The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[Tator]

By the time it was all unraveling, in terms of a real threat to Joseph Smith’ life, the lives of hundreds had been seriously impacted in many ways by the entire situation. Believers willingly turned over their life – their financial wherewithal as well as their physical well-being – for the “story” (if Joseph Smith were a fraud).

Now, if Joseph Smith were a known fraud who did not have any genuine belief in his teachings, unlike Paul Dunn, and had simply stood up and said, “Look, folks, it’s all been a hoax. It was fun while it lasted, but certainly not worth dying over. Pack up and go home”….what would the reaction of his followers have been? What would the reaction have been on the part of those who gave over their entire financial security to Joseph Smith? What would the reaction have been on the part of those who saw family members die for the cause?

Joseph Smith did try to get away when he knew his life was in serious danger, by the way. He probably did the only thing a fraud would do under these circumstances – run. He couldn’t stand up and say “it’s all been a hoax”, because the chances were good his own followers would string him up. He returned only after Emma talked him into it. His natural impulse was to run.

Hindsight is 20/20. If any point along the trajectory provided Joseph Smith an opportunity to recant, without fearing serious blow-back from his own followers or others, it was also a point too early in the trajectory for Joseph Smith to fully realize he was going to die for the story.

When Joseph Smith believed that his witnesses were beginning to turn on him, he immediately went into spin control. He immediately began defaming their characters, in the hopes of convincing his followers to ignore anything they may have to say on the subject. by the way, if the witnesses had so little character as Joseph Smith later insinuated, just why would God choose them as witnesses in the first place? Just what else was he supposed to do to persuade someone like whyme that he viewed the witnesses as potentially problematic? Have them killed?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've always enjoyed watching critics make up just-so stories about the Witnesses.

It really doesn't get much better than this sort of stuff.

[_beastie]

Will -

You’ve changed the topic, but I will address your change.

You, and whyme, didn’t get the point of the Paul Dunn example. The point is that the concept of pious fraud is quite legitimate. People who genuinely believe in the truth of something still, at times, feel justified in lying in order to encourage others to believe in the thing they already believed was true.

That is the point of Pious Fraud.

I’ll assume by the fact that both you and whyme shifted the focus means you likely concede this point. Paul Dunn was a pious fraud. His example alone proves that the concept is legitimate.

Now, you’ve shifted the topic to whether or not frauds are always detected. You asserted that:

Just as the phony faith healer and Paul Dunn were eventually exposed as frauds, all frauds—in time—get exposed. It is the nature of the beast. Oh, sure, some very private frauds/crimes/deceptions can go undetected for a long, long time—perhaps even until judgment day. But in the case of frauds involving more than one person, the likelihood of ultimate exposure is almost certain, and the more people who must be involved in the fraud increases the likelihood of exposure exponentially.

You realized that unsupportable nature of your assertion that ALL frauds get exposed by inserting the clause that some go undetected until judgment day. Yet that clause destroys your entire argument. You concede that not all frauds are detected by human beings. Some frauds will only be detected at judgment day.

So the fact that, if Mormonism was a fraud it has remained unexposed, by your standards of “exposure, of course – is entirely irrelevant.

Do you think Scientology has been exposed as a fraud to the satisfaction of its believers?

Does the fact that the believers in Scientology do not believe it has been exposed as a fraud mean that it cannot possibly be a fraud?

[_beastie]

I've always enjoyed watching critics make up just-so stories about the Witnesses.

It really doesn't get much better than this sort of stuff.

I always enjoy watching Dan make comments like this, after having set the stage that he cannot be challenged on the comments.

See, Dan has declared he won't discuss substance with me in particular, with the heavy insinuation he won't discuss substance on the board in general. So, if I ask him to explain what stories critics have made up about the witnesses, he will cry out: but I've told you I won't engage with you!!! Why do you keep nagging me???

Dan wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to make comments about the substance of the topic, but he also wants the right to insist that critics who challenge him on those same comments are ignoring the fact that he's declared he won't engage. Those same critics just won't leave him alone!! In other words, Dan wants the right to make unchallenged declarations.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't really buy the pious fraud idea either. I mean, he was a known conman.

When he was a teenager. You've never done something stupid as a teenager that you think would be more than a little unfair to be lashed to your adult life?

Of course, but that's not what we're talking about here. If I started something as a teenager that I continued into my adulthood, then it wouldn't be unfair to be held accountable for it, or judged by it.

He told people he could find lost buried treasure using supernatural means!

And people testified in court that he succeeded.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut or two. Isn't it funny how we amplify the hits and forget about the misses?

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.

So this is the new rationalization. He had to keep the lie going all the way to his death in order to avoid getting into trouble? And what about all the lawsuits and personal friends who were turning against him and trying to get him killed? Why not bail in the middle of the night in Kirtland when it looked like it was all going to fail anyway? Why do that and still explain that you know you're going to die a martyr's death? Why not accept the invitation to be broken out of jail when you know you're going to be killed the next day? No, Smith wasn't concerned for his life or his safety, and maintaining a lie like that wasn't making him any money. Your scenario doesn't hold water. It makes sense on the surface if one doesn't know the history, but once you get into it, it doesn't fit at all.

First of all, I think it's funny that you're calling what I'm saying "a rationalization" given what you just tried to explain away, but ok.

Again, if you accept that Joe thought he would be safer by confessing the scam than by holding on to it, it doesn't necessarily make sense. However, I don't buy that. It's one thing to have some people turning against you. It's quite another to have everyone turn against you.

The fact is, sometimes people find themselves in situations (of their own making) where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When confronted with a dilemma, people choose what they think is the lesser of two evils. I imagine he knew he’d die soon no matter what he did. How long would he last as a fugitive? At least if he held on to the ruse, it might protect his family, church, and reputation.

If you don't think that holds water, that's up to you. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[_maklelan]

By the time it was all unraveling, in terms of a real threat to Joseph Smith’ life, the lives of hundreds had been seriously impacted in many ways by the entire situation. Believers willingly turned over their life – their financial wherewithal as well as their physical well-being – for the “story” (if Joseph Smith were a fraud).

Now, if Joseph Smith were a known fraud who did not have any genuine belief in his teachings, unlike Paul Dunn, and had simply stood up and said, “Look, folks, it’s all been a hoax. It was fun while it lasted, but certainly not worth dying over. Pack up and go home”….what would the reaction of his followers have been? What would the reaction have been on the part of those who gave over their entire financial security to Joseph Smith?

See Kirtland Bank failure.

What would the reaction have been on the part of those who saw family members die for the cause?

Many concluded he was a fraud anyway. Aren't you aware of the late history of Kirtland?

Joseph Smith did try to get away when he knew his life was in serious danger, by the way. He probably did the only thing a fraud would do under these circumstances – run. He couldn’t stand up and say “it’s all been a hoax”, because the chances were good his own followers would string him up. He returned only after Emma talked him into it. His natural impulse was to run.[/quote]

Actually he returned because his friends were criticizing him:

If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself.

Hindsight is 20/20. If any point along the trajectory provided Joseph Smith an opportunity to recant, without fearing serious blow-back from his own followers or others, it was also a point too early in the trajectory for Joseph Smith to fully realize he was going to die for the story.

So you assume. He did prophecy his own martyrdom several times in Nauvoo and before.

When Joseph Smith believed that his witnesses were beginning to turn on him, he immediately went into spin control. He immediately began defaming their characters, in the hopes of convincing his followers to ignore anything they may have to say on the subject.

Because that's what people do when they're trapped in a lie they want to get out of.

by the way, if the witnesses has so little character as Joseph Smith later insinuated, just why would God choose them as witnesses in the first place?

How long was their integrity required to make their testimony effective, and are you under the impression people don't change?

Just what else was he supposed to do to persuade someone like whyme that he viewed the witnesses as potentially problematic? Have them killed?

Zing!

Again, this theory only works if you don't know the history very well.

[_maklelan]

Of course, but that's not what we're talking about here. If I started something as a teenager that I continued into my adulthood, then it wouldn't be unfair to be held accountable for it, or judged by it.

But I don't accept your presumption that the church was a huge con. You're using circular reasoning here.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut or two. Isn't it funny how we amplify the hits and forget about the misses?

I haven't seen any misses yet that invalidate his hits. I just see the accusation that there are perceived misses, and so the hits are pure luck.

First of all, I think it's funny that you're calling what I'm saying "a rationalization" given what you just tried to explain away, but ok.

"Explain away"? I explained why your theory is uninformed.

Again, if you accept that Joe thought he would be safer by confessing the scam than by holding on to it, it doesn't necessarily make sense. However, I don't buy that. It's one thing to have some people turning against you. It's quite another to have everyone turn against you.

So all those times he was thrown in jail and death was imminent you still mean to assert he was thinking only of maintaining the lie? Are you even aware of how many times his life was spared only seconds from death?

The fact is, sometimes people find themselves in situations (of their own making) where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When confronted with a dilemma, people choose what they think is the lesser of two evils. I imagine he knew he’d die soon no matter what he did. How long would he last as a fugitive? At least if he held on to the ruse, it might protect his family, church, and reputation.

Completely uninformed speculation.

If you don't think that holds water, that's up to you. Seems pretty obvious to me.

It doesn't take a lot for you to think evidence against the church "seems obvious." Your argument still only works if you don't know much about Joseph Smith's history or the history of the church.

[_Thama]

You would call Joseph Smith's career as a conman "accomplished"? I take it you don't refer to his miserably unsuccessful career as an actual conman during his teens.

He seemed to be good enough at it to earn money at it. In any case, he wasn't lacking for practice or experience on the matter.

Nope. By the time they all wrote their final testimonies on their deathbeds they would have been heroes for falsifying the Book of Mormon. Like Shmo's theory, it only makes sense if you don't know the history very well.

Heroes to a few, perhaps, but still complicit. And vulnerable to attacks, a valid fear even if those attacks would never have materialized.

[_Calculus Crusader]

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.

Smith started believing in his own con, which made him all the more dangerous. See Jim Jones and Vernon Howell for other examples.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I've always enjoyed watching critics make up just-so stories about the Witnesses.

It really doesn't get much better than this sort of stuff.

And I always enjoy watching Mormon apologists being reduced to responses like this when they can't defend their patently fraudulent religion. You should have hitched your wagon to Jesus Christ, instead of a two-bit huckster, professor.