With the June 2013 New Era article “Balancing Church History” in mind, heeding the advice of Church Historian Steven Snow to examine Mormon Church history in context, I offer this new video by award-winning author Dan Vogel. The video provides a good, contextual study of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the gold plates.
Occult Context of Joseph Smith’s 1823 Discovery of Gold Plates by Dan Vogel
OOps, the link would be nice……
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithboastingandpolygamydenial.htm
Mistaken Testimony
Thanks for putting me right & yes you are pretty good. I have to bow to your superior knowledge & it looks like I have a fair amount of grovelling to do. I was wondering though, would you take 10% of my pension instead of me having to get down on my knees, it’s hard for me to get up once I’m down there.
Please don’t apologise for anything my friend, you certainly weren’t being difficult & I’m used to being poked with a stick, well a broomstick actually, after all, I was married for many years.
I’ll just explain why I came in here tonight. It was because I was angry, angry because of the wilful deception I saw when reading the response to Jaxi’s comments. I absolutely abhor deception & like Rick, I tend to be forceful when confronted with it. I don’t mean or want to insult anyone but I do speak the truth & if Mormon apologists would only be honest I wouldn’t speak to them in that way.
Rick
I still have your address & hopefully I’ll be in touch with you soon. There are a few things I would like to explain to you.
Everyone
Keep up the good work; hearts & minds are being won thanks to this site.
FoF said
I’m guessing you dont read the Bible do you? God has always had a remnant upon the earth. When God flooded the earth He had Noah. When Isiah was complaining, Only I am left, God said there are another 7000. Read also the BoM, supposedly the apostle John and 3 of his friends were to remain alive until Christ returns. So if that is true, a total apostasy is false. If those guys Did not live as the BoM claims, then it is a fraud.
Our Mormon critic states : ” Christ did’nt fail to establish His church . Mortal men failed to
live up to His teachings and follow Him . And this is nothing new. ”
This appears to be his way of reminding us that there was a complete/universal apostasy from
the Christian religion , that Christianity sicked and died off soon after the death of the last of
Jesus’ apostles , their salvation message was then altered and thus salvation was unavailable
for 1700 years until Joseph Smith arrived on the scene. This is the message of Mormonism .
Our Mormon critic points his finger at some here and accuses them of making what he calls
” unwarranted assumptions “. Yet his comment above , when compared to what the Bible
records, is no better . Jesus did indeed establish His church , His gospel was preached far and
wide —Col 1:23 ; Rom 1:16 . People accepted that gospel and as a result they were forgiven ,
reconciled to God , and entered into a personal relationship with their risen Savior . They could
look forward to living with God in His heaven with the fullest of blessings therein. Unfortunately
many failed to live up to His teachings and follow Him , but not all succumbed to this failure.
The New Testament does not teach the Mormon theory of a universal apostasy . It’s a product
from the minds of Mormons who had to come up with a selling point to try and convince the
public to embrace their new church and it’s prophet . But verses like Matt 18:20 convey a truth
that speaks to the fact of what believers in Jesus down through history have experienced . There has always been true followers of Jesus Christ ever since they heard Him and His apostles teach .
Down through history where ever they have gathered in His name , even if only a few in number,
He has not left them alone . That ‘s a promise that His followers have found great comfort in for
2000 years now .
Grindael,
Vogel’s theory is that Joseph Smith altered his story about the angel Moroni over time and “stripped out elements [of that story] tied to his occupation as a treasure seeker.” In essence, he is arguing that the whole thing was a treasure seeking experience steeped in folk magic. To generate this theory, he dismisses those accounts and statements that are closest to the events, instead accepting as most reliable those who were hostile to Joseph Smith. Many of those used as primary references were those who mobilized the villagers of Palmyra to campaign against the Book of Mormon from day one, lobbying E. Grandin to not publish the book. One of the main contributors to this theory connecting Moroni and the plates to folk magic was Abner Cole. He was the publisher of the tabloid of the town, the Palmyra Reflector. He stole copyrighted excerpts from the Book of Mormon and included them in his paper to increase sales. He was not exactly a trustworthy source of information about Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Yet, the theory maintained by those seeking to revise this history has his account as the backbone.
It is worth noting that according to the account from Oliver Cowdery in 1834, the angel Moroni warned Joseph that “when it is known that the Lord has shown you these things, …they will circulate falsehoods to destroy your reputation.” Joseph’s brother William Smith stated that as soon as Joseph had received the plates, rumors prophesied by Moroni began to proliferate.
But as you have request a review of the sources of Vogel, here they are:
Joseph Smith Jr.- Joseph was the only first-hand witness of the angel Moroni on that evening. All extant writings of Joseph describe Moroni as an angel and are consistent in his descriptions. Joseph tells of his work with Josiah Stowell looking for buried treasure in 1826. But outside of that, he does not speak of further treasure seeking or anything of that nature, including on the night of Moroni’s visit. Joseph states in multiple places that he attempted to retrieve the plates from the stone box that first night and was prevent by the angel.
Lucy Smith- She was as close to the events as anybody besides Joseph. Her testimony agrees with that written by Joseph in 1832, 1834, and 1838. She maintains that on the night of Moroni’s first appearance, the family, including Joseph had stayed up late discussing the many different interpretations of the scriptures and the thousands of opinions in the religious world. She maintains that Joseph told the family the following day about the angel Moroni appearing three times in the night and once in the morning. He told them about the plates on the hill and the record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. She states that Joseph tended “to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious nature.” The only thing she says that
Vogel and others try to connect to folk magic is that Joseph laid the plates down behind him, replaced the stone, turned around and noted that the plates were missing. He removed the stone and found the plates again in the stone box. What is somewhat misleading in Vogel’s presentation is that Lucy supposedly says this about the first time Joseph sees the plates. But her claim about the plates disappearing momentarily actually is her claim about Joseph’s 1824 visit with Moroni, a year after the initial encounter. I think this is misleading. In response to Joseph’s telling his family of the events of the 1823 visit from Moroni, Lucy instructs Joseph “not to fail to follow the instructions he is given from the angel.” Vogel somehow interprets this as “catching the folk magic background.” Supposedly, treasure guardians insist on strict obedience. But this is pure conjecture and speculation. Does Vogel not think that angels from God expect strict obedience to instructions? This jump in logic is typical of Vogel’s analysis. Lucy really gives no details of the story that would suggest anything related to folk magic despite Vogel’s suggestion.
Vogel claims that the earliest documented accounts refer to the messenger as a spirit and tries to suggest that the descriptions are that of a treasure guardian, with possibly an evil nature. Some of the earliest reports of Joseph’s encounter with Moroni were published newspaper articles. In 1829, an article appeared in the Palmyra Freeman wherein Moroni is referred to as “the Spirit of the Almighty.” The Testimony of the Three and Eight Witness were written in 1829 and clearly refer to Moroni as an angel from God. In 1829, Joseph’s uncle Jesse Smith responded to a letter he had received from Joseph in 1828 describing these events. In the letter, Jesse refers back to Joseph’s letter in ridicule and states that “he writes that the Angel of the Lord has revealed to him the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even divine revelation, which has lain in the bowels of the earth for thousands of years…” Jesse mocks Joseph and suggests that angel was the devil.
All the accounts and references to Moroni before 1830 refer to him as an angel of God. The alternative accounts of him being a treasure guardian or something else all occur after 1830. Abner Cole first described Moroni as a treasure guardian in 1830. Coles account, like all others who maintain a folk magic nature of the events, is at least third hand (supposedly told by Joseph Smith Sr. about the angel being a short old man with a long beard). He created a parody of the Book of Mormon entitled “the Book of Pukei.” Vogel mentions Fayette Lapham as a witness of the treasure guardian idea, but doesn’t mention that that testimony was given in 1870, almost 50 years after the fact. He also refers to Joseph and Hiel Lewis as corroborators of this theory, but they gave their stories in 1879.
Philastus Hurlbut, who had been excommunicated from the church for inappropriate relations with somebody other than his wife and who told several people that he intended to bring down the church, collected statements from people in 1833. He had been brought before a judge for threatening to kill Joseph Smith Jr. He had lost a lawsuit in which Joseph Smith Jr.’s testimony played a crucial role. One of those statements collected by Hurlbut was from Willard Chase. Joseph Smith Sr. supposedly told Willard Chase about all the events with Moroni and the plates, making this another third-hand account from a person hostile to Joseph.
It should be noted that other critics of the church, including Fawn Brodie and the Tanners, dismiss the Hurlbut affidavits as it relates to the Spaulding theory of the Book of Mormon. But they conveniently accept the affidavits reference to the Smith family low character. These other critics conclude that Hurlbut “prompted” the witnesses.
John A Clarke is used in the video as a witness that Joseph had been on a treasure hunt the night Moroni appeared. Clarke was supposedly told this by Joseph Smith Sr., making this a third hand account (Clarke was a minister of another church in town).
Reference is made to a Rochester, NY newspaper article from 1829 wherein citizens of that town had heard through Martin Harris that Joseph had been visited by the Spirit of the Almighty in a dream three times. This is no better than a fourth hand account with unidentified “citizens” as some of the transmitters of this information.
A similar article in the Painesville Telegraph from 1830 is referenced wherein it is reported that a “new gospel they say was found in Ontario County, NY and was discovered by an angel of light, appearing to a man by the name of Smith.” This was a report from “citizens” who had been told about the events. This, again, is no better than fourth-hand account.
Orrin Rockwell is quoted as stating that his mother had met with Lucy Smith and together they discussed treasure hunting and associated activities. This is at least three times removed from the events.
And it just goes on and on. The case is so ridiculous for a folk magic context for the angel Moroni. It requires one to ignore those closest to the events and give the greatest weight to those who were hostile toward Joseph. Orlando Saunders, Joseph’s neighbor simply stated, “Joseph always said the messenger was an angel.”
The critics love to talk about how members lose faith when the study the history of these events. It is hard to believe that any of these folks actually “study” the history. Rather, they are taking the word of somebody else who has done no more true study than they. That includes the people here. Despite this tedious response to grindael’s request, I imagine the critics here won’t even comment on this. They will move on and dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
“The critics love to talk about how members lose faith when the study the history of these events. It is hard to believe that any of these folks actually “study” the history. Rather, they are tbyaking the word of somebody else who has done no more true study than they.”
Here’s a shocker, I had never heard of Dan Vogel until Sharon posted this. I have already told you that I studied out of the LDS church’s own publications for an entire year. Anyone can see that Mormonism is not Jesus church just from that alone. Even more damaging to my Mormon faith was the NT. Mormonism cannot be found there. In fact, Jesus Himself contradicts Joseph Smith. Falcon is right on the money when he says The Bible is the biggest aunt tye Mormon book.
Have you ever studied Mark Hoffman and the Salamander letter? Your church was buying up forged documents of historical facts that they wanted buried. One subject was this toad that Joseph said came out and hit him on the head. Read the police statements. Interesting stuff. Your leaders outright lied and I believe from the evidence that one of the reasons Mark Hoffman got a fantastic plea deal instead of being tried for murder is because Gordon Hinckley did not want to testify.
You follow a religion who’s founder and his family were into the occult. Please explain the inverted Pentagram on the Salt Lake Temple. No true follower of Jesus would ever use such a symbol.
From Wikipedia,
“Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name “Moroni” through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[6] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Union of the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to the hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.”
Interesting theory.
Kate,
“Anyone can see that Mormonism isn’t Jesus church just from [LDS church publications] alone. I know about a thousand people personally who would disagree entirely.
Ah- the statements about Joseph and the toad. This is alluded to in Vogel’s video. Please show us the data connection Joseph to the toad. Please- let’s see the statements from Joseph.
I provide a long and detailed summary and analysis of the video from Vogel that Sharon posted. You rebuttal is “you follow a religion who’s founder and his family were into the occult.” That is called a wave of the hand, as I predicted.
The inverted star on the outside of temples- what did those symbols mean to the saints is the important question. Some Christian groups have associated the star with the five wounds of Jesus. The Latter-day Saints attach a different meaning.
These symbolic images can be matched up with information provided in the Joseph Smith Translation of the 12th chapter of the book of Revelation. There it is said of a vision that was shown to the ancient apostle John, “And there appeared a great sign in heaven, in the likeness of things on the earth; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” (vs. 1). Thus, the moon is placed at the bottom, the sun in the middle, and the stars on top. In verse 7 of the same chapter the Prophet clarifies that “the woman . . . was the church of God.”
Wandle Mace—the foreman for all of the framework done on the Nauvoo Temple—left behind a statement that makes a clear connection between the visions of John the Revelator and Joseph Smith. He said, “The order of architecture [on the Nauvoo Temple] was unlike anything in existence; it was purely original; being a representation of the Church, the Bride, the Lamb’s wife. John the Revelator, in the 12[th] chapter [and] first verse of [the book of Revelation] says, ‘And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.’ This is portrayed in the beautifully cut stone of this grand temple.”
Thus, the symbols on the outside of the Nauvoo Temple are a representation of the Church of God. And since the symbols are displayed in a heavenly setting they can naturally be associated with the Lord’s heavenly Church, or what is sometimes referred to as The Church of the Firstborn.
As I have claimed before, the arguments from the critics all rely upon limiting information.
Kate,
Moroni on the Comoros Islands was a very small village in the 19th century. It did not even become the capital until after Joseph’s death.
An examination of the common maps and geographic reference books available in the early 19th century (Muculloch’s Universal Gazateer, Morris’ Universal Gazateer, Brookes Gazateer, etc.) does show the Comoro Islands, but there is no reference to Moroni in any of them.
It strains the imagination that a small fishing village off the east coast of Africa was known to Joseph and that the Comoros Islands are the source of the name Cumorah- two obscure names which I am sure nobody on this site has heard of before this thread. But Joseph Smith knew of that village and island in 1820 in upstate New York.
There is no evidence connecting Joseph Smith to Captain Kidd and his tales. There is no link in the contemporary lore of Captain Kidd to Moroni, a small village on the Comoros Islands. The village wasn’t even on the maps of the day.
If you disagree, please explain why.
It is the critics who are desperate.
Fof F the critic said , ” Despite this tedious response to Grindael’s request I imagine the critics
here won’t even comment on this . They will move on and dismiss it with a wave of the hand.”
I don’t know about any hand waving but I am shaking my head at your reasoning . You post a
large amount of information that you got from somewhere and expect us to expend the time
to address it ? Now perhaps some may have the time to address your the point you raised ,
but I do not . Long before I heard of Joseph’s Smith’s involvement in digging for buried
treasure , seer stones, and angels of light appearing to him I had already realized that he was
not someone I could trust to speak God’s truth about important spiritual truths . Why ? Simply
because of the Mormon teachings that all other churches were part of the church of the Devil
for these latter days , and that a universal apostasy from the true gospel of salvation taught by
Jesus’ apostles had occurred . That was the red flag which alerted me that I was looking at just
another false prophet , just like Jesus said would come in these latter days .
So continue being a critic , were all used to such .
FoF said
Did you ever once stop and think about these other things?
1. Joseph Smith read the Bible and knew that it spoke about false teachers, and false prophets in the last days.
2. He knew people would not believe him, so he claimed the angel told him no one would believe him.
Thats seems pretty logical that it would play out that way, we call that a self fullfiling prophecy.
FoF,
Wow, all bent out of shape because I posted a THEORY. It cannot be denied that the name Moroni and the name Comoros are similar to Moroni and comorah. I don’t care to refute any of that, I was just posting a THEORY about treasure digging and names.
“The inverted star on the outside of temples- what did those symbols mean to the saints PoPis the important question. Some Christian groups have associated the star with the five wounds of Jesus. The Latter-day Saints attach a different meaning.”
Wrong. Some Christian groups associated the PENTAGRAM with the five wounds of Jesus. The INVERTED pentagram means something completely different.
Don’t you find it interesting that the symbols of Free Masonry are plastered all over the Salt Lake Temple? Even the beehive is from Free Masonry. This is truly where those symbols come from. Attach any meaning you want to it but anyone who has looked into Joseph Smith and Free Masonry can easily connect the dots. Moon stones, Sun stones, all seeing eye, the compass and the square, ritualistic hand grips, garments, oaths, the INVERTED pentagram, etc., etc. Joseph took heavily from Free Masonry, so what if he changed the meaning to suit himself? This just shows how much he cared about other’s beliefs. Kinda like how your church could care less about the wonderful rich history of the Mayas. They just arrogantly high jack a people and culture to try and prove the BoM is true.
Did you look up Mark Hoffman and the Salamander letter yet?
FoF said,
<"The critics love to talk about how members lose faith when the study the history of these events. It is hard to believe that any of these folks actually “study” the history. Rather, they are taking the word of somebody else who has done no more true study than they. That includes the people here. Despite this tedious response to grindael’s request, I imagine the critics here won’t even comment on this. They will move on and dismiss it with a wave of the hand."
I'm with Kate. I never heard of Dan Vogel until a couple months ago. I did my own digging in primary sources. I was afraid of reading things from ex LDS. I used all LDS historians and checked their references myself. So again FoF makes assumption after assumption to try to reconcile the fact that many people that leave the LDS church are sincere, seeking, faithful people with no other agenda the learning the truth about God. I haven't argued against this video at all, not because I'm scared too but because I am completely willing to accept Joseph Smiths account. It doesn't affect my conclusions. The Bible speaks of people being deceived by spirit and angels. With his history in folk magic, treasure seeking, diving rods, and seer stones, I would nt be surprised if he opened himself up to deceiving spirits. You see it often with people who dabble in the occult of get involved in the New Age Movement. That coupled with someone with a big imagination can lead to great misdirection, to put it kindly.
FoF said
Say what you want, but you really have no clue. Around 15 years ago or so when I first started sharing Jesus with Mormons, the computers we have did not exist, All research was done by having to buy and read the hard cover books.
I first started sharing with Mormons and went and found a copy of the book, Mormonism, shadow or reality and would share with LDS from that. They told me it was all lies and attacks against the church from Ex members.
I choose not simply to believe either side. So I looked in the book and found MRM and would call them and ask them to send photo copies of the books they quoted from, like the lectures of faith or the JoD for example. Then I would show this to the LDS, And again they would reject it.
So again, I did not choose sides and just believe, I spent thousands of dollars searching used book stores and travling around looking for them. The internet still did not exist as it does today, I could not go to ebay or amazon and buy books.
I would show the actual books with quotes to Mormons, I bought the entire set of the Journal of Discources, the Seer, the D and C with the Lectures of faith in it, and many other books. Once I started showing the LDS these books with the quotes, they still choose to ignore what I said. I would here things like, I dont understand, or I have a spirt of contention, or I am just trying to start trouble, etc. Really, no matter what you are shown, it somehow falls to us as we are wrong and clueless.
Jaxi,
“With his history in folk magic, treasure seeking, diving rods, and seer stones, I would nt be surprised if he opened himself up to deceiving spirits. You see it often with people who dabble in the occult of get involved in the New Age Movement.”
What bothers me about this whole topic is that most Mormons aren’t aware that Joseph and his family had a background in the occult. I wasn’t and I can bet my mother isn’ t aware nor would she believe me if I told her. I believe Joseph easily could have been deceived by a spirit, and I can easily believe he made it all up and never had a visit from an angel or anyone else. I have a go to question that I asked myself over and over while I was researching and that is, “Where is Jesus in any of this?” If we ask this question of Joseph’s spirit visitations, hidden treasure, money digging, divining rods, magic rock, toads, salamanders, etc. It’s easy to see that Jesus is nowhere to be found. I personally don’t care if he added the Angel later or at the beginning, I don’ t care if he called the Angel Moroni or Nephi, it doesn’t matter because he’s shown himself a liar many times over.
It is obvious that you are getting your information from Mark A-McGee. I doubt you have read any of the original source material. I noticed that you skipped over Willard Chase’s statement, simply calling him an “antagonist” who tried to steal the plates from Smith. Actually they were friends, and Chase was asked by Jo to make a box for the plates, and Hyrum stole the peepstone from Chase that Jo used to translate the BOM. McGee dismisses his calling the treasure guardian a “spirit” simply because Jo wrote his 1832 History before Chase gave his affidavit a year later. That doesn’t make what Chase said untrue. And the reason why there was antagonism between Chase and Smith was that first, Smith stole his stone.
And second, Smith had made a deal with the money diggers to share anything he found with them. (Per Martin Harris, see below).
This is not “revisionist history” but history in context. Why, because these were the neighbors that knew the Smith family, and men that followed him. Funny that in 1833, 50 people from Palmyra could sign a document which said,
This is not a “second or third hand” statement. It was signed by Palmyra residents that knew them. You mention Abner Cole, but perhaps you don’t know that he was also their neighbor and owned land near them. It was a small town. It’s not “gossip” when 50 people say that it is so.
Even McGee writes,
What he didn’t mention was the statement by Martin Harris:
This is the same guy who said he saw an angel with the plates. The problem is, Smith’s father couldn’t keep the secret. He is the one who blabbed constantly to the neighbors. In fact, Lucy Smith said so in her book,
The “confidential friend” was identified as Martin Harris by Lucy Smith. But this is not what Martin Harris says happened. So it’s all “satan” according to Lucy Smith, not the money diggers that Jo himself was heavily involved with.
These angels as treasure guardians carried over into the Church. According to McGee, In 1837, Joseph Smith Sr. blessed Wilford Woodruff:
Of course this never happened, or this blessing by Zebedee Coltrin when he was ordained a Seventy,
The Book of Mormon itself speaks of “slippery treasures in the earth” . Kevin Barney did a short article on it trying to justify it as an “ancient tradition”. He then uses a pagan text that was influenced by the Bible to try and prove this! All the added stuff is about “slippery treasures”. This is not found in the Bible, only in the pagan texts.
It doesn’t prove a thing, only that the BOM was directly influence by Smith’s love of treasure hunting, which he repeated again in 1838 in a letter to his brother Hyrum,
As for historical ethics, here is some of the criteria,
This is exactly why the Hurlbut affidavits are so credible, because multiple sources tell the same story, and it was not long after the event (only a decade).
And we have Smith’s own admission of being a money digger, and he was arrested for “glass looking” in 1826 and 1830 and we have a credible transcripts from his trials.
We have over 50 sources that agree that the Smith’s were involved in money digging.
Joseph and Hiel Lewis were cousins of Emma Smith and were there. You may think them “unreliable”, but much of what they say has been verified by others:
Ruben Hale did help translate the Book of Mormon. Alva moved Smith to Harmony, and the plates were hidden in a barrel of beans. It can be verified that Jo told others to see the plates meant death. (Martin Harris said so). Jo kept the plates in a pillowcase. Many said that Jo said he would show them the plates. (First hand accounts) Martin Harris and others have said that they got involved with the Book of Mormon for money. This is a very credible statement from a credible witness. Then we have the statement by the brothers together,
Joseph Knight verifies the Lewis’ statement on many accounts, and it is interesting that the very first page, which would have verified the bleeding ghost, is missing. (And Knight does not call the treasure guardian an angel, but a “personage”) But here is the rest,
Mike Quinn writes,
Joseph Knight learned this from Smith himself. None of this appears in Smith’s narrative. I’ll be posting more later.
FoF,
You said, “It is hard to believe that any of these folks actually “study” the history. … I imagine the critics here won’t even comment on this. They will move on and dismiss it with a wave of the hand.”
How about the question that I have asked 5 times already without an answer. You can claim that I am just trying to divert from topic I am just giving you the time to justify your truth claims. Here goes try number 6:
You said, “you are very unlikely to be familiar with the best LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon” and you said earlier, “The scholarship available from LDS researchers is light-years ahead of that from the critics.” Now you said, “I fully believe it took place in Mesoamerica.” Would you show me just one artifact or one piece of ancient writing that is either Jaredite or Lehite?
I would agree that the most important thing to point out to a Mormon is the difference in the Mormon view of the doctrine of the nature of God and that of orthodox Christianity; which is supported by the Biblical text and the writings of the Church Fathers. And BTW, the doctrine of the nature of God is different among the various Mormon sects, some holding to a more Christian view; as does the BoM.
However I find this topic, in the above article, interesting because I’m interested in spiritual phenomenon. Also I know that the folks at MC need to post a variety of articles to get the attention of the lurkers who stop by here and need to get a little head-snap which a topic like this brings.
I’ve quoted extensively, in the past from a book written by a Mormon called “Temple Manifestations”. I would suggest it to any of our readers and posters. From page 69 quoting President Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple March, 1877. Woodruff had the signers of the Declaration of Independence appear to him.
“They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men that labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord. Another thing I am going to say here, because I have the right to say it: every one of these men that signed the Declaration of Independence with General Washington called upon me, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the house of God for them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you enjoy and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.’ These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights.”
Now I know hard core TBMs like Shem and FOF would think this is all very cool. There are all sorts of accounts here like Smith’s seer stone being placed on the altar of the Manti Temple in the days of the dedication. There are also accounts of the spirits of dead people appearing in Mormon Temples. It’s beyond weird and the fact that their are Mormons that groove on things like this shows how deceived they are by the spirit of the occult that permeates certain sects of Mormonism. In a word, it’s called “necromancy” and Mormonism is up to its eye balls in it.
I think that every person that’s being recruited by the MM should get a copy of this book.
falcon said,
In a word, it’s called “necromancy” and Mormonism is up to its eye balls in it.
I say,
This makes sense
The Mormons that I know are into ghost stories and haunted houses. I always found it creepy but hadn’t ever connected the dots before.
peace
Mistaken,
This verse Fits people like FoF and Shem.
Notice the part that says, They hold the truth in unrighteousness. This is exactly what these TBM do. Not only has FoF ignored you 5 going on six times now, and accuses us of not replying to him, but has ignored many questions by Me and others. But in all honesty, I like it when they do that, thats why I like you remind them over and over and over. This way the lurkers can see it for them selves and know, they really have no clue.
So put the pieces together Mormons……especially you lurkers.
Mormonism claims a different god. In fact in Mormonism there are millions perhaps billions of gods all former men from various planets who followed the universal system of Mormonism for eternity.
We have the founder of Mormonism who was a convicted glass looker for duping people into believing he could look into the ground with a magic rock and see buried treasure.
There are occult symbols all over Mormon temples.
The “sacred” undergarment Mormons wear has occult symbols on it.
The “sacred” rituals of Mormonism come right from the occult based fraternal organization known as the Free Masons.
Mormons figure it’s really a blessing if they see a spirit supposedly of a dead person during Mormon rituals.
Finally, Mormons reject the most basic of doctrines of the NT church which are revealed in the (NT) and for added insult claim that the Bible is corrupted and can’t be trusted.
And you’re a Mormon why?
Before the French colonized the islands in 1841, the Comoros Islands were known by its Arabic name “Camora.” And it’s this name that bears a resemblance to Cumorah, the hill where Moroni deposited the gold plates—a resemblance made all the more striking by the fact that in the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon, Cumorah was uniformly spelled “Camorah.”
Remember, Jo spelled out the names as he dictated them. Royal Skousen writes,
During the translation process, the witnesses were able to observe, in an open setting, the following:
And yet, it took them four years to admit that this was an incorrect spelling, (as per Paul Y. Hoskisson)
This still doesn’t explain why it appears as “Camorah” all six times in the 1830 published edition, since it was spelled three different ways in the Printer’s Manuscript. It seems then, that “Camorah” was what was decided upon since in other instances corrections were made in the Printer’s manuscript for other wrong spellings. (See Skousen “The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon”)
I agree that the name of the capital “Moroni” wasn’t in use then, but it’s arabic rendering “Muruni” was. I don’t think there were any maps with “Muruni” on them. But that could have been learned from the Captain Kidd connection because many of Kidd’s crew got cholera and they were put off on the Comoros Islands by Kidd.
Palmyra natives Philetus B. Spear and Pomeroy Tucker both recall (though decades later) that Smith enjoyed reading about Captain Kidd and his adventures. Historian James H. Tucker, in his 1888 book Early Day of Mormonism, writes that the autobiography of Captian Kidd “made a deep impression upon [Smith].”
Pomeroy Tucker (who grew up with Jo) said this:
Stories about pirates and, especially, stories about Captain Kidd, played a particularly important role in the young Joseph’s imagination. According to J. H. Kennedy, Joseph “made confession” that the autobiography of Captain Kidd “made a deep impression upon him.”88 Kennedy does not say in what context Smith made this “confession.” Palmyra native Philetus B. Spear recalled in an 1873 interview that as a boy Joseph “had for a library a copy of the ‘Arabian Nights,’ stories of Captain Kidd, and a few novels.” (From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism, Ronald V. Huggins, Dialogue, Vol. 36, No. 4, page 37)
Grindael,
You are committing the fallacy of probability to trying to connect Moroni and the Hill Cumorah to the Comoros Islands and its capital in 1830 Muruni. First, there is no direct evidence connecting Muruni to Captian Kidd. And there is no real evidence connection Joseph Smith to the adventures of Captain Kidd. You have statements from two individuals hostile to Joseph Smith making statements 30 and 50 years after the fact saying the Joseph read the tales of Captain Kidd. You have no better evidence than that. You cannot even provide any reference of contemporary literature that mentions Muruni in connection with Captain Kidd. Pure speculation. Nothing more. The only two connections comes from a Danish convert who moved to Utah in the 1850 and eventually left the church and proposed this connection between Captain Kidd and Joseph Smith and a 1923 newspaper story recounting the claims of Philetus Spear, repeating the gossip of Palmyra 50 years after the fact.
Your point about Willard Chase doesn’t change anything. His statement is at best a fourth hand account 10 years after the fact and comes from a person who had an axe to grind with Joseph. Hardly a reliable source.
Your long quotations supposedly from Martin Harris- this comes from Tiffany’s Monthly in 1859. This is not a verbatim recording of Martin Harris. It is a summary of a reported conversation with Martin Harris 36 years after the fact. Conversations with Harris were often summarized in such newspapers, and Harris very often would write to the paper subsequently to correct the claims of the paper. This is a very weak source, but one that is used by the critics frequently. At best, it is a third hand account.
As far as the Hurlbut affidavits, I have already mentioned the problems with those statements and the tampering of statements and witnesses by Hurlbut as well as his motive. Most church critics dismiss these statements. And again, at best, they are nothing even approaching second hand accounts of the events surrounding Joseph obtaining the plates. There are statements from other neighbors who employed the Smiths that say they were honest, honorable, and hard working people. It doesn’t effect the story of the angel Moroni.
Your criteria for historical sources excludes the rest of the criteria. Why did you exclude the other 5 criteria?
Here they are:
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most “authority”—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
These criteria certainly side with my point in all of this. Note #5 about eyewitnesses. And #2- majority does not rule. You are very obviously limiting the information so as to favor your side of the argument. This, again, shows your obvious bias.
Joseph Smith addressed his searching for treasure in his history. Not sure why you are trying to create the straw man argument that he or other LDS are denying his involvement with looking for treasure.
Joseph and Hiel Lewis were part of an extended family who had it in for Joseph. It was this group who complained to the court about Joseph Smith working for Josiah Stowell. They made those statements in 1879, 56 years after the fact. And once again, they are not first or second hand accounts of the angel Moroni or plates.
And so it is with all the sources you cite. You ignore all the sources that are closest to the events. The treasure guardian theory did not come about until 1833. And the person who started it also wrote a parody of the Book of Mormon called the Book of Pukei.
An objective analysis of all the sources is not what the critics do. They rely upon only third and fourth hand accounts, most of which come from sources that are hostile to Joseph Smith. This methodology is horrendous.
Thanks.
LOL. You really made me laugh with this one. Are you embarrassed at all to have even written this? I’m laughing so hard I can hardly write this. Where do you get your information from? Do you just make it up? Have you read the entire account? Here is Joel Tiffany:
How is this “at best” a “third hand account’? Only in bubble world. Tiffany interviewed Harris in 1859 and had him read the interview back to him and ok it. He went to Ohio and saw Harris IN the same year it was published, 1859! This account is a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT, from Martin Harris himself, who NEVER denied or corrected it. And please, show me ONE TIME that Harris corrected ANY of his statements about Mormonism. I don’t think you can. (You can’t even get this one right).
Do you even know what you are saying? Did you even do your math? If this interview was done 36 years before 1859, that would have been 1823. Are you really that desperate? Or that bad at simple math? That means that Martin Harris would have known the future, for the events of the interview didn’t take place until well after 1823. If you had read it, you would have known this. But you didn’t. You don’t read anything but second hand sources that obviously are pro-Mormon. You wouldn’t know if something was wrong because you don’t read the original sources. Well, I have. Both pro and con.You can’t even get this right.
You know, I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your objections. Your shoddy investigative skills leave much to be desired. Do me a favor and recheck all of your sources before you come at me with what you think are my errors. You certainly don’t know what you are talking about.
You are absolutely discredited FOF. I recommend you stop reading and getting your information from Mormon “apologists” or online chat rooms where people lie, obfuscate and make things up, all so they can dupe people like you. (I hope you were duped, I can’t believe you are that bad at math). For now, I leave you with the words of Joel Tiffany:
Grindael,
I suppose a person claiming to be a historian is not much different than a guy claiming to be a model- anybody can claim such things.
What event is the focus of this thread? The visitation of Moroni to Joseph Smith in 1823.
What is a first-hand witness? Somebody who see with their own eyes a given event.
Do you think the writer at Tiffany’s Montly was present along with Joseph on the night of September 22, 1823 to see Moroni? That is what would be required for this to be a first hand account.
It is becoming very obvious why the critics make the conclusions they do- their methodology is pathetic and they don’t even understand how a first hand witness is different than a third hand witness.
This article is Tiffany’s Monthly purports to be an accurate statement from Martin Harris. But they paper is not Martin Harris. The reader is trusting the paper as an intermediate conveyer of information from Martin Harris. And Martin Harris was not a first hand witness of the appearance of Moroni in 1823.
The paper alleges to be reporting the words of Martin Harris who is alleging to report the account from Joseph Smith. That makes the paper a third hand account.
And as far as math- I think you are very confused. The event which is the focus of this thread occured in 1823. This article in Tiffany’s Monthly was published in 1859. That is 36 years after the event of interest occured.
In summary- the information from Tiffany’s Monthly is a third hand account produced 36 years after the event. You are no historian.
And I understand why you would not want to respond to my other points. You blatantly ripped 2 of 7 criteria out of their context to try to strengthen your argument about historically valid sources. The fact that you did that is truly ironic, don’t you think?
The theory from the critics relies exlcusively on third and fourth hand sources with all are generated no earlier than 10 years after Moroni appeared in 1823. Most of those sources are generated 40 and 50 years after the fact. And the theory completely ignores the statements and accounts given by all those closest to the actual events. Instead, their main sources are those people who hated Joseph Smith and tried relentlessly to undermine him.
The critics are trying to practice magic of their own!
Poor, poor, Joseph Smith. Everyone is just lying and out to get him or twisting his words or better yet, taking him at his word , instead of making him out to be the mini god that he was. Sorry, but I am having a hard time lately with people who put the blame ANYWHERE but where it should go. You would think that people would weigh all evidence in truth rather than try to find a way to explain it away. Of course every person who knew him and didn’t buy into his nonsense is just hostile towards him. They can never be telling the truth. Everyone but Joseph is a liar. Ya know, sometimes a duck, is just a duck.
This is how bubble logic works folks. This is how people that can’t add, nor convey thoughts in a coherent manner works. FOF says to me,
1. That the interview quoted is “supposedly” from Martin Harris.
No, it IS from Martin Harris.
2. Not a “verbatim” recording of Martin Harris.
Yes, it is. Joel Tiffany went and interviewed him in 1859 and read back exactly what Martin Harris said, and Harris agreed that it was perfectly accurate.
3. It is a summary of a “reported conversation with Martin Harris 36 years after the fact”
No, it’s a recorded conversation of Martin Harris that took place a few months before it was published. You see, FOF said ‘reported conversation WITH Martin Harris’. FOF didn’t say, it was a conversation about EVENTS that took place between 30-36 year after they happened.
4. FOF tries to stay with this thought (that it was a reported conversation with Harris 36 years after the conversation happened) by trying to cast doubt upon it by falsely saying that “Harris would very often write the paper .. to correct the claims of the paper.” This of course, FOF made up, because it never happened.
5. This is NOT a weak source, because it is a FIRST HAND account. Joseph Smith, his family, and others, told this to Martin Harris DIRECTLY. I will illustrate:
EVENTS HAPPEN TO JO ->> JO TELLS MARTIN ->> MARTIN TELLS TIFFANY
Martin is telling Joel Tiffany FIRSTHAND what Jo Smith told him. Dictionary for FIRST HAND TESTIMONY:
1. at first hand ⇒ from the original source; directly
Joel Tiffany got his information FIRSTHAND from Martin Harris. Now, if you want to call Martin Harris a liar, that’s ok with me. If he lied about this, he lied about his BOM testimony.
As for the rest of your dribble, I did not take anything out of context, I gave some of the criteria for historical verification THAT I FELT APPLIED TO THE TESTIMONY. I also gave the source. This is not deception. And I can trash your conclusion easily using all of the criteria.
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most “authority”—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
1. All of the sources agree that Jo was a money digger.
2. It does pass the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source can be verified by outside authorities.
4. There are “eyewitness” accounts of Jo being a moneydigger so it is accurate.
5. These people were “eyewitnesses”
6. There are more than two sources that agree
7. Common sense tells us that Jo was a moneydigger because he admitted it himself.
We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years, while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them destitute of that moral character, which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. They were particularly famous for visionary projects, spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth; and to this day, large excavations may be seen in the earth, not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures. Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.
1. WW Phelps wrote to E.D. Howe in 1831 and confirmed that there were excavations still extant. He said, “The places where they dug for the plates, in Manchester, are to be seen. “ Phelps is an eyewitness.
2. Were they “famous for visionary projects”? Yes. By their own admission.
3. Destitute of moral character? We have many affidavits that say so, like Parley Chase, Henry Harris, Peter Ingersoll, Roswell Nichols, Barton Stafford, David Stafford, and on and on, all FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS given by people who lived in their neighborhood and knew them intimately.
4. Moneydigger. Same thing, and admitted to by Jo, his mother, and others.
5. Moral Character, same as above.
It is obvious that these statements meet the criteria of good Historical sources. You are simply wrong about it, and wrong about everything else.
And since Jo saw the angel Moroni BY HIMSELF, according to your criteria, NO ONE could verify his story. This is just stupid. The firsthand accounts for verification purposes would be what Jo told others. He told Martin his story firsthand. This is what I’m talking about. You are just being deceptive and ignorant of what verification of historical events is all about.
If someone says that they saw an angel on such and such a date, but then tells great numbers of people conflicting stories, they are DISQUALIFIED as to telling the truth. The FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS we have of people who knew the Smith’s and talked to them, verify that Smith was a liar.
You can’t even accept that he used his peepstone to translate the Book of Mormon, when we have half a dozen witnesses that say they SAW HIM DO SO.
You will not accept any evidence that contradicts your little fantasy of what you THINK happened. You are unreliable as a credible source of information, and your conclusions are faulty because you won’t accept the evidence of what actually happened according to the people that were there.
Grindael,
I have a hard time justifying lengthy exchanges with you considering your jumbled logic and uninformed definitions of sources.
The only “first hand witness” of the appearance of Moroni on September 22, 1823 is Joseph Smith.
“Second hand witnesses” are those who Joseph related the events to directly. “Third hand witnesses” are those who learned of those events from a person who had heard the account directly from Joseph Smith.
Let’s look at the article from Tiffany’s Monthly. Supposedly, this is how the series of accounts occurs. Joseph experiences the visit from Moroni. Joseph supposedly tells Martin Harris the details of that visit (Martin Harris becomes a second hand witness). Martin Harris supposedly tells Joel Tiffany the details of the visit from Moroni which he heard from Joseph Smith.
Martin Harris is not Joel Tiffany. Joel Tiffany wrote the article in Tiffany’s Montly, not Martin Harris. It was not published by Martin Harris. He did not own that newspaper. He did not place the type for the press. His words and version of events had an intermediary- Tiffany’s Monthly.
So the account in Tiffany’s Montly is a third hand account of the events experienced by Joseph Smith. Yet you are trying to pass them off as a “first hand account.” I think the readers of these posts can clearly see your mistaken logic and difficulty here. Joel Tiffany was not a “first hand witness” of the appearance of Moroni. What was Joel Tiffany a “first hand witness” of? He was a first hand witness of Martin Harris’ second hand witness of the events. Guess what? That makes Joel Tiffany’s account a third hand account of the events.
You are clearly confusing my statements. I am referring to the visit from Moroni as “the fact” in the phrase “after the fact.” So a conversation 36 years “after the fact” means a conversation 36 years after Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith. I didn’t think that was very difficult to understand. Forgive me, please. And this is what happened in 1859- Joel Tiffany reported on a conversation he had in 1859 with Martin Harris. That conversation took place 36 years “after the fact,” or 36 years after Moroni appeared to Joseph.
And we are trusting Tiffany that the words came from Harris. He serves as an intermediary between Martin and the reader. But you are purposely ignoring that fact.
You continue with your straw man argument- that Joseph Smith had searched for treasure. Please explain when and where I or Joseph Smith or any of the witnesses denied that. You cannot. His having searched for treasure is not the point and it is not denied. You clearly are not understanding that. His having searched for treasure previously is not the event in question. The event in question is the appearance of Moroni to Joseph Smith on September 1823. Being first hand witness of a treasure hunt with Joseph Smith previously is not a first hand witness of the appearance of Moroni. You are conflating the two events very clearly. But you don’t see it. Or you simply do not admit it.
Your theory and that of Vogel relies upon people more removed in time and relation to the events relating to the appearance of Moroni than the history that the church maintains. So who is manipulating history?
And as far as your repeated comments about the seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon- you are twisting things here too. I responded to the claim that the church was dishonest in portraying Joseph in its art as using the Urim and Thummim in the translation. I have many times stated that both methods were used in the translation process (as well as another). But Oliver Cowdery, who was the scribe for the majority of the translation, describes Joseph as using the Urim and Thummim. And he is the best witness for the translation process. So, it is my argument that the church is not dishonest in its artistic portrayal of Joseph translating. That does not equal my denial that he also used the seer stone in the hat method of translation. You, again, are being manipulative in your portrayal of my statements and arguments.
I have a hard time accepting your constant lying and waffling on the facts.
I said that. So how is that “jumbled logic” and “uninformed definitions of sources?”
I already know this, but that is not the issue.
There is no “supposedly” in this. This is what happened. You just don’t want to believe the chain of events. Martin Harris ACTUALLY TOLD JOEL TIFFANY WHAT HAPPENED. MARTIN HARRIS SAID THAT JO SMITH TOLD HIM WHAT HAPPENED. Martin Harris never denied that this interview wasn’t what it claimed to be. You are trying to discredit it with your use of “supposed”. You can’t. It’s a historical fact that it took place and that Martin Harris approved what the article said that he said with his own mouth.
Ok Mr. Logic. If I give an interview to someone and they write verbatim what I said, and sign off on them as accurate, THOSE ARE MY WORDS. This is exactly what happened with the Joel Tiffany interview. You can’t prove otherwise, and I have the burden of proof, because Harris never denied any of it. Regardless if he, or I had an “intermediary”, they are still MY words, or HARRIS’ WORDS.
It is a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT of what Martin Harris said to Joes Tiffany. He got his info DIRECTLY FROM JO SMITH. It is a published account of what Martin Harris said, read back to him, and ok’d by him. Again, if you want to call Martin Harris a liar, go right ahead. It still does not change the fact that he said what he said, and he got it from Jo AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY , and THE MONEYDIGGERS who ALL AGREED.
But that is not what I was contending. You said originally that the INTERVIEW ITSELF WAS A THIRD HAND ACCOUNT. It wasn’t. It was a FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT FROM HARRIS TO TIFFANY. Again, if you want to call Harris a LIAR go right ahead.
No I’m not. You said,
YES IT WAS.
NO IT IS NOT. It was not a “summary” of “a conversation that took place 36 years after the fact”. It was an interview recorded word for word and signed off on by Harris Himself the same year.
You have dismal articulation. (No surprise there). Perhaps if you weren’t obsessed with the word “summary” and “reported” it might have been clear what you were getting at. Perhaps like this, It was an interview about what Jo Smith told Martin Harris 36 years later. But you can’t even admit that. You have to try and denigrate the interview itself. Clearly, you are confused and inarticulate. The rest of your quote is just made up speculation on your part. And it’s not a “weak source” it comes directly from Harris who was told all of it by Jo Smith and his family and the moneydiggers, and it all agrees and there is other outside evidence to back these events up. It sure isn’t any weaker than Lucy Smith’s account in 1845.
Yes, the conversation Tiffany and Harris had took place 36 years after Moroni appeared to Jo. So what? Ma Smith wrote her account over 20 years later. NO ONE can give an account of the events as they took place, because they weren’t there. We must then go by what all the witnesses say, and there are MANY CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS that verify what Harris says here, so his account is to be taken as accurate.
No I’m not. Every good Historian I know of (Mormon and non-Mormon) trusts that this account is what it claims to be. YOU are the only one who doesn’t. Harris NEVER DENIED IT, or CORRECTED IT. It stands as what it is then, and you can’t change THAT FACT.
I do understand what the point of the article is. But all of the details of HOW Jo searched for treasure, and his use of folk magic, his arrest and being guilty of glass looking and the accounts that show that he was not religious prove that he was a liar and a fraud. This gives more credibility to the treasure guardian accounts, because it shows that Jo was dishonest and his version can’t be trusted. HIS OWN ACCOUNTS DON’T EVEN MATCH UP.
Jo Smith. His accounts don’t even agree with themselves.
That was NOT your argument. I have it in black and white.
You NEVER said ONCE that “both methods were used in the translation process”. You only said that the accounts of Marin Harris and the seerstone don’t create any problems because of some supposed connection with the Biblical Urim and Thummim. You are actually denigrating the other accounts because you call anyone who wants to see them portrayed as the real method as “biased and partisan”.
You sir, are a liar by your own words.
I know what you said. You can’t squirm out of it now. Cowdery is NOT the “best witness” because he was a known liar, who was called so by Jo himself. We have FAR MORE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS THAT DESTROY COWDERY’S CREDIBILITY ON THIS ISSUE.
You just won’t accept it, nor anything else that destroys the lies of Jo Smith.
It’s like this statement you made:
I showed you evidence by way of Pomeroy Tucker, who grew up with Smith. He saw (firsthand account) Jo with those books about Kidd.
But you can’t accept it.
Move on, FOF. There is no getting through to you, and I’m tired of your repeated falsehoods.
“The only “first hand witness” of the appearance of Moroni on September 22, 1823 is Joseph Smith.”
Yup. That’s it. Its only his word. No one else can support him.
Everybody gather around. Grindael is an eyewitness to the appearance of Moroni to Joseph Smith. After all, you have read the online quotations from Tiffany’s Monthly news article quoting Martin Harris relaying what Joseph Smith told him about the night of September 22, 1823. Your credibility would not change if you made that claim.
You tried to pass off a 1859 news article as a first hand account. You are terrible with sources. You give preference to distant, hostile witnesses over those of people closer to the events. You go about evaluating different accounts exactly opposite what any credible historian would suggest. You place significant weight on statements collected and manipulated by a guy excommunicated from the church and who told several people that he would bring the church down and destroy the reputation of Joseph Smith.
Every time you post and refer to quotations and statements from other people, you make mistakes. You even did in your last post. You exaggerate Pomeroy Tucker’s statement. He never says anything about seeing Joseph with the books about Captain Kidd. He simply states that Joseph loved the tales of Captain Kidd and became familiar with his stories. He never states that he physically saw Joseph with those books as you claim. Every post of yours is filled with mistakes. You exaggerate every statement to fit your argument.
Those closest to Joseph- his family- give accounts that agree with Joseph regarding the details surrounding the appearance of Moroni in 1823.
Believe it or not, my existence goes beyond the handful of threads I have participated in here over the last month. I posted here a few years ago for quite a while. I stated several times then at this site that several methods were employed in the Book of Mormon translation, including the Urim and Thummim, seer stone, and direct translation without the aid of either. But having the narrow vision and perspective that you do, you jump to call me a liar because I have not made such a statement on this thread. Your approach to these things speaks for itself.
LOL. FOF just doen’t like his ridiculous comments being taken apart so he has to resort to making things up. Jo Smith would be proud of you, dude.
Lying again. When will it end, FOF? When will it end? Their is significant weight on Harris’ account. Find me ONE HISTORIAN that says that this is a ‘weak source”. You can’t. As for those from Mormonism Unvailed, NO ONE has been able to destroy the credibility of those statements. It wasn’t done in Jo’s time, and it hasn’t been done in the years after. See, this is a classic tactic of the desperate folks, he must attack the collector of the statements, because he can’t attack the statements themselves.
Funny, in one of your old posts, (from 2008) you yourself use Pomeroy Tucker to try and defend Martin Harris:
I get it. YOU can use these sources to support your arguments, but when I do they are all liars? Tsk. Tsk. FOF. That’s kinda hypocritical.
Uh, no I didn’t exaggerate anything. I quoted it. Here it is again,
Joseph, moreover, as he grew in years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and even of his father; and his talent was assiduously devoted, as he quitted or modified his idle habits, to the perusal of works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the “dime novels” of the present day. The stories of Stephen Burroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions.
He says here that Jo read books “like the dime novels of the present day” and named the subjects of those books, Captain Kidd being one. But to those living in the Bubble of Denial, this doesn’t say what it clearly DOES say. Right in his introduction, Tucker says,
He gives FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE about the Smiths. Sorry dude, but you are wrong again. Tough luck, huh? Try getting out of the Bubble more often.
No you haven’t. See, I can call up all of your posts and search them. I did. Nothing there that says that you believe it. Try again. I did find this one though,
And by the way falcon- you frequently refer to Joseph putting his head in a hat to translate the book of mormon. You need to read the writings of Oliver Cowdery on the subject- he was the primary scribe for the bulk of the Book of Mormon. He would disagree with you. But I know you probably know better. 2009/01/12 at 7:46 pm | In reply to falcon.
It’s the same argument you are using now.
Grindael,
You call me a liar because I claimed that you referred to the article in Tiffany’s Monthly as a “first hand account.” I suggest being a little more thoughtful before throwing around such accusations.
On June 12, at 8:13 P.M., you said of the Tiffany’s Monthly article, “How is this “at best” a “third hand account’? Only in bubble world. Tiffany interviewed Harris in 1859 and had him read the interview back to him and ok it. He went to Ohio and saw Harris IN the same year it was published, 1859! This account is a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT, from Martin Harris himself, who NEVER denied or corrected it.”
Bingo. You called this article in this small newspaper published in 1859 a “first hand account.” In reality, it is a third hand account of the appearance of the angel Moroni. But most folks here will accept anything without much thought.
And you continue to blunder. You stated, “I showed you evidence by way of Pomeroy Tucker, who grew up with Smith. He saw (firsthand account) Jo with those books about Kidd.”
But Tucker said anything about actually seeing Joseph Smith with those books. You simply put those words in his mouth to strengthen your argument. And you can’t do that if you expect to have any credibility with intelligent people who know anything about history and evidence.
And regarding your last point about a post I made in January of 2009, I searched the months of October 2008 to January 2009 and did not find any such comment. Maybe you have access to the super-duper secret archive of comments that is not in the archives section for the rest of us. But It isn’t in the main archive. But that is beside the point. You do not provide enough context to really judge what I was responding to from falcon. It is a very common criticism about the seer stone in the hat. I very often challenge people who say the church is dishonest in its artistic rendition of Joseph with the Urim and Thummim. And considering how consistently you manipulate quotations and the context of things, I have no doubt I was not insisting that the only method used in translation was with the Urim and Thummim. I would not have made that argument. But I would have quoted Oliver Cowdery to establish the fact that one of the methods used for translation was the Urim and Thummim.
You are left with “witnesses” more removed from the appearance of Moroni than those upon whom the church relies for its history. And that is fact. Critics rely upon folks who were more removed from those events than the folks upon whose testimony the church relies. And that is my main contention in this thread. The theory from Vogel is based upon people outside the inner circle of Joseph Smith.
Yes I did say you lied, and you still do. I called the INTERVIEW ITSELF a first hand account given by Martin Harris. (You said it was a “summary” of an interview that Tiffany made up) But there are first hand items IN THAT INTERVIEW. For example he said he saw with his own eyes Jo finding a “needle” in a hay loft with his peepstone, among other things (that quote is used by many Mormon Historians, Authorities and others). That my friend is a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT of something he saw Smith do. I did not say that ALL of the items that Harris related were actually SEEN by him. You sir, are straining at gnats, because you can’t back up anything you say.
And Tucker said that he knew the Smith’s intimately and Jo read those books. If I say, I know my brother intimately and he read a book about Captian Kidd, then I am saying that I know this by observation. Your argument is flawed. You can’t accept the truth.
So, just admit you lied, Mr. “Intelligence”. And I did find other comments that you made, which bolster my point. For example, you said,
There is no account ANYWHERE that says that Jo “learned” reformed Egyptian. You are simply MAKING THAT UP. (as usual). He used his peepstone to translate the BOM and to get some of his later “revelations”. He then CLAIMED that he gave it up, but Wilford Woodruff gives an account in his Journal related by Heber C. Kimball that states he was using it in Kirtland after the temple was built, and they were looking in the stone to “see what they could see”, and that they were startled when he entered the room and thought he was a ghost. It ticked off Kimball at the time. Jo also wrote his brother around that time to come to Jackson County and he would find “treasure buried in the earth”. He never completely left this stuff behind.
You say that ‘many believe’ JS started out being very dependent on the peepstone and the UT…. but you do not say that he translated the BOM with the peepstone, because you keep harping that He did it with the “spectacles” as per Cowdery’s misleading statement, and denigrating those who advocate the peepstone in the hat borne out by MANY more witnesses. You are simply lying when you say you did.
I’m a mod here. I can search through all the comments. I did so BEFORE I made my observation. But you, not knowing this, tried to make me look bad by saying that I only took into account your statements on a current thread. If you had made the argument that only “one of the methods used was the UT” then why did you poke fun at the Falcon for bringing up the stone in hat, and then quote Cowdery? “Intelligence” at it’s best, I suppose.
Here is the link. Falcon DID KNOW BETTER. You are a lousy searcher and a proven liar. Oh yeah, you know better, don’t you? The quote is a stand alone, and therefore has it’s own context. It says exactly what you meant it to say, that you don’t believe in the stone in the hat accounts. Man, you can’t even admit when you are proven wrong. In fact, you give another comment in the same thread that says you place the ‘most weight” on Cowdery’s comments, and you don’t admit that you believe that the others are valid, you in fact call them “spooky”.
And you did it again recently:
It’s not. It’s a valid criticism, because Jo translated the entire BOM after the 116 pages were lost with his peepstone.
So, you are lying. Lying through your teeth. Someone who believes that TWO methods were used would not have said this. I have PROVED that you are a liar, by quoting all the accounts of the MANY witnesses that show that he used the stone in the hat, and that Cowdery is an unreliable witness, even Jo Smith called him a liar. So Cowdery’s words can’t be trusted, as per Jo Smith, and you keep saying that Martin Harris’ words are a “weak source” and keep trying to denigrate the accounts of those that affirm that he did translate the BOM by peepstone.
More removed? Tucker grew up with him. So did Turner. The Staffords lived on the same road next to them (which road was named after them). Harris was there for much of it and told us that he was heavily involved with the moneydiggers. Willard Chase was one of his friends, whom he stole his peepstone from. It wasn’t Jo’s. He STOLE IT. Jo translated the BOM with a STOLEN stone!
How would the God of Israel treat those who would try and use the UT after they had STOLEN it? That alone blows your OT theory all to hell, along with comments by Van Damm that God took the UT away and NEVER returned it and said he NEVER WOULD because they didn’t need it anymore. They had CHRIST and the HOLY SPIRIT. Jo is a liar, and the apologists like you who try and use Van Damm are simply cherry picking and ripping the quotes out of context. This is how Mormons try and prove everything.
Jo was afraid of them because he betrayed them. That is why he fled from Palmyra, and then fled from every other place he ever lived in. He was planning to flee Nauvoo, because of his LIES about polygamy. He destroyed a press that TOLD THE TRUTH about it. He was charged with TREASON because of it. This was no prophet. He was a gangster in Nauvoo. In Harmony & The South Bainbridge/Afton area, the Hales KNEW HIM. They helped him move, loaned him money, etc. Jo bought Alva Hales house. Your comment is laughable, simply laughable.
Ok. Let’s consider the “inner circle” of Jo Smith. In Nauvoo, he had an “inner circle” that lied about polygamy for years. Blatantly lied, and persecuted those that told the truth. So there are problems with those in Jo’s “inner circle” (And those from the Palmyra era also gave their accounts “years later”). Of course those in his “inner circle” had every reason to lie. But you can’t say that every single person in Palmyra had a reason to lie. There were over 50 people in one affidavit. What reason would all of them have, to lie? Give me some. Why didn’t Jo send someone to Palmyra to get the truth? He never did. No Mormon went there, and only one RLDS guy (Kelly) did in the 1880’s and his accounts have all kinds of problems because we have the original notes to compare them with.
Are we to believe that Joseph Knight lied too, when he confirms that Jo told him about “personage” (never called him an “angel”) who told him to bring his older brother to the hill? That he looked in the stone and found that it would be Emma after Alvin died? That confirms the money digging? The Samuel Lawrence connection that Abner Cole also confirms? Why didn’t Jo tell us those things in his “official” history? About Beeman the “rodsman” that Brigham Young confirms later?
There is much more to the story here, that some of Jo’s “inner circle” do confirm, because Jo didn’t have total control over what they wrote. He couldn’t take back those early stories he told. Jo never spoke about it in later years, because he knew it would make him look bad, but these moneydiggers WERE Jo’s “inner circle” until he decided to “repent” after he married Emma and was under the scrutiny of her father, Isaac Hale. He then joined the Methodist probationary class. But he was not accepted because of his ties to the occult and so went back to the scrying – this time turning the “gold plates” into a religious work. This is just as plausible as Jo’s own explanation, and there are far more credible accounts that back up the moneydigging accounts then from Jo’s later “inner circle” of FOLLOWERS who were only repeating Jo’s later lies. Even Ma Smith does not mention a first vision, and says that family was involved with folk magic, and her account was made over 20 years after the events. But you give “weight” to her account. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.
The symbols on the LDS Temples are not of the occult. The symbols on LDS Temples come from the Book of Revelation, as stated previously. Any person can make a symbol mean anything. The inverted pentagram has an ancient history that can be easily Googled. Some information about the pentagram and inverted pentagram agree and some information differs.
In Europe there are many Christaian churches dating from the 16th and 17th centuries that have inverted pentagrams on the church buildings. So those Christians in Europe must worship evil! Uh Oh!
The inverted pentagram became a symbol of evil in the late 1850’s, and caught on as such in the 20th century by evil worshipers.
No one owns symbols. Any one can take a symbol and make it into something they want. The Swastika is an ancient symbol used by many cultures from aroung the world representing good. The Swastika was originally used as a good luck symbol and for other good things. Swastika literally means “to be good”. Hitler used it to do evil things, so now every one associates the Swastika with evil.
The Swastika is also found in some of the Native American Tribes in the United States. It is an ancient symbol representing good among these tribes. I have the Swastika engraved on beams on my house as well as other Native American symbols.