Runtu wrote: "Was he true prophet, sincere visionary, pious fraud, or con man?"
What if he was all of the above (or none)? Humans are complex, and Joseph Smith was no different. Trying to pin a label on him is pointless because we will never get inside his head and know what he was thinking. What we have are his actions, words, and the religion he produced, and from them we can draw conclusions, but we'll never quite know the man's history.
I see what you did there.
Yes, That book encouraged me to think further about the possibility of a shifting mix of pious intention, false manipulative actions, and perhaps even impious intentions. Fawn Brodie proposed significantly I thought that the mix was assisted along by the hopes and expectations of others, ( fitsDon's contribution but not entirely the way he intended.)
I listened to the exchange and found myself thinking each presenter had some valid contributions.
The "born into a petty crime family" talk was especially fascinating. The idea that Mormonism is enacting the redemption of Joseph Smith to reform his errors...
I'm still trying to come up with a summary of Don Bradley's talk. Other than humorously disagreeing with Chris' points nothing remains in memory other than generalizations and analogies that weren't specific to Mormonism or Joseph Smith.
I value Ann Taves and wish she had spoken longer. I'm presently reading one of her books. Dan Vogel is one of my foundations, he has no substitute in my opinion.