I did, it's nothing new and says nothing refuting me nor the establishment of the Church. The criticisms presented can be said of pretty much every single other religion or variation thereof. Pretty sure even South Park mentions this in their episode.
This whole argument is effectively a Catch-22. If you showed your findings to everyone, you're going to get a hydra of interpretations, claims, etc. If you don't, you get the same "Oh he's a con-man" drivel that this video puts forth. Nevermind that the video fails to mention that the "court charges" it references were falsely made and, oddly enough, rather similar to the impeachment ordeal brought against Trump. This incident occurred in 1826 and he was acquitted entirely. If you "know a tree by its fruit", then you should have no issue with a man falsely accused being acquitted.
I did, it's nothing new and says nothing refuting me nor the establishment of the Church. The criticisms presented can be said of pretty much every single other religion or variation thereof. Pretty sure even South Park mentions this in their episode.
This whole argument is effectively a Catch-22. If you showed your findings to everyone, you're going to get a hydra of interpretations, claims, etc. If you don't, you get the same "Oh he's a con-man" drivel that this video puts forth. Nevermind that the video fails to mention that the "court charges" it references were falsely made and, oddly enough, rather similar to the impeachment ordeal brought against Trump. This incident occurred in 1826 and he was acquitted entirely. If you "know a tree by its fruit", then you should have no issue with a man falsely accused being acquitted.
Next time try acquiring context.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues/1826_court_appearance_for_glasslooking