DiscussMormonism.com

From Friday's Politically Incorrect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbblG9rJ5Qs

Interesting commentary on the historicity of the Book of Mormon and about "Joseph Smith and the Looking Glass Trial".

I think we will start seeing much more of this as the election heats up.

Bill Maher wrote:This religion is so ridiculous, Tom Cruise would not join it and Glenn Beck did.

hehehe

I'm getting really tired of this glass-looking "trial" thing.

Joseph Smith was not found guilty at a trial. He appeared at an evidentiary hearing where a judge determined that there was probable cause to hold a trial on the charges related to being a glass-looker. Joseph Smith was not sentenced; he was granted "leg bail" while trial was pending. And then Joseph Smith left New York.

Please stop defaming the Prophet. He was not a convicted criminal (in this instance).* He was a bail jumper.


*He was convicted of running an illegal bank and fined in the Kirtland Safety Society matter.

Darth J wrote:I'm getting really tired of this glass-looking "trial" thing.

Joseph Smith was not found guilty at a trial. He appeared at an evidentiary hearing where a judge determined that there was probable cause to hold a trial on the charges related to being a glass-looker. Joseph Smith was not sentenced; he was granted "leg bail" while trial was pending. And then Joseph Smith left New York.

Please stop defaming the Prophet. He was not a convicted criminal (in this instance).* He was a bail jumper.


*He was convicted of running an illegal bank and fined in the Kirtland Safety Society matter.

If a mere bail-jumper he could have been easily re-arrested for the crime but wasn't. [Witness, for example, the repeated efforts to arrest Joseph Smith in Nauvoo for the attempted assassination of Boggs.] It appears to me from a reading of the historical sources that "leg-bail" was means of just getting rid of the case without a formal dismissal and an admission that there's insufficient evidence.

Bill Maher was right on point when he stated that:

Everywhere he (Joseph Smith) went --- he got in trouble for screwing people out of their money.

Given the subject matter for the commentary he was making, I thought Maher used remarkable restraint by not mentioning that Joseph Smith undertook a great deal of screwing that had nothing to do with money.

Yahoo Bot wrote:

Darth J wrote:I'm getting really tired of this glass-looking "trial" thing.

Joseph Smith was not found guilty at a trial. He appeared at an evidentiary hearing where a judge determined that there was probable cause to hold a trial on the charges related to being a glass-looker. Joseph Smith was not sentenced; he was granted "leg bail" while trial was pending. And then Joseph Smith left New York.

Please stop defaming the Prophet. He was not a convicted criminal (in this instance).* He was a bail jumper.


*He was convicted of running an illegal bank and fined in the Kirtland Safety Society matter.

If a mere bail-jumper he could have been easily re-arrested for the crime but wasn't. [Witness, for example, the repeated efforts to arrest Joseph Smith in Nauvoo for the attempted assassination of Boggs.] It appears to me from a reading of the historical sources that "leg-bail" was means of just getting rid of the case without a formal dismissal and an admission that there's insufficient evidence.

1. He was ordered to stand trial.

2. He was granted "leg bail."

3. There is no record that he ever appeared at trial.

4. The absence of a court record creates a presumption that an event did not occur.

5. The presumption is that there was no further proceeding because Joseph Smith did not appear as ordered.

6. What are the facts on which you are rebutting this presumption?

And regarding being re-arrested, an accusation of trying to assassinate a state governor probably gets more attention than a misdemeanor charge of cheating people out of their money by pretending to be a glass-looker.

Although "his crime was so petty that it wasn't even worth it to track him down" is an admirable defense of the Prophet.

You have your presumptions mixed up.

He's presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That a prosecutorial authority decides not to prosecute him -- even as notorious as he -- indicates that he is not only innocent but not guilty.

To presume that he's guilty by reason of the frivolity of the charge is to presume too much.

Further, with the record showing that the putative victim wasn't claiming to be victimized suggests trumped up charges.

Yahoo Bot wrote:If a mere bail-jumper he could have been easily re-arrested for the crime but wasn't. [Witness, for example, the repeated efforts to arrest Joseph Smith in Nauvoo for the attempted assassination of Boggs.] It appears to me from a reading of the historical sources that "leg-bail" was means of just getting rid of the case without a formal dismissal and an admission that there's insufficient evidence.

Yes, this makes perfect sense. The Missourians' repeated attempt to arrest Joseph Smith for the crime of attempting to assassinate the state governor clearly demonstrates that New York should have attempted to arrest Joseph Smith in another state for the crime of defrauding an overly credulous farmer out of a few dollars.

edit: Doh! Darth J already said it.

Yahoo Bot wrote:To presume that he's guilty by reason of the frivolity of the charge is to presume too much.

Further, with the record showing that the putative victim wasn't claiming to be victimized suggests trumped up charges.

Please tell my you believe that Smith could actually locate treasure buried beneath the earth by looking at a rock in his hat.

Just because the victim is too stupid to realize he has been conned, doesn't mean he is not a victim.

uh huh