The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[Guest]

There are plenty of people in this world who believe in certain things enough to die for them - and they are beliefs you would view as obviously false.

Well, I suppose so. But in your mind, Joseph Smith and Sidney and all the witnesses were fraudsters or dupes. Now if I were sitting in the jail like Joseph Smith and Sidney and had family on the outside like Sidney and Joseph, I would begin to think of coming clean about my fraud. I certainly would not be thinking that I was a pious fraud. We need to remember the scene. Now if I had 11 so called fellow fraudsters out there, I would think that now that I am in prison facing death, one of those phonies will come clean and tell the truth. Right? I would never expect all of those hapless guys to keep their mouths shut now that I am in prison facing death by firing squad for treason. I would have to be a nutter for thinking that they would be silent.

But ol' joe did not seem to mind the witnesses at all and what they were saying or doing. My first letter to Emma by secret code would be: Emma what is Peter Whitmer and John Whitmer saying and Oliver too. Now that would be human nature coming out if Joseph Smith were a fraud.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

Dan Vogel's theory of pious fraud explains this phenomenon.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't even come close.

In fact, it may very well be one of the most ridiculous and untenable historical propositions ever advanced.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you find it credible.

[_EAllusion]

I have a client who likes to watch Little House on the Prairie. I was over at her house the other day and sure enough she was watching it. The episode was about a tent revival faith healer. He would use plants in the audience who would be miraculously cured of serious ailments. He did this to encourage faith in the audience members so they would believe enough to reap the benefits of the faith healing he was offering. Despite the fraudulent cures to plant a seed of faith, he genuinely believed in the "real" faith healing.

The "pious fraud" idea with respect to the plates is the same principle.

[_beastie]

I wouldn't push believers that far, there are limitations at which the evidence becomes not only overwhelming but readily obvious, and the vast majority of reasonable believers will bail (see the Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 1970s). While Mormonism may appear to have crossed that threshold on a number of issues, they are mostly peripheral ones to the modern member.

The believer also has a body of evidence which the general public and the skeptic are unwilling to admit: spiritual experiences. This is not an adjunct for most believers, rather it is the primary source material. As long as non-contradiction can be maintained (no matter how slender the margin) between this spiritual experience and more concrete bodies of evidence, the believer is satisfied and has functionally achieved victory.

The average modern member is unaware of most of these controversial issues, peripheral or not.

The self-selected group of apologists or defenders of the faith on the internet (DFI for future reference) may not reflect the “average modern member”. For one thing, apologists and DFI normally are conversant with all the controversial issues, and yet still believe.

So, for me, the apologists and DFI may not correlate to the “vast majority of reasonable believers” in the religion in general, but may correlate to those who didn’t bail in 1970. In other words – the True Believers.

Yes, I agree that “testimony” is the real evidence for believers, and everything else is supplemental. Sometimes I wonder if the crucial difference between a believer who continues to believe in the face of the controversial issues and the exbeliever who lost belief in the face of those same issues is the willingness to consider that one may be wrong about something believed so intensely. I would put up the intensity of my “testimony” – in terms of what appeared to be a direct response to prayer about the Book of Mormon – up against any believer’s. And yet I was still able to consider that I could be wrong, despite the intensity of that experience. If someone cannot even consider that possibility, then it’s inevitable that he/she will continue to believe no matter what problematic issues may arise.

[_why me]

I have a client who likes to watch Little House on the Prairie. I was over at her house the other day and sure enough she was watching it. The episode was about a tent revival faith healer. He would use plants in the audience who would be miraculously cured of serious ailments. He did this to encourage faith in the audience members so they would believe enough to reap the benefits of the faith healing he was offering. Despite the fraudulent cures to plant a seed of faith, he genuinely believed in the "real" faith healing.

The "pious fraud" idea with respect to the plates is the same principle.

And he was proven false, I believe. I remember that episode.

[_beastie]

No it doesn't.

It doesn't even come close.

In fact, it may very well be one of the most ridiculous and untenable historical propositions ever advanced.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you find it credible.

The Pious Fraud theory isn't something Vogel invented. Moreover, it's something that even practioners have sometimes conceded.

Take EA's example - the fact that a faith healer may use "props" doesn't necessarily mean that he/she does not genuinely believe in what he/she is teaching. It sometimes may mean that they believe so strongly that they feel it is justified to provide props in order to help those weaker in the faith believe, as well.

Another example is Paul Dunn's use of fictional stories to strengthen belief. Do you think that Paul Dunn knew his stories weren't true? Of course he did. Do you think Paul Dunn genuinely believed in the truth of the church? Of course he did. He deliberately told fictional stories in order to strengthen the faith of others. That doesn't mean he didn't believe in the truth of what he was encouraging people to believe.

And he was proven false, I believe. I remember that episode.

You misunderstand the point. The point is that it is possible for people who genuinely believe in the truth of whatever "gospel" they are preaching to believe it is justified to use "props" to help those weaker in the faith also believe. Perhaps my Paul Dunn example will help you get the point.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't really buy the pious fraud idea either. I mean, he was a known conman. He told people he could find lost buried treasure using supernatural means!

It's just really easy to imagine that here's this guy who's scammed hundreds of people, slept with multiple women/girls, and sacrificed several people's lives; there was no way he was going to let the truth be known, no matter what the situation. He had to protect his house of cards. I'm sure he felt there was a lot less personal danger involved in maintaining the scam than letting the cat out of the bag.

[_beastie]

I don't really buy the pious fraud idea either. I mean, he was a known conman. He told people he could find lost buried treasure using supernatural means!

It's just really easy to imagine that here's this guy who's scammed hundreds of people, slept with multiple women/girls, and sacrificed several people's lives. There was no way he was going to let the truth be known, no matter what the situation. He had to protect his house of cards. I'm sure he felt there was a lot less personal danger involved in maintaining the scam than letting the cat out of the bag.

I agree that it's an open question with Joseph Smith. I also agree that people sometimes get involved in situations that end up blowing up out of control in a way they never anticipated. After all, there are plenty of criminals who end up getting killed in the process of committing the crime. That doesn't mean that the criminal in question considered the crime worthy of the sacrifice of his/her life. It just means that the situation blew up out of control, in a way that the criminal did not anticipate. So Joseph Smith being killed due to his religious endeavors does not necessarily mean he genuinely believed in what he was teaching.

However, I think there can be little doubt that Sidney Rigdon was a True Believer. He was consumed by this belief his entire life - in a way that, it could be argued, destroyed his sanity.

[_why me]

The average modern member is unaware of most of these controversial issues, peripheral or not.

The self-selected group of apologists or defenders of the faith on the internet (DFI for future reference) may not reflect the “average modern member”. For one thing, apologists and DFI normally are conversant with all the controversial issues, and yet still believe.

So, for me, the apologists and DFI may not correlate to the “vast majority of reasonable believers” in the religion in general, but may correlate to those who didn’t bail in 1970. In other words – the True Believers.

Now beastie lets get serious here. Members know what happened in Liberty Jail. In fact, BYU TV had it on as part of the JSP episodes. What gives Mormons faith is also in their history. Joseph Smith and the others suffering in the prison writing letters of soul to Emma and eventually writing what would become three sections in the D&C. Nothing gave a hint that he was a fraudster when he was in prison with sidey and the others craping a bucket, eating leftovers from the guards and sleeping on hay for months as 11 'so called' (if I use your idea) witnesses were free as a bird with their mouths unlocked.

No sense being there if just one or two were doing the canary song. My fraudster mind would want to know before I face my death or keep craping in my overly shared bucket.

[_EAllusion]

And he was proven false, I believe. I remember that episode.

1970's primetime television writing can be convenient, can't it?


I don't think you are using any kind of consistent standard of proven false. Let's say the man argues that his confederates were possessed by Satanic forces when they confessed in order to discredit his godly work. Prove it false.

That's neither here nor there though. Even if he wasn't proven false, the idea is the same. "Pious frauds" are just people who are just disingenuous about what they are doing because they think the ends justify the means. They can be dishonest on one level if they think it supports some "higher truth." I was just explaining the concept with a cute example. While I'm not sure what the ratio of knowing dishonesty to self-deluded belief is here, I don't buy the pious fraud idea to the extent Vogel seems to. Fortunately, that's besides the point.