Brother Crockett vs...?

Post by **_beastie** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:38 am

So Sylvia Sessions was a liar.

How about all those other wives that stated (in Victorian terms) that they had sex with their "husband", Joseph Smith? Liars, too?

How about the church leaders that procured these testimonies in their battle with RLDS? Liars encouraging others to lie?

And please answer the question in regards to what possibly could constitute "reliable documentary evidence" in this case. Because as far as I can see, nothing would, other than the aforementioned video-tape.

Post by **_Scottie** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:39 am

Coggins7 wrote:
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.

Noooo...we have no evidence that she was divorced. Thus we must assume she was still married.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:39 am

Tell us, coggins, just what would constitute "reliable documentary evidence" in this matter?

Any number of things. Direct, corroborated testimony of the polyandrous wives that they had sex with him; testimony of family members who knew of it, children produced from such marriages, etc. Any number of things which apparently, do not exist, or they would have been made mention of long ago (indeed, generations ago).

Post by **_the road to hana** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:40 am

Coggins7 wrote:
I would think that telling one's daughter that her father was Joseph Smith is the equivalent of saying: I had sex with Joseph Smith.

And this is an anecdote, without any body of corroborating documentation for which we have no conceivable means of verifying. Its this kind of thing, Beastie, that casts serious doubt upon the credibility your vaunted excursions into Archeology and the Book of Abraham.

Sure. And your mother telling you your father is your father, without corroborating evidence, is the same.

As rc already pointed out, there are a number of other plausible reasons this statement could have been made. What is clear is that she did not actually know Joseph was her father. That she thought he was is not in question.

But that doesn't make for reliable history Beastie.

What makes for reliable history when it comes to private sexual relations between consenting adults? Or even parentage?

Post by **_Coggins7** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:41 am

Noooo...we have no evidence that she was divorced.

You won't even take 10 or 15 minutes to do some homework will you? No evidence is not proof of the opposing view. Secondly, the lack of evidence is explainable due to the difficult extenuating circumstances under which the marriage dissolved-and we know it dissolved.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:41 am

Oh, for heaven's sake, coggins. By your own standards, Josephine Lyon's statement counts as reliable documentary evidence.

I hope the defenders of the faith here just pause for a moment and let this sink in: think about what you are having to try to explain away.

Post by **_Scottie** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:45 am

Coggins7 wrote:
Noooo...we have no evidence that she was divorced.

You won't even take 10 or 15 minutes to do some homework will you? No evidence is not proof of the opposing view. Secondly, the lack of evidence is explainable due to the difficult extenuating circumstances under which the marriage dissolved-and we know it dissolved.

But yet you seem to want to maintain that they were not married because it fits your agenda. Even though we have no documentation to say one way or the other.

Okay. How does someone debate this? You make the rules up as you go along!

Post by **_Coggins7** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:00 am

And so do you. The fact of the matter is, I don't accept for one nanosecond any claim that BY was immoral. I've read and studied his words and teachings to a substantial degree, and I am convinced beyond any possible doubt that he could have been a man of this kind.

You, on the other hand, need him to be to support your own assumptions. We are, it seems, at an impasse.

I could tell you how you could know for yourself regarding BY's and Joseph's integrity, but you would reject that out of hand.

So on we go...

Post by **_the road to hana** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:03 am

Coggins7 wrote:And so do you. The fact of the matter is, I don't accept for one nanosecond any claim that BY was immoral. I've read and studied his words and teachings to a substantial degree, and I am convinced beyond any possible doubt that he could have been a man of this kind.

You, on the other hand, need him to be to support your own assumptions. We are, it seems, at an impasse.

I could tell you how you could know for yourself regarding BY's and Joseph's integrity, but you would reject that out of hand.

So on we go...

What constitutes "immorality," in your view?

For many, the fact that either took more than one wife, whether or not those women were already married, would be immoral. For many, taking another man's wife, whether or not the second marriage is "consummated," would be immoral.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:04 am

Oh, for heaven's sake, coggins. By your own standards, Josephine Lyon's statement counts as reliable documentary evidence.

You're not even trying to follow the nuances of my, or rc's arguments here Beastie. One statement from a historical character who herself was not factually or empirically sure of such a relationship is historical anecdote, and would need corroboration and verification from independent sources. You have the same problem with Fanny Alger. No one, not Fanny or her family members ever mention sex, yet you will, pitbull-like, close you jaws around this kind of thing and swing back and forth from the tree limb until your teeth fall out.

Show us the evidence, that's all we're asking.