Magic Parchment and the Jupiter Talisman

[_Mike Reed]

What role did the Smith family parchment (if any) have? How about the Jupiter talisman? Some apologists attempt to discredit these, by treating them as isolated cases. But considering the fact that both of these came from separate lines of Smith family inheritance (Emma and Hyrum), and were (apparently) designed based on a common source (The Magus)... this circumstantial evidence seemingly has an interesting way of validating each other. I know that some apologists argue that these were acquired by the Smiths via confiscation, but this assumption naturally raises the question, "Then why weren’t they destroyed, as Page's seer-stone was?"

I am hoping that some here can help me hash this out. How much further does this debate get beyond what I have described above? What side is winning the debate? What apologists have crossed over and conceded? If I remember correctly, I think Mike Ash has for the Jupiter Talisman. Who else?

[_skippy the dead]

Interesting topic. I'm actually only very basically familiar with the Jupiter Talisman, and not the other objects you mention. For those of us who may be interested but not informed, do you have any resources you could point me to, so that I can read up a bit?

[_Gazelam]

From an old post by Charity:

A silver "pocket piece" was bought by the Church from Charles Bidamon, the son of Major Bidamon, who was married to Emma Smith after the murder of Joseph. He said, "This piece came to me through the relationship of my father, Major L. C. Bidamon, who married the Prophet Joseph Smith's widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill."

Questions about the authenticity are really strong. First, Bidamon never said anything about the piece for [b] fifty-eight years after Emma’s death to make his certification, which at the time of her death he was but merely a fifteen-year-old boy.

Second, no such piece was listed in Joseph's personal effects which were turned over to Emma. The itemized list of the contents of Joseph Smith's pockets was pubished by the lawyer who collected the propeht's personal effects. This listing is:

"Received, Nauvoo, Illinois, July 2, 1844, of James W. Woods, one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith. - Emma Smith."

The so-called talisman was not in any way similiar to a coin, being larger and with symbols and Hebrew characters. Certainly not any coin of the realm.

Third, Emma never once mentioned a talisman in any of the interviews every recorded. Since the claim was that the propeht carried this medallion, and Emma spoke of it often (according to Bidamon) it is strange no one else every heard about it.

Thanks for letting us lay this myth to rest.

[Hawkeye]

Charity makes a good point by noting the age of Bidamon. But I think it would be an overstatement to say that his age of 15 (and the 58 year time period in between) discredits his report entirely. No doubt the greater the time period (and the younger the age), the greater the likelihood that details will evolve in the mind. However, it seems more probable to me that inaccurate details would lie not in the big details like ownership, but rather with more irrelevant ones... like exactly where Smith had it on his person when he was martyred. If Bidamon had inadvertently added the inaccurate detail (perhaps by assumption) that Smith had it in his pocket, rather than the talisman actually hanging around his neck when he was killed, then it would be understandable that it was not listed among Smith's possessions. It does have a hole in it, ya know. It could have easily gone unnoticed by being worn underneath his clothing... as would have likely been the case. Just as Smith and the early saints believed that the garments must touch the skin in order to have its greatest power of protection, it is likely that Smith (if he indeed owned the talisman) believed the talisman should too. At any rate... a key point that Charity does not address is that talisman was likely designed based on illustrations found in The Magus, which is particularly significant since the Smith family parchment (that came from an entirely separate line of inheritance through Hyrum) was also likely designed by using the same source. Like I said, these two artifacts considered together with this circumstantial evidence, seem to have an interesting way of validating each other.

[_Mike Reed]

repost. oops.

[_Gazelam]

I know litle or nothign about Hyrums parchment, but I did come across this interesting article:

http://www.luciferlink.org/mmore.htm

[_Mike Reed]

*Bump*

[_harmony]

Mike, it might help the discussion get started if you could give us some background on the parchment and the talisman and their relationship. Thanks.

[_Imapiratewasher]

I was there, these relics were in attempt to slander Joseph Smith's name. :P

[_cksalmon]

I am hoping that some here can help me hash this out. How much further does this debate get beyond what I have described above? What side is winning the debate? What apologists have crossed over and conceded? If I remember correctly, I think Mike Ash has for the Jupiter Talisman. Who else?

Hi Mike--

I can't be of much help with the status of the debate (especially about the parchment). I did think that the FAIR article, from which Charity was quoting, I believe, raised some interesting and legitimate questions about the provenance of the Jupiter talisman.

At any rate, if you're interested, you can pick up a replica of the talisman (virtually identical in scale to the original) on ebay.

It's kinda cool, though I have no idea what to do with it. (It's currently tucked in paper between my replica 1830 Book of Mormon and the '81 edition.)

Chris