Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 180

Thread: Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

  1. #101
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    I see. So you don't even know if Joseph receive any compensation for his efforts other than room and board?
    Room and board ARE compensation, Fig. And Stowell says that he "employed" Smith, he just does not say how much he paid him.

    Joseph had room and board elsewhere.
    Prove it. ...And let me help you out here: before you go rummaging through some LDS, "faith-promoting" web site to try to find some minor hint that he was living at the expense of two separate households realize that EVEN IF he DID have room and board elsewhere that does not obviate the FACT that Stowell was remunerating Smith while "employing" him.

    Also, are you sure this was a trial, or was it just an examination? The record shows that Joseph was just 'examinded'.
    oh brother ...this is the kind of desperate grasping at straws that so perfectly characterizes virtually all efforts at formulating an apologetic for the LDS religion.

    Fig... let me fami****ize you with a little basic legal terminology: witnesses, plaintifs and defendants are all "examined" at a trial. Their "examination" does not mean that the trial in which their testimony is examined is not a trial!

    Yes it was a trial. Smith was charged and tried in what would today be something akin to a "small claims" court in that no attorneys were retained. The plaintiff was the family of the victim. The defndant was Joseph Smith. The judge was a state-appointed official acting under the color of law. Yes ...it was a "trial". Even if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE called it a fruit pie, it was STILL a "trial".

    Get it?

    -BH

    .

  2. #102
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Room and board ARE compensation, Fig. And Stowell says that he "employed" Smith, he just does not say how much he paid him.
    Room and Board. LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    oh brother ...this is the kind of desperate grasping at straws that so perfectly characterizes virtually all efforts at formulating an apologetic for the LDS religion.

    Fig... let me fami****ize you with a little basic legal terminology: witnesses, plaintifs and defendants are all "examined" at a trial. Their "examination" does not mean that the trial in which their testimony is examined is not a trial!

    Yes it was a trial. Smith was charged and tried in what would today be something akin to a "small claims" court in that no attorneys were retained. The plaintiff was the family of the victim. The defndant was Joseph Smith. The judge was a state-appointed official acting under the color of law. Yes ...it was a "trial". Even if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE called it a fruit pie, it was STILL a "trial".

    Get it?

    -BH

    .
    Why do asterisks ***** keep appearing in your posts?

    It appears like a pre-trial hearing to me.

    Would you consider this so called 'trial' a misdemeanor trial or a felony trial?

  3. #103
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    BH>>Room and board ARE compensation, Fig. And Stowell says that he "employed" Smith, he just does not say how much he paid him.

    F>Room and Board. LOL!
    Your mocking only proves your own personal ignorance.

    Why do asterisks ***** keep appearing in your posts?
    I don't know.

    It appears like a pre-trial hearing to me.
    Then you do not know what a pre-trial hearing is. A pre-trial hearing does not result in a vertict and a fine.

    Would you consider this so called 'trial' a misdemeanor trial or a felony trial?
    IT is not a question of what I would consider. The FACT is, the charge of "disorderly person" is now and has always been a misdemeanor. Today, however, Smith's crime would be categorized as either a misdemeanor or a fellony depending on who his victim was and how much he bilked them for.

    Either way, he LIED and pretended to have a magic rock in his hat by which he could perform supernatural feats.

    Sound f-a-m-i-l-i-a-r...?

    -BH

    .

  4. #104
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    IT is not a question of what I would consider. The FACT is, the charge of "disorderly person" is now and has always been a misdemeanor. Today, however, Smith's crime would be categorized as either a misdemeanor or a fellony depending on who his victim was and how much he bilked them for.
    .
    This was the only substantive thing you said.

    So it was a misdemeanor trial, (or maybe just a hearing). Can you show me that it was common practice to record misdemeanor trials (or hearings) at that time and place? I don't think it was.

    And shouldn't there be witness signatures attached somewhere?

  5. #105
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    This was the only substantive thing you said.
    Your predictable opinion does not support itself. You also continue to fail to refute the facts in evidence here.

    So it was a misdemeanor trial, (or maybe just a hearing). Can you show me that it was common practice to record misdemeanor trials (or hearings) at that time and place? I don't think it was.
    Then you think wrong and again expose a simple ignorance at best. At worst, and more likely: you have been drinking from the same pool of LDS disinformation that Vlad has imbibed. I have already answered this. OF COURSE it was common practice to record ALL trials and even pre-trial hearings, Fig. The courthouses that have a history dating back to the 19th century are still chalk FULL of examples, usually on microfilm.

    -BH

    .

  6. #106
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Your predictable opinion does not support itself. You also continue to fail to refute the facts in evidence here.



    Then you think wrong and again expose a simple ignorance at best. At worst, and more likely: you have been drinking from the same pool of LDS disinformation that Vlad has imbibed. I have already answered this. OF COURSE it was common practice to record ALL trials and even pre-trial hearings, Fig. The courthouses that have a history dating back to the 19th century are still chalk FULL of examples, usually on microfilm.

    -BH

    .
    I don't think you can say for sure that misdemeanor trials WERE actually recorded in the state of New York during the early 19th Century.

    I'll try to find out, though for the benefit of us both.

  7. #107
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think you can say for sure that misdemeanor trials WERE actually recorded in the state of New York during the early 19th Century.
    Sure I can.

    It may be that there were SOME misdemenor trials that were not recorded but that would have been in violation of normative legal practices of England (from whom U.S. legal practice was derived) dating to AT LEAST the late middle ages.

    Fig ...courthouses all over New England continue to maintain court records including trials, hearings, land and property purhcases and disputes, custody battles, and all other legal matters. Just as it is today, it WAS normative legal practice to record court proceedings of all kinds. In fact, it is largely through these very court records that Mormons pursue their obsession with geneology even today.

    -BH

    .

    -BH

    .

  8. #108
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Sure I can.

    It may be that there were SOME misdemenor trials that were not recorded but that would have been in violation of normative legal practices of England (from whom U.S. legal practice was derived) dating to AT LEAST the late middle ages.

    Fig ...courthouses all over New England continue to maintain court records including trials, hearings, land and property purhcases and disputes, custody battles, and all other legal matters. Just as it is today, it WAS normative legal practice to record court proceedings of all kinds. In fact, it is largely through these very court records that Mormons pursue their obsession with geneology even today.

    -BH
    And if you are wrong? If it is indeed the case that misdemeanor trial records were not kept in the State of New York in the early 19th Century, will you admit it?

    Will you admit that if this so-called 'trial' is NOT on record with the State of New York, that there is something not right about your claims?

    And shouldn't there be some witness signatures with this record?

  9. #109
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    And if you are wrong? If it is indeed the case that misdemeanor trial records were not kept in the State of New York in the early 19th Century, will you admit it?
    Of course.

    Will YOU hold yourself to the same standard?

    Will you admit that if this so-called 'trial' is NOT on record with the State of New York, that there is something not right about your claims?
    LOL ...go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that there was NOT a trial of Smith in New York.

    THEN will you answer my question? Regardless of his trial, was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not? (Hint: what did his own mother say about this?)

    -BH

  10. #110
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Of course.

    Will YOU hold yourself to the same standard?
    Naturally. If it's the truth I have no reason to run from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

  11. #111
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  12. #112
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Then why do you run from other truths?
    Stop projecting.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    (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.

  13. #113
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    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

    .

  14. #114
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    BrianH,

    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:
    “The History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania” by Emily C. Blackman (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873)

    Apr. 9, 1831 – Dr. A W. Benton’s letter published in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate

    Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery’s account in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate

    An 1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)

    Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (Neely’s niece)

    Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)

    1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

    Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)
    Seeing as BrianH continues to post in this thread, i figured I'd pipe up and remind him that he has yet to substantiate his claim that the record he quoted was anything more than a copy produced to criticize Mormons. He said it was the actual court record.

    I know he wants me to answer whether I think JS was a con-artist but that is mere deflection, seeing as he has yet to produce the evidence for this claims. psssttt. none of your sources give evidence supporting your claim.

    love,
    stem

  15. #115
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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

    .
    Excuse me Brian, but you did not even come close to showing a conviction, as I proved with legitimate evidence. If you can't do any better, then I suggest you give up on the plagiarized talking points and ideas, and get some new source materials. Your choice or just keep on embarr***ing yourself as you continue to do every-time you post, your always good for a laugh.

    Richard.

  16. #116
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=Fig-bearing Thistle;20046]Stop projecting.
    The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.



    Quote:
    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


    Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
    No witness signatures--they were required in an official record
    It appears to be a pretrial hearing
    Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts
    Last edited by Richard; 06-17-2009 at 05:07 PM.

  17. #117
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Hold it right there.

    So you first say Smith was NOT a con man
    correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Fig ...the man CLAIMED he could find buried golden treasure using his magic powers. But YOU say he could not.
    Never said that.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post


    I see ...so then you think he "could" find buried treasure. Well whoop-de-do. I COULD" find buried treasure.
    Show me.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fig-bearing Thistle; 06-17-2009 at 05:43 PM.

  18. #118
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Brian, stop taking yourself so seriously. Goodness knows none of us take you seriously.
    [/QUOTE]

    That's a understatement.

  19. #119
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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!

  20. #120
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad III View Post
    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.

  21. #121
    stemelbow
    Guest

    Default

    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

  22. #122
    Administrator Jill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novato View Post
    Brian:

    Your distaste for the Lord’s Prophet Joseph is shown clearly in this complete and utter nonsense.

    The only charge that can be accurately documented is that of “disorder”.

    Joseph was 21 years of age when this occurred, what could you have been accused of at 21 years of age Brian.

    Should we do a search to find out?

    Novato
    Brian's behavior is not the question, here, Novato. It is Joseph Smith Jr.'s behavior that is being discussed. Stay on topic, please.

    As to Joseph Smith's legal problems, historically, the following trial transcript that resulted in the conviction of Smith as "a disorderly person and imposter" reveals quite a bit about Joseph Smith's character. The excuse that he was only 21 years old is ridiculous since the law of our society states that at 21, you are an adult and responsible for your actions.


    Fraser's Magazine, February, 1873, vol. VII, p. 229-230.

    --------------------

    State of New York v. Joseph Smith.

    Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.

    Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school.

    That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.

    Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did 'possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p— [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.

    Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

    McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

    Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:

    And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.
    How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God. 1 John 3:1

  23. #123
    nrajeff
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    So then YOU "think" that Joseph Smith REALLY COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and little magic rock, right?
    ---Why shouldn't we think it? After all, if I am reading correctly, 100% of the witnesses who were called to testify at the "trial" stated that they believed Smith had this "gift of God." And you accept the trial proceedings as accurate, right?

    Which brings up another question: If all the witnesses stated that they believed Smith had the ability to find stuff, then upon what basis--what EVIDENCE--was Smith found GUILTY of NOT having the ability?

  24. #124
    Administrator Jill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post
    ---Why shouldn't we think it? After all, if I am reading correctly, 100% of the witnesses who were called to testify at the "trial" stated that they believed Smith had this "gift of God." And you accept the trial proceedings as accurate, right?

    Which brings up another question: If all the witnesses stated that they believed Smith had the ability to find stuff, then upon what basis--what EVIDENCE--was Smith found GUILTY of NOT having the ability?
    nrajeff,

    Are you seriously thinking this type of strange behavior shouldn't be weighed in the balance when a man later claims to be a "prophet" of God?

    Smith was convicted of fraud--of being "an imposter". Think about it. He was convicted of misleading people . . . this is not a man I could rely on for my eternal salvation.
    How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God. 1 John 3:1

  25. #125
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.[/QUOTE]

    Jill could you please produce the source of the above court decision.
    This is not what I have seen or ever run across, the Billing by Judge Neely reads only misdemeanor for my fees in examination.

    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

Posting Permissions

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