The Trial of Joseph Smith

[Mudcat]

The prosecution would like to submit two "latchets" in evidence for anachronistic plagiarism.

1 Ne. 10: 8

8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoeâ??s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing.

2 Ne. 15: 27

27 None shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken;

[AtticusFinch]

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.

Members of jury, I would submit that using George Washington as an example is an excellent suggestion. President Washington, like Joseph, was a reluctant leader and, like Joseph, fought for the truth and, like Joseph, was willing to die for the truth and for what he believed in. Excellent choice.

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

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?

Members of the jury, again, there is no evidence in this statement that there was a fraud, just a house. The people who heard Joseph believed they were following God's command and there is no evidence that anyone felt deceived. And why should the court assume that there was no revelation that a house/hotel be built?

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.

Again, the Romans did the Jewish will. Let us take a look. From Matthew 26:

3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.

Who conspired to kill Jesus? The Jewish leaders.

And who came to take Jesus away? From matthew 26:

46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me. 47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

The Chief Priests and the Elders....

And who first questioned Jesus and decided he should be killed? From Matthew 26:

65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

Again, the Jews

Then who decided Jesus should be killed and then took Him to Pilate? From matthew 27

1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: 2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

Jews.

And then who testified to Pilate against Jesus and then who chose to crucify Jesus over Barrabas? From Matthew 27

22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. 24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Jews.

And who swore it would be on their head?

25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Jews.

And why did the Roman agree to crucify Jesus? (From Mark 15)

15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

To content the Jews.

The Book of Mormon was correct.

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.

Your Honor, the plates were a collection of many books and were delivered in one book much like if I were to deliver a Bible to you right now. Prosecutions point is not a point.

[AtticusFinch]

The prosecution would like to submit two "latchets" in evidence for anachronistic plagiarism.

1 Ne. 10: 8

8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoeâ??s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing.

2 Ne. 15: 27

27 None shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken;

Your Honor, how does the same word in two books show anything other than God knew the word? If this court decides to make a standard that any book that has the same word as another is de facto plagiarized, then we need to get rid of EVERY book except maybe the very first one.

[Mudcat]

Your Honor, how does the same word in two books show anything other than God knew the word? If this court decides to make a standard that any book that has the same word as another is de facto plagiarized, then we need to get rid of EVERY book except maybe the very first one.

The implication goes beyond the fact that the same word appeared in similar context. The interesting point, is that in the KJV the term is actually anachronistic of the times. It would have been more correctly translated as "sandal thong". People of Christ time didn't actually have shoe latchets.

However, the fact that the same anachronism appears in the BoM, is certainly suspect.

[hagoth7]

People of Christ time didn't actually have shoe latchets.

Then the New Testament has also been impeached?

John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoeâ??s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

John 1:27

[AtticusFinch]

The implication goes beyond the fact that the same word appeared in similar context. The interesting point, is that in the KJV the term is actually anachronistic of the times. It would have been more correctly translated as "sandal thong". People of Christ time didn't actually have shoe latchets.

Your Honor, a latchet is: atch

[Mudcat]

Then the New Testament has also been impeached?

John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoeâ??s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

John 1:27

Yes, I have decided to impeach both of them. One wasn't enough for my recipe of impeach pie.

But you have actually brought up the main point. The word is in both places, in near identical context. The problem being, the word had no such meaning in Christ's time. It was a "sandal thong" and many newer translations corrected the problem. Shoe latchets were about as timely as the bell of that clock in Shakespeare's bit on Caesar.

If we have a translation from Smith, through rather extraordinary means, then why does it seem rather obvious that this verse from John was not only plagiarized, bu plagiarized with the same error in translation.

[cjwright]

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.

You missed off a line to your claim, and I quote:

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.

And you used an example in 2 Nephi to show your case, however as I have pointed out a similar piece of evidence in the Bible, it shows that your claim that the Book of Mormon is not a companion to the Bible is false because in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon it states Jesus as having many different names, and also it should be noted that He accepts them all (Christ in particular).

I never claimed that the verse from Isaiah is false, I am merely stating that you cannot claim that the verse in 2 Nephi is false and the verse in Isaiah is true - that is your double standard, and I doubt is acceptable in this court.

[hagoth7]

If we have a translation from Smith, through rather extraordinary means, then why does it seem rather obvious that this verse from John was not only plagiarized, but plagiarized with the same error in translation.

? I respectfully object.

"latchet" carries a much more intelligible meaning/significance to a 19th-century or 21st-century reader than something like "sandal thong" - since sandal thongs aren't something we typically loosen in our day. So latchet conveys a much more fitting/effective translation of the ancient cultural implication.

[Mudcat]

? I respectfully object.

sustained, good points Hagoth.... you to Finch.

I'll try to think of something a bit more clever after recess.

[volgadon]

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.

The defence contends that the Christ's name was also given as wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, the eternal father and prince of peace, despite these being titles and not names. In fact, that shem in Biblical Hebrew means title as well.

The defence also contends that Jews here means The Jews, or as one would say in Hebrew behey hayediyah, a superlative meaning, that is, the leaders.

[AtticusFinch]

? I respectfully object.

"latchet" carries a much more intelligible meaning/significance to a 19th-century or 21st-century reader than something like "sandal thong" - since sandal thongs aren't something we typically loosen in our day. So latchet conveys a much more fitting/effective translation of the ancient cultural implication.

First, Cat, you cannot sustain as you have taken part as an advocate, Sorry.

Next, who says it carries a more intelligible meaning? Even in the 1600s it was used and understood what it meant. So the point is moot.

[volgadon]

The prosecution would like to submit two "latchets" in evidence for anachronistic plagiarism.

1 Ne. 10: 8

8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoeâ??s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing.

2 Ne. 15: 27

27 None shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken;

The defence submits the following. Sandals is a Greek loanword which is used in the Mishna and Talmud, but that the word used throughout the Bible is naal/naalim- a generic word for footwear, which is usually translated as shoes. The defence also submits that latchet is lot more precise than thong and meant a contraption out of string.

[sleepyhead]

Atticus>>>Your Honor, the plates were a collection of many books and were delivered in one book much like if I were to deliver a Bible to you right now. Prosecutions point is not a point.<<<

Your honor, does the above mean that the prosecution is required to find an error in every separate book of the book of mormon? If that is the case then there is no point in going on.

[sleepyhead]

cjwright>>>

I never claimed that the verse from Isaiah is false, I am merely stating that you cannot claim that the verse in 2 Nephi is false and the verse in Isaiah is true - that is your double standard, and I doubt is acceptable in this court. <<<

Your the one who brought out the Isaiah verses. As prosecutor I never said whether the Isaiah was true or false.

[Mudcat]

First, Cat, you cannot sustain as you have taken part as an advocate, Sorry.

Oh ... well I don't like that rule, but a rules a rule I suppose.

Hope you brought lots and lots of nails. It takes more than just a handful to crucify a cat with his own words, plus I'll have at least eight lives left after you get done.

Next, who says it carries a more intelligible meaning? Even in the 1600s it was used and understood what it meant. So the point is moot.

On that note, shoes and sandals are different, at least I think so.

[ttribe]

On that note, shoes and sandals are different, at least I think so.

Trying spending some time in Phoenix where they are pretty much one in the same.

[AtticusFinch]

Atticus>>>Your Honor, the plates were a collection of many books and were delivered in one book much like if I were to deliver a Bible to you right now. Prosecutions point is not a point.<<<

Your honor, does the above mean that the prosecution is required to find an error in every separate book of the book of mormon? If that is the case then there is no point in going on.

Your honor, I am not suggesting that at all. I am merely saying that calling it one book when it is a collection of books by different authors is misleading

[AtticusFinch]

Oh ... well I don't like that rule, but a rules a rule I suppose.

Sorry, but if you act as an advocate and a judge, it makes it tad unfair......right?

Hope you brought lots and lots of nails. It takes more than just a handful to crucify a cat with his own words, plus I'll have at least eight lives left after you get done.

Actually, I have enough nails for all nine of you

On that note, shoes and sandals are different, at least I think so.

but leather straps are all the same

[Mudcat]

Sorry, but if you act as an advocate and a judge, it makes it tad unfair......right?

Only if you represent the defense, IMO.

Actually, I have enough nails for all nine of you

We shall see.

but leather straps are all the same

Moot point on latchet....

The prosecution would submit in evidence.

1st Nephi 16:18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

The defense has no evidence for a said "fine steel bow", or even the manufacture of such in the time frame that the BoM attributes it.

[AtticusFinch]

Only if you represent the defense, IMO.

No....that is why there is a judge who is NOT one of the attorneys in Court.

We shall see.

Yes, we shall

Moot point on latchet....

Not when a latchet is a leather strap.....

The prosecution would submit in evidence.

The defense has no evidence for a said "fine steel bow", or even the manufacture of such in the time frame that the BoM attributes it.

Really? Prove it. That is what the Prosecution has to do.

[Mudcat]

Defense:

Really? Prove it. That is what the Prosecution has to do.

Prosectution (Mudcat): Your Honor, the defense has asked me to prove a negative. Hopefully you will understand the fallacy of such.

There is no evidence of the manufacture of "steel bows" in such a time frame as the BoM suggests. The prosecution can't submit evidence of what did not occur.

[Sevenbak]

Your honor, the defense submits OT steel bows dating before the time Nephi came out of Jerusalem. May I remind the court that the Bible is not on trial here.

...but perhaps using old anti-Mormon arguments should be...

Psalms 18:34

He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

Job 20:24

He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.

2 Samuel 22:35

He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

[cjwright]

cjwright>>>

I never claimed that the verse from Isaiah is false, I am merely stating that you cannot claim that the verse in 2 Nephi is false and the verse in Isaiah is true - that is your double standard, and I doubt is acceptable in this court. <<<

Your the one who brought out the Isaiah verses. As prosecutor I never said whether the Isaiah was true or false.

You stated:

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.

My point in bringing out the Isaiah verse is that it shows that Jesus is know by many names other than just Jesus in the Bible, so your example used in 2 Nephi 10:3 to demonstrate that your claim that the Book of Mormon cannot be a companion to the Bible because it's teachings are different from the Bible is false.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

1.Joseph was dishonest by publishing the Book of Mormon and calling it Scriptures and a companion to 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 jews are not on trial here but rather the accuracy of the above verse. Even if we allow the rant that atticus gave with regards to the jews involvement in the crucifixion, can it still be said that the above verse is accurate. I say no because when you get right down to where the rubber meets the road the Jews did not crucify Jesus. Regardless of the fact that He is referred to by several names in the book of Isaiah, in actuality Christ was not his name but rather a title. Read the verse above in light of the arguments presented and you must come away with the view that the above verse was inaccurate. This indicates that he did not receive the book from the angel Nephi/Moroni as claimed.

2 Joseph intended to deceive people with the dishonesty.

In JS's grab for power as evidenced by his changing the supposed revelations in the book of commandments to what they now appear to be in the D & C he deceived people. Through this self promotion he made himself the head of the church.

3. People lost money or something else of value.

Using his position for personal enrichment he then had revelations instructing the church to build him a hotel.

I rest my case.