Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

link me the place where the question is or ask it here?

 

Go back to page 11 to find my questions.

Edited March 15, 2019 by PacMan

[PacMan]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Too complex..?

I'm not obliged to believe something unless it is disproven. I'm obliged to disbelieve something until it is proven.

Not exactly.  Read the corollary of your statement: 'Once something is disproven you are obliged to believe that something.'  Why are you obliged to believe something that is disproven?

But, who am I to judge....?

[MiserereNobis]

55 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Not exactly.  Read the corollary of your statement: 'Once something is disproven you are obliged to believe that something.'  Why are you obliged to believe something that is disproven?

But, who am I to judge....?

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other, so I'll try to be clear.

Epistemic obligation = when is a person obliged to believe something

Believe something until it is disproven = NOT my epistemic obligation

Do not believe something until it is proven = my epistemic obligation

This conversation begin because you said people can't explain the Book of Mormon away so it must be true. My point was that I don't have to explain it away. I don't have to disprove it. That's not my epistemic obligation. I have my personal experiences of Catholicism. Catholicism has been proven to me. I do not have to go and disprove any other religion. I don't have to disprove the Book of Mormon in order to not believe in Mormonism.

That was my point.

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other, so I'll try to be clear.

Epistemic obligation = when is a person obliged to believe something

Believe something until it is disproven = NOT my epistemic obligation

Do not believe something until it is proven = my epistemic obligation

This conversation begin because you said people can't explain the Book of Mormon away so it must be true. My point was that I don't have to explain it away. I don't have to disprove it. That's not my epistemic obligation. I have my personal experiences of Catholicism. Catholicism has been proven to me. I do not have to go and disprove any other religion. I don't have to disprove the Book of Mormon in order to not believe in Mormonism.

That was my point.

Glad you restated.

What you believe is irrelevant to the fact that you must concede you don’t have an answer to explain it away. 

[Bede]

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Do Flat Earth believers sense the irrationality and illogical framings of fellow flat earthers who use the same reasoning?  I dont think so.

@DBMormon, let me first concede something to you. I am with you on the church's stance concerning LGBTQIA+ people. They have made a grave series of mistakes and they must turn back now, in my opinion.

On to your response:

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that believing in Mormonism is the same thing as believing that the earth is flat?

Do you believe that the hundreds of living highly educated professors, philosophers, legal experts, scientists, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, linguists, medical doctors, engineers, mathematicians, etc. are delusional, duped, or idiots? What about the hundreds more who have passed away? Two people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions, even two experts in the same field, so how do we get to the truth? We rigorously test our hypotheses, right?

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I don't think they would fare well in a long form real time conversation.  In fact no scholar or historian or church leader would do as well as Jim did.  a tie with him perhaps but no better,  Mormonism is not tenable if one is left to make sense of it using the rules of logic and rational thought.  The only people who believe the mental gymnastics are those who want to believe the mental gymnastics

Why is someone's ability to fare well in a  "long form real time conversation" the test for truthfulness? What do you gain by having such a conversation that you do not gain in the written word, for example? The long form conversation is convenient for a podcast producer, who is comfortable in his own studio, with his own equipment, and no doubt with copious notes and Google at his finger tips. I believe that's why it appeals to you, because you have the "home court" advantage.

The rules of logic and rational thought? Again, are you suggesting that the many LDS scholars in the fields of philosophy, law, mathematics, and like disciplines do not understand the rules of logic and rational thought? I reject your claim and note that you threw in that cute little "mental gymnastics" phrase that critics love to toss about.

"Mental gymnastics" is nothing more than a conversation stopper. It doesn't mean anything, and even if it did, gymnasts do amazing things with their human bodies, which are in the very best shape. So a "mental gymnast" would be someone whose mental faculties are in the very best shape and able to perform almost superhuman mental feats. I think Stephen Hawking was a mental gymnast; so was Albert Einstein.

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Anecdotal... yeah lets go with that

And to that I say this: There are two slam dunks for Mormonism that have yet to be explained away by any critic, including yourself.

1) The testimonies of the witnesses

2) The coming forth of the Book of Mormon

If it turns out, hypothetically, that nothing else is true about the claims of the church, these two powerful elements (really one--the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) would still make Mormonism true. 

I take your anecdotal 15% and raise you the Book of Mormon.

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

It leaves us agreeing to disagree.  If Mormonism were illogical and irrational, would there still be people who have an awareness of the data and still believe?  of course.

Let me see if I understand your position correctly. Are you suggesting that when discussing Mormonism, your conclusions are absolutely correct, and when someone challenges you on something that you can't answer, you will simply say "I was not equipped to answer the question"?

That, if I may say so, is ridiculous. I cannot accept your "agree to disagree" because what you've created is plausible deniability to the nth degree.

So what I am hoping you will do at this point is grant that the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, when approached logically and rationally, is an unprecedented miracle. Can you approach that logically and rationally, or are you too jaded towards the church to do so?

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

doesn't have to be new to be problematic and effective and damaging

But it does have to be not plagiarized from the internet to be meaningful. And Jim's response destroys JR's publication, point by point, beautifully.

I just don't understand why the CES letter is worshipped so much among the ex Mormon community. It's like revering the National Enquirer.

 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Glad you restated.

What you believe is irrelevant to the fact that you must concede you don’t have an answer to explain it away. 

Hmm. I'm starting to question whether I should respond to you, based on your posts in this thread, because I'm beginning to doubt your good faith in this discussion. So I'll ask you this.

1) Have you gone through every religion in the world, past and present, and explained away all of their claims?

2) Or have you relied on your personal testimony of Mormonism to know that the other religions aren't "true"?

If number 1, hats off to you (and please write a book, or most likely a series of books, detailing your research). And perhaps you can give us here a summary detailing your explanation for every religious experience for every human being who has ever lived who is not Mormon.

Or if number 2, then you and I are in the same boat, albeit with different religions. 

Thanks!

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, Bede said:

But it does have to be not plagiarized from the internet to be meaningful.

Why?  I learned new information from reading it.  I’ve worked through it after a family member shared it with me, but many are reading it.  It has definitely had an impact.  Plagerized or not, it’s causing many members to leave after they read it.

What do you disagree with that’s it’s in (other than Jeremy’s conclusions)?  Many have asked you this, but I’d like to hear you answer (specific quotes).

Edited March 16, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Dup

Edited March 17, 2019 by JulieM

[Kevin Christensen]

On 3/16/2019 at 1:14 AM, JulieM said:

Why?  I learned new information from reading it.  I’ve worked through it after a family member shared it with me, but many are reading it.  It has definitely had an impact.  Plagerized or not, it’s causing many members to leave after they read it.

What do you disagree with that’s it’s in (other than Jeremy’s conclusions)?  Many have asked you this, but I’d like to hear you answer (specific quotes).

I personally responded at length to the CES Letter.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

My conclusion:

Quote

What a Church Has and What a Church Is
So what is the Church? What should I expect from it? A church has many things but the church is not the things that it has. Our Church has a headquarters, leaders, members, employees, buildings, educational materials, missionaries, beliefs, ordinances, properties, scholars, critics, and so forth. But the things that the church has are not what the church is.

Runnells’s expectations of the Church were that members have a rightful expectation that all knowledge must be provided to us, presumably by certifiably Omniscient Sunday School teachers, and all-knowing Primary teachers, and all-seeing Sacrament meeting speakers, all through official channels and approved books. The church did not meet his expectations, and consequently, he has resentments. Part of recovery involves dismantling the grievance story and letting go of resentments.

To me, the church is an assembly of people who have made covenants with God: people of all different ages, temperaments, cultures, experience, understanding, maturity, spiritual gifts, and personal resources. Because of the diversity, I do not expect that any administrative materials or programs can possibly address the widely divergent needs that different members have with a one-size-fits-all solution. That is just to help us get started, to provide a foundation to build on, or, as Alma puts, it, to provide seeds for us to nurture. So, one of the covenants we make with God (not with each other) is to “sustain” one another. This is another place where my wife and I found our minds and souls enlarged by turning to a dictionary.

Sustain

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

This means that I as a member of the gathering, as part of the church, when I raise my hand to sustain other members in their callings, I promise God that at the very least, I will put up with whatever difficulties arise. We all have choices to make in dealing with people who don’t live up to our expectations. One involves whether to adjust our own expectations. Another involves whether to resent people for being human, or to forgive them, as well as ourselves, for being human. Our choices turn out to affect the quality of our lives as well as our faith.

And I responded when Jeremy's friend and defender responded to me.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

A snippet:

Quote

What Stephenson urges on his readers here is a form of thinking that Ian Barbour describes in Myths, Models, and Paradigms: “During the 1930s and 1940s there was a wide acceptance of the positivist contention that science starts from indubitable data which can be described in a neutral observation language independent of all theories.”21

But since that time, Barbour explains, philosophers of science such as Kuhn, Hanson, Polanyi, and Feyerband looked more carefully at the real work of scientists and realized that:

"There are no bare uninterpreted data. Expectations and conceptual commitments influence perceptions, both in everyday life and in science. Man supplies the categories of interpretation, right from the start. The very language in which observations are reported is influenced by prior theories … The presuppositions which the scientist brings to his inquiry are reflected in the way he formulates a problem, the kind of apparatus he builds, and the type of variable he considers important. Here the emphasis is on theory and the way it permeates observation."

"In N. R Hanson’s oft quoted words, ‘All Data are theory-laden.’ The procedures of measurement and the interpretation of the resulting measurement and interpretation of the resulting numerical values depend in implicit theoretical assumptions. Most of the time, scientists work within a framework of thought which they have inherited … But, says Feyerband, when the background theory itself is an issue, when the fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are under attack, then the dependence of measurement on theoretical assumptions is crucial."22

This understanding is exactly what Stephenson fails to address and consider anywhere in his response. In debates about religion, background theory is the issue, fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are at stake, and therefore, the dependence of measurement and observation on those assumptions is crucial. This theory-dependence was exactly the reason for, and substance of, my whole approach. It is why I cited the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the Wine Bottles. It’s why I cite Kuhn and Barbour and Goff. My response to Runnells’s use of a Roman Britain paradigm as a basis for his expectations for equally distinctive Nephite evidence in New York demonstrates exactly this issue in operation. That Stephenson appears to appreciate none of this suggests either that he is arguing in bad faith or that he has completely failed to follow my argument. Kuhn says: “Obviously then, there must be a conflict between the paradigm that discloses anomaly [consider Runnells’s Roman Britain model] and the one that later renders the anomaly law-like” [compare Brant Gardner’s ‘The Social History of the Early Nephites’ at FairMormon.]23

And there another matter of significance that I did not touch.  In the CES Letter, Runnells misrepresents his own story.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2016/02/ces-letter-author-jeremy-runnells-to.html

Pardigm choice always involves deciding "which paradigm is better?" and that question always involves the choice of standards and evidence used to decide better. 

This is how I do it, with respect to Joseph Smith.  I have never ever seen any critic use this particular way of answering the question.  And that tells me a great deal about why we come up with different answers.  That includes even Bill Reel, who once interviewed me on this very topic.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

Paradigm choice always involves a decision about which problems are most significant to have solved.

If some one wants to impress me, they ought to address some of the problems that I think are most significant to have solved.  

Which to me includes stuff like this:

https://ldsmag.com/article-1-1644/

Those who begin and end their discussions of the Book of Mormon by saying Joseph imagined it, just squeezing it out of his environment, never address this, or quite literally, hundreds of like issues.  It's like there is a deliberate decision to avoid dealing with anything impressive.  The way to present the Book of Mormon as an obvious fraud,  as akin to belief in a flat earth, is to be selective considering the problem it presents.  

And this, which looks at religious experience in the Church of Jesus Christ in the context of comparative religious experience:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

And when talking about sexuality, and whether that is the personal voice that authoritatively issues what all should accept as the First and Great Commandment before which all other life decisions and relationships should submit, I think this deserves more open discussion and less conspicuous silence.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

It is a very large problem for which the Church has a demonstrated committment to providing a successful solution that has been in place for far longer than the notorious reparative therapy stories that are used with such politically charged resentment.  There is a conspicuous choice of perspective, highlighting one kind of experience, and silencing another.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[ALarson]

On 3/15/2019 at 10:14 PM, JulieM said:

Why?  I learned new information from reading it.  I’ve worked through it after a family member shared it with me, but many are reading it.  It has definitely had an impact.  Plagerized or not, it’s causing many members to leave after they read it.

What do you disagree with that’s it’s in (other than Jeremy’s conclusions)?  Many have asked you this, but I’d like to hear you answer (specific quotes).

I've asked this several times as well and what I tend to believe is that many are just mainly opposed to how he presents things (format and not written in a scholarly manner and so on).  Or they don't like the entire premise (that it was "just a letter" to a CES director) because many believe he really wasn't looking for answers anymore at that point.  But I've not really seen anyone post anything real concrete that he totally got wrong (definite information from church history, etc.).  Also, like you say above....it's mainly his conclusions that people disagree with and I do understand that.

I have read most of the responses to the letter (and the back and forth between him and FairMormon....the debunkings and the debunkings of the debunkings and so on) and IMO, there wasn't much there other than some nit picking that didn't amount to much.

It's certainly reached a large audience and continues to be shared and read.  It also continues to cause a lot of faith issues for members who read it.

[Bede]

On 3/15/2019 at 11:14 PM, JulieM said:

Why?  I learned new information from reading it.  I’ve worked through it after a family member shared it with me, but many are reading it.  It has definitely had an impact.  Plagerized or not, it’s causing many members to leave after they read it.

What do you disagree with that’s it’s in (other than Jeremy’s conclusions)?  Many have asked you this, but I’d like to hear you answer (specific quotes).

The information contained in the letter is not new, it shouldn't have been new to you. 

You ask what I disagree with other than the conclusions?

• The cherry-picked data
• The intent
• The plagiarism
• The sloppy argumentation/thinking
• The combativeness

I like what @Kevin Christensen said above, that "there are no bear uninterpreted data." So while you seem to be suggesting that the letter contains indisputable facts, there really is no such thing. 

 

On 3/17/2019 at 8:09 AM, ALarson said:

I've asked this several times as well and what I tend to believe is that many are just mainly opposed to how he presents things (format and not written in a scholarly manner and so on).  Or they don't like the entire premise (that it was "just a letter" to a CES director) because many believe he really wasn't looking for answers anymore at that point.  But I've not really seen anyone post anything real concrete that he totally got wrong (definite information from church history, etc.).  Also, like you say above....it's mainly his conclusions that people disagree with and I do understand that.

I have read most of the responses to the letter (and the back and forth between him and FairMormon....the debunkings and the debunkings of the debunkings and so on) and IMO, there wasn't much there other than some nit picking that didn't amount to much.

It's certainly reached a large audience and continues to be shared and read.  It also continues to cause a lot of faith issues for members who read it.

But @ALarson, there are no bear uninterpreted data! His conclusions come from his cherry picked data points. Pick a topic in the letter--any topic, and it's most likely not the whole picture.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Bede said:

Pick a topic in the letter--any topic, and it's most likely not the whole picture.

What did he state or present regarding polygamy (let's narrow it down to the Nauvoo years) that was not factual (other than his own personal conclusions or thoughts)?  

[Tacenda]

I finally heard the latest interview with Jim and listened to the end. Wow is all I can say, because there are no real answers it sounds like. Both he and Bill both have their own ideas and feelings about the church, so both should and did just beg to differ and move on and appreciate the others' right to own their thoughts and feelings. 

Jim also mentioned that he and the author of the CES letter were going to lunch later after the interview. Jeremy Runnels I think asked Jim to meet with him, if I heard that right or remembering right. Boy, I'd like to be a fly on the wall of that conversation. 

But I sure appreciate Jim's message to Bill about why he was there being interviewed basically, and that is he wants to show that you can talk to your critics or the church's critics and for others not to be afraid to openly discuss, and I gather he would want there to be no bashing. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Tacenda

[TOmNossor]

On 3/12/2019 at 1:47 PM, DBMormon said:

all the faith defenders keep pointing to my comment 

“No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

Keep in mind that context means everything

3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.

I am not informed or aware of the details of every act of genius in the world.  I am instead pointing to the idea that in my limited exposure to the world and its history, this level of genius would be at the top of my awareness of that world history.  

People hear what they want to hear.

So your position is that you are so sheltered your concession does not mean that much.

You have not read C.S. Lewis or Tolkien.

You are not aware of Einstein's theory of relativity.

I am unlikely to believe it is true that your concession is a product of your extraordinary ignorance associated with acts of intelligence throughout history and modernly too. 

I think you admitted something that WAS a profound link to your faith that you have now rejected BECAUSE of the compassion you feel for LGBT folks.

You IMO are cloaking your emotional rejection of the truth in intellectual reasons, but the powerful reasons you gave for rejecting the CoJCoLDS boil down to emotional things linked to some intellectual argument.

The PROBLEMS are real and in some cases (the BOA) there are no really good solutions, but it is easier today (and was easier for you 3 years ago) to believe that the Book of Mormon sourced from God than to believe it came from ANY OTHER place.  What has changed is not the difficulty in explaining away the Book of Mormon or the intellectual issues associated with the BOA.  What has changed is your belief that you are right about the LGBT issues and the church SHOULD be faster at recognizing such social truths.  This as you framed it is associated with your compassion for those who identify as LGBT.  

So yes, your statement is IMO a VERY big deal.  It illuminates were you were 3 years ago.  I also find if VERY DIFFICULT to believe that the Book of Mormon is only, " a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness" that you have ever seen is a product of your ignorance of other genius acts.  However, let me tell you as one who once studied genius daily, the production of the Book of Mormon is IMO BEYOND what any of the geniuses I have studied could have produced."   I am talking about folks like William James Sidas, Rick Rosner (who went to my high school and was in math class with me my senior year), and Chris Langdon (folks whose genius you probably don't know about, but I do).  I am talking about folks like Goeth, Gauss, and Tesla (folks whose genius you might know about).  I am talking about Einstein, DaVinci, and Newton (folks you surely must know about).

I JOINED the church without what anyone would call a testimony because, "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."  I gained a testimony many years latter (which is part of how I stopped obsessing over IQ and started paying attention to the big anti- vs. pro CoJCoLDS arguments), but I still believe "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."
 

Charity, TOm

Edited March 18, 2019 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

  On 3/3/2019 at 10:01 AM, TOmNossor said:

I am sure this is horribly offensive to the critic, but I have listened to 8+ hours of Bill Reel’s appeals to recognize the problems with the church.  Except for the BOA, most of them were emotional IMO.  

@ALarson,  After listening, do you still think Bill Reel's rejection of the church didn't turn on his emotional connection to LGBT issues?

Charity, TOm

Edited March 18, 2019 by TOmNossor

[Bede]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

What did he state or present regarding polygamy (let's narrow it down to the Nauvoo years) that was not factual (other than his own personal conclusions or thoughts)?  

Every statement he made is not the whole truth. Let's pick a random one from Jim's response:

JR: Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women , as now verified in the Church’s 2014 polygamy essays.

JB: Yes, no, and sort of. The article you link says “up to 40” and includes several disputed names, but, more importantly, it makes no distinction between marriages and sealings. That distinction is essential, because Joseph was married – i.e. sealed – to dozens of other women, most of them after his death. Heber J. Grant’s father Jedidiah M. Grant stood proxy as his wife was sealed to Joseph Smith. Much of the confusion over polyandry is explained by the fact that Joseph was sealed to other men’s wives but not married to them. We’ll no doubt discuss that crucial distinction going forward, because it’s one you repeatedly ignore.

Literally every statement on the polygamy section is a half truth, totally untrue, and always disingenuous. 

 

 

 

[Bede]

I can't edit my above post, but the last line was not supposed to be in the quote.

 

Literally every statement on the polygamy section is a half truth, totally untrue, and always disingenuous. 

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Bede said:

Every statement he made is not the whole truth. Let's pick a random one from Jim's response:

26 minutes ago, Bede said:

JR: Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women , as now verified in the Church’s 2014 polygamy essays.

JB: Yes, no, and sort of. The article you link says “up to 40” and includes several disputed names, but, more importantly, it makes no distinction between marriages and sealings. That distinction is essential, because Joseph was married – i.e. sealed – to dozens of other women, most of them after his death. Heber J. Grant’s father Jedidiah M. Grant stood proxy as his wife was sealed to Joseph Smith. Much of the confusion over polyandry is explained by the fact that Joseph was sealed to other men’s wives but not married to them. We’ll no doubt discuss that crucial distinction going forward, because it’s one you repeatedly ignore.

 

Sealings were marriages.  What do you believe the difference was?  Do you believe Joseph does not consider any of the women he was sealed to, to be his wife?  

If you are trying to parse out "eternity only" sealings, there is absolutely no documentation that any of Joseph's marriages fall into that category.   

Edited March 18, 2019 by ALarson

[PacMan]

On 3/15/2019 at 11:08 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Hmm. I'm starting to question whether I should respond to you, based on your posts in this thread, because I'm beginning to doubt your good faith in this discussion. So I'll ask you this.

1) Have you gone through every religion in the world, past and present, and explained away all of their claims?

2) Or have you relied on your personal testimony of Mormonism to know that the other religions aren't "true"?

If number 1, hats off to you (and please write a book, or most likely a series of books, detailing your research). And perhaps you can give us here a summary detailing your explanation for every religious experience for every human being who has ever lived who is not Mormon.

Or if number 2, then you and I are in the same boat, albeit with different religions. 

Thanks!

No, you shouldn't respond.  Particularly where our whole interaction started with you responding to a comment I made to Julie M about disproving evidence.  Unless, you are also Julie M....

[Bede]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sealings were marriages.  What do you believe the difference was?  Do you believe Joseph does not consider any of the women he was sealed to, to be his wife?  

If you are trying to parse out "eternity only" sealings, there is absolutely no documentation that any of Joseph's marriages fall into that category.   

The question was whether Jeremy's statements are true. They are not. They are missing important pieces and are therefore heavily biased against the church. I propose that there is not a single statement made by Jeremy Runnel's in the CES letter that represents the whole truth.

Do I believe that Joseph did not consider any of the women he was sealed to his wife? I'll let the experts answer that one:

It is true that little is known regarding Joseph’s actual involvement with many of the fourteen women. This lack of evidence is sometimes exploited by critics who wish to fill in the gaps with allegations that sexuality occurred in both relationships, charging that the Prophet entered into one or more genuine polyandrous relationships.

The lack of solid documentation is important because demonstrating the existence of polyandry could be done rather easily by quoting a single credible supportive statement, if such existed. 

from josephsmithspolygamy.org

[Calm]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

 Particularly where our whole interaction started with you responding to a comment I made to Julie M about disproving evidence.  Unless, you are also Julie M....

It is a message board.  If you only want one person's response, PMing probably would be better.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Bede said:

The question was whether Jeremy's statements are true.

His statement is the truth.  Joseph did marry at least 34 women.  

If you want to get into which ones he had marital relationships with, that's another conversation.  I don't believe he did with all of them, but they were still his wives and he was still married to them.

Edited March 18, 2019 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, PacMan said:

No, you shouldn't respond.  Particularly where our whole interaction started with you responding to a comment I made to Julie M about disproving evidence.  Unless, you are also Julie M....

Are you capable of having a conversation without antagonizing other board participants? Your rudeness is wearisome.

[Bede]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

His statement is the truth.  Joseph did marry at least 34 women.  

If you want to get into which ones he had marital relationships with, that's another conversation.  I don't believe he did with all of them, but they were still his wives and he was still married to them.

No. To some he was married, to others he was only sealed and there is no evidence he thought of the sealed ones as his wife.

Try again.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Bede said:

No. To some he was married, to others he was only sealed and there is no evidence he thought of the sealed ones as his wife.

Sealings were the same as marriages.  Please don't tell me you've bought into the whole "Joseph never lived polygamy" stuff (?).  Or do you just take issue with those that were polyandrous marriages/sealings?

What evidence do you have that Joseph did not consider some of the women he was sealed to, to be one of his plural wives?

Edited March 18, 2019 by ALarson