What makes this such an interesting topic is that Jean (like so many of those who want to defend JS) jumps so quickly to try to make a case that there is no proof that JS had sex with any or all his wives. It makes me laugh because, well maybe they are right, but in the same breath, they use such faulty logic like "poisoning the well" by suggesting that one lie on an accuser's part will mean that everything the accuser says is a lie. But then they fail to apply the same "faulty standard" to Joseph Smith.

Another fallacy is the Burden of Proof. Defenders of JS are right, we may lack sufficient information to condemn Joseph Smith's actions beyond reasonable doubt, and yes the burden of proof does lie within us. But rejecting that standard, they ask us to prove the BofM isn't true (among all the other claims) and require us to supply the evidences to prove it isn't.

In the end, the most mind boggling thing to me is that somehow, the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't have sex with his wives saves him from being a false prophet. But then what is Brigham Young's defense? How do you wiggle out of that one?

There is no winning with logic for those who don't value logic.