Spot on and well done! Wonderful to have a great summary of the events instead of people having to look everywhere for this information. When the video was released with Russell M Nelson demonstrating with the seer stone in a hat method for translating the Book of Mormon. I was shocked! If this had been explained to me by the missionaries that taught me in 1980. I would have NEVER joined. I was disowned by my family at the age of 18 and lost my jobs. I asked my true believing husband what he thought about the hat in the stone and he thought nothing of it. No big deal to him. He was raised in the church. I was always taught the BOM was translated by stones from the Urim and Thumin. I am sure I’m not the only one that feels betrayed. And the fact that they still omit this when teaching is disturbing.
What an interesting story! I'm so sorry you suffered so much to join the church. Like your husband I learned about the Urim and Thummim when we studied Doctrine & Covenants, so my perspective comes from a different spot than yours.
I'm curious why you feel this one issue would have prevented you from joining the church? You were probably taught about the angels, buried golden bibles, Jewish Indians, and Jesus visiting America. These are all very implausible beliefs yet most members were taught these and accepted them.
Merely because the very first discussion is an introduction to the Book of Mormon. And I was assigned passages to read in the Book of Mormon. I was told these plates were translated by Joseph Smith. Then years later I asked about this process since finding out through church history classes that Joseph was unlearned. Then I was like well how was he able to read these plates as unlearned farm boy. Then I was told through the power and gift from God. Years pass by again and I was in a church class and was told he used the Urim and Thumin. I was like ok. That’s in the Old Testament and was told it was buried with the plates. Then I find out from a video by President Nelson that he used a peep stone in a hat. I was like what? What’s that. Then I start digging into who Joseph Smith really was. Treasure digging. Plates were see by witnesses with their natural eyes. No they were seen by them with their spiritual eyes. Then this started me on a long road of discovery. It’s didn’t help my testimony to be a volunteer docent at the Field Museum and worked in exhibits like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Native North America Hall (I actually dropped out of the training for that one. It completely contradicted the Book of Mormon). And I also worked in the Evolving Planet exhibit. Real science exposed me to the real Mormon myths. It much more complicated and it is a long story.
I appreciate the recap and chronology and sources. This prompts a quick story while on my mission in 1978. I was asked by a University in Copenhagen if I would take part in a Theology class and teach three class sessions on comparative Christian Religions with a focus on Churches organized in America in the last couple centuries including Mormonism. I immediately accepted. There were about 100 students ... all studying to become Pastors in the State run Lutheran Church. In Denmark, you are born into the Church. I did a quick questionnaire and was surprised to find that nearly half of the students did not believe in God. It was explained to me by several students that being a Pastor is one of the higher paying social services jobs. You are well compensated plus you get to help people. After the first two sessions, the University called the mission office and left me a message that they wanted me to be aware that a particular Pastor was planning on coming to my final class presentation.. She was the one of the very first women Pastors in the Church with high visibility in the media, very outspoken, and quite brash. I had watched her on TV several times and was very impressed with her. My Mission President saw the message on my desk and gave it to me. He told me he would be coming to the class. I told him that was not necessary. He said if she was going to be there that he needed to be there. The entire session ended up focusing on her questions about Mormonism. And when I say questions, it started as a friendly interrogation with a lot of doctrine (some similar, some not to the Lutheran Church) and then turned into something much more confrontational when she started talking about the seer stone, the treasure hunting, the different accounts of the first vision, the papyri Joseph translated, the lack of archeological evidence of the B of M, polygamy, and the Priesthood Ban. I was actually very impressed that she knew so much. I planned to use that thought in how I would proceed. She did something quite clever. I remember her asking me what I personally believed about the Book of Mormon's translation and the Church's restrictions on Negroes? Not what the Church taught. I told her that I prayed that the restrictions would be lifted, and I agreed with her that Joseph had used a seer stone. My Mission President cut me off and bore his that none of what she had said was true. It got contentious, exactly what I wanted to avoid and what she hoped for in rallying the students to care. My intent was to give them enough information to spark possible interest in learning more and leave a good impression of Mormonism in their future ecclesiastical roles. In attacking their respected Pastor, my Mission President left a very negative impression. And the drive back to the Mission Office was not pleasant. He told me that I had obviously been reading way too much anti-mormon literature. It was of Satan, and he said I needed to repent. He was particularly upset about the seer stone. He kept asking me, "How could you agree with her?" He simply didn't want to know the truth about the seer stone. He even said if I wasn't his Personal Secretary in the Mission, he just might want to send me packing. A couple of days later, he brought me a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith where he said there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. Side note: This Pastor reached out to me in the Office the following month. She invited me to attend a sermon she was giving the following Sunday. She told me that I would find it interesting. I grabbed another missionary in the office and we went to hear her speak. Topic... the importance getting a personal relationship with God. And not relying on others for what you believe. We spoke after the service, she was happy that I had come. She wanted to thank me for teaching the sessions and asked if I had patched things up with my Mission Leader. She then encouraged me to always rely on and react to my own personal beliefs.
Athiest pastors...that's wild! That was brilliant of her to ask you what you thought/believed (separate from the church).
Also, it can be so damning to a testimony when a church member or leader denies a historical fact/truth that one discovers later is true. Also, in a religious context, the person who loses their temper first...well....probably loses. That mission president sure didn't project security and confidence, did he?
JFS was hilarious in his denials of treasure digging and peep stone stuff. I'd love to see that quote!
Anyway, what a cool experience. Thanks again for sharing!
Thirty years ago, I would have found this all fascinating, but as an older man, I do not. I think it is more productive to judge religions by their net benefit to humanity. Obviously, a matter of opinion, but I'd say Christianity, Mormonism (which is not Christian), Jainism & Confucianism have been net positives, Judaism, Hinduism & Buddhism have been net neutral, and Islam a monstrous net negative. Many will say "all religions have extremists" and dismiss this holistic approach, but that's just limp-wristed cultural relativism. Regardless, as to the veracity of origin stories, I think I would like to quote the insightful Burt Cooper, "Who cares?"
I commented on a YouTube video of yours recently that I think applies here too: Joseph Smith seemed to surgically skirt the law against using visionary means to find treasure while also trying and legitimize his past actions/methods. Doubling down as it were, but legally.
Joseph had visions of golden treasures, but they weren't too be sold. Instead they had a story on them of great worth! Religious importance! His investors were not investing in him having visions to lead them to treasure. They were investing in his visionary translation of the story the treasure contained! And the translation could be turned into a book, which could be sold.
And how did he string along his investors/benefactors for so long? The same way he did before! "Well the angel said I wasn't ready, I didn't have a box to carry them so I put them in a log, no one can see them unless God makes it "manifest" to them, the angel took them back!" Excuse after excuse after excuse. The pattern of behavior was there in his conviction. It's a modified story, adapted to overcome legal risk.
Was it only greed? Probably not, I'm sure he was deeply religious. And deeply religious people are also capable of committing fraud. They are also well equipped to convince themselves that they're doing God's work while doing it.
While Joseph may have been charismatic and an impressive storyteller there are plenty of examples of less impressive people conning huge numbers of people. If anything, I think we need to lower our expectations of the people who first followed Joseph. They were credulous, easily duped people. We've got a survivorship bias: those who were impressed and convinced had a strong desire to tell everyone how true it was, while those who didn't probably didn't care except for a small few. Kind of like how MLMs have millions of adherents while there's just a few journalists who expose their lies.
So I'm summation, you've got a pattern of behavior Joseph engaged in, retooled to overcome legal accountability, that was constantly reiterated into a more and more resonant and convincing prophetic calling.
There was an interesting article about Joseph Smith's magical practices and the 1826 trial in the winter 2021 issue of Dialogue. It's by Manuel W. Padro and it's called CUNNING AND DISORDERLY: EARLY NINETEENTH-CENTURY WITCH TRIALS OF JOSEPH SMITH. It's worth a read. It's been a few years since I've read it, but I remember thinking it made an interesting case about social control. I'm not sure about Padro's "alignment."
Concerning Stowell, doesn't he come to find Joseph Smith? Doesn't that at least make it seem a little like he's already convinced and practicing these kinds of rituals? Unless I'm completely off the mark about Stowell, it always gives me a little trouble reconciling narratives that portray him as an unwitting dupe.
Nice comprehensive overview of this issue. You brought the receipts, and this format is great for structuring your points and showing the original sources. I think the strongest point you make is the connection between legal fraud and religious fraud, which helps set up your next few topics on the "translation problem" and "true origin of the Book of Mormon" narrative. Can't wait to see the rest of the topics!!
One favor, could you please explain exactly why Joseph's use of a stone in a hat is such a faith destroying issue? It seems like such a minor issue and separate from the fact that Joseph was a criminal fraudster. I would separate or exclude this.
I can understand why revisionist history around the "translation" is troubling, but specific complaints about using peep stones to translate seem to be a problem for only a small group of ex-mormons who grew up with a particular set of teachings. I think it's very helpful to take a step back and consider how believers process information like this.
First, the peep stone is actually less weird than the overarching story we all believed about a boy visited by an angel who helped him find magic spectacles so he could read a golden bible. The peep stone just *seems* strange because it conflicts the old narrative.
Second, with the Russell M Nelson video, the church is clearly attempting to correct the record and substitute a new narrative. Most members are going to accept this and even welcome this transparency.
Finally, the church is very adept at rewriting history (i.e. polygamy, race teaching, temple ceremonies) mostly because they also control the media and the teaching. Members will only look at authorized sources, and when the story shifts, it can be so imperceptible that members won't pay attention. You already know that information control is just one part of the BITE model for mind control, which explains why smart people are still susceptible to manipulation.
This is why I don't think "stone in a hat" is a really important reason why people leave the church, which is what this series is about. Your essays will pack more of a punch if they're focused on an issue that can't be disputed--namely that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraudster and a known liar, who mixed pseudo science and religion to dupe people out of money. You do a really excellent job of laying this out. I don't think you need to go into the "but the church taught me x" and "now it teaches y" which is more a complaint about modern transparency than a complaint about history.
To me, the "stone in a hat" is a problem because that stone is part of the treasure-digging fraud, and then somehow is "sanctified". The rock doesn't help find treasure, but does help find/translate a set of golden plates that no one can definitively establish even exists. If we are to believe JS, then we have to accept a trickster God that wants people to accept the unbelievable- the ineffective rock for treasure digging is then used to effectively translate an ancient record- but that ancient record doesn't actually meet any reasonable test of historicity/authenticity- it can be definitively proven to be a production of JS's times- anachronisms such as deutero and trito Isaiah, Hebrews and KJV mistranslations, Adam Clark commentary, etc. The stone in a hat is one of many situations where we are asked to exercise a weird kind of faith- not in something that is "not seen, but true", but "faith" in something that is "not seen, and can be proven objectively 'not true.'" That feels fundamentally wrong to me when I believe that if there is an "all good" God, he wouldn't teach me to think critically and then condemn me for it. The rock in the hat doesn't work with critical thinking.
Yes, it stretches incredulity, but my point is that the stone in a hat is no less weird than angels, buried gold bibles, reformed Egyptian, divine translation, and magic spectacles--none of these work with critical thinking. The stone is actually more believable because it's a simpler story.
That's why I can't wrap my head around why ex-members find this one point so damaging to faith, other than "the church taught me x" and "now it teaches y", which is a pretty weak argument today, because the church is more accurately depicting the story with the Nelson video.
To your point, the real reason the church hid this for so long was likely to distance itself from treasure digging. This doesn't mean much to 21st century members but it might be harder to swallow by 19th century members who would associate it with criminal fraud.
I think the whole argument is stronger if you just focus on the crime. The rest is secondary.
In regards to the conviction question, my understanding is that there are some conflicting documents, so it it is difficult to say for certain.
The docket entry you referenced was a copy of a purported transcript that was published much later, and the original source it came from is not available so some people question how accurate the published version is.
"Each printing was apparently made independent of the others, as each contains unique omissions and errors. Without the original source, it remains unknown how accurately any of the published versions represents Neely’s original docket entry. The Utah Christian Advocate is featured here as it appears to be the most complete version of the text, capturing elements that were omitted from the earlier versions. Significant variants are explained in footnotes to the transcript."
"The itemized bill for Neely’s services in the published docket entry—assuming it accurately reflects the justice’s fees for his 1826 services—does not contain an entry for making a record of conviction, a document required by the 1825 justice of the peace manual. There is also no evidence that JS was incarcerated in the bridewell in 1826. While this strongly suggests that Neely did not convict JS, the lack of verifiable contemporary records renders tentative any conclusion about the case’s outcome."
"Against these strong indications that Joseph must have been acquitted, there remains only the concluding statement of the Pearsall record, “And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.” I believe this statement is an afterthought supplied by whoever subsequently handled the notes and is not a reflection of what occurred at the trial."
I've seen many faithful members give a knee jerk reaction on X, of discrediting you and this post because you claim JS was convicted. They claim it has been debunked. I think it is more accurate to say it is somewhat unclear.
But Matt. We all agree…even the church agrees….that Joseph was a treasure digger. Joseph even admitted it. So don’t we know he was guilty….even if he didn’t serve time? And wouldn’t it make most sense that he was likely found guilty….since we all agree he broke the law by treasure digging? The backlash is hilarious, because people are straining to get Joseph Smith off on a technicality when we all agree he was guilty.
This is exactly what I found out after I left the church.
Just curious, Are you going to cover other reasons people leave besides historical issues?
For me, it was how they were treating the LGBTQ community, even before the November 2015 thing.
I also left bc they were excommunicating my Hometown Podcaster, named John Dehlin, for talking about problems within the church. Thank you for caring about us. ❤
Spot on and well done! Wonderful to have a great summary of the events instead of people having to look everywhere for this information. When the video was released with Russell M Nelson demonstrating with the seer stone in a hat method for translating the Book of Mormon. I was shocked! If this had been explained to me by the missionaries that taught me in 1980. I would have NEVER joined. I was disowned by my family at the age of 18 and lost my jobs. I asked my true believing husband what he thought about the hat in the stone and he thought nothing of it. No big deal to him. He was raised in the church. I was always taught the BOM was translated by stones from the Urim and Thumin. I am sure I’m not the only one that feels betrayed. And the fact that they still omit this when teaching is disturbing.
That's a great point Patty. And I should totally include a reference to Nelson's engagement with the hat! I'm gonna edit the essay now! THANK YOU!
What an interesting story! I'm so sorry you suffered so much to join the church. Like your husband I learned about the Urim and Thummim when we studied Doctrine & Covenants, so my perspective comes from a different spot than yours.
I'm curious why you feel this one issue would have prevented you from joining the church? You were probably taught about the angels, buried golden bibles, Jewish Indians, and Jesus visiting America. These are all very implausible beliefs yet most members were taught these and accepted them.
Merely because the very first discussion is an introduction to the Book of Mormon. And I was assigned passages to read in the Book of Mormon. I was told these plates were translated by Joseph Smith. Then years later I asked about this process since finding out through church history classes that Joseph was unlearned. Then I was like well how was he able to read these plates as unlearned farm boy. Then I was told through the power and gift from God. Years pass by again and I was in a church class and was told he used the Urim and Thumin. I was like ok. That’s in the Old Testament and was told it was buried with the plates. Then I find out from a video by President Nelson that he used a peep stone in a hat. I was like what? What’s that. Then I start digging into who Joseph Smith really was. Treasure digging. Plates were see by witnesses with their natural eyes. No they were seen by them with their spiritual eyes. Then this started me on a long road of discovery. It’s didn’t help my testimony to be a volunteer docent at the Field Museum and worked in exhibits like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Native North America Hall (I actually dropped out of the training for that one. It completely contradicted the Book of Mormon). And I also worked in the Evolving Planet exhibit. Real science exposed me to the real Mormon myths. It much more complicated and it is a long story.
I appreciate the recap and chronology and sources. This prompts a quick story while on my mission in 1978. I was asked by a University in Copenhagen if I would take part in a Theology class and teach three class sessions on comparative Christian Religions with a focus on Churches organized in America in the last couple centuries including Mormonism. I immediately accepted. There were about 100 students ... all studying to become Pastors in the State run Lutheran Church. In Denmark, you are born into the Church. I did a quick questionnaire and was surprised to find that nearly half of the students did not believe in God. It was explained to me by several students that being a Pastor is one of the higher paying social services jobs. You are well compensated plus you get to help people. After the first two sessions, the University called the mission office and left me a message that they wanted me to be aware that a particular Pastor was planning on coming to my final class presentation.. She was the one of the very first women Pastors in the Church with high visibility in the media, very outspoken, and quite brash. I had watched her on TV several times and was very impressed with her. My Mission President saw the message on my desk and gave it to me. He told me he would be coming to the class. I told him that was not necessary. He said if she was going to be there that he needed to be there. The entire session ended up focusing on her questions about Mormonism. And when I say questions, it started as a friendly interrogation with a lot of doctrine (some similar, some not to the Lutheran Church) and then turned into something much more confrontational when she started talking about the seer stone, the treasure hunting, the different accounts of the first vision, the papyri Joseph translated, the lack of archeological evidence of the B of M, polygamy, and the Priesthood Ban. I was actually very impressed that she knew so much. I planned to use that thought in how I would proceed. She did something quite clever. I remember her asking me what I personally believed about the Book of Mormon's translation and the Church's restrictions on Negroes? Not what the Church taught. I told her that I prayed that the restrictions would be lifted, and I agreed with her that Joseph had used a seer stone. My Mission President cut me off and bore his that none of what she had said was true. It got contentious, exactly what I wanted to avoid and what she hoped for in rallying the students to care. My intent was to give them enough information to spark possible interest in learning more and leave a good impression of Mormonism in their future ecclesiastical roles. In attacking their respected Pastor, my Mission President left a very negative impression. And the drive back to the Mission Office was not pleasant. He told me that I had obviously been reading way too much anti-mormon literature. It was of Satan, and he said I needed to repent. He was particularly upset about the seer stone. He kept asking me, "How could you agree with her?" He simply didn't want to know the truth about the seer stone. He even said if I wasn't his Personal Secretary in the Mission, he just might want to send me packing. A couple of days later, he brought me a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith where he said there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. Side note: This Pastor reached out to me in the Office the following month. She invited me to attend a sermon she was giving the following Sunday. She told me that I would find it interesting. I grabbed another missionary in the office and we went to hear her speak. Topic... the importance getting a personal relationship with God. And not relying on others for what you believe. We spoke after the service, she was happy that I had come. She wanted to thank me for teaching the sessions and asked if I had patched things up with my Mission Leader. She then encouraged me to always rely on and react to my own personal beliefs.
Fascinating story Scott!
Athiest pastors...that's wild! That was brilliant of her to ask you what you thought/believed (separate from the church).
Also, it can be so damning to a testimony when a church member or leader denies a historical fact/truth that one discovers later is true. Also, in a religious context, the person who loses their temper first...well....probably loses. That mission president sure didn't project security and confidence, did he?
JFS was hilarious in his denials of treasure digging and peep stone stuff. I'd love to see that quote!
Anyway, what a cool experience. Thanks again for sharing!
Thirty years ago, I would have found this all fascinating, but as an older man, I do not. I think it is more productive to judge religions by their net benefit to humanity. Obviously, a matter of opinion, but I'd say Christianity, Mormonism (which is not Christian), Jainism & Confucianism have been net positives, Judaism, Hinduism & Buddhism have been net neutral, and Islam a monstrous net negative. Many will say "all religions have extremists" and dismiss this holistic approach, but that's just limp-wristed cultural relativism. Regardless, as to the veracity of origin stories, I think I would like to quote the insightful Burt Cooper, "Who cares?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqkHPsY8p84
I commented on a YouTube video of yours recently that I think applies here too: Joseph Smith seemed to surgically skirt the law against using visionary means to find treasure while also trying and legitimize his past actions/methods. Doubling down as it were, but legally.
Joseph had visions of golden treasures, but they weren't too be sold. Instead they had a story on them of great worth! Religious importance! His investors were not investing in him having visions to lead them to treasure. They were investing in his visionary translation of the story the treasure contained! And the translation could be turned into a book, which could be sold.
And how did he string along his investors/benefactors for so long? The same way he did before! "Well the angel said I wasn't ready, I didn't have a box to carry them so I put them in a log, no one can see them unless God makes it "manifest" to them, the angel took them back!" Excuse after excuse after excuse. The pattern of behavior was there in his conviction. It's a modified story, adapted to overcome legal risk.
Was it only greed? Probably not, I'm sure he was deeply religious. And deeply religious people are also capable of committing fraud. They are also well equipped to convince themselves that they're doing God's work while doing it.
While Joseph may have been charismatic and an impressive storyteller there are plenty of examples of less impressive people conning huge numbers of people. If anything, I think we need to lower our expectations of the people who first followed Joseph. They were credulous, easily duped people. We've got a survivorship bias: those who were impressed and convinced had a strong desire to tell everyone how true it was, while those who didn't probably didn't care except for a small few. Kind of like how MLMs have millions of adherents while there's just a few journalists who expose their lies.
So I'm summation, you've got a pattern of behavior Joseph engaged in, retooled to overcome legal accountability, that was constantly reiterated into a more and more resonant and convincing prophetic calling.
There was an interesting article about Joseph Smith's magical practices and the 1826 trial in the winter 2021 issue of Dialogue. It's by Manuel W. Padro and it's called CUNNING AND DISORDERLY: EARLY NINETEENTH-CENTURY WITCH TRIALS OF JOSEPH SMITH. It's worth a read. It's been a few years since I've read it, but I remember thinking it made an interesting case about social control. I'm not sure about Padro's "alignment."
Concerning Stowell, doesn't he come to find Joseph Smith? Doesn't that at least make it seem a little like he's already convinced and practicing these kinds of rituals? Unless I'm completely off the mark about Stowell, it always gives me a little trouble reconciling narratives that portray him as an unwitting dupe.
Nice comprehensive overview of this issue. You brought the receipts, and this format is great for structuring your points and showing the original sources. I think the strongest point you make is the connection between legal fraud and religious fraud, which helps set up your next few topics on the "translation problem" and "true origin of the Book of Mormon" narrative. Can't wait to see the rest of the topics!!
One favor, could you please explain exactly why Joseph's use of a stone in a hat is such a faith destroying issue? It seems like such a minor issue and separate from the fact that Joseph was a criminal fraudster. I would separate or exclude this.
I can understand why revisionist history around the "translation" is troubling, but specific complaints about using peep stones to translate seem to be a problem for only a small group of ex-mormons who grew up with a particular set of teachings. I think it's very helpful to take a step back and consider how believers process information like this.
First, the peep stone is actually less weird than the overarching story we all believed about a boy visited by an angel who helped him find magic spectacles so he could read a golden bible. The peep stone just *seems* strange because it conflicts the old narrative.
Second, with the Russell M Nelson video, the church is clearly attempting to correct the record and substitute a new narrative. Most members are going to accept this and even welcome this transparency.
Finally, the church is very adept at rewriting history (i.e. polygamy, race teaching, temple ceremonies) mostly because they also control the media and the teaching. Members will only look at authorized sources, and when the story shifts, it can be so imperceptible that members won't pay attention. You already know that information control is just one part of the BITE model for mind control, which explains why smart people are still susceptible to manipulation.
This is why I don't think "stone in a hat" is a really important reason why people leave the church, which is what this series is about. Your essays will pack more of a punch if they're focused on an issue that can't be disputed--namely that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraudster and a known liar, who mixed pseudo science and religion to dupe people out of money. You do a really excellent job of laying this out. I don't think you need to go into the "but the church taught me x" and "now it teaches y" which is more a complaint about modern transparency than a complaint about history.
To me, the "stone in a hat" is a problem because that stone is part of the treasure-digging fraud, and then somehow is "sanctified". The rock doesn't help find treasure, but does help find/translate a set of golden plates that no one can definitively establish even exists. If we are to believe JS, then we have to accept a trickster God that wants people to accept the unbelievable- the ineffective rock for treasure digging is then used to effectively translate an ancient record- but that ancient record doesn't actually meet any reasonable test of historicity/authenticity- it can be definitively proven to be a production of JS's times- anachronisms such as deutero and trito Isaiah, Hebrews and KJV mistranslations, Adam Clark commentary, etc. The stone in a hat is one of many situations where we are asked to exercise a weird kind of faith- not in something that is "not seen, but true", but "faith" in something that is "not seen, and can be proven objectively 'not true.'" That feels fundamentally wrong to me when I believe that if there is an "all good" God, he wouldn't teach me to think critically and then condemn me for it. The rock in the hat doesn't work with critical thinking.
Yes, it stretches incredulity, but my point is that the stone in a hat is no less weird than angels, buried gold bibles, reformed Egyptian, divine translation, and magic spectacles--none of these work with critical thinking. The stone is actually more believable because it's a simpler story.
That's why I can't wrap my head around why ex-members find this one point so damaging to faith, other than "the church taught me x" and "now it teaches y", which is a pretty weak argument today, because the church is more accurately depicting the story with the Nelson video.
To your point, the real reason the church hid this for so long was likely to distance itself from treasure digging. This doesn't mean much to 21st century members but it might be harder to swallow by 19th century members who would associate it with criminal fraud.
I think the whole argument is stronger if you just focus on the crime. The rest is secondary.
In regards to the conviction question, my understanding is that there are some conflicting documents, so it it is difficult to say for certain.
The docket entry you referenced was a copy of a purported transcript that was published much later, and the original source it came from is not available so some people question how accurate the published version is.
"Each printing was apparently made independent of the others, as each contains unique omissions and errors. Without the original source, it remains unknown how accurately any of the published versions represents Neely’s original docket entry. The Utah Christian Advocate is featured here as it appears to be the most complete version of the text, capturing elements that were omitted from the earlier versions. Significant variants are explained in footnotes to the transcript."
"The itemized bill for Neely’s services in the published docket entry—assuming it accurately reflects the justice’s fees for his 1826 services—does not contain an entry for making a record of conviction, a document required by the 1825 justice of the peace manual. There is also no evidence that JS was incarcerated in the bridewell in 1826. While this strongly suggests that Neely did not convict JS, the lack of verifiable contemporary records renders tentative any conclusion about the case’s outcome."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/introduction-to-state-of-new-york-v-js-a/1#transcript-0-1826
"Against these strong indications that Joseph must have been acquitted, there remains only the concluding statement of the Pearsall record, “And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.” I believe this statement is an afterthought supplied by whoever subsequently handled the notes and is not a reflection of what occurred at the trial."
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/joseph-smiths-1826-trial-the-legal-setting/
I've seen many faithful members give a knee jerk reaction on X, of discrediting you and this post because you claim JS was convicted. They claim it has been debunked. I think it is more accurate to say it is somewhat unclear.
But Matt. We all agree…even the church agrees….that Joseph was a treasure digger. Joseph even admitted it. So don’t we know he was guilty….even if he didn’t serve time? And wouldn’t it make most sense that he was likely found guilty….since we all agree he broke the law by treasure digging? The backlash is hilarious, because people are straining to get Joseph Smith off on a technicality when we all agree he was guilty.
This is exactly what I found out after I left the church.
Just curious, Are you going to cover other reasons people leave besides historical issues?
For me, it was how they were treating the LGBTQ community, even before the November 2015 thing.
I also left bc they were excommunicating my Hometown Podcaster, named John Dehlin, for talking about problems within the church. Thank you for caring about us. ❤
Absolutely. This is the first of at least 20 topics.
Great!