Joseph Lied: Why The Afore's Joseph Smith Trilemma Is A Logical Dead End

[Gadianton]

If I had to put my money on it I'd go with Joseph Smith as a run-of-the-mill sociopathic confidence man. That may not be too different from Vogel's Pious Fraud, I don't know. anti-social types are quite charismatic, are often destined for leadership roles, and most certainly don't deliberate over a lie like the rest of us. I've known at least three pathological liars who were either narcissistic or on their way to sociopathology. I've listened to these types tell me the most absurd things you can imagine with a straight face. As Kish said, some of his lies are on record. So we know he lied

If the case he lays out re: Joseph Smith is so simple and persuasive, then why haven't any of these folks bought into it?

I think this about the best argument there is against Dan's "scholarliness" arguments. The only great scholars who believe Joseph Smith were born Mormon.

[Res Ipsa]

The trilemma is a parlor trick intended to evade the burden to prove that Smith was truthful. It also commits the fallacy of the excluded middle: people cannot be neatly classified into the three categories. Smith obviously said some things that were true, but that doesn’t mean that everything he said was true. He may have been basically sane, yet became delusional about his status as a prophet.

Pure, reductionist tripe.

[malkie]

The trilemma is a parlor trick intended to evade the burden to prove that Smith was truthful. It also commits the fallacy of the excluded middle: people cannot be neatly classified into the three categories. Smith obviously said some things that were true, but that doesn’t mean that everything he said was true. He may have been basically sane, yet became delusional about his status as a prophet.

Pure, reductionist tripe.

It may take a bit of work/thought and courage to consider or un-exclude the ignored "middle" areas. The trickster doesn't want them acknowledged, because the idea is to avoid having people think about them at all. Once the trickster has to admit that these areas exist, their x-lemma becomes much less convincing.

[I Have Questions]

As you can imagine, Peterson jumps to his own defence and explains that of course he didn’t mean that Joseph never lied, but instead now deceitfully suggests that Joseph’s lies were either harmless and trivial, or vitally essential. His comparison examples are a little staggering in their unsuitability.

Now, is this too simple? Yes. Of course it is. Does it lack the proper nuancing? Yes, it obviously does. I use the trilemma as a heuristic device. By oversimplifying, I hope to clarify. It’s rather like looking at a map in lieu of an aerial photograph — even though, as the late University of Chicago historian of religion Jonathan Z. Smith liked to point out, “map is not territory.” (For another approach to this topic, still not fully fleshed-out or nuanced but coming from a somewhat different angle, see my 2016 FAIR presentation, “The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve.”)

So I will expand just a bit on what I said, in the first of what may turn out to be several “footnotes” to the passage cited above:

With Option 1 (“He was lying”), I was referring to his sincerity in his fundamental claims. I was not claiming that he never, ever, said anything that wasn’t true or that he never told a lie. There is probably no living person who has never told a lie of one sort or another. And even good people sometimes lie, sometimes with very good reason. “Does this dress make me look fat?” “Don’t you think that my boyfriend is handsome?” “How do you like the meal?” Sometimes, the appropriate answer is not the bluntly honest one. When visiting a gravely ill person, or attempting to comfort a seriously wounded person, the best comment won’t often be “You look absolutely terrible, Christine.” Sometimes it will be “You’re looking better” or “You’re going to be alright.” In a case where a person who has been gravely injured in an accident emerges precariously from a coma and asks about his wife and children, it might not be optimal to respond immediately “Oh, they all died!” If he is asked whether the D-Day invasion will occur on the beaches at Normandy on 6 June 1944, General Eisenhower’s best answer might not be “Why, yes! How clever of you to figure it out!” If the Gestapo asks whether you’re hiding Jews in the attic, responding that, “Yes, there’s a family of five up there, just take the stairs to your right” may not represent the moral ideal.

He also pretends to address the lies Joseph told regarding the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham…

In order to illustrate Joseph Smith’s alleged dishonesty, some critics will point to his claims regarding the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and similar matters. But that’s to beg the question. The truth and authenticity of his prophetic claims are precisely what is at issue.

Others, more seriously, will point to Joseph’s denials that he was practicing plural marriage when, in fact, he was. In those cases, he does indeed seem to have been prevaricating or obfuscating, rather in the same way that the patriarch Abraham (“the friend of God,” “the father of the faithful”) does in Genesis 12 and Genesis 20 when he disguises his actual relationship with his wife, Sarai or Sarah, from, respectively, Pharaoh in Egypt and Abimelek, the king of Gerar. (For an interesting discussion of the morality of the case of Abraham, see Thomas W. Mackay, “Abraham in Egypt: A Collation of Evidence for the Case of the Missing Wife,” BYU Studies Quarterly 10/4 [1970]: 429-451.)

Even if one takes the worst possible view of Joseph Smith’s behavior in the matter of early Latter-day Saint plural marriage — a practice that obviously put him and his church and community at potentially very grave risk — I think it still completely reasonable to argue that he held his religious views with entire sincerity. And, in fact, this is precisely what, in my judgment, the materials published in Dean Jessee’s two-volume edition of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith and, subsequently, in the Joseph Smith Papers project do show. Joseph seems to have really believed.

…without ever really doing so. You will note his misuse of the phrase “But that’s to beg the question” in reference to critics “raising the question” about Joseph’s claims about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. He does deliberately I think, because he doesn’t want to go there. No KJV Bible plagiarism defence eh Dan? I guess that’s just a little too close to home for you…

[Kishkumen]

I actually do believe that Joseph Smith was sincere about his claims. Unfortunately, that doesn't make his behavior regarding polygamy any better in my mind. He did atrocious things in connection with polygamy. The idea that religious people are sincere when they do disturbing things is not really comforting, and that is the price the devoted have to pay for breaking the rules of society to follow their inspiration. In other words, we know that Joseph would lie to protect his aberrant practice of marrying multiple women, some teens and some of them already married to other men. That is frankly not the kind of society I want to live in. Had I lived then and known about it, I would likely have left Mormonism. I would not have been honored to be sent on a mission to have Joseph Smith move on my wife when I was gone.

[I Have Questions]

I actually do believe that Joseph Smith was sincere about his claims. Unfortunately, that doesn't make his behavior regarding polygamy any better in my mind. He did atrocious things in connection with polygamy. The idea that religious people are sincere when they do disturbing things is not really comforting, and that is the price the devoted have to pay for breaking the rules of society to follow their inspiration. In other words, we know that Joseph would lie to protect his aberrant practice of marrying multiple women, some teens and some of them already married to other men. That is frankly not the kind of society I want to live in. Had I lived then and known about it, I would likely have left Mormonism. I would not have been honored to be sent on a mission to have Joseph Smith move on my wife when I was gone.

You actually believe that Joseph was genuinely sincere when he said an angel with a drawn sword was forcing him against his own wishes into relationships with lots of women and children behind his wife's back? You believe he was genuinely sincere in his recounting of getting golden plates? For reference, I'm treating "sincere" in its commonly accepted definition of "free from pretence or deceit". Even if we soften it to be "meant well", I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that Joseph meant well when he coerced a 14 year old girl into a relationship with him, or when he tried to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. But I'm willing to listen to your arguments that have left you concluding the opposite.

[PseudoPaul]

Hi literally got his friends to sign an affidavit for him, lying about his status as a polygamist.

[Gadianton]

You actually believe that Joseph was genuinely sincere when he said an angel with a drawn sword was forcing him against his own wishes into relationships with lots of women and children behind his wife's back?

Yes and no, because a universal definition of "sincerity" is hard to come by. Dan ruins his own trilemma as soon as he introduces the possibility of people lying (insincere in one way) for the greater good (sincere in another) as they see it. Even that dissolves into further ambiguity when defining the greater good, as in some cases, the greater good is the psychological wellbeing of a spouse, but in others, the greater good is the for the person lying with the side benefit of temporary psychological wellbeing of the spouse. (lying about clothing vs. lying about cheating). Once you get into cluster B disorders, can sincerity mean the same thing as it does for a person with normal psychology? It doesn't mean we shouldn't put such people into prison, however it strains the "lunatic, liar, lord" heuristic to the breaking point.

I sat across from a 400 pound AT&T executive once who told me all about his side business as an elite martial arts instructor, he himself having mastered "van Damme" style moves (his exact wording in quotes), who took on students such as some African pit fighter champion who was stuck and unable to progress without van Damme jr's help. Somehow, that conversation morphs into the Stake Center of his last residence in Idaho that contained four indoor swimming pools. He was trying to be friendly and helpful, he was actually trying to do me a favor by having the conversation. Wife, family, great job; just goes to show that that the JSs of the world are actually a dime a dozen.

Dan ought to try out his trilemma on Bob Lazar and see what he comes up with.

I do think it would be difficult to explain Joseph Smith as "sincere" within one standard deviation of the mean of a normal psychological profile, however.

[Kishkumen]

You actually believe that Joseph was genuinely sincere when he said an angel with a drawn sword was forcing him against his own wishes into relationships with lots of women and children behind his wife's back? You believe he was genuinely sincere in his recounting of getting golden plates? For reference, I'm treating "sincere" in its commonly accepted definition of "free from pretence or deceit". Even if we soften it to be "meant well", I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that Joseph meant well when he coerced a 14 year old girl into a relationship with him, or when he tried to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. But I'm willing to listen to your arguments that have left you concluding the opposite.

I believe he was sincere in his religious convictions. I think there are explanations for the angel sightings that, when taken into account, help us understand them. These events are, in my opinion, misunderstood. I don't think he was above allowing people to draw their own wrong conclusions based on what he was telling them. I also do believe that there was no small amount of performance in what he was doing. That said, I think undergirding all of that was a serious belief in God, miracles, divine providence, his mission, etc. Some of this material I am unable to talk about because I am relying on unpublished scholarship that has been revealed to me in private conversations. So, I don't believe that the con artist argument holds water, but, then, the simplistic views that the average believing member has about a lot of this stuff also do not withstand scrutiny.

At the end of the day, I am not sure his sincerity is relevant. Gadianton brings up the salient issue of the meaning of sincerity. I am also not of the opinion that sincere belief in destructive things is commendable. Now, when it comes to sincere belief in charity or compassion, I think that's great. Sincere belief that I should marry your wife while you are spreading my ideas in faraway lands is abominable. Sincere belief that I am the vice-regent of God on earth is also highly dubious and potentially dangerous. I simply do not accept sincerity as a defense in se.

[I Have Questions]

You actually believe that Joseph was genuinely sincere when he said an angel with a drawn sword was forcing him against his own wishes into relationships with lots of women and children behind his wife's back? You believe he was genuinely sincere in his recounting of getting golden plates? For reference, I'm treating "sincere" in its commonly accepted definition of "free from pretence or deceit". Even if we soften it to be "meant well", I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that Joseph meant well when he coerced a 14 year old girl into a relationship with him, or when he tried to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. But I'm willing to listen to your arguments that have left you concluding the opposite.

I believe he was sincere in his religious convictions. I think there are explanations for the angel sightings that, when taken into account, help us understand them. These events are, in my opinion, misunderstood. I don't think he was above allowing people to draw their own wrong conclusions based on what he was telling them.

That’s him being a con man.

I also do believe that there was no small amount of performance in what he was doing.

Like a con man?

That said, I think undergirding all of that was a serious belief in God, miracles, divine providence, his mission, etc. Some of this material I am unable to talk about because I am relying on unpublished scholarship that has been revealed to me in private conversations.

Now you’re sounding like a con man!

So, I don't believe that the con artist argument holds water, but, then, the simplistic views that the average believing member has about a lot of this stuff also do not withstand scrutiny.

At the end of the day, I am not sure his sincerity is relevant. Gadianton brings up the salient issue of the meaning of sincerity. I am also not of the opinion that sincere belief in destructive things is commendable. Now, when it comes to sincere belief in charity or compassion, I think that's great. Sincere belief that I should marry your wife while you are spreading my ideas in faraway lands is abominable. Sincere belief that I am the vice-regent of God on earth is also highly dubious and potentially dangerous. I simply do not accept sincerity as a defense in se.

His treasure seeking suggests, strongly, that he was willing to be a con man. Or do you think he sincerely believed he had a rock that was telling him the location of buried treasure?