Topic: Mormonism (Read 7373 times)

Zagzagel · « **Reply #40 on:** December 23, 2005, 08:39:35 PM »

Quote

This is a REAL useful thread. Did the "Christians" get sick of your antics so they sent you over here?

Lol. Val, I love your wit! and humor!!

Copernicus · « **Reply #41 on:** December 23, 2005, 09:42:02 PM »

Quote from: IronRod

"Further, the evidence of the alleged conviction for a crime is not what Walters says it is, even if we accept his document. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded in New York at that time, just felony trials. Thus, the document Walters has provided, which lists "misdemeanor" as the charge by Joseph's name, cannot be an official court transcript of a trial. If it were, it would require the signatures of witnesses who gave testimony, but there were no such signatures. Even Walters would later admit that this was not a genuine trial, but a pretrial hearing. Yet the document, whose provenance and authenticity cannot be guaranteed due to Walters' questionable handling, ends with this statement: "And therefore the Court find [sic] the Defendant guilty." Such language cannot come from a pretrial hearing of any kind. Something seems rather odd about the unauthenticated document produced by Mr. Walters.

Ironrod, please provide a source for this quote. The source that I provided you was from Jerald and Sandra Tanner's article in the Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 68 July, 1988. The 1826 trial transcript has been the subject of intense debate and scrutiny for many years, not to mention one exposed attempt by a Mormon to forge evidence against it. It would be nice to have some idea of where you pulled that quote from.

IronRod · « **Reply #42 on:** December 23, 2005, 11:23:53 PM »

. [Useful research on the 1826 trial includes Marvin S. Hill, "Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties," BYU Studies 12 (Winter 1972): 223-33; and Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting," BYU Studies 30 (Spring 1990): 91-108.]

These can both be found at www.fairlds.org- FAIR Topical guide 1826 Trial
Search 1826 Trial

I try to keep sources listed in my notes, I did not this time so I am still looking I did make some notes on these two articles which will help shed light on what I quoted . My LDS Library is 3300 LDS works. It is alot to back track. And you are right on this being a hot debate, but it seems it did not become an issue untill the 1870's and with several differing accounts. The articles above shed light on what the legal system in NY was like in the 1820's. which is useful to understand.

While you are at FAIR look around they are a volunteer staff of apologists that refute anti mormon stuff. Maybe you can find answers to more questions. The one thing I believe about apologetics is it can help in understanding. I dont really believe that it will change a persons beliefs(ie. convert them) but it will correct or help to correct mis-information. Most of those who are labled anti have a personal 'beef 'with the church or some one in the church. For what ever reason, they then cant seem to walk away and leave the church and leave it alone.
Like I said in a previous post Apologetics really isnt why I'm here. I just wanted to share my beliefs, with those who want to know.
In another past post you wanted to know why Brigham Young said what he did . I have no good answer for it . I do want to thank you though for the source . If you have time read the whole sermon in that discourse. It had alot of good information. Also the source for the quote on the occult Is in one of the 1826 articles.

Author Topic: Mormonism (Read 7373 times)

Zagzagel

Mormonism

Copernicus

Mormonism

IronRod

Mormonism