However, Dr. Hales concludes, “none of Joseph Smith’s plural wives ever accused him of abuse or deception, including the seven who did not gather to Utah with the main body of the Church. Decades after their feelings had matured and their youthful perspectives were expanded by additional experiences in subsequent marriages, it appears that none of them claimed they were victimized or beguiled by the Prophet. None came forth to write an exposé indicating he was a seducing impostor or claim that polygamy was a sham or a cover-up for illicit sexual relations. Even mild criticisms seem to be absent in the historical accounts and reminiscences of the Prophet’s plural wives. It seems that if any of Smith’s polygamous wives eventually decided that he had debauched them, their later scorn might have motivated them to expose him through the press. Certainly, numerous publishers would have been eager to print their allegations.”
Source "Sic Et Non"
So, because there is no evidence that Joseph was a bad man, we can state Joseph was not a bad man (as his behaviour relates to the opposite sex).
And yet, in responding to the lack of available evidence in support of The Book of Mormon, Mike Ash (whatever happened to him?) of FAIR concludes:
Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect–we don’t know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located. Such information may yet be discovered, but not discovering it is just as likely given the lack of cultural continuity and toponyms, as well as the epigraphic and iconographic uncertainties. To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies.
Source: FAIRlds.org
So which is it?
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
or
Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is an interesting little commentary back and forth on Sic Et Non about this article between Dan and a respondent which highlights the inconsistency in Daniel's/Apologetics proof standards:
Elizabeth <surname removed by Bazooka> says:
February 18, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Interesting thoughts, Dan! I will definitely read the article.
Do you think, though, that even if these women had felt “wronged” by the prophet, they might have kept silent so they didn’t embarrass themselves?
Reply
danpeterson says:
February 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Maybe. But there’s no apparent evidence for that.
Emphasis mine