Question for Dan Vogel regarding the "pious fraud" concept

[I Have Questions]

It seems to me there might have been a process. An escalation of deceit in order to protect an initial fib.Take Nixon as an example of this. When the Watergate burglars were rumbled Nixon initially told a small lie, denying any involvement. From that point bigger and bigger debits became necessary to protect the initial lie - destruction of evidence, pressurising others to corroborate the lie, hush money and other promises, increasingly elaborate cover stories, and then it collapsed. But Nixon held that initial lie to be truth all the way through to the bitter end, no matter what it took. I can see a parallel with Joseph Smith.

Joseph started telling made up stories about the origins of the native Americans, and started telling fibs about being able to find buried treasure, and religion was a growth industry for good orators. You can see how it started and you can see how it escalates over time from there. Did Nixon have good intentions when he ran for President? Probably, but mixed in with strong personal ambitions. In fact I'd suggest the Presidency was just the vehicle for Nixon's personal ambitions, and the good intentions were a necessary part to sell the idea of himself. I'd see Joseph in the same light.

Your post doesn't contradict my opinion.

Just because one started out with small knowing deceptions doesn't mean they weren't, in point of actual fact, knowing deceptions.

I wasn’t trying to contradict your opinion. I was adding to it.

[Philo Sofee]

Indeed.

Although I'm still curious about whether Vogel thinks of Joseph Smith as a knowing vs. unknowing pious fraud, I personally reject either one. The evidence seems crystal clear to me that he wasn't pious at all, but a conscious, knowing, impious fraud for whom religion was merely a tool in order to con his marks.

If you don't have any golden plates, then you KNOW you don't have any golden plates.

Saying "you don't have any golden plates" is not a given and/or necessarily obvious starting point. We've been down this road before. But I guess if you want to hone in on the big "If" in your statement you might have an argument.

I would suggest that given underdetermined data, charity or neutrality about inner piety might be seen as more responsible than asserting “impious fraud” as “crystal clear.”

Regards,
MG

Charity about motives works when the evidence is unclear. But here the evidence points strongly in one direction. Calling it “undetermined” requires overlooking facts that would normally settle the question.

[Philo Sofee]

I would suggest that given underdetermined data, charity or neutrality about inner piety might be seen as more responsible than asserting “impious fraud” as “crystal clear.”

Regards,
MG

Your awkward phrasing makes it difficult to understand what you are saying. I think you are saying - Given evidence that is underdetermined, it would be more responsible to adopt a charitable or neutral stance about someone’s inner piety than to confidently accuse them of “impious fraud.”

So, do you apply that principle to, say, Denver Snuffer? What about the leaders of Scientology? Or L Ron Hubbard himself? What about, say, James Strang?

No, no, no, no, now......we know the modus operandi is to give Joseph maximum breaks, while keeping the harsh judgment with the powerful outcomes in tow for all other comparisons...... the inspired brethren take on it all which Mormons have adapted is "Give brother Joseph a break!" Let's please continue to follow the Brethren they will not lead us astray when the thinking has been done.

[MG 2.0]

Saying "you don't have any golden plates" is not a given and/or necessarily obvious starting point. We've been down this road before. But I guess if you want to hone in on the big "If" in your statement you might have an argument.

I would suggest that given underdetermined data, charity or neutrality about inner piety might be seen as more responsible than asserting “impious fraud” as “crystal clear.”

Regards,
MG

Charity about motives works when the evidence is unclear. But here the evidence points strongly in one direction. Calling it “undetermined” requires overlooking facts that would normally settle the question.

Sorites Paradox/principle may be appropriate to refer to here. We will each 'judge' the pile with different eyes.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Charity about motives works when the evidence is unclear. But here the evidence points strongly in one direction. Calling it “undetermined” requires overlooking facts that would normally settle the question.

Sorites Paradox/principle may be appropriate to refer to here. We will each 'judge' the pile with different eyes.

Are you going to let the troll get away with that, Philo?

Does Sorites Paradox help/excuse Joseph Smith in solving the problem of a missing King's name in Facsimile No. 3?

[Philo Sofee]

Charity about motives works when the evidence is unclear. But here the evidence points strongly in one direction. Calling it “undetermined” requires overlooking facts that would normally settle the question.

Sorites Paradox/principle may be appropriate to refer to here. We will each 'judge' the pile with different eyes.

Regards,
MG

AGAIN?!?!?!?!?! Goddam MG, did you learn NOTHING in the HUGE discussion of why it is irrelevant to stuff like this? I may as well go talk to a brick frickin' wall.

[MG 2.0]

Sorites Paradox/principle may be appropriate to refer to here. We will each 'judge' the pile with different eyes.

Regards,
MG

AGAIN?!?!?!?!?! Goddam MG, did you learn NOTHING in the HUGE discussion of why it is irrelevant to stuff like this? I may as well go talk to a brick frickin' wall.

What you've said can go more than one way/direction.

Belly achin' doesn't go very far. Never has in my life anyway.

To each his own.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

What you've said can go more than one way/direction.

Belly achin' doesn't go very far. Never has in my life anyway.

To each his own.

Regards,
Fibber

Fibber, that is a remarkably brave statement coming from someone who is constantly complaining and bellyaching.

[I Have Questions]

Sorites Paradox/principle may be appropriate to refer to here. We will each 'judge' the pile with different eyes.

Regards,
MG

AGAIN?!?!?!?!?! Goddam MG, did you learn NOTHING in the HUGE discussion of why it is irrelevant to stuff like this? I may as well go talk to a brick frickin' wall.

Sorites…again… This is like watching Sideshow Bob standing on garden rakes…

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sorites Paradox/principle may be appropriate to refer to here. We will each 'judge' the pile with different eyes.

Regards,
MG

AGAIN?!?!?!?!?! Goddam MG, did you learn NOTHING in the HUGE discussion of why it is irrelevant to stuff like this? I may as well go talk to a brick frickin' wall.

They don’t read, brother. They may skim to get a gist or some key words to respond to, but they don’t read for understanding. There are a few reasons like: Too hard, anxiety, anger, or they simply can’t be assed out to do it. It all results in bad-faith interactions. I’ve seen it over and over again where really smart people expend an extraordinary amount of time and energy to instruct them, but it’s an impossible task. I mean, do it if you want, and maybe a 3rd-party reader will be moved by your words, but MG? Xanax? Droopy? DCP? Ceeboob? They’ll never be moved because their Ego is directly tied to their worldview constructs. They know the truth anyway, but they still cling to their fantasy - probably as a psychological crutch to deal with their impending annihilation.