Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

[BrianH]

Joseph Smith’s First of Two Fraud Convictions

On March 20, 1826, Joseph Smith, Jr. was brought before the local judge (Justice Neely) in Bainbridge, New York on the charge of being a “disorderly person”. The charge was a catch-all term of art for vagrants, con artists and other undesirables who’s alleged “crimes” were not specifically coded in numbered statutes. Many documents are coming to light that inform us of the truth and the details of this highly revealing event in the life of Joseph Smith. The source of all that we know about Smith’s trial and conviction include the arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. These original sources are documented in the following publications:

“The History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania” by Emily C. Blackman (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873)

Apr. 9, 1831 – Dr. A W. Benton’s letter published in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate

Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery’s account in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate

An 1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)

Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (Neely’s niece)

Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)

1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)

These sources (both Mormon and non-Mormon) are both detailed and summarized in:

Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N. Y., Court Trials," Westminster Theological Journal, 36:2 (Winter, 1974): 123-155; and...

“One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church” by Richard Abanes and published by Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003

Additional detail may be scrutinized in THIS (http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/1826Trial_Hill.html)LDS source.

We also have the Isaac Hale affidavit of March 20, 1834, Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (May 1, 1834): 1, cited in Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, 69–70 which reads:


Smith and his father, with several other "money-diggers" boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave the "money-diggers" great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of November, 1825; and one of the company gave me his note for $12[.]68 for his board, which is still unpaid.

The court record of Smith’s trial resulting in his first fraud conviction follows:


Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.

Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of 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 look 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 at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these 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 had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had 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 of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always 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 in 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 did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] 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 had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the 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 outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel’s, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man’s head 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.

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

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover 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.

Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time 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 hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner’s professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding 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. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.
Of this incident, Thomas Ferguson, founder of BYU Archaeology Dept. in recognizing Joseph Smith's fraud conviction said:

In 1826 Joseph Smith was 21 and at this point was midway between the first vision and 1830 {i.e. between his days as a money-digging con artist and the beginning of his career as a “prophet”}. What a strange time to be convicted of fraud – fraudulently getting money after convincing the victim that he could detect the whereabouts of hidden treasure on the victim’s land. Wow.... It is as genuine and sound as can be – published right in Joseph Smith’s own camp. (speaking to the author on March 13, 1971; and published in “Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters” by James Bovak, pp. 261-262)
A "strange time" indeed ...but only for those who cling to the notion that Joseph Smith was NOT an occult con artist. For those of us who recognize the fact that he clearly WAS an occult con artist, Smith, in going forward with his little magic rock to found the Mormon religion was simply living down to our expectations.

To this day, Mormons continue in Smith's tradition.

-BH

.

[Novato]

Brian:

Your distaste for the Lord’s Prophet Joseph is shown clearly in this complete and utter nonsense.

The only charge that can be accurately documented is that of “disorder”.

Joseph was 21 years of age when this occurred, what could you have been accused of at 21 years of age Brian.

Should we do a search to find out? :D

Novato

[BrianH]

Your distaste for the Lord’s Prophet Joseph is shown clearly in this complete and utter nonsense

Your failure to address, let alone refute the facts in evidence is obvious. What makes you think that Jospeh Smith was the Lord's "prophet"?


The only charge that can be accurately documented is that of “disorder”.
No ...the FACT is that your "prophet" was enganged in fraud. That is unless you believe that he REALLY COULD find burried Spanish treasure using the little magic rock in the hat he had jammed over his face. If that is the case, you will have to produce some evidence of his success. Otherwise you are faced with the FACT of his documented fraudulence.


Joseph was 21 years of age when this occurred, what could you have been accused of at 21 years of age Brian.

(mod edit)


Should we do a search to find out?

Sure ...go ahead; suit yourself. But then explain how the results of your search have anything to do with the actual topic here.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Joseph Smith’s First of Two Fraud Convictions

On March 20, 1826, Joseph Smith, Jr. was brought before the local judge (Justice Neely) in Bainbridge, New York on the charge of being a “disorderly person”. The charge was a catch-all term of art for vagrants, con artists and other undesirables who’s alleged “crimes” were not specifically coded in numbered statutes. Many documents are coming to light that inform us of the truth and the details of this highly revealing event in the life of Joseph Smith. The source of all that we know about Smith’s trial and conviction include the arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. These original sources are documented in the following publications:

“The History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania” by Emily C. Blackman (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873)

Apr. 9, 1831 – Dr. A W. Benton’s letter published in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate

Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery’s account in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate

An 1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)

Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (Neely’s niece)

Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)

1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)

These sources (both Mormon and non-Mormon) are both detailed and summarized in:

Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N. Y., Court Trials," Westminster Theological Journal, 36:2 (Winter, 1974): 123-155; and...

“One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church” by Richard Abanes and published by Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003

Additional detail may be scrutinized in THIS (http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/1826Trial_Hill.html)LDS source.

We also have the Isaac Hale affidavit of March 20, 1834, Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (May 1, 1834): 1, cited in Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, 69–70 which reads:


Smith and his father, with several other "money-diggers" boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave the "money-diggers" great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of November, 1825; and one of the company gave me his note for $12[.]68 for his board, which is still unpaid.

The court record of Smith’s trial resulting in his first fraud conviction follows:


Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.

Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of 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 look 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 at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these 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 had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had 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 of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always 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 in 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 did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] 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 had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the 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 outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel’s, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man’s head 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.

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

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover 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.

Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time 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 hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner’s professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding 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. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.
Of this incident, Thomas Ferguson, founder of BYU Archaeology Dept. in recognizing Joseph Smith's fraud conviction said:

In 1826 Joseph Smith was 21 and at this point was midway between the first vision and 1830 {i.e. between his days as a money-digging con artist and the beginning of his career as a “prophet”}. What a strange time to be convicted of fraud – fraudulently getting money after convincing the victim that he could detect the whereabouts of hidden treasure on the victim’s land. Wow.... It is as genuine and sound as can be – published right in Joseph Smith’s own camp. (speaking to the author on March 13, 1971; and published in “Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters” by James Bovak, pp. 261-262)
A "strange time" indeed ...but only for those who cling to the notion that Joseph Smith was NOT an occult con artist. For those of us who recognize the fact that he clearly WAS an occult con artist, Smith, in going forward with his little magic rock to found the Mormon religion was simply living down to our expectations.

To this day, Mormons continue in Smith's tradition.

-BH

.

Who cares?

Do you care that Jesus was accused by his enemies?

[BrianH]

Who cares?

Not Mormons, that much is certain.


Do you care that Jesus was accused by his enemies?

Sure. Moreover, I care that he proved them wrong.

Don't you wish you could vindicate your so-called "prophet". Don't you wish you could provide some reasons to think that he really WAS a "prophet"? Too bad for you that you CAN'T!

Your failure to address the facts in evidence here and your shallow effort to simply dismiss them with a flippant, "who cares" only once again provides yet another demonstration of the (mod edit).

-BH

.

[Vlad III]

Your failure to address the facts in evidence here and your shallow effort to simply dismiss them with a flippant, "who cares" only once again provides (mod edit) .
-BH

.

More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

[BrianH]

...in response to more MINLDESS avoidance of the actual issue.

Speaking of the actual issue, would you care to address it here? Or are you content to just offer drive-by, hit-and-run expressions of your distaste for my opinion of what Mormonism does to people.

-BH

.

[Vlad III]

...in response to more MINLDESS avoidance of the actual issue.

Speaking of the actual issue, would you care to address it here? Or are you content to just offer drive-by, hit-and-run expressions of your distaste for my opinion of what Mormonism does to people.

-BH

.

I plan to point out every instance you attack the Mormon PEOPLE, not its doctrines.

When critics like you claim to be against the Mormon church, but your every thread is bashing the followers of Mormonism, I will point it out.

We are forbidden to call label you what you really are, and it isn't a critic of MormonISM only.

So whenever you call LDS PEOPLE names, are condescending to their mindset, or make other disparaging claims about the PEOPLE, I will acknowledge it.

We'll see who lasts longer, me or you. I'm fine either way. :)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Not Mormons, that much is certain.



Sure. Moreover, I care that he proved them wrong.
.

Jesus didn't prove them wrong by the standards of their own puny minds. Why should I endeavor to do what Jesus himself failed to do?

[BrianH]

Jesus didn't prove them wrong by the standards of their own puny minds.
Sure he did. He was RESURRECTED among them. Now THAT is "proof". Perhaps you can get your so-called "prophet" to resurrect. Or how about this ...how about he just manages to proffer an actual "prophecy" that actually comes to p***! That would at least run the risk of justifying the ***le he gave himself, at least to some degree, right?


Why should I endeavor to do what Jesus himself failed to do?

Yes ...according to Mormons, Jesus "failed".

Good one, Fig.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I plan to point out every instance you attack the Mormon PEOPLE, not its doctrines.

Yet you won't address the actual issue at hand.

That's what I would expect - you ARE a Mormon, after all, right?

Thanks for living down to my expectations.

It would be more interesting if you could find a mentally competent Mormon who can actually engage the subject here instead of demonstrating by means of your own behavior how justifyable my ***essment of the Mormon mentality really is.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Sure he did. He was RESURRECTED among them. Now THAT is "proof". Perhaps you can get your so-called "prophet" to resurrect. Or how about this ...how about he just manages to proffer an actual "prophecy" that actually comes to p***! That would at least run the risk of justifying the ***le he gave himself, at least to some degree, right?



Yes ...according to Mormons, Jesus "failed".

Good one, Fig.

-BH

.

If Jesus proved all the puny minded skeptics wrong in their own puny minds, then there should be no one left who is a skeptic, unless they are all great minds.

So, why should I endeavor to accomplish what Jesus himself couldn't do?

[Vlad III]

Yet you won't address the actual issue at hand.

That's what I would expect - you ARE a Mormon, after all, right?

Thanks for living down to my expectations.

It would be more interesting if you could find a mentally competent Mormon who can actually engage the subject here instead of demonstrating by means of your own behavior how justifyable my ***essment of the Mormon mentality really is.

-BH

.

More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

[BrianH]

More evasion of the topic.

Keep on proving my point for me Vlad. Its fun to watch.

-BH

[BrianH]

If Jesus proved all the puny minded skeptics wrong in their own puny minds, then there should be no one left who is a skeptic, unless they are all great minds.

Why would you say something like that?


So, why should I endeavor to accomplish what Jesus himself couldn't do?

You seem confused. Jesus OFFERED the proof. Just because some people did not believe it is not any reason to think that he failed to present his proof.

As for YOUR claims ...you cannot even present any evidence! All you can do is regurgitate the mantras your organization has taught you to repeat or run from the challenge ...as you will now demonstrate, even AFTER I tell you that is exactly what you are going to do as you continue to avoid the actual topic of this thread.

Typical.

-BH

.

[Vlad III]

Why would you say something like that?



You seem confused. Jesus OFFERED the proof. Just because some people did not believe it is not any reason to think that he failed to present his proof.

As for YOUR claims ...you cannot even present any evidence! All you can do is regurgitate the mantras your organization has taught you to repeat or run from the challenge ...as you will now demonstrate, even AFTER I tell you that is exactly what you are going to do as you continue to avoid the actual topic of this thread.

Typical.

-BH

.

More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.

[John T]

More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

The mod edit proves that your contention is valid, so let's move on.

Can you rise above the personal (BTW thanks for not responding in kind) and address the issue of the OP?

Brian provided a real court document where JS was convicted of being "disorderly" what ever that meant AT THAT TIME.

He also supplied a snippet from a BYU source:
...midway between the first vision and 1830 {i.e. between his days as a money-digging con artist and the beginning of his career as a “prophet”}. What a strange time to be convicted of fraud – fraudulently getting money after convincing the victim that he could detect the whereabouts of hidden treasure on the victim’s land. Wow.... It is as genuine and sound as can be – published right in Joseph Smith’s own camp. (speaking to the author on March 13, 1971; and published in “Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters” by James Bovak, pp. 261-262)
So we have two credible sources, one a RECORDED legal document, and a BYU scholar both saying the same thing. That should be dealt with, and explained.

As to the accusations against Jesus, accusations and convictions are different things. If you want to bring up up Jesus, fo ahead. You will find that he was NEVER convicted of anything as was JS, and you will find that Pilate found him innocent, for he publically washed his hands of the entire kangaroo court precedings.

that is also why Novato's comment is irrelevant:
(1) Your distaste for the Lord’s Prophet Joseph is shown clearly in this complete and utter nonsense.

(2) The only charge that can be accurately documented is that of “disorder”.

(3) Joseph was 21 years of age when this occurred, what could you have been accused of at 21 years of age Brian.

Should we do a search to find out?That is because in
(1) Novato dismisses without cause the facts that the documents represent, and reverts to a personal re****al, "Your distaste..." You gotta deal with the facts, there, and they are substantial.

(2) Brian sdmitted that in 1826, the term "disorderly conduct" does not mean the same as it does now, and he provided the definition used then.

The charge was a catch-all term of art for vagrants, con artists and other undesirables who’s alleged “crimes” were not specifically coded in numbered statutes. [as they are today]
Novato supplied no definition, and in doing so inferred that the same definitions used now were in focus then.

Brian then supplied 8 different sources that ****ress his claim

Many documents are coming to light that inform us of the truth and the details of this highly revealing event in the life of Joseph Smith. The source of all that we know about Smith’s trial and conviction include the arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. These original sources are documented in the following publications:

We should note that Novato supplied ZERO sources as a counter argument.

(3) Is entirely irrelevant because it first ignores the issue completely, and then erroneously tries to shift the burden onto what Briam may have done as a 21 years old. As if youth is ever an excuse for criminal behavior and a court trial.

FINALLY, Novato implied a threat: Should we do a search to find out?

I am not a district attorney, nor a criminal lawyer, but in my opinion that may be grounds for Brian H to seek legal opinions.

[BrianH]

More running like a scared kitten from the actual topic of this thread.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Why would you say something like that?



You seem confused. Jesus OFFERED the proof. Just because some people did not believe it is not any reason to think that he failed to present his proof.

As for YOUR claims ...you cannot even present any evidence! All you can do is regurgitate the mantras your organization has taught you to repeat or run from the challenge ...as you will now demonstrate, even AFTER I tell you that is exactly what you are going to do as you continue to avoid the actual topic of this thread.

Typical.

-BH

.

Well, the skeptics of Jesus' day would simply deny that Jesus offered any proof at all, and would say that he therefore failed to change their minds.

So now what?

[BrianH]

Well, the skeptics of Jesus' day would simply deny that Jesus offered any proof at all, and would say that he therefore failed to change their minds.

Doesn't matter a bit. The FACT is Jesus presented his resurrected self as PROOF of his claims; the tomb is STILL empty.

By contrast, YOU cannot even present any evidence in support of your claims.

Meanwhile, ...SURE ENOUGH, you did exactly what I said you would do, EVEN AFTER I told you that is exactly what you would do! You totally avoided the actual topic of this thread. Its amazing!

Do you not at least WONDER WHY it is that you cannot bring yourself to actually address the subject of this thread?

Concentrate, Fig ...concentrate.

The topic HERE is the first of two of Joseph Smith's convictions of fraud for his engaging in what today is commonly called a "confidence game" (hense the term "con man"). Your so-called "prophet" was an occult con artist. Please either confront the facts in evidence before us all, or go try to derail some OTHER thread.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Well, the skeptics of Jesus' day would simply deny that Jesus offered any proof at all, and would say that he therefore failed to change their minds.
Doesn't matter a bit.

That's what I already said, but in different words: "Who Cares!"

This is about as significant as accusing Jesus of gleaning corn on the Sabbath.

[BrianH]

LOL ...so then the FACT that your "prophet" was a convicted con occult con artist who used his little magic rock-in-the-hat trick to dupe his victims into thinking he could find golden treasure AND to translate "golden plates" of your "scripture" is the equivalent of Jesus gleaning corn on the sabbath.

I guess when you Mormons cannot refute the facts, all you can do is toss it all off and pretend it doesn't mean anything.

I can only THANK YOU for ONCE AGAIN actually PROVING the irrational nature of the Mormon "mind".


-BH

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

LOL ...so then the FACT that your "prophet" was a convicted con occult con artist who used his little magic rock-in-the-hat trick to dupe his victims into thinking he could find golden treasure AND to translate "golden plates" of your "scripture" is the equivalent of Jesus gleaning corn on the sabbath.

Yep. Spurious and ridiculous.



I guess when you Mormons cannot refute the facts, all you can do is toss it all off and pretend it doesn't mean anything.

I can only THANK YOU for ONCE AGAIN actually PROVING the irrational nature of the Mormon "mind".


-BH

More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.

[BrianH]

Yep. Spurious and ridiculous.


That's it? Is that the BEST you can do? Well ...okay. But your predicable opinion of the FACTS is insufficient as a refutation of those FACTS.


More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.

Actually YOU are the one bashing Mormon people by representing them here with your evasive behavior. I am just pointing to YOU, Fig.

Your failure to refute the facts in evidence is not obscured by your proclaimed victimhood.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

That's it? Is that the BEST you can do? Well ...okay. But your predicable opinion of the FACTS is insufficient as a refutation of those FACTS.

So said, I'm sure, those who charged Jesus with being a law breaker by gleaning corn on the sabbath.



Actually YOU are the one bashing Mormon people by representing them here with your evasive behavior. I am just pointing to YOU, Fig.

Your failure to refute the facts in evidence is not obscured by your proclaimed victimhood.

-BH

.
More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon people.

[BrianH]

So said, I'm sure, those who charged Jesus with being a law breaker by gleaning corn on the sabbath.

But Jesus proved them wrong. YOU, on the other hand CANNOT prove that Smith's conviction as a phony occult con artist is false or incorrect. All you can do is try your best to change the subject into an attack on Jesus Christ.

Pitiful, man.


More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon people.

More desperate avoidance of the actual topic.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

But Jesus proved them wrong.

Not in their minds, he didn't.

By your own standards, an accuser (or a skeptic in your case) is not proven wrong until he is converted. If Jesus converted every accuser/skeptic, then why was he crucified?

[Vlad III]

I can only THANK YOU for ONCE AGAIN actually PROVING the irrational nature of the Mormon "mind".


-BH

More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.

[BrianH]

More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.

More deliberate avoidance of the topic at hand.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Not in their minds, he didn't.

By your own standards, an accuser (or a skeptic in your case) is not proven wrong until he is converted. If Jesus converted every accuser/skeptic, then why was he crucified?

Bump!

Brian, why was Jesus unable to convince and convert the mind and heart of every critic and enemy he met?

I'm curious how you will answer this.

[Libby]

That's an interesting question, Fig. I wouldn't say he was "not able".

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

That's an interesting question, Fig. I wouldn't say he was "not able".

Me too. Why, do you suppose he was not able?

[Libby]

Me too. Why, do you suppose he was not able?

No, I think he was perfectly "able". I think he "didn't" for his own reasons. I can't presume to know why.

[stemelbow]

Hi BrianH,

I know its been a while. I hope you're doing well.


We also have the Isaac Hale affidavit of March 20, 1834, Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (May 1, 1834): 1, cited in Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, 69–70 which reads:


Isaac didn't like Joseph. We already know. This is actually from the affidavit's of Hurlbut--a man who previously had issued a death threat against Joseph smith and was brought before court for such. In effect, its not effective on its own.


The court record of Smith’s trial resulting in his first fraud conviction follows:

Actually, brianH, you aren't quoting the "court record"...you should look into your claims before you state them. This was actually a copy of what is ***umed to be the court record (which we do not have to corroborate any longer) at one time possessed by the judge's neice who, apparently brought the "record" to Utah to evangelize mormons. This copy wasn't put out until after her death. Its suspect since the copy was created by Charles Marshall who copied it and had it published in a magazine article to criticize the church. In other words, your claims of fact are largely disputed, and your sources are clearly biased against Joseph Smith. They just aren't credible.

It also should be noted this was no trial, brianH. Its actually termed an examination.

Again BrianH, you have engaged in a subject you are quite ignorant of and have relied on suspect sources to make your a priori conclusion sound justified. It would be nice if you had actually looked into this beyond parroting long-re****ed heresay. In fact, I'll leave you to actually do some more studying on the matter so you can come back and discuss it with some perspective--rather than parroted comments followed by eradic emoting.

I'm glad I stopped by so I could offer some help.

love,
stem

[BrianH]

Isaac didn't like Joseph. We already know. This is actually from the affidavit's of Hurlbut--a man who previously had issued a death threat against Joseph smith and was brought before court for such. In effect, its not effective on its own.

Yer welcome to your opinion of the evidence. But the facts remain the same.


Actually, brianH, you aren't quoting the "court record"...you should look into your claims before you state them. This was actually a copy of what is ***umed to be the court record (which we do not have to corroborate any longer) at one time possessed by the judge's neice who, apparently brought the "record" to Utah to evangelize mormons. This copy wasn't put out until after her death. Its suspect since the copy was created by Charles Marshall who copied it and had it published in a magazine article to criticize the church. In other words, your claims of fact are largely disputed, and your sources are clearly biased against Joseph Smith. They just aren't credible.

Your reaction to the record is predictable. But none of that conflicts with the content of the record itself. Any court record that exposes Joseph Smith's days as a fraudulent con artist will be suspect among Mormons. EVEN IF, this transcript were TOTALLY BOGUS, we STILL have the conclusion of the matter: Smith was convicted for the charge. And EVEN IF he was never convicted we STILL have the testimony of his own mother and others who confirm for us that Smith WAS a "money digger". Now, unless you can produce some evidence confirming that he really DID find some lost Spanish golden treasures, it remains obvious that the man was a lying fraud.


It also should be noted this was no trial, brianH. Its actually termed an examination.

Which, if you were familiar with the history of law in America you would know was the same thing as a "trial". The name changed; the legal function did not.


Again BrianH, you have engaged in a subject you are quite ignorant of and have relied on suspect sources to make your a priori conclusion sound justified. It would be nice if you had actually looked into this beyond parroting long-re****ed heresay.

LOL ...Boy, I was studying this material when you were still sucking on a bottle. Your predictable opinion of the sources does not disprove them. In fact, just because Mormons dispute the facts, does not mean that they are not represented in the court records. And again, EVEN IF we had no court records, you cannot truthfully deny that Smith was NOT a fraudulent occult con artist.



In fact, I'll leave you to actually do some more studying on the matter so you can come back and discuss it with some perspective--rather than parroted comments followed by eradic emoting.

How about instead of faking some imaginary superior intellect or mastery of the subject, I call your bluff and challenge you to do something more than just express your predictable dislike of the facts in evidence before us.

Do you deny that Joseph Smith was a "money digger"?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

BH>>But Jesus proved them wrong.

F>Not in their minds, he didn't.

By any objective standard he did. Again, just because some refused to acknowledge him does not mean he was not there.

When are you going to at least TRY to address the topic of this thread instead of desperately trying to do the Mormon thing by changing the subject?

Do you somehow think I will let you get away with your usual tactic of derailing the topic away from subjects that you are not happy about? Either address the topic or get lost and quit being disruptive.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Brian, why was Jesus unable to convince and convert the mind and heart of every critic and enemy he met?

To answer your question, I will point out the ***umed premise you are imagining. If you cannot show me any reason why he SHOULD have converted every person he met, your irrelevant question becomes incoherent.

And to short-circuit your usual efforts to derail all threads away from their actual topics I will now ask you a question: Was Joseph Smtih a gl***-looking money digger or not?

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

Brianh,

The fact is you didn't supply what you cliamed you supplied--the actual court record. Without it, you are ****ing smoke. There is nothing to demonstrate there was a conviction aside from a couple of biased sources none of which are proven to represent a genuine court record.

The question is whether it was a conviction, for me. I don't care if JS, when he was a teenager, dug for money or not. that's another deflection on your part. BTW, he was 20 at the time of this "trial" not 21--just another little piece of info you mentioned but didn't have correct. You didn't present facts as much of a lot of bluster, opinion, and lies or at least misrepresentation about the source, as you represent it as the authentic court record. Sadly, your complaint is a result of your ignorance, or rather parroting a googled source, which misled you in your ignorance it appears.

Whether he was convicted remains inconclusive.

Better luck next time, BrianH. BTW its adorable to converse with you again--with all the bluster and hostility. I missed it.

love,
stem

[BrianH]

The fact is you didn't supply what you cliamed you supplied--the actual court record.

That is not a "fact". It is a disputed point.



Without it, you are ****ing smoke.

Since you have yet to support your claim that it is NOT the actual court record, YOU are the one ****ing all the smoke here.


There is nothing to demonstrate there was a conviction aside from a couple of biased sources none of which are proven to represent a genuine court record.

First of all the dismissal of all evidence that disproves your claims as "biased" is fully expected; it IS the standard MO for Mormons. That is how you guys are conditioned. You can't help it. But unless you can do more than express your programming, all we can conclude is that you have an opinion ABOUT the evidence instead of a refutation OF the evidence. If you cannot understand the difference between these two very different things well ...you're the one with the problem.

Secondly, as I pointed out, and you predictably ignored, EVEN IF there were NO court records, we have abundant testimony from Mormon sources that confirm that Joseph Smith WAS a gl***-looking money digger. I challenged you to deny this FACT (well established in MORMON sources). You ran like a scalded kitten. So I will ask you again to publicly deny that Smith was a gl***-looker who claimed to have a magic rock in his hat.


The question is whether it was a conviction, for me. I don't care if JS, when he was a teenager, dug for money or not.

No. OF COURSE YOU don't care about the truth.. You are a Mormon and will, as Mormons do, just ignore inconvenient facts.



that's another deflection on your part.

Deflection...??? Deflection from what? Be specific in your accusations


BTW, he was 20 at the time of this "trial" not 21--just another little piece of info you mentioned but didn't have correct.

Now THAT is a "deflection". His age is not only debatable, it is immaterial to the issue.


You didn't present facts as much of a lot of bluster, opinion, and lies or at least misrepresentation about the source, as you represent it as the authentic court record.

I presented published research. Your inability to discern between published research and "bluster" is only a further manifestation of your desperate rhetorical situation and your apparent lack of education.


Sadly, your complaint is a result of your ignorance, or rather parroting a googled source, which misled you in your ignorance it appears.

Since you have failed to document or substantiate even ONE of your claims and accusations and since I provided complete documentation for all of my material claims, it remains evident that YOU are the one operating out of ignorance here, Stem.


Whether he was convicted remains inconclusive.

Then your accusations above are false by your own words. If it is inconclusive, the BEST you can say is it is "inconclusive" NOT that I have lied. Furthermore, EVEN IF there was no conviction or even a trial, are you or are you not denying that your so-called "prophet" was an occult con artist who pretended to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasure?

Oh wait ...I forgot ...YOU, "don't care"...

Well I guess you cannot afford to CARE about the truth. But know this, the God of the Bible is the God of truth. Your "not caring" is an offense to him.

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

Brianh,

I love it. I forgot how much fun it is to go back and forth with you...adorable.

Since it is your claim that you offer the "actual" court record in your criticism it is up to you to prove such. So far all you have is your attempt to parrot a googled site in your desperate attempt to expose JS again. But your parroting came without thought or research on your part, again. How's about you just get on with your criticism and supply something substantial?

Here I'll give you one last try to support your (mod edit) complaints. Prove that this "record" you claim is the actual court record is really, actually the the record from the court.

don't worry I know what you'll post next. I just figured I'd stick to the discussion for now and attempt to get you to think on your own.

love,
stem

[BrianH]

I love it. I forgot how much fun it is to go back and forth with you...adorable


(mod edit)

Since it is your claim that you offer the "actual" court record in your criticism it is up to you to prove such.

Wrong again, Stem. I have no obligation to "prove" anything. I DO have an obligation to cite my sources, which I have done (and you have not). No one will EVER "prove" anything to you that your church has not told you to believe. You are a Mormon. I need only document my sources and any and all interested parties can determine for themselves what has been "proved".


So far all you have is your attempt to parrot a googled site in your desperate attempt to expose JS again. But your parroting came without thought or research on your part, again. How's about you just get on with your criticism and supply something substantial

I know you think you are a God and everything, but you have been deceived. You are actually NOT in a position to even pretend to possess the omniscience necessary to tell me what I have read, researched or thought. That you would even pretend to such knowledge is only further evidence of the desperate condition of your apologetic as you continue to try to avoid the central issue here. So I will ask you AGAIN: do you or do you NOT deny that Joseph Smith claimed he had magic powers and a magic rock by means of which he could find buried golden treasure?


Here I'll give you one last try to support your whiney complaints. Prove that this "record" you claim is the actual court record is really, actually the the record from the court.

Since I am the one who posted all of his sources and you have yet to even name ONE, its hard to imagine how even the Mormon mind can fool itself into such rhetoric. I don't need your "one more chance". Had you bothered to at least READ the OP, you might have noticed that I have ALREADY named my sources and even linked to the LDS website that confirms my position.


don't worry I know what you'll post next. I just figured I'd stick to the discussion for now and attempt to get you to think on your own.


Well ...we all know what you will NOT post EVER: an actual answer to the question you have ignored several times now.

Its odd that you seem to think I (or anyone else for that matter) would not notice your retreat from such a simple question.

So let me torture the Mormon a little more: Was Joseph Smith an occult con artist or not? Did he or did he NOT claim to have a magic rock in his hat by which he could find buried treasure?

Don't worry, Stem. No one who knows Mormons really expects you to answer. I just want to see you dance and keep running.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

No, I think he was perfectly "able". I think he "didn't" for his own reasons. I can't presume to know why.

Well, that seems to bring us back to the million dollar question...why a sovereign omnipotent God saves only some when it seems that it is perfectly within his power to save all.

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

By any objective standard he did. Again, just because some refused to acknowledge him does not mean he was not there.

I just love making these lights go on in your head. And that was a significant one right there.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

To answer your question, I will point out the ***umed premise you are imagining. If you cannot show me any reason why he SHOULD have converted every person he met, your irrelevant question becomes incoherent.

And to short-circuit your usual efforts to derail all threads away from their actual topics I will now ask you a question: Was Joseph Smtih a gl***-looking money digger or not?

-BH

.

Why should he have converted every skeptic he met? Why simple... so that every skeptic could believe. I started this question to allow you the opportunity to help me convince your mind, by siting how Jesus went about converting and convincing every skeptical mind he met.

[BrianH]

Why should he have converted every skeptic he met? Why simple... so that every skeptic could believe

But that's just an empty regression. Why should every skeptic believe? I know why people believe Jesus. Why should anyone believe YOU?



I started this question to allow you the opportunity to help me ...blah blah blah

You started this question to try to distract yourself from the fact that you cannot answer the issue that is the topic of this thread. You started this question to cover your inability to address the facts posted in the OP.

Since you are not going to address the actual topic of this thread, you should get lost. Your efforts to disrupt this thread are doomed to fail because I have been around Mormon rhetorical tactics too long for you to fool me. So you might as well just take a hike and quit wasting YOUR time, effort and bandwidth.

-BH

.

[John T]

Hey guys, you have strayed far and wide from the OP



That is not nice, and Brian has provided 8 DIFFERENT sources regarding the conviction of JS, both Mormon and not Mormon.

What has been the response from you guys about the facts?

Novato called out Brian because he attacked a "prophet of god"
FBT wrote "Who cares? Do you care that Jesus was accused by his enemies?" as if the comparison between JS and Jesus was valid. :eek: Then he wrote the implicit threat, "Should we do a search to find out? "
Vlad 111 picked up on an unacceptable comment, saying "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE."
In annoyance, Vlad 111 posted
" I plan to point out every instance you attack the Mormon PEOPLE, not its doctrines."
Then FBT wrote "Jesus didn't prove them wrong by the standards of their own puny minds. Why should I endeavor to do what Jesus himself failed to do" [HUH???]
FBT added in another post, "If Jesus proved all the puny minded skeptics wrong in their own puny minds, then there should be no one left who is a skeptic, unless they are all great minds. So, why should I endeavor to accomplish what Jesus himself couldn't do? "
To which, Vlad111 replied " More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. "
When Brian pushed the issue of non response citing boiler plate responses, typical fare from many Mormons, Vlad replied again, "More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE." [And again I do not agree]
FBT added this in his comment about Jesus, which is both irrelevant to the OP, and contradictory to Scripture "Well, the skeptics of Jesus' day would simply deny that Jesus offered any proof at all, and would say that he therefore failed to change their minds. So now what? "
FBT adds to the conversation with obvious sarcasm, "That's what I already said, but in different words: "Who Cares!" This is about as significant as accusing Jesus of gleaning corn on the Sabbath. "
And again [sigh) he calms troubled waters with this "Yep. Spurious and ridiculous. More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. "
Like a song with one note, FBT continues mantra-like "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon people."
A later post of FBT says, "By your own standards, an accuser (or a skeptic in your case) is not proven wrong until he is converted. If Jesus converted every accuser/skeptic, then why was he crucified?"
FINALLY Stemelbow addresses the issue, saying "Actually, brianH, you aren't quoting the "court record"...you should look into your claims before you state them. This was actually a copy of what is ***umed to be the court record (which we do not have to corroborate any longer) at one time possessed by the judge's neice [I](sic) who, apparently brought the "record" to Utah to evangelize mormons. (sic)" THANK YOU STEM! Brian and Stem have an exchange
However FBT continues to evade the issue, and attacks Jesus saying "Well, that seems to bring us back to the million dollar question...why a sovereign omnipotent God saves only some when it seems that it is perfectly within his power to save all."
He continues in another post "I just love making these lights go on in your head. And that was a significant one right there."
And his last "contribution" (so far ) reads, "Why should he have converted every skeptic he met? Why simple... so that every skeptic could believe. I started this question to allow you the opportunity to help me convince your mind, by siting how Jesus went about converting and convincing every skeptical mind he met"



So we have chronicled 19 different responses from FOUR different Mormons, and can anyone PLEASE count the number of times that the Mormons posting here have addressed the OP about the convictions of JS? I get a count of TWO, thanks to Stemelbow.

Obviously, with this many responses, and only two of them dealing with the OP, it is safe to ***ume that the Mormons here demonstrated a certain pattern. That pattern is simply EVADE THE TRUTH AT ALL COSTS.

No Mormon should like that part in red above, but BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED the only logical conclusion can be is that it is TRUE!

However there are always two sides to the issue, and in all fairness to Novato, Fig and Vlad111, I offer them the opportunity to explain why they believe that their postings chronicled (mostly in full) above cons***ute DO NOT cons***ute an evasion of the OP.

After all, guys, no one forces you to post here, and you all know that it is considered RUDE to evade the OP, as I believe you have done.

BTW Just because I bring a message without vitriol, albeit a message you may not like, I have not become your enemy. Therefore, I ask in advance that you address the two ISSUES AT HAND, 1) the OP and 2) the accuracy of my belief that you three guys were collectively stonewalling and trying to change the subject.

I also ask you in advance not to revert to ad homenums, either. Enough said?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Hey guys, you have strayed far and wide from the OP



That is not nice, and Brian has provided 8 DIFFERENT sources regarding the conviction of JS, both Mormon and not Mormon.

What has been the response from you guys about the facts?

Novato called out Brian because he attacked a "prophet of god"
FBT wrote "Who cares? Do you care that Jesus was accused by his enemies?" as if the comparison between JS and Jesus was valid. :eek: Then he wrote the implicit threat, "Should we do a search to find out? "
Vlad 111 picked up on an unacceptable comment, saying "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE."
In annoyance, Vlad 111 posted
" I plan to point out every instance you attack the Mormon PEOPLE, not its doctrines."
Then FBT wrote "Jesus didn't prove them wrong by the standards of their own puny minds. Why should I endeavor to do what Jesus himself failed to do" [HUH???]
FBT added in another post, "If Jesus proved all the puny minded skeptics wrong in their own puny minds, then there should be no one left who is a skeptic, unless they are all great minds. So, why should I endeavor to accomplish what Jesus himself couldn't do? "
To which, Vlad111 replied " More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. "
When Brian pushed the issue of non response citing boiler plate responses, typical fare from many Mormons, Vlad replied again, "More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE." [And again I do not agree]
FBT added this in his comment about Jesus, which is both irrelevant to the OP, and contradictory to Scripture "Well, the skeptics of Jesus' day would simply deny that Jesus offered any proof at all, and would say that he therefore failed to change their minds. So now what? "
FBT adds to the conversation with obvious sarcasm, "That's what I already said, but in different words: "Who Cares!" This is about as significant as accusing Jesus of gleaning corn on the Sabbath. "
And again [sigh) he calms troubled waters with this "Yep. Spurious and ridiculous. More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. "
Like a song with one note, FBT continues mantra-like "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon people."
A later post of FBT says, "By your own standards, an accuser (or a skeptic in your case) is not proven wrong until he is converted. If Jesus converted every accuser/skeptic, then why was he crucified?"
FINALLY Stemelbow addresses the issue, saying "Actually, brianH, you aren't quoting the "court record"...you should look into your claims before you state them. This was actually a copy of what is ***umed to be the court record (which we do not have to corroborate any longer) at one time possessed by the judge's neice [I](sic) who, apparently brought the "record" to Utah to evangelize mormons. (sic)" THANK YOU STEM! Brian and Stem have an exchange
However FBT continues to evade the issue, and attacks Jesus saying "Well, that seems to bring us back to the million dollar question...why a sovereign omnipotent God saves only some when it seems that it is perfectly within his power to save all."
He continues in another post "I just love making these lights go on in your head. And that was a significant one right there."
And his last "contribution" (so far ) reads, "Why should he have converted every skeptic he met? Why simple... so that every skeptic could believe. I started this question to allow you the opportunity to help me convince your mind, by siting how Jesus went about converting and convincing every skeptical mind he met"



So we have chronicled 19 different responses from FOUR different Mormons, and can anyone PLEASE count the number of times that the Mormons posting here have addressed the OP about the convictions of JS? I get a count of TWO, thanks to Stemelbow.

Obviously, with this many responses, and only two of them dealing with the OP, it is safe to ***ume that the Mormons here demonstrated a certain pattern. That pattern is simply EVADE THE TRUTH AT ALL COSTS.

No Mormon should like that part in red above, but BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED the only logical conclusion can be is that it is TRUE!

However there are always two sides to the issue, and in all fairness to Novato, Fig and Vlad111, I offer them the opportunity to explain why they believe that their postings chronicled (mostly in full) above cons***ute DO NOT cons***ute an evasion of the OP.

After all, guys, no one forces you to post here, and you all know that it is considered RUDE to evade the OP, as I believe you have done.

BTW Just because I bring a message without vitriol, albeit a message you may not like, I have not become your enemy. Therefore, I ask in advance that you address the two ISSUES AT HAND, 1) the OP and 2) the accuracy of my belief that you three guys were collectively stonewalling and trying to change the subject.

I also ask you in advance not to revert to ad homenums, either. Enough said?


And I say big deal. So what if Joseph was charged and convicted of being a gl*** looker. It's tantamount to Jesus being accused and convicted of gleaning corn on the sabbath. Was Jesus a law breaker? By the standards of the day, one would have to say 'yes'. Big whoop.

Spurious and Frivolous.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

But that's just an empty regression. Why should every skeptic believe? I know why people believe Jesus. Why should anyone believe YOU?

I am not at question here. Jesus is. Is Joseph Jesus' true prophet or not? If so, then God should be able to answer the question. And that is precisely where 13 million members have gotten their answer.

And you have provided no example by which I can accomplish that which even Jesus was unable to do...convince the unbeliever to change his mind. He did so with Paul, but you, Brian, are no 'Paul', and I cannot ask Jesus to appear to you.

[BrianH]

I am not at question here. Jesus is.

No, wrong. Jesus is not in question here; the personal integrity of JOSEPH SMITH is in question in this thread. But you are reflexively doing what Mormons have been programmed by their cult to do when Joseph Smith is questioned: question Jesus, or the Bible or ANYTHING else to avoid facing the facts.

After over a dozen posts, you have yet to address the topic of THIS thread. Your deflections and attempted disruptions will not work, Mormon.

Either get on topic or get lost.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Joseph Smith’s First of Two Fraud
Convictions

Hmmm, convictions, lets see where the facts really lead us Brian, hopefully you will take the time to read the following and not nod off, or do the discernment thing on us. I did read the entire OP you presented, but as usual you failed to give the source of the criticism, I know it is not yours.
You did list one BYU site, good for you, but the how, what and why of your actual source is suspiciously lacking.

On March 20, 1826, Joseph Smith, Jr. was brought before the local judge (Justice Neely) in Bainbridge, New York on the charge of being a “disorderly person”.

So the felony conviction for fraud is now a supposed conviction for being disorderly, well, well. That is a change from your first accusation, to now what SEENS a minor charge of being disorderly.


[QUOTE]Brian states, "The charge was a catch-all term of art for vagrants, con artists and other undesirables who’s alleged “crimes” were not specifically coded in numbered statutes.

Who named it a catch-all Brian? Humorous, but is it really now more then just disorderly? Hmmm, "catch all" for vagrant, con artist and other undesirables. :D What? alleged crimes were not specifically coded? in any statutes? Wow.


Many documents are coming to light that inform us of the truth and the details of this highly revealing event in the life of Joseph Smith. The source of all that we know about Smith’s trial and conviction include the arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. These original sources are documented in the following publications:
[INDENT]“The History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania” by Emily C. Blackman (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873)

This is going to be fun, hope you are still reading and learning Brian. :)


We also have the Isaac Hale affidavit of March 20, 1834, Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (May 1, 1834): 1, cited in Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, 69–70 which reads:

Brian is quoting from What? Friends of the Church? Hmmm..


"Reinventing Mormonism: To Remake or Redo", Larry C. Porter

Individually these men have been both affable and friendly; however, their motives are patently clear. With the death of Wesley P. Walters in 1990, Michael has unhesitatingly picked up the old gauntlet and the traditional line of march. Inventing Mormonism was and is a continuation of a former thrust. It is for the most part exceptionally well documented and meticulously programmed as an exposé of Joseph Smith and certain cardinal claims of the Restoration—a new face on an old set of biases. Each of us certainly has his or her individual biases; I am merely pointing out that the authors have not changed their spots—only particular aspects of their approach. It is difficult to believe that their sole interest is to "understand, not to debunk," as announced (p. 197). The very ***le Inventing Mormonism by definition impinges on the veracity of the Prophet and his ***ociates by its up-front presupposition of a planned or calculated deception. Visions, seer stones, magical incantations, money digging, legal entanglements, and intemperance are all introduced in such a manner as to debase the character of Joseph Smith and his contemporary supporters.




Brian states, The court record of Smith’s trial resulting in his first fraud conviction follows:


Lets see what the charges really are as we actually list them for all to see:
The charge is listed in the various accounts as:

Benton (1831): a disorderly person
Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
Judge Neely: a misdemeanor





Brian states, "And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty."



Conclusion

It wasn't a trial, it was an examination
Likely initiated from religious concern.
Seven witnesses.
Editing of witness testimonies.
Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight
We can accept Joseph in his culture and time.
What we can obtain from the conclusions are first of all that it wasn't a trial, it was an examination. It was likely initiated not so much from a concern about him being a money digger, as it was that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt that relationship if possible. It is likely that there were seven witnesses. It is also probable there was some editing of the witnesses' testimonies. All witnesses however, testified that Joseph did possess a gift, though there is some variation about how strong that gift was. The key issue is that we can accept Joseph Smith. When we put him in this early 19th century culture, he is consistent with that environment. We can accept that what he did was part of that culture, his age and experience, and it doesn't have any impact or discredit that fact that he was a prophet of God. by Russell Anderson.




The critical section has the following: Judge Neely Bill

Same [meaning People] vs Joseph Smith the Gl*** Looker
March 20, 1826 Misdemeanor For my fees in examination of above cause $2.68



Ya still reading Brian, or did we loose you on the first two sentences. Hmmm interesting. Here is some more good buddy.



The 1826 Trial

In March of the next year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. "The record of the examination was torn from Neely's docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle."6 This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death. It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn't appear until after Miss Pearsall had died.

William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, ...were greatly incensed against Smith, ...saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire... They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."7

Whereas the Pearsall account says: "Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell's nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter...brought before court March 20, 1826"8

So, we have what has been called "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith", even though the records show that this wasn't actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place. They thought that the critics might be confusing it with the later 1830 trial, which is well documented.

The critics enjoy quoting Hugh Nibley as saying, "You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established... If this court record is authentic, it is the most ****ing evidence in existence against Joseph Smith"9

It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 trial until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971. The critics now ***umed that this was very damaging to Joseph Smith when combined with the statements by Nibley, Francis Kirkham and others. But what did Nibley actually say?

Let us take a closer look at the full statement from The Myth Makers. The underlined portions are not included when Nibley is quoted.

You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you had only Miss Pearsall's word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn't you immediately send her back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of it? Why didn't you "unearth" it, as they later said you did? ... The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: "a woman helper in our mission," who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to ***ist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most ****ing evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? ...in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever...yet in the final summary of his life's experiences he never mentions the story of the court record - his one claim to immortal fame and the gra***ude of the human race if it were true!10

Nibley never really considered the 1926 trial to be very significant and definitely not a **** to the credibility of Joseph Smith. But he is telling Tuttle that if he really did think it was significant, why didn't he use it.

[Richard]

Records of 1826 Trial

Let us see if we can get a better understanding concerning the time of Joseph Smith and what the examination in 1826 actually tells us.

We have five records of the 1826 trial. And these were published in eight documents.

Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate
Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate
1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)
Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece)
Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London)
Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)
1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)
May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chanango Union
It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences.

Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details. by Russell Anderson

Judge Neely Record

We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:

Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
Then the record was lost.
It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.

Mr. Purple - from his memory

The only other significant account of the trial is given to us by W. D. Purple in 1877, after more than 50 years had elapsed. Since Mr. Purple says that he was asked to make a record at the time of the trial, what he wrote could possibly be the very record that was acquired by Miss Pearsall. We don't really know, but it is unlikely that there was a second record made of the trial. Mr. Purple doesn't use his notes but instead he tells us, "The scenes and incidents of that early day are vividly engraven upon his memory, by reason of his having written them when they occurred, and by reason of his public and private rehearsals of them in later years. He will now present them as historical reminiscenses of old Chenango, and as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism."19

From Fawn Brodie's notes we have the following obituary about Dr. Purple.

"He was blessed with a most retentive memory and was thoroughly conversant with the county's history. He was a man of strictest integrity and uprightness of character."

"Dr. Purple possessed a remarkably retentive memory, characterized, also, by a surprising facility for the recollection of dates, statistics, and historical occurrences, so that he was called sometimes, as veritably he was, a walking encyclopedia. He could tell at once the names of the candidates, the year of their nominations, the names, methods, and characteristic and management of all parties, and the principle history of nearly all political leaders during every year of the past eighty years."20

Do We Have a Court Record?

We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.

Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
No witness signatures--they were required in an official record
It appears to be a pretrial hearing
Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts
Let's take an overview of what these various records tell us about this examination in 1826. We will examine these various records under the following categories.

Why the record is recorded
Who brought the charges
What the charge was against Joseph Smith
Number of witnesses
Verdict
Reason for the Record

First of all the reasons for the record. This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.

Benton: more complete history of their founder
Cowdery: private character of our brother
Noble: explain the character of the Mormons
Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet
Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism
Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others
Judge Neely: to collect fees
So we can see here that most people who gave us these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer.

Person Bringing Charges

If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following:

Benton (1831): The Public
Cowdery (1835): very officious person
Noble (1842): Civil authority
Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman
Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell
Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman
Judge Neely: The Public
Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source.

Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church. Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."21

Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?" by Russell Anderson

[Richard]

Summary of Testimonies

First of all Joseph Smith's testimony. In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business.

Joseph Smith Sr.'s testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account.

In the Josiah Stowell testimony in the Purple account Josiah said that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "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;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."

Horace Stowell is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground.

Arad Stowel went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around.

Now that same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So that kind of matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money. There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account. by Russell Anderson

[Richard]

Marquardt and Walters express a desire for accuracy in detail, "however trivial it may seem." But surely this ought to apply to them as well as to early Mormons. The second part of the "Bibliographical Essay" in Inventing Mormonism is en***led, "2. The 1826 Examination" (pp. 222-30). In one section (pp. 222-23), they examine "Itemized Bills by Justice Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng," making mention of the respective bills being bound in bundles in 1826 and placed in storage. Then their text shifts from a nineteenth-century scene to a twentieth-century event and the declaration: "These and other bills relating to Joseph Smith's Bainbridge court hearings were removed by [Wesley P.] Walters and [Fred] Poffarl27 from the water-soaked box in which they were found and hand-carried to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and M****cript Library. They were received back by Chenango County in October 1971. Photographs are on file at the library of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia" (p. 223).

On the surface this description seems innocuous enough—two men removing documents from a water-soaked box and taking them to a m****cript library for examination and perhaps treatment, and then returning them to the county of origin. These appear to be the thoughtful acts of preservationists at work—seemingly with approval of the county, implied though not actually recorded. Now let's take a second look for the sake of "accuracy," and discuss some of the attendant circumstances. I had been microfilming materials related to Mormonism in the Guernsey Memorial Library and at the same time researching documents in the adjacent Chenango County Office Building in Norwich, New York. The county clerk, John P. McGuire, had allowed me access to the vault. I was looking for the very type of documents later found by Wesley P. Walters and Fred Poffarl, but I had no success. After I carefully checked the records in the vault, Mr. McGuire directed me to the cache of court records which had been placed in storage in the downstairs portion of the jailhouse. These documents had been placed under the immediate supervision of the sheriff, who had given the undersheriff the task of looking after them. Walters and Poffarl were not exaggerating; the documents themselves were water-logged and in water-soaked boxes. After two days of searching hundreds of documents, unfortunately at the wrong end of the room, I had to leave to keep some prior appointments. Shortly after I left, Walters and Poffarl called on Mr. McGuire and were granted the same privilege as I had been in examining the content of the vault. As they finished that project, a clerk in the county office building mentioned to them that Mr. Porter had been working under the jailhouse. On 28 July 1971 they investigated and were successful in locating the elusive bills and some other related records. Taking them from their packets, the men went to the Guernsey Memorial Library. One of the librarians, Charlotte Spicer, told me that they used the photocopy machine, but that it was of poor quality and they didn't like the results. Mrs. Spicer related to me that they then determined to take the court documents elsewhere. Seeing the nature of the papers she advised them to return the documents immediately. She said that "Mr. Walters responded by saying, `that if they were returned the Mormons would dispose of them.' " They then left, removing them from the community and the custody of the county clerk. Fred Poffarl carried them east to Yale. Walters later claimed that they removed the documents without permission because the sheriff and the county historian "were both unavailable at the time."28 At the instigation of Walters, some of the documents with accompanying commentary were published in August 1971 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in The Salt Lake City Messenger under the ***le, "New Find Undermines Mormonism," as an ongoing exposé of Joseph Smith.29

I was at that time doing continued research in the East. Richard L. Anderson alerted me to the Tanner treatise on Walters's find. Eager to see the records, I proceeded to Norwich to verify their content. There I met Mae L. Smith, Chenango County Historian, but she was unable to show me the original court documents. She had only photocopies in her possession since the actual bills had been taken away. Mae further informed me that Wesley P. Walters had photocopied the original documents in his possession, and then sent these copies to the editor of the Chenango Union in Norwich as verification of an accompanying article on Mormonism which he asked the newspaper to print. The editor had suspected something was awry and called the attention of Mae Smith to the photocopies. She recognized that court documents had been taken without authorization and, working with the county clerk, contacted Mr. Edwin M. Crumb, Clerk of the Chenango County Board of Supervisors. Mr. James H. Haynes, Jr., Chenango County Attorney, was next directed to write Wesley P. Walters. Mr. Haynes responded on 16 September 1971:

Dear Reverend Walters:

Our County Historian, Mrs. Mae Smith, has asked me to write you concerning certain papers that were taken by you from County records stored in the cellar of our local sheriff's office. I have letters about these records which you wrote Mrs. Smith dated August 21, 1971.

According to Mrs. Smith, these records were taken by you without her permission and she has written you requesting they be returned immediately.

Will you please contact Yale University immediately and ask that these papers be returned to Mrs. Smith, our County Historian, without any delay whatsoever.30

The documents were subsequently returned under duress. Obviously the records in that basement room were uncataloged, so there was no way of determining just how many documents had walked out the door. The observer can appreciate the justifiable dilemma of those who had the documents in their charge.

Someone might say, "Well, they did preserve them by their action—what other option did they have?" Well, let me suggest some alternatives. The county clerk, Mr. John P. McGuire, was a very responsible man, besides being the lawful caretaker of the records. I had worked with him over an extended period of time in targeting certain items of historical value for microfilming by the Latter-day Saint Church genealogical microfilmer. If he had been alerted to the historical value of these documents I haven't the least doubt that he would have taken steps to see that they were removed from the basement and preserved in a safe place for further disposition. Other items of a historical value to the community were already in the vault. Too, Mae Smith, the Chenango County Historian, could have guaranteed their safety and made requisition to obtain possession of them, which was what ultimately happened.31 By taking them away, Walters and Poffarl committed the cardinal sin of possibly compromising their validity. Some felt they had tampered with the evidence during their disappearance. I personally believe that those documents that were returned are valid and intact. But, of course—and this is the problem—that cannot be proven.

Walters did give an extended explanation of the actions of himself and his friend in 1974, some time after the fact. He reported that he was in immediate contact with Mae Smith and others (a little over three weeks afterwards). His description would lead the reader to believe that everything was amicably smoothed over.32 However, I only know that I saw a bristling Mae Smith when I arrived in Norwich soon after the published report by Walters. She was not at all pleased with the methods of these two men in extracting official documents, a situation that had not changed a year later when I called at the Chenango County Historical Museum to see the elusive documents, which had since been returned. In the press to the fore historians cannot override their local counterparts. Something more was lost in that exchange than the momentary disappearance of records. That nonprofessional act created an air of suspicion in Chenango County officialdom where so much trust had been extended to generations of researchers before this mishap. In retrospect I can still hear the simple request of the county clerk, Mr. McGuire, to all comers, "When you take them out, just put them back where you found them." A few details for the sake of accuracy can provide a wider spectrum of understanding when limited information may have given us a somewhat slanted view of the actual incident.

The writers have compiled what appear to be "plausible" answers to some long-time trouble spots. This will have an appeal to those anxious for a resolution of certain difficult questions. Marquardt and Walters have crafted their attack on the early historical ins***ution of Mormonism with exceeding care and have written in a convincing style. Their approach will be disarming to readers who may not be able to discern the dividing line between fact and fiction.

The questions which they have raised have implications for readers that will demand the very best verifiable responses available. As their sources are further digested and critiqued the "winnowing" process will be more complete. Perhaps then the delineation of what is actual versus what might be cl***ified as the "Reinvention of Mormonism" can be further affixed.

[BrianH]

Do you deny that Joseph Smith was a gl***-looking money digger?

-BH

.

[Richard]

Do you deny that Joseph Smith was a gl***-looking money digger?

-BH

.

Stay on topic good buddy, you can make that another topic, but you did not address anything yet I posted which again makes me wonder about your desire to defend your own OP which is about the supposed trial, which I proved was not. This again is just a standard tactic you use to deflect away form deabating the issues you present.

[BrianH]

Lets see what the charges really are as we actually list them for all to see:
The charge is listed in the various accounts as:

Benton (1831): a disorderly person
Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

These are terms used in the 19th c. that identified the illegal activies of what are now refered to as "fraud" in legal documents. Smith's game was not unique. However, at that early point in the development of law in the U.S., there were no specific coded statutes that covered every possible crime (which remains true even today). The occult con-game of gl***-looking and money digging was not unique to Smith. It was a common fraud perpetrated by many "vagrants" and "disorderly persons".

This con also had numerous variations. For example, the con man would steal (or arrange to have stolen) a prized posession - perhaps a watch or a broach or some family heirloom) and then approach the victim with promises of a magical ability to find lost objects ...for a small fee, of course. The con artist would then use his magic rock to "find" the object he had stolen and hidden in some likely place.

People convicted of what we would call "fraud" for such a crime, were, in the 19th century convicted of "vagrancy" or "disorder".

-BH

.

[Richard]

Obviously you did not take the time to read any of my re****al, this was not a trial, no convictions, and as the Bill stated is was for:

Judge Neely Bill

Same [meaning People] vs Joseph Smith the Gl*** Looker
March 20, 1826 Misdemeanor For my fees in examination of above cause $2.68


Ya think Brian you can stay on topic and try and read the whole article before you misfire again and again. Not a trial good buddy, no conviction, and it was claimed to be nothing more the a examination of facts and testimonies.

Get a grip, read the facts and evidence, and then realize ya fell for some more of your antiquated plagiarized talking points and ideas.

Richard.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

No, wrong. Jesus is not in question here; the personal integrity of JOSEPH SMITH is in question in this thread. But you are reflexively doing what Mormons have been programmed by their cult to do when Joseph Smith is questioned: question Jesus, or the Bible or ANYTHING else to avoid facing the facts.

After over a dozen posts, you have yet to address the topic of THIS thread. Your deflections and attempted disruptions will not work, Mormon.

Either get on topic or get lost.

-BH

.

I have shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic you started. I have shown the hypocritical standard of the critics.

My work is done here.

[BrianH]

Stay on topic good buddy...

LOL ...yer a funny clown, Richard. "Stay on topic"??? Precisely what do YOU imagine actually IS the topic here, if NOT Smith being a gl***-looking con artist. Please be specific if you dare to answer.

Short of an answer to that question, I will ask you the question you are avoiding AGAIN: Was Smith a gl***-looking/money digging con artist or not?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I have shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic you started.

That is a lie. In fact, you have failed to even ADDRESS the topic in all 15+ of your posts in this thread. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of your posts here you have tried to change the subject. You have yet to even address the topic, let alone shown any frivoloty or even provide an opposing view.

Get on topic or get lost, fig. Your disruptive behavior is not appreciated and, in fact does you no credit. Your behavior only shows how Mormons react to evidence that exposes their "prophet" as a fraud - by RUNNING around (mod edit)trying to deflect and distract from the facts.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Then you love nothing, cuz you have not enlightend me to anything

Fig, first of all, as I have explained to you DOZENS of times, no one denies that faith is central to Christianity. Gullibility and being led into fantasies about Egyptian-speaking Jewish American Indians building big cities and riding around on elephants is not "faith". It is (mod edit) supers***ion and fantasy.

Secondly, get on topic here or flee. Your attempt to disrupt this thread only PROVES that you cannot deal with the facts in evidence.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I did read it.

The bottom line remains the question from which you obviously must flee (mod edit).

Was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I did read it.

The bottom line remains the question from which you obviously must flee like a scared chicken.

Was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not?

-BH

.

Did Joseph have a seer stone before he undertook his prophetic calling? Yes. Did he use it for purposes he should not have used it before becoming a Prophet? Yes.

Con artist? No.

[John T]

I am not at question here. Jesus is. Is Joseph Jesus' true prophet or not? If so, then God should be able to answer the question. And that is precisely where 13 million members have gotten their answer.

And you have provided no example by which I can accomplish that which even Jesus was unable to do...convince the unbeliever to change his mind. He did so with Paul, but you, Brian, are no 'Paul', and I cannot ask Jesus to appear to you.


In a previous post, I cataloged your continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
You bring up Jesus Christ to rudely derail the thread.
Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

[John T]

And I say big deal. So what if Joseph was charged and convicted of being a gl*** looker. It's tantamount to Jesus being accused and convicted of gleaning corn on the sabbath. Was Jesus a law breaker? By the standards of the day, one would have to say 'yes'. Big whoop. Spurious and Frivolous.

In a previous post, I cataloged your continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
You bring up Jesus Christ to rudely derail the thread.
Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

[BrianH]

Golly John, you seem to think that Fig has failed to even address the topic. You seem to think that Fig is rudely trying to disrupt a thread that poses evidence he does not like.

I agree with you ....but when I repeatedly asked him to finally get on topic, Fig told ME that he has already "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic".

Fig's character is indeed in question. But if he really beleives he has even addressed the topic, let alone "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic" I am left to also wonder about his connection with reality.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Did Joseph have a seer stone before he undertook his prophetic calling? Yes. Did he use it for purposes he should not have used it before becoming a Prophet? Yes.

Con artist? No.

So then you think he REALLY COULD find buried golden treasure with his magic rock, right?

Please show me the evidence that you think shows that he SUCCESSFULLY used his little magic rock and his self-claimed occult ability to find buried golden treasures.

-BH

.

[John T]

Golly John, you seem to think that Fig has failed to even address the topic. You seem to think that Fig is rudely trying to disrupt a thread that poses evidence he does not like.

I agree with you ....but when I repeatedly asked him to finally get on topic, Fig told ME that he has already "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic".

-BH .

I am demonstrating that each time he or anyone else crosses the line, and to demonstrate the fact that a person lies when he says one thing, but can not substantiate it. That is the purpose of the catalog below (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19766&postcount=46)

I also note that your personal comment to Fig is over the line in that it goes from an obvious, documented pattern, and into a diagnostic area that you are not qualified to make. Please remove it.

[BrianH]

I think you missed the point, here J.

I was only confirming what you said. After repeatedly telling Fig to get on topic, he claims that he had fully debunked the entire topic.

If he REALLY beleives that he has "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic" HAVING NEVER ONCE even addressed the topic, I seriously have to wonder about the boy's mental condition. One need not be a clinical psychologist to see the problem here.

-BH

.

[Vlad III]

If he REALLY beleives that he has "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic" HAVING NEVER ONCE even addressed the topic, I seriously have to wonder about the boy's mental condition. One need not be a clinical psychologist to see the problem here.

-BH

.

More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

[BrianH]

More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

More deliberate efforts to distract from the topic of the thread.

-BH

.

[John T]

More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

That was NOT directed at the Mormons in general, but at a specific person. He addressed it as "that boy" not "you Mormons..." So please get your facts straight before you complain. It helps one's credibility.

HOWEVER, in all fairness to Brian, you should note that he edited it out before you could have your reply posted

[Vlad III]

That was NOT directed at the Mormons in general, but at a specific person. He addressed it as "that boy" not "you Mormons..." So please get your facts straight before you complain. It helps one's credibility.

Fig is a Mormon.
Brian is attacking Fig.
Whether it is a Person or People, it is the same.


HOWEVER, in all fairness to Brian, you should note that he edited it out before you could have your reply posted

Really?

Then why is his post still there with no edits and still says, "I have to wonder about the boy's mental condition?"

I guess if you want to talk about credibility, you might not equivicate between attacking 1 Mormon vs. many Mormons as a distinction. And you might also check to see if some edited their post of the attack before you claim they do.;)

[BrianH]

When are you going to address the topic here instead of just whining about ME, Vlad?

-BH

.

[Vlad III]

When are you going to address the topic here instead of just whining about ME, Vlad?

-BH

.

Not going to.

I'll leave that for others.

I will continue to point out your attacks of Mormon people, though.

And if you stop attacking the Mormon PEOPLE, I will stop addressing it.

Deal?

[BrianH]

BH>>When are you going to address the topic here instead of just whining about ME, Vlad?

V>Not going to.


Okay ...there you have it.

Vlad's purpose here, as elsewhere is to complain about ME instead of addressing the actual subject which happens to be the proven criminal behavior of the con man he believes really was a "prophet".

As I continue to point out YOUR disruptive and evasive behavior, you be sure to whine and complain about how I am attacking Mormon people, K? That will be sure to further prove my whole point for me.

-BH

.

[John T]

I have shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic you started. I have shown the hypocritical standard of the critics.

My work is done here.

In light of the catalog of posts (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19766&postcount=46)I provided, that comment is absurd, to say the best, and it can go on from that. What is amazing is that you scols Christians for "not dealing with the truth" and you are free to make up your own "facts". That is pathetic, REALLY pathetic, Figgy.


In a previous post, I cataloged your continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
You bring up Jesus Christ to rudely derail the thread.
Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

[stemelbow]

I gave BrianH another chance to support his initial claim which underlies the premise of this whole thread--prove that he quoted the court document. He did not even try and attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me. Its his claim. If he is not interested in supporting his claims then he puts a stop to the conversation. And no, doing his usual of saying he said it so it must be true is not supporting his claims.

And John T, you are as far off topic as anyone on here. I see no reason why you whine about others not being on topic when you are as far off as any. Let us stick to the topic, as you and brian outlined of JS surely having been convicted of fraud. So far all we have is BrianH quoting something he has yet to substantiate as evidence. he merely thinks by quoting something, he has supported his point. I was hoping for some dialogue here. I am not necessarily concerned if JS told someone when he was a teenager that he could find fortune through divination. It really does not prove anything about him. But the case BrianH presents is dubious and quite pathetic. Yes, he's done this many times before.

love,
stem

[John T]

Fig is a Mormon.
Brian is attacking Fig. Whether it is a Person or People, it is the same.

Quite wrong, there

A person is a member of a people group, but a people group is not a person. Therein lies your error: over identification. If I make an editorial comment attacking what Obama does, am I also attacking all blacks, or all Democrats, or all lawyers from Chicago?


Then why is his post still there with no edits and still says, "I have to wonder about the boy's mental condition?"


I do not know, but I could not see it when I looked.

And hey, if you want to be consistent, why has NO NORMON come out to criticize Novato for his threat to Brian (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19631&postcount=2) when he blatantly suggested doing a search for dirt about him. Is that what you do, Vlad?

You did that with another poster when you told the whole world that he was having marital difficulties. Then when forced, you made a pathetic apology, blaming the poster for what someone else posted. THAT IS UTTERLY CONTEMPTUOUS behavior.

Yet you cry "wolf" if someone attacks one of your members, and decry my saying "wolf pack mentality" . Curiously you just defended that "wolf pack mentality above.



I guess if you want to talk about credibility, you might not equivicate (sic) between attacking 1 Mormon vs. many Mormons as a distinction. And you might also check to see if some edited their post of the attack before you claim they do.;)
Both spurious "objections" are answered above.

In a previous post (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19766&postcount=46), I cataloged continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
You bring up other things to rudely derail the thread.
Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

[stemelbow]

BrianH said,


I know you think you are a God and everything

And i said


Here I'll give you one last try to support your (mod edit) complaints

Why did the word Whiney get edited? BrianH can ascribe any sort of motivation to me, but if I ***ume by his words that he is whining I get edited? Hmm...okay. I'll do my best to not call out whining when I see it. But let's at least have some amount of consistency.

love,
stem

[John T]

But the case BrianH presents is dubious and quite pathetic. Yes, he's done this many times before. love, stem


Since when is calling people to respect and reply to the OP being off topic? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Vlad III]

Quite wrong, there

A person is a member of a people group, but a people group is not a person. Therein lies your error: over identification. If I make an editorial comment attacking what Obama does, am I also attacking all blacks, or all Democrats, or all lawyers from Chicago?



I do not know, but I could not see it when I looked.

And hey, if you want to be consistent, why has NO NORMON come out to criticize Novato for his threat to Brian (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19631&postcount=2) when he blatantly suggested doing a search for dirt about him. Is that what you do, Vlad?

You did that with another poster when you told the whole world that he was having marital difficulties. Then when forced, you made a pathetic apology, blaming the poster for what someone else posted. THAT IS UTTERLY CONTEMPTUOUS behavior.

Yet you cry "wolf" if someone attacks one of your members, and decry my saying "wolf pack mentality" . Curiously you just defended that "wolf pack mentality above.



Both spurious "objections" are answered above.

In a previous post (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19766&postcount=46), I cataloged continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
You bring up other things to rudely derail the thread.
Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

Thanks for taking the time!

[stemelbow]

Since when is calling people to respect and reply to the OP being off topic? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I'm sorry, but you have given yourself far too much credit. you go way off topic more than a couple of times. The latest right here:


You did that with another poster when you told the whole world that he was having marital difficulties. Then when forced, you made a pathetic apology, blaming the poster for what someone else posted. THAT IS UTTERLY CONTEMPTUOUS behavior.

and


And hey, if you want to be consistent, why has NO NORMON come out to criticize Novato for his threat to Brian when he blatantly suggested doing a search for dirt about him. Is that what you do, Vlad?


if you don't see why that's not off-topic then I shall not even attempt to get you back on topic again.

You're only playng the mote-beam game.

Do you have any insight into this "conviction"? Can you help BrianH by supporting his claims?

love,
stem

[John T]

I'm sorry, but you have given yourself far too much credit. you go way off topic more than a couple of times. The latest right here:

if you don't see why that's not off-topic then I shall not even attempt to get you back on topic again. You're only playng (sic) the mote-beam game.

Do you have any insight into this "conviction"? Can you help BrianH by supporting his claims? love, stem

TRY READING THE ORIGINAL, AGAIN.

I was replying to an attack by another Mormon who was out of bounds and off topic.

I am NOT the topic here, as you want to morph it to.

In a previous post (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19766&postcount=46), I cataloged continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread. Your post continues the pattern. Is this an insipid attempt to annoy people?

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
You bring up other things to rudely derail the thread.

Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.

THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

Since you are unable to deal fairly and honestly with other people, I suggest you tell the Bishop about that when you want to get your "Temple Ticket"

[Vlad III]

TRY READING THE ORIGINAL, AGAIN.

I was replying to an attack by another Mormon who was out of bounds and off topic.

I am NOT the topic here, as you want to morph it to.

Since you are unable to deal fairly and honestly with other people, I suggest you tell the Bishop about that when you want to get your "Temple Ticket"

LOL...

Are you serious?

Here you are, balking at the LDS posters for being off-topic and talking about other posters...

....yet by doing so you are posting off topic and then your final line is the very thing you seem to be criticizing LDS for; off-topic personal attacks of other posters.

LOL

[stemelbow]

Alright, JohnT, as I said I will not try to get you back on topic again. Bless you.

love,
stem

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

So then you think he REALLY COULD find buried golden treasure with his magic rock, right?

Please show me the evidence that you think shows that he SUCCESSFULLY used his little magic rock and his self-claimed occult ability to find buried golden treasures.

-BH

.

I think he found things, but worldly treasure was never recovered by it.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

That is a lie. In fact, you have failed to even ADDRESS the topic in all 15+ of your posts in this thread. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of your posts here you have tried to change the subject. You have yet to even address the topic, let alone shown any frivoloty or even provide an opposing view.

Get on topic or get lost, fig. Your disruptive behavior is not appreciated and, in fact does you no credit. Your behavior only shows how Mormons react to evidence that exposes their "prophet" as a fraud - by RUNNING around (mod edit)trying to deflect and distract from the facts.

-BH

.

Why should I address a meaningless topic any further? The purpose of this thread was never to "discuss" anything as we both well know.

If the court records are accurate, and he was convicted of gl*** looking, big deal, so what?

[BrianH]

Why should I address a meaningless topic any further? The purpose of this thread was never to "discuss" anything as we both well know.

Just because you CAN'T refute the facts does not mean they are meaningless.


If the court records are accurate, and he was convicted of gl*** looking, big deal, so what?

So what? LOL ...If the court records are accurate, your so-called "prophet" was a lying, fraud and an occult con artist who used the same little magic rock trick to "translate" you scriptures. Do the math, genius. You have been duped.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Just because you CAN'T refute the facts does not mean they are meaningless.



So what? LOL ...If the court records are accurate, your so-called "prophet" was a lying, fraud and an occult con artist who used the same little magic rock trick to "translate" you scriptures. Do the math, genius. You have been duped.

-BH

.

No he wasn't. He just didn't make some people rich, and that made them angry.

[Vlad III]

It is YOUR posts that have no sense of decency or common courtesy to others. I am sure that is NOT what they teach you at Ward meeting, or anywhere else in Mormon land. But you have to know that these above as posted above in this thread reached a new nadir of Cretan-like behavior, and prove beyond any shadow of doubt what a despicable human being you are.

But hey! I am only attacking ONE Mormon, and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt via YOUR posts that how nasty of a person you truly are. Therefore I am not out of bounds here. I SURELY HOPE ...Never mind.

Wow!

More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE!!

You may call me a despicable human being.

You may call me a nasty person.

And I will still sleep comfortably knowing that, in all your ranting and raving and whining about me, I have not stooped to the level that you have in calling other posters names like that.

It is a bit ironic, though, to almost 'see' the veins popping out of your head as I read your post, yet your whole post is attacking Mormons on how vile they are, and doing so by being as vile as you think you can get away with.

Oh well.

Sleep tight!

[Vlad III]

It is YOUR posts that SNIPE at other posters, and YES I saw that Brian changed the offensive post when I posted, so while you may have seen it, and held onto it before posting. Your post came a full eight minutes after mine, and when I posted at 2:22 Brian had posted the original, offensive post at 11:11, and he edited it between those two times.


Strange.

Brian's post is STILL the same as it was when I responded to it. No edits. No deletions of any kind.

You say he posted it at 11:11 and edited it by 2:22?

It is now 9:26PM PST

It is here: http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/showpost.php?p=19836&postcount=4

And this just proves that in all your attempts at bloviating and arguing against the LDS poster's tactics of being off-topic and divisive (ironic, I know!), that you really don't know what you are talking about.

[Richard]

LOL ...yer a funny clown, Richard. "Stay on topic"??? Precisely what do YOU imagine actually IS the topic here, if NOT Smith being a gl***-looking con artist. Please be specific if you dare to answer.

Short of an answer to that question, I will ask you the question you are avoiding AGAIN: Was Smith a gl***-looking/money digging con artist or not?

-BH

.

Hmmm, I thought we were asking you to prove convictions, and now it's changed to nothing more then a con-artist, and of course the answer to your question is no, what would make you think he was a con artist? No convictions and only circumstantial evidence? interesting. Back to the standard no evidence, no documentation of proof, and the usual blundering foolish plagiarized talking points and ideas. Wow.

[BrianH]

Hmmm, I thought we were asking you to prove convictions, and now it's changed to nothing more then a con-artist...blah blah blah

No. Nothing has changed. I have shown you evidence of his CONVICTION in a court of law AS a "con artist". You have just done the Mormon thing and failed to comprehend the CONTEXT and are doing the Mormon thing - playing childish word games. You went off topic and immediately told me to get ON topic. The topic here is Smith's first conviction for what today we call fraud (aka: bunkao, swindler, con man, grifter, etc.)

You say that Smith was NOT a con man. Therefore we must conclude that you think he really COULD find moving golden treasures under ground with his little magic rock. Now ...can you show us the evidence that convinced you he really DID possess this occult divination power?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

LOL ... Well Fig ..."finding things" does not mean he had an occult, magical divination skill. I can "find things" by just looking for them. The problem you are trying to avoid is the FACT that Smith CLAIMED he DID have a magical skill and SOLD that skill to supers***ious, gullible simpletons. That is what today is called FRAUD, Fig and committing FRAUD is what con men DO. But you just cannot let yourself connect the huge dots here, lest you be brought to the light of truth in the one and only true God.

Your boy Smith was no "prophet"; the facts show that he was a two-bit grifter who pretended to have a magic rock in the hat pressed over his face. And you actually believe him.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

LOL ... Well Fig ..."finding things" does not mean he had an occult, magical divination skill. I can "find things" by just looking for them. The problem you are trying to avoid is the FACT that Smith CLAIMED he DID have a magical skill and SOLD that skill to supers***ious, gullible simpletons. That is what today is called FRAUD, Fig and committing FRAUD is what con men DO. But you just cannot let yourself connect the huge dots here, lest you be brought to the light of truth in the one and only true God.

Your boy Smith was no "prophet"; the facts show that he was a two-bit grifter who pretended to have a magic rock in the hat pressed over his face. And you actually believe him.

-BH
.

You just unwittingly produced a KEY to why this so-called "trial" garners so much attention today, when it didn't in the 19th Century.

You wouldn't know this, coming from your paradigm and all, but in the 19 Century, treasure hunting was culturally acceptable. So was the practice of mysticism. So was belief in the supernatural, and paranormal. Divining rods were commonly used, even by some clergy.

Today, Christianity has been so scrubbed, there is hardly anyone left who believes in angels or devils or the unexplainable. But back then, it was not so.

You also emphasized another word that I want you to explain: "SOLD". I don't know this, but maybe you do. How much money did Josiah Stowell pay Joseph for treasure seeking, and why didn't Josiah Stowell demand that it be returned, or have a problem when Joseph finally convinced him to give up on digging for treasure?

[BrianH]

You just unwittingly produced a KEY to why this so-called "trial" garners so much attention today, when it didn't in the 19th Century.

You wouldn't know this, coming from your paradigm and all, but in the 19 Century, treasure hunting was culturally acceptable. So was the practice of mysticism. So was belief in the supernatural, and paranormal. Divining rods were commonly used, even by some clergy.


First of all, it is culturally acceptable TODAY to go treasure hunting, Fig. It is not and WAS not acceptable in the 19th century to bilk people for money by telling people you had a magic rock in your hat when you obviously DO NOT.

Such behavior IS, however, acceptable to Mormons apparently. Heck ...you guys built a whole religion out of the practice!

Try to grasp the basics here Fig: That such charlatanry was not only unacceptable, but ILLEGAL is demonstrated by the FACT that Joseph Smith was brought to court and convicted for this crime.

Either way though, the simple FACT demosntrated by the evidence before us all is that your so-called "prophet" was, in reality, a shyster, a con man, a phony-baloney grifter.

Get it?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Bump! You didn't address the question at the bottom.

You just unwittingly produced a KEY to why this so-called "trial" garners so much attention today, when it didn't in the 19th Century.

You wouldn't know this, coming from your paradigm and all, but in the 19 Century, treasure hunting was culturally acceptable. So was the practice of mysticism. So was belief in the supernatural, and paranormal. Divining rods were commonly used, even by some clergy.

Today, Christianity has been so scrubbed, there is hardly anyone left who believes in angels or devils or the unexplainable. But back then, it was not so.

You also emphasized another word that I want you to explain: "SOLD". I don't know this, but maybe you do. How much money did Josiah Stowell pay Joseph for treasure seeking, and why didn't Josiah Stowell demand that it be returned, or have a problem when Joseph finally convinced him to give up on digging for treasure?

[BrianH]

I already answered that question before you asked it. We do not know precisely how much money Stowell paid Smith. We DO know that while in Stowell's employment Smith was receiving room and board from Stowell.

The problem you are trying to cover here is the FACT that your boy Smith was ***** when he claimed he could find buried golden Spanish treasures using his occult skills and magic rock. This is much the same story he has YOU believing today.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I already answered that question before you asked it. We do not know precisely how much money Stowell paid Smith. We DO know that while in Stowell's employment Smith was receiving room and board from Stowell.

The problem you are trying to cover here is the FACT that your boy Smith was ***** when he claimed he could find buried golden Spanish treasures using his occult skills and magic rock. This is much the same story he has YOU believing today.

-BH

.

I see. So you don't even know if Joseph receive any compensation for his efforts other than room and board? But you accuse him of FRAUD and SELLing his skill? For what? Room and Board? Joseph had room and board elsewhere.

Also, are you sure this was a trial, or was it just an examination? Doesn't the record show that Joseph was just 'examinded'.

[BrianH]

I see. So you don't even know if Joseph receive any compensation for his efforts other than room and board?

Room and board ARE compensation, Fig. And Stowell says that he "employed" Smith, he just does not say how much he paid him.


Joseph had room and board elsewhere.
Prove it. ...And let me help you out here: before you go rummaging through some LDS, "faith-promoting" web site to try to find some minor hint that he was living at the expense of two separate households realize that EVEN IF he DID have room and board elsewhere that does not obviate the FACT that Stowell was remunerating Smith while "employing" him.


Also, are you sure this was a trial, or was it just an examination? The record shows that Joseph was just 'examinded'.

oh brother ...this is the kind of desperate grasping at straws that so perfectly characterizes virtually all efforts at formulating an apologetic for the LDS religion.

Fig... let me fami****ize you with a little basic legal terminology: witnesses, plaintifs and defendants are all "examined" at a trial. Their "examination" does not mean that the trial in which their testimony is examined is not a trial!

Yes it was a trial. Smith was charged and tried in what would today be something akin to a "small claims" court in that no attorneys were retained. The plaintiff was the family of the victim. The defndant was Joseph Smith. The judge was a state-appointed official acting under the color of law. Yes ...it was a "trial". Even if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE called it a fruit pie, it was STILL a "trial".

Get it?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Room and board ARE compensation, Fig. And Stowell says that he "employed" Smith, he just does not say how much he paid him.

Room and Board. LOL!



oh brother ...this is the kind of desperate grasping at straws that so perfectly characterizes virtually all efforts at formulating an apologetic for the LDS religion.

Fig... let me fami****ize you with a little basic legal terminology: witnesses, plaintifs and defendants are all "examined" at a trial. Their "examination" does not mean that the trial in which their testimony is examined is not a trial!

Yes it was a trial. Smith was charged and tried in what would today be something akin to a "small claims" court in that no attorneys were retained. The plaintiff was the family of the victim. The defndant was Joseph Smith. The judge was a state-appointed official acting under the color of law. Yes ...it was a "trial". Even if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE called it a fruit pie, it was STILL a "trial".

Get it?

-BH

.
Why do asterisks ***** keep appearing in your posts?

It appears like a pre-trial hearing to me.

Would you consider this so called 'trial' a misdemeanor trial or a felony trial?

[BrianH]

BH>>Room and board ARE compensation, Fig. And Stowell says that he "employed" Smith, he just does not say how much he paid him.

F>Room and Board. LOL!

Your mocking only proves your own personal ignorance.


Why do asterisks ***** keep appearing in your posts?

I don't know.


It appears like a pre-trial hearing to me.
Then you do not know what a pre-trial hearing is. A pre-trial hearing does not result in a vertict and a fine.


Would you consider this so called 'trial' a misdemeanor trial or a felony trial?

IT is not a question of what I would consider. The FACT is, the charge of "disorderly person" is now and has always been a misdemeanor. Today, however, Smith's crime would be categorized as either a misdemeanor or a fellony depending on who his victim was and how much he bilked them for.

Either way, he LIED and pretended to have a magic rock in his hat by which he could perform supernatural feats.

Sound f-a-m-i-l-i-a-r...?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

IT is not a question of what I would consider. The FACT is, the charge of "disorderly person" is now and has always been a misdemeanor. Today, however, Smith's crime would be categorized as either a misdemeanor or a fellony depending on who his victim was and how much he bilked them for.
.

This was the only substantive thing you said.

So it was a misdemeanor trial, (or maybe just a hearing). Can you show me that it was common practice to record misdemeanor trials (or hearings) at that time and place? I don't think it was.

And shouldn't there be witness signatures attached somewhere?

[BrianH]

This was the only substantive thing you said.

Your predictable opinion does not support itself. You also continue to fail to refute the facts in evidence here.


So it was a misdemeanor trial, (or maybe just a hearing). Can you show me that it was common practice to record misdemeanor trials (or hearings) at that time and place? I don't think it was.

Then you think wrong and again expose a simple ignorance at best. At worst, and more likely: you have been drinking from the same pool of LDS disinformation that Vlad has imbibed. I have already answered this. OF COURSE it was common practice to record ALL trials and even pre-trial hearings, Fig. The courthouses that have a history dating back to the 19th century are still chalk FULL of examples, usually on microfilm.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Your predictable opinion does not support itself. You also continue to fail to refute the facts in evidence here.



Then you think wrong and again expose a simple ignorance at best. At worst, and more likely: you have been drinking from the same pool of LDS disinformation that Vlad has imbibed. I have already answered this. OF COURSE it was common practice to record ALL trials and even pre-trial hearings, Fig. The courthouses that have a history dating back to the 19th century are still chalk FULL of examples, usually on microfilm.

-BH

.

I don't think you can say for sure that misdemeanor trials WERE actually recorded in the state of New York during the early 19th Century.

I'll try to find out, though for the benefit of us both.

[BrianH]

I don't think you can say for sure that misdemeanor trials WERE actually recorded in the state of New York during the early 19th Century.

Sure I can.

It may be that there were SOME misdemenor trials that were not recorded but that would have been in violation of normative legal practices of England (from whom U.S. legal practice was derived) dating to AT LEAST the late middle ages.

Fig ...courthouses all over New England continue to maintain court records including trials, hearings, land and property purhcases and disputes, custody battles, and all other legal matters. Just as it is today, it WAS normative legal practice to record court proceedings of all kinds. In fact, it is largely through these very court records that Mormons pursue their obsession with geneology even today.

-BH

.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Sure I can.

It may be that there were SOME misdemenor trials that were not recorded but that would have been in violation of normative legal practices of England (from whom U.S. legal practice was derived) dating to AT LEAST the late middle ages.

Fig ...courthouses all over New England continue to maintain court records including trials, hearings, land and property purhcases and disputes, custody battles, and all other legal matters. Just as it is today, it WAS normative legal practice to record court proceedings of all kinds. In fact, it is largely through these very court records that Mormons pursue their obsession with geneology even today.

-BH



And if you are wrong? If it is indeed the case that misdemeanor trial records were not kept in the State of New York in the early 19th Century, will you admit it?

Will you admit that if this so-called 'trial' is NOT on record with the State of New York, that there is something not right about your claims?

And shouldn't there be some witness signatures with this record?

[BrianH]

And if you are wrong? If it is indeed the case that misdemeanor trial records were not kept in the State of New York in the early 19th Century, will you admit it?
Of course.

Will YOU hold yourself to the same standard?


Will you admit that if this so-called 'trial' is NOT on record with the State of New York, that there is something not right about your claims?

LOL ...go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that there was NOT a trial of Smith in New York.

THEN will you answer my question? Regardless of his trial, was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not? (Hint: what did his own mother say about this?)

-BH

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Of course.

Will YOU hold yourself to the same standard?

Naturally. If it's the truth I have no reason to run from it.



LOL ...go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that there was NOT a trial of Smith in New York.

I'm just asking about the records. If there was a trial there should be records on file with the state of New York, correct? There should be nothing to explain or hide from on this.



THEN will you answer my question? Regardless of his trial, was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not? (Hint: what did his own mother say about this?)
-BH

No, he was not. And your vocabulary betrays your vitriolic bias, and your paradigm.

[BrianH]

Naturally. If it's the truth I have no reason to run from it.
Then why do you run from other truths?


I'm just asking about the records. If there was a trial there should be records on file with the state of New York, correct? There should be nothing to explain or hide from on this.

Who are you insinuating is hiding? The question was, did NY courts keep records of misdemeanors. The answer is: yes, they did (though you appear to doubt it). Were ALL of these records kept up until today? There is no way to know. But the normal process of ANY criminal trial in American courts -felony or misdemeanor- is to create such records. This has been true all the way back through English common law from which the US state and federal derive their basic practices.


BH>>THEN will you answer my question? Regardless of his trial, was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not? (Hint: what did his own mother say about this?)

F>No, he was not. And your vocabulary betrays your vitriolic bias, and your paradigm.

So then YOU "think" that Joseph Smith REALLY COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and little magic rock, right?

(And yes, I am vitriolic against a criminal, con artist and false prophet. My vitriol does not make him innocent.)

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Then why do you run from other truths?

Stop projecting.



Who are you insinuating is hiding? The question was, did NY courts keep records of misdemeanors. The answer is: yes, they did (though you appear to doubt it). Were ALL of these records kept up until today? There is no way to know. But the normal process of ANY criminal trial in American courts -felony or misdemeanor- is to create such records. This has been true all the way back through English common law from which the US state and federal derive their basic practices.

The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.



So then YOU "think" that Joseph Smith REALLY COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and little magic rock, right?

No. But I think he could find some buried treasure. In addition, I don't think he ever was able to retreive it.



(And yes, I am vitriolic against a criminal, con artist and false prophet. My vitriol does not make him innocent.)

-BH

.

Actually, considering your vitriol, I think it serves as a resounding endorsement of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

[BrianH]

Stop projecting.

You are the one running Fig. You cannot support your claims with anything but hot air and pretense.


The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.

Right. And the answer is: YES. This has been the normative practice since the days of English common law beginning hundreds of years before Joseph Smith was even born. Now it may indeed be that some trials were NOT recorded, not recorded properly or recorded but the record was lost. But the answer to the actual question is still: YES.


BH>>So then YOU "think" that Joseph Smith REALLY COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and little magic rock, right?

F>No.

Hold it right there. So you first say Smith was NOT a con man but you now say that he could NOT find magic treasure with his little pet rock and magic divining skills???

Fig ...the man CLAIMED he could find buried golden treasure using his magic powers. But YOU say he could not. How is it that you can pretend to think he was NOT a con man while at the same time denying that he had magic powers to find buried gold???


But I think he could find some buried treasure. In addition, I don't think he ever was able to retreive it

I see ...so then you think he "could" find buried treasure. Well whoop-de-do. I COULD" find buried treasure. That does not make me a magician. ANYONE "COULD" find buried treasure. Smith CLAIMED he had special occult powers to find buried treasure.


Actually, considering your vitriol, I think it serves as a resounding endorsement of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

Yes ...of course you do, Fiiiiiig. YOU "think" that EVERYTHING serves as a resounding endorsement of your "prophet". Sadly for you that little thing called "the FACTS" actually serve as PROOF that he was nothing but a phony grifter, a bunko con artist who pretended he had a magic rock in the hat he jammed over his face.

And THIS is the guy you have placed your faith in.

Pitiful gullibility.

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

BrianH,


The source of all that we know about Smith’s trial and conviction include the arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. These original sources are documented in the following publications:
“The History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania” by Emily C. Blackman (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873)

Apr. 9, 1831 – Dr. A W. Benton’s letter published in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate

Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery’s account in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate

An 1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)

Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (Neely’s niece)

Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)

1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)


Seeing as BrianH continues to post in this thread, i figured I'd pipe up and remind him that he has yet to substantiate his claim that the record he quoted was anything more than a copy produced to criticize Mormons. He said it was the actual court record.

I know he wants me to answer whether I think JS was a con-artist but that is mere deflection, seeing as he has yet to produce the evidence for this claims. psssttt. none of your sources give evidence supporting your claim.

love,
stem

[Richard]

No. Nothing has changed. I have shown you evidence of his CONVICTION in a court of law AS a "con artist". You have just done the Mormon thing and failed to comprehend the CONTEXT and are doing the Mormon thing - playing childish word games. You went off topic and immediately told me to get ON topic. The topic here is Smith's first conviction for what today we call fraud (aka: bunkao, swindler, con man, grifter, etc.)

You say that Smith was NOT a con man. Therefore we must conclude that you think he really COULD find moving golden treasures under ground with his little magic rock. Now ...can you show us the evidence that convinced you he really DID possess this occult divination power?

-BH

.

Excuse me Brian, but you did not even come close to showing a conviction, as I proved with legitimate evidence. If you can't do any better, then I suggest you give up on the plagiarized talking points and ideas, and get some new source materials. Your choice or just keep on embarr***ing yourself as you continue to do every-time you post, your always good for a laugh.

Richard.

[Richard]

Stop projecting.
The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.



Quote:
Conclusion

It wasn't a trial, it was an examination
Likely initiated from religious concern.
Seven witnesses.
Editing of witness testimonies.
Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight
We can accept Joseph in his culture and time.
What we can obtain from the conclusions are first of all that it wasn't a trial, it was an examination. It was likely initiated not so much from a concern about him being a money digger, as it was that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt that relationship if possible. It is likely that there were seven witnesses. It is also probable there was some editing of the witnesses' testimonies. All witnesses however, testified that Joseph did possess a gift, though there is some variation about how strong that gift was. The key issue is that we can accept Joseph Smith. When we put him in this early 19th century culture, he is consistent with that environment. We can accept that what he did was part of that culture, his age and experience, and it doesn't have any impact or discredit that fact that he was a prophet of God. by Russell Anderson.




The critical section has the following: Judge Neely Bill

Same [meaning People] vs Joseph Smith the Gl*** Looker
March 20, 1826 Misdemeanor For my fees in examination of above cause $2.68

[QUOTE]Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
No witness signatures--they were required in an official record
It appears to be a pretrial hearing
Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You are the one running Fig. You cannot support your claims with anything but hot air and pretense.



Right. And the answer is: YES. This has been the normative practice since the days of English common law beginning hundreds of years before Joseph Smith was even born. Now it may indeed be that some trials were NOT recorded, not recorded properly or recorded but the record was lost. But the answer to the actual question is still: YES.

I'm glad to have you on record as saying that there will be court records on file with the State of New York regarding the 1826 misdemeanor trial (or hearing) of Joseph Smith.




Hold it right there.

So you first say Smith was NOT a con man

correct.



but you now say that he could NOT find magic treasure with his little pet rock and magic divining skills???

Didn't say that.



Fig ...the man CLAIMED he could find buried golden treasure using his magic powers. But YOU say he could not.

Never said that.


How is it that you can pretend to think he was NOT a con man while at the same time denying that he had magic powers to find buried gold???

I believe there are things such as seer stones, and they are real.




I see ...so then you think he "could" find buried treasure. Well whoop-de-do. I COULD" find buried treasure.

Show me.


Yes ...of course you do, Fiiiiiig. YOU "think" that EVERYTHING serves as a resounding endorsement of your "prophet". Sadly for you that little thing called "the FACTS" actually serve as PROOF that he was nothing but a phony grifter, a bunko con artist who pretended he had a magic rock in the hat he jammed over his face.

And THIS is the guy you have placed your faith in.

Pitiful gullibility.

-BH

.

Brian, stop taking yourself so seriously. Goodness knows none of us take you seriously.

[Richard]

Brian, stop taking yourself so seriously. Goodness knows none of us take you seriously.[/QUOTE]

That's a understatement. :rolleyes:

[Vlad III]

Brian, stop taking yourself so seriously. Goodness knows none of us take you seriously.

It's like with PaulD and JohnT....

These guys start attacking the church and then carry over their attacks on the members of the church if we don't answer to all their claims (most of which have usually been answered by others many times before). They get so upset that you can almost envision the anger in their faces as they type. They take themselves way more serious than we take them, and I think it might be bad for their blood pressures! :p

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

It's like with PaulD and JohnT....

These guys start attacking the church and then carry over their attacks on the members of the church if we don't answer to all their claims (most of which have usually been answered by others many times before). They get so upset that you can almost envision the anger in their faces as they type. They take themselves way more serious than we take them, and I think it might be bad for their blood pressures! :p

He keeps telling me I need sleep, but it's pretty apparent that he's projecting himself onto me.
Just look at the loss of composure.

[stemelbow]

Okay Brianh,

Since you were unable to support your claim that JS was convicted and would rather get us to buy into the idea that he told others he could by mystical means find lost treasure, how about you support that claim with his words. Show us where JS ever claimed such? Show us an authenic account of when JS said he had the magic power to find lost treasure.

I'm certain you can refer to the copied unauthenticated words of those we already know didn't like him to suggest such. Or you could try and convince us that being a gl*** looker meant he told others he could find treasure in magical ways.

It doesn't matter to me if he tried to convince people that he could find lost treasure when he was a teenager. Finding it, searching for it is much different then your claim.

This'll be fun.

love,
stem

[Jill]

Brian:

Your distaste for the Lord’s Prophet Joseph is shown clearly in this complete and utter nonsense.

The only charge that can be accurately documented is that of “disorder”.

Joseph was 21 years of age when this occurred, what could you have been accused of at 21 years of age Brian.

Should we do a search to find out? :D

Novato

Brian's behavior is not the question, here, Novato. It is Joseph Smith Jr.'s behavior that is being discussed. Stay on topic, please.

As to Joseph Smith's legal problems, historically, the following trial transcript that resulted in the conviction of Smith as "a disorderly person and imposter" reveals quite a bit about Joseph Smith's character. The excuse that he was only 21 years old is ridiculous since the law of our society states that at 21, you are an adult and responsible for your actions.


Fraser's Magazine, February, 1873, vol. VII, p. 229-230.

--------------------

State of New York v. Joseph Smith.

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.

Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of 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 had informed him where he could find these 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 had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had 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 of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making 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 in 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 did 'possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p— [word unfinished] 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 had said 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 said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the 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 outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head 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.

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

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover 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 coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, 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 on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time 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 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 when digging, that notwithstanding 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. That as evidence of the 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 the disposition of the money:

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.

[nrajeff]

So then YOU "think" that Joseph Smith REALLY COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and little magic rock, right?

---Why shouldn't we think it? After all, if I am reading correctly, 100% of the witnesses who were called to testify at the "trial" stated that they believed Smith had this "gift of God." And you accept the trial proceedings as accurate, right? :D

Which brings up another question: If all the witnesses stated that they believed Smith had the ability to find stuff, then upon what basis--what EVIDENCE--was Smith found GUILTY of NOT having the ability?

[Jill]

---Why shouldn't we think it? After all, if I am reading correctly, 100% of the witnesses who were called to testify at the "trial" stated that they believed Smith had this "gift of God." And you accept the trial proceedings as accurate, right? :D

Which brings up another question: If all the witnesses stated that they believed Smith had the ability to find stuff, then upon what basis--what EVIDENCE--was Smith found GUILTY of NOT having the ability?

nrajeff,

Are you seriously thinking this type of strange behavior shouldn't be weighed in the balance when a man later claims to be a "prophet" of God? :rolleyes:

Smith was convicted of fraud--of being "an imposter". Think about it. He was convicted of misleading people . . . this is not a man I could rely on for my eternal salvation.

[Richard]

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.[/QUOTE]

Jill could you please produce the source of the above court decision.
This is not what I have seen or ever run across, the Billing by Judge Neely reads only misdemeanor for my fees in examination.

The critical section has the following: Judge Neely Bill

Same [meaning People] vs Joseph Smith the Gl*** Looker
March 20, 1826 Misdemeanor For my fees in examination of above cause $2.68

[nrajeff]

nrajeff,
Hi Jill, and thanks for responding.

Are you seriously thinking this type of strange behavior shouldn't be weighed in the balance when a man later claims to be a "prophet" of God? :rolleyes:
---I am not saying it shouldn't be considered, I am questioning the validity or accuracy of the actual accusation. In other words, we need to first prove that the accusation is accurate BEFORE we can start weighing how much it lowers the chances that the man in question was a man of God. But suppose a man the BIBLE implies was a man of God, had a history of using "folk magic"--what should we conclude about the man, based on his history?


Smith was convicted of fraud--of being "an imposter". Think about it. He was convicted of misleading people . . . this is not a man I could rely on for my eternal salvation.
---Convicted of being a FAKE folk-magic prac***ioner? Is that really WORSE than being an ACTUAL prac***ioner of "black magic"? :eek: Anyway, the point is that it has not been conclusively proven that Smith was convicted. And it has not been established whether the conviction--if there really WAS one--was a conviction of fraudulent appropriation of money, or of dabbling in the black arts.

[BrianH]

Seeing as BrianH continues to post in this thread, i figured I'd pipe up and remind him that he has yet to substantiate his claim that the record he quoted was anything more than a copy produced to criticize Mormons. He said it was the actual court record.

I would have thought that it was obvious that the events of Smith's first fraud trial and conviction as represented the records I documented "criticizes" Joseph Smith and by extention anyone who thinks Smith was an honest man and a true prophet.


I know he wants me to answer whether I think JS was a con-artist but that is mere deflection, seeing as he has yet to produce the evidence for this claims. psssttt. none of your sources give evidence supporting your claim.

You are the one doing the deflecting here Stem. The ISSUE here is Smith's rather well-documented behaviors which were obviously at least FRAUDULENT and at most illegal. I cannot possibly be "defelecting" from that topic by asking you to make your position clear on that topic. So your desperate accusation is, as most of your ranting here, totally bogus. And it is quite telling that you refuse to make your view on this matter clear but instead choose to try to obscure your lack of clarity behind just more empty accusations.

Secondly, you really need to learn to read if you think my citations do NOT support my claims.

The question is a simple one, Stem: Did Smith claim to have a magic rock in his hat by which he, using magical occult powers, could locate buried golden treasures?

The FACTS show that he DID. Refute the FACTs and you will have the beginning of an actual argument. Fail to refute the FACTS and you will have to attack my reasoning FROM those facts.

Do your best.

Let the TRUTH come out.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Where's Brian? I'd like to seem him address this.

Critics just take it on face value that whatever they read in the against-Mormonism tabloids is true. I guess it's because they have no reason to doubt it, as long as it bashes Joseph Smith.


Okay Brianh,

Since you were unable to support your claim that JS was convicted and would rather get us to buy into the idea that he told others he could by mystical means find lost treasure, how about you support that claim with his words. Show us where JS ever claimed such? Show us an authenic account of when JS said he had the magic power to find lost treasure.

I'm certain you can refer to the copied unauthenticated words of those we already know didn't like him to suggest such. Or you could try and convince us that being a gl*** looker meant he told others he could find treasure in magical ways.

It doesn't matter to me if he tried to convince people that he could find lost treasure when he was a teenager. Finding it, searching for it is much different then your claim.

This'll be fun.

love,
stem

[BrianH]

I'm glad to have you on record as saying that there will be court records on file with the State of New York regarding the 1826 misdemeanor trial (or hearing) of Joseph Smith.

But I didn't say that. Learn to read and you will save yourself from the embarr***ment you are about to experience.

Now ...you say that Smith was NOT a con man. But you do not belive he really COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and pet rock. So how do you explain this contradiction, Fig?



Show me.

Why? Are you not aware that people find treasures all the time?

Brian, stop taking yourself so seriously. Goodness knows none of us take you seriously.

You have yet to provide me with any actual REASON to take your claims seriously. All you do is expose your wounded ego with adolescent word games. Nothing TO take seriously, really.

-BH

,

[BrianH]

---Why shouldn't we think it? After all, if I am reading correctly, 100% of the witnesses who were called to testify at the "trial" stated that they believed Smith had this "gift of God." And you accept the trial proceedings as accurate, right?


Sure ...actually I WANT you to try your BEST to believe it. It only helps me show how irrational and gullible one must be to be a Mormon.


If all the witnesses stated that they believed Smith had the ability to find stuff, then upon what basis--what EVIDENCE--was Smith found GUILTY of NOT having the ability?

Do I REALLY have to explain this to you Jeff????

Did you read about Smith actually FINDING any buried golden treasure with his magic powers and pet rock?

yes...?
no....?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I showed the court record of a conviction. You did not show ANY "evidence" legitimate or otherwise. YOU are the one doing ALL of the plagiarizing, Richard. All you do is mindlessly copy and paste the predictable opinions of those who prepare the standard-issue boilerplate responses for the "faithful" without even bothering to credit your obviously biased sources.

Why do you supposed it is you cannot commit to a judgment as to whether or not your "prophet" was out swindling people with his little magic rock trick? Could it be that you are at least honest enough to recognize that this is a FACT but cannot allow yourself to admit it?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

But I didn't say that. Learn to read and you will save yourself from the embarr***ment you are about to experience.

LOL!

Brian backs down and tries to become sneaky now. All because he's done some more reading, apparently.



Now ...you say that Smith was NOT a con man. But you do not belive he really COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and pet rock. So how do you explain this contradiction, Fig?

No, I didn't say that. Learn to read.


Secondly, who did he con? Where does Josiah claim he was defrauded?
Thirdly, where is Joseph's sworn statement that he could even find treasure?




You have yet to provide me with any actual REASON to take your claims seriously. All you do is expose your wounded ego with adolescent word games. Nothing TO take seriously, really.

-BH

,

More bashing and condescension, I see. Just more evidence of bad fruit coming from your direction.

[BrianH]

LOL!

Brian backs down and tries to become sneaky now. All because he's done some more reading, apparently.

Nothing sneaky at all Fig. You are attributing to me something I never said, or even implied. If anything YOU are the sneaky one.


BH>>Now ...you say that Smith was NOT a con man. But you do not belive he really COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and pet rock. So how do you explain this contradiction, Fig?

F>No, I didn't say that. Learn to read.

You DID say that. Just make yourself clear, Fig - that's all I am asking. Quite trying to hide behind silly equivocations and lame word games. Smith claimed to be able to find buried golden treasures with his occult divination powers and magic rock. YOU say he was NOT a con man. But you ALSO say that he COULD find treasure. You cannot have it both ways, unless of course you are trying to weakly insinuate that he could "find treasure" by the natural means of simply following the evidence and actually looking for it. But if that is the case, you have not addressed his CALIMS to have a magic rock and supernatural occult powers. So ...which is it, Fig. Just make your position clear.


Secondly, who did he con? Where does Josiah claim he was defrauded?

Josiah actually BELIEVED Smith's claims to have a magic rock and occult powers (hey ...just like YOU!). It was Josiah's FAMILY that claimed he was defrauded.


More bashing and condescension, I see. Just more evidence of bad fruit coming from your direction.

What I am "bashing" is your deliberate worming around to avoid the facts.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Nothing sneaky at all Fig. You are attributing to me something I never said, or even implied. If anything YOU are the sneaky one.


Let's look at this. Do you expect to find a complete record of the 1826 misdemeanor trial of Joseph Smith on file with the State of New York Court records? Yes or No?



You DID say that. Just make yourself clear, Fig - that's all I am asking. Quite trying to hide behind silly equivocations and lame word games. Smith claimed to be able to find buried golden treasures with his occult divination powers and magic rock. YOU say he was NOT a con man. But you ALSO say that he COULD find treasure. You cannot have it both ways, unless of course you are trying to weakly insinuate that he could "find treasure" by the natural means of simply following the evidence and actually looking for it. But if that is the case, you have not addressed his CALIMS to have a magic rock and supernatural occult powers. So ...which is it, Fig. Just make your position clear.

Line item veto. I believe Joseph was able to find treasure. I don't think he was ever able to retreive it--because he was not meant to, and he needed to learn this. I veto all the other swill you add in your vitriolic statements.

He had a seer stone if that is what you are asking. Yes.

[QUOTE=BrianH;20394]
Josiah actually BELIEVED Smith's claims to have a magic rock and occult powers (hey ...just like YOU!). It was Josiah's FAMILY that claimed he was defrauded.[/quiote]

Did Josiah himself claim this?

[BrianH]

Let's look at this. Do you expect to find a complete record of the 1826 misdemeanor trial of Joseph Smith on file with the State of New York Court records? Yes or No?

Your original question was whether or not the state created and/or maintained misdemeanor trial records. The answer is YES, they did. I do not think that we can expect ALL of those records to be available and therefore it is possible to likely that the record of Smiths' trial in New York is no longer available.


Line item veto. I believe Joseph was able to find treasure. I don't think he was ever able to retreive it--because he was not meant to, and he needed to learn this. I veto all the other swill you add in your vitriolic statements.

He had a seer stone if that is what you are asking. Yes.

So then you DO think that he DID possess a magic rock that permitted him to find buried golden treasure using his occult divination skills. Do you believe that God was moving the found treasures underground to prohibit him from retrieving them?


Did Josiah himself claim this?
Nope. Did Smith ever retrieve the treasure he told Josiah he was able to find with his magic rock?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Your original question was whether or not the state created and/or maintained misdemeanor trial records. The answer is YES, they did. I do not think that we can expect ALL of those records to be available and therefore it is possible to likely that the record of Smiths' trial in New York is no longer available.

Brian backs down. Good. Now, the next question would be:

Would you expect the State of New York to have a majority of misdemeanor trial records from 1826 on file with other court documents?

Yes or No?



So then you DO think that he DID possess a magic rock that permitted him to find buried golden treasure using his occult divination skills. Do you believe that God was moving the found treasures underground to prohibit him from retrieving them?

No.

I think he had a seer stone, which he did not understand it's correct use at firs--which was to be used in the Lord's service and not his own.



Nope. Did Smith ever retrieve the treasure he told Josiah he was able to find with his magic rock?

-BH

.

So Josiah never claimed to be cheated or defrauded. Right.

Did Joseph ever tell Josiah that he could do this? Is this ever mentioned in a SWORN statement coming from Joseph himself?

[BrianH]

BH>>Your original question was whether or not the state created and/or maintained misdemeanor trial records. The answer is YES, they did. I do not think that we can expect ALL of those records to be available and therefore it is possible to likely that the record of Smiths' trial in New York is no longer available.

F>Brian backs down. Good.

Backed down...? From what? YOU asked if misdemeanor trial records were kept in Smith's day. I said they were. NOW you have changed the question to whether or not SMITH's trial records have been kept. I am saying they might or might not be. But not ALL records kept in a court are kept forever despite the best efforts of the clerks. SOME records are actually lost or destroyed. This is not "backing down"; I have not changed a thing. My answer is exactly what it has always been. YOU are obviously so desperate for some kind of rhetorical kudos to asuage your obviously damaged ego that you are forced to pretend that you did not change the question.

Your behavior is pitiful and dishonest.


Now, the next question would be:

Would you expect the State of New York to have a majority of misdemeanor trial records from 1826 on file with other court documents?

Yes or No?

Asked and answered. Go back and read the text you ignored in your desperate effort to procliam my surrender.


BH>>So then you DO think that he DID possess a magic rock that permitted him to find buried golden treasure using his occult divination skills. Do you believe that God was moving the found treasures underground to prohibit him from retrieving them?

F>No.

I think he had a seer stone, which he did not understand it's correct use at firs--which was to be used in the Lord's service and not his own.

So did he or did he NOT have the occult divination skills to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasures as he claimed?

Its a REAL simple question Fig. Why all the dodgy hedging and slippery-slimyness?


So Josiah never claimed to be cheated or defrauded. Right.
The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.


Did Joseph ever tell Josiah that he could do this?
Yes. And YOU are on record as saying that you believe he could. So what's the problem, Fig?


Is this ever mentioned in a SWORN statement coming from Joseph himself?
It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

Hi Jill,

I would request of you the same I have of BrianH. You claim this is the trial transcript but do you have any evidence to suggest this is the authentic transcript? All signs point to no, but its apparent you and BrianH say it is. Can you support the allegation of this being the authentic court transcript? What source did you use to quote the above?

as such we'd have to fairly judge whether he was actually convicted as inconclusive.

Oh and by the way, he was 20 at this time--not 21.

love,
stem

[stemelbow]

The question is a simple one, Stem: Did Smith claim to have a magic rock in his hat by which he, using magical occult powers, could locate buried golden treasures?

The FACTS show that he DID. Refute the FACTs and you will have the beginning of an actual argument. Fail to refute the FACTS and you will have to attack my reasoning FROM those facts.


it remains your burden of proof that your claim of this being the authentic court record be substantiated. All you did was quote what was found in the magazine. There is nothing to substantiate that this was an authentic record from the court. Please support your initial claim and stop deflecting.

love,
stem

[Richard]

it remains your burden of proof that your claim of this being the authentic court record be substantiated. All you did was quote what was found in the magazine. There is nothing to substantiate that this was an authentic record from the court. Please support your initial claim and stop deflecting.

love,
stem

:)Don't hold your breath, Brian is only as good as his last plagiarized talking point and ideas. If you ask for something not in his well used anti-mormonism book, he caves in and uses the useful but foolish tool of DEFLECTION. :o

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Backed down...? From what? YOU asked if misdemeanor trial records were kept in Smith's day. I said they were. NOW you have changed the question to whether or not SMITH's trial records have been kept. I am saying they might or might not be. But not ALL records kept in a court are kept forever despite the best efforts of the clerks. SOME records are actually lost or destroyed. This is not "backing down"; I have not changed a thing. My answer is exactly what it has always been. YOU are obviously so desperate for some kind of rhetorical kudos to asuage your obviously damaged ego that you are forced to pretend that you did not change the question.

I have no ego to damage. I'm simply a believer, and so I see from a different paradigm. I am not posturing himself by hurling venomous pejoratives.

Originally I asked this: The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.

And you answered this:
Right. And the answer is: YES. This has been the normative practice since the days of English common law beginning hundreds of years before Joseph Smith was even born. Now it may indeed be that some trials were NOT recorded, not recorded properly or recorded but the record was lost. But the answer to the actual question is still: YES.

So, you strongly implied that there should be some record of the J.S. trial with the state of New York.



Asked and answered. Go back and read the text you ignored in your desperate effort to procliam my surrender.

So you're holding firm on this one with a YES! O.K.



So did he or did he NOT have the occult divination skills to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasures as he claimed?

NO.

He had the gift to use this stone, but it was intended for a purpose that God had in store for him, and did not lead to any monetary gain for him.



The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

Smith was defrauding Smith? Huh?



Yes. And YOU are on record as saying that you believe he could. So what's the problem, Fig?

As the story goes, Joseph only started this venture at the request and insistence of Josiah, and after some time, Joseph finally persuaded him to stop.



It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

But never a sworn statement from Joseph? But I guess that's not important, as there is plenty of evidence that Joseph indeed had a seer stone, and did find things with it. So my question then is... under whose insistence did this money digging venture with Josiah Stowell take place? I think the evidence points to Josiah being the one who had this idea.

And why was it that those not damaged in any way, were the ones to lodge the complaint?

[Richard]

Brian states, "The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

Brian, Brian, Brian, where do you get your information from? If this is your own research as you claim, then your facts get in the way of the truth. So as to not be like you Brian, here is the source:


Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial:
New Evidence and New Difficulties1
by Marvin S. Hill2
BYU Studies Vol 12, Winter '72, p. 223-234


In the late winter of 1826, according to an early account, Peter Bridgeman, a nephew of the wife of Josiah Stowell, presented a written complaint against Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge, New York, which led to his arrest and trial as a "disorderly person." Since the time that Fawn Brodie in her biography of Joseph Smith accepted as authentic the account of the trial published in the Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1883), it has been a source of sharp conflict among the students of early Mormonism. Perhaps the primary reason for Mormon opposition to the record is the alleged admission it contains made by Joseph Smith that he had been searching for lost treasure by means of a stone





Blundering Brian continues with the absurd, "It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.


This is so much fun, :D


Nibley challenged the validity of the Schaaf-Herzog report primarily because the original document has never appeared, although it was said to have been taken to Utah by Emily Pearsall, the niece of Justice Albert Neely who supposedly tried the case. Nibley said we have only the testimony of Miss Pearsall that the record ever existed, and that came through Bishop Daniel S. Turtle of the Episcopal church in Salt Lake City, who published the Schaaf-Herzog report.

Here is some more truth Brian,


By examining the Pearsall, Purple, and Benton accounts, which he noted are contradictory,10 Nibley raised the question whether the charge of vagrancy indicated by Purple was plausible when the testimony itself shows that Joseph worked for Josiah Stowell at his request.11 Nibley also suggested the possibility that there might have been some confusion between a trial which did occur at Bainbridge in 1830 with one in 1826 that perhaps did not. Nibley argued that Benton probably made up the story of the 1826 trial, app***** some of the details from the 1830 affair and getting his ideas of Joseph's stone peeping from articles by Obediah Dogberry published in the Palmyra Reflector in that year.


Oliver Cowdery acknowledged in the LDS Messenger and Advocate in 1835 that, while Joseph Smith was in southern New York, some very officious person complained of him as a disorderly person and brought him before the authorities of the county; but there being no cause of action he was honorably acquitted.


Some additional difficulties now appear. Doubt still remains as to the authenticity of the testimonies published in Fraser's and by Purple, because the details of these vary. The bills found by Walters clarify some points but add to the confusion on others.

As already indicated, in Fraser's Peter Bridgeman is reported to have made the charges against Joseph. No reason is given. Dr. Purple, who claimed Justice Neely asked him to take notes at the trial, recalled in 1877 that it was the sons of Josiah Stowell who brought the allegations because they were afraid that Joseph's encouragement of their father's money digging was "depriving them of their anticipated patrimony." A. W. Benton said that it was "the public" who had Joseph arrested after becoming "wearied with the base imposition he was palming upon the credulity of the ********." Oliver Cowdery attributed the charges to an "officious person."


The bill of Justice Neely does not reveal what the charge was, only that Joseph was tried for a "misdemeanor." It is curious that in the other cases included on the bill specific charges such as "***ault and battery" and "pe*** larceny" [sic] are given. It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that in another document found by Walters, the 1830 bill of Justice of the Peace Joseph Chamberlain, who tried Joseph Smith in the 1830 trial, the charge is specifically stated--"a disorderly person."17 This fact, along with the vagueness of the charges in Neely's bill, necessitates the question being raised, did Fraser's, Benton, and Cowdery confuse the charges in 1826 with those in 1830? We have evidence that Benton and Cowdery were both involved in the 1830 affair,18 and they possibly could have confused the charges in the two trials. If so, of what was Joseph Smith accused in 1826? A "misdemeanor" might be many things, as the term simply designates a minor offense. Was the charge vagrancy, disorderliness, being an "impostor," or was it deliberately left vague because treasure hunting, as Joseph practiced it with Stowell, did not violate any specific New York law? It is generally known among historians that digging was common in western New York in this period. How many such persons were held accountable, and to what law? These are questions that need answering before any fair ***essment of the trial can be made.


Go to the reference I gave you Brian, there are some other things which might or might not interest you. I doubt you will look into any of this, since your agenda is one of denial and deflection.

[BrianH]

Brian, Brian, Brian, where do you get your information from?

I posted my sources. You should probably read them before you once again embarr*** yourself by asking questions I have already answered.

You obviously do not believe the evidence. So the question remains the same: Do YOU think that Smith was claiming he had a magic rock with which he could apply his occult divination skills to find buried treasure or not?

This is a VERY simple, question. Why are you continuing to run away from it?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

No he wasn't

Just keep chanting that mantra Fig. The pain of the truth will eventually fade out completely.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I have no ego to damage. I'm simply a believer, and so I see from a different paradigm. I am not posturing himself by hurling venomous pejoratives.

You DO have an ego and you are a victim of a ****** hoax.


Originally I asked this: The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.

And you answered this:
Right. And the answer is: YES. This has been the normative practice since the days of English common law beginning hundreds of years before Joseph Smith was even born. Now it may indeed be that some trials were NOT recorded, not recorded properly or recorded but the record was lost. But the answer to the actual question is still: YES.

So, you strongly implied that there should be some record of the J.S. trial with the state of New York

You are demonstrating the reading comprehension disorder that is so prevalent among Mormons. No ...I did not imply anything of the kind, YOU are reading things into the text (eisogesis) that are not there.

The courts kept records at the time of Joseph Smith's trial, I have already EXPLICITLY pointed out that this does not mean that any one record survives to this day. Go back and actually R E A D the word, Fig.


BH>>Asked and answered. Go back and read the text you ignored in your desperate effort to procliam my surrender.

F>So you're holding firm on this one with a YES! O.K.

I will repeat it AGAIN, since the Mormon is having so much trouble grasping the simple truth here: In 1826, it was NORMAL for any court to keep records of all criminal trials. This does not mean that any ONE trial remains in any archive. Can you at least TRY to understand what SHOULD have been obvious right from the start, or are you content to embarr*** yourself with more demonstrations of your difficulties with comprehending basic facts?



BH>>So did he or did he NOT have the occult divination skills to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasures as he claimed?

F>NO.

He had the gift to use this stone, but it was intended for a purpose that God had in store for him, and did not lead to any monetary gain for him.

But he CLAIMED to be able to use this stone to find buried Spanish gold, Fig. Was he telling the truth or not? If you say he WAS telling the truth, then you admit that he really did have his little occult magic powers. If you say he was NOT telling the truth, then you are admitting that he was a l ying con artist. You cannot have it both ways, dude.


BH>>The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

F>Smith was defrauding Smith? Huh?

Sorry ...The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Josiah.


BH>>Yes. And YOU are on record as saying that you believe he could. So what's the problem, Fig?

F>As the story goes, Joseph only started this venture at the request and insistence of Josiah, and after some time, Joseph finally persuaded him to stop.

oh my.

So NOW the Mormon story is that it was the VICTIM who actually perpetrated his own defrauding and the con man is the one who actually tried to get the VICTIM to stop... What an ASTONISHING display of duplicity, ignorance and hopelessly lame excuse-making. This one goes in my permanent collection. Thanks.

BTW ...tell us Fig, was it Josiah who also told Smith to take his little magic rock and use it to translate your so-called "scriptures"?



BH>>It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

F>But never a sworn statement from Joseph?

Why would Joseph Smith swear out a statement against himself???


But I guess that's not important, as there is plenty of evidence that Joseph indeed had a seer stone, and did find things with it.

uh huh ...Please SHOW ME this "evidence".


So my question then is... under whose insistence did this money digging venture with Josiah Stowell take place? I think the evidence points to Josiah being the one who had this idea.

Yes ...of course that is what you "think", Fig. EVEN IF we had a sworn confession from Joseph Smith witnessed and signed by 50 judges YOU would "think" (actually "fantasize") whatever you could dream up to exonerate him, and you know it.

A moment ago you said that it was SMITH who started the venture, and Josiah who continued his own victimization. NOW you say it was Josiah who had the idea.

The desperation in your excuse-making is revealing the duplicity at the heart of your apologetic.

Show me the EVIDENCE that YOU say shows that Josiah is the one who somehow made Joseph Smith start pretending to have a magic rock in the hat jammed over his face.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Since you were unable to support your claim that JS was convicted

HOLD IT, right there slick ...I posted the evidence that shows Smith was convicted of both THIS fraud and his bank fraud. I have therefore provided the support from the very beginning of each thread, yet all you Mormons can do is keep asking for it.


and would rather get us to buy into the idea that he told others he could by mystical means find lost treasure, how about you support that claim with his words. Show us where JS ever claimed such? Show us an authenic account of when JS said he had the magic power to find lost treasure.

Fallacy: Argument from silence. I HAVE already shown it in the words of his accusers ...the ones who won the court case against Smith.

So the only remaining question, is do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had. (Fig says that he did). Now ...let me make sure that you understand the problem you face here: If you say he DID possess the magic powers the court convicted him of fraudulently claiming to have, then you have confirmed my ultimate point here because it is obvious that he did NOT. If you say he did NOT, you have also confirmed my point here, because you are agreeing with me that the man was a **** and that makes him an occult con artist.

See the problem you have here, Stem?


It doesn't matter to me if he tried to convince people that he could find lost treasure when he was a teenager. Finding it, searching for it is much different then your claim.
No of COURSE it does not matter TO YOU! That is the point. YOU are a MORMON and MORMONS are never bothered by such things as FACTS You guys all have your "burning bosoms" to help you determine what you are supposed to believe in order to keep your temple recommends and secret decoder rings. Why should little things like THE TRUTH bother you? You FEEEEEEEL real good about what you have been led to believe, and that is really ALL that matters to you.

Incredibly shallow.

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

HOLD IT, right there slick ...I posted the evidence that shows Smith was convicted of both THIS fraud and his bank fraud. I have therefore provided the support from the very beginning of each thread, yet all you Mormons can do is keep asking for it.

I see your evidence but its lacking in credibility. I think you misunderstood that as being my point. I am merely asking you for evidence that what you quoted was the actual court record. No one, with credibility, claims that...you and Jill have, but I can't find anyone else claiming such. Can you support your claim?


Fallacy: Argument from silence. I HAVE already shown it in the words of his accusers ...the ones who won the court case against Smith.

The very account you quote as your evidence, lacks credibilty, Brian. Do you not get that? Do you not ahve interest in verifying your sources? Or is it that once something fits your a priori ***umptions you latch onto it as "gospel truth"?


So the only remaining question, is do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had. (Fig says that he did).

Okay...here you go again...another claim. support your claim that Smith himself said he had these powers to find lost treasures aside from the BoM Plates of course.


Now ...let me make sure that you understand the problem you face here: If you say he DID possess the magic powers the court convicted him of fraudulently claiming to have, then you have confirmed my ultimate point here because it is obvious that he did NOT.

You have failed to make your case, though, Brian. Your reliance of the supposed copy of the court record is suspect. Thus, your evidence, while worth considering, is most likely not "proving" your case. There are still too many questions unanswered and too many things that don't add up.


If you say he did NOT, you have also confirmed my point here, because you are agreeing with me that the man was a **** and that makes him an occult con artist.

Brian, many people as teenagers could have done many things you or others don't approve of, but go on to do great things. So to label him an occult con artist, does not leave room for forgiveness on your part. And that's of course ***uming you've proved your case. You haven't. You have merely regurgitated other people's criticism which have been dealt with multiple times before.


See the problem you have here, Stem?

yeah...you aren't understanding the issue, even after having explained it to you many times already.


No of COURSE it does not matter TO YOU! That is the point. YOU are a MORMON and MORMONS are never bothered by such things as FACTS You guys all have your "burning bosoms" to help you determine what you are supposed to believe in order to keep your temple recommends and secret decoder rings. Why should little things like THE TRUTH bother you? You FEEEEEEEL real good about what you have been led to believe, and that is really ALL that matters to you.

Incredibly shallow.

-BH

.

Another adorable rant, Brianh. I hope you catch on...

love,
stem

[BrianH]

I see your evidence but its lacking in credibility. I am merely asking you for evidence that what you quoted was the actual court record. No one, with credibility, claims that...you and Jill have, but I can't find anyone else claiming such. Can you support your claim?

Oh C'mawn Stem, we both know that YOU would not grant any credibility to anything or anyone that shows your "prophet" was really just a two-bit occult con man. I have not personally gone to the court house and examined the record, if that is what you mean. But I DID document my sources. Apparently YOU cannot do that much.


The very account you quote as your evidence, lacks credibilty, Brian. Do you not get that?
Obviously YOU are a Mormon and will not grant credibility to ANYTHING outside of what your cult HQ tells you to believe. What's to "get"?


Do you not ahve interest in verifying your sources? Or is it that once something fits your a priori ***umptions you latch onto it as "gospel truth"?

To verify my sources to the degree that would overcome your predictable and obviously automatic, unthinking, blind, blanket rejection of any and all evidence I would have to go back and interview the participants in the trial (who are now all dead) and EVEN THEN you and I both know you would say that THEY lack credibility, because to acknolwedge their testimony you would have to begin to consider that they were actually telling the truth - something you CANNOT at any price afford to do. Stem ...YOUR personal, emotional, subjective and highly predictable reaction to the facts in evidence before us is insufficient as a refutation. What you need to do is actually REFUTE those facts. YOU are not in a position to simply announce by caveat that they lack credibility. We already KNEW well in advance that you would react this way. What you need to do is to REFUTE those facts, not just proclaim your personal opinion of them based on your conditioned emotional reactions.


BH>>So the only remaining question, is do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had. (Fig says that he did).

S>kay...here you go again...another claim. support your claim that Smith himself said he had these powers to find lost treasures aside from the BoM Plates of course.

Logical fallacy alert: Argument from silence (a Mormon favorite). I have already pointed out that Smith's accusers are the ones who attributed that claim to him. His conviction proves that the court found in their favor. The lame excuse that it was the VICTIM who perpetrated the fraud on himself is only further manifestation of the utterly pathetic condition of the LDS apologetic. The only remaining question (and the question you aer avoiding) is: do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had.


You have failed to make your case, though, Brian. Your reliance of the supposed copy of the court record is suspect. Thus, your evidence, while worth considering, is most likely not "proving" your case. There are still too many questions unanswered and too many things that don't add up.
YOU are not in a position to determine if I have made my case or not. YOU are my opponent here, Stem. YOU cannot be BOTH the batter and the Umpire. If you want to get on the playing field you will have to do more then announce your own calls.

OBVIOUSLY you will claim that every pitch is a ball. But YOUR opinion of YOUR opinion is hardly persuasive, nor is it even rational to think that it is. The documented evidence is there. The case is closed. Your "prophet" was judged guilty. Your responsibilty if you want to be taken seriously is to REFUTE the facts in evidence - don't just proclaim your a-priori opinion of them and then hold a pre-victory parade. That behavior is just ...embarr***ing.


Brian, many people as teenagers could have done many things you or others don't approve of, but go on to do great things. So to label him an occult con artist, does not leave room for forgiveness on your part.

1.) Smith did not just do things that others do not approve of. He was in the process of bilking some easily foold simpleton out of his rare cash by claiming to have a magic rock in his hat - the same trick he pulled when he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

2.) Despite your best effort to blame ME, my "forgiveness" is not the issue here. The issue here is the fact that your "prophet" was convicted TWICE for fraud, and this one time in particular for claiming to have the same kind of occult magic powers by which he supposedly "translated" your scriptures.



And that's of course ***uming you've proved your case. You haven't.
You are not in a position to make that call. Any and all interested parties who read this discussion will decide for themselves. YOUR highly-predictable opinion of my case is essentialy irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY YOU will claim I have not proved my case. But until you REFUTE my evidence, your predictable emotional reaction TO that evidence lacks any authority.


You have merely regurgitated other people's criticism which have been dealt with multiple times before.

I have indeed used actual sources for my facts. You have not. All you have done is post a predictable emotional reaction to my sources where you SHOULD have been refuting them with counter-facts.



yeah...you aren't understanding the issue, even after having explained it to you many times already.
I DO understand the issue. YOU are the one who seems to think that his own personal, conditioned, emotional reactions to the issue somehow amount to a total refutation of the facts in evidence.



Another adorable rant, Brianh. I hope you catch on...

As usual, the Mormon fails to do anything other than express his emotions and then drop the usual p***ive-aggressive insult like a festering animal droping on his way out.
You guys REAAAAALLY, DESPERATELY need to get some competent debaters in here, Stem. You just don't have what it takes.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Oh C'mawn Stem, we both know that YOU would not grant any credibility to anything or anyone that shows your "prophet" was really just a two-bit occult con man. I have not personally gone to the court house and examined the record, if that is what you mean. But I DID document my sources. Apparently YOU cannot do that much.


Actually you documented very little Brian, Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N. Y., Court Trials,

Does Walters have a agenda, Hmmm.

"As one who has had a long-time interest in the documents relating to the origins of the restored Church, I have had a personal acquaintance with both H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters for more than thirty years. I have known them as men who have literally spent their lifetime pursuing every avenue that might bring the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church under close scrutiny. They differ from many "armchair researchers" of the past and present who seek to examine the claims of Mormonism by working largely through the mails. Instead, Marquardt and Walters have taken to the field in an attempt to tramp out every inch of Mormonism geographically on the ground and in the public and private repositories where any vestige of related documents might be found. I have encountered them in person or their imprints in library after library and courthouse after courthouse over a multiyear period." Reinventing Mormonism: To Remake or Redo
Larry C. Porter




Obviously YOU are a Mormon and will not grant credibility to ANYTHING outside of what your cult HQ tells you to believe. What's to "get"?

And it gets even better and better, the gift that keeps on giving.


Marquardt and Walters express a desire for accuracy in detail, "however trivial it may seem." But surely this ought to apply to them as well as to early Mormons. The second part of the "Bibliographical Essay" in Inventing Mormonism is en***led, "2. The 1826 Examination" (pp. 222-30). In one section (pp. 222-23), they examine "Itemized Bills by Justice Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng," making mention of the respective bills being bound in bundles in 1826 and placed in storage. Then their text shifts from a nineteenth-century scene to a twentieth-century event and the declaration: "These and other bills relating to Joseph Smith's Bainbridge court hearings were removed by [Wesley P.] Walters and [Fred] Poffarl27 from the water-soaked box in which they were found and hand-carried to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and M****cript Library. They were received back by Chenango County in October 1971. Photographs are on file at the library of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia" (p. 223).

On the surface this description seems innocuous enough—two men removing documents from a water-soaked box and taking them to a m****cript library for examination and perhaps treatment, and then returning them to the county of origin. These appear to be the thoughtful acts of preservationists at work—seemingly with approval of the county, implied though not actually recorded. Now let's take a second look for the sake of "accuracy," and discuss some of the attendant circumstances. I had been microfilming materials related to Mormonism in the Guernsey Memorial Library and at the same time researching documents in the adjacent Chenango County Office Building in Norwich, New York. The county clerk, John P. McGuire, had allowed me access to the vault. I was looking for the very type of documents later found by Wesley P. Walters and Fred Poffarl, but I had no success. After I carefully checked the records in the vault, Mr. McGuire directed me to the cache of court records which had been placed in storage in the downstairs portion of the jailhouse. These documents had been placed under the immediate supervision of the sheriff, who had given the undersheriff the task of looking after them. Walters and Poffarl were not exaggerating; the documents themselves were water-logged and in water-soaked boxes. After two days of searching hundreds of documents, unfortunately at the wrong end of the room, I had to leave to keep some prior appointments. Shortly after I left, Walters and Poffarl called on Mr. McGuire and were granted the same privilege as I had been in examining the content of the vault. As they finished that project, a clerk in the county office building mentioned to them that Mr. Porter had been working under the jailhouse. On 28 July 1971 they investigated and were successful in locating the elusive bills and some other related records. Taking them from their packets, the men went to the Guernsey Memorial Library. One of the librarians, Charlotte Spicer, told me that they used the photocopy machine, but that it was of poor quality and they didn't like the results. Mrs. Spicer related to me that they then determined to take the court documents elsewhere. Seeing the nature of the papers she advised them to return the documents immediately. She said that "Mr. Walters responded by saying, `that if they were returned the Mormons would dispose of them.' " They then left, removing them from the community and the custody of the county clerk. Fred Poffarl carried them east to Yale. Walters later claimed that they removed the documents without permission because the sheriff and the county historian "were both unavailable at the time."28 At the instigation of Walters, some of the documents with accompanying commentary were published in August 1971 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in The Salt Lake City Messenger under the ***le, "New Find Undermines Mormonism," as an ongoing exposé of Joseph Smith.29


Well isn't this exciting, what more do we find out?


I was at that time doing continued research in the East. Richard L. Anderson alerted me to the Tanner treatise on Walters's find. Eager to see the records, I proceeded to Norwich to verify their content. There I met Mae L. Smith, Chenango County Historian, but she was unable to show me the original court documents. She had only photocopies in her possession since the actual bills had been taken away. Mae further informed me that Wesley P. Walters had photocopied the original documents in his possession, and then sent these copies to the editor of the Chenango Union in Norwich as verification of an accompanying article on Mormonism which he asked the newspaper to print. The editor had suspected something was awry and called the attention of Mae Smith to the photocopies. She recognized that court documents had been taken without authorization and, working with the county clerk, contacted Mr. Edwin M. Crumb, Clerk of the Chenango County Board of Supervisors. Mr. James H. Haynes, Jr., Chenango County Attorney, was next directed to write Wesley P. Walters. Mr. Haynes responded on 16 September 1971:

Dear Reverend Walters:

Our County Historian, Mrs. Mae Smith, has asked me to write you concerning certain papers that were taken by you from County records stored in the cellar of our local sheriff's office. I have letters about these records which you wrote Mrs. Smith dated August 21, 1971.

According to Mrs. Smith, these records were taken by you without her permission and she has written you requesting they be returned immediately.

Will you please contact Yale University immediately and ask that these papers be returned to Mrs. Smith, our County Historian, without any delay whatsoever.30

The documents were subsequently returned under duress. Obviously the records in that basement room were uncataloged, so there was no way of determining just how many documents had walked out the door. The observer can appreciate the justifiable dilemma of those who had the documents in their charge.

[Richard]

Hmmm, trustworthy and honest men, Walter is proving to be suspect.


Someone might say, "Well, they did preserve them by their action—what other option did they have?" Well, let me suggest some alternatives. The county clerk, Mr. John P. McGuire, was a very responsible man, besides being the lawful caretaker of the records. I had worked with him over an extended period of time in targeting certain items of historical value for microfilming by the Latter-day Saint Church genealogical microfilmer. If he had been alerted to the historical value of these documents I haven't the least doubt that he would have taken steps to see that they were removed from the basement and preserved in a safe place for further disposition. Other items of a historical value to the community were already in the vault. Too, Mae Smith, the Chenango County Historian, could have guaranteed their safety and made requisition to obtain possession of them, which was what ultimately happened.31 By taking them away, Walters and Poffarl committed the cardinal sin of possibly compromising their validity. Some felt they had tampered with the evidence during their disappearance. I personally believe that those documents that were returned are valid and intact. But, of course—and this is the problem—that cannot be proven.

Walters did give an extended explanation of the actions of himself and his friend in 1974, some time after the fact. He reported that he was in immediate contact with Mae Smith and others (a little over three weeks afterwards). His description would lead the reader to believe that everything was amicably smoothed over.32 However, I only know that I saw a bristling Mae Smith when I arrived in Norwich soon after the published report by Walters. She was not at all pleased with the methods of these two men in extracting official documents, a situation that had not changed a year later when I called at the Chenango County Historical Museum to see the elusive documents, which had since been returned. In the press to the fore historians cannot override their local counterparts. Something more was lost in that exchange than the momentary disappearance of records. That nonprofessional act created an air of suspicion in Chenango County officialdom where so much trust had been extended to generations of researchers before this mishap. In retrospect I can still hear the simple request of the county clerk, Mr. McGuire, to all comers, "When you take them out, just put them back where you found them." A few details for the sake of accuracy can provide a wider spectrum of understanding when limited information may have given us a somewhat slanted view of the actual incident.



So in conclusion Brian, your documented righteous source is clearly, Hmmm suspect.



The writers have compiled what appear to be "plausible" answers to some long-time trouble spots. This will have an appeal to those anxious for a resolution of certain difficult questions. Marquardt and Walters have crafted their attack on the early historical ins***ution of Mormonism with exceeding care and have written in a convincing style. Their approach will be disarming to readers who may not be able to discern the dividing line between fact and fiction.

The questions which they have raised have implications for readers that will demand the very best verifiable responses available. As their sources are further digested and critiqued the "winnowing" process will be more complete. Perhaps then the delineation of what is actual versus what might be cl***ified as the "Reinvention of Mormonism" can be further affixed.

[BrianH]

...and you accuse ME of plagiarism?



What we have here is MORE evidence of the Mormon's programmed knee-**** reaction: simply paste in plagiarized boilerplate from their mind-control masters at LD$ HQ.

Meanwhile your unidentified, plagiarized source commits the fallacy of the argument from silence. Just because McGuire did NOT provide ADDITIONAL documentation, does not mean that the original documentation is false.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Hey genius, how about I documented in the very first post the following:

"Reinventing Mormonism: To Remake or Redo"
Larry C. Porter

Did you even read beyond the ***le. Hmmm, gl***es maybe would help.
The only one I know who plagiarizes talking points and ideas is you good buddy.

[BrianH]

Okay your identified boilerplate source commits the fallacy of an argument from silence.

Either way, you still face the substantial problem of answering this question:

Do YOU think that Joseph Smith had a magic rock in the hat jammed over his face or not?

-BH

.

[Richard]

Okay your identified boilerplate source commits the fallacy of an argument from silence.

Either way, you still face the substantial problem of answering this question:

Do YOU think that Joseph Smith had a magic rock in the hat jammed over his face or not?

-BH

.

Thank you for the apology, :D

[BrianH]

Your welcome.

Thank you for living down to my expectations and ignoring the question. You continue to help me show the vacuity of Mormonism.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Your welcome.

Thank you for living down to my expectations and ignoring the question. You continue to help me show the vacuity of Mormonism.

-BH

.

Again, thank you for the laughs. I pretty much answered all the questions.
Not my problem any more, did you find anything in my answers that you specifically disagree with.

R. ;)

[BrianH]

I pretty much answered all the questions.

No you did not. The only question I asked you was: Do you or do you NOT think that Joseph Smith had a little pet magic rock in the hat jammed over his face?

(mod edit) you literally CANNOT answer that question without exposing the silly supers***ion that lies at the very heart of your entire religion.

But I doubt it.

-BH

.

[Richard]

No you did not. The only question I asked you was: Do you or do you NOT think that Joseph Smith had a little pet magic rock in the hat jammed over his face?

(mod edit) you literally CANNOT answer that question without exposing the silly supers***ion that lies at the very heart of your entire religion.

But I doubt it.

-BH

.

How about me giving you something you're a pro at, my own deflection. When you can start answering our re****als and being specific, I will gladly answer the above question, Hmmm, how about it good buddy.

[Richard]

Anything in my last re****al you disagree with?

R.

Anything in my re****als you disagree with? Your deflection is not going to allow me to me distracted from asking you why you can't be specific about what you disagree with in my re****als. I will answer your question only if you have the courtesy to quit deflecting and show what you disagree with in my re****al.

R.

[BrianH]

I made that clear.

Why can you not answer this simple question: Do you or do you NOT think that Joseph Smith had a magic rock in his hat with which he claimed to have access to the supernatural?

We both know the reason why you cannot answer that. But you won't face that reason head on: Cuz yer 'a-sceeerd of it.

-BH

[John T]

I have no ego to damage. I'm simply a believer, and so I see from a different paradigm. I am not posturing himself by hurling venomous pejoratives.

I am glad for that, fig, but it seems that some one else is doing it with snarky remarks and put downs...

[Richard]

Anything in my re****als you disagree with? Your deflection is not going to allow me to me distracted from asking you why you can't be specific about what you disagree with in my re****als. I will answer your question only if you have the courtesy to quit deflecting and show what you disagree with in my re****al. I posted three pages of re****als, and you failed to address anything in there that refutes everything your OP states. Hmmm, your silence is golden, further proof of your inability to debate beyond your plagiarized ideas, research, thoughts and talking points.

R.

[BrianH]

Anything in my re****als you disagree with?

I already answerd that question.

Why can you not answer my question? This is no "defelction" Richard; nor is it "silence". This is a DIRECT address to the issue here which IS the subject of Smith's claim to be able to use a magic rock to receive supernatural revelations about buried gold (whether Spanish treasure or the one golden copy of the one book supposedly produced by an entire civilization).

Did Smith have a magic rock in his hat or not?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

You don't seem to understand the basic issue here, Stem.

While we have documented sources regarding the trial and conviction of your "prophet", we could even ignore that record and arrive at the same TRUTH. Try to understand this instead of submitting to your conditioning and rejecting it without even actually THINKING about it: The charge was that Smith defruaded (the modern term) Josiah Stowell by CLAIMING to have a magic rock in his hat by which he could receive supernatural revelations concerning buried golden treasures. EVEN IF there was no conviction in court, the testimony of all relevant witnesses supports that claim. More importantly, your whole religion is based on Smith's claim that he DID posess this magic rock and the ability to use it. EVEN YOU YOURSELF believe that Smith really did have a magic rock in the hat jammed over his face.

Since YOU AGREE with Smith's claims AND the claims of Smith's accuers (that Smith made this claim - the claim that YOU beleive) and since YOU EVEN AGREE that Smith was telling the TRUTH, its difficult to understand why the opinion of any court would matter to you.

-BH

.

[Richard]

I already answerd that question.

Hmmm, after three pages of re****als, and well documented the following post was:

[QUOTE]Brian deflected with the following: "Do you deny that Joseph Smith was a gl***-looking money digger?"


Interesting that you need to ***, when the facts show plainly you never once responded to anything I posted, so again we see you have no clue to the word DEFLECTION.

[BrianH]

Interesting that you need to ***, when the facts show plainly you never once responded to anything I posted, so again we see you have no clue to the word DEFLECTION

I most certainly did respond and that is no l ie

The issue here REALLY IS the veracity of Smith's claim to have a magic rock by which he could use his supernatural powers to receive revelations about buried golden treasures. That is not a "deflection" Richard - it is the VERY HEART OF THE ISSUE of this thread.

So since you won't answer the key question here, I will do it for you: YOU obviously beleive that Smith DID have a magic rock by means of which he could receive revelations about buried golden treasures, even though you won't publicly admit it. But how could you even be a Mormon if you did NOT think that Smith had such a rock and alleged supernatural abilities?

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

Oh C'mawn Stem, we both know that YOU would not grant any credibility to anything or anyone that shows your "prophet" was really just a two-bit occult con man. I have not personally gone to the court house and examined the record, if that is what you mean. But I DID document my sources. Apparently YOU cannot do that much.

Your sources do not support your claim. And you haven't even tried to support such. this has nothing to do with me, Brian. it only has to do with your claims. I challenged them and you resorted to whining about me again. I know how you do things, but I just had to make that clear for anyone else interested.


Logical fallacy alert: Argument from silence (a Mormon favorite).

Oh brian. I am asking you to support your claim that Smith himself claimed he coudl find treasure for Stowell. You are th eone who said he claimed such. You did not say that his accusers said he claimed...you said what he himself claimed. Shall I quote you? That's not an argument from silence, that's merely asking for you to support your claim.


I have already pointed out that Smith's accusers are the ones who attributed that claim to him.

Then you also said Smith himself said he could find treasures through divination.


His conviction proves that the court found in their favor. The lame excuse that it was the VICTIM who perpetrated the fraud on himself is only further manifestation of the utterly pathetic condition of the LDS apologetic. The only remaining question (and the question you aer avoiding) is: do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had.

There ya go again...saying he claimed he had those powers. So support your claim. Or did you actually mean to say "that his accusers said he had"?


1.) Smith did not just do things that others do not approve of. He was in the process of bilking some easily foold simpleton out of his rare cash by claiming to have a magic rock in his hat - the same trick he pulled when he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

Okay...prove your claim. That he was bilking Stowell out of cash. Support your claim.


2.) Despite your best effort to blame ME, my "forgiveness" is not the issue here. The issue here is the fact that your "prophet" was convicted TWICE for fraud, and this one time in particular for claiming to have the same kind of occult magic powers by which he supposedly "translated" your scriptures.

Your quoted source has been shown to be suspect, Brian. did you read what Richard provided in response? So your claim of a fraud conviction is inconclusive and most of the evidence suggests there was no such conviction.

love,
stem

[BrianH]

Your sources do not support your claim. And you haven't even tried to support such. this has nothing to do with me, Brian. it only has to do with your claims. I challenged them and you resorted to whining about me again. I know how you do things, but I just had to make that clear for anyone else interested.

You are off in a world of your own, Stem. The FACTS show that Smith claimed to have a magic rock in his hat with which he could supernaturally divine the secret locations of buried golden treasure. Since you actually BELIEVE this claim of Smith's your objections to the evidence is moot.


Oh brian. I am asking you to support your claim that Smith himself claimed he coudl find treasure for Stowell. You are th eone who said he claimed such. You did not say that his accusers said he claimed...you said what he himself claimed. Shall I quote you? That's not an argument from silence, that's merely asking for you to support your claim.

And in the process, of this challenge you are committing the easily identified fallacy of arguing from silence: IGNORING all of the existing evidence while asking for evidence from a single source. Stem, TRY your best to actually THINK about this. Do you honestly think that Stowell told SMITH, that he (Smith) had a magic rock in his hat with which he could receive supernatural revelations about the location of golden treasures??? Please at least TRY to get real.


Then you also said Smith himself said he could find treasures through divination.
Had you bothered to read the court record in the OP you would have seen that when Smith was examined he himself testified that he could "determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were" and he further claimed that he had been stone-gazing and finding treasures and money for "three years." (see Charles Marshall, "The Original Prophet," Fraser's Magazine #7, February 1873 at p. 229); It is also rightly and easily inferred from Smith's behaviors and the behaviors and claims of his accusers and victims. Secondly, unless you can offer a better explanation of how Smith ended up BOTH, using his alleged magic rock in searching for golden treasures and was even hired by Stowell to do exactly that, your little game here will remain as transparent as it is now.


Okay...prove your claim. That he was bilking Stowell out of cash. Support your claim

I already have. Its in the OP that you apparently never even bothered to read. And I have been busy digging up even MORE evidence (in the form of testimonies from those intimate with Smith, such as his own wife as recorded in MORMON sources) that further support the fact that Smith was bilking people out of their meager frontier cash with his little magic rock trick. Some of my new finds are listed below. They come from a book called "Early Mormon Documents" by Dan Vogel. But before we review some of these I find it very odd that you are making such a stink about this since YOUR WHOLE RELIGION is based on revelations supposedly received by Smith using his magic rock in the hat trick. Your disputation of these fact is therefore extremely odd. Don't you WANT us to think that Smith REALLY DID have a magic rock in his hat? If you are actually disputing that, then what are we to make of the BoM witnesses, scribes and even Smith's own wife that clearly and unmistakably describe him using his little magic rock in the hat trick to "translate" the BoM????? Were the BoM witnesses L YING?

Perhaps you are just unaware of the testimonies of Smith's family, accomplices, and witnesses regarding his channeling of the BoM. Any way, in answer to your self-refuting questions See:

- Lucy Smith on Smith’s claimed facility with magic in, “Joseph the Prophet”, pp 89-99 and 91-92. Also see Emma Smitih letter to Mrs. Pilgrim, 27 March 1876, RLDS Library-Archievs. Also see Richard S. Van Wagoner and Stephen C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing” in the LDS journal Dialog, 15, #2 (Summer 1982), pp. 48-68.

Several other sources also report that Smith used his golden treasure seeking magic stone, not only to "translate" (actually channel) the BoM but also to find the buried golden BoM plates. Check out Martin Harris, Interview in Tiffany's Monthly 5 (August 1859): 163, 169, as cited in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 2:302, 309; and the Henry Harris, Statement, ca. 1833, also in Vogel 2:76.

Joseph's own mother, records that Stowell came to her son quote>>"on account of having heard that he [Smith] possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye."<<unquote (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, 91-92; also in Vogel's, Early Mormon Documents 1:309-10.)

In answer to your earlier question about how much money Smith was paid, according to SMith's later recollection, he was paid fourteen dollars a month for his services. See "Joseph Smith, Answers to Questions," Elders' Journal, 1 (July 1838): p. 43; in Vogel at 1:53.


Your quoted source has been shown to be suspect, Brian. did you read what Richard provided in response? So your claim of a fraud conviction is inconclusive and most of the evidence suggests there was no such conviction.

EVEN IF there was no conviction (which would have been due to this being a sort of "preliminary hearing", the evidence and the testimony of Smith's own family as recorded elsewhere shows that he DID pretend to have a magic rock in his hat. In fact, your whole religion is based on the use of that rock-in-the-hat trick. So your pretense to disputing this claim is really desperate.

Did Joseph Smith use his magic rock to "translate" the BoM or not, Stem? If so, then you have no real case here, since you have accepted and agree with Smith's accusers. If NOT, well ...where did Smith ever study "Reformed Egyptian" such that he could have "translated" the BoM WITHOUT his little pet rock?

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

BrianH,


Had you bothered to read the court record in the OP you would have seen that when Smith was examined he himself testified that he could "determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were" and he further claimed that he had been stone-gazing and finding treasures and money for "three years."

It wasn't your claim that another party said Smith claimed such, you claimed Smith himself did. Oh well, if you meant that another claimed Smith did, then whatever.

love,
stem

[alanmolstad]

Joseph Smith’s First of Two Fraud Convictions

On March 20, 1826, Joseph Smith, Jr. was brought before the local judge (Justice Neely) in Bainbridge, New York on the charge of being a “disorderly person”. The charge was a catch-all term of art for vagrants, con artists and other undesirables who’s alleged “crimes” were not specifically coded in numbered statutes. Many documents are coming to light that inform us of the truth and the details of this highly revealing event in the life of Joseph Smith. The source of all that we know about Smith’s trial and conviction include the arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. These original sources are documented in the following publications:

“The History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania” by Emily C. Blackman (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873)



Smith and his father, with several other "money-diggers" boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave the "money-diggers" great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of November, 1825; and one of the company gave me his note for $12[.]68 for his board, which is still unpaid.

The court record of Smith’s trial resulting in his first fraud conviction follows:

[INDENT]Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.

Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of 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 look 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 at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these 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 had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had 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 of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always 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 in 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 did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] 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 had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the 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 outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel’s, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man’s head 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.

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

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover 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.

Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time 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 hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner’s professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding 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. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.
Of this incident, Thomas Ferguson, founder of BYU Archaeology Dept. in recognizing Joseph Smith's fraud conviction said:

In 1826 Joseph Smith was 21 and at this point was midway between the first vision and 1830 {i.e. between his days as a money-digging con artist and the beginning of his career as a “prophet”}. What a strange time to be convicted of fraud – fraudulently getting money after convincing the victim that he could detect the whereabouts of hidden treasure on the victim’s land. Wow.... It is as genuine and sound as can be – published right in Joseph Smith’s own camp. (speaking to the author on March 13, 1971; and published in “Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters” by James Bovak, pp. 261-262)
A "strange time" indeed ...but only for those who cling to the notion that Joseph Smith was NOT an occult con artist. For those of us who recognize the fact that he clearly WAS an occult con artist, Smith, in going forward with his little magic rock to found the Mormon religion was simply living down to our expectations.

To this day, Mormons continue in Smith's tradition.

-BH

.

I have kinda a hard time keeping track of the events in the above account.

from what im reading, it was a rip-off of people by claiming to be able to look into a hat with a stone in it and seeing where money was buried, even though there was no money at all?

how did he get money for ripping people off like this?...

was he charging people to go dig up on their land?....I dont understand how pretending to be able to know where stuff was buried would pay off?

[alanmolstad]

I still dont understand how Smith was making money from his peeping?

[alanmolstad]

So Joe Smith would try to get paid money to look in his hat/stone on people's land....???

[alanmolstad]

Im still not very clear on what Joe Smith got caught doing?

I can guess from the wording of the historical account that Smith was running a scam where he would apporach a land owner and have a story about being able to find lost treasure on his land for a fee......

If this is correct?...then it is no wonder that Joe came up with the tall-tale about the Mormon Golden Plates!


The story of the Golden Plates would seem to me to be a clear extension of the basic scam he was running already.

[DannyBoyPoker]

By way of introduction, I'm a lapsed Mormon, but while we are getting along so well let me add that I'm not very religious at all. I think if I were the religious sort, I might well simply be Mormon as I was raised. So, shall we say that I am optimistic about offending everybody. ..

'EVEN IF there was no conviction (which would have been due to this being a sort of "preliminary hearing", the evidence and the testimony of Smith's own family as recorded elsewhere shows that he DID pretend to have a magic rock in his hat...'

To this I say, that he didn't PRETEND to have a magic rock in his hat, he DID have a magic rock in his hat. I mean, at the very least, he had a ROCK. In, you know, his HAT. But, you ask, was it MAGIC? This is the real sticky point, right?

I note this:
'Why can you not answer this simple question: Do you or do you NOT think that Joseph Smith had a magic rock in his hat with which he claimed to have access to the supernatural?'

Simple question. Absolutely I think Joseph Smith had a magic rock in his hat etc. But what is the question that you really want to ask, here? I take it to be whether Mormonism is a total fantasy, right?

'YOU obviously beleive that Smith DID have a magic rock by means of which he could receive revelations about buried golden treasures, even though you won't publicly admit it.'

Well, actually, speaking for myself, I think Smith's track record on receiving revelations about buried golden treasures appears to have been poor.

Also, there's a big biography of Joseph Smith ***led 'Rough Stone Rolling', here's an amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532

And, that book was written by a Mormon, so it's basically Mormon Apologetics, as far as its perspective goes. But also, the author is a Harvard PhD. So it's pretty scholarly. As I recall, Joseph Smith's early years including the idea of seer stones and treasure hunting, is generously discussed.

Here is my point:
-------------------
You may think that mental gymnastics would have to be required, for somebody to be Mormon and also not an idiot. But, I submit to you, that this isn't the battle you want to be fighting. I mean, the whole issue here is supposed to be that it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for somebody who is not AN IDIOT to take Mormonism seriously. And frankly, it is you (just, you here being whoever wants to waste time bashing Mormonism in this edifying fashion) who need to realize that you can't **** Mormonism away with the claim that it's so absurd that only idiots could possibly have any time at all for it. I know that you will find my at***ude breathtaking when I add, that people attack Christianity in similar terms. Saying that only idiots could possibly trouble themselves with, for starters, the idea of an afterlife, let alone that Jesus was resurrected like Lazurus. Or, for that matter, that Lazarus was resurrected. Ideas about whether Noah's flood happened, or the Tower of Babel, or really any of the miracle healings, and anything at all in the Bible about the ministering of angels or the idea of prophets, it's all supposedly absurd to the secular world. Don't blame the messenger, here. What I am saying is obviously true.

But this is how it sounds to a Mormon, when you try to har*** him about his being an idiot to believe in God and Jesus and miracles and all this nonsense that is just a fantasy. I know how it sounds, and also it's insulting, like telling somebody about their mother. Attacking a person's religion is likely to generate contentious angry dispute. Is this how Christians are supposed to spend their time? To me, this is the more interesting question. Not that I don't find early Mormon history interesting, --it's fascinating. Joseph Smith is an interesting figure, actually, warts and all, in my view. So is Brigham Young and company. These were not con artists, even if you think they must have been crazy or something. Which is kind of my view, in brief,..I think they seem to have been pretty nuts. But it's fascinating stuff -- more interesting than if they had just been con artists.

[DannyBoyPoker]

As a separate, briefer post, I'll mention my understanding of 'Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction'. There are, actually, no fraud convictions, so 'first fraud conviction' is especially cute. It appears that Joseph Smith's first fraud conviction is supposed to have been in 1826, when indeed Smith was arrested, as I understand. But he didn't give a sworn statement or enter a plea, or have a lawyer. There was no trial, this appears to have been a preliminary hearing and he was discharged. I could add that in only a few more years, Smith did have some trials, for being a disorderly person, and there are court records and all that jazz, his testimony, no dispute about what even the charges were or who filed them (as in the 1826 arrest). But, in these trials he was exonerated. Not that he got through his life without being arrested again, he especially spent one miserable winter in jail in Missouri, though charges were never brought. Actually all of the Mormon leaders had been arrested, and the order was given for them to be executed, but the officer refused to carry out the order, writing that he considered it an unlawful order and would not kill these men in cold blood so help me god etc. It's all very interesting stuff, lots of troubles, lots of excitement in early Mormon history. And of course Smith was killed, in jail, while again awaiting trial, and the charges were juicy stuff, treason and such.

Why then, do I read, here, about Smith's 'first fraud conviction'? Insisting on putting it that way is, to my eyes, the fraud.

[alanmolstad]

from what I see of the issue, Joe seems to be going around telling people that he has a gift to be able to find money on their land if they will pay for him to do that.....typical scam it would seem...

[RealFakeHair]

As a separate, briefer post, I'll mention my understanding of 'Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction'. There are, actually, no fraud convictions, so 'first fraud conviction' is especially cute. It appears that Joseph Smith's first fraud conviction is supposed to have been in 1826, when indeed Smith was arrested, as I understand. But he didn't give a sworn statement or enter a plea, or have a lawyer. There was no trial, this appears to have been a preliminary hearing and he was discharged. I could add that in only a few more years, Smith did have some trials, for being a disorderly person, and there are court records and all that jazz, his testimony, no dispute about what even the charges were or who filed them (as in the 1826 arrest). But, in these trials he was exonerated. Not that he got through his life without being arrested again, he especially spent one miserable winter in jail in Missouri, though charges were never brought. Actually all of the Mormon leaders had been arrested, and the order was given for them to be executed, but the officer refused to carry out the order, writing that he considered it an unlawful order and would not kill these men in cold blood so help me god etc. It's all very interesting stuff, lots of troubles, lots of excitement in early Mormon history. And of course Smith was killed, in jail, while again awaiting trial, and the charges were juicy stuff, treason and such.

Why then, do I read, here, about Smith's 'first fraud conviction'? Insisting on putting it that way is, to my eyes, the fraud.

Jack-mormons are welcomed here

[dberrie2000]

from what I see of the issue, Joe seems to be going around telling people that he has a gift to be able to find money on their land if they will pay for him to do that.....typical scam it would seem...

And where do we find Joseph asking for money in order to seek treasure?

[alanmolstad]

In the long statement on the court case I think I remember that the idea was that Joe would claim to be able to use his secret stones, or some type of gift or whatever to be able to find lost treasure on a person's land.....for a nice little fee thank you very much...LOL

When I first came in contact with the topics that had posted the long records of what Joe was charged with and stuff, i admit I too did not really want to go too deep into the reading as it was a challenge to understnad who was who....and what they were talking about.
I think I posted a few times asking for someone to "cut to the chase" and just tell me what it all was talking about?

What i learned kinda shows us where all of Mormonism came forth from....and why what later Joe would claim turns out to be simply an extension of what he had been up to for years before this.




But lets face it...Joe was just a conman, and that all he was doing was looking for a sucker who would buy his line of BS, and then take him for all he could get.
This is how we find that Joe came up with the whole "golden Plates" idea, and for the means he came up with for "translating said plates.


Now when Christians look at the lies of Joe, and his clear record of cheating people out of their money we tend to think "how in the world could Mormons today be so fooled by him?"
But the answer to that question is to keep in mind that "There is one born every minute"


People can be fooled by a con man because the con man's story tends to be what the person wished to hear, and wished to be true.

[dberrie2000]

In the long statement on the court case I think I remember that the idea was that Joe would claim to be able to use his secret stones, or some type of gift or whatever to be able to find lost treasure on a person's land.....for a nice little fee thank you very much...LOL

Where do we find that Joseph Smith ever advertized a charge to find treasure? Told anyone he could find treasure for money?