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

[_guy sajer]

A related, but broader, question is whether there is anything that would give pause to the internet Mormon (apologist) or true believer rank and file.

Let’s see, so far we have (in no particular order):

1. Murder and mayhem in holy books committed by God, his spokesmen, and his followers.
2. Serial adultery, treasure digging/fraud, habitual lying, megalomania by the “Second only to Jesus.”
3. Book of Mormon chalk full of anachronisms and blatant historical inaccuracies
4. Compelling evidence that whole sections of Book of Mormon were lifted straight from the King James version of the Bible, inaccuracies and all
5. DNA evidence proving not a single drop of Semitic blood in Book of Mormon descendents, contrary to over 100 years of prophetic pronouncement.
6. Source material for P of GP proving it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be
7. Institutional racism
8. Institutional sexism
9. Repudiation by current prophets of long-held core beliefs and teachings of past prophets
10. Proven lack of any capacity for discernment by God’s elect (a la Hoffman incident)
11. Complete lack of anything of true doctrinal gravitas coming from God’s elect, unless one includes dress and grooming standards as high doctrine
12. Complete, utter, and absolute irrelevance of Mormonism to 99.999% of humanity, despite over 150 years of existence and missionary work.
13. Inability of Joseph Smith to get his story straight regarding THE most significant event in world history since the resurrection.
14. Eternal system of marriage that transforms women into property.
15. Etc.

Does any of this make a difference?

What would it take?

Seriously, is there anything at all that would cause the internet Mormons and rank and file faithful to question, I mean seriously question?

What would it be?

[_Mister Scratch]

Didn't Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magical World View appear towards the end of the Hoffman Affair? I only ask because I detect a sort of backwards trickle-down effect. Controversial material tends to first appear in the work of folks who are critical of the Church, it seems. After that, as best I can tell, the sketchy history is taken up by the Brethren somehow, and "assignments" are doled out to the apologists. This would help to explain why Rough Stone Rolling appeared some 50 years or so after NMKMH. The apologetically-sanctioned (and, by extension, Brethren-sanctioned) material always appears last.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

It was alluded to in the First Vision story in the PofGP, but this is misleading in downplaying Joseph Smith's central role in the hunt (instead, the account makes Joseph out to be part of a manual labor gang digging the holes). I think what really began to shed light on what really happened was Wesley Walters' discovery in 1971 of court documents relating to Joseph Smith's 1826 trial for "disorderly conduct," which showed that Joseph had been brought into court for his money-digging activities (I believe the complainant was the son of Josiah Stowell, who employed Joseph to find the treasure). After these docs were found, folks everywhere (including LDS apologists) started to take the claim seriously.

[_Who Knows]

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

It was alluded to in the First Vision story in the PofGP, but this is misleading in downplaying Joseph Smith's central role in the hunt (instead, the account makes Joseph out to be part of a manual labor gang digging the holes). I think what really began to shed light on what really happened was Wesley Walters' discovery in 1971 of court documents relating to Joseph Smith's 1826 trial for "disorderly conduct," which showed that Joseph had been brought into court for his money-digging activities (I believe the complainant was the son of Josiah Stowell, who employed Joseph to find the treasure). After these docs were found, folks everywhere (including LDS apologists) started to take the claim seriously.

It seems like i remember reading something Nibley said about the supposed court documents (before they came to light) - about how if the court documents were real, it would be very damaging. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

Also, why if his treasure digging was known prior to the Hofmann document, why did the Mormon historians consider it 'damaging'?

[_Who Knows]

Oh, and Rollo - I started a thread about the POGP discussion of treasure digging a few weeks back - and how misleading the text is. I would hardly count that as something having to be 'accepted' by historians/apologists.

[_Dr. Shades]

It seems like i remember reading something Nibley said about the supposed court documents (before they came to light) - about how if the court documents were real, it would be very damaging. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

Yes it does. I can't remember the exact quote, but Nibley said that if the trial had actually taken place, it would be the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith in existence.

Also, why if his treasure digging was known prior to the Hofmann document, why did the Mormon historians consider it 'damaging'?

Just guessing, but I'd say it was because the Hofmann document became widely known to the public.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

[I can't remember the exact quote, but Nibley said that if the trial had actually taken place, it would be the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith in existence.

Hugh Nibley, in The Myth Makers (p. 142, 1961), in referring to the rumored 1826 trial, wrote that "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." On the same page Nibley also referred to such a court record as "the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered."

[_Runtu]

[I can't remember the exact quote, but Nibley said that if the trial had actually taken place, it would be the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith in existence.

Hugh Nibley, in The Myth Makers (p. 142, 1961), in referring to the rumored 1826 trial, wrote that "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." On the same page Nibley also referred to such a court record as "the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered."

If I recall correctly, a transcript of the trial had been circulating since the 1870s or so, but Mormons had unanimously declared it all a hoax. Nibley's quote refers to that document, which (again from memory) I believe was initially published by a relative of Justice Neely (the JoftheP who held the trial). It wasn't until Wesley Walters discovered a summary of the case and court costs (which oddly enough matched the earlier account) that people started taking the accusation seriously.

Edit: "Four years before Dr. Purple's account was published the actual trial record taken from Albert Neely's Docket Book was made public. This official trial record had been torn from Mr. Neely's book by his niece, Miss Emily Pearsall, and taken to Utah with her when she went to serve as a missionary under Bishop Daniel S. Tuttle. Before her death in 1872, Charles Marshall, a British journalist visiting Salt Lake City, was shown the document, copied it and upon returning to England published it in Fraser's Magazine in 1873."

Fraser’s Magazine (London), for February of 1873, (New Series, Vol. 7), p. 225, and signed "C.M.", who was Charles Marshall. He had been in Utah sometime before June, 1871.

The Original Prophet

. . .
During my stay in Salt Lake permission was courteously recorded me to copy out a set of such judicial proceedings not hitherto published. I cannot doubt their genuineness. The original papers were lent me by a lady of well-known position, in whose family they had been preserved since the date of the transactions. I reproduce them here, partly to fulfil a duty of assisting to preserve a piece of information about the prophet, and partly because, while the charges are less vehement than some I might have chosen, the proceedings are happily lightened by a touch of the ludicrous.

State of New York v. Joseph Smith.

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.

Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.

Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p---[word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.

Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another Stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he 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 the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.
Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c., Recognisances [sic], 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances [sic] of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.

[_Gazelam]

How is any of that damageing?
I found it really interesting.

[_mentalgymnast]

hi guy sajer. you said: A related, but broader, question is whether there is anything that would give pause to the internet Mormon (apologist) or true believer rank and file.

Let’s see, so far we have (in no particular order):

1. Murder and mayhem in holy books committed by God, his spokesmen, and his followers.
2. Serial adultery, treasure digging/fraud, habitual lying, megalomania by the “Second only to Jesus.”
3. Book of Mormon chalk full of anachronisms and blatant historical inaccuracies
4. Compelling evidence that whole sections of Book of Mormon were lifted straight from the King James version of the Bible, inaccuracies and all
5. DNA evidence proving not a single drop of Semitic blood in Book of Mormon descendents, contrary to over 100 years of prophetic pronouncement.
6. Source material for P of GP proving it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be
7. Institutional racism
8. Institutional sexism
9. Repudiation by current prophets of long-held core beliefs and teachings of past prophets
10. Proven lack of any capacity for discernment by God’s elect (a la Hoffman incident)
11. Complete lack of anything of true doctrinal gravitas coming from God’s elect, unless one includes dress and grooming standards as high doctrine
12. Complete, utter, and absolute irrelevance of Mormonism to 99.999% of humanity, despite over 150 years of existence and missionary work.
13. Inability of Joseph Smith to get his story straight regarding THE most significant event in world history since the resurrection.
14. Eternal system of marriage that transforms women into property.
15. Etc.

Does any of this make a difference?

What would it take?

Seriously, is there anything at all that would cause the internet Mormons and rank and file faithful to question, I mean seriously question?

What would it be?

MG: good choice on number 15. The list could go on. I am an active member of the church with a calling...paying tithing, etc., but probably not a true TBM, although I used to be back before about 1993 or so. I'm thinking that I can still count as one of those that you see as being someone who "believes" even though much of the evidence would seem to point towards disbelief as being the obvious default position.

Let me ask you a question. First, let's operate and the assumption for a moment that there is a supreme being who is creator of humankind and that he/she has a loving/kind disposition towards the creations which are his/hers. OK with that?

An example from history to consider. Beginning days of the Revolutionary War. New York. Camp fevers and other ailments caused by unsanitary conditions and vile/impure water. It was estimated that there may have been 10,000 that were down and out of operation. George Washington was aware of the spread of disease/sickness and knew that cleanliness of vaults/latrines was one of the keys in inhibiting the spread of disease and so he ordered the they were covered with fresh earth daily, and new vaults dug weekly. His knowledge and thus his ability to do something for the good in a nasty/filthy situation extended only so far. Why were ways and means not found and executed to promote and inhibit all of the causes of the disease? Why were the troops drinking vile/impure water? Why did so many die as a result of these unfortunate conditions? These were good men who had dedicated themselves to a good cause which was to change the course of history. Couldn't God have somehow stepped in and made things right rather than let things take their course?

Dang it, why didn't God just step in and tell George how to make everything right...or for that matter, perfect?

Many questions could be asked as to "where was God" here, or "where was God" there? Not just in this historical venue, but in similar situations throughout history. There were good men/women that God could have revealed all the right answers/procedures to who then in turn could haved saved alot of grief and error along the way. Why didn't a loving/compassionate God do so?

Examples, ad nauseum, could be given which seem to (remember, we're assuming for a moment that there is a God who loves and cares for his/her creations) point towards the fact that God typically steps aside and lets his creations act for themselves and learn for themselves...in almost ALL situations, times, and circumstances.

Now, let's go to church. Why would one think that God would NOT operate pretty much the same way within the confines of a small subsection of humanity called his church? Why do we assume that every jot and tittle has been spelled out? Why would we think that life would not be just as tough and ambiguous in nature within the church as without when it comes to many things? Why does/or would it ONLY make sense to think that prophets and apostles are NOT just like us...most of the time (In other words's, why are we prone to think that they're in someway/somehow a special subspecies of humankind that are not prone to the fallen natures that the rest of us seem to be... and they are able to function/operate in this manner almost ALL of the time.) Why would we think that mistakes and apparent errors could not be made within the confines of the church that could lead to misery and pain for others? Why would we assume that all the evidence is in when it comes to this or that?

The world is a MESSY place. Would not some of this messiness also be part of the human experience within the church? If there is a God, he just does not seem to be the type to step in and do this, do that, cause this, cause that. At least from what we can see currently. What happened in the past...who REALLY knows? What ever has happened, happened. We can only judge/perceive the time that we live in accurately...somewhat.

Mark Hoffman, Joseph Smith, issues with Book of Mormon and PofGP, change in the church, human issues dealing with cultural context, and on and on. Just about everything that can be considered a cause for disbelief within the Mormon paradigm can be routed back to HUMAN operations/actions, human error in relationships (pride, vanity, moral transgressions, etc.), human produced or manufactured possible mis-information or incomplete information, human lack of understanding (thus producing incorrect/incomplete doctrine and/or policies), incomplete research and/or faulty reasoning performed by humans that may have an agenda, etc., etc.

Institutional racism, by the way, is a result of individual racism. If there is or has been institutional sexism, again, individuals are the cause. Humans that may be in error.

The question, at least for me, is: how often would one expect God to step in...make course corrections, beat with a whip, change incorrect perceptions, change faulty reasoning, etc. If history is any indicator, I'd have to say that God doesn't step in very often. But at times...he may step in for some kind of course correction. Why in one cse and not another, or at one time and not another...who knows?

Anyway, I have found that as I've lowered my expectations I've found that I'm not disappointed as much anymore...or surprised when weird things happen, from my own perspective.

Can the church be true even when elements/parts of your one through fourteen (and more that can be added) my have some validity/truth to them? I think yes.

by the way, as you know, the DNA issues and PofGP issues and a number of others that can be listed are not "done deals" one way or the other. There is wiggle room to go either way on most issues...reasonably.

Regards,
MG