MAD's Martha Brotherton Thread

[_Runtu]

See, Wade, this is an analogy that would work. If I have a history of signing on to internet discussion boards using screen names that are not my real name, and sign onto a new internet board with a screen name, then some people would conclude that I'm still not using my real name.

They lied about polygamy - spare me your "semantics" game. People who use semantics to mislead others are lying. So the fact that they previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy makes their denials this time absolutely useless as evidence.

Of course, this has already been repeatedly explained to you, and you still don't grasp it, so I just wasted two minutes of my life typing this.

In a legal proceeding, they refer to this as establishing a pattern.

I find it interesting that we're reduced to saying that church leaders resorted to semantics, which is just a nice way of saying they lied.

[_Analytics]

Wade,

Perhaps we could formulate the analysis using Bayesian logic.....

As I see things, there are several problems with your reasoning:

1) It is overly selective in terms of the probabilities it considers. For example, at the very least it failed to consider what to me is the most striking probability: the likelyhood that one person would be telling the truth and six people would be lying.

A: I considered that; my argument is that if the six people were in a conspiracy to keep polygamy secret, then whether or not they are lying doesn't matter because it doesn't give us any information; they were going to deny this story regardless of whether or not it is true.

2) You seem to be arbitrarily applying a single probability to six separate individuals, whereas I see them as quite different people and cicumstances, and thus different probabilities for each. I believe it is less likely for Martha's sister to say what she did even if her sister was telling the truth, than it would be for BY to say what he did under the same circustances.

A: I didn't mean to be arbitrary about it. Could you list the six people? My understanding is that they were all a part of the conspiracy to keep the truth about polygamy out of public view.

3) It is uncertain what factors you used to figure your probabilities, so there is no way to test your probabilities to see if they are valid and sound, or whether one may agree with them or not.

A: The whole arguement hinges on whether or not Brigham Young et. al. could have been relied on to be honest about polygamy. The model is robust with regards to the other probabilities.

4) Your reasoning requires the respective concessions. Whereas, as I view things, I wouldn't conceed to either. I have not found sufficient cause to believe that any one of the six, let alone all six, would say what they did even if what Martha said were true--and this even in light of the presumed desire of some to keep the practice of polygamy secret and also some having on rare occasions played semantics when addressing questions about the practice. I see those things as quite different from proactively lying about and discrediting what someone else said. I think it more likely that were Martha's allegations true, the six would have remained silent (particularly the McIIwricks, who weren't practicing polygamy at the time, nor to my knowledge ever did). And, I am not certain that Martha wouldn't lie in some or all of what she said.

A: "the respective concessions"? Not sure what you mean by this. I believe there was a conspiracy by the Nauvoo polygamy insiders to keep the truth from polygamy in the dark. They were willing to lie, slander, and falsify records in order to keep their secret works secret. I'll make this point in another thread though.

5) As indicated previously, I don't see the sealing, which took place 30 years after the alleged incident, as material (probability or otherwise) to determining who was telling the truth. Much could have happened in the interim that we don't know about, and precious little information to enable us to read BY's mind on this case.

A: Do you believe it indicates that the powers believed that Martha would be a suitable wife for Brigham?

In short, I see your reasoning as falling prey to the fallacy of A Priorism (attempting to deduce facts from abstractions and principles rather than inducing from facts).

And, probabilities are not a valid indicator of truth (the probability of a broken clock not telling the right time, will be incorrect at least twice a day). Probabilities, or Bayesian Logic, may be a useful tool when formulating a hypothesis, but not
in testing or verifying the hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.

I disagree.

[_Analytics]

Consider the following analogy.

with: There are six clocks that say it is noon, and there is one clock that says it is 7:00 A.M. Therefore, it is very likely that the correct time is noon—its’ more likely for one clock to be wrong rather than six to be wrong.

A: The thing is, the six clocks that say noon don’t run. Those clocks always say noon, regardless of the actual time. Now, the a priori chances that they are right are 1/1440, but what the clocks say has no bearing on what the time actually is.

On the other hand, the clock that says 7:00 A.M. is in fact running. If you look outside, you’ll see very heavy traffic going into the city. This is consistent with 7:00 A.M. If you look inside of Denny’s, people are eating breakfast food. This is consistent with 7:00 A.M.

Now, it’s possible that it really does happen to be noon, and that there are other explanations for the events that are consistent with it being 7:00 A.M. But by appropriately weighing all of the evidence the most likely time is in fact 7:00 A.M.

[_wenglund]

See, Wade, this is an analogy that would work. If I have a history of signing on to internet discussion boards using screen names that are not my real name, and sign onto a new internet board with a screen name, then some people would conclude that I'm still not using my real name.

Perhaps.

However, were they to use your "logic", they may conclude that you have previously and repeatedly lied about who you are in order to keep your identity secret. They would then give 9.0 for mental gymnastics for your attempt above to justify your actions.

For my part, though, I would give you a 0.0 for failing to get my point.

They lied about polygamy - spare me your "semantics" game. People who use semantics to mislead others are lying. So the fact that they previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy makes their denials this time absolutely useless as evidence.

Of course, this has already been repeatedly explained to you, and you still don't grasp it, so I just wasted two minutes of my life typing this.

Please provide the credible documentation for your accusation that the McIIwricks "previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy".

Please also do the same for each of the other 4 principles mentioned in Martha's affidavit (Vilate Kimball, Heber Kimball, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith).

I am asking for this documentation knowing that with at least half of the six counter-claimants you will not be able to find a single instance to back up your charge (thereby demonstrating the falsity of your charge in their regard), and the other half you will be hard pressed to to come up with more than a few instances.

Once we have taken this first step, I will then walk you painstakingly through each of my previous counter-arguments in hopes of providing you with at least some measure of cognition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

See, Wade, this is an analogy that would work. If I have a history of signing on to internet discussion boards using screen names that are not my real name, and sign onto a new internet board with a screen name, then some people would conclude that I'm still not using my real name.

They lied about polygamy - spare me your "semantics" game. People who use semantics to mislead others are lying. So the fact that they previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy makes their denials this time absolutely useless as evidence.

Of course, this has already been repeatedly explained to you, and you still don't grasp it, so I just wasted two minutes of my life typing this.

In a legal proceeding, they refer to this as establishing a pattern.

I find it interesting that we're reduced to saying that church leaders resorted to semantics, which is just a nice way of saying they lied.

I suppose that in a binary sense that is true. But, those who think in such terms would likewise be reduced to considering those who resort to the semantics of "screen names" as just a nice way of saying they are lying about who they really are.

However, I look at it a little differently (seeing a broad range of departures from disclosing the full and unvarnished truth), and tend to reserve the charge "lie" for the most serious of infractions.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I suppose that in a binary sense that is true. But, those who think in such terms would likewise be reduced to considering those who resort to the semantics of "screen names" as just a nice way of saying they are lying about who they really are.

Yep, we binary thinkers are severely handicapped when it comes to apologetics.

However, I look at it a little differently (seeing a broad range of departures from disclosing the full and unvarnished truth), and tend to reserve the charge "lie" for the most serious of infractions.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, that's really the only way to make the public and private contradictions in polygamy work.

Me, I prefer the unvarnished truth. But to each their own. :-)

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Perhaps we could formulate the analysis using Bayesian logic.....

As I see things, there are several problems with your reasoning:

1) It is overly selective in terms of the probabilities it considers. For example, at the very least it failed to consider what to me is the most striking probability: the likelyhood that one person would be telling the truth and six people would be lying.

A: I considered that; my argument is that if the six people were in a conspiracy to keep polygamy secret, then whether or not they are lying doesn't matter because it doesn't give us any information; they were going to deny this story regardless of whether or not it is true.

If you are going to consider probabilities, you need to consider the probabilities at each level and for each respective variable. Perhaps you did so in your mind. But I didn't see where you had with the 1 to 6 probability or some of the other permutations I alluded to.

2) You seem to be arbitrarily applying a single probability to six separate individuals, whereas I see them as quite different people and cicumstances, and thus different probabilities for each. I believe it is less likely for Martha's sister to say what she did even if her sister was telling the truth, than it would be for BY to say what he did under the same circustances.

A: I didn't mean to be arbitrary about it. Could you list the six people? My understanding is that they were all a part of the conspiracy to keep the truth about polygamy out of public view.

They were: Mary McIIwrick, John McIIwrick, Vilate Kimball, Heber Kimball, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith.

The sweeping claim you mention has been made, but not substantiated at all in certain cases, and insufficiently in other cases.

3) It is uncertain what factors you used to figure your probabilities, so there is no way to test your probabilities to see if they are valid and sound, or whether one may agree with them or not.

A: The whole arguement hinges on whether or not Brigham Young et. al. could have been relied on to be honest about polygamy. The model is robust with regards to the other probabilities.

Whether that is true or not, you have yet to deliniate the evidence you considered for certatin variables and the specific probabilities you assigned to them. For example, when you calculated the probabilities that Mary McIIwrick would say what she did even were her sister, Martha's, statement to be true, what factors (evidence) did you use to come up with your probability, and what was the probability you came up with?

4) Your reasoning requires the respective concessions. Whereas, as I view things, I wouldn't conceed to either. I have not found sufficient cause to believe that any one of the six, let alone all six, would say what they did even if what Martha said were true--and this even in light of the presumed desire of some to keep the practice of polygamy secret and also some having on rare occasions played semantics when addressing questions about the practice. I see those things as quite different from proactively lying about and discrediting what someone else said. I think it more likely that were Martha's allegations true, the six would have remained silent (particularly the McIIwricks, who weren't practicing polygamy at the time, nor to my knowledge ever did). And, I am not certain that Martha wouldn't lie in some or all of what she said.

A: "the respective concessions"? Not sure what you mean by this. I believe there was a conspiracy by the Nauvoo polygamy insiders to keep the truth from polygamy in the dark. They were willing to lie, slander, and falsify records in order to keep their secret works secret. I'll make this point in another thread though.

In your innitial argument you had two premises which began: "If you conceed...". That is what I was referring to interms of concessions. In other words, I didn't conceed to those things, and thus your conclusion (which is dependant upon those consessions) did not follow--at least not for me.

5) As indicated previously, I don't see the sealing, which took place 30 years after the alleged incident, as material (probability or otherwise) to determining who was telling the truth. Much could have happened in the interim that we don't know about, and precious little information to enable us to read BY's mind on this case.

A: Do you believe it indicates that the powers believed that Martha would be a suitable wife for Brigham?

I am not sure they took that into consideration. Were I to venture a guess (which I am disinclined to do), I would think the sealing was more for Martha's benefit than BY's.

In short, I see your reasoning as falling prey to the fallacy of A Priorism (attempting to deduce facts from abstractions and principles rather than inducing from facts).

And, probabilities are not a valid indicator of truth (the probability of a broken clock not telling the right time, will be incorrect at least twice a day). Probabilities, or Bayesian Logic, may be a useful tool when formulating a hypothesis, but not
in testing or verifying the hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.

I disagree.

Nevertheless, in order for your argument to work with me, I would need to be in agreement, and I am not. (see above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I suppose that in a binary sense that is true. But, those who think in such terms would likewise be reduced to considering those who resort to the semantics of "screen names" as just a nice way of saying they are lying about who they really are.

Yep, we binary thinkers are severely handicapped when it comes to apologetics.

However, I look at it a little differently (seeing a broad range of departures from disclosing the full and unvarnished truth), and tend to reserve the charge "lie" for the most serious of infractions.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, that's really the only way to make the public and private contradictions in polygamy work.

Me, I prefer the unvarnished truth. But to each their own. :-)

Funny, I don't see you going around calling yourself a "liar" on this board--certainly not with the same frequency you seem disposed to mention regarding your former faith. But, maybe I am the one who is handicapped in viewing as consistent the critics of my faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Funny, I don't see you going around calling yourself a "liar" on this board--certainly not with the same frequency you seem disposed to mention regarding your former faith. But, maybe I am the one who is handicapped in viewing as consistent the critics of my faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When I've lied, I admit to it. And despite your perception, I don't throw the word "liar" around, either. I reserve it for the obvious distortions and masking of the truth. And for the record, I did not call anyone on this thread a liar. I did say that your "semantics" approach seems to be a nice way to say they lied. It's not the same thing.

[_Mister Scratch]

See, Wade, this is an analogy that would work. If I have a history of signing on to internet discussion boards using screen names that are not my real name, and sign onto a new internet board with a screen name, then some people would conclude that I'm still not using my real name.

They lied about polygamy - spare me your "semantics" game. People who use semantics to mislead others are lying. So the fact that they previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy makes their denials this time absolutely useless as evidence.

Of course, this has already been repeatedly explained to you, and you still don't grasp it, so I just wasted two minutes of my life typing this.

In a legal proceeding, they refer to this as establishing a pattern.

I find it interesting that we're reduced to saying that church leaders resorted to semantics, which is just a nice way of saying they lied.

I suppose that in a binary sense that is true. But, those who think in such terms would likewise be reduced to considering those who resort to the semantics of "screen names" as just a nice way of saying they are lying about who they really are.

However, I look at it a little differently (seeing a broad range of departures from disclosing the full and unvarnished truth), and tend to reserve the charge "lie" for the most serious of infractions.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you are misunderstanding the terms. It is not correct to say that "the semantics of 'screen names' [is] just a nice way of saying [you] are lying about who [you] really are." After all, nobody is being fooled, tricked, or manipulated by these screen names. On the other hand, the Church leaders use of "semantics" to downplay polygamy was clearly a kind of trick. The leaders knew that if the knowledge leaked, they would be in a lot of hot water, would possibly face criminal charges, and would probably cause a mass exodus of members.