Aristotle Smith wrote:
I simply believe that marrying other men's wives, lying about the Book of Abraham, lying about the Book of Mormon, changing his accounts of the first vision, inventing the concept of priesthood authority after the fact, changing the D&C revelations, constantly lying to Emma, constantly lying to the rank and file LDS members, trying to establish a theocracy, and stealing Masonic ceremony and passing it off as a revelation from God disqualifies Joseph Smith from being a trustworthy source for any doctrine about God. As such I don't take a position on whether the Mormon God is evil or not, he doesn't exist.
Then I guess the question is, which makes more sense, believing in a God for whom there is extremely little evidence that S/He exists, but who, if S/He does exist, is good; or believing in a God for whose existence Biblical Christians say there is a lot of evidence, but who is the very personification of evil?
If all the things the critics say about Joseph Smith turn out to be true, then, Aristotle, I agree with you that it would be very easy to conclude that Smith just made everything up. But I would believe in the deity Smith described any day, long before I ever brought myself to worship someone who had the power to cause souls to cease to exist, and yet chose to let the unsaved endure unbearable agony for the rest of eternity.