Perhaps.

However, were they to use your "logic", they may conclude that you have previously and repeatedly lied about who you are in order to keep your identity secret. They would then give 9.0 for mental gymnastics for your attempt above to justify your actions.

For my part, though, I would give you a 0.0 for failing to get my point.



Please provide the credible documentation for your accusation that the McIIwricks "previously, repeatedly, lied about polygamy".

Please also do the same for each of the other 4 principles mentioned in Martha's affidavit (Vilate Kimball, Heber Kimball, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith).

I am asking for this documentation knowing that with at least half of the six counter-claimants you will not be able to find a single instance to back up your charge (thereby demonstrating the falsity of your charge in their regard), and the other half you will be hard pressed to to come up with more than a few instances.

Once we have taken this first step, I will then walk you painstakingly through each of my previous counter-arguments in hopes of providing you with at least some measure of cognition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suppose that in a binary sense that is true. But, those who think in such terms would likewise be reduced to considering those who resort to the semantics of "screen names" as just a nice way of saying they are lying about who they really are.

However, I look at it a little differently (seeing a broad range of departures from disclosing the full and unvarnished truth), and tend to reserve the charge "lie" for the most serious of infractions.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, we binary thinkers are severely handicapped when it comes to apologetics.



Yep, that's really the only way to make the public and private contradictions in polygamy work.

Me, I prefer the unvarnished truth. But to each their own. :-)

Nevertheless, in order for your argument to work with me, I would need to be in agreement, and I am not. (see above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Funny, I don't see you going around calling yourself a "liar" on this board--certainly not with the same frequency you seem disposed to mention regarding your former faith. But, maybe I am the one who is handicapped in viewing as consistent the critics of my faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When I've lied, I admit to it. And despite your perception, I don't throw the word "liar" around, either. I reserve it for the obvious distortions and masking of the truth. And for the record, I did not call anyone on this thread a liar. I did say that your "semantics" approach seems to be a nice way to say they lied. It's not the same thing.

Wade, you are misunderstanding the terms. It is not correct to say that "the semantics of 'screen names' [is] just a nice way of saying [you] are lying about who [you] really are." After all, nobody is being fooled, tricked, or manipulated by these screen names. On the other hand, the Church leaders use of "semantics" to downplay polygamy was clearly a kind of trick. The leaders knew that if the knowledge leaked, they would be in a lot of hot water, would possibly face criminal charges, and would probably cause a mass exodus of members.

I get the point of your analogy, but I don't see that it applies very well in the case in question. While the "clocks" in Brotherton case may all be saying noon (i.e. they all essentially said that the things Martha claimed in her affidavite were false), what is the evidence that they "don't run" and "they always say noon"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For the record: 1) I didn't assume nor suggest that you had called anyone a liar on this thread (certainly I didn't think you were calling me a liar); 2) I didn't assume or suggest that you "throw the word 'liar' around", rather, I just mentioned what I see as a disparity in the number of times I have seen you refer to yourself by that term (I vaguely recall once where you admitted to having lied at times in your life, though I don't remember if there were any specifics), and when you have applied it to your former faith.

Just out of curiousity, do you consider various people's use of "screen names" to be an "obvious distortion" and/or "masking of the truth"? I am just wondering how "nice" you are willing to be to them. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I try to be nice to everyone, Wade (though I have failed at times, for which I apologize). Do screen names constitute distortions and masking of the truth? I suppose it depends on the intent. If, for example, I went back on MADB and used another screen name to conceal that it was me, then yes, that would be a lie. But the use of a screen name does not in itself constitute a lie, in my opinion. Considering that my real name has been displayed on FAIR, RfM, and alt.religion.Mormon, I don't think using the name "runtu" is anything more than a fun nickname.

W: I get the point of your analogy, but I don't see that it applies very well in the case in question. While the "clocks" in Brotherton case may all be saying noon (i.e. they all essentially said that the things Martha claimed in her affidavite were false), what is the evidence that they "don't run" and "they always say noon"?

A: “The clocks always say noon” because the Kimball, Young, and Smith always denied polygamy (until 1852). If you asked in general if they did it, they said no. If you asked if they were married to somebody they were married to, they said no. If you asked if they were married to somebody they weren’t married to, they said no. They always said no, just like a broken clock always says noon. My argument for this rests on the idea that Young and Kimball were following Joseph’s lead, and I flesh it out in the Conspiracy thread. But here are some highlights:

1- Smith directly denied polygamy in the sermon I quoted.

2- Joseph and his scribes falsified his records so that they “proved” that he never taught and never practiced polygamy.

3- Neither Joseph Smith nor the church made any record of the polygamous “marriages” they performed.

Regarding the McIlwrick testimonies, they basically said that Martha was not an honest person. Perhaps that is so, and the weight given to Martha’s testimony can be discounted based on that. But the fact remains that Martha’s account is consistent with the way that polygamy actually operated, on a level of detail that she probably couldn’t have known unless she actually experienced it.

So in the analogy, what we have is a few people who don’t know what time it is but are claiming that in general, the 7:00 A.M. clock isn’t reliable. But based upon corroborating evidence, what we know is that 7:00 A.M. is a plausible time.

So putting it all together, we know that Martha’s story is plausible and that there is some corroborating evidence that it is true. On the other hand, we have some (contested) evidence that Martha is a liar. But other than the broken clocks, we have no evidence that she is lying in this particular case.

Let's simplify things a bit by looking at just three of the opposing "clocks"--i.e. Mary and John McIIwrick and Vilate Kimball, and see if your argument holds up.

For one, the McIIwricks affidavits says more than just "Martha was not an honest person". They specifically concurred that "the statements which she [Martha] has reported in different places [presumably including her affidavit] are quite contrary to those she related here." (It should be noted that in Martha's own affidavit, she mentions having written the alleged conversation down the following day and having given it to her sister, who "was not a little surprised".)

Vilate Kimball said: "conversation said to have taken place between her and her husband in presence of Martha Brotherton is false: that nothing of the kind as stated in the affidavit of the 13th July 1842, made by the said Martha Brotherton at St. Louis, ever occurred, but is a base fabrication."

Now, what evidence do you have that these three "clocks" "don't run" and "they always say noon"? (Please keep in mind that there is no evidence that McIIwricks were practicing polygamy at the time, let alone even knew about the practice, and were not speaking to the practice in their affidavits, but to Martha's claims about her being proposed to by BY and so forth. Please also keep in mind that Vilate, while perhaps a participant in the practice of polygamy at the time--amounting to sealings done by her husband to more than one woman, her affidavit was not in reference to the practice, or even specifically in reference to the alleged proposal, but rather specific to the alleged conversation between she and her husband Heber, which had nothing to do with polygamy, but rather an alleged lie about going to Joseph's store).

Then, if necessary, we can then proceed to examine the other three "clocks" (I don't think this will be necessary since I believe you will find that your argument fails with the three clocks--Mary, John, and Vilate--and that should reasonably suffice.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I said above,

“If you’ll concede that Brigham Young and the other insiders would have denied the allegation regardless of whether or not they were true, then it follows that their testimony is absolutely useless in helping us know what actually happened.”

“The whole arguement hinges on whether or not Brigham Young et. al. could have been relied on to be honest about polygamy. The model is robust with regards to the other probabilities.”

“The clocks always say noon” because the Kimball, Young, and Smith always denied polygamy (until 1852).”

As far as I know, Mary and John weren't polygamy insiders. Thus they aren’t “clocks” in my analogy. Their testimonies are peripheral—they weren’t there when then alleged proposal took place.