Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Sweetcurio

The Mormon Church before 1900

Recommended Posts

RA: Popular LDS author Francis Kirkham echoed the same sentiment. He stated:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a particular authority on this topic. Richard Bushman and Mark Ashurst-McGee are, however, and I recommend what they've written. Besides, I've got to run and pack for an early morning departure out of state.

My father always told me that I've got to be to the airport on time in order to make my flight, and I've seen no reason on this thread to dispute what he said. My father insisted that people who are late sometimes get left.

Share this post


Link to post
My father always told me that I've got to be to the airport on time in order to make my flight, and I've seen no reason on this thread to dispute what he said. My father insisted that people who are late sometimes get left.

My dad said it is alright to laugh at this. :P

Share this post


Link to post

sc, check out how Jacob made his wealth.

That being said, using prophetic powers for personal gain when it's not necessary is one thing. But Christ had Peter fish up a coin to pay for food, IIRC. And there are numerous accounts of increase of food, health and other 'personal gain' events throughout the scriptures. I don't see much difference between providing wine at a wedding party and providing food and shelter for one's family, except perhaps the second is the more noble endeavour.

It is the intent that matters, does it not? If (and that is a big if) JS was attempting to use his prophetic gift to earn a living for his family, how is that a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post

SC,

I hope you won't hold me too much responsible for not being able to find the Samuel passage since I associated "animals" with Samuel and not "cattle". See

For example Samuel "increased the family income" by finding lost animals.

I am glad that you took the time to study the passage and point some things out to me. You are right that in this case Samuel didn't accept money. Why not? Conjecturally, it was because Samuel, as a Seer, could see that the asses were already found and there were more important matters at hand.

We can infer from this passage that Samuel had a reputation for finding lost animals for a fee. A strong enough reputation to divert the search to go up a hill to a city. Strong enough to make haste and bother the reputable prophet before an important sacrificial duty.

Have I missed any relevant context as I am prone to do?

The parallels with Joseph Smith can be seen as striking. Joseph also had a reputation for finding lost animals and being a seer. People came from a distance to acquire his services. Joseph is on record for having a dislike for the "business" and convincing others to abandon ventures. These people continued to bother him, even when Joseph had more important religous duties to attend to.

Share this post


Link to post
In regard to the statement from Joseph Smith's diary about his only association with money-digging being with this fellow, Josiah Stoal, my father insists that, after Joseph Smith's death, the History of the Mormon Church was completed and edited by others than Joseph Smith. He told me that many of the diary entries by Joseph Smith were changed and, in some cases, totally rewritten to reflect favorably on the Church.

While this may be true of some church history, I don't think it applies here. The statement quoted earlier was published in 1842 as a public statement. So you perhaps should check the original source before making such an allegation in this instance.

I'm pretty sure that you will disagree with this, but you haven't proven to me that Joseph Smith was an honest man.

I don't know that we can prove this proposition to you. What would you accept as evidence of Joseph Smith's honesty?

My father also insists that Joseph Smith was brought up on charges of fraud and that there are court records to prove that he was found guilty. If you can show me records to indicate that he was not found guilty, please do.

There were some links provided earlier in this thread. You could check them out if you are so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post

There was a hearing - which is not a trial - for charges against Joseph Smith, and Joseph was acquitted

Its an Anti-Mormon stretch of the truth and outrageously convert that 'hearing and acquittal' into a 'trial and conviction' for the crime of "glass looking."

Even if that he were found guilty, what then? What kind of charge is "glass looking"? Unjust charges of guilt ultimately brought about the martyrdom of Jesus Christ, as well as Joseph Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Sweetcurio

:P Mormon Fool <_< I think you presume too much when you say that Samuel, a prophet of God, even thought about the money. In the scripture, the only mention of money was when Saul's servant offered the quarter sheckel to Saul and mentioned the seer. The money is not mentioned again. Perhaps if he had been offered the money, Samuel would have replied much as Peter did in the New Testament when Simon the Sorcerer offered him money for the gift of God. "Thy money perish with thee, for thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." A true prophet would not use the precious gift of God to line his pocketbook. To think that Samuel had a reputation for accepting money for soothsaying and the recovery of lost animals is certainly a far stretch of the context.

My father has an intense dislike for the sin of adultery. One of the things that he dislikes most about Joseph Smith is that he purportedly committed adultery sometime in 1832 or 1833 with a seventeen year old girl, Fannie Alger, who was living with him and his wife Emma. According to my father, Joseph was found in his barn by his wife having intercourse with Fannie. Is this true? Supposedly Smith claimed that Fannie was his first polygamous wife, but who married them? Did Joseph Smith marry himself? I don't know anything about this fellow, but an Oliver Cowdery, the Mormon second only to Joseph Smith in rank, called the sexual relationship a dirty, nasty affair. That's what my father said. Is this true?

If it is, how can you look upon Joseph Smith with any respect? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

The Book of Mormon speaks against Priestcrafts, preforming priesthood acts for money. I don't know if its talking about just ordainances and not spiritual gifts.

Share this post


Link to post
There was a hearing - which is not a trial - for charges against Joseph Smith, and Joseph was acquitted

Its an Anti-Mormon stretch of the truth and outrageously convert that 'hearing and acquittal' into a 'trial and conviction' for the crime of "glass looking."

What source indicated to you that Joseph was acquitted? While I admit I do not know everything about this case, I believe the record shows that Joseph was required to pay a fine and that a bailiff escorted Joseph out of the county. These would probably not be required if Joseph had been acquitted.

I'll have to look up the titles that Daniel Peterson recommended. But I'd still be interested in knowing what source you referred to in making your assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Sweetcurio

:P Hi, again <_< I am really enjoying this interaction. I've never been able to get my questions answered to my satisfaction. The missionaries in Los Angeles are pretty shallow and unable to answer my questions. As I am chatting with you, I am emailing my father for the information that he says substantiates his position on Mormonism. He has tons of it, and holds regular meetings in my hometown to discourage people from talking with your missionaries.

Just now, I received a document from him of the proceedings of a trial held in 1826, The State of New York v. Joseph Smith, before a justice of the peace. The proceedings of the trial were published in "Fraser's Magazine" in February, 1973, Vol. VII, pp. 229-230. "A warrant was issued upon a written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner was brought before the court March 20, 1826. The trial transcript contains allegations against Joseph Smith, from Palmyra, New York, for fraud, for representing himself to be able to find buried treasure in the bowls of the earth by looking into a stone in a hat. Josiah Stowel testified against Smith as well as Peter Bridgeman, Arad Stowel, Mr. McMaster, and Jonathan Thompson. According to the trial transcript, the court found the defendant, Joseph Smith, guilty. The costs of the trial were: warrant 19 cents, complaint upon oath 25 1/2 cents, seven witnesses 87 1/2 cents recognisances 25 cents, mittimus 19 cents, subpoena 18 cents.

If this information is true, which I tend to believe it is, Tetra. . . was incorrect in his assertion that Joseph Smith was acquitted. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
:P Hi, again <_< I am really enjoying this interaction. I've never been able to get my questions answered to my satisfaction. The missionaries in Los Angeles are pretty shallow and unable to answer my questions. As I am chatting with you, I am emailing my father for the information that he says substantiates his position on Mormonism. He has tons of it, and holds regular meetings in my hometown to discourage people from talking with your missionaries.

Just now, I received a document from him of the proceedings of a trial held in 1826, The State of New York v. Joseph Smith, before a justice of the peace. The proceedings of the trial were published in "Fraser's Magazine" in February, 1973, Vol. VII, pp. 229-230. "A warrant was issued upon a written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner was brought before the court March 20, 1826. The trial transcript contains allegations against Joseph Smith, from Palmyra, New York, for fraud, for representing himself to be able to find buried treasure in the bowls of the earth by looking into a stone in a hat. Josiah Stowel testified against Smith as well as Peter Bridgeman, Arad Stowel, Mr. McMaster, and Jonathan Thompson. According to the trial transcript, the court found the defendant, Joseph Smith, guilty. The costs of the trial were: warrant 19 cents, complaint upon oath 25 1/2 cents, seven witnesses 87 1/2 cents recognisances 25 cents, mittimus 19 cents, subpoena 18 cents.

If this information is true, which I tend to believe it is, Tetra. . . was incorrect in his assertion that Joseph Smith was acquitted. :unsure:

Instead of relying on what other people say, try doing what Joseph Smith did when he say Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and ask god, if you can't believe him, don't believe anyone else. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of relying on what other people say, try doing what Joseph Smith did when he say Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and ask god, if you can't believe him, don't believe anyone else. :P

Will asking God about something make history go away?

Share this post


Link to post

Sweet Curio,

What, exactly, is the point of enclosing the opening statement of every post in "Smileys"? While I can't speak for anyone else on the Board, if it's to make the faithful on the board feel condescended to, at least in my case it works: I certainly do feel condescended to (but don't worry; people on the Board who are muuuch less intelligent than you are condescend to me all the time, so I've gotten used to it :ph34r: ).

The missionaries in your area aren't there to prove to you how smart they are, or how well-read they are, or whether they know this or that bit of historical trivia. They're there to seek out the Lord's Elect: He knows His sheep and is known of them, and they will hear His voice. Anyone who would let your father convince them they shouldn't talk to the missionaries isn't on the list, so tell him "Thanks" from us, if you would, please, for making the missionaries' job easier.

If, in the lengthy span of twelve hours that you've been posting here, you want to claim some sort of a pyrrhic victory and turn that "victory" into a legend by telling all of your family ("Thanks, Dad"), friends, and associates, "Hey, I went to this supposedly semi-scholarly Mormon apologetics bulletin board [not really; if you were interested in actual scholarly sources, you might actually read some of the links we've posted] and turned them all into mince meat in no time flat," be our guest. That, or something similar to it, must be your aim, because you certainly don't appear willing to let the "LDS view" of their history skew the precious preconceptions which have been so carefully and lovingly handed down from father-to-child.

We've got the pattern down: (1) bait the LDS by posting some (eminently reliable) third- or fourth-hand gossip about their history on the thread; (2) ignore counter-references which they say you should consult in rebuttal to the information obtained in step (1), above, proceeding, instead to step (3); (3) ask Daddy about what the Mormons say; (4) triumphantly return to the board and report that ("Surprise, surprise!") Daddy's "take" doesn't "jive" with what you heard from us; (5) repeat, starting at step (1).

Like I said...

Mince-meat. <_<

It took you less than twelve hours. :P

Congratulations, and thanks fer playin'! :unsure:

You now have our heartfelt permission to go find some more worthy competition and quit wasting your time with us! :angry:

Buh-bye!

P.S.: Punctuation edit.

Share this post


Link to post

Makarios Previously Posted: Will asking God about something make history go away?

Ken Responds: Nope, but then, I don't need, nor do I want, a testimony of Church history. <_<:unsure::P As for you, it appears that you've reached a level of certainty about history that even most all historians would envy. Congratulations!

Share this post


Link to post
As for you, it appears that you've reached a level of certainty about history that even most all historians would envy.

Share this post


Link to post

As for Joseph Smith's acquittal, try Gordon Madsen's legal-historical analysis of, oh, about ten years ago in BYU Studies. Sorry. Don't have time to find the precise reference for you. Doubt that it's up on the Web, anyway, though it may be. (My father always told me that, for actual scholarship, books and print journals remain the principal venues.)

Out the door to the airport.

Share this post


Link to post

I am just curious as to where that Oliver Cowdery saying is found? The time frame might bear something on it. If he really believed it though why did he come back to the church is my question? I agree with Dr. Peterson about the idea we should go to credible sources about the trial like a peron who is a lawyer like the author he cited is.

Share this post


Link to post
As for Joseph Smith's acquittal, try Gordon Madsen's legal-historical analysis of, oh, about ten years ago in BYU Studies. Sorry. Don't have time to find the precise reference for you.

Here is the reference for the article that Dr. Peterson refers to:

Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting," Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, Spring 1990, 91-107.

Share this post


Link to post

And this one.

Just the Facts: The 1826 Trial (Hearing) of Joseph Smith

Also interesting notes,

Not only has the document not been verified as authentic, its accually a possibility that the documents have been tampered with.

If it weren't, it doesn't prove that Joseph was being tried for being a "glass looker".

"glass looker" appears below his name, not beside it like charges are normally listed. It couldn't have been a charge for glass looking because there was no such crime as glass looking in New York at that time.

Some kind of hearing occurred, certainly. But there is little reason to trust your father. The most plausible scenario according to the document is that Joseph was accused and acquitted.

Even if he were found guilty to pay a fine and even imprisonment is not the sort of thing that one should use to reject those claiming to be prophets of the Lord. Moses fled his Egypt as murder. Returned a turned his staff into a snake and other 'seemingly' occultic/mysticism behavior.

Share this post


Link to post

TETRA and PAHORAN,

I think you have a few facts wrong.

Here is what happened, as I see it, according to various sources.

Smith was already a money-digger and practicioner of occult folk magick before 1826, so much so that he had somewhat of a reputation as an adept money-digger (this is circa 1825/26). That is why Josiah Stowell came to hire him, as Joseph's own mother reported: "

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Sweetcurio

Sorry, Kenngo1969, :P I am just a happy person. <_< Like I said before, I have been brought up to have faith in what my father has told me about religion. What he has said about Mormon history will stand firm until someone proves him wrong. I believe Mormons teach that one should have faith in loving, devoted parents. Well, so far you haven't proven my father wrong. Your own disputations indicate that you are unsure of what is historically correct. One of you asked me why I don't just pray to find out what is true. Well, I'll tell you. I read once about a man named Jim Jones who persuaded a bunch of god-fearing people to follow him to their death. I recall that during that time, several of those people said that God had told them that Jones was a prophet and that what he said was from God. If you investigate history and find some quirks that cause you to think twice about a particular personality, I believe that God is helping you use your reasoning in order to choose wisely. Like my father, I believe that the devil can answer prayers and can appear to someone as an angel of light. So you have to be very careful about who and what you accept as truthful.

Now, concerning that statement made by Oliver Cowdery about Joseph Smith's dirty, nasty affair with Fannie Alger. My father told me that Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to his brother, Warren wherein he made that statement. He said he has a photocopy of the letter that Warren Cowdery recorded. I understand that Oliver left the Mormon Church bitterly disillusioned. If this true about Smith's adultery, I can understand how Cowdery felt.

And about the trial of Joseph Smith in 1826 that Mr. Peterson said was an acquittal for Joseph Smith, I think that the trial transcript published in a reputable magazine would serve to establish that he was actually found guilty and fined. I can see why Mormons would want to believe books and other stuff published by other Mormons that Smith was acquitted. A prophet of God being charged with a crime and being found guilty is not very credible. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...