Hales and Joseph Smith's Polyandry

[_grindael]

My time on this is limited. I have other subjects to cover. Like the First Vision and where the church was organized.

Are you working on that with Mike? (The second one). Had some long talks with him about it. Glad you are on it.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Yes because I am not talking about that anymore. In my last ten posts I am asking you about false memory, not about her supernatural or religious beliefs.

But you tied the two together. So which is it? Why did she have those false memories?

Never mind! I seems I didn't explain clearly

[_Dan Vogel]

My time on this is limited. I have other subjects to cover. Like the First Vision and where the church was organized.

Are you working on that with Mike? (The second one). Had some long talks with him about it. Glad you are on it.

I was talking with Mike about Mike MacKay's little book the other day.

[_DoubtingThomas]

The evidence is not inconclusive. It is overwhelming.

Bart Ehrman gave a definition of overwhelming historical evidence

To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.

[_grindael]

The evidence is not inconclusive. It is overwhelming.

Bart Ehrman gave a definition of overwhelming historical evidence

To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.

Is he an expert on Mormon Polygamy?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Is he an expert on Mormon Polygamy?

Now that is a true red herring. It is simply a good standard and definition for overwhelming historical evidence. I seen no overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with Sylvia or his other polyandrous wives.

[_sock puppet]

Is he an expert on Mormon Polygamy?

Now that is a true red herring. It is simply a good standard and definition for overwhelming historical evidence. I seen no overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with Sylvia or his other polyandrous wives.

I've seen no evidence, much less overwhelming evidence, for any of the LDS claims about the LDS stylized or mythical JSjr as portrayed in the LDS correlated materials and spoken of from the GenCon pulpit.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I've seen no evidence, much less overwhelming evidence, for any of the LDS claims about the LDS stylized or mythical JSjr as portrayed in the LDS correlated materials and spoken of from the GenCon pulpit.

I agree with you! The burden of proof falls on the apologists, not us.

[_grindael]

Is he an expert on Mormon Polygamy?

Now that is a true red herring. It is simply a good standard and definition for overwhelming historical evidence. I seen no overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with Sylvia or his other polyandrous wives.

Whatever you say, now you're just trolling. You already made it clear over and over again what you think.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Whatever you say, now you're just trolling. You already made it clear over and over again what you think.

jesus christ! how I am trolling? I do admit I am sometimes sarcastic, but right now I am simply giving you a good definition of "overwhelming historical evidence"

That is all, I don't think anything about Joseph Smith polyandry.