3 ms·
There's not ample evidence to support that he was a con-man. > Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissin
by ngngngng 7y ago
There's not ample evidence to support that he was a con-man.
> Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith_found_guilty_of_being_a_%22con_man%22_in_1826%3F https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smit...
- vermilingua 7y agoI'm not taking a stance on any side of this debate, but you have to admit that using a site called FairMormon as a primary source does not inspire confidence.
- bigwavedave 7y agoWhy not? After reading your post (I'm not taking a stance either, to be clear), I got curious and queried a few registrars for domains including the terms "mormon", "lds", "latterdaysaints", and a couple others and was shocked [/sarcasm] to find very few sane or meaningful domains available. While I agree in principle that a resource's name or title can reveal something about its creator(s) and potentially its content, the name itself means far less than the quality of the source(s) of the information it provides.