I find a lot of his points interesting but some things still don't seem to fit.

It's a good theory.

But I don't think it fits the evidence of Joseph Smith.

Yeah, I've got some doubts about it too but I also tend to think that Dan Vogel is closer to the mark than any of the other Joseph Smith biographers that I'm familiar with.

I think that Smith intended to profit handsomely for his efforts. His attempt to sell the BOM copyright (twice if I'm not mistaken) convinces me of this.

But, I also think that he thought himself to be something special and he genuinely thought that he would be justfied in his anticipated reward because he was "bringing people to Christ".

In Joseph Smith's mind, the end justifies the means and therefore any and all lies, deceit, theft, murder, etc. are OK if he can justify them as being the work of the Lord. It seems obvious to me that the story of Nephi and Laban illuminates his thought process and may even be a (sub)conscious attempt to self justify all of monkey biz. of the Angelic vistitation, Gold Plates, etc. whopper of a story. D. Michael Quinn nailed this personality trait with his theocaratic ethics theory.

Pious fraud to me simply means the type of fraud Smith was perpetuating. Because it is religious and not something else, it puts it into the category of "pious fraud."

So though I haven't studied Dan Vogel's "theory," I have my own.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned, Smith fits the prototype perfectly of committing pious fraud on his deceived followers.

That's exactly what he did. He confiscated all their property under his "Law of Consecration," and used it for his own wealth building. He committed fraud with other men's wives, and some of them fell for it. The others were sent on "missions" so he could subject himself on their women while they were away on their callings.

He only pretended to be a prophet, and a visionary. Whatever he did was calculating and measured, and cold.

Same way a con artist operates a fraud scheme, is the principle of pious fraud. He just used religion instead of something else to rip people off, and he did a pretty good job of getting away with it until the vigilante mob caught up with him.

Nope.
Too many actions and statements and post-facto making up of stories for me to consider that Smith was anything but an out-right fraud and liar.

He pretended to piousness to sucker people in. He wasn't pious himself. Just a fraud.

Smith is the very definition of what pious fraud is.

Pious fraud is in pretending to be pious!

Someone committing pious fraud doesn't believe in what they're doing. He passed himself off as pious while committing his fraud and chicanery.

Selling a fake religion on false pretenses, was/is pious fraud.

amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smith is the very definition of what pious fraud
> is.
>
> Pious fraud is in pretending to be pious!

Perhaps; but that's not Vogel's "theory."

Ordinarily I wouldn't resort to Wiki, but it is a concept I'm familiar with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud

>Pious fraud can be counterfeiting a miracle or falsely attributing a sacred text to a biblical figure due to the belief that the "end justifies the means", in this case the end of increasing faith by whatever means available.

http://skepdic.com/piousfraud.html

My friend, Brad Lepper, is the Ohio State Archaeologist who's done some remarkable work with the so-called "Newark Holy Stones." Defenders of "hyper-diffusion" (i.e. ancient pre-Columbian contact between the Old and the New Worlds) frequently cite them as "proof" of such contact, but they've repeatedly been shown to be 19th century fabrications. Brad believes the term "pious fraud" is applicable because of the motives behind their manufacture. He makes a strong case, and being the excellent scientist he is, he doesn't claim it as proof, only offers it as a really plausible explanation.

http://apps.ohiohistory.org/ohioarchaeology/newark-holy-stone-is-featured-on-america-unearthed/

This one is a favorite of mine because not only did Scott Wolter show up and get clobbered, but "Heartland Model" LDS apologist Rodney Meldrum did as well, and lo and behold the Internet parted and Simon Southerton in all his glory did show up and smote Meldrum hard and repeatedly...

No prizes for guessing who the transoceanic stool pigeon was who whispered something in Simon's ear...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2015 12:08AM by SL Cabbie.

He came here and got a pretty rough reception and was sure I orchestrated it...

He eventually tried a straw man argument, insisting the reason that his "pious fraud" views weren't accepted here was because nobody believed in the "JS as sole author" point-of-view, that they were all believers in the "Spaulding Hypothesis."

He also tried to argue psychology with me, insisting that the author of "Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith"--who concurred with me on JS's narcissistic personality disorder--claimed that Smith's being a narcissist didn't preclude a pious fraud.

Another PhD psychologist who used to come here noted that narcissists are too busy believing they're god to ever have one... I bow to her expertise on that one.

Vogel is a self-admitted Adult Child of an Alcoholic, and that's a subject I do know a whole lot about (so, BTW, was Joseph Smith). Those individuals "guess at what's normal," and an alcoholic parent--who would be supremely narcissisistic--would look "utterly normal" to them... Vogel simply projected his own "stuff" into his analysis of JS and lost all objectivity.

Anyway, for those wanting a good look at the alternative "Spaulding Hypothesis," Craig Criddle's presentation at an Exmormon Conference is here. There are links to the additional segments on the right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDU45lm210

I find his arguments powerful, and I'm leaning toward the Spaulding-wrote-the-original viewpoint, but I'll defend my objectivity (years ago when I tried to read the BOM, I noticed a strong "resemblance" to John Milton, and years later, I discovered Mark Twain had as well, putting me in good company) because I recognize there are obvious elements of JS's life that are "mirrored" in the stories of prophets in the BOM (Brodie observed this as well, and she makes a strong case). That observation, IMHO, doesn't rule out Spaulding as the original source, however.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2015 11:42PM by SL Cabbie.

Other than his pious fraud views I have to admit that Vogel is pretty genius.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2015 11:06PM by whiteandelightsome.

Could you send me a link to where Dan came to RFM.

And I don't think anybody archived it (you could put out a call, of course). I swapped e-mails with Deconstructor, who called it "Silly," and Steve Benson who initially admired Vogel's scholarship except in this instance.

Here's a closed RFM thread that Steve went the rounds with several on the subject of who really wrote the BOM...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,779307,779958

Incredibly, though, Vogel had never heard of the "William Law Interview," and I was the one who wound up giving the history lessons that time. Here's the Law interview:

http://www.mrm.org/law-interview

BTW, it was on the old FAIR board where Vogel ran whining about what a dastardly sort I was... I peeked in on it with a clean browser...

He didn't have too much trouble finding people who agreed with him, and given that Denial C. Peterson has ducked an Internet street fight with me on several occasions, that's not particularly surprising.

And oh yeah!! I just remembered something... Vogel was insisting Joseph Smith wasn't a pedophile because pedophilia wasn't against the law in those days.

I think he claimed "presentism" was applicable, and at that point I had to reach for the Pepto... After my stomach settled, I pointed out the correct term was "ephebophile" (pedophiles prefer pre-pubescent victims) but in the interest of clarity, I suggested "sexual predator" was appropriate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2015 11:39PM by SL Cabbie.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2015 10:06PM by quinlansolo.

I think that JS started believing his own BS. My own gut tells me that deep down he probably was disgusted with his womanizing and cheating on Emma so he created a reality for himself where he could get away with it.

The money, power and adulation didn't hurt either. Hmmmm, the church really hasn't change much has it?

I concur that Dan Vogel is very genius, as well as a thorough researcher who produces well-done videos. I appreciate and thank him for the careful research he shares.

I disagree with Dan Vogel's outlook of finding ole Joey a pious fraud. My take is that Joe used religion to hook people into the fraud he came up with. I think he enjoyed the game, the con game, being the center of attention, and reaping money, power, and prestige at the expense of whoever.

His headstone should read, "Playing the congame, this is what meant the most to sleazy, horny Joe.

The problem I see with the pious fraud idea is that the United States was already deeply religious in the 1830s. That is the reason why Joseph Smith was successful at starting his church. The idea that Joseph Smith was saving his neighbors from something like unbelief is not true. Joseph Smith was simply exploiting their religious beliefs for his own personal gain.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1657891



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2015 03:40AM by steve benson.

That was one of Vogel's arguments when he posted here years ago. For those who weren't around then, here's an old thread discussing it:

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon451.htm