BKP says Joseph Smith never convicted of a crime. True?

[_moksha]

While it may not have been true back in 1826, it can be true today in revised history.



.

[_Gazelam]

Turning to page 51 of Ashamed of Joseph, we find another example of Crane's tendency to jump to conclusions based on the opinions of others, opinions that are not properly supported by any kind of conclusive evidence. Crane repeats the idea, advanced by Wesley P. Walters, that a court document discovered by Walters is "positive proof . . . that Joseph Smith was involved in money digging and other questionable practices" (p. 51). The author writes, "I know Wesley P. Walters personally and have inserted here a copy of the court document in which Joseph Smith was tried and convicted" (pp. 52-53). Crane apparently would have his readers believe that the document discovered by Walters declares that Joseph Smith was tried and convicted of "money digging and other questionable practices." In point of fact, the document makes no such claim. The document specifies that fees were paid for the examination of an accusation of glass-looking. No mention is made in this document of a conviction or even a trial in the glass-looking case, although some evidence does suggest that a trial might possibly have taken place. At least one study of Walters's evidence, considered within the context of the legal setting of 1826, concludes that "in 1826 Joseph Smith was indeed charged and tried for being a disorderly person and that he was acquitted."6

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=1&id=205
.
.
.
.

[_Gazelam]

Of interest:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html

[_Danna]

Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The legal setting," BYU Studies (.pdf here: http://byustudies.BYU.edu/shop/pdfsrc/30.2Madsen.pdf ).

Marvin S. Hill, "Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties," here: http://byustudies.BYU.edu/shop/pdfSRC/12.2Hill.pdf




http://byustudies.BYU.edu/indexes/searc ... oom_sort=0

Thanks for the links - a note though, these are both well dated by now.

They address the issue from the original assumption that the documents concerning State of New York vs Joseph Smith the Glass Looker 1826 concerned a 'trial'. As the FAIR page you listed earlier notes, the case was an 'examination', similar to a preliminary trial - the Tanners published this fact way back in 1988. The FAIR page is a warmed over rehash of ealier articles, including the Tanners' article at :

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm

FAIR spend some time comparing subsequent media reports of the trial and irrelevant discrepancies between them, which is pretty much page-stuffer since there is a source document used for these articles, and the later supporting court records to discuss. Unless the report is intended to be a critique of the 'anti-mormons' themselves, rather than discussing the actual incident in 1826. The report contains such gems as:

I asked the storeowner about that image and Colleen Ralson explained: "Our good friend Wes Walters said that he found those bills in the courthouse. All of the rest of the records were damaged, but these were preserved. He said it was as if God had preserved them for his purpose."

I thought her statement interesting since I knew that Walters had written that the reason they had taken the documents from the Courthouse basement was to preserve them. If they were in such great shape "as if God had preserved them", why did Walters need to remove them?

Why indeed? and frankly who gives a toss what some random shopkeeper said somebody else said? But Anderson, the author, is trying to insinuate that the records have been altered or forged (in the face of solid evidence that they are genuine).

also:

The witnesses don't seem to be presenting two sides of a charge for deliberation. All of the witnesses testified that Joseph demonstrated the ability to observe things in his stone. Although Arad Stowel and McMaster were disgusted at Joseph's demonstrations where he read from a book with his back turned or told about objects from a distance. They didn't tell us why they didn't believe; they only said that the deception was palpable. Maybe they were so convinced that he couldn't do what he claimed that they wouldn't accept any demonstration.

(further on)
Arad Stowel went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

And 'quotes' the source document thus:

Arad Stowel sworn. Says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill that he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book open upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent; hold the stone to the candle, turn his back to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable, that went off disgusted."

The source document is quoted here:
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/The_18 ... h_Smith_Jr
and actually states:

"Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another Stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

So, basically, Joseph was caught peeking.

Once again, an apologist statement is sound, only so far as one careful avoids the central issue and doesn't actually check the footnotes and references!

Anderson concludes that Joseph was not guilty as there was no 'trial' (incorrect - the Tanners show that a finding of 'guilty' could be made following an 'examination'in those days which bound a defendant for trial by three judges - serious poo doo for Joseph Smith). Just in case that is not convincing, he states that Joseph could not be guilty of pretence of supernatural powers (a component of the 'disorderly' charge) if he REALLY could find buried treasure!

The implications of God giving the gift of seership to Joseph Smith, who then scuttles off to search for buried treasure while awaiting the delivery of the plates, are stunning. And in any case, why did he never actually find any treasure if his super-powers were real? The evidence for Joseph Smith' 'gift' comes from the testimony of witnesses such as Josiah Stowell and Joseph Smith Snr, who related incidents which would be well within the capabilities of a fraudster. The Judge at the examination was clearly not convinced!

Anyway. As to the OP. I believe BKP correct on this one. The examination found Joseph Smith 'guilty' and committed Joseph Smith to trial, but he never made it. Either he escaped, or was allowed to escape (as a youthful first offender). As noted before, although he may have never been convicted, escaping before trial, on both this and other occaisions, makes BKPs observation somewhat dodgy.

Someone may correct me, but I doubt a guilty verdict at an examination would qualify as a 'conviction'.

[_mms]

Seems rather bold to proclaim that all charges were "trumped up" and that he was never convicted partly because he did not stick around for trial. I've sort of come to expect the "Disney" version from the GA's and Church websites, manuals, etc. and to have to look for the truth of the matters. i recall someone else in conference (an apostle, I believe--maybe Hales?) stating that Joseph Smith never retaliated against those who persecuted him. Not sure that's how I read the history--even the apologetic recounting of the history concedes some retaliation, no?

Do these guys simply not know the history or is this a continued calculated effort? I thought the advice not to contend on the issues was, in part, an effort to save people from learning certain facts. This counsel goes hand in hand with Oaks' statements that those who claim to report on Church history are biased (whihc is true for some and not for others and the Church itself is quite biased, no?). If they can convince people not to discuss the matter and not to trust any source except the Church on these matters, they will have accomplished much.

[_Danna]

Turning to page 51 of Ashamed of Joseph, we find another example of Crane's tendency to jump to conclusions based on the opinions of others, opinions that are not properly supported by any kind of conclusive evidence. Crane repeats the idea, advanced by Wesley P. Walters, that a court document discovered by Walters is "positive proof . . . that Joseph Smith was involved in money digging and other questionable practices" (p. 51). The author writes, "I know Wesley P. Walters personally and have inserted here a copy of the court document in which Joseph Smith was tried and convicted" (pp. 52-53). Crane apparently would have his readers believe that the document discovered by Walters declares that Joseph Smith was tried and convicted of "money digging and other questionable practices." In point of fact, the document makes no such claim. The document specifies that fees were paid for the examination of an accusation of glass-looking. No mention is made in this document of a conviction or even a trial in the glass-looking case, although some evidence does suggest that a trial might possibly have taken place. At least one study of Walters's evidence, considered within the context of the legal setting of 1826, concludes that "in 1826 Joseph Smith was indeed charged and tried for being a disorderly person and that he was acquitted."6

I was interested in the last sentence in your quote here. The apologists are attempting to have their cake and eat it too again. One argument is that there was no trial - it was a low level examination, therefore no conviction, no problem. The other argument is that there was a real trial but there was an aquittal, no problem. So I have had a decent look at the reference your guy quotes: G.A. Madsen (1990) Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The legal setting.

My notes follow:

In 1971, Wesley P. Walters found two bills associated with Joseph Smith’s 1926 appearance before JP Albert Neely. The first bill was from Justice Neely, recording Joseph’s appearance for a ‘misdemeanor’; the second from Constable Phillip De Zeng charged for expenses involved with rounding up defendant and witnesses.

Madsen’s study criticises Wesley P Walters’s original assumption that the case involved an examination (similar to a preliminary hearing and conducted before only ONE judge) AND a trial before a court of sessions (THREE judges). Walters notes that the discovered records refer directly to an examination of Joseph and he then assumes a trial must have followed - citing the evidence that De Zeng also billed for notifying two justices (although Walters’ suggests in passing the possibility of Joseph skipping before the actual trial). A trial before the court of special sessions would have normally followed the finding of probable cause in the examination. Walters’ assumption is that the notation ‘guilty’ on Justice Neely’s bill probably refers to the finding of the subsequent trial. But, the Tanners’ have noted that ‘guilty’ was actually used in the context of an examination in those days, effectively with the same meaning as the modern notation ‘probable cause’. In effect, Joseph went through the equivalent of a modern preliminary hearing and the judge found probable cause sufficient to refer him for trial.

Constable De Zeng’s bill does list a charge for ‘notifying two justices – 1.--’. Madsen flatly states that he does not know what this item refers to and criticizes Walters’s apparent assumption that the item indicates that a proper trial actually occurred following the examination. Madsen rightly notes that there is only evidence for an examination. After all – THREE justices are required for a trial before the court of special sessions. Madsen supposes that Constable De Zeng confused details from another case – an actual trial conducted before three justices on the same day. So according to Madsen, ONLY an examination occurred, based on grammatical evidence from a contemporary procedural manual, Madsen equates the ‘examination’ with a ‘formal trial’ before one justice, and as no subsequent trial before a court of special sessions is recorded, Madsen assumes Joseph must logically have been acquitted (in spite of the ‘found guilty notation on his records).

Madsen’s thesis requires: 1. Constable De Zeng to make an error is his billing procedure, listing notification of two judges under the wrong case. 2. An assumption that a procedural manual is not to be understood at face value, but that grammatical forms used provide the ‘true’ meaning of the manual. 3. A deliberate forgery of a portion of the documentary evidence, in spite of no such forgery being detected in the nearly 40 years since the discovery was found. 4. The only likely forger to have misunderstood the implications of the document he found and altered – advancing an incorrect theory for 17 years before more information on 19th century legal practice resulted in a reversal of his previous position.

Walters likely theory requires: 1. extrapolation of completion of further legal proceedings from evidence indicating only preparation for such. 2. An assumption that ‘guilty’ referred to a subsequent unrecorded trial, rather than a reference to the actual proceeding it annotated.

It seems to me that the item on De Zeng’s bill is probably an indication of how far preparations for a subsequent trial got – that the justices were notified does not actually mean that the trial occurred. Following the ‘guilty’ finding at the examination, the constable notified the other two justices of an upcoming court of sessions. In the meantime the defendant buggered off – with or without help or approval. This situation would explain why TWO justices were notified. Justice Neely, having conducted the examination, did not need to be notified – making the total of three required for the court of special sessions.

Both Walters and Madsen have selectively considered and weighted evidence such that their preconceived opinions are reinforced; thus, Joseph was tried and convicted, OR he was completely acquitted. The sum of evidence suggests a third option, previously proposed by the Tanners. That Joseph was examined during an examination or preliminary hearing and found ‘guilty’ (i.e. probable cause for an eventual guilty finding was established), preparations were put in place for a trial before the court of special sessions; but, probably due to the defendant absconding, the trial never occurred.

All references above are also used in Madsen’s study, with the exception of the Tanners’ Salt Lake City Messenger #68 located at:
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Seems rather bold to proclaim that all charges were "trumped up" and that he was never convicted partly because he did not stick around for trial. I've sort of come to expect the "Disney" version from the GA's and Church websites, manuals, etc. and to have to look for the truth of the matters. i recall someone else in conference (an apostle, I believe--maybe Hales?) stating that Joseph Smith never retaliated against those who persecuted him. Not sure that's how I read the history--even the apologetic recounting of the history concedes some retaliation, no?

Do these guys simply not know the history or is this a continued calculated effort? I thought the advice not to contend on the issues was, in part, an effort to save people from learning certain facts. This counsel goes hand in hand with Oaks' statements that those who claim to report on Church history are biased (whihc is true for some and not for others and the Church itself is quite biased, no?). If they can convince people not to discuss the matter and not to trust any source except the Church on these matters, they will have accomplished much.

Are you saying BKP was wrong in saying Joseph Smith was never convicted of a crime?

[_mms]

I mean only what I say (and sometimes I don't mean that, as I am sometimes speaking only as a man angered by having been misled in some regards:), LoAP. Assuming that what I have read in this thread is true--that is that Joseph Smith fled jurisdictions before he could be tried (which I have also read in other sources), then I think BKP was misleading by stating that he was "never convicted" without also mentioning that, in some circumstances, he fled the jurisdiction (even if only to save his life) before he could be tried. This is simply the pattern I have seen of omitting unhelpful details. BKP's omission seems to indicate that Joseph Smith was acquitted in every circumstance. This is a minor omission in and of itself. But when all "minor omissions" are observed together, the pattern is somewhat disturbing.

By the way, LoAP, do you think Joseph Smith ever retaliated against anyone who persecuted or sought to persecute him?

[_TAK]

Are you saying BKP was wrong in saying Joseph Smith was never convicted of a crime?

Do you really consider that to be an honest statement when the preceding statement he says: "During his life, Joseph Smith was summoned to court over 200 times on all kinds of trumped up charges." ?

The statement “never convicted” is tied to the first sentence leaving the listener to conclude that Joseph Smith was tried and found not guilty on over 200 trumped up charges. That was not the case as Joseph Smith fled two states avoiding prosecution on several charges. In fact even “trumped up” even implies that the merits were considered in a court. The reality is that was only BKPs opinion that they were "trumped up".

Its a dishonest statement.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

By the way, LoAP, do you think Joseph Smith ever retaliated against anyone who persecuted or sought to persecute him?

I certainly do.