The fact that Justice Neely said Joseph Smith was a "Glass looker" fits very well with the published version of the legal proceedings. Hugh Nibley and other Mormon apologists became strangely silent after these documents were discovered.
Posted on 07/14/2007 10:30:57 AM PDT by wagglebee
Resty, all you’ve provided is evidence of Mitt’s “flipocrisy.”
In 2002, as a candidate for governor, he OPPOSED a Marriage Protection Amendment for Massachusetts, even after sweet Ann and one of his sons had signed the petition to place it on the ballot.
Now he’s flip-flopped on that issue as he has on lots of other things.
He still opposes the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexual members and Scoutmasters. His current position (it could change tomorrow) is that each local Scout council should decided whether to allow homosexuals.
Consistent with his view that it’s OK with him if NY and MASS continue to terminate the lives of prenatal children.
Sorry b9 but there was nothing in that post even remotely talking about tax dollars.
That was about being firm on what is morally right but at the same time one must remember those who deviated are still someone child or and God loves all his children even it he does not like what they do.
You are using Charity as in Money I guess for you I should have said Unconditional Love Never Faileth.
Love should never be used as a barganing chip!
In the context of this thread, and this forum, your insinuation that one’s opposition to homosexuality is unloving is most insulting.
Government is not religion, and vice versa.
You are the one using compassion as a ‘bargaining chip’ by dipping into anyone’s pocket but your own.
Charity in terms of government IS money.
FWIW I agree that Unconditional Love Never Faileth.
However, that’s not the job of government.
Thank goodness conservatives, and conservative candidates, understand the difference.
WHAT actions are you talking about - all I did was copy and paste from the experts. Anyway, my actions don’t matter, but Romney’s actions do matter.
Civl unions are about as bad as so-called gay “marriage.” A father and son aren’t allowed civil unions, are they?
But he did.
Make of it what you will.
What your problem can’t Goverment up hold laws, without hating people?
I don’t know what you are arguing about one can say no without adding meanness to it!
What do you want a smackdown?
And Romney’s supporters fail to accept this fact. They’re like the Roody Rooters, they think that Romney should get a pass because he has an “R” after his name even though he advanced the left’s agenda further than any ‘Rat governor.
The action was VETO to any new laws that violated or undermind Moral laws.
“..without hating people?”
Do you realize how liberal you sound?
That is the mantra of liberals saying that anyone who disagrees with them hates!!
Love the sinner; hate the sin.
Love the sinner; hate the sin.
so you find this thought offensive?
Are you sure you’re on the right forum?
Seriously.
Do you understand the difference between the liberal’s view of government as opposed to conservatives?
Liberals want big government to be all things to all people.
Conservatives, OTOH, realize that only God is all things to all people.
A government which honors and protects freedom of religion is the most compassionate government possible.
A government which dictates compassion by using tax dollars to fund and encourage abhorrent behavior is no government I wish to support.
I would LOVE a smackdown of false compassion!
Socialism is a bottomless pit, fruitless and deceptive.
“The action was VETO to any new laws that violated or undermind Moral laws.”
??????
THIS action could violate and undermind Moral laws:
“Romney Rewards one of the State’s Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the “real threat to the States is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . .”
==> (arrow mind) Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court. Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which, in its own words, is “dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated.”’
http://www.rightmarch.com/pac/RomneyDeception.htm
Some court docs for thought
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm
The Mormon writer Francis W. Kirkham just could not allow himself to believe that the 1826 court record was authentic. He, in fact, felt that if the transcript were authentic it would disprove Mormonism:
“A careful study of all facts regarding this alleged confession of Joseph Smith in a court of law that he had used a seer stone to find hidden treasure for purposes of fraud, must come to the conclusion that no such record was ever made, and therefore, is not in existence.... had he [Joseph Smith] made this confession in a court of law as early as 1826, or four years before the Book of Mormon was printed, and this confession was in a court record, it would have been impossible for him to have organize the restored Church. (A New Witness For Christ In America, vol. 1, pages 385-387)
“If a court record could be identified, and if it contained a confession by Joseph Smith which revealed him to be a poor, ignorant, deluded, and superstitious person unable himself to write a book of any consequence, and whose church could not endure because it attracted only similar persons of low mentality—if such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him.... How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been the superstitious fraud which ‘the pages from a book’ declared he confessed to be?” (Ibid., pp.486-487)
The noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley published a book in which this statement appeared: “...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.” (The Myth Makers, 1961, page 142) On the same page we read that such a court record would be “the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered.” Because he could see the serious implications of the matter, Dr. Nibley tried in every way possible to destroy the idea that the court record was an authentic document.
As we indicated earlier, in 1971 Wesley P. Walters made an astounding discovery which destroyed many of the arguments Mormon writers had used to discredit the 1826 Court record. While searching through some old records stored in the basement of the county jail in Norwich, New York, Wesley Walters and Fred Poffarl discovered two documents from Bainbridge which confirmed the authenticity of the printed court record. The most important was Justice Albert Neely’s bill to the county for his fees in several legal matters he was involved with in 1826. The fifth item from the top mentioned the case of “Joseph Smith The Glass looker.”
The fact that Justice Neely said Joseph Smith was a "Glass looker" fits very well with the published version of the legal proceedings. Hugh Nibley and other Mormon apologists became strangely silent after these documents were discovered.
While most Mormon scholars accepted the evidence which Wesley Walters discovered, an overzealous supporter of Joseph Smith decided to resort to forgery in an attempt to discredit the documents. In 1986 Ronald Vern Jackson, a Mormon researcher who wrote the book The Seer, Joseph Smith, appeared on the Mormon Church’s television Station, KSL-TV with the startling claim that Justice Neely’s bill had been altered. He claimed that the name “Josiah Stowell” originally appeared on the document, but that these words had been changed to “Joseph Smith.” Although Mr. Jackson did not directly state it, the implications were clear-Walters had found a genuine bill referring to Josiah Stowell and that he had deliberately altered it to discredit the prophet Joseph Smith! Jackson professes to believe that Mark Hofmann was not alone in creating forgeries. In an introduction to his publication of the Mark Hofmann Interviews, Jackson wrote that he had “very incriminating evidence that others were involved!” He also declared that “It was a conspiracy to rewrite L.D.S church history and Mark Hofmann was but a pawn that was sacrificed to save the King. There are those who would love to disgrace the L.D.S. church by proving it’s history to be a sham. And Mark Hofmann was the tool through which they were going to do it.” He also stated that “Mark Hofmann was just the tip of the iceberg,...” In an advertisement for his publications, we find the following:
“So incriminating is his [Jackson’s] evidence, information and documentation in this case, not only of Hofmann, and his Associates, but of the ‘Wider’ Co-conspiratorial Ring, that several attempts have been made on his life!” We understand that Mr. Jackson has hinted that the King of Mormon document forgery is a minister who lives in the Midwest. Since Wesley P. Walters pastors a church in Illinois and is deeply involved in research on Mormon history, it seems reasonable to believe that Jackson is hinting that he is the “King.”
In any case, Wesley P. Walters made these observations about Ronald Jackson’s charges:
“Recently, Ron Jackson, a pro-Mormon historian from Bountiful, Utah, appeared on KSL-TV in Salt Lake City and claimed that the 1826 justice of the peace bill had been altered. He claimed that when this writer was lecturing in Salt Lake City in 1976, a friend had inadvertently picked up some of this writer’s notes and kept them. Accompanying the notes, he claimed, was a reproduction of the trial bill as it originally read. Jackson said that instead of reading the people ‘vs. Joseph Smith the glass looker,’ it originally read, ‘vs. Josiah Stowell the glass looker.’
“The reproduction bearing the name Josiah Stowell and purportedly obtained from this writer’s notes shows signs of forgery. Someone has obliterated parts of ‘Joseph’ and in a sloppy hand tried to change this to read ‘Josiah.’ He has left the ‘S’ of ‘Smith’ but obliterated the remainder and placed the name ‘Stowell’ into that space. The final ‘ell’ in Stowell appears to have been taken from the name Darnell, which appears further down in the same manuscript, and inserted as the final letters of Stowell. Moreover, the letter ‘a’ in Josiah and the ‘o’ in Stowell do not match the way these letters are formed in the rest of the document, and the crossing of the ‘t’ is quite different.” (Personal Freedom Outreach Newsletter, April-June 1986, p. 2)
Please another Brian Camenker freaK!
“Love the sinner; hate the sin.
so you find this thought offensive?”
No.
And yep, you’re a lib/moderate, but maybe you’re very young (you seem young), so there’s still hope for you.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Anyone who disagrees with you hates and is a freak. lol
Do you have any more?
thanks EV
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.