Another Abraham Error for Glenn
Horobiru
Dr. A. H. Sayce from Oxford, England noted that, "Smith has turned the
Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."
Glenn, what do you think about Smith mixing up genders? Do you think
this proves that Smith was a true prophet? You've been pretty quiet
lately.
I just wanted to give you another *specific* error because you asked for
them. I have a whole load of them. Tell me if you want more.
Glenn Thigpen
Since he is wrong about Abraham/Osiris.....
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
And which Goddess are you and Dr. A. H. Sayce referring to?
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Is this the same Doctor A. H. Sayce of 1912 fame? How about something
else from him with which I am sure you will agree.
Dr. A. H. Sayce, one of the most eminent of the archaeologists, when asked
what is the tendency of archaeological discovery, replied: "Since the
discovery of the El-Amarna tablets until now great things have been brought
out by archaeology, and every one of them has been in harmony with the
Bible, while nearly every one of them has been dead against the assertions
of the destructive critics."
From http://www.techplus.com/bkjv1611/bd0286.htm
Glenn
Nathan Packer
>
>Dr. A. H. Sayce from Oxford, England noted that, "Smith has turned the
>Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."
>
>Glenn, what do you think about Smith mixing up genders? Do you think
>this proves that Smith was a true prophet? You've been pretty quiet
>lately.
I think he is mulling over his description of the "rod of nature"
mentioned in the Book of Commandments - the rod that Oliver wielded so
well.
>
>I just wanted to give you another *specific* error because you asked for
>them. I have a whole load of them. Tell me if you want more.
>
Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
Glenn Thigpen
And finally, at last, is all of your information of 1912 vintage?
There have been a lot of new ideas and information on Egyptology since
1912 and even 1968. All of the ideas and criticisms that you have mostly
been answered by competent Egyptologists in their own right using current
ideas and information. If you have something new, that has not been covered
by the scholars from F.A.R.M.S. etc, then bring them on. But do your
homework first. so that we do not re-hash stuff that has been hashed
elsewhere.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 19:19:48 -0600, Horobiru <no...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dr. A. H. Sayce from Oxford, England noted that, "Smith has turned the
> >Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."
> >
> >Glenn, what do you think about Smith mixing up genders? Do you think
> >this proves that Smith was a true prophet? You've been pretty quiet
> >lately.
>
> I think he is mulling over his description of the "rod of nature"
> mentioned in the Book of Commandments - the rod that Oliver wielded so
> well.
You seem to have been thinking too much and reading too little. I don't
recall mentioning the rod of Aaron.
Glenn
Nathan Packer
Oh so you did read the passage
>
>Glenn
Just in case you missed it and didn't ignore it from the thread "D&C
changes" I will post my question and you can respond to it here
>Tyler Waite wrote:
>
>> http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/boc/boc_main.htm
>>
>> I found this website that has a digital version of the Book of Commandments. It also identifies which sections were changed when
>> the BoC became the D&C. It is amazing to see how much changed in some of these sections.
Glenn's response>
>And the point is?
Nathan's response to Glenn:
What do you think of Oliver's rod of nature and what do you think JS
meant when he said Oliver had a gift of "working with the rod"?
What I want you to do is place yourself at the time when this was
published. You Glenn are a contemporary with Joseph and Oliver. What
did this mean to you then?
***Remember you are living post BoC and pre D&C and lived as a
contemporary with JS and Oliver.
7:3 O remember, these words and keep my commandments.
Remember this is your gift. Now this is not all, for you have
another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it
has told you things: behold there is no other power save God,
that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it
is the work of God; and therefore whatsoever you shall ask
me to tell you by that means, that will I grant unto you, that you
shall know.
Glenn Thigpen
I would not know what to think of it, since there was nothing clarifying what was meant, which was done so in the Doctrine and
Covenants. That is whay many of the changes were made.
Glenn
Nathan Packer
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
Let me clarify or interpret what you are saying in a form I can
envision.
You are sitting in a tavern with a bunch of the guys and someone
comments that Joseph Smith says that Oliver is pretty good with his
rod of nature. I understand you are saying that you and the others
would have been clueless as to the meaning of the term "rod of nature"
and that those words and that description had never before been heard
by anyone.
Or can we take Randy's suggestion (tongue-in-cheek) that the early
meaning was to describe the short arm, of which Joseph apparently
wielded very well - and, because he didn't want anyone to think that
Oliver was in the same league as he, Joseph clarified Oliver's rod
into the rod of Aaron.
So let's not be mush-minded about this. What did your tavern buddies
think the "rod of nature" described?
Glenn Thigpen
> Let me clarify or interpret what you are saying in a form I can
> envision.
>
> You are sitting in a tavern with a bunch of the guys and someone
> comments that Joseph Smith says that Oliver is pretty good with his
> rod of nature. I understand you are saying that you and the others
> would have been clueless as to the meaning of the term "rod of nature"
> and that those words and that description had never before been heard
> by anyone.
>
> Or can we take Randy's suggestion (tongue-in-cheek) that the early
> meaning was to describe the short arm, of which Joseph apparently
> wielded very well - and, because he didn't want anyone to think that
> Oliver was in the same league as he, Joseph clarified Oliver's rod
> into the rod of Aaron.
>
> So let's not be mush-minded about this. What did your tavern buddies
> think the "rod of nature" described?
>
> Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
Well, since we are not talking about taverns and bawdy drinking buddies, but are talking about revelations and scriptures....
Glenn
Nathan Packer
We are talking about the meaning in 1832 of a simple phrase. But let
me answer the question for you as you seem unwilling to join the fray.
Peepstones and witching/dowsing sticks or rods were tools of the
treasure hunting trade. The dowsing rod was Oliver's tool, and Joseph
was simply flattering a fellow traveler.
In those heady days of the cabal when it was thought that the BOM
would make money, there was little appreciation of the negative impact
of a treasure seeking past. When Sidney managed to bring his followers
as adherents, and the nucleus of a religious movement was set, the
cabal realized that it was imperative they go "legit."
And the church leaders have been trying with all their might and
ferver ever since to maintain that "firewall" against the illegitimacy
of the church's folk magic past.
Glenn Thigpen
Not even a good historical fiction.
Glenn
Nathan Packer
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
From post to post of this discussion you have moved further back in
the hall. It is difficult to effectively heckle from Section Z, row 99
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/9/2001 10:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3AF9FBBF...@beaufortco.com>
Glenn, if you'd like to discover exactly how ignorant you are of Joseph Smith's
early history, I suggest you read Richard Bushman's "Joseph Smith and the
Beginnings of Mormonism," Allen and Leonard's "The Story of the Latter-Day
Saints," and John L. Brooke's "The Refiner's Fire; The Making of Mormon
Cosmology."
Randy J.
Glenn Thigpen
> >> Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) PackerWhen I sat at the fron of the class
> >
> > Not even a good historical fiction.
> >
> >Glenn
>
> From post to post of this discussion you have moved further back in
> the hall. It is difficult to effectively heckle from Section Z, row 99
>
> Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
There is no hall in chaos.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
>
> Glenn, if you'd like to discover exactly how ignorant you are of Joseph Smith's
> early history, I suggest you read Richard Bushman's "Joseph Smith and the
> Beginnings of Mormonism," Allen and Leonard's "The Story of the Latter-Day
> Saints," and John L. Brooke's "The Refiner's Fire; The Making of Mormon
> Cosmology."
>
> Randy J.
John Brooke and the Refiner's Fire. Why should I read a book as history when the
author admits that he is not a Mormon Historian and that his book "is not
necessarily a well-rounded approach to early Mormonism", or "a balanced history",
but is a "selective reinterpretation"?
I know absolutely nothing about the other two books. You may believe what you
want to from your own readings. But all too often "mountains of evidence" turn out
to be merely piles of rubbish.
Glenn
Bill Williams
"Glenn Thigpen" <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote in message
news:3AFCB3BD...@beaufortco.com...
"The Refiner's Fire" is a very interesting book. Brooke does an excellent
job of describing many of the factors surrounding the religious "enthusiasm"
of Joseph Smith's day. He also explains the many facets of counterfeiting,
treasure-digging, and other scams that were prevalent then.
So long after the fact, we have difficulty seeing how Joseph Smith could
have been involved with some of the practices that we read about in
affidavits by those who knew him. That's because it is foreign to our own
experience. Brooke's research helps us to see that in JOSEPH'S SMITH TIME
those things were not unusual at all.
Bill Williams
> Glenn
>
TheJordan6
>>Glenn, if you'd like to discover exactly how ignorant you are of Joseph
Smith's
> early history, I suggest you read Richard Bushman's "Joseph Smith and the
> Beginnings of Mormonism," Allen and Leonard's "The Story of the Latter-Day
> Saints," and John L. Brooke's "The Refiner's Fire; The Making of Mormon
> Cosmology."
>
> Randy J.
>John Brooke and the Refiner's Fire. Why should I read a book as history when
the
author admits that he is not a Mormon Historian
What does the fact that he isn't a Mormon have to do with his ability to
research and write on the subject? Brooke was an associate history professor
at Tufts University.
>and that his book "is not
necessarily a well-rounded approach to early Mormonism", or "a balanced
history",
but is a "selective reinterpretation"?
You've obviously cribbed those snippets from the opinions of Mormon apologists,
rather than reading them from Brooke's book. If you'd read the book, you'd
know what he actually wrote and meant:
"Quite obviously, this is not a traditional Mormon history, for I am not a
Mormon historian. It is a selective reinterpretation of the founding story of
Mormonism from 1796 to the 1850s in light of a reexamination of the
relationships between religion and the occult in the early modern North
Atlantic." (p. xvi.)
What Brooke is saying here is that he's not interested in rehashing the
"official story" of the founding of Mormonism that has been put forth by church
apologists since 1838 (because that version doesn't hold water for serious
scholars.) Rather, his book was an examination of how Mormonism sprang from
beliefs and worldviews of rural New Englanders that existed long before Joseph
Smith's time; those beliefs included occultic folk-magic, specifically visions,
dreams, treasure-hunting, "divining rods", "seer stones," and the like.
Brooke traced the connections between Nathaniel Wood's "New Israelite" cult and
the founders of Mormonism:
"One 19th-century account places Joseph Smith Sr, himself among the New
Israelites. If true, it would have taken him about fifty miles from his young
family in Turnbridge. In any event, Joseph would boast in the 1830's in Ohio
that his divining career had begun decades before in Vermont. The other Mormon
connection with the New Israelites noted in this account is more certain.
William Cowdery Jr., the father of Oliver Cowdery, who would be Joseph Smith's
closest associate in the early years of the Mormon church, was connected to the
New Israelites when he lived in Wells, Vermont, providing a room in his house
for the counterfeiter Winchell. William Cowdery apparently learned to divine
during these years, and his son Oliver carried with him to Palmyra and Harmony
the power of the divining rod, which Joseph Smith spoke of in revelation as
Oliver's 'gift of working the rod.' " (p. 133.)
>I know absolutely nothing about the other two books.
"Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism" was authored by LDS historian
and former BYU professor Richard L. Bushman. It's been reported that Bushman
will be an adviser on the upcoming movie about Joseph Smith's life, indicating
his position of respect and credibility in LDS circles. Bushman related the
culture of folk-magic that influenced Joseph Smith and his associates:
"Around 1822 Joseph had discovered a stone while digging a well with Willard
Chase a half-mile from the Smith farm. The stone enabled Joseph to see things,
as Lucy said, 'invisible to the natural eye.'.....For a time Joseph probably
used the stone to help people find lost property and other hidden
things.....Circling outward from Palmyra and Manchester, traces of similar
belief are found throughout the region. The appearance of the Book of Mormon
reminded a correspondent to the 'Rochester Gem' of an 18-year-old boy who in
1815 used a seerstone to hunt for treasure. The historian of Susquehanna
County knew of a Jack Belcher, who found lost objects with a stone.
Folklorists find tales of spirits guarding buried treasure deeply enmeshed in
rural culture throughout New York State. Vermont in the same era had its
buried treasures and lost mines detected through dreams, divining rods, or
stones. The Nathaniel Woods family in the Wells-Putney area of Vermont set out
with one Winchell, who used St. John's rod to find treasure guarded by a
hostile spirit. Supposedly Oliver Cowdery's father was a follower of the
Woods." (pp. 69, 71.)
Bushman then relates how "divining rods" and "seer stones" factored directly in
Smith's claims about the "gold plates":
"[Josiah] Stowell believed that he had located the site of an ancient Spanish
mine.....Through the summer of 1825 he put his hired hands to work on the
site.....When his men failed to locate the cache, Stowell enlisted the Smiths'
help, and Joseph Smith Sr., and Joseph, Jr., agreed to join the diggers in
Harmony. A set of 'Articles of Agreement', dated November 1,
1825,.....indicated that Joseph and his father were to receive two-elevenths of
the ore in the mine or 'the coined money and bars of ingots of Gold or Silver'
reputed to lie hidden underground.....[after Smith claimed to receive the 'gold
plates'], treasure seekers like Chase laid claim to Joseph Smith as a former
partner. 'The money-diggers,' Martin Harris explained, 'claimed that they had
as much right to the plates as Joseph had, as they were in company together.'
Over a year later David Whitmer met a group of incensed young men in Palmyra
who claimed that before Joseph got the plates, 'he had promised to share with
them.' One of them, Samuel Lawrence, and one [Alvah] Beeman, who worked with
divining rods, came to the Smith house to try to persuade Joseph to give them
a share. Joseph Knight, who was still at the Smiths', said 'they proposed to
go shares with him and tried every way to bargain with him but could not.
Whereupon Beeman held up his rods until they pointed to the hearth where the
plates were hidden.
"To throw off Chase and Lawrence, Joseph moved the plates from the hearth to
the cooper's shop in the yard.....the device worked. Willard Chase brought his
gang again that very night and his sister Sally with her green glass ["seer
stone"]. They rummaged around outside but did not come in." (pp. 69, 83, 84.)
Joseph Knight, Smith's disciple and benefactor, described Samuel Lawrence as a
"seear" (seer), and Alvah Beeman as "a grate (great) Rodsman":
"Nothing material took place untill toard fall the forepart of September. I
went to Rochester on Buisness and returnd By Palmyra to be there about the 22nt
of September. I was there several Days. I will say there [was] a man near By
the name Samuel Lawrance. He was a Seear [Seer] and he had Bin to the hill and
knew about the things in the hill and he was trying to obtain them. Now he was
Commanded not to let no [any] one see those things But a few for witness at a
given time. Now it soon got about that Joseph Smith had found the plates and
peopel Come in to see them But he told them that they Could not for he must not
shoe [show] them. But many insisted and oferd money and Property to see them.
But, for keeping them from the Peopel they persecuted and abused them [him] and
they [the Smiths] ware obliged to hide them [the plates], and they hid them
under a Brick harth in the west Room......About this time Came this Samuel
Lawrance and one Beeman a grate Rodsman and wanted to talk with him. And he
went into the west Room and they Proposed to go shares with him and tried every
way to Bargain with him But Could not. Then Beeman took out his Rods and hild
[held] them up and they pointed Dow[n] to the harth whare they ware hid.
"There," says Beeman, "it is under that harth." So they had to garde the house
until some time in November. He obtaind fifty Dollars in money and hired a man
to move him and his wife to Pensylvany to hir Fathers, his wife Being onwell
and wanted to go to her Fathers."
Joseph Knight was the fourth person baptized into Joseph Smith's new religion
in 1830. His journal has been quoted countless times by Mormon authors. His
complete recollections can be read at
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/joseph-knigh-rec.html
Knight's account is highly relevant because it is a "friendly" Mormon source
that describes the occultic, folk-magic practices surrounding Joseph Smith.
Knight's descriptions demonstrate that he, being one of Smith's closest
associates acknowledged, and apparently believed in, Lawrence's and Beeman's
"seeing" and "divining rod" powers. And that is the same type of folk-magic
that Joseph Smith referred to in his 1833 "revelation" to Cowdery conerning his
"gift of working the rod."
(Incidentally, Beeman, the "grate Rodsman," also joined Smith's church, and was
the father of one of Smith's 1840's Nauvoo "plural wives," Louisa Beaman.)
"The Story of the Latter-Day Saints" was written by LDS historians James B.
Allen and Glen M. Leonard. It was published by Deseret Book, which indicates
its position in orthodox Mormon thought. As did Brooke and Bushman above, its
authors acknowledged folk-magic culture's influence on Joseph Smith:
"Another element in the religious and social milieu of the time was a
continuing interest in various so-called 'magical arts', such as the use of
divining rods or stone gazing (sometimes called 'glass-looking') in the quest
for lost articles or buried treasure.....In Joseph Smith's time these practices
were still accepted as authentic among the common folk in upstate New
York.....Josiah Stowell.....located what he believed to be the site of an
ancient Spanish mine...Late in 1825 he employed Joseph Sr., and Joseph, Jr.,
along with some other men, to help him find the treasure. According to Lucy
Smith, Stowell hired her son 'on account of having heard that he possessed
certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.'
Official articles of agreement were drawn up, and the Smiths were to share in
the profits." (pp. 15, 41.)
The reason I referred you to these pro-Mormon books is because they corroborate
Brooke's research and remarks in his "Refiner's Fire." And that means that
your attempt to discredit Brooke's work is invalidated, because pro-Mormon
historians tell of the same Joseph Smith that Brooke did---a young man
surrounded by, and deeply involved in, rural folk-magic for several years.
Since the 1834 publication of Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed," Mormon apologists
(including Joseph Smith himself) have attempted to discredit it, because of its
damaging affidavits concerning Smith's 1820's occultic practices. But the fact
that modern, respected LDS historians such as Bushman, Allen and Leonard admit
to Smith's "peep-stoning" and treasure-digging, neuters the efforts of the
rabid apologists (such as Woody Brison, for instance,) who are in denial of the
facts.
Returning to the original subject---Smith's alteration of the phrase "working
with the rod" from the 1833 BOC into "the gift of Aaron" in his 1835 D&C---it
is obvious that Smith made that revision in an attempt to defuse the impact of
Howe's 1834 book, and possibly other critics as well. By 1835, Smith was
attempting to put his occultic past behind him---including the embarrassing
facts of his March 1826 "glass-looking" trial, which had been written about in
newspapers since 1831. Smith realized that if he was to re-cast himself from
an occultic con artist into a Biblical-style "prophet," it was in his interests
to delete the reference to "working with the [divining] rod," because to leave
it in would contradict his efforts to deny that he had ever been an occultic
practitioner.
When Smith published his 1835 D&C, he and Rigdon lived in Ohio. Smith had
heard that the printing press in Missouri, on which the 1833 "Book of
Commandments" was being struck, had been destroyed. Smith assumed that all
copies of the BOC were lost along with the press. So Smith felt safe in
altering his previous alleged "revelations," and revise them into more
"Biblically correct" terminology. It was a blatant attempt to bury his
occultic past; but unfortunately, several copies of the BOC survived, and were
published, including the reference to "working with the rod."
Smith's alterations also makes it obvious that his "revelations" were not from
any "God," but were the product of his own mind and interests, and he simply
revised them to fit his evolving desires.
>You may believe
what you want to from your own readings.
I believe what I believe because the facts are documented and obvious.
In previous responses to other posters, you opined that their remarks on this
issue would not even make "good historical fiction." I have cited scholarly,
well-respected works which clearly demonstrate that contrary to your assertion,
it is YOUR view of Joseph Smith's history that is "historical fiction."
Smith's deletion of the "working with the rod" is written proof, from his own
hand, that he was attempting to hide his occultic past. There was absolutely
no reason, other than covering up his past, to alter the verse.
>But all too often "mountains of evidence" turn out
to be merely piles of rubbish.
>Glenn
I've given you the historical documentation on the issue. Now deal with it
with something other than your worthless opinions and ignorant, secondhand
snippets from apologists.
Randy J.
cdowis
>TheJordan6 wrote:
snip
>Brooke traced the connections between Nathaniel Wood's "New Israelite" cult
and
>the founders of Mormonism:
Really? Let's see what he has to offer.
>
>"One 19th-century account places Joseph Smith Sr, himself among the New
>Israelites.
And specifically what is the source of the "one...account"? Has he traced
this account and verified that account?
> If true,
"If true...." IOW, it is a rumor, and unverifed and probably unverifiable.
Do you know how many "accounts" there have been abt the early days of the
Smith family? And this is a credible statement.
it would have taken him about fifty miles from his young
>family in Turnbridge.
Yawn.
> In any event,
IOW, "even if this is not true...even if it is pure hogwash...."
Pleeze.
Joseph would boast in the 1830's in Ohio
>that his divining career had begun decades before in Vermont.
Another statement not referenced?
The other Mormon
>connection with the New Israelites noted in this account is more certain.
>William Cowdery Jr., the father of Oliver Cowdery, who would be Joseph
Smith's
>closest associate in the early years of the Mormon church, was connected to
the
>New Israelites when he lived in Wells, Vermont, providing a room in his house
>for the counterfeiter Winchell.
Let me understand. Guilt by association? He rented out a room to a
counterfeiter and that makes him a.... what?
> William Cowdery apparently
"apparently"
learned to divine
>during these years, and his son Oliver carried with him to Palmyra and
Harmony
>the power of the divining rod, which Joseph Smith spoke of in revelation as
>Oliver's 'gift of working the rod.' " (p. 133.)
Sigh. Of course this was talking abt a diving rod, since "rod" is used
here.
Ah, yes, and the IRON ROD of the Book of Mormon --> another reference to a
diving rod. How utterly idiotic of me not to have seen that before.
And the Bible -- Exo 14 [16] But lift thou up thy **********rod********,
and
stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of
Israel
shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
Yes, I see..... Moses had a diving ROD as well.
Thank you so very much for opening my eyes. You antimormon...
uh...scholar...
has truly done a professional job here.
I am truly impressed.
snip
>I've given you the historical documentation on the issue. Now deal with it
>with something other than your worthless opinions and ignorant, secondhand
>snippets from apologists.
Oh, yes. Thank you....thank you.... We certainly don't want to deal with
"worthless opinions and ignorant, secondhand snippits" do we, now?
I am impressed.
>
>Randy J.
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/12/2001 7:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B1C...@MailAndNews.com>
>
>>===== Original Message From thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) =====
>>TheJordan6 wrote:
>snip
>
>>Brooke traced the connections between Nathaniel Wood's "New Israelite" cult
>and
>>the founders of Mormonism:
>Really? Let's see what he has to offer.
>>"One 19th-century account places Joseph Smith Sr, himself among the New
>>Israelites.
>And specifically what is the source of the "one...account"?
Gee, Charles, to find that out, I guess you'll just have to get Brooke's book
and read his references. It's about 400 pages long, have at it.
> Has he traced
>this account and verified that account?
Yes, as did Richard Bushman, the LDS historian who also stated the same
information, which I quoted in my post, which you snipped without comment.
> > If true,
>"If true...." IOW, it is a rumor, and unverifed and probably unverifiable.
"If true" means that Brooke is allowing "reasonable doubt," as any good
researcher would do. However, if you were to actually study the teachings of
Woods' New Israelite cult (which Brooke documents,) you would realize that many
of Joseph Smith's teachings mirrored Woods' earlier doctrines. That obviously
means that Smith cribbed from Woods, and therefore the connection between the
Smiths and Woods is cinched, even without direct evidence of their knowing each
other.
>Do you know how many "accounts" there have been abt the early days of the
>Smith family? And this is a credible statement.
Yes. The accounts of the Smiths' early days, be they friendly or unfriendly,
describe their occultic habits and practices. Lucy Mack Smith's mention that
they practiced the "faculty of Abrac" (magic) in her biography of Joseph is the
ultimate "friendly" source of the Smiths' early occultism. And Martin Harris'
"Tiffany's Monthly" interview not only reveals much about Smith's 1820's
folk-magic, but also corroborates many points in the affidavits from Smith's
neighbors that Hurlbut collected; and it also further demonstrates that the
Mormon allegation that Hurlbut "faked" his affidavits is invalid.
>it would have taken him about fifty miles from his young
>>family in Turnbridge.
>
>Yawn.
No problem. The Smiths Sr. and Jr. also traveled more than 100 miles to "see"
Stowell's non-existent treasure.
>> In any event,
>IOW, "even if this is not true...even if it is pure hogwash...."
>
>Pleeze.
You're not saying anything of value here.
>Joseph would boast in the 1830's in Ohio
>>that his divining career had begun decades before in Vermont.
>Another statement not referenced?
Get the book; read the references.
> The other Mormon
>>connection with the New Israelites noted in this account is more certain.
>>William Cowdery Jr., the father of Oliver Cowdery, who would be Joseph
>Smith's
>>closest associate in the early years of the Mormon church, was connected to
>the
>>New Israelites when he lived in Wells, Vermont, providing a room in his
>house
>>for the counterfeiter Winchell.
>Let me understand. Guilt by association? He rented out a room to a
>counterfeiter and that makes him a.... what?
The non-Mormon documentation of the Cowdery family's involvement with the New
Israelite cult is merely a corroboration of Joseph Smith's remark to Oliver
about his gift of "working the rod." It documents HOW the Cowderys' background
in folk-magic, long before Oliver ever met Joseph.
> > William Cowdery apparently
>
>"apparently"
Nothing of value here either.
>learned to divine
>>during these years, and his son Oliver carried with him to Palmyra and
>Harmony
>>the power of the divining rod, which Joseph Smith spoke of in revelation as
>>Oliver's 'gift of working the rod.' " (p. 133.)
>Sigh. Of course this was talking abt a diving rod, since "rod" is used
>here.
The term is "divining rod," also known as a "dowsing rod" (not to be confused
with a "Dowis rod"),or "water witch" among practitioners of the craft. Surely
you've heard abt it. Some country folks still use them to allegedly find
underground water sources.
>Ah, yes, and the IRON ROD of the Book of Mormon --> another reference to a
>diving rod. How utterly idiotic of me not to have seen that before.
Sorry, I don't see anything in the BOM about the "iron rod" being used in
occult folk-magic. Maybe you're still just as idiotic now as you were before.
However, the BOM does mention those "slippery treasures," which fits right in
with Smith's 1820's treasure-digging con game.
>And the Bible -- Exo 14 [16] But lift thou up thy **********rod********,
>and
>stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of
>Israel
>shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
>
>Yes, I see..... Moses had a diving ROD as well.
Let's see. According to the story, Moses used his rod by a) making it turn
into a serpent and eating Pharoah's serpents and b) parting the Red Sea. Those
incidents sound a lot like working magic to me. And that is exactly what the
practitioners of such arts in Joseph Smith's day claimed as well---that their
"divining rods," "seer stones," etc., gave them supernatural powers, to find
lost objects, "see" buried treasure, or as Martin Harris recounted, Smith used
his "seer stone" to find a pin in a haystack.
Since you apparently speak approvingly of Moses' magical "diving rod" use, I
assume that you have no problem with Oliver Cowdery using one as well. So I
guess that means you have no beef with Smith's comment about Cowdery "working
the rod."
So, if there's no problem with the practice, then why did Smith delete the
reference to it when he revised the 1833 BOC into the 1835 D&C, hmmmmmmmm?
>Thank you so very much for opening my eyes. You antimormon...
>uh...scholar...
>has truly done a professional job here.
Charles, your eyes will never be opened. They have been glued shut with Joseph
Smith's magic dust.
>I am truly impressed.
Really? Were you also impressed with the quotes from LDS scholars Bushman,
Allen, and Leonard, who concurred with Brooke about the culture of occult
folk-magic that surrounded the Joseph Smith family?
I guess you weren't very impressed with them, because you snipped them without
comment, and you only addressed the quotes from Brooke. And you didn't add a
damn thing to the subject in doing so.
>snip
>
>>I've given you the historical documentation on the issue. Now deal with it
>>with something other than your worthless opinions and ignorant, secondhand
>>snippets from apologists.
>Oh, yes. Thank you....thank you.... We certainly don't want to deal with
>"worthless opinions and ignorant, secondhand snippits" do we, now?
Unfortunately, I felt the need to deal with yours.
Randy J.
cdowis
>>cdo...@MailAndNews.com
>>Date: 5/12/2001 7:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3B1C...@MailAndNews.com>
>>
>>>===== Original Message From thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) =====
>>>TheJordan6 wrote:
>>snip
>>
>>>Brooke traced the connections between Nathaniel Wood's "New Israelite" cult
>>and
>>>the founders of Mormonism:
>
>>Really? Let's see what he has to offer.
>
>>>"One 19th-century account places Joseph Smith Sr, himself among the New
>>>Israelites.
>
>>And specifically what is the source of the "one...account"?
>
>Gee, Charles, to find that out, I guess you'll just have to get Brooke's book
>and read his references. It's about 400 pages long, have at it.
>
>> Has he traced
>>this account and verified that account?
>
>Yes, as did Richard Bushman, the LDS historian who also stated the same
>information, which I quoted in my post, which you snipped without comment.
So your post tells us that Bushman verified this "account". And how did
they
verify that account?
>
>> > If true,
>
>>"If true...." IOW, it is a rumor, and unverifed and probably unverifiable.
>
>"If true" means that Brooke is allowing "reasonable doubt," as any good
>researcher would do.
It indicates a doubt. How did they verify that account.
However, if you were to actually study the teachings of
>Woods' New Israelite cult (which Brooke documents,) you would realize that
many
>of Joseph Smith's teachings mirrored Woods' earlier doctrines.
Yawn. To any competent researcher, such a "mirror" means nothing unless you
can show a direct link.
The teachings of JS "mirrors" the teachings of many people, and you can
prove
anything, including a link to hinduism, Buddahism, Mohammedism, etc etc as
indeed the antimormons have done.
Similarity of teachings proves absolutely noting to me, at least, without an
actual link. I realize that you are impressed by such, but I am not.
That obviously
>means that Smith cribbed from Woods,
"Obviously" :<)
OK, whatever floats your boat.
and therefore the connection between the
>Smiths and Woods is cinched, even without direct evidence of their knowing
each
>other.
Okey dokey.
>
>>Do you know how many "accounts" there have been abt the early days of the
>>Smith family? And this is a credible statement.
>
>Yes. The accounts of the Smiths' early days, be they friendly or unfriendly,
>describe their occultic habits and practices.
And I am sure that you are very impressed by these stories.
I am not.
Lucy Mack Smith's mention that
>they practiced the "faculty of Abrac" (magic) in her biography of Joseph is
the
>ultimate "friendly" source of the Smiths' early occultism.
I think this has been extensively discussed here on ARM. Why don't you go
back and cite this discussion and add something new, instead of simply
ignoring it.
And Martin Harris'
>"Tiffany's Monthly" interview not only reveals much about Smith's 1820's
>folk-magic, but also corroborates many points in the affidavits from Smith's
>neighbors that Hurlbut collected; and it also further demonstrates that the
>Mormon allegation that Hurlbut "faked" his affidavits is invalid.
Yes, yes. It is clear that see that you are impressed by such things.
>
>>it would have taken him about fifty miles from his young
>>>family in Turnbridge.
>>
>>Yawn.
>
>No problem. The Smiths Sr. and Jr. also traveled more than 100 miles to
"see"
>Stowell's non-existent treasure.
>
>>> In any event,
>
>>IOW, "even if this is not true...even if it is pure hogwash...."
>>
>>Pleeze.
>
>You're not saying anything of value here.
Really. I am pointing out the logical flaws in your post. If these flaws
are
of no consequence, a reply is not necessary, is it.
I will not convince you, and your logic is so flawed I also see noting of
value here to make any difference in my thinking.
So, do you have anything new to offer in your next post, other than to tell
me
you disagree??
>
>>Joseph would boast in the 1830's in Ohio
>>>that his divining career had begun decades before in Vermont.
>
>>Another statement not referenced?
>
>Get the book; read the references.
>
>> The other Mormon
>>>connection with the New Israelites noted in this account is more certain.
>>>William Cowdery Jr., the father of Oliver Cowdery, who would be Joseph
>>Smith's
>>>closest associate in the early years of the Mormon church, was connected to
>>the
>>>New Israelites when he lived in Wells, Vermont, providing a room in his
>>house
>>>for the counterfeiter Winchell.
>
>>Let me understand. Guilt by association? He rented out a room to a
>>counterfeiter and that makes him a.... what?
>
>The non-Mormon documentation of the Cowdery family's involvement with the New
>Israelite cult is merely a corroboration of Joseph Smith's remark to Oliver
>about his gift of "working the rod."
Tell us the documentation of the rod mentioned in the D&C reference. Give
us
the detailed account of that specific rod. So far, all you give us "this
corrobates that". Your linkage of evidence is paper thin, or nonexistant.
And, no, I'm not going to read the *entire* book to verify what you post
claims to present. Just give us the part of the book that backs up what you
claim here.
You simply tell us this and that in very general terms. Let's see specific
evidence instead of these rather thin "this corroborates that." I see no
such
corroboration -- it is a fragment of your imagination, as far as I can tell.
It documents HOW the Cowderys' background
>in folk-magic, long before Oliver ever met Joseph.
And that proves..... what? Your logic is, I'm afraid, still to subtle for
my
poor Mormon mind to understand.
Let me be specific. In my statistics class the professor showed us to be
careful in drawing conclusions on cause and effect. He gave the example of
a
town where there was a very low population of rats compared to neighboring
towns. There was also a high number or widows in that town.
Correlation....
causality...... widows eat rats.
The real cause was that widows have cats, more than the general population,
which eat the rats.
You cannot prove any causality by showing correlation was the point of the
lesson.
snip
Horobiru
-------------------
> So your post tells us that Bushman verified this "account". And how did
> they
> verify that account?
Are you trying to continue the discussion or lead it off into lead it
into the wilderness of irrelevence? Go read his post again.
-------------------
> >>"If true...." IOW, it is a rumor, and unverifed and probably unverifiable.
> >
> >"If true" means that Brooke is allowing "reasonable doubt," as any good
> >researcher would do.
>
> It indicates a doubt. How did they verify that account.
-------------------
You are an damned idiot, Charles. Yes, it indicates doubt. VERY, VERY
few things can be known with 100% certainty. Given that, there is
almost ALWAYS doubt. Many philosophers of epistemology argue that
nothing can ever be known beyond all doubt. Now, unless you are willing
to enter a debate on epistemology, make a substantive answer. Your
"well, there's at least a teeny bit of doubt" answer is the quintessence
of an unpersuasive argument.
While we're on the subject, I'd like you to verify any miracle, vision,
or other spiritual event. You can't apply a double standard and get
away with it without an incredibly good justification for such.
-------------------
> Similarity of teachings proves absolutely noting to me, at least, without an
> actual link. I realize that you are impressed by such, but I am not.
-------------------
Explain what an "actual link" means to you. Please tell us what would
be necessary to establish a sufficient link in your mind.
-------------------
> >Yes. The accounts of the Smiths' early days, be they friendly or unfriendly,
> >describe their occultic habits and practices.
>
> And I am sure that you are very impressed by these stories.
>
> I am not.
-------------------
Regardless of whether or not you genuflect in the presence of such
accounts, the fact remains that others are presenting an alternative
explanation of the origins of a church and you are not interacting with
that alternative very effectively. The argument presented is
essentially that Smith didn't need divine knowledge, revelations, etc.
because he had far more mundane sources of knowledge which adequately
(it is argued) explain the origin of the church and its doctrines.
-------------------
> Really. I am pointing out the logical flaws in your post. If these flaws
> are
> of no consequence, a reply is not necessary, is it.
-------------------
You have yet to illustrate any flaws. You blather about not being
impressed, etc. but never address the issues. You ask questions but
never advance substantive positions. TRY AGAIN.
-------------------
> I will not convince you, and your logic is so flawed I also see noting of
> value here to make any difference in my thinking.
-------------------
You aren't going to be convincing anyone with reasonably well-developed
critical thinking skills if you keep hammering out posts such as the one
to which I am currently responding.
-------------------
> So, do you have anything new to offer in your next post, other than to tell
> me
> you disagree??
-------------------
Sounds like a problem you share with the accused.
Calvin Richens
cdowis
>-------------------
>> So your post tells us that Bushman verified this "account". And how did
>> they
>> verify that account?
>-------------------
>
>Are you trying to continue the discussion or lead it off into lead it
>into the wilderness of irrelevence? Go read his post again.
OK. Done that. Now here is the citation from the post:
"One 19th-century account places Joseph Smith Sr, himself among the New
Israelites."
Reading thru this post I see nothing from Bushman which references that "one
account (placing) Joseph Smith Sr, himself among the New Israelites." I did
a
search on the post on "new israelites" and nothing.
This was a lengthy post. Please show me the verification of the "one
account
which places JS Sr. himself among the New israelites".
>
>-------------------
>> >>"If true...." IOW, it is a rumor, and unverifed and probably
unverifiable.
>> >
>> >"If true" means that Brooke is allowing "reasonable doubt," as any good
>> >researcher would do.
>>
>> It indicates a doubt. How did they verify that account.
>-------------------
>
>You are an damned idiot, Charles.
Nope. I am a fool, not an idiot.
Yes, it indicates doubt. VERY, VERY
>few things can be known with 100% certainty.
We are talking abt **one** account which has, at least as far as I can see,
no
authentication.
Now, would you like to go before a judge and jury and be accused by "one
account", not verified. I personally prefer more evidence.
And that does make me a fool, I guess.
Given that, there is
>almost ALWAYS doubt. Many philosophers of epistemology argue that
>nothing can ever be known beyond all doubt. Now, unless you are willing
>to enter a debate on epistemology, make a substantive answer.
I already have. "One account" where the researcher twice himself expresses
doubt on that account. No verification. And, unless you can show me, no
other researcher has anything abt that "one account."
Your
>"well, there's at least a teeny bit of doubt" answer is the quintessence
>of an unpersuasive argument.
"Teeny". As I said, even Brooke does not give much credence to that
account.
He merely uses it as a springboard for imaginative speculation.
>
>While we're on the subject, I'd like you to verify any miracle, vision,
>or other spiritual event. You can't apply a double standard and get
>away with it without an incredibly good justification for such.
I have no interest in convincing you of anything. I merely point out the
flawed logic in these posts.
>
>-------------------
>> Similarity of teachings proves absolutely noting to me, at least, without
an
>> actual link. I realize that you are impressed by such, but I am not.
>-------------------
>
>Explain what an "actual link" means to you. Please tell us what would
>be necessary to establish a sufficient link in your mind.
Evidence. I see no link to the new israelites except "one account" which
"if
true", etc etc etc.
>
>-------------------
>> >Yes. The accounts of the Smiths' early days, be they friendly or
unfriendly,
>> >describe their occultic habits and practices.
>>
>> And I am sure that you are very impressed by these stories.
>>
>> I am not.
>-------------------
>
>Regardless of whether or not you genuflect in the presence of such
>accounts, the fact remains that others are presenting an alternative
>explanation of the origins of a church and you are not interacting with
>that alternative very effectively.
I merely point out the flaws in their presentation. The end of that post
states: "Now deal with it
with something other than your worthless opinions and ignorant, secondhand
snippets from apologists."
I point out that is precisely what the author has done regarding the
so-called
link to the new israelites. Yes, it is an alternative explanation, but, at
least to me, rather flawed.
And that is my opinion.
The argument presented is
>essentially that Smith didn't need divine knowledge, revelations, etc.
>because he had far more mundane sources of knowledge which adequately
>(it is argued) explain the origin of the church and its doctrines.
And that is what we are discussing.
>
>-------------------
>> Really. I am pointing out the logical flaws in your post. If these flaws
>> are
>> of no consequence, a reply is not necessary, is it.
>-------------------
>
>You have yet to illustrate any flaws. You blather about not being
>impressed, etc. but never address the issues. You ask questions but
>never advance substantive positions. TRY AGAIN.
Are you going to answer my question? Where is the verification for the "one
account" etc etc etc. Where is the additional evidence? Or, in your own
words, are we going to just offer us "something other than your worthless
opinions and ignorant, secondhand
snippets...". Deal with it.
Glenn Thigpen
> Truth is stranger than fiction. and this is documented in "early Mormonism and the Magic world View. "Strange"
Shall we change documented to interpreted. Quinn has his own agenda, his own version of history, which may or may not coincide
with the way things actually were.
Glenn
Horobiru
-------------------------
> Shall we change documented to interpreted.
All scholarship is interpretation.
-------------------------
> Quinn has his own agenda,
-------------------------
Which was what? Don't all people have an agenda of some sort? The
better question is whether or not Quinn's agenda unnecessarily biased
his work.
-------------------------
> his own version of history,
-------------------------
Which version of history do you find more believable: the official LDS
version or Quinn's? Doesn't the Church have an agenda?
-------------------------
> which may or may not coincide
> with the way things actually were.
-------------------------
The same applies equally well to the official version(s) of LDS history.