Joseph SMith's Jupiter Talisman

[Calm]

I'm fairly sure that according to LDS tactics this will be proof enough that Joseph Smith didn't own the Jupiter talisman, but that's common...

And just what do you mean by "LDS tactics"?

The bottomline is the vast majority of LDS don't care one way or the other if he owned it. Some think it cool even, there was even one company that reproduced them to sell in LDS related stores as jewelry.

OTOH, scholars tend to be careful about attributing something to a third hand source especially if include a contradiction of a firsthand source.

The first hand source was an official listing of what was in JS's pockets at his death. The thirdhand claim (this is what Emma allegedly told Charles Bidamon that was then told to WW) was that this talisman was in his pocket when he died. If that part of the claim is proved to be inaccurate as has been done, then it is simple academic wisdom to take care with the rest of the associated claims until they can be confirmed or denied by other sources.

[selek]

And just what do you mean by "LDS tactics"?

The bottomline is the vast majority of LDS don't care one way or the other if he owned it.

OTOH, scholars tend to be careful about attributing something to a third hand source especially if include a contradiction of a firsthand source.

The first hand source was an official listing of what was in JS's pockets at his death. The thirdhand claim (this is what Emma allegedly told Charles Bidamon that was then told to WW) was that this talisman was in his pocket when he died. If that part of the claim is proved to be inaccurate as has been done, then it is simple academic wisdom to take care with the rest of the associated claims until they can be confirmed or denied by other sources.

In this case, Cal, it translates rather clearly as, "You mouth-breathing Mormon dupes are too stupid, stubborn, and dishonest to agree with me."

Thews is being insulting and belligerent in an attempt to mask how weak his argument truly is, and is perhaps hoping to incite a knee-jerk agreement from people in order to prove how open-minded they are.

In short, he's bluffing, trying to put us on the defensive.

It's also a bit of a "sour grapes" rationalization- Thews failed to prove his case because his argument was weak and his methodology sloppy, but his ego and pride demand that he blame us instead.

[cdowis]

deleted

[Bsix]

Speaking of knee-jerk reactions to defend the Church and believe only positive things about the Church on the part of LDS members...

What about the knee-jerk tendency of critic and skeptics of the LDS Church to believe only negative things about the Church?

I think the buying into antiMormon talisman claim is an excellent exhibition of inherent bias on the part of some.

Six

[Deborah]

I think the buying into antiMormon talisman claim is an excellent exhibition of inherent bias on the part of some.

Plus it demonstrates how desperate they are to find even the smallest thing to criticize the Prophet.

This discussion is much-ado about nothing. Whether he had it or not, so what? It proves nothing.

[Pappy Fiddle]

This discussion is much-ado about nothing. Whether he had it or not, so what? It proves nothing.

Have you ever looked over the case for Amelia Earhart landing on Gardner Island? One of the reasons TIGHAR has put up this website was because it makes a nifty case study for students, not that it matters to anyone now - Amelia left no estate or political control or anything. I've often thought that they've found enough evidence to prove Amelia was there, if we only knew how to evaluate it statistically.

I figure that either

1- Joseph Smith didn't own this Jupiter Talisman

2- He owned it but didn't care zip about it, just hadn't gotten around to throwing it away yet

3- He used it as a paperweight or something mundane like that

4- He owned it, thought of investigating the symbols on it someday

5- He did strange occultic rituals with it

Maybe these are all the possibilities, or maybe someone can think of another. At any rate, we could try to guess a probability for each of these situations. The background guess, knowing nothing about it, would put #1 at something like 99.999% since there are only so many Jupies in the world, and so many people, most of whom don't own one (and never even heard of the concept.) The p() for all possibilities should add up to 100%.

Then we could bring in information we have. Wilford Wood bought the JT from Charles Bidamon. He said that Charles said his mother said JS owned this. Can we evaluate the probability that WW's report is true? How often was he known to lie? Did he have a religious mandate to tell the truth? And so we could guess a number, say 96% or something if WW ever lied, I doubt if he was that bad, but maybe some estimate could be made. Then the same process for CB, and then for Emma, and finally an estimate for whether Emma knew. As you can sort of envision, the longer this chain stretches out, the less likely that it's all true from start to end. But maybe all the numbers are pretty good so you might actually get a summation number that wasn't too ridiculous.

Then you have the inventory. What's the p() that they missed something? What's the p() that they failed to check inside the shirt? Remember, there was a doctor or two present. They must have checked around on the body, because we have a count of the bullet wounds (DC 135:1). Some probability could be assigned to each of these premises.

We might also try to factor in the possibility that someone planted this JT into the scene, for whatever reason. Money, to discredit JS, to try to help his reputation, etc.

And we ought to include some kind of a psubx() that each of these bits of info are incorrect, reported wrong, etc.

Then we need someone better-informed than I, who can show us how to combine these item estimates into a grand total and get answers for 1 thru 5 above. One factor says he owned it, another factor says it wasn't on him when he was shot, other factors say yes, no, or whatever they say, and there ought to be a way to mathematically arrive at probabilities p(1) thru p(5).

Some might think this useless. But I'd say it would have to be extremely educational, and could lead to resolving a lot of other questions of similar ilk. I'd love to see some kind of science be able to tell us a given conclusion is 99.99% likely, or only 0.001%, or whatever number, based on component estimates that could be argued and arrived at, at least within given ranges.

There was a debate a few years ago on ARM, where someone wanted to try this with Joseph's Civil War prophecy. One critic opposed it but his argument equated to the p() for every single item being close to zero - clearly unreasonable. Even to him, I would have thought. The math can be done all open to inspection so there's no way to push a hidden rabbit into the hat.

Pappy

[thews]

Rather than weed through the pages of highfivers attacking the questions, I'll answer this one.

Agreed. Even if it was his it "proves" nothing. I have a little clock shaped like Buddha at home. What does this tell you, other than that I am awesome?

Why the Jupiter talisman is relevant is due to what it connects. The break in the lower "S" shaped symbol links it to ther book The Magnus 1801 edition, and since Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr. were both glass-lookers, would provide evidence to the claims made against him for being a practicing necromancer.

Link Removed by mods.

The photograph on the right is taken from The Magus by Francis Barrett (1995 reprint of original 1801 edition, p. 143). The Magus was an instruction into dark magick, the Kabbalah, alchemy, and witchcraft. See the article entitled Magick Talisman for the full story.

But as I noted, it can't be proven to be his, and the evidence leans in the opposite direction.

As with most pieces of Mormon history that don't paint Joseph Smith in a good light, distortion has to be used to imply that truth is somehow a lie. In this case, why would someone discount that the Jupiter talisman did belong to Joseph Smith? This story started from a Mormon source that was later pressured to recant it. Emma Smith said it was his, Hyram Smith and Joseph Smith Sr. were known to be into occult magic, and Joseph Smith was convicted of glass-looking before he wrote the BOM. Just looking at all the symbols on Mormon temples that tie Joseph Smith directly into Masonic symbols, and you have to digest a lot of distortion to actually believe the talisman didn't belong to Joseph Smith. But again, as is the case in Mormonism, history has to be tainted by arguments from silence in order to make it true... force it to be true by claiming what can't be proven, rather than just look at the evidence.

What's really interesting is the amount of data we have on Joseph Smith, and what is constantly distorted in order to provide an alternative path for people to believe in the distortion. Take for example the list of historical facts and note all the supposed "liars" that need to be accepted in order to paint Joseph Smith as someone other than a false prophet of God, and in this case it would be Emma. You can claim, "so what if it did belong to him" and discount it, but at least you'd be honest with yourself in admitting it was his. No matter what the evidence in the historical record states, there are those that will reject it as "anti-Mormon" even though it's the truth.

To answer your question regarding "so what if it was his," consider this:

http://www.letusreason.org/LDS12.htm

1828 June; Joseph Smith joined the Methodist church but was given an ultimatum of either withdrawing his name or standing an investigation. He withdrew his name. "We (members of the church) thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it." (The Anboy Journal p. 1 June 11, 1879)

Question? Why Did Smith try to join this church after he already received the revelation that they were all abominable? "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were and abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt.... (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith--History 1:19, Page 49) Wouldn

[Hestia]

Why the Jupiter talisman is relevant is due to what it connects. The break in the lower "S" shaped symbol links it to ther book The Magnus 1801 edition, and since Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr. were both glass-lookers, would provide evidence to the claims made against him for being a practicing necromancer.

Such absurd speculation and preaching is not acceptable. Don't do it again.

[Pahoran]

I realized this after the fact, but didn't know what book the editor of the Ensign was being referenced. I'm fairly sure that according to LDS tactics this will be proof enough that Joseph Smith didn't own the Jupiter talisman, but that's common...

So "common" that you can't cite a single example of this "LDS tactic."

Or can you?

Call for references, Thews. Show us the evidence for your blanket smear, or else withdraw it.

the truth is Joseph Smith was into occult magic and did own it,

The truth is that you have no real evidence for either of these assertions.

but a quote from Emma prolly isn't enough to convince the people that need this to be false...

Except you don't have a quote from Emma. There is not one single first-hand statement extant from Emma that even mentions anything like a talisman, even in passing. You have a quote from the illegitimate son of Emma's second husband that attributes something to Emma.

The fact is, Thews, that you are the one who needs to tie the talisman to Joseph. Without it, your accusation that he was into "occult magic" collapses.

it's not false, just as Hyram's knife isn't false.

Thank you for your "testimony." Unfortunately, this forum is for discussion, not testimony-bearing.

As with most pieces of Mormon history that don't paint Joseph Smith in a good light, distortion has to be used to imply that truth is somehow a lie. In this case, why would someone discount that the Jupiter talisman did belong to Joseph Smith?

For two reasons: (1) the evidence tying it to him is tenuous at best, and (2) certain utterly disreputable polemicists, best characterised by Matthew 7:10, exploit this lump of tin to support baseless accusations.

Emma Smith said it was his,

Why do you persist in this claim when you know it to be at best controversial? When you have no first-hand statement about it at all?

Hyram Smith and Joseph Smith Sr. were known to be into occult magic,

There is no evidence that Hyrum (note the correct spelling, preferred by those to whom accuracy is at all important) or Joseph Senior were "known to be" anything at all before the Book of Mormon suddeny thrust the whole family into the limelight.

and Joseph Smith was convicted of glass-looking before he wrote the BOM.

That's false, which is entirely sufficient to explain why you assert it.

To answer your question regarding "so what if it was his," consider this:

Indeed, let us consider that "this" relies upon the discredited "bleeding ghost" story, which is a huge red flag. Nobody pretending to any sort of credibility relies upon it; but you and your anti-Mormon chicanery would be utterly lost without it.

Is polygamy/polyandry, racism and occult magic good or evil fruit?

What about false accusations, Thews? Are they good or evil fruit?

Consider: of all the epithets that the New Testament could have applied to Satan, instead of "polygamist" or "racist" or "magician," the apostles chose diabolos which means "accuser" or "slanderer."

Which describes a role in which you appear remarkably comfortable.

Incidentally, "racism" is not a fruit of the restored Gospel. If anything, it appears to be "fruit" of the larger Protestant culture that was the milieu in which the Church grew up.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pappy Fiddle]

Why the Jupiter talisman is relevant is due to what it connects. The break in the lower "S" shaped symbol links it to ther book The Magnus 1801 edition, and since Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr. were both glass-lookers, would provide evidence to the claims made against him for being a practicing necromancer.

Let's see if I can show you why this does not compute. Your arguments, as paraphrased by me, are preceded by "--"

--The Charly Bidamon Jupiter Talisman (CBJT) has a broken S.

This is true, discernable by inspection. It's not really an S but I suppose it's OK as a quick identifier.

--The Magnus 1801 has a broken S.

This is unsupported as far as I know. I don't have this book. Before I make effort to find a copy, let's look farther into your logic.

--Therefore the CBJT and the Magnus are linked.

Linked how - one copied from the other? both copied from a common source? What are you claiming here? Be precise, please. Just "linked" is wussy and conjures up all sorts of crimes and torts, but doesn't actually tell us squat.

--Joseph Smith Sr. was a glass-looker

This is unsupported. I don't know of any evidence whatsoever to this effect, and I've been reading and studying this general topic for 35 years.

--Joseph Smith Jr. was a glass-looker

This is supported only by claims, not by evidence. The people of the Palmyra area were gun-shy. The area was worked over by a couple of scam artists a decade before the Smiths arrived, and when the news of the Book of Mormon came out, with the gold plates, the Urim & Thummim and all, the U&T reminded people of the earlier scammers, with their crystal balls and peepstones. And so tongues wagged, stories circulated about JS having a peepstone, etc., but none of it can be connected to Joseph Smith Sr. or Jr. by any real evidence that I know of.

--Therefore the CBJT provides evidence that "him" (JS Sr. or Jr.?) was a necromancer.

Doesn't follow. First off, who? Jr. or Sr.? Your argument appears poorly expressed.

Second, a necromancer is one who does divination by communication with the dead, such as the witch in 1 Samuel 28. I don't think the CBJT has anything to do with divining by communicating with the dead. A very quick scan of the net shows that a JT is supposed to cure disease, bring good luck, and help in communicating with God. None of these sources, including websites selling these things, mention communicating with the dead. Nor does it seem logical at all. Not that the advertized purposes do either, but some might think so and thus fulfill the old adage that a fool and his money are soon parted. But no one that I know says JT's are for necromancy.

And look carefully - the first set of logic, about the broken S ? It's not connected here to anything. See:

--Broken S on the CBJT

--Broken S in Magnus

--Therefore CBJT and Magnus are "linked".

--Joseph Smith Sr. a glass-looker

--Joseph Smith Jr. a glass-looker

--Therefore the CBJT implied that JS Sr./Jr.(?) was a necromancer.

None of this makes any sense. Even if it were all solid gold truth (at least half of it is unsupported) none of it connects together. If you are a glass looker, and have a JT of the Magnusest kind, THIS DOES NOT TELL US WHETHER YOU ARE A NECROMANCER OR NOT.

What makes more sense is that maybe Charly wanted to make a quick buck and seeing a copy of the book, he made a JT like the book apparently describes and managed to sell it to a Mormon collector by dropping a few choice tidbits of fiction.

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

(I don't know what this is, I don't follow links just because someone posts one. If you want me to go there, describe what's there)

As with most pieces of Mormon history that don't paint Joseph Smith in a good light, distortion has to be used to imply that truth is somehow a lie. In this case, why would someone discount that the Jupiter talisman did belong to Joseph Smith?

I've tried to show you why your logic doesn't fly. I'm going to let that much suffice, since you indicate that you aren't even reading much of this thread. The rest of your logic is of the same ilk, as I'll be happy to diagram if you so request.

Pappy

[Pappy Fiddle]

Such absurd speculation and preaching is not acceptable. Don't do it again.

Dear Moderator: I find your technique here offensive. See my response to this same post for what I consider to be a rational approach to fighting darkness. Your technique looks to me like fighting darkness with threat of arbitrary censorship powers. No one can argue with you - but it isn't light. They do essentially the same thing on a board I saw once called Recovery From Mormonism - suppress all opposition. Is your faith so weak that it cannot survive a silly, shallow diatribe?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I've seen several of these moderator interjections here, and they all have seemed offensive to me. This is an assessment from a faithful, knowledgeable, active Latter-day Saint. I don't know what your affiliation is, but please give it some thought.

If you are trying to make a good discussion forum, well, that's the appearance as a wandering pilgrim saw it: Ugly.

Pappy

[Hestia]

Dear Moderator: I find your technique here offensive.

I've seen several of these moderator interjections here, and they all have seemed offensive to me. This is an assessment from a faithful, knowledgeable, active Latter-day Saint. I don't know what your affiliation is, but please give it some thought.

And your comments are out of line and this is a warning to you. Per board guidelines: Moderator and Administration actions are considered final word on a subject. Arguing with the moderators and/or any attempts to circumvent moderator actions are forbidden

Furthermore the poster in question violated several rules with this one post. I suggest you read the board guidelines.

[Bernard Gui]

Over the years I have had various things in my pockets. Some of them still reside

in a little wooden box that contains my keepsakes: a Swiss Army knife, two small

river stones worn smooth that are soothing to the touch, a tarantula (live at the

time, but since deceased, and not in the box), R2D2, a real pistola (I have a license),

a silver ring with a Mayan god on it (purchased in Guatemala), a pocket watch with

a dog on the cover, a Navajo silver ornament with a star in a circle,

a picture of Yo-Yo Ma standing and holding his cello at his

side, and a NunChuck (not the Korean kind, but a miniature nun that you can shoot

from a launcher).

If I died and someone inventoried my pockets, it would be amazing what someone

would say about me 150 years from now.

Bernard

[Pahoran]

I realized this after the fact, but didn't know what book the editor of the Ensign was being referenced. I'm fairly sure that according to LDS tactics this will be proof enough that Joseph Smith didn't own the Jupiter talisman, but that's common...

Bump for Thews. Please support your accusation that there exists an "LDS tactic" to the effect that if bad evidence is offered in support of some proposition P then that constitutes "proof enough" for non-P.

You see, Thews, most Latter-day Saints I know of actually understand -- apparently unlike your good self -- that negatives cannot be proven.

Regards,

Pahoran

[staccato]

Over the years I have had various things in my pockets. Some of them still reside

in a little wooden box that contains my keepsakes: a Swiss Army knife, two small

river stones worn smooth that are soothing to the touch, a tarantula (live at the

time, but since deceased, and not in the box), R2D2, a real pistola (I have a license),

a silver ring with a Mayan god on it (purchased in Guatemala), a pocket watch with

a dog on the cover, a Navajo silver ornament with a star in a circle,

a picture of Yo-Yo Ma standing and holding his cello at his

side, and a NunChuck (not the Korean kind, but a miniature nun that you can shoot

from a launcher).

If I died and someone inventoried my pockets, it would be amazing what someone

would say about me 150 years from now.

Bernard

You kept a tarantula in your pocket?

[Pahoran]

You kept a tarantula in your pocket?

No doubt absolute proof that he was a practicing arachnomancer.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I realized this after the fact, but didn't know what book the editor of the Ensign was being referenced. I'm fairly sure that according to LDS tactics this will be proof enough that Joseph Smith didn't own the Jupiter talisman, but that's common...

Bump for Thews. Please support your accusation that there exists an "LDS tactic" to the effect that if bad evidence is offered in support of some proposition P then that constitutes "proof enough" for non-P.

You see, Thews, most Latter-day Saints I know of actually understand -- apparently unlike your good self -- that negatives cannot be proven.

Regards,

Pahoran