Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: greyfoxx39
From the article: Madsen said their study bears out the truth of Brigham Young's report that Joseph was never convicted in any criminal case in which he was accused.

What? Have they ducked looking into Joseph Smith's conviction for glass-looking in 1826?

Here's what a few Web sites mention about this:

Four years before the Book of Mormon was published, Joseph Smith was arrested, jailed, and brought into court in Bainbridge, New York on the charge of being "a disorderly person and an impostor" in connection with his use of a peep stone to search for buried treasure. While the evidence indicates he was found guilty of this charge, the young Joseph was apparently released on the condition that he leave the area. ( Quinn, pp. 44ff.; and H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 70ff.)

The original court record of these charges were discovered in 1971. Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley, of Brigham Young University, wrote, "if this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." (Hugh W. Nibley, The Myth Makers, p. 14, 1961) This is from 1826 Bill of Justice Albert Neely. (Courtesy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chenango County Office Building, Norwich, New York.) Source: http://www.letusreason.org/LDS14.htm

Another Web site mentions a book called Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, by David Persuitte, published by McFarland & Company. The Web site says: This small book offers detailed coverage of Joseph's 1826 trial for "glass-looking," the parallels between Ethan Smith's A View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, and Thomas Dick's possible influence on the Book of Abraham and Mormon doctrine. Persuitte provides extensive excerpts from primary sources that are rarely mentioned in most other books, but which anyone interested in the origins in the Book of Mormon should be aware of. http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/misc/RecommendReading.html

15 posted on 02/26/2009 9:23:13 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Colofornian

The Kirkland bank scam...

Wasnt Smith fined $1,000 but he didnt pay it ???


18 posted on 02/26/2009 9:28:16 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
What? Have they ducked looking into Joseph Smith's conviction for glass-looking in 1826?

I think you can get an idea of where the author and the "researchers" are coming from with the very first phrase in the article...."In addition to his many roles as the Lord's anointed,"

24 posted on 02/26/2009 9:38:08 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (buckle in for 4 more years of detached, grandstanding flourish left untethered by an incurious media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson