Quote:
Brian states, "The charge was brought by Josiah's family who claimed that Smith was defrauding Smith.
Brian, Brian, Brian, where do you get your information from? If this is your own research as you claim, then your facts get in the way of the truth. So as to not be like you Brian, here is the source:
Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial:
New Evidence and New Difficulties1
by Marvin S. Hill2
BYU Studies Vol 12, Winter '72, p. 223-234
Quote:
In the late winter of 1826, according to an early account, Peter Bridgeman, a nephew of the wife of Josiah Stowell, presented a written complaint against Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge, New York, which led to his arrest and trial as a "disorderly person." Since the time that Fawn Brodie in her biography of Joseph Smith accepted as authentic the account of the trial published in the Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1883), it has been a source of sharp conflict among the students of early Mormonism. Perhaps the primary reason for Mormon opposition to the record is the alleged admission it contains made by Joseph Smith that he had been searching for lost treasure by means of a stone
Quote:
Blundering Brian continues with the absurd, "It comes from multiple SWORN statements of his family and is backed up by the FACT that Smith really was pretending to dig for buried Spanish gold treasures on Josiah's farm, as well as the testimony of such reliable witnesses as Joseph's own mother.
This is so much fun, :D
Quote:
Nibley challenged the validity of the Schaaf-Herzog report primarily because the original document has never appeared, although it was said to have been taken to Utah by Emily Pearsall, the niece of Justice Albert Neely who supposedly tried the case. Nibley said we have only the testimony of Miss Pearsall that the record ever existed, and that came through Bishop Daniel S. Turtle of the Episcopal church in Salt Lake City, who published the Schaaf-Herzog report.
Here is some more truth Brian,
Quote:
By examining the Pearsall, Purple, and Benton accounts, which he noted are contradictory,10 Nibley raised the question whether the charge of vagrancy indicated by Purple was plausible when the testimony itself shows that Joseph worked for Josiah Stowell at his request.11 Nibley also suggested the possibility that there might have been some confusion between a trial which did occur at Bainbridge in 1830 with one in 1826 that perhaps did not. Nibley argued that Benton probably made up the story of the 1826 trial, app***** some of the details from the 1830 affair and getting his ideas of Joseph's stone peeping from articles by Obediah Dogberry published in the Palmyra Reflector in that year.
Quote:
Oliver Cowdery acknowledged in the LDS Messenger and Advocate in 1835 that, while Joseph Smith was in southern New York, some very officious person complained of him as a disorderly person and brought him before the authorities of the county; but there being no cause of action he was honorably acquitted.
Quote:
Some additional difficulties now appear. Doubt still remains as to the authenticity of the testimonies published in Fraser's and by Purple, because the details of these vary. The bills found by Walters clarify some points but add to the confusion on others.
As already indicated, in Fraser's Peter Bridgeman is reported to have made the charges against Joseph. No reason is given. Dr. Purple, who claimed Justice Neely asked him to take notes at the trial, recalled in 1877 that it was the sons of Josiah Stowell who brought the allegations because they were afraid that Joseph's encouragement of their father's money digging was "depriving them of their anticipated patrimony." A. W. Benton said that it was "the public" who had Joseph arrested after becoming "wearied with the base imposition he was palming upon the credulity of the ********." Oliver Cowdery attributed the charges to an "officious person."
Quote:
The bill of Justice Neely does not reveal what the charge was, only that Joseph was tried for a "misdemeanor." It is curious that in the other cases included on the bill specific charges such as "***ault and battery" and "pe*** larceny" [sic] are given. It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that in another document found by Walters, the 1830 bill of Justice of the Peace Joseph Chamberlain, who tried Joseph Smith in the 1830 trial, the charge is specifically stated--"a disorderly person."17 This fact, along with the vagueness of the charges in Neely's bill, necessitates the question being raised, did Fraser's, Benton, and Cowdery confuse the charges in 1826 with those in 1830? We have evidence that Benton and Cowdery were both involved in the 1830 affair,18 and they possibly could have confused the charges in the two trials. If so, of what was Joseph Smith accused in 1826? A "misdemeanor" might be many things, as the term simply designates a minor offense. Was the charge vagrancy, disorderliness, being an "impostor," or was it deliberately left vague because treasure hunting, as Joseph practiced it with Stowell, did not violate any specific New York law? It is generally known among historians that digging was common in western New York in this period. How many such persons were held accountable, and to what law? These are questions that need answering before any fair ***essment of the trial can be made.
Go to the reference I gave you Brian, there are some other things which might or might not interest you. I doubt you will look into any of this, since your agenda is one of denial and deflection.