Buffalo wrote:It's strong evidence in favor of a sexual relationship, stem. Your line of reasoning could be used to cast unreasonable doubt on literally anything.
Are you familiar with the phrase, "belief should scale with the evidence"?
I get that "strong" evidence can lend more credibility to claims, but turning that into knowing just for rhetorical effect doesn't do discussions any favors, if you ask me.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:What are you talking about? That is the point I raised. People complain LDS say they "know" the Church is true but then you are here using it just like any 4 year old in testimony meeting might. Show me my inconsistency? I didn't say anything about "knowing".
You did use the word know. It may be a tendendacy of people when they say you don't know to mean it in a more absolute way like you have, but are ok with using it in other circumstances with a much less absolute way. Joseph having sex with his wives is a good example.
Buffalo wrote:It's strong evidence in favor of a sexual relationship, stem. Your line of reasoning could be used to cast unreasonable doubt on literally anything.
Are you familiar with the phrase, "belief should scale with the evidence"?
I get that "strong" evidence can lend more credibility to claims, but turning that into knowing just for rhetorical effect doesn't do discussions any favors, if you ask me.
You seem to be pulling a Simon here, quibbling about your own definition of knowing as having to be some absolute thing. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge, but there is enough evidence of a sexual relationship that any reasonable person will conclude that it occurred.
The fact is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was platonic, and a lot of evidence that they were sexual. Again, an honest truth seeker will let his belief scale with the evidence, not with what he WANTS to believe.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:You seem to be pulling a Simon here, quibbling about your own definition of knowing as having to be some absolute thing. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge, but there is enough evidence of a sexual relationship that any reasonable person will conclude that it occurred.
The fact is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was platonic, and a lot of evidence that they were sexual. Again, an honest truth seeker will let his belief scale with the evidence, not with what he WANTS to believe.
Well said. Stem this is what you said earlier
But you don't "know" that any more than the 4 year "knows" the Church is true.
A four year old clearly does not know in any meaningdful definition of the word know. They are told it is and they believe it. With Joseph's sex with some of his wives we have actual evidence, and it is good evidence, such that most apologists agree that he did have sex with some of his wives. You are not being consistent here with the word know. I think you understand that the 4 year old does not know, but then you want to use it in a more absolute way when it comes to Joseph having sex with some wives.
Themis wrote:You did use the word know. It may be a tendendacy of people when they say you don't know to mean it in a more absolute way like you have, but are ok with using it in other circumstances with a much less absolute way. Joseph having sex with his wives is a good example.
I can't tell if you're just being intentionally silly or not. Oh well.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:You seem to be pulling a Simon here, quibbling about your own definition of knowing as having to be some absolute thing. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge, but there is enough evidence of a sexual relationship that any reasonable person will conclude that it occurred.
The fact is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was platonic, and a lot of evidence that they were sexual. Again, an honest truth seeker will let his belief scale with the evidence, not with what he WANTS to believe.
So what do you mean, "there is no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was platonic, and a lot of evidence that they were sexual"? Who were sexual and what possible evidence do you have in mind in regards to platonic?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:A four year old clearly does not know in any meaningdful definition of the word know. They are told it is and they believe it. With Joseph's sex with some of his wives we have actual evidence, and it is good evidence, such that most apologists agree that he did have sex with some of his wives. You are not being consistent here with the word know. I think you understand that the 4 year old does not know, but then you want to use it in a more absolute way when it comes to Joseph having sex with some wives.
Look...i'm just going to drop this because its quibbling about nothingness. its apparent to me you missed my point and are getting after me for an inconsistency that you have sufferred from. I don't care though. I'll move on without worrying about that.
So Joseph Smith probably did hvae sexual relations with at least some of his wives? Can we go with that?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:You seem to be pulling a Simon here, quibbling about your own definition of knowing as having to be some absolute thing. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge, but there is enough evidence of a sexual relationship that any reasonable person will conclude that it occurred.
The fact is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was platonic, and a lot of evidence that they were sexual. Again, an honest truth seeker will let his belief scale with the evidence, not with what he WANTS to believe.
So what do you mean, "there is no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was platonic, and a lot of evidence that they were sexual"? Who were sexual and what possible evidence do you have in mind in regards to platonic?
I meant to say that "it" (his polygamy) was sexual. Awkward phrasing even so. I meant, that he had sexual relationships with his plural wives. And the evidence is that his wives said it was sexual. Furthermore, D&C 132 says the whole purpose of it is for procreation.
Did Joseph Smith or especially his wives claim that the polygamous relationship they were in was platonic? That would be evidence for a platonic relationship.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote:I can't tell if you're just being intentionally silly or not. Oh well.
Not at all, but I can tell you are being to sensitive.
Look...i'm just going to drop this because its quibbling about nothingness. its apparent to me you missed my point and are getting after me for an inconsistency that you have sufferred from. I don't care though. I'll move on without worrying about that.
So Joseph Smith probably did hvae sexual relations with at least some of his wives? Can we go with that
Well you did try and compare knowing about Joseph relationships with some of his wives with a 4 years olds use of the word knowing the church is true. Don't balme us for you being inconsistent. I agree with Buffalo that you are doing like many apologists(his example of Simon is very good) and using the word know in a very absolute manor when it comes to issues you do not want to recognize.
What are you talking about? That is the point I raised. People complain LDS say they "know" the Church is true but then you are here using it just like any 4 year old in testimony meeting might. Show me my inconsistency? I didn't say anything about "knowing".
People in church say they know usually based on subjective inner sensation expereinecs. This is no where near the same as one who is saying they know Joseph had sex with some of his wives based on multiple piecses of evdience from friendly sources. bringing up the 4 year is even worse.