Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[clairc829]

So sad when someone is intent on disparaging the integrity of someone he never knew. I'm always reminded of the scriptures which talk of the beam in one's own eye. There are far more accounts that speak of Joseph's integrity and these by people who were actually close to him and knew him best. (your URL btw isn't working.)

My G-G-G-grandmother joined the Church in 1833. One of her comments preserved in family papers is that, what the Elders of the Church taught her family was very different than the rumors she had heard about what we teach-believe.

The family knew Joseph and followed him, sacrificing much to do so.

[Pahoran]

I agree with you USU, that this is a bit ridiculous. However, can you at least admit that it is strange that they changed his original account? This account is new to me, but it does seem silly to back and edit his accounts.

That, of course, presumes that it was "they," whoever "they" were, who did it, and not Joseph revising his own draft.

It's not as if the second account actually contradicts anything in the first. The change is simply a clarification.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

Relatve to thoughts I had on a different thread, do you believe the perception of Joseph would be the same today if he stood trial back in 1844 for the charges he was jailed for in Carthage?

The charges were trumped up and Joseph would have been acquitted just as he was in most charges levied against him.

[Skywalker]

personally, if all you are going to do is pat each other on the back, and tell everyone else how righteous you are, then slam anyone with a different opinion (not that that happened in this thread, but it does happen a lot) - well, then you have your own reward don't you.

Incidentally, this is exactly what happens over at The Compound

[Pahoran]

On another website that is dedicated to promoting the "Serial Zombie" Spaulding theory, this gem appears:

... Evidence that shows Smith to have been an honest man is also consistent with the con man theory, because that is precisely how many successful con men normally present themselves. A successful con man must pass himself off as trustworthy in order to gain the "confidence" of his marks so that he can then take advantage of them. Con men may even believe at some level that they can actually do the improbable things they claim to be able to do.

So there you have it, friends: it doesn't matter if there is evidence that Joseph was an honest, sincere man, because that merely confirms the "con man theory."

We might ask: is there, then anything that might disconfirm the "con man theory?" Is it in any way falsifiable? What, if anything, does it predict or explain?

It just doesn't get better than this!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Skywalker]

So there you have it, friends: it doesn't matter if there is evidence that Joseph was an honest, sincere man, because that merely confirms the "con man theory."

I agree Pahoran,

There is absolutely no possible way Joseph Smith could have been a con man. Con men do not withstand the persecution, frequent tarring and feathering, slander, and libel that Joseph Smith endured, nor to they willingly go "like a lamb to the slaughter" to be assassinated. Any conman who is not completely insane would much sooner admit his con then die for it.

[why me]

I agree Pahoran,

There is absolutely no possible way Joseph Smith could have been a con man. Con men do not withstand the persecution, frequent tarring and feathering, slander, and libel that Joseph Smith endured, nor to they willingly go "like a lamb to the slaughter" to be assassinated. Any conman who is not completely insane would much sooner admit his con then die for it.

And it was just not Joseph that is labeled a con man but also Sidney Ridgon who is considered to be author of the book of mormon for the critics. And yet, he also suffered much: beatings, house burnings, imprisonment and yet, no confession about a con. Even on his deathbed he states that he did not write the book of mormon. It is quite amazing really. All these men must have been made of steel never to give the con up. We have at least 13 men who never gave the con up, if we also include the 11 witnesses.

[why me]

So there you have it, friends: it doesn't matter if there is evidence that Joseph was an honest, sincere man, because that merely confirms the "con man theory."

We might ask: is there, then anything that might disconfirm the "con man theory?" Is it in any way falsifiable? What, if anything, does it predict or explain?

It just doesn't get better than this!

Regards,

Pahoran

No, everyone knows that conmen are basically honest people.

[Skywalker]

And it was just not Joseph that is labeled a con man but also Sidney Ridgon who is considered to be author of the book of mormon for the critics. And yet, he also suffered much: beatings, house burnings, imprisonment and yet, no confession about a con. Even on his deathbed he states that he did not write the book of mormon. It is quite amazing really. All these men must have been made of steel never to give the con up. We have at least 13 men who never gave the con up, if we also include the 11 witnesses.

Very good point, why me!

[why me]

Dan,

Relatve to thoughts I had on a different thread, do you believe the perception of Joseph would be the same today if he stood trial back in 1844 for the charges he was jailed for in Carthage? Do you believe his reputation by the Church today stood any risk if he was tried?

The situation is different today. Things would have not gotten so out of control as they did back then. The persecution was going on for years with the mormons. I don't think that such persecution could exist today. Also, the media back then was a little slower. And the law did not exactly protect groups of people from persecution if we consider the future of the Indians. The mormons were victims of protestant bigotry and narrowmindedness back then. I don't think that such a thing could happen now in the 21 century america.

[why me]

Very good point, why me!

It seems that if we have at least 13 conmen never given up the con regardless if they left the lds church or not, and after witnessing all the persecution of innocent people from their con and yet, never give it up for the sake of their humanity, we are dealing with sick narcissists whose only concern is themselves. And yet, I don't think that this is possible nor do all these men show a trait in their daily lives.

And then if we consider their wives and how they kept their secret from them, and the constantly lying they had to do to their wives, well, what man can keep such a secret or hide such a secret? And if in a moment of weakness they did spill the beans, then the conspiracy includes their wives too who never gave it up.

[Calm]

we are dealing with sick narcissists whose only concern is themselves. And yet, I don't think that this is possible nor do all these men show a trait in their daily lives.

This is problematic even if they did appear to be narcissistic considering the likelihood that it would have been beneficial at least in some cases for them to reveal the con as evidence by the ones who managed to garner attention and at times money based on their denouncing the beliefs and leaders they once claimed to accept, so if their own concern was for themselves...the con would have been revealed.

[Kenngo1969]

I've known about the "cheery disposition" stuff since I was a kid. I don't know what you're talking about. Tango's been sipping the elderberry wine from Sandra's faux crystal stemware again, methinks.

[Jaybear]

This is problematic even if they did appear to be narcissistic considering the likelihood that it would have been beneficial at least in some cases for them to reveal the con as evidence by the ones who managed to garner attention and at times money based on their denouncing the beliefs and leaders they once claimed to accept, so if their own concern was for themselves...the con would have been revealed.

Faith promoting nonsense.

It is never beneficial to one reputation to come out and admit to having participated in a conspiracy to defraud others. Such confessions occur only after they have been caught, and then only in an attempt to get back into the good graces of the public (or the judge).

If you think I am wrong, name one religious figure or politician (both of which are reputation driven professions) who admitted to have (1) committed adultry; or (2) defrauded his/her flock prior to having been exposed publicly.

You must be able to cite an abundance of examples, because every apologist on this board seems to believe that were it a conspiracy, one of the co conspirators would have come forward prior with a full confession. Surely then, such confessions are the norm, not the exception.

[selek]

Faith promoting nonsense.

What you posted surely is.

It is never beneficial to one reputation to come out and admit to having participated in a conspiracy to defraud others. Such confessions occur only after they have been caught, and then only in an attempt to get back into the good graces of the public (or the judge).

And thus we are Jaybear'd again.

Our poor, beknighted accuser of Joseph conveniently dismisses all other motives to expose the fraud, maneuvering the argument such that his solution is the only one possible.

That's called 'stacking the deck' and is everybit as dishonest as the alleged fraud of which he accuses Joseph.

In fact, Jaybear's claim is NOT the only motive these men might have had to expose the fraud, but we'll play with it for a moment.

Jaybear alleges that conspirators will betray their friends (turn state's witness) in exxhange for preferential treatment. We know this is often true.

So why then did these 'conspirators' suffer mobbings, burnings, beatings, and tarring and feathering when a simple confession could have bought them leniency?

Why did they prefer to nearly freeze to death in Liberty Jail when a simple confession would have seen them lauded as near-heroes?

Why did they suffer their wives and children to be threatened and assaulted, their homes and farms ransacked and burned, and their reputations and businesses destroyed?

It can't have been mere money....many of the conspirators were already men of means, and the 'racket' wasn't exactly drawing in money hand-over-fist.

In fact, the 'conspirators' spent most of their time struggling to subsist and survive.

We also know that dissenters and traitors to the Church were being rewarded and feted on the then-equivalent of the 'talk-show' circuit for saying bad things about the Church. So why then didn't they expose the fraud and garner both quick-and-easy fame and comparative wealth and luxury for themselves and their families?

Political/religious power? Not hardly.

Nearly all of the 'power' was concentrated in Joseph's 'inner circle'- and at one point or another, each of the 'conspirators' found himself disgraced and cast out of that group.

Most rackets collapse when they are no longer profitable for all the players.

So, if money and power were the point of the 'conspiracy', why didn't any of them expose the fraud once they were kicked out?

Few-if any- of the 'conspirators' became wealthy because of Joseph's 'racket'. Most wound up excluded from what 'profits' there were.

So what would compel them to standby the fraud through all of their days? Why risk death, maiming, imprisonment and persecution?

As we can see, Jaybear's claim that "it is NEVER beneficial" is so much rhetorical nonsense- the 'conspirators' had considerable financial, ethical, political, and emotional incentive to betray Joseph and 'come clean'.

Yet none ever did......

[why me]

This is problematic even if they did appear to be narcissistic considering the likelihood that it would have been beneficial at least in some cases for them to reveal the con as evidence by the ones who managed to garner attention and at times money based on their denouncing the beliefs and leaders they once claimed to accept, so if their own concern was for themselves...the con would have been revealed.

This is true. But it is conviently overlooked by critics. Nothing would have allowed the con to succeed if it were all a con. One of the amazing things about early mormonism is just how all the main characters stuck together with their story. Now of course this would not be so amazing if the story was true. But if it were false, I can't find a good explanation for it.

It has been pointed out that they had much to lose to reveal the fraud but this is not true. They had much to gain by doing so. Money could have been made and fame would have followed as they would be sent from town to town revealing how the con was planned and implemented.

[why me]

Faith promoting nonsense.

It is never beneficial to one reputation to come out and admit to having participated in a conspiracy to defraud others. Such confessions occur only after they have been caught, and then only in an attempt to get back into the good graces of the public (or the judge).

Except on the deathbed as one is about to face their maker with a major religious fraud on their conscience. Heading for hell for sure without a confession. Unless of course, they were all atheists.

And then, coming clean in general, would have given them instant fame and some money in their pocket especially if they would blacken JS and relate how they were duped into the con by a conartist who had no principles or morals. It would have played quite well with the press. And then of course, an apology would follow about the con and the conartist can claim that he was saved by a preacher of methodism who made him see the error of his ways.

Speaking tour for sure.

[maupayman]

On another website that is dedicated to promoting the "Serial Zombie" Spaulding theory, this gem appears:

So there you have it, friends: it doesn't matter if there is evidence that Joseph was an honest, sincere man, because that merely confirms the "con man theory."

We might ask: is there, then anything that might disconfirm the "con man theory?" Is it in any way falsifiable? What, if anything, does it predict or explain?

It just doesn't get better than this!

Regards,

Pahoran

Good point about the revising earlier accounts Pahoran. Regarding this post, are you arguing that conmen will not try to appear sincere and trustworthy?

[maupayman]

I agree Pahoran,

There is absolutely no possible way Joseph Smith could have been a con man. Con men do not withstand the persecution, frequent tarring and feathering, slander, and libel that Joseph Smith endured, nor to they willingly go "like a lamb to the slaughter" to be assassinated. Any conman who is not completely insane would much sooner admit his con then die for it.

What would the mobs have done, had Joseph admitted that it was all a fraud? What would they have done to others involved in the creation of the church? Also, regarding going to prison, what was his alternative? To become a fugitive? He may have hoped that he wasn't going to be killed in Carthage.

[maupayman]

It seems that if we have at least 13 conmen never given up the con regardless if they left the lds church or not, and after witnessing all the persecution of innocent people from their con and yet, never give it up for the sake of their humanity, we are dealing with sick narcissists whose only concern is themselves. And yet, I don't think that this is possible nor do all these men show a trait in their daily lives.

And then if we consider their wives and how they kept their secret from them, and the constantly lying they had to do to their wives, well, what man can keep such a secret or hide such a secret? And if in a moment of weakness they did spill the beans, then the conspiracy includes their wives too who never gave it up.

Who says all 13 of them were in on it whyme? It only requires a few to be in on it and a bunch of delusional religious nuts. Easy, there were plenty of those around during Smith's time.

[why me]

Who says all 13 of them were in on it whyme? It only requires a few to be in on it and a bunch of delusional religious nuts. Easy, there were plenty of those around during Smith's time.

But you see, this all takes careful preparation and timing. And sidney and joseph would need to discuss names for duping. It is not easy and certainly time consuming to go over names. I am sure that there were crazies but I am not sure that the crazies would not blow the whistle as time went on.

[Daniel Peterson]

Faith promoting nonsense.

It is never beneficial to one reputation to come out and admit to having participated in a conspiracy to defraud others. Such confessions occur only after they have been caught, and then only in an attempt to get back into the good graces of the public (or the judge).

If you think I am wrong, name one religious figure or politician (both of which are reputation driven professions) who admitted to have (1) committed adultry; or (2) defrauded his/her flock prior to having been exposed publicly.

You must be able to cite an abundance of examples, because every apologist on this board seems to believe that were it a conspiracy, one of the co conspirators would have come forward prior with a full confession. Surely then, such confessions are the norm, not the exception.

At least one of James Jesse Strang's witnesses later admitted to being in on the con, and at least one other decided the whole thing was bunk.

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, though, remained true to their testimonies until their deaths. What's more, they did so even when their lives were threatened (e.g., David Whitmer testifying in Missouri when a gun was being held to his chest with a demand that he repudiate his testimony), and several bore testimony -- joyously, by all accounts -- on their deathbeds.

Sure, it's theoretically possible that some or all of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were engaged in fraud. But there is no evidence to demonstrate such a fraud, nor, really, even to suggest it. And there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

On this point, it seems to me, the critics are grasping at straws.

[selek]

Who says all 13 of them were in on it whyme? It only requires a few to be in on it and a bunch of delusional religious nuts. Easy, there were plenty of those around during Smith's time.

CFR Maupayman.

Please provide any evidence you have that ANY of the thirteen people involved with coming forth of the Book of Mormon were "delusional" or otherwise mentally unstable.

Anti-religious bigotry aside, you are disparaging these people as dupes, charlatans, and mentally unstable- without providing ANY evidence to back up your guesswork.

In short, unless and until you provide some sort of documentation, you're throwing out worthless and clueless insults.

Unless and until you provide some documentation, you are engaging in character assassination and gossip, not reason.

[maupayman]

But you see, this all takes careful preparation and timing. And sidney and joseph would need to discuss names for duping. It is not easy and certainly time consuming to go over names. I am sure that there were crazies but I am not sure that the crazies would not blow the whistle as time went on.

These people were from the "burned over district". Visionary claims were not rare during this time period. It would not have been that difficult to find people who believed they could have visionary experiences.

[maupayman]

At least one of James Jesse Strang's witnesses later admitted to being in on the con, and at least one other decided the whole thing was bunk.

Haven't seen this one yet, do you have a reference for this one Daniel?

Sure, it's theoretically possible that some or all of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were engaged in fraud. But there is no evidence to demonstrate such a fraud, nor, really, even to suggest it. And there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

There is considerable evidence that the witnesses visions occured?