More likely than not, Joseph Smith was either a con-artist or insane, not a prophet of god.

Second round is for opening arguments. Third round is for rebuttals and closing arguments. Failure to adhere to this structure, by either side, will result in a forfeit. ” In your first round, you attacked my grammar. Grammar is a metric by which we are scored in the debate; therefore, by doing this, you used the first round to present an argument against me. If you wanted to attack my grammar, you should have waited until the second round, wherein arguments are permitted. This, in accordance with the resolution, results in your forfeit. But how boring would that be? I want a good debate. I’ll choose not to preclude that possibility by being overly pedantic. I’ll agree to ignore that portion of the resolution (for the first round) if you do as well. However, since you attacked me in the opening round, I feel it is fair for me to use the second round, previously allotted for arguments only, to present a rebuttal to your attack. Please try to adhere to the rules from this point onward. -Rebuttal- Your point about me capitalizing the word “god” was entirely reasonable. So you’re aware of my reasoning behind it, I meant the word in a general sense, not specifically referring to Yahweh. From this point onward, I will refer to him as such. I just don’t want you to make the mistake of thinking I did it as in insult; I didn’t. Using the wording “…need only…” is entirely appropriate when “need” is being used as an auxiliary verb. (1) In this case, it was. Capitalizing the word “more” was peculiar, but given it was the beginning of a sentence, not incorrect; I’d call it literary style. The previous sentence, which outlined the pro position, was not the beginning of a new sentence, so I didn’t capitalize the first word. -Moving on- My position is to prove that Joseph Smith was, more likely than not, a con-man, either out to deceive people, or insane. That being said, I have only to provide better and more numerous reputable citations to support that accusation than you provide against it. So, without wasting any time or space, let’s begin. Consider the following sources, the first made by a prominent anti-Mormon, the latter made by an early leader in the LDS church: “…while Joe had been a-courting and developing into an A No. 1 backwoods confidence man, the neighborhood of Palmyra had been supplied with a new sensation to succeed the origin of the Indians, buried treasure, and eternal damnation, as topics for the crossroads' forums. .. .” - (H. M. Beardsley, 1931 Joseph Smith and His Mormon Empire p. 43) “I had no more confidence in Joseph Smith being a prophet, or in his knowing anything about religion, than I have now in a juggler or a wandering mountebank. I knew nothing at all about Joseph, except what I had heard from his enemies or read in the papers. ” - (Daniel H. Wells, June 30th, 1867) In both cases (the first being a man obviously in opposition to Smith’s movement, the second having the opposite feelings), they couldn’t avoid addressing Smith as a possible confidence man. Confidence man and juggler were terms used in the 1800’s to mean someone unworthy of your confidence (2), or essentially, what we today call a con-man. If both his enemies and his followers wondered whether his motives were pure, then we must ask ourselves why. Why would his enemies and friends alike think it was at all likely that Joseph Smith was lying to everyone about his newfound religion? It seems it was a serious possibility to both his believers, and his non-believers. If it was simple doubt, there would be no question on the matter. He was selling angels, golden plates, and conversations with the divine; any sane person would have doubts. Doubts aren’t what causes pause for me here. If they had said, “I doubted his stories”, or, “I wondered if he was sane”, I’d read it without a second glance and think nothing of it. If a 14 year old tells you he talked to an angel, and you don’t believe him, you don’t say you thought he might be a con-man. You simply say exactly that; you don’t believe him. If you did say he was a con-man, however, and that was why you didn’t believe him… Well, it’s logical that there would have to be a history to cause that idea to exist, especially when it existed so prevalently. That is what I’ll work first to establish. Most early works arguing that Smith was a fraud, such as “Mormonism Unveiled”, were based upon the writings of D. Philastus Hurlbut. Because the witnesses who signed Hurlbut’s writings were likely illiterate farmers, most Mormons dismiss his writings, and all writings based upon his, with apathetic hand-waving and prepossessed dismissals. It is, nonetheless, important to note that he had dozens of farmers and townspeople who grew up with Joseph Smith, documented as also calling him a juggler, or confidence man (3). That being said, there are several statements from other sources that predate Hurlbut’s 1833 writings: “It is well known that Jo Smith never pretended to have any communion with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book, and that the juggling of himself or father, went no further than the pretended faculty of seeing wonders in a “peep stone,” and the occasional interview with the spirit, supposed to have the custody of hidden treasures. ” - Palmyra Reflector, Feb. 18, 1831 “. .. Joseph Smith. This man has been known, in these parts, for some time, as a kind of Juggler, who has pretended, through a glass, to see money under ground &c, &c. ” - Rev. John Sherer, Nov. 18, 1830; (Early Mormon Documents 4 pp. 92-93) Both examples are separate from Hurlbut, but reference Joseph Smith’s past fraudulent behavior. Further examples can be provided as needed, but these are all that’s necessary for my first contention: that I find it more likely that these people were being honest, and Joseph Smith did indeed have a long history of fraudulent behavior, than the idea that they all, seemingly to no end, lied about it for no personal gain whatsoever. Having shown my reason to believe his history as a con-man was likely real, I find it follows coherently that Hurlbut was basing his accusations on something real as well. If he did use the seer stones to swindle people, which I’ve demonstrated is a likely conclusion, then why should we believe he was being any more honest when he looked into his hat and used seer stones to translate a book an angel gave him that he conveniently couldn’t show anyone (especially experts on ancient text)? “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. ” - (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ p. 12) I look forward to your reply, and thank you for accepting the debate. Works Cited (1) (. http://www.perfectyourenglish.com...) (2) James G. Bennett of the New York Herald, On July 8, 1849, reported: For the last few months a man has been traveling about the city, known as the "Confidence Man," that is, he would go up to a perfect stranger in the street, and being a man of genteel appearance, would easily command an interview. Upon this interview he would say after some little conversation, "have you confidence in me to trust me with your watch until to-morrow;" the stranger at this novel request, supposing him to be some old acquaintance not at that moment recollected, allows him to take the watch, thus placing "confidence" in the honesty of the stranger, who walks off laughing and the other supposing it to be a joke allows him so to do. (3) (. http://www.solomonspalding.com...)