Joe Smidt [sic] the "Glass-Looker"

[Bill Hamblin]

Like I explained already, I've not yet taken a stand on the matter, other than to call you (and other apologists) out for your hasty rejection of the reasonable possibility that Joseph Smith, inspired by his interest in treasure seeking, decided to utilize the names Moroni/Cumorah of the Cumoro Islands. And no, I am not saying that this specific map was necessarily the source. I imagine there were other maps available in Joseph Smith's environment that could have (directly or indirectly) been a source.

It is not a reasonable possibility. It is absurd. The theory that he simply made it all up is far, far superior. (As is my Giovanni Battista Moroni theory.)

At any rate, when you get some real evidence, let me know.

[bjw]

So, is there any proof that JS was obsessed with Captain Kidd, other than antimormon materials? Also, what about the idea of treasure slipping through the ground that comes from the Captian Kidd treasure legend? I think this idea was mentioned in the moneydigging trial where they claim they were close to finding the treasure but it would slip through the ground right when their shoveles struck it. I just wonder if its possible to connect these things to the Book of Mormon, if so it does seem pretty damaging in light of the evidence already connecting Moroni and Comoros with Captian Kidd.

[Mike Reed]

It is not a reasonable possibility. It is absurd. The theory that he simply made it all up is far, far superior. (As is my Giovanni Battista Moroni theory.)

At any rate, when you get some real evidence, let me know.

Apologists have tried to rule out the argument in question, by complaining that maps prior to 1830 have not been shown to have both names Comoro and Moroni. Now I have shown you such a map, but you call it absurd. Call it what you will. I don't care. Frankly, I don't know if I buy the argument myself. But be that as it may, I also acknowledge that I can't (in all honesty) rule the possibility out. Especially since I have still done very little research on the topic. You obviously do rule it out. But in all honesty?

[Bill Hamblin]

So, is there any proof that JS was obsessed with Captain Kidd, other than antimormon materials? Also, what about the idea of treasure slipping through the ground that comes from the Captian Kidd treasure legend? I think this idea was mentioned in the moneydigging trial where they claim they were close to finding the treasure but it would slip through the ground right when their shoveles struck it. I just wonder if its possible to connect these things to the Book of Mormon, if so it does seem pretty damaging in light of the evidence already connecting Moroni and Comoros with Captian Kidd.

As far as I can remember, Captain Kidd is never mentioned by Joseph Smith, or any other early LDS writer, a remarkable thing considering Joseph was supposedly obsessed with the topic. The alleged connection is made only by anti-Mormon sources, many very late.

Here is an anti-Mormon article on the topic.

My link

[Bill Hamblin]

Apologists have tried to rule out the argument in question, by complaining that maps prior to 1830 have not been shown to have both names Comoro and Moroni. Now I have shown you such a map, but you call it absurd. Call it what you will. I don't care. Frankly, I don't know if I buy the argument myself. But be that as it may, I also acknowledge that I can't (in all honesty) rule the possibility out. Especially since I have still done very little research on the topic. You obviously do rule it out. But in all honesty?

It mentions that the small village of Meroni is on the Anjouan island, right?

[Mike Reed]

So, is there any proof that JS was obsessed with Captain Kidd, other than antimormon materials? Also, what about the idea of treasure slipping through the ground that comes from the Captian Kidd treasure legend? I think this idea was mentioned in the moneydigging trial where they claim they were close to finding the treasure but it would slip through the ground right when their shoveles struck it. I just wonder if its possible to connect these things to the Book of Mormon, if so it does seem pretty damaging in light of the evidence already connecting Moroni and Comoros with Captian Kidd.

Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith and his associates were quite involved in treasure seeking. Among treasure seekers, legends of Captain Kidd were very popular. Being that most people then were not treasure seekers themselves, it is reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith and his associates would have known more about (and would have more interest in) Captian Kidd treasure lore than most. Although "obsessed" might be too strong of a word, it wouldn't be far from the truth.

[Bill Hamblin]

Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith and his associates were quite involved in treasure seeking. Among treasure seekers, legends of Captain Kidd were very popular. Being that most people then were not treasure seekers themselves, it is reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith and his associates would have known more about (and would have more interest in) Captian Kidd treasure lore than most. Although "obsessed" might be too strong of a word, it wouldn't be far from the truth.

Which explains why neither Joseph Smith nor any other early Mormon ever mentions Captain Kidd?

At what point does there actually have to be some direct primary contemporary evidence for these theories?

[bjw]

As far as I can remember, Captain Kidd is never mentioned by Joseph Smith, or any other early LDS writer, a remarkable thing considering Joseph was supposedly obsessed with the topic. The alleged connection is made only by anti-Mormon sources, many very late.

Here is an anti-Mormon article on the topic.

My link

The anti-Mormon article seems pretty damaging to the LDS case. The man that testified that in 1826 JS saw a bleeding treasure guardian, and that this guardian was later referred to as Moroni, does place a lot of doubt on the official LDS story. It also makes it likely that JS knew of the Captain Kidd legend. I do find it interesting that it is only those that knew JS, and not JS himself that mentions it. The antimormon article doesn't mention whether or not the witness was hostile that testifies of the 1826 account of the treasure guardian.

I want to believe the BoM, but this is one thing that does make me doubt it every now and then. I'm still not ready to stop believing though, in light of all the other evidence that supports the BoM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Mike, the map is a beautiful thing. It doesn't help your case.

I want to repeat something I posted on another thread because it is relevant here. This is an excerpt from Alexander Lindey's book Plagiarism and Originality. Here are his nine vices of using parallels:

1. Any method of comparison which lists and underscores similarities and suppresses or minimizes differences is necessarily misleading.

2. Parallels are too readily susceptible of manipulation. Superficial resemblances may be made to appear as of the essence.

3. Parallel-hunters do not, as a rule, set out to be truthful and impartial. They are hell-bent on proving a point.

4. Parallel-hunting is predicated on the use of lowest common denominators. Virtually all literature, even the most original, can be reduced to such terms, and thereby shown to be unoriginal. So viewed, Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper plagiarizes ****ens' David Copperfield. Both deal with England, both describe the slums of London, both see their hero exalted beyond his original station. To regard any two books in this light, however, is to ignore every factor that differentiates one man's thoughts, reactions and literary expression from another's.

5. Parallel columns operate piecemeal. They wrench phrases and passages out of context. A product of the imagination is indivisible. It depends on totality of effect. To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.

6. Parallels fail to indicate the proportion which the purportedly borrowed material bears to the sum total of the source, or to the whole of the new work. Without such information a just appraisal is impossible.

7. The practitioners of the technique resort too often to sleight of hand. They employ language, not to record facts or to describe things accurately, but as props in a rhetorical hocus-pocus which, by describing different things in identical words, appears to make them magically alike.

8. A double-column analysis is a dissection. An autopsy will reveal a great deal about a cadaver, but very little about the spirit of the man who once inhabited it.

9. Most parallels rest on the assumption that if two successive things are similar, the second one was copied from the first. This assumption disregards all the other possible causes of similarity.

Whatever his vices or virtues, the parallel-hunter is a hardy species. He is destined, as someone had said, to persist until Judgment Day, when he will doubtless find resemblances in the very warrant that consigns him to the nether regions

Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument quite well (that you make). It really boils down to this comment that you made at the end:

Couple dozen? I tell you what... Find a single source (that would have been of interest to someone like Joseph Smith) with these TWO words appearing together, and then we can start talking about coincidence vs. reasonable levels of probability.

I don't think you would know the difference between coincidence and reasonable levels of probability in this case. I have just spent several days dealing with this specific issue in the Spalding threads. Now obviously, the Gold Plates aren't likely to be represented in the "fictional" discovery narrative as both coming from Spalding's narrative and as a reworked story of Captian Kidd's buried treasure. Personally, I think that both are a big stretch.

I am not going to say that you won't find other examples of this kind of thing - you certainly might. You want to downplay what I have read, but I have actually read it. Computer assisted searches (of the sort you seem to mostly be engaged in lately) have been described quite recently in a book on this subject (Harold Love's Attributing Authorship: An Introduction 2002) in this way:

(3) mere accumulation of ungraded parallels does not prove anything.

When Byrne wrote, the accumulation of parallels was a labor-intensive business which depends on incessant reading of the works concerned. Today a phrase can be pursued almost instantaneously through the magnificent on-line LION archive, which covers all fields of English and American drama and of authored volumes of poetry upto 1900, and in many cases beyond, and is rapidly extending into prose. Greatly welcome though this is, it is noteworthy that a whole genre of 'leonine' scholarship has arisen in which a claim is butressed by a huge list of extracted quotations without any thought being given as to whether the (frequently obscure) source could possibly have been of interest to or even accessible to the writer concerned, while the glaringly obvious model is overlooked. Now that the capacity to multiply parallels - most of which will be misleading - is almost unlimited, intelligent selectivity has never been more important.

There are three things that you need to demonstrate - to make your point.

1: as noted above, you have to actually demonstrate some kind of interest. What you have offered is speculation. As Bill Hamblin points out, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith was interested in Captain Kidd, or in the Comoros Islands, or even in the city of Meroni. He never mentions them.

2: as noted above, you have to demonstrate accessibility. Finding a single source (and there may be more perhaps) doesn't show accessibility. Grant Palmer in his book attempted to make this kind of argument for The Golden Pot, but if you read it, you might remember that it was a rather torturous route - someone else read it in the German, moved to Joseph's neighborhood, and eventually Joseph heard it from that gentleman (an oversimplification of course but relevant).

3: You have to show why the parallel isn't misleading. In this case, you suggest that Joseph (as a Treasure Hunter) would naturally be interested in all things Captain Kidd, and his interest must have extended to something like this and ergo, the similarity proves the connection. But this is circular argumentation. It is a problem that Joseph wasn't of course the only treasure hunter, that Joseph wasn't the only one who might have had an interest in Captain Kidd, but that Joseph is the only one who shows an interest in Meroni.

Apologists have tried to rule out the argument in question, by complaining that maps prior to 1830 have not been shown to have both names Comoro and Moroni. Now I have shown you such a map, but you call it absurd. Call it what you will. I don't care. Frankly, I don't know if I buy the argument myself. But be that as it may, I also acknowledge that I can't (in all honesty) rule the possibility out. Especially since I have still done very little research on the topic. You obviously do rule it out. But in all honesty?

The problem is, Mike, is that in any question of derivation you have to show access. Failing that, there isn't any point. Now, you can show the possibility of access (which isn't the same as showing access). But your map isn't exactly something that we would think of as common. So we still have a bit more road to go down. There are the issues that I just raised - but my larger concern isn't with this part of the problem. You say that you don't necessarily buy the argument yourself, but that didn't stop you from making this declaration:

Couple dozen? I tell you what... Find a single source (that would have been of interest to someone like Joseph Smith) with these TWO words appearing together, and then we can start talking about coincidence vs. reasonable levels of probability.

Let me ask you what you base this knowledge on? Every scholarly work on authorship attribution makes it very clear that parallels in language are highly deceptive. Not one, not two - but every single work that I have read. If you want, I can generate a long list of quotes. For you to put yourself in the position of suggesting that you know its not coincidence - but base that entirely on your personal expectation is for me a very problematic argument. You keep stressing "two words" - associated only by being on a map together. And these words are not identical matches - your map has the words Meroni and Comore on it. There is, of course, a reason why we get that statement in many books and movies, right? - to wit:

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Obviously, coincidences do happen. So, what is the basis for your claim? At what point do we find that the likelihood of Joseph encountering this map is smaller than the likelihood that he simply made the names up for his fictional book, or the likelihood that as (according to the 1833 Spalding witnesses), Solomon Spalding used those exact same names in his other, no longer extant manuscript that Rigdon stole? While you do seem to enjoy poking holes in the arguments of apologists, in this case, there are some real flaws in yours.

Kudos again for finding the map. Now I expect Rick Grunder will be going and trying to buy a copy for his next edition ...

Ben M.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ben is exactly right. At some point we need to move beyond the fallacy of possible proof.

[Alf O'Mega]

So, is there any proof that JS was obsessed with Captain Kidd, other than antimormon materials? Also, what about the idea of treasure slipping through the ground that comes from the Captian Kidd treasure legend? I think this idea was mentioned in the moneydigging trial where they claim they were close to finding the treasure but it would slip through the ground right when their shoveles struck it. I just wonder if its possible to connect these things to the Book of Mormon, if so it does seem pretty damaging in light of the evidence already connecting Moroni and Comoros with Captian Kidd.

You'll have to decide for yourself how damaging it is, but the idea of slippery treasures is from the Book of Mormon itself:

And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again (Mormon 1:18).

Brigham Young shared this at the meeting where he organized the Farmington Stake on 17 June 1877:

Sometimes I take the liberty of talking a little further with regard to such things. Orin P. Rockwell is an eye-witness to some powers of removing the treasures of the earth. He was with certain parties that lived near by where the plates were found that contain the records of the Book of Mormon. There were a great many treasures hid up by the Nephites. Porter was with them one night where there were treasures, and they could find them easy enough, but they could not obtain them.

I will tell you a story which will be marvelous to most of you. It was told me by Porter, whom I would believe just as quickly as any man that lives. When he tells a thing he understands, he will tell it just as he knows it; he is a man that does not lie. He said that on this night, when they were engaged hunting for this old treasure, they dug around the end of a chest for some twenty inches. The chest was about three feet square. One man who was determined to have the contents of that chest, took his pick and struck into the lid of it, and split through into the chest. The blow took off a piece of the lid, which a certain lady kept in her possession until she died. That chest of money went into the bank. Porter describes it so [making a rumbling sound]; he says this is just as true as the heavens are. I have heard others tell the same story. I relate this because it is marvelous to you. But to those who understand these things, it is not marvelous (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 19, pp. 37

[Bill Hamblin]

The anti-Mormon article seems pretty damaging to the LDS case. The man that testified that in 1826 JS saw a bleeding treasure guardian, and that this guardian was later referred to as Moroni, does place a lot of doubt on the official LDS story. It also makes it likely that JS knew of the Captain Kidd legend. I do find it interesting that it is only those that knew JS, and not JS himself that mentions it. The antimormon article doesn't mention whether or not the witness was hostile that testifies of the 1826 account of the treasure guardian.

I want to believe the BoM, but this is one thing that does make me doubt it every now and then. I'm still not ready to stop believing though, in light of all the other evidence that supports the BoM.

Not really. JS says the golden plates are protected by a spirit. Others understand this to mean the treasure is protected by a ghost, and treasure guardian ghosts have slit throats, etc. Others hear the story and say JS is a lying fraud. It is possible to assume that all the witnesses are telling the truth as they understand it. The stories represent different understandings and perspectives of what JS is claiming and doing. The story is the same, but how the story is understood differs from person to person. This is natural and normal. Of course, the accusers may not be telling the truth. You could get plenty of witnesses to testify that Obama is a Muslim, that he is not a US citizen, etc.

[Bill Hamblin]

Apologists have tried to rule out the argument in question, by complaining that maps prior to 1830 have not been shown to have both names Comoro and Moroni. Now I have shown you such a map, but you call it absurd. Call it what you will. I don't care. Frankly, I don't know if I buy the argument myself. But be that as it may, I also acknowledge that I can't (in all honesty) rule the possibility out. Especially since I have still done very little research on the topic. You obviously do rule it out. But in all honesty?

By the way, how many pre-1830 maps did you look at that don't have Meroni on them? That certainly is a relevant piece of data, is it not? If you look at, say, 20-30 maps and only one has the village of Meroni, that tells us something important, doesn't it. So, how many?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Apologists have tried to rule out the argument in question, by complaining that maps prior to 1830 have not been shown to have both names Comoro and Moroni. Now I have shown you such a map, but you call it absurd. Call it what you will. I don't care. Frankly, I don't know if I buy the argument myself. But be that as it may, I also acknowledge that I can't (in all honesty) rule the possibility out. Especially since I have still done very little research on the topic. You obviously do rule it out. But in all honesty?

If you think there is solid evidence, or that particular people reviewing the evidence have faltered in the analysis, do you really think it's necessary to repeatedly invoke unnamed "apologists" as a pejorative, or to chalk up the different look at the evidence on the grounds that it must result from their being an "apologist"? It seems to me that Ben and Bill are making some important points for you to consider, why not ditch the "apologist" narrative and stick to the story itself?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Mike Reed writes:

Should we automatically assume that the opening post's narrative didn't refer to the prophet since they spelled his last name "Smidt"?

It is a fictional story, published in a volume of fiction. It seems quite likely that he was alluding to the prophet - but, to say that he was referring to the prophet is probably incorrect.

Find a single source (that would have been of interest to someone like Joseph Smith) with these TWO words appearing together, and then we can start talking about coincidence vs. reasonable levels of probability.

What an interesting point you make here. What was it, do you think, about Prevost's book Histoire Generale Des Voyages that grabbed Joseph's attention? I mean, let us suppose he could even read it. What was the draw? I think that you are trying to make a statement here that doesn't match what you yourself are saying. To find Meroni, you suggest, we should be looking in literature on the French Slave trade ...

Do you know anything about French slave trade routes from the Comoro Islands to the US?

On a side note, it might be a good idea for you to also research the Comoro Islands and french slave trade to the US.

What was it, exactly, about the French slave trade that caught Joseph's attention?

I am just a bit curious here. Because, while you suggest that I need to find this degree of specificity before you are willing to talk about coincidence vs. reasonable levels of probability, what you have doesn't reach that level of confidence either. So, I am a bit at a loss ...

As a side note for Bill - this is not the same place as the Moroni mentioned by Buchanan or Huggins, or anyone else. That Moroni is on Grand Comore (Njazidja). This one is on Anjouan (Nzwani).

In responding to Alf's comments, the theory at its core goes something like this (my comments here do not suggest that I find these individual points to be accurate).

The Gold Plates were a treasure. They were buried. They had a Guardian Spirit. Captain Kidd was a pirate who buried treasure. He spent a lot of time in the Comoros Islands. He must have buried some treasure in the Comoros Islands. Perhaps near the village of Moroni. Thus, the Gold Plates are buried in the Hill Cumorah by Moroni as a reflection of some story about Captain Kidd.

All the rest is merely trying to drum up some sort of plausibility for the theory - but the theory has been pretty set in stone - regardless of the evidence available - since Buchanan's article in 1989.

Ben M.

[Bill Hamblin]

As a side note for Bill - this is not the same place as the Moroni mentioned by Buchanan or Huggins, or anyone else. That Moroni is on Grand Comore (Njazidja). This one is on Anjouan (Nzwani).

That's interesting. So, in fact, we have a two Comore theory here!

[Benjamin McGuire]

That's interesting. So, in fact, we have a two Comore theory here!

That was funny!

[Mike Reed]

If you think there is solid evidence, or that particular people reviewing the evidence have faltered in the analysis, do you really think it's necessary to repeatedly invoke unnamed "apologists" as a pejorative, or to chalk up the different look at the evidence on the grounds that it must result from their being an "apologist"? It seems to me that Ben and Bill are making some important points for you to consider, why not ditch the "apologist" narrative and stick to the story itself?

Is it fair to ask me to ditch the word "apologist" when this is an apologetics forum, and yet say nothing about the words "critic" or "anti-Mormon"?

[Zakuska]

That was funny!

Yes it was.

But technically it s a two Moroni theory. But if we have two hills we need two angels.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is it fair to ask me to ditch the word "apologist" when this is an apologetics forum, and yet say nothing about the words "critic" or "anti-Mormon"?

It's the way you're using the term (a la Michael Quinn), not the use of the term, that is bothering me. As you know, I'm careful about the way I use critic or anti-Mormon as well. My point is that it seems too far afield to get into debates about who is and isn't an apologist (and it's sort of a cheap rhetorical strategy used by many different folks). So I think you're better off without it.

[Mike Reed]

It's the way you're using the term (a la Michael Quinn), not the use of the term, that is bothering me.

If I remember correctly, Quinn uses the word "Polemicist" as a pejorative. A pejorative that labeled Bill Hamblin's gratuitous personal attacks and caustic tone, in fact. As Dan Vogel pointed out to me recently, Mike Quinn has even called himself an apologist.

As you know, I'm careful about the way I use critic or anti-Mormon as well.

Yes. And I appreciate that. You are an example that others here on this forum should follow.

My point is that it seems too far afield to get into debates about who is and isn't an apologist (and it's sort of a cheap rhetorical strategy used by many different folks). So I think you're better off without it.

Good point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

delete

I should add, it seems you weren't the one to introduce the element of who's-apologist-who's-antimormon, I am just saying it servers you best not to get bogged down in that question is all.

[Bill Hamblin]

A pejorative that labeled Bill Hamblin's gratuitous personal attacks and caustic tone, in fact.

So are you going to answer my simple questions, or not?

[Mike Reed]

So are you going to answer my simple questions, or not?

Patience is a virtue.

[Uncertain]

I am immediately suspicious of any argument dependent on personal probabilistic intuition. There is amply evidence (I can provide examples if you like) that as human beings we are just not very good at probabilistic intuition even experts. We have a pronounced tendency to place undue weight on things we view as "unlikely" events. Hence I find the critical argument concerning Comoro/Moroni to be unconvincing. Because the heart of the argument is an appeal to probabilistic intuition i.e(based on my probabilistic intuition such a pairing is unlikely to happen by random chance therefore JS borrowed this pairing). No attempt is made to rigorously estimate exactly how unlikley such a pairing would be. Also keep in mind even if it is very unlikley the question is not how likely is it that Comoro/Moroni would randomly be paired together. The question is given all possible such word pairings in the BOM and all possible such word pairings in the world how likely is it that purely by random chance a word pairing in the BOM would match such a pairing from the real world.

Now the problem is the world of apologetics is just as susceptible to the same appeal to probabilistic intuition. For example "Nahom and it's associated complex of parallels are according to my probabilistic intuition to complex to occur by random chance hence the story must be due to real middle eastern travelers". The heart of the argument is an appeal to probabilistic intuition no attempt is made using appropriate control texts to estimate exactly how unlikely such a complex of parallels would be to occur by random chance. Instead an appeal to complexity coupled with an appeal to probabilistic intuition is made (exactly like the Comoro/Moroni critical argument). Also bear in mind the exact same criticism holds as above the question is not how likely is it Nahom etc. could occur by random chance the question is given the entire BOM to search through and the entire ancient near east (ANE) to look for parallels how likely is it that a parallel of the given complexity could occur by random chance. This is the key question that needs to be answered using appropriate controls and statistical methodologies. Not an appeal to perceived complexity and probabilistic intuition.

Best,

Uncertain