The Trial of Joseph Smith

[AtticusFinch]

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.

Your Honor, while it is true that the Jews are not on trial, it is important to correct the inaccuracy of the Prosecution's case. And while I dislike repeating myself, I feel it is necessary here. It appears that, in an effort to prove a point, my esteemed colleague simply refuses to accept facts and clings doggedly onto a lie.

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.

So, when the rubber meets the road, it was the Jews who planned, it pushed it, contrived to make it happen, and chose Jesus over Barrabas, the acknowledged their guilt by telling Pilate it would be on them. This help prove the Book of Mormon true because God would have known the truth of the matter and passed in on to the writers of the Book of Mormon.

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.

Your Honor, that statement does not prove anything. First, it would need to be shown that the revelations were false, then it would need to be shown that Joseph new they were false. None of this has been done.

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.

Again, no showing that the people were deceived in building the house or that they lost anything in giving the house to Joseph.

I rest my case.

If the Prosecution has rested, he is no longer allowed to present evidence. I request the Court grant a directed verdict in favor of the Defendant as the Prosecution has failed to prove all the elements of the charge.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

>>>If the Prosecution has rested, he is no longer allowed to present evidence. I request the Court grant a directed verdict in favor of the Defendant as the Prosecution has failed to prove all the elements of the charge.<<<

Your honor, I am satisfied that I have presented my case as best I could and further involvement from me will not improve on my points. I would just like to mention that me resting my case has no bearing on other prosecutors with regards to how long they choose to pursue their points.

[Thinking]

Joseph Smith has been charged by the prosecution with the crime of forgery and fraud in foisting upon a credulous world a record he claims is ancient, said record being The Book of Mormon.

This being a criminal charge, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the defense has no burden of proof in this trial, the defense may present any evidence it chooses at the close of the prosecution's case.

Let me make sure that I understand this.

1. Joseph Smith presents to the world a book which he claims he translated from plates (that he doesn't have anymore) by the power of God.

2. Parts of the book appear to have been copied straight from the KJV of the Bible.

3. He lost 116 pages, then didn't re-translate that section.

4. There have been thousands of grammatical corrections and a few other contradictory corrections made to this most correct book.

5. None of the unique doctrines which set mormonism apart from the rest of Christianity are contained in this marvelous work and wonder.

6. Rejection of this book will cause a person to be damned.

I think you've got it backwards. Joseph Smith put the world on trial with this book and so the burden of proof rests with him.

[AtticusFinch]

Let me make sure that I understand this.

1. Joseph Smith presents to the world a book which he claims he translated from plates (that he doesn't have anymore) by the power of God.

2. Parts of the book appear to have been copied straight from the KJV of the Bible.

3. He lost 116 pages, then didn't re-translate that section.

4. There have been thousands of grammatical corrections and a few other contradictory corrections made to this most correct book.

5. None of the unique doctrines which set mormonism apart from the rest of Christianity are contained in this marvelous work and wonder.

6. Rejection of this book will cause a person to be damned.

I think you've got it backwards. Joseph Smith put the world on trial with this book and so the burden of proof rests with him.

Your honor, it is wholly inappropriate for the prosecution to try to transfer the burden of proof. However, I will respond to these latest accusations.

1. Number one does not suggest fraud at all. One would have to prove he lied about the plates which, as there were several witnesses to the plates, would be difficult to do.

2. As the teachings came from God, it should be no surprise that the wording is similar, if not exact, in some places. That, in and of itself, does not suggest fraud.

3. The fact he lost 16 pages and chose not to redo them again does not suggest fraud. It would be very easy for people to see the redo, then alter the stolen pages and sday Joseph was lying. God knew the hearts of the thieves and was one step ahead of them. Again, no evidence of fraud.

4. For this point to be worthy of fraud, the prosecution must prove that Joseph meant "most grammatically correct book". I do not believe Joseph ever said that. And if you had any expereince in typesetting, you would know that it was a very difficult task that usually contained a lot of errors.

5. As to unique doctrines, the Prosecution must prove that God no longer gives revelations to his people and that somehow the revelations were dishonest.

6. How does this pont rise to fraud? It has long been established that rejection of the True God could lead to eternal damnation.

Defense requests to Court strike the argument of the new Prosecutor.

[Jaybear]

1. Number one does not suggest fraud at all. One would have to prove he lied about the plates which, as there were several witnesses to the plates, would be difficult to do.

2. As the teachings came from God, it should be no surprise that the wording is similar, if not exact, in some places. That, in and of itself, does not suggest fraud.

3. The fact he lost 16 pages and chose not to redo them again does not suggest fraud. It would be very easy for people to see the redo, then alter the stolen pages and sday Joseph was lying. God knew the hearts of the thieves and was one step ahead of them. Again, no evidence of fraud.

4. For this point to be worthy of fraud, the prosecution must prove that Joseph meant "most grammatically correct book". I do not believe Joseph ever said that. And if you had any expereince in typesetting, you would know that it was a very difficult task that usually contained a lot of errors.

5. As to unique doctrines, the Prosecution must prove that God no longer gives revelations to his people and that somehow the revelations were dishonest.

6. How does this pont rise to fraud? It has long been established that rejection of the True God could lead to eternal damnation.

Defense requests to Court strike the argument of the new Prosecutor.

These are arguments that you would present to the jury, not to the judge. A jury, by the way, which would consist entirely of non Mormons. In other words you need to adjust your arguments taking into account the fact that your audience does not already believe that Smith the true prophet of the restoration.

For example your assertion: "The fact he lost 16 pages and chose not to redo them again does not suggest fraud." is simply wrong.

To non mormons, the fact that he did not reproduce the lost pages strongly implies that that he could not do so, and was afraid of being exposed if he had tried.

To be an effective advocate, you need to see the evidence from the perspective of the jury.

[Mudcat]

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.

Your honor, the prosecution would be in agreement with the defense that the Bible is not on trial. These verses clearly point to another anachronism that is a duplicated plagiarism. The word "steel" as it appears in the defense's submitted evidence is better understood as copper, though the term was often rendered in Biblical translations as brass or steel.

The prosecution would request to submit these same verses in evidence for plagiarism of the Bible.

[volgadon]

The defence submits that Joseph Smith used terms familiar to himself in order to render Hebrew and Nephite words into English.

[Scottie]

The defence submits that Joseph Smith used terms familiar to himself in order to render Hebrew and Nephite words into English.

The prosecution submits that JS knew the word Copper and/or Bronze.

[AtticusFinch]

These are arguments that you would present to the jury, not to the judge. A jury, by the way, which would consist entirely of non Mormons. In other words you need to adjust your arguments taking into account the fact that your audience does not already believe that Smith the true prophet of the restoration.

For example your assertion: "The fact he lost 16 pages and chose not to redo them again does not suggest fraud." is simply wrong.

To non mormons, the fact that he did not reproduce the lost pages strongly implies that that he could not do so, and was afraid of being exposed if he had tried.

To be an effective advocate, you need to see the evidence from the perspective of the jury.

Not true. The defense does not have to prove anything. All I pointed out is that the argument did not meet the burden of proof or the elements of he crime.

[sleepyhead]

Your honor,

atticus>>>1. Number one does not suggest fraud at all. One would have to prove he lied about the plates which, as there were several witnesses to the plates, would be difficult to do.<<<

Your honor. This has been covered in an earlier thread. In the preface to the b of m there are 2 testimonies with printed names beneath them. No signatures. Yet the defense continues to claim witnesses. Let him produce these witnesses or the signed statements of these witnesses if he has them.

[AtticusFinch]

Your honor, the prosecution would be in agreement with the defense that the Bible is not on trial. These verses clearly point to another anachronism that is a duplicated plagiarism. The word "steel" as it appears in the defense's submitted evidence is better understood as copper, though the term was often rendered in Biblical translations as brass or steel. The prosecution would request to submit these same verses in evidence for plagiarism of the Bible.

Your Honor, no one has said the Bible is on trial. But, the law permits the use of the Bible as reference. Additionally, the Prosecution continues to state facts that are unsupported. The comment that steel is better evidenced as copper is totally unfounded and unsupported. Especially when there is plenty of evidence that stell did exist in Book of Mormon times. CFR "Voices From the Dust" by David Calderman

Your honor, atticus>>>1. Number one does not suggest fraud at all. One would have to prove he lied about the plates which, as there were several witnesses to the plates, would be difficult to do.<<< Your honor. This has been covered in an earlier thread. In the preface to the b of m there are 2 testimonies with printed names beneath them. No signatures. Yet the defense continues to claim witnesses. Let him produce these witnesses or the signed statements of these witnesses if he has them.

Your Honor, Sleepy has rested. He is not allowed to make more argument. Additionally, the witnesses wrote their testimonies. Those testimonies were never refuted. They are, by operation of law, admitted.

[Sevenbak]

Your honor, the prosecution would be in agreement with the defense that the Bible is not on trial. These verses clearly point to another anachronism that is a duplicated plagiarism. The word "steel" as it appears in the defense's submitted evidence is better understood as copper, though the term was often rendered in Biblical translations as brass or steel.

The prosecution would request to submit these same verses in evidence for plagiarism of the Bible.

Cough...gasp... did the prosecution just say that they believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly? Cough... gasp...

Can I have the court reporter read that back, I want to make sure I wasn't mistaken...

May I also ask counsel to prove to this court that brass or bronze bows were even effective as archery weapons, given their lower tensile strength. Are their any metallurgists in the courtroom?

May I also point out to opposing counsel that hardened steel was developed and used long before the time of Nephi. It was also rare, thus "precious" as described by nephi.

I submit A History of Iron and Steel Making as evidence.

[Jaybear]

Not true. The defense does not have to prove anything. All I pointed out is that the argument did not meet the burden of proof or the elements of he crime.

I am confused. When you say, not true, what is not true? I didnt say the defense had to prove anything.

My point is simply that the question of whether the evidence meets the burden of proof is a matter for the jury to decide ... not the judge.

Are you saying I am wrong?

[AtticusFinch]

I am confused. When you say, not true, what is not true? I didnt say the defense had to prove anything.

My point is simply that the question of whether the evidence meets the burden of proof is a matter for the jury to decide ... not the judge.

Are you saying I am wrong?

Yes. On matters of law, the judge would decide. On matters of fact, the jury would decide. Whether there has been enough evidence presented that rises to the level to go to the jury is a matter of law.

[Mudcat]

Your Honor, no one has said the Bible is on trial. But, the law permits the use of the Bible as reference. Additionally, the Prosecution continues to state facts that are unsupported. The comment that steel is better evidenced as copper is totally unfounded and unsupported. Especially when there is plenty of evidence that stell did exist in Book of Mormon times.

The prosecution would submit in evidence for support of claims.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34 is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Hebrews kesheth-nehushah). In Jeremiah 15:12 the same word is used, and is also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word (an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.

[Mudcat]

May I also point out to opposing counsel that hardened steel was developed and used long before the time of Nephi. It was also rare, thus "precious" as described by nephi.

I submit A History of Iron and Steel Making as evidence.

The prosecution would note that the defenses submitted evidence, makes no reference to steel production in the the Americas.

[Sevenbak]

Copper? Your Honor, may I remind the defense that when copper is bent, it does not spring back to it's original form, making it completely useless in the production of a bow that needs a high tensile strength. I do believe that Easton's Bible Dictionary was so eager to discredit the ancient translators, that they did not take this into account.

Further, brass and copper make regular appearances in the biblical text. Iron means iron, and steel means steel, without retranslating them into mere copper.

Your witness...

[Sevenbak]

The prosecution would note that the defenses submitted evidence, makes no reference to steel production in the the Americas.

The defense would also note that the prosecution knows full well that Nephi brought his bow with him out of Jerusalem, and it broke before they ever came to the Americas.

Leading the witness. I move to strike, based on irrelevance to the issue at hand.

[hagoth7]

A jury, by the way, which would consist entirely of non Mormons.

By definition, justice requires that a jury in a trial against Joseph Smith be composed of his peers. Those hostile to the main precepts of the LDS faith, especially to the concept of revelation, should recuse themselves. To demonstrate that one is a peer, or viable potential juror, one should be considered by a significant population as a prophet, apostle, or seer. Arguably, any other potential jurors would either be unfairly prejudiced against the claims of the accused, or unfairly preferential towards the charges.

So I would recommend that a suitable panel of jurors might include the likes of Abraham. Or Enoch. Or Daniel. Or Mohammed. Or Ellen White. etc. Or that at least half the panel be composed of such individuals.

Thoughts?

To be an effective advocate, you need to see the evidence from the perspective of the jury.

Agreed. But a jury of the accused's peers.

[Mudcat]

The defense would also note that the prosecution knows full well that Nephi brought his bow with him out of Jerusalem, and it broke before they ever came to the Americas.

Leading the witness. I move to strike, based on irrelevance to the issue at hand.

Your Honor, the prosecution (emphasis mine) has no such awareness that one, said Nephi, did in fact bring a bow from Jerusalem.

However, if the defense wishes to strike, the prosecution makes no objection.

The prosecution would submit in evidence, all manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon. The prosecution would note that all manuscript evidence is circa 19th century. There is no basis upon evidence to determine that the Book of Mormon was written prior to the 19th century.

[Sevenbak]

Your Honor, the prosecution (emphasis mine) has no such awareness that one, said Nephi, did in fact bring a bow from Jerusalem.

Your Honor, let the record (that is readily available for all to read) show that the said bow broke in the Arabian desert close to the Red Sea, while hunting for food...far away and long before said Nephi and his family crossed the ocean.

If the defense wants to assume it was produced in the Americas by the Mulekites, and then transported back to the wilderness outside of Jerusalem, he is more than welcome to make that claim.

Or if he wants to assume it was forged in the desert amidst their hunger and afflictions, while traveling, then I guess I have no problem with the defense making such a statement.

Either way, I won't bother to rebut either idea.

Or did I miss another assumption?

I just hope the jury is listening...

[AtticusFinch]

Your Honor, the prosecution (emphasis mine) has no such awareness that one, said Nephi, did in fact bring a bow from Jerusalem.

However, if the defense wishes to strike, the prosecution makes no objection.

The prosecution would submit in evidence, all manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon. The prosecution would note that all manuscript evidence is circa 19th century. There is no basis upon evidence to determine that the Book of Mormon was written prior to the 19th century.

Your honor, saying it is not evidence. The prosecution has made yet another statement with no evidence. As the evidence must not exist, the most recent claim should be stricken from the record.

Defense is disappointed, but not surprised, that no real evidence has been provided to convict my client of fraud.

[sleepyhead]

hello atticus,

>>>Your Honor, Sleepy has rested. He is not allowed to make more argument. Additionally, the witnesses wrote their testimonies. Those testimonies were never refuted. They are, by operation of law, admitted.<<<

I rested my case which were the points I brought out before. If they didn't sign there name how do you know they wrote them?

[volgadon]

Mudcat is right, the word is bronze, but nobody is sure just what that means. One possibility is that it is a bow using special bronze-tipped arrows, another possibility is that it is inlaid with bronze, because although Ahab built an ivory tower, it wasn't contructed out of ivory.

[Thinking]

But a jury of the accused's peers.

By peers do you mean those who believe Joseph Smith was/is a prophet?