All Activity

Those are good questions to ponder. Thinking about it, my first instinct is to ask the question, are we morally bound to accept all verdicts that come through a court of law? What about people who are found guilty but actually were innocent and exonerated (as proven later through DNA)? Would it have been wrong for those who believed in their innocence to rail against the legal system at the time they were incarcerated? If the answer is no, then it could not be wrong to rail against the legal system if someone were found innocent that we believed was guilty. From that perspective I don't think we are under any obligation to replace our well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone based solely on what a judge or 12 people's interpretation of the evidence decides. Legally, yes they have been found innocent (or guilty) and I do believe we have a duty to support the system that made the judgement. But it's not a perfect system and as long as innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent I don't believe we are under any personal obligation to agree with the outcome of a trial. Especially not a rape trial where much (if not most) of the evidence that would be put forth could be subjective in nature.

They accepted Jesus’s and Paul’s call to celibacy even within marriage?

I still don't think that interpretation works with an exegetical reading of Section 132, as it says, "all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." Such an interpretation of the law of polygamy was also not shared by Brigham Young, 93 ~ Those unwilling to practice polygamy were told they would lose their families in the hereafter ~ In later years Brigham Young went so far as to teach that a husband who was living monogamously would have his wife taken from him in the eternities: Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever. Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873. Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873 [A] man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another. Prophet Brigham Young, quoted by Wilford Woodruff, in Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 579 He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend its meaning. His subject was the ten talents, “Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (or will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had).” Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation. The Historical Record: https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord06jens/page/220/mode/2up In light of this it could be argued that many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family. Historical Monogamy Doctrine

The revelation sets out broader teachings about eternal marriage and plural marriage. But has a personal context involving Joseph and Emma. The passage is describing one category of authorized plural marriage, while other arrangements may have involved different circumstances. Verse 64 is specifically about a wife in a particular situation "If any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things…" The verse then says she must "believe and administer unto him." The verse describes a husband who holds the relevant keys and teaches his wife the law. It is not phrased as a general instruction to every woman or every married couple. It doesn't establish a universal command for every Church member to practice it.

@Grok In response to your summary of the aftermath for men accused of rape falsely, Chat wanted me to be sure and let you know its opinion: Chat knows it can go a bit long at times, it is used to a slower pace, so provided this Tl;dr version for Grok as well because it knows Grok is quite busy these days and wants to help the whiz kid make his mark in the digital world….

I am undecided on that point, as I think the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish guilty intent. That said, everyone was blotto, so if everyone lacked the capacity to consent, then Jane Does might be seen as also being "guilty (morally) of rape." Alas, that won't happen. At this point, even an acquittal or a retraction from Jane Doe would not restore them to their status quo ante. I think news stories that get this sort of coverage seldom end in rational outcomes. For many, the options are A) the frat guys are guilty of rape, or B) the frat guys got away with rape. I asked Grok what happened to the men accused in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Scandal: And that was for men who were affirmatively exonerated and won millions in compensation. These guys will likely live the rest of their lives under the stigma of the accusations, regardless of whether the allegations are proved up or rebutted. Thanks, -Smac

.

We aren’t responsible for the verdict or the punishment if any of those involved. We aren’t the immediate victims having to live with the consequences (though I see our society as a whole victimized when such behavior is being allowed to continue without much consequence). Railing against the system would be pretty meaningless and a waste of energy and increase unnecessary stress, so not that healthy. Better to respond in a constructive way and go to work promoting the change you need to see…such as stronger penalties for colleges that avoid doing more than checking the box when it comes to the Campus SaVE act that requires, I believe, the evidence based effective bystanders intervention program. Apparently all colleges are ‘complying’, but if compliance is one event when students and faculty first join the college when they are likely already overwhelmed from all the other new info they are exposed to, that’s just performance and not commitment. The requirement needs to be tougher. These are programs that actually work to prevent rapes. https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/2016 Another intelligent response would be to discontinue frat or sorority houses as their culture is correlated the likelihood of sexual assault (drinking especially, but also social expectations with dating/sex) and disband any club with members engaging in excessive drinking behavior at formal and informal gatherings (sure, kids will get together and do it any way off campus, etc, but making it harder and less prestigious is likely to help).

I used to assume that eternal progeny meant eternal sex too, but I think the theories of Monogamy as Divine Design make more sense: MDD 3. "Wouldn't being a polygamist mean that God the Father can produce more spirit children more quickly?" Many Latter-day Saints have assumed that if we teach of resurrected bodies, eternal marriage, and eternal progeny, then there must be eternal procreative sex too. This assertion has been used to argue for the validity (and even advantage) of eternal polygamy as well. While a woman living infinitely could be consecutively pregnant with an infinite number of children even if produced one-by-one, it is noted that a God-man with more than one immortal partner can produce an infinite number of children at an even faster rate than if He has only one partner. This has been an argument for eternal polygamy for at least a hundred years. It has caused outside critics to point out that such an idea means a heaven of men potentially having eternal harems of women who are eternally pregnant and burdened with child-bearing. This "women as eternal incubators" idea has sometimes been given as reason when asked why we do not hear more of Heavenly Mother, asserting that She is too busy spiritually birthing more spirit children, and so being more involved in our lives is therefore not part of Her role. But it would be worthy to consider why the mechanics of human reproduction are as they are, and consider if they are perhaps mechanics that only apply to humans — Males emit about 200 to 500 million sperm with each ejaculation. Even when conception succeeds, only one (or in rare cases, two or three) sperm ever successfully fertilize an egg. This "less than 100,000,000 to 1 odds" is an evolutionary feature to help ensure that only one of the highest caliber of sperm succeed in fertilizing the egg, but the inefficiency of having literally hundreds of millions of sperm be wasted with every emission in order to weed out any defective or weak sperm would not likely be a feature of reproduction in a heavenly realm with no risk of genetic imperfections. Having mothers carry developing babies in their own body is protective to the survival and the development of the child. It serves as a safety feature by which the developing baby cannot be separated from the mother; the placenta acts as a mechanism for all needed nutrients to reach the developing baby from the mother; and the placenta also acts as a barrier to protect the baby from environmental toxins. That women are usually only pregnant with one developing baby at a time is also a survival mechanism, as it helps ensure the survival of one baby by not having that baby be competing for nutrients with another. These evolutionary protective mechanisms are potentially features that are only existent on earth. If we know that human fertilization is an act of evolutionary "one winner to many losers" feature, and that female childbearing is to protect a developing human fetus from the threats of a brutally-naturalistic earth, it could be reasoned that our fertilization and child-bearing mechanism for creating human life is solely a telestial-based model. The creation of spirit bodies in a higher realm would not necessitate any "survival of the fittest" competition between genetic material (if our spirit bodies have anything that could be termed "genetic material"), there would be no mortality-based threats against any "infant" spirit children being created, and no limitation of nutrient, space, attention, or anything else to hinder one Father and Mother God from forming an unlimited number of spirit children simultaneously. MDD 4 ~ Perhaps born of the creation-mind of God, not of Their bodies ~ We have not been explicitly given any doctrinal answer as to by what mechanism God the Father and Mother formed our spirit bodies, but if we believe that God created the earth, and everything on it, through the organization of existant matter and the guided development of biological organisms, and that this was achieved solely through the intended will of the mind of God acting on natural laws, could our spirit bodies have also been formed by solely the intention of God? Could we suppose it to be possible that our spirit bodies were perhaps formed by the united mind of a Man & Woman God, rather than by some kind of resurrection-fluid passing between resurrected bodies? The idea that we were created by the will of God (as opposed to thinking that our spirit bodies exited out of a god-vagina) is a belief held by all the rest of Christendom, and it fits more closely with the language of Abraham 3:22 where we read, "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was;" Monogamy as Divine Design

By "For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage..." are you implying that certain church members weren't being instructed to practice polygyny in D&C 132? Because in verse 3 it says, "for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." And then verse 64 states that the Lord will destroy any wife who has been taught of this but does not "believe and administer" in it. Those who insist that Section 132 is only talking about Joseph & Emma seem to be forgetting those verses of it entirely.

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape. Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law, will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?

In scriptural idioms, a "virgin" in the context of marriage simply referred to her status at the time she entered the covenant (as opposed to a widow or divorcee). The descriptor applies when she is espoused (betrothed/married). If a law said, "If a man marry a maiden, and she bear him children..." nobody interprets that to mean she remained a literal "maiden" after childbirth. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language a "virgin" can be an unattached woman. The main point of verse 61 is stating that if a man marries a woman who is not bound to another husband, and then enters a subsequent marriage with another unattached woman under priesthood authority, he is not committing adultery. It is addressing covenant legalities, not demanding that previous wives remain perpetually untouched.

Verse 61 doesn't really make sense. It assumes you will marry a virgin, then she will remain a virgin all the while you are looking for your second or other virgins to marry. Would your 5 wives really remain virgins as you march toward your tally of ten mentioned in the next verse?

Are you a child of heavenly parents who used their fully functioning sexual organs to form you?

Not all of the people in this discussion accept revealed truth as valid. Analytics definitely doesn't. I do it because I want to understand what really happened. Did Joseph actually have a set of ancient plates that he supernaturally translated? Or did he pre-write it and then read it off? Did he pre-write it himself or with others? Did he make it up on the fly? That to me is what I'm interested in.

Have you read https://rsc.byu.edu/approaching-antiquity-joseph-smith-ancient-world/git-them-translated-translating-characters-gold-plates? Because that's kind of the same idea. And I'm actually in favor of that. At the beginning, Joseph wasn't really attempting to translate. He had received the plates, put up a curtain, and then copied several characters and gave them to Martin Harris so he could shop around for someone to actually translate the plates. But Anthon does indicate that there was some supernatural mechanism. He said in his 1834 letter: That sounds like a supernatural ability. I doubt Anthon is telling us that the spectacles are ordinary, scientific spectacles. I would bet Anthon is writing that to indicate how he sees this whole attempt as a fraud, but that does show that Martin did talk about some supernatural process. I don't think there are any statements of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon purely by inspiration (no stone, spectacles, etc). But yes, I do agree the direction is the same. Joseph first looked at the plates (behind a curtain), then used the interpreters (in a hat), then used the seer stone (in a hat), then after translating the Book of Mormon he kept progressing till the point that he didn't need any instrument at all. Ok, that is over a year later, so yeah, Joseph could incorporate it there. But I do wonder, did Joseph already have Isaiah in mind when he sent Martin to find scholars? Did Joseph already have this snippet in the Book of Mormon and just needed Martin to act it out so he could show a prophecy fulfilled? Or did he incorporate it only after Martin came back?

What I don't understand is that I think each of you in this discussion accepts revealed truth as valid as indicated in the famous Moroni challenge In Moroni 10. If that is correct, then why is there all the emphasis on this thread from all sides participating on trying to create rational truth to demonstrate the historicity (or "truth") of the Book of Mormon? If folks don't believe, they probably won't accept your rational belief anyway. If they do believe, there is no need for rational belief. What am I missing? Might it have something to do with Cardinal Newman's concept of illative truth?

Section 132 is not a restatement of the Levitical law codes. Leviticus 21:13-14 and Ezekiel 44:22 restrict the High Priest exclusively to virgins of Israel. Joseph Smith’s later plural sealing included non-virgin widows, the same for many other early LDS polygamists. It seems 132 is a copy of a letter to Emma concerning Joseph’s marriages to Emily and Eliza Partridge specifically who were indeed virgins, but also sisters which is against Levitical law, 132 is not a rule book for all plural marriages in the future.

For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage in Doctrine and Covenants 132:61, was the mandate to only marry virgins a principle carried over from Old Testament teachings? "And he shall take a wife in her virginity ... but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife" (Leviticus 21:13-14, KJV). "They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the descendants of the house of Israel, or widows of priests" (Ezekiel 44:22, NKJV)

All three cases have to do with the Church. Where’s that connection here? I find the topic irrelevant to the board’s purpose. Seems like it’s on here in its current form because someone was bored. Bluebell first bought it up in regards to the “not all men” topic because of the text sent out to 57 men and answered by many. Not really seeing how your dissection of the case (and I have gone along with it because my attention is easily caught) has much to do with that discussion or the larger one of rape culture. Added: If we keep to the original topic of rape culture and not all men, I think there is a valid discussion of what in the case could be said to contribute to a rape culture. You brought up a definition of rape culture and then said iirc, you didn’t see such as prevalent in our society. I would see the texts themselves as strong evidence for it myself. Violence is not just physical, but includes humiliation…verbal and emotional violence. A good question we could be exploring is do most women see such texts as humiliating? Would the awareness that such was circulating about us among men we associated with cause us harm? Just the content shared among the 50+ men so far. Were there any protests from the men involved speaking against sending the texts out either during or after before the threat of the law became likely and CYA behaviour likely kicks in? My vote is for a major yes that these texts are symptoms of rape culture and contributed to such culture themselves. From discussions I have been hearing of since a youth, similar conversations that reduce girls and women to sexual objects for men’s enjoyment have always been common and in our society, they look to be promoted in my view given how often they are used in entertainment for humor, advertising, etc. And just to preempt the “but what about men, don’t they matter as much?… When I say “rape culture” I am not limiting it to only one sex or gender. I am relatively certain that a society that cultivates a carelessness in regards to rape of women probably increases sexual violence over all, meaning men are more likely to become victims as well. Plus there is the harm done to relationships in general because such attitudes will affect a wide range of interactions. Look at how hugs, pats on the backs and others such behaviours of friendship, even compassion now must be avoided to prevent giving cover to more aggressive, exploitative behaviour. Humanity is programmed to communicate through touch as well as sight and sound. We risk isolating ourselves when this gets removed. Would be great to have a culture where such behaviour was low risk for the vulnerable. At this point we don’t have one.

I don't, because this discussion is not a part of the legal process so no presumption of innocence is necessary. I also don't believe that starting out in favor of those accused rapists serves any good purpose here in this discussion. In a courtroom, of course, but not here. In this discussion those men are not owed the benefit of the doubt. I believe it would be morally wrong to begin this discussion by automatically elevating the men's position over that of Jane Doe's, which is exactly what we would have to do if we started with the presumption that they are telling the truth and she is lying. That puts her at a deficit and them at an advantage in this discussion that I don't believe is justified or reasonable. Edit to add: Because I know you are fond of AI summaries, it has a good one on why I don't believe the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt is valid in most social interactions (including this board): The principle is institutional: As noted in legal analyses like those from the Canadian Lawyer Magazine, the presumption of innocence is designed specifically to restrain the massive coercive power of the government. Private citizens do not possess police powers or state authority, so the same rules do not apply to private judgment or social consequences

Can you share why you believe the presumption of innocence is important for a message board? A message board serves none of the purposes of the legal system for example, so I'm unsure why you believe it should track the principles. I agree we can certainly look at the evidence and share opinions about it's weight, relevance, accuracy, etc, but that is very different than finding the truth isn't it? Is there anyway that we here could discuss this rape case and learn the actual truth of what happened through our discussion? We can't really do the same though. A tithing lawsuit with all the direct and forensic evidence is a completely different animal than a rape case, where the evidence is largely circumstantial and based on inference, right? This would be especially true in an acquaintance or date-rape scenario where proving consent when the interaction between everyone involved started out as voluntary is incredibly complex and much of the time based solely or mostly on 'he said-she said' testimony. On top of all of that you have to add the deep-seated and millenia-old cultural biases that exist surrounding female sexuality to the mix--best illustrated by the whole 'what were you wearing' theme we are all very well aware of--which adds an entire other level of complexity to achieving justice that just does not exist in financial litigation. So I reiterate that we cannot do the same when discussing this matter as we could when discussing the tithing lawsuits. I'm sincerely surprised that you think we could.

In case you missed it, in the beginning God created the human generations of the heaven and in His own image, a divine image that fully extends to the natures of both human males and human females. The context of Genesis 1 makes it clear that prior to the fall these human males and females were created by God to be sexual beings capable of bringing forth offspring by means of obeying the very first commandment God ever gave to man, which is to lawfully engage in the act of sexual procreation. And since the generations of the heaven and earth were created in the very image of God as both male AND female, to many Latter-Day Saints (Yours Truly included) it’s perfectly reasonable and logical and to expect that the divine nature of God’s family circle would include both male and female natures. After all, God himself declared the divine nature to be both male and female. And when was there ever a father who was able bring forth a son without the indispensable contribution of a mother? And let’s not forget that prior to the fall, while in Eden, that God commanded the then immortal and sinless Adam and Eve, to multiply and replenish the earth. In this regard, it always amuses me that it never seems to dawn on non-LDS Christians that redemption from the fall should include the redemptive blessing of being able to bring forth children while existing in a state of holiness since prior to the fall Adam and Eve were an eternally married couple who were under the commandment to bring forth children while living without sin in God’s immediate presence. In other words, redemption from the fall should necessarily include a return to the state of eternal marriage that was enjoyed by our first parents before their fall, including the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to multiply while living lives of holiness in the presence of God. We can actually get a glimpse of how the male and female divine natures combine to work in wondrous ways when it’s understood that by means of the sexual reproductive system of Mary God’s Son gestated in her womb and was born into the world with a human body. God wisely implemented the holy miracle of human sexual procreation for his eternal purposes, its spiritually blind men and women who ignore its sanctity and debase it. It’s fallen mankind who made sex “dirty” but In the beginning it was highly esteemed as the holy mechanism through which God’s great purposes in the creation to roll forward. It’s the refusal to believe that human sexuality can continue beyond the grave that makes “first wave,” mid-19th century Mormonism appear so strange to many. Nevertheless, if we’re going to be raised from the dead with fully functioning human organs suited to a holier state, why is it so hard to imagine that the human sexual reproductive system can also be perfected in the resurrected to function in a holier state? But I guess it’s easier and less icky to presume that all human beings are going to be raised from the dead with either anatomically incorrect Barbie and Ken bodies that will ultimately serve to prove that gender really is nothing more than a human construct. “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and PURPOSE” (The Family, a Proclamation to the World)

Not in the sense of the us legal system. In the sense of posting on this message board. I can see that. I think discussions on a message board ought to track at least some of the principles upon which our legal system is based. The presumption of innocence, for example. Yes. We can look at the evidence. Our legal system is, in most respects, left open to the general public, so we can end up having access to quite a bit of what both sides produce. Consider our discussions about Joseph Bishop and McKenna Denson. We addressed a lot of stuff, and I provisionally concluded that A) Joseph Bishop did something extremely inappropriate while he was the MTC president, but not conduct amounting to rape, and B) McKenna Denson was the victim of Bishop's misconduct, but I don't think she was truthful in her allegations of rape. I think she significantly embellished/fabricated. Look at the SEC dispute. We addressed a lot of the evidence. We were able to figure out quite a bit. Look at the Hunstman lawsuit. Again, the evidence was there for anyone to examine. We examined it, and discussed it, and reached informed conclusions about what "the truth." And so it goes. At this stage? Provisionally, perhaps. It becomes more difficult to do when there is so much vitriolic and mobocratic behavior. Jane Doe's allegations certainly deserve real consideration. I don't think their validity is a foregone conclusion. Rather, I think allegations of rape should be treated the same way allegations of any other crime are treated. Here, though, the presumption of innocence has been inverted, critiques of Jane Doe's 2024 statement and text messages and 2026 civil lawsuit have been shouted down as "defending the rapists," and so on. My preliminary assessment is that Jane Doe's allegations are, quality-wise, fairly poor. I think there is effectively zero chance of a criminal conviction. The prosecution has become politicized, and that is quite unfortunate, but we have safeguards for that sort of thing. As for Jane Doe's civil claim, I think it is unlikely she will be able to meet the "preponderance" standard. Again, her contemporaneous text messages and her 2024 statement is overall fairly damaging to her later claims of nonconsensual sexual contact. The transcripts of her 2024 interviews with police might be very important, as it appears the prosecutor did not receive those, and I don't think they have been made public. Her civil complaint does not seem to reference much in the way of corroborating evidence. We spent a few years examining the "tithing" lawsuits. Somewhat early on I predicted that the Church would win and the lawsuits would fail, and that was borne out. This was not just guesswork on my part, but was based on the facts alleged and the applicable principles of law. My prediction was not entirely correct, either, just mostly. We can do the same when discussing the Cornell matter. It will require us to set aside emotionalisms and examine the evidence in a dispassionate and fair-minded manner. That's not really happening in this thread. Thanks, -Smac

I guess we come from very different places. Again, you presuppose that a rape occurred. This begs the question. No "alleged" victim, just a question-begging "victim." Ipso facto, the seven men are "rapists" in your view? If so, how do you reconcile this with the presumption of innocence? If you were the mother or sister of someone accused of rape, and who denies the allegation, would you still characterize him as a rapist (no "alleged")? Here is my perspective: The presumption that applies in the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence for the accused, not a presumption that the complainant is telling the truth (which is apparently what you are saying). Police investigate reported crimes; they do not begin with a formal presumption that any particular account is accurate, whether the crime is rape, robbery, or anything else. In practice, officers take a report seriously and look for evidence that can corroborate or contradict it. That is different from starting with the conclusion that the complainant’s version is true and treating skepticism or contrary evidence as “victim blaming.” The latter approach short-circuits the investigation. It treats the accusation itself as sufficient to establish that a crime occurred and that the named person committed it. Rape is not unique in involving delayed reporting, inconsistent statements, or questions about capacity and consent. Those issues arise in other crimes too. The proper response is still to examine the evidence—including contemporaneous communications, physical evidence, witness accounts, and the evolution of the complainant’s statements—rather than to treat any scrutiny as improper. When early statements or conduct are inconsistent with the later account, noting that inconsistency is ordinary investigative work. Presuming the complainant’s narrative at the outset does the opposite of what the system requires: it shifts the burden onto the accused to disprove the claim before the evidence has been fully developed. An investigation can (and should) treat a report as worthy of thorough review without adopting the legal or rhetorical posture that the accused is already presumed to have committed the offense. Thank you for your thoughts here. A few responses: First, I have not suggested that we treat all evidence as if it has the same probative weight. Second, no one is saying every possibility carries equal weight or that mere speculation equals evidence. The point is narrower: when there is actual evidence that is consistent with consent (or inconsistent with the claim of continuous non-consent/incapacitation), that evidence cannot be dismissed in advance simply because an accusation has been made. But that seems to be what is happening in some quarters. Third, evaluating the weight of evidence is exactly what an investigation and, if charges are brought, a trial are for. Contemporaneous statements, conduct, and communications that align with consent are not “just a possibility”; they are facts in the record that any fair assessment has to account for. In my view, treating those facts as irrelevant, or as automatically outweighed by the later accusation, is what "stacks the deck." It converts the accusation itself into the decisive evidence and requires the accused to disprove it. Fourth, I think the proper approach is not to declare all possibilities equal. It is to let the evidence that actually exists—including evidence that cuts against the later narrative—be considered on its merits rather than ruled out of bounds at the start. That is ordinary evidence evaluation, not an assumption that every theory is equally probable. Thanks, -Smac