[DelphiUser]

GZ Lets examine what the issue is first, then I’ll pick apart your citation.

When you have nothing to present, picking at things is all you can do. Proceed

Smith was charged with a count of treasure seeking in 1826.

Actually, he was charged with being a disorderly person, which was a misdemeanor, "Treasure Seeking" was not illegal, and is not today, we would call it treasure hunting.

GZ Is the trial historically proven by the documents

If you have ever had any cause to participate in a criminal proceeding you would know that first, a hearing is held to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial a hearing cannot return a verdict, it can only decide to remand a person over for Trial or not.

GZ Are the documents authentic.

Which is a singularly difficult thing to prove, since many of these documents were not authenticated while they were still available, are not now available so we are forced to admit doubt both for and against their authenticity.

GZ It is well established that smith had a reputation for treasure seeking using a peep stone.

No one disputes that Joseph smith was charged by Josiah Stowell's sons for helping their father dig for treasure that he (Josiah Stowell) was convinced was on his land.

I must admit that as a teenager, if one of the people in the town had wanted to pay me (and well too) to dig on their land for treasure they thought was there, They could have paid me to dig for it, I guess I'm guilty too. LOL!

"Glass looking" is not part of the charge, even though it became the focus of the hearing.

GZ The fact that smith possessed and used “seer stones” for his translation of the bom further confirms the practice.

Seer Stones, namely a Urim and Thummim are Biblical and are therefore a "Christian", Aaron Wore them as part of his priestly garments, Eleazar was to use the Urim and Thummim (which are seer stones) to gain answers from God, Saul was frustrated when God would not answer him by the Urim and Thummim. The Bible approves of and records the use of Seer Stones. The question that should be being asked is why is there no such revelatory device in orthodox Christianity today?

Godzilla, you start mixing stuff in such a way as to make it difficult to know what you are quoting and what is commentary, so I will cut out what I think is quotation, if I get commentary, next time may I suggest you use use <Blockquote> and </Blockquote> to indent your quotations, oh, and a Link to the source helps too

GZ The first point is that your source never denies that smith was taken to court.

Neither do I deny that Joseph smith was taken to court (Yet another straw man?) Let me make this easy for you Joseph Smith was taken to court many times in his life time, 1826 was one such time he was charged by those opposed to his religious views with something to make him look bad. It's an old old trick used by Satan many times...

FYI, Jesus was taken to Court, Tried and Convicted, so?

GZ It spends much time misdirecting one’s attention to some questionable aspects of the history, but never denies it. Even Cowdrey in the mormon propaganda mouthpiece Messenger and Advocate, affirms the trial took place.

Oliver Cowdry confirms that Joseph was taken to court, So? We don't deny that. As for the Questionable nature of the evidence, you keep bringing up the "questionable nature" of the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, And then you come here and that's bad? Either evidence is evaluated with the good and the Bad, or you are committing the Fallacy of Ignoring the counter evidence. Godzilla, I have been, and still am asserting that you Ignore counter evidence, and therefore IMHO, you are not credible. Why are we even talking about this? IMHO we are widely ranging out into Stones in the Arizona desert, and into Hearings in 1826, because the DNA evidence this thread was supposed to be about is not going well for your side. Why? The Book of Mormon Documents many Groups joining the Groups from Jerusalem, The wars and additions of untraceable genetic material makes any kind of actual scientific "proving of the Book of Mormon false" a statistical impossibility. Thus you wander off into including other dubious methods of slinging mud at the church. This method of Dissipating the topic is known as Plurium Interrogationum, this Fallacy of asking many questions at once, is not considered a valid method of debate, and would get you thrown out of a debate society, stick to the question Namely, can you get a valid result from a DNA test that starts with a corrupted DNA sample?

I am going to skip a bunch of your quotation, and just link to the source<--SNip-->

GZ As DU likes to cite absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case the circumstantial evidence continues to confirm the account.

LOL! Have you not been arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? LOL, Now you want to flip your whole argument around? This is funny, I'm pulling a link from this post to my cache!

Hearings (Which can't render a verdict) came first, then a trial. Only felony trials were recorded. so we have a purported recording of a Trial that was held without a prior hearing, for a misdemeanor which would not have been recorded on a paper that was reportedly torn from the ledger and carried to Utah and later obtained by anti Mormons, but only after the death of the person who "tore the paper from the ledger", the Document was never reunited with the ledger it was supposedly torn from to have the page tear compared, paper compared, etc. Yet, you want this as well as other documents that were removed from their historical setting and taken to Cambridge for analysis and had to have court action to force the return of these now possibly tainted documents. And you want to talk about this as proof of something? Can we go back to talking about the Los Lunas stone which at least is still where it was and has not been in the private possession of people who's intentions are suspect.

This is funny, your standard of evidence for any supposed evidence against Mormons or Joseph is nonexistent, while your standard for evidence supporting Mormonism and Joseph Smith is unapproachable in real life.

Lets assume for a moment that I came up with a document, say from professor Anthon that had been torn from his ledger, brought to Utah, kept secret until the person who tore it out of his ledger died, published it and had images of it posted, the4n claimed the original was now lost without any forensic analysis being done to authenticate it and I wanted wanted to use this document in our debate... Is there anyone here who actually thinks you would allow this document to be entered into evidence without a complaint? ROTFLOL!

Your post is a better example of bias than anything I could possibly come up with. Truth truly is stranger than fiction.

GZ Regarding DU’s last bleats

DU Godzilla, any comments on this "evidence" that was tampered with? Do you want to present it at a UFO convention even?

GZ Your FAIR source is already on record in admitting the documents are authentic and nothing has been proven to be tampered with. So until you can prove tampering (and document handling is not evidence of tampering DU), then your assertion doesn’t hold water.

That is an interesting opinion, the facts of the matter however are quite different, the actual site has this to say about some of the documents you are talking abou tusing to document this "trial":

The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt

Now for the "nothing has been proven to be tampered with" logic, LOL! You have not proven that the Los Lunas stone was tampered with, and you have not proven that the Book of Mormon is not true... The list of things not proven is literally endless. You present this as a logical argument? Are you serious? ROTFLOL!

Either the Los Lunas stone is "generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt", or these arguments get tossed out too. Logic does not bend to your will, you can't have it both ways Godzilla!

GZ The mormon church has had them in their possession since 2005, there is has been ample opportunity for them to examine these documents and identify if they have been tampered with or are spurious. When will mormon central get around to that? (crickets).

Again from the Site, I linked earlier:

Document provenance

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.

It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.

Again (and as usual) you are at variance with reality.

DU So you have a manufactured document, it's not the first time (Mark Hoffman) they never did find all of Hofmann's "forgeries"...

GZ Stick with slumming at UFO sites DUh and read your articles more closely.

Stick with debating people who don't (or can't) read the actual sources. Or better, stay with those who already agree with you and will not question your sources or your methodology. (advice goes both ways)

GZ The FAIR article does not come to the conclusion that this is a manufactured document. Infact, a mormon, Ron Jackson, attempted to forge Stowell’s signature to the Neely bill based upon a copy from UTLM, and was hoisted by his own petards.

Again, take your own advice, the charge as issued by the UTLM is that Ron Jackson altered the Bill to be a charge against Josiah Stowell, not Joseph Smith, the alleged alteration was not a signature.

I also note that Ron Jackson mentions Mark Hoffman as having some involvement, although I am not clear how that was supposed to happen.

DU As for those documents proving a trial, Joseph was arrested many times, as was Martin Luther.

GZ Luther was never arrested for treasure seeking only to later use the same item – a seer stone to allegedly write an 18th century work of fiction.

The Book of Mormon was never claimed to be a work of fiction.

I personally (as a capitalist) am a treasure seeking individual, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am also seeking to lay up treasures in heaven. "Treasure Seeking" is not, nor was it then a crime. The Charges were (depending on the record you want to look at) Being a "disorderly person" or a "Vagrant without means of support" or a misdemeanor (Judge Neely's record) Being a disorderly person was similar to being a Vagrant, and it is strange that Joseph smith was charged with this since he was employed by Josiah Stowell... The Charge being Brought by Josiah Stowell's sons one of whom took exception to his father being interested in the Church who later became a Methodist minister of some note int he area renowned for his willingness to take legal action against any he perceived to be a threat to the church, well, this begins to look more and more like the stuff Martin Luther had to put up with.

GZ Contrary to your purpose, your source has proven smith was tried and convicted of treasure seeking.

"Treasure seeking" was not a crime. Many came to America to "find their fortune" being a Vagrant was a crime. Being a vagrant was a misdemeanor, and would have had first a hearing, than a trial which if convicted would have resulted in expulsion from the area, and possibly a fine Joseph received neither, but was admonished to leave lest other charges be brought by the Stowell boys.

IMHO your rendition of the facts and your continual seeking to multiply the charges and questions beyond the scope of the discussion about DNA can be understood as the desperate acts of a man frantically throwing spaghetti at the wall just hoping that either his opponent will tire of sweeping it up, or that something (anything) will stick.

Unfortunately for you, the facts of the matter are the DNA of American Indians cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, Slanders against Joseph Smith cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, indeed casting aspersions on archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon cannot disprove it. The Book of Mormon was indeed translated by Joseph Smith from an Ancient record of a God fearing people on this the American Continent, Jesus Christ did in very fact visit with them, and bring his Gospel to these "Other Sheep" as spoken of in the Bible and The Church of Jesus Christ is the Modern Church restored as the prophesied int eh Bible in these the latter days. Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood as the Bible requires and you cannot disprove it. I know this all to be true because the God of Abraham and of Isaac, and of Jacob has testified to me that it is true and he cannot lie for he is a God of truth.

You will redoubtably continue to taunt and ridicule, you will almost surely reject my testimony here, but that will not stop it from being true.

It truly is hard for you to kick against the pricks...

[Godzilla]

Seer Stones, namely a Urim and Thummim are Biblical and are therefore a "Christian", Aaron Wore them as part of his priestly garments, Eleazar was to use the Urim and Thummim (which are seer stones) to gain answers from God, Saul was frustrated when God would not answer him by the Urim and Thummim. The Bible approves of and records the use of Seer Stones. The question that should be being asked is why is there no such revelatory device in orthodox Christianity today?

They were never placed in a hat to interpret a non-existent set of golden plates. The were also not used by Israel to hunt buried treasures across the countryside.

Neither do I deny that Joseph smith was taken to court (Yet another straw man?) Let me make this easy for you Joseph Smith was taken to court many times in his life time, 1826 was one such time he was charged by those opposed to his religious views with something to make him look bad. It's an old old trick used by Satan many times...

There is absolutely nothing in any record which links his arrest and trial in 1826 to his religious views. According to mornonite history, he didn’t receive the plates until 1827 after using the seer stone..

FYI, Jesus was taken to Court, Tried and Convicted, so?

Smith was an occultist, not the Son of God.

Oliver Cowdry confirms that Joseph was taken to court, So? We don't deny that. As for the Questionable nature of the evidence,

Wow, a big change in your song DU, may be a two note johnnie now.

Godzilla, I have been, and still am asserting that you Ignore counter evidence, and therefore IMHO, you are not credible.

DU, du, du, as stated from your link - Scholars are expected to examine all of the evidence and come to a conclusion. Thus, a one-sided lack of objectivity is a cardinal scholarly sin. This is why scholars should listen to others in their field even when—in fact, especially when—they disagree. It is only when scholars have heard and weighed all of the evidence, and considered all of the arguments, that they can come to an objective conclusion.

I have not denied there is a rock with writing in NM that is in a foreign language. However, I have shown that there is substantial other data and interpretation that does not support your little interpretation. I have fulfilled the criteria noted, you refuse to address the other evidence, only doing your little one note Johnny routine. Nib’s and FARMS agree with me for once (well they are like a broken clock, correct twice a day). Your supplemental support again goes to UFO sites, how credible does that make you LOL>

I am going to skip a bunch of your quotation, and just link to the source<--SNip-->

Lurkers will note here that DU practices what he earlier vilified me for – cutting up my posts.

LOL! Have you not been arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? LOL, Now you want to flip your whole argument around? This is funny, I'm pulling a link from this post to my cache!

Except when the contrary evidence is overwhelming and to the contrary.

Lets assume for a moment that I came up with a document, say from professor Anthon that had been torn from his ledger, brought to Utah, kept secret until the person who tore it out of his ledger died, published it and had images of it posted, the4n claimed the original was now lost without any forensic analysis being done to authenticate it and I wanted wanted to use this document in our debate... Is there anyone here who actually thinks you would allow this document to be entered into evidence without a complaint? ROTFLOL!

When you prove that the document has been forged, then you can make the claim. Current evidence still indicates it is a valid document

Now for the "nothing has been proven to be tampered with" logic, LOL! You have not proven that the Los Lunas stone was tampered with, and you have not proven that the Book of Mormon is not true...

And neither can you show that it wasn’t tampered with. Those who have the knowledge and capabilities to evaluate the stone have shown it to be discredited and a fraud, including lds inc. Lessee, where are the armor, cities, an advanced metallurgical culture in pre colombinan America, since your prophets and teachings show the lands were all over the hemisphere and the Amerindians descended from Lehi and Abraham.

Stick with debating people who don't (or can't) read the actual sources. Or better, stay with those who already agree with you and will not question your sources or your methodology. (advice goes both ways)

DU, the world would not have realized that you slum around UFO websites for mormon faith enhancement if I hadn’t read your sources. Apart from your flawed attempts to use the Sorenson Labs website to prove the bom while ignoring all the other independent studies - well lurkers, have his responses been that of reading my sources or relying upon mormon echo chamber apologists for your faith enhancement and listening to their lies about what your prophets and church have taught for the last 150+ years.

Again, take your own advice, the charge as issued by the UTLM is that Ron Jackson altered the Bill to be a charge against Josiah Stowell, not Joseph Smith, the alleged alteration was not a signature.

Jackson’s assertion was that the bill with Smith’s name was the forgery, it turns out the one he produced was the forgery. BTW, concerning authencity issues, the back of the UTLM document is a certificate of authencity- fancy that

The Book of Mormon was never claimed to be a work of fiction.

No, smith wasn’t that stupid. But that doesn’t change the facts – it is a work of fiction – an interpretation that is also shared by BH Roberts.

I personally (as a capitalist) am a treasure seeking individual, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am also seeking to lay up treasures in heaven. "Treasure Seeking" is not, nor was it then a crime.

Yet the bill clearly states – The Glass Looker – as cause.

"Treasure seeking" was not a crime.

Swindling an old man claiming to have occultic powers to see and find buried treasure is

Unfortunately for you, the facts of the matter are the DNA of American Indians cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, Slanders against Joseph Smith cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, indeed casting aspersions on archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon cannot disprove it.

Then you continue to call smith a liar in regards to the origins of the Amerindians. Proof of an arrest and trial (which you now say happened) is not slander, the fact that he was an occultic divinatiator in 1826 – six years after he alledgedly saw God face to face is kinda hard to face isn’t it DUh?

The Book of Mormon was indeed translated by Joseph Smith from an Ancient record of a God fearing people on this the American Continent,

And the Amerindians are the descendants of Lehi, by the hand of that same Smith

Jesus Christ did in very fact visit with them, and bring his Gospel to these "Other Sheep" as spoken of in the Bible

So show me the cities? Where are they? Where is the evidence of a Jewish/Christian culture in the so-called midst of all these heathen (who possessed a substantial culture and writing of their own).

and The Church of Jesus Christ is the Modern Church restored as the prophesied int eh Bible in these the latter days.

From a false prophet – how many prophecies did not come to pass from this guy???

Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood as the Bible requires and you cannot disprove it.

LOL, now smitty is the equivalent of Jesus Christ – whom Heb 9:16 is referring too. That is at best blasphemous and at worst a deliberate lie.

And in conclusion DU has to pucker up his testimony. A common response when all else has failed. It is a common practice in conjunction with Ignoring the Counterevidence.