Very reasonable, again thanks for the insights.

I agree with you that the Witnesses not whistle-blowing is not full-proof. But then, all I ask from them to help establish some degree of plausibility.

Just a thought here on this comment, and a few others. The above quote is the classic reinforcement employed in defense of The Book of Mormon’s divine origin. The idea is that if these men were aware of any kind of deception, surely they would not have protected the secret following their falling out the mainstream Church. This is a reasonable argument in many respects, particularly with their relationship with Joseph Smith. However the argument is not bullet-proof because, though both Martin Harris and David Whitmer left the mainstream Church, they never permanently left Mormonism per se. They both would also have to sacrifice their own reputations by “whistleblowing” and admitting their personal complicity in the fraud. This may serve as a hypothetical explanation in lieu of traditional defenses, as to why they never left the Mormon ideaology.

I hesitated with the claim that Martin Harris saw Jesus in the form of a deer. While I don’t believe the account is entirely dissmissable, I agree perhaps I gave it too much weight in characterizing Martin’s credibility. I think there are plenty of contemporary comments from those who knew Martin, that confirm that his beliefs were a bit extravagant.

Finally, I should have clarified my statement that Martin Harris and David Whitmer were inconsistent in their retelling of their role as the Witnesses. David Whitmer in particular told a fairly consistent story, however I mean that in his actual telling of it. His story has some stark inconsistencies with the affidavit printed in the front of The Book of Mormon. Perhaps not a total contradiction, but certainly inconsistencies. During his final interview regarding the matter, the interviewer had to prod pretty hard to find out whether the experience was literal or metaphysical. If nothing else I think this demonstrates that even amongst his contemporary audience, David Whitmers claims were fairly ambiguous. Unfortunately, I think that is where are individual resonant tendencies dictate the interpretation we give these claims in light of the ambiguity.

Sounds good. I appreciate your insights and apparent depth of research surrounding these issues. If nothing else your comments have rejuvinated my interest in these matters and caused me to research this period of Church history more thoroughly. Good luck in your efforts, and again thanks for the comments.

I avoided doing source criticism in my other post, although it is a big issue. I suspect, however, when we take bias, time removed from the account to the event, degree of provenance (1st hand, 2nd hand, hearsay, rumor), corroboration with other information, and analyze each account maker for reliability that the success accounts will carry more weight than failure ones. But that is an analysis for another day as I have a lot on my plate at the moment.

As a limited example, the account that Martin Harris saw Christ in the form of a deer is on extremely shaky grounds. John A. Clark wrote a letter 10-11 years after he met Martin Harris and yet reported hearing the tale from an unnamed “gentleman in Palmyra.” As unreliable as the tale is, at least Martin didn’t claim to be speaking to his ass like Balaam. I will also say this about Martin, that sometimes he could be baited into saying something he had no first hand knowledge of in the heat of a debate or perhaps when he had too much to drink. That is my take on what happened when he was brought before the Kirtland high council for making an incorrect allegation against Joseph Smith.

I have not seen much evidence that he or David Whitmer were inconsistent in their witness of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer had problems with people misquoting him. On other issues, though I will agree that he was inconsistent, for example his take on the Priesthood restoration, the name of the angel he encountered while moving Joseph to Fayette, or his theories on how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. Ken Godfrey has a nice chapter about how Whitmer was amazing consistent on his witness of the Book of Mormon, but not so much in these other areas.

While Whitmer’s and Harris’s apostasy means to me that they are not perfect witnesses, in some ways I think leaving the church actually improves their credibility about the Book of Mormon.

I think we will have to disagree on the alleged successes of Joseph Smith’s pre-restoration seership. I have done my best to research the accounts you have listed, and have found no real new information. Most of the claims seem to have come from the 1826 hearing, but most of those claims can be easily dissmissed as hearsay. Particularly because none of people who professed in Joseph’s seer abilities could produce bona fide evidence. In every case the treasures were “found” but then sank deeper and deeper into the earth, due to a protective enchantment. The other explanations for found but unrecovered treasure is due to protective guardian spirits. Perhaps a better argument could be made for the well water, but even that is not too remarkable. I have a hard time with any claims made by either Martin Harris or David Whitmer, largely because as a Church we sort of pick and choose which statements from them are credible and which are not. Martin Harris is claimed to have first seen Jesus in the shape of a deer. Neither men could ever provide a consistent account for having witnessed the account known as “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses”. Both claimed by spiritual means that Joseph had become a fallen prophet. So unless you have some more credible source data, we will have to let the friendly disagreement suffice.

I will admit that the evidence is not conclusive, so largely the conclusions that I am drawing are subjective. I can certainly respect divergent opinions from my own. Just a final thought and question though. As I think through everything that would have to be assumed for Josephs “treasure seeking” abilities to be authentic, this route seems even more implausible. You would also have to believe the explanations of treasure sinking into the earth, guardian spirits, enchantments, ritual sacrifice, etc. Society has largely abandoned this type of thinking because greater understanding has clearly shown that this is just not how things operate in the natural world. This gives way to the natural conclusion that Joseph’s thinking and conduct was subject to the culture and time in which he lived. Unfortunately this is not an adequate justification for his “foibles”, rather an explanation for his all of his claims. I think that the best thing which could happen for the Church, from a historical position, would be for evidence to come forth which shows that this behavior has falsely been attributed to Joseph Smiths “youthfull” conduct.

I don’t mean for this to sound sarcastic, can you provide some references to the number of successes that you mention. Nothing I have read indicates a bona fide success in his ability to find lost treasures. I realize that there were a number of people who swore up and down that Joseph possessed this ability, but again I am not aware of any substantial finds.

Interestingly you seem to espouse a possibility I have entertained, but frankly never given much credence to. That is the idea that someone his treasure seeking was a divine manifestation, or the product and misuse perhaps of a divine gift. I have generally discounted this theory, though I will admit largely due to certain expectations that I hold of God and Prophets. If this theory were correct then certainly there would be some type of significant display of this ability. So again, if you can provide resources which point this out, I would be grateful.

Thanks,

Cowboy

I would say that Joseph was occasionally enthusiastic about treasure seeking. After all he had a number of successes that make the pious fraud model implausible to me (even taking into account the failures you mention). Yet I also see that he was pressured into some activities by his family and others. As Joseph Smith matured, he needed to learn to use his gift to serve God rather than treasure seekers. This is a constant theme running through a variety of accounts of Joseph’s early life.

This “treasure seeking” activities of Joseph Smith have been instrumental in my overall disenchantment (no pun intended) with Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. There are plenty of sources which corroborate the assertion that Joseph did engage in this conduct. Lucy Mack Smith accounts for it, many of the Church’s co-founders do as well. In not so many words Joseph even admits to it in his 1838 Church history. Modern Church scholars, pro-LDS, such as Bushman, even accept this as fact. How does the trial and or it’s outcomes affect this in any way? Is there some evidence which suggests that Joseph perhaps was not “treasure seeking”?

Unless it can be proved that Joseph Smith was not engaged in “treasure seeking” this trial does little to further claims against him, or to preserve his prophetic integrity. Perhaps with the exception of whether we really believe that he possessed the abilities he appears to have pretended to, divine or otherwise.

Often to downplay Joseph’s involvement in the activity apologists will refer to the observations of his Mother that Joseph wasn’t really interested in doing this work for Mr. Stowell, but that he was persuaded with a high salary ($14 per month I believe) and incessant requests. Joseph volunteers that part of his reluctance was due to the fact that staring into the hat caused his eyes to hurt. The apologists assert that therefore Joseph displayed only a passive acceptance to the job. It is very difficult for anyone living one hundred and eighty years from the event to claim to know what level of enthusiasm Joseph possessed for the enterprise from a few reflective statements. In order to further the point, many apologists – including Joseph Smith himself – will point out that it was Joseph Smith who called off the search. Suggesting that Joseph really only did play a passive role here. They falsely assume that a true con-artist would milk the enterprise for all that it is worth. This is a shortsighted perspective, Joseph clearly held himself out as a “seer”, long before the Stowell event infact. This is hypothetical I realize, but if he was infact a fraud and knew that, he would also know that he can only run the party around the woods for so long before suspicions arise. Knowing that he could not locate gold he would have to contrive an explanation for the groups failure, hence the sinking treasure chest stories/spiritual transportation of the treasure, guardian spirits, etc. His best alternative would be to cut the expedition short. At very least this explanation discounts the apologist hypothetical that Joseph just got tired of digging for treasure at 2 – 3 times a normal salary.

One final point worth contending is the apologist claim that magical thinking was very much a part of nineteenth century thinking in the eastern United States. Certainly the evidences listed on the “fairwiki” site give some credence here. What the trial does demonstrate, however, is that it was at least taboo enough to be prosecutable, particularly when the services are being hired out by a percieved idler. The fact that a law was put on the books in 1813 seems to suggest that just as common as magical thinking may have been at that time, the practice of con-artistry which capitalized on of that type thinking was just as common.

Obviously this fact challenges Joseph Smiths integrity during his youth. This matter is not further helped by the fact that by all reasonable observation, the same seer stone which was used unsuccesfully, allegedly, to search for buried treasure, was also used “primarily” in the translation of the Gold Plates, among it’s employment, allegedly, in other of the founding events of the resoration.