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.
Array
Joseph Smith's 1826 trial: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}} | {{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}} | ||
{{Resource Title|Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"}} | {{Resource Title|Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"}} | ||
<onlyinclude> | <onlyinclude> | ||
{{epigraph|'''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. <br><br>—{{Ensign1|author=Anonymous|article=Highlights in the Prophet’s Life|date=Jun 1994|start=24}} {{Link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/06/highlights-in-the-prophets-life?lang=eng&query=%22disorderly+person%22}} | {{epigraph|'''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. <br><br>—{{Ensign1|author=Anonymous|article=Highlights in the Prophet’s Life|date=Jun 1994|start=24}} {{Link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/06/highlights-in-the-prophets-life?lang=eng&query=%22disorderly+person%22}} | ||
Revision as of 21:47, 3 April 2017
Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 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
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
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" Template loop detected: Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
Notes