Joseph'S Use Of Seership And The Seer Stone Before The Bom

[Brant Gardner]

IStoal had no admissible evidence to offer to support the assertion that Smith had such a talent.

You have actually read through the statements of the case, haven't you?

Two agents of the court were dispatched to test whether or not Joseph had the talent to "see." Joseph offered a test. The report from the agents was that it was a "palpable deception." Which is interesting, because it could only have been a deception if it worked. Of course they didn't believe it, but neither did Joseph fail. Others testified to events that demonstrated that Joseph could "see."

So, at best they were right where this thread is about dousing. Some have seen it work, others say it never works. Depending upon what you accept as your level of acceptable fact, it becomes true or false. However, for those who believed and for whom dousing succeeded, you would be hard pressed to call it deception.

Put into different terms, say an elderly gentleman decides to convert to Catholicism. If he has done it for his own reasons and believes them, does a Hindu relative have a defensible case that he was deceived?

[Jaybear]

I say that I think it highly likely that Joseph and a good many, if not most, of his contemporaries believed it that it was.

I agree, but that is not what I asked. As YOU are suggesting that there was no victim, I asked if YOU believe that its possible for a person to find buried treasure by looking at stone in a hat?

You have actually read through the statements of the case, haven't you?

I do know what testimony is admissible in court of law, and what is not.

Unless Stoal was found to be an expert on how to use seer stones, his opinion that Smith had the ability to find buried treasure through the use of a seer stone would not be admissible to prove that Smith had such a talent.

Two agents of the court were dispatched to test whether or not Joseph had the talent to "see." Joseph offered a test. The report from the agents was that it was a "palpable deception." Which is interesting, because it could only have been a deception if it worked. Of course they didn't believe it, but neither did Joseph fail. Others testified to events that demonstrated that Joseph could "see."

I don't follow. If the agents used the phrase palpable deception, I take it to mean that they were not deceived by what they viewed as a clumsy attempt at, deception.

So I take it you believe that its possible for someone to locate buried treasure by looking at a stone placed in a hat?

Put into different terms, say an elderly gentleman decides to convert to Catholicism. If he has done it for his own reasons and believes them, does a Hindu relative have a defensible case that he was deceived?

Not based on the facts you describe.

However, if this same elderly gentleman paid 100,000 to a faith healer who promised to cure him of cancer ....

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jaybear

[Scott Lloyd]

For those who have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of presentism, consider this analogy:

Routine circumcision on newborn males -- even for non-religious reasons -- is still widely accepted and practiced. This is the case even though most reputable physicians' associations these days now agree that there is no compelling health or hygenic purpose for it. Over the years it has been shown to be a cure in search of a problem.

I suppose that a future generation will look back on our day and wonder what we were thinking. Why did we sustain the practice of unnecessary cosmetic surgery on individuals who were in their most helpless state of existence and utterly incapable of giving informed consent?

I suppose it is somewhat comparable to the practice of scrying in Joseph Smith's day. Though it is controversial in some quarters, it is nowhere near to being universally regarded as contemptible, though someday it might be.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, but that is not what I asked. As YOU are suggesting that there was no victim, I asked if YOU believe that its possible for a person to find buried treasure by looking at stone in a hat?

See my analogy about circumcision. Though I don't personally approve of it, would I be justified under prevailing conditions today to condemn those who do? Should I brand as butchers the physicians who perform it and the parents who have it done to their newborn boys? Should I agitate for legislation against it and for criminal penalties associated with it?

[Jaybear]

See my analogy about circumcision. Though I don't personally approve of it, would I be justified under prevailing conditions today to condemn those who do? Should I brand as butchers the physicians who perform it and the parents who have it done to their newborn boys? Should I agitate for legislation against it and for criminal penalties associated with it?

I didn't ask if you believed in circumcision. I asked if YOU believe that its possible for a person to find buried treasure by looking at stone in a hat.

I take it you are not willing to answer that question. That seems to happen quite often.

[Jaybear]

For those who have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of presentism, consider this analogy:

We understand presentism. We don't understand why you think it applies here, when Smith's activities led to his arrest, and contributed to his estrangement with his father in law.

However, you can convince me otherwise, if you can show me that in The History of Joseph Smith by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith talked about his ability to find buried treasure by using a seer stone, which if true, would be a remarkable talent, worthy of note in his biography, unless of course it was considered a disreputable profession.

[bcuzbcuz]

Do tell. Better yet, do demonstrate. In the 1800's, if there was no victim, could there be a crime? What kinds of victimless crimes did they prosecute in the 1800's? Inquiring minds want to know.

Since you challenged me on this one, I'm going to assume you have some knowledge as to the state of prisons and the terms of imprisonment during the 1800's and stick strictly to your admonishing to "demonstrate" victimless crimes.

http://wuff.me.uk/assizes/P5.html

No. 6: Thomas Young, aged 17, Breaking and entering "with intent to commit robbery" sentence: Death.

But OK, BnE is offensive.

12. John Moody, aged 28, sodomy, two years imprisonment.

But OK, sodomy is still a crime in many states.

21. William Bell, alias John Brown, aged 30, stealing 1 pair of new shoes, 1 half boot, and 1 half boot top. Guilty—Death.

But OK, shoes are important.

Susanna Pepper, convicted at the Lammas Assizes, 1817, of secreting the birth of her ******* child.— Ordered to be imprisoned for one year

But OK, children should not be born out of wedlock.

William Whitehead (the younger) ; at the Summer Assizes, 1817, was found by a jury to be of unsound mind.—Ordered to be imprisoned until His Majesty's pleasure be known.

But OK, craziness cannot be accepted. (come lock me away!!!!!!)

Then follows: The commission of suicide by youthful females has of late become very frequent in particular parts of Lincolnshire; nor have the verdict of the coroner's inquest, directing an ignominious interment in the public road, been sufficient to deter others from the practice. Another instance of this crime occurred last week at Market-Deeping. Miss Jane Smith, aged 19 under the impulse of a disappointment of a tender nature, after failing in an attempt to drown herself, cut her throat in an outhouse, and died a few hours after. The Jury returned a verdict of lunacy, but the clergyman refused to permit the burial until he received a note from the coroner on the subject. In another example, Elizabeth James, of Peterborough, poisoned herself, and her body was buried in the road leading to Spalding. The relations of the unhappy young woman have recently placed a stone near where her remains are interred, bearing the following inscription ' Near this spot were deposited, on the 24th of May, 1811, the sad remains of Elizabeth James; an awful memento against the horrid crime of suicide.Passenger! take warning : you see here a fatal instance of human weakness, and the dreadful consequence of misplaced affection.'

Suicide is, of course, a hard crime to punish, since the perpetrator has already carried out the punishment, but the suicide attempt, being unsuccessful, is, of course, punishable. Usually 2 to 7 years banishment to Australia colony.

Or how about:

"Critics claim that Bishop Warren S. Snow forcibly castrated twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis, whose “crime” was wanting to marry a young woman that was desired by an older man as a plural wife. Critics also claim that Brigham Young wrote in a letter his approval after the fact in 1857.

The full story gives a somewhat different picture of these events. Warren Snow's biographer explains the matter thusly:

1. These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment was not yet, and partly hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow took things literally.

2. The rumor that Lewis was being punished for competing against an older polygamist is likely false. Kathryn Daynes gives another example where Brigham Young advised a young woman to marry a single, young man against her parents wishes that she marry a older polygamist. [citation needed]

3. Even if there is an element of truth in point #2, Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for a sexual crime. He was not attacked simply for desiring a marriage.

4. While being transported at night, Snow and his gang secretly intercepted Lewis and carried out the castration.

5. Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.

6. When Brigham Young heard about Lewis' sex crime and the punishment, he reiterated his stance that the time for such measures was still in the future, and not to be implemented in the here-and-now.

7. Brigham did not think Warren Snow did what was right, but felt Warren was “trying to do right” and that he should be sustained in his calling as Bishop.

8. Warren wanted Brigham to write a letter to members in Sanpete county to explain Warren’s action. Brigham declined to do, indicating that that would make matters worse. “Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it and it will soon die away amongst the people,” Brigham counseled.

9. Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which helps in understanding his motivation to attack and maim Lewis.

10. Federal marshals and judges were aware of the Lewis incident, and sought Snow's capture. However, they were eventually instructed by political leaders in Washington to let the matter drop. It was a Gentile political decision not to prosecute Snow for his actions.[1]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Utah/Crime_and_violence/Castration_in_the_1800's

[Brant Gardner]

I do know what testimony is admissible in court of law, and what is not.

In other words, no, you haven't. You are providing detailed opinions about second hand information. How admissible is that in a court of law? By the way, are you suggesting that you understand the applicable law and process from 1826?

I don't follow. If the agents used the phrase palpable deception, I take it to mean that they were not deceived by what they viewed as a clumsy attempt at, deception.

Easily enough assumed if you haven't read the documents.

So I take it you believe that its possible for someone to locate buried treasure by looking at a stone placed in a hat?

I'm sorry, but are we talking about what I believe or what was believed at the time? There is a very big difference. I have explained some of it in this thread and you are welcome to read what I have written on the topic. I submit that you are asking the wrong questions of the wrong people.

Not based on the facts you describe.

However, if this same elderly gentleman paid 100,000 to a faith healer who promised to cure him of cancer ....

So, if we understand the actions in one light, there is no problem, but if they are understood differently that is when we have an issue? That is, fascinatingly, just the point that has been made.Thank you for agreeing. Now we just have to figure out the correct perspective with which to understand the events--which was precisely what the hearing attempted to do.

Gordon A. Madsen's analysis provided several indications that Joseph was not convicted in the trial because the necessary actions after such a conclusion were never applied. He then states "Against these strong indications that Joseph must have been acquitted, there remains only the concluding statement of the Pearsall record, 'And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.' I believe this statement is an afterthought supplied by whoever subsequently handled the notes and is not a reflection of what occurred at the trial. This view is buttressed by the curious fact that all through the Pearsall notes, Joseph Smith is referred to only as the 'prisoner.' Then for the first time in this final sentence he is called 'defendant'." Madsen, Gordon A. “Joseph Smith’s 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting.” BYU Studies 30, no. 2 (1990):107.

Madsen is an attorney, if you are not aware of his analysis.

[bcuzbcuz]

For those who have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of presentism, consider this analogy:

Routine circumcision on newborn males -- even for non-religious reasons -- is still widely accepted and practiced. This is the case even though most reputable physicians' associations these days now agree that there is no compelling health or hygenic purpose for it. Over the years it has been shown to be a cure in search of a problem.

I suppose that a future generation will look back on our day and wonder what we were thinking. Why did we sustain the practice of unnecessary cosmetic surgery on individuals who were in their most helpless state of existence and utterly incapable of giving informed consent?

I suppose it is somewhat comparable to the practice of scrying in Joseph Smith's day. Though it is controversial in some quarters, it is nowhere near to being universally regarded as contemptible, though someday it might be.

Have you ever seen a circumcision? I have! A somewhat inebriated rabbi, wielding a knife, whacked off the stretched foreskin, that he pinched between his thumb and forefinger, of a few day old male child. Blood spattered, the child screamed in agony and parents, relatives and the public cheered and applauded. Now how is that comparable to looking at stones in a hat?

[cinepro]

You have actually read through the statements of the case, haven't you?

Two agents of the court were dispatched to test whether or not Joseph had the talent to "see." Joseph offered a test. The report from the agents was that it was a "palpable deception." Which is interesting, because it could only have been a deception if it worked. Of course they didn't believe it, but neither did Joseph fail. Others testified to events that demonstrated that Joseph could "see."

So, at best they were right where this thread is about dousing. Some have seen it work, others say it never works. Depending upon what you accept as your level of acceptable fact, it becomes true or false. However, for those who believed and for whom dousing succeeded, you would be hard pressed to call it deception.

Put into different terms, say an elderly gentleman decides to convert to Catholicism. If he has done it for his own reasons and believes them, does a Hindu relative have a defensible case that he was deceived?

You switched from a testable hypothesis to an untestable one.

[mfbukowski]

Depending upon what you accept as your level of acceptable fact, it becomes true or false. However, for those who believed and for whom dousing succeeded, you would be hard pressed to call it deception.

That is precisely the central issue here.

[Scott Lloyd]

Have you ever seen a circumcision? I have! A somewhat inebriated rabbi, wielding a knife, whacked off the stretched foreskin, that he pinched between his thumb and forefinger, of a few day old male child. Blood spattered, the child screamed in agony and parents, relatives and the public cheered and applauded. Now how is that comparable to looking at stones in a hat?

Apparently you missed my subsequent post wherein I said I disapprove of routine neonatal circumcision. And you altogether missed my point, which is that regardless of what you or I think of it, it is still widely accepted and practiced, that more people approve than disapprove, and that if people in the future look back on our age and wonder how we could have sustained such a thing, it will be an illustration of presentism.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

We understand presentism.

Who is "we"? Are you king of your own country now?

We don't understand why you think it applies here, when Smith's activities led to his arrest, and contributed to his estrangement with his father in law.

Viewed in the broader historical context, it becomes clear that his arrest stemmed from general hatred and bigotry, and that his father-in-law was influenced by the prevailing bigotry. You'll recall that the charge was not "glasslooking" it was "being a disorderly person" and vagrancy, which, as it turned out was unsustainable.

However, you can convince me otherwise, if you can show me that in The History of Joseph Smith by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith talked about his ability to find buried treasure by using a seer stone, which if true, would be a remarkable talent, worthy of note in his biography, unless of course it was considered a disreputable profession.

I'm not out to convince you in these discussions, only to expose the deficiencies in your reasoning. The above specimen of conclusion-jumping and false dichotomy being a good example.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't ask if you believed in circumcision. I asked if YOU believe that its possible for a person to find buried treasure by looking at stone in a hat.

You don't have a good response to the analogy, so you duck it by dismissing it.

I take it you are not willing to answer that question. That seems to happen quite often.

You used the word "possible," which opens quite a wide field. My answer is that as a person of religious faith, I believe it is possible for God, as He sees fit, to reveal any and all manner of things to mortals, including the location of lost items and to do it by whatever instrumentality He deems fit, including a stone.

But I agree with Brant Gardner that my answer to your intended "gotcha" question is irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

In other words, no, you haven't. You are providing detailed opinions about second hand information. How admissible is that in a court of law? By the way, are you suggesting that you understand the applicable law and process from 1826?

Easily enough assumed if you haven't read the documents.

I'm sorry, but are we talking about what I believe or what was believed at the time? There is a very big difference. I have explained some of it in this thread and you are welcome to read what I have written on the topic. I submit that you are asking the wrong questions of the wrong people.

So, if we understand the actions in one light, there is no problem, but if they are understood differently that is when we have an issue? That is, fascinatingly, just the point that has been made.Thank you for agreeing. Now we just have to figure out the correct perspective with which to understand the events--which was precisely what the hearing attempted to do.

Gordon A. Madsen's analysis provided several indications that Joseph was not convicted in the trial because the necessary actions after such a conclusion were never applied. He then states "Against these strong indications that Joseph must have been acquitted, there remains only the concluding statement of the Pearsall record, 'And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.' I believe this statement is an afterthought supplied by whoever subsequently handled the notes and is not a reflection of what occurred at the trial. This view is buttressed by the curious fact that all through the Pearsall notes, Joseph Smith is referred to only as the 'prisoner.' Then for the first time in this final sentence he is called 'defendant'." Madsen, Gordon A. “Joseph Smith’s 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting.” BYU Studies 30, no. 2 (1990):107.

Madsen is an attorney, if you are not aware of his analysis.

Here is the assertion that I made, that started us down the apologetic rabbit hole:

Were it anyone but Smith taking money from an elderly man, on the premise that he had the special ability to locate buried treasure through the use of the seer stone, I doubt any of you sitting on a jury would hesitate to find him guilty of criminal fraud.

While you and Scott take issue with my opinion, neither one of you is willing to state on the record whether you believe its possible for someone to find treasure buried beneath the earth by looking at a stone in a hat.

The question that you both refuse to answer is germane, because if we all agree that such a feat is not possible, then it really doesn't whether Stoal mistakenly believed and even testified otherwise.

Likewise, if you both believe that such a feat is possible, then it helps me understand that we are approaching this discussion from two different realities, and will never come to an agreement.

[mfbukowski]

I am a convert to the church, and in my mother's generation, smoking among non-members was virtually universally accepted. I grew up in a household with two smokers who of course smoked inside, and in the winter, all the windows and doors were shut tight. My dear grandfather would come over and smoke his cigar, and my parents would light up, and we would all visit in the cloudy living room. If I would cough it was seen as evidence of the "bronchitis" I always mysteriously got in the winter.

Today, with our own presentism, we look at that era as barbaric- we complain about second hand smoke from an apartment next door, yet at the time, only now 40 or so years ago, smoking was thought to be harmless, and a few years before that, was touted as in fact healthy. http://captionx.com/page/healthy

The entire point of presentism is that world views change drastically and can do so in just a few years.

So the question about using a seer stone to find treasure from today's perspective actually begs the question itself. It's like asking if we now believe smoking is healthy in light of what we know about it today- when in fact, we now know of course it is not.

It is itself an example of presentism to even raise such a question. In effect, such a question contradicts the very point it seems to raise.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is the assertion that I made, that started us down the apologetic rabbit hole:

Were it anyone but Smith taking money from an elderly man, on the premise that he had the special ability to locate buried treasure through the use of the seer stone, I doubt any of you sitting on a jury would hesitate to find him guilty of criminal fraud.

It does not help us arrive at an understanding to pretend that we are transported back in time to sit on an imaginary jury to hear a case that you don't really understand anyway. Times were different then, as were attitudes and values.

It would be a closer approximation to consider a comparable present-day situation. Let's take my earlier analogy, circumcision, a practice that is widely accepted but that many people disapprove of. Suppose I were to sit on a jury trying a doctor for mayhem because he had performed a circumcision on a newborn boy. I personally disapprove of routine neonatal circumcision, but could I vote to convict? I have to say no, not under the circumstances that prevail today. As with 1820s scrying, the practice is widely accepted and there are no laws against it. Someone from 50 years in the future, on the other hand, might not be so open-minded, especially if he, like Jaybear, were hobbled by a presentist mindset.

The question that you both refuse to answer is germane, because if we all agree that such a feat is not possible, then it really doesn't whether Stoal mistakenly believed and even testified otherwise.

Again, this reflects your presentist mindset.

Likewise, if you both believe that such a feat is possible, then it helps me understand that we are approaching this discussion from two different realities, and will never come to an agreement.

If by that you mean that I believe in a God who can accomplish whatever He deems fit and that you don't, I find it incredible that you are only now coming to that realization.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

You used the word "possible," which opens quite a wide field. My answer is that as a person of religious faith, I believe it is possible for God, as He sees fit, to reveal any and all manner of things to mortals, including the location of lost items.

But I agree with Brant Gardner that my answer to your intended "gotcha" question is irrelevant to the discussion.

As indicated, this discussion developed, because I said: Were it anyone but Smith taking money from an elderly man, on the premise that he had the special ability to locate buried treasure through the use of the seer stone, I doubt any of you sitting on a jury would hesitate to find him guilty of criminal fraud.

Your belated, begrudging and vague response that you believe such a feat is possible with God's intervention, coupled with your belief that Smith was God's prophet, would serve to validate my opinion. I say vague, because I specifically mentioned finding buried treasure, for which there some degree of avarice involved, and you said "lost items."

Thank you.

.

[mfbukowski]

Were it anyone but Smith taking money from an elderly man, on the premise that he had the special ability to locate buried treasure through the use of the seer stone, I doubt any of you sitting on a jury would hesitate to find him guilty of criminal fraud.

Of course I would not find him guiltiy, but it has nothing to do with it being Joseph Smith.

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.....

....To constitute fraud the misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident, or in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity. Also, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation and/or omission; that the plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation and/or omission; and that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud. Damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

For it to be fraud, one would have to prove that in fact Joseph himself did not believe that he could find buried treasure through the means he took.

And since he used the same means to translate the Book of Mormon, I think it is evident that in fact he did believe that a stone in a hat could do such things.

So no, I would not convict anyone of such charges under such facts, regardless of it being Joseph Smith or not.

One would think at least you could get the legal aspect straight before you make such allegations

[Jaybear]

It does not help us arrive at an understanding to pretend that we are transported back in time to sit on an imaginary jury to hear a case that you don't really understand anyway. Times were different then, as were attitudes and values.

Other than your bald assertion that times were different, you never actually established that using a seerstone to lead others to buried treasure was a socially acceptable profession comparable to say doctor who performs a circumcision today.

Writing off Hale's distaste, and the criminal charges as the product of "bigotry" is simply lazy.

[Scott Lloyd]

As indicated, this discussion developed, because I said: Were it anyone but Smith taking money from an elderly man, on the premise that he had the special ability to locate buried treasure through the use of the seer stone, I doubt any of you sitting on a jury would hesitate to find him guilty of criminal fraud.

Your belated, begrudging and vague response that you believe such a feat is possible with God's intervention, coupled with your belief that Smith was God's prophet, would serve to validate my opinion. I say vague, because I specifically mentioned finding buried treasure, for which there some degree of avarice involved, and you said "lost items."

Thank you.

I answered the question that was put to me, with your included qualifier "possible." If Joseph tried and failed on Stoal's behalf, perhaps it was precisely for the reason you suggest: that "some degree of avarice" was involved on the part of Stoal. And I would point out that it was Joseph, according to his own account, who prevailed upon Stoal to give up the venture.

And I still insist that my personal response to your question is not relevant to the issue: Joseph being convicted in abstentia by individuals nearly 200 years after the fact who are beset with a presentist mindset.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I love this one:

[Scott Lloyd]

Other than your bald assertion that times were different, you never actually established that using a seerstone to lead others to buried treasure was a socially acceptable profession comparable to say doctor who performs a circumcision today.

Writing off Hale's distaste, and the criminal charges as the product of "bigotry" is simply lazy.

Failure to examine the incident in its broader historic context is significantly lazier.

[mfbukowski]

Other than your bald assertion that times were different, you never actually established that using a seerstone to lead others to buried treasure was a socially acceptable profession comparable to say doctor who performs a circumcision today.

So are you going to just ignore my smoking analogy?

AND the legal definition of "fraud"?

Edited June 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Jaybear]

For it to be fraud, one would have to prove that in fact Joseph himself did not believe that he could find buried treasure through the means he took.

And since he used the same means to translate the Book of Mormon, I think it is evident that in fact he did believe that a stone in a hat could do such things.

So no, I would not convict anyone of such charges under such facts, regardless of it being Joseph Smith or not.

The element of scienter is not as difficult to prove as you seem to think. In cases of fraud, recklessness is sufficient.

One would think at least you could get the legal aspect straight before you make such allegations

I stand by my assertion notwithstanding your self-serving denial. The fact that you would bring into the discussion Smith purported translation of the BOM, supports my conclusion.