Logo Copyright © 2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved
Return to Main Page




Symphony of Truth

In a Nutshell

Topical Guide


5 Commissions

10 Commandments

333 NCCG Number

144,000, The


Action Stations

Agency, Free





Apostolic Interviews

Apostolic Epistles

Archive, Complete

Articles & Sermons





Baptism, Water

Baptism, Fire

Becoming a Christian

Bible Codes

Bible Courses

Bible & Creed


Calendar of Festivals


Charismata & Tongues

Chavurat Bekorot

Christian Paganism

Chrism, Confirmation


Church, Fellowship

Contact us



Covenants & Vows












Ephraimite Page, The

Essene Christianity




Family, The



Festivals of Yahweh

Festivals Calendar



Gay Christians


Godhead, The






Hebrew Roots





Holy Echad Marriage

Holy Order, The

Home Education


Human Nature




Intro to NCCG.ORG



Jewish Page, The

Judaism, Messianic

Judaism, Talmudic


KJV-Only Cult





Marriage & Romance



Messianic Judaism






NCCG Origins

NCCG Organisation

NCCG, Spirit of

NCCG Theology



New Age & Occult



New Covenant Torah

Norwegian Website


Occult Book, The

Occult Page, The

Olive Branch



Paganism, Christian















RDP Page




Satanic Ritual Abuse



Sermons & Articles

Sermons Misc







Swedish Website


Talmudic Judaism



Tongues & Charismata



True Church, The




United Order, The




Wicca & the Occult


World News


Yah'shua (Jesus)




    Archive Section II


    by Clare Gregory

    Posted by Clare Gregory [NCCG] on April 14, 1999 at 18:48:14:

    Kevin [LDS], this is a response from the bb that
    crashed, but I wanted to respond to your


    ***My purpose in this board is not to "convince" anyone of my claims. I presume that most here have already researched with an open mind to try and find answers to truth. My positive assumption about people is not always valid, but nevertheless, that is what I assume for everyone. In studying Church history, a person must sort through facts and assumptions and opinions. We need to decide what is valid, what is fluff, and what are pure lies. In Mormonism there is so much fluff and so much lying on both sides, it's like investigating a smelly sewer of sorts. It's a toilet of filth. Both LDS and Non-LDS with unscrupulous aims deliberately have hid facts, changed history, and left a path of secrets that are almost impossible to uncover the truth. Personally, I dislike it very much.

    But the 20 issues referenced I've concluded to be true after my looking at both sides and examining the evidence. Is it perfect? No. Are there valid Mormon arguments that contradict my position? Of course! And that is where our minds must make a judgement call based on what we see and believe is the truth. Let's take each of your points, and I'll share the reasoning process I go through to validate or invalidate the data I look at.

    1) Joseph Smith taught men lived on the moon. (You
    can claim he made a mistake in judgement because
    he's a man. That's the only argument that is
    sincerely valid.)

    Wrong again, you provide yet again a non-doctrinal source for your conclusions
    which are based on second hand accounts and narrowed down and addressing only the
    Young Women! Don't you think that if Smith really taught this, that it would not be
    privy to only the Young Women, but the Priesthood and Relief Society as well?

    There are many "Church publications" that are not doctrinal and they comprise tons of
    "opinions" or second hand experiences from members. Rememebr the incident years ago
    when a "Church publication" stated that when teh Prophets speak, the "thinking has been
    done for them?" The Church replied and said this was a terrible mistake and that it was
    not reviewed by those who should have. It was not a qute from any prolific Church leader
    as this case isn't either. Your "Cold hard fatcs" are flimsy. Go ahead and try demeaning
    my research by using colorful phrases as "go hide your head in teh sand", but it boils
    down to the facts that you only have plagerized anti-Mormon material that has been
    addressed for years and I have much more than that. Who is doing teh better research?
    to find your information, one only needs to fumble through a plethora of anti-Mormon webpages.

    *** I gave you the quote by O. B. Huntington in another post below, and it was not "second hand" information. Have I quoted "Anti-Mormons"? NO! I have quoted a Church document. Like I said, Kevin, I'm careful about my sources before I jump to a conclusion, especially regarding whether Joseph Smith taught the moon was inhabited. The Huntington wrote the article for the CHURCH PUBLICATION. This was NOT an opinion. He heard, saw, and experienced FIRST HAND the prophet's teaching on the matter. If we disagree with him, then the only option we have to believe is that this person LIED in the Church Publication. And he was LDS, so then LDS writers lie in their own publications? The probability that O.B. Huntington "lied" deliberately, in my mind, is remote. . Or some have supposed he was "old" and couldn't remember correctly the facts. Well, that is merely an assumption by LDS apologists, and could be true. Or it could be false. My father is 75, but his mind is fine, and he could remember unusual events. And this SO UNUSUAL it can't be easily forgetten. If you were 10 years old, and the patriarch of the church blessed you that you would preach to "men on the moon", you would certainly remember it. You wouldn't ever forget it. Plus, he had two other parts of the blessing that WAS fulfilled in his life. The Patriarch was the prophet's FATHER, Joseph Smith, Sr. Now, if the prophet's father is confirming blessings about preaching to the inhabitants of the moon, then it is most likely he got the idea from his son, Joseph Smith, Jr. That is a very reasonable conclusion. Some argue that this blessing came from his father, and not the Patriarch. I can not accept that. If true, the OB Huntington LIED! Even 10 year olds boys know who their father is vs a patriarch. The man was an adult when he wrote that. Finally, "Men on the moon" is such an unusual doctrine that ONLY if there was a valid LDS claim to the notion would ANY LDS church publication EVER publish such a claim. THERE HAD TO BE A BASIS OF TRUTH in it, or O.B. Huntington would have been laughed out of the LDS Church. But you, Kevin, are not thinking rationally and examining the evidence with a critical eye. You are relying on the Holy Spirit's decision to move you into Mormonism, right? But the fact is the Church did teach this for some time. In fact, I have a friend at my church who is about 75 years old. She heard this taught IN THE CHURCH when she was a young girl, and it was in the manuals of the church. When she got older and discovered that men did not live on the moon, she remembered her Sunday School class as a small child and investigated the source of the information. She left the Church. Finally, on July 24, 1870, Brigham Young taught, "Who can tell us of the INHABITANTS of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the MOON?…when you inquire about the INHABITANTS of that sphere you find that the most learned are ignorant in regard to them as the INHABITANTS of the SUN. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? NO QUESTION OF IT; IT WAS NOT MADE IN VAIN." (Journal of Discourses vol 13:, page 271.)

    OK, now we have Brigham Young and Joseph Smith teaching the same thing-two witnesses. So, O.B. Huntington was safe to print his viewpoint. He could go back to a reliable source and not get in trouble for sharing his testimony about his own patriarchal blessing. So, what do we have:

    1) A patriarchal blessing by Joseph Smith's father.
    2) The LDS testimony of O.B. Huntington deriding the scientific community that do not believe that men live on the moon and who claims to have heard Joseph Smith teach the doctrine first hand: "As far back as 1837, I KNOW that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men.." (The Young Women's Journal, Vol 3.page 263.)
    3) Brigham Young teaching of the "inhabitants" of the moon.
    4) My personal friend who heard it taught in the LDS Church from a Church manual.

    OK. From these FACTS, it is safe to conclude that the idea of men living on the moon was taught in the Church and by Joseph Smith. The Church "in general" believed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught the idea. That IS A FACT. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT!

    Now your rationale to me is absolutely absurd. I never said that it was "official church doctrine". I said that Joseph Smith taught the principle. But prophets make mistakes. This was my point to you. The fact is he believed it. He taught it. So did Brigham Young. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING that they did. Whether it was "taught by the priesthood" or "received by the entire church" is not relevant. Obviously, it was not a mainstream doctrine in the church because whether there is inhabitants on the moon or not will not save anyone. It's not important. But what IS IMPORTANT, is that we can demonstrate by factual proof that a reasonable mind will conclude that Joseph Smith did teach the doctrine. So again, Kevin, the fact that you blast my viewpoint and claim that Joseph Smith did not teach this shows your lack of objectivity and your stupidity to assume that Joseph would NOT have taught such a doctrine when the evidence is so overwhelming to the contrary. I don't buy the fact that "Huntington couldn't remember" because of age. This is something he believed in all of his life, since a little boy, evident by his testimony that two other things were prophesied were fulfilled, and he was expecting the "third" part to also be fulfilled. The ONLY option we have is Mr. OB Huntington was a liar. But, that viewpoint wouldn't surprise me, because that is the LDS way…look at your response to me. I'm suddenly a LIAR and make FALSE STATEMENTS just because it contradicts your own naïve viewpoint of Joseph Smith!

    Sorry, Kevin, I'm not the LIAR. Instead, you better call Mr. OB Huntington, an LDS writer for a Church publication, a LIAR before you call non-Mormons liars. Call Brigham Young a LIAR. His "opinion" was false, so we better say that "Brigham made a false statement". See how stupid that is. The fact is Brigham Young simply made a mistake. We are all human. Finally, you will have to call my Friend a LIAR that heard the doctrine taught years ago in the LDS Church. But don't call me one. I'm just reflecting facts as recorded in history. Based on the evidence outlined, I've chosen to believe Joseph Smith did indeed teach that men lived on the moon. That is not a lie. It is not a false statement. It is my own personal belief based on the overwhelming evidence before us.

    And you, sir, are hiding your head in the sand.

    Now, what evidence do you have? Do you have a church publication calling OB Huntington a LIAR? Do we have him retracting what he wrote? Anything to provide why he would lie? What have you shown? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. OB Huntington did NOT give a second hand "opinion" as you infer! He was there, and he saw and heard Joseph Smith with his OWN EARS, leaving us the FACTS as they really are! Again, for the church to publish and teach such bizarre, UNUSUAL doctrine, even if it is in THE YOUNG WOMEN'S JOURNAL is enough evidence itself to feel confident that Joseph Smith believed it! Otherwise, it would never have been published! Now it is true, someone may argue that he said, "I KNOW THAT HE SAID THE MOON WAS INHABITED BY MEN...", and that he doesn't say he heard Joseph Smith precisely, but that is stretching the meaning and intent too far… the writer said, "I know", not "I believe or I think".

    What do you have to say now, Kevin? Where is your credibility? Out the window. You claimed my position was unfounded and false, when in reality, you truly have not looked at all the evidence objectively. Better be careful to call my research poor before you do you own.

    2) Joseph Smith was arrested and found a "public nuisance".
    Many, many witnesses testify that he was into
    treasure hunting in his early youth. The D&C 111
    shows where his mind defaulted to when faced
    with a financial crisis. It proves he never renounced
    his practices into the occult, thus opening himself
    to a false revelation from the Nephilim.

    Since when is "treasure hunting" occultic? How many occultic groups today spend their weekends panning for gold?

    ***Panning for gold vs. using a peep stone and killing sheep for mystical powers is hardly the same thing. Your following discussion shows complete lack of understanding the depth of the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith and the issues involved. You appear completely ignorant of the debate. I'm rather SHOCKED. For you to have claimed to have done all this research and not understand the Anti- Mormon position is completely a surprise to me. In 1873 the COURT PROCEEDINGS were published in Fraser's Magazine. When Fawn Brodie published her book, "No Man Knows My History", she published this court record proving that Joseph Smith was convicted and found guilty during the 1826 trial. However, immediately the Church historians and LDS experts ranted that the account was a FORGERY. "A LIE!" Some even claimed that the Justice Albert Neeley wasn't even in Bainbridge. Here is the 1873 Fraser's Magazine that is the issue:

    "And therefore the court find the Defendant GUILTY.
    Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 ½ c.
    Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mitti-
    Mus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Supoena,
    18c.--$2.68." (Fraser's Magazine, Feb, 1873, page 229-230.)

    So for the next 25 years the LDS Church gets away with discrediting the work of Brodie. Until in 1971 Wesley P. Walters was digging for documents in the Bainbridge courthouse and found the original record of Joseph Smith trial, with read:

    "Same vs Joseph Smith, The GLASS LOOKER, March 20, 1826, MISDEMEANOR, To my fees examination of above cause $2.68."

    The significance of this document being found in 1971 was not the little bit of information that is contains, but it VALIDATES the full testimony given of the court proceedings in Fraser's Magazine. 1) Joseph Smith is called a "THE GLASS LOOKER", the date is March 20, 1826 (a match), and the dollar amount of $2.68 also MATCHED the Fraser Magazine account precisely!

    Kevin, I'm absolutely shocked that your response to the issues surrounding the 1826 trial! The Church was claiming the 1873 was a FABRICATION: "…the alleged find is no discovery at all, for the purported record has been included in other books…after all her PUFFING AND PROMISE the author produces NO COURT RECORD AT ALL, though persistently calling it such…This alleged record is obviously SPURIOUS…this record could not have possibly have been made at the time the case proceeded. It is patently A FABRICATION of unknown authorship and never in the court records at all." (Desert News, May 11, 1946.)

    In addition to this court document, others were found that matched the precise dollar amounts for the case in Frasers magazine, thus proving that the trial took place, and that JOSEPH SMITH WAS CALLED A GLASS LOOKER. But of course, Kevin, everyone is lying against the Church, and the 1873 recordings of the court record can not possibly be an accurate record!

    The truth? My view is the Holy Spirit directed you to join the LDS Church, and this is affecting your judgement in the matter.


    Jesus Christ was arrested as well. Was he GUILTY THOUGH? Was Smith GUILTY?
    ***Yes, Smith was proven guilty, and the court records indicate that: "And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. (Frasers Magazine, Feb, 1873, pg 229-230.) Where is your evidence?

    You insinuated that he was by claiming he had to pay a "fine", which of course is FALSE on your part, and now you respond with a flimsy defense that he was accused by many "witnesses".. Yeah, and who were these witnesses?

    ***His neighbors in Palmyra testified of his money digging activities. Surely you have seen the testimonies against the Smith family, signed as an affidavit to a judge in New York as sworn testimony. I think it was about thirty or more people from Palmyra, many testifying of Joseph's claim to finding buried treasure with his peep stone. Do we need to dig up these testimonies too? I presume you have read them. Have you?

    And why is it that these witnesses never had a case strong enough to convict him?
    ***God protected Joseph Smith in a miraculous way. Joseph did his best to serve God, and he was sincerely deceived by the Nephilim. But God had then and still has now something in mind for the LDS Church, and God was not going to let Satan destroy Joseph, nor kill him, until God's purposes were accomplished through Joseph Smith.

    The mere fact that someone is accused and arrested almost every week for several years, and NEVER found guilty should reveal the basis for these allegations in the first place.
    ***Satan's first objective was to destroy Joseph Smith. Many lies and trumped-up charges were constantly being inspired by Satan. Satan, of course, masterfully played both sides. He couldn't let Joseph Smith find out who he was, or Joseph could renounce Satan's Nephilim deception in the name of Jesus. So Satan hid behind his "angels of light" and deceived him. But outside of Mormonism, Satan told opponents to lie and deceive to trick and destroy the young Joseph. But Satan could not stop him, for God protected him. But eventually, God permitted his death. And even then, his actual dead body was protected by God, even with a bounty on his head, thus leaving God's hand of approval on the LDS Church.

    Did you know that "money-digging" was a COMMON practice at that time?
    ***Yes, I did know that. There were many superstitions at the time, and false angels appeared to more souls than just Joseph Smith. But these other souls didn't have Jesus Christ appear to them like Joseph Smith did, so you never hear anything of them in the annals of history. Just because "everyone was money digging" does not change the fact that occult powers were being deployed in the process.

    Everyone was searching for ores mines in the New World. I will quote myself on my article which already addresses this overabused issue:

    "A favorite method of attack by anti-Mormon writers attempting to portray Joseph Smith in an unfavorable light is to recite so-called evidence that he was accused in courts of law of various charges. They fail to acknowledge that in his period, a very popular way to "harrass thy neighbors" was to bring frivolous charges against them. The legal procedure of the day was for the accused person to be taken into custody by the law and held for one or more days until the judge would get around to trying the case, so these frivolous charges would delay and annoy, as well as serve as a cause of potential embarrassment.

    Time after time, anti-Mormon utilized this ploy against Joseph Smith and other mormon leaders. And time after time, charges brought against Joseph were not sustained by the courts and dismissed because they were untrue, or frivolous, or based on allegations of misconduct when the conduct involved was not against the law. Many times the charges had their roots in religious bias and bigotry, with individuals attempting to
    make the law fit their religious prejudices. For instance, in June, 1830, just three months after the Church was restored, Joseph visited Colesville, New york. On Saturday afternoon, he and several others built a small dam across a stream so baptisms could be performed there the following day. During the night a mob collected and tore down the dam. The Mormons rebuilt the dam, but as the baptisms were being performed, a mob again assembled and taunted them. Later that day, a constable came and arrested Joseph on a warrant. The charge: being a disorderly person because he set the country in an uproar by preaching the Book of mormon. That's a classic example of attempting to twist the law to achieve religious ends, isn't it? The constable told Joseph that those who swore out the warrant were lying an ambush for him, but the
    constable determined to save Joseph from them because he perceived Joseph to be a different kind of person than the mob had represented Joseph to be. When the mob surrounded the constable's wagon, he gave the horse the whip and drove Joseph out of their reach. When Joseph was brought to trial the next day, he was aquitted of the charge because there was no legal basis for it--Joseph had committed no illegal nor
    improper act in the eyes of the law.

    Just as an aside, this trial was of interest because of the way Joseph obtained help from a local man of integrity who was knowledgable in the law: John reid. Joseph knight, a friend of Joseph's, asked Mr. Reid to represent Joseph. Mr. Reid was in the process of declining when he heard a voice from an unseen source tell him, "You must go, and deliver the Lord's annointed!" Mr. Reid represented Joseph, and reported that he recieved a witness that Joseph told the truth. He was apparently guided by the Holy Ghost in his defense, and reported that "Whilst I was engaged in the case, these emotions increased, and when I came to speak upon it, I was inspired with an eloquence which was altogether new to me, and which was overpowering and irresistable."

    ***Yes. This is my point. God had a purpose for Joseph Smith, and he sent people time and time again to rescue him. General Donavan is another example of the intervention of God. God sent the sea gulls to the Salt Lake Valley as a sign God is with the Mormons. But that does NOT mean the Book of Mormon was from divine angels. It just means God would protect Joseph Smith in his foreordained mission to establish the LDS faith and restore the principle of revelation, in spite of the Nephilim deceptions. Thus we will see both the power of God working with Joseph Smith, as well as the power of Satan.

    Another trial, which anti-Mormon writers take delight in commenting upon, took place in 1826, when Joseph was just twenty years old, and before he received the Book of Mormon plates. Recently-discovered court records show that the trial actually did take place. Apparently the trial, once again, was in the nature of harrassment, for the charge once more was that Joseph was a "disorderly person." It was also alleged that
    he was "a vagrant, without visible means of support," but Joseph's employer, Josiah Stowell, quickly made short work of that falsehood. The trial focused on Joseph's work, for he had been employed to dig. That's hard work, not vagrancy! But the focus was on what he was employed to dig for, and that supposedly was for a treasure which was believed to have been buried in that area. Now, digging for treasure did not violate
    any New york State law, so there was no grounds for guilt on that count. The trial also focused on the fact that Joseph apparently had power to see unseen things by looking into a stone. Informed Mormons, who know of Joseph's use of a seer stone and also of the Urim and Thummim, feel no concern at this, for they know of several times when he used this ability to good advantage.

    ***Your complete ignorance is apparent. Where did you get this information? The trial focused on his "peep stone" powers, which Stowell testified Joseph possessed. Did you make up your version? Joseph wasn't arrested for "digging for treasure". The history of the trial is the Stowell's family was upset because he heard about Joseph's powers with the peep stone and Stowell hired Joseph to help him find buried treasures, and his family felt Joseph's influence was causing Mr. Stowell to waste the family inheritance and they wanted him to STOP looking for treasure. Hence, they dragged Joseph into court to have him stopped. They declared Joseph guilty as charged, but he was so young, the court let him go or "discharged him". And your thought about "Informed Mormons" who try to tie the "peep stone" to the Urim and Thummim makes little sense…the powers were not being used to translate any ancient writings, but to find buried treasure! The significance of this trial is that it proves Joseph Smith was using occult powers that would attract the Nephilim angels to deceive him! It is absolutely uncontroversial evidence to my claim. AGAIN: Joseph was being set up to receive the Nephilim angels! That is the issue of the trial. Even if he were NOT FOUND GUILTY, which he was, Joseph showed the stone and agreed that he used it to "see" things. He was a glass looker.

    The peep stone power is the occult signs of working with the Nephilim-D&C 111 given in 1837 confirms this desire in Joseph that he never renounced. Of course Mormon writers are not going to be concerned about this. They don't understand the Nephilim and assume that Moroni was from God. So of course they are going to take that position. But the fact is, Joseph had a peep stone, AN HE USED IT!
    (Does this sound like a Biblical prophet?)

    Anti-Mormon writers, however, try to greatly inflate the matter, portraying Joseph as what they call a "glass looker," and attempt to link the situation with matters of the occult. The discovered record gives little detail--what historians have is a bill from Constable DeZeng for the usual pre-trial expenses of a process server and constable, for serving a warrant on Joseph, subpoenaing the witness, notifying two justices, ten miles of travel, and attendance with the prisoner two days and one night, presumably the day and night before the trial and the day of the trial itself. Judge Albert Neely's bill of costs has also been found, consisting of 20 words, and identifying the chatge as a misdemeanor, and showing that the total costs for the case were $2.68.

    (continued on next post)

    Posted by Nephilim on April 14, 1999 at 18:54:57:

    In Reply to: To Kevin. My resonse part I posted by Nephilim on April 14, 1999 at 18:48:14:

    (continued from part I)...

    Anti-Mormon writers, however, try to greatly inflate the matter, portraying Joseph as what they call a "glass looker," and attempt to link the situation with matters of the occult. The discovered record gives little detail--what historians have is a bill from Constable DeZeng for the usual pre-trial expenses of a process server and constable, for serving a warrant on Joseph, subpoenaing the witness, notifying two justices, ten miles of travel, and attendance with the prisoner two days and one night, presumably the day and night before the trial and the day of the trial itself. Judge Albert Neely's bill of costs has also been found, consisting of 20 words, and identifying the chatge as a misdemeanor, and showing that the total costs for the case were $2.68.

    ***Again, I'm surprised at you response. The "$2.68, Joseph Smith the glass looker" misdemeanor, and the date March 20, 1826, establishes CREDIBILITY of the 1873 Fraser Magazine 1826 court proceedings as follows:

    "Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.
    Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times and had informed him
    where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.
    Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p---[word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked
    through stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.
    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.
    McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.
    Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man
    that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:
    And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances [sic], 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances [sic] of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68. (Frasers, Feb 1873, page 229-230.)

    And was Joseph convicted of the misdemeanor?

    *** Of course he was. It's in the records-"MISDEMEANOR". The Court Proceedings read: "And therefore the Court find the Defendant GUILTY". Give me a break. What more evidence do you want?

    The historical records differ on the matter. Fraser's magazine, which printed the brief account of the trial in 1873, contains one sentence that says, "And therefore the Court finds the Defendant guilty." But the witness who kept the notes of the trial recorded a different outcome. Judge Neely asked W.D. Purple, who was later a prominent physician in Chenango County, to take notes on the trial. He recorded that "the testimony of Deacon Stowell could not be impeached, the prisoner was discharged."

    *** "being discharged" just says he was let go. They let him go because of his age, not because he was innocent. Can't you see that? But the judge charged him with a misdemeanor. He was found guilty, bud. Shall I not expose all of the writings of W.D. Purple about the 1826 trial? Have you read them? Here are is an example: "More than fifty years since, as the commencement of his professional career, the writer [W.D. Purple] spent a year in the present village of Afton, in the County. It was then called South Bainbridge,….In the year 1825 we often saw in that quiet hamlet, Joseph Smith, Jr…He was an inmate of the family of Deacon Isaiah Stowell. Mr.Stowel…took upon himself a monomanical impression to seek for hidden treasures which he believed were buried in the earth. He hired help and repaired to Northern Pennsylvania, in the vicinity of Lanesboro, to prosecute his research for untold wealth which he believed to be buried there….There had lived a few years previous to this date, in the vicinity of Great Bend, a poor man named Joseph Smith…Mr. Stowell, while at Lanesboro, heard of the fame of one of his sons, named Joseph , who, by the aid of a magic stone had become a famous seer of lost or hidden treasures….He, with the magic stone, was at once transferred from his humble abode to the more pretentious mansion of Deacon Stowell. Here, in the estimation of the Deacon, he confirmed his conceded powers as a seer, by means of the stone which he placed in his hat, and by excluding the light from all terrestial things, could see whatever he wished, even in the depths of the earth.
    "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, who lived with their father, were greatly incensed against Smith, as they plainly saw their father squandering his property in the fruitless search for hidden treasures, and saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire….They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood. The trial came on in the above mentioned month, before Albert Neeley, Esq., the father of Bishop Neeley of the State of Maine. I was an intimate friend of the Justice, and was invited to take notes of the trial, which I did. There was a large collection of persons in attendance, and the proceedings attracted much attention.
    "The affidavits of the sons were read, and Mr. Smith was fully examined by the Court….On request of the Court, he exhibited the stone. It was about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high-instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket.
    "Joseph Smith, Sr., was present, and sworn as a witness…
    "The next witness called was deacon Isaiah Stowell. He confirmed all that is said above in relation to himself, and delineated many other circumstances not necessary to record. He swore that the prisoner possessed all the power he claimed, and declared he could see things fifty fee below the surface of the earth, as plain as the witness could see what was on the Justice's table, and described very many circumstances to confirm his words. Justice Neeley soberly looked a the witness and in a solemn, dignified voice, said, ""Deacon Stowell, do I understand you as swearing before God, under the solemn oath you have taken that you believe the prisoner can see by the aid of the stone fifty feet below the surface of the earth, as plainly as you can see what is on my table? Do I believe it? Says Deacon Stowell, Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief. I positively KNOW it to be true."
    "Mr Thompson, an employee of Mr. Stowell, was the next witness….The following scene was described by this witness, and carefully noted: Smith had told the Deacon that very many years before a band of robbers had buried on his flat a box of treasure, as it was very valuable they had by sacrifice placed a charm over it to protect it, so that it could not be obtained except by faith, accompanied by certain talismanic influences. So, after arming themselves with fasting and prayer, they salied forth to the spot designated by Smith, Digging was commenced with fear and trembling, in the presence of this imaginary charm. In a few feet from the surface the box of treasure was struck by the shovel, on which they redoubled their energies, but it gradually receded from their grasp. One of the men placed his hand upon the box, but it gradually sunk from his reach….Mr. Stowell went to his flock and selected a fine vigorous lamb, and resolved to sacrifice it to the demon spirit who guarded the coveted treasure. Shortly after the vernarble Deacon might be seen on his knees at prayer near the pit, while Smith, with a lantern in on hand to dispel the midnight darkness might be seen making a circuit around the spot, sprinkling the flowing blood from the lamb upon the ground, as a propitiation to the spirit that thwarted them. They then descended the excavation, but the treasure still receded from their grasp, and it was never obtained…(The Chenango Union, Norwhich, N.Y., May 3, 1877.)

    Kevin, this evidence is exactly the kind of dabbling into the occult that set Joseph Smith up to receive false visitations from the Nephilim. Have you studied the occult at all, and do you understand the Satanic spells placed by sacrifice as recorded by W.D. Purple?

    Anti-Mormon authors, however, eager to portray Joseph as a wrongdoer, never mention Mr. Purple's statement of the trial's outcome, though most of the trial details they quote are from his quotes.("Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties," Hill, Marvin S. pp 223-233).<<---Duane S. Crowther (Doctrinal Dimensions pp. 288-292)

    ***Kevin, being DISCHARGED is exactly what happened. He was let go because of his age. But he was still found guilty. The LDS position tries to blow away the JUDGE'S final decision. The fact is he was charged with a misdemeanor. Of course he was found guilty. (In fact, considering the testimony of sacrificing lambs and sprinkling blood and peep stones, IF YOU WERE THE JUDGE, seeing Joseph Smith holding the stone, and unemployed, what verdict would YOU have made? Absolutely true he found Joseph Smith guilty of being a disorderly person (not for mining as you say, for such was never the reason for the trial…who cares about the laws of the state of New York about mining? It's not even what he was tried for! If you were the judge, and Joseph Smith held up his stone and confessed, what would you think? Especially after the testimony about the sheep sacrifice?) Thus we see: "Joseph Smith the glass looker: "MISDAMEANER" in the court records.

    So as you see, there are several elements that the anti-Mormons, including yourself, never even acknowledge!

    ***What? That he was discharged? Of course he got out of jail. That is self-evident. I don't need a person who took notes to explain that to me.

    Today, we might view our being "fined" if we lost a legal battle and had to pay legal fees in the process. But as usual, the LDS mind looks at UNIMPORTANT facts, arguing over "definitions" and foolish ideas. The MOST IMPORTANT idea is the a judge found Joseph Smith guilty.

    Unimportant fact? The fact that you used the term "fined" to insinuate his guilt is not important? You STILL have provide no source that he was found guilty whatsoever. Sloppy work on yoru part. Secodn round of discussion and you still toss out belittling comments about how Mormons are dodging "Your facts" without even the slightest sense of responsiblity in having to demonstrate that what you say is even true!

    ***He was found guilty and the fee was $2.68, which I assume he paid, right? That sounds like a fine to me. Don't our speeding tickets go to pay for the system? That is a fine too. But what is the importance of this trial? To confirm Joseph Smith's dabbling into treasure hunting, thus setting him up to receive false revelation from the Nephilim.

    3) The Jupiter Talisman as I understand was kept
    by the prophet Joseph Smith, and recent church
    historians have researched and found evidence
    to support the belief.

    All talk and no proof makes Nephilim a dull boy! Everything I have read from Church historians dismisses it as hogwash! Much of this is based on testimonials from family members who said that guy made the whole thing up just to make a buck at an auction. You want to reference these "Church historians" for us, or sould I just trust you? Would you just trust me? I'll dig up the articles refuting this lunacy when I have the time. This is getting old really fast. Considering point 1 and 2, it is highly conceivable the Joseph Smith
    had such a stone.

    ***Do you want me to go get the facts on this one too? I will if you want me too. Or do you want to go look yourself first? There are different viewpoints on this. I'm leaning on the testimony of Emma's son, who heard her testify that it was in Joseph's pocket when he was killed. It is true, there is documentation that suggest that the piece was not part of the items in possession of the prophet that was returned by the Lawyer who was involved. But now we have a serious problem. We have TWO facts that contradict themselves. Which one do I choose? If I choose the documentation of the Lawyer, then I call Emma and Emma's son a deliberate LIAR. I'm I sure this is the truth. You see, I'm not interested in sides here, I'm more interested in the truth. So I say, "Well, they BOTH could be right." Perhaps, for whatever reason, the talisman was accidently left off the list of items returned. Or perhaps, because of its magical powers it was removed privately by a separate process and given to the Emma. I choose to believe this is the case.
    Why? Because to do otherwise, claims Emma is a liar, and I do not wish to paint her as such. Maybe she was. Maybe her son was. If true, then it reveals the kind of spirit both were under, which only discredits the prophet Joseph's integrity and honor-by showing Emma as a liar. I must admit, the fact that Emma denied Joseph's practice of polygamy, suggests that she lied too about the Talisman being on Joseph's person-or her son lied. In either case, it slings mud at human beings, and I care not to do that.
    In reality, however, the talisman was indeed Joseph's. Whether he died with it in his pocket is not the real issue. The issue is that he believed in its powers and used it. And from the testimony of those who knew him, this is a fact that can not be disputed by either side. Thus, the evidence is overwhelming that Joseph was into talisman powers that would attracted the Nephilim angels to him. And do the LDS posters on this board look at the big picture and see what it implies? Nope. They just argue over insignificant issue of whether the talisman was in his pocket or not when he died…the IMPORTANT point is that he HAD a Jupiter TALISMAN and he HAD A PEEP STONE.

    This is no secret though. You are now trying to prove something that Smith admits to already and the Church has never denied. I thought everyone knew Smith used a seer stone! You are way behind if you are trying to "prove" this to us. The story about a "Jupiter Talisman" being found on his person when he was killed is simply false though. Why on earth does this "prove" occultism??? Am I understanding you that if any objects are used for God's purpose, that it is automatically slap labbeld "Cult" or "Occult"??

    ***The stone was found in a well Joseph helped dig. And it was not even Joseph Smith's. He borrowed it from a Mr. Chase, and when Mr. Chase asked for it back, Joseph Smith refused to return it. That makes Joseph Smith a thief. The stone was NOT the Urim and Thummim, for the gold plates and stone box were discovered several years afterward. Do I need to go get Chase's testimony? I presume you have read it.

    The "three facts" that I'm giving your are not "the Spirit of God", as your statement and reasoning infers--that some supernatural power is fighting against the Mormon Church.

    These are your facts, but truely nothing to do with reality.

    ***No Kevin. I've looked at the documentation surrounding all the sides and have concluded what I have based on the evidence before us. (I've only quoted a small portion of the evidence.) These are rational conclusions based on evidence we can observe. You, Kevin, have obviously not looked at the "source documents" of some of the issues in Mormonism, otherwise you would not have made such claims about my writings. The viewpoint should have been familiar to you. So why do I need to "document" my position? I've looked at both sides, and chosen to believe the non-Mormon position.

    Interesting! I see it the other way around. I am by teh way, talking to a guy who still
    insists that the Book of Revelation was the last book writtena nd its passage is pertaining
    to the Bible instead of itself.

    ***Quit insulting me. I don't believe that, and I never said it. Why lie? Go back and look at my posts! You are not being truthful! I have no idea where you get that wild idea! I NEVER said that, anyway. I believe the "principle" that when God speaks, we don't change what he says-could be the book of Revelation or D&C section 7 or Amos.

    More and more evangelical scholars are nodding in agreement
    with the Mormons on this point, thus the "dont add" theory is blown out of the water. Tell me
    something I don't know Nephilim. I have read everything you posted on one anti-Mormon website
    or another, when did you ever learn about what I have demonstrated? When did you ever learn
    the FACTS about Smith NEVER being found guilty or "paying a fine"???

    ***Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the "facts". The 1873 record of the court proceedings says he was found guilty. Then, when the Church cried "forgery", the actual court records verified the decades later the date, place, and time, and expense of the trial and matched perfectly to the facts in the 1873 record.

    I provide Mr. Purple, who was AT THE TRIAL and testified as a witness to it that he was discharged! This still isn't good enough for you is it? Is it really I, who is burying his head in the sand?

    ***Yes, he was discharged after he was found to be guilty. Why is it the LDS minds can not see another point of view?

    These are PROVEN false statements that you have made in an irresponsible way as you have with Flash.

    ***You are under the same false logic of Flashman and refuse to see other points of view. Flash could not admit to an obvious error, because of his pride. Are you going to do the same now? The issue is that your interpretation of the facts differ from mine. My views are not false statements. They are a different interpretation of historical facts. For example, considering my view of Joseph's wife Emma, and my unwillingness to "discredit her" testimony, is my decision a "false statement". Is POSSIBLE that the talisman was removed by a separate process, right? Maybe its wrong, but it could be true. But it's not a false statement. It's my opinion, and I've given you my reason for my belief. Finally, my belief rests on the assumption that the 1873 court record is valid from Frasers Magazine. I do not believe this was a forgery or fabrication. I believe it was truthful. The church claims it is a lie. Well, that's easy to just call everyone a LIAR and that opponents make FALSE STATEMENTS. That is the LDS way. It is a constant pattern I can observe, and it's a terrible foundation to put anyone's belief on. "I'm right because someone else is lying?" What kind of foundation is that? It is just awful logic to get trapped in.

    I suppose it derives from the arrogance generated at NCCG in that you are the only guys who have it right,
    or as Junia would say, now that she has re-phrased "on the right track".

    ***That's because we do. The Nephilim appeared to Joseph Smith and that answers a lot of contradictions in theology and history.

    Whereas Mormons and "Christians" are fighting the fight that Satan has set up for us. In teh meantime the NCCG can get away with saying we are all a result of Satanic work at hand, and still claim to be the
    loving disciples of Christ and the "work of God" as long as you guys quote enough "love scriptures"
    in your statements, which obviously you have no idea how to put them into effect.

    ***When people resort to calling names and accusing people of lying, casting false judgements, and condemning people who are innocent in their hearts, well, that is not showing love. This is not politics we are in, for we are discussing principles of truth and religious theology, requiring a level of ethics beyond the world's norm.

    You admit that Smith having faults as a human being does not disqualify him as a prophet, yet your first point was to attack him as being a liar.

    ***I have NOT called Smith a liar…just deceived by Nephilim angels. There is a difference.

    Every person who ever existed on the planet has lied, hence, youre a hypocrite!

    *** I try as hard as I can to tell the truth, but I am a sinner saved by grace, praise Jesus Christ.

    I am not saying Smith lied, I simply do not know enough about the sources, but if he did, what were the circumstances? I'm surprised he didnt lie more. I know I would have, being that everyone in the surrounding states were after my head and looking for an excuse.

    *** Perhaps this is where we differ. I am giving up my job, my money, my family, and my life for what I believe is the truth. I would rather be electrocuted or hung by the neck than deliberately tell a lie. Do I slip here in there, sure…but if anyone ever confronts me face to face on anything…I'll tell the truth. I'll die for it. So, if I made a mistake, I'll confess quickly…which I have demonstrated in here.

    You said all the witnesses left because of their viewpoint and not their sins? Well I think it could be both actually. I don't have the reference, but I do know that one left because of the polygamy issue, in that he wanted to take on more wives than Smith would approve of.

    ***Could be true. But that is not their own views. I suggest you do a search on the Internet and find out what David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdrey said in defense of themselves. You may be surprised. Find out what THEY WROTE…not someone else. That's the first place I went when I started doubting the Church, because these guys were hand-picked by the Creator. They were forordained by God to see the Nephilim and keep their testimony in tact until they died. Otherwise, the LDS church would not have survived, and that is not what God wanted. They were honest, and that's what they were called to do. In the end, I believe the honesty and integrity of the three witnesses will be the deciding factor of swinging the pendulum from true angels to false angels. They left the church, and returned after the death of Joseph.
    That is a testimony all of its own! The problem with the Anti-Mormons is they have not learned about the Nephilim yet, and they have not learned how to properly use the testimony of the three witnesses to prove the angels were not from God.


    Posted by Nephilim on April 14, 1999 at 18:59:03:

    In Reply to: To Kevin. My resonse part II posted by Nephilim on April 14, 1999 at 18:54:57:

    : (continued from part II)...

    God picks three "witnesses", plus the prophet's wife
    and his family to turn against the restored gospel?
    God foreordained these brethren to do this?

    Did God not ordain Judas as well? Your arguement here is terribly weak. Especially when you appear to agree that man is not perfect nor should he or she be expected as such.

    ***What? It's more than just weaknesses of men here. We are talking about sheer numbers. ALL THREE WITNESSES and the PROPHET'S WIFE denied Joseph's beliefs. That would be like saying all 12 apostles left Jesus as well as Mary. It's a big deal and strong evidence that something is wrong.

    You aslo ignore the fact that two of teh witnesses came back and Harris took his tesimony
    to his death-bed. Why delete such vital evidence? Simply because it goes against your goal.

    ***They came back after "the problem", Joseph Smith, was killed. Whitmer didn't return because a voice told him to separate from the LDS people. I do NOT ignore the evidence of the Three Witnesses. In fact, in my book I argue to the atheists and agnostics that the three Witnesses were honest men and their deathbed testimonies can not be ignored. I argue that SOMETHING OF THE SUPERNATURAL DID OCCUR. It's just the angels were false angels called the Nephilim. So, no! This evidence does NOT go against my goals at all, but supports my case better than any other evidence we have.

    He blessed his son and announced
    to thousands of people that Joseph Smith III
    was supposed to replace him. It never happened.

    I have seen this source as it has been refuted quite easily. Mind supplying this "evidence?" You say your points are "evidence" and that is a far cry from "evidene" of any kind. Why would Smith contradict himself in giving the reign over to Brigham and his Son as well? There is too much evidence supporting the contrary.

    ***Joseph Smith gave the keys to the twelve, but at the same time blessed his son and told thousands of people that one day he would take his place. Joseph Smith, Jr, was supposed to be a prophet, and so, the credibility issue is in his prophetic gift. Rigdon believed in Joseph, and was going to be a "guardian" of the church until Joseph Smith III could be of age. Well, we know that history did not support the blessing nor prophecy of Joseph Smith in that prediction. Yes, it was a blessing, and contingent upon the faith of his son. So contrary to Flashman claiming the position that he was "ordained" to be in that postion, I am NOT saying that. I'm saying it was a BLESSING. However, considering that God knew he would be raised by Emma, and that Emma would reject the practice of polygamy, did young Joseph Smith III really ever have a chance to obey the Lord and fulfil the prophet's blessing? No! He rose to be a leader of the Reorganized LDS church, instead, and never took is father's place---or did he? Maybe the Reorganized LDS Church is the "true Church"…hmmm…that's what they claim--that the "blessing" came to pass after all….don't YOU SEE? Stop and ask a question. If the blessing was inspired by GOD, HOW would God have honored that blessing? Emma influenced her son. Did he really ever have a chance to be the leader of a sect that practiced polygamy when his mother taught him otherwise??? THINK! I do. I look at the situation. And I see something that did not happen. Then I try to honestly understand why God did not fulfill the blessing…my answer is that Joseph Smith pronounced a false blessing upon his son's head. God allowed Emma and the Reorganized Church and Brigham Young to do what they did to be more evidence that the LDS Church is a "half-true" religion. That is the truth left by God Himself in History. Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith, but the Nephilim deflected it off course-temporarily, of course, for the story is not over yet with Mormonism.

    Joseph Smith was ordained A KING, and ran
    for president of the United States. He strutted
    around Nauvoo, enjoying the name "General Smith"

    Wow, your extreme bias has even been so much as to critic this mans manner of walking as he obviousl was "strutting" as you sugegst right?

    ***If you want, I can go get the facts just like I did for the 1826 trial and the "men of the moon" argument and make you look like an idiot. Or, would you prefer to do your own research into the other side's arguments first? It is true, I'm using a figure of speech to describe that Joseph Smith liked to be called "General Smith", but I can go get all the references to back up my imagery. I presume you have already read them.

    Is this another one of your "cold hard facts?" Smith nor the Mormons expected Smith to win teh election. What a joke, but they had nobody else to vote for and it was a political move, not that he would expect to win. This is ludicrous. All Melchezedec pristhooed holders are ordained kings (in a sense)from what I understand.

    ***My writing is confusing, I apologize. I'm not talking about "king" of the United States, but King of Israel. I'm sorry if you have not read about the secret counsel of fifty and Joseph being ordained a "king" of Israel, just like King David. Do I need to go get those facts too, or would you prefer to do your own research?

    Again, how does this "point" apply to anything other than being an attempt to conjure up ill feelings about this man? This is the work of God? How many "love scriptures" is Junia going to quote in order to dismiss this obvious hate maneuver?

    ***No. I'm just stating a fact about the counsel of 50. I listed my 20 points assuming that the readers have already done their own research on both sides and analyzed the facts and evidence available as objectively as possible. If I were to start trying to "prove" my 20 points with backup, then my writing would turn into a book. My point of the post was that I was being accused of developing a theory that did not make sense. But I declare just the opposite. My theory answers all 20 issues perfectly! I can accept the Anti-Mormon evidence of Joseph Smith being into the occult, and I can ALSO accept your testimony of the power of God protecting Joseph from enemies, and thus, delivering him from trial after trial. I can accept the story of the Seagulls eating the crickets, of God sending quail to feed the Saints, and of Brigham Young being transformed into the personage of Joseph Smith while he preached in Nauvoo. At the same time, I can accept the evidence of the lying of Joseph about plural marriage, and Emma's resistance to the forceful spirit it was implemented under. I can accept ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, and need only call a few people LIARS (For example, whoever made up the "Solomon Spaulding" story was a liar…and stuff like that.)

    5) The Book of Mormon Archeological evidence does not support the LDS position.

    If you as selective of "archeology as you are of historical douments and witnesses, I suppose your reaserch would indeed conclude that this is the case.
    However, honest objective research demonstrates that there are literally dozens of 'evidences" supporting the Book of Mormon claims. Keep in mind that there is a difference between "Proof" and "evidence". Teh Bible cannot be "proved" as there is much in contradiction with it and archeology as well, however there is far more "evidence" for its claims than that of the book of Mormon. Much of this I believe is because the BoM is about a LOST world and a Lost Civilization and a Lost language, whereas Biblical areas have been teh foundation of civilization and always been in contact with the world's historians. It shoudl also be noted that only 1% of Ancient American areas that date before 600ad have been excavated. They are finding mroe and more as the years go by. Archeology has never been considered an 'exact" science.

    ***Your theory is plausible about the "lost civilization", but we are only talking about the Nephites. The Lamanites survived. May I suggest, however, that the Book of Mormon was planned by the devil to end as it did to make the Lamanites into a people that resembled nothing of the Nephites, so that conclusions such as yours could hide the truth of the Nephilim. If what I'm saying is true, do you see how clever the devil is? He makes an outlandish claim about righteous Nephites, then covers up his tracks by the total destruction of the fictional setting and the people he invented. Yes, there are some compelling arguments on the LDS side, but they are more circumstantial than actual hard evidence. What is most damaging, however, to the Book of Mormon are those things that contradict the book and the claims of Joseph Smith. For example, Joseph Smith claimed Hill Camorah was the site of the last battle in the book of Mormon…well, that sounds good, except nothing exists to prove such a claim. Then there is Nephi's steel bow, greek words, and other strange things about the book that doesn't fit the historical settings…but the final conclusive evidence is genetic testing.

    Genetic testing of blood PROVES the Indians are Mongoloid origin,
    NOT Israelites!

    Hmm really?

    For your information, here are a few small excerpts from the April '98 Science publication:

    Anthropologists have long assumed that the first Americans, who crossed into North America by way of the Bering Strait, were originally of Asian stock. But recently they have been puzzled by surprising features on a handful of ancient American skeletons, including the controversial one known as Kennewick Man - features that resemble those of Europeans rather than Asians (Science, 10 April, p. 190). Now a new genetic study may link. Native Americans and people of Europe and the Middle East, offering tantalizing support to a controversial theory that a band of people who originally lived in Europe or Asia Minor were among the continent's first settlers.

    The new data, from a genetic marker appropriately called Lineage X, suggest a "definite - if ancient - link between Eurasians and Native Americans," says Theodore Schurr, a molecular anthropologist from Emory University in Atlanta, who presented the findings earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Salt Lake City....

    The team, led by Emory researchers Michael Brown and Douglas Wallace, and including Antonio Torroni from the University of Rome and Hans-Jurgen Bandelt from the University of Hamburg in Germany, was searching for the source population of a puzzling marker known as X. This marker is found at low frequencies throughout modern Native Americans and has also turned up in the remains of ancient Americans. Identified as a unique suite of genetic variations, X is found on the DNA in the cellular organelle called the mitochondrion, which is inherited only from the mother.

    Researchers had already identified four common genetic variants, called hapologroups A, B, C, and D, in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of living Native Americans (Science, 4 October 1996, p. 31). These haplogroups turned up in various Asian populations, lending genetic support for the leading theory that Native Americans descended primarily from these peoples. But researchers also found a handful of other less common variants, one of which was later identified as X.

    Haplogroup X was different. It was spotted by Torroni in a small number of European populations. So the Emory group set out to explore the marker's source. They analyzed blood samples from Native American, European, and Asian populations and reviewed published studies. "We fully expected to find it in Asia," like the other four Native American markers, says Brown.

    To their surprise, however, haplogroup X was only confirmed in the genes of a smattering of living people in Europe and Asia Minor, including Italians, Finns, and certain Israelis. The team's review of published mtDNA sequences suggests that it may also be in Turks, Bulgarians, and Spaniards. But Brown's search has yet to find haplogroup X in any Asian population. "It's not in Tibet, Mongolia, Southeast Asia, or Northeast Asia," Schurr told the meeting. "The only time you pick it up is when you move west into Eurasia."

    The article goes on to quote Dr. Brown about the possibility of an ancient migration. He said that there are several theories offered for how this genetic marker was distributed. One likely explanation is that a small band of Caucasians migrated from Europe right across Asia and into North America, leaving no genetic traces in Asia. Of course, I would add that an ancient oceanic voyage also ought to be considered.

    Now this doesn't prove the Book of Mormon is true. The haplogroup X which links "certain Israelis" and Europeans with Native Americans may have no relation to the Nephites, the Jaredites, or the Mulekites. But this new study does much to eliminate a common allegation of Book of Mormon critics. They claim that there are no scientific reasons and particularly no genetic evidence to accept the possibility of ancient migrations from the Middle East to the Americas. Based on the latest findings in science, they are wrong.

    ***Kevin, thank you for the information, but this does little. You see, you are ignoring all of the evidence of Mongoloid genetic test results, which are actually referenced in your article. This man is saying they found a small group of people that fit the European gene. So what! What about the majority that still is proven to be Mongoloid? This proof does not discredit that evidence. To accept the Mongoloid results, we need to start making up theories to fit in the minority Israelites: "Well, other groups of people came from Asia besides the Book of Mormon people." Then we get into conflicts, in which the Book of Mormon says only God brings people here. Or then we wonder when and how these additional expeditions from Asia took place, bla, bla, bla. The better explanation would be some of the people from Europe traveled with the majority Asian population when they traveled to this world across Alaska, and thus, we see the evidence discredits the Book of Mormon.
    The priesthood is passed on by human hands, contrary to Daniel's vision that God's kingdom would be established WITHOUT human hands touching it--"The stone CUT OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN WITHOUT HANDS."

    Geez you really are desperate huh? Trying to draw parallells with stone in the mountains and Priesthood, just because hands were involved in the two?

    ***Please tell me the definition of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tell me what makes me a member. It is my BAPTISM by the priesthood. And if we do not receive this priesthood baptism, now how do we become a member? How does the LDS Kingdom of God grow? Priesthood baptism! My thinking is RIGHT ON. The LDS kingdom is built up by baptism performed by a priesthood that is giving by laying on of hands of human flesh. Daniel says God's kingdom would be built WITHOUT HANDS. Can the LDS Kingdom be built without human hands? NO IT CAN NOT BE! IMPOSSIBLE!

    11) The office of high priest is not in the
    New Testanment anywhere, except with Christ. There
    is no Biblical precedence of angels giving
    authority to any other prophet by laying on of
    hands. Again, and again, God's pattern is to
    call prophets by HIS OWN VOICE, such as Moses
    and the burning bush.

    And what about Aaron?

    ***Aaron was under the Levitical priesthood, not Melchizedek! Plus, you are taking that concept out of context. God is saying in Hebrews 5:4: "God chose Aaron to be the High Priest by his voice, and He also chose Christ by his voice." Moses was told by the voice of God to appoint Aaron as High Priest, AND THEN, Moses confirmed him. The calling comes by the voice of God, not by the laying on of hands!
    The Old Testament Law AND PRIESTHOOD of Leviticus ended with the shedding of Christ's blood, and the veil of the temple rent in two by an earthquake. I consider and earthquake of Almighty God convincing evidence, don't you? Pretty strong evidence to me!

    You are dodging every bit of evidence that leads to the practive of laying on of hands. Christ ordained the twleve like this! you know this right?

    ***I am not. I believe in laying on of hands. Jesus set the Biblical pattern of SETTING APART the apostles whom God called. He determined who was called by praying in the mountains. He did not give them the "priesthood" as you presume. He called them to BE APOSTLES, and set them apart in the calling God gave them. The devil has taken this practice of laying on of hands and has perverted the whole concept of authority, claiming that LDS "legalistic" ordination to a false priesthood is required for salvation! I am not ignoring the Bible at all. . On Saturday, our First Assemblies of God mens' fellowship just laid hands on a missionary going to Hungary, and many of us prayed over him and sent him on his way with a blessing of faith. It was great!!!

    So why run to the Old Testament to say "its not in teh Bible".. You mean its not in the OT, or at least not that it is mentioned. Just because something is not in the bible has no bearing on whether it happened. Again protestant fundamentalists will soon start preaching that Christ never went to the bathroom. Why? Hey, its not in the Bible!

    *** Having a REQUIREMENT of HEAVEN and going to the bathroom are slightly different events, wouldn't you say? My going to the bathroom doesn't have anything to do with my salvation. In the LDS theology, priesthood is as important as the atonement, faith, and repentance. For this reason, we would expect an equal share of time devoted to explaining the LDS priesthood claim in the Bible. Faith and repentance are clearly taught so that NO ONE can really err. But the priesthood? Nope. That one is missing. The saving principle of God are in the Bible! No priesthood is needed to be saved! Christ comes with his authority and priesthood when he comes into our hearts.

    12) A voice told David Whitmer, one of the witnesses
    of the book of Mormon, to seperate from the Church.
    He never rejoined. He claimed this voice "was
    the same voice that told him the Book of Mormon
    was from God."

    Again you provide no source. Terrible scholarship on your part considering you are the one
    dishing out these asccusations, it is your responsibility, not mine. Everything I have read
    about martin and his testimony indicates that he knew the Church was true, but because of
    his own pride, he could not return. He never shared the same beliefs as you do with your
    nephilim theories and the Christ-only appearance.

    ***Do you want me to? I can. Just tell me. Or do you prefer to do your own research into the matter? I have explained the purpose of this post was to demonstrate that my theory can handle all the controversial facts in Church History. If you look you can find the writings of David Whitmer are on the Internet. I suggest you read what he wrote as well as Oliver Cowdrey and Martin Harris.

    This is what I did. I went back to SOURCE documents
    for my foundation. I have my own witnesses also
    to lean on--FIRST HAND evidence that I trust in,

    First hand, "second hand accounts" you mean? Where are these sources that you consistently fail to share with us?

    ***All over the Internet. Why don't you start reading them? Query: "Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdrey".

    Joseph Smith was declared a "public nuisance" by a court of law. Are you going to refute this

    WHAT EVIDENCE????? Thus sayeth "Nephilim?" You have provided nothing and as Junia would whine, (if I were you that is) "Thats just your opinion!"

    ***I've covered above in my post about the 1826 court trial. The exact wording is "disorderly person" I believe, sorry I paraphrased from memory the basic concept…

    You have never heard of this stuff because you have truly never looked for facts that do not coincide with your position.

    Your ignorance of my experience shines bright! I was anti-Mormon for years and I have seen everything that has been produced by your "credible sources" and it makes me laugh when you keep saying they are "credible sources." You think that just because I don't agree with your version, which I is UNDOCUMENTED, that I am simply guilty of "burying my head" and hiding from the "Cold Hard

    ***Kevin, my assumption is that you have looked at these issues deeply on both sides. But your answers on the 1826 trial, and your not understanding the significance of the court documents found decades after Fawn Brodie wrote "No Man Knows My History", demonstrates your lack of understanding. The Stowell story of the 1826 DOES NOT fit Joseph's self-description of the account in his Church history. For you to force fit facts into that history is very naïve. Read W.D. Purples FULL ACCOUNT of Joseph Smith's working with Stowell. Does this fit Joseph's description of his purpose of being with Stowell? Not really. It is true, His account in the History of the Church doesn't lie or contradict the W.D. Purple account, but it surely leads one to believe something different. Joseph worded his history in such a way as to make it "appear" he was hired not as a "money digger" who used a peep stone, but as a "hard worker" to dig in mines. All of this is done by illusion in his writing and causes one to ASSUME things about him that are false, without Joseph actually lying. So he was completely justified by the way he wrote it. He thought he was protecting the priesthood by avoiding his controversial past. More converts would be gained, more of God's children being saved. Very skillful technique he used, but very deceptive.

    The way I operate is I don't believe what I read until I find a source document or
    tangible evidence that can be trusted

    Then you should not find fault with me feeling the same way about your rantings. Not only have you not provided credible sources, but you have not provided sources whatsoever. How does one determine what should and what should not be trusted anyways?

    ***No. It just proves you haven't examined all the evidence on both sides. My post is NOT to prove I'm right about each of the 20 issues, but to demonstrate that I've looked at those 20 topics, made a decision on the issues, and the Nephilim supports all of the facts that exists. It is our posts that have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the Anti-Mormon claims…believing that they are "LIARS". So, the credibility of my sources will always be in question.

    I see a trend in anti-Mormonism which accepts "Church publications" as reliable or credible, as long as it is consistent with their already decided conclusions. If it contradicts them, they are simply dismissd as being a "slanted Mormon" source.

    ***yes, that is a fault in the Anti-Mormon literature that I'm certainly going to try and fix. But also Mormons. This happen on BOTH sides of the debate.

    Of course, if these people are "branded" as liars, like you have branded me, then no one will "beleive" them, right?

    I havent branded anyone and I am unfamiliar with any brandings of others. However it is common knowledge that many anti-mormons were ex'd because of adultery or of some other unspiritual reason.

    ***Well, why don't you read the other points of view. Why not read what Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdrey,
    and David Whitmer actually wrote? You realize the Anti-Mormons avoid their testimony like a plague because they stick to the testimony of the angles, and it makes the Anti-Mormon case very weak. However, I believe these guys were honest men and there testimony gives credence to my Nephilim theory!


    I am not familair with any Mormon who dismisses earlier Mormon statements because they were considered mere "liars" either. If anything, its teh other way around.

    ***I'll give you two example: In response to Brodie's book, the LDS Church claimed that the 1873 court records were fabrications and forgeries, and I already quoted the Desert news above, but here are some more: John A.Widstoe wrote: "This alleged court record…seems to be a literary attempt of an enemy to ridicule Joseph Smith by bringing together all the current gossip of that day and making him appear to confess to it…There is no existing proof that such a trial was ever held." (Joseph Smith-Seeker After Truth, Salt Lake City, 1951., pg. 78.)

    Francis W. Kirkham wrote: "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….No record exists and there is no evidence to prove on was ever made in which he confessed in a justice of the peace court that he had used a seer stone to find hidden treasure for purposes of fraud and deception." (A New Witness for Christ in America, Vol. 1, pg 385, 386, 391) What is most deceptive about this latter quote, is that the statements are true, for the court documents and case never claimed Joseph Smith was dishonest and fraud, but that he had used a seer stone. By mixing the concept with "fraud and deception" the author is also able to cause doubt as to the claim as if the trail never took place, such as Widstoe's conclusion.

    This kind of foolishness exists on both sides of the debate. For this reason, I despise much of the writing in the debate of Mormonism because of the name-calling and false accusations that occur on both sides. It's like wading through cow dung. Very distasteful.

    FINAL CONCLUSION: Kevin, may I encourage you to do another look at the evidence in the LDS debate and reconsider your position. I have no doubt the Holy Spirit reproved you from attacking the LDS Church and convicted you to join the LDS Church. It is founded by Jesus Christ. However, I believe you will find the Holy Spirit eventually also reproving you for attacking Christianity in the same spirit. I believe you are very unique in that you have looked at both sides of the LDS debate and God will use you mightily in the future.

    Clare Gregory


    Not all the views expressed by Clare Gregory are necessarily those of New Covenant Ministries

    This page was created on 4 May 1999
    Updated on 10 March 2001

    Copyright © 1987-2008 New Covenant Ministries - All Rights Reserved