All Comments (187)

Buy Fioricet online http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws

To Whom it May Concern,

I just noticed that you or someone who was writing to you used my research and quotes without giving me the proper credit or citing my work. I am Michael J. Sullivan "[emphasis MJS]" on your March 21, 2007 post. Please cite: http://members.aol.com/healinglvs/healinglvs/pt-06.htm

I am currently writing a book and was doing some research on how the LDS understands (Deut.18:22) in light of some of these false predictions. Do you know specifically how Pratt handled his or have his interpretation of this passage?

Thanks for your time.

In Christ,
Michael J. Sullivan

"How many cockroaches do you have to find in a bowl of spaghetti?"

A Preponderance of the Evidence

I am cumulatively struck that Apologist must offer

Explanation after Explanation

of this questionable point in Smith's history,
and then this one
and then this one
ad infinitum

Yes, Smith may have been innocent of one or two or thirty of the charges against him.

What are the chances that all the pretty well documented charges are wrong?

Oh, I forgot, they are all from Anti-Mormons.

I learn from RTC here that Smith
was a Legitimate Gold-Digger
because he had the gift of sight.

My apologies for not giving more detailed information previously...

Question

Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking."
1. What is the background to the trial?
2. What was the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith?
3. Why is the 1971 discovery of the Neely and De Zeng bills significant?
4. Why do the critics think that this event discredits Joseph Smith?
5. What does it actually tell us?

Response

Background to the trial

In the spring of 1825 Josiah Stowell visited with Joseph Smith "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." Josiah Stowell wanted Joseph to help him in his quest to find treasure in an ancient silver mine. Joseph was reluctant, but Stowell persuaded Joseph to come by offering high wages. According to trial documents, Stowell says Joseph, using a seer stone, "Looked through stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Sampson Stowell's correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it by means of said stone."

Joseph and his father traveled to southern New York in November of 1825. This was after the crops were harvested and Joseph had finished his visit to the Hill Cumorah that year. They participated with Stowell and the company of workers in digging for the mine for less than a month. Finally Joseph persuaded him to stop. "After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations."

Joseph continued to work in the area for Stowell and others. He boarded at the home of Isaac Hale and met Emma Hale, who was one "treasure" he got out of the enterprise.

What is the 1826 trial?

In March of the next year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. "The record of the examination was torn from Neely's docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle." This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death.

It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn't appear until after Miss Pearsall had died.

William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, ...were greatly incensed against Smith, ...saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire... They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."

Whereas the Pearsall account says: "Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell's nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter...brought before court March 20, 1826"

So, we have what has been called "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith", even though the records show that this wasn't actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place.

Why are the 1971 discoveries important?

It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 trial until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971. These documents were removed from their purported site of discovery by Dr. Wesley Walters, a well-known anti-Mormon author.

Walters wrote, "Because the two 1826 bills had not only suffered from dampness, but had severe water damage as well, Mr. Poffarl hand-carried the documents to the Yale University's Beinecke Library, which has one of the best document preservation centers in the country." The problem with this action is, once you have removed a document from a historical setting and then try to restore it to the same setting, you can't prove that you have not altered the document.

The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt

Why do the critics use this event?
Interestingly, critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 trial.
1. They didn't bring it up in another trial in the same area in 1830.
2. It was not mentioned in any of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in 1833, even though he was diligently looking for every piece of dirt he could find.
3. Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years.

The attraction of this event for a later generation of critics, however, lies in the fact that:
• Society had changed
• Seer Stones were no longer acceptable
• Treasure digging was considered abnormal
• Spiritual gifts were reinterpreted as manifestations of the occult

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Bible—such as Joseph's silver cup (see Genesis 44:2,5) in which 'he divineth' (which was also practiced by the surrounding pagans and referred to as hydromancy), or the rod of Aaron and its divinely-driven power (Exodus 7:9-12).

The Bible records that Jacob used rods to cause Laban's cattle to produce spotted, and speckled offspring (see Genesis 30:37-39)&mdash one can only imagine what the critics would say should Joseph Smith have attempted such a thing!

In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic.' Quinn, for instance, observes that in "1825, a Massachusetts magazine noted with approval that a local clergyman used a forked divining rod.... Similarly, a Methodist minister wrote twenty-three years later that a fellow clergymen in New Jersey had used a divining rod up to the 1830s to locate buried treasure and the 'spirits [that] keep guard over buried coin'...."

It is important to realize that every statement about "magic" or the "occult" by LDS authors is a negative one. Joseph and his contemporaries would likely have shocked and dismayed to be charged with practicing "magic." For them, such beliefs were simply how the world worked. Someone might make use of a compass without understanding the principles of magnetism.

This mysterious, but apparently effective, device was useful even if its underlying mechanism was not understood. In a similar way, activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked.

But, it is a huge leap from this realization to charging that Joseph and his followers believed they were drawing power from anything but a divine or proper source.

What does the 1826 trial tell us?

What records exist?
We have five records of the 1826 trial. And these were published in eight documents.

1. Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate

2.Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate

3.1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)

4.Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece)
• Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London)
• Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)
• 1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
• Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)

5. May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chanango Union
It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences.

Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details.

Document provenance

We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:
1. Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
2. She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
3. Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
4. Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
5. Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
6. Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
7. Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
8. Then the record was lost.

It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.
]
Do we have a court record?

We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.
1. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials.
2. No witness signatures—they were required in an official record.
3. It appears to be a pretrial hearing.
4. Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts.

Why were the various records made?

This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.
1. Benton: more complete history of their founder
2. Cowdery: private character of our brother
3. Noble: explain the character of the Mormons
4. Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet
5. Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism
6. Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others
7. Judge Neely: to collect fees

Unsurprisingly, those who provided these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer, and most of that bias is directed against Joseph Smith.

Who brought the charges?

If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following: Benton (1831): The Public Cowdery (1835): very officious person Noble (1842): Civil authority Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman Judge Neely: The Public
Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source.
Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church.

Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."
Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?"

What was the charge against Joseph Smith?

The charge is listed in the various accounts as:
1. Benton (1831): a disorderly person
2. Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
3. Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
4. Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
5. Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
6. Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
7. Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

Hugh Nibley indicated how it would be strange that he could be charged without visible means of livelihood, since he was being employed by Stowell and others.

The portion of the statute that would seem to apply was enacted by New York in 1813.
...all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found; ... shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons.

What is a juggler? It used to be that a person skilled in sleight of hand was called a juggler, whereas today we would call them a "sleight of hand magician." Thus, a "juggler" was a con man; someone using his 'stage magic' talents to defraud.

But what if you weren't pretending to discover lost goods? What if you actually had a gift where you "could discern things invisible to the natural eye" Could you then be judged guilty of this statute?

How many witnesses testified?

As far as the number of witnesses we have the following:
1. Benton (1831): not mentioned
2. Cowdery (1835): not mentioned
3. Marshall (1873): Five quoted, charges for seven witnesses
4. Tuttle (1882): Six
5. Purple (1877): Four
6. Constable Philip De Zeng: Twelve

What is particularly interesting here is that Tuttle and Marshall are supposedly quoting from the same document. Marshall only quotes 5 witnesses, but at the end, the charges are listed for seven witnesses. The fee was 12-1/2 cents per witness. Eighty-seven and ½ cents divided by twelve ½ cents per witness, gives us seven witnesses. By combining the Purple and Pearsall accounts we can arrive at seven witnesses, and also a motive for not including all the witnesses or letting the record be examined. It is unknown why the constable would have listed twelve witnesses, unless that is the number he summoned to the proceedings. Seven would seem to be the correct number of those that testified.

What witness is excluded from some accounts?

Purple does add a witness that hadn't been included by Marshall or Tuttle: Joseph Smith, Sr. Maybe they didn't want to include the testimony of Joseph's father because his testimony was more religious in nature. He spoke of Joseph's "wonderful triumphs as a seer", that "both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre," and "he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him." It is easy to see why this testimony wouldn't be included in a record where you are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a person trying to acquire work as a money digger. Which might be the reason the Tuttle and Marshall omitted the Joseph Smith Sr. testimony.

What verdict was brought against Joseph?
1. Benton: tried and condemned ... designedly allowed to escape
2. Cowdery: honorably acquitted
3. Noble: was condemned, took leg bail
4. Marshall: guilty?
5. Tuttle: guilty?
6. Purple: discharged
7. Constable De Zeng: not a trial

Noble's statement is hearsay, since there is no evidence that he actually attended this trial. Furthermore, his statement and Benton's statement can't be taken as an indication that Joseph was judged guilty. For example, in Joseph's 1830 trial he was acquitted. The court said that they "find nothing to condemn you, and therefore you are discharged." Then Mr Reid testifies, "They then proceeded to reprimand him severely, not because anything derogatory to his character in any shape had been proven against him by the host of witnesses that had testified during the trial."

The verdict indicated by Marshall and Tuttle is questionable. It seems to be appended as an afterthought. Throughout the document Joseph is referred to as the "prisoner", then after the last testimony, we have one sentence in which he is named a defendant, "And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty."

Here we have suddenly a declaratory statement that is completely out of character with the rest of the Pearsall document. Also, if this were actually a trial, Joseph wouldn't have testified against himself as the first witness.

The examination was not a trial

Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that this is not a trial. The Constable's charges of "19 cents attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail' ...and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction, twenty-five cents."

In the Tanners' anti-Mormon Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, "Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with 'an examination.' In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an 'examination' the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are'"
In all cases but one the witnesses were "sworn", whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley's charges actually uses that precise terminology, "in examination of above cause". Therefore, since this wasn't a trial, one cannot have a guilty verdict.

Summary of testimony
• Joseph Smith, Jr.: In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business.
• Joseph Smith Sr.: This testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account.
• Josiah Stowell: His employer's testimony in the Purple account has Josiah say that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."
• Horace Stowell: This testimony is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground.
• Arad Stowell: This witness went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around.

Interestingly, the same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So this detail matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money.

There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account.

Conclusion

A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:
1. The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination
2. The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.
3. There were seven witnesses.
4. The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.
5. Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight

It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed. The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity.

Prevalence of Fraud in Organized Religion

Pheadrus, you are correct.
Every powerful and established church has engaged in fraud, cover-up, and deception in order to consolidate and preserve their power.

Catholic history is rife with heinous examples, many much more heinous than Smith's two-bit swindles.

In fact, it is sort of embarrassing for us ex-mormons to admit that Smith's frauds were so artless - have you LOOKED at that Book of Abraham? How could he think anyone would buy that story?

Betty, Henry, Huff:

Enjoyed your rejoinders to RTC, though I have no faith that we will see a material change there.

At any rate, Huff:

JS's history as a confidence man, with a penchant for occultism, is certainly no secret to the church leadership. When Mark Hoffman claimed to have found a letter linking JS to such a practice, (The Salamander Letter), LDS leaders made arrangements to buy it, to prevent its being released to the general public. The letter turned out to be fraudulent. But, the real lesson here was that church leaders did not simply say, "No way, Joseph Smith would not engage in such practices, thus the letter MUST be a hoax." They believed Hoffman's claims to authenticity, and acted in such fashion as to take church member's money and use it to seek to hide this information from those same members. Point being; The leaders themselves KNOW about this aspect of their founder's life. Wouldn't you love to know what else the church has in its vaults?

Now, I don't want to single the LDS church out on practicing this type of deception. I am confident that, had printing presses and people who knew how to use them, existed in Jesus' day, or 700 years later in Muhammed's, and to the extent that they did in 19th century America, the salad days of those religions would be as full of this type of undermining information as we see in LDS history. You do have to give it to JS on one count; it took a lot of sand to try to create a great religion in a literary world. Those other founders had an easier go of it.

Joseph Smith and Ralph Waldo Emerson

Compare for a moment these two great exemplars of the American Spirit from the 19th Century.

One trained for the ministry, led an exemplary life, wrote essays that are considered by many to be in the first class of American literature and indeed philosophy.

The other was convicted of Glass-looking. Was a treasure hunter. Surreptiously married 35 women and then said God told him to. Had a vision that he changed the details on 4 times. "Translated" egyptian funereal documents in a laughable way. Gave an account of residents of the Americas that has been multiply disproved by geneticists and archeologists.

Who would you follow? Whose precepts and scheme of heavenly reward would a rational human adopt?

As I said to Smith myself: "I knew Ralph Emerson. Ralph was a friend of mine. You are no Ralph Emerson."

Bottom line: Joseph Smith was charged as a "disorderly person and an impostor" in 1826. According to Judge Neeley, Joseph admitted, "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". The record concludes: "And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty."

For a complete examination of all of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the court record, read this: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm Don't take the article's word for anything, but look into all of the evidence yourself. The reader will find that it is quite misleading to suggest that Joseph was never found guilty of any wrong doing. Glass looking was the profession of a con-man.

Here is a little more from the above link:

"An examination of the law concerning "disorderly persons" leads to the conclusion that Joseph Smith would have had a very difficult time avoiding conviction if he had remained for his trial at the Court of Special Sessions. According to A New Conductor Generalis, published in 1819, page 108, the following would be "deemed disorderly persons":

"All Jugglers;
"All who pretend to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretend to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found;... 1 R. L. 1813. p. 114."

Webster's 1828 dictionary gives this definition for the word juggle:

1. To play tricks by slight of hand; to amuse and make sport by tricks, which make a false show of extraordinary powers.
2. To practice artifice or imposture.

Joseph Smith's practice of "glass looking" — i.e., using a seer stone to divine things not seen by the natural eye would certainly be viewed as making a "false show of extraordinary powers." The printed transcript says that Smith was charged with being "a disorderly person and an impostor." Joseph Smith's practice of "glass looking" would also fall into the category of a "crafty science" mentioned in the law. Moreover, in the examination before Justice Neely, Smith admitted that he had "been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years." As the reader can see, the law deemed anyone who used a "crafty science... to discover where lost goods may be found" as a "disorderly person."

My Dear RTC

This post exists in order for us to have a reasoned and informative discussion about matters of Faith.

To do so, it is useful to demonstrate
* cogent reasoning
* relatively understandable prose

When a poster fails in these two criteria, it is the duty of others to point out that failing.

You WASTE OUR time when you do either.

A believer such as John D presents his beliefs and facts in a way that is both cogent and understandable.

I often don't agree with his conclusions, but he is comprehensible.

When you are not, others have a right to point that out. And it DOES actually further the discussion, or would if it had any effect on your postings.

With Much Love,
Henry JAMES

RTC
in your quote
"It is futile to discourse upon the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ with those that do not accept even the concept of higher intelligence"

The reasoning is exactly BACKwards,
at least for any honest seeker of truth.

A true truth-seeker states a proposition,
e.g. Jesus is Divine,
gives some explanation of what that means
e.g. he was resurrected, and will resurrect us

and then proceeds to present the evidence that the proposition is true.

The evidence in short is:
* The Bible says so (though virtually nothing in the Bible is verifiable in any meaningful historical sense, and there is NOT ONE "fact" about Jesus' life that is verifiable except perhaps that someone like him actually existed)

So one must accept it on Faith, because RTC says so.

No wonder Utah has a reputation for having the most gullible citizens in the country. Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, RTC?

Now it is fine for YOU to believe it. But to expect anyone else to is quite a stretch.

The people who do believe it, by and large, do because their Mother told them to.

Henry James -

I will take that as the epitomy of compliments that one could receive, although I realize that you did not send it as such.

It would be so much nicer IF these threads could be used for what their intended purpose had been and that was to strive understanding and not simply to be critical of one another.

I am sorry that this is what I see happening here. I hope we may return to the former soon.

Do we not all have more positive things to accomplish in the limited time we each have in a day? Relationship building is much more enjoyable, don't you agree?
rtc

RTC
Your last post, which begins "It is futile.."
is the most convoluted piece of prose I have read in 200 years.

Are you quoting Joseph Smith? I can't believe that you could write *quite* that badly yourself.

Not that I am a literary critic or anything.

"t is futile to discourse upon the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ with those that do not accept even the concept of higher intelligence"

Then stop trying to do it. Especially when you do so poorly at it.

It is futile to discourse upon the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ with those that do not accept even the concept of higher intelligence, but that of mortal man and his acquisition unto knowledge and wisdom as themselves gods.

The supreme in self-idol worship is to completely deny the existence of one who is in control of that which man cannot know of himself. Where self-reliance is not possible without the need or aid "from" one greater than self, suggesting faith in an unseen relationship which would require humility.

Contrary to prideful, natural man.

Such a pity to those who profess to be seekers of truth, for never will they reach that pinnacle of which they desire in their god.

Continued evidence to twist the truth displays itself in the posting of the April 2007 Ensign article -

"My Son Also Lives".

Those versed in the doctrine that is taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, and which is testified of by the author of this article know that not only is this article testifying of the reality and assurance of life after death with our loved ones because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ who was the first fruits of the resurrection, but that all will be raised unto immortality and eternal life if we will follow Him!

And because of other glorious truths that were restored through the prophet Joseph Smith the mother of this article was also testifying of the fact that we as members of the lds church believe that little children are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ and have no need of baptism until the age of accountability, which is 8 years old.

So little children are considered innocent and pure, therefore if they die before the age of accountability they return directly to the bosom of God.

Therefore, with an understanding of this doctrine, although this mother sorrowed for the temporary separation of the infant which was in fulfillment of her patriarchal blessing... she rejoiced upon realizing that through the atonement of Jesus Christ her sweet precious child was literally perfect in Christ and awaited her reunion and a complete fulfillment of that joy which was actually more that she could have possibly imagined in the original patriarchal blessing she received!

She was testifying of revelation and covenants fulfilled by and through the power of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Quite the opposite of that which was suggested.

Notice that THIS was the response to my post and NOT to the rebuttal that I posted???

For those who will wait patiently upon the Lord in faith, when in the face of the most adverse of conditions... His words will be sure, beyond anything that we can of ourselves comprehend.

Heavenly Child Abuse

Concerned's quote from Crossen
"an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well."

Is perhaps more reveletory than he thinks.

Think Evolution: most species, including humans, practice infanticide in certain circumstances (scarcity etc).

Modern Civilisation considers Child Sacrifice Politically incorrect,
but the symbolic and atavistic resonances are still rampant in the fundamentalist sects:

God will condemn his children to Eternal Damnation if they don't follow his orders, or are too weak.

We threaten the children into submission, because we know deep down that if they don't obey, we can always sacrifice them.

Think again about the passages in Deuteronomy where we are authorized to kill our children if they talk back too much.

Too many mouths to feed anyway: why put up with the trouble.

Here is Professor Crossan's take on Jesus' atonement: From his book, Who is Jesus?:

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Professor Crossan's words of wisdom should be put on the front page of every global newspaper every day as a lesson in reality.

RTC,

you should be getting a call from your church headquarters any day now. this was way over the top. way way way out there.

rtc, have you not paid attention to anything that has been said to you? honestly, you start out with this: "The anti-Mormon movement is a prominent and historied example of such a coalition. Books, websites and speakers dedicated against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints1 number in the thousands and spring from myriad organizations, from previous church members to the government. Criticisms of the church's early leadership, specifically statements made by or the actions of claimed LDS prophets,2 are particularly common. This is not surprising considering the puzzle of the establishment of the LDS church,3 and the fact that attacking a movement's source may be the most direct way to attempt to disprove it.

The fervor and innate bias of those participating in any of these "anti" activities, be it politics, religion or entertainment, require that the truth-seeker carefully investigate claims to obtain objective and verified facts...."

the least you could do is read it and edit the little numbers from the footnote references. clearly you are learning as you go and googling your assoff to find this stuff.

anti anti anti. everyone is anti. that is how hinckley wants it and why he kicked your chair out from under you. its all for or all against, by their definition. the reality is quite different. the world is not so black and white. historians are more than just anti or mormon, believe it or not.

people here have shown you the facts, and you respond with accusations that these facts, though not disclosed by the church openly, dont discredit what smith has done. people here have pointed out the prophecies of smith and others and shown how ridiculous they were, and you respond with a knowimony. again, you are the wall. undentable. trained in reciting the company line. you do it well. hats off to you.

nobody is asking you to denounce the church, btw.
=======================================
before rtc decided to get us a witness, there was a discussion of patriarchal blessings, which, it seemed to be agreed, were personal revelations/prophecies.

here is a story from the lds churches latest monthly publication about those blessings:

My Son Also Lives

By Brenda Hunt

Brenda Hunt, “My Son Also Lives,” Ensign, Apr. 2007, 71–72

A woman in my ward taught me a priceless lesson about the sweet peace that comes from a sure faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

This woman’s patriarchal blessing promised her the joys of motherhood. But years passed while she and her husband prayed and waited for children. Finally, their prayers were answered. For nine months their lives were filled with joyous preparations. They painted a special room; bought furniture, clothes, and other baby supplies; and offered many prayers. The doctors said she would never be able to have another baby after this one, so her dreams were wrapped up in this child.

The day came when this sister gave birth and heard the cry of her baby.

“It’s a beautiful boy,” the nurse said.

The mother closed her eyes and offered a prayer of thanksgiving. Four minutes later, the baby was dead.

I saw her in sacrament meeting two weeks afterward. As the music director, she walked to the front of the chapel and took her seat beside the organ. Under her direction we sang “I Know That My Redeemer Lives” (Hymns, no. 136). She stood straight and tall, her face bright, her testimony radiating. At times the words came with great difficulty for her. She swallowed and pressed her lips together. Then she stopped singing, but her arm continued to move, conducting us as we sang.

Later, with tears coursing down her cheeks, this sister bore her testimony in these simple words: “I know that my Redeemer lives. I know that He is just and that He loves us. And because He lives, my son also lives.”

In her faith I saw an assurance of the reality of our Redeemer, whose Atonement for us makes immortality and eternal life possible. Her son had been taken, but she knew that he would be restored to her someday.

I hope this magnifies your knowledge on this subject somewhat.

Here is the intro and the conclusion of an enlightening bit of education for you. Perhaps you might consider that you have been misinformed?

The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Brandon U. Hansen

Motivation

Much like politics and the entertainment industry, religion is rife with controversy and dispute. Protestants and Catholics argue over the teachings of the Bible, atheists and the devout theorize over the purpose of life and the creation of the world, and Buddhists and Hindus quibble over whether the Ultimate Existence consists of everything or nothing. In some instances this discord erupts to such an extent against a particular religion that it develops its own identity; those who might typically disagree unite in their common disapproval of another.

The anti-Mormon movement is a prominent and historied example of such a coalition. Books, websites and speakers dedicated against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints1 number in the thousands and spring from myriad organizations, from previous church members to the government. Criticisms of the church's early leadership, specifically statements made by or the actions of claimed LDS prophets,2 are particularly common. This is not surprising considering the puzzle of the establishment of the LDS church,3 and the fact that attacking a movement's source may be the most direct way to attempt to disprove it.

The fervor and innate bias of those participating in any of these "anti" activities, be it politics, religion or entertainment, require that the truth-seeker carefully investigate claims to obtain objective and verified facts....

CONCLUSION:

The evidence from published accounts and public records seem to allow one to be fairly certain in concluding that JS was detained and brought before Judge Neely under the disorderly person accusation. However, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that JS was ever brought before the "Court of Special Sessions" necessary to indict or hand out a verdict.

Further, the use of the Pearsall accounts as official "court records" by Fawn Brodie and others is historically insecure, as the original record is not available for examination or verification. Even if verified, the Pearsall accounts provide incomplete witness accounts, are sometimes self-contradictory, and contradict the only published first-hand account in many critical details.

The accounts are all well removed from the occurence, the earliest being published forty-seven years after the fact. Given the excitement and negative publicity surrounding the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Mormon Church in 1830, the lack of published concern over the 1826 incident casts doubt as to its significance. Instead, the increased interest in the incident almost fifty years later seems to coincide with a changing culture in which things such as "seer stones" and digging for treasure were not as publically acceptable.

Overall, the accounts taken in context paint a picture of a boy being pulled in two directions: on one hand, the greed of the money diggers, and on the other, the perceived call of God. The incident detailed herein, in conjunction with the related trials of 1830, is indicative of the troubles JS faced due to activites involved in the former, and the verbiage and character of his publications and writings throughout the remainder of his life are proof that he eventually chose the latter.

For complete report click on link... fascinating and well done research.

http://www.omninerd.com/2006/06/11/articles/55

"A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:

The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination.

The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.

There were seven witnesses.

The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.

Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight.

"It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell.

Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed.

The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

"Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity."

I hope this gives a little more confirmation contrary to that which resulted from previous posted information regarding the civil war prophecy.

I believe that the Lord will yet fulfill all his words as revealed through Joseph Smith in section 87 as he has been quite spot on so far.

In fact, as far as the Second Coming goes, I imagine of course that it will be prior to that great event, which at this point I will look forward to seeing ya all there!

Jeff Lindsay has done a great job of outlining the civil war prophecy contained in section 87.

On Dec. 25, 1832, Joseph received the following revelation about the American Civil War, now printed as Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

7 That the cry of the Saints, and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of sabbath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

Beginning in the 1830s, LDS missionaries carried manuscript copies of the above revelation with in their missionary journeys, and "frequently read it to their congregations in various parts of the United States" (Roberts, p. 315). The entire revelation was printed in 1851 in Liverpool, England, in a pamphlet entitled, "The Pearl of Great Price." This was a decade before the first shot of the Civil War on April 12, 1861. Thus, the prediction was made 28 years before its fulfillment, and was printed and circulated in England and in the United States at least ten years before. Further, while speaking in Ramus, Illinois, on April 2, 1843, Joseph said: "I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may probably arise through the slave question.

This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832." Was Joseph's prophecy just a case of noting existing tensions and making obvious extrapolations? Hardly! While there had been tensions between the South and the North, including talk of secession, hardly anyone seriously thought that civil war would erupt. Americans had great faith in their nation and in democracy. In fact, there were members of the Church who were so shaken by the "ridiculous" nature of Joseph's civil war prophecy that they left the Church, rejecting him as a false prophet. Even if Joseph were trying to make something out of trends and currents he saw in society, the many specific details of his prophecy suggest that more than reason and guesswork were needed to be so accurate. Let's consider the details that he accurately predicted:

The war would begin with the rebellion of South Carolina. It would cause the death and misery of many souls. The Southern States would be divided against the Northern States. The Southern States would call upon other nations for assistance, even upon the nation of Great Britain. Great Britain would call upon other nations for assistance
War would eventually be poured out upon all nations.

Now in December of 1832 there was controversy involving South Carolina and the issue of states' rights. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. President Andrew Jackson argued against their position. With much controversy in the air, it would seem logical that Joseph be stirred to ponder the events of the day and inquire of the Lord, resulting in the revelation of Dec. 1832. But there was no reasonable expectation of war at that time, or even in 1851 when the prophecy was more widely publicized. Can anyone offer evidence from writings of American statesmen or scholars in 1832, 1843, or 1851 that make such predictions? Did other wise minds of the day foresee what Joseph saw? Neither a scholar or statesmen, the uneducated 27-year old man, Joseph Smith, saw what would happen by the spirit of revelation. It is a fact of history that South Carolina took the initiative that led to the rebellion of the Southern States and that the war began in South Carolina.

Reacting negatively to the election of Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina's leaders convened on Dec. 20, 1860 and passed an ordinance of secession. Newly elected Governor Pickins then declared "the dissolution of the union between the state of South Carolina and the other states under the name of the United States." Ten other states later joined South Carolina, but she was the first to rebel. The Civil War was the bloodiest this country has ever seen, causing about 400,000 deaths. The South did enlist the aid of Great Britain and also sought help from France (Great Britain, as I recall, also encouraged France to assist the South). Later, after war had been poured out on the nations of the earth, Great Britain found herself threatened by Nazi Germany and called upon other nations of the earth for her defense. After the Civil War, international intrigues and wars grew to increasing severity, with ghastly international scenes of horror during World War I and World War II, with dozens of other wars having been fought and going on at the moment. War has always been on the earth, but the scale of destruction since the Civil War has grown sharply, and war in the past century has become increasingly multinational rather than bilateral. Truly, war has been poured out on all nations.Joseph said that "after many days" slaves would rise up against their masters. I don't think that referred to the Civil War, but to later events, perhaps events that I have seen in my lifetime. Uprisings of repressed peoples in many Communist nations and other authoritarian states may have been meant in the prophecy. Past and future uprisings of some groups in the United States may also be meant. During the Civil War itself, however, there were relatively few instances of slaves rising up against their masters. The prophecy, however, says "after many days" (meaning, I think, many days after the prophesied war had begun), not "during the Civil War."Orson Pratt was a young missionary who told others of Joseph's civil war prophecy long before it occurred. He was mocked for it, as were many others. Here are his words (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 135. as cited by Otten & Caldwell in Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants, Vol.2, pp.93-94):

This prophecy has been printed and circulated extensively in this and other nations and languages. It pointed out the place where it should commence in South Carolina. That which I declared over the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and many other parts in the East, when but a boy, came to pass twenty-eight years after the revelation was given. When they were talking about a war commencing down here in Kansas, I told them that was not the place; I also told them that the revelation had designated South Carolina, "and," said I, "you have no need to think that the Kansas war is going to be the war that is to be so terribly destructive in its character and nature. No, it must commence at the place the Lord has designated by revelation."

What did they have to say to me? They thought it was a Mormon humbug, and laughed me to scorn, and they looked upon that revelation as they do upon all others that God has given in these latter days -- as without divine authority. But behold and lo! in process of time it came to pass, again establishing the divinity of this work, and giving another proof that God is in this work, and is performing that which He spoke by the mouths of the ancient prophets, as recorded in the Book of Mormon before any Church of Latter-day Saints was in existence.

My Dear RTC

Does the Church know what you are doing on this site?

You are illustrating, again and again, the most basic errors in evaluating information.

You never learn, and you are seemingly capable of learning, so it must be willful.

"Trust but Verify." Remember Ronald Reagan quoting Gorbachev.

"Consider the source." What does the Mormon Church want you to believe.

You have made yourself into a parody of a human being who is able to do the most basic information processing.

Fool me once, twice, sixty times, 1,000,325 times.

Just like your church leaders, I am only trying to save you, I reveal this to you out of love, not out of malice. I have not an ounce of hate towards you. You amaze me.

RTC,

You obviously have not looked at the transcripts from the court records from Joseph's trials. I have. You must have gotten all of that from Mormon propoganda. I suggest looking at the actual historical documents. You'll find that in many cases you have been lied to. Don't claim that you have not been lied to until you look at the actual court records. They are available. Pay particular attention to the glass looker trial.

I realize that the topic of this thread is on the Second Coming of Christ. Unfortunately, there are those that would rather choose to take the opportunity to use this thread for anti-mormon opportunity instead of what On Faith was intended.

Personally, I would much prefer to discuss my beliefs that the lds church teaches regarding the second coming of which many wonderful truths have been revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith, but for now I will attempt to offer a brief history of some of the trials that the prophet was involved in.

It is not possible here to go through each account in detail, but that those who would tell the history in a different light do have their motives for doing so is obvious as this thread manifest...

I would suggest that those wanting more information, that they go to a source that is not originating from those that were against the church back then or now.

Unfortunately those involved with most of what was happening in real-time and that made legal record of things that transpired, in many cases particularly in Missouri were not friends of the church and were actually their persecutors.

The old saying "consider the source" applies to much of the early history in these regards. At Carthage, there was a mob of about 200 men involved in the murder of the prophet and his brother.

Would you consider these credible witnesses for the prophet?

LEGAL TRIALS OF JOSEPH SMITH
by Joseph I. Bentley

Joseph Smith believed that his enemies perverted legal processes, using them as tools of religious persecution against him, as they had been used against many of Christ's apostles and other past martyrs. Although he often gained quick acquittals, numerous "vexatious and wicked" lawsuits consumed his time and assets, leading to several incarcerations and ultimately to his martyrdom.

Beginning soon after his ministry began and continuing throughout his life, Joseph Smith was subjected to approximately thirty criminal actions and at least that many civil suits related to debt collection or failed financial ventures.

The first charge of being a "disorderly person" involved treasure hunting for hire, brought against him at South Bainbridge, New York, in 1826 by a disgruntled Methodist preacher related to Josiah Stowell, Joseph's employer. When Stowell refused to testify against him at the trial, Joseph was discharged.

In July 1830 in the same venue, Joseph was tried and acquitted by another magistrate on charges of "being a disorderly person, of setting the county in an uproar by preaching the Book of Mormon, etc." (HC 1:88). The trial ended at midnight.

The next day, he was seized and tried in neighboring Broome County on the same charges, as well as charges of casting out a devil and using pretended angelic visitations to obtain property from others. Following a twenty-three-hour trial involving some forty witnesses, Joseph was again acquitted (HC 1:91-96).

After the Church moved to Kirtland, Ohio, in 1831, several religious-based charges were prosecuted against Smith and other LDS leaders, but were dismissed on the grounds listed following each charge: assault and battery (self-defense), performing marriages without a valid license (one was procured), attempted murder or conspiracy (lack of evidence), and involuntary servitude without compensation during the Zion's Camp military crusade to Missouri (won on appeal).

In turn, Church leaders successfully instituted charges and recovered damages for assaults occurring while they were acting in a religious capacity. However, the financial Panic of 1837 swamped the Prophet and others with civil debt-collection litigation.

Worse still were suits for violating Ohio banking laws when the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company failed soon after it was organized in 1836 without a state charter. Charges of fraud and self-enrichment were raised but NOT PROVEN; a jury conviction was appealed, but Joseph Smith left Ohio for Missouri before it was heard.

In Missouri, most actions against the Latter-day Saints were extralegal, brought by non-Mormon vigilantes prejudiced against the Saints' opposition to slavery, their collective influx, and Smith's religious teachings concerning modern revelation and the territorial establishment of Zion in Jackson County.

*****Civil magistrates routinely refused to issue peace warrants for Mormons or to redress their personal injuries or property damage. For example, despite being beaten and tarred and feathered and having the printing office destroyed, the LDS printer was awarded less than his legal fees and the Presiding Bishop received "one penny and a peppercorn." All three branches of state government seemed paralyzed or supportive of mob action, as the Saints were repeatedly dispossessed and expelled from county to county.

Finally, election-day violence between Mormons and non-Mormons erupted at Gallatin in Daviess County, Missouri, on August 6, 1838. Joseph Smith and others called on Justice of the Peace Adam Black to obtain an "agreement of peace" from Black to support the law and not attach himself to any mob.

This resulted in Joseph Smith's and Lyman Wight's being arrested, based on an affidavit alleging riot and assault by them, while obtaining the writs from Black (HC 3:61). Smith and Wight appeared before Judge Austin King and were ordered to appear at the next hearing of the grand jury in Daviess County (HC 3:73).

On October 25, 1838, Moses Rowland, a Missouri state militiaman, was killed at the Battle of Crooked River in a clash with a company of Saints who were attempting to rescue three kidnapped brethren. Upon hearing of this engagement, coupled with other reports, Governor Lilburn W. Boggs issued his infamous Extermination Order.

Joseph and other leading Saints were arrested, and received a preliminary court hearing before Judge Austin King in Richmond, Missouri, on November 12-29, 1838. Joseph Smith and some other defendants were confined for four and a half months in Liberty Jail pending a grand jury indictment on such charges as murder, arson, theft, rebellion, and treason.

While en route to stand trial in a more impartial venue, Joseph and others were allowed to escape, thereby preventing widespread official embarrassment on the part of the state.

In 1838-1839 the Saints settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, after their wrongful expulsion from Missouri. To AVOID the "legal" persecutions suffered in earlier states, they obtained a liberal city charter for Nauvoo, which granted BROAD habeas corpus powers to local courts.

*****These HELPED to free Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saints when they were sought on writs by arresting officers from outside of Nauvoo. In 1841 state judge Stephen A. Douglas set aside a Missouri writ to extradite Joseph for charges still pending there, and in 1843 a federal judge did the same for a similar requisition after the alleged shooting of then ex-governor Boggs. However, the increasing use of the writ of habeas corpus by Nauvoo magistrates, preempting even state and federal authority, escalated distrust among non-Mormons who felt that Joseph Smith considered himself above the law.******

The Prophet's final use of habeas corpus came after his arrest in June 1844 by a county constable for inciting a "riot" by ordering suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor. This action climaxed a series of lawsuits between the Prophet and several apostates, who had charged him with perjury and adultery; he had countercharged with perjury, assault, defamation, and resisting arrest.

After a subsequent trial on the merits and his acquittal in Nauvoo, the governor persuaded the Prophet to let himself be arrested and tried again for the "riot," this time in Carthage, where he was incarcerated without bail on a new charge of "treason" for declaring martial law and ordering out the Nauvoo militia to keep peace.

Joseph Smith's enemies charged that he was going on the offensive against citizens of Illinois. Two days later, he and his brother Hyrum were killed by a mob in disguise.

EVEN AFTER DEATH, legal trials involving the Prophet continued. Of sixty potential assassins named before a grand jury, nine were indicted and five stood trial at Carthage for the murder of Joseph (a separate trial was to follow for the murder of Hyrum).

After a six-day trial, all defendants were acquitted in June 1845 for insufficient evidence. The final legal indignity to Joseph Smith and the Church in Illinois was a series of federal court decrees in 1851 and 1852 that liquidated all remaining personal and Church assets held by Joseph Smith during his lifetime, in order to discharge an 1842 default judgment.

He had guaranteed a promissory note to the federal government in an early Nauvoo business transaction; when the note was unpaid, a succession of lawsuits followed, forestalling his efforts in bankruptcy and prompting charges of fraud and misconduct.

Although plagued by bad advice and misfortune in business matters, THE PROPHET WAS NEVER FOUND GUILTY OF ANY MISCONDUCT.

Huff:

Weird. I cannot use the link from my work computer, but can from home. Must be our firewall. You will hear from me soon.

Henry, that is funny. I had a similar reaction.

I know a guy that was in a meeting with executives of his company. They were discussing the dismissal of another officer that had an affair with his secretary. The Chairman said, "anyone that would cheat on his wife, would also steal from the company." To which, another officer responded, "hey, I have never stolen from the company."

Phaedrus:

My name is a link. Just click on my name at the top of this post.

My Dear Miss RTC

Your gallant defense of Mssr Smith against the charges of one Mr DV reminds me of the cocktail party I attended in London, where a man said

"Mr Oscar Wilde is an old liar, fraud, embezzler, adulterer, and is crazy to boot"

and I jumped to his defense immediately by saying

"He is NOT old."

DV -

You choose to stand as a witness against the prophet Joseph Smith, of whose works you claim active membership? You actually believe that any active member that you would disclose your actual identity to would consider you NOT apostate taking this position? You are walking in the dark in mid-DAY.

I cannot stand-by and not refute what you have said about the prophet, so I will begin at Carthage with what is actually the TRUTH.

by W. John Walsh

The Statement Was Made and Response Given:

Joseph Smith was NOT a martyr, not by any stretch of the imagination. He died in a gun battle fighting desperately trying to save his life.The dictionary defines a martyr as "A person who VOLUNTARILY SUFFERS DEATH as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion." (Webster, Tenth ed.) He was a man ruthlessly murdered who died in a blazing gun battle trying desperately to save his life. Real martyrs like the ancient Christians went willingly to death.

Response by John Walsh:

If you reexamine your dictionary, you will find that you skipped over parts of the definition of martyr and definitions of related words. Webster's also states that to martyr is "to put to death for adhering to a belief, faith, or profession." (Webster, Tenth ed.)

In addition, Random House Webster's College dictionary (1991) states that a martyr is:

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.; 2. A person who is put to death or suffers on behalf of a cause.; 3. A person who undergoes severe or constant suffering.

There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was finally murdered, after suffering severe and constant afflictions, because he would not renounce his religious beliefs or prophetic claims. (See The Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith) Therefore, there can be no doubt that he was a martyr.

Elder B.H. Roberts made these comments about this event:

"It was self-surrender that Joseph Smith made to certain death. He was clean escaped out of the hands of his enemies. He had crossed the Mississippi from Nauvoo and was surrounded by trusted men who were aiding his departure for the west.

One more day would have seen him at the head of a small company of men in the wilderness of Iowa en route for the Rocky Mountains. Then came the pleading of some mistaken and some false friends that he submit to the demands of Governor Ford and trust to his promises of protection, and not play the part of the false shepherd who leaves the flock when attacked by wolves.

This was more than Joseph's spirit could endure, and hence he recrossed the river, against his better judgment, and with absolute conviction that he would be killed, went to Carthage and among a host of publicly and repeatedly avowed enemies, pledged to encompass his death, surrendered to the requirements of the officers of the law.

At Nauvoo, eighteen miles away, he had left a body of between three and four thousand men, the best body of militia in the state of Illinois, with arms and other equipments for war. And yet the Smith brothers voluntarily placed themselves in the hands of the officers. No self-surrender, with every means for successful resistance, could have been more complete; and in fulfillment of the requirements of the governor, the Brothers Smith went to Carthage unarmed.

The matter of their having one six-barrelled and one single-barrelled pistol with them when assailed was because friends on parting from them left these fire arms with them as stated in a former chapter, under circumstances alike honorable and justifiable. These arms offered but a meager defense against the overwhelming odds of the assailants; nor did the Prophet use the pistol left with him until he had seen his brother shot to death from his side--not until he had looked into the dead face of that brother, calm but bullet-torn, did the war spirit native to his race--his revolutionary ancestry--rise within him and impel him to the conflict at the door where muskets were belching fire and death, where he stood for one splendid moment as some avenging spirit returning the fire of the mob.

Much less or far more than mortal man must he have been not to have done what he did. And what he did in that supreme moment of trial and death, does not depreciate him in the esteem of Christian men, nor make him less a martyr to the mission given him of God.

President McKinley's and Roosevelt's United States secretary of state, John Hay, was right when he said Joseph Smith put up a "handsome fight" in the prison; but it in no way detracts from the solemn fact of his martyrdom, and emphasizes the glory of his manhood." (Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.59, p.316 - p.317)

You seem to imply that there is something wrong or immoral about defending either yourself or others from unlawful attacks. When the mob of 150-200 persons attacked the room in which he and his associates were staying, Joseph managed to fire just three shots at the mob before he was killed.

The entire event only lasted a few minutes. You describe the encounter as a "blazing gun battle." One man, armed only with a small revolver and defending himself against 200 armed foes, does not describe a "blazing gun battle." It describes a slaughter.

Also, you seem to believe that the early Christians martyrs all died willingly without any resistance. Somehow I suspect that they did not step willingly into the mouths of lions. When they were alone with the lions in the arena, I imagine that they tried to run, hide, or even fight back.

Their resistence did not disqualify them from being martyrs. Furthermore, your question reminded me of an episode in the life of Paul the Apostle. When Paul faced a similar mob who had decided "it is not fit that he should live." (Acts 22:22), he used his Roman citizenship for protection instead of meekly submitting to scourging and death (Acts 22:25). Are you claiming that the Apostle Paul was not a true Christian martyr?

Huff:

happy to, but I cannot find your blog. What is the url?

Phaedrus,

One of the reasons I wanted to talk with you, is because I am in clinical psychology. I'd like to talk with you more about the psychology of belief systems. So, email me if you would like.

What a fair-minded Pachyderm you are, Mayan.

I guess then we have to credit this particular Shell Game/thought control tactic to the PR man Matthew.

The tactic is important to point out, however. I don't think I have seen a thorough analysis of either the

Psychological Manipulation tactics of Organized Religions,
or

The Deniability/Non-Falsifiability tactics of same (how can you disprove that Jesus is coming "soon", or that God is so all-knowing that we just can't understand his mysterious ways).

Have any of you seen any systematic studies.?

My brother William wrote the best book ever written about religion, but I don't think he tackled these subjects. I will ask him tonite.

Damn Brother of Jesse,

dont make me come on here and stick up for otterson.