Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger (and Marg if she wants),

You keep repeating the eyewitness testimony is unreliable because they were biased and had a vested interest as if that’s enough to dismiss them and substitute your speculations. You never responded to my defense of the witnesses, so I’m reposting it here for a third time. There is much more, but if I can’t get you to respond to this simple list there’s no need to go further. Since so much rests on your rejection of the witnesses, I suggest we hash this out before we even think about entertaining your speculations.

Historians don’t evaluate testimony like a polemicist does. There are no disinterested witnesses where Mormonism is concerned. Spalding witnesses aren’t objective either. Historians don’t just throw out interested testimony, but they are skeptical and proceed with caution. So, how can we test these witnesses?

Multiple witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Michael Morse (non-Mormon), Isaac Hale (non-Mormon), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Knight Sr.

Consistent story. Variety in minor details, but consistent in the main elements.

Independent testimony. Witnesses gave their testimonies in a variety of settings without collusion with one another.

Consistent over time. Essential elements remained the same from 1829 to 1880s.

Uncontroverted testimony. Any one of the named witnesses could have changed their testimony during their lifetimes, but they didn’t. Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris were excommunicated in 1838. Other witnesses to the translation who never gave a statement could have come forward at any time to contradict published accounts, but that never happened either.

Incidental witnesses. Cowdery, Harris, and Emma were scribes, but the others were incidental witnesses who happened to be present on various occasions.

Supported by physical evidence (MS consistent with dictation).

Supported by incidental event (losing 116-pages MS).

[Note that the testimony about the head in hat goes back before Spalding claims were made.]

In this discussion, you need to be clear that speculation can’t be used against them. It has to be evidentiary. Bias is not evidence of lying or conspiracy, and bias is mitigated by corroboration of other witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly. This discussion should not attempt ad hoc speculation of conspiracy to negate testimony like Cowdery, Harris, or Whitmer can’t be believed because they are conspirators, and the non-Mormons only observed a temporary show—thus creating an unfalsifiable position. The above list attempts to show how bias can be mitigated through corroborating testimony given by other witnesses in different settings and times. The testimony is too commonplace and supported to be dismissed out-of-hand by “biased, interested”. Caution is in order, which can be overcome, but outright dismissal is silly.

Louis Gottschalk’s Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method speaks to this:

The historian, however, is prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge, and jury all in one. But as judge he rules out no evidence whatever if it is relevant. To him any single detail of testimony is credible—even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness—provided it can pass four tests:

1. Was the ultimate source of the detail (the primary witness able to tell the truth?
2. Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?
3. Is the primary witness accurately reported with regard to the detail under examination?
4. Is there any independent corroboration of the detail under examination?

Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author) that passes all four tests is credible historical evidence. … (p. 150).

The ability to tell the truth “rests in part upon the witness’s nearness to the event.” Other factors are competence, time lapse, etc.

The willingness to tell the truth can be affected by interest and bias, which “requires the exercise of caution” but doesn’t justify summary dismissal—or there would be little usable sources. Gottschalk says the historian “must continue to bear in mind that even the worst witness may occasionally tell the truth and that it is the historian’s business to extract every iota of relevant truth, if he can” (p. 160). Each element of a statement is weighed, not the whole statement—judiciously, not polemically.

Bias and interest can be mitigated through independent corroboration and the presence of other conditions favorable to credibility. One such condition is that the things testified to “are so well-known, so much matters of common knowledge, that the witness would be unlikely to be mistaken or to lie about them,” as well as “the absence of contradictory evidence in other sources may frequently be taken to be confirmation” (p. 162).

So, since most of your ad hoc speculations fly in the face of more established evidence, you need to tell us why your speculations should be preferred over the testimony of eyewitnesses.

[_Uncle Dale]

...The trick he attempted to pull over on Arad Stowell would logically seem like a memorization trick that did not fool Stowell.
...

Perhaps. The successful con man always manages to stay one step
ahead of his "marks," in terms of purposes, goals, knowledge, and
an overview of the current situation. His proffered counsel or advice
thus appears to be based upon extraordinary wisdom, supernatural
powers, or "inside trader information" not subject to much doubt.

Quick memorization of complex texts, inter-related facts, social
interactions/relationship, etc., could certainly assist the successful
con man, in pulling off his frauds.

Even the most ardent denier of Smith's role in producing the Nephite
narrative, must agree that SOMEBODY with a good memory must
be credited for interweaving all of the complexities found in the book.

Joseph Smith once challenged William McClellan to the task of
composing a D&C-style "revelation" on-the-fly at Kirtland. The
hopeful apostle was unable to produce a verbal document that
matched the supposed Divine character of a Joe Smith "revelation."

I deduce that in the case of several of his "revelations," forethought
and literary composition preceded the verbal delivery of the message.
Probably this, in and of itself, is evidence of a mental capacity to
sort out and pre-arrange the elements of a "revelation" in advance.
The text of the LDS D&C polygamy "revelation" strikes me as being
an example of just such a pre-composed text. If Smith truly did
dictate its entire contents to a scribe -- at one sitting, and without
major corrections -- then I'd count that act as an example of good
memorization.

It was precisely THAT "revelation" that Smith is recorded to HAVE
memorized -- a feat that I trust nobody contributing to the current
discussion here could easily duplicate.

UD

[_marg]

Roger wrote:
..."The trick he attempted to pull over on Arad Stowell would logically seem like a memorization trick that did not fool Stowell."



What trick is that? I seem to remember very vaguely (so I'm not sure if it's an actual memory), Smith putting on a dictation show at some local drinking establishment..is that what you are referring to?

To dictate on a temporary basis, would not require dictation of the actual Book of Mormon. A temporary dictation could easily be winged..throw in some "and it came to passes" and a bit of a storyline with some of the names..even dictate from memory what has previously been dictated from manuscript. That doesn't mean that dictation show (absent other source material), ever makes it into the Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

You never responded to my defense of the witnesses, so I’m reposting it here for a third time. There is much more, but if I can’t get you to respond to this simple list there’s no need to go further.

I'm picking up a book today on historical methodology..since Alex Fisher's critical thinking book on evaluating source evidence wasn't good enough for you. I go away for about 4 days, during which time I can read it and then respond.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Sometimes I wonder if you truly don't get my point or if you are purposely twisting it. You were telling me the blanket was to stop curiosity seekers. In response I am asking a legitimate question: stop them from what? Publicity for the Book of Mormon was DESIRED after the book was published and missionaries were sent out TO GENERATE curiosity and PROMOTE the book and hopefully generate enough revenue to cover printing costs. I am asking why is there such a need to put a blanket up during the alleged translation? What is a blanket going to do? It is so patently obvious what a blanket does in this case, I can't believe we're even disagreeing on this. … How much more obvious does this have to be? The purpose of the blanket is clearly stated as sheltering "the translators and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house." This is self explanatory. Why does anything need sheltering from the public eye?

You are trying to make an argument that isn’t there. The blanket has nothing to do with the observations of the Whitmer family. David Whitmer made that clear. So stop trying to invent arguments that prove nothing and waste our time.

You say that Joseph Smith had the natural ability to put his head in a hat, close his eyes and rattle off sentence after sentence of meaningful narrative for hours on end! And I say if Joseph had that kind/level of ability, why on earth keep that ability (that YOUR THEORY says he has!) from the public eye? Why not promote it to the world? If Smith can do what you say he can with Whitmers and Smiths coming in and out and moving about freely, and reporting no manuscripts and the plates are out in the woods somewhere, what need is there to use a blanket? Answer: there should be none! On the contrary, Smith's ability should be laid before the public so hundreds could have testified to seeing what your small cadre of biased witnesses claim to have seen.

This small group of witnesses becomes quite large when you turn them into coconspirators with innuendo. Your questions are quite inane and meaningless. Understandably, Joseph Smith is wary of outsiders scoffing at him and eventually driving him from the area. Fayette was his third and probably last chance to finish the translation without persecution. Regardless, it doesn’t matter why a curtain was hung. What matters is that the curtain didn’t prevent the Whitmers from viewing the translation.

Instead, all we have is their word juxtaposed against an admission of a blanket in an apparent moment of candor--or more likely, given with the realization that outside observers had taken note of the blanket and were using it against the authenticity of the work just like I am doing now. In that case Whitmer isn't objectively reporting potentially damaging information, instead he's responding to it and attempting to minimize it exactly like you are doing now.

Regardless, the question you are faced with is why would anything need to be concealed from the public if Smith can do what you think he can do? The answers you have given so far are not satisfactory.

Stop the speculating! You have worn it out to the point that no rational person can take you seriously. You are deluding yourself if you think any of this makes sense. I’m not sure what “satisfactory” would mean to someone playing so fast and loose with arguments and evidence and holds an unfalsifiable position.

The rest of the statement is so hopelessly contradictory it can't be reliable:

“This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides.”

You realize, of course, how incorrect this has to be?! The plates weren't even supposed to be in the same room. And yet here we have Witmer claiming they were right there in public view of everyone in the room and the blanket was not meant to conceal them! Which, of course, you blame on the reporter for allegedly mishearing what Whitmer surely must have said. Well someone really messed that up. Either Whitmer really made a serious mistake or the reporter really messed it up.

Now you have to think historically, or take a source-critical approach—and not throw out the source because of some imperfections. (Remember my previous discussion of Gottschalk.) Reporters, not being familiar with the nuances of early Mormon history, are liable to make mistakes. It’s really a quite understandable mistake or assumption to make, especially if he knew about the “stones in two rims of a bow”, or magic spectacles, and didn’t hear the story about the hat. After interviewing Whitmer, the reporter has to put his notes into readable form adds explanatory elements so readers have foundation to understand Whitmer’s statements. So the mention of the plates is an obvious mistake by the reporter, because we have other more reliable statements where Whitmer has made it clear that the plates were not present. This is what historians do with sources all the time.

But that error falls in a key location, because if the plates were actually there, then a blanket makes sense (in a convoluted way, that is, because it is simply irrational on its face to claim that God would have to keep metal plates from public view in the first place! That's just a silly claim to begin with and is obviously used to justify not having authentic plates to begin with, but that's a side issue.) So either Whitmer or the reporter majorly screws up, and it's interesting that your first inclination is to simply blame it on the reporter. You could be wrong on that score, and probably are.

This is not what historians do with sources. Rather than parsing out the various elements, and judiciously weighing them against other Whitmer statements, you get so easily blown off track by your own obsessive speculations.

But in any event, since we can at least agree that no plates were actually sitting there for all to see, again I ask, what reason is there for a blanket? And again, I point out that your answer so far has not been satisfactory. Here's what you said:

“So the work wouldn’t be disturbed. Nothing sinister.”

And you come up with this based on blind acceptance of an unreliable witness in an article from a reporter you think mixed up his facts. But the account you base it on is hopelessly flawed.

If this is true, then why are you using the blanket part of the statement, which you labeled as “in an apparent moment of candor” or perhaps a response to rumors? Just because you get all confused by a spurious element, doesn’t mean I should also. You don’t give my confidence that you can handle the vast amount of historical sources one has to deal with or the training to reasonably interpret them.

Not only is the statement, as given, indefensible:

“and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis.”

...but your intended use of it also contradicts the previous assertion that:

“In order to give privacy to the proceedings a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress.”

There are serious problems here. You want the plates to be out in the woods because you know that's what the claim was. So you want the reporter to have messed that part up. But the reporter is actually making a very careful distinction here that demands the plates be in the room(!).... he's saying the purpose of the blanket was "to shelter the translators and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house" but then he's qualifying that by saying that the blanket was NOT used to shelter the plates or the translator from the scribe! Oops!

Why belabor this point? It’s quite simple. The reporter has obviously inserted the plates into the account incorrectly, and the reporter’s assumption about the plates was also incorrectly used as a reason for the blanket. Regardless, the blanket wasn’t used to separate Joseph Smith from the three scribes or the Whitmer family.

In fact, I can imagine Whitmer coming up with a statement just like this in response to the likely charge from the reporter that the blanket was obviously used to conceal the plates and translator from the view of anyone! Like me, the reporter is likely skeptical of this blanket thing and was confronting Whitmer on it with the charge that the blanket was used to conceal something (sinister) from the public. I can hear Whitmer respond: "No. No. It was only meant "to shelter the translator and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house" but we all saw the whole thing and moved freely in and out, so, just like Dan Vogel will do a century and a half from now, you should just take my word on that."

So this quotation does not help your cause and in fact works against your thesis that nothing sinister needed to be covered up. Like I said, Whitmer spells it out for you, Dan. Something needed to be sheltered "from the eye of any who might call at the house."

“I can imagine”—no you can’t. What you imagine is tainted by your own bias. Spalding advocates were incorrectly assuming and asserting that Joseph Smith dictated from behind a curtain the entire Book of Mormon. They got this idea from Anthon’s letter to E. D. Howe, 17 Feb. 1834, which says:

This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. –-Mormonism Unvailed, 270-71).

Anthon, however, mentions that he was shown only characters and no translation. At the time Harris visited Anthon in 1828, formal translation had apparently not yet begun, at least, not with Harris as scribe. That would not happen until Harris returned to act as scribe from 12 April to about 14 June 1828. Nevertheless, the early stages of translating may have followed the method Anthon described, but very soon switched to the head in hat. The switch probably had something to do with the fact that he wasn’t doing anything behind the curtain that he couldn’t do in front of witnesses. The effect was much more convincing with head in hat, and it limited counter-explanations. There were always counter-theories for how Joseph Smith was doing it. Harris mentioned that he switched the stone to stop the mouths of fools who suggested that he was merely repeating what he had memorized. Even before the Spalding theory, dictating from behind a curtain invited theories that he was reading from his own MS. Remember the quote from the Rochester paper showed how in 1831 Harris was describing the head in the hat. This was long before Howe published Anthon’s statement and Spalding advocates were claiming their MS was being read from behind the curtain. There are a lot of pieces of information that must be put together to create a cogent reconstruction of events with the fewest ad hoc speculations as possible.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
To dictate on a temporary basis, would not require dictation of the actual Book of Mormon.
...

I think this is an important point, and should not be overlooked. There are
instances in early Mormon history in which onlookers may have THOUGHT
that they witnessed ongoing "translation" of Nephite characters -- when,
in actual fact, they were only observing a showy pretense of that activity.

Take, for example, William Riley Hine's recollection:

"I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger's Tavern,
in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith sit
by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat
and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it
down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain
between them."


Badger's Tavern

Either Oliver Cowdery was then knowingly participating in a con man's
scam, or he believed that Smith was producing English text that actually
made it into the Book of Mormon. Although I cannot prove otherwise, I
find it highly unlikely that the "translating" session reported by Mr. Hine
was actually part of the process that produced text published in 1830.

UD

[_Roger]

The first thing to jump out is that I must be hitting a nerve. Me thinks Dan doth protest a little too much:

Regardless, the question you are faced with is why would anything need to be concealed from the public if Smith can do what you think he can do? The answers you have given so far are not satisfactory.

Stop the speculating! You have worn it out to the point that no rational person can take you seriously. You are deluding yourself if you think any of this makes sense. I’m not sure what “satisfactory” would mean to someone playing so fast and loose with arguments and evidence and holds an unfalsifiable position.

Satisfactory obviously means more than the lame response:

So the work wouldn’t be disturbed. Nothing sinister.

Even Whitmer admits to more than that!

Second....

In this discussion, you need to be clear that speculation can’t be used against them. It has to be evidentiary. Bias is not evidence of lying or conspiracy, and bias is mitigated by corroboration of other witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly. This discussion should not attempt ad hoc speculation of conspiracy to negate testimony like Cowdery, Harris, or Whitmer can’t be believed because they are conspirators, and the non-Mormons only observed a temporary show—thus creating an unfalsifiable position. The above list attempts to show how bias can be mitigated through corroborating testimony given by other witnesses in different settings and times. The testimony is too commonplace and supported to be dismissed out-of-hand by “biased, interested”. Caution is in order, which can be overcome, but outright dismissal is silly.

In this discussion, Dan, you need to be clear that speculation can't be used against the Conneaut and Amity witnesses (so group false memory syndrome is out.) It has to be evidentiary. Bias is not evidence of lying or conspiracy (or group bad memories), and bias is mitigated by corroboration of other witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly. In fact, applying the standards you've listed, I can't see any reason to reject their testimonies without imposing an ad hoc response (group false memory syndrome) to adverse evidence. Can you?

But when it comes to the Book of Mormon witnesses it's another story.... so let's compare....

Multiple witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Michael Morse (non-Mormon), Isaac Hale (non-Mormon), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Knight Sr.

Dale has a list of roughly 25+ S/R witnesses many of whom did not know each other or had never met. Of your list above, all of them knew each other and many were related to one another. It goes without saying that all of the Mormons were devoted to Joseph Smith. NONE of the non-Mormons believed Joseph could see anything in his stone and therefore THEY ONLY CORROBORATE a man putting his head in a hat and pretending to see things in a magic rock. No one disputes that much. So no one disputes what the skeptics corroborate.

Consistent story. Variety in minor details, but consistent in the main elements.

The consistent elements are either what we agree never happened or what no one disputes. Outside witnesses do not corroborate words appearing in a stone. Outside witnesses to not corroborate Smith dictating for hours on end. Outside witnesses were not taking notes to verify that what little they were exposed to actually ended up in the Book of Mormon. In fact none of them says, why yes! I was there when Moroni 1 was dictated!

However applying this standard to the S/R witnesses passes muster. In fact their statements are so consistent, Brodie sees that as evidence of Hurlbut's alleged judicial prompting! How Hurlbut influenced later witnesses, however, is not clear.

Independent testimony. Witnesses gave their testimonies in a variety of settings without collusion with one another.

And you had to write an essay explaining the inconsistencies, essentially blaming it on the reporters! Not only that, but it doesn't matter much that the same limited witnesses kept bearing their testimonies in a variety of settings. What is striking is that those same witnesses couldn't always keep their stories straight.

But this standard is a strong suit for the S/R witnesses as I've already pointed out. With S/R we have non-related non-solicited witnesses continuing to come out of the woodwork years down the road and corroborating the earlier testimonies!

Consistent over time. Essential elements remained the same from 1829 to 1880s.

What essential elements? That Smith put his head in a hat? No one disputes that. That words appeared in a stone? You and I agree that never happened. What other essential elements can we agree on? For hours on end? No. That what they heard definitely ended up in the final version? No. That a Bible was used? No. That Cowdery knew more than he was saying? No. Essential elements demonstrate nothing in the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses.

Not so with the S/R witnesses. Some consistent essential elements include: Spalding wrote a ms with names identical to some Book of Mormon names. He wrote it in "the old scriptural style." He had many manuscripts. His narrative was not as religious as the Book of Mormon.

Uncontroverted testimony. Any one of the named witnesses could have changed their testimony during their lifetimes, but they didn’t. Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris were excommunicated in 1838. Other witnesses to the translation who never gave a statement could have come forward at any time to contradict published accounts, but that never happened either.

In the first place, there's no incentive to change their testimony. Doing so reveals them to have been dishonest. In the second place there are second hand accounts that they did in fact know more than they let on (which if allowed amounts to changing their testimony)--which you don't accept. In the third place, if I am right about their mindset, they could have rationalized their testimonies into reality and never had to deny it, exactly like modern Mormons know the Book of Mormon is true.

But most importantly, their later testimonies contradict their earlier ones. You had to write an essay explaining this. THIS NEVER HAPPENS with the S/R witnesses. No one has to write an essay explaining why later reports from the same witnesses contradict earlier ones.

Incidental witnesses. Cowdery, Harris, and Emma were scribes, but the others were incidental witnesses who happened to be present on various occasions.

All of the S/R witnesses were incidental. NONE of them suspected anything out of the ordinary was happening for which decades later their testimonies would become an integral part. Not so for the Book of Mormon witnesses! They knew from the beginning that their testimonies would be central and they all understood the potential impact of what they were doing and actively promoted it. That in itself is a world of difference!

Supported by physical evidence (MS consistent with dictation).

Only in places! The KJV sections are not consistent with dictation.

The S/R witnesses are strongly supported by physical evidence. The discovery narratives did not even exist when they gave their testimonies, but they strongly support their allegations.

Supported by incidental event (losing 116-pages MS).

The "essential elements" of the Book of Mormon witness testimony ARE NOT supported by the 116 page loss! To the contrary, they are diminished by it! They claim words appeared in a stone that came from God. If that essential element is correct, then God could have produced exactly the same words! I've already shown that the 116 page loss actually works against the essential element of your theory that Joseph could simply place his head in a hat and rattle off coherent narrative for hours on end. If he could do that, then why wait months to get back to work? You said he was apparently hoping the old manuscript would turn up. For months??!! When all he has to do is claim evil men will change the ms and then just start another story? --which is exactly what he eventually did! It took him months to figure that out??

But if Smith was adding his own content to a supplied ms then he's in a real predicament with the loss of 116 pages. And that's exactly the kind of predicament he seems to have been in.

Applying even your own standards vindicates the S/R witnesses and impeaches your own. You can only make it work by doing the following:

1. You simply take the word of highly biased, interested, devoted, religious followers, without warrant, ignoring the glaring fact that it is a given that at best we're not going to get the full story from them and at worst they are going to lie to defend/protect the cause they are highly devoted to.

2. You must come up with an ad hoc response to the consistency of the S/R witnesses--group false memory syndrome induced by Hulrbut's alleged judicial prompting--which ignores the fact that Hulburt could have no influence on later corroborating witnesses.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
all of the Mormons were devoted to Joseph Smith.
...

It goes far, far beyond that, Roger.

Joseph Smith was essentially their Lord and Savior -- language that Elder
James McKnight used in 1854 to describe a Mormon husband's relationship
to his wives -- but also applicable in Smith's case, to both his wives and
his followers. Smith was their ticket to the Celestial Kingdom -- the one
who would pass judgment over them on the last day -- the one who
bestowed upon them their "endowment" for passage beyond the veil.

And beyond that, there was the element of fear in any Mormon who
contemplated turning against the leadership. Not merely the fear of
damnation to the lake of fire and brimstone -- but the fear of blood
atonement enacted upon any apostate who dared to oppose the LDS
leadership. I already supplied two or three quotations from Tiffin
sources, regarding Cowdery's fear of assassination. Similar evidence
could be quoted in the case of George Robinson, Rigdon's son-in-law,
as well as other early Mormons who left the Church. We need only
look at the case of the Morrisites, to see what fate awaited apostate
Mormons whose actions threatened the topmost leadership.

Rather than thinking of benign "devotion," I'd suggest you look into
the mindset of the Jeff Lundgren cult at Kirtland, or the LaBarron
cult of the "Firstborn in the Fulness of Times" in Utah.

It does not matter whether or not Joseph and Brigham actually put
blood atonement of apostates into practice -- what matters is the
cult-like mindset that combines mortal fear and immortal awe.

Keep that in mind, as you ponder the words and actions of the apostate
LDS witnesses, such as Hiram Page and his relatives.

UD

[_Roger]

marg:

What trick is that? I seem to remember very vaguely (so I'm not sure if it's an actual memory), Smith putting on a dictation show at some local drinking establishment..is that what you are referring to?

That's what Dale posted about. Here's what I am referring to:

Arad Stowel sworn. Says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill that he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book open upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent; hold the stone to the candle, turn his back to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable, that [Stowell] went off disgusted."

http://richkelsey.org/1826_trial_testimonies.htm

This occurred at the 1826 preliminary hearing.

Something I had never noticed before is the white cloth/handkerchief in both stories. Don't know if it has significance but it just jumped out at me for some reason.

[_Roger]

Dale:

It does not matter whether or not Joseph and Brigham actually put
blood atonement of apostates into practice -- what matters is the
cult-like mindset that combines mortal fear and immortal awe.

Keep that in mind, as you ponder the words and actions of the apostate
LDS witnesses, such as Hiram Page and his relatives.

Yes, you are undoubtedly correct on that. I probably do underestimate the power Smith had over his followers and "highly devoted" probably does fail to capture that intensity. I do not know how to state it more succinctly, however. Language has limits.