stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Yes, that's what I meant: calmoriah seems to accept that he could find treasures using the stone. I read her suggesting he probably did not, but certainly felt encouraged when he found things aside from treasure. But, after trying to re-read her last sentence I'm not sure what she meant. That one was composed so poorly it looks like I wrote it.
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) I read her suggesting he probably did not, but certainly felt encouraged when he found things aside from treasure.What did Joseph find "aside from treasure" using the seer stone? Edited:Oh...I see, it was Martin's pin again. And a horse? Edited August 13, 2015 by ALarson
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I read her suggesting he probably did not, but certainly felt encouraged when he found things aside from treasure. But, after trying to re-read her last sentence I'm not sure what she meant. That one was composed so poorly it looks like I wrote it. That's why I asked for clarification. I think she meant he could find lost items, but I'm not sure.
CA Steve Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I think some are conflating "seeing buried treasure" with "finding it". As has been often described the treasure would disappear or "move away" when people got close to it.
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 What did Joseph find "aside from treasure" using the seer stone? Edited: Oh...I see, it was Martin's pin again. And a horse? I should not try to interpret people here, but I'll try. It seems Cal mentioned a couple things--a horse, Martin's pin, and that which Josiah Stowell suggested Joseph identified (the land and mine, or whateves).
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Usually I'm thinking right along with Jkilliams and ALarson. not today. I'm fighting them anti-Mormon forces.
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I think some are conflating "seeing buried treasure" with "finding it". As has been often described the treasure would disappear or "move away" when people got close to it.Yes, that was a pattern that seemed to occur over and over (the treasure sinking out of sight or deeper into the ground when they got close to it or moving).
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Usually I'm thinking right along with Jkilliams and ALarson. not today. I'm fighting them anti-Mormon forces. I am not anit-Mormon, but a very active member. I hope you're joking here. However I am all for learning the truth and I do love to study church history. What do you disagree with that I have posted in this thread? Edited August 13, 2015 by ALarson
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I think some are conflating "seeing buried treasure" with "finding it". As has been often described the treasure would disappear or "move away" when people got close to it. Yep, "slippery" treasure, as describe in the Book of Mormon. As I recall, one of the digs involved Joseph seeing a chest of money with a feather on it. When they dug, they found the feather, but the chest had disappeared.
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Yes, that was a pattern that seemed to occur over and over (the treasure sinking out of sight or deeper into the ground when they got close to it or moving). Certainly a very shared myth among the people back then. The cute camp-firey theme of sharing stories to enliven and fascinate is very clearly seen in the descriptions of Joe Smith being a leading treasure seeker in the area.
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) I am not anit-Mormon, but a very active member. I hope you're joking here. However I am all for learning the truth and I do love to study church history. What do you disagree with that I have posted in this thread? Of course I'm joking. I don't use anti-Mormon at all-and would not seriously apply it to you nor Jkwilliams. Edited August 13, 2015 by stemelbow
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Certainly a very shared myth among the people back then. The cute camp-firey theme of sharing stories to enliven and fascinate is very clearly seen in the descriptions of Joe Smith being a leading treasure seeker in the area. It's when you start charging money for it that it stops being so cute. 3
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) It's when you start charging money for it that it stops being so cute. really? I figured that was the cutest part of the stories to be honest--he was out and about to get gain and get people's moneys or whatever. It appears people just kept running with other people's stories to me--making it appear all the more curious and making him appear more and more fraudulent. Edited August 13, 2015 by stemelbow
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 really? I figured that was the cutest part of the stories to be honest--he was out and about to get gain and get people's moneys or whatever. It appears people just kept running with other people's stories to me. Given that his family (and he himself) confirmed that he sought treasure for money, I don't see any reason to dismiss it as cute stories people were running with. But that's just me. 1
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Given that his family (and he himself) confirmed that he sought treasure for money, I don't see any reason to dismiss it as cute stories people were running with. But that's just me. Well of course it's just you and most other people who look into this. I realize I'm considered up in the night on this, but that's alright with me. I like being on the outside. His family and himself claims are debatable (if debatable works here) as it relates to the stories told about him when it came to this topic, for sure.
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Well of course it's just you and most other people who look into this. I realize I'm considered up in the night on this, but that's alright with me. I like being on the outside. His family and himself claims are debatable (if debatable works here) as it relates to the stories told about him when it came to this topic, for sure. It seems to me the difference is that his family believed he had "the gift," and people outside the family thought he was a grifter. But all agree that he was looking at the stone to find lost or hidden treasure, and was getting paid for it. 1
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 It seems to me the difference is that his family believed he had "the gift," and people outside the family thought he was a grifter. But all agree that he was looking at the stone to find lost or hidden treasure, and was getting paid for it. People believed he got paid for that which he didn't get paid for? I guess it wouldn't be the first time people thought someone was paid when they weren't. that teenager sure get's paid well what's he doing to get all that dough why, I hear he's telling people he can look at a stone and find treasures and people are just giving him moneys oh he's one of thems. People are such suckers. Meanwhile Joseph carries on as a poor upstate New York boy, living as though he has no means.
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 People believed he got paid for that which he didn't get paid for? I guess it wouldn't be the first time people thought someone was paid when they weren't. that teenager sure get's paid well what's he doing to get all that dough why, I hear he's telling people he can look at a stone and find treasures and people are just giving him moneys oh he's one of thems. People are such suckers. Meanwhile Joseph carries on as a poor upstate New York boy, living as though he has no means. Who says he didn't get paid for it? Joseph says he got paid for it, though it wasn't much because the treasure seeking wasn't successful.
ALarson Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 People believed he got paid for that which he didn't get paid for? I guess it wouldn't be the first time people thought someone was paid when they weren't. Didn't Josiah Stowell hire and pay him? (I need to look this up again).
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Who says he didn't get paid for it? Joseph says he got paid for it, though it wasn't much because the treasure seeking wasn't successful. He did? You mean the time Stowell paid him?
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 He did? You mean the time Stowell paid him? He said he made $14 a month at it. I'm assuming that includes the Stowell expedition.
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Didn't Josiah Stowell hire and pay him? (I need to look this up again). Sure, but it may be that he was paid for labor rather than for looking at his stone. no one says otherwise, no?
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) He said he made $14 a month at it. I'm assuming that includes the Stowell expedition. Includes Stowell? What else was included? Do you think he admitted to having been a leading treasure differ, leading a company, and finding treasure with a seer stone? Likely he was paid for labor. Edited August 13, 2015 by stemelbow
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 That's all we know about, and as it is, it doesn't say he was paid for looking in the stone, as it was he was probably paid for labor. Just as likely, of course. Except that his mother and other family members tell us Stowell hired him specifically because he had the ability to find lost and hidden treasures using the stone. The dig occurred some 150 miles away from Joseph Smith's home in Palmyra. One generally need not look so far to find manual labor. 1
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Except that his mother and other family members tell us Stowell hired him specifically because he had the ability to find lost and hidden treasures using the stone. The dig occurred some 150 miles away from Joseph Smith's home in Palmyra. One generally need not look so far to find manual labor. But Stowell could have hired him because of his claimed specialness of seeing gold plates, but paid him for his labor. He was paid, as it seems, as if he were one of the hired people to do the actual labor. nothing special was given him. 1
Recommended Posts