It was the stone not the seer

[_Willy Law]

The Problem is, with all of these witnesses in early Church History that the messenger was Nephi (even the diary of the Prophet himself), why do we now claim that it was Moroni?

That is my biggest issue with this as well as the first vision.
What is obvious is people closest to Joseph had no idea yet here we are 200 years later and the church says it was absolutely Moroni.
Likewise with the first vision. If you want to be an orthodox member you have to believe the 1838 account. In fact GBH says you either believe the 1838 account or you believe that everything was a fraud. Why 200 years later do we have to make this correlated Mormon casserole fit into a one size fits all belief? Why can't I believe Joseph's first account of the first vision? Or his last account? Why do we have to believe that version or nothing? Actually I'm fine with it since I believe nothing.

People closest to Joseph didn't know if he saw Moroni or Nephi or a bloody spaniard, likewise they didn't know if he saw God the Father, Jesus, an angel or if he had any vision at all.
Yet here the church is 200 years later so sure of itself.

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Messrs. Thews, Willy Law and Joseph Antley,

If I should ever acquire a large toad for a pet, I think I shall name him Nephi and nickname him Moroni. On occasion, I might even call him Elohim or Jehovah, or both. Sometimes I'll imagine him wielding a flaming sword and instructing me to have sex with my colleagues' wives and daughters. I'll have a grand old time until one them, probably by the name of Jane Law, says no to me, which will be like setting dominoes in motion for my downfall. Until then, it ought to be a grand old time.

I suppose if I change my name to JSJr before doing so, I might even have the support of many Mormon apologists.

Regards,

Spider.

[_Joseph Antley]

Do you ever stop and ask yourself why you blindly accept everything that favors Joseph Smith's being a prophet while blindly rejecting everything that doesn't?

No, because it's not the case. I thought you of all people appreciated that.

I might conversely ask, do you ever stop and ask yourself why you blindly reject everything that favors Joseph Smith being a prophet while blindly accepting everything that doesn't?

You discount Jonathan Thompson's testimony at a trial, yet here you claim Joseph Smith was "telling the story for a decade" as if that were true...

First-hand accounts prove that he was telling the story of Moroni as early as 1829, and others suggest that he was telling it earlier. Jonathan Thompson's testimony has no corroboration.

it's not, as Joseph Smith's stories constantly evolved and Mormon history evolved with it.

The evidence proves that Joseph Smith was describing the being as an angel in 1829 and it was named Moroni at least as early as 1830. The name Nephi only appears in 1838 and in later documents which use that as its source. There is no evidence that that aspect of the story evolved.

Here's some pro-Mormon data for you, and if you want to take a lesson in circular reasoning go the site and drink some KoolAid:

How is anything you copied and pasted circular reasoning?

Also, if you want to see a good comparison on how Joe Smith ripped off the Masonic story of Enoch, Janis Hutchinson's site has a nice table:

No credible scholar, including non-Mormons, believe that Joseph Smith ripped the story of Enoch in the JST off of Masonic rituals, of which the parallels are superficial at best.

Who's blindly accepting things now?

What critical perspective? yours?

No. I was contrasting a critical perspective with a believing perspective.

You have every excuse in the book to discount all you need to be true Joseph, but you also know money-diggers had rituals to appease treasure guardians. Magic rocks for hire to "see" treasures makes sense, but seeing the tressure guardian doesn't? hmmmm...?

I can't imagine why any other posters lose patience with you.

[_Joseph Antley]

That is my biggest issue with this as well as the first vision.
What is obvious is people closest to Joseph had no idea yet here we are 200 years later and the church says it was absolutely Moroni.

While the First Vision is a separate issue, the story of Moroni was well-known, evidenced by early Mormon journals, pamphlets, and newspaper accounts. The Nephi mistake stems from a single error in 1838. It was published numerous times as Moroni from 1830-onward and after 1838.

Historically speaking, the occurrence of 'Nephi' really does look like a scribal mistake or printing error.

People closest to Joseph didn't know if he saw Moroni or Nephi or a bloody spaniard,

You're overstating the confusion, I think. Stories that vary from the traditional account -- the Times & Season's Nephi angel and Fayette Lapham's bloody spaniard -- are anomalies.

[_thews]

Do you ever stop and ask yourself why you blindly accept everything that favors Joseph Smith's being a prophet while blindly rejecting everything that doesn't?

No, because it's not the case. I thought you of all people appreciated that.

I might conversely ask, do you ever stop and ask yourself why you blindly reject everything that favors Joseph Smith being a prophet while blindly accepting everything that doesn't?

Well ok, but I just look at the facts one at a time and I don’t need multiple points to hold up the foundation. You paint this illusion in your blog that money-diggers were marching off into the night with their magic rocks in their pockets while singing hymns and reading from their bibles. You know that Joe Smith used his magic rocks to “see” treasure move underground… what was moving the treasure Joseph? It was evil treasure guardians wasn’t it? To appease those evil treasure guardians, Joe Smith went through the rituals that Luman Walter taught him. The intended purpose was magic for immediate gain… to make something happen so he could obtain riches. This is what black magic is Joseph, and while you know all of this to be true with all you’ve read on the subject, you continue to claim to discount Jonathan’s testimony that Joe Smith saw the dead Indian treasure guardian through his seer stone… the same seer stone he used to see the supposed golden plates. Failed prophecies, pagan doctrine, polygamy/polyandry… they all came from the same magic rocks he was paid to see treasure underground, yet you just can’t come to grips with what he saw, and still have failed to give one minute reason to question why one would discount what Jonathan Thompson said. It’ll come to you someday Joseph, and if it doesn’t, ok.

You discount Jonathan Thompson's testimony at a trial, yet here you claim Joseph Smith was "telling the story for a decade" as if that were true...

First-hand accounts prove that he was telling the story of Moroni as early as 1829, and others suggest that he was telling it earlier. Jonathan Thompson's testimony has no corroboration.

You mean the first-hand account you selectively acknowledge while discounting all others? How about the fist vision account where angels appeared to Joseph Smith when he was 16? He then changed it to 15, and finally 14 when Oliver sudden it was Jesus Christ and God who appeared. Do you see the trail of deception?

it's not, as Joseph Smith's stories constantly evolved and Mormon history evolved with it.

The evidence proves that Joseph Smith was describing the being as an angel in 1829 and it was named Moroni at least as early as 1830. The name Nephi only appears in 1838 and in later documents which use that as its source. There is no evidence that that aspect of the story evolved.

No evidence you accept that that story evolved, or no evidence? Why does the name Nephi appear at all? Because Joseph Smith didn’t notice? The revelations changed, the stories evolved, but that story didn’t huh? We know for a fact Joseph Smith was a liar, but not this time… right?

Here's some pro-Mormon data for you, and if you want to take a lesson in circular reasoning go the site and drink some KoolAid:

How is anything you copied and pasted circular reasoning?

Because you claim it’s all logical when it isn’t.

Also, if you want to see a good comparison on how Joe Smith ripped off the Masonic story of Enoch, Janis Hutchinson's site has a nice table:

No credible scholar, including non-Mormons, believe that Joseph Smith ripped the story of Enoch in the JST off of Masonic rituals, of which the parallels are superficial at best.
Who's blindly accepting things now?

I guess the onus is on me then to find a credible scholar? Are you claiming the data in the table is a manufactured lie? Which parts are wrong?

What critical perspective? yours?

No. I was contrasting a critical perspective with a believing perspective.

Then the critical perspective is one you claim to have while being able to reason outside of what you have accepted to be true regarding Joseph Smith? In other words, you consider yourself objective when it comes to seer stones and evil treasure guardians?

You have every excuse in the book to discount all you need to be true Joseph, but you also know money-diggers had rituals to appease treasure guardians. Magic rocks for hire to "see" treasures makes sense, but seeing the tressure guardian doesn't? hmmmm...?

I can't imagine why any other posters lose patience with you.

I don’t mind Joseph. Most Mormons use the same repetitive arguments that are fed to them via the approved Mormon-spun network of polish data. Wiki Wonka continues to conflate “Urim and Thummim” with seer stones, and the intent is to obviously downplay head-in-hat through magic rocks. You on the other hand, aren’t scared of the data. Once you know the truth Joseph, you can’t discount it. I admire that by the way… your non-fear of the truth. Thanks for not losing patience with me and answering the questions… you’re still my favorite apologist.

[_Joseph Antley]

Well ok, but I just look at the facts one at a time and I don’t need multiple points to hold up the foundation. You paint this illusion in your blog that money-diggers were marching off into the night with their magic rocks in their pockets while singing hymns and reading from their bibles.

Reading from the Bible was believing by treasure-seekers to ward off the evil spirits. It's not something I made up.

You know that Joe Smith used his magic rocks to “see” treasure move underground…

I don't know that Joseph Smith ever actually saw the treasure "move."

To appease those evil treasure guardians, Joe Smith went through the rituals that Luman Walter taught him.

It's more likely that Joseph Smith learned the treasure-seeking rituals from his father, who learned them in Vermont. These weren't something you needed a mentor for. They were common knowledge.

The intended purpose was magic for immediate gain… to make something happen so he could obtain riches. This is what black magic is Joseph, and while you know all of this to be true with all you’ve read on the subject, you continue to claim to discount Jonathan’s testimony that Joe Smith saw the dead Indian treasure guardian through his seer stone…

No, I don't know that to be true. I don't see the harm in a bunch of men searching for buried gold in the middle of the night, no matter whether we call it black magic or white magic or oompa loompa magic.

the same seer stone he used to see the supposed golden plates. Failed prophecies, pagan doctrine, polygamy/polyandry… they all came from the same magic rocks he was paid to see treasure underground, yet you just can’t come to grips with what he saw, and still have failed to give one minute reason to question why one would discount what Jonathan Thompson said. It’ll come to you someday Joseph, and if it doesn’t, ok.

I have given my reasons why I don't give Thompson's alleged testimony complete historical credence. First of all, it appears in no other accounts of of the trial. Secondly, the account is not corroborated in any other sources, including non-Mormon sources, which you would think would be eager to publish something of that sort.

I understand that treasure-seekers believed in treasure-guardians. That doesn't mean that every single treasure-seeker did every single treasure-ritual.

You mean the first-hand account you selectively acknowledge while discounting all others?

What first-hand accounts have I selectively discounted, thews?

No evidence you accept that that story evolved, or no evidence? Why does the name Nephi appear at all? Because Joseph Smith didn’t notice? The revelations changed, the stories evolved, but that story didn’t huh? We know for a fact Joseph Smith was a liar, but not this time… right?

You're believing what you want to believe, not actually examining the evidence in this case.

Because you claim it’s all logical when it isn’t.

First, that's not the definition of circular reasoning. Second, what did I claim was logical that isn't?

I guess the onus is on me then to find a credible scholar?

Yes, thews, you are responsible for investigating the credibility of the sources you cite if you are making a claim.

Then the critical perspective is one you claim to have while being able to reason outside of what you have accepted to be true regarding Joseph Smith?

No, thews. As I just said, I was contrasting a critical (non-believing) perspective with my own believing perspective.

In other words, you consider yourself objective when it comes to seer stones and evil treasure guardians?

Actually I do -- or at least, more objective than most -- but that's not the context of the my comment.

I don’t mind Joseph. Most Mormons use the same repetitive arguments that are fed to them via the approved Mormon-spun network of polish data.

I almost slipped on all the dripping irony.

Wiki Wonka continues to conflate “Urim and Thummim” with seer stones, and the intent is to obviously downplay head-in-hat through magic rocks.

Early Mormons such as Joseph Knight, Sr., who were very comfortable with the head-in-his-hat method, referred to the seer-stone as a Urim & Thummim. It wasn't because he wanted to "downplay" it, since he still described Joseph putting his head in his hat in a detail.

[_thews]

Reading from the Bible was believing by treasure-seekers to ward off the evil spirits. It's not something I made up.

I’m not saying you made it up Joseph, just that you imply it applies to all money-diggers. Luman Walter didn’t use a Bible did he? It’s interesting that you admit they used a Bible to ward off evil spirits, but discount Jonathan Thompson’s testimony that Joseph Smith claimed to see evil spirits though his seer stone.

I don't know that Joseph Smith ever actually saw the treasure "move."

I can find many references to treasure moving. Regardless of what someone can prove Joseph Smith said, I’m asking you what makes sense. In your opinion, does it make sense for a money-digger who is hired to “see” treasures underground also see the treasure guardian?
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

The reader will remember that Brigham Young told of a "chest of money" that moved by itself "into the bank," and that Martin Harris told of a "stone box" that "slipped back into the hill." In Joseph Smith's 1826 trial, Jonathan Thompson testified that "on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging." This idea of treasures slipping into the earth can be found reflected in the Book of Mormon, Helaman 13:34-36:
Behold, we lay a tool here and on the morrow it is gone; and behold, our swords are taken from us in the day we have sought them for battle. Yea, we have hid up our treasures and they have slipped away from us, because of the curse of the land. O that we had repented in the day that the word of the Lord came unto us; for behold the land is cursed, and all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them.

It's more likely that Joseph Smith learned the treasure-seeking rituals from his father, who learned them in Vermont. These weren't something you needed a mentor for. They were common knowledge.

This is a case in point where I believe you’re picking and choosing the scenario that fits best to avoid the negative. Luman Walter is mentioned along with Joseph Smith in money digs, so it would make sense that Joseph Smith learned from him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luman_Walter

In November 1819 he married Harriet Howard in Vermont. By 1822, Walter had apparently taken up residence in Gorham, Ontario County, New York, moving several years later to Sodus Township, New York. In 1822 and 1823, Luman Walter served as a seer for a treasure dig on the property of Abner Cole in Palmyra, Wayne County, New York. Joseph Smith, Sr., Alvin Smith, and Joseph Smith, Jr. reportedly participated in this dig. Walter possessed a magical book and a seerstone, which he used to locate buried treasure. Walter is said to have conducted three unsuccessful digs on the hill Cumorah, but later suggests that only Smith might be able to find the treasure there.[6]

No, I don't know that to be true. I don't see the harm in a bunch of men searching for buried gold in the middle of the night, no matter whether we call it black magic or white magic or oompa loompa magic.

That’s interesting, but OK.

I have given my reasons why I don't give Thompson's alleged testimony complete historical credence. First of all, it appears in no other accounts of the trial. Secondly, the account is not corroborated in any other sources, including non-Mormon sources, which you would think would be eager to publish something of that sort.

Ok, but in my opinion this is a good example of you discounting something because you believe it can’t be proven, rather than it doesn’t make sense.

I understand that treasure-seekers believed in treasure-guardians. That doesn't mean that every single treasure-seeker did every single treasure-ritual.

We obviously don’t know what happened “every single” money-dig, but the rituals to include magic sticks and slitting the throat of black animals in circles were done to appease the evil spirits. The most relevant part of this (where we disagree in my opinion) is that the spirits were evil, typically dead humans. I’ve argued this on the other board where they believed white magic was used to combat black magic, but in my opinion appeasing an evil spirit is akin to worshiping it. Since I believe Jonathan Thompson in what he claimed Joseph Smith said about the dead Indian treasure guardians, then if that were true, or there really was a dead Indian guarding the treasure, then that would mean the dead Indian had been judged by God, sent to hell and then appointed to guard the treasure. The other option is Joseph Smith just lied about it, and since the record clearly shows Joseph Smith lied many times, that’s probably the most logical answer.

What first-hand accounts have I selectively discounted, thews?

Jonathan Thompson’s account at the trial.

You're believing what you want to believe, not actually examining the evidence in this case.

I presented the evidence and it was from a pro-Mormon source. Are you claiming the whole Nephi thing was an oversight?

First, that's not the definition of circular reasoning. Second, what did I claim was logical that isn't?

When you have to discount multiple points with other multiple points it is circular reasoning. When you claimed Joseph just missed it when it went to print and stayed that way as logical I’ll disagree, especially when there are multiple places where Nephi was used.

Yes, thews, you are responsible for investigating the credibility of the sources you cite if you are making a claim.

The source I quoted quotes data. The data is either true or it is not true. To attack the source of the data while failing to discounting it based on a lack of “scholarly” input is a tap dance. Is my opinion moot because I’m not a scholar? Is DCP’s opinion the metric to gauge opinion because he is? The data is either true or it is not true and opinion can be had by anyone based on the data.

No, thews. As I just said, I was contrasting a critical (non-believing) perspective with my own believing perspective.

OK, just that I don’t believe you’re being totally objective when it comes to whether or not Joseph Smith claimed to see dead treasure guardians based on the data.

Actually I do -- or at least, more objective than most -- but that's not the context of my comment.

I’ll give you that… in that you believe the Jupiter talisman belonged to Joseph Smith because it makes sense that it did belong to him. The whole part f the money-digger = Christians though is a reach, and if it’s based on select data it’s still not connected in common belief, in that the worship of evil for treasure is not Christian.

I almost slipped on all the dripping irony.

Then we know where each is coming from.

Early Mormons such as Joseph Knight, Sr., who were very comfortable with the head-in-his-hat method, referred to the seer-stone as a Urim & Thummim. It wasn't because he wanted to "downplay" it, since he still described Joseph putting his head in his hat in a detail.

The Urim and Thummim implies the instrument came from God. Joseph Smith’s seer stones are “seer stones” and to imply it’s called the Urim and Thummim under the guise of “conflate” is simply a means to deceive.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflate

World English Dictionary
conflate (kənˈfleɪt)

— vb
( tr ) to combine or blend (two things, esp two versions of a text) so as to form a whole

In the end Joseph, if the LDS church was out in the open with the truth, there would be pictures of head-in-hat translation… there isn’t. LDS.ORG would use words like “divine instrumentalities” to describe seer stones, or “mechanical method” to describe head-in-hat. You know I believe you’re more objective than any other apologist, so eventually I believe this deception will be realized by you and change your perception… just my opinion. Thanks for the response.

[_Willy Law]

How much of the early American and European treasure seeking/occult magic lore made it into the church?
Off the top of my head I can think of; buried treasure, peep stones, treasure guardian spirits and magic swords.
Can anyone think of others?
My question to Joseph and other apologists would be, do you believe that the early Americans belief in occult magic, witchcraft, astrology were actually true or from God?
It seems that they were right about so many things in that their magic beliefs show up in our church. Maybe we should be studying more occult and witchcraft in gospel doctrine. According to the early church those practices actually lead to spiritual experiences directly from God.

[_Wiki Wonka]

Wiki Wonka continues to conflate “Urim and Thummim” with seer stones, and the intent is to obviously downplay head-in-hat through magic rocks. You on the other hand, aren’t scared of the data. Once you know the truth Joseph, you can’t discount it. I admire that by the way… your non-fear of the truth. Thanks for not losing patience with me and answering the questions… you’re still my favorite apologist.

I'm not the one that conflated the terms - the historical record conflates the Nephite interpreters ("spectacles") and the seer stone by retroactively applying the term "Urim and Thummim" to either one. In the early documents the term "Urim and Thummim" is not used - it only appears in later documents. The term "Urim and Thummim" was initially applied to the Nephite interpreters, and later to the seer stone by early Church members.

Early Mormons such as Joseph Knight, Sr., who were very comfortable with the head-in-his-hat method, referred to the seer-stone as a Urim & Thummim. It wasn't because he wanted to "downplay" it, since he still described Joseph putting his head in his hat in a detail.

Correct. In fact, Martin Harris is reported in newspapers as having said that the Nephite interpreters (the "spectacles") were also placed in a hat by Joseph. So Joseph may have used the Nephite interpreters for translation in the same manner that he later used the seer stone.

WW

[_thews]

Wiki Wonka continues to conflate “Urim and Thummim” with seer stones, and the intent is to obviously downplay head-in-hat through magic rocks. You on the other hand, aren’t scared of the data. Once you know the truth Joseph, you can’t discount it. I admire that by the way… your non-fear of the truth. Thanks for not losing patience with me and answering the questions… you’re still my favorite apologist.

I'm not the one that conflated the terms - the historical record conflates the Nephite interpreters ("spectacles") and the seer stone by retroactively applying the term "Urim and Thummim" to either one. In the early documents the term "Urim and Thummim" is not used - it only appears in later documents. The term "Urim and Thummim" was initially applied to the Nephite interpreters, and later to the seer stone by early Church members.

Is that your out Wiki? They did it after the fact so I can too? It's deception to call a seer stone the Urim and Thummim, because of where it implies the instrument came from. in my opinion 95% of all Mormons know nothing about seer stones being called the Urim and Thummim. They believe the Urim and Thummim and Nephite Spectacles came from God. Joseph Smith seer stones did not come from God, but existed before the Book of Mormon. Just because D&C 10:1-3 changed after the fact to cast doubt on what happened to the U&T/Nephite interpreters, it doesn't warrant calling a seer stone anything but a seer stone, because a seer stone isn't from God.

Early Mormons such as Joseph Knight, Sr., who were very comfortable with the head-in-his-hat method, referred to the seer-stone as a Urim & Thummim. It wasn't because he wanted to "downplay" it, since he still described Joseph putting his head in his hat in a detail.

Correct. In fact, Martin Harris is reported in newspapers as having said that the Nephite interpreters (the "spectacles") were also placed in a hat by Joseph. So Joseph may have used the Nephite interpreters for translation in the same manner that he later used the seer stone.

WW

The most logical conclusion is that there never was any Nephite interpreters and Joseph Smith used what was comfortable to him, which were his seer stones. Does it really make any sense at all for God to bless an occult object? Does God take instruction from Joseph Smith? Regardless, the U&T/Nephite interpreters were taken back with the lost 116 pages after the evil doers stole them, and all that remained was Joseph Smith's seer stones; they are not the same thing.