"your comment seems to imply that it's an established fact that Joseph Smith founded the LDS church in bad faith"
No, those were just examples where the question is potentially debatable, because enough is known about the founder to have a meaningful conversation. By comparison, you can't really debate Christianity the same way, because if it was founded by Jesus, not enough is known about him, and if it wasn't, not enough is known about whoever was responsible.
"One could argue that if enough of a religion's adherents are sincere..."
But you were, I thought, not considering that to be determinative.
> But you were, I thought, not considering that to be determinative.
I refined my definition somewhat because Scientology is an edge case I hadn't fully considered. So my previous statement about Pastafarians is incorrect--if enough of them held genuine belief, then it might be said that their faith had taken on a sincerity independent of the founders' intent, and their religion might then be considered valid. Of course, that hasn't happened and it's hard to imagine it ever happening given the deliberately farcical nature of their deity.
No, those were just examples where the question is potentially debatable, because enough is known about the founder to have a meaningful conversation. By comparison, you can't really debate Christianity the same way, because if it was founded by Jesus, not enough is known about him, and if it wasn't, not enough is known about whoever was responsible.
"One could argue that if enough of a religion's adherents are sincere..."
But you were, I thought, not considering that to be determinative.