Revelation through hallucination -- drugs

[EyesOpened]

Like did ANYONE listen to the podcast?....

Oh man........argggggg.........

I did! It was very interesting. I would love to hear more about this possibility. Makes sense.

[Rob4Hope]

OK...Looks like this topic is getting a little more traction.

I remember hearing something Truman Madsen said in the JS recordings. He said that JS went to the revivals, saw the happenings going on, but didn't feel anything himself--and was disappointed a as a result. Basically this is what Truman said.

Now, considering this happening (and I am pretty sure of this recollection), and considering the already Occult peep stone and treasure digging the Smith family was doing, it makes perfect sense that JS jr. would reach out and try to find ways that he could experience the 'extacy' others were feeling. His father was a drinker--that is a known fact--and his family was into all kinds of horoscopes, astrology, magic pendents, etc--that is a known fact.

Like others have said...it makes SOOOOOOO much sense that drugs were involved. One of the overlooked components of Occult practices is potions. It is easy to forget that the idea of "witches brew" where they were cooking up toads in a pot has some historicity. The skin of a cane toad produces a poison that acts like a hallucinogen.

There were people who thought the food or wine was spiked with drugs. And, you have mass hysteria. I accept, in light of pentacostal type events as evidence, it is not necessary that drugs were involved here, but it makes sense they were.

One of the things that makes sense to me as well is the stopping of these spiritual type events AFTER the death of JS. Bushman talks about that--JS alive, lots of visions and all that; JS dead, hardly any visions and such. Was there something special about JS and all this stuff?...and is there anything suspicious about how these things ONLY seem to have happened after the administration of the sacrament?

[RubinHighlander]

OK...Looks like this topic is getting a little more traction.

Hey Rob, thanks for posting this; I finally got to listen to it this morning on the way to work. Very fascinating! It would explain a lot about the early saints ability to have so many crazy visions and experiences, whereas the modern church is pretty dead in that regard. It's a real irony where that preacher tells JS that there were no longer such things as visions, like there were in the NT times. Feels like the church has basically fulfilled that today, especially when they put the fire out for folks like Julie Rowe who claim such things (even though I think she's an idiot). All the COB conference talks about mundane and unremarkable events, like taking the wrong turn on a dirt road, so ridiculous.

This reminds me too of the denial or general ignorance of the modern saints about how the WoW evolved, how just a few generations ago in the SLC valley, the saints brewed their own wine and liquors, prior to prohibition. The whole magic and drug culture things became taboo over time but were such a common place in JS' time. In my years in the church there was such an emphasis on how evil all the WoW things are, driving obedience via fear. Even the music and some games; Satan has power over the waters, so don't go swimming. So many fear mongering doctrines and general beliefs. I really hope most of the saints will eventually find out about their true history so they can escape the matrix they are plugged into. To salvage it, maybe the COB should consider putting the hallucinogenics back in the first Sunday sacrament water; would certainly turn a mind numbing meeting into something much more interesting! Hell, I might just go back once a month to watch the show!

[trophywife26.2]

Just searched for a thread on the IOT podcast. Very fascinating subject material, listened to it this week. Seems way more plausible than anything I can come up with to be honest, but I've been wrong about some pretty huge stuff in my life before.

What I'd give for a time machine to make sense of it all. Or I could just get on with life after Mormonism. Easier said than done.

[Give It Time]

I didn't listen to the podcast, because the article that I read on the subject, a few years ago, took me three hours to read. It covered the same topics you were discussing and I didn't feel the need to put in another hour listening to something that would likely not hold new information.

To add a tiny bit of kindling to this fire. I have toured the Kirtland temple, twice. The first time was a very thorough tour. We were taken into the main chapel and told about the symbolism of the two daises. We were told about the dedication and the many visionary experiences and the Savior coming to the temple. I was a TBM teen, at the time, and going to the temple and hearing the old stories in the context of the setting in which they happened really brought it to life, for me. I really enjoyed myself.

I enjoyed myself so much, I took the man who was my husband on a tour to the Kirtland temple when we went back fifteen years later to introduce him to my grandmother. The tour was very different. One could surmise the CofC is just as guilty of burying the past as we are. We didn't go through most of the temple. We only went to the chapel and the various possible configurations the room could be made into were explained. This had been part of the old tour, as well, but that is pretty much where it left off. I specifically told the docent that we wanted to hear about the visionary experiences. He knew we were LDS and, therefore, friendly on that ground. He simply said, "Yes, those were very Pentecostal times" and left it at that.

So, the CofC seems to be of the opinion that there is enough credibility to people's suspicion that they no longer discuss the temple dedication as part of their history. Perhaps there's something in their historical records that provides harder proof. At any rate, the history isn't my reason for disaffection and I don't have a problem with the thought of people taking drugs in the pursuit of spiritual experiences. I don't want my sons to do it. I don't choose to, because of the dangers involved, but a Native American or a member of a magickal religion, I can understand it's part of what they believe. I don't have a problem with Joseph and company doing it, because they apparently held a magickal world view. What I don't like was they were apparently keeping the members in the dark about what they were doing.

Drugs can have some very dangerous effects on people. However, they probably didn't know that and, as recently as the Gilligan's Island episodes of my youth, surreptitiously drugging people was portrayed in pop culture. It was sometimes portrayed for beneficent reasons. I believe that if intentions were completely honest, they would have been open about the use of hallucinogens.

One final note about my thread on NOM 1.0 I find amusing is most of the people weighing had clearly used drugs and knew what various types did and apparently enjoyed the experiences. However, all of the people who were panning my presenting the theory were the ones who had had experiences with drugs. Here I was giving an example of how use of hallucinogens could actually be justified and their use being "blessed" in mainstream culture and they were disagreeing with me. I thought it very ironic.

[Thoughtful]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9OCSkqec5A

Sunstone video. REALLY interesting and VERY WELL DONE,...IMHO.

I read Quinn's Magic World View book, and I was surprised there was no reference to drug usage in that, even though there are accounts of it historically. This confuses me because all exposure I've had to contemporary magic involves or incorporates drugs.

These guys in this presentation mention the lack of information provided by some of these historians (including Quinn) regarding potential drug usage. I was grateful for those frank comments.

-----------------

Using Ocam's Razer, it makes a LOT more sense to me to conclude the spiritual experiences people reported were drug induced than not. Ever since my earliest days when I heard the accounts of the Kirtland Temple, even from Truman Madsen, I got impressions of chaos and out of control behavior. I'm super sensitive to this as I've had to deal with abuse and abusive situations growing up. Out of control behavior--that degree of unpredictability and "crazy" -- is something I'm super sensitive to.

In your typical fast and testimony meeting, you get the individuals who blubber all over and loose composure; but generally you have order--you don't have people standing and singing out of nowhere, you don't have people walking in and out, crying and exclaiming "I SEE GOD!"....and so forth. You don't have people doing flips and sliding on the floor...you don't have "crazy".

The Kirtland temple thing seemed "crazy" to me. Some of the fast and testimony meetings these people had seemed "crazy" as well.

This presentation--true or not--makes a LOT of sense to me. I'm leaning toward the drug induced interpretation for early Mormon events. That makes a LOT more sense to me than not.

I think there may be some plausibility of drug use, but this Sunstone presentation was so bad, IMO. They were making huge leaps that really weren't supported by the evidence they presented, and if they stuck to what they did have, without all the speculation, it would have been better. I'm disappointed, because spouseman was listening in, and right when they were laying it on pretty thick, he got disgusted and left the room. From an academic/ scientific perspective, this presentation was like middle school. I thought when they gave the quote from the doctor at the Morley farm, very interesting. But by then spouseman was gone and it will probably be an argument later about me being gullible and listening to trash. It's so frustrating that the people trying to point out the holes don't have enough history and fill in opinions without holding water. The end was better than the beginning, at least acknowledging the lack of evidence. The Q&A was silly.

[Rob4Hope]

I was appreciative of the SS presentation BECAUSE it at least took a stab at it.

There is anecdotal evidence that drugs may have been involved in some of these events in Kirtland and later--and with the death of JS, the visions and all of it ceased (Bushman). What was special about JS?

Sure, it could have been better, but as you mentioned, at the end he did offer disclaimers, and wasn't the call an attempt to encourage additional research?

[Rob4Hope]

I think there may be some plausibility of drug use, but this Sunstone presentation was so bad, IMO. They were making huge leaps that really weren't supported by the evidence they presented, and if they stuck to what they did have, without all the speculation, it would have been better. I'm disappointed, because spouseman was listening in, and right when they were laying it on pretty thick, he got disgusted and left the room. From an academic/ scientific perspective, this presentation was like middle school. I thought when they gave the quote from the doctor at the Morley farm, very interesting. But by then spouseman was gone and it will probably be an argument later about me being gullible and listening to trash. It's so frustrating that the people trying to point out the holes don't have enough history and fill in opinions without holding water. The end was better than the beginning, at least acknowledging the lack of evidence. The Q&A was silly.

No matter how I stack it up in my own mind, the idea of drugs being used remains, for me, a viable possibility. I've seen the affects of drugs on people though I haven't experienced it myself--nor do I want to. But telling someone what happened was the result of drugs and not a real life experience, with some I know, has been difficult.

My mind reverts to the possible problem of ergot poisoning and the Salem Witch Trials. You certainly have some possible drug interactions in that whole mess....

Can you imagine the influence drugs would have on religious and already superstitious people if they were not aware they were being medicated?....what frame of reference would they have for refuting the experience?

I to appreciated the ending better than the beginning and am in agreement the Q/A was stupid. That section took it outside of scholarly and moved more toward silly and even the kindof feeling I get from the "prepper movement" out there--grabbing onto the sensational as a kindof emotional fix.

Anyway...I understand your reticence about the presentation Thoughtful. I've never been to a SunStone conference ever, and it would be interesting to attend sometime--so my experience to know, from the general expectation and experience of the crowd as to what is more credible and professionally done, is limited.

What I can say is I REALLY HOPE there can be additional research into this area. At least for me, this would be pretty danged interesting stuff.

[Thoughtful]

I think there may be some plausibility of drug use, but this Sunstone presentation was so bad, IMO. They were making huge leaps that really weren't supported by the evidence they presented, and if they stuck to what they did have, without all the speculation, it would have been better. I'm disappointed, because spouseman was listening in, and right when they were laying it on pretty thick, he got disgusted and left the room. From an academic/ scientific perspective, this presentation was like middle school. I thought when they gave the quote from the doctor at the Morley farm, very interesting. But by then spouseman was gone and it will probably be an argument later about me being gullible and listening to trash. It's so frustrating that the people trying to point out the holes don't have enough history and fill in opinions without holding water. The end was better than the beginning, at least acknowledging the lack of evidence. The Q&A was silly.

No matter how I stack it up in my own mind, the idea of drugs being used remains, for me, a viable possibility. I've seen the affects of drugs on people though I haven't experienced it myself--nor do I want to. But telling someone what happened was the result of drugs and not a real life experience, with some I know, has been difficult.

My mind reverts to the possible problem of ergot poisoning and the Salem Witch Trials. You certainly have some possible drug interactions in that whole mess....

Can you imagine the influence drugs would have on religious and already superstitious people if they were not aware they were being medicated?....what frame of reference would they have for refuting the experience?

I to appreciated the ending better than the beginning and am in agreement the Q/A was stupid. That section took it outside of scholarly and moved more toward silly and even the kindof feeling I get from the "prepper movement" out there--grabbing onto the sensational as a kindof emotional fix.

Anyway...I understand your reticence about the presentation Thoughtful. I've never been to a SunStone conference ever, and it would be interesting to attend sometime--so my experience to know, from the general expectation and experience of the crowd as to what is more credible and professionally done, is limited.

What I can say is I REALLY HOPE there can be additional research into this area. At least for me, this would be pretty danged interesting stuff.

Really none of it was what I would call scholarly. I'm in an academic field (as is spouseman) and it was so hard to watch. I really expected Sunstone to do better. I hope someone does some real research on it, rather than some random podcasters just speculating. It's an interesting idea, but maybe if it were backed a little better.

[Rob4Hope]

Its appeal to me is the fit--not the scholarship.

Drugs make sense.

I have a question on this Thoughtful. From my perspective, I'm in agreement with the following items (and questions) triggered in my mind by the podcast:

1. There are such things as entheogens that are powerful, easily obtained with the correct knowledge, and can be distilled and used to produce hallucinogenic events. The guy doing this part (the first guy) sounded like he was bragging a little about it,...but the information sounded correct. I know 2 people personally who know how to cultivate and harvest mushrooms for "off label" usage. So, this is something I believe. Drugs of this nature DO exist.
2. JS had access to information about herbs and plants in his area. D. Michael Quinn explained a great deal about the local libraries and things available, but were there books on potions and such available in those libraries? This is a hole the research did NOT fill.
3. Luman Walters was in that area, and I want to know more about if this man really was into potions. This is a hole that the research didn't fill either.
4. There were accusations about drug usage in Mormon history. I am aware of the one made (that the podcasters referred to). Are there any others?
5. Are there any notes on the preparations regarding anointing oils? ... sacramental wine? ... sacrament bread? Again,...holes.
6. The description regarding the crazy behavior (like writing on the floor like a snake) during some of the original meetings where "spiritual" events were taking place can, in my mind, be most easily explained with drug usage. However, other thread-readers on this forum have indicated such things happen at pentacostal type events. So,...it doesn't require drugs.
7. Is there a reluctance or reason why the "drug angle" has NOT been researched more? Why?

This is probably the most important one....#7...

These are some of the things I believe.

I have a question Thoughtful....because the scholarship was not present, should their words be discounted? Should we conclude there is no evidence to support drug usage at all?...and if so, what reasons back that lack of evidence?

I want to understand the line between throwing out what these guys speculate on and what may be valid stuff to look into.

I'm drawing a parallel to the Book of Mormon and DNA. If I hypothesize: "There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon people (the Native Americans as defined by LDS people in past discussion) have Israelite DNA." ... well, that statement needs to either be proven or disproven...right?

I don't know one way or another about this drug deal....but it appeals.

So, my hypothesis is this: "There were no drugs ever used by JS or his contemporaries to produce visions or other spiritual manifestations."

I get the impression Thoughtful, but I don't think you intend this, you feel that this statement is true, and the lack of scholarship on the side of the presenters is "proof".

Please help me understand your line more. Is there no value in any research going forward in this area?...is this a dead end?....why?

PS. I'm not picking a fight. I am looking at this from the other side,...and questioning to learn more. That is all.

[blazerb]

I'm drawing a parallel to the Book of Mormon and DNA. If I hypothesize: "There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon people (the Native Americans as defined by LDS people in past discussion) have Israelite DNA." ... well, that statement needs to either be proven or disproven...right?

I don't know one way or another about this drug deal....but it appeals.

So, my hypothesis is this: "There were no drugs ever used by JS or his contemporaries to produce visions or other spiritual manifestations."

I'm not trying to get in the middle of the discussion, but I have some thoughts about dealing with this in a scientific way. The hypothesis stated should be something that could be disproven. Both of the statements above are negatives. These are nearly impossible to disprove. For example, I would reword the hypothesis regarding DNA in the following way: The Book of Mormon is a historical document of people who have left genetic evidence of their existence. I would then search for that evidence. The fact that the evidence does not exist causes me to reject the hypothesis. Most people would reject the part about the Book of Mormon being a historical document. Apologists simply reject the part about leaving behind genetic evidence.

It may be better to reword the hypothesis regarding drugs as follows: JS and his close associates used drugs to induce spiritual manifestations. Then I can search for evidence of drug use. The presentations I heard relied on circumstantial evidence. This is not an insurmountable problem. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The evidence needs to be presented carefully or else it just sounds like a conspiracy theory. Ideally, in addition someone would find instructions from JS or someone else on how to prepare the sacramental wine. I doubt this type of evidence exists. Also, someone might find mushroom spores in the Kirtland Temple or something like that.

In any case, I think a scholarly treatment could rely entirely on circumstantial evidence. It just needs to be acknowledged as such.

7. Is there a reluctance or reason why the "drug angle" has NOT been researched more? Why?

This is probably the most important one....#7...

I think the lack of eyewitness or forensic evidence of drug use means that most historians are reluctant to go there. While I would argue strenuously that circumstantial evidence should be acceptable, what I heard was not strong enough for me to stick my neck out if I had a neck to stick out. If I were a historian, I may not want to stake my reputation on such a claim. I might expect a dissenter to spill the beans about actions like this if it were occurring. Since that did not appear to happen, the circumstantial case is a lot weaker.

It may be that the question is unanswerable. If JS alone drugged the people without allowing anyone else in on the secret and stopped when his church became large enough, there may not be any evidence extant. I think the drug hypothesis is intriguing. I'll wait to see if the proponents can move the idea beyond being merely plausible to being a distinct possibility or a likelihood.

[Thoughtful]

Its appeal to me is the fit--not the scholarship.

Drugs make sense.

I have a question on this Thoughtful. From my perspective, I'm in agreement with the following items (and questions) triggered in my mind by the podcast:

1. There are such things as entheogens that are powerful, easily obtained with the correct knowledge, and can be distilled and used to produce hallucinogenic events. The guy doing this part (the first guy) sounded like he was bragging a little about it,...but the information sounded correct. I know 2 people personally who know how to cultivate and harvest mushrooms for "off label" usage. So, this is something I believe. Drugs of this nature DO exist.

The first guy sounded like he had a persona bone to pick with JS. Fair enough, but it discredits how seriously I'm going to take his research if his goal is to make JS look bad.

He also didn't know his topic well enough to discourse without reading verbatim, and didn't know his technology, which set him up on the wrong foot (unprofessional) from the start.


2. JS had access to information about herbs and plants in his area. D. Michael Quinn explained a great deal about the local libraries and things available, but were there books on potions and such available in those libraries? This is a hole the research did NOT fill.

Good question

3. Luman Walters was in that area, and I want to know more about if this man really was into potions. This is a hole that the research didn't fill either.

Agreed. Let's explore that.

4. There were accusations about drug usage in Mormon history. I am aware of the one made (that the podcasters referred to). Are there any others?

Another great question

5. Are there any notes on the preparations regarding anointing oils? ... sacramental wine? ... sacrament bread? Again,...holes.
6. The description regarding the crazy behavior (like writing on the floor like a snake) during some of the original meetings where "spiritual" events were taking place can, in my mind, be most easily explained with drug usage. However, other thread-readers on this forum have indicated such things happen at pentacostal type events. So,...it doesn't require drugs.
7. Is there a reluctance or reason why the "drug angle" has NOT been researched more? Why?

This is probably the most important one....#7...

These are some of the things I believe.

I have a question Thoughtful....because the scholarship was not present, should their words be discounted? Should we conclude there is no evidence to support drug usage at all?...and if so, what reasons back that lack of evidence?


I want to understand the line between throwing out what these guys speculate on and what may be valid stuff to look into.

The scholarship problem is that the presentation doesn't have enough substance to draw a conclusion, and the arguments their making don't have evidence. It's all hypothetical. I didn't feel they even were very persuasive with their 1+1=3...

I think it was like, here's an idea, the idea has merit worthy of study, sure. But instead of really studying it, they thew together the ideas that lend it merit and claim those are enough to imply a conclusion. I see them as enough to be worth looking into.

We could probably argue that a variety of odd historical phenomena, like people afflicted with compulsive dancing mania had drugs and prove that ppl in that location also had access to drugs. But there's a huge hole in the logic. It's just an idea and wth the lack of evidence could be drugs, but then again it could be a phenomena that credible researchers have never associated with drugs.

Example, set/ setting/ dose. Ok, why? Because he says so? Give some evidence for why set/ setting/ dose matter and are interdependent. Setting up those parameters because it sounds like a formula, isn't enough. Maybe enough for conversation at a BBQ, but not for a conference ppl pay to attend.

I'm drawing a parallel to the Book of Mormon and DNA. If I hypothesize: "There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon people (the Native Americans as defined by LDS people in past discussion) have Israelite DNA." ... well, that statement needs to either be proven or disproven...right?

I don't know one way or another about this drug deal....but it appeals.

So, my hypothesis is this: "There were no drugs ever used by JS or his contemporaries to produce visions or other spiritual manifestations."

I get the impression Thoughtful, but I don't think you intend this, you feel that this statement is true, and the lack of scholarship on the side of the presenters is "proof".

Please help me understand your line more. Is there no value in any research going forward in this area?...is this a dead end?....why?

PS. I'm not picking a fight. I am looking at this from the other side,...and questioning to learn more. That is all.

Nah, you're misreading me. I think it's an interesting theory, and would love to see something backing it up beyond an amateur herbalist saying "hey, maybe this..."
as if the idea itself proves it because the plants exist, and people who used them nearby existed. I mean, my neighbors smoke pot and I know my neighbors, and of their pot use, and I have chronic pain. But I'm not using it.

Historical quote from people saying they wanted to test the wine was the only part of the presentation that lent any credibility to the theory. One solid historical quote and a pile of speculation isn't enough for me to take it any more seriously than a goofy late night conversation.

And yes, I do think sloppy/ unsubstantiated scholarship discredits a presentation. I mean, that's the criticism of Wayne May etc regarding Heartland/BOM geography. There has to be a standard of scholarship, and every idea or opinion is not of equal merit just because it exists.

[dogbite]

In Homo Deus, Harari says the third artificial change in humans will be blissing ourselves. Either chemically or electrically or a genetic re-write, we will not leave our happiness to the whims of fate, chance, and occasional successes.

If given the choice there are probably some humans who would choose religious ecstasy as their Bliss.

Our other two changes Harari predicts will be immortality/long term health and artificial/augmented intelligence. Immortality to the point where you could certainly be destroyed but you wouldn't die naturally.

[Rob4Hope]

I'm drawing a parallel to the Book of Mormon and DNA. If I hypothesize: "There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon people (the Native Americans as defined by LDS people in past discussion) have Israelite DNA." ... well, that statement needs to either be proven or disproven...right?

I don't know one way or another about this drug deal....but it appeals.

So, my hypothesis is this: "There were no drugs ever used by JS or his contemporaries to produce visions or other spiritual manifestations."

I'm not trying to get in the middle of the discussion, but I have some thoughts about dealing with this in a scientific way. The hypothesis stated should be something that could be disproven. Both of the statements above are negatives. These are nearly impossible to disprove. For example, I would reword the hypothesis regarding DNA in the following way: The Book of Mormon is a historical document of people who have left genetic evidence of their existence. I would then search for that evidence. The fact that the evidence does not exist causes me to reject the hypothesis. Most people would reject the part about the Book of Mormon being a historical document. Apologists simply reject the part about leaving behind genetic evidence.

It may be better to reword the hypothesis regarding drugs as follows: JS and his close associates used drugs to induce spiritual manifestations. Then I can search for evidence of drug use. The presentations I heard relied on circumstantial evidence. This is not an insurmountable problem. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The evidence needs to be presented carefully or else it just sounds like a conspiracy theory. Ideally, in addition someone would find instructions from JS or someone else on how to prepare the sacramental wine. I doubt this type of evidence exists. Also, someone might find mushroom spores in the Kirtland Temple or something like that.

In any case, I think a scholarly treatment could rely entirely on circumstantial evidence. It just needs to be acknowledged as such.

7. Is there a reluctance or reason why the "drug angle" has NOT been researched more? Why?

This is probably the most important one....#7...

I think the lack of eyewitness or forensic evidence of drug use means that most historians are reluctant to go there. While I would argue strenuously that circumstantial evidence should be acceptable, what I heard was not strong enough for me to stick my neck out if I had a neck to stick out. If I were a historian, I may not want to stake my reputation on such a claim. I might expect a dissenter to spill the beans about actions like this if it were occurring. Since that did not appear to happen, the circumstantial case is a lot weaker.

It may be that the question is unanswerable. If JS alone drugged the people without allowing anyone else in on the secret and stopped when his church became large enough, there may not be any evidence extant. I think the drug hypothesis is intriguing. I'll wait to see if the proponents can move the idea beyond being merely plausible to being a distinct possibility or a likelihood.

You rock man. I'm learning more as I read...and I appreciate the comments here. Its good stuff....

[Rob4Hope]

Its appeal to me is the fit--not the scholarship.

Drugs make sense.

I have a question on this Thoughtful. From my perspective, I'm in agreement with the following items (and questions) triggered in my mind by the podcast:

1. There are such things as entheogens that are powerful, easily obtained with the correct knowledge, and can be distilled and used to produce hallucinogenic events. The guy doing this part (the first guy) sounded like he was bragging a little about it,...but the information sounded correct. I know 2 people personally who know how to cultivate and harvest mushrooms for "off label" usage. So, this is something I believe. Drugs of this nature DO exist.

The first guy sounded like he had a persona bone to pick with JS. Fair enough, but it discredits how seriously I'm going to take his research if his goal is to make JS look bad.

He also didn't know his topic well enough to discourse without reading verbatim, and didn't know his technology, which set him up on the wrong foot (unprofessional) from the start.


2. JS had access to information about herbs and plants in his area. D. Michael Quinn explained a great deal about the local libraries and things available, but were there books on potions and such available in those libraries? This is a hole the research did NOT fill.

Good question

3. Luman Walters was in that area, and I want to know more about if this man really was into potions. This is a hole that the research didn't fill either.

Agreed. Let's explore that.

4. There were accusations about drug usage in Mormon history. I am aware of the one made (that the podcasters referred to). Are there any others?

Another great question

5. Are there any notes on the preparations regarding anointing oils? ... sacramental wine? ... sacrament bread? Again,...holes.
6. The description regarding the crazy behavior (like writing on the floor like a snake) during some of the original meetings where "spiritual" events were taking place can, in my mind, be most easily explained with drug usage. However, other thread-readers on this forum have indicated such things happen at pentacostal type events. So,...it doesn't require drugs.
7. Is there a reluctance or reason why the "drug angle" has NOT been researched more? Why?

This is probably the most important one....#7...

These are some of the things I believe.

I have a question Thoughtful....because the scholarship was not present, should their words be discounted? Should we conclude there is no evidence to support drug usage at all?...and if so, what reasons back that lack of evidence?


I want to understand the line between throwing out what these guys speculate on and what may be valid stuff to look into.

The scholarship problem is that the presentation doesn't have enough substance to draw a conclusion, and the arguments their making don't have evidence. It's all hypothetical. I didn't feel they even were very persuasive with their 1+1=3...

I think it was like, here's an idea, the idea has merit worthy of study, sure. But instead of really studying it, they thew together the ideas that lend it merit and claim those are enough to imply a conclusion. I see them as enough to be worth looking into.

We could probably argue that a variety of odd historical phenomena, like people afflicted with compulsive dancing mania had drugs and prove that ppl in that location also had access to drugs. But there's a huge hole in the logic. It's just an idea and wth the lack of evidence could be drugs, but then again it could be a phenomena that credible researchers have never associated with drugs.

Example, set/ setting/ dose. Ok, why? Because he says so? Give some evidence for why set/ setting/ dose matter and are interdependent. Setting up those parameters because it sounds like a formula, isn't enough. Maybe enough for conversation at a BBQ, but not for a conference ppl pay to attend.

I'm drawing a parallel to the Book of Mormon and DNA. If I hypothesize: "There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon people (the Native Americans as defined by LDS people in past discussion) have Israelite DNA." ... well, that statement needs to either be proven or disproven...right?

I don't know one way or another about this drug deal....but it appeals.

So, my hypothesis is this: "There were no drugs ever used by JS or his contemporaries to produce visions or other spiritual manifestations."

I get the impression Thoughtful, but I don't think you intend this, you feel that this statement is true, and the lack of scholarship on the side of the presenters is "proof".

Please help me understand your line more. Is there no value in any research going forward in this area?...is this a dead end?....why?

PS. I'm not picking a fight. I am looking at this from the other side,...and questioning to learn more. That is all.

Nah, you're misreading me. I think it's an interesting theory, and would love to see something backing it up beyond an amateur herbalist saying "hey, maybe this..."
as if the idea itself proves it because the plants exist, and people who used them nearby existed. I mean, my neighbors smoke pot and I know my neighbors, and of their pot use, and I have chronic pain. But I'm not using it.

Historical quote from people saying they wanted to test the wine was the only part of the presentation that lent any credibility to the theory. One solid historical quote and a pile of speculation isn't enough for me to take it any more seriously than a goofy late night conversation.

And yes, I do think sloppy/ unsubstantiated scholarship discredits a presentation. I mean, that's the criticism of Wayne May etc regarding Heartland/BOM geography. There has to be a standard of scholarship, and every idea or opinion is not of equal merit just because it exists.

Thanks Thoughtful. I'm learning here as well as I read. I appreciate the time you took to respond.

When I look at all this,...and some of the things people like Grant Palmer said recently about the "Council of 50" notes that were released recently (so he said), it appears historical scholarship STILL has plenty of stuff forthcoming.

It BLOWS MY MIND that after being TBM for 40 years and only now being out and looking at this from the position of a skeptic, and being humble and candid enough to admit my novice nature regarding a lot of it (and willing to to learn I might add), that there are STILL things that amaze me, having never considered them, and learning as I go.

I am still amazed...

I wanna know more about the DRUGS. I hope there is more scholarship that comes forward. That would be interesting....but there are other things still worth looking into as well.