Radio Free Mormon: Magic and the Book of Mormon (We Need Dan Vogel's Help!)

[_Stem]

It seems to me that you are forgetting that he was an established trickster who was engaging in treasure-digging schemes. His skills and his subject matter come directly from that milieu. The Book of Mormon starts off as a treasure that he and other treasure seers were looking for. The translation springs out of that, and it cannot be divorced from it. He had first to convince others that he recovered the plates. Then he eventually commits to translating them himself. Knowing that this all originated in a ruse, we should instead think it would have been strange for him to do other than he did.

How did he manage to keep people looking for treasures that were not there? Seems kinda needlessly complicated. Then too, however, do lots of cons. The complication covers up the aim of making money. Joseph must spin out the process of finding the treasure in order to be paid for looking for it. The Book of Mormon translation process is sold to Martin Harris in a certain way so that he will believe in it and fund it. To imagine this unfolding in other, simpler ways and then say that it would be more sensible and credible to have done so is to ignore so much of the history leading up to the discovery of the plates and their translation.

I've tried to imagine being a teenager of that era with incredible sounding stories of hidden treasures and magical ways to find them. I can imagine getting caught up in it to some degree or another. Once he convinced someone of his own skills and abilities, he doubley convinced himself. That he employed traditional tricks was not a sign of fraud, to him. It was because he had the magical gifts and powers. He could see places appearing in his head...he could imagine digging and finding treasure, right at the exact moment he wanted to see it. Any failures weren't because he didn't see it, they were because someone in the party did something wrong, or he did, or they were too greedy...or other such stuff. But he and his associates still thought there was treasure...and that he and/or others could detect it. I mean, I imagine that's what they were thinking and doing.

And I don't see the translation as much different. After convincing his family, he tells Emma, Martin, encounters Oliver. Once he starts focusing in on it and finding lines coming out, seemingly appearing in his head out of nowhere, I still imagine him thinking it's all from God. To him that's nothing but God feeding him scripture. How else would God work?

[_Simon Southerton]

Starting today I am reading No Man Knows My History again. I want to see if anything pops out again. The other reason is that I haven't studied church history closely. So my claim that I believed Joseph Smith acted alone was based on gut instinct, not knowledge. So it's an opinion that deserves to be challenged.

I have only been reading for a day and something has already leapt out at me. Looking into his hat caused Joseph Smith eye strain.

Fawn Brodie included a large appendix in No Man Knows My History. It includes the court record of Joseph Smith's trial in Bainbridge, New York, March 20, 1826. It also includes sworn statements of more than a hundred of the early friends and neighbours of Joseph Smith. A portion of the record is a statement read out in defense of Joseph Smith. It includes the following:

...that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes-made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having to do with this business.

Other witness statements confirm this. Someone named McMaster said this:

Prisoner pretended to him that he could discern objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark-colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes

Joseph Smith was either lying or telling the truth, and neither paints him in a good light. The implication that peering into a dark hat caused eye strain, but looking through a white stone at the sun didn't, is laughable. I don't believe Smith was lying, a risky thing to do in a court situation. I believe there is truth to his admission.

The only way looking into a hat could hurt his eyes would be if he was straining very hard to read something. We know the stone didn't glow, so this suggests he was straining to see something else. Could it be he was straining to read a map of a property he had already scoped out in order to fool the farmer?

I read somewhere that on one treasure dig, Joseph Smith remained in the farmers cottage where he gave instructions to the party who were out in the field doing the hard work. His father was in the field with them. I can imagine the instructions being passed from the house to the workers. "Take fifteen paces towards the old oak tree then 10 paces towards the duck pond" A whole series of bullseyes with his directions would have been very convincing for some folk. It may have helped a few get over the fact that he never found anything.

The fact that Joseph remained in the house raises even more questions. If he was reading off the stone why did he need to be in the house where there was light? The whole purpose for the hat was to exclude light so he could read off his seer stone. If the hat was to exclude light, why not go out into the dark to enhance the light-blocking effect of the hat? He needed to be near light so he could do his magic trick.

All of this makes sense if Joseph Smith's hat was a magic prop that allowed just enough light in to read. I don't know if at this stage his hat was white, but it's not hard to imagine ways he could have modified a hat to allow enough light in to read. All he would have to do would be to make a hidden slit that came apart to allow just a small amount of light in. Maybe the act of pressing his face into the hat was all he needed to do to push the slit open. It would be almost impossible for someone to pick up on this trick unless they were to suspect what he was doing and handle the hat. But the odds of that would have been extremely low. His hat was a personal item of clothing and it would have been rude to ask to look at it. Also, if Smith wasn't using his hat with the stone in it, it would have been on his head.

[_Lemmie]

Starting today I am reading No Man Knows My History again. I want to see if anything pops out again. The other reason is that I haven't studied church history closely. So my claim that I believed Joseph Smith acted alone was based on gut instinct, not knowledge. So it's an opinion that deserves to be challenged.

I have only been reading for a day and something has already leapt out at me. Looking into his hat caused Joseph Smith eye strain.

Fawn Brodie included a large appendix in No Man Knows My History. It includes the court record of Joseph Smith's trial in Bainbridge, New York, March 20, 1826. It also includes sworn statements of more than a hundred of the early friends and neighbours of Joseph Smith. A portion of the record is a statement read out in defense of Joseph Smith. It includes the following:

...that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes-made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having to do with this business.

Other witness statements confirm this. Someone named McMaster said this:

Prisoner pretended to him that he could discern objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark-colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes

Joseph Smith was either lying or telling the truth, and neither paints him in a good light. The implication that peering into a dark hat caused eye strain, but looking through a white stone at the sun didn't, is laughable. I don't believe Smith was lying, a risky thing to do in a court situation. I believe there is truth to his admission.

The only way looking into a hat could hurt his eyes would be if he was straining very hard to read something. We know the stone didn't glow, so this suggests he was straining to see something else. Could it be he was straining to read a map of a property he had already scoped out in order to fool the farmer?

I read somewhere that on one treasure dig, Joseph Smith remained in the farmers cottage where he gave instructions to the party who were out in the field doing the hard work. His father was in the field with them. I can imagine the instructions being passed from the house to the workers. "Take fifteen paces towards the old oak tree then 10 paces towards the duck pond" A whole series of bullseyes with his directions would have been very convincing for some folk. It may have helped a few get over the fact that he never found anything.

The fact that Joseph remained in the house raises even more questions. If he was reading off the stone why did he need to be in the house where there was light? The whole purpose for the hat was to exclude light so he could read off his seer stone. If the hat was to exclude light, why not go out into the dark to enhance the light-blocking effect of the hat? He needed to be near light so he could do his magic trick.

All of this makes sense if Joseph Smith's hat was a magic prop that allowed just enough light in to read. I don't know if at this stage his hat was white, but it's not hard to imagine ways he could have modified a hat to allow enough light in to read. All he would have to do would be to make a hidden slit that came apart to allow just a small amount of light in. Maybe the act of pressing his face into the hat was all he needed to do to push the slit open. It would be almost impossible for someone to pick up on this trick unless they were to suspect what he was doing and handle the hat. But the odds of that would have been extremely low. His hat was a personal item of clothing and it would have been rude to ask to look at it. Also, if Smith wasn't using his hat with the stone in it, it would have been on his head.

Excellent analysis, thank you. Obviously I don’t know the full background here, so please forgive what may be an obvious question, but how do we know the stone didn't glow? I thought it did, hence the likening of it to an I-phone, but when I checked the LDS essays, they refer only vaguely to a spiritual glow. Is there a more specific statement somewhere about the alleged properties of the stone?

Obviously it can’t really glow, so I’m not arguing that, I’m just thinking that your argument is strengthened by definitely stating how we know it was not claimed to glow.

[_moksha]

Fawn Brodie included a large appendix in No Man Knows My History.

https://archive.org/details/NoManKnowsM ... y/mode/1up

[_Lemmie]

Fawn Brodie included a large appendix in No Man Knows My History.

https://archive.org/details/NoManKnowsM ... y/mode/1up

I didn’t say that, but I’ll certainly take the hint if that’s where details about non-glowing stones can be found!

[_Shulem]

details about non-glowing stones can be found!

Oh man, I can't wait to read No man Knows my History. I'm sure it's going to be a real treat. But right now I'm getting ready to head down to the Texas Coast (Galveston) for a few days and enjoy the beach, in style. Doesn't that just sound delightful?

I wonder if Dan the man (Vogel) will ever show up and comment? Perhaps his book pretty much says all he has to say on the matter but I would love to hear his commentary on RFM's podcast. I'm glad Simon Southerton and others have been studying the matter and commenting. Thank you.

Imagine the Church doing a documentary film on the early life of Joseph Smith to include details of his treasure hunting activities! It ain't gonna happen. The Church only paints Smith in the kind of image and picture they want to make of him. The Church is a dishonest organization having created their own idea of what they want Joseph Smith to be -- the ideal man according to their desired expectations.

In reality, Smith was a liar and a cheat -- and an adulterer.

[_Lemmie]

details about non-glowing stones can be found!

Oh man, I can't wait to read No man Knows my History. I'm sure it's going to be a real treat...

Ok, I sense I am getting a hint here, I’ll join you in your reading!

I envy you your vacation. We don’t walk out the front door here without masks and gloves, and right now there’s nowhere to go to escape.

[_Fence Sitter]

Oh man, I can't wait to read No man Knows my History. I'm sure it's going to be a real treat. But right now I'm getting ready to head down to the Texas Coast (Galveston) for a few days and enjoy the beach, in style. Doesn't that just sound delightful?

I am surprised to hear you have never read it given your interest in Joseph Smith. Brodie's book is essential reading even now. For those just diving into the field of Mormon history it should be the first thing they read. It remains the gold standard of biographies on Joseph Smith and is the base on which people like Bushman, Vogel, Hill, Quinn and many other built their own work. I think I went though RSR and counted 130ish references to NMKMH in it.

It is one of Blixa's favorite books and she has read it over 100 times.

Brodie was a fantastic writer.

[_Simon Southerton]

Brodie's book is essential reading even now. For those just diving into the field of Mormon history it should be the first thing they read. It remains the gold standard of biographies on Joseph Smith and is the base on which people like Bushman, Vogel, Hill, Quinn and many other built their own work. I think I went though RSR and counted 130ish references to NMKMH in it.

It is one of Blixa's favorite books and she has read it over 100 times.

Brodie was a fantastic writer.

Brodie is amazing. She's was an extremely thorough researcher and she writes beautifully. A giant among historical scholars. In comparison Bushman is an apologist.

[_Meadowchik]

Perhaps the abundance of so-called witnesses is an artifact of the intentional fabrication itself. Intent on producing a miracle, the magician needs an audience, in the style of the spiritualism of the day. It is not a personal spiritual experience, but a group experience.

What a contrast to the First Vision story, which epitomises the genuine, personal quest for God. And what a coincidence that Smith could produce it years after the fact.