No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

You mean like Arron's rod turnining into a snake?

Or Joseph's (Egypt) silver cup helping him "divine"?

Brother of Jared stones?

liahona?

 

I'm sensing a pattern here...

 

 

I don't think any of these things possess any supernatural powers on their own, but only in the hands of a prophet or servant of God, who is using it on His behalf. I think God knows that for us mortals it is easier to bring about spiritual things if we have something physical in our hands to use. We have faith that that object can be used for supernatural purposes. 

 "Where's my bat? I think better with it."  (Tom Cruise, A few Good Men)

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Seer stones are "weird" because they are connected with folk magic, and we don't believe in magic.

The Urim and Thummim is acceptable because it is in the bible, and we believe in the bible.

(By we I mean society in general including the LDS church.)

I know you have not thought that comment through.  What "society in general" believes in creedal christianity should not be relevant to Restoration thinking.  

I personally do not believe that the man-chosen manuscripts which ended up in the bible are much better than folk magic. Talking donkeys and witches?  Temple dramas recited as history? And of course we have discussed historicity not being important to spiritual truths.  Spiritual truth is found where we find it.   We must use the spirit to discern all sources anyway, so I see some difference, but frankly not much. God gives us knowledge everywhere and we seek the "best books",of which of course, the bible is only one.

I see the stories about Biblical divination confirming that the use of stones was and will remain a common technique for revelation, and has ancient roots.  The human brain creates matter organized from matter unorganized.  I personally have had some amazing revelations which helped me find the church looking out over the ocean and watching the waves.  Many see pictures in the clouds and it is common for people to like to gaze into campfires and watch the flames while talking.  I see all of these activities as related and simply part of how the brain works, in receiving revelation.  Staring at a stone, clear or patterned, to me, is the same thing.  I have often said that it doesn't matter to me if Joseph "translated" the Book of Abraham while staring at the patterns on wall paper.  

The spiritual content of the writing is what changes lives.  What it took to come up with that spiritual content doesn't much matter.  Ideas are judged on their own merits, not their source.  Thomas Jefferson owned slaves- no one thinks about that when contemplating the ideas he had about how a government should run.  We do not even know who wrote many of the books of the Bible, yet we accept its spiritual content as scripture.

Anyway, that's my story and i am sticking to it.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Keq82 said:

The problem is this, there were numerous statements made concerning the use of a seer stone (see below) during Joseph Smith's time. 

Why would the 4th President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, use the seer stone in a temple dedication, and thensome years later, the 10th President of the Church (JFS) make the comment mentioned above?  Are we really to believe JSF know absolutely nothing about the seer stone being used?    

For example:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.  I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."

An Address to All Believers in Christ, Part First, Chapter 1. Also, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

Reported by Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," Millennial Star, Volume 44, pp86-87.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

Emma Smith Bidamon Interview with Joseph Smith III, February 1879 Published as "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90.

 

What exactly is your point??  We got the idea already, there were fewer quotes before about seer stones- so what?

You keep making quotes and not using arguments.  Quotes say nothing- what do YOU think??

We have never believed that prophets are infallible.  This is not the church of Warren Jeffs.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you have not thought that comment through.  What "society in general" believes in creedal christianity should not be relevant to Restoration thinking.  

 

The first eight chapters (or so) of Brant Gardner's The Gift and the Power deal with how the story of the translation was shaped by the early LDS community.  Elements of the restoration that could be associated with folk magic were deemphasized by the early LDS community as the church moved from the backwoods into a more sophisticated, urban setting.

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What exactly is your point??  We got the idea already, there were fewer quotes before about seer stones- so what?

You keep making quotes and not using arguments.  Quotes say nothing- what do YOU think??

We have never believed that prophets are infallible.  This is not the church of Warren Jeffs.

My point: the story the church uses for the translation of the Book of Mormon (in our manuals, pics, etc.) is incorrect.

I think the church, in many ways, is guilty of institutionalized deception and is not being honest about its own history.  

In terms of quotes, I find it interesting that by quoting Presidents of the Church and FAIR apologists on this topic, some members consider it anti Mormon, due to the fact that it doesn't fall in line perfectly with what the church wants us to believe.  

[Keq82]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that at least one of the seer stones was the same stone Joseph used for treasure seeking when he was younger.  Some members are just learning this.  They are fine with the Urim & Thummim scenario because they were with the plates.  At least that's what I think may be the difference. 

 

And to add onto that: Joseph Smith was convicted in a court of law in 1826 for glass looking.  Further, it also has to do with the fact that the golden plates were not used in the translation process.  

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The first eight chapters (or so) of Brant Gardner's The Gift and the Power deal with how the story of the translation was shaped by the early LDS community.  Elements of the restoration that could be associated with folk magic were deemphasized by the early LDS community as the church moved from the backwoods into a more sophisticated, urban setting.

I didn't even make mention that Oliver Cowdery also used a divining rod, which was later the staff BY used in declaring the Salt Lake Valley, "this is the place!"  The church wants to deemphasize the use of such objects to make certain stories more digestible.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

Joseph Smith was convicted in a court of law in 1826 for glass looking. 

CFR please.

[cdowis]

17 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I agree that being open and transparent about our history is extremely important, especially when you consider how other faiths view us.  Not only that, be we owe it to ourselves to be honest about our own history (and not sweep difficult subjects under the rug) just because they are controversial and/or difficult to believe.  Further, focusing on a difficult aspect and trying to obtain the most accurate account shouldn't be considered "anti Mormon."  Unfortunately, even if some events are true and actually took place, some LDS members will be quick to label them as anti Mormon. 

Why would we tell them one thing (a half truth) and then admit to them something entirely different in the future?  It just causes a great deal of unneeded confusion and frustration.  

I find it interesting that you have taken on the role of "steadying the ark".  Is this a ward or a stake calling?

[Keq82]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

CFR please.

Here are a few links:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/4588/4238

Edited March 22, 2016 by Keq82

[Raingirl]

10 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

My point: the story the church uses for the translation of the Book of Mormon (in our manuals, pics, etc.) is incorrect.

I think the church, in many ways, is guilty of institutionalized deception and is not being honest about its own history.  

In terms of quotes, I find it interesting that by quoting Presidents of the Church and FAIR apologists on this topic, some members consider it anti Mormon, due to the fact that it doesn't fall in line perfectly with what the church wants us to believe.  

So your only interest in this subject is based on your desire to use it as an attack against the church.

i was baptized in 2011.  I don't see the scandal here.  A painting that shows Joseph Smith with the plates on the table near him somehow translates automatically into that being some sort of deceptive statement by the church as to how the plates were translated?  I don't see it.

if I showed you a photograph of a scribe sitting next to a Torah scroll, am I being maliciously deceptive about the process involved there?

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

Here are a few links:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/4588/4238

Yes, I've read those.  There is, however, no primary source that states that Joseph Smith was found guilty in this trial. 

[Keq82]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Why would we tell them one thing (a half truth) and then admit to them something entirely different in the future?  It just causes a great deal of unneeded confusion and frustration.  

I find it interesting that you have taken on the role of "steadying the ark".  Is this a ward or a stake calling?

I'm glad you find it interesting; I think as members of the church, we should try to obtain an objective view of our own history and be honesty about even the most controversial events.  

Do we have to have ward and stake callings to learn about our own history?  

[Keq82]

5 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

So your only interest in this subject is based on your desire to use it as an attack against the church.

i was baptized in 2011.  I don't see the scandal here.  A painting that shows Joseph Smith with the plates on the table near him somehow translates automatically into that being some sort of deceptive statement by the church as to how the plates were translated?  I don't see it.

if I showed you a photograph of a scribe sitting next to a Torah scroll, am I being maliciously deceptive about the process involved there?

Please explain to me how trying to understand events as they actually took place an attack on the church?

I'm saying that the church isn't telling the story the right way--it didn't happen like they say it happened.  I'm not trying to lead people away from the church in any way; rather, I'm maintaining an objective view of our history and trying to reconcile major gaps that have been left out.  

[Keq82]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, I've read those.  There is, however, no primary source that states that Joseph Smith was found guilty in this trial. 

http://www.mormonstudies.com/articles/joseph-smiths-bainbridge-n-y-court-trials/

You have your own opinion on this matter...but he was arrested in 1826.  

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/articles/joseph-smiths-bainbridge-n-y-court-trials/

You have your own opinion on this matter...but he was arrested in 1826.  

Which is all anyone can have as there is no record extant.  You said a couple of post above that "I'm maintaining and objective view of our history."  Is it objective to say that someone was convicted of a crime when no record of such a conviction exists?

Edited March 22, 2016 by ksfisher

[Keq82]

56 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Which is all anyone can have as there is no record extant.  You said a couple of post above that "I'm maintaining and objective view of our history."  Is it objective to say that someone was convicted of a crime when no record of such a conviction exists?

They can be viewed here:

http://www.fullerconsideration.com/sources.php?cat=GP-T26

"Friendly sources corroborate hostile non-Mormon accounts. As historian Richard L. Bushman has written: 'There had always been evidence of it ("money-digging in the Smith family") in the hostile affidavits from the Smith's neighbors, evidence which Mormons dismissed as hopelessly biased. But when I got into the sources, I found evidence from friendly contemporaries as well, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Oliver Cowdery, and Lucy Mack Smith. All of these witnesses persuaded me treasure-seeking and vernacular magic were part of the Smith family tradition, and that the hostile witnesses, including the 1826 trial record, had to be taken seriously.' BYU historian Marvin S. Hill has likewise observed: 'Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith's career as village magician.'" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. 1998.

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

They can be viewed here:

http://www.fullerconsideration.com/sources.php?cat=GP-T26

"Friendly sources corroborate hostile non-Mormon accounts. As historian Richard L. Bushman has written: 'There had always been evidence of it ("money-digging in the Smith family") in the hostile affidavits from the Smith's neighbors, evidence which Mormons dismissed as hopelessly biased. But when I got into the sources, I found evidence from friendly contemporaries as well, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Oliver Cowdery, and Lucy Mack Smith. All of these witnesses persuaded me treasure-seeking and vernacular magic were part of the Smith family tradition, and that the hostile witnesses, including the 1826 trial record, had to be taken seriously.' BYU historian Marvin S. Hill has likewise observed: 'Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith's career as village magician.'" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. 1998.

Which primary source reports the result of the trial?

Edited March 22, 2016 by ksfisher

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Once again, this is much more than display pics about a specific even in history.

I will reference this FAIR quote again:

"I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.

So I think we should just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked. It’s weird. It’s a weird picture. It implies it’s like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that’s a reading and so gives a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, what in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?”

- Richard Bushman, LDS Scholar, FAIR Podcast, Episode 3: Richard L. Bushman p.1, 47:25

I disagree with Bushman. If it were up to me we would lose the old pictures but this is so minor it is ridiculous. The method is not earth-shattering to testimonies. We should just teach what we know and move on. Eventually the pictures will go away.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I'm glad you find it interesting; I think as members of the church, we should try to obtain an objective view of our own history and be honesty about even the most controversial events.  

Do we have to have ward and stake callings to learn about our own history?  

Since you cleverly changed the subject, I assume that you actually know what I was talking about.  I even quoted you directly, so exactly who  is "we"?  And what did "we" do?  Who exactly are the deceivers (those who have told half-truths).  You have your hand outstretched to steady the ark.

No need to answer.

Edited March 22, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, I've read those.  There is, however, no primary source that states that Joseph Smith was found guilty in this trial. 

I'll admit that I'm not real knowledgeable regarding this topic, but I have read this source (I'll post it below).  Has it been discussed or authenticated (the last sentence states he was found guilty):

Quote

 

The court record of Smith’s trial resulting in his first fraud conviction follows:
 

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.

Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally look at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always declined having anything to do with this business.

Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel’s house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel’s, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man’s head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner’s skill.

Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to look, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner’s professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

There is also this statement:

Of this incident, Thomas Ferguson, founder of BYU Archaeology Dept. in recognizing Joseph Smith's fraud conviction said:

In 1826 Joseph Smith was 21 and at this point was midway between the first vision and 1830 {i.e. between his days as a money-digging con artist and the beginning of his career as a “prophet”}. What a strange time to be convicted of fraud – fraudulently getting money after convincing the victim that he could detect the whereabouts of hidden treasure on the victim’s land. Wow.... It is as genuine and sound as can be – published right in Joseph Smith’s own camp. (speaking to the author on March 13, 1971; and published in “Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters” by James Bovak, pp. 261-262)

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Keq82 said:

All of these witnesses persuaded me treasure-seeking and vernacular magic were part of the Smith family tradition, and that the hostile witnesses, including the 1826 trial record, had to be taken seriously.' BYU historian Marvin S. Hill has likewise observed: 'Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith's career as village magician.'" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. 1998.

So what?  

We can get on our knees and thank God, that, as He did with Peter, he looks at the heart, even the heart of the village magician to discover the Prophet who would remain faithful to restore the Gospel and His church and priesthood.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah.

Edited March 22, 2016 by cdowis

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'll admit that I'm not real knowledgeable regarding this topic, but I have read this source (I'll post it below).  Has it been discussed or authenticated (the last sentence states he was found guilty):

 

This is not an original document.  From the Fair site about this:

 

We don’t have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:

1. Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
2. She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
3. Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
4. Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer’s Magazine in 1873.
5. Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall’s death
6. Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
7. Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
8. Then the record was lost.

 

We know that the supposed “court record” obtained by Miss Pearsall can’t be a court record at all.

1. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
2. No witness signatures–they were required in an official record
3. It appears to be a pretrial hearing
4. Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts

 

[cdowis]

Here is a pretty good summary of the trial, and sources.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/facts.html

For example

1. The first account was published in 1831 by A. W. Benton:
   
2. "At length the public, becoming wearied with the base imposition which he was palming upon the credulity of the ignorant, for the purpose of sponging his living from their earnings, had him arrested as a disorderly person, tried and condemned before a court of justice. But, considering his youth, (he then being a minor), thinking he might reform his conduct, he was designedly allowed to escape."
3. The second account of this trial is from Oliver Cowdery in The Messenger and Advocate, October 1835.
   
4. "On the private character of our brother I need add nothing further, at present, previous to his obtaining the records of the Nephites, only that while in that country, some very officious person complained of him as a disorderly person, and brought him before the authorities of the county; but there being no cause of action he was honorably acquited."
5. William D. Purple was asked to take notes, and it has been assumed that they are the source of the record in Judge Neely's docket book. But for his published record he used his memory. "The scenes and incidents of that early day are vividly engraven upon his memory, by reason of his having written them when they occurred".
6. Although William D. Purple claims to have told about the trial: "and by reason of his public and private rehearsals of them in later years", it is not used to discredit Joseph Smith by any of the anti-Mormon authors until the trial record was published in 1873.
7. Judge Neely's bill, and Constable Philip DeZeng bill for the 1826 trial was found and published in 1971, which shows that Joseph did appear before Judge Neely on March 20, 1826.
8. "Four years before Dr. Purple's account was published the actual trial record taken from Albert Neely's Docket Book was made public. This official trial record had been torn from Mr. Neely's book by his niece, Miss Emily Pearsall, and taken to Utah with her when she went to serve as a missionary under Bishop Daniel S. Tuttle. Before her death in 1872, Charles Marshall, a British journalist visiting Salt Lake City, was shown the document, copied it and upon returning to England published it in Fraser's Magazine in 1873.
9. After Miss Pearsall's death, Bishop Tuttle fell heir to the Neely trial record, and unaware of its previous publication by Marshall, announced he was publishing it for the first time in his article that appeared in the 1883 New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. . . . Before the Bishop left Utah in September of 1886, he turned the record over to the Methodists
10. . . . after the Methodists received and made their own printing of it, the document itself disappeared." (Joseph Smith Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials, Wesley P. Walters, p. 134-137)

Edited March 22, 2016 by cdowis