1826 Ad Nauseum, Memory, And Significance

[Glenn101]

At the risk of causing someone to hurl, I wanted to bring up a couple of points concerning the 1826 proceeding against Joseph Smith in South Bainbridge, New York.

The first part is about mamory. Dr. Purple's memory to be exact. Dan Vogel, and others, claim that Purple's memory can not be trusted because over fifty years had elapsed between the events in South Bainbridge and the time that Purple published his article in the Chenango Union.

So, I have done trudged back down memory lane a bit myself to test the theory a bit. I have tried to remember any trials in which I was present lo these many years ago to see if I could remember the outcome(s). There are two that stick out in my mind, right off the bat.

One concerns a young man I knew who was on trial for petty larceny around forty-four years ago. He had stolen an electric motor and was caught, but not quite red-handed. I remember that he plead guilty and was so found. He was given a two year suspended sentence.

I also remember that the man from whom he had stolen the motor telling me that he would have been willing to go easy on the young man, if he had confessed and returned the motor on his own initiative.

I also can remember the scorn with which a local news reporter and commentator responded to that lenient sentence.

I do not remember the exact month and year, although if it had been only four or five years past, I am sure that I could do much better.

Of course, Dan or anyone else may challenge me on this, and if so, I will be glad to P.M. any such challenger with the name of the person, the place, and the approximate time frame for them to seek the records to verify or refute my memory claim.

Dr. Purple got the year correct fifty-one years later, but was only off a month (he said February but the events happened in March) for the time frame that the events occurred.

In contrast, A.W. Benton said in 1831 that the Public had initiated the action but named no specific person and he could only say that the event happened four of five years in the past.

It would seem that Dr. Purple comes off pretty well by comparison.

Now, just what is the significance of all of the hoopla concerning those events asto Joseph's future calling as a prophet?

There is no evidence given by any of the testators that Joseph was out to deceive or defraud anyone. In fact, the only person who was in a position to be harmed was Josiah Stowell, and all of the statements by all of the witnesses note that Josiah Stowell was well pleased with Joseph in the performance of all of his work.

Are the critics making much ado about nothing? (And am I beating a dead horse?)

Glenn

Edited May 12, 2013 by Glenn101

[Questing Beast]

Yes, and yes. So what? It is always interesting to discuss Joseph Smith!...

[Salem]

There is no evidence given by any of the testators that Joseph was out to deceive or defraud anyone. In fact, the only person who was in a position to be harmed was Josiah Stowell, and all of the statements by all of the witnesses note that Josiah Stowell was well pleased with Joseph in the performance of all of his work.

Are the critics making much ado about nothing? (And am I beating a dead horse?)

Glenn

Pointing out to the 1826 proceedings against Joseph Smith in South Bainbridge is much ado about nothing and a distraction by the critics.

[Dan Vogel]

Glen,

I didn’t argue that old memory is always wrong or necessarily wrong. I question Purple’s memory because it contradicts the trial record itself and two earlier sources that had access to the information. Besides, he wasn’t completely wrong or right since JS’s 1826 trial ended ambiguously, apparently being found guilty but spared having a record of conviction by Neely.

[Storm Rider]

Dan, I think the point still remains that some make this a mountain when in reality it is a rather insignificant event. A man employs another fellow and is well pleased with his work....that is the some total of the events. Since the very beginning of writings about history the record has been twisted by individual perspective and their agendas. Such is the case with Joseph Smith and will be with all history; particularly now when historians parade their all-seeing eye on how an individual thought, his/her emotions, etc. I suspect that our present day is no different from past historians; some are good and some are poor, but all history needs to be read with a degree of skepticism.

[ERayR]

At the risk of causing someone to hurl, I wanted to bring up a couple of points concerning the 1826 proceeding against Joseph Smith in South Bainbridge, New York.

The first part is about mamory. Dr. Purple's memory to be exact. Dan Vogel, and others, claim that Purple's memory can not be trusted because over fifty years had elapsed between the events in South Bainbridge and the time that Purple published his article in the Chenango Union.

So, I have done trudged back down memory lane a bit myself to test the theory a bit. I have tried to remember any trials in which I was present lo these many years ago to see if I could remember the outcome(s). There are two that stick out in my mind, right off the bat.

One concerns a young man I knew who was on trial for petty larceny around forty-four years ago. He had stolen an electric motor and was caught, but not quite red-handed. I remember that he plead guilty and was so found. He was given a two year suspended sentence.

I also remember that the man from whom he had stolen the motor telling me that he would have been willing to go easy on the young man, if he had confessed and returned the motor on his own initiative.

I also can remember the scorn with which a local news reporter and commentator responded to that lenient sentence.

I do not remember the exact month and year, although if it had been only four or five years past, I am sure that I could do much better.

Of course, Dan or anyone else may challenge me on this, and if so, I will be glad to P.M. any such challenger with the name of the person, the place, and the approximate time frame for them to seek the records to verify or refute my memory claim.

Dr. Purple got the year correct fifty-one years later, but was only off a month (he said February but the events happened in March) for the time frame that the events occurred.

In contrast, A.W. Benton said in 1831 that the Public had initiated the action but named no specific person and he could only say that the event happened four of five years in the past.

It would seem that Dr. Purple comes off pretty well by comparison.

Now, just what is the significance of all of the hoopla concerning those events asto Joseph's future calling as a prophet?

There is no evidence given by any of the testators that Joseph was out to deceive or defraud anyone. In fact, the only person who was in a position to be harmed was Josiah Stowell, and all of the statements by all of the witnesses note that Josiah Stowell was well pleased with Joseph in the performance of all of his work.

Are the critics making much ado about nothing? (And am I beating a dead horse?)

Glenn

Yes

No

[Glenn101]

Glen,

I didn’t argue that old memory is always wrong or necessarily wrong. I question Purple’s memory because it contradicts the trial record itself and two earlier sources that had access to the information. Besides, he wasn’t completely wrong or right since JS’s 1826 trial ended ambiguously, apparently being found guilty but spared having a record of conviction by Neely.

Dan, We do not have a trial record. We have quotes from what is purported to be a trial record, but we do not have the original. I have pointed out a lot of reasons to distrust those excerpts. Your two earlier sources, A.W. Benton and Joel King Noble presented no evidence that they were at the trial or that they were basing their information upon any official documents. As I have pointed out, Benton did not even remember which year the 1826 event took place nor did he name anyone who was at the proceedings or who brought the charges.

Your assertion that Neely spared Joseph having the conviction recorded is nothing but speculation.

Glenn

[Bit]

It's spelled ad nauseam.

[Glenn101]

It's spelled ad nauseam.

You are quite correct, although phonetically pronounced ad-naw-zze-uhm. Thanks for the correction. Do you have anything of substance to add to the actual topic?

Glenn