Treasure seeking, the seer stone and the 1826 hearing

Before the plates, Joseph was paid to find buried treasure by looking at a stone in a hat, and was hauled before a magistrate for it.

What the Church claims

Joseph's 1838 history says he was merely a hired hand digging for Josiah Stowell's silver mine, which is how 'the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger' arose.

Once the evidence is in, this claim: Weak. The practice and the hearing are documented and conceded; the traditional minimization is untenable, though 'convicted con man' overstates the record.

The record

The Church now states that Joseph 'used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure', that Stowell hired Joseph in 1825 because of his reputation as a seer, and that the family 'accepted these familiar folk practices'.
On 1826-03-20 Joseph was examined before Justice Albert Neely at Bainbridge, New York, on Peter Bridgman's complaint that he was 'a disorderly person and an Impostor'. Stowell testified to Joseph's 'skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone'.
Two contemporaneous court bills survive: Justice Neely's, which calls Joseph 'the Glass Looker', and Constable De Zeng's, listing twelve witnesses subpoenaed and 'two days & 1 Night' with the prisoner. Their recovery from Chenango County records in 1971 ended a long argument about whether any hearing had taken place.
The outcome is genuinely uncertain: the printed docket versions (1873, 1883, 1886) end 'guilty'; William Purple (1877) says Joseph was discharged; Cowdery (1835) says 'honorably acquitted'; there is no record-of-conviction fee and no jail entry. JSP: the outcome 'necessarily remains elusive'.
The same stone method was used for the Book of Mormon: Joseph 'placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat'.
In 1838 Joseph answered the question whether he had been a money digger: 'Yes', but 'it was never a very profitable job'.

The moving target

1838: Minimized his role to that of a hired laborer.
20th century: Denied that the 1826 court record was authentic.
2013-12: Concedes treasure seeking with a seer stone and the stone-in-hat translation.
2015-10: Presents seer stones as period 'folk ways'; omits Stowell and the hearing.
current: Accepts the hearing; says the outcome 'remains a puzzle' and acquittal is most likely.

The exchange

Church History Topics; Mark Ashurst-McGee; Richard Bushman

Folk magic was ordinary Christian culture in the 1820s; God prepared Joseph through the means he understood, 'redirecting' the gift from treasure to scripture; and he was probably acquitted in 1826.

The answer: The cultural-context point is correct and skeptics should grant it. But the issue is evidentiary, not snobbery about magic: Joseph never found any treasure, several 1826 witnesses said so, and the identical technique - same stone, same hat - then produced the Book of Mormon. A method with a documented 0% success rate when it could be checked is being trusted where it cannot be. Joseph's own 1838 account misdescribed his role, as the Church now implicitly concedes.

What they get right: The JSP analysis that he was likely not convicted is sound. Critics who say Joseph was 'convicted of fraud in 1826' overstate what the documents prove.

FAIR; Richard Bushman; Church History Topics, 'Treasure Seeking'

The 1838 history is not a denial. Joseph admitted the digging, named the employer and the purpose, and objected only to the label 'money-digger' as a characterization of who he was, which is an ordinary thing for anyone to resent.

The answer: The sentence admits the digging and buries everything that makes it matter. It does not mention the seer stone, which is the instrument that connects the treasure hunting to the translation; it does not mention that Joseph was the seer rather than a hired shoveler; and it does not mention the 1826 legal proceeding at all. The Church published the stone in 2013 and the hearing in its history topics, so the modern Church has told the reader what the 1838 history withheld. That is the point: the account members were taught for a century was shaped to make an embarrassment disappear, and the Church, not its skeptics, is what corrected it.

What they get right: Josiah Stowell, the supposed victim, testified on Joseph's behalf and remained a believer for the rest of his life, which is not what a defrauded man normally does.

Both cases at full strength

The skeptics' case

For at least four years before the plates, Joseph's trade was scrying for treasure for paying clients, none of which was ever recovered. A court examined Joseph for it. He later described himself as a mere digger. The instrument of those failures is the instrument of the Book of Mormon translation. Apologists denied the authenticity of the court record until the surviving bills settled the matter, and as late as 2015 the Church's flagship article on seer stones left out Stowell and the court.

The apologetic case

A farm boy in a culture full of divining rods and peep stones discovered he had a gift; his own father hoped he would turn it to holier use; Stowell, the supposed victim, testified for him and remained a believer for life. Moving from village seer to prophet is a recognizable religious trajectory, and the court most likely let him go.

What would change this

Documentation that Joseph's stone located anything verifiable.

Closely related

Sources

An independent project. Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with any organization cited here. Summaries are written here; short quotations are attributed and linked. Every page names its sources so that it can be corrected, and every page can be challenged.