Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

[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.

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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!

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

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!

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

[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.

Originally Posted by 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

[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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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]

Originally Posted by 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

.

Thank you for the apology,

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

.

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]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

.