The Validity of First Hand Accounts

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Joseph Smith did not testify at that proceeding, whatever it was.

According to Neely's docket book, Neely did in fact examine Joseph Smith, among others.

[_rcrocket]

Joseph Smith did not testify at that proceeding, whatever it was.

According to Neely's docket book, Neely did in fact examine Joseph Smith, among others.

Where is the testimony? Especially of perjury, as is claimed here? It was an arraignment, and there was no criminal conviction as a result.

The record is certainly less than clear, but two points:

(1) You don't have affidavits in trial, but you do have them in arraingments.

(2) You don't talk about bail after a conviction, yet the Bainbridge record does. (Appellate issues to one side.)

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Never went to trial for bank fraud.

According to Quinn, on October 24, 1837, "[a]n appeals court confirms the conviction and $1,000 fine each of Smith and Rigdon for operating an illegal bank." Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 627.

At the time of his death, Joseph Smith was under indictment for perjury by the Grand Jury of Hancock County (trial scheduled for October 1844, but never held due to his murder in June).

At the time of his death, he was also under arrest for treason. [Indictment means nothing.]

As to Quinn's claim, exactly what is his source for this?

The only source of which I am aware is James H. Kennedy's hit piece, Early Days of Mormonism (1888), p. 163, but he describes what is known as a civil qui tam case (a civil case brought by a complainant where the government prosecutes and splits the fine). It doesn't even appear from Kennedy's work that a trial actually occurred, or a fine assessed, and that there was motion practice on a point of law pending in the Court of Appeal. But, since appellate records are a matter of public record, it should be relatively simple for Quinn to have obtained the record (he didn't) rather than rely upon an unsubstantiated anti-Mormon work (he did).

But, I'm willing to be educated and change my tune. But let me make sure I clarify my point. Joseph Smith never was convicted of a crime. He was sued plenty of times and lost several law suits.

rcrocket

[_Mercury]

I think it is now quite obvious just how little integrity you have crockett.

[_rcrocket]

I think it is now quite obvious just how little integrity you have crockett.

You really don't know me. I sold my Integra years ago. Really, now, Vegas. Time to take things less seriously and put a smile on that cute face of yours.

rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Joseph Smith did not testify at that proceeding, whatever it was.

According to Neely's docket book, Neely did in fact examine Joseph Smith, among others.

Where is the testimony? Especially of perjury, as is claimed here? It was an arraignment, and there was no criminal conviction as a result.

I did not say Joseph's examination at the 1826 hearing had anything to do with perjury; I was just pointing out that your statement he did not testify at the 1826 hearing, was incorrect.

The record is certainly less than clear, but two points:

(1) You don't have affidavits in trial, but you do have them in arraingments.

According to the Neely docket book, 6 witnesses appeared and were examined (including Joseph Smith). Oh, and by the way, it's spelled "arraignments" -- 4th grade vocabulary and all. ;)

(2) You don't talk about bail after a conviction, yet the Bainbridge record does. (Appellate issues to one side.)

I agree. My personal opinion is that the 1826 proceeding was a type of preliminary hearing, not a trial.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

As to Quinn's claim, exactly what is his source for this?

I don't know Quinn's source, but Gary Dean Guthrie wrote in his 1969 Masters thesis at BYU entitled "Joseph Smith as an Administrator" (p. 81), in connection with the bank failure:

Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were tried in court for violating the law, and were found guilty and fined $1,000. They appealed on the grounds that the institution was an association and not a bank; the plea was never ruled upon as the bank suspended payments and closed its doors.

[_mentalgymnast]

For every Mormon who got a boner from Moroni, there are THOUSANDS of other who receive the same feeling about being born again, following Allah, becoming a nun or priest or minister, becoming a Buddhist.

MG: bypassing your apparent fixation on sexual references, why is that?, I would question whether you have any expertise as to what constitutes a spiritual witness...period. If that be the case, your statement carries very little weight, as you really don't have a clue as to what an investigator's spiritual witness consists of vs. a feeling/witness that others may have in response to their own personal inquiries/journeys in regards to things of a religious nature. You seem to be saying that if a spiritual feeling/witness comes to an investigator of the LDS church or member of the church, then that would in some way negate the possibility of others outside of the LDS church having spiritual promptings, or in many cases feelings that may be purely psychological in nature as they make choices? Why?

If you feel the need to respond to this post using sexual innuendo or reference, that's OK. If that's who you are, go with it. I heard my share of it in the drum section way back in high school.

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

If you feel the need to respond to this post using sexual innuendo or reference, that's OK. If that's who you are, go with it. I heard my share of it in the drum section way back in high school.

What, you got something against sex?

[_Mercury]

MG: bypassing your apparent fixation on sexual references, why is that?, I would question whether you have any expertise as to what constitutes a spiritual witness...period. If that be the case, your statement carries very little weight, as you really don't have a clue as to what an investigator's spiritual witness consists of vs. a feeling/witness that others may have in response to their own personal inquiries/journeys in regards to things of a religious nature. You seem to be saying that if a spiritual feeling/witness comes to an investigator of the LDS church or member of the church, then that would in some way negate the possibility of others outside of the LDS church having spiritual promptings, or in many cases feelings that may be purely psychological in nature as they make choices? Why?

If you feel the need to respond to this post using sexual innuendo or reference, that's OK. If that's who you are, go with it. I heard my share of it in the drum section way back in high school.

Regards,
MG

When 19-20 year old children prance around like fags in Mr Mac suits spouting joes gibberish to half retarded folk, their spiritual "witness" the mishies confidence-game invokes asserts that the Book of Mormon is true is good enough for you but when experienced exmormons state they deny this bull you have a problem with it? Your logic is both flawed and egregiously biased.

Get a clue before you get smacked again by those with more knowledge than you.

[Mod Note: Edited to remove extra dialogue windows-Bond]