DiscussMormonism.com

grindael wrote:Yeah, Parley P. Pratt calling him out on his swindling and dishonesty is "automatically" convicting him. This was one of his OWN APOSTLES!!!!

Parley P Pratt wrote: Being as fully convinced that you and President Sidney Rigdon; Both By presept and Example have Been the principle means In Leading this people astray in these particulars

That must all be some kind of anti-Mormon scheme, right? It wasn't Warren Parrish, it was Jo Smith and Sidney Rigdon. LOL, you wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you silly and said "Say my name, bitch".

ldsfaqs wrote:
1. Grindael..... that sort of speech is not allowed in this section of the forum. Do you need to be reported?

SALT LAKE CITY — In Leslie O. Peterson’s mind, Fanny Alger’s almond-shaped face, with its soulful green eyes and rosebud mouth, is framed by close-cropped brown hair and perched atop a long, slender neck.

That is the way Mrs. Peterson, a Utah artist, painted the 16-year-old Ms. Alger, who in the early 1830s is believed to have slipped away to a barn from her job as a serving girl to the Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith and his wife, Emma, and quietly become his first plural wife.

The details of the union remain a bit fuzzy, even among historians. But that this marriage and Smith’s many others may have happened at all was a revelation to Mrs. Peterson, 60, who until last fall believed Smith had married just one woman.

“Then the essay comes out from the church and says, ‘Nope, it’s not just Joseph and Emma,’ ” said Mrs. Peterson, a fifth-generation member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “It’s Joseph and Emma and 33 other women.”

The essay on polygamy, posted in November on lds.org, the church’s website, was one in a series on church history and theology, in which Mormon leaders acknowledged that Smith secretly took dozens of wives, including some already married to other churchmen and at least one who was only 14.

“At first, I was angry,” said Mrs. Peterson, a hairdresser and watercolorist who lives in Cottonwood Heights, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City. “Why the heck have I not known this? These women have become like ghosts in our history, and we don’t teach or talk about their lives.”

Hoping to change that, she picked up her paintbrush. The result, created over three months last winter, is a series of watercolor portraits titled “The Forgotten Wives.”

“I just felt the need to get these women out of the closet and let people learn about them and celebrate them,” Mrs. Peterson said.

The pictures were on display this summer at a gallery in Provo and at the Sunstone Symposium, an annual conference of Mormon scholars, theorists and culture experts at the University of Utah here in Salt Lake City. Ms. Peterson is also scheduled to show them in October at Dixie State University in St. George, Utah.

Mayan Elephant wrote:

grindael wrote:

Joseph Smith, Jr. started going by Joseph Smith, Sr. after his father died. John Dinger explains this in the article.

anyone named x Sr. is a narcissist. nobody is named that by their parents. that is just a douchey thing to do. and to change it from jr to sr is perhaps the douchiest of all.

shouldn't it be Person X > X Jr. > X III . X IV > etc.

there is no room for a Sr. in this unless the person changes their own goddamn name.

ldsfaqs wrote:by the way, I was going to go into Law Enforcement since the age of 7 till about 24, and I studied Criminal Justice for two years, not to mention all my own study of the law, criminal mind, behaviors, observation, etc. I can tell what Fraud is.

ldsfaqs wrote:

deacon blues wrote:Thanks for the apology ldsfaqs. Your response brings up an interesting question: is fraud criminal?

1. Given that the Bank set up was a popular method for setting up perfectly legal "quasi-banks" in Ohio at the time, and Non-Mormon Lawyers advised them how to do it and that it was entirely legal, clearly they had no intention of commiting "fraud".

2. The only person who actually commited "fraud" was Parish, by creating bank notes that had no backing. Thus, the Financial Officers who were actually responsible for doing anything actually wrong, were not held responsible.

3. Joseph when he saw things were going wrong, got out halfway through the banks open operations, after all the bank was started and continued by several people, including non-mormons, thus it wasn't as if he had "control" over the bank. It was a joint operation.

The full facts are clear. What Joseph set up wasn't actually in fact "illegal", thus it wasn't an illegal bank, but what occured AFTER Joseph left WAS Illegal, and DID make the bank an illegal bank. The original charges included those involved, but the anti-mormon who brought the charges removed all names save Joseph and Rigdon, even though they weren't actually involved with the bank when any of it's illegality occured.

Bottom line, the Saints and community needed some form of banking system, they tried to create a normal bank, was disallowed clearly due to anti-mormonism, so they created a multi-use bank, which was legal according to Legal Advise by non-mormon lawyers and experts. Many similar banks existed in Ohio, so the Safety Society wasn't some "new" nor especially "illegal" or fraudulent thing.

Anyway, I know I'm speaking to the wind, because anti-mormons will see only what they want to see that's negative, instead of the whole truth and facts which make clear Joseph did no wrong. He made a mistake, but it was an honest one. Further, they attempted to pay all outstanding depts as possible and agreed upon. That's not fraud. Further, the court did not rule for fraud, it rule simply that an illegal institution was set up. That doesn't equal fraud. But even then, the facts make clear that it WAS legal, at least when Joseph was involved. It failing, is not fraud, that's an assumption. Fraud requires specific actions and characteristics, which Joseph did not engage in. Parish did, but not Joseph. The bank simply did not work, so Joseph got out of it. He's not responsible for the actions of others.

by the way, I was going to go into Law Enforcement since the age of 7 till about 24, and I studied Criminal Justice for two years, not to mention all my own study of the law, criminal mind, behaviors, observation, etc. I can tell what Fraud is. You just think Joseph is immoral, so you auto-matically convict him because of any related negative information toward him. Me, I look at the facts. It's what I'm good at.

ldsfaqs wrote: Me, I look at the facts. It's what I'm good at.

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

LDSWRONGS wrote:
I studied Criminal Justice for two years...

Fraud is both a civil and a criminal offense.

sock puppet wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote: Me, I look at the facts. It's what I'm good at.

Who hear can agree with that? (Count me out.)