Question for Dan Vogel regarding the "pious fraud" concept

[Dr. Shades]

Dear Mr. Vogel:

When you refer to Joseph Smith, Jr. being a "pious fraud," do you mean he was a pious knowing fraud, or a pious unknowing fraud?

[Shulem]

I think you should rephrase your question and clarify a little better on what exactly it is you are asking.

[Dr. Shades]

I think you should rephrase your question and clarify a little better on what exactly it is you are asking.

Umm, okay.

My understanding of Mr. Vogel's "pious fraud" theory is that Joseph Smith deceived people into believing in Jesus Christ for their own good. My question is, did Joseph Smith know he was lying to them, or was he deluded into thinking he was telling them the truth?

[Shulem]

My understanding of Mr. Vogel's "pious fraud" theory is that Joseph Smith deceived people into believing in Jesus Christ for their own good. My question is, did Joseph Smith know he was lying to them, or was he deluded into thinking he was telling them the truth?

Maybe this video will help answer your question:

This video is based on a paper delivered at the Mormon History Association in Snowbird, Utah, 18 May 1996. It explores the theory that Joseph Smith was a "pious deceiver" or "sincere fraud"—a person who deceives for holy or religious purposes and may believe that it is according to God's will.

Joseph Smith's Motives - The Prophet Puzzle - Dan Vogel

[I Have Questions]

I think you should rephrase your question and clarify a little better on what exactly it is you are asking.

Umm, okay.

My understanding of Mr. Vogel's "pious fraud" theory is that Joseph Smith deceived people into believing in Jesus Christ for their own good. My question is, did Joseph Smith know he was lying to them, or was he deluded into thinking he was telling them the truth?

As far as I understand Vogel (and I haven’t watched all his videos) he argues that Joseph Smith consciously used deception whilst sincerely believing he was serving God’s purposes. In other words, Smith was not merely deluded, nor was he a simple conman. He knowingly employed fraud-like practices but believed they were justified because the ends were divine. Early “lying for the Lord” type stuff.

[Shulem]

As far as I understand Vogel (and I haven’t watched all his videos) he argues that Joseph Smith consciously used deception whilst sincerely believing he was serving God’s purposes. In other words, Smith was not merely deluded, nor was he a simple conman. He knowingly employed fraud-like practices but believed they were justified because the ends were divine. Early “lying for the Lord” type stuff.

A classic example of Smith deliberately using deception to represent his revelatory views was the mutilation of the engraving of Anubis upon the lead plate of Facsimile No. 3. Smith hacked out the nose and headcloth in order to make way for his own interpretation when he later came to know that the person (Fig. 6) was a jackal god of the Egyptians rather than a negro slave which is what he originally claimed.

Smith was a liar. A very pious liar at that!

I do believe that I caught him in the very act of lying, covering it up, and faking it.

The joke is on you, Joe!

And to pious Mormons who reject these things, I say, "f-u"!

[Limnor]

Wrote this but sat on it a couple of days, mostly because I have a great deal of respect for gad, kish, and IHQ, and the “trilemma” discussion troubled me.

But, all that said, if someone sincerely believes that lying is good, that humans are eternal, that God is just a man, or that sin is really “good,” and then uses that sincerity to convince others that his actions are good, but really benefit themselves while demanding sacrifice from others, I’m not sure we’re talking about the same kind of sincerity, nor the same kind of God anymore.

[Dr. Shades]

. . . if someone sincerely believes that lying is good, that humans are eternal, that God is just a man, or that sin is really “good,” and then uses that sincerity to convince others that his actions are good, but really benefit themselves while demanding sacrifice from others, I’m not sure we’re talking about the same kind of sincerity, nor the same kind of God anymore.

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.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think there were moments where Joseph Smith got high on his own supply, but there was never a moment where he didn’t know he was a dealer. I don’t know if he was capable of viewing himself through the lens of a fraudster, because he was a narcissist, but it’s akin to wondering if BY, who was most definitely a sociopath, ever felt shame for his treatment of others. I don’t think either one of them were wired for that sort of thing.

[I Have Questions]

. . . if someone sincerely believes that lying is good, that humans are eternal, that God is just a man, or that sin is really “good,” and then uses that sincerity to convince others that his actions are good, but really benefit themselves while demanding sacrifice from others, I’m not sure we’re talking about the same kind of sincerity, nor the same kind of God anymore.

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.

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.