
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
No edit summary |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{:Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?}} | {{:Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?}} | ||
{{:Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge?}} | {{:Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge?}} | ||
{{:Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty?}} | |||
{{:Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person"}} | {{:Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person"}} | ||
{{:Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?}} | |||
{{:Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?}} | {{:Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?}} | ||
{{:Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"}} | {{:Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"}} | ||
</onlyinclude> | </onlyinclude> | ||
{{CriticalSources}} | {{CriticalSources}} |
Answers portal |
Joseph Smith, Jr. |
![]() |
![]() |
---|
|
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994): 24. off-site
Template loop detected: Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Template loop detected: Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge? Template loop detected: Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty? Template loop detected: Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person" Template loop detected: Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith? Template loop detected: Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing? Template loop detected: Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now