Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and the 11 witnesses? 

and how many denied it? 

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Read the Wikipedia entry and the article linked therein. You’ll find there are conflicting accounts. The result is by no means a settled matter. 

There is still a debate regarding whether or not he was actually found guilty.  Here's the record that was found:

Quote

STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH

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.

- Joseph Smith's 1826 court transcript

I think each person needs to research this and determine what they believe regarding what took place and the records found.  There will probably always be a debate regarding whether he was actually found guilty, but I think there's no debate regarding his activities involving treasure seeking during this period in his life.

[Abulafia]

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is relevant to some because they are wanting to see if you are willing to look past your biases, just as it is important for those arguing for the church to look past biases.. It has nothing to do with the statue of limitations etc.

I've already listed on more than one occasion the criminal past of McKenna, that she herself has openly admitted to on facebook in a public post, for the whole world to see.  What bias do I have?

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

With their *spiritual eyes* and in a glorious (for them) vision. 

Emma's account is scientifically impossible and I believe she was lying.

Where does it say it was with their spiritual eyes? I haven't read that.  It's interesting that you feel comfortable calling Emma a liar, especially considering how you respond to those who question Denson's credibility.  Seems like a *bit* of a double standard.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I've already listed on more than one occasion the criminal past of McKenna, that she herself has openly admitted to on facebook in a public post, for the whole world to see.  What bias do I have?

I think the suggestion is that you seem to be A) ignoring the impact of her past problematic behavior on her credibility, while also B) uncritically condemning Joseph Bishop based on allegations regarding his past problematic behavior.

So how is it that Joseph Bishop's (purported) past misconduct is probative in establishing his character, but McKenna Denson's (purported) past misconduct is not probative in establishing her character?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

35 minutes ago, provoman said:

and how many denied it? 

exactley

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

With their *spiritual eyes* and in a glorious (for them) vision. 

How do you account for the Eight Witnesses?

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Emma's account is scientifically impossible and I believe she was lying.

"Scientifically impossible?"  How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

Blue bell. Here's the thing..I think Emma was lying on that occasion because the way she describes the rustling of plates is not possible from a scientific point of view. Did Emma lie on every occasion in her life? No. Did she lie to her son's about polygamy? If the evidence is correct that she was in attendance at Joseph's plural marriages on at least one occasion even, then she was not honest with her children on this particular matter.  I'm sure she had her reasons.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Blue bell. Here's the thing..I think Emma was lying on that occasion because the way she describes the rustling of plates is not possible from a scientific point of view. Did Emma lie on every occasion in her life? No. Did she lie to her son's about polygamy? If the evidence is correct that she was in attendance at Joseph's plural marriages on at least one occasion even, then she was not honest with her children on this particular matter.  I'm sure she had her reasons.

Thanks for explaining.  We'll have to agree to disagree that what Emma described about the plates was scientifically impossible.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Someone,asked if I was prepared to consider whether McKenna exaggerated or lied about her account.

In a sense, it's not relevant. The statute of limitations are such that he is now beyond the law [...]

So, I'm going to take that as a 'no.' You're not willing to concede to even the possibility that she could be exaggerating or lying. 

At least, the way you are dodging the question and continuing to characterize the situation (i.e., him being "beyond the law") sure makes it sound that way to me.

Incidentally, I don't think you ever responded to Calm's question about standard of evidence. I would be interested in hearing your response to that question as well.

 

[Abulafia]

Smac, Joseph Smith III interview with his mother... on the plates

"Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. "

Show me any metal, anywhere that can be thick enough to be written on and rustle with a metallic sound. 

 

[Abulafia]

Amulek said

"Incidentally, I don't think you ever responded to Calm's question about standard of evidence. I would be interested in hearing your response to that question as well."

 

I missed it. Can you link in context.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Blue bell. Here's the thing..I think Emma was lying on that occasion because the way she describes the rustling of plates is not possible from a scientific point of view.

I don't understand this.  What "scientific point of view?"  I think this is the quote you have in mind:

Quote

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

How is "rustle with a metallic sound" a description that is "not possible from a scientific point of view?" 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the suggestion is that you seem to be A) ignoring the impact of her past problematic behavior on her credibility, while also B) uncritically condemning Joseph Bishop based on allegations regarding his past problematic behavior.

So how is it that Joseph Bishop's (purported) past misconduct is probative in establishing his character, but McKenna Denson's (purported) past misconduct is not probative in establishing her character?

Thanks,

-Smac

Because most of it occurred after she spoke to Asay and Leavitt. 

[Abulafia]

Smac. What metal will have that quality and can be written on. Show me a physical example and I will amend my opinion.

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Amulek said

"Incidentally, I don't think you ever responded to Calm's question about standard of evidence. I would be interested in hearing your response to that question as well."

I missed it. Can you link in context.

Sure.

Here is the link. And here was her question:

Abulifa, do you require the same standard of pronouncing guilt when it comes to Bishop, Leavitt, Church, leadership, and Joseph Smith?

It takes a jury, if enough evidence is available, to convict and pronounce innocence or guilt

 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Scott. I think it is settled. 

Ipse dixit, yet again!  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Scott. I think it is settled. 

You’re entitled to your opinion, but it ignores the historical record. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ipse dixit, yet again!  

There’s yet another Latin phrase to rile up Happy Jack Wagon and California Boy.  😆 

But I like the way it rolls off the tongue. And I like it’s conciseness, essentially meaning, “It’s true (or settled) because I say it is.”  

Edited September 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac. What metal will have that quality and can be written on. Show me a physical example and I will amend my opinion.

Have you read the witness accounts of what the pages of the plates looked like.  Witnesses describe them as having the thickness of tin or parchment.   That's not scientifically impossible at all.  

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2007/07/what-did-the-golden-plates-look-like?lang=eng

Edited September 21, 2018 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

With their *spiritual eyes* and in a glorious (for them) vision. 

Emma's account is scientifically impossible and I believe she was lying.

There’s nothing in the testimony of the Eight Witnesses that refers to “spiritual eyes” or visions or heavenly visitations or anything supernatural. 

And your assertion about Emma is ipse dixit (I thank Kenngo for introducing me to that term just now; it has such utility). 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, Joseph Smith III interview with his mother... on the plates

"Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. "

Show me any metal, anywhere that can be thick enough to be written on and rustle with a metallic sound. 

There are plenty of resources that attempt to use the historic record to extrapolate the physical properties of the plates.  See, e.g., 

• How Big A Book? Estimating the Total Surface Area of the Book of Mormon Plates.
• What Kind of Ore did Nephi Use to Make the Plates?
• How Witnesses Described the Gold Plates
• Eyewitness descriptions of the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated
• An analysis of claims made in the Wikipedia article "Golden plates" - Described format, binding, and dimensions
• Metals and Weapons in the Book of Mormon: Mormon Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
• (Supposed) Book of Mormon Anachronisms

There are quite a few testable elements for the historical descriptions of the plates.  We know their approximate dimensions, weight, thickness, appearance, pliability, and so on.  

This video sums things up fairly well:

The money quote from the above video:

Quote

When tumbaga, which is red, is treated with any simple acid, such as citric acid, the copper in the of the alloy is removed from the surface, leaving a brilliant .006 inch 23-carat gold glint coating, which is easier to engrave upon.  This process was used in Ancient America.  To the eye, the object would have had the appearance of pure gold.

And this:

Both of the above videos are very brief.  Here's a longer one (worth the time, I think):

The more I look at the historical record, the more impressed I am with Joseph Smith's narrative.  What he and his contemporaries describe about the plates is very plausible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 21, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

There is still a debate regarding whether or not he was actually found guilty.  Here's the record that was found:

I think each person needs to research this and determine what they believe regarding what took place and the records found.  There will probably always be a debate regarding whether he was actually found guilty, but I think there's no debate regarding his activities involving treasure seeking during this period in his life.

As I said, it’s not a settled matter. 

And it’s pretty clear he was not “charged with money digging” as Tacenda claimed. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Because most of it occurred after she spoke to Asay and Leavitt. 

You are assuming she spoke to Asay.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s yet another Latin phrase to rile up Happy Jack Wagon and California Boy.  😆 

But I like the way it rolls off the tongue. And I like it’s conciseness, essentially meaning, “It’s true because I say it is.”  

And it's pretentious every time

But I'm hardly "apoplectic" about it. Still, I'm glad I occupy so much space in your mind that you can't help but mention me whenever you see a latin phrase. It's kinda sweet. HAPPYJACKWAGON IS . IN . THE . HOUSE!!!