By: J.J. Hitt To: Andrew Conner Re: Re: Why PS+gt; Furthermore, Smith was once convicted o
By: J.J. Hitt
To: Andrew Conner
Re: Re: Why
PS> Furthermore, Smith was once convicted of conning people by way of
PS> asserting that he could find hidden treasure with the
PS> stones that were to be used for translation.
AC> The Urim and Thumim is what you are refering to here I believe.
AC> I know nothing about this 'con' you are refering to.
AC> Other than the supposed con of writing the book of Mormon.
JH> Explain Section 111 of Doctrine and Covenants to us.
AC> Okay I read it. Doesn't mean much to me. What about you?
Smith claimed that there was "much treasure" in the city of Salem,
Mass. (Verse 2)
Did Smith locate any of this treasure? Nope.
Did any of the other Mormons discover any treasure? Nope.
Has anyone ever discovered anything even remotely resembling treasure
in Salem? NOPE.
Smith claimed the city would be turned over to him. (Verse 3)
Did this happen? No again.
Smith claimed he would pay his debts with this treasure. (Verse 5)
Did this happen? No on both counts: no treasure, no payments.
Smith claimed that God wanted him to stay in Salem (Verse 8).
In September 1836 the people of Salem decided they wanted Smith's ass
out of their town.
Smith concludes his prophecy by claiming "there are more treasures
than one" in Salem (Verse 10). He didn't find one, let alone more than
In summation: there isn't a SINGLE ITEM of D&C 111 that didn't fall
flat on it's face.
Now as to Smith and his 'cons' (confidence games) regarding buried
treasure: What would you call a debtor who claimed to pay his debts
with money he was yet to "find"? What would you call his actions after
the fact, when you knew that there was no treasure and no intention to
make good on his accounts?
Perhaps "con" isn't the best word to use here. It's too open to
interpretation. "Theft by deception" is much more to the point.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank