Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 180

Thread: Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

  1. #76
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

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

    V>Not going to.

    Okay ...there you have it.

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

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

    -BH

    .

  2. #77
    John T
    Guest

    Default Nothing of the sort!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    I have shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic you started. I have shown the hypocritical standard of the critics.

    My work is done here.
    In light of the catalog of posts I provided, that comment is absurd, to say the best, and it can go on from that. What is amazing is that you scols Christians for "not dealing with the truth" and you are free to make up your own "facts". That is pathetic, REALLY pathetic, Figgy.


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

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

  3. #78
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

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

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

    love,
    stem

  4. #79
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad III View Post
    Fig is a Mormon.
    Brian is attacking Fig. Whether it is a Person or People, it is the same.
    Quite wrong, there

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

    Then why is his post still there with no edits and still says, "I have to wonder about the boy's mental condition?"
    I do not know, but I could not see it when I looked.

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

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

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


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

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

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

  5. #80
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    BrianH said,

    I know you think you are a God and everything
    And i said

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

    love,
    stem

  6. #81
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stemelbow View Post
    But the case BrianH presents is dubious and quite pathetic. Yes, he's done this many times before. love, stem

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

  7. #82
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    Quite wrong, there

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



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

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

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

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



    Both spurious "objections" are answered above.

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

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

  8. #83
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    Since when is calling people to respect and reply to the OP being off topic?
    I'm sorry, but you have given yourself far too much credit. you go way off topic more than a couple of times. The latest right here:

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

    And hey, if you want to be consistent, why has NO NORMON come out to criticize Novato for his threat to Brian when he blatantly suggested doing a search for dirt about him. Is that what you do, Vlad?
    if you don't see why that's not off-topic then I shall not even attempt to get you back on topic again.

    You're only playng the mote-beam game.

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

    love,
    stem

  9. #84
    John T
    Guest

    Default

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

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

    Do you have any insight into this "conviction"? Can you help BrianH by supporting his claims? love, stem
    TRY READING THE ORIGINAL, AGAIN.

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

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

    In a previous post, I cataloged continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread. Your post continues the pattern. Is this an insipid attempt to annoy people?

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

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


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


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

  10. #85
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    TRY READING THE ORIGINAL, AGAIN.

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

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

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

    Are you serious?

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

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

    LOL

  11. #86
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

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

    love,
    stem

  12. #87
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

  13. #88
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

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

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

    -BH

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

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

  14. #89
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Why should I address a meaningless topic any further? The purpose of this thread was never to "discuss" anything as we both well know.
    Just because you CAN'T refute the facts does not mean they are meaningless.

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

    -BH

    .

  15. #90
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Just because you CAN'T refute the facts does not mean they are meaningless.



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

    -BH

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

  16. #91
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

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

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

    More gratuitous bashing of Mormon PEOPLE!!

    You may call me a despicable human being.

    You may call me a nasty person.

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

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

    Oh well.

    Sleep tight!
    Last edited by Vlad III; 06-16-2009 at 10:32 PM.

  17. #92
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

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

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

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

    It is now 9:26PM PST

    It is here: http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/...36&postcount=4

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

  18. #93
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

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

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

    -BH

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

  19. #94
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

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

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

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-17-2009 at 02:25 AM.

  20. #95
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-17-2009 at 03:12 AM.

  21. #96
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Fig-bearing Thistle; 06-17-2009 at 06:24 AM.

  22. #97
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  23. #98
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Bump! You didn't address the question at the bottom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Fig-bearing Thistle; 06-17-2009 at 06:24 AM.

  24. #99
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  25. #100
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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'.

Posting Permissions

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