Peterson the historical skeptic

[MG 2.0]

Eventually he got to the point where he was deceiving the so-called love of his life, as has already been well attested to.

But to start out from day one? The evidence that he was in some kind of a dark place with evil designs at age 17 into his early twenties is non existent. Unless you want to count a Smith family magical world view as being evil and benighted leading Joseph into cahoots with the Dark Lord. Or that being a typical teenager was leading him down the primrose path to hell.

Joseph loved Emma from day one. Promoting a theory that he was leading her along from day one of their courtship towards an eventual con is something that you would have to show some pretty heavy proof/evidence. Good luck with that. Otherwise we ought to take Joseph and Emma at their word/actions that they loved each other and their family.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

We’re talking about Joseph’s early years leading up to and including the Book of Mormon translation period. He wasn’t an idiot. You know that I don’t think that. But Emma verifies that he was in no wise a savant either.

So you’re left back at square one. How did Joseph do what he did at such a young age and under the circumstances he was living in?

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... vidence-1/

I think we may be moving into the ‘talking in circles’ phase of this discussion.

Regards,
MG

Moving into?

Circles don’t necessarily lead nowhere. I mean, look at you. You’re continue to move in a circular fashion around the same circle that John Larsen started years ago with his then wife, Zilpha. Probably not a whole lot new under the sun, but now and then you may hit a data point with greater clarification, etc. But essentially you’re just going around in circles.

John Larsen 2.0 with a new moniker and host. RFM! He came, he went. Same thing will happen sooner or later with you. Someone else will likely continue to transpose themselves upon his work and your work.

Going in circles. Not such a bad thing, right?

Although it can get a bit repetitive and tiresome. You may know the feeling.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Moving into?

Circles don’t necessarily lead nowhere. I mean, look at you. You’re continue to move in a circular fashion around the same circle that John Larsen started years ago with his then wife, Zilpha. Probably not a whole lot new under the sun, but now and then you may hit a data point with greater clarification, etc. But essentially you’re just going around in circles.

John Larsen 2.0 with a new moniker and host. RFM! He came, he went. Same thing will happen sooner or later with you. Someone else will likely continue to transpose themselves upon his work and your work.

Going in circles. Not such a bad thing, right?

Although it can get a bit repetitive and tiresome. You may know the feeling.

Regards,
MG

You didn't use John Dehlin as an example because he's been doing this for nearly 20 years? How about Sandra Tanner? Just circles, huh?

[MG 2.0]

How did Joseph do what he did at such a young age and under the circumstances he was living in?

Doesn't mean he was incompetent. Pious fraud?

Pious fraud doesn’t automatically make him more intelligent/capable. The question is whether or not Joseph could have pulled off the ‘long con’ with the knowledge/abilities he had at his disposal without some kind of direction/help.

Someone earlier said that the ‘Big Lie’ started with the First Vision. That doesn’t even make sense. And yes, I know about the ‘after the fact’ explanations for why Joseph ‘fabricated’ the FV. To me, that doesn’t do the job. The fact is, he did experience religious confusion. He did feel a yearning need to know his state of being before his maker.

He prayed.

There is that. Would that LEAD to the idea of a long con deception at such an early age? I don’t think so. Why? He was honest in heart and wanted to commune with God. To expect him to then turn away from that ‘light’ he had received is illogical/unreasonable to me.

Of course it is fairly evident that if/as he was receiving help along the way it was incremental. Line upon line, principle upon principle.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Circles don’t necessarily lead nowhere. I mean, look at you. You’re continue to move in a circular fashion around the same circle that John Larsen started years ago with his then wife, Zilpha. Probably not a whole lot new under the sun, but now and then you may hit a data point with greater clarification, etc. But essentially you’re just going around in circles.

John Larsen 2.0 with a new moniker and host. RFM! He came, he went. Same thing will happen sooner or later with you. Someone else will likely continue to transpose themselves upon his work and your work.

Going in circles. Not such a bad thing, right?

Although it can get a bit repetitive and tiresome. You may know the feeling.

Regards,
MG

You didn't use John Dehlin as an example because he's been doing this for nearly 20 years? How about Sandra Tanner? Just circles, huh?

I figured John Larsen fit into consig’s framework of reference. We’re both ‘old guys’. He was probably around at the same time I was listening to all/most of the Larsen podcasts. I’d be surprised if he didn’t listen to them.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Eventually he got to the point where he was deceiving the so-called love of his life, as has already been well attested to.

But to start out from day one? The evidence that he was in some kind of a dark place with evil designs at age 17 into his early twenties is non existent. Unless you want to count a Smith family magical world view as being evil and benighted leading Joseph into cahoots with the Dark Lord. Or that being a typical teenager was leading him down the primrose path to hell.

Joseph loved Emma from day one. Promoting a theory that he was leading her along from day one of their courtship towards an eventual con is something that you would have to show some pretty heavy proof/evidence. Good luck with that. Otherwise we ought to take Joseph and Emma at their word/actions that they loved each other and their family.

Regards,
MG

Once again you are ignoring the bulk of my reply to your question. You are also setting up a straw man argument. I certainly did not say anything like "that he was in some kind of a dark place with evil designs at age 17", which your out of context quote seems to imply.

Nor am I "Promoting a theory that he was leading her along from day one of their courtship towards an eventual con ...". I was talking about a starting point for his lies.

Here is what I did say, in response to your dramatic question: "At what point in Joseph’s life did he go to the ‘dark side’?":

Hmmm, I never thought about it that way before, but, if pressed, my guess would be his initial tale about the first vision could have been a significant starting point.

After that, I believe that Shakespeare has the answer - he wove a tangled web, with ever more lies needed to support the ones already told.

Eventually he got to the point where he was deceiving the so-called love of his life, as has already been well attested to.

Just my opinion, of course, but thanks for the prompt.

That is, like several others at that time and in that place he told a story about an encounter with god. No need for a "long con" to be in his mind at that point. A short con could have been enough to get him started.

To try to maintain the story that he had started, he improvised with more "stories".

Eventually it got to the point that he had to start lying to Emma about his extramarital adventures. And I believe there is no doubt that he did lie to her.

Perhaps if you were to write more plainly, without all of the drama of "dark place with evil designs", and "leading Joseph into cahoots with the Dark Lord" it would be easier for all concerned to have a productive discussion.

Or perhaps the fault is mine for not restating your question without all of the drama.

[MG 2.0]

How about Sandra Tanner? Just circles, huh?

Cut my teeth with Lighthouse Ministry. I went up to SL and visited her store years ago. I read their stuff back when it had to be printed if I didn’t want to sit around in front of a desktop screen for hours.

Concentric circles.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Or perhaps the fault is mine for not restating your question without all of the drama.

We each have our own way of expression in response to the circumstances/situation we find ourselves. If I’m being a bit too dramatic for your tastes I hope you can just grin (BIG grin) and bear it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Eventually it got to the point that he had to start lying to Emma about his extramarital adventures. And I believe there is no doubt that he did lie to her.

There has been a LOT of discussion on this:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68 ... oseph-lie/

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... _from_Emma

That’s just for starters. The fact is, which I think is indisputable, Joseph loved Emma. I don’t think that as he and Emma were courting he had some kind of long con thing going on in his head in regards to the Book of Mormon. Some of the evidence I’ve provided doesn’t point that direction.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Although Emma may have wanted to engage more, haha. She had to write down everything he said without her interjection/ correction. ...

Posted by mentalgymnast. Ha. ha.