http://www.mormontimes.com/article/21380/The-Prophet-Joseph-Smith-was-no-double-dealing-cynic

"as time passes and the individual conspirators seek to further their own interests, or to minimize risks or harm, by going their separate ways."

I guess David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon all leaving the conspiracy don't count. On a side note, I discovered Danny-boy on another board last night. Gotta hand it to him -- can probably sell ice cubes to an eskimo (or at least try)

(BTW, I don't mean rhetoric in the colloquial "hot air" sense, but in the "art of being convincing sense)
Though I disagree with him almost always, his rhetorical style is typically strong. That was not.

and just a nit-picky point...
"For a critic wanting to reject Joseph's own account, there are, broadly speaking, only two logical alternatives... he must have been either [1] dishonest or [2] delusional, or [3] some hybrid of the two."

ie there are two alternatives: here are all three of them. I know. Nit picking.

Holy the Ghost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> and just a nit-picky point...
> "For a critic wanting to reject Joseph's own
> account, there are, broadly speaking, only two
> logical alternatives... he must have been either
> [1] dishonest or [2] delusional, or [3] some
> hybrid of the two."

This is cribbed from C. S. Lewis's "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" trichotomy which Lewis applies to Jesus. With "dishonest," and "delusional" Peterson has at least kept the alliteration going.

Of course, Joseph's stirring and repeated denials of having multiple wives just might be considered by some as "dishonest."

I think for this topic to be meaningful, we need to figure out who is calling JS a cynic and under what grounds is that accusation being made. I don't think that Peterson addresses that, and neither do we.

@snb ... of course it's us. We're the one's who call him a cynic. It goes without saying ... the debil has us in his power afterall.

Actually, his opening line is okay as far as it goes. Certainly, Joseph Smith was dishonest, deluded or a combination of both.

Everything after that in DCP's piece is simply propaganda that is dishonest, deluded or a combination of both.

Leaving aside the obvious problems with the joint statement of the witlesses to which their names are affixed (e.g., for example who actually authored the statement and why did the witlesses fail to make drawings or describe anything in detail?), DCP completely avoids any mention of the "spiritual eyes" issue, namely, the likelihood that what is misleadingly portrayed as being an experience with physical objects was really an experience of imagining objects in their minds and imagining hefting objects in their mind, which they referred to as seeing with "spiritual eyes."

The subsequent comments and actions of the witlesses strongly supports that their encounters with the Book of Mormon props (Breastplate, Sword of Laban and Golden Plates) were entirely imaginary and no more real or physical than Oliver Cowdery's experience in the huge chamber inside the Hill Cumorah that was supposedly filled with "wagonloads" of metallic plates/records, etc. (as told by Brigham Young (JoD 19:38).

Elsewhere, the witlesses remind people that what they say they saw was seen "by the power of god" and not by the power of men. In other words, if you find a chihuahua turd on your carpet, you can heft it and see it by your own power because it's physical. You don't need to heft it spiritually and therefore don't need special divine assistance. Hell, you can even smell it with your physical nose. You don't need supernatural assistance.

On the other hand, when you heft and see imaginary golden plates that have been conviently disappeared by an angel, you've got to come up with some supernatural angle if you want to sell that as evidence of anything.

In fact, according to orthodox Mormon accounts, Martin Harris had such a hard time conjuring up the angel and the golden plates in his imagination that he had to be intensively coached by Joe Smith until he finally believed that he saw something. I think DCP probably knows what this means in real world terms, but he's not going to let on that he knows. ;o)

The reference to Mary Whitmer is dubious. It's based on a second-hand account relayed by John Whitmer, who was himself one of the witlesses. According to the account, Mary is visited by Nephi (not Moroni) who is carrying the golden plates in a backpack and flips through the pages so that she can see all the engravings and what not. Nephi's purpose in this was reportedly to make her feel good about all the free stuff and free labor that the Whitmers were contributing to Joe's project. Nephi then poofs away into nothing. So, yeah, this is really good evidence that there were physical objects that have to be explained by critics. (Hey, where's all that loud laughter coming from!?)

Actually, this is just evidence that Mary Whitmer and/or John Whitmer was/were dishonest, deluded or a mixture of both.

DCP's comments on cartels and conspiracies are dishonest, deluded or a mixture of both. I don't believe that there are any reliable statistics on the rate at which price-fixing cartels fall apart and the relevance of this to Joseph Smith and his merry band of Smith clan and Whitmer clan witlesses (plus a bonus Harris) is hard to see.

As for conspiracies, a successful conspiracy, by definition, would be one that by definition does not "falter" or fall apart. And a conspiracy that is for a project of limited duration doesn't need to be held together forever.

In any case, DCP pretty much undermines the main point of his propaganda when he says: "...as time passes and the individual conspirators seek to further their own interests, or to minimize risks or harm, [they go] their separate ways."

Uh, hello, DCP, you do realize that this is exactly what nearly ALL of the witlesses did, right? I'm pretty sure you do know that. Minus a few Smiths, the Witlesses all went their separate ways. They didn't confess to being frauds or dupes, but they did go their separate ways and you know what they say about actions speaking louder than words.

The comments about Joe's personal diary are fluffaliciously devoid of any substance. How does DCP know that Joe never intended the contents to be read by others? The fact that the statements in the diary actually have been read by many at various times and the fact that DCP himself has publicized these personal diary statements would seem to run a bit contrary to the point he is trying to make.

So then we get to DCP's conclusion and, given the fact that DCP's arguments are so weak and poorly supported, it appears that DCP's writings can only be explained as those of someone who is dishonest, deluded or a mixture of both. ;o)

Mary Whitmer's account was told by John C. Whitmer, who was a son of a witless and was not actually a witless himself. So, if John C. Whitmer is accurately repeating what Grandma Mary used to say, it could easily be seen that Grandma Mary fancifully painted hers herself into the picture during the glory years when the witlesses were minor celebrities in the fledgling church. It is odd that her story never made it into any official Mormon scripture or history. You'd think a visit from Nephi and his backpack would have merited at least a mention. Maybe Joe couldn't tell whether Mary was telling the truth or just trying to con a con at his own game. Maybe she was trying to outfib a fibber. Whatever the cause, Mary's story never made the grade.