Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: February 28, 2015 02:39AM
For the record, Joseph Smith--the Mormon Church's founding inventor, fraud, conman and charlatan--didn't believe any of it. Put another way, Smith was a phony carnival-barker through and through and, from the get-go, knew his story was nothing but an empty stone box.
On this point, RfM poster "almostthere" asked:
" . .. [Y]ou 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!"
("Did Joseph Smith Believe?," by "almostthere," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 29 January 2013)
Another RfM poster, apparently in a lingering state of denial, seemed more determined to believe he never 'fessed up to anyone, despite clear evidence to the contrary:
“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.”
(“Re: More to the Point, He Admitted He Was a Huckster," by . What?,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” discussion board, 30 January 2013)
This again calls for rolling out the evidence against Joseph Smith, the Consummate Pretender and Private Confessor.
_____
--Exhibit A: The Coming Clean of William Law, An Early Smith Confidant and an Ultimate Whistle-blower
As an introduction, below is some background on Law''s life, as a member of Joseph's Smith's insider circle, where he soon enough saw through Smith, left the Mormon Church and publicly exposed Smith's unsavory character and and duplicitous behavior:
“William Law joined the LDS Church in 1836 and received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1837. He was quite active in Church matters and served two missions. In 1841, he was called by 'revelation' to be Joseph Smith's Second Counselor and in 1842 he would arrive in Nauvoo (IL), to become a successful businessman.
“Though at one time a faithful member, Law soon had his disagreements with Smith. He felt that many of Smith's new teachings had corrupted the church and strongly rejected the doctrine of a plurality of wives and a plurality of Gods.
“He was released from his position in the First Presidency in January of 1844 and excommunicated in April of that same year.
“This, however, did not silence Mr. Law's complaints. In June of 1844, Law joined six other dissidents and published the 'Nauvoo Expositor,' a newspaper that listed several objections regarding Joseph Smith's teachings and 'ecclesiastical control over civil and business affairs.'
“It is believed by many that the 'Nauvoo Expositor' greased the wheels to Smith's eventual demise. . . . While we are certain that many Mormons reading the following will see nothing more than the words of a disgruntled man, his close relationship to Joseph Smith does offer some interesting historical insight.”
Indeed, in an interview with the Salt Lake City'-based “Daily Tribune,” Law cast Joseph Smith as a faithless faker who knew his (Smith's) personal claims were patently false. In another interview, this time with the “Salt Lake Tribune,” Law had gone further, extensively describing Smith's character flaws, including:
-his personal disbelief in his own claims;
-his and his wife Emma's primary focus of amassing money for worldly power and influence;
-his constant and deliberately deceitful practices;
-his cowardly character when it came to telling the truth;
-his criminal efforts to silence his critics who were aware of his lies and dishonesty; and
-his violent and murderous nature, including his attempt to kill those (including Law) who knew that his claims were false and that his actions were illegal.
Let's review what made Joseph Smith the conscious conniver, deceiver and criminal that he was.
First, based on Law's own words from his interview with the “Daily Tribune”:
“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."
Then, based on Law's more explosive descriptions of Smith in an interview with the “Salt Lake Tribune."
_____
**Smith's Personal Disbelief in His Own Claims
Question from Wyl: "You think that Joseph was an infidel?"
Answer from Law: “Yes, that he was I have not the slightest doubt. What proofs have I? Well, my general and intimate knowledge of his character. And is it possible that a man who ascribes all kinds of impudent lies to the Lord, could have been anything else but an infidel?"
Q: "Did you ever see the celebrated peepstone?"
Law: "No. I never saw it and I never saw Joseph giving a revelation. But Hyrum told me once that Joseph, in his younger years, used to hunt for hidden treasures with a peepstone."
_____
**Smith and his wife Emma's primary focus of amassing money for worldly power and influence;
Q: "Did you ever hear Joseph speak of his money?"
Law: "Oh, yes. He used to boast of his riches. He expressed the opinion, that it was all-important that he should be rich. I heard him say myself, 'It would be better that every man in the Church should lose his last cent, than that I should fall and go down.''”
Q: "What kind of a life did the prophet lead in Nauvoo?"
Law: "Joseph lived in great plenty. He entertained his friends and had a right good time. He was a jolly fellow. . . . The Smiths had plenty of money. Why, when I came to Nauvoo I paid Hyrum $700 in gold for a barren lot and at that rate they sold any amount of lots after having got the land very cheap, to be sure Their principle was to weaken a man in his purse, and in this way take power and influence from him. Weaken everybody, that was their motto. Joseph's maxim was, 'When you have taken all the money a fellow has got, you can do with him whatever you please.'"
Q: "Did Emma, the elect lady, come to your house and complain about Joseph?"
Law: "No. She never came to my house for that purpose. But I met her sometimes on the street and then she used to complain, especially because of the girls whom Joseph kept in the house, devoting his attention to them. You have overrated her, she was dishonest."
Q: "Do you mean to say that she was so outside of the influence Joseph had over her?"
Law: "Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Let me tell you a case that will be full proof to you. Soon after my arrive in Nauvoo the two Lawrence girls came to the holy city, two very young girls, 15 to 17 years of age. They had been converted in Canada, were orphans and worth about $8000 in English gold. Joseph got to be appointed their guardian, probably with the help of Dr. Bennett. He naturally put the gold in his pocket and had the girls sealed to him. He asked me to go on his bond as a guardian, as Sidney Rigdon had done. 'It is only a formality,' he said. Foolishly enough, and not yet suspecting anything, I put my name on the paper.
“Emma complained about Joseph's living with the Lawrence girls, but not very violently. It is my conviction that she was his full accomplice, that she was not a bit better than he. When I saw how things went, I should have taken steps to be released of that bond, but I never thought of it.
“After Joseph's death, A. W. Babbitt became guardian of the two girls. He asked Emma for a settlement about the $8, 000. Emma said she had nothing to do with her husband's debts. Now Babbitt asked for the books and she gave them to him. Babbitt found that Joseph had counted an expense of about $3, 000 for board and clothing of the girls. Now Babbitt wanted the $5,000 that was to be paid Babbitt, who was a straight, good, honest, sincere man, set about to find out property to pay the $5,000 with. He could find none. Two splendid farms near Nauvoo; a big brick house worth from $3000 to $4000; the hotel kept by Joe; a mass of vacant town lots--all were in Emma's name, not transferred later, but transferred from the beginning. She always looked out for her part. When I saw how things stood, I wrote to Babbitt to take hold of all the property left by me in Nauvoo and of all claims held by me again in people in Nauvoo. And so the debt was paid by me--Emma didn't pay a cent."
_____
**Smith's Constant and Deliberately Deceitful Practices
Q: "In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?"
Law: "Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. 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."
_____
**Smith's Cowardly Character When It Came to Telling the Truth
Q: "Was Joseph a coward?"
Law: "Yes, he was a coward and so was Hyrum. You see it already in the fact that when I attacked him on the street with most violent words, he did not dare to answer a word."
Q: "Had you ever some dramatic scene with Joseph about the difficulties between you and him?"
Law: "He avoided me. But once I got hold of him in the street and told him in very plain terms what I thought of him. I said: 'You are a hypocrite and a vulgar scoundrel. You want to destroy me.' Instead of knocking me down, which he could have done very easily, being so much bigger and stronger than I, he went away hurriedly without uttering a single word."
_____
**Smith's Criminal Efforts to Silence Critics {Including Law) Who Aware of His Lies and Dishonesty
Q: "I suppose that you originated the '[Nauvoo] Expositor,' Dr. Law?"
Law: "Yes, I originated the idea to publish that paper. I had friends in many parts of the country. They knew that I had become a member of the Mormon religion. I wanted to show them, by publishing the paper, that I had not been in a fraud willingly (here the old man's eyes filled with tears and his voice trembled). I started the idea, and my brother, Wilson, stood to me like a brother should. I don't remember whether it was I, or not, who gave the name 'Expositor.' But I and my brother, we gave the money, about $2,000. I gave the biggest part. The Higbees, etc.,, had scarcely a dollar in it."
Q: "Were you in Nauvoo when the 'Expositor' was destroyed?"
Law: "No. I was in Carthage. There was a meeting at the courthouse, many people were present and it was considered what should be done regarding the Mormons. I think Stephen A. Douglas was present at the meeting. My friends urged me to come to Carthage with the press immediately. No conclusion was arrived at, however. The same evening we went home and when we came to Nauvoo, we rode over our type, that was scattered in the street, and over our broken office furniture. The work of Joseph's agents had been very complete; it had been done by a mob of about 200. The building, a new, pretty brick structure, had been perfectly gutted, not a bit had been left of anything."
Q: "Did you ever see Joseph again after you left Nauvoo?"
Law: "Only once. I saw him in Carthage at the trial. We spoke not to each other and he seemed greatly preoccupied. We left Nauvoo on the second day after the passing of the ordinance which put the press under the absolute will of Joseph and his creatures. This ordinance gave them power to imprison and fine us at liberty."
_____
**Smith's Violent and Murderous Nature, Including ,His Attempt to Kill Those (Including Law) Who Knew that His Claims were False and that His Actions were Illegal:
Q: "The letters you wrote me, made me suppose that the Smiths tried to kill you when they saw an enemy in you?"
Law: "They tried to get rid of me in different ways. One was by poisoning. I was already out of the Church when Hyrum called one day and invited me for the next day to a 'reconciliation dinner,' as he called it, to his house. He said Joseph would come, too. He invited me and my wife. He was very urgent about the matter but I declined the invitation. Now, I must tell you that I, in those dangerous days, did not neglect to look out somewhat for the safety of my person and that I kept a detective or two among those who were in the confidence of the Smiths. That very same evening of the day on which Hyrum had been to my house inviting me, my detective told me that they had conceived the plan to poison me at the reconciliation dinner. Their object was a double one. My going to the dinner would have shown to the people that I was reconciled and my death would have freed them of an enemy. You may imagine that I didn't regret having declined that amiable invitation."
Q: "Have you had any knowledge of cases of poisoning in Nauvoo, ordered by the authorities?"
Law: "I know that several men, six or seven, died under very suspicious circumstances. Among them were two secretaries of the prophet, Mulholland and Blaskel Thompson. I saw Mulholland die and the symptoms looked very suspicious to me. Dr. Foster, who was a very good physician, believed firmly that those six or seven men had been poisoned, and told me so repeatedly."
Q: "What may have been the reason for poisoning the secretaries?"
Law: (With a smile) "They knew too much, probably. . . . I told you that the Smiths tried to poison me. When Joseph saw that I had no great appetite for reconciliation dinners, he tried with the Indians. The plan was, that somebody should use me up who was not openly connected with the Church, he was yet afraid of the people because of my influence. Later, he would have killed me without any regard. One day, about one hundred redskins came to town and 20 or 30 were sent to my house. We tried to get rid of them but could not, and we saw clearly that they had a dark plan for the night. But we had to keep them, gave them blankets and they were all night in our hall. Wilson Law, I and some friends, though, kept good watch all night, with barricaded windows and doors and guns and pistols ready.”
Q: "Had anything been prepared for a second number? [i.e., another way by which Law could escape Smith's plans to kill him].
Law: "Yes, the inside of number two had been set up. Seeing what had been done, I [took up ] my abode, for safety's sake, at my brother's. I left Nauvoo on a large new steam ferry-boat, which transported me, my family and my brother to Burlington, Iowa. While we had people packing our things in my house, we rode--my brother and -- through the city in an open carriage, to show that we were not afraid. . . .
"What saved me from death in 1844 was (1) my caution; (2) the devotion of my detectives; and (3) Joseph himself. He had inculcated into the minds of his followers the rule, that the "heads" of the Church must be safe before all. This became a strong superstition in the minds of his people, so strong that they did not dare to touch me. And he himself feared me so much because of my popularity and good standing, that he tried for a long time to put me out of the way in a manner that the Church could not be charged with it. At last, however, he became desperate and would have killed me in any manner--but then it was too late in the day."
Q: "What do you know about the Danites?"
Law: "Nothing of my personal knowledge. They existed but their workings were kept very secret. I never belonged to the initiated. Smith tried very hard to get them to kill me. One day, my detective told me, that two Danites had gone to Joseph and told him that they wanted to put me out of the way. Joseph said: 'Don't--he [Law] is too influential; his death would bring the country down upon us; wait.' Later, when I was thoroughly aware of my danger, they tried in all manners to use me up and had Danites all day and night after me, but I looked out and kept myself safe. Whatever there was of crime in Nauvoo, was kept secret. On the outside everything looked nice and smooth. There were lots of strangers every Sunday as visitors and then the best speakers were put on the stand as samples of the fruits of this fine religion.”
(William Law, quoted in interview with “The Daily Tribune“ 31 July 1887, Salt Lake City, Utah, under
“Joseph Smith's Character: Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS, Mormon Church--This Interview with William Law, Once counselor to Joseph Smith, Reveals the Lawless Nature of the Man;” and “An Interview with William Law,” text of question-and-answer session conducted by W. Wyl, “Salt Lake Tribune,” 30 March 1887, at "Mormon Research Ministry”)
There is other available, compelling evidence that Smith was a deliberate, conscious deceiver, particularly in regard to his concoction of the Book of Mormon. In fact, his non-belief the Book of Mormon was so problematic for him that he privately confessed that he wanted to dump it early on and, in fact, did--literally.
_____
--Exhibit B: 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)
PUt another way: "I've had trouble enough with God's Book of Mormon. Into the damn cornerstone she goes and be done with it." Alas, ne would hardly expect Jopseh Smith, God's purported Prophet of the Restoration, to blow off a gold- plated record given to him by a heavenly messenger by reburying its original manuscript in a cornerstone, thereby hoping to wash his hands of it. It is telling that Smith, in helping to lay that cornerstone for the Nauvoo House, approved the placement of the Book of Mormon manuscript (composed mostly in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and appropriately written on “foolscap” paper) into the cornerstone with his “trouble enough' send-off that he had made a short time earlier, in confidence, to another prominent Mormon leader. Apparently, Smith couldn't have cared less about the Book of Mormon, given what happened to the original manuscript that he had so casually consigned to its cornerstone burial spot:
"In October 1841, the entire original manuscript was placed into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House, and sealed up until nearly 40 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. Surviving manuscript pages were handed out to various families and individuals in the 1880s. A total of only 28% of the original manuscript now survives, including a remarkable find of fragments from 58 pages in 1991. The majority of what remains of the original manuscript is now kept in the LDS Church Archives."
(“Book of Mormon/Manuscripts,” at Wikipedia)
It appears that Smith successfully prayed that most, if not all, of his original, made-up manuscipt of the Book of Mormon be destroyed by water storage.
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 story 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")
_____
--Exhibit C: Joseph Smith Privately Admits to Friends That When It Came to the Book of Mormon, He Invented the Whole Thing
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 foundational lies. Smith, you see, had a habit (about which he privately boasted to his friends) of making up stories about imaginary "golden Bibles," then playing them out even further for his naïve numbskull 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 officially 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, Palmyra, 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)
Rodger I Anderson, in his book "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-examined" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1990), observes the following regarding certain noteworthy (and controversial) particulars of Ingersoll's affidavit:
**Ingersoll's assessment of Smith and his family reflected similar conclusions from affidavits taken from several members of the Palmyra 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 Ingersoll'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 document 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)
**Ingersoll'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 accomplishment 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 significant consideration--Pomeroy Tucker remembered that Ingersoll 'was at first inclined to put faith in his [Smith's] "Golden Bible" pretension.' If Tucker's statement can be trusted, it seems likely that Ingersoll created the story as a way of striking back at Smith for his own gullibility in swallowing 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 remembered by Alva Hale, who quoted Smith as saying '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 Emma'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 command 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 because it can now be shown that the report by no means originated with Ingersoll or even the vitriolic editorials 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)
_____
--Exhibit D: Joseph Smith--with the Help of His Fellow Conman in Crime, Oliver Cowdery--—Deliberately Falsified Reality with Their Made-Up History
For all of their craftily-designed intents and purposes, Cowdery was a co- con man who was in cahoots with Smith in creating the founding fairy tales of Mormonism. Here are the basics of their b.s.:
**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. Grant 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 . . . .”
**Smith and Cowdery's 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. Hurlbut 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?”
_____
--Exhibit E: Joseph Smith Never Quoted from the “Keystone-of-Our-Religion” Book of Mormon
For someone who supposedly was told by a visiting angel of God where to find the buried Book of Mormon gold plates and then given the magical means by which translate and publish it as what Smith called “the keystone of our religion,” it's revealing that Smith never directly quoted from it. While Mormon apologists earnestly insist that Smith was “a great scriptorian,” they can't seem to locate where, when or if he actually preached directly from Book of Mormon scripture. Strange, indeed.
About this, a perplexed inquirer notes:
“Smith said the Book of Mormon was the cornerstone of his religion but I've never seen any sermons where he used the Book of Mormon as a source for doctrine or even quoted from it. He seemed to just ignore it. It really raises a question about whether he ever read it let alone wrote it.”
A Mormon apologist replied weakly:
“He [Joseph Smith] quotes most often from the Bible for the same reasons that I do here. He was often challenged that his doctrines were not biblical; so he quotes from the Bible to prove that they were.”
Moreover, the apologist argument goes, Smith couldn't quote from the Book of Mormon even if he had wanted to, because it wasn't organized into anything that was of quotable fashion. Seriously:
“In those days, the Book of Mormon was not divided into chapters and verses, so he couldn’t exactly quote chapter and verse numbers. But he does occasionally make indirect references to its contents. . . . Joseph Smith was a great scriptorian, and his entire thought patterns were configured around the word of God. It was woven into his very soul, so that whatever he said had scriptural undercurrents running through them.”
Uh-huh, so deeply woven that he couldn't even quote 'em.
(“Did Joseph Smith Ever Quote from the Book of Mormon?,” answer by “zerinus,” at “Catholic Answers to Explain and Defend the Faith,” 18 January 2008,)
**********
--Conclusion: No Confusion. Joseph Smith was Not a Believer in the Book of Mormon that He Deceptively Peddled as Being Divine (While Confessing that It was False)
How to put it gently for Mormon apologists lurking here? Joseph Smith was nothing but a fraud and a conman. In his quieter moments, out of earshot of the blindly faithful, he admitted that faithless fact. Smith's conscious, ongoing reinvention of the basic Book of Mormon/Mormon Church storyline is convincing proof, in and of itself, that he unpiously knew it was utterly and completely bogus. Hell, he even told others it was. The historical evidences from him and those close to him simply reinforce that reality. (For those who may still be in doubt or denial about this and who are thus in need of an historical wake-up call, they owe it to themselves to read "Joseph Smith: Nineteenth Century Con Man?," by Dale R. Broadhurst. Just don't tell your bishop).