Second Thoughts

[_Ray A]

Okay, I'll get to the posts I haven't answered. But first, all I am trying to do is show that Joseph Smith is not an easily defined "fraud". Most already know of the following from Josiah Quincy, but I'll repost it:

IT is by no means improbable that some future text-book, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet. And the reply, absurd as it doubtless seems to most men now living, may be an obvious commonplace to their descendants. History deals in surprises and paradoxes quite as startling as this. The man who established a religion in this age of free debate, who was and is today accepted by hundreds of thousands as a direct emissary from the Most High, -- such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. Fanatic, imposter, charlatan, he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us. Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried
with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained. The most vital questions Americans are asking each other today have to do with this man and what he has left us. Is there any remedy heroic enough to meet the case, yet in accordance with our national doctrines of liberty and toleration, which can be applied to the demoralizing doctrines now advanced by the sect which he created? The possibilities of the Mormon system are unfathomable.

I have endeavored to give the details of my visit to the Mormon prophet with absolute accuracy. If the reader does not know just what to make of Joseph Smith, I cannot help him out of the difficulty. I myself stand helpless before the puzzle.

For full text: http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880 ... 83Quin.htm

If this was such an obvious fraud, why couldn't Quincy see it? After all he met Joseph Smith. And note the last paragraph.
He stood "helpless before the puzzle". And Quincy was no dope. Okay, so Joseph bamboozled Quincy, right? he used his charisma to hypnotise him.

[_Ray A]

Let me engage in the same reasoning the apologists do:

What about the persecution? The tarring and feathering. The apostasies, the betrayals.

Are you talking about the people he betrayed? Many criminals have been tarred and feathered and still continued to be criminals.

You're on a different wavelength here. But let me ask you to clarify. You consider Joseph Smith a criminal because of the 1826 trial, is that right?

I think the Bakkers did a lot of crying. I know Robert Tilton did. "What ere thou art act well thy part!"

Yes, after they were caught. Tilton made some $24 million. He would have had a lot to cry about.

Have you read the Quorum of the Fifty minutes? Why not? I'll tell you why: because they are under lock and key in the Church Archives. We can only speculate about the incriminating evidence they hold. The Joseph Smith Papers do expose some pretty damaging stuff but I think he was acting. I think he kept up the charade in his private writings.

Yes, and you can also speculate about MA&D (FAIR) ad nauseam and be wrong most of the time. You can speculate in a sensational way about anything, to your hearts content, if it titillates your sense of "I am right". by the way, I think there are elves on Saturn.

I don't view the Joseph Smith Papers the way you do, apparently. And I don't have any "interests" to preserve. I have nothing to protect or defend, and I'm fine with my LDS experience, which is over, and I'm not angry in any way.

And finally, he's dead at 38. Is this what you call gain?

Uh...I don't think that was part of his plan. I think he hoped the con would survive like it had so many times before.

No, it certainly wasn't, so then he gained nothing by losing his life at 38. That's what I'm asking, where is all this "gain"? What did he have to gain by being a fraud?

Bakker was indicted on federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering. In 1989, after trial in Charlotte, Judge Robert Potter convicted Bakker of fraud and conspiring to commit fraud and sentenced him to 45 years in federal prison. Bakker's associate, Richard Dortch, senior vice-president of PTL and associate pastor of Heritage Village Church, also went to prison. In 1992, Bakker and his wife Tammy Faye were divorced at her request. Billy Graham visited Bakker in prison, as did his son, Franklin Graham, repeatedly saying, "Jim Bakker is my friend."

Thanks for the information, I had forgotten that. Did Joseph Smith have any such charges or convictions against him, which resulted in imprisonment? If he was a fraudulent as Bakker, why did he not go to prison?

So let me clarify: You may think I'm "an apologist", but in reality all I am trying to do is show how skewed some views are, and personal, and lack objectivity.

[_MormonMendacity]

Okay, I'll get to the posts I haven't answered. But first, all I am trying to do is show that Joseph Smith is not an easily defined "fraud".

Few things are easily defined. Case in point: God.

But I do agree with you that the debate is whether he was or not and the evidence appears in my opinion to fall on the side of fraud. The non-pious kind.

If this was such an obvious fraud, why couldn't Quincy see it? After all he met Joseph Smith. And note the last paragraph. He stood "helpless before the puzzle". And Quincy was no dope. Okay, so Joseph bamboozled Quincy, right? he used his charisma to hypnotise him.

If you will concede it's possible that he did use "...his charisma to hypnotise [Quincy]." I will concede that it's possible Joseph was deluded into believing he was directed by spirits to do what he did.

But I'm afraid that I feel no different about him if he genuinely believed he was guided to bed young women, be a crook and lie about his perversions.

[_MormonMendacity]

Let me engage in the same reasoning the apologists do:

What about the persecution? The tarring and feathering. The apostasies, the betrayals.

Are you talking about the people he betrayed? Many criminals have been tarred and feathered and still continued to be criminals.

You're on a different wavelength here. But let me ask you to clarify. You consider Joseph Smith a criminal because of the 1826 trial, is that right?

Are you asking me if he is a convicted criminal or just a criminal? I think he didn't get convicted many times -- but he was still a criminal. What's your point?

I think the Bakkers did a lot of crying. I know Robert Tilton did. "What ere thou art act well thy part!"

Yes, after they were caught. Tilton made some $24 million. He would have had a lot to cry about.

Have you read the Quorum of the Fifty minutes? Why not? I'll tell you why: because they are under lock and key in the Church Archives. We can only speculate about the incriminating evidence they hold. The Joseph Smith Papers do expose some pretty damaging stuff but I think he was acting. I think he kept up the charade in his private writings.

Yes, and you can also speculate about MA&D (FAIR) ad nauseam and be wrong most of the time. You can speculate in a sensational way about anything, to your hearts content, if it titillates your sense of "I am right". by the way, I think there are elves on Saturn.

We may only get to speculate -- because the Church hid and hides the truth. We are left to wonder how much of the Joseph Smith papers are revealed.

I don't view the Joseph Smith Papers the way you do, apparently. And I don't have any "interests" to preserve. I have nothing to protect or defend, and I'm fine with my LDS experience, which is over, and I'm not angry in any way.

I don't think I accused you of preserving any interests.

And finally, he's dead at 38. Is this what you call gain?

Uh...I don't think that was part of his plan. I think he hoped the con would survive like it had so many times before.

No, it certainly wasn't, so then he gained nothing by losing his life at 38. That's what I'm asking, where is all this "gain"? What did he have to gain by being a fraud?

Wives, followers who gave him financial support. Isn't that enough? I think that's "gain".

Bakker was indicted on federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering. In 1989, after trial in Charlotte, Judge Robert Potter convicted Bakker of fraud and conspiring to commit fraud and sentenced him to 45 years in federal prison. Bakker's associate, Richard Dortch, senior vice-president of PTL and associate pastor of Heritage Village Church, also went to prison. In 1992, Bakker and his wife Tammy Faye were divorced at her request. Billy Graham visited Bakker in prison, as did his son, Franklin Graham, repeatedly saying, "Jim Bakker is my friend."

Thanks for the information, I had forgotten that. Did Joseph Smith have any such charges or convictions against him, which resulted in imprisonment? If he was a fraudulent as Bakker, why did he not go to prison?

So let me clarify: You may think I'm "an apologist", but in reality all I am trying to do is show how skewed some views are, and personal, and lack objectivity.

I don't think you're an apologist but I think you might be taking half the evidence into account. All the things I've presented confirm to me that he lacked piety. I conclude that he was acting to support the fraud. That he received ill-gotten gains. That it backfired -- just like it often does for other frauds. This time he didn't get away with it. He tried to dispatch the Nauvoo militia to come to his rescue. It didn't work or he might have absconded.

[_Ray A]

But I'm afraid that I feel no different about him if he genuinely believed he was guided to bed young women, be a crook and lie about his perversions.

Okay let me take one point at a time.

Question: How many young women did Joseph Smith "bed"? I would like a figure, and I would like to know who they are. If you don't have a figure, and you don't know who they are, you don't have a case. It may be necessary to go back to many sources to establish this, so you can take all the time you want on this question. I can wait. I want to see the historical evidence, and if there's no evidence, it's nothing but hearsay. Rumour.

I have to go out for a while anyway, but if you want to start a new thread on this subject, please do so. Present your case, along with the historical evidences. Hopefully we can do this objectively and without rancour, if you're up to it. I'm prepared to learn if you're prepared to provide me with the hard evidence.

[_aussieguy55]

Ray, if you check out the site MinistryWatch.com you will find information on the various ministries financial and theological aspects. Billy Graham is dealt with candidly. He is paid $200,000 a year. The board is independent. Others like Joyce Meyer's Ministries do not do so well and have been investigated by the IRS for excessive renumeration for people who run what is supposed to be a non-profit org. This same woman spoke from the same stand your favourite politician John Howard spoke. She claims God made her rich, members of her board consist of members of her family, she has expensive cars, homes, holiday homes etc. Of course some of the $100 million her working class women adoring audience contribute does go on oversease aid.
About Graham visiting Baker etc, Bill Hybels from Willow Creek Church had Bill Clinton over, and some Evangelical pastors like Tony Campalo acted as persons who can be spiritual guides, being there when times were tough. Sexual addiction is something many people suffer from, some are there to help them

[_Ray A]

I don't think you're an apologist but I think you might be taking half the evidence into account. All the things I've presented confirm to me that he lacked piety. I conclude that he was acting to support the fraud. That he received ill-gotten gains. That it backfired -- just like it often does for other frauds. This time he didn't get away with it. He tried to dispatch the Nauvoo militia to come to his rescue. It didn't work or he might have absconded.

I've done a considerable amount of reading over the past 23 years. I started with the basic History of the Church, working my way through all seven volumes, and when I read the Bennett episode that's when I decided to read more, and Signature Books made a good living from me since then. There is very little I am not aware of. However, I don't claim that my view is "the right one", it's just that - my view.

I'm not going to try to persuade you to change your view either, I'm only telling you what mine is, as PP asked me these questions. If you believe it's a fraud, that's fine with me. A considerable number of posters here also believe as you do.
While going through some of my old saved documents I came across a post Dan Vogel did on FAIR, and I thought it was so insightful and balanced that I'd like to repost part of it here. This was posted on 26 June, 2006. The Brent he's referring to is Brent Metcalfe:

Neither Brent nor I want to tear down Mormonism. Our concerns are intellectual, not institutional. We seek only to understand our heritage, and want to share what we find.....

We don’t believe Mormons are brainwashed or under thought control. Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon witnesses is another matter. Anyone who rejects Mormonism basically implies this alternate explanation. There aren’t many options here. All I have done is give the view a voice......

Of course, I don’t see myself as anti-Mormon any more than you see yourself as anti-non-Mormon. I don’t have a cause. I have a passion for studying Mormon history, and I like writing about what I find, but I don’t tell anyone to leave the church......

My experience in the church was for the most part very beneficial to me in my youth. Brent has expressed to me similar views. Also, Brent and I are concerned with what we see on the RFM board. Their judgments on Joseph Smith are far too harsh, in our view. The level of anger expressed there is hard for us to identify with.

I don't agree with all of Dan's views, but I think this approach to the study of Mormonism is highly commendable.

PS: I share their view of RFM.

[_Ray A]

Ray, if you check out the site MinistryWatch.com you will find information on the various ministries financial and theological aspects. Billy Graham is dealt with candidly. He is paid $200,000 a year. The board is independent. Others like Joyce Meyer's Ministries do not do so well and have been investigated by the IRS for excessive renumeration for people who run what is supposed to be a non-profit org. This same woman spoke from the same stand your favourite politician John Howard spoke. She claims God made her rich, members of her board consist of members of her family, she has expensive cars, homes, holiday homes etc. Of course some of the $100 million her working class women adoring audience contribute does go on oversease aid.

I thought Mormons were the only ones who claim that "God made us rich"? As for Billy, that's a nice retirement sum for serving Jesus. At least Billy escaped crucifixion and assassins' bullets.

So God makes us rich? I'll have to do some shopping around and see if any gods out there can make me a better offer. And if they can't, maybe Dawkins can help me.

[_Polygamy Porter]

So entertain my inquiry Ray, You believe the Book of Mormon to be the divine word of a God? Do you believe that Joe was not a charlatan? So you believe that one book authored(in part) by old Joe to be divine, but what about the other books that he wrote like the Book of Abraham, Moses, D&C???

It is what I believe, yes. I believe that for people in a spiritual frame of mind (who want to live that way) it's a real spiritual booster. Now don't get me wrong, I am no holy man, I live a very worldly life now and wouldn't qualify to be a Mormon, much less go to the temple. But I cannot forget how the Book of Mormon was my anchor in stronger times. It gave me the strength to resist temptation and to live a far better life. So to me it's not a fraud, and I believe it came to Joseph Smith through a process of automatic writing, not translation. However, for all those who consider it a fraud, that's their choice. I don't try to convince them otherwise. I don't contribute to FARMS or any apologetics.

"Joe" was not a charlatan, in my opinion. Dan Vogel has outlined how he believes Joseph Smith was a "pious fraud". I've had some discussions with Dan about this, and he has said that painting Joseph Smith as an outright fraud is too simplistic. It does not account for other aspects of his character. If anything I think Joseph had some delusions and misconceptions, and he was far from perfect, but I do not believe that he deliberately set out to deceive people. I think he really believed in what he was doing. To give an example, I knew a lady in 1981 who predicted that the second coming would occur in 1992. She was adamant that this was a specific revelation to her. I believed she was wrong, and told her so. In December 1992, after I was out of the church, I wrote her and asked if she still believed her prophecy. She wrote back saying, "1992 is not over yet". Would you say she was a fraud? I think she believed this until ten seconds before midnight on December 31st 1992. The "fraud" labels are sometimes too explicit and thrown about flippantly, especially in the religious arena.

Thank you for the reply.

Do you think that Warren Jeffs knows he is being deceitful for personal gain or do you feel he believes it himself?

You state that you believe the Book of Mormon came to Joe through "automatic writing". So the gold plates have no significance to you? Why would you accept in the divinity of his automatic writing of the Book of Mormon but not others, like the Book of Abraham or Moses?

[_Polygamy Porter]

Haggard did have very strong spiritual experiences, so he would claim that "God spoke" to him. In the sense that he was the leader of 30 million Evangelicals, I am sure many considered him a prophet, among his congregation. No, he gave no new revelation, but he taught that homosexuality was wrong, sinful, and would lead to hell - while he was visiting a gay man.

So by your definition Haggard was a fraud. Agreed, or not?

I don't think so - in the same sense that I don't think Hinckley is a fraud. Hinkley probably truly believes what he's doing, and I don't think he's claimed to have any personal visits with God, nor received something tangible from god. So I don't think he's a fraud.

Joseph Smith on the other hand is a totally different story.

Hinckley has made a living at fraud. He was the first major spin doctor that they hired. Many of the media crap we grew up with came from his sick little mind.

He never saw any proof of divinity, yet he continued to promote it. That is out right fraud in my book.