FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Question: Was Warren Parrish signing new notes for the Kirtland Safety Society even after the bank had fallen into difficulty?
(Redirected from Kirtland Safety Society/False charges against Warren Parrish)
Question: Was Warren Parrish signing new notes for the Kirland Safety Society even after the bank had fallen into difficulty?
It is claimed that Joseph Smith lied about Warren Parrish, falsely charging him with financial misconduct, and trying to shift the blame
There is hard evidence that Parrish was signing new notes for a large amount ($100) when the bank was already in deep difficulty. Whether intentionally fraudulent or not, this was unwise in the extreme—Joseph's caution was appropriate and well-founded.
An examination of surviving Kirtland Safety Society notes provides concrete evidence for Joseph's charge that Parrish was creating new notes
Some light is shed on one other point. One of the notes, with a face value of $100, is signed by Warren Parrish in July 1837. This is independent evidence supporting the charge by Joseph Smith and the Daily Herald and Gazette that Parrish was issuing and circulating notes after Smith had publicly removed himself on June 8 from the bank's operations. Subsequently, Smith warned that
. . . the brethren and friends of the church . . . [ought] to beware of speculators, renegadoes and gamblers, who are duping the unsuspecting and the unwary, by palming upon them, those bills, which are not of worth here. I discountenance and disapprove of any and all such practices. I know them to be detrimental to the best interests of society, as well as to the principles of religion.
Thus Dudley Dean misunderstood the situation when in a recent article he called Joseph Smith's denunciation one of the "most astounding and bizarre announcements ever made by a bank founder." Smith's might more accurately be viewed as a timely attempt to thwart Parrish's ill-advised and perhaps fraudulent effort to revive the ill-fated bank.[1]
Critical sources |
|
Notes