Speculation is not fact.

Brodie is famous for confusing the two.

For you all your presumptuous self-congratulating, you leave out a wealth of facts that break your faith-promoting pseudo-history. (and citing BYU Studies is about as
productive as citing FARMS … or FAIR for that matter)

The biggest problem of all, in my book, has not to do with the financial solvency of the bank, but rather the failed prophesy/revelation, which caused the whole mess in the first place.

I forgive you for your late response.

It is a little counterproductive to quote outdated research when a superior study has already been cited in the original entry in this thread. From the Hill, Rooker, and Wimmer article:

Meticulous research into court records and the papers of Joseph Smith indicate that Joseph’s total cumulative indebtedness over the period was a little over 100,000 rather than in excess of $150,000 as Brodie maintains. There is evidence that at least $60,000 of this debt was subsequently settled possibly much more. Brodie ignores Smith’s assets. We have found that Smith owned land in conjunction with others worth $130,000. Assuming that this was bought entirely on credit which is unlikely, Smith and company held $59,500 in equity as a result of rising land values. Thus Smith and other investors associated with him had assets in excess of their debts when they left Kirtland in early 1838. These assets would likely have been adequate to cover Smith’s business ventures had there been sufficient liquid capital and a continuing prosperity.

Despite your assertion, there was not enough to repay creditors, they did not get any where near dollar for dollar and JS did not come close to repayment of his personal obligations. You guys are outright lying. You also conveniently left out the “prophesy” that all other banks would be swallowed up. So not only was he heavily in debt, he did not repay his personal obligations, and his prophesy (like so many of his other prophesies) failed. Now explain that away. As M. Twain said, get your facts and then you can twist them.

“Thirteen suits were brought against him between June 1837 and April 1839, to collect sums totaling nearly $25,000. The damages asked amounted to almost $35,000. He was arrested seven times in four months, and his followers managed heroically to raise the $38,428 required for bail. Of the thirteen suits only six were settled out of court-about $12,000 out of the $25,000. In the other seven the creditors either were awarded damages or won them by default.

“Joseph had many additional debts that never resulted in court action. Some years later he compiled a list of still outstanding Kirtland loans, which amounted to more than $33,000. If one adds to these the two great loans of $30,000 and $60,000 borrowed in New York and Buffalo in 1836, it would seem that the Mormon leaders owed to non-Mormon individuals and firms well over $150,000.” No Man Knows My History, pp. 199

You are also right that promissory notes are promises to pay, and should be done if possible.

There IS a notion that I think I need to correct: That repayment of all debts would mean that nobody would take a loss. This may not be the case.

In real life, if a debtor (legitimately or not) is slower in repayment than the creditor would like, that creditor could “factor” that debt, by selling it to a third party–usually at a large discount. Even if the debt is repaid in full, the original creditor would lose money in the amount of the discount.

I hope this makes sense!

Let me just quickly focus on the question of redeeming the bank notes at face value. A bank note is a promissory note, and as such a debt — not an investment. If the bank had repaid its debts, that would have involved redeeming the notes. You might think that would have been a bad idea, and that seems reasonable. It was impossible in any case. But our agreement that the bank didn’t redeem its notes or repay its investors fundamentally contradicts the central factual claim of the original post, which was that the bank did indeed pay these back. It just didn’t.

Thanks for the clarification. I will take your advise and not morally condemn those that disagree with me on the fraud question. I would merely point them out to what I think are even handed treatments and let them draw their own conclusions. But we can’t entirely decouple morality from belief. As Givens remarks:

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love.

I think the question of redeeming face value of specie has little riding on it compared to the other issues. Some imperfect analogies would be whether lottery tickets should be redeemed if a holder doesn’t win or if people who lose money on their investments in a stock market crash should be given mulligans.

The KSS ceased to exist as institution, but its parent institution, the church, continued to provide economical blessings for those who stayed with the program.