Carmack takes on the Late War

[Dr Exiled]

Take away the rock and the hat, the disappearing plates, the countless "revelations" in the D&C where Joseph Smith proclaims that God chose him, inventing Zelph, etc., and you may have something. However, those things are part of the history, pushing Joseph Smith's works more into the fraud category. Perhaps he had some good intentions in inventing the religion, but it looks fabricated nonetheless. So, of course he tried to sound biblical.

I don’t think any of these things need to be taken away for me to have a valid point. Those things are, in fact, part of the point. Your rock in the hat was his seer stone. He was not the only or the first person to have one. Your “disappearing” plates were his sacred text hidden up by an angel. I get that most everyone here is comforted by the economy of saying he was a fraud, but these kinds of religious claims have a very old pedigree. He was not the only person in history to do this kind of thing. So perhaps it is much more complex and interesting a phenomenon than a simple fraud, or even a “pious” fraud. There have always people who do these kinds of things, and then there are those who, like you, dismiss them. The whole thing is fascinating, and there is a lot more to it than such pallid dismissals capture.

It is one thing not to believe the claims, but I don’t see the need to mischaracterize or misrepresent the phenomenon. But that’s just me. I suppose it makes one’s liberation feel definitive to say it is all just garbage or a fraud. Simple, comforting . . . .

Inadequate. But, sure, YMMV.

I agree that many have had or claimed to have had the same magical experiences that Joseph Smith had. He isn't new. However, he did claim to be able to find treasure with his seer stone and never succeeded. Further, suppose Joseph Smith received communication from the divine, why the props? Why the need to use biblical language? Why the mystery attached? Why wouldn't a divine being just communicate directly instead of going through all of the extra steps of whispering to the Nephite that left no trace of having even existed, then have the Nephite work translated into Early Modern English, and then transmitted through a seer stone and then finally to us? Seems like a lousy way to communicate such supposed important topics. However, people love mystery and magic and maybe so does the divine? For me, the default has to be that it was either delusion, intention, or a little of both, especially here where there isn't any evidence for Nephites/Lamanites in the Americas. Joseph Smith claimed the Nephites/Lamanites existed and had Moroni say as much in Joseph Smith History. It is part of the cannon, yet not true.

[Bret Ripley]

It could also be that Joseph Smith, like many religious people throughout history, associated a special register of language with the divine.

Anecdotal support: I grew up in a church in which the "gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues" occasionally occurred, and the "interpretations" typically included heaping helpings of thee, thou, and verily. Here endeth the lesson.

[Dr Exiled]

It could also be that Joseph Smith, like many religious people throughout history, associated a special register of language with the divine.

Anecdotal support: I grew up in a church in which the "gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues" occasionally occurred, and the "interpretations" typically included heaping helpings of thee, thou, and verily. Here endeth the lesson.

So, do you think these fellow church members were actually speaking what God wanted them to speak or were they merely wishing to do so and speaking as the group had taught them to do when speaking of divine things?

[Chap]

Take away the rock and the hat, the disappearing plates, the countless "revelations" in the D&C where Joseph Smith proclaims that God chose him, inventing Zelph, etc., and you may have something. However, those things are part of the history, pushing Joseph Smith's works more into the fraud category. Perhaps he had some good intentions in inventing the religion, but it looks fabricated nonetheless. So, of course he tried to sound biblical.

I don’t think any of these things need to be taken away for me to have a valid point. Those things are, in fact, part of the point. Your rock in the hat was his seer stone. He was not the only or the first person to have one. Your “disappearing” plates were his sacred text hidden up by an angel. I get that most everyone here is comforted by the economy of saying he was a fraud, but these kinds of religious claims have a very old pedigree. He was not the only person in history to do this kind of thing. So perhaps it is much more complex and interesting a phenomenon than a simple fraud, or even a “pious” fraud. There have always people who do these kinds of things, and then there are those who, like you, dismiss them. The whole thing is fascinating, and there is a lot more to it than such pallid dismissals capture.

It is one thing not to believe the claims, but I don’t see the need to mischaracterize or misrepresent the phenomenon. But that’s just me. I suppose it makes one’s liberation feel definitive to say it is all just garbage or a fraud. Simple, comforting . . . .

Inadequate. But, sure, YMMV.

Umm, what would Joseph Smith have had to do different for you to say something like " Yup, basically it started as a fraud, but like all fraudsters Joseph Smith had to pretend to himself that he believed it too in order to get others to believe. In the end, he ended up more or less believing it all himself."

[Kishkumen]

Umm, what would Joseph Smith have had to do different for you to say something like " Yup, basically it started as a fraud, but like all fraudsters Joseph Smith had to pretend to himself that he believed it too in order to get others to believe. In the end, he ended up more or less believing it all himself."

Those questions don't really mean much to me. When I develop the ability to mind read historical figures, I'll let you know.

[Kishkumen]

I agree that many have had or claimed to have had the same magical experiences that Joseph Smith had. He isn't new. However, he did claim to be able to find treasure with his seer stone and never succeeded.

Your point being what exactly? That he was a bad treasure seer?

Further, suppose Joseph Smith received communication from the divine, why the props?

So your theological position, then, is that props are unnecessary.

Why the need to use biblical language?

Because such language was recognizable as being associated with God.

Why the mystery attached?

LOL. Well, for starters, the word mystery is used positively in the New Testament.

Why wouldn't a divine being just communicate directly instead of going through all of the extra steps of whispering to the Nephite that left no trace of having even existed, then have the Nephite work translated into Early Modern English, and then transmitted through a seer stone and then finally to us? Seems like a lousy way to communicate such supposed important topics.

Not being a divine being, I have no idea. I am assuming that you don't believe in divine beings--correct me if I am wrong--so basically this amounts to "I will believe in divine things when they conform to my standard of reason."

However, people love mystery and magic and maybe so does the divine?

Maybe, I don't know.

For me, the default has to be that it was either delusion, intention, or a little of both, especially here where there isn't any evidence for Nephites/Lamanites in the Americas. Joseph Smith claimed the Nephites/Lamanites existed and had Moroni say as much in Joseph Smith History. It is part of the cannon, yet not true.

Yep. That kind of thinking is at the root of the present crisis. Introduce a false dilemma in which both options are bad because that pushes people into the point of view that you really agree with.

[Lem]

I agree that many have had or claimed to have had the same magical experiences that Joseph Smith had. He isn't new. However, he did claim to be able to find treasure with his seer stone and never succeeded. Further, suppose Joseph Smith received communication from the divine, why the props? Why the need to use biblical language? Why the mystery attached? Why wouldn't a divine being just communicate directly instead of going through all of the extra steps of whispering to the Nephite that left no trace of having even existed, then have the Nephite work translated into Early Modern English, and then transmitted through a seer stone and then finally to us? Seems like a lousy way to communicate such supposed important topics. However, people love mystery and magic and maybe so does the divine? For me, the default has to be that it was either delusion, intention, or a little of both, especially here where there isn't any evidence for Nephites/Lamanites in the Americas. Joseph Smith claimed the Nephites/Lamanites existed and had Moroni say as much in Joseph Smith History. It is part of the cannon, yet not true.

For many, fraud is the conclusion, and I agree it is tough to see how pushing historicity of a document that is clearly not historical does not have an element of fraud.

Regarding calling Smith's work fraudulent, this has always been a place to openly express opinions. If some want to respect religion and talk politely about Smith, and others want to define his contributions as fraudulent, fine. There is space for the entire spectrum of opinion, and making disparaging comments about people's past when they define it as fraudulent doesn't seem particularly helpful.

[Gadianton]

There is space for the entire spectrum of opinion, and making disparaging comments about people's past when they define it as fraudulent doesn't seem particularly helpful.

Right. Well, context is everything. Look no further than Sic et Non to force the issue of the "fraud" category as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" is their favorite way to recast the Joseph Smith story. I kid you not, if you go to Sic et Non and try to avoid the word "fraud", they might become more irate than if you just say "fraud" because then it sounds postmodernist and something the new MI might pull. In fact, in the believer / nonbeliever debates, it's the Church leaders themselves who have said either the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, or it's a great fraud and the work of the devil. When investigating the Book of Mormon as a potential convert, fraud isn't just a serious option from a practical standpoint, it's an option implicit in the Church's own self-presentation.

As historians or students of religious history, there are very good scholarly reasons to eliminate fraud from the vocabulary altogether, and not just for the sake of being respectful.

First of all, real history can't deal with angels and magic, it assumes a naturalistic world. The pleadings of Sic et Non and previous Church leaders are disregarded, as it simply assumes angels don't exist and the plates were either fabricated or imagined. In a certain respect then, naturalistic assumptions quickly lead to assumptions of fraud, which is a bit circular. Second, as the Rev indicates, because the history of religion is basically the history humanity itself, if the rise of religion is the rise of fraud, then the history of humanity is the history of priestcraft, and it's going to get terribly monotonous and unhelpful to use judgmental language in regard to every religious decision made in human history. Third, history should stay descriptive rather than prescriptive for a lot of reasons, beginning with moral biases influencing what we're supposed to be describing objectively.

[Lem]

There is space for the entire spectrum of opinion, and making disparaging comments about people's past when they define it as fraudulent doesn't seem particularly helpful.

Right. Well, context is everything. Look no further than Sic et Non to force the issue of the "fraud" category as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" is their favorite way to recast the Joseph Smith story. I kid you not, if you go to Sic et Non and try to avoid the word "fraud", they might become more irate than if you just say "fraud" because then it sounds postmodernist and something the new MI might pull.

good point. I guess I was referring to just here. It’s a given that disparagement and name-calling will be involved at sic et non, especially if the most single-minded regulars sniff out a non-lds.

In fact, in the believer / nonbeliever debates, it's the Church leaders themselves who have said either the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, or it's a great fraud and the work of the devil. When investigating the Book of Mormon as a potential convert, fraud isn't just a serious option from a practical standpoint, it's an option implicit in the Church's own self-presentation.

As historians or students of religious history, there are very good scholarly reasons to eliminate fraud from the vocabulary altogether, and not just for the sake of being respectful.

First of all, real history can't deal with angels and magic, it assumes a naturalistic world. The pleadings of Sic et Non and previous Church leaders are disregarded, as it simply assumes angels don't exist and the plates were either fabricated or imagined. In a certain respect then, naturalistic assumptions quickly lead to assumptions of fraud, which is a bit circular. Second, as the Rev indicates, because the history of religion is basically the history humanity itself, if the rise of religion is the rise of fraud, then the history of humanity is the history of priestcraft, and it's going to get terribly monotonous and unhelpful to use judgmental language in regard to every religious decision made in human history. Third, history should stay descriptive rather than prescriptive for a lot of reasons, beginning with moral biases influencing what we're supposed to be describing objectively.

You make good points, especially the idea of descriptive history. Along those descriptive lines, I am defining Smith’s efforts as literal fraud, not because of the naturalistic assumptions that can lead to assumptions of fraud, but rather as a description of his pre-religion starting efforts. I am referring to descriptions of Smith’s efforts to get money out of his neighbors, using the same techniques and props that he then turned to a religious endeavor. (Grindael wrote on this a fair amount, I’ll see if I can find his post that influenced my thinking the most.) Based on that history, I am using the term fraud, not due to naturalistic explanations outweighing the angels angle, but rather literally, in the same sense that, in my opinion, his earlier efforts constituted fraud against people. I see his religion work to be just a continuation of those efforts. The religion borne out of that effort seems to rely very strongly on the isolation in the West that allowed the community to evolve past his original fraudulent efforts into a community based on their definition of their own religion. in my opinion, however, it still began with fraudulent techniques, hence my very specific use of the term.

[huckelberry]

As historians or students of religious history, there are very good scholarly reasons to eliminate fraud from the vocabulary altogether, and not just for the sake of being respectful.

First of all, real history can't deal with angels and magic, it assumes a naturalistic world. The pleadings of Sic et Non and previous Church leaders are disregarded, as it simply assumes angels don't exist and the plates were either fabricated or imagined. In a certain respect then, naturalistic assumptions quickly lead to assumptions of fraud, which is a bit circular. Second, as the Rev indicates, because the history of religion is basically the history humanity itself, if the rise of religion is the rise of fraud, then the history of humanity is the history of priestcraft, and it's going to get terribly monotonous and unhelpful to use judgmental language in regard to every religious decision made in human history. Third, history should stay descriptive rather than prescriptive for a lot of reasons, beginning with moral biases influencing what we're supposed to be describing objectively.

Gadianton, I am puzzled as to why you propose that real history cannot deal with angels, it assumes a naturalistic world. I see no reason history has to opine one way or the other on this. History may report an individual claims such and such and his actions and understandings are influence in particular ways by his experience . The individuals experience and ideas about the experience influence others and become part of the chain of events which is history. In fact the ideas and influences are important parts of history and do not require an opinion about angels or the supernatural to be understood.

I think you suspect that the word fraud shortcircuits the matter of understanding the vast variety of humans religious experience. I agree with that suspicion.