USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 In modern US practice, either a preliminary hearing or a grand jury determines whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. In former practice, like that current in the early XIXth Century, an examination by the judge [usually a circuit-rider] performed that function. In both former and modern times, the proceedings were rather informal, with police giving summary testimony showing the results of their investigation, and actual live witnesses giving their view of things. Little cross-examining goes on in modern proceedings, and the defendant has no responsibility to give testimony himself or produce his own witnesses. Such should also have been the case in former times. If the judge [or grand jury] found [or finds] sufficient evidence has been adduced, there is a trial. If there ain't, there ain't . . . and the only thing left to do is figure out who pays for what just went on.So . . . trial or examination?
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 DavidB makes the correct points in his thread that's now locked.I don't think it matters if it was an examination or a trial. It doesn't matter if he was guilty or innocent of the particular charges.What does matter is what he was doing and why and with what and how that should be interpreted in light of Joseph's other claims (re: visions, gold plates, seer stones, etc).
KevinG Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I learned about this and thought "so what?"We know Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. were visionary men. We know from his own testimony that Joseph was tempted when he first saw the plates and the Lord forbid he unearth them until he repented and was prepared. Gifts of seeing, prophecy and other "supernatural" talents can be used for good or selfish purposes. What matters is that Joseph Smith Junior used his under the direction of the Lord to reveal the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What he did prior to his calling and then repented of is not shocking or testimony shaking if we understand this. 1
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I learned about this and thought "so what?"We know Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. were visionary men. We know from his own testimony that Joseph was tempted when he first saw the plates and the Lord forbid he unearth them until he repented and was prepared. Gifts of seeing, prophecy and other "supernatural" talents can be used for good or selfish purposes. What matters is that Joseph Smith Junior used his under the direction of the Lord to reveal the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What he did prior to his calling and then repented of is not shocking or testimony shaking if we understand this.So what? Interesting. It sure seems like more than a "so what" to me.Assumptions:--the testimony is correct that he saw treasure and stated that it sunk lower each time they started digging--that there was no actual treasure that sunk lowerFacts:--Joseph used the same peepstone in this event as he did translating the BOM--Joseph used the same technique, head in hat, peering into the peepstone and seeing images--Joseph either lied or was deceived when using this technique to find treasureIt seems it would give a believer at least a pause to think about whether or not Joseph's future use of the peepstone technique were also either cases of fraud or deception.Further, the whole thing with the treasure seeking, treasure guardians, Moroni as treasure guardian, and gold plates as treasure. It all blends together in what appears to be a real mess.
KevinG Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 If you are determined to believe the worst of the conflicting rumors and accusations yes it could be a problem for you. 3
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 If you are determined to believe the worst of the conflicting rumors and accusations yes it could be a problem for you.Let's not get bogged down by rumors and accusations. The testimony is pretty much accepted by LDS historians, right? Let's just use the statement on the treasure being seen by Joseph but then dropping. Not a problem?
Walden Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 If you are determined to believe the worst of the conflicting rumors and accusations yes it could be a problem for you.Likewise, if you are determined to ignore, devalue or rationalize the worst of the conflicting rumors and accusations, then no, it wouldn't be a problem for you.
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 If you are determined to believe the worst of the conflicting rumors and accusations yes it could be a problem for you.Yup. Employment of the perjorative "peepstone" is very telling. 1
KevinG Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Let's not get bogged down by rumors and accusations. The testimony is pretty much accepted by LDS historians, right? Um... No. http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith
KevinG Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Likewise, if you are determined to ignore, devalue or rationalize the worst of the conflicting rumors and accusations, then no, it wouldn't be a problem for you.When God has a problem with one of His prophets and reveals it to me then I will have a problem with one of His prophets. You seem to forget where testimony comes from. Allowing multiple and non-correlating testimonies (some of which are 50 years after the fact) to shake a testimony given me by the Holy Spirit that Joseph was a prophet of God would be foolish indeed.Even on the face of it the chain of custody of the "evidence" of the hearing is poor at best.Lets assume Joseph was involved in an incident where a supernatural event was witnessed. Why is that so disturbing to you?As I said before (and must have been missed when responding to "so what?") We know Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. were visionary men. We know from his own testimony that Joseph was tempted when he first saw the plates and the Lord forbid he unearth them until he repented and was prepared. Gifts of seeing, prophecy and other "supernatural" talents can be used for good or selfish purposes. What matters is that Joseph Smith Junior used his under the direction of the Lord to reveal the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What he did prior to his calling and then repented of is not shocking or testimony shaking if we understand this. Edited August 28, 2012 by KevinG 1
DavidB Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Fair calls it a trial and Gordon Madsen calls it a trial....it does not matter what the proceeding was nor the outcome.Joseph Smith was a treasure or gold digger but not a horse thief; I believe Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that. Edited August 28, 2012 by DavidB
Erin15 Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 In modern US practice, either a preliminary hearing or a grand jury determines whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. In former practice, like that current in the early XIXth Century, an examination by the judge [usually a circuit-rider] performed that function. In both former and modern times, the proceedings were rather informal, with police giving summary testimony showing the results of their investigation, and actual live witnesses giving their view of things. Little cross-examining goes on in modern proceedings, and the defendant has no responsibility to give testimony himself or produce his own witnesses. Such should also have been the case in former times. If the judge [or grand jury] found [or finds] sufficient evidence has been adduced, there is a trial. If there ain't, there ain't . . . and the only thing left to do is figure out who pays for what just went on.So . . . trial or examination?It does not matter whether or not Joseph Smith was rumored to have done some shady stuff. The only question that really matters is whether or not God recognizes him as his prophet. If God recognizes Joesph as his prophet, then it does not matter what Jospeh may or may not have done, because nothing we say or decided here on earth will alter God's decision. If God does not recognize Jospeh as his prophet, then it also does not matter what he may or may not have done, because he was just a man.Either way, this is not a question that will be resolved in any meaningful way by debating the historical rumors. This is an issue that can only be resolved by going to God himself and asking him whether or not he recognizes Joseph Smith as his prophet.I have done so, and God has told me that Joseph was indeed his prophet. I would encourage you to do the same.
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Um... No. http://www.fairlds.o...of-joseph-smithThe Thompson testimony that says that Joseph saw treasure and then said it sunk lower. That is not generally accepted by LDS scholars?
Walden Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 It does not matter whether or not Joseph Smith was rumored to have done some shady stuff. The only question that really matters is whether or not God recognizes him as his prophet.If God recognizes Joesph as his prophet, then it does not matter what Jospeh may or may not have done, because nothing we say or decided here on earth will alter God's decision. If God does not recognize Jospeh as his prophet, then it also does not matter what he may or may not have done, because he was just a man.Either way, this is not a question that will be resolved in any meaningful way by debating the historical rumors. This is an issue that can only be resolved by going to God himself and asking him whether or not he recognizes Joseph Smith as his prophet.I have done so, and God has told me that Joseph was indeed his prophet. I would encourage you to do the same.Thanks for the encouragement Erin15, but I spent the first 25 years of my life going to god and asking him whether or not he recognizes Joseph Smith as his prophet. I prayed, fasted, studied, pondered, etc. Heck, I even prayed on my knees in the Sacred Grove where Joseph had supposedly received the first vision years before.The answer I got? Nothing.And now, I will wait for the standard apologist reply that I must have been asking the wrong questions, looking for the wrong answers, or just done something plain wrong in order to not receive the same answer that they have received.
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 It does not matter whether or not Joseph Smith was rumored to have done some shady stuff. The only question that really matters is whether or not God recognizes him as his prophet.If God recognizes Joesph as his prophet, then it does not matter what Jospeh may or may not have done, because nothing we say or decided here on earth will alter God's decision. If God does not recognize Jospeh as his prophet, then it also does not matter what he may or may not have done, because he was just a man.Erin, I don't think you know me: I'm USU78, militant Aggie, unabashed apologist for things Mormon, knife-fighter and hell-raiser.The reason the question is interesting is that the boo-birds have been claiming for decades that JSJr was convicted of fraud in this proceeding. If it's an examination and not a trial, they they have no foot to stand on in claiming, as they continue to do, that JSJr is a convicted fraud. If someone is a convicted fraud, then the balance of his testimony on any subject is suspect at best and may be disregarded as inherently unreliable. Examination = no conviction. If trial, then you have to look at the records of what went on. If he was acquitted, then no conviction, no fraud, and his testimony stands on its own. If he was convicted, then see above.It is thus an oversimplification to say it doesn't matter as some [i believe but cannot prove disingenuously] in this thread have claimed. It is highly important and needs to be determined.The record is incomplete and ambiguous, but a couple of things are telling: no fines; no jail time; no restitution. Without one or more of these things, it is really stretching it to claim that JSJr was convicted of fraud. Based upon the extant record, it looks like a preliminary proceeding of some kind, probably an examination, as defined above. 2
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 The Thompson testimony that says that Joseph saw treasure and then said it sunk lower. That is not generally accepted by LDS scholars?Not the truth of the matter, but rather that Thompson said it, unless I'm greatly misinformed.
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Not the truth of the matter, but rather that Thompson said it, unless I'm greatly misinformed.Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that LDS scholars accept the fact that Joseph did this? But not necessarily that Thompson testified as such?
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that LDS scholars accept the fact that Joseph did this? But not necessarily that Thompson testified as such?No, silly robuchan, but rather that such a thing has been demonstrably claimed. It quite a different thing to accept as reliable a report that somebody bad-mouthed JSJr and to believe what the bad-mouther said was true.Get the difference now? 1
Erin15 Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 And now, I will wait for the standard apologist reply that I must have been asking the wrong questions, looking for the wrong answers, or just done something plain wrong in order to not receive the same answer that they have received.We both know that it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Your relationship with the Lord is between you and Him. I have neither the authority nor the required information to speculate on the matter. My only obligation as a disciple is to encourage you to keep trying until you do get an answer one way or another. Beyond that, it is between you and Him, and is none of my business. 2
Walden Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Erin, I don't think you know me: I'm USU78, militant Aggie, unabashed apologist for things Mormon, knife-fighter and hell-raiser.The reason the question is interesting is that the boo-birds have been claiming for decades that JSJr was convicted of fraud in this proceeding. If it's an examination and not a trial, they they have no foot to stand on in claiming, as they continue to do, that JSJr is a convicted fraud. If someone is a convicted fraud, then the balance of his testimony on any subject is suspect at best and may be disregarded as inherently unreliable. Examination = no conviction.If trial, then you have to look at the records of what went on. If he was acquitted, then no conviction, no fraud, and his testimony stands on its own. If he was convicted, then see above.It is thus an oversimplification to say it doesn't matter as some [i believe but cannot prove disingenuously] in this thread have claimed. It is highly important and needs to be determined.The record is incomplete and ambiguous, but a couple of things are telling: no fines; no jail time; no restitution. Without one or more of these things, it is really stretching it to claim that JSJr was convicted of fraud. Based upon the extant record, it looks like a preliminary proceeding of some kind, probably an examination, as defined above.You're speaking as if a criminal conviction is the end-all, be-all of actual truth. I take it you are not a lawyer, and that you still believe that OJ is innocent and is actively looking for Nichole's real killer while behind bars for an unrelated crime.
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 You're speaking as if a criminal conviction is the end-all, be-all of actual truth. I take it you are not a lawyer, and that you still believe that OJ is innocent and is actively looking for Nichole's real killer while behind bars for an unrelated crime.{sigh} Evidentiary issues are what I'm talking about. Everybody knows trials go badly, prosecutors screw up, witnesses lie, and judges are self-seeking politicians. Evidentiary reliability is quite a separate thing.
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 No, silly robuchan, but rather that such a thing has been demonstrably claimed. It quite a different thing to accept as reliable a report that somebody bad-mouthed JSJr and to believe what the bad-mouther said was true.Get the difference now?So Mormon scholars reject the notion that Joseph Smith once said he saw treasure and saw it fall deeper in the ground?
DavidB Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 How can there be an acquital if there was no possibility of conviction. That is if it was only an examination or modernly a pretrial hearing to determine if there was enough evidence for a trail, how is aquital possible.
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 So Mormon scholars reject the notion that Joseph Smith once said he saw treasure and saw it fall deeper in the ground?I'm asking sincerely. I was under the impression this is accepted. I thought I remember reading it in Rough Stone Rolling.
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 So Mormon scholars reject the notion that Joseph Smith once said he saw treasure and saw it fall deeper in the ground?Let's back up a bit. If somebody claims I said something, that is, for the most part, hearsay and unreliable. There are exceptions, of course, but we should be careful of what Thompson says and judge it according to the useful rules courts employ to determine reliability. An historian appropriately notes when someone speaks ill of another [like Hamilton allegedly badmouthing Burr's sister or whatever it was he said]. We don't need to accept the truth of Hamilton's charge to note that he likely said it or, in the case of Thompson, that the evidence is quite good that Thompson claimed what he claimed: i.e., that JSJr said the treasure sunk into the ground, or raised up, or whatever. We are, however, under no obligation to accept that what Thompson claimed JSJr said is actually what JSJr said.See the difference?
Recommended Posts