A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he
     was plowing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone
     took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the
     young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed
     that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been
     deceived. A geologist proved that there was no diamonds in the area but only
     quartz. The young man had been found fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect
     the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly
     shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing
     his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut
     diamonds; he was, therefore simply speaking the common language of his time. A
     sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists' assistants in four major cities
     believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not
     the young man but someone else who had found the stone.

     Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still
     available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or
     not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was
     honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a
     brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had
     ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by
     putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds
     were called in. Some of them declared that they could not very well jeopardize their
     dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad
     impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a
     synthetic diamond, very skillfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to
     this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have
     been an even more remarkable feat that the finding of a real one.
 
 

     Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites, Hugh Nibley, Ph.D., pgs. 136-137