Joseph SMith's Jupiter Talisman

[Calm]

I have Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Does the "Mormon Coffee" web site provide a page number? (I don't have time right now to search for it, but if you can direct me where to look I'll search for it tonight.)

Assuming I've read it right, Bill McKeever gives the reference as: Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, pp.70ff (1987 ed)

http://blog.mrm.org/2009/09/joseph-smiths-powerful-influence/ see the beginning of BMcK's multiple posts quoting Quinn on Sept 23 about 1/5 up from the bottom. (do a find on "sales talk" to locate it quickly)

[volgadon]

Are you in outer space?

Utah. Not sure there is much difference, oxygen aside.

[Chris]

cdowis: No it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in magic if you carry a rabbit's foot.

But if I ever see God and Jesus face-to-face, I would like to think that I would relinquish any kind of "magical" items that I possessed because I came to a sure knowledge that they are bogus. This is what I would do... I can't pretend to know what Joseph Smith was thinking... but in my opinion, I just think it's a little weird (just as I would think it would be weird if Pres Monson wore a talisman).

[Chris]

This makes the assumption that no magic is of God. If (at least some) magic was of God, then it would stand to reason that Smith's dealings with God would reinforce his magic.

Yes it does assume that no magic is of God. I believe that magic is bogus. I would think that that's what God meant when he denounces sorcery and other things in the scriptures. I also think it's pretty clear that (according to LDS belief) the priesthood is the manner in which God delegates his authority and power to men (not through magic).

[volgadon]

cdowis: No it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in magic if you carry a rabbit's foot.

But if I ever see God and Jesus face-to-face, I would like to think that I would relinquish any kind of "magical" items that I possessed because I came to a sure knowledge that they are bogus. This is what I would do... I can't pretend to know what Joseph Smith was thinking... but in my opinion, I just think it's a little weird (just as I would think it would be weird if Pres Monson wore a talisman).

That is assuming it carried any meaning to him above asthetic value.

No, I'm not arguing that the talisman was his.

[cdowis]

cdowis: No it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in magic if you carry a rabbit's foot.

But if I ever see God and Jesus face-to-face, I would like to think that I would relinquish any kind of "magical" items that I possessed because I came to a sure knowledge that they are bogus. This is what I would do... I can't pretend to know what Joseph Smith was thinking... but in my opinion, I just think it's a little weird (just as I would think it would be weird if Pres Monson wore a talisman).

It is a talisman, a magical item, only if JS saw it as such. Where is your evidence that this was a talisman to JS himself?

I carried a rabbit's foot as a teenager, but only because I enjoyed possessing it. I had not thought that it would bring me good luck at all.

You are making an assumption with zero evidence.

[Tsuzuki]

Yes it does assume that no magic is of God. I believe that magic is bogus. I would think that that's what God meant when he denounces sorcery and other things in the scriptures. I also think it's pretty clear that (according to LDS belief) the priesthood is the manner in which God delegates his authority and power to men (not through magic).

He denounces specific types of sorcery in the scriptures, while those same scriptures give examples of prophets using non-prohibited forms of sorcery. Also, most modern Western magic, and the magic of Joseph Smith's time, was an outgrowth of Christian occultism.

[Redefined]

It is true, one rabbit's foot in somebody's possession doesn't mean much. However, if that is coupled with tarot cards, voodoo dolls, candles, etc., it becomes part of a bigger picture. So in Joseph Smith's case, if he owned this talisman big deal, but a critical viewpoint would suggest that this helps substantiate the claim of his treasure seeking, and mysterious secretive society mentality.

[cksalmon]

No, I'm not the seller, but a past buyer. But, when such conversations arise, it's cool to have a tangible thing to which to refer.

cks

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps critics are trying to argue that it implies that Joseph Smith believed in the "magical power" of the talisman. If this is so, why does Joseph Smith, who had an absolute knowledge of the existence of God, believe in something that's not of God? (I realize Joseph Smith attempted to rely on magic in his early days...but why wouldn't he give it up after seeing God, receiving revelations, coming to the knowledge of truth, etc?)

There is no reason for knowing why it was in his possession. Maybe he thought it was cool looking, or plannned on melting it down, or using it for target practice, or using it as an example of something or .... Who knows?

I would hardly call it conclusive evidence for any one possible thing, so why worry about it?

I might have a lot of odd objects in my pocket at any given time.

In fact I carry condoms in my 72 hour pack. What do you think of that?

They are very small and light and make excellent emergency water carrying bags if you need to carry water from one place to another.

[mfbukowski]

Did someone call?

Oh I have been meaning to mention to you that on the east side of the LA temple is a grid of squares, and at the intersection points, there are decorative .... well..... crosses.

Next time I get up there I will snap a picture and post it for you.

[Mike Reed]

Oh I have been meaning to mention to you that on the east side of the LA temple is a grid of squares, and at the intersection points, there are decorative .... well..... crosses.

Next time I get up there I will snap a picture and post it for you.

I would appreciate that. Thanks!

[cdowis]

if he owned this talisman big deal, but a critical viewpoint would suggest that this helps substantiate the claim of his treasure seeking, and mysterious secretive society mentality.

This brings up the question of when he came into possesion of this object --> perhaps as a teenager, and had some sentimental reason for carrying it.

Reminded him of the thousands of hours he was digging holes in the neighborhood, the secret meetings, the candles, the tarot cards, the seances, sacrificing goats. To the critic, this talisman is significant evidence for the "bigger picture".

And for poor fools like myself, it was just a rabbit's foot.

[MormonMason]

* * *

And for poor fools like myself, it was just a rabbit's foot.

This, of course, is assuming that the "he said that he said that she said it was his and it can be yours for only a few trinkets" provenance of the object is correct.

[Pahoran]

I've been reading about the Jupiter Talisman owned by Joseph Smith, and there are reports that claim it wasn't his. While straw man arguments need to attack the source of the argument attempting to discredit it, the basis for claiming the Jupiter Talisman didn't belong to Joseph Smith seems to center on an inventory of what was on his person at the time of death, and the medalion is missing from that list. As is the case of many arguments I've heard, focusing on what isn't while ignoring what is, is a foundatiopn for a very weak argument. My only objective here is to establish the truth... did the Jupiter Talisman belong to Joseph Smith?

Probably not.

Points to ponder:

I'm snipping out your spam-link to "Mormon Curtain." It is one of the more rabid hate sites on the internet (which probably explains why you like it) and contains explicit Temple material.

Do not link to it again.

The famous speech by Dr. Reed Durham who made the discovery...

And this should be considered when attempting to give weight to what Dr. Durham said after the fact.

Dr. Durham's opinion on any subject is not evidence of anything except that that was what he thought about it at the time.

A piece of the puzzle which adds great weight to whetehr or not the Jupiter Talisman did belong to Joseph Smith, would include his brother Hyram's practices(his knife etc.), and Brighamn Young's bloodstone.

Well no, it's not. These are essentially unrelated things.

Here is a parallel that you might be able to grasp: suppose someone were to tell me that thews carried a rabbit's foot in his pocket. As supporting evidence, they produce a photo from thews' wedding, showing the bride's bouquet with a horseshoe hanging therefrom. Since the horseshoe has the same association with good luck as a rabbit's foot, the argument is put forward that someone who is happy to be associated with one "adds great weight" to the argument that he owned the other.

This is, of course, not an argument. It is mere manipulation of atmosphere.

And Emma herself said it belonged to Joseph Smith

No. She did not.

Years after her death, her stepson -- the son of her second husband by an extramarital affair -- made that claim on her behalf to someone else as part of a sales pitch. In the meantime, none of Joseph and Emma's surviving children seemed to mind that a non-relative got such a "prized" family heirloom.

And the Ensign verified the Talisman belonged to Joseph Smith.

Well no, it didn't.

And this also makes sense regarding why Joseph Smith would own something like the talisman:

I don't agree, but for the sake of discussion, let's stipulate to that anyway. An argument that "makes sense regarding why" someone "would own something like" a disputed object does not rise to the level of evidence that they did.

When all the evidence is weighed, and as we know in the times back then it was common for people to believe in such things, why is it such a big deal to just admith the Jupiter Talisman did belong to Joseph Smith?

Because, when all the evidence is weighed, there is precious little to connect this lump of tin to Joseph. The sole "witness" is reporting hearsay that cannot be checked.

There is no way to establish its provenance with any confidence, and not one contemporary source that reports such a thing in Joseph's possession.

So the only factor that we have connecting this object to Joseph is wishful thinking: yours, Wood's, and Bidamon's.

Add-on: am I the only one who wonders whether thews has run away from this thread?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

No. She did not.

Years after her death, her stepson -- the son of her second husband by an extramarital affair -- made that claim on her behalf to someone else as part of a sales pitch. In the meantime, none of Joseph and Emma's surviving children seemed to mind that a non-relative got such a "prized" family heirloom.

There now, see how you are?

Destroying all the fun with logic and facts.

Dang.

You're just no fun at all!

[ttribe]

No, I'm not the seller, but a past buyer. But, when such conversations arise, it's cool to have a tangible thing to which to refer.

cks

Since we ALL know that EVERYTHING on eBay is authentic.

[cksalmon]

Since we ALL know that EVERYTHING on eBay is authentic.

Well, if you're familiar with the talisman, you'll recognize that the replica for sale is indeed a replica of the talisman in question. The only two ways in which I can imagine "authenticity" being at issue are (1) if you somehow imagined that the seller was auctioning the original, or (2) if you have no idea what markings the talisman bears.

I suppose there's a third option: you were just making a joke about eBay auctions. I'll go with that.

cks

[ttribe]

Well, if you're familiar with the talisman, you'll recognize that the replica for sale is indeed a replica of the talisman in question. The only two ways in which I can imagine "authenticity" being at issue are (1) if you somehow imagined that the seller was auctioning the original, or (2) if you have no idea what markings the talisman bears.

I suppose there's a third option: you were just making a joke about eBay auctions. I'll go with that.

cks

#3 it is!

[Zakuska]

Oh yeah...here's what went out in the FAIR Journal just a couple of days ago:

"Website reviews/MormonThink." Over the years FAIR has reviewed a

number of books, articles, and videos. Recently a new anti-Mormon

website has appeared, masquerading as a site by faithful members who

are merely "concerned about the historical accuracy" related to the

Church. Although FAIR doesn't generally respond to anti-Mormon

websites since their content often quickly changes and they seldom

present attacks that haven't been published many times in books, the

mormonthink website presented some particular anti-Mormon attacks as

a challenge to faithful Latter-day Saints. FAIR has created a

response to those anti-Mormon criticisms.

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink

Thanks Wiki Wonka.

One wonders what critical thinking skills MormonThinking has...

The site authors respond to FAIR...

Until the LDS Church leaders support Book of Mormon claims and provide sufficient evidence that it is what it claims to be, it is silly to quote from its preface and ask reasonable people to accept statements by Smith as evidence.

MormonThink's response to FAIR

? ? ?

FAIR's opinion

Despite the availability of "unlimited numbers of non-relatives who are not enemies that could have served as impartial witnesses," the Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who lacked belief. From the time that the Book of Mormon was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world. It is also inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical

[MDesigns]

Considering the time and effort the Prophet Joseph Smith put into learning about certain aspects of astronomy, all the talk in the scriptures about the heavens, and the symbolism of stars, planets, etc. he had placed on the early temples, makes me think he might very well have owned the talisman. Big deal. In fact, to me it makes sense he would find some kind of interest or value in owning a symbolic item that reminded him of the heavens - the heavens that have more to do with the gospel than most members think!

[MormonMason]

Well, if you're familiar with the talisman, you'll recognize that the replica for sale is indeed a replica of the talisman in question. The only two ways in which I can imagine "authenticity" being at issue are (1) if you somehow imagined that the seller was auctioning the original, or (2) if you have no idea what markings the talisman bears.

I suppose there's a third option: you were just making a joke about eBay auctions. I'll go with that.

cks

Well, and then there is the fact that the one side of the talisman is incorrectly arranged as well as part of the symbol on the other being broken because it was copied from the portion of Barrett's work that had part of the character broken because it was not properly inked before being applied to paper in the book. Even if had been intended to have been an authentic piece of magic it would not have worked. Essentially, it was nothing more than a piece of metal with some marks on it!

[Chris]

It is a talisman, a magical item, only if JS saw it as such. Where is your evidence that this was a talisman to JS himself?

I carried a rabbit's foot as a teenager, but only because I enjoyed possessing it. I had not thought that it would bring me good luck at all.

You are making an assumption with zero evidence.

I never claimed to be arguing for or against either side. I think I just stated what I would do if I were Joseph Smith. I also asked a "What if" question to get a better understanding of both viewpoints.

So, one apologetic stance is that it's possible that Joseph Smith did not view that talisman as a magical item?

[MormonMason]

I never claimed to be arguing for or against either side. I think I just stated what I would do if I were Joseph Smith. I also asked a "What if" question to get a better understanding of both viewpoints.

So, one apologetic stance is that it's possible that Joseph Smith did not view that talisman as a magical item?

Actual historical evidence suggests that he never owned it at all. All that we have is a "he said that he said that she said that he owned it" claim and nothing more.

But, even if he did own it, it never would have worked anyway because it is wrongly constructed, based upon a misprint in a book.

Even if he did own it, for the sake of argument, of what significance would it have been to him? That is something we never will and never can know.

I cannot imagine what people will say about me when I die and generations later someone comes across a book proving that I believed in and practiced ceremonial magic because someone found my name on the flyleaf of said book.

I own many kinds of books on many subjects, for varying reasons, but I do not practice anything of the sort--not any more than because I have two shelves full of Jehovahs' Witnesses books makes me one of Jehovah's Witnesses or having Catholic Liturgical books makes me a Catholic priest or secret Catholic, or that by having original language copies of the Book of Going Forth by Day (Book of the Dead) makes me an Egyptian, or anything else.

I also used to carry around a small, hexagonal quartz crystal. I used to carry it becuase when I got bored I would hold it in my hand and feel the shape as I rolled it in my hand. I also would take it out and look through it to see how distorted things were by looking through it. Would I have been killed in those days with it on my person, I have no doubt that I likely would be accused of practicing New Age gobbledegook.

[Tsuzuki]

I am a practicing occultist, and see nothing wrong with Joseph Smith being one either.