Joseph Smith's 1826 trial

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]]

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

∗       ∗       ∗

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"

Jump to details:

• [[Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking#Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?|Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge? Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything? 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 are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"? Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing? Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?]] </onlyinclude>

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

∗       ∗       ∗

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Notes