The Truth about Mormons

[froggy]

The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith
by Russell Anderson

In the Summer of 2002, I traveled with my family to visit Nauvoo, Illinois. We were anxious to get a chance to tour the new Nauvoo temple. I didn't see much anti-Mormon activity, but I did take an opportunity to stop in for a brief visit to a Christian bookstore. I went in to browse, and see what was available in their store. Prominently displayed on the counter was a copy of the charges by Judge Neely for 1826.1


Judge Neely Bill

The critical section has the following:

Same [meaning People]
vs
Joseph Smith
the Glass Looker
March 20, 1826
For my fees in examination
of above cause $2.68

 

[FrankZapper]

banishment from a religion you don't believe in is far better than caning. And no one is ever banished from the church. excommunication does not mean banishment. Many excommunicated members come back to the church. Both my grandparents on my fathers sided had this happen.

So you toe the party line or you're gone, it's a regime of fear, either agree or get lost.

Again I would ask you, fear of what?

Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?

Fear of being tossed out of the church, shunned by your community... That's a VERY powerful weapon. Like if you decided that wearing special underwear was retarded and you told your priest that you're not wearing that dumb shit anymore, they'd boot your ass to the curb.

Just like the elders of some mormon sects toss out the teenage boys because they don't have enough women to go around after the elders take 5 brides each.

 

[Truthspeaker]

in spite of 140 years of silence, the records did surface. Rev. Wesley Walters discovered the documents in the basement of the Chenango County, New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y. in 1971. The records, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that Joseph Smith was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of "glass-looking." It is not a matter of debate, opinion or religious preference. It is a proven historical fact.

Please provide said document.

Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873

Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.

From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.

Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

 

[Truthspeaker]

So you toe the party line or you're gone, it's a regime of fear, either agree or get lost.

Again I would ask you, fear of what?

Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?

Fear of being tossed out of the church, shunned by your community... That's a VERY powerful weapon. Like if you decided that wearing special underwear was retarded and you told your priest that you're not wearing that dumb shit anymore, they'd boot your ass to the curb.

Just like the elders of some mormon sects toss out the teenage boys because they don't have enough women to go around after the elders take 5 brides each.

My poor dear Frank,
Why would anyone fear being tossed out of a church that "forces" them to do things they don't believe in? If the church is asking them to do "dumb" things, why would they even want to be part of it? Sounds like a dumb person to me. And define "boot your ass to the curb." please.

This is america. That means freedom of religion. that means freedom of religions to establish their own rules. The great part about america is that you don't have to be associated with any religion. Good thing it ain't old England where you were labeled a heretic and a criminal punishable by death if you weren't part of the church of England.
In this country you can form an organization that has rules, religious or not and if members don't follow the rules, they get "booted out", but at least not physically, or punished in any way other than expelled from the group. Ain't this country great!


And please learn knowledge, and allow education to penetrate your mind at this moment. Here is knowledge if you will be governed by it:
There are no "mormon sects". There is simply no such thing. That's a term that has been coined by non mormons. If you knew anything in the remotest about our religion you would realize that breakaways are not recognized as legitimate by us. Our law clearly state that a man shall have only one wife. It's written so in the book of Mormon as well as in our church law today. Those who call themselves "Mormons" and engaged in polygamy are either formally expelled members or people who never joined our church to begin with. Therefore they can call themselves what they want but they are not the genuine article. This is the original church. All others are breakaways.

Truth allows one to live happily, but often causes an early death.

 

[froggy]

Please provide said document.

Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873

Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.

From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.

Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

You're silly oh wait a minute that what Mormons do they read something and the make up stories about what they've read, typical Joey Smith. How anyone could believe he found the treasure box but couldn't retrieve it because it kept sinking down as they dug after it. he must have surrounded himself with cons and loonies.

 

[FrankZapper]

Again I would ask you, fear of what?

Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?

Fear of being tossed out of the church, shunned by your community... That's a VERY powerful weapon. Like if you decided that wearing special underwear was retarded and you told your priest that you're not wearing that dumb shit anymore, they'd boot your ass to the curb.

Just like the elders of some mormon sects toss out the teenage boys because they don't have enough women to go around after the elders take 5 brides each.

My poor dear Frank,
Why would anyone fear being tossed out of a church that "forces" them to do things they don't believe in? If the church is asking them to do "dumb" things, why would they even want to be part of it? Sounds like a dumb person to me. And define "boot your ass to the curb." please.

This is america. That means freedom of religion. that means freedom of religions to establish their own rules. The great part about america is that you don't have to be associated with any religion. Good thing it ain't old England where you were labeled a heretic and a criminal punishable by death if you weren't part of the church of England.
In this country you can form an organization that has rules, religious or not and if members don't follow the rules, they get "booted out", but at least not physically, or punished in any way other than expelled from the group. Ain't this country great!


And please learn knowledge, and allow education to penetrate your mind at this moment. Here is knowledge if you will be governed by it:
There are no "mormon sects". There is simply no such thing. That's a term that has been coined by non mormons. If you knew anything in the remotest about our religion you would realize that breakaways are not recognized as legitimate by us. Our law clearly state that a man shall have only one wife. It's written so in the book of Mormon as well as in our church law today. Those who call themselves "Mormons" and engaged in polygamy are either formally expelled members or people who never joined our church to begin with. Therefore they can call themselves what they want but they are not the genuine article. This is the original church. All others are breakaways.

Truth allows one to live happily, but often causes an early death.

So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.

And anyways, elders in the church are always taking the prettiest, youngest brides for themselves and their friends or relatives. You don't agree? You're out.
And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?

 

[Skeptik]

So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.

No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.[/quote]

And anyways, elders in the church are always taking the prettiest, youngest brides for themselves and their friends or relatives. You don't agree? You're out.

Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense? If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life. There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.

And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?

More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians. What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.

 

[FrankZapper]

So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.

No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.

And anyways, elders in the church are always taking the prettiest, youngest brides for themselves and their friends or relatives. You don't agree? You're out.

Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense? If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life. There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.

And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?

More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians. What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.

Well, I guess mormons are lucky that they don't have to wear the special underwear on their head!

So you agree that children marrying old men goes on in mormonism.

If NG does a cover story on you as a mormon polygamist, that's what you are. You're like a catholic trying to say that baptists aren't real christians. Hmmm.

 

[Skeptik]

So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.

No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.

Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense? If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life. There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.

And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?

More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians. What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.

Well, I guess mormons are lucky that they don't have to wear the special underwear on their head!

So you agree that children marrying old men goes on in mormonism.

If NG does a cover story on you as a mormon polygamist, that's what you are. You're like a catholic trying to say that baptists aren't real christians. Hmmm.

Yes, they would look funny with underwear on their heads.

No, I didn't say anything about old men marrying children. You made that one up, I suppose. it was not part of my post at any rate.

If NG does a cover story claiming you're a worshipper of Zeus, that doesn't make it so.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873

Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.

From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.

Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

You're silly oh wait a minute that what Mormons do they read something and the make up stories about what they've read, typical Joey Smith. How anyone could believe he found the treasure box but couldn't retrieve it because it kept sinking down as they dug after it. he must have surrounded himself with cons and loonies.

Ever heard of a sink hole? They exist. and it wasn't Joseph who said the chest kept sinking it was others.

 

[Truthspeaker]

So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.

No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.

Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense? If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life. There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.

And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?

More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians. What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.

Well, I guess mormons are lucky that they don't have to wear the special underwear on their head!

So you agree that children marrying old men goes on in mormonism.

If NG does a cover story on you as a mormon polygamist, that's what you are. You're like a catholic trying to say that baptists aren't real christians. Hmmm.

NG is as ignorant of the issue as you are. They are doing their job. Interviewing people who claim to be "Mormons" but are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the original church.
So NG is not stupid but they just don't know the difference between real member of the church and so called "Mormons." They're just reporting the claims of these publicity seekers, not reporting the actual truth. There's a big difference between ignorant and stupid.
I've seen both examples on this thread many times.

 

[Truthspeaker]

It is against our religion to break the law. the law of the land is that women cannot marry till age 18.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is against our religion to break the law. the law of the land is that women cannot marry till age 18.

I agree that you guys to do not marry polygamously and that you excommunicate (I nearly wrote 'execute') members that do when you catch them out.

However, more than 100 years ago, the age for marrying in Utah was 13. Same in Idaho. The Saints from Star Valley in Wyoming (the wild cowboy country north of Evanston) would take their little girls across the state line into Idaho or Utah to marry them off to some old goat.

 

[froggy]

Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.

From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.

Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

You're silly oh wait a minute that what Mormons do they read something and the make up stories about what they've read, typical Joey Smith. How anyone could believe he found the treasure box but couldn't retrieve it because it kept sinking down as they dug after it. he must have surrounded himself with cons and loonies.

Ever heard of a sink hole? They exist. and it wasn't Joseph who said the chest kept sinking it was others.

A natural depression in a land surface formed by the dissolution and collapse of a cavern roof. Sinkholes are roughly funnel-shaped and on the order of tens of meters in size. They generally occur in limestone regions and are connected to subteranean passages.

 

[froggy]

Scammer tactics: convince you to depend only on the scammer and to believe only in the scammer; convince you that your friends and family, banks and law enforcement, are all lying and that only the scammer is telling the truth.

and distract you from what is really going on using lies laced with enough truth to make the patter believable.

 

[Avatar4321]

Scammer tactics: convince you to depend only on the scammer and to believe only in the scammer; convince you that your friends and family, banks and law enforcement, are all lying and that only the scammer is telling the truth.

and distract you from what is really going on using lies laced with enough truth to make the patter believable.

Well thank you. By the standards you just articulated, Joseph Smith was a good man.

It's always been one of the weakness of the critics of the Restoration that they can't explain why Joseph was always telling people to find out for themselves through study and prayer, to recieve their own revelations. Nor do the critics ever account for the numerous other witnesses.

Take Oliver Cowdery. He was the scribe during the translation process. Along with Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, he was one of the 3 witnesses who saw the plates and the Angel Moroni. He was present at the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchesidek Priesthood, and the Restoration of the Priesthood Keys when Elijah came to turn the hearts to the Fathers at the Kirtland Temple.

Then, of course, Oliver and Joseph had a falling out. He was excommunicated from the Church. If there was a scam between the two of them, this would naturally have terminated it. Instead, He continued to testify that the Book of Mormon was true. He continued to testify that He saw the angel. We know from his Personal letters with David Whitmer that Oliver stilled testified of the visitation and Priesthood authority bestowed upon him, including the Keys from Kirtland.

If this was a fraud, he had every motivation to deny this and be honest about it. He ran for Governor of Wisconsin and lost because he wouldn't deny his experiences. And eventually came back to the Church even though he would not have any position of authority in it. And he died still sharing that testimony

Does this sound like someone who was helping to perpetuate a fraud? Oliver is far from the only witness. Many of whom had disagreements with Joseph, yet still maintained their testimony. David Whitmer, for example, separated from the Church and never returned, but still made it a point to call the local media and publish his testimony toward the end of his life.

Or take Sidney Rigdon. He was present for many of the revelations including the Vision of the 3 degrees of glory. He saw the living Christ. And continued his testimony for the rest of his life despite falling outs with leadership.

That's one of the amazing things about Joseph Smith. The thing that makes him an anomoly. He didn't come along and say believe me. He said come along and see what I've seen and the people around him did see what he saw. And testified of that for the rest of their days despite a number of them having public disagreements and falling outs with Joseph. Some even martyred because of what they saw.

The Lord will reveal anything He has revealed to Joseph to the Twelve and even the least of the Saints. The critics fail to adress this, in fact, they try to pretend this isn't something Joseph clearly taught throughout His life. God calls Prophets and Apostles. But you aren't supposed to blindly follow them. That's not what the scriptures teach. You are supposed to learn for yourself and get the Holy Spirit to teach you. And He will confirm what the Lord teaches elsewhere.

God isn't silent. Learn for yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. I am glad for you that you are fulfilled, Avatar.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.

The RLDS can have all claims to "the church of Joseph Smith" for all I care. Especially since it's not a church that Joseph established. We'll take the the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

[froggy]

Quotes Originally from Avatar.

Take Oliver Cowdery. He was the scribe during the translation process. Along with Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, he was one of the 3 witnesses who saw the plates and the Angel Moroni. He was present at the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchesidek Priesthood, and the Restoration of the Priesthood Keys when Elijah came to turn the hearts to the Fathers at the Kirtland Temple.

The original scammers With joeys dad being a known religious man that made it easier putting joey as front man . AND joey loved it

Then, of course, Oliver and Joseph had a falling out. He was excommunicated from the Church. If there was a scam between the two of them, this would naturally have terminated it. Instead, He continued to testify that the Book of Mormon was true. He continued to testify that He saw the angel. We know from his Personal letters with David Whitmer that Oliver stilled testified of the visitation and Priesthood authority bestowed upon him, including the Keys from Kirtland.

Joey want more control of the scam this led to the falling out. Oliver was in to deep to do other wise he didn't want any jail time.

If this was a fraud, he had every motivation to deny this and be honest about it. He ran for Governor of Wisconsin and lost because he wouldn't deny his experiences. And eventually came back to the Church even though he would not have any position of authority in it. And he died still sharing that testimony

Does this sound like someone who was helping to perpetuate a fraud? Oliver is far from the only witness. Many of whom had disagreements with Joseph, yet still maintained their testimony. David Whitmer, for example, separated from the Church and never returned, but still made it a point to call the local media and publish his testimony toward the end of his life.

sounds exactly like it in the time they were. He ranks with all the other religious scammers

Or take Sidney Rigdon. He was present for many of the revelations including the Vision of the 3 degrees of glory. He saw the living Christ. And continued his testimony for the rest of his life despite falling outs with leadership.

Going to jail scared all of them, so none could tell the truth

That's one of the amazing things about Joseph Smith. The thing that makes him an anomoly. He didn't come along and say believe me. He said come along and see what I've seen and the people around him did see what he saw. And testified of that for the rest of their days despite a number of them having public disagreements and falling outs with Joseph. Some even martyred because of what they saw.

Scammer

The Lord will reveal anything He has revealed to Joseph to the Twelve and even the least of the Saints. The critics fail to adress this, in fact, they try to pretend this isn't something Joseph clearly taught throughout His life. God calls Prophets and Apostles. But you aren't supposed to blindly follow them. That's not what the scriptures teach. You are supposed to learn for yourself and get the Holy Spirit to teach you. And He will confirm what the Lord teaches elsewhere.

His short life of scamming, but he did scam to the very end.

God isn't silent. Learn for yourself.[/QUOTE]