Could Joseph Smith Really See Buried Treasure In The Seer Stone?

[jkwilliams]

Hey bub, I just started to explain why concerning the Stowell account. If it doesn't make sense, then let me know. I realize people have just bought into it hook line and sinker. It's easy to do when the momentum of the explanation took on a life of it's own after, say, about the time Quinn wrote "the Magical World View" book. I'm fine with that. I like being on my own. It's kinda awesome and freeing. I'm not under the illusion that I'm going to convince anyone otherwise. Additionally it's an extremely easy concession for the Church or any member to make when you consider these allegations were from when he was a kid and it was a bit of a "thing" for them to get involved in back then, in his area.

It is true, apparently, that Joseph found a stone that he thought helped him see things unseen by the natural eye. Sure he found it when he was 16. Great. he took it from someone. Yiptey. He used it from 1822, as Dan alleges, until sometimes as late as 1827, to try and find treasure. Not sure he made anything out of doing it, other than when Stowell paid him, though. And, as explained the stowell payment seemed as much for labor as anything.

or...

He found a stone when he was 16. many in the area thought such stones can help find treasures. he looked a few times, and didn't see anything. Stowell heard his story of finding gold plates, somehow. Heard about his stone. thought he could make money off of Joseph's ability and sought him out to try. but nothing really came of it.

The last paragraph seems to be about what Joseph's perspective was on the whole thing. the first seems to be what people want to think because it's easy to imagine.

 

It's not that it's easy to imagine, but that it fits with everything we know. Going 150 miles to find a scryer indicates Stowell had a lot of faith in Joseph's ability. That Joseph went with him shows that Joseph was willing to let him continue in that faith. There is only one person who says Joseph didn't hire out to find treasure by looking in the stone, and that is Joseph Smith himself, only he apparently admitted it in the Bainbridge trial and to his wife's family. So, you're basically saying all the testimony is suspect except a later statement (1838) from Joseph Smith himself. That's certainly your prerogative, but it makes little sense to me. To steal an example, it's like saying that L. Ron Hubbard never charged people to use the e-meter because, despite what every other witness said, Hubbard denied it years later. 

[The Nehor]

I have no idea. I might ask when I get there.

[Nevo]

One of the biggest eye-rollers in religious history is the fact that L. Ron Hubbard wrote pulp science fiction novels for years before having Scientology and Dianetics revealed to him, at which point he ceased being a science fiction novelist and became a revealer of great truths (many of which sound like something you would read in pulp science fiction novels.)  Some might say that the scifi writing was L. Ron's "preparatory period"; obviously he needed good writing skills to be able to have Dianetics revealed to him.  But others see something a little less...supernatural.

 

I've recently been reading Lawrence Wright's Going Clear, and I find myself, almost unconsciously, comparing and contrasting LRH and Joseph. One area where I think Joseph has the edge is that quite a number of LRH's family members considered him a fraud, whereas nearly all of Joseph's family believed his claims—Uncle Jesse being a notable exception.

[stemelbow]

It's not that it's easy to imagine, but that it fits with everything we know. Going 150 miles to find a scryer indicates Stowell had a lot of faith in Joseph's ability.

Granted. meaning whether he knew Joseph or not, he was eager to get someone involved.

That Joseph went with him shows that Joseph was willing to let him continue in that faith.

That's a leap, though. Joseph could have been lured by getting paid and having work. even if Joseph said, "I'll come work but I'm not promising I can find buried treasure", Stowell may have thought it worth bringing him along in case his miraculous skills could be used.

There is only one person who says Joseph didn't hire out to find treasure by looking in the stone, and that is Joseph Smith himself, only he apparently admitted it in the Bainbridge trial and to his wife's family.

I don't see where he or anyone said he was hired to find the treasure by looking in the stone. Only the accusers who seemed upset by their failure wanting to blame someone. As I said, this all becomes pretty convenient.

So, you're basically saying all the testimony is suspect except a later statement (1838) from Joseph Smith himself.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying even the testimony itself doesn't say what has been concluded about it. Not even stowell says Joseph was paid to find the treasure by looking in a hat. The only ones hwo said that, apparently, are those who wanted to blame someone for the failure.

That's certainly your prerogative, but it makes little sense to me. To steal an example, it's like saying that L. Ron Hubbard never charged people to use the e-meter because, despite what every other witness said, Hubbard denied it years later.

THat's a silly comparison, since, by using this comparison, what you are claiming is that many people gave Joseph money for looking at his stone to find treasure, when we have not one person saying that. At least not first hand, and certainly not in this case. Joseph got paid monthly, apparently, by Stowell, for labors performed.

[CA Steve]

Maybe part of the problem here is the use of the term "seer".

 

I would be interested in seeing ( ) how that term was interpreted by Joseph and contemporaries when he was engaged in treasure seeking and then later on when he was using it for religious purposes.

 

Did it always have religious overtones or was it also used to just describe someone who was just engaged in a magical activity?

 

I think what we have today are people who only see it as a religious term who then struggle with someone who is clearly not acting in a religious manner.

 

In the case of Joseph I think the term has evolved and as he took on a religious role, I think he and others encouraged the story line that highlighted the religious use of the stone and downplayed its magical use.

[Calm]

Martin Harris said he found a pin on a barn floor. Does that count?

It was more than just that. (not the value but the description of the process is interesting imo) The detail is impressive if you don't believe Martin enjoyed telling stories (which is a definite possibility). Martin was picking his teeth but had dropped the pin on the floor where there was a bunch of straw, they looked for ir and couldn't find it, Martin asked Joseph to use his seerstone, Joseph took it out, put it in his hat, and keeping his face in the hat (according to Martin) moved his hand without looking and picked up the pin without hesitation iirc.

I think it would be hard not to fumble picking up a pin when one is not looking at it or the equivalent of having one's eyes closed even if one knew where it was.

Why wouldn't Joseph just pick it up if he saw it? Did he know Martin so well that he knew Martin would ask him to use the seerstone to find it, a pin of apparently little significance? Is Martin exaggerating about the directness of picking it up? It would be hard not to fumble around in the straw surrounding it, imo, if it was hidden well enough that Martin couldn't see it...or perhaps Martin just had bad eyesight.

Edited August 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

that which Josiah Stowell suggested Joseph identified (the land and mine, or whateves).

It wasn't specified, could have been little things that Stowell took as evidence Joseph might be able to find treasure...and why the lack of finding such didn't dent Josiah's faith.

Or it could be Josian was just a sucker and accepted claims of seeing the treasure as valid as finding it.

[Kaleb Webb]

If I recall correctly, Joseph was also paid for finding the lost horse.

[mfbukowski]

When I was a kid, I actually saw someone find the site for a well using a dowsing rod.  That was in the early 1950's, probably 1954 and in Western New York.   Even then, all the "oldtimers" did it that way.  It was well known that if you wanted a well, you call a dowser.  As I recall they even had ads in the yellow pages- that would be interesting to confirm.

 

They drilled there and there was water and it was a useful well.

 

Of course it was about 200 feet from a river and they had to dig down around a hundred feet as I recall.    The important point is that those were well accepted procedures in that area even 60 years ago.

[Tacenda]

When I was a kid, I actually saw someone find the site for a well using a dowsing rod.  That was in the early 1950's, probably 1954 and in Western New York.   Even then, all the "oldtimers" did it that way.  It was well known that if you wanted a well, you call a dowser.  As I recall they even had ads in the yellow pages- that would be interesting to confirm.

 

They drilled there and there was water and it was a useful well.

 

Of course it was about 200 feet from a river and they had to dig down around a hundred feet as I recall.    The important point is that those were well accepted procedures in that area even 60 years ago.

While visiting an old graveyard in Nauvoo where the mob threw headstones down an embankment into a ravine, a senior missionary was using a dowsing rod to find the graves so he could mark whose it was according to an old plat of the cemetery.  I was so amazed it was happening right in front of my nose!  I would have taken photos but thought that to be crass.  This was 2 years ago, I believe.     

Edited August 13, 2015 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

To answer the OP:  It seems like not so much or else he wouldn't have to have worked at clearing land.  He could have hired it cleared.

[SmileyMcGee]

While visiting an old graveyard in Nauvoo where the mob threw headstones down an embankment into a ravine, a senior missionary was using a dowsing rod to find the graves so he could mark whose it was according to an old plat of the cemetery. I was so amazed it was happening right in front of my nose! I would have taken photos but thought that to be crass. This was 2 years ago, I believe.

Were they really identifying graves; ie, did they dig after using the rod to identify where the graves might be? Or were they just marking spots after getting some signal from the rod?

[Tacenda]

Were they really identifying graves; ie, did they dig after using the rod to identify where the graves might be? Or were they just marking spots after getting some signal from the rod?

Marking spots. Was surprised it didn't already happen years ago.

[Calm]

You are fine. I was teasing. I get it. And I sometimes compose terrible sentences with a full keyboard at my disposal.

[Calm]

When I was a kid, I actually saw someone find the site for a well using a dowsing rod.  That was in the early 1950's, probably 1954 and in Western New York.   Even then, all the "oldtimers" did it that way.  It was well known that if you wanted a well, you call a dowser.  As I recall they even had ads in the yellow pages- that would be interesting to confirm.

I have another friend from the area not on the board who said the same thing. Iirc he said they were listed under "water witches".

[mfbukowski]

I have another friend from the area not on the board who said the same thing. Iirc he said they were listed under "water witches".

Yep.

 

I recall trying to use the dowser's rod- remember I could not have been more than 7 or 8 years old- and as I recall there was one time that I felt it drop, just as if an unseen string pulled it down.  Who knows what that was?  I have no clue.  But I remember thinking at the time "Wow- this is real!" just because the force seemed pretty tangible.  It was like a magnet pointing to something.  It could have been suggestion, or me doing it- or who knows?  I was just an impressionable kid and the adults around seemed to take this seriously.

 

Please don't call the guys with the straitjackets. 

 

There were two kinds- one that was a branch with a Y in it cut fresh from a tree- it had to be fresh.

 

The other was two L-shaped wires that you would hold by the short portion and they would cross supposedly to indicate the presence of water/

 

This was probably around 100 miles from Palmyra

Edited August 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

While visiting an old graveyard in Nauvoo where the mob threw headstones down an embankment into a ravine, a senior missionary was using a dowsing rod to find the graves so he could mark whose it was according to an old plat of the cemetery.  I was so amazed it was happening right in front of my nose!  I would have taken photos but thought that to be crass.  This was 2 years ago, I believe.

A dowsing rod to find graves? I just have to ask. Why?

What happens if a headstone is matched to the wrong grave?

Does anyone here know if dowsing can identify the occupant of a grave? I found a site on line where the dowser claimed to identify age and gender of persons in unmarked graves, but again, Why?

Aren´t these rather strange goings on for TBMs?

[mfbukowski]

A dowsing rod to find graves? I just have to ask. Why?

What happens if a headstone is matched to the wrong grave?

Does anyone here know if dowsing can identify the occupant of a grave? I found a site on line where the dowser claimed to identify age and gender of persons in unmarked graves, but again, Why?

Aren´t these rather strange goings on for TBMs?

I have not seen anyone endorse this.

 

This is called a "dis-cuss-ion".   You know- talking about stuff.   You actually have to read it to know what is being said.

[mfbukowski]

Whenever I find a statement that is most probably just some kind of semantic confusion- which happens all the time here- I like to re-arrange the words to see some of the implications.

"Could Joseph Smith Really See Buried Treasure In The Seer Stone?"

"Could Joseph Smith see real buried treasure in the Seer Stone"?   I think if good old cinepro had asked that question from the beginning, the answer would be obvious.

 

No one has ever found any treasure.  End of thread.    One word answer: "No." 

 

Unless of course one wants to read Joseph's mind and decide if he "really saw" treasure which is actually what the question asks.

 

So the answer is pretty simple- it is either "no" or "Who knows"?

Then the thread becomes about Joseph's visions in general.  Been there done that a million times.

 

Nothing to see here folks, move along.  

Edited August 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

I wonder who was doing all the treasure burying. According to some, buried treasure seeking was a common and pervasive practice at the time, so where did all this treasure come from? Did the Native Americans bury lots of gold and silver ? Were there many rich folks around who were constantly wandering around digging holes to put their valuables in , and then promptly forgetting where they hid the stuff?

There are quite a few treasure seekers today armed with metal detectors scanning the beaches for...um...beer can lids. I guess the rationale is the same for them as for the lottery ticket buyers, " you never know " has given the mob and the government a great deal of money.

[Calm]

I believe the tale was pirates at least for some of them.

[jkwilliams]

I believe the tale was pirates at least for some of them.

 

Yep, it was for the Stowell expedition, I believe. Something about Spanish silver buried by pirates. Of course, why pirates would bury silver up river in Pennsylvania is anyone's guess.

[JulieM]

Is it true Joseph liked to read about Captain Kidd or are there no sources for that (just rumor)?

[jkwilliams]

Is it true Joseph liked to read about Captain Kidd or are there no sources for that (just rumor)?

 

Here's something from Grant Palmer. 

 

One of the “legends of hidden treasure” that would have drawn the Smith family to Cumorah hill was the treasure adventures of Captain William (a.k.a. Robert) Kidd, the pirate. Pomeroy Tucker, who was essentially the same age as Smith, said Joseph “had learned to read works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the ‘dime novels’ of the present day. The stories of Stephen Buroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest claims for his expanding mental perceptions.”[iv] Another Palmyra native, Philetus Spear, said that Joseph Smith as a boy “had for a library a copy of the ‘Arabian Nights,’ stories of Captain Kidd, and a few novels.”[v] According to James H. Kennedy, Joseph Sr. while living in Vermont had “at times engaged in hunting for Captain Kidd’s buried treasure,” and that young Joseph’s own reading about the pirate had “made a deep impression on him.”[vi] Palmyra resident Ann Eaton added that Kidd was “his hero.”[vii] Joseph may have read Washington Irving’s short story on the adventurous life of Kidd The Pirate, whichwas published in Philadelphia in 1824 and in New York in 1825. More likely, Joseph and his family had read several of the many exaggerated ‘dime novel’ knock-offs about Kidd and other pirates which were based on the 1724 and 1728 popular two-volume, A General History of Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates, by Daniel Defoe.[viii]

[Calm]

Always read original sources with Palmer, imo.

So need reference please.

Edited August 14, 2015 by calmoriah