The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_why me]

Not to mention the wrath of all those friends and family who had joined the church because of their "witness".

That may explain one witness but not when there are 11 involved. These guys were not cowards. To give a testimony throughout one's life because of being afraid of a another person's wrath seems like a wasted life. And it is completely crazy.

[_why me]

Most of the witnesses apostatized. The 8 would have been easy to fool for an accomplished conman, only the 3 would need have been "in on it". I would presume that they were afraid of the consequences, either legal (fraud) or extra-legal (retribution).

Hardly. These guys were no mooks. They were men of steel. I cannot see them being afraid of anything as you assume. First, to go through life with a lie out of fear is nonsense. Eventually, someone would have spilled the beans, especially on a deathbed. Remember the saints went west after Joseph was murdered. Why would david whitmer have fear or anyone else who stayed behind. Most members would have welcomed the news that it was all a fraud, if it were a fraud.

[_why me]

No, my dear, it is you who misunderstands the point.

Just as the phony faith healer and Paul Dunn were eventually exposed as frauds, all frauds—in time—get exposed. It is the nature of the beast. Oh, sure, some very private frauds/crimes/deceptions can go undetected for a long, long time—perhaps even until judgment day. But in the case of frauds involving more than one person, the likelihood of ultimate exposure is almost certain, and the more people who must be involved in the fraud increases the likelihood of exposure exponentially.

In the case of frauds involving several people, it is possible to keep the lid on when the whole thing is on the ascent; when times are good and the money, power, and flesh is flowing in abundance. But as soon as things go bad, the roaches will run for cover; it’s every man for himself. That’s when “the rest of the story” usually comes out. And yet, at the point in 1839 when it looked like the jig was up, none of the principals broke, even those who became alienated from Joseph Smith, like Whitmer, Cowdery, and others.

.

So true...all so true. critics just can't seem to get it. I think that many suffer from cogdis. What makes Mormonism so interesting and faith promoting is its early history. How so many could be involved and not spill the beans is noteworthy. God must have seen the future. He required more than three witnesses. And this is what makes Mormonism very convincing.

[_why me]

Smith started believing in his own con, which made him all the more dangerous. See Jim Jones and Vernon Howell for other examples.

Is this a joke? Trust me...if he were a con, he suddenly didn't begin to think that his con was not actually a con but truth. Smith went to his death with two volunteers, his brother among the two who also died. Sorry, he was no jim jones. Even at the end of the Mormon war, he recognized his mistakes. Try again with such comparisons.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've had a chuckle this afternoon over the apologists' sugeestions that all academic journals are equally corrupt and this justifies an admitted rigged peer-review system at FARMS.

This sort of transparently obvious and tendentious misreading seems to be absolutely endemic to Scratches.

I've neither said that "all academic journals are equally corrupt" (nor even suggested that they were corrupt in any way at all) nor "admitted" to a "rigged peer-review system at FARMS."

And, anyway, hasn't Scratch Junior gotten the memo from Scratch Senior, posted just above? "I only criticize the stuff that needs criticizing," said the supreme Scratchite judge, jury, and executioner. "Do you see me hammering on Terryl Givens or Richard Bushman or David Bokovoy? Do you see me criticizing the FARMS works that are more scholarly in nature?" His target is the evil FARMS Review, not FARMS as a whole. Or so he seems to have said, once.

Do I detect dissension in Scratchworld? An impending schism?

[_why me]

And, anyway, hasn't Scratch Junior gotten the memo from Scratch Senior, posted just above? "I only criticize the stuff that needs criticizing," said the supreme Scratchite judge, jury, and executioner. "Do I detect dissension in Scratchworld? An impending schism?

I don't think that Scratch Junior is his name. I think that Wormwood would be more likely. And they are not father and son but uncle and nephew. And scratch is an alias for screwtape.

[_Gadianton]

I've neither said that "all academic journals are equally corrupt"

I never said that you did. A transparent misreading of your own. You aren't the only apologist posting in this thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've neither said that "all academic journals are equally corrupt"

I never said that you did. A transparent misreading of your own. You aren't the only apologist posting in this thread.

I understand that. But you used the word apologists. That's with an s. That's plural. In English, anyway. To whom were you referring?

Now, I assume that you had Bob Crockett in mind. But Bob Crockett is an individual. If he's an apologist, he's an apologist with only one s. (That's singular.) And anyway, unless I'm very much mistaken, Bob Crockett didn't say or even "suggest" that "all academic journals are equally corrupt." I don't think he said that any journals were or are corrupt.

Nor could he have "admitted" to a "rigged peer-review system at FARMS," since, as a matter of fact, he's not a part of our peer-review system. He can no more admit to our alleged academic wrongdoings than I can "admit" to Scratch's very real and malevolent acts.

So appealing to Bob Crockett isn't going to save you.

[_beastie]

Now, one thing interesting about this situation is that when citizens of country A question the doings of their leaders, the powers that be respond with propoganda aimed to show that they've merely done what's necessary, and that country B is just as bad, just as narrow and ideologically driven in their own agendas. Country B on the other hand, would never in a million years try and justify any wrongs they've done by comparing themselves to country A.

This is one reason why I always think it's extremely funny when religionists try to belittle or diminish atheism and/or science by pretending they're "religions".

[_beastie]

Is this a joke? Trust me...if he were a con, he suddenly didn't begin to think that his con was not actually a con but truth. Smith went to his death with two volunteers, his brother among the two who also died. Sorry, he was no jim jones. Even at the end of the Mormon war, he recognized his mistakes. Try again with such comparisons.

First, Joseph Smith tried his best to escape death. He first tried to run away, and only returned after Emma shamed him into returning. Then he tried to shoot his way out of the dilemma.

Aside from that, let’s use the Paul Dunn example again to help you understand pious fraud.

While I’m not a mind-reader, I’ve never seen any information that would indicate that Paul Dunn did not genuinely believe in the LDS church. So the first point is:

1) Paul Dunn genuinely believed in the LDS church.

I’ve also never seen any information that would indicate that Paul Dunn was insane in some way, in that he was unable to recognize that the stories he was telling were not actually true, but were fiction. So the second point is:

2) Paul Dunn knew the stories he was telling were not true.

I think those two points are beyond debate. The third point is where we begin to have to speculate, as you are asking us to do on this thread. Why did Paul Dunn lie? Why did he enact a fraud on the LDS people? Maybe there was a bit of ego involved, and a desire for attention. After all, he was famous as the best speaker in the LDS church, and in extremely high demand. He certainly sold quite a few books, so maybe there was some financial incentive. Most importantly, he could see that his stories encouraged faith in the LDS church. People told him, over and over, how he strengthened their testimonies. And they also told him how the SPIRIT bore witness of the truth of the things he was teaching.

3) Paul Dunn could see a positive effect of his lies. The SPIRIT testified to the larger truth of what he was teaching, despite the lies.

It seems to me not only possible, but probable and likely, that Paul Dunn quieted his conscience by convincing himself that this small act of dishonesty on his part was completely justified due to the fact that he was able to strengthen the testimonies of so many people. In fact, it seems to me not only possible, but probable and likely, that Paul Dunn convinced himself the Lord approved of his behavior.

4) Paul Dunn was able to convince himself that the Lord approved of his behavior.

This is what people mean when they say Joseph Smith convinced himself of the con. Maybe at the beginning, Joseph Smith acted largely out of self-interest. His family was extremely poor, and he wasn’t interested in a life of hard-labor with poverty as the only reward. He had a talent in that he was able to persuade people to believe in his supernatural claims, as his treasure-digging career demonstrates. Like all human beings, he likely began to think of how to utilize his natural talents to improve his life circumstances.

However, as time went on, he could see that people were genuinely religiously moved by him. They told him the Spirit testified of the truth of what he was teaching. He could see them doing what he believed they should be doing, anyway – trying to be closer to God and follow Jesus. Just as with Paul Dunn, it seems not only possible but probable and likely that Joseph Smith convinced himself the Lord approved of his behavior.

One more point using Paul Dunn. Why didn’t Paul just confess, once he realized he was at risk of being exposed? The answer seems simple and obvious. He thought he could keep getting away with it, and the negative consequence of confession was a price he was not willing to pay.

People who engage in criminal or fraudulent behavior usually do not actually believe they’re going to be caught. They believe they can continue getting away with it. By the time it becomes clear they’re not going to get away with it, it’s just too late.

Hardly. These guys were no mooks. They were men of steel. I cannot see them being afraid of anything as you assume. First, to go through life with a lie out of fear is nonsense. Eventually, someone would have spilled the beans, especially on a deathbed. Remember the saints went west after Joseph was murdered. Why would david whitmer have fear or anyone else who stayed behind. Most members would have welcomed the news that it was all a fraud, if it were a fraud.

You cannot be serious. Most members would have welcomed the news that it was all a fraud???? These members gave all their material goods to the church, left their homes and often their families for the church. These members sometimes engaged in behavior they would otherwise never have considered (spiritual wifery), and behavior they knew would exile them from the larger society. These members sometimes suffered great physical pain, and watched family members die, due to actions they would never have engaged in if they thought the church wasn't true.

And you think they would have welcomed the news that it was all a fraud???

I think they would have hunted Joseph down and killed him themselves.

How would you feel if you had given all your material goods, and watched your family members die or be killed for a cause, only then to be told by the founder of the cause, "hey, it was all a hoax"??????

You seriously think you would WELCOME that news??????

by the way, did you ever address the fact that Joseph Smith went out of his way to slander and libel the witnesses as soon as they started to turn??? He clearly was determined to convince members not to listen to these men. To repeat one of my earlier points:

Joseph Smith and other church leaders described the three witnesses as: too mean to mention and below warrant of notice, braying ass, having a lying, deceptive spirit, given to all sorts of malicious and criminal behavior including abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery, counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs, scoundrels of the deepest degree.