LDS.org's Gospel Topic Essay BoA Quote

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think she was mocking the ridiculous nature of the claim that scholars like Bushman, who add context and nuance to the traditional narrative, are apostates. I've heard the interview and it really is a hit piece on Bushman. I agree that it seems absurd to cast aspersions on a scholar like Bushman, yet the ultra conservative/orthodox are doing just that.

I  fully agree, HappyJack.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You should attend a Utah home schooling convention, like LDSHEA.  Absolutely full of people like this.

Perhaps, but most LDS even in Utah are not homeschoolers.

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You should attend a Utah home schooling convention, like LDSHEA.  Absolutely full of people like this.

This is why homeschoolers have such a bad rep for being ultra conservative zealots.  (Not that all homeschoolers are.  I know a few and they are wonderful normal mainstream types of people, but the reputation probably exists for a reason). 

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps, but most LDS even in Utah are not homeschoolers.

 

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is why homeschoolers have such a bad rep for being ultra conservative zealots.  (Not that all homeschoolers are.  I know a few and they are wonderful normal mainstream types of people, but the reputation probably exists for a reason).

http://www.ldshea.org/
Been to these a couple of times.  Some good moral educational materials, available, but lots of interesting political and doctrinal viewpoints.
But people like these ARE the conservative branch of the Mormon Church, kind of like the producers of the podcast Tacenda referenced.

You go to the UHEA convention and they are a lot more varied.  http://www.uhea.org/

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Can you be specific.  Why don't you give us a summary of what has been said so that we can hang our heads in shame.

Seriously?  You firmly believe that using this footnote out of context to support a false premises is the moral and honest thing to do?  I guess we just have a different set of moral standards...

[CV75]

On 1/18/2017 at 11:18 AM, Tacenda said:

Okay, hold the horses....

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/cherry-picking-the-book-of-abraham-essay/

Critics and apologetics...doing the same thing?

He is testifying of what he heard Joseph Smith claim, not that he necessarily believed it or believed it anymore. Just because the statement of fact is part of a witness against Joseph Smith doesn’t mean the same statement can’t be used as a fairly reliable source for what Joseph Smith said.

Edited January 19, 2017 by CV75

[Johnnie Cake]

13 hours ago, Nevo said:

Here's a passage from Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism that will make you livid. You'd better sit down:

Nowhere in the passage does Bushman inform the reader that all three of his sources here also made statements highly critical of Mormonism (Tucker called it "an illustration of the susceptibilities of human credulity," John A. Clark "delusion," and John H. Gilbert "a monstrous fraud and humbug"). He used their words in a sympathetic biography of the Prophet and they weren't even believers! Even worse, particularly dense readers might come away with the impression that the Episcopal priest thought that Joseph Smith was acting under divine impulses. Or that Gilbert was still typesetting the Book of Mormon in 1892, when he made the statement that Bushman quotes. I don't know how Bushman's reputation survived intact after perpetrating such an outrage.

So you're using an example of where Bushman clearly did the wrong thing to justify the authors of the essays doing the wrong thing as well?  What's the old idiom? Two wrongs don't make a right...  I don't want to make a huge thing out of this...but I honestly thought that you and other believers who are supporting this dishonestly would have the integrity to not defend "wrong" with it is so obvious.

 

I just want to point out that were the circumstances reversed and this was a critic caught in the act of using a quote out of context to support his/her premise...I would call him/her out on the deceit rather than defending him/her...but then that's just me...I don't defend deceit...even when it supports something I firmly believe in.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Seriously?  You firmly believe that using this footnote out of context to support a false premises is the moral and honest thing to do?

Except, once again, that is NOT what happened.  Not at all.  Basic reading comprehension.
Sorry CP.  Perhaps the thread on the "other board" concerning this blog article will be more to your liking.

Edited January 19, 2017 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...to support a false premises...

Where is the false premise?

Quote

Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record[ s ]  and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.” 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Except, once again, that is NOT what happened.  Not at all.  Basic reading comprehension.
Sorry CP.  Perhaps the thread on the "other board" concerning this blog article will be more to your liking.

Quote

Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. (*1) Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. (*2) As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.” ³¹ 

(*1) The author of the essay is making a claim. This author refers the reader of the essay to "Records"...that seem to indicate that Joseph and "others" studied the papyri thereby concluding that by so doing these "others" were able to conclude that the translation of the Book of Abraham came by "revelation" rather than through some normal human process as perhaps Joseph's own imagination <----that is the assertion that the Essay author is making.  To support this premise that Joseph's ideas came through revelation rather than his imagination the author then lists his/her support of the premise. see below

Quote

(*2) John Whitmer, History, 1831–ca. 1837, 76, in Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David J. Whittaker, eds., Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Historical Writings, 1831–1847, vol. 2 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 86. “I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven,” wrote Warren Parrish, Joseph Smith’s scribe. (Warren Parrish, Feb. 5, 1838, Letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, Feb. 15, 1838, [3].)

But as has already been made clear...Warren Parrish WAS NOT asserting that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham by Revelation as asserted by the essay author...Parrish stated quite clear that this was merely the "claim" smith was making

Quote

“I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven. I have listened to him with feelings of no ordinary kind, when he declared that the audible voice of God, instructed him to establish a Banking-Anti Banking institution, which like Aaron’s rod should swallow up all other Banks (the Bank of Monroe excepted,) and grow and flourish and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins. I have been astonished to hear him declare that we had 60,000 Dollars in specie in our vaults, and $600,000 at our command, when we had not to exceed $6,000 and could not command any more;also that we had but about ten thousand Dollars of our bills in circulation, when he, as Cashier of the institution, knew that there was at least $150,000. Knowing their extreme poverty when they commenced this speculation, I have been not a little surprised to hear them assert that they were worth from three to four hundred thousand Dollars Cash, and in less than ninety days after, became insolvent without any change in their business affairs. But such has been the audacity of these boasting blasphemers, that they have assumed the authority to curse, or to bless, to damn, or to save, not only this Church but this entire generation, and that they hold their destinies in this world and that which is to come. And such has been their influence over this Church in this place, that they have filched the monies from their pockets and obtained their earthly substance for the purpose of establishing a Bank and various wild speculations, in order that they might aggrandize themselves and families, until they have reduced their followers to wretchedness and want. For the year past their lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too, in the name of God.”
-Warren Parrish (letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, Feb. 15, 1838 SidneyRigdon.com)

The point of Parrish's letter was NOT to support Smith as a Revelator as the essay author is asserting...but to expose Smith as someone who used God as a tool to perpetrate his fraud "For the year past their lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too, in the name of God.”

The author of the essay is twisting Parrish's words to get support from Parrish's words for a premise that the author wants to promote that Parrish never asserted.  This is called cherry picking, dishonest and the twisting or words to drive a false conclusion NOT found in Parrish's statement...Most people would call this dishonest...and yet you persist in defending it.  Fair enough...we know where you stand, me I prefer to stand for honesty and truth.

* I too have been taught by the cross out demon...I have no idea why or how to fix since my many attempts have failed

Edited January 19, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But as has already been made clear...Warren Parrish WAS NOT asserting that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham by Revelation as asserted by the essay author...Parrish stated quite clear that this was merely the "claim" smith was making

Except the essay DIDN'T assert that.  You can say this all you want and it doesn't make it true.

Quote

The point of Parrish's letter was NOT to support Smith as a Revelator as the essay author is asserting...but to expose Smith as someone who used God as a tool to perpetrate his fraud "For the year past their lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too, in the name of God.”

The author of the essay is twisting Parrish's words to get support from Parrish's words for a premise that the author wants to promote that Parrish never asserted.  This is called cherry picking, dishonest and the twisting or words to drive a false conclusion NOT found in Parrish's statement...Most people would call this dishonest...and yet you persist in defending it.  Fair enough...we know where you stand, me I prefer to stand for honesty and truth.

I defend against poor reading comprehension wherever I see it.
The essay did NOT use the Parish quote as evidence that the BoA was translated by revelation.
The essay used the Parish quote as a historical reference backing up Joseph Smith's claim referenced by John Whitmer.

Seriously, try reading first.  Here is the offending part again IN CONTEXT

• As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”31

Show me any claim in these words that the Parish quote is used as evidence or testimony of revelation.  It is clearly used only as historical reference for Joseph's claim.

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Nevo]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say using Parrish' quote in the footnote is pointless.  There's no reason, at this point, to quote a defector to say Joseph saw the translation as inspired, particularly when the ultimate point of the quote was to suggest Joseph was a fraud, essentially.

I can think of a couple of reasons Parrish's quote is worth mentioning.

For starters, Parrish was personally involved in the production of the Book of Abraham, so his comments on the process—whether positive or negative or neutral—are of interest to the historian.

In 1838, Parrish had no incentive to make Joseph Smith look good. Indeed, he had every incentive to portray the Prophet in a negative light. So when he reports that "I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven," it is noteworthy what he doesn't say. There are no shocking disclosures. He doesn't say that they cribbed from another source, consulted Josephus, or anything of the sort. Had Parrish been in possession of damaging insider information about the "true source" of the purported translation, he surely would have shared it. Instead we have a matter-of-fact description of what very likely actually happened: Joseph dictated and Parrish sat next to him and wrote down what he said.

The reference to "direct inspiration"—whether intended sarcastically or not—suggests that the translation wasn't a mechanical process where Joseph studied and attempted to decipher each hieroglyph, one-by-one, but rather one where the words flowed (or seemed to flow) unbidden into Joseph's mind. This is of interest to LDS scholars because you don't see the same thing with, say, the Kinderhook Plates. In that case, nobody transcribed any revelatory words as they fell from the Prophet's lips, nothing was published, and nothing was distributed to the Church.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

On 1/18/2017 at 3:43 PM, Nevo said:

This strikes me as much ado about nothing. Parrish said he “penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as [Joseph Smith] claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven.”

Parrish's statement asserts two things:

• Parrish was a scribe for part of the Book of Abraham.
• JS claimed to receive the translation of the Book of Abraham by revelation ("direct inspiration of Heaven").

Neither assertion is remotely controversial. Parrish was Joseph Smith's scribe for the first chapters of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith did claim that the Book of Abraham was a divinely inspired translation.

The blog writer argues that "by using the quote in a manner which is the opposite of that intended by the original author, the Gospel Topic essay is specifically and deliberately misleading its readers by not providing the context of the excerpt – nor are they mentioning that the quoted individual previously served as Joseph’ scribe, but at the time he provided the quote – he was working to expose what he saw as criminal behavior by Joseph. He was not Joseph’s scribe when he wrote this letter, and he was not defending or confirming Joseph’s ability as a seer – contrary to what the footnote implies."

This is ridiculous. For starters, it's fairly well known that Parrish was a dissenter in 1838. Most members who've heard of Warren Parrish at all likely remember him as the main villain of the Kirtland Bank debacle and an apostate. Why would anyone imagine that the essay writers are trying to present Parrish as a believing member in good standing in 1838? The statement itself provides a big hint that Parrish himself didn't think the translation was inspired: "he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven." 

But given how little many members know about Church history, perhaps future revisions of the essay ought to make Parrish's non-belief more explicit, along the lines of the JSP's "Introduction to the Book of Abraham":

 

I can't ignore his last sentence in the quote, it is clear that he is discounting Joseph...saying he doesn't believe the claim that Joseph was getting inspiration from heaven (I bolded claimed). That is how I'm reading it. 

“I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven. I have listened to him with feelings of no ordinary kind, when he declared that the audible voice of God, instructed him to establish a Banking-Anti Banking institution, which like Aaron’s rod should swallow up all other Banks (the Bank of Monroe excepted,) and grow and flourish and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins. I have been astonished to hear him declare that we had 60,000 Dollars in specie in our vaults, and $600,000 at our command, when we had not to exceed $6,000 and could not command any more;also that we had but about ten thousand Dollars of our bills in circulation, when he, as Cashier of the institution, knew that there was at least $150,000. Knowing their extreme poverty when they commenced this speculation, I have been not a little surprised to hear them assert that they were worth from three to four hundred thousand Dollars Cash, and in less than ninety days after, became insolvent without any change in their business affairs. But such has been the audacity of these boasting blasphemers, that they have assumed the authority to curse, or to bless, to damn, or to save, not only this Church but this entire generation, and that they hold their destinies in this world and that which is to come. And such has been their influence over this Church in this place, that they have filched the monies from their pockets and obtained their earthly substance for the purpose of establishing a Bank and various wild speculations, in order that they might aggrandize themselves and families, until they have reduced their followers to wretchedness and want. For the year past their lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too, in the name of God.”
-Warren Parrish (letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, Feb. 15, 1838 SidneyRigdon.com)

Edited January 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[Johnnie Cake]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Except the essay DIDN'T assert that.  You can say this all you want and it doesn't make it true.

I defend against poor reading comprehension wherever I see it.
The essay did NOT use the Parish quote as evidence that the BoA was translated by revelation.
The essay used the Parish quote as a historical reference backing up Joseph Smith's claim referenced by John Whitmer.

Seriously, try reading first.  Here is the offending part again IN CONTEXT

• As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”31

Show me any claim in these words that the Parish quote is used as evidence or testimony of revelation.  It is clearly used only as historical reference for Joseph's claim.

 

PLEASE READ This quote taken directly from the essay: Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. <----that right there in the essay is the false assertion.  The author of the essay then twists Parrish's letter to support his false premise that "close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation"  But that was not what Parrish was asserting at all...Parrish was asserting that Joseph was engaged in a fraudulent activity an claiming that his claimed powers came from God rather than his own imagination...its as clear as the nose on your face... who is suffering from an inability to comprehend reading? You can deny and defend all you want but it doesn't make it true.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except the essay DIDN'T assert that.  You can say this all you want and it doesn't make it true.

I defend against poor reading comprehension wherever I see it.
The essay did NOT use the Parish quote as evidence that the BoA was translated by revelation.
The essay used the Parish quote as a historical reference backing up Joseph Smith's claim referenced by John Whitmer.

Seriously, try reading first.  Here is the offending part again IN CONTEXT

• As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”31

Show me any claim in these words that the Parish quote is used as evidence or testimony of revelation.  It is clearly used only as historical reference for Joseph's claim.

 

I see what you've done...you've fallen for the essay authors trap...Yes in the cherry picked, twisted version of the quote it is used to support Joseph's claim...but this ONLY happen's when twisted and cherry picked.  When read in context...it does not support the essay authors premise and that is why we critics are so infuriated and frustrated by your defense and support.  I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong. It is you who have failed to comprehend.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Except, once again, that is NOT what happened.  Not at all.  Basic reading comprehension.
Sorry CP.  Perhaps the thread on the "other board" concerning this blog article will be more to your liking.

Perhaps JL, you can show where his and my reading comprehension went awry. If you'd like.

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

perhaps JL, you can show where his and my reading comprehension went awry. If you'd like.

JLHPROF has fallen for the essay author's trick...and now has dug himself in so deep in his defense that I seriously doubt will have the moral courage to admit his mistake. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

JLHPROF has fallen for the essay author's trick...and now has dug himself in so deep in his defense that I seriously doubt will have the moral courage to admit his mistake.

Boy are you grasping at straws.

"Close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation" connects to the footnote for John Whitmer.
The addition of Parish to that footnote in your opinion labels him a "believer".  Except the Parish quote doesn't say that, even without the rest of the original quote.
It STILL says Joseph "claimed to receive it". 
I think you are seriously looking for deception where none occurred.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Boy are you grasping at straws.

"Close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation" connects to the footnote for John Whitmer.
The addition of Parish to that footnote in your opinion labels him a "believer".  Except the Parish quote doesn't say that, even without the rest of the original quote.
It STILL says Joseph "claimed to receive it". 
I think you are seriously looking for deception where none occurred.

Claimed being the operative word.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Claimed being the operative word.

Exactly.  Given his use of the word claimed, how can anyone think the Parish quote is being used to establish Parish as a "believer".

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Exactly.  Given his use of the word claimed, how can anyone think the Parish quote is being used to establish Parish as a "believer".

I guess I'm surprised that they even used Parrish's quote since it wasn't faith promoting when reading it in context.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I see what you've done...you've fallen for the essay authors trap...Yes in the cherry picked, twisted version of the quote it is used to support Joseph's claim...but this ONLY happen's when twisted and cherry picked.  When read in context...it does not support the essay authors premise and that is why we critics are so infuriated and frustrated by your defense and support.  I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong. It is you who have failed to comprehend.

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I can't ignore his last sentence in the quote, it is clear that he is discounting Joseph...saying he doesn't believe the claim that Joseph was getting inspiration from heaven (I bolded claimed). That is how I'm reading it.

Parrish and Whitmer received a similar report from the Prophet, regardless of what they thought of him at the time, or later.

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I'm surprised that they even used Parrish's quote since it wasn't faith promoting when reading it in context.

That's how open minded good historians and Church leaders are.

[Johnnie Cake]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Boy are you grasping at straws.

"Close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation" connects to the footnote for John Whitmer.
The addition of Parish to that footnote in your opinion labels him a "believer".  Except the Parish quote doesn't say that, even without the rest of the original quote.
It STILL says Joseph "claimed to receive it". 
I think you are seriously looking for deception where none occurred.

I can lead you to the water...draw up a cup and hand it to you...but I can't force you to drink.  If you fail to comprehend...that this foot note is being twisted to support a false premise...so be it. You have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned when you allow your pride and desire to be right override an obvious misuse of a quote to support a false premise instead of just admitting that you were wrong and misread the footnote...then I would have some respect.  I wish you all the best in this life.  Cheers.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Nevo said:

I can think of a couple of reasons Parrish's quote is worth mentioning.

For starters, Parrish was personally involved in the production of the Book of Abraham, so his comments on the process—whether positive or negative or neutral—are of interest to the historian.

In 1838, Parrish had no incentive to make Joseph Smith look good. Indeed, he had every incentive to portray the Prophet in a negative light. So when he reports that "I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven," it is noteworthy what he doesn't say. There are no shocking disclosures. He doesn't say that they cribbed from another source, consulted Josephus, or anything of the sort. Had Parrish been in possession of damaging insider information about the "true source" of the purported translation, he surely would have shared it. Instead we have a matter-of-fact description of what very likely actually happened: Joseph dictated and Parrish sat next to him and wrote down what he said.

The reference to "direct inspiration"—whether intended sarcastically or not—suggests that the translation wasn't a mechanical process where Joseph studied and attempted to decipher each hieroglyph, one-by-one, but rather one where the words flowed (or seemed to flow) unbidden into Joseph's mind. This is of interest to LDS scholars because you don't see the same thing with, say, the Kinderhook Plates. In that case, nobody transcribed any revelatory words as they fell from the Prophet's lips, nothing was published, and nothing was distributed to the Church.

I see your point.  But I also see why critics gets miffed by things like this.  They see the use of this quote as an effort by the Church to mislead members into thinking there was no claim of fraud by Parrish.  The whole quote suggests Parrish is claiming fraud for the past year, that is fraud after he acted as scribe, to be fair.

I'll leave this as a mostly agree with you but in some small sense disagree. The little bit of disagreement, I'll make clear is this quote does not necessarily support "Joseph the Seer saw the Records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records".  It supports, as you point out, the notion that Joseph claimed to receive these things "by direct inspiration of Heaven". 

Edited January 20, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I can't ignore his last sentence in the quote, it is clear that he is discounting Joseph...saying he doesn't believe the claim that Joseph was getting inspiration from heaven (I bolded claimed). That is how I'm reading it. 

“I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven. I have listened to him with feelings of no ordinary kind, when he declared that the audible voice of God, instructed him to establish a Banking-Anti Banking institution, which like Aaron’s rod should swallow up all other Banks (the Bank of Monroe excepted,) and grow and flourish and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins. I have been astonished to hear him declare that we had 60,000 Dollars in specie in our vaults, and $600,000 at our command, when we had not to exceed $6,000 and could not command any more;also that we had but about ten thousand Dollars of our bills in circulation, when he, as Cashier of the institution, knew that there was at least $150,000. Knowing their extreme poverty when they commenced this speculation, I have been not a little surprised to hear them assert that they were worth from three to four hundred thousand Dollars Cash, and in less than ninety days after, became insolvent without any change in their business affairs. But such has been the audacity of these boasting blasphemers, that they have assumed the authority to curse, or to bless, to damn, or to save, not only this Church but this entire generation, and that they hold their destinies in this world and that which is to come. And such has been their influence over this Church in this place, that they have filched the monies from their pockets and obtained their earthly substance for the purpose of establishing a Bank and various wild speculations, in order that they might aggrandize themselves and families, until they have reduced their followers to wretchedness and want. For the year past their lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too, in the name of God.”
-Warren Parrish (letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, Feb. 15, 1838 SidneyRigdon.com)

To be fair, Tacenda, the last line is suggesting fraud for the past year--that is after Parrish acted as scribe.  It could be read to say, Parrish was all on board with the "translation" as he acted as scribe, but then was off board when fraud started, which he claims was for the past year. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by stemelbow