Innocent! No Banking Fraud in Kirkland - Just Persecution

[_wenglund]

As if...

That's certainly something a heterosexual male would say.

Humor impairment = not knowing when you have worn out a joke.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

convicted early Mormon leaders Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon

I'm not an expert in the Kirtland era, but I don't think these proceedings resulted in a conviction did they? I thought Joseph and Rigdon left town before the trial and the state did nothing to extradite them. But, educate me.

[_zzyzx]

Enticing investors and depositors by misrepresenting the amount of capitol in the institution is fraud. More so when the money shown is a top layer covering sand.

Joseph started the bank without a charter.

All the technical argument by the researcher makes Bill Clinton look honest in comparison to Joseph Smith.

How many times did Joseph run from the law instead of trusting The Lord and standing up for the Truth... and allowing his Lord and Master to come to his aid in a finding of Not Guilty? You keep running you take away any defense and Josepy ran from the law over and over and over again. That is the action of a criminal, not an honest man.

[_moksha]

How many times did Joseph run from the law instead of trusting The Lord and standing up for the Truth... and allowing his Lord and Master to come to his aid in a finding of Not Guilty? You keep running you take away any defense and Josepy ran from the law over and over and over again. That is the action of a criminal, not an honest man.

For what it is worth, the last attempt at securing his court appearance did not go very well.

[_Dr. Shades]

For what it is worth, the last attempt at securing his court appearance did not go very well.

LOL! (Forgive me, but. . . LOL)

Yeah, that Joseph sure was a slippery one, wasn't he?

[_Sethbag]

I will state right up front that I haven't read very deeply about the Kirtland banking scandal.

I didn't see this gentleman's presentation, I'm only going by the summary of it that was given in the OP. Based on that, I'm having a hard time seeing how the fact that a law passed in 1816 "was no longer being enforced" means that what Joseph did was in fact legal.

It was my understanding that laws, once passed, were the law until they are overturned by a competent court as unconstitutional, or repealed by subsequent act of the legislature. Can the law become not the law simply by not being heavily enforced for 20 years or so?

Secondly, the status of the laws under which Joseph may or may not have committed a crime in forming the non-bank bank really doesn't bear on whether the actions of Joseph and the other officials were fraudulent. I would argue that a person could follow the very letter of the law in obtaining a bank charter and whatnot, and still turn around and defraud investors. I don't see how the OP bears on the fraudulent or non-fraudulent nature of the banking scandal.

[_TAK]

White told the conference participants that multiple institutions throughout Ohio ran similar operations without being prosecuted under the 1816 law.

People rob banks and do not get caught and prosecuted..
Does that mean its now legal to rob banks?

[_rocket]

It was my understanding that laws, once passed, were the law until they are overturned by a competent court as unconstitutional, or repealed by subsequent act of the legislature. Can the law become not the law simply by not being heavily enforced for 20 years or so?

You are describing a state of jurisprudence that didn't exist in state courts in the 1830s. A law not enforced in the early 1800s was not a law. Moreover, it certainly appears that soft-money commercial scrip was a common thing in Ohio at the time. A railroad issued scrip that was in common circulation at th time. (Wimmer, BYU Studies 1992).

I'm not an expert in the Kirtland banking fiasco, but some odd things jump out. The state of Ohio was very discriminatory against the Saints; it would not license Mormon elders to marry. Alexander Campbell did a great job in mustering prejudice against the Saints. Similarly, the refusal to charter the bank smacked of religious prejudice.

Then there was the Warren Parrish embezzlement, wiping out any chance for success.

Then there was the fact that the merchants who later claimed fraud knew they were accepting bank notes from any anti-Bank; on this point, however, I'm not entirely sure. But it seems to me that this move was taken with the benefit of legal counsel. (Wimmer, BYU Studies 1992)

[_Joey]

Early Mormon "bank" was legal
By Michael De Groote

Deseret News

Published: Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009 8:13 p.m. MDT
SANDY — An Ohio court "got it wrong" when it convicted early Mormon leaders Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon for illegally running a controversial financial institution in 1837, a Mormon apologist said Thursday.

The Mormon leaders were running the Kirtland (Ohio) Safety Society Anti-Banking Company, but the 1816 law they were convicted under was not in force in 1837, said R. McKay White, a lawyer and an economist, during a presentation at the 11th annual Mormon Apologetics Conference presented by the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR).

When the Kirtland Safety Society couldn't get a bank charter, it reorganized itself as an "anti-banking" institution and issued private notes. The 1816 law prohibited private institutions from doing this.

White quoted several newspapers from 1837 to show the 1816 law was no longer being enforced by the time the Safety Society was organized. In an interview after his presentation, White explained further that the Ohio State Legislature did not print the 1816 law in its official book of statutes in 1824.

White told the conference participants that multiple institutions throughout Ohio ran similar operations without being prosecuted under the 1816 law.

"Now why weren't they, when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were?" White said. "It couldn't be because of religious persecution. Well it was. It was intended to get Joseph out of town, and it worked."

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had appealed the conviction, but ended up fleeing Kirtland for fear of their lives. The appeal was never heard.

Ye who scoffed at unchartered Anti-Banking, read this legal expose and weep! Think twice before you persecute the righteous.

This why the need for the phrase: "Only In Provo"!

Here we have a Church trying to add legitimacy to the actions of a fraud (for the benefit of the isolated naïve) and not take any responsibility for the explanation. It uses the words of a non-credible member, posts it in their press to give bishops an out ("See, it was even in the newspaper"), and can distance itslef from any real position.

This is an exact replica of the lunacy Dallin Oaks attempted to used with his attempt to exonerate Smith's actions and the Expositor.

But I have no doubt it sells copies in Provo, and only in Provo!

Why would one pay to attend this kind of event??!!!

[_Nevo]

I'm not an expert in the Kirtland banking fiasco, but some odd things jump out. The state of Ohio was very discriminatory against the Saints; it would not license Mormon elders to marry. Alexander Campbell did a great job in mustering prejudice against the Saints. Similarly, the refusal to charter the bank smacked of religious prejudice.

Not really. Twenty-two requests for new bank charters were submitted to the Thirty-fifth General Assembly of the Ohio legislature (1836-37). None were granted. The previous session of the legislature (1835-36) also denied all requests for new charters but for one very special case. The session before that (1833-34), approved only 10 of 30 charter requests. The Mormons, in this instance, were victims of bad timing, not religious prejudice.