Brother Crockett vs...?

[_rcrocket]

Isn't it significant that you won't answer my point about Lyon? That her testimony is singularly unreliable, as a child? That children's testimony in the Hemmings' case, although ultimately vindicated, was not considered reliable by historians?

But, I answer your questions. I have answered this question before on this Board. Please look at prior posts of mine on this board where I discuss the affidavits collected and published by the Church and the Deseret News of former wives of Joseph Smith -- now there's reliable testimony.

[_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.)

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

A straw man is a position, usually a weak one, that one alleges falsely is held by one's opponent in order to attack it, so that one can claim to have beaten him. What position precisely have I alleged that you hold that you do not in fact hold?

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.

I shall leave it to others to follow you there if they wish. My dialog with you has concentrated on Josephine's affidavit that her mother said on her deathbed that she (Josephine) was the child of Joseph Smith, and what implications can sensibly be drawn from the content of that affidavit. You appear to be trying to divert me from that, and I won't let you.

I notice that since it is no longer possible for you to get much more mileage out of your punctured "In a court of law" rhetoric, you are now going to invoke something called 'the historical method'. You really don't want to go there, believe me. If you do a history course at any decent university, then H101 'An introduction to historiography' will reveal to you that there are just about as many historical methods as there as historians. There is no such thing as THE 'historical method'.

So - why don't we stick to common sense? And doesn't that point us in this direction?

1. Unless Josephine lied in her affidavit, her mother on her deathbed said that Josephine was Joseph Smith's child.

2. Unless Josephine's mother was telling lies on her deathbed - which is usually thought to be a rare thing to do - she must have recalled having sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith some time around a likely conception date for Josephine.

No? It is not cast iron proof, but it points to a considerable likelihood.

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

That is just silliness - the term 'recognized historical treatise' is devoid of reference for a professional historian. Historians do not write out rules for determining paternity of the kind you are looking for. You are just hoping that historians have something like the legal handbooks with which you are familiar, a hope which shows how like a fish out of water you are once you leave the courtroom.

[_Scottie]

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.

Yet, the 11 witnesses are considered strong evidence by the apologists???

I'm sorry, Bob, but this affidavit is FAR more compelling than the 11 witnesses.

[_the road to hana]

Isn't it significant that you won't answer my point about Lyon? That her testimony is singularly unreliable, as a child? That children's testimony in the Hemmings' case, although ultimately vindicated, was not considered reliable by historians?

But, I answer your questions. I have answered this question before on this Board. Please look at prior posts of mine on this board where I discuss the affidavits collected and published by the Church and the Deseret News of former wives of Joseph Smith -- now there's reliable testimony.

I'm not sure whether you're responding to me or Shades here, so I'll ask again.

Exactly what do you consider to be reliable evidence that a man and a woman have had sexual relations?

I'll ask a further question:

Do you assume a married couple have consummated, or will consummate, their marriage unless there is evidence to the contrary?

[_Scottie]

I have a legal question...

Are there any rules to signing an affidavit or can anyone sign one for anything?

[_beastie]

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-Sy ... nsLyon.htm

On January 27, 1844 her only surviving child, Philofreen, also died. At this time, Sylvia was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.

Josephine was 38 years old at the time of her mother's death. Deathbed confessions are normally regarded as quite reliable.
It is extremely doubtful that Sylvia would lie about this to her daughter on her deathbed. So if someone was lying, it was Josephine. Why would she lie about such a thing?

[_rcrocket]

That is just silliness - the term 'recognized historical treatise' is devoid of reference for a professional historian. Historians do not write out rules for determining paternity of the kind you are looking for. You are just hoping that historians have something like the legal handbooks with which you are familiar, a hope which shows how like a fish out of water you are once you leave the courtroom.

You certainly assume a lot about what I think, know and believe.

I have given you a famous example of where a child's testimony has not resolved disputed paternity -- the Hemmings' family. Perhaps you can give me an example where a child's testimony alone has resolved disputed paternity. Maybe one?

[_the road to hana]

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-SylviaSessionsLyon.htm

On January 27, 1844 her only surviving child, Philofreen, also died. At this time, Sylvia was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.

Josephine was 38 years old at the time of her mother's death. Deathbed confessions are normally regarded as quite reliable.
It is extremely doubtful that Sylvia would lie about this to her daughter on her deathbed. So if someone was lying, it was Josephine. Why would she lie about such a thing?

Even more troubling, the elephant in the corner is the implication that these women could have been having sex with more than one man, when paternity is in question.

[_beastie]

I have given you a famous example of where a child's testimony has not resolved disputed paternity -- the Hemmings' family. Perhaps you can give me an example where a child's testimony alone has resolved disputed paternity. Maybe one?

How many people have tried to explain to you that paternity is not the issue? The issue is that Sylvia believed that Joseph Smith was Josephine's father. Hence, she had had sex with Joseph Smith.

All this babbling of yours about paternity is smoke and mirrors.

[_the road to hana]

I have given you a famous example of where a child's testimony has not resolved disputed paternity -- the Hemmings' family. Perhaps you can give me an example where a child's testimony alone has resolved disputed paternity. Maybe one?

How many people have tried to explain to you that paternity is not the issue? The issue is that Sylvia believed that Joseph Smith was Josephine's father. Hence, she had had sex with Joseph Smith.

All this babbling of yours about paternity is smoke and mirrors.

I guess that is my point, beastie, which isn't made as well in the post above yours. Some mopologists shift the emphasis to one of paternity, and proving the same, when the implication is that either (1) she was having sex with more than one man, and honestly believed (correcly or incorrectly) that Joseph was the father of her child, (2) she was only having sex with Joseph, so had solid basis for believing he was the father of her child, or (3) she was dishonest and lied about it for reasons entirely her own.

None of those bode well for the mopologist.