LDS and ancient record...

[Leegal]

But you were referring to his being charged for a misdemeanor of vagrancy, not as a con man.

I’d think ‘divining’ for resources was pretty strange too, but my uncle was a successful water dowser Yup, he was guilty of the sin of supersition, just like the young Joseph and that Catholic Priest I mentioned. In fact, I’ve known of several Catholic priests who practiced diving for water. Are they all ‘Con men’?

But dowsing was not the issue at all.

The caption on the 1826 “docket sheet” of cases to be heard was “People vs. __________,” Since JS’ case followed another (an assault and battery case) it was listed as "Same vs, Joseph Smith, "the “glass looker.” Whatever his reason for being in court, it was not “dowsing”, which was a common practice. The use of “Same” refers to the “People”

In legal jargon, the State is always referred to as the “People” in criminal matters. In fact, on the right side it listed “misdemeanor” – which is criminal, though not as serious as a felony. At the time only felony cases were fully recorded.

Variously, whatever this docket sheet represents it was 1) complaint by the sons of Josiah Stowell. These contemporaneous notes refer to this as the cause for an arrest “vagrant without means of livlihood.” OR

1. The account by the niece of the Judge stated that he was there by warrant based upon a complaint made by Josiah Stowell’s nephew who referred to JS as a “disorderly person” and “imposter.”

Whatever happened that day in March 1926, JS was brought to court because of some dispute with the family of Josiah Stowell that originated with something to do with “glass looking” which led, at the least, to a misdemeanor charge.

While the docket sheet is not definitive, this may be the disposition – I cannot see them holding the case over for trial for long. It would not have taken months or years to dispose of the case.

If it it were a preliminary hearing for cause, it does not negate the fact that some dealings with the Stowell family wound up in court with JS being referred to as the “glass looker.”

In all fairness, we (in NY) can be charged in one of two ways – one by being brought before a judge who finds “cause” for the charge(s) which is the case here. I think this record was not the trial, but the calendering of a probable cause hearing to charge JS. Justice was swift in those days and a case may very well have moved directly to trial immediately after.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul so maybe you can answer the questions then.

• We know there were charges, but where is the evidence he was convicted of the misdemeanor of (vagrency / disorderly person)?
• People thought he had a divining skill, like your relative did for water. Was your relative a con man if he was payed to dowse?
• Does the Catholic sin of superstition preclude you from being used by God?

Tony,
You should read the posts more carefully before you reply. It was another poster whose relative was a dowser. Also, please understand that water dowsing (a valid scientific process) is not a sin, though the sort of peep-stone scrying and fraud that Joseph Smith engaged in is a sin. You should read the Catechism and learn at least a little bit about Catholicism before you attempt to opine about it.

It is a tragedy that those who leave the Catholic faith know nothing about it. You have proven that.

Paul (formerly Mormon, now gratefully Catholic)

P.S.: So you believe that without a conviction in a court of law, a person is perfectly innocent? So you believe that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife?

 

[Stephen168]

• Yes, I’m happy to discuss the fruits of being LDS. I do so to counter negative claims I read here.

True, When we point out that Joseph Smith is an adulterous con man; you tell us about Mormon fruit. When we point out the Mormon Church is OK with murder, you tell us about Mormon fruit. When we point out that Mormonism is polytheistic, you tell us about Mormon fruit

Tony likes to talk about the “fruits” of Mormonism** but would not dare to actually contrast them with the fruits of Catholicism. **

• No, I’m not interested in acting like a 5 yr old, and try measure who has a bigger ‘stick’

Please provide **one example **where I’ve denigrated the Saints or historical contribution of the Catholic Church.

Clearly, I agree. Not sure why you would say it.

I think stephen is here to pick fights, with the blanket assertaions he makes.

You seem to agree with me on every point, so I’m not sure why you responded, except to pick a fight. It reminds me of other claims you have made; you do not disagree but keep posting like you do. weird.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just want to know where all the achaeological evidence went?

I could understand maybe the Golden Tablets were misplaced or whatever the claim is.

However, where is all the remainder of this evidence from the Book of Mormons? You know this battle that took place in 600 AD, with the chariots, swords, armor etc? Have any? When did horse’s arrive in the USA? Uh oh another problem with the time table. Who bought the horse’s here? Indigenous modern horses died out in the New World at the end of the Pleistocene, about 12 000 years ago, and thus were absent until the Spanish brought domestic horses from Europe, beginning in 1493.

Anything…a Chariot Wheel???

Peace

 

[Leegal]

I just want to know where all the achaeological evidence went?

I could understand maybe the Golden Tablets were misplaced or whatever the claim is.

However, where is all the remainder of this evidence from the Book of Mormons? You know this battle that took place in 600 AD, with the chariots, swords, armor etc? Have any? When did horse’s arrive in the USA? Uh oh another problem with the time table. Who bought the horse’s here? Indigenous modern horses died out in the New World at the end of the Pleistocene, about 12 000 years ago, and thus were absent until the Spanish brought domestic horses from Europe, beginning in 1493.

Anything…a Chariot Wheel???

Peace

The angel, after finally allowing JS to take possession of them in 1827, took them back entirely in 1929. From 1823 until 1827, JS could only infrequently see the plates, but not keep them.

The North American continent, according to anthropologists was not inhabited until indigenous peoples from the East (Asia), over many generations, crossed over through the Bearing Straight – or land connection (since gone), and then down through Canada to what is now the U.S. There’s no evidence of any previous appearance of humans in the North American Continent. In any case, there’s more proof that N.A. was inhabited from the East and not from the West.

 

[KathleenGee]

‘the fruit of the loin’…

 

[campeador]

But dowsing was not the issue at all.

The caption on the 1826 “docket sheet” of cases to be heard was “People vs. __________,” Since JS’ case followed another (an assault and battery case) it was listed as "Same vs, Joseph Smith, "the “glass looker.” Whatever his reason for being in court, it was not “dowsing”, which was a common practice. The use of “Same” refers to the “People”

In legal jargon, the State is always referred to as the “People” in criminal matters. In fact, on the right side it listed “misdemeanor” – which is criminal, though not as serious as a felony. At the time only felony cases were fully recorded.

Variously, whatever this docket sheet represents it was 1) complaint by the sons of Josiah Stowell. These contemporaneous notes refer to this as the cause for an arrest “vagrant without means of livlihood.” OR

1. The account by the niece of the Judge stated that he was there by warrant based upon a complaint made by Josiah Stowell’s nephew who referred to JS as a “disorderly person” and “imposter.”

Whatever happened that day in March 1926, JS was brought to court because of some dispute with the family of Josiah Stowell that originated with something to do with “glass looking” which led, at the least, to a misdemeanor charge.

While the docket sheet is not definitive, this may be the disposition – I cannot see them holding the case over for trial for long. It would not have taken months or years to dispose of the case.

If it it were a preliminary hearing for cause, it does not negate the fact that some dealings with the Stowell family wound up in court with JS being referred to as the “glass looker.”

In all fairness, we (in NY) can be charged in one of two ways – one by being brought before a judge who finds “cause” for the charge(s) which is the case here. I think this record was not the trial, but the calendering of a probable cause hearing to charge JS. Justice was swift in those days and a case may very well have moved directly to trial immediately after.

Leegal, maybe I’m wrong but it seems obvious to me that Justice Neely wrote up the expense sheet after the case had already been settled. And again, to me it seems obvious that Joseph Smith was found guilty because of the judge’s use of the words “The Glass Looker”. If he had been found innocent, why call him that? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call him ‘innocent’, or ‘exonerated’, or ‘not guilty’, or anything else besides ‘glass looker’?

This IMO is the most crucial part of the evidence.

 

[Jerusha]

‘the fruit of the loin’…

:yawn: Really. That makes the whole disccussion moot.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I read that as fruit of the loom. Long day.

 

[Telstar]

I read that as fruit of the loom. Long day.

Wouldn’t that count as a “close… but no cigar”?

 

[Jerusha]

how about fruit of the loon?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wouldn’t that count as a “close… but no cigar”?

:hey_bud:

 

[RebeccaJ]

how about fruit of the loon?

:takeoff:

 

[mtolympus]

But this contradicts with Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 28:20 (any other Scriptures? Help me out, guys!), where Christ says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and He will be with us to the end of time. How can Christ be in a Church where heresy exists? One lost thread unravels the whole blanket (eventually). If all churches before Smith were heretical, then Christ was not with us (at least not completely), and Hell did prevail against Christ’s Church.

Here is just another point of view.

Matthew 16:19- If the Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth, as prophecied in the Bible, the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ last words to his disciples before he ascended into heaven was to go out to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” He then told his disciples that as they did these things he would always be with them. The last verse in the book of St. Mark shows us he was refering to the Lord’s missionaries. He would always be with them and help them in their work of teaching the gospel. After the Lord was received into heaven Mark wrote: “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mark 16:20)

 

[Miriam1947]

here is just another point of view.

Matthew 16:19- if the church of jesus christ was restored to the earth, as prophecied in the bible, the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

Matthew 28:19-20 jesus’ last words to his disciples before he ascended into heaven was to go out to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i commanded you.” he then told his disciples that as they did these things he would always be with them. The last verse in the book of st. Mark shows us he was refering to the lord’s missionaries. He would always be with them and help them in their work of teaching the gospel. After the lord was received into heaven mark wrote: “and they went forth, and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (mark 16:20)

[bibledrb]Matthew 16:19[/bibledrb]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 28:19-20[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 16:20[/BIBLEDRB]

And you get Mormonism from this how? You cannot restore that which is not lost. And the Church and its teachings have been with us since Christ established his Church. The Catholic Church, not your church with your ‘prophet’.

 

[Telstar]

Here is just another point of view.

Matthew 16:19- If the Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth, as prophecied in the Bible, the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

But, the LDS version implies that Jesus was an utter failure for almost 2000 years, and required the likes of Joseph Smith, “the glass looker”, to complete the work that He had failed to do right the first time. How incompetent does that make Jesus look, and how much more important does it make JS look, if he’s better able than the Only Begotten Son of God, to get the job done, correctly? Personally, I’m not very inclined to believe in anything that makes Jesus look like a liar and a complete buffoon. Somehow, I tend to think His Father isn’t too pleased about any of it, either. That whole concept flies in the face of what the Father said at the Baptism of Jesus when He said: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ last words to his disciples before he ascended into heaven was to go out to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” He then told his disciples that as they did these things he would always be with them. The last verse in the book of St. Mark shows us he was refering to the Lord’s missionaries. He would always be with them and help them in their work of teaching the gospel. After the Lord was received into heaven Mark wrote: “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mark 16:20)

That is exactly what the Catholic Church has been doing, very effectively, for 2000 years. It has never failed in its mission to spread the Gospel and to lead all nations to follow Jesus Christ in His Way of Divine Love. If it had, Joseph Smith never would have known what a Bible was. “Mark 16:[20] But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and **confirming the word with signs that followed.” **

Can you show me a list of great miracles that were performed by Joseph Smith, or any other Mormons, that were sufficiently amazing to all who witnessed them as to convert thousands of people, immediately after they occurred? Even one?

 

[zaffiroborant]

But, the LDS version implies that Jesus was an utter failure for almost 2000 years, and required the likes of Joseph Smith, “the glass looker”, to complete the work that He had failed to do right the first time.

No, failed to do right on the first attempt in the Old World and then failed again in a second attempt in the New World. But third time’s a charm

 

[TexanKnight]

Here is just another point of view.

Matthew 16:19- If the Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth, as prophecied in the Bible, the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

Not true. Hell prevailed for centuries. It prevailed until a conman was allegedly visited by a personage, two personages, God, or God and Jesus, or God and an angel, or God and several angels when he was 15 or 14 or somewhere around there. It all depends on which version you decided to believe. Joseph gave enough versions to satisfy every desire.

 

[KathleenGee]

That phrase…the fruit…was a phrase describing the fulfillment of all desires of mormon men.

 

[sallybutler]

But, the LDS version implies that Jesus was an utter failure for almost 2000 years, and required the likes of Joseph Smith, “the glass looker”, to complete the work that He had failed to do right the first time. How incompetent does that make Jesus look, and how much more important does it make JS look, if he’s better able than the Only Begotten Son of God, to get the job done, correctly? Personally, I’m not very inclined to believe in anything that makes Jesus look like a liar and a complete buffoon. Somehow, I tend to think His Father isn’t too pleased about any of it, either. That whole concept flies in the face of what the Father said at the Baptism of Jesus when He said: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

That is exactly what the Catholic Church has been doing, very effectively, for 2000 years. It has never failed in its mission to spread the Gospel and to lead all nations to follow Jesus Christ in His Way of Divine Love. If it had, Joseph Smith never would have known what a Bible was. “Mark 16:[20] But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and **confirming the word with signs that followed.” **

Can you show me a list of great miracles that were performed by Joseph Smith, or any other Mormons, that were sufficiently amazing to all who witnessed them as to convert thousands of people, immediately after they occurred? Even one?

I’d be happy if they told me who was their Mother Teresa before sainthood discussions