When was Joseph Smith's treasure digging 'accepted' by TBM's?

Post by **_Who Knows** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:09 am

I'm reading the Hofmann book 'Salamander' right now. Apparently, Hofmann faked a Joseph Smith / Josiah Stowell 'treasure digging' letter. The book mentions how 'damaging' this document would be, since it would confirm Joseph Smith's treasure digging.

However, it's a pretty widely accepted fact now that he was a treasure digger.

So my question: When did his treasure digging become a non-issue and widely accepted by the TBMs / apologists?

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:44 am

That's a great question!

The Hofmann documents were all before Internet Mormonism, the advent of which made absolutely anything A-Okay. At the time, there were only regular TBMs.

I think it might be a mistake to conflate the Internet Mormons with the rank and file. Although we all know that treasure digging is a perfectly honorable (and a mighty fine) pastime to the FARMS/FAIR types, such a document might still be considered damaging to the typical Chapel Mormon.

Was that an answer?

Post by **_Who Knows** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:22 am

Yeah, I should have clarified. By 'widely accepted', i didn't mean to the regular joe schmoe chapel Mormon. I meant widely accepted by the Mormon historical community, and apologists.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:38 am

Who Knows wrote:Yeah, I should have clarified. By 'widely accepted', i didn't mean to the regular joe schmoe chapel Mormon. I meant widely accepted by the Mormon historical community, and apologists.

In that case, when it comes to the Mormon historical community and apologists, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find something that would not be accepted. Transmuting the unacceptable to the acceptable is their stock-in-trade.

Post by **_Who Knows** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:50 am

Dr. Shades wrote:
Who Knows wrote:Yeah, I should have clarified. By 'widely accepted', i didn't mean to the regular joe schmoe chapel Mormon. I meant widely accepted by the Mormon historical community, and apologists.

In that case, when it comes to the Mormon historical community and apologists, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find something that would not be accepted. Transmuting the unacceptable to the acceptable is their stock-in-trade.

Well, that's what I'm trying to find out - when did it become acceptable. According to this book i'm reading, the Mormon historical community found this treasure digging letter controversial - in other words - treasure digging was not accepted by these Mormon historians, and even they found it controversial.

So when (and why) did it become 'non-controversial'?

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:36 am

hi Shades. you said: That's a great question!

The Hofmann documents were all before Internet Mormonism, the advent of which made absolutely anything A-Okay. At the time, there were only regular TBMs.

I think it might be a mistake to conflate the Internet Mormons with the rank and file. Although we all know that treasure digging is a perfectly honorable (and a mighty fine) pastime to the FARMS/FAIR types, such a document might still be considered damaging to the typical Chapel Mormon.

Was that an answer?

MG: hi Dr. Shades. I think I remember chatting with you over at ZLMB a few times. I came away with a personal insight from listening to your rather provincial/narrow views that you were pretty much a "died in the wool" sceptic in a similar way that there are TBM Mormons. Both the died in the wool sceptics and TBM Mormons have at least one thing in common. Unbending faith that their way is the right way and it's "my way or the highway".

Anyway, it's cool to see that you have your own board now. Some good conversations here and there, but fairly predictable and nothing much new under the sun. Mr. Scratch is a character. Harmony definitely has a chip on her shoulder and has for a long time. I remember reading her stuff long ago and far away on another board also.

Anyway, I'm assuming you're being somewhat facetious in the comments you made above. Either that or you're clueless and have your head in the sand. I'll assume you're being facetious. If you're not, let me know and then I might have something to say. Although I can't believe you're really serious.

Regards,
MG

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:12 am

If I'm wrong, tell me how and why. That's what the board is for.

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:19 am

hi Shades. you were serious. you said: The Hofmann documents were all before Internet Mormonism...At the time, there were only regular TBMs.

MG: you believe this? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "regular".

Regards,
MG

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:46 am

I was afraid this might happen.

I thought of prefacing my comments with "for all intents and purposes. . . " or perhaps "generally speaking. . ." but I thought it would be obvious. Apparently I was wrong.

No, as I've explained a thousand times before, non-traditional, "it was only his opinion" Mormons--a.k.a. "Internet Mormons"--have been around far longer than the Internet itself has been. It's just that the Internet has been the catalyst for the recent explosion of this particular brand of Mormon thought and theology. Back in the Hofmann days, such Mormons were far, far more difficult to find.

Post by **_Mephitus** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:49 am

I would think that this information would fall under 2 catagories

1. Another piece of information that is not willing to be processed by the morg

2. Blown off as a "pre-profit" boondogle that can be ignored as human frailty

(or as a 3rd option)

3. Another peice of information proving smith wasent trustworthy for the "anti's" like me.