I oftentimes see critics of the church
comment, "How can you believe a convicted
conman like Joseph Smith was a prophet
of God?" Well being a convicted conman is
a decently serious accusation, so in this
episode we're gonna look at whether or
not that's true. What crime did he
allegedly commit? Who accused him? What
happened at court? Why wasn't I invited?
Were there 12 Angry Men? Did Jack Nicholson
testify? Alright just cue the music.
In a past episode about seer stones, we
touched briefly on how Joseph Smith
dabbled in folk magicky stuff as a young
man.
Lots of people did, it was a pretty
normal thing back then. They didn't even
call it magic, it was just part of their
culture. Anyway, watch it if you haven't.
But the notion that Joseph was a
convicted conman usually stems from
Joseph's experience using a seer stone
to try and help a man named Josiah
Stowell find buried treasure.
Here's what happened: Joseph Smith was
known in his community as someone who
could use a seer stone to find lost
stuff. In the spring of 1825, a guy named
Josiah Stowell heard about Joseph and
approached Joseph with a gig to help him
find a lost silver mine. The 20-year-old
Joseph Smith worked with Josiah for less
than a month before persuading Josiah
that it just wasn't working out. In March
of 1826, either Josiah's sons or it could
have been his nephew, we're not quite
sure who it was, charged Joseph with
falsely pretending to discover lost
goods, which fell under the category of
disorderly conduct at the time. And so,
Joseph appears before justice of the
peace, Albert Neely. Here's the problem:
There are several different accounts
concerning the outcome of the case. Some
sources claim Joseph was found guilty.
Some say he was acquitted or discharged.
One even says he was guilty but allowed
to escape. Another says it wasn't even a
trial, it was an examination or a
pre-trial. So we have conflicting
accounts, but there is no official court
documentation of any conviction or
guilty verdict, which I'm sure the
critics are totally bummed out about. (no
you were done okay all right we'll take
you time that's fine all right that's
fine) If we consider Joseph Smith
innocent until proven guilty, as we
should then he's totally innocent. But as
you make up your mind about what to
believe, we've got one key witness in the
Josiah Stowell case that can't be
ignored,
whose court testimony is corroborated in
both friendly and critical accounts. And
the witness is Josiah Stowell.
Now according to Gordon Madsen, a lawyer
who's an expert in this stuff, if Joseph
is being accused of swindling Josiah,
then, of course, Josiah is the victim here.
He's the only one who would have lost
any money and he's, therefore, the only
person with a legal basis to complain in
the first place. So Josiah Stowell, also
known as "Deacon" Stoll, takes the witness
stand. A guy named William D. Purple
was at the trial and took notes on what
happened, according to his account,
"Justice Neely soberly looked at the
witness and in a solemn dignified voice
said "Deacon Stovall do I understand you
as swearing before God under the solemn
oath you've taken that you believe the
prisoner can see by the aid of the stone
fifty feet below the surface of the
earth as plainly as you can see what is
on my table?"
"Do I believe it?" says Deacon Stoll,
"Do I believe it? No, it's not a matter of
belief. I positively know it to be true."
So we've got Josiah's nephew dragging
everyone to court. The nephew says, "you
ripped off my uncle." Joseph says, "no I
didn't." And Josiah says, "no he didn't."
Logically the Purple account ends with
this statement: "it is hardly necessary to
say that as the testimony of Deacon
Stovall could not be impeached the
prisoner was discharged and in a few
weeks he left the town." That to me is the
most important aspect of this whole
situation. Now, Gordon Madsen also brings
up several other great legalistic points.
If Joseph had been convicted and
sentenced, Justice Neely would have been
required to file that sentence with the
County Clerk's office, complete with his
personal certification. No such record
exists. Madsen says, "An argument could be
advanced that the absence of the many
formalities shows that justice Neely,
knowing that he acquitted the prisoner,
also knew that there was no need to
formalize a record." Also, fun fact, at this
time, Joseph Smith hadn't even recovered
the record of the Book of Mormon yet.
Nonetheless, Josiah Stowell will later
join the church and remained a faithful
member for the rest of his life. Maybe
I'm crazy, but it just doesn't seem like
Josiah, the key figure in this case, felt
duped in any way. Now, there's a lot more
that could be said about this case, that
I haven't had time to cover. Check out
the article on our website for more information.
Also, I'll include links in the
description to more research about this
and you'll even know what to do with. Check
it out if you're interested, and have a
great day!
