Replies

Then Martin is creditable?

No, Blue Moose, it sounds as if he wasn't. Martin's suit was thrown out. On the other hand, in the case of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s March 1826 criminal lawsuit, he was convicted in South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York of being a 'money-digger' or 'glass-looker,' for conning Josiah Stowell out of money by pretending to be able to find treasure on his land by using magic objects . . . like a seer stone. This would be four years before Smith claimed to have found golden plates - which no other person saw with physical eyes. The magic seer stone was again involved.

Smith's money-digging days didn't sit well with Isaac Hale, the father of Emma Hale, with whom Joseph would later elope.

In an affidavit signed by Hale and published in the Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, Joseph’s father-in-law said:

"'I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called ‘money diggers’; and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by what means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure.

One of many sources, search for them all.

You are likely aware that the LDS Church denied for years that Joseph Smith had been a money digger. Representatives said this would be devastating to the church. When evidence appeared, there were attempts to explain it away. But more evidence surfaced.

Martin may not be creditable, but Joseph Smith, Jr. was actually convicted of swindling people by claiming to use seer stones to find buried treasure. He later started a religion by . . . claiming to use seer stones to find buried golden plates. Coincidence?

I'd be hesitant to believe someone whose lawsuit is thrown out. Would you be hesitant to believe someone whose religion is based on the whole thing he was criminally convicted of conning someone about just four years earlier?