“I consider that it is not only prudential, but absolutely necessary to protect the inhabitants of this city from being imposed upon by a spurious currency…I think it much safer to go upon the hard money system altogether. I have examined the Constitution upon this subject and find my doubts removed” (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 314).

More:

“Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its [the Illinois Legislature] laws, which are unconstitutional? No! We will make a law for gold and silver; and then the state law ceases and we can collect our debts. Powers not delegated to the states or reserved from the states are constitutional. The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself…This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God. The Constitution provides to regulate bodies of men and not individuals” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 279).

And of course, his alleged prophecy:

“My brother, Noah Packard, says that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the next great (U.S. civil) war after the war of the rebellion (the Civil War of the 1860′s between the North and the South) would commence in a little town now called Chicago but at that time it would have grown to be a very large city. And another brother told me that the Prophet said that the cause of the next great trouble of the United States would be the depreciation of the currency of the United States. I believe I have given you all the facts in as short and concise manner as possible.” (A. Milton Musser papers, LDS Church Archives, letter from Nephi Packard to A. Milton Musser, July 24, 1896.)

Okay, there isn’t enough evidence to positively accredit that prophecy to J.S., but based on his statements on currency, he would unequivocally oppose the Federal Reserve today, which is the antithesis of hard money and “spurious currency” on steroids. He clearly supports a national bank that would stabilize a hard money system. I’m not sure a national bank would be necessary to stabilize the money system if we followed the constitution and had competing currencies. But we don’t know what he thinks of these ideas, but his principles seem to line up more with Ron Paul than any other politician when it comes to money. What other politician do you hear praising the gold standard, a hard money system?

I’m surprised the author of this article didn’t shed light on Joseph’s views on currency with the quotes above. It goes much further than saying “…those who are critical of the Federal Reserve System, find themselves at odds with Joseph Smith’s stand on the value of a national bank.” Actually, judging by his statements above, we are not at odds AT ALL.

My main criticism is the lack of quotations and sourcing. There is great information here, but it becomes marginal and almost useless without verifiable references. Other than that I found the article a solid, concise source of information.

I’d also like to point out that I doubt Joseph Smith, Jr. would have forced learning onto slaves (or natives for that matter) (and not that the author was saying this). I see his position as a choice. Brigham Young also wrote on educating the more “primitive” factions of society. I propose this purpose was much different than today’s nanny state interpretation of the Parens Patria doctrine and compulsory education. If they weren’t any different then would we have much claim against the re-education minded progressives of today?

“I believe the framers of the Constitution had in mind that citizens would serve in government as a civic duty, similar to the obligation of military service.”

Did the Founders support involuntary enlistment or coercive military service? I know of nothing in the Constitution that indicates conscription. It does give Congress the charge to “raise and support Armies.” There is no indication that this was intended to be coercive.

This next one left me slackjawed.

“The temple became a public works project on a huge scale. Stone quarries were opened, craftsmen came forward, shops and businesses arose to take care of the needs of the workers.”

There is nothing similar between the building of a temple via voluntary labor and donations vs. “public works”, or works performed by edict of the State, which either plunders money from taxpayers or uses their labor against their will. In either scenario, it is perfectly incongruous. The State has nothing to do with voluntary devotion and true religion and service therein has nothing to do with force.

Lastly, I find your intended distinction between ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to be ineffective. The history of these words actually place them in similar meanings. ‘Liberal’ used to mean ‘free’, or it indicated freedom for the people. Classical liberals lay hold on this term. They are very different creatures from today’s liberals, which are better termed ‘progressives’, collectivists or leftists – which believe in the superiority of State power and inferiority of individual liberties.

‘Conservative’ used to mean a restrained government. By definition, the existence of a free people is only a possibility when the government is restrained. However, modern conservatives seem to believe in the superiority of US militarism unconstitutional international adventures, big business collusion with government and only limited limits on government power, taxing and spending.

Liberals and Conservatives were once the same thing. Joseph Smith was therefore both. A progressive, he was not. A warmonger he was not. He believed in liberty, and neither of today’s conservatives nor liberals seem to believe much in that.

Otherwise, it was a very fascinating article and a topic worth more exploration.

This assumes that slavery was the primary cause of the CW. The primary causes were the sacking of the South by the North through unfair tariffs and Lincoln’s refusal to recognize states’ rights, including co-equal soveignty, interposition, and secession. Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the pre-war Union, including slavery. He did his best to keep the slavery issue out of the war, but abolitionist Republicans wouldn’t let him. The Emancipation Proclamation was farce, even by contemporary standards. It freed no one. Lincoln destroyed the federal republic and established a consolidated union, which was greatly feared by the anti-Federalists. Indeed, the federal republic lasted only “four score and seven years.”

Craig, I’m like you; however, it is impossible to say what Joseph’s political beliefs would be today, given our history. Joseph’s beliefs were based on the relatively short history of the United States up to that point, and in particular, the LDS experience in America. To paraphrase one of my BYU religion professors, the Mormon experience proved that the Bill of Rights, with regard to freedom of religion, extended only so far as the public would allow it. I might add, so far as public ignorance and prejudice would allow.