Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[Deborah]

This talk of Joseph being a fraud, pious or otherwise, is disgusting. If Joseph were to deny his visions and the BOM he would have done it in that hellhole called Liberty Jail. It is asinine to think someone would have endured that hell if he were perpetrating a fraud. Furthermore those with him would not have endured such abuse and privation for the sake of someone else's fraud. When Joseph went to Carthage he knew he was going to his death and went willingly. But that was easy compared to Liberty, since he already knew his time was spent and that he had completed what the Lord sent him to do.

[wenglund]

Really? You apparently don't understand all the benefits. From an evolutionary perspective the benefits to Joseph, his family and close friends are incredible. First of all Joseph had many wives-one of the greatest evolutionary advantages a man can have. Furthermore he provided his offspring,relatives and friends with notoriety, fame, and leadership within a social group, with that leadership providing them resources to improve their survival but also many wives for some of them and/or the pick of the best partners within the social group.

Wrong! I understand those supposed benefits. They still don't, in any rational sense, come close to measuring up to the "downside". If even you thought they did, then what would prevent you from committing the same or similar supposed fraud in order to achieve the presumed greater benefits?

Sorry, it just doesn't make sense no matter how inverted your thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

This talk of Joseph being a fraud, pious or otherwise, is disgusting. If Joseph were to deny his visions and the BOM he would have done it in that hellhole called Liberty Jail. It is asinine to think someone would have endured that hell if he were perpetrating a fraud.

And perhaps sooner...when he was tarred and feathered and his baby son died from the resulting exposure.

[Scott Lloyd]

This talk of Joseph being a fraud, pious or otherwise, is disgusting. If Joseph were to deny his visions and the BOM he would have done it in that hellhole called Liberty Jail. It is asinine to think someone would have endured that hell if he were perpetrating a fraud. Furthermore those with him would not have endured such abuse and privation for the sake of someone else's fraud. When Joseph went to Carthage he knew he was going to his death and went willingly. But that was easy compared to Liberty, since he already knew his time was spent and that he had completed what the Lord sent him to do.

If one studies the misery and oppression that Joseph had to endure in his lifetime, it is ludicrous to say he perpetrated a fraud because of what he could gain from it.

[ttribe]

Those in a fraud often go through a difficult balancing act of weighing the potential benefits and downsides of a fraud both to themselves and to their family and friends.

I'd like an answer - how do you know this to be true?

[Luigi]

This talk of Joseph being a fraud, pious or otherwise, is disgusting. If Joseph were to deny his visions and the BOM he would have done it in that hellhole called Liberty Jail. It is asinine to think someone would have endured that hell if he were perpetrating a fraud. Furthermore those with him would not have endured such abuse and privation for the sake of someone else's fraud. When Joseph went to Carthage he knew he was going to his death and went willingly. But that was easy compared to Liberty, since he already knew his time was spent and that he had completed what the Lord sent him to do.

I don't think admitting he was a fraud would have gotten him out of Liberty Jail.

[Luigi]

I'd like an answer - how do you know this to be true?

You don't think it makes sense that those engaged in a fraud would take into consideration the costs and benefits to those close to them as well as themselves?

[ttribe]

You don't think it makes sense that those engaged in a fraud would take into consideration the costs and benefits to those close to them as well as themselves?

It's not a matter of "making sense" when you spoke authoritatively on the matter. In my experience, I have seen little evidence that people who start frauds think about its impact on others, no.

[robuchan]

It's not a matter of "making sense" when you spoke authoritatively on the matter. In my experience, I have seen little evidence that people who start frauds think about its impact on others, no.

Is this accounting fraud or religious fraud?

[ttribe]

Is this accounting fraud or religious fraud?

Did Luigi draw a distinction?

[Luigi]

Wrong! I understand those supposed benefits. They still don't, in any rational sense, come close to measuring up to the "downside". If even you thought they did, then what would prevent you from committing the same or similar supposed fraud in order to achieve the presumed greater benefits?

I just explained how Joseph, his family and friends won in evolutionary terms-the terms which all our instincts were wired to accomplish. The only potential way the downsides would outweigh the benefits is if you think that Joseph and his family and friends would have had a better evolutionary outcome if they had remained or returned to being unknown farmers.

[Luigi]

It's not a matter of "making sense" when you spoke authoritatively on the matter. In my experience, I have seen little evidence that people who start frauds think about its impact on others, no.

Well from talking to those who have dealt with fraud cases and watching programs on fraud cases many of those engaged in fraud use their gains to help family and friends and even for charitable donations.

[William Schryver]

Had Joseph Smith only had in mind the pursuit of his own self-interest, he would have adapted his religious teachings to conform to the expectations of the other Christians in Illinois and in the United States. Had he done so in 1844, he not only would have saved his own life, but he probably would have become the next governor of the state, and very possibly president of the United States. He had already amassed so much power and influence that he was a king-maker in Illinois politics, and his charisma was such that the sky was the limit had he only abandoned his pretensions to prophetic powers and authority.

Elder Holland, although he didn't go into the detail necessary to fully articulate the argument, is essentially correct in his contention that Joseph Smith held his own life in his hands. I don't think there is any question that he could have saved himself had he chosen to effectively renounce his "prophetic mantle" and simply advertised himself as a religious leader like many others in his day.

But he didn't.

Brother D,

Don't burden these people with the rigors of history. Just assume that they are even less-interested than your worst class, and then act accordingly.

[ttribe]

Well from talking to those who have dealt with fraud cases and watching programs on fraud cases many of those engaged in fraud use their gains to help family and friends and even for charitable donations.

Well, I actually do fraud investigations and while it is true that they may end up using some of the proceeds for family and charity (often to alleviate their own guilt) it is not a primary factor, per se, in their decision to commit fraud.

[Bic Pentameter]

I don't think admitting he was a fraud would have gotten him out of Liberty Jail.

So Luigi, in your mind, just what would it take for Joseph to renounce his fraud besides eminent death and continued persecution/suffering of family and friends? Do tell, what's worse?

Assuming a fraud, I can't imagine that Joseph had any real friends inside of the Church. Being committed to such a fraud (until death), the idea of creating any true friendships with individuals that weren't 'in on it' would be difficult. Unless of course, you're downright evil. What kind of man do you think Joseph was Luigi? How complex to we have to let this fraud become before it's ridiculousness become apparent?

___________________

I am Bic Pentameter

[robuchan]

So Luigi, in your mind, just what would it take for Joseph to renounce his fraud besides eminent death and continued persecution/suffering of family and friends? Do tell, what's worse?

Assuming a fraud, I can't imagine that Joseph had any real friends inside of the Church. Being committed to such a fraud (until death), the idea of creating any true friendships with individuals that weren't 'in on it' would be difficult. Unless of course, you're downright evil. What kind of man do you think Joseph was Luigi? How complex to we have to let this fraud become before it's ridiculousness become apparent?

___________________

I am Bic Pentameter

I think the problem here is that you all are attaching too much negative meaning to the term "fraud". A pious fraud is not a negative swindling kind of fraud. I can easily see a scenario where despite stretching the truth about the BoM, BoA, 1st vision, and some of the other revelations, that he truly believed he was a prophet of God and that he was fulfilling God's will. In this case, he would not deny his testimony of God because to him it was real.

[ttribe]

I think the problem here is that you all are attaching too much negative meaning to the term "fraud". A pious fraud is not a negative swindling kind of fraud. I can easily see a scenario where despite stretching the truth about the BoM, BoA, 1st vision, and some of the other revelations, that he truly believed he was a prophet of God and that he was fulfilling God's will. In this case, he would not deny his testimony of God because to him it was real.

"stretching the truth" or an outright lie? Sorry, I see a difference here.

BTW, I have yet to see any evidence of fundamental differences in the character of the fraudster, or the nature of their behavior between a "fraud" and a "pious fraud".

[robuchan]

"stretching the truth" or an outright lie? Sorry, I see a difference here.

BTW, I have yet to see any evidence of fundamental differences in the character of the fraudster, or the nature of their behavior between a "fraud" and a "pious fraud".

Pious fraud is akin to any tactic of using unethical or questionable tactics to further (ends justify the means) the cause. That opens up the potential cases. You still don't see any difference between that and a con man/swindler?

Do you tell your kids any made up stories about Santa Claus?

[ttribe]

Pious fraud is akin to any tactic of using unethical or questionable tactics to further (ends justify the means) the cause. That opens up the potential cases. You still don't see any difference between that and a con man/swindler?

Let me clarify then, since you are intent on splitting hairs. I have seen no evidence to suggest that those who engage in large-scale pious frauds are fundamentally different than any other fraudster.

Do you tell your kids any made up stories about Santa Claus?

And there's that split hair. You don't see a difference between telling my kids that Santa's on his way to get them to go to bed before midnight on Christmas Eve and starting a large-scale religion which ultimately requires the sacrifice of both possession and even life from some its followers?

[Luigi]

Well, I actually do fraud investigations and while it is true that they may end up using some of the proceeds for family and charity (often to alleviate their own guilt) it is not a primary factor, per se, in their decision to commit fraud.

I didn't say it was the primary factor in their decision to commit fraud-only that it was one consideration that individuals engaged in fraud undoubtedly consider. I doubt very much that the moment someone commits fraud that they suddenly become indifferent to the benefits and costs of their actions to their family and close friends-except for those who were indifferent about their friends and family to begin with.

[ttribe]

I didn't say it was the primary factor in their decision to commit fraud-only that it was one consideration that individuals engaged in fraud undoubtedly consider.

You seem to be making use of the rational economic man assumption utilized by economists to build their models...as a behaviorist by training (before I chose to leave my PhD program), I find that assumption sorely lacking.

I doubt very much that the moment someone commits fraud that they suddenly become indifferent to the benefits and costs of their actions to their family and close friends-except for those who were indifferent about their friends and family to begin with.

And I doubt very much that human behavior follows these bright-lines you've established in your own mind. The difference seems to be that I actually have some experience in this area.

[Bic Pentameter]

I think the problem here is that you all are attaching too much negative meaning to the term "fraud". A pious fraud is not a negative swindling kind of fraud. I can easily see a scenario where despite stretching the truth about the BoM, BoA, 1st vision, and some of the other revelations, that he truly believed he was a prophet of God and that he was fulfilling God's will. In this case, he would not deny his testimony of God because to him it was real.

Do elaborate. I'd like see how easy this scenario is, as you do. A few questions to start with..

How does it begin?

Who is involved (in the know) if anyone?

If there are plates, where did they come from? Who made them? From what? Did he pay someone to make them?

What did the witnesses see?

If not plates, what?

If they were in-the-know, What did they get in return for not spilling the beans (especially after turning against him)?

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?

Was it a collaborative effort?

Did someone else write it so that Joseph Smith could take all the credit?

Did Smith, knowing it was somebody else's fraud, claim authorship so that he could take all the blame?

How much time did it take?

At what point did Joseph convince himself that the Book of Mormon really was scripture? (Before he told his family about the Angel Moroni and the plates? Once he (or someone else) started writing it? After it was published? 1835? 1943?)

How did he maintain his confidence at being a prophet while consciously "stretching the truth" as you stated?

___________________

I am Bic Pentameter

[Luigi]

So Luigi, in your mind, just what would it take for Joseph to renounce his fraud besides eminent death and continued persecution/suffering of family and friends? Do tell, what's worse?

Assuming a fraud, I can't imagine that Joseph had any real friends inside of the Church. Being committed to such a fraud (until death), the idea of creating any true friendships with individuals that weren't 'in on it' would be difficult. Unless of course, you're downright evil. What kind of man do you think Joseph was Luigi? How complex to we have to let this fraud become before it's ridiculousness become apparent?

Human emotions are very complex. My father read the experiences of a general authority in Africa. He told me how this general authority wrote that he saw people who would risk their lives for the Church and then would only a week later steal from the Church. Sadly people can care deeply for something or someone and then manipulate them or even manipulate them and then develop a deep affection for them. Could Joseph have cared deeply for his close associates and family in Church leadership and yet lied to them or even asked them to do risky things to maintain the Church? I think so. Yet in many ways he may have felt he was asking them to take risks for something that would ultimately benefit them in some ways just as he had taken risks for the Church and benefited as well. Often times with great risk comes great reward. For Joseph, his family and friends in many ways that risk paid off but for some that took similar risks was not the case (take James Strang for example).

[Luigi]

And I doubt very much that human behavior follows these bright-lines you've established in your own mind. The difference seems to be that I actually have some experience in this area.

So your conclusion is that those engaged in fraud are indifferent to the consequences to their friends and family? What is your prefered model of human behavior (since you reject the economic rationalist model)? The man who engages in evil becomes a minion of Satan model?

[ttribe]

So your conclusion is that those engaged in fraud are indifferent to the consequences to their friends and family?

In many cases - yes. Consequences are not at the forefront of many fraudsters' minds.

What is your prefered model of human behavior (since you reject the economic rationalist model)?

Actually, I like Kahneman and Tversky's research, from a testable model standpoint anyway.

The man who engages in evil becomes a minion of Satan model?

And there went any semblance of civility. Grow up.