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

[Sevenbak]

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

It's also clear that his gift did help Joseph to prophet.

[Joseph Antley]

Richard Bushman has argued that Joseph had mostly given up treasure-digging by the time of the Pennsylvania treasure-hunt with Stowell, but was persuaded to go because of the family's financial situation. As most accounts note (even hostile ones), Joseph was the one who pushed to end the treasure-hunt.

Hunting for silver with Stowell definitely marked a personal transition for Joseph. Not only did it result in him meeting his future-wife (yet more motivation for him to give up treasure-hunting, considering the intense disapproval of father-in-law Isaac Hale), but it also marked a key period where he began to see his gift for scrying as something greater, possibly due to Moroni's instruction. After this, Joseph Sr. also seems to have recognized the greater importance of Joseph's ability to "see", although he wasn't yet sure what purpose it would serve.

[Brant Gardner]

I just ran across another occasion where there was an exchange of money for information Joseph obtained from his stone. There isn't enough information to correctly judge between a gift and compensation, so I have to go with caution and understand that there were times when Joseph may have charged for his services. The amount in question in this case is 75 cents (which, of course, was a larger sum then than it is now).

[Joseph Antley]

I just ran across another occasion where there was an exchange of money for information Joseph obtained from his stone. There isn't enough information to correctly judge between a gift and compensation, so I have to go with caution and understand that there were times when Joseph may have charged for his services. The amount in question in this case is 75 cents (which, of course, was a larger sum then than it is now).

This sounds familiar. Where'd you run across it?

[Brant Gardner]

This sounds familiar. Where'd you run across it?

Quinn's book, first edition, p. 39.

[hagoth7]

And I think that Josiah was the one who insisted that Joseph do this, and Joseph finally persuaded the man to give up.

Yes, that may be the most relevant point - that Joseph was recognized as one who could see things that other couldn't.

That Stowell thought that his gift could be applied to treasure speaks more of Stowell than it does of Joseph.

The Mack family came from a region where, prior to the Restoration, that gift was somewhat more common.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I spoke with a law professional today, and asked him a question regarding state courts in general, and their record keeping. He responded by saying that while "district courts" are officially known as "courts of record" today, it is highly possible that district courts of New York in 1824 had NOT established the practice of officially recording the proceedings of all trials. He did not know for sure, but would not be surprised if they did not record all misdemeanor trials.

Then he said that Justice of the Peace courts, "JP courts" are not today, nor ever have been "courts of record", and he would highly surprised if JP courts kept records of trials, and hearings--both now and in 1824.

The question that then came to mind was whether or not this so called 'trail' of 1824 was held in district court, or before a Justice of the Peace court. "JP Court".

As it turns out, the bill which stands as evidence that this hearing took place was signed by Justice of the Peace Albert Neeley. It shows a fine of $2.68 and a charge of a MISDEMEANOR of "glass looking".

Since JP courts are not courts of record, and this affair did take place in a Justice of the Peace Court, it raises considerable doubt, IMO, that the transcript of this trial is a genuine document.

It does not mean that a trial never took place, but casts tremendous doubt that these transcripts are official court documents. At most they are unofficial notes taken by an attendee.

This evidence, coupled with the fact that the record under study has the defendant speaking FIRST in his own behalf, even before the charges are attested to (highly unusual to say the least) cause me to think that these documents that have only recently come to light, are highly suspect.

[Nevo]

This evidence, coupled with the fact that the record under study has the defendant speaking FIRST in his own behalf, even before the charges are attested to (highly unusual to say the least) cause me to think that these documents that have only recently come to light, are highly suspect.

The 1826 court record was first published in 1873, and then again in 1883 and 1886 (see Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 4:239). So it has not "only recently come to light."

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The 1826 court record was first published in 1873, and then again in 1883 and 1886 (see Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 4:239). So it has not "only recently come to light."

You're right. I had forgotten that. I should have said that it was ignored for 100 years or so by the critics.

At any rate, it seem highly suspect to me, because of the things I laid out.

[Nevo]

You're right. I had forgotten that. I should have said that it was ignored for 100 years or so by the critics.

At any rate, it seem highly suspect to me, because of the things I laid out.

My understanding is that the 1826 "trial" was actually an "examination" or "preliminary hearing" by a single Justice of the Peace, Albert Neely. Neely apparently asked William D. Purple, a local physician, to take notes of the proceeding. The notes do not provide a complete transcript of testimony since, as Dan Vogel points out, "by law, justices were required to record only testimony 'relative to the fact' or 'material to prove the offence' (Vogel, EMD, 4:242).

The record remained in the possession of Justice Neely until his death. In 1870 his niece, Emily Pearsall, was assigned to serve as a missionary in Salt Lake City under Episcopal Bishop Daniel S. Tuttle. She brought with her "leaves [torn] out of the record found in her father's [uncle's?] house." These came into the possession of Bishop Tuttle following Pearsall's death in SLC on 5 November 1872.

The original court record taken from Justice Neely's papers was subsequently lost, but its contents survived in three independent printings, the most complete being the one published in the Utah Christian Advocate in January 1886. William Purple also recorded his own reminiscence of the 1826 hearing in 1877. According to Dan Vogel, "historians today generally accept the authenticity of the Pearsall court record, although some do so reluctantly (M. Hill 1972; Bushman 1984, 74-76; Hedengren 1985, 205-210; Madsen 1990)" (Vogel, EMD, 4:241).

That the record has the defendant (Joseph Smith) speaking first is not anomalous. Vogel cites Thomas G. Waterman's 1825 Justice's Manual, which instructed justices regarding pre-trial hearings: "After the examination of the accused, all witnesses present are to be examined on oath touching the complaint" (see Vogel, EMD, 4:242).