Themis wrote:DonBradley wrote:Whatever those processes were, it seems to me they had to be distinct from Joseph's ordinary cognitive processes, since - as I started noting, to my perplexity, when I still thought the man an opportunist - he treated his words of revelation differently than his non-revelatory words.
That seems a very usual trait for even religious frauds.The processes of producing these words were distinct enough from his ordinary processes for producing words that the words produced by the revelatory process took on a whole new significance to him. That suggests more than the casual distinction in the processes that it seems to me you're positing.
Many people can move in and out of different roles instantaneously, almost as if they have different personalities and abilities.
Yes, usual for religious frauds and perhaps necessary for all kinds of frauds.
Themis wrote:Physics Guy wrote:So how much of a defense of Smith's sincerity can it really be to establish that he was sincere in way that is indistinguishable from deliberate fraud? I mean, okay, this line of thinking makes it quite plausible even to a skeptic like me that Joseph Smith had a sincere belief in his own inspired bricolage. It seems like a cheap form of sincerity.
I think people can have sincere beliefs about what they are doing while knowing they are making up certain portions of it. I think Joseph knew the Book of Mormon was fiction and his treatment of the plates fit he knew they were not real while trying to manipulate people to believe they were.
Yes, they can believe their own creations. To do so would make sense especially for narcissists who tend to displace blame and responsibility. That displacement that attributes blame to everyone but oneself can also work seamlessly to attribute one's own imagination to an outside influence.