A split thread: Joseph Smith

[rrosskopf]

**staff edit**
This thread is a split from the original discussion in the thread below:

Does the universe need intelligence to order it? | Page 121 | ReligiousForums.com

---------------------​

That is ex post facto rationalization used as an apologia for what should be obvious, once a con-man always a con-man.

That is jumping to conclusions. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever a con man. All of the eye witness testimony was that his gift was genuine. If he was the type of lad who told whoppers, or stretched the truth, neither his father, mother or wife would have believed him. The opposite is true.

Man, it's a long road to even begin to follow that rationalization.

Yes, finding a theory that actually fits all of the facts is much longer than merely jumping to conclusions based on obvious bias.

But the actual document was found at the Met. And what did it say?

The document? Or the Met? The 20 to 40 foot scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated was lost in a museum fire. Only the outer cover is available today. It was removed because it had deteriorated badly. On it can be found the facsimiles, and the start of the Book of the Dead. Some have jumped to the conclusion that the entire book was just the Book of the Dead, but no other Book of the Dead has been found that is over 20 foot long; it is apparent that it had some other writing as well. It was fairly common for men to be buried with religious books, including the Book of the Dead, which is also a religious book.

I'd say far less that the odds that Smith made the whole thing up, that was, after all, his style.

If that were his style, no one would have believed him, much less his own family. Your opinion doesn't really fit the known facts.

 

[rrosskopf]

photos of the embryonic forms show the same sorts of things that the drawing did.

Yeah, it was the photos that were fudged. Two or three of the photos were of the same embryo. A third embryo looked similar only at a later stage. He was massaging the evidence to support his theory.

 

[rrosskopf]

While that is quite interesting it's clearly crap as demonstrated by Smith's repeated lies concerning the translation of the non-existent "reformed" Egyptian. There was no Hebrew involved, there was no actual Egyptian involved.

You haven't proven that Joseph even told one lie, let alone "repeated lies". It is historical fact that in 600 BC, Egypt had strong trade with Jerusalem. It is historical fact that the Egyptian Demotic was used by traders. It is historical fact that the Demotic is a shorter or "reformed" version of the Hieroglyphic. It is historical fact, that several of the characters on the Anthon transcript match or closely match Demotic characters. It is historical fact that a man named Lehi had an estate in Jerusalem. It is historical fact, that a cave was found nearby, which showed habitation from this time period. It is historical fact, that books were kept in treasuries, just as Laban kept his record in a treasury. It is historical fact that men did write books on metal plates, and that several have been found originating in the Middle East. It is historical fact that the landmarks and cities described in the Book of Mormon as existing in Arabia do exist, and remain to this day. Joseph Smith was a poorly schooled farmboy, who didn't like to read, yet somehow he bested the experts of his day in the background facts of the Book of Mormon? Is that what you want me to believe?
“There is no point at all to the question: Who wrote the Book of Mormon? It would have been quite as impossible for the most learned man alive in 1830 to have written the book as it was for Joseph Smith. And whoever would account for the Book of Mormon by any theory suggested so far—save one—must completely rule out the first forty pages.” (P. 139.) Hugh Nibley, "Lehi in the Desert"

No, there is not, the genetic studies rather conclusive show this.

Actually, the genetic studies confirm the position of the Book of Mormon - that the founding genetic base is Asian. The Jaredites came from Asia, after the tower of Babal, and were not Hebrews.

According to Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, a native Mexican historian, the natives believed in the great flood, a tower that was built to escape future flooding, and the change of the languages, such that no one could understand each other. Seven men and their wives came by land and by sea to what is now Mexico... ("Obras Historicas" by Ixtlilxochitl)

The Emory University School of Medicine did a DNA study of native American bloodlines. This study was published in 1998. Four out of Five haplogroups were found to be Asian, but the fifth haplogroup was caucasian. The caucasian DNA was further identified as Italian, Finn, or Israeli, in origin. This supports the Book of Mormon, as the Lamanites, Nephites, and Mulekites were all descended from Israel, but wouldn't have contributed a statistically large amount of DNA.

 

[Midnight Rain]

In the beginning, it states "wars" not "war".
"Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass..."
So it is a mistake to assume it is talking about just one war.
"and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations"
So England isn't calling upon other nations to protect themselves from the Northern States, but from other nations. This is talking about another war. In fact England did side with the Southern states, and although they didn't send troops, they helped the Southern states in other ways. It caused a rift between the United States and England.

The treaties between nations did lead to a world war. Specifically it was England's 1839 treaty with Belgium that forced it to go to Belgium's aid when Germany invaded.

It is easy to look back and say it was all obvious, but it is hard to find anyone else in 1832 who ventured a similar opinion. In fact, Joseph's prophecy was openly mocked right up to the start of the war. And how in the world would Joseph Smith know that Jackson County Missouri would become a "sea of chimneys"? Or that disease and pestilence would claim over 200,000 lives? If these are all just good guesses, then I guess I choose to follow the man with good guesses.

Your reaching. The civil war had little to nothing to do with WWI. It did not "spill over" as you suggest. Also world wars have been part of biblical prophecy since Judaism.

 

[Sapiens]

That is jumping to conclusions. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever a con man. All of the eye witness testimony was that his gift was genuine. If he was the type of lad who told whoppers, or stretched the truth, neither his father, mother or wife would have believed him. The opposite is true.

Your statement is, plain and simple, wrong. I don't know if you are lying and know better of if you are buying your church's lies that fly in the face of the actual police and court records.

The truth is that Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont in 1805, the fifth child of relatively affluent and well-educated parents, not the poor uneducated upbringing that the LDS Church pretends.

In his later years, Smith claimed to have had a vision of God in his childhood. He penchant for prevarication is demonstrated by the existence of the no less than four different accounts of what is called "the First Vision." All these accounts are in Smith's own hand, and each tells a radically different story, but claims to be about the same event. Even the year of his alleged vision is inconsistent.

Smith also claimed to have been later visited by an angel who showed him the location of a set of plates made of gold on which text was engraved. Both of these claims were actually made far later in life and there is no evidence of him having told anyone of any of these contemporaneously, not his closest friends, not his family. The evidence demonstrates that he spent much of his youth and early adulthood as a petty con man specializing in treasure-hunting and dowsing scams involving 'magic seer stones'.

At age 20, Smith—described in court records as "Joseph the glasslooker"—faced his first criminal charge, a misdemeanor count of being a "disorderly person". In 1830, he faced the same charge. Smith left New York for Ohio.

On March 20, 1826, Smith was arrested by Constable Philip De Zeng[4] and brought to court in Bainbridge, New York, on the complaint of Josiah Stowell's nephew, who accused Smith of being "a disorderly person and an imposter." Court records show that Smith, identified as "The Glass Looker," stood before the court for an unspecified misdemeanor charge

The judge issued a mittimus for Smith to be held, either during or after the proceedings. A copy of STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH (1826) can be found here.

So, there is no doubt, Joseph Smith was a con man. You can continue to deny it, but the court records are incontrovertible. As I observed earlier either you lying to me or is your church lying to you. That matters not at all to me personally, but it might make a difference to you.

Yes, finding a theory that actually fits all of the facts is much longer than merely jumping to conclusions based on obvious bias.

I do not reach conclusions on the basis of bias, I reach conclusions on the basis of data. I strongly resent your bald face lie that I do otherwise. I went into my studies of the LDS claims and history when I was in Utah for six months and decided to find out what the locals were all about. I had not thought of Mormon as anything than kind of a slightly strange Christian sect. What I discovered, usually from Mormons themselves, not from what you'd like to claim are anti-Mormon biased sources, appalled me. It was obvious, from the get-go that, based on my knowledge of history, genetics, anthropology, Meso-American studies (I worked in Central America for the better part of a decade) and bio-geography, that was I was being told was false. It took very little digging to find out about all the other lies. When confronted with these facts the Mormons I'd been talking with either tried to retreat behind a shield of denial or to come up with apologetics that were even more farfetched and falsifiable than their original tales. Finally I got a call from the local Bishop, someone I new casually from neighborhood events, a really nice guy. We met later and what he told me was even more upsetting. His rationale went something like this: "See all the nice people in that live here? They are nice people, they are productive people, they are good Americans. All this is because they are Mormons, how does whomever Joseph Smith really was or what animals were wandering around effect that? That is what's really important.

I'm afraid that I see things differently, faith based on a lie is a lie.

 

[rrosskopf]

Your reaching. The civil war had little to nothing to do with WWI. It did not "spill over" as you suggest.

I didn't suggest that. I read it as the treaties between nations leading to a world war. England had a treaty with Belgium, and Belgium called on England.

Would I like it if the prophecy was more precise? Sure. But as it stands, it predicted the war between the states, probably over the slave issue, and it predicted that the south would ask England for help, and it predicted that the war would start in South Carolina. It also predicted that many people would die, not only of war, but from pestilence and disease. Joseph Smith also predicted the "sea of chimneys" in Jackson County. I'd like to see anyone else from the 19th century who predicted even half of these things.

 

[rrosskopf]

In his later years, Smith claimed to have had a vision of God in his childhood. He penchant for prevarication is demonstrated by the existence of the no less than four different accounts of what is called "the First Vision." All these accounts are in Smith's own hand, and each tells a radically different story, but claims to be about the same event. Even the year of his alleged vision is inconsistent.

First of all, not one is radically different. It would be more suspicious if he told the story the exact same way every time. If you look at the second-hand testimony of witnesses, every element was there from the start. And no - they were not all in Joseph Smith's own hand. Most came from speeches. The official record, the one included in our scriptures, came about because there were too many versions; as you said before people are unreliable witnesses. If I tell twenty men the same story, and have them write it down later, I will get twenty different stories. People didn't like to talk about such things in the era in which he lived. Joseph was reluctant to share everything from the start. I don't blame him. This isn't dishonesty. This is modesty. It amazes me that you think anti-mormon literature is a source of truth. I've looked at both sides from the very start of my interest in the church, and have concluded that of the two, the church's view of events is far more accurate. While the church might leave things out, the anti-mormons never include anything positive, and when something is proven false, they still hang on to it for a hundred years hoping that no one will notice. What other church is forced to account for the first 170 years of its history? What other church is expected to teach that history in detail in their services? Not any, that I know of. So why do people act all shocked and surprised when we teach faith, repentance, forgiveness and covenants in our church services? Even then we have a seminary program unequaled by any other church, and we, unlike virtually any other church, know something of our history.

The truth is that Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont in 1805, the fifth child of relatively affluent and well-educated parents, not the poor uneducated upbringing that the LDS Church pretends.

His parents were fairly educated, but they were far from affluent. Joseph Smith Sr. built up and lost his farm twice. Joseph Smith only had 3 years of formal schooling, and certainly nothing akin to college. By all accounts he was an active child who didn't like to read. He didn't have the resources of a University library, or the advantage of higher education. His wife said he couldn't even compose a decent letter.

Smith also claimed to have been later visited by an angel who showed him the location of a set of plates made of gold on which text was engraved. Both of these claims were actually made far later in life and there is no evidence of him having told anyone of any of these contemporaneously, not his closest friends, not his family.

That's not true. He told his father the very next day of the angel. Everyone knew about the plates; rumors flew around town. People were actually stalking him hoping to steal the plates. His wife helped him retrieve the plates, borrowing a wagon from a family friend, but even so he was still attacked while on his way back. Once the translation was completed, he showed the book to several witnesses, some of which touched and turned the pages, wondering at the precise script contained therein.

The evidence demonstrates that he spent much of his youth and early adulthood as a petty con man specializing in treasure-hunting and dowsing scams involving 'magic seer stones'.

I haven't seen anyone accuse him of dowsing. He was a seer, and the gift of a seer is to see things, usually through a seer stone. It isn't a scam if it is real. People often assumed it was some sort of scam, and they tested him, but there is no record that he ever failed a test. Again, you are jumping to conclusions based on your own bias. He was taken to court, and charged with "glass looking", but every single witness, including the supposed victim, testified that Joseph's gift was real. The supposed victim, Josiah Stowell, testified that he knew without a doubt that it was real.

The judge issued a mittimus for Smith to be held, either during or after the proceedings. A copy of STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH (1826) can be found here.

This isn't a copy at all. It is a newspaper report based on an alleged court document, one that has mysteriously disappeared without authentification. The facts presented are demonstrably false. The report wasn't published until after the key figure - Mrs. Pearsell - had died. If they really had the genuine article, why did they wait 50 years? Why didn't they authenticate it? They hated the Mormons for 50 years, so why didn't they use that damning evidence? To say it is suspicious, is an understatement. They got many of the facts wrong. First of all it was a hearing; the bailiff himself testified that it was a hearing. The fees were the fees for a hearing. In hearings there is no charge of guilty or not guilty. The only question is whether to hold the man for trial. Joseph was released, because there was no evidence against him. You got conned, but it wasn't by me.

I'm afraid that I see things differently, faith based on a lie is a lie.

I have to agree with you there - I have no desire to base faith on a lie. In fact, that is a contradiction in terms. No one believing something is a lie, will exercise genuine faith in it. I ran into the same problem that you ran into - antimormon literature. It is all I could find at the library. The whole 1826 trial thing is a good example of something that has been proven false, but is still brought up again and again by the enemies of the church. It is so easy to believe... yet the primary document, which was never authenticated is missing and the only witness to the validity of the document died of old age before someone else published it. And the testimony of the bailiff himself contradicts it. Why should I believe it?

 

[Midnight Rain]

I didn't suggest that. I read it as the treaties between nations leading to a world war. England had a treaty with Belgium, and Belgium called on England.

Would I like it if the prophecy was more precise? Sure. But as it stands, it predicted the war between the states, probably over the slave issue, and it predicted that the south would ask England for help, and it predicted that the war would start in South Carolina. It also predicted that many people would die, not only of war, but from pestilence and disease. Joseph Smith also predicted the "sea of chimneys" in Jackson County. I'd like to see anyone else from the 19th century who predicted even half of these things.

How about if the prophecy was less wrong?

I already told you that SC was the obvious guess. And even if it wasn't obvious if it were to start it would have been in either NC, SC or Virginia. So he had a 1/3 with a favor for SC. More people typically die from disease and woulds than from actual combat in war. This is the way of it. This isn't a prophecy he was simply saying "There will be bad things happening during the war". Should have tacked on that the soldiers would wear helmets.

And actually George Orwell predicted more with eerie accuracy. Though he never claimed to be a prophet.

 

[rrosskopf]

I already told you that SC was the obvious guess.

Then it should be easy to find at least one other person from 1834 to agree with you.

More people typically die from disease and woulds than from actual combat in war.

Then it should be easy to find someone else who predicted it.

And actually George Orwell predicted more with eerie accuracy

Actually, he lived after the Civil War, he was well educated and came from a well-to-do family. But I'll bite; what is his best prophesy? Give me an exact quote and let's compare.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Then it should be easy to find at least one other person from 1834 to agree with you.

Then it should be easy to find someone else who predicted it.

SparkNotes: The Pre-Civil War Era (1815–1850): Overview
Here is some reading. Have at it.

Actually, he lived after the Civil War, he was well educated and came from a well-to-do family. But I'll bite; what is his best prophesy? Give me an exact quote and let's compare.

He wasn't a prophet. He simply wrote several books that similarities to what actually transpired were rather shocking. For example prior to planes being invented he predicted the "war in the skys" which happened in WWII. He predicted that one day we would be under constant surveillance. This was part of his warning in his famous book 1984. Those are two pretty well known ones from his books.

Again he wasn't a prophet. But he made deductions and used his imagination of what the world might be like. And he was more accurate than the supposed god prophet.

 

[Sapiens]

First of all, not one is radically different. It would be more suspicious if he told the story the exact same way every time. If you look at the second-hand testimony of witnesses, every element was there from the start. And no - they were not all in Joseph Smith's own hand. Most came from speeches. The official record, the one included in our scriptures, came about because there were too many versions; as you said before people are unreliable witnesses. If I tell twenty men the same story, and have them write it down later, I will get twenty different stories. People didn't like to talk about such things in the era in which he lived. Joseph was reluctant to share everything from the start. I don't blame him. This isn't dishonesty. This is modesty. It amazes me that you think anti-mormon literature is a source of truth. I've looked at both sides from the very start of my interest in the church, and have concluded that of the two, the church's view of events is far more accurate. While the church might leave things out, the anti-mormons never include anything positive, and when something is proven false, they still hang on to it for a hundred years hoping that no one will notice. What other church is forced to account for the first 170 years of its history? What other church is expected to teach that history in detail in their services? Not any, that I know of. So why do people act all shocked and surprised when we teach faith, repentance, forgiveness and covenants in our church services? Even then we have a seminary program unequaled by any other church, and we, unlike virtually any other church, know something of our history.

His parents were fairly educated, but they were far from affluent. Joseph Smith Sr. built up and lost his farm twice. Joseph Smith only had 3 years of formal schooling, and certainly nothing akin to college. By all accounts he was an active child who didn't like to read. He didn't have the resources of a University library, or the advantage of higher education. His wife said he couldn't even compose a decent letter.

That's not true. He told his father the very next day of the angel. Everyone knew about the plates; rumors flew around town. People were actually stalking him hoping to steal the plates. His wife helped him retrieve the plates, borrowing a wagon from a family friend, but even so he was still attacked while on his way back. Once the translation was completed, he showed the book to several witnesses, some of which touched and turned the pages, wondering at the precise script contained therein.

I haven't seen anyone accuse him of dowsing. He was a seer, and the gift of a seer is to see things, usually through a seer stone. It isn't a scam if it is real. People often assumed it was some sort of scam, and they tested him, but there is no record that he ever failed a test. Again, you are jumping to conclusions based on your own bias. He was taken to court, and charged with "glass looking", but every single witness, including the supposed victim, testified that Joseph's gift was real. The supposed victim, Josiah Stowell, testified that he knew without a doubt that it was real.

This isn't a copy at all. It is a newspaper report based on an alleged court document, one that has mysteriously disappeared without authentification. The facts presented are demonstrably false. The report wasn't published until after the key figure - Mrs. Pearsell - had died. If they really had the genuine article, why did they wait 50 years? Why didn't they authenticate it? They hated the Mormons for 50 years, so why didn't they use that damning evidence? To say it is suspicious, is an understatement. They got many of the facts wrong. First of all it was a hearing; the bailiff himself testified that it was a hearing. The fees were the fees for a hearing. In hearings there is no charge of guilty or not guilty. The only question is whether to hold the man for trial. Joseph was released, because there was no evidence against him. You got conned, but it wasn't by me.

I believe you are referring to his 1830 arrest, when Constable Ebenezer Hatch arrested Smith on June 30, held him over night, and brought him before Justice Joseph P. Chamberlin on a charge of being a disorderly person. Smith was transported to South Bainbridge, New York. His two-day trial took place in late June, ending on July 1, 1830, and he was defended by two attorneys hired by Joseph Knight. Smith was acquitted. Immediately after his release, however, he was arrested again and transported back to Colesville for a second trial; he was acquitted again.

I am referring to his previous arrests and conviction, the one in March of 1826. You guys can't even keep his multiple arrests straight. If you've got that wrong why would I not place more belief in sources that get that right when it comes to other disparate information? I also find it telling how you fail to comment on my conversation with the Bishop, how you assume that I got all this from anti-Mormon literature (as I pointed out it was mainly bio-geography that made me start looking at your beliefs critically), and how practiced you seem to be with fielding these sorts of questions with nuanced answers.

I have to agree with you there - I have no desire to base faith on a lie. In fact, that is a contradiction in terms. No one believing something is a lie, will exercise genuine faith in it. I ran into the same problem that you ran into - antimormon literature. It is all I could find at the library. The whole 1826 trial thing is a good example of something that has been proven false, but is still brought up again and again by the enemies of the church. It is so easy to believe... yet the primary document, which was never authenticated is missing and the only witness to the validity of the document died of old age before someone else published it. And the testimony of the bailiff himself contradicts it. Why should I believe it?

The 1826 trial has not, as far as I can detect been "proven false." As far as I can tell virtually all the non-LDS sources are quite clear about it, as they are about the questions of chariots, ungulates and papyri. It is only the LDS apologists that seem to have to contort reality to make it all "come out right." Combine that with what the Bishop related to me and I'd say you have a long uphill climb to come clean. But you likely don't even know that because you've heard the lies so often that you believe them. Really ... horses, cattle, goats, pigs, etc., in post-Pleistocene North America.

 

[rrosskopf]

Here is some reading. Have at it.

Thanks a lot. I didn't find anything there that was relevant. Hindsight is always 100%, and all of this is in hindsight. I did my own search using "prophecies of the civil war" and "predictions of the civil war". The vast majority of references went back to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The only other predictions I found were those of Ellen White, whose predictions closely match those of Joseph Smith's, although she made these prophecies long after Joseph Smith had died. Her predictions weren't as plain, and they weren't as detailed, but they are interesting. The prevalent view of the day was that the war would be quickly over with few deaths. Lincoln refused to make the war about racial equality. Ellen said that was a mistake, and that the war would ultimately fail. She may have been wrong about that, but then again Lincoln changed his mind after many hundreds of thousands had already died, and changed the focus to abolition. It is interesting to note that he was reading the Book of Mormon during this time, right in the midst of the war. Mormon himself was a general and was also engaged in a war, a war he had little hope of winning, without the repentance of his own troops. In his case, they never repented. His army was wiped out and the Nephite civilization collapsed. This copy of the Book of Mormon can still be found in the Library of Congress.

For example prior to planes being invented he predicted the "war in the skys" which happened in WWII.

Actually he was born in 1903, and his first books appeared after WWI, when the first dogfights occurred, and when the first bombs were dropped from the sky.

He predicted that one day we would be under constant surveillance.

The motion picture camera had already been invented. There was nothing at all unique or detailed about his prediction. Nor have any of his other predictions happened. 1984 came and went. Can you imagine for a moment - humor me if you will - that you were sitting a chair, and Joseph Smith had laid his hands on your head, and was proceeding to tell you things that would happen in your life. Imagine his soft voice telling you that one day you will be in a fire fight, that bullets would rain down on you like hail, that you would seen men fall on the right and on the left, but that you wouldn't receive so much as a hole in your clothing. Then imagine living to see the prophecy fulfilled, every detail, watching your friends fall on the right and on the left, feeling the sting of the bullets as hundreds of rifles unloaded their ammunition into the small room where you and your friends were eating. Then suddenly, the mob is gone, and your only injury is where a bullet grazed your left ear. Would anything then stop you from believing in the Prophet Joseph Smith?

 

[rrosskopf]

I believe you are referring to his 1830 arrest, when Constable Ebenezer Hatch arrested Smith on June 30, held him over night, and brought him before Justice Joseph P. Chamberlin on a charge of being a disorderly person. Smith was transported to South Bainbridge, New York. His two-day trial took place in late June, ending on July 1, 1830, and he was defended by two attorneys hired by Joseph Knight. Smith was acquitted. Immediately after his release, however, he was arrested again and transported back to Colesville for a second trial; he was acquitted again.

No, I didn't know about that arrest. I meant to ask you about it. I was referring to the 1826 Hearing, where testimony was taken to determine if there was sufficient evidence to go to trial, on the accusation of "glass looking". There wasn't enough evidence, and there was never a trial.

Several people were present at the hearing, and some of these people later called it a trial, but that was out of their own ignorance, and not from a knowledge of the law. The several witnesses to the hearing have made several contradicting statements, so it is difficult to pin down exactly what happened.

Who brought the charges?

1.Benton (1831): The Public
2.Cowdery (1835): very officious person
3. Noble (1842): Civil authority
4. Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman
5. Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell
6. Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman
7. Judge Neely: The Public​

How many witnesses testified?

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 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

A bill for court services was later discovered, so we know it was a Hearing and not a Trial.

Mrs. Pearsall was Judge Neely's niece, and she committed a crime when she tore the court record from the docket book. She broke the line of custody; as a niece of the judge, I can't hardly believe that she didn't know what she was doing. It's akin to evidence tampering, although I don't know the exact name of the crime. I don't know whether she altered the record or not; it isn't available for study, since it mysteriously vanished.

 

[rrosskopf]

I also find it telling how you fail to comment on my conversation with the Bishop

I did comment. I agreed with you. The bishop was out of line. Faith without truth is worthless, and ultimately impossible.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Thanks a lot. I didn't find anything there that was relevant. Hindsight is always 100%, and all of this is in hindsight. I did my own search using "prophecies of the civil war" and "predictions of the civil war". The vast majority of references went back to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The only other predictions I found were those of Ellen White, whose predictions closely match those of Joseph Smith's, although she made these prophecies long after Joseph Smith had died. Her predictions weren't as plain, and they weren't as detailed, but they are interesting. The prevalent view of the day was that the war would be quickly over with few deaths. Lincoln refused to make the war about racial equality. Ellen said that was a mistake, and that the war would ultimately fail. She may have been wrong about that, but then again Lincoln changed his mind after many hundreds of thousands had already died, and changed the focus to abolition. It is interesting to note that he was reading the Book of Mormon during this time, right in the midst of the war. Mormon himself was a general and was also engaged in a war, a war he had little hope of winning, without the repentance of his own troops. In his case, they never repented. His army was wiped out and the Nephite civilization collapsed. This copy of the Book of Mormon can still be found in the Library of Congress.

So a lot of people died and because some didn't convert that is why they died? Nothing in this is even remotely convincing.

The motion picture camera had already been invented. There was nothing at all unique or detailed about his prediction. Nor have any of his other predictions happened. 1984 came and went. Can you imagine for a moment - humor me if you will - that you were sitting a chair, and Joseph Smith had laid his hands on your head, and was proceeding to tell you things that would happen in your life. Imagine his soft voice telling you that one day you will be in a fire fight, that bullets would rain down on you like hail, that you would seen men fall on the right and on the left, but that you wouldn't receive so much as a hole in your clothing. Then imagine living to see the prophecy fulfilled, every detail, watching your friends fall on the right and on the left, feeling the sting of the bullets as hundreds of rifles unloaded their ammunition into the small room where you and your friends were eating. Then suddenly, the mob is gone, and your only injury is where a bullet grazed your left ear. Would anything then stop you from believing in the Prophet Joseph Smith?

There was nothing unique about Jospeh's prophecies. He was a convicted conman who sold a story I can't believe sold.

Though I did a little digging. What about all of his prophecies that never came true at all or were dramatically false? Such as the fall of several US cities that are some of the most successful in US history today? I could go on but I hear there is some sort of rationalization. Though if you have to rationalize it then it usually means it was wrong.

 

[rrosskopf]

As far as I can tell virtually all the non-LDS sources are quite clear about it, as they are about the questions of chariots, ungulates and papyri.

That really isn't fair criteria for determining the truth. Non-LDS sources, as you call them, would lose all respect in their respective communities if they said anything that seemed to corroborate the Book of Mormon. There is a huge stigma attached, which prevents honesty. There are scholars within the church, who aren't hampered by such bigotry, and there is no reason to believe that they are being dishonest, when they say what others are afraid to say. To assume that all Mormons are liars and all anti-Mormons are telling the truth is ridiculous in the extreme. The opposite is truer; the Mormons go out of their way to find the truth, while the anti-mormons don't look at any accusation too closely. Lest you think that I am lying because I am a Mormon, I can give you a link to a study by two evangelical ministers who came to the same conclusion. Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect
As far as chariots - I researched this on my own. I did it without knowing what I would discover. Here is the article which I wrote: Chariots and the Book of Mormon
As far as the mention of horses, cattle, pigs - these haven't been proven in a strict sense. Buffallo are bison, and as such are technically cattle, even if we don't usually think of them as cattle. The Book of Mormon doesn't mention pigs, per se, but the book of Ether mentions swine, which could refer to the North American Peccary. Perhaps the most difficult anachronisms to explain are mentions of horses and asses. The original list of anachronisms included 40+ items, but that list has been pared down substantially in the previous 170 years. Horses and asses are still on the list. Although horses originate from North America, none of the scholars believe horses existed in North America when Colombus first discovered America. Some jump to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon isn't authentic, despite its accuracy in other areas. There are other possibilities. Horses and asses could have died out. Horses and asses could have existed in pockets unknown to the early explorers (pre-1600). There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon of people riding horses, or of using them to pull wagons, so it is possible that the North American horse was too small, and that when bred with the Spanish horse, produced the Indian Pony. I don't think that anyone argues that the Indian pony is the same as the Spanish horse. It is also possible that the Nephites used the Hebrew word for horse to describe some other animal, that looked like a horse, just as Hippopotamus means "water horse". Focusing on a handful of anachronisms, while ignoring many established facts, will always give a warped perspective.

 

[rrosskopf]

So a lot of people died and because some didn't convert that is why they died? Nothing in this is even remotely convincing.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Convert to what? Did you even bother to read it? Do you mean convert to abolitionism? I never thought of abolitionism as a religious movement...?

 

[rrosskopf]

He was a convicted conman who sold a story I can't believe sold.

There is no compelling evidence that Joseph Smith was ever convicted for being a con man. This is just anti-mormon rhetoric which isn't supported by the actual facts. What's next? Shall we make up some lies about the Jews? I am beginning to believe that you don't really want to know the truth.

 

[Midnight Rain]

There is no compelling evidence that Joseph Smith was ever convicted for being a con man. This is just anti-mormon rhetoric which isn't supported by the actual facts. What's next? Shall we make up some lies about the Jews? I am beginning to believe that you don't really want to know the truth.

Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So all that is just lies and rhetoric? If so I think we are done.

 

[rrosskopf]

So all that is just lies and rhetoric? If so I think we are done.

I never said that Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and charged with various crimes. The poor man was constantly hounded by the law, imprisoned for many months without trial, sued again and again. In the space of about 10 years, he was sued 40 times, in addition to the public charges. In almost every case, the testimony of witnesses freed him because he was innocent. It was religious persecution, pure and simple. He even went to the federal government to seek relief from the relgious persecution, but there were no federal laws in place that allowed the government to go against the individual states to enforce religious freedom. Religious freedom in the United States wasn't protected by law until Lincoln inacted the 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution, still many years into the future. In the only successful prosecution, a strong case could be made that it was out of religious prejudice, and not the actual law, for which he was convicted. He was convicted of starting a bank-like entity. It was a real bank by our standards, and not fraudulent in any way, but in the process he seems to have broken an outdated law. If he hadn't feared for his life, he could have stayed and fought the conviction. As it was, he made sure that everyone who lost money in the bank collapse was reimbursed for their losses. How many failed banks ever did that? It wasn't a con, and he wasn't a conman. Many other banks also failed at this time as the public lost faith in the banking institution, partly because of real estate speculation, which was rampant at the time. Joseph Smith even warned the members of the church against speculation, but his warning went unheeded. To try to make the case that Joseph Smith was trying to cheat people, is pure bigotry, and unsupported by any actual evidence. He was wrongly accused again and again. By the way, some of his greatest revelations came while he was illegally held in Liberty Jail, which was more like a prison, than a jail. He was there for many months, held without trial, separated from his wife and children. Today it is a museum/monument, and anyone can take the tour and see the deprivations that the prophet suffered.