Hales and Joseph Smith's Polyandry

[_DoubtingThomas]

That doesn't require him to positively disprove every single tiny teeny remote possibility, no matter how remote the probability.

I agree, all he needs to do is prove that Joseph Smith f**ed Sylvia, or his other polyandrous wives. I am simply open to other possibilities because I haven't seen enough evidence for sexual polyandry. If Dan Vogel is correct about Sylvia's case being the best evidence for sexual polyandry, it means there is simply not enough.

But now you're back to stating that you think false memory is a reasonable alternate theory, so, make your case, support your theory. The floor is yours.

I think the real question is, what is more probable
1. sexual polyandry
2. False Memory
3. Some other reasonable possibility

The answer is: I don't know, and I don't have to prove 1,2, or 3 because I have no position.

[_Lemmie]

I think the real question is, what is more probable
1. sexual polyandry
2. False Memory
3. Some other reasonable possibility

The answer is: I don't know, and I don't have to prove 1,2, or 3 because I have no position.

stats and proofs are not your thing, are they?
"what is more probable"? lol. asked and answered, DT.

[_honorentheos]

It seems part of the issue is what it means to be skeptical. It seems a big issue for DoubtingThomas is that there isn’t definitive evidence for polyandry. Meaning more specifically, there isn’t a proven DNA-tested offspring of Joseph Smith from a known married woman. Which would be fair to say in that the evidence isn’t definitive nor is the issue a closed case.

But underlying that is a more serious issue that I read as a dogmatic misunderstanding of how evidence and science is to be understood. When someone lashes out at history and makes a statement that they believe science is better, I have to wonder what they mean when they refer to science? In both cases, methodologies are employed that seek to use evidence combined with explanations for results that by definition remain open to falsification through better evidence. But neither rigorous historical nor rigorous scientific investigation is setting up the evidence to make all options equally valid until one can stop leaving the door open to falsification.

Skepticism isn’t being skeptical of theories and evidence until proven true at which point skepticism is no longer needed. That’s dogma. That’s religion.

Skepticism is accepting the tools and methods we have are what they are, and learning both how to use them and also not become over-confident in their ability guide us to some Platonic version of Truth with a capital “T”.

In this case, the evidence is not equally weighted to the theory that Joseph never had sex with any of his already married celestial brides. Besides testimony evidence in the column in favor of this being the case, one also has the polygamy revelation itself which describes the purpose of polygamy. One has the evidence from the Temple Lot cases, Oliver Cowdery's excommunication trial, and much else that come down on the side of it being likely these relationships were also sexual ones.

It's one thing to say that having DNA evidence Joseph fathered children with one of his polyandrious wives is stonger evidence than what we currently have and would be fairly damning for alternative theories. But it's saying something else entirely to extend this to there being equal possibilities for all options until DNA evidence comes along. That's a religious-like belief in one technique of evidence gathering that suggests room for learning about, well, learning.

[_DoubtingThomas]

stats and proofs are not your thing, are they?

In Math and Science they are!

In this case, the evidence is not equally weighted to the theory that Joseph never had sex with any of his already married celestial brides. Besides testimony evidence in the column in favor of this being the case, one also has the polygamy revelation itself which describes the purpose of polygamy. One has the evidence from the Temple Lot cases, Oliver Cowdery's excommunication trial, and much else that come down on the side of it being likely these relationships were also sexual ones.

It's one thing to say that having DNA evidence Joseph fathered children with one of his polyandrious wives is stonger evidence than what we currently have and would be fairly damning for alternative theories. But it's saying something else entirely to extend this to there being equal possibilities for all options until DNA evidence comes along. That's a religious-like belief in one technique of evidence gathering that suggests room for learning about, well, learning.

I do agree Joseph Smith likely had sex with his polygamous wives. D&C says nothing about polyandry, and there is evidence that Joseph Smith believed in own s***! Joseph Smith likely believed in christianity and sin.

The main reason why I am not sure about sexual polandry is because Dan Vogel said that Sylvia's case is the best evidence for that. If he is right, then it is not enough in my opinion.

There is a lot of evidence that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Theory, I don't need science to tell me that.

[_Lemmie]

It seems part of the issue is what it means to be skeptical. It seems a big issue for DoubtingThomas is that there isn’t definitive evidence for polyandry. Meaning more specifically, there isn’t a proven DNA-tested offspring of Joseph Smith from a known married woman. Which would be fair to say in that the evidence isn’t definitive nor is the issue a closed case.

But underlying that is a more serious issue that I read as a dogmatic misunderstanding of how evidence and science is to be understood. When someone lashes out at history and makes a statement that they believe science is better, I have to wonder what they mean when they refer to science? In both cases, methodologies are employed that seek to use evidence combined with explanations for results that by definition remain open to falsification through better evidence. But neither rigorous historical nor rigorous scientific investigation is setting up the evidence to make all options equally valid until one can stop leaving the door open to falsification.

Skepticism isn’t being skeptical of theories and evidence until proven true at which point skepticism is no longer needed. That’s dogma. That’s religion.

Skepticism is accepting the tools and methods we have are what they are, and learning both how to use them and also not become over-confident in their ability guide us to some Platonic version of Truth with a capital “T”.

In this case, the evidence is not equally weighted to the theory that Joseph never had sex with any of his already married celestial brides. Besides testimony evidence in the column in favor of this being the case, one also has the polygamy revelation itself which describes the purpose of polygamy. One has the evidence from the Temple Lot cases, Oliver Cowdery's excommunication trial, and much else that come down on the side of it being likely these relationships were also sexual ones.

It's one thing to say that having DNA evidence Joseph fathered children with one of his polyandrious wives is stonger evidence than what we currently have and would be fairly damning for alternative theories. But it's saying something else entirely to extend this to there being equal possibilities for all options until DNA evidence comes along. That's a religious-like belief in one technique of evidence gathering that suggests room for learning about, well, learning.

thanks, honorentheos, extremely well said. This is one of those posts worth reading and re-reading. So applicable to so many discussions here.

[Guest]

You can resolve it by showing where he said it.

He said it multiple times.

Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vlb2Yxs8QM

Yeah, you're a TROLL and a liar. (Dan does not say what you attribute to him in his video).

[_DoubtingThomas]

Yeah, you're a TROLL and a liar.

whatever, you are a ***** *****
Just like the apologists, all you have are personal attacks!

oh s**t! Wrong link. Sorry!
Here is the right one
https://youtu.be/rjao6DiN2DY?t=47m18s

[_grindael]

Yeah, you're a TROLL and a liar.

whatever, you are a ***** *****
Just like the apologists, all you have are personal attacks!

oh s**t! Wrong link. Sorry!
Here is the right one
https://youtu.be/rjao6DiN2DY?t=47m18s

Yep, TROLL and LIAR.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Yep, TROLL and LIAR.

okay kid! I will stop replying to you. Grow up!

If you want a conversation just answer my questions, if not, f*** off!!

The main reason why I am not sure about sexual polandry is because Dan Vogel said that Sylvia's case is the best evidence for that. If he is right, then it is not enough in my opinion.

I agree, all he needs to do is prove that Joseph Smith f**ed Sylvia, or his other polyandrous wives. I am simply open to other possibilities because I haven't seen enough evidence

[_Lemmie]

It seems part of the issue is what it means to be skeptical. It seems a big issue for DoubtingThomas is that there isn’t definitive evidence for polyandry. Meaning more specifically, there isn’t a proven DNA-tested offspring of Joseph Smith from a known married woman. Which would be fair to say in that the evidence isn’t definitive nor is the issue a closed case.

But underlying that is a more serious issue that I read as a dogmatic misunderstanding of how evidence and science is to be understood. When someone lashes out at history and makes a statement that they believe science is better, I have to wonder what they mean when they refer to science? In both cases, methodologies are employed that seek to use evidence combined with explanations for results that by definition remain open to falsification through better evidence. But neither rigorous historical nor rigorous scientific investigation is setting up the evidence to make all options equally valid until one can stop leaving the door open to falsification.

Skepticism isn’t being skeptical of theories and evidence until proven true at which point skepticism is no longer needed. That’s dogma. That’s religion.

Skepticism is accepting the tools and methods we have are what they are, and learning both how to use them and also not become over-confident in their ability guide us to some Platonic version of Truth with a capital “T”.

In this case, the evidence is not equally weighted to the theory that Joseph never had sex with any of his already married celestial brides. Besides testimony evidence in the column in favor of this being the case, one also has the polygamy revelation itself which describes the purpose of polygamy. One has the evidence from the Temple Lot cases, Oliver Cowdery's excommunication trial, and much else that come down on the side of it being likely these relationships were also sexual ones.

It's one thing to say that having DNA evidence Joseph fathered children with one of his polyandrious wives is stonger evidence than what we currently have and would be fairly damning for alternative theories. But it's saying something else entirely to extend this to there being equal possibilities for all options until DNA evidence comes along. That's a religious-like belief in one technique of evidence gathering that suggests room for learning about, well, learning.

hoping for a re-read from DT.