Array

Joseph Smith's 1826 trial: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:


[[de:Joseph Smiths Verfahren von 1826]]
[[de:Joseph Smiths Verfahren von 1826]]
[[en:Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking]]
[[es:José Smith/Cuestiones legales/Ensayos/1826 comparecencia ante el tribunal para "glasslooking"]]
[[es:José Smith/Cuestiones legales/Ensayos/1826 comparecencia ante el tribunal para "glasslooking"]]
[[fr:Joseph Smith/Legal trials/1826 glasslooking trial]]

Revision as of 04:58, 21 May 2015

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking."

Answers portal
Joseph Smith, Jr.
    RESOURCES



    PERSPECTIVES
    MEDIA
    OTHER PORTALS


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