viewed as not expedient due to living on the frontier and being on the move. But these were for the most part civilized people not thugs. And keep in mind BY later taught that a woman could leave her husband for another of higher priesthood authority and do it without a divorce. So social norms were overturned based on what? Supposed revelation? Or was it a power grab. Really it is a bizarre situation that no doubt for any other group you would find revolting.

[_rcrocket]

How terrible of me to point out that under the law, the statement of a child is not admissible or credible testimony to prove paternity. You and your friends on this thread just aren't going to respond well to evidentiary challenges.

The lawyers I know understand the difference between the rules they have to play by in court, and the rules by which judgments are made on important matters in everyday life. They respect the former, but once outside the courtroom door they do like the rest of us and apply the ordinary rules of common sense decision making.

Evidently you don't. Your problem, not ours.

You are certainly free to reject my points that a child could not possibly establish, as Beastie claims, "conclusive evidence" of paternity. Indeed a child cannot establish evidence of any sort to that effect.

[_Scottie]

You are certainly free to reject my points that a child could not possibly establish, as Beastie claims, "conclusive evidence" of paternity. Indeed a child cannot establish evidence of any sort to that effect.

Bob, you seem purposefully obtuse. You have repeatedly ignored what Beastie is trying to say, holding tight to the straw man you've concocted. Even though Beastie has clarified her argument several times.

[_beastie]

Bob, you seem purposefully obtuse. You have repeatedly ignored what Beastie is trying to say, holding tight to the straw man you've concocted. Even though Beastie has clarified her argument several times.

Bob's done this repeatedly in the past. I suspect it is deliberate. Perhaps it is some sort of trick lawyers learn in law school... construct a strawman, stick to it doggedly, and hope that it will confuse and distract the jury from focusing on facts that have proven to be problematic to your client.

[_Canucklehead]

Bob, you seem purposefully obtuse. You have repeatedly ignored what Beastie is trying to say, holding tight to the straw man you've concocted. Even though Beastie has clarified her argument several times.

Bob's done this repeatedly in the past. I suspect it is deliberate. Perhaps it is some sort of trick lawyers learn in law school... construct a strawman, stick to it doggedly, and hope that it will confuse and distract the jury from focusing on facts that have proven to be problematic to your client.

Nope, it's not taught in law school (at least not at my school), but being a lawyer requires one to engage in zealous representation of their client. Even if a client is objectively in the wrong, a solicitor is under a legal duty to present their case in the strongest way possible. However, as Scottie points out above, rcrocket doesn't seem to be able to separate the formal requirements of the legal field from the common sense of every day life. Thus, even though he (likely) knows that the affidavit that you referenced is very compelling evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations withhis polyandrous wives, rcrocket prefers to dogmatically misrepresent the argument.

rcrocket, let me explain to you the argument that has been advanced:

Josephine swore that her mother told her that Joseph Smith was her father.
If we accept that she is not either lying or mistaken in her recollection of what her mother said to her, then this necessarily implies that her mother had reason to suspect that Joseph Smith was the father of Josephine.
If we accept that her mother correctly understands how children are conceived, then this necessarily implies that she had sex with Joseph Smith around 9 months before Josephine was born.

Now, the argument that you, rcrocket, are trying to debunk is as follows:

Josephine claims that Joseph was her father.

rcrocket, can you see the difference between the argument in blue and the argument in red? Can you see that they are not equivalent? If so, why are you insisting on attacking the argument in red, which nobody here has advanced?

(edited to correct awkward sentence structure)

[_rcrocket]

Yes. I understand the distinction completely.

Basically, the usual way a child will ever come to a conclusion as to paternity is that a mother, or a father, told her.

If a father told her, that is admissible evidence (and good historical evidence) if the father contravenes it later.

If the mother told her, that is hearsay.

So, at least in a court of law, no child is competent to prove paternity unless the child is repeating prior inconsistent statements of a father.

The purpose for my exercise here is merely to show that Beastie's use of the phrase "conclusive evidence" demonstrates a few things. She is not a very good discriminator of evidence. She uses hyperbole to make her point. She is thinly read in history. I really am unaware in any major historical work where the word of a child is accepted as "conclusive evidence" of disputed paternity.

For example, the very weighty consensus of historians was that Sally Hemmings' childrens' statements were not reliable to establish Thomas Jefferson's paternity. It took DNA evidence to establish the point.

Yet here for a religion despised on this Board Beastie is willing to accept such statements without question. With no question? Unbelievable. She is incompetent.

And, once again, we see examples of disparagement of my point because I am a lawyer trained in lying.

[_Chap]

..... at least in a court of law, no child is competent to prove paternity unless the child is repeating prior inconsistent statements of a father. [...]

And, once again, we see examples of disparagement of my point because I am a lawyer trained in lying.

WE. ARE. NOT. IN. A. COURT. OF. LAW.

(whether in the jurisdiction in which lawyer Crockett practices, or indeed in any other jurisdiction - in which different rules of evidence will often be found in force.)

WE. ARE. DOING. COMMON. SENSE. HERE.

(and the rules of common sense judgments are, thank goodness, not the same as those applied in court in lawyer Crockett's jurisdiction).

No one will disparage lawyer Crockett for being a lawyer, per se.

Quite a few people will feel moved to disparage him, I guess, because he posts as if he imagines that the rules he follows in court are binding on the rest of us outside court. In that he is either sadly mistaken, or posting in bad faith for rhetorical effect (an effect which is now wearing very thin indeed, but he has left himself no way to retreat, it seems.)

[_the road to hana]

Yet here for a religion despised on this Board Beastie is willing to accept such statements without question. With no question? Unbelievable.

Are you planning to let us know what you consider to be reliable evidence in establishing that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with women to whom he was "married?"

[_rcrocket]

..... at least in a court of law, no child is competent to prove paternity unless the child is repeating prior inconsistent statements of a father. [...]

And, once again, we see examples of disparagement of my point because I am a lawyer trained in lying.

WE. ARE. NOT. IN. A. COURT. OF. LAW.

(whether in the jurisdiction in which lawyer Crockett practices, or indeed in any other jurisdiction - in which different rules of evidence will often be found in force.)

WE. ARE. DOING. COMMON. SENSE. HERE.

(and the rules of common sense judgments are, thank goodness, not the same as those applied in court in lawyer Crockett's jurisdiction).

No one will disparage lawyer Crockett for being a lawyer, per se.

Quite a few people will feel moved to disparage him, I guess, because he posts as if he imagines that the rules he follows in court are binding on the rest of us outside court. In that he is either sadly mistaken, or posting in bad faith for rhetorical effect (an effect which is now wearing very thin indeed, but he has left himself no way to retreat, it seems.)

Well, you are just relying upon a straw man (what you claim I have been arguing).

Be that as it may, please respond to my comment about the consensus of historians about Sally Hemmings' children prior to DNA evidence. None of that was court of law nonsense, but the historical method.

Also, please cite to me one recognized historical treatise which established disputed paternity by the word of a child alone. One.

[_Dr. Shades]

Are you planning to let us know what you consider to be reliable evidence in establishing that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with women to whom he was "married?"

I'll go one better: Do you, rcrocket, believe that Joseph Smith had sexual intercourse one or more times with one or more of his plural wives?

Y/N