TheWickedness of Man

Dear Moleowner,

I do not dispute the fact that he was fine a whole $2.68 by the court.

What I do object to is that according to your court transcript this trial establishes a perfect system for character assassination.

Anytime you can get a "packed" jury or corrupt judge who will allow only the plaintiff's side of the case and deny any rebuttal from the defendant and then render a judgment of guilty, as was done in the instant case, then that court is nothing more than a sham and disgrace to real justice. As I said this is a perfect judicial system to create character assassination.

I had judged you to be a man of honesty and fairness. If, however you sustain and uphold such a court procedure as demonstrated above, wherein the defendant is unjustly denied any defense argument whatsoever, then that speaks volumes regarding your own character.

Shocked

Last edited by moleowner on Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

I commented on Joseph Smith's court case issue in the Israel do you know thread.

Rev2 felt it was more appropriate to post the discussion some where else where he could comment on it.

I posted a court record of the case which says this.

Quote: › State of New York v. Joseph Smith.
Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.
Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.
Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did 'possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p— [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.
Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.
McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.
Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:
And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.

Interestingly Smith says he was using peep stones to look for lost property for 3 years, so he started using a peep stone the same year a messanger told him about the gold plates.

Rev2 felt the court account was such that
"Anytime you can get a "packed" jury or corrupt judge who will allow only the plaintiff's side of the case and deny any rebuttal from the defendant and then render a judgment of guilty, as was done in the instant case, then that court is nothing more than a sham and disgrace to real justice. As I said this is a perfect judicial system to create character assassination."

He was also concerned that in his words (about me)
"I had judged you to be a man of honesty and fairness. If, however you sustain and uphold such a court procedure as demonstrated above, wherein the defendant is unjustly denied any defense argument whatsoever, then that speaks volumes regarding your own character."

I then explained that the court record was such, as it only recorded the evidence necessary to prove the case, ready for the next higher court hearing. Read below.

Quote: › Now Smith court case in 1826 was either what is called an "examination"; for details see (A new Conductor Generalis:Being summary of the law relative to the Duty and Office of Justices of the Peace....... Albany New York 1819pgs 141-143)
Or
his court case was a trial in the Court of Special Sessions.(Revised Statutes of the State of New York 1829)

We now know Smith's case was an "examination" and not a case before the Court of Special Sessions, because,
1
A case before the Court of Special Sessions has to be refered from an “examination” case and the examination JP (Justice of the Peace) has to be on this case along with two other JPs. There were only four JPs available; Neely,Tarble,Bigelow and Humphrey. Believe it or not we have found the 1826 bills for all the JPs except Humphrey. If Smiths case was a Special Courts one Tarple or Bigelow would have charged for this case but they haven’t.
2
The Court of Special Sessions meets in February,June and October. Smiths case was in March.
3
The 19 cent fee in Neelys statement for Mittimus is a pre trial fee in lieu of bail and not the 25 cent post trial “warrant of commitment on conviction”
Mittimus is a warrent to imprison someone or commitment to prison.
4
Neelys court report also mentions “prisoner examined”

So we can be sure Smith’s trial was an examination.
So what happens at an examination
Firstly the accused is not under oath but the accuser and witnesses are.This is why Neely’s court record says prisoner examined but witnesses sworn.Smith was not obliged to say anything as he would have been informed (Revised Statutes of N.Y.) but he chose to.

The purpose of the trial is to see if there is a case to answer and to find guilt or innocence.

In Neely’s “corrupt” account of the trial, Smith’s conversation comes first and then the witnesses. This is in dissagreement with the “Revised Statutes of the State of New York” 1829 but in agreement with “The 1825 Justice’s Manual”

Neely would have heard Smith’s explanation and the sworn testimony of the witnesses.

After hearing this evidence Smith was pronounced guilty.
My understanding of this guilty verdict is it’s really a provisional guilty find till the defendant is sent to the Court of Sessions where he can appeal his case or not. It also lets the court imprison or bail a person who is technically guilty.

Neely asked for Smith to be imprisoned till he came before the court of Special Sessions.

Now comes the part Rev2 is concerned about .Justice Neely was now bound to write a court report in anticipation of it being used in the Court of Sessions but it was only a report of why the court found the defendant guilty. This is why Rev2 thinks it sounds biased.

and in the legalese of the time

“Every justice of the peace, before whom any person shall be brought for any treason or felony, or for suspicion thereof before he commit such person to gaol, shall take the examination of such prisoner and the information of those who bring him, relative to the fact and the same, or so much thereof as shall be material to prove the offence,shall be put in writing by the said justice within two days after the said examination.”

I presume Smith could defend himself and call witnesses in the “real” trial in the Sessions court.

The crime of felony has been “upgraded" since Smith’s time.

Since this report was only a report of why the court found Smith guilty it explains why 7 witnesses were called but only 5 recorded, the other two weren’t needed to prove the case.

Now I know you are all waiting eagerly to find out what happened to Smith at the court of Special Sessions.

-----NOTHING it never happened

Smith did a “runner”, “legged it” or in the jargon of the time did a “leg bail”

This fleeing from justice is not as bad as it sounds. It was the practise at the time for officials to sometimes hint off the record that if the defendant fled and got out of their hair they might not bother too much to find him.

Joel Noble who defended Smith in an 1842 trial wrote of Smith’s 1826 trial in a letter and states “the whisper came to Jo.. Off Off so Joseph took “leg bail”” and Smith never went back to Bainbridge except as Noble put it “in Dark corners and in the dark".

Rev2 I hope this cleares up any concernes you may have about my character.
I will write soon about the implication of this trial , it may change your appreciating of Smith’s character.

It's my contention that Smith was right into gold and treasure finding by suppernatural means. As Iv'e said before he used the same treasure finding method to translate the Book of Mormon at times.
Rev2 mentioned "
We learn that this vault or cave contained literally stacks of records which are to be be brought forth in the due time of the Lord."

He may be refering to the piles of plates (maybe gold ones) mentioned in Jounal of Discourses vol 19 pg 36-39.
Smiths interest in hidden treasure finds it's way into the BoM.

post to be finished latter.

Edit corrected spelling and clarified one point.
Will continue this post with a new one as this one has a reply to it.

You have posted in this forum: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject:

Mole,

You seem to know a lot about this cult, I also noticed you asked very penetrating questions in the atonement thread (looks like directed at the same).

Summary finding here: Joseph Smith practices divination

Also, do you know anything about Smith's alleged links with Freemasonry?

Yes Smith did become a freemason, in the Church History (Vol4 pg 551-2) it says "In the evening I received the first degree in freemasonry in the Nauvoo lodge, assembled in my general business office" & "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree"
Mormon Temple ceremonies resonate with Masonic rituals.

I don't take much notice of his Mason stuff, at best its honest commendable stuff at the worst a sin. I don't criticise Smith for his sins. After all he could be sinfull man and his message perfectly true.
I criticise polygamy only because "God " changed his mind on it twice in 30 years not Smiths participation in it.
And the money digging is not the issue but the similarity in his money divineing and B.o.M. translation methods.

Quote: › Summary finding here: Joseph Smith practices divination

Yes Smith practised Divination. Thats not a problem my own grandfather did. but what is a problem is when "Scripture" says God's power lets Smith use the rod and then supresses this "scripture"

The scripture the Book of Commandments says
"Now this is not all for you have another gift,which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod of nature to work in your hands.."
B.o. Commandments 7:3

Now when this scripture was rewritten and recompiled into the Doctrine and Covenants (8:6-7 in this case) it says
"Now this is not all thy gift, for you have another gift,which is the gift of Aaron: behold, it has told you many things. Behold there is no other power , save the power of God that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you"

Getting back to money digging being reflected in the B.oM.
You may recall from the court record witness Johnathon Thompson saying

"Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them."

This "slip sliding away" is repeated in the B.o.M.
"And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again."
Mormon 1:18

Oxy: If you want to know any thing more about the Mason stuff let me know and I can post it here or P.M. you.

Rev2 I trust my explanation of the court record "bias" has restored your faith in my character, please do let me know. Wink

Dear Mole,

Thanks for getting additional information regarding this court case.

You said:

“Getting back to money digging being reflected in the B.oM.
You may recall from the court record witness Johnathon Thompson saying

"Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them."”

LOL I find this testimony of the plaintiff amusing to say the least. I find it pretty incredible that Plaintiff Thompson is testifying against the defendant and in the same breath testifies “that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill”. Sorry, but I find this inconsistency utterly laughable.

If I were the judge in this case and heard such inconsistent testimony, I would have dismissed the charges and thrown this case out for it’s lack of merit.

You have entered much information that would imply that this was a felony case instead of a simple misdemeanor case, and that Smith allegedly “legged it”, or skipped bail to avoid the felony charge trial at a higher court.

May I additionally call your attention to the fact that according to your own post on January 30, 2012, you entered a photocopy of the court record clearly showing that this was merely a simple Misdemeanor case.

To your credit however, I believe your last post illustrates a more fair and unbiased viewpoint to a degree.

Trust me, I have no current or 180 years in the future, intentions of character assassination claims against you because you might have been accused of speeding or any other misdemeanor violation.

Quote: › "Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them."”

Quote: › LOL I find this testimony of the plaintiff amusing to say the least. I find it pretty incredible that Plaintiff Thompson is testifying against the defendant and in the same breath testifies “that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill”. Sorry, but I find this inconsistency utterly laughable.

Well first of all Thompson wasn't the plaintiff that was Peter G. Bridgman.

"Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor."

Johnathon Thompson may have been a witness called by Smith and not the prosecution.
In actual fact we don't know if Thompson was a witness (in the legal sense) as the record says " Thompson says that ...." instead of Thompson sworn or Thompson examined.

Quote: › You have entered much information that would imply that this was a felony case instead of a simple misdemeanor case, and that Smith allegedly “legged it”, or skipped bail to avoid the felony charge trial at a higher court.

May I additionally call your attention to the fact that according to your own post on January 30, 2012, you entered a photocopy of the court record clearly showing that this was merely a simple Misdemeanor case.

I think you are implying an inconsistency here between a misdemeanor and a felony.
As I said earlier felony has changed it's meaning since the 1820's. Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person" which may be a misdemeanor and a felony.The document that Neely wrote misdemeanor on was his "note book" copy that would have been suplimented by official court papers.

Felony in 1826 seemed to include petty larceny and may be a term for all criminal crimes.

But I can't quite make out what you are claiming Rev2?
Are you saying Smith didn't claim to find treasure by looking at a stone in a hat, the same way he at times translated the B.o.M.

Also any thoughts why the gift of working with the rod was changed to the gift of Aaron? Maybe God had an off day in the early 1830's Smile

Quote: › Trust me, I have no current or 180 years in the future, intentions of character assassination claims against you because you might have been accused of speeding or any other misdemeanor violation.

Thanks Rev2 I can rest easy in my bed now Smile

moleowner wrote (View Post): › Yes Smith did become a freemason, in the Church History (Vol4 pg 551-2) it says "In the evening I received the first degree in freemasonry in the Nauvoo lodge, assembled in my general business office" & "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree"
Mormon Temple ceremonies resonate with Masonic rituals.

I don't take much notice of his Mason stuff, at best its honest commendable stuff at the worst a sin. I don't criticise Smith for his sins. After all he could be sinfull man and his message perfectly true.
I criticise polygamy only because "God " changed his mind on it twice in 30 years not Smiths participation in it.
And the money digging is not the issue but the similarity in his money divineing and B.o.M. translation methods.

Quote: › Summary finding here: Joseph Smith practices divination

Yes Smith practised Divination. Thats not a problem my own grandfather did. but what is a problem is when "Scripture" says God's power lets Smith use the rod and then supresses this "scripture"

Now there's a wicked man that has led and is still leading multitudes astray.

Should I remain detached when his falsehood is being peddled here?

From Oxy

Quote: › Now there's a wicked man that has led and is still leading multitudes astray.

Should I remain detached when his falsehood is being peddled here?

Well no if you feel there is a falsehood here you shouldn't remain detached. But in my humble opinion you should reason with Rev2 and point out the error of his ways with arguements.
Don't forget Rev2 genuinely feels he is a Christian. I don't know if you were thinking of banning him or deleting his posts ,I would strongly object to this as modern day "book burning".
I would have thought you would want to put him on the "right" track ie your track and largely leave it to me to merely point out the pitfalls and unadvertised problems of the track he is allready on.

Just my 2 cents worth. Very Happy

Oxy did you know here in NZ when I log onto this site I find there are apparently married women who want to meet me on something-or-other site. And interestingly yesterday I also had the opportunity to date transgender people.I don't find the second offer morally objectionable. If single people want to date transgender people why should Christians or I object, but I thought the first offer was a bit off.

moleowner wrote (View Post): ›
Oxy did you know here in NZ when I log onto this site I find there are apparently married women who want to meet me on something-or-other site. And interestingly yesterday I also had the opportunity to date transgender people.I don't find the second offer morally objectionable. If single people want to date transgender people why should Christians or I object, but I thought the first offer was a bit off.

Both the ads and your moral position are beyond my control. However, I have sent an email to Khis regarding the first. Should be much easier to fix hey?

Oh, and I only log in using the lo-fi version, its nice and clean Smile

moleowner wrote (View Post): ›
Well no if you feel there is a falsehood here you shouldn't remain detached. But in my humble opinion you should reason with Rev2 and point out the error of his ways with arguements.
Don't forget Rev2 genuinely feels he is a Christian. I don't know if you were thinking of banning him or deleting his posts ,I would strongly object to this as modern day "book burning".

I too thought Rev2 was a Christian until he started to quote familiar "bible" verses that seemed strange (I checked and found out the LDS source afterwards). I have found him devious.

Since Mormons/LDS believe in a different Jesus than the one in the Bible, I cannot accept that they can be called "Christian", a Christian cultist maybe. Or perhaps LDS do not want to be called Christians anyway, preferring to be called "Saints". My concern is not in "arguing" the fact, but that readers are immediately aware.

I invite Rev2 to precede all his threads in some way to convey to his readers his position. It's not mandatory and it seem we do not have facility here to put member type or signatures, so its a suggestion.

Dear Oxy,

I am but a mere mortal and am not as perfect as you think I should be. I make errors and blunders and may even omit stating the source or sources of some of my quotes. If you examine many posts by others on this site you will find that they do likewise not always identify the source of their quotes. My intent was in no way intended to be devious. In fact I hope I have never made a quote from another source and represented or stated it to be a bible quote. I trust you will equally apply your devious claims to ALL others who have not in every case quoted the direct or actual source of their quotes.

You also made a powerful and glaring statement regarding the Jesus in whom we believe as quoted from your last post as follows:

“Since Mormons/LDS believe in a different Jesus than the one in the Bible, I cannot accept that they can be called "Christian", a Christian cultist maybe.”

While I do not know all of your sources from which you base your claims, I can with certainty state that I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

Those different viewpoints concerning Christ may be found to be deep and wide or upon examination may be discovered to be shallow and narrow in scope.

Your blanket claim against members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regarding their supposed “different Jesus” as you assert may appear to the same as somewhat surprising and without merit, or at best the product of misunderstanding.

Perhaps it might be well to address and discuss this issue in a new topic suited to the address and make clear my position. This would be productive in order that as you stated “that readers are immediately aware.” Only when clarity is certain and clear, can all come to mutual understanding.

I think your suggestion is good and I think that all readers should be aware and understand wether we really believe “in a different Jesus than the one in the Bible”, or not.

Respectfully,
RT

As promised in the Israel do you know thread where I can't do attachments here is the revelation called Chapter 28 and the additional info that was added later and became D&C 27 including the bit that Rev mentioned. As I've said before maybe the additional stuff slipped God's mind in 1830