A split thread: Joseph Smith

[outhouse]

The biggest mistake of any self proclaimed prophet, was basing their whole theology based on what is now known as mythology in many cases.

 

[Skwim]

Ouch. I quote the most reliable of sources WIKIPEDIA ;-)
"Bison, sometimes erroneously called buffalo, are large, even-toed ungulates in the genus Bison within the subfamily Bovinae."
"While all bison species are usually grouped into their own genus, they are sometimes included in the closely related genus Bos, together with cattle, gaur, kouprey, and yaks, with which bison have a limited ability to interbreed."

No reputable book on mammology will ever classify bison in the genus Bos. And. if you access the linked foot note (1) referencing Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference you'll read that bison are not classified in Bos, but in Bison. Actually,the classifications listed are out of date, having been updatedsome time ago, leaving Bison as the sole genus. Please also note on the page "Comments:Revised by Bohlken (1967), and McDonald (1981)." The McDonald mentioned here is Dr. David McDonald who edited The Encyclopedia of Mammals, a tome (896 pages) I have that lists Bison as belonging to the genus Bison and no other. And this is true of all the other references I have or have consulted.

Are you really going to get all upset that the Nephites didn't have a DNA test? For all extensive purposes, if they are close enough to interbreed, they are members of the same family.

??????????

Merriam-Webster shows
cattle: domesticated quadrupeds held as property or raised for use; specifically: bovine animals on a farm or ranch
So maybe you should complain to Merriam-Webster.

That's nice, but hardly a "technical" description. "Cattle" is zoological name for animals belonging to the genus Bos. In fact, if you consult Wikipedia you'll read:

"Cattle (colloquially cows) are the most common type of large domesticated ungulates. They are a prominent modern member of the subfamily Bovinae, are the most widespread species of the genus Bos, and are most commonly classified collectively as Bos taurus."

CATTLE​

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Bovidae
Subfamily: Bovinae
Genus: Bos
Species: B. taurus
Subspecies: B. t. taurus,
B. t. indicus

source​

 

[outhouse]

My mind can be changed, if I am wrong on a material fact. Don't assume just because I don't swallow every ignorant opinion, that I am unteachable

You do know that Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC, this is not up for debate by anyone credible.

You do understand there was no conquest of Canaan.



What do you know about the flood mythology? Do you know where and when the mythology originated?

 

[Sapiens]

You obviously have faith in a universe without a God. You have faith that the sun will go down, and come up. You have faith that your car will start when you turn the key. You have faith in science, although it doesn't always deserve it. I didn't say "faith in God", which seems to be your knee-jerk assumption.

I have no faith in anything, faith is unnecessary and foolish. There is not need to invoke a god to fill the minor gaps that are held by the placeholder, "I don't know ... yet!" I understand the probabilistic nature of the universe and operate on that basis.

Perhaps I can tilt the scale a little more in the direction of divine providence.

That would require unimpeachable and replicable data from unimpeachable sources, 'fraid you'll have a tough time with that ... too much truth required there.

Thank you for the suggestion. I won't read another word until I do.

Your welcome.

 

[rrosskopf]

Okay, I read about Type 1 and Type 2 errors. As a programmer, thoroughly versed in logic, I can appreciate when evidence proves something, and when it does not. I can't prove The Book of Mormon; there just isn't enough time to convey the evidence, and the evidence itself is mostly circumstantial. It isn't my goal to prove The Book of Mormon. My goal is to show that it is plausible, which requires a much smaller threshold of evidence.

This is the same David Whitmer who later recanted and was excommunicated?

He was excommunicated, but he never recanted. He was angry at Joseph Smith, but still told everyone that he had actually seen the gold plates and the Book of Mormon, some 70+ times throughout his life (publicly) and on his deathbed. He was once accused of recanting, at which he immediately published an article in the newspaper:

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book.
"I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

So what? There is no reliable evidence that there ever was a cement box.

We have witnesses who saw it. I doubt the stones themselves would be much more reliable.

But that does not speak to the reality of the box.

No, but it does speak to the assertion of Helaman 3:7
"And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell." (circa 37 BC)

The DNA evidence rules out the Nephites and Lamanites. It clearly shows that the American Indians are NOT of Semitic descend. They came from Asia.

I don't think it means what you think it means. Have you read about genetic drift? Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Minority dna can be lost in as little as 300 years. The founding population was Asian, and by far the majority.

a few areas of congruence proves nothing.

How about dozens of areas of congruence?

It used to be commonly claimed that the BofM encompassed the entire western hemisphere of both North and South America, with Cumorah in New York being the location of the final battle.

Sadly, true. Few Mormons actually studied The Book of Mormon before the 1980's. Since Joseph Smith, the prophets have been trying to get the members to actually study the Book of Mormon, but few ever did until fairly recently. Their cultural bias tended to mold their views. Now that The Book of Mormon has been studied in detail, we know that it doesn't make such claims for itself. Scholars have put together maps of the Nephite nation, using geographical information from the Book of Mormon, including distances between cities. The "promised land" for them, not including any satellite colonies, was no bigger than the state of Israel. Moroni never mentions where he is going to bury the book. He only mentions taking the book OUT of the hill Cumorah, and fleeing the country.

At the end of the day, all of these mormon ideas will turn a person's thoughts into manure.

That isn't very scientific. In fact, it is rude. Until this statement, the facts were fairly straight forward. The only real problem that came up, was the problem of Adam and Eve coming after the people of the Berengeal plain. Neither I, nor the church have a solution to this seeming conflict. I've got to go. I'll be back.

 

[Sapiens]

Okay, I read about Type 1 and Type 2 errors. As a programmer, thoroughly versed in logic, I can appreciate when evidence proves something, and when it does not.

Evidently your logic is limited to "for, if, then, else, while" and other such constructs and does not extend into philosophy, statistics or real life. Glad I could help you on your way.

I can't prove The Book of Mormon; there just isn't enough time to convey the evidence, and the evidence itself is mostly circumstantial.

Not even "good" circumstantial, more like accidental.

It isn't my goal to prove The Book of Mormon. My goal is to show that it is plausible, which requires a much smaller threshold of evidence.

What your missing is that you not only must show that some parts are plausible, you must show that each and every statement is plausible. Otherwise your back in to an historical novel that contains some true events and then some fake but plausible events stirred together with some whoppers, that against the background of the real and the plausible (but fake) go undetected due to willful suspension of disbelief. We have shown you some fake, but plausible and some whoppers with respect to the Book of Mormon. It does not have what it takes to be an historical document and it should, as a result, be discarded in it's entirety.

He was excommunicated, but he never recanted. He was angry at Joseph Smith, but still told everyone that he had actually seen the gold plates and the Book of Mormon, some 70+ times throughout his life (publicly) and on his deathbed. He was once accused of recanting, at which he immediately published an article in the newspaper:

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book.
"I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

He seems a most unreliable and easily impeachable witness..

We have witnesses who saw it. I doubt the stones themselves would be much more reliable.

No, but it does speak to the assertion of Helaman 3:7
"And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell." (circa 37 BC)
[/quote[One of the (quite accidental) reals salted amongst the whoppers, reals and plausible earlier discussed.

I don't think it means what you think it means. Have you read about genetic drift? Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Minority dna can be lost in as little as 300 years. The founding population was Asian, and by far the majority.

How about dozens of areas of congruence?

Genetics is one of my areas of competence, allow me to assure you that not only is there no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon claims, all the evidence argues against it.

Sadly, true. Few Mormons actually studied The Book of Mormon before the 1980's. Since Joseph Smith, the prophets have been trying to get the members to actually study the Book of Mormon, but few ever did until fairly recently. Their cultural bias tended to mold their views. Now that The Book of Mormon has been studied in detail, we know that it doesn't make such claims for itself. Scholars have put together maps of the Nephite nation, using geographical information from the Book of Mormon, including distances between cities. The "promised land" for them, not including any satellite colonies, was no bigger than the state of Israel. Moroni never mentions where he is going to bury the book. He only mentions taking the book OUT of the hill Cumorah, and fleeing the country.

This is a clear example of garbage in, garbage out.

That isn't very scientific. In fact, it is rude.

You will note that I was quoting, I would have expressed the same concept, but used different words..

Until this statement, the facts were fairly straight forward. The only real problem that came up, was the problem of Adam and Eve coming after the people of the Berengeal plain. Neither I, nor the church have a solution to this seeming conflict. I've got to go. I'll be back.

That is the least of your scriptural problems and is so far out in left field that I'd not even bother to raise it.

 

[rrosskopf]

You do understand there was no conquest of Canaan.

I have heard that there is precious little evidence outside of the Bible for the conquest of Canaan. I would need more than opinion before rejecting arguably the only historical source.

What do you know about the flood mythology? Do you know where and when the mythology originated?

I have read accounts of the flood from several sources, including two from ancient America. Although the Book of Ether doesn't actually describe the flood, I find its description of the ocean after the flood to be intriguing. It conjures up in my mind a world after a major cataclysm, something just short of a global extinction event.

5 And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind.
6 And it came to pass that they were many times buried in the depths of the sea, because of the mountain waves which broke upon them, and also the great and terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind.
7 And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tightlike unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.
8 And it came to pass that the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind.

It is very reminiscent of the book and movie "The Perfect Storm".

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Like Genesis, it talks about fire coming down from heaven and destroying things like it is a known occurrence. The idea of fire coming down from heaven was laughed at as recently as the 1800's, yet now we know with almost sickening dread, that it isn't far fetched at all. The book of Revelations predicts a star named "wormwood" falling into the ocean, destroying 1/3 of all life on earth. To them, practically everything in the expanse or heavens was a "star". The subtlety of a comet or asteroid would have been lost on them. Just yesterday, or the day before, an asteroid big enough to snuff out almost all life on earth, buzzed right by it. Astronomers are telling us that two fairly large planets lie just outside of the orbit of Pluto, but nether has yet been spotted. This is the realm of the Ort cloud, where an unknown number of asteroids and comets are in orbit around our sun, many of which have the potential of being planet killers.

Astronomy has given me new respect for the scriptures.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

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.

According to the mighty wikipedia, the known facts concerning Joseph Smith are disturbing:

March 20, 1826 - charged with being a "disorderly person." Results appear to have been disputed.

June 1830 - Charged with being a "disorderly person." Found Not Guilty.

June 1830 - Charged again with being a "disorderly person." Found Not Guilty (again).

February 1837 - Charged with illegal banking and fined $1000.

June 1837 - Charged with conspiracy to murder. Charges were dismissed.

January 1838 - Charged with banking fraud. Smith apparently fled the scene rather than face the music.

August 10, 1838 - Charged with threatening a judge. A grand jury hearing was scheduled, but never held due to Smith's flight from the locale.

November 12, 1838 - Charged with treason against the state of Missouri. Smith escaped from custody and fled the scene (again).

August 1842 - Charged (again) with conspiracy to murder ... this time former Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. Smith went into hiding from August 10th to December 30th. Finally surrendered and was freed by US District Court on January 2nd, 1843

June 6, 1843 - Charged with treason against Missouri (again). For whatever reason, Illinois courts rejected Missouri's requests for extradition.

May 1844 - Charged with perjury, fornication and adultery. Smith's trial was postponed.

June 11, 1844 - Charged with inciting a riot. Smith was arraigned and released after posting $500 bail.

June 24, 1844 - Charged (yet again) with treason ... this time against the state of Illinois. Smith was unable to flee the scene on this particular occasion, as he was killed by a mob on June 27th while awaiting trial.

...

Would you buy a used car from a person with a rap sheet like that? Would you let them babysit your children? It's readily apparent that Smith's "style" involved getting hauled into court for (let's put this as charitably as possible) bad behavior.

He was certainly fined once for banking indiscretions and on several occasions fled from justice.

Yet he's the founder of a religion? It's a testament to the gullibility of the human species.

 

[Norman]

I think his death at the hands of a lynch mob speaks volumes. Not one was convicted for killing him.



What eye witnesses?



He is correct though.



Well did he claim Abraham existed? Abraham has zero historicity as ever existing outside literature. Same for Moses.

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".




Sir, that is not a historical fact. He exist in your faith.



Which is not true, as the tower of babal has no historicity as written what so ever.


Joseph Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smith's teachings came primarily through his revelations
Today would we not claim this was from his imagination?




Modern historian Fawn Brodie has called the Book of Mormon a response to pressing cultural and environmental issues of Smith's times, saying that Smith composed the Book of Mormon drawing from scraps of information available to him; Dan Vogel, another historian, says that the work is autobiographical in nature


The book also provides an enlarged account of the Genesis creation narrative and expands the story of Enoch, the ancestor of Noah.

Noah has no historicity as ever existing.





However, both the Smithsonian Institution[5] and the National Geographic Society have issued statements that they have seen no evidence to support these claims in the Book of Mormon and no secular archeologist or historian has supported their existence.

Nephites have no historicity at all outside your faith. Not one credible archeologist supports this.

Norman: Hi outhouse, I just wanted to add to your Smithsonian article, both the Bible and Book of Mormon are just religious books according to them.

The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah's flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions:

It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

http://www.2think.org/ssotb.shtml

Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revised

For many years the Smithsonian Institution has given out a routine response to questions posed to them about their view of the relation between the Book of Mormon and scientific studies of ancient American civilizations, Statements in their handout pointed out what somebody at the Institution claimed were contradictions between the text of the scripture and what scientists claim about New World cultures.

In 1982 John Sorenson wrote a detailed critique of the Smithsonian piece that was published by FARMS. It pointed out errors of fact and logic in the statement. He revised that in 1995 and included the recommendation that the Smithsonian Institution completely modify their statement to bring it up to date scientifically. FARMS officers later conferred with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes. More recently, members of Congress have questioned the Institution about the inappropriateness of a government agency taking a stand regarding a religious book.

In March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian began using the following brief response to queries about the Book of Mormon:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

The Smithsonian Institution sends a form letter to those who inquire about their use of the Book of Mormon for archaeological purposes. The National Geographic Society has a similar letter. The content of the letter has changed over the years; the current version (revised 1998) reads:

Your inquiry of February 7 concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian_statement



As only Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to have any ancient historical basis, Lamanites are not considered to be a valid category of people by mainstream scholars.

So what credible historians claim and you claim from faith, seem to be two different statements.

 

[Sapiens]

I have heard that there is precious little evidence outside of the Bible for the conquest of Canaan. I would need more than opinion before rejecting arguably the only historical source.

The bible is not considered a primary historical source except by fanatics.

I have read accounts of the flood from several sources, including two from ancient America. Although the Book of Ether doesn't actually describe the flood, I find its description of the ocean after the flood to be intriguing. It conjures up in my mind a world after a major cataclysm, something just short of a global extinction event.

5 And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind.
6 And it came to pass that they were many times buried in the depths of the sea, because of the mountain waves which broke upon them, and also the great and terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind.
7 And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tightlike unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.
8 And it came to pass that the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind.

It is very reminiscent of the book and movie "The Perfect Storm".

All of the scientific evidence available falsifies the idea of a global flood, so (for that matter) does common sense ... there's just not enough water.

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Like Genesis, it talks about fire coming down from heaven and destroying things like it is a known occurrence. The idea of fire coming down from heaven was laughed at as recently as the 1800's, yet now we know with almost sickening dread, that it isn't far fetched at all. The book of Revelations predicts a star named "wormwood" falling into the ocean, destroying 1/3 of all life on earth. To them, practically everything in the expanse or heavens was a "star". The subtlety of a comet or asteroid would have been lost on them. Just yesterday, or the day before, an asteroid big enough to snuff out almost all life on earth, buzzed right by it. Astronomers are telling us that two fairly large planets lie just outside of the orbit of Pluto, but nether has yet been spotted. This is the realm of the Ort cloud, where an unknown number of asteroids and comets are in orbit around our sun, many of which have the potential of being planet killers.

Astronomy has given me new respect for the scriptures.

No, even the ancients knew that stars and comets were different things, and they could not see asteroids.

 

[Norman]

I think his death at the hands of a lynch mob speaks volumes. Not one was convicted for killing him.

What eye witnesses?

He is correct though.

Well did he claim Abraham existed? Abraham has zero historicity as ever existing outside literature. Same for Moses.

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

Sir, that is not a historical fact. He exist in your faith.

Which is not true, as the tower of babal has no historicity as written what so ever.

Joseph Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smith's teachings came primarily through his revelations
Today would we not claim this was from his imagination?

Modern historian Fawn Brodie has called the Book of Mormon a response to pressing cultural and environmental issues of Smith's times, saying that Smith composed the Book of Mormon drawing from scraps of information available to him; Dan Vogel, another historian, says that the work is autobiographical in nature

The book also provides an enlarged account of the Genesis creation narrative and expands the story of Enoch, the ancestor of Noah.

Noah has no historicity as ever existing.

However, both the Smithsonian Institution[5] and the National Geographic Society have issued statements that they have seen no evidence to support these claims in the Book of Mormon and no secular archeologist or historian has supported their existence.

Norman: Hi outhouse, I don't think my post went through the first time, if It did please forgive me for posting again. I just wanted to add to your Smithsonian and National Geographic Society article above.

The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah's flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions:

It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

http://www.2think.org/ssotb.shtml

Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revised

For many years the Smithsonian Institution has given out a routine response to questions posed to them about their view of the relation between the Book of Mormon and scientific studies of ancient American civilizations, Statements in their handout pointed out what somebody at the Institution claimed were contradictions between the text of the scripture and what scientists claim about New World cultures.

In 1982 John Sorenson wrote a detailed critique of the Smithsonian piece that was published by FARMS. It pointed out errors of fact and logic in the statement. He revised that in 1995 and included the recommendation that the Smithsonian Institution completely modify their statement to bring it up to date scientifically. FARMS officers later conferred with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes. More recently, members of Congress have questioned the Institution about the inappropriateness of a government agency taking a stand regarding a religious book.

In March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian began using the following brief response to queries about the Book of Mormon:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

The Smithsonian Institution sends a form letter to those who inquire about their use of the Book of Mormon for archaeological purposes. The National Geographic Society has a similar letter. The content of the letter has changed over the years; the current version (revised 1998) reads:

Your inquiry of February 7 concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian_statement


Nephites have no historicity at all outside your faith. Not one credible archeologist supports this.

As only Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to have any ancient historical basis, Lamanites are not considered to be a valid category of people by mainstream scholars.

So what credible historians claim and you claim from faith, seem to be two different statements.

 

[Norman]

You need to edit your tags.

Norman: Hi Sapiens, did I do something wrong? What does it mean to edit my tags? Sorry I am a bit slow.

 

[Norman]

According to the mighty wikipedia, the known facts concerning Joseph Smith are disturbing:

March 20, 1826 - charged with being a "disorderly person." Results appear to have been disputed.

June 1830 - Charged with being a "disorderly person." Found Not Guilty.

June 1830 - Charged again with being a "disorderly person." Found Not Guilty (again).

February 1837 - Charged with illegal banking and fined $1000.

June 1837 - Charged with conspiracy to murder. Charges were dismissed.

January 1838 - Charged with banking fraud. Smith apparently fled the scene rather than face the music.

August 10, 1838 - Charged with threatening a judge. A grand jury hearing was scheduled, but never held due to Smith's flight from the locale.

November 12, 1838 - Charged with treason against the state of Missouri. Smith escaped from custody and fled the scene (again).

August 1842 - Charged (again) with conspiracy to murder ... this time former Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. Smith went into hiding from August 10th to December 30th. Finally surrendered and was freed by US District Court on January 2nd, 1843

June 6, 1843 - Charged with treason against Missouri (again). For whatever reason, Illinois courts rejected Missouri's requests for extradition.

May 1844 - Charged with perjury, fornication and adultery. Smith's trial was postponed.

June 11, 1844 - Charged with inciting a riot. Smith was arraigned and released after posting $500 bail.

June 24, 1844 - Charged (yet again) with treason ... this time against the state of Illinois. Smith was unable to flee the scene on this particular occasion, as he was killed by a mob on June 27th while awaiting trial.

...

Would you buy a used car from a person with a rap sheet like that? Would you let them babysit your children? It's readily apparent that Smith's "style" involved getting hauled into court for (let's put this as charitably as possible) bad behavior.

He was certainly fined once for banking indiscretions and on several occasions fled from justice.

Yet he's the founder of a religion? It's a testament to the gullibility of the human species.

Norman: Hi NulliuSINverba, I just wanted to add my feelings and some facts. Sorry this is so long.

I have yet to see a really objective study of Joseph Smith's authentic prophetic utterances by a non-Latter Day Saint, the nature of prejudice is such that I probably never shall. After receiving his vision of God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, he informed one of the Methodist preachers of it, but met only with ridicule and opposition. He experienced the same in all quarters, and he was led to ask, "Why persecute me for telling the truth?” again, "I had actually seen a vision, and who was I that I could withstand God?"

His bogus, false and malicious imprisonments and his spiritual piranha’s in courts of oddity and puffery were exaggerated beyond common logic. Courts of so called law by atrocious, vituperative, haughty, supercilious and corrupt magistrates. All that was used was equivocal stories, ad hominem and straw man arguments with nothing more than exiguous evidence. The Court’s tried Joseph without the slightest epergesis, Joseph’s dichotomy was intact and no corrupt religious leaders of his day could question it.

I will just mention a few of his bogus run INS with the unlawful men of his day.

In March, 1832, while living in Hiram, a mob gathered about his house, and, having dragged him from it in the dead hour of the night, tarred and feathered him and left him half dead on the bare ground. May 6, 1832. Joseph nearly lost his life by poison mixed with his dinner.A Journey to Far West, Mo. Joseph had only resided there about six months before the troubles the Saints had been wading through for several years reached their highest pitch, and he, together with others, was betrayed into the hands of the mob-militia on Wednesday, Oct. 31st. The next day, his brother Hyrum was arrested and brought into cam. A court martial was then held and they were condemned to be shot on Friday morning on the public square in Far West, as an example to the "Mormons," but, owing to the dissension of Gen. Doniphan, the sentence was not put into execution.

On Novemeber 9th, 1832 Joseph and others were taken to Richmond by a mob militia who were professed members of various religious sects of the day , determined to shoot them under a court martial. However these antinomianism’s men ignorant of military code of laws that preachers who did not serve in military duty could not be subject to court martial. So, they turned them over to civil authorities to be tried on a bogus charge of treason, murder, arson, larceny and theft; all false charges. They underwent a mock trial and were sent to Liberty in Clay County and put into jail for five months. Poison was given to them several time and even human flesh during this imprisonment.

Joseph and other’s went to Washington, they had an interview with President Martin Van Buren, and subsequently with John C. Calhoun. It was at this interview that Mr. Van Buren uttered the well known words-"Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. What kind of bull was this? The President basically telling them that He could not help them for the right of worshiping God with the dictate of their own conscious.

Early in February, 1840, seeing that all his efforts were ineffectual to obtain redress for the wrongs the Saints had endured, Joseph left the capital for Nauvoo. After remaining silent for nearly two years. Missouri made a demand on Governor Carlin, of Illinois, for Joseph Smith and others. A writ for their apprehension was issued, but the sheriff could not find them. The writ was returned to the sheriff, and the matter dropped at that time.

On a positive note, I should say that there were a few honest magistrates. In another incident the Hon. O. H, Browning, in addressing the court for the defense of Joseph, eloquently referred to the cruelties of Missouri. He concluded with the following language: "And shall this unfortunate man, whom their fury has seen proper to select for sacrifice, be driven into such a savage land, and none dare to enlist in the cause of justice. If there was no other voice under heaven ever to be heard in this cause, gladly would I stand alone, and proudly spend my last breath in defence of an oppressed American citizen."

In the summer of 1842, Joseph Smith succeeded John C. Bennett in the mayoralty of Nauvoo, which office he retained until his death. May 6th, of this year, Lilburn W. Boggs, ex-governor of Missouri who issued the extermination of the Latter Day Saints, was shot at and wounded at his residence in Independence, Mo. Still as relentless as ever in his purpose to destroy Joseph, he charged him with being accessory before the fact, and applied to Thos. Reynolds, governor of Missouri, to make a demand upon the governor of Illinois for him. Accordingly, a writ was served upon him Aug. 8, 1842. An investigation into the matter was had on a writ of habeas corpus, in January, 1843, at Springfield, before the Hon. Nathaniel Pope, judge of the circuit court of the U. S. for the district of Illinois, which ended in an honorable acquittal, the judge requesting, "that the decision of the court be entered upon the records in such a way, that Mr. Smith be no more troubled about the matter."

Missouri, however, still true to her purpose, continued to excite the public mind against Joseph, and made another demand upon Illinois to deliver him up to her for trial on charge of treason, and in June, while he was visiting at Inlet Grove, twelve miles from Dixon, Ill., Joseph H. Reynolds, sheriff of Jackson county, Mo., and Harman T. Wilson, of Carthage, Ill., appeared with a writ from the governor of Illinois, and arrested him. They drove him to Dixon in a wagon and frequently struck him with their pistols on the way, and would have immediately carried him into Missouri to be murdered, but for the interference of the people. With much difficulty a writ of habeas corpus was procured at Dixon, and made returnable before the nearest tribunal, in the 5th Judicial District, authorized to hear and determine upon such writs, which was at Nauvoo. On returning there a writ was sued out and made returnable before the municipal court, and, upon examination, Joseph was discharged from arrest upon the merits of the case, and upon the further ground of substantial defects in the writ issued by the governor of Illinois.

After his arrival at Nauvoo, the governor called the citizens together, and addressed them for about twenty minutes in a most insulting manner, and while the outraged citizens of Nauvoo were listening to this harangue, the prophet and his brother were being murdered in jail. On leaving Nauvoo for Carthage, Joseph expressed himself thus, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of offence towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me. 'He was murdered in cold blood.'"

From first to last he was involved in about fifty lawsuits, arising out of the persecutions of his enemies, but came out of the legal furnace "without the smell of fire, or a thread of his garment scorched." Joseph was never convicted, He was always released and acquitted. Joseph suffered as a true Prophet of God and his pattern was not a strange one. One only need to look back into holy writ to Moses and his day. The Egyptian pharaoh accused Moses of treason and how many laws that He transgressed against (and therefore fled to Midian to escape being tried for treason (Exod. 2:13-15).) Did the Pharaoh look to Moses as a stuttering criminal? Moses was not an infallible man. Joseph also was not an infallible man and no one can say that he did not serve his God faithfully.

Joseph’s only conviction may have been (emphasis added) on a charge of being a "disorderly person" (because he "pretended" to have revelations, thereby generating unrest among disbelievers), for which a fine was assessed, but no imprisonment. How silly, how redundant and all this over nothing more than Christian eschatology.

In regards to making a living for himself Joseph had engaged himself with a Mr. Josiah Stoal, who set him to work digging for a silver mine, which it was reported the Spaniards had opened in Harmony, Susquehannah county, Pa., and from this circumstance arose the opprobrious epithet of a "money digger." While thus engaged, Joseph boarded with a Mr. Isaac Hale, whose daughter Emma he married Jan. 18, 1827. This is how he made his living and is nothing different than anyone today seeking, gold, silver and metals of sorts. How ridiculous, however, Satan does have his disciples working in darkness against the light. No matter, for Joseph is with his Redeemer Jesus Christ for eternity.

 

[Norman]

See how your post is not attributed? Each section should end with a bracket /quote closebracket and then each quotation should start with something like bracket QUOTE="Norman, post: 4129556, member: 54511" closebracket

Norman: Oh ok, Sapiens, I will work on that, thank you for pointing this out to me.

 

[Norman]

Pretty good thread. There is an answer for almost every hole. Granted its patching a hole with another hole but still. Hillarious.

But actually on topic why do you think he was persecuted to harsly even before he became the "prophet" for Mormonism? Is it not more likely he was actually guilty?

[/QUOTE] Norman: Hi Monk Of Reason, I think in Joseph's day there were a lot of things that the average person just did not feel comfortable with. People are like to be afraid of the unknown. I don't think however, that it made Joseph Smith a bad person. If you would have seen the first vision that Joseph experienced, how would you have tried to explain to people? For me, I personally would have been scared.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: Hi NulliuSINverba, I just wanted to add my feelings and some facts. Sorry this is so long.

I have yet to see a really objective study of Joseph Smith's authentic prophetic utterances by a non-Latter Day Saint, the nature of prejudice is such that I probably never shall.

Stand back for a moment. Consider that no non-LDS person would ever think that the LDS beliefs were reasonable for the reasons we have gone over above. Thus, virtually by definition, as a result of that consensus, the LDSers assume that everybody is prejudiced rather than just and reasonable.

After receiving his vision of God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, he informed one of the Methodist preachers of it, but met only with ridicule and opposition. He experienced the same in all quarters, and he was led to ask, "Why persecute me for telling the truth?” again, "I had actually seen a vision, and who was I that I could withstand God?"

Just guessing, his reputation preceded him?

His bogus, false and malicious imprisonments and his spiritual piranha’s in courts of oddity and puffery were exaggerated beyond common logic. Courts of so called law by atrocious, vituperative, haughty, supercilious and corrupt magistrates. All that was used was equivocal stories, ad hominem and straw man arguments with nothing more than exiguous evidence. The Court’s tried Joseph without the slightest epergesis, Joseph’s dichotomy was intact and no corrupt religious leaders of his day could question it.

Again, just guessing, his reputation preceded him?

I will just mention a few of his bogus run INS with the unlawful men of his day.

In March, 1832, while living in Hiram, a mob gathered about his house, and, having dragged him from it in the dead hour of the night, tarred and feathered him and left him half dead on the bare ground. May 6, 1832. Joseph nearly lost his life by poison mixed with his dinner.A Journey to Far West, Mo. Joseph had only resided there about six months before the troubles the Saints had been wading through for several years reached their highest pitch, and he, together with others, was betrayed into the hands of the mob-militia on Wednesday, Oct. 31st. The next day, his brother Hyrum was arrested and brought into cam. A court martial was then held and they were condemned to be shot on Friday morning on the public square in Far West, as an example to the "Mormons," but, owing to the dissension of Gen. Doniphan, the sentence was not put into execution.

This was done way? Granted without legal niceties, but once again, just guessing, his reputation preceded him?

On Novemeber 9th, 1832 Joseph and others were taken to Richmond by a mob militia who were professed members of various religious sects of the day , determined to shoot them under a court martial. However these antinomianism’s men ignorant of military code of laws that preachers who did not serve in military duty could not be subject to court martial. So, they turned them over to civil authorities to be tried on a bogus charge of treason, murder, arson, larceny and theft; all false charges. They underwent a mock trial and were sent to Liberty in Clay County and put into jail for five months. Poison was given to them several time and even human flesh during this imprisonment.

Bogus? Mock? Strong words that you need to prove. But even if we stipulate that the Mormons of the day, especially the leadership, were persecuted, that still does not make a case for the belief, just for the rather unchristian behavior of the other Christian sects.

Joseph and other’s went to Washington, they had an interview with President Martin Van Buren, and subsequently with John C. Calhoun. It was at this interview that Mr. Van Buren uttered the well known words-"Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. What kind of bull was this? The President basically telling them that He could not help them for the right of worshiping God with the dictate of their own conscious.

Van Buren went on to say, "If I take up for you I shall lose the vote in Missouri.” Remember, politics is the art of the possible.

Early in February, 1840, seeing that all his efforts were ineffectual to obtain redress for the wrongs the Saints had endured, Joseph left the capital for Nauvoo. After remaining silent for nearly two years. Missouri made a demand on Governor Carlin, of Illinois, for Joseph Smith and others. A writ for their apprehension was issued, but the sheriff could not find them. The writ was returned to the sheriff, and the matter dropped at that time.

On a positive note, I should say that there were a few honest magistrates. In another incident the Hon. O. H, Browning, in addressing the court for the defense of Joseph, eloquently referred to the cruelties of Missouri. He concluded with the following language: "And shall this unfortunate man, whom their fury has seen proper to select for sacrifice, be driven into such a savage land, and none dare to enlist in the cause of justice. If there was no other voice under heaven ever to be heard in this cause, gladly would I stand alone, and proudly spend my last breath in defence of an oppressed American citizen."

In the summer of 1842, Joseph Smith succeeded John C. Bennett in the mayoralty of Nauvoo, which office he retained until his death. May 6th, of this year, Lilburn W. Boggs, ex-governor of Missouri who issued the extermination of the Latter Day Saints, was shot at and wounded at his residence in Independence, Mo. Still as relentless as ever in his purpose to destroy Joseph, he charged him with being accessory before the fact, and applied to Thos. Reynolds, governor of Missouri, to make a demand upon the governor of Illinois for him. Accordingly, a writ was served upon him Aug. 8, 1842. An investigation into the matter was had on a writ of habeas corpus, in January, 1843, at Springfield, before the Hon. Nathaniel Pope, judge of the circuit court of the U. S. for the district of Illinois, which ended in an honorable acquittal, the judge requesting, "that the decision of the court be entered upon the records in such a way, that Mr. Smith be no more troubled about the matter."

Missouri, however, still true to her purpose, continued to excite the public mind against Joseph, and made another demand upon Illinois to deliver him up to her for trial on charge of treason, and in June, while he was visiting at Inlet Grove, twelve miles from Dixon, Ill., Joseph H. Reynolds, sheriff of Jackson county, Mo., and Harman T. Wilson, of Carthage, Ill., appeared with a writ from the governor of Illinois, and arrested him. They drove him to Dixon in a wagon and frequently struck him with their pistols on the way, and would have immediately carried him into Missouri to be murdered, but for the interference of the people. With much difficulty a writ of habeas corpus was procured at Dixon, and made returnable before the nearest tribunal, in the 5th Judicial District, authorized to hear and determine upon such writs, which was at Nauvoo. On returning there a writ was sued out and made returnable before the municipal court, and, upon examination, Joseph was discharged from arrest upon the merits of the case, and upon the further ground of substantial defects in the writ issued by the governor of Illinois.

After his arrival at Nauvoo, the governor called the citizens together, and addressed them for about twenty minutes in a most insulting manner, and while the outraged citizens of Nauvoo were listening to this harangue, the prophet and his brother were being murdered in jail. On leaving Nauvoo for Carthage, Joseph expressed himself thus, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of offence towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me. 'He was murdered in cold blood.'"

From first to last he was involved in about fifty lawsuits, arising out of the persecutions of his enemies, but came out of the legal furnace "without the smell of fire, or a thread of his garment scorched." Joseph was never convicted, He was always released and acquitted.

Again, that proves nothing about the claims of the Book of Mormon, just that his contemporaries found him strange enough to want to persecute him.

Joseph suffered as a true Prophet of God and his pattern was not a strange one. One only need to look back into holy writ to Moses and his day. The Egyptian pharaoh accused Moses of treason and how many laws that He transgressed against (and therefore fled to Midian to escape being tried for treason (

Exod. 2:13-15).) Did the Pharaoh look to Moses as a stuttering criminal? Moses was not an infallible man. Joseph also was not an infallible man and no one can say that he did not serve his God faithfully.

Before you can invoke Moses you need to prove the Hebew Captivity and his existence, neither of which hold up well historically. see, the Mormons are not the only ones who have trouble with their Book of Books.

Joseph’s only conviction may have been (emphasis added) on a charge of being a "disorderly person" (because he "pretended" to have revelations, thereby generating unrest among disbelievers), for which a fine was assessed, but no imprisonment. How silly, how redundant and all this over nothing more than Christian eschatology.

In regards to making a living for himself Joseph had engaged himself with a Mr. Josiah Stoal, who set him to work digging for a silver mine, which it was reported the Spaniards had opened in Harmony, Susquehannah county, Pa., and from this circumstance arose the opprobrious epithet of a "money digger." While thus engaged, Joseph boarded with a Mr. Isaac Hale, whose daughter Emma he married Jan. 18, 1827. This is how he made his living and is nothing different than anyone today seeking, gold, silver and metals of sorts. How ridiculous, however, Satan does have his disciples working in darkness against the light. No matter, for Joseph is with his Redeemer Jesus Christ for eternity.

He was a con man selling his "skills" as a dowser and finder in violation of the law, he was neither a miner nor a prospector.

 

[Norman]

Sapien and outhouse, please read this letter and tell me what you think about it?

State of Illinois Expresses Regret for Expulsion of Saints.

A delegation of Illinois government officials met with church leaders and members of the media on 7 April 2004 to officially express regret for the events that happened nearly 160 years ago. Beginning in early 1846, approximately 20,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were forced out of Illinois, which was the start of what would become the “largest forced migration in American history,” according to Resolution 793 of the Illinois House of Representatives. Passed with unanimous consent on 1 April 2004, the resolution expresses regret for the murder of Joseph Smith in 1844 and the ultimate expulsion of the Saints from their beloved city of Nauvoo. The resolution recognizes that “biases and prejudices of a less-enlightened age in the history of the State of Illinois caused untold hardship and trauma for the community of Latter Day Saints by distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past. On behalf of the State of Illionois, Lieutenant Governor Quinn expressed regret for the injustices suffered by the early Latter Day Saints in Illinois. “There was a day in February 1846 on Parley street [in Nauvoo] where people who were practicing their faith, were asked to leave the state and…move to another place,” said Lieutenant Governor Quinn. “it wasn’t right, we acknowledge It was wrong and express our regrets and look forward to the future.” Representative Dan Burke read Resolution 793 aloud to reporters and presented a leather bound copy to President Thomas S. Monson, first counselor in the presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

[outhouse]

I have read accounts of the flood from several sources, including two from ancient America

Well it floods every year on the planet somewhere, so we will have plenty of mythology from everywhere.

But Noah and that flood has its Mesopotamian origins, and the biblical flood has zero historicity as written, and any other self proclaimed prophet that has changed the legend, has only changed a literary creation.

In 2900 BC the Euphrates overflowed and soon after we have the mythology of King Ziusudra going down the flooded river on a barge with livestock. This king is also found in the Sumerian Kings list, and the flood is attested to 2900 BC. Some of the words are legends are word for word on places of Noahs mythology.

Soon after with have the Akkadians who told about their river flood.

Soon after we have the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh who turned this flood into a sea deluge, many words are very close to Noahs version.

Long time after we have the Israelite cultures flood mythology and they turned it into a global deluge, and a long time after that other self proclaimed prophets plagiarized this later mythological account of a real flood.

I have heard that there is precious little evidence outside of the Bible for the conquest of Canaan

There is none, because it did not happen. Nor the exodus, nor Moses has any historicity what so ever.

 

[outhouse]

outhouse, please read this letter and tell me what you think about it?

Its regret not the apology you may have been looking for.

Personally its a worthless to me, because I study the biblical history your religion is branched off of.

If it makes you feel good so be it, Im happy for you. If not? so sorry.

Im not an anti theist, nor anti Mormon. I only have issues when I see any people of any religion crossing know scientific of historical lines.

 

[Norman]

Its regret not the apology you may have been looking for.

Personally its a worthless to me, because I study the biblical history your religion is branched off of.

If it makes you feel good so be it, Im happy for you. If not? so sorry.

Im not an anti theist, nor anti Mormon. I only have issues when I see any people of any religion crossing know scientific of historical lines.

Norman: Hi outhouse, thank you for responding.