Question for Dan Vogel regarding the "pious fraud" concept

[MG 2.0]

. . . 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.

Saying "you don't have any golden plates" is not a given and/or necessarily obvious starting point. We've been down this road before. But I guess if you want to hone in on the big "If" in your statement you might have an argument.

I would suggest that given underdetermined data, charity or neutrality about inner piety might be seen as more responsible than asserting “impious fraud” as “crystal clear.”

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I would suggest that given underdetermined data, charity or neutrality about inner piety might be seen as more responsible than asserting “impious fraud” as “crystal clear.”

Regards,
MG

Your awkward phrasing makes it difficult to understand what you are saying. I think you are saying - Given evidence that is underdetermined, it would be more responsible to adopt a charitable or neutral stance about someone’s inner piety than to confidently accuse them of “impious fraud.”

So, do you apply that principle to, say, Denver Snuffer? What about the leaders of Scientology? Or L Ron Hubbard himself? What about, say, James Strang?

[Shulem]

If you don't have any golden plates, then you KNOW you don't have any golden plates.

Saying "you don't have any golden plates" is not a given and/or necessarily obvious starting point. We've been down this road before. But I guess if you want to hone in on the big "If" in your statement you might have an argument.

I would suggest that given underdetermined data, charity or neutrality about inner piety might be seen as more responsible than asserting “impious fraud” as “crystal clear.” [garbage]

Dear MG,

I know the "name" King Pharaoh is NOT contained "in the characters" which Smith translated/interpreted in Facsimile No. 3 just as I know there were no gold plates or stone box in which they were said to be contained on the side of the hill. I know it by the power of God!

I also know, by that same spirit, you are a deceiver. I rebuke you.

Be silent!

Amen.

[Shulem]

From another thread:

Later.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, sucker!

[msnobody]

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.

I think I want to say, well said here.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

I think I want to say, well said here.

I 2nd the motion........

[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?

I can understand the desire to dissect Smith's intentions in whether he deluded himself in what he claimed or if it was merely a fabrication for the purpose to deceive. I get that. You'll agree that the bottom line is his works were a FRAUD: Dictionary: Fraud, noun Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"

Smith claimed to have gold plates but the claim is only backed by accomplices who credit Smith without credible examination from outside nonbiased sources capable of giving testimonial one way or the other. The world (everyone except for Mormons) classify it as a trick and fraud.

• No gold plates
• No stone box
• No nonbiased testimonials
• No King's name in the writing
• No characters that actually spell "Shulem"
• No nose on Anubis's face

I could go on and on. But it's obviously a case of outright fraud and the evidence shows Smith was knowingly telling lies. Hacking off Anubis's nose is absolute proof.

Saying "you don't have any golden plates" is not a given and/or necessarily obvious starting point.

You will agree that the missing nose from Anubis's face is a given and a very good place to start when proving that Smith was deceiving his followers. You will also agree that Smith's published claim that a king's name is *in* the characters proves he could not read Egyptian let alone account for the absence of a royal Cartouche needed to contain a royal name.

I bear you my solemn testimony that I know Joseph Smith knowingly lied.

Amen

[Shulem]

• No King's name in the writing
• No characters that actually spell "Shulem"
• No nose on Anubis's face

So, why can't Skousen simply come out and include the word "FRAUD" in his negative assessment of the Facsimiles?

Why?

• I definitely do NOT hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s “interpretation” of the facsimiles.
• Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons.

Is that so?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

If you look at the motivation of most (all?) cult leaders, it comes down to three things: Money, sex, and power. For most, it's all three. I believe it can be convincingly argued that Smith's motivation was all three. The fact that he lied to conceal his acts tells me he was very intentional.

[Dr. Shades]

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.

Your post doesn't contradict my opinion.

Just because one started out with small knowing deceptions doesn't mean they weren't, in point of actual fact, knowing deceptions.