Elder Gilbert Interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Marcus]

I notice, again, on this thread and others that there are two posters having a 'heyday' doing the thing they do in opposition to my postings. I will again repeat that I will not respond to these two posters...and one or two others...because the track record has been abysmal.

They are only out to get a 'fix' in regard to past grudges. They literally 'troll' me around doing whatever they can to besmirch my good name. They will, of course, say/determine otherwise. It is what it is.

I cannot have a civil conversation or entertain their jaundiced thoughts/expressions when I know they have that monkey on their back whose name is Vendetta.

Regards,
MG

Lol. This would be mentalgymnast making the thread about himself while being upset because he thinks that the thread is about himself. Or, he could read what people have said. It's been quite interesting.

[Marcus]

You purposefully leave out the fact that believing and critical treatments alike recognize that Joseph dictated a lengthy, internally complex text over a relatively short period, working day after day without notes, and that witnesses consistently describe a stable procedure with the stone in the hat.

drumdude may have deliberately left out the several claims that MG makes, but I suspect that, like me, many do not believe that "the fact" MG refers to is indeed fact.

There are "critical treatments" that do not "recognize that Joseph dictated a lengthy, internally complex text over a relatively short period", nor accept that he was "working day after day without notes", nor that "witnesses consistently describe a stable procedure with the stone in the hat". Each of the quoted assertions is disputed, and (in my opinion) solid reasons have been given for not accepting them as "facts".

Several eyewitness statements disagree about the details of the translation process. And at the very least, the fact that there was no disinterested observer checking on what Joseph was doing 24/7 makes room for a wide variety of non-faith promoting activities to take place.

Edit: to be more direct.

Absolutely. The "facts" argued now have changed substantially, and almost always, these changes occur because the LDS leaders either got caught trying to hide something or can't keep covering up the real story, and now they have to try to rehabilitate their story. It's pretty disillusioning to one who grew up in the LDS church, and was trained from the womb to just believe that Mormons are exceptionally 'honest.'

[Marcus]

same stone + past failure ⇒ present claim is shady.

Yes.

Yes, definitely. When I was growing up, things like reading horoscopes, using tarot cards and playing with Ouija boards were strictly forbidden. The reasoning given was that Mormons are above all that, because we have "real" power in our religion. Imagine my surprise a couple of years ago when I saw an op-Ed in the Deseret arguing that using seer stones and reading words in a hat are just as "normal" as astrology and therefore it's no surprise Smith used those methods. Kind of like mentalgymnast's argument that Smith's behavior was perfectly normal and acceptable to all. That is a very recent argument in the LDS church, and in my opinion is used only because people know the history now and they can't justify Smith's con-man behavior any other way.

[I Have Questions]

It would be confirmation bias if I were ignoring disconfirming evidence. But in this case, it was encountering additional historical information that reduces confidence.

I agree that "additional historical information" can clearly lower confidence, but I think the evidential picture around Joseph’s seer stone is more mixed than your framing allows.

Interestingly, some early sources dis not see "money digger" as an automatic disqualifier from a divine calling as you apparently do. In fact, they explicitly acknowledged the practice and saw it as not an unreasonable, even morally preferable, way of seeking income given his family's poverty. Your formulaic cause and effect one way ticket to 'fraud' has more moving parts than you are allowing for.

From what I'm hearing you say and the fact you are ignoring much of what I've said it appears, at least to me, you are suggesting that a stone based medium is automatically analogous to 'crayon scribbles' from a clown source.

You purposefully leave out the fact that believing and critical treatments alike recognize that Joseph dictated a lengthy, internally complex text over a relatively short period, working day after day without notes, and that witnesses consistently describe a stable procedure with the stone in the hat.

At this point, Limnor, I see no reason to take you seriously.

Regards,
MG

What are those sources?

[I Have Questions]

From what I'm hearing you say and the fact you are ignoring much of what I've said it appears, at least to me, you are suggesting that a stone based medium is automatically analogous to 'crayon scribbles' from a clown source.

But it is automatically analogous to crayon scribbles from a clown source. Can you give some explanation as to why one shouldn’t see it that way? Are there examples of that methodology being demonstrated as reliable? Was Joseph known as a reliable source? Did his translations pan out to be reliable? Were they 100% what they claimed to be? (Buried Spanish treasure, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook, KJV Bible plagiarism, Bank fiasco…etc etc etc). Joseph was a habitual liar.

[I Have Questions]

Ancient Israelite priests also used physical stones as instruments of revelation.

Israel “casts lots” in various situations (division of land, choosing Saul, selecting Matthias in Acts 1.

In the ancient world, kings and priests used physical objects to seek divine direction. Joseph’s 'peep' stone fits this very old pattern of object‑mediated divination.

In Joseph Smith's world the use of a stone from his folk magic environment was repurposed by God. That's what believers believe anyway.

Regards,
MG

thinking as a nonmormon I see no reason to believe God could not use a stone in a hat as part of revealing. Why in the world not? I think the Book of Mormon is the clearest evidence of revelation or not.

I suppose if one does not believe the book the stone suggests things other than revelation however.

The clearest evidence is the plagiarised KJV Bible content in the Book of Mormon. Including errors, including syntax.

[I Have Questions]

<snip>

I would ask the question (for which there may not be any readily provable answer), as to how far and how many critics have really gone beneath "surface level investigations"? Or 'silo level' investigations.

I think there is definitely an easy way to readily provide a response to your question. Pick an aspect of your Mormon beliefs that you suspect hasn't been investigated at a level beyond scratching just the surface. Just one will do. But I bet you won't...

I appear to have won my bet…

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

thinking as a nonmormon I see no reason to believe God could not use a stone in a hat as part of revealing. Why in the world not? I think the Book of Mormon is the clearest evidence of revelation or not.

I suppose if one does not believe the book the stone suggests things other than revelation however.

The clearest evidence is the plagiarised KJV Bible content in the Book of Mormon. Including errors, including syntax.

The clearest evidence is *looks around, waves arms wildly* literally everything. Mormonism is absurd on the level of flat-eartherism. It’s an obvious absurdity that dupes, the brainwashed, the socially/economically compromised, or clever people “believe.” Not-idiots who have no connection with it see it for the obvious nonsense that it is.

[Equality]

Where did you get this idea? Was it from the book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by D. Michael Quinn?

Honestly? This is information that I've gleaned from many sources over the years. The fact is, in Joseph Smith's time the concern that Limnor has would not have been a 'thing' in the area/time Joseph Smith grew up in.

Folk magic was a thing.

It's more of a concern nowadays, especially among certain critics of the restoration.

Regards,
MG

Do those "many sources" not include Quinn's book? If you haven't read Quinn's book, I recommend that you do so. According to Quinn, the belief in and use of folk magic was actually quite controversial on the American frontier in the early 19th century milieu in which the Smith family moved and from which the Mormon cult arose. Of course, the historical evidence on the subject, when honestly surveyed, reveals a nuanced and complex picture, which is something that LDS church leaders could not stomach 30 years ago when they decided to discipline Quinn for daring to tell the world that Joseph Smith wore a Jupiter's Talisman and the Smith family was thoroughly enamored with magic.

For having gleaned information on the topic "from many sources" (unnamed, conveniently) over the years, you are exhibiting a high level of ignorance on the subject. Either that, or you know what you are saying is false.

Riddle me this: the LDS church consistently proclaims that Joseph Smith and his family suffered persecution from neighbors in the community in and around Palmyra in the 1820s well before the Book of Mormon was published and the church was founded in 1830. What was the genesis of those persecutions if not the family's magic practices (treasure digging, necromancy, talismans, etc.)?

Is it your position that the persecutions suffered by the Smith family at the hands of their upstate NY neighbors had nothing to do with the Smith family's belief in and use of folk magic? To the extent you are arguing that concerns about folk magic were not "a thing" in frontier America in the 1820s, how do you respond to the very detailed and voluminous evidence to the contrary cited by Quinn in his book? How do the "many sources" you have read over the years answer this question?

You might find this article in Dialogue interesting and informative. It does not, however, support your contention that concerns about withcraft, sorcery, necromancy, and other folk-magic practices were not "a thing." Quite the opposite: they were "the thing" that got Joseph Smith arrested and put on trial.

Just a taste from the article:

When Joseph Smith, a young treasure seeker, had his first visionary experience, local religious leaders reacted negatively in ways that Smith family members considered surprising. At the age of fourteen, an unnamed assailant fired a bullet at Joseph Smith as he returned home. In 1823, Joseph Smith experienced an envisioned visitation of an angel, who declared that Smith would be a prophet and uncover a buried scripture. Within a year of this experience, rumors began to circulate that someone had disinterred and dissected his older brother Alvin’s body. Dan Vogel and Michael Quinn believe that these were allegations of utilizing part of Alvin’s body to acquire the golden plates. These rumors portrayed the act of acquiring the golden plates as a form of necromancy. These allegations may have been an initial, failed, attempt to charge Joseph Smith with a crime. As William Morain points out, “violating a grave” was “a felony offense for which, in 1824, he could have been incarcerated in the New York state prison for five years.” A year later, in 1825, Josiah Stowell heard about Joseph Smith’s gift for using his seer stone, perhaps tied to rumors of Joseph’s 1823 vision of an angel who led him to the gold plates. Josiah Stowell requested that Joseph reside at his home as a farmworker who would aid Stowell in his treasure seeking. Joseph’s parents agreed, perhaps to remove him from a dangerous environment. However, trouble followed Joseph Smith Jr. to Bainbridge, New York. In 1826, Stowell’s nephew took Joseph Smith to court as a disorderly person.

Allegations of witchcraft continued after the trials as well, with some ascribed to Joseph’s life in the 1820s. In 1834, testimonies ascribed to Smith’s neighbors appeared in the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. The affidavits in this book describe Smith’s activities through the paradigms of pretended and diabolical witchcraft. In one of these affidavits, discussing a period between the 1826 and 1830 hearings, Sophia Lewis, who also served as Emma Smith’s midwife, reported that Joseph and Emma’s child died horribly deformed at birth. Her affidavit is notable because the diabolical witch’s doctrine and folklore viewed deformed births and stillbirth as evidence of witchcraft. Shortly after Alvin’s death, Emma Smith returned to her parents’ Methodist church in Harmony. When Joseph Smith attempted to attend, it sparked a controversy that included church members’ allegations of necromancy and other witchcraft practices. In the 1879 remembrances of these events, Emma’s relatives made it clear that those involved in this controversy believed Joseph Smith “was a conjurer” and “a sorcerer,” clarifying that these were forms of “witchcraft.” This same Methodist congregation later threatened violence against Joseph Smith, which forced him to move to the home of Peter Whitmer Sr. in Fayette, New York.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... /#_ftnref6

[I Have Questions]

Joseph Smith and his family were folk magic practitioners and Smith described himself as a "seer" throughout his life.[2] The family was controversial in the region for their practice of nighttime treasure digs aided by incantations, charms, magic circles, animal sacrifices, and allegedly necromancy.[18][19] Joseph Smith's recently-deceased older brother was reportedly exhumed and Smith reportedly left the Methodists amid accusations of necromancy.[20] As early as 1834, the Smiths' involvement in folk magic was documented in the book Mormonism Unvailed.[21]

The church consistently minimized and denied Smith's usage of magic. As late as 1954, Joseph Fielding Smith claimed, incorrectly, that seer stones had not been used during the dictation of the Book of Mormon.

If it wasn't controversial, why did JFS try and hide it?