The Book of Abraham

He also "testified" and spoke to a lot of things, such as Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger. So it is best to test what he and others stated.

However what you pasted above is from an article in a Evangelical magazine published in 1831. Here is the whole article.



Ralf, you pasted what you did without checking it out, and without following the reference note that points you here. You are being hood winked Ralf.
Really, so let's look closer at your above Mormonites and especially Ainbridge Conspiracy. Hoodwinked is right, you source enemies of the Church.

Ainbridge Conspiracy​

March 27, 2008 by Keller

Prior to assuming the mantle of a prophet, the young Joseph Smith developed a reputation as a village seer, one who was sought after to locate stray animals or optimal locations to dig for well water or treasure [1-2]. In October of 1825, Josiah Stowell (1770-1844) visited his son Simpson in Palmyra [3-4] and upon learning of Joseph’s abilities, pressured Joseph to join him on a treasure searching expedition. A short while later a company was formed and a profit-sharing pact was signed on November 1st [5]. Among those mentioned in the pact were Josiah, Calvin, Elijah, and Isaiah Stowell. William R. Hines added that another Stowell, Asa, contributed financially to the venture [6].
We can find more about the Stowell family than has been previously published [7-10] with the aid of local histories and genealogical resources, especially familysearch.org. Asa (1766-1826) and Josiah were third cousins, but intermarriages in this extended family strengthened ties. For example, two of Josiah’s brothers, the aforementioned Calvin (1774-1838) and Elisha (1767-1842), married a couple of Asa’s sisters. The above Elijah appears to be Asa’s brother and Isaiah may just be an alternative to Josiah. Asa’s father, Hezekiah, in 1786 became one of the first settlers in the part of Bainbridge that came to be known as Afton [11]. Hezekiah and Josiah were referred to as Vermont Sufferers, who got caught in the crossfire in a territory dispute between Vermont and New York, for which they were punished by the winning side and recompensed by New York. Hezekiah was found “to be [a sufferer] in opposing the government of the pretended state of Vermont” and was awarded a 840 acres [12].
After a month of unsuccessful excavation, Joseph persuaded Josiah to quit digging [13], at least at that particular location [14]. By March of the following year, the Bainbridge conspirators attempted to coerce Josiah to end his association with Joseph. A lawsuit was brought against Joseph under the guise that Josiah’s sons were worried about Joseph eating away their inheritance. However, Josiah Stowell had three sons and four daughters. His son Simpson, did not live in the area and, as we have seen, recommended Joseph to his father.The youngest son, Josiah Stowell Jr. testified in an 1830 trial that Joseph Smith was not a cheat [15] a position that reiterated later in life [16]. Two daughters also testified favorably of Joseph’s character at that 1830 trial. In fact, the only Stowell son to testify at the 1826 hearing was Horace. Horace’s testimony is rather short and ambiguous as to what his opinion of Joseph was, to the point that most accounts leave his statement out [17].
If I were to compile a list of the three main antagonists in the 1826 examination, I would include Peter Bridgeman(1804-1872), Arad Stowell (1783-1868), and David McMaster(1804-1888) or (1771-1848) [18]. A corresponding list for the 1830 trial would be Nathan Boynton (1788-1860), Abraham Willard Benton (1805-1867), and Cyrus McMaster (1801-1879) [19]. There are numerous connections between the two groups. The obvious one is that the McMasters were either brothers or father-son. Less obvious is that Cyrus was married to Peter Bridgeman’s sister, Electa, in early 1829. Another set of in-laws were Arad Stowell (Asa’s son) and Nathan Boynton, who had married Lepha Stowell (Arad’s sister) circa 1818 . As a show of his esteem, Arad named a son after Boynton in 1824. Peter Bridgeman was a nephew of Josiah’s wife Miriam and a couple of his other sisters would go on to marry Ebenezer Stowell, nephew of Josiah’s. Benton appears to be unrelated to the rest, but it is known that he studied medicine under Nathan Boynton. Ironically, Harriet Benton, a likely cousin of his, had earlier married Lyman Wight and moved to Ohio. There they became followers of Sidney Rigdon and actually converted to Mormonism within a few months of the 1830 trial Abraham Benton helped precipitate.
Many of the above mentioned individuals have an extended history with the Presbyterian church in the Bainbridge area. In 1819, Calvin Stowell was chosen as a presiding officer and with Asa and Arad Stowell was elected a trustee. Later on “February 7, 1825, at which Deacons Calvin and Arad Stowel, two of the members of said society presided, The South Bainbridge Presbyterian Society was organized, and Arad Stowel, David McMaster and Nathan Boynton were elected trustees.” [20] Josiah Stowell was also a Presbyterian deacon, according to Purple. There has been some debate on whether A. W. Benton was a Presbyterian or Universalist, but in either case he was a close associate of Nathan Boynton. The odd man out is Peter Bridgeman, who rapidly rose through the ranks to become a reverend for the Methodist church[21].
So what is the point in establishing all these connections among Joseph Smith’s persecutors? The Mormon side of the story has always emphasized the religious bigotry involved in dragging Joseph Smith into vexatious lawsuits. The critics have constructed a narrative that tries to frame Joseph as a con-artist before he became a prophet or pious fraud. It is clear to me that the Bainbridge conspirators were not really concerned about Joseph’s digging activities, given that they did not go after any of the leaders of their society that participated like Calvin and Asa Stowell. Instead they were more concerned at getting a conviction to discredit the religious claims Joseph Smith was making, even in 1826. Modern critics follow their lead. Unsophisticated critics insist that Joseph was found guilty. Sophisticated critics don’t care so much about the verdict so much as joining in a chorus with Benton “So much for the gift and power of God, by which Smith says he translated his book. Two transparent stones, undoubtedly of the same properties, and the gift of the same spirit as the one in which he looked to find his neighbor’s goods.”
 
Really, so let's look closer at your above Mormonites and especially Ainbridge Conspiracy. Hoodwinked is right, you source enemies of the Church.

Ainbridge Conspiracy​

March 27, 2008 by Keller

Prior to assuming the mantle of a prophet, the young Joseph Smith developed a reputation as a village seer, one who was sought after to locate stray animals or optimal locations to dig for well water or treasure [1-2]. In October of 1825, Josiah Stowell (1770-1844) visited his son Simpson in Palmyra [3-4] and upon learning of Joseph’s abilities, pressured Joseph to join him on a treasure searching expedition. A short while later a company was formed and a profit-sharing pact was signed on November 1st [5]. Among those mentioned in the pact were Josiah, Calvin, Elijah, and Isaiah Stowell. William R. Hines added that another Stowell, Asa, contributed financially to the venture [6].
We can find more about the Stowell family than has been previously published [7-10] with the aid of local histories and genealogical resources, especially familysearch.org. Asa (1766-1826) and Josiah were third cousins, but intermarriages in this extended family strengthened ties. For example, two of Josiah’s brothers, the aforementioned Calvin (1774-1838) and Elisha (1767-1842), married a couple of Asa’s sisters. The above Elijah appears to be Asa’s brother and Isaiah may just be an alternative to Josiah. Asa’s father, Hezekiah, in 1786 became one of the first settlers in the part of Bainbridge that came to be known as Afton [11]. Hezekiah and Josiah were referred to as Vermont Sufferers, who got caught in the crossfire in a territory dispute between Vermont and New York, for which they were punished by the winning side and recompensed by New York. Hezekiah was found “to be [a sufferer] in opposing the government of the pretended state of Vermont” and was awarded a 840 acres [12].
After a month of unsuccessful excavation, Joseph persuaded Josiah to quit digging [13], at least at that particular location [14]. By March of the following year, the Bainbridge conspirators attempted to coerce Josiah to end his association with Joseph. A lawsuit was brought against Joseph under the guise that Josiah’s sons were worried about Joseph eating away their inheritance. However, Josiah Stowell had three sons and four daughters. His son Simpson, did not live in the area and, as we have seen, recommended Joseph to his father.The youngest son, Josiah Stowell Jr. testified in an 1830 trial that Joseph Smith was not a cheat [15] a position that reiterated later in life [16]. Two daughters also testified favorably of Joseph’s character at that 1830 trial. In fact, the only Stowell son to testify at the 1826 hearing was Horace. Horace’s testimony is rather short and ambiguous as to what his opinion of Joseph was, to the point that most accounts leave his statement out [17].
If I were to compile a list of the three main antagonists in the 1826 examination, I would include Peter Bridgeman(1804-1872), Arad Stowell (1783-1868), and David McMaster(1804-1888) or (1771-1848) [18]. A corresponding list for the 1830 trial would be Nathan Boynton (1788-1860), Abraham Willard Benton (1805-1867), and Cyrus McMaster (1801-1879) [19]. There are numerous connections between the two groups. The obvious one is that the McMasters were either brothers or father-son. Less obvious is that Cyrus was married to Peter Bridgeman’s sister, Electa, in early 1829. Another set of in-laws were Arad Stowell (Asa’s son) and Nathan Boynton, who had married Lepha Stowell (Arad’s sister) circa 1818 . As a show of his esteem, Arad named a son after Boynton in 1824. Peter Bridgeman was a nephew of Josiah’s wife Miriam and a couple of his other sisters would go on to marry Ebenezer Stowell, nephew of Josiah’s. Benton appears to be unrelated to the rest, but it is known that he studied medicine under Nathan Boynton. Ironically, Harriet Benton, a likely cousin of his, had earlier married Lyman Wight and moved to Ohio. There they became followers of Sidney Rigdon and actually converted to Mormonism within a few months of the 1830 trial Abraham Benton helped precipitate.
Many of the above mentioned individuals have an extended history with the Presbyterian church in the Bainbridge area. In 1819, Calvin Stowell was chosen as a presiding officer and with Asa and Arad Stowell was elected a trustee. Later on “February 7, 1825, at which Deacons Calvin and Arad Stowel, two of the members of said society presided, The South Bainbridge Presbyterian Society was organized, and Arad Stowel, David McMaster and Nathan Boynton were elected trustees.” [20] Josiah Stowell was also a Presbyterian deacon, according to Purple. There has been some debate on whether A. W. Benton was a Presbyterian or Universalist, but in either case he was a close associate of Nathan Boynton. The odd man out is Peter Bridgeman, who rapidly rose through the ranks to become a reverend for the Methodist church[21].
So what is the point in establishing all these connections among Joseph Smith’s persecutors? The Mormon side of the story has always emphasized the religious bigotry involved in dragging Joseph Smith into vexatious lawsuits. The critics have constructed a narrative that tries to frame Joseph as a con-artist before he became a prophet or pious fraud. It is clear to me that the Bainbridge conspirators were not really concerned about Joseph’s digging activities, given that they did not go after any of the leaders of their society that participated like Calvin and Asa Stowell. Instead they were more concerned at getting a conviction to discredit the religious claims Joseph Smith was making, even in 1826. Modern critics follow their lead. Unsophisticated critics insist that Joseph was found guilty. Sophisticated critics don’t care so much about the verdict so much as joining in a chorus with Benton “So much for the gift and power of God, by which Smith says he translated his book. Two transparent stones, undoubtedly of the same properties, and the gift of the same spirit as the one in which he looked to find his neighbor’s goods.”
Ralf, what does that mean, articulate your point. Note it is a pre essay article

Ralf, I am not sure if you understand what is going on here, the CoJCoLdS, on their website source a Evangelical magazine as a prooftext, and do not provide the whole article, as I did.

This is the cf, or reference that the church gives, I am cutting and pasting it from Here , click reference 31 once you get there.


A. W. B., “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 (Apr. 19, 1831): 120.
 
Ralf, what does that mean, articulate your point. Note it is a pre essay article

Ralf, I am not sure if you understand what is going on here, the CoJCoLdS, on their website source a Evangelical magazine as a prooftext, and do not provide the whole article, as I did.

This is the cf, or reference that the church gives, I am cutting and pasting it from Here , click reference 31 once you get there.


A. W. B., “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 (Apr. 19, 1831): 120.
Backtracking are we? Nice... you chose to use enemies of the church as your failing proof.... nice
 
Ralf give the source for your "first hand account?"

One of the best first hand account is that of David Whitmire in his book, where he states clearly Joseph used a stone in his hat.
David Whitmire is not nor never was a first hand account...
 
Chuckle, your assertions are factoids good buddy....I actually quote first hand accounts of the. two most witnesses to the translation process.... JS and Cowdery....if church leaders want to believe second and third hand accounts, whey would I care.

Well, based on your treatment of Maggie, your view must be that first-hand testimonies are inaccurarte.
You refuse to accept Maggie's.
SO why should we accept JS's or Cowdery's?
Or why ESPECIALLY we accept anything YOU say as even close to accurate?
 
Well, based on your treatment of Maggie, your view must be that first-hand testimonies are inaccurarte.
You refuse to accept Maggie's.
SO why should we accept JS's or Cowdery's?
Or why ESPECIALLY we accept anything YOU say as even close to accurate?
Who's Maggie?
 
David Whitmire is not nor never was a first hand account...
Yes he was, it was at his folks house, he set Joseph and Emma up to stay there. His brother/s were scribes, his sister married Oliver and witnessed the translation....he knew what was going as much as anyone else.

Ralf, you quoted Oliver from a source you claimed was first hand info, and then said it was an enemy of the church source, when you quoted it as a proof text?

Do you understand that the Oliver source you pasted from the church website was that "enemy source?"
 
Backtracking are we? Nice... you chose to use enemies of the church as your failing proof.... nice
LOL you really need to focus, real hard. The quote you pasted in post 315, and below, is from the Evangelical paper you claim is a enemy of the church. It usually takes me showing you your errors about 3 times before you get it, then you say "oops, my bad, sorry." Well ralf, now is that time. You, not me, quoted from the Evangelical Mormonite article, and claimed it was first hand info, I just pointed it out that the church used the so called enemy of the church as a reference that you, pasted ignorantly.

The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates.” In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.”
 
So anything a Mormon missionary does that's negative, never happened, according to you?
Because 19-year-old missionaries have perfect maturity and perfect decision-making, according to you?

So you're going to deny that the mishies forcefully entered into Maggie's complex without permission, and we not kicked out by the manager? I find the account VERY easy to believe.

In fact, I just found a story on a blog called "Jennie's Journal", where an "Elder Rasband" told an account about being "led by the Spirit" to stick his foot in the doorway to prevent a potential investigator from closing the door on them. He BRAGS about this, "and now 136 people are members because of that 'foot'." And someone else (presumably "Jennie", since it is her blog) relates that they did the same thing. And she claims that God led her to do it.

Are these just lies? Do you expect us to believe that Maggie created an entire blog, just to support her experience?

Are you also going to deny the LDS missionary who got attacked by a lion becasue he decided to climb into the zoo enclosure and stick his arm through the opening? (I think this happened last year?)

Are you going to deny the LDS missionaries that were killed in a car crash in ND last week?
I remember that lion story. I think the "elder" lost his arm.

Just goes to show that these 18-19 old "elders" are not mature enough to be called "elder." And the LDS church certainly does NOT follow the criteria Paul put forth for elders--does it?
 
LOL you really need to focus, real hard. The quote you pasted in post 315, and below, is from the Evangelical paper you claim is a enemy of the church. It usually takes me showing you your errors about 3 times before you get it, then you say "oops, my bad, sorry." Well ralf, now is that time. You, not me, quoted from the Evangelical Mormonite article, and claimed it was first hand info, I just pointed it out that the church used the so called enemy of the church as a reference that you, pasted ignorantly.
So you saying this is false, that he never stated the above.... oh my!
 
LOL you really need to focus, real hard. The quote you pasted in post 315, and below, is from the Evangelical paper you claim is a enemy of the church. It usually takes me showing you your errors about 3 times before you get it, then you say "oops, my bad, sorry." Well ralf, now is that time. You, not me, quoted from the Evangelical Mormonite article, and claimed it was first hand info, I just pointed it out that the church used the so called enemy of the church as a reference that you, pasted ignorantly.
Also....(Apr. 19, 1831), 120; Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, vol. 26, no. 19 (Oct. 1, 1879), 1–2.
 
So you saying this is false, that he never stated the above.... oh my!
Ralf what I am saying is that you claimed it was a first hand account, when it was far from it. And I am stating that if you are going to use part of the account, then you own the whole account.

How do you know he said that....what is your evidence....this is from the same source....is it also true...

..." It is reported, and probably true, that he commenced his juggling by stealing and hiding property belonging to his neighbors, and when inquiry was made, he would look in his stone, (his gift and power) and tell where it was. Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never had lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive any body else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed. Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain place which he mentioned? Yes. Did he tell you, you could find it by digging? Yes. Did you dig? Yes. Did you find any money? No. Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you? No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it! How do you know it was there? Smith said it was! ..."
 
Also....(Apr. 19, 1831), 120; Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, vol. 26, no. 19 (Oct. 1, 1879), 1–2.
LOL and???? When she said he used a stone in his hat? Ralf do you even read before you paste?
 
Ralf what I am saying is that you claimed it was a first hand account, when it was far from it. And I am stating that if you are going to use part of the account, then you own the whole account.

How do you know he said that....what is your evidence....this is from the same source....is it also true...

..." It is reported, and probably true, that he commenced his juggling by stealing and hiding property belonging to his neighbors, and when inquiry was made, he would look in his stone, (his gift and power) and tell where it was. Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never had lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive any body else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed. Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain place which he mentioned? Yes. Did he tell you, you could find it by digging? Yes. Did you dig? Yes. Did you find any money? No. Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you? No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it! How do you know it was there? Smith said it was! ..."
I gave you the also.... chuckle. Read my post again....
 
LOL and???? When she said he used a stone in his hat? Ralf do you even read before you paste?
Yes I understand that.... a none written and unsigned document from Emma and written by her Son.... Many, many years later.
 
Yes I understand that.... a none written and unsigned document from Emma and written by her Son.... Many, many years later.
So were are saying that you stating you don't believe the account by Emma, first hand by their son in an interview....because it was not signed. But, however you do believe a snippet from a Evangelical newspaper about Oliver, which was not signed.

Ralf I am trying to pin you down here, please articulate you point and admit that what you claimed was a first hand account is not.
 
Back
Top