Richard Bushman: Evil?

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am familiar with the link.  I have read it and many other details/sites about this story too. 

Just want to point out that "Mr. Burgess saying he had knowledge" of hidden treasure without evidence, and that he apparently was the only person alive who knew about the treasure and where it was...ummmm, ya, that is what you call a big fat "roomer".   Clearly a false one at that.  The roomer wasn't that the widow was hiding the treasure, but that she didn't even know about it - it was buried in the cellar before her time.  Burgess accompanied them to show them where the house was.   Surprisingly (or not), he couldn't seem to remember where the house was when it came down to it...probably because he made the whole thing up, maybe???  After Burgess left, they followed their impression until they felt they found the right house (mystic guidance).   Joseph saw the promise of hidden treasure through mystic means (revelation aka "second sight") - is this really that much different?  I don't think so. 

I guess I don’t see him as seeing the promise of treasure though mystic means, as I said. I just see him grasping at a possible solution to his financial problems. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I don’t see him as seeing the promise of treasure though mystic means, as I said.

I guess you haven't read the section then:

Quote

its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours” (D&C 111:4).

Quote

I have much treasure in the city for you, for the benefit of Zion” (D&C 111:2)

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

I guess you haven't read the section then:

 

Of course I’ve read it. I suppose I just don’t assume that a person who claims revelation has actually received revelation though mystic means or otherwise. 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course I’ve read it. I suppose I just don’t assume that a person who claims revelation has actually received revelation though mystic means or otherwise. 

I doesn’t matter what you believe.  The pattern of claimed mystic guidance is there in both cases.  You can’t ignore that fact.  I doubt that you believe he actually could find treasure with a rock either…so why are you dismissing the parallel based on what you believe about mysticism?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

I doesn’t matter what you believe.  The pattern of claimed mystic guidance is there in both cases.  You can’t ignore that fact.  I doubt that you believe he actually could find treasure with a rock either…so why are you dismissing the parallel based on what you believe about mysticism?

I don’t see the claim of mystical assistance in the second case. 

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t see the claim of mystical assistance in the second case. 

Let me put this all in context for you so you can see the mystical connection.  Burgess isn’t the beginning or the end to this treasure hunt - mystic belief of deliverance started it, and continued the search after he left.

In section 104, Joseph received revelation that the Lord would send them “deliverance” from the church’s “debt” problems.

Shortly after, seemingly miraculously and in answer to section 104, Burgess shows up as if he was sent by God with a promise of deliverance from debt problems via buried treasure.

Burgess gives up hope in finding the widows house and leaves for home.  Church leaders stay in Salem and continue to search.  Here is the important part - section 111 came to Joseph AFTER Burgess gave up hope and returned home.  

At this point on, Joseph was not relying on any guidance or hope afforded by Burgess, no, he was relying on his claim of mystic direction and promise of treasure.   They were no longer relying on Burgess to find the home, but on some mystical guidance and promise of buried gold and silver.

To dismiss the parallel as “bizarre” is truly “bizarre” to me. 

Not only that but through mystical means, Joseph gleans from section 111 that there is more than one treasure in this city for them, and for that reason he was instructed to query about ancient inhabitants, etc.  - more treasure seeking via mystical means that has nothing to do with Burgess.   All in an effort to get out of debt.  Clearly he believed that he would be directed to treasure via mystical means to help pay off debt - just like when he was younger.   Clear parallels which dismiss any belief in my mind that he was fraudulently scamming people for hire. No, he was seeking treasure in both cases and depending on mysticism to direct him based on rumors only without specificity of location.  

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

If Richard Bushman is evil , then I must be doing even worse than I thought!    

Edited November 3, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The problem with this (the talisman claim) is that Charles Bidomon is the one and only source of this information.  And he was wrong on one important part of his statement:

And Quinn, in his book, goes to great lengths to dance around the fact that this item wasn't listed in the Prophet's possessions when he was killed.  None of his arguments make any sense, however. 

I'm not opposed to the idea that Joseph Smith had the talisman.  I just can't find a shred of evidence (other than Bidamon's inaccurate claim) to suggest that he actually owned it.

This is the crucial issue for me as well.  If he got this important, central attribute of the talisman wrong, everything not backed up by others is questionable, imo.

Though Benjamin’s point about the other artifacts being authentic is a good one and I need to be more open to it being a mistake rather than fraud.  The added touch of it being in his pocket at his death has had the feel of a con job to me, not being able to resist adding drama for a certain hook, even if only for the attention having something interesting brings.

[Benjamin Seeker]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is the crucial issue for me as well.  If he got this important, central attribute of the talisman wrong, everything not backed up by others is questionable, imo.

Though Benjamin’s point about the other artifacts being authentic is a good one and I need to be more open to it being a mistake rather than fraud.  The added touch of it being in his pocket at his death has had the feel of a con job to me, not being able to resist adding drama for a certain hook, even if only for the attention having something interesting brings.

Did you see that Charles made the same claim all the way back in 1902. He doesn’t sell it until 35 years later, so he’s consistent across a 35 year time period with no apparent motive to deceive in the beginning. I don’t know much about Charles. It would be interesting to see what his character was generally.

Also, Reed Durham is pretty dang convinced that the Jupiter talisman fits JS hand and glove, so much so that he stakes his professional and church reputation on it.

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Did you see that Charles made the same claim all the way back in 1902. He doesn’t sell it until 35 years later, so he’s consistent across a 35 year time period with no apparent motive to deceive in the beginning. I don’t know much about Charles. It would be interesting to see what his character was generally.

Also, Reed Durham is pretty dang convinced that the Jupiter talisman fits JS hand and glove, so much so that he stakes his professional and church reputation on it.

 

People commit fraud for more reasons than to make money. Attention is a big motivator (think of all those on the Internet who pretend to look more attractive, have a better job, etc when it will do nothing beyond get others to talk to them more with perhaps greater respect).  And it may have been Lewis who was the storyteller, so we would need to look at both men’s personality.  The only thing I know about Lewis is he was unfaithful to two of his wives and had a very short lived marriage with a third woman and then had his wife (Emma) raise his illegitimate child.  If he can deceive his wives, I tend to have strong doubts about his honesty in general.  (I realize this also puts Joseph in the hot seat, but I know way more about other areas of his life and I see a likelihood that his relationships with other women besides his wife were not motivated solely by sexual/romantic desire as it seems like to have been the case in Lewis’ choices.)

Whether or not Joseph could have had the talisman is a different issue than whether he did. Having a full collection of Agatha Christie books is very much something I could have as it fits me as I have collected her books since my twenties when my mother-in-law gave me her stash, but whether I do or not depends on what is on my shelf. 
 

Whether or not Joseph had a talisman for me depends on the reports of him having a talisman, not whether or not he was into folk magic or possessed folk magic objects. We have one person, Charles Bidamin, reporting the talisman as if it was a treasured possession of Joseph’s and yet no one else reports it…and yet it seems to me something that would be noticed and something he might show people, given his personality and behaviour about other interesting items in his possession.   And yet there is nothing. 
 

Since the rest of the artifacts are authentic, I am now leaning towards Lewis being the one telling Charles that the talisman was a favorite of Joseph’s and he has it in his pocket when he died, perhaps to entertain him when he was younger. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

People commit fraud for more reasons than to make money. Attention is a big motivator (think of all those on the Internet who pretend to look more attractive, have a better job, etc when it will do nothing beyond get others to talk to them more with perhaps greater respect).  And it may have been Lewis who was the storyteller, so we would need to look at both men’s personality.  The only thing I know about Lewis is he was unfaithful to two of his wives and had a very short lived marriage with a third woman and then had his wife (Emma) raise his illegitimate child.  If he can deceive his wives, I tend to have strong doubts about his honesty in general.  (I realize this also puts Joseph in the hot seat, but I know way more about other areas of his life and I see a likelihood that his relationships with other women besides his wife were not motivated solely by sexual/romantic desire as it seems like to have been the case in Lewis’ choices.)

Whether or not Joseph could have had the talisman is a different issue than whether he did. Having a full collection of Agatha Christie books is very much something I could have as it fits me as I have collected her books since my twenties when my mother-in-law gave me her stash, but whether I do or not depends on what is on my shelf. 
 

Whether or not Joseph had a talisman for me depends on the reports of him having a talisman, not whether or not he was into folk magic or possessed folk magic objects. We have one person, Charles Bidamin, reporting the talisman as if it was a treasured possession of Joseph’s and yet no one else reports it…and yet it seems to me something that would be noticed and something he might show people, given his personality and behaviour about other interesting items in his possession.   And yet there is nothing. 
 

Since the rest of the artifacts are authentic, I am now leaning towards Lewis being the one telling Charles that the talisman was a favorite of Joseph’s and he has it in his pocket when he died, perhaps to entertain him when he was younger. 

He got the talisman through his father but his affidavit explicitly says,

”This piece came to me through the relationship of my father, Major L. C. Bidamon, who married the Prophet Joseph Smith's widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill”

sourced from Fair Mormon

I have to admit that it is a little odd that we never hear anyone else talking about the talisman. Same goes for the magical parchments that came through Hyrum’s line though, so the folk magic part may have stuck around but kept private due to its backward backwater reputation. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

He got the talisman through his father but his affidavit explicitly says,

”This piece came to me through the relationship of my father, Major L. C. Bidamon, who married the Prophet Joseph Smith's widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill”

sourced from Fair Mormon

I have to admit that it is a little odd that we never hear anyone else talking about the talisman. Same goes for the magical parchments that came through Hyrum’s line though, so the folk magic part may have stuck around but kept private due to its backward backwater reputation. 

A real scholar would go comb through any published interviews with Emma from that time period. I wouldn’t even know how to start…

[Benjamin Seeker]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

People commit fraud for more reasons than to make money. Attention is a big motivator (think of all those on the Internet who pretend to look more attractive, have a better job, etc when it will do nothing beyond get others to talk to them more with perhaps greater respect).  And it may have been Lewis who was the storyteller, so we would need to look at both men’s personality.  The only thing I know about Lewis is he was unfaithful to two of his wives and had a very short lived marriage with a third woman and then had his wife (Emma) raise his illegitimate child.  If he can deceive his wives, I tend to have strong doubts about his honesty in general.  (I realize this also puts Joseph in the hot seat, but I know way more about other areas of his life and I see a likelihood that his relationships with other women besides his wife were not motivated solely by sexual/romantic desire as it seems like to have been the case in Lewis’ choices.)

Whether or not Joseph could have had the talisman is a different issue than whether he did. Having a full collection of Agatha Christie books is very much something I could have as it fits me as I have collected her books since my twenties when my mother-in-law gave me her stash, but whether I do or not depends on what is on my shelf. 
 

Whether or not Joseph had a talisman for me depends on the reports of him having a talisman, not whether or not he was into folk magic or possessed folk magic objects. We have one person, Charles Bidamin, reporting the talisman as if it was a treasured possession of Joseph’s and yet no one else reports it…and yet it seems to me something that would be noticed and something he might show people, given his personality and behaviour about other interesting items in his possession.   And yet there is nothing. 
 

Since the rest of the artifacts are authentic, I am now leaning towards Lewis being the one telling Charles that the talisman was a favorite of Joseph’s and he has it in his pocket when he died, perhaps to entertain him when he was younger. 

Also, I was so sad to learn that Emma’s second husband cheated on her. She already had to deal with so much trauma from her relationship with JS.  It was heartbreaking to learn that the trauma continued, though Emma handled it amazingly. Charles was the result of Lewis’ affair, and it appeared that she had a close relationship with him, as he spoke “fondly” of her at her funeral. She also had Lewis promise before she died that he would marry Charles’ mother. She’s an incredible woman. 
 

Despite Lewis’ affair, it seemed he was otherwise a good man that helped work things out between the saints and unhappy residents in Nauvoo and surrounding areas. He took care of JS’ kids and grandkids. Seems like a nice guy in many ways, obviously not all.

source: https://www.josephsmithjr.org/in-memory-of-major-lewis-crum-bidamon-1806-1891/

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Though Benjamin’s point about the other artifacts being authentic is a good one and I need to be more open to it being a mistake rather than fraud.

I agree, but this theory only holds water if we can see all the artifacts that came from Charles Bidamon.  If everything he provided was authentic, and the only item in question was the talisman, then that would make the argument valid.  But even Mark Hofmann bought and sold real documents as a cover to make it easier to sell his forgeries.  So why should we assume that since some of Charles Bidamon's items were authentic then all of them should be, unless of course the talisman is the only item in question?

I've been searching for a list of all the church related items provided by Charles Bidamon, and I haven't found one yet.   If that list includes other mundane items that he said were owned by the Prophet, then that would still be suspicious. 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The added touch of it being in his pocket at his death has had the feel of a con job to me, not being able to resist adding drama for a certain hook, even if only for the attention having something interesting brings.

I agree, it feels the same to me as well.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Since the rest of the artifacts are authentic, I am now leaning towards Lewis being the one telling Charles that the talisman was a favorite of Joseph’s and he has it in his pocket when he died, perhaps to entertain him when he was younger. 

Do you know where we can find a complete list of all the artifacts provided by Charles Bidamon?  Do we really know that all the rest of them are authentic?

[Calm]

“I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill”

Thanks for reminding me, so many things seem to fall out of my brain these days, even after having just read them and I forget my own rationales.  I would so not be good at a public debate (for other reasons such as stage fright as well).  At least with writing, taking the time to review before posting usually works and I manage to look smarter than I am, lol.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

A real scholar would go comb through any published interviews with Emma from that time period. I wouldn’t even know how to start…

Seems like at least Durham would have done so and found something, given his significant interest.

This comment by Charles is one of the reasons I find his claim highly problematic. The talisman being shown would be something mentioned if he were referring to actual interviews and not just a neighbour who questions her in a casual conversation and it might be with the latter as well, come across in a journal perhaps.  I think the fact that Joseph had such a talisman would be latched onto as a novelty even back then when more were believers in folk magic. 
 

As for Lewis, a man can be a good man and still fond of telling stories to make himself look interesting. And Charles may have followed in his dad’s path if Lewis was so inclined. As long as the item wasn’t being sold, it was a harmless lie. Once Charles needs to sell something…well, maybe it was easy to convince himself ‘it could have been true’.  If there are records for either men being known for being honest and never taking advantage of another, I would lean towards his story being much more likely, but no other mention being found of a rather dramatic item seems too unlikely to me to feel comfortable to set that fact aside. 

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

As for Lewis, a man can be a good man and still fond of telling stories to make himself look interesting. And Charles may have followed in his dad’s path if Lewis was so inclined. As long as the item wasn’t being sold, it was a harmless lie. Once Charles needs to sell something…well, maybe it was easy to convince himself ‘it could have been true’.  If there are records for either men being known for being honest and never taking advantage of another, I would lean towards his story being much more likely, but no other mention being found of a rather dramatic item seems too unlikely to me to feel comfortable to set that fact aside. 

Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where the small town barber makes up stories about advising presidents, being a war hero, giving advice to captains of industry, and the like to entertain the locals. Aliens arrive who have no concept of deception and abduct him since he is clearly one of Earth’s leading intellectuals. He escapes and tells the story of his abduction and, predictably, no one believes him.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where the small town barber makes up stories about advising presidents, being a war hero, giving advice to captains of industry, and the like to entertain the locals. Aliens arrive who have no concept of deception and abduct him since he is clearly one of Earth’s leading intellectuals. He escapes and tells the story of his abduction and, predictably, no one believes him.

And there are elements of that same plot in Galaxy Quest (one of my favorite movies).

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Also, I was so sad to learn that Emma’s second husband cheated on her. She already had to deal with so much trauma from her relationship with JS.  It was heartbreaking to learn that the trauma continued, though Emma handled it amazingly. ...

It is amazing how injuries and scars from trauma can vanish in an instant: As appreciative as I am sure Sister Emma is for your umbrage taken on her behalf*, perhaps you will recall that it was Joseph's name with which Emma died on her lips ... not just once ... not just twice ... but thrice.

*I probably could have found a better way to describe that, but this is a bulletin board post: I'm not going to break out my Thesaurus for it.

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It is amazing how injuries and scars from trauma can vanish in an instant: As appreciative as I am sure Sister Emma is for your umbrage taken on her behalf*, perhaps you will recall that it was Joseph's name with which Emma died on her lips ... not just once ... not just twice ... but thrice.

*I probably could have found a better way to describe that, but this is a bulletin board post: I'm not going to break out my Thesaurus for it.

I've never met anyone whose injuries and scars from trauma vanished in an instant. I doubt that's even possible.

[Benjamin Seeker]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It is amazing how injuries and scars from trauma can vanish in an instant: As appreciative as I am sure Sister Emma is for your umbrage taken on her behalf*, perhaps you will recall that it was Joseph's name with which Emma died on her lips ... not just once ... not just twice ... but thrice.

*I probably could have found a better way to describe that, but this is a bulletin board post: I'm not going to break out my Thesaurus for it.

I’ve read that she said, “Joseph, yes, I’m coming” as she stood up and raised her left arm. Pretty awesome.

But yes, she obviously hated polygamy, and I’m sure she was scarred by having JS marrying other women and carrying on sexual relationships behind her back and then in direct contradiction to her wishes. It sounds like she eventually forgave him, which is a powerful example of forgiveness, but in now way minimizes what she went through. But go ahead and suggest again that she wasn’t traumatized by it, and we’ll go to some primary sources to help educate you.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never met anyone whose injuries and scars from trauma vanished in an instant. I doubt that's even possible.

To each, his or her own.  If you've never encountered anyone who returned from the other side to visit you, I can understand how that sort of thing might be difficult to imagine, though.  (I haven't, but I have heard accounts from people I trust who have.)

Edited November 4, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’ve read that she said, “Joseph, yes, I’m coming” as she stood up and raised her left arm. Pretty awesome.

But yes, she obviously hated polygamy, and I’m sure she was scarred by having JS marrying other women and carrying on sexual relationships behind her back and then in direct contradiction to her wishes. It sounds like she eventually forgave him, which is a powerful example of forgiveness, but in now way minimizes what she went through. But go ahead and suggest again that she wasn’t traumatized by it, and we’ll go to some primary sources to help educate you.

I never suggested that she wasn't traumatized.  You need to read my post again.  And if it doesn't sink in, read it again.  And if it doesn't sink in, read it again.  And you can keep your sources, and your smug self righteousness, to yourself.

[Benjamin Seeker]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I never suggested that she wasn't traumatized.  You need to read my post again.  And if it doesn't sink in, read it again.  And if it doesn't sink in, read it again.  And you can keep your sources, and your smug self righteousness, to yourself.

Ok. It sarcastically read that she didn’t experience trauma. My apologies for misreading.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Benjamin Seeker

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Ok. It sarcastically read that she didn’t experience trauma. My apologies for misreading.

No, it didn't.  Try again.  (Geez, for someone who holds him out as being so smart ...)   

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, it didn't.  Try again.  (Geez, for someone who holds him out as being so smart ...)   

Ok. I’ll try again.
 

Do you really think Emma’s trauma disappeared? It seems like she had separated JS from polygamy as much as possible in her mind. Her continued denial of polygamy to the end of her life while consistently professing testimony of JS as a prophet don’t fit together well. I don’t know what was going through her mind, but her attitude toward polygamy, an echo of her experience, was clear throughout her later years.