The Trial of Joseph Smith

[AtticusFinch]

too much work to support your claims? Odd.

Ok...Scottie's claim is dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Any other Prosecutors want to try?

[consiglieri]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

The Book of Mormon has so many anachronisms that it is difficult to count just how many.

There is no way a submersible Jaredite barge could hold everything that it is claimed to have held for as long as it claimed to have held it.

The craftsmanship that would be necessary to build a sea faring vessel that would stay afloat on calm seas, let alone one that withstood a tremendous storm, would be unobtainable by one man. Even if the knowledge were available to him on how to engineer such a ship, there are precision eye/hand coordination's for many different areas of shipbuilding that take years, if not decades to master. (Referring to Nephi's ship, not the Jaradite barges... although it applies equally to them)

That's a good start, right?

Indeed, I think it is a good start, Scottie, and I thank you for it.

In response, I would say that this particular argument suffers at least to some degree from the logical fallacy known as "presentism," being that all peoples who lived prior to the present were inferior in pretty much every respect to the current state of things.

And yet, we have in the historical record ancient engineering feats that defy the ability of modern experts to explain not only how they were done anciently, but how they could be replicated today using the same types of tools and engineering available to those ancient worthies; such ancient engineering feats as the Egyptian pyramids and the Incan structures made of mammoth monoliths that nevertheless are cut so precisely as to fit seamlessly with room for nary a knife blade to fit in between.

The Incan example is of particular moment because it, like the argument against the Jaredite barges, demonstrates an ancient ability to fit large and unwieldy pieces together into a seamless whole, or as the Nephite record put it, "tight like unto a dish."

If there are things that we know the ancients constructed that we cannot even today explain, perhaps we should not be too hasty to pronounce judgment on the ability of another group of ancients to construct a submersible craft.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

Scottie, as was stated, one must not just give opinions, but give references to their claims. If you are allowed to simply give opinions, then the "God did it" response will be good enough, there is nothing to refute but your opinion.Everyone else, this is actually trying to be a serious thread with a hope of actiual study and learning. Can we have some order in this Court?

Sleepy,you are giving dictionary definitions, not the legal elements. Those were given on the Lawyer thread. This trial is using the legal elements of a fraud trial

If we are in a criminal trial (which is implied by the threshold for conviction in the OP), then the Plaintiff has the burden or proving scienter, or intent, in a fraud trial. Good luck with that.

[AtticusFinch]

Yes, specific intent crimes are always difficult to prove, but not impossible. The problem the prosecution will have with this case is proving Joseph knew everything was false, because he did not act like a man who knew it was false, always maintained it was true, and died for its veracity.

[Scottie]

What do you think?

Consig,

I can agree that ancient civilizations were able to create things that we can't explain.

I don't know of any ancient individuals that were able to create complex submersible vessels, or a cross-oceanic ship that could weather a stormy ocean.

I would hope that common sense would be enough to prove that oceanic ship building is a VERY complex science that requires master craftsmen from multiple disciplines to work together in perfect harmony. And that each craftsman has years and years of experience which can't be "shown", but can only be mastered by countless hours perfecting the discipline. Can we at least agree on this without needing documentation?

[ttribe]

Consig,

I can agree that ancient civilizations were able to create things that we can't explain.

I don't know of any ancient individuals that were able to create complex submersible vessels, or a cross-oceanic ship that could weather a stormy ocean.

I would hope that common sense would be enough to prove that oceanic ship building is a VERY complex science that requires master craftsmen from multiple disciplines to work together in perfect harmony. And that each craftsman has years and years of experience which can't be "shown", but can only be mastered by countless hours perfecting the discipline. Can we at least agree on this without needing documentation?

Perhaps you are over broad in your definitions of the scripture insomuch as your are equating the text with the description of a "submersible" as we understand such a craft today.

[consiglieri]

Consig,

I can agree that ancient civilizations were able to create things that we can't explain.

I don't know of any ancient individuals that were able to create complex submersible vessels, or a cross-oceanic ship that could weather a stormy ocean.

I would hope that common sense would be enough to prove that oceanic ship building is a VERY complex science that requires master craftsmen from multiple disciplines to work together in perfect harmony. And that each craftsman has years and years of experience which can't be "shown", but can only be mastered by countless hours perfecting the discipline. Can we at least agree on this without needing documentation?

This seems perfectly reasonable and I would agree with you without the need of documentation.

(Although the "perfect harmony" bit strikes me as a tad euphemistic.)

The court takes judicial notice of Scottie's proposition that oceanic ship building is a complex endeavor that would require skilled craftsmen to complete.

[AtticusFinch]

but there is documentation that many people built boats back then. One guy, named Noah, even built a huge boat that was much larger than what we are talking about here.

CFR- The Bible

CFR- Voices from the Dust

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

forgery ▸ noun: criminal falsification by making or altering an instrument with intent to defraud

▸ noun: a copy that is represented as the original

fraud ▸ noun: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage

▸ noun: intentional deception resulting in injury to another person

▸ noun: a person who makes deceitful pretenses

atticus>>>Sleepy,you are giving dictionary definitions, not the legal elements. Those were given on the Lawyer thread. This trial is using the legal elements of a fraud trial<<<

If you don't want to accept dictionary definitions then I don't understand what we (as antimormons) are supposed to do. Are we suppose to prove the events in the b of M couldn't have happened as in scotties thread? I really am confused.

[ttribe]

Hello,

forgery ▸ noun: criminal falsification by making or altering an instrument with intent to defraud

▸ noun: a copy that is represented as the original

fraud ▸ noun: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage

▸ noun: intentional deception resulting in injury to another person

▸ noun: a person who makes deceitful pretenses

atticus>>>Sleepy,you are giving dictionary definitions, not the legal elements. Those were given on the Lawyer thread. This trial is using the legal elements of a fraud trial<<<

If you don't want to accept dictionary definitions then I don't understand what we (as antimormons) are supposed to do. Are we suppose to prove the events in the b of M couldn't have happened as in scotties thread? I really am confused.

It's a TRIAL - you have to present evidence worthy of the court to prove your case. Not just state the definitions of what your charges are.

[cjwright]

I would hope that common sense would be enough to prove that oceanic ship building is a VERY complex science that requires master craftsmen from multiple disciplines to work together in perfect harmony. And that each craftsman has years and years of experience which can't be "shown", but can only be mastered by countless hours perfecting the discipline. Can we at least agree on this without needing documentation?

Scottie, any arguement you make against Nephi's ship or the Jaredite barges must also be cast against Noah's Ark, which can be brought in as evidence in this trial as it is mentioned as an example of that type of ship building in Ether 6:7. Could Noah build his ark to the required specifications as mentioned in the Bible? If the answer is yes, then why couldn't the Jaredites, or Nephi build their vessels, as Noah also lacked all the criteria you suggest that the others needed in order to do what is recorded in the Book of Mormon. If the answer is no, and Noah could not have built his ark in the manner that is mentioned in the Bible, you must conclude that the Bible is also false, if that is your arguement against the Book of Mormon.

[Scottie]

The court takes judicial notice of Scottie's proposition that oceanic ship building is a complex endeavor that would require skilled craftsmen to complete.

Thank you, your honor.

However, your honor, as for Nephi's ship building, I respectfully withdraw my criticism based on the following verses.

1st Nephi 18: 1-2

1 And it came to pass that they did aworship the Lord, and did go forth with me; and we did work timbers of curious bworkmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the cship.

2 Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

Since this ship was not after the manner of men, we cannot use the shipbuilding requirements of men as a criteria.

[AtticusFinch]

Sleepy, the dictionary definitions are different from what you need to prove at trial. Let me post what a prosecutor would have to prove....You have to prove the following elements1. Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty3. People lost money or something else of value.

ScottieDo you have any other evidence that Joseph Smith committed fraud?

does anyone else?

[Sevenbak]

No. But it is not sufficient. Allow me to explain, your honor.

As I said in my original post, even if God were to show them how to build a ship, the craftsmanship required for each of the MANY disciplines of shipbuilding would take years to master.

Lets try and put it a different way. Lets say that God appeared as a mortal man (kind of like Bruce/Evan Almighty) during the construction of this ship. He could not help build it, only detail to Nephi (and the small group that was with him) how to build a ship. So, in essence, God played the role of an experienced master tradesman for whichever part they were working on. Do you think that Nephi could have built a ship with such precision as to be storm worthy? I don't think it is possible.

Building a deep ocean vessel is a VERY hard thing to do. It's not like putting together a little fishing boat.

Perhaps I can put it a different way. Lets say I wanted to drywall my first house. I have a master drywaller standing by me, telling me how to tape and mud my walls. I can GUARANTEE you that I will do a shoddy job compared to what the master could do. There is too much that you cannot get except by sheer experience. Now magnify that to building an ocean crossing ship. There is no way.

OK, I have some downtime here...

Your honor, may I remind counsel that he is very close to plagiarizing the text himself. If he doesn't believe the BOM, I submit he not be allowed to make his case against it using the same arguments already used in the text.

1 Nephi 17:

17 And when my brethren saw that I was about to build a ship, they began to murmur against me, saying: Our brother is a fool, for he thinketh that he can build a ship; yea, and he also thinketh that he can cross these great waters.

18... for they did not believe that I could build a ship; neither would they believe that I was instructed of the Lord.

Edited to add: If counsel wants to use Laman and Lemuel's argument, may it please the court that he be given the same cursing.

Further, let the record show that Nephi was not only instructed by the Lord, he had constant and repeated interaction with the designer of the vessel.

1 Nephi 18: 1 ...we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship.

Also, the defense seems to think that a stormy sea would destroy such a ship. Let the record show that I actually agree with that argument. 1 Nephi 18 goes on to say that in fact, it almost happened. It was only after the Lord provided favorable conditions, that they were able to complete their journey.

I would also remind counsel that the bible is not on trial here. If the prosecution wants to put Noah's Ark to the same scrutiny as Nephi's ship, so be it, but I would move for an immediate mistrial.

Lastly, let the record show that ancient transoceanic voyages were indeed possible, even using simple means made by man. I submit Kon-Tiki into evidence.

[MDalby]

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Billy Madison: Okay, a simple no would've done just fine."

(Billy Madison)

This quote had absolutely no relevance yet in this thread but I love the quote and I couldn't wait to post it. I am sure it will be applicable somewhere down the line.

MD

[Sevenbak]

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Billy Madison: Okay, a simple no would've done just fine."

(Billy Madison)

This quote had absolutely no relevance yet in this thread but I love the quote and I couldn't wait to post it. I am sure it will be applicable somewhere down the line.

MD

Or my personal favorite... "You can't handle the truth!"

[sleepyhead]

Hello

atticus>>>Sleepy, the dictionary definitions are different from what you need to prove at trial. Let me post what a prosecutor would have to prove....You have to prove the following elements1. Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty3. People lost money or something else of value.<<<

1.Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.

It would not be a companion to the bible if it's teachings taught something different from the bible.

2 Nephi 10:3": 3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ -- for in the last

night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name -- should come among the Jews, among those

who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him -- for thus it behooveth our God,

and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

The angel was incorrect on two points here. Christ was not Jesus's name. Christ is a title. The Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. Either the book is false or the angel who appeared wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty.

It seems to me it was sort of an experiment to see how much he could get away with. He was probably surprised the charade went as far as it did. I don't know what his original plan was. After he achieved some success he began a power grab as evidenced by his changing of the book of commandments. This revelation was printed in the Book of Commandments as chapter 4. Verse 2 reads as follows: "...and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." This was later changed to give him control of the church.

3. People lost money or something else of value.

The church built him a large house/hotel. At his death the house became the property of emma smith.

[AtticusFinch]

Hello

atticus>>>Sleepy, the dictionary definitions are different from what you need to prove at trial. Let me post what a prosecutor would have to prove....You have to prove the following elements1. Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty3. People lost money or something else of value.<<<

1.Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.

It would not be a companion to the bible if it's teachings taught something different from the bible.

2 Nephi 10:3": 3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ -- for in the last

night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name -- should come among the Jews, among those

who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him -- for thus it behooveth our God,

and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

The angel was incorrect on two points here. Christ was not Jesus's name. Christ is a title. The Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. Either the book is false or the angel who appeared wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

That argument is a bit misleading, members of the jury. While it is true that the Romans were the ones who actually hammered the nails, it was the Jews who 1. Pushed the issue with Pilate, forcing his hand 2. Screamed to Crucify Him when the Roman tried to give Jesus a way out. So, while the Romans actually carried out the sentence, it is the Jews who killed Him.

2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty.

It seems to me it was sort of an experiment to see how much he could get away with. He was probably surprised the charade went as far as it did. I don't know what his original plan was. After he achieved some success he began a power grab as evidenced by his changing of the book of commandments. This revelation was printed in the Book of Commandments as chapter 4. Verse 2 reads as follows: "...and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." This was later changed to give him control of the church.

Members of the Jury, this argument does not anywhere near rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt". First, if we assume that Joseph started a fraud that went farther than he planned, there were many chances for Joseph to walk away. Maybe it was the first time he got beaten, or the first time he got tarred and feathered, or after his child was killed due to treatment by a mob, or after many of his friends were killed at Haun's Mill, or right before he died. It does not pass the logic test that Joseph went thru all of that for a lie.

3. People lost money or something else of value.

The church built him a large house/hotel. At his death the house became the property of emma smith.

Members of the Jury, not a single person who actually helped pay for that building ever asked for their money back. Therefore, it cannot be considered that they "lost" something of value. Rather, it appears they "gave" something of value.

[sleepyhead]

Menfolk and womenfolk of the jury,

defense>>>That argument is a bit misleading, members of the jury. While it is true that the Romans were the ones who actually hammered the nails, it was the Jews who 1. Pushed the issue with Pilate, forcing his hand 2. Screamed to Crucify Him when the Roman tried to give Jesus a way out. So, while the Romans actually carried out the sentence, it is the Jews who killed Him.<<<

The claim it was the Jews who is a bit misleading. There were several sects of Judaism. The two sects referred to in the bible were the Sadducee and the Pharisee. The Pharisee sect was committed to God's law and this was the sect that most represented the Jewish people. The Saducees on the other hand were committed to appeasing Rome and they were the ones in power at the time. In reading all 4 Gospels the pharisees are only implicated once (in the Gospel of John) as having any involvement in the crucifixion. Therefore it was not the Jews who forced the issue with Pilate but only a sect of Jews whom Rome put in power.

I would also like to point out to the jury that Roman soldiers were stationed their for the purpose of quelling rebellion, or any potential rebellion, which Jesus most naturally represented to them.

The Jews are not on trial here but JS is. The 1st step which you need to decide is was "Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible". If the book is not accurate then it could not have come about in the way JS claimed. We both agree that It was the Romans who killed Jesus. According to every record we have the Jewish people did not.

The defense didn't even challenge my claim that Christ was a title which the angel in the book of mormon claims. I ask you therefore to return a verdict of false.

2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty.

menfolk and womenfolk. The defense is out of order. The court has placed the burden of proof on me to prosecute JS. As you can see the defense has not challenged anything I wrote. If in the future the defense would like to assume the burden of proof I'll be more than happy to respond to anything they choose to present.

3. People lost money or something else of value.

atticus>>>Members of the Jury, not a single person who actually helped pay for that building ever asked for their money back. Therefore, it cannot be considered that they "lost" something of value. Rather, it appears they "gave" something of value.<<<

menfolk and womenfolk, Finding an actual claimant was never a part of my requirements. There were many people who left the church during the time of JS and I think it can be assumed that many of them left because they realized they had been misled (either rightly or wrongly). I don't know the names of any of them. In actually they gave of their time and money because JS gave some of his supposed revelations from the lord instructing them to build his hotel. This hotel was the personal property of JS and was passed down to Emma his wife. In other words he used his claim to receive revelation as a means to enrich himself.

[cjwright]

1.Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.

It would not be a companion to the bible if it's teachings taught something different from the bible.

2 Nephi 10:3": 3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ -- for in the last

night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name -- should come among the Jews, among those

who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him -- for thus it behooveth our God,

and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

The angel was incorrect on two points here. Christ was not Jesus's name. Christ is a title. The Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. Either the book is false or the angel who appeared wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

On the point about Jesus' name, if you take what Nephi said as wrong, because you claim that 'Christ' is not His name, then you must also conclude that the Bible is wrong when Isaiah 9:6 says:

Isaiah 9:6 - 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

How are these not also 'titles' but are said to be His name(s) in scripture?

[AtticusFinch]

Menfolk and womenfolk of the jury,

defense>>>That argument is a bit misleading, members of the jury. While it is true that the Romans were the ones who actually hammered the nails, it was the Jews who 1. Pushed the issue with Pilate, forcing his hand 2. Screamed to Crucify Him when the Roman tried to give Jesus a way out. So, while the Romans actually carried out the sentence, it is the Jews who killed Him.<<<

The claim it was the Jews who is a bit misleading. There were several sects of Judaism. The two sects referred to in the bible were the Sadducee and the Pharisee. The Pharisee sect was committed to God's law and this was the sect that most represented the Jewish people. The Saducees on the other hand were committed to appeasing Rome and they were the ones in power at the time. In reading all 4 Gospels the pharisees are only implicated once (in the Gospel of John) as having any involvement in the crucifixion. Therefore it was not the Jews who forced the issue with Pilate but only a sect of Jews whom Rome put in power.

I would also like to point out to the jury that Roman soldiers were stationed their for the purpose of quelling rebellion, or any potential rebellion, which Jesus most naturally represented to them.

The Jews are not on trial here but JS is. The 1st step which you need to decide is was "Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible". If the book is not accurate then it could not have come about in the way JS claimed. We both agree that It was the Romans who killed Jesus. According to every record we have the Jewish people did not.

The defense didn't even challenge my claim that Christ was a title which the angel in the book of mormon claims. I ask you therefore to return a verdict of false.

Members of the Jury, if anything, claiming it was Jews who killed Jesus shows the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Despite the fact that there are more than one sect of Jews, it WAS Jews who pressured Pilate to kill Jesus and it WAS Jews who chose to free Barrabas over Jesus. And though the Jews are not on trial, neither are the Romans, yet the Prosecution does not mind accusing them. The fact of the matter is, Romans were only doing what Jewish leadership wanted them....practically ORDERED them.....to do. This, in fact, helps prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty.

menfolk and womenfolk. The defense is out of order. The court has placed the burden of proof on me to prosecute JS. As you can see the defense has not challenged anything I wrote. If in the future the defense would like to assume the burden of proof I'll be more than happy to respond to anything they choose to present.

No, your honor, the Prosecution did not provide anything on this element other than to say "it was a fraud that went further than Joseph intended". The evidence I provided top refute clearly shows that it was not a fraud, but a truth worth dying for.

3. People lost money or something else of value.

atticus>>>Members of the Jury, not a single person who actually helped pay for that building ever asked for their money back. Therefore, it cannot be considered that they "lost" something of value. Rather, it appears they "gave" something of value.<<<

menfolk and womenfolk, Finding an actual claimant was never a part of my requirements. There were many people who left the church during the time of JS and I think it can be assumed that many of them left because they realized they had been misled (either rightly or wrongly). I don't know the names of any of them. In actually they gave of their time and money because JS gave some of his supposed revelations from the lord instructing them to build his hotel. This hotel was the personal property of JS and was passed down to Emma his wife. In other words he used his claim to receive revelation as a means to enrich himself.

Members of the jury, though it was never a task to find a claimant, the Prosecution can't pick a building that no one ever missed and say that is the article where people lost something of value. He must prove that assertion if he is going to make it. If he can't prove his assertion, it, by a matter of law, fails. It cannot be "assumed". It must, by law, be proven, or at least some evidence given. If no evidence is given, the Defense has no way to refute the assertion. As no evidence was provide, and onl;y "assumptions" given, this element fails and Joseph must be acquitted.

[sleepyhead]

Menfolk and womenfolk of the jury,

atticus>>>Members of the Jury, if anything, claiming it was Jews who killed Jesus shows the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Despite the fact that there are more than one sect of Jews, it WAS Jews who pressured Pilate to kill Jesus and it WAS Jews who chose to free Barrabas over Jesus. And though the Jews are not on trial, neither are the Romans, yet the Prosecution does not mind accusing them. The fact of the matter is, Romans were only doing what Jewish leadership wanted them....practically ORDERED them.....to do. This, in fact, helps prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon.<<<

cjwright>>>On the point about Jesus' name, if you take what Nephi said as wrong, because you claim that 'Christ' is not His name, then you must also conclude that the Bible is wrong when Isaiah 9:6 says:

Isaiah 9:6 - 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

How are these not also 'titles' but are said to be His name(s) in scripture? <<<

The question before you is the accuracy of the discussed verse and if this claimed inaccuracy can be used as a claim that the said book did not come into existence according to the process claimed by JS. With regards to atticus's response I still maintain that the Romans were the authority in the land and it was the Romans who killed Jesus. The truth contradicts what is written in the book of mormon.

With regards to cjwright's comments the bible is made up of many books. Your are free to accept or reject any or all of them as you see fit. The defense has left me no other means of disproving the truthfulness of the claims of JS other than finding inadequacies within the book of mormon itself. Unlike the bible which has many books, the book of mormon comes to us in one piece. You don't have one section delivered by one angel and another section delivered by another angel to another individual. The claims of JS rest on the entire book.

atticus>>>No, your honor, the Prosecution did not provide anything on this element other than to say "it was a fraud that went further than Joseph intended". The evidence I provided top refute clearly shows that it was not a fraud, but a truth worth dying for.

Your honor and menfolk and womenfolk of the jury. The prosecution will be happy to respond to any and all claims from the defense in the proper time. The court has given me the opportunity/requirement to present my arguments. If the defense is done responding to my arguments then I will respond to his. The motion of the defense above is merely a means of sidetracking the trial.

atticus>>>Members of the jury, though it was never a task to find a claimant, the Prosecution can't pick a building that no one ever missed and say that is the article where people lost something of value. He must prove that assertion if he is going to make it. If he can't prove his assertion, it, by a matter of law, fails. It cannot be "assumed". It must, by law, be proven, or at least some evidence given. If no evidence is given, the Defense has no way to refute the assertion. As no evidence was provide, and onl;y "assumptions" given, this element fails and Joseph must be acquitted.<<<

3. People lost money or something else of value.

The assertion I'm making is that people who believed in the supposed revelations of JS were ordered by these revelations to build JS a hotel.

[AtticusFinch]

Menfolk and womenfolk of the jury,

atticus>>>Members of the Jury, if anything, claiming it was Jews who killed Jesus shows the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Despite the fact that there are more than one sect of Jews, it WAS Jews who pressured Pilate to kill Jesus and it WAS Jews who chose to free Barrabas over Jesus. And though the Jews are not on trial, neither are the Romans, yet the Prosecution does not mind accusing them. The fact of the matter is, Romans were only doing what Jewish leadership wanted them....practically ORDERED them.....to do. This, in fact, helps prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon.<<<

cjwright>>>On the point about Jesus' name, if you take what Nephi said as wrong, because you claim that 'Christ' is not His name, then you must also conclude that the Bible is wrong when Isaiah 9:6 says:

Isaiah 9:6 - 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

How are these not also 'titles' but are said to be His name(s) in scripture? <<<

The question before you is the accuracy of the discussed verse and if this claimed inaccuracy can be used as a claim that the said book did not come into existence according to the process claimed by JS. With regards to atticus's response I still maintain that the Romans were the authority in the land and it was the Romans who killed Jesus. The truth contradicts what is written in the book of mormon.

With regards to cjwright's comments the bible is made up of many books. Your are free to accept or reject any or all of them as you see fit. The defense has left me no other means of disproving the truthfulness of the claims of JS other than finding inadequacies within the book of mormon itself. Unlike the bible which has many books, the book of mormon comes to us in one piece. You don't have one section delivered by one angel and another section delivered by another angel to another individual. The claims of JS rest on the entire book.

Your Honor, that is untrue. There are many ways the Prosecution could use to prove the Book of Mormon is false, but I am not willing to do his job for him. He has chosen to use alleged inaccuracies. He maintains that the Romans were in control of the land but ignores that, without the Jews pushing and pushing, the Romans would have done nothing. Further, without Jews choosing to crucify Jesus over Barrabas, the crucifixion would have never taken place.

As to the Book of Mormon coming in one piece, that is a bit misleading. Though it came to Joseph in one piece for translation, it was different books by different authors, just like the Bible. The prosecution would have you believe that, since the Bible came complete to Jerome for translation into Latin (the Vulgate), it was not many books, but one.

atticus>>>No, your honor, the Prosecution did not provide anything on this element other than to say "it was a fraud that went further than Joseph intended". The evidence I provided top refute clearly shows that it was not a fraud, but a truth worth dying for.

Your honor and menfolk and womenfolk of the jury. The prosecution will be happy to respond to any and all claims from the defense in the proper time. The court has given me the opportunity/requirement to present my arguments. If the defense is done responding to my arguments then I will respond to his. The motion of the defense above is merely a means of sidetracking the trial.

Your honor, I simply respond to each point. The Prosecution simply provided no evidence to this element. If it was a fraud, why was Joseph be so willing to lose family, friends, be beaten, chased from his homes, and die for it?

atticus>>>Members of the jury, though it was never a task to find a claimant, the Prosecution can't pick a building that no one ever missed and say that is the article where people lost something of value. He must prove that assertion if he is going to make it. If he can't prove his assertion, it, by a matter of law, fails. It cannot be "assumed". It must, by law, be proven, or at least some evidence given. If no evidence is given, the Defense has no way to refute the assertion. As no evidence was provide, and onl;y "assumptions" given, this element fails and Joseph must be acquitted.<<<

3. People lost money or something else of value.

The assertion I'm making is that people who believed in the supposed revelations of JS were ordered by these revelations to build JS a hotel.

Your Honor, it is not enough that a house was built. That is not an element of this crime. The Prosecution would have to show that Joseph tricked them into building the house on a lie that he intended they believe and that the people who built the house lost it. There has been no evidence to any of that other than the house was built. Once they gave the house to Joseph, it was his to do as he pleased.

[cjwright]

With regards to cjwright's comments the bible is made up of many books. Your are free to accept or reject any or all of them as you see fit. The defense has left me no other means of disproving the truthfulness of the claims of JS other than finding inadequacies within the book of mormon itself. Unlike the bible which has many books, the book of mormon comes to us in one piece. You don't have one section delivered by one angel and another section delivered by another angel to another individual. The claims of JS rest on the entire book.

That is where you are wrong, and your arguement dies - You are not free to accept or reject any or all of the books of the Bible as you see fit, especially as your arguement rests on, and I quote:

"Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible. It would not be a companion to the bible if it's teachings taught something different from the bible."

Your accusation above hinges on the use of the whole Bible, not specified sections of it, so you cannot use this double standard in your case against Joseph Smith. The defense have left you no other means of disproving the truthfulness claims of Joseph Smith because you don't have any means of disproving them.

[sleepyhead]

2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty.

me>>>It seems to me it was sort of an experiment to see how much he could get away with. He was probably surprised the charade went as far as it did. I don't know what his original plan was. After he achieved some success he began a power grab as evidenced by his changing of the book of commandments. This revelation was printed in the Book of Commandments as chapter 4. Verse 2 reads as follows: "...and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." This was later changed to give him control of the church.<<<

atticus>>>Members of the Jury, this argument does not anywhere near rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt". First, if we assume that Joseph started a fraud that went farther than he planned, there were many chances for Joseph to walk away. Maybe it was the first time he got beaten, or the first time he got tarred and feathered, or after his child was killed due to treatment by a mob, or after many of his friends were killed at Haun's Mill, or right before he died. It does not pass the logic test that Joseph went thru all of that for a lie.<<<

The fact that JS chose not to walk away from the kingdom that he built is not an indication that the book of mormon was obtained in the way he claimed. In history there are very few people (George Washington is one) who freely chose to relinquish their power.

1.Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to the Bible.

cjwright>>>That is where you are wrong, and your arguement dies - You are not free to accept or reject any or all of the books of the Bible as you see fit, especially as your arguement rests on, and I quote:<<<

I never said that as prosecutor I was free to accept or reject any books I wanted and thus far (as prosecutor) I haven't rejected any. Jesus name was not Christ. It also wasn't wonderful or any of the other names listed in Isaiah. The claim in the b of m that his name was Christ is therefore false. If you want to claim the verse from Isaiah is also false that is your option. As prosecutor I am not claiming they are false.

atticus>>>Your Honor, it is not enough that a house was built. That is not an element of this crime. The Prosecution would have to show that Joseph tricked them into building the house on a lie that he intended they believe and that the people who built the house lost it. There has been no evidence to any of that other than the house was built. Once they gave the house to Joseph, it was his to do as he pleased.<<<

Your honor. Either the revelation which JS received to require the mormons to build him a hotel was received from God or it wasn't. Neither the prosecution nor the defense has the ability to determine whether this was indeed a revelation or merely JS's desire for wealth. I don't however see any reason to treat JS as a special case. If anyone else came forward and said he had a revelation that God wanted you to give them something would not the burden of proof be placed on the beggar. Why should the court assume that the JS revelation to build him a hotel was from God?

atticus>>>Your Honor, that is untrue. There are many ways the Prosecution could use to prove the Book of Mormon is false, but I am not willing to do his job for him. He has chosen to use alleged inaccuracies. He maintains that the Romans were in control of the land but ignores that, without the Jews pushing and pushing, the Romans would have done nothing. Further, without Jews choosing to crucify Jesus over Barrabas, the crucifixion would have never taken place.<<<

Other ways have been used on earlier threads and the reply was always God performed another miracle. The Jews did not push and push as he claims. While some of these Jews may have wanted Jesus dead, the torture involved with the crucifixon was a roman method. If the Jews would have killed him he would have been stoned. It was the Romans who beat Jesus. It was the romans who chose to use nails instead of ropes.

atticus>>>As to the Book of Mormon coming in one piece, that is a bit misleading. Though it came to Joseph in one piece for translation, it was different books by different authors, just like the Bible. The prosecution would have you believe that, since the Bible came complete to Jerome for translation into Latin (the Vulgate), it was not many books, but one.<<<

JS claimed that Nephi/Moroni delivered the plates to him. That would indicate an endorsement from Nephi/Moroni. In that sense it did come in one piece. The prosecution point is that the bible is comprised of many books.