Did Joseph ever demonstrate his ability as a treasure-hunter?

[Pahoran]

I believe so. IIRC, all of this transpired before Joseph reported that he had found any gold plates.

Also, the treasure seeking was in Pennsylvania, not Palmyra, so it would be doubtful that they would have known about the gold plates.

So, according to you, Philastus Hurlbut's affidavit-collecting activities around Palmyra-Manchester subsequent to his excommunication took place "before Joseph reported that he had found any gold plates" and "WELL before the church was organized?"

How did Joseph manage to pull off the nifty trick of excommunicating someone from the Church "WELL before the church was organized?"

And, according to you, Pomeroy Tucker's book, written some forty years after the Smiths left Palmyra was likewise written "before Joseph reported that he had found any gold plates" and "WELL before the church was organized?"

Are you sure you are using the same calendar as the rest of us?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Grace de Maya]

So, according to you, Philastus Hurlbut's affidavit-collecting activities around Palmyra-Manchester subsequent to his excommunication took place "before Joseph reported that he had found any gold plates" and "WELL before the church was organized?"

How did Joseph manage to pull off the nifty trick of excommunicating someone from the Church "WELL before the church was organized?"

And, according to you, Pomeroy Tucker's book, written some forty years after the Smiths left Palmyra was likewise written "before Joseph reported that he had found any gold plates" and "WELL before the church was organized?"

Are you sure you are using the same calendar as the rest of us?

Regards,

Pahoran

I think the confusion is that you are referring to when the actual affidavits were gathered, where he is referring to the time period referred to in the affidavits themselves.

I didn't read the whole book, but I did notice the "Rough Stone Rolling" uses lots of the affidavits as sources, so it seemed Richard Bushman had found some way to find some reliable information from them!

To answer the question in the first post, I'm glad Joseph never found anything before the Book of Mormon. Since that power would not have been of God, it wouldn't be a good thing.

[Pahoran]

I think the confusion is that you are referring to when the actual affidavits were gathered, where he is referring to the time period referred to in the affidavits themselves.

Exactly. After the Book of Mormon was published, the Church organised, and Joseph's name became better known that those of several contemporary US presidents, then all sorts of people suddenly become "experts" on his early life.

And the anti-Mormon clique make a big to-do about this stuff referring to the early period, hoping we won't notice how much later the statements were actually gathered.

(Don't you, Scottie?)

I didn't read the whole book, but I did notice the "Rough Stone Rolling" uses lots of the affidavits as sources, so it seemed Richard Bushman had found some way to find some reliable information from them!

I think a lot of people have been altogether too trusting of a body of literature that shows every sign of having been produced to fit a hostile agenda. However, it is possible by dint of careful weighing and sifting to find some valid information therein. That doesn't give anyone license to assume that the whole lot take on the status of holy writ.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scottie]

Geez, Pahoran! Someone asked a question and I tried, to the best of my knowledge, to give an accurate description of what happened. Why, I even made sure to note that Josiah Stowell remained a faithful member of the church. Why do you have to automatically assume that there is an anti-Mormon bias to everything?? Grow the hell up already and pull the stick out of your %*@!!!!! Sometimes an answer is simply just an answer, not an attempt to disparage your beloved prophet or turn people away from the church.

Oh, and to answer your question...

The treasure seeking occured in Oct/Nov 1825. The gold plates were not recovered until 1827. The church was not organized until 1830. Do the math.

[Calm]

Scottie, let me see if I am understanding you right...you are not claiming that the affidavits were collected prior to the events they were about, only that the events occurred prior to the organization of the Church and that someone (Hurlburt) went back later and collected stories from individuals who were possibly involved in them.

If so, do you feel there should be consideration given to the fact that these are memories of past events and therefore possibly tainted (either pro or critical) by events and conversations after the fact or that because they are affidavits, they should be accepted as relatively accurate with little reservation? What do you think the reader should do to evaluate how much later events, etc. (that might colour someone's perception) impacted comments about events in the past?

add-on: Pahoran, I believe that Scottie has been too long a member of the board to think that type of gotcha move that you are suggesting he pulled would do anything but make him look bad. He may have been a bit lazy about checking all of his facts and putting up complete knowledge right from the beginning, but I can hardly fault him for that since I wasn't willing at the time to do the homework either and was hoping he had it at his fingertips. It's finally the kind of day I want to sit on the front porch and sip lemonade rather than spending way too much time at the keyboard.

[Scottie]

Ahhh... I finally see what you are asking! Thanks Cal for helping me to finally put 2 and 2 together.

Okay, I learned something new today! I love when that happens!

I was under the impression that the trial against JS for his treasure seeking was shortly after the event. It appears that the affidavits were gathered in 1834. This most certainly changes some of my thoughts on this. If it were this much later, then yes, there might have been some bias and reasoning for these men to lie. If not lying, it is quite possible that the memories were not 100% accurate. I'll have to do some more research on this.

My first thought is that Isaac Hale was not a dishonest man. In his affidavit, he seems to recall with good clarity the events that happened. While he certainly didn't like Joseph, I'm not sure I'd automatically peg him as "out to get him".

[Calm]

I was under the impression that the trial against JS for his treasure seeking was shortly after the event. It appears that the affidavits were gathered in 1834. This most certainly changes some of my thoughts on this. If it were this much later, then yes, there might have been some bias and reasoning for these men to lie. If not lying, it is quite possible that the memories were not 100% accurate. I'll have to do some more research on this.

My first thought is that Isaac Hale was not a dishonest man. In his affidavit, he seems to recall with good clarity the events that happened. While he certainly didn't like Joseph, I'm not sure I'd automatically peg him as "out to get him".

I was wondering why you were so confident. You are usually more cautious...this explains it.

My feeling about Isaac Hale is that he was likely a good man, but I am iffy about his comments about Joseph because I've seen a few in-laws who had nothing positive to say about the spouse of their child and whose dislike coloured their perception so that the individual they described was completely different from what I knew. I think emotions run high when it comes to family and it's too easy for that emotion to alter memories over time (shifts from relating secondhand knowledge into relating it as firsthand for example).

I like all comments confirmed as many times as possible by a wide variety of sources, something that rarely happens in history unfortunately. I guess that means I tend not to make my mind up on most things beyond a general framework.

PS: IIRC, the affidavits we are speaking of by Hurlburt and then later reported in more complete detail (again IIRC) by Tucker were not the result of the "glass looking" case but was a separate venture by Hurlburt. It sounds like you are (were?) thinking they were a result and were collected for the legal suit.

I am confident Pahoran can fill in the details if I am wrong.

PPS: I'm iffy about comments about Joseph and church members about Emma's father as well in case anyone is wondering.

[Calm]

Quick note--the affidavits were apparently collected by Hurlburt for the use of E D Howe in his book, Mormonism Unveiled, chapter 17.

http://books.google.com/books?id=anMSAAAAM...4#PRA1-PA460,M1

Does anyone have a copy of these affidavits? Do we know what language/questions were used by Hurlburt in the collection of such? Do we know if any monetary gain was provided to those who gave them? Are they coupled with llittle bios of those giving the information?

And last, is there a significance difference between the original publication and the later Tucker version (which IIRC gave the complete affidavits and did not edit them as Howe did).

[Scottie]

It doesn't seem unreasonable that JS would have said that the treasure had an enchantment on it and moved deeper into the ground. He may have even believed it (if he even said it).

I'm not really sure that this minor detail matters much in the whole scope of the treasure seeking, does it?

[Calm]

My attitude toward any detail of the treasure seeking would be based on the context of the discussion.

If the discussion centered on establishing general attitudes of the culture, JS and his family and friends I would likely be relatively casual in dealing with the details.

If OTOH, the discussion centered on the history of fraudulent endeavours in JS's career, then I think I would push for dotting those i's and crossing those t's, nitpicking all the way not only because this goes into a legal issue, but because it affects foundational claims of the LDS faith and therefore more care should be taken because it may affect those in the here and now.

[Scottie]

My attitude toward any detail of the treasure seeking would be based on the context of the discussion.

If the discussion centered on establishing general attitudes of the culture, JS and his family and friends I would likely be relatively casual in dealing with the details.

If OTOH, the discussion centered on the history of fraudulent endeavours in JS's career, then I think I would push for dotting those i's and crossing those t's, nitpicking all the way not only because this goes into a legal issue, but because it affects foundational claims of the LDS faith and therefore more care should be taken because it may affect those in the here and now.

I agree that as a foundational claim as to Joseph's character, this is an extremely important issue. However, I'm not sure that the excuse he gave as to why they couldn't retrieve the treasure isn't nearly as important as the simple fact that they couldn't retrieve any treasure.

[phaedrus ut]

I agree that as a foundational claim as to Joseph's character, this is an extremely important issue. However, I'm not sure that the excuse he gave as to why they couldn't retrieve the treasure isn't nearly as important as the simple fact that they couldn't retrieve any treasure.

I think it's also important to put this in the time line that Joseph gives in his history. In October 1825 he is visited by Josiah Stowell because of Joseph's reputations as "glass looker". Joseph told Stowell that he could see the treasure he was looking for in his peep stone and convinced Stowell of his abilities by describing Stowells house and outhouses accurately. In November 1826 he went to work for Stowell and March of 1826 he is put on trial.

In September 1823 Joseph is visited by Moroni in his room and allowed to see the plates but not take them. He says he visits the plates in September 1824 and again in September 1825. Joseph says in these years he is visited by the Nephite prophets Nephi, Alma, Mormon, and the twelve Nephite disciples. And as his mother relates he tells the family stories of the "ancient inhabitants" of America.

So for me the question comes down to this. The visions of treasure and treasure hunting happened at the same time as Joseph's visions of visiting the plates and the visits of Moroni(and other Nephite prophets). Did Joseph actually believe that he was seeing gold bars, silver mines, and treasure chests under the ground using his peep stone? Or was he being dishonest about his visions?

If Joseph was being honest and believe he could see these treasures in his visions how reliable are his other visions?

Phaedrus

[Calm]

Joseph told Stowell that he could see the treasure he was looking for in his peep stone and convinced Stowell of his abilities by describing Stowells house and outhouses accurately.

Source(s?) please.

[John Williams]

Source(s?) please.

The source is the Pearsall/Tuttle account of the 1826 trial, the authenticity of which is in dispute:

"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 on 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 professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the digging part at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attelon, for a mine--did not exactly find it, but got a piece 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 said that 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 Stowel and prisoner there upon commenced digging, found a tail-feather, but money was gone; that he supposed that money moved down; that prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone, and <A name="described Josiah Stowell's house">described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone; that he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold and had the http://' target="_blank">most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.

[Calm]

Thank you.

[phaedrus ut]

Source(s?) please.

It's from People v. Joseph Smith, Jr., 20 March 1826, The original trial transcript. The transcript was torn from justice Neely's docket book and taken to Utah by Emily Pearsall and although the original is unavailable there were three independently printed copies. Charles Marshall, "The Original Prophet. By a Visitor to Salt Lake City," Fraser's Magazine 7; Daniel S. Tuttle, "Mormons," in A Religious Encyclopaedia, ed. Philip Schaff; and "A Document Discovered," Utah Christian Advocate 3 (Salt Lake City, January 1886).

Mark Ashurst-McGee quotes the Trial transcript in his Farms Review: Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian. And FAIR quotes it though Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. Since accepting the facts of the 1826 trial most LDS historians I've read use the transcript because Stowell's testimony is in defense of Joseph and his "seeing" abilities.

Phaedrus

[Abulafia]

Quick note--the affidavits were apparently collected by Hurlburt for the use of E D Howe in his book, Mormonism Unveiled, chapter 17.

http://books.google.com/books?id=anMSAAAAM...4#PRA1-PA460,M1

Does anyone have a copy of these affidavits? Do we know what language/questions were used by Hurlburt in the collection of such? Do we know if any monetary gain was provided to those who gave them? Are they coupled with llittle bios of those giving the information?

And last, is there a significance difference between the original publication and the later Tucker version (which IIRC gave the complete affidavits and did not edit them as Howe did).

Calmoriah, Dale Broadhurst has them up on his site, (been taking copious notes from them over the last few days). I can't answer your questions , but I would like more information on the characters that were interviewed.

It appears some had joined (and left) the church...and some were money diggers at some point..

Names that appear are the Stafford's, Peter Ingersoll, Willard Chase (from whose well the stone was found) Lucy Harris and many others. Dale B would be the expert I am assuming..

http://solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm#pg240b

Mary