The 3 Main Theories

[deacon blues]

When we consider explanations for Joseph Smith the 3 (oops 4) main categories as I see it are 1. Fraud, 2. Pious Fraud, and 3. Authentic Prophet, or 4. a sincere but deceived-by Satan- believer. Each of those positions can and surely will be, combined or nuanced. I think we could also apply those those categories, or descriptions to current Church leaders. It is conceivable that Pres.(Elder?) Oaks or Elder(Pres.?) Uctdorff, could, depending on the evidence and our viewpoint, be described in one of those 4 ways.
From my viewpoint it is more likely that the "Pious Fraud/Sincere deceived believer" could apply to the current leaders than to Joseph Smith, but I am probably overlooking some things. Are there thoughts or data anyone could share with me?

[Hagoth]

Maybe there needs to be a category like "ostensibly sincere but deceived by delusions of self-importance and need to be right/admired, even if it requires you to be less than honest."

I think that is a pretty good description for many members of the Q15. For Joseph Smith I would start there and add a helping of pious fraud and a side order of garden variety fraud. And maybe a light spritzing of evil genius.

[MalcolmVillager]

I like where you are going with this. I often wonder this about leaders. Local and global.

However, none of the leaders today are claiming to receive translations for non-existent plates or to speak for God in such outlandish "and thus I the Lord say that this thing I personally require to benefit Joseph really is my will, not that of Joseph" ways.

It is harder for me to give JS a pass to piety when he was certainly aware about the sausage being made. The current leaders could be both sincere believers and protected from the old way the sausage was made.

That said, I dont guve them a pass on the claims of gods will in the policies they are making today.

[jfro18]

This is a great thread -- the 3 (or 4) theories are always put on JS, but not usually the Q15...

And I would argue the Q15 today would be in that pious fraud group at least at face value. They know that as they progress there is no increase in God magic, but they also know that if they tell members that everything falls apart. So you have some leaders who will imply that they are no different than you or I, but then you have RMN letting everyone close to him parade out that he receives revelation in his sleep to keep members under the illusion that there is indeed God magic still flowing.

The cynical side of me thinks they're not pious because they are causing many people harm to protect a lie, but I think that if you could ever get them to talk honestly it would be very clear they are frauds that think they're doing the right thing.

The real wildcard to this discussion is how much they know of church historical issues and what their true level of belief is. If you spend your whole life believing this church and get to a point where you are treated like a rockstar, it would be extremely difficult to admit that it's a lie, but at some point you have to realize that nothing is happening on a divine level and that has to weigh on you.

For Joseph Smith I know Dan Vogel and (I think?) John Hamer both give him the pious fraud label, and I understand the reasons for that... but I think while he might have started that way, he clearly took advantage of people more and more as he saw how effective he was at manipulating people. So I can't consider him anything more than a creative genius who was nothing but a conman.

[1smartdodog]

I have a friend who I consider intelligent. No matter the evidence. No matter the logic employed. He sticks with the church leaders due to a life in the church he can’t let go off.

I think it is the same with the current crop of leaders. They just can’t let go after a life in the church. It has to be true there is no other option. They are not pious frauds or true believers. They just plow ahead because it is all they know

As far as JS he was everything. He may have started as fraud but by the end he thought he was on to something because he had so much invested and it was working.

It is never black or white. Just all shades of grey depending on the individual.

[jfro18]

I have a friend who I consider intelligent. No matter the evidence. No matter the logic employed. He sticks with the church leaders due to a life in the church he can’t let go off.

Exactly... think of how many people we know personally that can't open up to new information about Mormonism because of what that would mean for their lives in the church.

Then take that and expand it to the leaders of the church, who have spent their entire lives doing everything right so they could advance up the ladder. And now they are looked at as religious heroes, treated as rockstars at events, and thought of as better and more magical than just about anyone in history.

How do you give that away and walk? So maybe you ignore the problems, maybe you rationalize them, or maybe you just plow ahead because you have nothing else to go back to... but the odds that you could leave it all behind and try to find a new life w/o the church are as close to zero as you can get.

Look at how hard it is for an everyday Mormon in their 20s/30s/40s/etc to walk away from the church... and then imagine someone in their 50s/60s/70s who has nothing in their life besides being a part of the church. The mental capacity to break away from the church would have to be enormous, and I just don't see people in that position doing it without something completely breaking them first.

[Hagoth]

... and then imagine someone in their 50s/60s/70s who has nothing in their life besides being a part of the church.

Then add to thatthe humiliation and abuse they could look forward to from their former admirers. If you think NOMs and exmos get hammered with "even the very elect will be deceived," imagine how they would turn on a fallen apostle. It would require an amazingly brave and individualistic person to make that kind of leap, and those aren't the kind of men who make the final cut.

[Palerider]

I've related this experience here before. Pres. Eyring visited our Stake to set apart a new Stake president. While there he conducted a leadership meeting where he came down from the podium and stood close to the congregation. He invited and answered a few softball questions from the group.

Finally he bore his testimony.

I've studied this just a little; how to recognize body language of someone who is lying. And I was seated about 10 feet away from him.

Just as he began to bear testimony of the BofM he displayed a body gesture that said in great big figurative letters, "I don't believe what I'm telling you". Plus I had the immediate impression come over me that said, "He's lying".

The words came out of his mouth, but there was a strain to sound convincing. It was quite different from the slick testimony he gives in a general conference talk where there is a significant distance between him and his audience.

In this case he had to look directly into the honest eyes of the congregation in very close proximity knowing that they were evaluating, hanging on his every word and action and in my estimation, he blew it in the clutch.

I can't say about the rest of the GAs but I would put Eyring in the "water carrying" group, whether he thinks he's lying for a good cause or not.

[deacon blues]

This is a great thread -- the 3 (or 4) theories are always put on JS, but not usually the Q15...

And I would argue the Q15 today would be in that pious fraud group at least at face value. They know that as they progress there is no increase in God magic, but they also know that if they tell members that everything falls apart. So you have some leaders who will imply that they are no different than you or I, but then you have RMN letting everyone close to him parade out that he receives revelation in his sleep to keep members under the illusion that there is indeed God magic still flowing.

For Joseph Smith I know Dan Vogel and (I think?) John Hamer both give him the pious fraud label, and I understand the reasons for that... but I think while he might have started that way, he clearly took advantage of people more and more as he saw how effective he was at manipulating people. So I can't consider him anything more than a creative genius who was nothing but a conman.

That's one reason I think the current leaders are more likely to be pious frauds, they don't disavow revelation, but they change it from the Joseph Smith type of revelation- "taking dictation from the Lord", to having feelings, dreams, etc., which they describe in less concrete terms, and which we all can identify with, because we all have these experiences. It's possible Joseph heard a voice, it's also possible he had ideas that he put into God's mouth so to speak. But in the 21st century "hearing a voice" is usually considered delusional, and having ideas that one might put into God's mouth so to speak, is what a lot of minister's, spiritual leaders, and so on- do. And this would fall squarely into the category of "pious fraud," at least for me.

Another thought. In my earlier life when I gave priesthood blessings, I think I mostly had ideas, and then spoke them, as if they were God's ideas. This would be classic "pious fraud" behavior. I think that most Church leaders, if pressed (and they always want to avoid being pressed) would admit that's what they do.

[Red Ryder]

Now substitute God for Joseph Smith and think about what that means?

[RubinHighlander]

I think it is the same with the current crop of leaders. They just can’t let go after a life in the church. It has to be true there is no other option. They are not pious frauds or true believers. They just plow ahead because it is all they know

We've talked about this in another thread, how many of the SP or higher offices of church broke folks are highly intelligent but also pious narcissist that believe the church is true because they are in it. They have an attitude that there's no way they could ever be deceived, so the notion the church isn't true would never be on their list of possibilities. Any other apologetic explanation, no matter how ridiculous, has to be true; that's how the dogma world view filters work so well against all other facts and logic. Tribalism at it's finest, woven into every fiber of the genetic being.

[deacon blues]

Now substitute God for Joseph Smith and think about what that means?

This is an interesting idea. Was Jesus a pious fraud? Is God a highly advanced alien who has partial control of the universe, maybe even the multi-verse. Am I going from the sublime to the ridiculous?

[Reuben]

Now substitute God for Joseph Smith and think about what that means?

This is an interesting idea. Was Jesus a pious fraud? Is God a highly advanced alien who has partial control of the universe, maybe even the multi-verse. Am I going from the sublime to the ridiculous?

Nah. What would be ridiculous is polygamous aliens. Polygamous, eternal dude aliens that actually diddle eternal lady aliens to provide qualia and agency to hundreds of billions of savage biological machines. Great setting for a sci-fi novel, right?

I don't have anything against Jesus being a pious fraud. Whether he was or not, he made some spot-on critiques of fundamentalist religion.