Joseph Smith's 1826 trial - Revision history

GregSmith: /* Broader character traits that argue against the "con-man hypothesis" */

2024-06-01T22:46:31Z

Broader character traits that argue against the "con-man hypothesis"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 1 June 2024
Line 337:		Line 337:
	When confronted with the evidence privately, Bennett confessed and promised to reform. He did not, though Joseph did not make his sins public until nearly a year later.<ref>For more details, see a discussion of the entire complex Bennett period [http://pool.fairmormon.org/images/d/db/John_C._Bennett_draft.pdf here] in PDF.</ref>		When confronted with the evidence privately, Bennett confessed and promised to reform. He did not, though Joseph did not make his sins public until nearly a year later.<ref>For more details, see a discussion of the entire complex Bennett period [http://pool.fairmormon.org/images/d/db/John_C._Bennett_draft.pdf here] in PDF.</ref>

	{{~~more~~\|John_C._Bennett\|l1=John C. Bennett}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=seealso
			\|link1=John_C._Bennett
			\|subject1=John C. Bennett
			\|summary1=
			}}

	Other examples of misplaced trust include George M. Hinckle, who sold Joseph out to the Missouri militia (resulting in his near-execution and his imprisonment in Liberty Jail) and William Law, who would help publish the [[Nauvoo Expositor]], a newspaper which called for Joseph's death and contributed to the [[Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom\|martyrdom]].		Other examples of misplaced trust include George M. Hinckle, who sold Joseph out to the Missouri militia (resulting in his near-execution and his imprisonment in Liberty Jail) and William Law, who would help publish the [[Nauvoo Expositor]], a newspaper which called for Joseph's death and contributed to the [[Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom\|martyrdom]].

GregSmith: /* Claims about Joseph being found guilty of being a "con man" in court usually revolve around either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing */

2024-06-01T22:45:54Z

Claims about Joseph being found guilty of being a "con man" in court usually revolve around either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 1 June 2024
Line 295:		Line 295:
	Claims about Joseph being found guilty of being a "con man" in court usually revolve around either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing:		Claims about Joseph being found guilty of being a "con man" in court usually revolve around either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing:

	{{main\|Joseph Smith/Legal trials/1826 glasslooking trial\|l1=1826 trial for "glasslooking"}}		{{Related articles
			\|title=main
			\|link1=Joseph Smith/Legal trials/1826 glasslooking trial
			\|subject1=1826 trial for "glasslooking"
			\|summary1=
			}}

	==Even if one rejects Joseph's claims to divine revelation or special abilities, his conduct still does not match that of a "con man"==		==Even if one rejects Joseph's claims to divine revelation or special abilities, his conduct still does not match that of a "con man"==

GregSmith at 23:12, 20 May 2024

2024-05-20T23:12:30Z

Show changes

GregSmith at 05:24, 30 April 2024

2024-04-30T05:24:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 30 April 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	{{H2		{{H2
	\|L=~~Actual_Page_name~~		\|L=Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
	\|H=~~Display_page_name~~		\|H=Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
	\|S=		\|S=
	\|L1=Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?		\|L1=Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

GregSmith at 05:24, 30 April 2024

2024-04-30T05:24:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 30 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation Joseph Smith}}		{{Navigation Joseph Smith}}

	~~{{Header}}~~

	{{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}}
	}}		}}
	{{parabreak}}		{{parabreak}}


			<onlyinclude>
			{{H2
			\|L=Actual_Page_name
			\|H=Display_page_name
			\|S=
			\|L1=Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?
			\|L2=Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge?
			\|L3=Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty?
			\|L4=Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person"
			\|L5=Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?
			\|L6=Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?
			\|L7=Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"
			\|L8=Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
			\|L9=Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?
			}}
			</onlyinclude>

	{{:Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?}}		{{:Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?}}
Line 18:		Line 34:
	{{:Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?}}		{{:Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?}}

	{{~~NeedCriticalSources~~}}		{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking/CriticalSources}}
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

GregSmith at 17:54, 27 April 2024

2024-04-27T17:54:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:54, 27 April 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:
	{{:Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?}}		{{:Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?}}

	{{~~CriticalSources~~}}		{{NeedCriticalSources}}
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T20:31:13Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation Joseph Smith}}		{{Navigation Joseph Smith}}


	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

DavidSmith: updating header template

2023-03-29T20:33:24Z

updating header template

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 29 March 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	~~<onlyinclude>~~		{{Navigation Joseph Smith}}
	{{H2
	~~\|L=~~Joseph Smith~~/Legal issues/1826 court appearance for glasslooking~~
	~~\|H=Joseph Smith appeared in court in 1826 for "glasslooking"~~		{{Header}}
	\|S=Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?"
	~~\|L1=Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?~~
	~~\|L2=Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge?~~
	~~\|L3=Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything?~~
	~~\|L4=Ensign (June 1994): "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~~
	~~\|L5=Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?~~
	~~\|L6=Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?~~
	~~\|L7=Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"?~~
	~~\|L8=Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?~~
	~~\|L9=Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?~~
	}}
	~~</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}}
	}}		}}

DavidSmith: DavidSmith moved page Joseph Smith/Legal issues/1826 court appearance for glasslooking to Joseph Smith's 1826 trial: part of content consolidation and simplification project

2023-03-29T20:32:55Z

DavidSmith moved page Joseph Smith/Legal issues/1826 court appearance for glasslooking to Joseph Smith's 1826 trial: part of content consolidation and simplification project

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:32, 29 March 2023
(No difference)

RogerNicholson at 06:07, 3 September 2017

2017-09-03T06:07:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 3 September 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|L2=Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge?		\|L2=Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge?
	\|L3=Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything?		\|L3=Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything?
	\|L4=Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?		\|L4=Ensign (June 1994): "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
	\|L5=Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?		\|L5=Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?
	\|L6=Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"?		\|L6=Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?
	\|L7=Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?		\|L7=Question: What are the details of Joseph Smith's 1826 "trial" for "glasslooking"?
	\|L8=Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?		\|L8=Question: What happened to Josiah Stowell? Did he conclude he had been defrauded after the court hearing?
			\|L9=Question: Was Joseph Smith found guilty of being a "con man" in 1826?
	}}		}}
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>