"Bypassing the question" .. of whether Smith was a fraud

[_Chap]

Perhaps it's the newest strategy of Internet Mormonism: Convince everyone that the question of whether or not Smith was a genuine prophet doesn't really matter.

Except that (even if one were to accept the silly "internet"/"chapel" dichotomy) there's no particular reason to brand either Terryl or Reid an "internet Mormon" and neither Terryl nor Reid has suggested that "the question of whether or not Smith was a genuine prophet doesn't really matter."

If I were to play devil's advocate, I would ask, how can a historian assess whether someone is a "prophet"?

I don't believe that a historian, qua historian, can do so.

Of course one cannot meaningfully set out to divide people into the two groups of 'prophet' and 'non-prophet' unless one believes that there is some meaningful content to the proposition [A] that "X is/was a prophet".

Whether or not one has to believe that there is a deity before affirming that [A] is meaningful is not clear.

For believers in the Abrahamic religions, a prophet is usually someone who is held to effectually convey the intentions or judgments of their deity to the rest of humanity. But what if one holds that there is no deity? Some might say that it is still possible to define a prophet by his or her function - i.e. that he or she is held by the members of a religion to be a genuine channel of revelation from the deity believed in by members of that religion. On those grounds an atheist engaged in studying the sociology of religion might describe Smith is a prophet because he is held by believing LDS to be a genuine channel of revelation from the deity they believe in.

Thus one could as an atheist meaningfully say: "I believe the teachings of the CoJCoLDS about the existence of a deity to be false; Joseph Smith is the principal LDS prophet". But it would be a good idea to state explicitly that one was using "prophet" here in a purely sociological sense, since otherwise one's statement might be read as expressing beliefs one did not hold.

So while I agree with DCP that historians do not as historians normally feel professionally qualified to address the question about the existence of a deity that underlies the decision about whether Smith was a prophet in a religious sense, I feel that they could perfectly well decide (say) that Smith was an LDS prophet in the sociological sense, and that Lucy Mack Smith was not.

Another question that historians are perfectly well equipped to address is whether somebody who produced a document claimed to be written by a person or persons in the remote past did actually recover a real ancient text, or whether they or other persons had deliberately written the document with the intention to mislead others as to its origins and nature. I need not give examples here. To that extent it would be possible for historians to discuss whether or not Smith (or somebody behind Smith) had produced the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Abraham, with the intention to mislead others.

Now a person who does things like producing fake documents to mislead others is what we commonly call a fraud. Therefore it is legitimate for historians to discuss whether Smith was a fraud. To conclude, an atheist historian of religion might conclude meaningfully and simultaneously:

(a) Smith was in certain respects a fraud.
(b) Smith is the principal prophet of the CoJCoLDS (in the sociological sense).

The conclusion that would then follow for LDS who hold Smith to be a prophet in the religious sense:

EITHER:
(c) The historians are wrong that Smith was a fraud
OR:
(d) The LDS deity has no problem with his prophet committing fraud.

Somehow I think they will go for (c). Either way, discussion of the question of whether or not Smith was a fraud seems an indispensable part (though certainly not the whole) of any multi-person and multi-disciplinary attempt to 'Re-appraise' Smith in the 21st century.

So why would one want to bypass the question?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

You can't discuss the greatness of Joseph Smith until you "bypass" that question. It's simple logic.

[_Yoda]

I just thought they didn't include that question because they knew it would suck all the air out of the book.

What I want to know is, how can anyone write about Joseph's influence, and not mention polygamy a lot? I mean.. really, when it comes right down to it, polygamy is the single most important factor of today's LDS church.

How so?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

If we bypass all the issues that make Joseph Smith a potential fraud, what are we left with to discuss? Did he do anything else? Perhaps his chores on the farm? His stick pulling championships?

[Guest]

I thought most LDS moved beyond the question of Joseph Smith being a fraud long ago. Not the question of whether or not he was a fraud, but the question of whether or not it would even make a difference.

At this point, I think someone would first need to make the argument that a "fraud" can't also be a "Prophet"; until that is established, arguing over whether or not he was a fraud in the first place is rather pointless.

Let's look at the current state of scholarly LDS opinion regarding Joseph Smith:

- Modern LDS scholars understand and accept that Joseph Smith participated in money digging, and used his seer stone to claim to divine the location of hidden underground objects. Other than the Book of Mormon related artifacts, none of these objects were ever recovered.

- Modern LDS scholars understand and accept that the golden plates were not actually used for the dictation process that produced the current version of the Book of Mormon. The plates may have existed for a purpose, but that purpose was not directly connected to the production of the Book of Mormon text.

- Some modern LDS scholars believe that while Joseph Smith had a papyrus and claimed it contained the writings of Abraham, the papyrus did not literally contain those writings, but instead served as a a catalyst and inspiration for Joseph to reveal the actual, long-lost writings of Abraham.

Whatever arguments that could be made for Joseph being a "con man" or "fraud", he could still be a "Prophet". The con-ness or fraudulent nature of any of his activities could be interpreted in many ways; they could have been part of his preparation for Prophethood, they could have been necessary steps to assist those with less faith to believe, they could have been cultural misunderstanding on Joseph's part. The imagination is free to create situations in which Prophets behave in ways that are similar to conventional frauds and hucksters, while still retaining their divine favor.

[_Chap]

Whatever arguments that could be made for Joseph being a "con man" or "fraud", he could still be a "Prophet". The con-ness or fraudulent nature of any of his activities could be interpreted in many ways; they could have been part of his preparation for Prophethood, they could have been necessary steps to assist those with less faith to believe, they could have been cultural misunderstanding on Joseph's part. The imagination is free to create situations in which Prophets behave in was that are similar to conventional frauds and hucksters, while still retaining their divine favor.

As so often in the past:

Mr cinepro sets us all right.

There were some devout Jews who continued to believe in the self-proclaimed "Messiah" Sabbatai Zevi, even after he converted to Islam rather than face execution. There are even some who still believe in him. Faith is often invulnerable to counter-evidence, and can find a way to strengthen itself from the apparent ruin of all its hopes and disproof of all its pretensions. That seems to be one of the things that make us human.

We'd better be careful about where that might lead us, hadn't we?

[_Gadianton]

So while I agree with DCP that historians do not as historians normally feel professionally qualified to address the question about the existence of a deity that underlies the decision about whether Smith was a prophet in a religious sense

Right. I agree. And further, for historians, I think there is good reason to avoid even wanting to try and make these kinds of judgements. I would say, a historian not only can't make the call on whether George Washington was the greatest national leader that ever lived, but he shouldn't even be trying to answer that question.

An Egyptologist would never be interested in whether Horus is a true God or not, in fact, an Egyptologist would probably think it's nuts to even contemplate a criteria whereby to make the call. Further, the Egyptologist would probably shy away from making judgements on whether Egyptian priests were evil and abusive or the Cult of Isis a fraud.

I think it's very easy to see when dealing with ancient history, but contemporary history is little different. Some may think this will sound odd, but I don't think it's the role of a good historian to fall over himself condemning Hitler and denouncing Naziism as evil, or again, even raising the question as to whether Hitler was good or evil. And ultimately, I don't think it serves humanity any to write history this way, because it then becomes all to easy to miss our own faults.

But..after having said all that, in my run-ins with apologists online, there is a tendency to put the plight of the historian on everyone's shoulders in a cheap, underhanded move to make it sound "unscholarly" to denounce Joseph Smith as a false prophet. I do think we can and must make moral judgements about history, I don't personally think I need to leave it as an open question as to whether Horus was a real God, Joseph Smith a prophet, or Hitler evil. Depending on how far removed we might be from the culture in question, it may be more or less rational to make those calls for a variety of reasons.