Joseph Smith's Trial on Trial
Fool Speck
Apologetics:
http://www.shields-research.org/General/LDS_Leaders/Joseph_Smith/1826_Trial_Walters.htm
The above writings are both worthy examples of pro and con literature.
We have here an opportunity for both critics and apologists to play
on a level field allowing each to their respective articles.
Instead of doing a complete review, I suggest we do shorter posts
discussing particular flaws as they are discovered or additional
information missed by the authors.
I will in time post my observations.
Steve Lowther
ARM Critics Guild
Elizabeth & Dale
For those of you wishing to delve a bit more deeply into Bro. Joseph's days
down along the Susquehanna, I suggest the following light reading:
1. Blackman's History of Susquehanna County - (1873)
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1873Susq.htm
2. Purple's "Joseph Smith, Originator of Mormonism" (1877)
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm
3. Mather's "Early Days of Mormonism" - (1880)
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880Math.htm
4. The Lewis brothers' recollections of Smith in PA (1878)
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/miscill2.htm
5. Nov 1825 "money-diggers'" signed agreement
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune.htm#042380
I have more unpublished source material along these lines.
If you want to see more, just let me know and I'll post more.
Unka Dale
Kevin Thurston
Prior to publishing the BoM, Joseph Smith had a fascination with the folk
magic of the day, dabbled in aspects of it (divination pertaining to money
digging) and was interested in the speculation of the day about where the
native Americans came from and their role in the construction of mounds that
were common to the area.
Or:
Joseph Smith had no interest or experience in all those things mentioned
above, and he was visited by an angel (either Nephi or Moroni who was
actually a dead person from ancient America) who showed him where he could
dig up a treasure he was not allowed to cash in on, but had to translate
into a book which was actually an ancient revelation from God.
?
Which is more likely?
Kevin Thurston
--
"Jesus must be spinning in his grave!"... Barney Gumble
Fool Speck
Since Church publications verify that Joseph admitted (although
minimized) his involvement in money-digging, no one can conclude he
had NO interest in it.
So the second paragraph would have to be modified to include what is
documented in _The History of the Church_ .
Steve Lowther
Elizabeth & Dale
Fool Speck wrote:
>
> Since Church publications verify that Joseph admitted (although
> minimized) his involvement in money-digging, no one can conclude he
> had NO interest in it.
>
> So the second paragraph would have to be modified to include what is
> documented in _The History of the Church_ .
>
> Steve Lowther
A better place to get at Smith's admission of money digging is in the
Elders' Jourmal -- here he does not try to mask those activities as
being a quest for a lost silver mine, in which he managed to talk
Josiah Stowell out of the fruitless quest. Rather, Smith admits that he
was paid a small wage for the work.
What he does not disclose, even in his admisison in the 1838 "Elders'
Journal," was that he himself was not actually a "digger."
Smith allowed others to do the dirty work, while he took it easy, gazing
into his crystals and seer-stones. He eventually evolved from a semi-magical
treasure finder to the religiously motivated finder of the Nephite gold plates.
For an interesting "half-way" point in Smith's progression from money-finder
to gold plates finder, etc., see what William Mclellen had to say in Oct. of 1831:
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne01.htm#102531
Note that McLellen is reported as preaching to a Gentile audience in Illinois,
that Joseph Smith "found in the same place two stones with which he was enabled
by placing them over his eyes and putting his head in a dark corner to decypher
the hieroglyphics on the plates..."
Now this isn't exactly a description of the "Urim & Thummim" spectacles reported
by Mother Smith and others -- nor is it a description of a single seer stone, gazed
upon in the crown of an inverted hat. The description is of a process that lies
somewhere between there two ends of the Mormon/anti-Mormon spectrum.
Interesting, hunh?
For another glimpse at the very early Smith, through teh etxt of a similar newspaper
report, check this one out:
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/OH/miscohio.htm#no5
Cheers,
Unka Dale
Glenn Thigpen
The two are not mutually exclusive. On a purely rational basis, the first is
the more likely.
Glenn
R. L. Measures
<dbro...@gte.net> wrote:
€ Yes. "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."
- Mark Twain
later, Dale
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
Kevin Thurston
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.0111...@posting.google.com...
Yet I guarantee there are no missionaries mentioning it to investigators and
it has no part of the stories that are told about it.
>
> So the second paragraph would have to be modified to include what is
> documented in _The History of the Church_ .
Of course. I was trying to keep it in simple terms, so we could do a lot of
modification, couldn't we? The point I was trying to make is that after the
apologists try to obfuscate and rationalize away the evidence, you're still
left with a very simple choice which should be obvious to anyone that
doesn't have the a priori assumption that one version is true as a testimony
provides.
Kevin Thurston
"That's OK Marge we don't have to go on vacation. We'll just go home and
wait for the killer bees to come to us."... Homer Simpson
CharlesSWaters
"Kevin Thurston" <akth...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:9rvp9t$s...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Joseph Smith's folk magic expertise has been documented.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Question with boldness even the very existence of a God; because if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a
blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
Glenn Thigpen
> "Kevin Thurston" <akth...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:9rvp9t$s...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > Which is more likely:
> > Prior to publishing the BoM, Joseph Smith had a fascination with the folk
> > magic of the day, dabbled in aspects of it (divination pertaining to money
> > digging) and was interested in the speculation of the day about where the
> > native Americans came from and their role in the construction of mounds
> that
> > were common to the area.
> >
> > Or:
> > Joseph Smith had no interest or experience in all those things mentioned
> > above, and he was visited by an angel (either Nephi or Moroni who was
> > actually a dead person from ancient America) who showed him where he could
> > dig up a treasure he was not allowed to cash in on, but had to translate
> > into a book which was actually an ancient revelation from God.
> > ?
> > Which is more likely?
>
> Joseph Smith's folk magic expertise has been documented.
So have the translation of the Book of Mormon, the existence of the golden
plates, the restoration of the priesthood, etc.
Glenn
Fool Speck
"THE 1826 TRIAL
"Having concluded that Smith was indeed a glass looker and a
scoundrel, Walters next tackles the 1826 trial. He starts by again
quoting Benton about Smith's 1825 money digging activities as a glass
looker for Stowell.15 He then presents the justice's and constable's
bills with the statement that:
-----------------------------
Here Jacobs states his intention, that Smith was not a glass looker,
or a least did not view himself as such.
-----------------------------
"'the discovery...of two bills from the officials who participated in
the arrest and trial of Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge in 1826
confirm this story beyond question.'
"The bills verify that:
"Smith was before the court on an unspecified misdemeanor charge.
"The Justice's fee was $2.68.
"The court appearance was on March 20, 1826.
"Smith was held for two days and one night.
"Twelve witnesses were subpoenaed.
"Two justices were notified.
"The sheriff had a mittimus.
"Again, no testimony or verdict is recorded. Walters emphasizes that
the term "the glass looker" in Neely's bill proves that Smith was
indeed a glass looker, and as corroboration refers in a footnote to a
statement made by Isaac Hale, Smith's father-in-law, where Hale says
that Smith referred to himself as a glass looker. A comparison of
Hale's statement with Joseph Smith's history show that Walters is
again drawing unwarranted conclusions and suppressing information
about Hale which the reader needs for a proper evaluation of Hale's
statement. The reader needs to know that:
"The Smith family stated that Joseph's reputation as a money digger
originated from his work with Stowell in late 1825. According to the
family, Stowell had hired Joseph to help search for a mine.19
"Hale's statement is not contemporary with the alleged money digging
and glass looking activities, but was given in 1834 after Smith had
made enemies because of the publication of the Book of Mormon and the
founding of a church. Hale, a devout Methodist, considered Smith to
be a religious fraud."
"By emphasizing that Hale was Smith's father-in-law, Walters hopes to
convince the reader that Hale and Smith were on friendly enough terms
that Smith would confide in Hale, who was therefore in a position to
know first-hand what Smith was doing. In fact, Smith boarded with the
Hales while working for Stowell. Hale didn't approve of Smith's
occupation, which at that time was helping Stowell look for a mine,
and refused to let Joseph marry his daughter.21
"In January, 1827, the twenty-two-year-old Emma eloped with Joseph,
much to her father's annoyance. Smith irritated Hale again by
refusing to show him what were supposed to have been the plates from
which the Book of Mormon was taken.
"Thus Hale is not a neutral witness, but held several grudges against
Smith and regarded him as a religious fraud. Yet Walters implies that
this supposed self-designation as a glass looker comes from a source
which is neutral or perhaps even friendly to Smith."
---------------
All of the above seems to have been presented that the reader may
conclude that Hale was "not a neutral witness". And because Hale was
not neutral, are we supposed do discount his testimony? This would be
absurd. In all trials in the history of the United States, how many
witnesses are called because they are neutral? None!
Witnesses are called for the defense, and for the prosecution. By
definition neither is neutral. Dismissing testimony because a witness
is "not neutral" is not logically derived. This is why witnesses are
sworn in. They can expected to be penalized for lying, and it is the
job of the opposing side to confute their testimony.
Jacobs goes on to state: "Yet Walters implies that this supposed
self-designation as a glass looker comes from a source which is
neutral or perhaps even friendly to Smith."
It seems the author (Jacobs) has failed to review Smith's testimony
which Smith himself admits as much:
"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."
So what is the author's point of trying to illustrate that Smith did
not think of himself as a glass-looker? All one needs to do is to
read the summary of Smith's testimony!
Critics of FARMS (and SHIELDS) style have stated that FARMS' main
tactic is to write a great deal in an argumentative tone without
really stating much at all. So here we have yet another example!
More to come!
Elizabeth & Dale
Fool Speck wrote:
>> The following is a section from the SHEILDS article by Malin L. Jacob:
>>
>> "THE 1826 TRIAL"
>>
>> ...
>
>> "Hale's statement is not contemporary with the alleged money digging
>> and glass looking activities, but was given in 1834...
>>
>> "... Hale is not a neutral witness, but held several grudges against
>> Smith and regarded him as a religious fraud..."
>
>
> All of the above seems to have been presented that the reader may
> conclude that Hale was "not a neutral witness". And because Hale was
> not neutral, are we supposed do discount his testimony? This would be
> absurd. In all trials in the history of the United States, how many
> witnesses are called because they are neutral? None!... More to come!
>
> Steve Lowther
> ARM Critics Guild
Ok Ok, we might argue that since father Hale gave his sworn, signed testimony
about a decade after Smith first lived and operated in the Susquehanna region as a
treasure-locater, that Hale's testimony is inadmissable -- too many years had passed.
But -- if we do this -- thousands of pro-Mormon statements collected over the years
would have to be thrown out also. I suggest that we do not too lightly disregard Hale.
What we must consider, however, is that his testimony may not be 100% accurate or
100% objective. Certainly Hale's feeling about Smith in 1834 should be taken into
consideration as we read what he has to say about his son-in-law.
But -- and a BIG but -- Hale was not so detached from the money-digging operations
as some might care to think. He was an initial member of the money-digging operation,
his own close relative having gotten the whole scam going, even before the money-diggers
murdered the major financier, Oliver Harper, and the project came under Stowell's control.
So -- Father Hale and one or more of his family were going out with Smith in the early
money digs. Hale had ample opportunity to witness how Joseph Smith went about
locating buried riches -- whether with a divining-rod or with a seer-stone. To argue that
Father Hale could have known nothing about these things, because Joseph would have
never admitted them to his future father-in-law, is ridiculous. Many early Mormons
testify to the fact that Smith used seer-stones, even stones above and beyond the so-called
biblical Urim & Thummim. He used such stones before, during, and after the period
during which the Book of Mormon text was being prepared for publication.
To argue that Smith was not a "glass-looker" or seer-stone gazer is not a very good
tactic in Mormon apologetics. It would be far better for the polemicist to argue that
Smith was never convicted of cheating anybody when he did such things -- that much,
at least, might be supported by the evidence surrounding Smith's pre-trial hearing.
For Father Hale's testimony -- as originally given and published -- see this:
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1820.htm#050134
For the purported original second money-digging agreement -- see this:
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune.htm#042380
For info on the first money-digging operation, with Harper, Stowell, Smith, etc.: -- see:
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1873Susq.htm
Cheers,
Unka Dale
cdowis
snip
> It seems the author (Jacobs) has failed to review Smith's testimony
> which Smith himself admits as much:
>
> "Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says
> that he came from the town of Palmyra, snip
Please give us the source.
Fool Speck
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm
Steve
CharlesSWaters
"Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
news:3BE5A686...@tcnet-nc.com...
So has the divine creation of the Koran, the mission of Islam, the divine
Islamic laws of God, etc.
O, and Joseph Smiths folk magic practices.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance." Goethe
Glenn Thigpen
Or to show that such a witness had an axe to grind, as Isaac Hale most
certainly did. When a defense lawyer is questioning a witness for the
proposition concerning something of this nature, i.e. "I heard John Doe
say such and such." there is very little he can do to prove that the
witness is lying. But if he can show that the witness had ill feelings
toward the defendant, it tends to weaken that witnesses testimony to a
rational juror.
We have no way at this time to cross examine Isaac Hale or anyone else
connected with that 1826 examination, which appears to be more of a
preliminary hearing than a trial. But in testing a witnesses credibility,
one must take into account demonstrated prejudices and ill feelings. A
case in point is that of A. W. Benton, with whom I trust you will deal
soon.
>
>
> Jacobs goes on to state: "Yet Walters implies that this supposed
> self-designation as a glass looker comes from a source which is
> neutral or perhaps even friendly to Smith."
>
> It seems the author (Jacobs) has failed to review Smith's testimony
> which Smith himself admits as much:
>
> "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."
What is the source for this supposed testimony? Not the the
non-existent but still "published court record" I hope? How sure are you
of your sources?
>
>
> So what is the author's point of trying to illustrate that Smith did
> not think of himself as a glass-looker? All one needs to do is to
> read the summary of Smith's testimony!
Steve, you must first demonstrate that Joseph actually admitted to the
things he is alleged to have.
cdowis
And........???? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I see
nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
trial. Where is the original copy?
Please help me understand.
I quote as follows:
=============================
In 1971 Wesley P. Walters made a remarkable discovery which verifies
the claim that Joseph Smith was a "glass looker" and that he was
arrested and brought before a Justice of the Peace for that practice.
Since that time, Pastor Walters has contributed a great deal to our
knowledge of Joseph Smith's encounter with the law. Walters has shared
with us many of the insights and material which he has gleaned from
his study of the laws of the State of New York. His research, in fact,
has made this article possible. Pastor Walters will undoubtedly
prepare the definitive work on many of the things which we briefly
touch on in this issue of the Messenger. Just recently H. Michael
Marquardt found some original documents which throw important new
light on this matter. He has been kind enough to allow us to be the
first to publish on this subject. In addition, some Mormon scholars
have also added some important observations that have helped us to get
a more complete picture of what occurred in 1826.
============================
Nothing so far on the transcript.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At this point we are printing the court record in its entirety from
its earliest known source, Fraser's Magazine, February, 1873, vol.
VII, pp. 229-230.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The original pages of this transcript were still in existence in
January, 1886, when the Utah Christian Advocate published the
following:
"The document we print below is interesting to those, who desire
historical light on the origin of Mormonism. We received the
Manuscript from Bishop Tuttle; and the following, from the good
bishop's pen, explains how he came into possession of the
Manuscript:--'The Ms. was given me by Miss Emily Pearsall who, some
years since, was a woman keeper in our mission and lived in my family,
and died here. Her father or uncle was a Justice of the Peace in
Bainbridge Chenango Co., New York, in Jo. Smith's time, and before him
was tried. Miss Pearsall tore the leaves out of the record found in
her father's house and brought them to me."'
While Bishop Tuttle could not remember whether it was Emily Pearsall's
father or uncle who was Justice of the Peace in Bainbridge, Stanley S.
Ivins solved this problem many years ago when he found that Albert
Neely was Miss Pearsall's uncle (see History And Genealogy of the
Pearsall Family in England & America, pages 1143, 1144 and 1151).
The transcript was published three times by different individuals
after it arrived in Salt Lake City. As we have already shown, it
appeared first in Fraser's Magazine in 1873. It was printed by Bishop
Tuttle in the 1883 New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia and finally appeared
in the Utah Christian Advocate in 1886.
++++++++++++++++++++
Please note that the **original** was stolen by an assistant of an
infamous antimormon, and then "lost" before its authenticity could be
verified.
Here is an antimormon, known for his attacks on Mormonism, and when
the so-called transcript is now in SLC where others can check its
authenticity, it becomes "lost".
Did you happen to see that in their article?? The Tanners did not
make that fact very clear, so you have to read behind the lines in
their article.
It became **********lost************* No one authenticated this
document. It is lost.
================================
Michael Marquardt's study of the text of the three different printings
leads him to the conclusion that they were all printed from the
original pages rather than one borrowing from another.
=============================
How does this antimormon know it was from the "original", rather from
a single forgery. IOW, all three are printed from ONE document,
either a forgery or the original. Marquardt cannot prove which, but
the antis say it was the original.
===========================
The fact that Wesley P. Walters' discovery of the 1826 bill of Justice
Neely confirms the accuracy of the transcript can hardly be disputed
by anyone who takes a close look at the evidence.
==============================
It does not prove the ************text************ of the transcript.
==================================
We have already shown that the statement on the Neely bill that Joseph
Smith was a "Glass looker" fits very well with the contents of the
transcript which has been published. Moreover, Neely's bill provides
some very specific evidence. It states that the trial took place on
"March 20, 1826," and this is precisely the date found in the
published account of the trial: "Prisoner brought before Court March
20, 1826." (Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873, page 229) In Albert Neely's
bill the fee for this case is listed as "2.68," and this is the exact
figure found in the printed record: "Costs:... $2.68." In light of
this evidence, it seems impossible to continue to deny the
authenticity of the court record.
==============================
It proves nothing. It proves that the antimormons stole the
transcript, created the forgery based on the original. They used the
details on the original, and followed the original as closely as
possible with "minor" changes.
The "transcript" then became ................ lost.
The Tanners have not proven the text of the transcript.
++++++++++++++++++++
From this it is very clear that the published transcript is not
something that can be easily dismissed.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Even the Tanners now admit that they have proven nothing. They can
only say that if it were a fogery, the forgers followed the details of
the original transcript. Big deal.
J Stryker
>From: cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis)
>Date: 11/6/2001 8:23 AM EST
cdowis says
>And........???? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I see
>nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
>trial. Where is the original copy?
>
>Please help me understand.
>
But Charrles, you don't WANT to understand. Everytimes someone quote a source
YOU want to see the original. But you fail everytime you post to locate the
original source.
Why do you insist everyone else must be held to a higher standard than you?
If you would just say "I choose to not believe the evidence you give for no
other reason than I don't want to", it woulld be a more intelligent argument.
So to bring you to speed on this as an equal to all you "refute" please give us
the earthly location of the original plates of gold. Just to be sure JS Jr
copied it faithfully.
Jan
Kevin Thurston
Steve has pointed out how the dichotomy is not how I portray it, and I
pointed out that I was going on the simplistic route. If the two are not
mutually exclusive, then it's a remarkable coincidence. In fact it would be
so remarkable as to be beyond belief. I suppose that doesn't matter to one
who has faith.
> On a purely rational basis, the first is
> the more likely.
On a purely rational basis, the BoM is a natural product of the 19th
century, not a supernatural reclamation of ancient Western Hemisphere
writings. It appears that you would agree with that statement also. This is
something I wouldn't have credited you with prior to this. I would have
lumped you in with the apologist that claims that rational analysis
concludes that the BoM is a supernatural product. It's nice to know that you
realize you have only your testimony, your faith to assure you of the
validity of the BoM. Or have I jumped to conclusions here?
Kevin Thurston
--
"Let's hear what this noted scientician has to say."... Troy McLure
cdowis
> >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith's Trial on Trial
> >From: cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis)
> >Date: 11/6/2001 8:23 AM EST
>
> cdowis says
> >And........???? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I see
> >nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
> >trial. Where is the original copy?
> >
> >Please help me understand.
> >
>
> But Charrles, you don't WANT to understand. Everytimes someone quote a source
> YOU want to see the original. But you fail everytime you post to locate the
> original source.
>
> Why do you insist everyone else must be held to a higher standard than you?
The authenticity of the so-called transcript *is* the whole issue
under discussion, not just whether something is quoted properly or
not. Tanners entire article is based on their argument that it is
authentic. I point out the flaws in their argument, and, yes, I
insist on the original.
And the antis themselves stole the document -- removed it from the
courthouse, had several different versions printed, and and then
promptly "lost" it.
And now our friends here are quoting from this "transcript" as if it
were authenticated.
snip
Markg91359
>nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
>trial. Where is the original copy?
>
This may be beyond you to follow Charles, but for the benefit of the others
here let me say the following:
1. When Fawn Brodie published NMKMH in 1945, the book was, IMO, legitimately
criticized by the LDS Church for relying too much on this transcript that has
been quoted here. The transcript was allegedly torn out of a court docket book
by Emily Pearsall, who was a relative of the Judge who presided at the trial,
Judge Neely. It is quite true that since the original document does not exist
that one can argue, that all kinds of liberties could have been taken with it.
However, what has been found subsequently, generally bears out the "overall
authenticity" of what occurred.
2. Subsequent research unearthed letters written by A.W. Benton and Dr. Purple
(Dr. Purple was regarded as an eminent physician and historical authority in
Bainbridge, NY where the proceedings took place). There is some disagreement
on some specifics in these letters. A.W. Benton contends that Smith was tried
and convicted. Dr. Purple contends he was acquitted because the person
allegedly being defrauded (Josiah Stowell) stood up in court and declared he
believed Smith could see buried treasure underground by looking through a seer
stone. However, both independent accounts agree there was a trial and that
Smith was being tried for being a disorderly person and a "money digger".
Interestingly, both A W Benton and Dr. Purple in independent correspondence
talk about the witnesses who testified during the trial. There is a great deal
of concurrence on who the witnesses were and what they said. Much of this
correlates with the material in the Pearsall transcript. Thus, in some sense,
authenticating the Pearsall transcript as legitimate.
3. Other research by Dale Morgan established that the names of the people who
appear in the Pearsall transcript as witnesses were not made up. They were
actual living people who appear in the US Census Records in 1830 in the area.
Its hard to imagine Pearsall, or others, could have totally fabricated this
transcript, but gotten all these names correct.
4. Smith conceded to Oliver Cowdery that in his youth he had been involved in
some legal trouble. Although, Cowdery's version is that he was totally
exonerated of the charges.
5. Wesley Walters came along in the 1970's and produced other legal documents
indicating there had been criminal proceedings brought against Smith.
6. The fact there was likely a trial has been conceded by Mormon scholars who
have written in BYU Studies. (See "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal
Setting", by Gordon Madsen, BYU Studies, 1978, P. 91)
One bugaboo that constantly arises about this trial is a fixation that the only
important thing is whether Smith was found guilty or innocent. I think based
on the historical evidence we have its hard to say definitely what the court's
finding was. In my view "guilt or innocence" is a red herring here, anyway.
The importance of the trial lies in the facts that were established.
First it is clear is that there was a trial (despite protestations to the
contrary of some LDS scholars). Several witnesses testified to Smith claiming
he could see buried treasure underground with a seer stone. Further, that
Josiah Stowell believed Smith could do this, even though treasure was, of
course, never found.
The implications of this seem clear. Smith claimed he could see buried
treasure underground with a stone, even though its pure nonsense. Smith must
have been quite a persuasive person enough because even though he never found
treasure, Stowell remained a believer in his claims. Finally, its quite a
coincidence in my view that all this occurred in 1826--just three years before
the BoM was translated and the CJCLDS was founded.
The original copy may not be available, Charles, but its not necessary to
establish the most important events that occurred. Quibbling over details,
rather than focusing on the basic facts does not help your cause.
Mark
Mark
Elizabeth & Dale
Markg91359 wrote:
Heck, Mark -- if the original pre-trial hearing proceedings had been written down
and preserved in a J. P.'s docket book, and kept under lock and key since that very day,
the TBM polemicist would still not accept it as credible evidence.
Trial?
what trial?
Seer stone?
what seer stone?
Leg bail?
what's that?
Nephi "If I had the wings of an angel, over these prison walls I would fly" Poindexter
R. L. Measures
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> >And........???? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I see
> >nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
> >trial. Where is the original copy?
> >
>
> This may be beyond you to follow Charles, but for the benefit of the others
> here let me say the following:
>
€ What you say to Charles Dowis will be like unto water on a duck's back.
cheers, Mark and congrats on a well written piece.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
R. L. Measures
<dbro...@gte.net> wrote:
> Markg91359 wrote:
>
> > >And........???? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I see
> > >nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
> > >trial. Where is the original copy?
> > >
> >
> > This may be beyond you to follow Charles, but for the benefit of the others
> > here let me say the following:
> >
> >...
>
> Heck, Mark -- if the original pre-trial hearing proceedings had been
written down
> and preserved in a J. P.'s docket book, and kept under lock and key
since that very day,
> the TBM polemicist would still not accept it as credible evidence.
>
€ ... because visions heavenly babes dance in their heads.
cheers, Dale
Glenn Thigpen
> > CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Joseph Smith's folk magic expertise has been documented.
> >
"Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
>
> > So have the translation of the Book of Mormon, the existence of the
> golden
> > plates, the restoration of the priesthood, etc.
"Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
To which Charles Waters replied
> So has the divine creation of the Koran, the mission of Islam, the divine
> Islamic laws of God, etc.
and added redundantly,
>
>
> O, and Joseph Smiths folk magic practices.
>
So Glenn replies:
Then documentation in and of itself seems to prove nothing.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Of course this is a source which curiously no one has been able to produce for any of us to verify where it
actually came from. As you may have already noticed, there are several accounts with quite some few differences.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
The real problem is to ascertain what the basic facts are. That there was a
trial, or rather an examination (which is more like a preliminary hearing) is not
a question. That some people said that Joseph claimed he could find buried
treasure, there is little doubt. I find it rather incredible Joseph would stand up
and imcriminate himself as he appears to do from the the sources that have been
given. He would have to have been incredibly stupid to have done so, and there
would have been no further need for any other witnesses.
That is why it is important to know the source of the original documents from
which these reports were made. If Joseph were indeed discharged, as Dr. Purple
stated, then the reports in Fraser's and the New Scharf-Herzog Encyclopedia that
Joseph was found guilty is a lie.
Those articles were printed as coming from an official court record, which is
not all that likely, since written records were only required for felony cases,
and Joseph's case was clearly labelled a misdemeanor on Justice Neely's bill.
Both Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Smith jr. inform us that Josiah Stowell came
seeking Joseph when he learned that Joseph had some kind of seer stone. Joseph
tried to disuade the gentleman from his quest, but Josiah offered good wages and
finally persuaded Joseph to accompany him. The actual treasure seeking lasted only
about a month which even Isaac Hale admitted in his affidavit.
It is interesting to note that in the testimony ascribed to Josiah Stowell he
said that he did not believe that Joseph had such powers, but that he knew that he
had them, because when he went to Palmyra to obtain Joseph;s services, Joseph had
described to Josiah the appearance of his home and outhouses as well as a painted
tree with a man's hand upon it.
Now if you are to accept all of this as the gospel truth, that the purported
court record is legit, then you will have to disabuse yourself of the notion that
Joseph being able to see things with his stone "is pure nonsense".
If you can maybe entertain the idea that some people were willing to lie about
Joseph, and many more were all too willing to believ those lies, or maybe
embellish the truth in a most entertaining fashion, then maybe you can come to the
conclusion that the whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion, a
mountain made out of a molehill.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
>
> > On a purely rational basis, the first is
> > the more likely.
Kevin Thurston wrote:
>
>
> On a purely rational basis, the BoM is a natural product of the 19th
> century, not a supernatural reclamation of ancient Western Hemisphere
> writings. It appears that you would agree with that statement also. This is
> something I wouldn't have credited you with prior to this. I would have
> lumped you in with the apologist that claims that rational analysis
> concludes that the BoM is a supernatural product. It's nice to know that you
> realize you have only your testimony, your faith to assure you of the
> validity of the BoM. Or have I jumped to conclusions here?
>
> Kevin Thurston
> --
> "Let's hear what this noted scientician has to say."... Troy McLure
Yes, you have jumped to conclusions here. But I will say this, that my
belief in the Book of Mormon, my testimony came before I began to explore the
other aspects of the Book, beginning with a class taught by Daniel H. Ludlow in
1964. Therein he cautioned his students not to jump on every "evidence"
bandwagon that rolled through town.
To the TBM, it would take proof on the order of proving beyound any shadow
of a doubt, that there is no God, to change their belief in the Book of Mormon.
To the skeptic, there is no proof less than actually proving that God exists
beyond any shadow of doubt, to compell him to believe in the Book of Mormon.
I cheerfully admit to being much closer to the TBM camp than the skeptic
camp, and offer no apologies for my testimony.
That does not mean that I have turned off my mind and play the robot with my
life. I just adhere to the philosophy set forth by former President of the LDS
Church, Heber J. Grant.
In 1929, Heber J. Grant (former President of the Church) told the story of a
man with a doctorate who had ridiculed him for believing in the Book of Mormon.
That learned man cited the mention of cement work as an obvious lie "because
the people in that early age knew nothing about cement." President Grant, who
was a young man at the time of that conversation, said:
"That does not affect my faith one particle. I read the Book of Mormon
prayerfully and supplicated God
for a testimony in my heart and soul of the divinity of it, and I have
accepted it and believe it with all
my heart." I also said to him, "If my children do not find cement houses,
I expect that my
grandchildren will."
He said, "Well, what is the good of talking with a fool like that?"
(April 1929
Conference Report, p. 128 ff)
Of course we now know that cement structures have been discovered in central
America. But there are some things which have not been found, all of which have
been discussed here before.
But there are many many things which Joseph Smith nor any other man of his
time could have guessed correctly because they just were not known during his
time, yet they wind up in the Book of Mormon.
Glenn
Markg91359
thought-provoking dialogue is what makes ARM worthwhile on occasion.
You wrote:
>The real problem is to ascertain what the basic facts are.
And indeed is a terrific problem. We are looking at events that occurred almost
180 years ago. All we can go by are entries in official records, personal
correspondence, and the later writings of the people involved. There's bound
to be some guesswork in calculating exactly what happened. Finally, there is
the interpretation problem. Someone predisposed to the church is likely to
interpret the facts that exist one way. An antagonist is likely to see them in
an opposite fashion.
The basic problem I have here is that we need context to evaluate Smith's
claims about the BoM. I think most people outside the church would state that
if someone came to them and claimed that an angel told him in a vision that
they would find Golden Plates buried on a hill, that these plates contained
the record of a lost civilization, that the person subsequently claimed he
unearthed the plates and translated them, and finally that when he finished an
angel carried the plates back to heaven, they would meet the claims with
skepticism.
If, subsequently, the non-member learned that this same person had been charged
three years before in the criminal courts with conduct similar to theft by
deception, AND that it involved a story about locating treasure
underground--the non-member's skepticism would likely increase.
The business about Smith's money-digging and trial/examination in the criminal
courts is important precisely because his credibility is at issue.
>That there was a
>trial, or rather an examination (which is more like a preliminary hearing) is
>not
>a question.
Except some LDS scholars still disingenuously try to deny it.
>That some people said that Joseph claimed he could find buried
>treasure, there is little doubt.
Only to those who deliberately blind and deafen themselves to any contrary
evidence.
>I find it rather incredible Joseph would stand up
>and imcriminate himself as he appears to do from the the sources that have
>been
>given.
Well, this is contrary to the three sources....the Dr. Purple letter, the A.W.
Benton letter, and the purported trial record. Maybe all three of them are
wrong. But bear in mind the Purple and Benton letters were written
independently at different times to different entities. One has to wonder how
they could both be mistaken. If the trial record is indeed, invented or a
forgery as some latter day saint scholars contend, one has to ask why are the
names of the witnesses cited therein real people who appear on the census rolls
in 1830 in that part of New York? Possibly parts of the record are invented.
But, I think its a longshot that it was entirely made up.
>He would have to have been incredibly stupid to have done so, and there
>would have been no further need for any other witnesses.
Who knows? Obviously, this was a court pursuing a matter it thought to be
fairly minor. There may not have been strict adherence to procedures by a
justice of the peace. Its a reasonable point though.
>If Joseph were indeed discharged, as Dr. Purple
>stated, then the reports in Fraser's and the New Scharf-Herzog Encyclopedia
>that
>Joseph was found guilty is a lie.
The reports would be incorrect, or Purple would be incorrect. Lie maybe too
strong a comment. Maybe Smith was convicted and then left off with a warning,
or probation that took place quickly. Maybe there is some room for
interpretation of what happened. It does seem evident that whatever occurred,
there was no jail time handed to Smith.
> Those articles were printed as coming from an official court record, which
>is
>not all that likely, since written records were only required for felony
>cases,
>and Joseph's case was clearly labelled a misdemeanor on Justice Neely's bill.
It may have been a situation where there wasn't strict adherence to procedures.
Or parts of the record maybe made up and other parts correct...its difficult
to say with certainty. Again, you make a valid point.
> Both Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Smith jr. inform us that Josiah Stowell came
>seeking Joseph when he learned that Joseph had some kind of seer stone.
You should ask why did Stowell travel all the way from Bainbridge to Palmyra.
Its a fair distance. Could it have been because Smith had an established
reputation doing this sort of work? What else would have motivated him to make
this journey and offer him wages and lodging just to dig for treasure?
> Now if you are to accept all of this as the gospel truth, that the
>purported
>court record is legit, then you will have to disabuse yourself of the notion
>that
>Joseph being able to see things with his stone "is pure nonsense".
I'm trying to follow this point. Are you suggesting people can see things
underground through stones?
> maybe you can come to the
>conclusion that the whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion,
>a
>mountain made out of a molehill.
This is one possible scenario....and it would be nice to have more information.
I can't think of a more important event--in terms of helping establish context
and credibility--when three years later the same person claims he dug up Golden
Plates on a hill and that we can't see them because an angel carried them back
to heaven.
I don't the know the answer myself because I wasn't there, but I find these
events more than a little interesting.
Mark
CharlesSWaters
The book of Mormon, Koran, asops fables, etc., prove nothing.
Fool Speck
I guess I am missing your point, Glenn. Sources are quoted through
out the article. Which document source do you need that is not
listed?
I actually have not noticed any significant differences in the
accounts, at least none that conflict. I do have to admit my bias,
however, so perhaps I could ask you to list a few of the significant
conflicts that we may discuss them?
I would also be interested in particular criticisms of that web page.
I realize that it may be difficult to enumerate specifics, however
only the specifics count. Wouldn't you agree?
Steve Lowther
cdowis
> >And........???? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I see
> >nothing proving the exact text of the so-called transcript of the
> >trial. Where is the original copy?
> >
>
> This may be beyond you to follow Charles, but for the benefit of the others
> here let me say the following:
>
> 1. When Fawn Brodie published NMKMH in 1945, the book was, IMO, legitimately
> criticized by the LDS Church for relying too much on this transcript that has
> been quoted here. The transcript was allegedly torn out of a court docket book
> by Emily Pearsall, who was a relative of the Judge who presided at the trial,
> Judge Neely. It is quite true that since the original document does not exist
> that one can argue, that all kinds of liberties could have been taken with it.
> However, what has been found subsequently, generally bears out the "overall
> authenticity" of what occurred.
>
> 2. Subsequent research unearthed letters written by A.W. Benton and Dr. Purple
> (Dr. Purple was regarded as an eminent physician and historical authority in
> Bainbridge, NY where the proceedings took place). There is some disagreement
> on some specifics in these letters. A.W. Benton contends that Smith was tried
> and convicted. Dr. Purple contends he was acquitted because the person
> allegedly being defrauded (Josiah Stowell) stood up in court and declared he
> believed Smith could see buried treasure underground by looking through a seer
> stone. However, both independent accounts agree there was a trial and that
> Smith was being tried for being a disorderly person and a "money digger".
There is no disputation that there was a trial.
>
> Interestingly, both A W Benton and Dr. Purple in independent correspondence
> talk about the witnesses who testified during the trial.
There were witnesses.
There is a great deal
> of concurrence on who the witnesses were and what they said. Much of this
> correlates with the material in the Pearsall transcript. Thus, in some sense,
> authenticating the Pearsall transcript as legitimate.
The issue is whether this alleged transcript is *based* on the
original, with most of the facts from the original included but with
significant changes, or if it is the actual original.
>
> 3. Other research by Dale Morgan established that the names of the people who
> appear in the Pearsall transcript as witnesses were not made up. They were
> actual living people who appear in the US Census Records in 1830 in the area.
> Its hard to imagine Pearsall, or others, could have totally fabricated this
> transcript, but gotten all these names correct.
Yawn.
The faked transcript has a factual basis on the actual transcript,
with only minor, but significant changes.
You keep proving what I have already said.
>
> 4. Smith conceded to Oliver Cowdery that in his youth he had been involved in
> some legal trouble. Although, Cowdery's version is that he was totally
> exonerated of the charges.
OK.
>
> 5. Wesley Walters came along in the 1970's and produced other legal documents
> indicating there had been criminal proceedings brought against Smith.
I think you are repeating what we already know. Please get to the
point of the authenticity of the complete text of this alleged
transcript.
>
> 6. The fact there was likely a trial has been conceded by Mormon scholars who
> have written in BYU Studies. (See "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal
> Setting", by Gordon Madsen, BYU Studies, 1978, P. 91)
Yes, yes, yes. Now get to the issue, please. The authenticity of the
text of this faked transcript.
>
> One bugaboo that constantly arises about this trial is a fixation that the only
> important thing is whether Smith was found guilty or innocent.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The issue we are discussing is the authenticity of the faked
transcript.
I think based
> on the historical evidence we have its hard to say definitely what the court's
> finding was. In my view "guilt or innocence" is a red herring here, anyway.
> The importance of the trial lies in the facts that were established.
>
> First it is clear is that there was a trial (despite protestations to the
> contrary of some LDS scholars). Several witnesses testified to Smith claiming
> he could see buried treasure underground with a seer stone. Further, that
> Josiah Stowell believed Smith could do this, even though treasure was, of
> course, never found.
>
> The implications of this seem clear. Smith claimed he could see buried
> treasure underground with a stone, even though its pure nonsense. Smith must
> have been quite a persuasive person enough because even though he never found
> treasure, Stowell remained a believer in his claims. Finally, its quite a
> coincidence in my view that all this occurred in 1826--just three years before
> the BoM was translated and the CJCLDS was founded.
>
> The original copy may not be available, Charles, but its not necessary to
> establish the most important events that occurred. Quibbling over details,
> rather than focusing on the basic facts does not help your cause.
This is very funny. You call "quibbling" when I ask for proof of the
authenticity of the *text* of this so-called transcript.
I repeat --> the antis stole the manuscript, they then "lost" what
they claim to be the text of that transcript. Now please prove that
the text of the transcript is correct and authentic.
That is not a "quibble", that is the issue itself.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark
Glenn Thigpen
> Glenn, thanks for a great post. This is a very good reply. This type of
> thought-provoking dialogue is what makes ARM worthwhile on occasion.
>
> You wrote:
>
> >The real problem is to ascertain what the basic facts are.
>
> And indeed is a terrific problem. We are looking at events that occurred almost
> 180 years ago. All we can go by are entries in official records, personal
> correspondence, and the later writings of the people involved. There's bound
> to be some guesswork in calculating exactly what happened. Finally, there is
> the interpretation problem. Someone predisposed to the church is likely to
> interpret the facts that exist one way. An antagonist is likely to see them in
> an opposite fashion.
>
> The basic problem I have here is that we need context to evaluate Smith's
> claims about the BoM. I think most people outside the church would state that
> if someone came to them and claimed that an angel told him in a vision that
> they would find Golden Plates buried on a hill, that these plates contained
> the record of a lost civilization, that the person subsequently claimed he
> unearthed the plates and translated them, and finally that when he finished an
> angel carried the plates back to heaven, they would meet the claims with
> skepticism.
Without a doubt.
>
>
> If, subsequently, the non-member learned that this same person had been charged
> three years before in the criminal courts with conduct similar to theft by
> deception, AND that it involved a story about locating treasure
> underground--the non-member's skepticism would likely increase.
Here is the rub. We do not know exactly what Joseph was charged with. Justice
Neely's bill only indicates that it was a misdemeanor. Dr. Purple said that he was
tried for vagrancy. A. W. Benton and Oliver Cowdery both said that he was charged
with being a disorderly person. Fraser's said that he was brought up on charges of
being a disorderly person and and imposter by one Peter Bridgeman, while Doctor
Purple said it was two of the sons of Josiah Stowell.
>
>
> The business about Smith's money-digging and trial/examination in the criminal
> courts is important precisely because his credibility is at issue.
Isn't the credibility of the witnesses and their motivations just as important?
Just a thought. When Philatus Hurlbut visited the Palmyra region in 1834 on his
character assination mission, if this had been such a big deal, why did not at
least one of those affidavits have something about it? That was only eight years
later.
>
>
> >That there was a
> >trial, or rather an examination (which is more like a preliminary hearing) is
> >not
> >a question.
>
> Except some LDS scholars still disingenuously try to deny it.
>
> >That some people said that Joseph claimed he could find buried
> >treasure, there is little doubt.
>
> Only to those who deliberately blind and deafen themselves to any contrary
> evidence.
>
> >I find it rather incredible Joseph would stand up
> >and imcriminate himself as he appears to do from the the sources that have
> >been
> >given.
>
> Well, this is contrary to the three sources....the Dr. Purple letter, the A.W.
> Benton letter, and the purported trial record. Maybe all three of them are
> wrong. But bear in mind the Purple and Benton letters were written
> independently at different times to different entities. One has to wonder how
> they could both be mistaken. If the trial record is indeed, invented or a
> forgery as some latter day saint scholars contend, one has to ask why are the
> names of the witnesses cited therein real people who appear on the census rolls
> in 1830 in that part of New York? Possibly parts of the record are invented.
> But, I think its a longshot that it was entirely made up.
I am not cognizant of the contents of the A. W. Benton letter, except that the
one he wrote in 1831. Could you kindly post the excerpt you are referring to?
>
>
> >He would have to have been incredibly stupid to have done so, and there
> >would have been no further need for any other witnesses.
>
> Who knows? Obviously, this was a court pursuing a matter it thought to be
> fairly minor. There may not have been strict adherence to procedures by a
> justice of the peace. Its a reasonable point though.
>
> >If Joseph were indeed discharged, as Dr. Purple
> >stated, then the reports in Fraser's and the New Scharf-Herzog Encyclopedia
> >that
> >Joseph was found guilty is a lie.
>
> The reports would be incorrect, or Purple would be incorrect. Lie maybe too
> strong a comment. Maybe Smith was convicted and then left off with a warning,
> or probation that took place quickly. Maybe there is some room for
> interpretation of what happened. It does seem evident that whatever occurred,
> there was no jail time handed to Smith.
From what I have been able to ascertain about this proceeding, an examination
is more like a preliminary hearing to determine if there is cause to hold someone
over for a regular trial. It does seem evident that Joseph was not held over for
anything.
>
>
> > Those articles were printed as coming from an official court record, which
> >is
> >not all that likely, since written records were only required for felony
> >cases,
> >and Joseph's case was clearly labelled a misdemeanor on Justice Neely's bill.
>
> It may have been a situation where there wasn't strict adherence to procedures.
> Or parts of the record maybe made up and other parts correct...its difficult
> to say with certainty. Again, you make a valid point.
>
> > Both Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Smith jr. inform us that Josiah Stowell came
> >seeking Joseph when he learned that Joseph had some kind of seer stone.
>
> You should ask why did Stowell travel all the way from Bainbridge to Palmyra.
> Its a fair distance. Could it have been because Smith had an established
> reputation doing this sort of work? What else would have motivated him to make
> this journey and offer him wages and lodging just to dig for treasure?
>
> > Now if you are to accept all of this as the gospel truth, that the
> >purported
> >court record is legit, then you will have to disabuse yourself of the notion
> >that
> >Joseph being able to see things with his stone "is pure nonsense".
>
> I'm trying to follow this point. Are you suggesting people can see things
> underground through stones?
I thought I included the part of Josiah Stowell testimony where when he
(Josiah) was at his brother's home in Palmyra he said that Joseph correctly
described his home and outhouses as well as a painted tree with the image of a
man's hand on it.
>
> > maybe you can come to the
> >conclusion that the whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion,
> >a
> >mountain made out of a molehill.
>
> This is one possible scenario....and it would be nice to have more information.
> I can't think of a more important event--in terms of helping establish context
> and credibility--when three years later the same person claims he dug up Golden
> Plates on a hill and that we can't see them because an angel carried them back
> to heaven.
In this instance, though, there were eleven other men who saw those plates. Not
one of them ever recanted that testimony, although several of them later left the
Church for various reasons.
Glenn
Kevin Thurston
> Yes, you have jumped to conclusions here. But I will say this, that my
> belief in the Book of Mormon, my testimony came before I began to explore
the
> other aspects of the Book, beginning with a class taught by Daniel H.
Ludlow in
> 1964. Therein he cautioned his students not to jump on every "evidence"
> bandwagon that rolled through town.
That's consistent with my expectation/conclusion.
> To the TBM, it would take proof on the order of proving beyound any
shadow
> of a doubt, that there is no God, to change their belief in the Book of
Mormon.
That's a remarkable claim, because it forces me to examine the converse:
that there is no evidence of God beyond the existence of the BoM. This is an
absurd conclusion. The concept of general revelation has to precede the BoM.
Certainly the TBM can entertain the thought that God exists even if the BoM
is a fraud?
You might find this link interesting:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
> To the skeptic, there is no proof less than actually proving that God
exists
> beyond any shadow of doubt, to compell him to believe in the Book of
Mormon.
Actually I think there are plenty of skeptics of mormonism who can accept
the existence of God without the BoM. I fail to see how you can tie the
existence of God to the validity of the BoM.
> I cheerfully admit to being much closer to the TBM camp than the
skeptic
> camp, and offer no apologies for my testimony.
Your posting history (of which I am more familiar than you might expect)
places you squarely in the TBM camp. This is why I posted as I did
previously.
> That does not mean that I have turned off my mind and play the robot
with my
> life.
Yet you have difficulty separating the existence of God and the validity of
the BoM?
<snippage for brevity>
> Of course we now know that cement structures have been discovered in
central
> America. But there are some things which have not been found, all of which
have
> been discussed here before.
Yes, the prior discussions have clearly shown that the BoM history is
inconsistent with the data, regardless of cement. While you are so busy
focusing on what we don't know and haven't found, you ignore what we do know
and have found.
> But there are many many things which Joseph Smith nor any other man of
his
> time could have guessed correctly because they just were not known during
his
> time, yet they wind up in the Book of Mormon.
I haven't seen anything beyond post hoc rationalization and conjecture. A
rational evaluation of the BoM reveals it is not true.
Kevin Thurston
--
"FACTS?!?!? Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove ANYTHING
that's even REMOTELY true."... Homer Simpson
Glenn Thigpen
> Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message news:<3BE87CC2...@tcnet-nc.com>...
> > Fool Speck wrote:
> >
> > > cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message news:<93c36e92.01110...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<da736b0d.0111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It seems the author (Jacobs) has failed to review Smith's testimony
> > > > > which Smith himself admits as much:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says
> > > > > that he came from the town of Palmyra, snip
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please give us the source.
> > >
> > > http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Of course this is a source which curiously no one has been able to produce for any of us to verify where it
> > actually came from. As you may have already noticed, there are several accounts with quite some few differences.
> >
> > Glenn
>
> I guess I am missing your point, Glenn. Sources are quoted through
> out the article. Which document source do you need that is not
> listed?
The source I am referring to is the report published in Fraser's Magazine in 1873 and later much the same one
published in 1883 in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. Whoever wrote it obviously had some knowledge of the trial,
but as I noted in another post, it is not likely an official transcript. New York law, as quoted by the Tanners
requires that those examinations concerning treason and felony be recorded. The Tanners go on quite a bit endeavoring
to show that any offense could be viewed as a felony, but are using an 1829 New York Book of Revised Statutes to
bolster their case which is moot because they are ignoring the evidence from Justice Neely' bill which clearly states
that Joseph was being examined on a misdemeanor charge.
This is not saying that the proceedings could not have been written down by someone, just that it was not
required. I really find it odd that Justice Neely's bill is listed at the end of the report. That would have come
only after the proceeding was over and Neely had itemized his charges.
Also, there is no information as to the disposition of the case, which would seem to be a reasonable item to be
noted on any official document which goes so far as to list the mundane items of the Justice's bill.
> I actually have not noticed any significant differences in the
> accounts, at least none that conflict. I do have to admit my bias,
> however, so perhaps I could ask you to list a few of the significant
> conflicts that we may discuss them?
A. W. Benton (who may or may not have been at the trial) in 1831 said that Joseph was tried and condemned before a
court of Justice but was designedly allowed to escape.
Dr. W. D. Purple, who claimed to have taken notes at Justice Neely's request said that Joseph was discharged.
Oliver Cowdery (who was almost surely not at the trial) in 1835 said that Joseph was discharged.
The report in Fraser's and the New said that he was found guilty.
Dr. Purple said that Joseph was brought up on charges of vagrancy.
A. W. Benton says that Joseph was brought up on charges of being a disorderly person, which was echoed by Oliver
Cowdery.
Fraser's reports a disorderly person and imposter.
Dr. Purple says that two of the son's of Josiah Stowell were the ones that preferred the charges.
Fraser's reports that it was one Peter Bridgeman.
A .W. Benton says that it was the public.
Oliver Cowdery says that it was an officious person.
>
>
> I would also be interested in particular criticisms of that web page.
> I realize that it may be difficult to enumerate specifics, however
> only the specifics count. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Steve Lowther
In addition to the problem I noted above with the Tanners' reasoning, I see the following problem. Their research
on the character of an examination according to New York law as delineated in "An Inspector Generalis" of 1819, led
them to conclude that an examination is like a preliminary hearing and they even give us an example to ensure that we
are all on the same page.
They then take exception to the conclusion of an LDS writer who asserted that a "guilty" verdict would be
innappropriate for such a proceeding. But in attempting to make their point they use cases and documents from
Illinois and Ohio, not New York, which really begs the question, of why not New York, which is where the proceedings
were taking place?
If they are correct in their conclusion that this examination was indeed like a preliminary hearing, what would
have been the options available to the Court? They concluded that if if the Justice felt that the evidence warranted
such, the prisoner would be bound over and held for trial. They go to great pains to point out that this was an
examination. or preliminary hearing and not a trial.
So just what did happen? Was he discharged or was he held over for trial at a later datebut allowed to escape?
Constable Dezeng's bill does not list a charge for a mittimus to bind Joseph over for trial. The dockets for none of
the four Justices in the area list no later trial of Joseph. If Joseph was designedly allowed to escape, he didn;t go
far, as history shows that he remained on Josiah Stowell's farm for several weeks after this date. Surely if he were
allowed to escape, a warrant for his reapprehension would have been issued to ensure that he took "leg bail" out of
the country as Joel K. Noble intimated in a letter in 1841 (I think it was 1841).
The Tanners lay out the logic for a preliminary hearing but do not gollow where there own logic was taking them.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> news:3BE87BF0...@tcnet-nc.com...
> > >
> > > > CharlesSWaters wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joseph Smith's folk magic expertise has been documented.
> > > >
> >
> > "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > > So have the translation of the Book of Mormon, the existence of the
> > > golden
> > > > plates, the restoration of the priesthood, etc.
> >
> > "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > To which Charles Waters replied
> >
> > > So has the divine creation of the Koran, the mission of Islam, the
> divine
> > > Islamic laws of God, etc.
> >
> > and added redundantly,
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > O, and Joseph Smiths folk magic practices.
> > >
> >
> > So Glenn replies:
> > Then documentation in and of itself seems to prove nothing.
> >
> > Glenn
>
> The book of Mormon, Koran, asops fables, etc., prove nothing.
I agree.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
<snip for brevity>
> I haven't seen anything beyond post hoc rationalization and conjecture. A
> rational evaluation of the BoM reveals it is not true.
>
> Kevin Thurston
Please rationally demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is not true.
Glenn
Clovis Lark
> <snip for brevity>
Is that what you mean? Or might you mean "Please rationally demonstrate
that the claims of Book of Mormon are not true" or "Please rationally
demonstrate that the claims of the origins for the Book of Mormon are not
true"?
> Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Whatever.
Glenn
Kevin Thurston
What happened? You ignored most of the points I raised.
The discussions about the validity of the BoM have been done ad infinitum on
this forum and your side has never done well. The BoM makes claims about the
ancient inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere that are known to be false. It
makes claims of supernatural origin. The extraordinary claims of the BoM
require extraordinary proof, therefore any rational being will require proof
of it's validity, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on you.
I've seen FARMS articles, I've seen apologetic websites, but I've never seen
anything that wasn't post hoc rationalization and conjecture. My statement
that a rational evaluation of the BoM reveals it is not true, stands.
Despite your dancing around the issue, I can reasonably conclude that your
faith or "testimony" is what convinces you of the validity of the BoM, and
all the post hoc rationalizations give you comfort in that faith. That's not
dealing with facts.
Clovis Lark
> Whatever.
As if...
> Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> news:3BEAF570...@tcnet-nc.com...
> > Kevin Thurston wrote:
> >
> > <snip for brevity>
> >
> > > I haven't seen anything beyond post hoc rationalization and conjecture.
> A
> > > rational evaluation of the BoM reveals it is not true.
> > >
> > > Kevin Thurston
> >
> > Please rationally demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is not true.
>
> What happened? You ignored most of the points I raised.
>
> The discussions about the validity of the BoM have been done ad infinitum on
> this forum and your side has never done well. The BoM makes claims about the
> ancient inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere that are known to be false.
It makes claims that have not been verified yet. Some of then have.
> It
> makes claims of supernatural origin. The extraordinary claims of the BoM
> require extraordinary proof, therefore any rational being will require proof
> of it's validity, not the other way around.
The Book of Mormon tells you how to put to the test the extraordinary claims
it makes.
> The burden of proof is on you.
Why. I believe the book of mormon and am comfortable with that belief. It is
there for you to accept or reject at your pleasure.
> I've seen FARMS articles, I've seen apologetic websites, but I've never seen
> anything that wasn't post hoc rationalization and conjecture.
Of course you do not actually come out and give a rational refutation of
those alleged conjectures.
> My statement
> that a rational evaluation of the BoM reveals it is not true, stands.
In your opinion. You have not demonstrated a rational evaluation yet.
>
>
> Despite your dancing around the issue, I can reasonably conclude that your
> faith or "testimony" is what convinces you of the validity of the BoM, and
> all the post hoc rationalizations give you comfort in that faith. That's not
> dealing with facts.
I am not dancing. I am waiting for you to give a rational refutation of the
work by the FARMS work on the Book of Mormon. Take any one of the contibutors
and take them apart, using logic, and facts.
Glenn
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/3/2001 1:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <9s1en...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>
>"Kevin Thurston" <akth...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:9rvp9t$s...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> Which is more likely:
>> Prior to publishing the BoM, Joseph Smith had a fascination with the folk
>> magic of the day, dabbled in aspects of it (divination pertaining to money
>> digging) and was interested in the speculation of the day about where the
>> native Americans came from and their role in the construction of mounds
>that
>> were common to the area.
>>
>> Or:
>> Joseph Smith had no interest or experience in all those things mentioned
>> above, and he was visited by an angel (either Nephi or Moroni who was
>> actually a dead person from ancient America) who showed him where he could
>> dig up a treasure he was not allowed to cash in on, but had to translate
>> into a book which was actually an ancient revelation from God.
>> ?
>> Which is more likely?
>
>
>
>Cheerio,
>Charles
Shhhh! Woody or Dowis might hear you.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/7/2001 1:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011107135339...@mb-mg.aol.com>
Right. And, as I've written numerous times, the most revealing aspect of ALL
the trial accounts, beginning with Benton's in 1831, is that there is no
mention of Smith claiming to have had a "first vision" in 1820, or annual
visits from "the angel Moroni" since 1823, nor any talk of him having a
heavenly mission to 'restore the true gospel.' One would think that visits
from the Creator of the Universe, Jesus Christ, and angels, would have rated at
least a passing mention during the examination---especially since Smith later
claimed that he had been "persecuted" by local religious leaders for claiming
to have seen a vision. Funny, there isn't a single item of documentation from
anyone besides Smith to prove his claims of "persecution" either.
Indeed, there is not a single contemporary document that gives us any
indication that Smith began telling his tales of visions and angels before
about the summer of 1827. And that is why numerous contemporary accounts (from
1830-34) combine to indicate that Smith and his family engaged in a
transformation from peep-stoning and money-digging to claims of religion-like
visions sometime in 1827.
In short, the evidence indicates that Smith's claims of his "First vision" and
"Moroni's visits" were invented several years after their alleged occurrences.
The inconsistent accounts of those alleged visions also bear that out.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
they were too sacred to talk about.
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/6/2001 8:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3BE87CC2...@tcnet-nc.com>
But they all combine to tell the full story of Smith's peep-stoning efforts for
Stowell. If anyone attending that trial had had any idea that Smith would,
three years in the future, be claiming that his same "peep-stone" could
translate gold plates that were delivered to him by an ex-mortal, you can bet
your sweet bippy that they would have recorded every word said and every claim
made. The only reason that there is no one "official" trial account, or that
there are any differences in the ones that exist, is because the incident was a
one-day examination of a misdemeanor charge in a sleepy hamlet, and those in
attendance forgot about it as soon as Smith moved back to Palmyra. It was only
the fact that Smith came back to Harmony in 1830 pitching the BOM that
motivated Benton to write his article about the 1826 trial. If it weren't for
that, we wouldn't even have a single near-contemporary record of the event.
Randy J.
Bill Williams
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011109003628...@mb-fi.aol.com...
Excellent, Randy. If the visions experienced by JS had really been received
at the claimed times, it would have been exciting news and very
controversial. There would surely have been references in the papers and in
journals and affidavits of the time. All the claims are later and evolving
concoctions.
Bill Williams
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Not if Smith's ingenious logic-inhibit circuit is working.
cheers, Randy J.
alquijano
<glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
> In this instance, though, there were eleven other men who saw those
> plates. Not
> one of them ever recanted that testimony, although several of them later
> left the
> Church for various reasons.
And the fact that they left the church is truly amazing to me. I
reflect on the signs and wonders viewed by Laman and Lemuel; seeing
golden plates of the nature the witnesses describe certainly approaches
miraculous; yet several turned their backs on an obvious demonstration
from God--no faith necessary. It was right in front of their eyes. How
does an objective person evaluate those events? Much is made of the
fact that none of them ever "recanted." But doesn't leaving the church
say something about the strength of their conviction.
Authorities are always asking why the home teaching isn't done.
Countless hours are spent evaluating the subject. The reason is simple:
the members do not believe they are on God's errand. If they did, the
home teaching would get done. Now, the same people (those not doing
thier home teaching) will stand up in testimony meeting and tell you
they know God lives and that the Church is true: they haven't recanted;
but you can evaluate the strength of their conviction by their actions.
I cannot imagine seeing an angel of God, believing the angel was from
God, then leaving the very organization and prophet endorsed by the
angel. Little in human nature surprises me anymore but I do not
associate the behavior of the witnesses who left the church with that of
firm conviction. If something changed in the organization that caused
otherwise credible men, not just one or two, to leave, such action
should not be examined casually.
TheJordan6
> Here is the rub. We do not know exactly what Joseph was charged with.
>Justice
>Neely's bill only indicates that it was a misdemeanor. Dr. Purple said that
>he was
>tried for vagrancy. A. W. Benton and Oliver Cowdery both said that he was
>charged
>with being a disorderly person. Fraser's said that he was brought up on
>charges of
>being a disorderly person and an imposter by one Peter Bridgeman, while
>Doctor
>Purple said it was two of the sons of Josiah Stowell.
Glenn, although I doubt you'll gain anything from this, I'm going to try to
explain what happened in Smith's trial with a personal story. A couple of
years ago, my son, who had just turned 18, was arrested along with two neighbor
boys for "criminal trespass." Now, that sounds pretty dastardly, but their
specific act was climbing up a maintenace ladder of a local church to shoot off
fireworks from its roof. They couldn't be charged with breaking and entering,
because they didn't break in; they merely climbed the ladder. They couldn't be
charged with theft or burglary, because they didn't steal anything, not had any
intention to. So the only thing the cops could charge them with was criminal
trespassing. After spending the night in the intake facility, we posted his
bail and he received a court date. My son had already apologized to the youth
minister of the church, who didn't even want to press charges, but since it was
the arresting officers who pressed the charges, the case had to proceed. The
youth minister wrote the presiding judge a letter attesting to my son's honesty
and lack of criminal intent, and asked the judge to dismiss the case or to let
the church administer its own justice. When my son appeared before the judge,
he read the letter and told my son to spend 20 hours cleaning the church under
the supervision of the youth minister, which he did. The court appearance took
all of about two minutes. After performing his service, my son's record was
wiped clean as though he had never been arrested.
Now, comparing this to Smith's 1826 trial: I've read one report of a NY law
that prohibited "peeping and muttering", but I can't recall it at present; it
seems to me that Smith was charged with disorderly conduct or being an
"imposter" perhaps because there was no specific charge against "charging
people money for putting your face in a hat and claiming to see buried
treasure", just as there is no specific charge for "setting off fireworks from
the church rooftop." IOW, Stowell's nephews (or sons) had to have him charged
with some kind of fraudulent activity to prevent Smith from, in their eyes,
bilking the credulous Stowell out of his money. So they went with "disorderly
person" or "imposter" or "vagrant." It's obvious from the combined trial
accounts that the judge went easy on Smith, because Smith feigned remorse and
promised to cease such activity. That's likely why Noble's account spoke of
"leg bail," IOW, Smith was indeed guilty as charged, but he was "allowed to
escape", or go free without serving time, and only paying court costs. The
judge likely couldn't set any harsher sentence, because Stowell believed in
Smith's abilities and refused to testify against him. If the man who is being
scammed doesn't mind, there's nothing a judge can do about it. Just as in my
son's case, Smith was allowed to go free because of his youth and first
offense---in Benton's words, hoping that he would reform his conduct. That
judgment isn't one whit different from what a judge of today would do with a
misdemeanor case, as exhibited by my son's experience. But the fact that Smith
got off easy DOES NOT mean that he WAS NOT doing what he was charged
with---taking peoples' money by pretending to have psychic powers that enabled
him to find buried treasure. Seeing as how Smith never found any buried
treasure for Stowell, for himself, or anyone else, it's obvious that his
efforts were fraudulent and engaged in purely for the "fourteen dollars a
month" Smith claimed to earn from Stowell (which was a higher-than-average wage
for the day.) Stowell's nephews put a stop to his game.
If Smith had not three years later began claiming to have translated the "gold
plates" via his same seer-stone scam which he had been tried for in 1826, the
Bainbridge trial would have not likely been remembered by anyone. Like I say,
my son's record was wiped clean, and the only people who even remember it two
years later are us, his buddies, and the youth minister. In that light, it's
surprising that any records or accounts of Smith's trial survived AT ALL. The
fact that the accounts don't agree on every detail does not mean that the trial
didn't occur, or that Smith wasn't guilty as charged; in fact, his
"peep-stoning" was attested to by numerous other witnesses unrelated to the
trial recorders, be they pro-Smith, anti-Smith, or indifferent. Those who
wrote of the trial conflicted on some minor details, but those conflicts do not
magically make the fact that the trial occurred disappear.
So, when you write "We don't know exactly what Smith was charged with," we DO
indeed know the specific act---"peep-stoning" for money, as attested to by
numerous other accounts, including Smith himself and his own mother.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
> Just a thought. When Philatus Hurlbut visited the Palmyra region in 1834
>on his
>character assination mission, if this had been such a big deal, why did not
>at
>least one of those affidavits have something about it? That was only eight
>years
>later.
Your lack of knowledge of the history once again hurts you. The 1826 trial
took place at Bainbridge, 80 miles southeast of Palmyra; Hurlbut didn't go
there; he only interviewed Smith's Palymra nieghbors and Spaulding's widow near
Syracuse. Hurlbut obtained Palmyra resident Peter Ingersoll's testimony of his
experience in moving Smith and Emma's furniture from Harmony to Palymra;
Ingersoll's presence on the scene is corroborated in Lucy Mack Smith's
"Biographical Sketches," and was quoted as a credible reference in the February
2001 "Ensign" magazine. Ingersoll's affidavit (obtained by Hurlbut)
corroborates the details of the angry confrontation between Smith and Isaac
Hale; Hale swore his affidavit before a Harmony judge; it was published in the
"Suquehanna Register," from which Eber Howe asked Hale's permission to
re-publish it in his "Mormonism Unvailed." (And Hale's affidavit was also
quoted in the same February 2001 "Ensign.") IOW, Hurlbut had absolutely
nothing to do with the obtaining of Hale's affidavit, yet Hale's and
Ingersoll's affidavits corroborate each other. Therefore, neither could have
been "coached" or "influenced" by Hurlbut. The reason that the 1826 trial
isn't mentioned in Hurlbut's (or Howe's) affidavits is becaucse nobody they
interviewed or received affidavits from had attended the trial.
As to your assertion that Hurlbut's trip was a "character assassination
mission," you need to think about two things before you write such ignorance:
One, Smith's "peep-stoning" and money-digging had been written of and widely
published since 1830, beginning with Abner Cole's "Palymra Reflector" articles;
therefore, Hurlbut didn't assassinate Smith's character---he merely gathered
information and more details about Smith's occultic activities that were
already common knowledge. Two, the very reason Hurlbut began his investigation
to begin with is because early Mormon missionaries went to Conneaut, Ohio, to
advertise the BOM; they read portions of it to locals; some of those locals
happened to have been acquaintances of the late Solomon Spaulding, and claimed
that the BOM sounded suspiciously like Spaulding's ramblings. Because of that,
a committee was formed to investigate Smith's background, and Hurlbut was voted
to go to NY to do just that.
The standard Mopologist tactic is to claim that Hurlbut had an "axe to grind"
against Smith, which spurred him to invent his affidavits; but the fact that
the news of Smith's occultic peep-stoning and nocturnal money-digging were
known and published as early as three years before Hurlbut even joined the
Mormonite movement utterly negates that argument. You Mobots need to give up
on discrediting Hurlbut, and move on to an argument that has some merit.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2001 20:06 EST
>Message-id: <3BE87CC2...@tcnet-nc.com>
>
>Fool Speck wrote:
>
>> cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message
>news:<93c36e92.01110...@posting.google.com>...
>> > srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message
>news:<da736b0d.0111...@posting.google.com>...
>> > snip
>> >
>> >
>> > > It seems the author (Jacobs) has failed to review Smith's testimony
>> > > which Smith himself admits as much:
>> > >
>> > > "Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says
>> > > that he came from the town of Palmyra, snip
>> >
>> >
>> > Please give us the source.
>>
>> http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm
>>
>> Steve
>
>Of course this is a source which curiously no one has been able to produce
>for any of us to verify where it
>actually came from.
Now, isn't that funny. No one seems to be able to produce the "gold plates" or
any examples of "Reformed Egyptian" writing either. According to your standard
of proof for the 1826 trial accounts, we must also dismiss the BOM.
>As you may have already noticed, there are several
>accounts with quite some few differences.
>
>Glenn
Indeed, and there are differences in early accounts of the BOM as well, not to
mention wholesale changes in the D&C in two short years between 183 and 1835.
So, I guess we have to throw those in the trash along with the 1826 trial
accounts.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
"Continuing revelation" explains the difference in the court accounts quite well.
Glenn Thigpen
> Glenn Thigpen wrote:
>
> > Just a thought. When Philatus Hurlbut visited the Palmyra region in 1834
> >on his
> >character assination mission, if this had been such a big deal, why did not
> >at
> >least one of those affidavits have something about it? That was only eight
> >years
> >later.
>
> Your lack of knowledge of the history once again hurts you. The 1826 trial
> took place at Bainbridge, 80 miles southeast of Palmyra;
I am feeling no pain. I know where the examination took place and approximately
how far Bainbridge is from Palmyra.
> Hurlbut didn't go
> there; he only interviewed Smith's Palymra nieghbors and Spaulding's widow near
> Syracuse.
I know that he didn't go to Bainbridge.
> Hurlbut obtained Palmyra resident Peter Ingersoll's testimony of his
> experience in moving Smith and Emma's furniture from Harmony to Palymra;
> Ingersoll's presence on the scene is corroborated in Lucy Mack Smith's
> "Biographical Sketches," and was quoted as a credible reference in the February
> 2001 "Ensign" magazine. Ingersoll's affidavit (obtained by Hurlbut)
> corroborates the details of the angry confrontation between Smith and Isaac
> Hale; Hale swore his affidavit before a Harmony judge; it was published in the
> "Suquehanna Register," from which Eber Howe asked Hale's permission to
> re-publish it in his "Mormonism Unvailed." (And Hale's affidavit was also
> quoted in the same February 2001 "Ensign.") IOW, Hurlbut had absolutely
> nothing to do with the obtaining of Hale's affidavit, yet Hale's and
> Ingersoll's affidavits corroborate each other.
From Strang's Book of the Law page 252 and 253:
3. First, among these is an affidavit of Peter Ingersoll,
dated Palmyra, Wayne County,
N.Y., Dec. 2d, 1833, certified by Thomas P. Baldwin, Judge
of Wayne County Court, to
have been sworn before him, "according to law," the 9th day
of Dec., 1833. A few pages
subsequent, are the certificates of six witnesses that
Ingersoll is worthy of credit; a rather
suspicious circumstance, considering that his veracity had
not been questioned.
4. This same Peter Ingersoll is now a resident of Lapeer
County, Michigan, and solemnly
denies that he ever signed or made oath to the affidavit, or
any other affidavit on the
subject. As Thomas P. Baldwin certifies that Ingersoll did
make oath to the statement,
according to law, whereas, in fact, the law did not
authorize him to administer any such
oath, or any extrajudicial oath whatever, his certificate
is, to say the least, not to be
received against Ingersoll's solemn statement that he never
swore to the affidavit. The
certificate is certainly false in one point; for as there is
no law for administering such an
oath, it could not have been done according to law.
5. But as the name of Ingersoll is certainly forged, that of
Judge Baldwin probably is. The
title of his office is erroneously written to his signature,
a mistake he would not be likely
to make himself, though E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio,
might; not being acquainted
with New York jurisprudence. In 1833 there was not in the
State of New York such an
office as Judge of the County Court. Circuit Courts, Oyer
and Terminer, Common Pleas
and General Sessions were held for every county, but there
was no "County Court." Every
official act requiring the signature of a Judge, was signed
by him as Judge of some one of
these Particular Courts; not as Judge of some imaginary
Court, having no existence.
> Therefore, neither could have
> been "coached" or "influenced" by Hurlbut. The reason that the 1826 trial
> isn't mentioned in Hurlbut's (or Howe's) affidavits is becaucse nobody they
> interviewed or received affidavits from had attended the trial.
And had never heard anything of it. The eighty miles from Bainbridge to Palmyra
were no obstacle for Josiah Stowell to have heard of Joseph. He had a brother who
lived in Palmyra. Likewise it would have been no problem for the people of Palmyra
to have heard of any conviction of Joseph in Bainbridge. But not a peep in
Palmyra.
>
>
> As to your assertion that Hurlbut's trip was a "character assassination
> mission," you need to think about two things before you write such ignorance:
> One, Smith's "peep-stoning" and money-digging had been written of and widely
> published since 1830, beginning with Abner Cole's "Palymra Reflector" articles;
> therefore, Hurlbut didn't assassinate Smith's character---he merely gathered
> information and more details about Smith's occultic activities that were
> already common knowledge. Two, the very reason Hurlbut began his investigation
> to begin with is because early Mormon missionaries went to Conneaut, Ohio, to
> advertise the BOM; they read portions of it to locals; some of those locals
> happened to have been acquaintances of the late Solomon Spaulding, and claimed
> that the BOM sounded suspiciously like Spaulding's ramblings. Because of that,
> a committee was formed to investigate Smith's background, and Hurlbut was voted
> to go to NY to do just that.
A quote from this committee as appeared in the Painesville Telegraph January
31, 1834:
and the
"Committee are now making arrangements for the
Publication and extensive circulation of a work which
will
prove the "Book, of Mormon" to be a work of fiction
and
imagination, and written more than twenty years ago,
in
Salem, Ashtabula County, Ohio, by Solomon Spalding,
Esq.,
and completely divest Joseph Smith of all claims to
the
character of an honest man, and place him at an
immeasurable distance from the high station which he
pretends to occupy."
One of the avowed purposes was to try and destroy Joseph Smith's character.
"Character assassination" correctly fits the bill.
>
>
> The standard Mopologist tactic is to claim that Hurlbut had an "axe to grind"
> against Smith, which spurred him to invent his affidavits; but the fact that
> the news of Smith's occultic peep-stoning and nocturnal money-digging were
> known and published as early as three years before Hurlbut even joined the
> Mormonite movement utterly negates that argument. You Mobots need to give up
> on discrediting Hurlbut, and move on to an argument that has some merit.
>
> Randy J.
I didn't know that you thought that Dale Broadhurst is a Mopologist. Check out
this link which may shed further light on Hurlbut's character.
http://www.olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/HChron5.htm
Glenn
Kevin Thurston
> Kevin Thurston wrote:
>
> > "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BEAF570...@tcnet-nc.com...
> > > Kevin Thurston wrote:
> > >
<snip>
infinitum on
> > this forum and your side has never done well. The BoM makes claims about
the
> > ancient inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere that are known to be
false.
>
> It makes claims that have not been verified yet. Some of then have.
That's irrelevent. It makes claims that are KNOWN to be false. Those claims
have been discussed ad infinitum on this very forum and you continue to
ignore it.
> > It
> > makes claims of supernatural origin. The extraordinary claims of the BoM
> > require extraordinary proof, therefore any rational being will require
proof
> > of it's validity, not the other way around.
>
> The Book of Mormon tells you how to put to the test the extraordinary
claims
> it makes.
The test fails. It is a circular test. I could convince myself that anything
was true if I set my mind to it. You set your mind to convincing yourself of
the validity of the BoM and succeeded. This is consistent with my original
claim that your conviction is based on faith and not reason.
> > The burden of proof is on you.
>
> Why.
The burden of proof is on you if you want anyone to respect your profession
of belief in the validity of the BoM.
> I believe the book of mormon and am comfortable with that belief.
Comfort is not evidence of truth.
> It is
> there for you to accept or reject at your pleasure.
It is not my pleasure to reject it. I would be happy to find it to be true,
but it is obviously not.
> > I've seen FARMS articles, I've seen apologetic websites, but I've never
seen
> > anything that wasn't post hoc rationalization and conjecture.
>
> Of course you do not actually come out and give a rational refutation
of
> those alleged conjectures.
This one http://farms.byu.edu/free/transcripts/tmpl.asp?content=petevidences
was discussed recently on this forum. The rational refutations flowed
freely.
> > My statement
> > that a rational evaluation of the BoM reveals it is not true, stands.
>
> In your opinion. You have not demonstrated a rational evaluation yet.
You haven't provided a rational argument yet to refute. Supply one and I
will.
> > Despite your dancing around the issue, I can reasonably conclude that
your
> > faith or "testimony" is what convinces you of the validity of the BoM,
and
> > all the post hoc rationalizations give you comfort in that faith. That's
not
> > dealing with facts.
>
> I am not dancing. I am waiting for you to give a rational refutation of
the
> work by the FARMS work on the Book of Mormon. Take any one of the
contibutors
> and take them apart, using logic, and facts.
You are dancing around the issues and you haven't provided an rational
argument to refute. You want me to do all the work when you are the one
trying to sell a rational belief in the BoM. Here's a thread that destroys
your FARMS work:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=c7358b7.0111081053.312820da%40
posting.google.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bevidences%2Bgroup:alt.religi
on.mormon%26hl%3Den%26rnum%3D3%26selm%3Dc7358b7.0111081053.312820da%2540post
ing.google.com
There's no need for me to do it, it's been done.
Kevin Thurston
--
"There's the truth (shaking head no), and then there's THE TRUTH."... Lionel
Hutz
Glenn Thigpen
> "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> news:3BEB1CA7...@tcnet-nc.com...
> > Kevin Thurston wrote:
> >
> > > "Glenn Thigpen" <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3BEAF570...@tcnet-nc.com...
> > > > Kevin Thurston wrote:
> > > >
> <snip>
> > > The discussions about the validity of the BoM have been done ad
> infinitum on
> > > this forum and your side has never done well. The BoM makes claims about
> the
> > > ancient inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere that are known to be
> false.
> >
> > It makes claims that have not been verified yet. Some of then have.
>
> That's irrelevent. It makes claims that are KNOWN to be false. Those claims
> have been discussed ad infinitum on this very forum and you continue to
> ignore it.
Not true. Please refresh this thread with those claims that are KNOWN to be
false. There has been nothing PROVEN.
>
>
> > > It
> > > makes claims of supernatural origin. The extraordinary claims of the BoM
> > > require extraordinary proof, therefore any rational being will require
> proof
> > > of it's validity, not the other way around.
> >
> > The Book of Mormon tells you how to put to the test the extraordinary
> claims
> > it makes.
>
> The test fails. It is a circular test. I could convince myself that anything
> was true if I set my mind to it. You set your mind to convincing yourself of
> the validity of the BoM and succeeded. This is consistent with my original
> claim that your conviction is based on faith and not reason.
I have never denied that my convictions are primarily faith based. No faith
based claim is starts with temporal facts. They begin with a spiritual
experience. I have only stated that I have found some rational reasons to
believe in the validity of the Book of Mormon.
>
>
> > > The burden of proof is on you.
> >
> > Why.
>
> The burden of proof is on you if you want anyone to respect your profession
> of belief in the validity of the BoM.
What profession? Religious? The Book of Mormon asks only the one test which
you call circular. Faith based claims only require faith based answers. That
does not mean that there are no rational reasons to believe in the Bible or the
Book of Mormon.
>
> > > I've seen FARMS articles, I've seen apologetic websites, but I've never
> seen
> > > anything that wasn't post hoc rationalization and conjecture.
> >
> > Of course you do not actually come out and give a rational refutation
> of
> > those alleged conjectures.
>
> This one http://farms.byu.edu/free/transcripts/tmpl.asp?content=petevidences
> was discussed recently on this forum. The rational refutations flowed
> freely.
> > > My statement
> > > that
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=c7358b7.0111081053.312820da%40,
> stands.
> >
> > In your opinion. You have not demonstrated a rational evaluation yet.
>
> You haven't provided a rational argument yet to refute. Supply one and I
> will.
You were the one that said
"http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=c7358b7.0111081053.312820da%40
>
>
> You are dancing around the issues and you haven't provided an rational
> argument to refute. You want me to do all the work when you are the one
> trying to sell a rational belief in the BoM. Here's a thread that destroys
> your FARMS work:
It is rather difficult to dance when I don't know to which of the issues
you are referring. It would be impossible to rationally discuss them all in
one post or even one thread.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=c7358b7.0111081053.312820da%40
> posting.google.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bevidences%2Bgroup:alt.religi
> on.mormon%26hl%3Den%26rnum%3D3%26selm%3Dc7358b7.0111081053.312820da%2540post
> ing.google.com
Your link did not work. But there is a huge difference between glib and
rational. And glib is the best that can be said for your supposed refutations
of the points that Dr. Peterson enumerated in your reference. The work done by
FARMS has never been "destroyed" by any thread here on a.r.m.
No critic here on a.rm. has yet to deal rationally with the Valley of
Lemuel/Nahom/Bountiful triangle which is in the very first part of the Book of
Mormon. So why don't you start there.
Glenn
TheJordan6
>Date: Fri, Nov 9, 2001 21:26 EST
>Message-id: <3BEC9074...@dangerous1.com>
Indeed. When there are discrepancies or inconsistencies in Mormon writings,
TBMs explain them away by "continuing revelation" or as Guy Briggs recently
wrote, "further light and knowledge." But those same TBMs discredit the
accounts of Smith's 1826 trial because of the same type of discrepancies and
inconsistencies. That ever-present double standard is part of what makes
Mormon apologists intellectually dishonest.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
> The real problem is to ascertain what the basic facts are. That there was a
>trial, or rather an examination (which is more like a preliminary hearing) is
>not
>a question.
It's refreshing to hear a TBM admit that the court case actually occurred, but
there are in fact some who still deny that the event even happened. That's
because before the judges' trial notes and Benton's 1831 article were
discovered, Mormon apologists like Widstoe, Frances L. Stewart, Hugh Nibley,
and Francis W. Kirkham used the questionability of the source documents to
argue that the event didn't occur, and that the accounts were the inventions of
"anti-Mormons."
>That some people said that Joseph claimed he could find buried
>treasure, there is little doubt.
Since that claim was asserted by Smith himself, his own mother, Martin Harris,
David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and many other acquaintances, it's beyond the
realm of rationality for anyone to argue that Smith wasn't a
peep-stoner/money-digger. We don't even need Hurlbut's affidavits or any of
the trial accounts to discern that.
> I find it rather incredible Joseph would
>stand up
>and imcriminate himself as he appears to do from the the sources that have
>been
>given. He would have to have been incredibly stupid to have done so, and
>there
>would have been no further need for any other witnesses.
Smith admitted to his acts because it would have been disingenuous to plead
innocence. His family had been involved in occultic treasure-hunting since at
least 1822, and they were well-known for it, as evidenced by Stowell's going to
Palmyra to secure Smith alleged psychic services. Smith's only recourse was to
admit wrongdoing and promise the judge to cease the scam, and that's why he got
off light.
> That is why it is important to know the source of the original documents
>from
>which these reports were made.
It simply would not have been humanly possible for someone to create the
various trial accounts from whole cloth, while getting so many details right
that have been corroborated by numerous other independent sources.
> If Joseph were indeed discharged, as Dr.
>Purple
>stated, then the reports in Fraser's and the New Scharf-Herzog Encyclopedia
>that
>Joseph was found guilty is a lie.
Not at all. Your problem here is Purple's word "discharged." "Discharged"
does not have to mean "found innocent." It could easily mean "found guilty,
and sentenced to paying court costs, promising not to repeat the act anymore,
and avoiding jail time." That judgement is perfectly normal for a first-time
offender on a misdemeanor charge, and it is exactly what is inferred from the
accounts of Benton and Noble.
> Those articles were printed as coming from an official court record, which
>is
>not all that likely, since written records were only required for felony
>cases,
>and Joseph's case was clearly labelled a misdemeanor on Justice Neely's bill.
The idea that written records may not have been required for misdemeanor cases
does not mean that the judge couldn't have asked for testimony to be recorded
nonetheless. As LDS historian Richard L. Bushman explained:
"Ordinarily the trial of a disorderly person before a justice of the peace left
no further trace than a few lines in the court records. Albert Neely, the
presiding justice, asked W. D. Purple, a local physician and friend, to take
notes, which as published came to over a thousand words. The townspeople
shared Neely's fascination with the subject. Purple said 'there was a large
collection of persons in attendance, and the proceedings attracted much
attention.' " (Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, p. 75.)
> Both Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Smith jr. inform us that Josiah Stowell
>came
>seeking Joseph when he learned that Joseph had some kind of seer stone.
And seeing as how those facts come to us from sources independent of the trial
accounts, and yet fill in details of the event, it is disingenuous for Mobots
to question the authenticity of the trial accounts.
>Joseph
>tried to disuade the gentleman from his quest,
That was Smith's post-hoc assertion, but it doesn't jibe with the facts, which
are that the Smiths had been treasure-digging for wages for several years.
Stowell was only one case among many, but seeing as how it got Smith arrested,
it was the one that led him to look for another way to make a living.
> but Josiah offered good wages
>and
>finally persuaded Joseph to accompany him.
Smith stated that Stowell paid him $14 a month, which was a better than average
wagfe for the time. Also, it was during the wintertime when farm work was at
an ebb, and the Smiths could go off and ply their treasure-hunting sideline.
>The actual treasure seeking lasted
>only
>about a month
That is contradicted by the fact that Smith went to work for Stowell in October
1825, and his trial was in March 1826. If he had only done his peeping for
say, the first month with Stowell, then Stowell's nephews would have had no
reason to have him arrested five months later. That makes it obvious that
Smith's assertion of "nearly a month" was an effort to minimize the extent of
his occultic practice.
> which even Isaac Hale admitted in his affidavit.
<chuckle> Now you're quoting Hale as a credible source? If so, you have no
point is questioning Hurlbut's affidavits or the trial accounts, because Hale
painting as damning a picture of Smith as did those other sources.
> It is interesting to note that in the testimony ascribed to Josiah Stowell
>he
>said that he did not believe that Joseph had such powers, but that he knew
>that he
>had them, because when he went to Palmyra to obtain Joseph;s services, Joseph
>had
>described to Josiah the appearance of his home and outhouses as well as a
>painted
>tree with a man's hand upon it.
<chuckle> Gee, I thought your intent was to discredit the trial account, and
now you're quoting from it as though it were credible. It sure would help in
debate if you would pick one side of an argument and stick with it.
Glenn, this may come as a surprise to you, but the term "confidence man" is
used because for a con artist to scam a victim, he must first gain the victim's
confidence. Con artists usually "case" the scene or their victims in order to
gain an advantage and make it easier to run their game. Smith most likely had
one of his money-digging buddies or relatives look around Stowell's property
before Smith got there, and had him describe it so Smith could repeat it to
Stowell, to make Stowell believe he had "psychic" powers. And let's face
it---Stowell was a credulous old man who was an easy mark for such con
artistry. Old and/or less intelligent people are still being conned today by
scammers just like Joseph Smith.
> Now if you are to accept all of this as the gospel truth, that the
>purported
>court record is legit, then you will have to disabuse yourself of the notion
>that
>Joseph being able to see things with his stone "is pure nonsense".
If you think that Smith could see things in his stone, then perhaps you'd like
to post the inventory of the buried treasures Smith brought up with his
supernatural powers. The court record doesn't say Smith's powers were legit,
it only says that Stowell BELIEVED they were.
> If you can maybe entertain the idea that some people were willing to lie
>about
>Joseph, and many more were all too willing to believe those lies, or maybe
>embellish the truth in a most entertaining fashion, then maybe you can come
>to the
>conclusion that the whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion,
>a
>mountain made out of a molehill.
>
>Glenn
The fact that Smith's peep-stoning/money-digging is documented and recorded by
numerous other sources independent of either Hurlbut's affidavits or the court
accounts, makes it disingenuous to posit that Smith was not doing exactly what
he was accused of doing. To deny that Smith and his family were seriously into
folk magic/treasure-digging for several years is to be in intellectual denial
of historical fact.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
After his alleged "first vision", Smith asserted that he related his experience
to a Methodist preacher, who replied that it "was all of the devil", and that
"my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among
professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued
to increase.....men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the
public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common
among all sects---all united to persecute me....though I was hated and
persecuted for saying I had sen a vision, yet it was true....."
Now, the problem with Smith's story here is-----Where are all the accounts of
those "professors of religion" who allegedly conspired to 'excite the public
mind' against the teenage Smith? Where are the church newsletters, the minutes
of revival or evangelical conferences, the local newspapers, who reported on
this vast conspiracy of Protestant ministers to 'persecute' Smith? Where are
the recollections of Smith's family of these events during the alleged
times---the accounts of Hyrum, William, Don Carlos, Samuel, Sophronia, etc.?
Is it possible that NOT A SINGLE PERSON ACQUAINTED WITH SUCH A REMARKABLE LOCAL
EVENT EVER RECORDED A SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT, other than Smith himself---and he
didn't even write the first word about it until TWELVE YEARS AFTER IT ALLEGEDLY
HAPPENED, in 1832? And in his 1832 version of his 1820 "first vision,", Smith
didn't mention ONE WORD about the alleged vast conspiracy of "persecution"
which he had supposedly endured since age 14.
Sorry, folks. Smith's story doesn't pass the "giggle test."
The inconsistencies and gaping holes in Smith's history make it obvious that he
invented his tales of heavenly visions and angelic visitations sometime AFTER
his "glass-looking" trial of March 20, 1826---because there isn't a solitary
iota of evidence to help us believe that he made any religious claims at any
time before that trial occurred. And that leads one to believe that that
trial, wherein his "peep-stoning" was exposed as a fraud, was a turning point
in the young con artists' career; it made him realize that his "peep-stoning"
scam wouldn't give him the level of attainment he desired---so he began a
transformation from an small-potatoes folk-magic artist into a Christian-based
Biblical style "prophet," replacing dowsing rods and magic circles with
heavenly visions and revelations. This transformation was documented in Abner
Cole's 1831 "Palmyra Reflector" article:
"It however appears quite certain that the prophet himself never made any
serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation [the
BOM].....It is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have any communion
with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book, and
that the juggling of himself or father went no further than the pretended
faculty of seeing wonders in a 'peep-stone,' and the occasional interview with
the spirit, supposed to have the custody of hidden treasures: and it is also
equally well known that a vagabond fortune-teller by the name of Walters, who
then resided in the town of Sodus, and was once committed to the jail of this
town for juggling, was the constant companion and bosom friend of these money
digging imposters."
Randy J.
Fool Speck
> Fool Speck wrote:
>
> > Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message news:<3BE87CC2...@tcnet-nc.com>...
> > I actually have not noticed any significant differences in the
So, after all of this, what are the main differences between your
conclusions and the Tanners'?
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
> > Fool Speck wrote:
>
> We have no way at this time to cross examine Isaac Hale or anyone else
> connected with that 1826 examination, which appears to be more of a
> preliminary hearing than a trial. But in testing a witnesses credibility,
> one must take into account demonstrated prejudices and ill feelings. A
> case in point is that of A. W. Benton, with whom I trust you will deal
> soon.
Perhaps later. Why do you find him interesting?
>
> > Jacobs goes on to state: "Yet Walters implies that this supposed
> > self-designation as a glass looker comes from a source which is
> > neutral or perhaps even friendly to Smith."
> >
> > It seems the author (Jacobs) has failed to review Smith's testimony
> > which Smith himself admits as much:
> >
> > "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."
>
> What is the source for this supposed testimony? Not the the
> non-existent but still "published court record" I hope? How sure are you
> of your sources?
The supporting documents validate its existence. Note the supporting
documents were discovered after the original report on the records.
> > So what is the author's point of trying to illustrate that Smith did
> > not think of himself as a glass-looker? All one needs to do is to
> > read the summary of Smith's testimony!
>
> Steve, you must first demonstrate that Joseph actually admitted to the
> things he is alleged to have.
That is taken directly from the bill where is it notated that "Joseph
Smith, the Glass Looker". We know that he had a peep stone, Emma
Smith and David Whitmer verify that, and he admitted he was engaged in
treasure hunting for Stowell. So what is it being contested here?
Steve Lowther
Markg91359
I think Glenn is trying to minimize the role of the treasure hunting with the
peepstone and the subsequent trial in Bainbridge, NY. The idea is something
like "these things happened....but they are little and unimportant blips in the
overall story of the man who founded the Restored Church of Jesus Christ".
I think it is true that one can concede these events happened and than go onto
argue that Smith was still a prophet who translated ancient scripture and
founded the true church. However, the problem is, though, this takes alot of
swallowing.
Mark
Glenn Thigpen
Being an examination, not a trial as such, there would have been no guilty or innocent verdict, but rather a finding of
evidence sufficient to be bound over for trial or to be discharged for lack of sufficient evidence. Since Constable Dezeng
does not list a second mittimus, this for being bound over to be held for trial, coupled with the fact that Joseph
remained in the area for several weeks after this incident, with Josiah Stowell, and there being no record of a warrant
being issued for Joseph's rearrest after having been "designedly allowed to escape", and there being no record of Joseph
being brought up before a General Sessions court, the best evvidence would suggest that he was discharged.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
The bill lists the case only as a misdemeanor. The "Glass Looker" part is on the left side of the
bill where Justice Neely is listing the cases, and is not the charge itself. It seems to be more like
a sarcastic put down. Joseph's case is the only one on the bill where such a comment is made.
Joseph's alleged confession is not on that bill. It only shows up in magazine articles taken from
an unknown source. We know what people claim the source to have been, but I have penned my thoughts on
that elsewhere in another post.
The fact that Joseph Smith went to work for Josiah Stowell on Mr. Stowell's insistance, to help him
try and locate a silver mine, has never been an issue. Joseph, in his writings about his employment
with Josiah, said that he was finally able to disuade Stowell from continuing his fruitless quest.
According to Isaac Hale, the treasure hunting ended in November of the previous year. There is much
difference between saying that one has worked for a person who was seeking treasure and admitting to
trying to find it by using a peep stone, or some such.
Note also that Dr. Purple gives a completely different account of Joseph's "testimony". Read all of
the accounts again. Do you really take them seriously?
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Not really. I am saying that the supposed court record and other accounts are
contradictory and unreliable. The fact that a trial happened and that people
testified is not an issue. What is at issue is the reliability of the witnesses
and the accuracy of the "published report". As I asked Steve, read those articles
again. And can you really take them seriously?
Glenn
alquijano
<glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
> Not really. I am saying that the supposed court record and other
> accounts are
> contradictory and unreliable. The fact that a trial happened and that
> people
> testified is not an issue. What is at issue is the reliability of the
> witnesses
> and the accuracy of the "published report". As I asked Steve, read those
> articles
> again. And can you really take them seriously?
Is there any evidence to suggest the charges were trumped up? What was
the prophet doing that could be called into question?
TheJordan6
>For another glimpse at the very early Smith, through the text of a similar
>newspaper
>report, check this one out:
>
>http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/OH/miscohio.htm#no5
I always enjoy browsing through your newspaper articles, Dale, because I find
such things as this excerpt from the "Cleveland Advertiser" of February 15,
1831:
VOL. I. CLEVELAND, OHIO, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1831.
NUMBER 5.
==> MORMONISM -- or Grand Pugilistic Debate. The Painesville Telegraph of this
morning has the particulars of the acceptance of a challenge by Thomas
Campbell, given by a noted mountebank by the name of Elder Rigdon, who has
flourished in and about the "openings," for the last few years, and to the no
small wonderment of all the old women round about that country, to test the
validity of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon! It is something
singular that this subject should have created such a stir. The Editor of the
Telegraph has opened his paper to a discussion of its merits and demerits!
Rigdon was formerly a disciple of Campbell's and who it is said was sent out to
make proselytes, but is probable he thought he should find it more advantageous
to operate on his own capital, and therefore wrote, as it is believed the Book
of Mormon, and commenced his pilgrimage in the town of Kirtland, which was
represented as one of the extreme points of the Holy Land.
End quote. For those who don't get the significance of this excerpt---it's yet
another very early documented, published article that points to Rigdon as the
BOM's author, or at least primary producer. It predates James Gordon Bennett's
articles telling the same idea by six months. The major significance is that
it refutes the oft-repeated Mobot apologist fallacy that "Philastus Hurlbut
invented the Spalding-Rigdon theory," because at the time this article was
published, the Mormons had just emigrated to Ohio, and Hurlbut would not even
join the church for another two years, let alone begin investigating Smith's
background or the Spalding/Rigdon claims.
And thus, one of Mormon apologists' major arguments goes down in flames.
You also provided this article:
The Farmer's Herald.
Vol. IV. St. Johnsbury, Wednesday, Oct. 26, 1831.
No. 17.
MORMONISM.
The fact that a sect of fanatics calling themselves Mormonites, have sprung up
and extended themselves in the Western part of New York and the Eastern parts
of Ohio, is partially known to our readers. The origin, character and members
of this sect have not yet been noticed in the Gazette, and it seems proper now
to notice them.
The ostensible founder of this fanaticism is a man of the name of Smith, an
ignorant, indolent, careless shiftless fellow in the commencement of life.
End quote. The above statement is significant because Mobots blame the
allegations of the Smith family's negative attributes on Huurlbut's 1833
affidavits; but theis article was published in October 1831, once again nearly
two years before Hurlbut arrived on the scene. Mobot argument #2 shot to hell.
Quoting again:
His father, named Joseph Smith, also, in his early days had been a country
pedlar in New England, and subsequently a manufacturer and vendor of
gingerbread, in a small way, in Manchester, N. Y. Some years ago these two,
father and son, conceived that money was buried in the earth between Lake
Canandaigua and Palmyra on the Erie Canal, and commenced digging to find it, in
company with several persons whom they persuaded to join them. After a time
they engaged a man who resided near Paynesville, in Ohio, to assist and
instruct them, under the persuasion that he possessed eminent skill in money
finding. He had been a preacher of several sects in religion, was a shrewd
cunning man, of considerable talent and great plausibility. Under his direction
the digging for money was again commenced, and the younger Smith gave out that
he had found a set of golden plates, concealed in an iron chest, and buried in
the earth, upon which was engraved the book of Mormon.
End quote.
Yet another article that documents the Smiths' money-digging, the entry of
Rigdon onto the scene, and the evolution of the money-digging band into a
religious enterprise, all published two years before Hurlbut joined the church
and according to Mobots, began spreading these alleged "lies" against the
Smiths.
So, the question now is, how much longer are Mobots going to keep asserting
that Hurlbut's affidavits are "discredited?"
Or will they just keep deceitfully repeating that falsehood forever?
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
yes.
Elizabeth & Dale
TheJordan6 wrote:
> I always enjoy browsing through your newspaper articles, Dale...
> So, the question now is, how much longer are Mobots going to keep asserting
> that Hurlbut's affidavits are "discredited?"
>
> Or will they just keep deceitfully repeating that falsehood forever?
>
> Randy J.
>
>
Randy -- there is a whole lot of pre-Hurlbut testimony that says practically
the same things that the witnesses said in the interviews he gathered,
I would think that the best LDS defense on these matters would be to
say that Hurlbut simply copied all that earlier stuff and never even went
to Palmyra to solicit affidavits.
Of course the fact that the 1834 "Wayne Sentinel" ran articles saying that
Hurlbut was in town collecting statements, may be a bother. But I'm sure
that a good apologist like Woody or the Patent Worm can tell us all that
Hurlbut forged those "Wayne Sentinel" articles as well.
Richard L. Anderson -- it's time for you to open up your file cabinets and
share all that suppressed research you did in NY in the 1970s --
yer Unka Dale
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/13/2001 10:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3BF1E2CD...@gte.net>
>
>
>
>TheJordan6 wrote:
>
>> I always enjoy browsing through your newspaper articles, Dale...
>
>> So, the question now is, how much longer are Mobots going to keep asserting
>> that Hurlbut's affidavits are "discredited?"
>>
>> Or will they just keep deceitfully repeating that falsehood forever?
>>
>> Randy J.
>Randy -- there is a whole lot of pre-Hurlbut testimony that says practically
>the same things that the witnesses said in the interviews he gathered.
>
>I would think that the best LDS defense on these matters would be to
>say that Hurlbut simply copied all that earlier stuff and never even went
>to Palmyra to solicit affidavits.
But even the dullest Mobot mind would surely realize that if that were the
case, then Hurlbut wasn't the originator of the tales of Smith's
peep-stoning/money-digging, but instead they were common enough knowledge in
the Palmyra region for them to have been collected and published in several
newspapers during 1830-32. And THAT means that it's utterly disingenuous for
Mobots to continue their silly mantra of "Hurlbut made up the affidavits."
What I'd like to know is which specific acquaintances and neighbors of the
Smiths gave their accounts to the "Cleveland Advertiser" or to James Bennett in
the first place.
>Of course the fact that the 1834 "Wayne Sentinel" ran articles saying that
>Hurlbut was in town collecting statements, may be a bother.
Yes, that would have been quite a trick, equaled by Hurlbut also being able to
predict the testimony Isaac Hale was going to give to the "Susquehanna
Register," and dub it into Peter Ingersoll's account so they would corroborate
each other. Perhaps Hurlbut had psychic powers that rivaled Smith's alleged
ones.
>But I'm sure
>that a good apologist like Woody or the Patent Worm can tell us all that
>Hurlbut forged those "Wayne Sentinel" articles as well.
Glenn Thigpen is the one currently giving it yet another old college try.
>Richard L. Anderson -- it's time for you to open up your file cabinets and
>share all that suppressed research you did in NY in the 1970s --
>
>yer Unka Dale
That'd be nice, but we already have more than enough to know that Hurlbut
didn't forge his affidavits.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>>Just a thought. When Philatus Hurlbut visited the Palmyra region in 1834
> >on his
> >character assination mission, if this had been such a big deal, why did not
> >at
> >least one of those affidavits have something about it? That was only eight
> >years
> >later.
Randy wrote:
>>Your lack of knowledge of the history once again hurts you. The 1826 trial
took place at Bainbridge, 80 miles southeast of Palmyra;
> I am feeling no pain. I know where the examination took place and
approximately how far Bainbridge is from Palmyra.
But your brain didn't function well enough to allow you to deduce that the
Hurlbut affidavits contained no information about the 1826 trial because no one
Hurlbut interviewed had attended it or was privy to its details.
>> Hurlbut didn't go
> there; he only interviewed Smith's Palymra neighbors and Spaulding's widow
near
> Syracuse.
>I know that he didn't go to Bainbridge.
Then you should have deduced that that is why none of his affidavits mention
the trial.
>> Hurlbut obtained Palmyra resident Peter Ingersoll's testimony of his
> experience in moving Smith and Emma's furniture from Harmony to Palymra;
> Ingersoll was quoted as a credible reference in the February
> 2001 "Ensign" magazine. Ingersoll's affidavit (obtained by Hurlbut)
> corroborates the details of the angry confrontation between Smith and Isaac
> Hale; Hale swore his affidavit before a Harmony judge; it was published in
the
> "Susquehanna Register," from which Eber Howe asked Hale's permission to
> re-publish it in his "Mormonism Unvailed." (And Hale's affidavit was also
> quoted in the same February 2001 "Ensign.") IOW, Hurlbut had absolutely
> nothing to do with the obtaining of Hale's affidavit, yet Hale's and
>> Ingersoll's affidavits corroborate each other.
Glenn wrote:
>From Strang's Book of the Law page 252 and 253:
Attention ARMekites! Glenn Thigpen has a history of demanding "credible
references" for assertions. If a quote refutes his position, he attacks the
source or credibility of the quote. Now, below, he quotes from James J.
Strang's "Book of the Law" as a "credible source" to attempt to "refute" Peter
Ingersoll's 1833 sworn legal affidavit. For those who aren't aware, Strang
joined the Mormon church on February 25, 1844. After Smith's death on June 27,
Strang (who was not a church leader and had only been a member a few months)
claimed that Smith had given him a "letter of appointment" saying that Strang
was to succeed Smith upon his death. (Strang's letter has been proven a
forgery.)
"5 Aug. 1844---James J. Strang announces to his Michigan branch that he is
Smith's successor through a letter of appointment. The branch president
denounces the letter as a forgery and excommunicates Strang."
"26 Aug. 1844---The apostles privately excommunicate Strang, a repetition of
the Michigan branch's action. He is publicly excommunicated again in the
Nauvoo Temple 1 Feb. 1846." ("The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," D.
Michael Quinn, pp. 647-48.)
Strang then formed his own branch of Mormonism and claimed to receive
"revelations." Strang's claims are categorically rejected by the Utah LDS
Church, of which Glenn claims to be an apologist for. Late LDS President
Joseph Fielding Smith detailed Strang's "false claims" in his "Doctrines of
Salvation", vol. 1, p. 248. And yet, this is the man Glenn deems to use the
utterly rejected Strang as a "credible source" for his argument. Glenn quotes
Strang:
End quote. To repeat: Strang was not even associated with the Mormon church
until 1844---eleven years after Ingersoll swore his affidavit. Strang's
assertion is secondhand, with no provenance whatsoever; we have no way of
actually knowing if Strang actually met Ingersoll, or if Strang simply invented
his story. It reads like post-hoc propaganda---as though Strang, who didn't
even know Smith before 1844, was attempting to wash away Smith's entire 1820's
history of peep-stoning and money-digging by "discrediting" only ONE witness to
Smith's occult activities. Strang's effort is roughly similar to someone
attempting to "debunk" the Holocaust by obtaining a statement from one Nazi who
denied that it happened---the same Nazi who had previously sworn that it DID
happen!
Seeing as how Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed" was published in 1834, which included
Ingersoll's affidavit, Ingersoll had ten years (until Smith's death in 1844) in
which to announce to the world that his affidavit published therein was false.
But do we find such an announcement published in a public notice in a
newspaper, as is the normal case for such items? Do we find Ingersoll engaging
a JoP or notary public, and making a legal recantation of his published 1834
affidavit?
No, we do not. All we have is a second-hand assertion, in a late, post-hoc,
apologetic publication by the excommunicated and discredited James J. Strang.
Of course, those of us who have been on ARM awhile are familiar with Glenn's
naive, simplistic efforts, and we know how futile they are. We know that
Strang's remarks concerning Ingersoll's sworn affidavit are bogus because
Ingersoll's 1833 testimony mirrored that of Isaac Hale, Joseph Smith's
father-in-law. Ingersoll's sworn statement read:
"In the month of August, 1827, I was hired by Joseph Smith, Jr., to go to
Pennsylvania, to move his wife's household furniture up to Manchester, where
his wife then was." [Question: If, according to Strang (via Glenn)
Ingersoll's affidavit was bogus, then how could Hurlbut (or whoever Glenn
believes invented this 1833 affidavit) have known that Smith went to
Pennsylvania in 1827 to move Emma's furniture, or that Emma was in Manchester?
Did Hurlbut perhaps have 'seeing' powers equal to Smith's, by which he could
'see' Smith's past, and procure previously unknown, yet true information to
include in his supposedly bogus affidavits?]
"When we arrived at Mr. Hale's, in Harmony, Pa. from which place he had taken
his wife, a scene presented itself, truly affecting. His father-in-law (Mr.
Hale) addressed Joseph, in a flood of tears: 'You have stolen my daughter and
married her. I had much rather followed her to her grave. You spend your time
in digging for money---pretend to see in a stone, and thus try to deceive
people.' Joseph wept, and acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor
never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false.
He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking
into stones."
Now let's compare Ingersoll's testimony to that of Isaac Hale:
"Young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length he asked my consent
to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused, and gave my reasons for so
doing; some of which were, that he was a stranger, and followed a business that
I could not approve; he then left the place. Not long after this, he returned,
and while I was absent from home, carried off my daughter, into the state of
New York, where they were married without my approbation or consent. After
they arrived at Palmyra N. Y., Emma wrote to me enquiring whether she could
take her property, consisting of clothing, furniture, cows, &c. I replied that
her property was safe, and at her disposal. In a short time they returned,
bringing with them a Peter Ingersoll, and subsequently came to the conclusion
that they would move out, and reside upon a place near my residence. Smith
stated to me that he had given up what he called 'glass-looking', and that he
expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so."
Inquiring minds want to know: If Ingersoll's affidavit is bogus (according to
Strang via Glenn), then HOW ON EARTH COULD ISAAC HALE HAVE STATED THAT
INGERSOLL CAME TO HARMONY TO MOVE EMMA'S GOODS? And HOW ON EARTH COULD HALE'S
RECOLLECTION OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH SMITH SO CLOSELY MIRROR INGERSOLL'S?
Remember, Philastus Hurlbut DID NOT go to Harmony, and DID NOT interview Hale
to obtain his affidavit. Hurlbut obtained Ingersoll's affidavit at Palmyra, 80
miles north. Hale maintained the truth of his own affidavit; therefore, it
would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Hurlbut, or anyone else, to invent a false
affidavit, ascribing Ingersoll's name to it, and yet have it magically
corroborate another affidavit obtained from a wholly independent source.
That fact leads us to the obvious conclusion that Strang simply invented his
post-hoc story about Ingersoll, or either Strang actually looked up Ingersoll
and induced him to deny his story. One wonders who Glenn will quote next as a
"credible source" on Mormonism? Perhaps Ervil Le Baron, or Art Bulla?
As I've written four times already this year, and repeated above, which Glenn
did not address---Ingersoll's and Isaac Hale's affidavits were quoted as
credible sources in the February 2001 "Ensign" magazine, in an article about
Smith's early life:
"Isaac Hale said that Stowell and his men arrived at his home in November
1825.
Their dig located up Flat Brook beneath Oquago Mountain was short lived,
reported by Isaac to have ended about 17 November. 6".....
"At last Joseph summoned sufficient courage to request the hand of Emma in
marriage. Isaac Hale was adamant in his refusal, saying that Joseph was a
stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve. 8".....
"Isaac Hale reported that while he was absent from home Joseph carried off
my daughter, into the state of New York, where they were married without my
approbation or consent. 9".....
"From Manchester, Emma wrote to her father in Harmony asking whether she
could take her property, consisting of clothing, furniture, cows, etc. Isaac
responded that her property was safe, and at her disposal. 11 Peter
Ingersoll, a neighbor of the Smiths, was hired to take them to Pennsylvania in
his wagon during August 1827. Peter said that as they drove into the yard,
Father Hale came out in an agitated state and amidst a flood of tears
confronted Joseph for having carried away his daughter."
Now, here's the hilarious part of this thread: Glenn Thigpen quotes from James
J. Strang, an "apostate" Mormon who began a break-off group, whose claims are
categorically dismissed by LDS leaders; while the LDS Church's official monthly
magazine, the "Ensign," quotes Ingersoll's and Hale's affidavits in a
PRO-MORMON article telling of Smith's Pennsylvania experiences! Glenn, perhaps
you'd like to contact the "Ensign" magazine and ask them to stop quoting from
sources that you are attempting to discredit in your apologetic efforts here on
ARM. Or, perhaps you can just suck it up and come to realize what the "Ensign"
editors do---that neither Ingersoll's or Hale's affidavits could have been
faked. If you want to regain any credibility for YOURSELF, that is.
>> Therefore, neither could have
> been "coached" or "influenced" by Hurlbut. The reason that the 1826 trial
> isn't mentioned in Hurlbut's (or Howe's) affidavits is because nobody they
> interviewed or received affidavits from had attended the trial.
>And had never heard anything of it.
The only Harmony-area testators who provided affidavits to the "Susquehanna
Register" in 1834 were: Isaac Hale, Nathaniel Lewis, Joshua M'Kune, Hezekiah
M'Kune, Alva Hale, Levi Lewis, and Sophia Lewis. I know of no documents that
place any of those people at the 1826 trial. Isaac Hale does mention Smith's
alleged repentance of "glass-looking" during their 1826 conversation; that
dovetails with the trial account's depiction of Smith as being remorseful for
his activities, wherein he promised Judge Neely that he would cease the
practice, and therefore is independent corroboration of what happened in the
trial, from the Purple and Pearsall accounts.
Alva Hale, Emma's brother, echoed his father's remarks about Smith, adding that
"Smith told him at another time that his 'peeping' was all d----d
nonsense.....that he intended to quit the business, (of peeping) and labor for
his livelihood."
Those statements are telling in that they were not obtained by Hurlbut; they
were the testators' own first-hand experiences with Smith; and they corroborate
independent accounts of the same peep-stoning/money-digging Smith that numerous
other witnesses testified of.
>The eighty miles from Bainbridge to Palmyra
were no obstacle for Josiah Stowell to have heard of Joseph.
The Smiths had been money-digging since at least 1822, and Stowell had known of
them since 1823. The reason the Hale family members furnished their affidavits
concerning the 1825-27 Smith is because Smith had married their relative Emma,
and they were naturally thought to be the persons most able to give information
about Smith. If Howe, writing from Ohio, had known about the 1826 trial, then
he naturally would have inquired about it, and would probably have learned more
about it. But the simple fact is that no witnesses that either Hurlbut or Howe
corresponded with personally attended the trial, and therefore had no direct
knowledge of it to relay to Howe.
Remember, A. W. Benton, who had attended the trial, published his account of
the trial in an obscure church newspaper in April of 1831; if that news had
been more widely circulated to the point of being known in Ohio where Smith had
moved to, then Howe might have been able to use it to investigate the trial
further at that time, and discovered many more details from numerous witnesses
to include in "Mormonism Unvailed." It was simply happenstance that no one
Hurlbut or Howe interviewed were aware of the 1826 trial, although Hale vaguely
referred to its outcome in his affidavit.
>He had a brother who
lived in Palmyra. Likewise it would have been no problem for the people of
Palmyra
to have heard of any conviction of Joseph in Bainbridge. But not a peep in
Palmyra.
There was no reason for anyone in Palmyra other than Smith and his
fellow-money-diggers to even know about the trial. Smith certainly wouldn't
have talked it up in his own backyard. And whether or not Smith was
"convicted" is immaterial to whether or not the trial took place, or whether
Smith was in fact a "peep-stoner." Your harping about the judgment in the case
is merely a strawman intended to take the focue off the larger isues.
>> As to your assertion that Hurlbut's trip was a "character assassination
> mission," you need to think about two things before you write such ignorance:
> One, Smith's "peep-stoning" and money-digging had been written of and widely
> published since 1830, beginning with Abner Cole's "Palymra Reflector"
articles;
> therefore, Hurlbut didn't assassinate Smith's character---he merely gathered
> information and more details about Smith's occultic activities that were
> already common knowledge. Two, the very reason Hurlbut began his
investigation
> to begin with is because early Mormon missionaries went to Conneaut, Ohio, to
> advertise the BOM; they read portions of it to locals; some of those locals
> happened to have been acquaintances of the late Solomon Spaulding, and
claimed
> that the BOM sounded suspiciously like Spaulding's ramblings. Because of
that,
> a committee was formed to investigate Smith's background, and Hurlbut was
voted
> to go to NY to do just that.
Glenn wrote:
As usual, you didn't even address my above comments as to WHY you cannot
discredit Hurlbut's research on the basis of having an "axe to grind." You are
simply obfuscating the larger issue, and re-injecting red herrings. Since
NUMEROUS OTHER WITNESSES testified to Smith's peep-stoning and money-digging
BEFORE, and INDEPENDENTLY OF, Hurlbut, your attempt to discredit Hurlbut's
affidavits on his "character" is ABSOLUTELY MERITLESS.
>> The standard Mopologist tactic is to claim that Hurlbut had an "axe to
grind"
> against Smith, which spurred him to invent his affidavits; but the fact that
> the news of Smith's occultic peep-stoning and nocturnal money-digging were
> known and published as early as three years before Hurlbut even joined the
> Mormonite movement utterly negates that argument. You Mobots need to give up
> on discrediting Hurlbut, and move on to an argument that has some merit.
>
> Randy J.
>I didn't know that you thought that Dale Broadhurst is a Mopologist.
He certainly isn't. The reproduction of pre-Hurlbut newspaper articles on his
website utterly destroy your arguments about Hurlbut.
Also, as Dale provides:
14-15 Feb 1832
Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith stopped at Conneaut, 003b Ashtabula Co., OH
while on their mission to the East -- They baptized 5 or 6 people in the area
(in Springfield Twp., Erie Co., PA) including Erastus Rudd, who then lived on
the Rudd homestead, three miles east of Conneaut, OH. The first time that Hyde
and Smith preached in the Conneaut school house, Solomon Spalding's old
neighbor Nehemiah King attended. When Hyde finished King left the meeting and
told people that Hyde "had preached from the writings of Solomon Spalding."
Also:
Feb? 1833
DPH was baptized in western NY, 008a possibly by Sidney Rigdon. If so, it may
have been Rigdon who sent Hurlbut directly on to Kirtland, rather than having
the new convert remain with other Mormons who gathered in Jamestown early in
1833.
Significance: Since Hurlbut didn't join the Mormon church until February
1833---at least A FULL YEAR after the resemblances between the BOM and
Spalding's writings were noticed---the Mobot contention that "Hurlbut/Howe
created the Spalding theory" is without merit. Hurlbut and Howe merely learned
of those reports, which spurred them to begin investigating Smith's background.
Hurlbut originally went to NY to interview Spalding's widow near Syracuse, to
determine if Spalding's writings could have been the source for the BOM; the
affidavits he collected from Palmyra witnesses were merely a bonus for him.
>Check out
this link which may shed further light on Hurlbut's character.
>http://www.olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/HChron5.htm
>Glenn
Glenn, you poor, ignorant, deluded soul---you just don't get it, do you? IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHO HURLBUT WAS, OR WHAT LEVEL OF 'CHARACTER' HE HAD, because
his research is CORROBORATED and CONFIRMED by INDEPENDENT SOURCES. It doesn't
matter if Hurlbut murdered 1000 people. You could throw Hurlbut's work in the
trash and never mention his name again, but that wouldn't negate the numerous
witnesses unassociated with, and pre-dating Hurlbut, who testified of Joseph
Smith the peep-stoner/money-digger. Your tiresome attempts to "discredit" his
affidavits are invalid, irrelevant, and nothing but a gigantic strawman.
Randy J.
Glenn Thigpen
<snip>
Thank you Randy for your insights on sources. I used that excerpt from Strang
for a particular purpose, and you bit, hook, line, and sinker.
You went to great pains to deride using a person that had been excommunicated
from the LDS Church as reliable witness. I remember an exchange some time ago
where you opined rather vigorously that because Philastus Hurlbut had been
excommunicated from the LDS Church for immorality did not lessen his credibility
as a witness.
Strang is no less credible than Hurlbut.
>
> >http://www.olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/HChron5.htm
>
> >Glenn
>
> Glenn, you poor, ignorant, deluded soul---you just don't get it, do you? IT
> DOESN'T MATTER WHO HURLBUT WAS, OR WHAT LEVEL OF 'CHARACTER' HE HAD, because
> his research is CORROBORATED and CONFIRMED by INDEPENDENT SOURCES. It doesn't
> matter if Hurlbut murdered 1000 people. You could throw Hurlbut's work in the
> trash and never mention his name again, but that wouldn't negate the numerous
> witnesses unassociated with, and pre-dating Hurlbut, who testified of Joseph
> Smith the peep-stoner/money-digger. Your tiresome attempts to "discredit" his
> affidavits are invalid, irrelevant, and nothing but a gigantic strawman.
>
> Randy J.
You keep harping about peep stoning. That was only a minor part of the
character assassination that Hurlbut attempted. He only sought out people who were
willing to speak against Joseph. Those that were not willing to denigrate Joseph
were not deposed. such as Orlando Saunders. The references I cited demonstrated
that character assassination was one of his stated goals, which he evidently did
not succeed too well at the time.
Yes. Hurlbut's character. credibility, and motivations are of relevant.
For any of those who are reading this and are interested in another view point
try this link and make up your own minds:
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/js-family.htm
Glenn
TheJordan6
> Thank you Randy for your insights on sources. I used that excerpt from Strang
for a particular purpose, and you bit, hook, line, and sinker. You went to
great pains to deride using a person that had been excommunicated from the LDS
Church as a reliable witness. I remember an exchange some time ago
where you opined rather vigorously that because Philastus Hurlbut had been
excommunicated from the LDS Church for immorality did not lessen his
credibility as a witness.
Glenn, you're hopeless. The excommunication of a witness is not MY standard
for rejecting his testimony; it's the standard of Mormon leaders and
apologists. That's the reason I pointed out that Strang was excommunicated,
and his claims of 'revelations' and succession to Joseph Smith categorically
rejected by Mormon leaders; therefore, it's disingenuous for YOU to use Strang
as a credible source to support your pro-Mormon contentions. The reason *I*
reject Strang's statement are the reasons I wrote previously, which you have
declined to comment on, because you know that you have no intelligent rebuttal
to it. So, I'll repeat them:
Strang was not even associated with the Mormon church
until 1844---eleven years after Ingersoll swore his affidavit. Strang's
assertion is secondhand, with no corroboration whatsoever; we have no way of
actually knowing if Strang actually met Ingersoll, or if Strang simply invented
his story. It reads like post-hoc propaganda---as though Strang, who didn't
even know Smith before 1844, was attempting to wash away Smith's entire 1820's
history of peep-stoning and money-digging by "discrediting" only ONE witness to
Smith's occult activities. Strang's effort is roughly similar to someone
attempting to "debunk" the Holocaust by obtaining a statement from one Nazi who
denied that it happened---the same Nazi who had previously sworn that it DID
happen!
Seeing as how Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed" was published in 1834, which included
Ingersoll's affidavit, Ingersoll had ten years (until Smith's death in 1844) in
which to announce to the world that his affidavit published therein was false.
But do we find such an announcement published in a public notice in a
newspaper, as is the normal case for such items? Do we find Ingersoll engaging
a JoP or notary public, and making a legal recantation of his published 1834
affidavit?
No, we do not. All we have is a second-hand assertion, in a late, post-hoc,
apologetic publication by the excommunicated and discredited James J. Strang.
Of course, those of us who have been on ARM awhile are familiar with Glenn's
naive, simplistic efforts, and we know how futile they are. We know that
Strang's remarks concerning Ingersoll's sworn affidavit are bogus because
Ingersoll's 1833 testimony mirrored that of Isaac Hale, Joseph Smith's
father-in-law, and therefore it could not have been fraudulent.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that Smith and/or Rigdon trumped up "immorality"
charges against Hurlbut as a "pre-emptive strike" to neuter the effect of the
investigation he was undertaking. Such trumping up of charges against Mormon
dissidents was Joseph Smith's oft-employed method of quashing challenges to his
claims or authority. Some Mormon leaders continue to employ such character
assassination against dissidents to this day; I know this from personal
experience.
Glenn wrote:
>Strang is no less credible than Hurlbut.
You are exhibiting the state of your delusion. You have heard the "Hurlbut is
discredited" mantra from Mormon apologists for so long, that you no longer
possess the brainpower to analyze and understand WHY Hurlbut's affidavits are
NOT "discredited." You are an unrehabitable fanatic; an unswerving zombie who
has had your thinking done for you for so long that you are now utterly unable
to think for yourself.
To repeat: The reasons Hurlbut's affidavits are credible are a) They contain
tons of information that is corroborated from independent sources, including
those friendly to Joseph Smith and Mormonism; b) There exists a wealth of
recollections, newspaper accounts, etc., of Joseph Smith's 1820's peep-stoning,
money-digging, and use of folk-magic, that were obtained and published
completely independent of Hurlbut; many of them PRE-DATING Hurlbut's
investigation, and Howe's publication, by TWO TO THREE YEARS, and c) LDS Church
leaders admit that Hurlbut's affidavits are credible, as shown by the fact that
they were quoted from in the February 2001 "Ensign" magazine, in an article
titled "Joseph Smith Comes To The Susquehanna," which I have already quoted for
you, and which you have declined to address, because you know that it utterly
refutes your assertions.
When YOU, a puny rank-and-file Mormon, with no "authority" whatsoever to act as
a spokesman for the LDS Church, claim that "Hurlbut's affidavits are
incredible," you are embracing a position that opposes modern LDS Church
leaders. The "Ensign" magazine is presided over by LDS General Authorities,
and is the "official voice" of orthodox LDS thought. Therefore, when you claim
that "Hurlbut's affidavits are incredible," in opposition to the church's
official position, it is *YOU* who has no credibility.
>> >http://www.olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/HChron5.htm
>> >Glenn
>>Glenn, you poor, ignorant, deluded soul---you just don't get it, do you? IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHO HURLBUT WAS, OR WHAT LEVEL OF 'CHARACTER' HE HAD, because
his research is CORROBORATED and CONFIRMED by INDEPENDENT SOURCES. It doesn't
matter if Hurlbut murdered 1000 people. You could throw Hurlbut's work in the
trash and never mention his name again, but that wouldn't negate the numerous
witnesses unassociated with, and pre-dating Hurlbut, who testified of Joseph
Smith the peep-stoner/money-digger. Your tiresome attempts to "discredit" his
affidavits are invalid, irrelevant, and nothing but a gigantic strawman.
>You keep harping about peep stoning.
And money-digging, and employing other types of quaint folk-magic, including
divining rods, magic circles, etc., all of which have been corroborated by
NUMEROUS sources independent of Hurlbut, including such friendly witnesses as
Lucy Mack Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and Joseph Smith
himself.
>That was only a minor part of the character assassination that Hurlbut
attempted.
But it is the MAJOR aspect of Smith's 1820's actitivies which Mormon apologists
seek to "debunk." That effort by Mormon apologists over the years is why
mind-numbed Mobots like Woody Brison refuse to believe that Smith ever used a
peepstone, or ever dug for money.
>He only sought out people who were willing to speak against Joseph. Those that
were not willing to denigrate Joseph were not deposed.
Glenn, you're a naive, simple man. When an investigator interviews people
concerning whether a certain person did or didn't engage in certain acts, if
some of the people he interviews have no knowledge of those acts, and has no
information to offer concerning them, then the investigator goes on to the next
witness. We have no idea of how many people Hurlbut interviewed; there could
have been 100 more that Hurlbut spoke to that had no knowledge of Smith's
occult practices, and therefore had nothing to add to Hurlbut's investigation.
You are doing what O. J. Simpson's lawyers did to rebut prosecution witnesses'
accounts of what they saw or heard on the night of the murders: the prosecutors
used witnesses who heard barking dogs, angry shouting, saw misparked cars, etc;
but O. J.'s lawyers used a completely different set of witnesses, who would
testify that they saw or heard nothing. Obviously, a witness cannot testify
to something he doesn't know; so O. J.'s lawyers were very clever and effective
in interviewing and questioning ONLY witnesses who saw or heard nothing.
However, here in the real world, that lawyerly tactic is similar to attempting
to prove a negative. It would have been pointless for Hurlbut to record the
accounts of Smith's neighbors who weren't personally privy to his occult
activities. For instance, one Smith neighbor, Benjamin Saunders, said of
Hurlbut: "He came to me but he could not get out of me what he wanted; so went
to others." Mormon apologists have used this statement to attempt to show
that Hurlbut was having witnesses invent negative remarks about Smith, and that
Benjamin Saunders declined to do so; however, that cannot be the case, since
Saunders gave several other interviews throughout the years wherein he
testified to Smith's occultic activities. As Michael Quinn writes in "Early
Mormonism and the Magic World View":
"Until the first edition of this book, Mormon writers dismissed the
toad-description as a ridiculous invention by Willard Chase whose 1833
affidavit criticized the Smiths. Until this book's first edition, apologists
acknowledged no other source to support his account. For more than 100 years,
a corroborating source (friendly to Smith's reputation) was available to
researchers. This Palmyra neighbor also claimed that Smith was startled by an
amphibian-like creature when he first visited the hill in 1823.....William H.
Kelley traveled as far as New York in the mid-1880s to collect any
reminiscences about the Smiths from any Palmyra neighbor still living. Some
were interviewed by Philastus Hurlbut fifty years earlier. Kelly recorded a
statement by Benjamin Saunders as part of an interview with Benjamin's brother
Lorenzo in September 1884. This gave independent verification of Chase's
statement that Joseph Sr. described a toad-like appearance of Moroni to his son
in September 1823. Without the statement of Benjamin Saunders, I would not
even mention Chase's 1833 reference to the toad (which I laughed at in
disbelief the first time I read it decades ago.)
Neighbor Benjamin Saunders was sixteen years old at the publication of
Cumorah's ancient records. His entire statement of 1884 defended the Smiths.
He reported that the Smiths were good workers, of good morals, that Joseph Sr.
was not an exceptional drinker and was a hard worker......No non-Mormon was
more friendly to Joseph Smith's Palmyra experience than Benjamin
Saunders.....This is what Benjamin Saunders said about the coming forth of the
Book of Mormon: 'I heard Joe tell my mother and sister how he procured the
plates. He said he was directed by an angel where it was. He went in the
night to get the plates. When he took the plates there was something down near
the box that looked some like a toad that rose up into a man which forbid him
to take the plates.....He told his story just as earnestly as any one
could.'.....This friendly non-Mormon corroborated the hostile claim concerning
Smith's visit to the hill in September 1823. Joseph Jr. referred to an
amphibian-like creature which seemed to transform itself into an otherworldly
personage of human appearance. As historical evidence, the statement of
Benjamin Saunders was not a second-hand source. He was not reporting
'hearsay', unless LDS apologists are willing to equally apply that dismissive
term to reminiscences they approve of. The best example is the testimony by
Utah Mormons about Brigham Young's 'transfiguration' into the appearance of
Joseph Smith---about which there are no specific accounts until decades later."
(Quinn, pp. 148-149.)
When Mark Hofmann's "salamander letter" was proven to be a hoax, Mormon
apologists were relieved, because that preserved, in their minds, the premise
that Willard Chase's statement that Smith had told him of 'something of a toad,
which soon assumed the position of a man', recorded by Hurlbut, was also
fraudulent. However, the fact that Benjamin Saunders, a "friendly" witness of
the Smiths, told the same "toad" story that Chase had, based on his own
personal dealings with the Smiths, and he did so half a century after Hurlbut's
interviews, to the pro-Mormon interviewer William Kelley, means that Saunders
corroborated Chase, and therefore vindicates Hurlbut. And that means that your
attempt to "discredit" Hurlbut based on his supposed poor character is invalid,
because there are DOZENS of such similar independent corroborations of
Hurlbut's affidavits; another good example is the cohesion between Peter
Ingersoll's affidavit (collected by Hurlbut) and Isaac Hale's (not collected by
Hurlbut), which you have declined to even acknowledge, and which destroys your
contentions about Hurlbut's credibility.
>such as Orlando Saunders.
Those interested in reading Orlando Saunders' recollection of the Smiths, as
recorded by RLDS researcher W. H. Kelley in the 1880's, can do so at
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/Kelley.html
As you can read, Kelley interviewed several of the Smiths' former neighbors,
and nearly all of them mentioned at least SOMETHING about either the Smiths'
folk-magic practice, money-digging, drinking, etc. What Glenn is trying to do
here is to "cherry-pick"; that is, to have us consider ONLY Orlando Saunders'
generally positive recollections, and ignore Kelley's other testators who gave
more detailed, specific reports of the Smiths' 1820's habits and
practices---for example, Benjamin Saunders' "toad" story quoted above, which
was also recorded by the Smith-friendly Kelley.
Kelley stated to Orlando Saunders: "Well; you seem to differ a little from a
good many of the stories told about these people." Saunders replied: "I have
told you just what I know about them, and you will have to go somewhere else
for a different story."
Kelley's remark that Orlando Saunders' recollections of the Smiths "differed a
little from a good many of the stories" he had heard from other testators hints
that Kelley had heard a number of accounts which didn't speak as positively of
the Smiths as Orlando had. Yet, honest researchers cannot wholesale dismiss
the numerous accounts which told of the Smiths' negative habits, and keep only
Saunders' generally positive report. For example, immediately after Kelley's
interview with Orlando, Kelly met with Abel Chase, and reported:
"Mr. Saunders giving us the directions to the house of Abel Chase, we next
called upon him and ascertained the following: Mr. [Abel] Chase.--"I am
sixty-seven years old. Knew the Smiths; the old man was a cooper. I was young
and don't remember only general character. They were poorly educated, ignorant
and superstitious; were kind of shiftless, but would do a good day's work. They
used to call Joe, `Lobby Joe.' He got a singular-looking stone, which was dug
up out of my father's well; it belonged to my brother Willard, and he could
never get it. His mother, old Mrs. Smith, got the stone from mother."
Although Abel Chase was young in the 1820's and wasn't as involved with the
Smiths as were other members of his family, he recalled that the Smiths were
"poorly educated, ignorant and superstitious; were kind of shiftless".....
Abel's account was collected by the same Kelley who interviewed Orlando
Saunders; and yet, does Glenn treat Abel Chase's negative account of the Smiths
with the same regard as he does Saunders'? Of course not. Glenn employs a
deceitful double standard for which Mormon apologists are infamous----he uses a
source when it favors his position, but discards that same source when it
refutes him.
Abel Chase's report given to Kelley jibed with details of his brother Willard's
affidavit, given to Hurlbut, in 1833, to wit:
"I became acquainted with the Smith family, known as the authors of the Mormon
Bible, in the year 1822. At that time, they were engaged in the money-digging
business, which they followed until the latter part of the season of 1827. In
the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph
Smith to assist me; the latter of which is now known as the Mormon prophet.
After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a
singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it up to the
top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and
then his face into the top of his hat. It has been said by Smith, that HE
brought the stone from the well; but this is false. There was no one in the
well but myself. The next morning, he came to me, and wished to obtain the
stone, alledging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part
with it on account of its being a curiosity, but would lend it. After
obtaining the stone, he began to publish abroad what wonders he could discover
by looking in it....." ("Mormonism Unvailed," E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 240-241.)
Note that both Chase brothers told the same story of how Smith obtained a
"peep-stone" while digging a well for the Chase's, and that the stone was
originally found and claimed by Chase, but taken away by Smith. Note also that
details of Willard's testimony are corroborated by numerous other acquaintances
of Smith---most significantly Smith's "face in the hat" silliness, which was
the same method by which he reportedly "translated the gold plates" a few years
later. Willard's account also corroborated other witnesses' reports that the
Smiths had been "engaged in the money-digging business" since at least 1822,
which refutes Smith's later downplaying of his practice as a short-term,
insignificant happening, far more extensive than the "about a month" in which
he later claimed to "peep" for Stowell in 1825.
Mormon apologists have attempted to discredit Willard Chase's affidavit through
the years, because it provides one of the most detailed accounts of Smith's
1820's occultism; those apologists attempt to discredit Chase's affidavit by
discrediting Hurlbut, who recorded it. But the fact that details of Chase's
account are corroborated by others, including the "friendly" one of Abel's,
recorded by RLDS researcher Kelley, negates that attempted discreditation.
In addition, Abel Chase was one of the dozens of Palmyra citizens who signed
his name to the following 1833 affidavit concerning the Smith family:
"We, the undersigned, being personally acquainted with the family of Joseph
Smith, sen. with whom the celebrated Gold Bible, so called, originated, state:
that they were not only a lazy, indolent set of men, but also intemperate; and
their word was not to be depended upon; and we are truly glad to dispense with
their society."
So, are we to believe Abel Chase's remarks concerning the Smiths that were
collected by the "friendly" Kelly in the 1880's, and yet reject his sworn
affidavit of 1833, simply because it was collected by Hurlbut? Obviously not,
because to do so is intellectually dishonest. One cannot believe a source in
one interview, and disregard that same source in another. If Abel Chase's 1833
remarks concerning the Smiths' reputation were "invented by Hurlbut," then
Chase had the perfect opportunity to recant those remarks in his meeting with
Kelley in the 1880's. But he didn't, and therefore Abel Chase's 1833 affidavit
attesting to the Smith's poor reputation must stand as notarized.
W. H. Kelley also recorded Ezra Pierce's dealings with the 1820's Smiths:
"They were poor, and got along by working by the day; the old man had a farm up
there, and a log house upon it. The old man Smith and Hyrum were coopers; I
never went to the same school that the boys did--they dug for money sometimes;
young Joe, he had a stone that he could look through and see where the money
was; there were a good many others who dug with them, and Joe used to play all
kinds of tricks upon them." Who said they dug for money? "Oh, I have heard it
lots of times. If my brother was living, he could tell you all about it."
Others dug besides the Smiths, did they? "Yes; there were others who dug; but I
always heard that the Smiths dug the most; one of the Chase's, a young lady,
had a stone which she claimed she could look through and see money buried." Did
anybody dig for her? "Yes; I guess they did. They said so." Then young Joe had
some opposition in the seeing-money business? "That is what everybody said."
Who was this Miss Chase? Where does she live? "She is dead now; she was a
sister to Abel Chase, who lives upon the Palmyra Road."
Note that Ezra Pierce told the LDS-friendly researcher Kelley of the same
1820's peep-stoning/money-digging Smith that Hurlbut's 1833 witnesses had, as
well as the Smith's involvement with the Chase's. So, are we to believe
Pierce's recollections because they were recorded by the "friendly" Kelley, and
yet discard similar testimonies because they were collected by the "unfriendly"
Hurlbut?
Kelly also interviewed John Gilbert, who in 1829 had set the type for the
printing of the 'Book of Mormon':
"Did the Smiths ever dig for money?" "Yes; I can tell you where you can find
persons who know all about that; can take you to the very place."
Gilbert was personally acquainted with the Smiths, in Palmyra, in 1829----four
years before Philastus Hurlbut went to NY and collected his affidavits. And
yet, Gilbert told Kelley of his personal knowledge that the Smiths were
well-known money-diggers. So, are we supposed to discard the affidavits
concerning the Smith's 1820's money-digging that were collected by the
"unfriendly" Hurlbut, and yet accept this one recorded by the "friendly"
Kelley?
I could cite numerous other examples, but these make my point.
>The references I cited demonstrated that character assassination was one of
his stated goals, which he evidently did not succeed too well at the time.
One more time---the previously-published reports of Smith's pre-"gold plates"
activities involving occultism and money-digging were the very reason that the
committee met and sent Hurlbut to investigate Smith's background. Hurlbut
didn't invent any "character assassinations" concerning Smith; he merely
interviewed and recorded first-hand Smith's own 1820's acquaintances and
neighbors' personal experiences with Smith. Do you think it was "character
assassination" for prosecutors, after the Simpson murders, to investigate O.
J.'s prior incidents of threats, violence, and wife abuse? Of course you
don't. It's exactly what investigators are supposed to do, to establish
motive. And yet, you're attempting to paint Hurlbut as the party in the wrong,
when it is obvious that Smith was indeed an occultist/money-digger during the
1820's, as confirmed by numerous sources independent of Hurlbut. One example,
which I recently commented on, was published in "The Farmer's Herald",
Vol. IV, St. Johnsbury, Wednesday, Oct. 26, 1831, No. 17:
"MORMONISM.
The fact that a sect of fanatics calling themselves Mormonites, have sprung up
and extended themselves in the Western part of New York and the Eastern parts
of Ohio, is partially known to our readers. The origin, character and members
of this sect have not yet been noticed in the Gazette, and it seems proper now
to notice them.
The ostensible founder of this fanaticism is a man of the name of Smith, an
ignorant, indolent, careless shiftless fellow in the commencement of life."
End quote. Note that this article was published in October 1831, a year and a
half before Hurlbut even joined the Mormon church; therefore, Hurlbut could not
possibily have been responsible for this very early published article which
also spoke of the "ignorant, indolent, careless" Smith that was known to his
neighbors in the 1820's. Obviously, some person or persons acquainted with
Joseph Smith stated his opinion of Smith to a reporter before October of 1831,
and it is obvious that that person was NOT Philastus Hurlbut. Hurlbut's 1833
interviews and affidavits merely confirmed and expanded on what Smith's
neighbors had already been reporting about him two years prior.
>Yes. Hurlbut's character, credibility, and motivations are of relevance.
Only to Mobots like yourself. Those of us who can think rationally and
independently recognize that your character assassination of Hurlbut is merely
your latest futile attempt to destroy the message by discrediting the
messenger.
The saying goes "If one person calls you a jackass, ignore them. But if ten
people call you a jackass, you'd better start braying." Meaning: If Philastus
Hurlbut was the only person who wrote of the Smiths' poor reputation,
folk-magic practices, and money-digging, we can safely ignore his writings,
just as we can ignore Strang's uncorroborated assertions regarding Peter
Ingersoll; but seeing as how NUMEROUS witnesses, independent of Hurlbut, over
the course of DECADES, told of the same shiftless, occultic, money-digging
Smiths, then it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss Hurlbut's affidavits on
the grounds of his "character" or his motives for investigating Smith.
Hurlbut's character, or lack of same, is a moot point in light of multiple
independent corroboration of his affidavits.
As I've written before, you can throw Hurlbut's affidavits in the trash and
pretend they never existed, but that won't wash away the numerous other
witnesses who testified of the same peep-stoning/money-digging Joseph Smith.
The Mobot attempt to discredit Hurlbut is nothing more than an exercise in
obfuscating the larger issues. It's equal to what O. J. Simpson's lawyers did
to Mark Fuhrman---make the witness the issue, and thus take the focus off their
client. You are deceitfully attempting to obfuscate the significance of Joseph
Smith's 1820's reputation and occultic activities by deflecting the focus off
him and onto Hurlbut. That's a classic tactic of criminal defense lawyers---if
you can't refute the evidence, then attack the witness--- but it doesn't count
for squat to those of us who operate in the real world.
Randy J.
Woody Brison
> ...
> mind-numbed Mobots like Woody Brison refuse to believe that Smith ever used a
> peepstone, or ever dug for money.
Just so's ya know, Randy does not speak for me, and I don't
know why he keeps making wild guesses about what I believe
when I've made it clear enough. Compensating for something,
I guess.
Wood
Elizabeth & Dale
Woody Brison wrote:
As you mentioned recently, your main area of interest and expertise
is in LDS doctrinal issues -- and not in all the fine details of history.
That may indeed be a commendable focus, Wood --
After all, what difference would it make to Church doctrine, if we
could be 100% positive that the seer-stone now held in the LDS
First Presidency's vault was indeed used by Joseph Smith?
Or, what difference would it make to Church doctrine, if we could
be 100% sure that Smith also worked for Josiah Stowell, in trying
to locate a lost silver mine?
Probably no difference whatever.
And, probably also, such details need not be endlessly examined
and hashed out -- if they do not impact significantly on doctrine.
Just my two cents' worth --
Unka Dale
Fool Speck
> Fool Speck wrote:
>
> > That is taken directly from the bill where is it notated that "Joseph
> > Smith, the Glass Looker". We know that he had a peep stone, Emma
> > Smith and David Whitmer verify that, and he admitted he was engaged in
> > treasure hunting for Stowell. So what is it being contested here?
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> The bill lists the case only as a misdemeanor. The "Glass Looker" part is on the left side of the
> bill where Justice Neely is listing the cases, and is not the charge itself. It seems to be more like
> a sarcastic put down. Joseph's case is the only one on the bill where such a comment is made.
> Joseph's alleged confession is not on that bill. It only shows up in magazine articles taken from
> an unknown source. We know what people claim the source to have been, but I have penned my thoughts on
> that elsewhere in another post.
> The fact that Joseph Smith went to work for Josiah Stowell on Mr. Stowell's insistance, to help him
> try and locate a silver mine, has never been an issue. Joseph, in his writings about his employment
> with Josiah, said that he was finally able to disuade Stowell from continuing his fruitless quest.
> According to Isaac Hale, the treasure hunting ended in November of the previous year. There is much
> difference between saying that one has worked for a person who was seeking treasure and admitting to
> trying to find it by using a peep stone, or some such.
> Note also that Dr. Purple gives a completely different account of Joseph's "testimony". Read all of
> the accounts again. Do you really take them seriously?
>
> Glenn
In comparing the different accounts, the main point is that Joseph did
try to find treasure using a peep stone.
It would be disingenuous to conclude that Joseph was an unwilling
participant in the treasure seeking. If he were trying to dissuade
Stowell from the beginning, it would be unlikely that Stowell would
have hired him in the first place. At least we can conclude that
Joseph gave him indications where the alleged silver mine was, or they
wouldn't have been digging under his guidance for a month.
Anyway, I would think the only way Joseph could exit himself from the
situation with any grace at all would be to dissuade Stowell in the
end. He could then honestly state that he did try to discourage
Stowell.
We haven't explored the fact that Joseph may have in fact believed in
the imaginary mines at first. If so, this does damage his claim to
genuine prophetic abilities as he could simply have imagined these
treasure hunting abilities as well as his divine calling.
Encouragement from his family and followers would have been cyclical:
He would believe in himself more and thus encourage more faith from
his believers.
Even a pious fraud will not see himself as totally evil, contrary to
the assertions of many of the critics. He would see himself building
the faith and character of his followers, even bringing them closer to
God, by trying to teach them "correct principles" and making it easier
to believe by manufacturing and evolving paranormal religious
experiences.
Would he feel guilty about his frauds? I think to a degree he would,
but would rationalize that he is doing so much more good than evil.
He would be spiritually over-fed by the love and adoration of tens of
thousands. Thus we see the boastful Joseph evidenced at the end of
his life.
Steve Lowther
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 11:59 EST
>Message-id: <f36171a3.01112...@posting.google.com>
>> mind-numbed Mobots like Woody Brison refuse to believe that Smith ever used
>a
>> peepstone, or ever dug for money.
>Just so's ya know, Randy does not speak for me, and I don't
>know why he keeps making wild guesses about what I believe
>when I've made it clear enough. Compensating for something,
>I guess.
>
>Wood
I'm not "speaking for you," Woody. I'm repeating what you yourself have
written ad nauseum. Every time someone posts documentation of Joseph Smith's
1820's "peep-stoning" and occultic money-digging, you unfailingly attempt to
discredit such reports. A few examples, from your previous rantings on the
subject:
From June 2000:
I have not yet seen reliable evidence that Joseph Smith put a
rock in a hat.
There were a number of scammers that worked upstate New York
in those days; that's partly why people were skeptical of
Joseph. I suspect that he never had a seer stone at all; just
the Urim and Thummin that was with the plates. Some people
remembered the things done by the earlier scammers, and
somehow remembered that it was now Joseph and his family that
did these things. Their stories are inconsistent, ridiculous,
and contrived; every detail of them can be found in reports
of the earlier scammers. But they were widely believed; even
Joseph's scribes may have absorbed some details.
From August 1999:
>Joseph didn't dabble in the occult. Prayer to God, getting answers,
translation of ancient documents, all are mysterious only to those
> that don't believe in God. I don't know whether he had a hat but I
assume so, I have three or four of them myself. It is generally
understood that he had both a seer stone and a pair of interpreters.
>My use of a hat is often to shade my eyes from too much light.
Martin Harris said he put the stone in his hat to look at it,
doesn't say whether he actually saw this or just thought that's the
> way it happened. What's "occult" about any of this?
From February of 2001:
Joseph did not have "exactly the same sort" of magic
devices used by various scam artists who /had/ worked
the area previously. There was for instance old Luman
Walters, who scammed a group to dig where he said (for
pay), but the treasure would always get away because
they broke some rule. His productions got quite
elaborate, involving magic circles, sacrificing a
sheep, etc. There were others who had magic stones
and rocks of various kinds. All these stories got
laid on Joseph, because the people could not accept his
story of it, which he didn't make public anyway, not
until later. They took the gossip they heard about him
and added things they remembered about old Luman and the
others. Every detail of these stories laid on Joseph
can be found in the doings of the scam artists who had
worked the district earlier and hardened the people
from being the simple, believing sort into the cynical,
believe-nothing sort. Except the descriptions of "his
stone" -- it was brown with stripes, it was white, it
was clear, it was black, it was green. Bzzzt! thanks
for playing, but the 'witnesses' don't agree on details.
End quotes.
(Note, dear readers, Woody's "evil twin" theory---that there was another
peep-stone artist in the same area, at the same time as Joseph Smith, and
through some incredible misfortune, Smith was misidentified as the "bad" seer.
Of course, Woody's insane theory requires us to ignore dozens of first-hand
eyewitness accounts of Smith's "peep-stoning", from his most intimate friends
and relatives.)
I see that you have written another post just today where you once again try
to discredit reports of Smith's peep-stoning, so your remark that I "don't
speak for you" is the height of disingenuousness. Or, perhaps the real problem
is that you are so delirious that you can't remember what you have posted from
one day to the next.
I find it amusing that in my post to Glenn to which you responded, that this is
the only thing you offered comment on. Does that mean you have no objections
to anything else in my entire post?
Randy J.