LDSNETA Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 The trial is mentioned at pages 54-55.Yes, but they do not connect the dots of avoiding being tried again by being selective in their word choices regarding the dictation process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well . . . as I understand it, the Bainbridge trial involved allegations of outright fraud against Josiah Stowell; not merely glass-looking. If Joseph were trying to avoid future litigation, he failed miserably. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well . . . as I understand it, the Bainbridge trial involved allegations of outright fraud against Josiah Stowell; not merely glass-looking. If Joseph were trying to avoid future litigation, he failed miserably. :)Were there laws in place against glass looking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well . . . as I understand it, the Bainbridge trial involved allegations of outright fraud against Josiah Stowell; not merely glass-looking. If Joseph were trying to avoid future litigation, he failed miserably. Were there laws in place against glass looking? Heh. You go, Just-A-Guy! HiJolly p.s. I was going to say something about "In September 1827, after four annual visitations of the angel, Joseph brought back to his parents' home a box containing the gold plates and placed it under the hearthstones in the west room. Lucy wrote that after he returned from the hill, her son said, "Do not be uneasy, mother, all is right-see here, I HAVE GOT A KEY." Lucy said the "key," presumably the Urim and Thummim, consisted of "two smooth, three-cornered diamonds [i.e., seer stones --- HJ] set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows" (LDS Women's Treasury: Insights and Inspiration for Today's Woman, 79) "Joseph returned.... "Mother," said he. "Do not be uneasy. All is right. Seehere," said he, "I have got the key." I knew not what he meant, but took the article in my hands and, examining it with no covering but a silk handkerchief, found that it consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows" (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, Revised and Enhanced, ch 22). This indicates to me how van Wagoner & Wright speak too authoritatively, and in ignorance: On page 56 (Dialogue, vol. 15, number 2, Summer 1982 "Since the Urim and Thummim was too large, by all accounts, to be concealed on Joseph's person, Mother Smith must have been referring here not to the Nephite interpreters but to the Chase seer stone." (emphasis added by HJ)Apparently the authors didn't have the documented evidence for smaller sized interpreters. Or, chose not to use it... HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Were there laws in place against glass looking?I've never heard anyone cite to any. AFAIK, the Bainbridge charges were fraud and "disorderly conduct". I've never researched how often "glass looking" was deemed sufficient evidence of "disorderly conduct" in early 19th century upstate New York (it could be done; I've just never bothered). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 First, there was a law, and second, the cause for using Biblical terms. Good points Jolly. As for the "bulkiness" - refers to the the "bows" they were set in, not the glass, which could be removed and placed within one's hand or pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I've never heard anyone cite to any. AFAIK, the Bainbridge charges were fraud and "disorderly conduct". I've never researched how often "glass looking" was deemed sufficient evidence of "disorderly conduct" in early 19th century upstate New York (it could be done; I've just never bothered).How the terms were defined at the time. There are threads already drawing upon these facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 How the terms were defined at the time. There are threads already drawing upon these facts.Can you link to them, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glow_inthe_dark_girl Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 i just remembered the episode in south park... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Can you link to them, please?I assume you already are aware of the facts, shall we discuss the ones you don't like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 How the terms were defined at the time. There are threads already drawing upon these facts.If I recall correctly, Joseph was described as a "glass-looker" and was not charged as a "glass-looker" at all. The only charge was disorderly conduct. Today, the phrase "glass-looker" appears blatantly perjorative. But back then, it was only so in rarified 'educated' circles, and not so among the general populace. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 How the terms were defined at the time. There are threads already drawing upon these facts.Can you link to them, please?I assume you already are aware of the facts, shall we discuss the ones you don't like?If your position is that "glass looking" was per se against the statutory or common law of the State of New York in 1826, please provide the relevant statute or the case you cite as precedent.If that is not your position, then my apologies for misunderstanding you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 If I recall correctly, Joseph was described as a "glass-looker" and was not charged as a "glass-looker" at all. The only charge was disorderly conduct. HiJollyDefine "disorderly conduct," "back then."If your position is that "glass looking" was per se against the statutory or common law of the State of New York in 1826, please provide the relevant statute or the case you cite as precedent. If that is not your position, then my apologies for misunderstanding you.Are you obfuscating for a reason? Say the trial fact you are not happy with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Wow. LDSNETA, I can't believe you denied JAG's request for information you mention, and then accuse him of obfuscation. And I'm shocked by your belligerence regarding this matter. What on earth is your purpose here? (For the record, I have no intention of discussing this issue. Just, as an outsider, I am shocked and appaled by your behavior.) Edited December 16, 2009 by Maxel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubaloth Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 He said Joseph did not use his own words. He spoke what he saw like David, Emma and others said. Sorry, but David was right. Have you read any of his writings?I actually have no probably with Joseph Smith Speaking (describing) what he is seeing, but thats not reading it as David Whitmer explains. David Whitmer explains Joseph Smith was reading every word exactly as it was on the seer stone. The words would not go away until it was correct. This means there was no room for error at all! (This is what lead to David Whitmers fall from the church). We know Joseph Smith went back through and corrected the manuscript, for errors in Oliver's writing. If David Whitmers account is to be followed this would not be possible. Does Royal Skousen address this problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 LDSNETA, I see no reason why you're jumping all over me. I agree with you that the trial happened. In response to your own question, I have asserted that to my knowledge there was neither a New York statute prohibiting "glass looking" nor a New York court case equating "glass looking" per se with "disorderly conduct" or some other crime. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's have it.Really, the only place I see us disagreeing is that you seem to think Joseph's reluctance to discuss the manner of translation was a direct result of his experiences with the 1826 trial--a possibility I acknowledge as intriguing, but which I wouldn't embrace without a more thorough understanding of the trial record and the overall legal climate of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Define "disorderly conduct," "back then."If you're not joking, then I want nothing more to do with you. If you *are* joking, then I just don't get it. (ONLY if you're joking) HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I actually have no probably with Joseph Smith Speaking (describing) what he is seeing, but thats not reading it as David Whitmer explains. David Whitmer explains Joseph Smith was reading every word exactly as it was on the seer stone. The words would not go away until it was correct. This means there was no room for error at all!For amusement's sake, how, pray tell, do/did you envision it taking place?(This is what lead to David Whitmers fall from the church). LOLLDSNETA, I see no reason why you're jumping all over me. I agree with you that the trial happened. In response to your own question, I have asserted that to my knowledge there was neither a New York statute prohibiting "glass looking" nor a New York court case equating "glass looking" per se with "disorderly conduct" or some other crime. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's have it.The "per se" part...a safety clause?Really, the only place I see us disagreeing is that you seem to think Joseph's reluctance to discuss the manner of translation was a direct result of his experiences with the 1826 trial--a possibility I acknowledge as intriguing, but which I wouldn't embrace without a more thorough understanding of the trial record and the overall legal climate of the day.What about the public? Acknowledged, there was a class that was familiar with magic; to imply they were the norm however, and Joseph wasn't out to please other classes is problematic....joking...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 LDSNETA, instead of coming in here and saying half............nothings, why not come out and lay your agenda on the table? You have been asked to provide references for claims yet have resorted to sneers and derisive laughter instead. Do you have something of substance or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 LDSNETA, instead of coming in here and saying half............nothings, why not come out and lay your agenda on the table? You have been asked to provide references for claims yet have resorted to sneers and derisive laughter instead. Do you have something of substance or not?I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?I'm wondering if you're not Snow's Shadow self... :o:lol:HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 LDSNETA, instead of coming in here and saying half............nothings, why not come out and lay your agenda on the table? You have been asked to provide references for claims yet have resorted to sneers and derisive laughter instead. Do you have something of substance or not?I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?This appears to be LDSNETA's way of saying "not". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 The "per se" part...a safety clause?An attempt to get you to explain, with conciseness, what your position really is.I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?Anyone else seeing the contradiction here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?So.......... you've got nothing? Why not just say you can't backup your claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSNETA Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 An attempt to get you to explain, with conciseness, what your position really is.Your attempt to obfuscate. So.......... you've got nothing? Why not just say you can't backup your claims?What claim? That Skousen backs up Whitmer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.