G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Runtu]

It's interesting to see this dynamic:

Critics find William Law a fairly credible witness because the information he provided in the Expositor and in an interview late in life has been shown to be true.

Apologists don't find William Law credible because he was excommunicated from the church.

[_Darth J]

If you had anything, you'd put up. So no backrubs for you.

But at least we know that Brigham Young got plenty of backrubs from Joseph Smith. I'll stick by my assertion.

[_Drifting]

It's interesting to see this dynamic:

Critics find William Law a fairly credible witness because the information he provided in the Expositor and in an interview late in life has been shown to be true.

Apologists don't find William Law credible because he was excommunicated from the church.

So when the various witnesses to the Book of Mormon were excommunicated, did they lose their credibility?

[_Tobin]

It's interesting to see this dynamic:
Critics find William Law a fairly credible witness because the information he provided in the Expositor and in an interview late in life has been shown to be true.
Apologists don't find William Law credible because he was excommunicated from the church.

That is just your characterization and an innaccurate one.

[_Darth J]

So when the various witnesses to the Book of Mormon were excommunicated, did they lose their credibility?

No, they retained their credibility as far as saying things that are consistent with the faith-promoting narrative. But they are not credible to the extent that they said anything that is not consistent with the faith-promoting narrative.

The way you can tell that a witness is credible is if he affirms your a priori beliefs. That includes instances where having those a priori beliefs in the first place depends on trusting the person who is affirming what you already believe.

[_Darth J]

It's interesting to see this dynamic:
Critics find William Law a fairly credible witness because the information he provided in the Expositor and in an interview late in life has been shown to be true.
Apologists don't find William Law credible because he was excommunicated from the church.

That is just your characterization and an innaccurate one.

You've already established that sticking by one's assertions is a valid logical device.

[_Equality]

It's interesting to see this dynamic:
Critics find William Law a fairly credible witness because the information he provided in the Expositor and in an interview late in life has been shown to be true.
Apologists don't find William Law credible because he was excommunicated from the church.

That is just your characterization and an innaccurate one.

Oh please, any citation of William Law as a credible source during the period immediately following his excommunication is completely unacceptable to me.

Like fish in a barrel.

[_Runtu]

You've already established that sticking by one's assertions is a valid logical device.

You and Equality have already shown that Law's allegations were true. I don't know any credible scholar who denies that Joseph Smith practiced polygyny and polyandry and had himself crowned king. Those were the major allegations in the Expositor.

[Guest]

If you had anything, you'd put up. So no backrubs for you.

But at least we know that Brigham Young got plenty of backrubs from Joseph Smith. I'll stick by my assertion.

An assertion that remains unfalsified!

[_Mary]

Tobin, I appreciate that you are trying to protect unwary members from paying too much attention to what William Law did and said. I understand that. But do you think that the allegations that were initially made against him were true? Was he an adulterer? Was he a seducer? Was he taking advantage of the poor? Was he a counterfeiter? These are serious accusations. Are they actually true? What do you think?

Did Joseph deal fairly with him?