Records of 1826 Trial

Let us see if we can get a better understanding concerning the time of Joseph Smith and what the examination in 1826 actually tells us.

We have five records of the 1826 trial. And these were published in eight documents.

Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate
Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate
1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)
Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece)
Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London)
Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)
1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)
May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chanango Union
It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences.

Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details. by Russell Anderson
Judge Neely Record

We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:

Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
Then the record was lost.
It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.

Mr. Purple - from his memory

The only other significant account of the trial is given to us by W. D. Purple in 1877, after more than 50 years had elapsed. Since Mr. Purple says that he was asked to make a record at the time of the trial, what he wrote could possibly be the very record that was acquired by Miss Pearsall. We don't really know, but it is unlikely that there was a second record made of the trial. Mr. Purple doesn't use his notes but instead he tells us, "The scenes and incidents of that early day are vividly engraven upon his memory, by reason of his having written them when they occurred, and by reason of his public and private rehearsals of them in later years. He will now present them as historical reminiscenses of old Chenango, and as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism."19

From Fawn Brodie's notes we have the following obituary about Dr. Purple.

"He was blessed with a most retentive memory and was thoroughly conversant with the county's history. He was a man of strictest integrity and uprightness of character."

"Dr. Purple possessed a remarkably retentive memory, characterized, also, by a surprising facility for the recollection of dates, statistics, and historical occurrences, so that he was called sometimes, as veritably he was, a walking encyclopedia. He could tell at once the names of the candidates, the year of their nominations, the names, methods, and characteristic and management of all parties, and the principle history of nearly all political leaders during every year of the past eighty years."20

Do We Have a Court Record?

We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.

Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
No witness signatures--they were required in an official record
It appears to be a pretrial hearing
Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts
Let's take an overview of what these various records tell us about this examination in 1826. We will examine these various records under the following categories.

Why the record is recorded
Who brought the charges
What the charge was against Joseph Smith
Number of witnesses
Verdict
Reason for the Record

First of all the reasons for the record. This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.

Benton: more complete history of their founder
Cowdery: private character of our brother
Noble: explain the character of the Mormons
Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet
Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism
Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others
Judge Neely: to collect fees
So we can see here that most people who gave us these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer.

Person Bringing Charges

If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following:

Benton (1831): The Public
Cowdery (1835): very officious person
Noble (1842): Civil authority
Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman
Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell
Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman
Judge Neely: The Public
Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source.

Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church. Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."21

Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?" by Russell Anderson