Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 180

Thread: Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

  1. #26
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  2. #27
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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?

  3. #28
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    I can only THANK YOU for ONCE AGAIN actually PROVING the irrational nature of the Mormon "mind".


    -BH
    More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.

  4. #29
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE.
    More deliberate avoidance of the topic at hand.

    -BH

    .

  5. #30
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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.

  6. #31
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

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

  7. #32
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    That's an interesting question, Fig. I wouldn't say he was "not able".
    Me too. Why, do you suppose he was not able?

  8. #33
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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.

  9. #34
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    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

  10. #35
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  11. #36
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  12. #37
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  13. #38
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    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

  14. #39
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  15. #40
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    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

  16. #41
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-15-2009 at 07:18 PM.

  17. #42
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    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.

  18. #43
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

  19. #44
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

  20. #45
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  21. #46
    John T
    Guest

    Default Begging the Mormon's pardon, but...

    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?
    1. Novato called out Brian because he attacked a "prophet of god"
    2. FBT wrote "Who cares? Do you care that Jesus was accused by his enemies?" as if the comparison between JS and Jesus was valid. Then he wrote the implicit threat, "Should we do a search to find out? "
    3. Vlad 111 picked up on an unacceptable comment, saying "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE."
    4. In annoyance, Vlad 111 posted
    5. " I plan to point out every instance you attack the Mormon PEOPLE, not its doctrines."
    6. 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???]
    7. 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? "
    8. To which, Vlad111 replied " More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. " [I do not concur on this one]
    9. 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]
    10. 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? "
    11. 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. "
    12. And again [sigh) he calms troubled waters with this "Yep. Spurious and ridiculous. More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. "
    13. Like a song with one note, FBT continues mantra-like "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon people."
    14. 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?"
    15. 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 (sic) who, apparently brought the "record" to Utah to evangelize mormons. (sic)" THANK YOU STEM! Brian and Stem have an exchange
    16. 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."
    17. He continues in another post "I just love making these lights go on in your head. And that was a significant one right there."
    18. 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?

  22. #47
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    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?
    1. Novato called out Brian because he attacked a "prophet of god"
    2. FBT wrote "Who cares? Do you care that Jesus was accused by his enemies?" as if the comparison between JS and Jesus was valid. Then he wrote the implicit threat, "Should we do a search to find out? "
    3. Vlad 111 picked up on an unacceptable comment, saying "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE."
    4. In annoyance, Vlad 111 posted
    5. " I plan to point out every instance you attack the Mormon PEOPLE, not its doctrines."
    6. 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???]
    7. 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? "
    8. To which, Vlad111 replied " More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. " [I do not concur on this one]
    9. 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]
    10. 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? "
    11. 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. "
    12. And again [sigh) he calms troubled waters with this "Yep. Spurious and ridiculous. More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE. "
    13. Like a song with one note, FBT continues mantra-like "More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon people."
    14. 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?"
    15. 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 (sic) who, apparently brought the "record" to Utah to evangelize mormons. (sic)" THANK YOU STEM! Brian and Stem have an exchange
    16. 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."
    17. He continues in another post "I just love making these lights go on in your head. And that was a significant one right there."
    18. 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.

  23. #48
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

  24. #49
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  25. #50
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=BrianH;19624]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.


    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. 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.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •