Treasure Digging and the First Vision

Welcome Back and Episode Introduction

John Dehlin 0:00 Hello, everyone, and welcome to another edition of the Joseph Smith Podcast, brought to you by Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Dehlin. It is May 27, 2025, and today we are continuing with part two in this brand new series where we're starting this podcast series with the book Joseph Smith the Rise and Fall of an American Prophet by Dr. John G. Turner. For those who didn't join us already, this is part two in a series. Last episode we met with Dr. Turner to talk about or John to talk about his reasons for writing this biography, his motives, and then we talked about sort of Joseph Smith's family, his ancestors and his upbringing prior to, you know, I guess we could say 1820ish timeframe. So today we are going to be covering first vision kind of stuff, Joseph Smith's first vision and his treasure digging. And if we have time, we're going to talk about his, you know, Moroni story and his claim to be promised plates and his attempts to get the plates, everything sort of preceding the translation of the Book of Mormon. And again, the value I see in having John Turner on is it's, you know, number one, he's a great historian. Number two, this is a great book that we're covering. In number three, he's never been Mormon. And so unlike Fawn Brody or Richard Bushman, we're getting an outsider's view with a credible, top notch historian like Michael Coe or Robert Rittner in their respective fields. We're getting a top notch historian getting their views, calling balls and strikes on Joseph Smith. We've told all of you that the way that we can afford to do this, we want to pay John for his time. We also have production costs. So the way that we're doing this is we're asking those of you who value this content to support it financially. So we're happy to announce that nine of you so far after episode one donated to this project. We're grateful for those of you who donated. If you want to see this project continue, or if you value it, all you have to do is go to donorbox.org Joseph Smith and become a monthly donor. And as long as we have the money to pay John what he deserves, or at least something, and to cover our production costs, we'll do at least 10 episodes of this amazing book, if not more. And then we'll see if Joseph Smith the podcast is worth continuing after that as well. All right, so without any further ado, Professor John Turner, welcome back to Mormon Stories podcast.

John Turner 2:46 Thanks, John. Excited to be back with you really quickly.

John Dehlin 2:51 It's been a week since we released episode one. Anything you want to share about feedback, responses, how you're feeling about this so far?

John Turner 3:01 Super fun. I mean, one of the things I just. I think I probably said it last time. One of the things that I love about Mormon history is so many people care about it. You can write about all sorts of historical subjects, which can maybe really excite you as an author, but it is sort of a privilege to write about something that people care deeply about and want to engage on. So I think I got a few emails from folks who listened to the first episode, which I love. Um, you know, I love hearing from people, love getting, you know, thoughts back at me, whether or not they. They accord with my own. So this is a lot of fun.

John Dehlin 3:49 Any. Any hot takes or controversies that. That come to mind in terms of, you know, what people have shared so far?

John Turner 3:59 Well, what, you know, one thing. I mean, I don't. I don't really like to share too much about things I receive privately, but I. It's always of interest to me, actually. And this is a sort of a segue into today's topic. It's interesting to me how hotly debated so many aspects of the first vision remain. So the, the timing of it, the content, the different accounts. You know, there. There are other aspects or other points of Joseph Smith's life that are, of course, also controversial and stir a lot of discussion. It actually surprises me. I mean, I think I understand why, but it surprises me how hotly debated the first vision remains.

John Dehlin 4:48 Okay, and was that feedback from. Is that just kind of a segue to today, or did people already start talking to you, reaching out to you to discuss the first vision?

John Turner 5:01 Yeah, no, I had. I had one person over the last week really reach out about that in particular, which helped me get me even more excited to talk about it today.

John Dehlin 5:13 That's fun. Okay, cool. Well, I'm excited. I'm excited to dive in. So let's just go ahead and do that today. We're going to be covering, you know, if we. If we have all the time, chapters two and three of this book. Chapter two is called Light, and it covers 1817 to 1825. But let's go ahead and just start. I know you're prepared to talk about certain things and you're excited to talk about certain things, so why don't I give the floor over to you and then I'll start peppering you with questions.

Joseph Smith's Early Spiritual Experiences

John Turner 5:47 Yeah, so I think one thing that to me seems Persuasive is that at some point in his early teens, Joseph Smith has a powerful spiritual experience. I think the only, you know, the, the first reference that we have to it actually comes from the 1830 Articles and Covenants in which there's a reference to Joseph having received, I think, manumission of his sins or forgiveness of his sins, which accords with the 1832 handwritten account that Joseph makes of his earliest vision. And so I think that that's kind of a good starting point to put us back in the religious world of the Smith family in the late 18 teens, early 1820s. They're living in a Protestant culture that features a large number of camp meetings and revivals at which people have emotional experiences of repentance and forgiveness and an assurance of divine pardon. And I think it's to me from Joseph's histories and his comments, he very much wanted to participate in that culture. He did have a deep sense of his own sinfulness, shortcomings, transgressions. And we know that he went to some of these revival meetings, that he sometimes even took a push cart of his family's baked goods and I think root beer or something like that to sell at them, which is a really quaint idea, I think. And so he saw other people having powerful spiritual experiences and I think he deeply wanted that for himself as well. I think over the last 250 years of religion in the United States, there have been a lot of young people who have gone through that similar yearning for that sort of, I would say, Protestant revival experience.

The First Vision: Context and Historical Background

John Dehlin 8:34 Let me, as kind of a little bit of context to discussing Joseph Smith's experience, particularly I love that you set up in the book this idea that I think we read in every Joseph Smith biography, this idea of a burned over district, which as I understand it, means there were just a lot of religious revivals in the Palmyra area in upper state, upstate New York, let's just say what, 1818-1822, 24. Do you want to talk about that?

John Turner 9:06 Yeah. So, I mean, I think, because Joseph in, I think the canonical account of the first vision, which really takes shape in the late 1830s, because you refer specifically to revivalism, I think, right in 1820. Historians have spent a lot of time searching newspapers and memoirs and any other sources that might shed light on revival activity in and around Palmyra, sometimes with a desire to corroborate Joseph's account of his first vision, sometimes with a desire to discredit it if you can't find, you know, enough corroborating Revival activity. My own opinion is there's simply a lot of revivals. There are a lot of camp meetings held near Palmyra and in the broader vicinity during this whole time period. So I personally think some of those arguments are rather unnecessary. What Joseph says about the context, I think that's reasonably credible. He attended revivals. I don't think it necessarily matters whether there is a big one in the spring of 1820 right in Palmyra or not. I think that was, you know, that was a significant part of his religious culture. He was exposed to it. He understood it. He, on some level wanted to participate in it. Maybe on some level held back because of the reservations of his father or other family members, but he was at least right on the border and the threshold of that revival experience.

John Dehlin 11:10 Okay, and just because you bring that up, as I'm remembering years ago, when I first learned, and this was again in my 30s, that there were multiple versions of his recounting of the first vision and that they all come, I don't know, 12 to 20 years after the fact. As far as I understand then, when I was digging into reading each one, if I'm remembering right, sometimes he's 14, sometimes he's younger, sometimes he's 15, sometimes he's 16. Um, and. And. And that year seems, you know, to be trying to be pegged to whenever it was that he attended or was experiencing some sorts of revivals. And so it's not just, you know, so if we speak to the fact that there have been multiple accounts and, you know, you're saying what I think is reasonable, which is, look, accounts, revivals happened. It doesn't quite matter when he was in a context of revivals. And so in no way should we look at whether the exact date of a revival corresponds as invalidating to his claim that he did have. What about the ages? You know, some would say, well, if it's 14 in one version and 15 or 16 in another, then all of a sudden, if you're actually seeing God or seeing God in Jesus or just Jesus, you know, you should be able to get a date and an age, right? And again, that's usually pegged to a date of a reasonable time for a revival. And please, I know I'm making mincemeat of the evidence. Feel free to clear it all up.

John Turner 12:51 Well, I mean, we can't totally clear it all up, which is one reason I think people keep arguing about it. So I think it sort of depends on what question you're trying to answer. You know, if you're. If you're looking for historically verifiable evidence of whether or not God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820, then maybe all of the particulars matter in the sense of, if you absolutely want to try to corroborate the exact content of the church's canonical account, then these minutiae matter. If you simply want to try to understand Joseph Smith's religious experiences as a young man, then I think the details actually matter, matter a little bit less. So if. If the question is, is it reasonable to think that Joseph Smith experienced forgiveness of sins or a vision of Jesus Christ or of two divine beings when he was 14, 15, 16, I think given his family's background, given the culture in which he lives, it's not surprising, or it's. It's not. It's at least not totally out of left field that he reports an experience along these lines. Going from that to try to corroborate what became a scripture for Latter Day Saints, that's a totally different matter. So I understand why people care about the details. I think we just can't really. We can't really access those details with, you know, historical evidence that would corroborate them as much as we would like. And, you know, I think so to not find a big revival right, in Palmyra, say, in March, April, May of 1820. To me, that in and of itself, that doesn't discredit Joseph. Likewise, to find that there were a lot of revivals in the area during that time period, that doesn't really provide evidence that divine beings appeared to Joseph Smith. Does that make sense?

John Dehlin 15:13 Yeah. Yeah. I guess one last thing would be, and again, none of us will ever be able to know what he did or didn't experience. It's more a matter of does. Does the existing evidence sort of like really send off the alarm of this sounds like a fraud. And so maybe a way to close this particular part of the discussion is does the age changing from 14 to 15 to 16 and the question of revivals, does that set off alarms for you that, like, something shady is going on if the accounts come 10 to 12 to 20 years later, and if the age is changing, does that set off alarms for you, particularly that maybe he just made it all up in the 1830s once he was, you know, trying to claim a more solid foundation for his starting of the church, or does it not? You know what I mean?

John Turner 16:09 It doesn't really set off alarm bells. Now, if we get into the particulars of the different accounts, again, I wouldn't Call them alarm bells, but I think maybe it makes sense, John, to take these in order. So when Joseph first sets pen to paper and writes a several page history of his early life in 1832, he describes mourning because of his sinfulness, crying out to the Lord, you know, seeing a pillar of fire or light, and then seeing Jesus Christ who assures him that his sins are forgiven. At the same time, there's in that vision or in that 1832 account, Joseph already states his belief that the existing churches are in apostasy. And Jesus confirms that in what he tells Joseph along with the forgiveness of sins. Now, given everything that we know about the background of the Smith family and this culture of revivalism, I think both of those things seem not totally unexpected. That Joseph would seek forgiveness for his sins and that he believed that none of the existing churches were true or valid. So, you know, that doesn't seem uncredible to me. I think when the story gets, you know, further developed in the late 1830s, there are some shifts and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they reflect not only that early spiritual experience, but also, you know, additional developments in Joseph's thought and self understanding and his understanding of the church as it progressed.

Evidence for the First Vision Between 1820 and 1832

John Dehlin 18:26 Before we maybe, and I don't know if you want to address those, but before we do really quickly, some people would want to find any evidence between 1820 and 1832 that he told this story. You know, if you see God Almighty, if you're close to your parents, if your parents are visionary people and your book talks about the visions that Lucy, Joseph's mom, and Joseph Smith Sr. Joseph's dad, they were having visions. I'm sure you're going to say that there were lots of people in, you know, New England between 1810 and 1825 claiming to have visits with God or the Lord. So in that sense, it wasn't necessarily even remarkable that someone would claim to have a visit from Jesus or from God and Jesus or whatever. But some would expect that, that he would tell Alvin, that he would tell Hiram, that he would tell Lucy or Joseph Smith Sr. That it would be written down in a journal somewhere that he would have told Emma that it wouldn't be showing up until, like you say, 1830. And also you mentioned an account where he goes to a pastor and tells the pastor and then the pastor sort of negates it. Is there any evidence that that ever happened? And if not, how do we explain, as a potential problem, the fact that the story emerges so late?

John Turner 19:56 It's a good question. I mean, I think ultimately we don't know. I think one thing I would say is last time we talked about the fact that Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Smith Sr. Had dreams and visions. Lucy creates a record of those in 1844 when she dictates her history. If we didn't have that history, we would have no record of her visions or the dreams and visions of her husband. So I think it actually is not crazy to think that people could have powerful religious experiences, maybe share them within the family. I kind of presume Joseph did to some extent, but maybe not share them very broadly. The other thing about Joseph's first vision is no matter which account you look at, it's a pretty transitory sort of experience. And that's not also super unusual for people who had sort of revival era conversion experiences or even down to the present day in Protestant contexts. Some people have super powerful spiritual experiences, have a very intense emotional or even visionary moment, and then Joseph says his life sort of reverted to the norm and became mundane. He fell into transgressions again. And certainly by that point I wouldn't expect him to be going around telling people that Jesus had appeared to him and had forgiven his sins. So it's not totally crazy to think that he could have had this epiphany or theophany and sort of shelved it due to the other circumstances of his life and then reflected on it in the 1830s and reflected on it at different times and in, in ways that caused him to reshape it in, in different ways. I mean, I think the discussion, again, it's just, it's different depending on what questions you're asking. You know, if, if you're really looking to either corroborate or discredit,

John Dehlin 22:27 say, the

John Turner 22:28 canonical account of the first vision. You know, that's, that's one discussion. If it's simply. Does it seem credible that this young Joseph Smith saw and heard the Lord? Yeah, I can, I can understand that he could have had an experience like that.

John Dehlin 22:48 Yeah, I think, I think the context that people think about most is if the 1838 account is to be taken as true, where he sees that God and Jesus are actually separate beings, that he's told that none of the churches are true, and that he is supposed to start the one true church or whatever it is that's in the 1838 account, then, you know, that's information that would definitely shape and guide potentially his behavior in the 1820s, including whether or not he considers other churches what he tells people how he claims he has authority to start a Church in 1830. So it's not about sort of being cynically trying to tear him down and destroy it. It's just about do the facts line up to make the story at least plausible or are there again, just big red flags, you know what I'm saying?

John Turner 23:41 No, I mean, I think that's a totally fair question. So I don't think for Joseph, I don't think the question, question of whether any of the existing churches are true, I don't think that's fully settled. You know, he, he talks about having some attraction for the Methodists. He later attends at least some Methodist class meetings or services with, with Emma Hale. He clearly is not interested in his, in the Presbyterianism of his mother and some of his, his siblings. So, yeah, I could definitely understand that as more of an open question than the first vision accounts suggest. You know, I think, I think perhaps if you're coming at it as a non Latter Day Saint, as someone who's, you know, never lived within the church, one wouldn't expect the canonical account to be a verbatim transcript of a conversation between Joseph Smith and divine beings. And you know, I think taking it as such is definitely more of a matter of faith than history. I think it's really hard for, you know, it's really hard for anybody to construct almost any conversation with anything approaching verbatim accuracy a week after an event, a year after an event, let alone almost two decades after an event. So I mean, I tend to think of the canonical account as, you know, as a founding myth really for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, rather than a strictly historical account of the particulars of that visionary experience.

John Dehlin 25:48 Yeah, it makes sense. Okay. And I'm going to just, if it's okay, I'm going to try and reflect to you my understanding of the 1832 account versus the 1838 account, mostly for the benefit of never Mormons who have. Or orthodox Mormons that really haven't didn't even know that there were multiple accounts. As I understand it, the 1832 account, he basically only one personage apparently appears to him. He calls that personage the Lord. And you know, that's understood in the context of Mormonism to be Jesus, not God the Father. So there's not two personages. There's one in the 1832 account. And then again, as you mentioned, he's not told to start a new church. He's not even told that all the other churches are false. He's Just told that he will receive a forgiveness of his sins and. And that sort of thing. Have I characterized the 1832 account relatively accurately or no?

John Turner 26:50 I think that's roughly correct. So, I mean, it's really clear that it's Jesus Christ because the divine being says, I am the Lord of glory. I was crucified for the sins of the world, or something like that. So it's clearly Jesus Christ. The only thing I'd say is, I mean, there is an emphasis on the apostasy of other churches. The statement is not quite as definitive and clear as in the later account, but that theme is also there.

John Dehlin 27:20 Okay. And part of why, for me, the first vision potentially starts to enter into smoking gun or red light territory is because when he comes out with the Book of Mormon in 1830, it seems like the Book of Mormon holds a more trinitarian or modalist. I never get the difference between the two view of the Godhead, meaning that Jesus and God are kind of the same being. And if you read the Book of Mormon in 1830, you know, you have Jesus saying, I and my father are one, basically reflecting Protestant Christianity, you know, around the time of 1830, not, you know, God and Jesus are separate beings, then you see in Joseph Smith's own theology and evolution, where God and Jesus separate, by 1838, he's now believing that God and Jesus are separate beings. And. And then, lo and behold, you have not only a new version of the first vision that's showing two personages instead of one, you also have changes to the Book of Mormon to reflect Joseph Smith's evolved theology. So there's that problem that he appears to be changing the Book of Mormon to reflect an ongoing change in his own theology, which then for me, starts to focus on, throw up some red flags. But then also you have the information that Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophet or the church historian in the 1900s, when he comes across the 1832 version, number one, it was kept from members. But number two, apparently he rips it out of Joseph's diary and hides it for several decades, clearly out of a fear that if word got out that the original version came before and wasn't consistent with the 1838 version, it would likely cause problems. And so those are, you know, for me, those are the really big red flags or red lights that say something really shady is going on here because the Book of Mormon shouldn't be changing. It was a one God or two gods. You should kind of get that right and not change it. And then when, when the Church is hiding the evidence. I think for many that that actually starts to become red flag territory. Now how much of that is valid versus not from sort of a balls and strikes umpire, objective point of view or attempting to be objective point of view?

John Turner 29:59 Yeah. So I mean, I think first of all that's such an interesting question, you know, so is it? I would say there's two different parts of that question. One has to do with what Joseph does in the late 1830s when he retells this story and creates what's ultimately published as a definitive history of Joseph Smith. So that's one question. Then the second question is what did the, what did later leaders of the church do? Perhaps to suppress that, you know, alternative accounts to that history. So. And are those shady things? So the first one in a way seems not that shady to me. I think it's more. More.

John Dehlin 30:54 You mean the Book of Mormon changes?

John Turner 30:55 Well, I would say that the changes in the late 1830s history. So from Jesus Christ to God the Father and Jesus Christ. I think it's fair. I think your question is a fair one in that we know that Joseph has more definitively rejected what you could call the creedal Trinity. By the late 1830s, he is definitively teaching that, that God the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are separate personages. So three divine beings rather than one. You know, does that influence the way he retells the first vision? Quite possibly. Is he specifically introducing God the Father in that later history to make that theological point? I don't think we actually know that that's the case because, you know, it's sort of strange. If you're not a latter day Saint and you read the canonical account, it would be really easy to not think about the issue of the Trinity. So here are two personages here, God the Father and Jesus Christ. Well, there are, there are a lot of paintings of God the Father and Jesus Christ created by Catholics and other sorts of Christians. So, you know, it's simply a discussion of two personages. You could easily miss that. So I grant your point that Joseph's later theology probably or could have influenced the way he talked about his first vision. I don't see that as particularly shady in terms of the Church, how it addressed the fact that there were these different accounts. So I don't know, I have to refresh my memory on Joseph Fielding Smith and the document. So I can't actually speak to that. I do think it was alarming to church leaders to have documents surface that didn't line up with the canonical or accepted accounts. And so, you know, let's just, maybe I can just try out an analogy. John. Let's say that the New Testament only contained one gospel, say the Gospel of Mark, and you know, it had been that way and then suddenly a Gospel of John surfaced which is, you know, rather different from the Gospel of Mark. And not everything lines up. Jesus doesn't necessarily act in the same way. He does things differently. He says different things. That would be really alarming to a lot of Bible believing Christians. Right. That would cause major spiritual angst. I think the fact is, you know, from a very early point, Christian churches maintained a belief in four gospels that don't all line up with each other and that do have discrepancies and even contradictions. And second century Christians were totally well aware of that and obviously could live with it, you know, doesn't necessarily need to be a big deal. I think the fact that, you know, some of these other accounts, particularly the 1832 history, because they come to light so many years later, in which Latter Day Saints and the church have grown attached to a single account, you know, that created, you know, that created apprehension, angst, you know, at first maybe a desire to keep these, keep these things at arm's length. More recently a desire to harmonize, to find elements of congruity. So, yeah. So are there shady elements in that? Probably. So I can understand the alarm that some church leaders and church members have felt when these things came to light.

The 1832 History and Multiple First Vision Accounts

John Dehlin 35:40 Got it. Okay. That's reasonable. And I really appreciate your willingness to kind of call balls and strikes in this regard. Really quickly, you mentioned on page 22 of the book, the version of the book I have that, that there was a minister that rejected Joseph's claim. Is that just Joseph claiming he talked to a minister or is there record of Joseph talking to a minister? I just wanted to get that clear.

John Turner 36:10 As far as I know, there's no corroboration for that. That's. I think that's in the canonical account. Okay. You know, I think it really, it really reflects the fact that. And I think it's a little bit hard for us today to recreate this, but Americans in the early 1800s or Protestants in the early 1800s, they're very divided on the validity of visions, miracles and a whole range of supernatural phenomena. And it's not crazy to think that if Joseph shared it with a minister, that minister would not be too thrilled to have this young man recounting, just having had this message from Jesus which didn't accord with what the Methodist Minister was teaching.

John Dehlin 37:01 Okay, so it's a reasonable story from your perspective, but there's no. We're trusting Joseph's later account. Yep, that happened. Okay.

John Turner 37:11 Don't have anything else to go on.

John Dehlin 37:13 Yeah. And that's that just as kind of a historiography point as I'm watching you retell the story. I'm always thinking some of these points he has to recount as if it happened, but we really don't have corroborating evidence that it did. But you have to tell the story. And so like in this case, you're saying it happened. Those, you know, there, there are going to be people who doubt that Joseph's trustworthy, but you're kind of stuck not having to give disclaimers for every part of the story or the book would be five times as big.

John Turner 37:49 It would be five times as big and five times as boring. For sure. Yeah. No, I mean, you know, you can't, you can't simply every step of the way, you know, purported vision or just claim to have done this or that.

John Dehlin 38:06 Okay. Yeah. So I've never tried to write history before, but my sympathies are with you in that regard. Okay, last question about the first vi. Well, anything else you want to say about the first vision before we move to the treasure digging, money digging topic? Did we cover. You had mentioned differences? I think there's eight or nine. Some say there are eight or nine different versions, but maybe four main, you know, different versions. Sometimes angels come, sometimes Satan binds Joseph. You know, lots of other facts and details, anything you want to say. And at the end of the day, you know, are any of the, for you, Are any of the major accounts, differences, red flags, or that at least Joseph Smith believed and, or possibly credibly had some type of theophany.

John Turner 39:07 So, yeah, good. Thanks for the opportunity to share anything else that's on my mind about this. I guess that's two things that come to mind. So in the canonical account, when Joseph recounts being really bound by Satan and, you know, unable to speak, there's a similarity between that and, I hope I'm remembering this correctly. And an experience that Newell Knight relates about, I think his hesitancy to pray vocally. So that idea that, that Satan would make it difficult or, you know, impossible for someone to pray, you know, that that was, you know, a cultural experience that, that other people had at the time. I think the only other thing I want to mention is I'm glad you mentioned, you know, that there's so much discussion of the 1832 versus the 1839 account. Joseph does continue to talk about this vision with greater frequency toward the end of his life. So there are some journal accounts in which people record what he says. And one thing that, that he does toward the end of his life is he begins to describe the physical appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. They look very similar in appearance. I think he uses some biblical language to describe them. I think he describes their eye color at one point as blue or what? It's blue, I think. I don't know if it's blue in everyone, there's at least one account in which it's blue. In a way, the experience becomes more vivid, more corporeal. Maybe that also reflects, you know, the development of Joseph's theology during the 1830s and early 1840s. I find that fascinating.

John Dehlin 41:24 Yeah, I know that in the Mormon Temple ceremony films that I grew up on, you know, they both look almost identical. They're basically white bearded men in white robes in the sky, you know, and their skin is white. It's not just, it's a bright light. They're white humans. They're white humanoids floating in the sky with white hair and beards. And you're saying maybe some of that was actually fashioned after Joseph's later commentary about what he saw?

John Turner 41:57 Could be, yeah. I'm not sure whether that's the case. I actually write about some of those later accounts in more detail in one of my earlier books called the Mormon Jesus. But in the biography, I did mostly focus on the 32 and 39 accounts.

John Dehlin 42:15 39 or 38. For some reason, I have 38 in my mind.

John Turner 42:18 It's 38, 39. So apparently Sidney Rigdon, under Joseph's direction, starts working on a history in April and May of 1838, once they get to Missouri. But we don't have that manuscript doesn't exist. So then what we have for what becomes the history of Joseph Smith are accounts created in 1839, but they might reflect the work done a year earlier. We don't really know.

Comparing the 1832 and 1838 Vision Accounts

John Dehlin 42:50 Okay.

John Turner 42:50 And if I could, John, let me just, let me just mention one other, one other concluding thought on the first vision. So I had, I had a number of people read drafts of, of my biography of Joseph Smith. And I did actually, when I wrote about the first vision, when I drafted my account, I was a little bit more hesitant and careful about saying, well, we can't really know this, we can't know that. And one of my readers pressed me, come on, say if you think he actually saw the Lord and I thought about it, and I thought that was a reasonable complaint. And I do think in Joseph's cultural context, it's not unreasonable to conclude that he had a visionary experience as a young man. So this is sort of my summative thought on it. Regardless of its particular content or exact date, there seems little reason to doubt the story's core that a spiritually distraught young man saw, saw, and heard the Lord. I think for me, that's as far as I want to go. You know, I can't know the exact date. I can't corroborate or discredit, Discredit particular content, but I can believe that the young Joseph Smith saw, saw, and heard Jesus Christ or saw the Lord.

John Dehlin 44:26 Okay. Yeah. And again, a questioning Mormon or someone investigating the church is interested in a little bit more because the stakes are so high. For most people who really care about this question, it's not just they want to attack Joseph Smith. It's more they want to know, wait a minute, are God and Jesus separate beings? Because that's kind of a big deal theologically. I've been asking, you know, Christians if they see Mormons as Christian. And so many of them just say Mormons aren't Christian because they don't believe God and Jesus are the same. You know what I mean? And that's enough to just have a whole bunch of Christians just not even count Mormons as Christian at all. But also it ties to the Mormon theology that we can all become gods someday. It's kind of a really big deal. But. But more than that, you know, Joseph doesn't just claim to be starting a Christian church. He claims to be starting the one and only true church that God sanctions and that all other churches are false, that's a pretty bold claim. And if that doesn't appear till later, and it may have been made up and just inserted when he's, you know, as he seems to do in other instances when his credibility is threatened or his authority is quite threatened, and so he comes up with a Melchizedek priesthood out of thin air when. When those who are around him at the time say, hey, that Peter, James and John experience with the Melchizedek priesthood, that never happened. Like, if he has that tendency to make stuff up when his authority is being questioned, that claim about that little part of the 1838, 39 version about God telling him to start the one true church, that kind of really matters. And, you know, yeah, I think that's why.

John Turner 46:14 No, I totally get that. And more recent church leaders have placed Tremendous weight on the first vision. So I might not get the exact quote right, but President Gordon B. Hinckley said something along the lines of, you know, everything sort of hinges on the. The truth of the first vision. And if it's not true, then, you know, this work is false. If it's true, then it's true. But I. I do think if you're simply. If you're trying to start with Joseph Smith's life when he's writing his accounts, you know, he's writing them in the 1830s, he's thinking about how to present his life, how to explain the history of his movement. Yeah, I don't think. I don't think a biographer's task. Right. Would start with the. I almost wouldn't quite start with what President Hinckley was saying in the 1990s, you know. You know, Joseph himself doesn't quite articulate it that way.

John Dehlin 47:29 Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, Well, I really, you know, this is a big one. So I know we've taken 40 minutes to talk about it, but it's a big one. So it's worth at least 40 minutes. I'm going to end the first vision discussion with kind of flipping. Flipping it around and asking you one final question. If somebody were to make the assertion that the 1838 account is just made up, and Joseph just made it up out of whole cloth sometime between 1832 and 1838, and that pretty much most or all of it never happened, is there evidence, you know, prior to 1832 that would legitimately counter that perspective? Do you understand how that's kind of looking at the question from a different standpoint or is really all we have are Joseph Smith's late recollections to buy any of the 1838 account?

John Turner 48:30 So that's a good question. So whether we have anything to corroborate the 183889 account? Well, first of all, I mean, it's not. The first thing I'd say is it's not totally. It's not a total lack of continuity. Right. So, you know, that concern about the apostasy of churches that's there from the start, we at least have the corroboration of the earlier account of a visionary experience of deity. So, you know, I don't think it's reasonable to say that based on other evidence, Joseph just makes this up whole cloth in 1838 or 1839. I think it's. What's. What is reasonable is to say when. When Joseph first tells the story of his life in any detail in 1832. So this is when he's 26 years old, he talks about a powerful youthful visionary experience. When he retells it at the end of the decade, he definitely tells it differently. Does that make it, does that make it harder to believe in the particulars? Well, it probably does for some people. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But, you know, I had, I had a historian friend tell me once something that I thought, I thought was wise. He said, we can't penetrate. We can't really study the religious experience of other individuals. You know, we can only study the narratives that they created. So we can't penetrate to the marrow of anybody's religious experience. That'd be true if we only had one account, you know, or if we had two accounts that totally lined up with each other. We only have the stories that Joseph chose to tell. And we don't have, you know, we don't just don't have much else to go on. And so I guess I, I would just return to the point. I think it's reasonable, given what he shared, that he did have some sort of powerful vision, visionary experience when he was 14, 15, 16. Beyond that, history, academic history can only get us so far.

John Dehlin 51:14 Got it. Perfect. Okay. Thanks for addressing the first vision so thoroughly and for being such a good sport with my questions. John, should we go to treasure digging next?

John Turner 51:27 Sure. That sounds fun.

Treasure Digging Culture and Joseph Smith

John Dehlin 51:29 Okay, so let me just ask you, Let me maybe start it out this way. I was so delighted to read in my studying of treasure digging, Benjamin Franklin's account of the treasure digging sort of con, I don't know, 1770, 1780, like really, really early. It's almost like he's describing the type of behavior that Joseph smith got into 40, 50 years before it happened. And, you know, so for our never Mormons, or for those who haven't really had a chance yet to dig into the book, and I want everyone to go buy the book and make this an international bestseller. But do you want to talk about, number one, kind of what the practice was? To what extent was it known to be a con before Joseph Smith participated in it? To what extent was it known to be legal versus illegal? And I'm talking about scrying, glass looking, treasure digging, whatever you want to call it. If you want to throw some Pirate Captain Cook stuff in there, you can, but then, you know, and this is a big long question, so you can talk for 20 minutes if you want, but to what extent was it a behavior that just uneducated, bumpkin, crazy, superstitious people did, or, or as the church wants to claim, it was the type of behavior that credible, thoughtful, well respected people engaged in as late as 1826. So it's a big question. Take it where you want.

John Turner 53:07 Okay, that's really fun. Yeah. You know, the other thing I want to say just before we get into this, just because I don't want to forget it, you know, I think whenever, whenever we get into discussion about early Mormon history, people care a lot about it. You have a lot of listeners who, their experience in a church founded by Joseph Smith has had a deep influence on their life, positively or negatively. And so these are serious topics. I think treasure digging is an opportunity to also take a step back and think about it just a little bit less seriously. And so let me try to explain where I'm going with this. I think a lot of elements of Joseph Smith's personality and activities, they involved a measure of mirth and fun. And I'm going to return to this when we talk about some accounts of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. But I also think, also think it's worth mentioning in this context. I think for the young Joseph Smith, treasure digging, whether that was dousing with a which hazel rod that might find sources of water or whether that was using a seer stone to imagine the presence of lost objects or treasures buried in the earth. I think especially, you know, if you're out at night with another group of people looking for things in the woods, going around with torches and shovels, and you're 16, 18, 19 years old in your early 20s. I have a feeling that some of those escapades were simply fun. I'm not saying they couldn't also be pregnant with spiritual meaning or greater seriousness. But I think Joseph found those pursuits pleasurable and fun and enjoyed doing them in the company of other young men in particular. So I thought I'd just preface that at the outset.

John Dehlin 55:42 I think that's important because I literally don't think I've ever heard that idea of mirth introduced into this whole conversation. It's always super serious. Was there fraud? Is he a charlatan? But yeah, thanks for introducing that idea of fun because it makes. It's like night games. You know, we grow up playing night games, hide and go seek or whatever. How could it not have had an element of that?

John Turner 56:08 I think that's almost certainly true. And I don't actually think I might have mentioned that in the chapter. I might not have, but I know I do when I talk about some elements of the Book of Mormon story. But I think it was also true in this case. This is Joseph spending time with his family and his friends outside imagining great riches, you know, contemplating spiritual power. I, I do think that there was a strong element of mirth and fun. And I don't think, you know, I think for some it's certainly true that for educated, some more educated Americans and ministers, these are simply disreputable activities and could be scandalous. And there was, you know, you know, as, as this developed, there's concern about individuals being duped and conned. But I, I think, at least at first, I, I don't think there was just that strong element of scandal and seriousness with this.

The Glass-Looking Trial and Its Implications

John Dehlin 57:18 So let me just ask, you know, later. We know. And your, your book discusses the fact that he ends up in trial and I think being convicted of, of glass looking or disruptive, you know, behavior. I'm forgetting the exact words you use. We'll get to it. But would it have been known as an illegal activity? Kind of like, I guess kids smoking weed these days, like something that kind of, everybody knows is illegal, but lots of people do just because that's what, you know, people do in the, in the culture is sometimes they break the law or speed, you know, in their cars or whatever. And it's just kind of known to be illegal, but maybe not enforced or not a big deal.

John Turner 57:59 So I think to do this professionally, it was illegal according to New York State law. So there's.

John Dehlin 58:08 And was it known, Was it known to be illegal?

John Turner 58:12 It's a good question. I don't think we know whether or not the Smiths knew it was illegal. They certainly find out. Right. As of, as of 1826, they probably. My hunch is they probably would have known.

John Dehlin 58:27 Okay.

John Turner 58:28 By the time that Josiah Stowell hires them, I think they would probably have known that it was, that it was illegal. I don't know. I don't know that they would have regarded that with tremendous seriousness. You know, it's not the worst thing you could do.

John Dehlin 58:44 But also, you know, you'll mention, you'll mention in your book that there were, there were several people doing it. Whether it's Sally Chase, whether it's. Who are some of the other characters?

John Turner 59:00 Sam Lawrence.

John Dehlin 59:02 Sorry, say it again.

John Turner 59:03 Sam Lawrence.

John Dehlin 59:06 Lumen Walters.

John Turner 59:07 All right. Yeah. So, I mean, there's.

John Dehlin 59:10 And didn't, didn't the Josiah stole. Didn't you mention the Josiah stole silver mine dig in Pennsylvania, that they tried a different glass looker before they brought on Joseph?

John Turner 59:22 Correct?

John Dehlin 59:22 Yeah, I know. I wrote that name Somewhere.

John Turner 59:25 Yeah. I mean, I love actually the quaint way that this story begins, which I think is at least possibly credible, that, you know, Joseph meets a young woman named Sally Chase who lives on a farm just over the hill from where the Smiths are living. And she has a green glass through which she can see wonderful things. And Joseph, I think he's entranced and enchanted with this. I mean, I do think he believes that such things are possible. And she lets him look in his stone. The, The. The story goes, which. And I, I'm not quite sure how credible this is that. That he can see a stone of his own that's, you know, ready for him to find and use. And seems that there. There's then an operation to try to locate it on the Chase farm. And both he and Willard Chase want it. It, you know, Joseph ends up being. Being able to. To use it. And, you know, he also claims that. That he can see things through this stone. Now, one of the great mysteries is that we can't fully answer is, does Joseph really believe that. That he can see things? Is he, Is he. Is he making. Making up this power? Does he. Does he actually, when he looks into this stone, does do things appear in his mind, in his imagination? We don't, you know, we don't really know. And I, I wouldn't want to try to definitively answer that. But he gains a reputation as someone who's able to do that. And I find that, you know, that that's an interesting part of the story too. Within, Within a few years, you know, he gains at least a little bit of renown for this spiritual talent to the point that somebody's willing to pay him money to do it.

John Dehlin 1:01:48 Tell me if I'm right. I think it's John Hamer. Maybe it's Dan Vogel. I'm trying to remember who made this point clear to me. It's twofold. He doesn't just become known as someone who has a gift or a talent. He's known as someone who has a magic rock. Right. As I understand it, the earlier you go in the treasure digging accounts, the power's in the stone. And then the first stone wasn't good enough. And then he wanted a second stone that had more power. And eventually he gets the Urimum Thummim, allegedly, which I think your book claims has the most power of all, but then he doesn't use it. But isn't it true that. Yes, over time, what he does is he builds the perception that he has special power. But doesn't it begin with the belief that he has objects with special power.

John Turner 1:02:42 Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah. Is it the stone or the man or both? Or the girl. Right. I mean, depending. Or the woman, depending on the case. Yeah. I don't know if it's totally a thing of one or the other. So Josiah Stowell has a relative in Manchester, New York, near the Smiths. And through this relative, I think a son, he hears that Joseph Smith has the skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone. So in a sense, he hears about Joseph's skill. That skill is also connected to a certain stone. And there's definitely in. There's definitely a sense that Joseph. Joseph may have had the skill and he may have had the ability to use these stones, but. Yeah, that some are more powerful than others. And ultimately you want to have the most powerful one through which you can see anything.

John Dehlin 1:04:01 Okay, so it's kind of a. It's kind of a both. And it sounds like, you know, I love it that you addressed this idea again, like, with the first vision, that. That we'll never be able to know whether he believed he was seeing things in the stone or whether he was committing, you know, outright fraud. I guess we'll talk a bit more about the details, but I think it's pretty fair to say that he never, ever finds treasure that he's able to produce for other people, you know, that they can make money off of, whether it's the silver mine with, you know, Josiah stole or, you know, other attempts at finding mines or treasure. And of course, you know, you can say, okay, maybe he thought he saw treasure the first time or the second time, and, oh, oops, an angel. You know, as soon as they were about to get the treasure, an angel took it away. But you would think after the second or third or fourth time, he would know that he's never actually finding treasure. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he believed he was seeing real visions in the stone. So, you know, since he never really does produce treasure that people can monetize or even really see, that isn't hidden or visionary, Some would say that's evidence enough that he would have known he was probably a fraud at some point. Does that add up for you or not, that logic?

John Turner 1:05:38 That's a good question. So I guess I would probably put it this way. I think by 1827. So this is after he's employed by Josiah Stowell. They don't find this silver. He's on trial. He, I, I think he's just allowed to kind of slip away and not, you know, he's this young irresponsible guy and I think the judge really wants to throw the book at him. You know, he comes back, back to the area courts. Emma, I think during that time does a little bit more treasure hunting, never finds anything. So I think at the very least by that point in his Life, he's only 21, 21 years old at this time. I think Joseph, whether or not he thinks he has a talent or a gift for seeing buried objects, certainly knows he's not, he's not going to make a living doing that. I mean that's, he knows that's, you know, that's, that's not going to happen. And I do think, I do think he feels at that point in his life, you know, some despair and confusion about what direction his life's going to take. So you asked us, does he know he's being fraudulent? You know, I don't, I don't know. I think he knows that he can't fairly claim to be producing treasures for money. It does seem to me that it doesn't necessarily have to be, it doesn't have to all be one way or the other. So if he did believe that people could use particular objects to find buried treasures or other objects, like if he believed Sally Chase could do that, if he believed in the ability of other seers to do that, he might have thought that he had that talent. He might have wavered, he might have gone back and forth. He might have convinced himself he could see things when he looked, looked into the stone, he might have felt chagrin and embarrassment when they couldn't. I don't know. I do think it is clear that by the time we get to 1827, he's not going to do exactly the same thing again. He's, you know, he, he then at that point in his life he claims to finally have retrieved a remarkable valuable object. But it's sort of a new, it's sort of a new and slightly different direction. It's not exactly the same thing.

The Josiah Stowell Expedition and Meeting the Hales

John Dehlin 1:08:37 So let's, let's talk a little bit about the Josiah stole silver mine and him meeting Isaac Hale and eventually Emma Hale. I think this is a really important part of the overall narrative because Isaac Hale is kind of a well respected hunter as your book lays out. He's an affluent man, but he's probably an intelligent man. And at least at first your book lays out that he's a partner in this expedition where He's a principal, which means he's probably financing these digs at some level with Josiah Stowell. And Joseph Smith is actually hired. And I went ahead and looked and you mentioned that Joseph smith is paid $14 a month. And I asked Chad GBT what that would be in 20, $25. It said about $452. So he's not making a lot of money, but he's making around $500 a month in equivalent dollars, which isn't nothing, especially if your family is destitute. And I think one of the important things to mention in the treasure digging is, you know, what your, your book so clearly lays out, which is the Smith family is destitute. They're about to lose their house that they built. Farming hasn't worked out. Alvin dies. And Alvin, as you, as your book recounts, was the main breadwinner. Joseph Smith Sr. You mentioned, has, has, you know, probably become depressed or an alcoholic. And Alvin dies. And again, they're about to lose their house and the farming ventures had failed. So there is a monetary motive for Joseph Jr. And even Joseph Smith Sr. To do anything to bring in some money or they're going to lose their house. Now, a financial motive for some then adds credibility to the fraud claim. But there's also the idea of motivated reasoning that when we're desperate we can fool ourselves. But regardless, you know, Isaac Hale turns from sort of someone that was willing to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt, who then went on some of these treasure digs with Joseph, who then saw that Joseph would say, dig, dig, dig. Okay, we're almost there. Oops, an angel took it away. Sorry, Josiah. Sorry. Isaac the angel, you know, the spirit took away the treasure and you know, sorry, we're not going to be able to get treasure clearly for an eyewitness. Isaac Hale turns at that point on Joseph and says, this guy's a charlatan. I don't want anything to do with him and I certainly don't want my daughter marrying the guy. In modern times, Mormon apologists and even the Mormon Church would just discredit Isaac Hail. And as a bad actor, as an anti Mormon, as a critic of Joseph Smith, but to me, Isaac Hale is a very important eyewitness that this was likely perceivably fraudulent behavior. Can you address sort of all of that Isaac Hale, the treasure digging? And Isaac is a credible witness?

John Turner 1:12:12 Well, I'm glad you mentioned. Let me just back up and talk about one other thing that you mentioned, John, which I think is a really important part of the story is the Smiths are about to lose their farm. So this is October of 1825. Alvin Smith, who really seemed to be the economic engine of the family by the early 1820s. He died in 1823. There are some twists and turns, but. But they are not going to make the final payment on their Manchester property, which is due in December of 1825. So they're going to lose the farm. I forget the exact amount they need, but it's a lot more than.

John Dehlin 1:12:59 It's a couple thousand, I think.

John Turner 1:13:00 Yeah, it might not be quite that much, but it's a lot more than the $14, you know, know that they're going to get as treasure diggers. So, you know, there's a couple of things you could think you said, well, they need any money they can get. But it seems, on the face of it, grossly irresponsible to head off with Josiah Stowell to search for treasure and leave Lucy Mack Smith and the rest of the family behind. As this deadline is approaching, it would have been a lot better to hire out, earn as much money as you possibly can, find some other way of making that payment, as they ultimately sort of do. So they're at least not displaced. So it's strange. Right. So maybe you could argue they actually think they might get the windfall.

John Dehlin 1:13:56 So.

John Turner 1:13:56 So they maybe they sincerely believe they could go off and hope to find this silver, which would be maybe the only way they could save the property. So that's not. That's not totally crazy. I still think. I still think on some level there's an element of escapism and adventure and almost running away from a problem that the family probably could have found other ways of solving. So I think it's a. I think it's a strange episode to begin with. Then on the point of the.

John Dehlin 1:14:29 It's hard not to imagine Lucy saying, get your arses back here, get to work. We're about to lose the farm. Stop this silly treasure digging garbage. But there's no record of that ever being an issue, which is surprising to me.

John Turner 1:14:45 Yeah. And, you know, maybe I'm being too hard on the Joseph Smiths at the time, you know, maybe Lucy thought, look, the best thing you could do is go off and do anything you can to get this windfall and save the day. You know, I presume that she supported her father and son in these sorts of spiritual quests. That could also be.

John Dehlin 1:15:09 I guess that's an argument for sincerity, that maybe Lucy supported them doing anything they could to get money and if they could get a bunch of silver, that would save the farm.

John Turner 1:15:21 I mean, it wasn't a good idea, but maybe. Right. And then, so then the other thing I. So Isaac Hale, so he does support this venture at first. He boards, I think, I don't know that we know this for sure, but at least, I think he boards the treasure diggers. I think he signs the articles of agreement as a witness. I don't know that he really bankrolls it, but. But he's at least supportive and he's open to it, which, you know, and I think that kind of gets back to your prior question that the idea that people, through seer stones or other magical means could find buried treasures, you know, it doesn't seem at first far fetched to somebody like Isaac Hale then. And this is a recurring theme at other points in Joseph's life, right. Joseph fails in his ability to find the treasure. You know, he taught. You know, it seems, according to the statements of others, that he says he can see it when he places one of his stones in his hat, blocks out the light, but because of enchantment or other obstructions, they just can't get it. Now what's interesting is that both Isaac Hale and Josiah Stowell, you know, they might not be always present on the scene, but they're basically witnesses to these activities and they respond in opposite ways. So Isaac, for Isaac Hale, this is discrediting. This is evidence of at least bad behavior, if not fraud. Josiah Stowell has relatives who reach the same conclusion. They want Joseph Smith to beat it, to stop, you know, kind of suckering his, you know, their father, their uncle, Josiah Stoll, as far as we know, to the end of his life into the early 1840s, he, he believes that Joseph has this gift. So he's not shaken by the fact that he fails. You know, he gets convinced of Joseph's ability when he, when he first meets him. And the fact that Joseph doesn't deliver, that doesn't rupture his faith in Joseph, which I think is so fascinating because I think, you know, your example of Isaac Hale is, is a good one. And then Josiah Stowell is this great counter example and a good reminder that two people can, you know, two people can look at the same evidence, all right, or the same events and reach totally different conclusions. And you see that again at other points in Joseph's life when things go awry, like I write about that with respect to the Zion's camp expedition in 1834, because they, they're unable to Redeem Zion. Some people lose their faith in Joseph Smith. Other people find their. Their strength confirmed by the same events. It's. It's sort of a mystery about human religious engagement and affiliation.

John Dehlin 1:18:43 Yeah. And. And I. I don't want to be off putting by using harsh language, but. But there is, you know, there is that saying. I don't know if it was PT Barnum who said, there's a sucker born every minute. You know, when you. When we talk about fraud, there's this idea of a mark or a rube, you know, a gullible person. Right. And some would say Martin Harris becomes that when it comes to the production of the Book of Mormon. But when apologists, you know, try and argue, look, yes, Isaac Hale, you know, didn't believe, but Josiah Sto believed until his last days. At first I was like, oh, my gosh. Okay, well, that makes it a balanced thing. I realized in my mind that if Joseph Smith had one power, let's just say he was a charlatan or a fraud. If he had one power, it was the ability to make people believe he had powers when he didn't. And so if. If there are people who survive a treasure dig when literally no treasure was produced, and he's sitting there with his hat and his stone and he's saying, dig, dig, dig up. There it is. I see it. Oh. Oh. The spirit took it away. If there. If somehow there are people remaining as believers in Joseph Smith's power after he fails and fails and fails and fails and they're paying him, that's not a testimony to his power necessarily. That's a testimony of his genius in being able to convince people he has power when he clearly doesn't. Does that make sense? And that's just where rubes or gullible people or Marx come into play in the human experience. And they're everywhere. So, again, I'm not asking you to sort of put that pejorative on Joseph Smith, and I'm not even doing it myself. I'm just saying the fact that Josiah Stowell continued to believe in Joseph Smith's power gives us an example, almost like a precursor to what many say is what happens with the Book of Mormon, which is, even though there are lots of reasons to disbelieve the Book of Mormon narrative, there's people who still did. And you could say, yeah, they're a lot like Josiah stole, you know?

John Turner 1:21:01 Yeah, yeah. No, I mean, that's a fair question. I guess maybe the one other way to think about it is we could think if we wanted to. We could think about it as still being. Let's presume he's being duped. You know, Joseph knows he doesn't have this power, and he's saying that he does. And he's getting a little bit of money from Stowell. Admittedly, not all that much money. So this is not, you know, this is not some, you know, enormous scandal, I don't think. But, you know, what's. What is Stowell experiencing? Maybe Stowell is. Maybe he's just eating this up. Maybe he's having a tremendous amount of fun on this quest. Maybe. I don't. I forget if Stowell himself is often out in the woods with the treasure hunters or not, but maybe for him, this is thrilling and a break from the banal. I'm not saying that, therefore it would make it okay if it is just fraudulent activity, but I think sometimes I think all of us, and I don't think this is only true in religious contexts, we become attracted to people and movements. We embed our lives in them. And there. There are reasons we stick with them even when there are contradictory things or failures, because, you know, those. Those people and those movements, they're shaping our lives where, you know, we're getting things out of them. Maybe other than the buried treasure.

John Dehlin 1:22:50 Yeah. Like, they didn't have bowling leagues. They didn't have Monday Night Football. It could have just been a fun activity that people participated in when they would otherwise be sitting around looking at each other in a small log cabin somewhere. Maybe.

John Turner 1:23:04 Yeah. I mean, who knows, right? It wouldn't have been my. My cup of tea. I wouldn't have wanted to get bit by all the bugs in the woods, get the poison ivy or something like

John Dehlin 1:23:13 that really, really quickly. You know, there's in. In page 33, you. You mentioned, you know, the. They kind of get desperate. They're not finding the treasure. So Joseph gets the idea of sacrificing a lamb, and so the group slaughters the lamb. Joseph walked in a circle around the dig site, sprinkling the lamb's blood upon the ground as a propitiation to the spirit. And then you write, the sacrifice was in vain. The lamb was killed, but they still didn't find anything. I guess there's a degree of presentism where modern people would just be aghast that Joseph Smith sacrificed a lamb. I think there are also probably Christians that would say, oh, this is starting to branch into the occult. Sort of like dark magic, witchcraft kind of territory. And this is where Joseph Smith really goes off the rails. And there are other people who account, you know, pentagram like things or like occult behaviors associated with the ritual of doing the treasure digging that really strays from Christianity into kind of what many would say are the dark arts. What would you have to say about the killing of a lamb and, or those who are concerned that this is witchcraft dark arts kind of territory?

Reconstructing the Treasure Digging Trials

John Turner 1:24:40 Yeah, well, I mean, first of all, one challenge that I think you have as a historian when you're reconstructing these things is, you know, you mentioned before, like, do you have anything to go on other than Joseph's account? Well, often not really. Well, in this case, mostly what we have to go on is accounts of Joseph's critics. Right. So you know, we don't, we don't know that he actually did it. I included it in part because there was a second account that, that at least had some similarity to it. I think that one might have involved a dog rather than a lamb. I forget the gory details and so I thought it was worth including. Even though we can't be sure. I think it does probably reflect that for some Americans, for some American Christians, treasure digging did smack of witchcraft. So these laws against glass looking palm reading, I think, I think they also, they're often also in the context of making false accusations of witchcraft. And there's a scholar named Manuel Padreau who wrote an essay, I think in dialogue about this sort of interconnection between Joseph's treasure digging trials and the idea of witchcraft and the occult. So I mean, that's a long way of saying it's possible that Joseph's critics might have embellished these stories to sort of tar him with the label of witchcraft of something that's satanic rather than just fraudulent.

John Dehlin 1:26:45 And they mentioned him carrying around a Jupiter's talisman. I think some have found that Lucy possessed a book related to witchcraft, that sort of thing. Anything else we're saying about just to the extent to which the family wasn't just into kind of, you know, folk magic, but potentially. Oh, and there's also the idea that when Joseph ends up returning to the site of the plates, which we're going to talk about in a second each year, isn't it on a date that's typically associated with, with the occult? Is it the one of the equinoxes or something? Some sort of pagan.

John Turner 1:27:26 It's right, it's right around then. And you know, so, you know, I think that Mike Quinn and many others have, have documented that the Smith family, you know, at least dabbled in this sort of thing. I think, you know, I think we have a pretty strong account, say, for Joseph Smith Sr. Being a dowser. I know this is slightly different. And obviously Joseph and Seer stones, in terms of talismans and other sorts of occult activities. I'm going to have to defer to other scholars on that. I mean, I think the Smiths were engaged on the margins in that way. I don't think it was. I don't think it was really central to what they were doing.

John Dehlin 1:28:21 Okay, another quick question before we go to the plates. Oh, I do want to talk about the trial. I know you talked about him being let off, but. But before we get to the trial, before we get to the plates, really quickly, if you think of. And I'm going to maybe address this with you in a future episode more in depth, but if you just think about, number one, the fact that he was never able to find anything legitimate with the stone in the hat and that he ends up on trial for glass licking or scrying or juggling or whatever it was called. Then he turns around and eventually ends up using the same stone in the hat to. To allegedly, quote, translate the Book of Mormon. It's kind of like he's using, you know. You know, you can say fraudulent tools to then do sacred work, or if you don't want to use that term, you could say illegal tools or you could say ineffective tools to then turn to do spiritual work. That. That seems to be concerning, if not discrediting, and that. That seems to be a problem for a lot of people that, that he would use the tools for treasure digging in the production of a sacred work, especially when he uncovers the Urim and Thummim. Why would he be using the tools of dark arts or the tools of folk magic, you know, that are illegal, so that's number one. But then also sort of like the. I don't want to. The framework of, like, buried treasure that a spirit is guarding, that a spirit is withholding while he's using a stone and a hat. Guess what? That's exactly what he was doing with treasure digging. And it sounds a lot like the story of Moroni or Nephi and the cave or the plates in the hole in the ground in the Book of Mormon. It's almost like, for some people, it'd be reasonable to say that the treasure digging stuff really taints or infects the Book of Mormon narrative, because it's almost like he's like, okay, the jig is up. I can't keep doing this. Treasure digging thing anymore because I'm going to get busted. But I'll just pivot. I'll keep the artifacts because I've got a reputation for being able to see in a stone and there's still people that believe in that. I'll just pivot. I'll still keep a treasure in the ground. I'll still keep some sort of spirit guarding it, but instead of trying to make money, I'll just claim it was a spiritual work. And, and it's almost like he's just pivoting, but still continuing with the same sort of fraud or con. He's just making it more religious and making it so nobody thinks they're going to make money off of it. Do you see what I'm saying? Does the treasure digging structure infect for you, in a reasonable way, the later claims about the finding of plates and the production of a sacred book?

John Turner 1:31:27 So the great question. I love the extended John Dolan question. It's just. That's really fun.

John Dehlin 1:31:34 Well, I hope it's not annoying because some people hate it, but.

John Turner 1:31:37 No, no, no, I love it.

John Dehlin 1:31:40 So

John Turner 1:31:42 I approach that whole issue I'm tracking with what you're saying, but I also approach it a little bit differently in the sense of, Yeah, I do think he pivots to a new thing using the tried and not true method. Right. I guess you could say, because so he, you know, I, I mean, he's enmeshed, I think, in this culture. I don't, I don't know that he totally believes it or doesn't believe it, but he does. I, I think at least a certain point in his life, he believes that people, especially if they find a powerful stone, they can see hidden buried objects. And somebody, probably at some point, I don't think we know exactly how he stumbles upon the method. Somebody must have told him the best method is to, you know, block out the light, look into the stone. Right. And so I don't think it's. And it does seem that he uses that method, or at least there's one account. I don't think it's from Joseph himself. I think it's from someone else that suggests he used that method to divine the location of the buried plates. And then we do have accounts of him using that method during the translation process. There are certainly faithful Latter Day Saints today who contest what has sort of been an evolving consensus that Joseph used the seer stone and the hat during the translation process rather than Urim and Thummim. So people still argue about that quite a Lot. But one way in which I would diverge a little bit from the way that you framed it is, okay, you made it sort of sound like Joseph's pivoting, but basically doing the old trick. So the method might be similar, but I want to stop and just say, what a remarkable pivot, right? So, you know, let's say you're someone who's essentially a failed glass looker, right? You're, you've been hired to find this Spanish silver mine. You don't find it, what's your next act? Right. Digging wells. You know, I mean, that'd be, that'd be probable, right? Or, you know, maybe doing other unsuccessful treasure hunts in western New York State instead. What Joseph pivots to is producing something that is tangible and remarkable. You know, he produces this five or six hundred page book that he's also intending to sell. I mean, the family circumstances are still desperate. Joseph needs some kind of economic direction for his life, right? He doesn't want to be an unsuccessful, he doesn't want to be a farmer. You know, that life doesn't, doesn't have appeal for him. And so he pivots to something that's just utterly ridiculous, audacious, absurd, bold, and he pulls it off. Now, so if we're approaching this from the question of is Joseph a true prophet, is this church a true church, then the question is, you know, is he, is he a true prophet or is he a fraud? For me, if, if you frame it like that, and I, I understand why for many people, that's, you know, those are the questions. But also, how does this failed glass looker produce this book? I mean, that's, it's a remarkable pivot.

John Dehlin 1:35:38 Meaning the Book of Mormon.

John Turner 1:35:39 Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, there are a lot of people going around looking for treasures, right? There are other seers for hire. Nobody else produces something like the Book of Mormon. So it's, it's, it is pretty remarkable if he can use the tried and not true method to do that, and maybe he actually finds something he's good at, which is creating this epic narrative.

John Dehlin 1:36:06 Yeah, I'll just say if you study L. Ron Hubbard or Keith Ranieri or any founders of modern high demand religions or cults, you'll find that they had failures or ran and ran afoul with the law until they, you know, decided to become religious leaders. And so, you know, my, my sense is this is a problematic enough story that again, most of us were raised having never been taught any of this history. And I think it was Hugh Nibley, the famous Mormon apologist of like, I don't know, the 1940s through the 1980s or 90s, who basically denied that Joseph wound up afoul of the law, denied that there was a trial in 1826, I believe, and who I think is quoted as saying that if, if, if, if Joseph actually, you know, ended up on trial for treasure digging, it would be one of the most damning possible things that we could discover about, about the church's founding narrative. So, you know, there are a lot of people that would, that would just say being involved in illegal appealing, fraudulent behavior is not a great look for being, you know, for ultimately claiming to be the second most important person next to Jesus who was called to found God's one true church upon the earth. So I mean, it is audacious. It is, you can smile and say this is fabulous. This is creative. How. What chutzpah.

John Turner 1:37:44 Right, right.

John Dehlin 1:37:45 But, but also it's, it's not, it's not a good look in terms of the 1826 trial. And even what I understand to be his confessions to, to Isaac Hale, which he's reported to have said, I never really could see anything in the stones. It's almost as if to Isaac Hale, he's admitting that he was a fraud. So anything you want to say again about Isaac Hale's credibility? Should Isaac Hale just be dismissed as not credible as an anti Joseph Smith guy? And anything else you want to say about the trial and the legal aspects before we move to the plates? I just want to make sure we cover everything we wanted to cover there.

John Turner 1:38:25 Yeah, no, I don't, I don't discredit Hale. I mean, and there, there are many other people who are on the scene who have similarly negative views of Joseph. I do think so. I think it's always a temptation to, you want to get ahead in the story. We know that Joseph Smith is going to publish the Book of Mormon, organize the Church of Christ and launch this religious movement that has affected millions of people in 1826, 1827. He's this 21 year old man from this impoverished family who is kind of doing these, these wacky things. Yeah, he's disreputable and Hale understands that. I would say think about Isaac Hale in 1827. He's willing to, he's willing to at least make peace with Joseph Smith and give him another chance. He ends up bitterly disappointed in Joseph's ongoing activities. Right. And just, you know, the, finds the, the story of the plates offensive. Right. That Joseph's not showing him this purported object. But I think he also understands in 1827, after Joseph makes Emma look, this is a young. This is kind of a young. I think in Hale's mind, young, foolish man. I'm going to give him another chance. I'm going to hope he settles down. And. Yeah, and I do tend to admire Joseph's chutzpah and audacity, partly because I'm kind of grateful to him for giving me this great story to write about. I have to be a little bit forgiving. But, yeah, I think. I think we just can't quite get. Get ahead of ourselves. This is still. This is still a young, young man who's in really tough circumstances and is trying to find some way of escaping from, you know, that poverty, that directionlessness, that banality.

John Dehlin 1:40:47 He also is trying to make good. And I think. I think it's reasonable to say he was. He was. His family was under stress trying to figure out what God wanted them to do, what salvation was like and how it could be obtained. I think there were deep theological pressures pressing down on the Smiths and deep theological questions that I think are also very important drives that. That lead to this pivot as well. Right.

John Turner 1:41:22 No, I think. I think so. I mean, I do think one thing that's actually a little fuzzy in my mind is how important is this second vision of the angel, the Spirit? How important is that to Joseph between, say, 1823 and 1827? We don't really know. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest Joseph doesn't make up this story in 1827. Or if he does, you know, Lucy and. And others are sort of corroborating these earlier experiences for him. But, you know, it does seem like he has some sort of vision or idea several years earlier.

Moroni, the Mound Builder Myth, and Book of Mormon Origins

John Dehlin 1:42:11 It does seem about the Moroni or the Nephi. I think it's. It's been questioned whether he originally claimed it was Nephi or just a spirit or Moroni, but that. That was what, 1823, where he claims he was visited by a spirit.

John Turner 1:42:25 1823. I think in the 1832 history, he simply refers to an angel that's. That's not named. And I think there are. Maybe there are some other accounts where it's a spirit. Maybe I forget. And people argue about. It does seem like there are some references to moroni before the 1839 account. So I'm happy just to call it an angel or call it Moroni. I don't think that's super critical, but I do think we don't know how important that is in Joseph's life. That's not what seems to be attracting people like Josiah Stowell to him. You know, that that story doesn't seem to be in broad circulation. He may go there to the hillside every year. Seems like he brings Sam Lawrence, this other treasure hunter, one year. But in my own mind, and I think I say this in my book, it doesn't seem to be front and center in Joseph's mind or activities during these years until 1827 after the trial, after his marriage, when he's getting ready to move back to Manchester with Emma. They're trying to decide really where to live and what he's going to do. Isaac Hale wants, wants him to settle down on his property and become more respectable. And Joseph refuses to do that in a pretty grand way.

John Dehlin 1:44:12 Let's talk a bit about the context of the stories. The core narrative that ends up emerging from the Book of Mormon from which Moroni emerges. And I think of that as being the mound builder myth. You know, did you spend time learning about the mound builder myth that then informs the book, the view of the Hebrews? But as I understand it, the Tanners were able to find like eight or more books that all sort of had this core narrative of some sort of Israeli origins to Native Americans and even this idea that there were dark skinned and a light skinned, you know, groups of Native Americans and that eventually it was the light skinned Native Americans that built the cool mounds or the cool structures and it was the savage dark skinned Native Americans that killed off the light skinned ones. That's my understanding of this narrative that sort of informs the core narrative structure of the Book of Mormon called the mound builder mythology, that, that was existing in the decades prior to the creation of the Book of Mormon, you know, that, that Joseph was swimming in. Did you, did you study that at all? And if so, to what extent can you corroborate or even shed light on. On the mound builder myth?

John Turner 1:45:36 Yeah, so first of all, the idea that Native Americans or at least some Native Americans are descendants of Israelites or the lost tribe, the 10 lost tribes of Israel, that's pretty commonplace. It's not that everybody believes that, but that idea has been bandied about in what becomes the United States since at least the 1600s. And there may be earlier antecedents, you know, non English ones as well. So that's not that surprising or. Yeah, that is sort of just in the cultural, cultural stream. In terms of dark skin, light skin, I don't know, I might have to refresh My memory a little bit, John. I'm trying to remember what I've read in view of the Hebrews and then in the Spalding manuscript. I think one of those might have the light and dark skinned idea. I mean I do think one, you know, one thing about, and, and then your question was about Mount, you know, mound builders. To be honest, that's something that I've not studied all that closely. What, what I do, what I would say is that you can find these points of connection. Joseph doesn't just totally take and run with any of the existing ideas. So like he doesn't really use the 10 lost tribes. Dark skin as opposed to red skin is, is a little bit more unusual. So you know, I don't, I don't, I don't think it's a case. I think it's a, it is a case of Joseph being influenced by his culture. I don't think it's so much a case of any direct borrowing which isn't, isn't what your question suggested anyway.

John Dehlin 1:47:31 Yeah, I'm pretty certain that this, you know, again, it's kind of a straw man to say that anyone's claiming, anyone credible is claiming that the Book of Mormon was like plagiarized or lifted whole cloth or even partially partial cloth from other existing books. But I'm fairly certain that this idea of dark skinned and light skinned Native Americans where the darks, where the dark skinned were savages and the light skinned were more industrious, intelligent, capable ones who then were killed off by the dark skinned, I'm pretty sure that was relatively commonly perceived by many during Joseph Smith time. And it's just important because if the Book of Mormon isn't historical, then either, you know, Joseph Smith made it up or he, he brought it together from, from other things in his environment. Sure. And so I, I do want, if, if you, if you haven't come across that in your studies, I at least want to alert viewers and listeners to the mound builder myth. I think there's even a book called the Mount Builder Myth that talks about it. But I think it's a really important part of this equation. If you're trying to understand, number one, where Joseph might have come up with the ideas for the Nephites and the Lamanites, but also maybe why it would have been accepted by many people as well.

John Turner 1:49:05 Sure. No, I mean that's a fair question. I have looked at that book, but it's been a while. I'll refresh my memory for next week. I would say that in broad strokes I think you can find some of these. You absolutely can find some of these building blocks, you know, Israelite ancestry for Native Americans, good guys and bad guys. Like, the idea of having the good guys be lily white and the bad guys be dark. I mean, yeah, that's just not that. It's just not that uncommon. The idea of people traveling by boat to the Americas is not, you know, that. That. That's something that exists as well. And we'll talk more about the contents of the Book of Mormon, I presume, in a later episode. And the issues you raise are really important, I think also Joseph's engagement with biblical narratives, that's an even more. That's an equally obvious source. So we'll have lots to talk about.

John Dehlin 1:50:07 Okay. And then I think it's also important to mention that we have accounts by Lucy, you know, because. Because ultimately, the question we're gonna have to face when we talk about translation is like, if. If the Book of Mormon wasn't a translation of an ancient record, then somebody wrote it, and then it would have either been Joseph that wrote it or Joseph. Someone else wrote it, Joseph stole it, or Joseph collaborated with other people to write it. One of the important pieces that. That touches on the time frame we're talking about, as I understand it, is Lucy's account that. That as early as the 18. Early 1820s, Joseph could speak for hours and tell stories about Native American characters or figures. And so if you're trying to later come up with an explanation for how he could dictate stories for long, you know, stretches of time for the scribes, and to be able to do it with such detail, then that account from Lucy, that he was already telling stories about Native Americans by the fireplace for hours on end with much detail as early as 1823. Do I. Do I have that right? Or am I.

John Turner 1:51:29 No, you're. You're totally right. So, you know, she. I forget exactly how she frames. But. But essentially, I think it's after his first encounter with the angel that she says something along the lines of, yeah, Joseph would essentially regale us with, you know, stories about, you know, the ancient native peoples of the America, something like that. And, you know, thought a lot about their. Or you could say imagined about their. Their culture and their. Their history.

John Dehlin 1:52:00 So it could have been he was developing these stories for the five or six or seven years, an oral tradition of telling these stories of maybe Laman and Lemuel or Nephi or Moroni or King Benjamin or whatever, that he was developing the detail around these stories by firelight for many, many years before he had the idea to actually put them down into a book. Is that too much of a stretch? Is that plausible?

John Turner 1:52:31 I don't think it's implausible. I think other than, other than that comment by Lucy, we don't have a whole lot to go on. Which again, just speaks to the fact that we've been talking about Joseph's life in the 1820s. Basically the stretch of time from when he's 14 up until 1827 when he's, he's 21. We just, we don't know that much about how he's spending his time. And so, but yeah, I mean, you know, I do think it's a, it's sort of a tantalizing comment from Lucy Mack Smith that Joseph has spent, you know, years, you know, contemplating stories and work, maybe working these things out in his mind. And, and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest. Well, I don't think it's necessary to suggest that he makes up everything in the Book of Mormon over the span of two months or the two step translation process.

John Dehlin 1:53:35 Okay, okay. So if we're talking about now his claim that an angel or even Moroni visited him in 1823 and said there are these plates and they're, they're hidden in a hill nearby and you should visit them every year and eventually you're going to get them and translate them. You said you weren't quite sure how important that story was to Joseph between 1823 and 1826 or 27. Like I. But, but also there's a suggestion that Alvin was supposed to go with Joseph his first time to look at the plates or see them. But then Alvin dies and then he has to figure out other people to go to what extent was like either his family or people around him in the neighborhood all like buzzing like, whoa, Joseph's seen an angel. Joseph knows where golden plates are. Joseph's going to be producing this Book of Mormon someday. Like, to what extent was that just some random story that everyone forgot that Joseph wasn't even paying attention to versus something like either neighbors or even the family were hanging hopes on or like really investing in. Because clearly Alvin was invested at some level before he died, right?

John Turner 1:54:51 Yeah, well, Lucy says that Alvin was. And so I wouldn't want to discount that. We don't have, we don't have a whole lot for corroboration. But it does seem, does seem that he takes Sam Lawrence to the hillside one year. But you know, the funny thing is, you know, you, you know, we Talked before about the first vision that, you know. Well, why wasn't the neighborhood buzzing with Joseph having seen Jesus Christ or God the Father and Jesus Christ? The neighborhood also doesn't seem to have been buzzing with stories about an angel and the golden plates. You know, if it were, I would have thought that's what might have attracted Josiah Stowell to Joseph, but it's not. It's his ability to find lost objects. You know, this story doesn't seem to be well known. So I guess I would. I bet that maybe the way I can satisfy myself with this is I think I want to believe Lucy, that. And maybe Joseph, that he has this experience. He shares it with his family. He does return to it from time to time, but it doesn't seem to consume him or them the way that we think it should. And it only really rises to the fore when he and Emma prepare to return from Harmony to Manchester in September of 1827. Then it becomes front and center. Then he tells Josiah Stowell and Joseph Knight Senior about the golden plates. They plan to come and visit. That's when this. That's when I think this excitement really builds. And I think that's when excitement also builds within the family. I. I like this story. It's from Joseph Knight Sr's history, at least I think it is, in which Joseph comes home late one night, and I. I think he's looking downcast or troubled. And he tells his father, Joseph Smith Sr. You know, I've just had the most severe chastisement of my life. And his father, you know, he's. He's. He's upset. He's. He thinks somebody's confronted and maybe insulted his son. And then Joseph reveals, you know, it's been a conversation with the angel who's told him that he's been negligent, which also suggests this hadn't been front and center. And I, like, again, I want to return to the idea of mirth and fun. I think Joseph has some fun with this story. And, you know, like, the way he. The way he apparently told that to his father, you know, I think he also had an ability to. To draw other people into his story with that sort of thing. But, you know, I saw then I. I think this just really comes to the fore. In September of 1827, Stowell and Joseph Knight, they're coming to visit. Joseph has to deliver, I think, or at least he feels He's. He's gotta. He's gotta make this pivot. He's got to. He's got to finally come through after a couple of years of failure.

John Dehlin 1:58:13 And do you mean just with a career as a way to be a provider?

John Turner 1:58:18 Well, I think he's got to come through with. With recovering an object from the earth. But, yeah, but both, you know, both that and. And a way to provide for his family in a new direction. But, you know, I. I've talked about the fact that people like Stowell could endure Joseph failing and not lose their faith in him. But this has, you know, really been built up. They're coming, you know, they're coming to Manchester because it's. He's going to retrieve. He's going to retrieve the plates at this particular time. And I suppose, you know, maybe he could have come back and said, well, I didn't do everything correctly and it's going to be next year. But I think he really does feel pressured to produce.

The Golden Plates, Secrecy, and Early Translation Claims

John Dehlin 1:59:14 You know, one of the things that, you know, disturbed me once I started studying church history is the fact that I was never. It was never told to me that Joseph and Emma eloped in that they eloped because Isaac didn't want Emma to marry Joseph. And the reason why Isaac didn't want Emma to marry Joseph is because he had. He. Because he believed that Joseph was involved in really shaky, you know, flaky, fraudulent kind of behavior. And, you know, the fact that Joseph would kind of apparently abscond with Emma, although that may not be giving enough credit to Emma, but that. That struck me as another, I guess, chink against Joseph's character. The fact that he wouldn't just, like, go to Isaac and say, I want to marry your daughter, give me your permission, and then respect the father's wishes, that the father said no. That instead it's sort of the shady abscond with Emma and then disappear for six months or whatever, all against, you know, Isaac's best wishes for his daughter. What would you say about that? Am I being too hard on Joseph for that?

John Turner 2:00:27 Well, I mean, I can understand why Isaac Hale wasn't happy. As I said before, I think he's actually, you know, he has some forbearance with them. You know, he. He is willing to overlook that. You know, he. He. What he just wants Joseph to do is settle down and, you know, become more respectable. But yeah, he says, basically, when I wasn't home, Joseph Smith carried off my daughter. So he's totally upset about it. It seems like Emma, I think, when. When she tells the story many years later, she hadn't even necessarily planned to marry him when they drove off. But Then decided to. And they go to the justice of the peace, they get married, and, yeah, Isaac Hale is esteemed. And, you know, I think if Joseph had asked him, I don't know what he would have said. I mean, I think it would have at least been a. Not yet. You know, why don't you. Why don't you work on my farm for a couple of years and we'll see.

John Dehlin 2:01:34 Is it, you know, on page 35, I read through your account, Is there any suggestion that Joseph Smith maybe took advantage of Emma, that sort of thing?

John Turner 2:01:46 I don't think so.

John Dehlin 2:01:47 Okay.

John Turner 2:01:47 Yeah. I mean, the way she. You know, it's kind of funny when she talks about it decades later. She, you know, it didn't. It didn't sound actually in her telling, but this is many decades later. She didn't make it sound super romantic. She simply said, you know, she preferred to marry him to any other man. And I will say I really wish we knew more from Emma's perspective about the events of these years because she's with Joseph when they go off to retrieve the plates. And we just don't know very much about her role in these activities, which, you know, is a source of endless frustration as a. As a historian.

John Dehlin 2:02:34 Okay. Okay. Really quickly, as we're kind of finishing up chapter three of your book, there are these visits to the hill, and there are a bunch of people now invested in the story to the point where, I don't know, villagers and friends are all potentially having designs on. They hear that Joseph obtained the plates, but they were always covered, which is a sure sign of a fraud. If he can't just show them to people, what a convenient excuse that he's got to keep them hidden. But. But somehow even Emma still believes that he got something. And there are people who say they saw parts of the plates. You know, were they made up or not? Were they fashioned or not? You know, were they brass? Were they gold? But. But eventually, you know, there are all these rumors and people trying to find the plates and Joseph's trying to hide them and putting in them in boxes and nailing up the boxes and. And putting them in barrels and running away and fighting off people who are trying to steal them. You know, it's a really interesting series of stories that on the one hand sound almost swashbuckling, but on the other hand sound really silly and like a bunch of fools errands and a bunch of superstitious people running around believing in silly things, making much to do about nothing. I really was grateful at the end of chapter three. And I don't know if it's a spoiler to have you read your conclusions about all that, but I was really, really impressed that you were willing to sort of write out your opinion of, after having reviewed all the evidence, your conclusions about, you know, whether or not, you know, an angel delivered golden plates to Joseph and whether the evidence sort of bore that out. Do you want to talk about all that and what your conclusions, what. What conclusions, your best conclusions were that you shared about that?

John Turner 2:04:42 Sure. Yeah. Honestly, John, that it wasn't an easy chapter to write because we're in a bit of a bind with regard to this story. It's not that we don't have multiple sources, but we just don't have really satisfactory or complete sources, which I suppose is always the case. So, you know, we have the testimony of people who were close to Joseph who believed that he had what he said he had, that he had golden plates. We have. Then we also have supernatural, what I'd call sort of supernatural witness statements, you know, to that point. Then we have all sorts of statements from Joseph's detractors. We also have a lot of theories for what could be going on. So if Joseph didn't have golden plates, well, he had something, right. He had some sort of object under a cloth that some people said felt sort of like what he described, you know, metal. He had a heavy object in a box. So again, he had something. So, you know, what did he have? Did. Did he fashion something? Like, did he make plates out of tin or something? Did he stumble across printing plates? Did he just have a brick in the box? You know, what. What did he do? I mean, I think that the thing that's hard as, as a historian is there isn't evidence, There isn't good evidence for any of these alternative explanations. Right. There's no. There's no proof, so to speak, that instead of golden plates, Joseph had any other particular object. We just, you know, can't prove it. Right. But for me, I like to say the absence of evidence for alternative explanations is not itself evidence that Joseph really did have golden plates. So I'll just read a little bit of my conclusion, if that's okay.

John Dehlin 2:07:02 Please.

John Turner 2:07:04 So I think readers deserve an author's best sense of what transpired. In this case, it is that Joseph did not have golden plates. When someone refuses to show a hidden valuable object to others, the simplest explanation is that he does not possess it. There are other factors that point to this conclusion as well, as indicated in his conversations about the plates with his Father and Joseph Knight. Joseph Smith was a playful young man who enjoyed jesting with others. He and his family were desperate for money, and Joseph was eager to prove his bona fides as a treasure hunter. After repeated disappointments, he had sufficient motivation to engage in a bit of subterfuge. And I'll abbreviate because I think there's some other evidence we could look at in terms of the published Book of Mormon itself. But then whether Joseph fashioned plates or put some other object in the box, the act was more audacious than mendacious. It wasn't just an angelic vision. It wasn't even just engravings on a buried stone or on a scrap of metal. Joseph staked his reputation on a physical object on a treasure even more remarkable than a lost Spanish silver mine. It was remarkably bold gambit, and it worked. What Joseph related convinced a wide array of individuals, including family, friends and hostile competitors. The plates were real to them. The young seer knew he now had to produce something tangible. He insisted that the plates would be valuable not for their precious metal, but for their precious message.

John Dehlin 2:08:50 Is it possible that what you just read is different from the version that I have?

John Turner 2:08:57 Possible, but it shouldn't be too different. What do you have?

John Dehlin 2:09:01 I'm seeing slightly different text, but conveys the same sense.

John Turner 2:09:06 Okay.

John Dehlin 2:09:08 Or, or I may just have gotten lost at where you were reading. But, but either way. Yeah, well, that's, I mean, so few. You know, Fawn Brody obviously says he's a, you know, he was a charlatan. Dan Vogel calls him a pious fraud, meaning that he believed he was guided by God and believed in Jesus, but was willing to kind of deceive people to lead them towards a belief in God and Jesus. And then there's people like Richard Bushman that are like, oh, his claim of plates are actually the biggest evidence that he wasn't a fraud. The claim of plates. You know, there's so many people that had interactions with the plates that, that alone is strong evidence that Joseph Smith really was experiencing what he claimed he, he experienced. Given all that, I think it's really, I'm really grateful that you're willing to sort of lay out what your, your conclusions are, so I appreciate that.

John Turner 2:10:06 Well, thanks, John.

John Dehlin 2:10:08 You also, I don't know if, if, if you, you also mentioned in the same closing part of chapter three, then there is the published Book of Mormon, which Joseph claimed was a translation of the engravings on the plates. Archaeology, DNA analysis of indigenous Americans, and the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. All point to the Book of Mormon as a 19th century creation. I think that's a really important point. I've heard someone say once, it's not that the Book of Mormon's so miraculous that a boy like Joseph Smith or a young man like Joseph Smith could have never created it. The way to look at it is the Book of Mormon is such a reflection of Joseph Smith, his thoughts, his family, the milieu he was swimming in, that you could make the argument that no one but Joseph Smith could have authored it. Do you have a response to any of that?

John Turner 2:11:07 Well, I mean, I guess the. I guess the first thing I'd say is I just also want to step back and say, you know, what I'm really trying to do in those closing paragraphs is, yeah, I think you have an obligation when you're writing about a subject just to say your best sense. Right. Give your best judgment. I also think, in a way, the traditional story of Joseph Smith or the faithful story of Joseph Smith, and there. There are more subtle versions of this too, but the. I would say oftentimes Joseph Smith himself is unremarkable in that God simply chooses him and he translates this by the gift and power of God. And the record is whatever was on the plates. And so there's not actually much room for Joseph's creativity or even genius, if you will, if you conclude that there were no golden plates and that Joseph, at least mostly on his own, or just, let's just say on his own, you know, authored this text, that somebody. I agree that given his background, his engagement with the Bible, his family, his. His imagination, his mind is capable of this text. But for someone in his circumstances to produce this book and publish it, given where he started in 1827, that is pretty remarkable. Not a lot of people would have just been able to pull it off in terms of getting it to, you know, to be published.

John Dehlin 2:12:57 Yeah. And I think you also make the point, you know, I think you may have even read this, that one thing that's undeniable is that like with the treasure digging and Josiah stole and others, it's absolutely true that whatever happened with the plates, whether he made tin plates, whether it was a rock or a brick, there were many, many people who were influential who emerged from the 1827s, 28s, 29s and 30s, absolutely believing that Joseph obtained golden plates and considered themselves in some way or another to be witnesses to that fact, or at least absolutely believed it, he was able to convince them that he did it.

John Turner 2:13:43 Yeah, right. Yeah, he was. And I'm also going to return to the idea of fun, because I think history should be fun. I think Joseph has a really good time doing this. You know, the accounts of harrowing journeys through the woods, moving the plates around, stashing them here and there, conflict with other people in the area. You know, talking to many people about this, sharing his story. I don't think fun and religion, they always have to be at odds anyway. But obviously this is a super serious, even tender subject for a lot of people. But again, I think Joseph enjoys these sorts of escapades. He talks later in his life about how much he enjoys excitement and risk and danger. And I think those elements are definitely present during these years as well.

Profiting From the Book of Mormon and Closing Reflections

John Dehlin 2:14:42 Okay, kind of last question along these lines, and then we'll wrap up. I appreciate your time today and your insight and expertise. John Turner. I think, you know, a secular or a secular way to explain kind of what happened is, you know, the Smith family was in financial ruin. Farming wasn't going to work out. Joseph had to figure out how to help contribute financially to the family. He had fun treasure digging, maybe he said, hey, let me make a go of this treasure digging thing. He did that for several years, made a little bit of money, developed his reputation, developed his brand, so to speak, in being someone with special power who can find things that clearly had value to him later. But then he runs afoul of the law, realizes that he can't keep claiming to find buried treasure, at least in terms of making people think he's going to help them get rich. He's got this religious background. He's been the storyteller about Native Americans. And you could even see View of the Hebrews itself is a book that was associated with Oliver Cowdery and Ethan Smith and even the. The Dartmouth School that we discussed last time. View of the Hebrews comes on the scene in 1823, which is right around the time he claimed to first, you know, see an angel who was talking about plates. And then eventually the book, a secular explanation would be. Once he knew he couldn't do treasure digging anymore, he had the idea, maybe I can be an author and maybe I can write and publish a book that would do multiple things. It would make me money, it would give me a profession, it would give me more notoriety. But also it could tell a fun story, an interesting story, and potentially address some of the religious or theological questions of the day. And this was just sort of a pivot to make good with Emma, to make good with Isaac, to be his next step in his career, but that he thought I could just write a book, or I could claim that the book has mystical, divine origins. And a book that has mystical, divine origins, that even has a theological bent is more likely to sell a lot more copies than just some book where I'm just making up fiction and everybody knows it's fiction. So if I were to say that's a more plausible secular explanation for what likely happened, would you say the evidence does or does not line up with that sort of secular narrative or explanation?

John Turner 2:17:29 I mean, I suppose you could say that in my biography, I'm basically giving a somewhat similar secular, naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. Yeah. I think the only thing I would add is you just also, you know, when you're laying it out right there, John, it almost sounds like a reasonable idea, but it's totally crazy. I mean, you know, very few people make money selling books like Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville. I think Melville does. I mean, he's regarded as one of the greatest American authors in history, and he didn't make any money selling his books.

John Dehlin 2:18:12 That's Moby Dick.

John Turner 2:18:13 Right, right, right. So, you know, the idea that Joseph Smith. The idea of making money by publishing a book, no matter what you say about the book's origins, it's such a bad idea. And, you know, it doesn't sell for money quite as well as he hopes, but it succeeds in other ways. I'm just, you know, I think one thing about Joseph Smith is that I say a couple times in the book is whenever he encounters failure, you know, he sort of triples down. You know, if his plan fails, he comes up with a much grander plan. And this is a great example of it. I mean, the. The Spanish silver mine is a failure, and he's sort of, you know, he doesn't know where to turn next. And so this is, you know, this is really crazy. This is not. If you were. If, if. I bet if you could have gotten together with Joseph smith in early 1827 and said, you know, let's brainstorm how you can make a living for your family, publishing the Book of Mormon would not have been high on the list in terms of how to pull it off. Yeah, I mean, sure. Like, people believe in your ability to find buried treasure. Well, you know, maybe you should head west, Ohio and get people to invest in a treasure digging operation there. I bet he could have pulled that off and could have made a few hundred bucks or something, something like that. He doesn't do that. You know, he does something that is just incre I mean, it's just incredible. It's. I just think it's an incredible gambit to, you know, try to, to, to. I mean, I, I think there is evidence he's hoping the Book of Mormon will, will make money. He's, you know, he's, he's interested in book sales. He squabbles with Martin Harris over the book sales. He's going to sell the copyright in Canada. So, I mean, I don't think economic motivations are absent. It's just, it's, it's, it's just, it seems like a terrible idea on the face of it. Almost 100% destined to fail. And it doesn't.

John Dehlin 2:20:21 Yeah, well, what I love John Turner after, after two, two episodes in with you. I love your emphasis on mirth, to be honest. You really can't argue that Joseph Smith wasn't very likable. You know, he clearly. Who, who among us has developed a following of, of, you know, up to 17 million people across almost 200 years. Like, you had to have been on some level a likable person to develop such a large group of loyal followers. And so I love it. And again, some of us who feel really impacted by the church's truth claims sometimes in negative ways are going to feel, have a tendency to want to feel angry or frustrated or accusatory of Joseph. And, you know, there's a place for all that. And what we can't forget is no matter what he did later in his life, this is a bold, creative, in some ways likable, if not impressive and entertaining character. When you consider where he came from and what he, you could say, whatever, what he was able to accomplish or whatever he was able to pull off. Either way, he is a fabulously fascinating and entertaining American figure of the 19th century. And I think you're doing a good job of reminding us of that.

John Turner 2:21:53 Well, thanks. It's been fun talking about it with you.

John Dehlin 2:21:58 Okay, well, before, I guess, there's a couple things I want to do really quickly and then I want to give you a final word. First of all, I want to just remind people, go buy this book right now. Buy it for yourself, buy it for friends. Let's make it a New York Times bestseller. It is available now. It's called Joseph Smith the Rise and Fall of an American Prophet by Yale University Press, by John G. Turner. Please go buy it. That's the first thing. Secondly, we want to do more of these episodes with John. So far we've had about eight people donate about $500, but we think just Like Matt Harris, we were able to pay him very generously for his series on Second Class Saints. We want to be able to pay John Turner very generously for his participation in the series because we've got a lot to go. He's promised at least eight more episodes where he's going to be calling balls and strikes on all sorts of things. But I want to be able to pay him for that, even though he's not making that a condition for his participation. So here's how you help. Other than buying the book for yourself and many other people, go to donorbox.org Joseph Smith and just become a monthly donor to this project. And for the next few months, we'll hopefully gather several thousand dollars and we'll be able to pay John to do multiple episodes. If we can't pay him, I feel. I don't feel great about asking him to spend his time that way. And most importantly, if you're deriving value from this series, please, please sign up to pay him. Because this isn't something I need to do for Mormon stories to succeed. This is sort of extra. And again, I just think we need to pay John for this. So please donate to this series. Please spread the word and get other people to support it. Even if we can get a few donors of means to just donate a large sum to, I think it would be a real sign of respect because I think, honestly, John Turner, when you write a book like this, I know that you want to try and make some money back, but let's just ask it this way. For the average book like this that's published, do you even have a sense for what the average academic author might even make, if anything, from a book like this? And maybe you don't want to talk about specifics, but I just get a sense that academic books don't do very well.

John Turner 2:24:24 I don't know. I'd be happy with 14amonth.

John Dehlin 2:24:29 I get that reference. Okay. All right.

John Turner 2:24:33 No, I mean, I think the thing is that for me, the history is really fun. And I'll just say that I actually find it hard to write about something like the Golden Plates, because for. For Faithful Latter Day Saints, you know, that's sort of treading on sacred ground. And, you know, I'm a Protestant Christian. If I. If I read really, I don't know, critical. Critical accounts of the New Testament or certain things, you know, that. That can make me feel, I don't know, a little bit less than totally happy sometimes or, you know, the things that I might have to. To struggle with so, and at the same time, I also get that, you know, for people who are maybe formerly Latter Day Saints or skeptical, these, you know, these are really front and center questions for me. Reconstructing Joseph Life, Joseph Smith's life, it really was fun. I mean, the sources and the stories are remarkable. I had a really great time writing the book. I hope people have a great time reading it. But I love talking about all of the many questions about Joseph Smith that matter to so many people. I don't think that historians need to just shove them aside.

Preview of Next Week and Final Thoughts

John Dehlin 2:26:08 All right, beautiful. So any final things you want to share today or any preview you want to give for what maybe what we're going to talk about next week.

John Turner 2:26:18 I'm guessing we're going to talk about the translation and contents of the Book of Mormon, but as ever, I'm open to anything. John.

John Dehlin 2:26:29 Yeah, and so we're definitely going to cover Book of Mormon translation and the content of the Book of Mormon and maybe you can look up the Mount Builder myth a little bit. And also, I want to encourage our viewers and listeners. I don't know, if you ever go up to YouTube and actually read the comments, we actually delete all the lame comments and the ones that we allow to remain are pretty reasonable and interesting. So, John, if you feel like it, go up to YouTube. I'll ask our viewers and listeners if you have any questions or comments for John. We'll have him, we'll, we'll try and get him or have him review those questions or comments. We'll try and maybe bring those up next time potentially. But, but, but yeah, we're definitely going to talk about the translation of the Book of Mormon and possibly maybe we'll get to the witnesses. We'll see how much time we have. But also, we just want to invent you, our viewers and listeners, to share any questions or comments or disagreements or supporting information you have that will be interesting as well.

John Turner 2:27:38 All right, see you next time.

John Dehlin 2:27:39 All right, John Turner, thanks for joining us today on Mormon Stories.

John Turner 2:27:43 Thanks.

John Dehlin 2:27:44 And last thing I'll say is that everybody, there are other ways you can support us aside from donating, liking this episode, subscribing to this channel on YouTube or Spotify or wherever Apple podcast we, wherever you consume it and commenting. That all helps with the algorithm. And then I do want to thank our bread and butter Mormon Stories donors that make the Open Stories foundation and Mormon Stories possible. We couldn't even get this far with John Turner without your support. So thank you to our monthly donors and we really appreciate it. So again. This is one in a series. We're releasing this series, the Joseph Smith Podcast, as its own podcast, like we did Second Class Saints and like we did the LDS discussion series. But we're also integrating it into the Mormon Stories YouTube channel feed and the Mormon Stories podcast feed on Spotify and on Apple Podcasts and wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for joining us today. Thanks for all your support. Feel free to email us with any feedback or questions you have@mormonstoriesgmail.com we look forward to joining us for future episodes. Be good to each other, be kind to each other, and we'll see you all again soon on another episode of Mormon Stories Podcast. Take care, everybody.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.