The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Brandon has compiled a substantial degree of information for this paper and presented it in a very readable fashion. It successfully raises doubt as to whether or not Joseph Smith, Jr. was found guilty of a crime in 1826. But let us look at some simple facts and their obvious interpretations and thereby get to the real point of the whole mechanical enterprise:

This essay makes it all the more certain that Joseph Smith appeared in some legal proceeding related to his habit of claiming to be able to divine the location of 'buried treasure.' This fact is even testified to by his devotee Oliver Cowdery. Brandon examines the various accounts of this proceeding and picks at items like the order of witness appearance or who exactly was in attendance. But do these observations really matter all that much? There are hardly any two accounts of anything in the historical record that agree detail for detail. Musing over the gaps, in this case, is much less interesting than recognizing the remarkable congruence. What remains incontrovertible is that Joseph Smith, during his youth, engaged in a hobby whereby he claimed to supernaturally locate 'buried treasure' or other valuable commodities. (By the way, no one recounts that he was ever successful at this venture.) Brandon, in his conclusion, honestly concedes that a legal proceeding involving Joseph Smith and 'money-digging' did occur in 1826.

And here's the point to remember: The founder of the Mormon faith made a short-lived career of telling people he could find buried treasure on their property through mystical methods. Perhaps, he was never convicted of any crime (if such is the case) because the only individual with standing, i.e. Josiah Stowell, 'positively knew' that Smith could see buried treasure, despite the fact that Smith had never delivered any goods. Everyone else in the case was just harping about ole' Josiah being made the fool. If Josiah didn't care, why should the court? This explanation is, of course, simply plausible speculation.

Mormons find some succor in this embarrassment from two basic lines of thought. The first is that 'digging for money' was a 'very common thing.' in those days. In other words, Joseph Smith was no more or less delusional than those around him, or at least no more delusional than the other money-diggers. But, as always, the idea that everyone is jumping off the bridge is rarely a good justification for doing the same, and is much less valuable if we're talking about basing an entire religion upon their testimony.

The note of triumph struck by Mormons when it comes to this trial is the idea that Smith's guilty verdict is unprovable. Maybe this was the case. Let us assume for a moment that Smith was never found guilty of anything. So what? Miss Cleo has been telling people for years that she can divine their futures from the cards. She has been sued numerous times, but never actually incarcerated, as far as I can tell. Perhaps I should begin calling her every day asking for advice or make her the head of new religion. Not having been found guilty of fraud or 'disturbing the peace' clearly vindicates her message.

The central point, however, to be gleaned from this essay is that while "New York law made no distinction between fraudulent and real seers," Mormons are able to and have identified Joseph Smith as a prophet of god.

The secondary ruse is to create an atmosphere of conspiracy surrounding all parties who disagree with Smith's prophetic vision. All too frequently Mormons imply, none too subtly, that if someone disagrees with the Mormon view of cosmology then they are 'anti-Mormon' and their 'bias' precludes a real evaluation of their evidence. Mormons see a conspiracy against their faith at every turn and discount all contrary evidence as another prop in the elaborate scheme to hide the truth of the Mormon revelation. Were there people violently opposed to the spread of Mormonism? Yes. Is it possible that some documents may have been rearranged or altered to tarnish the Mormon image? It's possible, even probable. Can we rightly enlarge this explanation to cover every piece of evidence that impugns the Mormon belief system? Not hardly. Does Brandon employ this method? Not exactly, but perhaps by way of inference.

This forms the second unassailable wall surrounding the Mormon belief system. The first, of course, is the idea of continuing direct revelation from god. "God told me so, just last week." How can anyone argue with that? The second, as we have seen, is the method of painting all evidence against Mormonism as 'anti-Mormon' propaganda. To be fair, Brandon employed this technique in a much more muted fashion than most Mormon apologists and threw in Oliver Cowdery's 'bias' to even the playing field. He also fully admitted that many of the documents (e.g. public records) seem to be free of bias, but caveats this by reminding the reader 'the finder of the documents cannot be considered an unbiased source.' He thereupon concludes that "the question of the bills' authenticity must remain open," implying that these documents are, in all likelihood, another part of the anti-Mormon conspiracy. Is this possible? I suppose. But, then again, it is infinitely more probable, given the welter of corroborating evidence, that Smith went to court for claiming he could find treasure by looking into a magic rock. Brandon, at the end, admits that the 'alleged' proceeding took place and takes some small comfort in the ambiguity of Smith's innocence or guilt. The point of the essay (i.e. to show that one cannot definitely say Smith was convicted) is so narrow as to make victory and defeat a hairsbreadth apart and, in the end, generally unimportant. I could probably write a research paper and convince most everyone that the historical location for the Battle of Cannae is unknown, ambiguous. After much toil and effort historians would look at my work and say, 'who cares?' They would argue, rightly, that I had belabored the minor and overlooked the momentous. The fact that Hannibal won in overwhelming terms is the real historical lesson and fact worthy of remembrance.

So what are we left with? Did the court proceeding 1826 take place? Yes. Did Joseph Smith engage in mystical practice whereby he hoped to find buried treasure? Yes. Was he even good at the practice which would at least pseudo-substantiate the Mormon point that he was a 'real seer?' No; he was quite bad at it, a total failure actually, unless we consider his discovery of a bird's tail-feather once to be a notable exception. That is until he claimed to find golden plates inscribed with a message from god, which he 'translated' by looking at 'seer stones' placed in a man's hat.

In the final run we are forced to ask even why we should care too much about the not-so-contentious 1826 incident? The only reason is that it was the first substantial and investigated instance of Joseph Smith's dabbling in fantastical practices. He went on from this humble free-lance mysticism to fabricate much more intriguing stories and outlandish ideas. He later claimed to 'translate' a set of papyri that, according to him, revealed an ancient book of the patriarch Abraham hidden in the hieroglyphics. Egyptologists later studied facsimiles of the papyrus and determined that the writings had nothing to with Abraham at all. Smith, who lived in an age when almost no one could read hieroglyphics, just made the whole thing up. In more comical fashion, Smith once claimed that god commanded his people to build a hotel and grant Smith a suite of rooms for use by him and his family 'from generation to generation.' (Brodie, 263)

So we are left with a choice between two explanations: 1) Joseph Smith was a well-accomplished liar OR 2) Joseph Smith, Jr.- a man who: said that Native Americans are actually descendants of ancient Hebrews; proclaimed that the black skin of the African is a curse handed down by god; revealed that the Almighty was intimately concerned with his hotel accommodations; used his newfound religious authority to seduce a myriad of women, to his wife's consternation; contended that the Garden of Eden was in Daviess County, MO; and least of all was brought to court for unsuccessfully looking for buried treasure - was a prophet of god, and that all evidence to the contrary is a product of 'anti-Mormon' propaganda.

Allow me to offer my mostly disinterested third party perspective on all of the "baseless argument" claims from both sides:

First, when arguing religion, the person arguing against it always has the upper-hand as religious belief requires the dismissal of logic, reason, and all else that hold true in our physical world. So, Christians, Mormans, Wizards, and Fairies alike, you need to understand that the world assumes you're crazy because you have nothing more than popularity to back any of your most critical claims. None. Nada. Zilch. Mormon revelations, Catholic miracles ... none without massive, gaping holes in any sort of scientific analysis.

Second, Brandon, while you're article may show that J.S. may have been a good dude in this case, it really establishes nothing. Having been a former military officer, I can recount multiple instances where some of the shadiest humans I've ever met managed to walk away clean in court. You can say my claims of their shadiness lack merit given the court's record, but I'll say you lack perspective. Moreover, courts do not imply correctness. I seem to recall an interesting verdict in Salem that may have been wrong.

Third, I don't think Will is tossing out any less facts that Brandon. You both cite semi-credible, but non-conclusive evidence. In the end, we always end up with: J.S./Mormons are crazy, and J.S./Mormons are righteous. I'm waiting for the day I hear a non-Mormon argue that Mormons are righteous or vice-versa, but I'm probably never going to see that day.

If I had to pick a more sensical argument though, I'd say Will has the upper-hand. And it's not because of anything he did necessary, but rather, his starting point. Allow me to elaborate:

Known: There is no hard evidence to prove or disprove the Mormon faith, J.S., or anything related. The only argument one can make is one based on a personal interaction with God, or drawing conclusions from other things known to be true.

Given: I have never had God tell me anything, Mormon-related or not. I also have never met a Mormon that got a message in their native language (e.g. English) from God, much like J.S. did, though they all talk of "revelations."

Statistical Assessment of Seemingly Ridiculous Claims: Let's give Mormons the benefit of the doubt and say that there's a 90% chance that all of their claims are true. To illustrate the point, I'll list a few:

• J.S. was completely innocent and never led treasure crusades
• J.S. talked directly to God and Jesus
• J.S. read gold plates with seer stones
• Jesus came to visit America
• Mormons are of ancient Hebrew decent that migrated to America and were wiped out by native Americans
• J.S. could read hieroglyphics, even the special kind that only appear in ancient American Hebrew texts ... nevermind his translation book that was totally wrong
• God often changes his mind over the course of human years, despite being a timeless being, and reveals his new, better ideas to Mormons only
• God offers free hotel stays for top execs
• God once hated colored people, but in the midst of American Civil Rights Movements, decided to go with the flow
• Humans lived before they were born

... that's 10. Forgive me if I misconstrued anything; it's beside the point. Pick more if you'd like, but 10 will illustrate my point. We all know that the probability of two independent events occuring looks like: P(A and B) = P(A) x P(B). So, in this case we have P(Mormon Truth)=.910 = 35%. Not bad, but also not likely, and that's only considering 10 events and giving them a high probability of truth. Let's consider 100 and only assume 50% that they're true: .5100 = 7.8 x 10-31 ... that's about as "zero" as you get.

Conclusion: I cannot prove God if He doesn't prove Himself to me, regardless of all the words in the world from religous people. From my perspective, I think of the 100s of events and assign an unbiased 50% probability to all of them. You don't need math to arrive at a near 0% chance of truth. I believe Mormons as much as I believe people who tell me they're going to Vegas and going to win big.

So, why do I mention all of this? To show that Will points out the many events that simply don't make a lot of sense and thus correlate to a very low chance of truth, which in turn lower the probability even more that any one of them is correct, which gets you even closer to 0 than the unbiased look. On top of that, a pro-Mormon bias of 99% chance with 100 events is still less than 1%. Without evidence, the odds are stacked high against Mormans, or any religion for that matter.

Anyway, I don't know why so much effort and finger pointing goes into arguing religion as any argument is baseless to begin with. Such conversations always boil down to "well, you can't disprove it," which is not an argument.

I gotta go ... Jesus is coming to my backyard tonight to tell me how to do that trick on Super Mario Bros. where you get around 100 free men ... I'm serious ... what? ... you can't prove he's not.

The following was moved from a separate thread:

I have a big problem with this sort of thinking. The article was not about whether or not JS was a con man. The background, testimony and public record provided was not on that topic and it is incorrect to use that way. I did not comment, document or research in ways other than what I deemed necessary to address the topic at hand - which was whether or not Brodie's statement that JS was convicted is supported historically.

If you want to judge whether or not JS was a conman, you have a lot more study ahead of you. For starters, you might want to try reading a good biography on him (everyone probably knows the one I recommend by now), reading what he claimed to have translated, or even getting to know the doctrine he alleges God revealed to him.

Lastly, I'm curious if you might be able to lay out logically why you think the information in this article leads to an accurate conclusion that JS was a con man. Is it just that you think things such as heavenly visitations are impossible and thus JS must have been lying to claim them? Or do you there is sufficient evidence to show JS's main goal was money, as evident (in your opinion) in the established details of his life? Really, the only idea I have as to what might be motivating you to this conclusion is that "so-and-so came along fifty years after JS was acquitted and said JS should have been convicted." How does accepting that opinion seem proper to you?

Brandon - over at On Faith the subject of the glass looking trial has been brought up among other things.... I did post the link to your article, but some weasel is posting more junk. maybe you could go over and help out if you have some time.

thanks

friend of Joseph

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/2007/03/not_even_the_angels_know_1.html#comments