Joseph F. Smith and money digging.

[why me]

While thumbing through Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith (1977 paperback edition) I came across something interesting on pages 482-483:

He states:

'He was called a moneydigger and many contemptuous things. If you will look at his history, and at the character of his parents, and surroundings, and consider the object of his life, you can discover how much consistency there was in the charges brought against him. He was neither old nor a 'moneydigger...,'

This is from a discourse delivered at Assembly Hall and can be found in his journal of discourses Vol. 24

Question: Did JFS misrepresent Jospeh Smith or did he consider JS not a moneydigger based on what he knew about JS? And this brings up another question: Can we now view JS as a moneydigger?

[rodheadlee]

define moneydigger

[Deborah]

He was neither old nor a 'moneydigger...,'

Well, he wasn't old.

The power of words. We can call someone a moneydigger, a treasure hunter or a miner. They all mean basically the same thing but with different nuances of acceptability. JFS may not have known about Joseph's activities as a young man. In any case the use of the term implies that is all he was and sets up a very negative image, which isn't justified by the facts of his life.

[Brant Gardner]

And this brings up another question: Can we now view JS as a moneydigger?

I've spent the last couple of months reading about the history of folk magic in England and in New England. That reading tells me that there is a complicated answer to this question and a possible reason for Joseph F. Smith's statement. Joseph was a community seer (one of at least two in the area, the other being Sally Chase).

He was employed by moneydiggers to find the treasure (in itself a tradition inherited from England). So, technically, I don't know that he was a moneydigger as much as we was a guide for moneydiggers. I doubt that distinction makes a lot of sense to use, but there was a certain sense that it would have made in the early 1800s.

[annewandering]

So this was along the line of water witching?

[Brant Gardner]

So this was along the line of water witching?

Yes, very much so (both were commonly practiced in the same communities). The tradition of "seeing" in stones has died out (the modern remnant is the crystal ball, which still has devotees, but has a very different social stigma that water witching).

As with water witching, you will find skeptics and believers in the same community, but for those who believe, they have evidence that they accept that it works. Vance Randolf studied the hill communities in the Ozarks around 1920+ and they still had a strong tradition of water witching--he indicates that most wells had been located by that method. He tells the story of a medical doctor whose training was from outside the region but who returned. While reluctant to discuss it, he finally admitted that he was a "water witch" and took Randolf on a demonstration trip.

One of the interesting aspects of many of these folk practitioners was that they did not perform their services for money--it was considered to be disrespectful to their gift (though others accepted other gifts <grin>).

[why me]

Well, he wasn't old.

The power of words. We can call someone a moneydigger, a treasure hunter or a miner. They all mean basically the same thing but with different nuances of acceptability. JFS may not have known about Joseph's activities as a young man. In any case the use of the term implies that is all he was and sets up a very negative image, which isn't justified by the facts of his life.

You may be on to something. When I read it in Gospel Doctrine, I thought that JFS did not like the sound of moneydigger. And I do believe that Joseph Smith mentions his 'moneydigging activities in the History of the Church in a light hearted way. I am sure tha JSF knew what JS was involved in as a young man and he did not consider it moneydigging or did not consider him to be a moneydigger.

[Joseph Antley]

I've spent the last couple of months reading about the history of folk magic in England and in New England. That reading tells me that there is a complicated answer to this question and a possible reason for Joseph F. Smith's statement. Joseph was a community seer (one of at least two in the area, the other being Sally Chase).

He was employed by moneydiggers to find the treasure (in itself a tradition inherited from England). So, technically, I don't know that he was a moneydigger as much as we was a guide for moneydiggers. I doubt that distinction makes a lot of sense to use, but there was a certain sense that it would have made in the early 1800s.

Dr. Gardner's points are valid, although I do not think that President Joseph F. Smith was making that distinction. I would imagine that President Smith's understanding of the treasure-hunting culture and folklore that pervaded New England during Joseph's day was minuscule at best.

Many Latter-day Saints have opposed the labeling of Joseph Smith as a "money-digger"; some historians, including Richard L. Anderson (at least formerly, I'm not sure if his views have changed) all but discounted treasure-hunting as a whole in Smith family life, aside from Joseph's brief work with Stowell.

I think that it's not impossible that Joseph F. Smith did not completely believe Uncle Joseph's involvement in treasure-hunting, and he certainly objected (and rightly so) to the negative connotations that "money-digger" entailed.

[Brant Gardner]

Dr. Gardner's. . .

Thank you for awarding the degree , but I must confess that I haven't earned it.

[Abulafia]

I've spent the last couple of months reading about the history of folk magic in England and in New England. That reading tells me that there is a complicated answer to this question and a possible reason for Joseph F. Smith's statement. Joseph was a community seer (one of at least two in the area, the other being Sally Chase).

He was employed by moneydiggers to find the treasure (in itself a tradition inherited from England). So, technically, I don't know that he was a moneydigger as much as we was a guide for moneydiggers. I doubt that distinction makes a lot of sense to use, but there was a certain sense that it would have made in the early 1800s.

Brant, just wondering what sources you used for the history of folk magic in England?

[annewandering]

One of the interesting aspects of many of these folk practitioners was that they did not perform their services for money--it was considered to be disrespectful to their gift (though others accepted other gifts <grin>).

[Abulafia]

Why me, I've just been following up some things that sparked my interest from Brant G's response. There are a lot of pubs here called 'The Cunning Man'. It's not something I ever studied, but Cunning Men and Women seemed in historical terms to be set apart from 'witches' as more beneficial to society in general.

If (this is what I am assuming from Brant's post) Lucy and her family were steeped in folk lore, then it may be that some of the practices and beliefs came out of England and Europe. It seems that the role of the Cunning Man or woman might include protection of property, searching for treasure, romantic issues, healing, prophecy, crystal gazing and so forth.

In that light, Joseph (I may be jumping the gun here) might be viewed as a 'cunning man', so in that sense a 'money digger' wouldn't adequately cover who and what he was at the time?

Found this interesting article by Owen Davies.

http://www.karisgarden.com/cunningfolk/compass.pdf

from

http://www.karisgarden.com/cunningfolk/home.htm

Just to add, that I wonder if Native American (and African - through the slave trade) practices were also integrated into the folk system of the time and whether that also influenced Lucy and her family.

[why me]

Dr. Gardner's points are valid, although I do not think that President Joseph F. Smith was making that distinction. I would imagine that President Smith's understanding of the treasure-hunting culture and folklore that pervaded New England during Joseph's day was minuscule at best.

Many Latter-day Saints have opposed the labeling of Joseph Smith as a "money-digger"; some historians, including Richard L. Anderson (at least formerly, I'm not sure if his views have changed) all but discounted treasure-hunting as a whole in Smith family life, aside from Joseph's brief work with Stowell.

I think that it's not impossible that Joseph F. Smith did not completely believe Uncle Joseph's involvement in treasure-hunting, and he certainly objected (and rightly so) to the negative connotations that "money-digger" entailed.

I think that it had more to do with the term moneydigger. I do believe that JFS thought that the word did not fit with his uncle. We need to remember just what the critics were saying about JS at this time. It was not very nice and the moneydigging comments by critics were meant to do the same that the critics do now: to deride JS. Now the term treasure hunter may have been more respectful of JS. Moneydigger does have a negative connotation.

[why me]

In that light, Joseph (I may be jumping the gun here) might be viewed as a 'cunning man', so in that sense a 'money digger' wouldn't adequately cover who and what he was at the time?

That may be. I do think that the word moneydigger had a different connotation at the time that JFS made his discourse and it wasn't a positive one. I do believe that JSF must have known some of his uncle's background when Uncle Joe was a young man. I don't think that the smith family attempted to keep the backgroud secret.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Brant, it's a long discussion, but your thoughts are welcome over on this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0&start=140

[Joseph Antley]

Thank you for awarding the degree , but I must confess that I haven't earned it.

Then this is sufficiently awkward... When someone gives you a free doctorate, that's not the time to play the humility card.

[cinepro]

That may be. I do think that the word moneydigger had a different connotation at the time that JFS made his discourse and it wasn't a positive one. I do believe that JSF must have known some of his uncle's background when Uncle Joe was a young man. I don't think that the smith family attempted to keep the backgroud secret.

On the contrary, Joseph F. Smith was born in 1838, so he was only 6 when his father and uncle were murdered. After that he moved west, at which point I think it is highly unlikely that he would have learned of Joseph Smith's scrying activities. Who would have told him? Not his mother, or any of the Utah church leaders, because none of them were around Joseph in the 1820's.

I think there are enough changes and liberal word definitions in the early New York church records (i.e. Oliver Cowdery's dowsing rod becomes a "rod of Aaron", and the seer stone is confusingly referred to as a "Urim and Thummim") that an argument could be made that there was a concious effort to downplay these unusual activities (as continues to this day).

It's possible it may have come up, but I wouldn't consider it a given. I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph F. Smith said exactly what he meant, and believed every word of it.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, just wondering what sources you used for the history of folk magic in England?

The standard volume is Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic. It is an absolutely masterful volume, though a bit dry at times. Still, Thomas places the practices in historical and social context. It really should be the book you read, if you read only one.

[Brant Gardner]

If (this is what I am assuming from Brant's post) Lucy and her family were steeped in folk lore, then it may be that some of the practices and beliefs came out of England and Europe.

They are directly descended. Of course they will alter slightly, but not very much, from their English heritage.

It seems that the role of the Cunning Man or woman might include protection of property, searching for treasure, romantic issues, healing, prophecy, crystal gazing and so forth.

As Thomas (Religion and the Decline of Magic) points out, these functions were necessary in the context of times prior to medicine and police (particularly detective) forces.

Andrew Lang, a British anthropologist, wrote a book on his examination of scrying, in which he begins by experimenting with a crystal ball and a number of his friends--several of whom could see things in the crystal ball.

In that light, Joseph (I may be jumping the gun here) might be viewed as a 'cunning man', so in that sense a 'money digger' wouldn't adequately cover who and what he was at the time?

Right. Money digging was also a heritage from England, interestingly enough.

Found this interesting article by Owen Davies.

Thanks for that.

Just to add, that I wonder if Native American (and African - through the slave trade) practices were also integrated into the folk system of the time and whether that also influenced Lucy and her family.

Not that I have seen. those were located farther south and southern practices were not influencing that far north at that time.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, it's a long discussion, but your thoughts are welcome over on this thread:

I've checked in from time to time, but that thread has wandered too far from the topic.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The standard volume is Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic. It is an absolutely masterful volume, though a bit dry at times. Still, Thomas places the practices in historical and social context. It really should be the book you read, if you read only one.

Christopher Hill refers to it often in his The World Turned Upsidedown, which I just completed. Dry at times, as well, but very good.

[Joseph Antley]

On the contrary, Joseph F. Smith was born in 1838, so he was only 6 when his father and uncle were murdered. After that he moved west, at which point I think it is highly unlikely that he would have learned of Joseph Smith's scrying activities. Who would have told him? Not his mother, or any of the Utah church leaders, because none of them were around Joseph in the 1820's.

I think there are enough changes and liberal word definitions in the early New York church records (i.e. Oliver Cowdery's dowsing rod becomes a "rod of Aaron", and the seer stone is confusingly referred to as a "Urim and Thummim") that an argument could be made that there was a concious effort to downplay these unusual activities (as continues to this day).

It's possible it may have come up, but I wouldn't consider it a given. I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph F. Smith said exactly what he meant, and believed every word of it.

Brigham Young was familiar with Joseph's scrying and Joseph's Palmyra involvement in treasure-hunting, at least to some extent. Ezra Booth recalled treasure-hunting talk even after the saints had migrated to Missouri:

"It passes for a current fact in the Mormonite church, that there are immense treasures in the earth, especially in those places in the State of N. Y. from whence many of the Mormonites emigrated last spring: and when they become sufficiently purified, these treasures are to be poured into the lap of their church; and then, to use their own language, they are to be the richest people in the world. These treasures were discovered several years since, by means of the dark glass, the same with which Smith says he translated most of the Book of Mormon. -- Several of those persons, together with Smith, who were formerly unsuccessfully engaged in digging and searching for these treasures, now reside in this county, and from themselves I received this information."

(Ezra Booth to Rev. Ira Eddy, Letter 3)

Since some of Joseph's early treasure-hunting partners--including, significantly, the Knights--remained faithful members of the Church and also maintained their belief in the validity of their Palmyra treasure-hunting, knowledge that they were apparently not reluctant to share, early converts would have been aware of it.

By the time Joseph F. Smith reached maturity, Joseph's treasure-hunting and scrying had probably been completely Christianized, and President Smith would only have believed it terms of the culture that he understood it -- the ability to use a seer-stone was a gift from God, Joseph mentions searching for a silver mine with Stowell (his only direct mention of treasure-hunting in his official history, and then it's phrased as a simple mining expedition) -- and petty "treasure-digger" was not the way he remembered his uncle.

[why me]

On the contrary, Joseph F. Smith was born in 1838, so he was only 6 when his father and uncle were murdered. After that he moved west, at which point I think it is highly unlikely that he would have learned of Joseph Smith's scrying activities. Who would have told him? Not his mother, or any of the Utah church leaders, because none of them were around Joseph in the 1820's.

I think there are enough changes and liberal word definitions in the early New York church records (i.e. Oliver Cowdery's dowsing rod becomes a "rod of Aaron", and the seer stone is confusingly referred to as a "Urim and Thummim") that an argument could be made that there was a concious effort to downplay these unusual activities (as continues to this day).

It's possible it may have come up, but I wouldn't consider it a given. I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph F. Smith said exactly what he meant, and believed every word of it.

Will never know. We can only assume. However, once an idea comes up like moneydigging and JSF certainly knew what the critics were saying since he mentioned it in a discourse, it becomes only natural to ask questions about the truth of such claims. And people would have either told him the truth or lied. I would imagine that people would have told him the truth and that truth contradicted the notion of a conartist moneydigger.

My own take on it is that now the whole moneydigging incident has been blown out of proportion by the critics. At the time of JS and his early followers, it probably did not matter very much and certainly, his early followers would have heard the rumors. But now, it has become significant as time moves on and it is used by critics to make hay as it was used at the time of JSF.

But I can only speculate like you. The point is in admiting that it is all speculation, which is something critics have a hard time admitting at times when they give hypotheticals as mere fact.

[Abulafia]

By the time Joseph F. Smith reached maturity, Joseph's treasure-hunting and scrying had probably been completely Christianized, and President Smith would only have believed it terms of the culture that he understood it -- the ability to use a seer-stone was a gift from God, Joseph mentions searching for a silver mine with Stowell (his only direct mention of treasure-hunting in his official history, and then it's phrased as a simple mining expedition) -- and petty "treasure-digger" was not the way he remembered his uncle.

Just out of interest, from the very 'little' reading I have done so far, it seems that in the English tradition the work of the 'cunning man' was seen as a part of christianity, rather than in opposition to it. There was a big distinction between the work of the cunning men and the 'witches' (unless they got it wrong and then they could be hauled befored the courts).

Brant, thanks for the reference. This is not something that is generally studied as a part of the curriculum at college over here and it's an aspect of my own heritage that I know little about. Very fascinating. I'm very interested in the 'healing' aspect of it also, I appreciate that there was no national health service and hospitals a few hundred years ago were a place often to pick up rather than cure disease, still the monks and nuns did their best in the earlier period.

Mary

[Brant Gardner]

Just out of interest, from the very 'little' reading I have done so far, it seems that in the English tradition the work of the 'cunning man' was seen as a part of christianity, rather than in opposition to it. There was a big distinction between the work of the cunning men and the 'witches' (unless they got it wrong and then they could be hauled befored the courts).

Thomas gives examples of churchmen consulting the cunning men/women. They were different specialties. His point is that there were forces that began to create a wider separation and the status of the cunning men/women declined with the increase in social complexity and city size.

Brant, thanks for the reference. This is not something that is generally studied as a part of the curriculum at college over here and it's an aspect of my own heritage that I know little about. Very fascinating. I'm very interested in the 'healing' aspect of it also, I appreciate that there was no national health service and hospitals a few hundred years ago were a place often to pick up rather than cure disease, still the monks and nuns did their best in the earlier period.

You will enjoy his description of society at the very beginning of the book. He specifically mentions that the doctors of the time were much more likely to kill their patients. The local healers were often the ones who understood herbs and probably had a better success rate than the doctors (whose medical theory required balancing the humors in the body by drawing blood). I can understand why that part of the heritage isn't studied that much. It eventually became associated with the uneducated and non-progressive. An element of shame eventually became attached to those concepts in England--a similar process happened across the pond.