Fyi Book --- Js's Legal Encounters

[cdowis]

Just so I'm clear, is it your understanding the polygamy was illegal in Illinois at the time Joesph was practicing it?  Obviously he was never tried, but it does seem relevant to the discussion.

 

OK, JS was not perfect.  

 

You dragged that admission out of me.  He was commanded by revelation to practice it, even though it was illegal.  Prophets are sometimes faced with the choice of obeying God, or to obey the laws of man, but I guess that is not sufficient excuse for some people.

 

Congrats for making that point. 

Edited March 24, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

OJ was never convicted. But I still recall a LOT LOT LOT of priesthood holder in EQ class passing great judgement. Maybe those guys were just a 'bitter enemy' to black people.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

[Investigating]

The author, Gordon Madsen, has an entry on Mormon Scholars testify that gives a summary of what he learned from studying the legal cases:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1477/gordon-a-madsen

Madsen published an important study of Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial. “Joseph Smith’s 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting,” BYU Studies 30/2 (1990).

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

Did the Church pay off all it's creditors in Joseph's lifetime?

[Investigating]

I believe the Church was originally incorporated as "The Church of Christ" in up state New York, and left with outstanding debt (and left Ohio, Mo, and Ill with outstanding debts.)

 

Were these debts ever paid?

[ERayR]

Did you know that while he was in carthage jail he smoked and drank?

 

Of course it was the weekend party palace.

[cinepro]

I believe the Church was originally incorporated as "The Church of Christ" in up state New York, and left with outstanding debt (and left Ohio, Mo, and Ill with outstanding debts.)

 

Were these debts ever paid?

I'm guessing...no.

But considering the loss of life and property when the Church left Missouri and Illinois, and the circumstances under which Kirtland was abandoned, I don't really blame them.

[USU78]

I'm guessing...no.

 

Because it pleases you to make that unsupported naked assertion?

[cinepro]

Because it pleases you to make that unsupported naked assertion?

 

I included my line of reasoning in the next sentence.   It wasn't a long post, so I would have hoped you would read the whole thing.

 

(I would also point out that I clearly indicated that my comment was a "guess".  I suppose some people see a "guess" as being equivalent to an "unsupported naked assertion", but that seems a little harsh.)

[USU78]

I included my line of reasoning in the next sentence.   It wasn't a long post, so I would have hoped you would read the whole thing.

 

(I would also point out that I clearly indicated that my comment was a "guess".  I suppose some people see a "guess" as being equivalent to an "unsupported naked assertion", but that seems a little harsh.)

 

Please note I made no call for references.  I do tend to read for content.

 

Just want us, all of us, those newbies and those who've been around for a few years/decades, to remember the context the referenced post finds itself in:  it is right at home with its sistern.

[Investigating]

I included my line of reasoning in the next sentence.   It wasn't a long post, so I would have hoped you would read the whole thing.

 

(I would also point out that I clearly indicated that my comment was a "guess".  I suppose some people see a "guess" as being equivalent to an "unsupported naked assertion", but that seems a little harsh.)

 

Do we have to guess?

 

If you look at post #28, you'll see I quoted Kevin Christensen.

 

And if you go back to post #4, you'll see that I asked my question because he posted a link to an online document that makes the following assertion.

 

 

In collecting his legal and business records, and learning what they demonstrate, I have come to what is for me an inescapable conclusion: Joseph Smith, quite apart and in addition to his prophetic calling (about which many others have written), was in his business and legal dealings with his fellow men an honorable and reasonable man. He paid his debts...

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1477/gordon-a-madsen

 

I'd like to know if this means that there are actually records of the church paying off it's creditors, or if Mr. Madsen is only speaking of Joseph's personal debts--and that seems like a fair question since Mr. Madsen says he reached his conclusion by collecting and examining 19th century legal documents.

 

Is there any evidence the church paid off it's debts before moving to the rocky mountains, or do we have to guess?

[Carebear0411]

I believe the Church was originally incorporated as "The Church of Christ" in up state New York, and left with outstanding debt (and left Ohio, Mo, and Ill with outstanding debts.)

 

Were these debts ever paid?

Yes, with the blood, sweat and tears of persecuted, raped and murdered saints.

[Investigating]

Yes, with the blood, sweat and tears of persecuted, raped and murdered saints.

 

Did Mr. Madsen find the blood, sweat, and tears of persecuted, raped, and murdered saints in the 19th century legal documents he examined?

 

Was this the currency God had in mind when He said "Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them"?

 

Instead of an emotional outburst, could anyone actually answer my question?

 

Is there any record of the church paying it's debts?

[Investigating]

P.S. I'm speaking of the monetary debts accumulated between 1830 and 1844.

[Buzzard]

It has always been a matter of semi-bitter amusement to me to hear our critics call Joseph a con-man, while ignoring the fact that his leadership of the church led directly to his impoverishment on multiple occasions. IIRC, he was forced to take personal bankruptcy in Nauvoo largely due to vexatious and harassing lawsuits. You would think a "con-man" would learn after a while.   

[Calm]

"Instead of an emotional outburst, could anyone actually answer my question?"

What is your desire in learning this information?

This may take some significant legwork to track down. Perhaps you can share with us why we should devote our own time and resources when you yourself do not seem inclined to do so but appear to think that the board here functions as a free on demand research organization.

[Investigating]

"Instead of an emotional outburst, could anyone actually answer my question?"

What is your desire in learning this information?

This may take some significant legwork to track down. Perhaps you can share with us why we should devote our own time and resources when you yourself do not seem inclined to do so but appear to think that the board here functions as a free on demand research organization.

 

You regard D&C 111:5 as inspired scripture, do you not?

 

Mr. Madsen's comments (already quoted on this thread) could be taken to mean that there are 19th century legal documents that record the church paying it's debts (in fulfilment of D&C 111:5.)

 

As a faithful Mormon, interested in defending your faith from all the anti's out there, shouldn't you welcome the opportunity to present such evidence (if it exists) online here?

 

 

This may take some significant legwork to track down. Perhaps you can share with us why we should devote our own time and resources when you yourself do not seem inclined to do so but appear to think that the board here functions as a free on demand research organization.

 

I haven't made a personal covenant to devote my personal time and resources to the LDS Church, have any of you?

Edited August 12, 2014 by Investigating

[Calm]

Not really.

I welcome opportunities to help those who are sincere in trying to learn and who haven't developed the skills yet to know how to find the answers.

I do not welcome the opportunity to answer demands from those too lazy to do the work themselves, or who want the information to use in negative ways or who try to manipulate others into doing the work for them.

I have no clue why you want the info so I don't know if I want to put the effort into finding it for you or not. What I have seen so far in the method of your asking leads me to be disinclined and those who know my posting history know this is not my usual response.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[USU78]

What is your source?

 

I was wondering that myself:  The Church was ca. $2M in debt in 1890, just before the Lorenzo Snow revelation on tithing.  I've never seen it broken down as to when it was all incurred and for what  . . .

[Bob Crockett]

I was wondering that myself:  The Church was ca. $2M in debt in 1890, just before the Lorenzo Snow revelation on tithing.  I've never seen it broken down as to when it was all incurred and for what  . . .

The Edmunds-Tucker Act confiscated all Church property except the temples and left the property in the hands of incompetent trustees, which were often Evangelical ministers posing as business agents.  They ran the Church businesses into the ground.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

The Edmunds-Tucker Act confiscated all Church property except the temples and left the property in the hands of incompetent trustees, which were often Evangelical ministers posing as business agents.  They ran the Church businesses into the ground.

 

More to the question, here is a bit of Ed Firmage's work on the subject of Ohio debts:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=mzlVLyebEz8C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=zion+in+the+courts+ohio+debt&source=bl&ots=Vtaqjy8Rk7&sig=QbssavGcrPkK0nbY0CdD-FWZP7E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GqrqU62oG4v-oQTCbA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=zion%20in%20the%20courts%20ohio%20debt&f=false

[Investigating]

or who want the information to use in negative ways

 

If there is documentary evidence that the church was given the power to pay it's debts (as per D&C 115:5), and that it did in fact pay off it's creditors, how could that be used in a negative way?

[Investigating]

What is your source?

 

 

Critics suggest that the location of the organization was intentionally changed in 1834 around the same time the church's name was changed to the "Church of the Latter Day Saints", in order to make it seem like the new church organization was different from the "Church of Christ", as a tactic to frustrate the church's creditors and avoid payment of debts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29#Early_changes

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Investigating]

This argument (made by a single critic, not "critics") is not credible, but in any case it does not provide a basis for your statement that the Church left New York state with outstanding debt. It didn't.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Investigating