Joseph Smith's Bank

  • Thread starter Thread starter truthsave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I read this stuff about Mormonism, and I read the comments from Mormons who try to constructively save the idea of Mormonism, and it all just sinks like a boat with big holes in it.

The best treatment of Joseph Smith’s life that I have seen is by the noted American historian Robert Remini (an expert in the 1830s period and Andrew Jackson). Remini wrote the Penguin Life of Smith, worked assiduously to merely present the life story, had assistance in Utah on points with it, worked independently of any religious entity or auspices. The work is not tainted by ideology, etc.

EVEN THEN, reading the narrative you see the basic, can’t be solved, problems of Mormonism. I recommend the title, especially Mormons wanting a neutral view of the man.
 
ChrisB103 said:
Just a little thought experiment here:

For all of the non-Mormons participating, would this thread bring you closer to Christ and his Church if you were in the shoes of the Mormon contributors? I fully agree with all of the ideas expressed in this thread that I saw, but I’m not sure this is the way to win souls. I don’t mean to step on any toes, because I know we’re all here because of our faith in the authentic Jesus Christ and his holy Church. I’m just a fellow brother in Christ trying to make sure that we are keeping the goal of winning souls in mind, and not letting frustration, etc, distract us from doing our best to achieve that goal.

By the way, I can understand (at least to some degree) the frustration here. I haven’t seen sufficient objective proof to believe that Joseph Smith lived up to the claim of being a prophet, but we must win others over with love, not arguments. I’ll get off my undeserved soap box now. God bless you all.
Click to expand...
My priority is to save Catholics from being deceived by lies. I was raised LDS, much of my family is still active LDS, and I am intimately familiar with the LDS culture and teaching methods. I know that the half-truths, distortions and lies that are taught by Mormons can come wrapped in beauty and can look most desirable. It is important to point out that just because something looks good doesn’t mean it is.

Most Mormons have no idea of some of the truths of the founders of their church, or if they do, they push it aside and believe on blind faith. For example, in LDS Catechisis for botht he young and old, Emma Smith (Joseph’s first wife) was basically presented as a Saint for our times, a woman of exempliary virtue and whose prompts to Joseph were very similar to Mary’s prompt to Jesus at the wedding when she said “They have no wine.” (The Word of Wisdom came about after Emma complained about having to clean up the chewing tobacco spit on the meeting room floor after a meeting.)

What I was never taught is that after Joseph Smith was killed, Emma did not back Brigham Young as the successor to the leadership of the church. She said that it was Joseph’s will that the leadership be contained within the bloodline of Smith. She supported their eldest surving son, Joseph Smith III, as the successor, and Joseph Smith III and Emma became members and leaders of the Reorganized LDS Church.

Other truths I was never taught: All of the Book of Mormon “witnesses” were excommunicated at some point due to clashes with the leadership after Joseph Smith, the Book of Abraham scrolls had been analyzed by Egyptologists and found to be ordinary Egyptian burial scrolls, and the LDS temple ceremonies were almost identical to Masonic initiation ceremonies. All of these are documents are historical facts and have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrines tied to these people and events. Yet knowing these facts brings to light the foundations of the LDS church, and show that the Mormon church was not built on the “rock” but on the imagination of Joseph Smith.

While I continue to present the facts as best I can to Catholics, I also pray constantly for graces for those LDS who truly desire to love and know Christ but are deceived and distracted by their church and its teachings.
 
I have been gradually removing myself from Mormon threads.

But I think TruthSaves made a most insightful comment…why just follow the Apostles…why JS who contradicts Scripture and the Apostles??

Also, it is our duty as Christians to separate truth from fraud.

But when fraud is systemic, and people are born into it, it is very hard for them to see Mormonism’s errors.

But I also agree with TruthSaves that today, with all the access to information to make good judgment, the onus is on the Mormons who willfully want to believe such ideas and exaltation of self.
 
The Mormon broadcaster Glen Beck says Joseph Smith was killed and other Mormons lynched because they were abolitionists, saying 30% of lynchings were of white abolitionists. I didn’t know there was any definitive reason for midwesterners attacking and killing Joseph Smith. After hearing about the bank fraud, I supposed that was the reason; while before I guessed it was their “child bride” policy, although marrying 12 year olds was only recently outlawed in Kansas. So…Any reason given by any extant contemporaneous source on why Smith was killed? Beck said it was legal to kill a Mormon male in Missouri.

I was told by an Independence Mormon (one who was raped in childhood by three elders) that he was shown a secret room in some old Mormon facility because they feared for their lives, it being legal to kill Mormon males. And Mormon males being killed was the reason Glen Beck gave for polygamy. But if JS engaged in polygamy before any persecution or killing of Mormon males, that doesn’t make sense.

Mormonism strikes me as another Babylonian Mystery Religion, Gnostics with insider “gnow-ledge” that contradicts God’s revealed nature and will.
 
As a member of the Mormon History Association, please permit me to make a few assertions:

I believe the person who started this thread is correct; the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society was at best ill-conceived and at worst a fraud. Many members of the LDS Church left the movement at this time.

The problems between Mormons and their Missouri neighbors had something to do with the fact that in the 1830s Mormons were abolitionists (many Mormons changed their views in the 1850s under Brigham Young’s anti-federalist leadership). However, the problems in Missouri had more to do with the sheer number of Mormon immigrants, the tendency of those immigrants to vote in a block, and the goals of those immigrants to establish zion. This last factor is particularly significant, as it encouraged Mormons to conduct much of their business with other Mormons. Mormons live with that stigma to this day.

The violence in Missouri is rooted in poor decisions on all sides. Sidney Rigdon gave his infamous “Salt Sermon” on July 4, 1838. Missourians attempted to prevent Mormons from voting in Gallatin in October of 1838. There was vengence taken out by Missourian militamen and Mormon Danites. Governer Boggs signed Executive Order 44, which declared that Mormons who did not leave the state could be killed. Some Mormons were slaughtered at Hauns Mill on October 30, including a young boy and an old man who had surrendered. There was rape and pillage and the Mormons were never compensated for their property losses. They were turned out into the cold, and may have died en masse if not for the kindness of the people who lived in and around Springfield Illinois. My great great great grandfather and his sister were among those who were taken in.

Executive Order 44 was on the books in Missouri until 1976 when Governer Kit Bond rescinded it. Mormons all over the world sent him thank you letters for doing this.

Joseph Smith was murdered, but certainly wasn’t a martyr. He turned himself in after destroying the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper founded by his former counselor, William Law. The Expositor was mostly telling the truth about Smith’s secret polygamy. Law didn’t take kindly to Smith propositioning Law’s wife Jane for a polyandrous “sealing,” but had hoped to be a force for reform in Mormonism.

Most Mormons who call Smith a martyr have no idea what the word means to Catholics. Smith didn’t deserve to be murdered–obviously–but did try to defend himself. Interestingly, the film being shown in Nauvoo at the LDS Visitor’s Center takes artistic license in a way that isn’t asserted in Mormon scripture; the camera implies that Joseph Smith’s spirit ascends to heaven as his body falls out the window.

Studious Mormons know all about these facts. After all, some of the best historical sources on this stuff is made available by the LDS Church. However, official manuals for the LDS Church are correlated, and these are sometimes deceptive through ommision, convenient framing, and so on.

Finally, Mormons do not hold violent vengence in their hearts. What they hold is repression. They haven’t been able to deal with the polygamy and violence of their ancestors, and feel some embarassment for it. This is why, I surmise, Mormons seem too nice and are always desperate for acceptance.

As someone who is leading his family from Mormonism to Catholicism, but who continues to publish in the area of Mormon Studies, I am giving you the straight scoop. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Facts and respectful dialogue can help start Mormons on a journey home to the Roman Catholic Church.
 
nordskoven said:
The Mormon broadcaster Glen Beck says Joseph Smith was killed and other Mormons lynched because they were abolitionists, saying 30% of lynchings were of white abolitionists. I didn’t know there was any definitive reason for midwesterners attacking and killing Joseph Smith. After hearing about the bank fraud, I supposed that was the reason; while before I guessed it was their “child bride” policy, although marrying 12 year olds was only recently outlawed in Kansas. So…Any reason given by any extant contemporaneous source on why Smith was killed? Beck said it was legal to kill a Mormon male in Missouri.

I was told by an Independence Mormon (one who was raped in childhood by three elders) that he was shown a secret room in some old Mormon facility because they feared for their lives, it being legal to kill Mormon males. And Mormon males being killed was the reason Glen Beck gave for polygamy. But if JS engaged in polygamy before any persecution or killing of Mormon males, that doesn’t make sense.

Mormonism strikes me as another Babylonian Mystery Religion, Gnostics with insider “gnow-ledge” that contradicts God’s revealed nature and will.
Click to expand...
The Mormons in Nauvoo voted in a bloc. Whichever way their leader, Smith went, they followed. Smith used this fact in political bargaining. He would promise the Mormon bloc-vote to the Whigs, and then he would seek favors from the Democrats with promises of the same Mormon bloc-vote. It eventually unraveled of course, and was completely undone when he announced he was running for US president. Within 10 months he was murdered, with no politicians to save him.

A few Mormons owned slaves in Nauvoo. Smith never instructed the people in Nauvoo to not own slaves, or to own them.
 
Finally, Mormons do not hold violent vengence in their hearts. What they hold is repression. They haven’t been able to deal with the polygamy and violence of their ancestors, and feel some embarassment for it.
Click to expand...
Agreed with you, Sunstone. Although they have now rejected violence, they have often been trained to hold those cultural inter-generational resentments since childhood. Mis-truths told by people like Glenn Beck perpetuate that. That repressed anger often shows itself in passive-aggressive behavior.
 
“Finally, Mormons do not hold violent vengence in their hearts. What they hold is repression. They haven’t been able to deal with the polygamy and violence of their ancestors, and feel some embarassment for it.”

Not sure the folks at Mountain Meadows would agree with you…
 
TexanKnight said:
“Finally, Mormons do not hold violent vengence in their hearts. What they hold is repression. They haven’t been able to deal with the polygamy and violence of their ancestors, and feel some embarassment for it.”

Not sure the folks at Mountain Meadows would agree with you…
Click to expand...
Come now. Don’t you think I’m including Mountain Meadows when I refer to “violence of their ancestors?”

Surely you don’t find validity in stereotyping millions of people over what a few dozen did over 150 years ago.
 
Sunstone,

Thanks for your sharing of more historical facts and insights, as well as how Mormons deal with such a past. I also agree that there is alot of repression in Mormonism…I would tend to see that more with those born into intergenerational Mormon families.

For the most part, I keep the Mormon people in my prayers for their own spiritual freedom, which is what is needed to enable them to break free…Freedom in Christ…Who is the Light and brings all things out to discern.
 
Sunstone said:
Come now. Don’t you think I’m including Mountain Meadows when I refer to “violence of their ancestors?”

Surely you don’t find validity in stereotyping millions of people over what a few dozen did over 150 years ago.
Click to expand...
I simply made a comment to one of your statements. And yes, a few dozen took part, but do you really thing the mindset of the few dozen was not shared by the majority of the LDS Church back then? Have you not, in your historical ventures, read the speeches by BY?
 
TexanKnight said:
I simply made a comment to one of your statements. And yes, a few dozen took part, but do you really thing the mindset of the few dozen was not shared by the majority of the LDS Church back then? Have you not, in your historical ventures, read the speeches by BY?
Click to expand...
Of course I’ve read Brigham Young’s fiery speeches. I’ve read the ones by Jeddidiah M. Grant too.

The fact remains that almost none of the Mormons in 1857 committed violence. Sure, an army being sent to stop Mormon insurrection contibuted to an under-siege mindset, but I think your way off to think that any significant number of Mormons were bloodthirsty, and even at the heights of conflict.

In the friendliest way possible, I’m suggesting you need to check your head on this one.
 
What is left over from “those times” is a deep suspicion of the US government, while ironically, simultaneiously holding a belief that the US constitution is a divinely inspired document.

Mormonism still contains beliefs of violence. Just read anything they put out regarding “the last days”. They expect violence and see it as a sign of the return of Jesus. I am suspicious of these sort of beliefs, in that, they lean towards becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.

They aren’t seeking peace, they are expecting war, and believe that it should be there.
 
Sunstone said:
Of course I’ve read Brigham Young’s fiery speeches. I’ve read the ones by Jeddidiah M. Grant too.

The fact remains that almost none of the Mormons in 1857 committed violence. Sure, an army being sent to stop Mormon insurrection contibuted to an under-siege mindset, but I think your way off to think that any significant number of Mormons were bloodthirsty, and even at the heights of conflict.

In the friendliest way possible, I’m suggesting you need to check your head on this one.
Click to expand...
oh, I have. And the lack of violence had a lot to do with lack of opportunity. It is a little misguided to believe that the ONLY Mormons who listened and took to heart BY’s speeches just happened to be those near the Fancher Party.
 
and there was quite a bit of violence in the temple ceremonies until about 22 years ago
 
TexanKnight said:
and there was quite a bit of violence in the temple ceremonies until about 22 years ago
Click to expand...
Please forgive my tardy reply, I’ve just returned from a trip with my family.

To address your point, I’ll suggest that I don’t know of any of today’s LDS who take the temple penalties as some kind of mandate to commit violence (i.e., blood atone someone). There’s a bit of the ole’ religion preserved amongst today’s polygamous LDS offshoots, though.

If you want to persuade me that LDS are unusually violent in some way, you’ll need to provide facts and reasons. Statistics that show that LDS are more likely than others to commit violent crimes would be a good start.

I think that LDS correlation has effectively buried much of the blood and thunder of the early days of Mormonism. Today the LDS Church is very much a corporation first and a church second, and demonstrating that fact seems to me to be a more effective way to reach LDS than is dwelling on “the old crazy.”
 
RebeccaJ said:
What is left over from “those times” is a deep suspicion of the US government, while ironically, simultaneiously holding a belief that the US constitution is a divinely inspired document.
Click to expand...
Yes, Mormons in the U.S. are often anti-federalist and this has everything to do with their history. Glenn Beck is a great example of what you are talking about.
 
Sunstone said:
Please forgive my tardy reply, I’ve just returned from a trip with my family.

To address your point, I’ll suggest that I don’t know of any of today’s LDS who take the temple penalties as some kind of mandate to commit violence (i.e., blood atone someone). There’s a bit of the ole’ religion preserved amongst today’s polygamous LDS offshoots, though.

If you want to persuade me that LDS are unusually violent in some way, you’ll need to provide facts and reasons. Statistics that show that LDS are more likely than others to commit violent crimes would be a good start.

I think that LDS correlation has effectively buried much of the blood and thunder of the early days of Mormonism. Today the LDS Church is very much a corporation first and a church second, and demonstrating that fact seems to me to be a more effective way to reach LDS than is dwelling on “the old crazy.”
Click to expand...
I have never said LDS are violent now. I said they were back when they were led by a guy who allegedly saw God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top