Mormon Temple Movie Induces Vomiting in One Woman! Why?

[Apologette]

Russ posted this over on CARM, and I thought I'd post the link here. What this woman experienced, I believe, is a discernment of the presence of demonic en***ies in the Mormon temple. Many Christians know what "discernment" is, a very uncomfortable feeling about a certain manifestation - although it does not generally end up in such physical revulsion as described here. As Christians, we can take authority over the situation in the Name of Jesus. I've seen demonic manifestations a few times, and nothing I sought out, believe me. I've seen those who were involved with the occult, for instance, react by moans and rocking to Christian hymns, to the point where they had to be removed from the room and prayed over by Christians. Most of us don't like discussing these things, but the Scriptures clearly teach that demons exist, and are especially evident in occult surroundings.

Here is the link: http://oxymormonlife.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-last-temple-experience.html?m=1

I really look forward to reading the next installment of this woman's experiences!

[Erundur]

Or maybe she just had too many chili burritos for lunch.

[RealFakeHair]

Or maybe she just had too many chili burritos for lunch.

Or maybe she just found out she was sealed for all time and eternity to Jon Heder.

[neverending]

Russ posted this over on CARM, and I thought I'd post the link here. What this woman experienced, I believe, is a discernment of the presence of demonic en***ies in the Mormon temple. Many Christians know what "discernment" is, a very uncomfortable feeling about a certain manifestation - although it does not generally end up in such physical revulsion as described here. As Christians, we can take authority over the situation in the Name of Jesus. I've seen demonic manifestations a few times, and nothing I sought out, believe me. I've seen those who were involved with the occult, for instance, react by moans and rocking to Christian hymns, to the point where they had to be removed from the room and prayed over by Christians. Most of us don't like discussing these things, but the Scriptures clearly teach that demons exist, and are especially evident in occult surroundings.

Here is the link: http://oxymormonlife.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-last-temple-experience.html?m=1

I really look forward to reading the next installment of this woman's experiences!

My heart went out to this woman for I know how she felt for I too had a similar experience when I and James went to the temple to be married. Fortunately for me, I never got sick to my stomach for I hate to feel sick and need to vomit. I can see a little of myself in this woman as well for she is a free thinker and even though she prayed and did all the things we were taught as children and young adults to do, her answers never came. I know with everything that is in me that my experience going through the temple was influenced by the Holy Spirit who spoke to me telling me I didn't belong there and to get up, leave! Oh how I wanted to do just that but seeing as how my Dad had rearranged his work schedule and he and my Mother drove with James and I to Canada, I felt obligated to go through with the rituals no matter how disgusting. To this day I still don't know how my parents could think what went on in the temple was acceptable. How I wish I had known what went on in there before committing myself, for I wouldn't have gone. I pray that this woman knows now, that the temple rituals are not from God and that her experience has created a desire in her to study more about Mormonism and she too will leave it as I did. I too would like to read more from this woman as to how she managed and where she is today. Thanks for sharing this with us.

[neverending]

erundur, that's what you'd like to believe. I know different and I praise God for giving this woman the insight to see through the secret rituals and have her eyes opened.

[Apologette]

My heart went out to this woman for I know how she felt for I too had a similar experience when I and James went to the temple to be married. Fortunately for me, I never got sick to my stomach for I hate to feel sick and need to vomit. I can see a little of myself in this woman as well for she is a free thinker and even though she prayed and did all the things we were taught as children and young adults to do, her answers never came. I know with everything that is in me that my experience going through the temple was influenced by the Holy Spirit who spoke to me telling me I didn't belong there and to get up, leave! Oh how I wanted to do just that but seeing as how my Dad had rearranged his work schedule and he and my Mother drove with James and I to Canada, I felt obligated to go through with the rituals no matter how disgusting. To this day I still don't know how my parents could think what went on in the temple was acceptable. How I wish I had known what went on in there before committing myself, for I wouldn't have gone. I pray that this woman knows now, that the temple rituals are not from God and that her experience has created a desire in her to study more about Mormonism and she too will leave it as I did. I too would like to read more from this woman as to how she managed and where she is today. Thanks for sharing this with us.

Thanks for that testimony. Obviously, the Mormons don't like to hear these kind of things - but this is a clear case of the supernatural intervention of God. I'll look forward to knowing how this turns out.

[Erundur]

erundur, that's what you'd like to believe.
That's what protestants have told me I should believe.

[RealFakeHair]

That's what protestants have told me I should believe.

You have no comp***ion, but that's the way jo would have wanted it.

[nrajeffreturns]

Or maybe she just found out she was sealed for all time and eternity to Jon Heder.

Must give credit where it's due--that was a good one.

[RealFakeHair]

Must give credit where it's due--that was a good one.

I did it just for you, because unlike other TBMs here you has a good sense of humor.

[neverending]

That's what protestants have told me I should believe.

You seem caught up with Protestants. Not every Christian is a Protestant. A Baptist isn't a protestant due to the fact that Baptist Churches do not claim outside authority but rely on their local churches, being autonomous. Protestant Churches on the other hand belong to synods or presbyteries. Baptists also ONLY baptize by immersion where Protestant Churches sprinkle and baptize infants. Things seem to have changed within the Protestant Churches since we now know that if someone wishes to be immersed instead of being sprinkled, they can be baptized in that fashion.
Were Baptists even part of the reformation? No. Baptists can be traced as far back as 251 A.D. The reformation of Luther began in 1517, quite a long, long time between these two sects.

[RealFakeHair]

You seem caught up with Protestants. Not every Christian is a Protestant. A Baptist isn't a protestant due to the fact that Baptist Churches do not claim outside authority but rely on their local churches, being autonomous. Protestant Churches on the other hand belong to synods or presbyteries. Baptists also ONLY baptize by immersion where Protestant Churches sprinkle and baptize infants. Things seem to have changed within the Protestant Churches since we now know that if someone wishes to be immersed instead of being sprinkled, they can be baptized in that fashion.
Were Baptists even part of the reformation? No. Baptists can be traced as far back as 251 A.D. The reformation of Luther began in 1517, quite a long, long time between these two sects.

Also, Baptist were around long before the protestant movement. On another point, Baptist doctrine hasn't changed since day one, unlike the LDSinc. When put under the gun, ie polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, and so on, and so on.

[Apologette]

You seem caught up with Protestants. Not every Christian is a Protestant. A Baptist isn't a protestant due to the fact that Baptist Churches do not claim outside authority but rely on their local churches, being autonomous. Protestant Churches on the other hand belong to synods or presbyteries. Baptists also ONLY baptize by immersion where Protestant Churches sprinkle and baptize infants. Things seem to have changed within the Protestant Churches since we now know that if someone wishes to be immersed instead of being sprinkled, they can be baptized in that fashion.
Were Baptists even part of the reformation? No. Baptists can be traced as far back as 251 A.D. The reformation of Luther began in 1517, quite a long, long time between these two sects.
Mormons know nothing of Church history. Pentecostals also baptize by immersion, as does Calvary Chapel and many independent churches.

[Erundur]

You seem caught up with Protestants.
Actually, protestants are very caught up with us. So caught up, in fact, that they sometimes do ridiculous things like equate spiritual experiences with eating too many chili burritos for lunch.

[RealFakeHair]

Actually, protestants are very caught up with us. So caught up, in fact, that they sometimes do ridiculous things like equate spiritual experiences with eating too many chili burritos for lunch.

Ebenezer Scroog, maybe, but I once ate a box of chicken from KFC, and,? I don't know if I should tell the rest of the story.

[James Banta]

Actually, protestants are very caught up with us. So caught up, in fact, that they sometimes do ridiculous things like equate spiritual experiences with eating too many chili burritos for lunch.

Not nice.. But I don't believe you can tell the difference between a spiritual experience and an emotional response to outside stimuli. IHS jim

[neverending]

Actually, protestants are very caught up with us. So caught up, in fact, that they sometimes do ridiculous things like equate spiritual experiences with eating too many chili burritos for lunch.

Care to show any substantial evidence to your claim that protestants are very caught up with Mormons? I think you're only tooting your own horn. And I guess due to your own arrogance, no one but a Mormon can experience something spiritual. So sorry that you have no real knowledge of other faiths and how God works and you certainly have no faith in the Holy Spirit. Par for the course for a member of a cult who's mind has been brain washed and eyes kept closed to anything other then what Mormonism teaches. There is a big, wide world out there, maybe time to step out of your comfort zone and take a deep breath of fresh air. Time your church stops being the con that it is and has been since 1830.

[RealFakeHair]

Actually, protestants are very caught up with us. So caught up, in fact, that they sometimes do ridiculous things like equate spiritual experiences with eating too many chili burritos for lunch.

Most Christians I know who take up an interest in mormonism and study the history of Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind believe mormons have an evil spirit within them, or at best just feel comfortable in the LDSinc. Family.

[Erundur]

Care to show any substantial evidence to your claim that protestants are very caught up with Mormons?
SRSLY? Count up the number of Protestant anti-Mormon message boards, web sites, missions, "ministries," sermons, books, tracts, etc., etc. and you have your substantial evidence.


And I guess due to your own arrogance, no one but a Mormon can experience something spiritual.
LOL, my comment was ironic in light of the Protestant arrogance that no Mormon can experience something spiritual.


So sorry that you have no real knowledge of other faiths and how God works and you certainly have no faith in the Holy Spirit.
So you lie. Par for the course for a member of a cult who's mind has been brain washed and eyes kept closed to anything other then what anti-Mormonism teaches, etc., etc.

[RealFakeHair]

SRSLY? Count up the number of Protestant anti-Mormon message boards, web sites, missions, "ministries," sermons, books, tracts, etc., etc. and you have your substantial evidence.


LOL, my comment was ironic in light of the Protestant arrogance that no Mormon can experience something spiritual.


So you lie. Par for the course for a member of a cult who's mind has been brain washed and eyes kept closed to anything other then what anti-Mormonism teaches, etc., etc.

Why do you believe there are so many so called anti-LDSinc. websights anyways VS lets say JW anti-websights?

[neverending]

SRSLY? Count up the number of Protestant anti-Mormon message boards, web sites, missions, "ministries," sermons, books, tracts, etc., etc. and you have your substantial evidence.


LOL, my comment was ironic in light of the Protestant arrogance that no Mormon can experience something spiritual.


So you lie. Par for the course for a member of a cult who's mind has been brain washed and eyes kept closed to anything other then what anti-Mormonism teaches, etc., etc.

Oh, you made me chuckle :) What is it with Protestants to you? I am not a Protestant!! And all these things you mention only proves that there are many Christians in the world who are trying to preach the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ and warn people of the lies of Mormonism. I have nothing against Mormons and wish you and all your comrades would understand that. What I am against is the doctrines!! And I've never said that a Mormon can't have a spiritual experience. God can do whatever He wants! He can lead anyone to feel his spirit if he so chooses.
As I've testified here before about going through the temple to be married, I did have a spiritual experience from the Holy Spirit telling me that I didn't belong there and to get up, leave! And I DO NOT take kindly to you, a total stranger, calling me a liar!! There are no churches that teach anti-Mormon anything!! Our Sundays are for being taught Biblical truths and learning to have a closer relationship with Jesus Christ. What any of the Christians do here is study Mormonism and find inconsistencies in it and compare it with Biblical doctrines. We've studied the life of J. Smith and have found him NOT to be honest in his dealings with his neighbors and others and his lies and infidelities which were a slap in the face to Emma. He was not a Godly man and was not a prophet. No, he was a very sad man, with many mental issues, one was wanting power over others.
In your mind you can think what you want but we were not raised on the false doctrines of Mormonism as you were, so to say that WE are brain washed is a lie!!!

[Erundur]

What is it with Protestants to you?
See here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3279-Mormon-Temple-Movie-Induces-Vomiting-in-One-Woman!-Why&p=152022#post152022).


And I DO NOT take kindly to you, a total stranger, calling me a liar!!
Then stop lying. I don't take kindly to you, a total stranger, lying about what I know or have faith in.

[neverending]

See here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3279-Mormon-Temple-Movie-Induces-Vomiting-in-One-Woman!-Why&p=152022#post152022).


Then stop lying. I don't take kindly to you, a total stranger, lying about what I know or have faith in.

Since I have not lied about your faith, then again it is YOU who is calling me a liar! Anything that I have ever stated has come from your own Standard Works or J. Smith's own history and the LDS Church History.
It is now up to you to tell me what I've said that was a lie. Waiting to know.

[Erundur]

Since I have not lied about your faith, then again it is YOU who is calling me a liar! Anything that I have ever stated has come from your own Standard Works or J. Smith's own history and the LDS Church History.
It is now up to you to tell me what I've said that was a lie. Waiting to know.

Okay, here you go: "you have no real knowledge of other faiths and how God works and you certainly have no faith in the Holy Spirit."
Show me where this is found in my own Standard Works or J. Smith's own history and the LDS Church History.

[neverending]

Okay, here you go: "you have no real knowledge of other faiths and how God works and you certainly have no faith in the Holy Spirit."
Show me where this is found in my own Standard Works or J. Smith's own history and the LDS Church History.

This was it? Again, I have to chuckle because my statement is MY opinion of you, not a lie, an opinion!! You go about stating YOUR opinions so I guess I am right then to say you lie according to your way of thinking. When you lump all Christians as Protestants, that is not true. You want to say you know all about other faiths when you don't even know everything about your own? I am sorry that you have not been told the truth about your faith and only because if your leaders did, you might leave the church. If more Mormons really wanted to know their history, many probably would leave as I did. There is no shame in questioning what you believe and it is my questioning after being in one of your temples that later made me begin studying and finding out the REAL truth about Mormonism. Give this some thought, a church that has all the answers, doesn't allow any questions. Do you feel pressured by your leaders? Would you be treated badly by family for questioning and having doubts? If you answered yes to either question, then a red flag should have been raised.

[James Banta]

Okay, here you go: "you have no real knowledge of other faiths and how God works and you certainly have no faith in the Holy Spirit."
Show me where this is found in my own Standard Works or J. Smith's own history and the LDS Church History.

Let me try again just once more and see if you still call me a liar..

The Bible teaches clearly that there is one God (Mark12:29), it teaches that there will never be more than one God (Isaiah 43:10). We are taught that salvation comes to us by Grace through Faith in Jesus and NOT OF WORKS (Eph 2:8-9). We are taught that we must be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). We are taught that if we keep the whole of God's law failing in just one point we become guilty of all of it (James 2:10). We are taught that God is Spirit, (John 4:24), and that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39). That the spirit of man was formed within him (Zech 12:1), not in some preexistant sphere..

Now lets compare these Biblical truths with the doctrine of Mormonism.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th article of faith held to be scripture by the LDS and are contained in the PofGP as such all tell us of things we must DO (works) to be saved. Works such as being "punished for their own sins", "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel", this can be expanded to everything the prophet teaches, then being baptized, and allowing men to give you a gift from God (The Holy Spirit). Are any of the LDS perfect as is required by God according to Jesus? Thee Book of Mormon teaches that God's grace must be earned through obedience, NOT just through faith but only in obeying Laws and ordinances (Moroni 10:32). Seems that mormonism has no response to James 2:12.. It is ignored everywhere.. I do see that most LDS find that teaching abhorrent.. It is LDS doctrine that the Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's (D&C 130:22.. In the book of Moses Smith wrote that God created everything spiritually the created then naturally but the Bible teach that it is not the spiritual that was first but the natural then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46)..

Am I still a liar believing these major differences? Am I a liar for saying that Smith taught that God became God? Well Smith taught that very thing according to History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 302-317.. The lying here is done by those that deny these facts, not by the Christians that report them.. So is saying that Smith taught the things we say he taught are we lying? I think you have some serious back peddling to do.. IHS jim

[Erundur]

This was it? Again, I have to chuckle because my statement is MY opinion of you, not a lie, an opinion!!
Cop out. What you said about me is not a matter of your opinion. It's objectively false.

[neverending]

Cop out. What you said about me is not a matter of your opinion. It's objectively false.

Again, I chuckle as I see you struggling with the truths that have been presented to you. And ones opinion is just that, and we all have opinions on many subjects. Maybe you don't agree with my opinion just as I don't agree with yours. What I am asking is for you to do some study. Open your own Church History and read! Take a good hard look at J. Smith's history and read it with an open mind, not your closed Mormon one. I know that is very hard to do for once I was in your shoes and I didn't want to believe the things I read. It doesn't help to keep your eyes closed. If your house were on fire would it be right of me to walk on by never trying to do something to save you? If you were headed for a cliff would it be alright for me to not warn you? This is all I and all the Christians here are trying to do, get Mormons to see the errors and falsehoods of their faith.
John 8:3, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Christ offers us freedom if we chose to accept and believe in him. He is the only one who matters. It is only through Christ that we can have forgiveness and salvation; no man, no church, no church rules or ordinances can do that. No amount of good works can do anything, only Christ and His shed blood. If God demanded good works to earn salvation, wouldn't He have given us a goal to work towards? An amount that was necessary. If you died today, would you know you had done enough? Why live with uncertainties? Look at 11 John 5:13, there you will be told that you can KNOW you have eternal life....KNOW! not hope so, or maybe, but actually KNOW!
When I was a Mormon, I never knew if I would be good enough or whether I would have done enough so that when I died I'd be with God in your celestial kingdom. Maybe I'd get to the second degree of heaven or maybe the lowest level of the celestial kingdom but I really never knew. What a horrible way to live ones life, never knowing for sure where one will be when they take their last breath.

[Erundur]

Chuckle all you want, but if you lie about what I believe, I'm still going to call you on it.

[nrajeffreturns]

Again, I chuckle as I see you struggling with the truths that have been presented to you. And ones opinion is just that, and we all have opinions on many subjects...

Hold on for a minute there, so I can make sure I am not misunderstanding that: You're saying that it's okay to call someone a liar as long as it's your opinion that they are a liar?

[neverending]

Hold on for a minute there, so I can make sure I am not misunderstanding that: You're saying that it's okay to call someone a liar as long as it's your opinion that they are a liar?

NO! As I am seeing from so many members of your church, you can't understand most of what is being explained to you. It was erundur who called me a liar! It was me who never called him such a thing! He's upset because he can't and won't do his home work and check out what has been told to him but then goes about calling people liars because he gets upset. An opinion is just that, it is not calling anyone a liar! I have my opinion of erundur but I NEVER CALLED HIM A LIAR! NOR HAVE I LIED ABOUT MORMON DOCTRINE AND HE HAS YET SHOWED ME WHERE I'VE DONE THAT! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? Everyone has the right to their opinion but NOT to call anyone a liar unless they are willing to prove that they have indeed done that.

[nrajeffreturns]

NO! As I am seeing from so many members of your church, you can't understand most of what is being explained to you.
That's a lie....in my opinion, of course. :)


It was erundur who called me a liar!
Regarding what?


An opinion is just that, it is not calling anyone a liar!
What if someone is lying in your opinion? What do you do then?


I have my opinion of erundur but I NEVER CALLED HIM A LIAR! NOR HAVE I LIED ABOUT MORMON DOCTRINE AND HE HAS YET SHOWED ME WHERE I'VE DONE THAT!
Is there any LDS person you have called a liar? How many LDS people--including the ones who are no longer living-- have you accused of lying?


DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Yes. I think it was the yelling, in that long string of all-caps words, that helped me understand.


Everyone has the right to their opinion but NOT to call anyone a liar unless they are willing to prove that they have indeed done that.
That is good to know. I will keep it in mind as I read what the anti-LDS say about LDS leaders.

[James Banta]

That's a lie....in my opinion, of course. :)

No matter how much you smile about it, no matter how lightly you treat the subject calling someone a liar is a serious accusation (Rev 21:8).. If you believe that NE was speaking in her own opinion then by all means disagree with it. But to call her a liar for explaining her opinion is flat out evil..

[QUOTE]Regarding what?

That doesn't matter.


What if someone is lying in your opinion? What do you do then?

Say that they are wrong, not that they are liars..


Is there any LDS person you have called a liar? How many LDS people--including the ones who are no longer living-- have you accused of lying?

Yes, but in anger when first attacked personally for my views.. That means being called a liar first.


Yes. I think it was the yelling, in that long string of all-caps words, that helped me understand.

I don't believe you understand NE temper..


That is good to know. I will keep it in mind as I read what the anti-LDS say about LDS leaders.

It is not hard to see that Joseph Smith lied He said "Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more
gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." (History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI, The pages aren't numbered in this copy of the History of the church so go to http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI and do a search for "seven wives")

Is that what Anti-LDS say about LDS leaders or is it the words of Joseph Smith as recorded in a history completely controlled by the LDS church? Thatbwhich you seem to call lies is in reality nothing more gthan gthe false teaching of LDS leaders, in this case Joseph Smith.. IHS jim

[neverending]

That's a lie....in my opinion, of course. :)


Regarding what?


What if someone is lying in your opinion? What do you do then?


Is there any LDS person you have called a liar? How many LDS people--including the ones who are no longer living-- have you accused of lying?


Yes. I think it was the yelling, in that long string of all-caps words, that helped me understand.


That is good to know. I will keep it in mind as I read what the anti-LDS say about LDS leaders.

It seems redundant to keep repeating oneself. I am not going to post what erundur said to me within this thread, you can go back through and find the different comments. I have stated before that J.Smith was a liar from day one. His background is proof enough having been taught well by his father as to money digging and cheating neighbors. On March 20, 1826, four years before publishing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was tried in court and found guilty for deceiving Josiah Stowel into believing that he could locate hidden treasure through divination: by peering at a stone in a hat. (http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/joseph-smith-money-digger.html) It was with this same stone that J.Smith claimed to translate the BoM. Here is some interesting info when J.Smith was arrested and had to face a judge over his money digging:

People of the State of New York vs. Joseph Smith.

Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter.

Prisoner was brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of the time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them; that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes — made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.

Josiah Stowel sworn. Says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months. Had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were, by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes—once to tell him about money buried on Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt-spring,—and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the digging part at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attelon, for a mine—did not exactly find it, but got a piece of ore, which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner said that it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail-feather; that Stowel and prisoner there upon commenced digging, found a tail-feather, but money was gone; that he supposed that money moved down; that prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone; that he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.

Horace Stowel sworn. Says he see prisoner look into hat through stone, pretending to tell where a chest of dollars were buried in Windsor, a number of miles distant; marked out size of chest in the leaves on ground.

Arad Stowel sworn. Says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill that he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book open upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent; hold the stone to the candle, turn his back to book and read. The deception appeared so palpable, that went off disgusted.

McMaster sworn. Says he went with Arad Stowel to be convinced of prisoner's skill, and likewise came away disgusted, finding the deception so palpable. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discern objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark-colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look Yeomans for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was, and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeo-mans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at the spot first (was in night); that Smith looked in hat while there and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed the last time that he looked, on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried came all fresh to his mind; that the last time that he looked, he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk; that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside of the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but, on account of an enchantment, the trunk kept settling away from under them while digging; that, not withstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge; and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone and hat; that, as evidence of fact, prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and disposition of money.

And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.
Justice Albert Neeley
Court Report, March 20, 1826
Reprinted in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia 2:1556 (http://www.mormonhandbook.com/storage/media/shencl-v2p1576.png)
(http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/joseph-smith-money-digger.html)

It is proven that J.Smith was dishonest and a con man according to this official court document. If we are to believe in his visions, this was well after he supposedly saw God and Christ or was it just Christ or was it only an angel? With all this said, prove that me calling J.Smith a liar isn't true?

[James Banta]

And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.
Justice Albert Neeley
Court Report, March 20, 1826
Reprinted in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia 2:1556 (http://www.mormonhandbook.com/storage/media/shencl-v2p1576.png)
(http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/joseph-smith-money-digger.html)

It is proven that J.Smith was dishonest and a con man and if we are to believe in his visions, this was well after he supposedly saw God and Christ or was it just Christ or was it only an angel? With all this said, prove that me calling J.Smith a liar isn't true?



This is the first time I have seen Smith referred to as the prisoner and the first time I have seen a Justice pronounce Smith guilty.. I have seen where chargers were brought and where Smith paid bail that was forfeited like one would do in paying a fine for a traffic ticket. Yes by paying the fine (bail) there is an admission of guilt but this is the first time that I have seen the word GUILTY being used by a judge in reference to Joseph Smith. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

This is the first time I have seen Smith referred to as the prisoner and the first time I have seen a Justice pronounce Smith guilty.
How quick are you to accept that claim as being real? As being historically correct? Are you skeptical about it until you see evidence to back it up? Or do you automatically jump to the conclusion that it's the truth, even though you don't even know if it's real, merely because it's negative about Joseph Smith, whom you already hate anyway? How flimsy and unfounded would an accusation against him have to be before you'd say "Now wait just a second, I refuse to believe that about him until I see better evidence" ?

[neverending]

How quick are you to accept that claim as being real? As being historically correct? Are you skeptical about it until you see evidence to back it up? Or do you automatically jump to the conclusion that it's the truth, even though you don't even know if it's real, merely because it's negative about Joseph Smith, whom you already hate anyway? How flimsy and unfounded would an accusation against him have to be before you'd say "Now wait just a second, I refuse to believe that about him until I see better evidence" ?

Jeff,
What does it take for anyone to see that this article I discovered and posted is the truth? It came from a reliable source even though you would consider it anti. You can't argue against official court documents. It is direct from a hearing that really took place. All you need to do is check the sources and read! When will LDS people open their eyes? This is NOT flimsy nor an accusation, but TRUTH! J.Smith was arrested and tried, found guilty of fraud. DO your home work Jeff before condemning something that is fact.

[James Banta]

How quick are you to accept that claim as being real? As being historically correct? Are you skeptical about it until you see evidence to back it up? Or do you automatically jump to the conclusion that it's the truth, even though you don't even know if it's real, merely because it's negative about Joseph Smith, whom you already hate anyway? How flimsy and unfounded would an accusation against him have to be before you'd say "Now wait just a second, I refuse to believe that about him until I see better evidence" ?

You didn't see where the information was in an official court record? What is wrong with the records of the state of new York? Were they anti mormon even before there was a mormon church to be anti toward? Did you see date of the court record? Was it not March 20, 1826? There reference is given right there in the book it was taken from. You could go to the state of NY and get that judge's records and prove us wrong.. If we have provided a false reference wouldn't we look silly! And if we are right you wouldn't have to say a word. You could still fall back to believing the lies that the LDS church has been telling about Smith all alone. That he was never convicted of any crime..

The evidence is there quite complete as it is reprinted in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia 2:1556.. You can call that an anti mormon report but as we have given you the reference it is up to you to show that the record it either false or incomplete. But no it's much easier to make an accusation of hate , and call the source flimsy and unfounded..

No I wouldn't say ""Now wait just a second, I refuse to believe that about him until I see better evidence"".. I would go and do some work to get the evidence I needed to call it flimsy, and unfounded.. But you turn to accusation that have no foundation at all.. Like I said you took the easy way.. It is you not us that make an unfounded accusation against this source.. You have no evidence that the source have an axe to grind against the LDS church or even Joseph Smith for that matter.. It was reporting the events given in a court of Law.. So if there is better evidence show it! Show that the source is a hateful anti mormon scandal sheet. Until you have such evidence you should not try to challenge what is shown to be facts.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Jeff, What does it take for anyone to see that this article I discovered and posted is the truth?
It's gonna take evidence so overwhelming that it outweighs the evidence that what you posted is NOT the truth. You would need to convince both Wesley Walters and the Tanners, for starters:

"In the Tanners’ Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, “Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with ‘an examination.’ In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an ‘examination’ the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are’”25

In all cases but one the witnesses were “sworn”, whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley’s charges actually uses that precise terminology, “in examination of above cause”. Therefore, since this wasn’t a trial, you can’t have a guilty verdict."

" Misdemeanor trials were not recorded in New York at that time, just felony trials, which is confirmed with the rest of Judge Neely's record.
In addition to Justice Neely’s costs of $2.68. There is also an amount of $.19 listed as “warrants.” Constable De Zeng presented a bill for that amount. Now it happens that $.19 was the prescribed amount for a pretrial mittimus (warrant of commitment to prison for lack of bail), as set down in A Conductor Generalis of 1819. In other words, it was the amount the constable would charge for bringing an accused person in. If Justice Neely had found that there was a case for Joseph to answer, he would have ordered him bound over for trial at the next court of General Sessions, and De Zeng would have charged an additional $.25, which was the prescribed amount for a posttrial warrant of commitment. But that charge was not levied; therefore, Joseph was not remanded to the custody of the constable, and so he was, in all probability, acquitted."


It came from a reliable source even though you would consider it anti.
Why don't Rev. Walters and the Tanners agree with you?


You can't argue against official court documents.
You haven't provided any. You haven't SEEN any. You latched onto an obscure article in an obscure encyclopedia, that you found on an anti-LDS website on the Internet. And that's all it took for you to believe that you were in possession of actual reliable proof.


All you need to do is check the sources and read!
Yup, that's what I did, and I am reporting to you what I found. You could have done what I did, but you didn't want to open your eyes to the shoddiness of the evidence you had latched onto.


When will LDS people open their eyes?
The LDS eyes were open to the flimsiness of your evidence.


This is NOT flimsy nor an accusation, but TRUTH!
It is flimsy, and you're basing your accusation on it.


J.Smith was arrested and tried, found guilty of fraud.
False, as I have shown.


DO your home work Jeff before condemning something that is fact.
I did MY homework. I didn't blindly take that anti site's word for it, like you did.

[James Banta]

It's gonna take evidence so overwhelming that it outweighs the evidence that what you posted is NOT the truth. You would need to convince both Wesley Walters and the Tanners, for starters:

"In the Tanners’ Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, “Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with ‘an examination.’ In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an ‘examination’ the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are’”25

In all cases but one the witnesses were “sworn”, whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley’s charges actually uses that precise terminology, “in examination of above cause”. Therefore, since this wasn’t a trial, you can’t have a guilty verdict."

" Misdemeanor trials were not recorded in New York at that time, just felony trials, which is confirmed with the rest of Judge Neely's record.
In addition to Justice Neely’s costs of $2.68. There is also an amount of $.19 listed as “warrants.” Constable De Zeng presented a bill for that amount. Now it happens that $.19 was the prescribed amount for a pretrial mittimus (warrant of commitment to prison for lack of bail), as set down in A Conductor Generalis of 1819. In other words, it was the amount the constable would charge for bringing an accused person in. If Justice Neely had found that there was a case for Joseph to answer, he would have ordered him bound over for trial at the next court of General Sessions, and De Zeng would have charged an additional $.25, which was the prescribed amount for a posttrial warrant of commitment. But that charge was not levied; therefore, Joseph was not remanded to the custody of the constable, and so he was, in all probability, acquitted."


Why don't Rev. Walters and the Tanners agree with you?


You haven't provided any. You haven't SEEN any. You latched onto an obscure article in an obscure encyclopedia, that you found on an anti-LDS website on the Internet. And that's all it took for you to believe that you were in possession of actual reliable proof.


Yup, that's what I did, and I am reporting to you what I found. You could have done what I did, but you didn't want to open your eyes to the shoddiness of the evidence you had latched onto.


The LDS eyes were open to the flimsiness of your evidence.


It is flimsy, and you're basing your accusation on it.

False, as I have shown.


I did MY homework. I didn't blindly take that anti site's word for it, like you did.

You men to tell me you know so little about the American justice system you believe that a person can't be judged and punished for crime without going to trial? Ever had a traffic ticket? Did you pay a fine? I guess you never saw that in so doing you plead guilty of the offense. Smith paid a fine. According to the Tanners and Rev Walters a fine of $2.68.. That includes ALL the allowable court expenses that an innocent an would not be forced to pay.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

You men to tell me you know so little about the American justice system you believe that a person can't be judged and punished for crime without going to trial?
Apparently I, the Tanners, and Rev. Walters know a little more about the New York justice system of the 1820s than you do, since unlike you, we realize that the REAL evidence refutes the claim that this was a trial, and it refutes the idea that a court found Joseph Smith guilty of anything in 1826.


Ever had a traffic ticket?
Dozens. (I wasn't the most law-abiding teen-age driver)


Did you pay a fine?
Yes


I guess you never saw that in so doing you plead guilty of the offense.
The times when I didn't challenge the ticket I just acknowledged guilt and paid the fine. That wasn't the case, however, in this 1826 "trial." But I do find this amusing: Are you claiming that the "crime" that Joseph allegedly committed in 1826 was the equivalent of a traffic violation such as driving through an intersection without stopping at the stop sign? And THAT the big deal that is causing the antis to drool with glee? LOL


Smith paid a fine.
To quote Rev. Walters, the guy who stole the actual original bill from the county courthouse:

".. the 19¢ charge attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail'... and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction..."
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm (the TANNERS' site)

Jim, face it: You have been hornswaggled. This can't have been a trial, according to the reliable available evidence. At most, this bill indicates that Justice Neely believed there was enough evidence to justify scheduling a trial at some later date. That's what mittimus meant in English Law, which the USA's laws were largely based on in its early years. From thelawdictionary.org:

What is MITTIMUS?
In English law. A writ used in sending a record or its tenor from one court to another. Thus, where a nul ticl record is pleaded in one court to the record of another court of equal or superior jurisdiction, the tenor of the record is brought into chancery by a certiorari, (q. v..) and thence sent by mittimus into the court where the action is.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/mittimus/#ixzz2rA9By4AZ

[Apologette]

Apparently I, the Tanners, and Rev. Walters know a little more about the New York justice system of the 1820s than you do, since unlike you, we realize that the REAL evidence refutes the claim that this was a trial, and it refutes the idea that a court found Joseph Smith guilty of anything in 1826.


Dozens. (I wasn't the most law-abiding teen-age driver)


Yes


The times when I didn't challenge the ticket I just acknowledged guilt and paid the fine. That wasn't the case, however, in this 1826 "trial." But I do find this amusing: Are you claiming that the "crime" that Joseph allegedly committed in 1826 was the equivalent of a traffic violation such as driving through an intersection without stopping at the stop sign? And THAT the big deal that is causing the antis to drool with glee? LOL


To quote Rev. Walters, the guy who stole the actual original bill from the county courthouse:

".. the 19¢ charge attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail'... and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction..."
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm (the TANNERS' site)

Jim, face it: You have been hornswaggled. This can't have been a trial, according to the reliable available evidence. At most, this bill indicates that Justice Neely believed there was enough evidence to justify scheduling a trial at some later date. That's what mittimus meant in English Law, which the USA's laws were largely based on in its early years. From thelawdictionary.org:

What is MITTIMUS?
In English law. A writ used in sending a record or its tenor from one court to another. Thus, where a nul ticl record is pleaded in one court to the record of another court of equal or superior jurisdiction, the tenor of the record is brought into chancery by a certiorari, (q. v..) and thence sent by mittimus into the court where the action is.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/mittimus/#ixzz2rA9By4AZ
Mormons are very blinded when it comes to their true god, Joseph Smith. So funny really! What a cl***ic example of idol worship!

[nrajeffreturns]

This is what p***es for anti-LDSism over at CARM, and apparently Katherine has brought it over here from there, possibly with Brian's warm regards:

1. Anti-LDS person makes ***ertion, in this case "Joseph Smith was convicted of a crime in 1826, and therefore ____ (some conclusion, such as "therefore it's impossible he was ever a man of God") Anti-LDS person then cites the evidence that convinced him of the truthfulness of his ***ertion.

2. Pro-LDS person questions the evidence.

3. Anti-LDS person says "Do the research yourself if you think my evidence is wrong."

4. Pro-LDS person does that, and returns with evidence that refutes what the anti-LDS person cited. In this case, even famous anti-LDS personalities Walters and Tanner agree with pro-LDS person.

5. An anti-LDS person responds to that with: "Mormons are very blinded when it comes to their true god, Joseph Smith. So funny really! What a cl***ic example of idol worship!"

And that is the state of anti-LDS "apologetics" in these forums.

[James Banta]

This is what p***es for anti-LDSism over at CARM, and apparently Katherine has brought it over here from there, possibly with Brian's warm regards:

1. Anti-LDS person makes ***ertion, in this case "Joseph Smith was convicted of a crime in 1826, and therefore ____ (some conclusion, such as "therefore it's impossible he was ever a man of God") Anti-LDS person then cites the evidence that convinced him of the truthfulness of his ***ertion.

2. Pro-LDS person questions the evidence.

3. Anti-LDS person says "Do the research yourself if you think my evidence is wrong."

4. Pro-LDS person does that, and returns with evidence that refutes what the anti-LDS person cited. In this case, even famous anti-LDS personalities Walters and Tanner agree with pro-LDS person.

5. An anti-LDS person responds to that with: "Mormons are very blinded when it comes to their true god, Joseph Smith. So funny really! What a cl***ic example of idol worship!"

And that is the state of anti-LDS "apologetics" in these forums.

In any court of law when evidence is submitted that evidence is open to being questioned by the opposition. To question it must be shown to be false or a equally plausible explanation must be offered.. If your response neither was done.. Except that you are saying the pro-LDS people are in agreement with Walters and Tanners in this matter.. IHS jim

[neverending]

It's gonna take evidence so overwhelming that it outweighs the evidence that what you posted is NOT the truth. You would need to convince both Wesley Walters and the Tanners, for starters:

"In the Tanners’ Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, “Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with ‘an examination.’ In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an ‘examination’ the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are’”25

In all cases but one the witnesses were “sworn”, whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley’s charges actually uses that precise terminology, “in examination of above cause”. Therefore, since this wasn’t a trial, you can’t have a guilty verdict."

" Misdemeanor trials were not recorded in New York at that time, just felony trials, which is confirmed with the rest of Judge Neely's record.
In addition to Justice Neely’s costs of $2.68. There is also an amount of $.19 listed as “warrants.” Constable De Zeng presented a bill for that amount. Now it happens that $.19 was the prescribed amount for a pretrial mittimus (warrant of commitment to prison for lack of bail), as set down in A Conductor Generalis of 1819. In other words, it was the amount the constable would charge for bringing an accused person in. If Justice Neely had found that there was a case for Joseph to answer, he would have ordered him bound over for trial at the next court of General Sessions, and De Zeng would have charged an additional $.25, which was the prescribed amount for a posttrial warrant of commitment. But that charge was not levied; therefore, Joseph was not remanded to the custody of the constable, and so he was, in all probability, acquitted."


Why don't Rev. Walters and the Tanners agree with you?


You haven't provided any. You haven't SEEN any. You latched onto an obscure article in an obscure encyclopedia, that you found on an anti-LDS website on the Internet. And that's all it took for you to believe that you were in possession of actual reliable proof.


Yup, that's what I did, and I am reporting to you what I found. You could have done what I did, but you didn't want to open your eyes to the shoddiness of the evidence you had latched onto.


The LDS eyes were open to the flimsiness of your evidence.


It is flimsy, and you're basing your accusation on it.

False, as I have shown.


I did MY homework. I didn't blindly take that anti site's word for it, like you did.

Sorry but I read what the Tanner's wrote on this subject and found nothing that goes against my post. J. Smith was arrested, that alone should be eye opening enough. He was found guilty according to the court documents and signed by Judge Neely. Yes, J. Smith had to pay a fine. Now, this wasn't considered a felony but still, to be arrested, and brought before a judge is very significant evidence that J. Smith was not an honest man. in fact, he was deemed a disorderly one. That he used gl*** looking, and deceived neighbors and others who sought him out because he had a reputation. Not a good thing for a man who then claimed he had a vision of seeing God, or seeing an angel and even saying he saw God the Father and Jesus. We can't be sure of any of these claims since J. Smith himself couldn't remember what he saw and we know of 3 versions.
If you get a traffic ticket and want to fight it, which we went through this situation with our grand daughter, she stood before a judge for Salt Lake County, told her story but she was found, GUILTY and was fined, $90. So whether one is found guilty or not, to have to stand before a judge and explain oneself, that is proof enough. And we know that JS had to pay a fine which again proves he was guilty or he wouldn't have been forced to pay anything. If Judge Neely thought JS was not guilty, then the case would have been dismissed and no fine ordered.
It still makes no difference, because we have the evidence from a real court document that proves the dishonesty of J. Smith and he was caught in his dishonest lifestyle and paid a fine. Think of being caught for shop lifting or simple ***ault, disorderly conduct or tresp***ing; all misdemeanors. Proves 100% that when a person has committed these crimes, they are dishonest and could care less about obeying the law.
You want to white wash J. Smith's behavior? We already know his philandering and stealing other men's wives. His lack of love and respect for Emma. Why would anyone want to accept anything this man ever said? As for the website I found info from, it is an encyclopedia. It is reporting history. That is anti to you? Guess we best rewrite many history books if they state negative stories about Mormons because they're all anti.

[nrajeffreturns]

Sorry but I read what the Tanner's wrote on this subject and found nothing that goes against my post.
Since what the Tanners wrote was posted to refute what YOUR HUSBAND ***erted, the question to ask is "Did what the Tanners wrote on this subject go against JAMES BANTA's post?"

And the answer is YES.

(Of course, if you agree with your husband that Joseph Smith was found guilty in an 1826 trial, then what the Tanners wrote--and what Rev. Walters wrote--goes against you as well)

[James Banta]

Since what the Tanners wrote was posted to refute what YOUR HUSBAND ***erted, the question to ask is "Did what the Tanners wrote on this subject go against JAMES BANTA's post?"

And the answer is YES.

(Of course, if you agree with your husband that Joseph Smith was found guilty in an 1826 trial, then what the Tanners wrote--and what Rev. Walters wrote--goes against you as well)

The following is found in http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm#JOSEPH%20SMITH%20GUILTY.. Say again that Sandra Tanner and Wesley P. Walters don't agree that 1. Smith went to trial, and 2, That he was found guilty.. You seem to enjoy thinking you have one over on me but as you can see the evidence from Utah Lighthouse (Sandra's home page) supports my statements completely..

the Neely transcript which shows that Joseph Smith was found "guilty," the earliest known printed statement by A. W. Benton (1831) indicates that Joseph Smith was "arrested as a disorderly person, tried and condemned before a court of Justice." (Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, April 9, 1831, page 120) On March 8, 1842, Joel K. Noble, who had acquitted Joseph Smith of some charges brought against him in 1830 (see History of the Church, vol. 1, pages 91-96), wrote a letter in which he spoke of Joseph Smith's "first trial" — i.e., the case before Justice Neely. According to Noble, Smith "was condemned" at that time. (Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials, by Wesley P. Walters, Part 2, pages 132-33)

IHS jim

[James Banta]

Apparently I, the Tanners, and Rev. Walters know a little more about the New York justice system of the 1820s than you do, since unlike you, we realize that the REAL evidence refutes the claim that this was a trial, and it refutes the idea that a court found Joseph Smith guilty of anything in 1826.


Dozens. (I wasn't the most law-abiding teen-age driver)


Yes


The times when I didn't challenge the ticket I just acknowledged guilt and paid the fine. That wasn't the case, however, in this 1826 "trial." But I do find this amusing: Are you claiming that the "crime" that Joseph allegedly committed in 1826 was the equivalent of a traffic violation such as driving through an intersection without stopping at the stop sign? And THAT the big deal that is causing the antis to drool with glee? LOL


To quote Rev. Walters, the guy who stole the actual original bill from the county courthouse:

".. the 19¢ charge attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail'... and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction..."
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm (the TANNERS' site)

Jim, face it: You have been hornswaggled. This can't have been a trial, according to the reliable available evidence. At most, this bill indicates that Justice Neely believed there was enough evidence to justify scheduling a trial at some later date. That's what mittimus meant in English Law, which the USA's laws were largely based on in its early years. From thelawdictionary.org:

What is MITTIMUS?
In English law. A writ used in sending a record or its tenor from one court to another. Thus, where a nul ticl record is pleaded in one court to the record of another court of equal or superior jurisdiction, the tenor of the record is brought into chancery by a certiorari, (q. v..) and thence sent by mittimus into the court where the action is.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/mittimus/#ixzz2rA9By4AZ

You can beat this drum all day and still the facts are that NE, Me, Sandra Tanner, and Wesley Walters all agree that there was a trial, All of us agree that He was condemned.. You don't like it explain why an innocent man ended up paying anything for charges falsely brought against him.. That just doesn't happen then or now. If you are found not guilty of any charges there are no fines, there are no court costs.. By agreeing that the Justice Court levied any costs on Smith at all shows that the court found Smith guilty.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

You can beat this drum all day and still the facts are that NE, Me, Sandra Tanner, and Wesley Walters all agree that there was a trial, All of us agree that He was condemned..
Well, you antis condemn him, but that doesn't mean the same as you finding him guilty in a court of law. If he really had been found guilty in that trial, that's what the record would show, Jim. And it doesn't show that. You are relying on some Protestant "encylopedia" article from the 188os, Jim.


You don't like it explain why an innocent man ended up paying anything for charges falsely brought against him.
Jim, here's "The U.S. justice system for dummies"--if you are a SUSPECT in an alleged crime and the cops ARREST you, you may end up at an ARRAIGNMENT or PRELIMINARY HEARING where it is decided whether there is enough evidence against you to justify holding a TRIAL at a LATER DATE, where your guilt or innocence would THEN be decided by a judge or jury. If, at the arraignment, it is decided that a trial is necessary, you may be required to pay BAIL MONEY if you don't want to spend the time until the trial waiting in jail.

Even if you're later found NOT GUILTY, you may have to pay money FIRST.

That's how the system works in the PRESENT DAY. Back in the 1820s, in New York, it may have been different, as the Tanners seem to have shown.


That just doesn't happen then or now.
See the Intro to the Justice System above.


If you are found not guilty of any charges there are no fines, there are no court costs.. By agreeing that the Justice Court levied any costs on Smith at all shows that the court found Smith guilty.. IHS jim

Jim, what part of ".. the 19¢ charge attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail'... and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction..."do you think Wesley Walters is lying about?

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;152168]Well, you antis condemn him, but that doesn't mean the same as you finding him guilty in a court of law. If he really had been found guilty in that trial, that's what the record would show, Jim. And it doesn't show that. You are relying on some Protestant "encylopedia" article from the 188os, Jim.

getting you to understand is very hard.. He was condemned in a court of Law a Justice court.. That mean he was found guilty.. An innocent man is never condemned before the court.. While the court may not like a verdict a finding of not guilty either by the judge because of the Law or by the judgment of a jury leaves the person charged in the court free from all judgments fines and/or court costs.. Smith was condemned before that court and paid fines cost and bail as the outcome..


Jim, here's "The U.S. justice system for dummies"--if you are a SUSPECT in an alleged crime and the cops ARREST you, you may end up at an ARRAIGNMENT or PRELIMINARY HEARING where it is decided whether there is enough evidence against you to justify holding a TRIAL at a LATER DATE, where your guilt or innocence would THEN be decided by a judge or jury. If, at the arraignment, it is decided that a trial is necessary, you may be required to pay BAIL MONEY if you don't want to spend the time until the trial waiting in jail.

Even if you're later found NOT GUILTY, you may have to pay money FIRST.

That's how the system works in the PRESENT DAY. Back in the 1820s, in New York, it may have been different, as the Tanners seem to have shown.


See the Intro to the Justice System above.



Jim, what part of ".. the 19¢ charge attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail'... and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction..."do you think Wesley Walters is lying about?


Since I already was ware of that it was you that seemed to need that book.. At the time of an arraignment is a Justice Court the judge may hear argument and make a decision on the spot.. I guess you didn't know that.. At that time Smith could have plead not guilty and asked for a trial, a jury trial if he had wanted to press his innocence that far. He did not and decided to pay the costs of the court the constable, and the cost of bringing in witnesses.. that amounted to $2.68.. That is the same thing as pleading guilty or no contest.. No matter which that is a conviction before the Law all because of the fraud of pretending to be able to divine treasure using his peep stone.. If he could have found the treasure he promise to find for others he could have used the stone to fine riches for himself and the LDS church would have never fallen into financial problems.. Smith could find anything with a peep stone, nor could he by using it translate ancient languages recorded on either scrolls or plates.. IT WAS A FRAUD!

If you aren't guilty you may have to pay bail.. That is a fact.. Then if you don't return to make you defense in a hearing or a trial the bail is forfeit. Such a forfeiture is an admission of guilt and the bail in some cases them becomes the fine.. That is what you are doing if you pay a speeding ticket.. The concept of American law haven't changed.. A guilty man pays, ans innocent man doesn't.. Smith was judged guilty.. Smith paid the bail and was released.. That is what Walters saw, that is what happened.. Smith still PAID the court ordered fine and that was that.. He then walked.. All the fines the court ordered Smith paid.. He was guilty.. The full $2.68 was paid to the court after that hearing/trial.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Whitmer details exactly how the stone produced the English interpretation. On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrot



"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."



"Marvin Hill�s appraisal of the treasure seeking activities make it appear that contemporaries of Joseph Smith treated this enterprise with a casual air. One such contemporary that was closer to Joseph than most, could hardly disguise his disdain. This was Isaac Hale, father of the girl that Joseph would later elope with. In an affidavit signed by Hale and published in the Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, Joseph�s father-in-law said:

"'I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called �money diggers�; and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by what means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure.

[nrajeffreturns]

Jim, I will repeat some statements to you, one at a time, and I want you to declare each one true or false.

1. Since this wasn’t a trial, you can’t have a guilty verdict. T/F

2. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded in New York at that time, just felony trials. T/F

3. This is confirmed with the rest of Judge Neely's record. T/F

4. In addition to Justice Neely’s costs of $2.68. There is also an amount of $.19 listed as “warrants.” Constable De Zeng presented a bill for that amount. Now it happens that $.19 was the prescribed amount for a pretrial mittimus (warrant of commitment to prison for lack of bail), as set down in A Conductor Generalis of 1819. T/F

5. In other words, it was the amount the constable would charge for bringing an accused person in. If Justice Neely had found that there was a case for Joseph to answer, he would have ordered him bound over for trial at the next court of General Sessions, and De Zeng would have charged an additional $.25, which was the prescribed amount for a posttrial warrant of commitment. T/F

5. But that charge was not levied. T/F

6. Therefore, Joseph was not remanded to the custody of the constable, and so he was, in all probability, acquitted. T/F