[salty-horse]

Joseph Smith and the Mormons: A Graphic Biography by Noah Van Sciver is $3 on Amazon.com
A biography of Joseph Smith from his perspective. Author is an ex-Mormon.
I'm reading this now, very slowly.

In Joseph Smith and the Mormons, author and illustrator Noah Van Sciver, who was raised a Mormon, covers one of history’s most controversial figures, Joseph Smith—who founded a religion which is practiced by millions all over the world.

This book discusses all of the monumental moments during Smith’s life, including the anti-Mormon threats and violence which caused his followers to move from New York to Ohio, Smith’s receiving the divine commandment of plural marriage, his imprisonment, his announcement to run for president of the United States, and his ultimate murder by an angry mob in 1844 at the young age of 38.

With a respectful and historical approach, and strikingly illustrated, this graphic novel is the ultimate book for those curious about the origins of the Mormon faith and the man who started it all.

Was brought to my attention by this review by W. Eric Martin, which I'm copying here because Twitter now requires a login to view threads:

I knew little of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (to use its proper name) prior to reading this biography, but what little I did know made it sound bizarre and unintelligible.
To be fair, I think all religions are bizarre and unintelligible.
A common view of the arbitrariness of religion is that if all texts from and knowledge of a particular religion vanished from the Earth, would it come into existence again in the same form? That is, are there observable truths about religious beliefs that humans would rediscover?
To look at another topic, if the human race lost all knowledge of the origins of the solar system, the history of species on Earth, etc., in time people would recreate the scientific tools needed to discover that knowledge again.
We'd use different scales of measurement for distance, temperature, etc., but the knowledge would be the same. Our understanding of the Big Bang, the evolution of species, etc. would all be recovered because observable proof of these facts exist to be discovered again.
That's not the case with religious texts — although reading this book gave me a sense for how humans would once again create origin myths and how they would spread, carried along by the firm belief in the one expressing those views and the willingness of others to believe.
In his author's notes, Van Scriver emphasizes his research on the topic, his past history in the church, his desire to understand the origins of this religion — and while his art and text present the material in a neutral way, Joseph Smith comes across as a grade-A flimflammer.
It's impossible to believe pretty much any part of Smith's story, starting with an angel showing him the location of a text with gold pages written in an archaic set of characters that only he has the tools to read — and with him being disallowed from showing the book to anyone.
It feels very much like a child telling you a fabulous story, then refusing to allow you to check any of the facts they mentioned.
The entire story is self-serving under the guise of presenting religious truth to others. You must donate, you must work for the church, etc.
Much later, Smith has essentially absorbed the tools needed to translate the text, then the text was returned to the angel, so all you're left with is the word of a few people who Smith eventually granted access to the book, although they perhaps saw it only in spirit...
Eventually Smith just proclaims what the values and beliefs of the church are. He makes statements as if receiving a call from the heavens, but he's just changing things as needed based on current conditions or desires.
The most obvious example is Smith rediscovering how Abraham and others in the Bible had multiple wives, so clearly the Mormon men needed multiple wives as well in order to grow the church as large as possible. It's not adultery if you love them all and don't abandon them!
Admittedly the people of the time push back against the Mormons, giving them the ability to claim persecution and act in response to unjustness with perhaps a larger, more forceful response than they might otherwise.
For example, after the Nauvoo Expositor revealed Smith's belief that polygamy was required in an effort to expose him as a fraudulent religious leader, he and the city council ordered the printing press destroyed — which then got them arrested.
An angry mob stormed the jailhouse and killed Smith and other Mormons who had been jailed with him, so...yeah, that's not the right way to handle things, but that's evidence of how much Smith and his teachings (and his fake bank that went bust) had riled others against him.
Yet Smith's religion lived on, and I imagine that's what would happen if all religions vanished. Someone would create a belief system, and a few people would adopt it, then they're the ones convincing others of its truth, not the original creator, so I guess it's more believable.
You as the creator don't need to convince everyone of your beliefs; those who do believe you will fight on your behalf, arguing against naysayers and trying to spread the beliefs, which are now theirs as much as yours.
We're seeing similar things play out this week with Joe Rogan hosting Robert Kennedy, Jr., who expressed lots of weird opinions as facts, then Rogan challenging a scientist to debate Kennedy and Rogan's followers going after the scientist for declining the challenge.
I've seen a few takedowns of Kennedy's statements that link to studies that show the opposite of what Kennedy said, or that the studies were later retracted, or that a treatment had a mild effect that Kennedy inflated to a vast threat.

But those takedowns don't even matter.
This is the same problem Democrats have when arguing against Republicans. Trump, McCarthy, DeSantis, Gaetz, Gosar, etc. will say something inflammatory that doesn't match history, science, etc., but the counterargument takes four times as long as the lie — then a new lie follows.
Arguing against the lies to show them as untrue takes forever — and often those who believe the lies don't listen anyway because their belief matches what they want to be true. (I realize that, for example, antivaxxers make similar arguments that vax promoters have been duped.)
Anyway, I'm glad Van Sciver took far longer than he intended to create this book because it filled in a gap in my knowledge, even though that history of Smith matches what I already believed: All religions are untrue.

So am I believing just what I want to be true? Ironic...