Do apologists vary their requirements for evidence?

[_Themis]

So which is it?
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
or
Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence

It depends on what is being claimed. Do you consider those you know and have no evidence of spousal abuse to be abusive or not to their spouses? Probably not. The same standard should be used for Joseph as well.

That said, the strategy from your quotes is to limit the evidence only to what his wives have said. Certainly we do have evidence available of Joseph being manipulative in getting some women to marry him, and we have evidence from those who rejected him. This does not mean he was physically or mentally abusive in other ways. From what I know he was very charismatic person who treated people very well if he liked you and thought you were being loyal to him. If not then he could be very harsh. I see no reason the women who actually agreed to marriage would talk negatively afterwards, at least not in public. That was something you just didn't do back then, and even today many do the same.

Are their cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence? There are many cases. Scientists determine whether a species exists in an area or went extinct in the past by looking for evidence. How have we determined Kangaroos are not an animal that lives now or has ever lived in the wild here in the America's? If I tell you there is a quickie mart atop a certain mountain and you go up and look and find nothing, is that not absence of evidence evidence of absence? We can apply this to the Book of Mormon as well, in both what is claims did exist and who lived there.

[_madeleine]

Daniel Peterson has posted an article by Brian Hales which, in short, suggests that Joseph Smiths practice of plural marriage can't have been bad because the women didn't complain after he was dead.

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

A surprising argument to make, since I am sure that LDS teaching (today) wouldn't claim that thinking or believing something is OK, makes it OK.

Also, there is always this.

"Normalization refers to social processes through which ideas and actions come to be seen as "normal" and become taken-for-granted or 'natural' in everyday life. "

In my under-grade sociology course, normalization manifests itself in ways that society as a whole, would not call normal. The classic example is the abused child who believes the abuse is normal, and believes that all parent/child relationships are naturally abusive...one of the factors of abuse being perpetrated over generations.

LDS are normalized to believe Joseph Smith's brand of polygamy was natural in the everyday life of Mormons at the time. Their arguments are perpetrated over generations. What they aren't hearing is the reasoning for why it was not normal. Arguing that a person had come to view an abnormal situation as "normal", and that a person maintained that view through their life, doesn't make the situation or behavior normal.