Analytics wrote:W: I get the point of your analogy, but I don't see that it applies very well in the case in question. While the "clocks" in Brotherton case may all be saying noon (i.e. they all essentially said that the things Martha claimed in her affidavite were false), what is the evidence that they "don't run" and "they always say noon"?
A: “The clocks always say noon” because the Kimball, Young, and Smith always denied polygamy (until 1852). If you asked in general if they did it, they said no. If you asked if they were married to somebody they were married to, they said no. If you asked if they were married to somebody they weren’t married to, they said no. They always said no, just like a broken clock always says noon. My argument for this rests on the idea that Young and Kimball were following Joseph’s lead, and I flesh it out in the Conspiracy thread. But here are some highlights:
1- Smith directly denied polygamy in the sermon I quoted.
2- Joseph and his scribes falsified his records so that they “proved” that he never taught and never practiced polygamy.
3- Neither Joseph Smith nor the church made any record of the polygamous “marriages” they performed.
Regarding the McIlwrick testimonies, they basically said that Martha was not an honest person. Perhaps that is so, and the weight given to Martha’s testimony can be discounted based on that. But the fact remains that Martha’s account is consistent with the way that polygamy actually operated, on a level of detail that she probably couldn’t have known unless she actually experienced it.
So in the analogy, what we have is a few people who don’t know what time it is but are claiming that in general, the 7:00 A.M. clock isn’t reliable. But based upon corroborating evidence, what we know is that 7:00 A.M. is a plausible time.
So putting it all together, we know that Martha’s story is plausible and that there is some corroborating evidence that it is true. On the other hand, we have some (contested) evidence that Martha is a liar. But other than the broken clocks, we have no evidence that she is lying in this particular case.
Let's simplify things a bit by looking at just three of the opposing "clocks"--i.e. Mary and John McIIwrick and Vilate Kimball, and see if your argument holds up.
For one, the McIIwricks affidavits says more than just "Martha was not an honest person". They specifically concurred that "the statements which she [Martha] has reported in different places [presumably including her affidavit] are quite contrary to those she related here." (It should be noted that in Martha's own affidavit, she mentions having written the alleged conversation down the following day and having given it to her sister, who "was not a little surprised".)
Vilate Kimball said: "conversation said to have taken place between her and her husband in presence of Martha Brotherton is false: that nothing of the kind as stated in the affidavit of the 13th July 1842, made by the said Martha Brotherton at St. Louis, ever occurred, but is a base fabrication."
Now, what evidence do you have that these three "clocks" "don't run" and "they always say noon"? (Please keep in mind that there is no evidence that McIIwricks were practicing polygamy at the time, let alone even knew about the practice, and were not speaking to the practice in their affidavits, but to Martha's claims about her being proposed to by BY and so forth. Please also keep in mind that Vilate, while perhaps a participant in the practice of polygamy at the time--amounting to sealings done by her husband to more than one woman, her affidavit was not in reference to the practice, or even specifically in reference to the alleged proposal, but rather specific to the alleged conversation between she and her husband Heber, which had nothing to do with polygamy, but rather an alleged lie about going to Joseph's store).
Then, if necessary, we can then proceed to examine the other three "clocks" (I don't think this will be necessary since I believe you will find that your argument fails with the three clocks--Mary, John, and Vilate--and that should reasonably suffice.)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-