JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[lamar]

Roy,
______________________

Cactusjumper wrote

Quote
Bishop Palafox was an arch-enemy of the Jesuit's and their missions. In truth, the Jesuits were surrounded by such people. I would suggest you pick another shining example to hang these charges on the Jesuits.
________________________

"Why should I choose someone with less authority than a Catholic Bishop? Are you sure that Palafox was the arch-enemy of the Jesuits prior to his learning of their activities? Of course if Palafox were enemies with the Jesuits before, without good reason then of course we could then view all of his letters complaining about them with some suspicion."

Yes, of course I am sure. It is very well documented and is historically true.

[Writings of Palafox, however, have been characterized by polarity more than unity. They have been weighted heavily towards his notorious battles with the Jesuits and his controversial efforts to transfer
Their power to the secular clergy. In her incisive and groundbreaking book from 2004 on Palafox's life and politics, Cayetana Alvarez de Toledo aptly described the literature on Palafox as mostly "panegyric of calumny." As she noted, Antonio Dominguez Ortiz summarized a significant debate about Palafox's life when he questioned whether the bishop's motivations were based in "piety or pride." Rather than being derived strictly from one of the other, Palafox's motivations-again, dual if not multiple in nature-seemed to have stemmed from both.]
___________________

"Virtues Of The Indian"

Part 1: A Biographical Sketch of Palafox which begins on Page 15, starts out with this:

[Infancy and Childhood

Palafox y Mendoza was born illegitimate and of Aragonese lineage in Fitero, Navarra, Spain on June 24, 1600. His mother, a young widow from Zaragoza, was of "noble blood," and aspect of his birth for which Palafox thanked God and which was as noted by contemporary diarists and historians as a providential virtue.]
"JUAN DE PALAFOX Y MENDOZA: VIRTUES OF THE INDIAN" Edited And Translated By Nancy H. Fee.

Ms. Fee's book is 243 pages in length with copious notes/sources at the end of each chapter. Any source that Lamar would have used for his comments on Bishop Palafox, likely would have started with the same information. Writers of that era, especially Spanish, were obsessed with blood lines.

The fact that I have also sited this historical fact, should not be construed as a personal insult to the memory of Bishop Palafox. It was something that he himself often referred to.

The Bishop arrived in Veracruz, Mexico June 24, 1640 on his fortieth Birthday. His battles with the established Catholic Orders began, almost at once. He was recalled to Spain by King Phillip IV in April of 1649, after a tumultuous nine years.

Considering the fact that the Jesuit Order lasted in New Spain for another 118 years after Bishop Palafox was removed, you might argue that they presented a better case than the Bishop. On the other hand, YOU might say he was just misunderstood.

Take care,

Joe

Dear cactusjumper;
In all fairness, the Ven. Juan de Palafox was not an enemy of ONLY the Jesuits, my friend. He also was enemies with the Franciscans and His own Order, the Dominicans as well. It would seem that the King of Spain had the Ven. Juan de Palafox in his velvet lined pocket and even the Vatican eventually surmised that the Ven. Juan de Palafox was much more willing to advance the secular causes of the Crown of Spain than the Christian causes of the Roman Catholic Church. This is what caused the Vatican to issue Ven. Juan de Palafox his walking papers and he was sent back to Spain. Back in those days, if you fell from disfavor by the Holy See, you would be sent to the Vatican's version of Greenland, which in this particular case was the tiny diocese of Osma. This was how the Vatican showed it's displeasure at someone's prior performance, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Dear Lamar,

"In all fairness, the Ven. Juan de Palafox was not an enemy of ONLY the Jesuits, my friend. He also was enemies with the Franciscans and His own Order, the Dominicans as well."

I wrote:

"The Bishop arrived in Veracruz, Mexico June 24, 1640 on his fortieth Birthday. His battles with the established Catholic Orders began, almost at once. He was recalled to Spain by King Phillip IV in April of 1649, after a tumultuous nine years."

I could have listed the "Orders", but felt my post said enough. The focus here is his obsessive work against the Jesuit Order in particular. I am not unfamiliar with Bishop Palafox's history.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
Another fallacy regarding the Jesuits is to assume that as a Roman Catholic religious Order, they were conservatives in their theology however nothing could be further from the truth, my friends! True, there were Jesuit members of the Inquisition, but this was mostly because the rigorous schooling which they had endured before being ordained.

They were among the most highly trained theologists of the Church and so they were the best candidates for the job of investigating possible heretics. The Jesuits were always in the forefront of the counter-reformation and their theological positions remain a source of examples of perfect theological execution.

The Jesuits were so good at what they did, the newly formed Protestant religions soon moved away from theological debates and took to making up falsifications about the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church in general. Most of these same falsehoods are still being churned through the mill and many people still believe them, mostly through ignor@ance of the facts or basic Christian theology and concepts.

Traditionally, Jesuits have always been among the most liberal Roman Catholics and they were often criticized for their highly liberalized views of Christianity as it pretained to native populaces, especially in the missions.

To return to the Inquisition, the Jesuits were without peer the most lenient and forgiving of inquisitors. On the other hand, if one were found guilty and facing a Domincan, that person could expect the pennance to be severe. while other Orders of the day looked at the proceedings of the Inquisition is purely theological terms, the Jesuits tended to view the proceedings as theologians and jurists. They ensured that all physical evidence was untainted and that confessions were not extracted thrrough torture. In short, they ensured that the trials were fair and above-board.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[gollum]

Scammy,

When you quit making insipid posts (get a dictionary), pick up a book or two, and learn a bit more about the subject you are posting about, then I will answer your questions. If you were genuinely looking to learn something about a subject you know little about, I would answer your questions.

If you actually had a clue, you might see that your question was answered in the same post you are asking about.

Best of luck in your quest for ignorance.

Merry Christmas-Mike

 

[ghostdog]

Elf, this is not a attack on your statements, but can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your statements are 100% accurate, in the above post. I would think you have in your possession some historical facts to back up your comments, it would be educational and enlightening if you could post those referances. ...Mike thanks for the imfo I was lacking.
HH/MC,drive safe , to all.

 

[pegleglooker]

I gotta say...... if anyone REALLY found a treasure this large, I SERIOUS doubt anyone would say a word about it !!!!! At least not the smart ones...

PLL

 

[ghostdog]

A Jesuit treasure could be 1 Antiqua document , not very large at all.

 

[Oroblanco]

Seasons greetings,

This is another very long post, so I beg your indulgence.

Lamar wrote

To return to the Inquisition, the Jesuits were without peer…<snip>

Return to the Inquisition, why? Who brought it up prior to your post? Must we get into that too?

Lamar also wrote

In all fairness, the Ven. Juan de Palafox was not an enemy of ONLY the Jesuits, my friend

That little fact ought to tell you, he was no enemy of the Jesuits, he was reacting to the situation he found which involved several of the Orders. If Bishop Palafox were truly a hater of the Jesuits from day one, why should he have complained about any other Order? Of course I am sure that to you, he was and IS an archenemy of the Jesuits, regardless of any and all evidence.

Lamar I am tempted to send you some information on the Jesuits which would certainly change the views of most people, but from your various replies I doubt it would sway your views. Springfield is correct, your un-relenting pro-Jesuit stance has “forced” us to gather more testimony and evidence, though in truth I never had any intentions of doing so – the whole controversy seemed at most a “tempest in a teacup” to me, but I can see that some people attach supreme importance to this whole issue of Jesuits and their mines and treasures.

This sort of “defense” of attacking the sources is hardly helpful in “proving” innocence. Some folks want us to only hear the Jesuit version of history, it seems.

Now here is more for our dear readers, of course our apologists will deny everything and seek to discredit all of our sources and this fits the pattern.

To the west of the church is a large enclosure the walls of which are readily traced It is evident that this was the work yard of the mission as there are the remains of arrastras rude smelting vassos or furnaces a few heaps of debris etc to show that the good Jesuits were actively engaged in the mining and working of ores On the east of the church …
In the last report made to the mining organization of which he was general agent dated 1860 Professor W Wrightson thus describes this important point Tumacacori is an old mining mission established here many years ago by the Jesuit priests The church is an adobe building plastered with .....
colonnade forming shady whole enclosure To the east of this square of sumptuous residences was an oblong of building where the metallurgical operations were carried on Here are still the remains of furnaces and quantities of slag attesting the purposes for which this was formerly used and further still to the east was the garden enclosing about five acres and surrounded by a cahone ......
This Mission has an eventful history At the time of our war of independence it was in the full tide of its activity The sagacious padres looked after not only the salvation of their Indian peons and converts but even more strenuously sought the temporal results to be obtained for their church and the Society of Jesus by working the wonderful mineral lodes located in the mountains that overshadow these ruins or are outlined in front of them at a few miles distance
…building by Colonel Boyle for the Tyndall or Tubac company into whose hands some of these old mines have passed On the mountain side above to the north and west are a number of old shafts sunk by the Indians under Jesuit direction The most famous of these is the Salero or salt cellar mine which tradition says takes its name from the Padres at St Joseph once fashioning a wonderful salt cellar out of a piece of ore to deck the table of their Bishop who was visiting them and being something of a Bon vivant had complained of the want of salt as a condiment to his dinner The old shaft was till recently partially filled with water from surface not subterranean drainage The ores of this mine are known to be very rich The dump at its mouth still establishes this According to Mexican tradition they yielded from $51 to $102 to each 300 pounds of ore This is equivalent to $340 and $080 per ton To the north and east are a number of other old shafts and drifts of greater or lesser depth and extent which have been recently re named after members of the English company as the Hamilton Abercorn Macdonald etc It is the opinion of Colonel Boyle that the Hamilton will yet prove to be the lost and famous Tumacacori mine of the Jesuits The Mexican traditions

Not a few of the old padres whose names yet linger in these valleys and whose memories time has dealt kindly with combined the love of God with the love of gold and silver sought out the rich lodes worked them zealously that the church might be the richer and the heathen and unconverted the gainer Who shall dare to say that this was not a most noble and praiseworthy work

<The hand-book to Arizona: its resources, history, towns, mines, ruins and ...
By Richard Josiah Hinton 1878>

As for Jesuit treasures FOUND, two instances of Jesuit silver bells being discovered – one posted here previously weighing five quintals, this is 500 English pounds! I am sure that to some folks, this is still “nothing” – but 500 pounds of silver would be worth over $100,000 today as scrap.


Gollum – the more I consider your theory, the more it makes sense – even with a few Jesuits being punished for mining. The Jesuits trade across the Pacific may be the route to look for where their profits were transported.

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas,
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Oops almost forgot,

Gold is known to exist in over fifty different localities in the Territory It and silver must have been known and extensively mined by the Aztecs as the presence of their old ruins is said to be an almost unfailing indication of mines The Spaniards mined gold silver and copper in this region and Jesuit priests more thoroughly prospected it than it has been since They reported at all points great riches and the existence of all the precious metals

<New Mexico, her natural resources and attractions: By Elias Brevoort, 1874>

Yep we can easily see that all of this has been made up by treasure writers, right? (harhar)
Merry Christmas,
Oroblanco

 

[ghostdog]

Well Elf, true enough, however if you cant prove your side than it is just theory /speculation as well. In Poker that is called a draw.

 

[gollum]

Scammy,

I will put it simply so that even you can understand it:

The Jesuits were FORBIDDEN by Ecclesiastical Precept to have any knowledge of mining (either direct or indirect). To violate this meant that a Jesuit would be committing the Sin of Disobedience if they displayed any such knowledge. I have showed time and again where Father Och SJ and others have committed that sin in their own words (not my interpretations).

There is and always has been basically two types of mining; Hard Rock (cutting through rock to follow a mineral vein), and Placer (recovering minerals that have eroded from a hardrock vein). Picking up copper nuggets off the ground would be considered Placer Mining. I know you don't know much about mining, so please, verify this with a book (I assume you can read).

Best-Mike

 

[lamar]

Seasons greetings,

This is another very long post, so I beg your indulgence.

Lamar wrote

To return to the Inquisition, the Jesuits were without peer…<snip>

Return to the Inquisition, why? Who brought it up prior to your post? Must we get into that too?

Lamar also wrote

In all fairness, the Ven. Juan de Palafox was not an enemy of ONLY the Jesuits, my friend

That little fact ought to tell you, he was no enemy of the Jesuits, he was reacting to the situation he found which involved several of the Orders. If Bishop Palafox were truly a hater of the Jesuits from day one, why should he have complained about any other Order? Of course I am sure that to you, he was and IS an archenemy of the Jesuits, regardless of any and all evidence.

Lamar I am tempted to send you some information on the Jesuits which would certainly change the views of most people, but from your various replies I doubt it would sway your views. Springfield is correct, your un-relenting pro-Jesuit stance has “forced” us to gather more testimony and evidence, though in truth I never had any intentions of doing so – the whole controversy seemed at most a “tempest in a teacup” to me, but I can see that some people attach supreme importance to this whole issue of Jesuits and their mines and treasures.

This sort of “defense” of attacking the sources is hardly helpful in “proving” innocence. Some folks want us to only hear the Jesuit version of history, it seems.

Now here is more for our dear readers, of course our apologists will deny everything and seek to discredit all of our sources and this fits the pattern.

To the west of the church is a large enclosure the walls of which are readily traced It is evident that this was the work yard of the mission as there are the remains of arrastras rude smelting vassos or furnaces a few heaps of debris etc to show that the good Jesuits were actively engaged in the mining and working of ores On the east of the church …
In the last report made to the mining organization of which he was general agent dated 1860 Professor W Wrightson thus describes this important point Tumacacori is an old mining mission established here many years ago by the Jesuit priests The church is an adobe building plastered with .....
colonnade forming shady whole enclosure To the east of this square of sumptuous residences was an oblong of building where the metallurgical operations were carried on Here are still the remains of furnaces and quantities of slag attesting the purposes for which this was formerly used and further still to the east was the garden enclosing about five acres and surrounded by a cahone ......
This Mission has an eventful history At the time of our war of independence it was in the full tide of its activity The sagacious padres looked after not only the salvation of their Indian peons and converts but even more strenuously sought the temporal results to be obtained for their church and the Society of Jesus by working the wonderful mineral lodes located in the mountains that overshadow these ruins or are outlined in front of them at a few miles distance
…building by Colonel Boyle for the Tyndall or Tubac company into whose hands some of these old mines have passed On the mountain side above to the north and west are a number of old shafts sunk by the Indians under Jesuit direction The most famous of these is the Salero or salt cellar mine which tradition says takes its name from the Padres at St Joseph once fashioning a wonderful salt cellar out of a piece of ore to deck the table of their Bishop who was visiting them and being something of a Bon vivant had complained of the want of salt as a condiment to his dinner The old shaft was till recently partially filled with water from surface not subterranean drainage The ores of this mine are known to be very rich The dump at its mouth still establishes this According to Mexican tradition they yielded from $51 to $102 to each 300 pounds of ore This is equivalent to $340 and $080 per ton To the north and east are a number of other old shafts and drifts of greater or lesser depth and extent which have been recently re named after members of the English company as the Hamilton Abercorn Macdonald etc It is the opinion of Colonel Boyle that the Hamilton will yet prove to be the lost and famous Tumacacori mine of the Jesuits The Mexican traditions

Not a few of the old padres whose names yet linger in these valleys and whose memories time has dealt kindly with combined the love of God with the love of gold and silver sought out the rich lodes worked them zealously that the church might be the richer and the heathen and unconverted the gainer Who shall dare to say that this was not a most noble and praiseworthy work

<The hand-book to Arizona: its resources, history, towns, mines, ruins and ...
By Richard Josiah Hinton 1878>

As for Jesuit treasures FOUND, two instances of Jesuit silver bells being discovered – one posted here previously weighing five quintals, this is 500 English pounds! I am sure that to some folks, this is still “nothing” – but 500 pounds of silver would be worth over $100,000 today as scrap.


Gollum – the more I consider your theory, the more it makes sense – even with a few Jesuits being punished for mining. The Jesuits trade across the Pacific may be the route to look for where their profits were transported.

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas,
Oroblanco

Dear oroblanco;
I believe it was brought up in here:
Ghost Dog, that was the real reason for the Spanish Suppression of the Jesuit Order. According to King Charles himself, the Jesuits had for years been secretly spreading rumors about him being an illegitimate King. This was because King Charles III was firmly against the Inquisitions and wholly supported the Enlightened Movement. The Jesuits are very conservative and fully supported the Inquisitions.

I merely refuted the the proclamation that as an Order, the Jesuits were viewed as conservatives during the period in question.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Seasons greetings amigos,

Another reference, echoing the report of Nentvig on native Indians refusing to disclose the locations of rich mines, here pointing out that such secrets must only be revealed to Jesuit confessors;

<from Sevin's journey to Mexico, talking about Tarahumara Indians>

They are all very superstitious and the converted Indians as well as the Gentiles still hold to their old traditions They will not disclose to any Mexican or white man the spot where a silver mine has been discovered They still dread the punishment of sudden death by Providence which fear has been imposed on them by the first Jesuit missionaries who came among them and who have forbidden them to communicate to any but to their religious confessors the place of hidden treasures I spoke to one who said he knew a very rich mine but would not tell me where it was It seemed however that our guide knew some trick to possess himself of their secret now and then

The journal of the Royal Geographic Society of London, Volume 30
By Royal Geographical Society (Great Britain) 1860 pp 26>

Pure coincidence?

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas,
Oroblanco

Dear oroblanco;
Would you care to wager 20 dollars that the person who write that particular passage was NOT a Roman Catholic? We read accounts such as this ALL THE TIME and they are simply untrue, unresearched and show a distinct anti-Catholic bias, however in all fairness, the bias which these writers display in regards to Roman Catholics in general had been passed down through the Protestants for generations, and the writers of the period were simply parroting the myths first generated by their earlier Protestant forefathers. This was a very common occurrance and it should be disregarded in it's entirety as it's simply an untrue statement.

We may conclude that the statement is untrue simply because there has NEVER been ONE account of an indigenous person EVER stating such nonsense, either before or after that book was published my friend. For a Jesuit to state that a person would suffer sudden death at the hand of God for doing ANYTHING is called PRESUMPTION and this is just WRONG!

Every Roman Catholic KNOWS that one can not presume the reaction(s) of God Almighty based on a certain action on the part of a human. All Roman Catholics realize that we cannot state something such as:
"If you don't say your prayers tonight, God will withold the rain for the next 4 years and we shall all surely starve."

We may ask God to aid us in striking down our enemies and we may ASK God for divine intervention, yet we cannot PRESUME that God will do ANYTHING. All Jesuits know that to make statements such as those is considered to blasphemy, plain, pure and simple. The Jesuits were not ignor@nt in regards to theology and the person who wrote that passage assumed that the readers were as ignor@ant as the statement itself.

Much of the confusion pretaining to presumptions of Roman Catholics lies in the term "Deus vult!" (God wills it!) Supposedly Pope Urban II uttered those (im)famous words at the Council of Trent in in 1095 AD which led to the 1st Crusade, yet by all accounts, Pope Urban II most likely never spoke those words and they were most likely chanted by the listeners of His speech after He finished.

Then, five hundred odd years later, the Protestant reformers used the phrase "Deus Vult" as an example of Roman Catholics presuming to know the will of God, however they seem to have forgotten that the very condemnation against the Catholics may also be used against themselves when they proclaimed that the Bible was translated into English was the result of *Divine guidance", which is the same as stating that God wished for the English scholars to translate the Bible into English.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Much of the confusion pretaining to presumptions of Roman Catholics lies in the term "Deus vult!" (God wills it!) Supposedly Pope Urban II uttered those (im)famous words at the Council of Trent in in 1095 AD which led to the 1st Crusade, yet by all accounts, Pope Urban II most likely never spoke those words and they were most likely chanted by the listeners of His speech after He finished.

Then, five hundred odd years later, the Protestant reformers used the phrase "Deus Vult" as an example of Roman Catholics presuming to know the will of God, however they seem to have forgotten that the very condemnation against the Catholics may also be used against themselves when they proclaimed that the Bible was translated into English was the result of *Divine guidance", which is the same as stating that God wished for the English scholars to translate the Bible into English.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I guess it was the Protestant reformers who actually murdered so many in the Crusades. Then they blamed it on the papal worshippers. All this time our History has been wrong.

 

[Cubfan64]

Is it just me, or does it seem like this thread is rapidly deteriorating into a theological "Catholic vs. Protestant" and religion discussion/argument?

While it may be difficult to separate the thread topic from a theology debate, absolutely nothing (imho) will be accomplished by straying too far down that path. I would hazard a guess that few if any folks posting here will ever be "converted" to the other side's way of thinking anyways.

Either way, I'd at least rather see the discussion head back towards the initial subject matter.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Is it just me, or does it seem like this thread is rapidly deteriorating into a theological "Catholic vs. Protestant" and religion discussion/argument?

While it may be difficult to separate the thread topic from a theology debate, absolutely nothing (imho) will be accomplished by straying too far down that path. I would hazard a guess that few if any folks posting here will ever be "converted" to the other side's way of thinking anyways.

Either way, I'd at least rather see the discussion head back towards the initial subject matter.

It's never the instigator...always the retaliator.

 

[cactusjumper]

All,

I don't believe that picking up minerals from the surface of the ground is considered "mining". As I understand it, a key element in the definition of mining is "extraction".

If you were to pick up a piece of gold ore from the surface of the earth, in the Superstition Wilderness Area, you would be outside the limitations of the prohibited "Mineral Exploration" section of the laws, as I understand them. In other words, it would not legally be considered "mining", which IS prohibited.

That's how I understand "mining" today. Perhaps it had a different meaning in the era we are talking about.

The Jesuits were known to work certain metals to fashion items needed for the missions. Some of them even did work for other missions great distances from themselves. Every shiny rock is not always gold, but please keep digging.

Just my opinion, so I could be wrong.

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

CJ,

The definition of a placer deposit is "Mineral deposits subject to placer claims include all those deposits not subject to lode claims. Originally, these included only deposits of unconsolidated materials, such as sand and gravel, containing free gold or other minerals".

Since the original mining law definition, they have added things like gypsum, limestone and a few others, but it is still a placer.

If you were strolling around my claim and picked up a nugget from the top of the ground - you would be prosecutable - because it is part of my placer claim. Same thing if you metal detected on my claim, and picked up a nugget.

You picture a gold pan, or a rocker or drywasher or whatever - but, that is not what makes a placer or the taking of minerals from a placer deposit.

Do you know the story of Pauline Weaver? (Rich Hill) - if you do, you know they "mined" it by picking up the gold with their bare hands and sometimes a pocket knife.

You could also picture yourself picking up a nugget in a withdrawn area (national park, or wherever), with an official standing nearby, they would be putting you in handcuffs and charging you with the "taking of mnerals from a restricted area:, otherwise known as mining.

B

 

[Cubfan64]

All,

I don't believe that picking up minerals from the surface of the ground is considered "mining". As I understand it, a key element in the definition of mining is "extraction".

If you were to pick up a piece of gold ore from the surface of the earth, in the Superstition Wilderness Area, you would be outside the limitations of the prohibited "Mineral Exploration" section of the laws, as I understand them. In other words, it would not legally be considered "mining", which IS prohibited.

That's how I understand "mining" today. Perhaps it had a different meaning in the era we are talking about.

The Jesuits were known to work certain metals to fashion items needed for the missions. Some of them even did work for other missions great distances from themselves. Every shiny rock is not always gold, but please keep digging.

Just my opinion, so I could be wrong.

Take care,

It would indeed be interesting to see if there is any kind of specific definition of "mining" back in that era - perhaps semantics back then allowed alot of wiggle room? As far as today's definition is concerned, this is from the USFS Tonto National Forest Site:

PROSPECTING

Prospecting is the gathering of information on mineral resources. Prospecting is allowed within a designated Wilderness Area, but an approved Plan of Operations is required. No person can acquire any right of interest to mineral resources discovered by prospecting or other information-gathering activity. Extraction of minerals (except a small grab sample) is a type of mining, and must comply with all related laws and regulations; see "Mining" below. If the search is for precious worked metal or other treasure, see "Treasure Trove Hunting" below.

MINING

Mining is any activity that attempts to extract minerals (which are valuable and locatable) from their natural setting. No mining of any type (whether for recreation and/or profit) is allowed except with an approved Notice of Intent and/or Plan of Operations for activity on a legal claim with valid existing rights. New mining claims can no longer be filed on designated Wilderness Areas. The Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed mining claims to be filed until January 1, 1984, at which time all Wilderness Areas were closed to new mineral entry. Subsequently- designated Wilderness Areas were closed to mineral entry upon enactment of the law creating them.

GOLD PANNING

This category includes panning, sluicing, or dredging wet or dry material. If any mineral is extracted by this activity (for recreation and/or profit), it is a type of mining; see "Mining" above. If mineral is not extracted, this activity would be a type of prospecting; see "Prospecting" above.

As I interpret this, you can prospect in the Superstitions, but ONLY for informational purposes - meaning you cannot actually recover any mineral (other than a small grab sample - now THAT'S open to interpretation - hehe). It looks as though if one were to pan for gold within the interior of the National Forest there and recover any gold, it would be considered a form of mining and you would become subject to mining regulations.

There's nothing that suggests what the legal ramifications are of coming across an area with gold or silver (or any other mineral) deposits scattered about on the ground - would it be considered mining if you pick them up? Could you argue it was just a "small" grab sample?

To me it appears as though picking up placer deposits out there would legally be considered a form of mining - and one could be accused of "extracting them" from their natural environment.

 

[lamar]

Much of the confusion pretaining to presumptions of Roman Catholics lies in the term "Deus vult!" (God wills it!) Supposedly Pope Urban II uttered those (im)famous words at the Council of Trent in in 1095 AD which led to the 1st Crusade, yet by all accounts, Pope Urban II most likely never spoke those words and they were most likely chanted by the listeners of His speech after He finished.

Then, five hundred odd years later, the Protestant reformers used the phrase "Deus Vult" as an example of Roman Catholics presuming to know the will of God, however they seem to have forgotten that the very condemnation against the Catholics may also be used against themselves when they proclaimed that the Bible was translated into English was the result of *Divine guidance", which is the same as stating that God wished for the English scholars to translate the Bible into English.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I guess it was the Protestant reformers who actually murdered so many in the Crusades. Then they blamed it on the papal worshippers. All this time our History has been wrong.

No, actually it was the Protestant reformers who butchered about the same amount of FELLOW CHRISTIANS during the Refromation period as the Catholic Crusaders butchered Muslims and Jews during the Crusades, which is right around 120,000, give or take a 1,000 or so here and there. Then again, the Crusaders didn't typically burn people at the stake or have them drawn and quartered like the Reformers did, either.
LAMAR