Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep. Spurious and ridiculous.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Libby

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.

[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

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

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

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

[BrianH]

No he wasn't

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

-BH

.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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 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