Not Your Standard First Vision Thread

[MG 2.0]

And you are right, I do not ascribe much in the way of good will towards Joseph’s intentions. But I think the historical record bears that out.

I think this is a common thread among those that are unable to take Joseph at his word. I wonder if you might flesh this out a bit more and say what you are actually thinking.

If there is such a thing as a “pious fraud,” I’d put Rigdon in that category. And maybe Alvin.

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also? By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right? The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds". If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds. I know you're saying "pious fraud", but it's a fraud nonetheless. How expansive/far are you willing to go with this?

Lastly, the King Follett discourse does reflect Joseph’s ambition, yes. To be god.

One might also look at the King Follett discourse as laying out the potential of God's children. That He would actually desire to give them all that He has. What Father would not want that for their child?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Huck (and MG), while this thread isn’t about Joseph’s character, since I brought it up, I figure I owe you a little more than the reductive view from earlier.

I made a list once, in response to someone who asked me if I saw anything “good” about Joseph. The list read something like concern for his followers, commitment to morality, capable of forgiveness and compassion, and sincerity, all based on historical accounts. His letters, others’ comments, and church documents, that sort of thing.

I think Joseph showed compassion mixed with ambition. The same man who could comfort the sick or forgive former enemies also used those moments to tighten his hold on the movement.

His letters from Liberty Jail and his reconciliation with people like W. W. Phelps read as genuine emotion, yet they also reinforce his prophetic authority.

That tension, the instinct to care and the instinct to command, feels like part of his nature. It’s what makes him fascinating: sincerity used as a tool. I can see why people believed him, though perhaps I am a bit (ok a lot) more skeptical.

I think of Joseph’s public actions as “performed sincerity.” While I wasn’t there to witness it myself, the writings occasionally “overdo it.”

You can see how performed sincerity works in Joseph’s public forgiveness of enemies.

After Cowdery’s excommunication in 1838, Joseph publicly forgave Cowdery and others to restore unity. His letters often adopt a Nephi stance humble, conciliatory, yet unmistakably in control of the terms of peace.

In each case, Joseph’s forgiveness achieves three things at once: moral elevation (he appears compassionate), narrative control (he defines the terms of restoration), and institutional consolidation (his authority emerges stronger after crisis).

I see the Nephi stance of “humble confessions” as Joseph’s mask of Abel, a strategy to cover the will of Cain, which typology plays an outsized role in LDS works.

[Marcus]

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also? By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right? The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds". If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds.

This is quite the display of illogical and contradictory thinking.

First, there is the assumption that a group of 2 is easier to understand, therefore, by default, it must be a group larger than 2.

Wrong.

Next, there is the assumption that if a group is larger than 2, it must be possible that the group is not that large.

Wrong again.

Last, there is the assumption that if a group is not larger than 2 it must be possible that the group has 0 elements.

Really, really wrong.

To sum up, the mental gymnastics of this argument are that a group of 2 must be larger than 2, AND, if a group is larger than 2 it must be possible that it's NOT larger than 2, AND, if it's a group of 2 it must be possible it's a group of less than 2.

Having to start with the assumption that one's conclusion is true wreaks havoc on logical thought processes.

[I Have Questions]

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also?

I don’t see why you would need to. Or why others need to be dragged into a thread that isn’t about them.

By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right?

That might be true for your mind, but you shouldn’t insinuate that others share your personal struggle with cognition and comprehension.

The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds".

Why? Why can’t more than two people all be pious frauds?

If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds.

If one person in a large group isn’t a pious fraud, that suggests none of them are pious frauds? You are really really bad at logic.

I know you're saying "pious fraud", but it's a fraud nonetheless.

You think it’s a fraud?

How expansive/far are you willing to go with this?

I guess you’ll find out over time.

[malkie]

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also?

I don’t see why you would need to. Or why others need to be dragged into a thread that isn’t about them.

By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right?

That might be true for your mind, but you shouldn’t insinuate that others share your personal struggle with cognition and comprehension.

The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds".

Why? Why can’t more than two people all be pious frauds?

If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds.

If one person in a large group isn’t a pious fraud, that suggests none of them are pious frauds? You are really really bad at logic.

I know you're saying "pious fraud", but it's a fraud nonetheless.

You think it’s a fraud?

How expansive/far are you willing to go with this?

I guess you’ll find out over time.

It reminds me a bit of the guy who, for safety, snuck a b*mb onto a plane. After all, he reasoned, the probability of two b*mbs on a plane is so much less than the probability of one.

[Limnor]

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also? By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right? The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds". If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds.

This is quite the display of illogical and contradictory thinking.

First, there is the assumption that a group of 2 is easier to understand, therefore, by default, it must be a group larger than 2.

Wrong.

Next, there is the assumption that if a group is larger than 2, it must be possible that the group is not that large.

Wrong again.

Last, there is the assumption that if a group is not larger than 2 it must be possible that the group has 0 elements.

Really, really wrong.

To sum up, the mental gymnastics of this argument are that a group of 2 must be larger than 2, AND, if a group is larger than 2 it must be possible that it's NOT larger than 2, AND, if it's a group of 2 it must be possible it's a group of less than 2.

Having to start with the assumption that one's conclusion is true wreaks havoc on logical thought processes.

I think MG is going for the “there are too many people in the know for it to remain secret” defense.

Having served in naval intelligence for over 20+ years, and within the intelligence community for an additional 15 years, I can assure you that large numbers of people can in fact keep secrets. Especially if there is a stake in it.

[Limnor]

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also?

I don’t see why you would need to. Or why others need to be dragged into a thread that isn’t about them.

By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right?

That might be true for your mind, but you shouldn’t insinuate that others share your personal struggle with cognition and comprehension.

The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds".

Why? Why can’t more than two people all be pious frauds?

If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds.

If one person in a large group isn’t a pious fraud, that suggests none of them are pious frauds? You are really really bad at logic.

I know you're saying "pious fraud", but it's a fraud nonetheless.

You think it’s a fraud?

How expansive/far are you willing to go with this?

I guess you’ll find out over time.

The count so far:

Joseph Smith: Nephi, Mormon, Alma the Younger, Ammoron, Mosiah II, Helam

Alvin Smith: Zeniff, Abinadi, Laban

Oliver Cowdery: Alma the Elder, Amulon, Seantum

Sidney Rigdon: King Benjamin, Mosiah I, Moroni

Martin Harris: Limhi

David Whitmer: King Lamoni, Amulek, leader of the Amelikites/Amilicites, and etc

Parley P. Pratt: Ammon, pahoran, Pacumeni, Paanchi

Joseph Smith Sr: Lehi

8 people.

I’ll get to the others.

[Limnor]

If there is such a thing as a “pious fraud,” I’d put Rigdon in that category. And maybe Alvin.

MG wrote: In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also? By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right? The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds". If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds. I know you're saying "pious fraud", but it's a fraud nonetheless. How expansive/far are you willing to go with this?

If you read carefully you’ll notice I said “if there is such a thing.” I think Alvin’s motive was noble. Rigdon let pride cloud his judgment but I think he originally meant well.

I’ll let it go as far as the text takes me, as most of what I have been saying is predicated by the book being “true.”

So far I count eight collaborators.

[Marcus]

This is quite the display of illogical and contradictory thinking.

First, there is the assumption that a group of 2 is easier to understand, therefore, by default, it must be a group larger than 2.

Wrong.

Next, there is the assumption that if a group is larger than 2, it must be possible that the group is not that large.

Wrong again.

Last, there is the assumption that if a group is not larger than 2 it must be possible that the group has 0 elements.

Really, really wrong.

To sum up, the mental gymnastics of this argument are that a group of 2 must be larger than 2, AND, if a group is larger than 2 it must be possible that it's NOT larger than 2, AND, if it's a group of 2 it must be possible it's a group of less than 2.

Having to start with the assumption that one's conclusion is true wreaks havoc on logical thought processes.

I think MG is going for the “there are too many people in the know for it to remain secret” defense.

MG will post absolutely anything that he thinks supports his religion, regardless of how illogical, nonsensical, and absurd his arguments are. Trying to bring a realistic sense of meaning and intent to his posts inevitably results in giving him far too much credit for coherent thought.

Having served in naval intelligence for over 20+ years, and within the intelligence community for an additional 15 years, I can assure you that large numbers of people can in fact keep secrets. Especially if there is a stake in it.

You don't need to assure me of anything that is as self-evident as that.

[Limnor]

One might also look at the King Follett discourse as laying out the potential of God's children. That He would actually desire to give them all that He has. What Father would not want that for their child?

Regards,
MG

A loving father gives freely, yes, but love implies honesty and consistency.

While I am not LDS nor ever have been, I’ve known enough Mormons and been on discussion boards long enough to understand that the god described in Mormon theology seems more transactional than tender.

That god demands loyalty to an ever-changing system that withholds information and affection until worthiness through obedience to arbitrary rules is proven.

Yes, the King Follett Discourse presents the idea of divine potential, but the relationship it describes feels less like a loving parent nurturing a child and more like a ruler grooming subjects for hierarchy.