Snow Posted October 2, 2004 Report Posted October 2, 2004 Nonsense Cal, you said JS conned someone. Who did he con? Where is the victim? Quote
Dravin Posted October 2, 2004 Report Posted October 2, 2004 1)the records of the jews were kept, that scrolls and records were actually written 2) the names and places describe, for the most part were actual, not fictional and 3) the jews did have a culture and history that is pretty much consistent with the biblical account---not that everything in is accurate, but at least there is some historical and physical evidence of consequence that the bible describes things that actually happened.The key about the Bible, is that it testifies that Christ is the Son of God and that through him we may have a remission of sins. The things you state can be used to say that it is a history of sorts, but not a testament. There is no physical evidence that Christ was the Son of God, one must take this on faith, one can not look at physical evidence and conclude that there is proof that this is so.In other words, to know that the Christ as testified of in the Bible exists requires personal revelation. Show me the evidence of his resurrection, the evidence of the great flood being a cleansing of the earth of wickedness, show me that Moses set the Jews free from captivity as depicted in the bible, show me the evidence that Saul of Tarsus actually saw something on that fateful trip, show me that those things set down in the book of revelations is actually revelation?You can not, for it does not exist, yes, places and in some cases names can be collaborated, but the true meat of the bible, what it testifies of can not.Seriously, by your definition if I personally testified that Jesus is the Christ with no physical evidence to back up that testimony it can not be called a testimony? Quote
Cal Posted October 3, 2004 Report Posted October 3, 2004 Originally posted by Dravin@Oct 2 2004, 11:24 AM 1)the records of the jews were kept, that scrolls and records were actually written 2) the names and places describe, for the most part were actual, not fictional and 3) the jews did have a culture and history that is pretty much consistent with the biblical account---not that everything in is accurate, but at least there is some historical and physical evidence of consequence that the bible describes things that actually happened.The key about the Bible, is that it testifies that Christ is the Son of God and that through him we may have a remission of sins. The things you state can be used to say that it is a history of sorts, but not a testament. There is no physical evidence that Christ was the Son of God, one must take this on faith, one can not look at physical evidence and conclude that there is proof that this is so.In other words, to know that the Christ as testified of in the Bible exists requires personal revelation. Show me the evidence of his resurrection, the evidence of the great flood being a cleansing of the earth of wickedness, show me that Moses set the Jews free from captivity as depicted in the bible, show me the evidence that Saul of Tarsus actually saw something on that fateful trip, show me that those things set down in the book of revelations is actually revelation?You can not, for it does not exist, yes, places and in some cases names can be collaborated, but the true meat of the bible, what it testifies of can not.Seriously, by your definition if I personally testified that Jesus is the Christ with no physical evidence to back up that testimony it can not be called a testimony? OK, so even the NT is not really a testament. We agree. Now we have TWO non-testaments.And, again. Why do you need a testament to something that can only be known through hallucination? Quote
Cal Posted October 3, 2004 Report Posted October 3, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:22 AM Nonsense Cal, you said JS conned someone. Who did he con? Where is the victim? Read the transcript of the court documents where JS was being accused of money digging etc. First Josiah Stowell says he was never conned, but then on cross he says this.....Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain glass which he mentioned?Yes.Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?Yes.Did you dig?Yes.Did you find any money?No.Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you?No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it!How do you know it was there?Smith said it was!I don't know what your definition of con is, but this sounds like con to me. Quote
Matt Posted October 3, 2004 Report Posted October 3, 2004 I don't know what your definition of con is, but this sounds like con to me.Sounds like a con to me, also, Cal.I wonder if Smith was a con artist, or just deluded? Perhaps he believed in the Earth Magic and in digging for buried treasure and also that he was a prophet of God? Quote
srm Posted October 3, 2004 Report Posted October 3, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:22 AM Nonsense Cal, you said JS conned someone. Who did he con? Where is the victim? This is specious snow. The most effective con jobs leave the 'mark' not knowing that he was conned. See "The Sting" Quote
Faerie Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 I do believe that I'm going to have to object to calling Smith a "conman." Read LDSTalk rules :) Quote
Guest bat Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 3 2004, 05:05 PM I do believe that I'm going to have to object to calling Smith a "conman." Read LDSTalk rules :) What do YOU call a person that charges people money to dig for buried treasure that he KNOWS does not exist? A really swell guy? Quote
Snow Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by Cal+Oct 3 2004, 09:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 3 2004, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:22 AM Nonsense Cal, you said JS conned someone. Who did he con? Where is the victim? Read the transcript of the court documents where JS was being accused of money digging etc. First Josiah Stowell says he was never conned, but then on cross he says this.....Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain glass which he mentioned?Yes.Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?Yes.Did you dig?Yes.Did you find any money?No.Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you?No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it!How do you know it was there?Smith said it was!I don't know what your definition of con is, but this sounds like con to me. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that you are not telling the truth - again - surprize!I bet that is not in the court transcript. Why? Because most every one of your argument is false or relies upon obfuscation (like claiming that the meaing of "join" is (attend").Well Cal, am I right? Are you just pretending that is from the court transcript? Quote
Snow Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Oct 3 2004, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Oct 3 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:22 AM Nonsense Cal, you said JS conned someone. Who did he con? Where is the victim? This is specious snow. The most effective con jobs leave the 'mark' not knowing that he was conned. See "The Sting" It is not specious. In order for a con to be committed, there must be a victim. While it may be true that a victim may not know they are a victim - no victim, no crime.Cal and Matt take the position that they, after having read a few antiMormon websites, know better than Josiah Stowell whether or not he was a victim. While it is possible that a mostly uniformed amateur with sketchy information 175 years later knows more than a eye witness intimately involved in the situation, if you don't mind, I'll stick to the known facts. Quote
Guest bat Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Oct 3 2004, 06:07 PM I bet that is not in the court transcript. Why? Because most every one of your argument is false or relies upon obfuscation (like claiming that the meaing of "join" is (attend").Well Cal, am I right? Are you just pretending that is from the court transcript? http://www.mormonismi.net/artikkelit/oikeu...ynti1826b.shtmlSo much for the gift and power of God, by which Smith says he translated his book. Two transparent stones, undoubtedly of the same properties, and the gift of the same spirit as the one in which he looked to find his neighbor's goods. It is reported, and probably true, that he commenced his juggling by stealing and hiding property belonging to his neighbors, and when inquiry was made, he would look in his stone, (his gift and power) and tell where it was. Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never had lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive any body else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed.Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain glass which he mentioned?Yes.Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?Yes.Did you dig?Yes.Did you find any money?No.Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you?No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it!How do you know it was there?Smith said it was!Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that at the very same time that Stowell was digging for money, he, Austin, was in company with said Smith alone, and asked him to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not. Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, "to be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living." Here, then, we have his own confession, that he was a vile, dishonest impostor. As regards the testimony of Josiah Stowell, it needs no comment. He swears positively that Smith did not lie to him. So much for a Mormon witness. Paramount to this, in truth and consistency, was the testimony of Joseph Knight, another Mormonite. Newell Knight, son of the former, and also a Mormonite, testified, under oath, that he positively had a devil cast out of himself by the instrumentality of Joseph Smith, jr., and that he saw the devil after it was out, but could not tell how it looked!So that never happened and Cal made it all up? Quote
Dravin Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 OK, so even the NT is not really a testament. There we go, you finally realize the position that the Bible is somehow a testimony of spiritual things while the Book of Mormon is not because it requires personal revelation to know of the truthfulness of it is inconsistent as the same applies to the Bible, this is such a happy day.Why do you need a testament to something that can only be known through hallucination? Because if no testimony was heard one would not know to pray about the truth of it, really now, the atheists I know recognize that. Quote
Jenda Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by Cal+Oct 2 2004, 09:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 2 2004, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Jenda@Sep 27 2004, 06:25 PM Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:52 PM <!--QuoteBegin--Dravin@Sep 16 2004, 11:54 PM Couldnt he have just said he was a prophet and given new revalation? Or made the same claim to resoration without the BoM? I'm sure he could have, but if he was worried about credibly he would have not shared any of his experiences and lived his life out working the land. Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before. You are putting yourself way out on a limb. If Joseph Smith was just doing it for the con (easy money), then he failed miserably, and if that was his drive, he would have quit while he was still somewhat ahead. I don't think con men are into getting tarred and feathered, and thrown into jail at regular intervals, and stick around for more. You gotta come up with a better story. I think he may have come to believe his own con. As to failing miserably, you have obviously not read his history. He ended up quite well off. Yeah, I can see your point. Dead is a good place to be. Quote
Snow Posted October 5, 2004 Report Posted October 5, 2004 Bat, In your link you made my point and did what Cal lacked the integrity to do - tell the truth. The quote that Cal unsuccessfully tried to pass off (con us with) as a court transcript was nothing of the sort. It was a letter from a rabid (yea a rabidly rabid) anti-Mormon written 5 years after the court case. Cal, I just don't get it. Surely there must be enough to criticize in the Church without resorting to lies, yes? No? Quote
Cal Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Matt@Oct 3 2004, 09:55 AM I don't know what your definition of con is, but this sounds like con to me.Sounds like a con to me, also, Cal.I wonder if Smith was a con artist, or just deluded? Perhaps he believed in the Earth Magic and in digging for buried treasure and also that he was a prophet of God? I think, everything in the record considered, JS really did think he was a prophet. Quote
Cal Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Oct 3 2004, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Oct 3 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:22 AM Nonsense Cal, you said JS conned someone. Who did he con? Where is the victim? This is specious snow. The most effective con jobs leave the 'mark' not knowing that he was conned. See "The Sting" Reread the transcript--Stowell kept thinking that the money was there! Fits right into your definition of con. Quote
Cal Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 3 2004, 05:05 PM I do believe that I'm going to have to object to calling Smith a "conman." Read LDSTalk rules :) Please, Faerie, he was convicted of it in a court of law. Can't we tell the truth here. Now, whether that means he WASN'T a prophet, that is not the issue. Quote
Snow Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Oct 6 2004, 05:45 PM Reread the transcript--Stowell kept thinking that the money was there! Fits right into your definition of con. What transcript? You haven't linked any transcript and the quote you gave was not from a transcript. It was from an anti-Mormon diatribe. Quote
Cal Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Snow+Oct 6 2004, 08:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 6 2004, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Oct 6 2004, 05:45 PM Reread the transcript--Stowell kept thinking that the money was there! Fits right into your definition of con. What transcript? You haven't linked any transcript and the quote you gave was not from a transcript. It was from an anti-Mormon diatribe. Of course it's from anti-mormon "diatribe", how else to characterize anything that is not supportive of a pro-mormon view but to call it diatribe?Here is the anti-mormon diatribe I used: http://www.mormonismi.net/artikkelit/oikeu...ynti1826b.shtmlI will admit I was too hasty in implying this was reliable transcript--after looking it up again---it is probably cheezy poetic license on somebody's part. My bad.You can also check out the Fraser Magazine article (I am aware that there are a couple of other versions of the trial out there)---inspite of the controversies over some of the details, pretty clear someone was getting conned. Here is a more reliable version that is probably a lot more reliable:"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 impostor."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 looked 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 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 rather declined having anything to do with this business." (Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1973, p. 229) Quote
Snow Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Oct 6 2004, 09:01 PM I will admit I was too hasty in implying this was reliable transcript--after looking it up again---it is probably cheezy poetic license on somebody's part. My bad.You can also check out the Fraser Magazine article (I am aware that there are a couple of other versions of the trial out there)---inspite of the controversies over some of the details, pretty clear someone was getting conned. Here is a more reliable version that is probably a lot more reliable: Cal,You didn't "imply" that it was a reliable transcript. You said it was THE COURT TRANSCRIPT.Now, about Frazer's version. The account was written 47 years after the fact by someone who wasn't at the trial but says that he saw some actual court documents. Yeah, right. Where was he supposed to have gotten the documents? In Salt Lake. How did court documents from New York wind up in Salt Lake. There were supposedly stolen by Emily Pearsall. How do we know she had them? She says so although there is no proof. Did she say so herself? No, the account came through a Bishop Tuttle and maybe Charles Marshall.Let me ask you Cal, would you consider - a 47 year later, 4th party account, taken from documents that have never been seen, but obstensibly stolen, whose details conflicted with other accounts, to be GOOD evidence? Quote
Faerie Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 so...we shouldn't really pay attention to the NT because it was mostly written years after the actual events happened, buuuuut...it's ok to use that source as TRUE FACT? Quote
Ray Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 You can argue like the devil with someone FOREVER and still never get that someone to see something that God can help them see in an instant. Amazing, isn’t it. Quote
Cal Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Snow+Oct 6 2004, 09:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 6 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Oct 6 2004, 09:01 PM I will admit I was too hasty in implying this was reliable transcript--after looking it up again---it is probably cheezy poetic license on somebody's part. My bad.You can also check out the Fraser Magazine article (I am aware that there are a couple of other versions of the trial out there)---inspite of the controversies over some of the details, pretty clear someone was getting conned. Here is a more reliable version that is probably a lot more reliable: Cal,You didn't "imply" that it was a reliable transcript. You said it was THE COURT TRANSCRIPT.Now, about Frazer's version. The account was written 47 years after the fact by someone who wasn't at the trial but says that he saw some actual court documents. Yeah, right. Where was he supposed to have gotten the documents? In Salt Lake. How did court documents from New York wind up in Salt Lake. There were supposedly stolen by Emily Pearsall. How do we know she had them? She says so although there is no proof. Did she say so herself? No, the account came through a Bishop Tuttle and maybe Charles Marshall.Let me ask you Cal, would you consider - a 47 year later, 4th party account, taken from documents that have never been seen, but obstensibly stolen, whose details conflicted with other accounts, to be GOOD evidence? Actually, the Fraser account is not the only reference to JS and his using a seer stone to look for buried treasure there are quite a few other references. You can find them as well as I. As to the meaning of this practice each can draw his own conclusions, but it is quite clear, unless one choses to believe that all of the journal entries and even JS's own history is in error and a fabrication. Why would so many people claim to have seen JS pretending to be able to find buried treasure, if he didn't? Quote
Cal Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 7 2004, 05:12 AM so...we shouldn't really pay attention to the NT because it was mostly written years after the actual events happened, buuuuut...it's ok to use that source as TRUE FACT? No, as far as I am concerned you can discount BOTH of them. Quote
Ray Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Ahh, yes, I thought this is what you were referring to on the other thread. To come to know and understand the God you believe in, apparently I'm supposed to come to you and see what you have to say about Him. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.