Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dan Vogel

Pious Fraud

Recommended Posts

I am starting a new thread that will continue my discussion on pious fraud from the now-closed thread

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Hamblin et al.,

CAN HISTORIANS DISCUSS PROPHETS IN A MEANINGFUL WAY WITHOUT VALIDATING OR DENYING THE ONTOLOGICAL OR METAPHYSICAL DEFINITIONS DEMANDED BY SOME BELIEVERS?

PART ONE:

Actually, the whole issue over definitions is a red herring designed to derail discussion of the pious fraud thesis. When Juliann asked for a definition of prophet, she knew no scholar would answer:

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Hamblin et al.,

CAN HISTORIANS DISCUSS PROPHETS IN A MEANINGFUL WAY WITHOUT VALIDATING OR DENYING THE ONTOLOGICAL OR METAPHYSICAL DEFINITIONS DEMANDED BY SOME BELIEVERS?

PART TWO:

Finally, it is your fundamentalist paradigm that has led to your prophet/fraud false dichotomy. As far as you are concerned my pious fraud paradigm does not exist.

The prophet-fraud dichotomy is not fundamentalist. It is logical.

Since when is a false dichotomy logical?

Another definition of prophet is whatever the community of believers say it is. If that definition changes, say, for example, they expand their definition to include pious fraud, then for that community that is what a prophet is.

This is sheer madness. Because some people believe someone is a prophet, therefore the person really is a prophet? ... For Vogel delusions, lies and deceptions make reality, because we can define any word to mean anything we want, even the exact opposite of what it really means.

Mr. Hamblin is not getting it. He is apparently unable to see beyond his fundamentalistic true/false definition of prophet and cannot appreciate other definitions. I am not arguing that the community of believers create TRUE prophets; I am merely recognizing a community

Share this post


Link to post

DV opined: "Only an apologist would attempt to forestall dialogue by insisting on an true/false definition of prophet." [Emphasis added].

This is demonstrably false. Do you need me to elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post

USU,

Um, I can't speak for DV, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

At the very beginning of the question of the implications of Vogel

Share this post


Link to post

Dan, you are all over the place.

Obviously, we can’t check on a prophet’s qualifications, even if we knew what they were.

One thing is sure...you can't check on "qualifications" if you refuse to disclose your standard of comparison. That you are creating a new definition of prophet does not remove your responsiblity to address what secular scholarship has produced. Unless you are claiming that JS did not consider himself Christian you are going to have a difficult time removing him from the "qualifications" that are accepted in scholarship. ( And calling prophets "frauds" is not among them.)

You also say that:

I hope to show that scholars can discuss prophets in a meaningful way without making conclusions about the REALITY of their claims.

Scholars already know how to discuss prophets. :P They have produced book after book and article after article on the topic. Have you read any of it?

You claim:

I care not how individuals resolve the issues I raise; I’m only concerned that they include it in the decision-making process.

But you proceed to tell them how to resolve issues that they may not even have.

What I offer is a new paradigm and a new interpretation of JS that may call for believers to make modifications in the old paradigm, but not necessarily an abandonment of faith. Different people have different tolerance levels when it comes to making changes in their belief-systems.

It might simply mean that believers need to abandon their naive assumptions and adjust their definition of prophet to accord with the facts.

And therein lies the heart of the problem you are creating....one minute you are lecturing to the academy and the next you are in the pulpit preaching to those "believers". How the heck is anyone supposed to know where to meet you? You are all over the place...and the minute you start preaching to "believers" you are the one engaging in apologetics. You seem completely unaware of this.

Share this post


Link to post

I have read Mr. Vogel's replies and, if you'll indulge me, I simply haven't the time respond to everything that I disagree with.

However, one part of his post has been gnawing at me all day and I wasn't sure why. Something about it just didn't "feel" right. It was this part:'

I have referred to D&C 19 to show that JS

Share this post


Link to post
Did ancient concepts of time ever enter into Vogel's equation when he adopted this section in support of his thesis?

My first move would be to determine how the early Christians would have understood the word "eternity". (We are justified in assuming that JS considered himself a Christian since Dan has given us no standard that he can be compared with). Aeon meant "a period of time" or "age". Eternity is just one of many meanings and there is nothing in my little Scott that indicates eternity has to mean more than an indefinitely long time.

Share this post


Link to post
D.V: Only an apologist would insist on the definition of prophet being objectively real.

B.H.: This is utter balderdash. Vogel is now denying objective reality? What next? If we cannot define words in relationship to reality then there is simply no point in attempting to communicate at all.

Of course there is an objective reality for much of what we experience. There is generally universal consenus for objective reality of things which exist. But there is no universal consensus of what god is..hence no objective reality of god or gods. So there can be no objective reality of the concept of a person, call him or her a prophet, who has a relationship with a god or gods or any other supernatural entity. I don't see Vogel denying objective reality ..I see Hamblin denying that there is no objective reality for any person or thing which is defined by their involvement and relationship with the supernatural.

Share this post


Link to post

"I stated that if JS was a pious fraud (which is undemonstrated and undemonstratable by historical methods), then he was a false prophet. It is a question of logical implications and internal contradictions, not proven historical fact."

On more than one occasion, Dan has argued your key misunderstanding, is in fact the internal contradictions you've raised. Or haven't. I don't recall any attempt from you to show what exactly is essential to the word "prophet," and how Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Your contention is the same in kind as the contention fundamentalist Christians have with liberal Bible scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post

wtb said: "Nor can I. But then, I can't imagination the motivation for a lot of things that God does. What, for instance, would motivate him to condemn good people simply for not believing in him?"

Does He?

Share this post


Link to post
USU,

Um, I can't speak for DV, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

-Smac

Here goes, SMAC:

DV spake thus: "Only an apologist would attempt to forestall dialogue by insisting on an true/false definition of prophet." [Emphasis added].

Let's parse a bit. DV, if we are to take his words seriously, says only an apologist would (a) forestall diologue by ( cool.gif insisting on a true/false definition of prophet.

If we can find counterexamples of either proposition, the entire statement logically fails, does it not?

Statement (a). Only [presumeably LDS] apologists forestall dialogue. Let's limit our inquiry to this board. Have we ever seen a non-LDS-apologist forestalling dialogue by some means or other? Have we ever gone through a day when we haven't? Example: Someone asks Former, "What is your religious affiliation, is it Christian?" Former responds: "I am not a Christian." Later, in the same thread, Former says, "LDS are not true Christians, because they deny [x, y or z]. Only those, like me, who believe [x, y or z] are true Christians." Is Former forestalling discussion by some means or other? Of course he is. Thus DV's first statement fails.

Statement ( cool.gif . Only [presumeably LDS] apologists insist on an [sic] true/false definition of prophet. Since we have the Mosaic scripture warning "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Share this post


Link to post
In the process of responding to Hamblin, I hope to show that scholars can discuss prophets in a meaningful way without making conclusions about the REALITY of their claims.
Historians cannot answer those kinds of questions [truth-claims of religion]

Perhaps it is merely my obsession with precision of language and appropriate labeling, especially when it comes to psychology where lack of care can even be dangerous, but I really can't get my head around the concept that someone is somehow intentionally not making an evaluation of a truth-claim, yet applying the label "fraud."

It is not the label I would choose when defending a noncommital position toward truth-falsehood.

Share this post


Link to post

No, he does not.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes he does. :P

Sorry. I have no idea who or to what you are responding. I just thought I would throw in a little smart alec comment to call your attention to the importance of contexting the messages. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

"Liberals are quite free in talking about prophets while calling them prophets..."

sure..but it might take some work to convince Bill.

What is a naturalistic method?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...al%20naturalism

Methodological naturalism (MN) is the philosophical tenet that, within scientific enquiry, one can only use naturalistic explanation - i.e. one's explanations must not make reference to the existence of supernatural forces and entities. Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation. Methodological naturalism is often considered to be an implied working rule of all scientific research and logically entails neither philosophical naturalism nor atheism.

If this is the method Dan Vogal follows, then it would be disingenuous of him to bow to Bill Hamblin's pressures and declare Joseph Smith a false prophet.

"How does that differ from the "unparalleled consensus" noted by a leading expert in the study of religion?

The difference between a book by a scholar and one by a non-scholar is the amount of attention given to methodological issues and the degree to which a scientific, unbiased method is followed in asking historical, literary, and theological questions."

How does MN differ from a "scientific and unbiased method?"

I don't know exactly how to answer that. It's an awkward question.

But, I'd wager there are both scholars, and non-scholars alike who employ MN.

So I guess, those who employ it well, by definition would be scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Methodological naturalism (MN) is the philosophical tenet that, within scientific enquiry, one can only use naturalistic explanation - i.e. one's explanations must not make reference to the existence of supernatural forces and entities. Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation. Methodological naturalism is often considered to be an implied working rule of all scientific research and logically entails neither philosophical naturalism nor atheism.

Do you really feel secure in comparing interpretive history to scientific research? I don't think this quote is very helpful to you. I don't understand what you think the disagreement is...I only know the secular academy and I have already said that belief or nonbelief is irrelevant. I still have to follow the same steps in a formal exegesis that any atheist or agnostic would.

If this is the method Dan Vogal follows, then it would be disingenuous of him to bow to Bill Hamblin's pressures and declare Joseph Smith a false prophet. 

I don't know where you can go with this. Even a thesaurus will give "fake" as a synonym for fraud. Perhaps we can compromise here and agree that DV declares JS a fake prophet, ok?

Share this post


Link to post

Julian:

Perhaps we can compromise here and agree that DV declares JS a fake prophet, ok?

What is a real prophet?

A) There is such a thing as a person who believes they are a prophet..connected to god. i.e. J. Smith (as per D. vogel's interpretation)

B] And such a thing as others believing that a prophet exists who can communicate with a real god...which seems to be the case with Hamblin, Julian and I'm sure many other religious individuals.

C) But there is no knowledge of god existing. There is no knowledge or objective reality that any person does actually communicate with a real, objectively verifiable god.

"Real" implies it exists, that there is an objective reality and it is not based only on belief. In that sense there is no such thing as a REAL prophet. There are only people who believe man can communicate with god or believe themselves they have communicated with god...but there is no such thing as a real prophet.

And if you disagree please define god and then define prophet.

Share this post


Link to post

The issue as far as I can tell is the term "fraud" and how it is being applied (in one case to the term "prophet". Methodological naturalism didn't choose that label for Joseph Smith, Dan Vogel did, so whether or not Dan follows that approach should have little impact on the discussion.

From www.dictionary.com:

Fraud's synonyms: *******, bluffer, charlatan, cheat, con man, counterfeit, crook, deceiver, double-dealer, fake, faker, forger, four-flusher, gyp, hoaxer, horse trader, hoser, impostor, mechanic, mountebank, phony, play actor, pretender, quack, racketeer, sham, shark, skunker, swindler

The term "fraud" has an inherent truth claim judgment in it. There are logical conclusions that can be made based on the definition and even connotations of the term "fraud."

Share this post


Link to post

USU78,

DV spake thus: "Only an apologist would attempt to forestall dialogue by insisting on an true/false definition of prophet." [Emphasis added].

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...