Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[LeSellers]

Ah, yes, the infamous, Hurlbut/Howe "affidavits". There is abundant proof that Hurlbut wrote those statements himself, and that they are outright fabrications: The Hurlbut Affidavits.

My question was did YOU come to a conclusion, or dismiss it. Or, did you rely on someone else to do it for you?

I have looked at copies of the affidavits, I have seen the evidence, and I arrived at the conclusion that Hurlbut was 'way more involved than any interrogator ought to have been.

I must admit is was twenty or more years ago, though, so I don't recall any specifics, but I can look it up again if it's important to you.

Lehi

[why me]

Which is exactly what I had said, was it not?

Which is not what you claimed.

We seem to be making progress.

I still do not see how "too mean to mention" or that we'd like to forget them makes them liars or untrustworthy.

So, I see that you have just one of your "most of them" (and the original claim that it was all of them, only modified to "most" as a sop to soften the charge a bit) charges with any support at all.

Lehi

Joseph had a temper especially toward those friends who he felt betrayed him. He was just a human being like everyone else and a rough stone rolling..a frontier kinda guy. I would not be surprised in the heat of the moment he would say that some were liars. I would have no problem with that at all especially since the witnesses never retracted what they wrote in their testimony to the book of mormon.

[maupayman]

Do you think it would be relevant to your belief formation on the topic to have an understanding of such patterns given that you are stating (unequivocally) that the issue at hand is such a fraud?

belief formation seems a strange word choice, but yes, i'm sure it would help in evaluating evidence on this matter.

[maupayman]

LOL. I doubt that.

I have said that there is evidence -- the text of Book of Mormon Isaiah, which is obviously very close to that of KJV Isaiah -- that can easily be interpreted as suggesting that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the translation process. But it doesn't mandate that conclusion, since at least one other explanation is possible (and is, in fact, in closer accord with the testimony of eyewitnesses and with what we know about the translation process).

I personally don't care whether a Bible was physically present. It makes little or no difference to my view of the Book of Mormon. I just don't think that one was.

You have mentioned Isaiah, i'm curious about your position on the portions of 3 Nephi. For example, Palmer notes that 3 Nephi 12:41 "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain" would have made no sense to the American native population. Is he wrong on this point? Is this something Jesus would have actually said to the Nephites?

[why me]

You have mentioned Isaiah, i'm curious about your position on the portions of 3 Nephi. For example, Palmer notes that 3 Nephi 12:41 "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain" would have made no sense to the American native population. Is he wrong on this point? Is this something Jesus would have actually said to the Nephites?

I don't know. But what if we were translating chaucer as an ancient and godly text and came across old english. How would the lord have us translate it? Using modern english or sticking to the old? The old would be daunting to be sure for any english speaker unless one is a scholar of the english language.

[Calm]

Joseph had a temper especially toward those friends who he felt betrayed him.

Is there anyone who deals well with what they believe is betrayal?

[MountainMan]

Here's my opening post. I stand by it:

I like this latest "Mormon Scholars Testify" entry, because its author, based on years of working with the legal and business documents associated with Joseph Smith, is firmly convinced that Joseph Smith was an honest and an honorable man, and a sincere one:

http://mormonscholar...gordon-a-madsen

That's my firm conviction, as well, based upon my own readings in published anthologies of his "personal writings." It's nothing that I can neatly prove, in the same way that I can construct a demonstrative syllogism, and others will, no doubt, dismiss my understanding of the man. But it's my very, very strong sense, after years of reading things that Joseph didn't write for publication: If I have any sense at all for genuineness in a fellow human being, any capacity to discern character in people, Joseph Smith was a sincere man.

Which, I think, is a very important thing to know.

The options seem to me, broadly, that he was either mad, or a liar, or a prophet. I'm convinced that he wasn't a liar, and I see no signs of insanity (and wouldn't regard madness as an adequate explanation anyway, if the Witnesses and his other associates are taken into account).

I followed the story of Jim Jones and his "People's Temple" fairly closely at the time, and have read somewhat about him since. I do not believe that he was an honest, honorable, or fully sane man, and, if seriously asked to justify my opinion of him, could quite easily do so. This has nothing whatever to do with any double standard on my part.

Hilarious your conviction.

How about The Prophet Joseph Smith's sincere letters, which The Prophet didn't write for publication, to his beloved wife Emma regarding Zelph and wandering over the plains of the Nephites during Zion's Camp from Ohio to Missouri?

You're a Board of Directors of FARMS which is devoted to a limited Geographical Theory for the Book of Mormon in Mesaoamerica, even though your fellow scholars and contributory authors don't know where in Mesoamerica it occurred, nor believe the Maya were the Nephites. Despite this, FARMS uses Maya icons on its website, refers to Maya Calendars, Glyphs, Baktun, even a Maya 2012 Prophecy, to mention a few, all in defense of a Book of Mormon geography placement theory which FARMS nor you have proven. FARMS is still arguing over whether the Rio Grivalja or the Rio Usamacintas is the River Sidon - all in an area the size of Utah (500 sq miles +-) when the Book of Mormon only mentions one major river.

And you have the gall to claim you believe Joseph Smith was honest, honorable and sincere, while devoting the majority of your time in proving a Geography Theory which The Prophet's honest, honorable and sincere statements would indicate otherwise?

Maybe you'd like to add you believe The Prophet was honest, honorable and sincere, but was wrong? Your life's work at FARMS speaks of it.

Hilarious your conviction.

You're work at FARMS is so hypocritical that non-members now believe your defending a false prophet due to your attempts in proving a LGT theory in Mesoamerica for the Book of Mormon: Read it: http://www.equip.org...mon-apologetics All one has to do is google your name.

And if you don't think that Members and Non-Members alike see your ridiculous infatuation with a Mesoamerica Theory as such, you're living in a fantasyland.

All in your attempts at being worldy in your scholarship to prove to the world the Book of Mormon is true.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hilarious your conviction.

How about The Prophet Joseph Smith's sincere letters, which The Prophet didn't write for publication, to his beloved wife Emma regarding Zelph and wandering over the plains of the Nephites during Zion's Camp from Ohio to Missouri?

You're a Board of Directors of FARMS which is devoted to a limited Geographical Theory for the Book of Mormon in Mesaoamerica, even though your fellow scholars and contributory authors don't know where in Mesoamerica it occurred, nor believe the Maya were the Nephites. Despite this, FARMS uses Maya icons on its website, refers to Maya Calendars, Glyphs, Baktun, even a Maya 2012 Prophecy, to mention a few, all in defense of a Book of Mormon geography placement theory which FARMS nor you have proven. FARMS is still arguing over whether the Rio Grivalja or the Rio Usamacintas is the River Sidon - all in an area the size of Utah (500 sq miles +-) when the Book of Mormon only mentions one major river.

And you have the gall to claim you believe Joseph Smith was honest, honorable and sincere, while devoting the majority of your time in proving a Geography Theory which The Prophet's honest, honorable and sincere statements would indicate otherwise?

Maybe you'd like to add you believe The Prophet was honest, honorable and sincere, but was wrong? Your life's work at FARMS speaks of it.

Hilarious your conviction.

You're work at FARMS is so hypocritical that non-members now believe your defending a false prophet due to your attempts in proving a LGT theory in Mesoamerica for the Book of Mormon: Read it: http://www.equip.org...mon-apologetics All one has to do is google your name.

And if you don't think that Members and Non-Members alike see your ridiculous infatuation with a Mesoamerica Theory as such, you're living in a fantasyland.

All in your attempts at being worldy in your scholarship to prove to the world the Book of Mormon is true.

Honest and sincere does not equal infallible.

The besst and most detailed studies I have seen of the Zelph story have been published by.... wait for it.. wait for it... FARMS.

Who would have thought?

I've written a detailed study of 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. Joseph Smith looks very good in comparison. Uniquely so, in fact.

Regarding the Grijalva versus the Usamacinta as the "one major river", how about a meaningful comment on this:

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/grijalvasidon.html

FARMS is not involved in trying to force skeptics to believe against their will, but to show that belief is reasonable. Attempts to charge us with doing otherwise simply demonstrates a lack of perception on the part of the skeptics. A little honest inquiry should demonstrate that to a reasonable critic. To other kinds of critics, well... there is that old saying about horses and water. It applies.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Nemesis]

Hilarious your conviction.

How about The Prophet Joseph Smith's sincere letters, which The Prophet didn't write for publication, to his beloved wife Emma regarding Zelph and wandering over the plains of the Nephites during Zion's Camp from Ohio to Missouri?

You're a Board of Directors of FARMS which is devoted to a limited Geographical Theory for the Book of Mormon in Mesaoamerica, even though your fellow scholars and contributory authors don't know where in Mesoamerica it occurred, nor believe the Maya were the Nephites. Despite this, FARMS uses Maya icons on its website, refers to Maya Calendars, Glyphs, Baktun, even a Maya 2012 Prophecy, to mention a few, all in defense of a Book of Mormon geography placement theory which FARMS nor you have proven. FARMS is still arguing over whether the Rio Grivalja or the Rio Usamacintas is the River Sidon - all in an area the size of Utah (500 sq miles +-) when the Book of Mormon only mentions one major river.

And you have the gall to claim you believe Joseph Smith was honest, honorable and sincere, while devoting the majority of your time in proving a Geography Theory which The Prophet's honest, honorable and sincere statements would indicate otherwise?

Maybe you'd like to add you believe The Prophet was honest, honorable and sincere, but was wrong? Your life's work at FARMS speaks of it.

Hilarious your conviction.

You're work at FARMS is so hypocritical that non-members now believe your defending a false prophet due to your attempts in proving a LGT theory in Mesoamerica for the Book of Mormon: Read it: http://www.equip.org...mon-apologetics All one has to do is google your name.

And if you don't think that Members and Non-Members alike see your ridiculous infatuation with a Mesoamerica Theory as such, you're living in a fantasyland.

All in your attempts at being worldy in your scholarship to prove to the world the Book of Mormon is true.

There was a reason you were banned the first time, don't register on this board again.

Nemesis

[maupayman]

I don't know. But what if we were translating chaucer as an ancient and godly text and came across old english. How would the lord have us translate it? Using modern english or sticking to the old? The old would be daunting to be sure for any english speaker unless one is a scholar of the english language.

First off, the BoM was not translated in a manner anywhere close to the way one would translate Chaucer. This is a confusing argument, the problem, as I see it, is not whether this expression could be easily understood by the reader; For that matter, I don't even think it helps in that regard, rather, is this what Jesus actually said to the Nephites. It doesn't make much sense for him to have said this to the Nephites, but it makes perfect sense if Smith was reading out of the Bible. Is your position that 3 Nephi is not an actual acount of Jesus' teachings to the Nephites?

[Hamba Tuhan]

First off, the BoM was not translated in a manner anywhere close to the way one would translate Chaucer. This is a confusing argument, the problem, as I see it, is not whether this expression could be easily understood by the reader; For that matter, I don't even think it helps in that regard, rather, is this what Jesus actually said to the Nephites. It doesn't make much sense for him to have said this to the Nephites, but it makes perfect sense if Smith was reading out of the Bible. Is your position that 3 Nephi is not an actual acount of Jesus' teachings to the Nephites?

Translation inevitably is a balancing act between being slavishly faithful to the original text and creating a completely new text (which is inevitably what it has to be) which is meaningful to the target audience. Except for a very narrow range of purposes, the worst of all possible translations is the slavishly faithful one, just as the worst cinematic adaptations of novels are those which slavishly follow the book. The goal in most translations is to communicate the intention of a passage in a way that is most likely to resonate with the target audience whilst simultaneously preserving the 'flavour' of the original text where possible.

By the way, most of my work has involved 16th-century Jesuit letters. Less often than one might think, these Jesuits quoted from the Bible in their personal communications. When I first began my translating, I simply translated these passages as well, never recognising them for what they were simply because they were not in KJV English. After a time, though, I realised what I was dealing with, mostly because certain passages were used over and over, and, instead of putting them into my own words, I started looing up the relevant passages in an online Douay Bible and using those instead. As you can imagine, my personal translations of these quotes were not always the same as the 'official' translations, but using what is recognisable Bible language marks the passages as Bible quotes in a way that my own attempts at rendering them did not. This is how translation works. I don't know why you seem to keep insisting that God somehow doesn't face these exact same issues and need for balance in an inspired translation.

In fact, as one who has translated multiple 1000s of pages of old texts and who has published a portion of those, I've never been able to wrap my brain around this mythical perfect translation which critics always seem to insist that God would have inspired.

[ttribe]

belief formation seems a strange word choice, but yes, i'm sure it would help in evaluating evidence on this matter.

I was using the term "belief formation" in the sense it is used in cognitive psychology. Sorry if it created confusion.

I don't have a lot of time today, but regarding the behavioral patterns of collusive fraud, here's something I wrote here a while back: Post Link

Please bear in mind that I am using the standard definition of fraud as follows:

[maupayman]

I was using the term "belief formation" in the sense it is used in cognitive psychology. Sorry if it created confusion.

I don't have a lot of time today, but regarding the behavioral patterns of collusive fraud, here's something I wrote here a while back: Post Link

Thanks for the link ttribe, i'll comment on the info from your link.

"If we stop to consider the facets of a man's character which would prove him not to be a deceptive con man, the point which first attracts our attention is this -- a con man would not knowingly and willingly endanger all that he holds dear, merely to succeed in deceiving people. Self-survival is a powerful instinct. Protection of family and loved ones is another powerful inclination in all decent human beings. And yet the actions of Joseph Smith, Jr. put the lives of those close to him in danger several times. His own life, as well as that of his brother Hyrum, was forfeited in defense of the Mormon cause. Such dedication and zeal, in the face of life-threatening "persecution," seems far removed from the modus operandi of the typical confidence man."

David Koresh, James Jones and Mohammed would all be examples counter to this point. They were quite willing to risk their own, along with everyones else's lives for their frauds.

The fact is, with the benefit of hindsight we have the opportunity to evaluate the sum total of the man's life and compare patterns from that life to the "standard" in order to evaluate the plausibility of the assertion. In this case, the assertion is: Joseph Smith Jr. was a con-man who sought to commit fraud.

To the extent that his life aligns with the typical behavioral patterns of a prototypical fraudster, such patterns should be given appropriate weight. On the flip-side, to the extent that his life does not align with the behavioral patterns of a prototypical fraudster, these behaviors should also be given appropriate weight.

I'm not sure that I would argue Joseph was a prototypicla fraudster. A pious fraud, or a religious fraud, is a whole different ballgame imo.

In my opinion, there are several behavioral patterns which align with the idea that, in fact, Joseph Smith Jr. was intentionally committing fraud. I don't think I need to go into them...there seem to be ample writings on the matter.

A refreshingly honest comment, I wish you would have outlined a few of these in point form; they are important to the issue.

However, while I believe there are more than just a couple of countervailing factors which point to Joseph Smith Jr. being a sincere believer in the work he undertook (and, by definition, not a con-man)

This is where you lose me, many religious frauds could be shown to be believers in their work. If Joseph viewed his fraud as a means to an end, bringing people to Christ, he would have seen ample evidence in his converts to the merits of his work. Same goes for Mohammed and other religious leaders. Hell, even miracle healers have people leave their gatherings, claiming they are healed.

there is one that stands out to me the most - his behavior in the face of "life threatening 'persecution'" as Uncle Dale calls it. By and large, con-men/fraudsters are not a "brave" bunch. I am not aware of a single known fraudster who suffered the types of indignities, threats, and harm as did Joseph Smith and still maintained the facade necessary to continue the perpetuation of the fraud.

Again, Koresh, Jones and Mohammed are just a few examples of people who endured persecution and maintained thier movements.

An additional countervailing pattern is the collective behavior of likely conspirators. In my opinion, I find it extremely unlikely that such a fraud as the Book of Mormon and the attendant Church could have been pulled off by one individual. As a consequence, that leaves a conspiracy as the only other logical explanation on this line of thinking. In fact, I believe Uncle Dale is a long-time proponent of the Sidney Rigdon/Spaulding Manuscript conspiracy theory. Based on my studies, I believe not only would Rigdon have to have been involved, but also Emma and likely Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer.

I don't see the need for these additional people to be in on the "con". I see Rigdon, Smith, and Cowdery as the only necessary ones. Criddle's wordprint, though limited in scope, confirms this notion. I would like to see more research done into this area.

Interestingly enough, despite various fallings-out with Joseph Smith, and the suffering of many of the same persecutions, not one of them ever turns on the other conspirator(s). This is an almost unheard of occurrence. When pressed, and their backs are up against the wall, conspiracies frequently unravel (see here for example: Link).

Often, not always. I have answered this numerous times before on this site. This is a favorite point of whyme. I don't see how admitting they are conmen does anything to improve their standing with the mobs. If I was a mobster, and the guy admitted the whole thing was a fraud, I would be more likely to kill him. Again, motives are a hard thing to understand, looking back through history.

Finally, frauds generally do not outlive their founder. Once the founder, or fraud "ring leader", is gone, remaining conspirators (if there are any) rarely have the ability or wherewithal to maintain the fraud, and certainly not into perpetuity.

Again, when dealing with religions, this doesn't seem like a strong argument.

Now, is any of this prima facia evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't a con-man? No. Not at all. But, to the extent that the reader is assigning probabilities to the matter, he or she must know that these patterns are such significant departures from the norm as to assign them probabilities at the far end of the tail of a normal distribution.

I don't view them as significant departures at all. They seem like the norm, or what I would have done in the same position. I appreciate your post, but I have to disagree with your perspective on the matter.

Please bear in mind that I am using the standard definition of fraud as follows:

[maupayman]

Translation inevitably is a balancing act between being slavishly faithful to the original text and creating a completely new text (which is inevitably what it has to be) which is meaningful to the target audience. Except for a very narrow range of purposes, the worst of all possible translations is the slavishly faithful one, just as the worst cinematic adaptations of novels are those which slavishly follow the book. The goal in most translations is to communicate the intention of a passage in a way that is most likely to resonate with the target audience whilst simultaneously preserving the 'flavour' of the original text where possible.

So, throwing in an expression that has no meaning, in the given context, helps it resonate with readers? The words and teachings of Christ would have been inspiring, without throwing in KJV expressions that would not have had any meaning to the audience. I don't see how this expression does anything to enhance the intention or flavour of the original text. On the other hand, it makes a lot of sense, especially given the Isaiah evidence, that he was reading this out of a Bible.

By the way, most of my work has involved 16th-century Jesuit letters. Less often than one might think, these Jesuits quoted from the Bible in their personal communications. When I first began my translating, I simply translated these passages as well, never recognising them for what they were simply because they were not in KJV English. After a time, though, I realised what I was dealing with, mostly because certain passages were used over and over, and, instead of putting them into my own words, I started looing up the relevant passages in an online Douay Bible and using those instead. As you can imagine, my personal translations of these quotes were not always the same as the 'official' translations, but using what is recognisable Bible language marks the passages as Bible quotes in a way that my own attempts at rendering them did not. This is how translation works. I don't know why you seem to keep insisting that God somehow doesn't face these exact same issues and need for balance in an inspired translation.

I don't have a problem with the idea, if the idea conveyed is actually close to what would have actually been said. I understand this issue, I speak four languages. Where you lose me is when the translator suddenly injects something that is nowhere near what would have actually been said, yet makes perfect sense if he was just reading it out of Bible. Its unnecessary and poor translation, or its evidence that Joseph and Oliver were not entirely forthright about the BoM's composition process.

In fact, as one who has translated multiple 1000s of pages of old texts and who has published a portion of those, I've never been able to wrap my brain around this mythical perfect translation which critics always seem to insist that God would have inspired.

I'm not expecting it to be perfect, i'm just expecting it to not stray completely, for moments, from the original text.

[ttribe]

Thanks for the link ttribe, i'll comment on the info from your link.

David Koresh, James Jones and Mohammed would all be examples counter to this point. They were quite willing to risk their own, along with everyones else's lives for their frauds.

I'm not sure that I would argue Joseph was a prototypicla fraudster. A pious fraud, or a religious fraud, is a whole different ballgame imo.

A refreshingly honest comment, I wish you would have outlined a few of these in point form; they are important to the issue.

This is where you lose me, many religious frauds could be shown to be believers in their work. If Joseph viewed his fraud as a means to an end, bringing people to Christ, he would have seen ample evidence in his converts to the merits of his work. Same goes for Mohammed and other religious leaders. Hell, even miracle healers have people leave their gatherings, claiming they are healed.

Again, Koresh, Jones and Mohammed are just a few examples of people who endured persecution and maintained thier movements.

I don't see the need for these additional people to be in on the "con". I see Rigdon, Smith, and Cowdery as the only necessary ones. Criddle's wordprint, though limited in scope, confirms this notion. I would like to see more research done into this area.

Often, not always. I have answered this numerous times before on this site. This is a favorite point of whyme. I don't see how admitting they are conmen does anything to improve their standing with the mobs. If I was a mobster, and the guy admitted the whole thing was a fraud, I would be more likely to kill him. Again, motives are a hard thing to understand, looking back through history.

Again, when dealing with religions, this doesn't seem like a strong argument.

I don't view them as significant departures at all. They seem like the norm, or what I would have done in the same position. I appreciate your post, but I have to disagree with your perspective on the matter.

This definition does not seem to apply to a religious fraud, given the last point: "the victim suffers damages as a result" does not necessarily apply. The converts to mormonism would have seen any damages as a test of their faith. They were willing to suffer the different hardships, often joyfully as proof of their devotion to God.

[sigh] I'm curious, did you read the rest of the thread where I addressed all of these issues?

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't see the need for these additional people to be in on the "con". I see Rigdon, Smith, and Cowdery as the only necessary ones. Criddle's wordprint, though limited in scope, confirms this notion. I would like to see more research done into this area.

LOL.

You will!

[maupayman]

[sigh] I'm curious, did you read the rest of the thread where I addressed all of these issues?

I did read the thread and obviously don't agree with your addressing of all of these issues. You seem to have restated your initial points and mentioned your credentials. I don't agree with your starting definition of a con-man, as it applies to religious leaders. So, your continual argument to meet your own definition is not that helpful to me. You seem convinced that Joseph knew he was going to die and openly accepted it for the glory of God. I don't see it that way, neither did Uncle Dale in your thread.

[maupayman]

LOL.

You will!

That would be great Dan, i'm glad you find this so amusing. Believe me, I have laughed out loud (LOL capitalized for more effect) numerous times to your proposed explanations for KJV english showing up in the BoM.

[why me]

David Koresh, James Jones and Mohammed would all be examples counter to this point. They were quite willing to risk their own, along with everyones else's lives for their frauds.

The only problem here is that JS died with his brother in prison and by going to prison he saved lives. Now of course, if he made a bunch of kool aid and put poison in it and demanded that all his followers drink it, well, you may have a point.

And then we have the witnesses. Still faithful after all those years and willingly going to heaven with the supposed lie. Amazing.

[why me]

That would be great Dan, i'm glad you find this so amusing. Believe me, I have laughed out loud (LOL capitalized for more effect) numerous times to your proposed explanations for KJV english showing up in the BoM.

Well, it would be a strange fraud. Here we have sidney writing the book of mormon. He agonizes over it as the story develops. Of course he borrows some things from spaulding but he still needs to develop the story and develop somekind of religious connotation. And so, what does sidney do? He decided to copy the kjv for some pages. Of course, he is rather stupid as he understands that no one will notice. But he continues on with his story line. And of course, at the time of publication, to my knowledge no one seemed to notice. And if someone did, I am sure that they asked the question that was necessary and received a pretty good answer. It seems to be a nonissue at that time.

If I were sidney, I would have left it out. No one would have missed it. He must have been a pretty stupid guy to put it in the book of mormon and then have JS stick his head in a hat.

[why me]

Translation inevitably is a balancing act between being slavishly faithful to the original text and creating a completely new text (which is inevitably what it has to be) which is meaningful to the target audience. Except for a very narrow range of purposes, the worst of all possible translations is the slavishly faithful one, just as the worst cinematic adaptations of novels are those which slavishly follow the book. The goal in most translations is to communicate the intention of a passage in a way that is most likely to resonate with the target audience whilst simultaneously preserving the 'flavour' of the original text where possible.

This is usually lost on the critics. I was just looking at two different translations of Baudelaire's poems in english. Two people from two different publishers had very different translations of the poems.

[maupayman]

The only problem here is that JS died with his brother in prison and by going to prison he saved lives. Now of course, if he made a bunch of kool aid and put poison in it and demanded that all his followers drink it, well, you may have a point.

And then we have the witnesses. Still faithful after all those years and willingly going to heaven with the supposed lie. Amazing.

You will notice that I was responding to ttribe's point that "a con man would not knowingly and willingly endanger all that he holds dear, merely to succeed in deceiving people". The list of Koresh, Jones and Mohammed were examples of frauds, or con-men, who knowingly and willingly endagered the lives of those close to them without admitting it was all a fraud. Therefore, my point stands. Now, your reference to dying for the cause is a different matter, that I will agree. However, Koresh still works for this point. Koresh died for his cause and never denied his claims. As for the witnesses, again, you and I clearly differ on our use of the word faithful.

[Hestia]

The list of Koresh, Jones and Mohammed were examples of frauds, or con-men, who knowingly and willingly endagered the lives of those close to them without admitting it was all a fraud.

Such comparisons are not appropriate. You are done on this thread.

[JackNimble]

That would be great Dan, i'm glad you find this so amusing. Believe me, I have laughed out loud (LOL capitalized for more effect) numerous times to your proposed explanations for KJV english showing up in the BoM.

Did you laugh equally hard at the proper use of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

[ttribe]

I did read the thread and obviously don't agree with your addressing of all of these issues. You seem to have restated your initial points and mentioned your credentials. I don't agree with your starting definition of a con-man, as it applies to religious leaders. So, your continual argument to meet your own definition is not that helpful to me. You seem convinced that Joseph knew he was going to die and openly accepted it for the glory of God. I don't see it that way, neither did Uncle Dale in your thread.

Well, since maupayman has been thrown out of this thread (needlessly, IMO), I won't take the time to respond in all the gory detail. Suffice it to say that there are significant problems of assumption in these so-called counterarguments which completely miss the point and ignore the functional definitions of key words. Oh well.