The Fruits of Joseph Smith

[Doug the Hutt]

Back to OP --

* Nauvoo the Beautiful indeed. Sadly it came and went with its leader.

* Relief Society. Agreed.

* On returning nobility, I think you mean nobility as in setting high moral standards. I beg to differ that Joseph and Mormonism was the impetus which returned nobility back to the mainstream. I think humankind always moves between liberation/expression and longing for that simpler, less excited time. Many great people have stood up for noble causes all through history, some lost their lives because of it. Some changed the course of human history and we're benefited from it. And history shows that we're often at the mercy of circumstances -- a starving person with no job and no means of getting out of their struggle won't have the same moral restriction that I do on stealing from someone. Good that the Church gives to the poor, though it's not as much as I once thought it was but it's far better than nothing.

* On Joseph's teachings "directly leading to an increase in ethical behavior" --

I think it depends on who you ask. If you ask a Christian Evangelist Mormonism is anything but ethical. If you ask a Muslim the Jews and Christians are the tools of the devil and all of us are infidels. I think the statement "His teachings have directly led to an increase in ethical behavior" can be applied to any person who has a group of follower who wish to validate their beliefs by associating ethical behavior with the leader.

Maybe I'd feel better about your statement if you qualified that ethical behavior somehow. What is the measure of the increase? How do we know that Joseph's teachings were the cause of the increase (non causa pro causa). What is the delineation between the time where there was an increase and not and increase in ethical behavior? What constitutes an "increase in ethical behavior" -- fewer wars, fewer people in jail, more freedom of expression, less freedom of offensive expression?

* On the Word of Wisdom --

Perhaps. On the other hand, it's human nature to battle our mortality, and there have been and still are many groups who try to apply their knowledge to extend their lives. I personally believe science will continue finding ways to prevent illness and lengthen life expectancy. I also believe members of the Church will keep finding ways to make the Scriptures/Church/Prophet/God the Catalyst for those things.

* Definitely was an important figure in opening up the West.

* I would agree with your statement on Joseph making "everyone he came in contact with feel valued" except <not allowed to talk about that>. Who's he to malign her reputation just because she wouldn't comply? And then there were the victims of the Kirtland Bank. If you were to ask them how they felt I would guess, and of course it's only my simple little guess, that they felt betrayed, deceived, used, damaged and pretty damn stupid. Nathair, you should remember these people when you make statements like "everyone ....feel valued" as it's demonstrably inaccurate.

And then on the flip side there are a number of fruits that were certainly not good fruits -- <not allowed to talk about that> is not viewed particularly well by the majority of the developed world, but you won't see much of the details in the Gospel Doctrine/Principles & Priesthood manuals.

On a person believing that another person can see buried treasure by staring into a brown rock --

(1) Did Joseph make a false statement of a material fact?

(2) Did Joseph have knowledge that he could not really see treasure buried in the Earth while staring into a brown rock? Do YOU have knowledge that you CANNOT REALLY see buried treasure in the Earth while staring at a brown rock?

(3) Did Joseph knowingly deceive the alleged victim(s)?

(4) Was there justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement with regards to his ability to find buried treasure while starting at a brown rock?

(5) Was there injury, financial or otherwise, to the alleged victim as a result of the victim's belief that Joseph could find buried treasure while staring at a brown rock?

I'm going to take a stab here -- on seeing buried treasure while staring at a brown rock, The Prophet was either --

1. intentionally deceptive on his ability to find buried treasure while staring at a brown rock. This happens every day in Utah County and other non-Utah-County-places all over the planet, usually stemming from the love of money.

2. delusional stemming from the delusional social reinforcement from his family in the supernatural -- that's not a lot different than people perpetuating crazy ideas like wearing garlic cloves to ward off vampires, or placing little mirrors in the windows or erecting gargoyles to scare away demons, or praying to non-Jesus-entities as if they have any power to save a person..

And prophets are still people and can make mistakes (unless they can't). I don't think God will judge any of us too severely for telling our friends as statements of fact what Santa or the Easter Bunny brought us -- we did believe some obviously incorrect things in good faith, but no harm, no foul.

I unequivocally call BS on any person's ability to find buried treasure by staring at a brown rock, regardless of whether they really believe it or not. If any person in the history of the world could do that then they would be swimming in treasure (something about proof and pudding). Furthermore, I also call BS on any supposed 'spirit' pulling the treasure down into the Earth. Those are ad hoc arguments of convenience and have no bearing on reality.

* Joseph did stand up against tyranny -- those Missouri years were hard and he was the one they all turned to.

See fraud.

See delusional.

See pudding.

See Dialogue(search for 'spirit')

[Deborah]

I unequivocally call BS on any person's ability to find buried treasure by staring at a brown rock, regardless of whether they really believe it or not.

The point being made was that Joseph deliberately deceived someone. If one sincerely believes he's not being deceitful whether you think it's BS or not.

Once again we have an illustration of how bias interprets history and how easily those who are against something are less willing to give the benefit of the doubt when we really, really, really do not have the whole story.

[Nathair/|\]

Back to OP --

* Nauvoo the Beautiful indeed. Sadly it came and went with its leader.

* Relief Society. Agreed.

* On returning nobility, I think you mean nobility as in setting high moral standards. I beg to differ that Joseph and Mormonism was the impetus which returned nobility back to the mainstream. I think humankind always moves between liberation/expression and longing for that simpler, less excited time. Many great people have stood up for noble causes all through history, some lost their lives because of it. Some changed the course of human history and we're benefited from it. And history shows that we're often at the mercy of circumstances -- a starving person with no job and no means of getting out of their struggle won't have the same moral restriction that I do on stealing from someone. Good that the Church gives to the poor, though it's not as much as I once thought it was but it's far better than nothing.

What I mean is the literal idea that we are Children and Heirs of God, as opposed to the common idea among other Christians that we are merely depraved monsters who are only raised to tolerability through direct action by deity.

* On Joseph's teachings "directly leading to an increase in ethical behavior" --

I think it depends on who you ask. If you ask a Christian Evangelist Mormonism is anything but ethical. If you ask a Muslim the Jews and Christians are the tools of the devil and all of us are infidels. I think the statement "His teachings have directly led to an increase in ethical behavior" can be applied to any person who has a group of follower who wish to validate their beliefs by associating ethical behavior with the leader.

Maybe I'd feel better about your statement if you qualified that ethical behavior somehow. What is the measure of the increase? How do we know that Joseph's teachings were the cause of the increase (non causa pro causa). What is the delineation between the time where there was an increase and not and increase in ethical behavior? What constitutes an "increase in ethical behavior" -- fewer wars, fewer people in jail, more freedom of expression, less freedom of offensive expression?

For example, I personally refrain from contracting and spreading certain diseases, petty theft, relying on the state to support me, financially supporting drug cartels and many other antisocial behaviors specifically because of his teachings. In other words, I would be a lot like Earl Hickey was before the start of his show. I know several other people who refrain from similar behaviors or other things like white collar crime for the same reason. I doubt anyone has taken up antisocial behavior because they are LDS (with the possible exception of John D. Lee).

*On the Word of Wisdom --

Perhaps. On the other hand, it's human nature to battle our mortality, and there have been and still are many groups who try to apply their knowledge to extend their lives. I personally believe science will continue finding ways to prevent illness and lengthen life expectancy. I also believe members of the Church will keep finding ways to make the Scriptures/Church/Prophet/God the Catalyst for those things.

Again, I personally, would probably drink way too much and regularly use marijuana and things like magic mushrooms if I wasn't LDS and I know other people who are the same way.

* Definitely was an important figure in opening up the West.

* I would agree with your statement on Joseph making "everyone he came in contact with feel valued" except <not allowed to talk about that>. Who's he to malign her reputation just because she wouldn't comply? And then there were the victims of the Kirtland Bank. If you were to ask them how they felt I would guess, and of course it's only my simple little guess, that they felt betrayed, deceived, used, damaged and pretty damn stupid. Nathair, you should remember these people when you make statements like "everyone ....feel valued" as it's demonstrably inaccurate.

And then on the flip side there are a number of fruits that were certainly not good fruits -- <not allowed to talk about that> is not viewed particularly well by the majority of the developed world, but you won't see much of the details in the Gospel Doctrine/Principles & Priesthood manuals.

On a person believing that another person can see buried treasure by staring into a brown rock --

(1) Did Joseph make a false statement of a material fact?

(2) Did Joseph have knowledge that he could not really see treasure buried in the Earth while staring into a brown rock? Do YOU have knowledge that you CANNOT REALLY see buried treasure in the Earth while staring at a brown rock?

(3) Did Joseph knowingly deceive the alleged victim(s)?

(4) Was there justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement with regards to his ability to find buried treasure while starting at a brown rock?

(5) Was there injury, financial or otherwise, to the alleged victim as a result of the victim's belief that Joseph could find buried treasure while staring at a brown rock?

I'm going to take a stab here -- on seeing buried treasure while staring at a brown rock, The Prophet was either --

1. intentionally deceptive on his ability to find buried treasure while staring at a brown rock. This happens every day in Utah County and other non-Utah-County-places all over the planet, usually stemming from the love of money.

2. delusional stemming from the delusional social reinforcement from his family in the supernatural -- that's not a lot different than people perpetuating crazy ideas like wearing garlic cloves to ward off vampires, or placing little mirrors in the windows or erecting gargoyles to scare away demons, or praying to non-Jesus-entities as if they have any power to save a person..

And prophets are still people and can make mistakes (unless they can't). I don't think God will judge any of us too severely for telling our friends as statements of fact what Santa or the Easter Bunny brought us -- we did believe some obviously incorrect things in good faith, but no harm, no foul.

I unequivocally call BS on any person's ability to find buried treasure by staring at a brown rock, regardless of whether they really believe it or not. If any person in the history of the world could do that then they would be swimming in treasure (something about proof and pudding). Furthermore, I also call BS on any supposed 'spirit' pulling the treasure down into the Earth. Those are ad hoc arguments of convenience and have no bearing on reality.

Such luminaries as Israel Regardie, Dion Fortune, and Samuel MacGregor Matthews would probably bust a gut at your naive materialism, Horatio. I think the reason not much treasure is found that way is that there isn't that much buried treasure in the first place and that ethical mages, like Prospero, quickly lose interest in treasure in the second place. Many magical traditions have ethical or philosophical restrictions on such behavior as well.

* Joseph did stand up against tyranny -- those Missouri years were hard and he was the one they all turned to.

See fraud.

See delusional.

See pudding.

See Dialogue(search for 'spirit')

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"What I mean is the literal idea that we are Children and Heirs of God, as opposed to the common idea among other Christians that we are merely depraved monsters who are only raised to tolerability through direct action by deity."

You don't believe that? Show me in scripture were it says anything different. It is only through the mercy of God that we have the "light of Christ", which is the only thing that separates us from the animals.

Humans in their natural state are enemies of God and worse then the dust of the ground.

[Nathair/|\]

You don't believe that? Show me in scripture were it says anything different. It is only through the mercy of God that we have the "light of Christ", which is the only thing that separates us from the animals.

Humans in their natural state are enemies of God and worse then the dust of the ground.

Psalms 82:6

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Psalms 8:5

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

(Everyone here should know that angels = elohim--gods

[Calm]

which is the only thing that separates us from the animals.

Humans in their natural state are enemies of God and worse then the dust of the ground.

I've always thought that attitude was kind of an insult to God since it was in his image that man was made and we are his children.

Humans in their fallen state can be worse than the animals, but the scriptures are clear who is our Father and that we are in his image. I think the least we can do is value our human brothers and sisters as God does instead of trashing them (and ourselves) as if God's family were somehow inherently worthless or despicable.

[Doug the Hutt]

The point being made was that Joseph deliberately deceived someone. If one sincerely believes he's not being deceitful whether you think it's BS or not.

Once again we have an illustration of how bias interprets history and how easily those who are against something are less willing to give the benefit of the doubt when we really, really, really do not have the whole story.

Sure, your point was that a person doesn't deliberately deceive people as long as they really really really believe in their claim. I acknowledged that. Then I made another point -- there is no ability to find treasure while gazing at brown rocks. It doesn't exist, it's BS. There never has been and never will be (not without the assistance of the Google Earth Quantum Phase Infinite Point Positioning System

[zelder]

Are you willing to give the same scope of allowance to these or does your own foundational bias only make exceptions in defense of LDS theology? --

Psychokinesis

Telepathy

Remote Viewing

Zero Point Energy

Cold Fusion

Perpetual Motion

Scientolgy

I'm proud to state that I believe in energy from the quantum vacuum which includes cold fusion and "perpetual motion". Every electron on every atom is in perpetual motion. Every magnet is exerting a perpetual force field. It does not break any laws of physics, the only thing it will break when if finally gets out of the bag is the current political and economic power structure. I dont know anything about psychokinesis, telepathy or remote viewing but I would not be surprised if it is possible. I know almost nothing about scientology but if they believe that aliens have been to earth then I don't believe it. However, they may have some good ideas that are true.

It is better to be believing and make mistakes as you learn than be close minded and not learn anything new.

[Nathair/|\]

Sure, your point was that a person doesn't deliberately deceive people as long as they really really really believe in their claim. I acknowledged that. Then I made another point -- there is no ability to find treasure while gazing at brown rocks. It doesn't exist, it's BS. There never has been and never will be (not without the assistance of the Google Earth Quantum Phase Infinite Point Positioning System

[Jaybear]

The point being made was that Joseph deliberately deceived someone. If one sincerely believes he's not being deceitful whether you think it's BS or not.

Once again we have an illustration of how bias interprets history and how easily those who are against something are less willing to give the benefit of the doubt when we really, really, really do not have the whole story.

What more of the story do we need to know? Smith took money from an old man on the pretense that he had the ability to locate buried

treasure by looking at rock in his hat.

I take it your are suggesting that Smith may have deluded himself into believing that he had the ability to locate buried treasure. I have no reason to believe that Smith was delusional. I doubt very much that he could have achieved as much as he did, had he suffered from delusions. So know I don't think that is a reasonable explanation. Do you?

As for bias, you are the one giving Smith the benefit of the doubt. By contrast, I would have reached the same conclusion if it were Mother Teresa who took the old man's money.

It is better to be believing and make mistakes as you learn than be close minded and not learn anything new.

If those are the only two alternatives, sure.

So do you believe Smith had the ability to find treasure buried beneath the earth by looking at a rock in his hat? If so, why hire himself out? Why didn't he just take a shovel and dig up the treasure for himself?

[Deborah]

I take it your are suggesting that Smith may have deluded himself into believing that he had the ability to locate buried treasure.

I don't believe he was delusional either. I believe he actually had the ability. I'm not locked into a three dimensional world of what is possible but think there is so much more power that we don't all have access to. The fact that he may have charged money for his gift may have inhibited that gift. He was after all human and poor. I believe people have many gifts which to the man who has no faith seem delusional but I've seen too much of the inexplicable to say that these things aren't possible.

[Jaybear]

I don't believe he was delusional either. I believe he actually had the ability. I'm not locked into a three dimensional world of what is possible but think there is so much more power that we don't all have access to. The fact that he may have charged money for his gift may have inhibited that gift. He was after all human and poor. I believe people have many gifts which to the man who has no faith seem delusional but I've seen too much of the inexplicable to say that these things aren't possible.

Why didn't he just take a shovel and dig up the treasures for himself? He may have been poor, but surely his family could afford a shovel.

[Deborah]

Why didn't he just take a shovel and dig up the treasures for himself? He may have been poor, but surely his family could afford a shovel.

If it wasn't his land it wasn't his to dig.

[Rivers]

He did produce a lot of good fruit, but the fruit of polygamy he produced seems kind of bitter.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I've always thought that attitude was kind of an insult to God since it was in his image that man was made and we are his children.

Humans in their fallen state can be worse than the animals, but the scriptures are clear who is our Father and that we are in his image. I think the least we can do is value our human brothers and sisters as God does instead of trashing them (and ourselves) as if God's family were somehow inherently worthless or despicable.

Our spirits were created in his image, our fallen natural bodies/instincts were NOT. We only become like God when we let our spirits rule over our bodies.

This is what God has to say about the natural state of man...

Mosiah 3

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Helaman 12

7O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.

8For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.

[ELF1024]

He did produce a lot of good fruit, but the fruit of polygamy he produced seems kind of bitter.

I'm not sure that it's the fruit itself that is bitter, or if it is the current popular representation of that fruit. I don't pretend to understand all of what happened in regards to polygamy. I don't think that there is a fully truthful account out there. The church more than likley does it's job to whitewash it, and the antis seem to do their best to cake it in crap. The truth, well, I am not sure that a truthful account exists.

There are things about the practice of polygamy that truely bother me. However, they don't override the truth of the Book of Mormon. I'll just take it up with Joseph Smith when I see him in the next life.

[LeSellers]

He did produce a lot of good fruit, but the fruit of polygamy he produced seems kind of bitter.

Some people cannot taste (or smell) certain flavors. Others find what most people taste as sweet to be bitter (stevia, for instance).

The fruits of plural marriage are sweet to me, being the descendant of men and women who accepted "the Principle".

Lehi

[Deborah]

The fruits of plural marriage are sweet to me, being the descendant of men and women who accepted "the Principle".

This is the "fruit" most people overlook. No one is saying plural marriage was easy but out of it came some of the most faithful members and leaders.

I think the most positive book I read was when I was in college and was written by one of BY's daughters. I believe it was called "Brigham Young at Home" but it's been many years so I'm not sure.

[Doug the Hutt]

If it wasn't his land it wasn't his to dig.

You make far too wide of an allowance with The Prophet's human-ness. Other than Joseph either intentionally deceiving his clients or being self-deceptive in order to avoid directly deceiving them, he also--

* married other women who were already married -- my own ancestors are among them. Makes for interesting apologetics.

* created the "Kirtland Anti-Banking Society" knowing full well that the State had turned down their request for a charter but went ahead and did it anyway with only one change -- Kirtland Bank was restamped to read Kirtland Anti-Banking Society. He then pulled a fast one on people who wished to see his capital by showing them the massive stockpile of money which was nothing but a thin layer of silver coins covering as much junk tin and iron as they could muster. And then he bolted out of town in the middle of the night never to return after ruining the financial lives of hundreds of his followers when the illegal bank crumbled and his life was in danger.

Somehow I don't think was too concerned about land ownership and legalities when there was something he needed or wanted, and as long as he could come up with some sort of cover story he would pursue those things. He was not the first and will not be the last person to employ such a technique.

"God works in mysterious ways" and according to the Brethren "He qualifies whom He chooses". Perceived moral character, proclivities, activities, etc. have zero bearing at all on whether God has really chosen a person to operate in His name -- that's really what it comes down to. Consider that in light of the Lafferty brothers. Dan, who currently resides at the Point of the Mountain Penitentiary with cellmate Mark Hoffman, really really really believes God spoke to him and told he and Ron to murder Brenda and Erica. So how do you balance your belief system with people like that? (I personally believe they're deranged psychopaths). We believe that Nephi was told by God Himself to whack off a defenseless, inebriated Laban's head. Samuel went all Iron-Age on a captive, weaponless Agag and chopped him into smaller-than-human-sized-pieces. Moses murdered that Egyptian guard who was disciplining the Israelite slave. Jonah frankly was kind of an ___. God Himself drowned everyone in the world except eight souls and an ark-full of animals. God revealed to Moses the proper care & feeding of slaves. God oftentimes had the Israelites invade and commit genocide on neighboring societies, usually because they worshipped Baal or other 'fake' gods (11th Article of Faith be d***ed!). The perception of our God and our prophets is based exclusively on the belief that they're called, end of story, and at the same time that perception allows for them to engage in violent, abusive, deceptive, destructive activities ("fruits", if you will).

Deborah, you're a remarkable example of a True Believer who's faith and opinion of God, The Church and The Prophets cannot possibly change because you begin your thought process with them being 'True' then allow them to do whatever they do without question. How do you normally protect yourself from deception when you're always locked into a church_is_true=yes function? If I created a Deb-bot (patent pending, patent pending, patent pending!) the beginning variable declaration would be exactly that -- var int church_is_true=1, var int joseph_smtih_was_a_true_prophet=1, and subsequent test functions would be written so that instead of taking in new data to determine a new value for those beginning variables the new data would either yield a rejection of the new data or open up a wider list of exceptions for the Church/Prophet/God/other-churchie-stuff from which to operate and therefore still be 'true'. It's beautifully backwards. I definitely believe you are sincere. Looks like you & I operate on the data in opposite ways -- my epistemology allows for my opinion of God, The Prophets and The Church to change. Yours doesn't. How did you get to be that way?

[Deborah]

dupe

[Deborah]

Looks like you & I operate on the data in opposite ways -- my epistemology allows for my opinion of God, The Prophets and The Church to change. Yours doesn't. How did you get to be that way?

Nonsense, I in fact recognize that the church changes to meet the needs of the times. I also recognize that a prophet can be called of God and still make human mistakes. God is unchanging and not sure how anyone can believe in a God who changes. The difference is I give the benefit of the doubt when all the facts aren't known, and particularly when we don't know what was actually in someone's mind and heart. BTW, I operate that way in other areas as well as I've seen people condemned wrongfully on faulty or incomplete information. You and your ilk are ready to jump at any chance to condemn, even on a smidgen of information. You ask how I got to be this way. Experience, lots of spiritual experiences along with study that have confirmed to me the truth.

You also have illustrated very well how you form an opinion without knowing the whole story. Take the Kirtland Bank. You obviously are unaware that Joseph was not responsible for what happened and tried to warn others when those in charge began taking the bank down the wrong road. Your are obviously unaware that many banks at the time foundered. And your are obviously aware that Joseph used his own funds to pay back as much as possible those who lost money. You really need to get the whole story instead of depending on the anti-Mo sites and their soundbites.

If ignorance is bliss it is also illustrative of the laziness of the critics who depend on incomplete information and whose prejudiced views color what little information they may have.

[Doug the Hutt]

Nonsense, I in fact recognize that the church changes to meet the needs of the times. I also recognize that a prophet can be called of God and still make human mistakes. God is unchanging and not sure how anyone can believe in a God who changes. The difference is I give the benefit of the doubt when all the facts aren't known, and particularly when we don't know what was actually in someone's mind and heart. BTW, I operate that way in other areas as well as I've seen people condemned wrongfully on faulty or incomplete information. You and your ilk are ready to jump at any chance to condemn, even on a smidgen of information. You ask how I got to be this way. Experience, lots of spiritual experiences along with study that have confirmed to me the truth.

You also have illustrated very well how you form an opinion without knowing the whole story. Take the Kirtland Bank. You obviously are unaware that Joseph was not responsible for what happened and tried to warn others when those in charge began taking the bank down the wrong road. Your are obviously unaware that many banks at the time foundered. And your are obviously aware that Joseph used his own funds to pay back as much as possible those who lost money. You really need to get the whole story instead of depending on the anti-Mo sites and their soundbites.

If ignorance is bliss it is also illustrative of the laziness of the critics who depend on incomplete information and whose prejudiced views color what little information they may have.

No offense but for you to call something 'nonsense' almost confirms that it's quite cogent and well-formed. "Ilk" might as well mean "normal-thinking-rational-people-looking-out-for-those-who-lie-in-wait-to-deceive" -- I ONLY have ever wanted the TRUTH. You obviously only ever wanted to defend what you think is the truth and you'll stretch any requirements to maintain the illusion, which is only a little funny but mostly nauseating. God doesn't change, but his Church changes all the time depending on the social requirements at that moment. What's right in one situation isn't right in another. You must give the benefit of the doubt to The Leaders and never look for nor find fault with them even if they manage to force you and thousands of others into bankruptcy, or even if your branch of Mormonism actually is a bastardized apostate branch -- not allowed to look too carefully. And you wrap it all up in a totally subjective spir'tchul bow. Yeah, that's some real solid stuff you can sink your teeth into.

If Joseph, and Sidney, weren't responsible for his quasi-bank's failure, then why did they:

* have to run away in the dead of night from a pack of armed angry people never to return to Ohio? Persecution, right?

* get fined $1,000 each for operating an illegal bank? Persecution?

* pay thousands of dollars in the subsequent lawsuit settlements and continue to pay on them until Joseph's death? Must be Persecution.

He didn't know squat about running a bank, er, a non-bank acting like a bank. He started the foolish thing. He did it knowing that the initial charter was shot down and also knowing that the Bill in which it was included was also killed. Sure, he started seeing the writing on the wall and tried to divorce himself from it a few months before it went belly-up, but that wall was there because he put it there and didn't know the first thing about liquidity, capitalization, solvency, management, risk thresholds, etc. There were reasons the non-bank-acting-as-if-it-were-a-bank-with-its-foresight-set-on-becoming-a-State-chartered-bank died -- they were incompetent, and many people suffered because of it. Did you ever stop to think about the victims or do you dismiss their experience as some sort of test, and all those who didn't follow him afterward were just spiritually inferior apostates who failed the test?

The Prophet cannot possibly have ever done anything wrong -- it's all a giant conspiracy with Stan always whispering mean nasty things into people's ears and Joseph always being a _victim_ and never ever ever doing anything illegal or immoral or brainless. Your so-labeled 'whole story' involves an overly-generous dose of apologetics, excuses and biased statements -- your history of posts here and on MAD is a testament to that. I think objective, reasonable people look at the Kirtland Bank fiasco as what it was -- an illegal bank started by a religious leader with his disciples the unwitting victims of affinity fraud, who was jailed, fined and ran for his life because of his bad decisions.

So on this Kirtland Anti-Banking issue -- let's not forget, there was never in all my years of attendance a venue inside the Church to discuss this, never in Priesthood, never in Sunday School, never in Fast & Testimony meeting, never in Seminary, never in Institute, never on my mission, never in leadership meetings or anywhere. There might have been a carefully crafted half-paragraph mention in one of those flimsy little seminary manuals but nothing else of any meaningful substance. I never got the 'whole story' from the people who SHOULD have taught it to me in the first place so I didn't HAVE to find it out from outside sources.

hugs & kisses,

_The Doctor_

Doug the Hutt has left the building.

[Calm]

He did produce a lot of good fruit, but the fruit of polygamy he produced seems kind of bitter.

There are a number of descendants (myself included) who are the literal fruit of plural marriage. Last I checked I'm not even kind of bitter.

[cinepro]

The fruits of plural marriage are sweet to me, being the descendant of men and women who accepted "the Principle".

Lehi

This is one of the oddest arguments to make.

The descendants of a relationship are not an indication of the quality of that original union. I have a good friend who is a great person, but he was conceived out of wedlock, and has never known his biological father.

While this person has excellent character (and is a stalwart member of the Church), I don't know if even he would say he is evidence of the goodness of fornication.

There may be good arguments for polygamy, but I'm not so sure that the quality of the subsequent generations (especially those reared in monogamy) is one of them.

[Pahoran]

* created the "Kirtland Anti-Banking Society" knowing full well that the State had turned down their request for a charter but went ahead and did it anyway with only one change -- Kirtland Bank was restamped to read Kirtland Anti-Banking Society. He then pulled a fast one on people who wished to see his capital by showing them the massive stockpile of money which was nothing but a thin layer of silver coins covering as much junk tin and iron as they could muster.

Call for references in support of this notorious canard.

Regards,

Pahoran