DiscussMormonism.com

Over the last 5 years I have studied evidence surrounding the Joseph Smith 1826 court proceeding. To me, it looks like it was merely a per-trial hearing which was acquitted for various reasons. One thing we can be fairly sure of: the main victim of Joseph’s glass looking for hire testified that he positively believed in Smith’s ability to see underground by looking in his stone. And, this is one of the reasons the case fizzled out at the pre-trial hearing.

One more thing: Many of the the witnesses including Smith admitted that a stone was used in searching for treasure. Joseph even displayed the stone in court at the request of Judge Neely.

When the Rev. Daniel Sylvester Tuttle spelled out:

"And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty."

I believe, with those words, Tuttle added his own ‘take’ on the event.

Dr. Purple, who was the court’s clerk in this case, recorded no such thing.

So, let’s ask the question: Did Joseph Smith use a glass (stone) to allegedly see underground back in 1825?

To me, this is what really matters. I could care less if a group of jurors found Smith guilty or not. And, in a hearing a guilty verdict is not possible anyway.

The truth is: Joseph Smith did engage in glass looking in 1825 and in 1826 he was brought to court to answer for it.

He did violate the law but he served no time for it.

I find this 1825-26 history extremely important. It parallels the gold plates story in so many ways. For those who may desire to look at the evidence, I have put together a page on the 1826 Trial which contains several links to other pages.

Link: http://richkelsey.org/1826_trial_testimonies.htm

It is also the subject of my last Mormon article: Those Mysterious Golden Plates:

Link: http://richkelsey.org/STORY%204.htm

Rich Kelsey

edited due to advice from a board member

You probably shouldn't refer to Joseph Smith as "Joe" or compare him to OJ if you want to be taken seriously.

I checked out your first link. It looks nice.

Question: Is there any evidence sufficient to justify belief in Joseph Smith's ability to find treasure.

Baker wrote:Question: Is there any evidence sufficient to justify belief in Joseph Smith's ability to find treasure.

The 1826 Trial record spelled out:

“… he [Joseph Smith] discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk; that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside of the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed.” (1826 Glass Looking Trial, Jonathan Thompson testimony, Tuttle account)

The words “as he supposed” are noteworthy! They give us a glimpse into Smith’s mindset. Joseph Smith was caught up in the understanding that a dead man, who was now a spirit, could keep watch over buried treasure.

Also, when Smith said,

“the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see”

he clearly indicated that he was dealing with an evil spirit. Smith believed that men who were evil in this life could remain on earth as evil spirits after death. In Smith’s mind he was waging

“war against this spirit of darkness.”

Spirits guarding treasure in Smith’s day were usually evil.

“The utmost silence was necessary to success. More than once, when the digging proved a failure, Joe explained to his associates that, just as the deposit was about to be reached, some one, tempted by the devil, spoke, causing the wished-for riches to disappear.”

Defending Mormonism:

“If Joseph actually did possess the ability as the witnesses testified would he be judged guilty of glass looking? Yes. But wouldn't that also mean that he was innocent of deception and the reason the law was created?” (Just the Facts - The 1826 Trial (Hearing) of Joseph Smith, lightplanet.com)

Because Mormon apologists imply that,

“…Joseph actually did possess the ability as the witnesses testified…”

[so],

“…he was innocent of deception…”

let’s consider what the witnesses said in court to see if this argument holds up under examination:

· Josiah Stowel said “…that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone… that he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.” (1826 Trial, Tuttle account)

· Stowell also said, “that the prisoner possessed all the power he claimed, and declared he could see things fifty feet below the surface of the earth…” (1826 Trial, Purple account)

· Jonathan Thompson stated, “he believes in the prisoner's professed skill...” (1826 Trial, Tuttle account)

Note: Not all of the witnesses who testified in the 1826 Glass Looking Trial believed Smith had the ability to see things in his stone:

· Arad Stowel testified: ”The deception appeared so palpable, that [he] went off disgusted.” (1826 Trial, Tuttle account)

· McMaster testified: “…he went with Arad Stowel to be convinced of prisoner's skill, and likewise came away disgusted…”(1826 Trial, Tuttle account)

One thing is clear: the witnesses who believed in Smith were the ones telling Judge Neely about a chest full of treasure being watched over by a dead Indian and how Smith could see this by looking in his stone. This in itself points to deception on Smith's part; because, there was never a chest full of treasure to be found.

Instead of trying to discredit those court testimonies, are Mormon apologists really asking us to believe them?

No.

It's not likely that apologists are asking investigators to accept what the witnesses said about the trunk full of treasure slipping away from them as they dug for it, etc. In fact, they would probably dismiss that as nonsense, while still holding to the notion that Smith could see things invisible to the human eye. Yet, claiming Smith could see things in his stone, while admitting that what he claimed he saw was not real, is nothing less than doubletalk.

Also, the problem with picking and choosing what parts of Smith’s story to believe, is that practically everything the witnesses testified to in court is beyond belief. Surely Smith did not see buried treasure and a dead Indian in his stone.

This is a real problem for Mormons; because, if what Smith told Stowell and his crew is fictitious, then the odds are good that the gold plates story, which is along similar lines, is also pure fiction.

The gold plates were also supposedly buried in a box by the ancients and held in charge by the spirit of a dead man. Smith was telling people he was trying to obtain the gold plates during the same period in his life he was brought before Judge Neely for glass looking.

(Those Mysterious Golden Plates — Rich Kelsey)

Also remember the theme of "slippery treasure" that pops up in the Book of Mormon.

Does anyone actually believe that the spirits of deceased Amerindians guard treasure that they left buried in the ground? Regardless of what one can argue Joseph Smith thought he saw or didn't see in his stone, the underlying premise is ridiculous.

A little pastism helps in understanding this. In 1825, for the more rustic people, finding hidden objects by means of a looking glass was indeed plausible.

Had they witnessed a Coca-Cola bottle drop from the sky, a new American religion would have been born and as we all know - Coke is the real thing.

rich kelsey wrote:...All of the witnesses including Smith admitted that a stone was used in searching for treasure. Joseph even displayed the stone in court at the request of Judge Neely.
...

I'm still not convinced that the event was a full fledged trial -- to me
it looks more like the sort of pre-trial hearing a Justice of the Peace
would conduct, before turning a prisoner over to the State to prosecute.

However -- no matter what we call the proceedings, the question that
remains in my mind is whether or not the Mormon leaders and theologians
profess that Smith could see under the ground.

Today we have ground penetrating radar and other technological marvels
which aid those seeking objects below the surface of the earth or the
ocean -- the idea of such reliable remote viewing is no longer as mysterious
as it would have sounded to Judge Neely in 1826.

But -- do the Mormon leaders profess that Smith had such powers?

I'd really appreciate getting a straight answer to that particular question.

UD

moksha wrote:A little pastism helps in understanding this. In 1825, for the more rustic people, finding hidden objects by means of a looking glass was indeed plausible.

Had they witnessed a Coca-Cola bottle drop from the sky, a new American religion would have been born

- the gods are crazy
- we can become one of them
- I don't know if we teach it

Joseph Smith used to find lost and stolen items, but his father Joseph Sr. used him to fool farmers looking for stoken treasure. Joseph Smith Jr. continued to do this until at least age 21. A good friend of Joseph smith Jr. said that he (Jr.) did not like to do this but his father and his father's friend "made" him do it (i.e. pressured him to do so). So, yes Jr. did fool people for years. Joseph Smith Jr. and his poor famer neighbors needed year-round employment, and farmers gave them laborer's wages and room and board during the diggings. So, they did not get "rich" from the diggings, but they got employment year round. Did Joseph Smith Jr. FOOL people? Yes, but, again, Jr. blamed it on his father and his father's friends.

rich kelsey wrote:Over the last 5 years I have studied evidence surrounding the Joseph Smith 1826 court proceeding. To me, it looks like it was merely a per-trial hearing which was acquitted for various reasons. One thing we can be fairly sure of: the main victim of Joseph’s glass looking for hire testified that he positively believed in Smith’s ability to see underground by looking in his stone. And, this is one of the reasons the case fizzled out at the pre-trial hearing.

One more thing: All of the witnesses including Smith admitted that a stone was used in searching for treasure. Joseph even displayed the stone in court at the request of Judge Neely.

When the Rev. Daniel Sylvester Tuttle spelled out:

"And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty."

I believe, with those words, Tuttle added his own ‘take’ on the event.

Dr. Purple, who was the court’s clerk in this case, recorded no such thing.

So, let’s ask the question: Did Joseph Smith use a glass (stone) to allegedly see underground back in 1825?

To me, this is what really matters. I could care less if a group of jurors found Smith guilty or not. And, in a hearing a guilty verdict is not possible anyway.

The truth is: Joseph Smith did engage in glass looking in 1825 and in 1826 he was brought to court to answer for it.

He did violate the law but he served no time for it.

I find this 1825-26 history extremely important. It parallels the gold plates story in so many ways. For those who may desire to look at the evidence, I have put together a page on the 1826 Trial which contains several links to other pages.

Link: http://richkelsey.org/1826_trial_testimonies.htm

It is also the subject of my last Mormon article: Those Mysterious Golden Plates:

Link: http://richkelsey.org/STORY%204.htm

Rich Kelsey

edited due to advice from a board member