LDS

[Craig4]

All good points.
Also keep in mind that back in the day, Egyptian hieroglyphs were literally a closed book, so that fact would have added to the sense of safety in pulling off this obvious scam.

We can clearly dismiss any supernatural abilities or intervention here but I think it's important to be careful in assigning motive. We really don't know what was in Smith's head. Leading his followers may indeed have been a bit like holding a tiger by the tail for him. He may also have come to believe on some level that he was a messenger of a a god and justified himself by saying he had to make the simple people believe. Smith would not be the first person to perform some kind of con to help people along on a spiritual path he felt was correct. Absent some journal or letter to the effect of "man I sure fooled those yokels again", it's possible the person most deceived by this scam was Smith.

 

[abaddon]

Stowell didn't feel he was "being taken." He defended Joseph at trial, much to the prosecution's dismay.

Then Stowell was gullible.

His fee was justified by a month of back-breaking labor.

Was this "back-breaking labor" really undertaken? Evidence? No?

You aren't Smith, and you don't know what Smith said to Stowell. He may well have said, "Well, we can give it a try, but I can't promise you success."

Nor are you. How do you know what was said? Or are you just speculating?

Moreover, you're speaking from a 21st century perspective. As I have noted, the kinds of activities in which Smith engaged were commonplace in the 19th century, and were widely accepted.

Like putting your face in a hat?

You clamed humankind are moving away from the supernatural, and I agreed. I noted, however, that there are exceptions, which means you should have qualified your statement. Apparently, you were unaware that dousing rods are used today in multiple countries.

Exceptions like putting your face in a hat?

You don't know the circumstances under which Smith operated;

Nor do you.

you're speculating, which doesn't help your case.

So are you.

You judge Smith based on a paucity of facts, some of which I suspect were derived from anti-LDS sources.

A "paucity of facts" does not help your case at all. It leaves you in the position of making stuff up.

 

[Stomatopoda]

Stowell didn't feel he was "being taken." He defended Joseph at trial, much to the prosecution's dismay.

It's not uncommon for victims to defend their abuser. ex: Stockholm Syndrome

 

[Pup]

Stowell didn't feel he was "being taken." He defended Joseph at trial, much to the prosecution's dismay.

That's true, but the defense was merely that he believed Smith could "see" treasure, not that Smith actually found any.

That in itself would not have been enough to find him innocent, since the law, as posted by Cat Tale above, stated it covered both those who had no means of support "and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found;"

Here's the law in an 1802 New York State lawbook:
http://books.google.com/books?id=voNZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123&output=html

Strictly speaking, the only legal defense would hinge on "pretending," or in other words, if there was evidence that he wasn't just pretending to find lost goods, but he really could. Stowell didn't provide evidence for that; he merely affirmed he believed Smith could do it. And of course Smith himself in his official history also said that no treasure was found.

His fee was justified by a month of back-breaking labor.

According to the law strictly as written, though, if he pretended to be able to find treasure, he was breaking the law, whether he also had other means of support or not.

Of course, the full law (at the lawbook link) was apparently written in a purposely vague way, covering everything from people who hang out on street corners to men who desert their wives, to, well, you know, just those kind of people we don't around. As such, I could see the verdict going either way. Smith was clearly guilty of the letter of it, but if he didn't seem too much like one of those people, he might have been let off.

As I have noted, the kinds of activities in which Smith engaged were commonplace in the 19th century, and were widely accepted.

But also made illegal as early as 1783, the date of the New York law. It seems similar to society's ambivalent acceptance of psychics today, ranging from true believers to those who think it's harmless entertainment to those who think it's a swindle that should be made illegal.

You don't know the circumstances under which Smith operated; you're speculating, which doesn't help your case. You judge Smith based on a paucity of facts, some of which I suspect were derived from anti-LDS sources.

What do you consider a neutral or pro-LDS source? You noted that FAIR cites the Purple account from the Chenango Union. If you feel that the Purple account is an acceptable source, then it makes clear that Smith said he could find treasure:

Smith had told the Deacon [Stowell] that very many years before a band of robbers had buried on his flat a box of treasure, and as it was very valuable they had by a 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 sallied forth to the spot designated by Smith.

 

[Pup]

Then Stowell was gullible.

There doesn't seem to be much doubt about that. He seems to have been obsessed with buried treasure well before meeting Smith.

Was this "back-breaking labor" really undertaken? Evidence? No?

There doesn't seem to be much doubt about that either. Have you read the Purple account? Really, it's worth reading. The scene with the dead lamb is worth the price of admission in itself.

If they were digging in clay, I'd know exactly what they're talking about in this part, as silly as it sounds:

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

Where we live, the subsoil is stiff, heavy clay, and when you get to it, it's almost like hitting brick. With a mattock, you can break it up, pull out chunks, and keep going. I could see that for people who are totally out there in whacko land, it would seem like coming to a solid box of treasure, then as you were digging around it to loosen it, it would disappear, and you'd dig deeper, only to find the top of the solid box again.

A quick google shows that the area around Palmyra seems to have gravelly loam subsoil, rather than clay. Anyone dug in that? Are there similar hard areas that can be broken up as you go down, that would seem like a buried box that keeps disappearing?

 

[tsig]

There doesn't seem to be much doubt about that. He seems to have been obsessed with buried treasure well before meeting Smith.



There doesn't seem to be much doubt about that either. Have you read the Purple account? Really, it's worth reading. The scene with the dead lamb is worth the price of admission in itself.

If they were digging in clay, I'd know exactly what they're talking about in this part, as silly as it sounds:



Where we live, the subsoil is stiff, heavy clay, and when you get to it, it's almost like hitting brick. With a mattock, you can break it up, pull out chunks, and keep going. I could see that for people who are totally out there in whacko land, it would seem like coming to a solid box of treasure, then as you were digging around it to loosen it, it would disappear, and you'd dig deeper, only to find the top of the solid box again.

A quick google shows that the area around Palmyra seems to have gravelly loam subsoil, rather than clay. Anyone dug in that? Are there similar hard areas that can be broken up as you go down, that would seem like a buried box that keeps disappearing?

Especially after you sacrificed a lamb and sprinkled it's blood around.


Shortly after the venerable Deacon might be seen on his knees at prayer near the pit, while Smith, with a lantern in one hand to dispel the midnight darkness, might be seen making a circuit around the spot, sprinkling the flowing blood from the lamb

 

[tsig]

Then Stowell was gullible.

Was this "back-breaking labor" really undertaken? Evidence? No?

Nor are you. How do you know what was said? Or are you just speculating?

Like putting your face in a hat?

Exceptions like putting your face in a hat?

Nor do you.

So are you.


A "paucity of facts" does not help your case at all. It leaves you in the position of making stuff up.

Rather like JS admitted to doing:

Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that at the very same time that Stowell was digging for money, he, Austin, was in company with said Smith alone, and asked him to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not. Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, "to be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living."


So while he cannot return from the dead his words live on.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

How can you have the light of a dead guy?

Some fungi glow. Some fungi grow on corpses. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[pakeha]

We can clearly dismiss any supernatural abilities or intervention here but I think it's important to be careful in assigning motive. We really don't know what was in Smith's head. Leading his followers may indeed have been a bit like holding a tiger by the tail for him. He may also have come to believe on some level that he was a messenger of a a god and justified himself by saying he had to make the simple people believe. Smith would not be the first person to perform some kind of con to help people along on a spiritual path he felt was correct. Absent some journal or letter to the effect of "man I sure fooled those yokels again", it's possible the person most deceived by this scam was Smith.

Are you saying Smith might have believed he was receiving this 'translation' from a divine source?
My impression from what I've seen in the links I've posted is otherwise, but of course I could be wrong.

After all, even in the day, who would affirm 'Egyptus' was derived from the Chaldean?

 

[DragonLady]

Where we live, the subsoil is stiff, heavy clay, and when you get to it, it's almost like hitting brick. With a mattock, you can break it up, pull out chunks, and keep going. I could see that for people who are totally out there in whacko land, it would seem like coming to a solid box of treasure, then as you were digging around it to loosen it, it would disappear, and you'd dig deeper, only to find the top of the solid box again.

Yep. I've been on far too many treasure hunting expeditions with guys who became wholly convinced that hard blocks of clay were "something down there" and wore themselves out trying to dig it up. That's in modern America; I imagine it would be much easier to fool people back in JS's day, and even moreso at night using lanterns.

 

[Wolrab]

A quick google shows that the area around Palmyra seems to have gravelly loam subsoil, rather than clay. Anyone dug in that? Are there similar hard areas that can be broken up as you go down, that would seem like a buried box that keeps disappearing?

I live in the Town of Manchester, NY and have since 1972 when my family moved here when I was 9. I have done lots of digging since then. As a boy, my friends and I dug 10 foot deep holes easily with just shovels. The soil is sandy with the occasional big rock.

Recently, my son (11 at the time) and his friends dug a 4 foot deep trench in one day.

Hill Cumorah is a drumlin and is made of glacial till. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till

I am no expert, but I expect you could level a drumlin with modern machines in short order.

There are plenty of quarries around here. An old water filled quarry is within two miles south of Hill Cumorah.

I have never heard of any ancient tools, foundations, wheels, horse remains (mastadon finds are not uncommon) or any expected finds from a Hebrew civilization. What are found are consistent with Native-American civilizations.

As an aside, this being the Mormon Holy Land, so to speak, I get a kick out of seeing all the surnames associated with old and modern day Mormonism. Many of the family names are still very common here, along with the roads named after them. Many of my friend's ancestors were taken in early members.

We should organize a skeptical visit to the Hill Cumorah Pageant this summer. It is a hoot to see the anti-Mormon groups protesting along the road.

 

[RandFan]

Gee, I don't think so. All Cat Tale did was express a preference. She didn't try to justify her opinion with evidence. But that's ok. Hell, I have a bazillion preferences for which I have absolutely zero evidence.

Hmmmm...... It seemed to me to be a conclusion based on an unstated argument. But I concede that is a presumption on my part. Okay, fair enough. Cat I withdraw the accusation of ad hoc reasoning and I apologize.

 

[RandFan]

Stowell didn't feel he was "being taken." He defended Joseph at trial, much to the prosecution's dismay.

His fee was justified by a month of back-breaking labor.

You aren't Smith, and you don't know what Smith said to Stowell. He may well have said, "Well, we can give it a try, but I can't promise you success." Moreover, you're speaking from a 21st century perspective. As I have noted, the kinds of activities in which Smith engaged were commonplace in the 19th century, and were widely accepted.

You clamed humankind are moving away from the supernatural, and I agreed. I noted, however, that there are exceptions, which means you should have qualified your statement. Apparently, you were unaware that dousing rods are used today in multiple countries.

You don't know the circumstances under which Smith operated; you're speculating, which doesn't help your case. You judge Smith based on a paucity of facts, some of which I suspect were derived from anti-LDS sources.

I cannot comment because your citations are missing. Would you please stop making unsuported claims. Look, if I'm wrong I'll admit it and address that. But where are your sources?

 

[RandFan]

You clamed humankind are moving away from the supernatural, and I agreed. I noted, however, that there are exceptions, which means you should have qualified your statement. Apparently, you were unaware that dousing rods are used today in multiple countries.

I can comment on this. I HAVE commented on this already. Those who use dowsing rods are either deluded or dishonest. Smith was either deluded or dishonest. This is not a false dichotomy. There is no middle ground here that I can see.

So, which is it, was Smith deluded or dishonest?

 

[Wolrab]

Smith just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Western NY frontier during the 2nd Great Awakening. If it wasn't for those damned skeptics we wouldn't be having this discussion! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district

 

[jsfisher]

I can comment on this. I HAVE commented on this already. Those who use dowsing rods are either deluded or dishonest. Smith was either deluded or dishonest. This is not a false dichotomy. There is no middle ground here that I can see.

So, which is it, was Smith deluded or dishonest?

To be deluded about his glass looking ability would be one thing, but it all went so far beyond that. The analogy with dowsing falls apart quickly; dowsers just believe they have a gift, a belief bolstered by confirmation bias. Dowsers also don't embellish their claim with stories of visions of spirits of yore, golden plates later returned to heaven, and provably false abilities to translate ancient hieroglyphics.

Whatever delusions Smith had, they came much later.

 

[Pup]

Are you saying Smith might have believed he was receiving this 'translation' from a divine source?
My impression from what I've seen in the links I've posted is otherwise, but of course I could be wrong.

The Addison Austin testimony is one of the few times I've seen someone say they interacted with Smith when he was "out of character," so to speak. In fact it's the only one I can think of right now, but it's very possible I've missed them. Are there other specific examples like that? Right now, I'm hesitant to give it too much weight without comparing it to other examples. (Edited to add: I mean because such conversations would be golden to the many 19th century anti-Mormons, so anyone who could credibly describe such a conversation would be rewarded and publicized. Therefore there would actually be a bias toward producing false recollections as a way to con money, praise or fame from anti-Mormons, so we'd expect to see more examples of Smith confessing out of character than were actually genuine, and need to sort through them to figure out which seemed genuine.)

On a related note, for those who think that Smith was consciously running a con game, I'm curious how far down you think it goes? In other words, do you think that Smith was the only con man, and everyone else was taken in? Or do you think any of his family, the first few believers, early missionaries, Brigham Young, etc., also were running it as a conscious con?

Maybe I'm overestimating the gullibility of people, but I tend to be skeptical of it being a conscious con game without more evidence like Austin's. Subconscious, sure.

 

[RandFan]

To be deluded about his glass looking ability would be one thing, but it all went so far beyond that. The analogy with dowsing falls apart quickly; dowsers just believe they have a gift, a belief bolstered by confirmation bias. Dowsers also don't embellish their claim with stories of visions of spirits of yore, golden plates later returned to heaven, and provably false abilities to translate ancient hieroglyphics.

Whatever delusions Smith had, they came much later.

I would have to agree with you.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Apparently, you were unaware that dousing rods are used today in multiple countries.

So what? People are still burning "witches" in the early 21st century. "God men" still roam India performing simple conjuring tricks and passing themselves off as having supernatural powers. Self-styled psychics practice cold and hot reading techniques in order to dupe the credulous into thinking that they can communicate with their dead loved ones.

You don't know the circumstances under which Smith operated; you're speculating, which doesn't help your case. You judge Smith based on a paucity of facts, some of which I suspect were derived from anti-LDS sources.

The issue of whether Smith was sincere or not is (just barely) open to debate. What is not open to debate is the fact that many of the concrete claims that he made are undeniably false. The civilizations that he described as having existed in America did not exist. No indigenous American populations are descended from any Middle Eastern population from just 2600 years ago. Smith's "translation" of the book of Abraham from Egyptian funerary texts is completely wrong.

Perhaps Smith wasn't a con-man. But if he wasn't, then he had to be delusional. You can't just wave this away as anti-Mormon bias, unless you think that reality has an anti-Mormon bias.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I can comment on this. I HAVE commented on this already. Those who use dowsing rods are either deluded or dishonest. Smith was either deluded or dishonest. This is not a false dichotomy. There is no middle ground here that I can see.

So, which is it, was Smith deluded or dishonest?

Anyone who knows anything about the water table knows that dowsing is a pointless activity.