Brother Crockett vs...?

[_the road to hana]

This is rather commical to watch. Non-historians, pretending to be historians, telling other non-historians how historians should operate and what historians view as good evidence. Is it a surprise to anyone that no source will be good enough? Its obvious to the normal, rational mind than its more likely than not that Joseph Smith married and had sex with some or all of his wives.

So, you find it acceptable to base your opinion upon no evidence at all, at least with respect to women who were married to other men?

What evidence would you consider acceptable?

From a legal viewpoint, are a man and woman who are married presumed to have consummated the marriage in the absence of evidence to the contrary?

[_antishock8]

The only evidence these two jacka*ses would accept is a videotaped confession by Joseph Smith, along with a signed confession, along with a personal interview with said jacka*ses, followed up by visual confirmation of Jospeph Smith screwing the crap out of any number of women. Then, and only then, would either of these two consider the possibility that Jospeh Smith might have had sex outside of marriage.

Since that's not going to happen, and since every common sense indicator will be dismissed, I don't see the point other than to demonstrate to any lurkers what kind of person you have to be in order to remain a believer.

Hrm... Now that I typed that out... Carry on everyone. This is important stuff for others to see.

[_Chap]

Josephine's evidence is evidence indeed, but it is far too weak to accept without considering deeply the possibility that it is wrong.

This probably doesn't qualify as "legal" evidence, but Josephine's photograph shows a striking resemblance to the Smith family, in my opinion.

That's rather subjective.

Further checking reveals the following:

A child's testimony about paternity is not admissible unless it recounts the statement of a father admitting to paternity who later denies it. So, I don't get where Beastie says it is "conclusive" when, indeed, the exact opposite is the case.

So, at present, you have to ask yourself whether you are going to base your opinions of history upon evidence, soft or hard, or upon speculation. Here, there is no evidence.

The formal rules of admissible evidence in certain Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions are binding on those who practice law in those jurisdictions. while they are engaged in pleading a case. Outside the courthouse, we are free to use our common sense in deciding what happened on the basis of all the available evidence.

We are not in court now. So can we talk as if the normal common-sense judgements of ordinary people apply here? Pretty please, Mr Lawyer guy?

On a normal common sense basis, we have some quite significant evidence here. As I said above:

Josephine's evidence, a solemn declaration of a fact upon oath, is strong evidence that her mother said that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine had first-hand knowledge of what her mother said.

The existence of the affidavit clearly leads to a significant increase in the weight that can reasonably be given to the hypothesis that

(a) Joseph Smith was Josephine's father

and rather more to the hypothesis that

(b) Joseph Smith had sex with Josephine's mother (but she may have had sex with other people too, so Joseph Smith may not have been Josephine's father)

and more still to the hypothesis that

(c) Joseph Smith was generally assumed to have sexual relations with his plural wives, so that Josephine being his child was a reasonable possibility.

[_the road to hana]

The only evidence these two jacka*ses would accept is a videotaped confession by Joseph Smith, along with a signed confession, along with a personal interview with said jacka*ses, followed up by visual confirmation of Jospeph Smith screwing the crap out of any number of women. Then, and only then, would either of these two consider the possibility that Jospeh Smith might have had sex outside of marriage.

Oddly enough, they accept less evidence than that that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, or that various "witnesses" saw the plates of gold from which the Book of Mormon are said to have been translated.

[_Scottie]

For both of you to keep spouting that there is NO evidence is as tiresome as critics saying there is NO evidence for the Book of Mormon.

There IS evidence. Many evidences have been presented in this thread alone.

You may question the validity and the weight of the evidence, but it does exist, therefore it is intellectually dishonest to keep saying there is no evidence.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Josephine's evidence is evidence indeed, but it is far too weak to accept without considering deeply the possibility that it is wrong.

This probably doesn't qualify as "legal" evidence, but Josephine's photograph shows a striking resemblance to the Smith family, in my opinion.

That's rather subjective.

I agree; nevertheless, Josephine sure looks a helluva lot like Joseph.

[_Scottie]

Josephine's evidence is evidence indeed, but it is far too weak to accept without considering deeply the possibility that it is wrong.

This probably doesn't qualify as "legal" evidence, but Josephine's photograph shows a striking resemblance to the Smith family, in my opinion.

That's rather subjective.

I agree; nevertheless, Josephine sure looks a helluva lot like Joseph.

Looks like Joseph...based on what???

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Josephine's evidence is evidence indeed, but it is far too weak to accept without considering deeply the possibility that it is wrong.

This probably doesn't qualify as "legal" evidence, but Josephine's photograph shows a striking resemblance to the Smith family, in my opinion.

That's rather subjective.

I agree; nevertheless, Josephine sure looks a helluva lot like Joseph.

Looks like Joseph...based on what???

I'm basing it on pictures of Joseph's children by Emma when they were adults (like Josephine was in the picture I saw). Joseph's son, Frederick, in particular looked eerily like Joseph in the picture/painting some now claim is a photograph of Joseph.

[_Black Moclips]

This is rather commical to watch. Non-historians, pretending to be historians, telling other non-historians how historians should operate and what historians view as good evidence. Is it a surprise to anyone that no source will be good enough? Its obvious to the normal, rational mind than its more likely than not that Joseph Smith married and had sex with some or all of his wives.

So, you find it acceptable to base your opinion upon no evidence at all, at least with respect to women who were married to other men?

Nope, I never said that all. I just find all the evidence nit picking amusing. Much fluffier stuff is used to support the faithful interpretation of church history all the time. But just so you know, I think an opinion based on evidence is the best possible kind. And I think there is plenty in this case, that when presented to the average person (without some need to see it a certain way) they would conclude that yes, he probably did have sex with some or all of these women. A pre-ponderance of the evidence. Isn't that the legal-speak word? (more likely than not)?

[_beastie]

A child's testimony about paternity is not admissible unless it recounts the statement of a father admitting to paternity who later denies it. So, I don't get where Beastie says it is "conclusive" when, indeed, the exact opposite is the case.

I specifically stated that what Josephine's statement concludes is that her mother, Sylvia, had sex with Joseph Smith, not the question of paternity. That is the only way Sylvia could believe Joseph Smith was her daughter's father. As long as Sylvia maintained marital relations with her real husband, then there is no way she could know, for certain, who was the father. But unless Josephine or Sylvia were flat-out lying, her statement means that Joseph Smith had sex with his polyandrous wife, Sylvia.

So you have three choices:

1. Josephine lied, and her mother never told her that Joseph Smith was her father.
2. Sylvia lied when she told Josephine that Joseph Smith was her father, because it was not possible due to the fact that she had not had sex with Joseph Smith.
3. Joseph Smith had sex with his polyandrous wife, Sylvia.

So which is it? You and coggins are playing a game here when you pretend there is some alternative that does not impugn the honesty of the females involved.