Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Jill

nrajeff,

Hi Jill, and thanks for responding.

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?

---I am not saying it shouldn't be considered, I am questioning the validity or accuracy of the actual accusation. In other words, we need to first prove that the accusation is accurate BEFORE we can start weighing how much it lowers the chances that the man in question was a man of God. But suppose a man the BIBLE implies was a man of God, had a history of using "folk magic"--what should we conclude about the man, based on his history?

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.

---Convicted of being a FAKE folk-magic prac***ioner? Is that really WORSE than being an ACTUAL prac***ioner of "black magic"? Anyway, the point is that it has not been conclusively proven that Smith was convicted. And it has not been established whether the conviction--if there really WAS one--was a conviction of fraudulent appropriation of money, or of dabbling in the black arts.

[BrianH]

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 would have thought that it was obvious that the events of Smith's first fraud trial and conviction as represented the records I documented "criticizes" Joseph Smith and by extention anyone who thinks Smith was an honest man and a true prophet.

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.

You are the one doing the deflecting here Stem. The ISSUE here is Smith's rather well-documented behaviors which were obviously at least FRAUDULENT and at most illegal. I cannot possibly be "defelecting" from that topic by asking you to make your position clear on that topic. So your desperate accusation is, as most of your ranting here, totally bogus. And it is quite telling that you refuse to make your view on this matter clear but instead choose to try to obscure your lack of clarity behind just more empty accusations.

Secondly, you really need to learn to read if you think my citations do NOT support my claims.

The question is a simple one, Stem: Did Smith claim to have a magic rock in his hat by which he, using magical occult powers, could locate buried golden treasures?

The FACTS show that he DID. Refute the FACTs and you will have the beginning of an actual argument. Fail to refute the FACTS and you will have to attack my reasoning FROM those facts.

Do your best.

Let the TRUTH come out.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Where's Brian? I'd like to seem him address this.

Critics just take it on face value that whatever they read in the against-Mormonism tabloids is true. I guess it's because they have no reason to doubt it, as long as it bashes Joseph Smith.

Originally Posted by stemelbow

Okay Brianh,

Since you were unable to support your claim that JS was convicted and would rather get us to buy into the idea that he told others he could by mystical means find lost treasure, how about you support that claim with his words. Show us where JS ever claimed such? Show us an authenic account of when JS said he had the magic power to find lost treasure.

I'm certain you can refer to the copied unauthenticated words of those we already know didn't like him to suggest such. Or you could try and convince us that being a gl*** looker meant he told others he could find treasure in magical ways.

It doesn't matter to me if he tried to convince people that he could find lost treasure when he was a teenager. Finding it, searching for it is much different then your claim.

This'll be fun.

love,
stem

[BrianH]

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.

But I didn't say that. Learn to read and you will save yourself from the embarr***ment you are about to experience.

Now ...you say that Smith was NOT a con man. But you do not belive he really COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and pet rock. So how do you explain this contradiction, Fig?

Show me.

Why? Are you not aware that people find treasures all the time?

Brian, stop taking yourself so seriously. Goodness knows none of us take you seriously.

You have yet to provide me with any actual REASON to take your claims seriously. All you do is expose your wounded ego with adolescent word games. Nothing TO take seriously, really.

-BH

,

[BrianH]

---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?

Sure ...actually I WANT you to try your BEST to believe it. It only helps me show how irrational and gullible one must be to be a Mormon.

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?

Do I REALLY have to explain this to you Jeff????

Did you read about Smith actually FINDING any buried golden treasure with his magic powers and pet rock?

yes...?
no....?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I showed the court record of a conviction. You did not show ANY "evidence" legitimate or otherwise. YOU are the one doing ALL of the plagiarizing, Richard. All you do is mindlessly copy and paste the predictable opinions of those who prepare the standard-issue boilerplate responses for the "faithful" without even bothering to credit your obviously biased sources.

Why do you supposed it is you cannot commit to a judgment as to whether or not your "prophet" was out swindling people with his little magic rock trick? Could it be that you are at least honest enough to recognize that this is a FACT but cannot allow yourself to admit it?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

But I didn't say that. Learn to read and you will save yourself from the embarr***ment you are about to experience.

LOL!

Brian backs down and tries to become sneaky now. All because he's done some more reading, apparently.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Now ...you say that Smith was NOT a con man. But you do not belive he really COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and pet rock. So how do you explain this contradiction, Fig?

No, I didn't say that. Learn to read.


Secondly, who did he con? Where does Josiah claim he was defrauded?
Thirdly, where is Joseph's sworn statement that he could even find treasure?

Originally Posted by BrianH

You have yet to provide me with any actual REASON to take your claims seriously. All you do is expose your wounded ego with adolescent word games. Nothing TO take seriously, really.

-BH

,

More bashing and condescension, I see. Just more evidence of bad fruit coming from your direction.

[BrianH]

LOL!

Brian backs down and tries to become sneaky now. All because he's done some more reading, apparently.

Nothing sneaky at all Fig. You are attributing to me something I never said, or even implied. If anything YOU are the sneaky one.

BH>>Now ...you say that Smith was NOT a con man. But you do not belive he really COULD find buried treasure using his occult magic powers and pet rock. So how do you explain this contradiction, Fig?

F>No, I didn't say that. Learn to read

.

You DID say that. Just make yourself clear, Fig - that's all I am asking. Quite trying to hide behind silly equivocations and lame word games. Smith claimed to be able to find buried golden treasures with his occult divination powers and magic rock. YOU say he was NOT a con man. But you ALSO say that he COULD find treasure. You cannot have it both ways, unless of course you are trying to weakly insinuate that he could "find treasure" by the natural means of simply following the evidence and actually looking for it. But if that is the case, you have not addressed his CALIMS to have a magic rock and supernatural occult powers. So ...which is it, Fig. Just make your position clear.

Secondly, who did he con? Where does Josiah claim he was defrauded?

Josiah actually BELIEVED Smith's claims to have a magic rock and occult powers (hey ...just like YOU!). It was Josiah's FAMILY that claimed he was defrauded.

More bashing and condescension, I see. Just more evidence of bad fruit coming from your direction.

What I am "bashing" is your deliberate worming around to avoid the facts.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Nothing sneaky at all Fig. You are attributing to me something I never said, or even implied. If anything YOU are the sneaky one.

Let's look at this. Do you expect to find a complete record of the 1826 misdemeanor trial of Joseph Smith on file with the State of New York Court records? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by BrianH

You DID say that. Just make yourself clear, Fig - that's all I am asking. Quite trying to hide behind silly equivocations and lame word games. Smith claimed to be able to find buried golden treasures with his occult divination powers and magic rock. YOU say he was NOT a con man. But you ALSO say that he COULD find treasure. You cannot have it both ways, unless of course you are trying to weakly insinuate that he could "find treasure" by the natural means of simply following the evidence and actually looking for it. But if that is the case, you have not addressed his CALIMS to have a magic rock and supernatural occult powers. So ...which is it, Fig. Just make your position clear.

Line item veto. I believe Joseph was able to find treasure. I don't think he was ever able to retreive it--because he was not meant to, and he needed to learn this. I veto all the other swill you add in your vitriolic statements.

He had a seer stone if that is what you are asking. Yes.

[QUOTE=BrianH;20394]
Josiah actually BELIEVED Smith's claims to have a magic rock and occult powers (hey ...just like YOU!). It was Josiah's FAMILY that claimed he was defrauded.[/quiote]

Did Josiah himself claim this?

[BrianH]

Let's look at this. Do you expect to find a complete record of the 1826 misdemeanor trial of Joseph Smith on file with the State of New York Court records? Yes or No?

Your original question was whether or not the state created and/or maintained misdemeanor trial records. The answer is YES, they did. I do not think that we can expect ALL of those records to be available and therefore it is possible to likely that the record of Smiths' trial in New York is no longer available.

Line item veto. I believe Joseph was able to find treasure. I don't think he was ever able to retreive it--because he was not meant to, and he needed to learn this. I veto all the other swill you add in your vitriolic statements.

He had a seer stone if that is what you are asking. Yes.

So then you DO think that he DID possess a magic rock that permitted him to find buried golden treasure using his occult divination skills. Do you believe that God was moving the found treasures underground to prohibit him from retrieving them?

Did Josiah himself claim this?

Nope. Did Smith ever retrieve the treasure he told Josiah he was able to find with his magic rock?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Your original question was whether or not the state created and/or maintained misdemeanor trial records. The answer is YES, they did. I do not think that we can expect ALL of those records to be available and therefore it is possible to likely that the record of Smiths' trial in New York is no longer available.

Brian backs down. Good. Now, the next question would be:

Would you expect the State of New York to have a majority of misdemeanor trial records from 1826 on file with other court documents?

Yes or No?

Originally Posted by BrianH

So then you DO think that he DID possess a magic rock that permitted him to find buried golden treasure using his occult divination skills. Do you believe that God was moving the found treasures underground to prohibit him from retrieving them?

No.

I think he had a seer stone, which he did not understand it's correct use at firs--which was to be used in the Lord's service and not his own.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Nope. Did Smith ever retrieve the treasure he told Josiah he was able to find with his magic rock?

-BH

.

So Josiah never claimed to be cheated or defrauded. Right.

Did Joseph ever tell Josiah that he could do this? Is this ever mentioned in a SWORN statement coming from Joseph himself?

[BrianH]

BH>>Your original question was whether or not the state created and/or maintained misdemeanor trial records. The answer is YES, they did. I do not think that we can expect ALL of those records to be available and therefore it is possible to likely that the record of Smiths' trial in New York is no longer available.

F>Brian backs down. Good.

Backed down...? From what? YOU asked if misdemeanor trial records were kept in Smith's day. I said they were. NOW you have changed the question to whether or not SMITH's trial records have been kept. I am saying they might or might not be. But not ALL records kept in a court are kept forever despite the best efforts of the clerks. SOME records are actually lost or destroyed. This is not "backing down"; I have not changed a thing. My answer is exactly what it has always been. YOU are obviously so desperate for some kind of rhetorical kudos to asuage your obviously damaged ego that you are forced to pretend that you did not change the question.

Your behavior is pitiful and dishonest.

Now, the next question would be:

Would you expect the State of New York to have a majority of misdemeanor trial records from 1826 on file with other court documents?

Yes or No?

Asked and answered. Go back and read the text you ignored in your desperate effort to procliam my surrender.

BH>>So then you DO think that he DID possess a magic rock that permitted him to find buried golden treasure using his occult divination skills. Do you believe that God was moving the found treasures underground to prohibit him from retrieving them?

F>No.

I think he had a seer stone, which he did not understand it's correct use at firs--which was to be used in the Lord's service and not his own.

So did he or did he NOT have the occult divination skills to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasures as he claimed?

Its a REAL simple question Fig. Why all the dodgy hedging and slippery-slimyness?

So Josiah never claimed to be cheated or defrauded. Right.

The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

Did Joseph ever tell Josiah that he could do this?

Yes. And YOU are on record as saying that you believe he could. So what's the problem, Fig?

Is this ever mentioned in a SWORN statement coming from Joseph himself?

It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

Hi Jill,

I would request of you the same I have of BrianH. You claim this is the trial transcript but do you have any evidence to suggest this is the authentic transcript? All signs point to no, but its apparent you and BrianH say it is. Can you support the allegation of this being the authentic court transcript? What source did you use to quote the above?

as such we'd have to fairly judge whether he was actually convicted as inconclusive.

Oh and by the way, he was 20 at this time--not 21.

love,
stem

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by BrianH

The question is a simple one, Stem: Did Smith claim to have a magic rock in his hat by which he, using magical occult powers, could locate buried golden treasures?

The FACTS show that he DID. Refute the FACTs and you will have the beginning of an actual argument. Fail to refute the FACTS and you will have to attack my reasoning FROM those facts.

it remains your burden of proof that your claim of this being the authentic court record be substantiated. All you did was quote what was found in the magazine. There is nothing to substantiate that this was an authentic record from the court. Please support your initial claim and stop deflecting.

love,
stem

[Richard]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

it remains your burden of proof that your claim of this being the authentic court record be substantiated. All you did was quote what was found in the magazine. There is nothing to substantiate that this was an authentic record from the court. Please support your initial claim and stop deflecting.

love,
stem

Don't hold your breath, Brian is only as good as his last plagiarized talking point and ideas. If you ask for something not in his well used anti-mormonism book, he caves in and uses the useful but foolish tool of DEFLECTION.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Backed down...? From what? YOU asked if misdemeanor trial records were kept in Smith's day. I said they were. NOW you have changed the question to whether or not SMITH's trial records have been kept. I am saying they might or might not be. But not ALL records kept in a court are kept forever despite the best efforts of the clerks. SOME records are actually lost or destroyed. This is not "backing down"; I have not changed a thing. My answer is exactly what it has always been. YOU are obviously so desperate for some kind of rhetorical kudos to asuage your obviously damaged ego that you are forced to pretend that you did not change the question.

I have no ego to damage. I'm simply a believer, and so I see from a different paradigm. I am not posturing himself by hurling venomous pejoratives.

Originally I asked this: The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.

And you answered this:
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.

So, you strongly implied that there should be some record of the J.S. trial with the state of New York.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Asked and answered. Go back and read the text you ignored in your desperate effort to procliam my surrender.

So you're holding firm on this one with a YES! O.K.

Originally Posted by BrianH

So did he or did he NOT have the occult divination skills to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasures as he claimed?

NO.

He had the gift to use this stone, but it was intended for a purpose that God had in store for him, and did not lead to any monetary gain for him.

Originally Posted by BrianH

The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

Smith was defrauding Smith? Huh?

Originally Posted by BrianH

Yes. And YOU are on record as saying that you believe he could. So what's the problem, Fig?

As the story goes, Joseph only started this venture at the request and insistence of Josiah, and after some time, Joseph finally persuaded him to stop.

Originally Posted by BrianH

It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

But never a sworn statement from Joseph? But I guess that's not important, as there is plenty of evidence that Joseph indeed had a seer stone, and did find things with it. So my question then is... under whose insistence did this money digging venture with Josiah Stowell take place? I think the evidence points to Josiah being the one who had this idea.

And why was it that those not damaged in any way, were the ones to lodge the complaint?

[Richard]

Brian states, "The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

Brian, Brian, Brian, where do you get your information from? If this is your own research as you claim, then your facts get in the way of the truth. So as to not be like you Brian, here is the source:


Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial:
New Evidence and New Difficulties1
by Marvin S. Hill2
BYU Studies Vol 12, Winter '72, p. 223-234

In the late winter of 1826, according to an early account, Peter Bridgeman, a nephew of the wife of Josiah Stowell, presented a written complaint against Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge, New York, which led to his arrest and trial as a "disorderly person." Since the time that Fawn Brodie in her biography of Joseph Smith accepted as authentic the account of the trial published in the Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1883), it has been a source of sharp conflict among the students of early Mormonism. Perhaps the primary reason for Mormon opposition to the record is the alleged admission it contains made by Joseph Smith that he had been searching for lost treasure by means of a stone

Blundering Brian continues with the absurd, "It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

This is so much fun,

Nibley challenged the validity of the Schaaf-Herzog report primarily because the original document has never appeared, although it was said to have been taken to Utah by Emily Pearsall, the niece of Justice Albert Neely who supposedly tried the case. Nibley said we have only the testimony of Miss Pearsall that the record ever existed, and that came through Bishop Daniel S. Turtle of the Episcopal church in Salt Lake City, who published the Schaaf-Herzog report.

Here is some more truth Brian,

By examining the Pearsall, Purple, and Benton accounts, which he noted are contradictory,10 Nibley raised the question whether the charge of vagrancy indicated by Purple was plausible when the testimony itself shows that Joseph worked for Josiah Stowell at his request.11 Nibley also suggested the possibility that there might have been some confusion between a trial which did occur at Bainbridge in 1830 with one in 1826 that perhaps did not. Nibley argued that Benton probably made up the story of the 1826 trial, app***** some of the details from the 1830 affair and getting his ideas of Joseph's stone peeping from articles by Obediah Dogberry published in the Palmyra Reflector in that year.

Oliver Cowdery acknowledged in the LDS Messenger and Advocate in 1835 that, while Joseph Smith was in southern New York, some very officious person complained of him as a disorderly person and brought him before the authorities of the county; but there being no cause of action he was honorably acquitted.

Some additional difficulties now appear. Doubt still remains as to the authenticity of the testimonies published in Fraser's and by Purple, because the details of these vary. The bills found by Walters clarify some points but add to the confusion on others.

As already indicated, in Fraser's Peter Bridgeman is reported to have made the charges against Joseph. No reason is given. Dr. Purple, who claimed Justice Neely asked him to take notes at the trial, recalled in 1877 that it was the sons of Josiah Stowell who brought the allegations because they were afraid that Joseph's encouragement of their father's money digging was "depriving them of their anticipated patrimony." A. W. Benton said that it was "the public" who had Joseph arrested after becoming "wearied with the base imposition he was palming upon the credulity of the ********." Oliver Cowdery attributed the charges to an "officious person."

The bill of Justice Neely does not reveal what the charge was, only that Joseph was tried for a "misdemeanor." It is curious that in the other cases included on the bill specific charges such as "***ault and battery" and "pe*** larceny" [sic] are given. It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that in another document found by Walters, the 1830 bill of Justice of the Peace Joseph Chamberlain, who tried Joseph Smith in the 1830 trial, the charge is specifically stated--"a disorderly person."17 This fact, along with the vagueness of the charges in Neely's bill, necessitates the question being raised, did Fraser's, Benton, and Cowdery confuse the charges in 1826 with those in 1830? We have evidence that Benton and Cowdery were both involved in the 1830 affair,18 and they possibly could have confused the charges in the two trials. If so, of what was Joseph Smith accused in 1826? A "misdemeanor" might be many things, as the term simply designates a minor offense. Was the charge vagrancy, disorderliness, being an "impostor," or was it deliberately left vague because treasure hunting, as Joseph practiced it with Stowell, did not violate any specific New York law? It is generally known among historians that digging was common in western New York in this period. How many such persons were held accountable, and to what law? These are questions that need answering before any fair ***essment of the trial can be made.

Go to the reference I gave you Brian, there are some other things which might or might not interest you. I doubt you will look into any of this, since your agenda is one of denial and deflection.

[BrianH]

Brian, Brian, Brian, where do you get your information from?

I posted my sources. You should probably read them before you once again embarr*** yourself by asking questions I have already answered.

You obviously do not believe the evidence. So the question remains the same: Do YOU think that Smith was claiming he had a magic rock with which he could apply his occult divination skills to find buried treasure or not?

This is a VERY simple, question. Why are you continuing to run away from it?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

No he wasn't

Just keep chanting that mantra Fig. The pain of the truth will eventually fade out completely.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I have no ego to damage. I'm simply a believer, and so I see from a different paradigm. I am not posturing himself by hurling venomous pejoratives.

You DO have an ego and you are a victim of a ****** hoax.

Originally I asked this: The question is, did the courts in New York State (especially this one) keep records of misdemeanor trials AT THE TIME of Joseph Smith.

And you answered this:
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.

So, you strongly implied that there should be some record of the J.S. trial with the state of New York

You are demonstrating the reading comprehension disorder that is so prevalent among Mormons. No ...I did not imply anything of the kind, YOU are reading things into the text (eisogesis) that are not there.

The courts kept records at the time of Joseph Smith's trial, I have already EXPLICITLY pointed out that this does not mean that any one record survives to this day. Go back and actually R E A D the word, Fig.

BH>>Asked and answered. Go back and read the text you ignored in your desperate effort to procliam my surrender.

F>So you're holding firm on this one with a YES! O.K.

I will repeat it AGAIN, since the Mormon is having so much trouble grasping the simple truth here: In 1826, it was NORMAL for any court to keep records of all criminal trials. This does not mean that any ONE trial remains in any archive. Can you at least TRY to understand what SHOULD have been obvious right from the start, or are you content to embarr*** yourself with more demonstrations of your difficulties with comprehending basic facts?

BH>>So did he or did he NOT have the occult divination skills to use his magic rock to find buried golden treasures as he claimed?

F>NO.

He had the gift to use this stone, but it was intended for a purpose that God had in store for him, and did not lead to any monetary gain for him.

But he CLAIMED to be able to use this stone to find buried Spanish gold, Fig. Was he telling the truth or not? If you say he WAS telling the truth, then you admit that he really did have his little occult magic powers. If you say he was NOT telling the truth, then you are admitting that he was a l ying con artist. You cannot have it both ways, dude.

BH>>The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.

F>Smith was defrauding Smith? Huh?

Sorry ...The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Josiah.

BH>>Yes. And YOU are on record as saying that you believe he could. So what's the problem, Fig?

F>As the story goes, Joseph only started this venture at the request and insistence of Josiah, and after some time, Joseph finally persuaded him to stop.

oh my.

So NOW the Mormon story is that it was the VICTIM who actually perpetrated his own defrauding and the con man is the one who actually tried to get the VICTIM to stop... What an ASTONISHING display of duplicity, ignorance and hopelessly lame excuse-making. This one goes in my permanent collection. Thanks.

BTW ...tell us Fig, was it Josiah who also told Smith to take his little magic rock and use it to translate your so-called "scriptures"?

BH>>It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.

F>But never a sworn statement from Joseph?

Why would Joseph Smith swear out a statement against himself???

But I guess that's not important, as there is plenty of evidence that Joseph indeed had a seer stone, and did find things with it.

uh huh ...Please SHOW ME this "evidence".

So my question then is... under whose insistence did this money digging venture with Josiah Stowell take place? I think the evidence points to Josiah being the one who had this idea.

Yes ...of course that is what you "think", Fig. EVEN IF we had a sworn confession from Joseph Smith witnessed and signed by 50 judges YOU would "think" (actually "fantasize") whatever you could dream up to exonerate him, and you know it.

A moment ago you said that it was SMITH who started the venture, and Josiah who continued his own victimization. NOW you say it was Josiah who had the idea.

The desperation in your excuse-making is revealing the duplicity at the heart of your apologetic.

Show me the EVIDENCE that YOU say shows that Josiah is the one who somehow made Joseph Smith start pretending to have a magic rock in the hat jammed over his face.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Since you were unable to support your claim that JS was convicted

HOLD IT, right there slick ...I posted the evidence that shows Smith was convicted of both THIS fraud and his bank fraud. I have therefore provided the support from the very beginning of each thread, yet all you Mormons can do is keep asking for it.

and would rather get us to buy into the idea that he told others he could by mystical means find lost treasure, how about you support that claim with his words. Show us where JS ever claimed such? Show us an authenic account of when JS said he had the magic power to find lost treasure.

Fallacy: Argument from silence. I HAVE already shown it in the words of his accusers ...the ones who won the court case against Smith.

So the only remaining question, is do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had. (Fig says that he did). Now ...let me make sure that you understand the problem you face here: If you say he DID possess the magic powers the court convicted him of fraudulently claiming to have, then you have confirmed my ultimate point here because it is obvious that he did NOT. If you say he did NOT, you have also confirmed my point here, because you are agreeing with me that the man was a **** and that makes him an occult con artist.

See the problem you have here, Stem?

It doesn't matter to me if he tried to convince people that he could find lost treasure when he was a teenager. Finding it, searching for it is much different then your claim.

No of COURSE it does not matter TO YOU! That is the point. YOU are a MORMON and MORMONS are never bothered by such things as FACTS You guys all have your "burning bosoms" to help you determine what you are supposed to believe in order to keep your temple recommends and secret decoder rings. Why should little things like THE TRUTH bother you? You FEEEEEEEL real good about what you have been led to believe, and that is really ALL that matters to you.

Incredibly shallow.

-BH

.

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by BrianH

HOLD IT, right there slick ...I posted the evidence that shows Smith was convicted of both THIS fraud and his bank fraud. I have therefore provided the support from the very beginning of each thread, yet all you Mormons can do is keep asking for it.

I see your evidence but its lacking in credibility. I think you misunderstood that as being my point. I am merely asking you for evidence that what you quoted was the actual court record. No one, with credibility, claims that...you and Jill have, but I can't find anyone else claiming such. Can you support your claim?

Fallacy: Argument from silence. I HAVE already shown it in the words of his accusers ...the ones who won the court case against Smith.

The very account you quote as your evidence, lacks credibilty, Brian. Do you not get that? Do you not ahve interest in verifying your sources? Or is it that once something fits your a priori ***umptions you latch onto it as "gospel truth"?

So the only remaining question, is do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had. (Fig says that he did).

Okay...here you go again...another claim. support your claim that Smith himself said he had these powers to find lost treasures aside from the BoM Plates of course.

Now ...let me make sure that you understand the problem you face here: If you say he DID possess the magic powers the court convicted him of fraudulently claiming to have, then you have confirmed my ultimate point here because it is obvious that he did NOT.

You have failed to make your case, though, Brian. Your reliance of the supposed copy of the court record is suspect. Thus, your evidence, while worth considering, is most likely not "proving" your case. There are still too many questions unanswered and too many things that don't add up.

If you say he did NOT, you have also confirmed my point here, because you are agreeing with me that the man was a **** and that makes him an occult con artist.

Brian, many people as teenagers could have done many things you or others don't approve of, but go on to do great things. So to label him an occult con artist, does not leave room for forgiveness on your part. And that's of course ***uming you've proved your case. You haven't. You have merely regurgitated other people's criticism which have been dealt with multiple times before.

See the problem you have here, Stem?

yeah...you aren't understanding the issue, even after having explained it to you many times already.

No of COURSE it does not matter TO YOU! That is the point. YOU are a MORMON and MORMONS are never bothered by such things as FACTS You guys all have your "burning bosoms" to help you determine what you are supposed to believe in order to keep your temple recommends and secret decoder rings. Why should little things like THE TRUTH bother you? You FEEEEEEEL real good about what you have been led to believe, and that is really ALL that matters to you.

Incredibly shallow.

-BH

.

Another adorable rant, Brianh. I hope you catch on...

love,
stem

[BrianH]

I see your evidence but its lacking in credibility. I am merely asking you for evidence that what you quoted was the actual court record. No one, with credibility, claims that...you and Jill have, but I can't find anyone else claiming such. Can you support your claim?

Oh C'mawn Stem, we both know that YOU would not grant any credibility to anything or anyone that shows your "prophet" was really just a two-bit occult con man. I have not personally gone to the court house and examined the record, if that is what you mean. But I DID document my sources. Apparently YOU cannot do that much.

The very account you quote as your evidence, lacks credibilty, Brian. Do you not get that?

Obviously YOU are a Mormon and will not grant credibility to ANYTHING outside of what your cult HQ tells you to believe. What's to "get"?

Do you not ahve interest in verifying your sources? Or is it that once something fits your a priori ***umptions you latch onto it as "gospel truth"?

To verify my sources to the degree that would overcome your predictable and obviously automatic, unthinking, blind, blanket rejection of any and all evidence I would have to go back and interview the participants in the trial (who are now all dead) and EVEN THEN you and I both know you would say that THEY lack credibility, because to acknolwedge their testimony you would have to begin to consider that they were actually telling the truth - something you CANNOT at any price afford to do. Stem ...YOUR personal, emotional, subjective and highly predictable reaction to the facts in evidence before us is insufficient as a refutation. What you need to do is actually REFUTE those facts. YOU are not in a position to simply announce by caveat that they lack credibility. We already KNEW well in advance that you would react this way. What you need to do is to REFUTE those facts, not just proclaim your personal opinion of them based on your conditioned emotional reactions.

BH>>So the only remaining question, is do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had. (Fig says that he did).

S>kay...here you go again...another claim. support your claim that Smith himself said he had these powers to find lost treasures aside from the BoM Plates of course.

Logical fallacy alert: Argument from silence (a Mormon favorite). I have already pointed out that Smith's accusers are the ones who attributed that claim to him. His conviction proves that the court found in their favor. The lame excuse that it was the VICTIM who perpetrated the fraud on himself is only further manifestation of the utterly pathetic condition of the LDS apologetic. The only remaining question (and the question you aer avoiding) is: do YOU think that Smith actually had the magical occult divination powers he claimed he had.

You have failed to make your case, though, Brian. Your reliance of the supposed copy of the court record is suspect. Thus, your evidence, while worth considering, is most likely not "proving" your case. There are still too many questions unanswered and too many things that don't add up.

YOU are not in a position to determine if I have made my case or not. YOU are my opponent here, Stem. YOU cannot be BOTH the batter and the Umpire. If you want to get on the playing field you will have to do more then announce your own calls.

OBVIOUSLY you will claim that every pitch is a ball. But YOUR opinion of YOUR opinion is hardly persuasive, nor is it even rational to think that it is. The documented evidence is there. The case is closed. Your "prophet" was judged guilty. Your responsibilty if you want to be taken seriously is to REFUTE the facts in evidence - don't just proclaim your a-priori opinion of them and then hold a pre-victory parade. That behavior is just ...embarr***ing.

Brian, many people as teenagers could have done many things you or others don't approve of, but go on to do great things. So to label him an occult con artist, does not leave room for forgiveness on your part.

1.) Smith did not just do things that others do not approve of. He was in the process of bilking some easily foold simpleton out of his rare cash by claiming to have a magic rock in his hat - the same trick he pulled when he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

2.) Despite your best effort to blame ME, my "forgiveness" is not the issue here. The issue here is the fact that your "prophet" was convicted TWICE for fraud, and this one time in particular for claiming to have the same kind of occult magic powers by which he supposedly "translated" your scriptures.

And that's of course ***uming you've proved your case. You haven't.

You are not in a position to make that call. Any and all interested parties who read this discussion will decide for themselves. YOUR highly-predictable opinion of my case is essentialy irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY YOU will claim I have not proved my case. But until you REFUTE my evidence, your predictable emotional reaction TO that evidence lacks any authority.

You have merely regurgitated other people's criticism which have been dealt with multiple times before.

I have indeed used actual sources for my facts. You have not. All you have done is post a predictable emotional reaction to my sources where you SHOULD have been refuting them with counter-facts.

yeah...you aren't understanding the issue, even after having explained it to you many times already.

I DO understand the issue. YOU are the one who seems to think that his own personal, conditioned, emotional reactions to the issue somehow amount to a total refutation of the facts in evidence.

Another adorable rant, Brianh. I hope you catch on...

As usual, the Mormon fails to do anything other than express his emotions and then drop the usual p***ive-aggressive insult like a festering animal droping on his way out.
You guys REAAAAALLY, DESPERATELY need to get some competent debaters in here, Stem. You just don't have what it takes.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Oh C'mawn Stem, we both know that YOU would not grant any credibility to anything or anyone that shows your "prophet" was really just a two-bit occult con man. I have not personally gone to the court house and examined the record, if that is what you mean. But I DID document my sources. Apparently YOU cannot do that much.

Actually you documented very little Brian, Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N. Y., Court Trials,

Does Walters have a agenda, Hmmm.

"As one who has had a long-time interest in the documents relating to the origins of the restored Church, I have had a personal acquaintance with both H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters for more than thirty years. I have known them as men who have literally spent their lifetime pursuing every avenue that might bring the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church under close scrutiny. They differ from many "armchair researchers" of the past and present who seek to examine the claims of Mormonism by working largely through the mails. Instead, Marquardt and Walters have taken to the field in an attempt to tramp out every inch of Mormonism geographically on the ground and in the public and private repositories where any vestige of related documents might be found. I have encountered them in person or their imprints in library after library and courthouse after courthouse over a multiyear period." Reinventing Mormonism: To Remake or Redo
Larry C. Porter

Obviously YOU are a Mormon and will not grant credibility to ANYTHING outside of what your cult HQ tells you to believe. What's to "get"?

And it gets even better and better, the gift that keeps on giving.

Marquardt and Walters express a desire for accuracy in detail, "however trivial it may seem." But surely this ought to apply to them as well as to early Mormons. The second part of the "Bibliographical Essay" in Inventing Mormonism is en***led, "2. The 1826 Examination" (pp. 222-30). In one section (pp. 222-23), they examine "Itemized Bills by Justice Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng," making mention of the respective bills being bound in bundles in 1826 and placed in storage. Then their text shifts from a nineteenth-century scene to a twentieth-century event and the declaration: "These and other bills relating to Joseph Smith's Bainbridge court hearings were removed by [Wesley P.] Walters and [Fred] Poffarl27 from the water-soaked box in which they were found and hand-carried to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and M****cript Library. They were received back by Chenango County in October 1971. Photographs are on file at the library of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia" (p. 223).

On the surface this description seems innocuous enough—two men removing documents from a water-soaked box and taking them to a m****cript library for examination and perhaps treatment, and then returning them to the county of origin. These appear to be the thoughtful acts of preservationists at work—seemingly with approval of the county, implied though not actually recorded. Now let's take a second look for the sake of "accuracy," and discuss some of the attendant circumstances. I had been microfilming materials related to Mormonism in the Guernsey Memorial Library and at the same time researching documents in the adjacent Chenango County Office Building in Norwich, New York. The county clerk, John P. McGuire, had allowed me access to the vault. I was looking for the very type of documents later found by Wesley P. Walters and Fred Poffarl, but I had no success. After I carefully checked the records in the vault, Mr. McGuire directed me to the cache of court records which had been placed in storage in the downstairs portion of the jailhouse. These documents had been placed under the immediate supervision of the sheriff, who had given the undersheriff the task of looking after them. Walters and Poffarl were not exaggerating; the documents themselves were water-logged and in water-soaked boxes. After two days of searching hundreds of documents, unfortunately at the wrong end of the room, I had to leave to keep some prior appointments. Shortly after I left, Walters and Poffarl called on Mr. McGuire and were granted the same privilege as I had been in examining the content of the vault. As they finished that project, a clerk in the county office building mentioned to them that Mr. Porter had been working under the jailhouse. On 28 July 1971 they investigated and were successful in locating the elusive bills and some other related records. Taking them from their packets, the men went to the Guernsey Memorial Library. One of the librarians, Charlotte Spicer, told me that they used the photocopy machine, but that it was of poor quality and they didn't like the results. Mrs. Spicer related to me that they then determined to take the court documents elsewhere. Seeing the nature of the papers she advised them to return the documents immediately. She said that "Mr. Walters responded by saying, `that if they were returned the Mormons would dispose of them.' " They then left, removing them from the community and the custody of the county clerk. Fred Poffarl carried them east to Yale. Walters later claimed that they removed the documents without permission because the sheriff and the county historian "were both unavailable at the time."28 At the instigation of Walters, some of the documents with accompanying commentary were published in August 1971 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in The Salt Lake City Messenger under the ***le, "New Find Undermines Mormonism," as an ongoing exposé of Joseph Smith.29

Well isn't this exciting, what more do we find out?

I was at that time doing continued research in the East. Richard L. Anderson alerted me to the Tanner treatise on Walters's find. Eager to see the records, I proceeded to Norwich to verify their content. There I met Mae L. Smith, Chenango County Historian, but she was unable to show me the original court documents. She had only photocopies in her possession since the actual bills had been taken away. Mae further informed me that Wesley P. Walters had photocopied the original documents in his possession, and then sent these copies to the editor of the Chenango Union in Norwich as verification of an accompanying article on Mormonism which he asked the newspaper to print. The editor had suspected something was awry and called the attention of Mae Smith to the photocopies. She recognized that court documents had been taken without authorization and, working with the county clerk, contacted Mr. Edwin M. Crumb, Clerk of the Chenango County Board of Supervisors. Mr. James H. Haynes, Jr., Chenango County Attorney, was next directed to write Wesley P. Walters. Mr. Haynes responded on 16 September 1971:

Dear Reverend Walters:

Our County Historian, Mrs. Mae Smith, has asked me to write you concerning certain papers that were taken by you from County records stored in the cellar of our local sheriff's office. I have letters about these records which you wrote Mrs. Smith dated August 21, 1971.

According to Mrs. Smith, these records were taken by you without her permission and she has written you requesting they be returned immediately.

Will you please contact Yale University immediately and ask that these papers be returned to Mrs. Smith, our County Historian, without any delay whatsoever.30

The documents were subsequently returned under duress. Obviously the records in that basement room were uncataloged, so there was no way of determining just how many documents had walked out the door. The observer can appreciate the justifiable dilemma of those who had the documents in their charge.

[Richard]

Hmmm, trustworthy and honest men, Walter is proving to be suspect.

Someone might say, "Well, they did preserve them by their action—what other option did they have?" Well, let me suggest some alternatives. The county clerk, Mr. John P. McGuire, was a very responsible man, besides being the lawful caretaker of the records. I had worked with him over an extended period of time in targeting certain items of historical value for microfilming by the Latter-day Saint Church genealogical microfilmer. If he had been alerted to the historical value of these documents I haven't the least doubt that he would have taken steps to see that they were removed from the basement and preserved in a safe place for further disposition. Other items of a historical value to the community were already in the vault. Too, Mae Smith, the Chenango County Historian, could have guaranteed their safety and made requisition to obtain possession of them, which was what ultimately happened.31 By taking them away, Walters and Poffarl committed the cardinal sin of possibly compromising their validity. Some felt they had tampered with the evidence during their disappearance. I personally believe that those documents that were returned are valid and intact. But, of course—and this is the problem—that cannot be proven.

Walters did give an extended explanation of the actions of himself and his friend in 1974, some time after the fact. He reported that he was in immediate contact with Mae Smith and others (a little over three weeks afterwards). His description would lead the reader to believe that everything was amicably smoothed over.32 However, I only know that I saw a bristling Mae Smith when I arrived in Norwich soon after the published report by Walters. She was not at all pleased with the methods of these two men in extracting official documents, a situation that had not changed a year later when I called at the Chenango County Historical Museum to see the elusive documents, which had since been returned. In the press to the fore historians cannot override their local counterparts. Something more was lost in that exchange than the momentary disappearance of records. That nonprofessional act created an air of suspicion in Chenango County officialdom where so much trust had been extended to generations of researchers before this mishap. In retrospect I can still hear the simple request of the county clerk, Mr. McGuire, to all comers, "When you take them out, just put them back where you found them." A few details for the sake of accuracy can provide a wider spectrum of understanding when limited information may have given us a somewhat slanted view of the actual incident.

So in conclusion Brian, your documented righteous source is clearly, Hmmm suspect.

The writers have compiled what appear to be "plausible" answers to some long-time trouble spots. This will have an appeal to those anxious for a resolution of certain difficult questions. Marquardt and Walters have crafted their attack on the early historical ins***ution of Mormonism with exceeding care and have written in a convincing style. Their approach will be disarming to readers who may not be able to discern the dividing line between fact and fiction.

The questions which they have raised have implications for readers that will demand the very best verifiable responses available. As their sources are further digested and critiqued the "winnowing" process will be more complete. Perhaps then the delineation of what is actual versus what might be cl***ified as the "Reinvention of Mormonism" can be further affixed.