Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

[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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

[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

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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
.

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.

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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]

Originally Posted by 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

.

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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!

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Of course.

Will YOU hold yourself to the same standard?

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

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Then why do you run from other truths?

Stop projecting.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

Originally Posted by BrianH

(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

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Hold it right there.

So you first say Smith was NOT a con man

correct.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

Didn't say that.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

Never said that.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

Show me.

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.