Cofty, you never cease to amaze me. When people misrepresent atheism, you're the first to get your shorts in a knot. Now you post an absurd, amazingly inaccurate and inflammatory video where atheist David Fitzgerald, through blatantly false information and misrepresentation, carefully constructs a strawman for his audience, then knocks it down without a thought as far as accuracy is concerned.
Much of his “history“ is taken from early anti-Mormon books and later discredited as ridiculously lurid, sensational and of highly questionable pedigree. The only real grain of truth is the 1826 Bainbridge judgment against Smith, which is probably why Fitzgerald started off with it. But nearly every point he made he was wrong on. Smith's arrest, according to the report, was made on the oath of the son of his employer, Josiah Stowell, who was delighted with Joseph's work (which consisted mostly of physical labor). Two, the report was found by an avowed enemy of the church and someone who claimed a doctorate he didn't have. And three, the document never could be verified as genuine (and if genuine, it was the only surviving record recovered at the court). Wesley Walters, author of Kingdom of the Cults and the “discoverer“ of the record, said he believed God's hand was in the fact that one record survived. Do you buy that Cofty? More information can be found at:
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith
The quickest way to get laughs is to build one's strawman out of material that's built on lies, then ridicule it in the hopes that others won't check your sources too closely. One problem for anti-Mormons is that everything Joseph Smith taught was carefully recorded by educated recorders or found in multiple journals.
“In the mouth of two our three witnesses shall every word be established.“ Finding one account in one journal, like many of the sources your friend Fitzgerald does, or finding them in a book that references old anti-Mormon books that, worse, based them on affidavits collected by early anti-Mormon books, makes fine material for strawmen, but it's hardly scholarly.
But then, that audience really wasn't there for scholarly purposes, were they?