The 1826 Glass Looking Trial

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) I split out the posts dealing with Rich's website to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19064

Please remember to stay on topic. We are a little more strict about that in the Celestial Forum. Thanks!

[_GlennThigpen]

The truth is: Joseph Smith did engage in glass looking in 1825 and in 1826 he was brought to court to answer for it.

He did violate the law but he served no time for it.

Rich, here is a quote from the pertinent statute.

"All jugglers and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found … shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons."

This is from Laws of the State of New-York, Revised and Passed at Thirty-Sixth Session of the Legislature, 2 vols. (Albany, NY: H. C. Southwick and Co., 1813), 1:114, sec. 1

Joseph was arrested on the charge of being a disorderly person. The reason that he seems to have been acquitted is that the testimonies of the witnesses, especially that of Josiah Stowell, agreed that Joseph actually could do what he was claiming, and that he was not just pretending to do so.

Whatever you may think of Joesph and those activities, it would seem, based upon the evidence that Joseph did not break the law.

Glenn

[_rich kelsey]

The truth is: Joseph Smith did engage in glass looking in 1825 and in 1826 he was brought to court to answer for it.

He did violate the law but he served no time for it.

Rich, here is a quote from the pertinent statute.

"All jugglers and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found … shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons."

This is from Laws of the State of New-York, Revised and Passed at Thirty-Sixth Session of the Legislature, 2 vols. (Albany, NY: H. C. Southwick and Co., 1813), 1:114, sec. 1

Joseph was arrested on the charge of being a disorderly person. The reason that he seems to have been acquitted is that the testimonies of the witnesses, especially that of Josiah Stowell, agreed that Joseph actually could do what he was claiming, and that he was not just pretending to do so.

Whatever you may think of Joesph and those activities, it would seem, based upon the evidence that Joseph did not break the law.

Glenn

Thanks GlennThigpen.

I am very familiar with this law:

"All jugglers and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found … shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons."

I believe this is the law spoken of here:

“But along toards fall Joseph and Oliver Cowdray and David Whitmore [Whitmer] and John Whitmore Came from Harmonyin Pennsylvany to my house on some Buisness. And some of the Vagabonds found theyware there and they made a Catspaw of a young fellow By the name of Docter Bentonin Chenengo County to sware out a warrent against Joseph for as they said pertending to see under ground. A little Clause they found in the york Laws against such things." (Joseph Knight’s Recollection Joseph Smith’s Early History).

I also know and understand the different positions as to why he was acquitted. I do not believe he could see a chest of coined money being watched over by a dead Indian.

My take on the matter is that there was no dead Indian guarding treasure. I think Smith was let off the hook because the case would have been difficult to prove: most of the witnesses did believe in Smith and they were the people speaking of the chest of money and the dead Indian.

There is a lightplanet article whis shares the same views as you have shared here. I explain this position in one of my articles.

“If Joseph actually did possess the ability as the witnesses testified would he be judged guilty of glass looking? Yes. But wouldn't that also mean that he was innocent of deception and the reason the law was created?” (Just the Facts - The 1826 Trial (Hearing) of Joseph Smith, lightplanet.com)

Thanks for sharing.

Rich

[_Joseph]

blmont wrote: "What leads me to think that you have not read up on it is simply this: It is clear from your articles that you have an agenda that is hostile toward my faith."
******************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Those reseaching l-dsinc from the view that is it a fraud do more research than many I have heard and read who are trying to prove it 'true'. Many of those who seem anti are looking for the truth. Many defending the faith ignore the truth. They pick and choose and do not present the whole picture. boyd said 'not all truth is useful' in trying to justify selective teaching rather than teaching the full truth and letting the holy ghost testify to folks about it.

Force feed lies and deceit - that is not the mark of an honest group.