Part 1
--Joseph Smith: the Non-Pious Fraud for God
One of the biggest promoters of the "Joseph Smith-as-a-Pious Fraud" theory is Dan Vogel who, in his book, "Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2004) attempts to make the case for such fact-thin spin--and even at one point a few years back, came on to the “Recovery from Mormonism” forum peddling that position, leading him to basically getting his clock cleaned. Vogel eventually went elsewhere for sympathy--and to complain about the debate that he helped spark in the first place by strolling on to the board and attempting to defend his peculiar notion that Smith was a knowing religious fraudster who sincerely believed that God was commanding him to bring people to Christ by deceiving them. RfM response to Vogel's preposterous proposition wasn't exactly positive, leading him to depart, claiming that he had been ex-Mo mugged. Here's his off-board appeal for love and support:
"Hi folks,
"I thought some here might be amused by my . . . experiences at the 'Recovery from Mormonism (RfM)' board. I saw a thread about the upcoming PBS documentary by Helen Whitney and Co. and wanted to post some of thoughts on it, when I was jumped by some of the more vocal and extreme critics of Mormonism for believing Joseph Smith was what might be termed a 'pious fraud,' or someone who uses deception to achieve religious goals. These extreme critics of Joseph Smith and Mormonism insisted that Joseph Smith had no good intentions because he did it only for greed, power and sex. [NOTE: That's right, Dan. Joseph Smith certainly didn't do it for God].
"[Vogel}: Those who are not familiar with my views on 'pious fraud' can read my 1998 essay, '`The Prophet Puzzle' Revisited" at:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/vogel.shtml"In the course of the debate, several of the[m] would refer to Joseph Smith as a rapist and murderer. So, I asked on what grounds they accused Joseph Smith of rape. It came down to his having sex with 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. I agreed that it probably wasn't Joseph Smith's best move. [NOTE: "That probably wasn't Joseph Smith's best move." The understatement of the year]
" . . . [B]ut I [Vogel] asked the question: Are we judging Joseph Smith by the standards of our time? [NOTE: How about judging Joseph Smith by basic standards of moral decency that one would expect from both an eternally-unswerving God and the supposed "prophet" under modern-day revelatory guidance from the Almighty Himself?]
"[Vogel}: Long story short, it was discovered that Illinois law in the 1840s didn't consider this statutory rape (actually, the law allowed marriage for females 10 [years of age] and above, although it didn't allow for polygamy). Some said it was rape by deception. But the law was meant for people like John C. Bennett who proposed marriage to a woman in Nauvoo, while he was secretly already marri[ed] to a woman in another state. Besides, there was no deception since Helen Mar and her parents knew the exceptional circumstances and were willfully defying the law. [NOTE: In fact, Helen Mar Kimball later wrote that she had no idea that her secretly- arranged, parentally-expedited, willfully-illegal polygamous "marriage" to Smith included sex as part of the package].
"I [Vogel] argued that taking such extreme positions and using inflammatory language only discredited them. [NOTE: Stay focused, Dan. It is the historical facts pointing to Joseph Smith being an unpious sexual abuser of young woman that discredit Smith. For you to suggest otherwise is the extremist position].
"[Vogel}: Eventually, Steve Benson backed off the term ['rape']and charged Joseph Smith with being lecherous. [NOTE: In our RfM debate, I never used the term "rape" in the criminal-code sense but, rather, as a descriptor of sex forced on a female against her will].
"[Vogel}: Now, the surprising outcome of this debate is that some have charged me with being a Joseph Smith apologist. In a recent post, Steve Benson stated: 'I recently told Vogel that I did not think he was necessarily a Joseph Smith apologist'I was wrong.' He is. [NOTE: Unsurprisingly, Vogel conveniently fails to mention that, in fact, I did tell him during the course of this highly-animated RfM rumble over Vogel's highly-suspect "pious fraud" notion that I very much appreciated his criticism of Joseph Smith in his volume, "Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon"].
"[Vogel]: Benson again: 'No one hates Vogel. They love . . . picking apart his apologetic arguments for Joseph Smith, though.' [NOTE: That's right, Dan. Get over your persecution complex, please].
"[Vogel]: [RfM poster] 'Deconstructor' says: 'Vogel is a Church apologist. I don't know why his [bleep] is allowed here.'
"[Vogel}: Again, 'Deconstructor' says: 'He [Vogel] may not be a believer, but he is an apologist for Joseph Smith." .
"[Vogel quoting 'Deconstructor again]: 'Vogel doesn't seem to deny Smith deceived and abused, but paints his motives as purely unselfish and well-intended. If that's not apologetic, I don't know what is.'
"[Vogel]: Actually, 'pious fraud' pertains to the Book of Mormon and establishment of the Church. I don't think plural marriage was a pious fraud. But my objection to harsh and inaccurate language is enough to be labeled an apologist. [NOTE; Actually, history demonstrates quite vividly that Vogel's depiction of Joseph Smith as a "pious fraud" is soft and excusing].
"I [Vogel] think this is all rather funny but I wanted to know how the real apologists felt about having me in their camp?
"[Vogel]: And to the critics here: Do you think such extreme positions taken by some posters on the RfM board discredit them as serious students of Mormon history? [NOTE: Dan, I'd be more concerned about your "rather funny," swiss-cheesed and historically discredited "pious fraud" theory if I were you]."
(posted by Dan Vogel, "MDD board," 23 January 2007)
P.S.: In subsequent personal correspondence some six years later with Brian Hales (a well-known Mormon apologetic historian)--correspondence that Vogel has allowed to be published on the web with his (meaning Vogel's) permission--Vogel sings a far different tune. Vogel lays out to Hales what he (Vogel) apparently sees as his personal duty of being sympathetic, understanding and non-condemning of Joseph Smith the unpious con man. Vogel even confides to Hales that he doesn't mind--and is, in fact, quite pleased--to be labeled a "Joseph Smith apologist":
"Although I don’t believe Joseph Smith’s claims about the Book of Mormon, I have tried to be as sympathetic to what I believe was his reality. I’m trying to understand him, not condemn him. I have been accused by the harsher anti-Mormons of being a Joseph Smith sympathizer. Steve Benson even accused me of being a Joseph Smith apologist. Nothing pleases me more than to be accused of such things. I definitely am not interested in telling Mormons to leave the Church and become like me. That’s not what I’m about. I’m just trying to be the best historian I can."[NOTE: Dan, you can do better]. . . .
"When I [Vogel] was accused of being a Joseph Smith apologist because I rejected extremist views of Joseph Smith as a simple conman or pedophile online at [the] RfM site, I went to the real apologists at [the] FAIR board and held a survey of how many considered me an apologist. Well, you can guess the outcome of that. It seems believers only hear 'fraud' and Joseph Smith haters only hear 'pious.' The subtle nuances escape those involved in polemics. [NOTE: So, those who refuse to defend or apologize for Joseph Smith's pedophilia, polygamy, deception and lying are "Joseph Smith haters." Talk about simplistic].
(Prefatory website notice: "The following correspondence occurred between Brian Hales and Dan Vogel discussing several different topics. It is reproduced here with Dan’s permission," email from Dan Vogel to Brian Hales, "Re: stuff," 17 May 2013; and email from Dan Vogel to Brian C. Hales, "Re: stuff." 26 May 2013, under "Joseph Smith's Polygamy," at:
http://www.google.com/url sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjosephsmithspolygamy.org%2Fhales-vogel-2-private-correspondence%2F&ei=_FsWVPLvE6bAigKyroDIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEpSSnqJwdj-1Xrb1aw7LcrxHMxnw)
Before proceeding to further dismantle Vogel's theory of the supposed "piousness" of the huckster Joseph Smith, I do want to once again emphasize, for Vogel's benefit, that I have, openly given credit to him where I think it has been justifiably earned. One of the elemental and genuine eye-openers for me coming to the realization that the Book of Mormon was a 19th-century, man-made creation rooted in early American Native American lore mixed with Biblical myth was Vogel's powerful, exceptionally well-documented "Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1986); see: I highly recommend it to those interested in history, archaeology and how frontier America "explanations" of supposed Native American origins were slapped together by Smith & Co. in a work of clumsy fiction, otherwise known as the Book of Mormon)
Now, back the Vogel's pious-fraud "stuff." He argues that Smith was a well-intentioned deceiver whose saving grace was that he believed God was inspiring him to do goodly works through the tactics of ungodly deception. In other words, forget the Devil. Jesus made Joe do it.
Vogel makes his pitch as follows:
" . . . I would suggest that [Joseph] Smith really believed he was called of God to preach repentance to a sinful world but that he felt justified in using deception to more fully accomplish his mission. Like the faith healer who uses plants or confederates in his congregation to create a faith-promoting atmosphere in which the true miracles can occur, Smith assumed the role of prophet, produced the Book of Mormon, and issued revelations to create a setting in which true conversion experiences could take place. It is the true healings and conversions that not only justify deception but also convince the pious frauds that they are perhaps after all real healers or real prophets."
Vogel concludes his case for cutting Smith a break by asking:
"What did Smith hope to accomplish by his pious fraud? One goal of Smith's deception, as the March 1830 revelation shows, was to bring humankind to repentance even if by misdirection or dishonesty. Initially, Smith hoped to frighten his fellow humans into repentance and therefore help them avoid the torments of even a temporary hell. Later, he will use the incentive of higher rewards. Meanwhile, if mankind were saved by incorrectly believing in an eternal hell, to that end Smith perhaps believed his method was justified. Whatever the means, Smith believed his followers would be saved as long as their repentance and faith in Christ were sincere.
"Smith's March 1830 revelation, the Book of Abraham, the story of Nephi and Laban, and the fortunate Fall demonstrate that Smith believed that God sometimes inspires deception, that some sins are according to his will, or that occasionally it is necessary to break one commandment in order to fulfill a higher law. We may never know exactly Smith's reasoning, but the least that can be said is that if he wrote the Book of Mormon, became a prophet, and founded the [Mormon] Church as a pious fraud, it is quite evident that he had the psychological means of justifying such an act."
("'Prophet Puzzle' Revisited," by Dan Vogel, paper delivered at Mormon History Association meeting, 18 May 1996, Snowbird, Utah, at:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/vogel.shtml)
Vogel's theory of "Joseph Smith the Good-Hearted Liar" is further outlined below. David Azzolina, in his review of Vogel's Smith biography, writes:
"Vogel is up front in asserting a naturalistic interpretation, labeling Joseph Smith variously as a 'pious deceiver,' 'sincere fraud,' 'pious fraud,” and 'religious pretender . . . . But at the same time, he presents Smith as the sincere religious leader he claimed to be. In Vogel’s words, the Mormon prophet 'believed he was called of God, yet occasionally engaged in fraudulent activities in order to preach the word of God as effectively as possible . . ."
Geezus.
("Reviews--Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet," by David Azzolina, "Library Journal," at:
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/07/reviews-joseph-smith-the-making-of-a-prophet/)
Here's a further explanation of Vogel's curious take on slippery Smith, one that notes how Vogel's views have received their fair share of criticsm from across the spectrum:
"In [his] Smith biography, Vogel argues that . . . Smith was a pious fraud--that he essentially invented his religious claims for what he believed were noble, faith-promoting purposes. Vogel identifies the roots of the pious fraud in the conflict between members of the Smith family, who were divided between the skepticism and universalism of Joseph Smith, Sr. and the more mainstream Protestant faith of Lucy Mack Smith. Vogel interweaves the history of Joseph Smith, Jr. with interpretation of the Book of Mormon, which is read as springing from the young man's psychology and experiences.
"Vogel's scholarship on the topic has come under fire by Mormon apologists who allege he is biased and critical of Mormon faith claims. ] He is sometimes also criticized by ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons for not being sufficiently critical of Joseph Smith."
Ya think?
("Dan Vogel," under "Joseph Smith Biography" and "Reception," at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Vogel)
Nonetheless, semi-sympathetic author, Dale R. Broadhurst, offers the following observations about Vogel's notion of "Joseph Smith-the-Pious Fraud":
". . . Dan Vogel . . . sees the Book of Mormon story as a reflection of the mind and early life of its sole author, Joseph Smith, Jr. For Vogel, the founder of Mormonism was a 'pious fraud,' who engaged in a few secretive and dishonest practices in order to promote a noble religious cause. In short, his Joseph Smith, Jr. was another, more successful Lorenzo Dow--a self-promoter and attention-seeker whose basic purpose was saving souls and building the Kingdom of Heaven.
"The major difference being [between Dow and Smith was] that Elder Dow never felt compelled to fabricate new divine revelations or new sacred scriptures. Dow never instituted a 'gathering,' organized an armed militia, nor had himself crowned king by a secretive shadow government.
"We might here ask, does the 'pious fraud' tenet of Fawn Brodieism go so far as to define Smith as a confidence man? Perhaps not: this revised, pious impostor is something far grander than a flim-flam man promoting heavenly ends. As 'holder of the keys to the last dispensation,' Vogel's Smith totally transcends James G. Bennett's 1849 cynical view of 'The Confidence Man on a Large Scale.' . . .
"Dan Vogel's 'pious fraud' category merges into the definition of 'prophet;' and the term 'con man' can be extended to the pretensions of 'religious fraud.' Between the religious fraud of an unbeliever and the pious fraud of an unscrupulous believer, is there any place for Joseph Smith, Jr.? Upon careful consideration, there appears to be no simple definition for the man--that is, no credible
"Perhaps the best explanation useful for those outside the ranks of the Latter-day Saints, is that Smith was continually evolving in his faith-promoting role--his confidence-building role. At times his methods appear to overlap those of a con man, or a religious fraud. At other times his professed sincerity and seemingly selfless actions elevate the man to some indeterminate position overlapping a pious fraud and a would-be prophet. The Joseph Smith of modern reflection is a moving target and observers will discern what they will from the motion blur he has left in his wake. He presents to the non-Mormon observer the phenomenon that Jan Shipps might call a 'prophet puzzle.' . . .
"The revised Joe Smith is all good and well for propagation among the unbelieving Gentiles. He may even merit the reputation of a great religious genius and ecclesiastical architect but this pious, evolving new Smith still looks too much like an impious 'conscious impostor' for any official integration with latter-day doctrine. Besides which, it may not bother religious liberals like some of the Reorganized LDS, that Smith is credited with authoring the Book of Mormon but such a notion can never be allowed to take root among "God's peculiar people," headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. No, something must be done about Vogel's 'pious fraud' of a Prophet. And so, Richard L. Bushman, Reid Larkin Neilson and Jed Woodworth devote a little attention to the matter in their 2004 'Believing History.' [Bushman writes]:
"'[A new breed of "tolerant" readers], . . . may not be satisfied with the choices that Dan Vogel . . . offers to readers of Joseph Smith biographies. In describing some of the supernatural events in Joseph's early life, Vogel says that we have three choices:
“'(1) Joseph Smith consciously deceived people by making up events and lying about them;
“'(2) he unconsciously deceived people by imagining events and calling them real;
“'(3) he told the truth. Vogel asserts that we cannot believe that Joseph told the truth without abandoning all "rationalist categories of historical investigation."
"' . . . Like Brodie, Vogel leans toward conscious deceit. Vogel believes Joseph Smith knowingly lied by claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon when in fact Joseph was making it up as he went along. For my hypothetical body of 21st-century readers, Vogel's alternatives represent a hard choice. Readers are being asked to consider the revelations as either true or a form of deception. Joseph Smith either spoke for God or duped people. There is no middle ground . . . .
"'Vogel thinks of Joseph Smith as a sincere deceiver. He sympathetically concludes, 'I suggest Smith really believed he was called of God to preach repentance to a sinful world but that he felt justified in using deception to accomplish his mission more fully.' (Vogel, pp. 266-67, duplicated online in Bushman's "A Joseph Smith for the 21st Century, Part 2") . . .
"'Was Joseph Smith, Jr. a 19th-century con man? A religious fraud? A pious fraud? If he was any of these, he possessed an "imagination" greater than Mohammed's and perhaps greater than St. Paul's . . . .
"Craig Criddle, in his examination of Smith's probable contribution to bringing forth the Book of Mormon, . . . focus[es] attention only upon Smith's activities prior to the publication of that book. He says:
"'The "Smith-as-Sole-Author Theory" asserts that Smith produced the Book of Mormon with or without supernatural assistance. This theory can be based on any of the following premises:
"'(1) Smith was a prophet of God as he claimed;
"'(2) Smith had a gift of some kind, perhaps like that attributed to certain artists and mystics and sometimes described as 'automatic writing,' and he was sincere in his belief that this was a gift from God that enabled him to translate the golden plates that he saw in visions;
"'(3) Smith was a pious fraud who was trying to bring people to Christ by making up scripture that would support Christian belief;
"'(4) Smith was a successful con man who needed to find a new gig after his treasure seeking business tailed off after skirmishes with the law.'
("Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon," section 1)
"'There is abundant evidence that during the same time period that Smith claimed to be entertaining annual visits by an angel, he was also making a living as a con man. . . . [H]e was found guilty of perpetrating a money-digging scheme. . . . Smith was no run-of-the mill con man. He was actually a talented magician, with an act that included seer stones, fortune telling, palm reading, divining rods, amulets, incantations and participation in rituals to summon spirits, and showed a remarkable ability to induce and retain belief. The Bainbridge trial transcript describes some of the ruses used by Smith to con people, and it includes testimony that he was a fraud. . . . . It is important to reiterate that Smith claimed to be receiving an annual angelic visitor in anticipation of the Book of Mormon at the very same time he was also engaged in activities that show him to be a con man. . . . .
"'[Any] 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. . . . [T]he likelihood of former con men becoming real men of God and performing miracles is less than the likelihood of them remaining con men and performing tricks that appear to be miracles in support of some con.
("Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon," section 2, Part 6')
". . . Criddle's estimation of Joseph Smith being a purposeful deceiver still allows for him to have been the sole author of the Book of Mormon (though Criddle elsewhere argues against the Smith-alone authorship theory). It also allows for Smith to have been sincerely convinced of his purported supernatural powers and to have evolved into a miracle-worker. But even after these theoretical concessions, Criddle still labels the Mormon leader as a con man, due the 'ruses used by Smith to con people.' In other words, Joseph Smith, Jr. was something much more complex than a 'run-of-the mill con man,' and he may well have believed in his own seership. The distinguishing feature which, nevertheless, marks Smith as a probable confidence man was his 'remarkable ability to induce and retain belief' in his followers, by 'performing tricks that appear[ed] to be miracles.'
". . . Criddle thus makes no claims for Smith having been a confidence man in his post-1830 career. What Criddle is interested in are Smith's 'ruses' and 'tricks,' whereby he maintained himself as a confidence man in the period before the Book of Mormon was printed.
"Could the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon be the practicable justification for Smith's earlier deceptions? Clearly, he could not see treasures buried under the ground--and just as clearly he supplemented his income by wrongly telling people he actually could locate such riches. On the other hand, millions of people now living profess to have God-given testimonies that the Book of Mormon is not only an authentic ancient American record, but that it is also latter-day revelation which provides the 'fulness of the gospel.' Either Smith's original deceptions have been multiplied millions of times to produce colossal deluded testimony; or else the Palmyra farm boy really did progress from confidence man to divine prophet. But which of those possibilities is true and which is false?"
("Joseph Smith: Nineteenth-Century Con Man?," by Dale R. Broadhurst," at:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm)
Given the possibilities proposed, RfM poster "Uncle Dale" asserts, ". . . [W]e will never know for sure how much [Joseph] Smith believed in himself, or his magic, or his destiny."
("Re: Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith," posted by "Uncle Dale," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 29 April 2013, at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,878818,878839#msg-878839)
Actually, based on the historical evidence, we can know with a reasonable degree of certainty just how deeply Smith “believed” in his poppycock. (Hint: It wasn't very deep). Despite all the convoluted speculations about Joseph Smith being a pious, sincere, religious fraud, in reality, the stark historical record bears witness to Smith's life as that of a conniving crook who used God as a constant and convenient cover for his crimes.
Let's review a few persuasive examples of that undeniably demonstrated and centrally-cemented fact.
_____
Exhibit A: Joseph Smith Himself Acknowledged That He Was a Con Man
RfM poster “Deconstructor” lists the proofs:
"Smith once broke down and admitted he was a fraud. [Here is] [t]estimony of [a] Smith family neighbor and friend of Joseph Smith:
“'In the month of August, 1827, I was hired by Joseph Smith, Jr. to go to Pennsylvania, to move his wife’s household furniture up to Manchester, where his wife then was. When we arrived at Mr. Hale’s, in Harmony, PA. from which place he had taken his wife, a scene presented itself, truly affecting. His father-in-law (Mr. Hale) addressed Joseph, in a flood of tears: “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to her grave. You spend your time in digging for money--pretend to see in a stone, and thus try to deceive people.”
"'Joseph wept, and acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones. Joseph told me on his return, that he intended to keep the promise which he had made to his father-in-law; “but,” said he, “it will be hard for me, for they will all oppose, as they want me to look in the stone for them to dig money.” And, in fact, it was as he predicted. They urged him, day after day, to resume his old practice of looking in the stone.”
(Peter Ingersoll affidavit, Palmyra, Wayne County. New York, 2 December 1833, at:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/1914Shk1.htm#pg016a)
"Isaac Hale, Joseph Smith’s father-in-law separately testified:
“'Emma wrote to me inquiring whether she could have her property consisting of clothing, furniture, cows, etc. I replied that her property was safe and at her disposal. In short time they returned, bringing with them a Peter Ingersoll and subsequently came to the conclusion that they would move out and resided upon a place near my residence.
“Smith stated to me, that he had given up what he called “glass-looking,” and that he expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so.”
(Affidavit of Isaac Hale, given at Harmony Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, 20 March 1834, at:
http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/docum3.htm)
"[The] [w]atered-down version found in the official 'History of the Church':
“'Joseph secured the services of a neighbor, Peter Ingersoll, to assist and accompany him in acquiring Emma’s property. In August 1827, eight months after their marriage, Joseph and Emma returned with Ingersoll to face Isaac. Ingersoll reported that Isaac exclaimed in a flood of tears, "You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to her grave. You spend your time digging for money–pretend to see in a stone, and thus try to deceive people.” Yet, on that visit there was an attempt to reconcile Joseph and his father-in-law, for an invitation was extended to Joseph and Emma to make their home in Harmony. Isaac, with evident paternal concern and with some compassion, indicated to Joseph that if he would move to Pennsylvania and work, giving up “his old practice of looking in the stone,” Isaac would assist him in getting into business. Isaac claims, “Smith stated to me he had given up what he called "glass-looking," and that he expected and was willing to work hard for a living.'
("History of the Church," Volume 1, Chapter 2, at:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c2history.html"In response to denials of Joseph Smith’s confession, [RfM poster] Randy Jordan explains:
"1. Mormon apologists saying that Ingersoll was an 'aggrieved former neighbor of the Smiths' has no foundation in truth. Ingersoll’s attitude when swearing his affidavit was more of bemusement than bitterness over the way Smith transformed himself from a poor-man’s fortune-teller to a Biblical-style 'prophet.'
"2. Mormon apologist allegations that Hurlburt gathered his affidavits with 'malicious intent' is moot because of the fact that the affidavits were sworn before justices of the peace and the testators were legally responsible for their statements.
"3. Ingersoll’s account of the confrontation between Smith and Isaac Hale is corroborated by Hale’s own affidavit. Also, Hale swore his affidavit at Harmony, Pennsylvania, and Ingersoll swore his at Manchester, New York (where he lived, some 80 miles away). Mormon apologists cannot claim that the two affidavits were contaminated by the 'malicious' Hurlburtt, because Hurlburt never went to Harmony and never met Hale. But because they were sworn independently of each other, and yet corroborate each other, they are highly credible.
"4. Ingersoll’s, Hale’s and numerous other affidavits from Smith’s 1820’s acquaintances were published in Eber D. Howe’s 1834 'Mormonism Unveiled' (which can be read in full (which can be read in full on at
http://solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howb.htm)
"5. Ingersoll’s affidavit was quoted in the official 'History of the Church.' In addition to that, both Ingersoll’s and Hale’s affidavits were quoted in the February 2001 'Ensign' magazine, in an article dealing with Smith’s Pennsylvania experiences. . . .
"Although the 'Ensign' article is careful to not quote the parts of those affidavits telling of Smith’s glass-looking' or his admission of fraud, the very fact that Church apologists use those affidavits as credible historical sources negate any attempts to wholesale dismiss them as unreliable (in other words, 'cherry-picking'). Therefore, when Mormon apologists opinion[ate] that the affidavits have been 'discredited at worst, not taken seriously at best,' perhaps they should tell that to the GAs and scholars who approve material for publication in the 'Ensign.'
"6. While Mormon apologists contend that Smith never outright admitted his fraud--or at least argue that that admission came via the hearsay testimony of Ingersoll, Hale, etc.--the fact that Smith’s 'peep-stoning' was a fraud is evidenced by the fact that Smith never found any buried treasures or anything else of value.
"Also, another instance of Smith’s admission of fraud is the account of his 1826 'glass-looking' trial at Bainbridge, where he admitted that his activity was a fraud, expressed contrition and promised the judge to cease the activity--and yet, a mere two years later, he was claiming to translate the 'golden plates' with the same 'peep-stone-in-the-hat' business he had used in his glass-looking scam, according to eyewitnesses such as Emma Smith, David Whitme, and Joseph Knight.
(see
http://www.irr.org/mit/divination.html)
"7. For decades, Mormon apologists have attempted to discredit the numerous affidavits concerning Smith’s 1820’s peep-stoning and money-digging activities by attacking Hurlburt's or Howe’s motives or character—opining that Hurlburt 'invented' the affidavits or 'coached' the testators. However, that argument is negated by the fact that Hurlburt never even joined the Mormonite Church until March 1833, in Ohio, and he didn’t travel to New York to interview Smith’s acquaintances until the following November. The reason that’s relevant is that many, many accounts of Smith’s peep-stoning, money-digging, occult activities, and details of how he produced his “Gold Bible” had been published by 1830-31--before Hurlburt or Howe were even factors in history.
(posted by "Deconstructior," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, as quoted under "Evidence Against Mormonism: Joseph Confesses," on"Questioning Mormonism: Reposting the Best of exmormon.org,” at:
http://searchable.openedhost.com/look/Proof_Joseph_Smith_Fraud/Evidence_Against_Mormonism_Joseph_Confesses__Questioning__/aHR0cDovL3JmbW9yZy53b3JkcHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMDgvMDgvMDcvZXZpZGVuY2UtYWdhaW5zdC1tb3Jtb25pc20tam9zZXBoLWNvbmZlc3Nlcy8=_blog)
_____
Exhibit B: Joseph Smith's Bogus Bible "Translation"
RfM poster, Randy Jordan, in his assessement titled "'Yeah, The Bible Prophesies of Joseph Smith, All Right.” (20 June 2006), demonstrated just how pathetically unpioused Smith was, noting:
". . . [This Bible] 'prophecy' can only be found in the 'translation' of the Bible that Joseph Smith himself produced: 'And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father. . . . '
(Genesis 50:33, 'Joseph Smith Translation')
"Look at your King James Bible and note that the 50th chapter of Genesis has only 26 verses. Smith concocted 12 more verses and 'miraculously' included himself in them.
"If you want to be really mean, the next time you discuss this with your TBM friend, take out your KJV [King James Version] and ask him to show you the prophecy about Joseph Smith. If he's like most TBMs, he will assume it's in there. When he sees that it's not in there, show him that it's only in the version of Genesis which Joseph Smith himself wrote.
"The TBM will probably respond with, 'Well, Joseph was inspired to add that, because it's one of the parts of the Bible that was removed by wicked anti-Mormon priests.' If he says that, then point out to him that a copy of the entire Book of Genesis was found intact among the Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS], and it is virtually identical to the KJV, and does not include any of the parts which Joseph Smith added. Then sit back and watch the look on your friend's face as he struggles to come up with some explanation. If he's like one of our former TBM friends when my wife and I showed her that, he will probably change the subject or leave your house in a huff.
"This item demonstrates Joseph Smith's narcissism like none other--the very haughtiness of altering the Old Testament to include himself in it.
"Over the years, I have watched various documentaries about the DSS, wherein I thought that was said. Having skimmed over a few articles, it appears that the fact is that 'portions' of all the books in the Old Testament, rather than the entire books, are represented in the DSS, save a couple. The DSS version of Genesis appears to be a sort of commentary. However, nothing in the DSS, nor any other authentic ancient Biblical manuscripts, include anything like the portions that Joseph Smith self-servingly interpolated into the Book of Genesis regarding his alleged divine coming forth in the latter days.
"Readers who are wondering if Smith was a 'pious fraud' or a conscious, narcissistic, pompous fake might want to consider this in their deliberations. Inserting himself into the Bible via his 1831 'translation' does not sound very 'pious' to me.
"And let's also remember that Smith made many alterations in his own alleged 'revelations from God' between their original 1833 publication and their re-issue just two years later. This illustrates how he was not hesitant to alter 'holy scripture' as his attitudes and worldviews changed."
_____
Exhibit C: Joseph Smith Admits that the Book of Mormon Isn't True and Isn't Worth Further Effort from Him
When it came to his supposed “translation” of the Book of Mormon, Smith The evidence of Smith being a conscious, compulsive charlatan is obvious and compelling. To be sure, Smith's invented Book of Mormon was so problematic for him that he wanted to dump it early on and, in fact, did--literally. In truly ironic fashion, Smith got rid of the Book of Mormon by reburying it.
When helping to lay a cornerstone for the Nauvoo House on 2 October 1841, Smith approved the placement of an original Book of Mormon manuscript (composed mostly in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and, appropriately enough, written on foolscap paper) into the Nauvoo House cornerstone with the following send-off comment (made a short time earlier by Smith to another prominent Mormon leader):
"I have had trouble enough with this thing."
Say amen to the fraud of that man.
(see Ernest H. Taves, "Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon" [Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1984], p. 160)
Indeed, William Alexander Linn, in his book, "The Story of the Mormons: From the Date of Their Origin to the Year 1901," sets the stage for Smith's deep-sixing of this supposed "sacred scripture":
"[P]roof [that] . . . a second [manuscript] copy [of the Book of Mormon] did exist [is found in the account of Ebenezer Robinson]. . . . Robinson, who was a leading man in the [Mormon] church from the time of its establishment in Ohio until Smith's death, says in his recollections that, when the people assembled on October 2, 1841, to lay the cornerstone of [the] Nauvoo House, Smith said he had a document to put into the cornerstone, and Robinson went with him to his house to procure it. Robinson's tory proceeds as follows:
"'He got a manuscript copy of the Book of Mormon and brought it into the room where we were standing and said, "I will examine to see if it is all here;" and as he did so I stood near him, at his left side, and saw distinctly the writing as he turned up the pages until he hastily went through the book and satisfied himself that it was all there, when he said, "I have had trouble enough with this thing;" which remark struck me with amazement, as I looked upon it as a sacred treasure."
(William Alexander Linn, "The Story of the Mormons: From the Date of Their Origin to the Year 1901" [New York, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1902], p. 44; original text at: "Google Books" link to the page at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDdAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=ebenezer+robinson+book+of+mormon+trouble+enough&source=bl&ots=H_Lur4vQE7&sig=NDY_hZzw7NSVqNMzIECTct11R-w&hl=en&ei=Sd1STvPVNOSDsgKbwtzwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ebenezer%20robinson%20book%20of%20mormon%20trouble%20enough&f=false)
Smith also admitted he made the whole thing up. One shouldn't be surprised by Smith's abandonment of the so-called "keystone" of the Mormon religion; nor should one be surprised by Smith's utter disdain for what he regarded as the simple-minded stupidity of those who actually bought into his lies. You see, Smith had a habit (about which he privately boasted to his friends) of making up stories about imaginary "golden Bibles," then deciding to play out his yarn even further for his incredulous associates when Smith discovered that they actually swallowed his tall tales hook, line and sinker.
Case in point--as one of Smith's close acquaintances, Peter Ingersoll, testified in an affidavit certified by a local judge:
"One day he [Smith] came and greeted me with a joyful countenance. Upon asking the cause of his unusual happiness, he replied in the following language, 'As I was passing, yesterday, across the woods, after a heavy shower of rain, I found, in a hollow, some beautiful white sand, that had been washed up by the water. I took off my frock, and tied up several quarts of it, and then went home.
"'On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room.'
"'Now, said Joe, 'I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun.' Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book and believed there never was any such book, yet, he told me that he actually went to Willard Chase, to get him to make a chest, in which he might deposit his golden Bible. But, as Chase would not do it, he made a box himself, of clapboards, and put it into a pillow case, and allowed people only to lift it, and feel of it through the case."
("Peter Ingersoll Statement on Joseph Smith, Jr.," sworn affidavit, Palymra, Wayne County, New York, 2 December 1833, affirmed as being truthful by Ingersoll under oath and in a personal appearance before Thomas P. Baldwin, Judge of Wayne County Court, 9 December 1833; for Ingersoll's entire affidavit, see:
http://www.truthandgrace.com/StatementIngersoll1.htm)
Questions have arisen from some quarters about the credibility of Ingersoll's affidavit with regard to his above claim. Let's examine the matter a bit more closely. Rodger I. Anderson, in his book "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-examined" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1990), lists certain noteworthy (and controversial) particulars of Ingersoll's affidavit, then addresses them:
1) Ingersoll's assessment of Smith and his family reflected similar conclusions from affidavits taken from several members of the Palmyra community in which Smith lived.
"[Ex-Mormon and affidavit collector Philastus] Hurlbut's question, 'Was digging for money the general employment of the Smith family?,' repeated to each witness, would explain Peter Ingersoll's 'The general employment of the family was digging for money' . . . "
Anderson: "Even if Hurlbut did contribute to the style and structure of the affidavits, it does not necessarily follow that he 'contaminated' them by interpolation. Similarities such as those noted by [Mormon critics] may only mean that Hurlbut submitted the same questions to some of the parties involved." (p. 28)
2) Ingersoll's statement was a sworn legal document affirming to facts which Ingersoll asserted were true.
Anderson: "Even if Hurlbut had written out some of the statements after interviewing those concerned, the individuals either signed the statements, thus affirming their supposed accuracy, or swore to the statements before a magistrate. For example, Peter Ingersoll appeared before Judge Thomas P. Baldwin 'and made oath according to law, to the truth of the above statement.'" (p. 29)
3) Ingergoll's affidavit cannot be dismissed as completely non-evidentiary.
Anderson: In countering the argument from Mormon apologists that Ingersoll's testimmony deserves to be dismissed because it "consists not in observation, but supposed admissions in conversation," he observes that "[o]f these criticisms, some are based on entirely erroneous information and some reflect partial truth and partial error. But none justify [the] conclusion that the affidavits are essentially 'non-evidence.'" (p. 43)
4) The larger content of Ingersoll's affidavit as described by Anderson.
Anderson: "In his deposition, Ingersoll rehearses various efforts of the elder Smith to make him [Ingersoll] a money digger, recalls conversations with him about divination and money digging and relates an episode in which Joseph Smith, Sr., found some lost cows by means of a witch hazel stick. Ingersoll dismisses this later accomplishment as a trick to test his credibility.
"Ingersoll tells of being hired by Joseph Smith, Jr., to go with him to Pennsylvania to help move Smith's new wife Emma's furniture back to Manchester, describes an episode along the way in which Smith supposedly displayed some Yankee ingenuity to avoid paying a toll, repeats an alleged confession that the business of the gold plates was nothing more than a ruse to deceive his parents, recounts Smith's successful effort to get $50.00 from Martin Harris and narrates a number of other episodes said to have been drawn from his personal knowledge of the Smith family."
"According to Ingersoll, Smith told him that he had discovered some white sand that had been washed out after a storm. Impressed with the beauty and purity of the sand, Smith tied several quarts of it up in his farmer's smock and carried it home. His response when his parents expressed curiosity about what he had in his smock, according to Ingersoll, was '[I] happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly, I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refused to see it and left the room.' Now, said Joe, 'I have got the damned fools fixed and will carry out the fun.'"
5) Anderson has doubts about the "white sand" story in several respects but concludes that it confirms, in the larger sense, important elements of Smith's questionable reputation and character.
Anderson: "Of all the information volunteered by Hurlburt's witness, Ingersoll's story is the most dubious for a number of reasons.
"First, Ingersoll represents the incident as unpremeditated deception on Smith's part. Aside from all other considerations, there exists ample evidence that Smith had been talking about the gold plates some time before the date Ingersoll attaches to this prank.
"Second, Smith's known regard for his parents makes it unlikely that he would deceive them for the sheer fun of it, call them 'damned fools' and perpetrate the hoax for the rest of his life.
"Third, Ingersoll records that after this confession of duplicity he offered to loan Smith sufficient money to move to Pennsylvania, which is unlikely if Smith was, in fact, the knave Ingersoll knew him to be.
"Last--and perhaps the most significant consideration--Pomeroy Tucker remembered that Ingersoll 'was at first inclined to put faith in his [Smith's] "Golden Bible" pretension.' If Tucker's statement can be trusted, it seems likely that Ingersoll created the story as a way of striking back at Smith for his own gullibility in swallowing a story he later became convinced was a hoax."
Anderson suggests that the claim that Ingersoll may have "perjured" himself by "knowingly swearing to a lie" was "possible." Nonetheless, at the end of Ingersoll's sworn affidavit, Dufrey Chase (a local citizen who knew both Ingersoll and the Smith family) affirms in a statement dated 13 December 1833 the following: "I certify that I have been personally acquainted with Peter Ingersoll for a number of years and believe him to be a man of strict integrity, truth and veracity."
6) Anderson notes that much of Ingersoll's affidavit rings true.
Anderson: "The 'white sand' story casts a shadow of suspicion over Ingersoll's entire affidavit but it does not follow that every part of his statement is false.
"For instance, according to Ingersoll, Smith promised Isaac Hale 'to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones' and gratefully accepted Hale's offer of financial support if Smith 'would move to Pennsylvania and work for a living.' According to Hale's independent account of the same conversation, 'Smith stated to me that he had give up what he called "glass-looking" and that he expected to work hard for a living and was willing to do so,' and Hale's son Alva remembered Smith as saying 'that he intended to quit the business (of peeping) and labor for his livelihood.'
"Ingersoll also stated that on this same occasion, Smith 'acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor ever could.' This was remembered by Alva Hale, who quoted Smith as sayng 'that this "peeping" was all d--d nonsense. He (Smith) was deceived himself but did not intend to deceive others.'
"These parallels do not substantiate Ingersoll's 'white sand' story but they confirm that Smith publicly acknowledged his career as a 'glass looker' and money digger. . . .
"Other parts of Ingersoll's affidavit can also be independently confirmed.
"His claim that he was hired by Smith to go to Pennsylvania and move Emma's furniture back to Manchester was confirmed by Isaac Hale; his account of Smith's unsuccessful attempt to get Willard Chase to make a box for the gold plates was confirmed by Chase; and his report that Smith approached Martin Harris with the remark, 'I had a command to ask the first honest man I met for $50.00 in money, and he would let me have it' was confirmed by both Chase and Jesse Townsend. More significant that these confirmations, however, is his claim that Joseph Smith, Sr., possessed a magical rod. This is significant not only because many others mention the elder Smith's rod but also because it can now be shown that the report by no means originated with Ingersoll or even the vitriolic editorials of Abner Cole in 1831. . . . " (pp. 55-58, 61-62n, 70; for Ingersoll's full affidavit--which Anderson notes is "reproduced exactly as [it] appear[s] in the original published or unpublished sources, with the exception of arranging them either alphabetically or chronologically"--see pp. 134-139)
Given the evidence, it clearly appears that the cranial case on Joseph Smith's conscious fraud is open and shut.
_____
--Exhibit D: Joseph Smith's and Co-Con Man Oliver Cowdery's Cahooting Conspiracy to Consciously Create the Founding Fairy Tales of Mormonism.
*Let's start with Cowdery's role in concocting, with Smith, the First Vision story:
Mormon historian Fawn M. Brodie points in her "No Man Knows My History" to a noticeable omission by Cowdery--one where he fails to mention the First Vision in the initial versions of LDS Church history. Brodie explains the reason for its absence: It hadn't been made up yet by the Smith/Cowdery team:
“The earliest published Mormon history, begun with Joseph's collaboration in 1834 by Oliver Cowdery, ignored [the 'First Vision'] altogether, stating that the religious excitement in the Palmyra area occurred when [Joseph Smith] was 17 (not 14). Cowdery described Joseph's visionary life as beginning in September 1823, with the vision of angel called Moroni, who was said to have directed Joseph to the discovery of hidden gold plates.”
*Next, Cowdery ends up in an argument with Smith over the invented story of John the Revelator's whereabouts:
Prior to the formal crank-up of the Mormon Church, Cowdery found himself at odds with Smith over the particulars of how to spin a tale about the supposed appearance of heavenly messengers carrying God's priesthood power back to the Earth. Gramt Palmer, in his "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins," describes how Smith ultimately came up with a storyline to end the disagreement: “Shortly after becoming Joseph Smith's full-time scribe in April 1829, . . . a disagreement [arose] between the two men over whether John the Revelator was on earth or in heaven[.] Joseph, through a stone, 'translated' the answer from 'a record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself' somewhere n the Middle East . . . .”
Cowdery, with Smith's approval, was involved in repeatedly rewriting the “Restoration” over the objections of other eearly Mormon leaders:
For Cowdery and Smith, the story of Mormon restoration glory was ever-changing--and ever getting better. LDS Church claims of God's messengers bringing the authoritative priesthood power to Smith and Cowdery were, in fact, not in the original script but instead were added later, as needed. It was a tactic of Cowdery's and Smith's that irked other early Mormon Church leaders.
As Palmer points out, the diaries from 1831 to 1836 of William E. McLellin (an early LDS convert and apostle) contain virtually no mention of Smith and Cowdery being the recipients of what Palmer calls “angelic priesthood ordination.” As McLellin noted: “I joined the Church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter and John doing so.”
Palmer further reports:
“McLellin provided later additional details about the absence of such stories from the early versions of Mormon Church history: 'I heard Joseph tell his experience of his ordination [by Cowdery] and the organization of the Church, probably more than 20 times, to persons who, near the rise of the Church, wished to know and hear about it. I never heard of Moroni, John or Peter, James or John.'” McLellin further noted, “ . . . [A]s to the story of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized, I never heard of it in the Church for years, although I carefully noticed things that were said.” McLellin wasn't alone. Another skeptical assessment of the priesthood power play described by Smith and Cowdery came from another key source: David Whitmer (one of the three “special witnesses” to the Book of Mormon gold plates). Whitmer, in an 1885 interview with Zenas H. Gurley, Jr.,(an apostle with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), politely blew the lid off Cowdery's fabrications: “. . . Oliver stated to me . . .that [he and Joseph] had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command . . . . I never heard that an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834, 1835 or 1836--in Ohio. . . . I do not believe that John the Baptist ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception.”
Palmer reinforces the suspicion that these purported events were invented additions, on account of the fact that Cowdery's own actions seemed strange for someone who supposedly had been ordained by heavenly messengers to restore God's Church. Especially odd in that regard was Cowdery's acceptance of “revelations” coming from an early LDS convert who held lower rank than Smith but, who like Smith, claimed to be able to read peepstones: “There is . .. . corroborating evidence in an episode that occurred in September 1830 when Hiram Page, who held the office of teacher, claimed to receive revelations for the Church through a seer stone. Many, 'especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery,' accepted Page's revelation as authoritative for 'the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church [speaking for God], etc., etc. ' If Cowdery's authority came literally from the hands of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John in an unequivocal bestowal of apostolic keys of priesthood succession, . . . it should have been obvious to Cowdery that Page's claims lacked comparable weight. If this restoration of authority and truth which had been lost for centuries occurred dramatically and decisively in a show of glory in 1829, then it seems unlikely that a year later Cowdery would accept Page's authority over that of Joseph Smith. “Why,” Palmer asks, “would those claiming to hold the exclusive keys of apostolic succession from Peter, James and John seek direction and revelation from one holding the office of a teacher in the Church? It seems more likely that simply and undramatic commandments were the source of these early authority claims.”
Palmer's assessment that Mormonism's founding narrative was a series of unfolding make-overs receives further weight from the fact that “[t]he first mention of authority from angels dates to 22 September 1832.” Even that mention, however, does not include any reference “to the actual physical laying on of hands by an angel, but one sees the seeds of a concept here.” Further undermining Oliver's credibility as an inspired storyteller is Palmer's observation that “an unequivocal assertion of authority by angelic ordination” did not come until “Oliver Cowdery's 7 September 1834 letter in the October issue of the 'Messenger and Advocate' [in which] Cowdery tells a highly dramatic, if poetic, version of how he and Joseph received the priesthood from an unnamed angel.” Significantly, as Palmer writes, these visiting angels finally got their names and priesthood-granting powers “[w]hen Joseph and Oliver . . . were facing a credibility crisis that threatened the Church's survival.”
The affidavit-collecting activities of D.P. Hurlburt were by that time casting growing doubt over the character and motivations of Smith and Cowdery, as well as raising suspicions about their fanciful tales of Mormon origins. Hurlburt's damning affidavits were followed by devastating claims made in E. D. Howe's book, “Mormonism Unv[e]iled.” Faced with growing disillusionment among the faithful, Cowdery's initially unnamed angel miraculously morphed into John the Baptist. The pumped-up tale of Peter, James and John descending from heaven with outstretched hands to ordain Smith and Cowdery to the priesthood (together with the newly-formed John the Baptist account), were trotted out to improve the earlier, less dramatic storyline. Writes Palmer: “Thus, by degrees, the accounts became more detailed and more miraculous.
In 1829, Joseph said he was called by the Spirit; in 1832, he mentioned that angels attended these events; in 1834-35, the spiritual manifestations became literal and physical appearances of resurrected beings. Details usually become blurred over time; [but] in this case, they multiplied and sharpened. These new declarations of literal and physical events facilitated belief and bolstered Joseph and Oliver's authority during a time of crisis.”
Casting even more shadows on the authenticity of Smith and Cowdery's Mormon sensational storyline, Palmer points to another glaring omission:
“No contemporary narrative exists for a visitation to Joseph and Oliver by Peter, James and John. In fact, the date, location, ordination prayer and other circumstances surrounding this are unknown.” Instead, “[t]he earliest statement about the higher priesthood being restored in a literal,physical way, including the naming of angels, appears in the September 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.”
Palmer notes:
“It may be more than a coincidence, that in February 1835 when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized, the details regarding Peter, James and John were added to the revelations. It was sometime between January and May 1835 that Peter, James and John were first mentioned as the restorers of apostolic keys to Joseph and Oliver. This new link of succession undoubtedly bolstered President Smith's and Assistant President Cowdery's authority in the eyes of the new Quorum of the Twelve and the Church.”
Palmer's assessment of the ever-changing Mormon narrative does not speak well for the credibility of conman Smith and his cohort Cowdery:
“As in his accounts of an angel and the gold plates, Joseph was willing to expand on another foundational narrative. The events surrounding the priesthood restoration were reinterpreted, one detail emphasized over another. A spiritual charged moment when participants felt the veil between heaven and earth was thin became, in the retelling, an event with no veil at all. The first stories about how Joseph received his authority show that, like other prophets and religions founders throughout history, he and Oliver first received their callings in a metaphysical way. Within a few years, their accounts become impressive, unique and physical.”
Palmer explains that the ultimate (and deceptive) purpose behind the Smith-Cowdery re-tooling of Mormonism's make-believe beginnings was to plant the Church roots and subsequently expand its ranks:
“The foundation events [of the Mormon Church which including the First Vision; the historicity and translation of the Book of Mormon gold plates; the Angel Moroni; and priesthood restoration] were rewritten by Joseph and Oliver and other early Church officials so the Church could survive and grow. This reworking made the stories more useful for missionary work and for fellowshipping purposes.”
Palmer concludes that this approach of Smith and Cowdery was fundamentally dishonest: “. . . [I]s this acceptable? Should we continue to tell these historically inaccurate versions today? It seems that, among the many implications that could be considered, we should ask ourselves what results have accrued from teaching an unequivocal, materialistic and idealized narrative of our Church's founding. . . . [I]s it right to tell religious allegories to adults as if they were literally true?”
Smith's conscious, ongoing reinvention of the basic Book of Mormon/Mormon Church storyline is convincing proof, in and of itself, that Smith unpiously knew it was an utter and complete fraud. Historical data simply reinforce that reality.
(for a wake-up call on that score, fans of the "Joseph Smith-as-Pious-Fraud" notion are urged to read "Joseph Smith: Nineteenth-Century Con Man?," by Dale R. Broadhurst, at:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm#Sec02a)
_____
(Part 2 follows)
Part 1:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1377578Part 2:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1377578,1377792#msg-1377792Part 3:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1377578,1377862#msg-1377862Edited 49 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 05:47AM by steve benson.