Time, once again, to rock the wacky-religious world of the TBM faithful who secretly lurk here:

Joesph Smith did NOT believe his own carnvival-barker story.

On this point, RfM poster "almosthere recently asked:

"rhgc, you said: 'Years ago I thought that Joseph Smith at least thought he was a prophet. But after reading what he wrote himself it is evident he knew he was a con from the very beginning.'

"What have you read that tells you this? I guess I'm still in the boat that he somehow convinced himself it was real, but I'd like to hear what you know. If anyone else has something to say, feel free to share, too!

"Thanks, everyone!

"Original post here:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,778611,778706#msg-778706";


("Did Joseph Smith believe?," posted by "almostthere," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 29 January 2013, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,778876,778876#msg-778876)


Specfically on Joseph Smith's non-belief level, the Book of Mormon was so problematic for him that he wanted to dump it early on and, in fact, did--literally.
_____


--Joseph Smith Buries the Book of Mormon

Smith, when helping to lay a cornerstone for the Nauvoo House on 2 October 1841, approved the placement of an original Book of Mormon manuscript (composed mostly in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and appropriately written on foolscap paper) into the Nauvoo House cornerstone with the following send-off comment (made a short time earlier by Smith to another prominent Mormon leader):

"I have had trouble enough with this thing."

Amen, brother.

(see Ernest H. Taves, "Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon" [Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1984], p. 160)


Indeed, William Alexander Linn, in his book, "The Story of the Mormons: From the Date of Their Origin to the Year 1901" , sets the stage for Smith's deep-sixing of this supposed "sacred scripture":

"[P]roof [that] . . . a second [manuscript] copy [of the Book of Mormon] did exist [is found in the account of Ebenezer Robinson]. . . . Robinson, who was a leading man in the [Mormon] church from the time of its establishment in Ohio until Smith's death, says in his recollections that, when the people assembled on October 2, 1841, to lay the cornerstone of [the] Nauvoo House, Smith said he had a document to put into the cornerstone, and Robinson went with him to his house to procure it. Robinson's tory proceeds as follows:

"'He got a manuscript copy of the Book of Mormon and brought it into the room where we were standing and said, "I will examine to see if it is all here;" and as he did so I stood near him, at his left side, and saw distinctly the writing as he turned up the pages until he hastily went through the book and satisfied himself that it was all there, when he said, "I have had trouble enough with this thing;" which remark struck me with amazement, as I looked upon it as a sacred treasure."

(William Alexander Linn, "The Story of the Mormons: From the Date of Their Origin to the Year 1901" [New York, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1902], p. 44; original text at: "Google Books" link to the page at: http://books.google.com/books?id=QDdAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=ebenezer+robinson+book+of+mormon+trouble+enough&source=bl&ots=H_Lur4vQE7&sig=NDY_hZzw7NSVqNMzIECTct11R-w&hl=en&ei=Sd1STvPVNOSDsgKbwtzwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ebenezer%20robinson%20book%20of%20mormon%20trouble%20enough&f=false)
_____


--Joseph Smith Admits He Made It All Up--

One shouldn't be surprised by Smith's abandonment of the so-called "keystone" of the Mormon religion; nor should one be surprised by Smith's utter disdain for what he regarded as the simple-minded stupidity of those who actually bought into his lies.

To be sure, Smith had a habit (about which he privately boasted to his friends) of making up stories about imaginary "golden Bibles," then playing it out even further for his incredulous associates when Smith discovered that they actually swallowed his tall tales hook, line and sinker.

Case in point, as one of Smith's close acquaintances, Peter Ingersoll, testified in an affidavit certified by a local judge:

"One day he [Joseph Smith] came and greeted me with a joyful countenance. Upon asking the cause of his unusual happiness, he replied in the following language, 'As I was passing, yesterday, across the woods, after a heavy shower of rain, I found, in a hollow, some beautiful white sand, that had been washed up by the water. I took off my frock, and tied up several quarts of it, and then went home.

"'On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible.

"'To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room.'

"Now, said Joe, 'I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun.' Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book and believed there never was any such book, yet, he told me that he actually went to Willard Chase, to get him to make a chest, in which he might deposit his golden Bible. But, as Chase would not do it, he made a box himself, of clapboards, and put it into a pillow case, and allowed people only to lift it, and feel of it through the case."

("Peter Ingersoll Statement on Joseph Smith, Jr.," sworn affidavit, Palymra, Wayne County, New York, 2 December 1833, affirmed as being truthful by Ingersoll under oath and in a personal appearance before Thomas P. Baldwin, Judge of Wayne County Court, 9 December 1833; for Ingersoll's entire affidavit, see: http://www.truthandgrace.com/StatementIngersoll1.htm)

*****


Joseph Smith was not a believer in the Book of Mormon that he peddled as being divine. Pure and simple, he was a fraud and a conman. In his quieter moments, out of earshot of the blindly faithful, he admitted that faithless fact.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2013 08:32PM by steve benson.

You mention five sources for the idea that Joseph Smith admitted that the Book of Mormon was false. One is a claim that he made up a story about another golden bible. Even if true, that does not tell us what he thought of the Book of Mormon.

Your second and third sources are Taves and Linn, secondary books written in the last several decades. They are based on your fourth and fifth sources, respectively, so we are really down to two sources.

Let's look at those. One is Ingersol's account from 1834, saying that Joseph Smith said of the Book of Mormon, "I have had trouble enough with this thing." The other is a reminiscence in about 1890 by Robinson, who claims that Joseph Smith said, "I have had trouble enough with this thing."

When different sources use the same words about different events, you have to wonder whether they really are independent. Could it be that Robinson read or heard about the Ingersol statement and was influenced by it when writing his own life story five decades later? Is any undocumented statement repeated so long after the fact reliable?

You really only have one source for your post, perhaps two if you insist on trusting Robinson's memory. But even if Joseph Smith did say to Robinson what he said to Ingersol, what did he mean? His words were, "I have had trouble enough with this thing." There are lots of ways to interpret that sentence, but it's quite a stretch to read it as "This Book of Mormon is false. I made it up."

Joseph Smith was, in your words, "a fraud and a conman" and the Book of Mormon is fiction. But I still haven't seen evidence that he admitted that to others.

There's another quote I find indirectly evident of the admission.


This interview with William Law is revealing:

http://waynesimister.mysite.com/lawint.htm

>>> "...This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother." <<<

The church leadership still uses this system today.

Interesting stuff, and thanks for the reply! Do you have any idea what the Canadian Gold Bible history Ingersoll spoke of was? I'd heard that story before, but I forgot about that part.

What? :

You wouldn't happen to be one of those 'Mormons' would ya?

This site is mainly for EX-Mormons

I'm not What? And I am definately ex-mormon, but I had the same thoughts as I read Steve's comments.

It's not that I think JS really believed the BoM to be true. I just don't think it's very good evidence for his belief.

As an exmo, it's great that we can be skeptical of all things.

ETA:

"I have had trouble enough with this thing." -- I know that I said the same thing a hundred times about my doctoral dissertation, and I believed every word I wrote.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 09:57AM by fossilman.

Breedumyung,

I'm not a Mormon. I spent a very long time being a TBM but left long ago.

I just don't think the argument in the OP was a good one. Proof that the Book of Mormon was false? I prefer the lack of horses, steel, chariots, various grains and animals. Or the anachronisms, or the DNA evidence. Or the fact that humans existed in the Americas for 10,000 years before Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden.

Proof that Joseph Smith was "a fraud and a conman?" False prophecies, abuse of his friends and their wives and daughters, etc. Kinderhook, BOA, the First Vision. Kirtland Bank.

The fraud isn't hard to prove. I just object to weak scholarship. If you use multiple versions of a single source to make a point, and that source does not really support your point, the result is sometimes the opposite of what you hope. How many of us, while still TBMs, went to the church or FARMS and FAIR to find out why the anti-Mormon attacks were wrong, read the apologies, were stunned by how lame they were, and came away convinced that the anti-Mormons were right?

Whether Joseph Smith knew that the Book of Mormon was complete nonsense (I think he probably did) or was a "pious fraud" and actually believed his stories isn't that important. It would be nice to know that he admitted the fraud, but I haven't really seen evidence of that yet.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 01:02PM by steve benson.

Let's look at one particular aspect of that history: Oliver Cowdery was a co- con man who was in cahoots with Joseph Smith in creating the founding fairy tales of Mormonism.

**Cowdery and the Concoction of the First Vision

Mormon historian Fawn Brodie points in her "No Man Knows My History" to a noticeable omission by Cowdery--one where he failed to mention the First Vision in the initial versions of LDS Church history. Brodie explains the reason for its absence: It hadn't been made up yet by the Smith/Cowdery team: “The earliest published Mormon history, begun with Joseph's collaboration in 1834 by Oliver Cowdery, ignored [the 'First Vision'] altogether, stating that the religious excitement in the Palmyra area occurred when [Joseph Smith] was 17 (not 14). Cowdery described Joseph's visionary life as beginning in September 1823, with the vision of angel called Moroni, who was said to have directed Joseph to the discovery of hidden gold plates.”


**Cowdery Argues with Smith Over the Invented Story of John the Revelator's Whereabouts

Prior to the formal crank-up of the Mormon Church, Cowdery found himself at odds with Smith over the particulars of how to spin a tale about the supposed appearance of heavenly messengers carrying God's priesthood power back to the Earth. Gramt Palmer, in his "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins," describes how Smith ultimately came up with a storyline to end the disagreement: “Shortly after becoming Joseph Smith's full-time scribe in April 1829, . . . a disagreement [arose] between the two men over whether John the Revelator was on earth or in heaven[.] Joseph, through a stone, 'translated' the answer from 'a record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself' somewhere n the Middle East . . . .”


**Repeatedly Rewriting the Restoration Over the Objections of Other Mormon Leaders

For Cowdery and Smith, the story of Mormon restoration glory was ever-changing--and ever getting better. LDS Church claims of God's messengers bringing the authoritative priesthood power to Smith and Cowdery were, in fact, not in the original script but instead were added later, as needed. It was a tactic of Cowdery's and Smith's that irked other early Mormon Church leaders.

As Palmer points out, the diaries from 1831 to 1836 of William E. McLellin (an early LDS convert and apostle) contain virtually no mention of Smith and Cowdery being the recipients of what Palmer calls “angelic priesthood ordination.” As McLellin noted: “I joined the Church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter and John doing so.”

Palmer further reports: “McLellin provided later additional details about the absence of such stories from the early versions of Mormon Church history: 'I heard Joseph tell his experience of his ordination [by Cowdery] and the organization of the Church, probably more than 20 times, to persons who, near the rise of the Church, wished to know and hear about it. I never heard of Moroni, John or Peter, James or John.'” McLellin further noted, “ . . . [A]s to the story of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized, I never heard of it in the Church for years, although I carefully noticed things that were said.” McLellin wasn't alone. Another skeptical assessment of the priesthood power play described by Smith and Cowdery came from another key source: David Whitmer (one of the three “special witnesses” to the Book of Mormon gold plates). Whitmer, in an 1885 interview with Zenas H. Gurley, Jr.,(an apostle with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), politely blew the lid off Cowdery's fabrications: “. . . Oliver stated to me . . .that [he and Joseph] had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command . . . . I never heard that an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834, 1835 or 1836--in Ohio. . . . I do not believe that John the Baptist ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception.”

Palmer reinforces the suspicion that these purported events were invented additions, on account of the fact that Cowdery's own actions seemed strange for someone who supposedly had been ordained by heavenly messengers to restore God's Church. Especially odd in that regard was Cowdery's acceptance of “revelations” coming from an early LDS convert who held lower rank than Smith but, who like Smith, claimed to be able to read peepstones: “There is . .. . corroborating evidence in an episode that occurred in September 1830 when Hiram Page, who held the office of teacher, claimed to receive revelations for the Church through a seer stone. Many, 'especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery,' accepted Page's revelation as authoritative for 'the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church [speaking for God], etc., etc. ' If Cowdery's authority came literally from the hands of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John in an unequivocal bestowal of apostolic keys of priesthood succession, . . . it should have been obvious to Cowdery that Page's claims lacked comparable weight. If this restoration of authority and truth which had been lost for centuries occurred dramatically and decisively in a show of glory in 1829, then it seems unlikely that a year later Cowdery would accept Page's authority over that of Joseph Smith. “Why,” Palmer asks, “would those claiming to hold the exclusive keys of apostolic succession from Peter, James and John seek direction and revelation from one holding the office of a teacher in the Church? It seems more likely that simply and undramatic commandments were the source of these early authority claims.”

Palmer's assessment that Mormonism's founding narrative was a series of unfolding make-overs receives further weight from the fact that “[t]he first mention of authority from angels dates to 22 September 1832.” Even that mention, however, does not include any reference “to the actual physical laying on of hands by an angel, but one sees the seeds of a concept here.” Further undermining Oliver's credibility as an inspired storyteller is Palmer's observation that “an unequivocal assertion of authority by angelic ordination” did not come until “Oliver Cowdery's 7 September 1834 letter in the October issue of the 'Messenger and Advocate' [in which] Cowdery tells a highly dramatic, if poetic, version of how he and Joseph received the priesthood from an unnamed angel.” Significantly, as Palmer writes, these visiting angels finally got their names and priesthood-granting powers “[w]hen Joseph and Oliver . . . were facing a credibility crisis that threatened the Church's survival.”

The affidavit-collecting activities of D.P. Hurlburt were by that time casting growing doubt over the character and motivations of Smith and Cowdery, as well as raising suspicions about their fanciful tales of Mormon origins. Hurlburt's damning affidavits were followed by devastating claims made in E. D. Howe's book, “Mormonism Unv[e]iled.” Faced with growing disillusionment among the faithful, Cowdery's initially unnamed angel miraculously morphed into John the Baptist. The pumped-up tale of Peter, James and John descending from heaven with outstretched hands to ordain Smith and Cowdery to the priesthood (together with the newly-formed John the Baptist account), were trotted out to improve the earlier, less dramatic storyline. Writes Palmer: “Thus, by degrees, the accounts became more detailed and more miraculous.

In 1829, Joseph said he was called by the Spirit; in 1832, he mentioned that angels attended these events; in 1834-35, the spiritual manifestations became literal and physical appearances of resurrected beings. Details usually become blurred over time; [but] in this case, they multiplied and sharpened. These new declarations of literal and physical events facilitated belief and bolstered Joseph and Oliver's authority during a time of crisis.” Casting even more shadows on the authenticity of Smith and Cowdery's Mormon sensational storyline, Palmer points to another glaring omission: “No contemporary narrative exists for a visitation to Joseph and Oliver by Peter, James and John. In fact, the date, location, ordination prayer and other circumstances surrounding this are unknown.” Instead, “[t]he earliest statement about the higher priesthood being restored in a literal,physical way, including the naming of angels, appears in the September 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.” Palmer notes: “It may be more than a coincidence, that in February 1835 when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized, the details regarding Peter, James and John were added to the revelations. It was sometime between January and May 1835 that Peter, James and John were first mentioned as the restorers of apostolic keys to Joseph and Oliver. This new link of succession undoubtedly bolstered President Smith's and Assistant President Cowdery's authority in the eyes of the new Quorum of the Twelve and the Church.”

Palmer's assessment of the ever-changing Mormon narrative does not speak well for the credibility of conman Smith and his cohort Cowdery: “As in his accounts of an angel and the gold plates, Joseph was willing to expand on another foundational narrative. The events surrounding the priesthood restoration were reinterpreted, one detail emphasized over another. A spiritual charged moment when participants felt the veil between heaven and earth was thin became, in the retelling, an event with no veil at all. The first stories about how Joseph received his authority show that, like other prophets and religions founders throughout history, he and Oliver first received their callings in a metaphysical way. Within a few years, their accounts become impressive, unique and physical.”

Palmer explains that the ultimate (and deceptive) purpose behind the Smith-Cowdery re-tooling of Mormonism's make-believe beginnings was to plant the Church roots and subsequently expand its ranks: “The foundation events [of the Mormon Church which including the First Vision; the historicity and translation of the Book of Mormon gold plates; the Angel Moroni; and priesthood restoration] were rewritten by Joseph and Oliver and other early Church officials so the Church could survive and grow. This reworking made the stories more useful for missionary work and for fellowshipping purposes.” Palmer concludes that this approach of Smith and Cowdery was fundamentally dishonest: “. . . [I]s this acceptable? Should we continue to tell these historically inaccurate versions today? It seems that, among the many implications that could be considered, we should ask ourselves what results have accrued from teaching an unequivocal, materialistic and idealized narrative of our Church's founding. . . . [I]s it right to tell religious allegories to adults as if they were literally true?”
_____


Smith's conscious, ongoing reinvention of the basic Book of Mormon/Mormon Church storyline is convincing proof, in and of itself, that Smith UNPIOUSLY knew it was an utter and complete fraud. The historical references provided in the OP simply reinforce that reality.

For a much-needed historical wake-up call, "What?" should do himself a favor and read "Joseph Smith: Nineteenth Century Con Man?," by Dale R. Broadhurst, at: http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm#Sec02a



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 01:07PM by Moderator.

There are things in my life I have had to do that caused me plenty of pain and frustration and when finally succeded have said something similar to what Smith said, but still glad that I finally got it done.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 03:38PM by steve benson.

I've been ready to be done with a school paper, but when God reveals his word to me I can't get enough.

I guess for Smith the novelty of having god talk to him through a rock had worn off and he was over it.

So I have to somewhat agree with "What". While the Book of Mormon is clearly false and Joseph Smith clearly knew that, I don't think the evidence cited is really enough to say what you are saying, Steve. Again, Joseph Smith clearly knew he was making shit up while creating the Book of Mormon. I think that much is clear.

From reading No Man Knows My History, it really sounded to me like Joseph Smith knew all this was a fraud but toward the end managed to convince himself that it was true. Humans can do that all the time.

I think perhaps Smith came to regret the Book of Mormon simply because it restricted what "doctrine" he could then make up afterward. The Book of Abraham is really more central to core Mormon doctrine than the Book of Mormon but the Book of Mormon is still "the book" in the church for some reason.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would disagree that Smith knew he was creating a fraudulent book. I just think that him saying "I have had trouble enough with this" is a very minor piece of evidence for that.

Keep in mind that "What" is sympathetic to the silly view that Smith was a so-called "pious fraud"--i.e., someone who was supposedly peddling a fraud but believing every single word of it. The historical record clearly speaks otherwise.

And you say you are only "somewhat" in agreement with "What"? You can't have your pious fraud cake and eat it, too.

There are people who knew Smith personally who asserted that he admitted to them he was a fraud. That would mean that Smith articulated to them the fraud that he was already consciously and demonstrably undertaking.



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 02:45PM by steve benson.

Reread his post, he clearly said he did NOT think Joseph was a pious fraud. He was simply saying that this isn't a compelling case that he admitted it.

I guess I touched a sore spot.

In reply to my post, Steve, you made two arguments. First, you wrote a long description about how Joseph Smith and the church made lots of stuff up and rewrote history many times. I do not disagree with that. If you reread my posts, you'll find absolutely nothing to support the the argument you are arguing with.

Second, you twice said that I am "sympathetic to the silly view that Smith was a so-called "pious fraud." If you reread my posts, you'll see that I do not believe in the "pious fraud" argument. I said that in my opinion he knew he was lying.

There's no need to make up stories about what I said.

Moreover, this initial reference of yours to Joseph Smith and "pious fraud" certainly does not state that you did not regard him as a pious fraud:

"Whether Joseph Smith knew that the Book of Mormon was complete nonsense (I think he probably did) or was a "pious fraud" and actually believed his stories isn't that important. It would be nice to know that he admitted the fraud, but I haven't really seen evidence of that yet."

Perhaps it would be good (as you now seem to be attempting to do), to clear the air on that score.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 03:13PM by steve benson.

I think that the best evidence we have that Ol' Joe Smith didn't think much of the BoM is that, as far as I've been able to determine, he never taught or quoted from it.

That is right.

You don't need stories that Joseph Smith admitted any fraud. We know the BOM is false. We know that Joseph Smith was a fraud. And we know that he almost never used the Book of Mormon himself.

That is why we know he didn't think much of his book.

Smith, in helping to lay a cornerstone for the Nauvoo House on 2 October 1841, approved the placement of an original Book of Mormon manuscript (composed mostly in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and appropriately written on foolscap paper) into the Nauvoo House cornerstone with the following send-off comment (made a short time earlier by Smith to another prominent Mormon leader):

"I have had trouble enough with this thing."

(Ernest H. Taves, "Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon" [Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1984], p. 160)
_____


If that is not open indication enough that Smith regarded the Book of Mormon as a fake, I don't know what is.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 04:10PM by steve benson.

In just a few words:
It is absolutely impossible for Joseph Smith not to know that he made up the BoM (with help and plagierism, etc.) and that his BoA is bogus. That, alone, is proof that he never could have believed himself to be a prophet.

That is my view.

The evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud is overwhelming. The evidence that he knew he was a fraud is almost as overwhelming.

There is need to muddy the waters by adding claims and stories that are underwhelming.

Were the manuscripts in the cornerstone ever recovered?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#Manuscripts

"In October 1841, the entire original manuscript was placed into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House, and sealed up until nearly forty years later when the cornerstone was reopened. It was then discovered that much of the original manuscript had been destroyed by water seepage and mold.[109] Surviving manuscript pages were handed out to various families and individuals in the 1880s.[109] A total of only 28% of the original manuscript now survives, including a remarkable find of fragments from 58 pages in 1991.[108] The majority of what remains of the original manuscript is now kept in the LDS Church Archives.[108]"

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 03:47PM by steve benson.

Since the Book of Mormon is an obvious fraud, Smith was a huckster and had to know it. I can imagine him growing weary of a worn out hoax.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Ingersol is your one good source. But his account is unclear. Burying something in the cornerstone of a new building is generally a statement of respect for that thing.

Also, people say "I have had enough trouble with that thing" about their Ph.D's, homes they build, their families, and other things they value all the time. You need more information to know whether Joseph Smith meant his sentence to mean "I admit that I forged this book."

I read your OP because I wanted to know when and how Joseph Smith admitted to his fraud. If you have evidence that he did that, I mean something more than a single unclear statement of frustration, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise I'll stick with those who say that Joseph Smith had to know he was a fraud because he wrote so many fraudulent things.

. . . on the "white sand" story, although, for the record, Anderson believes the affidavits collected by Hurlbut from Smith's Palmyra neighbors were, overall speaking, quite credible.

Taken together, I am of the view that Ingersoll rings basically true, although he has been aptly described as a savage cynic.

At least I read the lit. :)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 04:23PM by steve benson.

One shouldn't be surprised by Smith's abandonment of the so-called "keystone" of the Mormon religion; nor should one be surprised by Smith's utter disdain for what he regarded as the simple-minded stupidity of those who actually bought into his lies.

To be sure, Smith had a habit (about which he privately boasted to his friends) of making up stories about imaginary "golden Bibles," then playing it out even further for his incredulous associates when Smith discovered that they actually swallowed his tall tales hook, line and sinker.

Case in point, as one of Smith's close acquaintances, Peter Ingersoll, testified in an affidavit certified by a local judge:

"One day he [Joseph Smith] came and greeted me with a joyful countenance. Upon asking the cause of his unusual happiness, he replied in the following language, 'As I was passing, yesterday, across the woods, after a heavy shower of rain, I found, in a hollow, some beautiful white sand, that had been washed up by the water. I took off my frock, and tied up several quarts of it, and then went home.

"'On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible.

"'To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room.'

"Now, said Joe, 'I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun.' Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book and believed there never was any such book, yet, he told me that he actually went to Willard Chase, to get him to make a chest, in which he might deposit his golden Bible. But, as Chase would not do it, he made a box himself, of clapboards, and put it into a pillow case, and allowed people only to lift it, and feel of it through the case."

("Peter Ingersoll Statement on Joseph Smith, Jr.," sworn affidavit, Palymra, Wayne County, New York, 2 December 1833, affirmed as being truthful by Ingersoll under oath and in a personal appearance before Thomas P. Baldwin, Judge of Wayne County Court, 9 December 1833; for Ingersoll's entire affidavit, see: http://www.truthandgrace.com/StatementIngersoll1.htm)


*Rodger I Anderson, in his book "Jospeh Smith's New York Reputation Re-examined" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1990), notes the following regarding certain noteworthy (and controversial) particulars of Ingersoll's affidavit:

--Ingersoll's assessment of Smith and his family reflected similiar conclusions from affidavits taken from several members of the Palymra community in which Smith lived:

"[Ex-Mormon and affidavit collector Philastus] Hurlburt's question, 'Was digging for money the general employment of the Smith family?,' repeated to each witness, would explain Peter Inersoll's 'The general employment of the family was digging for money' . . . "

Anderson notes that "[e]ven if Hurlbut did contribute to the style and structore of the affidavits, it does not necessarily follow that he 'contaminated' them by interpolation. Similarities such as those noted by [Mormon critics] may only mean that Hurlbut submitted the same questions to some of the parties involved." (p. 28)


--Ingersoll's statement was a sworn legal dodcument affirming to facts which Ingersoll asserted were true:

Notes Anderson, "Even if Hurlbut had written out some of the statements after interviewing those concerned, the individuals either signed the statements, thus affirming their supposed accuracy, or swore to the statements before a magistrate. For example, Peter Ingersoll appeared before Judge Thomas P. Baldwin 'and made oath according to law, to the truth of the above statement.'" (p. 29)


--Ingergoll's affidavit cannot be dismissed as completely non-evidentiary:

Anderson counters the argument from Mormon apologists that Ingersoll's testimmony deserves to be dismissed because it "consists not in observation, but supposed admissions in conversation," by noting that "[o]f these criticisms, some are based on entirely erroneous information and some reflect partial truth and partial error. But none justify [the] conclusion that the affidavits are essentially 'non-evidence.'" (p. 43)


--The larger content of Ingersoll's affidavit as described by Anderson:

"In his deposition, Ingersoll rehearses various efforts of the elder Smith to make him [Ingersoll] a money digger, recalls conversations with him about divination and money digging and relates an episode in which Joseph Smith, Sr., found some lost cows by means of a witch hazel stick. Ingersoll dismisses this later accomplishemtn as a trick to test his credibility.

"Ingersoll tells of being hired by Joseph Smith, Jr., to go with him to Pennsylvania to help move Smith's new wife Emma's furniture back to Manchester, describes an episode along the way in which Smith supposedly displayed some Yankee ingenuity to avoid paying a toll, repeats an alleged confession that the business of the gold plates was nothing more than a ruse to deceive his parents, recounts Smith's successful effort to get $50.00 from Martin Harris and narrates a number of other episodes said to have been drawn from his personal knowledge of the Smith family."

"According to Ingersoll, Smith told him that he had discovered some white sand that had been washed out after a storm. Impressed with the beauty and purity of the sand, Smith tied several quarts of it up in his farmer's smock and carried it home. His response when his parents expressed curiosity about what he had in his smock, according to Ingersoll, was '[I] happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly, I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refused to see it and left the room.' Now, said Joe, 'I have got the damned fools fixed and will carry out the fun.'"


--Anderson has doubts about the "white sand" story in several respects but concludes that it confirms, in the larger sense, important elements of Smith's questionable reputation and character:

"Of all the information volunteered by Hurlbut's witness, Ingersoll's story is the most dubious for a number of reasons.

"First, Ingersoll represents the incident as unpremeditated deception on Smith's part. Aside from all other considerations, there exists ample evidence that Smith had been talking about the gold plates some time before the date Ingersoll attaches to this prank.

"Second, Smith's known regard for his parents makes it unlikely that he would deceive them for the sheer fun of it, call them 'damned fools' and perpetrate the hoax for the rest of his life.

"Third, Ingersoll records that after this confession of duplicity he offered to loan Smith sufficient money to move to Pennsylvania, which is unlikely if Smith was, in fact, the knave Ingersoll knew him to be.

"Last--and perhaps the most signficant consideration--Pomeroy Tucker remembered that Ingersoll 'was at first inclined to put faith in his [Smith's] "Golden Bible" pretension.' If Tucker's statemnt can be trusted, it seems likely that Ingersoll created the story as a way of striking back at Smith for his own gullibility in swalling a story he later became convinced was a hoax."

Anderson suggests that the claim that Ingersoll may have "perjured" himself by "knowingly swearing to a lie" was "possible." Nonetheless, at the end of Ingersoll's sworn affidavit, Dufrey Chase (a local citizen who knew both Ingersoll and the Smith family) affirms in a statement dated 13 December 1833 the following: "I certify that I have been personally acquainted with Peter Ingersoll for a number of years and believe him to be a man of strict integrity, truth and veracity."


--Anderson notes that much of Ingersoll's affidavit rings true:

"The 'white sand' story casts a shadow of suspicion over Ingersoll's entire affidavit but it does not follow that every part of his statement is false.

"For instance, according to Ingersoll, Smith promised Isaac Hale 'to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones' and gratefully accepted Hale's offer of financial support if Smith 'would move to Pennsylvania and work for a living.' According to Hale's independent account of the same conversation, 'Smith stated to me that he had give up what he called "glass-looking" and that he expected to work hard for a living and was willing to do so,' and Hale's son Alva remembered Smith as saying 'that he intended to quit the business (of peeping) and labor for his livelihood.'

"Ingersoll also stated that on this same occasion, Smith 'acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor ever could.' This was remembereed by Alva Hale, who quoted Smith as sayng 'that this "peeping" was all d--d nonsense. He (Smith) was deceived himself but did not intend to deceive others.'

"These parallels do not substantiate Ingersoll's 'white sand' story but they confirm that Smith publicly acknowledged his career as a 'glass looker' and money digger. . . .

"Other parts of Ingersoll's affidavit can also be independently confirmed.

"His claim that he was hired by Smith to go to Pennsylvania and move EWmma's furniture back to Manchester was confirmed by Isaac Hale; his account of Smith's unsuccessful attempt to get Willard Chase to make a box for the gold plates was confirmed by Chase; and his report that Smith approached Martin Harris with the remark, 'I had a comand to ask the first honest man I met for $50.00 in money, and he would let me have it' was confirmed by both Chase and Jesse Townsend. More significant that these confirmations, however, is his claim that Joseph Smith, Sr., possessed a magical rod. This is significant not only because many others mention the elder Smith's rod but also becuase it can now be shown that the report by no means originated with Ingeraoll or even the vitriolic editoirals of Abner Cole in 1831. . . . " (pp. 55-58, 61-62n, 70; for Ingersoll's full affidavit--which Anderson notes is "reproduced exactly as [it] appear[s] in the original published or unpublished sources, with the exception of arranging them either alphabetically or chronologically"--see pp. 134-139)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 04:22PM by steve benson.

I guess what I originally meant was this: Perhaps Smith did know he was lying (as he almost certainly did), but it may be that in his mind, the lie was for the greater good- that is, he thought he really did know higher truths and felt like he really was taking part in some sort of restoration of all things. He may have really believed his own doctrine, and concocting the narrative may have been the most effective way to convince others. It was the narrative details (where did the book really come from, angelic ordinations, etc.) he was deliberately lying about.

Anyway, thanks for sharing! It is interesting to hear what everyone has to say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 03:55PM by almostthere.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2013 03:59PM by steve benson.

Oh, I agree with that. I don't mean that he didn't know he was lying period, but he may have justified it in his mind as to why he was lying.

Of course, I could be dead wrong, and he could have been a total sociopathic manipulating liar and an evil genius.

Yes, he was a sociopath. Can you believe he thought he was a prophet when he seduced women with the story of an angel with a sword requiring him to do so?