How much did Josiah Stowell pay Joseph for helping him find lost treasure?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I don't know.

And I am curious if Joseph was ever paid for his efforts. If so, how much? If so, why didn't Stowell demand it be given back in 1826 when there was supposedly a court examination? And why didn't Stowell accuse Joseph of cheating him?

Anyone in the know on this?

[Kevin Christensen]

He was paid, $14 a month, as Joseph Smith reported in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Stowell defended Joseph's abilities in the 1826 trial. See Gordon Madsen's BYU Studies essay on the trial, which I think you can find at FAIR.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[cinepro]

If I were Josiah, I would offer to pay in gold or silver coins. The catch being that I would leave the payment at an undisclosed location somewhere in the forest, and it would be up to him to find it.

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph answered some questions in the 1838 Elder's Journal where he said he was paid $14 and it wasn't "very profitable". All reports of the 1826 trial show Josiah adamantly defending Joseph, apparently because Joseph had been able to describe his house by looking into the stone. Years later (IIRC 1843, but I'm too lazy to check), John Fullmer wrote to Josiah Stowell, Jr., (who never joined the Mormons but seemed to be sympathetic) and in the return letter, he wrote a message from his father Josiah Sr. at the end reaffirming his belief in Mormonism and Joseph Smith's prophetic ability.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Joseph answered some questions in the 1838 Elder's Journal where he said he was paid $14 and it wasn't "very profitable". All reports of the 1826 trial show Josiah adamantly defending Joseph, apparently because Joseph had been able to describe his house by looking into the stone. Years later (IIRC 1843, but I'm too lazy to check), John Fullmer wrote to Josiah Stowell, Jr., (who never joined the Mormons but seemed to be sympathetic) and in the return letter, he wrote a message from his father Josiah Sr. at the end reaffirming his belief in Mormonism and Joseph Smith's prophetic ability.

Thanks, everyone.

The 1826 'Trial', was more like a hearing, IMO.

It's about as significant an event as Jesus being accused of gleaning corn on the Sabbath.

[hagoth7]

If I were Josiah, I would offer to pay in gold or silver coins. The catch being that I would leave the payment at an undisclosed location somewhere in the forest, and it would be up to him to find it.

If I were Joseph, I would only agree to that if you agreed to add an extra $21 for making me work overtime to pick up my paycheck.

[cinepro]

If I were Joseph, I would only agree to that if you agreed to add an extra $21 for making me work overtime to pick up my paycheck.

If I was Josiah, I'd agree to it, with the stipulation that if you hadn't located the money within 6 weeks, it is forfeited.

[Brant Gardner]

If I were Josiah, I would offer to pay in gold or silver coins. The catch being that I would leave the payment at an undisclosed location somewhere in the forest, and it would be up to him to find it.

Which tells us that you could never have been Josiah Stowell. It was his sons who forced the lawsuit, because they were embarrassed for their father. Their father was the one initiating the search and hired Joseph to assist him. I suspect that the payment was because the search was located away from Palmyra and required time away. Just a guess, I know, but it is based on some evidence that I am interpreting.

What I find interesting about the testimony at the trial is that Josiah Stowell was a true believer in Joseph's gifts and that there was no indication in the trial that Joseph suggested the task but was rather brought into it because Josiah was a true believer.

One of the fascinating things I found in my research was that the idea of treasure hunting traces to England through the immigrants from that country. Here are a couple of statements from him (concerning England, not New England):

The assumption that the country was riddled with caches of treasure may appear one of the more bizarre of contemporary illusions, but it should be remembered that in the absence of an alternative system of deposit banking the possibility of coming across hidden treasure was by no means a chimera. (p. 234)

There was not necessarily anything magical about the search for treasure as such, but in practice the assistance of a conjurer or wizard was very frequently invoked. This was partly because it was thought that special divining tools might help, such as the 'Mosaical Rods' for which many contemporary formulae survive; John Dee believed that he could discover hidden treasure by exploiting the laws of sympathy and antipathy. But a magician was also needed when the treasure had been found to exorcise the demon or evil spirit who was likely to be mounting guard over it. Directions for dealing with treasure are to be found in many contemporary magical books, and there was along series of clandestine treasure-seeking expeditions, operating with magical assistance and sometimes involving persons of high rank. (he then speaks of recorded incidents from 1589, 1634, 1652, and 1680). (pp. 235-36)

Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971).

In the New World the focus wasn't on the deposits of the wealthy, because everyone knew there were precious few of those. However, pirates provided an excellent substitute source of buried wealth, and there were enough of those.

What I see as important about the tradition is that the "wizard" is brought in to the expedition rather than being the cause of it. That is precisely what we see in the 1826 trial. Joseph is brought in to an expedition that "needs" him. The assumption that Joseph was a charlatan hawking his own brand of snake oil misreads the times.

[Jaybear]

What I find interesting about the testimony at the trial is that Josiah Stowell was a true believer in Joseph's gifts and that there was no indication in the trial that Joseph suggested the task but was rather brought into it because Josiah was a true believer.

I would suspect that if one intends to con someone out of their money by pretending to have the ability to find treasures by use of a seer stone, that its best not to appear to anxious to perform the services. If fact, I would suspect that Stowell believed that Smith was doing him a favor by taking the job.

Of course, I am not suggesting that Smith was a con man. I am simply pointing out that its not that simple to distinguish the con man from the truly talented treasure seers in this fashion. Con men can be quite creative and persuasive .... but they can't find buried treasure.

BTW, what ever happened the truly talented treasure seers?

The assumption that Joseph was a charlatan hawking his own brand of snake oil misreads the times.

Were it not for the fact that Smith was actually accused of being a charlatan in those very times, you would have an excellent point.

[Brant Gardner]

I would suspect that if one intends to con someone out of their money by pretending to have the ability to find treasures by use of a seer stone, that its best not to appear to anxious to perform the services. If fact, I would suspect that Stowell believed that Smith was doing him a favor by taking the job.

Which might be a reasonable expectation if you don't understand the history of this type of activity.

Of course, I am not suggesting that Smith was a con man. I am simply pointing out that its not that simple to distinguish the con man from the truly talented treasure seers in this fashion. Con men can be quite creative and persuasive .... but they can't find buried treasure.

Again, you are demonstrating that you don't know the history. There were certainly con men. One of the characteristics of the con man was that they ran the scam and moved on. Those who had to stay in a community had some very natural reasons why it would have been difficult to run a scam. Joseph Smith followed a very different model from the con artist--a model that was inherited from Enlish villages (and he was not alone in that community, there were at least two others who "saw" in stones).

BTW, what ever happened the truly talented treasure seers?

That is a longer story. In general, they are a casualty of increasing social complexity.

Were it not for the fact that Smith was actually accused of being a charlatan in those very times, you would have an excellent point.

This is actually much more problematic that you might think. There was certainly a division in the way these beliefs were perceived. 1830 is nearing the end of the time when such things were widespread. They begin fading from there, and certainly outside of smaller communities (i.e. big cities) they were frowned upon--at least officially.

When Joseph is called a charlatan it tends to happen either from a younger generation (the 1826 Stowell case is a prime example), of in retrospect. I have been through some of the negative descriptions of him collected after the fact. They show a fascinating duality where they are negative at the time the affadavit is given, but were supportive (of others, if not of Joseph) earlier.

As an antidote to your generalizations, I suggest some good historical reading. The world at that time really was different from what you expect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He was paid, $14 a month, as Joseph Smith reported in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Stowell defended Joseph's abilities in the 1826 trial. See Gordon Madsen's BYU Studies essay on the trial, which I think you can find at FAIR.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Madsen's thing here: http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInf...=811&type=7

[LifeOnaPlate]

As an antidote to your generalizations, I suggest some good historical reading. The world at that time really was different from what you expect.

A gem.

[Jaybear]

Which might be a reasonable expectation if you don't understand the history of this type of activity.

Again, you are demonstrating that you don't know the history.

Perhaps the difference of opinion is due the fact that we are just looking at the same history, with a different perspective,

From my perspective, glass lookers were con men, or had deluded themselves into thinking that they could find treasures in such a fashion.

Your perspective, however, allows for the possibility that JS (and I presume others), could actually through the use of a seer stone placed in a hat, locate treasure buried beneath the earth.

There were certainly con men. One of the characteristics of the con man was that they ran the scam and moved on.

Another is that they charged for their services.

Those who had to stay in a community had some very natural reasons why it would have been difficult to run a scam.

Joseph Smith followed a very different model from the con artist--a model that was inherited from Enlish villages (and he was not alone in that community, there were at least two others who "saw" in stones).

An exit strategy is very important in running a con. If I were cynical, and I thought Smith were running a con, I would say that Smith's exit strategy, was not running to the next town, but was to convince the mark that the treasure was enchanted, and slipped into the earth. If the mark believed him, then there would be no need to move on.

When Joseph is called a charlatan it tends to happen either from a younger generation (the 1826 Stowell case is a prime example), of in retrospect. I have been through some of the negative descriptions of him collected after the fact. They show a fascinating duality where they are negative at the time the affadavit is given, but were supportive (of others, if not of Joseph) earlier.

Emma's father didn't think much of Joseph's occupation both at the time, and in retrospect.

As an antidote to your generalizations, I suggest some good historical reading. The world at that time really was different from what you expect.

Considering that there is an abundance of palm readers, tarot card readers, telephone psychics, I don't think the world has changed all that much.

[ERayR]

How much did Josiah Stowell pay Joseph for helping him find lost treasure?

Obviously not enough or else he wouldn't have had money problems.

[Sevenbak]

As an aside to this, is the Josiah Stowell incident the same one where Joseph found the stone inside an iron kettle, or was that a different incident?

And what ever happened to the kettle?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Considering that there is an abundance of palm readers, tarot card readers, telephone psychics, I don't think the world has changed all that much.

Which is essentially an admission that you haven't read much (if anything) about magic and religion in the context of the early 1900s.

[Brant Gardner]

Perhaps the difference of opinion is due the fact that we are just looking at the same history, with a different perspective,

From my perspective, glass lookers were con men, or had deluded themselves into thinking that they could find treasures in such a fashion.

Understood. What you don't seem to understand is that to the people around them, they were typically not considered con men. Certainly in a slightly older historical context, they were respected parts of the community (one was a consultant to Queen Elizabeth).

It is very true that from a modern perspective we can't understand them and therefore assign them the only category that we have in our modern understanding that makes sense--that of con man.

The problem is, that perspective only validates our modern prejudices and does not either understand or accurately represent the world as it was lived in 1830.

Your perspective, however, allows for the possibility that JS (and I presume others), could actually through the use of a seer stone placed in a hat, locate treasure buried beneath the earth.

You have two assumptions here. The first is that they could see something in the stones and the second is that they could locate buried treasure. I don't know of any evidence supporting the second, though there is plenty to show that there is a long history of treasure-seekers inviting "seers" to accompany them (dating back at least to the 1600s).

As for seeing in stones, there is actually quite a body of literature to suggest that it does happen with certain people. Andrew Lang, a British anthropologist in the early 1900s actually ran an experiment with various of his friends--each of whom he asked of they could see anything in a crystal ball (cousin to the stones that were also used, but an older form). He reported that he saw nothing and many of his friends did not, but several of them did. His report, based on his experioments and the history of such things all over the world and through time, suggests that (whatever they might have seen and whatever it meant), there are those who do see something.

So, if empirical data are anything that you think ought to support a hypotheses, the data suggest that there are those who do see things in stones.

Another is that they charged for their services.

I'm not sure that you have this one right. They might accept money for their services, but they typically did not charge. Vance Randolph studied folk magic in the Ozarks and noted that the practitioners rarely charged--though they might accept gifts.

In Joseph Smith's case, we have one instance where he was hired. Certainly money was exchanged, but using that one fact to assume that therefore he charged for what he "saw" goes past the evidence (particular since there are other instances where he "saw" and there was no hint of a charge). This would also go for other local seers (such as Sally Chase).

So, once again, it is your modern perspective that is showing, not actual history.

An exit strategy is very important in running a con.

On this we are agreed.

If I were cynical, and I thought Smith were running a con, I would say that Smith's exit strategy, was not running to the next town, but was to convince the mark that the treasure was enchanted, and slipped into the earth. If the mark believed him, then there would be no need to move on.

And if that were the only thing he ever did, he wouldn't get many other jobs. This also ignores the actual functions of the seer in the community. They were not only consulted for lost treasure (Sally Chase was as well) but for other things that were "lost." There are two instances, one that I know of for Sally and one for Joseph, where they were asked to find the whereabouts of a lost horse.

There are three aspects of those requests that are important for the "con man" theory. One is that this is part of the function of the community seer (the function than can be traced to England and the one where there was no association with the "con man" theme). The second is that neither hints at an exchange of money. The third is that they were sought out, and did not solicit the business.

None of those things corroborates your con man thesis. It is a nice fantasy, but a modern one that is based solely upon modern prejudices and clearly understands nothing of the history of this time and these practices. As before, I suggest that you read some relevant history.

Emma's father didn't think much of Joseph's occupation both at the time, and in retrospect.

No. As I mentioned before, these were not universally accepted practices. The division had already begun that leads us to our aversion to the practices today. However, from the one statement we have, it is unclear whether the aversion was to the treasure hunting or the "seeing." Joseph promised to give up the treasure hunting, and seems to have done so. He still "saw" and so may have separated that from the promise he made to her father.

Considering that there is an abundance of palm readers, tarot card readers, telephone psychics, I don't think the world has changed all that much.

There is certainly a continuation of many of those practices, but the world has changed tremendously. For example, the palm readers and telephone psychics are a business and charge for their services. That is significantly different from the way things worked two hundred years ago. However, the fact that those ideas continue and continue to have a few true believers should tell you that it isn't all that surprising that there would be true believers in the early 19th century, which preceded much of our modern science that has altered our worldview.

[Calm]

I'm not sure that you have this one right. They might accept money for their services, but they typically did not charge. Vance Randolph studied folk magic in the Ozarks and noted that the practitioners rarely charged--though they might accept gifts.

The idea being, IIRC, that the ability to see was a Gift and charging for it was a corruption and the practitioner would eventually lose the ability doing so; however if people wished to return the favour (practicing the Gift for someone else was giving a gift/service essentially), they could gift as well, just in a different form.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] Vance Randolph studied folk magic in the Ozarks and noted that the practitioners rarely charged--though they might accept gifts.[...]

For whatever it might be worth / anecdote:

One of my ancestors practiced folk magic (not in the Ozarks, but in Southern Utah). One of the things she would do was rid warts from children. Part of the process was that she paid the individual for their wart. So, not only did she not charge for her services, but when utilizing this particular craft, the individual essentially charged her.

(Disclaimerâ?¦ This is from memory of what my mother told me of the process. If KRose stumbles upon this thread, maybe he heard of and/or witnessed the process and recalls it better than I).

[Brant Gardner]

The idea being, IIRC, that the ability to see was a Gift and charging for it was a corruption and the practitioner would eventually lose the ability doing so; however if people wished to return the favour (practicing the Gift for someone else was giving a gift/service essentially), they could gift as well, just in a different form.

That was the reason given in the Ozarks. I strongly suspect that it was a part of the general practice.

[Calm]

That was the reason given in the Ozarks. I strongly suspect that it was a part of the general practice.

I got this from reading English literature of the era.

[Brant Gardner]

I got this from reading English literature of the era.

Then I can really use your help in finding some of your sources. Please email me or you can give them to me when I see you at the FAIR Conference (hoping you will be there again <grin>).

[Calm]

Then I can really use your help in finding some of your sources. Please email me or you can give them to me when I see you at the FAIR Conference (hoping you will be there again <grin>).

It's been eons since I was reading this stuff seriously. I'll see if I can wrack my brain and come up with where I came across this in a decent source.

Interestingly enough, I come across this on occasion in modern and semi-mod fiction, I was reading a Terry Prachett Discworld novel just last night and this was a small part of the storyline for one of the witches. It's quite a funny passage, I may type it up and send it just for the laughs. I've also come across it in English manor mysteries of the Christie variety.

If we are in Utah, we will be at FAIR...goes without saying, doesn't it, lol; but my daughter wants to hit Colorado this summer for her birthday (the previous Saturday) and I don't know if that will be the last of the visit or the beginning of it yet. Since she's been kind enough to give up a birthday before for me for FAIR, I figure I owe her one this year.

I'm thinking I've come across it recently and that would mean in Joseph Campbell's stuff. I'll see if I can pinpoint that one, probably the easiest and likely would have several examples knowing him.

[annewandering]

The idea being, IIRC, that the ability to see was a Gift and charging for it was a corruption and the practitioner would eventually lose the ability doing so; however if people wished to return the favour (practicing the Gift for someone else was giving a gift/service essentially), they could gift as well, just in a different form.

This is even done now. I know a person who received a 'gift' but was not allowed to even say he had it. He did tell his wife and lost it for a long time. The gift was apparently real. He saved at least one person's life with it.

The idea of charging would have been very taboo since in his case he wasnt even allowed to admit he had it.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

This is even done now. I know a person who received a 'gift' but was not allowed to even say he had it. He did tell his wife and lost it for a long time. The gift was apparently real. He saved at least one person's life with it.

The idea of charging would have been very taboo since in his case he wasnt even allowed to admit he had it.

Seeing as this whole affair went down well before Joseph became a prophet, I chalk it up to part of his schooling to prepare him. And I think that Josiah was the one who insisted that Joseph do this, and Joseph finally persuaded the man to give up.

It is clear, at any rate, that this gift never brought any profit to Joseph.