Lucy Mack Smith and the Faculty of Abrac

[Brant Gardner]

What do you consider "the more fantastic spiritualist rituals"? Drawing magic circles? Sacrificing animals?

Yes, particularly sacrificing animals. I wouldn't be entirely surprised, but I confess that I find the particular accounts to be somewhat less than objective.

It is all but certain that Joseph Smith Sr. used a divining rod and that Joseph Smith Jr. used a seer stone (several, actually).

Unquestionably.

Whatever the level of their involvement in "extreme" folk magic practices, their participation in that culture went well beyond your rabbit's foot analogy.

The problem with your statement is that the "culture" was not a single entity, but a range of practices. Using a divining rod did not require the addition of believing that one must sacrifice animals--though there were certainly those who covered both bases.

The reason for the rabbit's foot analogy is simply to indicate that there are degrees of participation in the folk magic culture that do not require the more extreme versions. The problem isn't whether or not the Smith family participated in a culture that believed such things, but rather the nature and extent of what they believed. Even beyond that, however, is the relationship of what they might have believed about that part of the supernatural compared to what they understood of religion.

Too many studies (Quinn included) make the assumption that there was a connection between the two. I don't see that in the historical records at all (and I am talking about the longer tradition of folk magic, not the Palmyra-specific version).

See, for example, Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet" (M.A. thesis; Utah State University, 2000).

I have read it. The only place where I significantly disagree is with his hypothesis that these forms of divination had any evolutionary connection to his role in the restoration. The seer stone(s) is certainly a connection, but I believe the evidence indicates that he saw a distinction in the ways the stone was used. I also believe that the majority of the uses for his stone were in the much more common functions of a local seer - which was in finding lost items, rather than the similar-but-different task of finding lost treasures. Joseph, Jr. certainly participated in that as well, but I suspect more on the level of seer than digger.

Mind you, I don't have any problem with him being involved in such things at all. I see a significant shift in Joseph's understanding of what his talent was for. Joseph Jr. never gave up his understanding of seer stones, but he shifted in the uses to which they should be put. After translating the plates, his use of the seer stone was qualitatively different than in his earlier years. Even still believing in such things (as I suspect he did), he never returned to them. The change was dramatic.

What I see in the historical record is a number of accounts that cannot be taken at face value and which may tell us more about the beliefs of the person giving the account than what the Smiths believed. The same cultural forces that cause us to see that kind of folk magic as extremely strange (and rabbit's foot magic as benign) also altered the way many testimonies were given.

[Brant Gardner]

It isn't especially relevant whether or not you see religious value in treasure-seeking. As I argued in a recent paper, treasure-seeking was undoubtedly a spiritual event for many (most?) of its participants, and most especially the treasure-dreamers, seers, and rodsmen.

And that is precisely the point of my comment. It depends on what you use as your definition of spiritual. If you use it in their context, then yes. If you use it in the more modern context, then no.

Now, it is true that most people didn't consciously draw lines around what parts of their belief system belonged to magic and which to religion, but I strongly suspect that they understood a difference even if it was unarticulated. For example, I doubt that they would have used any of the magical techniques inside a church.

In fact, the treasure-seeking boom of the early nineteenth century was directly connected with the flood of Evangelical revivals and camp-meetings that swept the American Northeast during the Second Great Awakening.

I haven't seen that in what I have read. I would expect that the treasure-seeking would be more related to economic conditions (which also fed the revivals). Simultaneity is not causation.

Do you believe that Joseph had the ability to see things with his stone -- such as lost objects, hidden treasure, or needles in a haystack -- as his friends, family, and himself believed?

That is a loaded question and hard to answer simply. I believe that he and they believed. I don't believe that the stone did anything except provide the culturally accepted context.

My OP wasn't criticism or praise of Quinn, aside from pointing out that his interpretation of this dictation of Lucy Smith's was correct.

Nor did I read it that way. I think Lucy knew about magic, but that the point she was making was that it wasn't the driving force in their lives that others were purporting it to be (with their accusations of participation in treasure-seeking--which seemed to have caught the imagination more than finding lost items did).

What do you consider "the more fantastic spiritualist rituals"? Drawing magic circles? That was hardly a "fantastic spiritualist ritual". It was extremely common and near-universal among treasure-seekers.

I would be cautious about generalizing about what was extremely common. The nature of the reporting almost guarantees that the more spectacular will be over-reported. We don't have uninterested accounts to go on. Those that are seem to report the fact of treasure-seeking more than the methods.

Even if their statements reflect the "general public opinion" of the 1830s, a decade before that, it wasn't quite the same. Treasure-seeking was far more common and, in many places, praised. For the commonality of treasure-seeking, see these references:

I have no quibble with the fact that treasure-seeking was a phenomenon of the time.

Treasure-seeking, especially during the 1810s and 1820s, wasn't something that was commonly condemned. In fact, it was extremely popular, especially among rural Americans but also with the elite. While he certainly wasn't alone, we shouldn't let Abner Cole's opinions dominate our view of the phenomenon.

Conversely, we shouldn't expect that his opinions (and those of similarly-minded people) didn't affect our record of the events. The people involved tended to be those more removed from the large cities and institutions such as newspapers (money-diggers no doubt read them, but I doubt that they wrote them). There was an extremely divisive opinion about such things, and we tend to get our reports of magical activities filtered through those who were antagonistic rather than sympathetic. That does not deny that they weren't prevalent or that they did not engender lots of interesting magical methods. It is a question of what was most common. I doubt that we know that, but suspect that (as is typical) the most common isn't what gets most heavily reported (particularly by those who are in a position to want to sensationalize the practice, as happened in a number of cases specifically related to Joseph Smith).

[Joseph Antley]

I haven't seen that in what I have read. I would expect that the treasure-seeking would be more related to economic conditions (which also fed the revivals). Simultaneity is not causation.

Taylor touches upon it in his article. I argued it in my recent paper, which should be available soon.

I would be cautious about generalizing about what was extremely common. The nature of the reporting almost guarantees that the more spectacular will be over-reported. We don't have uninterested accounts to go on. Those that are seem to report the fact of treasure-seeking more than the methods.

We do have uninterested accounts to go on, if I'm understanding correctly what you mean by "uninterested." The majority of specific anecdotes are reported in town-histories by later historians (generally writing between 1840 and 1880, long after the treasure-seeking bug had subsided) who have no overwhelming disdain for treasure-seekers. These accounts (along with several contemporary newspaper accounts from the 1800s-1830s) also do go into the methods, which are surprisingly identical. Benjamin Franklin describes the same methods in the 1720s that Abner Cole describes in the 1830s that W.H. McIntosh describes in the 1870s.

[Brant Gardner]

I argued it in my recent paper, which should be available soon.

Congratulations. I look forward to reading. Please let us know (or at least, please email me) when it is available.

[Woody]

I'm amazingly impressed by this here. In a backwater forum, some gougers get away with the equation

Joseph Smith = money digger

and proceed from there to profess their belief in him being a magic maker, occult artist, and swindle spinner, without a serious challenge. And flies are buzzing around their stinking souls.

Was Joseph Smith a money digger?

We have a most impressive thing here. The Mormons admit that he was, and the antimormons proceed to rip him apart for it.

The crux of this question tho is to realize what's meant by "money digger".

If you mean that Joseph Smith was like the con artists who scammed the people of his neighborhood in New York state in the decades before he lived there, the answer is no.

The typical scheme was for the con artist to arrive in a place and advertize that he could find treasure by magical means. Guys would ante up and he'd go thru his magic routine and lead them to a place and have them start digging. Eventually somebody would hit a root or something with a pick and they'd be sure they'd found it. But further digging got nothing.

The con artist then explained that the treasure had been there, but it was guarded by spirits and they had yanked it down into the earth, and moved it off somewhere else as soon as they realized it was being dug for.

The solution was to relocate the treasure where it had been moved to, and once again dig; but this time, everybody had to be quiet so as not to alert the spirits. The con artist would then have everybody ante up (again) and he'd go thru his rituals once more and they'd go traipsing off and dig again. Same thing would be repeated. They'd try their best to be quiet but when your pick hits a board that you're sure is the top of a box full of money, it's hard to keep quiet, especially these yokels.

Repeat scene as many times as it will stand. The con artist gets a fee for every repetition so naturally he'll want to keep it going. Also, it's immensely entertaining for him to see how far he can keep them charmed. The thing can be developed. The con artist can bring out a crystal ball, or an old book in Latin and pretend to translate it for whatever purpose. Stuffed frog, candles, incense, etc.

The spirits could be blinded by blood, so he'd mayhap want to sacrifice a sheep or a chicken and dribble the blood in a circle around the money chest, dig down around it, the blood keeps the spirits blinded, you dig down below the chest and then inward, so that the chest is isolated in this center area and you can just smack the dirt off it and get it. Only it isn't there, which requires another magical consultation (and another fee.)

Eventually the boys get tired and frustrated and take it out on the con man but being a practicing practical psychologist he judges this nicely and hightails it to the next county just before they come for him. Once in a great while he gets tarred and feathered. [unpublished manuscript by Woody Brison]

These guys were called money diggers. The swindler doesn't actually do any digging, he watches them dig and sweat. And tries his best to keep a straight face while they dig.

There were several of these artists who worked the upstate New York area. If the question, "was Joseph Smith a money-digger" means was he like these guys, the answer is no.

If it means, did he dig holes, the answer would be yes. If it means did he dig holes for wages, the answer is yes. If you ask was the purpose of those holes to look of treasure, the answer is yes. Joseph was hired for wages because his employer wanted to look for treasure.

Did Joseph urge the digging? No. Did he guide the digging? No. Did he incite the digging? No.

When Joseph Smith came along with his mission to bring forth the ancient book written on gold plates, and a device he could see things with, it was all too similar to the old familiar song and dance these people had been afflicted with a few decades previous. So tongues started wagging and soon it was a certainty that Joseph Smith was a "money digger".

Joseph dealt with this gossip, twice. First, in the Elders' Journal:

Question 10th. Was not Jo Smith a money digger?

Answer. Yes, but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it. [Elders' Journal, Far West, MO, July 1838, 3:43; online at solomonspalding.com/docs/eldjur03.htm]

And second, in the History that he dictated:

In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stowel, who lived in Chenango County, state of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna county, state of Pennsylvania; and had, previous to my hiring to him, been digging, in order, if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me, with the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to work for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arose the very prevalent story of my having been a money digger. [HC 1:17]

You see here that Joseph actually torpedoed his own employment by persuading Stoal to give it up.

It was also addressed in court:

Mr. Seymour now addressed the court, and in a long and violent harangue endeavored to blacken my character and bring me in guilt of the charges which had been brought against me. Among other things, he brought up the story of my having been a money-digger; and in this manner proceeded, hoping evidently to influence the court and the people against me.

Mr. Davidson and Mr. Reid followed on my behalf. They held forth in true colors the I nature of the prosecution the malignance of intention, and the apparent disposition to persecute their client, rather than to afford him justice. They took up the different arguments which had been brought by the lawyers for the prosecution, and having shown their utter futility and misapplication, then proceeded to scrutinize the evidence which had been adduced, and each, in his turn, thanked God that he had been engaged in so good a cause as that of defending a man whose character stood so well the test of such a strict investigation. [HC 1:93-94]

And it was addressed by his mother, Lucy:

A short time before the house was completed, a man by the name of Josiah Stoal came from Chenango county, New York, with the view of getting Joseph to assist him in digging for a silver mine. He came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain means by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.

[Note 2: This project of Stoal's was undertaken from this cause - an old document had fallen into his possession, in some way or other, containing information of silver mines being somewhere in the neighborhood in which he resided.]

Joseph endeavored to divert him from his vain pursuit, but he was inflexible in his purpose and offered high wages to those who would dig for him in search of said mine, and still insisted upon having Joseph to work for him. Accordingly, Joseph and several others returned with him and commenced digging. After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations, and it was from this circumstance of having worked by the month, at digging for a silver mine, that the very prevalent story arose of Joseph's having been a money digger. ["The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith, With Notes and Comments by Preston Nibley", Bookcraft, 1958, p.92; as given on the "LDS CD-ROM", the Portals Project, 1994.]

Joseph didn't do anything here but work for wages. He didn't try to swindle the old man, didn't pretend to locate the treasure for a fee; in fact, he persuaded him to give it up, thus voiding his own employment.

Nothing immoral about it. The old man tried to hire his seer abilities but he firmly declined that.

What about Josiah Stowel, was he a swindler? Did Joseph Smith consort with swindlers? No. Consider: if you were reliably informed there were 50 million dollars in Spanish dubloons buried in your backyard, would you dig it up or let it sit there for somebody else to come and dig up some dark night? If there is a plausible story (such as maybe you've seen in the beginning of National Treasure II, a lost journal page, a missing map, a plausible reason why the gold was buried, etc.) Most people would dig. It might be fun. But if there's no attempted deception on their part, there's nothing immoral about it.

Modern treasure seekers study old journals and maps and try to find stuff. Some of them are scamming their investors, but some have actually located and salvaged old wrecks, a few have recovered millions in treasure. A friend of mine goes out on Saturdays with his metal detector and has found a few old coins; he goes to places where the stagecoach used to stop, for instance. Anything immoral about this?

Now, do you see what's going on here. Did Joseph admit to being a money digger? (a man who has dug holes for hire by someone looking for treasure) Yes. Did he admit to being a money digger? (ie. a con artist specializing in the gold digging farce) ? No.

The modern con artists make their game by confounding the two. They point to 1) Joseph's statements admitting that he dug for wages, and then 2) the neighbor's gossip that he was a money digger. And they assume that the Mormons won't realize this is two different things. The result is endless fun and laffs.

Sorry to spoil it for you boys, but remember us Mormons is a religion full of hate and stuff, so I must spoil your fun because I hate you. I cannot help it!

Wood

[mfbukowski]

I vote for Hamblin.

But it's hard to see why any of this is important at all.

[All-Seeing Eye]

I vote for Hamblin, too.

Which appears to make Bushman at least partially wrong.

[Joseph Antley]

Did he guide the digging? No.

In order to take this position, one must dismiss the multiple accounts of Joseph's 1826 trial on charges brought against him by Stowell's sons.

[volgadon]

I vote for Hamblin.

But it's hard to see why any of this is important at all.

I vote for Antley.

[Mike Reed]

As do I.

[David Bokovoy]

Signature has published the comment in context. Here's what the preceding paragraph says:

In light of the preceding (and subsequent) paragraph, the "alternate" reading actually makes sense. She was talking about "Mapel sugar" and house payments. Now she's changing her "theme", and she's concerned that readers might thing they've stopped their Mapel Sugar/ house building activities since they're not being specifically mentioned.

Very interesting.

All I know is that I'm going Maple sugaring on Saturday morning with my kids. This may be one of the coolest parts of living in New England! I make a homemade rub for BBQing ribs with real Maple sugar and it is truly magical!

[Calm]

'm amazingly impressed by this here. In a backwater forum, some gougers get away with the equation

Joseph Smith = money digger

and proceed from there to profess their belief in him being a magic maker, occult artist, and swindle spinner, without a serious challenge. And flies are buzzing around their stinking souls.

Was Joseph Smith a money digger?

We have a most impressive thing here. The Mormons admit that he was, and the antimormons proceed to rip him apart for it.

Are you talking about this thread? If so, could you identify the "gougers" and the "antimormons" participating here? If not, could you identify what forum you are talking about.