Religious definition & what best defines the religion.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I'm shocked at your ignorance of the facts to allude there's a chance actual Mormon history is not what the truth dictates.

Suppose you were judge and jury. and you had the power
to sentence Joseph Smith to an execution for his crimes.

Which of those reported crimes or sins are you so certain
of, that you would flip the switch on the electric chair and
inflict the decreed capital punishment?

I'm happy to agree on facts. When it comes to historical reports,
you'll have to show me firm judgments that are beyond a
reasonable doubt.

It does not seem to be enough for you, that I'm willing to
extend a 99% possibility that the things you speak of are
true -- you appear to want a 100% agreement.

I noticed the same sort of position with a Missouri Synod
Lutheran pastor with whom I spoke extensively last year.
His demand was a 100% agreement to the Apostles' Creed.
If a person disagreed with even one word of that statement,
the minister was ready to see them go to hell for disbelief.

I'm only ready to extend 100% agreement with demonstrated
FACTS. Show me such facts, if you want my total concurrence.

UD

[_thews]

...
I'm shocked at your ignorance of the facts to allude there's a chance actual Mormon history is not what the truth dictates.

Suppose you were judge and jury. and you had the power
to sentence Joseph Smith to an execution for his crimes.

That's a bit over-dramatic don't you think? Why is it that Mormons hold Joseph Smith to the standard of perfection when looking into his truth claims? For example: "Well I don't know anyone who is perfect, and Joseph Smith was a man..." Joseph Smith was a man... just a man. Joseph Smith also used his magical seer stones for hire before the Book of Mormon. This fact is not acknowledged by you, though there are multiple accounts to prove it, to include directly quoting Joseph Smith. Here's some fact:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Money_digging

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

—Joseph's tongue-in-cheek response to one of a list of questions that were asked of him during a visit at Elder Cahoon's home. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 120; History of the Church 3:29; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 271)

$14 a month was very profitable back then. As you imply this fact is hearsay with statements like "So I'm told" and all the other pieces of information you need to ignore, if your metric is held to the certainty of 2+2 = 4, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can always imply there a reason to doubt the facts, even though a reasonable mind would conclude Joseph Smith was, in fact, a money-digger who used his seer stones (the exact seer stones he used to "translate" the Book of Mormon) for hire to "see" evil treasure guardians through them. This is why he was tried for glass-looking in 1826. From FairMormon:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/L ... king_trial

Which of those reported crimes or sins are you so certain
of, that you would flip the switch on the electric chair and
inflict the decreed capital punishment?

Please turn off the drama. Your over-inflated "flip the switch" analogy is a ruse. You claim you don't know with "certainty" that Joseph Smith used his seer stones for hire before the Book of Mormon, and used those exact seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon... is that correct? What data do you need to ignore to make this claim? Here's some data, and by the way the "crime" as you call it is just factual history and not punishable by death:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11896
http://www.lds-mormon.com/seerstn.shtml

Looking in Sally Chase's glass, he saw the stone a hundred and fifty miles away, buried under a tree. "It soon became luminous, and dazzled his eyes, and after a short time it became as intense as the mid-day sun." Digging up the stone after an arduous journey, Smith related that he "placed it in his hat, and discovered that time, place, and distance were annihilated; that all intervening obstacles were removed, and that he possessed one of the attributes of Deity, an All-Seeing Eye." If the stone that gave Joseph the "second sight," perhaps bordering on the divine powers of the hermetic magus, this sight was put to mundane purposes. Pomeroy Tucker wrote that Joseph used the stone for fortune-telling and divining for stolen property; Martin Harris described Joseph's divining for a lost pin in a pile of wooden shavings, with the stone and his face buried in "an old white hat." William Stafford recounted going with the Smiths to dig for "two or three kegs of gold and silver" near their farmhouse; while Joseph Sr. laid out the ritual circles of hazel sticks and the central steel rod, muttered appropriate incantations, and "enjoined" the crew to silence, Joseph Jr. remained in the house, "looking in his stone and watching the motions of the evil spirit." [152-3] (Quotations from Martin Harris interview, originally published in Tiffany's Monthy V, May 1859, reprinted in Francis W. Kirkham, ed., A New Witness for Christ in America: The Book of Mormon, rev.ed., 2:377; and from William Stafford affidavit, in Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, 144. Also see W.D. Purple's reminiscences, Norwich Chenango Union, May 3, 1877, republished in Walker, ed., Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism, 333-4; Tucker, Mormonism, 20; and Walker, ed., Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism, 233)

I'm happy to agree on facts. When it comes to historical reports,
you'll have to show me firm judgments that are beyond a
reasonable doubt.

The history of the church skews the use of "Urim and Thummim" as these words were not used until 1833. Do you deny this?

More data from the history of the church where the change the Book of Commandments to imply the Urim and Thummim were used to translate the Book of Mormon, when in fact, based on D&C 10:1-3 we know for a fact the Nephite spectacles (a.k.a. "Urim and Thummim") were taken back as punishment:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11896&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

1) The Doctrine and Covenants was originally called the “Book of Commandments” and it didn’t use the words “Urim and Thummim” until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon.

BC 9:1, p. 22 — Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and you also lost your gift at the same time …
[Harmony, Pennsylvania May 1829]
The revelation (already written and published) in The Doctrine and Covenants10:1-3 was later changed to add “by means of the Urim and Thummim” which introduces doubt regarding whether or not they were “lost” along with the 116 pages. How the D&C reads after the change:
DOCTRINE and COVENANTS
1 NOW, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.
2 and you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.
3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.
If you read the history of the church, the date reads as follows:
http://www.boap.org/...1c3history.html
History of the Church Vol.1
Chapter 3. [Jan. 1827 - Mar. 1829]
The Nephite Record Delivered To Joseph-- The Angel's Warning--The Work of Translation.

This implies it was all written from Jan. 1827 – Mar. 1829. The Notes section fills in some blanks:
http://www.boap.org/...1c3history.html

Notes Chapter 3
1. Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim.
13. The term Urim and Thummim, while used in this revelation and in the ms text does not appear in early publications of the revelation, nor does it seem to have been used in any contemporary document of the principals. No early ms of this revelation survives apparently. In the 1833 Book of Commandments, verse one read "Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. . . ." Thus, the words "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" in verse one were not part of this verse in the Book of Commandments; nor was section 17, which also makes use of the term Urim and Thummim, printed in the Book of Commandments. Both section 17 and verse one of section 10, as we now have them, first appeared in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Lyndon Cook writes:
While the retroactive placement of the term in section 10 has led to some speculation relative to the Prophet's having the instrument in his possession, a preponderance of evidence confirms the Prophet's own testimony: "With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate" (History of the Church, 4:537 [Wentworth letter]). The problem here seems to be one of terminology, not whether or not the Prophet had possession of an ancient artifact. Until some time after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the sacred instruments may have been referred to as "Interpreters," or "spectacles." It is possible that Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible played some part in designating the translating instrument "Urim and Thummim." The earliest use of the term Urim and Thummim in Mormon literature is in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833). An article on the Book of Mormon, undoubtedly authored by W. W. Phelps, stated, "It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." [RJS, 17]

In footnote 1, there’s an admission that a seer stone was used “or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone.” In footnote 13, it claims the preponderance of the evidence supports using the name Urim and Thummim, yet admits the name wasn’t published until 1833 at the earliest: “The earliest use of the term Urim and Thummim in Mormon literature is in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833)”

For more discussion on this, you may want to read this thread:
http://www.mormonapo...entry1208862547

What do we know from Emma Smith? It’s funny, but when you Google the following quote, the part about his “face buried in his hat, with the stone in it” is missing from the Mormon sites:
Actual Quote:

. . . In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, after sitting by the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us. (The Saints' Herald, May 19, 1888, p. 310; )

How the quote reads when the part about the stone and hat is selectively removed (changed):
http://www.emmasmith....com/testimony/

. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

It does not seem to be enough for you, that I'm willing to
extend a 99% possibility that the things you speak of are
true -- you appear to want a 100% agreement.

That's because it's 100% factual that Joseph Smith used his seer stones for hire before the Book of Mormon, and used them to translate the Book of Mormon... by what evidence do you base your 1% uncertainty on, when you have the words of Joseph Smith to confirm it?

I noticed the same sort of position with a Missouri Synod
Lutheran pastor with whom I spoke extensively last year.
His demand was a 100% agreement to the Apostles' Creed.
If a person disagreed with even one word of that statement,
the minister was ready to see them go to hell for disbelief.

The analogy you're making is like me claiming there's a 1% chance that Quakers live on the moon. If I would make that statement and stand behind it, then I would assume you'd ask me for some logical reason to make the conclusion based on the response. Please tell me where your 1% uncertainty comes from, when Joseph Smith and church history is very clear on this.

I'm only ready to extend 100% agreement with demonstrated
FACTS. Show me such facts, if you want my total concurrence.

UD

I showed you a lot of facts... please address them. To be honest with you UD, you comb over a lot of information. I'm fairly certain that you know more about these facts than I do. I'm puzzled as to why you seem to attempt to find a way to ignore them? Thank you for your responses.

One more thing:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11896&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

What are the reasons the church does not accurately show how the translation took place?

Here are three reasons:

1) Most members don't know much about Church history.

2) Mormon artists and their editors are pretty representative, in this sense, of the general membership.

3) Artistic representations of historical events are often quite inaccurate, in and out of the Church.

You can at least admit the LDS church is not forthcoming when it comes to the head-in-hat translation using seer stones method can't you?

[_Uncle Dale]

I showed you a lot of facts... please address them. To be honest with you UD, you comb over a lot of information. I'm fairly certain that you know more about these facts than I do. I'm puzzled as to why you seem to attempt to find a way to ignore them? Thank you for your responses.

I still do not see any facts.

I see reports, accusations, deductions, conclusions, etc. -- but precious
few facts.

Do you really suppose that by citing a few books and articles
you have proved each of your historical assertions beyond a
reasonable doubt?

If so, then you need only convene a jury and lay out your evidence.
Since you seem so certain it is fact, then that jury would hand down
the sentence you appear to desire.

But you need not go to that much trouble. Probably, between the two
of us, we can determine a whole set of assertions that such a jury
would agree upon.

So I'll begin by making one statement, which I accept as fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. died at Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, June 27, 1844.

I accept that as fact. There is a great deal of documentary evidence
to back up that statement -- including contemporary newspaper
accounts, legal documents, multiple witness accounts, etc. That
evidence is accessible by any person who wishes to investigate it
and determine whether it is true or false.

Now I'll make a statement which I'm 99% certain is true, but not an
undisputed fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. sent two assassins to murder Grandison Newell,
at Kirtland, in May of 1837.

While that charge is very likely true, it is possible that Smith did
not actually intend to assassinate Newell -- but only scare him.
So, although there is considerable evidence for the accusation,
I do not consider it established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a similar case that you can present as established
fact -- without merely quoting a few old books or articles?

UD

[_thews]

I showed you a lot of facts... please address them. To be honest with you UD, you comb over a lot of information. I'm fairly certain that you know more about these facts than I do. I'm puzzled as to why you seem to attempt to find a way to ignore them? Thank you for your responses.

I still do not see any facts.

I presented them with links... you ignored them.

I see reports, accusations, deductions, conclusions, etc. -- but precious
few facts.

Is the history of the church not good enough? If that isn't good enough, what is?

Do you really suppose that by citing a few books and articles
you have proved each of your historical assertions beyond a
reasonable doubt?

Yes. I'm citing the history of the church and of Joseph Smith through pr0-Mormon websites. One more time (please address the facts):

Fact 1:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/S ... e_gardner1

Joseph as the village seer

Brant Gardner clarifies the role that Joseph and his stone played within the community of Palmyra,

Young Joseph Smith was a member of a specialized sub-community with ties to these very old and very respected practices, though by the early 1800s they were respected only by a marginalized segment of society. He exhibited a talent parallel to others in similar communities. Even in Palmyra he was not unique. In D. Michael Quinn's words: "Until the Book of Mormon thrust young Smith into prominence, Palmyra's most notable seer was Sally Chase, who used a greenish-colored stone. William Stafford also had a seer stone, and Joshua Stafford had a 'peepstone which looked like white marble and had a hole through the center.'" [9] Richard Bushman adds Chauncy Hart, and an unnamed man in Susquehanna County, both of whom had stones with which they found lost objects. [10] [1]

During his tenure as a "village seer," Joseph acquired several seer stones. Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably that belonging to Palmyra seer Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occurred in about 1819–1820, and he obtained his first seer stone in about 1821–1822.[2]

Joseph then used this first stone to find a second stone (a white one). The second seer stone was reportedly found on the property of William Chase in 1822 as Chase described it:

In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.[3]

If you assert Brandt Gardner is a liar, please offer some counter evidence.

Fact 2

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Money_digging

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

—Joseph's tongue-in-cheek response to one of a list of questions that were asked of him during a visit at Elder Cahoon's home. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 120; History of the Church 3:29; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 271)

The actual published Book fo Commandments before it was changed in 1833 (note there is no mention of "by means of the Urim and Thummim"):

If so, then you need only convene a jury and lay out your evidence.
Since you seem so certain it is fact, then that jury would hand down
the sentence you appear to desire.

But you need not go to that much trouble. Probably, between the two
of us, we can determine a whole set of assertions that such a jury
would agree upon.

You have yet to present a single counter argument. I'd like to hear why you believe there 1% doubt that Joseph smith used his seer stones before the Book of Mormon and used them exclusively for the translation of the Book of Mormon.

So I'll begin by making one statement, which I accept as fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. died at Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, June 27, 1844.

I accept that as fact. There is a great deal of documentary evidence
to back up that statement -- including contemporary newspaper
accounts, legal documents, multiple witness accounts, etc. That
evidence is accessible by any person who wishes to investigate it
and determine whether it is true or false.

Now I'll make a statement which I'm 99% certain is true, but not an
undisputed fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. sent two assassins to murder Grandison Newell,
at Kirtland, in May of 1837.

While that charge is very likely true, it is possible that Smith did
not actually intend to assassinate Newell -- but only scare him.
So, although there is considerable evidence for the accusation,
I do not consider it established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a similar case that you can present as established
fact -- without merely quoting a few old books or articles?

UD

The history of the church and the book of Commandments is hardly the "few odd books and articles" as you assert. In your counter argument, you only presented another piece of Joseph Smith sending henchmen off to kill a man... one I agree with. 1823 was a long time ago and there weren't video camera rolling. Again, are you claiming that Brandt Gardner is a liar? Why on earth would he make these stories up and them published on FairMormon is they weren't true? Please address the facts presented. Thanks.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
If you assert Brandt Gardner is a liar, please offer some counter evidence.

I do not recall even mentioning his name. He, like many others, draws together
various historical sources purporting that Smith used peep-stones in order
to gain small payments from people who wanted their fortunes told -- or
had lost property -- or wished to find buried treasure, etc.

I do not dispute that Smith had at least three such stones. But I can offer
no firm proof for that conclusion as a fact. The LDS First Presidency
reportedly has preserved one of these stones. If you want proof of the
fact that the stone belonged to Smith, I suppose you would have to begin
by obtaining photographs, certifications of ownership, etc. -- The same
proof of possession that is required in any court criminal case. I do not
doubt that you could assemble such evidence, if you could get some
cooperation from the Mormon leaders.

So I'll rate my belief in Smith's stones at about 99.5%. I was not there to
see him use such objects, so I cannot vouch for the fact first-hand.

But now comes the hard part -- describing each of the stones and proving
that Smith had them in his possession, and that he used them for certain
purposes, in certain ways, during certain time periods. Your citing
Bro. Gardner or some other single writer will not be enough for you to
convince me of each and every detail. I'll want to see compelling evidence;
and preferably multiple sources of contemporary documentation.

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

So the publisher of the 1838 Mormon periodical admits to the charges. Assuming
that Smith was indeed the functional editor of that journal, and was the person
who actually gave that reply -- I'll rate my acceptance at 99.5%.

But now comes the hard part -- Was Smith an actual "digger," or did he avoid
the pick and shovel work? Did he accompany the "diggers" to the excavation
sites, or did he simply instruct them where, when and how to dig? Did Smith
ever dig up any artifacts out of the ground -- or did any of his associates?
Would it be more accurate to call him a con-man who pretended to supernatural
powers, to see hidden objects at a distance? Did he obtain payments of
money, provisions, or even intimate access to the diggers' wives, while they
were out doing the excavation work?

Again, I'm prepared to examine your evidence for each of these details -- but
I'll be most impressed with multiple contemporary historical sources.

You have yet to present a single counter argument. I'd like to hear why you believe there 1% doubt that Joseph smith used his seer stones before the Book of Mormon and used them exclusively for the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Why should I present counter arguments? I have not spent the necessary
time, doing the primary historical research required to provide you with
100% reliable factual details. Anything I say will be an amateur's deduction.

But -- if that sort of reply will suit you, I can provide my best guess --
and that is, that Smith only made use of his stones when he needed to
impress and fool observers. I'd guess that when he and Oliver Cowdery
were alone, with nobody watching them, that they simply copied
passages out of the Bible and other pre-existing sources, without
pretending to look at any stones.

But I cannot prove that conclusion. I'll rate it at about 10% probable.
And I'm not comfortable trying to pass off such guesses as "facts."

So I'll begin by making one statement, which I accept as fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. died at Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, June 27, 1844.

I accept that as fact. There is a great deal of documentary evidence
to back up that statement -- including contemporary newspaper
accounts, legal documents, multiple witness accounts, etc. That
evidence is accessible by any person who wishes to investigate it
and determine whether it is true or false.

Now I'll make a statement which I'm 99% certain is true, but not an
undisputed fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. sent two assassins to murder Grandison Newell,
at Kirtland, in May of 1837.

While that charge is very likely true, it is possible that Smith did
not actually intend to assassinate Newell -- but only scare him.
So, although there is considerable evidence for the accusation,
I do not consider it established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a similar case that you can present as established
fact -- without merely quoting a few old books or articles?

UD

The history of the church and the book of Commandments is hardly the "few odd books
and articles" as you assert.

I'm not much impressed by the LDS "History of the Church," and I do not suppose
that the Book of Commandments can tell me anything useful about Smith's death,
or about the attempted assassination of Mr. Newell.

But -- just to play along with your seeming suggestions -- what if I
were to say that Smith died on June 26, 1844? What evidence would
I have to provide in order to convince you that the June 27 date is
an error, and that the LDS "History of the Church" is wrong? I have an
idea of what sort of evidence would be convincing: such as an old
Illinois newspaper, dated June 26, which reported the death -- or an
official state death certificate made out on June 26th -- or perhaps
a few contemporary personal journals with hand-written entries dating
the death to June 26th.

If such evidence existed, I would gather it all together and present it to
you, as a compelling reason to mistrust the "History of the Church." Of
course I'll be doing no such thing -- but that is an example of how I
would suggest consulting evidence in order to prove facts.

In your counter argument, you only presented another piece of Joseph Smith sending henchmen off to kill a man... one I agree with. 1823 was a long time ago and there weren't video camera rolling. Again, are you claiming that Brandt Gardner is a liar? Why on earth would he make these stories up and them published on FairMormon is they weren't true? Please address the facts presented. Thanks.

I don't recall saying anything about Gardner -- have I missed something?

Since you cite the year 1823, perhaps you can respond to this old newspaper
article, and let me know if its use of that date is a fact or not:

The Hilton Record.
Hilton, New York
Thursday, Nov. 20, 1924
Vol. XXVIII. No. 34.

"THE KINGDOM," ONCE
THRIVING, LITTLE KNOWN.

---

Small Community's Heyday Century Ago Was
as Picturesque as Its Name. But Now Its
Famous Distillery Has Vanished. Its
Many Characters Are Memories,
and Only a Hamlet Remains.

---

Midway between Waterloo and Seneca Falls on the State highway between Buffalo and Albany
is a community known as "the Kingdom," which has a history not only decidedly interesting, but
practically unknown, even to some of the best historians of the Finger Lakes Region. It was
the original home of Sheriff Lewis Birdsall, who, some claim, held sway over the territory a
century ago in a manner not unlike the monarchies of Europe...


A century ago the Kingdom was busy with life. Passengers were coming and going by stage-coach,
people clustered about the tavern and little red schoolhouse, the grocery store, blacksmith shop
and the dozen little homes. A little to the west of this activity stood the Great Western
Distillery, parts of the foundation of which still remain in silent testimony to the business
activity of a century ago. There was a saw mill, flour mill, cooper shop, and on the south side
of the river a considerable settlement surrounding the locks which then existed there...


Another incident may well be mentioned because of its connection of the place with a religious
ism that has developed into vast proportions. Just east of the tavern and adjoining the
blacksmith shop there stood in the early fifties a small house, one and one-half stories high.
Older residents remember it, and recall when it was known as the house where Joseph Smith,
the founder of Mormonism, lived for a while in the fall of 1823. Their impressions of him
were not as a whole very flattering.

Smith had been in the habit of coming over from Palmyra, making his living by pretending
that he could detect hidden springs of water. He was a peculiar, odd-looking man, dressed
in the plainest home-spun, and rather an object of wit and pleasantry. It was not till late
in the fall of 1823 that he aroused peculiar interest in himself. Then he claimed that he
had a singular and mysterious mission. At the start, only to a few of his most intimate
friends did he disclose the nature of it. It soon became noised about that Smith had
received some spiritual revelation, and the place was wild to learn more about it.

Under apparently a simple and innocent manner, Smith must have been a keen judge of human
nature, understanding well how to excite curiosity and make converts. With confidence he
told how he had a vision; how in that vision an angel had pointed out to him a hill where
golden plates were buried, upon which were engraved the law of the "Latter Day Saints;"
how he had gone there and found those wonderful plates, becoming the possessor of the
latest revelations of God. Some believed and by their influence and money gave the prophet
great assistance. A church was organized and the baptism of the first saints took place
nearby at Silver Creek. In June, 1830, the first Mormon conference was held in the
adjoining town of Fayette.

A century ago the Kingdom was more than a rival of Seneca Falls and Waterloo. Sheriff Birdsall
believed with others that it was destined to become the center of the legal and court
business of the county. But the revolutions that followed in industrial and manufacturing
conditions, the destruction of the Great Western Distillery in 1848, and the introduction of
travel by team added to force the Kingdom to give way to other points of trade, and the
energy was transplanted elsewhere.

UD

[_thews]

...
If you assert Brandt Gardner is a liar, please offer some counter evidence.

I do not recall even mentioning his name. He, like many others, draws together
various historical sources purporting that Smith used peep-stones in order
to gain small payments from people who wanted their fortunes told -- or
had lost property -- or wished to find buried treasure, etc.

You didn't mention his name... I quoted his facts. And, once again, you allude to "historical sources" defined by "purporting" to water down the truth. Let's face it, in 1823 Joe Smith was no big deal and any information we have is more than what one would expect. History is defined by many sources, and as you continue to ignore church history, I gave you the history by Brant Gardner and asked you if you agreed with it... you again ignored the facts and just went on about your 2+2 metric of truth. Joseph Smith was a money-digger... can you at the very minimum acknowledge this fact?

I do not dispute that Smith had at least three such stones. But I can offer
no firm proof for that conclusion as a fact. The LDS First Presidency
reportedly has preserved one of these stones. If you want proof of the
fact that the stone belonged to Smith, I suppose you would have to begin
by obtaining photographs, certifications of ownership, etc. -- The same
proof of possession that is required in any court criminal case. I do not
doubt that you could assemble such evidence, if you could get some
cooperation from the Mormon leaders.

I didn't expect this from you UD. This "proof of possession" that would absolutely place the Jupiter Talisman of Joseph Smith as belonging to hijm actually fits here. Do you acknowledge Joseph Smith owned a Jupiter talisman based on your concocted rules of what constitutes a fact based on reasonable doubt?
http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/jos ... isman.html

In 1974 Dr. Reed C. Durham, a Mormon and noted scholar of Mormon history gave a lecture entitled, "Is there no help for the Widow's Son?". Durham revealed a medal worn by Joseph Smith and long thought to be a Masonic emblem was, in fact, a talisman of Jupiter. Smith's talisman appears to left.

So I'll rate my belief in Smith's stones at about 99.5%. I was not there to
see him use such objects, so I cannot vouch for the fact first-hand.

Why do you question the last 0.5%? Based on what?

But now comes the hard part -- describing each of the stones and proving
that Smith had them in his possession, and that he used them for certain
purposes, in certain ways, during certain time periods. Your citing
Bro. Gardner or some other single writer will not be enough for you to
convince me of each and every detail. I'll want to see compelling evidence;
and preferably multiple sources of contemporary documentation.

I have given you all the evidence you need to formulate a reasonable answer. I cited the history of the Mormon church and you completely ignored it. Why?

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

So the publisher of the 1838 Mormon periodical admits to the charges. Assuming
that Smith was indeed the functional editor of that journal, and was the person
who actually gave that reply -- I'll rate my acceptance at 99.5%.

Again, by what evidence do you base you 0.5% on?

But now comes the hard part -- Was Smith an actual "digger," or did he avoid
the pick and shovel work? Did he accompany the "diggers" to the excavation
sites, or did he simply instruct them where, when and how to dig? Did Smith
ever dig up any artifacts out of the ground -- or did any of his associates?
Would it be more accurate to call him a con-man who pretended to supernatural
powers, to see hidden objects at a distance? Did he obtain payments of
money, provisions, or even intimate access to the diggers' wives, while they
were out doing the excavation work?

Again, I'm prepared to examine your evidence for each of these details -- but
I'll be most impressed with multiple contemporary historical sources.

Why not acknowledge the evidence I've already given you? I've run across this "strategy" before in Mormon apologists, which is to just continually ignore the facts in the hopes the opponent will give up. What about the words of Joseph Smith in the history of Joseph Smith are you discounting? What is your evidence to cast doubt acknowledging the facts presented thus far?

You have yet to present a single counter argument. I'd like to hear why you believe there 1% doubt that Joseph smith used his seer stones before the Book of Mormon and used them exclusively for the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Why should I present counter arguments? I have not spent the necessary
time, doing the primary historical research required to provide you with
100% reliable factual details. Anything I say will be an amateur's deduction.

You are known for finding historical articles are you not? If you wish to seek the truth, all you need to look at is FairMormon which is a pro-Mormon website. If you continue to ignore the data and argue against it, it shows your agenda.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/O ... _and_magic
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/O ... r_talisman

But -- if that sort of reply will suit you, I can provide my best guess --
and that is, that Smith only made use of his stones when he needed to
impress and fool observers. I'd guess that when he and Oliver Cowdery
were alone, with nobody watching them, that they simply copied
passages out of the Bible and other pre-existing sources, without
pretending to look at any stones.

I agree, because Joseph Smith was a fraud. The use of his stones "for convenience" per Mormon history is absurd. There was no Urim and Thummim. Do you acknowledge this fact?

But I cannot prove that conclusion. I'll rate it at about 10% probable.
And I'm not comfortable trying to pass off such guesses as "facts."

I have already proven it for you, and your 10% probably is absolute hogwash. Based on the data presented, what is it that you're using to conclude there a 90% chance multiple factors to include Mormon history is wrong? Again, are you calling Brandt Gardner and FairMormon liars?

So I'll begin by making one statement, which I accept as fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. died at Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, June 27, 1844.

I accept that as fact. There is a great deal of documentary evidence
to back up that statement -- including contemporary newspaper
accounts, legal documents, multiple witness accounts, etc. That
evidence is accessible by any person who wishes to investigate it
and determine whether it is true or false.

Now I'll make a statement which I'm 99% certain is true, but not an
undisputed fact:
Joseph Smith, Jr. sent two assassins to murder Grandison Newell,
at Kirtland, in May of 1837.

While that charge is very likely true, it is possible that Smith did
not actually intend to assassinate Newell -- but only scare him.
So, although there is considerable evidence for the accusation,
I do not consider it established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a similar case that you can present as established
fact -- without merely quoting a few old books or articles?

UD

The history of the church and the book of Commandments is hardly the "few odd books
and articles" as you assert.

I'm not understanding your point. You are the one claiming they are a "few odd books and articles" and I'm claiming it's Mormon history you're ignoring.

I'm not much impressed by the LDS "History of the Church," and I do not suppose
that the Book of Commandments can tell me anything useful about Smith's death,
or about the attempted assassination of Mr. Newell.

You're "not impressed" with the history of the church... that says a lot of what you intentionally choose to ignore based on you preconceived agenda.

But -- just to play along with your seeming suggestions -- what if I
were to say that Smith died on June 26, 1844? What evidence would
I have to provide in order to convince you that the June 27 date is
an error, and that the LDS "History of the Church" is wrong? I have an
idea of what sort of evidence would be convincing: such as an old
Illinois newspaper, dated June 26, which reported the death -- or an
official state death certificate made out on June 26th -- or perhaps
a few contemporary personal journals with hand-written entries dating
the death to June 26th.

Why are you doing this? The old Mormon apologists' ploy of stating something obvious to imply you've actually made a point? You just said you are "not impressed" by the HISTORY of the church. On what ground are you claiming to make a point here by stating the obvious wrapped up in a non-question?

If such evidence existed, I would gather it all together and present it to
you, as a compelling reason to mistrust the "History of the Church." Of
course I'll be doing no such thing -- but that is an example of how I
would suggest consulting evidence in order to prove facts.

You are not making sense. The history of the church is the actual history of the church, even though they attempt to change it. The "Urim and Thummim" was not stated in ANY Mormon history until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon. How can you continue to discount factual data in exchange for your gut feel without any foundation? Please explain to me why you choose to discount facts?

In your counter argument, you only presented another piece of Joseph Smith sending henchmen off to kill a man... one I agree with. 1823 was a long time ago and there weren't video camera rolling. Again, are you claiming that Brandt Gardner is a liar? Why on earth would he make these stories up and them published on FairMormon is they weren't true? Please address the facts presented. Thanks.

I don't recall saying anything about Gardner -- have I missed something?

One more supposed "point" by stating something moot while ignoring its significance. How about acknowledging Brandt Gardner's factual data?

Since you cite the year 1823, perhaps you can respond to this old newspaper
article, and let me know if its use of that date is a fact or not:

The Hilton Record.
Hilton, New York
Thursday, Nov. 20, 1924
Vol. XXVIII. No. 34.

"THE KINGDOM," ONCE
THRIVING, LITTLE KNOWN.

---

Small Community's Heyday Century Ago Was
as Picturesque as Its Name. But Now Its
Famous Distillery Has Vanished. Its
Many Characters Are Memories,
and Only a Hamlet Remains.

---

Midway between Waterloo and Seneca Falls on the State highway between Buffalo and Albany
is a community known as "the Kingdom," which has a history not only decidedly interesting, but
practically unknown, even to some of the best historians of the Finger Lakes Region. It was
the original home of Sheriff Lewis Birdsall, who, some claim, held sway over the territory a
century ago in a manner not unlike the monarchies of Europe...


A century ago the Kingdom was busy with life. Passengers were coming and going by stage-coach,
people clustered about the tavern and little red schoolhouse, the grocery store, blacksmith shop
and the dozen little homes. A little to the west of this activity stood the Great Western
Distillery, parts of the foundation of which still remain in silent testimony to the business
activity of a century ago. There was a saw mill, flour mill, cooper shop, and on the south side
of the river a considerable settlement surrounding the locks which then existed there...


Another incident may well be mentioned because of its connection of the place with a religious
ism that has developed into vast proportions. Just east of the tavern and adjoining the
blacksmith shop there stood in the early fifties a small house, one and one-half stories high.
Older residents remember it, and recall when it was known as the house where Joseph Smith,
the founder of Mormonism, lived for a while in the fall of 1823. Their impressions of him
were not as a whole very flattering.

Smith had been in the habit of coming over from Palmyra, making his living by pretending
that he could detect hidden springs of water. He was a peculiar, odd-looking man, dressed
in the plainest home-spun, and rather an object of wit and pleasantry. It was not till late
in the fall of 1823 that he aroused peculiar interest in himself. Then he claimed that he
had a singular and mysterious mission. At the start, only to a few of his most intimate
friends did he disclose the nature of it. It soon became noised about that Smith had
received some spiritual revelation, and the place was wild to learn more about it.

Under apparently a simple and innocent manner, Smith must have been a keen judge of human
nature, understanding well how to excite curiosity and make converts. With confidence he
told how he had a vision; how in that vision an angel had pointed out to him a hill where
golden plates were buried, upon which were engraved the law of the "Latter Day Saints;"
how he had gone there and found those wonderful plates, becoming the possessor of the
latest revelations of God. Some believed and by their influence and money gave the prophet
great assistance. A church was organized and the baptism of the first saints took place
nearby at Silver Creek. In June, 1830, the first Mormon conference was held in the
adjoining town of Fayette.

A century ago the Kingdom was more than a rival of Seneca Falls and Waterloo. Sheriff Birdsall
believed with others that it was destined to become the center of the legal and court
business of the county. But the revolutions that followed in industrial and manufacturing
conditions, the destruction of the Great Western Distillery in 1848, and the introduction of
travel by team added to force the Kingdom to give way to other points of trade, and the
energy was transplanted elsewhere.



UD

is that it? You quote one newspaper article and discount Mormon history to include the words of Joseph Smith? Is that the foundation for your argument? Please acknowledge the many fact presented by Brant Gardner.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
This "proof of possession" that would absolutely place the Jupiter Talisman of Joseph Smith as belonging to him actually fits here. Do you acknowledge Joseph Smith owned a Jupiter talisman based on your concocted rules of what constitutes a fact based on reasonable doubt?

Such a coin-like object exists and was reportedly taken from the
pocket of the dead Smith. I think it is reasonable to assume that
he was the owner -- but, again, the chain of custody and the
purported facts of the case are too flimsy to hold up in a court
of law. It would be very useful if some student of history would
research some new discoveries to better pin down the ownership.

So I'll rate my belief in Smith's stones at about 99.5%. I was not there to
see him use such objects, so I cannot vouch for the fact first-hand.

Why do you question the last 0.5%? Based on what?

That is room for reasonable doubt -- for the possibility that new facts
will be discovered to change the conclusion either totally, or perhaps
just slightly. If the conclusion were 100%, there would be no need
to seek out any additional evidence, nor to adjust history reports.

...

I have given you all the evidence you need to formulate a reasonable answer. I cited the history of the Mormon church and you completely ignored it. Why?

I do not have a great deal of respect for the LDS "History of the Church."
My religious teachers instructed me to view it with a great deal of
suspicion, and to always confirm its assertions with added evidence.

Again, by what evidence do you base you 0.5% on?

Same as above. one day additional evidence may be uncovered, showing
that, while Smith tacitly approved the wording of the 1838 article, that
in reality no such interview ever occurred, and the words were written
by an early Mormon apologist.

Why not acknowledge the evidence I've already given you? I've run across this "strategy" before in Mormon apologists, which is to just continually ignore the facts in the hopes the opponent will give up. What about the words of Joseph Smith in the history of Joseph Smith are you discounting? What is your evidence to cast doubt acknowledging the facts presented thus far?

A reasonable investigator holds open the possibility that he/she has not
yet examined all of the possible sources for a historical conclusion.
Examining "the words of Joseph Smith in the history of Joseph Smith" is
not something I do lightly, or in a few moments' time. My method is to
trace the words back in time to their initial writing or publication, and
then to determine the circumstances under which they first appeared.

...

You are known for finding historical articles are you not? If you wish to seek the truth, all you need to look at is FairMormon which is a pro-Mormon website. If you continue to ignore the data and argue against it, it shows your agenda.

I do not have a great deal of trust in pro-Mormon websites. Unless their
presentations can be confirmed with additional evidence/sources, I generally
assume that their arguments may be faulty.

...

I agree, because Joseph Smith was a fraud. The use of his stones "for convenience" per Mormon history is absurd. There was no Urim and Thummim. Do you acknowledge this fact?

I doubt very, very much that the biblical urim and thummim were ever carried
from Palestine to the ancient Americas. Thus, I see no reason to believe that
the stones Smith reportedly possessed and used bore any special resemblance
to the historical urim and thummim. I was taught in graduate school that those
items were perhaps two flat objects which were cast like dice, to provide
different possible "yes," "no," or "no answer" responses to priestly questions.

...

I have already proven it for you, and your 10% probably is absolute hogwash.

If you wish to make such hostile condemnations and characterizations, I suggest
that you move your discussion to one of the lower forums here.

Based on the data presented, what is it that you're using to conclude there a 90% chance multiple factors to include Mormon history is wrong? Again, are you calling Brandt Gardner and FairMormon liars?

Why add the two together and demand a response from me? Writers may
provide faulty assertions without intending to be sinful or criminal. In the
case of Bro. Gardner, I have never noticed him tell a lie. Have you?

...

I'm not understanding your point. You are the one claiming they are a "few odd books and articles" and I'm claiming it's Mormon history you're ignoring.

You evidently adhere to different standards for historical reconstructions
and personal assertions than I make use of. Is it OK with you, that some
people see/apply historical sources differently than you do?

You're "not impressed" with the history of the church... that says a lot of what you intentionally choose to ignore based on you preconceived agenda.

It is generally called the "documentary" history of the church, because it
includes a great many purported reproductions of documents, presented
in more or less chronological order. However, when we compare the various
editions of the text, we can see that it varies in ways small and large, from
the "manuscript history," to the published version in the "Times and Seasons,"
to the expanded versions in the "Deseret News" and the "Millennial Star."

My "preconceived agenda" is to avoid presuming that one of these versions
is always correct, where it varies from the other versions -- or, from, say,
the RLDS "History of the Church" -- which I grew up reading and using.

Why are you doing this? The old Mormon apologists' ploy of stating something obvious to imply you've actually made a point? You just said you are "not impressed" by the HISTORY of the church. On what ground are you claiming to make a point here by stating the obvious wrapped up in a non-question?

I am attempting to demonstrate an investigative historical methodology --
a way in which we can examine an assertion, and begin to test it's veracity.

You are not making sense. The history of the church is the actual history of the church, even though they attempt to change it. The "Urim and Thummim" was not stated in ANY Mormon history until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon. How can you continue to discount factual data in exchange for your gut feel without any foundation? Please explain to me why you choose to discount facts?

I was trying to show a way in which we could begin to examine assertions
which may be historically inaccurate.

In your counter argument, you only presented another piece of Joseph Smith sending henchmen off to kill a man... one I agree with.

A case can be made for Smith attempting to murder that man -- but I do
not think that the available evidence would be sufficient to convict him in
a court of law. It is compelling, but not absolutely verified and reliable.

1823 was a long time ago and there weren't video camera rolling. Again, are you claiming that Brandt Gardner is a liar? Why on earth would he make these stories up and them published on FairMormon is they weren't true? Please address the facts presented. Thanks.

I have no reason to call Bro. Gardner a liar -- however I hold open my right
to disagree with his conclusions. If he asserts that some particular conclusion
of his is 100% fact, then I might at least challenge his conclusion, and
present additional evidence to back up my own historical theories.

How about acknowledging Brandt Gardner's factual data?

Can you break it down into distinct alleged facts, that I can respond
to one at a time? It will be easier for me to deal with distinct items,
rather than a number of things all put together.

is that it? You quote one newspaper article and discount Mormon history to include the words of Joseph Smith? Is that the foundation for your argument?...

I am trying to determine your method for verifying historical information, and
for separating out obvious errors from possibly true information.

I'll present the same set of assertions from an earlier published source, and
ask you to tell me which parts are facts and which parts are not facts.

"GRIP'S"
Historical Souvenir of Seneca Falls, N.Y

HISTORICAL SOUVENIR SERIES NO. 17
SENECA FALLS, N.Y., AND VICINITY

Copyrighted [1904]
"Grip," 169 Corning Ave., Syracuse, N. Y.

(ILLUSTRATED)



[6]

The Kingdom. -- [By Harrison Chamberlain] --

This little hamlet, boastful and pretentious in the early
years of the past century, was located about two
miles west of our village. Its christening is wrapped
in mystery, some claiming that it was so called after
a man named King, who built a dam in the outlet or
in an adjoining creek and hence from King's dam
the place came to be called "The Kingdom." This
is a happy, ingenious theory but unfortunately lacks
the evidence to sustain it....


[8]

The Kingdom was also the early home of Joseph
Smith, the founder of Mormonism. and was where he
first promulgated his "inspired doctrines" and
"interpreted" the "divine word" from, the golden
plates which nobody ever saw. Just east of the
tavern and adjoining the Reamer blacksmith shop,
there stood in the fifties a small story and a half
house. I remember it very well, and can recall the
fact that the neighbors spoke of it as the house
where Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism,
lived for a while in the fall of 1823....


[26]

"Mormon Joe," as he was called -- Joseph Smith,
the founder of Mormonism. first made known his
"divine discovery," the "golden plates," which none
hereabouts ever saw, to some of the prominent
residents of Junius. He located at Kingdom, a mile
west of Seneca Falls, about 1821 or '22 as a general
hand for any kind of work: but engaged chiefly in
finding water with a switch carried in the hand, a
custom in those days. He came here from Pompey
and lived chiefly by his wits. From this place he
went over into the town of Fayette, about 1830, where
in April of that year he organized the first Mormon
church and baptized the first converts. Mr. Harrison
Chamberlain well remembers much told about his
personality by his father and grandfather.

Strangely he procured financial assistance from
wealthy men living hereabouts to whom he in confidence
first made known his "divine inspirations."
Some of these men sacrificed a good deal to furnish
him funds. He had with him an assistant or secretary,
Oliver Cowdery, who transcribed what Mormon Joe,
standing behind a curtain, professed to read from
the golden plates, the "inspired Word of God," as
Smith said.

He was a peculiar, odd looking man, dressed in the
plainest homespun, and rather an object of wit and
pleasantry. It was not until the fall of 1823 that he
aroused particular interest in himself. Then he claimed
that he had a singular and mysterious mission. It soon
was noised about that Smith had received some spiritual
revelation, and the place was wild to learn more about
it. Under apparently a simple and innocent manner, Smith
must have been a keen judge of human nature, understanding
well how to excite curiosity and make converts.

His earliest "baptisms" -- by immersion -- were at Silver
Creek, south of Kingdom. He then resided in the house of
Peter Whitmer, three miles south of Waterloo, where he
gathered his few followers about him and preached to them.

It was while here that Smith attracted the attention of
Brigham Young, who was then a lad, one of the five sons
of John Young, who lived in the town of Tryone, Schuyler
county. Levi Halsey says that John Young was a revolutionary
soldier from Whittingham, Windham county, Ct., who had
taken land given to the soldiers in the "military tract,"
and who finally became "a traveling tinker and mender and a
poor farmer," and that his sons spent most of their time
hunting and fishing, usually in harvest time crossing
Seneca lake to work for farmers in Romulus. That was what
brought Brigham over here when he met Smith and at once
became his follower.

UD

[_thews]

...
This "proof of possession" that would absolutely place the Jupiter Talisman of Joseph Smith as belonging to him actually fits here. Do you acknowledge Joseph Smith owned a Jupiter talisman based on your concocted rules of what constitutes a fact based on reasonable doubt?

Such a coin-like object exists and was reportedly taken from the
pocket of the dead Smith. I think it is reasonable to assume that
he was the owner -- but, again, the chain of custody and the
purported facts of the case are too flimsy to hold up in a court
of law. It would be very useful if some student of history would
research some new discoveries to better pin down the ownership.

When you use "reportedly" in the above, one has to look at the evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion (reasonable doubt vs. shadow of a doubt). What we know... It was a Mormon scholar who connected the dots to tie Joseph Smith's Jupiter talisman to Francis Barrett's book of occult philosophy The Magus published in London in 1801. The break in the seal from a printing error is duplicated in Joseph Smith's talisman:


http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/barrett.html

What is interesting to note is that Smith's Jupiter talisman is almost identical to the example given by Barrett above and to the right. This format is not provided in either Agrippa's Latin original nor the English translation of 1651 by John Freake. The illustration in the English translation appears below to right. Note the break in the seal which seems to be a printer's error and does not appear in the Latin original though it is faithfully copied in the Magus and Smith's talisman.

In Dr. Durham's speech we have a "fully notarized" collection of the belongings of Joseph Smith. While Mormon apologists like to attempt to cast doubt by claiming the talisman was not listed on the items found to Joseph Smith when he was killed, it wasn't part of the process to include things like a medallion worn around the neck. What we do have is Emma Smith being quoted as saying it was one of Joseph Smith's prized possessions, and it was included in a collection where all the other items did in fact belong to Joseph Smith.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

In 1974 Dr. Reed Durham, who was director of the LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah and president of the Mormon History Association, made a discovery that was so startling that it caused great consternation among Mormon scholars and officials. Dr. Durham found that what had previously been identified as the "Masonic jewel of the Prophet Joseph Smith" was in reality a "Jupiter talisman." This is a medallion which contains material relating to astrology and magic. Dr. Durham, apparently not realizing the devastating implications of his discovery, announced this important find in his presidential address before the Mormon History Association on April 20, 1974:

... I should like to initiate all of you into what is perhaps the strangest, the most mysterious, occult-like esoteric, and yet Masonically oriented practice ever adopted by Joseph Smith.... All available evidence suggests that Joseph Smith the Prophet possessed a magical Masonic medallion, or talisman, which he worked during his lifetime and which was evidently on his person when he was martyred. His talisman is in the shape of a silver dollar and is probably made of silver or tin. It is exactly one and nine-sixteenths in diameter,... the talisman,... originally purchased from the Emma Smith Bidamon family, fully notarized by that family to be authentic and to have belonged to Joseph Smith, can now be identified as a Jupiter talisman. It carries the sign and image of Jupiter and should more appropriately be referred to as the Table of Jupiter. And in some very real and quite mysterious sense, this particular Table of Jupiter was the most appropriate talisman for Joseph Smith to possess. Indeed, it seemed meant for him, because on all levels of interpretation: planetary, mythological, numerological, astrological, mystical cabalism, and talismatic magic, the Prophet was, in every case, appropriately described.

To your "court of law" argument, we have "fully notarized" coming from the Director of the LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah and president of the Mormon History Association. Dr. Durham was later pressured by the church leaders and had to issue a statement:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

Reed Durham was severely criticized by Mormon scholars and officials for giving this speech. He was even called in by Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball, and finally found it necessary to issue a letter in which he reaffirmed his faith in Joseph Smith and said that he was sorry for the "concerns, and misunderstandings" that the speech had caused. We feel that Dr. Durham's identification of Joseph Smith's talisman is one of the most significant discoveries in Mormon history and that he should be commended for his research.

So I'll rate my belief in Smith's stones at about 99.5%. I was not there to
see him use such objects, so I cannot vouch for the fact first-hand.

Why do you question the last 0.5%? Based on what?

That is room for reasonable doubt -- for the possibility that new facts
will be discovered to change the conclusion either totally, or perhaps
just slightly. If the conclusion were 100%, there would be no need
to seek out any additional evidence, nor to adjust history reports.

So if I'm understanding you, you'll ignore the multiple pieces of evidence to include court of law statements in the 1826 trial, and hope that "new evidence" comes up from something that happened almost 200 years ago? You actually place weight based on "I was not there to see him use such objects, so I cannot vouch for the fact first-hand"? Your logic is based on wishful thinking and is in direct opposition of all the other "would it stand up in a court of law" arguments regarding what history dictates. You can't go back in time to see for yourself, so you'll conclude Joseph Smith was telling the truth? More actual evidence based on what we do know:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

That Joseph Smith would own such a magic talisman fits very well with the evidence from his 1826 trial. W. D. Purple, who was an eye-witness to the trial, claimed it was reported that Smith said certain talismanic influences were needed to recover a box of treasure:

Mr. Thompson, an employee of Mr. Stowell, was the next witness.... Smith had told the Deacon 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.... 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 ... but the treasure still receded from their grasp, and it was never obtained (The Chenango Union, Norwich, N.Y., May 3, 1877, as cited in A New Witness For Christ In America, vol. 2, pp. 366-67).

I have given you all the evidence you need to formulate a reasonable answer. I cited the history of the Mormon church and you completely ignored it. Why?

I do not have a great deal of respect for the LDS "History of the Church."
My religious teachers instructed me to view it with a great deal of
suspicion, and to always confirm its assertions with added evidence.

I agree that the history of the church is whitewashed, but how many pieces of evidence do you need to draw a 99.5% conclusion that Joseph Smith was a money digger using seer stones (the same seer stones used to translate the supposed golden plates behind a curtain out of a stove-pipe hat), but also come to the logical conclusion that he was in fact a prophet of God based on your 0.5% doubt waiting for new evidence to collaborate the multiple pieces of evidence that all say the same thing? Do you continue to place faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, yet claim one of the witnesses was a liar?

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

David Whitmer frankly admitted that Joseph Smith placed the "seer stone" into a hat to translate the Book of Mormon: "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing" (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, p. 12).

Again, by what evidence do you base you 0.5% on?

Same as above. one day additional evidence may be uncovered, showing
that, while Smith tacitly approved the wording of the 1838 article, that
in reality no such interview ever occurred, and the words were written
by an early Mormon apologist.

And again you're 99.5% certain about Joseph Smith's occult practices, but the final 0.5% doubt you have is based on supposed evidence that there is no indication will ever surface, and based on that 0.5% you conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God? I find your logical thought process inherently flawed and based on wishful thinking.

Why not acknowledge the evidence I've already given you? I've run across this "strategy" before in Mormon apologists, which is to just continually ignore the facts in the hopes the opponent will give up. What about the words of Joseph Smith in the history of Joseph Smith are you discounting? What is your evidence to cast doubt acknowledging the facts presented thus far?

A reasonable investigator holds open the possibility that he/she has not
yet examined all of the possible sources for a historical conclusion.
Examining "the words of Joseph Smith in the history of Joseph Smith" is
not something I do lightly, or in a few moments' time. My method is to
trace the words back in time to their initial writing or publication, and
then to determine the circumstances under which they first appeared.

Again, you're 99.5% certain Joseph Smith was a money digger using seer stones before the Book of Mormon, the pagan book of the dead was used to "translate" the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith translated a known hoax in the Kinderhook plates, yet you still actually believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?

You are known for finding historical articles are you not? If you wish to seek the truth, all you need to look at is FairMormon which is a pro-Mormon website. If you continue to ignore the data and argue against it, it shows your agenda.

I do not have a great deal of trust in pro-Mormon websites. Unless their
presentations can be confirmed with additional evidence/sources, I generally
assume that their arguments may be faulty.

You seem to pick and choose what you find to be historically accurate, even though the conclusions drawn from the facts are based on multiple accounts of actual history. Your arguments wouldn't stand up in any court of law based on reasonable doubt, especially when your own doubt is 99.5% certain Joseph Smith was a fraud, and 0.5% is based on the wishful thinking that new evidence will someday appear.

I agree, because Joseph Smith was a fraud. The use of his stones "for convenience" per Mormon history is absurd. There was no Urim and Thummim. Do you acknowledge this fact?

I doubt very, very much that the biblical urim and thummim were ever carried
from Palestine to the ancient Americas. Thus, I see no reason to believe that
the stones Smith reportedly possessed and used bore any special resemblance
to the historical urim and thummim. I was taught in graduate school that those
items were perhaps two flat objects which were cast like dice, to provide
different possible "yes," "no," or "no answer" responses to priestly questions.

OK, we agree then. There was never an Urim and Thummim. What was the supposed Nephite spectacles were taken back with the lost 116 pages, and Joseph Smith used his seer stones out of a stove-pipe hat behind a curtain to translate the Book of Mormon. Correct?

I have already proven it for you, and your 10% probably is absolute hogwash.

If you wish to make such hostile condemnations and characterizations, I suggest
that you move your discussion to one of the lower forums here.

I apologize.

Based on the data presented, what is it that you're using to conclude there a 90% chance multiple factors to include Mormon history is wrong? Again, are you calling Brandt Gardner and FairMormon liars?

Why add the two together and demand a response from me? Writers may
provide faulty assertions without intending to be sinful or criminal. In the
case of Bro. Gardner, I have never noticed him tell a lie. Have you?

I'm not demanding, I'm asking. Brandt is using historical data that you are claiming you don't trust based on a gut feel. My question is why discount historical fact?

I'm not understanding your point. You are the one claiming they are a "few odd books and articles" and I'm claiming it's Mormon history you're ignoring.

You evidently adhere to different standards for historical reconstructions
and personal assertions than I make use of. Is it OK with you, that some
people see/apply historical sources differently than you do?

Not when the historical sources are based on facts. If you choose to selectively discount facts based on wishful thinking, the argument is also based on facts you selectively reject.

You're "not impressed" with the history of the church... that says a lot of what you intentionally choose to ignore based on you preconceived agenda.

It is generally called the "documentary" history of the church, because it
includes a great many purported reproductions of documents, presented
in more or less chronological order. However, when we compare the various
editions of the text, we can see that it varies in ways small and large, from
the "manuscript history," to the published version in the "Times and Seasons,"
to the expanded versions in the "Deseret News" and the "Millennial Star."

My "preconceived agenda" is to avoid presuming that one of these versions
is always correct, where it varies from the other versions -- or, from, say,
the RLDS "History of the Church" -- which I grew up reading and using.

The facts dictate the truth. There were no video camera back then to view the actual events happen. All we have is the evidence to draw logical conclusions. You ahve concluded that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God based on the evidence, and I have concluded Joseph Smith was a fraud based on all of the evidence... rejecting none of it.

Why are you doing this? The old Mormon apologists' ploy of stating something obvious to imply you've actually made a point? You just said you are "not impressed" by the HISTORY of the church. On what ground are you claiming to make a point here by stating the obvious wrapped up in a non-question?

I am attempting to demonstrate an investigative historical methodology --
a way in which we can examine an assertion, and begin to test it's veracity.

You keep saying the same thing, but failing to acknowledge a multitude of facts in the hopes new evidence pops up really doesn't make sense to me.

You are not making sense. The history of the church is the actual history of the church, even though they attempt to change it. The "Urim and Thummim" was not stated in ANY Mormon history until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon. How can you continue to discount factual data in exchange for your gut feel without any foundation? Please explain to me why you choose to discount facts?

I was trying to show a way in which we could begin to examine assertions
which may be historically inaccurate.

If you have one piece of data, then I can see your logic. In this discussion though, there is no doubt (0.00%) that Joseph Smith used his magical seer stones out of a stove-pipe hat to translate the Book of Mormon, and he owned those exact same seer stones before the Book of Mormon for hire to "see" evil treasure guardians and was paid for his services.

In your counter argument, you only presented another piece of Joseph Smith sending henchmen off to kill a man... one I agree with.

A case can be made for Smith attempting to murder that man -- but I do
not think that the available evidence would be sufficient to convict him in
a court of law. It is compelling, but not absolutely verified and reliable.

If you metric for absolute certainty requires room for the possibility of new evidence, any court of law that accepted this would never reach a decision on anything.

1823 was a long time ago and there weren't video camera rolling. Again, are you claiming that Brandt Gardner is a liar? Why on earth would he make these stories up and them published on FairMormon is they weren't true? Please address the facts presented. Thanks.

I have no reason to call Bro. Gardner a liar -- however I hold open my right
to disagree with his conclusions. If he asserts that some particular conclusion
of his is 100% fact, then I might at least challenge his conclusion, and
present additional evidence to back up my own historical theories.

Can you please do this? By what facts do you conclude Brandt is wrong?

How about acknowledging Brandt Gardner's factual data?

Can you break it down into distinct alleged facts, that I can respond
to one at a time? It will be easier for me to deal with distinct items,
rather than a number of things all put together.

UD, are you attempting to make this so exhaustive I just give up? I have already posted the data in support of my argument and linked its source multiple times. You continue to assert you reject the logical conclusion based on your 0.5% doubt, which is solely based on your wishful thinking that new data comes up. One more time:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Joseph as the village seer

Brant Gardner clarifies the role that Joseph and his stone played within the community of Palmyra,

Young Joseph Smith was a member of a specialized sub-community with ties to these very old and very respected practices, though by the early 1800s they were respected only by a marginalized segment of society. He exhibited a talent parallel to others in similar communities. Even in Palmyra he was not unique. In D. Michael Quinn's words: "Until the Book of Mormon thrust young Smith into prominence, Palmyra's most notable seer was Sally Chase, who used a greenish-colored stone. William Stafford also had a seer stone, and Joshua Stafford had a 'peepstone which looked like white marble and had a hole through the center.'" [9] Richard Bushman adds Chauncy Hart, and an unnamed man in Susquehanna County, both of whom had stones with which they found lost objects. [10] [1]

During his tenure as a "village seer," Joseph acquired several seer stones. Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably that belonging to Palmyra seer Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occurred in about 1819–1820, and he obtained his first seer stone in about 1821–1822.[2]

Joseph then used this first stone to find a second stone (a white one). The second seer stone was reportedly found on the property of William Chase in 1822 as Chase described it:

In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.[3]

Gardner continues,

Joseph Smith, long before golden plates complicated his position as a local seer, appears to have functioned just as Sally Chase did. Quinn reports that: "E. W. Vanderhoof [writing in 1905] remembered that his Dutch grandfather once paid Smith seventy-five cents to look into his 'whitish, glossy, and opaque' stone to locate a stolen mare. The grandfather soon 'recovered his beast, which Joe said was somewhere on the lake shore and [was] about to be run over to Canada.' Vanderhoof groused that 'anybody could have told him that, as it was invariably the way a horse thief would take to dispose of a stolen animal in those days.'"13 While Vanderhoof reported a positive result of the consultation, it is interesting that his statement includes a qualifier that has the same intent as those added by the Saunders' brothers. By the end of the century, one wouldn't want to actually credit a village seer when describing their activities. Nevertheless, it isn't the effectiveness that is important—it is the nature of the consultation. Sally Chase's clients consulted her to find things which were lost, and Joseph Smith had at least one client who did the same. [4]

Martin Harris recounted that Joseph could find lost objects with the second, white stone:

I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him--I said, "Take your stone." I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat--the old white hat--and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.[5]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Money_digging

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

—Joseph's tongue-in-cheek response to one of a list of questions that were asked of him during a visit at Elder Cahoon's home. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 120; History of the Church 3:29; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 271)

is that it? You quote one newspaper article and discount Mormon history to include the words of Joseph Smith? Is that the foundation for your argument?...

I am trying to determine your method for verifying historical information, and
for separating out obvious errors from possibly true information.

I'll present the same set of assertions from an earlier published source, and
ask you to tell me which parts are facts and which parts are not facts.

I can't determine from one arbitrary published source, but I must look at all sources and see if the match. When you cite a published source like the Time and Season, it carries more weight than a newspaper, because that is Mormon history.




In the article above, I fail to understand your point. Are you claiming that if one published source prints something differently than 10 facts would dictate from multiple sources it's viable? I would conclude that if the one source failed to match the 10 other sources, then that source is not viable.

[_thews]

This thread was derailed without answering the topic of the OP... anyone want to explain it to me? In a nutshell, Christian theology rejects Mormon theology... this is a fact. If Mormons are Christians then Christians are Mormons, or they are interchangeably the same.

Question: Are Mormons who define their beliefs as "Christian" being deceptive?

[_thews]

Note how this says that no one can possibly be saved and reject the Book of Mormon. If this is true, then every Christian who rejects Mormon doctrine is damned.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 3mN40%253D