Hot from the Press!

[LifeOnaPlate]

got mine today

[Tanyan]

Tanyan, you'll finally get your first edition copy of the book back then! Thanks for letting me borrow it for so long.

? ??

You are very welcome !. Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Kevin Christensen]

Outstanding... I'm looking forward to getting a copy. Though my shelf of the Review is already full. 21 Years of it. Amazing! Congratulations, and may there be many more to come.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Daniel Peterson]

It's really amazing, isn't it?, that the Review is that old. Lots and lots of good stuff, in my judgment:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/

And still very much alive.

Some of the best writing in the Church, at least two widely-respected LDS scholars of the older generation have told me -- and I, modestly enough, am inclined to agree with them. (I mean, it's not as if I did most of it. For those who may not yet know, Kevin Christensen himself has been a vitally significant contributor.)

[Chris Smith]

Didn't Goff already give us eighty or so interminable pages of anti-Vogel philosophizing in a previous issue?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Cast the snide aside, Chris my man. Interminable? He can be a little lengthy, but I am interested in literary theory and communication so I enjoy it. And length doesn't equal falsity or veracity, so that doesn't seem to be a responsible way to deal with his argument. Have you read the new piece?

Goff's new essay only employs Vogel as a foil and comparative in regards to reading. Goff's article is something of a literary theory sandwich. The pieces of bread on the outside discuss different ways of reading a text, the presuppositions we bring to the exercise and how we can affect the outcome. He wants to turn BoM readers into active and attentive readers. In the center of the sandwich is an interesting take on allusion or intertextualization as found in the Bible. He demonstrates how types are used in the Bible including similar or identical names, phrases, and plot lines of stories, and shows the BoM to utilize the same method. The complexity of the comparison is especially interesting. On the last piece of bread he contrasts the detail and sophistication of his analysis compared to Dan Vogel's psychoanalysis on the BoM (including his conjectures devoid of evidence whatsoever about some Smith family dynamics) and then affirms his reading accounts for more data and is a better reading, but that different presuppositions to each of the readings help dictate the conclusions. Even his own.

So he is reiterating some of the same principles we have seen before, but in the middle of the sandwich he adds an awesome bit about biblical allusion and the Book of Mormon, which I think could have made an outstanding essay in its own right.

Has Vogel answered the Goff perspective in print? I found a 2004 blog discussion that I haven't read yet where they go back and forth, so I am interested to see what happens there, but do you know if Vogel has published anything as a response? He responded to Kevin Christensen, but IMO he only demonstrated he hadn't understood Christensen's arguments, or he didn't have a good answer for them. Either way.

[Daniel Peterson]

Didn't Goff already give us eighty or so interminable pages of anti-Vogel philosophizing in a previous issue?

Dr. Goff has written several excellent pieces for us, yes, and has criticized Dan Vogel's speculations.

I commend Dr. Goff's work to anybody interested in questions regarding Book of Mormon authorship and interpretation:

http://mi.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=80

[Chris Smith]

And length doesn't equal falsity or veracity, so that doesn't seem to be a responsible way to deal with his argument.

Maybe not, but suffice to say that I would read the FARMS Review far, far more often if the articles that sound interesting to me didn't seem to be consistently upward of 40 pages-- and much of that fluff, IMO.

Has Vogel answered the Goff perspective in print?

I don't know. I know that due to the attacks on his so-called "positivism" he has studied the philosophy pretty closely, but I've no idea if he's written about it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Maybe not, but suffice to say that I would read the FARMS Review far, far more often if the articles that sound interesting to me didn't seem to be consistently upward of 40 pages-- and much of that fluff, IMO.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Obviously, since I'm the editor, I like the overwhelming majority of the things we publish. And I hear from people pretty often who share my opinion.

That said, some people like Beethoven, some like Mozart, some like Bach and some prefer

. There's no accounting for taste.

[Kevin Christensen]

I also love Alan Goff's work. I have been anxiously watching for his books on internal and external allusion in the Book of Mormon which have been glacially moving towards publication for years. I find his published work enthralling and enlightening, and I've read, and profitably re-read, all of his FARMS essays. Somewhere I saw him comment that as long as there were positivists claiming that those of us who approach the Book of Mormon from belief thereby taint our scholarship, while their own disbelief permits fair and objective observation, that he (Goff) will have work to do. He's got a first class mind, an incredible depth, and fresh perspectives.

And thanks to Daniel and Blair for kind words on mine.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe not, but suffice to say that I would read the FARMS Review far, far more often if the articles that sound interesting to me didn't seem to be consistently upward of 40 pages-- and much of that fluff, IMO.

I read the current issue. I skipped only one article. Some didn't really interest me. Others weren't in my ballpark of interest. Length had little to do with it. If it's good I wish it would keep going sometimes. You say "much is fluff" but give no examples. Isn't this exactly the sort of fluffy ad hominem dismissal some accuse FARMS of publishing? It turns the conversation away from the issues discussed onto the publication itself without actually engaging the information. If it ain't ad hominem it's at least flippant and void of usable critique.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know. I know that due to the attacks on his so-called "positivism" he has studied the philosophy pretty closely, but I've no idea if he's written about it.

I also noticed you used the word "attack." Are you attacking the FARMS Review right now? You seem to be offering an unfavorable opinion of it (though not being specific.) Am I attacking you by disagreeing or countering some of your thoughts here?

[Chris Smith]

Length had little to do with it.

I read slowly and take extensive notes on everything I read, which means that I sacrifice breadth for depth. Generally if a piece fails to be concise and to get right to the point, I don't bother unless it's really important to some specific research I'm engaged in. It's unfortunate, but I make no apologies for it.

I also noticed you used the word "attack." Are you attacking the FARMS Review right now? You seem to be offering an unfavorable opinion of it (though not being specific.) Am I attacking you by disagreeing or countering some of your thoughts here?

I find Goff's treatment of positivism unconvincing, for a variety of reasons. I guess I'll give you the short version.

Goff basically treats positivism as a synonym for naturalism, and cites a lot of works that (he thinks) use it the same way. There's no question that others sometimes use the term as loosely, but when it is used with precision and as a descriptive rather than polemical term in the literature it generally refers to something more specific than a naturalist framework. Specifically, it refers to the view that something must be proven before we can accept it-- that is, verificationism. Karl Popper countered this with his falsificationist epistemology-- that is, that we accept hypotheses and then try to disprove them. Critics of positivism have pointed out that falsificationism can and sometimes does mask a kind of positivism. And they're right about that, though in my opinion they're being sloppy if they claim that the positivism being masked is the same as naturalism. (This sort of sloppiness is unfortunately all too common.)

There's a difference between, on the one hand, a naturalist who has arrived at that position because he feels that most of the claims we call "supernatural" have been falsified and, on the other hand, a naturalist who has arrived at that position because he has arbitrarily excluded the possibility that there could exist anything beyond what he can see, touch, or observe. The latter is positivism. The former is not. The truth is that we are all guilty of positivism to a certain extent, since there are claims and possibilities that we all arbitrarily exclude on the grounds that they are not part of our experiences. But for one to decide that he does not believe in a particular god or sacred text because he feels that he has tested the claims of the god or text and found them to be untrue-- as I think Vogel believes he has-- is not positivism. Those who label his worldview in that way seem to be doing so in order to make his reasoning and worldview appear philosophically unsophisticated. I suppose they think that's justice, since the naturalists have been making believers feel unsophisticated for the last couple centuries. But in my opinion it's unfair, because Vogel's worldview is not one that he adopted arbitrarily.

In my experience, even those who make positivistic claims-- that is, who explicitly deny that there can exist anything beyond what we can see, touch, and observe-- do not follow this principle all the time and do not use this as their sole justification for rejecting specific supernatural claims. They may even have adopted this as a methodological shortcut only after testing a variety of supernatural claims and finding them wanting. So even an explicit positivist cannot be entirely dismissed on account of his positivism, because positivism does not exhaust his character or reasoning. But so far as I know Dan does not use positivistic reasoning.

Another component of Goff's critique appears to be that positivists assume they are without bias, and so since Vogel is a positivist (according to Goff) he must assume he is without bias. In my experience this is true of neither Dan nor of all who make positivistic claims. Contra Goff, Dan's use of the word "apologist" in reference to the apologists is not intended to imply that all his opponents are biased whereas he is not. This is simply wishful mind-reading on Goff's part.

And so on. I've already said more about this than I wanted to.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I read slowly and take extensive notes on everything I read, which means that I sacrifice breadth for depth. Generally if a piece fails to be concise and to get right to the point, I don't bother unless it's really important to some specific research I'm engaged in. It's unfortunate, but I make no apologies for it.

I extensively highlight and annotate, then transfer annotations to a word file in my reading log. I find welcome relief when a writer takes a little longer to get to the point once in a while, gives my writing hand a little break! I'll respond to your other points later, but keep in mind that if Goff even mentions positivism in this recent article I already forgot about it as it wasn't a main theme in this essay. But you haven't read his newest one yet, so you're only talking about his older stuff? I'll respond to that after lunch.

[Chris Smith]

But you haven't read his newest one yet, so you're only talking about his older stuff?

I doubt I'll read his new one.

[Daniel Peterson]

I doubt I'll read his new one.

Vogel wins by default!

[Chris Smith]

Vogel wins by default!

If Goff's purpose is to win some kind of competition with Dan, then I definitely won't be reading it.

[Daniel Peterson]

If Goff's purpose is to win some kind of competition with Dan, then I definitely won't be reading it.

You're really stretching to find justifications for ignoring the piece.

Why not just quietly choose not to read it?

Critics and others do such things all the time.

Dan Peterson jokingly characterized it in a way that, if the author himself had seriously so characterized it, would still not justify my refusal to look at it but might provide some sort of rhetorical fig leaf! Anyway, I've already read something by that author, and it's too long!

So just don't read it already.

You don't need our permission to ignore Mormon writing. Heck, I'd be perfectly content if you ignored even more of it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Goff basically treats positivism as a synonym for naturalism, and cites a lot of works that (he thinks) use it the same way. There's no question that others sometimes use the term as loosely, but when it is used with precision and as a descriptive rather than polemical term in the literature it generally refers to something more specific than a naturalist framework. Specifically, it refers to the view that something must be proven before we can accept it-- that is, verificationism. Karl Popper countered this with his falsificationist epistemology-- that is, that we accept hypotheses and then try to disprove them. Critics of positivism have pointed out that falsificationism can and sometimes does mask a kind of positivism. And they're right about that, though in my opinion they're being sloppy if they claim that the positivism being masked is the same as naturalism. (This sort of sloppiness is unfortunately all too common.)

Can you refer to or quote an example of Goff as understanding it this way? (And an example where he misrepresents the operating assumptions of Metcalfe, et. al.?) I'm not asking to be a pain, I'm just asking for a reference point so I don't have to dig through everything to find what you are referring to. If you don't have time I won't read your action as a wimpy withdrawal, I am busy too. (You didn't explain the use of the word "attack," parenthetically ) Don't think I agree with everything Goff has written, I don't. I think he might come across a little hard on some positivist positions. At the same time, there are many great points he raises as well. Treasure up the good and so forth.

Another component of Goff's critique appears to be that positivists assume they are without bias, and so since Vogel is a positivist (according to Goff) he must assume he is without bias. In my experience this is true of neither Dan nor of all who make positivistic claims. Contra Goff, Dan's use of the word "apologist" in reference to the apologists is not intended to imply that all his opponents are biased whereas he is not. This is simply wishful mind-reading on Goff's part.

Actually, this is the very attitude I have felt coming from Vogel and Metcalfe.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If Goff's purpose is to win some kind of competition with Dan, then I definitely won't be reading it.

You don't have to take my word for it, but as I mentioned, Vogel is only invoked as a comparison reading and the bulk of the essay deals with other things.

[Chris Smith]

Can you refer to or quote an example of Goff as understanding it this way?

Here is a brief sampling of some of the things Goff says about positivism. These are from "Dan Vogel's Family Romance."

Despite admitting that Dan "makes a generic acknowledgment that all biographers have biases [... and] makes no attempt to conceal his ideological presuppositions," Goff concludes that Vogel is a positivist because his "acknowledgement of biases is too generic to be helpful."

This obscures the fact that Vogel goes into significantly more detail about his naturalistic presuppositions than a mere "generic" acknowledgement of biases. Pages xii-xvii explain in detail Dan's presuppositions and his reasons for them. Dan writes, "I do not claim that the supernatural does not exist, for it is impossible to prove a negative. I maintain only that the evidence upon which such claims rest is unconvincing to me." He goes on to describe how his exposure to the use of deception and trickery in magic caused him gradually to doubt allegedly "real" forms of magic, and how his historical studies led him to doubt many strains of magic and religion. He also says that since supernaturalism is not part of his everyday experience he feels justified in approaching it skeptically. I think one might certainly be justified in disagreeing with Dan's conclusions, but to lump him in with people who exhibit a "deliberate refusal to scrutinize the metaphysical and ideological interests that inform their readings" as Goff does is downright unfair.

Gof also writes, "Vogel claims that he is not a positivist, just a naturalist. 'A rejection of the supernatural does not automatically make one a positivist. It only means that one is a naturalist. The two positions are philosophically distinct.' Let's be more accurate about this assertion because the two positions are not at all distinct and the positivism common among historians has been broadly discredited for more than thirty years: while naturalism and positivism can be theoretically distinguished, in the real world they tend to overlap and are often used synonymously." It's interesting how Goff contradicts himself here. He claims that naturalism and positivism are "not at all distinct" but then admits not only that there is a theoretical distinction but also that the real-world overlap is a "tendency" and something that something that "often" appears in the literature. This sort of self-contradiction recurs repeatedly throughout the essay. Goff quotes more precise definitions of positivism but in practice reverts to polemical, umbrella definitions that better accommodate his negative view of Vogel.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

(You didn't explain the use of the word "attack," parenthetically )

Frankly, I would not consider it an attack if Goff disagreed with Dan's interpretations on evidentiary grounds or even if he argued that he, based on his testimony, has a different experience and therefore different presuppositions than Vogel. Those are perfectly valid arguments, and in fact there's a lot in Dan's book that even I don't agree with. But Goff's attempt to discredit Vogel by dumping him into a "discredited" philosophical category strikes me as an ad hominem strategy. It focuses on the biographer rather than the biography. Believe it or not, I wouldn't even mind this so much if it were limited to a page or two. It's the fact that this is an extended, primary theme that has stretched across dozens of pages in more than one of his anti-Vogel articles that leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Actually, this is the very attitude I have felt coming from Vogel and Metcalfe.

I have no doubt that there's an undercurrent of disdain in some of their references to apologists, since they feel so ill-treated by certain apologetic parties. But I frankly don't think this has as much to do with epistemology as it does the interpersonal politics of a contested field. (See Quinn's revised and enlarged Magic Worldview for a good example of how unfair treatment by apologists can lead to extremely negative remarks about them.)

Speaking from my own experience, I'll say that I sometimes use the word "apologist" with a certain ill humor, and sometimes with a friendly fondness. It really depends on who I'm talking about. And I don't object, either, to people describing me in their publications as a critic of or unbeliever in Joseph Smith. This is simply *** for tat. You have biases, I have biases, we all have biases. We all have interests and presuppositions and agendas. So let's not complain when others name them, unless they do so in a substantially inaccurate way.

And that, I'm afraid, is about all I have time to say about that.

-Chris

[Teelea]

Dang! Duane Boyce is in the Review as well as the Journal? Busy guy!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have no doubt that there's an undercurrent of disdain in some of their references to apologists, since they feel so ill-treated by certain apologetic parties. But I frankly don't think this has as much to do with epistemology as it does the interpersonal politics of a contested field. (See Quinn's revised and enlarged Magic Worldview for a good example of how unfair treatment by apologists can lead to extremely negative remarks about them.)

Actually, most of what I saw "apologists" writing about Quinn wasn't unfair at all. It was sound response exposing bad methodology and conclusion.

As for Goff v. Vogel, it seems you and I took different things away from the essays. Personally, I prefer Kevin Christensen's responses to Vogel, though.

[Daniel Peterson]

See Quinn's revised and enlarged Magic Worldview for a good example of how unfair treatment by apologists can lead to extremely negative remarks about them.)

Balderdash.

Quinn wasn't unfairly untreated by the people he attacked in his rather ridiculous comments.

[Chris Smith]

Quinn wasn't unfairly untreated by the people he attacked in his rather ridiculous comments.

You've hardly demonstrated an ability to recognize unfair treatment when you see it, at least when it comes from your side of the fence.

Not to say that Quinn was innocent of either methodological problems or some unfair treatment of his own, or that I really even particularly care. I've just been reading his book, so it was fresh in my mind.