Quelltext der Seite Joseph Smith/Rechtsfragen/Verfahren von 1826

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

Joseph Smith wurde 1826 wegen „Hellseherei” vor Gericht gestellt.
# Was war der Hintergrund dieser Verhandlung?
# Was war das Gerichtsverfahren gegen Joseph Smith von 1826?
# Warum ist Entdeckung der Rechnungen von Neely und De Zeng im Jahr 1971 bedeutsam?
# Warum meinen die Kritiker, dieses Vorkommnis diskreditiere Joseph Smith?
# Was sagt es wirklich aus?



{{Schlussfolgerung}}

Eine Betrachtung der relevanten Dokumente zeigt, dass:

# Die gerichtliche Anhörung von 1826 war kein Gerichtsverfahren, sondern eine Voruntersuchung.
# Die Anhörung wurde wahrscheinlich aus religiösem Interesse veranlasst, das heißt, Leute wiesen die religiösen Behauptungen von Joseph zurück.
# Es gab sieben Zeugen.
# Die Zeugnisse der Zeugen sind nicht alle getreu weitergegeben worden.
# Die meisten Zeugen bezeugten, dass Joseph eine Sehergabe besaß.

Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass die gerichtliche Anhörung nicht so sehr aus dem Grund veranlasst wurde, weil Joseph ein Schatzgräber gewesen wäre, sondern vielmehr deshalb, weil er Einfluss auf Josiah Stowell hatte. Josiah Stowell war einer der ersten, der an Joseph Smith glaubte. Sein Neffe war deshalb wahrscheinlich sehr besorgt und wollte wenn möglich ihre Beziehung zerstören. Es gelang ihm nicht. Die gerichtliche Anhörung verfehlte ihren Zweck und wurde Jahrzehnte später nur zu dem Zweck wieder zum Leben erweckt, um anderen Menschen in einer anderen Kultur gegenüber Joseph Smith verschiedener Verbrechen zu beschuldigen.

Wenn man den Zusammenhang des Falles versteht, verschwindet jede Bedrohung, die er für die prophetische Integrität Josephs hätte haben können.



===Der Hintergrund des Gerichtsverfahrens===

Im Frühjahr 1825 besuchte Josiah Stowell Joseph Smith, „da er gehört hatte, dass er bestimmte Schlüssel besaß, mit denen er Dinge wahrnehmen könne, die dem natürlichen Auge unsichtbar sind.”{{ref|fn3}} Josiah Stowel wollte, dass ihm Joseph Smith in seinem Unterfangen helfe, einen Schatz in einer alten Silbermine zu finden. Joseph zögerte, doch Stowell überzeugte ihn, indem er ihm einen hohen Lohn anbot. Nach Gerichtsakten sagte Stowell, dass Joseph, indem er einen Seherstein benützte, „durch den Stein schaute und Josiah Stowels Haus und die Umgebung um das Haus richtig beschrieb, während er in Palmyra bei Sampson Stowell war, dass er durch besagten Stein über einen angemalten Baum sprach, auf den eine Menschenhand gemalt war.”{{ref|fn4}}

Joseph und sein Vater reisten im November 1825 ins südliche New York. Es war nachdem die Ernte eingebracht war und Joseph den Besuch dieses Jahres am [http://de.mormonwiki.com/Cumorah Hügel Cumorah] beendet hatte. Sie waren mit Stowell und den Arbeitern weniger als einen Monat beim Graben nach der Mine dabei. Schließlich überzeugte ihn Joseph damit aufzuhören. „Nachdem wir für den alten Herrn ungefähr einen Monat gearbeitet hatten, überzeugte ihn Joseph, die Aktion zu beenden.”{{ref|fn5}}

Joseph arbeitete noch weiter in der Gegend für Stowell und andere. Er wohnte im Haus von Isaac Hale und traf dort Emma Hale, die der „Schatz” war, den er aus dem Unternehmen gewann.

===Was ist das Verfahren von 1826===

Im März des folgenden Jahres zeigte der Sohn oder der Neffe von Stowell (je nachdem, welchem Bericht man folgt) Joseph an und er wurde vor Richter Neely gebracht. Das angebliche Gerichtsprotokoll kam von Fräulein Pearsall. „Der Bericht der Anhörung wurde von seiner Nichte, Emily Pearsall, aus Neelys Prozessberichtsbuch gerissen und nach Utah mitgenommen, als sie dorthin ging, um unterm episkopalen Bischof Dianiel S. Tuttle eine Mission zu erfüllen.”{{ref|fn6}} Dies wird weiterhin der Pearsall-Bericht genannt, obwohl ihn Neely nach ihrem Tod besaß. Es ist interessant, dass die erste veröffentlichte Version dieses Berichtes erst nach dem Tod von Fräulein Pearsall erschien.

William D. Purple machte während der Verhandlung Notizen und sagt uns „Im Februar 1826 waren die Söhne von Herrn Stowell ....sehr erzürnt auf Smith,....sie sahen, dass der jugendliche Seher unbegrenzte Kontrolle über die Illusionen ihres Vaters....Sie veranlassten die Festnahme Smiths als Vagabund ohne sichtbare Mittel für den Lebensunterhalt.”{{ref|fn7}}

Hingegen sagt der Pearsall-Bericht: „Auf Eid von Peter G. Bridgeman [Josiah Stowells Neffe] einen Haftbefehl ausgestellt, der mich informierte, dass ein Joseph Smith von Bainbridge eine ordnungswidrige Person und ein Betrüger sei...dem Gericht vorgeführt am 20. März 1826.”{{ref|fn8}}

So haben wir also das, was der „Prozess von 1826 gegen Joseph Smith” genannt wurde, obwohl die Aufzeichungen zeigen, dass das nicht wirklich ein Gerichtsverfahren war. Viele Jahre lang haben die HLT Gelehrten Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley und andere ernsthafte Zweifel darüber geäußert, dass ein solches Verfahren überhaupt stattgefunden hätte.

===Warum sind die Entdeckungen von 1971 wichtig?===

Es war leicht, die Realität des Verfahrens von 1826 zu bezweifeln, bis 1971 die Rechnungen von Richter Albert Neely und Polizist Philip De Zeng gefunden wurden. Diese Dokumente wurden von ihrem behaupteten Fundort von  Dr. Wesley Walters, einem wohlbekannten antimormonischen Autor entfernt. Walters schrieb: 
:„Weil die beiden Rechnungen von 1826 nicht nur von der Feuchtigkeit gelitten hatten, sondern auch schwere Wasserschäden aufwiesen, brachte Herr Poffarl die Dokumente eigenhändig in die Beinecke Bibliothek der Yale Universität, die eine der besten Dokumentenkonservierungszentren des Landes hat.”{{ref|fn2}} Das Problem mit einer solchen Vorgehensweise liegt darin, dass man nicht beweisen kann, dass man das Dokument nicht verändert hat, wenn man es einmal aus seinem historischen Zusammenhang entnommen hat und dann versucht, es dort wieder einzubringen.”

Die Handlungsweise von Walters und Poffarl hat den Wert der Dokumente geschmälert. Indem sie die Dokumente entfernt und nur unter Androhung rechtlicher Schritte durch die Verwaltung des Kreises zurückgaben, haben sie die Möglichkeit geschaffen, dass sie Dokumente gefälscht haben könnten. Allgemein werden sie als authentisch angesehen, doch jetzt gibt es immer Raum für Zweifel.

===Warum benutzen die Kritiker dieses Ereignis?===

Es ist interessant, dass Kritiker zur Zeit von Joseph Smith das Verfahren von 1826 nicht beachteten.
# Sie brachten in einem weiteren Verfahren im Jahr 1830 in der selben Gegend die Sprache nicht darauf.
# Es wurde in keiner der eidesstattlichen Erklärungen erwähnt, die Hurlbut 1833 sammelte, trotzdem er eifrig nach jedem Stück Dreck suchte, das er nur finden konnte.
# Obwohl das Verfahren 1831 kurz erwähnt wurde, wurde es in einem veröffentlichten Bericht die nächsten 46 Jahre nicht mehr erwähnt.

Die Anziehungskraft dieses Ereignisses für spätere Generationen liegt jedoch darin, dass:

* sich die Gesellschaft verändert hatte
* Sehersteine nicht mehr annehmbar waren
* Schatzgräberei als abnormal betrachtet wurde
* Geistige Gaben als Manifestationen des Okkulten betrachtet wurden

Viele Menschen um 1800 sahen keinen Unterschied zwischen dem, was spätere Generationen als „Magie” bezeichneten und religiös motivierten Handlungen, die in der Bibel verzeichnet sind, wie der Silberbecher Josefs (siehe Genesis 44:2,5), aus dem er wahrsagte (was auch von den umgebenden Heiden gemacht wurde und als Wasserwahrsagerei bezeichnet wurde){{ref|quinn1}} oder Aarons Stab mit seiner göttlich verursachten Macht.(Exodus 7:9-12)

Die Bibel berichtet, dass Jakob Stöcke benutzte, um zu verursachen, dass  Labans Vieh gefleckte Junge warf (siehe Genesis 30:37-39). Man kann sich nur vorstellen, was die Kritiker sagen würden, wenn Joseph Smith so etwas versucht hätte!

Zur Zeit von Joseph Smith beschäftigten sich andere christliche Führer mit Praktiken, die man heute 'okkult' nennen würde. Quinn bemerkt z.B. dass „eine Zeitschrift aus Massachusetts zustimmend schreibt, dass ein örtlicher Geistlicher eine gegabelte Wünschelrute benutzte... Ähnlich schrieb ein methodistischer Geistlicher 23 Jahre später, dass ein Mitgeistlicher in New Jersey bis in die 1830-er eine Wünschelrute benutzt hatte, um vergrabene Schätze zu lokalisieren und die 'Geister die vergrabene Münzen bewachen'...”{{ref|quinn2}}

{{nw}}
<!--
===Was sagt uns das Verfahren von 1826?===

====Was für Berichte existieren?====

Es gibt fünf Berichte dieses Verfahrens, und sie sind in acht Dokumenten veröffentlicht. 

1) 9. April 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate<br>
2) Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate<br>
3)1842 Brief von Joel K. Noble (nicht vor 1977 veröffentlicht)<br>
4) von Rechter Neely rausgerissener Bericht aus der Prozessliste von Miss Emily Pearsall (Nichte)
::*Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall veröffentlicht im Frazer's Magazine (London)
::*Apr. 1873 - Frazers Artikel wird im Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.) nachgedruckt. 
::*1883 - Tuttle-Artikel in der New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedie für religiöse Wissenschaften
::*Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)
5) 3. May 1877 - W. D. Purple Chanango Union<br>

Es kann sein, dass Purple die Veröffentlichung im Eclectic Magazine sah und er darum seinen Bericht ein paar Jahre später veröffentlichte. Es gibt keine vollständigen Übereinstimmungen in den Berichten; schauen wir uns die Gemeinsamkeiten und die Unterschiede an:

Schließlich haben wir die Berichte von Richter Neely und dem Polizisten Da Zeng, die einige zusätzliche Details liefern.

====Herkunft des Dokuments====

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.

====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&mdash;they were required in an official record.
#It appears to be a pretrial hearing.
#Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts.

====Why were the various records made?====

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

Unsurprisingly, those who provided these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer, and most of that bias is directed ''against'' Joseph Smith.

====Who brought the 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."{{ref|fn21}}

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

====What was the charge against Joseph Smith?====
The charge is listed in the various accounts as:
#Benton (1831): a disorderly person
#Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
#Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
#Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
#Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
#Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
#Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

Hugh Nibley indicated how it would be strange that he could be charged without visible means of livelihood, since he was being employed by Stowell and others.

The portion of the statute that would seem to apply was enacted by New York in 1813.

:...all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and 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.

What is a juggler? It used to be that a person skilled in sleight of hand was called a juggler, whereas today we would call them a "sleight of hand magician."  Thus, a "juggler" was a con man; someone using his 'stage magic' talents to defraud.{{ref|quinn1}}

But what if you weren't ''pretending'' to discover lost goods? What if you actually had a gift where you "could discern things invisible to the natural eye" Could you then be judged guilty of this statute?

====How many witnesses testified?====

As far as the number of witnesses we have the following:
#Benton (1831): not mentioned 
#Cowdery (1835): not mentioned 
#Marshall (1873): Five quoted, charges for seven witnesses 
#Tuttle (1882): Six 
#Purple (1877): Four 
#Constable Philip De Zeng: Twelve

What is particularly interesting here is that Tuttle and Marshall are supposedly quoting from the same document. Marshall only quotes 5 witnesses, but at the end, the charges are listed for seven witnesses. The fee was 12-1/2 cents per witness. Eighty-seven and ½ cents divided by twelve ½ cents per witness, gives us seven witnesses. By combining the Purple and Pearsall accounts we can arrive at seven witnesses, and also a motive for not including all the witnesses or letting the record be examined. It is unknown why the constable would have listed twelve witnesses, unless that is the number he summoned to the proceedings. Seven would seem to be the correct number of those that testified.

====What witness is excluded from some accounts?====

Purple does add a witness that hadn't been included by Marshall or Tuttle: Joseph Smith, Sr. Maybe they didn't want to include the testimony of Joseph's father because his testimony was more religious in nature. He spoke of Joseph's "wonderful triumphs as a seer", that "both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre," and "he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him." It is easy to see why this testimony wouldn't be included in a record where you are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a person trying to acquire work as a money digger. Which might be the reason the Tuttle and Marshall omitted the Joseph Smith Sr. testimony.

====What verdict was brought against Joseph?====
#Benton: tried and condemned ... designedly allowed to escape 
#Cowdery: honorably acquitted 
#Noble: was condemned, took leg bail
#Marshall: guilty? 
#Tuttle: guilty? 
#Purple: discharged 
#Constable De Zeng: not a trial

Noble's statement is hearsay, since there is no evidence that he actually attended this trial. Furthermore, his statement and Benton's statement can't be taken as an indication that Joseph was judged guilty. For example, in Joseph's 1830 trial he was acquitted.  The court said that they "find nothing to condemn you, and therefore you are discharged." Then Mr Reid testifies, "They then proceeded to reprimand him severely, not because anything derogatory to his character in any shape had been proven against him by the host of witnesses that had testified during the trial."{{ref|fn23}}

The verdict indicated by Marshall and Tuttle is questionable. It seems to be appended as an afterthought. Throughout the document Joseph is referred to as the "prisoner", then after the last testimony, we have one sentence in which he is named a defendant, "And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty." Here we have suddenly a declaratory statement that is completely out of character with the rest of the Pearsall document. Also, if this were actually a trial, Joseph wouldn't have testified against himself as the first witness.

====The examination was not a trial====

Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that this is not a trial. The Constable's charges of "19 cents attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail' ...and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction, twenty-five cents."{{ref|fn24}}

In the Tanners' anti-Mormon ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', they stated, "Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with 'an examination.' In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an 'examination' the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are'"{{ref|fn25}}

In all cases but one the witnesses were "sworn", whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley's charges actually uses that precise terminology, "in examination of above cause". Therefore, since this wasn't a trial, one cannot have a guilty verdict.

====Summary of testimony====
* '''Joseph Smith, Jr.''': In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business.

*'''Joseph Smith Sr.''': This testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account.

*'''Josiah Stowell''': His employer's testimony in the Purple account has Josiah say that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

:We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."

*'''Horace Stowell''': This testimony is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground. 

*'''Arad Stowell''': This witness went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around. 

Interestingly, the same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So this detail matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money. There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account.-->

==Fußnoten==

#{{note|fn3}}{{Biosketch1|start=103}}
#{{note|fn4}}Dan Vogel, ''Early Mormon Documents Volume 4'', (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 252&ndash;253.
#{{note|fn5}}{{Biosketch1|start=103}}
#{{note|fn6}}H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record'' (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 227.
#{{note|fn7}}{{NewWitnessForChrist1 | vol=1|start=479}}
#{{note|fn8}}Dan Vogel, ''Early Mormon Documents Volume 4'', (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 248&ndash;249.
#{{note|fn2}}Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials," ''The Westminster Theological Journal'' 36:2 (1974), 153.
#{{note|quinn1}} D. Michael Quinn, ''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987), 30.
#{{note|quinn2}} Quinn, 5
#{{note|fn21}}Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials," ''The Westminster Theological Journal'' 36:2 (1974), 141&ndash;142.
#{{note|quinn1}} Note too D. Michael Quinn's efforts to distort the clear meaning of this statute as discussed in {{FR-12-2-15}}.  See also ''FAIRWiki'' link [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion2#Early_Mormonism_and_the_Magic_World_View|here]].
#{{note|fn23}}{{CHC1|vol=1|start=211}}
#{{note|fn24}}Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials," ''The Westminster Theological Journal'' 36:2 (1974), 140, note 36.
#{{note|fn25}}Gerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 68 (July 1988): 9.


{{Zusätzliches Material}}

===FAIRwiki Artikel===


===FAIR Website===
{{JosephSmithFairWebsite}}
*[http://de.fairlds.org/?page_id=2422 FAIR Topical Guide]

===Externe Links===
*[http://de.prophetjosephsmith.org/joseph-smith-im-gefangnis Joseph Smith im Gefängnis]

===Gedrucktes Material===
[[Kategorie:Joseph Smith]][[Kategorie:Kirchengeschichte]][[Kategorie:Fragen]]


[[en:Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 court appearance for glasslooking]]
[[es:José Smith/Cuestiones legales/Ensayos/1826 comparecencia ante el tribunal para "glasslooking"]]
[[pt:Joseph Smith/Questões legais/Processos judiciais/1826 julgamento glasslooking]]